Bangalore District Court
G.Nanda Kumar vs Ramakrishnappa on 19 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (C.C.H.No.25).
Dated: This the 19th day of December 2015
Present: Sri.Ron Vasudev, B.Com. LL.B, (Spl),
III Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No:7844/2003
Plaintiff G.Nanda Kumar, Aged about 25 years, S/o
P.V.Gopal, No.6, 'G' Block, Bangalore Dairy
Colony, Dharmaram College P.O., Hosur
Road, Bangalore-560 029.
(By Sri.KTN, Advocate)
Vs
Defendants 1. Ramakrishnappa, Aged about 55
years, S/o Munivenkatappa, No.7,
Govinayakanahalli Gramatana,
Kumaraswamy Layout, Bangalore-
560 078.
2. C.Kannan, Aged about 54 years, S/o
Chinnaswamy, No.7,
Govinayakanahalli Gramatana,
Kumaraswamy Layout, Bangalore-
560 078.
(D1 by Sri.RP, Advocate)
(D2 by Sri.RC, Advocate)
Date of Institution 31.10.2003
Nature of suit Declaration, Possession and
for damages
Date of commencement of 23.2.2007
evidence
Date on which the judgment was 19.12.2015
pronounced.
Total Duration: Years Month Days
2 O.S.No:7844/2003
12 1 18
(RON VASUDEV),
III Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for declaration, possession and for damages.
2. The suit schedule property is a house property bearing Municipal No:7, Govinayakanahalli Gramatana, Ward No.55 of Bangalore City measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet and bounded by :
East - Road West - Road North - Property No.8 belonging to G.Venkateshaiah South - Property no.6
3. In nutshell the plaint averments are that; the site no.7 i.e. suit property and other adjoining sites were originally owned and possessed by one Venkateshaiah S/o Vallabha Shastry and the said Venkateshaiah sold the suit site to one Siddappa under registered sale deed dt.14.8.1961. Then the said property was within the limits of village panchayath and accordingly khata of the said property stood changed in the name of said Siddappa. Later the said Siddappa sold it to Smt.Rangalakshmamma under 3 O.S.No:7844/2003 registered sale deed dt.17.3.82 and she put up construction in it. As the said Smt.Rangalakshmamma was residing at Jayanagar, Bangalore, i.e. at a distance of 5 Kms from the suit property, persons by name Thoti Muniya and Muniraju wrongfully occupied the schedule property, as a result she filed suit in OS.No:6141/1990 on the file of City Civil Court, Bangalore and after trial it was decreed directing the said Thoti Muniya and Muniraju to deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property. Since the said persons did not deliver possession, she filed an Execution Petition No:1136/1996 on the file of this court to take possession and after enquiry she was put in possession of the suit property on 21.10.2000. As mentioned above she use to reside far away from the schedule property, taking advantage of her absence, the present defendants illegally and unauthorisidely occupied the suit property in the last week of October 2000, therefore she being a lady was not able to dispossess them and as a result she sold the same to the plaintiff under registered sale deed dt.27.8.2003. That in pursuance to the said sale deed khata of the suit property has been mutated in the name of plaintiff by BBMP and he is paying the property tax. Earlier to the said sale, Smt.Rangalakshmamma was paying the taxes. From the documents produced herein it is crystal clear that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule property and the defendants have no manner of right, title or interest in any portion of it. Since the defendants have questioned the title of the plaintiff and have illegally occupied the suit property recently, the plaintiff is 4 O.S.No:7844/2003 compelled to file this suit. That cause of action for the suit arose in the last week of October 2000 and on 27.8.2003, when the plaintiff purchased the schedule property. That court fee is paid as per separate valuation slip, therefore plaintiff prays for judgment and decree to declare that he is the absolute owner of the schedule property; to direct the defendants to deliver vacant possession of it; further to direct the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- per month as damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the said property from the date of suit till possession is delivered and for such other reliefs.
4. The defendants appeared through their counsels and they have filed their separate written statements.
5. The summary of the written statement of defendant no.1 is as under;
the defendant no.1 is the absolute owner of property bearing khanesumari No.15/74, site no.74, Govinayakanahalli Gramatana Ward No.7, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk having purchased the same under registered sale deed dt.5.3.1998 from Smt.Malamma W/o Late Muniyappa and Gopal S/o late Muniyappa. Before purchasing that property the wife of this defendant by name Smt.Byramma was in possession of the said property by virtue of the GPA executed by one Smt.Shakunthala on 28.5.1995 and in turn the said Shakunthala had executed that GPA as P.A. Holder of Muniyappa. Having taken that property under GPA this defendant put up construction 5 O.S.No:7844/2003 in it and started residing there. That the plaintiff's vendor Smt.Rangalakshmamma having obtained an exparte decree against Muniyappa in O.S.No:6141/1990 filed an Execution Petition No:1136/96 against the said Muniyappa, who was dead by that time, and later impleaded his only son Gopal as a party to it. During the pendency of the said execution petition, one Muniraju filed an application objecting the execution of the said decree by contending that the said decree is sought to be executed against property bearing No:15/73, when it is in respect of property bearing site no.7. However he withdrew his application subsequently and Smt.Rangalakshmamma having obtained the decree in respect of site no.7 executed the same against the property of this defendant and second defendant bearing No:15/74, site no.74, therefore this defendant filed suit in O.S.No:16335/2000 on the file of City Civil Court, Mayo Hall, Bangalore for declaration of his title and for other reliefs against the said Smt.Rangalakshmamma and others and during the pendency of the said suit, this plaintiff claiming himself that he has obtained the sale deed from Smt.Rangalakshmamma, who herself did not possess any right, title or interest in it, has approached the court with present suit. Since the vendor of the plaintiff herself had no valid title, she could not have conferred a valid title to the plaintiff over the schedule property. The suit property is not site no.7 as alleged in the plaint, infact it is property bearing khanesumari No.15/74, site no.74, wherein this defendant is residing from the year 1995, except for a short 6 O.S.No:7844/2003 period when he was dispossessed illegally. The said Smt.Rangalakshmamma is falsely claiming her right and interest over the property belonging to defendant