IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR DN) AND JMFC COURT AT GUBBI

O.S. 205/2004 PLAINTIFF MALLAIAH & ORS VS DEFENDANTS SANNAUGRAIAH & ORS

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FILED BY COUNSEL FOR LRS OF D-2

BASIC PLEADINGS OF PLAINTIFF 1. Suit presented on 13-12-2004. 2. Cause of action date alleged in plaint is the date of filing of suit in OS 139/2004 (3108-2004) and also before 12-11-2004. 3. Reliefs claimed are Declaration & Permanent Injunction. 4. Suit schedule property is Agricultural land in survey number 81/1B measuring 1 acre assessed at Rs 1-10 situated in Nallur Grama, Chelur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk Bounded by East:- Doddamuthappa s/o chikkanna, West:- & South:- Eeranna s/o Gundaiah, North:- Basavaiah s/o kalaiah. 5. Suit schedule property was purchased by plaintiffs father Kalaiah in 13-09-1965 from defendant no-1 and his father. 6. Physical possession and enjoyment from the date of sale to date of filing of suit pleaded. 7. Due to illiteracy plaintiff pleads to have not approached authorities for change in katha. 8. Collusion of defendant 1 and 2 alleged. 9. Effort made by defendants collusively to obtain decree in OS 139/2004 to change katha in the name of defendant-1 alleged. 10. Attempted dispossession of suit schedule property by defendants alleged, (exact date not pleaded,) however in quoting cause such attempt is explained to have occurred on or before 12-11-2004. 11. Denial of title alleged to have been made on or before 12-11-2004 12. Cause of action alleged to have been occurred in Nallur Grama.

BASIC PLEADINGS OF D-1 (19-03-2005)

1. All the pleadings of plaint is denied by defendant no.1 who only have signed in written statement. 2. The title of suit schedule property with defendant-1 and his father is denied specifically. 3. The title of suit schedule property is claimed to belong originally to one Dasanna of Nalluhatti village (grand father of both defendants). After his death 2nd defendant succeeded. Katha is claimed to have been made on pavathi varas to defendant-2. 4. After the death of fathers of both defendants the suit schedule property is claimed to have been orally divided and got such share to defendant-1(30 years back) 5. D-1 claims to have applied for change of katha to Tahsildar and pleads to have pending. 6. Claims that 1st defendant is in actual possession and enjoyment of schedule property. ISSUES FRAMED ON 07-04-2005 BY THE COURT 1. Plaintiff to prove that defendant -1 and his father Eeraiah has executed sale deed on 13-09-1965 and sold the suit property to plaintiff father kalaiah for lawfull consideration. 2. Plaintiff to prove that they are in lawful possession enjoyment over suit property as on the date of filing of suit. 3. Plaintiffs to prove the illegal interference by defendants. 4. Defendants to prove the limitation point. 5. Defendants to prove that through oral partition three decades back suit property fallen to the share of D-1. 6. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled for relief as prayed for ?

BASIC PLEADINGS OF LRS OF D-2 (04-11-2010) 1. Entire pleadings of plaintiff is disputed and denied. 2. The G-Tree of Defendants ancesters explained with clarity. 3. Six sons of father of defendants including D-1 and D-2 divided orally the survey number 81 the total extent of which 7 acres 7 guntas. 4. One Madaiah s/o Dasanna got 1 acre 04 guntas share in such survey number and sold it to Gundaiah (D-2) on 25-05-1959 through registered sale deed for valuable consideration. 5. Non joinder of necessary party the female heir (daughter) of D-2 alleged. 6. The title of vendors of plaintiff is disputed and clearly denied. 7. Subsequent development of illegal change of revenue katha in 2007-08 and its challenge before revenue authorities resulted in stay alleged.

8. Plaintiffs possession of suit property denied and disputed. 9. Revenue records standing undisputed from long period and with legal flow of valid title to defendants claimed. 10. Boundaries of suit schedule disputed, identification of property itself disputed. 11. Claimed to have Borewell and coconut trees aged 40 -45 years in the suit schedule land. 12. The boundaries of Sy.no. 81/1B as motioned in plaint disputed and contended that extent of 1 acre 04 guntas in that survey number is claimed to have boundaries towards East - Land of 81/1A belonging to D-2, West - Shivanna s/o chickkasiddaiah, North - Plaintiffs property, South - s.k. venkatachalashettys property (Rajanna s/o bettappa)

ISSUES FRAMED ON 02-06-2011 1. Plaintiff to prove that they are the absolute owner over suit schedule property. 2. Plaintiff to prove that they are in lawful possession over suit schedule property as on the date of suit. 3. Plaintiffs to prove the alleged interference by defendants. 4. Whether Plaintiffs are entitled for relief as prayed for ? DOCUMENTS OF PLAINTIFFS AND ITS RELEVANCE
NO 1 EXHIBIT AND PARTICULARS EX-P1 CERTIFIED COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 13-09-1965 MANDALNA DASANNAS SON EERAIAH AND HIS SON SANNA UGRA WRITTEN TO HAVE EXECUTED SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF KALAIAH S/O MALAIAH. SALE IS IN RESPECT TO SY.NO. 81/1 EXTENT 1 ACRE BOUNDARIES:E- CHICKANNAS LAND W- GUNDAIAHS LAND N- KALAIAHS LAND S- GUNDAIAHS LAND CONSIDERATION QUOTED- RS 300/LTM OF EERAIAH, SANNAUGRA, AND WITNESS SIDDAPPA (FATHER NAME NOT MENTIONED) GUNDAIAH (FATHER NAME
NOT MENTIONED)

RELEVANCE AND IMPORTANT THINGS TO OBSERVE MARKED WITH OBJECTION When Document is marked with objection plaintiff has to prove the execution of document by examining proper witness. When execution itself is disputed it is bounden duty of plaintiff to send the original document for tallying signature of D-1 in the document which is not done by plaintiff. Plaintiff is not diligent in prosecuting the case. As per revenue records produced by the defendant when as on the date of this sale deed the survey number 81/1 is phoded way back in 1962 as 81/1A and 81/1B, the identification of property itself is in dispute. The Boundaries are also under dispute when compared to 81/1B property as existed in 1959 itself. Hence it can be easily preumed from such facts that plaintiff has not purchased 81/1B as on 13-09-1965. Moreover plaintiff has not produced a piece of paper or examined any independent witness to show his vendors title to sy.no.81/1B hence the property mentioned in this sale deed differs from the claim made in suit schedule property, hence plaintiff failed to produce his exact title deed for suit schedule property.

EX-P2 RTC 2005-06 SY.NO. 81/1B EXTENT 1 ACRE 04 GUNTAS

This document neither shows plaintiff title or possession nor it shows valid flow of legal title and possession hence document can be of no use to plaintiff. Since the document is in the name of D-2 the presumption of entry under Karnataka land revenue act section 133 is not rebuted either by this document, or through any cogent and reliable evidence. This document neither shows plaintiff title or possession nor it shows valid flow of legal title and possession hence document can be of no use to plaintiff. Since the document is in the name of D-2 the presumption of entry under Karnataka land revenue

EX-P3 RTC 2003-04 SY.NO. 81/1B EXTENT 1 ACRE 04 GUNTAS

act section 133 is not rebuted either by this document, or through any cogent and reliable evidence. 4 EX-P4 RRT (DIS) 91-04-05 ORDER COPY This order is quashed as per EX-D-35, This order is based on one Survey paper which is marked as EX-P10, which later found to be fake record as per endorsement produced in EX-D46, and subsequent remand order as passed in EX-D-35. Hence the document neither shows plaintiff title or possession nor it shows valid flow of legal title and possession hence document can be of no use to plaintiff. This MR is null and void as per orders produced in EX-D35, hence this document neither shows plaintiff title or possession nor it shows valid flow of legal title and possession hence document can be of no use to plaintiff. This entries in RTC is null and void as per orders produced in EX-D35, hence this document neither shows plaintiff title or possession nor it shows valid flow of legal title and possession hence document can be of no use to plaintiff. The Form 15 is related to survey number 81/1 and as such survey number is not in existence during 1965, the FORM 15 and its entries neither shows plaintiff title or possession nor it shows valid flow of legal title and possession hence document can be of no use to plaintiff. This record is of the origin of just before filing of suit. The document is of avail to prove his possession from 1965. To obviate bias, the documents must have been produced which made ante litem motam, which means not merely before the commencement of legal proceedings, but before even the existence of any actual controversy, concerning the subject matter of the suit. MARKED WITH OBJECTION There is no entries related to plaintiff name in such record and hence it neither shows plaintiff title or possession nor it shows valid flow of legal title and possession hence document can be of no use to plaintiff. MARKED WITH OBJECTION This is a fabricated record as per EX-D35 & EX-D46, plaintiff neither discloses who prepared this and no one is examined in that behalf to prove its authenticity this document, hence it neither shows plaintiff title or possession nor it shows valid flow of legal title and possession hence document can be of no use to plaintiff. MARKED WITH OBJECTION The person who deposed such Gtree before officer is not being examined and the authenticity is also under dispute when compared with admissions of plaintiff and D-1. The document is devoid of date. It is also well settled that statements or declarations before persons of competent knowledge made ante litem motam are receivable to prove ancient rights of a public or general nature. The admissibility of such declarations is, however, considerably weakened if it pertains not to public rights but to purely private rights. It is equally well settled that declarations or statements made post litem motam would not be admissible because in cases or proceedings taken or declarations made ante litem motam, the element of bias and concoction is eliminated. There is no pleadings in respect to such record and there is averments in affidavit. Hence document cannot be of help to plaintiff. The EX-D37 produced by defendant shows pending mis case for its restoration. The plaintiffs case is not proved with such documents --

