Bangalore District Court
Murugan S/O Jayachandran vs Smt.Gowramma W/O Dorai Raj on 19 October, 2016
1 O.S.No:4477/2007
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (C.C.H.No.25).
Dated: This the 19th day of October 2016
st
Present: Sri.Ron Vasudev, B.Com. LL.B, (Spl),
III Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No:4477/2007
Plaintiff Murugan S/o Jayachandran, Aged about
25 years, R/at No.23, 1st Cross,
Bashyamnagar, Sriramapuram, Bangalore-
560 021.
(By Sri.SP, Advocate)
V/S
Defendant Smt.Gowramma W/o Dorai Raj, Aged
about 60 years, R/at No.23, 1st Cross,
Bashyamnagar, Sriramapuram, Bangalore-
560 021.
(By Sri.SM, Advocate)
Date of Institution : 7.4.2007
Nature of Suit : For declaration and for recovery
of possession
Date of Commencement of : 4.11.2010
evidence
Date of pronouncement of : 19.10.2016
Judgment
Total Duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
9 6 12
(Ron Vasudev),
III Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
2 O.S.No:4477/2007
JUDGEMENT
This is a suit for declaration and for recovery of possession.
2. The suit schedule property is eastern portion of property bearing No:23, 1st Cross, Bashyam Nagar, Sriramapuram, Bangalore measuring East-West 10 feet, North-South 24 feet and bounded by;
East - Property of Palinkanth West - Remaining portion of the said property North - Road South - Conservancy
3. The summary of the plaint averments is that; property bearing no:23, 1st Cross, Bashyam Nagar, Sriramapuram, Bangalore, in all measuring East-West 20 feet and North-South 24 feet was sold by Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BMP) under registered sale deed dt.24.5.1965 to Smt.Pachamma W/o Perumal for consideration and she was put in possession of the same. Accordingly she became the absolute owner of the said property and was enjoying the same till she executed a registered Gift Deed in favour of the plaintiff on 20.6.2005. The plaintiff is none other than the grandson of said Pachamma through her son Jayachandra. The defendant is the daughter of said Pachamma, as such she permitted her to occupy the eastern portion of the said 3 O.S.No:4477/2007 entire property viz; the suit property, thus the defendant is the permissive possessee of the suit property. Later since relationship between Smt.Pachamma and defendant strained, Smt.Pachamma requested the defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule property, but it was not heeded. On execution of the Gift Deed the plaintiff got changed the katha in his name and he is paying property taxes to the BMP and he is residing in the western portion of the said entire property along with Smt.Pachamma. Since the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the entire property bearing No:23, he requested the defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule property and as it was not responded, a legal notice was issued to her on 2.3.2007 calling upon her to vacate the schedule property. It was duly served on the defendant on 3.3.2007, inspite of it she has not bothered to comply it, wherefore the plaintiff prays for judgment and decree to declare that he is the absolute owner of the schedule property and to direct the defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule property.
4. The defendant appeared through her advocate and filed written statement denying all the plaint averments as false, frivolous and vexatious except that she is the daughter of said Pachamma and the plaintiff is the grandson. She denied that the schedule property was sold by BMP to her mother under registered sale deed and she is in possession of the schedule property as a permissive possessee. In turn, 4 O.S.No:4477/2007 she alleged that she is in possession of the said property as an absolute possessor even before the sale deed was executed in favour of Smt.Pachamma viz; her mother. She specifically alleged that her mother had initiated eviction proceedings against her husband Dorai Raj by filing HRC.No:1607/1996 stating that the said Dorai Raj is the tenant, but after trial the said petition came to be dismissed and against which when her mother filed HRRP on the file of Hon'ble High Court it was also came to be dismissed. The plaintiff has intentionally suppressed this material fact, wherefore he is not entitled for any relief. She has denied the execution of registered Gift Deed in favour of plaintiff as her mother was mentally unsound to execute any document or to understand the contents of such document. She further contended that since she is in possession of the schedule property adverse to the right, title and interest of her mother-Smt.Pachamma for more than four decades and neither her said mother nor anybody else tried to exercise their right or title over the said property for all these years, she has perfected her title to the said property, so plaintiff cannot assert any better title than her mother. It is true that the plaintiff is residing with her mother in the western portion of property no.23, but her mother had no right or interest to gift the suit property in favour of plaintiff. It is true that the plaintiff had issued legal notice, but it is befittingly replied. Without prejudice to the above she contends that, initially