Injunction Suit And Plaint Drafted In A Specific Case

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dvn.), TUMKUR ORIGINAL SUIT No. BETWEEN: SHANTHADURGADEVI W/o Dr. M.R. HULINAYKAR, Aged about 60 years, Working as Trustee of Shri Shridevi Charitable Trust® Tumkur R/at SHIVADEEPTI, SIDDAGANGA EXTN, 3 RD CROSS TUMKUR …

/2008

PLAINTIFF

AND: 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, Tumkur District, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA TUMKUR. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, Tumkur Sub-Division, Mini Vidhana Soudha, TUMKUR. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, TUMKUR TALUK, Mini Vidhana Soudha TUMKUR.

…………… DEFENDANTS

PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 26 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: The Plaintiff above named most humbly submits as follows:

1.

The addresses of the parties for the purpose of service of summons and notices of this Hon’ble Court are as stated above in the cause title. The Plaintiff

may

RAGHAVENDRA.Y

also

be

Advocates,

served LEGAL

through

his

DOCUMENTATIONS,

Counsels G.K.

SRIDHARABABU.N

ROAD,

K.R.

&

EXTENSION,

TUMKUR-572101.

2.

The

plaintiff

humbly

submits

that,

The

Defendant

No.1

is

the

representative head of the Government of Karnataka. The Defendant No.2 is the head of the Tumkur District Administration. Defendant No.3 is the sub-division head of revenue affairs. Defendants No.4 is the Taluk head of revenue affairs. They are all together the

Officers in-charge of all the revenue affairs

of

Tumkur District.

3.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, The Plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. She had acquired the Schedule Property through a registered Sale Deed dated 01-08-1998, executed by one Shri T.B. Anandarao s/o T.R. Bheemsenrao, Tumkur.

A copy of the said

Document is herewith produced for the kind perusal of this Honourable Court.

4.

The

plaintiff

humbly

submits

that,

T.R.

Bheemsenrao

s/o

S.

Ramachandrarao got the suit schedule property from the ‘panchayathi parikathu’ in 1933 and later executed will conferring right on T.B. Anandarao to succeed to the suit schedule property. The other brothers of T.B. Anandarao gave NOC to change of Khatha. Accordingly 4th defendant through his order dated 13-07-1998 in RRT (Dis) 65/97-98 changed Khatha entries to T.B. Anandarao’s name.

5.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, Ramachandra Rao s/o Shyamarao got the suit

schedule

property

from

one

Sheebaiah

through

registered

gift

deed.

Sheebaiah Gifted land consisting of Thopu (Trees) for Dharma Karya transferring absolute interest to donee. property

land

Sheebaiah & Venkatachalaiah got

from sale deed executed by Tulasamma w/o

fifty rupees each. Later Venkatachalaiah executed

suit schedule

Narasingarao for

his share to Sheebaiah. By

the gift deed Sheebaiah transferred land to Ramachandrarao s/o Shyamarao.

The

erst while owners as donee’s enjoyed the land from 1886 without any obstruction from any authorities until they legally transferred the land for sale to this plaintiff. The mother deed that is Gift deed executed in 1886 is produced

for

the kind perusal of this Honourable Court.

6.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, the suit schedule property came under maralenahalli survey number 28 by then in 1886 the total extent of that survey number

26 acres

7 guntas

present extent

is 18

acres 08.19.21

guntas, the

remaining extent is merged in neighbouring grama that is lingapura, to obtain those

relevant

defendant’s, availability

records

they of

plaintiff

are

old

repeatedly

revenue

and

her

issuing

records.

In

vendors

have

endorsements

totality

suit

4 th

approached about

the

schedule

non-

property

originally formed out of maralenahalli grama which is adjacent to the border of lingapura grama. Previously vendors of this plaintiff had title and possession to maralenahalli and lingapura survey number in the suit schedule property. To evidence the fact phanies of survey number 28 and list is produced for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.

7.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, The suit schedule property is Hiduvali land with private rights, the said land was cultivated with trees, the said trees were used for Dharma Karya by the title holders and the revenue exemption was obtained by the erstwhile owners and by then it was treated as Dharmadhaya Inam land. Owner was given as Inamdar status. The land is not a granted land. Private land with inam concessions. Later the same was converted from inam patta to sarkari patta by quoting the name of occupant as THOPU in the oldest revenue

record

available

in

the

form

of

Khethuvaru

Pathrike.

Extract

of

KETHUVARU PATRIKE is herewith produced for the kind perusal of this Honourable Court. Although 1886 title deed confers absolute title to donee, the revenue records were not properly entered from earlier time.

8.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, The oldest revenue document that is available with the revenue department is ‘quit rent register’, the copy of said register although with 4th defendant and the entries were commented by the predecessor officers of 4th defendant positions, the similar same revenue old records were repeatedly destroyed by defendants officers to help ill-conceived plans of politicians and land maphia elements. In quit rent register there is no fixation of either rent or Revenue over the land, only previous Revenue is shown, The title deed number is shown all these shows that the said land is held on the basis of title deed, previous to that inam grant it was Hiduvali land with land Revenue, Inam was granted not as land grant, but as revenue exemption

for

up

keep

of

Thopu

(Trees)

which

was

considered

by

erstwhile

administrators that growing trees as shelter to travelers is a DHARMA karya. Quit Rent register extract is mis-interpreted by 2 nd defendant out of ill-will and disrespect towards law.

9.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, Another oldest document available with Revenue department that is 4th defendant is ‘PHAISAL PATRIKE’, a copy of it is available with plaintiff. Defendant’s are trying to destroy old records just to satisfy some politically motivated persons. In the said document ‘DHARMADHA

THOPU’ is rounded off and name of ‘Ramachandrarao s/o Shyamarao No: 90/1886’ was entered, such old records certified copy was obtained by vendors

were

purposefully destroyed by the 2 to 4 defendants. The copy is produced for kind perusal of Hon’ble court.

10.

The acquisition

plaintiff

of

title

humbly

and

submits

possession

that,

Ever

through

the

since

from

registered

the

sale

date

deed,

of the

Plaintiff is continuously enjoying the suit Schedule Property uninterruptedly. The Plaintiff is making the payment of taxes to the authorities concerned in respect of the suit schedule property periodically. Except the Plaintiff no other

person/s

having

any

manner

of

right,

title

or

interest

much-less

possession over the Schedule property. The documents concerned in respect of the payment of upto date taxes to the authorities concerned and the of

Mutation

Register

are

herewith

produced

for

the

kind

perusal

Extract of

this

Honourable Court.

11.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, It is fraudulently tried by enemies of plaintiff’s vendors and some officers under the defendants to show rights of plaintiff’s vendors ownership limited to trees over the land, in phani entries. Local

officials

in

collusion

with

some

politicians,

in

order

to

grab

plaintiff’s vendors possession and ownership hatched a plan to start litigation in respect to right over the trees in suit schedule property. It is plaintiff’s vendors Mr Anandrao who went first to High Court (WP No: 28816/1996) alleging unauthorized interference by government and illegal order regarding rights in trees. This fact is overlooked by 2 nd defendant with ulterior motive to satisfy the political land maphia elements who are posing themselves with desperation in guise of safe guarders of public property. A copy of the said order in WP No: 28816/1996 is herewith produced for the kind perusal of this Honourable Court.

