NAGENDRA REDDY v. M.G. SHANTHKUMAR

Judgment

1. M.G. SHANTHKUMAR SINCE DECEASED BY LRS,

1.(A) SRI. M.G. DATTATHREYA SON OF LATE M.L. GOPALA SETTY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, NO.146, 5TH CROSS, 8TH MAIN, II BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011. Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

1.(B) SRI. M.G. CHANDRAMOHAN, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, SON OF LATE M.L. GOPALA SETTY, NO. 444, 9TH CROSS, - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 I BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011.

1.(C) SRI. M.G. NAGENDRA, SON OF LATE M.L. GOPALA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, NO.9, 15TH CROSS, 6TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560078.

1.(D) SRI. M.G. JAYARAM, SON OF LATE M.L. GOPALA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, APT. NO. 1002, C BLOCK, STERLING TERRACE APARTMENTS, 3,100 FIT RING ROAD, BSK III STAGE, BANGALORE-560085.

1.(E) SRI. M.G. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, SON OF LATE M.L. GOPALA SETTY, NO.1314, III FLOOR, 15TH CROSS, GIRINAGAR II STAGE, BANGALORE-560085.

1.(F) SMT. R. VIMALA @ SMT. SHUBHADRA @ SMT. R.VIMALA DEVI, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, WIFE OF SR.B.RAGHAVAN, OLD NO.5/1A, RAGHAVAN STREET, SWARNAPURI, SALEM-634004, TAMILNADU.

1.(G) SMT. B.K.UMA @ B.S. UMA DEVI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, WIFE OF SRI. B.K.SOMASHEKHAR, HIG 47M KHB COLONY, VINOBA NAGAR II STAGE, SHIVAMOGGA-577204.

1.(H) SMT. RUKMINI SUKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, WIFE OFLATE K.SUKUMAR, NO.69/70, MC.NICHOLAS ROAD, - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 FLAT NO.58, LAND MARK TOWN HALL, CHETPET, CHENNAI-600031.

1.(I) SMT. Y.R.SARASWATHI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WIFE OF SRI. Y.N. RAJENDRA, SAWAN APARTMENTS, GROUND FLOOR, NO.19, VIVEKANANDA ROAD, YADAVAGIRI, MYSORE-570020.

1.(J) SMT. GAYATHRI @ SMT. GAYITHRI KISHOR, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, WIFEOF SRI. S.KISHOR, NO.4, P AND T COLONY, STAFF ROAD, OPP.SECUNDERABAD CLUB, SECUNDERABAD-500003, ANDHRA PRADESH.

1.(K) SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI @ SMT. M.J.VIJAYALAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE SRI M.G.JAGADISH, NO.369, (5) 8TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN, 1 BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011.

1.(L) SMT. AKHILA @ SMT.AKHILA D. ANANTHRAM, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, WIFE OF SRI. D.R. ANANTHRAM, D/O. LATE SRI. M.G. JAGADISH, NO. 125, 7TH MAIN, 9TH CROSS, GOKULAM III STAGE, MYSORE-570011.

1.(M) SRI.VINAYA @ VINAY M. JAGADISH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, NO.369, (5) 8TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN, I BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560011.

2. THE SUB REGISTRAR, ANEKAL, BANGALORE DISTRICT-562106. - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013

4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. MR. A.B.U. GEORGE, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, SON OF LATE M.T. GEORGE, NO.1683, 5TH ‘A’ CROSS, 10TH MAIN, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE-560070. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RVS NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.NITIN PRASAD AND SRI. T. SURYANARAYANA, ADVOCATES FOR R1(A –G) AND R1(I-M); SRI. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1(H); LEARNED AGA FOR R2 AND R3; NOTICE SERVED TO R4) THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03.01.2013 (AS PER ANNEXURE- A) PASSED IN OS NO.2237/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE FAST TRACK COURT IV, BANGALORE RURAL, DISTRICT, BANGALORE, BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITH COSTS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON

27.02.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.2237/2006 dated 03.01.2013 by the Fast Track Court-IV Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short “Trial Court”) decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs by declaring that plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and declaring the sale deed dated

06.07.2006 presented for registration on 11.07.2006 before defendant No.2 bearing No.P7130/06-07 in respect of the suit schedule properties is null and void and the permanently restraining the defendants from interfering with plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. There was direction to draw a decree in the above terms.

