Bangalore District Court
Sri. K.T.Somashekar vs ) Smt. Lakshmidevamma on 13 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE CITY (CCH-6)
This the 13th day of July, 2015
Present: Sri. S.SRIDHARA,
B.Sc.,LL.B.,
th
24 Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
O. S. No.4647/2005
Plaintiff: Sri. K.T.Somashekar
S/o K.T.Thimamsetty,
Aged about 34 years,
R/at Sollapuradamma
Temple Road, Sunkadakatte,
Bangalore- 560 091.
By Sri.N.Shankaranarayana Bhat, Adv.
Vs.
Defendants: 1) Smt. Lakshmidevamma
W/o Late M.G.Gudda Thimmaiah,
Aged about 60 years,
R/at Sollapuradamma Temple
Road, Sunkadakatte,
Bangalore- 91.
2) Sri. K.raja S/o Kempaiah,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at No.90, I Stage,
6th Phase, Industrial Town,
West Chord Road,
Bangalore- 560 044.
3. Sri. M.G.Kumar
S/o Guddathimmaiah,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at Sollapuradamma
2 O.S.4647/2005
Temple Road, Sunkadakatte,
Bangalore- 560 091.
By Sri. P.Chidananda, Advocate.
Date of institution of the suit: 22.06.2005
Nature of the suit: Injunction Suit
Date of commencement of 14.08.2008
recording of evidence:
Date on which Judgment was 13.07.2015
pronounced:
Duration Days Months Years
21 00 10
JUDGMENT
The instant suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is one for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants and any persons claiming on their behalf from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff and for costs and such other reliefs.
2. a) Plaintiff has stated that the land bearing Sy.No.82/2, Srigandhadakaval village, Yeshavanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk belongs 3 O.S.4647/2005 to one Chandrappa and the said Chandrappa had formed layout and house sites. Site No.85 is one among the said sites measuring 30X40 feet. The said site was purchased by Smt.Jayalakshmamma D/o Venkatarangaiah in 1988 for valuable consideration. He further stated that as there was restriction for registration of the revenue sites, Chandrappa executed GPA in favour of Jayalakshmamma and had also executed affidavit to the said fact.
b) He further stated that on the basis of the GPA and affidavit, khatha of the said property was made out in the name of Smt.Jayalakshmamma in the records of Saneguruvanahalli Village Panchayath in whose jurisdiction the property was situated. He further stated that later when the said property comes within the limits of Dasarahalli City Municipal Council, khatha in respect of the said property was made out in her name and Smt.Jayalakshmamma had paid property tax to the said property. The plaintiff further stated that it appears that half of the said site was sold 4 O.S.4647/2005 some time earlier. The plaintiff had purchased one half of the said site No.85 measuring 20X40 feet, which is morefully shown in the plaint schedule by registered sale deed dated 28.10.2004 for valuable sale consideration from C.Chandrappa through his GPA holder Smt.Jayalakshmamma. Ever since from the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as absolute owner thereof.
c) The plaintiff further stated that when such being the actual state of affairs, the defendants, who have no manner of right, title or possession over the said property are trying to trespass and interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. As a matter of fact, on 20.6.2005 the defendants with their henchmen entered into suit property and tried to make marks on the suit property for the purpose of putting up construction in the suit property. In para-5 he also pleaded the alleged interference of the defendants. In para-6 he also 5 O.S.4647/2005 pleaded the cause of action and praying this Court to decree the suit as prayed for.
3. The plaint schedule reads as follows:
All that piece and parcel of the property in site No.85 (Half portion to the western side) in Assessment No.82/2, old Khatha No.195, present khatha No.386, situated in Srigandhadakaval Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk within the limits of Dasarahalli City Municipal Council in Ward No.34, Bangalore- 560 057, measuring East to West 20 feet and North to South 40 feet and bounded on the -
East by: House of Gangacheluvaiah (other portion of schedule property); West by: Srigandhadakaval Hegganahalli Gadi;
North by: Road; and South by: House of Conductor Thulasiram.