EX-P5 MR 61/2007-08

EX-P6 RTC 2007-08

EX-P7 FORM-15 SUB-REGISTRAR GUBBI IN SURVEY NUMBER 81/1 DATED 16-01-2008 EX-P8 TAX PAID RECEIPT 19-09-2004 PAID IN THE NAME OF GUNDAIAH

EX-P9 HISSA TIPPANI NAKAL OF SY.NO. 81/1B ISSUE DATE 28-03-2007 EX-P10 FORM 11E PREPARED BY LICENSED SURVEYOR OF SY.NO. 81/1B DATED 28-04-2004 EX-P11 G-TREE WRITTEN ON INFORMATION GIVEN BY ONE S.K. EERANNA DATED: NILL

10

11

12

EX-P12 O.S. NO. 60/2007 ORDER SHEET

13

EX-P13 O.S. NO. 60/2007 PLAINT EX-P14 ORIGINAL SALE DEED AS MENTIONED IN EX-P1

14

When execution itself is disputed it is bounden duty of plaintiff to send the original document for tallying signature of D-1 in the document which is not done by plaintiff. Plaintiff is not diligent in prosecuting the case. As per revenue records produced by the defendant when as on the date of sale deed the survey number 81/1 is phoded way back in 1962 as 81/1A and 81/1B, the identification of property itself is in dispute. The Boundaries are also under dispute when compared to 81/1B property as existed in 1959 itself. Hence it can be easily presumed from such facts that plaintiff has not purchased 81/1B as on 13-09-1965. Moreover plaintiff has not produced a piece of paper to show his vendors title to sy.no.81/1B hence the property mentioned in this sale deed differs from the claim made in suit schedule property, hence plaintiff failed to produce his exact title deed

for suit schedule property. 15 EX-P15 RTC 2010-2011 SY.NO. 81/1B EX-P16 TAX PAID RECEIPT DATED 16-11-2011 This entries in RTC is null and void as per orders produced in EX-D35, hence this document neither shows plaintiff title or possession nor it shows valid flow of legal title and possession hence document can be of no use to plaintiff. The document is of recent origin it neither proves any way the case of plaintiff

16

BRIEF POINTS OF FACTS IN CHIEF EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF PW1 MALLAIAH:- (19-01-2006)

1. Suit schedule property is Agricultural land in survey number 81/1B totally measuring 1 acre 04 guntas, situated in Nallur Grama, Chelur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk Bounded by East:-Doddamuthiah s/o chikkanna, West:- & South:- Eeranna s/o Gundaiah, North:- Basavaiah s/o kalaiah. 2. Suit schedule property was purchased by plaintiffs father Kalaiah in 13-09-1965 from defendant no-1 and his father Eeraiah. 3. Possession and enjoyment of schedule property from the date of sale with Kalaiah. 4. Possession and enjoyment of Schedule property after the death of Kalaiah with plaintiffs 5. Collusion of defendant 1 and 2 alleged. 6. Effort made by defendants collusively to obtain decree in OS 139/2004 to change katha in the name of defendant-1 alleged. 7. Defendants suppressed the facts of sale deed dated 13-09-1965 and plaintiffs possession and intended to defraud plaintiffs. 8. No rights and possession of suit schedule property with defendants sweared. 9. 2nd Defendant filed case against PW1 in OS 60/07 and the case dismissed documents produced to show it.

PLAINTIFFS AVERRMENTS DEFEATING HIS OWN CASE AS v P g .q-1, 18-03-2009 g n PAi Uvg. - U FU 45 .q-1 R Q Zgu itv gz 19-01-2006 g C 46 Jvg. .q-1 gg 13-12-2004 g g z vz 45 vg. .q-1 v 19-01-2006 g R ZguAi z w Ml t 1 JPg 04 UAm g U P iqvg. .q-1 v 13-12-2004 g z vz 1 JPg 04 UAm Egz wzr vg 03-10-2009 g v P U Qg S UAi UAzz Ezg. K vgvz Ez vgvz. QAi gAP v

wzr Cf 1 JPg P vg .q-1 v 18-03-2009 g n z q v v: wU vv ztU jz JAz CUAivg. wU CUAivg. UVgvz Jz iPg iPv MP. v Aqg U U Av JAz rAU AiiU QAi DU i AiiAiP w Aiwg. Cz wAv Aiiz zR i AiiAiP dg r. w 1 v 2 gg Vzg JAz Dgvg. Vzz d DVz Sv t irP AiiAiP AiiP gQv Sv zuU MAz gg Cf Pnzg Qv, JA i CAz U gu E. 2 wAi j Sv EzU Sv zuU d gAzg JzgAi Ai jAi Aiiz QAi Ez Jz CjUvz. w 2 gg gzgg Png Q v zRU Dzsgz zzg w-1 v U Vgz lP v Ez. 1 wAi g Qg n 1 wU z v Az J GzzAi wAig vAzU M Eg P JAz n Pvg, M 6 d P JA v gPvg. 6 d P JA v QjU v 1 wU wzg Cz giZ Aiwgvg. Ez U CP irPq JAz j zVgvz. w-1 gg qPAi U Ai iq Cx w-2 gjU iq Cx D Ng jAz U Rjzg JA zAvz CP irPqzP w-1 gg Qg w-2 gg MUAi rAU AiiU QAiiV AiU qAiz P vjgz P g Vgvz. (z jl m Am 1 w iv irgz Uz) .q-1 AP 07-01-2012 g 2 wAi gzgg Qgz J.f. gg n z Ag 81() t U Uw. zj Ag v: AiijU jgvz JAz U Uw. Ag 81 v: Az AzAiU gvAzg jAi. Ggs Aig v z vz Pv, z w Pv, Zjv v ZPAAi U Q rAi C QAi (Whether he is a competent witness- No). - C - QAi vU P RZgz U P Uz UU Uw Uw Jz Uzg, Dv Q Cv vjvz Ai z vz R CAUU U Uw JA Gvg qvg.

U irPAqU 1 wU z v Agvz Jz Sv t U 1 w P Qgvg Jz j. wAig vvAg U Ag U U Uwg. J.P. Fgt v w U Cg AjU AAzs Eg. z w U wU gz Dg Dg n Pgt zRzg Jz z v 1 v 2 wAig q DzU 1 wU Agvz JAz z jAi. wAig vv ztU 6 A P.

AzAi U zt JAzg U Uw. ztU 1 U AigAi 2 U GUAi, g U zAi, 4 U FgAi, 5 U UAqAi, 6 U t GUAi JAzg U Uw. Ag 81 qVgz U Uw. Ag 81/ FU 40 z Az qVgvz. vAzAi jU DVgvz. FU zR z. vAz jU DVg nt DPg Az zg .P gv. Ag 81 Ml t 10 JPg 1 UAm JAzg U Uw. Ag 81 g Ml ZPA U Uw. z A.U AAzAv 1967 jAz 2007 ggU Aiiz tU AiiAiz g JAzg U Uw. 15 g U J. AiiAiz vqAiie rgvgAzg U Uw. 40 z Az z v t GUAi v UAqAi PqAz PAiP qgv. UAqAi PAi vP gd ir JAzg jAi. wAig AP 25-05-56 gAz z v PAiP qgvgAzg U Uw. zAiAz 2 wAi PAiP qgv Cz U Uw. 15-11-1961 g zt U UAqAi jU qVgvz JAzg U Uw. .q-1 AP 27-01-2012 g 2 wAi gzgg Qgz J.f. gg n Ag 81/1J Ml t 7 JPg 7 UAm EgvzAzg Uw. Ag 81/1J tz 3 JPg 5 UAm l zAi EgvgAzg Uw. GP d w z EzgAzg Uw. z v Aiig PAiP gzPngvgAzg U Uw. . 15 g 4 UA wAi jU EgvzAzg j. . 2, 3 8 zU wAi jgvAzg jAi. z v S d. z w wAijU jz vAV g v P

C ZuPV iPg Eg JAzg jAivg. zU r-1 gg Qg PzU zt Aiig JAz z Q Avg Uwvg. Ag qVgz Uwvg UAi Cg vAz jU 40 z Az qVv Jvg. nt CPg Az zg wAi Aiig jU DVz J GPz zRAi v vAz jU qVz Cz dg rz Jvg. Dg.n, dg r JwzAv Uw vg. rAU, RZgu v A n v znAi z w 1 v 2 gjAz v RjgzV vg. Uw J z Gvg Aiiz CeAz DU CPgvAi UvAzU gz Egz Uz. Aiiz v U jAvz Cz jAiAz Cx Azjz GvgAz Aiiz v U j Az CzP UwAz ej P Qzg qP UQgvz.

Uw, Uw J z zR Dzsjv UU Cz v wjPUzA DZAi Gvjg QAi, MAz Avz . 15 g 4 UAm Egz Mvg, Cz Cg zRU wAi jz Jz CUAivg. g zRU z w vAV Vq P Egzg zU Dg.n. Ai Ezg Pq z v S v Jvg. Azjz wU d CU E Jvg. CAzg z w vAV g v P wUz JAz Mvg. z v gzPlgg Jz Z Aiwvg v v Qg vg DzP Cg CfAi DVgU Cz v Aiig QAz aP

EgvzAzg jAi, QAi v: wU d EgzAz rAivg. z wU AAzAv jU Sv t Eg. vAz jU Eg PAzAi gw v tAi dg r JAzg jAi. . 10 C vAiij CfAi Png. .. .. .. Aiig Cf Pn.

