1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM RFA NO. 712 OF 2010 (DEC/INJ) BETWEEN: 1. N. JAGADISH SINCE DECEASED BY LRS 1(A) SMT. PREMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS W/O LATE NO. JAGADISH 1(B) SMT. PRATHIMA .J AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS W/O SACHIN D/O LATE N. JAGADISH 1(C) SMT. RESHMA .J AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS D/O LATE NO. JAGADISH 1(D) SRI. NAVEEN GOWDA AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS S/O LATE N. JAGADISH ALL ARE R/AT NO.231, 5TH MAIN 1ST CROSS, ATTUR LAYOUT BANGALORE NORTH BENGALURU-560 064. 2. SRI. KRISHNA S. TAVILDAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE S.K.TAVILDAR R/AT NO. 412, 2ND CORSS 2 5TH CROSS, KENGERI STAELLITE TOWN BANGALORE-560 060. [AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 22.03.2021] ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE FOR A1(A-D) AND A2) AND: 1 . SRI. K.A. SHASHIDHAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O K.V. ASHWATHANARAYANA RESIDING AT NO. 666 R.S.R.S ROAD, BANGARPET-563114. 2 . SMT. VATSALA NATARAJAN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS W/O LATE K. NATARAJAN RESIDING AT NO.65 "ANANTHA NILAYA", AGB LAYOUT II STAGE, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BANGALORE-560086. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR C-R1; V/O DATED 24.02.2011 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 30.03.2010 PASSED IN O.S. No. 2931/2008 ON THE FILE OF V ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR DECLARATION, MANDATORY INJUNCTION AND POSSESSION. THIS RFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 29.01.2026, THIS DAY JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER: 3 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM C.A.V. JUDGMENT The captioned appeal is by unsuccessful defendants 1 and 3 questioning the judgment and decree dated 30.3.2010 passed in O.S.No.2931/2008 wherein the plaintiff's suit for declaration and consequential relief of mandatory injunction and possession is decreed. 2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The facts leading to the case are as under: The plaintiff instituted the suit in O.S. No.2931/2008 seeking a declaration that he is the absolute owner of Site No.6 bearing Khata No.58/1 and for consequential reliefs. The plaintiff asserted that he acquired valid title and lawful possession over the suit schedule property pursuant to a registered sale deed dated 19.05.2006 executed in his favour by Smt. Chennamma. It was pleaded that Site No.6 is a revenue site carved out of agricultural land bearing Survey 4 No.58/1 and that the second defendant was the absolute owner of the said agricultural land, having acquired the same under a registered sale deed dated 09.08.2001. 4. The plaintiff’s case, as pleaded, is that the second defendant formed several residential sites in Survey No.58/1 and, as early as in the year 2003, sold Site No.6 in favour of Smt. Chennamma under a registered sale deed. The said Chennamma, having thus acquired valid title, subsequently conveyed Site No.6 in favour of the present plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 19.05.2006. On the strength of the said conveyance, the plaintiff asserted that he is the absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 5. It was further pleaded that on 25.03.2008, the plaintiff was informed by a neighbour, one Lokesh, that the first defendant along with his family members had attempted to perform Bhoomi Puja in respect of the suit site. On enquiry conducted on 26.03.2008, the plaintiff came to know that the 5 first defendant was claiming right over the suit site on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 05.12.2005 executed by the third defendant in his favour. The plaintiff therefore contended that the third defendant had no right, title or interest to convey Site No.6, inasmuch as the original owner, namely the second defendant, had already alienated Site No.6 in favour of Chennamma much prior to the alleged sale in favour of the third defendant. On these grounds, the plaintiff sought a declaration that the sale deed dated 05.12.2005 obtained by the first defendant is null, void and not binding on him. 6. The second defendant, who is the original owner of Survey No.58/1, filed her written statement admitting the plaintiff’s claim in unequivocal terms. She admitted that she had formed residential sites in the said survey number and had sold Site Nos. 4, 5, 6, 13, 16 and 18 to various purchasers, including Site No.6 in favour of Smt. Chennamma, and that possession was delivered to the respective purchasers. She further admitted that Chennamma, in turn, 6 sold Site No.6 in favour of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 