Bangalore District Court
Sri. R.B. Ravi vs Sri. R. Jagadeesh Kumar on 21 December, 2020
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for Judgment
in suit
(R.P. 91)
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT,
BENGALURU, (CCH73)
Present:
Sri.AbdulRahiman. A. Nandgadi,
B.Com, LL.B., (Spl.,)
LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2020.
O.S.No.26373/2014
Plaintiffs: 1. Sri. R.B. Ravi,
S/o. Late R. Basavaraj,
Aged about 53 years
2. Ms. Umadevi,
D/o Late R. Basavaraj,
Hindu, aged about 51 years,
Both are residing at No.68,
4th Cross, Annamma Temple Extension,
Ramakrishnapuram,
Bangalore560019.
[By Sri. Shiva Shankar G. - Advocate for
Plaintiff]
2 O.S.No.26373/2014
V/s
Defendants: 1. Sri. R. Jagadeesh Kumar,
S/o. K.R. Raghunathan,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.432, Second Cross,
Second 'A' Main, Third stage, Third Block,
Basavshwaranagar, Bangalore560079.
2. Sri. Shivashankar,
S/o Late K. Ramaswamy,
Aged about 42 yeas,
R/at No.16/2, 4th Cross,
Annamma Temple Extension,
Bengaluru560 009.
3. The Commissioner,
BBMP, NR Square,
Bengaluru560 002.
4. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
BBMP Ward No.94,
Gandhingar, Bengaluru.
[By Sri. Arun K.S. Adv. For 1)
(By Sri. R. SubramaniAdv. For D2)
(By Sri. M.G.VishwanathAdv.for D3 & D4)
3 O.S.No.26373/2014
Date of Institution of the suit 16.09.2014
Nature of the (Suit or pronote, suit
for declaration and possession, Injunction Suit
suit for injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of 12.07.2019
recording of the Evidence.
Date on which the Judgment was 21.12.2020
pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 06 03 05
LXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
Mayohall Unit: Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants for the relief of Permanent Injunction, inrespect of Suit Schedule AProperty; for the relief of cancellation of the sanctioned plan and license dtd.24.04.2014, issued infavour of Defendant No.1 inrespect of B Schedule property; and to direct the 3 rd and 4th Defendant to stop and demolish the illegal 4 O.S.No.26373/2014 constructions takenup by the Defendant Nos.1 and
2.
2. Facts of the Plaintiff case are as under:
It is the case of the Plaintiffs that, they are the coowners of the property bearing New Municipal No.17, (Old No.84), shown as the Suit Schedule A Property, which measures East to West : 23feet and North to South: 48feet, as they have acquired the same by way of inheritance. Katha of the said property stands in their name.
The Defendant No.1 claims to have acquired property bearing No.16/3, which is shown as the Suit Schedule BProperty, adjoining to Suit Schedule AProperty.
The Defendant No.2 claims to have acquired property bearing No.16/2, which is Suit Schedule C Property.
On 24.06.2014, at about 10 A.M. the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 came with their workers and started digging pits below the foundation of the property of the Plaintiffs, by encroaching the setback measuring 5 O.S.No.26373/2014 2feet X 48feet left by the Plaintiffs, the said illegal acts of the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were resisted by the Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs have filed petition before the 3 rd Defendant U/Sec. 115, 117 and 309 of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. The same was referred to the 4th Defendant, wherein 4th Defendant had issued a notice to the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and has stopped the constructional works, takenup by them.
It is contended that, the property claimed by the Defendant No.1 under the Gift Deed, speaks the measurements of the said property, as East to West :
10 ½ feet and North to South: 48feet. Mother of the Defendant No.1 namely Savithri has gifted property measuring 10 ½ feet East to West and 24feet North to South. Northwestern portion belonging to the Defendant No.2 is also included and the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are carrying out constructional work, by blocking the facility of enjoying air and light by the Plaintiffs and without leaving any setback.6 O.S.No.26373/2014
Inspite of objections, the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are putting up the constructional work in contravention of the sanctioned plan.
Thus, prayed to issue an order of Injunction against the Defendant Nos.1 and 2.