Aiwvg. F Jgq AvzAi qAi gz qg e QAi qPAi vjgvz. F J qPAi QAi APU CAz v AiiAiP v giZvgAz jzVz, Dv Q v rAU U AztP EV, rAU g Zg QAi jV, Azjz guAi gV Q QPjV i AiiAi zj QAi wgjzVgvz.

PLAINTIFFS PLEADINGS, EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS ANALYSED:1. The plaintiff fails to say in the evidence the fact of denial of title and interference in possession. Pleadings without proof cannot be looked into and the cause of action itself not proved in any manner. 2. Exact dates of cause of action and specific pleadings and proof is strictly lacking in entire plaintiff case. 3. Plaintiff fails to produce many documentary evidence available related to the suit schedule property. There is suppression of truth before the court. 4. Plaintiff fails to produce any ante dated dispute related document to prove his version. 5. Plaintiff fails to explain his own case with accurate reasons, related to identity of property, vendors title, boundaries with accuracy, his alertness in checking antecedent title of vendor as required under section 55 of Transfer of property act. 6. Plaintiff has not produced any encumbrance certificate or revenue documents which is obtained as on the date of purchase to check out the title of vendor. 7. Plaintiff has not produced any document to show as on the date of purchase the survey number and boundaries mentioned were in existence. 8. Plaintiff utterly fails in his case to prove possession, title and identity of property to get any type of relief. 9. Plaintiff without examining any relevant witness and producing any relevant documents have failed in his case.

DEFENDANTS DW1 EXAMINATION IN CHIEF POINTS OF RELEVANCE (15-03-2012) 1. Neither the plaintiff nor their father purchased 1 acre 04 guntas in Sy.no. 81/1B of nalluru grama, chelur hobli, Gubbi taluk. 2. Neither the plaintiff or their father are in possession of suit schedule property.

3. The vendors of alleged sale deed dated 13-09-1965 had not holding the absolute and exclusive right to do so and never in possession of suit schedule property. 4. Suit is not maintainable without seeking possession and declaration. 5. The claim of plaintiff regarding survey number and extent and boundaries are incorrect and is contradictory when compared with sale deed and pleadings and proof. 6. Innocence and illiteracy of D-2 is being mis-utilised by colluding with D-1 by plaintiffs. 7. Non-joinder of necessary party as Lr of D-2 alleged. 8. The facts of misleading and misdeeds created against D-2 came to the knowledge of Lrs of D-2 after coming on record by engaging another counsel. 9. The survey no. 81 rephoded by survey authority under MPR no. 378/61-62 on 1511-1961 itself as Survey no. 81/1A , 81/1B. 10. The written statement schedule property is having borewell authorised electric connection and coconut garden. 11. Plaintiffs are attempting to grab land by creating documents. 12. The survey number 81 consisting of 7 acre 07 guntas orally divided among three sons of mandala @ Manadalaiah, out of that 1 acre is being sold by Madaiah to D-2 through sale deed dated 25-05-1959. 13. Katha Transferred in MR 34/1958-59 by virtue of such sale. 14. The hadbasth Durasth was made under MPR 378/1961-62 and rephoded into Sy.no. 81/1A & 81/1B. 15. Long standing revenue records with no encumbarance after and before rephoding operations. DOCUMENTS OF DEFENDANTS AND ITS RELEVANCE
NO 1 EXHIBIT AND PARTICULARS EX-D1 SALE DEED DATED 25-05-1959 MANDALNA DASANNAS SON MUDDAIAH WRITTEN TO HAVE EXECUTED SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF GUNDAIAH S/O MANDALNA DASANNA. SALE IS IN RESPECT TO SY.NO. 81/1 EXTENT 1 ACRE BOUNDARIES:E- GUNDAIAHS LAND W- CHICKKASIDDAIAHS LAND N- KALAIAHS LAND S- S.K. VENKATACHELASHETTYS LAND CONSIDERATION RS 50-00 2 EX-D2 - INDEX OF LANDS OLDEST REVENUE RECORD SY.NO. 81/1B EXTENT 1 ACRE 4 GUNTAS OLDEST REVENUE RECORD SHOWING MUTATION OF NAME OF D-2 (GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA) IN REVENUE RECORD WITH MUTATION REGISTER NUMBER MR 34/58-59, RECORD OF RIGHTS RR NUMBER 752 TO AN EXTENT OF 1 ACRE 04 GUNTAS. INDEX OF LANDS AND RECORD OF RIGHTS IS THE REVENUE RECORDS BEING KEPT AND MAINTAINED IN REVENUE DEPARTMENT BEFORE 1968. OLDEST REVENUE RECORD SHOWING SURVEY MUTATION NUMBER AND NAME OF D-2 (GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA) IN REVENUE RECORD WITH SURVEY MUTATION REGISTER RELEVANCE AND IMPORTANT THINGS TO OBSERVE SHOWS VALID FLOW OF TITLE IN SURVEY NUMBER 81/1 WITH PERFECT BOUNDARIES.

EX-D3 - RECORD OF RIGHTS FORM -V OLDEST LAND RIGHTS REGISTER

SY.NO. 81/1B 4 EX-D4 - RECORD OF RIGHTS FORM -V OLDEST REVENUE RECORD SL NO. 132 SY.NO. 81 IN THE NAME OF DASA S/O MANDALI 5 EX-D5 - RECORDS OF RIGHTS OLDEST REVENUE RECORD SL.NO.623 IHC 60/42-43 SY.NO. 125/3, 81, 123/2, 124/2 THROUGH INHERITANCE IN THE NAME OF YERRA S/O DASA 6 EX-D6 - RECORDS OF RIGHTS OLDEST REVENUE RECORD SL.NO.731 MR 19 SY.NO. 81 THROUGH MEASUREMENT IN THE NAME OF YERRA S/O DASA 7 EX-D7 - TIPPANI BOOK NAKALU OLDEST REVENUE RECORD DATED 15-11-1962 SY.NO. 81/1A AND 81/1B THROUGH MPR SR 378/61-62 SY.NO.81 IS PHODED TO 81/1A AND 81/1B SY.NO. 81/1B IN THE GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA 8 EX-D8 - AKAR BAND OLDEST REVENUE RECORD SY.NO. 81/1A & 81/1B 9 EX-D9 - FORM 15 SY.NO. 81 AND SY NO. 81/1B FROM 25-05-1959 TO 19-07-2010 IN 25-05-1959 ONE MUDDAIAH SOLD SY.NO. 81 LAND TO GUNDAIAH FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS 50-00 10 EX-D10 - RTC FROM 1969-70 TO 197374 SY.NO. 81/1B KATHA NO. 229 POSSESSION THROUGH MPR (SURVEY MUTATION) NAME:- GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA 11 EX-D11 - RTC FROM 1974-75 TO 1978NAME OF

NUMBER MPR SR 10/61-62, RECORD OF RIGHTS RR NUMBER 752. IN SURVEY NUMBER 81/1B OLDEST REVENUE RECORD SHOWING SURVEY NO.81 IN THE NAME OF DASA S/O MANDALI ANCESTER OF D-2 (GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA) IN REVENUE RECORD WITH SERIAL NUMBER 132, IN SURVEY NUMBER 81.

THIS RECORD SHOWS THAT ONE YERA S/O DASA INHERITED SEVERAL PROPERTIES IN THE FAMILY, IT IS OF COMMON OCCURRENCE THAT ONLY FEW SHARE EACH SURVEY NUMBER.

THIS DOCUMENT SHOWS MEASUREMENT IN THAT PERIOD ITSELF

THIS DOCUMENT SHOWS NAME OF D-2 IN SURVEY NUMBER 81/1B AS ON 15-11-1962. THE ENTRIES AND SURVEY NUMBER 81/1B CAN BE SEEN FROM THAT OLDEST POINT OF TIME

THIS DOCUMENT SHOWS KARAB PORTION IN SURVEY NUMBER

THIS FORM DISCLOSES AS PER EXACT PHOD - ONLY ONE SALE DEED ENTRY IN 1959 WITH D-2 NAME.

