Bangalore District Court
Mr.Sunil Charles Fernandes vs M.C.Basavalinga Swamy on 24 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALURU.
(CCH74)
PRESENT:
Sri.Yamanappa Bammanagi, B.A., LL.B., (Spl.,)
LXXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Mayohall Unit, Bangaluru.
Dated this the 24th day of March 2021.
O.S. No.25473/2014
Plaintiff: Mr.Sunil Charles Fernandes,
S/o. Sebastian Fernandes,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.32, Old No.35,
2nd Main Road, K.R.Garden,
Murugeshpalya,
Bangalore560 017.
(By Sri.V.R.K. Advocates)
V/S
Defendants: 1. M.C.Basavalinga Swamy,
S/o. N.Chandrashekhariah,
Age: 38 years, r/at 100/1,
Annalsandra Palya,
Vimanapura Post,
Bangalore560 070.
2
O.S. No.25473/2014
2. Mr.Prakash V.S.,
Age: 38 years, r/at No.370/B,
Wind Tunnel Road, Murugeshpalya,
Bangalore560 017.
3. The Director, CMRS Group,
No.600, 1st Floor, Opp. M.K.Retail Shop,
C Block, AECS Layout Main Road,
Bangalore560 037.
4. Commissioner, BBMP,
N.R.Square, Bangalore.
(By Sri.K.Mohan, Adv for D1, D2,
Sri.B.M., Adv for D3,
Sri K.V.Mohan Kumar,Adv. for D4)
Date of Institution of the suit 19.03.2014
Nature of the (Suit or pronote,
suit for declaration and possession, INJUNCTION SUIT
suit for injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of
16.04.2016
recording of the Evidence.
Date on which the Judgment was
24.03.2021
pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 07 00 05
(Yamanappa Bammanagi)
73rd Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit,
Bengaluru. (CCH74)
3
O.S. No.25473/2014
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for Permanent Injunction, restraining the defendant No.1 to 3 and their henchmen, agent from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and restraining the defendants from damaging the foundation of residential building and direct the 4th defendant to demolish illegal construction put up by the defendant No.1 to 3.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case:
It is the specific case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered gift deed dated.20.09.2001, executed by Sri.Sebastian Fernandes. Thus the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as an absolute owner by paying tax, electricity charges.4
O.S. No.25473/2014 The defendant No.1 is the owner of the adjacent property No.33 and 34 and defendant No.2 is an agent of the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.3 is developer of the said land. Such being the fact the defendants started to excavation work for construction of residential building over property No.33 and 34 by damaging the plaintiff's residential house, when plaintiff asked for the same, the defendant promised to rectify it, but the defendants failed to rectify the same and started excavation work for construction and damaged the foundation of plaintiff's house. Hence, plaintiff has lodged the complaint with jurisdictional police. But police did not take any action against the defendant No.1 to 3.
Hence, the plaintiff is before this court for the reliefs sought in the plaint.3. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 and 3
have filed their separate written statements. The defendant 5 O.S. No.25473/2014 No.1 has denied the averment of para No.3 and 4 and admitted the averment of para 5 and 6 of the plaint. It is also not disputed that the defendant No.1 and 2 started construction work over the property No.33 and 34. But denied allegation made by the plaintiff that, the defendant started illegal construction and carrying out the work by damaging the said schedule property. Further denied that the plaintiff filed complaints before the police and BBMP.
Further the defendant No.1 denied the averment of plaint about the violation of rule in construction of building, damaging the plaintiff's property, threatening of the plaintiff.
The defendant No.1 contended that, he has started construction work as per the norms of BBMP, the defendant has taken care and precaution towards plaintiff's house foundation and his building. Further the defendants denied the averments of para 9 of the plaint. With this the defendant 6 O.S. No.25473/2014 No.1 contended that, there is no cause of action to file this suit and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
Further the defendant No.3 has filed his written statement stating that, para 3, 4 of the plaint is not in his knowledge, denied the illegal construction. The plaintiff is used to file false complaint against the defendants before the Authority with intention to harass the defendants. The defendants contended that, the construction work started in accordance with the norms of BBMP rules by taking all possible care towards damage of the plaintiff's property.
Thus, the defendant denied the allegation made against him, the plaintiff has filed this suit suppressing the true facts and liable to be dismissed. The defendant No.2 and 4, though appeared through counsel, but not filed written statement.