no.1 in order to knock off the said property, therefore the contrary plaint averments that originally site no.7 and other sites were owned and possessed by one Venkateshaiah S/o Vallabha Shastry and he sold it to Siddappa and said Siddappa in turn sold it to Smt.Ranga lakshmamma under registered sale deed and she sold it to the plaintiff after construction in it etc., are far from truth. It is categorically denied that the defendants are illegally trespassed into the schedule property in the last week of October 2000 and the said Smt.Rangalakshmamma being a lady unable to resist the same sold it to the plaintiff. It is further denied that earlier the said Smt.Rangalakshmamma was paying the property tax and now plaintiff is paying the same. It is specifically denied that the defendants are liable to pay Rs.1,500/- per month as damages. That there is no cause of action for the suit and the alleged one is false and invented. The court fee paid on the plaint is insufficient and suit is barred by time and it is also hit by Order 2 Rule 2 of and U/S 11 of CPC i.e. on the ground of res judicata, wherefore the defendant no.1 prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
6. The summary of the written statement of defendant no.2 is as under;
that this defendant no.2 has not trespassed into any property much less the schedule property, infact the plaintiff is trying to interfere with the possession of the defendants over the 7 O.S.No:7844/2003 property bearing No:15/74, 3rd Cross, Govinayakanahalli Gramatana, Kumaraswamy Layout, Bangalore City. The defendant no.2 purchased the said site and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without anybody's interruption for the last ten years. Prior to the said sale the vendor of defendant no.2 was in possession and enjoyment of the same for more than ten years. This defendant is not at all concerned with the suit schedule property and its identity is seriously disputed. This defendant is not in possession of the suit schedule property and it is infact in possession of one Krishnappa, but the plaintiff has wrongfully instituted suit against these defendants. That this defendant came to know about the filing of the execution petition against Muniraju, when he instituted a suit in OS.No:7351/2000, so he immediately applied and got the copies of the documents produced in the said Ex.P.No:1136/96. It appears from the records of the said case that said Smt.Rangalakshmamma had filed suit against one Muniyappa in the year 1994 and when she was attempting to take possession of that property said Muniraju obstructed the execution and he filed an application as an Objector and it appears that on account of the some secret understanding between the parties of that case, this suit was came to be filed. It is submitted that the said Muniraju sold that property to Krishnappa, therefore the property which the plaintiff is referring in the plaint schedule is different from the property which is in the occupation of the defendant. The sole intention of the 8 O.S.No:7844/2003 plaintiff is to knock of the property of this defendant, who is in lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property, bearing no.15/74, 3rd Cross, Govinayakanahalli Gramatana, Kumaraswamy Layout, Bangalore City. Consequently the documents produced by the plaintiff are all concocted and fabricated with malafide intention to deprive this defendant of his own property. The plaintiff is clandestinely intends to knock of the property of this defendant with all sorts of illegal methods through Smt.Rangalakshmamma and when they failed, this plaintiff has come into picture on his own. That court fee paid on the plaint is insufficient, plaint is deliberately under valued and by invoking wrong provision of KCF & SV Act, fee paid. As on the date of filing of the suit market value of the suit property was more than Rs.35 lakhs and now it is more than Rs.60 lakhs but ironically the plaintiff has wrongly valued its market price at Rs.2,50,000/-. The plaintiff has no right to institute this suit for declaration and possession and it is liable to be dismissed. That suit is false, frivolous, vexatious and highly speculative. The plaintiff has come to the court with distorted facts and on untenable grounds. The other plaint averments that suit property and other sites originally belonged to Venkateshaiah and the said Venkateshaiah sold site no.7 to Siddappa and Siddappa sold it to Smt.Rangalakshmamma and after constructing building there, She sold it to the plaintiff are all false and denied. This defendant is not aware that executing court delivered possession to the plaintiff on 21.10.2000 as alleged in Para-4 of the plaint and if 9 O.S.No:7844/2003 any such endorsement is made on the delivery warrant it is nothing but a make believe and collusive one. The said order was obtained by Smt.Rangalakshmamma by hoodwinking the court and by playing fraud on it. That fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal, therefore any order obtained by playing fraud is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. It is stoutly denied that these defendants unauthorisidely occupied the schedule property during the last week of October 2000. Rest of the contrary plaint averments are false, frivolous and vexatious, wherefore, the defendant no.2 prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
7. Based on the said pleadings my predecessors-in-office have framed the following issues and additional issue:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the property as described in the plaint schedule?
2. Whether the defendants prove that the suit property is the property bearing No.15/74, 3rd Cross, Govinayakanahalli Gramatana, Kumaraswamy Layout, which they are in peaceful possession?10 O.S.No:7844/2003
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of vacant possession in occupation of the defendants?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for damages as claimed?
5. To what other relief if any is the plaintiff entitled?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE
1. Whether, valuation made and court fees paid by the plaintiff is proper and correct?
8. Regarding additional issue treating it as preliminary, without holding enquiry initially this court answered it in the affirmative by its order dt.8.7.2010 and when that order was taken to the Hon'ble High Court by filing W.P.No:26266/2010 (GM-CPC), vide its order dt.9.9.2010, Hon'ble High Court set aside the said finding and directed this court to hold an enquiry and then record its findings. Accordingly, enquiry was held and after hearing the parties again, vide order dt.13.3.2012 the said issue was answered in the affirmative. No material is placed by the defendants to show that they have moved the Hon'ble High Court again questioning the correctness of the said finding, hence, no-longer the said issue survives for consideration.
