Bangalore District Court
Nanjalingappa vs Raghavendra S H on 22 October, 2024
KABC010066292020
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 22nd day of October 2024
O.S.No. 1738/2020
PLAINTIFF/S SRI. NANJALINGAPPA
S/O. LATE ANJANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT.No. 955, N.S.MANSION,
16TH MAIN, MICO LAYOUT,
BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE-76.
(By Sri. SRK, Advocate)
Versus
DEFENDANT/S 1. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S. H.
S/O. HANUMANTHA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT. No. 213/F, 2ND B MAIN,
2ND E CROSS, 1ST PHASE,
GIRINAGAR, BANGALORE-85.
2: M/S VISHWABHARATHI HOUSE
BUILDING CO OPERATIVE SOCIETY
LIMITED
O.S.No. 1738/2020
2
No. 35, RATHNAVILASA ROAD
BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE-04.
REPTD. BY ITS SECRETARY
(DF No.1 By Sri. NR, Advocate)
( DF No.2. EXPARTE)
Date of Institution of the suit 4.3.2020
Nature of suit Declaration
Date of commencement 24.6.2022
of recording of evidence.
Date on which judgment 22.10.2024
was pronounced.
Total Duration. Years Months Days
04 07 18
C/c. XXXVII ACCJ, BANGALORE
O.S.No. 1738/2020
3
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and for inquiry into the mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 20,000/- per month from 30.11.2012 till the date of restoration of possession with future interest at the rate of 18% p.a.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under:-
The land bearing Sy.Nos.16, 17, 18 and 19 of Gerahalli Village and Sy.Nos.101, 103/1, 103/2, 104/1, 104/2, 105 and 106 of Hosakerehalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk were developed by M/s Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., (VHBCS). The plaintiff is a member of said society. The society allotted and registered a site No.1077/6, presently site bearing No. 3626 measuring 50X30ft carved out in Sy.Nos.101, 103, 104, 105, 106 in the 4 th phase of Girinagar, Bengaluru-85 of Hosakerehalli Village to the plaintiff.
The said property is described as suit schedule property hereinafter. The plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit property having purchased the same from defendant No.2 i.e., O.S.No. 1738/2020 4 society through a Registered Supplemental Deed dtd:16.11.2013 for valuable consideration. There were numerous litigation pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and various other courts in Bengaluru between members of the society and the defendant No.2 society as there were allegations against society regarding illegal allotment of sites without considering the seniority and genuinity of members. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka passed a common order dtd: 16.10.2010 in W.P.No.6945/2008 and connected matters by laying certain guidelines to be followed by the society and the BDA in allotment of sites in favour of its members. As per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the BDA acquired lands bearing Sy.Nos.16,17,18 and 19 of Gerahalli Village and Sy.Nos.101, 103/1, 103/2, 104/1, 104/2, 105 and 106 of Hosakerehalli Village totally measuring 80 acres 13 guntas and executed sale deeds in favour of defendant No.2 society on 18.6.2012. Subsequently, rectification deed came to be executed by the BDA in favour of defendant No.2 society on 22.6.2012 rectifying the extent of land from 80 acres 13 guntas to 79 acres 0.75 guntas. Subsequent to handing over the possession of the land, the defendant No.2 society prepared layout plan by O.S.No. 1738/2020 5 forming various sites in the land sold by BDA to society. The BDA approved the same on 14.09.2012. As per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the society by way of paper publication called upon its members to produce all their documents to prepare the list of senior, genuine and eligible members of the society for allotment of sites. After said paper publication, the plaintiff along with other members of the society has approached the defendant No.2 with their sale deed dtd:
24.4.1994 and rectification deed dtd: 20.11.2003 executed in his favour by the defendant No.2. Accordingly, the society prepared a senior, genuine and eligible members list, who are to be allotted sites as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The seniority list was published in local daily news papers. Defendant No.2 after going through the sale deed and other documents produced by the plaintiff and being satisfied with the eligibility and seniority of the plaintiff, issued a fresh allotment letter dtd: 8.11.2013 confirming the earlier site bearing No.1077/6 to be replaced with new site No.3626 in 4 th phase of VHBCS Layout, Girinagar as per the approved layout plan dtd:14.9.2012. Subsequent to allotment letter, the defendant No.2 society executed a registered supplemental deed O.S.No. 1738/2020 6 as aforesaid in favour of the plaintiff, wherein site number changed as 3626 from 1077/6 and measurement of the site from 30 X 50 feet into 55 X 30ft. Subsequent to the registration of supplemental deed, the society issued possession certificate dtd:19.11.2013 in favour of the plaintiff and handed over the possession to the plaintiff. In all the revenue records site number of the suit property is shown as 3626, not as site No.1077/6. Till this date all the revenue records are in the name of plaintiff. But, the defendant No.1 is in illegal possession of the suit property. The defendant No.1 has not approached the society for allotment of site in his favour. He has not approached the defendant No.2 to prove his eligibility and seniority for allotment of site and execution of supplemental sale deed confirming the property in which he is in possession i.e., site No.3626. But he has filed a suit for bare injunction in O.S.No.4438/2014. The defendant No.1 having failed to prove his eligibility and seniority for allotment of site or confirmation of his possession by way of supplemental deed as per the new BDA layout plan dtd: 14.9.2012, has no manner of right, title or interest over the property. The possession of suit property by defendant No.1 is unauthorized possession and same is illegal.
