Bangalore District Court
Bhoopal K vs Hamsaksheera Dr Rajkumar Abhimanigala ... on 4 January, 2024
KABC010150322017
PRESENT: SRI PADMA PRASAD, B.A.(Law), LL.B.,
XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2024 .
PLAINTIFF: Sri. K.Bhoopal S/o Late Krishna
Mandiri, Aged about 50 years,
Residing at No.50, 1st Main
Road, Near Parvathy Kalyana
Mantappa, Ramachndrapura,
Bengaluru-560 021.
[By Sri. R Suresh Babu. Advocate]
/v e r s u s/
DEFENDANTS: 1. Hamsaksheera Dr. Rajkumar
Abhimanigala Sangha(R).,
Represented by its President
Sri.B.Yathiraj S/o Late Bylappa,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at No.C160, 1st Main Road,
Ramachandrapura,
Bengaluru-560 021.
2. Sri.P.B.Ramesh S/o Late
Shivappa, Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.50, 1st Floor, 1st Main
Road, Near Parvathy Kalyana
Mantapa, Ramachandrapura,
Bengaluru-560 021.
[D1-Sri.H.S.D., Advocate]
[D2- placed exparte]
2 O.S._4139_2017_Judgment_.doc
Date of institution of the : 21/06/2017
suit
Nature of the suit : For Declaration
Date of commencement of : 08/04/2021
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 04/01/2024
Judgment was
pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
6 6 14
(PADMA PRASAD)
XVIII ACCJ: B'LURU.
This is a suit for declaration.
2. The plaint case in nutshell is that, plaintiff
is the absolute owner of the property bearing No.50
situated at 1st Main Road, near Parvathi Kalyana
Mandapam, Ramachandrapuram, Bangalore and also
he raised the loan of Rs.12,50,000/- from NKGSB Co-
operative Bank Ltd., Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru vide
Mortgage Deed dated 17.08.2016. The 1 st defendant
has misrepresented the plaintiff that he is the
President of Hamsaksheera Dr.Rajkumar
Abhimanigala Sangha®, which is a social organization
3 O.S._4139_2017_Judgment_.doc
established for upliftment of downtrodden people and
requested the plaintiff to give one of the shops
constructed in the ground floor of the suit schedule
property to organize its functions, programs and other
activities of the said Sangha. As such, the plaintiff
has executed the registered Gift Deed dated
19.05.2011 in favour of 1st defendant with regard to
RCC Roofed ground floor of the shop in the suit
schedule property to organize its functions, programs
and activities. But 1st defendant has let out suit
schedule property to the 2nd defendant to run tailoring
and textile business and receiving rent without
having no right or legal sanctity to let out the
schedule premises and to collect rent and also
violated the terms and conditions of the said Gift
deed. Recently, the plaintiff has came to know that the
Sangha is not registered body and is created by the
President of the 1st defendant and presently said
Sangha is not in existence. In order to grab the suit
shop/ property from the plaintiff to enrich himself at
the cost of the plaintiff has falsely misrepresented and
4 O.S._4139_2017_Judgment_.doc
induced the plaintiff to give the suit schedule property
in favour of Sangha. Accordingly, the execution of gift
deed by plaintiff is liable to be cancelled and amongst
other grounds prayed to allow the suit.
3. Defendant filed written statement, wherein
the defendant admitted that the suit schedule
property belongs to plaintiff and executed the
registered gift deed dated 19.05.2011 in favour of
defendant No.1 and accordingly defendant No.1
becomes the owner of said property. The defendant
No.1 has not carried any illegal acts claimed and also
not misuse or misappropriated the Sangha or
premises. The execution of gift deed in favour of
defendant No.1 by the plaintiff is out of free will and
volition. The gift deed has been accepted by the
defendant No.1, hence it is not open for the plaintiff to
seek re-conveyance. The defendant No.1 also claiming
that it is carrying out or conducting the programs
since 2000 in the suit schedule property. The
defendant No.1 also claiming that the suit is barred by
limitation and not properly valued. The plaintiff falsely
5 O.S._4139_2017_Judgment_.doc
claimed that the defendant No.1 has let out the
premise to defendant No.2 and totally denied the said
contentions and among other grounds prayed for
dismissal of suit.
