Bangalore District Court
M/S Value Designbuild Pvt Ltd vs Mrs.Tara Susheel Cleatus on 18 November, 2015
IN THE COURT OF XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (C.C.H.16)
Present: Sri. Ravindra Hegde,
M.A., LL.M.
XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge.
Dated this 18th Day of November 2015
O.S.No. 4514/2010
Plaintiff : M/s Value Designbuild Pvt Ltd.,
A Private Limited Company,
Having office at No.311, 6th Main,
HAL IIstage, Indiranagar,
Bangalore-560 038.
Represented by its Managing
Director,
Sri.KOSHY VRGHESE,
S/o Abraham Varghese,
Aged about 47 years.
[By Sri. B.R.Krishna-Advocate.]
-Vs-
Defendant : Mrs.Tara Susheel Cleatus,
W/o Dr.Susheel Cleatus,
Aged about 45 years,
No.B-001,Wellington Park,
Wellington Street,
Richmond Town,
Bangalore-560 025.
(By Sri. M.Arun Ponappa-Advocate)
Date of institution of the suit 02.07.2010
Nature of the suit Money Suit
2 O.S.No.4514/2010
Date of commencement of 30.07.2013
recording the evidence
Date on which the judgment 18.11.2015
was pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
05 04 16
(Ravindra Hegde),
XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge.
**********
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,59,473/- [Rupees One Lakh Fifty Nine Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Three only] from the defendant along with future interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of suit till realization of the entire amount and for costs.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case is that, plaintiff was a tenant under the defendant in respect of the premises bearing No.203, II Floor, Parvathi Plaza, Richmond Road, Bengaluru, as described in the schedule as per the lease deed dated 1.12.2008 on monthly rent of Rs.29,282/-. The plaintiff had paid Rs.2,00,000/- as refundable security deposit. The tenancy was for a period of 11 months extendable for a maximum period of 22 months subject to increase in the rent @ 3 O.S.No.4514/2010 10% at the end of 11 months. In March 2009, the plaintiff indicated their intention of vacating the schedule premises and the defendant had informed that she has a prospective tenant and advised to vacate the schedule premises in the month of April, 2009. As per the request of the defendant, the plaintiff vacated the schedule premises and the defendant promised to refund the security deposit after deducting the arrears of rent and to hand over the physical vacant possession. The representative of the defendant has received the keys of the schedule premises on 5.5.2009 and before that on 14.4.2009, she had even taken the first set of keys of the premises. The plaintiff has vacated the premises without even collecting refundable security deposit amount by believing the assurance of the defendant. The defendant has not returned the security deposit amount and started dodging the matter by assigning the reason that the maintenance amount has not been paid by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has settled the entire dues. In the statement of accounts, the plaintiff has clearly mentioned about the adjustment of Rs.66,550/- towards the arrears of rent and requested for settlement and repayment of the balance amount of Rs.1,33,450/-. Since the defendant has not refunded this 4 O.S.No.4514/2010 amount, the plaintiff has sought for refund of the amount together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 5.5.2009. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant on 25.2.2010. The defendant has given untenable reply on 16.3.2010 alleging some unimaginable expenses towards the repair, painting, settlement of maintenance expenses etc. The alleged claims made by the defendant are imaginary and are done with a view to have illegal gain. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs.1,33,450/- with interest from 5.5.2009 which comes to Rs.1,59,473/- in total along with interest from the date of suit.