2. The appellant was defendant No.1 and respondents 1(A) to 1(M) were the plaintiffs and respondents 2 to 4 were the defendants 2 to 4 before the Trial Court. - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013

3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties to this appeal are referred as per their rank before the Trial Court.

4. The records of this appeal reveal that, the original plaintiff by name M.G.Shantakumar S/o.Late M.L.Gopalashetty filed suit in O.S.No.2237/2006 seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of suit schedule properties. During the pendency of the suit, after the original plaintiff was cross-examined in part, he was killed and plaintiffs 1(A) to 1(M) were brought on record by virtue of the so called Will stated to have been executed by original plaintiff and they prosecuted the suit. The facts in nutshell made out in the plaint are as under:

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the so called purported agreement in respect of the schedule properties got executed by defendant No.1 is null and void and as - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 there was interference by the defendants, the original plaintiff prayed for grant of permanent injunction. It is stated by the plaintiff that, he is the owner of agricultural properties situated in Sy.Nos.53/1, 53/2B, 55/1, 55/2, 55/3, 55/4, 56, 57/1, 57/2 and 58/2 in all measuring 22 acres 22 guntas, which is converted as part of the property bearing Sy.No.60/7 measuring about 26,470 sq. ft. situated in Hebbagodi village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District (hereinafter referred to as “suit schedule property” for convenience). It is stated that, all these properties form one unit. The original plaintiff was unmarried and had no issues. He used to reside alone. He got brothers and his brother’s family members, who are the plaintiffs, who came on record in the suit.

6. A specific assertion is made that, one year prior to filing of the suit, defendant No.1 approached the original plaintiff and proposed to purchase the suit schedule properties. To that effect, several discussions took place. According to original plaintiff, before entering - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 into an agreement, defendant No.1 wanted to issue paper publication calling upon objections from the public, if any. Accordingly, in the month of December-2005, paper publication was issued. Even after issuance of paper publication, defendant No.1 did not show any interest on the terms specified by the plaintiff to sell the schedule properties. Thereafter, plaintiff requested M/s.Colliers International India Property Services Pvt., Ltd., to help him to sell the schedule properties. One Mr. George introduced the said M/s.Colliers International India Property Services Pvt., Ltd. It is his assertion that, the said M/s.Colliers International India Property Services Pvt., Ltd., brought one M/s.Magna Warehousing Pvt. Ltd., as potential purchaser of the schedule properties and agreed to purchase the same after conversion at the rate of `825/- per sq.ft. The lawyers of the said company issued a public notice with regard to the proposed transaction. This fact was informed by defendant No.1 to M/s.Magna Warehousing and Distribution Pvt., Ltd., stating that he already had an understanding with the original plaintiff to - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 that effect. The plaintiff clarified that, there was no understanding with defendant No.1. The lawyers of the proposed purchaser company wrote to defendant No.1 and sought further details of his claim but defendant No.1 did not reply.

7. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that, on

10.07.2006 Mr.George called the plaintiff and informed that it is defendant No.1, who was interested to offer a fresh rate in respect of the schedule properties and to that effect, they wanted to have a discussion. The plaintiff was asked to come near Adiga Hotel, 4th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru at 2.30 p.m. Accordingly, to have a discussion, plaintiff went to the said place. There, he noticed the presence of Mr.George, defendant No.1 and other couple of people, who appeared to have waiting for the plaintiff. Mr.George, defendant No.1 and the plaintiff commenced discussion and there was a suggestion to continue the discussion in some quiet place. On that guise, they took the plaintiff near a car of defendant No.1. The original - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 plaintiff did not suspect any foul play, but he was compelled to sit inside the car by holding his hands and feet. Mr. George and defendant No.1 also boarded the car and gave threat to kill the original plaintiff if he raises any alarm. They also gave a threat that, they know the residence of the plaintiff and their family and if plaintiff raises any alarm they would harm them. They all set to physically assault the original plaintiff and assaulted him. They snatched his mobile phone and took the car from that place. Plaintiff being scared, did not do anything. They took the said car towards Anekal and stopped it at the outskirts of Anekal. It is alleged that defendant No.1 brought stamped sheets, which were typed as an agreement of sale and sale deed. He also gave Demand Draft for `63 Crores drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Hosur Branch, dated 15.02.2006 and also gave five cheques to the original plaintiff for `17 Crores drawn on Central Bank of India in the name of the plaintiff. It is stated in the documents that the plaintiff is selling the schedule properties for `80 Crores. The original plaintiff - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 noticed that, the person sitting next to him was holding a revolver like weapon in his hands. The plaintiff was directed to fill up the number and date of Demand Draft in the document and sign the sale deed. He could not read the entire text of the documents, as he was not allowed to do the same. The said document was purported to be an agreement of sale as if the original plaintiff agreed to sell the suit schedule properties to defendant No.1. He was forced to sign the papers. But however, plaintiff added the words “subject to realization of the D.D.’’ and signed the papers under threat.