The Plaintiffs have got amended their Suit Plaint by incorporating the Para No.6(A) wherein they contend that, subsequent to the filing of this suit, they came to know about the Sale Deed dtd.19.05.2011, executed infavour of the Defendant No.1, inrespect of the Suit Schedule BProperty, wherein the measurements of the said property is shown as East to West:12 ½feet and North to South:51feet. The said measurements shown in the Sale Deed is contrary to the measurements shown in the Gift Deed dtd.17.05.2003, executed by the father of the Defendant No.1 infavour of the Defendant No.1. The father of the Defendant No.1 who had executed the Gift Deed has not signed even as a witness in the said Sale Deed. The measurements in the Sale Deed is enhanced only to mislead the 7 O.S.No.26373/2014 BBMP Authorities and to obtain the construction plan by playing fraud and on misrepresentation.
Thus, prays to cancel the sanctioned plan and license dtd.24.04.2014, issued infavour of Defendant No.1 and to direct the Defendant Nos.3 and 4 to stop and demolish the illegal construction takenup by the Defendant Nos.1 and 2.
3. Suit summons were issued to the Defendants. All the Defendants have put in their appearance on 07.10.2014. The Written Statement of the Defendant No.1, 3 and 4 is taken as 'Not Filed' on 28.11.2014.
The Defendant No.2 has filed his Written Statement on 28.11.2014. The Defendant No 2 did not dispute the averments of Para Nos.1 and 2 of the Suit Plaint and pleads his ignorance inrespect of contention of the Plaintiffs takenupin Para No.3 of the Suit Plaint. He denies the allegations made by the Plaintiffs in Para No.4 of the Suit Plaint and contends that, the Plaintiffs had come near the Suit Schedule Property on 24.06.2014 at about 10 A.M. 8 O.S.No.26373/2014 with his workers and started digging pits below the foundation of the building. Other contentions takenup by the Plaintiffs is denied by him. Further contends that the cause of action pleaded by the Plaintiffs is incorrect and hence prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
4. On the basis of the above said pleadings, my Learned predecessor in office, has framed the following issues on 08.03.2016 as under:
ISSUES
1. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that, they are in lawful Partition and Separate Possession of the Suit Schedule Property, as on the date of the suit?
2. Whether the Plaintiffs prove the alleged interference of the Defendants?
3. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that, they are entitled for Permanent Injunction against the Defendants, as prayed for?
4. What order or decree?9 O.S.No.26373/2014
5. On having amended the Suit Plaint this Court has framed two additional issues on
05.04.2019 as under:
ADDITIONAL ISSUES FRAMED ON 05.04.2019
1. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that, the Defendant No.1 with a malafide intention to knock off the setback left by them has got created the Sale Deed dtd.19.05.2013, as contended by them, in Para No.6A of the amended Suit Plaint?
2. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of cancellation of sanction plan and license dtd.24.04.2014 issued infavour of Defendant No.1 inrespect of the Suit Schedule BProperty, as claimed by them?
6. The Plaintiffs inorder to prove their case, got examined Plaintiff No.1, as PW1 and got marked 30documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.30.
10 O.S.No.26373/2014Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have failed to cross examine PW.1 and hence crossexamination of PW.1 by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 is taken as 'No Cross' on 10.12.2019. PW1 was cross examined on behalf of the Defendant Nos.3 and 4 on 10.12.2019.
None of the Defendants have led their evidence.
7. The suit was initially allotted to CCH21. The said matter was transferred to this Court on 03.09.2018 by virtue of a notification No ADMI(A) 413/2018 dated 31.07.2018 of the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
8. Heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.3 and
4. Inspite of affording sufficient opportunity, Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have failed to advance their Arguments. Hence, Arguments of Defendant Nos.1 and 2 is taken as 'Not Addressed' on 15.12.2020. However, an opportunity was given to the Defendant 11 O.S.No.26373/2014 Nos.1 and 2 to file their Written Arguments on or before 18.12.2020, but even they have failed to file their Written Arguments. The Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs has filed Written Arguments on behalf of the Plaintiffs. I have carefully gone through the Written Arguments filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs.