4. a) The defendants filed written statement denying all the plaint averments and further contended that the suit is frivolous and vexatious and same is not maintainable. In para-2 of the written statement, the defendants have stated that the alleged GPA and affidavit executed by Chandrappa in favour of Jayalakshmamma are not within their knowledge. The defendants further contended that the plaint 6 O.S.4647/2005 averments at para-4 that the khatha that was made out in the name of Smt.Jayalakshmamma at Saneguruvanahalli Village Panchayath and later when the same came within the Dasarahalli City Municipal Council, khatha was made out in her name and she had also paid property tax and further averments that half share of the said site was sold some time earlier and the plaintiff had purchased one half of the said site measuring 20X40 feet through the registered sale deed dated 28.10.2004 for valuable sale consideration from Chandrappa through his GPA holder Jayalakshmamma and since then the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit as absolute owner thereof are all not within the knowledge of the defendants.
b) In para-4 of the written statement, defendants have specifically denied the alleged interference of the defendants and also stated that there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file this suit.
c) The specific defence of the defendants finds a place in para-6 of the written statement, wherein they 7 O.S.4647/2005 have stated that the 1st and 3rd defendants are the absolute owners of site No.35 formed in Sy.No.11/2 totally measuring 4-02 acres situated at Hegganahalli, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, which is morefully described in the written statement schedule and the same is ancestral property of the 1st and 3rd defendants. The defendants are in absolute peaceful possession of the written statement schedule property. The Dasarahalli CMC also issued khatha in favour of the 1st defendant and the 1st defendant is paying taxes regularly. The defendants reiterated that they are in possession of site No.35 formed out of Sy.No.11/2, which is morefully shown in the written statement schedule. The defendants have not encroached or tried to encroach upon the property of any third persons much less the property of the plaintiff.
d) The defendants also further contended that the vendor of the plaintiff Smt. Jayalakshmamma, who alleged to own a site adjacent to the written statement schedule property, had tried to encroach upon the 8 O.S.4647/2005 written statement schedule property. The 1st defendant in this case was constrained to file the suit in O.S. 6644/1997 on the file of City Civil Judge, Bangalore restraining the plaintiff's vendor and another from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs therein in respect of the property mentioned in the schedule of O.S.6644/1997. That suit was decreed on 29.9.2004 and the plaintiff was restrained from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the defendants in this case in respect of the written statement schedule property. Hence, the defendants are in peaceful possession of the written statement schedule property, which measuring 28X40 feet and they have not interfered or encroached upon the property of the plaintiff, who is said to have purchased the property from Jayalakshmamma.
e) Defendants also stated that the plaintiff failed to show that they have encroached upon the site belongs to the plaintiff beyond the written statement schedule property and in fact the defendants are in peaceful possession of the written statement schedule 9 O.S.4647/2005 property etc. The plaint schedule discloses the fact that to the west of the plaint schedule property, there lies the boundary of Hegganahalli, wherein the written statement schedule property is situated etc. The defendants are unaware of the existence of the plaint schedule property and even if such a site is in existence, the defendants have not encroached upon the said site at any point of time. The plaintiff having knowledge of the said fact and fully knowing the fact that defendants are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the written statement schedule property filed a suit by making false and frivolous allegation by suppressing material facts only at the instigation of his vendor Smt.Jayalakshmamma, who is suffered a decree from the hands of this Court, for having tried to encroach upon the written statement schedule property. The defendants also resisted the suit on several other grounds and pray for dismissal of the suit with costs.
5. Written statement schedule reads as follows: 10 O.S.4647/2005
All that the vacant sites bearing No.35 in Sy.No.11/2 of Hegganahalli, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk measuring East to West 28 feet and North to South 40 feet and bounded on-
East by: House built in the property belonging to one Mariyanna. West by: Site No.34:
North by: Road;
South by: House built in Sy.No.36.
6. Based on the above pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor has framed the following issues:
1. Does plaintiff proves that he was in lawful possession of suit property on the date of suit?
2. Is alleged interference true?
3. What order or decree?
7. In support of the case of the plaintiff, he himself is examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.11 and Ex.P11(a) and closed his evidence. On behalf of the defendants, the 2nd defendant is examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to D.19 and closed their evidence.
11 O.S.4647/2005
8. Record also discloses that as per the orders passed by this Court on I.A.5 filed Under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, Court Commissioner is also appointed, who after conducting local inspection submitted report. However plaintiff also field objections to Commissioner's report on 3.1.2015. But insptie of that, plaintiff has not chosen to examine the Court Commissioner. After submission of the Court Commissioner's report, DW.1 was further recalled and he has been further cross-examined.
9. Heard both sides and perused the records.
10. My findings on the above issues are:
Issue No.1: Negative.
Issue No.2: Negative.
Issue No.3: As per the final order
for the following;
REASONS
11. Issue No.1 and 2: Since these two issues are
interlinked with each other and require common
discussion of facts, they are taken together for
common discussion to avoid repetition of facts. 12 O.S.4647/2005
12. When the plaintiff pleads that he is in lawful possession of the suit property as on the date of the suit, the entire burden is on the plaintiff to prove issue No.1. Similarly when the plaintiff pleads the alleged interference of the defendants, the plaintiff has to prove the alleged interference of the defendants.
