Bangalore District Court
Smt.H.Prema vs Sri.Munegowda on 21 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE CITY (CCH-6)
This the 21st day of March, 2016
Present: Sri. S.SRIDHARA,
B.Sc.,LL.B.,
th
24 Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
O.S.No.99/2014
PLAINTIFF: Smt.H.Prema
D/o Sri.Hanumanthappa,
W/o late Shivamurthy,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at No.399, 11th Cross,
Jakkur Layout, Jakkur Post,
Bengaluru- 560 064.
(By Sri.A.Vishwanatha, Advocate)
Vs.
DEFENDANTS: 1. Sri.Munegowda
S/o not known to the plaintiff,
Aged about 55 years,
Ex-Counselor,
R/at No.99, 3rd Cross,
1st Main, Singapura Layout
Bengaluru North Taluk.
2. Sri. Siddarama
S/o not known to the plaintiff,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at Kaveri Circle,
Singapura Main Road,
Singapura layout,
Bengaluru North Taluk.
2 O.S.99/2014
3. Sri.Muniraju
S/o not known to the plaintiff,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at near Government Primary
School, Opp: to Horanadu Shop,
Singapura layout,
Bengaluru North Taluk.
(By.Sri.P.N.Nanja Reddy, Advocate for D-1)
D-2 & 3: Exparte.
Date of institution of the suit: 02.01.2014
Nature of the suit: Injunction Suit
Date of commencement of 12.06.2015
recording of evidence:
Date on which Judgment was 21.03.2016
pronounced:
Duration Days Months Years
19 02 02
JUDGMENT
The instant suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is one for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants or any persons claiming through them permanently from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also for cost and such other reliefs.
3 O.S.99/2014
2. a) The plaintiff has stated that she is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the vacant site bearing No.173, carved out of land bearing Sy.No.109 measuring East to West 20 feet and North to South 30 feet, situated at Singapura layout, Byatarayanapura CMC, presently comes under BBMP, Bengaluru North Taluk, which is morefully shown in the plaint schedule.
b) The plaintiff further stated that she has acquired the title to the suit property and she came into possession by virtue of the Hakku Patra dated 30.12.2002 issued by Government of Karnataka under Ashraya Scheme. She further stated that original Hakku Patra dated 30.12.2002 is also produced. According to the plaintiff, in the said Hakku Patra dated 30.12.2002, the name of the plaintiff is shown as Hanumanthappa D/o Prema instead of Prema D/o Hanumanthappa. In reality, the said Hakku Patra refers to Prema D/o Hanumanthappa only i.e. the plaintiff in this case. To substantiate the same, the plaintiff has obtained endorsement from BBMP, Yelahanka Range, Bengaluru-92 as to in whose name 4 O.S.99/2014 the suit schedule property has been allotted. She further stated that BBMP authorities acting on the representation of the plaintiff issued endorsement on 19.12.2013 under which, it has confirmed that the suit schedule property has been allotted to the plaintiff by the Government of Karnataka under Ashraya Scheme.
c) The plaintiff further stated that subsequent to the allotment dated 30.12.2002 the plaintiff has been paying taxes towards the suit schedule property to the concerned authorities regularly. To substantiate the same, the plaintiff also produced few of the latest tax paid receipts and some of the tax paid receipts have been misplaced. The plaintiff also undertakes to produce the same as and when they traced.
d) The plaintiff further stated that subsequent to the allotment of the site, the plaintiff thought it fit to put up construction over the suit property. Accordingly she has pledged the property in favour of Rajiv Gandhi Grameena Housing Society Limited and she raised loan. The said mortgage deed has been registered in 5 O.S.99/2014 the office of the Senior Sub-Registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru as per the particulars shown in para-4 of the plaint. The certified copy of the mortgage deed is also produced. She also stated that though she has pledged the property and raised loan, for various technical reason, she could able to put up construction over the suit property in question. The plaintiff would not loose her ownership over the suit property merely because she has not put up any construction over the suit property.
e) The plaintiff also further stated that since from the date of acquiring the suit property, the plaintiff has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same and she has not dealt with the same to anyone. To substantiate the same, the plaintiff also produced few photographs, bill, compact disc and nil Encumbrance Certificate for perusal of this Court. According to the plaintiff, on various reason, she could not be able to obtain khatha in respect of the suit property in her favour and she undertakes to produce 6 O.S.99/2014 the same as and when she obtain the khatha from the concerned authorities.
f) The plaintiff further stated that she is an innocent widow, who lost her husband about one year back. Defendants are the powerful persons having men and machinery in their hands in the locality and also having no right, title and interest nor possession or enjoyment over the suit property, inspite of that the defendants taking advantage of the helplessness of the plaintiff, time and again, are trying to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property on 1.12.2013 and on 1.1.2014 and accordingly she pleaded the alleged interference of the defendants in apra-6 of the plaint.
g) In para-7 of the plaint, the plaintiff also pleaded cause of action and praying this Court to decree the suit as prayed for.