the property no.23 was leased to her 5 O.S.No:4477/2007 father-Perumal by BMP and he continued to reside in the western portion and permitted her to reside in the eastern portion from the year 1963, but when Corporation Authorities decided to confer title in favour of the lessee, the sale deed was came to be executed in the name of her mother so her said mother did not have clear title to the entire property more particularly to the suit property so as to gift the same to plaintiff. That the houses in the labour colony, presently known as Bashyam Nagar were uniformally constructed by the Corporation Authorities and on retirement of her husband-Dorai Raj, they have demolished the entire property which was in her occupation and constructed a RCC structure with RCC roofing and is residing there. Since her mother or anybody else tried to assert their right over the suit schedule property, either at the time of said construction or thereafter, she has perfected her title to the suit property. That there is no cause of action for the suit and the alleged one is false and invented. The court fee paid on the paint is insufficient and all other allegations, which are not specifically traversed herein above are denied as false, wherefore she prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
5. Based on the said pleadings my predecessor in office has framed following issues:
ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiff proves that Smt.Pachahma exercised right of title over the suit schedule property, as alleged?6 O.S.No:4477/2007
2. Whether plaintiff proves that Smt.Pachamma had executed gift deed dtd.20.6.2005 in favour of him (the plaintiff) as alleged?
3. Whether plaintiff proves that he is the owner of the plaint schedule property, as alleged?
4. Whether defendant proves that she continues to be in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, as alleged?
5. Whether valuation made and court fees paid by the plaintiff is proper and correct?
6. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
7. What order or decree?
6. In support of his case plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and one of the attestor to the registered Gift Deed viz; V.Narendra Kumar as PW2, in all nine documents are marked on his behalf. On the other hand the defendant examined her son as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1 to D11. Heard the arguments of Sri.AMS, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri.KM, Advocate for the defendant. Perused.
7 O.S.No:4477/20077. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 - In the affirmative Issue No.2 - In the affirmative Issue No.3 - In the affirmative Issue No.4 - In the negative Issue No.5 - In the affirmative Issue No.6 - In the affirmative Issue No.7 - As per final order for the following;
REASONS Issue No.1 to 4:
8. Since findings on one issue will substantially decide the other issue, to avoid probable overlapping of discussion, I have taken all these issues simultaneously.
9. On going through the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties it is undisputed that BMP i.e. Bangalore Mahanagara Palike executed sale deed in favour of Smt.Pachamma on 24.5.1965 and conferred title to her in respect of property no.23 measuring East-West 20 feet, North-South 24 feet of Bashyam Nagar, Bangalore. The plaintiff has produced the said original sale deed and got marked the same as Ex.P6. However there is no material on record to show that earlier the said property was leased to Mr.Perumal, husband of Smt.Pachamma, and later the sale deed was came to be executed in favour of Pachamma. Atleast the defendant has not produced document in support of her said contention. In Ex.P6 also there is no reference to 8 O.S.No:4477/2007 the execution of earlier lease deed in favour of Perumal, wherefore the contention of the defendant that the said entire property was leased to her father-Perumal even before it was sold to her mother Pachamma is liable to be rejected. The execution of sale deed in favour of Pachamma as per Ex.P6 and effecting of katha in her name having gone unchallenged all these days either by defendant or by anybody else, it is too late for the defendant to contend that she was in possession of the schedule property, which is only an eastern portion of the entire property, even before the sale deed was executed in favour of her mother. The documents produced by the defendant viz; letter of State Bank of India dt.28.12.1967 (Ex.D5), final settlement of service benefits of Dorai Raj by the army through letter dt.13.2.1968 (Ex.D6), letter dt.29.2.1968 (Ex.D7), letter dt.30.9.1972 (Ex.D8) and presentation of medals to Dorai Raj through letters dt.5.6.1973 (Ex.D9), dt.11.1.1974 (Ex.D10) and I.D. card issued by the army on 12.12.1975 (Ex.D11) only show that the defendant and her husband were residing in the schedule property from the year 1967 and subsequent to it, but not earlier to 1965, the year in which the said entire property was sold to Smt.Pachamma. So once again I hold that the said property no.23 measuring East-West 20 feet and North-South 24 feet was exclusively belonging to Smt.Pachamma. This finding is essential to decide the rest of the disputed issues.
