Dr. Chandran Peechulli, Ph.D; FIE
01 November 2010 at 23:58
Injustice to Ex.serviceman(Senior Citizen) Justice given to Money & Muscle Power,which encourages criminals to grow commotion in the living and working area. Herein, the accused who took law into his own hands,encroaching and pulling out the stone pillars and barbed- wire fencing and installing a katcha shed and black-mailing goes scot-free with judgement to his favour. Where has the sanctity of the courts gone?
Has one gauged the hurt sentiments of the Ex. serviceman, the time efforts and money further lost in the process of his claiming his legitimate land, the original documents made to surrender while filing the suit.
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (Sr. Divn.) (FTC-II), BANGALORE RURAL, Bangalore.
RA No. 117/2008
Between Rank of the Parties in
Trial Court Appellate Court
Smt. Chandrichandran Plaintiff Appellant
*Represented by her husband, GPA Holder P.K. Chandran, Appellant, Aged about 63 years,(Plaintiff in the Trial Court)
AND
Sri. Chikkanna and others. Respondant Defendants Respondents.
WRITTEN ARGUMENT BY APPELLANT.
Appellant most respectfully submits as follows:-
I. Appellant, being totally aggrieved, begs to prefer this regular appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed by learned Principal Civil Judge( Jr.Dn.),Bangalore Rural, Bangalore, in O.S.365/2004.dated 28.8.2004, sets out the facts and grounds hereafter.
II. Facts of the Case.
(a) Sy.No.11/2 measuring 1 Acre, 20 guntas of Gollarapalya, Yeswanthapura Hobli, was inherited by one Late Eranna and late Kempaiah (the two sons of Late Eraiah), who died intestate leaving behind their sons, i.e. Krishnappa son of Late Eranna, and 5 sons of Late Kempiah. The then signatories for the deal of origin (irrevocable G.P.A., sale agreement and affidavit) was therefore 1. Krishnappa son of Late Eranna, and 2. Thammayanna son of Kempiah and 3. Eranna son of Kempiah, and followed which defendants 1 to 3, and his LRS. The original layout formed, consisted of 30 sites during 1982-83, 1983-84. Until 1991, the Sale of Revenue sites and Land registration were prohibited due to the Fragmentation Act. During these periods, the transfers of Lands were affected by executing irrevocable General Power of Attorney, together with delivery of possession, acknowledging receipt for sales consideration, made on oath by Affidavit and Sale Agreement.
(b) The General Power of Attorney holder of plaintiff (who is her husband), paid the entire Sales consideration and was put in possession of site 8 and 9, in the layout formed in Sy.No.11/2, way back in 1983. The General Power of Attorney was signed by Eranna, Thammayanna, the eldest 2 brothers who had attained majority and also by
Krishnappa son of Eraiah, who were then the majors. The said Power of Attorney Holder, had fenced the sites 8 and 9 together, erecting and connecting the stone pillars with barbed wire on all sides of the boundary line.
c) On the strength of the Power of Attorney dated 30.05.1983,alongwith affidavit and sale agreement executed by Eraiah, Thammayanna and Krishnappa in favour of Mr. P.K. Chandran, who in turn executed a registered Sale Deed on 4.12.2000. Hence, the Plaintiff became the Owner and got lawful possession through P.K. Chandran, as Power of Attorney holder of Original Owners.
d) Mr. P.K.Chandran (husband of plaintiff), was serving in the Indian Army, a wing of the Indian armed forces and subsequently joined, on an all India competitive entry into the Merchant Navy ( the second line of defence ) at S.C.I. Bombay, and on his retirement, plaintiff and her Power of Attorney, who is also the husband, shifted their residence to Chennai, port area for their retired livelihood(being a non-pensioner).Taking advantage of appellants absence,their non presence in Bangalore, defendants opportunistically trespassed the land, with an evil motive to grab the land, and thus pulled out the laid fencing and put up a katcha shed(which were in unfinished form, when the police was informed and when police drove the miscreants away), which has led to the present Litigation.
e) The Respondants have trespassed over the sites 8 and 9 on 17th March 2004, for which Criminal Complaint was lodged against them on 18.3.2004 with the jurisdictional TAVAREKERE Police Station. The Police Registered the Crime under Sec.447 and 427 of IPC vide CRIME F.I.R. No.55/2004 dated 24th March 2004, the police stopped the construction work and chased away the miscreants from constructing the katcha shed, while in unfinished state. Photographs submitted in court, if viewed would reveal the facts. The Police thereafter issued an endorsement that the dispute is of Civil in nature. The Plaintiff, an aggrieved ex-serviceman has approached various civil authorities in administration, of law and order authorities, inclusive of the ADC to His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka State, who responded to the Police authorities (Ref: The Principal Secretary to Governor, Raj Bhavan, Bangalore to the Superintendent of Police, Bangalore District(Rural) vide Ltr.Ref:GS930/D/2004 dated 11th May 2004, to do the needful and help but all of vain. Shri. Rabindranath Tagore IPS, the then IGP,
Bangalore(Rural), advised the appellant (ex.serviceman) to seek the court of law for justice and alas the assistance sought of Karnataka Legal aid Services and thus the suit was filed on 06.04.2004 with great difficulties, as the appellant had to be shunted to Chennai to collect all the original documents and submit to the court for suit acceptance, which was mandatory, resulting in further time, money and his efforts. In the meanwhile, the defendants filed counter suit O.S. 341/2004, against their elder brothers Thammayanna and Eranna, who had executed the sale by the 1983 G.P.A. and received the Sale consideration, more importantly unfairly impleading the Appellant as Defendant No.3, for Partition of Sy.No.11/2, while the other flat owners twenty-eight (28) of them were left out, on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn). The said suit is still pending. Appellant was unfairly made a party so as to harass and humiliate, being shunted from Chennai and back, such that he gives up, for the ongoing difficulties.
