Bangalore District Court
B.K. Parthasarathi vs M/S. Vishwabharathi House on 21 March, 2020
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-15) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 21st day of March, 2020.
PRESENT:
Sri MALLANAGOUDA, B.Com.,LL.M.,
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-15),
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.2060/2012
PLAINTIFF : B.K. Parthasarathi,
Aged about 50 years,
S/o. B. Krishna Bhat,
Residing at No.2/1, J.P. Road,
1st Phase, Girinagar,
Bangalore - 560 085.
(By Sri K. Suman, Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANT : M/s. Vishwabharathi House
Building Co-operative Society
Limited, No.35, Rathna Vilas
Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore -
560 004, represented by its
Secretary.
(By Sri Y.A.S., Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 22-03-2012
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Injunction suit and damages
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for injun-
ction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 07-04-2014
of recording of the evidence
Cont'd..
-2- O.S. No.2060/2012
Date on which the Judgment : 21-03-2020
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 7 years, 11 months, 29 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(MALLANAGOUDA)
VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
An&/- Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking mandatory injunction directing the defendant to vacate the suit premises and hand over possession to the plaintiff and also for damages of Rs.1,60,000/-.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as under -
Plaintiff is the absolute owner of property bearing No.35, Rathnavilas Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore. The said property was purchased by the plaintiff's father through sale deed dated 17.6.1972. Defendant Society has got its office in the suit property.
Cont'd..
-3- O.S. No.2060/2012 Defendant Society was registered much after purchase of the said property by the plaintiff's father. Plaintiff's father had permitted the Society to occupy the said property as he was actively involved in the Society as a President and office bearer. Now, plaintiff's father has executed gift deed dated 26.5.2009 - through which he gifted the suit property to the plaintiff. Therefore, on the basis of the said gift deed, plaintiff became owner of the suit property. Accordingly, Khata has been transferred in the name of the plaintiff. Defendant Society being licensee is in permissive possession of the suit property. Now, the suit property is old building and in a dilapidated state. It is unfit for human occupation. Therefore, plaintiff had sent notice dated 2.6.2011 to the defendant Society terminating the license given to the Society and hand over vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff - for which, Society has issued a false and untenable reply dated 23.6.2011. Defendant Society has declined to accede to the legal demand of the plaintiff. They have continued to squat unlawfully in the suit premises. Even defendant has filed false dispute petition in the Court of Cont'd..
-4- O.S. No.2060/2012 theJoint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and plaintiff is suitably defending the said dispute. Therefore, it is evident that defendant Society will not vacate the suit premises and they would resort to one gimmick or the other. Hence, with no alternative, plaintiff filed the present suit. The property like the suit schedule premises in and around Rathnavilas Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore would fetch around Rs.20,000/- rent per month. Therefore, plaintiff computed the damages at Rs.20,000/- per month from 2.7.2011. Therefore, plaintiff requested to decree the suit, direct the defendant to vacate the suit premises, hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff and to pay damages of Rs.1,60,000/-.
3. After service of summons, defendant Society appeared through its Counsel and filed written statement as under -
Suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts, - the same is liable to be rejected at the threshold. Suit of the plaintiff is highly frivolous, -
Cont'd..
-5- O.S. No.2060/2012 same is to circumvent the legally initiated proceedings against the father of the plaintiff before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act in connection with misuse of and misappropriation of Crores of rupees of the Society during his tenure as an office-bearer of the Society. Suit of the plaintiff is barred by time. Defendant has already instituted proceeding before the competent authority against the plaintiff and his father concerning the suit property and also misdeeds and misappropriation made by the plaintiff's father in respect of the management and funds of the Society and there is already an interim order in the said proceedings against the plaintiff and his father. Averments that defendant is in occupation of the suit property as a licensee, is false and hence, there is no termination of licence. Suit for mandatory injunction is not sustainable. Plaintiff is claiming the said relief only to escape from the payment of Court fee. Averments regarding plaintiff's ownership over the suit property are without any basis and contrary to the acts and deeds of his father. Plaintiff's father has already Cont'd..
