Bangalore District Court
Smt. Naziya Sultana vs M. Wasim on 16 June, 2020
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS
Government of
Karnataka
Form No.9
IN THE COURT OF V ADDL.CITY CIVIL COURT
[Civil] Title Sheet AT BENGALURU
for
Judgment (CCH.No.13)
in Suits
Present: Sri. C.D. KAROSHI, B.A., LL.M.
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU
Dated this the 16th day of June, 2020
O.S. No.3460/2013
PLAINTIFF: Smt. Naziya Sultana,
D/o Mr. Shah Ali Basha,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at No.43, 8th Main,
8th 'A' Cross, BTM Layout,
(N.G. Palya), Bengaluru-29.
(By Sri.VBS, Advocate)
/VS/
DEFENDANTS: 1. M. Wasim,
S/o M. Akbar Shariff,
Aged about 33 yeas,
R/at Old No.11,
New No.21, 9th Cross,
Park Area, Wilson Garden,
Bengaluru-27.
Rep. By his power of attorney
holder Mr. M. Ayaz Shariff,
S/o M. Akbar Shariff,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at Old No.11,
New No.21, 9th Cross,
Park Area, Wilson Garden,
Bengaluru-27.
2. M. Ayaz Shariff,
S/o M. Akbar Shariff,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at Old No.11,
New No.21, 9th Cross,
Park Area, Wilson Garden,
Bengaluru-27.
2
O.S. No.3460/2013
3. M. Akbar Shariff
Since dead by his L.Rs
(D.1 and D.2 are already
on record)
(By Sri.NSB, advocate )
Date of Institution of the suit 04/05/2013
Nature of the suit Suit for declaration &
permanent injunction
Date of Commencement of 06/06/2016
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment was 16/06/2020
Pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
07 01 12
( C.D.KAROSHI )
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU
******
:JUDGMENT:
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property along with cost of the suit.
2. The brief facts are as under :-
That, the plaintiff became a tenant in respect of one non residential shop premises constituting shop property measuring east to west 16 feet, north to south 42 feet located 3 O.S. No.3460/2013 in the first floor of the building bearing municipal No.30 (Old No.20 and 21) constructed on land measuring east -west 32 feet and north-south 42 feet situated at N.R. Road, Bengaluru-45 along with notified share and title over the land measuring 224 square feet out of the total land area measuring 1344 square feet along with super built up area 672 square feet and with unrestricted, unhindered right to use of common passage, undetachable or inseparable amenities such as stair cases, common areas, balconies, terrace area that formed the part of the building comprising of ground floor plus first floor together with second floor.
Further it is averred that the schedule property has been occupied by the plaintiff as a tenant as per rental agreement dated 07/07/2004 in the name of Ansar Pasha. Smt. Naziya Sultana is the wife of Ansar Pasha in whose name the property was purchased and the property described in the schedule being enjoyed as a tenant for a period of more than 20 years. The owner of the property has executed registered sale deed. After purchase of the property the plaintiff got transferred Khatha in her name and enjoying the same for an uninterrupted usage having possession with undivided right, title, interest, ownership in all the common halls together with open passages/vacant area available. The plaintiff is exercising her right of declaration as per the registered sale deed in respect of a shop premises. The defendants are purported to be in occupation of one portion in the first floor which is adjacent to the property, shop bearing premises 4 O.S. No.3460/2013 No.29 and plaintiff has purchased the shop No.30. The shop No.29 has been provided with common passage in the first floor and there is also common passage towards ground floor. The defendants in first floor also provided with a similar ingress and egress of common passage. The plaintiff is doing business in PVC doors, panels and other various hardware articles being done in the premises. The width of the passage is 7 ½ feet and the defendants are doing business in shop No.29 and also utilizing other portion, as such plaintiff has to pass through shop No.29 to reach her property described in schedule 'A', where as defendants properties are described as schedule 'B' who purported to have purchased under a registered sale deed dated 09/02/2005. Further it is averred that, the vacant area that will have to be used for the purposes of entering through the staircase to reach the first floor or getting down from the staircase to the ground floor to reach outside the property. Further it is averred that the sale deed is stated to have been executed by Smt. Atiqa Khannum and said Atiqa Khannum has no title to sell the property and she could not have sold the common areas in the ground floor, thereby what is now being done by the defendants is they are not only blocking the open passages in the ground floor, but also the open passages in the first floor, thereby disallowing the plaintiff to utilize the common areas for ingress and egress in the entire area. The purchase of the property by the plaintiff although undertaken on 09/06/2011, the plaintiff will be indicating the common 5 O.S. No.3460/2013 passage as described in schedule 'A'. Similarly the defendants also occupied recognized indicated shop premises as also the right of common usage, but has no right of exclusive usage by blocking the passages. But on 02/05/2013 and 03/05/2013 an attempt was made and on 28/04/2013 the defendants started to putting up gates, locking the gates and erecting the permanent structure to disallow the usage of the property, accordingly plaintiff lodged complaint before the concerned police, but they did not turn up. Cause of action to file the suit arose on 28/04/2013 when the defendants interfered with the schedule property and subsequent dates when they attempted to put up permanent structures and to block the gates and usage of common passage purchased by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a helpless woman has filed the above numbered suit for the relief of declaration and injunction.
3. It is contended in the written statement that the suit of the plaintiff is false, vexatious and not maintainable. The averments of the plaint that plaintiff became a tenant in respect of non residential shop premises in the first floor measuring 16 x 42 feet may be true, but other claim that along with notified share and title over the land measuring 224 square feet out of total land measuring 1344 square feet with super built up area of 672 square feet and with unrestricted, unhindered right to use of common passage such as stair case, common area, balconies and terrace area 6 O.S. No.3460/2013 formed part of building comprising of ground floor plus first floor together with second floor is not correctly and properly stated, as to where plaintiffs so called right to use the common passage etc are located, as such the claim of the plaintiff is not true and correct and specifically denied, the plaintiff be put to strict proof of the same. Further contend that schedule 'A' property is impossible to understand as the boundaries are not clear, as such the rental agreement dated 07/07/2004 is of no consequences to the suit. In absence of particulars of the property plaintiff cannot seek the relief of declaration and injunction against the defendants. The averments made in para 3 of the plaint are vague and it cannot be understood. The claim of the plaintiff is to trouble and harass the defendants. The plaintiff has sufficient common area and staircase to her property, as such she need not claim and has no right over portion of the property belong to the defendants. It is true that defendants occupied the shop No.29 and plaintiff has purchased the shop No.30. Further it is true that shop No.29 has been provided with a common passage in the first floor and there is a common passage towards ground floor, the sketch furnished by the plaintiff does not depict correct state of affairs. The claim of the plaintiff that she has to pass through the shop No.29 to reach her 'A' schedule property is not correct and denied. Further contend that in between plaintiff's shop and shop in the occupation of the defendants there is a staircase and the plaintiff, defendants are using the same, as such plaintiff 7 O.S. No.3460/2013 need not pass through the passage of shop No.29 to reach her shop No.30. The defendants are the owners having purchased a portion of property including alleged staircase for valuable consideration through registered sale deed. So when the plaintiff is having facility of staircase next to her shop No.30 and before shop No.29 i.e. in between two shops why she should trouble herself in making unfounded allegations and claim against the defendants. The defendants are not blocking open passage as alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no such right what she has claimed as common area and staircase with full right of ingress and egress as she has another staircase and common area by the side of her shop. The plaintiff is giving wrong and misinterpretation to the entire state of affairs in the shop with an ulterior motive of doing harm to the interest of the defendants. The averments made in para 5 to 7 of the plaint are denied as false. No cause of action arose to file the suit and same is imaginary. Valuation made and court fee paid is not correct. The suit of the plaintiff is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff may have title to an extent of 224 square feet of area, but the alleged claim over staircase, common area etc., unless specified with location cannot get any relief. On these grounds prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.
8O.S. No.3460/2013
4. On the basis of the above pleadings, my learned predecessor in office has framed the following issues:-
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is having undivided right in all the common walls of the entire building, open passage and vacant area?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a relief of declaration as sought?
3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the alleged act of interference by the defendants?
4) Whether the defendant proves that the court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
6) What order or decree?
5. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W. 1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to
13. On the other hand, defendant No.2 examined himself as D.W.1. During the course of cross-examination of P.W. 1, the defendant got marked Ex.D.1 to 4 photos and C.D.
6. Heard and perused the written arguments along with the material on record. The learned counsel for plaintiff relied on a decision AIR 2006 SC 2234. The learned counsel for defendants relied on a decision (2018) 7 SC 646.
9O.S. No.3460/2013
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.3: In the Affirmative
Issue No.4: In the Negative
Issue No.5: Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.6: As per final order for the
following:
:R E A S O N S:
8. Issue No.1 to 3:- I take these issues altogether for my discussion, as the facts overlap and for the sake of convenience.
9. It is worth to note that, admittedly plaintiff has filed the above numbered suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule property.
10. In this regard, the plaintiff has filed an affidavit in lieu of oral evidence by reiterating entire averments of the plaint, examined herself as P.W. 1 stating that she is having right, title and interest together with undivided share to the extent of 224 square feet with common passage, staircase, common area, balconies and terrace area pertains to shop premise No.30 by virtue of registered sale deed and prior to that also she was residing in the said premises as tenant as 10 O.S. No.3460/2013 per rental agreement, but the defendants being the adjacent owners of property No.29 have obstructed to use the common passage so as to reach the schedule 'A' property. In order to support her oral testimony P.W. 1 got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.13.
11. During the course of cross-examination of P.W. 1 when a suggestion was put to the witness that there is a staircase between shop No.29 and 30 and there is no difficulty to approach her shop from the said staircase, as such question of blocking the passage or interference by the defendants does not arise, she denied as false. But when photographs pertain to the disputed area being confronted to the witness stating that they depict the existence of staircase between both the properties and a passage in front of her shop, she admitted as true, accordingly got marked the photos with CD at Ex.D.1 to D.4. In her further cross- examination admits that, the sale deed is not annexed with sketch indicating common area and passage details of the property.
12. In order to substantiate their contention the defendant No.2 also filed an affidavit in lieu of examination- in-chief, examined himself as D.W.1 by reproducing the entire contentions taken in the written statement stating that, though the claim of the plaintiff that she became a tenant in respect of said shop premises and title over the land measuring 224 square feet out of total land bearing 1344 11 O.S. No.3460/2013 square feet along with super built up area and unrestricted right to use of common passage etc, but the same is not correctly stated by the plaintiff. Further states that though the claim that defendants occupy a portion No.29 and plaintiff has purchased shop No.30, but shop No.29 has been provided with a common passage in the first floor and there is a common passage towards ground floor with free common passage. The claim of the plaintiff as described in schedule 'A" is not correct statement of fact. Further states that in between both the shops there is a staircase, accordingly the plaintiff, her customers and the defendants are all making use of the said staircase. Further there are more than one staircases to reach the first floor, as such, blocking of the open space in the ground floor and thereby disallowing the plaintiff to utilize the common area for ingress and egress does not arise. In order to support his oral testimony D.W.1 got marked documents at Ex.D.1 to D.4 during the course of cross-examination of P.W. 1.
13. In the cross-examination of D.W. 1 it has been elicited that prior to purchase of the schedule property the plaintiff was residing as tenant and also tenants/people who possessed the said commercial properties have got common passage and none of them interfered with each other. Again admits that they have only closed the gate towards corridor and there is staircase and common passage to reach shops at first floor and staircase to the second floor as per Ex.P.10, 12 12 O.S. No.3460/2013 and 13 photographs, but when the learned counsel for the plaintiff confronted a rough sketch the witness denied the same for want of correct writings. In his further cross- examination though admits that he purchased the property No.36/1 from its owner Athika Khanum, but did not identify the building appeared in a sketch. Further volunteers that all the tenants of this premises can utilize the staircase and common passage shown at Ex.P.10 and P.11 without obstruction from anybody. In such circumstances based on available oral and documentary evidence this court has to see that in whose favour preponderance of probabilities lies.
14. It is pertinent to note here that, on careful evaluation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence as well as arguments/written arguments we can find that, so far as in respect of title/undivided share of the plaintiff pertains to shop premises No.30 to the extent of 224 square feet along with super built up area of 672 square feet is concern there is no dispute. Similarly, so far as in respect of title/undivided share of the defendants pertains to shop premises No.29 is concern there is no dispute.
15. But in the prayer column of the plaint the plaintiff has sought declaration as she has absolute right, title, interest pertaining to undivided share over the entire property to the extent of 224 square feet area together with common, inseparable amenities such as staircase, common areas, balconies, terrace area which forms part and parcel of 13 O.S. No.3460/2013 the building, comprising of ground floor plus first floor, second floor shown in the schedule 'A' property along with the relief of permanent injunction, which has been seriously disputed by the defendants.
16. In this regard, though the material on records shows that, the defendants have not disputed undivided share of the plaintiff over the schedule property including common areas and staircase, but they have disputed the averments made in prayer column of the plaint regarding declaration that, plaintiff has absolute right, title etc., over entire property to the extent of 224 square feet or together with common area. In this connection the plaintiff has not produced original sale deed dated 09/06/2011 before this court and she has relied on Ex.P.1 certified copy of the sale deed, Ex.P.2 Khatha certificate, Ex.P.3 and 7 khatha extracts along with Ex.P.4 and 8 rent/tax paid receipts only.
17. In para 4 of the written statement the defendants would contend that, the claim of the plaintiff that she has to pass through shop No.29 to reach her property described in the schedule 'A' is not correct statement of fact and specifically denied and description of the defendants premises also not correct stating that in between the shop of plaintiff and defendants there is a staircase which is being used by the plaintiff and defendants. So admittedly Ex.P.3 and P.7 khatha extracts disclose about only sital area of the plaintiff's property bearing No.30 at 672 square feet and it 14 O.S. No.3460/2013 does not disclose total built up area, vacant land ARV or common area. The rough sketch which was being confronted to D.W. 1 disclosing particulars of the schedule properties also denied by the other side.
18. It may be noted that though in the plaint it is averred that width of the passage is about 7 ½ feet, but the plaintiff has neither produced sanctioned plan of the building to know the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) nor got marked rough sketch during the trial or Ex.P.1 copy of sale deed also depicts exact measurement of common passage which has been disputed by the defendants.
19. In this connection, during the pendency of the suit the plaintiff got appointed an advocate commissioner to conduct inspection of schedule 'A' property situated at No.42 to 47, N.R. Road along with undivided share in the property bearing No.36/1, N.R. Road and report in respect of the building of the defendants bearing No.28/1, situated at N.R. Road as per memo of instructions. The defendants also furnished memo of instructions with regard to the existence of property No.42/47 and 28/1, whether the plaintiff has separate staircase adjacent to her shop from the ground floor to ingress and egress to her shop at first floor, condition of the building No.36/1 and staircase shown in the ground floor between aluminum and Omkar roofings leads to plaintiff's shop or not? Accordingly, as per the orders of this court, the commissioner by name Sri. C. Nagaraj, advocate visited the 15 O.S. No.3460/2013 spot and after conducting commission work submitted his report to the court stating that the plaintiff is having separate staircase to her premises which can also be accessible to the shop of defendants in the first floor, it has been disputed by the plaintiff by filing objections to the report.
20. It is also worth to note that, without there being an order of setting aside the first commission, again the plaintiff's counsel filed I.A. No.12 under Order XVIII Rule 18 CPC with a request to make a physical inspection of the property by this court, which came to be dismissed on 03/02/2020 with an observation that, without setting aside the first commission, 2nd commission is not permissible for the same purpose. Further, as held by our Hon'ble High court in the case of Srikanta Vs. Subhash since dead by L.Rs (ILR 2016 KAR P 297) this court observed that parties cannot claim spot inspection by the court as a matter of right under the aforesaid provisions.
21. It is pertinent to note here that, averments of the plaint along with contents of Ex.P.1 copy of the sale deed dated 11/06/2011 executed by its owner in favour of plaintiff Smt.Naziya Sultana reveals that, the plaintiff has purchased the schedule immovable commercial shop premises measuring east west 16 feet and north south 42 feet situated on the first floor of the building bearing municipal No.30 16 O.S. No.3460/2013 along with undivided share of title and interest in and over the land measuring 224 square feet along with super built up area of 672 square feet with unrestricted right to use all common and accessible or inseparable amenities such as staircase, common areas, balconies etc., with boundaries shown in the plaint schedule as well as the aforesaid sale deed.
22. Admittedly none of the parties have examined the court commissioner before this court. Further, plaintiff has also not produced mother sale deed before this court. Similarly though the defendants would contend that they purchased the property No.29 including the alleged staircase which the plaintiff is claiming, but they have also not produced their sale deed dated 09/02/2005. However, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff Smt. Naziya Sultana is none other than the wife of Ansar Pasha who was the tenant of schedule property under its owner as per rental agreement dated 07/07/2004. So, though the report of the commissioner reflects that plaintiff is having separate staircase to her premises which can also be accessible to the shop of the defendants in first floor, same has also been elicited during the course of cross-examination of P.W. 1 as per Ex.D.1 to 4 photographs, but during the course of cross- examination of D.W. 1 also it has been elicited that as shown in Ex.P.10 and 11 photographs all the tenants can use the staircase and common passage without obstruction by anybody. So this being the fact, this court has to see the 17 O.S. No.3460/2013 nature of acquisition of the right of easement over the common passage and staircase so as to reach schedule 'A' property through property No.29 belongs to the defendants.
23. The right of easement by necessity and right of easement by grant has been distinguished by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Hero Vinoth reported in AIR 2006 SC 2234 referred supra by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, wherein it is held that, easement of grant is a matter of contract between the parties. In the matter of grant, the parties are governed by the terms of the grant and not anything else. The grant may be express or even by necessary implication. Further observed that, according to Section 41 of the Act, when an alternate access becomes available, the legal necessity of burdening servient owner ceases and easement of necessity by implication of law is legally withdrawn or extinguished as statutorily recognized in the said section, but further observed that, such a l egal extinction cannot apply to any acquisition by grant.
24. In these circumstances in the case on hand it can be held that, when the plaintiff has been provided for a right of access to her schedule 'A' property bearing municipality No.30 by grant as per Ex.P.1 copy of sale deed, then it cannot be extinguished merely because as per the commissioner report with sketch the plaintiff has other alternative way i.e. having a staircase to reach her property without passing through municipal property No.29 belongs to the defendants. So to that extent report of the court commissioner cannot be accepted.
18O.S. No.3460/2013
25. As could be seen from the perusal of Ex.P.9 certified copy of the judgment and decree passed by CCH-6 in O.S. No.7956/2006 dated 11/08/2009 that the suit filed by the plaintiffs against the neighbouring owners/tenants for the relief of declaration and injunction who said to have obstructed to use common staircase and passage pertains to similar shop numbers 20 and 21 situated in the said building also came to be decreed.
26. It has been held in the decision reported in 2018(7) SCC 646 referred supra by the learned counsel for the defendants that if the party intends to avail benefit under Section 53(A) of T.P Act, then without there being pleadings no relief can be granted. But for the aforesaid reasons with due respect the said decision is not made applicable to the facts of the case on hand. So viewed from any angle I find that, plaintiff is able to prove that she is having right over the municipal property bearing No.30 to the extent of 672 square feet super built up area along with undivided right of easement to use common, undetachable or inseparable amenities such as staircase, common areas, balconies, terrace area as stated in the plaint.
27. With regard to the alleged interference by the defendants is concern the plaintiff has not only pleaded in the plaint to the effect that the defendants interfered with the said right on 28/04/2013 and subsequent dates when 19 O.S. No.3460/2013 attempt to erect permanent structure in the said common area together with for which the plaintiff lodged complaint before the jurisdictional police. During the course of cross- examination of D.W. 1 though he denied the suggestion that he obstructed to use the common passage with staircase, but admits that he has put up a gate towards northern corridor of the schedule property, which indicates that the defendants also obstructed free use of common passage and staircase area granted by virtue of registered sale deed dated 09/06/2011. For these reasons oral/written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendants partly holds good. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 and 2 are partly in affirmative and Issue No.3 is in the affirmative.
28. ISSUE No.4 :- With regard to court fee paid by the plaintiff on the relief claimed is concern, though it is contended by the defendants that, valuation made and the court fee paid by the plaintiff on the relief of declaration and injunction is not correct, but if we go through the plaint averments along with prayer column and valuation slip furnished by the plaintiff we can find that for the relief of declaration towards easementary right over the common passage and staircase he has valued the schedule property for the purpose of court fee at Rs.1,000/- as required under Section 30 of the Act and paid court fee of Rs.200/-. Further, with regard to relief of permanent injunction also he has valued the property at Rs.1,000/- under Section 26(c) of the 20 O.S. No.3460/2013 Act and also paid court fee of Rs.25/-. As such, the valuation made and court fee paid by the plaintiff is proper and sufficient. Hence, I answer Issue No.4 is in the negative.
29. ISSUE No.5:- In view of my discussion made supra while dealing with issue No.1 to 3, I am of the opinion that suit of the plaintiff is deserves to be partly decreed without cost. Hence, I answer issue No.5 is partly in the affirmative.
30. ISSUE No.6:- For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
: O RD ER :
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed, holding that plaintiff is having undivided title and interest in and over the commercial shop premises No.30 measuring east - west 16 feet and north - south 42 feet (super built up area 672 square feet) along with unrestricted right to use all common areas/passage, staircases, balconies and terrace area as per the boundaries shown in the plaint 'A' schedule property.
Consequently the defendants are hereby permanently restrained from putting up any construction or obstructing to use the said unrestricted right over the common areas/passage, staircases, balconies and terrace area of the building as per the boundaries shown in the plaint 'A' schedule property.
No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected, signed by me and then pronounced in the open Court this the 16th day of June, 2020.) ( C.D.KAROSHI ) V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU ***** 21 O.S. No.3460/2013 :ANNEXURE:
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 : Smt. Naziya Sultana WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
DW.1 : M. Ayaz Shariff DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of the sale deed
Ex.P.2 Khatha certificate
Ex.P.3 Khatha extract
Ex.P.4 11 rent receipts
Ex.P.5 12 photographs
Ex.P.5(a) C.D.
Ex.P.6 Khatha Certificate
Ex.P.7 Khatha extract
Ex.P.8 Two tax paid receipts
Ex.P.9 Certified copy of the judgment and decree in
O.S. No.7956/2006
Ex.P.10 to 13 Photos
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:-
Ex.D.1 to 3 Photos Ex.D.4 One C.D ( C.D.KAROSHI ) V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU ***** 22 O.S. No.3460/2013 Case called out in the open court. Counsels are absent.
Today is sitting day to this court. Above numbered case was reserved for judgment on 15/04/2020, but due to closure of courts regarding Covid-19, case was adjourned today i.e. on 16/06/2020 for pronouncement of judgment. Hence, the following:-
Judgment pronounced in open Court vide separate order.
O RD ER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed, holding that plaintiff is having undivided title and interest in and over the commercial shop premises No.30 measuring east - west 16 feet and north - south 42 feet (super built up area 672 square feet) along with unrestricted right to use all common areas/passage, staircases, balconies and terrace area as per the boundaries shown in the plaint 'A' schedule property.
Consequently the defendants are hereby permanently restrained from putting up any construction or obstructing to use the said unrestricted right over the common areas/passage, staircases, balconies and terrace area of the building as per the boundaries shown in the plaint 'A' schedule property.
No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
( C.D.KAROSHI ) V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU 23 O.S. No.3460/2013