Bangalore District Court
Smt. D. Sampath Kumari W/O Late vs Sri. Bette Gowda S/O Dyavegowda on 21 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE
BANGALORE CITY
Dated this the 21st day of August, 2015.
Present: SMT.VIJAYALAXMI S.UPANAL, M.A., LL.M.,
I/C LIV ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.7165/2008
Plaintiffs: Smt. D. Sampath Kumari w/o late.
Ranganatha D, 50 years, residing at
No.204, 5th Main, S.T. Bed layout, 4th Block,
Koramangala, Bangalore
[By Sri.BRS, Adv]
Vs.
Defendants:
Sri. Bette Gowda s/o Dyavegowda, 62
years, residing at No.203, 5th Main, S.T.
Bed layout, 4th Block, Koramangala,
Bangalore.
[By Sri. BLS, Advocate]
Date of Institution of the suit : 23.10.2008
Nature of suit : For permanent injunction
Date of commencement of
evidence : 21.06.2010
Date on which the judgment is
pronounced : 21.08.2015
Years Months Days
Duration taken for disposal :
09 09 28
2 O.S.No.7165/2008
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff D. Sampath Kumari has filed this suit for grant of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove unauthorized and illegal construction put up towards eastern side abutting the compound wall of the suit 'A' schedule property and further directing the defendant to leave the set back area of one meter towards eastern side of the suit 'A' schedule property and towards west of the defendant's suit 'B' schedule property and further restraining the defendant or anybody claiming through them from putting up further construction abutting the eastern side of the suit 'A' schedule property and for cost.
.2. Brief facts of the plaint are as under:
The plaintiff has submitted that she is an absolute owner and in lawful possession and enjoyment of the house property bearing No.204 measuring East to West 9.15 meters and North to South 12.19 meters totally measuring 111.53 sq. meters, situated at Shinivagulu Tank Bed Extension, 5th main, 4th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore. Originally the said property was acquired by her husband from BDA under Registered sale deed dated 12.07,1990. After the death of her husband, khata of the said property has been transferred in her name.
.3. It is further submitted that towards eastern side of the suit schedule property there is a compound wall put up by the plaintiff and after the said compound wall, the property of the defendant bearing No.203 is 3 O.S.No.7165/2008 situated. According to the approved plan the defendant has to leave the set back area of one meter in between his property and the plaintiff's property, though the plaintiff has requested the defendant to construct the building as per approved plan, but in vain. The defendant has to put up unauthorized and illegal construction by violating the approved plan. At the time of construction itself, the plaintiff has raised the objection before Corporation Authorities in the month of December 2007. But the Corporation Authorities have failed to take steps against the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff has approached the Deputy Commissioner East Zone and Asst. Director Town Planning, East Zone of BBMP. But the said authorities have also failed to take any action against the defendant and failed to remove the unauthorized construction taken by the defendant.
.4. It is further stated that according to the approved plan and sanction in respect of the defendant, he has to leave 1 meter set back area in between properties of the plaintiff and the defendant. But the said set back area is not left by the defendant. He has put up construction on the compound wall belonging to the plaintiff. In spite of resistance as well as objections brought to the notice of the corporation authorities, the said authorities have failed to remove the unauthorized construction taken by the defendant and allowed him to proceed with the construction work. Thus, the said construction work is prejudiced to the right, title or interest of the plaintiff over the suit 'A' schedule property. To avoid future 4 O.S.No.7165/2008 complications and multiplicity of proceedings, it is necessary to direct the defendant to remove the unauthorized and illegal construction put up in suit 'B' schedule property. Hence, this suit.
.5. After service of summons, the defendant appeared before the court through his advocate and filed his written statement.
