Bangalore District Court
Sri. V. Prabhu Kumar vs Sri. C. Prakash on 11 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH :15) AT BENGALURU CITY.
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2014
PRESENT:
SHRI.MASTER R.K.G.M.M. MAHASWAMIJI,
M.A., LL.B.,
VIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.5243/2007
BETWEEN:
PLAINTIFF: SRI. V. PRABHU KUMAR,
S/o Late V. Purnachandra Rao
Aged about 45 years,
R/at No. 20, Nikshapa 7th Main Road,
5th Cross, Navodhayanagar,
J.P.Nagar, 7th Phase,
Bengaluru-560 076.
(By Sri. B.C. Seetharama rao, Advocate)
AND:
DEFENDANT: SRI. C. PRAKASH,
S/o Chinnappa,
Aged about : Major,
R/at Resident village,
Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,.
(By Sri. Prakash T. Hebbar, Advocate)
2
O.S.5243/2007
Date of institution of the suit: 06.07.2007
Nature of suit: Perpetual injunction
Date of commencement of 26.10.2009
Recording the evidence:
Date on which the judgment 24.06.2014
Was pronounced:
Total Duration : 6-Years, 10-Months & 18-Days.
*****
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant praying to grant an order of perpetual injunction against the defendant or anybody claiming under him from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property with cost.
SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the residential property bearing No.56, H.L. Khata No.705, Navodaya Nagar, Kothanur Village, Uttarahally Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, 3 O.S.5243/2007 measuring East to West: 40 ft. North to South: 30 ft. carved out of previous Sy. Nos. 130/1, 129/3A and 130/2 of Kothanur Village, bounded on the East by : Property No.41 West by : Road, North by : Property No.55, South by : Property No.57.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under:
It is averred that the plaintiff is absolute owner in possession of suit property having purchased it from Chinnappa, the father of the defendant, Muninarayanappa, Munivenkatappa and Smt. Chinnamma under registered sale deed dtd. 13.03.1995 and General Power of Attorney dtd. 02.03.1994.
The plaintiff having acquired the suit property, put barbed wire fencing and got transferred the Khata in his name and paid taxes and obtained Encumbrance certificate.
It is further averred that the defendant who is not having any right, came to suit property on 23.02.2007 along 4 O.S.5243/2007 with 5 men and attempted to cause damage to the barbed wire fencing.
The schedule site No.56 is curved out of land bearing Sy. No. 130/1, 129/3A and 130/2 of Kothanur village. Now, the plaintiff is planning to make construction; at that time, the defendant is creating problems. In spite of lodging the complaint, the police did not take action against the defendant since it is civil dispute.
Therefore, plaintiff has constrained to file this suit praying above relief.
3. After receipt of suit summons, the defendant entered appearance through the counsel and filed written statement contending inter alia as under:
The defendant denied all the averments made in the plaint except specifically admitted.
It is contended that suit is not maintainable, it is vexatious and liable to be dismissed.
It is further contended that the plaintiff is claiming that suit property bears house list khata No.705 of Kothanur 5 O.S.5243/2007 village. If so, it comes under Gramathana under the jurisdiction of Kothanur Grama Panchayat and it is not a revenue land coming under the jurisdiction of Tahsildar, Bangalore South and it is not curved out from the land bearing Sy. No.130/1, 129/3A, 130/2 of Kothanur village.
Sri. Chinnappa never executed any General Power of Attorney in favour of Munivenkatappa. The suit property is a plain open space wherein the defendant has constructed a residential house and let out to tenant and receiving rent. The coconut trees are also standing in that land; a Borewell is also dug.
It is stated that the father of defendant Sri. Chinnappa has purchased the agricultural lands in Sy. No.130/1 measuring 1-acre 20-guntas and in Sy. No.129/3A measuring 8-guntas, both are situated at Kothanur village; the registered sale deed was obtained in joint names of Chinnappa and his mother-in-law Smt. Chinnamma on 13.10.1969 and mutation was effected in joint name as per M.R. No. 9/1969-70.6
O.S.5243/2007 The father of the defendant has executed a registered release deed in favour of Smt. Chinnamma on 17.08.1977 in respect of western half portion of the land in Sy. No.129/3A and Sy. No.130/1, releasing all his rights and by retaining eastern half portion. The father of the defendant was in possession of said lands by paying land revenue. During his life time, in order to meet the financial commitments, he has mortgaged the land bearing No.130/1 and another land in Sy. No.51 in favour of Pista bai W/o H. Bhavarilal by executing a registered sale deed on 02.02.1980 by receiving Rs.10,000/- towards loan. Inspite of said sale deed, the possession of said lands remained with father of the defendant by name Chinnappa who has put up 3 houses in the land Sy. No.1301/1 and he has planted coconut trees all around the land measuring 30-guntas and drilled a Borewell and a Veerbhadraswamy temple is also built.