-6- O.S. No.2060/2012 promised the defendant to convey the suit property in lieu of misappropriation of the funds of the Society as undertaken by him in the Board Meeting of the defendant dated 12.11.2008. Contrary to the same, plaintiff's father has created alleged gift deed dated 25.6.2009, but the said gift deed was never acted upon by the plaintiff also. It is not the act of the father of the plaintiff to permit the Society to occupy the suit premises, but it is an act of making the Society as owner of the suit property on account of well-beingness attained by the plaintiff's father through activities of the Society conducted by him as an office-bearer and as a president for considerable length of time. The question of registering the Society much after purchasing the suit property is of little consequence.
Alleged gift deed in favour of the plaintiff is a sham document, - the same is created in order to over come the Board Resolution of the defendant Society and get out of the clutches of the law. Averment that defendant Society is in permissive possession of the suit property is totally incorrect. Plaintiff alleges at one stretch that Cont'd..
-7- O.S. No.2060/2012 defendant is a licensee and at another breath, he alleges that defendant is in permissive possession of the suit property - which are inconsistent. In fact, defendant Society is in occupation of the suit property in its own right. Plaintiff has no ownership or legal title over the suit property. Hence, suit is not maintainable. Averment that suit property is in dilapidated condition and unfit for human occupation, is incorrect. In fact, suit property is fit for human occupation. Defendant Society is carrying on its activities in the suit property for decades. Averments that plaintiff has terminated the license through notice dated 2.6.2011, are totally incorrect and contrary to the contents of the notice. Defendant has taken correct stand in the reply notice. Averments of Para 8 of the plaint are high-handed, contrary to the truth. In fact, defendant Society has taken necessary steps to safeguard the interest of its members and funds. Averment that suit property would fetch rent of Rs.20,000/- per month is without any basis. Plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the plaint. As the plaintiff has not at all acquired any title over the suit property, her has no right to eject Cont'd..
-8- O.S. No.2060/2012 the defendant. The dispute raised by the Society before the competent authority under Section 70 of the Co- operative Societies Act is under consideration. The said dispute is beyond the purview of the Civil Court. There is no cause of action to file the suit. Averments of Para 11 of the plaint which are regarding alleged issuance of legal notice to the Registrar of Co-operative Society, are not known to the defendant and hence, the defendant has no comments about the same. Averments of Para 12 of the plaint are not known to the defendant soeiety. There is no cause of action to file the suit. Court fee paid by the plaintiff is not sufficient.
Plaintiff's father had held the posts of office-bearer and lastly as president of the defendant Society for considerable length of time. During his presidentship, he has diverted the funds of the Society for discharging his personal loan. He has made use of the amounts of the defendant Society for his personal welfare without there being any authority to do so and without approval from the management of the Society. The said act of the plaintiff's father came to the notice of the managing Cont'd..
-9- O.S. No.2060/2012 committee of the Society during executive committee meeting. Plaintiff's father has conceded his said acts and and deeds and in order to make good the loss suffered by the defendant Society, he has voluntarily agreed to transfer the suit property in favour of the defendant Society in lieu of repayment of those misappropriated funds. In that regard, a necessary resolution was also made in the Executive Committee Meeting held on 12.11.2008. Plaintiff's father has made several misdeeds involving himself in mismanagement of the Society causing serious financial loss and embarrassment to the succeeding office bearers of the Society and also loss of reputation to the Society. Therefore, several proceedings are pending against the Society. Due to false and frivolous suit by the plaintiff, the defendant Society has suffered unnecessary harassment and unwarranted expenses. Hence, plaintiff has to make good the same. Therefore, the defendant Society requested to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
Cont'd..
-10- O.S. No.2060/2012
4. On the basis of the above facts, this Court framed the following -
ISSUES (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for mandatory injunction and to direct the defendant Society to quit, vacate and hand over the vacant possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiff as sought?
