Bangalore District Court
Shanthamma vs Nagaveni M N on 13 June, 2025
KABC010355622018
IN THE COURT OF THE XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE
AT BENGALURU CITY
(CCH-31)
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
Sri. MADHU N.R., LL.M.,
XXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.9226/2018
PLAINTIFF: Smt. Shanthamma
W/o Nanjappa
Aged about 55 years,
R/at No.24, Katha No.640,
1st Main Road,
Hegganahalli Cross,
Lakshmannagar,
Yeshwanthpura Hobli,
Bangalore
PAN No.ACAPY04250
(By Sri. K.L.M., Advocate)
/Vs/
DEFENDANTS: 1. Smt. M.N.Nagaveni
W/o M.H.Mohan
Aged about 40 ,years,
R/at No.48, 2nd Cross,
2 O.S.No.9226/2018
Sanjeevininagar,
Near Harish Society,
Hegganahalli Cross,
Lakshmanagara,
Vishwaneedam Post,
Bangalore-91.
2. Siddaraju
Aged about 43 years,
Working at Hanumanthanagar
Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
Hanumanthanagar,
Bangalore.
(By Sri.A.N.G, Advocate )
Date of Institution of the suit 19-12-2018
Nature of the suit Suit for Declaration &
Permanent Injunction
Date of Commencement of 04-11-2019
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment was 13-06-2025
Pronounced
Duration Years Months Days
06 06 06
(MADHU N.R.)
XXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
*****
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking judgment and decree against the defendants for Declaration and 3 O.S.No.9226/2018 Permanent Injunction, to declare that the sale deed dated 03.07.2017 executed by the plaintiff in favour of 1 st defendant is null and void, not binding on the plaintiff and for cancellation of the same and also to restrain the defendants or anybody claiming under the sale deed dated 03.07.2017 from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and such other reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as under :-
It is submitted that, the property bearing No.24, situated at Lakshman Nagar (Sanjeevininagar), Hegganahalli, Bangalore, which is morefully described as 'Schedule Property' was purchased in the name of plaintiff from its previous owner Sri.K.Kempaiah, vide registered sale deed dated 19.05.2006, out of the contributions made by her husband, children after the sale of husband's property in his native village. Further submits that, the plaintiff after obtaining loan of Rs.10,00,000/- from Kaveri Gramini Bank, demolished the old construction and put up new construction in the year 2013.4 O.S.No.9226/2018
2(a). It is further submitted that, the plaintiff's elder daughter by name Smt.Shyamala was running provision store in the schedule property at ground floor and she was also running readymade garments business in the same area and also doing chit business. She was having close contact with defendant No.1 herein and taking advantage of the same, the 1st defendant advised her that she can easily solve their financial problems as the 2nd defendant who is her sister's husband known several persons in other co- operative bank namely Hanumanthnagar co-operative Bank and she can very well get higher loan amount from that bank and further promised to get Rs.50,00,000/- loan for the schedule property from the said bank. The plaintiff believing her words, handedover all the original documents of the schedule property to the 1 st defendant and further the defendants took the plaintiff alongwith her son to Sub- Registrar office in the month of 1st week of July, 2017 stating that they had to execute certain documents to obtain loan and their presence is required for executing the mortgage deed. However, the plaintiff being an illiterate and 5 O.S.No.9226/2018 her son is not having any worldly knowledge, acted as per the directions of the 1st defendant.
2(b). It is further submitted that, the 1st defendant gave a Demand Draft for Rs.9,20,000/- stating that the remaining amount will be paid later and also forced the plaintiff to encash the same on the same day and give her entire amount for further processing of the release of loan amount. Further, the defendant promised that loan amount will be released in due course and plaintiff has to pay EMIs without fail. However, the plaintiff did not receive the loan amount and she made several requests to 1 st defendant. Further submits that, in the month of February, 2018, they received court summons and on verification, they came to know that instead of getting loan from another Bank, the defendants took sale deed from the plaintiff for a lesser consideration of Rs.30,00,000/- though the schedule property fetches more than Rs.60,00,000/- as on that date. 2(c). It is submitted that, the plaintiff had no intention to sell the property and she has not received any sale 6 O.S.No.9226/2018 consideration from the defendants. The defendants had taken the signature of this plaintiff under the guise that she is getting mortgage loan from another bank for discharging the earlier loan. In this regard, plaintiff has already filed a private complaint and the same is still pending for enquiry. The plaintiff has never handedover the property to defendants. Further submits that, the defendants based on the concocted and fabricated sale deed, have obtained loan from Hanumanthanagar Co-operative Bank Limited by mortgaging the schedule property without any authority and trying to evict this plaintiff and her daughter from doing business in the ground floor.
