BEFORE THE HON’BLE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU DISTRICT

OS 1374/2021

BETWEEN

SRI. MUNIYAPPA AND ORS.

… PLAINTIFFS
AND

M/S VARS AND KENS DEVELOPERS …

DEFENDANTS

WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT NO.2 UNDER ORDER

VIII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

The Defendant No.2 most respectfully states and submits as under:

1. The above suit is filed by the Plaintiff seeking to:

a) Declare that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Suit

Schedule Property,

b) Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants their men or

agents from interfering with the peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property,

c) Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants from

alienating, creating encumbrance, charge upon the Schedule

Property,

d) Grant such other decree as deemed fit including the cost of

the Suit in the interest of justice.

2. That the above Suit is prima facie not maintainable either in law or in

facts. The Suit which has been instituted on false version of facts and

actuated by mala fides and vexatious intentions lacks bona fides and

in liable to be dismissed in limine.

Preliminary Objections
3. At the outset, Defendant No.2 submits that the suit is not

maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the

Plaintiffs have preferred a suit for Declaration and Injunction as

against the Defendants in respect of the Suit Schedule Property and

have valued the Plaint under section 24(a) of the Karnataka Court

Fees and Suit Valuation Act,1958 (“KCF & SV”). It is submitted that

notwithstanding the attraction of the incorrect provision of the KCF &

SV Act, the Plaintiffs have failed to value the Plaint at Market Value

and pay the appropriate Court Fees under section S.24(b) r/w S.7 (2)

(d) of the Act.

4. It is submitted that Defendant No.1 – Sri. K Mohan Reddy passed

away on 15/07/2019 and the above suit therefore stands abated as

against Defendant No.1. It is further submitted that Defendant No.-2

is arrayed as M/s Vars and Kens Developers which has no interest in

the present proceedings. It is submitted that the suit be dismissed for

and non-joinder of necessary parties.

5. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has filed the above suit for

Declaration and Injunction. It is further submitted that the nature of

the Suit Schedule Property is that of a vacant site which Defendant

No.1 had purchased vide Sale Deed dated 13/03/1997 registered as

Document No. 4139/1996-97 of Book-1, Volume 1378 at Page 6 to

13 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, K.R.Puram. It is

submitted that Defendant No.1 had since been in continuous

possession of the Suit Schedule Property and exercising his right title

and interest to the exclusion of all others. It is submitted that the

Plaintiffs have proceeded to seek a relief of Declaration and

Injunction, without the relief of possession which is not maintainable

in law and therefore, liable to dismissed in limine.

6. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs have knowledge and information

regarding the Defendant No.1’s ownership and title of the Suit

Schedule Property, since time immemorial. The Plaintiffs are also well

aware that the Schedule Property belonged to the predecessor in title

of Defendant No.1. The Suit is barred by limitation and is instituted

under the guise of a fictitious cause of action that purportedly arose

in 2021.

FACTS IN BRIEF

7. It is submitted that one Sri. Erappa S/o Muniyappa (incorrectly

stated as “S/o Venkatappa”) sold the Suit Schedule Property in

favour of one Smt. Eramma W/o G.Munishamappa bearing

Sy.No.148 (incorrectly stated as “ Sy.No 140”)measuring 2 Acres 06

Guntas situated at Bidarahalli Hobli vide Registered Sale Deed dated

02/01/1965 bearing Number 3003/1964-65 before the Sub-

Registrar, Hoskote. The said property was bounded by:

East: Property belonging to Sri. Doddamuniswami’s land

West: Property belonging to Sri. Adi Karnatak Mottappa

North: Property belonging to Sri. Chikka Ramiah

South: Property belonging to Sri. Pappiah

A copy of the Sale Deed dated 02/01/1965 is produced as

Document No. D 1.

8. It is submitted that the said Smt. Eramma subsequently noticed an

inadvertent error in the above mentioned Sale Deed dated

02/01/1965 as regards the Sy.No of the Schedule Property and the

name of the Vendor in the said Sale Deed. Since there was a

substantial lapse in time of around 30 years, and the said Vendor –

Sri Erappa had deceased with no legal heirs, Smt. Eramma preferred

an application before the Tahsildhar, Bengaluru South Taluk for

rectification of the errors in the said Sale Deed. The said application
 sought for rectification of the Sy.No of Sale Deed dated 02/01/1965

and the name of the Vendor – Sri. Erappa.