19.05.2006. The second defendant categorically admitted that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of Site No.6. She also stated that she had informed the third defendant about the prior alienation of six sites and that an agreement was entered into, under which the third defendant was required to develop and sell the remaining extent of land in Survey No.58/1, excluding the six sites already sold. 7. Per contra, defendants 1 and 3 contested the suit by filing a detailed written statement and seriously disputed the plaintiff’s title. They contended that the third defendant had purchased the entire extent of land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas from the second defendant and her son and that after securing conversion of the land, a registered sale deed dated 14.12.2004 was executed in favour of the third defendant. It was further contended that the remaining 20 guntas was purchased from one Venkataramaiah. According to the defendants, the third defendant, after purchase and conversion, formed a residential layout and that the site 7 claimed by the plaintiff as Site No.6 is altogether different from the Site No.6 formed by the third defendant in the converted layout. The third defendant specifically denied the existence of any agreement excluding six sites from the sale and disputed the claim that Site No.6 had been previously alienated. 8. The parties, in support of their respective claims, adduced both oral and documentary evidence. The Trial Court, on a meticulous appreciation of the sale deeds relied upon by the plaintiff, the conveyance in favour of the third defendant, and the conversion order, recorded a categorical finding that the second defendant had sold agricultural land bearing Survey No.58/1 to the third defendant excluding six sites which had already been alienated prior to such sale. The Trial Court further held that the plaintiff had successfully traced his title through Smt. Chennamma, who had acquired Site No.6 under a registered sale deed dated 23.01.2003, much prior to the sale in favour of the third defendant. 8 9. The Trial Court also examined in detail the layout plan relied upon by the defendants, marked as Ex.D5, and found that there was a deliberate and conscious attempt to realign and renumber the sites in the second row so as to create confusion with regard to the identity of Site No.6 claimed by the plaintiff. The Court held that such mischief was clearly intended to defeat the lawful claim of the plaintiff. 10. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the Trial Court concluded that valid title in respect of Site No.6 had been conveyed by the second defendant to Chennamma, who in turn conveyed the same to the plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 19.05.2006. Consequently, the Trial Court decreed the suit, declaring the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and granted consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 9 11. Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing for defendants 1 and 3. 12. The following points arise for consideration: "(i) Whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that the suit schedule property, namely Site No.6 bearing Khata No.58/1, is part and parcel of agricultural land bearing Survey No.58/1? (ii) Whether the Trial Court rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in concluding that the second defendant, as the absolute owner of Survey No.58/1, had validly formed and alienated Site No.6 in favour of Smt. Chennamma under the registered sale deed dated 23.01.2003? (iii) Whether the Trial Court was correct in holding that, by virtue of the sale deed dated 23.01.2003, the second defendant stood divested of all right, title and interest in Site No.6 and that Chennamma was competent to convey valid title in 10 favour of the plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 19.05.2006? (iv) Whether the Trial Court committed any error in rejecting the contention of defendants 1 and 3 that the site purchased by the plaintiff and the site purchased by the first defendant are distinct and different properties falling under different local authority jurisdictions? (v) Whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that the third defendant had no saleable title in respect of Site No.6 and that the sale deed dated 05.12.2005 executed by the third defendant in favour of the first defendant is null, void and not binding on the plaintiff? (vi) Whether the Trial Court properly appreciated the admissions made by the second defendant in her written statement and chief-examination in terms of 11 Sections 17, 18 and 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872? (vii) Whether the Trial Court was right in drawing an