Bangalore District Court
Dr.T.Narayana Rao S/O. Late T.Govinda vs The Commissioner on 5 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE
BANGALORE CITY
Dated on this the 5th day of January 2017
-: Present :-
Smt. Hemavathi, BBM, LL.B,
XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
Original Suit No.1121/2012
Plaintiff:
Dr.T.Narayana Rao S/o. Late T.Govinda
Rao, 64 Years, R/o. "Govinda", Old Trunk
Road, Opp. Bunts Bhavan, Cantonment,
Bellary - 583 104.
[By Sri.P.Krishnappa, Advocate]
/ VERSUS /
Defendants:
1. The Commissioner, Bruhath
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,
N.R.Square, Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. Mahesh Jain S/o. Anantharajaiah, 42
Years, R/o.No.154, Prateeksha, 2nd
Main Road, M.S.Ramaiah City, 8th
Phase, J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru-76.
[Sri.N.R.J., Advocate for defendant No.1.
Sri.K.S.R., Advocate for defendant No.2]
: 07.02.2012
Date of Institution of the suit
Nature of suit : Suit for Declaration &
Injunction
Date of commencement of : 25.03.2015
evidence
Date on which the judgment is : 05.01.2017
pronounced
Years Months Days
Duration taken for disposal :
04 10 29
***
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants to declare that he is entitled to natural air, light, ventilation in respect of suit schedule item No.1 towards its northern side and for the he relief of mandatory injunction to direct the defendant No.1 the demolish the illegal and unauthorised roof projection constructed by the defendant No.2 within the south-eastern portion of item No.2 of suit property to the extent 15 feet length and 3 feet in width and also to remove the illegal unauthorised construction put up by the defendant No.2 over the roof projection within the first floor and to direct the first defendant to demolish the illegal and unauthorised support of column and horizontal beam constructed by defendant No.2 towards the south- eastern portion of item No.2 of the plaint schedule and for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant No.2 from putting up any illegal construction over suit item No.2 and such other reliefs with costs.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are that, he is the owner of the plaint schedule item No.1 having purchased the same under registered Sale Deed dated 29.9.2003 and defendant No.2 is the owner of the plaint schedule item No.2. He is the permanent resident of Bellary. When he visited the spot during the first week of January 2012, he was shocked to see that defendant No.2 had been putting up construction consisting ground, first and second floor and the roof projection at the south-eastern portion within the ground floor East abutting the plaintiff's property which is item No.1 and there was also ground floor roof slab projection and the construction over the said slab projection that is in the first floor towards the southern side of item No.2 has been abutting to the plaintiff's property to the extent 15 ft in length and 3 ft in width and it has been constructed without leaving set-back. On account of this unauthorised construction within the south-eastern side of the item No.2 is violation of rules, regulations, bye-laws of the municipality by the second defendant and there is also violation of sanctioned plan. So, it is liable to be removed. Apart from that, the defendant No.2 has also constructed support column and horizontal beam towards south - western side of site No.39 is also violation of rules, regulations and bye-laws, same is also liable to be demolished. On 21.1.2012 the plaintiff got issued legal notice calling upon the defendant to remove the illegal and unauthorised roof projection constructed by him. Though said notice was served on him, he neither replied nor complied. The plaintiff has also sent the copy of the legal notice to the Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP which was refused to receive and the same sent to Junior Engineer was received, but they have not made any attempt to take any action. On account of unauthorised and illegal construction by the second defendant, plaintiff will be deprived of natural air, light, ventilation. Hence, filed this suit.