It is alleged that, thereafter the plaintiff was taken to the office of the Sub-Registrar in the same car and was asked to sit in the car itself. The said George and defendant No.1 went outside the car and entered the Sub- Registrar Office at Anekal by parking their car from a distance. On that day, no transaction took place and there was no execution of the document. Though the plaintiff requested for help and as he is signing the document by - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 force, when he was taken inside the Sub-Registrar’s office he narrated the incident of practicing force by the defendant No.1 and others but because of defendant No.1 managing the officials of the Sub-registrar, nobody cared the words of the original plaintiff. Thereafter, defendant No.1 and his goondas continued to restrain the original plaintiff and took him to one house appearing to be house of defendant No.1 at BTM layout, 2nd stage, Bengaluru. He was locked in a room and was threatened. As he was not married and had no issues, the other family members did not feel his absence. He was not given any food by defendant No.1 and because of that, he was feeling weak and upset and did not sleep well.

9. It is further alleged that, on 11.07.2006 he was given some food to eat. Thereafter, defendant No.1 and his goondas made the plaintiff to sit in a car and he was taken to office of Sub-Registrar at Anekal. He was made to wait in a car. The original plaintiff was feeling very weak and suspected that something was mixed in the food given - 13 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 to him by defendant No.1 and others. He was taken inside the office of the sub-registrar and there documents were presented. At that time, though the plaintiff tried to shout and say that, the said document is not executed with his free will and he was abducted by defendant No.1 and others, but no action was taken by the officials of the Sub- Registrar. Because of the presence of the goondas brought by defendant No.1 they kept mum. He was again threatened by defendant No.1 and his henchmen and directed him to keep quiet. He was forcibly asked to give his photograph and thumb impression and because of threat he gave his photograph and thumb impression. He was asked to sign some registers by force. It is the further allegation that, defendant No.1 thrusted Demand Draft for `63 Crores into the plaintiffs hand to show that he had paid the sale consideration amount. But when they came out of the sub-registrar’s office, the plaintiff was forced to return the said Demand Draft and defendant no.1 snatched the same from the hands of the original plaintiff. - 14 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 His signatures were taken by force. All throughout he was threatened and physically restrained.

10. It is specifically alleged by the plaintiff that, when he was forced to put his thumb impression, he tried to shout and convey that the said act was done against his will and he was abducted. He wanted to convey that, he never consented to the transaction but because of the conduct of the officials of the Sub-Registrar, the plaintiff came to know that it was defendant No.1 managed all of them. Defendant No.1 was present with all his henchmen and no public dared to come near the plaintiff to find out what was happening. Plaintiff was again threatened by defendant No.1 and his men stating that, if plaintiff makes any hue and cry, they would kill him and cause harm to his brothers. By saying so, he was forcibly compelled to give his photographs and his thumb impression. He was also forced to put his signatures on some registers. Thereafter, a Demand Draft for `63 Crores was handed over to him saying that the defendant No.1 had paid the - 15 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 sale consideration. Thereafter, he was taken in a car by force and was forced to wait in car itself. Thereafter, the said car was taken to the house of defendant No.1. By force and threat the plaintiff’s signatures were taken on some papers.

11. A specific allegation is made by the plaintiff that, on 11.07.2006, at 11.30 p.m., the plaintiff was taken in a car during night hours near Adiga Hotel and he was pushed out of the car, where he had parked his car. Thereafter, plaintiff came to his house in a drowsy mood and was unable to think. He slept in the night in his house and even in the morning he felt weakness. At 10.00 a.m. on 12.07.2006, his sister from Chennai called him and enquired about getting a buyer to sell the suit properties. But he was unable to answer. Thereafter, plaintiff informed his brother M.G.Nagendra about the incident. It is alleged that, defendant No.1 with his wife and Babu came to the house of the plaintiff in the afternoon and threatened the plaintiff stating that, if the incident is - 16 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 disclosed to anybody, he will take the life of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 demanded the plaintiff to give the original title deeds. By that time, the brother of the plaintiff M.G.Nagendra came to the house before whom plaintiff narrated the incident, which has happened with him and also told about the conduct of defendant No.1, which has taken place on previous days. Defendant No.1 gave a threat to kill the plaintiff’s brother. Because of this, galata took place and the neighboring householders came out to see the Galata. On seeing the people, defendant No.1 and his men fled away from the said place.