9 O.S.No:4477/200710. During the cross-examination of plaintiff it is elicited that Smt.Pachamma and Perumal are having three daughters and one son viz; (1) Gowramma (defendant), (2) Rukmini, (3) Shakuntala and (4) Jayachandra (plaintiff's father). It is interesting that except the defendant, who appears to be the eldest daughter of said Smt.Pachamma, no other daughter is interested in the entire property nor this defendant examined them on her behalf to prove the alleged prolonged ill-health of her mother or her mental illness. It is true that as contended by the defendant even before this litigation the said Smt.Pachamma had filed HRC.1607/1996 against her son-in-law-Dorai Raj in respect of the very schedule property alleging that he is her tenant on rent of Rs.500/- per month and she failed to get any favourable order, that will not have any bearing in the case in hand. The defendant has produced the certified copy of the petition of said HRC proceedings at Ex.D3 and the certified copy of the order sheet in HRRP at Ex.D4, but one thing remains that though she took interest in producing the Ex.D3 and D4, similar interest is not taken by her in producing the objection statement of her husband filed in that case or the certified copy of the order passed in that case, including the order passed in HRRP, for the reasons best known to her. According to me the objection statement of Dorai Raj filed in HRC proceedings could have assisted the court in analyzing the so-called defence of defendant. Mere dismissal of HRC proceedings or the HRRP by the Hon'ble High Court did not 10 O.S.No:4477/2007 dilute the proprietory right of Pachamma over the entire property. Her failure to prove the jural relationship will not boost the alleged right of the defendant in suit property in any manner, when it is admittedly she is the daughter of Pachamma and was residing in a portion of entire property. With a definite intention I am making this observation.
11. It may be noted that as per the defendant since she is in possession of the schedule property for more than four decades she has perfected her title to the same, therefore her mother could not have executed the registered Gift Deed in favour of plaintiff. From the said contention what can be gathered is that indirectly she is trying to assert her right and interest over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession, no-doubt she has not used the very precise terms in her written statement, the index of I.As shows that after commencement of the trial this defendant filed I.A.No.4 U/O 6 Rule 17 of CPC to permit her to carry out amendment to the written statement with an additional plea in para-3 that she perfected her right adverse to the interest of Smt.Pachamma from 24.5.1965. The said application was seriously contested by plaintiff and after hearing both side my predecessor in office by his order dt.29.6.2012 dismissed the same. There is no material on record to show that the defendant questioned the said findings in the Hon'ble High Court, as such the said findings have attained the finality, therefore the attempt of the defendant to set up the plea of adverse possession against 11 O.S.No:4477/2007 Smt.Pachamma, who is not a party to the suit came to stand still. More over when this defendant is the daughter of Smt.Pachamma if at all she asserts her title by way of adverse possession, she has to admit the title of her mother. Unless that is done, she cannot set up her adverse interest against a true owner. The dual mind of the defendant is reflected in her own pleading. At one stage she submitted that even before the sale of entire property to her mother she was in possession of the eastern portion right from the days of her father and in the very next breath she submitted that she has perfected title to the schedule property through undisturbed continuous possession. Here I must clarify that mere long possession of an immovable property of a mother by her daughter will not ripen to possessory right. In this regard I may lay my hands on some of the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at 2007 SAR (Civil) 403 in the case of P.T.Munichikkanna Reddy and Ors Vs Revamma and Ors, 2007 SAR (Civil) 937 in the case of Annakili Vs A.Vedanayagam and Ors., and AIR 2009 SC 103 in the case of Hemaji Waghaji Jat Vs Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan & Ors. In all these cases repeatedly the Hon'ble Court held that mere long possession of an immoveable property by a person do not lead to an inference that, such person perfects his title adverse to the interest of real owner. Especially the observation made by the Hon'ble Court in the case of Hemaji Waghaji Jat's case is very much relevant to the case in hand, 12 O.S.No:4477/2007 hence for the sake of convenience I would extract the relevant portion as under:
"Limitation Act (36 of 1963), Arts, 64, 65-Adverse Possession-Requisites of- Urgent suitable changes in law of adverse possession recommended.
A plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show; (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession.
