Bangalore District Court
Chikkanjinappa vs Muniraju C on 14 October, 2024
KABC010176802019
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-38), BANGALORE CITY.
:PRESENT:
Sri. Yashawanth Kumar, B.A.(Law)., LL.B,
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
C/c XXXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-38)
Bengaluru City.
DATED This the 14th day of October 2024
O.S.No. 3943/2019
plaintiffs/S SRI. CHIKKANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
1.A. SMT. RATHNAMMA,
W/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
1.B. SMT. GAJALAKSHMI @
PUSHAPALATHA,
D/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
1.C. SRI. CHETHAN,
S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
1.D. SRI. NARAYANASWAMY,
S/O. LATE CHIKKANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
O.S.No. 3943/2019
2
1.E. SRI. CHIKKANNA,
S/O. LATE CHIKKANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
1.F. SRI. MANJUNATHA,
S/O. LATE CHIKKANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
1.G. SRI. RAMESH,
S/O. LATE CHIKKANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
1.H. SRI. CHANDRAPPA,
S/O. LATE CHIKKANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
1.I. SMT. ARUNA,
D/O. LATE CHIKKANJINAPPA,
W/O. RAMESHA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT LAKSHMIPURA
VILLAGE, YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
VIDYARANYAPUR POST
BENGALURU - 560097
(By Sri. GC, Advocate)
Versus
DEFENDANT/S 1. SRI. MUNIRAJU C
SINCE DEADS BY HIS LRS.
1.A. SMT. VIJAYAMMA,
W/O. LATE C. MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
1.B. SRI. PRASHANTHA,
S/O. LATE C. MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
O.S.No. 3943/2019
3
1.C. SMT. RASHMI,
D/O. LATE C. MUNIRAJU,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
ALL ARE R/AT LAKSHMIPURA
VILLAGE YESHWANTHPURA HOBLI
VIDYARANYAPUR POST
BENGALURU - 560097
(DfS By Sri. SNR, Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit 4.6.2019
Nature of suit Injunction Suit,
Date of commencement 25.8.2022
of recording of evidence.
Date on which judgment 14.10.2024
was pronounced.
Total Duration. Years Months Days
05 04 10
C/c. XXXVII ACCJ, BANGALORE
O.S.No. 3943/2019
4
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of declaration that he is the absolute owner of schedule B property and for vacant possession of schedule B property from the defendants by demolishing the illegal construction made by the defendant in it.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under:-
(a) The plaint schedule A property was regranted in favour of plaintiff's father by Spl. Dy. Commissioner under Inam Abolition Act in case No.57 vide order dtd: 1.4.1958 and endorsement dtd: 12.6.1958. Subsequently, as required U/Sec.
6 of Urban Land Ceiling Act, the plaintiff's father had declared his joint family properties before the Urban Land Ceiling Authority and in the said proceedings in case No. ULC (a)(9) No.234/1984-85, an extent of 1 acre 15 guntas out of schedule A property came to be declared as excess land. It was an exparte order. The plaintiff's father died on 9.8.1994. After coming to know about the above said order dtd:15.11.1984, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.5/1999. During the pendency of the said appeal the O.S.No. 3943/2019 5 Urban land Ceiling Act came to be repealed vide notification dtd:
17.9.1999. As on the date of said notification, the aforesaid appeal was pending for consideration. In view of the repeal of Urban Land ceiling Act, the proceedings in Appeal No. 5/1999 which was pending before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal came to be abated vide order dtd: 18.9.1999. Neither the plaintiff nor his father had received compensation from Urban Land Ceiling authorities and in respect of the same an endorsement was issued on 25.1.2008. In view of the order of the Urban Land Ceiling Authority, the name of Govt. of Karnataka entered in RTC of schedule A property, but in view of repeal of Urban Land Ceiling Act, entry made in the RTC in the name of Govt of Karnataka has no effect and right, title or interest of the plaintiff over the schedule A property has not been extinguished. Since no compensation amount has been received in respect of schedule A property and the said property saved in the repeal notification.