12. It is further the case of the plaintiff that on

12.07.2006, he initially went to Jayanagar 4th Block Police Station and as per their direction he went to the jurisdictional Tilakanagar Police Station and lodged complaint. Thereafter, on 13.07.2006 he went to the office of Anekal Sub-Registrar with his brother M.G.Nagendra and nephew Mr.Amar. There, he noticed the purported document stated to have been presented on the previous - 17 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 day, it was mentioned as `7 Crores as value of the property and the payment has been made in cash. But plaintiff has not received any sale consideration from defendant No.1. He gave a letter to the Sub-Registrar attaching a copy of the complaint lodged with the police and requested the Sub-Registrar to provide a copy of the deed and details being furnished with it. On seeing the said documents, the plaintiff was taken aback and he again approached the police. He gave his further statement on 13.07.2006 and requested the police to initiate action against the concerned persons. It is further alleged that, to have unlawful gain, defendant No.1 in collusion with his henchmen planned to abduct the plaintiff, forced the plaintiff by threatening to kill him and his brothers and created the said so called document purported to be a sale deed without any consideration. Even defendant No.1 taking advantage of his old-age and other diseases like asthmatic and weakness and living alone, kidnapped him and without providing any food has done all these illegal acts. - 18 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013

13. According to the plaintiff, he never executed the sale deed with his own free will. Because of coercion and undue influence and threat to his life and his family members, he was compelled to put his signatures on the documents prepared by the defendant No.1. He never agreed to sell any property to defendant No.1. Thus, his signatures and documents named as agreement of sale and sale deed were obtained by force, duress, threat, etc., The schedule properties are valuing more than `63 Crores. The said so called document is not admitted before the defendant No.2/Sub-registrar by this plaintiff. Defendant No.2 ought to have recorded his admission or consent for registration of the document. The contents of the documents were not read over to him. There was a continuous protest by the plaintiff and in collusion with all defendant No.1 has created and concocted the said document.

14. Based upon the complaint so filed by him, police have initiated action against the accused persons - 19 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 including defendant No.1 by registering crime Cr.No.174/2006 of Tilaknagar Police Station and after investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused which was registered in C.C.No.1.6.28725/2007 before the CMM Court and thereafter, it was committed to the Sessions Court i.e. FTC-5 and numbered as Sessions Case No.705/2008. During the course of investigation, police have seized the original sale deed. All the documents in respect of the schedule properties are with the plaintiff. It is the plaintiff, who is in possession of the schedule properties. In view of all these factual features, according to plaintiff, he is entitled for relief so claimed in the plaint. Therefore, it is prayed by the plaintiff to decree the suit as prayed for.

15. Before the Trial Court, in response to the suit summons, defendants appeared before the Court and it was defendants 1, 2 and 4 filed their written statements independently. - 20 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013

16. So far as defendant No.1 is concerned, he denied all the assertions and allegations made in the plaint with regard to fraud, coercion, threat alleged by the plaintiff. He admits that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit schedule properties. It is admitted that, the plaintiff was unmarried. As per the specific defence of defendant No.1, as plaintiff was in need of money to clear his debts, he requested defendant No.1 to help him to sell the schedule properties. On going through the records, he showed his interest to buy the suit schedule properties for developmental activities. Discussion and negotiation took place for few months to complete the deal. Plaintiff addressed several letters to the advocate of defendant No.1 authorizing him to give paper publication regarding sale of the schedule properties. Even he addressed letter to the Tahsildar seeking corrections in the computerized RTCs.