4. On the basis of above pleading the court
framed following issues for consideration:
(1) Whether plaintiff proves that the
registered gift deed dtd.19.5.2011
executed by the plaintiff in favour of
1st defendant is a conditional gift
deed?
(2) Whether plaintiff proves that
defendant No.1 had violated the
conditions of the gift deed by letting
out the schedule shop/property in
favour of 2nd defendant on monthly
rent and for other purposes?
(3) Whether plaintiff proves that the gift
deed in favour of 1st defendant is by
force, pressure, coercion,
misrepresentation?
(4) Whether the suit is barred by
limitation?
(5) Whether court fee paid is insufficient?
(6) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the
relief of re-conveyance deed as
prayed?
(7) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the
relief of mandatory injunction as
prayed?
6 O.S._4139_2017_Judgment_.doc
(8) Whether plaintiff is entitled for
possession of the suit schedule
property as prayed?
(9) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the
relief of permanent injunction as
prayed?
(10) What order or decree?
5. Plaintiff in order to prove his case,
examined herself as PW.1 and got marked documents
as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P23. On the other hand,
President of defendant No.1 is examined as DW.1 and
got marked documents as per Ex.D1 to Ex.D28.
6. Heard the arguments and perused entire
records. The learned advocate for plaintiff has relied
on citation of AIR 2001 SC 2340 between Thakur
Raghunath Ji Maharaj & Anr., Vs. Ramesh Chandra.
7. My findings on the above issues are as
under:
Issue No. 1) ............; Affirmative
Issue No. 2) ............; Affirmative
Issue No. 3) ............; Negative
Issue No. 4) ............; Negative
Issue No. 5) ............; Negative
Issue No. 6) ............; Affirmative
7 O.S._4139_2017_Judgment_.doc
Issue No. 7) ............; Affirmative
Issue No. 8) ............; Affirmative
Issue No. 9) ............; Negative
Issue No. 10) ............ As per final order for
the following:
8. ISSUE NO.1 TO 9: Issue No.1 is framed
on the contention of plaintiff that the registered gift
deed executed by the plaintiff in favour of 1 st
defendant dated 19.05.2011 is a conditional gift deed;
the issue No.2 is framed in view of the claim of
plaintiff that defendant No.1 had violated the
conditions of gift deed by letting out of the schedule
shop/property in favour of 2nd defendant on monthly
rent; issue No.3 is also framed on the contention of
plaintiff that the 1st defendant by using the force,
pressure, coercion, misrepresentation obtained the
gift deed; issue No.4 and 5 are framed on the specific
defence of defendant that the suit is barred by
limitation and suit is not properly valued as well as
proper court fee not paid; issue No.6 to 9 are
regarding the entitlement for the reliefs claimed in the
8 O.S._4139_2017_Judgment_.doc
suit. As such all these issues are interlinked with
each other, hence they have been taken up together to
avoid repetition.
9. Whatever the contentions of the parties, it
is an undisputed the fact in the case is that the
plaintiff has acquired the suit schedule property along
with other properties and thereafter as on 19.05.2011
the plaintiff executed the gift deed in respect of suit
schedule property in favour of defendant No.1. The
execution of gift deed dated 19.05.2011 is an a
admitted fact. The claim of the plaintiff in the suit is
that the gift deed is conditional gift deed and the
defendant No.1 is bound by the terms and conditions
of the gift deed. It is the case of plaintiff in the suit is
that the defendant in gross violation of terms and
conditions of the Gift Deed, leased out the suit
schedule premises to defendant No.2 on monthly rent
of Rs.10,000/- accordingly claimed that the defendant
No.1 had violated the terms of gift deed, hence the
defendant No.1 is liable to execute the re-conveyance
deed in respect of suit schedule premises.
9 O.S._4139_2017_Judgment_.doc
10. The defendant No.1 totally disputed the
subletting or leasing out of the suit schedule premises
to defendant No.2. However, the defendant No.1
during the course of evidence of DW1 admitted the
presence of defendant No.2/Ramesh in the schedule
premises claiming that he was/is assisting the
defendant No.1 in its day to day affairs. As such it is
for the plaintiff to prove that the schedule premises or
property gifted to defendant No.1 has been leased out
to defendant No.1 in violation of terms and condition
and similarly the defendant No.1 has to prove that it
has used the premises to achieve the objects of
defendant No.1 Sangha/Association.