12.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, On 18-07-1998 an order was passed in RRT (Dis):65/97-98 by Tahsildar of Tumkur, that is 4 th respondent in his quasi judicial capacity with reasons, the judgement itself is self explanatory as to nature of right decided. A copy of the said order in RRT (Dis):65/97-98 is herewith produced for the kind perusal of this Honourable Court. The said order remained unchallenged by any of the parties in a proper forum, within the prescribed period. The 2nd defendant used his suo-motto powers of revision only after

3

years

of

limited

period

which

is

highly

illegal

and

needs

to

be

condemned for non observation of law.

13.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, The subsequent incumbent 4th defendant in his executive capacity reports to his superiors that is 2nd

defendant by

allegating several points disputing correctness of quasi-judicial decision of his predecessor, this attitude is illegal and shows some enmity and political motivation behind such move.

14.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, 4th defendant in RRT (Dis) 65/97-98 Pronounced orders on 13-07-1998. As per the legal procedure Under Proviso to Section 56(3) of The Karnataka Land Revenue act, suo-motto Revenue officer can exercise revision powers only within 3 years from the date of order. For other purposes of private parties filing Revision Petition 4 months is the limitation prescribed in Section 56(3). Such Legal provisions were violated in treating the Revision petition RP 72/2000-01 as maintainable. The 2nd defendant framed a record showing the maintainability question in fact such order was not passed on that tampered date. The copy of order sheet shows tampering and fabrication

by 2nd defendant in its page five. A copy of the said order sheet is herewith produced for the kind perusal of this Honourable Court.

15.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, The 2 nd defendant on 03-12-2001 suo motto registered a case of Revision Petition, without any petition from any parties and treated some baseless representations as petitions, to claim title on behalf of government. Neither any representative from government nor any responsible

citizen

submitted

any

records

to

claim

title

on

behalf

of

government in the suo-motto revision petition. The said revision petition is ill-conceived

one

just

to

knock

off

the

property

of

this

plaintiff.

The

plaintiff participated in the said proceedings with all objections, hoping to get justice done in due course of time.

16.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, Inspite of contentions and report from Tahsildar 4th defendant he is neither arraigned as petitioner or some one on behalf government represented the proceedings in RP 72/2000-01 forward

their

Officer

Role

claims and

of

ownership

Claimant nd

Commissioner that is 2

on

of

Government.

behalf

of

Here

Government

both

is

to put

the

played

presiding by

Deputy

defendant violating legal principle “One should not

decide his cause”. The whole meaning of ‘REVISION PETITION’ is illegally misutilised by 2nd defendant as civil suit to claim title on behalf of government. Instead of going to civil court to prove their any rights with documents 2nd defendant

exercised

his

revision

powers

as

a

civil

court

which

is

highly

illegal and against the laid down law and procedure.

17.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, The 2nd defendant failed to understand the basic concept of “Land” as explained in The Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964, in Section 2(14). The explanation is sufficient to declare the rights of erstwhile owners to land also. Section 2(14) says “Land includes benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to any thing attached to the earth, and also shares in, or charges on, the revenue or

rent

or

villages

or

other

defined

areas.”

The

said

law

of

land

is

overlooked by 2nd defendant under the ill-conceived plans of politicians and land maphia elements.

18.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, The oldest revenue document that is available with the revenue department is quit rent register, the copy of said register although with 4th defendant and the entries were commented by the erstwhile officers of 4th defendant positions, the similar same revenue old records were repeatedly destroyed by defendants officers to help ill-conceived plans of politicians and land maphia elements. In quit rent register there is no fixation of either rent or Revenue over the land, only previous Revenue is shown, The title deed number is shown all these shows that the said land is held on the basis of title deed, previous to that inam grant it was Hiduvali land with land Revenue, Inam was granted not as land grant, but as revenue exemption

for

up

keep

of

Thopu

(Trees)

which

was

considered

by

erstwhile

administrators that growing trees as shelter to travelers is a DHARMA karya. Quit Rent register extract is mis-interpreted by 2 nd defendant out of ill-will and disrespect towards law.

19.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, one T.R. Rajarao s/o Late T. Ramachandrarao along with him one T.V. Gurunath s/o late Vasudevarao filed Writ Petition

38014/99

before

the

Hon’ble

High

Court

of

Karnataka

in

which

defendant’s herein are parties, in that WP also the petitioners sought quashing of sale deed of this plaintiff, the said WP is dismissed on 16-12-1999 at preliminary

hearing

itself

as

not

maintainable.

Till

present

date

either

defendant’s herein or any public have filed any case seeking quashing of either gift deed (mother deed) or sale deed(title deed) of this plaintiff in competent court of law. By not following appropriate procedure defendants are trying to deprive the rights of plaintiff which is against the principles enshrined in Constitution of India.

20.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, some persons filed Writ petitions in the form of PIL before Hon’ble High Court Of Karnataka seeking quashing of sale deed and mutation of plaintiff herein and in the said order of WP No: 4430 of 2000 it is observed by Hon’ble High Court that “There is no public interest involved and grievance of the petitioners cannot be investigated by this court in this petition.” Later a memo was filed by petitioners to withdraw the WP and such withdrawl was permitted with specific order “This petition is dismissed as withdrawn

with

Commissioner,

liberty if

they

reserved are

so

to

the

advised,

petitioners and

in

to

approach

accordance

with

the

Deputy

law”.

The

defendants herein except that of 2nd defendant are very much parties to the said WP. Mis interpreting the said order 2 nd respondent without any formal Revision Petition started the proceedings on suo-motto by impleading the petitioners of above WP as parties. This highly illegal procedure adopted by 2 nd defendant just to harass the plaintiff and blackmail this plaintiff to cough up in a corrupt way.

21.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, 2 nd defendant vide his order in RP:72/2000-01 at page 2 has illegally quoted WP 4420/2000 “F ªÀÄzsÉå JªÀiï.f. £ÀlgÁdÄ

©£ï

¯ÉÃmï

UÀAUÀ¥Àà

JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ

¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ

»vÁ¸ÀQÛ

zÀÆgÀÄ

zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ qÀ§Æè÷å.¦ £ÀA 4420/2000 gÀ ªÀÄzsÀåAvÀgÀ DzÉñÀ ºÁUÀÄ zÀÆj£À°è JwÛgÀĪÀ

CA±ÀUÀ½UÉ

CªÀPÁ±À

¤Ãr,

C£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV

PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ

¥ÀæPÁgÀ

wêÀiÁð¤¸À®Ä ¸ÀPÁðj

G¨sÀAiÀÄvÀæAiÀÄjUÀÆ

d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß

PÁ¥ÁqÀĪÀ°è

PÀæªÀÄvÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ ºÁUÀÆ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ PÀæªÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¸À®Ä ¤ÃrzÀÝgÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ F £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½AzÀ PÀqÀvÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ PÉ.J¯ï.Dgï. PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 136(2) gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è Dgï.¦. 72/00-01 gÀAvÉ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹PÉÆAqÀ G¨sÀAiÀÄvÀægÀgÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ ºÁdgÁV vÀªÀÄä CºÀªÁ®Ä ¸À°è¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¤ÃqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.” There is no such writ petition by the above number related to the suit schedule property, after verifying the number through High Court Website it is found that the case is between M. Ponnadasu v/s The PSI Virajpet Town Police station, that writ was related to madikere district, last action taken was rejected. 2nd respondent with malicious intention and just to grab the suit schedule property of plaintiff has quoted an order which is fake and created one, in the said way many non-existing facts without any documentary evidence was relied upon by 2 nd defendant to pass an illegal orders without justification of law and Jurisdiction. Only civil court is having rights to declare the ownership rights of any person including that of Government. The complete copy of order is produced for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.