13. Record discloses that the defendants in their written statement at para-9 have taken the specific defence contending that defendants are unaware of the existence of the plaint schedule property and thereby disputed the very existence of the plaint schedule property as stated by the plaintiff in the plaint so also in the plaint schedule.
14. Since this is only a suit for bare injunction, the identity of the property placed vital role and the plaintiff must establish the existence of the plaint schedule property along with the measurement and boundary as shown in the plaint schedule.
15. In support of the case of the plaintiff, he relied upon Ex.P.1 to P.11 and P.11(a).
13 O.S.4647/2005
16. Ex.P.1 is the registered sale deed dated 28.10.2004 executed by Chandrappa @ Chandrashekar through his GPA holder Smt.Jayalakshmamma in favour of the plaintiff in this case, which is in respect of plaint schedule property i.e. property bearing assessment No.82/2 of Srigandada Kaval village, old khatha No.195, site No.85 measuring East to West 20 feet and North to South 40 feet. The measurement, boundary and description shown in the plaint schedule clearly tallies with the particulars of the property shown in the schedule of Ex.P.1. However on perusal of Ex.P.1, though there is a recital stating that the vendor Chandrappa has authorised Smt.Jayalakshmamma, but there is no mention with regard to the said authorization was by means of a registered or an unregistered GPA and the particulars of the alleged GPA is also not mentioned. This sale deed is for the sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- and possession of the property is shown to have delivered.
17. Ex.P.2 is the tax paid receipt paid by the vendor of the plaintiff by name Smt.Jayalakshmamma paid to 14 O.S.4647/2005 Saneguruvanahalli Panchayath on 10.8.1990 in respect of the property bearing No.195/82/2/85 (number 1 appears to have been inserted by using a ball pen before the figure 95) and this tax has paid for the assessment year 1990-91.
18. Ex.P.3 is the certified copy of the assessment list extract in respect of property bearing No.85, assessment No.82/2 at Sl.No.195, wherein Smt.Jayalakshmamma is shown to be the owner or anubhavadar of the said property, who appears to be the alleged vendor of the plaintiff.
19. Ex.P.4 is again one more assessment list extract for the assessment year 2004-05 issued from Dasarahalli Nagarasabhe, which shows that Jayalakshmamma the alleged vendor of the plaintiff is shown to be the owner/anubhavadar of site No.85, carved out in Sy.No.82/2 measuring 30X40 feet.
20. Ex.P.5 to P.7 are all tax paid receipts paid by Smt.Jayalakshmamma the alleged vendor of the 15 O.S.4647/2005 plaintiff under the Self Assessment Tax Payment Scheme. All the tax has been paid by the plaintiff on a single day i.e. on 6.8.2004 for the assessment year 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 in respect of site No.85 in Sy.No.82/2.
21. Ex.P.8 and P.9 both are prescribed proforma for payment of tax under the Self Assessment Tax Payment Scheme, wherein the alleged vendor of the plaintiff Smt.Jayalakshmamma is shown to be the owner and anubhavadar of property i.e. site No.85 carved out of Sy.No.82/2 measuring 30X40 feet.
22. Ex.P.10 is the certified copy of the RTC in respect of Sy.No.82/2 measuring 5-29 acres out of which 0-11 guntas is shown as karab and remaining extent is shown as 5-18 acres for the assessment year 2003-04, which shows that the alleged vendor Chandrappa son of Mariyappa, Rajanna, Chandrashekar, Janardhana are shown to be the kathedar and cultivators for the assessment year 2003-04. It is worth to mention at this stage that even for the assessment year 2003-04, 16 O.S.4647/2005 the said property is shown as an agricultural land. However as per Ex.P.2 to P.6 and P.8, the same discloses as if sites were carved out in Sy.No.82/2. It appears that revenue sites have been carved out without obtaining the conversion order and without obtaining the sanctioned plan from the competent authorities so as to identify the properties, which is alleged to have been sold by Chandrappa in favour of Smt.Jayalakshmamma and Smt. Jayalakshmamma in turn sold the same in favour of the present plaintiff. That is only the reason why there is no reference in the sale deed Ex.P.1 with regard to the conversion order if any obtained by the said Chandrappa and there is no reference with regard to the layout plan if any approved from the competent authority.
23. Ex.P.11 is the photograph. Ex.P.11(a) is the negative.
24. On the other hand, defendants have relied upon Ex.D.1 to D.19.
17 O.S.4647/2005
25. Ex.D.1 is the certified copy of the partition deed dated 8.5.1967 said to have been executed between Thimmakka- the mother of the 1st defendant and also one Lakshmidevamma- the 1st defendant in this case and also the sister of the 1st defendant, wherein they have partitioned their family properties by showing the schedule as 'A', 'B' and 'C' schedules. 'A' schedule property was retained by the mother of the 1st defendant Smt.Thimmakka, 'B' schedule property was allotted to the share of 1st defendant and 'C' schedule property was allotted to the sister of the 1st defendant. Along with the 'B' schedule property that was allotted to the 1st defendant, Sy.No.11/2 was also allotted to the share of the 1st defendant measuring 4-02 acres.
