Bangalore District Court
Smt.Kamalamma W/O. Late R.Mahdu vs Unknown on 14 December, 2016
THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE
BANGALORE CITY
Dated on this the 14th day of December 2016
-: Present :-
Smt. Hemavathi, BBM, LL.B,
XXXIX Additional City Civil & Judge,
Bangalore City.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.1036/2008
Plaintiff:-
Smt.Kamalamma W/o. Late R.Mahdu,
45 Years, R/o.No.97/24, New Bazaar
Road, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru - 36.
[By Sri.B.N.P., Advocate]
/ Versus /
Defendant :-
Sri.K.Shyamaraju, S/o.K.Ramaraju,
65 Years, R/o.No.150/3, 10th Main,
Rajamahal Vilas, Extension,
Bengaluru - 90.
(By Sri.V.R.S., Advocate)
Date of Institution of the : 05.02.2008
suit
Nature of suit : Suit for permanent
injunction
Date of commencement of : 22.07.2010
evidence
Date on which the judgment : 14.12.2016
is pronounced
Years Months Days
Duration taken for disposal :
08 10 10
***
JUDGMENT
Initially the plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant for the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, his agents, servants, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and such other reliefs.
During the pendency of the suit, she got amended the plaint and claimed the relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 11/1/1995 executed by the alleged power of attorney holder in favour of defendant is null and void and does not bind on her.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiffs' case are that, the land bearing Sy.No.75/2 measuring 18 guntas situated at Byatarayanapura village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, originally belonged to the father-in-law of the plaintiff and the said late Ramaiah had two wives viz., Smt.Narayanamma and Smt.Eshwaramma.
Smt.Narayanamma had a son by name late R.Madhu, Smt.Eshwaramma has a son by name Jayaram. The plaintiff is the wife of late R.Madhu. Under the partition between the sons of late Ramaiah, the schedule property fallen to the share of the plaintiff's husband. After partition R.Madhu was in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property as absolute owner. After death of her husband, she being the sole successor, has succeeded the estate of the deceased R.Madhu and she continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. She is an uneducated and ignorant and she has no worldly knowledge, taking advantage of the same, the defendant got entered his name to the RTC. Though he is stranger to the family of the plaintiff and he has no manner of right, title and interest over the schedule property. Now he is trying to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and during the month of June 2007, he threatened the plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff got issued the legal notice on 31/7/2007 and verifying that on 05/01/2008 the defendant's followers have obstructed the movements of the plaintiff. Hence, she approached the jurisdictional police, they refused to register the complaint, and advised the plaintiff to approach Civil Court stating that the matter is of civil in nature.
She got amended the plaint by inserting para 7(a) stating that, her husband Madhu was working as Driver in BMTC, Bangalore had addicted to drinking alcohol was not attending the duty regularly and he was always with the defendant without attending his duty. Because of drinking habit his health was deteriorated and subsequently his liver was damaged and he passed away in Mallya Hospital, Bangalore on 05/07/1996, except the schedule property there are no other properties owned by her husband. There was no legal necessity to sold the property, she had no issues through her husband to look after her in her old age and after death of her husband she used to work as maidservant for her livelihood. Hence, prayed for the relief of declaration to declare that the sale deed dated 11/01/1995 executed by the power of attorney holder in favour of the defendant is null and void. Hence, filed the suit.