22.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, a copy of proceedings of the Government of his Highness the maharaja of mysore (Revenue)- dated 24th January 1895 with No: 12534-44-R.F. 116-92, Dated, Bangalore, 24th January 1895, which is brought to the knowledge of 2nd defendant about the facts that there was an order as per prevailing practice in and around 1880 and thereafter “Public Topes have been entered in the survey registers as ‘Kharab Land’ and that the rights of the planters such as for instance taking dead trees and branches, enjoying the produce of the trees, have been rendered in the Faisal patrikaas, all topes in which no such private rights exist being shown as ‘Government Topes’. In the plaintiff vendor case also there is no clinch of evidence to show that oldest records with revenue department is either mentioned in above

names. Only ‘Dharma Thopu’ is mentioned and in faisal patrika such word is replaced with owners name. But with malafide intention defendant’s from time immemorial troubled vendors by listening to the voices of politicians.

23.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, 4 th defendant has issued notice to Bheemsenrao s/o S. Ramachandrarao recognizing his possession and ownership in the suit schedule property in the year 1967 itself. The copy of such notice is produced for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.

24.

The Plaintiff humbly submits that, vendors of plaintiff made one registered

agreement

of

partnership

with

one

Muslim

dated

20-11-1963

vide

number 4718/1963-64 regarding suit schedule property and other lands and topes. There was a dispute between the said person and vendors of this plaintiff. The said dispute went from Munsiff court and land tribunal to the High Court of Karnataka and at lastly it was settled after long battle from 1973 to 1986. Several observations were made in the relavant litigations, several petitions to

police

and

documents

in

respect

to

above

involving

defendant’s

herein

clearly shows that defendants are very much aware of the plaintiff vendor’s title and possession. The copy of said documents are produced for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.

25.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, There is a mis-interpretation of KHARAB land by 2nd defendant, vide his illegal orders in Revision Petition, it goes on to an extent to say all kharab lands are govt lands.

In Saudagar asul

vs State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 1973 Kar 56. The title to kharab land is clarified by Hon,ble Karnataka High Court.

“Kharab land is uncultivable land

classified for the purposes of revenue exemption. It cannot be regarded as adjunct

to

cultivable

adjoining land.

cultivable

Kharab

land

is

land,

which

gets

also

capable

of

transferred ownership

along

which

with

must

be

acquired in the same way as cultivable land.” This shows 2nd defendant is having least respect towards Judicial orders.

26.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, Although It is observed by Tahsildar Tumkur that is 4th defendant in a letter Written to 2nd defendant dated 18-10-1997 Ref No: RRT:CR:736: 97-98, that in 1923-24 Khethuvaru Nakalu contains words “THOPU” in Hiduvalidhara Column. The suit schedule property is given names of gundthopu,

dharmathopu in later columns of revenue record

entries without any justified orders in mutation just to harass the serial owners of suit schedule property. The said extract of Khetuvaru Patrike is produced for kind perusal of Hon’ble court.

27.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, an agent of plaintiff asked 4th defendant to provide information regarding a register extract’s of GIDAPATRIKE’

that has to be compulsorily maintained by 4

th

‘HIDUVALI

defendant office

under Land Revenue rules. The 4th defendant issued an endorsement on 07-08-2008 stating there is no such register with respect to either maralenahalli or lingapura. This shows there is no government land in such grama’s, inspite of such facts the defendant’s are trying to create malicious orders and fake entries to grab the plaintiff’s suit schedule property. Such Hiduvali Gida Patrike was maintained from 1880 itself there was a government order to such extent in Government of his Highness the maharaja of mysore (Revenue)- dated 24th January 1895 with No: 12534-44-R.F. 116-92, Dated, Bangalore, 24 th January 1895, later Order of his Highness maharaja of mysore in order No: R 7692702/L.R.

68-27-16

Dated,

Bangalore,

the

28th

may

1930.

Later

on

03-11-1988

Additional secretary Revenue Department Government of Karnataka issued an order in RD 25 LGP 87, stating how to maintain Hiduvali Gida Patrika, to all the

tahsildars of taluks. The copies of Government orders are produced for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.

28.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, The encumbrance certificate is produced in respect to suit schedule property to show that there is no other entries from 01-01-1886 to 19-11-1998, except that of plaintiff’s vendors gift deed and plaintiff’s sale deed. The copy of encumbrance certificate is produced for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.

29.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, On 31-10-1967 a letter from tahsildar (4th defendant herein) is addressed to Shri Bheemasenrao father of plaintiff’s

vendor

to

cut

off

several

branches

of

trees

which

is

making

troubles to neighbouring land owners, this factual history are over looked by defendants. The plaintiff’s vendors possession and ownership is continuously recognized by defendants, and now after much development in the area wants to grab that land for some political bosses. The copy of such letter is produced for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.

30.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, The plaintiff and her family members are

scared and

they are

suffering from

mental agony.

The persons

who are

supposed to be the protectors/guardians of public rights themselves prepared to brake/violate

the

law.

Hence

having

no

other

alternative,

effective,

efficacious, expeditious remedy the plaintiff is approaching this Hon’ble Court seeking the protection to her ownership and possession over the suit schedule property for which she deserves rightly.

31.

The Plaintiff respectfully submits that the prior notice to the Defendants may change the scenario and it may push the Plaintiff into much trouble.

Hence

he

prays

for

the

dispensation

of

the

prior

notice

to

the

Defendants.

32.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, Though the Plaintiff is a valid purchaser of the Schedule Property facing threat of dispossession by the hands of

these Defendants,

the Plaintiff

is suffering

for no

fault of

her. The

Plaintiff’s lawful right, title, interest and possession are being invaded with by the acts of the Defendants. The act of the Defendants is highly deplorable and should be checked immediately otherwise it will leads to many complications and multiplicity of proceedings.

33.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, After passing of illegal orders by the 2nd defendant plaintiff approached Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, through writ proceedings in WP NO: 11504/2008 (KLR), wherein Hon’ble court has directed this plaintiff to approach civil court and

Hon’ble court also

stayed the

orders of 2nd defendant.

34.

The plaintiff humbly submits that, The Cause of Action for this suit arose

on 09-06-2008 being the date on which the Defendant No.2 passed the

illegal

orders

without

jurisdiction

and

to

handover

the

ownership

and

possession of the suit schedule property. The same is continuous and subsisting one. Later on 29-08-2008 when Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka directed this plaintiff to approach civil court by staying the orders of 2 nd defendant. Later 4th defendant purposefully avoided to receive representations given on 01-092008.

The same is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Hence, this

Suit for Several Reliefs.

35.

For the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued as per the annexed Valuation Slip and a fixed Court Fee is paid on the Plaint. A separate Valuation Slip is filed along with this Plaint.

36.

The Plaintiff further submits that, she has not filed any other Suit, Petition or Application initiating any other proceedings before any Court or Authority in respect of the subject matter, except that of writ petition as said above, against the Defendant’s seeking the same relief sought in this Suit. And no such Suit, Petition or Application is pending as of now.

37. The

plaintiff humbly submits that, All the Documents concerned are produced

vide List of Documents for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court. PRAYER WHEREFORE, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the Plaintiff most respectfully prays that, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to PASS: i.