(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for a direction to direct the defendant to pay Rs.1,60,000/- towards damages for unlawful use and occupation of suit premises from 2.7.2011 to 2.3.2012 as prayed?
(3) What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES (1) Whether the plaintiff proves the due execution of the gift deed dated 25.6.2009 under which he Cont'd..
-11- O.S. No.2060/2012
is claiming title to the schedule
property?
(2) Whether relief of possession of an immovable property could be granted by way of mandatory injunction?
(3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is a licensee as contended by the plaintiff?
(4) Whether the suit is properly valued and Court fee paid is sufficient?
5. In support of his case, plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and also examined a witness as P.W.2 and got marked documents at Exs.P.1 to P.18 on behalf of the plaintiff.
6. On the other hand, secretary of the defendant Society examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked documents as per Exs.D.1 to D.39 on behalf of the defendant. Further, one document is marked as Ex.C.1.
Cont'd..
-12- O.S. No.2060/2012
7. Heard arguments.
8. My findings on the above Issues and Additional Issues are as under -
ISSUE No.1 - Affirmative;
ISSUE No.2 - Affirmative;
ADDITIONAL- Affirmative;
ISSUE No.1 ADDITIONAL- Affirmative;
ISSUE No.2 ADDITIONAL- Affirmative;
ISSUE No.3 ADDITIONAL- Since this Additional Issue ISSUE No.4 No.4 is already answered in affirmative as per order dated 16.12.2017, the same does not survive for consideration;
ISSUE No.3 - As per final order, for the following -
REASONS
9. ISSUE No.1 AND ADDITIONAL ISSUE NOs.1 TO 3 : Since all these Issues are inter-related with each other, they are being taken up together for discussion at a stretch in order to avoid repetition of facts.
Cont'd..
-13- O.S. No.2060/2012
10. Suit of the plaintiff is in respect of property bearing No.35, Rathnavilas Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore measuring East-West : 40 feet and North- South : 100 feet. Admittedly, the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff's father through sale deed dated 17.6.1972. It is contended by the plaintiff that as the plaintiff's father was actively involved in the business of the defendant Society as president and office bearer of the Society, he permitted the Society to occupy the suit property. Now, he has executed gift deed dated 25.6.2009 in favour of the plaintiff - on the basis of which, plaintiff became owner of the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the defendant, though admitted title of the plaintiff's father initially, it contended that as plaintiff's father has misappropriated the funds belonging to the defendant Society, he had promised the defendant to convey the suit property to the defendant Society in lieu of misappropriation of funds. But, now, contrary to the said undertaking, he has executed gift deed dated 25.6.2009 in favour of the plaintiff. During arguments, learned Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that since title of the plaintiff's Cont'd..
-14- O.S. No.2060/2012 father is admitted by the defendant and execution of the gift deed by the plaintiff's father in favour of the plaintiff is proved, the same is sufficient to hold that plaintiff became owner of the suit schedule property and defendant being the Society which is in permissive possession of the plaintiff's property is liable to vacate the suit premises whenever demanded by the true owner. Therefore, now, plaintiff got issued notice to the defendant Society for terminating the license granted to the defendant Society and therefore, plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction and there is no necessity of seeking for possession of the property. In support of his argument, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1985 SUPREME COURT 857 [Sant Lal Jain -versus- Avtar Singh] - in which it is held as under -
"Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.6, S.39 - East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (3 of 1949), S.13 - Lease of certain plot of land - Lesses granting portion of land on licence for a period - Termination of licence after expiry of period and suit for mandatory injunction filed by lessee - Licesee claiming to Cont'd..
-15- O.S. No.2060/2012 have purchased entire land from owner - Suit by lessee for possession is maintainable."