3. Defendant appeared through the advocate and filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and contended that the suit schedule property belonged to one Smt.Ponnamma and she sold the same under a sale deed dated 10/02/1992 in favour of one Mapuraiah and the said Mapuraiah died leaving behind through five sons viz., Narayanappa, Venkataramanappa Ramaiah, Thippaiah and Venkataramanappa. The husband of the plaintiff R.Madhu and his brother B.R.Jayaram who are the children of Ramaiah inherited the portion of land bearing Sy.No. 75/2, Byatarayanapura village. Under a registered agreement of sale dated 25/03/1992 and the above said Madhu and Jayaram entered into an agreement to sell the schedule property to one Smt.Rajatha and the said Smt.Rajatha nominated the defendant to purchase the schedule property. Under a sale deed dated 11/01/1995, Sri.Madhu and Jayaram represented by their power of attorney holder Venkataramana Reddy conveyed the schedule property and placed him in possession and since the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the khatha changed in his name as per the order passed in MR 7, 8, 9 and 10 and he has been paying the taxes and this land converted for non- agricultural purposes by the Special Deputy Commissioner and the description of the property as an agricultural land is absolutely in correct and the plaintiff has not approached to the Court with clean hands and with an intention to harass defendant she filed a false suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
The defendant filed additional written statement to the amendment of the plaint to the additional relief claimed by the plaintiff contending that the suit is bad for non-joinder of the necessary party and relief sought by way of declaration without seeking declaration of title is not maintainable and the court fee paid by the plaintiff is inadequate and insufficient and the averments by way of amendment that her husband was addicted to drinking alcohol and he was not attending the duty regularly, and always with defendant without attending the duty are all false and there is no cause of action for the suit, and her husband had no right in the property during his lifetime and her husband conveyed the property during his life time and there was no legal necessity for her husband to sell the schedule property. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit, the relief of declaration claimed by the plaintiff.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, predecessor of this Court, following issues and additional issues have been framed by this Court :
«ªÁzÁA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ
1. zÁªÁ ¢£ÁAPÀzÀAzÀÄ ªÁ¢ zÁªÁ vÀ¥ï²Ã®Ä D¹ÛAiÀÄ°è PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ §zÀÝ ¸ÁߢüãÁ£ÀĨÀsªz À À°è EzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ?
2. ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄÀÄ ªÁ¢AiÀÄ zÁªÁ C¹ÛAiÀÄ ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨÀª s ÀPÉÌ C¥Á¢¹gÀĪÀAvÉ CrØ DvÀAPÀ¥Àr¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgAÉ iÉÄÃ?
3. ªÁ¢ PÉÆÃjgÀĪÀAvÉ ±Á±ÀévÀ ¥Àæw§AzÀPs ÁYÕÉ rQæ ºÀÆAzÀ®Ä CºÀðgÉÃ?
4. AiÀiÁªÀ jÃwAiÀi CzÉñÀ CxÀªÁ wÃ¥ÀÅð ?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES FRAMED ON 08/04/2010 (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deed dated 11/01/1995 executed by the alleged power of attorney holder in favour of the defendant is null and void and not binding on her ?
(2) Is the plaintiff entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed ?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES ON 10/11/2010 (3) Whether the Court fee paid on the plaint is insufficient as contended in the written statement ?
(4) Whether the defendant proves that the suit is not maintainable as contended in the written statement?
(5) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
(6) Is the suit bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
5. Plaintiff examined her as P.W.1 and got marked in all 6 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.6. The Defendant examined him as D.W.1, and got marked in all 25 documents as per Exs.D.1 to D.25
6. Heard defendant advocate. Plaintiff advocate did not address arguments inspite of opportunity given. Hence, taken as no arguments.
7. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the Negative.
Issue No.2 : In the Negative.
Issue No.3 : In the Negative.
Issue No.4 : As per final order, for
the following:
Addl.Issue No.1 : In the Negative.
Addl.Issue No.2 : In the Negative.
Addl.Issue No.3 : Does not survive for
consideration.
Addl.Issue No.4 : In the Affirmative.
Addl.Issue No.5 : In the Affirmative.
Addl.Issue No.6 : In the Affirmative.
REASONS
8. Issue No.1 & Additional Issue No.1 :- As these issues are inter-linked with each other, to avoid repetition of the facts and the evidence while appreciating, I have taken these two issues for discussion.
9. Herein the fact that, the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Ramaiah, who is the father-in-law of the plaintiff and the said Ramaiah had two sons by name R.Madhu who is the husband of plaintiff and also one Jayaram are all admitted facts. The case of the plaintiff is that, under the partition between the R.Madhu and Jayaram, the suit schedule property was fallen to the share of her husband. After partition her husband was in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property as absolute owner. After his death, she became the sole survivor of her husband, she continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the said property and the defendant has no right title and interest over the schedule property. Her husband was working as a Driver in BMTC in Bangalore and he had addicted to drinking alcohol, because he was not attending the duty regularly and he was always with the defendant and due to drinking habit his health deteriorated and subsequently his leaver was damaged and passed away in Mallya Hospital, Bangalore on 05/07/1996 and there was no legal necessity to her husband to sell the suit schedule property, and the power of attorney holder Sri.Venkataramanareddy and the defendant have designed the plan with an intention to knock off the schedule property and got created and executed the power of attorney and sale deed dated 11/01/1995, and got executed through the alleged power of attorney holder. Per contra, the defendant contended that, R.Madhu and B.R.Jayaram who are the children of late Ramaiah have entered into the sale agreement dated 25/03/1992 in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of one Smt.Rajatha and the said Smt.Rajatha nominated this defendant to purchase the schedule property. Under a sale deed dated 11/01/1995, Sri.Madhu and Jayaram through her power of attorney holder Sri.Venkataramana Reddy conveyed the schedule property and placed him in possession, since then this defendant in is possession of the schedule property and the revenue records mutated in his name.