f) The Appellant also filed an interim application for amendment of the Plaint, by adding an alternative prayer for delivery of possession. Unfortunately the learned Trial Judge, completely lost sight of the said application and without passing any order thereon has mercilessly dismissed the suit on 28th August 2008, not considering the ex-serviceman’s hard-earned land was encroached, fencing pulled out forcibly and illegally taken possession. Encouraging the accused.
V. Grounds in Support of the Appeal
1. The Judgment and decree of the Trial Court are contrary to law, evidence on record and pleadings in the case.
2. It is an error to hold that there was a temporary injunction against the Appellant / plaintiff regarding the possession of suit scheduled property during the pendency of OS.365/2004, while not considering the ex-serviceman’s land was encroached, site boundary fencing pulled out forcibly and illegally taken possession. Despite “status quo” announced in the court hall, the respondents went ahead finishing and modifying the katcha shed when appellant said unfit for human living, since no ventilation itself except an unfinished door, who then fabricated the revenue records, taking the electricity and telephone connection, during the pendancy of the case, adding to crimes. Please view photographs submitted in the court-hall, would be self-explanatory.
3. The learned trial Judge has failed to consider the evidence on record and admission made by DW1 regarding the Sale of sites, division of property, formation of layout etc. Ex P1, P2 and P4 are not considered and the recitals not taken into Consideration.
4. It is respectfully submitted that forcible Criminal trespass on the suit schedule property, on the eve of the institution of the suit cannot be construed as legal possession or settled possession of the defendants. A FORCIBLE TEMPORARY OCCUPATION DOES NOT AMOUNT TO POSSESSION, in such circumstances the possession legally continues with the registered land owner.
5. In the present case the plaintiff has proved her legal possession from December 2000 and the POSSESSION OF HER HUSBAND WAY BACK FROM MAY 1983 CONTINUOUSLY. The Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff is not challenged. Criminal trespass on 17.03.2004, leading to Criminal complaint and instituting the suit through the help of the Legal Aid Services Authority, by 6.4.2004 which therefore cannot lead to the finding that defendant is in possession as on the date of the suit. IT IS SUBMITTED, THAT THE CONCEPT OF POSSESSION IS SOMETHING MUCH MORE THAN FORCIBLE PHYSICAL OCCUPATION. The learned trial Judge has misconstrued, by committing an error to conclude that the same amounts to admission of possession of Defendant.
6. Hence, it is an error apparent, to hold that there an injunction against the plaintiff, regarding possession of the suit schedule property.
7. During the Cross-Examination. DW1, admitted that one acre of Land was formed into sites in Sy.No.11/2, and the sites were sold to 3rd parties and Sales Consideration was also received by the defendants. It was also admitted that it is not cultivated land and as per the voters list marked in the case they are residing only in the village (Gramatana). This is contrary to the assertion that one of the defendants is residing in the encroached suit schedule house. The learned Trial Judges has not applied her mind and not considered the same in recording the findings.
8. It is respectfully submitted that the validity of the Sale Deed and the Power of Attorney is not challenged. It is also contended that the Documents executed by Eranna and Thammayanna, are not binding on the Defendants. In the circumstances of the reasoning adopted by the trial judges is perverse and motivated.
9. It is respectfully submitted that in view of the admission by DW1, that the sites were formed and sold and the suit schedule property are sites 8 and 9 formed in such layout. The purchaser namely the Plaintiff /Appellant is entitled to continue the claim as absolute owners and she is in lawful possession.
10. The Trial Court has committed an error of Jurisdiction, in not considering the Application for amendment of the prayer by seeking an alternate prayer for possession. The said application is pending and the arguments were made by the appellant. Two reported decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court etc. Were cited and copies furnished. The trial Judge has committed error of Jurisdiction in not taking into consideration of such application and proceeded to judgment, without passing an order on IA, nor granting the alternate relief of possession.
11. Further submits, more importantly that the respondents have not submitted any documentary evidence to substantiate their title, rights possession and interest over the suit scheduled properties. They have no approved plan by competent authority to submit and identify their rights over the suit scheduled property.
12. The respondents have not made any other owners of the said layout as a party, which clearly indicates to harass and humiliate the ex-serviceman owner of sites 8 & 9, staying elsewhere(Chennai), to knock-off the appellant’s hard-earned land. All these land grab attempts owing to the high rise land prices that occurred due to urban modernization by improved roads, highways etc.
