Bangalore District Court
(1) Smt.A.Vinovathi Bai vs (1) C.Chinnappa on 25 April, 2017
COURT OF IX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BANGALORE (C.C.H.5)
Dated: This the 25th day of April 2017
Present: Sri. Ravindra Hegde,
M.A., LL.M.,
XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
In-charge of IX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
O.S. No.6762/2011
Plaintiffs : (1) Smt.A.Vinovathi Bai,
W/o. Arjun Rao,
Aged about 60 years
(2) Arjun Rao,
S/o. Late Sham Rao,
Aged about 63 years
Both are residing at
No.1/1, House No.4,
2nd Floor, 5th 'B' Cross,
Nala Road, Neelasandra,
Anepalya, Adugodi Post,
Bangalore 560 030.
(By Sri.R.Balaji, advocate)
-Vs-
Defendants : (1) C.Chinnappa,
S/o. late Ajjappa,
Aged about 58 years,
Residing at No.1,
Nale Road, 5th 'B' Cross,
Anepalya,
Bangalore 560 030.
(2) The Commissioner,
BBMP, Corporation Building,
Near Hudson Circle,
2 O.S.No.6762/2011
Bangalore 560 002.
(D1 : By Sri.HSS, Advocate
D2 : Deleted)
Date of institution of the suit 15.09.2011
Nature of the suit Declaration,
Mandatory and
Permanent Injunction
Date of commencement of 28.11.2013
recording the evidence
Date on which the judgment was 25.04.2017
pronounced
Total duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
05 07 10
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by plaintiffs for declaration of 'C' schedule property as an open area and a common passage and defendant has no right and title in respect of the same and to declare that the construction put up by the defendant over 'C' schedule property is illegal and unauthorized and to direct the defendant to remove the illegal construction put up in 'C' schedule property and to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with plaintiffs 'C' schedule property and to 3 O.S.No.6762/2011 restrain defendant No.1 from encroaching or occupying the 'C' schedule property.
2. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that, plaintiffs are owners in possession of property bearing No.1/1, new No.16 which is explained in the plaint schedule. Plaintiffs have purchased the existing house. The defendant is old resident of the area and had purchased the site on the southern portion of 'A' schedule property bearing site No.1/2 which is shown as suit 'B' schedule property. Plaintiffs are aged and senior citizen and they are suffering from various ailments. The suit 'A' schedule property earlier belonged to Mangilal and Madanlal and at that time, it was measuring East to West 30' and North to South 40' but while executing the registered sale deed by late Mangilal and Madanlal, measurement is shown as 30x27 and it is only a mistake. The said mistake is carried further and it is not rectified. When the property was sold to Mangilal and Madanlal, they had left 10 feet of the land for conservancy and road to connect the Nala road with the passage towards western side of suit 'A' schedule 4 O.S.No.6762/2011 property. The defendant by taking advantage of the mistake tried to knock over three feet of land available between 'A' schedule property and 'B' schedule property which is explained as 'C' schedule in the plaint. The defendant has started putting up construction in 'B' schedule property encroaching 'C' schedule property in which defendant has no right, title or interest. Though the plaintiffs have requested not to encroach 'C' schedule property, plaintiffs are not hearing words. The plaintiffs have approached BBMP and given complaints, but no action has been taken. The defendant's construction is moving very fast. The defendant has no right in 'C' schedule property and construction being put up on the northern side of 'B' schedule property is illegal and unauthorized. Due to illegal act of the defendant, windows of the plaintiffs and ventilation stands blocked completely and is creating darkness and dampness to the 'A' schedule property and it is causing untold misery, hardship and harassment. Suit 'C' schedule property is also a connecting lane to the adjacent conservancy land. Due to 5 O.S.No.6762/2011 illegal act of the defendant, plaintiffs' right are encroached/blocked. Therefore, plaintiffs have filed this suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction.