10. In the course of cross-examination of PW.1 admitted that, the defendant had constructed a compound wall encircling the property sold by her father-in-law and his brothers in the year 1996-97 and at that time, when she asked them, she was informed that they have purchased the schedule property from her husband and his brother. She admitted that, as per Ex.P.2, 08 guntas in Sy.No. 75/2 are in the joint name of her husband and her brother-in-law and she has no document except Ex.P.2 to show that there was a partition between her father-in-law and his brothers and she does not know whether there is any document about partition between her husband and his brother and she admitted that the house is in joint name of her husband and his brother.
11. She further deposed that, after the death of her husband khatha was not changed in her name and after 1996 they have not paid tax to the schedule property. She admitted that as per Ex.P.3 the name of defendant is entered in the year 1995-96 in the RTC. She further deposed that, she does not know to whom and in which year her husband and his brother executed the GPA. She further deposed that, she does not know on 25/03/1992 her husband and his brother executed and entered into a sale agreement with one Smt.Rajatha and the said Smt.Rajatha as a nominee executed GPA in favour of one Sri.Venkataramanareddy. She further deposed that she does not know that the defendant as a nominee of Smt.Rajatha purchased the property from the GPA holder Sri.Venkataramanreddy. She further deposed that, she does not know that defendant has paid development and betterment charges to CMC. She admitted that CMC had given Khatha No.59 to the schedule property and till 2001 he paid the taxes. She further deposed that she does not know that subsequently this property was converted for non-agricultural purposes by the Deputy Commissioner and defendant has been paying taxes in respect of the suit schedule property to the Corporation.
12. She further deposed that, she is visiting the said property without permission of defendant. She further deposed that, she does not know that her husband and his brother have jointly sold the 8 guntas of land to the defendant and she does not know that her husband and her brother-in-law after executed the GPA and she also deposed that there is no house in the schedule property.
13. If all these evidence of plaintiff is taken into consideration, it is very clear that, she is not in possession of the schedule property and in the year 1996-97 itself she was not aware about the sale of the property in favour of the defendant. When there is no house, her contention that she even after death of her husband she continued in possession of the suit schedule property cannot be accepted. When she pleaded her ignorance about the change of khatha in the name of defendant and payment of the betterment charges by the defendant and also taxes with respect to the property purchase by the defendant and also execution of GPA by her husband and brother-in-law in favour of Sri.Venkataramanreddy itself is sufficient to say that she was aware of the execution of GPA by her husband and brother- in-law in favour of Sri.Venkataramanreddy and purchase of the property by defendant from the power of attorney holder of her husband and brother-in-law in the year 1996 itself.
14. The plaintiff produced Ex.P.1 which is the family genealogy issued by Village Accountant of Byatarayanapura, as per the statement of plaintiff. This document no way help to the plaintiff to prove this issue. Ex.P.2 is the RTC in respect of Sy.No.75/2, measuring 04 acres 11 guntas for the year 1989-90 were in the name of one Aswathaiah S/o.Narayanappa, Narayanamma D/o.Venkataramanappa, R.Madhu and Venkataramanappa, Krishnappa, Srinivasa and Narayanamurthy found place. Ex.P.3 is the RTC in respect of Sy.No.75/2 for the year 2006-07 where in the name of defendant in respect of 03 acres 15 guntas, the name of one B.T.Krishnappa, B.T.Srinivasappa, B.T.Narayanamurthy sons of late Angadi Thimmappa and K.Shyamaraju S/o.K.Ramaraju in respect of Sy.No.75/2 each 12.10 guntas of land. These two documents no way help to the plaintiff to prove her possession over the schedule property. Ex.P.7 is the sketch pertaining to Sy.No.75/2 prepared for conversion of the said land as per order in A.L.N.S.R.188/06.07. This document also does not help to the plaintiff to prove her possession over the schedule property.