4. Initially this suit is filed before the CCH22, in view of the Notification No.ADMI(A)413/2018, dated 31.7.2018, 7 O.S. No.25473/2014 this case has been transferred to this court as per order dated 02.8.2018 from CCH22. And suit was called out in this court for the first time on 08.8.2018.
5. On basis of the pleadings of the parties, my learned Predecessor has framed the following: ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of this suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants No.1 to 3 are trying to damage the boundary of the suit schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant No.1 to 3 have constructed apartment on property No.3334 by violating the norms of the local body without leaving any set backs as per rules regulation of BBMP?8
O.S. No.25473/2014
4. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the alleged interference of defendants over the suit schedule property?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief's of Permanent Injunction and Mandatory Injunction as sought for in the plaint?
6. What order or decree?
6. In order to prove his case, plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 51 and P.W.1 was cross examined by the learned counsel for the defendants and plaintiff got examined PW2 and got marked Ex.P.50 and PW2 was crossexamined by the learned counsel for the defendant. The defendant No.1 is examined as DW1, was cross examined by the learned counsel for plaintiff. The defendant No.2 to 4 did not choose to lead any evidence. 9
O.S. No.25473/2014
7. After giving sufficient opportunity to learned counsel for plaintiff, case has been posted for the argument of the defendants side with liberty to file written argument of the plaintiff. Heard the argument of learned counsel for defendants.
8. I have perused oral and documentary evidence led by the plaintiff with facts stated in the pleadings and considered the material placed before the court. I have also considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the defendants No.1 to 3.
9. My answer to the above issues are as follows: Issue No.1: In the Affirmative, Issue No.2: In the Affirmative, Issue No.3: In the Affirmative, Issue No.4: In the Affirmative, Issue No.5: Partly in the Affirmative, Issue No.6: As per final order, for the following: 10 O.S. No.25473/2014 REASONS
10. ISSUE No.1: In order to prove his case, the plaintiff is examined as P.W.1, by filing affidavit in lieu of examination in chief, reiterating the plaint averments. P.W.1 deposed before the court that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit property by virtue of registered Gift deed. Such being the fact, the defendant No.1 being owner of the adjacent property No.33 and 34, have started construction over the property No.33 and 34 by damaging the foundation of the plaintiff's house and without leaving any setback. Thus, the defendants had interfered with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
11. In support of his case, the plaintiff produced as many as 51 documents, which have been marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.51. Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of gift deed 11 O.S. No.25473/2014 dated.20.09.2001, Ex.P.2 is the Electricity bill, Ex.P.3 is the copy of complaint given to Superintendent of Police, Bengaluru Metropolitan task force, BBMP, Ex.P.4 is the c opy of complaint given to Superintendent of Police, BMTF, BBMP, Ex.P.5 is the copy of complaint lodged before ADGP., BMTF, Ex.P.6 is the Khatha Certificate, Ex.P.7 is the Khatha Extract, Ex.P.8 is the copy of letter addressed to Chief Engineer, BBMP., Ex.P.9 is the copy of letter addressed to Asst. Director Town Planning, Bengaluru, Ex.P.10 is the copy of complaint given to Joint Commissioner, BBMP., Ex.P.11 is the copy of complaint given to Chief Commissioner, BBMP., Ex.P.12 is the copy of complaint given to Asst. Director Town Planning, Ex.P.13 is the copy of complaint to Joint Commissioner, BBMP, Ex.P.14 is the copy of complaint given to ADGP., BMTF., Ex.P.15 to 19 are the 5 Postal acknowledgments, Ex.P.20 to 28 are the nine Photos, Ex.P.29 to 31 are the 3 12 O.S. No.25473/2014 CD's, Ex.P.32 is the copy of complaint given to officer of Directorate, General of Civil Aviation, New Delhi, Ex.P.33 is the Postal acknowledgment, Ex.P.34 is the copy of Legal Notice, Ex.P.35 to 40 are the 6 Postal acknowledgments, Ex.P.41 and 42 are the 2 Photos, Ex.P.43 is the C.D., Ex.P.44 is the particulars furnished by Public Relation officer, BBMP to plaintiff, Ex.P.45 and 46 are the 2 Police Notices, Ex.P.47 is the Report of BBMP submitted to PSI, BMTF P.S. along with true copies of photos, Ex.P.48 is the True copy of Statement of Defendant No.1, Ex.P.49 is the True copy of statement of Channarangaswamy, Ex.P.50 is the PW'2 opinion dt.24.01.2014 with affidavit, Ex.P.51 is the Photos.
