Bangalore District Court
Poornima Rajani vs Srinivas N on 1 August, 2025
KABC010063562013 KABC010071232013 KABC010117002013
IN THE COURT OF XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (C.C.H.16)
Dated this 1st Day of August, 2025
Present: Smt. M. Anitha,
B.Sc., LL.B.
XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge.
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/w
O.S.No.7055/2013
and
O.S.No.4833/2013
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
Decree Holder : Smt. Poornima Rajani,
W/o Sri. Sreenivasa Murthy.K.G
Residing at No.73/1, 1st Floor,
16th Cross Corner, 4th Main,
Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560055.
Represented by her Husband
and S.P.A Holder,
Sri. Sreenivasa Murthy. K.G
(By Sri/Smt.O.R.B., advocate)
-/Vs/-
Judgment Debtor : Srinivas. N
No.9 Bharath Presidency Apartment
Flat, No.003, Mathru Nilaya,
Ground floor, 2nd Main Road,
2
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
2nd Block, Gurugunte palya,
Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore-560022.
(By Sri/Smt.A.H.M., advocate)
Applicant/ Obstructor : Smt. N. Vijayalakshmi,
D/o. N.T. Narayan,
Aged 41 years,
R/at Flat No.003, Ground Floor,
Bharath Presidency, M.L.No.9,
II Main Road, II Block,
Goragunte Palya,
Bangalore-22.
(By Sri/Smt.K.N.U., advocate)
O.S.No.7055/2013
Plaintiff : Smt. N. Vijayalakshmi,
D/o. N.T. Narayan,
Aged 41 years,
r/at Flat No.003, Ground Floor,
Bharath Presidency, M.L.No.9,
II Main Road, II Block,
Goragunte Palya,
Bangalore-22.
(By Sri/Smt.K.N.U., advocate)
-/Vs/-
Defendants : 1) Smt. Poornima Rajani,
W/o Sri. Sreenivasa Murthy.K.G
Aged about 45 years,
Residing at No.73/1, 1st Floor,
VI Main, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore-560055.
3
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
2) Sri. Srinivas.N
S/o M. Nanjundappa,
#740/2(19), 4th Cross,
Pipe line Road,
Near Anjaneya Temple,
Yeshvanthapura, Bangalore-22.
3) Sri. Srinivasa Murthy. K.G,
S/o. Late Ganapathiyappa,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at #73/1, 1st Floor,
VI Main, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore-560055.
(By Sri/Smt.O.R.B., advocate)
O.S.No.4833/2013
Plaintiff : Smt. N. Vijayalakshmi,
D/o. N.T. Narayan,
Aged 41 years,
R/at Flat No.003, Ground Floor,
Bharath Presidency, M.L.No.9,
II Main Road, II Block,
Goragunte Palya,
Bangalore-22.
(By Sri/Smt.K.N.U, advocate)
-/Vs/-
Defendant : Smt. Poornima Rajani,
W/o Sri. Srinivasa Murthy.K.G
Aged about 45 years,
Residing at No.73/1, 1st Floor,
VI Main, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore-560055.
(By Sri/Smt.O.R.B, advocate)
4
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
Date of institution of the suits
Ex.P.No.2767/2013 : 05.10.2013
O.S.No.7055/2013 : 24.09.2013
O.S.No.4833/2013 : 05.07.2013
Nature of the suits
Ex.P.No.2767/2013 : Execution petition
O.S.No.7055/2013 : Declaration and injunction
O.S.No.4833/2013 : Specific performance
Date of Commencement of :
recording the common evidence 08.04.2015
Date on which the common
Judgment pronounced :
Ex.P.No.2767/2013 01.08.2025
O.S.No.7055/2013
O.S.No.4833/2013
Total duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
: 11 09 27
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
: 11 10 08
O.S.No.7055/2013
O.S.No.4833/2013 :
12 00 27
(M. Anitha),
XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru.
COMMON JUDGMENT
Background facts in the nutshell are as follows:-
2. Litigative process was started by the decree holder in
the year 2011 when she filed the suit O.S.No.8083/2011 against the
5
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
JDR Srinivas .N for judgment and decree of ejectment directing the
defendant/JDR to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the
property bearing flat No.003, Municiple No.9/1, Bharath Presidency
apartments, ground floor, 2nd main road, 2nd block, Goraguntepalya,
Yashwanthpur, Bengaluru, (Hereinafter referred to as "Schedule
Property" for short) to the Dhr/plaintiff and further direct the
defendant/Jdr to pay arrears of rent of Rs.2,12,500/- for the months
of June 2010 till the end of October 2011. After contest, the suit
O.S.No.8083/2011 came to be partly decreed with cost by the
judgment and decree dated 05.07.2013. The operative portion of the
judgment dated 05.07.2013 reads as follows:-
a) In the result, the suit filed by the plaintiff is partly
decreed with costs.
b) The plaintiff is entitled for vacant possession of
suit schedule property from the defendant. The
defendant is directed to hand over vacant
possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiff
within three months from the date of decree.
failure to do so by the defendant, the plaintiff is
entitled to recover vacant possession of the suit
schedule property through the process know to
law.
c) The plaintiff is entitled for the arrears of rent from
June 2010 to October 2011, for a sum of
6
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
Rs.2,12,500/-. The plaintiff is also entitled for
damages at the rate of Rs.12,500/- from
November 2011 till the defendant hand over
vacant possession of the suit schedule property.
Draw decree accordingly.
3. As the defendant/Jdr failed to comply the decree passed
against him, the plaintiff/Decree Holder pressed in to service the
present Ex.P.No.2767/2013 for the execution of aforesaid decree
passed in O.S.No.8083/2011.
4. When cause notice of execution petition was issued
against the Jdr, the same returned undelivered with remarks
"Refused to receive and therefore affixed on the entrance door of
the house". However, on the date 31.10.2013, when the matter
listed for the appearance of Jdr, Sri. N.B.K Advocate filed vakalath
for Jdr and thereafter the matter for was listed for objections of Jdr
on 08.11.2013. But on 08.11.2013 Sri. N.P. Advocate has filed
vakalath for objector Smt. Vijayalakshmi the wife of Judgment
Debtor along with I.A.No.1 U/o 21 Rule 97, 99 and 101 read with
section 151 of C.P.C praying to adjudicate her claim over property,
7
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
meaning that the schedule property in O.S.No.8083/2011 mentioned
earlier.
5. The Judgment Debtor namely Srinivas.N filed his
objections to execution petition on 29.09.2018 and the same is
summarized thus:-
That Srinivas N is the correct name and not N. Srinivas as
mentioned in the cause title of the execution petition and for
no reason Decree Holder has embarked upon filling
execution petition as against Srinivas. N though there is no
relationship that exist between them as decree holder and
Judgment Debtor. Srinivas. N is no way accountable and
answerable to the decree holder. Srinivas. N to who the
Decree holder has scribe the role of Judgment debtor though
he is not at all a judgment debtor and a utter stranger to
decree holder has field this objections so as to come out of
clutches of petition which is nothing but a frivolous excise.
Srinivas. N was never a tenant under the Decree Holder and
the Decree Holder never leased out the disputed property in
his favour. Srinivas. N never agreed to pay a monthly rent of
Rs.12,500/- and there is no relationship of land lord and
tenant as between the decree holder and Srinivasa. N in
respect of the property in dispute. Srinivas. N has nothing to
do with and he is no way concern with the property in
question and at no point of time he approached the decree
holder to take the flat on monthly rent. That Smt.
Vijayalakmi was his wife and they were residing together and
lived as husband and wife and led the marital life at house
no.740/2(19), pipeline road, 4th Cross, Yashwanthpur,
Bengaluru ant this house was their marital home. Due to
unbearable and irreconcilable differences, it was impossible
for Srinivasa.N to live with his wife Smt. Vijayalakshmi. His
wife Vijayalakshmi on her own left the said marital home and
deserted Srinivasa.N in the year 2000. After leaving the
company of Srinivasa.N. Vijayalakshmi started living in her
parents house at House No.16/42, opposite Yallappa landry,
8
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
Goruguntepalya, Bengaluru. At the time when Vijayalakshmi
left the fold of Srinivasa.N, it is at the intervention of elders
and well-wishers Srinivasa.N paid a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- to
Vijayalakshmi and there by offered her a sense of
sustenance. In view of broken marital life, Srinivasa.N was
constrained to filed M.C. Petition No.1431/2001 on
12.10.2001 as against his wife Vijayalakshmi before family
court for the relief of divorce on the ground of desertion and
cruelty. The said petition was allowed and the marriage was
dissolved by decree of divorce granted by the court on
21.08.2017. Srinivasa. N learned that his erstwhile wife
Vijayalakshmi entered in to an agreement of sale dated
20.04.2009 in respect of the flat in question with the decree
holder who has agreed to sell the flat infavour of the former
lessee Smt. Vijayalakshmi. At the first instance Smt.
Vijayalakshmi was on lease of said flat and even to this day
she is in occupation of the same with her children.
Srinivasa. N is residing at house No.740/2 of Yashwanthpur
till date and is not residing at all in the flat in question. When
such being the state of affairs, all of a sudden to the shock
and surprise of Srinivasa.N, the H.R.D department of
Karnataka soaps and detergent limited factory wherein
Srinivasa.N is working as a machine operator informed him
that the department has received a garnishee notice from
the court containing a statement to attach his salary as well
as retirement benefits. Immediately he contacted his
advocate and obtained certified copies of the judgment and
decree passed in O.S.No.8083/2011 and the copy of the
execution petition. Later he came to know for the first time
with regard to the judgment and decree passed against him.
Srinivasa.N had no knowledge of O.S.No.8083/2011 prior to
22.09.2018 and the execution petition. He never received
suit summons in O.S.No.8083/2011 and also in the
execution petition and he never participated in the
proceedings of O.S.No.8083/2011. The Decree holder has
filed the said suit and obtained the decree and filed the
execution petition by playing fraud on the court and on the
said Srinivasa.N. The entire proceedings has been
engineered by the decree holder with malafide designs.
Srinivasa.N has filed application U/sec.151 of C.P.C in
O.S.No.8083/2011 for re-opening of the case and to hold
fresh trial. The contents of the execution petition and the
9
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
affidavit filed in support of the same are baseless and
Srinivasa.N was not a tenant under the decree holder and is
not at all a judgment debtor. Wherefore the question of
paying the rental arrears does not arise. The attachment and
sale of movables properties and attachment of salary has no
sansity in the eye of law. Wherefore it is prayed to restrain
the implementation of garnishee order and to dismiss the
petition in the interest of justice and equity.
6. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention with
regard to aforementioned objections of Jdr that there is no
substance in his objections. Because, in the vague manner he has
objected only that he is Srinivas.N and not N.Srinivas. Further the
records discloses that the court dismissed the application filed
Under section 151 of C.P.C., by the Jdr wherein he sought for
restoration of O.S.No.8083/2011 to contest the same.
7. In the affidavit filed by the objector/applicant in support
of her application under order 21 rule 97, 99 and 101 read with
section 151 of C.P.C, she has stated that, she is the objector, she
know the facts of the case and hence, she is swearing to the
affidavit. Poornima the decree holder in this case was in need of
urgent funds in order to meet her family necessities and therefore
she has decided to sell the property under the agreement dated:
10
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
20.04.2009. She was agreed to purchase the property for a sum of
Rs.22,00,000/- and accordingly has paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on
the date of agreement apart from the earlier lease amount of
Rs.7,25,000/- and the Dhr received the same as advance sale
consideration before witness. Till date she is in peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the property. The decree holder put her in
possession of the property on the date of lease agreement as per
the lease deed 19.12.2008. The decree holder was agreed to
register the Sale Deed by producing Khatha and other relevant
documents pertaining to the property. The decree holder agreed to
receive the balance sale consideration amount in three installments
of Rs.4,00,000/- per year, and the same was cleared by the objector
ans she continued to be in possession. It is the case of Dhr that Jdr
and objector still having relationship of husband and wife. But Jdr
has filed divorce petition against the objector in the year 2001. The
address of the parties in the divorce petition and the documents
produced are clear about the case of objector. The objector has filed
copy application to obtain certified copies. But office is delaying to
furnish the certified copies of documents. Wherefore it is prayed to
11
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
issue direction to call for records in M.C.No.1421/2001. She is not
residing with the Jdr from the year 2001. The decree holder has not
made her as party and she suppressed the real facts in the original
suit. Objector is in possession of the property by way of lease and
continued the same by virtue of agreement to sell. The decree
holder has not taken any steps to conclude negotiations in this
regard. Objector has filed criminal case against the Dhr and others
before concerned court and FIR is pending consideration. She got
prima-facie case and balance of convenience lies in her favour to
allow the accompanying application. Wherefore it is prayed to allow
the application.
8. The Dhr resist the objector's application on filling
objections statement dated 15.11.2013 stating that, the objector is
the wife of Jdr. However the objector for the reasons best known to
her has not mentioned the name of her husband in the address
column of the affidavit or in the description given in the application.
The objector had the knowledge of the original suit
O.S.No.8083/2011 as she had participated in the said suit
12
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
throughout representing her husband, who is the judgment debtor
herein till the conclusion of the suit proceeding in the month of July
2013. The Judgment Debtor has not even once personally appeared
in the suit proceedings. Objector was present in the said case
representing her husband, and the Obstructor had twice signed the
order sheet in the said suit. The Obstructor has filed this application
after the judgment debtor has entered his appearance in the present
execution petition after due service of the cause notice to him to the
address mentioned in the cause title of the petition. Thus, the
application is the result of collusion between the Obstructor and her
husband who is the Judgment Debtor herein to miss-lead the Court
and to harass the Decree Holder and drag on the matter to avoid
handing over the possession of the schedule premises and to avoid
making payment of the arrears of rent and damages. Besides, the
Obstructor has filed a suit for specific performance of a forged
agreement of sale dated 20.04.2009 in O.S No. 4833/2013 pending
before CCH-14. The said suit came to be filed by the Obstructor on
05.07.2013 i.e., on the same day, when this court has passed the
judgment and decree in O.S.No.8083/2011 out of which present
13
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
execution arises. Though the judgment debtor resides in the
schedule premises along with the Obstructor has instigated and set
up the Obstructor to file the application to avoid complying the
judgment and decree passed in OS No.8083/2011. The decree
holder has never executed the alleged agreement of sale dated
20.04.2009 in favour of the obstructor agreeing to sell the schedule
property to her. The Obstructor and her husband have created the
sale agreement dated 20-04-2009 by forging the signatures of the
decree holder and that of her husband Mr Srinivasa Murthy as a
witness to the said fabricated sale agreement. Hence, the question
of the Obstructor agreeing to purchase the Suit schedule property
for a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- does not arise and consequentially, the
question of Obstructor paving a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Decree
Holder does not arise. It is denied that lease amount of
Rs.7,25,000/- was paid by the Obstructor to the Decree Holder. The
Obstructor has never paid a sum of Rs.7,25,000/-to the Decree
Holder towards lease amount as the obstructor was never a tenant
under the Decree Holder. It is her husband Mr Srinivas.N who is the
judgment debtor herein is the tenant under the Decree Holder. The
14
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
said fact has been admitted by the Jdr. Who is the husband of the
Obstructor in his written statement filed in O.S.No.8083/2011. Jdr
had also not paid the security deposit of Rs.1,25,000/- to the decree
holder when he was inducted into the schedule property as tenant.
However, he has contended in his written statement that he had
paid a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- as security deposit to the decree holder
and the court also rejected the said plea of Jdr and decreed the suit
O.S No.8083/2011. Thus, it is clear from the above facts that both
the Obstructor and her husband have indulged in falsehood before
this Court. It is further false to state that the Obstructor was put in
possession of the schedule property by the decree holder. Decree
holder has not executed any lease agreement dated 19-12-2008
and has not received a sum of Rs.7,25,000/- towards the lease
amount as alleged by the obstructor. Further it is denied that the
decree holder has agreed to receive the balance amount in three
installments of Rs.4,00,000/- per year and the same was cleared by
the Obstructor and continued in possession. The decree holder was
shocked when she has gone through the contents of the Plaint in
O.S. NO.4833/2013 as she was completely taken by surprise in view
15
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
of the audacity of the Obstructor and judgment debtor in creating the
sale agreement dated 20.04.2009 by forging her signatures as well
as of her husband Sri. Srinivasa Murthy as a witness to the said
forged sale agreement. Decree holder has not received any notice
dated 10.01.2013 from the counsel of the Obstructor Mr.M.Ganesh
and therefore the question of replying or complying the terms of the
said notice does not arise. Neither the Obstructor nor her husband
Mr.Srinivas.N, the judgment debtor in this case have whispered
anything about the existence or the execution of the sale agreement
dated 20.04.2009 in the written statement filed in the suit filed by the
decree holder in O.S.No.8083/2011 or anywhere in the said
proceedings. The Obstructor has stooped to the level of alleging
illegal relationship between the decree holder and the judgment
debtor, who is none other than the husband of the Obstructor. The
Decree Holder reserves her right to take appropriate legal action
against the Obstructor and the judgment debtor for maligning her
name in the public domain. The Jdr is residing with the objector
even to this day. In order to avoid eviction from the schedule
premises through due process of law, the objector has woven the
16
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
above false story. The decree holder has not suppressed any facts
when she filed the suit in O.S.No.8083/2011 and prosecuted the
same and obtained the decree under execution. When the
Obstructor herself represented the judgment debtor in O.S
No.8083/2011 on all hearing dates, the question of their alleged
separation does arise. As the Obstructor was living with the
judgment debtor, she has represented him in the said suit
throughout the said proceedings. As on 21-03-2013, the Obstructor
has paid a sum of Rs.12,500/- towards rent on behalf of the
judgment debtor to the husband of the decree holder and the same
is recorded in the order sheet of this Court in O.S.No.8083/2011. In
view of the above factual matrix, the averments of the Obstructor
regarding the alleged suppression of facts by the decree holder are
denied. The court after giving sufficient opportunity to the judgment
debtor and to the knowledge of the Obstructor and by following the
principles of law, finally passed judgment and decree in
O.S.No.8083/2011. When the decree holder has a decree passed
by this court for the eviction of the judgment debtor along with his
family member from the suit premises, she has rightly filed the
17
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
execution petition to enforce the decree and get the judgment
debtor evicted from the schedule premises. Obstructor has stated
that there is a criminal case pending against the decree holder and
her husband, without mentioning the case number and the court
name. The decree holder has not received any notice from any
court regarding any criminal case said to have filed by the
Obstructor. If at all received, she would have definitely honour the
said notice. The Obstructor has no independent right other then the
judgment debtor as she is the wife of the judgment debtor the
Obstructor has no title to the suit schedule property as averred. The
decree holder has already appeared before the CCH-14 court in O.S
No.4833/2013 the one filed by the Obstructor for specific
performance of the contract dated 20.04.2009 and filed her written
statement. So far as the suit O.S.No.7055/2013, the decree holder
has not received any summons from the court. The decree holder
has obtained the certified copy of the agreement of sale dated
20.04.2009 produced by the Obstructor in OS No.4833/2013. After
obtaining the same, the husband of the decree holder has submitted
the said agreement of sale to "TRUTH LABS" an ISO 9001 certified
18
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
Indian Forensic Science Laboratory and the said forensic science
laboratory after verifying the alleged signatures of the decree holder
in the said agreement of sale held that it is not of her and the
signature of her husband as shown in the witness column in the last
page is not that of his. Thus, it is clear from the said report that the
sale agreement is a created document. The Decree Holder has
purchased the schedule property in the year 2008 by spending
about Rs.33,00,000/- out of the said Rs.33 lakhs, the Decree Holder
had availed a housing loan of Rs.21 Lakhs from HDFC bank, on
depositing all the original title deeds. The Decree Holder has been
repaying the said loan till this date to the bank and she is still has to
pay nearly Rs.18lakhs towards the housing loan. The Decree Holder
has purchased the suit schedule premises to retain the same for
their future and to reside there and therefore, has no intention of
alienating the same and practically it is not possible to alienate the
suit schedule property as the title deeds of the property are
deposited with HDFC bank, Bangalore. Moreover, when the
Defendant had invested about Rs.33 lakhs in the month of March
2008 have purchased the suit schedule property, she has no
19
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
incentive to sell the same to the Plaintiff for Rs.22,00,000/- in the
year 2009. The obstructor has not made out prima-facie case for
allowing the application. Wherefore, it is prayed to reject the
application or otherwise the decree holder will be put to hardship as
she could not enjoy the fruits of the decree passed in
O.S.No.8083/2011.
9. The plaintiff has filed O.S.No.7055/2013 for a judgment
and decree to declare that the judgment and decree in
O.S.No.8083/2011 passed by City Civil Court, (CCH-28), dated
05.07.2013 is not binding on this plaintiff to her property and for
grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants or anybody
on their behalf from interfering with or dispossessing the plaintiff
from the suit schedule property.
10. Epitome of the plaintiff case is as follows:-
11. The defendant's is the owner of the property bearing flat
No.003, ground floor, Barath Presidency apartment Goragunte
Palya, Bengaluru that is the suit schedule property. The defendant
was in need of urgent funds in order to meet her domestic and
20
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
family necessities and therefore has decided to sell the suit
schedule property to the plaintiff under the agreement dated
20.04.2009. The plaintiff has agreed to purchase the suit property
for a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- and accordingly, she has paid a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- on the date of agreement to sell apart from the earlier
lease amount of Rs.7,25,000/- and retained as advance sale
consideration to this transaction of agreement of sale before the
witness. The defendants put the plaintiff in possession of the
property on the date of agreement, since the property was leased
by the defendants as per the lease deed dated 19.12.2008. The
defendants agreed to receive the balance amount under
installments of Rs.4,00,000/- per year and the same was cleared by
the plaintiff and she continued to be in possession. The defendants
have agreed to register the sale deed by producing Khatha and
relevant documents of the property. The plaintiff is always ready
and willing to perform her part of contractual obligation. The said
sale transaction has not been completed since the defendants have
failed and neglected to perform her part of contractual obligations
and goes on prolonging by one way or other. The plaintiff has
21
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
requested and demanded for sale deed. The plaintiff got issued a
legal notice dated 10.01.2013 through her counsel Sri. Late M.G.
Ganesh. Unfortunately, the plaintiff has not received the papers
including the paper publication from the said counsel. The
defendants though have received the notice neither replied not
complied with the reasonable requests made by the plaintiff. The
plaintiff by taking advantage of value of the property, demanding for
possession and also to defraud the claim of the plaintiff. The
property is required further electricity for the water pump to the
structure, since there is shortage of pure water connection. The
defendants permitted the plaintiff to affect the same and not come
forward to sign the permission latter to the flat managers. In
pursuance of the agreement of sale dated 20.04.2009 the plaintiff
has paid more than Rs.3,00,000/- to keep the property intact. There
is illegal relationship between her husband and the defendants
herein. The plaintiff's husband cot hold red handed and decided to
settle the same amicably. In this regard the plaintiff's husband paid
an amount of Rs.7,25,000/- as full and final settlement of
matrimonial relationship. Then remaining amount was paid by the
22
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
petitioner mother. In this way the plaintiff paid the entire sale
consideration amount. The plaintiff left her matrimonial home and
her husband started living separately with illegal relationship till date.
The defendants hand in glove with the husband of the plaintiff has
created the false story stating that, the plaintiff's husband was in
possession of the suit schedule property and filed suit in
O.S.No.8083/2011 suppressing real facts. The present Aadhaar
Card address shows the address of plaintiff in the suit schedule
property and her husbands address is different. The defendant
obtained decree on misrepresentation of facts and collusion of
parties to deceive the plaintiff. The judgment and decree in O.S.
No.8083/2011 is void and not binding on the plaintiff, as it was
obtained in collusion with the parties and misrepresenting the court.
The defendants are attempting to interfere in the suit schedule
property with the help of the said decree and engaged anti social
elements to dispossess the plaintiff. All the parties in the suit O.S.
No.8083/2011 are made as parties herein. The third defendant is
also made as party since he was told that, he divorced the first
defendant while seen the illegal relationship with the second
23
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
defendant. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance in O.S.
No.4833/2013 and the defendant No.1 is appearing in that suit.