11. The plaintiff in support of his case
examined himself as PW1 and got marked documents
at Ex.P.1 to 23. Similarly the President of defendant
No.1 is examined as DW.1 and got marked
documents as per Ex.D1 to Ex.D28.
12. As it is the claim of plaintiff is that the
terms and condition of the gift deed has been violated
10 O.S._4139_2017_Judgment_.doc
by the defendant No.1, it is just and necessary to see
the said gift deed and to see that is there any terms
and conditions imposed in the gift deed. The plaintiff
got marked the certified copy of gift deed dated
19.05.2011 at Ex.P.3.
13. The conditions found in page No.3 at 2 nd
paragraph of the gift deed reads as under:-
"ಈ ಲಗಯಯ ದನದ ಷಡಡ ಲ ಸಸ ತಯ ನ ಮಲ ಹಸಕಕ ಕರ
ಡ. ರಜ ಕಮರ ಅಭಮನಗಳ ಸಘವ ಮತತ ಸಪರರ
ಹಕಕ ಮತಯ ಮಲಕಕತಸ ವನನ ಹಹದ, ಷಡಡ ಲ ಸಸ ತಯ ನ ಬಬಯ
ಕದಯ ವಗರ ತರಗಗಳನನ ಬಹತ ಬಹಗಳರ ಮಹನಗರ
ಪಲಕ ಕಛರಗ ಪವತ ಮಡಕಹಡ, ದನದ ಷಡಡ ಲ ಸಸ ತಯ ನ
ಖತಯನನ ಸಹ ಸಘದ ಹಸರಗ ಮಡಸಕಹಡ, ದನದ
ಷಡಡ ಲ ಸಸ ತಯ ನಲಲ ಸಘದ ವತಯಹದ ಸಘದ ಕಲಸ
ಕಯರಗಳ, ಕಯರಕತ ಮಗಳ, ಚಟವಟಕಗಳನನ ಮತತ
ನಡಸಕಹಡ ಉತಯ ರಕತಯ ರ ಮಹದವರಸಲ ನನನ
ಅಭಡ ಹತರವನ ಇರವದಲಲ " .
14. Similarly the aforesaid conditions to be read
along with 4th paragraph of the gift deed at page No.3
that reads as under:-
" ದನದ ಷಡಡ ಲ ಸಸ ತಯ ನನ ಮಹದ ಸಘವ ಮರಟ
ಮಡಲ ಇಚಚ ಸದದ ಲಲ ಆಗ ಈ ಸಸ ತಯ ನನ ನನಗ ಅಥವ ನನನ
ವರಸಸ ದರರಗ ಮತತ ಮರಟ ಮಡವ ಹಕಕ ನನ ಸಘವ
ಹಹದರತಯ ದಯ ಹರತ ದನದ ಷಡಡ ಲ ಸಸ ತನನ
ಬರಯರಗ ಯವ ಕಲಕಕ , ಯವ ಸದಭರದಲಲ ,
ಯವ ವಧವಗಯ ಸಹ ಕತ ಯ, ದನ, ಕತ ಯದ ಒಪಪ ಹದ
11 O.S._4139_2017_Judgment_.doc
ವಗರ ಪರಭರಗಳಗ ಈಡಮಡವ ಹಕಕ , ಅಧಕರಗಳ
ಸಘಕಕ ಆಗಲ ಅಥವ ಇದರ ಪತ ತನಧ/ ಪದಧಕರಗಳಗ ಆಗಲ
ಇರವದಲಲ " .
15. If the aforesaid two conditions are accepted,
it is clear that the defendant No.1 has no right to
alienate the suit schedule premises that has been
gifted to defendant No.1 under Ex.P.1/gift deed and
the gift deed premises/ suit schedule property has to
be used to achieve the objects of Sangha.
16. As the execution of gift deed is an admitted
and true fact in this case, the terms and conditions of
gift deed certainly binding on the plaintiff and
defendant No.1 in the suit.
17. It is the definite case of the plaintiff in the
plaint as well as in the evidence affidavit and during
the course of evidence that the suit schedule premises
has been leased out or rented out to defendant No.2
by defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 started the
business in the suit schedule premises under the
name of 'U Fashions'. The plaintiff has not produced
any lease or rent agreement entered between the
12 O.S._4139_2017_Judgment_.doc
defendant No.1 and 2. As the rent agreement is
between the defendant No.1 and 2 certainly it is not
possible for the plaintiff to produce documents
relating to leasing out or renting out of premises
unless and until there is a registered deed. As such, if
there is any document regarding the renting out of the
premises should be with defendants.