O.S.No. 1738/2020 7 The BDA has issued show-cause notice to defendant No.1 to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit property to its lawful owner on 31.5.2014. But, the defendant has not complied with the same. Hence, this suit.
3. The defendant No.1 appeared before the court and filed his written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable. He has contended that he has purchased the property measuring 30 X 50 ft in the layout formed by the defendant No.2 society on 10.11.2020 by registered sale deed for valuable consideration of Rs.27,05,000/-. The defendant No.2 society has issued possession certificate on 20.10.2020 to the vendor of defendant No.1. After purchase, the defendant No.1 has got transferred the katha to his name in BBMP on 06.05.2014 indicating site No. 213F old No. 3626, Girinagar I phase(Addl), Bengaluru in the name of defendant No.1. Thereafter, defendant No.1 has put up construction by obtaining sanction plan from the Asst. Executive Engineer of BBMP. The defendant No.1 is staying with his family since from the date of construction and he is in possession of the said property having purchased the same from his vendor K.R.Gundurao. The defendant No.1 approached Civil Court apprehending demolition O.S.No. 1738/2020 8 of building by filing a suit in O.S.No.4438/2014 for permanent injunction against the BDA, the plaintiff herein and defendant No.2 society. It is pending for consideration. The defendant No.1 has been granted interim order of temporary injunction not to interfere with his peaceful possession of the property. The defendant No.1 has paid a sum of Rs.2,56,740/- as per the demand notice issued by defendant No.2 and it has been acknowledged by defendant No.2 society with a note that the amount has been received subject to fulfillment of condition of their seniority, genuinity and eligibility for regularization as per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.6945/2008. The defendant No.2 society having executed suit sale deed in favour of K.R.Gundurao on 23.12.2002, it cannot be said that the allotment letter has not been issued. It is not mandatory that allotment certificate should be issued before registration. It is to be noted that defendant No.1 has purchased the property from K.R.Gundurao, who was a member since 02.08.1989. Therefore, the question of approaching defendant No.2 society either for allotment of site or registration does not arise. The defendant No.2 played fraud on defendant No.1, O.S.No. 1738/2020 9 though it was aware that defendant No.1 has acquired right over the property. 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 plaintiff prove that, plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as alleged?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession?
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff's is barred by law of limitation?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
5. What order or decree?
5. To prove his case, the plaintiff has been examined as PW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On his defence, the defendant No.1 has been examined as DW-1 and got marked documents at Ex.D-1 to D-31.
6. In spite of service of summons to defendant No.2, he has not appeared before the Court and hence, it has been placed exparte.
O.S.No. 1738/2020 10
7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the defendant No.1.
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 : In the Negative,
Issue No.4 : In the Negative,
Issue No.5 : As per the final order,
for the following ;-
REASONS
9. Issue No.1 : It is not in dispute that BDA acquired land bearing Sy.Nos.16,17,18 and 19 of Gerahalli Village and Sy.Nos.101, 103/1, 103/2, 104/1, 104/2, 105 and 106 of Hosakerehalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, totally measuring 80 acres 13 guntas for the formation of layout by defendant No.2 society and sale deed was executed by the BDA in favour of defendant No.2 society on 18.6.2012 in respect of the said land. Subsequently, on 22.6.2012 a rectification deed was executed by the BDA in favour of defendant No.2 society, wherein the extent and boundaries of the above said land were rectified; the extent was rectified as 79 acres 0.75 guntas in the O.S.No. 1738/2020 11 place of 80 acres 13 guntas. Subsequently, layout plan was prepared and approved by the BDA on 14.9.2012. The plaintiff has got marked the certified copy of the sale deed dtd: 18.6.2012 as per Ex.P-7 and certified copy of the registered rectification deed dtd: 22.6.2012 as per Ex.P-8 and BDA layout plan as per Ex.P-9.