12. I have perused the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties, it is seen that the plaintiff has established his possession over the suit schedule property at the time of filing of the suit. Further on careful perusal of the 13 O.S. No.25473/2014 material placed before the court and written statement it is clear that, the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property is not in dispute. Now it is relevant to extract para4 of written statement of defendant No.1, which reads thus:
"4. The averments in para 5 of the plaint that since from the execution of the gift deed the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and documents in the name of plaintiff and plaintiff had constructed a residential building over the same and started residing with his family from 2005 without any interference from anybody may be."
Hence, on perusal of the Ex.P.1, and undisputed facts as extracted supra and revenue documents, I am of the opinion that, the plaintiff has proved his possession over the suit 14 O.S. No.25473/2014 schedule property. Hence, I answer this issue in the Affirmative.
13. Issue No.2 to 4: These three issues are interconnected to each other, in order to avoid repetition, I proposed to answer these three issues commonly. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that, defendant No.1 is the adjacent owner of the property bearing No.33 and 34 and defendant No.2 is agent and defendant No.3 is the developer. It is also not in dispute that, the defendant has taken construction over his property No.33 and 34 as it could be seen from para5 of written statement of defendant No.1, which reads thus:
"5. The averments in para 6 of the plaint that the defendant No.1 is owner of the adjacent property bearing Nos.33 and 34 is hereby admitted. The further averments 15 O.S. No.25473/2014 that defendant No.2 is an agent of the 1st defendant is hereby denied and in fact he is a friend of this defendant. The further averments that defendant No.3 is the developer of the said land is hereby admitted."
Now it is relevant to appreciate the document produced by the plaintiff. Ex.P.51 photos of disputed fact. It is clearly shows that, the defendants have damaged the foundation of plaintiff's house. Without any taking precautionary steps for further damage or danger to the house of the plaintiff. Further the plaintiff has produced complaint copy lodged before the concerned police authority for interference of the defendants in the possession of the suit schedule property and damage to the suit schedule property. Hence, on perusal of the documents it is clear that, the plaintiff has proved the interference and damage to the boundaries of plaintiff's 16 O.S. No.25473/2014 house. Further it is proved that the defendants have caused damage to the foundation of plaintiff's house.
14. It is specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 has started construction work without following local laws. Further plaintiff deposed before the court that without leaving set backs the defendant had damaged the foundation of the plaintiff's house. In support of this contention the plaintiff has produced Ex.P.20 to 31. Ex.P.20 is the order passed by the defendant No.4 u/S 321 (2) of KMC Act, 1976, against the defendant No.1. Ex.P.21 is temporary order passed by the defendant No.4 u/S 321 (1) of the KMC Act, 1976, against the present defendant No.1, Ex.P.22 is the photo, which reflects the affixture and notice issued by the defendant No.4 to the defendant No.1 and affixed on construction of apartment, constructed by the defendant No.1.
17
O.S. No.25473/2014 On perusal of the Ex.P.20, 21, 22 & 23, it clearly shows that during the pendency of the suit the defendant No.4 has initiated action against the defendant No.1 for violating the sanctioned plan. The relevant portion of Ex.P.20, the order of defendant No.4 u/S 321 (2) of KMC Act, dated 29.3.2014, which reads thus:
"ಈ ಆದದದಶದ ಅನನಗನಣವವಗ ನದವವ ಸಮಜವಯಸ ಕದಕಟನಟ ಅಥವವ ಉಲಲಲಘನದಗಳನನನ ಸರಪಡಸ ವರದ ಮವಡನವ ತನಕ ಮದಲದ ನಮಕದಸದ ಕವನಕನನ ಬವಹರವವಗ ಕಟಟರನವ ಕಟಟಡದ ಕದಲಸವನನನ ಈ ಆದದದಶ ಜವರಯವದ ತಕಣದಲದಲದದ ಸಸಗತಗದಕಳಸಬದದಕದಲದನ ಕನವರಟಕ ನಗರ ಪವಲಕದಗಳ ಅಧನಯಮ 1976 ರ ವಧ 321 (1) ರನನಯ ಈ ಮಕಲಕ ಆದದದಶಸರನತದತದನದ.