11. On the other hand, defendant's Counsel has submitted his oral arguments and filed his written arguments also - in which, he has contended that execution of the gift deed itself is not proved by the plaintiff in accordance with law and there is no evidence produced by the plaintiff regarding the defendant Society being in possession of the suit schedule property as a licensee; defendant produced evidence to show that plaintiff's father had agreed to sell the suit property in consideration of full discharge of the amount he had misappropriated; in the proceedings filed before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, there is an order passed for attachment of the suit property and therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed. In support of his said argument, he has relied upon the following judgments -
(1) AIR 1966 SUPREME COURT 1457 [The Roman Catholic Mission -versus- The State of Madras and another] -
Cont'd..
-16- O.S. No.2060/2012 "(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.65 - Original not produced at any time - No foundation laid for establishment of right to give secondary evidence - Copies of original not admissible in evidence." (2) AIR 1955 SUPREME COURT 346 [Girija Datt Singh -versus- Gangotri Datt Singh] -
"(A) Succession Act (39 of 1925), S.63 -
Attestation of signature of testator Proof of.
(B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 68 -
Attesting witness."
(3) LAWS(BOM) 2008 5 14 [Bank of Baroda - versus- Moti Industries Bombay] (4) LAWS(DLH) 2009 5 267 [Punjab and Sind Bank -versus- Kunshiv Profiles Company Private Limited] (5) AIR 1958 ANDHRA PRADESH 418 [Jaldu Ananta Raghuram Arya and others -
versus- Rajah Bommadevara Naga Chayadevamma and others] -
"(D) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.68, S.65 - Mortgage deed - Proof of - Failure to produce attesting witness.
Cont'd..
-17- O.S. No.2060/2012 (6) AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2033 [Anathula Sudhakar -versus- P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by legal representatives and others] -
"(a) Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simplicitor."
(7) AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 1557 [Saygo Bai
-versus- Cheeru Bajrangi] -
"(C) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3 -
Appreciation of evidence - Perverse appreciation - Instance - Claim for maintenance by legally wedded wife - Wife has very specifically stated that she was thrown out of the matrimonial house on account of second wife - Stray admission in cross-examination that she had not Cont'd..
-18- O.S. No.2060/2012 been to the house of husband for 4 - 5 years and then her husband entered into second marriage - Relied on ignoring all her evidence - It amounts to perverse appreciation of evidence - Court must read the whole evidence - One stray admission cannot be read in isolation with other evidence."
12. On careful perusal of the evidence of both the parties and arguments of their Counsel, it appears that with regard to execution of the gift deed by the plaintiff's father is concerned, though defendant's Counsel has concentrated his arguments about the proof of the gift deed by relying upon many judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court about non-production of the original and attestation of the document, here in the present case, by looking to the written statement of the defendant, it appears that signature of the plaintiff's father on the gift deed dated 25.6.2009 is not at all seriously disputed by the defendant. Further more, admittedly plaintiff is the son of Krishna Bhat - the original owner of the suit property and other Class-I heirs of Krishna Bhat have not challenged the gift deed Cont'd..
-19- O.S. No.2060/2012 in question and on the basis of the gift deed, plaintiff's name has been entered in the Municipal records of the suit property. Therefore, arguments of the defendant's Counsel about not producing evidence to prove the gift deed, is not sustainable. Therefore, evidence produced by the plaintiff regarding execution of the gift deed by Krishna Bhat in favour of the plaintiff, is sufficient. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence to show that on the basis of the gift deed executed by Krishna Bhat - the original owner of the suit property, plaintiff became owner of the suit property.
13. With regard to argument of the defendant's Counsel about plaintiff's entitlement for the relief of mandatory injunction without claiming declaration of title is concerned, though defendant's Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 2033 [Anathula Sudhakar -versus- P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by legal representatives and others], as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 17(d) of the said judgment itself, though there are pleadings and Issue regarding title in Cont'd..