3. The defendant in the written statement has stated that the suit is not maintainable. The defendant has admitted that the plaintiff was tenant and he has vacated the premises at the end of April, 2009 and has handed over the keys of the schedule premises to the representative of the defendant and the plaintiff had furnished the statement of account along with copies of the receipt regarding payment of electricity bills and other dues. But, it is stated that the accounts are prepared to suit his convenience and not indicating the actual factual situation. The defendant has stated that she is not liable to pay 5 O.S.No.4514/2010 Rs.1,33,450/- as claimed by the plaintiff. The defendant has stated that the plaintiff has taken the suit premises on rent with effect from 1.12.2008 for a period of 11 months. But the plaintiff has decided to vacate the premises during March 2009 and the defendant brought to the notice of the plaintiff that as per the terms of the lease, the defendant is required to give 3 months notice and as 3 months notice is not given, the plaintiff is required to pay 3 months rent along with maintenance and other charges. The plaintiff was already in arrears of rent from December 2008. It is stated that the representative of the defendant was authorized to deal with the transaction and the plaintiff was asked to give vacant possession along with clearance receipt of all the utility services and bills from the building owner's association. It is stated that when the plaintiff was in occupation of the premises, he had kept the maintenance in arrears which was demanded by the building owner's association. Subsequent to the plaintiff vacating the premises, the association demanded the arrears of maintenance from the defendant and the defendant kept reminding the plaintiff to clear the maintenance arrears and settle the account. But the plaintiff did not comply. It is stated that the 6 O.S.No.4514/2010 defendant was pressurized by the association to pay arrears of maintenance and the defendant has negotiated with the building owner's association and paid Rs.55,000/- as against the demand of Rs.73,903/- on behalf of the plaintiff. It is stated that thereafter the plaintiff issued notice and the defendant has given rejoinder and has clearly stated that after deducting Rs.66,550/- towards arrears of rent, Rs.10,000/- towards repair of the damage to the property and Rs.55,000/- towards maintenance charges, which in total comes to Rs.1,33,550/-, the defendant is ready and willing to pay Rs.66,450/- towards the balance out of Rs.2,00,000/-. On these grounds, the suit is prayed to be dismissed with costs.
4. On these pleadings, my learned predecessor has framed the following issues:-
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,59,473/- after deducting the arrears of rent and other charges in the total security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant is liable to pay future interest on the balance amount of Rs.1,59,473/- at the rate of 18% per annum from the ate of suit till its entire realization?7 O.S.No.4514/2010
3) Whether the defendant proves that plaintiff is liable to pay arrears of maintenance amount of Rs.55,000/- and arrears of rent of Rs.66,550/- and also Rs.10,000/-
towards repair charges and further prove that defendant is liable to pay only a sum of Rs.66,450/- to the plaintiff out of total security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- ?
4) What decree or order?
5. In support of the plaintiff's case, PW.1 is examined. Ex.P1 to P14 are marked. For the defendant, DW.1 is examined. Ex.D1 to D6 are marked.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. My answer to the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.2: Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.3: Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.4: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Issue No.1 to 3:- All these issues are taken together for discussion to avoid repetition.
9. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff had occupied the suit premises belonging to the defendant on 8 O.S.No.4514/2010 monthly rent of Rs.29,282/- and it had vacated the said premises in April 2009. According to the plaintiff, Rs.2,00,000/- was with the defendant as security deposit and there was arrears of rent of Rs.66,550/- and the defendant had agreed to return the security deposit after deducting the arrears of rent of Rs.66,550/-. But in spite of notice, the defendant had not returned the same. For the balance deposit amount of Rs.1,33,450/-, the plaintiff has calculated the interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 5.5.2009 and has claimed recovery of Rs.1,59,473/- with interest. The defendant has admitted the occupation of the premises by the plaintiff and also refundable security deposit with him and has also admitted the total rent in arrears of Rs.66,550/- and the defendant has contended that she has deducted Rs.10,000/- towards repair of the damage to the property while in occupation of the plaintiff and painting of the premises and Rs.55,000/- towards maintenance charges to the building owner's association which has been paid by the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant has claimed that totally Rs.1,31,550/- is payable by the plaintiff and after deducting that amount out of security deposit of 9 O.S.No.4514/2010 Rs.2,00,000/-, the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.68,450/- and the defendant is ready to pay this amount.