(b) The father of the defendant and his uncle Poojappa are the owners of land in Sy. No.,1/1C measuring 20 guntas of Lakshmipura village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk. It is not abutting to schedule A property, the defendant O.S.No. 3943/2019 6 taking undue advantage that the name of the State Government is shown in the schedule A property, has illegally trespassed into the schedule A property and constructed a house in the area measuring East west 40 feet and North south 30 feet in the month of March 2019 claiming that the portion occupied by him is part and parcel of Sy. No. 1/1C of Lakshmipura village. The RTC of Sy.No.1/1C stands in the name of defendant's father and his uncle. The plaintiff has produced Tippani copy of schedule A property, sketch of schedule B property. The Tippani copy and RTC of Sy. No. 1/1C, 4 photographs taken on 24.5.1990 to show the existing construction in the schedule B property and also identification of schedule B property.
(c) The plaintiff has given a complaint before the jurisdictional police against the defendant for his illegal construction in schedule B property, but the police have advised the plaintiff to approach the Civil court. The plaintiff issued legal notice to defendant No.1 dtd: 22.3.2019 for delivery of possession of schedule B property. The defendant has given an untenable reply to the same stating that the construction has been made in Sy. No.1/1C., Hence, this suit.
O.S.No. 3943/2019 7
3. The defendant has appeared and filed his written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable. It is contended that neither the plaintiff nor his father were the owners of the schedule A property. The entire land in Sy. No. 4 of Lakshmipura village measuring 1 acre 25 guntas has been acquired by the Govt. of Karnataka. The question of paying compensation to schedule A property does not arise at all. If the Govt. Of Karnataka has to pay compensation to the plaintiff, he should have filed case against the Government within the period of limitation. Sy.No.1/1C belongs to the family of defendant and the plaintiff is no way connected to schedule A and B properties. A dwelling house has been constructed in the Sy.No.1/1dc measuring to an extent east to west 40 feet and north to south 30 feet about 30 years back by the defendant and same has been renovated and completed. The defendant is residing in the same. When the defendant was carrying out little recoating of paint, the plaintiff raised quarrel and obstructed the defendant from completing the work. The plaintiff and defendants are closely related and they are not strangers to each other. Sy.No. 4 belongs to the Govt. of Karnataka and Sy.No.1/1C measuring 20 guntas belonging to defendant and his family members. In it O.S.No. 3943/2019 8 they have constructed a dwelling house as aforesaid. The Grama panchayath has issued Katha and Tax receipts in respect of the same. When the plaintiff is not the owner of the schedule A and B properties, the question of declaring him as absolute owner does not arise. If really the plaintiff is the owner of Sy.No.4 measuring 1 acre 25 guntas and Sy.No.1/1C measuring 20 guntas, he should have issued legal notice and filed a case against the defendant about 3 decades back. But, all of a sudden he has filed this suit in the year 2019 to grab the valuable property of defendants. The plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands. He has not produced any document to show that he is the owner of the schedule A and B properties. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, following issues have been framed by my learned predecessor in office;
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that They are the absolute owners of suit schedule A property?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants have trespassed into the suit schedule A property and have constructed building over the suit schedule B property?
3. Whether the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is sufficient?
O.S.No. 3943/2019 9
4. Whether the defendants prove that suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation?
5. What reliefs plaintiffs are entitled?
6. What order or decree?
5. During the pendency of this suit, the plaintiff reported to be dead and his LRs brought on record. The plaintiff No.1(e) has been examined as PW1 and one more witness as Pw-2 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to P 31. During the pendecy of this suit, defendant also reported to be dead and his LRs brought on record. Defendant No.1(b) has been examined as DW-1 and got marked documents at Ex.D-1 to D-25.
6. On the application of LRs of plaintiff, Court commissioner has been appointed and he has submitted his report for local inspection. He has been examined as Cw-1 and got marked Ex.C-1 to C-10 documents.
7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and he has filed his written arguments. He has relied on the following decision:-
1) Copy of the Division Bench Judgement dtd:11.2.2021 in W.P. No. 49213/2019.( H.R. Shivakumar, Vs. The State Government and another. ) O.S.No. 3943/2019 10
8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendants and he has filed his written arguments. he has relied on the following decisions:-
1) 2017 Supreme (Mad) 4148 ( T. Muthukumarasamy Vs. J.