THIS OLDEST REVENUE RECORD IS DELIBERATELY WITH HELD BY PLAINTIFF. THE ENTRIES AND SURVEY NUMBER 81/1B CAN BE SEEN FROM THAT OLDEST POINT OF TIME

THIS OLDEST REVENUE RECORD IS DELIBERATELY WITH

79 SY.NO. 81/1B KATHA NO. 229 POSSESSION THROUGH MPR (SURVEY MUTATION) NAME:- GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA 12 EX-D12 - RTC FROM 1985-86 TO 198990 SY.NO. 81/1B KATHA NO. CHANGED FROM 229 TO 101 POSSESSION THROUGH MPR (SURVEY MUTATION) NAME:- GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA COCONUT TREES IN COLUMN 7 CAN BE SEEN 13 EX-D13 - RTC FROM 1990-91 TO 199495 SY.NO. 81/1B KATHA NO. CHANGED FROM 229 TO 101 POSSESSION THROUGH MPR (SURVEY MUTATION) NAME:- GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA COCONUT TREES IN COLUMN 7 CAN BE SEEN 14 EX-D14 - RTC FROM 1995-96 TO 199900 SY.NO. 81/1B KATHA NO. CHANGED FROM 229 TO 101 POSSESSION THROUGH MPR (SURVEY MUTATION) NAME:- GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA COCONUT TREES IN COLUMN 7 CAN BE SEEN BOREWELL ENTRY IN COLUMN 8 MORTGAGE TO VSSN MR 47/99-00 15 EX-D15 - RTC FOR 2001-02 SY.NO. 81/1B KATHA NO. CHANGED FROM 101 TO 125 POSSESSION THROUGH MPR (SURVEY MUTATION) NAME:- GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA COCONUT TREES IN COLUMN 7 & 12(9) CAN BE SEEN BOREWELL ENTRY IN COLUMN 12(13) MORTGAGE TO VSSN MR 47/99-00 16 EX-D16 - RTC FOR 2002-03 SY.NO. 81/1B KATHA NO. 125 POSSESSION THROUGH MPR (SURVEY MUTATION) NAME:- GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA

HELD BY PLAINTIFF. THE ENTRIES AND SURVEY NUMBER 81/1B CAN BE SEEN FROM THAT OLDEST POINT OF TIME

THIS OLDEST REVENUE RECORD IS DELIBERATELY WITH HELD BY PLAINTIFF. THE ENTRIES AND SURVEY NUMBER 81/1B CAN BE SEEN FROM THAT OLDEST POINT OF TIME THE ENTRY OF COCONUT TREES AND ADMISSION OF PW1 IN CROSS EXAMINATION AND SPECIFIC DEPOSITION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DW1 AND DW2 IN THEIR DEPOSITION PROVES THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF D-2 AND HIS LRS

THIS OLDEST REVENUE RECORD IS DELIBERATELY WITH HELD BY PLAINTIFF. THE ENTRIES AND SURVEY NUMBER 81/1B CAN BE SEEN FROM THAT OLDEST POINT OF TIME THE ENTRY OF COCONUT TREES AND ADMISSION OF PW1 IN CROSS EXAMINATION AND SPECIFIC DEPOSITION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DW1 AND DW2 IN THEIR DEPOSITION PROVES THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF D-2 AND HIS LRS

THIS OLDEST REVENUE RECORD IS DELIBERATELY WITH HELD BY PLAINTIFF. THE ENTRIES AND SURVEY NUMBER 81/1B CAN BE SEEN FROM THAT OLDEST POINT OF TIME THE ENTRY OF COCONUT TREES AND ADMISSION OF PW1 IN CROSS EXAMINATION AND SPECIFIC DEPOSITION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DW1 AND DW2 IN THEIR DEPOSITION PROVES THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF D-2 AND HIS LRS THE MORTGAGE & BOREWELL ENTRY ALSO PROVES POSSESSION OF LRS OF D-2

THIS REVENUE RECORD IS DELIBERATELY WITH HELD BY PLAINTIFF. THE ENTRIES AND SURVEY NUMBER 81/1B CAN BE SEEN FROM THAT POINT OF TIME THE ENTRY OF COCONUT TREES AND ADMISSION OF PW1 IN CROSS EXAMINATION AND SPECIFIC DEPOSITION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DW1 AND DW2 IN THEIR DEPOSITION PROVES THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF D-2 AND HIS LRS THE MORTGAGE & BOREWELL ENTRY ALSO PROVES POSSESSION OF LRS OF D-2

THIS REVENUE RECORD IS DELIBERATELY WITH HELD BY PLAINTIFF. THE ENTRIES AND SURVEY NUMBER 81/1B CAN BE SEEN FROM THAT POINT OF TIME THE ENTRY OF COCONUT TREES AND ADMISSION OF PW1 IN CROSS EXAMINATION AND SPECIFIC DEPOSITION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DW1 AND DW2 IN THEIR DEPOSITION PROVES THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF D-2 AND HIS LRS

COCONUT TREES IN COLUMN 7 & 12(9) CAN BE SEEN BOREWELL ENTRY IN COLUMN 12(13) MORTGAGE TO VSSN MR 47/99-00 17 EX-D17 RTC FOR 2003-04 SY.NO. 81/1B KATHA NO. 125 POSSESSION THROUGH MPR (SURVEY MUTATION) NAME:- GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA COCONUT TREES IN COLUMN 7 & 12(9) CAN BE SEEN BOREWELL ENTRY IN COLUMN 12(13) MORTGAGE TO VSSN MR 47/99-00 18 EX-D18 RTC FOR 2004-05 SY.NO. 81/1B KATHA NO. 125 POSSESSION THROUGH MPR (SURVEY MUTATION) NAME:- GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA COCONUT TREES IN COLUMN 7 & 12(9) CAN BE SEEN BOREWELL ENTRY IN COLUMN 12(13) MORTGAGE TO VSSN MR 47/99-00 19 EX-D19 RTC FOR 2005-06 SY.NO. 81/1B KATHA NO. 125 POSSESSION THROUGH MPR (SURVEY MUTATION) NAME:- GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA COCONUT TREES IN COLUMN 7 & 12(9) CAN BE SEEN BOREWELL ENTRY IN COLUMN 12(13) MORTGAGE TO VSSN MR 47/99-00 20 EX-D20 RTC FOR 2006-07 SY.NO. 81/1B KATHA NO. 125 POSSESSION THROUGH MPR (SURVEY MUTATION) NAME:- GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA COCONUT TREES IN COLUMN 7 & 12(9) CAN BE SEEN BOREWELL ENTRY IN COLUMN 12(13) MORTGAGE TO VSSN MR 47/99-00 21 EX-D21 RTC FOR 2007-08 SY.NO. 81/1B

THE MORTGAGE & BOREWELL ENTRY ALSO PROVES POSSESSION OF LRS OF D-2

THE ENTRY OF COCONUT TREES AND ADMISSION OF PW1 IN CROSS EXAMINATION AND SPECIFIC DEPOSITION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DW1 AND DW2 IN THEIR DEPOSITION PROVES THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF D-2 AND HIS LRS THE MORTGAGE & BOREWELL ENTRY ALSO PROVES POSSESSION OF LRS OF D-2

THIS RECORD IS DELIBERATELY WITH HELD BY PLAINTIFF. THE ENTRY OF COCONUT TREES AND ADMISSION OF PW1 IN CROSS EXAMINATION AND SPECIFIC DEPOSITION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DW1 AND DW2 IN THEIR DEPOSITION PROVES THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF D-2 AND HIS LRS THE MORTGAGE & BOREWELL ENTRY ALSO PROVES POSSESSION OF LRS OF D-2

THE ENTRY OF COCONUT TREES AND ADMISSION OF PW1 IN CROSS EXAMINATION AND SPECIFIC DEPOSITION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DW1 AND DW2 IN THEIR DEPOSITION PROVES THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF D-2 AND HIS LRS THE MORTGAGE & BOREWELL ENTRY ALSO PROVES POSSESSION OF LRS OF D-2

THIS RECORD IS DELIBERATELY WITH HELD BY PLAINTIFF. THE ENTRY OF COCONUT TREES AND ADMISSION OF PW1 IN CROSS EXAMINATION AND SPECIFIC DEPOSITION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DW1 AND DW2 IN THEIR DEPOSITION PROVES THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF D-2 AND HIS LRS THE MORTGAGE & BOREWELL ENTRY ALSO PROVES POSSESSION OF LRS OF D-2

THE ENTRY OF COCONUT TREES AND ADMISSION OF PW1 IN CROSS EXAMINATION AND SPECIFIC DEPOSITION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DW1 AND DW2 IN THEIR DEPOSITION PROVES THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN POSSESSION AND

KATHA NO. 125 POSSESSION THROUGH MPR (SURVEY MUTATION) NAME:- GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA COCONUT TREES IN COLUMN 7 & 12(9) CAN BE SEEN BOREWELL ENTRY IN COLUMN 12(13) MORTGAGE TO VSSN MR 47/99-00 MR 74/2006-07 PLD BANK MORTGAGE 22 EX-D22 RTC FOR 2008-09 SY.NO. 81/1B KATHA NO. SPLITTED 125 & 369 NAME:GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA 0.04 GUNTAS POSSESSION THROUGH MPR (SURVEY MUTATION) MALLAIAH S/O KALAIAH 1 ACRE POSSESSION THROUGH INHERITANCE & COURT ORDER MR 61/2007-08 - 21-032008 COCONUT TREES IN COLUMN 7 & 12(9) CAN BE SEEN BOREWELL ENTRY IN COLUMN 12(13) MORTGAGE TO VSSN MR 47/99-00 MR 74/2006-07 PLD BANK MORTGAGE POSSESSION COLUMN GUNDAIAH HAS ENTIRE EXTENT OF 1 ACRE 04 GUNTAS 23 EX-D23 RTC FOR 2009-10 SY.NO. 81/1B KATHA NO. SPLITTED 125 & 369 NAME:GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA 0.04 GUNTAS POSSESSION THROUGH MPR (SURVEY MUTATION) MALLAIAH S/O KALAIAH 1 ACRE POSSESSION THROUGH INHERITANCE & COURT ORDER MR 61/2007-08 - 21-032008 COCONUT TREES IN COLUMN 7 & 12(9) CAN BE SEEN BOREWELL ENTRY IN COLUMN 12(13) MORTGAGE TO VSSN MR 47/99-00 MR 74/2006-07 PLD BANK MORTGAGE POSSESSION COLUMN GUNDAIAH HAS ENTIRE EXTENT OF 1 ACRE 04 GUNTAS 24 EX-D24 RTC FOR 2010-11 SY.NO. 81/1B KATHA NO. SPLITTED 125 & 143 NAME:GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA 0.04 GUNTAS POSSESSION THROUGH MPR (SURVEY MUTATION)

