Bangalore District Court
Sri.S.Rajendran vs Smt.Aruna Unnikrishnan on 6 December, 2021
1
OS.No.2992/2010
IN THE COURT OF XVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU CITY [CCH.NO.10]
Dated this day the 6th December 2021
PRESENT
Sri. SADANANDA NAGAPPA NAIK, B.A.L., LL.B.
XVIII Addl.City Civil Judge.
O.S.No.2992/2010
Plaintiff: Sri.S.Rajendran,
S/o P.Sivaraman,
Aged about 41 years,
R/at No.44, Old Madras Road,
Bangalore - 08.
[By Sri.P.V., Advocate]
/VS/
Defendants: 1. Smt.Aruna Unnikrishnan,
W/o Unnikrishnan,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at No.1917, 8th A Cross,
4th Main HAL III stage,
Bangalore - 75.
2. Sri.R.Muniraj,
S/o B.M.Ramaiah,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at No.10/3,
2
OS.No.2992/2010
Byraveswara Nilaya,
1st Cross, 13th Main,
HAL II Stage, Indira Nagar,
Bangalore - 08.
3. Sri.Elango Rajasekaran,
S/o P.Rajasekaran,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at No.2, Raj Villa,
8th Cross Road, Kaggadasapura,
Bangalore - 93.
[Sri.C.G.P., Adv., for D1, Sri.V.V.,
Adv., for D2. and Sri.V.R.R., Adv.,
for D3]
Date of institution of 24.04.2010
suit
Nature of the suit Specific performance and alternative
(Suit on pronote, suit relief of refund of earnest money
for declaration and
possession suit for
injunction, etc.
Date of the 13.04.2012
commencement of
recording of the
evidence.
Date on which the 06.12.2021
Judgment was
pronounced.
Year/s Month/s day/s
Total duration: 11 07 12
(SADANANDA NAGAPPA NAIK)
XVIII Addl.City Civil Judge, Bangalore.
3
OS.No.2992/2010
JU DG MEN T
The plaintiff has filed this suit for Specific
performance, damages, compensation and alternative
relief of refund of earnest money with interest and for
costs.
2. The brief and relevant facts as alleged in the
plaint are as follows:
It is the contention of the plaintiff that defendant
No.1 prior to 5.9.2007 approached the plaintiff she is in
need of money for the purpose of her son's education at
United Kingdom and for house hold expenses. She has
represented that she is the absolute owner of residential
property bearing No.24 & 25, (HASB Katha No.374 &
374/A) situated at Kaggadasapura village, K.R.Puram
Hobli, Bangalore South taluk now known as No.2, 8 th
Cross road, Kaggadasapura C.V.Raman Nagar Post,
Bangalore ie., suit schedule property and intended to sell
the same. On 5.9.2007, the plaintiff and 1 st defendant
entered into an agreement of sale and 1st defendant agreed
to sell the suit schedule property for valuable
consideration of Rs.80 Lakhs and on the said date, 1 st
defendant has received a sum of Rs.40 Lakhs from the
plaintiff in the presence of witnesses Vinod and
Annapoorna. It is further contended that the 1st defendant
4
OS.No.2992/2010
undertook that she will discharge any other liability and
debts if any created by her over the suit schedule property.
She has agreed to execute the sale deed within two
months, if she failed to do so, she will return Rs.40 Lakhs
earnest money along with Rs.5 Lakhs as liquidated
damages to the plaintiff.
3. It is further contended that on 16.9.2007, the 1 st
defendant informed the plaintiff that her mother is
hospitalised and requested him to pay Rs.5 Lakhs and the
same could be treated as separate loan transaction.
Considering her request, the plaintiff has paid a sum of
Rs.5 Lakhs and as a guarantee, the 1 st defendant has
executed a simple mortgage by way of deposit of title deed
dtd.17.9.2007. The 1st defendant undertook to discharge
the debt within a period of one year along with interest by
depositing the title deeds.
4. It is further contended that on 15.10.2007, the
1st defendant again approached the plaintiff and
demanded further payment of Rs.16 Lakhs in connection
to the treatment of her mother and to meet the
educational expenses of her son. Further stated that the
said amount would be adjusted towards the sale
consideration amounts. The plaintiff has managed and
paid the said sum and the defendant has issued a
5
OS.No.2992/2010
separate receipt to that effect. Thus received a sum of
Rs.56 Lakhs. It is further contended that the 1 st
defendant discharged the simple mortgage debt by way of
deposit of title deed on 01.12.2007 through a registered
deed.
5. It is further contended that on 01.12.2007, the
plaintiff and 1st defendant entered into Memorandum of
Undertaking mentioning about the discharge of simple
mortgage wherein it is mentioned that the plaintiff will
have a lien on the schedule property until he pays the
balance sale consideration and secure title deeds in his
favour. Based on the said undertaking, plaintiff has agreed
to discharge the simple mortgage on 1.12.2007.
6. It is further contended that later, plaintiff found
that 1st defendant had perpetrated a fraud on the plaintiff
by selling the suit schedule property to the 2nd defendant
on 6.12.2007 ie., within 5 days after discharge of simple
mortgage. The plaintiff having full trust in the 1 st
defendant by her promises never had an occasion to
suspect about her ill motives. The plaintiff was kept in
darkness of all the transactions. The 1st defendant being
aware of the lien on the schedule property and plaintiff
having purchased the same in terms of the sale
agreement, has received substantial sale consideration,
6
OS.No.2992/2010
sold the schedule property to the 3 rd defendant on
12.3.2008. It is further contended that the defendant No.2
& 3 were fully aware of the agreement of sale dtd.5.9.2007
executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff. The
defendants had conspired each other and got the sale
deeds executed.
7. It is further contended that the 1st defendant
executed a supplementary agreement of sale
dtd.24.10.2008 wherein she had admitted the receipt of
sale consideration of Rs.78 Lakhs by way of cash ie., Rs.40
Lakhs on 5.9.2007, Rs.16 Lakhs on 15.10.2007, Rs.5
Lakhs each on 14.1.2008, 25.3.2008 & 15.6.2008 and
Rs.7 Lakhs on 24.10.2008. In the said agreement is it
mentioned that the balance consideration of Rs.2 Lakhs
will be paid at the time of registration. Further mentioned
that since her husband is employed overseas is likely to
visit Bangalore during May/June 2008, and the absolute
sale deed could be made during the said period. It is
further contended that the plaintiff was always ready and
willing to perform his part of contract. But the 1 st
defendant on some pretext or other was postponing the
same, but plaintiff later understood the fraud committed
by the 1st defendant towards him. The 1st defendant
categorically stated that she will execute the sale deed in
his favour on or before 31.12.2009 and undertaken that in
7
OS.No.2992/2010
the event if there were to be any encumbrances, she would
clear such encumbrances. It is further contended that the
husband of the 1st defendant was communicating with the
messages to the 1st defendant and the plaintiff regarding
delay of his visit to India and execution of the document.
8. It is further contended that on 17.8.2009, the 1 st
defendant also executed an Undertaking-cum-indemnity
in his favour by admitting the sale transaction. It is
further contended by the plaintiff though he was ready
and willing to perform his part of contract, the defendant
No.1 every time was postponing the execution of sale deed
with some excuse or the other. The 1 st defendant written
letter on 6.11.2009 that she will pay the amount of
Rs.1,25,00,000/- on 23.11.2009, if she fails, the plaintiff
can initiate civil/criminal proceedings against her. On
7.1.2010, the husband of 1st defendant sent an email to
the plaintiff stating that he has sent the amount to the 1 st
defendant and asked him to wait. Though the defendant
No.1 and her husband were informed to pay the amount
with interest, the plaintiff was always insisting on
execution of absolute sale deed in respect of suit schedule
property.
9. It is further contended that the plaintiff had
preferred a complaint on 4.12.2009 to Mahadevapura
8
OS.No.2992/2010
Police Station and case registered in Cr.No.469/2009.
Even before the said police, husband of 1st defendant given
statement on 2.2.2010 that 1st defendant had received a
sum of Rs.78 Lakhs from the plaintiff in various slots.
Since the defendant has not executed the sale deed,
plaintiff has issued legal notice to defendant No.1 to 3 to
comply the same. But the 1st defendant has sent an
untenable reply dtd.17.3.2010 and on 24.3.2010 with two
different law firms. The defendant No.2 & 3 have issued a
common reply dtd.8.3.2010 making defamatory allegations
against the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has prayed to
direct the defendant No. to 3 to execute the absolute sale
deed jointly in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the
suit schedule property by fixing a date, if the defendant
No.1 to 3 fail to execute the absolute sale deed, then the
sale deed may be got executed in favour of the plaintiff by
this court in accordance with law, alternatively, to decree
in his favour against the defendants 1 to 3 for a sum of
Rs.78 lakhs along with interest thereon at the rate of 24%
per annum from the date of execution of the sale
agreement dated 5.9.2007 till the date of this suit,
totalling in a sum of Rs.1,28,00,000/- and future interest
at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of suti till the
date of realisation.
10. The defendant No.1 to 3 have filed their written
9
OS.No.2992/2010
statement denying the plaint averments.
In the written statement the 1 st defendant has
admitted that she was the absolute owner of the suit
schedule property. She has admitted that she is residing
along with her daughter. She denied the agreement of sale
entered into between the plaintiff and 1 st defendant. The
agreement of sale is a concocted and created document. It
is further contended that the defendant was badly in need
of Rs.5 Lakhs towards her son's education, getting money
from her husband from his work place at Gulf country was
delayed for some time. As the plaintiff was introduced to
the defendant by her friends, she approached the plaintiff
to pay Rs.5 Lakhs and obtained the same by depositing
title deeds of the schedule property as security. The 1 st
defendant has executed the simple mortgage deed on
17.9.2007. The plaintiff by taking advantage of her
weakness, took signatures on various blank papers, blank
stamp papers and few cheque slips as additional security.
As the plaintiff was forcing her to return the amount, she
was forced to sell the suit schedule property for a price
much lesser than its actual value. In the last week of
November 2007, she received Rs.10 Lakhs from the 2 nd
defendant and executed the agreement of sale and
discharged the mortgage on 1.12.2007. The plaintiff never
returned the signed blank papers and cheque slips except
10
OS.No.2992/2010
the title deeds. She has sold the suit schedule property to
the 2nd defendant vide sale deed dtd.6.12.2007.
Subsequent to the sale deed, the 2 nd defendant was in
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as
absolute owner and on 12.3.2008, he has sold the said
property infavour of 3rd defendant and now 3rd defendant is
in possession and enjoyment of the said property. On the
above grounds, prayed to dismiss the suit.
11. The 2nd defendant in his written statement
contended that the transaction between the plaintiff and
1st defendant was only a loan transaction. He is a bonafide
purchaser for value without notice of any transaction. He
has not discovered any encumbrances or any agreement of
sale. Hence, he is not liable to the plaintiff in any way. It
is further contended that 2nd defendant has purchased the
suit schedule property under registered sale deed
dtd.6.12.2007 for a consideration of Rs.41,70,000/- from
the 1st defendant. Due to financial constrains and other
commitments, he disposed of the property to the 3 rd
defendant for a sum of Rs.46 Lakhs under a sale deed
dtd.12.3.2008. It is further contended that the plaintiff
has unnecessarily involved the 2nd defendant in the
proceedings. Hence, he is also liable for malicious
prosecution and damages in a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs to the
2nd defendant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with
11
OS.No.2992/2010
exemplary costs and damages of Rs.10 Lakhs.
12. The 3rd defendant in his written statement
denied the plaint averments. It is further contended that
the 2nd defendant before purchase of the suit schedule
property, has taken paper publication on 4.10.2007 and
purchased the same on 6.12.2007. He has purchased the
suit schedule property from the 2 nd defendant under
registered sale deed dtd.12.3.2008 and he is in
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
The katha of the suit schedule property is mutated in his
name. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
13. On the basis of the above pleadings my
predecessor has framed the following issues :
1.Whether the plaintiff proves that the 1 st defendant entered into an agreement to sell the suit schedule property in his favour for consideration of Rs.80 Lakhs and received a sum of Rs.40 Lakhs as advance and executed an agreement of sale dated 5.9.2007?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the 1 st defendant received a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs as loan from him and executed a simple mortgage deed by way of deposit of title deeds dtd.17.9.2007 and subsequently she has discharged the said loan on 1.12.2007?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the 1 st defendant has received further advance of Rs.16 Lakhs from him on dtd.15.10.2007?
12OS.No.2992/2010
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that the 1 st defendant executed an memorandum of understanding dated 1.12.2007 as contended in para 9 of the plaint?
5. Whether the plaintiff proves that the 1 st defendant executed a supplementary agreement dated 24.10.2008 admitting their in that she had received a total sum of Rs.78 Lakhs towards sale consideration as pleaded in para 14 of the plaint?
6. Whether the 1st defendant proves that the plaintiff has obtained her signatures on various blank papers, blank stamp paper and few cheque slips as additional security as pleaded in para 5 of the written statement?
7. Whether the plaintiff proves that the 1 st defendant executed an undertaking cum indemnity bond dated 17.8.2009 as contended in para 17 of the plaint?
8. Whether the 1st defendant proves that the plaintiff has taken the letters dated 16.11.2009 and 14.12.2009 from her by holding threat?
9. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract?
10. Whether the defendant No.3 proves that the suit is barred by limitation?
11. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract?
13OS.No.2992/2010
12. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the alternative relief of the refund of Rs.78 Lakhs together with the interest at 24% pa., from the date of suit?
13. What decree or order?
14. Plaintiff got examined himself and three witnesses as PW1 to 4, got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P42 and closed his side. The defendants examined defendant No.1, GPA holder of 3 rd defendant and 2nd defendant as DW1 to 3, got marked one document as Ex.D1 to D18 and closed their side.
15. Heard the arguments for plaintiff and defendants. The counsel for the plaintiff has relied on the following decisions:
1. 1966 SCC Onlie All 379 - Satya Narain Vs. Smt.Nanki Devi.
2. AIR 1951 SC 280 - Bishundeo Narain Vs. Seogeni Rai
3. Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in SA.No.4/2010 between Chambridge Solutions Lts. Vs. Global Software Ltd & Ors.
4. 1992 SCC Online Madras 306- Chidambaram Pillai & Ors. Vs. Muthammal & Anr.
5. 1970 SCC Online Kar.108 - Govinda Naik Gurunath Naik Vs. Gururao Puttanbha Kadekar
6. MANU/DE/7343/2007 - Kamla Rani & Ors. Vs. 14 OS.No.2992/2010 Texmaco Ltd & Ors.
7. MANU/TN/0132/2013-Thiyagarajan Vs. Muthusamy Gounder and Ors.
8. (1968) 2 SCR 797 - Nindawa Vs. Byrappa Shiddappa Hireknrabar & Ors.
9. 2002 SCC Online Cal.60 Broadway CentreVs. Gpaldas Bagri
10. 1978 SCC Online Cal 25- Gosto Behari Ro Vs.Ramesh Chandra Das
11. (2000) 6 SCC 402 - R.K.Mohammed Ubaidullah & Ors. Vs. Hajee C.Abdul Wahab
12. 2002 SCC Online Raj 49 - Deevdayal Vs. Harjot Kanwar & Ors.
13. 2010 SCC Online Mad 669- B.Nemi Chand Jain Vs. G.Ravindran
14. 1928 SCC Online Cal.414 - Bhairab Chandra Sinha Vs. Kalidhan Roy Choudhury & Ors.
15. MANU/KA/3382/2017 - C.Padmavathi & Ors. Vs. R.Punyavathi & Ors.
16. 2006 SCC Online HP 14- Rajinder Singh Vs. Sushil Kumar.
17. 1954 SCR 360 -Lala Durga Prasad and Anr. Vs. Lal Deep Chand & Ors.
18. 2021 SCC Online Kar.423 - Susheela M.Parekh Vs. MS.Manoharan 15 OS.No.2992/2010
19. (2015) 1 SCC 705 - Zarina Siddiquio Vs. A.Ramalingam.
The counsel for the 1st defendant has relied on the following decisions:
1. AIR 1975 SC 1087- Municipal Committee Vs. Hazara Singh
2. (1994)1 SCC 1 - SP.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by Lrs., Vs. Jagannath(Dead) by Lrs.,& others.
The counsel for the 3rd defendant has relied on the following decisions:
1. 2016(2) KCCR 1359 - Somappa & Ors. Vs. Mahadevappa & Ors.
2. 2015(2) KCCR Short Note 182 - Selvi J.Jayalalitha & Ors. Vs. State by Superintendent of Police, Chennai
3. AIR 1975 Madras 333 - N.Ethirajulu Naidu Vs. K.R.Chinnikrishnan Chittiar
4. AIR 1976 ALL 23 - Ch.Birbal Singh Vs. Harphool Khan & Another
5. AIR 1971 SC 2548 -Dattatraya Vs. Rangnath GopalraoKawahekar(dead) by Lrs. & ors.
6. AIR 2001 ALL 334 - Krishna Mohan & Anr Vs. Balkrishna Ghaturvedi (deceased by Lrs.) & others.
I have also considered the oral & written arguments and rulings relied by both counsels with utmost reverence.
16OS.No.2992/2010
16. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the negative
Issue No.2 : In the affirmative
Issue No.3 : In the negative
Issue No.4 : In the negative
Issue No.5 : In the negative
Issue No.6 : In partly affirmative
Issue No.7 : In the negative
Issue No.8 : In the negative
Issue No.9 : Do not arise for consideration
Issue No.10 : Do not arise for consideration
Issue No.11 : In the negative
Issue No.12 : In the negative
Issue No.13 : As per final order,
For the following:
R EAS O N S
17. Issue no. 1 to 12: As these issues are interlinked with each other, they have taken up together for consideration in order to avoid repetition.
18. It is settled principle of law that agreement of sale comes into existence when the vendor agrees to sell and the purchaser agrees to purchase, for an agreed consideration on agreed terms. It can be oral. It can be by exchange of communications which may or may not be signed. It may be by a single document signed by both parties. It can also be by a document in two parts, each party signing one copy and then exchanging the signed copy as a consequence of which the purchaser has the 17 OS.No.2992/2010 copy signed by the vendor and a vendor has a copy signed by the purchaser. It can also be by the vendor executing the document and delivering it to the purchaser who accepts it. However, as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, a contract for sale does not itself create any interest or charge in the property. It is the settled position of law that normally time is not of essence of a contract in case of immovable property. However, contract must be performed within a reasonable time.
As per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the suit for specific performance has to be filed within three years from the date stipulated in the contract or from the date of refusal to perform the contract.
19. Keeping these principles in mind, let me analyze whether the plaintiff is able to establish before the court that he is entitled for specific performance as prayed for or otherwise.
20. It is the contention of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 has executed Ex.P1 sale agreement agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for some of Rs. 80 lakhs and received some of Rs.40 Lakhs cash on 5.9.2007 on the date of sale agreement and another Rs.38 lakh on subsequent dates. In total, the plaintiff has paid sum of Rs.78 Lakh to the 1st defendant and only Rs.2 lakh has to 18 OS.No.2992/2010 be paid to the Defendant no.1 as part performance of contract. It is further contented that the 1 st defendant has executed a Supplementary Agreement of Sale dated 24.10.2008 admitting the receipt of total sum of Rs.78 Lakh by way of cash. Although the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the defendant No.1 has refused to execute the sale deed and has sold the property to defendant No.1 without his knowledge and defendant no.2 in turn has sold the property to defendant no.3.
21. Per contra, it is the contention of the defendant No.1 that apart from Registered Mortgage Deed dated 17.09.2007 for sum of Rs.5 Lakh, she has no other transactions with the plaintiff. She has denied the execution of Sale agreement and subsequent documents alleged to be executed by her. It is further contented that the plaintiff has taken her signatures on the Blank papers, blank stamp papers and cheque slips as additional security. As the plaintiff was forcing her to return the amount, she was forced to sell the suit schedule property. She has sold the suit schedule property to Defendant No.1 on 06.12.2021. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
22. It is the contention of the Defendant No.2 that he is a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of any 19 OS.No.2992/2010 transaction. He has not discovered any encumbrances or any agreement of sale at the time of purchase of the property. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
23. It is the contention of the Defendant No.3 that he has purchased the suit schedule property from 2 nd Defendant for valuable consideration and he is on possession of the suit schedule property and khata of the suit schedule property stands in his name. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
24. Plaintiff has got examined himself as PW1, and three witnesses as PW2 to 4. The plaintiff/PW1 in Examination chief by way of affidavit reiterated the plaint averment. The plaintiff has produced the document Ex.P1 is the Agreement of sale dtd.5.9.2007 entered into between the plaintiff and 1st defendant agreeing to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.78 Lakhs and received advance sale consideration of Rs.40 Lakhs. Ex.P1(a) is the signature of the 1 st defendant and Ex.P1(b) is the signature of the plaintiff. Ex.P2 is the Simple Mortgage Deed dtd.17.9.2007 entered into between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff, wherein the suit schedule property was mortgaged in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs. Ex.P3 is the letter dtd.27.9.2007 20 OS.No.2992/2010 issued by the 1st defendant to the plaintiff for taking back the original title documents of the suit schedule property. Ex.P4 is the Receipt and E4(a)&(b) are the signatures, Ex.P5 is the Discharge of Mortgage deed dtd.1.12.2007 entered into between the plaintiff and 1 st defendant. Ex.P6 is the Memorandum of Understanding dtd.1.12.2007 entered into between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff and Ex.P6(a) is the signature of 1st defendant and Ex.P1(b) is the Signature of plaintiff. Ex.P7 is the Supplementary Agreement to the sale agreement dtd.5.9.2007 entered between the 1st defendant and the plaintiff dtd.24.10.2008 wherein it discloses that the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.78 Lakhs on different dates and the 1st defendant and the validity of the agreement of sale dtd.5.9.2007 has been extended till 31.12.2009. Ex.P7(a) & (b) are the signatures of 1st defendant and the plaintiff, Ex.P8 is the copy of letter dtd.2.4.2009 issued by 1st defendant to the plaintiff, Ex.P9is the Undertaking cum Indemnity dtd.17.8.2009 executed by 1st defendant before Notary. Ex.P10 to 12 are the letters issued by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff wherein the 1st defendant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1.25 Crores on 23.11.2009, Ex.P13 is the certified copy of complaint dtd.4.12.2009 lodged by the plaintiff before Mahadevapura Police Station. Ex.P14 is the certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.469/2009, Ex.P15 is the Memo, Ex.P16 & 21 OS.No.2992/2010 17 are the Letters through email, Ex.P18 is the copy of legal notice, Ex.P19 to 21are Reply notices, Ex.P22 is the Police Complaint dtd.9.8.2015, Ex.P23 is the N.C.R., Ex.P24 is the Consent letter dtd.2.12.2009 executed by 1 st defendant infavour of the plaintiff. Ex.P25 to 27 are three original cheques issued by 1st defendant, Ex.P28 is the Letter written by 1st defendant to the plaintiff, Ex.P29 is the Letter addressed to the Bank Manager, Ex.P30 is the Liquidity Position Certificate issued by Chartered Accountant, Ex.P31 & 32 are the Documents relating personal loan from ICICI Bank, Ex.P33 is the No Due Certificate issued by Vijaya Bank, Ex.P34 is the Loan particulars & Payment Schedule of loan account Issued by Kotak Mahindra Bank dtd.9.2.2007, Ex.P35 is the Personal loan particulars of plaintiff with HFDC Bank A/c.No.11005682, Ex.P36 is the Personal loan particulars of plaintiff with ICICI Bank vide LAN-LPBBG00007004774, Ex.P37 is the Personal loan particulars of plaintiff with HDFC bank No.10083469, Ex.P38 is the Personal loan particulars of plaintiff with ING Vysya Bank vide No.2160PL240989, Ex.P39 is the Personal loan particulars of plaintiff with Cholamandalam Finance vide No.38741, Ex.P40 is the Personal loan particulars of plaintiff with GE Countrywide Consumer Financial Service Ltd. Vide No.RPAB00002507, Ex.P41 is the Personal loan 22 OS.No.2992/2010 particulars of plaintiff with ABN Amro Bank A/c No.9368699 and Ex.P42 is the Personal loan particulars of plaintiff with ABN Amro Bank vide No.318250.
25. The plaintiff in his cross examination has deposed that there is only one registered document between him and 1st defendant i.e Ex.P2 simple mortgage by deposit of title deeds. Further admitted that the mortgage is discharged by the 1st defendant on 01.12.2007. Further deposed that his advocate scrutinized the papers of suit schedule property. He has taken the legal opinion from his advocate before purchase. Further deposed that Ex.P1 was drafted by his advocate on his instructions. After drafting Ex.P1, he has gone through the contents. Further admitted that as per clause No.12 of sale agreement, the sale deed had to be executed within a period of 2 months. The sale agreement was executed in his office. He has paid advance amount of Rs.40,00,000/- by way of cash. He has taken loan of Rs.8,00,000/- from ICICI Bank. He do not remember the amount of loan borrowed from Kotak Mahendra, ING Vysya, Centurion Bank of Punjab, Vijaya Bank, ABN Amro, SBI and he do not remember the other banks from whom he borrowed loans. He denied the suggestion that he took the signature of 1st defendant on blank paper and prepared Ex.P1. He 23 OS.No.2992/2010 has admitted that the signature of 1st defendant is on the typed matter of Ex.P1. Further admitted that there is no mention of sale agreement Ex.P1 in Ex.P2 mortgage deed. Further deposed that he has given back all the original documents to the 1st defendant on 27.09.2007 by receiving amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. He has deposed that generally, if any purchaser paid 50% of sale consideration, the title documents would be retained by the purchaser. Further deposed that he is not aware of the sale deed executed by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant before 24.10.2008. He has not seen whether the 2nd defendant taken public notice in a newspaper about the purchase of suit schedule property. He is not aware that 2nd defendant sold the suit schedule property to defendant No.3 on 12.03.2008. He is not aware whether as on the date of supplementary agreement dated 24.10.2008, the property was already sold to the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant. He has deposed that he is aware that if any person receives Rs.500/- or more has to acknowledge the receipt of the amount on the revenue stamp or on the requisite stamp paper. Further deposed that he has taken the legal opinion before entering into contract with 1st defendant to purchase suit schedule property. He has not produced the said legal opinion in this case. Further deposed that he has document to show 24 OS.No.2992/2010 that he had cash of Rs.78,00,000/- as shown in agreement of sale and he has not produced any document except the agreement of sale. He has not deposited the balance consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- in court. He denied the suggestion that the transaction took place between him and 1st defendant is a money transaction. He has denied the suggestion that he is in possession of all his old passbook and avoiding to produce the same before the court. Further deposed that in Ex.P6, there is a recital that a sum of Rs.56,00,000/- is paid towards the sale consideration. He has denied the suggestion that in Ex.P6 page 2 clause 1, it had been stated that a sum of Rs.56,00,000/- is paid as a loan. He has admitted that in Ex.P7 page 2 clause 1, it had been stated that the extended period for execution of the sale deed is upto 31.12.2009. He has further deposed that at the time of execution of Ex.P7, he has verified the encumbrance certificate. He has deposed that the encumbrance certificate which he has verified at the time of execution of Ex.P7 had not been produced before the court on his behalf. He has denied the suggestion that at the time of execution of Ex.P7, the property was not in the name of defendant No. 1 and by then it was already sold out. He pleaded his ignorance as to whether defendant No. 1 had sold out the property in favour of defendant No.2 as on 25 OS.No.2992/2010 06.12.2007. He has denied the suggestion that in the recitals of Ex.P9 in page 2 clause 1, it had been stated that a sum of Rs.1,52,00,000/- has to be paid to be by defendant No.1 towards the principal and interest of the loan amount as on 13.08.2009. He has further deposed that at the time of execution of Ex.P9, he has verified the encumbrance certificate. He has deposed that he was not aware even at after verifying the encumbrance certificate by then that the property was sold on 06.12.2007. He has further deposed that he has not issued any demand notice to defendant No.1 demanding her to pay a sum of Rs.1,52,00,000/- or in default calling upon her to execute the sale deed. Further deposed that in Ex.P18 notice, he has not called upon defendant No. 1 to pay a sum of Rs.1,52,00,000/-. Witness volunteered that he had asked for execution of the absolute sale deed through the said notice. He has further deposed that as on the date of issuance of notice dated 22.02.2010 defendant No. 1 was due for a sum of Rs.78,00,000/-. In the plaint, he has not stated that the defendant No.1 was liable to pay Rs.1,52,00,000/- and in default of payment of the said amount she is liable to execute the sale deed. He has deposed that he do not remember from where all he has accumulated a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- on 05.09.2007. He has further deposed that he is an income tax assessee. He 26 OS.No.2992/2010 has stated in his income tax returns with regard to availment of loan and payment of installments. He cannot produce his income tax returns.
26. For the Question as to 1 st page stamp paper and the last sheet stamp paper in Ex.P24 are purchased from different places, PW1 has deposed that the said document is given by defendant No. 1. He denied a suggestion that by forcibly calling the defendant No.1 to the station, her signatures were obtained on the blank stamp papers and white sheets threatening that she should pay the amount or else she will be send behind the bars. He has admitted that in his evidence affidavit in every page same margin space is left after completion of typing the contents. Further admitted that after typing the contents, his signature is obtained in the evidence affidavit. He denied the suggestion that on Ex.P24, after obtaining the signature of defendant No. 1 on the blank sheets, the type written contents are adjusted within the space left out at the later. He has denied the suggestion that as Ex.P24 was not at all in existence. Further deposed that he has not stated with regard to the said document either in his notice, plaint or in his evidence affidavit. He has admitted that defendant No. 1 had been acquitted in the criminal case and also in the appeal preferred. He has gone 27 OS.No.2992/2010 through the judgment. He has denied a suggestion that as a clear finding is given in the criminal case, so as to patch up the same, now he has produced the created documents in the present case. He has denied a suggestion that in Ex.P2, he has stated except the simple mortgage transaction, he do not have any other transaction. He has admitted that in Ex.P2, it is not mentioned with regard to sale agreement or payment of Rs.40,00,000/-. He has denied a suggestion that as per Ex.P13 complaint as per the said recitals as he has prevailed over the defendant No. 1, he had forcibly made her to execute undertaking cum indemnity i.e. Ex.P9. He denied the suggestion that so as to grab money from defendant No. 1, he had forced her to affix her signature on various documents. He has denied the suggestion that that he had malafide intention of snatching money from defendant No. 1. Further denied that so as to put defendant No. 1 under fear so as to grab money, he had lodged a complaint.
27. The plaintiff got examined the attesting witnesses to the agreement of sale and other documents and the scribe as PW2 to 4. PW.2 to 4 in their examination in chief supported the case of the plaintiff.
28. The defendant No.1 got examined herself as DW1. In her affidavit filed for examination in chief she had reiterated the written statement averments.
28OS.No.2992/2010 The defendants got marked the documents at Ex.D1 is the News paper and relevant publication, Ex.D2 is the certified copy of complaint dtd.30.4.2010 lodged by the 1 st defendant to the Commissioner of Police. Ex.D3 is the certified copy of Deposition of plaintiff in CC.No.22954/2010, Ex.D4 is the certified copy of judgment in CC.No.22954/2010, Ex.D5 is the General Power of Attorney, Ex.D6 to 8 are the Encumbrance certificates, Ex.D9 is the Letter dtd.30.5.2008 addressed by 3rd defendant to ICICI bank, Ex.D10 & 11 are Katha certificate and katha extract, Ex.D12 to 15 are the Tax paid receipts, Ex.D16, 16a & 17, 17a are the Electricity Bills with payment receipts and Ex.D18 is the Gas refilling voucher.
29. DW1 in her evidence has deposed that she had borrowed the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- which was for a terms of 2 to 3 months. She has repaid the said amount on 1 st of December 2007. It was paid in cash. She has deposed that during the period her son was studying in U.K. and her husband was working in Dubai, as she could not arrange funds immediately and at that time she approached her friend Shama who had introduced her to the plaintiff and borrowed Rs.5 Lakh from him. She was introduced to the plaintiff only for the sake of borrowing the loan. She has further deposed that she had given the 29 OS.No.2992/2010 signature on the blank paper as well as blank stamp papers and the cheques. But she do not know the number of blank papers and blank stamp papers.
30. In the above circumstances, if we analyse the entire material on records, it is not in dispute between the parties that the suit schedule property was earlier belonged to defendant No.1. Thereafter, defendant No.1 has sold the property to Defendant No.2 and defendant no.2 in turn, has sold the property to defendant no.3. It's also not in dispute that defendant no.1 had executed Registered Mortgage deed dated 17.9.2007 for sum of Rs.5 lakh by depositing title deeds. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff has returned the original documents to the defendant No.1 after discharge of Mortgage Loan.
31. However, the fact that defendant No.1 has executed a sale agreement dated 5.9.2007 by agreeing to sell the property for some of Rs.80 lakh and the plaintiff has a paid sum of Rs.40,00,00/- by way of cash is under Ex.P1 sale agreement on 5.9.2007 and subsequent payment and in total payment of Rs.78 Lakh for purchase of suit schedule property is under dispute.
32. It is specifically pleaded in para 5 of the plaint 30 OS.No.2992/2010 that first defendant has executed sale agreement dated 5.9.2007 agreeing to sell suit schedule property for some of Rs.80lakh and received Rs.40Lakh for the purchase of suit schedule property and the plaintiff has paid sum of Rs.40lakh in the presence of witnesses one Vinod and Mrs.Annapurna (PW2 & 3). It is further pleaded that in the event first defendant failed to execute the sale deed within two months, she will refund the entire Rs.40,00,00/- along with Rs.5,00,000/- liquidated damage.
33. The plaintiff has relied on exhibit P1 sale agreement. It is the case of the plaintiff that the sale agreement has got printed first and thereafter, parties have affixed their signatures. However, on meticulous perusal of 1st 2nd and 3rd page of the Sale agreement, it clearly shows that the same has got printed on the signed blank stamp papers. It is clearly visible that recital of the sale agreement got printed on the signature of Defendant no.1. Even an uneducated person also not likely that he would affix his LTM on the printed letters when there is sufficient space to affix his LTM. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the defendant no.1 is suffering from any visual impairment. In fact, to err is a human being. It can be believed that 1 st defendant has signed on the first page on printed letters by mistake. But when the 31 OS.No.2992/2010 same is found on several pages, the same is evident that the sale agreement is prepared after obtaining signatures on the Blank stamp papers. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that the terms of the sale agreement was reduced into writing and the signatures were taken upon printed sale agreement is false. In fact, there is no bar to affix the signatures on the Blank paper and getting the same typed thereafter if the parties agree for the same. However, when the plaintiff contend that after the Ex.P-1 was got printed, the signatures were obtained later. It is the burden on him to prove the same.
34. Even if it is considered that there is a sale agreement between the Plaintiff and defendant no.1, on perusal of the entire material on record, it shows that defendant no.1 has mortgaged the suit schedule property by way of deposit of title deeds Ex.P2 Mortgage deed dated 17.09.2005 for sum of Rs. 5 Lakh. There is no dispute as to 7.9.2007 simple mortgage by deposit of title deeds. In fact this document is subsequent to Ex.P1 sale agreement dated 5.9.2007. There is not even a single recital as to sale agreement dated 5.9.2007 in the Exhibit P2 Registered mortgage deed. When the Plaintiff did not have faith in Defendant No.1 for lending Rs.5 Lakh and got registered Mortgage Deed mortgaging the Suit schedule property as 32 OS.No.2992/2010 collateral Security, it cannot be believed that he was so bountiful in lending of Rs.40 Lakh cash without any registration. It is the contention of the Plaintiff that the law do not mandate for registration of the sale agreement. Therefore, the defendant's contention that the plaintiff ought to have a registered sale agreement do not hold good. It is pertinent to note that even simple mortgage by of deposit of title deeds do not require any registration. When the plaintiff had so much confidence in the 1 st defendant and lent of sum of Rs.40lakh by way of cash and what was the need for him to register the registered mortgage deed just for some Rs.5 lakh when the law do not even prescribe for registration is not explained by the plaintiff. If at all the plaintiff had any doubt as to execution of sale deed by the 1st Defendant, there was no impediment for Plaintiff to have some recital of a previous sale agreement in the mortgage deed itself if at all the transactions between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 were true. There was also no impediment to register the mortgage deed for some of Rs.45,00,000/- when there is hardly 12 days between the ExP1 & P2. These goes to show that there was no offer and acceptance for sale and purchase of the Suit schedule property. It is not in dispute between the parties that the plaintiff has returned the original documents to the 1st Defendant after discharge of 33 OS.No.2992/2010 the Mortgage Loan. If at all there was any sale agreement between the plaintiff and Defendant No.1, what was the need for Plaintiff to return all the original documents to Defendant No.1, suit for repayment of mortgage loan when there was huge amount of Rs.40 Lakhs was still due under Ex.P1 sale agreement.
35. Further, on perusal of Ex.P5, discharge of simple mortgage it begins with "discharge of simple mortgage is executed at Bangalore City on this Saturday the 1 st day of December 2009". Even on perusal of Ex.P6 - Memorandum of Understanding, the same also begins with "This discharge of simple mortgage". Further, Para 2 of Ex.P6 discloses that Rs.56 Lakhs paid to 1 st defendant, there is no dates as to when, where and how it has been paid. As these documents begins with 'This Discharge of..." it shows that the plaintiff had played a trick at the time of discharge of mortgage loan and obtained a signatures as these are for discharge of mortgage loan.
36. On perusal of Ex.P10 letter dtd.15.9.2009 and Ex.P11 letter dtd.6.11.2009, Ex.P12 letter dtd.4.12.2009, there is no whisper about Ex.P1 sale agreement. But there appears to be some money transaction between the plaintiff and 1st defendant. As there is no pleadings on the documents, these documents cannot be accepted. Though 34 OS.No.2992/2010 Ex.P4 receipt was referred to FSL, and the commissioner has submitted its report stating that handwriting and signature found on Ex.P4 and signature found on the vakalath of 1st defendant belongs to one and the same person, there is no recital in Ex.P4 receipt dtd.15.10.2007 as to the said receipt is in respect of sale agreement dtd.5.9.2007.
37. Further, Ex.P13 complaint dtd.4.12.2009 states about Ex.P1 sale agreement stating total Rs.78 Lakhs paid. If Ex.P13 complaint states payment of Rs.40 Lakhs on 5.9.2007, Rs.16 Lakhs on 15.10.2007, and Rs.22 Lakhs on 24.10.2008, Ex.P7 supplementary agreement dtd.24.10.2008 states abut payment of Rs.40 Lakhs on 5.9.2007, Rs.16 Lakhs on 15.10.2007, Rs.5 Lakhs each on 14.1.2008, 23.3.2008 and 15.6.2008 and Rs.7Lakhs on 24.10.2008. These two documents are contrary to each other. If at all Ex.P7 supplementary agreement was genuine, there was no impediment to disclose said transaction in Ex.P13 complaint dtd.4.12.2009. Further, Ex.P13 complaint shows that October 12, 2009 has been stricked out and 4.12.2009 is written. It shows that plaintiff was intended to file the complaint on 12.10.2009 by keeping it ready. Later, after lapse of 2 months that on 4.12.2009, he filed a complaint.
35OS.No.2992/2010
38. With regard to the defence, the Defendant no.1 in her reply notice exhibit P19 itself, has denied sale agreement and only admitted about the Rs.5,00,000 mortgage transaction and maintained the same stand throughout the trial.
39. The Plaintiff has not produced any documents to show that he had Rs.40 lakh cash as on the date of sale agreement dated 5.9.2007. Further, no bank passbooks were produced to show withdrawal of the amount from the Bank. Plaintiff has also not produced any income tax returns as to show his income. It is not in dispute that 1st defendant has sold the property to the 2 nd defendant on 06.12.2007. When the property itself is sold by 1 st defendant to defendant no.2 on 06.12.2007, the first defendant will not have any right, interest title or possession over the suit schedule property. When the suit schedule property is already sold to 2nd defendant on 6.12.2007, it is unlikely that plaintiff would lend huge amount under the supplementary agreement of sale dated 24.10.2008. It was the duty cast on plaintiff to verify and prior to subsequent payments. Even if she has executed, the same is the same is void under the Indian Contract Act as nobody can convey a better title than himself.
40. It is settled principle of law as held by Hon'ble 36 OS.No.2992/2010 High Court of Karnataka in the decision reported in ILR 2002 KAR 4020 para 15, AIR 2007 KAR 164 N.M.Ramachandraiah and Anr. Vs State of Karnataka wherein it is held that Execution of a document does not mean merely signing, but signing by way of assent to the terms of the contract embodied in the document. Execution consists in signing a document written out and read over and understood, and does not consist of merely signing a name upon a blank sheet of paper. It is a solemn act of the executant who must own up the recitals in the instrument and there must be clear evidence that he put the signature after knowing the contents of document fully. To be executed, a document must be in existence; where there is no document in existence there cannot be execution. Mere proof or admission that a person's signature appears on a document cannot by itself amount to execution of a document. Registration does not dispense with the necessity of proof of execution when the same is denied. Thus, execution of document is not mere signing of it.
41. Further, Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Vintha Venkateswara Reddi Vs. Anjamma and Anr. Reported in AIR 1966 AP 354, it is held that execution does not consist merely in speaking to signatures on papers Execution must and does imply that the recitals in 37 OS.No.2992/2010 the document executed were known to the author who signed and that in approval thereof he had affixed his signature thereto This is not shown by mere identification of signatures.
42. Further the Hon'ble High Court of Madras S. Ramamurthy vs Jayalakshmi Ammal reported in (1990) 2 MLJ 497 it is held that the execution of a document is not mere signing of it. It is a solemn act and the executant who must own up the recitals in the instrument and there must be clear evidence that he put his signature in a document, after knowing fully its contents. The executant of a document must, after fully understanding the contents and the tenor of the document, put his signature or affix his thumb-impression. In other words, the execution of a document does not mean merely signing but signing by way of assent to the terms of the contract of alienation embodied in the document.
43. Further, Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Banasettappa Laljichikkanna Vs. District Registrar and Anr. Reported in AIR 1966 Kant 310, AIR 1966 Mys 310, (1965) 2 MysLJ (DB), it is held that Execution does not mean merely signing, but signing by way of assent to the terms of the contract of alienation 38 OS.No.2992/2010 embodied in the document.
44. Applying the above said principles to the present case, in the present case, there is no clear evidence by the plaintiff that 1st defendant has put her signature after fully knowing the contents. Therefore, the Ex.P1 agreement of sale and subsequent agreement for sale of suit schedule property cannot be accepted. Further, in the present case, as the plaintiff has failed to prove the sale agreement, the question of considering readiness and willingness, bar of suit by limitation, alternative relief for refund of Rs.78 Lakh do not arise for consideration.
45. Further, though first defendant has contented that plaintiff has taken the letters dated 16.11.2009 and 14.12.2009 from her by holding threat, there is no evidence placed before the court in support of the said contention. Therefore, the 1st defendant has also not proved the said contention.
46. Though the 2nd defendant has claimed sum of Rs.10 Lakhs as damages from the plaintiff, the 2 nd defendant has neither paid the court fee nor insisted for framing of issue on the counter claim. Therefore, considering counter claim of 2nd defendant do not arise for consideration.
39OS.No.2992/2010
47. Evidence has to be weighed and not counted. When both the parties have led the evidence, the question of onus fades into oblivion and the entire evidence has been appreciated as a whole. While appreciating the evidence, it is the duty of the Court to sift the grain from the chaff. The court has to appreciate the evidence in its total gist and not to pick one some scattered sentences, else one may miss the wood for the trees. The final picture has to emerge on the basis of the entire chain of evidence and pleadings of the parties on this touchstone the scheme of facts which emerges is that the execution of Sale agreement Ex.P1 is made for some money transaction. The evidence of the plaintiff is unbelievable that when a person register a mortgage deed for Rs.5 Lakhs, he would be so bountiful in lending Rs.40 Lakhs cash without registration and further lend Rs.38 Lakhs even after the suit schedule property has been sold to third parties. Hence, I answer the issue no.1, 3,4,5,7,8, 11 and 12 in the negative. Issue no.2 in the affirmative. Issue no.6 partly in the affirmative. Issue no. 9 and 10 do not arise for consideration.
48. Issue No. 13: For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
40OS.No.2992/2010 ORD ER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
[Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, computerised, and print out taken by him, corrected and then pronounced by me, this day the 6th December 2021.
(SADANANDA NAGAPPA NAIK) XVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU A N N EXU RE
1. No.of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff/s :
PW1 : S.Rajendran PW2 : Smt.Annapurna PW3 : Vinod PW4 : R.Jayachandran
2. No.of documents marked on behalf of plaintiff/s :
Ex.P1,1(a) &(b): Agreement of sale dtd.5.9.2007 & Signatures Ex.P2 : Mortgage Deed Ex.P3 : Copy of letter Ex.P4,4(a)&(b): Receipt & Signatures Ex.P5 : Discharge of Mortgage deed Ex.P6 : Memorandum of Understanding Ex.P6(a) &(b): Signature on Ex.P6 Ex.P7,7(a) to (c): Supplimentary agreement and signatures Ex.P8 : Copy of letter Ex.P9,9(a): Undertaking letter and signature Ex.P10,10(a): Letter and signature Ex.P11,11(a): Letter and signature 41 OS.No.2992/2010 Ex.P12,12(a): Letter and signature Ex.P13 : CC of complaint Ex.P14 : CC of FIR in Cr.No.469/2009 Ex.P15 : Memo Ex.P16 & 17: Letters through email Ex.P18 : Copy of legal notice Ex.P19to 21: Reply notices Ex.P22 : Police Complaint dtd.9.8.2015 Ex.P23 : N.C.R. Ex.P24 : Consent letter dtd.2.12.2009 Ex.P25 to 27: 3 original cheques issued by 1 st defendant Ex.P28 : Letter written by 1st defendant to the plaintiff Ex.P29 : Letter addressed to the Bank Manager Ex.P30 : Liquidity Position Certificate issued by Chartered Accountant Ex.P31 & 32: Documents relating personal loan from ICICI Bank Ex.P33 : No Due Certificate issued by Vijaya Bank Ex.P34 : Loan particulars & Payment Schedule of loan account Issued by Kotak Mahindra Bank dtd.9.2.2007 Ex.P35 : Personal loan particulars of plaintiff with HFDC Bank A/c.No.11005682 Ex.P36 : Personal loan particulars of plaintiff with ICICI Bank vide LAN-LPBBG00007004774 Ex.P37 : Personal loan particulars of plaintiff with HDFC bank No.10083469 Ex.P38 : Personal loan particulars of plaintiff with ING Vysya Bank vide No.2160PL240989 Ex.P39: Personal loan particulars of plaintiff with Cholamandalam Finance vide No.38741 Ex.P40: Personal loan particulars of plaintiff with GE Countrywide Consumer Financial Service Ltd. Vide No.RPAB00002507 Ex.P41: Personal loan particulars of plaintiff with ABN Amro Bank A/c No.9368699 Ex.P42: Personal loan particulars of plaintiff with ABN Amro Bank vide No.318250 42 OS.No.2992/2010
3. No. of witnesses examined on behalf of defendant/s :
DW1 : Smt.Aruna Unnikrishnan DW2 : P.Rajashekaran DW3 : R.Muniraju
4. No. of documents marked on behalf of defendant/s :
Ex.D1, 1(a): News paper and relevant publication Ex.D2 : CC of complaint dtd.30.4.2010.
Ex.D3 : CC of Deposition of plaintiff in CC.No.22954/2010 Ex.D4 : CC of judgment in CC.No.22954/2010 Ex.D5 : General power of attorney
Ex.D6 to 8: Encumbrance certificates Ex.D9 : Letter dtd.30.5.2008 addressed by deft.No3 to ICICI bank, Ex.D10 & 11: Katha certificate and katha extract Ex.D12 to 15: Tax paid receipts Ex.D16, 16a & 17, 17a: Electricity Bills with payment receipts Ex.D18 : Gas refilling voucher.
XVIII Addl. City Civil Judge Bangalore City.
43 OS.No.2992/2010 Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate judgment. The operative portion of judgment reads thus:
OR D E R Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
XVIII Addl.C.C. & S.J., Bangalore