11 O.S.No:7844/20039. As a result now court has to record its findings on rest of the issues, framed on 8.6.2006 only. Accordingly in order to prove the issues, wherein the burden is thrown in him, the plaintiff examined his P.A. Holder as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P24. Then during the cross-examination of DW2 he got marked Ex.P25. On the other hand the defendant no.1 examined himself as DW1 and defendant no.2 examined himself as DW2. Though as per the index prepared by the office Ex.D1 to D107 are marked, on verifying the file thoroughly it is seen that three documents are marked with same exhibit number. The case file shows that after exhibiting of the English Daily 'Bangalore Mirror' as Ex.D1 in the cross-examination of PW1 on 24.8.2001 in the further cross-examination by the defendant no.2 copy of the plaint was marked as Ex.D2 on 5.12.2012 through PW1 and in total ignorance of the same in his further cross-examination dt.27.2.2013 certified copy of the objection statement filed by Smt.Rangalakshmamma to the objector's application filed in E.P.No:1136/1996 was marked again as Ex.D2 and overlooking these facts when DW1 was examined on 17.6.2013, the alleged sale deed executed in his favour was again marked as Ex.D2. Thus it can seen that in all 109 documents are marked on behalf of the defendants. Since the objection statement and sale deed were subsequently marked as Ex.D2, in order to avoid ambiguity in the course of discussion, henceforth the objection statement shall be referred as Ex.D2A and sale deed dt.5.3.1998 shall be referred as Ex.D2B. Office is directed to make necessary 12 O.S.No:7844/2003 amendment by renumbering the said documents and also the depositions of the PW1 and DW1.
10. Heard the arguments of Sri.RP, Advocate for the defendant no.1, Sri.RC, Advocate for defendant no.2, Sri.KTN, Advocate for plaintiff. Perused the written arguments of plaintiff and decisions relied by the learned counsels.
11. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 - In the affirmative Issue No.2 - In the negative Issue No.3 - In the affirmative Issue No.4 - In the affirmative Issue No.5 - In the affirmative REASONS Issue No.1 & 2:
12. From the bare reading of these two issues without any hesitation it can be said that finding on one issue will automatically answer the other one, therefore to avoid possible repeated discussion of very same pleading and finding I have taken them simultaneously.
13. In a civil litigation it is well said that pleadings are the foundation of a case and fate of the parties will be decided by and large based on that pleadings and the corroborative evidence they make available in support of their respective pleas. In that 13 O.S.No:7844/2003 background without reproducing the arguments of the respective learned counsels at the very beginning stage itself, first I want to examine whether parties stand to their pleadings and thereafter I would attend their contentions and the findings of this court on them.
14. It is simple case of the plaintiff that he purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed from Smt.Rangalakshmamma in the year 2003 and since these defendants were illegally trespassed into the schedule property in the last week of October 2000, he seeks for declaration of his title, recovery of possession and for damages from the date of suit till possession is delivered to him. The plaintiff traces his title to the suit property bearing site no.7, Govinayakanahalli Gramatana, Ward No.55 of Bangalore City with the boundaries described in the plaint schedule from the original owner Venkateshaiah S/o Vallabha Shastry. He has narrated how the title flows from the said owner to Smt.Rangalakshmamma and to him in turn. In a bid to establish his plaint allegations, as I already said the plaintiff examined his P.A. Holder as PW1 and through him reiterating the plaint averments got exhibited the GPA, through which he enabled the PW1 to depose on his behalf, as Ex.P1, certified copy of the sale deed dt.29.1.1959 in respect of site no.1, 2, 3 and 4 of Govinayakanahalli Gramatana executed by Jodidar Venkateshaiah in favour of one V.B.Chandrashekhar S/o Venkata Subbaiah as Ex.P2, another certified copy of the sale deed dt.14.8.1961 in respect of site no.6 executed by 14 O.S.No:7844/2003 Venkateshaiah S/o Vallabha Shastry in favour of Munivenkatappa S/o Giddappa as Ex.P3, certified copy of the sale deed dt.14.8.1961 in respect of site no.7 of Govinayakanahalli Gramatana executed by very Venkateshaiah S/o Vallabha Shastry in favour of Siddappa S/o Dobi Marappa as Ex.P4, original sale deed dt.17.3.1982 executed by said Siddappa S/o Marappa in favour of Smt.Rangalakshmamma in respect of the very site no.7 of Govinayakanahalli Gramatana as Ex.P5 and the sale deed executed by said Smt.Rangalakshmamma in his favour on 27.8.2003 in respect of that very site no.7 of Govinayakanahalli Gramatana as Ex.P6. In so far as Ex.P2 and P3 are concerned admittedly they do not belong to the suit property. The purpose for which the said documents are produced by the plaintiff is, to demonstrate that the original owner Jodidar Venkateshaiah had formed several sites in the gramatana land of Govinayakanahalli and he went on alienating them to different buyers under different sale deeds. According to me we are concerned with Ex.P4 to P6, which relates to the schedule property. I again emphasize that Ex.P4 is dt.14.8.1961 whereas Ex.P5 is of 1992 and Ex.P6 is of2003. Among these documents, Ex.P4 reveals that said Venkateshaiah S/o Vallabha Shastry of Sarjapura alienated site no.7 formed in gramatana land of Govinayakanahalli for consideration of Rs.50/- to one Siddappa S/o Dobi Marappa with the boundaries as under:
East - Road left by vendor West - Land of Hussain Sab 15 O.S.No:7844/2003 North - Site no.8 and South - Site no.6 This very site was further alienated by the said Siddappa S/o Marappa for consideration of Rs.8,000/- to Smt.Rangalakshmamma on 17.3.1982 and he delivered the possession to her and it is Ex.P5. In Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 there is a recital that on the date of sale deeds itself possession of the site no.7 was delivered to the vendee by the vendors. Thus by producing Ex.P4 and P5 plaintiff has shown that original vendor Venkateshaiah possessed site no.7 of Govinayakanahalli Gramatana and he alienated it to Siddappa and from Siddappa the said Smt.Rangalakshmamma purchased the suit site property and after construction she sold it to the plaintiff under Ex.P6. Thus these documents show the flow of title to the plaintiff through his predecessors in title. The purpose of producing Ex.P3 is to prove the southern boundary of suit property and purpose of producing Ex.P2 is to show that towards western side of the properties held and sold by Venkateshaiah S/o Vallabha Shastry, then land of Hussain Sab was situating, which is now converted as road. I would come to the so called shortcomings pointed out by Sri.RP and Sri.RC advocates for defendants with regard to these documents, at this stage let me turn to the defence taken by the defendants 1 and 2. As I have already pointed out that they have filed their separate written statements and their defence is not completely similar, so I would like to take the 16 O.S.No:7844/2003 defence of the defendant no.1 first and thereafter I would take up discussion on the defence of the defendant no.2.
