Bangalore District Court
Sri.Siddalinga Swamy vs Sri.Ravi Kumar on 25 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU
(CCH-74)
Present: Sri.YAMANAPPA BAMMANAGI,
B.A., LL.B., (SPl.,)
LXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2019.
OS No.25136/ 2014
Plaintiff: Sri.Siddalinga Swamy,
S/o.Late.Sri.N.R.Shivanna,
R/at.No.952, 1st Cross,
D Block, Sahakara Nagar,
Bengaluru-560092.
(By Sri.G.Nataraj - Adv.)
V/S
Defendants: 1. Sri.Ravi Kumar,
S/o.Late.Sri.R.Narayana
Gowda @ Rajanna, aged
about 32 yrs,
R/at.Tahnisandra Village,
A.C.Post, K.R.Puram,
Hobli, Bengaluru -45.
2. Smt.N.Chaya,
W/o.Sri.Chennakeshava,
D/o.Late.Sri.Narayana
Gowda @ Rajanna, Major,
Rachenahalli, Shivaram
2 OS No.25136/ 2014
Karanth Post, Bengaluru-
77.
3. Sudha Builders &
Developers, Rep.by its
Managing Director,
Sri.Pramod Reddy, No.862,
D Block GMR Heights,
Behind Cauvery High
School, Sahakaranagar,
Bengaluru.
(Defts.1 & 2-Exparte)
(Deft.No.3-Dismissed)
Date of Institution of the suit 27.01.2014
Nature of the (Suit or pro-
note, suit for declaration
Injunction Suit
and possession, suit for
injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of
05.02.2019
recording of the Evidence.
Date on which the Judgment
25.09.2019
was pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 05 07 28
(Yamanappa Bammanagi)
73rd Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit,
Bengaluru. (CCH-74)
3 OS No.25136/ 2014
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them, their men, agent, PA holders and any person claiming through the defendants, from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the suit schedule property.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case:
It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit property by virtue of registered sale deed, dated 8.4.2004, executed by defendant No.1 and his son, through their GPA holder. Thereafter khatha, in respect of suit schedule property, and other revenue records have been changed in the name of plaintiff and plaintiff is paying tax to the BBMP in respect of suit schedule property. Further plaintiff contended in the plaint that he has constructed compound wall around the suit schedule property and put up shed over the suit schedule property. So, all the revenue records stands 4 OS No.25136/ 2014 in the name of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property.
3. Such being the fact, the defendant No.1 without having any legal right, interest over the suit schedule property as defendant No.1 and his father has executed a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, the defendants tried to interfere with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Further defendants have gave threat of dispossession of the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. So, the act of defendants is illegal. With this the plaintiff has filed this suit to protect her possession of the suit schedule property from the hands of defendant.
4. Suit summons are served on the defendant No.1 and 2. But, defendant No.1 and 2 are placed exparte and suit against the defendant No.3 was dismissed as plaintiff has not taken steps against the defendant No.3.
5 OS No.25136/ 2014
5. The plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and closed his side evidence. Cross of P.W.1 by defendants No.1 and 2 taken as Nil as the defendants placed exparte.
6. Heard the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. I have perused pleading and oral, documentary evidence. On perusal of the same the points that would arise for my consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is in possession of the suit schedule property at the time of filing of the suit?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that the defendants have interfered in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought in the plaint?
4. What order or decree?
7. My answer to the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1: In the Affirmative, 6 OS No.25136/ 2014 Point No.2: In the Affirmative, Point No.3: In the Affirmative, Point No.4: As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
8. POINT No.1: It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed and he is paying tax to the competent authority in respect of suit schedule property, since date of purchase. Such being the fact the defendants, without having any interest, right over the suit schedule property, has made attempt to interfere in the suit schedule premises. In support of his oral evidence, the plaintiff has produced as many as 8 documents which have been marked at Ex.P.1 to P.8. Ex.P.1 is the registered absolute sale deed, executed by Narayana Gowda @ Rajanna, Ravi Kumar, through their GPA holder Smt.B.R.Ragamma, in favour of plaintiff, in respect of suit schedule property. I have perused Ex.P.1 7 OS No.25136/ 2014 registered sale deed, which clearly establishes that on the date of purchase of suit schedule property by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has been put in possession of the suit schedule property. Ex.P.2 is the revenue entry stands in the name of plaintiff. I have perused Ex.P.2 the name of the plaintiff is appeared in column left for mentioning owners name of the suit schedule property. Ex.P.3 is the encumbrance certificate for the period from 1.6.1989 to 10.5.2004. I have perused Ex.P.3 which clearly reflects the transaction of the plaintiff and his name is also entered in the EC Ex.P.3. Ex.P.4 to P.8 are the tax-paid receipts, paid by the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property.
9. On perusal of the Ex.P.1 original sale deed and Ex.P.2 to P.8 revenue entries it is clearly shows that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property at the time of filing of the suit. Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.8, are the revenue entries which have 8 OS No.25136/ 2014 got evidentiary value under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act which reads thus:
35. Relevancy of entry in public [record or an electronic record] made in performance of duty.__ An entry in any public or other official book, register or [record or an electronic record], stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register, or [record or an electronic record] is kept, is itself a relevant fact.