-20- O.S. No.2060/2012 injunction suit if the matter involved is simple and straightforward, the Court may decide upon the issue regarding title, even in a suit for injunction. The person having clear title and possession suing for injunction should not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. Here in this case, though defendant Society has denied title of the plaintiff over the suit property, admittedly plaintiff's father Krishna Bhat was owner of the suit property, and he purchased the suit property before the defendant Society came into existence, and defendant Society is claiming that as Krishna Bhat has misappropriated funds belonging to the Society, he has agreed to convey the suit property to the defendant Society in lieu of the amount misappropriated by him, and on the basis of the attachment order passed by the Registrar of the Societies as per Ex.D.25, the defendant Society became owner of the suit schedule property. But, on careful verification of the documents, it appears that though defendant Society has filed a petition as per Ex.D.25 Cont'd..
-21- O.S. No.2060/2012 and order passed by the Joint Registrar attaching the suit schedule property, since there is no final order passed in the said petition, mere attachment order will not take away a person's right in the suit property. The person who is owner of the property under attachment will continue to be owner of the property - subject to the attachment order by any of the Courts or Authorities. Therefore, here in this case, even if the Registrar of Societies has passed order as per Ex.D.25, in view of execution of the gift deed by the plaintiff's father in favour of the plaintiff, plaintiff becomes owner of the suit property and he continues as such subject to final order in the petition pending before the Joint Registrar of Societies. Therefore, contention of the defendant that without claiming declaration of title plaintiff is not entitled for mandatory injunction, is incorrect. Further more, as rightly argued by the plaintiff's Counsel, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in AIR 1985 SUPREME COURT 857 [Sant Lal Jain
-versus- Avtar Singh], where a licensor approaches the Court for an injunction within a reasonable time after the licence is terminated, he is entitled for injunction.
Cont'd..
-22- O.S. No.2060/2012 Here in this case, plaintiff became owner of the suit property on the basis of the gift deed executed by his father in the year 2009. Thereafter, he terminated the licence of the defendant Society on 22.3.2012. Therefore, here in this case also, as the plaintiff filed the suit within a reasonable time after termination of licence, there is no necessity to file suit for possession. Hence, contention of the defendant's Counsel that suit filed by the plaintiff without seeking recovery of possession and declaration of title is not maintainable, appears to be incorrect. Therefore, as there is evidence to show that plaintiff's father was owner of the suit schedule property, on the basis of the gift deed dated 25.6.2009 plaintiff became owner of the suit property and he has terminated the licence granted to the defendant Society by issuing notice, definitely plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as claimed. Hence, Issue No.1 and Additional Issue Nos.1 to 3 are answered as above.
14. ISSUE No.2 : Plaintiff is claiming damages of Rs.1,60,000/- from the defendant Society for making Cont'd..
-23- O.S. No.2060/2012 use of the suit premises from the date of termination of licence till date of filing suit. As already discussed above plaintiff became owner of the suit property and he has terminated the licence granted to the defendant Society, hence possession of the defendant Society over the suit property after termination of licence becomes illegal and defendant Society is liable to pay damages to the plaintiff. Hence, it is decided to direct the defendant Society to pay damages of Rs.1,60,000/- to the plaintiff for the period from termination of tenancy till filing of the suit and Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of filing suit till vacating the suit property. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled for damages. Hence, Issue No.2 is answered as above.
15. ISSUE No.3 : For my reasons and discussion on the above Issues and Additional Issues, I proceed to pass the following -
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost.
Cont'd..
-24- O.S. No.2060/2012 Defendant Society is directed to vacate the suit property and handover vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.
Defendant Society is further directed to pay damages of Rs.1,60,000/- to the plaintiff for being in possession of the suit property from 2.7.2011 to 2.3.2012.
The defendant Society is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of filing suit till vacating the suit property to the plaintiff as damages.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 21st day of March, 2020.) (MALLANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.
Cont'd..
-25- O.S. No.2060/2012
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Examined on:
P.W.1 : B.K. Parthasarathi 07-04-2014 P.W.2 : V.R. Ashok Kumar 18-09-2018
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 7.6.1972. Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 7.6.1972. Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 24.6.1972 Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of gift deed dated 25.6.2009. Ex.P.5 : Notice dated 2.6.2011 and postal receipt. Ex.P.6 : Reply notice dated 23.6.2011. Ex.P.7 : Copy of statutory notice dated 9.1.2012. Ex.P.8 : Khata certificate dated 13.3.2012. Ex.P.9 : Khata extract dated 13.3.2012.
Ex.P.10 : Tax paid receipt.
Ex.P.11 : Certified copy of evidence affidavit in JRB
MD No.144/2011-12.
Ex.P.12 : Certified copy of objections.
Exs.P.13 : Certified copies of application and and P.14 objections.
Ex.P.15 : Certified copy of interim order passed in W.P. No.50453/2012 (CS-DAS). Ex.P.16 : Certified copy of order sheet in W.P. No.50453/2012 (CS-DAS). Ex.P.17 : Death certificate of B. Krishna Bhat. Ex.P.18 : Gift deed dated 25.6.2009.
3. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
D.W.1 : Saraswathi Kesarkar 09-08-2017 (On Perliminary Issue) Cont'd..
-26- O.S. No.2060/2012
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:
(On Preliminary Issue) Ex.D.1 : Receipt issued by the Sub-Registrar. Ex.D.2 : Certified copy of Karnataka Gazette dated 21.9.2011.
Ex.D.3 : Document regarding proposed revised building rates to be considered for the purpose of valuation.
Ex.D.4 : Sub-Registrar's valuation document. Ex.D.4(a) : Relevant portion showing Rathnavilas road.
5. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
D.W.1 : H.V. Vadiraj 08-01-2016
6.DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:
Ex.D.1 : Statement of account in respect of Current Account No.298 with defendant Society. Exs.D.2 to : Office copies of eight letters written by D.9 defendant Society to Krishna Bhat.
Exs.D.10 : Postal receipts.
and D.11
Ex.D.12 : Courier receipt.
Ex.D.13 : Acknowledgement.
Ex.D.14 : Certified copy of complaint
dated 31.10.2011.
Ex.D.15 : Certified copies of F.I.R. and statement of
witnesses.
Ex.D.16 : Certified copy of order passed by the
Hon'ble High Court in CCC (Civil)
No.468/2009.
Ex.D.17 : Book titled as Audit Report for the year
2010-2011.
Ex.D.18 : Certified copy of show-cause notice.
Ex.D.19 : Certified copy of letter dated 3.6.2009.
Ex.D.20 : Certified copy of order dated 9.6.2009 of
the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies Cont'd..
-27- O.S. No.2060/2012 Ex.D.21 : Certified copy of order dated 15.7.2010 of
the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies.
Ex.D.22 : Postal receipt. Ex.D.23 : Acknowledgement. Ex.D.24 : Office copy of notice dated 23.6.2011. Ex.D.25 : Certified copy of order dated 30.12.2011 of
the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies Exs.D.27 : Certified copy of application filed before to D.28 Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Ex.D.29 : Certified copy of Vakalath. Ex.D.30 : Certified copy of order sheet in the said case.
Ex.D.31 : Authorisation letter. Ex.D.32 : Electricity bills and receipts. Ex.D.33 : Water Bills and receipts. Ex.D.34 : Copy of order in W.P. No.29107/2017. Ex.D.35 : Copy of order dated 8.5.2019 passed by
the Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies.
Ex.D.36 : Copy of Interim Order passed in W.P. No.21832/2019.
Ex.D.37 : Copy of notice dated 26.6.2009. Ex.D.38 : Copy of inquiry report regarding misappropriation.
Ex.D.39 : Copy of order passed in W.P. No.18496/2007.
7.DOCUMENT MARKED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE COURT :
Ex.C.1 : Copy of the order dated 20.5.2017 of the Joint Director of Co-operative Societies.
(MALLANAGOUDA) VIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, An&/- Bengaluru.
Cont'd..