10. On looking to the contentions of the plaintiff and the defendant, the occupation of the suit premises by the plaintiff, vacating the same from April, 2009 by the plaintiff and security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- with the defendant which is to be refunded are admitted facts. It is also admitted fact that Rs.66,550/- is the arrears of rent which is required to be deducted out of refundable security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-. The plaintiff is claiming balance of Rs.1,33,450/- with interest and the defendant is contending that there is another Rs.65,000/- which is deducted out of security deposit amount and in total only Rs.68,450/- is payable to the plaintiff. Therefore, whether the plaintiff is entitled for Rs.1,33,450/- or Rs.68,450/- is the point that is to be decided in this case. Similarly, whether the defendant is justified in deducting Rs.10,000/- towards repair of the damage to the property and Rs.55,000/- as payment towards maintenance charges to the building owner's association, is also point to be decided. 10 O.S.No.4514/2010
11. The authorized representative of the plaintiff has given evidence as PW.1. He has stated the case of the plaintiff in chief evidence. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he is working in the plaintiff company from 2010 and has stated that he was not part of the plaintiff company when the suit property was taken on rent and he do not have personal knowledge. He has admitted the rate of rent and also admitted that as per the lease agreement, the plaintiff company was supposed to pay the monthly maintenance charges. He has stated that he do not know what was monthly maintenance charges. He has also admitted that as per this agreement, if the plaintiff wants to vacate the premises, he has to give 3 months notice to the defendant. He has admitted that in the month of March, 2009, the plaintiff intimated the defendant that it would vacate the schedule premises in the month of March 2009. He has stated that he do not know that the association has demanded the maintenance amount from the defendant and the total claim was Rs.73,903/- and the defendant has paid Rs.55,000/- to the said association towards maintenance charges kept due by the plaintiff. He has stated that he is not aware of Rs.10,000/- was deducted towards colour washing and 11 O.S.No.4514/2010 cleaning and Rs.55,000/- has been spent for payment of maintenance charges and only Rs.68,450/- is required to be paid. The plaintiff has produced the authorization letter given to PW.1 as Ex.P1. The copy of the notice given to the defendant, postal receipt, postal acknowledgement, reply notice and postal cover are all produced as Ex.P2 to P6. E-mail sent by the defendant to the plaintiff asking the plaintiff to pay rent only till the end of April 2009 is produced as Ex.P7. Handing over of the first set of keys with a letter is produced as Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 is the statement of accounts, in which the plaintiff has stated that total amount refundable by the defendant is Rs.1,33,450/-. The ledger account of the plaintiff with regard to the defendant is produced as Ex.P10 and copy of the complaint given to the police and the endorsement are marked as Ex.P11 and P12. Letter sent by the defendant to the plaintiff on 12.12.2011 is marked as Ex.P13 by confronting to DW.1 and a Xerox copy of bill given by Parvathi Plaza is produced as Ex.P14 through DW.1.
12. For the defendant, special power of attorney has been examined as DW.1 and has stated the contentions of the defendant and has stated that by deducting the arrears of rent 12 O.S.No.4514/2010 and maintenance charges of Rs.55,000/- and painting and repair charges of Rs.10,000/-, the balance amount is payable by the defendant and the defendant is ready to pay the said amount. In the cross-examination, the witness has denied the contrary suggestions. He has admitted that the plaintiff had intimated that they will vacate the premises during March 2009 and denied that she had requested the plaintiff to vacate the premises in the month of April, 2009. He has admitted that Madhusudhan Jayaram was authorized to collect the maintenance charges of the apartment from the flat occupants and has stated that he is not aware that the plaintiff had vacated another two flats in March, 2009 in the same apartment. He has stated that he has produced the receipt for payment of maintenance charges. He has denied that Ex.D5 is a created document. He has admitted that the cheques given by the plaintiff were credited to the account of the defendant in Catholic Syrian Bank. He has denied that the plaintiff had paid the entire maintenance charges earlier. He has admitted the writing of letter as per Ex.P13 and has also identified the copy of the invoice No.3014 issued by Parvathi Plaza as per Ex.P14. The defendant has produced the special power of attorney as 13 O.S.No.4514/2010 Ex.D1. The bills given by Parvathi Plaza claiming common maintenance expenses for the month of April, May and June 2009, are produced as Ex.D2 to D4. Letter acknowledging the receipt of Rs.55,000/- through cheque given by Madhusudhan Jayaram for Parvathi Plaza is produced as Ex.D5. Bill for repairing and repainting of the premises is produced as Ex.D6.
