Bangalore District Court
Sri.B.M.Muniraju vs Sri.S.Krishna on 18 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU (C.C.H.No.7).
Dated: This the 18th Day of July, 2016.
Present: Sri. M.S.Patil, B.Sc., LL.B.
XXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge.
Bengaluru.
O. S. No. 8 6 3 0 / 2002
Plaintiff Sri.B.M.Muniraju,
S/o.late Mudappa,
Aged abut 49 years,
r/at No.3563, Kavalbyrasandra,
Dr.Ambedkar Medical College Road,
R.T.Nagar, Bengaluru.
by Sri.T.N.Viswanatha, Advocate.
Vs.
Defendants 1. Sri.S.Krishna,
s/o.S.Sundar Raj,
aged about 49 years,
r/at No.1, 1st Cross,
Muneswaranagar,
Shampura Main Road,
Arabic College Post, Bengaluru-45.
2. Smt.Indumathi,
W/o.Sri.B.Iqubal,
Major, r/at No.1, 1st Cross,
Muneswaranagar,
Shampura Main Road,
Arabic College Post, Bengaluru-45.
3. Smt.S.Jyothi,
W/o.Sri.Sampathraj,
Aged about 45 years,
r/at No.3rd Cross, Muneswaranagar,
Shampura Main Road,
Arabic College Post, Bengaluru-45.
2 O.S.No.8630/2002
4. Sri.B.Iqbal,
s/o.Basha, major,
r/at No.1, 1st Cross,
Muneswaranagar,
Shampura Main Road,
Arabic College Post, Bengaluru-45.
5. Sri.S.Balu,
s/o.late Singaram, major,
since dead, by LRs.
5(a). Sri.Kalidasan,
s/o. late S.Balu,
aged about 43 years,
r/at Ashoknagar,
Shampura Main Road,
3rd Cross Post, Arabic College Post,
Bengaluru-45.
5(b). Sri.Chandrashekar,
s/o. late S.Balu,
aged about 39 years,
r/at Ashoknagar,
Shampura Main Road,
3rd Cross Post, Arabic College Post,
Bengaluru-45.
5(c) Smt.Saraswathi,
D/o. late S.Balu,
aged about 37 years,
r/at Ashoknagar,
Shampura Main Road,
3rd Cross Post, Arabic College Post,
Bengaluru-45.
6. Smt.S.Saraswathi,
W/o.Sri.B.Iqubal, major,
r/at No.1, 1st Cross,
Muneswaranagar,
Shampura Main Road,
Arabic College Post, Bengaluru-45.
3 O.S.No.8630/2002
D1-by Sri.GAM, Advocate.
D2, D3-SNJ,Advocate.
D4 - by Sri.YRS, Advocate.
D5(a),(c)by Sri.S.P., Advocte.
D5(b)-SDr,
D6-Exparte
Date of institution of suit 20-12-2002
Nature of the suit Permanent injunction and
Mandatory injunction
Date of commencement of 21-02-2006
recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment 18-07-2016
was pronounced
Total duration Days Months Years
28 06 13
JUDGMENT
This suit filed by the plaintiff is for grant of permanent injunction restraining defendants and their men from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property and for grant of mandatory injunction directing defendants to remove illegal construction raised by them on A-schedule property and if the defendants fail to remove illegal construction in A-schedule property, then this Court may pleased to order for removal of illegal construction on A-schedule property with the help of Court Officials and to deliver vacant possession of A- schedule property to the plaintiff, together with costs and any other reliefs, which Court deems fit, in the circumstances of this case.