13. The Trial Court failed to record a finding that the application for amendment was not opposed by the defendants in view of the fact that the no argument were advanced on behalf of the defendant and the legal proposition that the possession follows title has to be applied to the facts of the case.
PRAYER
Therefore, the Appellant prays that the setting aside the judgment and decree of trial court. The Honorable Court may be pleased to decree the suit for permanent injunction or alternatively for possession of suit schedule property with costs throughout.
VALUATION
The suit is for permanent injunction and ad-volerem court fee of Rs.25/- had been paid under section 26 read with section 49A Karnataka Court fee and suit Valuation Act.
For purpose of court fee appeal is valued at Rs.1000/- and for purposes of Jurisdiction the suit schedule property is valued at Rs.1,59,000/- The plaintiff is prepared to pay additional Court fee, if the suit is decreed for possession.
Bangalore: ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT APPELLANT Date :
PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL. By Speed Post.SPETO17205374IN04102010. For URGENT attention please.
Shri. Hans Raj Bhardwaj, His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka State,
“Raj Bhavan” Raj Bhavan Road
Bangalore 560 001 INDIA.
Most Respected Sir,
I have for humble submission the following few lines, for which I am constrained to do so, encroaching your valuable and precious time of your good high office, to please intervene, for a good and just cause, thereby instil justice and fairplay in courts, so that the sanctity of the courts are maintained.
Subject: “Re-An Ex-serviceman(Senior Citizen)’s hard-earned “Land-grabbed”.
- case unreasonably dragged in courts with administrative deficiencies of liberal adjournments and aggrieved shunted between Chennai and Bangalore. In the process, the innocent only suffers. Land- grabbing case of a senior citizen & ex-serviceman, in Bangalore City Civil Court i.e. O.S.365/2004 & R.A.117/2009. Fast Track Court 2. There is no sprinkle of truth being seen, but for falsifying the truth, due to money and muscle power, to knock off my property.
Falsifying the truth by all means for gain, engaging specialised mentoring criminal- lawyers, for criminals to be tutored, availing the loop-holes, to suit the legal- process, “bringing injustice to the innocent common- litigant”, throws away the sanctity of the courts, from the minds of the common people. Therefore, it is high-time, the honourable court administration, realises this for an early corrective-action. Justice should come to the common man irrespective of whether; it is from the Lower or Higher or Supreme Court. Dr. Chandran Peechulli. Marine Waves.
“The media shouldn't be a spectator to the true happenings of crime and injustice nor play the role of a messenger in reporting without verifying the real facts. – Dr. Chandran Peechulli. Marine Waves
Common-man fails to get justice, because of inefficiency or corruption of prosecuting agencies. “Always aim at complete harmony of thought, word and deed by purifying one's thoughts and everything will go well.
Sai. R. Venkatakrishnan. Marine Waves.
“Humanity at the crossroads”; During the surge of scientific developments, which we experience with the advent of the computers and communication, media has seen and heard tremendous changes, bringing the world together with free exchange of thoughts and ideas amongst engineers, scientists, doctors and allied fields etc. However, judiciary, continue to be kept at high esteem though for non-performance of timely justice, indisciplined lawyers taking law into their hands (T.O.I. Dtd.26.06.2007, 16.09.2008 etc. Chennai Edition). The common man suffers. *view image and text attached.
I am a hard-working honest ex-serviceman, with national solidarity, whose hard-earned land grabbed and being totally harassed and humiliated to give-up, while fighting-out for justice, in Bangalore City Civil Courts, Fast Track 2, incurring since 2004, further unnecessary money, time and efforts in the old age of 64 years, it is like de-moralising the loyal citizen like me, who once came forward to sacrifice my life, to defend the nation from external threats. Now put in a state of severe mental stress/agony, for no fault of mine.
Self, an aggrieved ex-serviceman had approached various civil authorities in administration, law and order authorities, inclusive of the ADC to His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka State, who responded to the Police authorities (Ref: The Principal Secretary to Governor, Raj Bhavan, Bangalore to the Superintendent of Police, Bangalore District(Rural) vide Ltr.Ref:GS930/D/2004 dated 11th May 2004, to do the needful and help, but all of vain. Shri. Rabindranath Tagore IPS, the then IGP, Bangalore(Rural), advised the appellant (ex.serviceman) to seek the court of law for justice and alas the assistance sought of Karnataka Legal aid Services and thus the suit was filed on 06.04.2004 with great difficulties, as the appellant had to be shunted to Chennai to collect all the original documents and submit to the court for suit acceptance, which was mandatory, resulting in further time, money and his efforts. In the meanwhile, the defendants filed counter suit O.S. 341/2004, against their elder brothers Thammayanna and Eranna, who had executed the sale by the 1983 G.P.A., Affidavit and received the Sales consideration, more importantly unfairly impleading the Appellant as Defendant No.3, for Partition of Sy.No.11/2, while the other flat owners twenty-eight (28) of them were left out, on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), but to harass and humiliate me, to make me fed-up and give- up. "Chief Justice of US Supreme Court John Marshall had once said: "Power of Judiciary lies not in deciding cases, nor in imposing sentences nor in punishing for contempt, but in the trust, faith and confidence of the common man".