adverse inference against defendants 1 and 3 under Section 114 illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in the facts and circumstances of the case? (viii) What Order?" FINDINGS ON POINTS (i) to (vii): 13. Before this Court proceeds to examine the rival claims touching upon the validity of the plaintiff’s title over the suit schedule property, namely Site No.6, it would be apposite to first advert to the categorical stand taken by the second defendant, who is the admitted and undisputed original owner of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.58/1. The second defendant having derived title under a registered sale deed and being the absolute owner of the said survey number, her pleadings and evidence assume significant probative value. In 12 this regard, para 4 of the written statement filed by the second defendant is of considerable relevance and, therefore, merits extraction and close scrutiny. Para 4 of the written statement of second defendant reads as under: "4. The averments made in Para 3 of the plaint that he is the sole and absolute owner of the Schedule Property, having acquired the same as detailed in Para 4 is true and correct. Likewise, the averments made in Para 5 that this defendant was the owner of the agricultural land measuring to an extent of 1 Acre in Sy. No. 58/1, Jarakabande Kaval Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk under a sale deed dated 09-08-2001 as per Document No. 2 annexed to the plaint is true and correct. Further it is true that this defendant has formed residential sites of various dimensions and has sold site bearing No. 6 in favour of Smt. Chennamma, and having put the said Chennamma in possession of the Schedule Property, under a sale deed dated 23-01-2003 as per Document No. 2 of the plaint. That said Chennamma has informed me that she has sold the said site in favour of the plaintiff and having put him in possession of the said site. It is also true that I have obtained Khatha Endorsement from the Byatarayanapura CMC vide document No. 5 annexed to the Plaint." 14. A conjoint reading of the said pleading reveals that the second defendant has unequivocally admitted that she had 13 formed revenue sites in Survey No.58/1 and had alienated six such sites, including Site No.6, in favour of different purchasers much prior to the sale in favour of the third defendant. This admission, coming from the original owner, goes to the very root of the matter and decisively establishes the factum of prior alienation of Site No.6. 15. The next crucial aspect which requires consideration is the comparative examination of the boundaries reflected in the registered sale deed dated 19.05.2006 obtained by the plaintiff, marked as Ex. P1, and the registered sale deed dated 05.12.2005 obtained by the first defendant through the third defendant, marked as Ex. P12. The schedules annexed to both these sale deeds, more particularly the boundaries, are required to be extracted and analysed in detail, as the entire controversy raised by defendants 1 and 3 hinges upon the alleged difference in identity of the sites. 14 Ex.P1 "
ೆಡೂಲು ವರ ಾ ೕ ಾಟಾಯನಪರ ನಗರಸೆ ಾೆ ಒಳಪ ರುವ 03!ೇ ಾ"#ೆ $ೇ%ದ ೆಂಗಳ(ರು ಉತರ +ಾಲೂ,ಕು, ಯಲಹಂಕ ೋಬ0, 1ಾರಕ ಬಂ2ೆ3ಾವಲು ಾ4ಮದ ಸ67ನ ನಂ.6, ಾಮಚಂದ4ಪರ ಾ4ಮ ಪಂ9ಾ: ;ಾ+ಾ ನಂ.58/1, ಾ ೕ <.ಎಂ.<.;ಾ+ಾ 06/58/1!ೇ ನಂಬರುಳ> ;ಾ ?ೇಶನ3ೆA ಚಕುAಬಂB- ಪCವ#3ೆA : 7!ೇ ನಂಬರು ಸ6ತು ಪFGಮ3ೆA : 5!ೇ ನಂಬರು ಸ6ತು ಉತರ3ೆA : 15!ೇ ನಂಬರು ಸ6ತು ದHಣ3ೆA : ರ$ೆ. ಈ ಮKೆ ಇರುವ ಪCವ# ಪFGಮ 30-0 ಮೂವತು ಅNಗಳO, ಉತರ ದHಣ 40-0 ನಲವತು ಅNಗಳO, ಒಟು 1200 ಚದರ ಅNಗಳO, ಈ %ೕ7 ಅಳ+ೆಯುಳ> ;ಾ ?ೇಶನ ಈ ಶುದP ಕ4ಯ3ೆA $ೇ%ರು+ೆ" Ex.P12: "SCHEDULE - 'Β' All the piece and parcel of Vacant site No. 6 carved out of Sy. No. 58/1 i.e Schedule 'A' property Residential Conversion Land, duly Converted from Agriculture to non- agriculatural Residential purpose vide Deputy Commissioner Order dated 9-7-2004, No. DS/ALN/SR(NA)/A/4/200402005, CMC Katha No.45/58/1p1, situated at Jarak bande Kaval, 15 Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 40 feet and bounded on : East by : Site bearing No. 7 West by : Site bearing No. 5 North by : Site bearing No. 13 and South by : Road, 25 feet" 16. Equally important for consideration is the rough sketch produced by the plaintiff, which depicts the alignment and positioning of the revenue sites originally formed by the second defendant. This sketch, when read in conjunction with the sale deed dated 23.01.2003 executed by the second defendant in favour of Chennamma, and the subsequent sale deed in favour of the plaintiff at Ex.P1, provides a consistent and coherent picture regarding the location and boundaries of Site No.6. On the other hand, the defendants have relied upon a layout plan, which is admittedly an unapproved one, said to have been prepared by the third defendant after purchase and conversion. Even this