9. It is submitted that the Tahsildhar, Bengaluru South Taluk

considered the application preferred by Smt. Eramma and passed

order dated 14/03/1996 in favour of Smt. Eramma. The said Order

dated 14/03/1996 took into consideration the boundaries of the

Schedule Property in Sale Deed dated 02/01/1965 which although

reflected “Sy.No 140”, was in fact “Sy.No 148” since the boundaries of

the Schedule Property tallied with that of Sy.No 148. It is further

submitted that the Tahsildhar, also permitted rectification of the

name of the vendor, from “Sri. Erappa S/o Venkatappa” to “Sri.

Erappa S/o Muniyappa”. A copy of the Order passed by the

Tahsildhar, Bengaluru South taluk dated 14/03/1996 is hereby

produced as Document No. D -2.

10. It is further submitted that the effect of the said Order passed by the

Tahsildhar, Bengaluru South was to be reflected in Revenue Entries

and therefore be suitably modified. Therefore, it is submitted that

pursuant to the Order passed by the Tahsildhar, the mutation

entiries were suitably modified and reflected in MR 19/1995-96 on

27/03/1996, in the Panchayathi Records of Bommanahalli Village. A

copy of the Mutation Register bearing MR 19/1995-96 is hereby

produced as Document No. D-3.

11. It is submitted that the said Smt. Eramma continued to exercise

absolute ownership in respect of the Suit Schedule Property. It is

submitted that Defendant No.1 – Late Sri. K Mohan Reddy thereafter

came to acquire the Suit Schedule Property vide Sale Deed dated

13/03/1997 from Smt. Eramma. The said Sale Deed dated

13/03/1997 is registered as Document No. 4139/1996-97 of Book-1,

 Volume 1378 at Page 6 to 13 registered in the office of the Sub-

Registrar, K.R.Puram Bangalore. A copy of the Sale Deed dated

13/03/1997 is produced as Document No. D-4.

12. It is submitted that Late Sri. Mohan Reddy continued to exercise

absolute ownership of the Suit Schedule Property. Defendant No.1,

by way of Will and Testament dated 12/08/2015, bequeathed the

Suit Schedule Property in favour of his cousin- one Sri. K Sudhakar

Reddy. The said Will is registered bearing Identification Number –

917-III-279-2015 in the office of the Joint Subregistrar, Nellore. A

copy of the Will dated 12/08/2015 is hereby produced as Document

No. D-5.

13. It is submitted that Defendant No.1 passed away on 15/07/2019 at

Nellore. It is submitted that said beneficiary of the Will, Sri. K

Sudhakar Reddy preferred probate proceedings in respect of the Will

dated 12/08/2015, and came to file P & SC 33/2019 before the

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru

and the said Petition came to be allowed vide Order dated

30/06/2022 and probate was granted in favour of K. Sudhakar

Reddy in respect of the Suit Schedule Property. It is further

submitted that Sri. Sudhakar Reddy stands as owner exercising

absolute right, title and interest in respect of the Suit Schedule

Property. A copy of the Death Certificate dated 15/07/2019 is hereby

produced as Document No. D-6. A copy of the Order dated

30/06/2022 in P& SC 33/2019 is hereby produced as Document

No. D-7.

14. It is submitted that the Defendant No.2- M/s Vars and Kens

Developers, is a Registered Partnership Firm, engaged in the

business of Development of Layouts, construction of houses, multi-

 storied Residential Building. It is submitted that one of the Partners

of the said Firm is one – Sri. Sudhakar Reddy. It is submitted that

the said Sri- Sudhakar Reddy has come to acquire absolute

ownership of the Suit Schedule Property through testamentary

succession. A copy of the Reconstituted Partnership Deed dated

01/09/2006 is hereby produced as Document No. D-8.

15. It is submitted that the Plaintiffs’ case is devoid of an iota of merit

and have preferred the instant suit to maliciously enrich themselves

and the cost of the Defendant. In view of the forgoing, it is

abundantly clear that that no cause of action has been made out

against the Defendant No.2. The Cause of action illustrated is merely

illusory and has been crafted to suit the needs of the Plaintiffs. The

Plaint deserves to be dismissed in limine.

16. In addition to the facts and circumstances, the averments made by

the Plaintiffs are traversed as hereunder:

17. Re Paragraph 1 and 2: Averments made in these paragraphs are not

subject matter for traversal.