ಕನವರಟಕ ನಗರ ಪವಲಕದಗಳ
ಅಧನಯಮ 1976 ರ ವಧ 321 (2) ರನನಯ
ಹದಕರಡಸರನವ ಈ ನಯಮವನನನ
ಉಲಲಲಫಫಸದಲಲ ಈ ಆದದದಶವನನನ
ಜವರಗದಕಳಸಲನ ಸದರ ಅಧನಯಮದ ವಧ
18
O.S. No.25473/2014
321 (3), 462 ರಲತದ ಹವಗಕ ಇತರದ
ಕನಕನನ ಅಲಶಗಳಲತದ ನಮಮ ವರನದದ ಕಕವವ
ಕದಕಗಕಳಳಲವಗನವವದನ ಎಲದನ ಈ ಮಕಲಕ
ತಳಯಪಡಸದದ ಹವಗಕ ಈ ಬಗದಗ
ಕದಕಗದಕಳಳಲವಗನವ ಯವವವದದದ ಜವರ ಕಕಮಗಳ
ವದಚಚವನನನ ಭರಸಲನ ಸದರ ಕವನಕನನ ವಧ
463 ರಲತದ ನದವದದ ಜವವಬವಬರರವಗನತತದರದಲದನ ಹವಗಕ ನಮಮಲದ ಸದರ ಖಚನರಗಳನನನ ವಸಕಲನ ಮವಡಲವಗನವವದದಲದನ ಈ ಮಕಲಕ ತಳಯಪಡಸದದ."
15. It is also relevant to appreciate Ex.P.22 to P.31, which are photos of the construction belongs to defendant No.1. I have perused carefully Ex.P.22 to P.31 it is clearly established that defendant No.1 to 3 have constructed apartment on property No.33 and 34 by violating the rules and regulations of BBMP and by violating the sanction plan. Ex.P.34 is the legal notice dated 3.11.2015, issued by the plaintiff through advocate to BBMP, BESCOM and BWSSB of Bangaluru.
19
O.S. No.25473/2014
16. Ex.P.45 is the notice issued by the Police Sub Inspector, BMTF Police Station, Bangaluru, to the defendant No.4 to submit the report about the damage caused by the defendant No.1 to the foundation of plaintiff's house as the plaintiff has lodged the complaint before the concerned police authority. Ex.P.47 is the reply submitted by the BBMP to the concerned police station after spot investigation. The relevant portion of Ex.P.47, which reads thus:
"ಅದರಲತದ ಸಸಳ ಪರಶದಲನದ
ಮವಡಲವಗ, ದನವಲಕಕ 31052013
ಶನಕಕವವರದಲದನ ಬದಬ ಭವರ ಮಳದಯಲದವಗ
ಕಟಟಡ ನಮವರಣ ಮವಡನತತರನವ ನವದದಶನದಲಲ
ನದರನ ತನಲಬದಬ ಪರಣವಮವವಗ ಈ
ತದಕಲದರದಯನಲಟವಗದನಬ ತಕಣ ನವದದಶನದ
ಮವಲದಕರಗದ ತಳಸ ಕಟಟಡದ ಪಕಕದಲಲ ಮಣಣನನನ
ತನಲಬಸ ದಕರನದವರರ ಕಟಟಡಕದಕ ಯವವವದದದ
ತದಕಲದರದಯವಗದಲತದ ರಕಣದ ಮವಡಲವಗದದ
ಹವಗಕ ಇದರ ಛವಯವಚತಕಗಳನನನ
ಇದರದಕಲದಗದ ಲಗತತಸ ವರದಯನನನ ಈ ಮಕಲಕ
ತಮಮ ಅವಗವಹನದಗದ ಸಲಲಸದದ."
20
O.S. No.25473/2014
17. Ex.P.47 clearly establishes, as extracted supra, that the defendant No.1 has violated the rules and regulations of BBMP. Ex.P.48 is the statement given by the defendant No.1 before the police authority under which the defendant No.1 has clearly admitted and undertaken that he will remove the obstruction and he will put up the protection wall towards the house belongs to plaintiff. Ex.P.49 is a statement made by Sri.Chennarangaswamy, S/o.Rangaiah, who has stated about the violation of BBMP rules and damages caused by the defendant No.1 to the foundation of plaintiff's house.