2(d). It is further submitted that, plaintiff is the owner in possession of the suit schedule property and she has also paid upto date taxes in respect of the suit schedule property. Further submits that, plaintiff has not executed any sale deed in favour of defendant. The plaintiff was not aware about the defendant getting the sale deed registered till she received summons from the Court in the ejectment suit filed by the defendant No.1. Hence, plaintiff prays to 7 O.S.No.9226/2018 declare the alleged sale deed as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff and to cancel the same.
3. The summons issued to the defendants was duly served. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Court through their counsel and defendant No.1 filed written statement. The defendant No.2 adopts the written statement of defendant No.1.
4. In the written statement filed by defendant No.1, the defendant submits that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff has suppressed the true facts and approached this Court with unclean hands. Further denies all the averments made in the plaint except the admitted facts. The defendant contends that there is no cause of action to file the present suit. Further submits that, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief muchless for the cancellation of sale deed dated 03.07.2017 executed by plaintiff in favour of 1 st defendant. The defendant submits that, the plaintiff and her son and daughter have also executed registered consent deed dated 07.07.2017 confirming the execution of the registered sale 8 O.S.No.9226/2018 deed in favour of 1st defendant, as the Kaveri Grameena Bank had not executed the discharge deed till that day and the discharge deed is executed on 11.07.2017 in favour of plaintiff.
4(a). It is submitted that, plaintiff with an intention to sell the suit schedule property approached the 1 st defendant for the sale of schedule property. After mutual discussions, the sale transaction was fixed for Rs.30,00,000/- for the Government value and agreement was reduced in writing prior to the execution of sale deed on 23.06.2017. On the said day, the plaintiff has received advance sale consideration and acknowledged the receipt of same and 3 months time was fixed for the purpose of contract by either of parties and it was agreed that plaintiff must clear the mortgage loan with Kaveri Grameena Bank and execute the sale deed. Further submits that, after lapse of 15 days from the date of agreement, the plaintiff has expressed her ability to execute the sale deed and immediately, the 1 st defendant has approached the Hanumanthanagar Co-operative Bank to raise the loan and she was member of said bank and 9 O.S.No.9226/2018 applied loan for Rs.30,00,000/-. The plaintiff requested and expressed her willingness to sell the suit schedule property in favour of defendant and the agreement was entered between them on 23.06.2017. Further, on the negotiation between the plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff has applied for loan on 30.06.2017 and the Hanumanthanagar Co-operative Bank sanctioned loan of Rs.30,00,000/- in favour of plaintiff to purchase the suit schedule property by clearing the mortgage loan in the name of plaintiff with Kaveri Grameena Bank, Kumbalgodu Branch. 4(b). It is submitted that, the Hanumanthanagar Co- operative Bank issued 3 pay orders towards loan of the plaintiff. Out of 3 pay orders, one pay order for Rs.9,45,000/- and another for Rs.9,35,000/- were drawn in the name of Kaveri Grameena Bank towards the loan of plaintiff and another pay order for Rs.9,20,000/- was issued in the name of Smt.Shanthamma on 03.07.2017 i.e., the date on which sale deed was executed in favour of 1 st defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff executed the sale deed in favour of 1st defendant by accepting the balance sale 10 O.S.No.9226/2018 consideration of Rs.9,20,000/- through pay order bearing No.052433 dated 03.07.2017. Further, an agreement was entered between the 1st defendant and plaintiff as the mortgage amount was part of sale consideration. The plaintiff has executed the absolute sale deed on 03.07.2017 after going through the entire contents of the sale deed. After execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff did not handover the vacant possession of suit schedule property and pleaded difficult to search new house and sought some time to vacate and handover the suit schedule property. As such, the lease deed came to be executed on 07.07.2017 by the plaintiff in favour of 1st defendant and her daughter also executed lease deed towards the portion of her occupation as she was running a business therein. Thus, the plaintiff and her daughter are in occupation and did not vacate the premises. Hence, the 1st defendant issued a legal notice terminating the tenancy and filed a suit for ejectment against the plaintiff in S.C.No.351/2018 and against her daughter in O.S.No.1574/2018.