18. In the case on hand, the plaintiff in order
to show/prove the leasing out or renting out of the
premises has produced the photographs of the suit
schedule premises. The photographs at Ex.P.20 to 23
are got marked by the plaintiff by confronting the
same to the DW1 during the cross-examination.
Ex.P.20(a), 22(a) and 23(a) in photographs at Ex.P.20,
22 and 23 are disclosing the suit schedule premises.
It is also relevant to note that the defendant admitted
the premises found in Ex.P.21 stating that includes
the suit schedule premises. The DW1 during the
cross-examination admitted the name board of
defendant along with the name board 'U Fashions'
with the claim that it is a graphic. If at all Ex.P.21 is
13 O.S._4139_2017_Judgment_.doc
the created document certainly the defendant No.1
would have chosen to obtain the experts opinion to
show that whether the said photograph is created or
fabricated document. If the said photograph is verified
the said photograph nowhere gives any impression to
the Court that it is a Graphic Photo with the name of
'U Fashions' as well as dress materials hanged in-
front of suit schedule premises. Therefore, the said
photographs at Ex.P.20 to 23 proves the existence of
suit schedule premises and Ex.P.21 certainly shows
that the premises has been rented out to defendant
No.2 by the defendant No.1.
19. Though there is no specific defence in the
written statement regarding the presence of defendant
No.2 in the premises, the DW1 in his evidence
affidavit at page No.4 at para 12 and page 5 at 2 nd
paragraph admitted the presence of defendant No.2 in
the suit schedule premises claiming that the
defendant No.2 has been acting as Manager and was
promptly giving supporting hand to carrying on day to
day activities of the defendant No.1, but what are
14 O.S._4139_2017_Judgment_.doc
those day to day activities of defendant No.1 is
without any explanation. Infact, the defendant No.1
has also not produced any document to show that the
defendant No.1 is carrying out activities on daily basis
in the suit schedule premises.
20. The defendant No.2 in the case on hand
though served with the suit summons not chosen to
appear before the Court and not put-forth any defence
in the suit. If the contention of the defendant NO.1 in
his evidence affidavit at para 12 it has to be accepted
that the defendant No.2 is the Manager of defendant
No.1 and he is very much available for defendants.
Therefore, the defendant ought to have examined the
defendant No.2 in support of his defence. Infact, non
filing of written statement as well as non stepping into
the witness box by the defendant No.2 to certainly
leads to draw adverse inference on the defence taken
by the defendant. Further, the plaintiff has loss the
opportunity to put-forth his case to the mouth of
defendant No.2. All these facts certainly shows that
15 O.S._4139_2017_Judgment_.doc
the defendant No.2 deliberately with hold the material
evidence of DW2.
21. It is true that the plaintiff has executed the
registered gift deed that has been accepted by the
defendant No.1. As such gift transaction has been
completed. Accordingly, the defendant No.1 has
become the absolute owner of the suit schedule
property on the strength of gift deed. Now, it is to be
considered in this case is whether the gift deed is
unconditional or defendant No.1 has acquired
absolute right over the suit schedule property on the
basis of gift deed. If at all the gift deed is without any
terms and conditions and if the defendant No.1 has
been given any liberty to do whatever it has chosen to
do in respect of suit schedule property, then certainly
the claim of the plaintiff cannot be accepted. In the
case on hand, the plaintiff also reserved the right of
preemption over the suit schedule property and also
the parties had the definite understanding between
them to use the suit schedule premises to achieve the
objects of defendant No.1.
16 O.S._4139_2017_Judgment_.doc
22. In the case on hand, the defendant No.1
produced one lease deed entered between the plaintiff
and Ramesh/ defendant No.2 as per Ex.D.10. The
said rental agreement is for 11 months executed on
13.02.2015. As per the said agreement the defendant
No.2 has taken the 3rd shop from the staircase of the
building, wherein suit schedule premises exists. It is
undisputed and admitted fact is that the suit schedule
premise is the 1st premises by the side of staircase.