3. The defendant has appeared and filed the written statement and stated that the suit is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected. The defendant has contended that originally, the property bearing Municipal No.1/1 was owned and possessed by Junjappa, Shamappa, Chinnappa who are all sons of Ajjappa and Akkamma. It is stated that these persons have sold an extent of East to West 30 feet and North to South 40 feet in favour of Mangilal and Madanlal by registered sale deed dated 24.07.1965. Mangilal and Madanlal have sold the property in favour of Venkata Reddy under sale deed dated 03.09.1965. It is stated that Shamanna, Abbu and Chinnappa sold another property measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 6 feet in same property No.1/1 in favour of Venkata Reddy by registered sale deed dated 24.06.1966. In view of these two sale deeds, Venkata 6 O.S.No.6762/2011 Reddy had become owner to the extent of East to West 30 feet and North to South 46 feet. It is stated that Venkata Reddy has sold southern portion bearing No.1/1 measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 19 feet in favour of Smt.Jayamma Raj on 04.08.1976. In the said sale deed, northern side is shown as portion of same property No.1/1 sold on the same day in favour of Krishnappa. Smt.Jayamma Raj had sold the property purchased by her to Meer Sakib Hussain under sale deed dated 12.11.1979 and this purchaser has sold the same to P.Mani by registered sale deed dated 04.04.1986 and from his LRs, defendant has purchased the same on 04.10.1999 by registered sale deed. It is stated that as per the application dated 16.04.1979, Smt.Jayamma Raj and V.Krishnappa sought for bifurcation of property No.1/1. The Asst. Revenue Officer by a special notice dated 23.06.1979 has intimated the sanction accorded by Deputy Commissioner to bifurcate the property No.1/1. In view of this order, property No.1/1 has been divided and Municipal No.1/2 is given to the property of the defendant 7 O.S.No.6762/2011 and khata was registered in the name of Smt.Jayamma Raj and from her, vendors of the defendant have purchased the property. It is stated that from the date of sale deed, defendant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of property No.1/2 measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 19 feet. Khata is also changed in the name of defendant and the defendant in order to put up construction in the suit property has demolished the existing construction and has also surrendered the electricity meter provided by BESCOM. From July 2011, defendant has been putting up construction in his property. The defendant has put up ground, 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors. The defendant has denied that plaintiffs are in possession of property No.1/1, new No.16 as stated by them. It is stated that southern boundary to property No.1/1 is the property No.1/2 of the defendant and not 'C' schedule property as stated. He has also denied that 10 feet of land has been given for conservancy and road to connect the Nala road as stated by plaintiffs. The alleged encroachment of 3 feet space belonging to plaintiffs by 8 O.S.No.6762/2011 defendant and obstruction caused to the plaintiffs enjoyment of the property etc., are all denied by defendant. It is stated that if the alleged grievance of plaintiffs against defendant is regarding violation of building byelaw, suit is not maintainable, since the remedy of plaintiffs is under the provisions of Municipal Corporation Act. It is stated that construction started in June 2011 and it is at the stage of roofing of 3rd floor. Plaintiffs having knowledge of the construction from July 2011, have approached the Court when it has reached the 3rd floor. The averment of the plaintiffs that due to illegal act of the defendant, his window and ventilation stands blocked etc., are all denied. It is stated that property No.1/1 is completely built. It is stated that the plaintiffs who have kept quiet for a long time and allowed the defendant to put up construction, cannot now seek restraining the defendant from putting up construction. It is stated that if the alleged grievances of the plaintiffs is regarding air and light, the plaintiffs ought to have sought for declaration regarding the alleged entitlement of 9 O.S.No.6762/2011 easement against defendant. On all these grounds, suit is prayed to be dismissed.
4. On these pleadings, following issues are framed by my learned predecessor :-
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that 'C' schedule property is an open area and common passage?
2) Do they prove that defendant No.1 has no right, title and interest over 'C' schedule property?
3) Do they prove that defendant No.1 has put up illegal construction over the suit property?
4) Do they prove their entitlement of the relief of permanent injunction against defendant in respect of suit 'A' schedule property?
5) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought for?
6) Whether defendant proves that Court fee paid on the plaint is insufficient?
7) Does he prove that there is no cause of action for the suit and the one alleged is created for the purpose of present suit?
8) What order and decree?10 O.S.No.6762/2011
5. In support of plaintiffs' case, P.W.1 is examined and Ex.P-1 to P-28 are marked. For defendant, D.W.1 is examined and Ex.D-1 to D-19 are marked.
6. Heard arguments.
7. My answer to the above issues are as under:
Issue Nos.1 to 7: In the Negative Issue No.8: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Issue Nos.1 to 3: All these issues are taken together for discussion to avoid repetition.