15. In accordance with his allegation that he purchased the property bearing Khanesumari No:15/74, site no.74 of Govinayakanahalli, Kumaraswamy Layout, Bangalore, the defendant no.1 has produced the original sale deed dt.5.3.1998 and got it marked at Ex.D2B. I have gone through the said sale deed and the contents of it visa-sa-vis the cross-examination of DW1. As rightly raised by the plaintiff the said sale deed (Ex.D2B) shows that Smt.Malamma and Gopal, the wife and son of Mariyappa allegedly executed that sale deed stating that they had already sold that property in the year 1993 itself by receiving the entire consideration (but without mentioning the amount of consideration) and that property was came to them to the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk and their ancestors were in possession of the said property from the date of grant and they are "delivering possession through the said deed". It is also stated that the vendors have already delivered documents pertaining to the said property to the vendee. That being the case admittedly DW1 has not produced any document to show that atleast as on the date of execution of that sale deed, if not earlier to it, a property with Khanesumari No.15/74, site no.74 was situating at Govinayakanahalli and it stood in the names of his vendors viz; Smt.Malamma and Gopal. Even there is no document to show that prior to the execution of that sale deed i.e. prior to 5.3.1998 the said property was in existence and in 17 O.S.No:7844/2003 the name of said Mariyappa or in the names of his L.Rs. It is material to note that during the cross-examination of DW1 truth could not be suppressed, it automatically came out from his mouth and at the end of Para-22 of his cross-exam he disclosed that the said Malamma and Gopal are the wife and son of "Thoti Muniya". If with this crucial piece of admission one turns to Ex.P21 to P23 viz; the delivery warrant, spot mahazar and possession receipt pertaining to the Ex.P.No:1136/96, it is seen that the said Thoti Muniya is none other than one of the defendant and Gopal was brought on record in the execution petition after the death of his father. It is not in dispute that Smt.Rangalakshmamma filed suit in OS.No.6141/1990 against Thoti Muniya and Muniraju seeking declaration of her title and for recovery of possession of site no.7 purchased by her under Ex.P5 and the said suit was tried and it was decreed on 12.4.1993. This fact is proved by the very own document of defendants produced at Ex.D107, Ex.D2A and Ex.D106. The Ex.D107 is the certified copy of the application filed U/s 47 r/w Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC in Ex.P.No:1136/96 by one Muniraju against Smt.Ranga lakshmamma obstructing the execution of decree granted in O.S.No:6141/1990. The Ex.D2A is the certified copy of the objection statement filed by Smt.Rangalakshmamma and Ex.D106 is the certified copy of the deposition of said Muniraju in pursuance to the enquiry held init. In Ex.D2A it is stated that O.S.No:6141/90 was decreed on 12.4.1993. Though the defendants contended that the said Smt.Rangalakshmamma 18 O.S.No:7844/2003 obtained that decree clandestinely, there is no material on record to show that either said Thoti Muniya, Muniraju or the L.Rs of Thoti Muniya i.e. Smt.Malamma and Gopal questioned the legality and validity of the decree passed in that suit, therefore once a civil court grants decree in respect of an immovable property, unless it is set aside or modified or reversed by the appellate court or by the very same court, as provided under the provisions of CPC, it holds good and the said decree binds the parties to the suit as well as their successors in interest. That being the case having suffered the decree, during the pendency of Ex.P.No:1136/96 Smt.Malamma and Gopal executes this Ex.D2B which has no sanctity in the eye of law. As on the date of execution of that sale deed they had no title over the property they were alienating. I am making this observation in the light of the very contention of defendant no.1 that suit property and the property purchased by him under Ex.D2B are one and the same.
16. I would attack the genunity of the said sale deed on other grounds also. Admittedly DW1 has not produced the documents that were handed over to him by his vendors except Ex.D2B. The other documents produced by him are Ex.D3 is the BMP khata transfer letter, Ex.D4 is the khatha certificate and Ex.D5 is the khatha extract. Admittedly these documents came into existence pursuant to Ex.D2B and that too during the pendency of the suit. Ex.D6 to D9 are the encumbrance certificates and they only speak regarding the transaction that has taken place in respect of the alleged property bearing 19 O.S.No:7844/2003 khanusumari no.15/74, site no.74. It is needless to say that these Ex.D3 to D9 are not title deeds and they do not show the existence of property bearing khanusumari no.15/74, site no.74, Govinayakanahalli prior to the execution of sale deed. The Ex.D10 to D19 are the tax paid receipts, Ex.D21 to D23 are voter cards and ration card of DW1 and his family, and again they are not title deeds nor they can be relied to hold that property bearing Khanesumari No:15/74, site no.74, Govinayakanahalli is in existence. The Ex.D24 to D43 are the BSNL, BESCOM, LPG Gas Agency and LIC premium receipts with address as 15/74, Govinayakanahalli, 3rd Cross, Kumaraswamy Layout, Bangalore.
Again all these documents are subsequent to the date of suit and they have no relevance to prove the flow of title to DW1. The cross-examination of DW1 shows that though he went on denying the sale deeds produced at Ex.P4 to P6 and possessing of sites by Venkateshaiah in the Gramatana land of Govinayakanahalli in his pleading and his chief, he did not deny those transactions in the said cross-exam. He expressed his ignorance and revealed that Govinayakanahalli and Kumaraswamy Layout are two different places and initially he was residing in the rented house at Kumaraswamy layout and later he shifted to Govinayakanahalli i.e. to the suit property. When it was suggested that Gramatana of Govinayakanahalli earlier belonged to Venkateshaiah he did not deny that suggestion. He was unable to explain how his vendors Malamma and Gopal got the property so as to execute the sale deed to him.