Selvasundarraj)
2) 2017 Supreme (A.P.) 830(Gottumukkala Sundara Narasaraju & Others Vs. Pinnamaraju Venkata Narasimharaju and Ors)
3) 2003 Supreme (Jhk)135( Dwarika Sonar Vs. Most Bilguli)
4) 2020 Supreme (Mad) 1018( Subbaiah Vs. Parvathy Ammal)
5) AIR 1965 Mysore 310 ( Lakshminarasimahaiah & Others Vs. Yalakki Gowda)
6) Civil Appeal No. 722/2012 Supreme Court of India.(The Tehsildar, Urban Improvement Trust and an4.)
7) Civil Appeal No. 878/2009. Supreme Court of India. (Smriti Debbarma(dead) Through LRs) Vs. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma and others)
9. My answer to the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.3 : In the Negative,
Issue No.4 : In the Negative,
Issue No.5 : In the Affirmative,
O.S.No. 3943/2019
11
Issue No.6 : As per the final order,
for the following ;-
REASONS
10. Issue No.1 : It is the contention of the deceased plaintiff that his father late Pujigappa @ Gedalahalli Poojiga was declared and registered as an occupant of schedule A property i.e., Sy.No.4 measuring 1 acre 25 guntas situated at Lakshmipura village along with 3 other properties in case No. 57 vide order dtd:1.4.1958 and endorsement dtd: 12.6.1958. In order to prove the said contention Pw-1 has got marked Ex.P-16, copy of the order passed by Spl. Amaldar for Abolition of Inams, Bengaluru Dist. in case No. 57. It shows that Geddalahalli Poojiga S/o. Munithimma had filed application seeking occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.1/1 measuring 20 guntas, Sy. No. 4 measuring 1 acre 25 guntas, Sy. No. 91/2 measuring 1 acre 33 guntas, Sy. No. 9/3 measuring 26 guntas of Lakshmipura village.; by the order dtd:1.4.1958, Geddalahalli Poojiga was registered as a Khadim Tenant. Ex.P-17 is an endorsement, though Ex.P-17 is not clearly legible, it can be made out that as per the order in case No.57, in the year 1958 itself said Geddalahalli Poojiga was registered as an occupant of O.S.No. 3943/2019 12 Sy.No.1/1 measuring 20 guntas, Sy. No. 4 measuring 1 acre 25 guntas, Sy. No. 91/2 measuring 1 acre 33 guntas, Sy. No. 9/3 measuring 26 guntas of Lakshmipura village.
11. The plaintiff has further contended that u/sec. 6 of Urban Land Ceiling Act his father declared his joint family properties before land ceiling authority and in the proceedings in case no. ULC(A)(9) No.234/1984-85 the extent of 1 acre 15 guntas out of 1 acre 25 guntas in Sy. No.4 came to be declared as excess land. But the said order passed was an exparte order. His father died on 9.8.1994, after his death the deceased plaintiff came to know about the said order and he preferred an appeal before Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.5/1999. During the pendency of said appeal, Urban Land Ceiling Act came to be repealed vide notification dtd: 17.9.1999; neither the plaintiff nor his father had received compensation in respect of excess land. Hence, the proceedings abated. In view of the abatement of proceedings, the right and title of the deceased plaintiff in schedule A property i.e., 1 acre 25 guntas in Sy. No. 4 has not been extinguished. Therefore, the deceased plaintiff has remained the owner of the schedule A property.
O.S.No. 3943/2019 13
12. In support of the said contention, Pw-1 has produced copy of the order of Addl. Spl. Dy. Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling Bengaluru in ULC(A)(9) 237/1984-85 dtd: 15.11.1984, it shows that the declarant Poojappa S/o. Muni Thimmappa filed a declaration U/sec. 6(1) before the competent authority declaring that he was the owner of following properties as Kathedar i.e., 1) Sy. No. 1 measuring 20 guntas, 2) Sy. No. 4 measuring 1 acre 25 guntas, 3) Sy. No. 9/2 measuring 1 acre 33 guntas 4) Sy. No.9/3 measuring 26 guntas, 5) House No.K-74 measuring 12X40 ft. It further shows that after preliminary enquiry, it is found that Sy.No.1/1 and 4 of Lakshmipura village measuring an extent of 7599.53 Sq. meters was an excess land and it is ordered that action was to be taken U/sec. 10(1) of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976, to acquire the excess vacant land. If 7599.53 sq. meters is converted into acres and guntas, it comes to 1 acre 35 gunta 12 annas. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that 1 acre 15 guntas in Sy. No. 4 was acquired as excess vacant land can be accepted. Further, it appears that remaining 20 guntas was acquired in Sy.No.1/1 as excess land. Ex.P-19 is the order sheet in Appeal No.5/1999 (ULC), it shows that it is an appeal filed against the order in ULC(A)(9) O.S.No. 3943/2019 14 237/1984-85, it shows that the proceedings in 5/99 (ULC) was abated in view of the circular issued by the Urban Development Department vide UDD 25 ULC 99 dtd: 17.9.1999. Ex.P-2 is the certified copy of the Memo of Appeal in ULC Appeal No. 5/1999, it shows that it has been preferred against the order passed in ULC (A)(9) 237/1984-85. Ex.P-3 is the certified copy of the circular bearing No. UDD 25 ULC 99 dtd: 17.9.1999, it shows that in view of repealing of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976, instructions were given by the Govt. of Karnataka, that if the land is deemed to have been vested in the State Government U/sec. 10(3) of the Act and the possession of it has not been taken over by the State Govt., and any amount has been paid by the State Govt., with respect of said land, then such land shall not be restored unless the amount paid if any has been refunded to the State Govt all proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made in Principal Act pending immediately before commencement of this Act i.e., repealing Act, which is of the year 1999 before any Court or Tribunal or other authority shall abate. Ex.P-4 is the certified copy of the endorsement issued by the Dy. Commissioner Bengaluru Dist dtd: 25.1.2008 it shows that no compensation O.S.No. 3943/2019 15 has been paid in respect of Sy. No.1 and 4 of Lakshmipura village under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.
13. In view of the above documents, the contention of the plaintiff that the proceedings regarding acquiring Sy.No.4 in Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 has been abated. Therefore, the land restored to original grantee. In view of his death, his LRs are entitled to said land. It is not disputed that the deceased plaintiff is the son of said Geddalahalli Poojiga S/o. Muni Thimmappa.
14. The plaintiffs have contended that after acquisition Sy.No.4 as per order in ULC(A)(9) 237/1984-85, the RTC of the said land entered in the name of Government, but inspite of abatement of proceedings, under Karnataka Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976, the name of original grantee or his son, original plaintiff or the LRs of the plaintiff have not been restored. But from the documents produced by the plaintiff, it can be clearly made out that Sy.No.4 measuring 1 acre 25 guntas belonged to deceased plaintiff who is the son of original grantee.
15. The deceased plaintiff has contended that defendant trespassed into the schedule A property and put up illegal O.S.No. 3943/2019 16 construction in a portion of it, which is described as schedule B property in the month of March 2019. It is the contention of the plaintiff that schedule B property is the part and parcel of schedule A property i.e., Sy. No. 4 measuring 1 acre 25 guntas. On the other hand the contention of defendant is that schedule B property is portion of Sy. No.1/1C belonging to their family. It is true that plaintiff has not produced any document to show that schedule B property is part and parcel of schedule A property i.e., Sy. No.4 measuring 1 acre 25 guntas so also the defendant has not produced any document to show that the schedule B property comes within Sy.No.1/1C belonging to their family.
16. However, the LRs of plaintiffs have got appointed the Court commissioner and he has submitted his report. In his report and the sketch as per Ex.C-7, he has clearly stated that the B schedule property comes within schedule A property i.e., Sy.No.4 measuring 1 acre 25 guntas. Further, he has stated that Sy.No.1/1 is not situated abutting to Sy.No.4, it is situated at a distance from Sy.No.4. He has stated that Sy.No.1/1 has not been phoded and there is no survey document in respect of Sy.No.1/1C.
O.S.No. 3943/2019 17
17. The court commissioner has been examined as Cw-1 and he has been cross-examined by defendant counsel. He has denied that Sy.No.1/1 has been sub divided as Sy No.1/1A, 1/1B, 1/1C, 1/1D. He has denied the suggestion that he has conducted survey and prepared sketch in a hurry without taking into consideration of survey documents. There is nothing in the cross-examination of defendant to discredit the commissioner report and sketch. He has also replied to the memo of instructions of defendant as well as plaintiff. Considering the commissioner's report and evidence of Cw-1 it can be clearly made-out that schedule B property is part and parcel of schedule A property. There is nothing to accept the contention of defendant that schedule B property is part and parcel of Sy.No.1/1C.
18. The plaintiff has produced RTC of Sy.No.1/1C. Lakshmipura village. It shows the total extent of Sy.No.1/1C as 20 guntas, but in column No.9 only 2 guntas 3 annas is shown to the name of Muni Byrappa. No other extent is shown to defendant or his father. The defendant has produced mutation register extract in MR No. 10/1992-93, wherein the extent of 20 guntas in Sy. No.1/1C, Lakshmipura village is shown in the O.S.No. 3943/2019 18 name of Muniyappa. The defendant is claiming that said Muniyappa is his grand father. Defendant has produced the RTC extract as per Ex.P-7 to 9. In those RTC extracts also total extent of Sy.No.1/1C shown as 20 guntas, but only 2 gunta 3 annas is shown in the name of Muni Byrappa S/o. Muniyappa. Though the name of Poojappa, Chikkanna S/o. Muniyappa who is the father of defendant is shown no extent is shown to their names. In the above circumstances, the contention of the defendant that schedule B property is the part and parcel of Sy.No.1/1C of Lakshmipura village cannot be accepted. On the other hand the contention of the plaintiff that schedule B property is the part and parcel of i.e., 1 acre 25 guntas in Sy.No.4 is probable. The contention of defendant that B schedule property is the part and parcel of Sy. No.1/1C measuring 20 guntas cannot be accepted.
19. I have already come to the conclusion that, schedule A property i.e., Sy.No.4 measuring 1 acre 25 guntas re-granted to Gedalahalli Poojiga @ Poojiga who was the father of original plaintiff Chikkaanjinappa. Subsequently, though 1 acre 15 guntas was acquired by Government as excess land, said proceedings has been abated after the repealment of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. Therefore, schedule A O.S.No. 3943/2019 19 property belonged to deceased plaintiff. Now the LRs of deceased plaintiff are continuing in this suit. It is proved that schedule B property is part and parcel of schedule A property. Hence, it is to be held that LR's of deceased plaintiff are the owners of schedule B property. Accordingly, I answer issue no.1 in the Affirmative.
20. ISSUE No.2 : There is no dispute that defendant has put up construction in the schedule B property. Dw-1 has stated that they are in possession of schedule B property since last 30 years. He has admitted that Ex.D-1 to D-4 photographs are the building existing in the said property. In his written statement, the defendant has stated that he has constructed a house about 30 years back, now he has only done painting work of the building and at that time plaintiff has raised quarrel with him. In fact Ex.D-1 to 4 photographs were confronted by defendant to Pw-1 and got marked at the first instance. Pw-1 has admitted that the building shown in Ex.D-1 to D-4 photographs is the same building which has been put up by the defendant in schedule B property illegally. It appears that the building shown in Ex.D-1 to D-4 is quite an old building. Dw-1 has admitted that Ex.P-7 to 11 photographs are also of the same building. In Ex.P-7 to P-11 it appears that new building is being constructed O.S.No. 3943/2019 20 by removing old building existing in the said place. If Ex.P-7 to 11 are taken into consideration it does not appear that the defendant is making only minor work to the building. It appears that entire building is being newly constructed as shown in Ex.P-7 to P-11 photographs.
21. The plaintiff has stated that defendant has trespassed into the schedule B property in the year 2019 and put up construction. The defendant has contended that he has put up construction about 30 years back. The defendant has not produced any evidence to show that the building has been constructed about 30 years back. If Ex.P-7 to P-11 photographs are taken into consideration the building is being constructed recently. Therefore, the case of the plaintiff is more probable. Hence, it is to be accepted that defendant has trespassed into schedule A property and illegally constructed building over schedule B property. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 in the Affirmative.
22. Issue No.3: The plaintiff has filed this suit for the relief of declaration and possession. The plaintiff has valued the suit property U/sec. 24(a) R/w. Sec. 7(2)(a) of Karnataka Court fees and suit valuation Act by showing the suit property as an O.S.No. 3943/2019 21 agricultural land. In his evidence Pw-1 has admitted that in entire 1 acre 25 guntas in schedule A property, houses are existing now. Therefore, it appears that now the suit property is not an agricultural land. The plaintiff has sought for relief in respect of schedule B property, which is part and parcel of schedule A property. It appears that schedule B property is a site property measuring 1200 sq. feets. Therefore, valuing the property as an agricultural property cannot be accepted. Hence, the suit valuation is not proper and court fee paid is insufficient. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 in the Negative.
23. Issue No.4:- The defendant has contended that the suit is barred by limitation, contending that he has put up construction in the suit property 30 years back. But the defendant has not produced any document to show that he has put up construction about 30 years back. On the other hand the plaintiff has contended that, the defendant has trespassed into schedule B property and put up construction in the month of March 2019. If it is taken into consideration, the suit filed by the plaintiff is in time. Therefore, I answer Issue No.4 in the Negative.
O.S.No. 3943/2019 22
24. Issue No.5:- The LRs of the deceased plaintiff have proved that they are the owners of the schedule B property and defendant has put up illegal construction in it. Therefore, the LRs of plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration of title and possession as prayed by them. However, the plaintiff has to file fresh valuation slip by paying court fee as per Sec. 24(a) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act by producing the guideline market value of the property as on the date of filing of the suit, subject to the same the LRs of the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs claimed in the suit. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.5 in the Affirmative.
25. Issue No.6:- In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs.
The LRs of the deceased plaintiff are hereby declared as owners of Schedule B property. The LRs of deceased defendant shall hand over the vacant possession of schedule B property to LRs of the plaintiff by removing the illegal construction put up by them in it within 2 months from this date.
O.S.No. 3943/2019 23 The plaintiff shall file fresh valuation slip valuing the property as per the guideline market value of Government as on the date of suit and by paying the court fee on the said amount as per Sec. 24(a) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1957. Decree shall be drawn after furnishing the valuation slip and payment of Court fee as aforesaid.
(Dictated to the stenographer grade-I, transcribed and typed by their, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, this the 14th Day of October 2024) (YASHAWANTH KUMAR) C/c. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, (CCH-38) BANGALORE.
Schedule 'A' Property All that piece and parcel of property Sy. No. 4, measuring 1Acre 25 Guntas situated at Lakshmipura village, Yeshvanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, bounded on the:
East by : Road, West by : Sy. No.2 & 3, North by : Land in Sy. No.3/1, and South by : Gramatana.
Schedule 'B' Property All that piece and parcel of portion of A schedule property measuring East to West 40 feet North to South: 30 feet, consisting of ground floor RCC building and bounded on the:
East by : Main Road, West by : Remaining land in Sy. No. 4, O.S.No. 3943/2019 24 North by : Remaining land in Sy. No. 4, South by : Road formed in Sy. No.4.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiffs/s:
PW-1 - Chikanna PW-2 - Lokesh
Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiffs/s:
Ex.P-1 Certified copy of death certificate Poojappa S/O Munithimmaiah Ex.P-2 Certified copy of memo of appeal in ULC appeal No.5/1999 Ex.P-3 Certified copy of the circular of Government of Karnataka dated 17.09.1999 Ex.P-4 Certified copy of endorsement of DC office dated 25.01.2008.
Ex.P-5 Certified copy of RTC of Sy.No.4 Ex.P-6 RTC extract of Sy.No.4 Ex.P-7 to 5 photos regarding construction P-11 undertaken by defendant Ex.P-12 CD in respect of the photos.
Ex.P-13 Office copy of the legal notice
24.09.2019
Ex.P-13(a) Postal receipt
Ex.P-14 Postal acknowledgement
Ex.P-15 Office copy of the reply notice dated
04.05.2019
O.S.No. 3943/2019
25
Ex.P-15(a) Postal cover of Ex.P-15
Ex.P-16 Copy of the re-grant order.
Ex.P-17 Certified copy of the endorsement.
Ex.P-18 Certified copy of the order in ULC(A)(9)
237/84-85
Ex.P-19 Certified copy of the order sheet in ULC
5/99
Ex.P-20 and Certified copy of the two encumbrance 21 certificate Ex.P-22 Certified copy of the Tippani Copy Ex.P-23 Certified copy of the Hissa Survey Tippani Copy Ex.P-24 Certified copy of the order sheet in LGC (P) No.517/2019 Ex.P-25 Certified copy of the petition in LGC (P) No.517/2019 Ex.P-26 Certified copy of the judgment in OS.No.1799/2010 Ex.P-27 Certified copy of the evidence of PW-3 in OS.No.1799/2010 Ex.P-28 Police Acknowledgement Ex.P-29 Police Endorsement Ex.P-30 Certified copy of the RTC Ex.P-31 Certified copy of the Mutation Register Extract.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
DW-1 - M.Prashanth
O.S.No. 3943/2019
26
Documents marked on behalf of the Defendant/s:
Ex.D.1 to 4 Four photos Ex.D-5 Mutation register extract in MR.NO.10/92-93 Ex.D-6 Mutation register extract in MR.NO.4/93-94 Ex.D-7 to RTC Extract of Sy.No.1/1C of Ex.D-9 Lakshmipura Village.
Ex.D-10 Tax Demand Register Extract for the year 2005-2006.
Ex.D-11 Approved plan.
Ex.D-12 Building license.
Ex.D-13 Tax Demand Register Extract for the
year 2006-2007.
Ex.D-14 Tax paid receipt.
Ex.D-15 to Electricity bills.
Ex.D-18
Ex.D-19 to 6 photographs of suit property.
Ex.D-24
Ex.D-25 CD in respect of Ex.D-19 to Ex.D-24
photos.
List of annexures examined on behalf of the Commissioner :
CW-1 - Mohan Kumar J.T.
O.S.No. 3943/2019
27
Documents marked on behalf of the Defendant/s:
Ex.C.1 Memo dated 29.02.2024 Ex.C-2 Commission warrant Ex.C-3 Memo of instructions of plaintiff Ex.C-4 Memo of instructions of defendant Ex.C-5 Notice Ex.C-5(a) Signature of Chikkanna. Ex.C-5(b) Signature of Vijayamma Ex.C-6 Statement Ex.C-6(a) Signature of CW1 Ex.C-6(b) Signature of Chikkanna Ex.C-6(c) Signature of Vijayamma Ex.C-6(d) Signature of Prashanth Ex.C-6(e) Signature of the advocate of defendants Ex.C-7 Memo of instructions of the parties Ex.C-7(a) Signature of CW1 Ex.C-8 Memo of instructions of plaintiff Ex.C-8(a) Signature of CW1 Ex.C-9 Memo of instructions of defendants Ex.C-9(a) Signature of CW1 Ex.C-10 Letter of ADLR (YASHAWANTH KUMAR) C/c. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, (CCH-38), BANGALORE.
O.S.No. 3943/2019 28 Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate judgement.
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs.
O.S.No. 3943/2019 29 The LRs of the deceased plaintiff are hereby declared as owners of Schedule B property. The LRs of deceased defendant shall hand over the vacant possession of schedule B property to LRs of the plaintiff by removing the illegal construction put up by them in it within 2 months from this date.
The plaintiff shall file fresh valuation slip valuing the property as per the guideline market value of Government as on the date of suit and by paying the court fee on the said amount as per Sec. 24(a) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1957. Decree shall be drawn after furnishing the valuation slip and payment of Court fee as aforesaid.
(YASHAWANTH KUMAR) C/c. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, (CCH-38) BANGALORE.