17. It is contended that, on going through the draft sale deed, it was the plaintiff who got it corrected and the - 21 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 defendant No.1 had agreed to purchase the schedule properties with a fair price and stamp papers were brought to execute the sale deed. It is stated that, on 11.07.2006, voluntarily plaintiff and his brothers with two witnesses came to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Anekal and on going through the sale deed, accepted the contents of the same and having satisfied, without raising any objections by receiving `7 Crores has executed the sale deed, which was presented before the Sub-Registrar for registration. According to defendant No.1, he handed over two Demand Drafts i.e. for `59,78,000/- and `7 lakh towards stamp duties. Voluntarily the plaintiff put his signatures and thumb impressions in the concerned registers and the said documents were numbered as P.7130/2006-2007 dated

11.07.2006. It was directed to defendant No.1 to produce the latest RTC extract of the agricultural lands. Pending registration, the said document was received by the Sub- Registrar for registration. - 22 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013

18. According to defendant No.1, there were several continuous negotiations and discussions took place between himself and the plaintiff right from May-2005. It is contended that, the part of sale consideration was also drawn by the plaintiff on 07.03.2006 and it was agreed by the plaintiff to receive the balance sale consideration in the presence of Sub-Registrar. Thus, according to defendant No.1, the registration took place without any intervention of third party and the said registration was in accordance with law. It is contended that, by virtue of the said sale deed, defendant No.1 was put in physical actual possession of the schedule properties on 11.07.2006 and even prior to that. Therefore, it is contended that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties. It is contended that, soon after the registration in respect of the schedule properties, the title has been flown on defendant No.1 and he has got exclusive right, title and interest over the schedule properties and thus has become the owner of the same. Therefore, for all - 23 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 these reasons, it is prayed by defendant No.1 to dismiss the suit.

19. Defendant No.2, being Sub-Registrar, written statement contending that the said document was executed with free own volition and consent by the plaintiff. The said properties were sold for a consideration of `7 Crores in favour defendant No.1. It was plaintiff, who represented defendant No.2 not to proceed with the registration and requested him to furnish the details. He requested to get the said document pending registration.

20. It is contended by defendant No.2 that on

15.07.2006, the sub-inspector of Tilaknagar police station visited the Sub-Registrar, Anekal and secured the said document on the ground of investigation in Crime No.174/2006 registered for the offence punishable under section 364, 342, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. To that effect, he obtained endorsement from the police and specifically contended that, the Tilaknagar Police have seized the original sale deed, which was presented for registration. In - 24 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 the endorsement, it is made clear that in view of pending investigation in the aforesaid crime, till the outcome of the case, no further action be taken in respect of the said sale deed.

21. Defendant No.2 has denied the other allegations made in the plaint against him. According to defendant No.2, the suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of parties. The suit is bad under the provisions of Order XXVII Rule 5-A of CPC as the government is not arrayed as a party in this suit.

22. Defendant No.4 independent written statement specifically contending that, it was the plaintiff who used to transact in shares with his company known as “Illicit Liquor and Fs Investment Mart”. In the said company, he was the manager. In the month of June- 2006, the plaintiff noticed defendant No.1 in his house. It is contended that, on some occasions, plaintiff and defendant No.1 met defendant No.2 in his office and discussed with regard to the schedule properties. It is - 25 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 contended that, on 10.07.2006 at 12.30 p.m., defendant No.1 asked defendant No.2 to call the plaintiff to discuss about the sale transactions near Adiga Hotel and accordingly he called. When defendant No.2 went near the said Adiga Hotel and was sitting in a car, plaintiff came there on a request made by defendant No.1 and it was

1.30 p.m. on that day. Plaintiff came to the said spot at about 2.30 p.m. Plaintiff was made to sit in a car. Though the plaintiff made an attempt to get down from the vehicle, the private people who sat next to the plaintiff did not allow him to get down from the car. Defendant No.2 also tried to get down from the car but defendant No.1 threatened him with dire consequences due to which he also could not get down from the car. Thereafter, defendant No.1 drove the said car towards the office of the Sub-Registrar, Anekal, but stopped the car at a distance of ½ km away from the office. Thereafter, he brought some papers already prepared by him styled as “sale deed” in respect of the schedule properties and gave it to the plaintiff with a cheque of `7 Crores and Demand Draft of - 26 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 `63 Crores. He directed the plaintiff to put his signatures by filling the blanks regarding date and number of the Demand Draft in the sale deed. When plaintiff put his signatures, one Afroze Babu, who was sitting next to the plaintiff threatened to kill him, if he fails to put his signatures. On account of said life threat, the plaintiff put his signatures on the documents. After this, defendant No.1 and his accomplices went to the office of the Sub- Registrar and were returned. Subsequent to that, it was revealed that, a complaint was lodged before the Tilaknagar police station by the plaintiff. Accordingly, defendant No.4 went the Tilaknagar police on

15.07.2006 and gave his statement. On 18.11.2006, he gave his further statement before the police. It is further contended that, as no relief is claimed against him, he prays to dismiss the suit.

