Bangalore District Court
O.S./3437/2013 on 16 February, 2021
/1/ O.S.No.3437/2013
THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-40), BANGALORE CITY.
Dated on this the 16th day of February, 2021.
-: Present :-
Sri.Khadarsab, B.A, LL.M.,
XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
Original Suit No. 3437/2013
Plaintiff :-
Smt.Qamar Sultana W/o. A.P.Aslam
Pasha, 42 Years, R/o.No.22, MCH, 1st
Cross, Shivaram Colony, R.K.Hegde
Nagar, Bengaluru - 560 077.
[By M.Srikanth, Advocate]
/ VERSUS /
Defendants :-
1. Lakshminarayana S/o.Not known,
Major, R/o.No.9/12, Khatha No.1383,
1st Cross, MCECHS Layout, Shivaram
Karanth Nagar, Hegde Nagar,
Bengaluru - 77.
2. Smt. Vijayamma S/o.Muniraj, Major,
R/o.No.23, MCH, 1st Cross, Shivaram
Colony, R.K.Hegde Nagar,
Bengaluru-77.
[Sri.B.K.M., Advocate for D.1 & 2]
***
/2/ O.S.No.3437/2013
Date of Institution of the suit : 02.05.2013
Suit for permanent and
Nature of suit : mandatory injunctions
Date of commencement of
evidence : 27.01.2014
Date on which the judgment
is pronounced : 16.02.2021
Years Months Days
Duration taken for disposal :
07 09 14
***
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, representatives, servants or anybody claiming under them from illegal and unauthorised encroachment upon the public road i.e., suit schedule 'B' property and causing obstruction in any manner interfering with respect to the right of the plaintiff in making use of the suit schedule 'B' property and another relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the unauthorised encroachment made by them over the suit schedule 'B' property.
/3/ O.S.No.3437/2013
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under :
Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule 'A' property bearing residential Site No.22, B.B.M.P. Khatha No.111/22, situated at Rachenahalli Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring East - West 40 Feet, North - South 30 Feet.
The husband of plaintiff has entered into an agreement of sale on 29.7.2008 with Mohammed Mustaq, the GPA holder of Muniraju and Munivenkatappa and on the same day plaintiff was put in possession of suit schedule 'A' property. The suit schedule property has been purchased on 19.2.2013 under the registered sale deed from Muniraju and Munivenkatappa, represented by their GPA holder Mohammed Mustaq.
3. It is further pleaded that Sy.No.111 of Rachenahalli Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk originally belonging to one Munivenkatappa, having acquired the same from its previous owner under /4/ O.S.No.3437/2013 the registered sale deed dated 4.2.1969. Thereafter said Munivenkatappa and his son Muniraju formed a layout in said Sy.No.111 and sold sites. They have executed an irrevocable GPA dated 5.2.1991 in favour of one Mohammed Mustaq in respect of suit schedule 'A' property along with adjacent property bearing No.23 and they have also sworn an affidavit confirming the execution of GPA, transfer of property for consideration and handing over possession of the property. The defendant No.1 who is alleged to have purchased the property situated towards southern side of plaintiff's property next to 20 feet road from MCECHS Society is trying to put up house by encroaching the 'B' schedule property which is a public road subsequent towards the southern side of plaintiff's property. When the said act of defendant No.1 was questioned by the plaintiff and other residents, he quarreled with them and stated that he will not stop the construction work. Further /5/ O.S.No.3437/2013 contended that defendant No.2 is the owner of the property bearing No.23 situated towards the western side of the 'A' schedule property also encroached the public road i.e., 'B' schedule property and constructed sheet house on the road. Though she filed complaint, the police authorities have not taken any action. Hence, prayed for decreeing the suit.
4. In response to suit summons, defendant No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed written statement. The defendant No.2 appeared before the Court on 2.7.2013 and made a submission that suit is not concerned with her. The defendant No.2 failed to file her written statement. The defendant No.1 has denied the claim made by the plaintiff and contended that he is the absolute owner of Site bearing No.9/12, Khatha No.1383 situated at Rachenahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk measuring East - West 30 x 40/2 feet and North - South 63+61.5/2 Feet, totally measuring /6/ O.S.No.3437/2013 2178 Sq.Ft. and the said site is situated in the layout formed by MCECHS Society in Sy.No.111 of Rachenahalli and he became the owner as per the sale deed dated 16.8.2004 executed by the original owners Munivenkatappa and others along with MCECHS. As per the schedule of the said registered sale deed, a private property is situated to the North of defendant No.1's property.
5. Defendant No.1 further contended that he took possession of the Site No.9/12 from the society as per possession certificate issued the said society. His property is situated on the northern side of bonafide wall put up by MCECHS Society. The said society has constructed a compound wall surrounding the sites of the housing society. So the plaintiff has filed the present suit by suppressing material facts. That, defendant No.1 has finished construction of residential house which is now ready for house warming ceremony. Under such /7/ O.S.No.3437/2013 circumstances the plaintiff has filed this false suit, which is not maintainable in view of compound wall constructed by the society, which is demarcating the plaintiff's and defendant's properties. Hence, prayed for dismissal of suit.
6. On the basis of the pleadings and documents of the parties, the following issues have been framed by my predecessor in Office on 11-9-2013 :
1) Does the plaintiff prove that she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property as on the date of suit ?
2) Does the plaintiff prove that there is interference by the defendants to her peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property ?
3) Does the plaintiff prove that the defendants unauthorisedly encroached and constructed a structure over 'B' schedule property ?
/8/ O.S.No.3437/2013
4) Does the plaintiff prove that, she is entitled for the relief of mandatory and permanent injunctions against the defendants ?
5) What order or decree?
7. In order to prove her case, plaintiff got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.11. While cross-examining P.W.1, the counsel for defendant No.1 confronted photographs and documents. Witness admitted the said photographs and documents, same are marked Exs.D.1 to D.12. In order to substantiate his defence, the defendant No.1 himself examined as D.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.D.13 to D.35. While cross-examining D.W.1 the counsel for plaintiff confronted 3 photographs. Witness admitted the said photographs and same were marked as Exs.P.12 to 14.
8. Heard arguments.
/9/ O.S.No.3437/2013
9. My findings to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the negative.
Issue No.2 : In the negative.
Issue No.3 : In the negative.
Issue No.4 : In the negative.
Issue No.5 : As per final order, for
the following:
REASONS
10. Issue No.1 :- The plaintiff has filed the
present suit against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule 'B' property and for mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to remove the unauthorised encroachment made by them over suit schedule 'B' property and on their failure to permit the plaintiff to remove the same.
11. The suit schedule 'B' property is described as 20 Feet public road situated towards southern side of suit schedule 'A' property running East to West direction measuring North - South 20 Feet and bounded on the / 10 / O.S.No.3437/2013 East and West by Road, North by plaintiff's property and South by defendant No.1's property.
12. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 is intending to construct a building by encroaching the public road i.e., suit schedule 'B' property. The defendant No.1 denied the claim of the plaintiff and specifically contended that he has purchased the property from M.C.E.C.H.S. House Building Co-Operative Society on 16.8.2004 and there is wall constructed by the said society to demarcate the plaintiff's and defendant No.1's property. The house constructed by defendant No.1 in his property is ready for house warming ceremony.
13. In order to prove her case plaintiff herself examined P.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.P.1 to P.14. The examination-in-chief of P.W.1 is nothing but replica of plaint averments. P.W.1 deposed that she is / 11 / O.S.No.3437/2013 the absolute owner of residential house bearing Site No.22, B.B.M.P. Khatha No.111/22 situated at Rachenahalli, Bangalore South Taluk measuring East - West 40 Feet, North - South 30 Feet i.e., suit schedule 'A' property. Her husband has entered into an agreement of sale dated 29.7.2008 with one Mohammad Mustaq who is the GPA holder of Muniraju and Munivenkatappa as per Ex.P.9. The said Muniraju and Munivenkatappa have executed GPA in favour of said Mohammad Mustaq in respect of suit schedule property on 5.2.1991 as per Ex.P.10. Subsequently the said Muniraju and Munivenkatappa through their GPA holder Mohammad Mustaq have executed registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule 'A' property on 19.2.2013 as per Ex.P.1 in favour of plaintiff. Since 19.2.2013 she is in possession of the suit schedule property. As per sale deed her name has been mutated in the B.B.M.P. records and she has paid the tax to the B.B.M.P. as per Ex.P.6. Ex.P.2 is / 12 / O.S.No.3437/2013 the Receipt issued by Danish Gas Enterprises, Bengaluru. That, towards the southern side of the suit schedule 'A' property there exists 20 feet public road i.e., suit schedule 'B' property, the said road was formed at the time of forming the layout. The said road lying East-West direction and same is meant for the use and enjoyment of the site owners in the layout and all the residents are making use of the said road. The defendants are no way concerned with the suit schedule property. They are intending to construct the building by encroaching the said public road. Therefore, she has lodged complaint as per Ex.P.4 to the A.E.E., BBMP. The B.B.M.P. authorities have not initiated any action against the defendants. Therefore, she lodged a complaint against defendants to the PSI, Sampigehalli P.S. The police authorities have issued an Endorsement as per Ex.P.3. Ex.P.5 is the Postal Receipt. Ex.P.7 is the certified copy of Encumbrance Certificate Form No.15. Ex.P.8 is / 13 / O.S.No.3437/2013 the certified copy of the sale deed dated 12.4.2013 in respect of Site No.21 and Ex.P.11 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 4.2.1961 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.111 of Rachenahalli. Though she has lodged a complaint against the defendants, but the B.B.M.P. and police authorities have not initiated any action against the defendants. Hence, prayed for decreeing the suit.
14. Though P.W.1 claimed that the defendants have made an encroachment over the public road i.e., the suit schedule 'B' property, but in her cross- examination at page No.10 she admitted that there is a compound wall in between her house and house of defendant No.1 and she further admitted the photographs Exs.D.1 to D.7 pertains to the suit schedule properties and defendant No.1's property. P.W.1 further admitted in her cross-examination that the compound wall appearing in Ex.D.1 - photograph is in existence since 25 years. PW.1 further admitted in her cross-
/ 14 / O.S.No.3437/2013 examination in page No.12 admits existence of the compound wall.
15. PW.1 in her cross-examination at page No.12 deposed that, she has built the compound. The evidence of PW.1 is contrary to her one pleadings and documents produced by her. The entire evidence of P.W.1 clearly goes to show that there is a compound wall towards North of defendant No.1 property, thereafter open space is in existence long back, even then the plaintiff is making false allegation that the defendant No.1 is constructing the compound wall by making an encroachment over the public road.
16. In order to establish the defence of the defendants, defendant No.1 examined himself as D.W.1 and produced the documents Exs.D.1 to D.35. It is the consistent case of the defendant No.1 that he had purchased site No.9/12 katha No.1383 measuring East -
/ 15 / O.S.No.3437/2013 West 30x40/2 feet and North-South 63+61.5/2 situated at Rachenahalli, Bengaluru East on 16/8/2004. From Munivekatappa and others along with MCECHS. On the date of sale deed itself the possession of the property has been delivered. As per sale deed his name has been mutated in the BBMP records and he has paid the tax as per EX.D.21 Khathas in respect of said Site No.9/12. Khatha in respect of Site No.9/12 is standing in his name as per Ex.D.27. The plaintiff is no way concerned with the said property even then she has made obstruction. Therefore, complaint has been lodged as per Exs.D.17, 19, 20 and 35. The police authorities have registered FIR against plaintiff and her family members as per Ex.D.34. BBMP has given an endorsement as per Exs.D.25 and
30. The plaintiff is no way concerned with the property No.9/12. After purchase of the site he has constructed building in the said site and the house warming ceremony has been completed on 12/6/2013. Ex.D.13 is / 16 / O.S.No.3437/2013 the invitation of house warming ceremony. Ex.D.14 and 16 are the photographs and D.15 is the CD in respect of Ex.D.14. Hence she prayed for dismissal of the suit.
17. The counsel for the plaintiff cross-examined DW.1 in length but the witness adhered to his original version. The counsel for the plaintiff made a suggestion that there is a road towards North of defendant No.1 property, thereafter plaintiff's property. It is further suggestion that the defendants made an encroachment over public road and have constructed a building, the witness denied the said suggestions. The counsel for the plaintiff further made suggestion that there is road to bifurcate Shivarama Karanth Nagar and Hegde Nagar witness admitted the said suggestion. The counsel for plaintiff cross-examined D.W. 1 in length, nothing worth has been elicited from the mouth of D.W.1.
18. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the first defendant is intending to encroach the public road, / 17 / O.S.No.3437/2013 which is described as 'B' schedule of the plaint by carrying on construction. The first defendant has taken contention that he has purchased the property from MCECHS Society under a registered sale deed dated 16/8/2004 executed by one Munivenkatappa and others and MCECHS Society and there is a wall constructed by the society to demarcate the plaintiff's property and his property. The construction of the house in his property is completed. Ex.D.13 is the House Warming Ceremony Invitation Card. Exs.D.17, 19 and 20 are the copy of the Complaints. Ex.D.21 is the Tax Paid Receipt.
19. That, the plaintiff has produced Ex.P.1 - sale deed dated 19/2/2013 executed by Muniraju and Munivenkatappa through their GPA holder Mohammed Mustaq, wherein the southern boundary of the property is shown as road. The General Power of Attorney and affidavit, Ex.P.10 discloses the southern boundary of the property mentioned therein as road. The plaintiff has / 18 / O.S.No.3437/2013 produced Ex.P.14 - photographs which goes to show the existence of compound wall.
20. It is the contention of the first defendant that the wall, which has been constructed by the society, has been removed by the plaintiff, so the broken pieces of bricks and cement are found in the said photos. Now, it is very necessary to consider whether there is existence of wall constructed by the society and the first defendant constructed his house, which is completed.
21. The first defendant has produced Exs.D.1 to 7 photographs. P.W.1 admits Exs.D.1 to D.7 photographs produced by defendant No.1. The said photographs disclose that existence of compound wall. The photographs which are marked as Ex.D.2 discloses the existence of compound wall constructed by society and by the side of the said wall newly constructed house of defendant No.1 is in existence. Ex.D7 is the photograph / 19 / O.S.No.3437/2013 which shows about the existence of a compound wall which demarcates the properties of the plaintiff and first defendant and by the side of the wall, there is newly constructed house is situated. Admittedly, the said wall is constructed by the Ministry of Communication Employees Co-Operative Housing Society Limited. Further, on perusal of Exs.D.17, 19 and 35, the copies of the complaints, Ex.D.34 certified copy of the FIR, the said documents clearly goes to show that the defendant No.1 lodged a complaint against plaintiff and her family members. The first defendant has produced Ex.D13, which is the Invitation Card of House Warming Ceremony which was fixed on 12.6.2013. It is prudent knowledge that house warming ceremony will be fixed only on the completion of construction work. Ex.D.13 clearly goes to show that the construction of house of defendant No.1 has been completed. Further, the photographs produced by defendant No.1 discloses that defendant / 20 / O.S.No.3437/2013 No.1 constructed house with first and second floors, so, looking to the said photographs, it is crystal clear there is existence of compound wall constructed by the society. The said compound wall demarcates the properties of the plaintiff and first defendant.
22. That, at the request of plaintiff Court Commissioner has been appointed. Accordingly, Court Commissioner visited the spot and submitted a detailed report with photographs. The plaintiff as well as the defendants submitted no objection to the Commissioner's Report. In the Commissioner's Report it is clearly mentioned that, "There is no 20 Feet road towards southern side of the suit schedule 'A' property. Suit schedule 'B' property does not exist. There is no encroachment over the plaintiff's property and even there is no encroachment over the public road. The defendant No.1's house has not caused any blockage of air, light and has not got any entry to the suit schedule / 21 / O.S.No.3437/2013 'A' property." The Court Commissioner being the independent person has submitted unbiased report. As per Commissioner's Report there is no encroachment over the plaintiff's property and even in the public road and there is no blockage of air and light to the plaintiff's property.
23. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants have constructed the building by encroaching the public road. But, there is no material on record to show that the defendants have constructed building by encroaching the public road.
24. That, the plaintiff has claimed relief of mandatory injunction. As per Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, in order to claim the relief of mandatory injunction the plaintiff has to establish her rights over the suit schedule property. Besides, mandatory injunction is an order requiring the defendants to do some positive act for the purpose of putting an end to / 22 / O.S.No.3437/2013 wrongful state of things created by them or otherwise in fulfillment of their legal obligation. In this case the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove the fact that the defendants are under a legal obligation to remove the alleged encroachment. In a decision reported in (2007) 13 SCC 565 (Gurunath Manohar Pavascar and others Vs. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund and others), in which the Hon'ble Apex Court held that : "Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Ss.36, 38 and 39 - Permanent mandatory injunction and prohibitory injunction - Title to the land should first be proved by plaintiff seeking injunction-Suit filed by respondents/ plaintiffs for direction for demolition of structure and removal of sign board raised by appellants/ defendants on the suit land by encroaching thereon and for restoration of vacant possession and for injunction against the defendants' interference with peaceful enjoyment of the property - Burden of proof on plaintiff to prove that suit land belong / 23 / O.S.No.3437/2013 to them-Suit cannot be decreed on the basis of revenue records alone, but should be decided on appreciation of evidence." The above said decision is aptly applicable to the case in hand. In this case also, the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove his title over the entire suit schedule property.
25. Here in the instant case also, the defendants have denied the possession of the plaintiff over suit schedule property and the defendants have contended that they are in possession of the property. The mode of acquiring the title by the defendants is valid or not is a different aspect, the same cannot be adjudicated as this is a suit for bare injunctions.
26. Hence, the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove her possession and alleged encroachment over the suit schedule properties and also failed to prove the alleged interference made by the defendants. Accordingly, I answer Issues No.1 to 3 in the negative.
/ 24 / O.S.No.3437/2013
27. ISSUE No. 4: This issue is framed with respect to entitlement of relief claimed in this case. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunctions, thereby claiming the easementary rights. It is well settled law that in order to claim the relief of easementary rights, plaintiff ought to have claimed the relief of declaration. Without the relief of declaration, the suit for bare injunction is not maintainable.
28. On perusal of the plaint it clearly goes to show that entire case of the plaintiff is that, she is the owner of suit schedule property and the defendant No.1 had encroached a portion of the property. The plaintiff has not pleaded that she is entitled to easementary right of way over the suit schedule property. The fact to be pleaded and proved for establishing title are different from the facts that are to be pleaded and proved for / 25 / O.S.No.3437/2013 making out easementary rights. In a suit for enforcement of an easementary right relates to a right possessed by a dominant owner over a property not his own having the effect of restricting the natural rights of the owner of such property. Easement can be acquired by different ways and are different kinds, i.e., easement by prescription, easement by necessity, easement by grant, etc., A dominant owner seeking relief relating to an easement by prescription shall have to plead and prove the nature of easement, manner of acquisition of easementary right and the manner of disturbance or obstruction to the easementary right. But, in this case the plaintiff has not at all specifically pleaded regarding what type of easementary rights she has acquired over suit schedule property. Hence, without pleading Court cannot infer that plaintiff has got easementary rights by referring to a stray sentence here and there in the pleadings.
/ 26 / O.S.No.3437/2013
29. That, on perusal of entire plaint the plaintiff is claiming the prescriptive easementary rights as provided under Section 15 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882 and not for easement of necessity.
30. Besides, the plaintiff has to seek first the relief of declaration regarding her easementary rights over the suit schedule 'B' property. But, in the present case, plaintiff has not sought for declaration that she has acquired prescriptive right of easement with regard to inflow of air and light. Hence, without seeking the relief of declaration, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable.
31. In a Judgment passed by our own Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.506/2010 dated 17.8.2012 (M/s. Spring Borewells Company Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Union Of India and others) clearly held that, "Suit for mere injunction is not maintainable without a prayer for / 27 / O.S.No.3437/2013 declaration that the plaintiff acquired the prescriptive right." In this case also, the plaintiff only sought the relief of permanent and mandatory injunctions. The relief of declaration is not sought. The above said decision is aptly applicable to the case in hand.
32. In view of the above decisions and discussions and also subject matter of the suit, even the plaintiff has filed this suit for the relief of permanent and mandatory injunctions claiming that she has got easementary rights over the suit schedule "B" property. Hence, as per Section 15 of Indian Easement Act, 1882 and as per the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as stated supra, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable without seeking the relief of declaration. The plaintiff has filed the present suit on imaginary cause of action. There is no cause of action to file the present suit.
33. The plaintiff claimed relief of mandatory injunction directing defendants to remove constructions / 28 / O.S.No.3437/2013 and structures put up in the "B" schedule property. It is worthwhile to state that, while answering Issues No.1 to 3, I have already concluded that, house of defendant is constructed well prior to filing of this suit. The plaintiff being neighbour must have come to know about the construction of house by defendant No.1, when it was constructed. Though, plaintiff came to know about construction of house in the year 2012 itself, but filed instant suit in the year 2013. Thus, she has acquiesced her right to challenge the said construction. It is well settled law that, a person, who is guilty of acquiescence, has no right to seek for mandatory injunction. This preposition of law is supported by decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2006 KAR 4251 (A.V.N. PRASAD V/S SITA BAI RAJ PUROHIT), Wherein it is held that " SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT, 1963, (ACT No. 47 of 1963) - SECTION 39- GRANT OF MANDATORY INJUNCTION- DELAY IN SEEKING RELIEF -
/ 29 / O.S.No.3437/2013 ACQUIESCENCE - HELD, If a person having a right to object has acquiesced in the construction of the structure that, is encroached upon, he is not entitled to discretionary remedy of mandatory injunction - ON FACTS, HELD, Even though, the construction of wall and garage had come to the notice of plaintiff in the year 1984, the plaintiff filed this suit in the year 1995 and the plaintiff was certainly guilty of acquiescence - Hence, plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction". In this case also, plaintiff though, came to know about construction of house in the year 2012 itself, but filed instant suit in the year 2013 as such, she has acquiesced her right to have relief of mandatory injunction as such, plaintiff is not entitle for relief of mandatory injunction also. In view of above discussion, plaintiff is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed in this suit. Hence, I answer Issue No.4 in the Negative.
/ 30 / O.S.No.3437/2013
34. Issue No.5:- For the forgoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, typed directly on computer, script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, this the 16th day of February, 2021).
(KHADARSAB) XXXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
*** ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for plaintiff :
P.W.1 : Quamar Sultana
2. List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 : C/c of sale deed dated 19.2.2013 Ex.P.2 : Gas connection receipt.
Ex.P.3 : Endorsement given by Sampigehalli P.S.
Ex.P.4 : Copy of complaint.
Ex.P.5 : RPAD Receipt
/ 31 / O.S.No.3437/2013
Ex.P.6 : 5 Tax Paid Receipts
Ex.P.7 : Copy of Form No.15
Ex.P.8 : C/c of sale deed dated 12.4.2013
Ex.P.9 : Notarised Copy of sale agreement
Ex.P.10 : Notarised copy of GPA
Ex.P.11 : C/c of sale deed dated 4.2.1961
3. List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendants : -
D.W.1 : Laxminarayana
4. List of documents produced by defendants :-
Ex.D.1 to 7 : Photographs.
Ex.D.1(a),(b), (c), 2(a) : Portions marked in photos Ex.D.8 : Tax Paid Receipt Ex.D.9 : Affidavit Ex.D.10 : B Khata extract.
Ex.D.11 : C/c of GPA
Ex.D.12 : X/c of GPA
Ex.D13 Invitation of House warming ceremony
Ex.D14 5 photos
Ex.D15 CD
Ex.D16 3 small photos
Ex.D17 Copy of complaint
Ex.D18 Endorsement given Sampigehalli PS
Ex.D19 Carbon copy of complaint
Ex.D20 C/c of complaint to ARO BBMP
Ex.D21 Tax paid receipt
/ 32 / O.S.No.3437/2013
Ex.D22 Copy of RTI application to BBMP Mahadevapura Ward Ex.D23 Receipt about payment of Rs.10 under RTI Act Ex.D24 B property extract Ex.D25 Endorsement given by BBMP Ex.D26 Application under RTI submitted to sub-
register officer Banasavadi Bangalore Ex.D27 C/c of extract dt 7/11/2011 Ex.D28 Copy of General Power of Attorney dated 23/3/1991 Ex.D29 Application under RTI submitted to BBMP Horamavu Ex.D30 Endorsement given by BBMP dated 16/7/13 Ex.D31 C/c of B extract from BBMP dated 16/7/2013 Ex.D32 Copy of receipt about payment of Rs.100/-
Ex.D33 Copy of BBMP register showing the original owner's name as Louise is marked at Ex.D33(a) Ex.D34 C/o FIR in Cr.37/2014 of Sampigehali PS Ex.D35 C/o Complaint to SHO Sampigehali PS
5. Evidence of Court Commissioner :
C.W.1 : H.S.Poornima
(KHADARSAB),
XXXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
***
/ 33 / O.S.No.3437/2013
/ 34 / O.S.No.3437/2013
16/02/2021
P :
D.1 & 2 :
For Judgment :
Judgment pronounced in the Open
Court, vide separate Judgment :
ORDER
Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed
with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(KHADARSAB),
XXXIX ACC & S Judge,
Bangalore City.
***