Bangalore District Court
Ramaiah vs Mr.B.P.Channakeshava on 4 July, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH No.25).
Dated: This the 4th day of July, 2019
Present: Sri. SACHIN KAUSHIK.R.N., B.Sc., LL.M.,
III Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
O.S.No. 2851/2005
Plaintiff Ramaiah,
Since deceased by his LRs.
a) Smt.Ramalakshmamma,
w/o.late Ramaiah,
Aged about 55 years.
b) Sri.R.Venkatesh,
s/o.late Ramaiah,
Aged about 41 years.
Both are residing at No.10/9,
1st Main, III Cross, Maramma Temple
Street, Byatarayanapura, Mysore
Road, Bengaluru-560026.
by Sri.G.R.Anantharam, Advocate
vs.
Defendants 1. Mr.B.P.Channakeshava,
Major, s/o.late B.N.Papanna,
No.5/2, 'G' Street, Hosaguddadahalli
Mysore Road, Bengaluru-560026.
2. Smt.Leelavathi,
w/o.Sri.Shivanna, Aged about 40
years, No.22, Weavers Street,
Arval Lane, Hosur.
3. Mr.Chandrappa,
Major, s/o.Pillappa, No.7,
Guddadahalli, Mysore Road,
Bengaluru-560026.
2 O.S.No.2851/2005
4. Mr.Govindappa,
Since deceased by LRs.:
4(a) Smt.Kamalamma,
w/o.Sri.Govindappa,
aged about 52 years.
4(b) Sri.G.Narendra,
s/o.Sri.Govindappa,
aged about 27 years.
4(c) Sri.G.Girish,
s/o.Sri.Govindappa,
aged about 27 years.
Defendants 4(a) to 4(c) are
r/at No.7/11, 1st Main Road, 3rd Cross
Maramma Temple Road, Behind
Yellamma Temple, Byatarayanapura,
Mysore Road, Bengaluru-560026.
D1-by Sri.K.T.Dakappa, Advocate
D2 & D3-ExParte
D4(a)to(c)-by Sri.Harsha.M.Mutalik Advocate
Date of institution 08-04-2005
Nature of suit Declaration,
Mandatory Injunction
and
Permanent Injunction
Date of commencement of 20-11-2008
evidence
Date on which the 04-07-2019
Judgment was pronounced.
Total Duration: Years Months Days
14 02 26
3 O.S.No.2851/2005
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiffs No.1(a) and (b) have filed this Suit for declaration that the Sale Deed Dated 13-10-1982 and Rectification Deed dated 29-6-1984 executed by Defendant No.4 in favour of Defendant No.3 as not binding upon them, so also Sale Deed Dated 6-5-1986 executed by Defendant No.3 in favour of Defendant No.2 as not binding upon them, and Sale Deed Dated 18-8-2003 executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.1 as not binding upon them. The Plaintiffs have prayed for directing Defendant No.1 to handover the vacant possession of Suit Schedule Property to them by removing the illegal construction, and if Defendant No.1 fails to remove, the same to be removed by appointing Court Commissioner at the costs of Defendant No.1, and granting Permanent Injunction against Defendants restraining them from putting construction or meddling or alienating Suit Schedule Property.
2)(a) The Plaintiffs stated that they are absolute owners of Suit Schedule Property i.e., Site No.13 in Sy.No.25/3, measuring 1200 square feet in Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru, Old Nos.5/1, thereafter 5/A and now Municipal No.5/37, by inheriting from Matada Rangaiah, maternal uncle of Plaintiff, entire 4 O.S.No.2851/2005 land in Sy.No.25/3 measuring 2 acres and 23 guntas. One Mattappa claimed to be heir of Matada Rangaiah instituted O.S.No.1951/1973 and the same was decreed. The Plaintiff filed O.S.No.1500/1974 before 1st Munsiff Court and after establishment of City Civil Court, it was renumbered as O.S.No.748/1980. The Suit was dismissed and Plaintiff preferred RFA No.276/1982 before Hon'ble Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. On 25-1-1995/7-3-1995, the Appeal was allowed in part, declaring that Plaintiff is owner of 2 acres 3 guntas, and Matappa and V.Seetharamaiah to 20 guntas to eastern side.