3. Defendant No.1 filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable as he has not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. But, admitted that defendant No.2 is the adjacent owner of plaintiff's property. He is putting up construction of ground, first and second floor and roof projection within the ground floor abutting the plaintiff's property in violation of sanctioned plan and also constructed support column horizontal beam on south - western side of site No.39 in violation of rules and regulations and building bye-laws. Further contended that this defendant has issued a plan in favour of defendant No.2 by specifying the set-back area to be left. But, defendant No.2 has put up construction in violation of the same. After noticing the same, this defendant issued a notice on 13.2.2012 calling upon the defendant No.2 to furnish the documents including the copy of sanctioned plan, commencement certificate, occupation certificate and other documents. Thereafter, its subordinates have taken measurement of building constructed by defendant No.2 and satisfying that there is violation in set- back area and coverage which they have issued a provisional order No.AEE/ASD/PO-01/2011-12 dated 22.2.2012 under Section 321 (1) of K.M.C.Act directing the defendant to bring the construction as per the sanctioned plan by removing the deviation and also issued show-cause notice under Section 321(2) of K.M.C. Act, calling upon the defendant No.2 to show cause why provisional order should not be confirmed. Due to the pendency of this suit and interim order granted by this Court, confirmation order is not passed. The plaintiff has issued a notice to Assistant Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer of this defendant who are not parties to the suit. Hence, no statutory and mandatory notice in compliance of Section 481(1) of K.M.C.Act has been issued to this defendant. There is no cause of action for the suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
4. Defendant No.2 filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint except the fact that he is the owner of item No.2. He further contended that he obtained necessary sanctioned plan from the competent authority and taken up constructions, the construction was going on since June 2011 and one Keerthi M.Amberkar who has constructed a house in site No.37 is having grudge and vengeance towards this defendant, and has been instigating the plaintiff to file this suit And he is the close relative of plaintiff. The legal notice issued by the plaintiff is suitably replied by him. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, prayed to dismiss the same with costs.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues are framed :
1) Whether the plaintiff proves the obstruction of air, light and ventilation to the suit schedule item No.1 towards its northern side ?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant No.1 put up illegal construction within the south eastern portion of item No.2 schedule property to the extent of 15' in length and 3' in width ?
3) Whether the suit is under valued and court fee paid is insufficient ?
4) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs of declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction ?
6) What order or decree?
6. Plaintiff examined him as P.W.1 and got marked 29 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.29. The defendant No.2 examined him as D.W.1 and got marked two documents as Exs.D.1 and D.2. Defendant No.1 did not adduce evidence in spite of the opportunity given.
7. Heard both sides. The learned advocate for plaintiff filed written arguments.
8. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : Partly in the affirmative. Issue No.2 : In the affirmative. Issue No.3 : In the negative.
Issue No.4 : In the negative.
Issue No.5 : In the affirmative. Issue No.6 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.2 :- Herein, the fact that the plaintiff is the owner of the item No.1 and defendant No.2 is the owner of item No.2 of the suit schedule property is an admitted fact.
10. The case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.2 had put up the construction consisting of ground, first and second floor and also roof projection in his item No.2 of the suit schedule property. During the course of construction he had projected the roof in the south eastern portion within the ground floor abutting to the plaintiff's property which is item No.1 and the ground floor roof slab projection and the construction over and above the same i.e., within the first floor towards the southern side of the item No.2 is also constructed abutting the item No.2 to the extent of 15 ft in length, 3ft in width and the defendant No.2 put up the construction without leaving set-back in violation of sanctioned plan and his illegal and unauthorised construction within the south - eastern side of his property is in violation of rules and regulation of bye-laws and he also constructed the support column and horizontal beam towards south - western side of site No.39 in violation of rules, regulations and bye-laws and as per the sanctioned building plan he was required to leave one meter set-back, but on account of the roof projection with the south - eastern portion in the ground floor, obstructs the natural air, light and ventilation to the plaintiff's property in the northern side of item No.1.
11. Defendant No.1 in the written statement admitted the fact that the defendant No.2 constructed, ground, first and second floor and roof projection abutting to the plaintiff's property and also constructed a support column horizontal beam towards the south - western side and these constructions are in violation of sanctioned plan, rules and regulations and building bye-laws.
12. But, defendant No.2 denied the said fact and contended that he obtained a sanctioned plan for construction of building in item No.1 on 30.6.2011 and the said construction commenced in the month of June 2011. It is on verge of the completion and this suit is filed at the instigation of one Keerthi N. Amberkar who constructed the house in Site No.37.