The plaintiffs have filed this suit for declaration that 'C' schedule property is an open area and a common passage and defendant has no right, title and interest over the same and to direct the defendant to remove illegal construction put up over 'C' schedule property and for permanent injunction. The defendant has denied existence of 'C' schedule property and also encroachment made by him in the property belonging to plaintiffs. 11 O.S.No.6762/2011
9. Son of plaintiffs has given evidence as P.W.1 and has stated plaint averments in chief examination. In the cross-examination, witness has stated that his parents are not in good health and can not come and give evidence. Witness has admitted that on 24.07.1965, Mangilal and Madanlal purchased property No.1/1 measuring 30'x40'. The witness has admitted that on 03.09.1965, Mangilal and Madanlal sold it to Venkata Reddy. Witness has stated that he do not know that on 24.06.1966, property No.1/1, East to West 30 feet and North to South 6 feet was purchased by Venkata Reddy and thereby Venkata Reddy became owner of East to West 30' and North to South 46 feet. Witness has stated that his mother has purchased constructed building and measurement of the constructed building is 30'x27'. Witness has stated that on northern and southern side, there is a vacant space. Witness has admitted that on the southern side of the property purchased, it is mentioned that portion of property belonging to Smt.Jayamma Raj but has stated that after leaving open space, property of Smt.Jayamma 12 O.S.No.6762/2011 Raj is situated. Witness has stated that he has no documents except photos to show vacant space existing between two properties. Witness has denied that his mother is not having any vacant space on the southern side of her property. Witness has stated that he does not know on 04.08.1976, Venkata Reddy has sold East to West 30 feet and North to South 19 feet to Smt.Jayamma Raj and from her, vendors of the defendant have purchased and then, the said property came to the defendant.
10. The plaintiffs have produced special power of attorney given to P.W.1 as Ex.P.1. Sale deed of plaintiffs dated 3.11.2003 is produced as Ex.P-2. Encumbrance certificates are produced as Ex.P-3 to P-5. Notice given to BBMP and Commissioner of police are all produced as Ex.P-6 to P-9. Newspaper is produced as Ex.P-10 and photos are produced at Ex.P-11 to P-28. CD is marked as Ex.P-28(a).
11. Defendant has given evidence as D.W.1 and has stated as to how property has come to him and has stated 13 O.S.No.6762/2011 that there is no existence of 'C' schedule property as stated by plaintiffs. In the cross-examination, witness has stated that before purchasing 'B' schedule property a sheet house was existing. Witness has stated that existing building was fallen, in the same place he has made construction and he has taken approved plan from BBMP. Witness has admitted that the 1st plaintiff has given complaint stating that defendant is constructing without leaving set back and he has stated that BBMP officials had come to the spot. Witness has stated that there is no road on the southern side but there is an open space which has been left by them to reach their house. Witness has denied that they have not made construction as per approved plan and they have violated sanctioned plan. Witness has denied that they have encroached 3 feet space on the southern side of the property which is 'C' schedule property.
12. The defendant has produced some photographs by confronting to P.W.1 as Ex.D-1 to D-3. Sale deed of Venkata Reddy executed in favour of Smt.Jayamma Raj on 14 O.S.No.6762/2011 04.08.1976 to an extent of 30' x 19' is produced as Ex. D-4. Subsequent sale deeds, including sale deed of defendant, are produced as Ex.D-5 to D-7. Special notice given by BBMP informing that property No.1/1 has been divided and the property of Smt.Jayamma Raj has been given number as 1/2 is produced as Ex.D-8. khata certificate and Uttara patra are produced as Ex.D-9 and D-10. Some tax challans are marked as Ex.D-11 to D-15. Photographs are marked showing construction in progress as Ex.D-16 to D-19.
13. On looking to the pleadings, evidence and documents, case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiffs are the absolute owners of 'A' schedule property and even 'C' schedule property measuring East to West 30' and North to South 3' is belonging to plaintiffs and plaintiffs are using the same as open space to reach the property. Plaintiffs have stated that Defendant is making construction in B schedule property and is encroaching 'C' schedule property. Existence of 'C' schedule property measuring East to West 30' and North to South 3' has 15 O.S.No.6762/2011 been seriously disputed by defendant. Plaintiffs have stated that in their sale deed, though the measurement is shown as 30'x27', actual measurement of the property is East to West 30' and North to South 30' which includes 3 feet open space on the southern side which is shown as 'C' schedule in the plaint. According to plaintiffs, property No.1/1 was originally measuring 30'x40' out of which, vendor of the plaintiffs had left 10 feet for conservancy lane. By Ex.P-2, plaintiffs have purchased property No.1/1 from K.Mohamood khan on 03.11.2003. The measurement of the property is clearly shown as East to West 30' and North to South 27'. On the southern side of the property purchased by plaintiffs, boundary is shown as property No.1/1 belonging to Smt.Jayamma Raj. Smt.Jayamma Raj is the earlier owner of defendant's property. Though the plaintiffs have stated that the property purchased by them is East to West 30' and North to South 30', there is no such document produced by plaintiffs.