ENJOYMENT OF D-2 AND HIS LRS THE MORTGAGE & BOREWELL ENTRY ALSO PROVES POSSESSION OF LRS OF D-2

THE ENTRY OF MALLIAH NAME IS MADE AS PER ORDER IN EX-P4 AND IT IS SUBSEQUENTLY QUASHED IN EX-D35 THE ENTRY OF COCONUT TREES AND ADMISSION OF PW1 IN CROSS EXAMINATION AND SPECIFIC DEPOSITION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DW1 AND DW2 IN THEIR DEPOSITION PROVES THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF D-2 AND HIS LRS THE MORTGAGE & BOREWELL ENTRY ALSO PROVES POSSESSION OF LRS OF D-2

THE ENTRY OF MALLIAH NAME IS MADE AS PER ORDER IN EX-P4 AND IT IS SUBSEQUENTLY QUASHED IN EX-D35 THE ENTRY OF COCONUT TREES AND ADMISSION OF PW1 IN CROSS EXAMINATION AND SPECIFIC DEPOSITION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DW1 AND DW2 IN THEIR DEPOSITION PROVES THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF D-2 AND HIS LRS THE MORTGAGE & BOREWELL ENTRY ALSO PROVES POSSESSION OF LRS OF D-2

THE ENTRY OF MALLIAH NAME IS MADE AS PER ORDER IN EX-P4 AND IT IS SUBSEQUENTLY QUASHED IN EX-D35 THE ENTRY OF COCONUT TREES AND ADMISSION OF PW1 IN CROSS EXAMINATION AND SPECIFIC DEPOSITION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DW1 AND DW2 IN THEIR DEPOSITION PROVES THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF D-2 AND HIS LRS THE MORTGAGE & BOREWELL ENTRY ALSO PROVES POSSESSION OF LRS OF D-2

MALLAIAH S/O KALAIAH 1 ACRE POSSESSION THROUGH INHERITANCE & COURT ORDER MR 61/2007-08 - 21-032008 COCONUT TREES IN COLUMN 7 & 12(9) CAN BE SEEN BOREWELL ENTRY IN COLUMN 12(13) MORTGAGE TO VSSN MR 47/99-00 MR 74/2006-07 PLD BANK MORTGAGE POSSESSION COLUMN GUNDAIAH HAS ENTIRE EXTENT OF 1 ACRE 04 GUNTAS MALLAIH NAME NEW ENTRY OF 1-00 ACRE FOUND AC COURT HAS STAYED THE ORDER OF TAHSILDAR IN MUTATING MALLAIAHS NAME 25 EX-D25 RTC FOR 2011-12 SY.NO. 81/1B KATHA NO. SPLITTED 125 & 143 NAME:GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA 0.04 GUNTAS POSSESSION THROUGH MPR (SURVEY MUTATION) MALLAIAH S/O KALAIAH 1 ACRE POSSESSION THROUGH INHERITANCE & COURT ORDER MR 61/2007-08 - 21-032008 COCONUT TREES IN COLUMN 7 & 12(9) CAN BE SEEN BOREWELL ENTRY IN COLUMN 12(13) MORTGAGE TO VSSN MR 47/99-00 MR 74/2006-07 PLD BANK MORTGAGE POSSESSION COLUMN GUNDAIAH HAS ENTIRE EXTENT OF 1 ACRE 04 GUNTAS MALLAIH NAME NEW ENTRY OF 1-00 ACRE FOUND AC COURT HAS STAYED THE ORDER OF TAHSILDAR IN MUTATING MALLAIAHS NAME 26 EX-D26 TAX PAID RECIEPT SY.NO.81/1B DATED 17-10-1969 GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA EX-D27 TAX PAID RECIEPT SY.NO.81/1B DATED 27-08-1980 GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA EX-D28 TAX PAID RECIEPT SY.NO.81/1B DATED 23-04-2002 GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA EX-D29 AC COURT ENDORSEMENT SY.NO.81/1B DATED 21-10-10 EX-D30 AC COURT ORDER SHEET EX-D31 AC COURT SUMMONS SERVED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT EX-D32 AC COURT APPEAL MEMO EX-D33 PATTA BOOK EX-D34 G-TREE OLDEST TAX PAID RECIEPT PROVES D-2 AND HIS LRS POSSESSION OF SY.NO. 81/1B THE ENTRY OF COCONUT TREES AND ADMISSION OF PW1 IN CROSS EXAMINATION AND SPECIFIC DEPOSITION AND IDENTIFICATION OF DW1 AND DW2 IN THEIR DEPOSITION PROVES THAT THE PROPERTY IS IN POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OF D-2 AND HIS LRS THE MORTGAGE & BOREWELL ENTRY ALSO PROVES POSSESSION OF LRS OF D-2 IT IS REPEATEDLY CONTENDED BY PLAINTIFF AND HIS COUNSEL THAT SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY IS A BARREN LAND, THE RELEVANT ENTRIES SUCH AS COCONUT TREES AND BOREWELL IN RELAVENT COLUMN FROM 1985-86 TO 2011-12 DISPUTES THE CLAIM O.F PLAINTIFF THE ENTRY OF MALLIAH NAME IS MADE AS PER ORDER IN EX-P4 AND IT IS SUBSEQUENTLY QUASHED IN EX-D35

27

OLDEST TAX PAID RECIEPT PROVES D-2 AND HIS LRS POSSESSION OF SY.NO. 81/1B

28

OLDEST TAX PAID RECIEPT PROVES D-2 AND HIS LRS POSSESSION OF SY.NO. 81/1B

29

THE EFFORTS MADE BY PLAINTIFF TO CREATE REVENUE RECORDS FOR HIS CASE IS BEING CHALLENGED BY D-2 LRS THE EFFORTS MADE BY PLAINTIFF TO CREATE REVENUE RECORDS FOR HIS CASE IS BEING CHALLENGED BY D-2 LRS THE EFFORTS MADE BY PLAINTIFF TO CREATE REVENUE RECORDS FOR HIS CASE IS BEING CHALLENGED BY D-2 LRS THE EFFORTS MADE BY PLAINTIFF TO CREATE REVENUE RECORDS FOR HIS CASE IS BEING CHALLENGED BY D-2 LRS PROVES TITLE OF LRS OF D-2 TO SY.NO. 81/1B TO SHOW WHAT PLAINTIFF HAS HIDDEN BEFORE THE COURT

30 31 32 33 34

35

EX-D35 AC COURT ORDERS DATED 06-08-2012 ORDERS OF TAHSILDAR COURT MADE TO ENTER THE NAME OF MALLAIAH IS QUASHED. EX-D36 MIS 11/2012 ORDER SHEET EX-D37 MIS 11/2012 PETITION SEEKS TO RESTORE OS 60/2007 EX-D38 RA 39/2012 ORDERSHEET EX-D39 RA 39/2012 APPEAL MEMO AGAINST OS 139/2004 EX-D40 BESCOM REVENUE REPORT EX-D41 TAX PAID RECEIPT SY.NO.81/1B GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA DATED 03-04-2012 EX-D42 TAX PAID RECEIPT SY.NO.81/1B GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA DATED 16-03-1984 EX-D43 TAX PAID RECEIPT SY.NO.81/1B GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA DATED 1985-86 EX-D44 TAX PAID RECEIPT SY.NO.81/1B GUNDAIAH S/O DASANNA EX-D45 PATTA BOOK EX-D46 ENDORSEMENT ENDORSEMENT OF SURVEY OFFICE IN TAHSILDAR STATING EX-P10 PRODUCED BY PLAINTIFF AS NOT AN OFFICIAL RECORD EX-D47 TO EX-D59 RTC SY.NO 81/1A FROM 2001-02 TO 2012-13 EX-D60 ORDER SHEET IN OS 139/2004

PLAINTIFF ILLEGAL EFFORTS EXPOSED

36 37 38 39 40 41

CASE BEING RE-OPENED DUE TO FRAUD INVOLVED IN SUCH MATTERS CASE BEING RE-OPENED DUE TO FRAUD INVOLVED IN SUCH MATTERS CASE BEING RE-OPENED DUE TO FRAUD INVOLVED IN SUCH MATTERS CASE BEING RE-OPENED DUE TO FRAUD INVOLVED IN SUCH MATTERS SHOWS POSSESSION OF LRS OF D-2 OLDEST TAX PAID RECIEPT PROVES D-2 AND HIS LRS POSSESSION OF SY.NO. 81/1B

42

OLDEST TAX PAID RECIEPT PROVES D-2 AND HIS LRS POSSESSION OF SY.NO. 81/1B

43

OLDEST TAX PAID RECIEPT PROVES D-2 AND HIS LRS POSSESSION OF SY.NO. 81/1B

44

OLDEST TAX PAID RECIEPT PROVES D-2 AND HIS LRS POSSESSION OF SY.NO. 81/1B PROVES TITLE OF LRS OF D-2 TO SY.NO. 81/1B PROVVES FRAUD EXCERCISED BY PLAINTIFF IN PRODUCED FORGED RECORD TO OBTAIN REVENUE COURT ORDERS AND ATTEMPTING SAME BEFORE THIS COURT

45 46

47

SHOWN TO EXPOSE ANOTHER SURVEY NUMBER 81/1A

48

TO SHOW THE SAME ADVOCATE HANDLING D-2 CASE IN THIS MATTER WHEN HE TAKEN OPPONENT CASE IN OD 139/2004

DEFENDANT UNSHAKEN EVIDENCE AVERMENTS DISPROVING PLAINTIFFS CASE 1. The cross examination portion of DW1 dated 04-10-2012 in its first para DW1 clearly speaks of G-tree and non joinder of necessary party. 2. The plaintiff has not clearly identified the suit schedule property with correct boundaries, hence any question regarding suit schedule property asked by plaintiff counsel and the answer given by defendant witness showing no specific admission with clarity and showing ignorance is of no support to plaintiff case. The plaintiff has to prove his own rather than relying on weakness of defendant. 3. The defendant witness confusion with regard to plaint suit schedule property can be seen from his statement in page 10 second para. 4. The cross examination of DW2 and her averments regarding her father having sold to D-2 and identification of property with coconut trees and mango trees substantially destroys the theory of plaintiff that suit schedule property is barren land.