18. Ex.P.50 is the letter issued by the P.W.2 showing the damage caused to the building belongs to plaintiff and loss caused to the plaintiff due to damage to the buildings belongs to plaintiff. It is also clear from the Ex.P.50 that the defendant No.1 has digged foundation 8 ft. depth touching the foundation of plaintiff's house and due to rain the rain 21 O.S. No.25473/2014 water stored in the foundation digged by the defendant No.1 which caused damage to the house belongs to plaintiff.
19. Ex.P.51 is photo marked during the cross examination of D.W.1, on his admission of the view reflects in Ex.P.51 Photo. Ex.P.51 clearly establishes that the defendant No.1 has digged for construction touching the foundation of plaintiff's house, which reflects more than 8 ft. depth. These documents clearly establishes the damage caused to the foundation of plaintiff's house.
20. When it is proved by the plaintiff that, defendants have damaged the foundation of house of the plaintiff, then it is clear that, the defendants have violated the rules and regulation of local laws in constructing the house and defendants have not produced any documents to show that, they have obtained sanction plan from the competent authority and constructed house in accordance with sanction 22 O.S. No.25473/2014 plan. Thus, there is no material before the court to disbelieve the evidence of plaintiff.
21. Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.43 clearly establishes the act of interference of the defendants in the possession of plaintiff. It is also clear from Ex.P.51 that, the defendants have damaged the foundation of house belongs to plaintiff, which is situated adjacent to the defendants house. Further the defendants have not produced to show that they have got interest over the property which shown in Ex.P.51. This clearly establishes that, the defendants have interfered in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
22. On perusal of the Ex.P.20 to 23 it is clearly established that due to violation of rules and regulations of BBMP by the defendant No.1, the BBMP authority has inspected the spot and passed the order against the defendant No.1. Thus, the oral and documentary evidence as extracted 23 O.S. No.25473/2014 supra clearly establishes that defendant No.1 to 3 have violated the rules and regulations of the BBMP in constructing the apartment over the land bearing No.33 and 34 and which caused interference in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. When plaintiff proves the act of defendants from which the intention of the defendants can be inferred that the defendants have interfered in the possession of the suit schedule property, under such circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled for equitable relief of permanent injunction. In support of my opinion I relied on the decision reported in ILR 1978 Page 1560 in case of Gopal.M.Hegde and others and U.F.M.Narasimha Ganap Bhat and others. The lordships have held in the decision thus:
"When the plaintiff proves the intention of the defendants to do an act or existence of the act, if 24 O.S. No.25473/2014 completed, gives ground for action and there is a foundation for exercise of jurisdiction."
Thus, the plaintiff has proved issue No.3 and 4 by producing cogent evidence. Hence, I answer issue No.2 to 4 in the Affirmative.
23. Issue No.5: When the plaintiff established his possession and interference, then under such circumstances the plaintiff is entitle for the relief of injunction as per guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033 in case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Others.
The lordship have held in the decision thus:
"13. The general principles as to when a mere suit for permanent injunction will lie, and when it is necessary to file a suit for 25 O.S. No.25473/2014 declaration and/or possession with injunction as a consequential relief, are well settled. We may refer to them briefly.
13.1. Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.
13.2. Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession, his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary, an injunction. A person out of 26 O.S. No.25473/2014 possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession.
13.3. Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of the plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.
Where Plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the Defendant a suit 27 O.S. No.25473/2014 for an injunction simpliciter will lie."
Considering the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties and relying on the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision referred supra this court is of opinion that, plaintiff is entitle for the equitable relief of permanent injunction against the defendants No.1 to 3.
24. The plaintiff sought for the direction against the defendant No.4 to demolish the illegal construction done by the defendants No.1 to 3. I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that the plaintiff has not pleaded in the plaint the extent of illegal construction and portion of which that illegal construction has to be demolished. In the absence of the extent and measurement of portion of which the defendant No.4 has to be directed to demolish the said portion, the order of direction in the nature 28 O.S. No.25473/2014 of mandatory injunction cannot be given. That apart, Ex.P.20, 21 & 23 clearly establishes that the defendant No.4 has already initiated action u/S 321 (1) to (3) of KMC Act and necessary order has been already passed by the defendant No.4 during the pendency of this suit. Under such circumstances, direction to the defendant No.4 to demolish the alleged illegal construction said to have been put up by the defendants No.1 to 3 cannot be issued and plaintiff is not entitled for any direction to the defendant No.4 directing the defendant No.4 to demolish the portion of construction without proof of portion in respect of which plaintiff sought for demolition. Thus, the suit against defendant No.4 is not sustainable. With this observation and reasons assigned, I answer this issue Partly in the Affirmative.
