Bangalore District Court
Dr. H.P.Jagadeesh vs Smt.Chandrakala on 20 February, 2023
IN THE COURT OF XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-43)
Present: Sri. Kengabalaiah,
B.Com., LL.B.
XLII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge.
Dated this 20 th Day of February, 2023
O.S.No. 2622/2014
Plaintiff/s : Dr. H.P.Jagadeesh
S/o Sri. H.S.Puttannaiah
Aged about 65 years,
R/at No. 17, 1st Main, 3rd Cross,
Basava Samithi Layout,
Vidyaranyapura P.O.
Bangalore - 560 097.
[By Sri. H.M.Devagururaja, Adv.]
-Vs-
Defendant/s : Smt.Chandrakala,
W/o.V.Narayanaswamy,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at No.12/43, Thindlu Village,
Vidyaranyapura Post,
Yelahanka Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore-560 097.
[By Sri. S.J.A., Adv.]
Date of institution of the suit 02.04.2014
Nature of the suit Permanent Injunction
Date of commencement of 20.7.2016
recording the evidence
OS.No.2622/2014
2
Date on which the judgment 20.02.2023
was pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
08 10 18
(Kengabalaiah),
XLII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge.
**********
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant for permanent injunction.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that, he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has acquired the schedule property under the registered Sale Deed dated 9.10.1992. The land measuring 8 ½ guntas in Sy.No.66/5 of Thindlu Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk was originally belongs to one Arasappa and Chikkanna both sons of Munishirappa and they sold the said land in favour of Pillappa under a registered Sale Deed dated 29.4.1991 who having converted the same for non-agricultural residential purpose and formed residential sites therein and sold the schedule property in favour of the plaintiff under the registered Sale OS.No.2622/2014 3 Deed dated 9.10.1992 and put him in possession of the same. The plaintiff being the owner, having paid the property tax to the concerned authority and got the khatha in his name. The defendant is a stranger to the schedule property without having any manner of right, title and interest whatsoever interfered with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
3. It is further submitted that on 28.3.2014 at 7 p.m. came near the suit schedule property along with some goonda elements and attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. However, due to timely intervention of of neighbours and well-wishers, the defendant could not succeed in his illegal act. The defendant is very influential person in the locality, has got men and materials, has taken law in her hands. The plaintiff apprehend mischief at the hands of the defendant at any moment. The plaintiff lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police, but the police have advised to approach the civil court for appropriate relief. The cause of action for the suit arose on 28.3.2014. Hence, the suit.
OS.No.2622/2014 4
4. In pursuance of the summons, the defendant has appeared through her counsel and filed the written statement alleging that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not at all maintainable. The plaintiff is not the owner and not in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has not acquired any valid right and title over the suit schedule property by virtue of the alleged purchase and the plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit. The suit filed by the plaintiff with ulterior motive and with dishonest intention. The plaintiff has suppressed the true and material facts and he has not approached this court with clean hands. The suit for bare injunction without seeking the relief of declaration and possession is not maintainable. The defendant has denied the plaint allegations in para-3 that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property under the registered Sale Deed dated 9.10.1992. The defendant has denied the plaint allegations made in para-4 to 12 as false.
5. The defendant has submitted that there is no existence of the suit property as described by the plaintiff and the plaintiff is not the owner or in possession and enjoyment OS.No.2622/2014 5 of the suit schedule property. The land bearing Sy.No.66/5 of Thindlu Village measuring 17 guntas is the ancestral property originally belonged to her grandfather Munisheerappa and he was in possession and enjoyment of the land. After demise of Munisheerappa, the land devolved to his two sons Chikkonu and Arasappa and they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the said land without effecting partition among themselves. The khatha and mutation were transferred to their names. Chikkonu died intestate and issueless and hence the entire land succeeded by the defendant's father Arasappa. The defendant being a co-parcener, she is in joint possession and enjoyment of the land and legally entitled to legitimate right and share in the land. In spite of repeated request and demands, the defendant's father had failed to effect partition and give share to the defendant.