BURDEN OF PROOF KNOWN BY PLAINTIFF AND HAD FAILED TO LED PROPER EVIDENCE TO IT? In order to succeed in the matter a diligent plaintiff should have taken in detail the facts of his case through proper amendment or through properly abridging his pleadings, this is being not done by plaintiff, since he from the beginning know that he has played fraud on innocents at several stages to grab the property. After filing of written statement by Lrs of D-2, plaintiff should have filed rejoinder or led evidence to that effect, there also plaintiff failed seriously with all necessary and sufficient time. Plaintiff by starting his evidence on 19-01-2006 continued to 06-03-2009 to secure the 13 documents produced in the case and later in 02-02-2011 produced another 3 documents. In overall plaintiff for examining and marking his side of documents he took five years. In that five years he never produced any relevant documents to prove his case. His cross examination completed in three days. This conduct of plaintiff in deliberate delay in prosecuting the case itself shows his conduct. Only examination being done in plaintiff side is himself without any other person from his side. The averments are so absurd that plaintiff utterly failed to prove his case with clear explanation and proof from his side. The pleadings and proof produced by plaintiff does not show any prima facie case for suspecting defendants version. The equity lies with defendant-2 to get every relief at the cost of plaintiff, since the innocent D-2 and his Lrs are subject to un-necessary litigation and harassment at the hands of plaintiff.

RELEVANCE OF DOCUMENTS OF DEFENDANTS DISPROVING PLAINTIFFS CASE AND PROVING AVERRMENTS OF LRS OF D-2 The documents of defendant in entirety specifically shows that suit schedule property is a land initially emerged from survey number 81, it is rephoded into 81/1A & 81/1B in 15-111962, from then onwards several revenue records having survey number 81/1B as its identification. As such plaintiff claiming to have purchased in survey number 81/1 when such survey number is not in existence. This is a serious dispute as to identification of property. If we try to ascertain the identity of property through boundaries, then also towards west and south of suit schedule property plaintiff claims property of D-2, he does not explain by either evidence or by document, which survey number property of D-2 lies towards west and south of his claimed suit schedule. In cross examination plaintiff counsel

tried to convince the court that suit schedule property is a barren land having no coconut trees and borewell. The RTCs produced related to survey number 81/1B from 1985 to 2012 shows coconut trees and bore well in relevant columns, hence this is third point which seriously disputes the identity of property of plaintiff.

LEGAL ASPECTS AND OBSERVATIONS OF CITATIONS DISPROVING PLAINTIFFS CASE :NEW CREED OF LITIGANTS HAVE CROPPED UP - WHO DO NOT HAVE ANY RESPECT FOR TRUTH - RESORTING TO FALSEHOOD AND UNETHICAL MEANS FOR ACHIEVING THEIR GOALS In the instant case the plaintiff has shown such conduct and hence the observations of Supreme Court to be noted here. In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114, the Supreme Court observed that a new creed of litigants have cropped up in the last 40 years who do not have any respect for truth and shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals.

IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT WHEN IDENTIFICATION OF PROPERTY IS IN DISPUTE NO RELIEF BE GRANTED JUSTICE R Gururajan of Karnataka High Court in the case of T.L. Nagendra Babu vs Manohar Rao Pawar reported in ILR 2005 KAR 884 1. Pleadings should be verified by the party who is acquainted with the facts of the case - A party must also specify the number of paragraphs and his knowledge, information and belief with regard to the paragraphs - Verification must be signed by the concerned party by mentioning the date and place. 2. Presumption operates in favour of the party relying on a document, provided he must prove that the document is duly executed and authenticated. 3. Unless the Court is satisfied with regard to material details in the light of the material evidence with regard to the identification of the property, no declaration and injunction can be granted. 4. There is no proper evidence with regard to maintainability of the suit; there is no proper evidence with regard to court fee; there is no proper evidence with regard to cause of action; there is no evidence with regard to possession, but despite the same, the learned Judge has chosen to grant an injunction relief in the case on hand. Grant of injunction is serious in nature. It affects the rights of the parties. The Court must be very careful in evaluating the pleadings and evidence in the matter of injunction.

IF HE WITHHOLDS A VITAL DOCUMENT IN ORDER TO GAIN ADVANTAGE AGAINST THE OTHER SIDE, THEN HE WOULD BE GUILTY OF PLAYING FRAUD ON THE COURT In the decision, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath, reported in 1994 (1) SCC 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to decide the litigation and if he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage against the other side, then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.

FALSE REPRESENTATION EVEN WITHOUT BAD MOTIVE IS FRAUD In Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi and others, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 319, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not be bad.

THE COURTS CAN TAKE NOTICE OF THE SUBSEQUENT EVENTS AND CAN MOULD THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY In Rajesh D. Darbar and Ors. v. Narasingrao Krishnaji Kulkarni and Ors. , (2003) 7 SCC 219 this court noticed: "The courts can take notice of the subsequent events and can mould the relief accordingly. NOBODY SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO INDULGE IN IMMORAL ACTS LIKE PERJURY, PREVARICATION AND MOTIVATED FALSEHOODS In Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 421, held that nobody should be permitted to indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods in the judicial proceedings and if someone does so, it must be dealt with appropriately. In case the recourse to a false plea is taken with an oblique motive, it would definitely hinder, hamper or impede the flow of justice and prevent the courts from performing their legal duties.

NO LITIGANT HAS A RIGHT TO UNLIMITED DROUGHT ON THE COURT TIME AND PUBLIC MONEY IN ORDER TO GET HIS AFFAIRS SETTLED IN THE MANNER HE WISHES

In Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. K. Parasaran & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 2687, Supreme Court has observed as under:- No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes. However, access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions.

NO PARTY SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO TRAVEL BEYOND ITS PLEADING AND THAT ALL NECESSARY AND MATERIAL FACTS SHOULD BE PLEADED BY THE PARTY IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE SET UP BY IT

In THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Decision in a case of election matter, in Kalyan Singh Chouhan vs C.P.Joshi 2011 AIR 1127 = 2011 (2 ) SCR 216 = 2011 (11 ) SCC 786, Justice P. SATHASIVAM & Justice Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN observed following principles of case law on Importance of pleadings as also applicable to civil court proceedings is discussed with following citations:- This Court in Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) by L.Rs. v. Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1242 held as under: "It is well settled that in the absence of pleading, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. It is also equally settled that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleading and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. The object and purpose of pleading is to enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet........ In such a case it is the duty of the court to ascertain the substance of the pleadings to determine the question." This Court in Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal & Ors. , AIR 2009 SC 1103, held as under: "The object and purpose of pleadings and issues is to ensure that the litigants come to trial with all issues clearly defined and to prevent cases being expanded or grounds being shifted during trial. Its object is also to ensure that each side is fully alive to the questions that are likely to be raised or considered so that they may have an opportunity of placing the relevant evidence appropriate to the issues before the court for its consideration. The object of issues is to identify from the pleadings the questions or points required to be decided by the courts so as to enable parties to let in evidence thereon. When the facts necessary to make out a particular claim, or to seek a particular relief, are not found in the plaint, the court cannot focus the attention of the parties, or its own attention on that claim or relief, by framing an appropriate issue........ Thus it is said that no amount of evidence, on a plea that is not put forward in the pleadings, can be looked into to grant any relief. The jurisdiction to grant relief in a civil suit necessarily depends on the pleadings, prayer, court fee paid, evidence let in, etc." ALL "MATERIAL FACTS" MUST BE PLEADED BY THE PARTY IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE SET UP BY HIM

In Mahadeorao Sukaji Shivankar Vs.

Ramaratan Bapu & Ors (2004) 7 SCC

181"material facts" are facts upon which the plaintiff's cause of action or defendant's defence depends. Broadly speaking, all primary or basic facts which are necessary either to prove the cause of action by the plaintiff or defence by the defendant are "material facts". Material facts are facts which, if established, would give the petitioner the relief asked for. But again, what could be said to be material facts would depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down. In this regard In support of written statement averments and objections to IA this defendants rely on the decision of Supreme court to show balance of convenience on defendant side. In Harkirat Singh v. Amrinder Singh (2005) 13 SCC 511, Supreme Court again reiterated the distinction between `material facts' and `material particulars' and observed as under: "51. A distinction between "material facts" and "particulars", however, must not be overlooked. "Material facts" are primary or basic facts which must be pleaded by the plaintiff or by the defendant in support of the case set up by him either to prove his cause of action or defence. "Particulars", on the other hand, are details in support of material facts pleaded by the party. They amplify, refine and embellish material facts by giving distinctive touch to the basic contours of a picture already drawn so as to make it full, more clear and more informative. "Particulars" thus ensure conduct of fair trial and would not take the opposite party by surprise. 52. All "material facts" must be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by him. Since the object and purpose is to enable the opposite party to know the case he has to meet with, in the absence of pleading, a party cannot be allowed to lead evidence. Failure to state even a single material fact, hence, will entail dismissal of the suit or petition. Particulars, on the other hand, are the details of the case which is in the nature of evidence a party would be leading at the time of trial."

SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS CAN BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION TO AFFORD RELIEF TO THE PARTIES WHEN IT HAD A MATERIAL IMPACT ON THOSE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS. In Pratap Rai Tanwani Vs. Uttam Chand (2004 (8) SCC 490), Supreme Court held that subsequent developments can be taken into consideration to afford relief to the parties, provided only when such developments had a material impact on those rights and obligations. WHEN PLAINTIFF IS NOT IN POSSESSION MERE DECLARATION IS NOT

MAINTAINABLE In Ram Saran and Anr. v. Smt. Ganga Devi, AIR 1972 SC 2685, (1973) 2 SCC 60 the Apex Court has laid down that a suit for mere declaration brought by the plaintiff who is not in possession of the property is not maintainable.

IN CIVIL DISPUTE CONDUCT OF PARTIES IS MATERIAL Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr. Vs Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2005 SC 439, In civil dispute the conduct of the parties is material. The appellants have not approached the Court with clean hands. From the conduct of the parties it is apparent that it was a ploy to salvage the property from sale in the execution of Decree. JUDICIAL PROCESS SHOULD NEVER BECOME AN INSTRUMENT OF OPPRESSION OR ABUSE OR A MEANS IN THE PROCESS OF THE COURT TO SUBVERT JUSTICE Noorduddin v. Dr. K. L. Anand, 1995 (1) SCC 242 : (1994 AIR SCW 5093) the Apex Court observed as under (at page 5099 of AIR SCW): "The object of law is to mete out justice. Right to the right, title or interest of a party in the immovable property is a substantive right. But the right to an adjudication of the dispute in that behalf is a procedural right to which no one has a vested right. The faith of the people in the efficacy of law is the saviour and succour for the sustenance of the rule of law. Any weakening like in the judicial process would rip apart the edifice of justice and create a feeling of disillusionment in the minds of the people of the very law and courts. The rules of procedure have been devised as a channel or a means to render substantive or at best substantial justice which is the highest interest of man and almighty for the mankind. It is a foundation for orderly human relations. Equally the judicial process should never become an instrument of oppression or abuse or a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice." MERE MUTATION IN REVENUE RECORD DOES NOT CREATE TITLE A.I.R. 1997 SC 2719 = 1997(7) SCC 137 (Balwant Singh and another etc. Vs Daulat Singh (dead) by L.Rs. and others) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: Mutation of a property in the revenue record does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. It only enables the person in whose favour mutation is ordered to pay the land revenue in question. Thus, mere mutation of property in revenue records does not create or extinguish title nor has it any presumptive value on title. In such circumstances, merely because the patta has been changed, in pursuance, it will not confer or extinguish title of the plaintiffs/respondents herein or the third defendant/appellant herein... PRESUMPTION OF ENTRIES IN REVENUE RECORDS Hanumanthappa vs Bhimappa ILR 1998 KAR 838 Section 133 no doubt provides that any entry in record of rights and certified copy of the register of mutation or in the patta book shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved or a new entry is lawfully substituted therefor.

UNLESS TRANSFEREE ESTABLISHES THAT HE HAS TAKEN REASONABLE CARE TO ASCERTAIN THE TITLE OF HIS TRANSFEROR, SUCH TRANSFERS CANNOT BE VALIDATED ILR 2003 Kar. 1774 [Mallappa Adiveppa Hadapad Vs. Smt. Rudrawwa and Others]; wherein the revenue records stood in the name of the transferor at the time when the transferee purchased the property and this Court held that unless the transferee establishes that he had taken reasonable care to ascertain the right or title of the transferor and the transferee had acted in good faith, though the Sale Deeds are for valid consideration is itself held to be not sufficient to validate such transaction under Section 41 of the Act.

REVENUE ENTRIES - RIGHTS TO PROPERTY - CIVIL COURT IS APPROPRIATE FORUM 2006 KAR JUSTICE D.V. Shylendra Kumar, of Karnataka High court in the case of Neria Estates Rural Industries ... vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. Reported in 2006 (1) KarLJ 295 The impugned order is one passed by the Tahsildar acting as a Revenue Authority for the purpose of showing the name of the Government in the revenue records. The Tahsildar acts as a functionary under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and any view expressed is only incidental. It is true that the Tahsildar is not the authority to determine the rights of the parties including to record a finding or to express a view as to who is the owner of a particular piece of land or even in respect of the entire extent of land to which the petitioner had sought for conferment of occupancy rights to say that the lands are vested with the State and the Government is the owner.

ANY ONE HAVING TITLE TO BE SHOWN AS KHATEDAR T. Siddeshi vs The Deputy Commissioner, AIR 2001 Kant 297, ILR 2001 KAR 488 The normal requirements in the Land Revenue Act as per the provisions of Section 128 any person who possesses title to the land in question has right to be shown as khatedar in the record of rights register and mutation registers. However, by such an entry no inference can be drawn regarding the title to the property. Since the entries in the revenue records are not documents of title and cannot be the sole basis to prove the title by itself. But the said entries may have a corroborative value for proving the title.

RELEVANCY OF STATEMENT MADE DURING MUTATION PROCEEDINGS 2003 SC

JUSTICE Doraiswamy Raju & JUSTICE Shivaraj V. Patil of The Supreme Court of India in case of Mahila Bajrangi (dead) through L.Rs. & Ors VS Badribai w/o Jagannath & Anr. 2003 (2) SCC 464 Mutation proceedings before revenue authorities are not judicial proceedings in any Court of law and does not decide questions of title to immovable property. Revenue authority ordering mutation of revenue records cannot be Protanto held to be a civil court of concurrent and competent jurisdiction to adjudicate questions of title to immovable property.

REVENUE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT DOCUMENT OF TITLE IT RAISES PREUMPTION UNDER EVIDENCE ACT AIR 2008 SC 901 , GURUNATH MANOHAR PAVASKAR & ORS VS NAGESH SIDDAPPA NAVALGUND & ORS A revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession. Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof both forward and backward can also be raised under s.110 of the Evidence Act.

TAHSILDAR CANNOT DECIDE THE RIGHTS OF PARTIES ON SALE DEED S. Shivanna vs The Special Tahsildar And Ors. 2006 (1) KCCR 652, It is not the function of the Tahsildar for the determination of the rights of parties like a Civil Court with regard to the interest the fourth respondent could still claim under the sale deed of the year 1924 and it is a matter essentially for the Civil Court and not for the Tahsildar. Likewise the change of the name in the revenue records if at all was made in favour of the petitioner in the year 1965 and as contended by the fourth respondent, it is by playing" fraud etc., or with concocted documents or otherwise, even such allegations of fraud etc., is a matter that should be made good before a Civil Court and not before the Revenue Authorities. Authorities like Tahsildar totally lack jurisdiction to render finding or make a determination either in respect of an act of fraud or for declaring the rights in favour of any parties under a sale deed etc.

THE LONG COURSE OF ENTRIES IN REVENUE RECORDS CANNOT BE IGNORED IN PREFERENCE TO THE ENTRIES FOR A SOLITARY YEAR. The Supreme Court however in the case of B.S.V. TEMPLE v. P. KRISHNA MURTHI, AIR 1973 SC 1299, (1973) 2 SCC 261 struck a note of caution with regard to entries in the revenue records. It pointed out that the presumption arising from several entries in the revenue records of large number of years in respect of ownership and possession of land with certain person does not stand rebutted by mere stray entries in favour of other when

the evidence is of uncertain character and is inadequate. .. The long course of entries which were consistently in favour of the Archakas cannot be ignored in preference to the entries in favour of the temple for a solitary year.

PRESUMPTION OF CORRECTNESS CAN APPLY ONLY TO GENUINE, NOT FORGED OR FRAUDULENT, ENTRIES In Vishwa Vijay Bharati v. Fakhrul Hassan and others, AIR 1976 SC 1485, dealing with entries in revenue records and sections 35 and 114 of the Evidence Act, the Supreme Court held as follows: "It is true that the entries in the revenue record ought, generally, to be accepted at their face value and courts should not embark upon an appellate inquiry into their correctness. But the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine, not forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but it is clear, the distinction is that one cannot challenge the correctness of what the entry in the revenue record states, but the entry is open to the attack that it was made fraudulently or surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title".

WHEN SOME ONE REGISTERS SALE DEED OF REAL OWNERS PROPERTY-WITHOUT AUTHORISATION, CONSEQUENCES AND OPTIONS LEFT TO REAL OWNER JUSTICE R Raveendran in the case of M. Ramakrishna Reddy vs Sub-Registrar, Rajajinagar, AIR 2000 Kant 46, ILR 1999 KAR 2033 In view of the above, when a person who claims to be the owner or a person interested in an immovable property, finds that someone else has executed and registered a sale deed or other deed in regard to his property, claiming to be the owner or a person interested in the property, the appropriate course for him is to file a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs. If he is satisfied such sale deed is executed by a person without any title and that the deed is void ab initio, he may even choose to ignore the same and leave it to the person claiming title under such deed to establish his title in appropriate proceedings. A Court of Law has the jurisdiction to declare a document to be void or even cancel a document. But under no circumstances, a person claiming to be the owner of a property or a holder of a property, can require the Registering Authority to cancel the registration of a document or to cancel the entry made in Book No. 1 in regard to a registered document or to delete or remove the entry made in the indexes relating to Book No. 1. The Registering Officer has no such power. Consequently, the question of the Registering Officer deleting any entry either from the Indexes of Book No. 1 or the extracts therefrom contained in the Encumbrance Certificate by holding transaction covered by a registered instrument is illegal or void, does not arise.

SUIT FOR CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENT BY A PERSON WHO DID NOT EXECUTE THE DOCUMENT WOULD NOT LIE A Full Bench of Madras High Court in Muppudathi v. Krishnaswami AIR 1960 Madras 1 (F.B.) when the instrument/document is not executed by the plaintiff, the same does not create a cloud upon the title of the true owner nor does it create apprehension that it may be a source of danger. Accordingly, a suit for cancellation of instrument by a person who did not execute the document would not lie.

PRESUMPTION OF OLD DOCUMENTS UNDER SECTION 90 DISCRETION OF COURT TO ACCEPT IT SHALL BE EXCERCISED WITH REASONS Sri Lakni Baruan And Others vs Sri Padma Kanta Kalita & Ors 1996 AIR 1253, JT 1996 (3) 268 Section 90 of the Evidence Act is founded on necessity and convenience because it is extremely difficult and sometimes not possible to lead evidence to prove handwriting, signature or execution of old documents after lapse of thirty years. In order to obviate such difficulties or improbabilities to prove execution of an old document, Section 90 has been incorporated in the Evidence Act, which does away with the strict rule of proof of private documents. Presumption of genuineness may be raised if the documents in question is produced from proper custody. It is, however, the discretion of the Court to accept the presumption flowing from Section 90. There is, however, no manner of doubt that judicial discretion under Section 90 should not be exercised arbitrarily and not being informed by reasons.

WHEN SOURCE OF TITLE IS NOT DISCLOSED MERE STATEMENT WITHOUT PROOF OF DOCUMENT AS TO SOURCE OF TITLE IS NOT RELEVANT Prabhakar Adsule vs State Of M.P. & Anr 2004 AIR 3557 = 2004 (11 ) SCC 249 In the plaint the source of Somaji's title was not disclosed and it was merely stated that he was owner of the disputed land and the same was coming in his possession since 1918. In his statement in Court, the plaintiff came out with a case that the land had been given by way of grant. However, the plaintiff did not lead any kind of evidence to prove the factum of grant. No document was produced to show that the land had been given by way of grant either to Somaji or to his ancestors.

REPLY TO CONTENTIONS RAISED BY PLAINTIFF COUNSEL:1. The defendant-2 counsel has filed memo accepting the pleadings of D-1.

This contention is irrelevant since the Defendant-2 has no personal knowledge of such statement and he has not signed even memo. As per Order VI Rule 14 of CPC which says Every pleading shall be signed by the party and his pleader (if any): Provided that where a party pleading is, by reason of absence or for other good cause, unable to sign the pleading, it may be signed by any person duly authorised by him to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf. In substantiating the above contention, Judgment of Karnataka High Court in Sri Shamrao Rukamanna Talwar vs Smt. Suvarna reported in ILR 2008 KAR 1493 where in the Honble court observed that From a reading of the aforesaid provisions it is dear that normally a pleading shall be signed by the party. However, there are certain exceptions carved out. If by reason of absence or for other good cause the party is unable to sign the pleading, it may be signed by any person duty authorized by him to sign the same or to sue or defend on his behalf. Therefore, a person who is duly authorized by the party may sign the pleading. He she may be a person holding a General Power of Attorney or a person holding such other valid authorization. The object of signature and verification is to fix upon the party the responsibility for the statements and to affirm the guarantee of good faith. 2. Plaintiff Counsel raises that there is signature in EX-P14, - such signatures are not marked and identified. 3. Plaintiff Counsel raises the contention that EX-D-2 entry which states Boghya to Gundaiah which is of the year 1950-51 is not all in dispute. The Lrs of D-2 are claiming title from 1959 sale deed. 4. Plaintiff counsel submits that property in EX-D7 belongs to plaintiff As per D-7 it belongs to D-2, falsity in submission also. 5. Plaintiff counsel submits that the Assistant commissioner order in EX-D35 is not worthy since the matter is pending before civil court. The same principle is applicable to plaintiff who got order in EX-P4 when the matter is pending before civil court. This is equity which has been forgotten by learned counsel. 6. Plaintiff counsel submits that OS 139/2004 decree has gone their side. - No it is only dismissal of plaintiff suit and not declaration of defendants rights in that case. 7. Plaintiff counsel submits that 11E sketch EXP-10, shows their possession But that exhibit is marked with objection and plaintiff fails to lead proper evidence over the document to prove it. More over the 11E sketch is attempted for partition and it is not for any transfer of land through their sale deed. The entire document is concocted as held in EX-D35 & EX-D46.

8. Plaintiff counsel claims that several documents produced by defendant are in their favour But failed to convince which are in their favour and why they have not produced it in their evidence. CONCLUSION:As observed above plaintiff has deliberately failed in his case with all knowledge as to his false, incomplete, confusing and fraudulent representation. The plaintiff has not approached court with clean hands and full facts. Deliberately suppressed truth. Plaintiff has harassed the Lrs of defendant-2 and made a false case and un-healthy collusion. The imposition of heavy and real cost to the tune of Rs 50,000-00 as permitted under amended CPC against dishonest litigant is the apt solution. It is a settled proposition of law by a catena of judgments of the Supreme Court that any party claiming relief before courts of Justice, is duty bound to make a true and correct disclosure of all the material and relevant facts in the petition. A litigant who approaches the Court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document or information in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the other party. Such litigant should be heavily penalised to send strong signal to the dishonest litigants. Wherefore it is humbly prayed to dismiss the suit of plaintiff with heavy penal costs in the ends of Justice. Date:Gubbi Advocate for Lrs of D-2

IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR DN) AND JMFC COURT AT GUBBI
O.S. 205/2004 PLAINTIFF MALLAIAH & ORS VS DEFENDANTS SANNAUGRAIAH & ORS

LIST OF CITATIONS SUBMITTED IN THE FORM OF CD ON BEHALF OF LRS OF D-2

NO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 CITATION PARTICULARS DALIP SINGH V. STATE OF U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114 T.L. NAGENDRA BABU VS MANOHAR RAO PAWAR REPORTED IN ILR 2005 KAR 884 S.P.CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU VS. JAGANNATH, REPORTED IN 1994 (1) SCC 1 RAM CHANDRA SINGH VS. SAVITRI DEVI AND OTHERS, REPORTED IN (2003) 8 SCC 319 RAJESH D. DARBAR AND ORS. V. NARASINGRAO KRISHNAJI KULKARNI AND ORS. , (2003) 7 SCC 219 CHANDRA SHASHI V. ANIL KUMAR VERMA, (1995) 1 SCC 421, DR. BUDDHI KOTA SUBBARAO V. K. PARASARAN & ORS. AIR 1996 SC 2687 KALYAN SINGH CHOUHAN VS C.P.JOSHI 2011 AIR 1127 = 2011 (2 ) SCR 216 MAHADEORAO SUKAJI SHIVANKAR VS. RAMARATAN BAPU & ORS (2004) 7 SCC 181 PRATAP RAI TANWANI VS. UTTAM CHAND (2004 (8) SCC 490), RAM SARAN AND ANR. V. SMT. GANGA DEVI, AIR 1972 SC 2685, JANKI VASHDEO BHOJWANI & ANR. VS INDUSIND BANK LTD. & ORS. AIR 2005 SC 439 NOORDUDDIN V. DR. K. L. ANAND, 1995 (1) SCC 242 : (1994 AIR SCW 5093) A.I.R. 1997 SC 2719 = 1997(7) SCC 137 (BALWANT SINGH AND ANOTHER ETC. VS DAULAT SINGH (DEAD) BY L.RS. AND OTHERS) HANUMANTHAPPA VS BHIMAPPA ILR 1998 KAR 838 ILR 2003 KAR. 1774 [MALLAPPA ADIVEPPA HADAPAD VS. SMT. RUDRAWWA AND OTHERS] NERIA ESTATES RURAL INDUSTRIES ... VS STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. REPORTED IN 2006 (1) KARLJ 295 T. SIDDESHI VS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, AIR 2001 KANT 297, ILR 2001 KAR 488 MAHILA BAJRANGI (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS. & ORS VS BADRIBAI W/O JAGANNATH & ANR. 2003 (2) SCC 464 AIR 2008 SC 901 , GURUNATH MANOHAR PAVASKAR & ORS VS NAGESH SIDDAPPA NAVALGUND & ORS S. SHIVANNA VS THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR AND ORS. 2006 (1) KCCR 652 B.S.V. TEMPLE V. P. KRISHNA MURTHI, AIR 1973 SC 1299, (1973) 2 SCC 261 VISHWA VIJAY BHARATI V. FAKHRUL HASSAN AND OTHERS, AIR 1976 SC 1485 M. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY VS SUB-REGISTRAR, RAJAJINAGAR, AIR 2000 KANT 46, ILR 1999 KAR 2033 MUPPUDATHI V. KRISHNASWAMI AIR 1960 MADRAS 1 (F.B.) SRI LAKNI BARUAN AND OTHERS VS SRI PADMA KANTA KALITA & ORS 1996 AIR 1253, JT 1996 (3) 268 PRABHAKAR ADSULE VS STATE OF M.P. & ANR 2004 AIR 3557 = 2004 (11 ) SCC 249

Sri Shamrao Rukamanna Talwar vs Smt. Suvarna reported in ILR 2008 KAR 1493 Written arguments in word format for court convenience

Date:Gubbi Advocate for Lrs of D-2