25. Issue No.6: In view of the findings on issue No. 1 to 5, I proceed to pass the following: 29 O.S. No.25473/2014 ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed.
Consequently, the defendant No.1 to 3 are hereby restrained from interfering in the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
Further defendant No.1 to 3
are hereby restrained from damaging the foundation and residential building of plaintiff.
Suit against defendant No.4 is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer system, computerized by her, after online correction by me, 30 O.S. No.25473/2014 printout taken by her and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of March, 2021).
(Yamanappa Bammanagi) 73rd Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit, Bengaluru. (CCH74) SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the property bearing New No.32, Old Site No.35, and Katha No.504 of H.A.Sanitary Board, Bangalore, and now comes under the jurisdiction of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore, situated at Sy.Nos.38 & 39 of Konena Agrahara village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and measuring East to West 40 feet (approximately 12.19 meters) on the Northern side and 41 feet (approximately 12.50 meters) on the Southern side and North to South 38 feet (approximately 11.58 meters) on the Eastern side and 47 feet (approximately 14.33 meters) on the Western side, and bounded on the:
East by: 25 feet wide road;
West by: Site No.34;
North by: Site No.36 and 31 O.S. No.25473/2014 South by: 20 feet wide road.
ANNEXURES List of witness examined for the plaintiff's side:
P.W.1 Sunil Charles Fernandes P.W.2 K.R.Sundaresan
List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff's side:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of gift deed Ex.P.2 Electricity Bill Ex.P.3 Copy of complaint given to SP Bengaluru Metropolitan task force, BBMP Ex.P.4 Copy of complaint given to SP., BMTF, BBMP Ex.P.5 Copy of complaint lodged before ADGP Ex.P.6 Khatha Certificate Ex.P.7 Khatha Extract Ex.P.8 Copy of letter addressed to Chief Engineer, BBMP., Ex.P.9 Copy of letter addressed Asst. Director Town Planning, Bengaluru. Ex.P.10 Copy of complaint given to Joint Commissioner, BBMP., Ex.P.11 Copy of complaint given to Chief Commissioner, BBMP., Ex.P.12 Copy of complaint given to Asst. Director Town Planning Ex.P.13 Copy of complaint to Joint Commissioner, BBMP Ex.P.14 Copy of complaint given to ADGP., BMTF., Ex.P.15 to 19 5 Postal acknowledgments 32 O.S. No.25473/2014 Ex.P.20 to 28 9 Photos Ex.P.29 to 31 3 CD's Ex.P.32 Copy of complaint given to officer of Directorate, General of Civil Aviation, New Delhi Ex.P.33 Postal acknowledgment Ex.P.34 Copy of Legal Notice Ex.P.35 to 40 6 Postal acknowledgments Ex.P.41, 42 2 Photos Ex.P.43 C.D. Ex.P.44 Particulars furnished by Public Relation officer, BBMP to plaintiff Ex.P.45, 46 2 Police Notices Ex.P.47 Report of BBMP submitted to PSI, BMTF P.S. along with true copies of photos Ex.P.48 True copy of Statement of Defendant No.1 Ex.P.49 True copy of statement of Channarangaswamy Ex.P.50 PW'2 opinion dt.24.01.2014 with affidavit Ex.P.51 Photos List of witness examined for the defendants' side:
DW.1 M.C.Basavalinga Swamy List of documents exhibited for the defendants' side:
Ex.D.1 to 3 Photos
Ex.D.4 Photos
(Yamanappa Bammanagi)
73rd Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit,
Bangaluru. (CCH74)
33
O.S. No.25473/2014
34
O.S. No.25473/2014
Judgment not ready. For judgment, call on 09.03.2021.
LXXIII A.C.C.J & S.J, B'luru (CCH74) Judgment not ready. For judgment, call on 24.03.2021.
LXXIII A.C.C.J & S.J, B'luru (CCH74) 35 O.S. No.25473/2014 Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate judgment).
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed.
Consequently, the defendant No.1 to 3 are hereby restrained from interfering in the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.Further defendant No.1 to 3
are hereby restrained from damaging the foundation and
residential building of plaintiff.
Suit against defendant No.4 is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Yamanappa Bammanagi) 73rd Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit, Bangaluru. (CCH74) 1 O.S. No.25473/2014 2 O.S. No.25473/2014