4 O.S.No.8630/20022. The brief facts of the plaint averments are that, Sy.No.108 measuring 4 acres 15 guntas of Kadugondanahallli, which is suit schedule property, is originally purchased by Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church (in short 'TELC') from Patel Hanumanthappa under registered Sale Deed Dated:21-3-1938 and that, out of 4 acres 15 guntas, TELC has formed sites in some portion and sold to the public and in remaining portion, TELC has sold 6000 square feet in favour of plaintiff, under G.P.A. dated 4-10-1989 and affidavit dated 4-10-1989 through it's Property Officer and that, plaintiff has constructed 4 shops and one residential house in his property and one residential portion is in possession of 4th defendant on monthly rent of Rs.300/- and that, when plaintiff demolished two old shops out of 4 existing shops, for constructing residential building it, the defendants have started interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over suit property and that, the mother of defendants 1 to 3, by name Mangalakshmiammal had filed O.S.No.1011/1990 against present plaintiff and others admitting plaintiff's possession over suit property and the said suit came to be dismissed on 30-1-1996 for default and that, defendants constructed a shed in southern portion of the suit property on 26-12-2009 measuring East-West 11¼ feet and on North-South 12 feet, with RCC roof shed, which is A-schedule property. On these grounds, it is prayed for 5 O.S.No.8630/2002 permanent injunction for restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over suit property and for mandatory injunction for directing defendants to remove the shed constructed in B-schedule property and to handover vacant delivery of possession of B- schedule property to the plaintiff, together with costs and other reliefs, which Court deems fit, in the circumstances of the case.
3. The defendant No.1 files his written statement, wherein he contends that, plaintiff had field caveat wherein he contends that, plaintiff is in possession of temple being constructed in the suit property and is making construction in the suit property and that, suit property is acquired by Government by Preliminary Notification dated 5-4-1974 and by Final Notification dated 24-7-1976 and possession is taken by Government in respect of Sy.No.108, including suit property on dated 3-4-1980 and thereafter, the Government has granted 9 guntas of land in Sy.No.108 of K.G.Halli in favour of mother of defendants 1 to 3, by name Mangalakshmiamma, Vide it's order dated 7-1-1996 and that, the Government Order dated 30-8-1995 produced by defendant No.1 goes to show that, the suit property is granted to mother of defendants 1 to 3 by name Mangalakshmiamma. On these grounds, it is prayed for dismissal of this suit with costs.
6 O.S.No.8630/20024. Defendant No.3 has also filed her written statement supporting written statement of defendant No.1 and contends that, suit property was granted to their mother by the Government, Vide Government Order dated 7-1-1996 and further it is contended that, Sy.No.108 is acquired along with other survey numbers by the Government under Preliminary Notification dated 5-4-1974 and Final Notification dated 24-7-1976 and that, Sy.No.108, including suit property, is acquired and taken over by Government on 3-4-1980. On these grounds, it is prayed for dismissal of this suit.
5. On the basis of these rival contentions taken by both the parties, following Issues are framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession over suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves the unlawful interference by the defendants?
3. What Decree or Order?
Additional Issues:
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendants have put up construction of a shed on suit property on 26-12-2009?7 O.S.No.8630/2002
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction?
6. Whether the suit is barred by time?
7. Whether court fee paid is insufficient?
6. The plaintiff, to prove his case, examined himself and three witnesses, respectively, as P.Ws.1 to 4 and relied upon 57 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P57 and closed his side.
The defendants, in order to prove their case, examined defendant No.1 as D.W.1 and relied upon 108 documents marked as Exs.D1 to D108 and closed their side.
7. Heard arguments of Learned Counsels for both the parties. Advocates for defendants have filed their Written Arguments also.
8. My answer to the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 - in the Negative;
Issue No.2 - in the Negative;
Issue No.3 - as per Final Order below; Issue No.4 - in the Negative;
Issue No.5 - in the Negative;
Issue No.6 - in the Negative;
Issue No.7 - in the Negative;
for the following:8 O.S.No.8630/2002
Reasons
9. Issue No. 1 : The plaintiff contends that, Sy.No.108 measuring 4 acres 50 guntas of Kadugondanahalli is purchased by TEL Church from Patel Hanumanthappa under registered sale deed dated 21-3-1938 and that, said Church has formed a private layout in portion of Sy.No.108 and has sold 6000 square feet of area in the remaining portion of Sy.No.108 to the plaintiff through G.P.A. dated 4-10-1989 and affidavit dated 4-10-1989, which is suit property and that, plaintiff has constructed four shops and one residential house and another residential portion is given to 4th defendant on monthly rent of Rs.300/- and that, plaintiff has demolished two shops and started constructing structure in it and during that time, defendants started obstructing plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over suit property.
10. In order to substantiate his contention, plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1, who has reiterated the same facts of plaint averments in his evidence. Further, he has relied upon Exs.P1 and P2, which are certified copies of G.P.A. dated 4-10-1989 and affidavit dated 4-10-1989, respectively, which are executed by Property Officer of TEL Church in favour of plaintiff in respect of 6000 square feet out of Sy.No.108 of Kadugondanahalli. Further, the plaintiff has relied upon Ex.P9-certified 9 O.S.No.8630/2002 copy of sale deed dated 21-3-1938 executed by Patel Hanumanthappa in favour of TEL Church in respect of Sy.No.108 of Kadugondanahalli and Ex.P16- certified copy of Order dated 7-11-1989 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No. 21938/1980 quashing the Final Notification dated 3-4-1980 published in Karnataka Gazette dated 17-4-1980 in respect of acquisition of 2 acres 18 guntas of land in Sy.No.108 of Kadugondanahalli by the Government, belonging to TEL Church.
11. On going through Exs.P1 and P2-G.P.A. dated 4-10-1989 and affidavit dated 4-10-1989 executed by K.S.Nelson, Property Officer of T.E.L. Church in favour of plaintiff in respect of 6000 square feet, bounded by Road on the East, 10 feet road on the West, Muneshwaranagar Cross-2 on the North and Muneshwara Temple Road by South and on going through Ex.P9, it goes to show that, T.E.L. Church has purchased Sy.No.108 measuring 4 acres 15 guntas of Kadugondanahalli from Patel Hanumanthappa under registered sale deed dated21-3-1938 and on going through Ex.P16- certified copy of order dated 7-11-1989 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.21938/ 1980, it goes to show that, notification dated 3-4-1980 published in Government Gazette dated 17-4-1980 regarding acquisition of 2 acres 18 guntas of land in Sy.No.118 of Kadugondanahalli by 10 O.S.No.8630/2002 Government is quashed and Acquisition Officers are authorized to proceed with the acquisition from the stage of hearing of objections of the petitioner (T.E.L.Church), by the Land Acquisition Officer, if they choose so.
12. On the other hand, defendants 1 to 3 contend that, the suit property is not the residential property as contemplated by plaintiff, but it is a temple property belonging to Muneshwara Temple and this fact has been stated by plaintiff in Ex.D28- copy of Caveat in caveat petition No.4773/2002 filed by the present plaintiff on the file of this Court and that, permanent injunction has been granted in respect of suit property in favour of plaintiffs therein- S.Indumathi and S.Jyothi (defendants 2 and 3 herein), when a suit was filed by present defendants 3 and 2 against defendants 4 and 5 herein Vide Ex.D41-certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No. 6762/ 2002 on the file of this Court and that, Judgment in O.S.No.6762/2002 is passed in favour present defendants 2 and 3 on the basis of grant of suit property made by B.D.O. in favour of Mangalakshmiamma (mother of present defendants 1 to 3) vide Possession Certificate issued by B.D.O. in favour of Mangalakshmiamma on dated 19-11-1977.
11 O.S.No.8630/200213. In support of their contention, defendants 1 to 3 have examined defendant No.1 as D.W.1, who has reiterated the same facts of written statement of defendants 1 to 3 in his evidence. Further these defendants have relied upon Ex.D28-certified copy of Caveat in Petition No.4773/2002 filed by counsel for the plaintiff; Ex.D41-certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No.6762/2002 passed by this Court on dated 31-3-2009 in a suit between present defendants 2 and 3 as plaintiffs, against defendants 4 and 5 herein, wherein the suit of the plaintiffs (present defendants 2 and 3 herein) is decreed in favour of plaintiffs therein; Ex.P42- certified copy of decree in O.S.No.6762/20002; Ex.D57-Proceedings of Kadugondanahalli Group Panchayat, for forming sites to site less people, in Sy.No.108, 105 and 106 of Kadugondanahalli, Ex.D58-Possession Certificate issued by B.D.O. to Mangalakshmiamma dated 19-11-1977; Ex.D57-copy of Tax Assessment List standing in the name of Mangalakshmiamma in respect of 9 guntas of Sy.No.108 of Kadugondanahalli; Ex.D76-Certificate dated 14-11-1988 issued by B.D.A. in favour of Mangalakshmiamma, stating that, 9 guntas of Sy.No.108 is granted to Mangalakshmiamma by the Government, for Muneshwara Temple.
12 O.S.No.8630/200214. The defendants contend that, land granted to their mother-Mangalakshmiamma to the extent of 9 guntas in Sy.No.108 of Kadugondana- halli, is same as that of the boundaries given to the plaintiff in this suit.
On going through the boundaries mentioned in the schedule of the plaint pertaining to suit property and boundaries of land granted to Mangalakshmi- amma stated in Ex.D41-certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No.6762/2002 filed by present defendants 2 and 3 as plaintiffs therein against defendants 4 and 5 herein; and Ex.D42-certified copy of decree in O.S.No.6762/2002 and Ex.D58-original Possession Certificate issued by B.D.O. to Mangalakshmiamma dated 19-11-1977, it goes to show that, the boundaries of suit property mentioned in plaint schedule and the property to the extent of 9 guntas granted to the mother of defendants 1 to 3, by name Mangalakshmiamma, are one and the same.
15. By taking into consideration of the fact that, the suit property has been granted by B.D.O. to Mangalakshmiamma on dated 19-11-1977, Vide Possession Certificate as per Ex.D58, this Court has granted permanent injunction in favour of plaintiffs therein, who are present defendants 2 and 3 in this suit, when they have filed a suit for permanent injunction against the present defendants 4 and 5.
13 O.S.No.8630/200216. Having regard to the fact that, the suit property has been granted to the mother of defendants 1 to 3 by name Mangalakshmiamma, Vide Ex.D58-Possession Certificate issued by B.D.O. dated 19-11-1977 and in view of the grant of permanent injunction granted in favour of present defendants 2 and 3 in respect of present suit property, when a suit for permanent injunction was filed by present defendants 2 and 3 against defendants 4 and 5 and by taking into consideration of the fact that, the plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands, as he has stated in the plaint that, he has got residential structure and two shops and he has not stated about existence of Muneshwara Temple in the suit property and in view of the contention taken by plaintiff in his caveat that, the suit property is belonging to Muneshwara Temple, I hold that, plaintiff has failed to prove that, he is in lawful possession of the suit property, as on the date of suit and therefore, plaintiff has failed to prove this Issue. Accordingly, I hold Issue No.1 in the Negative.
17. Issue Nos. 2, 4 and 5 : For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts and in view of the fact that, these Issues are inter-linked and inter-connected with each other, all these Issues are taken-up together for common consideration.
14 O.S.No.8630/200218. In view of my answer to Issue No.1 in the Negative, I hold Issue Nos.2, 4 and 5 also in the Negative.
19. Issue Nos.6 and 7: For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts and in view of the fact that, these Issues are inter-linked and inter-connected with each other, all these Issues are taken-up together for common consideration.
20. The defendants have not led any evidence, nor produced any documents to substantiate that, the suit is barred by limitation and Court fee paid is insufficient. Hence, Issue Nos.6 and 7 are held in the Negative.
21. Learned Counsel for 1st defendant has relied upon the following citations:
1). Suraj Lamp & industries (P) Ltd. Thru.DIR vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 2009 AIR SCW 4944, wherein it is held that:
" Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), S.54- Freehold properties-Sale of -Concept of "Power of Attorney Sales" by execution of sale agreement/general power of attorney/Will- Deprecated as illegal and irregular-Special measures to control such sales warranted." 15 O.S.No.8630/2002
2). Channaibhairayya vs. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and others, reported in 2013 (2) AKR 450, wherein it is held that:
"Bangalore Development Authority Act (12 of 1976), S.69-Registration Act (16 of 1908), S.17-Karnataka Stamp Act (34 of 1957), S.3-
Allotment of alternate site -Execution of General Power of Attorney by vendor-in-title- Affidavit admitting receipt of consideration- Holder placed in possession of immovable property-No conveyance deed was executed by vendor-in-title in favour of Holder of General Power of Attorney-Non-conformity to mandate of registration law and payment of stamp duty-Holder cannot claim to have acquired right, title and interest in immovable property- Holder not entitled to allotment of alternate site."
3). Miss Sandra Lesley Anna Bartels vs. Miss P.Gunavathy, reported in 2013 (2) AKR 5, wherein it is held that:
"Karnataka Stamp Act (34 of 1957), Ss.33, 34- Impounding of insufficiently stamped instrument-Under S.33, the moment insufficiently stamped instrument comes to notice of Court, same has to be impounded in accordance with S.33, whether same would be relied upon by party under S.34 or not."16 O.S.No.8630/2002
4). Corporation Bank, Bangalore, vs. Lalitha H.Holla and others, reported in AIR 1994 Kar. 133, wherein it is held that:
"(D) Registration Act (16 of 1908), Ss.2(6), 17(1(d) & (e)-Power of Attorney-Creating equitable assignment of rents-Requires registration -Unregistered document void and unenforceable. "
5). The Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co- operative Society Ltd. vs. Sipahi Singh and others, reported in AIR 1977 SC 2149, wherein it is held that:
"(D) T.P.Act (1882), S.107 -Registration Act (1908), Ss.2(6) and 17 (I) (d) -Lease of Fishery-
Registration if necessary."
6). M.E.Moolla Sons, Ltd. (in Liquidatin) vs. Official Assignee, Rangoon and others, reported in AIR 1936 Privy Council 230, wherein it is held that:
"Transfer of Property Act (1882), S.54-Interest under deed of settlement in income in rents and profits of immoveable property and in sale proceeds thereof is immoveable property-it cannot be transferred without registered instrument-Interest cannot also be transferred without registered deed according to Ss.5 and 8 of the Trusts Act."17 O.S.No.8630/2002
7). K.Manjunath vs. Basavaraj and others, reported in 2012 (5) KCCR 4267, wherein it is held that:
"Hindu Law-Partition-Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957-Section 35-Registration Act, 1908- Section 49-Cillateral purpose-Unregistered and unstamped of partition deed-Held, the trial Court was not justified in permitting an unregistered and unstamped document to be marked for whatever purpose."
8). Wajid Pasha vs. The Chairman, Bangalore Development Authority, Bangalore and others, reported in 2014(1) KCCR 676 wherein it is held that:
"A. Power of Attorney-It gests terminated automatically by death of either of the parties- As soon as the person who executed the power of attorney dies, the right given to the agent comes to an end. Once the agency is terminated on account of the operation of law or by the act of the principal, the agent cannot act on the basis of the power conferred upon him under the deed of power of attorney."18 O.S.No.8630/2002
9). V.R.Kamath vs. Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and others, reported in AIR 1997 Kar. 275, wherein it is held that:
" High Court of Karnataka Rules (1959), Chap. XI.R.5-A-Affidavit-Administration of Oath by Oath Commissioner-Procedure- Necessary particulars have to be entered in Register - Signature affixed in Register and endorsement made on affidavit should contain serial number and also contain place of attestation- Non-compliance with said requirements- Affidavit cannot be said to be duly attested.
Karnataka Civil Rules of Practice (1967), R.28-A-Oaths Act (44of 1969), S.3(3)-Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), S.139, O.19, R.1-Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974), S.297-Notaries Act (53 of 1952), S.8- Writ Proceedings Rules (1977), R.3."
22. The principles laid down in the above citations are followed by me while deciding the Issues in this suit.
23. Issue No.3 : In view of the foregoing reasons and in the result, I proceed to pass the following:
19 O.S.No.8630/2002ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
No Order as to costs.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerised print-out taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 18th day of July, 2016.) (M.S.PATIL) XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, *sb Bengaluru.20 O.S.No.8630/2002
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1 B.M.Muniraju P.W.2 M.Rajappa P.W.3 Rajkumar Rusus P.W.4 D.Soloman Gamaliyel
List of witnesses examined for defendants:
D.W.1 S.Krishna List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff:
Ex.P1- G.P.A. executed by Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church in favour of plaintiff Ex.P2 - Affidavit of Property Officer of church. Exs.P3 to P6 - photographs of suit property Exs.P3(a) to P6(a) - Negatives. Exs.P7 & P8 - certified copies of Order Sheet and plaint in O.S.10111/90.
Ex.P9- certified copy of sale deed dated 21.3.1938 executed by Patel Hanumanthappa in favour of Church Ex.P10 -Receipt issued by Church for having received Rs.25000/- from plaintiff by way of DD Ex.P11 -Endorsement issued by Taluk panchayath Ex.P12 - tax paid receipt Ex.P13 - extract of Tax Demand Register 21 O.S.No.8630/2002 Ex.P14 - copy of complaint given to Asst.
Commissioner of Police, Bharatinagar. Ex.P15- certified copy of PCR filed by Indumathi against Iqbal Ex.P16 - certified copy of Order passed in W.P.No.21938/80 dated 7-11-89 (corresponding to Ex.D5) Ex.P17 -Lease Agreement executed in favour of Iqbal Exs.P18 & P19- certified copy of Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.6762/02, dated 31-3-2009 Exs.P20 & P21-certified copy of Gazetteer Notifications dated 9-7-1976 and 17-4-1980 Exs.P22 to P31 - KEB bills Exs.P32 & P32(a) - photograph with negative Ex.P33- copy of Layout Plan of Sy.No.108. Ex.P34 - rough sketch.
Exs.P35 & P36 - certified copy of village maps of Kadugondanahalli and Devarajeevanahalli. Exs.P37 & P38 - copy of the complaint along with endorsement issued by the police. Ex.P39 - Notice of Police to produce documents. Ex.P40- Police acknowledgement Exs.P41 to P46 - photographs of suit property Exs.P41(a) to P46(a)- negatives Ex.P47 - voters' list of defendant No.4 Ex.P48- Voter's list of Saraswathi-2nd wife of Iqbal 22 O.S.No.8630/2002 Exs.P49 to P55- voters' list of the parents and family members of Saraswathi wife of Iqbal Exs.P56 to P62- Voters List of Indumathi and others Ex.P63 - Letter of Authorization issued by Tamil Evangelical Lutheran Church to the property Department Ex.P64 - Registered sale deed dated 21-3-1938 Exs.P65 to P67 - copies of G.P.A. dated 4-10-1989, Affidavit and Treasury Cash Book Ledger Ex.P67(a) - original Cash Book Ex.P67(b) - Entry of payment of amount by Muniraju List of documents marked for defendants: Ex.D1 - certified copy of Power of Attorney Ex.D2 - Affidavit executed by Nelson Ex.D3 - certified copy of deposition of D.W.1 in O.S.No.6762/2002 Ex.D4 - certified copy of Affidavit evidence Iqbal in O.S.No.6762/2002 Ex.D5 - certified copy of Writ petition along with verifying affidavit filed in W.P.21938/1980 (corresponding to Ex.P16) Exs.D6 & D7- certified copy of caveat petition and vakalath Exs.D8 & D8(A)-certified copy of sale deed dated 21-6-1948 with typed copy Ex.D9 & D9(A)- certified copy of sale deed dated 14-8-1948 with typed copy 23 O.S.No.8630/2002 Exs.D10 & D11 - certified copies of plaint and Judgment, in O.S.10431/1986 Exs.D12 to D14- certified copies of Order Sheet, Plaint and Written Statement in O.S.No. 10111/1990 Ex.D15 - certified copy of G.P.A dated 4-10-1989 Ex.D16 - certified copy of Affidavit Exs.D17 & D18 - certified copy of Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.5883/2003 Exs.D19 to D23- photographs with C.D Ex.D24 - certified copy of Order Sheet in O.S.No.6762/2002 Ex.D25 - certified copy of Memo filed by defendants No.2 and 3 in O.S.No.8630/2002 Ex.sD26 & D27- certified copies of Amended Plaint and Vakalath of defendant No.1 in O.S.No.6762/2002 Exs.D28 & D29 - certified copies of Caveat and Vakalath in O.S.No.4773/2002 Exs.D30 to D35-certified copies of written statement; objections filed to injunction application; objections filed to I.A.u/O.39 R.2A C.P.C.; I.A. with Affidavit; List of documents; all filed by 1st defendant in O.S.No.6762/2002 Ex.D36 - certified copy of hakku patra Ex.D37 - certified copy of Demand Register extract Exs.D38 & D39 - certified copy of tax paid receipts 24 O.S.No.8630/2002 Exs.D40, D40A & D40B - certified copy of deposition of defendant no.1 in O.S.No.6762/2002 Exs.D41 & D42- certified copy of Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.6762/2002 Exs.D43 & D44 -copy of the FIRs. Ex.D45-Acknowledgement issued by BDA on 18-10-2010 Ex.D46 - Intimation given by LAO of BDA Ex.D47 - Information given by Canara Bank under RTI Act Ex.D48 - Endorsement issued by Dpartment of Energy, Bengaluru Exs.D49 to D51 - copy of application given to BESCOM and postal receipts Exs.D52 to D56 - copy of application given to BESCOM, receipts and postal acknowledgements Ex.D57 - copy of Resolution passed by Village Panchayat Ex.D58 - Possession Certificate Ex.D59 - Assessment extract for the year 1977-80 Exs.D60 to D71-tax paid receipts Ex.D72 - Endorsement issued by panchayat Ex.D73 - Plan showing existence of property Ex.D74 - Endorsement issued by PDO Ex.D75- Demand Register extract Ex.D76- Tax paid receipt 25 O.S.No.8630/2002 Exs.D77 & D78- Land Acquisition Notifications Ex.D79- Amended order passed by Deputy Commissioner Ex.D80- Work Order issued by TDB Exs.D81 to D83- Acknowledgements issued by Government of Karnataka Ex.D84-Death Certificate of Smt.Mahalakshmiammal Ex.D85 - Family Tree Ex.D86- Rough sketch Ex.D87 - Receipt voucher Ex.D88-Reply issued by BDA on 5.5.2011 Ex.D89 - copy of Sketch showing HBR I stage of Kadugondanahalli and other areas Ex.D90- Mutation Register extract Ex.D91- Reply issued by LAO of BDA Ex.D92- Endorsement issued by Bangalore North Taluk Panchayat Ex.D93- Survey Settlement extract Ex.D94 - certified copy of Tippani copy Ex.D95-certified copy of Kiradi extract issued by Survey Department Ex.D96-Reply given by BESCOM on 8.11.2010 Ex.D97- Receipt issued by BESCOM Ex.D98- Sanctioned Order issued by BESCOM 26 O.S.No.8630/2002 Ex.D99- Report of BESCOM Officer about spot visit Ex.D100- Agreement with BESCOM for supply of electricity Ex.D101- Drawing of BESCOM Ex.D102-Revenue verification extract issued by BESCOM Ex.D103-Approval order issued by BESCOM Ex.D104- Sanction Order of BESCOM Ex.D105 -Rental Agreement dated 9/12/2009 Ex.D106- certified copy of Impleading Application with affidavit Ex.D107- certified copy of Endorsement issued by Muneshwaranagar Welfare Association Ex.D108- Copy of the application given under right to Information Act to the AEE of BESCOM (M.S.PATIL) XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.27 O.S.No.8630/2002
....-2016 Judgment passed and pronounced in Open Court. (vide separate Judgment). Operative portion thereof reads as under:
Order XXXXXXXXXXX XXII A.C.C. & S.J., Bengaluru.