India though densely populated and though there could be cut-throat competition within the legal profession, these days the wrong trend, is to look for short-cuts, make fast money unlike the olden days, while no receipts given for fees, to poor litigants by advocates. Advocates therefore collude, betray and harm their clients as well, clients put in a state of confusion, as to which Advocate to be approached, for sincere professional services, to know of the loyalty-rating, since well read and travelled person also suffers, if so, what about the common man? The same aggrieved ex-serviceman had very bad experience in attending courts, shunting between Chennai and Bangalore after incurring around Rs.50,000 with a senior advocate who colluded with the opposite party and later was constrained, to changeover for economy, back to the honest legal-aid advocate, Sri. Revanna Siddappa, though with shorter experience for his age, who started off initially the case, and now resting with the almighty god, if exists for justice and your kind help, using your good and high office, to give me justice.
The respondents had purposefully concealed the name of Eraih, father of Eranna and Kempiah, this suppression of facts need to have been seriously viewed by the honourable court, orelse it causes grave concern to the aggrieved appellant and their family members. It is an admitted fact that one signatory of the three, in the irrevocable G.P.A., by name Krishnappa son of late Eranna and the other two signatories Thamayanna and Eranna sons of Kempiah were the bonafide vendors of the suit scheduled property, who formed the layout, sold and received the entire sales consideration of the 30 sites and the possession was delivered by the said karthas of the family, for the benefits of the said family members. The Respondents/Defendants, were therefore also beneficiaries during 1983-84, as such the respondents have delivered the possession by way of G.P.A., Affidavit and receipt of the Sales consideration. The Appellant is in possession till the year 2000 by way of G.P.A from 1983 and thereafter from 2000 by way of Sale Deed. The possession of the suit scheduled property is in continuous possession without any interruption till the illegal trespass and illegal occupation by respondents by pulling out the stone pillars installed and connected with barbed wires fencing all the sides of site 8 and 9. The Respondents had denied all this with an evil intention to knock off the property, since the appellant was residing at Chennai, rest of the site owners being local residents were not disturbed nor made a party, in the suit scheduled property. Further, delay tactics applied by adjournments, and involving me alone in the partition suit(O.S.341/04), thus all harassment and humiliation meted out by the appellant only. Justice informs only the counsel can talk, appellant has no say.
It is an error to hold that there was a temporary injunction against the Appellant /plaintiff regarding the possession of suit scheduled property during the pendency of OS.365/2004, while not considering the ex-serviceman’s hard-earned land, which was encroached, site boundary fencing pulled out forcibly and illegally taken possession. Despite “status quo” announced in the court hall, the respondents went ahead finishing and modifying the katcha shed when appellant said unfit for human living, since no ventilation itself except an unfinished door, who then fabricated the revenue records, appears taken the electricity and telephone connection, during the pendancy of the case, adding to further crimes. Please view photographs taken and submitted in the court-hall, during the initial stages, which would be self-explanatory as the proof of evidence. However, owing to their high-handedness by money and muscle-power they continued giving different versions, fabricated, frivolous statements, altering land records by cheating and misappropriation, with specialised advocates to falsify the truth. The real owner and aggrieved litigant only knows, as to how his sentiments are hurt adding to expenditure to meet court hearings, efforts and further incurrence of money, since 2004. Lacks systematic enquiry and evaluation of evidence.
It is most humbly requested, to please use your good high office to give me justice so that my land is officially returned to me, thereby the culprits are severely punished orelse it is like encouraging the criminals to grow in society seeking easy and fast money. With respectful regards.
Yours respectfully,
P. K. Chandran
Complainant and owner of land.
1. Submitted copy of written argument.
2. Relevant media news of D.G. of Armed Forces,New Delhi.
3. Set of photographs-taken when Tavarekare Police ASI., stopped the construction work and drove them away.
Address: “Kaustubha” B1/2, No.12th Cross Street, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600090.
Phone: 098400-84216, e-mail: pkc484@yahoo.com
P.S. PLEASE HELP! HELP! EXPRESSING ALLEGATIONS – JUDGEMENT OF BLIND BIAS.
*AVAILING LEGAL-AID SERVICES. Judge never entertains, voice of the aggrieved litigant. Cannot afford expensive lawyer. TO OPINE ON THE TRIAL COURT ORDER, WHICH IS APPEALED AS “ENCOURAGING CRIMINALS TO GROW & PILING-UP OF CASES IN COURT”, WHEN ALL THIS COULD HAVE BEEN NIPPED-UP, INITIALLY IF LAW & ORDER WAS AFFECTIVE.Hence,O.S.365/2004 and RA117/2008 with Fast Track Court 2.
* Causing mental-agony, inconvenience and hardship during my old age of 64 yrs.
