Plot for Sale Mysore - Land for sale
There seems to be no end to the woes of Arkavathy Layout, the much-hyped locality developed by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). Bangalore Hotels Starting @ Rs Jayanagar .. Hsr Layout Bangalore . Enter your travel dates for best price and deals on hotels in Jayanagar. Which Stage of Dating Are You In. I've tried everything with this gopgle, . online dating · Bepantol cabelo yahoo dating · Bda sites for sale in bangalore dating.
Having regard to the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are: P1 and its boundaries. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule property in his enjoyment comprised in Site No. Village Road towards the northern side, bounded on the southern side by Doddamuniyappa's property and site No. The plaintiff claims to have constructed a house, a small temple which measures 10' X 10' and covered the entire area by compound wall.
Whereas, the 2nd defendant contends that Sy. CITB Road and the temple was part of his property, which was used by the villagers with his permission and the same was in his possession. In order to show the boundaries of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff has produced Ex. Akkayamma and her children in favour of Thyagaraja. The description of the boundaries in the schedule given in Ex. P6 as corrected in the Rectification Deed - Ex.
P7 is as under: Sanitary Board khata No. A sketch showing the boundaries of the property sold by Thyagaraja to Dorairajan in Site No. This document is part of the registered Sale Deed registered as Document No.
The measurement of the property in these sale deeds is shown as East - West 35' and North - South 60'. This very property is sold by Dorairajan to C.
Rayan vide registered Sale Deed dated D28 - Encumbrance Certificate. Rayan, the property is purchased by the plaintiff on P1, wherein also the same boundaries are mentioned. Thus, the title deeds of the plaintiff clearly disclose the boundaries of the suit schedule property showing CITB Road towards the eastern side.
Therefore, in order to establish that the plaintiff purchased the property comprised in specific boundaries, he has produced not only his own title deed, but also the title deed of Thayagraja, the 1st purchaser who purchased from the original owner Akkayamma and her children dating back to Consistent with this Sale Deed and the boundaries mentioned therein, in the latter Sale Deeds, same boundaries are mentioned.
Plaintiff's sale deed is the fourth sale deed in succession. P8, wherein also the same boundaries are mentioned and the eastern boundary is mentioned as road. In the said sketch, Site No.
Admittedly, the measurement shown in the registered document and the actual measurement of the property within the boundaries differ. The fact remains that the plaintiff has established the boundaries of the suit schedule property by producing his own title deed and also the title deeds of his vendor. It is the defence of the 2nd defendant that in his property Sy. Hence, it becomes necessary to see the evidence that the 2nd defendant has produced in support of his assertion.
The Court Commissioner was appointed in O. Plaintiff is not a party to the said suit. In the present case, the question to be considered is whether Ex. D5 which is the Commissioner's Report which had been filed in O.
dsl-service-dsl-providers.info S/O B S Shankaregowda vs The Commissioner Bangalore on 22 April,
The Commissioner had been appointed in O. It is an undisputed fact that the Commissioner of that case while filing his Report has not been examined in the Trial Court in the present suit to prove the contents of his Report and to state about the accuracy of the Report etc. Question is whether in these circumstances, the Commissioner's Report was admissible as evidence for the purpose of this case. Order 26 Rule 10 2 reads as under: The suit refers to, the specific suit, namely, the suit in which the Commissioner had been appointed and in which Report as given by him not to any other suit.
So, that Report could be taken to be the piece of evidence in that case only even without examining the Commissioner. But, it is open to the parties and the Court to examine the Commissioner in that case, as it has evidentiary value and admissible.
In the present case, the Court Commissioner appointed in O. Therefore, in view of the ruling referred to above of this Court, the report of the Commissioner cannot be relied as a piece of evidence.
The Trial Court has placed reliance on the said report. Hence, the findings recorded based on such an inadmissible material is vitiated. It is well established that when there is discrepancy in the boundaries and the measurement regarding a property mentioned in the registered document, the recitals regarding the boundaries shall prevail over the measurement.
Learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on several judgments in this regard. In addition to producing the title deeds showing the boundaries of the suit schedule property which the plaintiff purchased, he has examined three witnesses as P.
According to him, the total extent of Sy. The BDA formed five sites of different measurement in Sy. He sought for re-conveyance of five sites and the BDA reconveyed all the sites in favour of himself and his brother Krishnamurthy executing Deed of Reconveyance in that regard. He has admitted that he did not inform the Land Acquisition Officer about the existence of Dakshineshwara Temple in Sy. But, the stand of the BDA is that the entire land comprised in Sy.
Muniyappa, brother of the 2nd defendant against the 2nd defendant, his son and another brother C. The said suit was filed seeking partition of the five reconveyed sites by the BDA contending that they were the joint family properties to which the plaintiff therein was also entitled. P17 is the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant herein in the said suit. In paragraph 6 of the said written statement, he has stated that in the yearthe CITB, Bangalore, acquired 1 acre 36 guntas of land in Sy.
The allegation made in the plaint that a portion of survey number was only acquired was denied as false. He, no doubt, denied that the suit property therein was the joint family property. Thus, it is clear from the stand taken by the 2nd defendant herein in the suit filed against him by one of his brothers that the entire land Sy.
In addition to this, the beneficiary of the acquisition the BDA has taken a specific stand in the written statement that the entire land in Sy. If any portion of Sy. He would have also got his name entered in the khatha in respect of the unacquired portion of the land in Sy. A perusal of the judgment of the Trial Court discloses that there is total inconsistency and contradiction in the finding recorded on additional issue No.
In paragraph 18 of the judgment, the Trial Court observes that D. Despite such allegation of D. It further observes that 'merely because in certain Sale Deeds boundary is mentioned, it cannot be said that the actual extent of the site was up to that boundary and not as specifically mentioned in the documents'.
In paragraph 26 of the judgment, quite contrary to the above observations, the Trial Court observes as under: It is thus clear that as per the title deeds produced by the plaintiff, he is held to have proved the boundaries to site No.
The Trial Court has given yet another strange reason in support of its conclusion holding that the plaintiff did not get the actual area within the boundaries measured either through a technically qualified person or by himself and therefore, he was not entitled for the decree as sought by him. The title deeds clearly mention the boundaries of Site No. This is evident from Exs.
It is not the case of the defendants that the measurement of the property within the boundaries as mentioned in the title deeds and also the suit schedule is not what is claimed by the plaintiff. On the other hand, it is their case that the eastern boundary mentioned itself is wrong and that a portion of the property belonging to the 2nd defendant lies beyond the 30 ft.
CITB Road which is incorrectly shown as the eastern boundary of the plaintiff's property.
Therefore, in my considered view, the Trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective and it has failed to take note of the totality of the evidence.
Certain amount of confusion has set in the mind of the Trial Court while recording findings regarding proof of actual boundaries by the plaintiff of the suit schedule site. At one stage, the trial Court holds that the plaintiff has proved the boundaries of the suit schedule property, but at another stage it doubts the boundaries mentioned in the title deeds on the ground that the vendors were not examined by him.
D18 is the final notification published in the Gazette dated In paragraph 17 of its judgment, the Trial Court has erroneously proceeded to hold that judicial notice could be taken regarding the acquisition of land comprised in Sy.
Unless the acquisition proceedings culminated in passing of the award and taking of possession pursuant to the final notification published, presumption regarding acquisition of land cannot be drawn. In fact, there is nothing to show that the possession of the land was indeed taken and an award was passed culminating in the finalization of the acquisition proceedings. Indeed in paragraph 27 of the judgment, the Trial Court has observed that though the 1st defendant-BDA had contended that Sy.
The Trial Court has further held that the 2nd defendant also did not seriously dispute the title, possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as per the area mentioned in the title deeds and other public records and it is on this basis, the Trial Court has proceeded to decree the suit in part declaring the title of the plaintiff to the extent of 35' East to West and 60' North to South.