10. The documents produced and marked as Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 by the plaintiff shows that, on 19.9.1994 site No.426 formed by defendant No.2 society at Vishwabharathi Housing Complex Layout, Hosakerehalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk bounded by East by Road, West by site No.429, North by site No.425, South by site No.427 measuring east to west 50 feet and north to south 30 feet, executed in favour of plaintiff Nanjalingappa. Ex.D-3 is the rectification deed dtd:16.9.2003 wherein, site No.426 renumbered as site No.1077/6 carved out in land consisting Sy.Nos.103, 103, 104, 105 and 106 of Hosakerehalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk bounded by East by site No.1077/7, West by site No.1077/5, North by site No.1077/19 and South by road measuring east to west 30 feet and north to south 50 feet.
O.S.No. 1738/2020 12 This rectification deed was also executed by defendant No.2 society.
11. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that several litigation arose between the members of the defendant No.2 society and defendant No.2 society in connection with illegality committed in allotment of sites and in preparing the seniority and genuinity of members. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.6945/2008 and other connected matters by its order dtd:16.11.2010 framed guidelines to be followed by the society and the BDA in allotment of sites in favour of its members. As per the said guidelines, the BDA acquired Sy.Nos.16, 17, 18 and 19 of Gerahalli Village and Sy.Nos.101, 103/1, 103/2, 104/1, 104/2, 105 and 106 of the Hosakerehalli Village measuring 80 acres 13 guntas was acquired and sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.2 society on 18.6.2012. Subsequently, rectification deed executed by rectifying the extent as 79 acres 0.75 guntas vide rectification deed dtd: 22.6.2012 and possession handed over to defendant No.2 society and layout plan approved as aforesaid. The relevant documents i.e., sale deed, rectification deed and layout plan are marked as Ex.P-7, 8 and 9 respectively. After formation of layout as per Ex.P-9 layout O.S.No. 1738/2020 13 plan, the Registered Supplemental Deed dtd:16.11.2013 executed by defendant No.2 society in favour of plaintiff in respect of plaint schedule property i.e., site No.3626 old site No.1077/6. Said registered supplemental deed was executed in view of the guidelines framed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.6945/2008. The plaintiff has produced the original supplemental deed dtd: 16.1.2013 executed by defendant No.2 society in his favour in respect of the suit property i.e., site No.3626 (Old No.1077/6) carved out in Sy. Nos.16,17,18 and 19 of Gerahalli Village and Sy.Nos.101, 103/1, 103/2, 104/1, 104/2, 105 and 106 of the Hosakerehalli Village bounded by East by site No.3643, West by Road, North by site No.3625, South site No.3627, wherein it is stated that by order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 6945/2008 and other connected matters the norms were laid down for carrying out the allotment to the members of the society; accordingly, BDA approved a new layout plan and assigned different numbers resulting change in the property numbers, but not in actual possession. Further, it is stated that the plaintiff is a member of society allotted with a site vide allotment letter, subsequent registered sale deed dtd: 24.9.1994 O.S.No. 1738/2020 14 and registered rectification deed dtd: 20.11.2003 and possession certificate. Further, it is stated that the plaintiff as per allotment letter dtd: 8.11.2013 has been allotted possession of 1650 sq.ft. with additional 150 sq. ft. It is also stated that changes in site numbers made by the BDA with layout plan has necessitated defendant No.2 society to describe the property properly and accordingly the supplemental deed which is supplemental to the principal instrument, rectification deed dtd: 20.11.2003 has been executed. It is further stated that the vendor of the plaintiff being member of defendant No.2 society, has satisfied the norms of allotment of suit property in terms of order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.6945/2008 and connected matters. Further, it is stated that plaintiff insisted for execution of necessary documents and therefore supplemental deed has been executed. Ex.P-6 is the possession certificate wherein possession of suit property has been handed over to plaintiff 'as is where is basis'. Thus, the plaintiff contends that he has become the owner of the suit property.