Anonymous
01 November 2010 at 23:57
MSC Shekar
01 November 2010 at 11:14
Injustice to Ex.serviceman(Senior Citizen).Justice given to Money & Muscle Power.
Injustice to Ex.serviceman(Senior Citizen) Justice given to Money & Muscle Power,which encourages criminals to grow commotion in the living and working area. Herein, the accused who took law into his own hands,encroaching and pulling out the stone pillars and barbed- wire fencing and installing a katcha shed and black-mailing goes scot-free with judgement to his favour. Where has the sanctity of the courts gone?
Has one gauged the hurt sentiments of the Ex. serviceman, the time efforts and money further lost in the process of his claiming his legitimate land, the original documents made to surrender while filing the suit.
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (Sr. Divn.) (FTC-II), BANGALORE RURAL, Bangalore.
RA No. 117/2008
Between Rank of the Parties in
Trial Court Appellate Court
Smt. Chandrichandran Plaintiff Appellant
*Represented by her husband, GPA Holder P.K. Chandran, Appellant, Aged about 63 years,(Plaintiff in the Trial Court)
AND
Sri. Chikkanna and others. Respondant Defendants Respondents.
WRITTEN ARGUMENT BY APPELLANT.
Appellant most respectfully submits as follows:-
I. Appellant, being totally aggrieved, begs to prefer this regular appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed by learned Principal Civil Judge( Jr.Dn.),Bangalore Rural, Bangalore, in O.S.365/2004.dated 28.8.2004, sets out the facts and grounds hereafter.
II. Facts of the Case.
(a) Sy.No.11/2 measuring 1 Acre, 20 guntas of Gollarapalya, Yeswanthapura Hobli, was inherited by one Late Eranna and late Kempaiah (the two sons of Late Eraiah), who died intestate leaving behind their sons, i.e. Krishnappa son of Late Eranna, and 5 sons of Late Kempiah. The then signatories for the deal of origin (irrevocable G.P.A., sale agreement and affidavit) was therefore 1. Krishnappa son of Late Eranna, and 2. Thammayanna son of Kempiah and 3. Eranna son of Kempiah, and followed which defendants 1 to 3, and his LRS. The original layout formed, consisted of 30 sites during 1982-83, 1983-84. Until 1991, the Sale of Revenue sites and Land registration were prohibited due to the Fragmentation Act. During these periods, the transfers of Lands were affected by executing irrevocable General Power of Attorney, together with delivery of possession, acknowledging receipt for sales consideration, made on oath by Affidavit and Sale Agreement.
(b) The General Power of Attorney holder of plaintiff (who is her husband), paid the entire Sales consideration and was put in possession of site 8 and 9, in the layout formed in Sy.No.11/2, way back in 1983. The General Power of Attorney was signed by Eranna, Thammayanna, the eldest 2 brothers who had attained majority and also by
Krishnappa son of Eraiah, who were then the majors. The said Power of Attorney Holder, had fenced the sites 8 and 9 together, erecting and connecting the stone pillars with barbed wire on all sides of the boundary line.
c) On the strength of the Power of Attorney dated 30.05.1983,alongwith affidavit and sale agreement executed by Eraiah, Thammayanna and Krishnappa in favour of Mr. P.K. Chandran, who in turn executed a registered Sale Deed on 4.12.2000. Hence, the Plaintiff became the Owner and got lawful possession through P.K. Chandran, as Power of Attorney holder of Original Owners.
d) Mr. P.K.Chandran (husband of plaintiff), was serving in the Indian Army, a wing of the Indian armed forces and subsequently joined, on an all India competitive entry into the Merchant Navy ( the second line of defence ) at S.C.I. Bombay, and on his retirement, plaintiff and her Power of Attorney, who is also the husband, shifted their residence to Chennai, port area for their retired livelihood(being a non-pensioner).Taking advantage of appellants absence,their non presence in Bangalore, defendants opportunistically trespassed the land, with an evil motive to grab the land, and thus pulled out the laid fencing and put up a katcha shed(which were in unfinished form, when the police was informed and when police drove the miscreants away), which has led to the present Litigation.
e) The Respondants have trespassed over the sites 8 and 9 on 17th March 2004, for which Criminal Complaint was lodged against them on 18.3.2004 with the jurisdictional TAVAREKERE Police Station. The Police Registered the Crime under Sec.447 and 427 of IPC vide CRIME F.I.R. No.55/2004 dated 24th March 2004, the police stopped the construction work and chased away the miscreants from constructing the katcha shed, while in unfinished state. Photographs submitted in court, if viewed would reveal the facts. The Police thereafter issued an endorsement that the dispute is of Civil in nature. The Plaintiff, an aggrieved ex-serviceman has approached various civil authorities in administration, of law and order authorities, inclusive of the ADC to His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka State, who responded to the Police authorities (Ref: The Principal Secretary to Governor, Raj Bhavan, Bangalore to the Superintendent of Police, Bangalore District(Rural) vide Ltr.Ref:GS930/D/2004 dated 11th May 2004, to do the needful and help but all of vain. Shri. Rabindranath Tagore IPS, the then IGP,
Bangalore(Rural), advised the appellant (ex.serviceman) to seek the court of law for justice and alas the assistance sought of Karnataka Legal aid Services and thus the suit was filed on 06.04.2004 with great difficulties, as the appellant had to be shunted to Chennai to collect all the original documents and submit to the court for suit acceptance, which was mandatory, resulting in further time, money and his efforts. In the meanwhile, the defendants filed counter suit O.S. 341/2004, against their elder brothers Thammayanna and Eranna, who had executed the sale by the 1983 G.P.A. and received the Sale consideration, more importantly unfairly impleading the Appellant as Defendant No.3, for Partition of Sy.No.11/2, while the other flat owners twenty-eight (28) of them were left out, on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn). The said suit is still pending. Appellant was unfairly made a party so as to harass and humiliate, being shunted from Chennai and back, such that he gives up, for the ongoing difficulties.