15. Ex.D.1 is the RTC in respect of Sy.No.75/2 measuring 04 acres 11 guntas where in the name of one Sri.Mavuraiah S/o.Narayanappa found place for the period from 1966-69. Ex.D.2 is the sale agreement dated 25/03/1992 executed by one R.Madhu and Jayaram in favour of G.S.Yathiskumar, G.S.Sathishkumar, H.Madegowda and C.P.Srinivasan in respect of 08 guntas of land in Sy.No.66/1 and 26 guntas of land in Sy.No.75/2 of Byatarayanapura village, Yelahanka Hobli. Ex.D.3 is the registered GPA dated 25/03/1992 executed by one R.Madhu and Jayaram in favour of one Sri.H.L.Muddegowda in respect of 08 guntas of land in Sy.No.66/1 and 26 guntas of land in Sy.No.75/2 executed the sale deed in favour of the sale agreement holder as per Ex.D.2 and also to do some other act relating to though the aforesaid properties. Ex.D.4 is the sale deed dated 06/03/1995 executed by one R.Madhu and B.R.Jayaram in favour of defendant herein, in respect of 26 guntas of land in Sy.No.75/2 of Byatarayanapura village, there is a reference that the said H.L.Muddegowda has acted on behalf of R.Madhu and B.R.Jayaram as a GPA holders based on the GPA dated 25/03/1992.
16. In the course of cross-examination of D.W.1, these two documents were not subjected for cross- examination, but there is a cross-examination that the agreement holder Yathishkumar and Satishkumar are the persons known to him and he has set up these persons to get the sale agreement and GPA. Further though the plaintiff in the plaint by way of amendment contended that the defendant along with the alleged power of attorney holder have designed the plan with an intention to knock off schedule property and got created and executed the power of attorney and sale deed dated 11/01/1995 through the alleged power of attorney holder, nowhere disputed the sale agreement referred by the defendant in the written statement. Even the plaintiff has not challenged Ex.D.2 and 3, even though she has challenged the sale deed Ex.D.10. It is the plaintiff to prove that the defendant along with the alleged agreement holder as per Ex.D.2 and the alleged GPA holder as per Ex.D.3 have created these documents, but except making allegations she has not stated why they have created these documents. In the course of cross- examination when it was suggested that, what is the basis for her allegations in para.7 of her affidavit that the defendant have designed the plan with an intention to knock off the schedule property and got created and executed the power of attorney and sale deed, she deposed that because it is her property. So it proves that the allegations is without prove.
17. Ofcourse, in the course of cross-examination of D.W.1 deposed that, he does not remember that there were 5 share holders to property in Sy.No.75/2 and out of that he had purchased 4 shares and he does not remember the name of his vendor with respect to the 03 acres 15 guntas excluding the suit schedule property and he cannot say by seeing Ex.P.7 in which direction the property sold by children of Ramaiah is situated and he does not remember whether he had verified the partition deed under which Ramaiah had allotted share to ascertain which portion is allotted to his share and by seeing his sale deed and also Ex.P.7, he cannot say in which direction the property allotted to the share of Ramaiah is situated and he does not know whether the parents of Madhu and V.R.Jayaram were alive when he purchased the property from them. But these does not help to say that her husband either personally or to GPA holder had not sold any property much less to the schedule property to the plaintiff.
18. As per Ex.D.3 not only Madhu who is the husband of plaintiff had executed the GPA but also Jayaram who is the brother has also executed the GPA. When such being the fact, the said Jayaram is the best person to speak about whether they have executed the GPA as per Ex.D.3 or not. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not made the said Jayaram as a party to the said suit and in the cross-examination she deposed that she is not good terms with her. She should have arrayed him as defendant because the sale deed which challenged in this suit is not only executed by Madhu, but also executed by Jayaram through her GPA holder. It is the case of the plaintiff that plaint schedule property allotted to the share of her husband but no documents were not produced to that effect. But it is not explained when it was allotted to the share of her husband. Further, Ex.D.4 sale deed dated 06/03/1995 is not only executed by H.L.Muddegowda as GPA holder of Madhu and Jayaram but one G.S.Yathishkumar and H.Madegowda, C.P.Srinivasan who are the agreement holder under Ex.P.3 have also joined as a vendor to execute the said sale deed.