3. The plaint schedule reads as follows:
All that piece and parcel of the vacant site bearing No.173, carved out of land bearing 7 O.S.99/2014 Sy.No.109, measuring East to West 20 feet and North to South 30 feet situated at Singapura Layout, Byatarayanapura CMC, presently comes under the jurisdiction of BBMP, Bengaluru North Taluk and bounded on East by: Site bearing No.172;
West by: Site bearing No.174;
North by: Site bearing No.200;
South by: Road.
4. Summons issued to the 2nd defendant is served on his wife, but he remained absent and placed exparte on 10.3.2014.
5. Summons issued to the 3rd defendant is served by RPAD and he also remained absent and placed exparte on 4.9.2014.
6. The 1st defendant filed written statement denying all the plaint averments and further contended that the suit field by the plaintiff for permanent injunction is not maintainable. The averments made in para-1 of the plaint that the plaintiff is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the vacant site No.173, carved out of Sy.No.109 measuring East to West 20 feet and North 8 O.S.99/2014 to South 30 feet, situated at Singapura Layout, which now coming under BBMP limits are specifically denied as false and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.
b) The 1st defendant further contended that the plaint averment at para-2 that the plaintiff acquired the suit schedule property by virtue of Hakku Patra dated 30.12.2002 issued by the Government of Karnataka under Ashraya Scheme is also denied as false. The further averment in para-2 of the plaint that in Hakku Patra, her name is shown as Hanumanthappa D/o Prema instead of Prema d/o Hanumanthappa is also denied as false. Further the BBMP authorities issued endorsement dated 19.12.2013 confirming that the suit schedule property has been allotted to the plaintiff is also denied as false. Mere issue of the letter will not create any right in the absence of the title deeds produced by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has created fraudulent document with a view to knock off the schedule property.
9 O.S.99/2014
c) The plaint averment at para-3 of the plaint that the plaintiff has been paying taxes and old tax paid receipts have been misplaced is also denied as false. The plaintiff will not get any right, title over the suit property. The plaint averment at para-4 that subsequent to the allotment, she though it fit to put up construction over the suit property by obtaining loan and by pledging the suit property will not create any right, title and interest in favour of the plaintiff. This also shows that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the said site.
d) The 1st defendant further contended that the plaint averment at para-5 that since from the date of acquiring the suit property, she has produced photographs, bill, compact disc, nil Encumbrance Certificate and the plaintiff could not obtain the khatha in her favour and she undertakes to furnish the same when she obtain the same is also denied as false.
e) The 1st defendant further contended that the plaint averment at para-6 that the plaintiff is an 10 O.S.99/2014 innocent lady and lost her husband about one year back and defendants are the powerful persons in the locality having no manner of right, title and interest and taking advantage of the helplessness of the plaintiff are trying to interfere with the plaintiff's possession is also denied as false. The plaintiff has created this story only with a view to show the cause of action. When the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property, the question of fling the suit for permanent injunction does not arise.
f) In para-7 of the written statement, the 1st defendant also denied the alleged cause of action as stated by the plaintiff in the plaint and further stated that no cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file this suit. The suit is also not maintainable either in law or on facts. Accordingly the 1st defendant prays this Court to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
7. Based on the above pleadings of the parties, this Court has framed the following issues:
11 O.S.99/2014
1. Whether plaintiff proves that she is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?
2. Whether plaintiff further proves the alleged interference of the defendants?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as claimed?
4. What decree or order?
8. In support of the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and also examined one witness as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.24, P.20(a) and P.20(b).
9. The 1st defendant is examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 and D.2.
10. Heard arguments of both sides. In addition to that, learned counsel for the plaintiff also relied upon the following decisions:
1. AIR 1989 SUPREME Court 1809 Corporation of the City of Bengaluru Vs. M.Papaiah and another.12 O.S.99/2014
2. AIR 1996 KARNATAKA 296\ N.Hanumantha Rao Vs. Corporation of the City of Bengaluru.
3. AIR 2008 SUPREME Court 2033 Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs. & others.
Perused the decisions also.
11. My findings on the above issues are:
Issue No.1: Negative.
Issue No.2: Negative.
Issue No.3: Negative.
Issue No.4: As per the final order
for the following;
REASONS
12. Issue Nos.1 and 2: Since these two issues are interlinked with each and require common discussion of documents and facts, they are taken together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
13. When the plaintiff pleads that she is in lawful possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of the suit and when the plaintiff pleads the 13 O.S.99/2014 alleged interference of the defendants, it is for the plaintiff to establish issue Nos.1 and 2.
14. In support her case, she relied upon the documentary evidence Ex.P.1 to P.24, P.20(a) and P.20(b).
15. Ex.P.1 is the Hakku Patra issued from Commissioner, CMC, Byatarayanapura in favour of the plaintiff, wherein the name of the plaintiff has been wrongly mentioned as Hanumanthappa daughter of Prema instead of Prema daughter of Hanumanthappa. By virtue of Ex.P.1, the plaintiff was shown to have allotted site measuring East to West 20 feet and North to South 30 feet bearing site No.173 formed out of Sy.No.109 of Singapura Extension and the boundaries shown in Ex.P.1 clearly tallies with the boundaries shown in the plaint schedule.
16. Ex.P.2 is the confirmation document issued from BBMP, Bengaluru dated 19.12.2013 in favour of the plaintiff stating that as per the request of the plaintiff, 14 O.S.99/2014 this document was issued stating that site No.173 was allotted in favour of Smt.Prema daughter of Hanumanthappa, which is carved out of Sy.No.109 of Singapura village under Ashraya Scheme. Ex.P.2 has been produced by the plaintiff to clarify the mistake that was crept in Ex.P.1 while mentioning the name of the plaintiff. The gap between Ex.P.1 and P.2 is almost 11 years.
17. Ex.P.3 to P.8 are all tax paid receipts paid by the plaintiff, which are dated 1.10.2013, 10.10.2013 wherein tax has been paid by the plaintiff in respect of the property bearing No.109/173 i.e. site No.173 carved out of Sy.No.109 or the assessment year 2008- 2009 to 2013-2014. Ex.P.1 was dated 30.12.20002 and plaintiff paid the taxes under Ex.P.3 to P.6 on 1.10.2013 for the assessment year 2008-09 to 2011-
12. Under Ex.P.7 and P.8, tax has been on 10.10.2013 for the assessment year 2012-13 and 2013-14. It appears that no katha was made in the name of the plaintiff pursuant to Ex.P.1. Plaintiff herself has stated 15 O.S.99/2014 in the plaint at para-5 stating that plaintiff could not obtain the katha in respect of the suit schedule property in her favour and she further stated that she undertakes to produce the same when she obtain the same from the concerned authorities.
18. Ex.P.9 is the certified copy of the mortgage deed executed by the plaintiff as mortgager in favour of Rajiv Gandhi Grameena Housing Society Limited to show that she has raised loan over the said site that is shown to have allotted in her favour i.e. site No.173 carved out of Sy.No.109 measuring 20X30 feet. The measurement, boundaries and description of the property shown in the schedule of Ex.P.9 is the very same as shown in the plaint schedule so also in the schedule of Ex.P.1.
19. Ex.P.10 is the Encumbrance Certificate, which at best shows that plaint schedule property i.e. Site No.173 was allotted in favour of the present plaintiff by the Commissioner, CMC, Byatarayanapura, which is carved out of Sy.No.109 measuring 20X30 feet. The 16 O.S.99/2014 particulars of the property shown in Ex.P.10 is the very same as shown in Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.9.
20. Ex.P.11 is the photo, which establishes the fact that the schedule property is a vacant site and Ex.P.12 is the compact disc of the said photo. Ex.P.13 is the bill for having taken the said photograph.
21. Ex.P.14 is the endorsement issued by Vidhyaranyapura Police in favour of the plaintiff for having filed complaint by the plaintiff on 1.12.2013 against the strangers. It appears that no complaint was filed against the defendants in this case, since the name of the defendants does not find a place in the endorsement Ex.P.14.
22. Ex.P.15 is the khatha certificate, which discloses the fact that the plaintiff is shown to be the kathedar of property bearing No.93/109/173 and this document was issued on 6.2.2015, which came into existence subsequent to filing of the suit.
17 O.S.99/2014
23. Ex.P.16 is the assessment register extract issued from BBMP for the assessment year 2014-15 based on Hakku Patra, which reveals the fact that the plaintiff is shown to be the owner of the property measuring 20X30 feet i.e. site No.173, carved out of Sy.No.109 and khatha has been recorded in the name of the plaintiff by virtue of the orders passed by the Revenue Officer dated 30.12.2014, which appears to be subsequent to filing of this suit. Suit was filed on 2.1.2014. In addition to that, the orders passed by the Revenue Officer dated 30.12.2014 is also not produced.
24. Ex.P.17 is the special notice dated 24.1.2015, wherein the plaintiff was called upon to pay the tax in respect of the property bearing No.93/109/173 measuring 20X30 feet for the assessment year from 2008-09 to 2014 to 2015.
25. Ex.P.18 is the receipt for having paid amount towards obtaining khatha certificate and khatha extract.
18 O.S.99/2014
26. Ex.P.19 is the certificate confirming the date of birth of the plaintiff dated 31.1.2008 issued on 31.1.2008 from the Head Master, Government Higher Primary school, Kellodu, Hosdurga Taluk, which reveals the date of birth as 10.8.1970.
27. Ex.P.20 is an important document i.e. layout plan issued from City Municipal Council, Byatarayanapura showing the location of sites formed under Ashraya Scheme, which also reveals the existence of site No.173, which is shown as per Ex.P.2(a) also shows the existence of site No.182, which is marked at Ex.P.20(b) and this site No.182 is claiming by the witness for the plaintiff, who is examined as PW.2 in this case.
28. Ex.P.21 is the similar certified copy of the mortgage deed executed by Smt.Yashoda, who is examined as PW.2 in this case in favour of the very same society i.e. Rajiv Gandhi Grameena Housing Society Limited for having mortgaged the site No.182 19 O.S.99/2014 to raise loan to put up construction in site No.182, which is shown to have allotted in favour of PW.2.
29. Ex.P.22 and P.23 are the photographs showing the existence of a house, which PW.2 claims to have put up in the site, which is said to have been allotted in her favour i.e. site No.182. Ex.P.24 is the compact disc of the said photos.
30. Except Ex.P.1 Hakku Patra, plaintiff has not produced any convincing document before the Court to show that she was put in possession of the plaint schedule property acting in pursuance of Ex.P.1 or by virtue of the confirmation letter issued by BBMP authorities as per Ex.P.2. It appears that no katha was made out in the name of the plaintiff in pursuance of Ex.P.1. No convincing document has been produced by the plaintiff to show that she is in lawful possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of the suit and no convincing document has been produced by the plaintiff to show that she has paid tax to the concerned 20 O.S.99/2014 authorities by virtue of the Hakku Patra Ex.P.1 dated 30.12.2002.
31. On careful perusal of the written statement of the 1st defendant, virtually it is the denial of the plaint averments and written statement filed by the 1st defendant never disclosed any specific defence as to how the 1st defendant is claiming plaint schedule property. However it is the plaintiff, who approached the Court seeking the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of the suit property.
32. However the first defence of the 1st defendant is that the plaintiff has created fraudulent document only with a view to knock off the property. In view of this specific defence, the burden lies heavily on the plaintiff to prove issue Nos.1 and 2. The other defence of the 1st defendant is that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the site.
33. On the other hand, the 1st defendant has relied upon Ex.D.1 and D.2.
21 O.S.99/2014
34. Ex.D.1 is the RTC in respect of Sy.No.109, wherein the extent is shown as 226.15 acres of Singapura, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk for the assessment year 2015-16, wherein Column No.12 discloses the names of several Government institutions including Gomal land, Burial ground etc. and Column No.9 also discloses that the khatha was recorded in the name of Ashraya Scheme to an extent of 10-00 acres, Gomal land, land reserved for landless villagers of Laggere, President, BWSSB, Burial Ground, land reserved for formation of Janatha sites, land reserved for regularisation of various construction all shows in column No.9.
35. On perusal of Ex.D.1, no where, it is mentioned that the 1st defendant in this case was one of the occupants in any portion of the site in Sy.No.109.
36. Ex.D.2 is the certified copy of the orders passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in writ petition No.10032/2004 dated 21.7.2005, wherein the 1st defendant is the 1st petitioner and that writ petition is 22 O.S.99/2014 filed against State of Karnataka and others seeking direction to the respondents therein to regularize their unauthorised construction by collecting the sital value of Rs.7/- per square feet in accordance with the Government order dated 28.10.1997; further direction to the respondents therein not to form/disburse sites in that Sy.No.109 of Singapura village measuring about 10-00 acres; a further direction of mandamus to the respondents therein to hold that action of the respondents in distributing and forming sites under Ashraya scheme in Sy.No.109 of Singapura village is contrary to the decision of the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2000 250.
37. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka after recording the submission of the learned counsels appearing therein observed that "Recording the submission of the learned HCGP, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the representations Annexures-K and L of the petitioners, and pass orders thereon, in any event, 23 O.S.99/2014 within a period of three months, from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court's order".
38. Admittedly the 1st defendant has not produced any documents before the Court to show that the respondents therein considered the representation of the petitioners therein.
39. The plaintiff, who is examined as PW.1, has reiterated the plaint averments. Very strangely it is suggested in the cross-examination of PW.1 by suggesting that plaint schedule property is situated at Singapura village i.e. Vidhyaranyapura and this suggestion is admitted by PW.1 in her cross- examination. However plaintiff failed to produced any convincing document before the Court to show her lawful possession over the plaint schedule property as on the date of suit. She also admitted in her cross- examination that there is a separate layout in respect of the site allotted under Ashraya scheme. She also stated that to show the location of the plaint schedule property, she has produced layout sketch. This 24 O.S.99/2014 document at best shows the location of the sites formed in the said layout, but this document in my opinion is not sufficient to hold that plaintiff is in lawful possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of the suit. PW.1 has also stated that the schedule property was allotted by BBMP authorities. However Ex.P.2 endorsement was issued by BBMP authorities. A strange suggestion is made in the cross- examination of PW.1 by suggesting that the plaintiff filed this suit in respect of the property belongs to the 1st defendant and this suggestion is denied by PW.1 in her cross-examination. One more suggestion is made in the cross-examination of PW.1 by suggesting that PW.1 was allotted site under Ashraya Scheme at a different place and this suggestion is also denied by PW.1 in her cross-examination.
40. A suggestion is also made in the cross- examination of PW.1 by suggesting that only allotment letter was issued in her favour, but possession of the property was not delivered and this suggestion is 25 O.S.99/2014 denied by PW.1 in her cross-examination. However plaintiff thoroughly failed to produce any convincing document before the Court to show her lawful possession over the suit property as on the date of the suit. In addition to that, Ex.P.15 to P.17 came into existence only subsequent to filing of the suit. She admitted in her cross-examination that earlier the schedule property was situated within the limits of CMC, Byatarayanaprua and as per Ex.P.1, it is the Commissioner, Byatarayanapura, who issued Ex.P.1 in favour of plaintiff.
41. The plaintiff also examined one witness as PW.2 and she has been examined for the limited purpose to show that the plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property by virtue of the Hakku Patra Ex.P.1 and further to show that similar site was also allotted in her favour bearing site No.182, which is also carved out in Sy.No.109 of Singapura village. When plaintiff herself failed to prove her lawful possession over the suit property as on the date of the suit, in my opinion, evidence of PW.2 will not be of any assistance to the 26 O.S.99/2014 plaintiff in this case. She admitted in her cross- examination that she is residing in Jakkur layout and admitted that the site was granted in her favour in the year 2002. She also stated that the plaintiff was also granted a site in the same line, wherein site was allotted in favour of PW.2 i.e. on the eastern side.
42. The 1st defendant is examined as DW.1, wherein he has reiterated the written statement averments. DW.1 in his chief examination affidavit specifically stated that the identity of the property itself is not traceable from the documents since Sy.No.109 of Singapura village consisting of 226.15 acres. He also stated in his chief examination affidavit that the land allotted and earmarked for regularisation is different from that of the land earmarked for allotment of sites under Ashraya Scheme. He goes to the extent of saying in his chief examination that the land, which is reserved for regularisation of unauthorised construction, is now claiming by the plaintiff in this suit.
27 O.S.99/2014
43. However DW.1 in his cross-examination admitted that Sy.No.109 measuring 226.15 acres itself is a Gomal land and also admitted that there exists Government Gomal, land belongs to BWSSB, land reserved for regularizing the unauthorised construction in the said 226.15 acres of land. DW.1 in his cross- examination also admitted that after the orders passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the application of the petitioners in the said writ petition has not been reconsidered by the concerned officials.
44. A suggestion is made in the cross-examination of DW.1 by suggesting that in the year 2005, when the writ petition was filed, sites were allotted by the Government under Ashraya Scheme and this suggestion is admitted by DW.1 in his cross- examination, but he goes to the extent of saying that the sites under Ashraya Scheme were given at some other place. A suggestion is also made in the cross- examination of DW.1 by suggesting that as per the sites allotted under Ashraya Scheme dated 28 O.S.99/2014 30.12.2002, a site was allotted in favour of the plaintiff to which he has pleaded his ignorance. Very strangely DW.1 in his cross-examination admitted the fact that the house shown in the photographs Ex.P.22 and P.23 were constructed under Ashraya Scheme. He also admitted that the site No.182 is shown in the sketch as per Ex.P.20(b) and also admitted that the site No.173 is also shown in the sketch as per Ex.P.2(a). As discussed earlier Ex.P.20 does not reveal the list of allottees of sites and Ex.P.20 is also not sufficient to hold that plaintiff is in lawful possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of the suit.
45. On careful perusal of the material available on record, the plaintiff failed to establish before the Court that she is in lawful possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of the suit.
46. With regard to interference of the defendants is concerned, the plaintiff has produced only one endorsement issued by Vidhyaranyapura Police as per Ex.P.14 and that complaint was filed by the plaintiff 29 O.S.99/2014 against un-known person on 1.12.2013 and that document Ex.P.14 does not reveal the fact the defendants in this case interfered with the plaintiff's possession over the suit property in the manner projected by the plaintiff in the plaint. In addition to that, a suggestion is made in the cross-examination of DW.1 by suggesting that there was some galata between the plaintiff and 1st defendant on 1.12.2013 in respect of the suit property to which DW.1 has stated that there was no galata on that day, but he advised the plaintiff not to put up house in the said site as same belongs to the 1st defendant. He also admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of galata, the plaintiff filed a police complaint against him. When plaintiff herself failed to prove her lawful possession over the suit property on the date of the suit, the question of interference does not arise at all.
47. Also perused the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. As the plaintiff failed to prove her lawful possession over the suit as on the 30 O.S.99/2014 date of the suit and failed to prove the alleged interference of the defendants, the said decisions in my humble view will not help the plaintiff in any way.
48. Hence on careful perusal of the available material on record, the plaintiff failed to prove that she is in lawful possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of the suit and she also failed to prove the alleged interference of the defendants. Accordingly I answer issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the 'negative'.
49. Issue No.3: The plaintiff failed to prove that she is in lawful possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of the suit. The plaintiff also failed to prove the alleged interference of the defendants. As such the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. Accordingly I answer issue No.3 in the 'negative'.
50. Issue No.4: In view of my findings on Issue Nos. 1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following: 31 O.S.99/2014
ORDER The instant suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, computerized by her, then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 21st day of March, 2016).
(S.SRIDHARA) XXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSION JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiffs:
P.W.1: Smt.H.Prema. P.W.2: Yashodha Ramesh.
List of documents marked for the plaintiffs:
Ex.P.1: Hakku Patra. Ex.P.2: Endorsement issued from BBMP.
Ex.P.3 to Tax paid receipts for having paid tax to P.8: the concerned authority. Ex.P.9: Certified copy of the mortgage letter dated 5.10.2004.
Ex.P.10: Certified copy of the Encumbrance
Certificate
Ex.P.11: One photograph.
Ex.P.12: Compact disc of the said photo.
Ex.P.13: Receipt for having taken the said photo.
Ex.P.14: Endorsement issued by police.
Ex.P.15: Khatha certificate dated 6.5.2015.
Ex.P.16: Certified copy of assessment extract.
32 O.S.99/2014
Ex.P.17: Khatha extract dated 24.1.2015.
Ex.P.18: Receipt dated 24.1.2015.
Ex.P.19: Certified copy of the birth certificate.
Ex.P.20: Layout plan.
Ex.P.21: Certified copy of the mortgage letter.
Ex.P.22 & Two photographs.
P.23:
Ex.P.24: Compact disc of the said photos.
List of witnesses examined for the defendants:
DW.1: S.A.Munegowda.
List of documents marked for the plaintiff:
Ex.D.1: RTC pertaining to Sy.No.109/P1. Ex.D.2: Certified copy of the order passed in writ petition No.10032/2004.
(S.SRIDHARA) XXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSION JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.