f) The Appellant also filed an interim application for amendment of the Plaint, by adding an alternative prayer for delivery of possession. Unfortunately the learned Trial Judge, completely lost sight of the said application and without passing any order thereon has mercilessly dismissed the suit on 28th August 2008, not considering the ex-serviceman’s hard-earned land was encroached, fencing pulled out forcibly and illegally taken possession. Encouraging the accused.
V. Grounds in Support of the Appeal
1. The Judgment and decree of the Trial Court are contrary to law, evidence on record and pleadings in the case.
2. It is an error to hold that there was a temporary injunction against the Appellant / plaintiff regarding the possession of suit scheduled property during the pendency of OS.365/2004, while not considering the ex-serviceman’s land was encroached, site boundary fencing pulled out forcibly and illegally taken possession. Despite “status quo” announced in the court hall, the respondents went ahead finishing and modifying the katcha shed when appellant said unfit for human living, since no ventilation itself except an unfinished door, who then fabricated the revenue records, taking the electricity and telephone connection, during the pendancy of the case, adding to crimes. Please view photographs submitted in the court-hall, would be self-explanatory.
3. The learned trial Judge has failed to consider the evidence on record and admission made by DW1 regarding the Sale of sites, division of property, formation of layout etc. Ex P1, P2 and P4 are not considered and the recitals not taken into Consideration.
4. It is respectfully submitted that forcible Criminal trespass on the suit schedule property, on the eve of the institution of the suit cannot be construed as legal possession or settled possession of the defendants. A FORCIBLE TEMPORARY OCCUPATION DOES NOT AMOUNT TO POSSESSION, in such circumstances the possession legally continues with the registered land owner.
5. In the present case the plaintiff has proved her legal possession from December 2000 and the POSSESSION OF HER HUSBAND WAY BACK FROM MAY 1983 CONTINUOUSLY. The Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff is not challenged. Criminal trespass on 17.03.2004, leading to Criminal complaint and instituting the suit through the help of the Legal Aid Services Authority, by 6.4.2004 which therefore cannot lead to the finding that defendant is in possession as on the date of the suit. IT IS SUBMITTED, THAT THE CONCEPT OF POSSESSION IS SOMETHING MUCH MORE THAN FORCIBLE PHYSICAL OCCUPATION. The learned trial Judge has misconstrued, by committing an error to conclude that the same amounts to admission of possession of Defendant.
6. Hence, it is an error apparent, to hold that there an injunction against the plaintiff, regarding possession of the suit schedule property.
7. During the Cross-Examination. DW1, admitted that one acre of Land was formed into sites in Sy.No.11/2, and the sites were sold to 3rd parties and Sales Consideration was also received by the defendants. It was also admitted that it is not cultivated land and as per the voters list marked in the case they are residing only in the village (Gramatana). This is contrary to the assertion that one of the defendants is residing in the encroached suit schedule house. The learned Trial Judges has not applied her mind and not considered the same in recording the findings.
8. It is respectfully submitted that the validity of the Sale Deed and the Power of Attorney is not challenged. It is also contended that the Documents executed by Eranna and Thammayanna, are not binding on the Defendants. In the circumstances of the reasoning adopted by the trial judges is perverse and motivated.
9. It is respectfully submitted that in view of the admission by DW1, that the sites were formed and sold and the suit schedule property are sites 8 and 9 formed in such layout. The purchaser namely the Plaintiff /Appellant is entitled to continue the claim as absolute owners and she is in lawful possession.
10. The Trial Court has committed an error of Jurisdiction, in not considering the Application for amendment of the prayer by seeking an alternate prayer for possession. The said application is pending and the arguments were made by the appellant. Two reported decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court etc. Were cited and copies furnished. The trial Judge has committed error of Jurisdiction in not taking into consideration of such application and proceeded to judgment, without passing an order on IA, nor granting the alternate relief of possession.
11. Further submits, more importantly that the respondents have not submitted any documentary evidence to substantiate their title, rights possession and interest over the suit scheduled properties. They have no approved plan by competent authority to submit and identify their rights over the suit scheduled property.
12. The respondents have not made any other owners of the said layout as a party, which clearly indicates to harass and humiliate the ex-serviceman owner of sites 8 & 9, staying elsewhere(Chennai), to knock-off the appellant’s hard-earned land. All these land grab attempts owing to the high rise land prices that occurred due to urban modernization by improved roads, highways etc.