23. Based upon the rival pleadings of both the parties, the Trial Court framed in all nine issues and 12 additional issues. They read as under: - 27 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 ISSUES 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that his signatures and documents styled as agreement of sale and sale deed said to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of Suit Schedule Property were taken from him by force and coercion and hence the said documents are null and void? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the he is in possession of the Suit Property? 3) Whether the plaintiff proves the 1st interfering with his peaceful defendant possession and enjoyment of Suit Property? 4) Whether the 1st defendant proves that the plaintiff voluntarily appeared before the 2nd defendant i.e. sub-Registrar Anekal and executed the sale deed on 11.7.2006 in his favour in respect of Suit Properties for a consideration of `7,00,00,000/-? received 5) Whether 1st defendant proves that the plaintiff the entire consideration of `7,00,00,000/-(Seven Crores) the 1st defendant is respect of sale of suit properties to him (defendant No.1)? 6) Whether the 1st defendant proves that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as contended by the 1st defendant? 7) Whether the valuation made and court fee paid by the plaintiff is not correct? 8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as claimed by him? 9) What order or decree? - 28 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 ADDITIONAL ISSUES 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that his signatures and documents styled as agreement of sale and sale deed said to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of suit schedule properties were taken from him by force and coercion and hence the said documents are null and void? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the he is in possession of the suit properties? 3) Whether the plaintiff proves the 1st interfering with his peaceful defendant possession and enjoyment of suit properties? 4) Whether the 1st defendant proves that the plaintiff voluntarily appeared before the 2nd defendant executed the sale deed on 11.7.2006 in his for a in respect of suit properties favour consideration of `7,00,00,000/-? i.e. Sub-Registrar Anekal received 5) Whether 1st defendant proves that the plaintiff the entire consideration of `7,00,00,000/-(Seven Crores) the 1st defendant is respect of sale of suit properties to him (defendant No.1)? 6) Whether the 1st defendant proves that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as contended by the 1st defendant? 7) Whether the valuation made and court fee paid by the plaintiff is not correct? 8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as claimed by him? 9) What order of decree? - 29 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 ADDITIONAL ISSUES FRAMED 7/1/2011 before registration Issue No.10. Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deed dated 6/7/2006 presented the 2nd defendant on 11/7/2006 bearing pending No.P7130/2006-07 in respect the suit schedule property tampered by playing fraud by the 1st defendant by erasing the paragraph containing the details of demand draft for `63 Crores and the hand written matter by the plaintiff? Issue No.11. Whether he the plaintiff proves that the erased portion contains the details of the demand draft for `63 Crores? Issue No.12.Whether the plaintiff proves that the State Bank of Mysore, Hosur Branch had issued the demand draft in favour of the Plaintiff for `63 only, not for `63 Crores as mentioned the Sale Deed?

24. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, before the Trial Court, he himself entered the witness box as PW1. He was cross-examined in part. The order sheet reveals that, as the defendants did not come forward to direct further cross-examination, on 27.07.2011, it was ordered that, further cross-examination of the plaintiff by the defendants it taken as nil. Thereafter, defendant No.1 filed I.A.No.22 before the Trial Court seeking recall of PW1 - 30 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 for further cross-examination. The said application filed by defendant No.1 came to be rejected by the Trial Court on the same day. The said order of the Trial Court in rejecting the prayer of defendant No.1 seeking recall of PW1 was not challenged by defendant No.1 before the appropriate Appellate or Revisional Forum. Thus, as per the case of the plaintiff, the said order has attained finality.

25. It is on record that, during the pendency of the suit, PW1 was murdered in Anekal Court Compound. On the death of original plaintiff, his legal heirs were brought on record. Accordingly, plaint came to be amended. Thereafter, one of the legal representatives of the plaintiff by name M.G.Dattatreya entered the witness box as PW2 and he was thoroughly cross-examined by the defendants to prove with regard to the handwriting etc. One Sri.Sayyed Ajagar Imam, Scientific Examiner of the FSL, Bengaluru was examined as PW3. On behalf of the plaintiffs Ex.P1 to Ex.P59 were marked. During the course of cross-examination directed to these PW1 and PW2, - 31 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 Ex.D1 to Ex.D9 were marked on behalf of the defendants. When PW3 was to be cross-examined by the defendants, defendants have not cared to cross-examine this PW3. The Court has given sufficient time to the defendants to cross- examine PW3, despite that the defendants did not care to cross-examine him and therefore, cross-examination of PW3 was taken as not led and the case was posted for defendant’s evidence.