The law of adverse possession which ousts an owner on the basis of inaction within limitation is irrational, illogical and wholly disproportionate. The law as it exists is extremely harsh for the true owner and a windfall for a dishonest person who had illegally taken possession of the property of the true 13 O.S.No:4477/2007 owner. The law ought not to benefit a person who clandestine manner takes possession of the property of the owner in contravention of law. There is, therefore, an urgent need of fresh look regarding the law on adverse possession. The Union of India is recommended to seriously consider and make suitable changes in the law of adverse possession."
Thus as held in the said decision the plea of adverse possession being an inequitable plea, while recognizing such defence courts have to exercise lot of care. Moreover in the case in hand there is no specific pleading by the defendant when exactly she came into possession of the schedule property and in what capacity. It is difficult to imagine that she being the daughter and her husband being son-in-law of the said Pachamma, could not have come into possession of schedule property as trespassers and could not have enjoyed it adverse to her interest. Wherefore her defence to the said extent is liable to be rejected.
12. Apart from that the defendant who has come up with a substantial defence has not stepped into the witness box to face the test of cross-examination, instead she sent her son/DW1 by authorizing him by way of power of attorney and thereby intentionally and wantonly avoided the cross- examination. According to me she was the best witness to speak on the facts and circumstances of the case, when she 14 O.S.No:4477/2007 asserted right over the suit property in her own way. In this context I may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidhyadhara Vs Manik Rao reported at AIR 1999 SC 1441. In the said case referring to Sec.114 of Evidence Act, Hon'ble Court held that a party to a suit, who intentionally avoids the test of cross-examination shall invite the drawing of adverse inference against him. The Special Power of Attorney executed by defendant in favour of DW1 produced at Ex.D2 recites that, due to her age related ailments she is executing the said SPA in favour of her son, but no document as such was produced to support the said claim. As per the said Ex.D2 as on the date of it's execution she was aged 68 years. One cannot believe that a person who suffer ailments in such age when the medical field has advanced considerably. According to me the examination of the defendant was very essential in view of exhibiting of the very complaint filed by her on 21.7.2012 in Srirampura Police Station against the plaintiff for causing nuisance to her and copy of the said complaint was marked as Ex.P9 during the cross-examination of DW1. In the said complaint repeatedly the defendant stated that she is residing in the address shown therein viz; the suit property address, from the year 1980. She did not complain that she is in possession of the said property earlier to 1965 or for more than four decades as contended in the written statement. The said document seriously raises doubt about the genunity of Ex.D5 to D11. Apart from that in that complaint the defendant admitted 15 O.S.No:4477/2007 that the suit property, wherein she resides, belongs to her mother. Her these written admissions during the pendency of suit dilutes her defence substantially.
13. Merely on the reason that the plaintiff did not disclose the disposal of HRC proceedings, court cannot throw his case over board. It has to see the implications of non- disclosure of the said fact and whether it amounts to suppression of material fact. In my assessment non- disclosure of the HRC proceedings has nothing to do with the case in hand wherein the plaintiff seeks declaration of his title based on the Gift Deed executed by his grandmother and he also seeks the recovery of possession as consequential relief. So the litigation between his predecessor in title and husband of the defendant for limited relief of recovery of possession on the basis of jural relationship of landlord and tenant has no significant bearing in the case in hand. More so when Smt.Pachamma failed to prove the said jural relationship between herself and Dorairaj and suffered for the same.
14. It was contended by Sri.KM, Advocate that when as per Pachamma, her son-in-law (Dorai Raj) was in possession of the schedule property, filing of this suit against the defendant, who is the wife of said Dorai Raj, is itself enough to show that plaintiff has tried to mislead the court by without adding the real person in possession and it was his submission that Dorai Raj is also necessary party to the 16 O.S.No:4477/2007 suit. In this context first of all I do not see such plea in the written statement, even otherwise as can be seen from Ex.P9 the defendant being the daughter of Pachamma she claims that she is in possession of the schedule property and her possession is unlawfully interfered by plaintiff. In a given situation Dorai Raj being remotely related to Pachamma as compared to defendant, the possession of defendant attains significance. Perhaps may be for the said reason Pachamma failed to get an order of eviction in HRC proceedings. At any rate as I said earlier since the defendant failed to produce the defence version that was taken in the said HRC proceedings and the judgement passed in that case, I am unable to make any further observation on the same, so in my opinion instead of drawing adverse inference against plaintiff for non-impleading of Dorai Raj, it is against the defendant the said inference has to be drawn for withholding the required evidence.
15. The very fact that Pachamma took legal action in 1996 by filing HRC proceedings against her son-in-law show that possession of the defendant and her husband was not quite and comfortable rather it was litigious possession denying her say that she is enjoying the schedule property continuously for more than four decades without any obstruction or objection by her mother Pachamma or by anybody else.
17 O.S.No:4477/200716. In the cross-examination of plaintiff and PW2 by referring to the sequence of events that allegedly culminated in the execution of the registered gift deed produced at Ex.P1 Sri.KM, Advocate contended that there is no consensus in the evidence of said witnesses and misusing the ill-health and mental condition of Pachamma, the Ex.P1 was brought into existence by plaintiff, so he prayed to reject the Ex.P1 on the ground that it is a fraudulent one. In this regard having carefully and keenly read the cross-examination of PW1 and PW2 and the arguments of Sri.KM, Advocate regarding the obvious discrepancies in the evidence of said two persons, what I find is that may be in ignorance of the distinction between a registered "Gift Deed" and the "will", the defendant went on cross-examining PW1 and PW2 as if plaintiff is expected to prove the registered Gift Deed in a strict sense like a will. One can understand the strict proof of will as it divests the heirs on the death of it's executent and when he will not be available either to admit or to deny it's execution, no-doubt a Gift Deed also does the same thing, the sharp distinction between the said two documents is that registered Gift Deed comes into effect immediately after it's execution whereas will come into effect on the death of it's executent. To understand the requirement of a valid gift one has to refer to Sec.122 and 123 of The Transfer of Property Act. As per Sec.122 of the Act which defines the term 'gift' the necessary ingredients are the voluntary transfer of property rights whether moveable or immoveable by doner 18 O.S.No:4477/2007 to the donee, secondly passing of consideration and thirdly acceptance of the gift by the donee. If these three conditions are met, it is enough to constitute valid gift. Sec.123 of the Act, explains how that transfer of property rights takes effect. It specifies that in respect of gift of an immovable property the transfer must be effected by way of a registered document, either signed by the doner or on his behalf and attested by atleast two witnesses. So in order to transfer the property rights of an immoveable property by way of gift the doner has to execute a registered Gift Deed irrespective of it's value and such Gift Deed must be signed by him or on his behalf with two attesting witnesses and it has to be accepted by the donee. Admittedly Ex.P1 is a registered Gift Deed, executed by Smt.Pachamma and it is attested by PW2 and another witness and it is accepted and acted upon PW1.
17. It is significant to note that delivery of possession is not an essential requirement to constitute valid gift under the provisions of T.P. Act unlike in the case of gift (HIBA) that prevails amongst Mahomedan community. As per Article-149 of Mulla's Mahomedan Law, to constitute valid HIBA the essential requirements are, firstly declaration of gift by the doner, secondly an acceptance of the same either by donee or on his behalf and thirdly delivery of possession of subject matter of the gift. This latter requirement is conspicuously absent in respect of gift of immovable property under the provisions of T.P. Act. Therefore even if 19 O.S.No:4477/2007 the contents of Ex.P1 recites that the entire property was delivered to the plaintiff by Pachamma as admittedly the defendant and her family was residing in the schedule property negativing the delivery of eastern portion, as admittedly the plaintiff was in possession of western portion, the delivery of constructive possession of schedule property was enough to constitute valid execution of gift.
18. The one more crucial point is that this suit was filed on 7.4.2007. In the cross-examination of PW1 and DW1 it is demonstrated that Smt.Pachamma died on 14.2.2010 or 15.2.2010. In para-8 of his cross-exam at third line PW1 stated that she died on 14.2.2010, but in his cross-exam on Page No.9 at about eight line from below the DW1 admitted that she died on 15.2.2010. To resolve this ambiguity they have not produced her death certificate, but whatever may be the date, it is undisputed that she died in February 2010 i.e. almost three years after filing of this suit. So if Ex.P1 was got executed by plaintiff by playing fraud or misleading her, nothing prevented this defendant to demonstrate the same during the life time of her mother. Case file shows that the defendant filed her written statement on 8.10.2007 indicating that pleadings were completed as on that day and issues were framed by my predecessor on 12.1.2009, thus there was no enough opportunity for the defendant to get summon her mother to show any kind of malpractices that was committed by plaintiff in taking that Gift Deed. So any 20 O.S.No:4477/2007 amount of evidence and effort of defendant to disprove the Ex.P1 ends in futile.
19. The fact that before executing that Gift Deed Pachamma had executed a registered will bequeathing the suit property in favour of this very plaintiff on 16.10.1986 as per Ex.P7 and she got cancelled the same through another registered document dt.20.6.2005 as per Ex.P8 are enough proof of the valid execution of Ex.P1. Therefore the discrepancy in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 will not come to the help of defendant. Once again I say that pursuant to Ex.P1 katha was changed in the name of plaintiff as per Ex.P2 and he is paying taxes to the entire property. In his cross-examination DW1 admitted that the defendant never paid taxes to the schedule property nor she enjoys exclusive power and water connection to the schedule property in her name. The one more important fact is that even after admitted service of legal notice, which is produced at Ex.P4 with postal acknowledgement Ex.P5 the defendant did not bother to reply it. The said legal notice barely reflect the plaint allegations. If at all the defendant had any pinch of right in the suit property she could have replied it suitably. In para-7 of her written statement though she contended that she has befittingly replied that notice, no such piece of document is produced by the defendant.
20. If the defendant or her husband Dorai Raj has made any investment in reconstructing or restructuring the 21 O.S.No:4477/2007 schedule property, they might have done so at their risk. A person in possession having no valid title if he improves that property, later he cannot seek equity for the wrong done by him. Hence for the foregoing discussion viewed from any angle I find no merit in the contention of defendant. On the other hand the plaintiff has proved his title to the schedule property, which is part of entire property bearing no.23. Accordingly I answer issue no.1 to 3 in the affirmative and issue no.4 in the negative.
Issue No.5:
21. In Para-11 of her written statement the defendant took a contention that court fee paid on the plaint is not in consonance with the reliefs prayed and said payment is highly inadequate. But when issues were framed touching to this aspect, she made no effort to cross-examine the PW1 in relation to it. Even then I have gone through the valuation slip filed herein. It shows that by valuing the reliefs U/Sec.24(a) of the KCF & SV Act, the plaintiff has paid court fee on the market value of suit property. When there is no defence evidence, court has to accept the said assessment. Hence I answer this issue in the affirmative.
Issue No.6:
22. The findings on issue no.1 to 3 having gone in favour of plaintiff and findings on issue no.4 having gone against defendant, it is only a formality to say that the 22 O.S.No:4477/2007 plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration of his title to the suit schedule property and the consequential relief of recovery of possession, irrespective of the development made by the defendant therein. As I said earlier on the ground of equity also the defendant is not entitled for any kind of compensation for the development she has made there. Hence I answer this issue also in the affirmative.
Issue No.7:
23. In the result, I proceed to make the following:
ORDER Suit is decreed with costs.
It is declared that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Consequently the defendant is directed to quit, vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the schedule property within three months from the date of this judgement.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgement Writer, transcription computerized, then corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 19th day of October 2016) (Ron Vasudev), III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.23 O.S.No:4477/2007
List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff side:
PW1 Murugan PW2 V.Nandhakumar
List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff side:
Ex.P1 Original Gift Deed Ex.P2 Khatha certificate Ex.P3 Tax paid receipt Ex.P4 Copy of legal notice Ex.P5 Postal acknowledgement Ex.P6 Sale deed dt.24.5.65 Ex.P7 Will dt.16.10.86 Ex.P8 Cancellation deed dt.20.6.05 Ex.P9 Copy of the complaint dt.1.7.2010
List of witness examined for the defendant side:
DW1 D.Damodar List of documents exhibited for the defendant side:
Ex.D1 Photograph Ex.D2 Special Power of Attorney Ex.D3 Certified copy of the HRC Petition No.1607/96 Ex.D4 Certified copy of the HRRP No:864/98 order copy Ex.D5 Certified copy of the SBI letter
Ex.D6 & D7 Certified copy of the final settlement Ex.D8 to 10 Communications Ex.D11 Identity Card (Ron Vasudev), III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.