11 O.S.No.9226/20184(c). It is submitted that, the mortgage amount of the plaintiff with respect to suit schedule property was paid by the 1st defendant through her housing loan borrowed from her banker, the Hanumanthanagar Co-operative Bank Ltd. On the date of agreement also, the plaintiff has received advance sale consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- from the 1 st defendant. As such, the 1st defendant has paid a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- for purchase of suit schedule property. Since the plaintiff and her daughter occupied the suit schedule property as tenants after execution of sale deed on 03.07.2017 and executed lease agreement in favour of 1 st defendant, the symbolic possession of suit schedule property was handedover to 1st defendant. Thus, the 1st defendant filed a suit for ejectment against the plaintiff and her daughter. The defendants further submit that the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient. On these grounds, the defendants pray to dismiss the suit.
5. On the basis of the above rival pleadings, the learned predecessor in office has framed the following Issues :-
12 O.S.No.9226/2018
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant No.1 by inducing her, playing fraud and misrepresentation on her under the guise of securing the mortgage loan from Hanumanthanagar Co-operative Bank, has obtained the sale deed dated 03.07.2017 in her favour in respect of suit schedule property ?
2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that she is in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ?
3) Whether the plaintiff further proves the alleged interference by the defendants with her lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property ?
4) Whether the suit is properly valued and the Court fees paid is sufficient ?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration to declare that the sale deed dated 03.07.2017 executed by her in favour of 1st defendant is null and void and not binding on her and for cancellation of the same ?
6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction as prayed ?
7) What order or decree?
13 O.S.No.9226/2018
6. In support of the plaintiff's case, the plaintiff got examined herself as PW-1 and produced documentary evidence and the same are marked as per Exs.P.1 to P.12 on behalf of the plaintiff. On the otherhand, the defendant No.1 has examined herself as DW-1 and marked documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.15.
7. Heard the arguments on both the sides.
8. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No. 1: In the Negative Issue No. 2 : In the Negative Issue No. 3 : In the Negative Issue No. 4 : In the Affirmative Issue No. 5 : In the Negative Issue No. 6 : In the Negative Issue No. 7 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9. Issue Nos.1, 5 & 6 : These issues are inter-related to each other and therefore are taken up together for joint discussion at a stretch in order to avoid repetitive discussion of facts and for the purpose of brevity. 14 O.S.No.9226/2018
It is the case of the plaintiff that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of Sale Deed 19.06.2006 and the same was purchased out of the contributions made by her husband, children and sale of husband's property. Further, it is submitted that the plaintiff's elder daughter, Shyamala, was running a provision store and other businesses from the property. Defendant No.1, known to her, assured a loan of ₹50,00,000/- from Hanumanthanagar Co-operative Bank through her brother-in-law (Defendant No.2), and collected the original documents. The plaintiff and her son were taken to the Sub-Registrar's office in July 2017 under the pretext of executing a mortgage deed. Being illiterate and unaware, they signed as directed. It is submitted that the defendant No.1 gave a DD of ₹9,20,000/- promising further payment, but the plaintiff neither received the full loan nor any consideration for the alleged sale. She later discovered that a sale deed was executed in favour of the defendants for ₹30,00,000/- though the property's market value was over ₹60,00,000/-. She denies any intention to sell the 15 O.S.No.9226/2018 property or having received consideration and has filed a private complaint. It is submitted that the defendant has played fraud, misrepresentation and obtained the Sale Deed. The plaintiff remains in possession, has paid property taxes, and seeks declaration that the sale deed is null and void, and for its cancellation.