9. My findings on the above said issues are as under:
Issue No 1 : In the Negative;
Issue No 2 : In the Negative;
Issue No 3 : In the Negative;
Additional Issue No.1 : In the Negative;
Additional Issue No.2 : In the Negative;
Issue No 4 : As per final order for
the following
:R E A S O N S:
10. ISSUE NO.1:
The Plaintiffs contend that they are the owners of the Suit Schedule A Property, as they have acquired the title over the said property, by way of inheritance and they are in Possession of the same.
12 O.S.No.26373/201411. The Plaintiffs have produced, certified copy of the Appeal Memo in Appeal No.841/2014 at Ex.P.1; Order passed U/Sec. 321(3) of the K.M.C. Act at Ex.P.2; certified copy of the interim application at I.A. filed in Appeal No.841/2014 at Ex.P.3; Notice issued U/Sec. 321(1) of KMC Act at Ex.P.4; Notice cum order issued U/Sec. 321(2) of KMC Act at Ex.P.5; certified copy of the application filed by the Plaintiffs to get themselves impleaded as Respondents in Appeal No.841/2014 at Ex.P.6; certified copy of the application filed by the Defendant No.2 to get himself impleaded as the Respondent in Appeal No.841/2014 at Ex.P.7; certified copy of Ordersheet in Appeal No.841/2014 at Ex.P.8; certified copy of the Gift Deed dtd.25.05.2001 executed by the father of the Defendant No.1, infavour of the Defendant No.1 at Ex.P.9; certified copy of the Gift Deed dtd.25.02.2012 executed by the mother of the Defendant No.1infavour of the Defendant No.1 at Ex.P.10; Sale Deed dtd.19.05.2011 at Ex.P.11; and 16positive 13 O.S.No.26373/2014 photographs with three CDs. Respectively marked as Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.30. None of this documents speak about, as to how and from which point of time, the Plaintiffs are in Possession of the Suit Schedule Property.
The documents produced by the Plaintiffs at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7, pertains to the litigation before the Appellate Tribunal on the basis of the order passed under Ex.P.2.
The documents produced by the Plaintiffs at Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.11 do not pertain to the Suit Schedule Aproperty.
The Plaintiffs have not produced any documents insupport of their contention, to contend that they are in Possession of the Suit Schedule A Property. The Plaintiffs have also not produced any documents withregard to the Suit Schedule A Property to contend that they have inherited the said property from their father.
12. The Plaintiffs have led the oral evidence, by examining Plaintiff No.1 as PW.1. Defendant 14 O.S.No.26373/2014 Nos.1 and 2 have failed to cross examine PW.1. Though the ocular evidence of the Plaintiffs is not challenged, but it is for the Plaintiffs to prove the fact of their Possession over the Suit Schedule AProperty by cogent and believable evidence. When the Plaintiffs have contended that they are in Possession of the Suit Schedule AProperty, then burden to prove the said fact lies on them, as per Sec.101 of Indian Evidence Act. If the Plaintiffs have failed to prove the said fact of their Possession, over the Suit Schedule AProperty, then as per Sec. 102 of Indian Evidence Act, they will fail, if no evidence is given to substantiate their plea.
13. The Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs would contend that, the Plaintiffs have led their ocular evidence, but it has remained unchallenged, so the suit of the Plaintiffs is required to be decreed, for the relief of Permanent Injunction .
As per the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in the case of Gopala Reddy (Deceased) by Lrs., V/s Suryanarayana & 15 O.S.No.26373/2014 Others, reported in 2004 (1) KCCR 662; wherein it is held that;
"Whenever a party approached the Court for the relief based on pleadings and issues, he has to prove his case. A suit has to be decided based on merits and demerits of the party, who approaches the Court. Weakness of the Defendant cannot be considered as the trump card for the Plaintiff."
Thus, the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that, they are in Possession of the Suit Schedule A Property, as on the date of the filing of the suit. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the Negative.
14. ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO 1:
The Plaintiffs by getting amended the Suit Plaint on incorporating Para No.6(A) would contend that, the Defendant No.1 has got created the Sale Deed dtd.19.05.2013, with a malafide intention to knockoff the setback, left by them.
The Plaintiffs have not produced any documentary evidence to show that they are the owners in Possession of Suit Schedule AProperty 16 O.S.No.26373/2014 and the said property measures East to West: 23 feet and North to South: 48feet.