An Order of Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents,

servants, representatives, any body acting under them from interfering with the Plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property;

ii.

FOR COST AND GRANT of such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to

grant under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the property situating in Sy. No.28 of lingapura Village, Kasaba Hobali, Tumkur Taluk

measuring 5 acres-11 Guntas bounded on,

East by

: Sira Road,

West by

: Property of Shridevi Charitable Trust,

North by

: Rice mill property,

South by

: Road.

ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFF VERIFICATION

I, Shanthadurgadevi w/o. M.R.Hulinaykar, the Plaintiff above named do hereby declare that what is stated above are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

PLACE: TUMKUR DATED:

PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dvn.), TUMKUR ORIGINAL SUIT No.

BETWEEN shanthadurgadevi

/2008 PLAINTIFF

…

AND: The chief secretary And Others

…

DEFENDANTS VALUATION SLIP

The suit is one for Permanent Injunction. For the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction, the Plaintiff above named values the above case at Rs.1,000/- and a fixed Court Fee of Rs.25/- paid on the Plaint as per section 26(a) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1958.

PLACE: DATED:

TUMKUR

ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dvn.), TUMKUR ORIGINAL SUIT No.

BETWEEN shanthadurgadevi

/2008 PLAINTIFF

…

AND: The chief secretary And Others

DEFENDANTS

…

VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT I shanthadurgadevi w/o m.r. hulinaykar

Aged about 60 years, Residing at someshwara

extension Tumkur, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1.

I submit that I am the Plaintiff in the above case. I am aware of the facts of

the case. Hence, I am swearing to the contents of this affidavit. 2.

I submit that the averments made at Para 1 to 37 of the Plaint are true to the

best of my knowledge, information and belief. 3.

I submit that, the Documents produced as explained in the annexed list of

documents are copies of the Originals. This is my name and signature and contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Identified by me, DEPONENT Advocate, PLACE: TUMKUR DATED: IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dvn.), TUMKUR I.A.NO.

/2008

IN ORIGINAL SUIT No.

/2008

BETWEEN: SHANTHADURGADEVI

…

PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

AND: The CHIEF SECRETARY And Others

…

DEFENDANTS/OPPONENTS

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 & 2 READWITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 The Applicant/Plaintiff in the above case most respectfully submits that, for the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant an exparte ad-interim Order of Temporary Injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, representatives, assignees, or any-body claiming through or under them from interfering

with

the

peaceful

possession

and

enjoyment

of

the

suit

Schedule

Property, pending disposal of the above case, in the interest of justice and equity. SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the property situating in Sy. No.28 of lingapura Village, Kasaba Hobali, Tumkur Taluk

measuring 5 acres-11 Guntas bounded on,

East by

: Sira Road,

West by

: Property of Shridevi Charitable Trust,

North by

: Rice mill property,

South by

: Road. VERIFICATION

I, Shanthadurgadevi w/o. M.R.Hulinaykar, the Plaintiff/Applicant above named do hereby declare

that

what

is

stated

in

schedule

is

true

to

the

best

of

my

knowledge,

information and belief.

PLACE: TUMKUR DATED:

PLAINTIFF

ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dvn.), TUMKUR ORIGINAL SUIT No.

/2008

BETWEEN: SHANTHADURGADEVI

PLAINTIFF

…

AND: The CHIEF SECRETARY And Others

DEFENDANTS

… AFFIDAVIT

I shanthadurgadevi w/o m.r. hulinaykar

Aged about 60 years, Residing at someshwara

extension Tumkur, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

1.

I submit that, I am the Plaintiff in the above case. I am aware of the facts of the case. Hence, I am swearing to the contents of this affidavit.

2.

I submit that, the contents of the Plaint and the Documents referred in the above

case

,

may

kindly

be

read

and

treated

as

part

and

parcel

of

this

Affidavit also.

3.

I Humbly submit that, Iam

the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of

the suit schedule property. I had acquired the Schedule Property through a registered Sale Deed dated 01-08-1998, executed by one Shri T.B. Anandarao s/o T.R. Bheemsenrao, Tumkur.

A copy of the said Document is herewith produced for

the kind perusal of this Honourable Court.

4.

I Humbly submit that, T.R. Bheemsenrao s/o S. Ramachandrarao got the suit schedule property from the ‘panchayathi parikathu’ in 1933 and later executed will

conferring

right

on

T.B.

Anandarao

to

succeed

to

the

suit

schedule

property. The other brothers of T.B. Anandarao gave NOC to change of Khatha. Accordingly 4th defendant through his order dated 13-07-1998 in RRT (Dis) 65/9798 changed Khatha entries to T.B. Anandarao’s name.

5.

I Humbly submit that, Ramachandra Rao s/o Shyamarao got the suit schedule property from one Sheebaiah through registered gift deed. Sheebaiah Gifted land consisting of Thopu (Trees) for Dharma Karya transferring absolute interest to donee.

Sheebaiah & Venkatachalaiah got

sale deed executed by Tulasamma w/o Venkatachalaiah executed

suit schedule property

land

from

Narasingarao for fifty rupees each. Later

his share to Sheebaiah. By the gift deed Sheebaiah

transferred land to Ramachandrarao s/o Shyamarao.

The erst while owners as

donee’s enjoyed the land from 1886 without any obstruction from any authorities until they legally transferred the land for sale to me. The mother deed that is Gift deed executed in 1886 is produced Honourable Court.

for

the

kind

perusal

of

this

6.

I

Humbly

submit

that,

the

suit

schedule

property

came

under

maralenahalli

survey number 28 by then in 1886 the total extent of that survey number 26 acres 7 guntas present extent is 18 acres 08.19.21 guntas, the remaining extent is merged in neighbouring grama that is lingapura, to obtain those relevant records plaintiff and her vendors have approached 4th repeatedly records.

issuing In

totality

maralenahalli Previously

endorsements

grama

vendors

suit

which of

me

about

the

schedule

is had

property

adjacent title

to and

defendant’s, they are

non-availability the

originally border

possession

of to

of

old

revenue

formed

out

lingapura

of

grama.

maralenahalli

and

lingapura survey number in the suit schedule property. To evidence the fact phanies of survey number 28 and list is produced for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.

7.

I Humbly submit that, The suit schedule property is Hiduvali land with private rights, the said land was cultivated with trees, the said trees were used for Dharma Karya by the title holders and the revenue exemption was obtained by the erstwhile owners and by then it was treated as Dharmadhaya Inam land. Owner was given as Inamdar status. The land is not a granted land. Private land with inam concessions. Later the same was converted from inam patta to sarkari patta by quoting the name of occupant as THOPU in the oldest revenue record available in the

form

of

Khethuvaru

Pathrike.

Extract

of

KETHUVARU

PATRIKE

is

herewith

produced for the kind perusal of this Honourable Court. Although 1886 title deed confers absolute title to donee, the revenue records were not properly entered from earlier time.

8.

I Humbly submit that, The oldest revenue document that is available with the revenue department is ‘quit rent register’, the copy of said register although with 4th defendant and the entries were commented by the predecessor officers of 4th defendant positions, the similar same revenue old records were repeatedly destroyed by defendants officers to help ill-conceived plans of politicians and land maphia elements. In quit rent register there is no fixation of either rent or Revenue over the land, only previous Revenue is shown, The title deed number is shown all these shows that the said land is held on the basis of title deed, previous to that inam grant it was Hiduvali land with land Revenue, Inam was granted not as land grant, but as revenue exemption for up keep of Thopu (Trees) which was considered by erstwhile administrators that growing trees as shelter to travelers is a DHARMA karya.