12. On the other hand, the defendant has contended that his Vendor K.R.Gundurao was allotted site No.213/F by defendant No.2 society at the Ist phase of Vishwabharathi O.S.No. 1738/2020 15 Housing complex layout, Hosakerehalli village bounded by East:
Site No.239/J, West: Road, North: Site No. 213/E, South:
Temple property. Subsequently, katha of the said site entered in the name of the vendor of defendant No.1. He obtained plan for construction of house as per Ex.D-2 and obtained permission for sewage connection as per Ex.D-6. After constructing the house, he has executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 on 10.11.2010 for consideration of Rs.27,05,000/-wherein property described as residential house property bearing site No. 213/F formed by defendant No.2 society as described in Ex.D-1 sale deed. Further, it shows that after the order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 6945/2008, dtd: 16.11.2010 the defendant No.1 produced documents before the society in respect of site No.213/F on 19.11.2011, copy of which has been marked as Ex.D-13 herein. The defendant has produced Physical Dimension Report dtd: 22.7.2011 and copy of demand notice dtd: 22.7.2011 issued by defendant no.2 society to defendant no.1 in respect of site no. 213/F to pay a sum of Rs.
2,56,740/-, which has been paid by defendant No.1 and acknowledgment has been issued as per Ex.D-16. Ex.D-19 is possession certificate dtd: 20.10.2010 in respect of site No. O.S.No. 1738/2020 16 213/F issued in favour of K.R. Gundurao. All these documents show that site No. 213/F has been allotted to defendant's vendor and he has constructed a house in it and after the order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, he sold the said property to defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 produced documents before the society on 19.4.2011 and paid a sum of Rs. 2,56,740/-. It is true that in demand notice it is stated that payment is received subject to fulfillment of conditions i.e., their seniority, genuinity and eligibility for regularization as per the guidelines given by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 6945/2008. Even in the acknowledgment dtd: 8.8.2011 also same condition is noted. The defendant No.1 has not produced any document to show that he has fulfilled the conditions of seniority, genuinity and eligibility for regularization as per the guidelines given by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 6945/2008.
13. It is clear from the evidence available before the court both oral and documentary, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has given guidelines in W.P. No. 6945/2008 regarding regularization of sites. However, neither the plaintiff nor the defendants have produced the copy of the Order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 6945/2008. Pw-1 O.S.No. 1738/2020 17 is the plaintiff, he has been cross-examined by the counsel for defendant No.1. But in his cross-examination Pw-1 has stated as under:-
"I do not know about the writ petition filed before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in respect of layouts formed in Hosakere Village, Gerehalli Village. I do not know about the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka to the society. I do not know about the seniority list prepared by society as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. I do not know what is my seniority number in the seniority list prepared by the society. It is true that, I have not produced any document to show my seniority. The society has not given notice to me to give my details in respect of the membership of the society and the payment made by me to the society for allotment of site to prepare the seniority list."
".......... I have not filed any case seeking for determine my seniority in the seniority list prepared by the society. It is true that the society has not given any certificate stating that site No.3626 and site No.213/F are one and the same site. I have not given the documents to BDA in respect of the O.S.No. 1738/2020 18 details of membership and allotment of site by the society to me."
14. It is clear from the above evidence that seniority, genuinity and eligibility of plaintiff has not been determined as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No. 6945/2008. Further, Pw-1 himself has admitted that his site and the site allotment to defendant No.1's vendor K.R. Gundurao, are one and the same.
15. The documents produced by the plaintiff shows that originally site No. 426 was allotted to plaintiff. Thereafter in a rectification deed site number was changed as 1077/6. Thereafter, in the Supplemental Deed executed by defendant no.2 society in favour of plaintiff, site number has been mentioned as 3626. On the other hand, the document produced by defendant show that defendant's vendor was allotted site No. 213/F. Thereafter, he sold the same to defendant No.1. In the sale deed executed by defendant No.2 society in favour of vendor of defendant No.1 and in the sale deed executed by vendor of defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.1, the site number is stated as 213/F, even the possession certificate as per Ex.D-19 also site No. is mentioned as 213/F. However, in the katha O.S.No. 1738/2020 19 extract as per Ex.D-20, katha certificate as per Ex.D-21 the new number is stated as 213/F and old site No. stated as 3626. Absolutely there is no material as to how the old No. 3626 came to be mentioned in the katha certificate and katha extracts of defendant No.1.
16. Dw-1 is defendant No.1. Even in his evidence he has stated that he does not know about W.P.No.6945/2008. He has stated that he does not know that site No.213/F has become site No.3626 and defendant No.2 society has executed supplemental sale deed in respect of site No.3626 in favour of the plaintiff and that plaintiff has been allotted site No. 3626 as per seniority list prepared by the society. He has admitted that no supplemental deed is executed in his favour by the defendant No.2 society. It is true that Dw-1 has stated that he does not know whether his name is in the seniority list or genuine members list and whether he has been given supplemental sale deed in respect of site No.3626. However, the plaintiff himself has also not produced any document to show that his name is in the seniority list or genuine member list. Though the plaintiff has suggested to Dw-1 that site No. 213/F has become site No.3626 and as per seniority list said site No.3626 has been allotted to O.S.No. 1738/2020 20 plaintiff, he has not produced any document to support those suggestions.
17. It is true that neither the plaintiff nor defendant has produced document to show the seniority list, genuine member list or eligibility list. But, it is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of ownership and possession of the suit property. Therefore, it is for the plaintiff to prove his case. He cannot depend upon the weakness in the case of defendant to prove his case. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the evidence produced by the plaintiff is not sufficient to prove his ownership over the suit schedule property. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in the Negative.
18. Issue No.2: When the plaintiff fails to prove his ownership over the suit schedule property, he is not entitled for the possession of the same. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 in the Negative.
19. Issue No.3: The defendant has contended that the suit is barred by limitation. This is a suit for declaration and possession. Therefore, the period of limitation is 12 years. The plaintiff's supplemental deed in respect of site No.3626 came to be executed on 16.11.2013. It appears that thereafter he started O.S.No. 1738/2020 21 claiming site No.3626. Therefore, the period of limitation starts from the said date. The present suit has been filed in the year 2020, before completion of limitation period. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff is within the period of limitation. Hence, I answer Issue No.3 in the Negative.
20. Issue No.4:- The plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and he is entitled for possession of the property. Under such circumstances, he is not entitled for the relief claimed in the suit. Therefore, I answer Issue No.4 in the Negative.
21. Issue No.5:- In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. Under the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer grade-I, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 22nd Day of October 2024) (YASHAWANTH KUMAR) C/c. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, (CCH-38) BANGALORE.
O.S.No. 1738/2020 22 Schedule Property All that piece and parcel of the Site bearing No. 3626 (earlier Site No. 1077/6) carved out of the land bearing Survey Nos. 16,17,18 and 19 of Gerahalli village and Survey Nos. 101,103/1,103/2,104/1,104/2,105 and 106 of Hosakerehalli village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk by M/s. Vishwabharathi Hoouse Building Co-operative Society Ltd., in the IV phase of Girinagar, Bangalore- 560085 and bounded on the:
East by : Part of Site No.3643 West by : Road, North by : Site No. 3625 South by : Site No.3627 And measuring East to West 55 feet and North to South 30 feet in all measuring 1650 Sq.ft.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiffs/s:
PW-1 - Nanjalingappa Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiffs/s: Ex.P.1 Original sale deed dated 19.09.1994 Ex.P.2 Original sale deed dated 19.09.1994 Ex.P.3 Original rectification deed dated 16.09.2003 Ex.P.4 Original allotment letter dated 08.11.2013 Ex.P.5 Original Supplement dated 16.11.2013 Ex.P.6 Original possession certificate dated 19.11.2013 Ex.P-7 Certified copy of the sale deed dated O.S.No. 1738/2020 23 18.06.2012 Ex.P-8 Certified copy of the registered rectification deed dated 22.06.2012 Ex.P-9 BDA Layout plan List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
DW-1 - S.H.Raghavendra Documents marked on behalf of the Defendant/s:
Ex.D-1 Original registered sale deed 2302.2022 Ex.D-2 Sanction plan Ex.D-3 Khatha certificate Ex.D-4 House and site register extract Ex.D-5 Computer generated property tax registered extract.
Ex.D-6 Work order dt25.02.2004. Ex.D-7to E.C.s 9
Ex.D-10 No objection certificate issued by society dt12.02.2008. Ex.D-11 Certified copy of the registered sale deed dtd:10.11.2010. Ex.D-12 Official memorandum dtd:12.05.2005 of BESCOM Ex.D-13 Certified copy of the Check list / Acknowledgment . Ex.D-14 Certified copy of the physical dimension report. Ex.D-15 Certified copy of demand notice. Ex.D-16 Certified copy of Acknowledgment. Ex.D-17 Certified copy of judgment in O.S. 4438/2014. Ex.D-18 Certified copy of the Decree in O.S. 4438/2014. Ex.D-19 Certified copy of the memo of the society. Ex.D-20 Khatha extract.
Ex.D-21 Khatha certificate.
O.S.No. 1738/2020 24 Ex.D-22 Admission card to the society.
Ex.D-23 Electricity bill.
Ex.D-24 Water bill.
Ex.D-25 5 photographs of suit property to 29 Ex.D-30 CD in respect of Ex.D.25 to 29 Ex.D-31 Sec.65(B) certificate in respect of Ex.D.25 to 30 (YASHAWANTH KUMAR) C/c. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, (CCH-38), BENGALURU.