document, though lacking statutory approval, has been extracted and examined by this Court for 16 the limited purpose of appreciating the defence set up by defendant Nos.1 and 3. The layout plan is extracted as under: sw 17. On a closer and comparative examination of the schedules annexed to Exs. P1 and P12, it becomes manifest that the third defendant, who was fully aware of the prior sale HOUSING LAYOUT FORMED AT SY.NO.58/1P1 N BANGALORE-YELAHANKA MAIN ROAD PRIVATE PROPERTY 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' 30' FEET ROAD 40' 18A 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 24' ROAD WITH BOX-DRAIN AIR FORCE LAYOUT 25' 40' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 remaining land of FEET Sy.No. 58/1P1 ROAD 40' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 24' ROAD WITH BOX-DRAIN 50' 50' 50' 55' 1-C 1-D 4'6' 1-A 1-B 51' 54' 51' 51' TEACHERS LAYOUT DARA GA WALL 17 of six revenue sites by the second defendant as is evident from para 4 of the written statement filed by the second defendant has deliberately resorted to a device of rearranging and renumbering the sites. The site numbers in the second row have been assigned in a descending order from west to east, with a clear intention to create an artificial distinction between the site purchased by the plaintiff and the site conveyed to the first defendant. This manipulation is evident from the fact that in the plaintiff’s sale deed, the northern boundary is shown as Site No.15, whereas in the sale deed obtained by the first defendant, the northern boundary is reflected as Site No.13. 18. The second defendant, who is the original owner has not only acknowledged the sale of six revenue sites which includes suit site No.6, but she has also acknowledged the rough sketch furnished by the plaintiff. Second defendant secured conversion order and thereafter sold land bearing Survey No.58/1 excluding six sites. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to compare the sketch furnished by the plaintiff 18 which aligns with the sale of revenue sites by second defendant prior to conversion with that of the unapproved layout plan relied on by defendants 1 and 3. Both sketches are extracted to understand the core dispute between plaintiff and defendants 1 and 3. The sketch furnished by the plaintiff: The red marked portion is the suit schedule property. The sketch relied by defendant No.3 evidenced at Ex.D5 is as under: 19 19. It is precisely on the basis of this deliberate renumbering that the first defendant has vehemently contended that the site purchased by the plaintiff and the site conveyed in his favour are entirely different. However, such a contention does not withstand judicial scrutiny. When the rough sketch furnished by the plaintiff is examined in the light of the boundaries described in Ex. P2, the sale deed executed in favour of Chennamma by the second defendant and Ex. P1, it clearly establishes continuity and identity of the very same Site No.6. The alignment of boundaries remains consistent and unaltered, thereby demolishing the defence theory of distinct and separate sites. 20. The evidence on record unmistakably discloses that the third defendant, despite being put on notice about the prior alienation of six revenue sites, has consciously formed a layout by interchanging site numbers in the second row with the sole object of creating confusion and of circumventing the earlier valid conveyances made by the original owner. Such conduct, far from conferring any legitimacy on the claim of 20 defendants 1 and 3, reinforces the plaintiff’s case of prior and lawful acquisition of title. 21. The stand taken by the second defendant in para 4 of her written statement, when read conjointly with her chief- examination, leaves no room for doubt. The second defendant, being a competent and natural witness to the transactions in question, has unequivocally admitted the formation and sale of six revenue sites, including the suit Site No.6. This admission, coupled with the documentary evidence, conclusively establishes that the plaintiff traces his title to a valid and prior conveyance and that the subsequent transactions relied upon by defendants 1 and 3 cannot, in law or on facts, defeat the plaintiff’s lawful title over the suit schedule property. 22. A feeble attempt is made by defendants 1 and 3 to contend that Site No.6 purchased by the plaintiff falls within the jurisdiction of Ramachandra Gram Panchayat, as reflected in the plaintiff’s sale deed, whereas the conversion order and the sale deed obtained by the first defendant through 21 defendant No.3 place the property within the jurisdiction of Byatarayanapura City Municipal Council. On this premise, it is contended that the Site No.6 claimed by the plaintiff and the site purchased by the first defendant are entirely different properties. This contention is wholly untenable and devoid of merit. 