So also the Plaintiffs have not produced any cogent evidence to show that they have left the setback towards the easternside of their property, inotherwords, to show the existence of the setback measuring 2feet X 48feet, towards the easternside of Suit Schedule AProperty and towards the westernside of the property of the Defendant Nos.1 and 2.
In the absence of this material evidence, it is hard to believe the existence of the setback, measuring 2feet X 48feet, said to have been left by the Plaintiffs.
15. Secondly, the Plaintiffs have produced the certified copy of the Gift Deed dtd.25.05.2001, at Ex.P.9, wherein the father of the Defendant No.1 has gifted a portion of the old property bearing No.16, measuring 10 ½ feet X 48feet, to the Defendant No.1.
17 O.S.No.26373/2014So also, the Plaintiffs have produced the certified copy of the Gift Deed dtd.25.02.2012, at Ex.P.10, wherein the mother of the Defendant No.1 has gifted a portion of the old property No.16, measuring 10feet X 24feet, to the Defendant No.1.
As well as the Plaintiffs have produced the certified copy of the Sale Deed dtd.19.05.2011 at Ex.P.11, wherein it is seen that, the Defendant No.1 has purchased a portion of the old property No.16, measuring 12 ½ feet X 49feet.
16. Though, the Plaintiffs have produced the documents at Ex.P.9 to Ex.P.11, those documents cannot be appreciated in the absence of any documentary evidence, to show the measurements of the property of the Plaintiffs i.e., Suit Schedule A Property. In the absence of proof of the measurements of the Suit Schedule AProperty, it is very hard to appreciate the contentions takenup by the Plaintiffs in the Suit Plaint, contending that either they have left the setback measuring 2feet X 48feet 18 O.S.No.26373/2014 or there exists a setback measuring 2feet X 48feet towards the east of the Suit Schedule AProperty.
17. When the Plaintiffs have failed to prove either the existence of the setback or leaving up of the setback by them, then it is hard to believe that the Defendant No.1 is trying to knockoff it, by getting executed the Sale Deed dtd.19.05.2013, produced by the Plaintiffs at Ex.P.11. Thus, Plaintiffs have failed to prove that, Defendant No.1 has got created the Sale Deed dtd.19.05.2013, inorder to knockoff the setback, said to have been left by them.
Hence, I am constrained to answer Additional Issue No1 in the Negative.
18. ADDITIONAL ISSUE NO.2:
The Plaintiffs have contended that, the Defendant No.1 has obtained sanctioned plan and license dtd.24.04.2014, by playing fraud upon the Defendant Nos.3 and 4, on the basis of the Sale Deed dtd.19.05.2011, wherein the measurements of 19 O.S.No.26373/2014 the Suit Schedule BProperty is shown as East to West: 12 ½ feet and North to South: 51feet, wherein there is an excess of 2feet East to West, on the basis of which the Defendant No.1 is encroaching upon the property of the Plaintiffs.
As discussed supra, the Plaintiffs have not produced any documents to show that, a) Suit Schedule AProperty measures East to West: 23feet and North to South : 48feet; b) existence of setback measuring 2feet X 48feet towards the easternside of scheduleA property; c) said setback measuring 2 feet X 48feet, is located inbetween the Suit Schedule A and Suit Schedule B Properties; d) that the Plaintiffs have left the said setback 2feet X 48feet.
19. The Plaintiffs have produced the notice issued U/Sec. 321(1) and 321(2) of KMC Act, to the Defendant No.1at Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5, respectively and pursuant to the said notices, an order U/Sec. 321(3) of KMC Act, is passed as per Ex.P.2. The said order was challenged by the Defendant No.1 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal 20 O.S.No.26373/2014 No.841/2014, as per Ex.P.1. And the said appeal is dismissed for default on 16.12.2015, as can be seen as per the Ordersheet in Appeal No.841/2014at Ex.P.8. As per these documents, it can be said that, the Order passed by the Authoritiesthe Defendant Nos.3 and 4 U/Sec. 321(3) of KMC Act, which was challenged by preferring an Appeal, the said Appeal came to be dismissed.
