Bangalore District Court
Sri. Naveen N vs Govind M. Prabhu on 29 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF XLIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-45)
Dated this the 29th day of March, 2021
PRESENT: Smt.Sudha Seturam Onkar,
B.Com. LLM.,
XLIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
O.S.No.4538/2013
PLAINTIFFS : 1. Sri. Naveen N
S/o. Sri. V. Nagaraj,
Aged about 27 years,
2. Smt. Ireen C
W/o. Sri. Naveen N,
Aged about 25 years,
Both are residing at No.279,
Naraseepura Layout,
Vidhyaranyapura,
Bangalore - 560 097.
(By Sri.Fayaz Ahmed, Advocate)
Vs.
DEFENDANT : Govind M. Prabhu
S/o. Late. Maruthi Prabhu,
Aged about 46 years,
R/at. No.214,
Sri. Vaikunta Nivas,
Opp. AMS Land Developers Office,
Next to Akashvani Layout,
1st Cross, Vidyaranyapura,
Bangalore - 560 097.
(By Sri. K.G.S, Advocate)
2 O.S.No.4538/2013
Date of Institution of suit : 24.06.2013
Nature of suit : Injunction Suit.
Date of recording of evidence: 25.02.2016
Date of Judgment : 29.03.2021
Total Duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s.
7 9 5
J UD GM E N T
This suit is filed for permanent injunction.
2. The facts of plaintiffs case in brief are as under;
The properties described in suit schedule are
residential sites bearing No.14 and 15 measuring from
East to West on Northern side 58 feets, on Southern side
43 feets, from North to South towards Eastern side 40 feet
on Western side 43 feet, in total 2095.75 sq. ft. formed in
Sy.No.4 of Chikkabettahalli Village in Yalahanka Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk. The boundaries of these two sites
are on East site belonging to Keshav Murthy, West-Road,
North-Private Property, South-Road. The plaintiffs are
absolute owners in peaceful possession and enjoyment of
suit schedule sites. The plaintiffs have purchased these
3 O.S.No.4538/2013
properties from one K.S.Dinesh S/o. K.M. Siddalingappa
through registered sale deed dated 24.1.2013 for valuable
consideration. The plaintiffs have got khata of suit
schedule property transferred in their names and have
been paying taxes in respect of suit schedule properties
regularly. The vendor of plaintiffs by name K.S.Dinesh
purchased these lands measuring 0.37 guntas in Sy.No.4
of Chikkabettahalli Village from one B. Srinivas S/o.
Boregowda and formed private layout in this 37 guntas.
There was civil dispute in respect of this 37 guntas land
between one Raghavendra Rao and vendors of plaintiffs
K.S.Dinesh and his vendor B. Srinivas in O.S.No.136/2000
and that dispute ended in compromise in R.A.No.116/2009
before I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
Rural Court. In view of compromise, the vendor of
plaintiffs Sri. K.S.Dinesh had become absolute owner of 37
guntas of land purchased by him. Therefore, the vendor of
plaintiffs Sri. K.S.Dinesh conveyed title of suit schedule
sites to plaintiffs by executing registered sale deed dated
24.1.2013. The defendant is totally stranger to the suit
schedule properties. On 2.5.2013, at about 10.30 A.M. the
4 O.S.No.4538/2013
defendant along with his supporters came near suit
schedule properties and interfered with plaintiffs
construction work of compound wall in suit schedule
properties without any right, title and interest. The
plaintiffs have made all their efforts to resist the
interference of defendant. The plaintiffs filed complaint
before police against defendant but the police are not ready
to take any action against defendant. Hence this suit. The
plaintiffs have prayed to restrain the defendant, his agents
or any person claiming under him by permanent injunction
from obstructing construction of compound wall in suit
schedule property.
3. After service of summons, the defendant
appeared before court through his advocate and filed
written statement.
4. The facts pleaded by defendant in his written
statement in brief are as under;
Suit is not maintainable. The averments of the plaint
are all false. It is false to say that the plaintiffs are
5 O.S.No.4538/2013
absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of suit
schedule properties. Alleged interference is false. The suit
schedule properties were part and parcel of land bearing
No.4 totally measuring 10 acres 36 guntas situated at
Chikkabettahalli Village, Yalahanka Hobli, Bengaluru
North Taluk. This entire land was consisting of 9 acres 10
guntas hyne land and 1 acre 26 guntas kharab land. One
Krishnamurthy was absolute owner in possession and
enjoyment of Sy.No.4 measuring 10 acres 36 guntas
referred to above. The said Krishnamurthy sold two pieces
of land in Sy.No.4 each measuring 1.1 guntas through two
separate registered sale deed dated 24.9.1979 and
29.11.1979 in favour of one Sri.C.A. Balasubramanian.
Since then, C.A.Balasubramanian was absolute owner in
possession and enjoyment of those two pieces of lands
covered under sale deeds dated 24.09.1979 and
29.11.1979. But after death of said Krishnamurthy, his
son Raghavendra Rao started to interfere with possession
of land purchased by C.A. Balasubramanian. Hence, said
C.A. Balasubramanian filed suit in O.S.No.10793/1996
against Raghavendra Rao and obtained decree for
6 O.S.No.4538/2013
permanent injunction. Thereafter, said C.A.
Balasubramanian sold lands purchased by him from
Krishnamurthy in favour of present defendant on
12.7.2004 for valuable consideration through registered
sale deed dated 12.7.2004 after getting converted that
agricultural land into non-agricultural land. The
defendant purchased this land for the reason that on
Northern side of this land, the property belonging to father
of defendant is situating. The non-agricultural land
purchased by defendant under sale deed dated 12.7.2004
is measuring East to West on Northern side 69 feet 4
inches and on Southern side 45 feet 5 inches and from
North to South on Eastern side 39 feet 5 inches, on
Western side 43 feet 11 inches. This non-agricultural land
purchased by defendant was initially coming under
Doddabettahalli Gram Panchayath, but now it is coming
under limits of BBMP. The khata of the land purchased by
defendant under sale deed dated 12.7.2004 is 23/3/215 in
BBMP record and it is standing in the name of defendant.
The defendant put up compound wall to this land and has
grown several trees therein and also put up sump etc.,
7 O.S.No.4538/2013
The defendant is absolute owner in possession and
enjoyment of the non-agricultural land referred to above.
These being the facts, the vendors of the present plaintiff
and vendor's vendor of plaintiffs Sri.B.Srinivas and one
Raghavendra Rao S/o. Krishnamurthy started to interfere
with defendant's possession of non-agricultural land
purchased by him as referred to above. Hence, defendant
filed suit in O.S.No.25544/2011 before CCH-21 of City
Civil Court, Bengaluru. In that suit, B.Srinivas remained
ex-parte and Raghavendra Rao made statement before
court that he has nothing to do with property purchased by
present defendant under sale deed dated 12.7.2004. These
being facts, B.Srinivas, who is vendor's vendor of present
plaintiffs sold property covered under sale deed dated
12.7.2004 executed in favour of defendant, sold same to
K.S.Dinesh by mentioning different site numbers as 14 and
15 and by creating false records with different
measurements. In fact, said B.Srinivas had no right, title
and interest to sell property of defendant covered under
sale deed dated 12.7.2004. Therefore, vendor of plaintiffs
Sri. K.S.Dinesh did not acquire any right, title and interest
8 O.S.No.4538/2013
over suit site Nos.14 and 15 stated to have been purchased
by plaintiffs. Hence, plaintiffs have not acquired any right,
title and interest over suit schedule properties under sale
deed dated 24.1.2013 for the reason that as on date of
sale, the defendant was owner of those properties. In fact,
suit in O.S.No.136/2000 was collusive suit between
B.Srinivas, K.S.Dinesh and Raghavendra Rao filed with
intention to grab property purchased by defendant under
sale deed dated 12.7.2004. The plaintiffs are interfering
with defendant's possession of property based on false and
created documents. The defendant filed several complaints
before police against present plaintiffs and also against
their vendors. The plaintiffs obtained temporary
injunction against defendant on false facts. For these
reasons, the police did not help the defendant. There is no
cause of action for the suit. On these grounds, defendant
prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. On the basis of above pleadings, the following
issues were framed.
9 O.S.No.4538/2013
I SSU E S
1. Whether plaintiffs prove their lawful
possession over the suit schedule property
on the date of suit?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged
interference of the defendant over the suit
property, for their peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the same?
3. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief
sought for?
4. What order or decree?
6. To prove their case, plaintiff No.1 deposed
before this court as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 33.
The defendant deposed before court as DW.1 and got
marked Ex.D.1 to 65.
7. Both sides have filed written arguments and
also addressed oral arguments. Heard arguments of both
sides. Perused materials available on record.
8. For the reasons stated below, the above issues
are answered as under ;
10 O.S.No.4538/2013
Issue No.1: In Negative.
Issue No.2 : In Negative.
Issue No.3 : In Negative.
Issue No.4 : As per final order,
for the following;
R E A S ON S
9. Issue Nos.1 to 3: To avoid repetition in
discussion, these issues are taken up together for
consideration.
The plaintiffs have pleaded that the suit schedule
properties are residential sites. The plaintiffs have
purchased these properties through registered sale deed
dated 24.1.2013 from one K.S.Dinesh for valuable
consideration. The vendor of plaintiffs purchased these
properties from one B.Srinivas on 13.5.2005 through
registered sale deed. The plaintiffs have got transferred
khata of suit schedule properties and have been paying
taxes to BBMP regularly. The plaintiffs being absolute
owners of suit schedule properties are in possession and
enjoyment of same. It is specific case of plaintiffs that the
11 O.S.No.4538/2013
defendant has been interfering with plaintiffs possession
and enjoyment of suit schedule property without right, title
or interest. The defendant is trying to prevent the plaintiffs
from putting up of compound wall in suit schedule
property.
10. The defendant denied case of plaintiffs in toto.
The defendant denied title of plaintiffs over suit schedule
sites and also denied title of previous vendors of plaintiffs.
It is specific case of defendant that the vendor's vendor of
plaintiffs got created false sale deed by mentioning
different site numbers and different measurements with
intention to grab property of defendant and then sold same
to one K.S.Dinesh. It is the case of defendant that the sites
described in suit schedule are the properties owned and
possessed by defendant. The defendant purchased these
properties through sale deed dated 12.7.2004. In fact, the
suit schedule property was part and parcel of land bearing
Sy.No.4 of Chikkabettahalli Village totally measuring 10.36
acres. This land was originally belonged to one
Krishnamurthy. The said Krishnamurthy sold two pieces
12 O.S.No.4538/2013
of land each measuring 1.1 guntas out of 10 acres 36
guntas to one C.A. Balasubramanian through two separate
sale deeds dated 24.9.1979 and 29.11.1979. After this
sale transactions, the son of Krishnamurthy by name
Raghavendra Rao started to interfere with possession of
C.A. Balasubramanian of land covered under two sale
deeds referred to above. Hence, C.A. Balasubramanian
filed suit in O.S.No.10793/1996 and obtained injunction
against Raghavendra Rao and vendors of plaintiffs.
Thereafter, the defendant purchased same lands owned by
C.A. Balasubramanian under sale deed dated 12.4.2004.
The two pieces of lands measuring 1 acre 1 guntas each
shown in sale deed of defendant in square feet
measurements and given boundaries. The boundaries of
land purchased by defendant as described in his sale deed
dated 12.4.2004 and the boundaries of suit schedule
properties purchased by plaintiffs are one and the same.
The defendant is in possession of suit schedule property
and has grown several trees therein. The plaintiff and his
previous vendors had no right, title or interest over suit
13 O.S.No.4538/2013
schedule properties. Now, the plaintiffs have filed this
false suit at instigation of their vendors.
11. The arguments of learned advocate for the
plaintiffs are that the suit schedule properties and property
claimed by defendant are totally different. The property of
defendant is situating at Doddabettahalli Village, whereas,
the suit schedule properties are situating in
Chikkabettahalli Village. The defendant has no right over
suit schedule properties. The documents relied upon by
the defendant are no way related to the suit schedule
properties. The plaintiffs have proved by oral and
documentary evidence about their possession over suit
schedule properties. It is further argued by relying upon
the documents produced by the plaintiffs that alleged
interference is also proved. Hence, plaintiffs are entitled
for relief claimed.
12. On the other hand, learned advocate for
defendant argued that, herein this case, the identification
of property claimed by the plaintiffs are disputed by the
defendant. In fact, both properties are one and the same
14 O.S.No.4538/2013
with different BBMP khata numbers. It is well settled law
that when the identification of property is in dispute, then
the identification of such property can be established by
the boundaries of the properties. The boundary of suit
schedule property pleaded by plaintiffs in plaint and the
boundary of property of defendant pleaded by defendant
and shown in his sale deed are one and the same. The
plaintiff No.1 has admitted this fact in his evidence. Apart
from this, the boundaries of suit schedule property shown
in the title deed of plaintiffs and title deed of his vendors
match with the boundaries of property of defendant
pleaded in written statement. The plaintiffs have claimed
property owned and possessed by defendant. This fact is
established by oral and documentary evidence. The
defendant has proved that the plaintiffs are claiming
property belonging to defendant. The property of
defendant was initially coming under Chikkabettahalli
Village Grama Panchayath. Thereafter, it had come under
Doddabettahalli Village Grama Panchayath and now it is
under BBMP. The defendant disputed title of plaintiff over
suit schedule properties and successfully raised cloud over
15 O.S.No.4538/2013
title of plaintiffs. Hence, suit for injunction simplicitor is
not maintainable. The plaintiffs require to file
comprehensive suit for declaration to establish their title
over suit schedule properties. Hence, plaintiffs are not
entitled for any relief claimed. The suit is liable to be
dismissed. The learned advocate for defendant relied upon
following decisions;
1. AIR 2008 S.C. 2033 Anathula Sudhakar
vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by L.Rs. And ors.
2. Judgment rendered in Civil Appeal
No.8241/2009 in case of Jharkhand State
Housing Board vs. Didar Singh and Anr.
(Hon'ble Supreme Court of India)
13. This court has carefully perused pleadings of
both parties, appreciated evidence placed on record and
considered the arguments addressed by both learned
advocates.
This suit is filed for permanent injunction. In this
case, the plaintiffs require to establish their possession
over suit schedule properties as on date of suit and also
16 O.S.No.4538/2013
have to prove alleged interference by the defendant. It is
an admitted fact that the suit schedule properties were
originally part and parcel of agricultural land bearing
Sy.No.4 of Chikkabettahalli Village owned and possessed
by one Sri. Krishnamurthy. It is also an admitted fact that
said Krishnamurthy alienated pieces of lands to several
persons when it was agricultural land in Sy.No.4. It is
further admitted that after the death of Krishnamurthy,
several disputes arose in respect of land alienated by
Krishnamurthy and in those litigations, the son of
Krishnamurthy by name Raghavendra Rao and subsequent
purchasers were parties. These are admitted facts. In the
light of these admitted facts, the facts and circumstances
of this case are to be appreciated.
14. The plaintiffs have pleaded the description of
suit schedule property in plaint schedule as residential
sites bearing No.14 and 15 presently BBMP property
identity No.4/14-15, 'B' Khata No.1195/2013-14,
Corporation Ward No.3, carved out of land bearing Sy.No.4
measuring from East to West on Northern side 58 feet, on
17 O.S.No.4538/2013
Southern side 43 feet and from North to South towards
Eastern side 40 feet, on Western side 43 feet in total
2095.75 sq. ft. situated at Chikkabettahalli Village,
Yalahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, bounded on East
by Site belonging to Keshav Murthy, West by Road, North
by private property and South by road. The defendant
claims that the suit schedule property is the property
purchased by him under sale deed dated 12.7.2004 much
prior to the vendor of plaintiff purchased it. The title deed
of defendant Ex.D.6 discloses the description of property
covered under sale deed dated 12.7.2004 as two sites
converted into one unit and measuring in terms of sq. ft.
from East to West on Northern side 69 feet 4 inches, on
Southern side 45 feet 5 inches, from North to South on
Eastern side 39.5 inches and Western side 43.11 inches of
Doddabettahalli Village Panchayath, bounded on East by
remaining portion of C.A. Balasubramanian owned by Sri.
N.Krishnamurthy, West 30 feet road, North to South
No.214 of father of defendant, South 30 feet road. The
defendant has pleaded that now the property referred to
above is coming under BBMP and Khata Number is 23/3,
18 O.S.No.4538/2013
215 Chikkabettahalli Village Village, Vidyaranyapura,
Bengaluru. The defendant pleaded that the vendor of
plaintiff and his vendor created false sale deeds at
instigation of Raghavendra Rao S/o. Krishnamurthy by
mentioning different site numbers and measurements. It
is the specific case of defendant that the boundaries of suit
schedule property and property purchased by defendant
under sale deed dated 12.7.2004 are one and the same.
longing to
15. Careful perusal of oral evidence of PW.1 shows
that PW.1 in his cross-examination admitted that at the
Northern side of suit schedule property, the property of
defendant is situating. This admission support the case of
defendant that the defendant purchased suit schedule
property from one C.A. Balasubramanian for the reason
that suit schedule properties are situating on Southern
side of property owned and possessed by father of
defendant. Careful perusal of boundaries given by
plaintiffs show that on Northern side of suit schedule
property there is private property. But in sale deed, it is
19 O.S.No.4538/2013
mentioned that private property is existing on North of suit
schedule properties. But it is not mentioned that the
private property shown in sale deed of plaintiffs belonging
to whom ? Even during cross-examination, PW.1 initially
pleaded ignorance by deposing that he does not know the
private property referred to in the plaint schedule and in
his title deed belongs to whom ?. But, finally, PW.1
admitted that the said private property is belonging to
defendant. This conduct of plaintiff shows that the
plaintiffs willfully suppressed the fact of existence of
property of defendant on Northern side of suit schedule
property. Further, the fact that the Northern boundary is
shown in title deed of plaintiff in a vague manner itself
supports case of defendant that the vendor of plaintiffs
executed sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of
property of defendant by mentioning different site numbers
and different measurements. Careful perusal of Ex.D.6
and plaint averments make it clear that the property under
dispute are one and the same.
20 O.S.No.4538/2013
16. In this case, the plaintiffs have not produced
layout map of land in which site number 14 and 15 of
plaintiffs are situating. The defendant has specifically
pleaded that the plaintiffs are claiming title over property
owned by defendant. Therefore, it is the duty of plaintiffs to
produce layout map and prove that the property of
defendant is totally different. PW.1 has admitted in the
cross-examination that he has not produced layout map.
Hence, adverse inference has to be drawn against plaintiff
for withholding material evidence.
17. The plaintiffs have pleaded that suit schedule
properties are residential sites. During cross-examination,
PW.1 admitted that in the year 2013, when he tried to get
electricity connection to the shed situating in suit schedule
property, the defendant objected and stopped BESCOM
from providing electricity connection to suit schedule
property in the name of plaintiffs. But, in this case, the
plaintiffs have not pleaded about the existence of shed or
dispute arose in respect of electricity connection etc., for
the reasons best known to plaintiffs. This circumstance
21 O.S.No.4538/2013
leads to inference that plaintiffs are trying to suppress
material facts relating to suit schedule properties.
18. From above, it is clear that the plaintiffs have
failed to establish their possession over suit schedule
properties. Apart from these circumstance, it is further
opined that in this case, the plaintiffs require to establish
their title over suit schedule property to prove their
possession for the reason that the suit schedule properties
are vacant sites. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in
Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (dead by his L.Rs & Ors)
case, reported in 2008 SC. 2033 that,
"In cases where dejure possession has to be
established on the basis of title to the property, as in
the case of vacant sites, the issue of title may
directly and substantially arise for consideration, as
without finding thereon, it will not be possible to
decide issue on possession."
Here in this case also, as per plaintiffs case, the suit
schedule properties are vacant residential sites. Therefore,
the principle that possession follows title is applicable to
the case of plaintiffs. Hence, to establish their possession
22 O.S.No.4538/2013
over suit schedule property, the plaintiffs require to prove
title over suit schedule property.
19. In this case, the defendant has successfully
established that the property described in suit schedule
and the property owned by him are one and the same.
From this, it is clear that the title of plaintiffs over suit
schedule property is in dispute. The defendant has
asserted his title over suit schedule property and produced
his title deed which was executed much prior to the
execution of sale deed of plaintiffs. For this reason, it is
opined that the title of plaintiffs over suit schedule
property is under cloud.
20. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in
decision of Anatula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy,
referred to above that, where the title of plaintiff is in
dispute or under a cloud or where defendant asserts his
title thereto and there is threat to the possession of
plaintiff from defendant, then, the plaintiff will have to file
suit for declaration of their title and for consequential relief
of injunction.
23 O.S.No.4538/2013
21. The principles referred to above are applicable
to case on hand. The plaintiffs claim that they are in
possession of suit schedule properties by virtue of sale
deed dated 24.1.2013. But the defendant disputed title of
plaintiffs and asserted his title over suit schedule property
by virtue of sale deed dated 12.7.2004 executed much prior
to the sale deed of plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs require
to establish their title in a comprehensive suit for
declaration of title. For these reasons, this suit filed for
bare injunction is not maintainable.
22. Under similar circumstance, Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India has held in Civil Appeal No.8241/2009
Jharkhand State Housing Board vs. Didar Singh and
Anr. Case at para 11 as under;
"It is well settled by catena of Judgments of this
Court that in each and every case where the defendant
disputes the title of the plaintiff it is not necessary
that in all those cases plaintiff has to seek the relief of
declaration. A suit for mere injunction does not lie
only when the defendant raises a genuine dispute with
regard to title and when he raises a cloud over the
title of the plaintiff, then necessarily in those
24 O.S.No.4538/2013
circumstances, plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for
bare injunction.
Here in this case, the defendant raised a genuine dispute
with regard to the title of plaintiffs and title of his previous
vendors, thereby raised cloud on the title of plaintiffs.
Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot maintain suit for bare
injunction against defendant.
23. The defendant has pleaded and proved by
producing oral and documentary evidence and also from
eliciting admission from the mouth of PW.1 that after death
of Krishnamurthy, original owner of Sy.No.4 of
Chikkabettahalli Village, several disputes have arisen
among subsequent purchasers and son of Krishnamurthy.
This being the fact, the present dispute between plaintiffs
and defendant with regard to suit schedule property is also
title dispute. For these reasons, it is opined that the
plaintiffs have failed to establish interference alleged by
them. On the other hand, the defendant established that it
is a title dispute which requires to be decided by competent
court in a comprehensive suit filed for declaration of title.
25 O.S.No.4538/2013
Therefore, it is opined that the plaintiff has failed to prove
his possession over suit schedule property and also failed
to prove alleged interference. Further, the suit filed for
bare injunction is also not maintainable against defendant.
For these reasons, it is opined that the plaintiffs are not
entitled for reliefs claimed. Hence Issue No.1 to 3 are
answered in Negative.
24. Issue No.4: For the reasons stated above, I
pass following;
ORDER
Suit is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerised by her, the same is corrected and then pronounced in the open court on this the 29th day of March, 2021).
(Smt. Sudha Seturam Onkar) XLIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
26 O.S.No.4538/2013ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF/S:
PW.1 : Naveen N.
2. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT/S DW.1 : Govind M. Prabhu.
3. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR OF PLAINTIFF/S. Ex.P.1 : Original sale deed Ex.P.2 : Encumbrance Certificate. Ex.P.3 : Form 'B' Property Register Extract Ex.P.4 - 8 : Tax Paid Receipts. Ex.P.9 : Certified copy of sale deed. Ex.P.10 : Certified copy of sale deed Ex.P.11-21 : Electricity demand bills and receipts. Ex.P.22,23 : Tax Paid Receipts. Ex.P.24 : Encumbrance Certificate. Ex.P.25 : Receipt for having paid fees for obtaining khata from BBMP.
Ex.P.26 : C/c. Of plaint, written statement, order sheet, judgment and decree in O.S.136/2000.
Ex.P.26(a) : C/c. Of depositions of PW.1, PW.2, DW.1, DW.2 in O.S.No.136/2000.
Ex.P.27 : C/c. Of Index f Land.
Ex.P.28 : Five c/c. Of RTCs.
Ex.P.29 : C/c. Of Death Certificate.
Ex.P.30 : C/c. Of sale deed.
Ex.P.31 : C/c. Of survey sketch.
Ex.P.32 : C/c. Of seven RTCs.
Ex.P.33 : C/c. Of order sheet, petition, applications
in R.A.No.116/2009.
4. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT/S. Ex.D.1 : Photograph.
Ex.D.2 : Photograph.
Ex.D.3 :Copy of BESCOM Letter.
Ex.D.4 : Copy of Indemnity Bond
27 O.S.No.4538/2013
Ex.D.5 : Letter addressed by defendant to BESCOM
Ex.D.6 : Original sale deed dated 12/7/2004
Ex.D.7 : Sale deed dated 29/11/1979
Ex.D.8 : Sale deed dated 24/9/1979
Ex.D.9 : Certified copy of encumbrance certificates
from 1974 to 1987
Ex.D.10 : Certified copy of encumbrance certificate
1989 to 2004
Ex.D.11 : Certified copy of encumbrance certificate
from 1987 to 1988
Ex.D.12 : Certified copy of encumbrance certificate
from 6/1/1987 to 31/5/1989
Ex.D.13 : Certified copy of encumbrance certificate
from 1/6/1989 to 28/6/1996
Ex.D.14 : Certified copy of encumbrance certificate
from 1/4/2004 to 20/3/2009
Ex.D.15 : Certified copy of encumbrance certificate
from 1/4/2004 to 3/8/2012
Ex.D.16 : Certified copy of encumbrance certificate
from 1/3/2009 to 21/7/2013
Ex.D.17 : Certified copy of encumbrance certificate
1/2/2013 to 28/10/2014
Ex.D18 : Certified copy of encumbrance certificate
from 1/10/2014 to 289/2016
Ex.D.19 to D.32 : 14 tax paid receipts Ex.D.33 & D.34 : Certified copies of two extract of tax demand register Ex.D.35 : Certified copy of record of rights Ex.D.36 : Certified copy of extract of register of lands Ex.D.37 : Certified copy of mutation register extract Ex.D.38 : Certified copy of judgment in O.S.No.25544/2011 28 O.S.No.4538/2013 Ex.D.39 : Certified copy of the judgment O.S.No.10793/1996 Ex.D.40 : Certified copy of decree in O.S.No.10793/1996 Ex.D.41 : Office copy of police complaint Ex.D.42 : Office copy of police complaint dated 21/3/2011 Ex.D.43 : Office copy of police complaint dated 24/2/2016 Ex.D.44 : Office copy of police complaint dated 29/6/2013 Ex.D.45 : Endorsement issued by the 29/6/2013 Ex.D.46 & D.47 : Office copy of police complaint dated 12/7/2013 with acknowledgement Ex.D.48 : Office copy of police complaint dated 19/8/2013 Ex.D.49 : Police endorsement dated 31/8/2013 Ex.D.50 : Office copy of police complaint dated 18/9/2014 Ex.D.51 : Office copy of police complaint dated 30/3/2017 Ex.D.52 : Endorsement dated 2/4/2011 Ex.D.53 : Copy of complaint given to BESCOM Ex.D.54 : Copy of complaint given to BESCOM dated 19/8/2013 Ex.D.55 : Copy of complaint given to BESCOM dated 7/9/2013 Ex.D.56 : Receipt for payment of water charges Ex.D.57 to D.65 : 8 photographs with C.D. XLIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
*pst/-