13. On looking to the pleadings, evidence and the documents produced, the only dispute between the parties is with regard to payment of maintenance charges amounting to Rs.55,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards repairing and painting. The defendant has produced the bill for repairing and painting as Ex.D6. This is for Rs.35,200/-. According to the defendant, though he has spent Rs.35,200/- for repairing the building and repainting the interior walls, he has claimed only Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff. The parties have not produced any agreement stating that the lessee is liable to pay repairing and painting charges after vacating the premises. Admittedly, the plaintiff has vacated the premise during April 2009 and on 14.4.2009 itself, the plaintiff had given first set of keys which is received by the representative of the defendant as per Ex.P8. Thereafter, second set of keys is handed over on 5.5.2009. Therefore, the 14 O.S.No.4514/2010 plaintiff has vacated the premises in April 2009. The mail sent by the defendant to the plaintiff is produced as Ex.P7, in which it is stated that the defendant has a prospective tenant and the plaintiff need to pay the rent only till the end of April 2009 and rent in arrears for some months will be deducted it from the deposit. In this mail, there is no mention about the payment of any amount towards painting and repairing of the premises after the plaintiff vacating the same.
14. No documents are produced to show that there s agreement for payment of repair and repair charges after vacating the plaintiff. In the absence of any such agreement, the deduction of Rs.10,000/- from the refundable security deposit by the defendant towards repair and painting charges etc., is not justified. Therefore, the claim of the defendant to deduct Rs.10,000/- in the refundable security deposit is not proper.
15. Admittedly, Rs.2,00,000/- is the refundable security deposit taken by the defendant from the plaintiff. It is also an admitted fact that the total rent due of Rs.66,550/-. Out of the refundable security deposit of Rs.2,00,000/-, Rs.66,550/- is to be deducted towards arrears of rent. Therefore, the balance 15 O.S.No.4514/2010 amount would be Rs.1,33,450/-. Defendant has stated that he has paid Rs.55,000/- towards arrears of maintenance charges payable to the apartment owner's association. PW.1 in his cross-examination has admitted that plaintiff company was required to pay the monthly maintenance charges to the association and he do not know what was the monthly maintenance charges that was existing. Therefore, as admitted by PW.1, the monthly maintenance was to be paid by the plaintiff to the association. Even the plaintiff has produced the copy of the bill given by the association as Ex.P14 by confronting to DW.1. It has been stated that there is total due to Rs.62,831/- including the maintenance charges of Rs.3,300/- for the month of March 2009. Therefore, even according to the plaintiff, as on March 2009, there was total due of Rs.62,831/- payable to Parvathi Plaza by the plaintiff towards common maintenance expenses. This document is produced by the plaintiff himself by confronting to the DW.1. But the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that he has paid this amount of Rs.62,831/-. It is mentioned in Ex.P14 that VDR received. This does not show that this amount of Rs.62,831/- is paid by the plaintiff to the Parvathi Plaza and there is no 16 O.S.No.4514/2010 receipt for such payment made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has contended that all the maintenance charges due for the period in which the plaintiff occupied the suit premises has been paid. The liability of the plaintiff to pay the common maintenance expenses is not in dispute. Copy of the bill produced by the plaintiff in Ex.P14 itself show that there was due of Rs.62,831/- . The plaintiff has not produced any document to show that he has paid Rs.62,831/- to the Parvathi Plaza as contended. Though it is suggested in the cross-examination of DW.1 that there were other two premises occupied by the plaintiff and these premises were owned by Madhusudhan Jayaram who is collecting the common maintenance charges etc., that is not material, as the plaintiff has admitted that common maintenance charges is to be paid by the plaintiff and the plaintiff contended that he has paid the common maintenance charges and the plaintiff himself has produced Ex.P14 which show that there was due of Rs.62,831/-. There is no receipt produced to show that this amount is paid by the plaintiff. Therefore, it is clear that when the plaintiff vacated the premises there was due of Rs.62,831/- towards common maintenance expenses payable to Parvathi Plaza. 17 O.S.No.4514/2010
16. The defendant has contended that total due of common maintenance was Rs.73,903/- and the defendant has negotiated with the Parvathi Plaza and he has paid Rs.55,000/- as full settlement and this amount is payable by the plaintiff. In this connection, the defendant has produced the bills for the month of April, May and June 2009 which show that as on June 2009, there was due of Rs.73,903/-. If really the plaintiff had paid the amount mentioned in Ex.P14 in March 2009, there would not have been such claim as appearing in Ex.D2 to D4. More over, the defendant has produced a receipt given by Madhusudhan Jayaram in which it is clearly mentioned that in respect of premises No.203 in Parvathi Plaza which was rented to Value Designbuild, amount of Rs.55,000/- has been received from the defendant by cheque No.155387 dated 23.2.2010 drawn on Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Therefore, this document Ex.D5 show that it is the defendant who has paid Rs.55,000/- towards the maintenance charges kept due by the plaintiff to the suit premises. It is elicited in the cross-examination of DW.1 that the defendant is having S.B. account in Catholic Syrian Bank. Absolutely no materials are placed by the plaintiff to show that it has paid the maintenance charges up to the date of 18 O.S.No.4514/2010 vacating the premises. The copy of the bill No.3014 which is produced by the plaintiff itself show that the plaintiff is aware of its liability to pay the amount mentioned in Ex.P14. If the plaintiff had paid the said amount, it would have definitely produced the receipt for the same. The plaintiff was paying the rent to the defendant by cheque as elicited in the cross- examination of DW.1. The plaintiff is a private limited company bound by rules and regulations. Therefore, if it has paid the maintenance charges to the Parvathi Plaza, it would have definitely maintained the account and amount might have been paid by cheque. If such payments are actually made by the plaintiff, the plaintiff can produce the account extract or the documents, receipts, details of the cheque etc., to establish that bill No.3014 produced at Ex.P14 has been cleared by the plaintiff. When the plaintiff admitted that, the liability to pay the maintenance charges is on the plaintiff and also admitted by producing Ex.P14 that there was due of Rs.62,831/- as on March 2009, the plaintiff must establish the clearing of the said dues and payment of the amount.
17. On the other hand, the defendant has produced the receipt showing that Madhusudhan Jayaram has received 19 O.S.No.4514/2010 Rs.55,000/- by cheque from the defendant towards arrears of maintenance charges in respect of premises No.203 occupied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has produced a letter sent by the defendant to the plaintiff on 12.12.2011 in which it is stated that if the arrears of maintenance charges owed by the plaintiff, is not cleared, the defendant will pay the same from the remaining dues to the rent security deposit. On the basis of this document, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has argued that on 12.12.2011, the defendant has stated that he will make the payment of arrears of maintenance charges, by which it is proved that the amount was not paid by the defendant as per Ex.D5 on 23.2.2010. Whether the said amount was paid on 23.2.2010 or after filing of the suit etc., is not the material point. The material point is that the payment of maintenance charges is the liability of the plaintiff for the period during which it had occupied the schedule premises. Ex.P14 itself show that there was due of Rs.62,831/-. The liability to pay this amount was on the plaintiff. The plaintiff has contended that it has cleared all such dues and has paid the amount. If the plaintiff has paid the amount, the plaintiff should produce the appropriate receipt. If the plaintiff who was lessee has not 20 O.S.No.4514/2010 cleared all the dues payable to the association etc., then the liability would be on the owner i.e., defendant. When the owner has to clear the said dues kept by the plaintiff, she is entitled to deduct the same from the refundable security deposit available with her. In this case thought he claim of maintenance charges was more than Rs.62,831/- as per Ex.P14, the defendant is contending that she has settled the claim of the association by paying Rs.55,000/-. Therefore, this Rs.55,000/- which is paid by the defendant is to be deducted out of the refundable security deposit. Therefore, the defendant is justified in deducting Rs.55,000/- out of the security deposit amount.
18. Admittedly, there is arrears of rent of Rs.66,550/-. The plaintiff has contended that after deducting this rent arrears of Rs.66,550/-, the defendant has to return the amount of Rs.1,33,450/-. Since the defendant is entitled to deduct Rs.55,000/- which is paid towards maintenance charges, that amount is to be deducted in Rs.1,33,450/-, the remaining amount would be Rs.78,450/-. Though the defendant has stated that Rs.10,000/- is to be paid by the plaintiff towards painting and repairing charges, that claim is not justified. Therefore, the defendant is liable to refund Rs.78,450/- to the 21 O.S.No.4514/2010 plaintiff out of the refundable security deposit. Though the plaintiff has vacated the premises in April 2009, the defendant has not paid this admitted amount to the plaintiff till now. Though the defendant had stated that he is ready to pay the balance amount after deducting towards rent arrears and maintenance charges and repairing charges, even admitted amount is not paid by the defendant till now. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for reasonable interest on this balance security deposit amount which is retained by the defendant even after the plaintiff vacating the premises. On 5.5.2009, the plaintiff has handed over the keys to the defendant, from that day on the balance refundable advance amount of Rs.78,450/-, the plaintiff is entitled for reasonable interest at the rate of 12% p.a. till filing of the suit. From the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff is entitled for interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on Rs.78,450/- till recovery of the entire amount. Accordingly, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.78,450/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 5.5.2009 till filing of the suit and the plaintiff is also entitled for interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on Rs.78,450/- from the date of suit till realization of the entire amount. Accordingly, issue Nos.1 to 3 are answered. 22 O.S.No.4514/2010
19. Issue No.4:- For the discussion made on issue Nos.1 to 3, the suit of the plaintiff is to be partly decreed with costs. Accordingly, following order is passed :-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with costs.
The defendant is liable and is directed to pay Rs.78,450/- to the plaintiff along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 5.5.2009 till 2.7.2010. The defendant is also directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on Rs.78,450/- from the date of suit till realization of the entire amount.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the judgment writer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 18th day of November, 2015).
(Ravindra Hegde), XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
P.W.1 Manjesh List of documents exhibited for plaintiff: Ex.P1 Authorization letter 23 O.S.No.4514/2010 Ex.P2 Copy of the legal Notice dated 25-2-2010 Ex.P3 Postal Receipt Ex.P4 Postal Acknowledgment Ex.P5 Reply Notice Ex.P6 Postal Cover Ex.P7 Email Copy in two sheets Ex.P8 Letter head of the plaintiff company Ex.P9 Statement of Account Ex.P10 Statement of Account Ex.P11 Office copy of the compliant Ex.P12 Acknowledgment Ex.P13 Letter dated 12.12.2011 Ex.P14 Maintenance Invoice List of witnesses examined for defendant: D.W.1 Dr.Susheel Cleatus List of documents exhibited for defendant: Ex.D1 Special Power of Attorney Ex.D2 to D4 Maintenance Expenses Ex.D5 Letter by Madhusudhan Ex.D6 Final Bill XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 24 O.S.No.4514/2010
(Order pronounced in open court vide separate judgment) ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with costs. The defendant is liable and is directed to pay Rs.78,450/- to the plaintiff along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 5.5.2009 till 2.7.2010. The defendant is also directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on Rs.78,450/- from the date of suit till realization of the entire amount.
Draw decree accordingly.
XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.