Quit Rent register extract is mis-

interpreted by 2nd defendant out of ill-will and disrespect towards law.

9.

I Humbly submit that, Another oldest document available with Revenue department that is 4th defendant is ‘PHAISAL PATRIKE’, a copy of it is available with plaintiff. Defendant’s are trying to destroy old records just to satisfy some politically

motivated

persons.

In

the

said

document

‘DHARMADHA

THOPU’

is

rounded off and name of ‘Ramachandrarao s/o Shyamarao No: 90/1886’ was entered, such old records certified copy was obtained by vendors

were purposefully

destroyed by the 2 to 4 defendants. The copy is produced for kind perusal of Hon’ble court.

10. I

Humbly submit that, Ever since from the date of acquisition of title and

possession through the registered sale deed, iam

continuously enjoying the

suit Schedule Property uninterruptedly. Iam making the payment of taxes to the authorities concerned in respect of the suit schedule property periodically. Except me no other person/s having any manner of right, title or interest muchless possession over the Schedule property. The documents concerned in respect of

the

payment

of

upto

date

taxes

to

the

authorities

concerned

and

the

Extract of Mutation Register are herewith produced for the kind perusal of this Honourable Court.

11. I

Humbly submit that, It is fraudulently tried by enemies of my vendors and

some officers under the defendants to show rights of my vendors ownership limited to trees over the land, in phani entries. Local officials in collusion with some politicians, in order to grab my vendors possession and ownership hatched a plan to start litigation in respect to right over the trees in suit schedule property. It is my vendors Mr Anandrao who went first to High Court (WP

No:

illegal

28816/1996) order

alleging

regarding

unauthorized

rights

in

trees.

interference This

fact

by

is

government

overlooked

by

and 2nd

defendant with ulterior motive to satisfy the political land maphia elements who are posing themselves with desperation in guise of safe guarders of public property. A copy of the said order in WP No: 28816/1996 is herewith produced for the kind perusal of this Honourable Court.

12. I

Humbly submit that, On 18-07-1998 an order was passed in RRT (Dis):65/97-98

by Tahsildar of Tumkur, that is 4 th respondent in his quasi judicial capacity with reasons, the judgement itself is self explanatory as to nature of right decided. A copy of the said order in RRT (Dis):65/97-98 is herewith produced for

the

kind

perusal

of

this

Honourable

Court.

The

said

order

remained

unchallenged by any of the parties in a proper forum, within the prescribed period. The 2nd defendant used his suo-motto powers of revision only after 3 years of limited period which is highly illegal and needs to be condemned for non observation of law.

13. I

Humbly submit that, The subsequent incumbent 4th defendant in his executive

capacity reports to his superiors that is 2 nd

defendant by allegating several

points disputing correctness of quasi-judicial decision of his predecessor, this attitude is illegal and shows some enmity and political motivation behind such move.

14. I

Humbly submit that, 4th defendant in RRT (Dis) 65/97-98 Pronounced orders on

13-07-1998. As per the legal procedure Under Proviso to Section 56(3) of The Karnataka Land Revenue act, suo-motto Revenue officer can exercise revision powers only within 3 years from the date of order. For other purposes of private parties filing Revision Petition 4 months is the limitation prescribed in Section 56(3). Such Legal provisions were violated in treating the Revision petition

RP

72/2000-01

as

maintainable.

The

2nd

defendant

framed

a

record

showing the maintainability question in fact such order was not passed on that tampered date. The copy of order sheet shows tampering and fabrication by 2 nd defendant in its page five. A copy of the said order sheet is herewith produced for the kind perusal of this Honourable Court.

15. I

Humbly submit that, The 2nd defendant on 03-12-2001 suo motto registered a

case of Revision Petition, without any petition from any parties and treated some

baseless

government.

representations

Neither

any

as

petitions,

representative

from

to

claim

government

title nor

on

any

behalf

of

responsible

citizen submitted any records to claim title on behalf of government in the suo-motto revision petition. The said revision petition is ill-conceived one just to knock off the property of me. I participated in the said proceedings with all objections, hoping to get justice done in due course of time.

16. I

Humbly submit that, Inspite of contentions and report from Tahsildar 4th

defendant

he

is

neither

arraigned

as

petitioner

or

some

one

on

behalf

government represented the proceedings in RP 72/2000-01

to put forward their

claims of ownership of Government. Here both the presiding Officer Role and Claimant on behalf of Government is played by Deputy Commissioner that is 2 nd defendant violating legal principle “One should not decide his cause”. The whole meaning of ‘REVISION PETITION’ is illegally mis-utilised by 2 nd defendant as civil suit to claim title on behalf of government. Instead of going to civil court to prove their any rights with documents 2 nd defendant exercised his revision powers as a civil court which is highly illegal and against the laid down law and procedure.

17. I

Humbly submit thatThe 2nd defendant failed to understand the basic concept of

“Land” as explained in The Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964, in Section 2(14). The explanation is sufficient to declare the rights of erstwhile owners to land also. Section 2(14) says “Land includes benefits to arise out of land, and things attached to the earth, or permanently fastened to any thing attached to the earth, and also shares in, or charges on, the revenue or rent or villages or other defined areas.”

The said law of land is overlooked by 2 nd defendant

under the ill-conceived plans of politicians and land maphia elements.

18. I

Humbly submit that, The oldest revenue document that is available with the

revenue department is quit rent register, the copy of said register although with 4th defendant and the entries were commented by the erstwhile officers of 4th defendant positions, the similar same revenue old records were repeatedly destroyed by defendants officers to help ill-conceived plans of politicians and land maphia elements. In quit rent register there is no fixation of either rent or Revenue over the land, only previous Revenue is shown, The title deed number is shown all these shows that the said land is held on the basis of title deed, previous to that inam grant it was Hiduvali land with land Revenue, Inam was granted not as land grant, but as revenue exemption for up keep of Thopu (Trees) which was considered by erstwhile administrators that growing trees as shelter to travelers is a DHARMA karya. nd

interpreted by 2

19. I

Quit Rent register extract is mis-

defendant out of ill-will and disrespect towards law.

Humbly submit that, one T.R. Rajarao s/o Late T. Ramachandrarao along with

him one T.V. Gurunath s/o late Vasudevarao filed Writ Petition 38014/99 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in which defendant’s herein are parties, in that WP also the petitioners sought quashing of sale deed of this plaintiff, the said WP is dismissed on 16-12-1999 at preliminary hearing itself as not maintainable. Till present date either defendant’s herein or any public have filed any case seeking quashing of either gift deed (mother deed) or sale deed(title

deed)

of

Mine

in

competent

court

of

law.

By

not

following

appropriate procedure defendants are trying to deprive the rights of me which is against the principles enshrined in Constitution of India.

20. I

Humbly submit that, some persons filed Writ petitions in the form of PIL

before

Hon’ble

High

Court

Of

Karnataka

seeking

quashing

of

sale

deed

and

mutation of me and in the said order of WP No: 4430 of 2000 it is observed by Hon’ble High Court that “There is no public interest involved and grievance of the petitioners cannot be investigated by this court in this petition.” Later a memo

was

filed

by

petitioners

to

withdraw

the

WP

and

such

withdrawl

was

permitted with specific order “This petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty reserved to the petitioners to approach the Deputy Commissioner, if they are so advised, and in accordance with law”. The defendants herein except that of 2nd defendant are very much parties to the said WP. Mis interpreting the said

order

2nd

respondent

without

any

formal

Revision

Petition

started

the

proceedings on suo-motto by impleading the petitioners of above WP as parties.