It is needless to mention that, the Defendant Nos.3 and 4 are absolutely having no reason for putting an end to the law, to taking its course. Admittedly, Defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the Authorities created under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, and they are governed by the provisions of the said Act, they have to follow the procedure, as prescribed, under it. So it is for them to take necessary steps, as per Law.
In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in the case of H.D.Ramesh V/s The Commissioner, BBMP, Bengaluru & Another, reported in 2017 (1) Kar.L.J. 437; is 21 O.S.No.26373/2014 pleased Temporary Injunction observe at Para No.12 is observed as under;
"12. Having perused the impugned orders as quoted above, this Court is of the considered opinion that, there is absolutely no reason, while the impugned orders of demolition of the property in question do not deserves to be carried out. A due process of law as already taken place in the present case and with no sustainable objection ever raised by the Petitioner against the impugned orders, there is absolutely no reason for putting an end to the law to taking its course".
20. Such being the case, when the Defendant Nos.3 and 4 have passed an Order U/Sec. 321(3) of the KMC Act, it is needless to cancel the sanctioned plan and license dtd.24.04.2014, infavour of the Defendant No1, inrespect of Suit Schedule B Property.
Hence, for the above said reasons, I am constrained to answer Additional Issue No.2 in the Negative.
22 O.S.No.26373/201421. ISSUE NO.2:
It is the specific contention of the Plaintiffs that, initially the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have tried to encroached over the setback portion of their property and subsequently, they have completed the act of the encroachment. Though the Defendant No.1 has not filed his Written Statement, but it is for the Plaintiffs to prove the said facts by producing the cogent evidence and to show that, the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are causing interference over the setback portion measuring 2feet X 48feet, located towards the easternside of Suit Schedule AProperty.
The Plaintiffs have totally failed to prove the said interference, as alleged by them in the Suit Plaint, for which they have claimed the relief of Permanent Injunction and also sought for mandatory Injunction. It appears that the cause of action, pleaded by the Plaintiffs, is an illusory cause of action. Hence, in the absence of any proof of interference, apprehension leading to injury to the Plaintiffs, it cannot be said that Plaintiffs have proved the interference, said to have been caused by 23 O.S.No.26373/2014 the Defendant Nos.1 and 2, as required by law. Since the act to be apprehended by the Plaintiffs and intended by the Defendant Nos.1 and 2, must be such that, if completed, give a ground for action. There must be a foundation for the exercise of jurisdiction. Hence, I am of the firm opinion that Plaintiffs have failed to prove that, there exist a prospect or apprehension and belief, coupled with intention of the Defendant Nos.1 and 2, sought to be exhibited, if completed, will give rise to a cause of inflicting injury or receiving injury, to the Plaintiffs. Hence, Plaintiffs have failed to prove the interference. I find support to my above view, as per the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 1978 Page 1560; in the case of Gopal M Hegde & Ors Vs U F M Narasimha Ganap Bhat & Ors, wherein it is held that, "When the Plaintiff proves the intention on the part of the defendants, to do an act or existence of the act, which in the opinion of the Court, if completed, 24 O.S.No.26373/2014 give ground of action, there is foundation for the exercise of jurisdiction".
Thus, plaintiffs have failed to prove the interference as pleaded by them, in the suit plaint.
Hence, I answer ISSUE No. 2 in the NEGATIVE.
22. ISSUE NO.3:
Firstly, when the Plaintiffs have failed to prove their Possession over the Suit Schedule AProperty and existence of setback, said to have been located towards easternside of Suit Schedule AProperty, the Plaintiffs will not be entitled for the relief of Injunction.
Secondly, when the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that, Defendant No.1 has obtained the sanction plan and license dtd.24.04.2014 inrespect of Suit Schedule BProperty, by playing fraud and by misrepresenting the Defendant Nos.3 and 4, they will not be entitle for the relief of cancellation of the sanctioned plan and license, as prayed for.25 O.S.No.26373/2014
Thirdly, when the Appeal preferred by the Defendant No.1 against the order passed by the Defendant Nos.3 and 4 U/Sec. 321(3) of KMC Act, then the Defendant Nos.3 and 4 have to takeup necessary steps, as contemplated under the Law, as observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in the case of H.D.Ramesh, V/s The Commissioner, BBMP & Another, reported in 2017 (1) Kar.L.J 437. Under such circumstances, the Plaintiffs will not be entitle for the relief of directions sought for ag ainst the Defendant Nos.3 and 4, under prayer (b) of the Suit Plaint.