13. The Trial Court failed to record a finding that the application for amendment was not opposed by the defendants in view of the fact that the no argument were advanced on behalf of the defendant and the legal proposition that the possession follows title has to be applied to the facts of the case.
PRAYER
Therefore, the Appellant prays that the setting aside the judgment and decree of trial court. The Honorable Court may be pleased to decree the suit for permanent injunction or alternatively for possession of suit schedule property with costs throughout.
VALUATION
The suit is for permanent injunction and ad-volerem court fee of Rs.25/- had been paid under section 26 read with section 49A Karnataka Court fee and suit Valuation Act.
For purpose of court fee appeal is valued at Rs.1000/- and for purposes of Jurisdiction the suit schedule property is valued at Rs.1,59,000/- The plaintiff is prepared to pay additional Court fee, if the suit is decreed for possession.
Bangalore: ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT APPELLANT Date :
PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL. By Speed Post.SPETO17205374IN04102010. For URGENT attention please.
Shri. Hans Raj Bhardwaj, His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka State,
“Raj Bhavan” Raj Bhavan Road
Bangalore 560 001 INDIA.
Most Respected Sir,
I have for humble submission the following few lines, for which I am constrained to do so, encroaching your valuable and precious time of your good high office, to please intervene, for a good and just cause, thereby instil justice and fairplay in courts, so that the sanctity of the courts are maintained.
Subject: “Re-An Ex-serviceman(Senior Citizen)’s hard-earned “Land-grabbed”.
- case unreasonably dragged in courts with administrative deficiencies of liberal adjournments and aggrieved shunted between Chennai and Bangalore. In the process, the innocent only suffers. Land- grabbing case of a senior citizen & ex-serviceman, in Bangalore City Civil Court i.e. O.S.365/2004 & R.A.117/2009. Fast Track Court 2. There is no sprinkle of truth being seen, but for falsifying the truth, due to money and muscle power, to knock off my property.
Falsifying the truth by all means for gain, engaging specialised mentoring criminal- lawyers, for criminals to be tutored, availing the loop-holes, to suit the legal- process, “bringing injustice to the innocent common- litigant”, throws away the sanctity of the courts, from the minds of the common people. Therefore, it is high-time, the honourable court administration, realises this for an early corrective-action. Justice should come to the common man irrespective of whether; it is from the Lower or Higher or Supreme Court. Dr. Chandran Peechulli. Marine Waves.
“The media shouldn't be a spectator to the true happenings of crime and injustice nor play the role of a messenger in reporting without verifying the real facts. – Dr. Chandran Peechulli. Marine Waves
Common-man fails to get justice, because of inefficiency or corruption of prosecuting agencies. “Always aim at complete harmony of thought, word and deed by purifying one's thoughts and everything will go well.
Sai. R. Venkatakrishnan. Marine Waves.
“Humanity at the crossroads”; During the surge of scientific developments, which we experience with the advent of the computers and communication, media has seen and heard tremendous changes, bringing the world together with free exchange of thoughts and ideas amongst engineers, scientists, doctors and allied fields etc. However, judiciary, continue to be kept at high esteem though for non-performance of timely justice, indisciplined lawyers taking law into their hands (T.O.I. Dtd.26.06.2007, 16.09.2008 etc. Chennai Edition). The common man suffers. *view image and text attached.
I am a hard-working honest ex-serviceman, with national solidarity, whose hard-earned land grabbed and being totally harassed and humiliated to give-up, while fighting-out for justice, in Bangalore City Civil Courts, Fast Track 2, incurring since 2004, further unnecessary money, time and efforts in the old age of 64 years, it is like de-moralising the loyal citizen like me, who once came forward to sacrifice my life, to defend the nation from external threats. Now put in a state of severe mental stress/agony, for no fault of mine.
Self, an aggrieved ex-serviceman had approached various civil authorities in administration, law and order authorities, inclusive of the ADC to His Excellency the Governor of Karnataka State, who responded to the Police authorities (Ref: The Principal Secretary to Governor, Raj Bhavan, Bangalore to the Superintendent of Police, Bangalore District(Rural) vide Ltr.Ref:GS930/D/2004 dated 11th May 2004, to do the needful and help, but all of vain. Shri. Rabindranath Tagore IPS, the then IGP, Bangalore(Rural), advised the appellant (ex.serviceman) to seek the court of law for justice and alas the assistance sought of Karnataka Legal aid Services and thus the suit was filed on 06.04.2004 with great difficulties, as the appellant had to be shunted to Chennai to collect all the original documents and submit to the court for suit acceptance, which was mandatory, resulting in further time, money and his efforts. In the meanwhile, the defendants filed counter suit O.S. 341/2004, against their elder brothers Thammayanna and Eranna, who had executed the sale by the 1983 G.P.A., Affidavit and received the Sales consideration, more importantly unfairly impleading the Appellant as Defendant No.3, for Partition of Sy.No.11/2, while the other flat owners twenty-eight (28) of them were left out, on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), but to harass and humiliate me, to make me fed-up and give- up. "Chief Justice of US Supreme Court John Marshall had once said: "Power of Judiciary lies not in deciding cases, nor in imposing sentences nor in punishing for contempt, but in the trust, faith and confidence of the common man".