This highly illegal procedure adopted by 2 nd defendant just to harass me and blackmail me to cough up in a corrupt way.

21. I

Humbly submit that, 2nd defendant vide his order in RP:72/2000-01 at page 2

has illegally quoted WP 4420/2000 “F ªÀÄzsÉå JªÀiï.f.£ÀlgÁdÄ ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï UÀAUÀ¥Àà JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ »vÁ¸ÀQÛ zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR°¹zÀÄÝ qÀ§Æè÷å.¦ £ÀA 4420/2000 gÀ ªÀÄzsÀåAvÀgÀ DzÉñÀ ºÁUÀÄ zÀÆj£À°è JwÛgÀĪÀ CA±ÀUÀ½UÉ C£ÀÄUÀÄtªÁV wêÀiÁð¤¸À®Ä G¨sÀAiÀÄvÀæAiÀÄjUÀÆ CªÀPÁ±À ¤Ãr, PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¸ÀPÁðj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß

PÁ¥ÁqÀĪÀ°è

PÀæªÀÄvÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ

vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ

PÀæªÀÄzÀ

ªÀgÀ¢

§UÉÎ

¸À°è¸À®Ä

¤ÃrzÀÝgÀ

ºÁUÀÆ

ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ

F

£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½AzÀ PÀqÀvÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ PÉ.J¯ï.Dgï. PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A

136(2)

gÀ

CrAiÀÄ°è

Dgï.¦.

72/00-01

gÀAvÉ

¥ÀæPÀgÀt

zÁR°¹PÉÆAqÀ

G¨sÀAiÀÄvÀægÀgÀÄ «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ ºÁdgÁV vÀªÀÄä CºÀªÁ®Ä ¸À°è¸À®Ä ¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¤ÃqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.” There is no such writ petition by the above number related to the

suit

schedule

property,

after

verifying

the

number

through

High

Court

Website it is found that the case is between M. Ponnadasu v/s The PSI Virajpet Town Police station, that writ was related to madikere district, last action taken was rejected. 2nd respondent with malicious intention and just to grab the suit schedule property of plaintiff has quoted an order which is fake and created one, in the said way many non-existing facts without any documentary evidence was relied upon by 2nd defendant to pass an illegal orders without justification of law and Jurisdiction. Only civil court is having rights to declare the ownership rights of any person including that of Government. The complete copy of order is produced for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.

22. I

Humbly submit that, a copy of proceedings of the Government of his Highness

the maharaja of mysore (Revenue)- dated 24th January 1895 with No: 12534-44-R.F. 116-92, Dated, Bangalore, 24th January 1895, which is brought to the knowledge of 2nd defendant about the facts that there was an order as per prevailing practice in and around 1880 and thereafter “Public Topes have been entered in the survey registers as ‘Kharab Land’ and that the rights of the planters such as for instance taking dead trees and branches, enjoying the produce of the trees, have been rendered in the Faisal patrikaas, all topes in which no such private rights exist being shown as ‘Government Topes’. In the plaintiff vendor case also there is no clinch of evidence to show that oldest records with revenue department is either mentioned in above names. Only ‘Dharma Thopu’ is mentioned and in faisal patrika such word is replaced with owners name. But with malafide intention defendant’s from time immemorial troubled my vendors by listening to the voices of politicians.

23. I

Humbly submit that 4th defendant has issued notice to Bheemsenrao s/o S.

Ramachandrarao recognizing his possession and ownership in the suit schedule property in the year 1967 itself. The copy of such notice is produced for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.

24. I

Humbly submit that, vendors of plaintiff made one registered agreement of

partnership with one Muslim dated 20-11-1963 vide number 4718/1963-64 regarding suit schedule property and other lands and topes. There was a dispute between the said person and vendors of this plaintiff. The said dispute went from Munsiff court and land tribunal to the High Court of Karnataka and at lastly it was settled after long battle from 1973 to 1986. Several observations were made in

the

relavant

litigations,

several

petitions

to

police

and

documents

in

respect to above involving defendant’s herein clearly shows that defendants are very much aware of the my vendor’s title and possession. The copy of said documents are produced for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.

25. I

Humbly submit that, There is a mis-interpretation of KHARAB land by 2 nd

defendant, vide his illegal orders in Revision Petition, it goes on to an extent to say all kharab lands are govt lands.

In Saudagar asul vs State of

Karnataka, reported in ILR 1973 Kar 56. The title to kharab land is clarified by

Hon,ble

Karnataka

High

Court.

“Kharab

land

is

uncultivable

land

classified for the purposes of revenue exemption. It cannot be regarded as adjunct

to

cultivable

adjoining land.

cultivable

Kharab

land

is

land,

which

gets

also

capable

of

transferred ownership

along

which

with

must

be

acquired in the same way as cultivable land.” This shows 2nd defendant is having least respect towards Judicial orders.

26. I

Humbly submit that, Although It is observed by Tahsildar Tumkur that is 4th

defendant

in

a

letter

Written

to

2 nd

defendant

dated

18-10-1997

Ref

No:

RRT:CR:736: 97-98, that in 1923-24 Khethuvaru Nakalu contains words “THOPU” in Hiduvalidhara Column. The suit schedule property is given names of gundthopu, dharmathopu in later columns of revenue record entries without any justified orders in mutation just to harass the serial owners of suit schedule property. The said extract of Khetuvaru Patrike is produced for kind perusal of Hon’ble court.

27. I

Humbly submit that, an agent of plaintiff asked 4 th defendant to provide

information regarding a register extract’s of

‘HIDUVALI GIDAPATRIKE’ that has

to be compulsorily maintained by 4th defendant office under Land Revenue rules. The 4th defendant issued an endorsement on 07-08-2008 stating there is no such register with respect to either maralenahalli or lingapura. This shows there is no government land in such grama’s, inspite of such facts the defendant’s are trying to create malicious orders and fake entries to grab the plaintiff’s suit schedule property. Such Hiduvali Gida Patrike was maintained from 1880 itself there was a government order to such extent in Government of his Highness the maharaja of mysore (Revenue)- dated 24th January 1895 with No: 12534-44-R.F. 116-92,

Dated,

24th

Bangalore,

January

1895,

later

Order

of

his

Highness

maharaja of mysore in order No: R 7692-702/L.R. 68-27-16 Dated, Bangalore, the 28th

may

1930.

Government

of

Later

on

Karnataka

03-11-1988 issued

an

Additional order

in

RD

secretary 25

LGP

Revenue 87,

Department

stating

how

to

maintain Hiduvali Gida Patrika, to all the tahsildars of taluks. The copies of Government orders are produced for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.

28. I

Humbly submit that, The encumbrance certificate is produced in respect to

suit schedule property to show that there is no other entries from 01-01-1886 to 19-11-1998, except that of plaintiff’s vendors gift deed and plaintiff’s sale deed. The copy of encumbrance certificate is produced for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.