Thereafter two more premises in the said building and
accordingly last/third premises has been given on
lease to defendant No.2 to run the 'U Fashions' Shop
to defendant No.2. It is not the case of defendant No.1
that the said defendant No.2 continued his business
in the 3rd shop in the ground floor from the staircase
as described in Ex.D.10. Further, if at all this
defendant No.2 is running a business under the name
'U Fashions', certainly it is not possible him to attend
the day to day affairs of the defendant No.1 acting as
its Manager. Apart from that there is no material
placed by the defendant No.1 to show that defendant
17 O.S._4139_2017_Judgment_.doc
No.2 has been appointed or designated as the
Manager of defendant No.1. Hence, the claim of the
defendant No.1 is that the defendant No.2 was/is the
Manager of defendant No.1 and he is looking after the
day to day affairs of the defendant No.1.
23. Whatever the contentions of defendant
No.1, the defendant No.1 by producing Ex.D.10
admitted the existence of 'U Fashions' shop in the
building wherein suit schedule property exists.
Ex.D.21-photograph is an admitted photograph in
which the name of 'U Fashions' found in the shop
premises beside the staircase which is the suit
schedule premises. As discussed earlier, the
defendant No.1 has not produced any material on
record to show that the defendant No.2 continued his
business in the name of 'U Fashions' as per Ex.D.10.
The photographs produced at Ex.P20 to 23 does not
disclose the existence of 'U Fashions shop' at 3rd
shop from the staircase. The existence of 'Kiran
Fashions' in the 3rd shop from the staircase is not
disputed by the defendant No.1 and the said name
18 O.S._4139_2017_Judgment_.doc
board of 'Kiran Fashions' also found in Ex.P.21 at 3rd
shop from the staircase and the name board of U
Fashions is found below the name board of defendant
No.1. This photograph certainly probabalize the case
of plaintiff that the defendant No.1 has rented out the
suit schedule premises to defendant No.2 in gross
violation of the terms and conditions of gift deed at
Ex.P.3.
24. The claim of the defendant is that as the
gift deed is absolute, it cannot be set aside or there
cannot be any order for re-conveyance of the same,
apart from that the claim of the plaintiff is barred by
limitation. In this regard, the counsel for the plaintiff
relied on a decision reported in AIR 2001 SC 2340 in
a case of Thakur Raghunath Ji Maharj and
another Vs. Ramesh Chandra. The head note 'B' of
the said judgment reads as under:-
"Limitation Act(36 of 1963), Art.66-Gift deed to
construct college on gifted land within
stipulated time-Donee unable to construct
college within time-Suit for possession of land
by donor-Is not for specific performance but one
19 O.S._4139_2017_Judgment_.doc
for possession based on reason of forfeiture by
breach of condition-Art.66 and not Art.54 would
apply-Suit filed immediately after donees finally
refused to construct College building in the
land-Not barred by limitation-Moreover as land
was donated for charitable purpose-Donee held
property as trustee-On breach of condition
donor could claim back property-Concession
given to donee to construct college within one
year-Held, was proper in view of larger public
interest".
25. The aforesaid head note is given on the
basis of observation made by the Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka in para No.5 to 7. In the case on hand,
it is clear that the very object of gift by the plaintiff to
defendant No.1 to enforce the object of defendant
No.1/social service or help to the needy people and
the gift is certainly not to gain economically to the
defendant No.1 by using the premises. If at all the
gifted premises has been leased out then it has to be
accepted that the defendant No.1 is no necessity of
any premises for functioning of defendant No.1 but
the premises has been obtained to have gain.
20 O.S._4139_2017_Judgment_.doc
26. In the case on hand, the oral, documentary
evidence and non appearance of defendant No.2
before the Court, certainly substantiate the fact that
the defendant No.1 has leased out the suit schedule
premises to defendant No.2, which has been gifted by
the plaintiff to the defendant
No.1/Sangha/Association. Further, absolutely there is
no acceptable material on record to show that the
plaintiff can falsely claim the leasing out or renting
out of suit schedule premises to defendant No.2 by the
defendant No.1. The very fact of leasing out of suit
schedule premises by the defendant No.1 to the
defendant No.2 shows that it does not require the
gifted property for the functioning of defendant No.1.
Therefore, it is clear that the defendant No.1 in gross
violation of the terms and conditions of the gift deed
rented out the premises to defendant No.2 for illegal
gain.