Wherefore it is prayed to decree the suit.
12. Defendant's No.1 and 3 filed their joint written statement
dated 19.12.2013 stating that the plaintiff played fraud upon this
court as well as on them. She has suppressed the fact that she is
the wife of 2nd defendant herein and she has represented the 2 nd
defendant in O.S.No.8083/2011 and signed the order sheet of the
said suit on 19.11.2012 and on 20.03.2013 and she has paid a sum
of Rs.12,500/- towards rent of the schedule property to these
defendants on behalf of the 2nd defendant in the said suit on
21.03.2013. Thus after participating in the above referred suit on
behalf of her husband the 2nd defendant herein, the Plaintiff has
come up with the present suit in collusion with and at the instigation
of the 2nd defendant to harass these defendants. Further stated
that, the Defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the suit property, a
flat bearing No.003. That the husband of the Plaintiff one Srinivas.N
approached these defendants in the month of December, 2008
requesting them to let the said flat on monthly rent assuring that he
24
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
would pay an advance of amount of Rs.1,25,000/- and further pay
the monthly rent of Rs.12,500/-. Assuring so, the said Mr Srinivas.N
the husband of the Plaintiff along with the Plaintiff and their children
occupied the suit schedule property in the month of December 2008
as tenant. But, the said husband of the Plaintiff who is the 2 nd
defendant herein has never paid the security deposit amount of
Rs.1,25,000/- to these Defendants as assured by him. The 2 nd
defendant stopped paying rent from the month of June, 2010 and
therefore, the 1st Defendant determined his tenancy by getting them
a legal notice dated 01-10-2011 issued to him. As the 2nd defendant
did not comply the demands made in the said legal notice and
vacated the suit schedule property, the 1 st Defendant was compelled
to file a suit for ejectment against the 2 nd Defendant in O.S
No.8083/2011 on the file of CCH-28 court. In the said suit though
the 2nd defendant being the husband of the Plaintiff filed his written
statement, he has not appeared before the said court even once.
Instead, the Plaintiff herein used to appear in the said suit regularly.
The said suit came to be decreed on 05-07-2013 against the 2 nd
defendant herein and he was directed to vacate and handover with
25
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
the property within the 3 months from the date of decree and to pay
the arrears of rent and damages to the tune of nearly Rs.4.50 lakhs
to the 1st defendant. Though the Plaintiff is aware of the proceedings
in the above suit, she has deliberately suppressed the same from
this Court and has deliberately not mentioned the name of her
husband in the cause title of the plaint. That after obtaining the
decree in O.S.NO.8083/2011, the 1 st defendant has filed an
execution petition in EX.P.No 2767/2013 before this Court CCH-28
for enforcing the decree against the 2 nd defendant. After the
appearance of the 2nd defendant in the said execution petition, the
present Plaintiff has filed an application under Order XXI Rule 97, 99
and 101 of C.P.C., resisting the said execution petition as an
obstructor. The 1st defendant has already filed objections to the said
obstruction application and the execution petition is posted for cross
examination of the plaintiff herein. The present suit is not
maintainable as the plaintiff has urged the same facts and sought
for the same reliefs in her obstruction application filed in the said
execution petition. Unless the claim of the plaintiff is decided in the
said execution petition as obstructor the suit cannot be proceeded
26
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
with as the same will amount to duplicity of proceedings and also
may lead to conflicting decisions. Moreover, the obstruction
application filed by the Plaintiff herein in the said execution petition
has to be tried as a suit and hence the present suit is not
maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Further, the plaintiff has
filed this suit, in order to wriggle out of the Judgment and decree
passed in O.S. No.8083/2011 against her husband who is the 2 nd
defendant herein and to evade the imminent vacation from the suit
schedule property and to pay the damages. It is true that the 1 st
Defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property. But it is false
to state that the 1st Defendant was in need of urgent funds in order
to meet her domestic and family necessities and therefore has
decided to sell the suit schedule property to the Plaintiff under the
agreement of sale dated 20.04.2009. There was no need of urgent
funds for these defendants as they had no domestic and family
necessities to meet as averred by the Plaintiff. The 1 st defendant
has never decided to sell the suit schedule property and has never
executed the alleged agreement of sale dated 20.04.2009 in favour
of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff and her husband, the 2 nd defendant herein
27
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
have created the sale agreement dated 20.04.2009 by forging the 1 st
defendant and that of the 3rd defendant signatures as a witness to
the said fabricated sale agreement. Hence, the question of agreeing
to sell the property for a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- and the Plaintiff
paying a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the 1 st Defendant does not arise.
No amount was paid by the Plaintiff to the 1 st Defendant as she has
not executed the sale agreement in favour of the Plaintiff. Further,
the payment of lease amount of Rs 7,25,000/- is a false statement of
the plaintiff and she never paid that amount to the 1 st defendant
towards lease agreement. The plaintiff was never a tenant under
the 1st Defendant. It is the husband of plaintiff Sri. Srinivasa.N who
was tenant of the 1st defendant. The said fact has been admitted by
the 2nd defendant in his written statement filed in O.S
No.8083/2011. The Plaintiff has indulged in falsehood before this
Court. The 1st defendant has not let out the suit property to the
Plaintiff as averred and she has not executed the lease agreement
dated 19.12.2008 in favour of the Plaintiff. It is false to state that the
1st defendant agreed to receive the balance amount in the
installments of Rs.4,00,000/- per year as the sale agreement itself is
28
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
a created document. Therefore, the question of the 1 st Defendant
agreeing to receive the balance amount in three installments of
Rs.4,00,000/- per year does not arise. The Plaintiff has indulged in
absolute false absolute falsehood before this Court to suit her
sinister plan of knocking off the suit schedule property from these
defendants. The 1st defendant has not received any notice dated
10.01.2013 from the counsel of the Plaintiff Mr.M.Ganesh and
therefore question of replying of or complying the terms of the
alleged legal notice does not arise. The plaintiff nor her husband Mr.
Srinivas.N the 2nd defendant herein have whispered any thing about
the existence or the execution of the sale agreement Dated
25.04.2009 in the written statement filed in the earlier eviction suit
filed by the 1st defendant in O.S No.8083/2011 or anywhere in the
said proceedings. This conduct of the Plaintiff itself shows that she
has not approached this Court with clean hands. The plaintiff has
stooped to the level of alleging illegal relationship between the 1 st
defendant and the 2nd defendant herein who is none other than her
husband. There is no illegal relationship between 1 st defendant and
2nd defendant as alleged by the plaintiff. The Plaintiff is residing with
29
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
the 2nd defendant in the suit schedule property even to this day. In
order to avoid eviction from the schedule property through the due
process of law, the Plaintiff has woven the false story. The
document produced by the plaintiff with regard to the alleged
separation of herself from the 2nd defendant are created by the
Plaintiff and the 2nd Defendant to defraud the 1 st defendant. As
recent as on 21.03.2013, the Plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.12,500/-
towards rent on behalf of the 2nd defendant to the 3rd defendant and
the same is recorded in the order sheet of O.S.No.8083/2011.
Therefore, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to state that decree
obtained in O.S.No.8083/2011 is obtained by collusion and the
same is not binding upon her the court passed judgment and decree
in O.S.No.8083/2011 after giving sufficient opportunity to the 2 nd
defendant herein and to the knowledge of the Plaintiff and by
following the principles of law. That the 1 st defendant has a decree
passed by the court for the eviction of the 2 nd defendant along with
his family members from the suit schedule property and she has
rightly filed the execution petition to enforce the decree to get the 2 nd
defendant evicted from the suit schedule property. Hence the
30
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
decree passed in O.S.No.8083/2011 is valid and binding and need
not be set-aside. The plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S No 4833/2013
for specific performance. The 1st defendant herein has appeared in
the said suit and filed her written statement. The 3 rd defendant is the
husband of the 1st defendant and they are residing together as
husband and wife. The Plaintiff has no independent right other then
the 2nd defendant as she is his wife. The Plaintiff has no title to the
suit schedule property as averred. The agreement of sale and lease
agreement are got created by the plaintiff colluding with her
husband, the 2nd defendant herein and hence, the Plaintiff derive no
night or title from the same. Besides, the 3 rd defendant has
submitted the said agreement of sale dated 20.04.2009 to "TRUTH
LABS ISO 9001" certified Indian forensic science Laboratory. The
said forensic science Laboratory after verifying the admitted
signatures of the 1st defendant alleged signatures as appearing in
the said agreement of sale opined that the signatures of the 1 st
defendant appearing on the said agreement of sale is not of her and
the signature of the 3rd defendant as shown in the witness column in
the last page is not that of his. Thus, it is clear from the said report
31
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
that the sale agreement dated 20.04.2009 is a created document.
Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs of
Rs.1,00,000/-.
13. On the basis of the pleadings following issues are
framed in O.S.No.7055/2013: -
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that, judgment and
decree passed in O.S.No.8083/2011 is not
binding on her?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that, she is in
possession of the suit schedule property as a
lease ?
3) Whether the plaintiff proves that, the
interference of the defendants ?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as
sought for?
5) What order or decree?
14. O.S No.4833/2013 is a suit filed by the plaintiff Smt.
N.Vijayalakshmi against Smt. Poornima Rajani the defendant for the
relief of judgment and decree directing the defendant to execute the
sale deed infavour of the plaintiff by receiving the balance sale
32
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
consideration in respect of the suit B and C schedule properties and
in case of default directing execution of sale deed through
instrumentality of this court and for permanent injunction restraining
the defendant or anybody on her behalf from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property
and restraining the defendants or anybody on her behalf from
alienating the suit schedule property.
15. Epitome of plaintiff case is as follows:-
The defendant is the owner of the property Flat No.003,
described in the schedule to the plaint. The defendant was in need
of urgent funds in order to meet some of her domestic and family
necessities and therefore has decided to sell the property under the
agreement dated 20.04.2009. The Plaintiff has agreed to purchase
the suit schedule property for a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- and
accordingly, the Plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on the date
of agreement to sell apart from the earlier lease amount of
Rs.7,25,000/- and retained as advance sale consideration to this
transaction of agreement of sale as before the witness. Accordingly
33
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
an agreement of sale was entered into between the Plaintiff and the
defendant. The defendant was put in possession of the suit
schedule property by the Plaintiff on the date of agreement, since
the property was leased by the defendant as per the lease deed
dated 19.12.2008. The defendant agreed to receive the balance
amount in three installments of Rs.4,00,000/- per year and the same
was cleared by the Plaintiff and she continued to be in possession.
The defendant has agreed to register the sale deed by producing
khatha and further relevant documents pertaining to suit property.
The Plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform her part of
contractual obligation. The sale transaction has not been completed
since the defendant had failed and neglected to perform her part of
contractual obligations and goes on prolonging by one way or the
other. The plaintiff requested and demanded for sale deed. The
plaintiff got issued a legal notice calling upon the defendant to
execute the sale deed since the entire amount was received. In this
regard the Plaintiff got issued the legal notice to the defendant on
10.01.2013 through her counsel Sri. Late. M. Ganesh, Advocate,
Bengaluru. Unfortunately the Plaintiff has not received the papers
34
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
including the paper publication form her said counsel. The defendant
received the legal notice neither replied nor complied with the
reasonable requests made by the Plaintiff. The defendant by shock
and by taking advantage of fluctuation of raising in the value of the
property, demanding for possession and also to defraud the claim of
the Plaintiff. Suit schedule property is required further electricity for
the water pump to the structure, since there is shortage of pure
water connection. The defendant permitted the Plaintiff to affect
same and not come forward to sign the permission to the flat
managers and soon. In pursuance of the agreement of sale dated
20.04.2009 the Plaintiff has spent more than Rs.3,00,000/- to keep
the property intact. Wherefore it is prayed to decree the suit.
16. The defendant filed written statement dated 19.09.2013
stating that suit claim is based on a forged agreement of sale got
created by the plaintiff and her husband Mr. Srinivas.N in order to
defraud the plaintiff and usurp the property illegally from her.
Further, the suit as brought by the plaintiff is barred by limitation as
the plaintiff has sought for the enforcement of the alleged agreement
35
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
of sale dated 20.04.2009 by filing the above suit on 05.07.2013
beyond 3 years from the date of agreement of sale. The defendant
is the absolute owner of flat No.003 i.e. the suit schedule property.
The husband of the plaintiff one Mr. Srinivas.N approached the
defendant as well as her husband to let the suit flat on monthly rent
assuring that he would pay an advance amount of Rs.1,25,000/- and
further pay a monthly rent of Rs.12,500/-. Assuring so the said Mr
Srinivas.N the husband of the Plaintiff along with the Plaintiff and
their children occupied the suit schedule property in the month of
December, 2008 as tenant. But, the said husband of the Plaintiff has
never paid the security deposit amount of Rs.1,25,000/- to this
defendant as assured by him. The said Mr. Srinivas.N, the husband
of the plaintiff stopped paying rent from the month of June, 2010 and
therefore, the Defendant determined his tenancy by getting him a
legal notice dated 01-10-2011 issued to him. As the husband of the
plaintiff did not comply the demands made in the said legal notice
and vacated the suit schedule property, the defendant was
compelled to file a suit for ejectment against the the husband of the
Plaintiff in O.S No 8083/2011 on the file of CCH-28 court. In the said
36
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
suit though the the husband of the Plaintiff filed his written
statement, he has not appeared before the said court even once.
Instead, the Plaintiff herein used to appear in the said suit regularly.
The said suit came to be decreed on 05-07-2013 against the the
husband of the Plaintiff herein and he was directed to vacate and
handover the property within 3 months from the date of decree and
to pay the arrears of rent and damages to the tune of nearly Rs.4.50
lakhs to the defendant herein. That the present suit came to be filed
by the plaintiff on 05.07.2013 before this court on which date the suit
O.S No.8083/2011 by the defendant against the husband of the
Plaintiff came to be decreed by this court. Though the Plaintiff is
aware of the proceedings in the above suit, she has deliberately
suppressed the same from this Court and has deliberately not
mentioned the name of her husband in the cause title of the plaint.
The plaintiff has filed this suit in order to wriggle out of the judgment
and decree passed in O.S No.8083/2011 against her husband Mr.
Srinivas.N and to evade the imminent vacation from the property
and to pay the said damages to the defendant in compliance of said
decree. Its seems from the perusal of the certified copy of the sale
37
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
agreement dated 20.04.2009 that it is a created document created
by the plaintiff and her husband by forging the signatures of
defendant and her husband to knock of the property from the
defendant and cause wrongful loss her. It is false to state that the
defendant was in need of urgent funds in order to meet her domestic
and family necessities and therefore has decided to sell the suit
schedule property to the Plaintiff under an agreement of sale dated
20.04.2009. There was no need of urgent funds to the defendant as
she had no domestic and family necessities to meet as averred by
the Plaintiff. The defendant has never decided to sell the suit
schedule property and has never executed the alleged agreement of
sale dated 20.04.2009 in favour of the Plaintiff. The plaintiff and her
husband have created the sale agreement dated 20.04.2009 by
forging the defendant and that of her husband as a witness to the
said fabricated sale agreement. Hence, the question of agreeing to
sell the property for a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- and the Plaintiff paying
a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the defendant does not arise. No amount
was paid by the Plaintiff to the defendant who has not executed the
sale agreement in favour of the Plaintiff. Further, the payment of
38
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
lease amount of Rs.7,25,000/- is a false statement and the plaintiff
never paid that amount to the defendant towards lease agreement.
The plaintiff was never a tenant under the defendant. It is the
husband of plaintiff Sri. Srinivas.N who was tenant of the defendant.
The said fact has been admitted by the husband of the Plaintiff in his
written statement filed in O.S No.8083/2011. The Plaintiff has
indulged in falsehood before this Court. The defendant has not let
out the suit property to the Plaintiff as averred and she has not
executed the lease agreement dated 19.12.2008 in favour of the
Plaintiff. The defendant agreed to receive the balance amount in the
installments of Rs.4,00,000/- per year is a false statement as the
sale agreement itself is a created document. Therefore, the
question of the defendant agreeing to receive the balance amount in
three installments of Rs.4,00,000/- per year does not arise. The
Plaintiff has indulged in absolute falsehood before this Court to suit
her sinister plan of knocking off the suit schedule property from this
defendant. The defendant has not received any notice dated
10.01.2013 from the counsel of the Plaintiff Mr.M.Ganesh and
therefore question of replying or complying the terms of the alleged
39
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
legal notice does not arise. The plaintiff and her husband Mr.
Srinivas.N have not whispered any thing about the existence or the
execution of the sale agreement Dated 25.04.2009 in the written
statement filed in the earlier eviction suit filed by the defendant in
O.S No.8083/2011 or anywhere in the said proceedings. This
conduct of the Plaintiff itself shows that she has not approached this
Court with clean hands. Plaintiff is not the tenant under defendant. It
is her husband Mr. Srinivas.N is the tenant under this defendant.
When the agreement of sale dated 20.04.2009 itself is a created
document, the question of plaintiff spending more than Rs.3,00,000/-
to keep the property in tact does not arise. There was no cause of
action to file this suit as the defendant has not executed the sale
agreement dated 20.04.2009. The plaintiff has suppressed the fact
of pendency of O.S No.8083/2011 in respect of suit property on the
date of filing of this suit though she herself has participated in the
proceedings of said suit. The defendant has purchased the suit
property in the year 2008 by spending about Rs.33,00,000/-. Out of
the said Rs.33,00,000/-, the defendant had availed sum of
Rs.21,00,000/- as housing loan from HDFC Bank, Bengaluru, by
40
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
depositing all the original title deeds with said bank. The defendant
has been repaying the said loan till this date and she is still has to
pay nearly Rs.18 lakhs towards housing loan. The defendant has
purchased the suit schedule property to retain the same for their
future and to reside there. The defendant has no intention of
alienating the same and practically it is not possible to alienate the
property as the title deeds of the property are deposited with HDFC
Bank. As the defendant has been repaying her housing loan every
month and at the same time, the husband of the plaintiff has not
paid the rents from June, 2010, she has filed eviction suit against
him and got a decree in O.S No.8083/2011, which can be executed
after 05-10-2013. The defendant neither can alienate the suit
property nor can create charge upon the same in view of above
facts. Wherefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary cost
of Rs.1,00,000/-.
17. In her additional written statement the defendant stated
that she does not admit the correctness of the schedule and
41
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
boundaries of C-schedule property and put the plaintiff to strict proof
of the same.
18. Based on above pleadings of the parties, following
issues are framed in O.S No.4833/2013.
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, she was in
possession of the suit schedule property as a lessee?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, on 20.04.2009 the
defendant entered into an agreement of sale of the suit
property and paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, she has paid of
Rs.7,50,000/- as lease amount to the defendant?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that, she always has
been ready and willing to perform her part of contract?
5. Whether the defendant proves that, the suit is
barred by limitation?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for relief as sought
for?
7. What order or decree?
42
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
19. It will be appropriate to mention here that, originally the
present Ex.P.No.2767/2013, O.S.No.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013 were pending before the court of VIII Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru and pursuant to the
notification No.ADM(A)1543/14 dated.23.09.2014 entire records of
all the aforementioned 3 cases were transferred to this XVII
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Court (CCH-16). Further,
when the aforementioned cases were pending before VIII Additional
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, the plaintiff in
O.S.No.4833/2013 i.e., the objector in Ex.P.No.2767/2013 and
plaintiff in another suit O.S.No.7055/2013 has filed I.A.No.III in
O.S.No.4833/2013 to club the suits in O.S.No.7055/2013,
O.S.No.4833/2013 with Ex.P.No.2767/2013. The VIII Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru by the order dated 05.02.2015
allowed the said I.A.No.III and the operative portion of the order
reads as follows:-
I.A.No.III filed by the plaintiff is hereby allowed.
Both the suits O.S.No.4833/2013 and
O.S.No.7055/2013 have been clubbed with
Ex.P.No.2767/2013 and both the parties should
lead common evidence in the execution petition.
43
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
20. In view of afore extracted clubbing order, both the
parties lead common evidence in Ex.P.No.2767/2013. The plaintiff
Smt. Vijayalakshmi.N in O.S.No.4833/2013 and O.S.No.7055/2013
is the obstructor in Ex.P.No.2767/2013 and she, in support of her
claim examined herself as PW.1 and yet two witnesses as PW.2 and
PW.3 and she produced 95 documents, which are marked as Ex.P.1
to Ex.P.95. The defendant No.1 in O.S.No.7055/2013 who is the
decree holder in Ex.P.No.2767/2013 as well as the defendant in
O.S.No.4833/2013 namely Smt. Poornima Rajani and her husband
i.e., the 3rd defendant in O.S.No.7055/2013 were got examined
themselves as DW.1 and DW.2 and got marked the documents
Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.25. Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.5 are marked as court
documents during the cross-examination of PW.1.
21. Pivotal to mention here that the clubbing order
mentioned supra has not been challenged and it was passed way
back in the year 2015 and in accordance with the same, both the
parties led common evidence in Ex.P.No.2767/2013. Needless to
mention that, in catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Apex court held
44
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
that the scheme of Order XXI Rules 97, 99 and 101 of C.P.C., is in
order to prevent to give birth to a fresh litigation, the provisions have
been incorporated for the interest of a person when is raised under
Rule 97 C.P.C, it is to be decided in the same execution and that
would be a "decree". When the application of Order XXI Rule 97
C.P.C. is adjudicated, it is enveloped within the definition of decree
and first appeal having been preferred, the provisions of C.P.C will
come in to play. Therefore, the legislature in order to avoid
multiplicity of proceedings has empowered the executing court to
conduct necessary enquiry and adjudicate by permitting the parties
to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary and to determine
the right, title and interest of the parties and therefore, such an order
has been given the status of a decree.
22. Therefore, it is relevant to formulate the point for
consideration in Ex.P.No.2767/2013 and to give findings on the
same at first and later, as well as consequentially to give findings on
issues involved in O.S.No.7055/2013 and No.4833/2013.
45
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
Accordingly, the following Points are hereby formulated for
consideration in Ex.P.No.2767/2013.
1) Whether the objector in instant Ex.P.No.2767/2013, who is
the common plaintiff in O.S.No.4833/2013 and
O.S.No.7055/2013 has proved that she has been inducted to the
schedule property as a lessee under lease deed, dated
19.12.2008 and thereafter, under the sale agreement, dated
20.04.2009 the Decree holder has agreed to sell the schedule
property in her favour for a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- and received
Rs.10,25,000/- as advance amount and though she is ready and
willing to perform her part of contract, the Dhr failed to perform
her part of contract and therefore she is entitled for decree of
specific performance of contract and also for a decree to declare
that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.8083/2011 is not
binding on her, as it was obtained in collusion with the parties
and misrepresenting the court and therefore, there is a ground
to allow the application filed by her under order 21 rule 97, 99
and 101 C.P.C., to adjudicate her claim over schedule property?
2) What Order ?
23. The court given its anxious consideration to the
arguments addressed at length by the counsel for decree holder and
the objector. Further, the court carefully percolated through the
written notes of arguments filed by the counsel for obstructor and
the evidence accrued on record. Now findings of the court on point
46
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
No.1 is in the Negative and Point No.2:- As per final order, for the
reasons herein after assigned.
REASONS
24. Point No.1:- At the outset, court deem it fit to narrate the
case of decree holder and the obstructor in brief for appreciation of
evidence in better possession. Accordingly, respective cases of the
Dhr and obstructor is narrated here under in the form of Tabular
Column .
D.H.R CASE OBSTRUCTOR CASE
The husband of the obstructor Mr. The Dhr was in need of urgent
Srinivas. N who is the JDR herein is the funds in order to meet some of her
tenant under Dhr, who along with the domestic and family necessities
obstructor had approached Dhr and therefore has decided to sell
husband for taking the schedule the schedule property to obstructor
property on rent in the month of under the sale agreement dated
December 2008. As the Dhr is the 20.04.2009 and the obstructor
owner of the property , she along with agreed to purchase the schedule
her husband had discussed with the property for a sum of
JDR and obstructor for letting the Rs.22,00,000/- and accordingly has
property on rent in favour of the JDR on paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- on the
a monthly rent of Rs.12,500/- and date of said agreement apart from
security deposit of Rs.1,25,000/-. the earlier release amount of
However, except the token advance Rs.7,25,000/- and it was retained
amount of Rs.25,000/- (Which as advance sale consideration
subsequently got adjusted to the rent) before the witnesses. The Dhr put
the JDR has not paid the advance the obstructor in possession of the
amount and therefore Dhr has not property on the date of agreement,
executed any rent agreement infavour since the property was leased by
of the JDR. As the JDR has the Dhr as per the lease deed
subsequently failed to pay the monthly dated 19.12.2008. The Dhr agreed
rent and advance amount, Dhr had filed to receive the balance sale
47
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
O.S.No.8083/2011 and the same came consideration amount in 3
to be decreed on 05.07.2013. The installments of Rs.4,00,000/- per
obstructor was not put in possession of year and the same was cleared by
the schedule property by plaintiff as per obstructor and continued in
alleged lease deed dated 19.12.2008 possession. The Dhr has agreed to
as a tenant. The obstructor has just register the sale deed by producing
accompanied the JDR as his wife to the khata and other relevant
schedule property without any documents of the property.
independent right in the same. Dhr has Obstructor is always ready and
not executed the alleged sale willing to perform her part of
agreement dated 20.04.2009 in favour contractual obligation. But the
of the obstructor. Neither the the defendant/Dhr has neglected to
obstructor has paid nor Dhr has perform her part of contractual
received the alleged sale consideration. obligation and goes on prolonging
The obstructor has indulged in absolute by one way or other. Obstructor
falsehood before this court, to suit her got issued the legal notice dated
sinister plan of knocking of the 10.01.2013 through her counsel
schedule property from Dhr. The Dhr Sri. Late M. Ganesh, advocate,
come to know about the alleged Bengaluru. But unfortunately
agreement of sale dated 20.04.2009 obstructor has not received the
only after receiving the summons and papers including the paper
copy of the plaint in O.S.No.4833/2013 publication from her said counsel.
and she was completely taken by The Dhr having received the legal
surprise in view of the audacity of the notice neither replied nor complied
obstructor and JDR in creating the sale with the reasonable requests made
agreement by forging her signatures on by obstructor. Obstructor's past
the said sale agreement and that of her husband (JDR) paid an amount of
husband as a witness to the said forged Rs.7,25,000/- as full and final
sale agreement. Hence, the question settlement of matrimonial
of Dhr performing the contractual relationship. The remaining amount
obligations of a fabricated sale was paid by the obstructor's
agreement does not arise as the said mother. In the said way, Obstructor
sale agreement was not in her paid the entire amount of Sale
knowledge till she received the consideration amount to the Dhr.
summons from the court and verifying The obstructor left the matrimonial
the copy of sale agreement. Neither the home and her husband started
obstructor nor her husband the JDR living separately with illegal
have whispered anything about the relationship with Dhr till date.
existence or execution of the sale Obstructor's past husband had no
agreement dated 20.04.2009 in the relationship with the obstructor from
written statement filed in the suit in the year 2008. The decree
O.S.No.8083/2011 or anywhere in the obtained in O.S.No.8083/2011 was
said proceedings. The obstructor obtained incollusion with the parties
48
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
herself represented the JDR in and therefore the decree needs to
O.S.No.8083/2011. As the obstructor be declared as void. The
was living with the JDR, she has obstructor's past husband filed
represented him in the said suit M.C.No. 1421/2001 for divorce and
throughout the proceedings. The JDR thereafter, he is residing
is residing in the schedule property separately. Hence, she filed suit is
along with the obstructor and their O.S.No.7055/2013 challenging the
sons. Therefore, the question of decree passed in
separation of JDr and Obstructor O.S.No.8083/2011 and suit in
doesno't arise. The judgment and O.S.No.4833/2013 for specific
decree passed in O.S.No.8083/2011 by performance of contract. Hence,
this court is binding on the obstructor as she prayed to allow obstruction
she is the wife of the JDR. If this court application and to decree the suits
allows the obstruction application, Dhr filed in O.S.No.4833/2013 and
will be put to great hardship and she 7055/2013.
will not be able to enjoy the fruits of the
decree passed in O.S.No.8083/2011.
Hence it is prayed to dismiss the
obstruction application and suits filed by
the obstructor.
25. In the backdrop of aforementioned case of the Dhr and
the obstructor, be it noted that undisputedly, the Dhr Smt. Poornima
Rajani is the owner of schedule property Flat No.003, Municipal
No.9/1, Bharath Presidency apartments, ground floor, 2 nd main road,
2nd block, Goraguntepalya, Yashwanthpur, Bengaluru, (hereinafter
referred to as 'schedule property' for brief) regarding which, claims
of the parties in all the 3 cases i.e., Ex.P.No.2767/2012,
O.S.No.4833/2013 and O.S.No.7055/2013 is related. Yet another
admitted fact is that the defendant No.3 in O.S.No.7055/2013 Sri.
49
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
Srinivasa Murthy. K.G is the husband of Dhr and he led evidence as
DW.2 herein.
26. Needless to state that the affidavit filed by the obstructor
as PW.1 in respect of her examination-in-chief is the replica of the
application that she filed under order 21 Rule 97, 99 and 101 read
with section 151 of C.P.C. The entire contents of aforesaid
application and the affidavit appended to the same, since already
extracted in the opening paragraph of this judgment, the court
abstain from mentioning about the contents of the affidavit filed by
the obstructor in lieu of her examination-in-chief. Therefore, the
court proceed to delve with the cross-examination of PW.1 and later
with the intrinsic evidence of documents marked as 'P' series on the
side of obstructor as well as the evidence of witnesses examined as
PW2 & PW3.
27. For appreciation of evidence in better position, the Court
deem it fit to reproduce the points that are elicited and the statement
made by PW1 on various dates of her cross-examination in
Kannada and English language and are as follows:
50
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
ಬಿ. ಎಸ್ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಿ ಮತ್ತು ಎನ್. ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಿ ಎಂದರೆ ನಾನೇ.
ನಾನು ಬಿ.ಎಸ್. ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಿ ಎಂದೂ ಸಹ ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡುತ್ತೇನೆ
ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ಎನ್. ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಿ ಎಂದು ಸಹಿ
ಮಾಡುತ್ತೇನೆ.
ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸರವರ ಜೊತೆಗಿನ ವೈವಾಹಿಕ ಜೀವನದಿಂದ ನನಗೆ
ಇಬ್ಬರು ಗಂಡು ಮಕ್ಕಳು ಇದ್ದಾರೆ. ನನ್ನ ಗಂಡು ಮಕ್ಕಳ ವಯಸ್ಸು
ಸರಿಯಾಗಿ ನೆನಪಿಲ್ಲ. ನನ್ನ ಮಕ್ಕಳ ಹೆಸರು ಉಮಾಶಂಕರ್ ಮತ್ತು
ಮಹೇಂದ್ರ ಕುಮಾರ್. ನನ್ನ ಮಗ ಉಮಾಶಂಕರ್ ಗೆ ಮದುವೆ ಆಗಿದೆ
ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ. ಎಷ್ಟನೇ ಇಸವಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮದುವೆಯಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು
ನೆನಪಿಲ್ಲ. ಈಗ ನನಗೆ ತೋರಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ಪೋಟೋದಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಜೊತೆ
ಕುಳಿತಿರುವವರು ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ್. ಅವರ ಪಕ್ಕದಲ್ಲಿ ಇರುವವನು
ಉಮಾಶಂಕರ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿ ಪರ ವಕೀಲರು ಪೋಟೋವನ್ನು
ತೋರಿಸಿ, ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಗುರುತಿಸಿದ್ದರಿಂದ ನಿಡಿ.1 ಎಂದು
ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ನಿಡಿ.1 ರ ಪೋಟೋ 2011 ರಲ್ಲಿ ತೆಗೆದಿದ್ದು
ಎಂದರೆ ಇರಬಹುದು. ನಾನು ಪಿ.ಯು.ಸಿ ವರೆಗೆ ವಿದ್ಯಾಭ್ಯಾಸ
ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ನನಗೆ ಇಂಗ್ಲಿಷ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಓದಲು ಬರೆಯಲು ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ
ಬರುತ್ತದೆ. ಓ.ಎಸ್. ನಂ.8083/2011 ರ ದಿನಾಂಕ
19.11.2012 ರಲ್ಲಿನ ಆರ್ಡರ್ ಶೀಟಿನಲ್ಲಿರುವ ನನಗೆ ಈಗ
ತೋರಿಸಿದ ಸಹಿ ನನ್ನದೇ. ನನ್ನ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು ಈ ಆರ್ಡರ್ ಶೀಟಿಗೆ
ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿ ಪರ ವಕೀಲರೇ ನನ್ನನ್ನು ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ಸಹಿ
ಮಾಡಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿ ಪರ ವಕೀಲರು ಈ ರೀತಿ ನನ್ನಿಂದ
ಆರ್ಡರ್ ಶೀಟಿಗೆ ಒತ್ತಾಯವಾಗಿ ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿಸಿದ್ದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಾನು
ಅವರ ಮೇಲೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ದೂರು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ. ದಿನಾಂಕ
51
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
20.03.2013 ರ ಆರ್ಡರ್ ಶೀಟಿನಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು ಸಹ ಇದೇ
ರೀತಿ ನನ್ನಿಂದ ಪಡೆದಿದ್ದಾರೆ.
ನನಗೆ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿರುವ ಶ್ರೀ ರಾಮ್ ಚಿಟ್ಸ್
ನ ನೋಟೀಸ್ಸುಗಳು ಬಂದಿವೆ. ಶ್ರೀ ರಾಮ್ಚಿಟ್ಸ್ ನವರು ನನ್ನ ಮೇಲೆ
ಕೇಸು ಹಾಕಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ. ಶ್ರೀ ರಾಮ್ ಚಿಟ್ಸ್ ನವರು
ಹಾಕಿದ ಕೇಸಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ್ ರವರು ಸಹ ಒಬ್ಬ ಪಕ್ಷಕಾರರು
ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ. ಅವರು ಶೂರಿಟಿ ಆಗಿದ್ದರು. ಶ್ರೀ ರಾಮ್ಚಿಟ್ಸ್ ನವರ
ದಾವೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಆಗಿರುವ ಅವಾರ್ಡನ್ನು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಗೆ ತೋರಿಸಲಾಗಿದ್ದು,
ಅದನ್ನು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಒಪ್ಪಿ ಅದನ್ನು ನಿಡಿ.2 ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು.
ಅಂಚೆ ಸ್ವೀಕೃತಿ ಪತ್ರದ ನಕಲು ಶ್ರೀ ರಾಮ್ ಚಿಟ್ಸ್ ನವರ ಕೇಸಿನಲ್ಲಿ
ನನಗೆ ಬಂದ ನೋಟೀಸು ಸ್ವೀಕರಿಸಿದ್ದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಾನು ಸಹಿ
ಮಾಡಿಕೊಟ್ಟ ಅಂಚೆ ಸ್ವೀಕೃತಿ ಪತ್ರ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ. ಈ
ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಗುರುತಿಸಿದ್ದು ನಿಡಿ.3 ಎಂದು
ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು.
ಈಗ ನಾನು ನೋಡುತ್ತಿರುವ ದಾಖಲೆ ಶ್ರೀರಾಮ್ ಚಿಟ್ಸ್ನ
ಕೇಸ್ನಲ್ಲಿಯ ಆರ್ಡರ್ ಶೀಟ್ ಮತ್ತು ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ದಿ121-10-2011 ರ
ಆರ್ಡರ್ ಶೀಟ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಸಹಿ ಇದೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ, ಈ ಆರ್ಡರ್
ಶೀಟಿನಲ್ಲಿನ್ನು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಗುರುತಿಸಿದ್ದು, ಆರ್ಡರ್ ಶೀಟಿನ್ನು ನಿ.ಡಿ.4 ಎಂದು
ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ಈಗ ನಾನು ನೋಡುತ್ತಿರುವ ದಾಖಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ
ಸಹಿ ನನ್ನದೆ. ಶ್ರೀರಾಮ್ಚಿಟ್ಸ್ನ ಕೇಸ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಲಾಗಿದ್ದ ದಾಖಲೆಯ
ದೃಢೀಕೃತ ನಕಲಿನಲ್ಲಿಯ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಗುರುತಿಸಿದ್ದು
ನಿ.ಡಿ.5 ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ನಿಡಿ.5 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಬಿ.ಎಸ್
ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಿ ಎಂದು ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ. ನಾನು
52
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
ಜ್ಯೋತಿಷಿಗಳು ಹೇಳಿದಂತೆ ಆ ರೀತಿ ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆ. ನಿಡಿ.5 ರಲ್ಲಿ
ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ್ರವರು ಸಹ ಶೂರಿಟಿಯಾಗಿ ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಈಗ
ನಾನು ನೋಡುತ್ತಿರುವ ಶ್ರೀರಾಮ್ಚಿಟ್ಸ್ನ ಪ್ರಾಮಿಷರಿ ನೋಟ್
ನಕಲಿನಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಸಹಿ ನನ್ನದೆ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ತಮ್ಮ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು ಗುರುಸಿರುವ
ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು ನಿ.ಡಿ.6 ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ನಿಡಿ.6 ರಲ್ಲಿ
ನಾನು ಬಿ.ಎಸ್. ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಿ ಮತ್ತು ಎನ್. ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಿ ಎಂದು
ಎರೆಡೂ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ.
ದಿನಾಂಕ 13.12.2013 ರಂದು ನಾನು ಸುಳ್ಳು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ
ಹೇಳಿದ್ದೇನೆಂದು ನನ್ನ ಮೇಲೆ ಕ್ರಮ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳುವಂತೆ ಇದೇ
ಅಮಲ್ದಾರಿ ಅರ್ಜಿ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ.2767/2013 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ಆದೇಶ
ಮಾಡಿತ್ತು ಎಂದರೆ ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ನನ್ನ ಮೇಲೆ 6 ನೇ ಎಸಿಎಂಎಂ
ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿ.ಸಿ ನಂ.21817/2013 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಪರ್ಜುರಿ ಕೇಸ್
ದಾಖಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ. ನನಗೆ ನೊಟೀಸ್ ಬಂದ ಮೇಲೆ ಆ
ಕೇಸಿನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಾಗಿದೆ. ಈ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಸುಳ್ಳು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ
ಹೇಳಿದ್ದೇನೆಂದು ಕ್ರಮ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳುವಂತೆ ಆದೇಶ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರ ಮೇಲೆ
ನಾನು ಯಾವುದೇ ಅಫೀಲ್ ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ.
ನನಗೆ ಡಿಕ್ರಿಹೋಲ್ಡರ್ ಪೂರ್ಣಿಮ ರಜನಿಯವರು ಸುಮಾರು 10
ವರ್ಷದಿಂದ ಪರಿಚಯ. ನಾನು ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ
ಬಾಡಿಗೆದಾರಳಾಗಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ, ಆದರೆ ಈ ಆಸ್ತಿಯನ್ನು 2008 ರ ಡಿಸೆಂಬರ್
ತಿಂಗಳಿನಲ್ಲಿ, ಭೋಗ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದೆ. ಈ ಆಸ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಭೋಗ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ
ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ಮೊದಲು ಸಹ ನಾನು ಡಿಕ್ರಿಹೋಲ್ಡರ್ರವರನ್ನು
ಮಲ್ಲೇಶ್ವರಂನಲ್ಲಿ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸಮೂರ್ತಿಯವರ ಆಫೀಸ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ನೋಡಿದ್ದೆ.
2008 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಆಸ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಭೋಗ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡ ಬಗ್ಗೆ
53
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
ಅಗ್ರಿಮೆಂಟ್ ಇದೆ ನಾನು ಅದರ ಪ್ರತಿಯನ್ನು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ
ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿರಬೇಕು. ಈ ಭೋಗ್ಯ ಅಂದರೆ ಲೀಸ್ ಅಗ್ರಿಮೆಂಟ್ನ್ನು
19.12.2008 ರಂದು ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿದೆ.
ನನ್ನ ಮತ್ತು ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ್ರವರ ನಡುವೆ 2003 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಡಿವೋರ್ಸ್
ಆಗಿದೆ. ನಾನು ಡಿವೋರ್ಸ್ ಆದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು
ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ನನ್ನ
ಮತ್ತು ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾರಸ್ರವರ ನಡುವೆ ಕಾನೂನುಬದ್ದವಾಗಿ ಯಾವುದೇ
ಡಿವೋರ್ಸ್ ಆಗಿಲ್ಲ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ್
ಒಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ವಾಸವಿದ್ದೇವೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ್ರವರ
ಕುಮ್ಮಕ್ಕಿನಿಂದ ನಾನು ಅಮಲ್ವಾರಿ ಅರ್ಜಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಆಕ್ಷೇಪ ಅರ್ಜಿ
ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
ನಾನು ರೂ.7,25,000/- ಗಳನ್ನು ಪೂರ್ಣಿಮರಜನಿಯವರಿಗೆ
ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಕ್ಕೆ ಲೀಸ್ ಅಗ್ರಿಮೆಂಟ್ ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಬೇರೆ ದಾಖಲೆ ಇಲ್ಲ. ದಿಃ19-
12-2008 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಬಳಿ ರೂ.7,25,000/-ಗಳು ಹಣ ಇತ್ತು ಎಂದು
ತೋರಿಸಲು ದಾಖಲೆ ಇದೆ. ಆ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ನನಗೆ
ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಲಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ, ನಾನು ಪೂರ್ಣಿಮರಜನಿಯವರಿಗೆ
ರೂ.7,25,000/-ಗಳನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಉಳಿದ
ಹಣವನ್ನು ಪ್ರತಿವರ್ಷ ಒಟ್ಟು 3 ಕಂತುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಕೊಡಬೇಕೆಂದು ಒಪ್ಪಂದ
ಅದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಬೇರೆ ದಾಖಲೆ ಇಲ್ಲ ನಾನು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿದ ನಿಪಿ.1 ರಲ್ಲಿ
ಪ್ರತಿ ವರ್ಷ ರೂ.4,00,000/-ಗಳಂತೆ 3 ಕಂತುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಬಾಕಿ ಹಣ
ಕೊಡಬೇಕೆಂದು ಬರೆದಿಲ್ಲ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ.
ನಾನು ಹೇಳುವ ಅಗ್ರಿಮೆಂಟ್ ಆದ ದಿನ ರೂ.3,00,000/-ಗಳನ್ನು
ನಗದಾಗಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ನಾನು ಕಾರು ಮತ್ತು ಆಟೋಗಳನ್ನು
54
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡಿ ಹಣ ಪಡೆದಿದ್ದೆ. ಆ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಅವರಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೇನೆ.
ಆ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಬಳಿ ರೂ.3,00,000/-ಗಳು ಇತ್ತು ಎಂದು
ತೋರಿಸುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ದಾಖಲೆ ಇಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ಅದಾಯ ತೆರಿಗೆ ಆಸೆಸಿ
ಇದ್ದೇನೆ. ನನ್ನ ಪಾನ್ ನಂಬರ್ ನೆನಪಿಲ್ಲ, ವಾದಿಗೆ ಹಣ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದನ್ನು
ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ಆದಾಯ ತೆರಿಗೆ ರಿಟನ್ಸ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ತೋರಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಆದಾಯ
ತೆರಿಗೆ ರಿಟರ್ನ್ಸನ್ನು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಲು ಸ್ವಲ್ಪ ಸಮಯಾವಕಾಶ
ಬೇಕಾಗುತ್ತದೆ.
ನಾನು 2010, 2011 ಮತ್ತು 2012 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರತಿ ವರ್ಷ
ರೂ.4,00,000/- ಪೂರ್ಣಿಮರಜನಿಯವರಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಆ
ಅವರಿಗೆ ಹಣ ಕೊಟ್ಟ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಅವರು ಯಾವುದೆ ರಶೀದಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ, ಆದರೆ
ಎಂದು ಹಾಳೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದು ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ನಿಪಿ.1
ಅಗ್ರಿಮೆಂಟ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಹಣ ಕೊಟ್ಟ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಷರಾ ಬರೆದಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು
ಖರೀದಿಗೆ ಕೊಡಬೇಕಾದ ಪೂರ್ತಿ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೇನೆಂದು
ದಾವೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಳಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ.
ನಾನು ಪೂರ್ತಿ ಹಣ ಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡಿದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಷರಾವನ್ನು
ಅಗ್ರಿಮೆಂಟ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡಿಲ್ಲ. 3 ವರ್ಷ ನಾನು ತಲಾ
ರೂ.4,00,000/-ಗಳನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟ ಅ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಬಳಿ ಅಷ್ಟು
ಹಣ ಇತ್ತು ಎಂದು ತೋರಿಸುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ದಾಖಲೆ ಇದೆ. ಅಂದರೆ ನನ್ನ
ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನ ದಾಖಲೆಯಿದೆ. ಅದನ್ನು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಬಹುದು.
ಈಗ ನಾನು ನೋಡುತಿರುವ ಅಸಲು ದಾವಾ. 8083/2011 ರ
ಸಮನ್ಸ್ ನ ಹಿಂಬದಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ದಿ.22.12.2011 ರ ದಿನಾಂಕದ ಸಹಿ
ನನ್ನದು ಎಂದರೆ ಇರಬಹುದು. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ತಮ್ಮ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು
ಗುರುತಿಸಿರುವ ಅಸಲು ದಾವೆ.8083/2011 ರ ಕಡತದಲ್ಲಿರುವ
55
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
ಸಮನ್ಸ್ನ್ನು ನಿ.ಡಿ.7 ಎಂದು ಮತ್ತು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು ನಿಡಿ.7(ಎ)
ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು.
ನಾನು ಕ್ರಯದ ಕರಾರಿನ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಯಾವ ದಿನಾಂಕ,
ತಿಂಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ವರ್ಷಗಳಂದು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೇನೆಂದು ಹೇಳಲಾಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
ಈ ಕರಾರು ಆದಾಗ ರಾತ್ರಿ ಸುಮಾರು 8.30 ರಿಂದ 9 ಗಂಟೆ
ಆಗಿರಬಹುದು. ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸಮೂರ್ತಿಯವರ ಆಫೀಸ್ ಮೆಟ್ಲೈಫ್
ಇನ್ಸೂರೆನ್ಸ್ ಆಫೀಸ್ ಇದೆ. ಕ್ರಯದ ಕರಾರು ಆಗುವಾಗ ಅವರ
ಆಫೀಸ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಸುಮಾರು ಜನ ಇದ್ದರು. ಈ ಕ್ರಯದಕರಾರಿಗೆ
ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟು ಆ ದಿನ ಪೂರ್ಣಿಮರಜನಿ ಮತ್ತು ಅವರ ಗಂಡ,
ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸಮೂರ್ತಿ, ನನ್ನ ತಮ್ಮ ನಾಗೇಂದ್ರ, ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು
ಇನ್ನೊಬ್ಬರು ಇದ್ದೆವು. ಈ ಅಗ್ರಿಮೆಂಟ್ ಆದ ದಿನ ಯಾವ ವಾರ
ಆಗಿತ್ತೆಂದು ನೆನಪಿಲ್ಲ.
ಲೀಸ್ಡೀಡ್ ಎನ್ನುವ ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು ನಾನು ಸುಳ್ಳು ಸೃಷ್ಟಿ
ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಈ ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು ನಾನು
ಸೃಷ್ಟಿಸಿದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಿಳಿದ ಡಿಕ್ರಿಹೋಲ್ಡರ್ ರವರು ದಾಖಲೆಯ ದೃಢೀಕೃತ
ನಕಲನ್ನು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಿಂದ ಪಡೆದು ಅದನ್ನು ಟ್ರೂತ್
ಲ್ಯಾಬ್ನವರಿಂದ ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆ ಮಾಡಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ,
ಡಿಕ್ರಿಹೋಲ್ಡರ್ರವರು ಅವರೇ ಸ್ವಂತವಾಗಿ ವರದಿಯನ್ನು
ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಆ ನಂತರದಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಮತ್ತು ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ್ರವರ
ಮೇಲೆ ಪಿ.ಸಿ.ಆರ್ 26392/2013 ರಲ್ಲಿ ದೂರು ದಾಖಲು ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರು
ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ. ಆ ದೂರಿನ ಮೇಲೆ ತನಿಖೆಯಾಗಿ ನಮ್ಮ ಮೇಲೆ
ಚಾರ್ಜ್ ಶೀಟ್ ಹಾಕಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ. ಆ ಪ್ರಕರಣ ಸಿ.ಸಿ
ನಂ.17747/2015 ರಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಚಾರಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿದೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ. ನಾನು
56
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
ಮಾನ್ಯ ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಪ್ರಕರಣವನ್ನು ರದ್ದು
ಮಾಡುವಂತೆ ಕ್ರಿಮಿನಲ್ ಪಿಟಿಷನ್ ನಂ.4173/2016 ರನ್ನು ದಾಖಲು
ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ. ಆ ಅರ್ಜಿಯನ್ನು ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು
ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ್ ಒಟ್ಟಾಗಿ ಹಾಕಿದ್ದೇವೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಮಾನ್ಯ
ಉಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಡಿದ ಅರ್ಜಿಗೆ ಅವರು ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ.
ಆದರೆ ಅವರ ಹೆಸರನ್ನು ಅರ್ಜಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಅರ್ಜಿದಾರನಾಗಿ ತೋರಿಸಿದ್ದೇವೆ.
ಆ ಅರ್ಜಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ್ರವರ ವಿಳಾಸವನ್ನು ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿಯ
ವಿಳಾಸವನ್ನೆ ತೋರಿಸಿದ್ದೇವೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ.
ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಜೊತೆ ನನ್ನ ತಾಯಿ ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ ಮಕ್ಕಳು
ಹಾಗೂ ನನ್ನ ಮೊಮ್ಮಗಳು ವಾಸವಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಈಗ ನನಗೆ ತೋರಿಸಿರುವ
ಪೊಟೋದಲ್ಲಿ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ್ರವರು ಮತ್ತು ನಮ್ಮ ಮೊಮ್ಮಗಳು
ಕಾಣುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಗೆ ಪೊಟೋವನ್ನು
ತೋರಿಸಲಾಗಿದ್ದು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಅದರಲ್ಲಿರುವ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಗುರುತಿಸಿದ್ದರಿಂದ
ಪೊಟೋವನ್ನು ನಿ.ಡಿ.8 ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು.
ಅಸಲು ದಾವಾ. 4833/2013 ರನ್ನು ಹಾಕುವ ಮೊದಲು ನಾನು
ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೇನೆಂದು ಹೇಳುವ ನೋಟೀಸನ್ನು ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಬಹುದು.
ನಾನು ದಿಃ 10.01.2013 ರಂದು ಡಿಕ್ರಿಹೋಲ್ಡರ್ರವರಿಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ
ನೊಟೀಸನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
ನನಗೆ ವಿದ್ಯುತ್ ಸಂಪರ್ಕ ಮತ್ತು ನೀರಿನ ಸಂಪರ್ಕ ಪಡೆಯುವುದಕ್ಕೆ
ಪೂರ್ಣಿಮರಜನಿಯವರು ಯಾವುದೆ ಲಿಖಿತ ಅನುಮತಿಯನ್ನು
ಕೊಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಬಿಸ್ನೆಸ್ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದು
ತೋರಿಸಲು ಯಾವುದೇ ದಾಖಲೆ ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿಲ್ಲ.
57
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
ಎನ್. ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ್ ಮತ್ತು ಪೂರ್ಣಿಮರಜನಿಯವರಿಗೆ ಅಕ್ರಮ
ಸಂಬಂಧ ಇದೆ ಎಂದು ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ಪ್ರಮಾಣಪತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಳಿದ್ದೇನೆ.
ನಾನು ಮಾಡಿರುವ ಈ ಆರೋಪಕ್ಕೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಸಾಕ್ಷಾಧಾರಗಳು
ನನ್ನ ಬಳಿ ಇಲ್ಲ. ಈ ಕೇಸಿಗೋಸ್ಕರ ನಾನು ಉದ್ದೇಶಪೂರ್ವಕವಾಗಿ
ಪೂರ್ಣಿಮರಜನಿಯವರಿಗೆ ಮಾನಹಾನಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದು
ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಪೂರ್ಣಿಮರಜನಿಯವರು ನನ್ನ ಮೇಲೆ ಮಾನನಷ್ಟ
ಮೊಕದ್ದಮೆ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ.
ಎನ್. ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ್ರವರು ನನಗೆ ರೂ.7,25,000/-ಗಳನ್ನು
ಮ್ಯಾರೇಜ್ ಸೆಟಲ್ಮೆಂಟ್ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆಂದು ತೋರಿಸುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ
ದಾಖಲೆ ಇದೆ. ನಾನು ಹೇಳುವಂತಹ ಯಾವುದೇ ಮ್ಯಾರೇಜ್ ಸೆಟಲ್
ಮೆಂಟ್ ಆಗಿಲ್ಲ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಕಾನೂನು ಪ್ರಕಾರ ವಿಚ್ಚೇಧನ
ಆಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ತೋರಿಸುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನನ್ನ ಬಳಿ ದಾಖಲೆ ಇಲ್ಲ. ಎನ್
ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ್ರವರ ಬೇರೆ ವಿಳಾಸದ ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನು ನನಗೆ
ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ್ರವರ ಮಗ ಮಹೇಂದ್ರಕುಮಾರ್ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ.
ಮಹೇಂದ್ರಕುಮಾರ್ ನನ್ನ ಜೊತೆಗೆ ವಾಸವಿದ್ದಾರೆ.
ನನ್ನ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಈ ಹಣ ಅಲ್ಲದೆ ನನ್ನ ಮತ್ತು ಅವರ ನಡುವಿನ
ರಾಜಿಯ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ತಿಂಗಳಿಗೆ ರೂ.15,000/-ಗಳನ್ನು ಅವರು ನನಗೆ
ಕೊಡಲು ಒಪ್ಪಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ರೂ.7,25,000/-ಗಳು ಅಲ್ಲದೆ ತಿಂಗಳಿಗೆ
ರೂ.15,000/-ಗಳನ್ನು ಅವರು ಕೊಡಲು ಒಪ್ಪಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದು
ತೋರಿಸುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ದಾಖಲೆ ಇದೆ. ಆ ದಾಖಲೆ ನನ್ನ ಬಳಿ ಇದೆ. ಅಂತಹ
ದಾಖಲೆ ನನ್ನ ಬಳಿ ಇದೆ ಎಂದು ಸುಳ್ಳು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದು
ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಸಿ.ಮಿಸ್.ನಂ.194/2016 ನ್ನು ನಾನು ಮತ್ತು
ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ್ರವರು ಒಟ್ಟಿಗೆ ಮಾತನಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದೇವೆ
58
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಪೂರ್ಣಿಮರಜಿನಿಯವರಿಗೆ ಕೊಡಬೇಕಾದ
ಬಾಕಿ ಬಾಡಿಗೆಯನ್ನು ತಪ್ಪಿಸುವ ಸಲುವಾಗಿ ನಾವು ಸಿ.ಮಿಸ್
ಅರ್ಜಿಯನ್ನು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದೇವೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
ಪಿ.ಸಿ.ಆರ್ ನಂ.71/2013 ರ ಕೇಸಿನಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಚಾರ್ಜಸ್
ಪ್ರೇಮ್ (Charge frame) ಆಗಿದೆ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿ.ಪಿ.21 ರ
ಪಿ.ಸಿ.ಆರ್.17034/2014 ರ ಪ್ರಕರಣದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಿಮಗೆ ಹೇಗೆ
ಗೊತ್ತಾಯಿತು ಎನ್ನುವ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು ನನಗೆ ನೆಟ್
ಮುಖಾಂತರ ಗೊತ್ತಾಯಿತೆಂದು ಉತ್ತರಿಸಿದರು. ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ
ಪ್ರಕರಣದ ವಿಷಯ ನನಗೆ 2017 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಗೊತ್ತಾಯಿತು. ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ
ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಹಾಜರಾಗಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಮೇಲೆ
ಹೇಳಿದ ಪ್ರಕರಣವನ್ನು ಸದರಿ ಕೇಸಿನ ಡಿ.ಹೆಚ್.ಆರ್ ಹಾಗೂ
ವಾದಿಯಾದ ಪೂರ್ಣಿಮರಜನಿ ರವರು, ನನ್ನ ಹಾಗೂ ಜೆ.ಡಿ.ಆರ್
ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಹಾಕಿರುವ ಮಾನನಷ್ಟ ಪ್ರಕರಣ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ನನಗೆ ಯಾರದೊ ಮುಖಾಂತರ ದಾವೆ ಸ್ವತ್ತನ್ನು ವಾದಿ ಪೂರ್ಣಿಮ
ರಜನಿರವರು ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡಲು ಪ್ರಯತ್ನಪಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎನ್ನುವ
ವಿಷಯ ಗೊತ್ತಾಗಿ ನಿ.ಪಿ.27 ರ ನೊಟೀಸನ್ನು ರಾಜಾಜಿನಗರ ಸಬ್
ರಿಜಿಸ್ಟ್ರರ್ ರವರಿಗೆ ನನ್ನ ವಕೀಲರ ಮೂಲಕ ಕೊಡಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಮೇಲೆ
ಹೇಳಿದ ನಿ.ಪಿ.27 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಅದಾ.4833/2013 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾರಾಟ
ಮಾಡಬಾರದು ಎನ್ನುವ ಆದೇಶ ಆಗಿದೆ, ಹಾಗಾಗಿ ಆ ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನ ಬಗ್ಗೆ
ಏನು ಕ್ರಮ ಕೈಗೊಳ್ಳಬೇಡಿ ಎಂದು ಸಬ್ರಿಜಿಸ್ಟ್ರಾರ್ರವರಿಗೆ
ತಿಳಿಸಿದ್ದೀರಿ ಅಲ್ಲವೆ ಎನ್ನುವ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗೆ, ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು ಸ್ಟೇಟಸ್-ಕೊ
ಆದೇಶ ಆಗಿದ್ದರಿಂದ ಆ ರೀತಿ ಹೇಳಿದ್ದೇವೆಂದು ಉತ್ತರಿಸಿದರು. ನಾನು
ಬಿಕಾಂ (ಎಲ್.ಎಲ್.ಬಿ) ಓದಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ನಿ.ಪಿ. 29 ರ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಯನ್ನು
59
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
ಏತಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಹಾಕಿದ್ದೀರಿ ಎನ್ನುವ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು ಸದರಿ
ದಾಖಲೆಯು ಸರಿಯಾಗಿ ಕಾಣಿಸುತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ, ಹಾಗಾಗಿ ಅದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ
ನಾನೇನು ಹೇಳಲು ಆಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಉತ್ತರಿಸಿದರು.
As on this date I am a LLB graduate. I have not
enrolled as an Advocate before any Bar Council in
India.
I do not remember my age when married to JDR
N.Srinivas in the 1983, but I was in 8th standard.
When it is questioned to the witness that on all
court records such as plaint, affidavits filed in
support of applications you have not mentioned
your age; the witness said that may be the mistake
of her advocate.
I cannot say even approximately when I came to
know about the Matrimonial case in M.C
No.1431/2001 as per Ex.P.3 filed against me. I am
aware of all facts from the date of institution of M.C
No.1431/2001 till its disposal. I do not know that
M.C No.1431/2001 dismissed for default as on
10.12.2002. 1 had the knowledge of Ex.P.2 and 3. I
do not know who has filed the Misc. No.146/2016. I
have filed the petition to restore the case in M.C
No.1431/2001 and got restored the case.
60
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
It is true that I have produced memorandum of
settlement filed in M.C case as per Ex.P.54. It is
true that as per clause - 4 of the settlement
agreement the JDR N.Srinivas has to pay monthly
maintenance of Rs.5,000/- till my lifetime. It is true
that memorandum of settlement at Ex.P.54
accepted before the court as on 21-08-2017. It is
true that clause -5 of the Ex.P.54 Memorandum of
Settlement reads as "further the petitioner
undertakes to retain and maintain the respondent
as nominee for all his retirement and other benefit,
for which the respondent is entitled after the
retirement of the petitioner and shall not change,
the respondent as his nominee under the said
headings".
My cross-examination had been completed as on
24.07.2017. When it is questioned to the witness
that in the execution case the Dhr Smt. Poornima
Rajani filed I.A.No.13 for attachment of the service
benefits of JDR- Srinivas on 08.07.2016 the witness
said the said I.A had been dismissed.
It is true that legally myself and JDR N.Srinivas
separated as husband and wife as on 21-08-2017.
The witness volunteers that they have separated
61
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
prior to 21-08-2017. It is true that there is no legal
separation as a husband and wife between me and
JDR N.Srinivas till 21-08-2017. I have read and
understood the Ex.P.54 Memorandum of Settlement
before signing the same. It is true that clause 6 in
Ex.P.54 reads as "both the parties stated and
agreed apart from the above they have no claim of
maintenance/permanent alimony against either
past, present and future". It is true that as per the
said clause I am not entitled for any benefit other
than clause No.4 and 5 stated in Ex.P.54.
It is true that in para No.8 of my evidence affidavit
it has been stated that "I state that, earlier to these
negotiations there was illegal relationship with my
past husband and the defendants herein, my past
husband caught hold red handed and decided to
settle the same amicably". I do not remember when
I have caught them red handedly. I do not
remember the person to whom I have caught red
handedly, as per above of my statement in my
evidence affidavit.
I have given instructions to my advocate to
prepare my evidence affidavit filed in O.S
No.4833/2013. It is true that in the evidence affidavit
62
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
at para 8 it is has been stated that "in this regard
my past husband paid an amount of Rs.7,25,000/-
as full and final settlement of matrimonial
relationship". When it is questioned to the witness
that is there any basis or document for this
statement in your evidence affidavit; the witness
said she do not remember about that. I do not
remember that whether there is any document or
not to show the payment of Rs.7,25,000/- by my
husband to me. It is true that the amount stated in
para-8 of evidence affidavit has been shown in the
sale agreement Ex.P.1. It is true that as per my
evidence affidavit para 8 remaining amount has
been paid by my mother. I do not remember the
date in which my mother paid money to me. The
witness volunteers that she has bank statement in
this regard. My mother at a stretch given all amount
claimed by me. I can produce my bank statement to
show the payment of my mother to me. My mother
and myself received the amount as a compensation
in view of my father's road traffic accident. I do not
remember the date of death of my father. Even I
cannot say the approximate year in which my father
died. I do not remember the date in which I have
received the Motor Vehicle Accident compensation.
63
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
When it is questioned to the witness that is there
any document to show the payment of
Rs.7,25,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- as claimed in sale
agreement; the witness said the documents not
issued even after demand. When it is questioned to
the witness that is there any document to show that
you have made a demand for issuance of receipt for
the aforesaid payment of Rs.10,25,000/-; the
witness said she was in lease, hence she has not
demanded the document.
It is true that as per clause-4 in the agreement
Ex.P.1, the balance sale consideration of
Rs.11,75,000/- to be paid before the Sub-registrar
office while executing the sale deed. The witness
volunteers that the amount has been already paid. It
is true that in the plaint para-3 I have claimed that
the defendant agreed to receive Rs.4,00,000/- per
year in 3 installments. When it is questioned to the
witness that whether the statement made in plaint
para-3 or clause-4 of the agreement is correct; the
witness said both statements are correct. When it is
questioned to the witness that what is the basis for
claim made in plaint para-3 that the defendant
agreed to receive balance sale consideration in 3
64
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
yearly installments of Rs.4,00,000/- each; the
witness said sale agreement Ex.P.1 is the basis for
said claim. When it is questioned to the witness that
when you have paid the amount stated in plaint
para-3; the witness said whenever she had money
with her, she has paid money to K.G.Srinivasmurthy
every month. I have started the payment of balance
sale consideration in the year 2009, but I do not
remember when I have paid the last amount
towards the balance sale consideration. When it is
questioned to the witness that there is a no
impediment for you to obtain
endorsement/acknowledgment for having been paid
the balance sale consideration installment; the
witness said she was not carrying the sale
agreement while making the payment. Whenever I
had money I used to make payment. I do not
remember whether I have stated in my plaint or
evidence affidavit that whenever, I had the money I
used to make the payment to K.G.Srinivasamurthy
towards the balance sale consideration.
It is true that my first prayer in the plaint in O.S
No.4833/2013 reads as "directing the defendant to
execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by
65
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
receiving the balance sale consideration in respect
of B and C schedule properties; in case of default
failed to comply the same directing the execution of
sale deed through the instrumentality of this Hon'ble
Court". When it is questioned to the witness that
what is the balance sale consideration to be paid by
you to the defendant; the witness said that she is
ready to pay any additional demand made by the
defendant to execute the sale deed. I do not
remember that is there any pleading to show that I
have stated that I am ready to pay additional
amount to the defendant to execute the sale deed.
There was no impediment for me to get the
endorsement on Ex.P.1 Sale Agreement for having
been paid the balance sale consideration
subsequently. When it is questioned to the witness
that from where you have purchased the stamp
paper to prepare Sale Agreement at Ex.P.1; the
witness said the stamp paper had been brought by
K.G.Srinivasamurthy. When it is questioned to the
witness that generally purchaser will bear all the
expense of sale documentation as well as purchase
the stamp paper; the witness said as there were no
male members in the house the said
66
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
K.G.Srinivasamurthy purchased the stamp paper. I
do not know that there is no endorsement in the
stamp paper of Ex.P.1 that the said stamp paper
purchased by K.G.Srinivasamurthy.
It may be true that as per the sale deed dated
19.03.2008 Poornima Rajani has purchased
undivided interest to the extent of 414 sq.ft. I do not
know that Poornima Rajani also entered into
Construction Agreement with the owner and
developer of property. I do not know that Poornima
Rajani entered into a construction agreement for a
sum of Rs.23 lakhs. When it is questioned to the
witness that value of the undivided share was Rs.10
lakhs and construction cost was Rs.23 lakhs and in
total value of the property was Rs.33 lakhs; the
witness said the sale deed was only for Rs.10 lakhs
and all these facts are not shown to her.
I have not obtained any legal opinion before
entering into sale agreement at Ex.P.1. It is true that
I have signed Ex.P.1 as N.Vijayalakshmi. When it is
questioned to the witness that in the affidavit filed in
support of I.A and deposition you have signed as
B.S.Vijayalakhsmi.N; she said N.Vijayalakshmi and
Vijayalakshmi.N is refers to her only. It is true that in
67
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
many documents produced by me to the court
shows my name as B.S.Vijayalakshmi. The witness
further said the said name is mentioned as per the
advise of astrology.
When it is questioned to the witness that in one of
the cover marked as Ex.P.12 (sent from
M.T.Rangaswamy, Advocate to Smt. Vijayalakshmi)
wherein the word mentioned as wife of Srinivas.N
has been striked out by you before producing the
same to the court; the witness said the said notice
sent by her advocate and she has not striked out
the same. M.T.Rangaswamy is the advocate of one
Rajanna, the said Rajanna filed cheque bounce
case against me. Ex.P.1 agreement got prepared
by K.G.Srinivasamurthy.
According to me I came to know about the suit in
O.S No.8083/2011 in the month of April or May,
2013. When it is questioned to the witness that how
you came know about the said suit at that time; the
witness said K.G. Srinivasamurthy told her that he
is vacating me from the premises and thereby she
came to know about the said suit. I have not stated
the said fact in the objector application as
K.G.Srinivasamurthy told me the said fact in the mid
68
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
night 12'o clock. Poornima Rajani filed the suit in
O.S No.8083/2011 against N.Srinivas.
When the 3 suit summons issued by the court
dated 19.11.2011 to appear before the court on
06.01.2012 in O.S No.8083/2011 confronted to the
witness and questioned that the signatures found in
three summons is your signature wherein you are
signed as B.S. Vijayalakshmi; the witness said the
signature appears like her signature, but that is not
her signature. These 3 summons are marked as
Ex.C.1 to C.3 for Court reference. I do not
remember in which year my astrologer told me to
sign as B.S.Vijayalakshmi. When it is questioned to
the witness that you are giving evidence in this case
after going through the records in O.S
No.4833/2013, O.S No.7055/2013 and Ex.P
No.2767/2013 and O.S No.8083/2011; the witness
said she is giving evidence after going through the
records in O.S No.4833/2013, O.S No.7055/2013
and Ex.P No.2767/2013.
When it is questioned to the witness that address
of N.Srinivas mentioned in Ex.C.1 to C.3 disclosing
the address of plaint schedule; the witness said the
wrong address has been stated while filing the suit
69
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
and the same address mentioned in the said
summons. I was residing in the address stated in
Ex.C.1 to C.3 when that have been issued. When it
is questioned to the witness that you have signed
Ex.C.1 to C.3 after receiving the summons as a wife
of N.Srinivas; the witness said she has not signed
as wife of N.Srinivas. The signature now shown to
me in copy application dated 21.06.2013 is my
signature. As the witness admitted her signature in
the said copy application, the said signature is
marked as Ex.D.14. The admitted signature is
marked as Ex.D.14(a).
When affidavit dated 21-06-2013 is confronted to
the witness and suggested that your name has
been referred as wife of Srinivas.N along with
address of schedule premises; the witness said she
has not given that address. It is false to suggest that
I am deliberately denying the affidavit dated 21-06-
2013 though the said affidavit is my affidavit
apprehending that if I admit the same it will go
against me.
It is false to suggest that after the receipt of suit
summons in O.S No.8083/2011, I have appeared
before the court in said suit as on 06.03.2012 on
70
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
behalf of my husband N.Srinivas. When it is
questioned to the witness by confronting the order
sheet dated 19.11.2012 and suggested that the
signature found in the said order sheet is your
signature; the witness said the said signature is not
her signature. The said order sheet page is marked
as Ex.C.4 for court reference and portion of the
signature is marked as Ex.C.4(a). When it is
questioned to the witness by confronting the order
sheet dated 20-03-2013 and suggested that the
signature found in the said order sheet is your
signature; the witness said the said signature is not
her signature. The said order sheet page is marked
as Ex.C.5 for court reference and portion of the
signature is marked as Ex.C.5(a). When it is
questioned to the witness that on 21-03-2013 you
have appeared before court and paid Rs. 12,500/-
on behalf of your husband and said has been
recorded by the court; the witness said she has not
come on that day. It is false to suggest that I was
used to appear regularly in O.S No.8083/2011 on
behalf of my husband N.Srinivas till the disposal of
the said suit and I had the full knowledge of said
suit.
71
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
I have completed my LLB graduation in the year
2021-22. When it is questioned to the witness that
what you are doing for livelihood; the witness said
she had some property given by her father and she
is doing saree business and doing the clerk job at
Advocate's office and also practicing as an
Advocate. I am income tax assessee. I am filing
income tax returns from 15-16 years. When it is
questioned to the witness that have your shown the
amount stated in Ex.P.1 Sale Agreement in your
income tax returns; the witness said she shown the
same but she do not remember the same now.
There is no impediment for me to produce the said
I.T returns to the court. It is true that the witnesses
stated in Ex.P.1 Sale Agreement namely Nagendra
and Deepu are my relatives.
When it is questioned to the witness that have
you seen the plaint and Judgment in O.S
No.8083/2011 while filing the suit in O.S
No.7055/2013; the witness refused to answer
whether she has seen the said plaint and
Judgment, but stated that her advocate seen the
said plaint and Judgment.
72
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
When it is questioned to the witness that as I
have signed in the order sheet in O.S No.8083/2011
perjury case has been registered in Ex.P
No.2767/2013; the witness said the court ordered
that I am not a party to the said suit. It is true that I
am appearing in CC No.21817/2013 pending on the
file of 48 ACMM. I do not know that the documents
in CC No.21817/2013 have been misplaced.
It is true that Poornima Rajani has filed a forgery
case against me and N.Srinivas in CC No.
17747/2015 on the file of 31 ACMM. It is true that I
have challenged the said case before the Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka in Crl.Petition
No.4173/2016. The witnesses volunteers that in
view of the HBC in the said criminal case, the said
criminal petition on the file of Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka had been withdrawn. The certified copy
of the Crl.Petition now shown to me is the petition
filed by me on the file of Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka, as the witness admitted the said
document that has been marked as Ex.D.18. The
certified copy of the order now shown to me is the
order passed in Crl. Petition No.4173/2016, as the
73
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
witness admitted the said document that has been
marked as Ex.D. 19.
It is true that the police have submitted B-final
report in PCR No.71/2013 filed by me. I know the
contents of B-report. The certified copy of the
notice now confronted to the witness and
questioned that it is the copy of the notice issued to
you by one C. Rajanna through his advocate. The
witness said that it may be the said notice, as the
witness not specifically denied the said document
that has been marked as Ex.D.20. It is true that the
certified copy of the order sheet now shown me is
the certified copy of the order sheet in C.C
No.24284/2009 as the witness admitted the said
document that has been marked as Ex.D.21. It is
true that the certified copy of the order now shown
me is the certified copy of the order in C.C
No.24284/2009, as the witness admitted the said
document that has been marked as Ex.D.22.
When it is questioned to the witness that one
Mohana Lakshmipriya wife of Ramesh filed case
against her. The witness volunteers that there were
case and counter case and both the cases were
ended in compromise. When it is questioned to the
74
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
witness that in said case in CC No.15231/2015, my
Village, address shown No.185/4, Jalahalli Village,
Yeshwanthapura hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk; the
witness said the said place wherein incident has
been occurred. When it is questioned to the witness
that one N.B.Kumar was the co-accused in the said
case; the witness said he is residing in the aforesaid
address.
I do not know that in O.S No.7055/2013, the said
N.B.Kumar being an advocate of defendant No.2
N.Srinivas filed the memo dated 19-12-2013.
When a photostat copy of the Ration Card
produced in O.S No.7055/2013 shown and
questioned that it is produced by you to the court;
the witness said she do not remember about the
same. When a list of documents dated 24.09.2013
filed in O.S No.7055/2013 confronted to the witness
and questioned that it is the list of documents filed
by the plaintiff wherein copy of the ration card is
mentioned; the witness said whatever the
documents asked by her advocate that has been
given by her, as the witness not specifically denied
the document that has been marked as Ex.D.23.
When it is questioned to the witness that the said
75
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
ration card shows that you are the wife of JDR-
N.Srinivas and children by name Umashankar and
Mahendra Kumar; the witness said it was earlier
obtained ration card.
When it is questioned to the witness that in
Ex.P.1 Sale Agreement nowhere disclosed that the
possession of schedule property has been delivered
to you; the witness said she do not know about that
and the said sale agreement prepared and handed
over to her by K.G.Srinivasamurthy.
When it is questioned to the witness that in
Ex.P.94 nowhere discloses that from which printer
the photographs have been taken and how the
photographs have been transferred to which system
is not explained; the witness said there may be a
mistake while typing the certificate. It is true that my
signature is not found in the first page of Ex.P.94.
Ex.P.93 CD was not displayed before marking. It is
true that till this date copy of the CD and Pen Drive
in respect of CD not handed over to the other side.
The witness volunteers that her advocate will
furnish the same to the other side.
76
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
I do not remember in which year I have
purchased car bearing No. KA 03 MJ 9492. The car
has been purchased by me subsequent to filing of
suit. When it is questioned to the witness that the
address in Ex.P.95 RC is recorded on the basis of
information supplied by you to the RTO; the witness
said on the basis of Aadhar Card and Pan Card the
address is mentioned in the said RC. When it is
questioned to the witness that Ex.P.12, 56 to 89
nowhere discloses that either you as lessee or
agreement holder; the witness said in the address
such mentioning is not possible.
It is true that subsequent to the filing of evidence
affidavit at Ex.D.25 perjury has been registered
against me on the basis of order dated 13-12-2013
in Ex.P No.2767/2013. The witness volunteers that
in the said case court observed that she is not a
party to suit in O.S No.8083/2011. The witness
volunteers that the said statement made in CC
No.21817/2015 by the then Registrar of City Civil
Court and she has given the copy of the said
statement to her advocate.
It is true that I have commenced my evidence as
PW.1 in O.S No.4833/2013 by filing evidence
77
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
affidavit as on 27-03-2015. When it is questioned to
the witness that is there any basis for your
statement in para No.10 of your evidence affidavit;
the witness said there is no basis for said statement
and she stated different facts than stated in the said
paragraph. When it is questioned to the witness that
have you read the evidence affidavit before signing
the same; the witness said she has not read entire
affidavit. When it is questioned to the witness that
have you given complaint against the Presiding
Officer; the witness said her advocate stated
different things and she has lodged the complaint
before Bar Council against her advocate. When it is
questioned to the witness that whether the contents
of para No.10 of affidavit is instructed by you; the
witness said the instructions given by her to her
advocate is different from the facts stated in said
paragraph. When it is questioned to the witness that
in I.A No.4 filed in Ex.P No.2767/2013 dated 24-04-
2014 you have made same allegation of sexual
harassment against the presiding officer; the
witness said her advocate filed the said application.
When it is questioned to the witness that you have
signed the affidavit in support of I.A No.4; the
witness said she has read some contents of
78
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
affidavit, but not entire affidavit. When it is
questioned to the witness that you are submitted
documents in support of aforesaid I.A No.4
including the communications from President,
Secretary, Letter from office of the Chief Minister;
the witness said her advocate produced the said
documents and she has lodged the complaint
against her advocate before Bar Council. When it is
questioned to the witness that subsequent to the
registration of perjury case you have filed a
application to transfer the case from said court; the
witness said her advocate filed the application. I
came to know about the mistake committed by my
advocate in the evidence affidavit in the year 2016,
but I do not remember the exact date and month. I
have not filed any affidavit after knowing about the
mistake in the evidence affidavit in the year 2016
that the said contents in my affidavit are made by
my advocate and it is not on my instructions.
It is true that in Ex.D.5, I have been referred as
house wife. It is true that in Ex.D.5 husband's name
is mentioned as Srinivas.N. The witness volunteers
she has not instructed to mention so in the Ex.D.5.
It is true that for withdrawal of chit fund Srinivas.N
79
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
stood as a surety. The witness volunteers that
N.Srinivas was not able to pay money, he stood as
a surety. When it is questioned to the witness that
there is no document to show that Srinivas.N is
unable to pay the money; the witness said Ex.D.5
itself is the document. It is true that I am the
subscriber of the chit fund stated in Ex.D.5. It is true
that the relationship of surety to the subscriber in
2nd page of Ex.D.5 mentioned as wife. The witness
volunteers that they have mentioned in the said
application and she has not instructed to mention so
in Ex.D.5 at 2nd page. When it is questioned to the
witness that the address of Srinivas. N in Ex.D.5 at
2nd page mentioned as schedule property; the
witness said the said address is her address and
that has been wrongly mentioned by the chit fund
organizers. I have given the address proof of HDFC
Bank to my chit fund organizers to mention in
Ex.D.5. Srinivas.N has not given any document to
show his address to be mentioned at Ex.D.5.
It is true that surety documents to be furnished
while receiving the bid amount of the chit fund. I do
not remember that the auction of the chit fund taken
place on 09-03-2011. I do not remember when and
80
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
where Srinivas.N signed Ex.D.5. When it is
questioned to the witness that sometimes you signs
as Vijayalakshmi also; the witness said that may be
mistake.
My son has given the Aadhar Card of Srinivas.N
and I have produced the same before the court. I
have no knowledge that after my appearance in Ex.
Petition and after the production of sale agreement
copy, the Dhr obtained the certified copy of the sale
agreement and sent the same for the examination
of signatures and obtained the report from Truth
Lab. I do not know that as per the report of Truth
Lab the signature of Dhr and her husband not tallies
with the alleged signatures of Dhr and her husband
in the agreement.
28. PW.2 and 3 are the witnesses examined by the
obstructor/PW.1. PW.2 is Smt. Anitha and she has stated in her
examination-in-chief affidavit that her husband is one Nagendra and
he passed away on 24.08.2013 at Bengaluru. Her husband was in
habit of subscribing is signature in English and he used to sign as
Nagendra. Her husband Nagendra is the son of Vijayalaksmi's
sister and in this way Smt. Vijayalakshmi is a sister to her husband
81
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
Nagendra. Initially, said Smt. Vijayalakshmi was a lessee in respect
of schedule property bearing Flat No.003, since, from the month of
December 2008 under its owner Smt. Poornima Rajani wife of
Srinivasamurthy. That on 20.04.2009 an agreement for sale was
entered into between Poornima Rajani and Smt. Vijayalakshmi
agreeing to sell the said flat No.003 infavour of Smt. Vijayalakshmi.
Her husband S. Nagendra has signed the said agreement of sale as
one of the attesting witnesses. She is able to identify the signature
of her husband in the sale agreement.
29. In the cross-examination of PW.2, it is elicited that she is
in custody of documents to show that she is the wife of Nagendra
and however has not produced the same before court. Like wise
she is in custody of documents to show that the obstructor/
Vijayalakshmi is her relative and however, she couldn't produce the
same before court. Further elicited that she know Vijayalakshmi
since 2007 from the date of her Marriage. She know the mother and
children of Vijayalakshmi. However, she is not aware Vijayalakshmi
is wife of Srinivas. By the time she married, Vijayalakshmi has
82
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
already become divorcee. She is not aware on what basis
Vijayalakshmi is in possession of Flat No.003-schedule property.
She has no document to show that she was present at the time of
agreement between the Vijayalakshmi and Poornima Rajani. She is
not aware of the date, month and year of the sale agreement. But,
the agreement came into existence in front of Sai Baba Temple of
Malleshwaram extension. As the agreement was executed during
night hours between 8.00 p.m she could not say about the place of
agreement where it was prepared. The agreement was prepared at
one Government office and she couldn't say which is that
Government Office. She was present in the Government Office at
the time of execution of agreement. Apart from her, her husband,
her husband's friend Deepak, Ramesh, Vijayalakshmi, 4 other male
persons and one women lady were present. But she could not
mention the names of 4 men and 1 women, who were present and
they are known to her. Her husband signed the agreement in her
presence.
83
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
30. She was there in the spot for above 10 to 15 minutes
and while she was returning, Vijayalakshmi has made payment and
however, by that time she was not there in the spot. She is not
aware whether Vijayalakshmi paid the money to the said male
persons or to the women who were present there. She is not
familiar with the person who has received the amount. She is not
aware how much of amount was paid by Vijayalakshmi.
31. Yet another witnesses PW.3 - Deepu Stated in her
examination-in-chief that, she know Vijayalakshmi for past several
years and was residing at a rented house. At present she is residing
at Dodda Bommasandra, Bengaluru. She know the defendant and
her husband. The agreement of sale dated 20.04.2009 was entered
into between Poornima Rajani and Vijayalakshmi in respect of Flat
No.003. She was present at the time of said sale agreement and
talks were held in her presence. Smt. Vijayalakshmi and
defendants signed the said agreement of sale. She also signed the
sale agreement as one of the witnesses. As she know, the said
Smt. Vijayalakshmi is residing at Flat No.003 since to 2008. Other
84
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
witnesses were also present and they also subscribed their
signatures to the sale agreement. She is able to identify her
signature in the sale agreement. PW.3 identified her signature in
Ex.P.1 and it is marked as Ex.P.1(R).
32. In the cross-examination of PW.3, it is elicited that she
was born on 02.12.1986. Vijayalakshmi has prepared the chief-
examination affidavit and she redover the same. When it was
questioned to PW.3 that who has instructed to prepared her chief-
examination affidavit, she answered that when Vijayalakshmi
requested her to depose as her witness, she instructed Vijaylakshmi
to make all preparations and accordingly today she has appeared
before court and depose as witness of Vijayalakshmi.
33. Further, it is elicited from the mouth of PW.3 that she
know Vijayalakshmi and her husband Srinivas. Vijayalakshmi is her
relative. She is presently not residing in the Devinagar, Bengaluru.
560079 and it was her old address. Presently, she is residing in
Goraguntepalya.
85
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
34. When it was suggested to PW.3 that as mentioned in
Ex.P.1, her address is No.13, Kempegowda layout, weights and
measures building, Laggere, Bengaluru-58 she tendered
explanation that she left her earlier address and presently she is
residing in her new address which is her 3 rd place of residence.
She pleaded her ignorance about the place, date and time when the
talks were held in respect of Ex.P.1. Likewise she pleaded her
ignorance about the year when Ex.P.1 was prepared. She later
stated that agreement was prepared in the Metlife office of K.G.
Srinivasa at Malleswaram. She could not remember the duration of
time that was consumed for execution of Ex.P.1 - sale agreement.
She has stated that as she is the relative of Vijayalakshmi, she has
simply signed the document and was returned home stating that let
the parties to the agreement proceed with their talks. She had gone
to the said office around 4 p.m and she was there in the office for
about 10 minutes. When she signed Ex.P.1, by that time one Amith,
two women and two men came there and 2 to 3 persons have
already signed the Ex.P.1. 3 to 4 persons were present in the said
office. According to her, she has just gone there to put her
86
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
signature. Vijayalakshmi is her relative through her father. She is in
good terms with Vijayalakshmi and therefore she know about the
residence of Vijayalakshmi. After marriage, Vijayalakshmi was
residing with her husband Srinivas. N and later they divorced. As
she know, Vijayalakshmi is residing in Bharath Presidency
Apartment since 2006. She pleaded her ignorance to the
suggestions that the signatures of the owner of the property Smt.
Poornima Rajani and that of her husband K.G. Srinivas Murthy are
forged in Ex.P.1 agreement. She pleaded her ignorance about to
the question that whether divorce between Vijayalakshmi and her
husband was effected prior to their entry in to Bharath Presidency
Apartment or on subsequent dated. P.W.3 admitted that, the elder
son of Vijayalakshmi is married and she has not attended the
marriage.
35. The Dhr who got examined as DW.1 reiterated the
statement that she made in her objections statement filed against
the obstructor application filed Under Order XXI Rule 97, 99 and
101. As the objection statement of Dhr is already extracted in the
87
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
preceding paragraph of this judgment, the court abstain from
reiterating the same at this stage. So for as documentary evidence
is concerned, the Dhr placed before the court all together 25
documents marked as Ex.D.1 to D.25 and out of which, Ex.D.1 to
D8 and 19 to 23 are confronted during the cross-examination of
PW.1.
36. In the Cross-examination of DW.1 following points are
trashed out / following statements are made out / following
suggestions are made:-
ನನಗೆ ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿದೆ. ಮಾರ್ಚ್ 2008 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು
ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಸುಮಾರು ರೂ.33,00,000/-ಚಂದ್ರಕಾಂತ್
ಗೋವಿಂದ್ ಜಿಠಕರ್ರವರಿಂದ ಖರೀದಿಸಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ, ಈ
ಆಸ್ತಿ ಖರೀದಿಸುವಾಗ ಹೆಚ್.ಡಿ.ಎಫ್.ಸಿ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕಿನಿಂದ
ರೂ.21,00,000/-ಗಳನ್ನು ಹೌಸಿಂಗ್ ಲೋನ್ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದೆ
ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ. ಏಪ್ರಿಲ್ 2009 ಕ್ಕೆ ರೂ.18,00,000/-ಗಳು ಸಾಲ
ಬಾಕಿ ಇತ್ತು ಎಂದರೆ, ಸಾಲ ಬಾಕಿ ಇತ್ತು ಆದರೆ ಎಷ್ಟು ಹಣ ಎಂದು
ನೆನಪಿಲ್ಲ. ಏಪ್ರಿಲ್ 2009 ಕ್ಕೆ ರೂ.18,00,000/- ಸಾಲ ಬಾಕಿ ಇತ್ತು
ಎಂದರೆ ಸ್ಟೇಟ್ಮೆಂಟ್ ನೋಡಬೇಕು. ನಾನೇ ಹೌಸಿಂಗ್ ಸಾಲವನ್ನು
ತೀರಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ. ಲೋನ್ ಅಕೌಂಟನ್ನು ನಾನೆ
ನೋಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತೇನೆನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ.
88
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
ನನ್ನ ಹಣಕಾಸಿನ ಪರಿಸ್ಥಿತಿ ಚೆನ್ನಾಗಿಲ್ಲದೇ ಇದ್ದುದರಿಂದ ನನಗೆ
ಏಪ್ರಿಲ್ 2009 ರೊಳಗೆ ಹೌಸಿಂಗ್ ಸಾಲವನ್ನು ತೀರಿಸಲು ಆಗಿಲ್ಲ
ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ನನಗೆ ನನ್ನ ಹಣಕಾಸಿನ ಪರಿಸ್ಥಿತಿ ಚೆನ್ನಾಗಿಯೇ
ಇತ್ತು. ಹಣಕಾಸಿನ ಪರಿಸ್ಥಿತಿ ಚೆನ್ನಾಗಿದ್ದುದರಿಂದ ಸಾಲ ಮರುಪಾವತಿ
ಮಾಡುವುದಕ್ಕೆ ತೊಂದರೆ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ, ನನಗೆ ಹೌಸಿಂಗ್
ಲೋನ್ನಿಂದ ಆದಾಯ ತೆರಿಗೆಯ ಲಾಭ ಸಿಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದುದರಿಂದ ಸಾಲ
ಮರುಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಏಪ್ರಿಲ್ 2009 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನನಗೆ ಹಣಕಾಸಿನ
ಅತಿ ಅವಶ್ಯಕತೆ ಇತ್ತು ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸುಳ್ಳು.
ನನಗೆ 2008 ರ ಡಿಸೆಂಬರ್ನಿಂದ ವಾದಿ ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಿ ಗೊತ್ತು,
ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಿ, ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ್ರವರ ಹೆಂಡತಿ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ.
ನಾನು ಖಾಸಗಿ ಫರ್ಮ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತೇನೆ. ನಾನು
ಇಂಗ್ಲೀಷ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡುತ್ತೇನೆನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ. ನಾನು ಇಂಗ್ಲೀಷ್ನಲ್ಲಿ
ಪೂರ್ಣಿಮಾ ರಜನಿ ಎಂದು ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡುತ್ತೇನೆನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ, ನಾನು
ಮೊದಲು ಪೂರ್ಣಿಮಾ ಎಂದು ಬರೆದು ಜಾಗ ಬಿಟ್ಟು ರಜನಿ ಎಂದು
ಬರೆಯುತ್ತೇನೆನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ. ನನ್ನ ಗಂಡ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸಮೂರ್ತಿ ಕೆ. ಜಿ.
ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ. ನಾನು ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿಯ ಮಾಲೀಕರು ಎನ್ನುವುದು
ಸರಿ.
2008 ಡಿಸೆಂಬರ್ನಿಂದ ವಾದಿ ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಿಯವರು ದಾವಾ
ಆಸ್ತಿಯ ಸ್ವಾಧೀನದಲ್ಲಿದ್ದಾರೆಂದರೆ ಅವರು ಬಾಡಿಗೆದಾರರಾದ
ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ್ರವರ ಜೊತೆ ಇದ್ದಾರೆ.
ದಿನಾಂಕ 19.12.2008 ರಂದು ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿಯ ಸ್ವಾಧೀನವನ್ನು
ನೀವು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೀರಿ ಎನ್ನುವ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗೆ, ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಯಾರಿಗೆ ಎಂದು ಮರಳಿ
89
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
ದಿನಾಂಕ 19.12.2008 ನಾನು ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿಯ ಸ್ವಾಧೀನವನ್ನು
ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಿಯವರಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೇನೆನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿ
ನನ್ನ ಬಾಡಿಗೆದಾರ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ್ ಮತ್ತು ಅವರ ಹೆಂಡತಿ ಅಂದರೆ
ವಾದಿಯ ಸ್ವಾಧೀನದಲ್ಲಿದ್ದಾರೆ.
ಈಗ ನನಗೆ ತೋರಿಸಿದ ಅಸಲು ದಾವಾ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ.7055/2013 ರ
ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಪತ್ರದ ಪ್ರತಿಪುಟದಲ್ಲಿಯ ಸಹಿಗಳು ನನ್ನದೆ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ.
ಈಗ ನನಗೆ ತೋರಿಸಿದ ಅಸಲು ದಾವೆ.4833/2013 ರ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದ
ಪತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿಯ ಸಹಿಗಳು ನನ್ನದೆ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತವೆ. ನಾನು
ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಿಯವರ ಯಜಮಾನರಾದಂತ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ ರವರ ವಿರುದ್ದ
ಆಸ್ತಿ ಕುರಿತು ಅಸಲು ದಾವಾ ನಂ.8083/2011 ರ ದಾವೆಯನ್ನು
ಹೂಡಿ ಖಾಲಿ ಮಾಡುವ ಡಿಕ್ರಿ ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದೇನೆಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಾನು
ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ ಅಸಲು ದಾವಾ ನಂ.8083/2011 ರ ದಾವೆಯಲ್ಲಿ
ಹಾಜರಾಗಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಾಗದೇ ಇದ್ದುದಕ್ಕೆ ನನ್ನ ಯಜಮಾನರಾದ
ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸಮೂರ್ತಿಯವರಿಗೆ ಸದರಿ ಕೇಸು ನಡೆಸಲು ಎಸ್.ಪಿ.ಎ
ಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೆ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಈಗ ನನಗೆ ತೋರಿಸಿದ ನಿಡಿ.1 ಎಸ್.ಪಿ.ಎ
ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ ಎಸ್.ಪಿ.ಎ ಆಗಿದ್ದು ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಮತ್ತು ನನ್ನ
ಯಜಮಾನರ ಸಹಿಗಳು ಇರುತ್ತವೆ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ನಿಪಿ.1 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಈಗ ನಿಮಗೆ ತೋರಿಸಿದ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರ 2 ರಿಂದ 4
ರವರು ನಿಮಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆಯೆ ಎನ್ನುವ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು, ಸದರಿ
ದಾಖಲೆಯನ್ನೆ ನಾನು ಬರೆದುಕೊಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ ಹಾಗಾಗಿ ಅವರು ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ
ಎಂದು ಉತ್ತರಿಸಿದರು.
ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಿಯವರ ಲೀಸ್ ಡೀಡ್ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ
ಹಾಗೆ ಟ್ರೂತ್ ಲ್ಯಾಬ್ಗೆ ಸದರಿ ದಾಖಲೆಯ ಪ್ರತಿಯನ್ನು ನಾನು
90
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
ವೈಯಕ್ತಿಕವಾಗಿ ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಗೆ ಕಳುಹಿಸಿದ್ದೆ. ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ ಟ್ರೂತ್
ಲ್ಯಾಬ್ನಿಂದ ಏನು ವರದಿ ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎನ್ನುವ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗೆ
ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು, ಸದರಿ ಲೀಸ್ ಡೀಡ್ನಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಸಹಿಯು ನನ್ನದಲ್ಲ
ಎಂದು ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು ಉತ್ತರಿಸಿದರು. ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯವಾಗಿ ಮೂಲ
ದಾಖಲೆಯ ಪ್ರತಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಸಹಿಗಳನ್ನು ಯಾವುದೆ ಲ್ಯಾಬ್ನ ಮೂಲಕ
ಪರೀಕ್ಷೆಗೆ ಒಳಪಡಿಸಲು ಅಗುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಿಯವರಿಗೆ ಮೋಸ ಮಾಡುವ ಉದ್ದೇಶದಿಂದ ನಾನಾಗಿಯೆ
ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ ಲೀಸ್ಡೀಡ್ನ ಪ್ರತಿಯನ್ನು ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ ಲ್ಯಾಬ್ಗೆ
ಕಳುಹಿಸಿ ಅವರಿಗೆ ಹಣ ಕೊಟ್ಟು ನನಗೆ ಅನುಕೂಲವಾಗುವ ಹಾಗೆ ನನ್ನ
ಪರವಾಗಿ ವರದಿ ಪಡೆದಿದ್ದೇನೆಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
ನನ್ನ ಗಂಡ ಟ್ರೈನರ್ ಆಗಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಅವರಿಗೆ
ಸೇರಿದ ಮಲ್ಟಿಪರ್ಪಸ್ ಕಛೇರಿ ಸುಬ್ರಹ್ಮಣ್ಯ ನಗರದಲ್ಲಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ.
ನೀವು ಹಾಕಿದ್ದ ಪಿ.ಸಿ.ಆರ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಮ್ಮ ಗಂಡನ ಕಛೇರಿ ಮಲ್ಲೇಶ್ವರಂ
ನಲ್ಲಿದೆ ಎನ್ನುವ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು, ಅದು ಮೊದಲ ಪೌಂಡರ್
ಕಛೇರಿಯಾಗಿತ್ತು ಎಂದು ಉತ್ತರಿಸಿದರು.
ನನ್ನ ಪತಿಯು ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ನನಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಿಡಿ.9 ನ್ನು
ನನ್ನ ಪತಿಗೆ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸರವರು ಬರೆದು ಅವರ ಹೆಂಡತಿಯ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು
ಪಡೆದುಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಿಡಿ.9 ನ್ನು ನನಗೆ ಖುದ್ದಾಗಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ, ನನ್ನ
ಪತಿಯು ನನ್ನ ವೈಯಕ್ತಿಕ ಕೆಲಸಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿರುವುದರಿಂದ
ನಿಡಿ.9 ನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಪತಿಗೆ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸರವರು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
ನಿಡಿ.9 ನ್ನು ನಾನು ಓದಿ ತಿಳಿದುಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ನಿಮ್ಮ ಪ್ರಕಾರ
ನಿಡಿ.9 ನ್ನು ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮೀಯವರು ಬರೆದುಕೊಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ
ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸರವರು ಬರೆದುಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಿಡಿ.9 ರ ಮೇಲೆ
91
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
ದಿನಾಂಕವನ್ನು ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ನಮ್ಮ tenant
ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸರವರು ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಒಂದು ವೇಳೆ ಶ್ರೀವಾಸರವರು
ತಿದ್ದುಪಡಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ ಅವರ ಕಡೆಯಿಂದ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು
ಮಾಡಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ತೊಂದರೆ ನಮಗೆ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಅವರು ಬೇಕು
ಅಂತನೇ over write ಮಾಡಿ ನಮಗೆ ತೊಂದರೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
ಒಂದು ವೇಳೆ over write ಆಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಗೊತ್ತಾದ ನಂತರ
ಇನ್ನೊಂದು ದಾಖಲೆ ಮಾಡಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ತೊಂದರೆ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ
ಸರಿ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಮುಂದುವರೆದು ಅವರನ್ನು ನಾವು ನಂಬಿ ಸುಮ್ಮನಿದ್ದೆವು,
ಆ ಮೇಲೆ ಮೋಸ ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಮ್ಮ
ಪ್ರಕಾರ ನಾವು 2013 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಮೋಸ ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ. ನಿಡಿ.9 ರ
ಮೇಲೆ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸರವರ ಸಹಿಯನ್ನು over write ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿದೆ
ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಅಸಲು ದಾವಾ ಸಂ.8083/2011 ನ್ನು ನಿಡಿ.9
ಆದ ನಂತರ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮೀಯವರನ್ನು
ಅಸಲು ದಾವಾ ಸಂ.8083/2011 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಪಾರ್ಟಿ ಮಾಡಲು ತೊಂದರೆ
ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮೀಯವರು ನಮ್ಮ tenant ಅಲ್ಲ,
ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸರವರು ನಮ್ಮ tenant ಇರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
ನನ್ನ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ನಿಡಿ.9 ರ 2 ನೇ ಪುಟ ತಪ್ಪು ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ನಿಡಿ.9 ರ
2 ನೇ ಪುಟದ ಪ್ರತಿಯನ್ನು ನಾವು ಪೋಲಿಸ್ ಠಾಣೆಯಿಂದ
ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ. ನಮ್ಮ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ನಿಡಿ.9 ರ 2 ನೇ ಪುಟದ ಮೇಲೆ
ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮೀಯವರ ಸಹಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ನನ್ನ
ಪ್ರಕಾರ as on this day ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ ಹಾಗೂ ಅವರ
ಕುಟುಂಬದವರು ದಾವಾ ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನ ಸ್ವಾಧೀನದಲ್ಲಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಕುಟುಂಬ
ಎಂದರೆ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ, ಅವರ ಹೆಂಡತಿ ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮೀ ಹಾಗೂ ಮಕ್ಕಳು
ಇರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮೀಯವರನ್ನು ಹೊರತುಪಡಿಸಿ ಅವರ ಗಂಡ
92
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
ಹಾಗೂ ಮಕ್ಕಳು ದಾವಾ ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನ ಸ್ವಾಧೀನದಲ್ಲಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದು
ತೋರಿಸಲು ದಾಖಲೆಗಳಿರುತ್ತವೆಯೇ ಎಂದರೆ ಇಲ್ಲ. ಅಲ್ಲಿ ಹೋಗಲು
ನಮಗೆ ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ, ಏಕೆಂದರೆ ನಮಗೆ ಜೀವ ಬೆದರಿಕೆ ಹಾಕಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
ನಿಡಿ.9 ರ 2 ನೇ ಪುಟದ ವಿಷಯವಾಗಿ ನನ್ನ ಪತಿ
ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸಮೂರ್ತಿಯು ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಪೋಲಿಸರು ನನ್ನ
ಪತಿಯ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯನ್ನು ಲಿಖಿತವಾಗಿ ಬರೆದುಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾರೋ ಇಲ್ಲವೋ
ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾನು ಖುದ್ದಾಗಿ ವಿಚಾರಿಸಿಲ್ಲ, ಏಕೆಂದರೆ ಅವಶ್ಯಕತೆ
ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ.
ನಿಡಿ.13 ರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಸಿ.ಸಿ. ನಂ.17747/2017 ನ್ನು ನಾನು
ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮೀಯವರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ
ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನನ್ನ
ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು, "ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ ಹಾಗೂ ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮೀಯವರಿಗೆ
ಇಷ್ಟವಾಗಿದೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಅವರು ಇರಲು ಇಚ್ಚಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ" ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿಕೆ
ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನನ್ನ, ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸಮೂರ್ತಿ ಹಾಗೂ
ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ ಹಾಗೂ ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮೀಯವರ ಮಧ್ಯ ಯಾವುದೇ
contract ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಮೌಖಿಕವಾಗಿ ಒಪ್ಪಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲಾಗಿದೆ.
Contract ಇಲ್ಲ, advance ಯಾವುದೇ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು
ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನನ್ನ ಪತಿಯು ಅವರ ಕಡೆಯಿಂದ ಯಾವುದೇ ಹಣವನ್ನು
ಪಡೆದಿಲ್ಲ, ನಾವು ಅವರಿಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ agreement ಮಾಡಿಕೊಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ
ಎಂದರೆ ಒಂದು ಭಾರಿ token advance amount ಎಂದು
ರೂ.25,000/- ಹಣ ಪಡೆದಿದ್ದು, ಅದನ್ನು ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಕೊಡದೇ
ಇರುವುದರಿಂದ adjust ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಸದರಿ
ಹಣವನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಪತಿಯು ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಹಣವನ್ನು ಪಡೆದ
93
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
ದಿನವಾಗಲಿ, as on this day ನನ್ನ ಪತಿಯು ದಾವಾ ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನ
ಮಾಲೀಕರಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಾನು ಮಾಲೀಕಳು ಇರುತ್ತೇನೆ.
ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ಪತಿಗೆ ಮುಕ್ತಿಯಾರ್ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು
ಮಾಡಿಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ರೂ.25,000/- ಹಣವನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಾಗ
agreement ಅನ್ನು ಬರೆದುಕೊಡುವುದಾಗಲಿ, ಬರೆಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲಾಗಲಿ
ನಮಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ತೊಂದರೆ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ನಾವು ಅವರ ಮೇಲೆ
ವಿಶ್ವಾಸ ಇಟ್ಟಿದ್ದೆವು. ಪೂರ್ತಿ advance ಹಣ ರೂ.1,25,000/-
ಕೊಟ್ಟ ನಂತರ agreement ಮಾಡಲಾಗುವುದು ಎಂದು
ನಿರ್ಧರಿಸಿದ್ದೆವು. ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯವಾಗಿ ಪೂರ್ತಿ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟ
ನಂತರವೇ ಮನೆಯ ಕೀ ಅನ್ನು ಕೊಡುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಅವರು ನಮ್ಮ
ಕೈ-ಕಾಲು ಹಿಡಿದು ಕೇಳಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಕೀ ಕೊಟ್ಟು ಮೋಸ
ಹೋಗಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ.
Token advance amount ಅನ್ನು 2008 ರ ಡಿಸೆಂಬರ್
ಮೊದಲನೇ ವಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನನ್ನ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಉಳಿಕೆ
advance amount ಅನ್ನು 2008 ರ ಡಿಸೆಂಬರ್ ಅಂತ್ಯದವರೆಗೆ
ಕೊಡುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದರು. ಡಿಸೆಂಬರ್-2008, ಜನವರಿ-2009
ಹಾಗೂ ಇಲ್ಲಿಯವರೆಗೂ ಅವರು ನಮಗೆ ಉಳಿಕೆ advance
amount ಅನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ. ಡಿಸೆಂಬರ್ ಕೊನೆಯ ವಾರದಲ್ಲಿ
ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ ಹಾಗೂ ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮೀಯವರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಪ್ರಕಾರ
ಕ್ರಮ ಕೈಗೊಳ್ಳಲು ಯಾವುದೇ ತೊಂದರೆ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಮತ್ತೆ
ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ ಹಾಗೂ ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮೀಯವರು ನಮ್ಮ ಕಾಲಿಗೆ ಬಿದ್ದು ಬೇಗ
ಹಣವನ್ನು ಕೊಡುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ.
94
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ ಹಾಗೂ ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮೀಯವರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ದೂರನ್ನು
ಕೊಡುವುದಾಗಲಿ, eviction suit ಅನ್ನು immediately ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಲು
ಯಾವುದೇ ತೊಂದರೆ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಅವರನ್ನು ನಂಬಿ ನಾವು
ಮೋಸ ಹೋದೆವು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನಿಡಿ.9 ರ 2 ನೇ ಪುಟದ
ಪ್ರಕಾರ ನನ್ನ ಪತಿಯ ಮೇಲೆ ದೂರನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟ ನಂತರ ನಾವು
ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಕ್ರಮ ಕೈಗೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ. ನಿಡಿ.13 ರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ
ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮೀಯವರು ಒಂದು ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಬರೆದುಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ
ಎಂದು ನಾನು ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವ ಸಂಗತಿಯ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ನಿಡಿ.9 ರ 1
ನೇ ಪುಟ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ನಿಡಿ.13 ರ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ ಸಹ ಬರೆದುಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ
ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ನನ್ನ tenant ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ ಹಾಗೂ
ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮೀ ಇಬ್ಬರೂ ಬರೆದುಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ.
ನನ್ನ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ನಮ್ಮ ಒಪ್ಪಿಗೆಯಂತೆ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ ಹಾಗೂ
ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮೀಯವರಿಗೆ permissive possession
ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೀರಾ ಎಂದರೆ ಧರ್ನುಮಾಸ ಬರುತ್ತಿದ್ದು, ಹಾಲು
ಉಕ್ಕಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿ ಕೀ ಅನ್ನು ಪಡೆದಿದ್ದು,
ಇಲ್ಲಿಯವರೆಗೂ ಕೀ ಅನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾರೆ.
ನಮಗೆ ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ ರವರು ಜೀವ ಬೆದರಿಕೆ
ಹಾಕಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿ, ಅವರ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಕ್ರಮ
ಕೈಗೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತೀರಾ ಎಂದರೆ ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಕ್ರಮ ಕೈಗೊಂಡಿಲ್ಲ. ಅಲ್ಲಿ
ನಮಗೆ ಹೋಗಲು ಹೆದರಿಕೆ ಆಗುತ್ತದೆ. ನನ್ನ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಭಾರತ್
ಪ್ರೆಸಿಡೆನ್ಸಿ ಫ್ಲಾಟ್ ಓನರ್ಸ್ ಅಸೋಸಿಯೇಶನ್ನ ಸದಸ್ಯಳು ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ
ಎಂದರೆ ಅಲ್ಲಿ ನನಗೆ ಹೋಗಲು ಜೀವ ಬೆದರಿಕೆ ಇರುವುದರಿಂದ ನನಗೆ
95
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
ಅದರ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಏನೂ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ಒಂದು ವೇಳೆ ಜೀವ ಬೆದರಿಕೆ ಇದ್ದಲ್ಲಿ
ನಾನು ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಕ್ರಮ ಕೈಗೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆನು, ಜೀವ ಬೆದರಿಕೆ
ಇಲ್ಲವಾದ್ದರಿಂದ ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಕ್ರಮ ಕೈಗೊಂಡಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸುಳ್ಳು.
ನಿಪಿ.3 ರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮೀಯ ಪತಿ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸರವರು
ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮೀಯ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ವಿಚ್ಚೇಧನ ಅರ್ಜಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ
ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿರಬಹುದು. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ ಹಾಗೂ ಅವರ ಪತ್ನಿ
ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮೀಯವರ ಸಹಿ ನೋಡಿ ಗುರುತಿಸಿದ್ದರಿಂದ, ಸದರಿ
ಸಹಿಗಳನ್ನು ಅನುಕ್ರಮವಾಗಿ ನಿಡಿ.9(ಎ) ಮತ್ತು 9(ಬಿ) ಎಂದು
ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು.
ನಿಪಿ. 18 ರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮೀಯವರು ನನ್ನ ಹಾಗೂ ನನ್ನ
ಪತಿಯ ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಪಿ.ಸಿ.ಆರ್ ಪ್ರಕರಣ ದಾಖಲು ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ
ಎಂದರೆ ಮಾಡಿರಬಹುದು. Atrocity ಪ್ರಕರಣ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ಅದರ
ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನನಗೆ ಪೂರ್ಣ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಕೇಸು
ವಜಾಗೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತದೆ.
ನಿಪಿ.21 ರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ನಾನು ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮೀ ಹಾಗೂ ಅವರ ಪತಿಯ
ವಿರುದ್ಧ ಪಿ.ಸಿ.ಆರ್ ಪ್ರಕರಣ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದು, ದಿನಾಂಕ: 06-03-2017
ರಂದು ಸದರಿ ಪ್ರಕರಣ ವಜಾ ಆಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸರಿಯಾದ
ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಕೊಡದೇ ಇರುವುದರಿಂದ ವಜಾಗೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದು
ಗೊತ್ತಾಯಿತು. ನಮಗೆ ಮಾಹಿತಿ ಗೊತ್ತಾದ ನಂತರ ನಾವು restore
ಮಾಡಲು ಅರ್ಜಿಯನ್ನು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿಲ್ಲ. ಅದೇ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಮೇಲ್ಮನವಿಯನ್ನೂ
ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಯಾವ ಕಾರಣಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ವಜಾಗೊಂಡಿತ್ತು ಎಂದು
ತಿಳಿದುಕೊಳ್ಳುವ ಅವಶ್ಯಕತೆ ನನಗೆ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ.
96
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
ನಿಪಿ.22 ನ್ನು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಲು ನಾನು ಮಾಹಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ
ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿಪಿ.22 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸರವರು ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿರುವ
ಸ್ಥಳದ ವಿಳಾಸ ಕಾಣಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನಿಡಿ.9, ನಿಪಿ.1,
ನಿಪಿ.3, ನಿಪಿ.6, ನಿಪಿ.17, ನಿಪಿ.22 ಮತ್ತು ನಿಪಿ.46 ನನ್ನ ಪತಿಯ
ಹಾಗೂ ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮೀ ಹಾಗೂ ಅವರ ಪತಿ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸರವರ
ಸಹಿಗಳನ್ನು handwriting expert ಗೆ ಕಳುಹಿಸಲು ನನಗೆ
ತೊಂದರೆ, ತಕರಾರು ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ,
37. The husband of the Dhr who is defendant No.3 in
O.S.No.7055/2013 got examined as DW.2. In his examination-in-
chief, he has stated that, he is the husband of decree holder and 3 rd
defendant in O.S.No.7055/2013. He has not signed Ex.P.1 that is
sale agreement dated 20.04.2009 as a witness. Ex.P.1 is a created
document by the obstructor in collusion with her husband who is the
JDR in the present Ex.P.No.2767/2013. The obstructor is not the
tenant under his wife as averred by her.
38. In the cross-examination of DW.2 following points are
elicited and following statements/ suggestions are made:-
ನಾನು ಈಗ ಕಾರ್ಪೋರೇಟ್ ಟ್ರೈನರ್ ಆಗಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ನನಗೆ ಯಾವುದೆ
ಕಛೇರಿ ಅಂತ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಈಗ ನಿಮಗೆ ತೋರಿಸಿದ ನಿಡಿ.10 ರ
ಕ್ರಿಮಿನಲ್ ಪ್ರಕರಣದಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಮ್ಮ ಕಛೇರಿಯು ಮಲ್ಲೇಶ್ವರಂನಲ್ಲಿದೆ ಎಂದು
ನಮೂದಿಸಿದೆ ಅಲ್ಲವೆ ಎನ್ನುವ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು, ಹೌದು ಸದರಿ
97
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
ಕಛೇರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಈ ಮುಂಚೆ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆ ಎಂದು
ಉತ್ತರಿಸಿದರು. ನಾನು ಮೆಡ್ಲೈಫ್ ಇನ್ಸೂರೆನ್ಸ್ನಲ್ಲಿ
ಉದ್ಯೋಗಿಯಾಗಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆ, ಆದರೆ ಏಜೆಂಟ್ ಆಗಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ.
ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸರವರ ಮೇಲೆ ಹೂಡಿದ್ದ ಅಸಲು ದಾವೆಃ 8083/2011
ನಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ಹೆಂಡತಿ ಪೂರ್ಣಿಮರಜನಿಯವರ ಜಿ.ಪಿ.ಎ
ದಾರನಾಗಿ ಭಾಗವಹಿಸಿದ್ದೆ.
ನಾವುಗಳು ದಿನಾಂಕ 19.12.2008 ರಂದು ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆಯ
ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಮನೆ ಬೀಗದ ಕೀಲಿಯನ್ನು ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತೇವೆ. ನಮ್ಮ
ಹಾಗೂ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸರವರ ನಡುವೆ ಮೌಖಿಕವಾಗಿ ಆದ ಕರಾರಿನ
ಮೇರೆಗೆ ನಾವು ನಮ್ಮ ಮನೆಯನ್ನು ಸದರಿಯವರಿಗೆ ನೀಡಿದ್ದು
ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸರವರು ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ
ಮುಂಗಡ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಕೊಡದೆ ಇದ್ದುದರಿಂದ ನಾವುಗಳು ಅವರ ಜೊತೆ
ಯಾವುದೆ ಲಿಖಿತ ಕರಾರನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ ಹಾಗೂ ಅವರ ಹೆಂಡತಿ ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಿಯವರು
2001 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಕೌಟುಂಬಿಕ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಚ್ಚೇಧನ ಅರ್ಜಿ
ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದರು ಅಲ್ಲವೆ ಎನ್ನುವ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆಗೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು ಇಸ್ವಿಯ ಬಗ್ಗೆ
ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ, ಆದರೆ ವಿಚ್ಛೇಧನ ಅರ್ಜಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದು ಗೊತ್ತಿರುತ್ತದೆಂದು
ಉತ್ತರಿಸಿದರು. 2001 ಕ್ಕಿಂತ ಮುಂಚೆ ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ ಹಾಗೂ
ವಿಜಯಲಕ್ಷ್ಮಿಯವರು ಬೇರೆಬೇರೆಯಾಗಿ ವಾಸಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು ಅಂದರೆ
ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
When it is questioned to the witness that written
statement in O.S No.7055/2013 at para No.2 you
have stated that plaintiff had paid a sum of
Rs.12,500/- to the defendant towards the rent in
respect of suit schedule property on 21-03-2013;
the witness said the amount had paid in the court
hall on behalf of the tenant Srinivas.N. I have not
issued the receipt for the receipt of said rent. The
98
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
plaintiff has paid the said amount of Rs. 12,500/- in
cash.
When it is questioned to the witness that there is
no impediment for you to issue the receipt for
receiving of the said amount; the learned advocate
for defendant raised objection stating that the said
amount has been paid in the open court. On perusal
of order sheet in O.S No.8083/2011 dated
21.03.2013 reveals the payment of said amount.
The witness said there is no impediment to issue
the receipt and as the amount was paid in the court
he has not issued the receipt. On that day on
21.03.2013 plaintiff Smt. Vijayalakshmi present and
signed the order sheet. The said amount has been
paid to me. I have signed the order sheet for having
received the amount. My signature is bear in the
order sheet. I cannot identify the signature of
plaintiff Smt. N.Vijayalakshmi in the said order sheet
dated 21.03.2013 in O.S No.8083/2011.
The rents have been paid to me in respect of flat
No.003. My wife Smt. Poornima Rajani is the owner
of flat No.003 and I am not the owner of said flat. I
have not issued any receipts for the payment of rent
received by me from N.Srinivas.
When it is questioned to the witness that you
have not issued notice to demand the advance
amount; the witness said as said N.Srinivas
promised to vacate the premises, he has not
demanded the advance amount. N.Srinivas used to
99
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
take two months time regularly for payment of rent
and dragged on the matter.
It is true that as per Ex.P.3 N.Srinivas filed a
petition for dissolution of marriage in M.C
No.1431/2001. I have not read and understood the
Ex.P.3 petition produced by the plaintiff. When it
was questioned to the witness that the matrimonial
dispute between N.Srinivas and plaintiff raised
since 2001 and the marriage has been dissolved as
per the order dated 21.08.2017 in M.C
No.1431/2001; the witness said he is not aware of
said fact.
It is true that I am claiming the said address on
basis of Ex.D.2 -award passed by Joint Registrar of
Co-operative Society. When it is questioned to the
witness that the address now stated by you is not in
the cause title of Ex.D.2; the witness said it is there
in the said document. It is true that Ex.D.2
proceedings is of the year 2012-13. It is true that
proceedings at Ex.D.2 not initiated when I was filed
a suit in O.S No.8083/2011.
It is true that as per Ex.P.6 the plaintiff-N.
Vijayalakshmi filed Criminal Misc. No.194/2016
against N.Srinivas for maintenance.
When it is questioned to the witness that
according to you whether the plaintiff is residing in
flat No.003 authorizedly or unauthorizedly; the
witness said the plaintiff is residing in flat No.003 as
a wife of N.Srinivas.
100
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
I know the contents of Ex.D.13 order sheet in CC
No.17747/2015. It is true that in the criminal case
police have recorded the statement of my wife
Poornima Rajani. The statement now shown to me
is the statement given by my wife before the RMC
Yard police in the complaint filed by my wife. As the
witness admitted the said statement is marked as
Ex.D.13(a). The statement at Ex.D.13(a) is true and
correct. It is true that in the said statement at 1st
paragraph in page No.2 my wife stated that
Rs.25,000/- has been given as a token advance.
I have no objection to send the admitted
signatures and disputed signatures to the hand
writing expert for comparison.
It is true that N.Srinivas is found in Ex.D.1 and
D.8 photographs. I do not remember who has given
Ex.D.1 and D.8 photographs to me.
When it is questioned to the witness that who has
given the information about Ex.D.2 to D.5; the
witness said he has received the information when
he has went to collect the rent. I do not know that
the chit fund organizer will not furnish the particulars
of chit transactions to any person other than the
members.
When it is questioned to the witness that how you
have obtained documents at Ex.D.2 to D.5 from Sri
Ram Chits; the witness said when he came to know
about the documents he has approached the
101
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
advocate and through advocate obtained the
documents.
The three electricity bills now shown to me are the
electricity bills in respect of flat No.003/suit
schedule property. As the witness admitted the
documents, the original bills are marked as Ex.P.49
to P.51 and photostat copies of the said bills are
marked as Ex.P.49(a) to P.51(a). It is true that
electricity meter in respect of suit schedule property
is still standing the name of my wife's vendor
Chandrakanth G.Takkar. When it is questioned to
the witness that since December, 2008 till this date
the plaintiff Smt. N.Vijayalakshmi is paying the
electricity bills and water bills; the witness said the
tenant paying the said bills.
The person wearing the white shirt in the
photograph now shown to me is me. As the witness
admitted the said photograph that has marked at
Ex.P.52. The said photograph at Ex.P.52 has been
taken in the schedule premises. I can identify one
Ramesh in the said photograph and I cannot say
who is the other persons in the said photograph.
I cannot say when the photograph at Ex.P.52 has
taken, but I have signed the paper in the
association meeting.
I have seen the signatures of plaintiff and her
husband N.Srinivas, they used to sign both
Kannada and English language and there are
variations in their signatures.
102
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
When it is questioned to the witness that have
you ever seen the plaintiff and N.Srinivas putting
their signature; the witness said they have signed
in my presence at Ex.D.9. Ex.D.9 executed by my
tenant N.Srinivas and his wife N.Vijayalakshmi. The
said Ex.D.9 has been executed before me in my
then office of PNB Metlife at Malleshwaram. I
cannot say who are all present when Ex.D.9 has
been executed other than me, plaintiff and
N.Srinivas. I do not remember whether there was
any CC TV camera then at PNB Metlife office at
Malleshwaram.
I do not remember who has written the Ex.D.9
letter.
39. The afore extracted points as elicited in the cross-
examination of PW.1 to 3 and DW.1 and 2 are self explanatory. Now
it is relevant to mention that the entire case of the obstructor begins
with the lease deed dated 19.12.2008. According to obstructor, Jdr
is not at all tenant and on the other hand she is in possession of the
property since 2008 as a lessee by virtue of lease deed dated
19.12.2008 executed by the Dhr and as such she has continued to
be in possession of the property on the date of agreement of sale
dated 20.04.2009.
103
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
40. With regard to the said case of obstructor, it is of interest
to mention that no such lease deed dated 19.12.2008 is placed
before this court. To be more precise, the obstructor though placed
before court voluminous documents marked as Ex.P.1 to P.95, but
she has not produced the crucial document i.e., the alleged lease
deed dated 19.12.2008. There is no explanation either in the body
of the plaint or in the evidence of PW.1 as to the non-production of
lease deed dated 19.12.2008. In this context, It is pertinent to
recollect the case of Dhr. Because, Dhr has specifically contended
that the obstructor is not her tenant and has not executed any lease
deed dated 19.12.2008 in her favour. On the other hand the Jdr Mr.
Srinivas. N who is the husband of the obstructor is her tenant and
said Srinivas along with the obstructor had approached her husband
for taking the schedule property on rent in the month of December
2008 and as she is the owner of the property, she along with her
husband had discussed with the Jdr and obstructor for letting the
schedule premises on rent in favour of the Jdr on monthly of
Rs.12,500/- and security deposit of Rs.1,25,000/-. However, except
the token advance amount of Rs.25,000/- (which was subsequently
104
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
adjusted to the rent), the JDR has not paid the advance amount to
her. As the Jdr has not paid the advance amount, she has not
executed any rent agreement in favour of the JDR and as the JDR
subsequently failed to pay the monthly rent and the advance
amount, she had filed the suit in O.S.No.8083/2011 for ejectment
and recovery of balance of rent amount as well as damages and the
same came to be decreed on 05.07.2013.
41. In this context, be it noted that the Jdr herein who is the
defendant in the said suit O.S.No.8083/2011 has not preferred any
appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.8083/2011 and on the other hand, he has filed Misc.
No.840/2018 under Order IX Rule 13 to set-aside the judgment and
decree passed in O.S.No.8083/2011 stating that it is an exparte
decree. But as can be seen from the records of the case the said
Misc.840/2018 came to be dismissed for non prosecution and that
order has not been challenged by the Jdr herein. Added to this, the
Jdr appears to have filed Misc.No.146/2019 U/sec 24 of C.P.C., to
transfer the said Misc.840/2018 to the court of C.C.H.16 where the
105
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
two suits and execution petition which are now clubbed together are
pending. The Hon'ble principle City Civil and Session Judge
dismissed the said Misc.146/2019 on merits by the order dated
18.08.2021. The obstructor, who is said to be the wife of Jdr has
filed O.S.No.7055/2013 challenging the judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.8083/2011 and the suit in O.S.No.4833/2013 for
specific performance of contract and as also filed application Under
Order XXI Rule 97, 99 and 101 of C.P.C., as obstructor i.e., the
instant cases.
42. Even in Ex.P.24 notice dated 08.02.2017 issued by the
advocate for obstructor to HDFC, Regional Head office, Bengaluru,
it is stated that his client Smt. N. Vijayalakshmi occupied the
schedule property as a lessee by paying lease amount of
Rs.7,25,000/- to the owner i.e., Dhr Poornima Rajani, commencing
from 15th December 2008 and that from the said date her client and
her family members are in physical possession and enjoyment of the
said flat up to this day. That the owner Smt. Porrnima Rajani entered
into a sale transaction in favour of his client and original lease
106
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
agreement is in the custody of owner and photocopy of the same is
available with his client.
43. But the court emphasis that the obstructor has not made
any attempt to secure the alleged original lease agreement dated
15.12.2008 nor produced the photocopy of same to get it marked as
exhibit to prove her basic contention that she was inducted to the
possession of the schedule property way back in the year 2008 as a
lessee. Even during the cross-examination of DW.1 (Dhr) no
suggestion has been made that alleged original lease agreement
dated 15.12.2008 is in your custody and copy of the same is in the
custody of obstructor. Even there is no pleading in the body of plaint
in O.S.No.4833/2013 and O.S.No.7055/2013 as well as in the
affidavit filed in support of application filed by the obstructor Under
Order XXI Rule 97, 99 and 101 of C.P.C., that the original lease
agreement dated 15.12.2008 is in custody of Dhr and Photocopy of
the same is in her custody.
44. The documents produced by the obstructor to prove her
possession over schedule property as a lessee and intended
107
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
purchaser of schedule property are electricity bills, cable network
bills, postal covers, receipts relating to online delivery of goods
which are at Ex.P7 - 38 Electricity Bills, Ex.P.8 - 26 Electricity
Receipts, Ex.P.9 - 21 Cable receipts, Ex.P.12 - Postal Covers,
Ex.P.13 - Online order bills. But needless to state that all these
documents are not related to the year 2008 and on the other hand
they all came in to existence from 2011 onwards. Apart from that,
the afore mentioned documents does not establish the prime
contention of the obstructor/ plaintiff that she is in possession of
schedule property since 2008 as a lessee and later i.e., from 2009
as proposed purchaser of the same. More importantly, the Dhr has
not denied the possession of the obstructor, rather Dhr has
contended that the Jdr is her tenant and obstructor is the wife of Jdr
and as such obstructor along with Jdr are in occupation of the
schedule property. Therefore when such being the contention of
Dhr, it is absolute on the part of obstructor to demonstrate before
court that she is in possession of the schedule property since
December 2008 in her capacity as a lessee by paying Rs.7,25,000/-
to the owner Porrnima Rajani i.e., the Dhr. Unfortunately, as noted
108
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
earlier, the obstructor failed to produce the prime document i.e., the
alleged lease agreement dated 15.12.2008.
45. According to obstructor, Dhr has entered into an
agreement of sale dated 20.04.2009 agreeing to sell the schedule
property in her favour for sale consideration of Rs.22,00,000/-.
Towards this end, Ex.P.1 agreement of sale is placed before court.
As can be seen from the contents of Ex.P.1, the Nomenclature of
this document is "Agreement of sale" and it was entered into
between Smt. Poornima Rajani and Smt. Vijayalakshmi respectively
the Dhr and obstructor herein. In the schedule of Ex.P.1 the
property in question, which is a flat bearing No.003 is described as
schedule 'C' property and the built up area of the apartment and the
share of the Dhr in the same are respectively described as schedule
'A' schedule and 'B' schedule properties.
46. However in the body of Ex.P.1 there is no reference
about the said A, B and C schedule properties and it was simply
referred as schedule property. At this juncture, it is necessary to
recollect that the DW.1 in her cross-examination made it clear that
109
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
the total cost that she is said to have been incurred towards the
purchase of schedule property is Rs.33,00,000/- as she paid
Rs.22,00,000/- for purchase of the flat and Rs.10,00,000/- towards
undivided share in the property. Needless to state that, the
description of the properties mentioned in the schedule of Ex.P.1
made it clear that Dhr is the owner of flat No.003 along with her
undivided share in the property i.e., built up area of Bharath
Presidency Apartment.
47. In Page 2 of Ex.P.1 it is mentioned that the vendor is in
need of urgent funds in order to meet some of her domestic and
family necessities and therefore has decided to sell the property for
sale consideration of Rs.22,00,000/-. At this stage, it is necessary to
recollect the defense taken by the Dhr and the defense is that when
she acquired the schedule property for total sale consideration of
Rs.33,00,000/- by the raising loan from the bank in the year 2008,
the question of agreeing to sell the property immediately with in one
year i.e., in the year 2009 for a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- does not
arise. The fact that Dhr raised loan towards the purchase of the
110
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
schedule property has not been denied by the obstructor. As a
mater of fact, in the cross-examination of DW.1 (Dhr), so many
suggestions regarding the loan availed by Dhr towards the purchase
of schedule property are made. Wherefore, it can be safely
presumed that no person will sell her / his property for meager
amount then the amount for which he/she purchased the same, that
too, with a short spam after having acquired the property.
48. As shown in Ex.P.1 the obstructor / purchaser has paid a
sum of Rs.10,25,000/- towards advance sale consideration amount
in the following manner:-
A) For a sum of Rs.7,25,000/-, by way of cash, to the
vendor towards lease amount on 19.12.2008. It is agreed
between the parties that, the said lease amount has
retained as advance sale consideration to this
transaction of Agreement of Sale.
b) For a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by way of cash to the
Vendor, before the witnesses.
Thus, the Purchaser has paid above said advance sale
amount, and also agreed to pay the remaining balance
sale consideration amount of Rs.11,75,000/- to the
Vendor, during the time of registration of absolute sale
deed.
111
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
49. As already appointed out, the alleged lease deed dated
19.12.2008 has not been produced and therefore the contention of
the obstructor that she has paid lease amount of Rs.7,25,000/- in
the year 2008 and that amount has been retained as advance sale
consideration as shown to in Ex.P.1 appears to be a baseless
contention. More importantly, it is difficult to believe that huge
amount of Rs.7,25,000/- was paid in the form of cash. The
obstructor to show the source of income to pay Rs.7,25,000/- way
back in the year 2008 has not mentioned anything in the plaint in
O.S.No.4833/2013, a suit filed for specific performance of contract.
That is to say the plaintiff / obstructor has not mentioned anythin in
the plaint as to how she acquired Rs.7,25,000/- way back in the year
2008. Even in the affidavit filed in support of application under
Order XXI Rule 97, 99 and 101 no sentence has been whispered
has to how the obstructor acquired Rs.7,25,000/- in the year 2008.
Interestingly, the affidavit filed in support of an application filed by
the obstructor under Order XXI Rule 97, 99 and 101 of C.P.C does
not bear the signature of obstructor. Indeed in the entire affidavit
there is no signature of the person who is bound to sign the
112
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
affidavit. To be more precise the obstructor has not signed the
affidavit, which was filed in support of said application. The place
provided in the affidavit to mention the name of deponent and the
advocate who has identified the deponent are kept blank. The
affidavit is neither sworn before any notary or oath commissioner or
before the court Sheristedar and does not contain the seal or
signature of any person who is authorized to attest the affidavit
under oath act or Notary act. This is not only surprise, but it is
unfortunate to mention that even though the said Ex.P.1 application
is not supported with proper affidavit, the proceedings are set in to
motion on the basis of said application which is marked as Ex.P.5
and lead further for delivering this judgment on the same.
50. In total, both in O.S.No.4833/2013 and in the affidavit
filed in support of obstruction application, there is no averment
regarding the source of acquisition of Rs.7,25,000/- by the
obstructor in the year 2008. However in the plaint in
O.S.No.7055/2013, a suit filed to set aside the judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.8083/2011 for the first time, at para 7 of the plaint
113
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
the obstructor / plaintiff stated that, her husband paid an amount of
Rs.7,25,000/- as full and final settlement for matrimonial relationship
and the remaining sale consideration amount was paid by her
mother and in this way she has paid the entire amount of sale
consideration. Indeed the obstructor who got examined as PW.1
stated in her examination in chief that her past husband paid an
amount of Rs.7,25,000/- as full and final settlement of matrimonial
relationship and the remaining amount was paid by her mother and
in this way the entire amount towards the sale consideration has
been paid. In this connection the PW.1 produced before court the
Ex.P.3 to P6 and Ex.P.53 to 55 documents. Ex.P.3 is the copy of
the petition filed by the Jdr N. Srinivas Under section 13(1)(i)(ia) of
the Hindu marriage Act against the obstructor Smt. N.Vijayalakshmi.
As can be seen from the contents of Ex.P.3 the Jdr herein filed a
petition seeking a decree of divorce against his wife Smt.
N.Vijayalakshmi, the obstructor. The Ex.P.4 is the order sheet
pertaining to the said M.C.No.1431/20 which, reveals that even after
service of notice the respondent therein i.e., the obstructor herein
since not appeared before the court was placed exparte and when
114
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
the matter listed for petitioner evidence on 10.12.2012, the court
dismissed the petition for non prosecution. Ex.P.5 is the order sheet
pertains to Crl.Misc.No.194/2016 filed by the obstructor herein
against her husband the Jdr herein seeking monthly maintenance
from the Jdr. As can be seen from Ex.P.5, on the 1 st date of hearing
itself the Respondent / Jdr placed exparte and on the same date the
Jdr moved advancement application and has paid Rs.16,000/- to the
petitioner / obstructor. The Ex.P.5 appears to be an incomplete
document as the entire document is not placed before court. The
Ex.P.6 is the petition filed U/sec 125(3) Read With 128 of Code of
Criminal Procedure by the obstructor against the Jdr seeking
maintenance. As narrated in the body of Ex.P.6 the petitioner
therein i.e., the obstructor filed a petitioner for maintenance in
C.Misc No.50/2016 and the same was allowed directing the Jdr
herein to pay Rs.15,000/- per month. Thus it becomes clear that
Ex.P.5 and 6 documents came in to light in the year 2015 i.e., after
the institution of present Ex.P.No.2767/2013 as well as the decree
passed in O.S.No.8033/2011. Apart from this, C.Misc. No.50/2016
has also been filed by the obstructor against the Jdr in the year
115
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
2016. According to obstructor, she has received an amount of
Rs.7,25,000/- towards settlement of matrimonial dispute wayback in
the year 2008 from her husband and that amount of Rs.7,25,000/-
was paid by her as lessee in favour of Dhr under alleged lease
agreement dated 19.12.2008. Time and again, the court emphasis in
this judgment that no such lease agreement dated 19.12.2008 is
placed before court by the obstructor.
51. Ex.P.53 is again an order sheet pertaining to
M.C.No.1431/2001. As already noted, M.C.No.1431/2001 came to
be dismissed for non prosecution on 10.12.2002. But, as can be
seen from Ex.P.53 M.C.No.1431/2001 came to be restored as a
consequence of order dated 18.07.2017 passed in Misc.
No.146/2016. Thus it becomes clear that M.C.No.1431/2001 though
stand dismissed for non prosecution way back in the year 2002, it
was restored in the year 2017, that too on the basis of Misc. Petition
filed for restoration in Misc.146/2016 by the obstructor herein. In
this context it is relevant to mention that in the year 2016, all the 3
present clubbed cases are under progress before this court.
116
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
52. Further as can be seen from the contents of Ex.P.53,
immediately after restoration of the petition, the parties i.e., Jdr and
the obstructor filed a "Memorandum of Settlement" effected between
them before mediation center and accordingly the court drawn the
decree in M.C.No.1431/2001. The Memorandum of settlement
effected between Jdr and the obstructor before mediation center in
M.C.No.1431/2001 is at Ex.P.54.
53. As can be seen from Ex.P.54, the settlement effected
between the parties is that:- (a) The petitioner is already paying
monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month to the Respondent as
per the orders passed in Crl.Misc.194/2016 in the above court dated
11.08.2016 and shall continue to pay the same till her lifetime. (b)
Further the petitioner undertakes to retain and maintain the
Respondent as nominee for all his retirement and other benefit, for
which the respondent is entitled after the retirement of the petitioner
and shall not change, the respondent as his nominee under the said
headings. (c) Both the parties state and agree that apart from the
117
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
above, they have no claims of maintenance / permanent alimony
against each either past, present or future.
(Emphasis supplied)
54. Now it is of interest to mention that, at paragraph iii) of
Ex.P.54 it is mentioned that, "In view of the aforesaid agreement
entered into between the parties, the parties pray that this Hon'ble
Court be pleased to dissolve the marriage solemnized in March
1983 in Temple at Gangenahalli, Bangalore, by granting a decree of
divorce in terms of the agreement". The family court recorded the
said Ex.P.55 settlement on 21.08.2017 and passed the decree
accordingly. Wherefore it is crystal clear that the marriage between
the JDR and obstructor was desolved in the year 2017 when the
court passed decree of divorce in M.C.No.1431/2001 and till then
the Jdr and obstructor are literally the husband and wife in the eye of
law. Moreso, Ex.P.54 - memorandum of settlement is totally silent
about the payment of Rs. 7,25,000/- by the Jdr as full and final
settlement of matrimonial relationship to the obstructor either in past
or at the time of settlement before Mediation Center. To be more
118
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
precise, no sentence has been whispered either in Ex.P.53 or in
Ex.P.54 about the payment of Rs.7,25,000/- by the Jdr to the
obstructor towards settlement of matrimonial dispute or as a
permanent alimony. The Ex.P.55 is the copy of the decree passed in
M.C.No.1431/2001 and even in this document there is no reference
about alleged amount of Rs.7,25,000/-. Wherefore, the contention
of the obstructor that she has paid Rs.7,25,000/- in cash to the Dhr
as mentioned in Ex.P.1- sale agreement and that too an amount that
she allegedly received from her past husband the Jdr. appears to
be a blatant false hood.
55. Let the court revert back to the contents of Ex.P.1 sale
agreement. As mentioned in Ex.P.1 apart from said Rs.7,25,000/-,
the obstructor/ purchaser as paid Rs.3,00,000/- by way of cash to
the vendor before the witnesses and she agreed to pay the
remaining balance sale consideration amount of Rs.11,75,000/- to
the vendor during the time of registration of absolute sale deed. But,
what is the source of income for the obstructor to pay the said sum
of Rs.3,00,000/- has not been established. Offcourse, the obstructor
119
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
pleaded that she has sold some of her movable properties such as
car and auto and out of that sale proceeds she has paid the said
amount. Towards this end, obstructor has produced documents
marked as Ex.P.90 to Ex.P.95. Ex.P.90 is just a photograph showing
parking of one Yellow Color car in the parking yard. Ex.P.91 is
Photograph showing performance of Sathyanarayana Pooja.
Ex.P.92 is Photograph, which shows the picture of one car and the
obstructor standing next to the car. Ex.P.93 is the C.D related to
Ex.P90 to 92 photographs. Ex.P.94 is the certificate filed under
section 65B of Indian Evidence Act with regard to Ex.P.90 to 93.
Ex.P.95 is just a certificate of registration pertaining to car bearing
registration No.KA 03 MJ 9492. There is no document to show that
the obstructor has sold the car referred in Ex.P95. Wherefore, the
said documents does not establish the contention of the obstructor
that she sold the said car and out of that amount she has paid part
of sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Dhr. Moreso, as rightly
pointed out by the counsel fro Dhr, as per the plaint averment made
in both O.S.No.4833/2013 and O.S.,No.7055/2013 as well as in the
application filed Under Order XXI Rule 97, 99 and 101, the
120
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
obstructor has narrated that Dhr / defendant has agreed to receive
the balance sale consideration amount in 3 installments of
Rs.4,00,000/- per year and same was cleared by the plaintiff /
obstructor and she continued in possession of the property.
So, according to the averments very much made by the obstructor,
she has cleared the entire sale consideration amount payable under
Ex.P.1 sale agreement to her vendor, Dhr herein much prior to the
institution of suits and obstructor application. If it is so, why the
obstructor made a prayer in the prayer column of O.S.No.4833/2013
(a suit filed for specific performance of contract) as follows:-
" Directing the defendant to execute the sale deed in
favour of the plaintiff by receiving the balance sale
consideration in respect of the 'B' and 'C' schedule
properties; in case of default failed to comply with
the same directing the execution of sale deed
through the instrumentality of this court".
56. Apart from afore mentioned prayer, it is of interest to
mention that the averment as made by the obstructor in her
application and suits are contrary to the contents of Ex.P.1 -
agreement of sale. As mentioned in page 3 of Ex.P.1, the Vendor
121
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
agreed to execute absolute sale deed in favour of the purchaser or
nominee's after receiving the balance sale consideration of
Rs.11,75,000/- from the purchaser in the Sub-Registrar office. It is
also mentioned in the same page No.3 of Ex.P.1 that the purchaser
has paid above said advance sale amount and also agreed to pay
the remaining balance sale consideration amount of Rs.11,75,000/-
to the vendor during the time of registration of absolute sale deed.
Wherefore, there is contradiction between the statement made on
oath by PW.1 - obstructor and the contents of Ex.P.1. The burden is
more on the obstructor to prove that Ex.P.1 is a legally enforceable
contract entered in to between her and the Dhr.
57. Offcourse, the obstructor has examined 2 witnesses as
PW2 and 3 to establish Ex.P.1. But it is unfortunate to mention that
PW.2 - Anitha though stated in her examination-in-chief that her
deceased husband S. Nagendra has signed the agreement of sale
as one of the attesting witnesses, but she has not identified her
husband signature in Ex.P.1. To elaborate, PW.2 though filed
affidavit regarding her examination-in-chief has however not
122
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
identified the alleged signature of her deceased husband Nagendra.
As a matter of fact, the name of S. Nagendra has not been
mentioned anywhere in the witnesses column of Ex.P.1. All
together 5 persons have singed Ex.P.1 as witnesses. But out of the
signatures of said 5 persons, PW.2 has not identified which is her
husband S. Nagendra's signature is. Apart from this, both PW.2 and
3 admitted in unequivocal terms in their respective cross-
examination that they have not witnessed any payment made by the
obstructor - Vijayalakshmi as advance sale consideration in favour
of Dhr/ Vendor.
58. The points elicited in the cross-examination of PW.2 and
3 extracted in the preceding paragraph of this judgment are self
explanatory and destroy the contention of the obstructor that she
has paid an advance sale consideration of Rs.10,25,000/- under
Ex.P.1 agreement of sale. Further more, there is difference in the
evidence of PW.1 to 3 in respect of the place where allegedly Ex.P.1
- sale agreement was prepared and signed by the parties.
According to PW.1, Ex.P.1 was prepared in one Government office
123
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
where as PW.2 stated that, agreement was prepared in front of Sai
Baba Temple of Malleshwaram. Further PW.2 stated that the place
where Ex.P.1 agreement has been prepared is one Government
office and she could not say which is that Government office.
Contradictorily, PW.2 stated that Ex.P.1 was prepared in the Metlife
office of K.G. Srinivasa at Malleshwaram. Therefore, PW2 and 3
have not supported the case of obstructor that obstructor has paid
Rs.10,25,000/- as advance sale consideration under the Ex.P.1 sale
agreement and she has also paid balance sale consideration
amount of Rs.11,75,000/- under 4 installments as alleged.
59. In Ex.P.1, no sentence has been whispered as to the
delivery of any documents relating to the schedule property by Dhr
in favour of obstructor. It is only mentioned in Ex.P.1 that, the
vendor shall obtain and provide up to date nil encumbrance
certificate, Katha certificate, up to date tax paid receipt and entire
title deeds etc., to the purchaser at the time of registration of the
sale deed. It is elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1 that at the
time of Ex.P.1 she has verified the sale deed of her vendor. But, no
124
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
peace of document relating to the title of the schedule property has
been placed before court by the obstructor.
60. According to obstructor, prior to the institution of suit in
O.S.No.4833/2013 she got issued the legal notice through her then
advocate Late. M.Ganesh and he is not alive. But no such legal
notice is placed before court. With regard to the non existence
notice the Dhr contended that no such notice was served on her and
therefore, the question of giving reply to the same does not arise.
61. It may be noted that Dhr got examined herself as DW.1
and DW.2 is her husband and have produced certain documents
relating to the relationship between the obstructor and the Jdr. That
is to say, the Dhr to prove her contention that even today obstructor
and Jdr are living together in the schedule property along with their
children as husband and wife have produced the documents marked
as Ex.D.1, D8, D18 and D19.
62. The Ex.D.1 is the photograph confronted during cross-
examination of PW.1. It is admitted by PW.1 that the persons in the
Ex.P.1 photograph are respectively she and her family members
125
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
that is her husband and children. It appears that Ex.D.1 is a
photograph taken during marriage occasion of the family member of
the obstructor. Ex.D8 photograph is also confronted and admitted by
PW.1 in her cross-examination. In this photograph admittedly the
Jdr is with his grant daughter. Ex.D.18 is the copy of memorandum
of criminal petition filed U/sec 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
On verification of Ex.D18 it is noticed that the Jdr and the obstructor
together as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have filed the same against the
State of Karnataka, represented by RMC Yard Police station,
Bengaluru, challenging the Criminal proceedings initiated in
C.C.No.17747/2015 (P.C.R. No.26392/2013). Ex.D.19 is the order
passed in said Crl. Petition No.4173/2016 and the same discloses
that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka granted one week time to
comply office objections or otherwise the petition stand dismissed
without further orders. With reference to Ex.D.18 and 19 documents
be it noted that Crl.No.1473/2016 has been filed in the year 2016 by
the Jdr and the obstructor as petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and by giving
the same address and that address is nothing but the address
related to the schedule property. Further it is noticed from Ex.D.18
126
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
and 19 that both Jdr and obstructor represented by their common
counsel Sri. Tejas. B.M.
63. Ex.D.2 is the award passed by the assistant registrar of
Co-operative societies, north circle, Bengaluru and as can be seen
from the contents of this document, Sriram Chits Pvt. Ltd, a finance
company filed the suit against Smt. Vijayalakshmi N / obstructor,
Srinivas N/ JDR, Hanumanthaiah, Prakash. G for recovery of
Rs.3,62,046/-. The address of the obstructor and Jdr as mentioned
in the Ex.D.2 award is the address related to the present schedule
property. The date of passing of Ex.D.2 award is 25.04.2014 and
suit related to the same filed in the year 2012-13. Ex.D.4 is the
order sheet related to the case mentioned in Ex.D.2- award. Ex.D.3
is the postal acknowledgment. The address of the obstructor is
mentioned as Vijayalakshmi B.S wife of Srinivasa. N in Ex.D.3.
PW.1 admitted that she has received and signed Ex.D.3 postal
acknowledgment. Ex.D.13 is the certified copy of the order sheet
pertaining to C.C.No.17747/2015 a case registered pursuant to the
orders passed in PCR. No.26392/2013 against the Jdr and the
127
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
obstructor herein. As can be seen from Ex.P.13, the Jdr and
obstructor are accused in C.C.No.17747/.2015 and have jointly filed
regular bail application and the court allowed the bail application by
the order dated 27.06.2015 imposing condition that accused No.1
and 2 shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- each with
one surety for the like sum. Accordingly the accused No.1 and 2
furnished 2 sureties namely Prakash. A, S/o Anjanappa and
Gouramma W/o Narayanappa. According to the arguments of
counsel for the obstructor, surety by name Gouramma is none other
then the mother of obstructor. It is the arguments of counsel for the
Dhr that in the event Jdr and obstructor are no more husband and
wife, how the mother-in-law of the obstructor stood as surety both
for Jdr and obstructor in the year 2015.
64. The prime contention of the Dhr is that the obstructor
herself represented the Jdr in O.S.No.8083/2011 on all hearing
dates and therefore the question of their separation does not arise.
Further it is the case of Dhr that as the obstructor was living with the
Jdr, she has represented the Jdr throughout the proceedings of said
128
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
suit and as recent as on 21.03.2013, the obstructor has paid a sum
of Rs.12,500/- towards rent on behalf of the Jdr to her husband in
the court and the same is recorded in the order sheet of this court in
O.S.No.8083/2011.In this connection the Dhr placed reliance on the
court documents marked as Ex.D.7, 16 and 17. The Ex.D7 is the
summons addressed to the Jdr herein in O.S.No.8083/2011 and and
this document was confronted to PW.1 / the obstructor in her cross-
examination. On the over leaf of Ex.D.7 it was endorsed by the
process server of City Civil Court that "D1 ಪರ ಹೆಂಡತಿಗೆ ವಾರಸ್ಸು ಜಾರಿ".
Admittedly the obstructor received the said summons by subscribing
her signature as B.S.Vijayalakshmi on the back of Ex.D.7 summons.
Ex.D.16 is the judgment passed in O.S.No.8083/2011. Ex.D.17 is
the order sheet pertaining to O.S.No.8083/2011. In Ex.D.17 order
sheet, it appears that on 20.03.2013 the obstructor herein signed the
order sheet.
65. In this context, it is of importance to mention about the
documents marked as Ex.D.10 and 11. Ex.D.10 is the order sheet of
C.C.No.21817/2013 a case registered against the obstructor Smt.
129
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
Vijayalakshmi and the complainant therein was the Registrar of City
Civil Court. Ex.D.10 reveals that Registrar of City Civil Court,
Benagluru has filed a complaint Under section 200 Read with
section 195 and 340 of Cr.P.C along with documents and prays to
take cognizes of offences punishable under section 193 of I.P.C
against the accused Smt. N. Vijayalakshmi. The court of VI Addl.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, accordingly taken
cognizence and issued summons to accused Smt. N. Vijayalakshmi
the obstructor herein. The Ex.D.11 is the complaint addressed to
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru by the Registrar, City Civil
Court, Bengaluru along with complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C
which is at Ex.D.12. As per the contents of Ex.D.12, the XIV Addl.
City Civil Judge has directed the Registrar to initiate Criminal
proceedings against the accused Vijayalakshmi for perjury as she
has deposited rent of Rs.12,500/- on behalf of her husband
N.Srinivas and put her signature in the order sheet dated
19.11.2012 and 20.03.2013 in O.S.No.8083/2011. Further stated in
the complaint that accused Vijayalakshmi has filed affidavit evidence
on 26.11.2013 and stated on oath that she has own rights over the
130
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
plaint schedule property and she was not made as party to
O.S.No.8083/2011 and hence, she is not aware of proceedings in
O.S.No.,8083/2011. The accused had put her signature on the
order sheet in O.S.No.8083/2011 dated 19.11.2012 and 20.03.2013
and further the accused has paid a sum of Rs.12,500/- towards the
arrears of rent on behalf of her husband in O.S.No.8083/2011. On
the contrary, the accused contended that, she is not at all aware of
proceedings in the above said original suit. The accused has sworn
false affidavit and gave false evidence before the executing court.
Hence, it is nothing but an abuse of process of court and it amounts
to perjury and thereby the accused has given false statement in
judicial proceedings and committed an offense punishable u/sec 183
of I.P.C . Therefore the complainant prays the court to take action
against the accused for offense punishable u/sec 183 of I.P.C.
66. So, from the above referred Ex.D.1 to 5 and D.13
documents, it becomes clear that the Jdr and obstructor are living
together in the schedule property as husband and wife even after
131
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
institution of the suit O.S.No.8083/2011 and have jointly faced
Criminal cases booked against them as stated supra.
67. Wherefore from the afore mentioned documents, it
appears to the court that the obstructor and Jdr are not separated at
any point of time rather they are living together under same shelter
that is in schedule property. Further it appears to the court that, the
obstructor has complete knowledge about O.S.No.8083/2021 as she
was very much participated in the proceedings of suit. Wherefore, it
is difficult to believe the version of the obstructor that she is not
aware of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.8083/2011 and
therefore the same is void and not binding on her.
68. According to obstructor, she has paid the entire sale
consideration amount mentioned in Ex.P.1 infavour of Dhr But it is
difficult to accept that obstructor has paid the entire sale
consideration mentioned in Ex.P.1. Because as already discussed in
the preceding paragraph of this judgment, obstructor has failed to
establish that advance amount of Rs.10,25,000/- mentioned in
Ex.P.1 has paid on the date of agreement itself. Likewise she is
132
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
unable to prove that entire sale consideration has been paid to the
Dhr. In this context, it is relevant to mention about the documents
marked as Ex.D.5, D6, D13, D20 and D22 documents. So also to
mention about Ex.D2 to D4 documents again at this stage. As
already narrated, Ex.D.2 is the award passed by the Registrar of
Co-operative societies against the Jdr, obstructor and 2 other
persons and Ex.D.4 is the order sheet related to the case mention in
Ex.D.2. Ex.D2 demonstrate that in the year 2012-14 the Jdr and
obstructor have failed to refund the amount to the finance company
namely Sriram chits Pvt Ltd and thus the court ordered them to pay
Rs.3,63,046/-. Ex.D5 is the application and Ex.D.6 is the promissory
note admittedly executed by the obstructor Smt. Vijayalakshmi.
Indeed Ex.D.1 to D8 are the documents confronted to PW1 in her
cross-examination. Therefore, PW.1 has no right to deny the
contents of Ex.D.1 to D8 documents. In other words admitted fact
need not be proved. As mentioned in Ex.D.5 application, Smt.
Vijayalakshmi B.S is the applicant and her address as mentioned
therein at serial No.3 is the address related to schedule property.
Like wise, the address of the Jdr is also the same address as
133
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
mentioned in the address column of the obstructor. Besides, the
status of the obstructor is mentioned as "House wife" in Ex.D.5. The
sureties names as mentioned in Ex.D.5 are namely Hanumantiah
and Narayanamma. Against the Name of Narayanamma it is
mentioned as mother.
69. The Ex.D.20 is the notice issued by the advocate on
behalf of his client namely C. Rajanna against the obstructor Smt.
Vijayalakshmi N. As per the contents of Ex.D.20, one Sri. Rajanna
demanded the obstructor Vijayalakshmi to pay the cheque amount
issued by the obstructor bearing No.055838 as it was dishonored.
Ex.D.21 is the order sheet of C.C.24284/2009, a case arising out of
PCR No.17831/2009. Needless to state that the said C. Rajanna
who issued the Ex.D.20 notice has filed complaint in
P.C.R.No.17831/2009 and after enquiry, it was culminated in
C.C.No.20284/2009. Ex.D 21 depicts that the court of XII Addl.
C.M.M, Bengaluru, convicted the obstructor Vijayalakshmi for the
offense punishable Under section 138 of Negotiable instrument Act
134
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
and sentenced her to pay a fine amount of Rs.2,10,000/-. Ex.D.22 is
the copy of the Judgment passed in C.C.No.24284/2009.
70. The cumulative effect of Ex.D2 to 5 and D.20 to 22
documents is that the obstructor Smt. Vijayalakshmi herself was
facing financial problem way back in the year 2009, when Ex.D20
notice was issued against her and even in 2012 when award as per
Ex.D.2 has been passed. Wherefore, it is difficult to accept the case
of the obstructor that she has paid advance sale consideration of
Rs.10,25,000/- under Ex.P.1 sale agreement in the presence of
witnessed to her vendor Dhr herein.
71. More importantly, the decree holder specifically denied
the Ex.P.1- agreement of sale as a forged document stating that, the
obstructor along with her husband the Jdr herein has forged her
signature as well as the signature of her husband in Ex.P.1.
Wherefore, when the Dhr denied Ex.P.1 and contended that it is a
forged and concated document it is incumbent on the part of
obstructor to prove Ex.P.1 as a genuine document. But, towards
this end, it appears to the court that the obstructor has not made
135
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
any prompt endevour. The obstructor though suggested to DW.1
(Dhr) and DW.2 that Ex.P.1 may be referred to hand writing expert
for opinion and they also consented for the same, but the document
has not been referred for expert opinion. At this juncture, it is
relevant to mention that the husband of the Dhr Sri. K.G. Srinivasa
Murthy (Defendant No.3 in O.S.No.7055/2013) has personally
approached TRUTH LABS, a First Independent Forensic Since
Laboratory to examine and give opinion about Ex.P.1- agreement of
sale dated 20.04.2009 on furnishing the certified photocopies of the
same along with the admitted signatures of Dhr and himself.
Towards this end, the Dhr placed before court the document marked
as Ex.D.13, and Ex.D.13(a). Both Ex.D.13 and Ex.D.13(a) are
voluminous documents runs to several pages and containing the
details of the private complaint i.e., P.C.R.No.26392/2013 filed by
the D.H.R. herein against the obstructor and her husband the Jdr for
the offences punishable under section 420, 468, 471 R/W/section 34
of I.P.C, after enquiry conversion of P.C.R. in to C.C.17747/2015,
order sheet, Charge sheet, Statements of witnesses recorded by
I.O, report given by TRUTH LABS and the synopsis filed in
136
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
Criminal Petition filed by the Jdr and the obstructor challenging the
proceedings of C.C.17747/2015. As per the report of TRUTH LABS
i.e., opinion No.1 and 2 of TRUTH LABS dated 25.09.2013 (which
forms part of Ex.D.13) the person who signed the red enclosed
standard signatures stamped and marked S1 to S22 did not signed
the red enclosed questioned signatures stamped and marked Q1 to
Q6. Further the person who signed the red enclosed standard
signatures stamped and marked S23 to S34 did not signed the red
enclosed question signature marked Q7.
72. Despite, the production of said Ex.D13 and D13(a)
documents, the obstructor has not made an endevour to take
recourse to the expert so as to collect opinion regarding Ex.P.1. only
on suggestion was made during the cross-examination of DW.1 that
no opinion can be given on certified copy of the document.
Offcourse, opinion of the expert is not a conclusive proof and it is a
pice of evidence that assist the court to deliver finding on the issues
involved in the case. Nevertheless, the fact remains that no contra
evidence is available to disbelieve the documents marked as
137
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
Ex.D.13 and D.13(a). More so, it is settled law that court is expert of
expert and invoking section 73 of evidence act the court can
compere the admitted and dispute signature. Accordingly when the
court compared the signatures of Dhr found in vakalath as well as
petition along with her alleged signature in Ex.P.1, it is noticed that
the signatures does not match. Be that as it may.
73. The Ex.P.1 sale agreement is dated 20.04.2009
whereas the suit for specific performance of the same has been filed
in the year 2013 i.e., after lapse of 3 years of limitation period
reckoned from the date of agreement. Because In the body of
Ex.P.1 time stipulation is not mentioned and no reason has been
given as to the delay involved in filing of the suit for specific
performance in O.S.No.4833/2013.
74. So for as documents produced by the obstructor is
concerned, Ex.P.1 is the agreement of sale and rest of the
documents are the documents related to M.C.No.1431/2001,
C.Misc.194/2016, PCR No.1703/2014, postal covers, electricity bills,
bills relating to online purchase of articles, Katha extract, legal
138
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
notice, plaint and deposition pertaining to earlier instituted suit. With
regard to the documents produced by the obstructor, it is relevant to
mention that none of the documents comes to the aid of obstructor
to prove her contention that she is not aware of the judgment and
decree passed in O.S.No.8083/2011 and she is in possession of the
schedule property in her capacity as lessee or as agreement holder.
No doubt, the document marked as Ex.P.18, P19 and 21 reveals
that the obstructor has filed private complaint in PCR No.71/2013
against the Dhr and the husband of Dhr for the offences punishable
under section 3(1),(2) (i)(ii)(v), 4 of Schedule Tribe Prevention of
Atrocity Act. But the fact remains that, there is no nexus between
Ex.P.18 to 20 documents and the applications filed by the obstructor
under order XXI Rule 97, 99 of 101 C.P.C,. The obstructor has to
establish independently before court that, she has independent right
in respect of the property in question and therefore she can resist
the decree from being enforced in present Ex.P.2767/2013.
75. From the evidence as a whole it appears to the court
that, the application filed by the obstructor Under Order XXI Rule 97,
139
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
99 and 101 of C.P.C as well as the suit namely O.S.No.4833/2013
and O.S.No.7055/2013 is a ploy adopted to circumvent due process
of law. Wherefore, for the forgoing reasons, the court inclined to
hold the point No.1 for consideration is in the Negative.
76. Having given the above finding on the point raised in
Ex.P.2767/2013, the obvious corollary is that the obstructor in
Ex.P.2767/2013 who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.4833/2013 and
O.S.No.7055/2013 failed to establish those issues the burden of
proving the same is on her in the said two suits. As such there is no
need to discuss separately on issues involved in O.S.No.4833/2013
and O.S.No.7055/2013. Therefore, in view of finding given on point
formulated in Ex.P.2767/2013 on application filed by the obstructor
under Order XXI Rule 97, 99 and 101 C.P.C., issues in both the
suits except issue No.5 in O.S.No.4833/2013 are accordingly
answered in the Negative as not proved and issue No.5 in
O.S.No.4833/2013 in the 'Affirmative' as the suit is not filed within
the period of limitation. As a consequence suits in
O.S.No.4833/2013 and O.S.No.7055/2013 stand dismissed as the
140
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
order rejecting application filed by the obstructor Under order XXI
Rule 97, 99 and 101 of C.P.C., is a peremptory order. In the light of
this, court do not find it necessary to deliver separate findings on
issues framed in O.S.No.4833/2013 and O.S.No.7055/2013. In the
result the court proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
The Application filed by the obstructor under order 21 rule 97, 99 and 101 read with section 151 of C.P.C., is rejected and the suit filed in O.S.No.4833/2013 and O.S.No.7055/2013 are dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 01 st day of August, 2025).
(M. Anitha), XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
141Ex.P.No.2767/2013 C/W. OS.7055/2013 and O.S.No.4833/2013 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiffs:
PW.1 : N. Vijayalakshmi PW.2 : Anitha PW.3 : Deepu
List of documents exhibited for plaintiffs:
Ex.P.1 : Agreement of Sale Ex.P.1(a to f) : Signature of PW1 Ex.P.1(g to l) : Signature of D.1- Poornima rajani Ex.P.1(m) : Signature of K. G Srinivasa Murty Ex.P.1(n to q) : Signature of Amith Chandrakanth Takkar, R. Ramesh, Nagendra, Deepu Ex.P.1(r) : Signature of PW.3 Deepu Ex.P.2 : Khatha Extract Ex.P.3 and 4 : C.C of Application and order sheet in M.C. No.1431/2001 Ex.P.5 and 6 : C.C of order sheet and copy of I.A in C.Misc No.194/2016 Ex.P.7 : 38 electricity bills Ex.P.8 : 26 electricity receipts Ex.P.9 : 21 Cable receipts Ex.P.10 : HDFC bank slip Ex.P.11 : Letter of Sriram Chits Ex.P.12 : Postal Covers Ex.P.13 : Online order slips Ex.P.14 : Car purchase receipt Ex.P.15 : Statement of account irrespective of telephone bills 142 Ex.P.No.2767/2013 C/W. OS.7055/2013 and O.S.No.4833/2013 Ex.P.16 : Statement of account of HDFC Bank Ex.P.17 : One letter addressed to patel and Basavanagudi Ex.P.18 : C.C of order sheet in PCR No.71/2013 Ex.P.19 : Copy of the complaint Ex.P.20 : Final B report Ex.P.21 : C.C of order sheet in PCR No.17034/2014 Ex.P.22 : Copy of plaint Ex.P.23 : Deposition of Poornima Rajani Ex.P.24 : Copy of legal notice dated 08.02.2017 Ex.P.25 & 26 : 2 empty covers Ex.P.27 & 28 : Copy of the legal notice and postal covar Ex.P.29 : C.C of memo filed in Ex.P.No.2797/2013 Ex.P.30 : C.C of the Paper Publication notice Ex.P.31 : 1 Electricity bill Ex.P.32 : Bangalore one receipts Ex.P.33 to 35 : 3 light bills Ex.P.36 : 1 electricity report Ex.P.37 & 38 : 1 light bill and receipt Ex.P.39 & 40 : 1 light bill and receipt Ex.P.41 to 43 : 1 light bill and 2 Bangalore one receipts Ex.P.44 & 45 : 2 light bill and report Ex.P.46 : Vakalath Ex.P.46(a)&(b) : Signature in Vakalath Ex.P.47 : Written statement in O.S.No.7055/2013 Ex.P.47(a to h) : Signature of D1. Poornima rajani Ex.P.47(i to p) : Signature of D3 Srinivasa Murty Ex.P.48 : Evidence affidavit of DW.2 143 Ex.P.No.2767/2013 C/W. OS.7055/2013 and O.S.No.4833/2013 Ex.P.48(a) : Signature of DW.2 Ex.P.49 to 51 : 3 Original electricity bills Ex.P.49 (a) to : Copies of the bills 51(a) Ex.P.52 : Photographs Ex.P.53 : C.C of order in M.S.No.1431/2001 Ex.P.54 : C.C of memorandum of settlement in M.c.No.1431/2001 Ex.P.55 : C.C of decree passed in M.S.No.1431/2001 Ex.P.56 to 79 : 24 receipts Ex.P.80 : 3 Gas receipts Ex.P.81 to 89 : 9 online postal covers Ex.P.90 to 92 : 2 positive photographs Ex.P93 : C.D Ex.P.94 : Certificate under section 65 (B) of India evidence act Ex.P.95 : Registration card of car.
List of witnesses examined for defendants in:
DW.1 : Poornima Rajani DW.2 : Sreenivas Murthy K.G
List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Ex.D.1 : Photographs
Ex.D.2 : Award passed in Sriramchief case
Ex.D.3 : C.C. of postal acknowledgment
Ex.D.4 : C.C of order sheet dated 21.10.2013
Ex.D.5 : Signature of Vijayalakshmi in Shriram Chit
case
Ex.D.6 : Shriramchits Preliminary note
144
Ex.P.No.2767/2013
C/W. OS.7055/2013 and
O.S.No.4833/2013
Ex.D.7 : Summons in O.S.No.8083/2011
Ex.D.7(a) : Signature Vijayalakshmi
Ex.D.8 : Photograph
Ex.D.9 : Letter
Ex.D.9(a &b) : 2 signature of Vijayalakshmi Ex.D.10 : C.C of order sheet in C.C.No.21817/2013 Ex.D.11 & 12 : Letter addressed to CMM Court by the Registrar City civil court copy of complainant Ex.D.13 : C.C of order sheet in C.C.No.17747/2015 along with documents Ex.D.13(a) : Statement in Ex.D.13 Ex.D.14 : Copy application dated 21.06.2013 Ex.D.14(a) : Signature of PW.1 Ex.D.15 : Order sheet in O.S.No.8083/2011 Ex.D.16 : C.C of judgment in O.S.No.8083/2011 Ex.D.17 : C.C of order sheet in O.S.No.8083/2011 Ex.D.18 : C.C of Crl. P. No.4173/2016 Ex.D.19 : C.C of order passed in Crl.P No.4173/2016 Ex.D.20 : C.C of final report in P.C.R No.71/2013 Ex.D.21 : C.C of order sheet in C.C.No.24284/2009 Ex.D.22 : C.C of order in C.C.No.24284/2009 Ex.D.23 : List of ocuments dated 24.09.2013 in O.S.No.7055/2013 Ex.D.24 : Objector application dated 08.11.2013 filed in Ex.No.2767/2013 Ex.D.25 : DW.1-26.11.2013 145 Ex.P.No.2767/2013 C/W. OS.7055/2013 and O.S.No.4833/2013 List of Court documents:
Ex.C.1 to 3 : 3 summons in O.S.No.8083/2011 Ex.C.4 : Order sheet in O.S.No.8083/2011 Ex.C.4(a) : Portion of the signature dated 20.03.2013 Ex.C.5 : Order sheet in O.S.No.8083/2011 dated 21.03.2013 Ex.C.5(a) : Signature of witness PW.1 XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.