23. The said defence stands completely demolished in view of the categorical and unequivocal admissions made by the second defendant/the admitted original owner of Survey No.58/1 in para 4 of her written statement, coupled with her statement in chief-examination, more particularly para 4 thereof. The second defendant has clearly admitted that Site No.6 is part and parcel of agricultural land bearing Survey No.58/1 and that the same was formed and sold by her much prior to the alleged sale in favour of defendant No.3. In view of such an admission, the identity of the suit site and its origin from Survey No.58/1 stands conclusively established. 22 24. It is trite that admissions are substantive evidence by themselves. In terms of Sections 17 and 18 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the statements made by the second defendant in her pleadings and sworn testimony squarely fall within the definition of “admission”. By virtue of Section 58 of the Evidence Act,1872 facts admitted need not be proved. Therefore, once the original owner admits the formation and sale of Site No.6 out of Survey No.58/1, the burden on the plaintiff to further prove the origin and identity of the site stands substantially discharged. 25. The contention regarding jurisdiction of the local authority is equally misconceived. It is a matter of common occurrence that when revenue sites are formed and alienated prior to conversion, Khata extracts are issued by the Gram Panchayat, and such sites are described by Khata numbers instead of survey numbers. Merely because the plaintiff’s sale deed refers to Khata No.58/1 and the Panchayat jurisdiction, the defendants cannot contend that the site is distinct or unrelated to Survey No.58/1. The documentary evidence 23 produced by the plaintiff, more particularly Exs. P-3 to P-10, consistently refer to Survey No.58/1, thereby establishing that Site No.6 emanates from the very same survey number. 26. Further, the rough sketch produced by the plaintiff depicting the alignment and location of the revenue sites is admitted by the second defendant in para 2 of her written statement. This admission further fortifies the plaintiff’s case with regard to the identity and location of Site No.6. Once the original owner admits both the formation and sale of the site and also acknowledges the correctness of the sketch, defendants 1 and 3 cannot be permitted to dispute the very existence or identity of the suit site. 27. In law, once a valid sale is effected by the owner, the vendor is divested of all right, title and interest in the property sold. Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 postulates that a transfer of property passes forthwith to the transferee all the interest which the transferor is capable of passing. In the present case, by executing a registered sale 24 deed dated 23.01.2003 in favour of Smt. Chennamma, marked as Ex.P2, the second defendant completely divested herself of title in respect of Site No.6. Consequently, the second defendant had no subsisting right or interest in Site No.6 thereafter, and such right could not have been conveyed, either directly or indirectly, to defendant No.3. 28. In terms of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, a sale of immovable property of the value exceeding Rs.100/- can be made only by a registered instrument. Ex.P2 being a registered sale deed executed in favour of Chennamma constitutes a valid conveyance in the eye of law. Chennamma, having thus acquired absolute title, was fully competent to convey the same to the plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 19.05.2006 (Ex.P1). The plaintiff therefore acquired valid and lawful title over Site No.6. 29. On the other hand, defendant No.3, who admittedly purchased the remaining extent of land in Survey No.58/1 after prior alienation of six revenue sites, could not have 25 acquired any right, title or interest in respect of Site No.6. A vendor cannot convey a better title than what he himself possesses. Therefore, the sale deed executed by defendant No.3 in favour of the first defendant, insofar as it relates to Site No.6, does not convey any right or title and is legally ineffectual. 30. This Court also cannot lose sight of the peculiar manner in which the second defendant was prevented from offering herself for cross-examination. Though she entered the witness box and tendered her chief-examination supporting the plaintiff’s case, she was not subjected to cross- examination. In such circumstances, an adverse inference under Section 114 illustration (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is liable to be drawn against defendants 1 and 3, and not against the plaintiff. The conduct of defendants 1 and 3 in effectively stalling the cross-examination of a crucial witness, whose evidence goes against them, reinforces the credibility of the plaintiff’s version. 