19. Ex.D.5 is the certified copy of RTC in respect of Sy.No.75/2 where in the name of R.Madhu and Jayaram and several other persons found place. Ex.D.6 and 7 are the receipts for payment of betterment charges by the defendant and building taxes paid by the defendant. Ex.D.8 is the sale agreement dated 25/03/1992 executed by R.Madhu and Jayaram in favour of one Smt.Rajatha in respect of Sy.No.75/2, measuring 08 guntas of land. Ex.D.8 is the registered sale agreement dated 25/03/1992. Ex.D.9 is the registered GPA dated 25/03/1992 executed by R.Madhu and B.R.Jayaram in favour of K.N.Venkatareddy in respect of 08 guntas of land in Sy.No.75/2. Ex.D.10 is the sale deed dated 11/01/1995 executed by R.Madhu and Jayaram through their GPA holder K.N.Venkatareddy in favour of defendant in respect of 08 guntas of land in Sy.No.75/2 of Byatarayanapura village, only this document has been challenged by the defendant but the suit schedule property is in respect of Sy.No.75/2 measuring 26 guntas. Ex.D.12 is the RTC for the period from 1995-96, wherein the names of Krishnappa, R.Madhu and Jayaram and along with others were found place. Ex.D.12 and 13 are the RTC for the period from 1995-96 and 1998-99 wherein the name of defendant found place. Ex.D.17 is the tax paid receipt. Ex.D.18 is the tax register extract. Ex.D.19 is the tax paid receipt. Ex.D.20 is the house vacant property register extract. Ex.D.21 is the Khatha certificate stands in the name of the defendant. Ex.D.22 is the order of Deputy Commissioner in ALN/NAY/SR- 86/06-07 for conversion of land Sy.No.75/2 measuring 03 acres 15 guntas of land in the name of defendant on 23/10/2008. Ex.D.23 is the mutation entry copy for change of Khatha in the name of the defendant. These are all the documents sufficient to prove that based on the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant Khatha has been changed in his name by the concerned defendant and he has been in possession of the suit property.
20. If the contention of the plaintiff is that, after the death of her husband she continued to be in possession of the suit property is true she would have got changed the Khatha in her name and she would have produced the documents to that effect, but she has not produced any documents which stands in her name in respect of the suit schedule property. Further, when she admitted that in the year 1996-97 the defendant had constructed a compound wall encircling the property sold in his favour itself is sufficient to say that, since 1996-97 the defendant is in possession of the property not the plaintiff. Further, the documents produced by the defendant itself proves that during the life time her husband had part away from the suit property and the defendant by a registered sale deed has purchased the property in Sy.No.75/2 through GPA holder of her husband and his brother Jayaram and she do not have any right either as on the date of her husband or as on the date of the suit over the suit property. In view of these discussions, I answer issue No.1 and additional issue No.1 framed on 08/04/2010 in the negative.
21. Issue No.2 :- When the plaintiff had failed to prove her possession of the suit property, the question of interference by the defendant to her possession does not arise. So the alleged interference by the plaintiff is only created only for the purpose of this purpose. Hence, I answer issue No.2 in the negative.
22. Additional Issue No.3 framed on 10/11/2010:- The defendant in his additional written statement contended that as on the date of the suit, the suit schedule property is an agricultural land and it was converted property. Hence, the Court fee paid is insufficient. As admitted by the plaintiff and also as per Ex.D.22 on 23/10/2008, the said property was converted for non- agricultural purposes, but the suit was filed on 05/02/2008 for the relief of permanent injunction when the suit was filed she valued the suit u/Section.26(c) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, valuing the property of Rs.1,000/- and paid Court fee of Rs.25/- and when she got amended the plaint, this Court as per order dated 06/08/2013 directed the plaintiff to pay the Court fee based on the consideration amount shown in the sale deed dated 11/01/1995 and she paid the court fee on 04/01/2016. Hence, this issue does not survive for consideration.
23. Additional Issue No.4 framed on 10/11/2010:- It is the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff has initially filed this suit for permanent injunction and subsequently sought for declaration to declare that the said sale deed dated 11/01/1995 is not binding on her share, but without proving her title and seeking for possession the suit is not maintainable.