Later on, on 19.11.1997, he died intestate leaving behind him Smt. Sharadamma, his elder brother C. Muniyappa and C.Ventakesh.
Thereafter, it is came to know that the mortgagee Smt. Pista bai managed to get the document registered as sale 7 O.S.5243/2007 deed and got the revenue records changed to her name and she attempted to dispossess the defendant and his brothers from the land in Sy. No.130/1. Hence, the defendant, his brothers and mother have filed a suit in O.S.4129/98 against said Pista bai for the relief of declaration that the document dtd. 02.02.1980 executed by late Chinnappa in favour of her is a mortgage deed and for redemption. The said mortgagee considering the truth, has come forward to settle the dispute by receiving a sum of Rs.54,000/- and said suit came to be decreed by order dtd. 03.07.1998 and in terms of said decree, the mortgagee has executed a registered cancellation of sale and reconveyance of mortgage dtd. 12.08.1998.
It is further contended that thereafter, the defendant and his brothers have applied for transfer of Khata in their names and the Tahsildar after verification of documents and spot inspection passed orders in RRT, CR(DIS)(1) 73/1999-00 on 10.11.2003 for deletion of existing names and to enter the names of defendant and his brothers in respect of 30-gunas of land in Sy. No. 130/1 to the extent of 8 O.S.5243/2007 30-guntas as per M.R. No.26/03-04 and their names have also been entered in the RTC and other revenue records.
The defendant and his brothers have applied before the Survey authorities for survey and sub-division of Sy.No.130/1 to the extent of their share in 30 guntas. Accordingly, they have surveyed the land and assigned with new Survey number as 130/3 in the Survey records.
It is stated that thereafter, the revenue authorities on the report of the survey authorities, have effected Mutation in the name of the defendant and his brothers in respect of the new Sy. No.130/3 measuring 30-guntas as per M.R. No.59/03-04.
The defendant and his brothers who were in joint possession and enjoyment of the said 30-guntas of land, got divided the same under a registered partition deed dtd. 24.11.2004 and this defendant got 11¼ guntas out of the Sy. No.130/3 and his brothers were given 8¼ guntas each and have retained 2¼ guntas jointly and effected the mutation in their names.
9O.S.5243/2007 It is contended that the land in Sy. No.130/3 remained to be agricultural land till today and the same was never converted for any non-agricultural purpose. The defendant, his brothers nor their father ever formed any layout nor they have sold any portion of the land to anybody.
The boundaries in the GPA and the boundaries in the alleged sale deed in the name of the plaintiff are different and thus the alleged GPA holder has no right or authority to execute such document and the vendor of plaintiff had no any marketable title and there is no document to prove that the suit schedule property is numbered as House list No.64, Khata No.705 in any Government records.
It is further contended that the measurement and the schedule mentioned in the said sale deed are also imaginary and no such property is in existence. The alleged declaration of vendor of the plaintiff, Encumbrance Certificate, Tax paid receipt and the layout plan have been concocted by the plaintiff and his vendor to make unlawful gains. The alleged layout plans has not been approved by the 10 O.S.5243/2007 competent authority and the same is a rough sketch concocted by the plaintiff for the purpose of this case.
It is further contended that plaintiff is not in possession of suit property and he has not produced approved, or any layout plan for construction of house.
Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary cost.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned predecessor has framed following issues for consideration and decision:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as on the date of this suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as sought?
4. What Order or Decree?11
O.S.5243/2007
5. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, he himself examined as P.W.1, one witness by name Munivenkatappa is examined as P.W.2 and another witness by name Ranganatha, a middle person is examined as P.W.3 and produced the documents and got marked them as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24 and closed his side.
6. On the other hand, the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and produced the documents and got marked them as Ex.D.1 to D.34 and closed his side.
I heard the arguments and perused oral and documentary evidence on record.
7. My findings on the aforesaid issues are as under:
Issues No.1 - Negative Issues No.2 - Negative Issues No.3 - Negative Issues No.4 - As per final order for the following:
REASONS 12 O.S.5243/2007
8. Issue No.1 & 2 : Since these two issues are interlinked to each other, they are taken up together for joint consideration.
It is a case of plaintiff that he is in lawful possession over the suit property and defendant is interfering.
The defendant denied it and he claims that he is owner and in possession of suit property.
Therefore, the burden of proof to prove these issues are casted on the plaintiff' as per Sec. 101 and 102 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
9. In this regard, the plaintiff, in order to establish his case, got examined himself as P.W.1 and one witness by name Munivenkatappa is examined as P.W.2 and another witness by name Ranganath, a middle person is examined as P.W.3 and got marked 24 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.24.
10. P.W.1 - Sri. V. Prabhu Kumar, the plaintiff, he has stated on his affidavit evidence, by reiterating the plaint averments.
13O.S.5243/2007 On perusal of cross-examination of P.W.1 made by defendant counsel, it is noticed that he cannot say in which survey number his suit site is situated out of three different lands bearing different survey numbers. He has not seen conversion order. He stated that he does not know whether in land bearing Sy.No.130/3A there is well and a garden house.
11. It is elicited in the cross-examination that plaintiff has visited the suit property last time only on February 2010. He stated that he does not know whether the land bearing Sy.No.130/1 is phoded into survey No.130/2 and 130/3.
In the cross-examination at para-14 he stated as under: zÁªÉ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ £À£Àß ¸Áé¢Ã£ÀzÀ°®è.
12. P.W.2 - Munivenkatappa (GPA holder, who executed the sale deed in favour of plaintiff), he deposed in the court, adversely against the plaintiff and he was permitted to be cross-examined by the plaintiff. But nothing worthmentioning points in favour of the plaintiff is elicited.
14O.S.5243/2007
13. P.W.3 - Sri. Ranganatha (attesting witness to sale deed dtd. 13.03.1995), he stated on his affidavit evidence that he acted as middle person to sell sites formed in land bearing Sy.No.129/3A, 130/1 and 130/2 of Kothanur Village. Munivenkatappa has been authorized by Sri. Chinnappa, Muninarayanappa and Smt. Venkatamma to form the sites and sell, by executing a GPA on 02.03.1994.
He further stated that Munivenkatappa and concerned approached Grampanchayat and got assigned Khata No.705 and obtained approved plan for forming sites. He negotiated sale price and finalized it and after registration of sale deed, the plaintiff was put in possession.
14. In the cross-examination of P.W.3 made by the defendant, it is elicited and noticed that the said three survey numbers are not converted into non agricultural purpose. The suit site No.56 is situated in the land bearing Sy. No.129/3A; but he cannot remember at what direction it is situated and he cannot exactly say names of owners of said survey numbers.
15O.S.5243/2007 He said that he cannot say by seeing layout plan where exactly the suit property comes within the layout plan.
15. Now, let me to discuss about the documents relied by the plaintiff in support his case i.e. Ex.P.1 to P.24.
Ex.P.1 - Registered sale deed dtd. 13.03.1995, on perusal, it is seen that it is executed by GPA holder Sri. Munivenkatappa in favour of plaintiff V. Prabhukumar by taking consideration of Rs. 65,000/- (it is pertinent to note that the survey number is not mentioned in the schedule).
Ex.P.2 - Tax Demand Register Extract for the year 1995-96, it reveals, the name of plaintiff under ownership column.
Ex.P.3 - Tax paid receipt; Ex.P.4 - General receipt; Ex.P.5 - Tax challan; Ex.P.6 - Self declaration of property tax particulars; Ex.P.7
- Tax Challan; Ex.P.8 Self declaration of property tax; Ex.P.9 - Property tax payment 16 O.S.5243/2007 challan; Ex.P.10 - Self declaration of property tax in respect of suit property.
Ex.P.11 & 12 - Encumbrance Certificates from the year 1995 to 2006.
Ex.P.13 - Copy of police complaint dtd. 25.02.2007; Ex.P.14 - Endorsement issued by Subramanyapura police.
Ex.P.15 - Certified copy of plaint in O.S. 8788/1998, wherein Smt. Sharadamma and 3 others, plaintiffs have filed this suit for the relief of permanent injunction against defendant No.1 Ranganatha and defendant No.2 Munivenkatappa.
Ex.P.16 - Certified copy of order sheet in the above suit, wherein it discloses that this suit is dismissed for non prosecution.
Ex.P.17 - Certified copy of release deed extract dtd. 17.08.1977.
17O.S.5243/2007 Ex.P.18 & 19 - Khata Endorsements dtd. 18.06.1991 issued by Gottigere Grampanchayat.
Ex.P.20 - Certified copy of Layout plan of Gramthana residential.
Ex.P.21 - Certified copy of Affidavit Evidence of C. Prakash in O.S.4491/2007.
Ex.P.22 - Certified copy of photo of suit property.
Ex.P.23 - Certified copy of Sale deed dtd. 30.04.2004, wherein, it is seen that it is executed by vendor Zarine downer in favour of C. Prakash by taking consideration of Rs.16,00,000/- in respect of the property land bearing Sy.No.10/2 measuring 2-Acres situated at Gottigere village.
Ex.P.24 - Certified copy of sale deed dtd. 18.10.2004, wherein it is seen that C. Prakash, the vendor executed this sale deed in favour of 18 O.S.5243/2007 purchaser Kum. G. Swetha Shekar for consideration of Rs. 3,30,000/-in respect of site No.14, present Khata No.5504/14. Another Certified copy sale deed dtd. 18.10.2004, wherein, C. Prakash has sold Site No.24 in favour of Vinay kumar and another.
16. In this instant case, the defendant C. Prakash has examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked 34 documents as Ex.D.1 to D.34.
D.W.1 C. Prakash, the defendant, he stated on his affidavit evidence, reiterating the contents of his written statement.
17. In the cross-examination of D.W.1 made by the plaintiff counsel, it is noticed that he is the son of Chinnappa S/o Narayanappa. The defendant has filed a suit in O.S. No.8788/98 against Munivenkatappa in respect of this suit property and that suit was dismissed. The suit property is situated in Sy.No.130/3. He admitted that in Sy.No.130/1, 129/3A and 130/2, Munivenkatappa formed sites in his share.
19O.S.5243/2007
18. Now, I shall proceed to discuss about the documents produced by defendant on his behalf i.e. Ex.D.1 to D.34.
Ex.D.1 - Certified copy of sale deed dtd. 02.02.1980, wherein Smt. Pista bai has purchased the property mentioned therein from Chinnappa.
Ex.D.2 - Certified copy of order sheet in O.S.4129/1998, Ex.D.3 - Certified copy of compromise petition filed in O.S.4129/1998.
Ex.D.4 - Certified copy of decree in O.S.4129/1998.
Ex.D.5 - Indenture of cancellation of sale and reconveyance of mortgage, it is executed by Smt. Pista bai in favour of Smt. Sharadamma, C. Muniyappa, C. Venkatesha and C. Prakasha.
20O.S.5243/2007 Ex.D.6 to D.9 are RTC extracts, which show that it is pertinent to Sy. No.81 of 30-guntas of land.
Ex.D.10 to D.13 - Certified copies of mutation register extracts, Ex.D.14 - Tippani Book.
Ex.D.15 - Certified copy Survey mahazar.
Ex.D.16 - Certified copy Sketch map in respect of Sy.No.130/3.
Ex.D.17 - Certified copy of Form-5.
Ex.D.18 - Certified copy of order in RRT (1) Dis 73 1999-00.
Ex.D.19 - Certified copy of order in R.A.(S) 168/2003-04 by A.C. Ex.D.20 - Jubani Hissa Vibhaga Patra (Partition deed).
21O.S.5243/2007 Ex.D.21 - Encumbrance certificate from the year 2004-09.
Ex.D.22 to D.24 - Tax paid receipts, in respect of property.
Ex.D.25, D.26 - Certified copy of Statement of accounts.
Ex.D.27 to D.31 - Electricity bills.
Ex.D.32 - Certified copy of Ration card of Muniyappa.
Ex.D.33 - Certified copy of judgment in O.S. 2510/2005 and Ex.D.34 - Decree, wherein it is seen that plaintiff Sri. Dhruva has filed this suit against the defendant Prakash for the relief of permanent injunction and this suit is dismissed.
19. It is urged by taking contention by the defendant counsel that the defendant is owner of suit property and there is no identification for the suit property. In this regard P.W.1 is also admitted in the cross-examination that he does not know where exactly his suit property is situated.
22O.S.5243/2007
20. It is pertinent to note that on perusal of Ex.P.1 sale deed dtd. 13.03.1995, there is no mention of survey number, in which the suit property is situated; the said sale deed is silent with regard to formation of layout by combing all these survey numbers and selling of sites; and whether it is revenue layout or any other kind of layout and regarding its approval by the competent authority; and whether the land is converted etc.; original layout plan is not produced and got marked. When the identity of suit property is in question, then the question of lawful possession and enjoyment of suit property by the plaintiff does not arise.
21. It is worthmentioning to note that in this case, the plaintiff failed to produce the power of attorney said to be executed by Sri. Chinnappa, Muninarayana and Venkatamma in favour of Munivenkatappa; moreover, P.W.2
- Munivenkatappa, examined by the plaintiff did not support the case of plaintiff.
22. It is important to note that the plaintiff and defendant both are claiming ownership over the suit 23 O.S.5243/2007 property; therefore, the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable.
(i) In this regard, it is profitable to refer a ruling relied by the defendant counsel in ANATHULA SUDHAKAR Vs. P. BUCHI REDDY (Dead by LRs) AND OTHERS reported in KCCR 2008(3) 1769, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court of India is held as under :
"Sec. 5, 6, 38 and 37 of Specific Relief Act 1963 - recovery of specific immovable property - appropriate remedy in various classes of cases - where a cloud is raised over the plaintiff's title or plaintiff's title is under a cloud and he does not have possession, HELD - the remedy is suit for declaration and possession, with or without consequential injunction -
Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud but he is out of possession, HELD the remedy is suit for possession with consequential injunction -24
O.S.5243/2007 Where there is merely interference with the plaintiff's lawful possession or there is threat of dispossession, HELD suit for injunction simpliciter would be sufficient"
In the same judgment, it is further held that "a cloud is said to raise over a persons title when some apparent defect in his title to a property, or when some prima facie right of a third party over it, is made out or shown.
As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession, normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue. The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on possession. But in cases where de-jure possession has to be established on the basis of the title to the property, as in case of vacant sites - the issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a finding thereon, will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.
25O.S.5243/2007 But a finding and title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction unless there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title either specific or implied. Where averments regarding title or absent in the plaint and where there is no issue relating to title court will not investigate or examine or render a finding on a possession of title in a suit for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if matter involves, complicated possessions of fact and law relating to title, court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a suit for mere injunction.
Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is simple and straight forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding title even in a suit for injunction. But such cases are exception to the normal rule that possession of title will not be decided in suits for injunction. But persons having clear title and possession suing for injunction should not be driven to costlier and more 26 O.S.5243/2007 cumbersome remedy of suit for declaration; merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will referred to the plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit, depending upon the facts of the case.
It is further held that "Suit for declaration - Suit for injunction - Complicated question of title relating to property - Proper type of suit is for declaration and not for injunction simplicitor.
(ii) It is also useful to refer another decision relied by the defendant counsel in SRI. ARALAPPA V. JAGANNATH AND OTHERS (ILR 2007 KAR 339), wherein, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held as follows :
"In a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction, plaintiff has to prove his title to the property and also his possession over the property on the date of the suit. When the plaintiff is not in possession of the property on the date of the suit, relief of permanent injunction is not an appropriate 27 O.S.5243/2007 consequential relief - the appropriate relief is declaration of ownership with recovery of possession.
It is further held that When the plaintiff is out of possession of the property and does not seek relief for possession, a mere suit for declaration is not maintainable.
23. In this instant case, the supra noted ruling and its principle is squarely applicable and under the facts and circumstances of this case, mere/bare suit for injunction simpliciter is not maintainable, for the reasons that the defendant is raised the cloud over the plaintiff's title and factual aspects and documents of the defendant also clearly cast the doubt regarding possession of the plaintiff in respect of suit property and there is no clear title.
In view of the reasons stated above and in the light of authority, under the given facts and circumstances of this case, I hold and record my findings on Issue No.1 in Negative.
28O.S.5243/2007
24. In so far as Issue No.2 alleged interference by the defendant is concerned since, I held the issue No.1 in negative and the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and there is no clear identification of suit property, therefore, we cannot infer that there is illegal interference by defendant. Hence it is inevitable to hold that there is no alleged interference at all. For the reasons stated above, under the facts and circumstances of this case, I hold and record my findings on issue No.2 in Negative.
25. ISSUE NO.3 & 4: In view of my findings on issue No.1 & 2, discussions and foregoing reasons, under the facts and circumstances of this case, in the light of ruling I came to irresistible conclusion and constrained to hold that there is no sufficient and satisfactory oral and documentary evidence on record to the required civil standard or preponderance of probabilities, moreover, the plaintiff's title is under cloud, suit for bare injunction is not sustainable. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs as already held. It is not fit case and law does not permit to grant such reliefs. Accordingly, I answered aforesaid issues and proceed to pass the following:
29O.S.5243/2007 ORDER In the result, therefore this suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is hereby dismissed.
Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly over computer, typed matter, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 24th day of June, 2014.) (MASTER R.K.G.M.M. MAHASWAMIJI) VIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff;
P.W.1- V. Prabhu Kumar
P.W.2- Munivenkatappa
P.W.3- Ranganatha
30
O.S.5243/2007
List of Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff:-
Ex.P.1 Sale deed dtd. 13.03.1995
Ex.P.2 Copy of Demand Register extract
Ex.P.3 Tax paid receipt
Ex.P.4 Copy of Tax paid receipt, self
assessment tax details and tax
paid receipts-7
Ex.P.5 Encumbrance certificates-2
Ex.P.6 Police complaint
Ex.P.7 Endorsement thereof
Ex.P.8 Self declaration of property tax
Ex.P.9 Property tax payment challan
Ex.P.10 Self declaration of property tax
Ex.P.11 & 12 Encumbrance certificates
Ex.P.13 Copy of the Police complaint dtd.
25.02.2007
Ex.P.14 Endorsement issued by
Subramanyapura Police
Ex.P.15 Certified copy of plaint in
O.S.8788/1998
Ex.P.16 Certified copy of order sheet
Ex.P.17 Certified copy of release deed
extract dtd. 17.08.1977
Ex.P.18 & 19 Khata endorsements dtd.
18.06.1991
Ex.P.20 Certified copy of Layout plan
Ex.P.21 Certified copy of Affidavit
evidence in O.S.4491/2007
Ex.P.22 Certified copy of photo
Ex.P.23 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.
30.04.2004
Ex.P.24 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.
31
O.S.5243/2007
18.10.2004
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants :-
D.W.1 C. Prakash List of Documents marked on behalf of the Defendants :-
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.
02.02.1980 Ex.D.2 Certified copy of order sheet in O.S.4129/1998 Ex.D.3 Certified copy of compromise petition filed in O.S.4129/1998 Ex.D.4 Certified copy of decree in O.S.4129/1998 Ex.D.5 Indenture of cancellation of sale and reconveyance of mortgage Ex.D.6 to D.9 RTC extracts Ex.D.10 to D.13 Certified copy of Mutation Register Extracts Ex.D.14 Tippani Book Ex.D.15 Certified copy of Survey Mahazar Ex.D.16 Certified copy of sketch map Ex.D.17 Certified copy of Form-5 Ex.D.18 Certified copy of order in RRT(1) Dis 73, 1999-00 Ex.D.19 Certified copy of order in R.A.(S) 168/2003-04 by A.C. Ex.D.20 Jubani Hissa Vibhaga Patra (Partition deed).32
O.S.5243/2007 Ex.D.21 Encumbrance certificate from the year 2004-09.
Ex.D.22 to D.24 Tax paid receipts
Ex.D.25, 26 Certified copy of Statement of
accounts
Ex.D.27 to D.31 Electricity bills
Ex.D.32 Certified copy of Ration card of
Muniyappa
Ex.D.33 & D.34 Certified copy of judgment in
O.S. 2510/2005 and Decree
thereof.
VIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
24.06.2014 P-BCS D-PTH For Judgment (The following Judgment pronounced in the open Court vide separate) ORDER In the result, therefore this suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is hereby dismissed.
Under the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
VIII ACC & SJ Bengaluru