14. It is stated by plaintiffs that Mangilal and Madanlal had purchased 30'x40', while executing sale 16 O.S.No.6762/2011 deed by Mangilal and Madanlal, measurement has been wrongly shown as 30'x27'. Plaintiffs have not even produced sale deed of Mangilal and Madanlal and subsequent sale deeds before the Court. Even, as admitted by plaintiffs, in the sale deeds of plaintiffs and purchaser, measurement of the property purchased by plaintiffs has been shown as 30'x27' only. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 has stated that except photographs, he has no document to show that there is open space on the southern side of the house of the plaintiffs. P.W.1 has admitted that his mother has purchased the existing building which was measuring 30'x27'. He has further stated that there is 3 feet space on the southern side after this constructed building 30'x27'. Therefore, it is clear that mother of P.W.1 i.e. 1st plaintiff has purchased the existing building measuring East to West 30' and North to South 27' and in the sale deed also, extent has been shown as 30'x27'. Plaintiffs have not produced documents to prove the existence of 'C' schedule property on the southern side of the property purchased by plaintiffs. 17 O.S.No.6762/2011 Though, plaintiffs contend that the property purchased was 30'x40' by Mangilal and Madanlal and out of that, 10 feet has been left for conservancy lane and remaining property measuring 30'x30' is purchased by predecessor in title of plaintiffs and then, it came to vendors of plaintiffs etc., absolutely there is no document produced to substantiate the same.
15. Sale deed of the plaintiffs and their vendors are showing measurement of East to West 30' and North to South 27' as stated in the plaint itself. P.W.1 himself has admitted that except photographs, there are no documents to show existence of 3 feet open space in between the property of plaintiffs and defendant. P.W.1 himself has admitted that plaintiffs had purchased existing house measuring 30'x27'. Even in the sale deed, property is described as house property of 30'x27'. Under such circumstances, existence of 3 feet open space on the southern side of the plaintiffs' house is not established by any records. Plaintiffs are relying on encumbrance certificate Ex.P-3 which is for a period of 1965 and 1966 18 O.S.No.6762/2011 in which, it is shown that Junjappa, Achamma, Chinnappa, Akkamma have sold 30'x40' by registered sale deed dated 22.07.1965 to Mangilal and Madanlal. Interestingly, plaintiffs have not produced the subsequent encumbrance certificates from 1966 to 2003. Plaintiffs have produced encumbrance certificate from 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2004 in which property sold to plaintiffs is shown as measuring 30'x27'. Ex.P-3 is the only document produced by plaintiffs to show that site measuring 30'x40' and was purchased by Mangilal and Madanlal under registered sale deed dated 22.7.1965. This is even admitted by the defendant. Defendant disputed the existence of open space of 3' and also leaving 10' for conservancy.