24. When the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and the defendant has claimed title over the schedule property based on the sale deed dated 11/01/1995 without declaring the title of the plaintiff over the schedule property, she cannot maintain the suit for declaration of the sale deed dated 11/01/1995. Hence, I hold that, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as rightly contended by the defendant. Hence, I answer this issue in the affirmative.
25. Additional Issue No.5 framed on 10/11/2010 : - The contention of the defendant is that the suit is barred by limitation on the ground that, this defendant has purchased the property in the year 1995, the suit is filed in the year 2008.
26. In the course of cross-examination of PW.1 admitted that the defendant has constructed a compound wall encircling the property sold by her father-in-law and her brothers in the year 1996-97. She further deposed that, at that time she was informed that they have purchased the schedule property from her husband and his brother, but she has not issued any notice in the year 1996-97 and in the year 1996-97 she questioned her brother-in-law about the sale of the property. As per Article 58 of Indian Limitation Act, the period of limitation to obtain any other declaration is three years from the date, when the right to sue first accrues. So this suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation as the same is filed after lapse of 10 years, though she was aware about the purchase of the property by the defendant in the year 1996-97. Hence, I answer this issue in the affirmative.
27. Additional Issue No.6 : - Defendant has taken contention that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Admittedly the sale deed dated 11/01/1995 challenged by the plaintiff has not only been executed by her husband through GPA holder, but also her brother-in-law, but she has not made him as party to the suit. Her brother-in- law is necessary and proper party. For adjudication of the matter in dispute. Hence, I hold that suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. Hence, I answer additional issue No.6 in the affirmative.
28. Issue No.3 & Additional Issue No.2 framed on 08/04/2010 : - In view of my findings to Issues No.1 and 2 and additional issue Nos.1 and 6, I hold that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of either declaration or permanent injunction as prayed for in the suit. Hence, I answer issue No.3 and additional issue No.2 in the negative.
29. Issue No.4 :- In view of the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is hereby dismissed with costs of the defendant.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, this the 14th day of December, 2016.) (Hemavathi) XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
*** ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
P.W.1 : Smt.Kamalamma
2. List of documents exhibited for plaintiffs:
Ex.P.1 : Copy of Genealogy Ex.P.2&3 : Copies of RTC Ex.P.4 : Postal receipt Ex.P.5 : Acknowledgment Ex.P.6 : Xerox copy of sale deed.
3. List of witnesses examined for defendants:
D.W.1 : K.Shyamaraju
4. List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Ex.D.1 : Copy of RTC in respect of Sy.No.75/2 for the period 1966-70 Ex.D.2 : Sale agreement dated 25/3/92 Ex.D.3 : GPA Dated 25/3/92 Ex.D.4 : Sale deed dated 6/3/95 Ex.D.5 : Copy of RTC in respect of Sy.No.75/2 for the period 1994 to 99 Ex.D.6 : Tax paid receipt Ex.D.7 : Receipt for payment of betterment charges Ex.D.8 : Registered sale agreement dated 25/3/92 Ex.D.9 : Register GPA dated 25/3/92 Ex.D.10 : Sale deed dated 11/1/95 Ex.D.11 : Certificate dated 1/6/95 issued by agriculture Co-operative society Byatarayanapura Ex.D.12 : RTC in respect of Sy.No.75/2 for the period 1995 - 96 Ex.D.13 : RTC in respect of Sy.No.75/2 for the period 1998 to 99 Ex.D.14 : RTC in respect of Sy.No.75/2 for the period 1998 to 2000 Ex.D.15 : True copy of RTC in respect of Sy.No.75/2 for the period 1998 - 2001 Ex.D.16 : True copy of RTC in respect of Sy.No.75/2 for the period 1998 - 2000 Ex.D.17 : Receipt for payment of betterment charges Ex.D.18 : Tax register extract Ex.D.19 : Tax paid receipt Ex.D.20 : Property register extract Ex.D.21 : Khatha Certificate Ex.D.22 : Copy conversion order dated 23/10/2008 Ex.D.23 : Mutation copy Ex.D.24 : Electricity bill Ex.D.25 : Receipt for payment of electricity bill.
(Hemavathi) XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
***