20 O.S.No:7844/2003He also admitted that the said sale deed do not whisper the quantum of consideration paid to his vendors and that he has not produced documents to confirm that property described in Ex.D2B was granted by Tahsildar to the ancestors of his vendors. In Para-25 of his cross-exam he admitted that suit filed by him against Smt.Rangalakshmamma at O.S.No:16335/00 was came to be dismissed. During the argument by filing memo on 9.12.2015 Sri.RP, Advocate submitted that the said admission of DW1 is by way of inadvertence, but still that suit is pending. However along with said memo he did not produce the certified copy of the order sheet to confirm it. Even otherwise if that admission was incorrect, he ought to have clarified it by utilizing the opportunity of re-examination of DW1, therefore at this stage it cannot be said that the said suit is still pending. Even if the said suit is pending, since the title of Smt.Rangalakshmamma having been affirmed in O.S.No:6141/90, that cannot be re-agitated again as this DW1 is the alleged successor in interest of the said Thoti Muniya. In Para-26 of his cross-exam DW1 gave evasive reply that GPA executed by Shakuntala and further GPA executed by Smt.Byramma, which he has referred in Para-12 of his written statement, are not available with him and they are lost. This is another unbelievable story. Then in Para-27 of his cross-exam he stated that he has constructed 5½ sq. building keeping 1 sq. open space in the property purchased by him, but he did not produce any document to show that said construction was made 21 O.S.No:7844/2003 by him. Therefore none of the document produced and relied by DW1 would inspire the mind of the court in accepting his version.
17. It is very material to note that in Para-15 of his written statement DW1 pleaded that suit schedule property is not site no.7 whereas it is khanesumari no.15/74, site no.74 and he is residing there by putting up construction ever since 1995 except that short period when he was dispossessed illegally by Smt.Rangalakshmamma falsely claiming that it is the property against which decree was passed in O.S.No:6141/90. He repeatedly conceded that he was dispossessed by virtue of delivery warrant issued at Ex.P21. I would come to this aspect how it plays a vital role in deciding the fate of this suit after referring to the pleading and evidence of defendant no.2.
18. The version of defendant no.2 is still more strange and he intentionally tried to mislead the court with ambiguous pleading and evidence. Though he contended that he purchased the site he did not disclose when he purchased, from whom he purchased, and for what consideration he purchased it nor produced any iota of material like sale deed to prove the said contention. All the documents produced by him i.e. Ex.D44 to D105 are KEB, BWSSB, BESCOM, Bangalore-1 bills and receipts, BESCOM letters regarding change of electric meters. It is too elementary for me to say that such documents will not prove his alleged purchasing of the property, from an unknown person and on the unascertained date. It is least to say that such documents 22 O.S.No:7844/2003 can be relied to prove the existence of property bearing Khanesumari No:15/74, site no.74, Bhovinayakanahalli. He went to the extent of disputing identity of the property without producing any document to prove that he possessed property in khanusumari no.15/74, 3rd Cross, Govinayakanahalli. He knitted his own story by stating that property referred to by plaintiff is possessed by one Krishnappa and it is in possession of said Krishnappa, without producing any document to prove his said version, he even stated that Muniraju has sold that property to Krishnappa, but again he did not whisper when that sale transaction took place between them nor produced any document to prove his said contention. In Para-7 of his written statement at the middle portion he pleaded that, he is not aware about the execution of delivery warrant on 21.10.2000 in Ex.P.No:1136/96 and he called upon the plaintiff to prove the said aspect. He also referred to "Ex.P.No:1185/93", which is not at all uttered by the plaintiff or by defendant no.1. He has not produced the document to show that Ex.P.No:1185/93 is / was pending that too between Smt.Rangalakshmamma and Thoti Muniya. At the end of Para-10 of his written statement this defendant no.2 took bit contrary defence as compared to defendant no.1 by alleging that property which the plaintiff has referred is different from the property he is in possession. In accordance with the said inconsistent, inconvincing and inaccurate pleading he deposed in his chief. In that background I would like to find out the veracity of the said pleading and evidence by referring to his cross-exam.
23 O.S.No:7844/200319. In the very beginning of his cross-exam he admitted that suit property is situating in the gramatana of Govinayakanahalli whereas Kumaraswamy layout, to which they are referring is away from that place and he has no title deed of the schedule property to prove his title over the property he is asserting. He also admitted that in the Govinayakanahalli gramatana several sites have been formed and all those sites are in regular rows. He explained that he came in possession of the schedule property in the year 1994 without producing document to that effect. In Para-17 of his cross-exam he did not deny the possession of Siddappa S/o Marappa by virtue of the sale deed executed by Venkateshaiah S/o Vallabha Shastry nor the sale deed between the said Siddappa and Smt.Rangalakshmamma. What it shows is that he himself is not sure what he has pleaded and what he has deposed in the chief. He gone to the extent of denying the filing of suit by Smt.Rangalakshmamma and decreeing of it. When it was specifically confronted to him that himself and defendant no.1 illegally trespassed into the schedule property in the last week of October he denied it as false, however he admitted that suit filed by him O.S.7351/2000 was came to be dismissed and it is evidenced by Ex.P25. Here itself I would like to say that Ex.P25 is the certified copy of the order sheet of that suit and it shows that DW2 had filed that suit for permanent injunction against Smt.Rangalakshmamma and he himself withdrew it. He further stated that after dismissal of his suit he has not filed any other suit against the plaintiff or 24 O.S.No:7844/2003 Smt.Rangalakshmamma and lastly cited that there is no BMP or BBMP record in his name in respect of the schedule property nor he is paying tax to it. Having referred to his cross-examination and also his non-denial of execution of delivery warrant on 21.10.2000 rather expressing of his socalled ignorance I will again turn to Ex.P22. It is the mahazar prepared by Bailiff in Ex.P.No:1136/96 on 21.10.2000 stating that when he had been to the decreetal property along with warrant, in the said property he found two sheds with doors facing to the east and in one shed Smt.Byramma W/o Ramakrishna (wife of defendant no.1) and in another shed C.Kannan (defendant no.2) were residing and after enquiry Arunkumar S/o C.Kannan and Smt.Panchali W/o Kannan initially sought time to vacate the said property, but later agreed to vacate and vacated it. Mahazar also recites that the decree holder Smt.Rangalakshmamma had been to the said property along with the jurisdictional police. It may be noted that the said mahazar is attested by "Smt.Panchali W/o Kannan as well as others who were present there. The