29. I

Humbly submit thatOn 31-10-1967 a letter from tahsildar (4th defendant herein)

is addressed to Shri Bheemasenrao father of plaintiff’s vendor to cut off several branches of trees which is making troubles to neighbouring land owners, this factual history are over looked by defendants. My vendors possession and ownership

is

continuously

recognized

by

defendants,

and

now

after

much

development in the area wants to grab that land for some political bosses. The copy of such letter is produced for kind perusal of this Hon’ble court.

30. I

Humbly submit that, I and my family members are scared and

are suffering

from mental agony. The persons who are supposed to be the protectors/guardians of public rights themselves prepared to brake/violate the law. Hence having no other alternative, effective, efficacious, expeditious remedy iam approaching

this Hon’ble Court seeking the protection to my ownership and possession over the suit schedule property for which i deserve rightly.

31. I

Humbly

submit

scenario

and

it

that,

the

may

push

prior me

notice

into

much

to

the

Defendants

trouble.

Hence

may i

change

pray

for

the the

dispensation of the prior notice to the Defendants.

32. I

Humbly submit that, Though iam a valid purchaser of the Schedule Property

facing threat of dispossession by the hands of these Defendants, iam suffering for no fault of mine. My lawful right, title, interest and possession are being invaded with by the acts of the Defendants. The act of the Defendants is highly deplorable and should be checked immediately otherwise it will leads to many complications and multiplicity of proceedings.

33. I

Humbly submit that, After passing of illegal orders by the 2 nd defendant

plaintiff approached Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, through writ proceedings in WP NO: 11504/2008 (KLR), wherein Hon’ble court has directed this plaintiff to approach civil court and

Hon’ble court also

stayed the orders of 2nd

defendant.

34. I

respectfully submit that in continuation of above illegal activities of the

Defendants are trying to do the same thing by forcible eviction from the suit schedule property.

35. In

the

event

of

this

Application

is

being

rejected

I

would

be

put

to

irreparable loss and injustice and great hardship would be caused to me. On the other hand, no prejudice would be caused to the other side, if the same is being allowed. Balance of convenience lies with me.

36. In

view of the urgency and need of immediate action, I pray this Hon’ble court

to dispense the prior notice of I.A., to the Defendants. 37. In the circumstances, I pray this Hon’ble Court to allow the accompanying Application in the interest of justice and equity. This is my name and signature and contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. DEPONENT

Identified by me Advocate PLACE: TUMKUR DATED:

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dvn.), TUMKUR I.A.NO.

/2008

IN BETWEEN: SHANTHADURGADEVI

ORIGINAL SUIT No. …

/2008 PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

AND: The CHIEF SECRETARY And Others

…

DEFENDANTS/OPPONENTS

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 The Applicant/Plaintiff in the above came most respectfully submits, that for the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to

permit the Plaintiff to institute the above suit on the basis of the Xerox copies of the documents

, in the interest of justice and equity.

Place: TUMKUR Date:

.06.2007

ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dvn.), TUMKUR ORIGINAL SUIT No.

/2008

BETWEEN: SHANTHADURGADEVI

PLAINTIFF

…

AND: The CHIEF SECRETARY And Others

…

DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT I shanthadurgadevi w/o m.r. hulinaykar

Aged about 60 years, Residing at someshwara

extension Tumkur, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

1. I submit that I am the Plaintiff in the above case. I am aware of the facts of the case. Hence, I am swearing to the contents of this affidavit. 2. I submit that the contents of the Plaint and the Documents referred as Annexures-A to , may kindly be read and treated as part and parcel of this Affidavit. 3. I had filed the copies of the ANNEXURE-A to and I undertake to file the originals/certified of the same at the later stage of the proceedings. Hence, I pray this Hon’ble Court to permit me to do the same, because defendants may tamper with the said documents out of ill-will. 4. In the event of this Application is being rejected I would be put to irreparable loss and injustice and great hardship would be caused to me. On the other hand, no prejudice would be caused to the other side, if the same is being allowed. This is my name and signature and contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Identified by me, DEPONENT

Advocate PLACE: TUMKUR DATED: .

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dvn.), TUMKUR I.A.NO.

/2008

IN ORIGINAL SUIT No.

/2008

BETWEEN: SHANTHADURGADEVI

…

PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

AND: The CHIEF SECRETARY And Others

…

DEFENDANTS/OPPONENTS

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 80(2) R/W.SEC.151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 The Applicant/Plaintiff in the above came most respectfully submits, that for the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permit this Plaintiff to institute the above suit by dispensing with the prior notice as required under section 80(1) of CPC, in the interest of justice and equity.

Place: TUMKUR Date:

ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dvn.), TUMKUR ORIGINAL SUIT No.

/2008

BETWEEN: SHANTHADURGADEVI

…

PLAINTIFF

AND: The CHIEF SECRETARY And Others

…

DEFENDANTS

AFFIDAVIT I shanthadurgadevi w/o m.r. hulinaykar Aged about 60 years, Residing at someshwara extension Tumkur, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1. I submit that I am the Plaintiff in the above case. I am aware of the facts of the case. Hence, I am swearing to the contents of this affidavit. 2. I submit that the contents of the Plaint and the Documents referred as Annexures-A to , may kindly be read and treated as part and parcel of this Affidavit. 3. I have instituting this Suit without giving prior notice as required under Section 80(1) of CPC, as the relief sought in, is of very urgent in nature and the process of giving the prior notice will defeat the very purpose of instituting this suit itself. Hence, I pray this Hon’ble Court to permit me to do the same. 4. In the event of this Application is being rejected I would be put to irreparable loss and injustice and great hardship would be caused to me. On the other hand, no prejudice would be caused to the other side, if the same is being allowed. This is my name and signature and contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Identified by me, DEPONENT

Advocate PLACE: TUMKUR DATED:

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dvn.), TUMKUR ORIGINAL SUIT No.

/2008

BETWEEN: SHANTHADURGADEVI

…

PLAINTIFF

AND: The CHIEF SECRETARY And Others

SL.No.

…

DESCRIPTION

DEFENDANTS

NO OF PAGES

1.

MEMORANDUM OF PLAINT UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

2.

VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT

3.

VALUATION SLIP

4.

VAKALATH

5.

LIST WITH COPIES OF DOCUMENTS

6.

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 80(2) R/W SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.

7.

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

8. TWO INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 & 2 READWITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908

9. PROCESS MEMO ALONG WITH FOUR SET SPARE COPIES OF PLAINT, I.As., AND AFFIDAVITS AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS

PLACE: TUMKUR DATED:

ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dvn.), TUMKUR ORIGINAL SUIT No.