2)(b) During pendency of Appeal, Mattappa- Respondent No.1 alienated his right in 10 guntas to V.Seetharamaiah, Respondent No.2. Both of them expired during pendency of Appeal. After disposal of Appeal, on 30-3-1995, the L.Rs. of Seetharamaiah entered into Agreement to Sell with Plaintiff to sell the 20 guntas land, and handed over possession after receiving entire consideration to Plaintiff, and the same is mentioned in said Agreement to Sell.
2)(c) The Plaintiff further state that, during pendency of Appeal on 13-10-1982, Defendant No.4 sold Suit Property to Defendant No.3, on 6-5-1986, Defendant No.3 sold to Defendant No.2 and after disposal of Appeal, RFA No.276/1982, on 18-8-203, 5 O.S.No.2851/2005 Defendant No.2 sold to Defendant No.1, and got false Khatas done to knock off Plaintiff's property, and during pendency of this Suit, Defendant No.1 has constructed house on it, and hence the Suit.
3) The Defendant No.1 has filed Written Statement showing the new number allotted to Suit Property, and has stated that the Judgment and Decree in RFA No.276/1982 is obtained by fraud, and Suit Property belong to him only, and has prayed for dismissal of Suit.
4) The Defendants No.2 to 4 have remained Ex-Parte.
The Defendant No.4 expired during pendency of this Suit and his Legal Heirs-Defendant No.4(a) to (c) have put appearance, but not contested seriously. The Plaintiff also expired during pendency of this Suit, Ex.P18, and his Legal Heirs, Plaintiff No.1(a) and (b) have come on record.
5) The Court has framed the 15 Issues and 2 Additional Issues as follows:
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that the Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the Suit Schedule Property?
2. Whether the Plaintiff further proves that one Matadaramaiah was the maternal uncle of Plaintiff and as such the Suit Schedule Property devolved on him?6 O.S.No.2851/2005
3. Whether the Plaintiff further proves that the Sale Deed Dated 13-10-1982 and also Rectification Deed dated 29-6-1984 th executed by 4 Defendant in favour of the 3rd Defendant are not binding on the Plaintiff?
4. Whether the Plaintiff further proves that the Sale Deed Dated 6-5-1986 executed by the 3rd Defendant in favour of the 2nd Defendant is not binding on the Plaintiff?
5. Whether the Plaintiff further proves that the Sale Deed Dated 18-8-2003 executed by the 2nd Defendant in favour of the 1st Defendant is not binding on the Plaintiff?
6. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to take possession of the Suit Schedule Property from the 1st Defendant?
7. Whether the Defendant proves that the Judgment and Decree obtained by the Plaintiff and his brother in RFA No.276/1982 by playing fraud and collusive in respect of non-adjusting the property and is not binding on the 1st Defendant?
8. Whether the Plaintiff further proves that existence of Site No.13 in Sy.No.253 of Byatarayanapura, Mysore Road, Bengaluru?
9. Whether the Plaintiff further proves that the 1st Defendant put up illegal construction on the Suit Schedule Property?7 O.S.No.2851/2005
10. Whether the Plaintiff further proves that the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs of mandatory injunction directing the 1st Defendant to remove the illegal construction put up by him on the Suit Schedule Property?
11. Whether the Plaintiff further proves the alleged interference by the 1st Defendant in his lawful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property?
12. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction?
13. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?
14. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief as sought?
15. What Decree or Order?
Additional Issues:
1. Whether Plaintiffs prove that Sri.Mattappa had alienated an extent of 20 guntas in Sy.No.25/3 to one Sri.V.Seetharamaiah, as contended?
2. Whether Plaintiffs prove that L.Rs. of late Sri.V.Seetharamaiah have executed Agreement of Sale on 30-3-1995 in favour of the deceased Plaintiff, in respect of the land to the extent of 20 guntas in Sy.No.25/3, by putting the Plaintiff in possession thereof, as alleged?8 O.S.No.2851/2005
6) The Plaintiff No.1(b) has examined himself as P.W.1 and got 29 documents exhibited. The Defendant No.1 has examined himself as D.W.1 and got 52 documents exhibited.
7) Heard Counsels of both sides and perused Synopsis of Defendant No.1.
8) The answers to the above Issues are:
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 - In the Affirmative, Issue No.6 - In the Affirmative, Issue No.7 - In the Negative, Issue No.8 - In the Affirmative, Issue No.9 - In the Affirmative, Issue No.10 - In the Affirmative, Issue No.11 - In the Affirmative, Issue No.12 - In the Affirmative, Issue No.13 - In the Negative, Issue No.14 - In the Affirmative, Addl. Issue No.1 - In the Negative, Addl. Issue No.2 - In the Negative, Issue No.15 - As per Final Order, for the following:9 O.S.No.2851/2005
REASONS
9)(a) Issues No.1 to 5 and 7: As the Issues No.1 to 5 and 7 are inter-connected, they are taken together for consideration.
9)(b) The Plaintiff No.1(b) has produced the certified copy of Judgment and decree passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka on 25-1-1995/ 7-3-1995, Exs.P1 and 2 respectively, that was decreed to the extent of 2 acres 3 guntas in favour of Plaintiff and remaining 20 guntas to eastern side in favour of Respondents No.1 and 2 in the Appeal, i.e., Mattappa and V.Seetharamaiah. In the Judgment, at paragraph No.8, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has considered the compromise entered into by the parties in passing the Judgment and Decree. The litigation commenced from somewhere in 1973 and finally ended in 1995, and no Appeal or any case was preferred against Exs.P1 and P2.
9)(c) The Defendant No.1 has objected that said Judgment and decree has been obtained by fraud, as the parties did not disclose about Sale Deeds executed during pendency of Appeal, and hence, is not binding upon him. It is settled principle of law u/S.52 of Transfer of Property Act, Doctrine of Lis Pendence, that alienee will be bound by the result of the litigation. That itself, does not make either the 10 O.S.No.2851/2005 transfer void or non-reporting to Court, fraudulent.
The Court does not find any substance in the defence of Defendant No.1, and Defendant No.1 has not proved, that Exs.P1 and P2 is obtained by fraud. Hence, the vendors to Sale Deed Dated 13-10-1982, Ex.P5 also Ex.D1, original Ex.D36 and Rectification Deed, Ex.D37 with respect to measurement of site, by Defendant No.4, Shri.Govindappa to Defendant No.3, Shri.Chandrappa is without authority, i.e., by person who is not at all owner of Suit Property. Subsequently, the other 2 Sale Deeds dated 6-5-1986 and 18-8-2003, Exs.P6 and P7 also Exs.D3 and D4, originals Exs.D38 and D39, executed by Defendant No.3 and 2 respectively, will also have no force of law, as they are not legitimate owners, and thereby, Defendant No.1 does not get any right and title over Suit Schedule Property as having purchased for Rs.4,80,000/- paid in cash. Therefore, Issues No.1 to 5 are answered in the Affirmative and Issue No.7 in the Negative.
10)(a) Issues No.6, 8 and 9: These 3 Issues with respect to Possession, are inter-connected, and hence, taken together for consideration.
10)(b) It is not in dispute that Suit Schedule Property Site No.13 in Sy.No.25/3 in Byatarayanapura measuring 30 feet x 40 feet i.e., 11 O.S.No.2851/2005 1200 square feet, was renumbered as Municipal No.5/1, then 5/A and now 5/37. This is admitted by Defendant No.1, and has described the same in his Written Statement Schedule Property. This also becomes apparent from Endorsement of Assistant Revenue Officer, Bengaluru, dated 21-6-2005, Ex.P24, who has replied to the applications of Plaintiff for effecting Khata in his name on 29-12-2003, Ex.P22 and on 20-10-2004, Ex.P23 and prior to this Notice through Advocate dated 11-4-2001, Ex.P21. Ex.P24, Endorsement clarifies that Sy.No.25/3 of Byatarayanapura was allotted No.5/1, then 5/A, and from Khata Records of 1980 to 2000, no Khata Entry is done in name of Govindappa, Defendant No.4, or anybody. This goes to show clearly that Revenue Records never stood in name of Defendant No.4 and Defendant No.4 had no title to sell Suit Property. It is only Defendant No.1 who has managed to get Khata Entry done in his name, Exs.D13, D17, D47 and D48, Encumbrance Certificates and Tax Receipts, that cannot be given any value, as it flows from illegal Sale Deed. Hence, Issue No.8 is answered in the Affirmative, that Plaintiffs have proven existence of Site No.13 in Sy.No.25/3, Municipal No.5/1, then 5/A and now 5/37, No.5/37 is seen in Khata Extracts, Ex.D13 to D17.
12 O.S.No.2851/200510)(c) The Plaintiffs having proven lawful ownership, and their continuous attempts to get Khata Entries done, are entitled for possession from Defendant No.1, who has admitted that Suit Schedule Property is in his possession. The Plaintiff states that possession was forceful. The Defendant No.1 has produced his Sanctioned Building Plan, Ex.D30 granted on 29-3-2004 to 28-3-2006, Ex.D40, Letter of Defendant No.1 to Canara Bank dated 2-6-2017 to return original documents given while availing Housing Loan of Rs.5-lakhs in February, 2006, go to s how that, Defendant No.1 being party to t his Suit filed on 8-4-2005, and knowing that Revenue Records never stood in names of Defendants No.1 to 3, has constructed the building on it. The construction of building on strength of illegal Sale Deed which gives no title, makes the construction too illegal, and therefore, he is bound to remove the same and handover possession to the Plaintiffs, and hence, Issues No.6 and 9 are answered in the Affirmative.
11) Issues No.10 to 12: These Issues are with respect to injunction, hence taken together.
The Plaintiffs having succeeded in proving ownership and entitlement to possession, it can be construed that the Plaintiff was in lawful possession, 13 O.S.No.2851/2005 and was trying to be dispossessed at the time of Suit, and hence is entitled for mandatory injunction of removing the illegal construction and not to be meddled or construct or alienate Suit Property, Issue Nos.10 to 12 are answered in the Affirmative.
12) Issue No.13: The Plaintiff has filed Suit on 8-4-2005, after knowing about concocted Sale Deeds on 22-8-2003, and hence the Court finds the same well within time, and therefore, this Issue is answered in the Negative.
13) Issue No.14: Plaintiffs having succeeded in establishing their ownership, getting possession and Injunction, they are entitled for the reliefs claimed for, and this Issue is accordingly, answered in Affirmative.
14) Additional Issues No.1 and 2: These two Issues being inter-connected are taken up together.
The Plaintiffs have not adduced any document to show the flow of 10 guntas of Mattappa's land to V.Seetharamaiah, nor Ex.P28 dated 30-3-1995, Agreement to Sell by Legal Heirs of V.Seetharamaiah, is proved as mandated u/S. 67 of Indian Evidence Act. The signatures of the executants are not at all identified and marked. Names and addresses of witnesses is not shown in Ex.P28, though there are 3 signatures of witnesses.
14 O.S.No.2851/2005The payment of consideration of Rs.3,65,000/- is not shown as paid through Cheque or D.D. or Pay Order, though the amount is very huge considering its value in 1995. Flow of consideration is very important factor in determining the genuinety of transaction. The Plaintiff from 1973 to 1995 was involved in litigation, and obviously, he would be knowing the importance of mode of payment of consideration. No Sale Deed is forthcoming though 10 years had passed as on the date of Suit, all makes Ex.P28 highly doubtful and not proved. The Plaintiffs have also not prayed for any relief over Ex.P28. Hence, Additional issues No.1 and 2 are answered in the Negative.
15)(a) The Advocate for Plaintiff has relied upon following decisions:
1. AIR 1999 SC 1441 (Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao and another)
2. AIR 1991 SC 395 (Smt/Gitarani Paul vs. Dibyendra Kundu alias Dibeyendra Kumar Kundu)
3. AIR 1968 SC 1165 (Nair Service Society Ltd.
vs. K..Alexander and others)
4. 2010(2) AIR Kar.R.498 (State by Vijayapura Police vs. Doddasubbanna alias Subbarayappa & Ors.)
5. AIR 2007 SC 1332 (Sanjay Verma vs.Manik Roy and Ors.) 15 O.S.No.2851/2005
6. AIR 1955 Travancore-Cochin 573 (Lakka Devassya vs. Eapen Thomma Cr.)
7. AIR 1989 SC 1269 (Smt.Chandrakantaben J.Modi and Narendra Jayantilal Modi vs. Vadilal Bapalal Modi and others)
8. (1996) 5 SCC 539 (Sarvinder Singh vs. Dalip Singh and others)
9. ILR 2007 Kar. 339 (Sri.Aralappa vs.Sri. Jagannath and others)
10. AIR 1963 SC 1279 (Ladli Prashad Jaiswal vs. The Karnal Distillery Co.Ltd. Karnal and others)
11. AIR 1976 SC 869 (Puwada Venkateswara Rao vs. Chidamana Venkata Ramana)
12. (1993) 4 SCC 349 (Guru Amarjit Singh vs. Rattan Chand and others) The Advocate for Defendant No.1 has relied upon following decisions:
1. (1994) SCC 01 (S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs. vs. Jagannath (dead) by LRs.
and others)
2. 2017(3) AKR. 719 (Basavantappa Ningappa Santi & others vs. Siddappa Ramappa Santi & others)
3. 2017(3) AKR 329 (Balasaheb Annasaheb Jasud vs. Anirudha Vilas Kurbetti and others)
4. 2010(3) KCCR 2047 (Smt.Vasanthamma vs. Siddaveerappa and others)
5. (2003) 8 SCC 319 (Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi and others) 16 O.S.No.2851/2005
6. ILR 2008 Kar. 672 (Smt.Mariam George vs. Smt.S.Jeswina)
7. AIR 2009 SC 2966 (T.K.Mohammed Abubucker(D)Thr.L.Rs. and ors. vs. P.S.M.Ahamed Abdul Khader and Ors.)
8. ILR 2007 Kar.339-Head Note-B (Sri.Aralappa vs. Sri.Jagannath and others)
9. 2007(6) SCC 737-Head Note-A (Ramchandra Sakharam Mahajan vs. Damodar Trimbak Tanksale (dead) and others)
10. AIR 2000 Madras 465-Head Note D & E (S.Madasamy Thevar vs. A.M.Arjuna Raja)
11. AIR 2009 SC 2966-Head Note-C (T.K.Mohammed Abubucker(D) Thr.L.Rs. & Ors. V. P.S.M.Ahamed Abdul Khader & Ors)
12. (2006) 12 SCC 552 (Avtar Singh and others vs. Gurdial Singh and others)
13. AIR 2019 SC 1430 (Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) By Lrs.) All the decisions produced by both sides with respect to fraud, limitation, adverse inference, Doctrine of Lis Pendens, and so on are not applicable to facts and circumstances of this case.
16) Issue No.15: For the aforesaid reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
17 O.S.No.2851/2005ORDER The Suit of the Plaintiffs No.1(a) and (b) is decreed with costs.
It is declared that the Sale Deeds dated 13- 10-1982, Rectification Deed dated 29-6-1984, Sale Deed dated 6-5-1986 and Sale Deed Dated 18-8-2003 of the Defendant No.1 to 4(c) with respect to Suit Schedule Property, are null and void, and concerned Sub-Registrar is directed to cancel the said Deeds.
It is ordered that Defendant No.1 shall handover the vacant possession of Suit Schedule Property by removing the illegal construction, to the Plaintiffs No.1(a) and (b) within 60 days from date of this Judgment, failing which, the Plaintiffs No.1(a) and (b) shall remove the illegal construction at the cost of Defendant No.1.
The Defendants No.1 to 4(c) are restrained by order of Permanent Injunction from meddling, alienating or constructing anything in Suit Schedule Property.
Draw Decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcription computerized, then corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 4th day of July, 2019) (Sachin Kaushik.R.N.) III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.18 O.S.No.2851/2005
SCHEDULE Vacant site bearing No.13 forming part of Sy.No.25/3(the present Muncipal Number of which is already shown as 5/37 in the 1st Defendant's alleged Sale Deed Dated 18-8-2003), Byatarayanapura,Mysore Road, Bengaluru-26, measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 30 feet and bounded on the East by - Site No.12, West by-site No.14, North by-road, South by - Site No.8 and thereafter road.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1 R.Venkatesh List of witnesses examined for the defendants:
D.W.1 B.P.Channakeshava List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff: Exs.P1 & P3 -certified copy Judgment and Decree in RFA No.276/82 Ex.P3 - True copy of Layout Plan Ex.P4 - Application filed for transfer of Khata Ex.P5 - c.c. of Sale Deed executed by Govindappa in favour of Chandrappa Ex.P6 - c.c. of Sale Deed Dated executed by Chandappa in favour of Leelavathi Ex.P7 - c.c. of Sale Deed executed by Leelavathi Ex.P8 - c.c. of Rectification Deed executed by Govindappa in favour of Chandrappa Ex.P9 - c.c. of Gift Deed executed by Doddamma and others in favour of Poojamma.
Ex.P10 - c.c. of Sale Deed executed by Poojamma in favour of R.Shivaiah Ex.P11 - Application given for Transfer of Khata in respect of Site No.13 Ex.P12- Complaint given to Commissioner, BMP, for effecting Khata Exs.P13 & P14 - Encumbrance Certificates Ex.P15 - Copy of Police Complaint Ex.P16 - Acknowledgment given by Police Ex.P17 - Complaint given to BMP Ex.P18 - Death Certificate in respect of Plaintiff 19 O.S.No.2851/2005 Ex.P19 - RTC extract in respect of Sy.No.25/3 Ex.P20 - c.c. of Mahazar drawn by Revenue Inspector Ex.P21 - c.c. of Legal Notice issued to Asst.Revenue Officer Ex.P22 - copy of Notice issued to Asst.Revenue Inspector Ex.P23 - copy of Reminder given to Revenue authorities Ex.P24 - c.c. of Endorsement given by Corporation Exs.P25 & P26 - Photographs Exs.P25(A) & P26(A) - Negative Ex.P27 - Bill issued by Photo Studio Ex.P28 - Agreement to Sell dated 30-3-1995 executed by wife and children of Seetharamaiah in favour of Plaintiff Ex.P29 - Medical File List of documents exhibited for the defendants: Exs.D1 to D4- c.c. of Sale Deeds and Rectification Deed Exs.D1(a) to D3(a) - typed copies Ex.D5 - BMP Tax Recovery Notice Ex.D6 - BMP Certificate Exs.D7 to D9 - Tax Paid receipts Ex.D10 & D11 - Encumbrance Certificates Ex.D12 - BMP Uttara Patra Ex.D13 - BMP Certificate Ex.D14 - BMP Khata Extract Exs.D15 & D16 -BBMP Khata Certificate and Khata extracts Ex.D17 - Encumbrance Certificate Exs.D18 to D28 - Tax paid receipts Ex.D29 - BMP Licence Ex.D30 - Approved Plan Exs.D31 & D32 - BMP Development charge paid receipts (Exs.D5 to D10, D12 to D14, D17 to D19, D29, D31, D32 are attested Photo copies) Ex.D33 - Aadhar Card of DW1 Ex.D34 - APL Card of DW1 Ex.D35 - Voters ID Card of DW1 Ex.D36 - c.c. of Sale Deed Dated 13-10-1982 Ex.D37 - Regd. Rectification Deed dtd.29-6-1984 Ex.D38 - Sale Deed Dated 6-5-1986 Ex.D39 - Sale Deed Dated 18-8-2003 Ex.D40 - Letter to Manager, Canara Bank Ex.D41 - Loan Account of DW1 Ex.D42 - office copy of legal opinion dtd.11-2-2006 20 O.S.No.2851/2005 Ex.D43 - Letter of Canara Bank Ex.D44 - Loan Closure Statement of Canara Bank Exs.D45 to D46 - BBMP Tax Paid Receipts Exs.D47 & D48 - BBMP Khata Certificate and Khata extracts Ex.D49 - c.c. of Sale Deed Dated 29-4-1992 Ex.D49(a) - photocopy of Ex.D49 Ex.D50 - c.c. of Sale Deed Dated 12-2-1985 Ex.D50(a) - photocopy of Ex.D50 Ex.D51- c.c. of GPA dtd.26-12-1991 Ex.D51(a) - photocopy Ex.D52 - c.c. of Sale Deed Dated 17-3-1983 Ex.D52(a) - photocopy (Sachin Kaushik.R.N.) III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.