10. On the other hand, the Defendant No.1 contends that the suit is not maintainable, lacks cause of action, and should be dismissed as the plaintiff has suppressed material facts. She denies all allegations except admitted ones and asserts that the plaintiff is not entitled to cancellation of the sale deed dated 03.07.2017. The defendant states that the plaintiff willingly approached her to sell the property, and an agreement was entered on 23.06.2017 for ₹30,00,000/-, the government value. Advance consideration was paid, and the plaintiff agreed to clear the mortgage with Kaveri Grameena Bank before executing the sale deed. Subsequently, the defendant arranged a loan from Hanumanthanagar Co-operative Bank. On 03.07.2017, three pay orders totaling 16 O.S.No.9226/2018 ₹30,00,000/- were issued--two to clear the plaintiff's loan and one for ₹9,20,000/- directly to the plaintiff. The sale deed was executed accordingly. Later, due to plaintiff's request for time to vacate, lease deeds were executed on 07.07.2017, allowing the plaintiff and her daughter to stay as tenants. Defendant adds that symbolic possession was handed over, and ejectment suits were filed when the plaintiff failed to vacate. She emphasizes that the plaintiff received full consideration, executed sale and lease deeds knowingly, and now falsely disputes them. The defendant also disputes the sufficiency of court fee and seeks dismissal of the suit.
11. On careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence and the pleadings, and in light of settled legal principles, the Court is of the opinion that the validity of the Sale Deed dated 03.07.2017 is to be determined and the same is crucial document under the said facts and circumstances. The pleadings and the documentary evidence clearly reveals that the plaintiff has admitted that she has executed the registered Sale Deed dated 17 O.S.No.9226/2018 03.07.2017 (Ex.P.1 & D.10) in favour of the defendant No.1, and the same is accompanied by registered discharge deeds (Ex.D4 & 5), Consent Letter (Ex.D.15), and other documents corroborates documents shows disbursal of full sale consideration either by direct payment or by discharge of prior mortgage. The plaintiff attributes fraud and misrepresentation against the defendant No.1 and therefore, the burden of proving fraud lies on the plaintiff.
12. The deposition of PW1 presents a complex and, at times, inconsistent narrative regarding the ownership, financial dealings, and alleged transactions involving the suit schedule property. A critical examination of this deposition brings out several credibility issues, contradictions, and ambiguities, which may weaken PW1's position in court. The plaintiff in her cross examination claims to have taken one loan of ₹10,00,000, later admits to a second loan of ₹9,00,000 from the same bank, she claims to have repaid both loans, then states that on 03.07.2017, the outstanding amount was ₹18,00,000, which was 18 O.S.No.9226/2018 cleared by the defendant No.1. Further, she denies entering into a sale agreement with the 1st defendant but admits that the 1st defendant gave money (via bank) to clear loans. On examination of the deposition, it clearly appears that there is an inherent contradiction in denying the sale agreement while admitting the financial involvement of the 1st defendant, especially when such involvement led to the clearing of loans secured against the suit property.
13. The PW-1 in her deposition admits that original documents were given to the 2nd defendant, not mentioned in her pleadings or chief affidavit. The plaintiff also acknowledges signing some documents (e.g., Ex.P2), but claims ignorance about their purpose. The plaintiff admits her son signed many bank documents and was well-versed in finance, implying delegation of control. The plaintiff stated that her son does the business initially and at the later stage claims that he is not doing any job. Therefore, such inconsistencies suggest that critical facts were either omitted or presented selectively, possibly to suit her 19 O.S.No.9226/2018 narrative. The PW-1 repeatedly acknowledges that her son Hanumesh handled monetary matters, visited bank and signed documents. The same reflects that she acted on the advice of her children. Further, the plaintiff in her deposition admits that the defendant No.1 visited them regularly, cleared loan via DD and promised 30 Lakhs loan and the defendant No.2 collected original documents and submitted them to bank where he was employed. These admissions establish a financial transaction and trust relationship with the defendants, weakening her denial of a sale agreement. Furthermore, if the loan was sanctioned in the name of the 1st defendant (not DW1), it raises questions about the real intent--sale disguised as a loan arrangement. PW1's testimony contains contradictions on key points such as purpose of loans, relationship with defendants, and documentation handling. The plaintiff admits receiving financial assistance from the 1st defendant, despite denying any sale agreement. The plaintiff repeatedly asserts ignorance (while simultaneously describing financial details) suggest selective memory or evasiveness. The 20 O.S.No.9226/2018 material suppression of facts in pleadings weakens her case significantly.
14. Therefore, on examination of the DW1's deposition, reveals inconsistencies, suppression of material facts, and questionable credibility. Her admission that her loans were cleared using the 1st defendant's funds, combined with unclear documentation and conflicting testimony, suggest that a sale transaction or financial arrangement was indeed entered into--contrary to her claims. That, from a legal standpoint, such a deposition may undermine her case unless corroborated by strong documentary evidence and independent witnesses.