purpose of referring to the contents of mahazar is to show how these defendants 1 and 2 in total breach of law illegally repossessed the schedule property, regarding which already title was decided in the previous suit and possession was delivered to Smt.Rangalakshmamma by lawful means. If at all these defendants were aggrieved by the execution of the delivery warrant, it was open for them to question the execution by recourse to law. Without following that path high handedly, illegally and taking advantage that 25 O.S.No:7844/2003 Smt.Rangalakshmamma is a woman they once again entered into schedule property and compelled her to alienate the property in favour of this plaintiff. Perhaps in the light of that development and their illegal act of reoccupying the property, they went wayward having no proper defence to make. If the defendants claim that they are in possession of the schedule property, then it is for them to explain how they got into that property as already delivery warrant was executed on 21.10.2000 placing Smt.Rangalakshmamma in possession of that property. They themselves being law breakers they went on attacking PW1 stating that he is engaged in real estate business, that he has not produced layout map; that BMP khata produced by PW1, even after sale by Siddappa shows his name in the BMP records and for sending Ex.D2, the copy of the plaint with their address as 15/74/1, 3rd cross, Govinayakanahalli, Kumaraswamy Layout, Bangalore, which is contrary to the original plaint on record. It is true that as rightly contended by them some undeniable errors are committed by plaintiff and it is also true that the plaintiff has not come to the court to give evidence on his own. It is further true that as brought out in the course of PW1 he is a person engaged in real estate business, but what the court has to weigh is between the two sides i.e., the plaintiff on one side and the defendants on the other side, who has to ultimately abide by the rule of law. The conduct of the defendants in wantonly disobeying the law of the land with no pinch of respect to it show that they have no right to raise fingers at others. It is quite 26 O.S.No:7844/2003 common that in a zeal to present their case with more smartness parties like to add some falsehood in their case and defence, but ultimately it is the duty of the court to churn their pleadings and to find out who is nearer to the truth that is what the underlying principle behind every litigation. Now a days it is very hard to see that parties would be approaching the court of law with clean breast. In the decision reported at AIR 2003 SC 4548 in the case of (R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder v Arumigu Viswesaraswami and V.P.Temple and another) at Para-29 explaining the burden of proof and the onus of proof, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the fact and which never shifts. Whereas the onus of proof shifts and such shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. It further held that in a suit for possession based on the title once the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability so as to shift the onus on the defendant, it is for the defendant to discharge his onus and in the absence thereof the burden of proof lying on the plaintiff shall be held to have been discharged so as to amount to proof of the plaintiff's title. In the case in hand by producing the title deeds and by producing the delivery warrant, mahazar and possession receipt the plaintiff has shown that it is his vendor Smt.Rangalakshmamma, who was the lawful owner of the schedule property and she took possession by recourse to law and she came to be dispossessed by high handed act of defendants. I again say that since the title of Smt.Rangalakshmamma was decided in a suit, the defendant 27 O.S.No:7844/2003 no.1/DW1 having taken the sale deed from the successor in interest of Thoti Muniya, who was a defendant in that case, will not derive any kind of title over the schedule property. All the documents dumped by the defendants exfacia show that they are all subsequent to the execution of sale deed produced at Ex.D2B and after they took illegal possession of suit property in the month of October 2000, therefore absolutely they will not have any reliable quotient in them. The high degree of probability as referred in the judgment cited above lies in favour of the plaintiff.
20. By referring to the decision reported at 2013 AIR SCW 3561 (S.Kesari Hanuman Goud v Anjum Jehan & Ors), Sri.R.C. Advocate vehemently submitted that PW1 having no knowledge of the facts of the case, he cannot represent the plaintiff and since the defendants were deprived of cross-examining the plaintiff, who is only name lender, the evidence of PW1 is liable to be eschewed altogether. Regarding this submission I would say that, every case has to be evaluated on the basis of facts it presents. Ratio laid down in one case cannot be straightaway borrowed and applied in another case without examining or considering the facts of that case. In the case in hand when the claim is entirely based on documents, the non-appearance of the plaintiff or examining of PW1 hardly makes any effect. When the defendants are not able to assail the legality and validity of the documents relied by the plaintiff and at the same time when they are not able to prove the genunity and veracity of their documents, oral evidence takes to the back seat. It was 28 O.S.No:7844/2003 contended by Sri.RP, Advocate that plaintiff has not proved the source of title of his alleged vendor Venkateshaiah by producing necessary documents to show that there was regrant order in favour of said person regranting the gramatana land of Govinayakanahalli, thus he sought to assail the very ownership right of said person. In reply to the said argument Sri.KTN, Advocate referring to the decision reported at 2009(14) SCC 224 (T.K.Mohammed Abubucker (dead) through L.Rs and others v P.S.M.Ahamed Abdul Khader and others) submitted that Ex.P2 to P4 being more than 30 years old document, court has to accept the title of the said Venkateshaiah and now it is not open to the defendants to question the same. In that back ground I have gone through the decision referred by the learned counsel. In the said decision the Hon'ble Court was pleased to make the following observation:
"Though title to an immovable property is usually established by tracing it for a period of thirty years, the search and tracing is restricted to a minimum period of twelve years, presumably with reference to Articles 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
Therefore, in a suit for declaration of title filed in 1984, reliance on title deeds dated 2-3-1982 (sale deed) and 25.8.1981 (partition deed) would not establish title as that would trace the title hardly for three years. To establish the title, it was necessary to trace it to a point beyond a minimum of twelve years before the suit. This became all the more necessary as the plaintiff did not have possession, nor were any revenue entries available to support the 29 O.S.No:7844/2003 ownership or possession of the plaintiff and his vendors for a period of twelve years and more, prior to the suit. Further, where the title is traced to a grant or transfer by the Government or a statutory development authority, as contrasted from a transfer from a private person, the search is not taken prior to such transfer/grant, even if such transfer/grant is within twelve years".