Editor's Note._The words "Fact", "Facts in issue" and 'Relevant" are defined in Section 3 of this Act.
10. In support of my opinion I relied on the decision reported in ILR 2004 KAR.1074 in case of 9 OS No.25136/ 2014 Naganna Vs. Shivanna. The lordships have held at Head note B. thus:
REBUTTAL EVIDENCE - entries in the ROR carries presumptive value in law - if there is no convincing evidence to rebut the legal presumption, lessor relief of injunction can be granted. But the declaration title cannot be granted.
11. Further relied on decision reported in AIR 2008 SC 901 in case of Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar and others Vs. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund and Others. The lordships have held at Head note B. reads thus:
Evidence Act, (1 of 1872), Ss. 35, 114- revenue records- not document of title- it merely raises presumption of possession. The lordships have discussed at Para 12 of the judgment, which reads thus:10 OS No.25136/ 2014
A revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession. Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof both forward and backward can also be raised under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Courts below, were, therefore, required to appreciate the evidence keeping in view the correct legal principles in mind.
The oral and documentary evidence led by the plaintiff remained unchallenged. So, on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff and relying on the decision referred above I am of the firm opinion that plaintiff has proved his possession of the suit schedule property at the time of filing of this suit with a cogent evidence. Hence, I answer this point in the Affirmative.11 OS No.25136/ 2014
12. POINT No.2: It is the case of the plaintiff that he has purchased the suit schedule property for the valuable consideration amount under registered sale deed and all the revenue records, in respect of suit schedule property, changed in the name of plaintiff and plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed. Such being the fact the defendants, without having any rights or interest over the suit schedule property tried to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property and gave a threat to the plaintiff. Further plaintiff deposed in examination-in- chief that on 14.01.2014 and 15.01.2014, the defendants have frequently interfered in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The oral evidence of P.W.1 is not challenged by the defendants. Though defendants have served with summons in this suit; but, remained absent. When plaintiff has proved his possession of the suit 12 OS No.25136/ 2014 schedule property and possession of the suit schedule property is under threat of dispossession and interference by the defendants, the oral evidence of the plaintiff is remained unchallenged and establishes that the defendants have interfered in the possession of the plaintiff and the act of defendants clearly shows that the possession of the plaintiff is under threat by the defendants, all the documents produced by the plaintiff are clearly shows that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has proved the interference of the defendants in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Hence, I answer this point in the Affirmative.
13. POINT No.3: It is the case of the plaintiff that he is owner and in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In support of his case the plaintiff has produced Ex.P.1, which is registered 13 OS No.25136/ 2014 original sale deed, executed by the vendors of the plaintiff, in respect of suit schedule property, in favour of the plaintiff. Since then plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.8 are the revenue records such as tax-paid receipts, EC, etc. These documents clearly establishes the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. When plaintiff is in lawful and peaceful possession of suit property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendants, under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought in the plaint. In support of my opinion I relied on the decision reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033 in case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Others.
The lordships have held in the decision thus:
Where Plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by 14 OS No.25136/ 2014 the Defendant a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie.
14. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and relying on the decision referred above I answer this point in the Affirmative.
15. POINT No.4: In view of the discussion made on points No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby decreed.
Consequently, the defendants,
their agents, PA holders,
anybody claiming under the
defendants, are hereby
restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, by order of permanent injunction. 15 OS No.25136/ 2014
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer system, computerized by her, after online correction by me, printout taken by her and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of September, 2019).
(Yamanappa Bammanagi) LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H. Unit, Bengaluru. (CCH-74) SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the property bearing site No.F-1 with compound wall along with 2 square building formed out of converted site No.100/1 wide order No.B.DIS ALN.SR (E) 167/2002-03 dt.10.1.2002 & Sy.No.96 wide order No.B.DIS ALN.Sr (E) 152/2002-03 dt.4.1.2003 converted for residential purpose issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru, bearing house list khatha No.1651 at Bharath Residency, Thanisandra Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, measuring East to West: 60 ft., North to South: 40 ft., in all 2,400 sq.ft., and bounded on:
East by: Road;
West by: Site No.E-1;
North by: Road; and on South by: Site No.F-2.16 OS No.25136/ 2014
ANNEXURE List of witness examined for the plaintiff's side:
P.W.1 : Sri.Siddalinga Swamy List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff's side: Ex.P.1 : Original sale deed dated 08.04.2004 Ex.P.2 : Original tax demand extract Ex.P.3 : Original EC for the year 1989 to 2004 Ex.P.4 : Tax paid receipt for the year 2018-19 Ex.P.5 : Tax paid receipt for the year 2016-17 Ex.P.6 : Tax paid receipt for the year 2013-14 Ex.P.7 : Tax paid receipt for the year 2012-13 Ex.P.8 : Tax paid receipt for the year 2011-12 List of witness examined for the defendants' side :
-NIL-
List of document exhibited for the defendants' side:
-NIL-
(Yamanappa Bammanagi) LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H. Unit, Bengaluru.(CCH-74) 17 OS No.25136/ 2014 18 OS No.25136/ 2014