6. It is further submitted that, in the meanwhile the defendant came to know that the land was alienated and the alleged purchasers Pillappa and M.Muninanjappa made attempts to trespass and interfere with the land. The defendant filed a comprehensive suit in OS.No.6988/2008 for partition and separate possession of her share in the land and OS.No.2622/2014 6 other reliefs. The defendant also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC to restrain the alienation of the land and the court was pleased to pass an ad-interim order of temporary injunction restraining the alienation of the land and the said interim order is still subsisting. During the pendency of the said partition suit, some persons including the plaintiff started interfering with the land and as such the defendant filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead as many as 14 persons including the plaintiff as parties in the said partition suit and the Court has issued notice to the plaintiff and he is fully aware of the said partition suit and also the interim order granted by the court. In spite of the same, as an afterthought and with deliberate intention to complicate the matter and multiplicity of proceedings, the plaintiff has filed the present false and frivolous suit for bare injunction and unnecessarily dragged the defendant into unwarranted litigation. The very title of the predecessor of the plaintiff is under challenged in the aforesaid partition suit and as such, the plaintiff has not derived any valid right and title to the schedule property when his predecessors had no better right and title could be transferred and conveyed to the subsequent OS.No.2622/2014 7 purchaser. The plaintiff has misrepresented the fact and by misleading the court, managed to obtain an ad-interim order of temporary injunction against the defendant. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, my learned predecessor has framed the following issues :-
1) Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference of the defendant?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?
4) What order or decree?
8. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P35. On the other hand, the defendant herself examined as DW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D26.
9. Heard the arguments of counsel for the plaintiff. The defendant not advanced any arguments.
10. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In the affirmative OS.No.2622/2014 8 Issue No.2: In the affirmative Issue No.3: In the affirmative Issue No.4: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
11. Issue No.1 :- It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the land measuring 8 ½ guntas in Sy.No.66/5 of Thindlu Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk was originally belongs to one Arasappa and Chikkanna both sons of Munishirappa and they sold the said land in favour of Pillappa under a registered Sale Deed dated 29.4.1991 who has converted the same for non-agricultural residential purpose and formed residential sites and he has sold the schedule property in favour of of the plaintiff and put him in possession of the same. The plaintiff got the khatha in his name. The defendant attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property though she is not having any right much less possession over the suit schedule property.
12. On the other hand, the defendant has contended that the land bearing Sy.No.66/5 of Thindlu Village measuring 17 guntas is their ancestral property originally belonged to her grandfather Munisheerappa who was in possession and OS.No.2622/2014 9 enjoyment of the said land. After his demise, the land devolved to his two sons namely Chikkonu and Arasappa and they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the said land without effecting partition and the khatha transferred to their names. Later, Chikkonu died intestate and issueless, hence the entire land succeeded by her father Arasappa and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant being the daughter of Arasappa and co-parcener, she is in joint possession and enjoyment of the said land. Further she contended that she came to know that the land was alienated and the alleged purchasers namely Pillappa and M.Muninanjappa made attempts to trespass and interfere with the land, for which she has filed a suit in OS.No.6988/2008 for partition and separate possession and also sought declaration to declare that the alienation of land in Sy.No.66/5 in 2 portions of 8 ½ guntas in favour of Pillappa and Muninanjappa is not binding on her and also sought for injunction to restrain the alienation of the land.
13. The controversy between the parties is that according to the plaintiff the suit schedule property is a site and according to the defendant the suit schedule property is a OS.No.2622/2014 10 landed property. Let us analyze the evidence let in by the parties. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has filed an affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief as PW.1 by reiterating the contents of the pleadings and he has relied upon the registered Sale Deed dated 9.10.1992 which was executed by Pillappa in his favour marked at Ex.P1, demand register extract stood in his name marked at Ex.P2 and encumbrance certificates marked at Ex.P3 to P5, building license is marked at Ex.P6, tax paid receipts are marked at Ex.P7 to P10 and assessment extracts issued by the City Corporation, Byatarayanapura, Bangalore marked at Ex.P11 and P12, Challans submitted under self-assessment scheme marked at Ex.P13 to 18, tax paid receipts marked at Ex.P19 to P25, approved plan issued by Gram Panchayath marked at Ex.P26, approved plan issued by BBMP marked at Ex.P27, Water bill marked at Ex.P28, intimation issued by BESCOM marked at Ex.P29, 10 Electricity bills marked at Ex.P30, Test certificate issued by BESCOM marked at Ex.P31, 5 Electricity bills marked at Ex.P32, 7 Photographs marked at Ex.P33, Khata certificate issued by BBMP in favour of plaintiff is marked at Ex.P34 and certified copy of the Confirmation deed OS.No.2622/2014 11 dated 3.3.2014 executed by Chandrakala and her husband and children in favour of B.Dhananjaya Naidu marked at Ex.P35.