When the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are in Possession of the Suit Schedule A Property, the existence of setback measuring 2feet X 48feet, located towards the easternside of the Suit Schedule AProperty, and the interference by the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 over it. As per the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, At Bangalore passed in RSA No 116 of 2006, in 26 O.S.No.26373/2014 the case of Sri Vishakante Gowda Vs Sri Hombegowda and Ors: it is held that, "In the absence of proof of alleged interference by way of obstruction by the defendants, no exception can be taken to the conclusions of the courts below dismissing the suit and rejecting the appeal"
Thus, viewing from any angle, the Plaintiffs are not entitle for the reliefs, as prayed for by them in the Suit Plaint.
Hence, I answer Issue No. 3 in the
NEGATIVE.
28. ISSUE NO.4:
In view of my findings on Issue Nos. 1 to 3 and Additional Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the Negative, I proceed to pass the following:27 O.S.No.26373/2014
ORDER Suit of the Plaintiffs is hereby Dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw Decree Accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer system, computerized by her and print out taken by her, after correction, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of December, 2020) [AbdulRahiman. A.Nandgadi] LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH73) 28 O.S.No.26373/2014 :Schedule 'A':
All the piece and parcel of the property bearing No.17, (Old No.84), with BBMP PID No.271817 in Ward No.94, 4 th Cross, Annamma Temple Extension, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru, measuring East to West 23 feet and North to South 48 feet and bounded on:
East by : Set back left by the Plaintiffs and thereafter the property of first Defendants No.1 and 2; West by: Private property;
North by : Road and on;
South by : Conservancy Lane.
:Schedule 'B':
( Property of the first Defendant) All the piece and parcel of the property bearing New Municipal No.16/3, 4th Cross, SC Road Cross, Annamma Temple Extension, Ramakrishnapuram, Bengaluru, BBMP Ward No.94, measuring North to South: 21 feet and East to West : 10 ½ feet and also on south western side measuring East to West: 10 ½ feet and North to South: 24 feet and bounded on:
East by : Property of G. Shivashankar and others;
West by : Property of Plaintiffs;
North by : Road;
South by : Conservancy Lane.
29 O.S.No.26373/2014
:SCHEDULE 'C':
All the piece and parcel of the property bearing New Municipal No.16/2, 4th Cross, SC Road Cross, Annamma Temple Extension, Ramakrishnapuram, Bengaluru, BBMP Ward No.94, measuring North to South: 24 feet and East to West : 10 ½ feet and bounded on:
East by : Property of R. Jagadeesh Kumar's Property;
West by : Property of Plaintiffs;
North by : Road;
South by : Conservancy Lane.
[AbdulRahiman. A.Nandgadi]
LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH73) 30 O.S.No.26373/2014 ANNEXURES: LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
PW.1: Sri. R.B. Ravi.
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of the memorandum of Appeal No.841/2014.
Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of the order passed by the Commissioner dt.17.09.2014. Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of I.A.No.1 in Appeal No.841/2014.
Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of orders passed by the Commissioner dt.18.02.2014. Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of orders passed by the Commissioner dt.18.02.2014. Ex.P.6 : Certified copy I.A.No.1 in Revision Appeal No.841/2014.
Ex.P.7 : Certified copy of I.A.No.5 in Revision Appeal No.841/2015.
Ex.P.8 : Certified copy of ordersheet in Appeal No.841/2014.
Ex.P.9 : Certified copy of Gift Deed dt.25.05.2001. Ex.P.10 : Certified copy of Gift Deed dt.25.02.2012. Ex.P.11 : Sale Deed dt.19.05.2011. Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.30 : 16 Positive Photographs and 3 C.Ds.31 O.S.No.26373/2014
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
NIL LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
NIL [AbdulRahiman. A.Nandgadi] LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH73) 32 O.S.No.26373/2014