The defendant has contended that the suit itself is not maintainable either in law or on facts. All the averments made in the plaint are false, mischievous and malafide. The defendant is rightful owner of the property bearing No.203, 5th main, S.T. Bed layout, 4th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore. The said property was allotted to the defendant by BDA in the year 1987-1988 and thereafter the defendant has constructed a dwelling house in the year 1988-89. The defendant is retired from service in the year 2006 by receiving terminal benefits. In order to renovate the building, he has got sanctioned plan from BBMP and constructed the same house. When the construction was going on, the plaintiff has started to obstruct the construction work and in that regard, the defendant has lodged the police complaint before Viveknagar police station. The police have called upon the plaintiff and defendant and warned the plaintiff not to interfere in the construction work, permitted the defendant to go on with the construction work. Undertaking was given by defendant before police if any damage is caused to the plaintiff's house, same would be set right by the defendant. It is further submitted that the defendant has continued the 5 O.S.No.7165/2008 construction activities, again the plaintiff lodged the complaint before BBMP that the defendant has violated the building bye laws and in that regard the BBMP has issued a notice to the defendant and directed the defendant to demolish certain portion of the walls towards house of the plaintiff. Accordingly to gain the peace, the defendant has demolished certain walls, though it was caused financial loss to the defendant. After complying request of the plaintiff, to demolish certain walls, the defendant started to continue the construction work. But the plaintiff did not keep up her words and again approached this court and obtained exparte injunction restraining the defendant from carrying on any construction activities on eastern side of the defendant's house. At that time, except painting of the eastern side portion, all other civil, sanitary and electrical works have been completed and the defendant has already invested all his hard earned money for the said construction.
.6. It is further averred by the defendant that the plaintiff herself causing obstruction to the construction work taken by the defendant with an intention to make an illegal gain and filed present suit for mandatory injunction, to remove unauthorized and illegal construction put up towards eastern side abutting the compound wall of the suit schedule property and towards west of the defendant's property. But the right side of the wall has been built by defendant in the year 1989 and the said wall is existing since then and all construction activities are carried out by the defendant as per 6 O.S.No.7165/2008 the building plan. Therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable as there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file the present suit. Hence, it is submitted to dismiss the suit.
.7. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor then in office has framed the following:
ISSUES
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit A schedule property as on the date of institution of the suit?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant has illegally and unauthorizedly put up construction towards eastern side abutting the compound wall of A schedule property without leaving set back area?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as prayed?
4) What order or decree?
.8. The plaintiff is examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P-1 to 13 in support of her case. The commissioner appointed in this case to inspect and submit report with sketch is examined as PW-2 and got marked Ex.C.1 to C-7. The defendant is examined as DW-1 and got marked Ex.D-
1 to 25.
7 O.S.No.7165/2008
.9. Heard the argument.
.10. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 - In the Affirmative, Issue No.2 - In the Negative, Issue No.3 - In the Negative, Issue No.4 -As per final order, for the following:
REASONS .11. ISSUE NO.1: As per the plaint A schedule, the property is part and parcel of house bearing No.204 measuring East to West 9.15 meters and North to South 12.19 meters, in all measuring 111.53 meters. The said property is bounded by to the East - property No.203, to the West - property No.205, to the North - property No.216 and 215 and to the South
- road.
.12. It is not disputed by the defendant that the plaintiff is owner of the said property and she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property after the death of her husband. It is further not disputed that the said property was allotted in the name of husband of the plaintiff by BDA and after the death of plaintiff's husband, the schedule A property has been transferred in the name of the present plaintiff. The plaintiff has contended that she is residing in the house constructed on schedule A property and this fact is not disputed by the defendant. Therefore, it is not 8 O.S.No.7165/2008 necessary to discuss much about the possession and enjoyment of schedule A property by the plaintiff. Hence, I answer issue No.1 accordingly.
.13. Issue No.2: The main allegation of the plaintiff is that on the eastern side of her property, there is property bearing No.203 described in the schedule B property, belonging to the ownership of defendant. The defendant has started the construction on suit 'B' schedule property without leaving set back and by encroaching the property of the plaintiff, thereby, violating the building bye-laws of BDA as well as sanctioned plan, affecting right of the plaintiff who is residing in the suit A schedule property. It is averred in the plaint para No.3 that there is a compound wall put up by the plaintiff on the eastern side of her property and the defendant being owner of the property No.203 started to put up construction on his property by putting wall on the said compound wall. It is alleged that the defendant though obtained sanctioned plan and licence for construction work, he has not left set back area of 1 meter in between her property and defendant's property and violated the approved plan. Even though the plaintiff has raised objection for the same, but of no use. Therefore, the plaintiff has approached this court for grant of mandatory injunction to direct the defendant to remove the unauthorized construction made in schedule B property.9 O.S.No.7165/2008
.14. The prayer of the plaint shows that the plaintiff is claiming direction to the defendant to remove unauthorized and illegal construction put up towards eastern side abutting the compound wall of suit A schedule property and further directing the defendant to leave the set back area of 1 meter towards eastern side of suit A schedule property and towards West of defendant's B schedule property and further restraining the defendant or his agents from putting up any further construction abutting eastern side of A schedule property.
.15. Therefore, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant has made an unauthorized and illegal construction abutting to the compound wall of plaintiff's building and the failure of defendant to leave the set back area on the side of plaintiff's property as per sanctioned plan, the right of plaintiff to enjoy her property peacefully is infringed. In support of her contention, the plaintiff has submitted her affidavit chief examination by reiterating all the averments made in the plaint. She has produced certified copy of the sale deed at Ex.P-1 executed in favour of her husband. Death extract of plaintiff's husband is produced at Ex.P-2. Extract issued by BBMP is produced at Ex.P-3. khata extract is at Ex.P-4. Khata certificate is at Ex.P-5. Objections submitted to BBMP by the plaintiff are at Ex.P-6 and Ex.P.7. Licence is at Ex.P-8. Four photos and CD in respect of the suit schedule properties are at Ex.P-9 to 13. 10 O.S.No.7165/2008
.16. In the cross-examination of PW-1, she has deposed that she has constructed the house on suit A schedule property during 1991. Though she has contended that she has produced the document before the court to show that the compound wall existing in between properties of plaintiff and the defendant is exclusively belonging to the plaintiff, but no such document is produced before the court. When the suggestion has been made by the advocate for the defendant to PW-1 that the said compound wall is situated within the area of the defendant's property, the plaintiff is unable to say firmly whether it is situated in her property or in the property of defendant or it is in the middle portion of both the schedule properties. It is shown that the plaintiff herself has no knowledge in whose property the compound wall existing in between A and B schedule properties is situated. She admits that when BBMP has issued a notice to the defendant in view of the objections raised by the plaintiff, the defendant has removed 1 feet x 6 feet width wall. PW-1 has stated that the said demolition is only in the 1st floor of defendant's property but he has put up a door facing towards her property. She has denied that the defendant has left the set back as per sanctioned plan and further contended that the defendant has opened the windows and doors towards her property i.e., in the wall situated on the compound wall. She has deposed that during December 2007, she had been to Andra Pradesh and when she returned, the defendant had already put up survey poles on her property and started 11 O.S.No.7165/2008 the construction by damaging the property of the plaintiff without leaving the set back. When she filed complaint before concerned police station, the police directed the defendant to remove the survey poles and the defendant has removed the same. She has also lodged the complaint before BBMP. She has denied that she has constructed the building on her property by violating the building bye-laws and sanctioned plan.
.17. PW-2 S.H. Poojari who was working as Asst. Executive Engineer, Koramangala Sub-division, BBMP, Bangalore has deposed in the capacity of court commissioner. According to him, he has inspected suit A and B schedule properties after service of commission warrant from the court and executed the commission work, submitted his report along with sketch. He has produced commission warrant marked at Ex.C-1. Memo of instructions given by plaintiff and the defendant are marked at Ex.C-2 and 3. The copies of notice issued to both the parties are marked at Ex.C-4 and 5. Commissioner report and commissioner sketch are produced at Ex.C-6 and 7 respectively. He has also produced sanctioned plan, Xerox copy of sale deed belonging to defendant which was handed over to him at the time of execution of commission work.
.18. He has deposed that the defendant has not put up the construction as per sanctioned plan and the same is shown in the sketch given by him. In the sanctioned plan on 3rd floor the permission was 12 O.S.No.7165/2008 granted only to put up construction on the area of 10 sq. feet, but the defendant has made construction on 3rd floor measuring 30 sq. feet.
.19. In the cross-examination of PW-2 he admits at the time of execution of commission work and submission of report and sketch of the suit schedule property, he has seen the documents provided by defendant's advocate i.e., sanctioned plan and sale deed. The suggestion has been made that the court commissioner has not issued the proper notice to the defendant before execution of commission work, PW-2 has stated that the said notice was served on one Anitha A.R. who was residing in the defendant's property, admits that he has not served the said notice to Bettegowda personally. At the time of execution of commission work, the said Bettegowda was present. But he has not obtained his signatures and the signatures of neighbouring people, the suggestion is made that the court commissioner has not prepared the sketch Ex.P-6 at the spot and it is prepared in his office, the said suggestion is denied by the defendant. He admits that he has not conducted the mahazar on the spot and denied that he has prepared the commission report on the instructions of the plaintiff. According to him, he has denied that he has prepared 2 sketches at his office and filed a report in favour of the plaintiff. He has measured the properties of the plaintiff and the defendant, there is marginal land to the property of the plaintiff. He has prepared the 13 O.S.No.7165/2008 commission report excluding marginal land. The defendant has totally denied the sketch and report of the commission work as not true.
.20. The defendant has submitted his affidavit chief examination by reiterating all the contentions taken in the written statement and totally denied that he has made construction on the compound wall situated in between properties of himself and the plaintiff. Further he has also denied that he has made construction by violating building bye-laws and sanctioned plan. He has produced certified copy of the sale deed dated 28.08.2001 marked at Ex.D-1 executed in his favour. He has also produced khata certificate, khata extract, khata patra marked at Ex.D-2 to D-4. An endorsement given by BDA dated 09.10.2012 about supply of document relating to property No.203 marked at Ex.D-5. Further he has produced possession certificate, allotment letter, encumbrance certificate,
2 tax paid receipts marked at Ex.D-7 to 10 respectively. The approved plan of the year 1986-87 is produced to show that this defendant has put up construction on his property during 1989 itself. Ex.D-12 is another approved plan to show that the defendant has renovated the building by obtaining approved plan from the concerned authority during 2006-07. Ex.D-13 is the letter issued by SBI to show that the document referred therein which is deposited with the bank as security for the loan raised by defendant. The copies of 2 complaints submitted by the defendant to the Asst. Executive Engineer, BBMP dated 11.03.2008 and 13.05.2008 are 14 O.S.No.7165/2008 Ex.D-14 and D-15. Under Ex.D-14 the defendant requested the BBMP to permit him to get actual deviation if any in the construction as he is willing to pay necessary fee to the concerned agency. Ex.D-15 discloses that on 12.05.2008 when the defendant was plastering the wall of his house and putting the grills of the compound wall on his side, the present plaintiff and her children objected for the same, assaulted him and in that regard the complaint is lodged before the concerned police station. It is also requested the BBMP to cooperate with the present defendant to complete the plastering, painting and other connected work to the wall facing towards the house of present plaintiff. Ex.D-16 is the letter issued under RTI by BDA, applications filed by the defendant to the Commissioner, BBMP at Ex,D-17 and 18. Acknowledgement given by BDA marked at Ex.D-19, another acknowledgement given by BDA marked at Ex.D-20, copy of the application filed by the defendant under RTC marked at Ex.D- 21, an endorsement issued by BDA marked at Ex.D-22, Note given by BDA marked at Ex.D.23, letter issued by BDA marked at Ex.D-24 and Xerox copy of the complaint filed by the defendant No.1 marked at Ex.D-
25. Relying on these documents the defendant has taken the contention that he has not made any encroachment in the property of the plaintiff and he has not put up any construction on the compound wall at the time of renovation on his building. Even it is contended that there was some deviation from the sanctioned plan. But the complaint lodged by plaintiff 15 O.S.No.7165/2008 before BBMP, the said BBMP has directed the defendant to remove certain walls facing towards plaintiff's property and the defendant has removed the said walls as directed to him.
.21. In the cross-examination of DW-1, he admits the demolition of certain walls facing towards plaintiff's property as per direction of BBMP. He also admits that the court commissioner has submitted his report and sketch by stating that the defendant has violated the construction permission in entirety. It is denied that the plaintiff has filed the present suit as defendant has violated the construction permission. It is denied by the defendant that the defendant had not left set back as per the construction permission and further denied that ground floor is meant for portico and the defendant has made construction on the said portico. He admits that there is no construction permission for constructing the 3rd floor, but DW-1 has deposed that he took permission for construction of terrace room. He denied that there is no terrace room as contended by the defendant and there is complete construction in respect of 3rd floor. He admits that there are no properties situated towards northern side of plaintiff's property owned by the defendant. According to the DW-1, there is a garage towards northern side of plaintiff's property in which the defendant is entitled for ½ feet garage area. He admits that he has raised the objection for allotting the marginal land to the plaintiff. He admits that the Writ petition filed by the defendant in that regard is dismissed. 16 O.S.No.7165/2008
.22. The evidence of PW-2 clearly shows that on the basis of commission warrant, he inspected the suit schedule properties and submitted a report and sketch as per Ex.P-6 and 7. In the cross- examination of PW-2, he has deposed that the defendant has not put up construction as per the sanctioned plan and sketch. According to him, in the approved plan on 3rd floor the construction was permitted only in the area measuring 10 sq. feet and not more than that. But the defendant has put up construction measuring 30 sq. feet.
.23. The only allegation of the plaintiff is that the defendant has made construction on the compound wall existing in between her property and defendant's property, but except interested say of plaintiff there is nothing on record to see that the said construction was made on the compound wall by violating the building bye-laws. She admits that when there was deviation in the construction, on the complaint lodged by the plaintiff, the BBMP has directed the defendant to remove the said Wall which is in deviation of sanctioned plan and the defendant has demolished the said wall. There is no question of any deviation or violation of building bye-laws. Ex.C-6 is report of property of plaintiff prepared by court commissioner. In respect of site No.203 belonging to the defendant, it is mentioned in the report that on the eastern side the actual set back shall be I meter whereas it is 0.95 meter only. There are some deviations in the construction area i.e., site area and height of the building. Ex.C-7 is 17 O.S.No.7165/2008 relating to the plaintiff's property, there is also some deviation in the set back area and in the height of the building as shown in the report. On both the reports, the court commissioner has given remarks that both the parties have constructed their building by violating and deviating the building bye laws and sanction.
.24. It is well established principle of law that neighbouring owner can file a suit if there is any deviation in the construction work taken on the adjacent site and the said deviation is affecting the rights of neighbouring owner in whatever manner, the neighbouring owner can file suit for proper reliefs. But in the present suit except certain allegations that the defendant has violated the building bye-laws, she has not claimed any declaration that the alleged construction is infringing her right to take air and light to her property or the defendant has made an encroachment in her property. PW-1 admits that there was deviation in sanctioned plan and certain walls were constructed by violating the building bye laws but as per the permission of BBMP the defendant has removed the said walls. On perusal of entire evidence of both the parties, it is clear that the defendant has made construction measuring 30 sq. feet on the 3rd floor of his house whereas the BBMP has sanctioned approved plan only for construction of 10 sq. feet on the 3rd floor. The plaintiff has not stated anything how this construction is infringing her right over her property. She has not claimed any declaration with regard to the easementary right as stated above. 18 O.S.No.7165/2008 Ex.C-6 and 7 show that both the parties have violated the building bye- laws and also constructed the building in deviation of the sanctioned plan. Further, there is nothing on record to say that the defendant has made construction illegally on the compound wall of plaintiff. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove that the defendant has made an encroachment on her property or made construction infringing her right of easement to enjoy her property peacefully and if there is any deviation it is for the BBMP to take proper action against such persons in accordance with law.
.25. The learned advocate for the defendant has relied upon the following ruling reported in 2012 (4) KCCR 3514 (Channasabaapa Vs. Safoorabi and another), wherein it is held that when there is dispute regarding construction and correct measurement of the property subjected for sale, the declaration of suit for measurement is must. Without claiming declaration suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable. It is held in AIR (39) 1952 Bombay 33 that when mandatory injunction is claimed it cannot be granted unless there has been a demand and refusal of that demand by the defendant.
.26. He has rightly relied on the above rulings. As discussed above, the plaintiff has not claimed declaration in respect of her easementary right to take air and light to her house and even there is no allegation of encroachment on the plaintiff's property. The plaintiff has 19 O.S.No.7165/2008 utterly failed to prove that the defendant has made construction towards eastern side abutting the compound wall of the schedule A property by violating the building by laws. Hence, I answer issue No.2 accordingly.
.27. Issue No.3 & 4 : In view of the above discussion it is clear that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant has violated the building bye laws. The plaintiff has not proved that the defendant has made construction illegally on the compound wall belonging to the plaintiff. Further, it is not proved that in view of construction made on the 3rd floor of defendant's building, the easementary right of plaintiff if any to take air and light is affected. As per PW-2, both the parties have violated the building bye-laws and put up construction by deviating the sanctioned plan. Even the plaintiff has not claimed declaration of her right of easement. Therefore, the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove allegations made in her plaint against defendant, about the construction of building by defendant on the compound wall of plaintiff's house and further PW-1 admits that the construction of wall in deviation of sanctioned plan by defendant is demolished as per the direction of BBMP. In respect of construction made by plaintiff and defendant in deviation of sanctioned plan, both parties are wrongdoers and the BBMP has to take proper steps against illegal construction made by the parties. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for. Even though as per Ex.C- 6 and 7, it is clear that there is violation of sanctioned plan and building 20 O.S.No.7165/2008 bye laws not only by the defendant even by the plaintiff also, it is for the BBMP to take proper action in accordance with law if necessary. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
The parties should bear their own cost.
Draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court, this the 21st day of August 2015) C/c XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
-:ANNEXURE:-
.1. List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
P.W.1 : Smt. D.Sampath Kumari
.2. List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of the Deed of sale
Ex.P.2 : Death certificate
Ex.P.3 : Tax paid receipt
Ex.P.4 : Khatha certificate
Ex.P.5 : Khatha extract
Ex.P.6 : Letter to BBMP
Ex.P.7 : Letter to BBMP
Ex.P.8 : Plan
Ex.P.9-12 : Photos
21 O.S.No.7165/2008
Ex.P.13 : Negatives
.3. List of witnesses examined for defendants:
D.W.1 : Bettegowda
.4. List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Ex.D.1 : Sale deed date 28/8/2001
Ex.D.2 : Khatha certificate
Ex.D.3 : Khatha extract
Ex.D.4 : Khatha patra by BBMP
Ex.D.5 : Endorsement
Ex.D.6 : Possession certificate
Ex.D.7 : Partition letter
Ex.D.8 : Property details
Ex.D.9 : Acknowledgment
Ex.D.10 : Property Tax Receipt
Ex.D.11 : Plan
Ex.D.12 : Plan
Ex.D.13 : Description of the documents
Ex.D.14 : Letter to BBMP
Ex.D.15 : Letter to BBMP
Ex.D.16 : Order of Appellate Authority
Ex.D.17 : Letter regarding Appellate authority
under right to information Act 2005
Ex.D.18 : RTI-2005
Ex.D.19 : Acknowledgment
Ex.D.20 : Endorsement
Ex.D.21 : Application filed under RTI
Ex.D.22 : Endorsement by BDA
Ex.D.23 : Note given by BDA
Ex.D.24 : Letter given by BDA
Ex.D.25 : Xerox copy of complaint dated
12.05.2008
22 O.S.No.7165/2008
.5. The documents marked through PW-2:
Ex.C-1 - Report
Ex.C-2 - Memo of instruction of plaintiff
Ex.C-3 - Memo of instruction of defendant
Ex.C-4 & 5 - Notice copies
Ex.C.6 & 7 - Report & sketch
C/c XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
.23 O.S.No.7165/2008
21.08.2015 P.by Sri.BRS. Adv D. by Sri.BLS, Adv The orders (vide separate orders) is pronounced in open Court.
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
The parties should bear their own cost.
Draw a decree accordingly.
C/c XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
24 O.S.No.7165/2008