14. Whereas, in the cross-examination, PW.1 has deposed that he has verified the title deeds of the vendor before purchase of site. Prior to him it was in the name of Pillappa who had purchased the property from Chikkonu and Arasappa. He denied that he is not in possession and enjoyment of the site. He has stated that he was not aware of the fact that OS.No.6988/08 is pending from 2008 filed by the defendant. He admits that he has purchased the Site No.17 from Balappa on 9.10.1992. He admits that Sy.No.66/5 originally belongs to Munisheerappa. He pleads ignorance that the defendant has filed a suit against Pillappa, Muninanjappa and Arasappa in OS.No.6988/2008, where she has obtained an order of non-alienation of the property.
15. On the other hand, the defendant herself has filed an affidavit in lieu of her cross-examination as DW.1 by reiterating the contents of the written statement and she has relied upon the documents i.e., certified copy of the Order sheet, plaint and application under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC in OS.No.2622/2014 12 OS.No.6988/2008, which are marked at Ex.D1 to D3 and genealogical tree marked at Ex.D4. RTC pertaining to Sy.No.66/5 which is stood in the name of Pillappa and Muninanjappa in the year 2001-02 to 2021-22 which are marked at Ex.D5 to D26.
16. Whereas in her cross-examination, she has denied the suggestion put forth by the counsel for the plaintiff that her father Arasappa sold out 8 ½ guntas of land on 29.4.1991 in favour of Muninanjappa. She denied that she has not produced any documents to show that she has been in possession and enjoyment of 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.66/5. She denied that Ex.D5 to D26 are stood in the name of Pillappa and Muninanjappa in column No.9 and 12(2). She denied that Pillappa and Muninanjappa got converted the land for non-agricultural purpose and formed a sites and sold the sites. She admits that the plaintiff is not party to the proceedings in OS.No.6988/2008 when she has filed the suit. She admits that she has moved an application on 2.4.2014 to implead the plaintiff as party to the proceedings. She admits that the plaintiff has filed this suit on 2.4.2014, but she denied that the plaintiff is not aware of the above suit filed by her in OS.No.2622/2014 13 OS.No.6988/2008 till filing of the suit. She denied that herself and her husband executed Confirmation deed with respect to Sy.No.66/5 pertaining to the Site No.11. Though this witness denied the execution of confirmation deed with respect to Site No.17, but the documents relied by the plaintiff at Ex.P35 reveals that the defendant and others have executed confirmation as per Ex.P35.
17. On careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW.1 and the documents relied by the plaintiff as well as the evidence of DW.1 and the documents relied by the defendants, it is an undisputed fact that the land bearing Sy.No.66/5 measuring 17 guntas originally belongs to Munisheerappa who is the father of Arasappa. It is also an undisputed fact that Arasappa is the father of the defendant. According to the defendant, Arasappa and Chikkonu are the brothers and Chikkonu died issueless and the entire property acquired by Arasappa and he was in possession and enjoyment of the entire land in Sy.no.66/5. According to the plaintiff, the father of the defendant namely Arasappa and her uncle Chikkonu have sold the land measuring 8 ½ guntas each in the land in Sy.No.66/5 in favour of Pillappa on 29.4.1991 and he has OS.No.2622/2014 14 converted the said land for non-agricultural purpose and he formed residential sides and he sold the suit schedule property in his favour. To substantiate the contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has produced the Sale Deed dated 9.10.1992 which is marked at Ex.P1. On perusal of Ex.P1, it appears that Pillappa has executed Sale Deed in respect of site No.17 in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly demand register extract issued in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1992-93 as per Ex.P2. From Ex.P6, it appears that the plaintiff obtained license for construction of the house. From Ex.P26 and P27 it appears that the plaintiff has obtained the approved plan from the concerned authority for construction of the house and constructed the house. From Ex.P7 to to P10 tax paid receipts, reveals that the plaintiff has paid tax to the Byatarayanapura Gram Panchayath. Ex.P11 and P12 are the assessment register extracts issued by Byatarayanapura City Municipal Corporation. Ex.P13 to P25 are the tax paid receipts and challans. Ex.P28 is the water bills issued by BWSSB, Ex.P29 is the letter issued by BESCOM regarding sanction of power. Ex.P30 is the electricity bill. Ex.P31 is the test certificate issued by BESCOM, Ex.P32 is the elctricity bill.