15. On the other hand, the deposition of DW-1, though not flawless, reflects a cooperative and consistent account of the transaction and reflects plausible defense. Over all the deposition strengthens her position as a bona fide purchaser who acted in good faith and dealt fairly with the plaintiff.
21 O.S.No.9226/2018
16. Further, it is pertinent to note that the plaintiff has alleged that the Sale Deed dated 03.07.2017 is a result of fraud and misrepresentation by the defendants. Therefore, this Court has to examine whether the plaintiff substantiated the same as required by the law. It is well settled position of law that mere allegation of fraud is not sufficient without concrete evidence. The plaintiff has not produced any independent evidence to show undue influence, fraud or misrepresentation. Further, the documentary evidence reveals that the execution of registered consent deed dated 07.07.2017 by the plaintiff and her family further confirms the conscious participation of plaintiff in the transaction.
17. In the present suit the plaintiff has relied on Exs.P6 to P12, including legal notices, bank statements and FIR, but these do not establish fraud or coercion. Ex.P9 (FIR) is a unilateral document and does not carry evidentiary weight unless followed by conviction or investigation findings. The evidence presented by the defendant is more cogent, supported by bank letters, EC, 22 O.S.No.9226/2018 consent documents and registered instruments. Though the plaintiff continues to be in possession, she herself has admitted the execution of a lease deed post-sale, and defendant has filed eviction suits. The symbolic possession transferred through the registered sale deed and lease agreement confirms the defendant's ownership. This Court is of the view that possession alone cannot invalidate a registered sale deed.
18. The defendant also relied upon the below stated judgments::
AIR 2009 SC 3293 (Bellachi (Dead) by L.r Vs. Pakeeran) AIR 2006 SC 3608 (Prem Singh & ors Vs. Birbal & ors) 2005 (4) SCC 683 (N V Srinivasa Murthy & Ors Vs. Mariyamma (dead) by proposed Lrs & Ors 2006 0 Supreme (KAR)648 (Aralappa V/s Jagannath) AIR 1976 SCC 163 (Afsar Shaikh and Ors. V/s Soleman and Ors.) ILR (Karnataka) series (Vokkaligara Laxmaiah V/s Vokkalaigara Deve Gowda and Another's) The fundamental point of the judgments relied by the defendant is that when the fraud or misrepresentation is 23 O.S.No.9226/2018 alleged then it must be pleaded and proved with specificity. Vague and general allegations do not constitute fraud. Once a party executes a registered document, a heavy burden lies on such party to disprove its validity. In the present case, the plaintiff has failed to discharge such burden.
19. In this regard it is also pertinent to note Order VI Rule 4 CPC which mandates that in all cases where the party relies on fraud, misrepresentation, breach of trust, undue influence, etc., the particulars must be stated with dates, facts, persons, and circumstances. In Bishundeo Narain Vs. Seogeni Rai, reported in AIR 1951 SC 280, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: "Now if there is one rule which is better established than any other, it is that in cases of fraud, undue influence and coercion, the parties pleading it must set forth full particulars and the case can only be decided on the particulars as laid". The Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that fraud is a serious allegation and cannot be inferred or established unless pleaded clearly and proved with cogent evidence. In Afsar 24 O.S.No.9226/2018 Sheikh vs. Soleman Bibi, reported in AIR 1976 SC 163, the Hon'ble Apex Court held: "While it is true that 'undue influence', `fraud', `misrepresentation' are cognate vices and may, in part, overlap in some cases, they are in law distinct categories, and are in view of Order 6, Rule 4, read with Order 6, R.2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, required to be separately pleaded, with specificity, particularity and precision". In the said case the Hon'ble Court has dismissed the claim of fraud on the ground that there was no specific pleading, and the attempt to introduce evidence without proper pleading was disallowed. In Trojan & Co. Ltd. v. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1953 SC 235, the Hon'ble Apex Court Held:"In the absence of pleadings, evidence if any produced by the parties cannot be considered." Even if a party leads some oral or documentary evidence, such evidence is irrelevant if the issue is not part of the pleadings. In Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College, (1987)2 SCC 555, the Hon'ble Apex Court held:
"In the absence of a specific pleading, the Court should not 25 O.S.No.9226/2018 grant relief on the basis of what may appear to be some evidence unless it has been clearly pleaded."