26. Though, as per the order sheet, sufficient time was granted to the defendants to lead their evidence, but the defendants have not led any evidence. There was an order to dispose of the suit at the earliest point of time by fixing time schedule by the Hon’ble High Court vide its judgment dated 06.10.2010 in MFA No. 9969/2008 (CPC) C/w MFA No.9968/2008 and MFA No.2898/2009. The case was posted on day-to-day for the purpose of speedy disposal as per the directions, even then the defendants did not care to cross-examine PW1 and PW3 or to lead any further evidence. In the meanwhile, defendants sought for - 32 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 transfer of the matter from one court to another. The defendants did not show any interest to lead any further evidence and therefore, the evidence of the defendant was taken as not led.

27. On hearing the arguments advanced by the counsel for the plaintiffs and considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the plaintiffs and defendants, the Trial Court answered Issue No.1 to 3 and 8 in the affirmative, Issue No.4 to 7 in the negative and Additional Issue No.1, 2 and 10 to 12 in the affirmative and ultimately decreed the suit of the plaintiffs as prayed for.

28. It is this judgment that has been assailed by the defendant by preferring this Regular First Appeal.

29. During the pendency of this appeal before this Court, appellant-defendant No.1 I.A.No.3/2021 under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC seeking permission the appellant to produce additional - 33 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 documents. To this application, respondents 1(a) to 1(g) and 1(i) to 1(m) have filed their detailed objections.

30. The records of this case reveal that, during the pendency of the suit, several interlocutory applications were filed and the Trial Court passed orders on various interlocutory applications. Learned counsel appellant made available the list of relevant orders passed in the suit and also the dates on which the Court proceedings have taken place with page numbers. The same is taken on record for the purpose of convenience.

31. It is argued by Sri.M.S.Bhagavath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that, it is a suit for declaration and injunction. In addition to narrating the facts of the case, so made out in the pleadings of both the parties, he submits that initially the plaint, which was filed by the plaintiff, was not properly drafted. After pointing out the mistakes so stated in the original plaint, the plaintiff amended the prayer and also inserted paragraphs 9(aa) in the plaint. According to his submission, the Trial - 34 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 Court ought not to have allowed the said amendment. On reading the original plaint, without any cause of action and without any basis, though the original plaintiff admitted about the execution of the sale deed, but has denied the very execution of the sale deed on flimsy grounds, the Trial Court ought not to have allowed the said amendment.

32. It is on record that, though the amendment application was allowed by the Trial Court, the said order was not challenged by defendant No.1-appellant before any proper forum. Thus the said order on application seeking amendment so filed by the plaintiff has become final.

33. It is argued by the counsel for the appellant that, the prayer so made in the plaint itself is wrong and it is not in consonance with the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. He submits that, while passing the orders, liberty was given to the appellant to put forth his contentions, if an appeal is preferred. Therefore, the - 35 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 appellant has taken up all these contentions in this appeal with regard to the mistakes that have been committed by the Trial Court. According to him, when the application was allowed and plaint was amended, the appellant- defendant No.1 was not permitted to file any additional written statement by the Trial Court. Further, he submits that, the judgment so passed by the Trial Court is not in accordance with law and facts so made out by the defendants. Based upon the pleadings of the plaintiff himself, he submits that, the plaint ought to have been dismissed by the Trial Court. As per the orders passed in the writ petition, the judgment so passed was to be set aside and matter requires to be remanded before the Trial Court. Some witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and PW3 was also not cross-examined. Additional issues were framed by the Trial Court after six years of filing of the plaint, which was time barred. According to him, the Trial court has relied upon the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. This is not permissible under law. - 36 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013

34. He further submits that, no opportunity was given to defendant No.1 to cross-examine the PW1 and PW3. He submits that, the finding on issue No.6 is wrong. The suit is not properly framed by the plaintiff. Amendment was sought after six years of filing of the suit. The prayer so made in the plaint was not cognizable by the Civil Court. Suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by time. The original plaint prayer is very much vague. Further, he submits that, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments, when there is no opportunity given to the defendant to cross-examine the witnesses, the very passing of the judgment of the Trial Court is vitiated. Though it is submitted that the defendants have not cared to cross-examine PW3, but defendant No.1 was always diligent in contesting the suit filed by the plaintiffs. As there was passing of consideration, the original plaintiff by virtue of said sale transaction of payment, it is defendant No.1, who has become the owner of the schedule properties. But in view of the filing of police complaint - 37 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 against defendant No.1 and others and also filing of affidavit before the Sub-Registrar now the rights of defendant No.1 are prejudiced and affected.