OS.No.2622/2014 15 Ex.P33 is the photograph of the building. Ex.P34 is the certificate issued by BBMP in favour of plaintiff. From the evidence of PW.1 and the documents relied by the plaintiff at Ex.P1, it indicates that Pillappa sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff after forming sites in Sy.No.66/5 measuring 8 ½ guntas The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the date of purchase. Though the defendant cross-examined PW.1 in length by putting forth the case of the defendant, but nothing material has been elicited by him to discard the evidence. The defendant has relied upon the RTC extracts which are marked at Ex.D5 to D26 apart from her evidence to show that she is in possession and enjoyment of the property in Sy.No.66/5. On perusal of Ex.D5 to D26 in column No.9 and 12(2) the names of Pillappa and Muninanjappa find place. Neither the name of father of the defendant nor the defendant's name find place in the said documents. As such, the said documents are noway helpful to the case of the defendant and hence the defendant failed to prove that she is the owner and in possession and enjoyment of the property in Sy.No.66/5.
OS.No.2622/2014 16
18. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that Sy.No.66/5 of Thindlu Village originally belongs to Munisheerappa. After his death, his son Arasappa acquired the property and he sold the same in favour of Pillappa and Muninanjappa to the extent of 8 ½ each under a registered Sale Deed dated 29.4.1991. The said Muninanjpapa and Pillappa who have converted the said land for non-agricultural purpose and formed residential sites and sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff under a registered Sale Deed dated 9.10.1992 for valuable consideration and inducted the plaintiff in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The evidence of PW.1 and the documents relied by the plaintiff establish the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. When the plaintiff has established the possession, the plaintiff is entitled to protect the suit schedule property by way of injunction. It is further submitted that the defendant is claiming that she is the daughter of Arasappa and she is having a share over the suit schedule property and she has filed a suit for partition. In support of his argument he has OS.No.2622/2014 17 drawn the attention of the certified copy of the order sheet in OS.No.6988/2008 which indicate that she has filed a suit for partition in the year 2008 and obtained an order of interim injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit schedule property. But in the instant case, Arasappa has sold the suit schedule property in favour of Muninanjappa and Pillappa in the year 1991 itself. When the property has been alienated by Arasappa prior to amendment of Hindu Succession [Amendment] Act, 2005 any alienation made by the party prior to 20.12.2004, it is bared to claim any share with respect to the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction based on the Sale Deed. Under Section 38 of the Specif Relief Act, the plaintiff is entitled to get the permanent injunction against the defendant.
19. In support of his argument, he has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court reported in ILR 2015 KAR 5721 - Smt. Lakshmi and other Vs. Smt. Neelamma and others, 2015 AIR SCW 6809 - Delhi Diocesan Trust Association Vs. Ashwani Kumar, (1998) 3 K.L.J. 697, - K.Ramanathaiah Vs. Town Municipal Council, OS.No.2622/2014 18 Konanur, Arakalgud Taluk. ILR 1997 KAR 999 - P.Fatesh Ahmed Saheb by LRs Vs. Andur Usman Saheb by LRs and others, wherein it has been held that :-
"(A) Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.38 - Appellant filed suit for title and perpetual injunction having purchased suit property from vendor who claimed to have derived title by gift from his mother, who had no absolute right and title- Tiral court decreed suit but Appellate court dismissed - In second appeal, thhogh claim of title failed, appellant not being a rank trespasser, held, entitled to possessory relief of perpetual injunction."
And (2003) 10 SCC 349 - Muddanna and others Vs. Panthanagere Group Panchayth, Kengeri Hobli, wherein it is held that :-
"Specific Relief Act, S.38 - Permanent injunction - Grant of - Propriety - Dispute as to lawful possession of title - Proof of - Appellant/plaintiffs filing two suits for injunction against Panchayath - contention of appellant that neither Mysore [Personal and Miscellaneous] Inams Abolition Act, 1954 nor the notification issued under Ss.46 and 49 of Mysore Village panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959 have the effect of vesting the land in the Government or Panchayath - Panchayath itself was not sure of the right and interest over the land in question - Appellants not rank trespassers - In such circumstances, held, that appellant-plaintiffs cannot be OS.No.2622/2014 19 dispossessed by Panchayath where title to the property seriously contested - Panchayath ought to have followed the procedure under the Panchayaths Act or other acts - Principles of natural justice ought to have been followed and the appellants put to notice - in the absence of due process of law, order of the High Court disturbing with the injunction order of trial court, held, bad."
And also relied upon the decision reported in AIR 2017 S.C. 583 - Vishram @ Prasad Govekar Vs. Sudesh Govekar dead by LRs. Hence, sought for decree the suit.