India though densely populated and though there could be cut-throat competition within the legal profession, these days the wrong trend, is to look for short-cuts, make fast money unlike the olden days, while no receipts given for fees, to poor litigants by advocates. Advocates therefore collude, betray and harm their clients as well, clients put in a state of confusion, as to which Advocate to be approached, for sincere professional services, to know of the loyalty-rating, since well read and travelled person also suffers, if so, what about the common man? The same aggrieved ex-serviceman had very bad experience in attending courts, shunting between Chennai and Bangalore after incurring around Rs.50,000 with a senior advocate who colluded with the opposite party and later was constrained, to changeover for economy, back to the honest legal-aid advocate, Sri. Revanna Siddappa, though with shorter experience for his age, who started off initially the case, and now resting with the almighty god, if exists for justice and your kind help, using your good and high office, to give me justice.
The respondents had purposefully concealed the name of Eraih, father of Eranna and Kempiah, this suppression of facts need to have been seriously viewed by the honourable court, orelse it causes grave concern to the aggrieved appellant and their family members. It is an admitted fact that one signatory of the three, in the irrevocable G.P.A., by name Krishnappa son of late Eranna and the other two signatories Thamayanna and Eranna sons of Kempiah were the bonafide vendors of the suit scheduled property, who formed the layout, sold and received the entire sales consideration of the 30 sites and the possession was delivered by the said karthas of the family, for the benefits of the said family members. The Respondents/Defendants, were therefore also beneficiaries during 1983-84, as such the respondents have delivered the possession by way of G.P.A., Affidavit and receipt of the Sales consideration. The Appellant is in possession till the year 2000 by way of G.P.A from 1983 and thereafter from 2000 by way of Sale Deed. The possession of the suit scheduled property is in continuous possession without any interruption till the illegal trespass and illegal occupation by respondents by pulling out the stone pillars installed and connected with barbed wires fencing all the sides of site 8 and 9. The Respondents had denied all this with an evil intention to knock off the property, since the appellant was residing at Chennai, rest of the site owners being local residents were not disturbed nor made a party, in the suit scheduled property. Further, delay tactics applied by adjournments, and involving me alone in the partition suit(O.S.341/04), thus all harassment and humiliation meted out by the appellant only. Justice informs only the counsel can talk, appellant has no say.
It is an error to hold that there was a temporary injunction against the Appellant /plaintiff regarding the possession of suit scheduled property during the pendency of OS.365/2004, while not considering the ex-serviceman’s hard-earned land, which was encroached, site boundary fencing pulled out forcibly and illegally taken possession. Despite “status quo” announced in the court hall, the respondents went ahead finishing and modifying the katcha shed when appellant said unfit for human living, since no ventilation itself except an unfinished door, who then fabricated the revenue records, appears taken the electricity and telephone connection, during the pendancy of the case, adding to further crimes. Please view photographs taken and submitted in the court-hall, during the initial stages, which would be self-explanatory as the proof of evidence. However, owing to their high-handedness by money and muscle-power they continued giving different versions, fabricated, frivolous statements, altering land records by cheating and misappropriation, with specialised advocates to falsify the truth. The real owner and aggrieved litigant only knows, as to how his sentiments are hurt adding to expenditure to meet court hearings, efforts and further incurrence of money, since 2004. Lacks systematic enquiry and evaluation of evidence.
It is most humbly requested, to please use your good high office to give me justice so that my land is officially returned to me, thereby the culprits are severely punished orelse it is like encouraging the criminals to grow in society seeking easy and fast money. With respectful regards.
Yours respectfully,
P. K. Chandran
Complainant and owner of land.
1. Submitted copy of written argument.
2. Relevant media news of D.G. of Armed Forces,New Delhi.
3. Set of photographs-taken when Tavarekare Police ASI., stopped the construction work and drove them away.
Address: “Kaustubha” B1/2, No.12th Cross Street, Besant Nagar, Chennai-600090.
Phone: 098400-84216, e-mail: pkc484@yahoo.com
P.S. PLEASE HELP! HELP! EXPRESSING ALLEGATIONS – JUDGEMENT OF BLIND BIAS.
*AVAILING LEGAL-AID SERVICES. Judge never entertains, voice of the aggrieved litigant. Cannot afford expensive lawyer. TO OPINE ON THE TRIAL COURT ORDER, WHICH IS APPEALED AS “ENCOURAGING CRIMINALS TO GROW & PILING-UP OF CASES IN COURT”, WHEN ALL THIS COULD HAVE BEEN NIPPED-UP, INITIALLY IF LAW & ORDER WAS AFFECTIVE.Hence,O.S.365/2004 and RA117/2008 with Fast Track Court 2.
* Causing mental-agony, inconvenience and hardship during my old age of 64 yrs.