/2008

BETWEEN: SHANTHADURGADEVI

PLAINTIFF

…

AND: The CHIEF SECRETARY And Others

SL 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 30 31 32 33

DEFENDANTS

… LIST OF DOCUMENTS DOCUMENT PARTICULARS

PAGES

GIFT DEED i.e MOTHER DEED OF PLAINTIF DATED 07-07-1886 TITLE DEED i.e SALE DEED OF PLAINTIFF DATED 01-08-1998 QUIT RENT REGISTER EXTRACT PHAISAL PATRIKE EXTRACT RTC EXTRACT OF SURVEY 28 OF LINGAPURA KHETHUVARU PATRIKE AGREEMENT DATED 20-11-1963 W.A NO: 611 OF 1984 AND ITS RELEVANT PAPERS G.O OF MYSORE MAHARAJA 1895 LETTER OF TAHSILDAR TO PLAINTIFF’S VENDOR DATED: 31-10-1967 COMPLAINTS COPIES OF VENDORS TO POLICE LIST OF MARALENAHALLI SURVEY NO: 28 DETAILS MR 1/75-76 COPY NON AVAILABILITY OF ABOVE MR COPY ENDORSEMENT TRIBUNAL ORDER COPY WITH ORDER SHEET ENDORSEMENT OF NON AVAILABILITY OF IL AND RR FROM 4TH DEFENDANT RTC OF 1999-2000 WP NO: 38014/1999 ORDERS 2ND DEFENDANTS ORDER COPY IN RA 22/96-97 AKARBAND EC FROM 01-01-1886 TO 31-12-1990 EC FROM 01-04-1998 TO 19-03-2003 WP NO: 4430 OF 2000 NOTICE OF 2ND DEFENDANT DATED 18-01-2001 ORDER SHEET OF RP 72/2000-01 ORDER’S IN RP 72/2000-01 ENDORSEMENT DATED 07-08-08 FOR NON AVAILABILITY OF HIDUVALIGIDAPATRIKE 4TH DEFENDANT ORDERS IN RRT(DIS) 65/1997-98 MR 14/98-99 MR 16/98-99 REVENUE DEPARTMENT ORDERS TO 4TH DEFENDANT DATED 03-11-1988 REVENUE DEPARTMENT ORDERS DATED 20-06-1984 ORDERS OF MYSORE MAHARAJA 1930

2 4 1 1 1 1 4 9 2 1 5 1 1 1 18 1 1 3 4 1 1 1 4 1 8 12 1 4 1 1 5 2 3

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dvn.), TUMKUR I.A.NO.

/2008

IN BETWEEN: SHANTHADURGADEVI

ORIGINAL SUIT No. …

/2008 PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT

AND: The Assistant commissioner(3rd defendant) The Tahsildar (4th defendant)

…

DEFENDANTS/OPPONENTS

INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 1 & 2 READWITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 The Applicant/Plaintiff in the above case most respectfully submits that, for the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to

grant an exparte ad-interim Order of Temporary Injunction restraining the 3 rd and 4th Defendant, their agents, representatives, assignees, or any-body claiming through or under or above them from removing the name of plaintiff from RTC of the suit Schedule Property, pending disposal of the above case, in the interest of justice and equity. SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the property situating in Sy. No.28 of lingapura Village, Kasaba Hobali, Tumkur Taluk

measuring 5 acres-11 Guntas bounded on,

East by

: Sira Road,

West by

: Property of Shridevi Charitable Trust,

North by

: Rice mill property,

South by

: Road. VERIFICATION

I, Shanthadurgadevi w/o. M.R.Hulinaykar, the Plaintiff/Applicant above named do hereby declare

that

what

is

stated

in

schedule

is

true

to

the

best

of

my

knowledge,

information and belief.

PLACE: TUMKUR DATED:

PLAINTIFF

ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dvn.), TUMKUR ORIGINAL SUIT No.

/2006

BETWEEN: SHANTHADURGADEVI

PLAINTIFF

…

AND: The CHIEF SECRETARY And Others

DEFENDANTS

… AFFIDAVIT

I shanthadurgadevi w/o m.r. hulinaykar

Aged about 60 years, Residing at someshwara

extension Tumkur, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

1.

I submit that, I am the Plaintiff in the above case. I am aware of the facts of the case. Hence, I am swearing to the contents of this affidavit.

2.

I submit that, the contents of the Plaint and the Documents referred in the above

case

,

may

kindly

be

read

and

treated

as

part

and

parcel

of

this

Affidavit also.

3.

I Humbly submit that, Iam

the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of

the suit schedule property. I had acquired the Schedule Property through a registered Sale Deed dated 01-08-1998, executed by one Shri T.B. Anandarao s/o T.R. Bheemsenrao, Tumkur.

A copy of the said Document is herewith produced for

the kind perusal of this Honourable Court.

4.

I Humbly submit that, T.R. Bheemsenrao s/o S. Ramachandrarao got the suit schedule property from the ‘panchayathi parikathu’ in 1933 and later executed will

conferring

right

on

T.B.

Anandarao

to

succeed

to

the

suit

schedule

property. The other brothers of T.B. Anandarao gave NOC to change of Khatha. Accordingly 4th defendant through his order dated 13-07-1998 in RRT (Dis) 65/9798 changed Khatha entries to T.B. Anandarao’s name. 5.

I Humbly submit that, Ramachandra Rao s/o Shyamarao got the suit schedule property from one Sheebaiah through registered gift deed. Sheebaiah Gifted land

consisting of Thopu (Trees) for Dharma Karya transferring absolute interest to donee.

Sheebaiah & Venkatachalaiah got

sale deed executed by Tulasamma w/o Venkatachalaiah executed

suit schedule property

land

from

Narasingarao for fifty rupees each. Later

his share to Sheebaiah. By the gift deed Sheebaiah

transferred land to Ramachandrarao s/o Shyamarao.

The erst while owners as

donee’s enjoyed the land from 1886 without any obstruction from any authorities until they legally transferred the land for sale to me. The mother deed that is Gift deed executed in 1886 is produced

for

the

kind

perusal

of

this

Honourable Court.

6.

I Humbly submit that, 3rd and 4th defendants from time immemorial not maintaining revenue records of my suit schedule property by following due procedural law, they are attempting to write words non existing before in place of mine in RTC maintained by opponents. The representation given by me was rejected without giving respect towards High Court orders. I found that there is a need for specific order and hence this application.

7.

I Humbly submit that, I and my family members are scared and

are suffering

from mental agony. The persons who are supposed to be the protectors/guardians of public rights themselves prepared to brake/violate the law. Hence having no other alternative, effective, efficacious, expeditious remedy iam approaching this Hon’ble Court seeking the protection to my ownership and possession over the suit schedule property for which i deserve rightly.

8.

I Humbly submit that, the prior notice to the 3rd and 4th Defendants may change the scenario and it may push me into much trouble. Hence i pray for the dispensation of the prior notice to the Defendants.

9.

I Humbly submit that, Though iam a valid purchaser of the Schedule Property facing threat of dispossession by rd

these 3

and 4

th

creation of fake entries in the hands of

Defendants, iam suffering for no fault of mine. My lawful

right, title, interest and possession are being invaded with by the acts of the Defendants. checked

The

act

immediately

of

the

Defendants

otherwise

it

will

is

highly

leads

to

deplorable many

and

should

complications

be and

multiplicity of proceedings.

10. I

Humbly submit that, After passing of illegal orders by the 2 nd defendant

plaintiff approached Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, through writ proceedings in WP NO: 11504/2008 (KLR), wherein Hon’ble court has directed this plaintiff to approach civil court and

Hon’ble court also

stayed the orders of 2nd

defendant.

11. I

respectfully submit that in continuation of above illegal activities of the

Defendants are trying to do the same thing by forcible eviction from the suit schedule property.

12. In

the

event

of

this

Application

is

being

rejected

I

would

be

put

to

irreparable loss and injustice and great hardship would be caused to me. On the other hand, no prejudice would be caused to the other side, if the same is being allowed. Balance of convenience lies with me.

13. In

view of the urgency and need of immediate action, I pray this Hon’ble court

to dispense the prior notice of I.A., to the Defendants. 14. In the circumstances, I pray this Hon’ble Court to allow the accompanying Application in the interest of justice and equity.

This is my name and signature and contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Identified by me, DEPONENT Advocate PLACE: TUMKUR DATED: .