On going through the observation made by the Hon'ble Court in the given case, Ex.P1 to P3 as well as Ex.P4 admittedly being more than 30 years old documents, court has to see the probability of title having suffered decree in O.S:6141/1990, now the defendants cannot dispute the title of plaintiff, who is admittedly the successor in interest of Smt.Rangalakshmamma, who in turn obtained declaration of title by the competent court. The contents of Ex.P1 to P4 are enough to hold that the said Venkateshaiah had valid title over the sites formed in gramatana land and in so far as the suit property is concerned that title having flown to Smt.Rangalakshmamma and it further flown to the present plaintiff. It was also contended by both the defendants that if somebody has purchased sites from Venkateshaiah and the said person has cheated some other persons by executing the sale deeds in respect of the sites wherein he had no title, the defendants cannot be denied of their right and title in respect of property bearing Khanesumari No:15/74 and site no.74 of Govinayakanahalli Gramatana, Kumaraswamy Layout, Bangalore. In this regard at the cost of repetition I would like to say that the defendants have miserably 30 O.S.No:7844/2003 failed to prove the existence of property bearing "Khanesumari No:15/74 and site no.74, Govinayakanahalli, Kumaraswamy Layout, Bangalore". The mere wrong description of address of the defendants in the copy of plaint cause title by the plaintiff do not prove that such property is in existence. If plaintiff inadvertently/wrongly mentions the name of the defendant/defendants it does not mean that the said person should be continued to be called in that name, similarly if some wrong description of the address of the defendants is furnished by the plaintiff, he cannot be non-suited wholly for that mistake, ignoring other legal aspects.
21. It was also argued by Sri.RP, Advocate that Ex.D2B having not been challenged, court has to accept the legality of the said document. I afraid such analogy cannot be accepted when it is apparently proved that it is a bogus and sham document conferring no title to the defendant no.1, therefore plaintiff need not question its legality as it is non est in the eye of law. In this context the observation of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the decision reported at AIR 2006 ORISSA 21 (Pragnya Rout v Hemaprava Ray and others) is relevant. In that case also coming across such empty document Hon'ble High Court held that relief of declaration to cancel such document is not required to be done by the plaintiff.
22. It was also argued by defendant no.1 and 2 that in the sale deed at Ex.P5 towards western side land of Hussain Sab is 31 O.S.No:7844/2003 shown whereas in Ex.P6 existence of road is shown, therefore plaintiff having failed to prove the western boundary is not entitled for any decree. It is true that in Ex.P4 and P5 western boundary is shown as land of Hussain Sab, but in Ex.P6 existence of road is shown. Regarding this in his examination-in-chief PW1 has given enough explanation and he deposed that now that road has been formed in the land of Hussain Sab. Though no document is produced to prove that boundary, since there is no effective cross-examination on that aspect, as plaintiff has proved other three boundaries it is enough to establish the identity of the property. Moreover the DW1 and DW2 have admitted the western boundary in their cross-examination. It is quite natural that over the years boundaries would change, so I do not find any substance in the said ground also.
23. The other minor grounds that in Ex.P1 nobody has identified the executent and it does not contain the signature of PW1 having accepted the same; that the Ex.P2 to P4 are only certified copies, their originals are not produced etc., do not fetch the case to the defendants. When the execution of GPA/Ex.P1 is not disputed by the person who was executed it and also the acceptance of it by PW1, the defendants being third party they cannot question the authority of the master and the obligation of the agent. In the decision reported at 2007 (5) AIR KAR 495 (C) in the case of Yellappa v Smt.Yellamma and others, our Hon'ble High Court held that the P.A. Holder can depose on behalf of his master. Nodoubt it is true that the said decision was rendered in 32 O.S.No:7844/2003 respect of the husband and wife and husband deposed as a P.A. Holder, in the light of the discussion made by me by referring to the documentary evidence and legal aspects, the repeated arguments of defendants questioning the authority of PW1 is liable to be rejected. Sri.RC, Advocate further argued that mere marking of Ex.P6 will not prove its contents and PW1 cannot adduce evidence contrary to the contents of the said registered document. It was his submission that when the sale deed recites that physical possession of the property was delivered to the vendor as on the date of suit, but pleading and evidence of the plaintiff is quite contrary to it and according to the plaintiff in the last week of October 2000 the defendants trespassed into the suit property, thereby suggesting that no physical possession was delivered under Ex.P6 on 27.8.2003. In support of his said arguments he referred to the decisions reported at AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 753 (L.I.C. of India and another V Ram Pal Singh Bisen), (2014) 2 SCC 269 (Union of India and others v Vasavi Co- operative Housing Society Ltd and others), AIR 2006 AP 8(C) (Nandam Mohanamma and others v Markonda Narasimha Rao and another), AIR 1982 SC 20 (B) (Smt.Gangabai v Smt.Chhabubai). I have gone through the ratios laid down in them and the submission of learned counsel. It is true that in the Ex.P6 there is a recital regarding delivery of possession as on the date of sale, but the plaint averments and evidence of PW1 are bit contrary to it, however for that reason the entire Ex.P6 cannot be brushed aside or the whole case of the plaintiff cannot be 33 O.S.No:7844/2003 doubted when it is demonstrated that, the defendants are the cause for all these maladies. A person who breaks the law consciously and knowingly cannot take benefit of minor mistakes committed by his adversary. If the defendants were able to show that they are having some pinch of truth in the defence presented by them, certainly court could have taken every minute error on the part of plaintiff as fatal to him, otherwise it amounts to encouraging the elements who take the law in their own hands, that is not the object of law. Hence for the foregoing discussion without any hesitation I conclude that plaintiff has proved his title to the suit property, on the other hand the defendants have failed to prove that suit property is the property bearing Khanesumari No.15/74, 3rd Cross, Govinayakanahalli Halli, Kumaraswamy Layout, Bangalore and they are in lawful possession of it. Hence, I answer issue no.1 in the affirmative whereas issue no.2 in the negative.
Issue no.3 to 5:
24. The dominant issues having been answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants, now nothing remains to be discussed on these remaining issues. Hence, I have taken them simultaneously.
25. Once it is held that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the defendants have illegally occupied the said property after their lawful dispossession, as per 34 O.S.No:7844/2003 Sec.5 of the Specific Relief Act, the plaintiff is very much entitled to repossess the said property. At the same time since the defendants berserked into the suit property much against the judgment and decree granted in O.S.6141/1990, for squatting in that property illegally, they are liable to pay damages as prayed. May be considering the cost of rent in the year 2003, at the time of filing of the suit, plaintiff has prayed Rs.1,500/- as damages per month from both the defendants. According to me if the present rate of damages in the context of prevailing rent and diminishing value of rupees is taken, certainly it is very moderate. Wherefore I hold that the defendants are liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month from November 2003 to till November 2015 which would become Rs.2,17,500/-. Further they are also liable to pay damages till they quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property.