13. In the course of cross-examination, D.W.1 who is the defendant No.2 has admitted that the plaintiff has put up compound wall around his property and he (D.W.1) constructed residential building consisting of ground floor, first floor and second floor in his site and plaintiff is a resident of Bellary and Ex.P.22 is in respect of southern side roof of his building and the projection found in this photo is situated in the south - eastern side of his building and this projection approximately measures 15 x 3 ft and above the roof projection he has constructed balcony and it is covered with the grill and he has also put up sheet above the grill and above the balcony he put up sajja to second floor and said roof projection and sajja is facing towards northern side of his building and on the south-western part he has put up support column in horizontal beam adjacent to the property of plaintiff.
14. This evidence clearly supports the case of the plaintiff. This defendant who contended that he had constructed a building as per the sanctioned plan, has not produced the said document. The plaintiff has produced Ex.P.17 which is the certified copy of the Provisional Order dated 22.2.2012 under Section 321 (1) of K.M.C. Act issued by Assistant Executive Engineer, Anjanapura Sub-division to defendant No.2 stating that he had constructed the residential building in violation of rules and bye-laws and hence, called upon him the demolish the said portion of the building. Ex.P.18 is the notice dated 22.2.2012 issued under Section 321 (2) of K.M.C. Act by Assistant Executive Engineer, Anjanapura Sub-Division to defendant No.2 calling upon him to stop the further construction till he gives reply to the Provisional Order issued as per Ex.P.17 and comply the said provisional order. Ex.P.16 is the letter from BBMP dated 23.3.2013 to the plaintiff under R.T.I. stating that in view of the pendency of this suit the Confirmation Order under Section 321(3) of K.M.C. Act has not been issued. On going through these documents it is very clear that the residential building constructed by the defendant No.2 is in violation of building rules, regulations and bye-laws and also sanctioned plan obtained by him. These documents are not denied by the D.W.2. On the other hand, in his chief-examination he deposed that BBMP has not taken any action as per Section 321 (3) of K.M.C. Act against his construction. So, it is very clear that he admits the issuance of Provisional Order as per Ex.P.17 and Notice as per Ex.P.18 by the defendant No.1.
15. In the course of cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that the house of defendant No.2 is found in Ex.D.2 photo and the property of the defendant No.2 is situated upto the edge of compound wall found in Ex.D.2 and it is the northern boundary of item No.1 and there is a gap of 3 ft between the house and the compound wall as found in Ex.P.2 and it is situated all along the length of his site and in between the portico of defendant No.2 and northern side of compound wall of his site there is gap of more than 3 ft and in Ex.P.13(a) the gap is found between pillar and roof projection.
16. On consideration of this evidence of the plaintiff, it is very clear that there is a gap of 3 ft left by defendant No.2 all along the length of his site from his house till compound wall of plaintiff in the northern side of item No.1 which is the southern side of item No.2. So, it disproves the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.2 has not left set- back in the ground floor, though he is required to leave 1 meter set-back.
17. Herein, it is not the main contention of the plaintiff that the defendant has not left set-back on all side of item No.2, but it is his case that the defendant No.2 constructed the roof projection at the south-eastern portion within the ground floor abutting to the plaintiff's property and the projection and construction over the ground floor i.e., within the first floor in the southern side of item No.2 is also constructed abutting to the item No.1 of the extent of 15 ft in length and 3 ft in width and it has been constructed without leaving set-back and in the south western side he has constructed a support column and horizontal beam. This fact has been admitted by the defendant No.2 in his cross- examination as discussed above. Further the plaintiff has produced some photographs as per Exs.P.13 and P.22 to 27 with respect to the alleged construction. As admitted by D.W.1, in Ex.P.13(a) the construction of support column and horizontal beam abutting to the compound wall of plaintiff and also roof projection in the ground floor is also found. In the course of cross-examination, D.W.1 admitted that Ex.P.22 is relating to the southern side roof of his building and projection which is found in this photo is situated in southern side of his building and the roof found in Ex.P.27 is situated in second floor of his building. These photographs also clearly discloses that the roof projection and roof slab projection of the 2nd defendant's building is situated abutting to the plaintiff's property. So, it is very clear that even though as admitted by defendant No.2, there is a set-back of 3 ft left by defendant No.2 while constructing the roof slab and projection to the ground and first floor, he has covered the set-back area.
18. All these facts and evidence clearly proves that the defendant No.2 put up the construction in violation of sanctioned plan and rules and regulations of building bye- laws. Hence, I answer Issue No.2 in the affirmative.
19. Issue No.1:- Admittedly, item Nos. 1 and 2 are situated abutting each other and till today item No.1 is vacant site. As per the description given in Item No.1 of the schedule property, except in western boundary, in all other boundaries of item No.1 there are sites and item No.2 is northern boundary of item No.1. Ofcourse, there is no encroachment in the plaintiff's site. But, as admitted by D.W.1/defendant No.2 himself in his cross-examination, he had projected the roof of the building to the extent of 15 x 3 feet in the southern side and he also put up support column in horizontal beam on the south western portion of his property and it is adjacent to the plaintiff's property. It is also proved by the plaintiff by producing documents as discussed in Issue No.2. Admittedly, the owner of the site in a residential area cannot get sufficient air and light to their building like the individual house situated in the open/vast area. If the owner of all the sites raise the construction without leaving the set-back, the free flow of air and light to the respective building is zero. It is because of that reason, the rules and regulations to the building bye-laws are framed to sanction the plan for construction of the buildings directing the parties to leave the minimum set-back. Normally as per the building bye-laws, the party who put up construction is required to leave 3 feet or one meter set-back. If the set- back is encroached and put up construction, it will effect the flow of air and light to the building situated on the neighbouring site. Herein also, ofcourse, as on today the plaintiff has not constructed any building. In case the defendant No.2 raise any building by using the support beam, it effects the right of the plaintiff to enjoy air and light to his building which he is going to construct in future. In a residential area one cannot get the air and light horizontally. It can be only vertically. So, construction of horizontal beam towards the south western side of Site No.39 causes obstruction of free flow of air and light vertically to the building of the plaintiff which is going to construct in future. But, I do not think that the roof projection will obstruct the free flow of air and light to the plaintiff's property. In view of these discussions, I answer Issue No.1 partly in the affirmative.
20. Issue No.3 : - The defendant contended that the suit is not properly valued and court fee paid is insufficient. The plaintiff has valued the suit for the relief of declaration under Section 24(d) of Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act and paid court fee of Rs.25/- valuing the said relief on Rs.1,000/- and with respect to the two reliefs of mandatory injunction and one relief of permanent injunction, valued under Section 26(c) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act and paid court fee of Rs.75/- i.e., each relief is valued for Rs.25/-. The plaintiff has valued the subject matter of the suit on Rs.1,000/- each for each relief and paid court fee. The court fee paid by the plaintiff on each relief is proper and correct as the suit of the plaintiff falls under that category. Hence, I answer this issue in the negative.
21. Issue No.4 :- The defendant No.2 contended that suit is filed by the plaintiff at the vengeance of one Keerthi N.Amberkar who constructed the house in Site No.37 as he has grudge and vengeance towards this defendant and he is the proper and necessary party in this case.
22. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant No.2 for the relief of declaration to declare that the plaintiff is entitled to natural air, light, ventilation in respect of item No.1 towards its northern side alleging that the defendant No.2 in violation of sanctioned plan, building bye-laws put up the sajja and roof projection and there is no allegations against said Keerthi N.Ambedkar. Hence, he is neither proper nor necessary party. Hence, I answer this issue in the negative.
23. Issue No.5 :- It is the arguments of the learned advocate for defendant that even if it is proved that the defendant No.2 put up the construction in violation of building bye-laws, unless the plaintiff proves that due to that the substantial damage caused to him, he is not entitled for the relief. He also relies upon Section 7, 15 and 33 of Indian Easements Act.
24. Section 7 reads thus :
Easements restrictive of certain rights - Easements are restrictions of one or other of the following rights (namely) : -
(a) Exclusive right to enjoy - The exclusive right of every owner of immoveable property (subject to any law for the time being in force) to enjoy and dispose of the same and all products thereof and accessions thereto.
(b) Rights to advantages arising from situation - The right of every owner of an immovable property (Subject to any law for the time being in force) to enjoy without disturbance by another the natural advantages arising from its situation.
25. Section 15 reads thus :
Liability for expenses necessary for preservation of easement - The expenses incurred in constructing works, or making repairs, or doing any other act necessary for the use or preservation of an easement, must be defrayed by the dominant owner.
26. Section 33 reads thus :
Suit for disturbance of easement - The owner of any interest in the dominant heritage, or the occupier of such heritage, may institute a suit for compensation for the disturbance of the easement or of any right accessory thereto; provided that the disturbance has actually caused substantial damage to the plaintiff.
27. Ofcourse, herein the plaintiff has not acquired any right of easement by prescription, but every person has got every right to enjoy the property without disturbance. It also includes the enjoyment of air and light to their property. When the flow of air and light to the building situated in residential area is very less, nobody can prevent the free flow of said air and light to the neighbouring building by their own act by violating the rules and regulations of bye-laws. Therefore, the aforesaid arguments of learned advocate for defendant No.2 cannot be accepted.
28. The learned advocate for defendant No.2 relied upon the Judgment rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Andra Pradesh in Second Appeal No.985 and 986/1999 between Pushpa Vs. L.C. Fernandez and judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh (does not reveal the case number and also whether it is reported or unreported judgment) and also Order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.4752/2000 between Sundarraj Vs. Vijayendra Kumar. I have gone through these decisions. The learned advocate for defendant No.2 also relied upon the Orders rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.46797/2014 between P.S.Chidambaramurthy Vs. Basavaraj, Order passed in W.P. No.104630/2015 between Mahadev Vs. Mahadev and others and order passed in W.P.No.39335/2015 between Puttu Mogerthy and others Vs. Kava Hengsu and Ors.
29. The learned advocate for plaintiff relied upon the decision reported in 2000 (4) KLJ Short Note 29 and also 2015(2) KLJ 140 - Kamlesh Kumar Vs. The Commissioner, BBMP, Bangalore City Corporation Offices, Bangalore and others, wherein it is held which reads thus :
Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, Section 321 - Karnataka Town and Country Planning (Regularisation of Unauthorised Development or Constructions) Rules, 2014, Rule 3 - Disputed construction is in clear diolation of the building plan sanction - Despite notice issued under Section 321 to remove the illegal construction and final order of demolition, respondents - violators continued the illegal construction of third and part of fourth floor without any sanction - Direction issued to respondents 4 and 5 to demolish and bring the building in conformity with the building plan duly sanctioned within a period of one month - if respondent fail to do so, Commissioner directed to demolish the building."
30. 2015 (3) AKR 689 - Prakash Chandra Vs. The Commissioner, BBMP, Bangalore and others, wherein it is held which reads thus :
Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act (14 of 1977), Ss. 462, 321 - Construction of building -
Violation of sanctioned plan - Respondent put up extra floors in building - Constructed commercial complex though sanction was for construction of residential building and a shop - Allegedly violating easementary rights of petitioner, neighbour - Authorities not preventing illegal construction - Would be guilty of non performance of their statutory duty under Act - Such construction cannot be regularized - Liable to be demolished."
31. it is the further argument of learned advocate for defendant No.2 that the plaintiff has not proved the deviation even it is proved no relief can be granted as per explanation to Section 33 of the Indian Easement Act and there is no pleading what substantial damage will be caused to the plaintiff due to the alleged construction by defendant No.2 and as per Section 17 of proviso (b), the right to free passage of light and air to the open space cannot be acquired by prescription. As already discussed above, though the suit item No.1 is open site, it is purchased by the plaintiff for construction of house. When such being the fact, it cannot be considered as a open space. When it is a residential site, the plaintiff has got every right to get free flow of light and air to his building through the set-back which is to be left while constructing the building as per sanctioned plan. Therefore, the defendant No.1 is bound to demolish the construction of support column with horizontal beam constructed towards the south western portion of the plaint schedule. In so far as other construction in violation of the sanctioned plan is concerned, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the relief of demolition of the same because the said roof projection is not all along the length of building of defendant No.2, it is only a roof projection in some area.
32. The plaintiff has sought for the relief to directing the defendant No.1 to demolish the alleged illegal unauthorized construction. Herein, the documents produced by the plaintiff clearly proves that defendant No.1 has taken necessary action to prevent the defendant No.2 from putting up any construction in violation of the sanctioned plan and building rules by issuing provisional order and notice under relevant provision of K.M.C.Act. Defendant No.1 in his written statement clearly stated that due to pendency of this suit, they could not take confirmation order to the defendant No.2 and take necessary action that effect. They also issued Letter as per Ex.P.16 under R.T.I. as per Ex.P.17. The provisional order was issued on 20.2.2012 and notice was also issued on the very same day. But, this suit is filed on 7.2.2012. As per Ex.P.6, the plaintiff issued a Notice to defendant No.2 calling upon him to remove the unauthorized construction but, no notice was issued calling upon the defendant No.1 to demolish the said construction. But, only copy of the same was sent to the Assistant Executive Engineer and Junior Executive Engineer of BBMP. So, the allegation that defendant No.1 did not take any action cannot be accepted. When defendant No.1 has already issued provisional order, though it is subsequent to the suit and in the written statement they have stated that because of the pendency of this suit they have not taken action by issuing a confirmation order and the power was given to the defendant No.1 under the K.M.C.Act to take necessary action, this Court has no jurisdiction to issue direction to the defendant No.1 as sought by the plaintiff. If the defendant No.1 after disposal of this suit fails to take action as provided under K.M.C.Act, the plaintiff has to take necessary action as provided under law before the proper forum, not before this Court. Hence, I hold that, though the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of demolition of the illegal and unauthorized construction of support column and horizontal beam constructed by defendant No.2 towards the south western portion of item No.2 of the plaint schedule, he is not entitled for the relief of direction as sought against defendant No.1. When defendant No.2 had put up said illegal construction, he is bound to remove the same. If he failed to remove the same, the plaintiff is entitled to get clear the same through the process of Court. Hence, I answer this issue partly in the affirmative.
33. Issue No.6 : - In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following :-
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant No.2 is hereby decreed with costs.
Suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant No.1 is hereby dismissed, no order as to costs.
It is hereby declared that the plaintiff is entitled to natural air, light and ventilation in respect of suit schedule Item No.1 from its northern side.
Defendant No.2 is hereby directed to remove the illegal and unauthorized construction of support column and horizontal beam constructed by him towards the south- western portion of Item No.2 of the plaint schedule within three months from the date of this order, failing which the plaintiff is entitled to demolish the same through the process of Court.
Defendant No.2 is also restrained by an order of permanent injunction by putting up any illegal and unauthorized construction over the suit schedule Item No.2 which affects the free flow of natural air, light and ventilation to the suit schedule Item No.1 from its northern side.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, this the 5th day of January, 2017.) (Hemavathi) XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
*** ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
P.W.1 : Dr.T.Narayana Rao
2. List of documents exhibited for plaintiff :
Ex.P.1 Encumbrance certificate
Ex.P.2 Khatha
Ex.P.3 7 tax paid receipts
Ex.P.4 Certificate issued by BBMP
Ex.P.5 Extract issued by BBMP dated 1.4.2009.
Ex.P.6 Copy of legal notice
Ex.P.7 to 9 3 Postal receipts
Ex.P.10 & 11 2 AD Cards
Ex.P.12 One closed returned envelope
Ex.P.13 5 Photos
Ex.P.14 CD
Ex.P.15 Copy of notice dated 28/2/2013
Ex.P.16 Certified copy of the notice cum endorsement
Ex.P.17 & 18 C/c of Notice u/s. 321(2) of K.M.C.Act dated
22.2.2012 to defendant No.2
Ex.P.19 Licence dated 30.6.2011
Ex.P.20 Sketch issued by AEE of BBMP
Ex.P.21 Original Sale Deed dated 29.9.2003
Ex.P.22 to 27 6 Photographs
Ex.P.28 Xerox copy of order sheet in O.S.No.25547/12
Ex.P.29 Xerox copy of sanctioned plan
3. List of witnesses examined for defendants:
D.W.1 : Mahesh Jain
4. List of documents exhibited for defendants :
Ex.D.1 & 2 2 Photographs
(Hemavathi)
XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
*** Md/-