20. Therefore, on the basis of above findings and observations, this Court holds that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant No.1, by inducing her, playing fraud and misrepresentation on her under the guise of securing mortgage loan has obtained sale deed dated 03.07.2017. Therefore, this Court answers the Issue Nos. 1, 5 & 6 in the Negative.
21. Issue Nos. 2 & 3: As per the above observations made in respect of the above issues, it is observed that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant No.1 has obtained sale deed dated 03.07.2017 in respect of the suit schedule property by fraud and misrepresentations. Therefore, when the plaintiff fails to substantiate the same, the plaintiff cannot claim that she is lawful possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, though the plaintiff claims possession of the suit schedule property, in view of the above observations, her possession in not lawful and 26 O.S.No.9226/2018 therefore, she cannot seek the relief of permanent injunction as prayed by her. Further, when the plaintiff is not in lawful possession of the suit schedule property, the question of illegal interference by the defendant No.1 do not arise. Accordingly, this Court answers the Issue Nos. 2 & 3 in the Negative.
22. Issue No. 4: The defendant casually contended that the court fee paid by the plaintiff is not proper without assigning reasons and referring provision of law. The plaintiff has sought for the cancellation of Sale Deed dated 03.07.2017 and accordingly has paid the court fee of Rs.1,47,175/- as per Section 24(b) and Section 26 (c). The Court fee paid by the plaintiff in respect of the relief prayed in the plaint is proper and therefore, this Court answers the Issue No.4 in the Affirmative.
23. Issue No.7: In view of the above discussion and findings on the above issues, the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:-
27 O.S.No.9226/2018
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II directly on computer, computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court this the 13th day of June, 2025.).
(MADHU N.R) XXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
***** ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff :
P.W-1 Shanthamma List of witnesses examined for the defendants :
D.W-1 M.N.Nagaveni List of documents marked for the plaintiff :
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of sale deed dt. 03.07.2017 Ex.P.2 Certified copy of Deposit of Title Deeds dt.
03.07.2017 Exs.P.2(a),(b) Signatures of attesting witnesses Ex.P.3 Certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate Exs.P.4 & P.5 Certified copies of legal notices dt. 06.01.2018 Ex.P.6 Certified copy of unserved postal cover 28 O.S.No.9226/2018 Ex.P.7 Summons issued by Court of Small Causes in SC No.351/2018 Ex.P.8 Certified copy of deposition in SC No.351/2018 Ex.P.9 Certified copy of FIR Exs.P.10 & Copy of judgment and decree in SC No.351/2018 P.11 Ex.P.12 Certified copy of Bank Account Statement for the period from 08.08.2016 to 17.03.2017 List of documents marked for the defendants :
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of sale deed dt. 19.05.2006 Ex.D.2 Photo of Shanthamma in Ex.P.1 Ex.D.3 Certified copy of Discharge Deed dt. 10.07.2017 Ex.D.4 Photo of Shanthamma in one consent letter Ex.D.5 Discharge Deed dt. 11.07.2017 Ex.D.6 True copy of the letter issued by Hanumanthanagar Co-operaive Bank to Kaveri Grameena Bank dt. 23.06.2017 Ex.D.7 True copy of letter issued by Kaveri Grameena Bank to Hanumanthanagar Co-operative Bank dt. 27.06.2017 Ex.D.8 True copy of the letter issued by Kaveri Grameena Bank to Hanumanthanagar Co-operative Bank dt.03.07.2017 Ex.D.9 True copy of letter issued by Sub-Registrar, Rajajinagar to Hanumanthanagar Co-operative Bank dt. 03.07.2017.
Ex.D.10 Certified copy of sale deed dt. 03.07.2017 Ex.D.11 Certified copy of Memorandum relating to the deposit of Title Deed executed on 03.07.2017 Ex.D.12 Certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate for the period from 01.04.2017 to 13.01.2019 Ex.D.13 True copy of Bank Statement issued by Kaveri Grameena Bank for the period from 05.09.2013 to 31.10.2016 Ex.D.14 Certified copy of Statement of Account of defendant No.1 for the period from 06.09.2003 to 14.12.2004 Ex.D.15 Certified copy of the Consent Deed dt. 07.07.2017 (MADHU N.R) XXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
29 O.S.No.9226/2018**** 30 O.S.No.9226/2018