26. During the arguments Sri.RC, Advocate vehemently submitted that as per the plaintiff himself cause of action arose to him in the last week of October 2000 it means even if it is held that the cause of action arose to him on the last day of that month i.e. on 31.10.2000, filing of suit on 31.10.2003 proves beyond shadow of doubt that suit is barred by limitation. In support of his said submission he referred to the decision reported at ILR 1989 KAR 993 (Dada Jinnappa Khot v Shivalaingappa Ganapati Bellanki), 2014(3) AKR 336 ( Basavaraj Basavanneppa Pattan v The Govt. of Karnataka and others) and ILR 1987 Kar 128 (Govindareddy v Narasimha Reddy) argued 35 O.S.No:7844/2003 that though the cause of action arose to the plaintiff in the last week of October 2000, the right to sue having been accrued to him when the alleged threat to his right was meted out by defendants, filing of suit on 31.10.2003 disentitles him from claiming any relief. On the other hand referring to the decisions reported at 2008(6) KLJ 100 (N.Muniswamy v M.Lalitha), (1998) 1 SCC 614 (Indira v Arumugam and another) and 1991(1) KLJ 320 (Seshumull M.Shah v Sayed Abdul Rashid and others) Sri.KTN, Advocate submitted that this suit being mainly for recovery of possession, Article-65 which is applicable and period of limitation is 12 years. I have anxiously applied my mind to the arguments canvassed by the learned counsels. Firstly I would like to refer to Sec.12(1) of the Limitation Act which lays down that, while computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal or application, the day from which such period is to be reckoned, shall be excluded. If this principle is applied and 31.10.2000 day, as submitted by Sri.RC, Advocate is excluded, certainly filing of suit on 31.10.2003 is well within the period of limitation, even assuming that suit is one under Article-58 of the Limitation Act which deals with the declaratory relief. According to me as held in the Indira's and Sheshamal Shah's case in an essence this being a suit for possession, nodoubt the relief of declaration is also sought, with great caution I am making this observation for the simple reason that since already court has declared the title of Smt.Rangalakshmamma, there is no need to declare the title of her successor in interest against the persons who claim 36 O.S.No:7844/2003 through the person/persons, who suffered that decree, so the plaintiff having sought for possession of property which is lost by his vendor, suit is well within the period of limitation. The various pleas taken by the defendants show that they want to squat on the property somehow with utter disregard to law. Such acts cannot be entertained by the courts of law. Wherefore holding that there is no valid, much less any legal ground, to discard the prayer of the plaintiff, I hold that he is not only entitled for the recovery of possession, he is also entitled for damages as well as cost of the suit. Accordingly, I answer all these issues in the affirmative and proceed to make the following:
.
ORDER Suit is decreed with costs.
It is again held that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property; consequently the defendants are directed to quit, vacate and hand over the vacant possession of it.
The defendants shall pay Rs.2,17,500/-
damages accrued till November 2015 from
November 2003. They shall continue to pay
damages at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month till they quit, vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property .37 O.S.No:7844/2003
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcription computerized, then corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 19th day of December 2015) (RON VASUDEV), III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witness examined for the plaintiffs side:
PW1 M.Puttaraju List of documents exhibited for the plaintiffs side:
Ex.P1 GPA
Ex.P2 Certified copy of the sale deed
Ex.P3 Certified copy of the sale deed
Ex.P4 Certified copy of the sale deed
Ex.P5 Sale deed dt.17.3.82
Ex.P6 Sale deed dt.27.8.03
Ex.P7 Khatha certificate
Ex.P8 & P9 Khatha certificates
Ex.P10 Khatha extract
Ex.P11 Khatha extract
Ex.P12 Khatha extract
Ex.P13 Khatha extract
Ex.P14 Khatha extract
Ex.P15 to P20 Tax paid receipts
Ex.P21 Certified copy of the delivery warrant in Ex.1136/96
Ex.P22 Delivery warrant mahazar
Ex.P23 Acknowledgement for delivery of possession
Ex.P24 KEB (NOC)
Ex.P25 Certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.7351/00
38 O.S.No:7844/2003
List of witness examined for the defendant/s side:
DW1 Ramakrishnappa DW2 C.Kannan
List of documents exhibited for the defendant/s side:
Ex.D1 Bangalore Mirror Tabloid
Ex.D2 Certified copy of the plaint
Ex.D2A Certified copy of the objection statement filed
in E.P.No:1136/1996
Ex.D2B Sale deed dt.5.3.1998
Ex.D3 Khata mutated
Ex.D4 Khatha certificate
Ex.D5 Khatha extract
Ex.D6 to 9 Encumbrance certificates
Ex.D10 to 19 Tax paid receipts
Ex.D20 Ration card
Ex.D21 to 23 Election card
Ex.D24 & 35 Telephone connection bills
Ex.D36 & 37 Gas receipts
Ex.D38 & 39 LIC receipts
Ex.D40 & 41 Water bills
Ex.D42 & 43 Electric bills
Ex.D44 to 78 Water consumption bills
Ex.D98 to 103 Electric bills
Ex.D104 & 105 BESCOM endorsements
Ex.D106 Deposition copy in Ex.1136/96
Ex.D107 Certified copy of the IA.II in Ex.1136/96
Ex.C1 Application u/o 5 Rule 20 of CPC dt.11.11.05 (RON VASUDEV), III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.39 O.S.No:7844/2003
Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate order ORDER Suit is decreed with costs.
40 O.S.No:7844/2003
It is again held that the plaintiff is the
absolute owner of the suit schedule
property; consequently the defendants are
directed to quit, vacate and hand over the
vacant possession of it.
The defendants shall pay Rs.2,17,500/-
damages accrued till November 2015 from
November 2003. They shall continue to pay
damages at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month
till they quit, vacate and hand over the
vacant possession of the suit schedule
property .
Draw decree accordingly.
III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.