Bangalore District Court
Sri.B.R. Subramanya vs Sri.M.Srinivas Murthy on 29 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU.
(CCH74)
Present: Sri.YAMANAPPA BAMMANAGI,
B.A., LL.B., (Spl.,)
LXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
Dated this the 29th day of February, 2020.
O.S. No.26835/2012
Plaintiff: Sri.B.R. Subramanya.
S/o.Sri.Rajgopal, aged about
62 years, R/at.No.68, 14th Cross,
East Park Road, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore 560054
(By Sri.B.M.Shyam Prasad - Adv.)
V/s
Defendants: 1. Sri.M.Srinivas Murthy,
S/o.Late.Sri.Mariyappa,
aged about 55 years,
2. Smt. Ratnamma,
W/o.Sri.M.Srinivas Murthy,
aged about 42 years,
3. Smt. S. Shruthi,
D/o.Sri.M.Srinivas Murthy,
aged about 26 years,
2 O.S. No.26835/2012
4. Smt.S.Swetha,
D/o.Sri.M.Srinivas Murthy,
aged about 26 yrs,
5. Smt.Rathnamma,
W/o.Late.Sri.M. Venugopal,
aged about 42 years,
6. Sri.Manoj Kumar,
S/o.Late.Sri.M.Venu Gopal,
aged about 24 years,
7. Sri.Santhosh Kumar
S/o.Late.Sri.M.Venu Gopal,
aged about 22 years,
All 1 to 7 are R/at.No.222,
Opp. Jakkur Post Office,
Jakur Village, Yelanka Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk.
8. Smt.Anandamma,
W/o.Late.Sri.Belle Gowda,
aged about 60 years,
D/o.Late.Sri.Mariyappa,
R/at.No.88, 1st Cross, Kalappa
Layout, Amruthhalli Post,
Bangalore92.
9. Smt.Uma,
W/o.Late.Sri.Narayanappa
D/o.Late.Sri.Mariyappa
aged about 51 years,
3 O.S. No.26835/2012
R/at.Appajappa Layout,
1st Main, Shampura, R.T.
Nagara Post, Bangalore32.
10. Sri.Shankara Murthy,
S/o.Sri.Gangappa, aged about
48 years, R/o.No.439, 17th Cross,
2nd Stage, Rajajinagar,
Malleshwaram West, Bangalore55.
11. Sri.Gangadhar,
S/o.Sri.Rajjanna, aged about
24 years, No. 24, Hurlugurki Village,
Vekatagirikote Post, Vijayapura
Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
(By Sri.G.A. Prem Kumar - Adv. for defts.1 to 4)
(Defts.5 to 11Exparte)
Date of Institution of the suit 15092012
Nature of the (Suit or pro
note, suit for declaration and
INJUNCTION SUIT
possession, suit for injunction,
etc.)
Date of the commencement of
11.10.2018
recording of the Evidence.
Date on which the Judgment
29.02.2020
was pronounced.
4 O.S. No.26835/2012
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 07 05 14
(Yamanappa Bammanagi)
73rd Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit,
(CCH74), Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for permanent injunction against the defendants their agents and any persons claiming under them, restraining them from interfering with a lawful possession of the plaintiff on the suit schedule property.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case:
It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule properties as per two registered sale deeds dated 19.7.2010 executed by registered GPA holder in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule 'A' and 'B' property. And after execution of sale deeds by the GPA holder of the defendants No.1 to 9 the defendants No.1 to 9 have executed registered confirmation 5 O.S. No.26835/2012 deed confirming that the sale deeds executed by their GPA holder,in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties are binding on them and the said registered confirmation deed was registered on 21.7.2010 and thereafter, on basis of registered sale deeds, and confirmation deeds the revenue records; i.e., khatha have been changed in the name of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property and plaintiff is paying tax to the competent authority in respect of suit schedule property and transactions between the plaintiff and defendants are entered in the encumbrance certificates.
The khatha, tax paid receipts, and encumbrance certificates have been produced by the plaintiff. Further it is case of the plaintiff that the land bearing Sy.No.11/8, measuring 34 guntas and Sy.No.11/9, measuring 1 acre 2 gunta of Jakkur Village were originally belongs to Munishamappa, S/o.Muniyappa and he was in possession and enjoyment of the said lands and revenue records were standing in his 6 O.S. No.26835/2012 name. The said Munishamappa had two sons by name i) Mariyappawho had 4 children by name Anandamma, M.Srinivas Murthy, said Srinivas Murthy had two daughters by name Shruthi and Shwetha, Uma and Venugopal (who had two sons by name Manoj Kumar and Santhosh Kumar) and ii) Krishnappa, who are the defendants No.1 to 9 herein.
The Munishamappa died leaving behind him, his two sons by name Mariyappa and Krishnappa as his legal heirs to succeed over the suit property. Thereafter, said Mariyappa and Krishnappa died leaving behind them their children who have got revenue entries in their favour; i.e., M.Srinivas Murthy and Venugopal in respect of land measuring 8 guntas in Sy.No.11/8 and 14 guntas in Sy.No.11/9 and measuring 28 guntas in Sy.No.11/9 and obtained inheritance khatha in their favour. Defendants No.1 to 9 have executed a GPA, dated 12.2.2009, in favour of one A.Prakash Babu, S/o.Linga Reddy in order to obtain conversion order in land bearing 7 O.S. No.26835/2012 Sy.No.11/8 for 8 guntas and Sy.No.11/9, for 14 guntas of Jakkur Village. And said GPA holder obtained conversion order from the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, dated 31.8.2009 vide No.ALN (NAY) SR 34/200910, in respect of land bearing Sy.No.11/8 for 8 guntas out of measuring 34 guntas and in Sy.No.11/9 for 14 guntas out of measuring 1 acre 2 gunta of Jakkur Village, and thereafter, defendant No.1 to 9 have executed GPA, dated 7.7.2010, in favour of said A.Prakash Babu, in respect of suit schedule property.
Subsequently, defendants No.1 to 9, have executed confirmation deed in favour of plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and put up compound wall around the schedule property to avoid the trespass and obtained khatha from the BBMP and used to pay taxes in respect of suit schedule property. Such being the fact, the plaintiff came to know that defendants No.1 to 9 alleged to have been executed a registered 8 O.S. No.26835/2012 agreement of sale dated 18.1.2012, in favour of defendant NO.10 & 11 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.11/8 for 8 guntas and Sy.No.11/9 for 14 guntas of Jakkur Village, without having any right, title, interest over the said properties. The defendant No.10 and 11 on the basis of alleged agreement of sale, though defendant No.10 and 11 have no right, title, interest over the suit schedule property, started to attempt to interference with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff's property and trying to demolish the entire compound wall constructed by the plaintiff in around the suit schedule property. Though the plaintiff requested the defendants not to do illegal act, but, defendants did not heed the request of the plaintiff, hence, plaintiff has filed this suit for necessary reliefs as prayed in the plaint.
3. Though summons to the defendants No.1 to 11 duly served, but, defendant No.5 to 8 and defendant No.10 & 11 9 O.S. No.26835/2012 are placed exparte and defendant No.1 to 4 though appeared through counsel, but, they did not choose to file their written statement and they did not choose to cross examine of P.W.1, and they did not choose to lead their evidence, after giving sufficient opportunity to the defendants, for cross of P.W.1 and for leading their evidence, the evidence of P.W.1 was taken as Nil and evidence of defendant No.1 to 4 are taken as Nil. Heard argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
4. I have perused the oral and documentary evidence led by the plaintiff and I have also perused the material placed before the court and considered the argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. On perusal of the same, the points that would arise for my consideration are as follows: POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property at the time of filing of the suit?
10 O.S. No.26835/2012
2. Whether plaintiff proves that the defendants have interfered in his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?
3. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for the reliefs sought in the plaint?
4. What order or decree?
5. In order to prove his case, the Special Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.14. Though the defendants No.1 to 4 appeared through counsel, but, they did not choose to cross examine P.W.1 even sufficient opportunity has been provided, and defendants have not filed any written statement, hence, they did not led any evidence. Heard, argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and arguments of the learned counsel for the defendants No.1 to 4 is taken as heard, since, defendants No.1 to 4 and their 11 O.S. No.26835/2012 counsel absent, when case was posted for defendants argument. Defendants No.5 to 11 placed exparte.
6. My answer to the above points are as follows: Point No.1: In the Affirmative, Point No.2: In the Affirmative, Point No.3: In the Affirmative, Point No.4: As per final order, for the following: REASONS
7. POINT No.1: In order to prove his case, the plaintiff got examined his Special Power of Attorney Holder as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.14. P.W.1 is examined by filing affidavit in lieu of examination in chief, reiterating the averments of the plaint. It is the case of the plaintiff, as per deposition of P.W.1, that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule 'A' and 'B' property, by virtue of registered sale deeds and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. After purchasing the suit schedule 12 O.S. No.26835/2012 properties under registered sale deeds the plaintiff got changed khatha in respect of suit schedule property in his name and used to pay tax to the competent authority. Said registered sale deeds in respect of suit schedule property have been executed by the GPA, holder of defendant No.1 to 9, said GPA is registered. After execution of sale deed by the GPA holder of the defendant No.1 to 9, in respect of suit schedule properties, in favour of the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 to 9 have executed registered confirmation deed confirming the registered sale deeds executed by their GPA holder in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property. After confirmation deed the revenue records have been changed in the name of plaintiff and the name of the plaintiff has been entered in the revenue records of suit schedule properties on basis of registered sale deeds and registered confirmation deed. Since date of purchase the 13 O.S. No.26835/2012 plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
8. In support of his oral evidence, the plaintiff has produced documents which have been marked at Ex.P.1 to P.14. Ex.P.1 is the GPA executed by plaintiff in favour of P.W.1 to depose evidence on his behalf and prosecute the case. Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 19.7.2010 executed by GPA holder of defendants No.1 to 9 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule 'B' property. Defendants No.1 to 9 are also parties to the sale deed Ex.P.2. I have perused Ex.P.2, the recital of the Ex.P.2 at page No.4 reads thus:
"I. WHEREAS, the vendors admit that the propriety bearing Sy.No. 11/9 measuring 14 guntas out of total extent of 1 acre 2 guntas and Sy.No. 11/8 measuring 8 guntas out of total extent 34 guntas belongs to one Muniswamappa who also died.14 O.S. No.26835/2012
Muniswamappa had 2 sons namely (1) Mariyappa (2) Krishnappa. The said Mariyappa had 2 sons namely M. Srinivasamurthy and M. Venugopal and 2 daughters namely Anandhamma and Uma.
II. WHEREAS, AFTER DEATH OF SAID Muniswamappa, Mariyappa and Krishnappa got separated, and the sons of Mariyappa after his death, namely M. Srinivasmurthy and M. Venugopal jointly obtained katha in RTC and Mutation IHC 24/9596 to the extent of 14 guntas in Sy.No. 11/9 and 8 guntas in Sy.
No.11/8. The remaining extent went to the share of said Krishnappa's son namely Appanna.
The partition was effected and katha was made out as far as back as 1995. There was no objection is also raised by any other claimant.
As such, the sons of late Mariyappa namely M. Srinivasamurthy and M. 15 O.S. No.26835/2012 Venugopal were held joint owners to the above extent of land.
III. Whereas, the Kathedars namely M. Srinivasmurthy and M. Venugopal for their family and legal necessities and also for the benefit of entire family members and for discharge of family debts, sold the property in Sy. No. 11/9 measuring 14 guntas and in Sy. No. 11/8 measuring 8 guntas by executing a GPA in favour of M.Sree ramulu S/o Late Narasaraju M.V. who is no more now. The said M. Sree Ramulu on the basis of GPA dt 28.01.2003 formed layout and sold the sites in favour of purchaser by executing un registered GPA IV. WHEREAS, Now said Sree Ramulu is no more and as such the said GPA has no validity and due to said legal leaches, the vendors herein above executed a Registered Power of Attorney in favour of Sri. A. Prakash Babu to complete all 16 O.S. No.26835/2012 legal formalities by executing sale deed and also to obtain katha and deliver physical possession to and in favour of the purchasers and to do all such other acts to complete sale transaction and that the vendors had received entire sale consideration.
VIII. WHEREAS, The vendors hereinabove through their attorney paid all taxes in respect of schedule property and the katha has been registered in their names and the vendors authorised and empowered the attorney holder to deliver the physical possession to the purchaser under this registered sale deed.
IX (4). Further more the vendors and all persons claiming under them shall and will from time to time upon the request of the purchaser do or execute all such acts, deeds and things whatsoever for further and more particularly 17 O.S. No.26835/2012 assuring the said schedule property and every part thereof unto the purchaser and placing him in possession of the same according to the true intents and meaning of these presents as shall or as may be reasonably required."
Further it is relevant to extract the schedule property shown in Ex.P.2, which reads thus:
"SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the property bearing site No. 73 Sl.No. 18, assessment khatha No. 11/9/70 of BBMP, carved out in D.C. converted land bearing Sy.No. 11/9 measuring to an extent of 14 guntas out of 1 acre 2 guntas of Jakkur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and the site No. 73 measuring East to West: 40 ft and North South: 30 ft total area of 1200 sq.ft and bounded on:
East by: Road;18 O.S. No.26835/2012
West by: Sy.No. 11/3;
North by: Site No.72; and on South by: Site No. 74.
The present market value of the schedule property is Rs.14,40,000 00 (Rupees Fourteen lakhs forty thousand only)."
On perusal of the contents of Ex.P.2 extracted above it is clear that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule 'B' property from the date of Ex.P.2.
9. Ex.P.3 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed in respect of schedule 'A' property executed by the registered GPA holder of defendant No.1 to 9, in favour of the plaintiff. I have perused Ex.P.3 it is clear that the GPA holder of defendant No.1 to 9 have executed registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule 'A' property for consideration and by virtue of said registered sale deed the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule 'A' property and defendant No.1 to 9 are parties to 19 O.S. No.26835/2012 the document Ex.P.3. Now it is relevant to extract the relevant portion of Ex.P.3. The recital of Ex.P.3 reads thus:
"I. WHEREAS, the vendors admit that the property bearing Sy.No. 11/9 measuring 14 guntas out of total extent of 1 acre 2 guntas and Sy. No. 11/8 measuring 8 guntas out of total extent 34 guntas belongs to one Muniswamappa who also died. Muniswamappa had 2 sons namely (1) Mariyappa (2) Krishnappa. The said Mariyappa had 2 sons namely M. Srinivasamurthy and M. Venugopal and 2 daughters namely Anandhamma and Uma.
II. WHEREAS, AFTER DEATH OF SAID Muniswamappa, Mariyappa and Krishnappa got separated, and the sons of Mariyappa after his death, namely M. Srinivasamurthy and M. Venugopal jointly obtained katha in RTC and Mutation IHC 24/9596 to the extent of 14 guntas 20 O.S. No.26835/2012 in Sy.No. 11/9 and 8 guntas in Sy.
No. 11/8. The remaining extent went to the share of said Krishnappa's son namely Appanna. The partition as effected and katha was made out as far as back as 1995. There was no objection is also raised by any other claimant.
As such, the sons of the late Mariyappa namely M. Srinivasamurthy and M. Venugopal were held joint owners to the above extent of land.
III. Whereas, the kathedars namely M. Srinivasamurthy and M. Venugopal for their family and legal necessities and also for the benefit of entire family members and for discharge of family debts, sold the property in Sy.No.11/9 measuring 14 guntas and in Sy. No. 11/8 measuring 8 guntas by executing a GPA in favour of M. Sree Ramulu S/o Late Narasaraju M.V. who is no more now. The said M. Sree 21 O.S. No.26835/2012 Ramulu on the basis of GPA dt.
28.01.2003 formed layout and sold the sites in favour of Purchaser by executing unregistered GPA.
IV. WHEREAS, now said Sree Ramulu is no more and as such the said GPA has no validity and due to said legal leaches, the vendors herein above executed a Registered Power of Attorney in favour of Sri.A. Prakash Babu to complete all legal formalities by executing sale deed and also to obtain katha and deliver physical possession to and in favour of the purchasers and to do all such other acts to complete sale transaction and that the vendors had received entire sale consideration."
It is also relevant to extract the schedule property shown in the Ex.P.3, which reads thus:
22 O.S. No.26835/2012
"SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of property bearing Site No. 70, Sl.No. 16 Assessment Katha No. 11/9/70 of BBMP, carved out in D.C. converted land bearing Sy. No. 11/9 measuring to an extent of 14 guntas out of 1 acre 2 guntas of Jakkur Village, Yelahanks Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and the site No. 70 measuring East to West: 40 ft and North to South: 30 ft total area of 1200 sq.ft and bounded on:
East by: Road;
West by: Sy.No. 11/3;
North by: Remaining property in Sy. No. 11/9; and on South by: Site No. 71.
The present market value of the schedule property is Rs.14,40,000 00 (Rupees Fourteen lakhs forty thousand only)."
10. Ex.P.4 is the certified copy of the registered confirmation deed dated 21.7.2010 executed by defendant 23 O.S. No.26835/2012 No.1 to 9, in favour of the plaintiff in respect of sale deed Ex.P.2, executed by them in respect of scheduleB property. On perusal of the Ex.P.4 it is clear that the sale deed executed by the GPA holder of defendant No.1 to 9 in respect of suit schedule 'B' property, in favour of the plaintiff has been confirmed by the defendant No.1 to 9 the act of sale of schedule 'B' property by their GPA holder.
11. Ex.P.5 is the confirmation deed dated 21.7.2010, executed by defendant No.1 to 9, in favour of the plaintiff in respect of sale deed Ex.P.3, executed by them in respect of schedule 'A' property. On perusal of the Ex.P.5 it is clear that the sale deed executed by the GPA holder of defendant No.1 to 9, in respect of suit schedule 'A' property, in favour of the plaintiff has been confirmed by the defendant No.1 to 9 the act of sale of schedule 'A' property by their GPA holder. The registered sale deeds Ex.P.2 and P.3 and registered confirmation deeds and registered GPA, have got presumptive 24 O.S. No.26835/2012 value under the law that unless and until those documents are challenged before the competent authority or court of law those documents are presumed to be genuine documents. In support of my finding, I relied on the decision reported in 2009 (5) SCC 713 in case of Vimalchand Jain v/s Ramakant Jadoo. The lordships have held in the said decision that;
"A registered deed of sale carries presumption that the transaction was a genuine one, if, the execution of sale deed is proved, onus is on the other side to prove that the deed was not executed and it was a sham transaction. Thus burden to prove that it is not a genuine lies on the person who alleges that it is not so."
12. Ex.P.6 to P.9 are the revenue records. Ex.P.6 is the formB property register, which reflects the property No.11/970, stands in the name of plaintiff, further reflects 25 O.S. No.26835/2012 the dimension of schedule 'A' property and Ex.P.7 reflects property No.11/973, stands in the name of plaintiff. It is also reflects the dimension and total measurement of the schedule 'A' property. Ex.P.9 & P.12 are the encumbrance certificates for the period from 1.4.2010 to 30.06.2012, & from 1.1.2010 to 18.01.2019 in respect of suit schedule properties. Ex.P.9 & P.12 are reflects the transaction of suit schedule properties in between plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 9 in respect of suit schedule property. The revenue records have got presumptive value u/S 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads thus:
"35.Relevancy of entry in public [record or an electronic record] made in performance of duty.__ An entry in any public or other official book, register or [record or an electronic record], stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other 26 O.S. No.26835/2012 person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register, or [record or an electronic record] is kept, is itself a relevant fact.
Editor's Note._The words "Fact", "Facts in issue" and 'Relevant" are defined in Section 3 of this Act."
13. In support of my opinion I relied on the decision reported in ILR 2004 KAR.1074 in case of Naganna Vs. Shivanna. The lordship have held at Head NoteB, thus:
"REBUTTAL EVIDENCE - entries in the ROR carries presumptive value in law - if there is no convincing evidence to rebutt the legal presumption, lessor relief of injunction can be granted. But the declaration title cannot be granted."27 O.S. No.26835/2012
14. Further relied on decision reported in AIR 2008 SC 901 in case of Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar and others Vs. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund and Others. The lordship have held at Head NoteB, reads thus:
"Evidence Act, (1 of 1872), Ss. 35, 114 revenue records not document of title it merely raises presumption of possession."
The lordship have discussed at Para12 of the judgment, which reads thus:
"A revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession. Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof both forward and backward can also be raised under Section 110 of the the Indian Evidence Act.
The Courts below, were, therefore, required to appreciate the evidence 28 O.S. No.26835/2012 keeping in view the correct legal principles in mind."
15. Ex.P.10 & P.11 are the certified copies of registered power of attorney executed by defendant No.1 to 9 in favour of one A.Prakash Babu, who is GPA holder of plaintiff. On perusal of the same it is clear that the defendant No.1 to 9 have executed GPA in favour of GPA holder authorizing him to sell the suit property to the plaintiff along with others. On perusal of the Ex.P.10 and P.11 it is clear that the defendant No.1 to 9 have sold the suit properties to the plaintiff through his GPA holder for valuable consideration. I have also considered Ex.P.13 Photos which reflects the view of the suit schedule property.
16. On perusal of the unchallenged oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' property at the time 29 O.S. No.26835/2012 of filing of the suit by virtue of registered sale deed. Hence, I answer this point in the Affirmative.
17. POINT No.2: It is the case of the plaintiff that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' property by virtue of registered sale deeds, and on basis of registered sale deeds the revenue records have been changed in the name of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property. Ofcourse, the plaintiff has not produced any document to show the interference of defendants, but, the fact in respect of which the documents are not produced to prove the fact, the parties can prove the fact in issue by oral evidence. As per Section 59 of Indian Evidence Act, which reads thus:
"Section 59 - Proof of facts by oral evidence - All facts, except the (contents of documents or electronic records), may be proved by oral evidence.30 O.S. No.26835/2012
Editor's Note - The words "Facts", and "Document" are defined in Section3 of this Act."
18. The evidence of P.W.1 is that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule properties by virtue of registered sale deed executed by the registered GPA holder of defendant No.1 to 9 and confirmation deed executed by defendant No.1 to 9. Such being the fact the defendants No.10 & 11 have created false agreement of sale, said to have been executed by the defendant No.1 to 9 in respect of suit schedule property in favour of the defendant No.10 & 11, on basis of said false agreement of sale, the defendants have started interference in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. These oral and documentary evidence led by the plaintiff are remained unchallenged. Under such circumstances, in the absence of any document with regard to proof of facts involved in the suit, the oral evidence of witnesses can be relied by taking 31 O.S. No.26835/2012 into consideration of the fact proved by producing the relevant document. So, in this case the plaintiff has proved his possession and enjoyment of the suit property by producing registered deeds and deposed about the interference of the defendants. On basis of oral and documentary evidence it can be safely held that the plaintiff has proved the act of interference of the defendants in plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In support of my finding, I relied on the decision reported in ILR 1978 Page1560 in case of Gopal.M.Hegde and others and U.F.M.Narasimha Ganap Bhat and others. The lordships have held in the decision thus:
"When the plaintiff proves the intention of the defendants to do an act or existence of the act, if completed, gives ground for action and there is a foundation for exercise of jurisdiction."
Hence, I answer this point in the Affirmative.
19. POINT No.3: The plaintiff has produced registered sale deeds and confirmation deeds to prove the fact of 32 O.S. No.26835/2012 possession of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties at the time of filing of the suit. The plaintiff also produced revenue documents at Ex.P.6 to P.12 and P.13 and P.14 Photos and CD. On perusal of the Ex.P.6 to P.12, original khatha certificate, original khatha extract and original encumbrance certificate at Ex.P.8, P.9 and P.12 with reference to Ex.P.13 and P.14, it is clear that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. It is also clear from the oral and documentary evidence that there is a threat of interference and demolition of suit schedule property. On considering the Ex.P.1 to P.14, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitle for the relief sought in the plaint. In support of my opinion I relied on the decision reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033 in case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Others.
The lordship have held in the decision thus:
"Where Plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the Defendant a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie."
Considering the unchallenged oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff and reasons assigned and relying on the decision referred above I hold that the plaintiff is entitle for 33 O.S. No.26835/2012 the relief sought in the plaint. With this I answer this point in the Affirmative.
20. POINT No.4: In view of the findings on points No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby decreed.
Consequently, the
defendants, their agents, or
anybody claiming through
defendants are hereby restrained, by order of permanent injunction, from interfering with plaintiff's lawful and peaceful possession of suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties.
No order as to costs.
34 O.S. No.26835/2012Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer system, computerized by her, after online correction by me, printout taken by her and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of February, 2020).
(Yamanappa Bammanagi) LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H. Unit, Bengaluru. (CCH74) SUIT SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY All that part and parcel of property bearing Site No. 70, BBMP Khatha No. 11/970, Byatarayanapura, situated at Jakkur village, Yelahanka hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East to West 40 feet, and North to South 30 feet, bounded on:
East by: Road; West by: Sy.No. 11/3;
North by: Remaining property in Sy. No. 11/9; and on South by: Site No. 71.
SUIT SCHEDULE 'B' PROPERTY All that part and parcel of property bearing Site No. 73, BBMP Khatha No. 11/0970, Byatarayanapura, situated at Jakkur village, Yelahanka hobli, Bangalore 35 O.S. No.26835/2012 North Taluk, measuring East to west 40 feet, and North to South 30 feet, bounded on:
East by: Road;
West by: Sy.No. 11/3;
North by: Site No. 72; and on South by: Site No. 74.
(Yamanappa Bammanagi) LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H. Unit, Bengaluru. (CCH74) ANNEXURE List of witness examined for the plaintiff's side:
PW1: Sri. S.Jai Chakravarthy. List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff's side:
Ex.P.1 : Original GPA dated 10.10.2018 Ex.P.2 : C/C of the sale deed dated 19.07.2010 Ex.P.3 : C/C of the sale deed dated 19.07.2010 Ex.P.4 : C/C of the confirmation deed dated 21.07.2010 Ex.P.5 : C/C of the confirmation deed dated 21.07.2010 Ex.P.6 : Original Khatha certificate Ex.P.7 : Original Khatha certificate Ex.P.8 : Original E.C Ex.P.9 : Original E.C Ex.P.10: C/C of GPA dated 06.07.2010 Ex.P.11: C/C of GPA dated 06.07.2010 36 O.S. No.26835/2012 Ex.P.12: C/C of E.C for the period of 01.01.2010 to 18.01.2019 Ex.P.13: Two photo Ex.P.14: One CD List of witness examined for the defendants' side :
Nil List of documents exhibited for the defendants' side:
Nil (Yamanappa Bammanagi) LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H. Unit, Bengaluru.(CCH74) 37 O.S. No.26835/2012