27. It is also not the case of defendant No.1 is
that from the day of gift deed itself, they have leased
out the premises and the said fact is within the
21 O.S._4139_2017_Judgment_.doc
knowledge of plaintiff, so that the claim of the plaintiff
is barred by limitation. Further, how the suit is barred
by limitation is not specifically and properly
explained.
28. Further defence of the defendant is that the
suit is not properly valued. Even the said fact is not
properly explained by the defendant No.1. The plaintiff
valued the suit property as per section 24(a), 29 and
38 of Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act
and valued the suit at Rs.4,10,870/- and paid the
Court fee of Rs.27,600/-. There is no material on
record to disbelieve the said fact.
29. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, this
Court is of the humble opinion that the plaintiff has
sufficiently proved that the plaintiff has executed the
conditional gift deed as on 19.05.2011 and the
defendant No.1 in violation of the conditions of the gift
deed letting out the suit schedule premises in favour
of defendant No.2. The plaintiff failed to prove the
issue No.3 that the gift deed has been execution by
22 O.S._4139_2017_Judgment_.doc
force, pressure, coercion or misrepresentation. The
defendant No.1 failed to prove that the suit is barred
by limitation and also suit is not properly valued. In
view of these facts certainly the plaintiff is entitle for
the relief of execution of re-conveyance Deed by
canceling the registered gift deed and also surrender
the vacant possession of the suit schedule premises
but not entitle for rent as claimed in prayer-C as the
same is not proved satisfactorily by the plaintiff.
Accordingly, Issue No.1, 2, 6 to 8 are answered in the
affirmative. Issue No.3 to 5 and 9 are answered in the
Negative.
30. ISSUE NO. 10: In view of my finding on the
above issues, I proceed to pass the following:
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby
decreed in part in following terms
with cost:
The registered gift deed dated
19.05.2011 bearing No.SRI-1-
00466/2011-12 stored in CD
23 O.S._4139_2017_Judgment_.doc
No.SRID103 in the Sub-Registrar
office, Srirampura is hereby cancelled
and defendant No.1 shall execute the
cancellation of said registered gift
deed and shall deliver the vacant
possession of the suit schedule
premises to the plaintiff within 3
months from this day.
In view of the above order, all
pending IAs if any stands disposed
off.
Draw decree accordingly.
***
[Dictated to the Stenographer-III directly on computer, Script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 4 th day of January, 2024].
[PADMA PRASAD] XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
BENGALURU.
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
PW.1 K. Bhoopal
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
DW.1 Ethiraj
24 O.S._4139_2017_Judgment_.doc
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the
Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of sale deed dated
30.08.2011.
Ex.P.2 & 3 Certified copies of gift deeds
dated 02.07.2010 and
19.05.2011.
Ex.P.4 Bank statement with NKGSB
co-operative bank.
Ex.P.5 to 7 Khata Extract, Khata Certificate
and tax paid receipt.
Ex.P.8 Office copy of legal notice
Ex.P.9 to 13 4 Postal receipts and one
acknowledgment.
Ex.P.14 Office copy of the reply notice.
Ex.P.15 Notification on Property
valuation.
Ex.P16 Khatha Extract.
Ex.P17 Letter issued by NKGSB Co-
Operative Bank dated
17.08.2016.
Ex.P18 Gift Deed dated 02.07.2010.
Ex.P.19 Bank Statements
Ex.P.20 to 23 Photos
4. List of documents marked on behalf of the
defendant/s:
Ex.D1 to 9 & 13 Photos
Ex.D10 Copy of Rent Agreement
Ex.D11 Registration Certificate of D1.
Ex.D.12 Acknowledgment Certificate
25 O.S._4139_2017_Judgment_.doc
Ex.D.14 & 15 Acknowledgments
Ex.D.16 Permission issued by the police
Ex.D.17 Office copy of the letter to grant
permission
Ex.D.18 Permission to put up a pendall
Ex.D.19 Fee receipt issued by BESCOM
Ex.D20 Permission to take out
possession
Ex.D.21 Permission to use loud speaker
Ex.D.22 Permission by the police
Ex.D.23 & 24 Acknowledgments
Ex.D.25 to 27 Audit reports with balance sheet
Ex.D.28 BESCOM receipt
[PADMA PRASAD]
XVIII Additional City Civil Judge.
BENGALURU.