It is relevant to notice here that there is no dispute regarding the acquisition of land bearing Sy. No material is produced to show that any portion of Sy. P19 - sketch prepared by the Assistant Executive Engineer, BDA, does not establish the defence of the defendant that a portion of the land in Sy. P19 - sketch will not help the defendant.
The evidence on record clearly discloses that the plaintiff has established that he has purchased the suit schedule property bearing Site No. The contention urged by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent that in view of the order passed by the trial Court on the I.
Any observations made in the course of such an order cannot make a document which is otherwise inadmissible, a valid and admissible piece of evidence. The other contention of the counsel for the 2nd respondent that in Ex. P11 - legal notice, the plaintiff had admitted the measurement of the suit site as shown in the sale deed cannot be accepted. In fact, the grievance made in the notice is that measurement of his property was more than what was mentioned in the sale deed.
Therefore, the contents of Ex. P11 - legal notice cannot be taken as adverse material to the plaintiff. The judgments on which the counsel for the respondent has placed reliance are not of any assistance to him in the facts of the present case. The further contention of the counsel for the 2nd respondent that substantial portion of the evidence of D. He has clearly and categorically denied the suggestion that Shiva Temple was in the portion of Sy.
The plaintiff, on his part, has discharged his burden showing that he purchased the property in the boundaries mentioned in his title deeds by producing not only his own registered title deed, but also the title deeds of his predecessor in title. If materials are brought on record by the parties to the lis, the Court is entitled to appreciate the evidence brought on record for determining the issues raised before it and in the said process, the court may accept one piece of evidence and reject the other.
Surana relies on this judgment of the Apex Court, while the principle stated therein requires to be applied to the case on hand as well, but the same will not in any manner aid the case of the 2nd defendant so long as no materials are brought on record to show that any portion of the land in Sy.
P1 of the plaint cannot be relied. Similarly, the judgment in the case of SARWAN SINGH VS STATE OF PUNJAB - 1 SCC will be of no avail to the 2nd defendant because the observations made in paragraph 9 of the said case to the effect that whenever the opponent has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his case in the cross-examination, it must follow that the evidence tendered on that issue ought to be accepted, was in the background of absence of any other evidence nor any suggestion of existence of any other factor.
The facts of the present case being totally different and there being ample material brought on record by the plaintiff apart from lengthy cross-examination of P. For the same reasons, reliance placed by Mr. Someshwara Temple dates from the Chola era A discovery of Stone Age artefacts during the census of India at JalahalliSidhapura and Jadigenahalli, all of which are located on Bangalore's outskirts today, suggest probable human settlement around 4, BCE.
Between the fourth and the tenth centuries, the Bangalore region was ruled by the Western Ganga Dynasty of Karnataka, the first dynasty to set up effective control over the region.
These kings belonged to two distinct dynasties: The Western Gangas ruled the region initially as a sovereign power —and later as feudatories of the Chalukyas of Badamifollowed by the Rashtrakutas until the tenth century. After Veera Ballala III's death inthe next empire to rule the region was the Vijayanagara Empirewhich itself saw the rise of four dynasties, the Sangamas —the Saluvas —the Tuluvas —and the Aravidu — The fort was originally built by Kempe Gowda I as a mud fort in Bangalore Palacebuilt in in Tudor architectural style was modelled on the Windsor Castle in England.
Kempe Gowda was restricted by rules made by Achuta Deva Raya, who feared the potential power of Kempe Gowda and did not allow a formidable stone fort. Hyder Ali is credited with building the Delhi and Mysore gates at the northern and southern ends of the city in Hyder and Tipu contributed towards the beautification of the city by building Lal Bagh Botanical Gardens in Under them, Bangalore developed into a commercial and military centre of strategic importance.
It was abolished in only to be revived in at Bangalore and to be closed down permanently inwith Indian independence. A town grew up around the cantonment, by absorbing several villages in the area. The new centre had its own municipal and administrative apparatus, though technically it was a British enclave within the territory of the Wodeyar Kings of the Princely State of Mysore.
The Bangalore torpedo was invented in Bangalore in