16. According to defendant, this Mangilal purchased 30'x40' and sold it to Venkata Reddy and Venkata Reddy had purchased additional East to West 30' and North to South 6' in property No.1/1 from Junjappa, Shamappa, Chinnappa by registered sale deed dated 24.6.1966. Thereby, Venkata Reddy became owner of East to West 30' and North to South 46' by virtue of two sale deeds, one 19 O.S.No.6762/2011 executed by Mangilal and Madanlal and another executed by Shamanna and others in 1966. Out of this 30'x46', according to the defendant, Venkata Reddy sold East to West 30' and North to South 27' to Krishnappa on 04.08.1976 and on the same day, remaining East to West 30' and North to South 19' has been sold to Smt.Jayamma Raj. Ex.D-4 show that Smt.Jayamma Raj had purchased 30'x19' from Venkata Reddy and in the schedule, it has been clearly shown on the northern side, as portion of the same No.1/1 sold this day to V.Krishnappa. Therefore, out of 30'x46' in property No.1/1 which was acquired by Venkata Reddy by two sale deeds, Venkata Reddy has sold 30'x27' on the northern side to V.Krishnappa and southern side measuring 30'x19' to Smt.Jayamma Raj. Subsequently, Smt.Jayamma Raj had sold the purchased property by her to Mr.Meer Sakib Hussain on 12.11.1979 as per Ex.D-5 sale deed. Then P.Mani has purchased property from Meer Sakib Hussain measuring 30'x19' by sale deed dated 4.4.1986. In these sale deeds, on the northern boundary is shown as property of V.Krishnappa. 20 O.S.No.6762/2011 The property of Smt.Jayamma Raj is given new number as 1/2 in 1979 as seen in Ex.D-8. In this special notice Ex.D.8, given to Smt.Jayamma Raj and Krishnappa both of whom were owning property in No.1/1, it has been mentioned that on 23.6.1979, new Municipasl No.1/2 has been given in the name of Smt.Jayamma Raj. Therefore, from 01.04.1979, property of Smt.Jayamma Raj measuring 30'x19' has been given number as 1/2 though it was part of 1/1 earlier. Accordingly, in the sale deed of P.Mani at Ex.D-6, property number is shown as 1/2. Subsequently from the LRs of P.Mani, defendant has purchased the same by Ex.D-7 sale deed in which on the northern side property of V.Krishnappa which now belongs to plaintiffs has been shown as the boundary.
17. On looking to these documents, contention of the defendant appears to be correct. Though the plaintiffs have stated that this property No.1/1 was measuring 30'x40', the entire contention of the plaintiffs is based on encumbrance certificate produced at Ex.P-3 that entry has been made on the basis of sale deed of Mangilal i.e. in the 21 O.S.No.6762/2011 year 1965. The sale deed in respect of 30'x6' as stated by defendant executed by Shamanna and others in favour of Venkata Reddy is not disputed by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have not produced sale deeds of their vendors. The documents produced by defendant show that property No.1/1 was measuring 30x40'. Out of this, plaintiffs' predecessors in title have purchased 30'x27' and defendant's predecessors in title had purchased 30'x19'. No documents are produced by plaintiffs to show that out of 30'x40', 10 feet has been given for conservancy lane by predecessor in title of the plaintiffs as stated. Similarly, there is no evidence before the Court that there is 3 feet open space as stated by plaintiffs. Sale deed produced by plaintiffs at Ex.P-2 does not show that there is any open space on the southern side of the property purchased by plaintiffs. Therefore, contention of the plaintiffs that though in the sale deed of plaintiffs mentioned measurement as 30'x27', actual measurement at the spot is 30'x30' and there is mistake in the sale deed cannot be accepted. If there is any mistake in the sale deed of the plaintiffs and 22 O.S.No.6762/2011 predecessor in title, same could have been got rectified by following the procedure of law. No such efforts appears to have been made by plaintiffs or their predecessor in title. Apart from this, P.W.1 in the cross-examination, has clearly stated that except some photographs, there are no documents to show existence of open space in between property of plaintiffs and defendant. Documents produced by defendant makes it very clear that totally, property No.1/1 was having 30'x46' and it was purchased by Venkata Reddy and from whom, Krishnappa purchased 30'x27' and Smt.Jayamma Raj purchased 30'x19'. On considering this total measurement, there is no property left for 10 feet conservancy or 3 feet open space as contended by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs without having any material in support of their contentions, have filed the suit claiming existence of 'C' schedule property. As rightly contended by defendant, southern boundary of the plaintiffs' property is property of defendant and northern boundary of the defendant is plaintiffs' property No.1/1 23 O.S.No.6762/2011 measuring 30'x27' and not 3 feet open space as contended by plaintiffs.
18. Since the plaintiffs have failed to prove the existence of any 'C' schedule property, question of defendant encroaching such 'C' schedule property does not arise. The plaintiffs and defendant have produced several photographs showing construction of the defendant in progress. When the entire extent of 30'x27' is covered by building, plaintiffs cannot contend that their property has been encroached by defendant while making construction. Moreover, though the defendant's construction started in July 2001, plaintiffs filed this suit in September 2001, after building has come upto 3rd floor. Since property of the plaintiffs is measuring 30'x27' and the entire property is covered by building, question of defendant making illegal construction on the property of plaintiffs and encroachment of the property of plaintiffs does not arise. Accordingly, issues 1 to 3 are answered in the negative.
24 O.S.No.6762/2011
19. Issue Nos.4 and 5: The plaintiffs have filed suit for declaration that 'C' schedule property is open area which is not established in this case. Plaintiffs have also prayed to declare that construction put up by defendant over 'C' schedule property is illegal and unauthorized. This relief also does not arise, as there is no material to show existence of 'C' schedule property and construction of any building by defendant in the alleged 'C' schedule property. Accordingly, directing the defendant to remove the illegal construction also does not arise. Plaintiffs have also prayed permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with 'A' schedule property. Though the plaintiffs' possession of 30'x27' is not in dispute, allegation of interference by the defendant in plaintiffs' possession of such property itself is not established. The plaintiffs have wrongly shown their southern boundary as open space of 3 feet which is not in existence at all. The description of the property itself is not correct. Hence, no injunction can be granted. Moreover, though the plaintiffs contended that the defendant is 25 O.S.No.6762/2011 making illegal construction etc., plaintiffs are not seeking any relief on the averment that defendant's construction is by violating the Building Byelaws etc. Though the plaintiffs have stated in the plaint that their light and air will be affected by construction of the defendant, plaintiffs have not filed suit for declaration of easementary right. As such, plaintiffs entire suit is without any basis and without considering the previous sale deeds and flow of the title in property No.1/1. The property purchased by plaintiffs is only 30'x27' and on the southern side, there is property of defendant and there is no such open space or passage as contended by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are not seeking declaration of any easementary right. Therefore, plaintiffs are not entitled for any reliefs prayed in the suit. Accordingly, issue Nos.4 and 5 are answered in the Negative.
20. Issue Nos.6 & 7: The defendant in the written statement has contended that the Court fee paid is insufficient. The defendant has also contended that there is no cause of action for the suit. On looking to the 26 O.S.No.6762/2011 averments, plaintiffs have filed suit in respect of alleged open area and the plaintiffs have also sought for relief of injunction and plaintiffs have paid court fee of Rs.4,400/- and the valuation has been made u/s.24(b) of K.C.F. & S.V.Act and u/s.24(c) of the said Act. There is no material placed by defendant to show that the court fee paid and the valuation made is insufficient. Therefore, defendant has failed to prove that the court fee paid on the plaint is insufficient.
21. The defendant has even contended that there is no cause of action to the suit. The plaintiffs have alleged that the defendant is making construction of the building in the southern side of 'C' schedule property. Admittedly, defendant is making construction and as seen in photographs also, construction has come up to 3rd floor. Plaintiffs alleged that the construction of the defendant is illegal and has encroached property mentioned in the 'C' schedule which is open space. As the defendant is making construction in the property, it cannot be said that plaintiffs had no cause of action to file the suit. Though 27 O.S.No.6762/2011 the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief for the discussion made on other issues, it cannot be held that there is no cause of action to the suit. Accordingly, these issues are answered in the negative.
22. Issue No.8: For the discussions made on the above issues, suit is to be dismissed with cost. Accordingly, following order is passed:
O R D E R Suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed with cost.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 25th day of April 2017).
(RAVINDRA HEGDE) XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, I/c. IX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
A N N E X U R E List of witnesses examined for plaintiffs:
P.W.1 Gundu Rao List of witnesses examined for defendant:
D.W.1 Chinnappa 28 O.S.No.6762/2011 List of documents exhibited for plaintiffs:
Ex.P-1 Special power of attorney Ex.P-2 Sale deed dated 3.11.2003 Ex.P-3 to 5 Encumbrance certificates Ex.P-6 to 9 Special notices Ex.P-10 Paper publication Ex.P-11 to 28 Photographs Ex.P-28(a) CD Ex.P-25(b) Receipt
List of documents exhibited for defendant:
Ex.D-1 to 3 Photographs
Ex.D-4 Sale deed dated 4.8.1976
Ex.D-5 Sale deed dated 12.11.1979
Ex.D-6 Sale deed dated 4.4.1986
Ex.D-7 Sale deed dated 4.10.1999
Ex.D-8 Special notice given by Corporation
Ex.D-9 Khata Certificate
Ex.D-10 Uttarapatra
Ex.D-11 to 15 Tax challans
Ex.D-16 to 19 Photographs
XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
I/c. IX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
*** 29 O.S.No.6762/2011