20. It is significant to note here that the father of the defendant Arasappa sold 8 ½ guntas of land each in favour of Muninanjappa and Pillappa in respect of the land in Sy.No.66/5 under a registered Sale Deed in the year 1991 much prior to the Hindu Succession [Amendment] Act, 2005, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The purchaser namely Muninanjappa and Pillappa have formed sites and sold the same in favour of different purchasers. The plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property from Pillappa under Ex.P1. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the date of purchase. The khatha has been made out in the name of the plaintiff based on the Sale Deed and the plaintiff OS.No.2622/2014 20 has paid up to date tax to the property. The plaintiff has proved that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property with cogent and convincing evidence.
21. It is settled law that in a suit for injunction, the plaintiff has to prove the prima facie title and possession on the date of filing of the suit. If the plaintiff has established the prima facie case principles governing injunctions, possession should be protected once a person is in possession has not to be dispossessed. In the instant case, the plaintiff has established the case satisfactorily which required under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act.
22. I have carefully perused the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in (2003) 10 SCC 349 - Muddanna and others Vs. Panthanagere Group Panchayth, Kengeri Hobli, their lordship held that, plaintiff cannot be dispossessed unless due process of law and also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, reported in ILR 1997 KAR 999 - P.Fatesh Ahmed Saheb by LRs Vs. Andur Usman Saheb by LRs and others, their lordship held that, the position is well settled that a person in settled possession cannot be OS.No.2622/2014 21 dispossessed even by the owner, otherwise than by proceeding in accordance with the procedure established by law.
23. I have carefully perused the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also Hon'ble High Court relied by the counsel for the plaintiff. As per the ratio of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court, once the plaintiff has established the prima facie possession over the property, the plaintiff is entitled to protect his property by way of injunction as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
24. In the instant case, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as the absolute owner based on the Sale Deed. The defendant has attempted to interfere with the possession of the suit schedule property after filing of the suit for partition. As such, in the light of the said decision also, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction. In the instant case, the plaintiff has established that he is in possession of the property based on the Sale Deed and the defendant interfering with his possession. As per the ratio of the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court, the plaintiff is entitled to OS.No.2622/2014 22 protect his interest by way of injunction. In the light of the above decisions and the facts and circumstances of case on hand, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and the same is established by the plaintiff with cogent and convincing evidence and hence the plaintiff is entitled for injunction. Hence, I hold issue No.1 in the affirmative.
25. Issue No.2 :- The plaintiff has specifically stated that the defendant has attempted to interfere with his possession over the suit schedule property. Though the defendant has denied the interference of the plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property, the defendant has specifically contended in the written statement that she has filed a suit for partition and she has impleaded the plaintiff as a party to the proceedings which shows that the defendant has interfered with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. When the defendant has disputed the possession of the plaintiff, an inference can be drawn that the defendant has interfered with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. For the above discussion, I hold Issue No.2 in the Affirmative.
OS.No.2622/2014 23
26. Issue No.3 :- When the plaintiff has proved the prime issue No.1 and 2 with cogent and convincing evidence consequently he is entitled for the relief sought for. Hence, I hold issue No.3 in the affirmative.
27. Issue No.4:- In view of the discussion above, I proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with cost.
The defendant is hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
Draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, typed by him, the transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me, in open court, on this the 20th day of February, 2023).
(Kengabalaiah), XLII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
P.W.1 Dr. H.P.Jagadeesh List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
OS.No.2622/2014 24 Ex.P1 Original Sale deed dated 9.10.1992 Ex.P2 Demand register Ex.P3 to 5 Encumbrance certificates Ex.P6 Building license dated 20.6.1992 Ex.P7 to 10 Tax paid receipts Ex.P11 & 12 Assessment register extracts Ex.P13 to 18 Challans submitted under self-assessment scheme Ex.P19 to 25 Tax paid receipts Ex.P26 Approved plan issued by Gram Panchayath Ex.P27 Approved plan issued by BBMP Ex.P28 Water bill Ex.P29 Intimation issued by BESCOM Ex.P30 10 Electricity bills Ex.P31 Test certificate issued by BESCOM Ex.P32 5 Electricity bills Ex.P33 7 Photographs Ex.P34 Khata certificate Ex.P35 Certified copy of confirmation deed dated 3.3.2014 List of witnesses examined for defendant:
DW.1 Smt.Chandrakala List of documents exhibited for defendant:
Ex.D1 Certified copy of order sheet in
OS.No.6988/2008
Ex.D2 Certified copy of Plaint in OS.6988/2008
Ex.D3 Certified copy of I.A. U/O 1 Rule 10 of
CPC in OS.No.6988/2008
Ex.D4 Genealogical tree
Ex.D5 to D26 RTC extracts
OS.No.2622/2014
25
XLII Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru.