Bangalore District Court
S. Chinnappa Raju vs Babu on 2 June, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-53), BENGALURU CITY.
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2015
PRESENT:
Smt. Yadav Vanamala Anandrao, B.Com., LL.B (Spl.,)
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
: O.S. NO.7786/2006 :
PLAINTIFF : S. Chinnappa Raju,
Aged about 53 years,
S/o. Savari Muthu,
Residing at No.9, Manorayanapalya,
Cholanayakanahalli Dakhale,
R.T.Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 032.
(By Sri. Shakeel Ahmed & Associates,
Advocates)
-V/S-
DEFENDANTS : 1. Babu,
Aged about 35 years,
Father's name not known to the plaintiff,
Proprietor, BMV Hair Style,
Residing at 1st Main Road,
Muneshwara Layout,
Next to Bismilla Tea House,
R.T.Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 032.
2 O.S.No.7786/2006
2. Smt. Manjula @ Manju,
Aged about 25 years,
W/o. Babu,
Residing at No.38/3, 13th 'A' Cross,
A.K. Colony, Manorayanapalya,
R.T.Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 032.
3. The Commissioner,
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,
Hudson Circle,
Bangalore.
(By Sri. HSR, Advocate, for D-1 & D-2)
(By Sri. PPB, Advocate, for D-3)
Date of institution of the suit: 01.09.2006
Nature of the suit:
Mandatory Injunction,
Declaration & Permanent
Injunction
Date of commencement of 28.02.2014
recording of evidence:
02.06.2015
Date on which Judgment was
pronounced:
Duration:
Days Months Years
01 09 08
: JUDGMENT :
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants No.1 & 2 for grant of mandatory injunction to remove the unauthorized 3 O.S.No.7786/2006 construction i.e., the construction on the Western side of the suit schedule property and direction against the defendant No.3 to demolish the unauthorized construction on the Western side of the schedule property ('B' schedule property) and declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to get easementary rights to use flow of natural air and light on the Western side of the suit schedule property and permanent injunction against the defendants No.1 & 2 restraining them from undertaking further construction on the Western side of the suit schedule property, with costs and such other reliefs. (Note:- This case has been transferred from the Court of IX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, to this court as per Notification dated:01.12.2014.)
2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property bearing old site No.4, Sy.No.38, new Corporation No.9, situated at 13th 'A' Cross, Manorayanapalya, Cholanayakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, within the jurisdiction of Ward No.96 of BBMP, as he has purchased it under a registered sale deed dated 16.06.2003, purchased it from A. Patalappa represented by Smt. Alis Mary. After the sale deed, the plaintiff noticed that there was certain mistake in 4 O.S.No.7786/2006 the said sale deed and got it executed by Rectification Deed through power of attorney of the original vendor, has conferred Rectification Deed dated 11.07.2006. Prior to purchase of the said property, the wife of the plaintiff, had purchased the schedule property through power of attorney and an affidavit confirming the sale on 30.11.1988. Because of financial difficulty, the plaintiff's wife could not get the sale deed registered in her name. Even after purchase of property, the plaintiff and his wife were in financial difficulty, they could not arrange the money for registration of the sale deed. The plaintiff and his wife constructed the residential house by borrowing the loan and making other arrangements and started to reside therein since 1991. The power of attorney Smt. Alis Mary paid betterment charges and her name has been entered into the records of BBMP, for the purpose of registration of khatha. The BBMP have collected the charges from her on 30.06.1988. Thereafter, the BBMP issued a notice to Smt. Alis Mary to pay the taxes. Accordingly, a notice was issued on 31.05.1999. She paid the taxes pertaining to the year 2002-2003 and for the year 2005-2006 and the receipts are dated 13.11.2002 and 15.07.2006. After purchase 5 O.S.No.7786/2006 of property, the plaintiff and his wife have constructed the residential house during the year 1990-91 as they have purchased the vacant site and thereafter they are residing and enjoying the natural air and light from the residential house. Their construction was that in accordance with the building bye-laws and he has left proper setback. The defendants No.1 & 2, who undertaken the construction over their property without obtaining sanctioned plan or permission from the Corporation and in violation of bye-laws. They undertook the construction without leaving setback and obstructing the flow of air and light, it was on the Western side of the plaintiff's property measuring 1 X 10½ feet describing it in 'B' schedule property. It was brought to the notice of defendants No.1 & 2 and initially the defendants No.1 & 2 promised the plaintiff that they will take precaution for leaving setback and they will abide by the rules and regulations of the Corporation and they will not create any nuisance. But the construction undertaken by them, was without leaving any setback and during that period for a period of 3 months from 23.01.2006 to 23.04.2006, the plaintiff being ill and on medical grounds, he took leave and was not available at Bangalore, and 6 O.S.No.7786/2006 taking undue advantage of his absence, the defendants No.1 & 2 put up the construction with storied building ground and first floor and it was illegal construction and it has closed the window of kitchen of the plaintiff, and it was completely blocked the passage of natural air and light and thereby it has affected the peaceful enjoyment of his property and such construction was made on the Western side of the plaintiff's 'B' schedule property and he has noticed after returning from leave, about the encroachment and blocking of easementary right and setback and he requested the defendants No.1 & 2 to remove the unauthorized construction. The defendants have promised to leave the setback at the time of undertaking of construction. But they turned violent and threatened the plaintiff not to pressurize them for removal of illegal construction over 'B' schedule property. The plaintiff has approached the Asst. Executive Engineer, Hebbal Range, Bangalore, and lodged the complaint and he has received the complaint on 15.07.2006 under acknowledgement. But there was not due response in that regard and it is learnt that the defendant No.3 has colluded with defendants No.1 & 2 and failed to initiate any action against the 7 O.S.No.7786/2006 unauthorized construction. Another complaint was made against defendant No.3 on 26.07.2006. But no action was taken. Nor visited place of disputed place. Thus, the defendants No.1 & 2 by putting up illegal construction, has infringed the easementary right to receive free flow of air and light to the window of his property and the defendant No.3 has not taken any due action in that regard and the construction of ground and first floor, which is yet to be completed, is illegal, without obtaining prior permission or sanction and it is in violation of bye-laws and liable to be demolished and further construction has to be restricted restraining the defendants No.1 & 2 by issuing necessary direction to the defendant No.3 and since no action was taken by the defendant No.3 and illegal construction put up by defendants No.1 & 2, who have failed to give heed to the request of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has constrained to file the suit. Accordingly, it is prayed to decree it.
3. On issuance of suit summons, the defendant No.2 appeared through her counsel and defendant No.3 appeared through his counsel separately and defendants No.1 & 2 have filed 8 O.S.No.7786/2006 the written statement jointly. At the initial stage, the plaintiff has not taken any steps against the defendant No.3 and hence the suit against defendant No.3, was dismissed and subsequently with due process of the court, the plaintiff has taken steps and on issuance of notice, the defendant No.3 appeared through his counsel, but failed to file written statement. Hence, the defendants No.1 & 2 have denied the material contents of plaint averments as the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the allegations pertaining to the plaintiff's lawful possession over the suit property and acquisition or alleged easementary right and encroachment on the setback area blocking the air and light as alleged by the plaintiff. The very source of title and the plaintiff's ownership over the suit property, has been disputed and it is subject proof of the title and ownership of the plaintiff's possessory right. It has further denied the alleged interference by putting up the construction and stated that there is no transfer of title through Smt. Alis Mary and the construction of plaintiff in 'A' schedule property, is in violation of license and the construction is over the 'A' schedule property itself is not in accordance with building bye-laws and that the plaintiff's 9 O.S.No.7786/2006 alleged possession and construction over 'A' schedule property, is subject to strict proof and relevancy of ownership and obtaining of plan from BBMP and he has not come to the court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. It is also denied the allegation of alleged illegal construction of defendants No.1 & 2 and claim of plaintiff under injunctory relief to remove the construction alleged to be illegal. The complaint before the Asst. Executive Engineer, Hebbal Range, Bangalore, and others are all created documents. The plaintiff's without appropriate relief of mere injunction, suit cannot maintain. The building in occupation of plaintiff, is subject to building bye-laws and leaving of setback. The defendants have already completed the construction of ground and first floor and it is not under construction as contended by the plaintiff and stated that he has not violated any building bye-laws and there is no any encroachment as alleged by the plaintiff and its question of removal does not arise. There is no cause of action to file the suit and accordingly the plaintiff is not entitled for any mandatory or permanent injunction. As the defendant No.2 is the owner of the property bearing No.6, Assessment No.38, was measuring 12½ feet 10 O.S.No.7786/2006 East-West and 30 feet North-South, and he has constructed within the property purchased by her. The owner of 'A' schedule property without leaving setback, put up construction on the entire area on the Western side encroaching upon the setback area and in this connection, the Court Commissioner can be appointed for irrespective disputed property regarding the alleged constructions. On his representation and suppressing the true facts, the plaintiff is intending to cause inconvenience to the defendants. On these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the suit.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned IX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore, has framed the following issues on 24.03.2011.
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for easementary right of light and air from the Western side?
(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants 1 & 2 put up unauthorized construction on the Western side of 'B' schedule property?
(3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for relief of permanent injunction 11 O.S.No.7786/2006 against defendants No.1 & 2 from further construction in 'B' schedule property?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction against defendants No.1 to 3?
(5) To what decree or order?
5. To prove the case, the plaintiff himself deposed as PW.1 and relied upon the documents at Exs.P.1 to P.23. Whereas the defendants have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence.
6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels for the plaintiff and defendants.
7. Perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence and record on hand.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:
(1) Issue No.1 .. In the Negative.
(2) Issue No.2 .. In the Negative.
(3) Issue No.3 .. In the Negative.
(4) Issue No.4 .. In the Negative.
(5) Issue No.5 .. As per final order for the
following:
12 O.S.No.7786/2006
R E A S O N S
9. Issue Nos.3 & 4 :- These issues are the relief oriented issues and the discussion on these issues are based on similar and oral and documentary evidence. Hence, these issues are taken for common consideration.
10. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that his easementary right to receive free flow of air and light from the suit 'B' schedule property, is affected on amount of defendants construction over the 'B' Schedule property. He has asserted his lawful possession based on prima-facie title, over 'A' schedule property. The disputed property to receive the air and light is alleged setback area described in 'B' schedule property stating it as property bearing old site No.4, Sy.No.38, Corporation No.9, located at 13th 'A' Cross, Manorayanapalya, Cholanayakanahalli Village, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, now coming within the BBMP Ward No.96 and it is measuring East-West 10½ feet and North-South 1 feet and described boundary. Thus he has asserted it as part and parcel of 'A' schedule property, which is also described as site No.4, old Sy.No.38, new 13 O.S.No.7786/2006 Corporation No.9, measuring East-West 26 feet and North-South 40 feet. 'B' schedule property is Western portion of 'A' schedule property. But at the outset, at this juncture, it is made it clear that the plaintiff has not stated the property of defendants No.1 & 2 i.e., having location to the Western side of the suit property. It is one of the notable point.
11. The plaintiff has claimed mandatory injunction against the defendants No.1 & 2 to remove unauthorized construction put up on the Western side of the suit property and to direct the defendant No.3 to demolish the unauthorized construction as described in the 'B' schedule property and the easementary rights on the Western side of schedule 'B' property and declaration of receiving free flow of air and light to the Western side of suit schedule property and permanent injunction against defendants No.1 & 2 to restrain them from undertaking further construction on the Western side of the suit property. The defendants No.1 & 2 have specifically denied the source of title of plaintiff and thereby the possession of the plaintiff's 14 O.S.No.7786/2006 property as described in 'A' schedule to the plaint. It has been seriously disputed by the defendants No.1 & 2.
12. In this connection reiterating the plaint averments, the plaintiff himself has deposed as PW.1 and relied upon the relevant documents pertaining to the ownership and possessory right over 'A' schedule property i.e., Exs.P.1 to P.4 are photos, which are referred to by him to show the property owned by him and construction thereupon and the construction put up by the defendants by making encroachment over the alleged setback area. Ex.P.4(a) is the negatives of the said photos; Ex.P.5 is the copy of complaint dated 15.07.2006 issued to Executive Engineer, BBMP, Hebbal Range, Bangalore; Ex.P.6 is the registered sale deed dated 16.06.2003;
Ex.P.7 is the General Power of Attorney dated 30.11.1988; Ex.P.8 is the Rectification Deed dated 11.07.2006; Ex.P.9 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 23.11.1974; Ex.P.10 is the khatha certificate; Ex.P.11 is the khatha extract; Exs.P.12 to P.15 are the tax paid receipts; Exs.P.16 to P.18 are the encumbrance certificates Form-15; Exs.P.19 & P.20 are the encumbrance certificates Form-16; Ex.P.21 is 15 O.S.No.7786/2006 the khatha extract; Ex.P.22 is the khatha certificate and Ex.P.23 is the tax paid receipt.
13. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 and the contents of said revenue records and sale deed and rectification deed are evidencing the lawful possession of the plaintiff over the suit 'A' schedule property. There is no cross-examination on the part of the defendants. Nor they have effectively contested the suit of the plaintiff by stepping into the witness box by the defendants No.1 & 2. The defendant No.3 has not filed written statement. Thereby, it is clear admission on their part regarding lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of 'A' schedule property. There is no dispute regarding the location of plaintiff's property and the property of defendants No.1 & 2, as the plaintiff has specifically stated that the property of defendants No.1 & 2 is located to the Western side of 'B' schedule property and measurement in respect of 'B' schedule property is 1 ft X 10½ ft. But the serious dispute is with reference to the location and description of 'B' schedule property as claimed by the plaintiff. On perusal of boundaries described, about 16 O.S.No.7786/2006 the plaintiff in 'A' & 'B' schedule properties, there is material discrepancy revealed because 'A' schedule property described as measuring 26 ft East-West and 40 ft North-South and towards its West, it is described as Weaker Section Colony. 'B' schedule property described and the said property implies that, it is a part of 'A' schedule property. It is also described that to the East, there is a property of plaintiff. The measurement of 'B' schedule property is shown as East-West 10½ ft and North-South 1 ft and the property of defendants No.1 & 2 is described its location to the West of 'B' schedule property. Thus, if it is considered, one cannot identify the exact location of disputed property. Apart from this, the plaintiff has not pleaded about the specific property of the defendants No.1 & 2, its measurement, boundaries so as to identify its location that it is to the Western side of the plaintiff's property. It is also notable point that the plaintiff has not produced any building sketch or sanctioned plan to show the construction put up by the plaintiff in his 'A' schedule property and that he has left the setback as required under bye-laws and sanctioned plan and that the location of 'B' schedule property alleged to be the disputed area measuring 10½ ft East-West 17 O.S.No.7786/2006 and 1 ft North-South. Thus, the very description of the disputed area, boundaries described of schedule 'A' & 'B' are not clear and there is material discrepancies and ambiguity pertaining to the alleged location. The plaintiff has not put forth any material documents regarding building permission and the extent of area constructed and that there remains alleged setback in his property and to show the property of defendants No.1 & 2 alleged to be on the Western side and the particulars and the description and boundaries of defendants' property also. Therefore, without these materials, one cannot consider that the plaintiff has come to the court with clean hands stating that his construction is in accordance with bye-laws building permission and he has left the proper setback to have free flow air and light to the Western side of his property, i.e 'B' schedule property. Even what would be the setback area to be left by the defendants No.1 & 2 and that, because of such construction his alleged easementary right has been infringed, etc., have not been made out with cogent evidence, though he has produced the property records, which are supporting his lawful possession over the suit 'A' schedule property. But the alleged 18 O.S.No.7786/2006 encroachment, there is no materials on record. From the photographs nothing can be gathered that plaintiff has constructed his building as per building plan and he has left the required setback. In the plant para 5, plaintiff has stated about the construction in his property that it was after purchase of property, by him and his wife, and that, at the time of purchase it was vacant site, and they constructed building in the year 1990-91, by obtaining sectioned plan, and by leaving set back area. Thus it is vague pleading and without any documents to show that they had valid title and had obtained due sanction plan during the year 1990-91. His acquisition of ownership was only in the year 2003 and it was rectified in the year 2006. Then in that case its construction after purchase would be either in 2003 or 2006. So enjoyment, of free flow of air and light without any material and on the basis of vague and disputed title, it cannot be accepted that plaintiff has come to the court with clean hands. Therefore, if there is no clear case on the part of plaintiff and such defect itself defeats his claim.
14. However, there is any violation of bye-laws and sanctioned plan, there is specific provision provided under Karnataka 19 O.S.No.7786/2006 Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as KMC Act) specifically under section 321, which provides the power and authority thereunder, confirming upon the Commissioner of Municipal Corporation to demolish the construction, and unlawfully commenced carried on or completed. The Commissioner has to follow the due procedure provided under KMC Act, by taking steps in connection with illegal construction, in violation of building bye-laws and sanctioned plan. There is no dispute about the suit property and the alleged property of defendants No.1 & 2 coming within the limits of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to as BBMP), BBMP is represented by the Commissioner / defendant No.3 and thus the KMC Act is certainly applicable to the suit property.
15. Though the defendants No.1 & 2 have taken specific contention that the plaintiff himself has occupied the residential house, which is constructed in violation of building bye-laws and it is a construction on the setback area. The very possessory right based on prima-facie title of the plaintiff, has been disputed. They have referred to about their ownership and possessory right over their 20 O.S.No.7786/2006 property bearing No.6, Assessment No.38, Khatha No.302, Cholanayakanahalli Village, and Corporation No.6, 13th 'A' Cross, Manorayanapalya, Ward No.96, measuring East-West 12½ ft and North South 30 ft and it is possessed by the defendant No.2. Thus from the written statement of defendants No.1 & 2, they too also disputed the plaintiff's construction on 'A' schedule property and disputed the boundaries. However, the defendants have not cross- examined P.W.1. Nor stepped into the witness box to substantiate their defence. However, at this juncture, the weakness of defendants No.1 & 2 cannot be taken as shelter, by the plaintiff as proof of his case. But the plaintiff has to stand on his own legs and put forth all the materials in support of his case and to prove his case with reference to the alleged encroachment over the setback area. Even the plaintiff has not put forth any materials to show that he had approached the defendant No.3 with due process of law, as against the construction put up by defendants No.1 & 2 to take necessary action, under section 321 of KMC Act. Therefore, on these grounds, it is failure on the part of plaintiff to put forth the materials on record, so as to prove that there is construction of defendants No.1 & 21 O.S.No.7786/2006 2 by encroaching on the alleged area described in 'B' scheduled property and on the Western side of the suit schedule property. The Civil Court cannot direct the defendant No.3 since it is the casted duty to be discharged and powers to be exercised by the Commissioner representing BBMP, with due process of law. The plaintiff as well as defendants No.1 & 2 have to proceed before the BBMP to get the alleged illegal construction if any, by availing the opportunity provided under section 321 of KMC Act. If there is any violation of building bye-laws and the sanctioned plan, the competent authority will proceed with by following due procedure making enquiry, on receiving the complaints either from the plaintiff or defendants No.1 & 2 and conduct the survey with reference to the alleged unauthorized construction by respective plaintiff and defendants No.1 & 2. If there is any negligible deviation that can be considered and give due reorganization, by the authority of BBMP. If there is material alteration and deviation in violation of building bye- laws and sanctioned plan, then the Commissioner has to initiate the demolition proceedings against such unauthorized construction at that juncture. If there is any encroachment as contended by the 22 O.S.No.7786/2006 plaintiff over 'B' schedule property, measuring 10 ft East-West and 1 ft North-South, it could be removed and he can get free flow of air and light. But at this juncture without there being necessary materials, which has to be substantiated and proved by the plaintiff, i.e. sketch and sanctioned plan to show his construction is not in violation of the same and there was alleged encroachment of defendant's structure in violation of the sanction plan. If site alleged to be purchased, then plaintiff to prove the encroachment of right of free flow of air and light by prescription. But no evidence on record as to the construction of his property and it was with due permission and sanction plan. He failed to prove it with cogent evidence.
16. The vague case made out by the plaintiff, is liable to be dismissed, with giving liberty to the plaintiff as well as defendants No.1 & 2 to approach the authority i.e., defendant No.3 and put their grievance about the violation of building bye-laws in connection with the alleged unauthorized constructions upon their respective properties. Thus, though the plaintiff has proved the lawful possession over 'A' schedule property, but he failed to prove with 23 O.S.No.7786/2006 cogent evidence regarding the unauthorized construction of defendants No.1 & 2, with due process of law and he has to avail the remedy available under sections 321, 321(A) & 321(B) of KMC Act, as the case may be, before the competent authority. Hence, at this stage, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief of permanent injunction against the defendants and direction against the defendant No.3 to demolish the alleged unauthorized construction. The civil right claimed by the plaintiff, is to receive free flow of air and light to the Western side of 'B' schedule property. But there is no specification about which one the schedule property either 'A' or 'B' schedule property, and from which of the one has so called right is accrued. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as sought for. Accordingly, I answer Issue Nos.1 to 4 are in the 'Negative'.
17. Issue No.5:- In view of the above discussion and conclusion arrived at, this court is hereby proceeded to pass the following:
24 O.S.No.7786/2006
O R D E R Suit of the plaintiff, is hereby dismissed. However, the plaintiff and defendants No.1 & 2 can proceed before the defendant No.3 under KMC Act with reference to get the alleged unauthorized construction removed through process of law as the efficacious remedy is available with reference to removal of unauthorized construction, if proved before the competent authority of defendant No.3. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Draw up the decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, corrected and then signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of June 2015) (Yadav Vanamala Anandrao) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-53), Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
PW.1 S. Chinnappa Raju List of the documents marked for the plaintiff:
Exs.P.1 to P.4 Photographs.
Ex.P.4(a) Negatives of Exs.P.1 to P.4.
25 O.S.No.7786/2006
Ex.P.5 Copy of complaint dated 15.07.2006 issued to
Executive Engineer, BBMP, Hebbal Range,
Bangalore.
Ex.P.6 Registered sale deed dated 16.06.2003.
Ex.P.7 General Power of Attorney dated 30.11.1988.
Ex.P.8 Rectification Deed dated 11.07.2006.
Ex.P.9 Certified copy of sale deed dated 23.11.1974.
Ex.P.10 Khatha certificate.
Ex.P.11 Khatha extract.
Exs.P.12 to P.15 Tax paid receipts.
Exs.P.16 to P.18 Encumbrance certificates Form-15. Exs.P.19 & P.20 Encumbrance certificates Form-16.
Ex.P.21 Khatha extract. Ex.P.22 Khatha certificate. Ex.P.23 Tax paid receipt.
List of the witnesses examined for the defendants:
- NIL -
List of the documents marked for the defendants:
- NIL -
(Yadav Vanamala Anandrao) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-53), Bengaluru.26 O.S.No.7786/2006
Judgment pronounced in the open Court (vide separately) ORDER Suit of the plaintiff, is hereby dismissed.
However, the plaintiff and defendants No.1 & 2 can proceed before the defendant No.3 under KMC Act with reference to get the alleged unauthorized construction removed through process of law as the efficacious remedy is available with reference to removal of unauthorized construction, if proved before the competent authority of defendant No.3.
Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Draw up the decree accordingly.
(Yadav Vanamala Anandrao) LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-53), Bengaluru.27 O.S.No.7786/2006 28 O.S.No.7786/2006 29 O.S.No.7786/2006