18. Re Paragraph 3: The averments as regard the particulars and

description of the Suit Schedule Property are admitted. The

averments as regard one Sri. Erappa having title over the Suit

Schedule Property is herein partly admitted, to the extent that he has

title over the Suit Schedule Property until the same was purchased

by Smt. Eramma . It is further submitted that Defendant No.1 came

to acquire the Suit Schedule Property from Smt. Eramma vide Sale

Deed dated 13/03/1997, who in-turn had purchased the same from

one Sri. Erappa vide Sale Deed dated 02/01/1965 registered as

Document No. 3003/64-65. It is submitted that the averments as

regard the family members of the Plaintiff and their inter-relationship

 is not within the knowledge of the Defendant herein. It is submitted

that the averment as regard the possession of the Suit Schedule

Property being in the Plaintiff is vehemently denied as false and

baseless. It is submitted that the Sri. K Sudhakar Reddy is the

absolute owner of the Suit Schedule Property which is a vacant site,

and he has been in possession of the Suit Schedule Property since

the demise of Defendant No.1. It is submitted that the averments as

regard the Suit Schedule Property being Gomala land and being

granted to SC ST people etc. is not within the knowledge of the

Defendant herein. It is not within the knowledge of the Defendant

herein that the Plaintiffs belong to SC ST community and that there

were any conditions regarding non-alienation of the Suit Schedule

Property.

19. Re Paragraph 4: The averments as regard the Plaintiffs constitute and

are living as an Undivided Joint Family is not within the knowledge of

the Defendant herein. The averment regarding the nature of the Suit

Schedule Property being agricultural in nature is vehemently denied

as the same is converted to non-agricultural purposes. The averment

as regard the Suit Schedule Property being granted by the

Government in favour of the one –Sri. Erappa is not within the

knowledge of the Defendant herein. It is however, herein admitted

that Sri. Erappa is the Son of one Sri. Muniyappa. The averments as

regard the Plaintiffs being the legal heirs of one Sri. Erappa is not

within the knowledge of the Defendant herein. The averments as

regard the Plaintiffs being in possession of the Suit Schedule Property

is vehemently denied as false. It is submitted that one Sri.Sudhakar

is exercising absolute ownership over the Suit Schedule Property

and consequently is in possession of the Schedule Property.

20. Re Paragraph 5: The averments as regard whether the revenue

entries at any given point of time stood in the name of the Plaintiffs is

not within the knowledge of the Defendant herein. It is submitted

that the averment regarding the Defendant having colluded with

Revenue Authorities and changed the Khata in its favour is

vehemently denied as false, and constitute a figment of the Plaintiffs’

imagination. It is submitted that pursuant to the application

preferred by Smt. Eramma before the Tahsildhar, Bengaluru South

Taluk regarding rectification of the Sale Deed dated 02/01/1965 and

Orders passed therein, MR 19/1995-96 dated 26/03/2965 was

effected. The averment as regard Defendant No.1 having sold the Suit

Schedule Property in favour of Defendant No.2 is vehemently denied

as false and lacks an iota or merit. The averment as regard

consequent to such sale, were the revenue entries/khatha altered on

26/03/2996 is vehemently denied as false and baseless. It is

submitted that the defendant herein had no point colluded with any

officials towards having revenue entries altered, and Defendant No.1

has never alienated the Suit Schedule Property in favour of

Defendant No.2. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has also made

averments arraigning Defendant No.4, when in fact the presence of

Defendant No.4 is itself not forthcoming from the Plaint, clearly

indicating that the Plaintiffs have instituted the above suit with facts

and circumstances arising out of their imagination. The averments as

regard the Plaintiffs being in possession of the Suit Schedule Property

is vehemently denied as false. It is submitted that the Suit Schedule

Property was converted to non-agricultural purposes vide Order

dated ( ) . It is submitted that such conversion was converted as per

law and averments regarding its purported illegality is vehemently

denied as false and baseless. It categorically submitted that the

Plaintiffs are not in possession of the Suit Schedule Property, and Sri.
 Sudhakar Reddy herein is in possession of the Suit Schedule

Property and intends develop the same.

21. Re Paragraph 6: The averments as regard the family members of the

Plaintiff is not within the knowledge of the Defendant herein. The

Defendant herein, does not possess knowledge of the family members

or the imaginary “Appellants” as indicated in the Plaint.

22. Re Paragraph 7: The averments as regard the Plaintiffs family

members is not within the knowledge of the Defendant herein. It is

submitted that the averment as regard there being no partition

between the Plaintiffs is not within the knowledge of the Defendant

herein. The averment as regard the Plaintiff being governed by Hindu

Mithakshara School of Law is also not within the knowledge of the

Defendant herein.

23. Re Paragraph 8: The averments as regard Defendant No.1 having

colluded with Revenue Authority is vehemendly denied as untrue and

false. The averments as regard Defendant No.1 having sold the Suit

Schedule Property in favour of Defendant No.2 and illegally converted

the same to non-agricultural land is also vehemently denied as

erroneous. The averments as regard Defendant No.2 or his purported

goonda elements are vehemently denied as false and incorrect. It is

submitted that the Plaintiffs who are sufficiently aware of the right,

title and interest of one Sri.Eramma from time immemorial an there

24. Re Paragraph 9: The averments as regard the family members of the

Plaintiff is not within the knowledge of the Defendant herein. The

averment as regard the Plaintiffs not having sold the Suit Schdule

Property in favour of Defendant No.1 is herein admitted. It is

 submitted that the one Sri. Erappa sold the suit schedule property in

favour of the one Smt. Eramma who in turn sold the Suit Schedule

Property in favour of Defendant No.1 vide Sale Deed dated

13/03/1997. The averments as regard creation of bogus revenue

entries etc. is vehemently denied as false and baseless. It is

submitted that the revenue entry referred to by the Plaintiffs as MR

19/1995-96 is in fact an effect or the Order passed by the

Tahsildhar, Bengaluru South Taluk on rectification of the Sale Deed

which is hereby produced as Document No. 2 & 3.

25. Re Paragraph 10: It is submitted that the averments as regard the

Plaintiffs being illiterate is not within the knowledge of the Defendant

herein. It is further submitted that the averments, as regard the

cause of delay in approaching the Revenue Authorities being such

illiteracy is vehemently denied as false and baseless. It is submitted

that the Plaintiffs are well aware that the Suit Schedule Property

belonged to Smt. Eramma and have accepted the title that

Smt.Eramma exercised over the Suit Schedule Property, and thereby

acted accordingly. It is submitted that averments as regard the

Plaintiffs having approached the Revenue Authority to enter their

names in the RTC etc. is not within the knowledge of the Defendant

herein. It is hereby admitted that the Defendant have recently learnt

of the proceedings in RA(BE) 179/2021 and are appropriately

contesting and defending the same before the concerned authorities.

26. Re Paragraph 11: The averments to the extent that the Defendants

having obtained Khata and RTC in their favour, by virtue of the MR

19/1995-96 dated 26/03/1996 is admitted. It is submitted that the

averments as regard the Defendant having colluded with any

 officials/Revenue Authority is denied as absolutely false and

baseless. It is further submitted that the Defendants have been

exercising their absolute right, title and interest over the Schedule

Property and therefore are in possession of the Suit Schedule

Property. Averments as to obtaining a purported illegal khata etc. are

vehemently denied as false and baseless. The averments as regard a

purported General Power of Attorney holder are incorrigible and

appear to be an imagination of the Plaintiffs herein.

27. Re Paragraph 12 & 13: The averments as to goonda elements acting

at the behest of the Defendant are vehemently denied as false and

baseless. It is submitted that the Defendant No.2 is a Partnership

Firm engaged in the construction and development business. It is

further submitted that the Defendant No.2 is also the absolute owner

of surrounding properties which it intends to develop. It is submitted

that Sri. K Sudhakar Reddy has acquired absolute right, title and

interest and has always been in possession of the Suit Schedule

Property. It is submitted that the averments as regard any goonda

elements acting at the behest of the Defendants is hereby vehemently

denied as false and baseless. It is further submitted that the

averments that the Plaintiffs belonging to weaker sections of society

etc. is not within the knowledge of the Defendant herein. It is

submitted that the Plaintiffs have only been hoodwinking this Hon’ble

Court as regard their purported social position. It is further

submitted that the averments as regard the local police not taking

action etc. is not within the knowledge of the Defendant herein. It is

submitted that, it is in fact the Plaintiffs herein who have been

interfering with the Defendant’s peaceful possession by introducing

goonda elements etc. in disrupting the peaceful possession of the

Defendant who have exercised their right, title and interest over the
 Suit Schedule Property. The Plaintiffs case lacks an iota of merit and

appears to arise out of a fictitious cause of action.

28. Re Paragraph 14 to 18: The said paragraphs are matters of record

and need not need traversal.

29. The entire averments made in the Plaint are devoid of merits and the

Plaintiff has no semblance of right, title and interest in the Schedule

Property.

30. The Defendant No.2 reserves its right to file additional Written

Statement in case of need during the pendency of the proceedings, in

the event the circumstances warrant.

31. All other averments made in the Plaint not specifically traversed

herein which are contrary to this Written Statement are denied as

false.

WHEREFORE, Defendant No.2 above named prays that this Hon’ble

COurt maybe pleased to dismiss the instant suit, with exemplary costs in

the interest of justice and equity.

Advocate for Defendant No.2 Defendant No.2

VERIFICATION

VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT