Bangalore District Court
Jaya Prakash vs Shanu Prasad on 28 March, 2025
1 O.S.No.2575/2020
KABC010100652020
Presented on : 12-06-2020
Registered on : 12-06-2020
Decided on : 28-03-2025
Duration : 04 years, 09 months, 16 days
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH.76) AT: BENGALURU
PRESENT: Sri. SHIVANAND MARUTI JIPARE,
B.A., LL.B. (Spl.)
LXXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru
Dated this the 28th day of March, 2025
ORIGINAL SUIT No.2575/2020
PLAINTIFF: 1. Sri.R.Jaya Prakash,
S/o.R.Ranganathan,
Aged about 56 years,
R/at. No.74, J.J. Home,
2nd Cross,
Muniyappa Layout,
K.Channasandra,
Horamavu Post,
Bengaluru - 560 043.
(By Sri.C.M.Rajaneesh., Advocate.)
2 O.S.No.2575/2020
:VERSUS:
DEFENDANTS: 1. Shanu Prasad,
S/o.M.Venugopal,
Aged about 40 years,
R/o.No.13, 5th 'E' Cross,
P & T Layout,
Near Chaitanya Techno
School,
Horamavu,
Bengaluru - 560 043.
2. Smt.Ashwini,
W/o.Shanu Prasad,
Aged about 39 years,
R/o. No.13, 5th 'E' Cross,
P & T Layout,
Near Chaitanya Techno
School,
Horamavu,
Bengaluru - 560 043.
3. Smt.M. Sangeetha Lakshmi,
W/o. V.Arunachalam,
Aged about 33 years,
R/o. No.38, 2nd Floor,
2nd cross,
P & T Layout,
Horamavu,
Bengaluru - 560 043.
4. A.L. Joseph Anandaraj,
S/o. Antony Lawrence,
R/at. No.58/6,
Pillayar Koil Street,
Ashok Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 025.
3 O.S.No.2575/2020
5. Mrs.R.Selvi Kumari,
W/o.A. Ramesh,
Aged about 54 years,
R/at. No.9, 4th 'D' Cross,
3rd Block,
HRBR Layout,
Bengaluru - 560 043.
6. A.Ramesh,
S/o. Achaiah,
Aged about 54 years,
R/at. No.9, 4th 'D' Cross,
3rd Block,
HRBR Layout,
Bengaluru - 560 043.
7. Sri.Nagaraj,
S/o.G.Narasimha,
Aged about 56 years,
R/at. No.2425,
3rd Cross,
HAL 3rd Stage,
Bengaluru - 560017.
(By Sri.C.V. Siju., Advocate for D-1 to D-7.)
*************
Date of Institution of the suit 12.06.2020
Nature of the suit Suit for Permanent
Injunction
4 O.S.No.2575/2020
Date of commencement of
recording of evidence 15.06.2022
Date on which the Judgment
was pronounced 28.03.2025
Total Duration Years Months Days
04 09 16
Digitally signed by
SHIVANAND SHIVANAND MARUTI
MARUTI JIPARE
Date: 2025.03.28 16:22:25
JIPARE +0530
(SHIVANAND MARUTI JIPARE)
LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
*************
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants seeking the relief of permanent injunction.
2. The brief facts averred in the plaint are as follows:
5 O.S.No.2575/2020
That the plaintiff is the absolute owner of converted property, site bearing No.10, House list khatha No.166/2 formed in converted land in Sy.No.131/6, vide conversion certificate No.ALN:SR:6112/1972, dated: 12.12.1971, measuring East to West: 30 feet, North to South: 40 feet, totally measuring to an extent of 1200 Sq. ft. situated at Horamavu Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. The plaintiff has acquired said schedule property under registered sale deed dated: 11.06.2012. Out of 1200 Sq. ft., he had gifted to an extent of 400 Sq. ft., to his wife by a registered document, the remaining portion of 800 Sq.ft., has been retained by the plaintiff and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The property bearing Sy.No.131/6 was originally belong to one Late.Ramaiah, who formed a residential layout in Sy.No.131/6 of Horamavu village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, after vide conversion certificate No.ALN:SR:6112/1972, dated: 12.12.1971. The then panchayath had approved the plan for the layout. Late Ramaiah had sold said schedule property to one Mrs. 6 O.S.No.2575/2020 Pushpa Rajashekar on 14.10.1988 by way of a registered sale deed. After purchase of the property, she was put in the suit schedule property and she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In the year, 2005 the Pushpa Rajashekar sold the schedule property to one Parag Natwarlal Patel. The said Parag Natwarlal Patel sold the property in favour of one Mr.M.V.Selva Manikyam and Smt.S.Usha on 24.09.2008. Further, the plaintiff having purchased the suit schedule property for his personal use and has been using same for his vehicle parking in the suit schedule property and has also allowed some of his known people to use the vacant site on the basis of payment of consideration just to pass through to their houses over the suit schedule property. But the defendants have never been permitted by the plaintiff to use the suit schedule property at any point of time nor will the plaintiff allow them to use the plaint schedule property for free of cost. The defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property as the plaintiff being the absolute owner of the property, 7 O.S.No.2575/2020 interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property to use the site against the interest of the plaintiff or forcefully. The defendants have threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences. On 08.06.2020, when the plaintiff asked them not to use his property for any purposes, the defendants have threatened the plaintiff to his life and defendants have attempted to encroach upon suit schedule property and to trespass over suit schedule property. The plaintiff has approached the jurisdictional Police, but Police have advised to the plaintiff approach Civil Court. Therefore, the plaintiff has approached this Court for relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from committing trespass and interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The cause of action for the suit is arisen on 08.06.2020 and all other subsequent dates. Hence, this suit.
3. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant No.1 to 7 have appeared through their Counsel. The defendant No.1 and 2 have filed written 8 O.S.No.2575/2020 statement. The defendant No.3 to 7 have adopted same written statement filed by the defendant No.1 and 2.
4. The defendant No.1 to 7 have denied the plaint averments in toto. The defendant No.1 to 7 contend that, the suit is not maintainable. The defendants deny that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the converted property, site bearing No.10, House list khatha No.166/2 formed in converted land in Sy.No.131/6, vide conversion certificate No.ALN:SR:6112/1972, dated: 12.12.1971, measuring East to West: 30 feet, North to South: 40 feet, totally measuring to an extent of 1200 Sq. ft. situated at Horamavu Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk and the plaintiff has acquired said schedule property under registered sale deed dated: 11.06.2012. The defendants admits that the property bearing Sy.No.131/6 was originally belong to one Late Ramaiah, who formed a residential layout in Sy.No.131/6 of Horamavu Vllage, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, after vide conversion certificate No.ALN:SR:6112/1972, dated:
12.12.1971. The defendants deny that Late Ramaiah had 9 O.S.No.2575/2020 sold said schedule property to one Mrs.Pushpa Rajashekar on 14.10.1988 by way of a registered sale deed and after purchase of the property, she was put in the suit schedule property and she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and in the year, 2005 the Pushpa Rajashekar sold the suit schedule property to one Parag Natwarlal Patel and the said Parag Natwarlal Patel sold the property in favour of one Mr.M.V.Selva Manikyam and Smt.S.Usha on 24.09.2008.
The defendants deny that the plaintiff having purchased the suit schedule property for his personal use and has been using same for his vehicle parking in the suit schedule property and has also allowed some of his known people to use the vacant site on the basis of payment of consideration just to pass through to their houses over the suit schedule property and but the defendants have never been permitted by the plaintiff to use the suit schedule property at any point of time nor the plaintiff will allow them to use the suit schedule property for free of cost and the defendants have no 10 O.S.No.2575/2020 right, title or interest over the suit schedule property as the plaintiff being the absolute owner of the property, interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property to use the site against the interest of the plaintiff or forcefully. The defendant No.1 to 7 contend that the defendant No.1 and 2 are the sole and absolute owners of the property bearing site No.13, House list khatha No.155 formed in converted land in Sy.No.131/6 measuring East to West: 30 feet, North to South: 40 feet, totally measuring to an extent of 1200 Sq.ft., situated at Horamavu Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, having acquired the same by registered sale deed executed by Smt.Vasanthi Muralitharan on 13.06.2018. After the execution the defendant No.1 and 2 have got transferred all the revenue documents in their name and have paid up to date taxes. The defendants further contend that, the plaintiff is one of the witnesses of the sale deed which was executed between the defendants and their vendor Smt.Vasanthi Muralitharan. The defendants were permitted to use the suit schedule 11 O.S.No.2575/2020 property as road, in the account, the plaintiff has taken sum of Rs.16,00,000/- from the defendants. The defendants were made payments of Rs.15,50,000/- to the plaintiff's elder son Sri.Joshuva Kiran and Rs.50,000/- based on instructions of the plaintiff and Rs.50,000/- was transferred to plaintiff younger son by name Joel Roshan on 29.08.2017. Altogether the defendants have paid a sum of Rs.16,00,000/-. The details of payments are:
(i). 29/08/2017 by NEFT Ref: N241170356268447 Rs.50,000/-
(ii). 30/01/2018 by IMPS Ref:803016315314 Rs.50,000/-
(iii). 30/01/2018 by IMPS Ref:803016315521 Rs.50,000/-
(iv). 30/01/2018 by IMPS Ref:803015192526 Rs.50,000/-
(v). 31/01/2018 by IMPS Ref:803110365885 Rs1,50,000/-
(vi).05/02/2018 by IMPS Ref:803613349737 Rs.1,00,000/-
(vii). 05/02/2018 by IMPS Ref:803613358782 Rs.1,00,000/-
(viii).08/02/2018 by IMPS Ref:803909113270 Rs.2,00,000/-12 O.S.No.2575/2020
(ix). 08/02/2018 by IMPS Ref:803913109961 Rs.50,000/-
(x). 11/02/2018 by IMPS Ref:804211345766 Rs.2,00,000/-
(xi). 12/02/2018 by IMPS Ref:804310326328 Rs.2,00,000/-
(xii). 14/02/2018 by IMPS Ref:804515169392 Rs.1,50,000/-
(xiii).05/04/2018 by IMPS Ref:809519361919 Rs.1,00,000/-
(xiv).06/04/2018 by IMPS Ref:809618365258 Rs.1,00,000/-
---------------------------
Total Rs.15,50,000/-
---------------------------
(1) On 29/08/2017 by NEFT REF No.
241170356271237 Rs.50,000/- in favour of Joel
Roshan.
After taking the said sum the defendants were permitted to use the road is the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is a habitual land grabber in the area. He took lakhs of rupees from each site owners in the layout. 13 O.S.No.2575/2020 All the site owners have paid money to the plaintiff, then the plaintiff permitted the site owners to use the suit schedule property as road. But now hand in glow with the jurisdictional police is trying to exhort more money from the site owners including the defendants. There is no cause of action to file this suit. Hence, the defendant No.1 to 7 prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
5. On the basis of above pleadings, following Issues have been framed by my learned Predecessor in Office.
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is in lawful possession of the suit property as on the date of filing of this suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the alleged interference by the defendants with respect to the suit property?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for reliefs as claimed in the suit?
4. What order or decree?
14 O.S.No.2575/2020
6. In support of the case, the plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and got marked 13 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 and closed his side evidence. In rebuttal, the defendant No.1 is examined as D.W.1 and got marked 4 documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4.
7. Heard the arguments and perused the materials on record. The defendant No.1 and 2 have filed written arguments and defendant No.4 to 7 have adopted the same written arguments filed by the defendant No.1 and
2.
8. My findings on the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Negative
Issue No.2 : In the Negative
Issue No.3 : In the Negative
Issue No.4 : As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
15 O.S.No.2575/2020
9. ISSUES NO.1: The plaintiff has asserted that, he is the absolute owner of the converted property, site bearing No.10, House list khatha No.166/2 formed in converted land in Sy.No.131/6, vide conversion certificate No.ALN:SR:6112/1972, dated: 12.12.1971, measuring East to West: 30 feet, North to South: 40 feet, totally measuring to an extent of 1200 Sq. ft., situated at Horamavu Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. The plaintiff has acquired said schedule property under registered sale deed dated: 11.06.2012. Out of 1200 Sq. ft., sale deed property, he had gifted to an extent of 400 Sq. ft., to his wife by a registered document, the remaining portion of 800 Sq.ft., has been retained by the plaintiff and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Further, the plaintiff having purchased the suit schedule property for his personal use and has been using same for his vehicle parking in the suit schedule property and has also allowed some of his known people to use the vacant site on the basis of payment of consideration just to pass 16 O.S.No.2575/2020 through to their houses over the suit schedule property. But the defendants have never been permitted by the plaintiff to use the suit schedule property at any point of time nor will the plaintiff allow them to use the plaint schedule property for free of cost. The defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property to use the site against the interest of the plaintiff or forcefully.
10. Per contra, the defendant No.1 to 7 have contended that, the defendant No.1 and 2 are the sole and absolute owners of the property bearing site No.13, House list khatha No.155 formed in converted land in Sy.No.131/6 measuring East to West: 30 feet, North to South: 40 feet, totally measuring to an extent of 1200 Sq.ft situated at Horamavu Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, having acquired the same by registered sale deed executed by Smt.Vasanthi Muralitharan on 13.06.2018. After the execution the defendant No.1 and 2 have got transferred all the 17 O.S.No.2575/2020 revenue documents in their name. The defendants were permitted to use the suit schedule property as road, in this account, the plaintiff took sum of Rs.16,00,000/- from the defendants. After taking the said sum the defendants were permitted to use the road is the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is a habitual land grabber in the area. He took lakhs of rupees from each site owners in the layout. All the site owners have paid money to the plaintiff, then the plaintiff permitted the site owners to use the suit schedule property as road.
11. In order to substantiate the contention, the plaintiff has filed an affidavit as examination-in-chief and he is examined as P.W.1. The P.W.1 has reiterated the contents of plaint. Per contra, the defendant No.1 has filed an affidavit as examination-in-chief and he is examined as D.W.1. The D.W.1 has reiterated the contents of the written statements.
12. The plaintiff has relied on documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13.
18 O.S.No.2575/2020
13. The defendants have relied on documentary evidence at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4.
14. The plaintiff has relied on Ex.P.1 - Certified copy of sale deed dated: 11.06.2012, Ex.P.2 - Form - B property register extract, issued by B.B.M.P, Ex.P.3 - Encumbrance certificate of the year 01.04.2004 to 17.09.2017, Ex.P.4 -Certified copy of sale deed dated:
14.10.1988, Ex.P.5 - Certified copy of absolute sale deed dated: 15.09.2005, Ex.P.6 - Certified copy of absolute sale deed dated: 24.09.2008, Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 - Property tax paid receipts issued by B.B.M.P, Ex.P.9 - Certified copy of agreement of easement dated: 14.08.2012, Ex.P.10 -
Certified copy of agreement of easement dated:
29.06.2013, Ex.P.11 - Certified copy of agreement of easement dated: 02.02.2016, Ex.P.12 - Memorandum of Understanding dated: 20.04.2019 and Ex.P.13 - Certified copy of absolute sale deed dated: 13.06.2018.
15. The defendants have relied on Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 - Photographs and Ex.D.4 - C.D. 19 O.S.No.2575/2020
16. On perusal of Ex.P.1 which shows that, Sri.M.V.Selvamanickam S/o. M.Varadaraju and Smt.S.Usha W/o.Sri.M.V.Selvamanickam have executed registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of site bearing No.10, khatha No.166/2 formed in converted land in Sy.No.131/6, vide conversion certificate No.ALN:SR:6112/1971-72, dated: 12.12.1971, measuring East to West: 30 feet, North to South: 40 feet, totally measuring to an extent of 1200 Sq. ft. situated at Horamavu Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk for sale consideration amount of Rs.9,60,000/-. On perusal of Ex.P.2 which shows that site bearing No.10, khatha No.166/2 is standing in the name of plaintiff. On perusal of Ex.P.5 which shows that, Smt.Pushpa Rajashekhar has executed sale deed in favour of Sri.Parag Natvarlal Patel S/o. Sri.Natvarlal Vashram Patel on 15.09.2005 in respect of property bearing No.10, formed in converted land in Sy.No.131/6, vide conversion certificate No.ALN:SR:6112/1971-72, dated: 12.12.1971, 20 O.S.No.2575/2020 measuring East to West: 30 feet, North to South: 40 feet, totally measuring to an extent of 1200 Sq. ft., situated at Horamavu Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.
On perusal of Ex.P.6 which shows that, Parag Natvarlal Patel S/o. Sri.Natvarlal Vashram Patel has executed sale deed in favour of Sri.M.V.Selvamanickam S/o. M.Varadaraju and Smt.S.Usha W/o.Sri.M.V.Selvamanickam in respect of site bearing No.10, khatha No.166/2 formed in converted land in Sy.No.131/6, vide conversion certificate No.ALN:SR:6112/1971-72, dated: 12.12.1971, measuring East to West: 30 feet, North to South: 40 feet, totally measuring to an extent of 1200 Sq. ft., situated at Horamavu Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk on 24.09.2008. On perusal of Ex.P.9 which shows that, the plaintiff has executed agreement of easement on 14.08.2012 in favour of Smt.M.L.Asha W/o.K.P.Srinivas in respect of schedule property of the right of way to suit schedule property. On perusal of Ex.P.10 which shows that, the plaintiff has executed agreement of easement on 29.03.2013 in favour of Sri.M.Pradeep S/o. K.B.Murthy 21 O.S.No.2575/2020 in respect of schedule property of the right of way to suit schedule property. On perusal of Ex.P.11 which shows that, the plaintiff has executed agreement of easement on 02.02.2016 in favour of Sri.Vinod Radhakrishnan S/o. Sri.Radhakrishnan R., in respect of schedule property of the right of way to suit schedule property. On perusal of Ex.P.13 which shows that, Smt.Vasanthi Muralitharan W/o. Sri.V.D.Muralitharan has executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 and 2 in respect of site No.13, House list khatha No.155, Present khatha Sl.No.26, situated at Horamavu Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru, East Taluk measuring East to West: 40 feet, North to South 30 feet.
17. The defendants have relied documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3 - Photographs.
18. So far as oral evidence of both parties is concerned to lis that plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and P.W.1 has reiterated the contents of plaint. The defendant No.1 is examined as D.W.1 and D.W.1 has reiterated averments of written statement.
22 O.S.No.2575/2020
19. Though plaintiff has contended that, out of 1200 Sq. ft., the sale deed property -Ex.P.1, gifted an extent of 400 Sq.ft. to his wife by a registered document and the remaining portion of 800 Sq.ft., has been retained by him and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, but the plaintiff has not produced said gift deed and he has not produced documents to show that he is in possession of said suit schedule property. On perusal of extents of the suit schedule property and Ex.P.1 -Certified copy of sale deed are different. The defendants have contended that, the suit schedule property is a BBMP approved tar road with essential public utilities, including sewage and drainage systems by BWSSB and the existence of these civic amenities confirms that suit schedule property is public road and not private land owned by the plaintiff.
20. By considering entire evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 and documents exhibited on both sides, on close scrutiny of pleadings of both parties and on careful 23 O.S.No.2575/2020 appreciation of evidence, the plaintiff has not proved that, he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the Negative.
21. ISSUE NO.2: It is the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants have never been permitted by the plaintiff to use the suit schedule property at any point of time nor will the plaintiff allow them to use the plaint schedule property for free of cost. The defendants have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property as the plaintiff being the absolute owner of the property, interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property to use the site against the interest of the plaintiff or forcefully. The defendants have threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences. On 08.06.2020, when the plaintiff asked them not to use his property for any purposes, the defendants have threatened the plaintiff to his life and defendants have attempted to encroach upon suit schedule property and to trespass the suit schedule 24 O.S.No.2575/2020 property. The plaintiff has approached the jurisdictional Police, but Police have advised to the plaintiff approach Civil Court. The defendants have denied these facts. The plaintiff has failed to prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Under the circumstances, the question of interference by the defendants does not arise. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove the interference by the defendants. Hence, I answer Issue No.2 in the Negative.
22. ISSUE NO.3: In a suit for permanent injunction what are required are, the possession of the plaintiff and interference by the defendants. At the outset it is for the plaintiff to prove his case. The plaintiff cannot rely on the weakness of the defendants. The plaintiff has failed to prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is trite that failure to prove the possession over the suit schedule property, injunction cannot be granted. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for 25 O.S.No.2575/2020 the relief of permanent injunction. Hence, I answer Issue No.3 in the Negative.
23. ISSUE NO.4: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III directly on computer online, typed by her corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of March, 2025) Digitally signed by SHIVANAND SHIVANAND MARUTI JIPARE MARUTI JIPARE Date: 2025.03.28 16:22:43 +0530 (SHIVANAND MARUTI JIPARE) LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:
P.W.1 : Sri.R.Jaya Prakash S/o. R.Ranganathan.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:26 O.S.No.2575/2020
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of sale deed dated:
11.06.2012.
Ex.P.2 : Form -B Property register extract, issued by B.B.M.P. Ex.P.3 : Encumbrance certificate of the year 01.04.2004 to 17.09.2017.
Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of sale deed dated:
14.10.1988.
Ex.P.5 : Certified copy of absolute sale deed dated: 15.09.2005.
Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of absolute sale deed dated: 24.09.2008.
Ex.P.7 & 8 : Property tax paid receipts issued by B.B.M.P. Ex.P.9 : Certified copy of agreement of easement dated: 14.08.2012.
Ex.P.10 : Certified copy of agreement of easement dated: 29.06.2013.
Ex.P.11 : Certified copy of agreement of easement dated: 02.02.2016.
Ex.P.12 : Memorandum of Understanding dated:
20.04.2019.27 O.S.No.2575/2020
Ex.P.13 : Certified copy of absolute sale deed dated: 13.06.2018.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS:
D.W.1 : Sri.Shanu Prasad
S/o.M. Venugopal.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D.1 to : Photographs.
Ex.D.3
Ex.D.4 : C.D.
Digitally signed by
SHIVANAND SHIVANAND
MARUTI MARUTI JIPARE
JIPARE Date: 2025.03.28
16:22:52 +0530
(SHIVANAND MARUTI JIPARE)
LXXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.