26 31. The second defendant, a lady owner of the land in question, has acted with candour and fairness by filing a written statement admitting the prior sale of six revenue sites and by stating that defendant No.3 was duly informed of such prior alienations and was required, under the agreement, to exclude those six sites while dealing with the remaining land. This admission strikes at the very root of the defence set up by defendants 1 and 3. 32. In view of the unequivocal admissions of the second defendant, the registered sale deed dated 23.01.2003 (Ex.P2), the subsequent conveyance in favour of the plaintiff (Ex.P1), and the consistent documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff, it stands clearly established that the second defendant had lost all right, title and interest over Site No.6 much prior to the alleged sale in favour of defendant No.3. Consequently, defendant No.3 had no saleable title in respect of Site No.6, and the sale deed executed by him in favour of the first defendant does not convey any right, title or interest 27 over the suit schedule property and is therefore null, void and not binding on the plaintiff. 33. For the foregoing detailed discussion and the cumulative assessment of the pleadings, oral testimony, and documentary evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has successfully discharged the burden cast upon him. The plaintiff has convincingly established that the suit schedule property, namely Site No.6 bearing Khata No.58/1, is in fact part and parcel of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.58/1 and that the said site was lawfully formed and carved out by the second defendant while she was the absolute owner of the said survey number, much prior to the sale in favour of the third defendant. 34. This Court further holds that the plaintiff has conclusively substantiated that the second defendant, in her capacity as the absolute owner of Survey No.58/1, had already alienated Site No.6 in favour of Smt. Chennamma 28 under a registered sale deed dated 23.01.2003. By virtue of the said conveyance, the second defendant stood completely divested of all right, title and interest in respect of Site No.6. Chennamma, having thus acquired valid and lawful title, was fully competent to convey the same, and she accordingly transferred Site No.6 in favour of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 19.05.2006. The plaintiff, therefore, acquired valid title in accordance with law. 35. On the contrary, the defendants have utterly failed to establish that the third defendant had purchased the entire extent of land in Survey No.58/1 inclusive of Site No.6. The evidence on record clearly demonstrates that the purchase made by the third defendant was subject to prior alienations and exclusions, and consequently, the third defendant had no subsisting or saleable interest in respect of Site No.6. In this factual and legal backdrop, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the sale deed dated 05.12.2005 executed by the third defendant in favour of the first defendant, insofar as it relates to Site No.6, is null, void and not binding on the 29 plaintiff, the same having been executed in the teeth of a prior valid conveyance. 36. The plaintiff has also satisfactorily proved his lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of the institution of the suit. The defendants, despite contest, have failed to establish that there was no exclusion of six revenue sites from the sale in favour of the third defendant or to dislodge the categorical admissions made by the second defendant, who is the original owner of the property. 37. Upon an overall appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, this Court finds no infirmity in the findings recorded by the Trial Court. On the contrary, the material on record clearly supports the conclusion that defendants 1 and 3 had indulged in deliberate manipulation and realignment of site numbers in the layout plan with an intent to create confusion regarding the identity of Site No.6 and to defeat the prior lawful transactions. The relief of declaration of title and the consequential relief of permanent 30 injunction granted by the Trial Court are founded on cogent, consistent, and clinching evidence and do not call for interference. For the foregoing reasons, points (i) to (iii) and (v) to (vii) are answered in the affirmative and point No.(iv) is answered in the negative. FINDING ON POINT No.(viii) 38. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB