Karnataka High Court
Mr. Syed Khadar @ Syed Khader vs Mr. Syed Mehmood on 27 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:48583
RFA No. 941 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 941 OF 2019 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
MR. SYED KHADAR @ SYED KHADER,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SYED IBRAHIM,
R/AT DOOR NO. 109,
3RD MAIN, 5TH CROSS,
VIDYARANYA NAGAR,
MAGADI ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 023.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SURAJ SAMPATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. SYED MEHMOOD,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O. LATE. SYED IBRAHIM,
R/AT DOOR NO. 109,
3RD MAIN, 5TH CROSS,
VIDYARANYA NAGAR,
Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI
MAGADI ROAD,
BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA
Location: HIGH COURT OF BANGALORE - 560 023.
KARNATAKA
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.19-2-18/B/87,
AMJEDH DAULA BAGH,
KALA PATHAR,
HYDERABAD-500 002.
2. MRS. FATHIMA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
W/O. SANAULLA,
R/AT DOOR NO. 109,
3RD MAIN, 5TH CROSS,
VIDYARANYA NAGAR,
MAGADI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 023.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:48583
RFA No. 941 of 2019
3. MR. SYED MOMIN,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SYED IBRAHIM,
R/AT NO.2337, 11TH CROSS,
2ND MAIN, VINOBHA NAGAR,
BEHIND K.G. HALLI POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE - 560 045.
4. MRS. AFZAL UNNISSA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
W/O. SHEIK ALI MAZARI,
R/AT NO.19-3-294/A/8/12,
FATHIMA NAGAR, VATTA PALLI,
HYDERABAD,
ANDHRA PRADESH- 500 002.
5. MRS. WAHEEDA BEE,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
W/O. AIZAZ AHMED,
R/AT DOOR NO. 109,
3RD MAIN, 5TH CROSS,
VIDYARANYA NAGAR,
MAGADI ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 023,
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.361/13,
30TH CROSS,
NEAR SWAGATH THEATRE,
OPPOSITE MARAMMA TEMPLE,
JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 004.
6. MRS. ANWARI BEGUM,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
W/O. ASLAM BEIG,
R/AT DOOR NO. 109,
3RD MAIN, 5TH CROSS,
VIDYARANYA NAGAR,
MAGADI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 023.
7. MRS. AMEENA BEE,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
W/O. SHEIK ABDUL RAHIM,
R/AT DOOR NO. 109,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:48583
RFA No. 941 of 2019
3RD MAIN, 5TH CROSS,
VIDYARANYA NAGAR,
MAGADI ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 023
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.2388,
1ST MAIN ROAD,
9TH CROSS, R.P.C. LAYOUT,
BESIDE MAMTA NURSING HOME,
VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE-560 040.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAVI G.N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. M.S. HARINATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2,
SRI. N.VENKATA REDDY, ADVOATE FOR R3 AND R5 TO R7,
R4-SERVED)
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96
READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE [1] OF THE CPC.,1908 AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 21.12.2018 PASSED IN OS
NO.5208/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE XXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT
FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CAV JUDGMENT
The defendant No.2 in O.S.No.5208/2011, on the file of learned XXX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City, (CCH-31), (for short `trial Court'), has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.12.2018 passed in the said suit.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:48583 RFA No. 941 of 2019
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranks before the trial Court.
3. It was the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiffs and defendants are children of late Syed Ibrahim and Smt.Mahboob Bee. The suit schedule property was allotted to Syed Ibrahim by City Improvement Trust Board (for short, `CITB'), presently Bengaluru Development Authority (for short, `BDA'), on 26.05.1964 and thereafter, he had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property along with his wife and children. Syed Ibrahim died intestate on 30.04.1985 leaving behind his wife, three sons and five daughters. Smt.Mahboob Bee also died intestate on 07.03.2007. The parties are governed by Mohammedan Law. After the death of parents, plaintiffs and defendants continued in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as tenants-in-common. During the life time of their father, he put up further construction on the existing building in the suit schedule property to accommodate all his sons and daughters to continue in possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs sought for partition and separate possession of -5- NC: 2024:KHC:48583 RFA No. 941 of 2019 their share in the suit property, however, defendant No.2 did not agree for the same and hence, they filed the suit for partition.
4. Except defendant No.2, other defendants more or less supported the case of the plaintiffs and they also sought for partition and separate possession of their respective share in the suit property.
5. The contention of defendant No.2 was that the suit schedule property was the absolute property of Syed Ibrahim. Defendant No.2 has not disputed the relationship between the parties. According to his contentions, Syed Ibrahim gifted the suit property in his favour on 24.07.1984 and handed over possession of suit property to him and executed Ex.D-13. By virtue of the said Gift, he became the absolute owner and in possession of the suit property. He had spent lot of money for reconstruction of the building in the suit property. He had given financial assistance to all the members of the family i.e., parties to the present suit and also spent his own earning for performing their marriages. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC:48583 RFA No. 941 of 2019 Considering all these financial assistance given by defendant No.2, his father gifted the suit property in his favour. Plaintiffs and defendants are not tenants-in-common to suit property. They have no right over the suit property and prayed to dismiss the suit.
6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the trial Court framed necessary issues.
7. The plaintiffs to prove their case examined PW-1 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-8. Defendant No.2 to prove his case, examined himself as DW-1 and one witness as DW-2 and got marked Exs.D-1 to D-68. Other defendants have not led evidence.
8. The learned trial Judge after hearing both parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue Nos.2 and 3 in the negative and issue No.4 partly in the affirmative and granted the relief sought for by the plaintiffs. The trial Court held that execution of Gift Deed was not proved. Both the -7- NC: 2024:KHC:48583 RFA No. 941 of 2019 parties to the suit are entitled for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit property.
During pendency of the appeal, the appellant has filed I.A.No.2/2019 under Order LXI Rule 27 of CPC seeking production of additional evidence.
9. I have heard the arguments on appeal and IA.No.2/2019 and perused the materials on record.
10. There is no dispute regarding genealogy of the family. Suit property was belonging to Syed Ibrahim is also not in dispute. Renovation of the house is also not in dispute. During the course of trial, it is not seriously disputed that plaintiffs and some of defendants are in possession of portion of suit property. The main dispute is pertaining to gift of the property by Syed Ibrahim to defendant No.2. Therefore, the only the question to be considered by this Court is :
(i) Whether the learned trial Judge erred in holding that defendant No.2 failed to prove the Gift (Hiba) of the suit property in his favour by his father Syed Ibrahim on 24.07.1984 ?-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:48583 RFA No. 941 of 2019
(ii) Whether the additional evidence produced by the appellant is necessary to pass effective judgment and defendant No.2 shows that with all due diligence, he could not produce said documents?
My answer on the above questions are in the negative for the following reasons:
11. Admittedly the parties are governed by Mohammedan Law. To answer the disputed questions, it is necessary to refer to relevant provisions of Mohammedan Law regarding gift:
Section 147 : Writing is not essential to the validity of a gift either of movable or of immovable property.
Section 148 : It is essential to the validity of a gift that the donor should divest himself completely of all ownership and dominion over the subject of the gift.
Section 149 : It is essential to the validity of a gift that there should be (1) a declaration of gift by the donor, (2) an acceptance of the gift, -9- NC: 2024:KHC:48583 RFA No. 941 of 2019 express or implied, by or on behalf of the donee, and (3) delivery of possession of the subject of the gift by the donor to the donee as mentioned in sec.
150. If these conditions are complied with, the gift is complete.
Section 150 : (1) It is essential to the validity of a gift that there should be a delivery of such possession as the subject of the gift is susceptible of. As observed by the Judicial Committee, "the taking of possession of the subject-matter of the gift by the donee, either actually or constructively," is necessary to complete a gift.
(2) Registration.- Registration of a deed of gift does not cure the want of delivery of possession.
(3) If it is proved by oral evidence that a gift was completed as required by law, it is immaterial that the donor had also executed a deed of gift, but the deed has not been registered as required by the Registration Act.
(4) A declaration in a deed of gift that possession has been given binds the heirs of the donor. But such a declaration is not conclusive
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48583 RFA No. 941 of 2019 and a recital in a deed of gift that possession has been given to a minor nephew (without the intervention of a father or guardian) was on the facts held to be insufficient to support a gift as against the heirs of the donor.
12. In the case of Mahboob Sahab -vs- Syed Ismail and others,1 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, " Under Section 147 of the Principles of Mohammedan law by Mulla, 19th Edn., edited by Chief Justice M. Hidayatullah, envisages that writing is not essential to the validity of a gift either of moveable or of immovable property. Section 148 requires that it is essential to the validity of a gift that the donor should divest himself completely of all ownership and dominion over the subject of the gift. Under Section 149, three essentials to the validity of the gift should be, (i) a declaration of gift by the donor, (ii) acceptance of the gift, express or implied, by or on behalf of the donee, and (iii) delivery of possession of the subject of the gift by the donor to the donee as mentioned in Section 150. If these conditions are complied with, the gift is complete. Section 1 (1995) 3 SCC 693
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48583 RFA No. 941 of 2019 150 specifically mentions that for a valid gift there should be delivery of possession of the subject of the gift and taking of possession of the gift by the donee, actually or constructively. Then only the gift is complete. Section 152 envisages that where the donor is in possession, a gift of immovable property of which the donor is in actual possession is not complete unless the donor physically departs from the premises with all his goods and chattels, and the donee formally enters into possession. It would, thus, be clear that though gift by a Mohammedan is not required to be in writing and consequently need not be registered under the Registration Act; for a gift to be complete, there should be a declaration of the gift by the donor; acceptance of the gift, expressed or implied, by or on behalf of the donee, and delivery of possession of the property, the subject-matter of the gift by the donor to the donee. The donee should take delivery of the possession of that property either actually or constructively. On proof of these essential conditions, the gift becomes complete and valid. In case of immovable property in the possession of the donor, he should completely divest himself physically of the subject of the gift...."
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48583 RFA No. 941 of 2019
13. In view of the provisions of Mohammedan Law and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court referred above, to establish his right, defendant No.2 shall prove the following :
(i) a declaration of gift by the donor,
(ii) acceptance of the gift, either by express or implied, by or on behalf of the donee, and
(iii) delivery of the possession of subject of the gift by the donor to the donee.
If these conditions are fulfilled, then it will be a valid Gift.
14. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that under the Mohammedan Law, registration of the gift is not compulsory. In this regard, he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hafeeza Bibi and others
-vs- Shaikh Farid (Dead) by LRs. and others.2 In the above said case, considering the provisions of Section 123 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908 and provisions of Mohammedan Law, Hon'ble Apex Court held that registration of Gift Deed 2 LAWS (SC) 2011-5-26 = 2011 (5) SCC 654
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48583 RFA No. 941 of 2019 executed by a mohammedan is not compulsory. The law laid down in this case is not relevant since the learned trial Judge did not reject the contention of defendant No.2 on the ground that Gift Deed was not registered. Therefore, it is not of much importance to the facts of the present case.
15. Now the main question to be considered by this Court is whether the deceased Syed Ibrahim declared his intention to gift the property in favour of his second son Syed Khader i.e., defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 accepted the gift; Syed Ibrahim delivered actual and physical possession of the property in his favour. The defendant No.2 in his written statement contended that he provided financial assistance to members of his family i.e., plaintiffs and defendants. It appears that defendant No.2 did not give much importance to the ingredients of Section 149 of Mohammedan Law. Most of the pleadings as well as his evidence are pertaining to his financial assistance to plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 3 to 6. They are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the facts in issue. Plaint averments
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48583 RFA No. 941 of 2019 do not disclose about gift and no relief was sought in that regard. It is silent about the same.
16. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 to 6 denied gift of property in favour of defendant No.2 by their father. They denied knowledge of gift to them. They also contended that they have been in joint possession of the suit property along with defendant No.2. The alleged gift was created by defendant No.2 to deny their right over the suit property.
17. In para No.10 of written statement of defendant No.2, he has contended that looking to his service to the family, deceased Syed Ibrahim expressed his intention to gift the suit schedule property to him and executed the Gift Deed i.e., Hiba on 24.07.1984 in his name and he was put in possession of suit property and thereafter he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He alone has been paying taxes to the BBMP.
18. PW-1 in his evidence stated that suit schedule property was belonging to his father and he died intestate. Parties to the suit are his sons and daughters. All of them
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48583 RFA No. 941 of 2019 are entitled for share in the suit property. In his cross- examination, he denied that he and his brothers and sisters had knowledge about the gift. He also denied that he wrote the letter dated 07.05.1996 to defendant No.2. He also denied the suggestion that for the service rendered by defendant No.2 to his brothers and sisters, his father gifted the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2.
19. It is pertinent to note that essential requirements of gift referred above were not even suggested to PW-1 by defendant No.2. PW-1 in his cross-examination, stated that they all are in possession of different portions of the suit property as of right; and they have been sharing Corporation taxes, water and electricity charges. He also stated that they are paying the same to defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 on their behalf, paying the same to concerned departments. Defendant No.2 did not get any admission regarding gift of the property by his father in his favour. Therefore, evidence of PW-1 do not help the contention of defendant No.2.
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48583 RFA No. 941 of 2019
20. Defendant No.2 in his examination-in-chief elaborated his financial help to his brothers and sisters. He has not stated about essential requirement of gift. Neither in the pleadings nor in his evidence, he stated that he accepted the gift and came in exclusive possession of the property.
21. DW-1 in his cross-examination by plaintiffs has admitted that plaintiffs and some of defendants are in possession of two portions in the suit property. He has not taken any legal action to secure the possessions of suit property. DW-1 in his further cross-examination stated that the said house has only one electricity meter, all the persons who are residing in the portion of the suit property have been sharing the electricity charges.
22. Thus, defendant No.2 during the evidence has categorically admitted that he is not in exclusive possession of the suit property after gift of property in his favour. His father died during 1985. Thereafter till filing of suit, he has not taken possession of suit property from his brothers and sisters. Even after death of his mother during 2007 also, he
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48583 RFA No. 941 of 2019 did not try to take possession of suit property by virtue of gift. The defendant No.2 has not exercised his right over suit property by virtue of gift. Till this day, he has not filed such suit claiming right over suit property. As defendant, he is defending this suit and to deny rights of plaintiffs or other defendants for partition of the property. These facts lead to an inference that neither Syed Ibrahim intended to gift the property in favour of defendant No.2 nor defendant No.2 accepted it.
23. There is no consistency in the pleading and evidence regarding execution of Gift Deed. In the cross-examination of DW-1, he has stated that gift was written on white paper and it was typed. He does not know as to where it was typed. At the time of execution of the Gift Deed, his father, his mother, himself and witnesses were present. It shows that, at the time of drafting of the said Gift Deed, he was not present. But DW-2 has stated that Gift Deed was written on stamp paper. He does not know where it was typed. He does not remember when he was called to sign on the said document. He does not know who had
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48583 RFA No. 941 of 2019 instructed the scribe to write or type the said document or type the said document. The evidence of DW-2 shows that he knows nothing about execution of the same except signing on the said document. Even he does not say that defendant No.2 accepted the gift and he signed on the said Gift Deed. If defendant No.2 had signed in his presence, then nothing prevented him to say the said fact before the Court. It creates doubt about execution of Ex.D-13.
24. It is not in dispute that the suit property was allotted to father of defendant No.2 Syed Ibrahim during the year 1964 by then CITB and presently BDA. Till his death, BDA did not execute Sale Deed in his favour. Till his death, he never requested the BDA to execute the Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.2 informing that he had gifted said property in favour of defendant No.2. Even defendant No.2 did not request BDA to execute Sale Deed in his favour since his father - who was the allottee, gifted the property to him. In the cross-examination, DW-1 stated that Syed Ibrahim was healthy till his death. He retired as a Head Constable in the Police Department. He was not a rustic
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48583 RFA No. 941 of 2019 villager. Prior to execution of Ex.D-13, he requested the CITB to execute the Sale Deed in his favour since he had been residing in the said property along with members of his family. If really it was his intention to gift the said property in favour of defendant No.2, in all the probability, he should have intimated the same to CITB or BDA. Defendant No.2 in the cross-examination admits that from the date of execution of the Gift Deed in 1984, till filing of the suit, he did not send any letter to BDA to execute Sale Deed in his favour. He did not secure possession of suit property from plaintiffs and other defendants. All these facts create serious doubt about gift or that it was not acted upon by both donor and donee.
25. The property tax paid receipts and property extracts are produced at Exs.D-32 to D-67. These documents stands in the name of Syed Ibrahim. Syed Ibrahim did not inform the BBMP, i.e., the Corporation to mutate property records in the name of defendant No.2 on the basis of gift. The present suit was filed 25 years after the death of Syed Ibrahim. Till today, defendant No.2 did
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48583 RFA No. 941 of 2019 not try to mutate the revenue records in his name by virtue of the gift made by his father.
Above facts leads to an inference that either Syed Ibrahim did not intend to gift the property in favour of defendant No.2 or it was not acted upon. Defendant No.2 failed to establish and prove the requirement of Hiba/gift under Mohammedan Law as stated in Sections 148 and 149 of Mohammedan Law. Hence, defendant No.2 miserably failed to prove Hiba.
The learned trial Judge discussed elaborately in this regard in the impugned judgment and came to a right conclusion. There is no need to interfere in the said findings.
26. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon following judgments:
(1) Minor Shankar -vs- Muruganandam3 (2) S.V.S.Muhammad Yusuf Rowther and another
-vs- Muhammad Yusuf Rowther and others4 3 LAWS (MAD)-2018-1-262 4 LAWS (MAD)-1957-9-27
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48583 RFA No. 941 of 2019 (3) Smt.chamanbi W/o Babusab Halageri and others -vs- Batulabi W/o Hasansab Halageri and others,5 (4) Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel and others -vs- Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai,6 (5) P.Mamatha -vs- P.Ramasubbamma,7 (6) Jagdish Prasad Patel (Dead) Through LRs. and another -vs- Shivnath and others,8 (7) Abdul Sattar Ostagar and another -vs- Abu Bakkar Ostagar,9 (8) Fatmabibi W/D Abdulkarim Haji Kadarbhai - vs- Abdulrehman Abdulkarim (Dead) by LRs.,10 (9) Asokan -vs- Lakshmikutty,11 The first two judgments refers to registration of Gift Deed. It is pertinent to note that no such defence was taken by defendants, as well as plaintiffs in this case and the learned trial Judge has not rejected the contention of defendant No.2 on the ground that Ex.D-13 was not 5 LAWS (KAR)-2018-3-78 6 LAWS (SC)-2019-9-82 = 2020 (16) SCC 255 7 LAWS (KAR)-2021-7-153 8 LAWS (SC)-2019-4-40 = 2019 (6) SCC 82 9 LAWS (CAL)-1976-9-3 10 LAWS (GJH)-2000-4-100 11 LAWS (SC)-2007-12-47
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48583 RFA No. 941 of 2019 registered. Therefore, the law laid down in the above two judgments will not help in any way to the case of the appellant.
27. The remaining judgments referred above by the learned counsel for the appellant are pertaining to proof of gift and its essential requirements. Facts of the case are elaborately discussed above and held that appellant miserably failed to prove the essential requirements of gift and hence, the law laid down in the above said judgments do not help the contention of defendant No.2/appellant.
28. The learned counsel for appellant relying on the judgments as stated above, submits that immediate delivery of possession is not required in certain facts and circumstances of the case and in the present case, since donor was father of defendant no.2, he was aged, therefore, at the time of execution of Gift Deed, if he had not given absolute possession of the property, it will not affect the rights of defendant no.2 to claim his rights over the property by virtue of gift.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48583 RFA No. 941 of 2019
29. I have gone through the above said judgments. The facts of the above said judgments are different from the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case, as discussed in the above paragraphs, donor died in the year 1985. Till filing of suit by the plaintiffs the gift did not see the light of the day. No steps were taken to take possession of the suit property, though it is admitted that his brothers are also in possession of portion of the property. Defendant No.2 is defending this suit on the basis of gift and he has not filed suit seeking possession till this day. In addition to that gift was not proved and it was not acted upon by both donor and donee for last about 25 to 26 years from the date of gift. Hence law laid down in the above said judgments is not applicable, to facts of present case.
30. The learned trial Judge properly appreciated the evidence. On re-appreciation of evidence by this Court, it is not possible to find that the reasons assigned by the trial Judge are incorrect, arbitrary, perverse or erroneous to
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48583 RFA No. 941 of 2019 interfere in the said findings. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merits and needs to be dismissed.
31. The appellant has filed an application IA.No.2/2019 under Order LXI Rule 27 of CPC and has produced several documents. The said documents includes a letter written by defendant No.2/appellant to BDA to execute the Sale Deed in his favour and the said representation was made for the first time during the year 2007. All other documents are pertaining to the correspondences between defendant No.2 and BDA, so also, tax paid receipts and payment of electricity charges.
The said documents do not contain a letter written to CITB or BDA immediately after execution of Ex.D-13 requesting to execute the Sale Deed in his name by virtue of Ex.D-13. These documents, will not help him in any way to improve his case or assist the Court to arrive at just conclusion. In the cross-examination, he categorically admitted that all the members, who are residing in the suit schedule property are sharing the electricity charges, as well
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48583 RFA No. 941 of 2019 as property taxes. When such fact is admitted, even production of tax paid receipts or water charges payment receipts would not help in any way to his case. In addition to that, there are no sufficient materials on record to show that with all due diligence, he could not produce these documents during the course of the trial. Except certain electricity charges and property tax paid receipts, most of the documents were available with defendant No.2 and there is no justifiable reasons not to produce the said documents before the trial Court. On both grounds, the application deserves to be rejected.
32. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following :
ORDER The Appeal is dismissed with costs.
The judgment and decree dated 21.12.2018, passed by the learned XXX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, in O.S.No.5208/2011, is confirmed.
The application filed by the appellant -IA.No.2/2019 under Order LXI Rule 27 of CPC is rejected.
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:48583 RFA No. 941 of 2019 The registry is directed to send back the records along with copy of this judgment to the concerned Court without delay.
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3