35. Learned senior counsel also submits that, even much prior to the sale transaction, defendant No.1 was put in possession of the schedule properties. Even there is no dispensation of notice to the Government. Defendant No.2 is a government officer. There is no notice issued to him as required under section 80 of CPC. He further submits that, as the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 of CPC, the suit is not maintainable. He further submits that, the attesting witnesses to the said sale deed are not examined by the plaintiffs. According to him, Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 come into operation. In support of his submission, he relied upon various pleadings, evidence, both oral and documentary, citations and prayed to allow the appeal and dismiss the suit of the plaintiff. - 38 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013

36. As against this submission, learned senior counsel Sri. RVS Naik counsel for the respondent-plaintiffs submits that the main grounds urged in this appeal is: i) ii) no proper opportunity was given to file additional written statement, no proper opportunity was given to cross- examine PW1 and PW3, iii) no opportunity was given to lead evidence, Section 80 of CPC notice is not complied with, Trial Court has passed cryptic order to that effect, iv) Amendment of the plaint at paragraph 9(aa) is barred by limitation and the reliefs so claimed are barred by limitation and the Trial Court could not have allowed upon the statement of the witnesses recorded under section 157 of Cr.P.C. - 39 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013

37. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that in this case, list of events that have taken place before the Trial Court, play important role. The conduct of the appellant also plays an important role in contesting the suit of the plaintiffs. Though sufficient opportunity was given by the Trial Court, but the defendants have not availed that opportunity. In a case of present nature, the conduct of the parties plays an important role to decide the lis. According to him, false statement is made that, no opportunity was given to the defendants. In support of his submission, he relied upon the orders being passed by this Court in W.P.No.51760/2012. He submits that, when opportunity was very much given to the defendants and as it was not availed properly, then now the appellant- defendant No.1 cannot seek any sympathy. He submits that on going through the records in this case, when a provision is very much available with regard to the subsequent pleadings under CPC, it was open for the appellant to state that no time was given to defendant No.1. Initially suit was against defendant No.1 and 2 and - 40 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 subsequently defendants 3 and 4 were impleaded as per the orders dated 09.09.2009 passed on I.A.No.12. No written statement was filed by the defendant No.3. Notice to defendant No.3 was dispensed with by the Trial Court and that order was not challenged by defendant No.1. The question is that, whether Section 80 of CPC notice is mandatory or can it be waived of has to be understood by the appellant himself. According to him, there must be proper objections to be raised by the appellant-defendant No.1. The conduct of the defendant No.1 with regard to not raising such objection is deemed to have waived his right of objections.

38. When there is a clear order passed by the Trial Court in allowing the amendment, it goes back to the date of the suit. So within three years the plaintiff has amended the suit as required under the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act. The said prayer made by the plaintiff is well within the time. No additional written statement was filed and no pleading was taken up by the defendant No.1. In a - 41 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 criminal case filed by the plaintiff, being the complainant, during investigation, the investigating officer recorded the statement of the witnesses with regard to fraud, coercion committed by the appellant-defendant No.1 against the plaintiff. The witnesses clearly stated about the behavior and conduct of defendant No.1 with the original plaintiff and the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that fraud has been committed on the plaintiff. Therefore, according to his submission, the arguments of the counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the following judgments:

1. Kundan Lal Rallaram v. The Custodian, Evacuee Property Bombay1

2. Dr.N.G.Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane2

3. R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Vishwesaraswami & V.P. Temple and Another3

4. Armugam v. Channagiri N. Govindaraj Shetty4

5. Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao and others5 ORDER i) The appeal filed by the appellant- defendant No.1 is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. - 128 - NC: 2024:KHC:13114-DB RFA No. 200 of 2013 ii) Further, the application filed Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC for production of documents filed by the appellant- defendant No.1 is hereby dismissed. iii) Send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment forthwith. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE YAN List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1