26. Ex.D.2 is the certified copy of the RTC in respect of Sy.No.11/2, wherein the 1st defendant Lakshmi Devamma is shown to be the cultivator for the assessment year 1989-90, 1990-91 and her mother Thimmakka is shown to be the kathedar.
18 O.S.4647/2005
27. Ex.D.3 is the certified copy of the Index of Land, which also shows that Thimmakka and her daughter Lakshmidevamma- the 1st defendant are shown to be the persons in possession of Sy.No.11/2 measuring 4- 02 acres along with other lands shown in Ex.D.3. Ex.D.4 is the certified copy of the record of Rights, which also indicates that as per the partition between the 1st defendant and her mother and sister, Sy.No.11/2 measuring 4-01 acres was allotted to the share of 1st defendant as per the Mutation Entries in MR No.9/1980-81.
28. Ex.D.5 is an important document, which is the certified copy of the Judgment and decree in O.S.6644/1997, wherein the 1st defendant in this case as plaintiff filed that suit against one Smt.Kavitha and Smt.Jayalakshmi, who is none other than the vendor of the present plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of very same written statement schedule property and that suit came to be decreed and accordingly permanent injunction was also granted 19 O.S.4647/2005 restraining the defendants therein from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property therein.
29. Ex.D.6 is the Proforma for payment of tax under Self Assessment Tax Payment Scheme paid by the 1st defendant for the assessment year 2005-06 in respect of site No.35 carved out of Sy.No.11/2 measuring 28X40 feet, which is shown as vacant site.
30. Ex.D.7 to Ex.D.10 are all tax paid receipts paid by the 1st defendant in this case and tax has been paid on a single day i.e. on 22.6.2005 in respect of site No.35 carved out of Sy.No.11/2 for the assessment year 2002-03 to 2005-06. Ex.D.11 and Ex.D.12 both are tax paid receipts, which is paid by the 1st defendant Lakshmidevamma on 4.12.2007, 20.10.2008 in respect of site No.35, Sy.No.11/2 for the assessment year 2006-07, 2007-08.
31. Ex.D.13 is the certified copy of the gift deed dated 15.10.2008 executed by Smt.Lakshmidevamma- the 1st defendant in this case in favour of her daughter 20 O.S.4647/2005 Smt.S.G.Sathyabhama, wherein she has gifted site No.35 carved out of Sy.No.11/2 (Assessment number is shown as 11/2) of Dasarahalli Nagarasabhe, Bangalore North Taluk, which is shown as second item of the property in the gift deed Ex.D.13. This gift deed is also in respect of very same written statement schedule property and the mother of the 1st defendant also gifted site No.84 also along with site No.35.
32. Ex.D.14 is the certified copy of the B-khatha issued by BBMP, which shows that S.G.Sathyabhama is shown to be the owner/occupier of site No.35 carved out of Sy.No.11/2 measuring about 1120 square feet.
33. Ex.D.15 to D.17 are all acknowledgements for having paid tax by the said Sathyabhama for the assessment year 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, which is also in respect of site No.35 carved out of Sy.No.11/2 of Hegganahalli village.
34. Ex.D.18 is the certified copy of the gift deed dated 31.3.2000 executed by one Mayannagowda in favour of Tulasiramaiah and possession of the property 21 O.S.4647/2005 is shown to have delivered and this gift deed is in respect of site No.36. This document might have been produced b y the defendants for the limited purpose to show the existence of site No.35 carved out of Sy.No.11/2 as shown in the written statement schedule. In the schedule of Ex.D.18, towards North it is shown as site No.35, which is now claimed by the defendants in the written statement schedule.
35. Ex.D.19 is also the certified copy of the sale deed dated 16.12.2002 executed by one Smt.Susheelamma as GPA holder of one Smt.Lakshmidevamma in favour of one Smt.Sathyavathi and possession of the property is also delivered and this sale deed is in respect of site No.34 and in the schedule of Ex.D.19, towards East, it is shown as site No.35. This Ex.D.19 is also produced by the defendants for the limited purpose to show the existence of site No.35 formed out of Sy.No.11/2.
36. The plaintiff, who is examined in this case as PW.1, has reiterated the plaint averments. However PW.1 in his cross-examination admitted that the 22 O.S.4647/2005 measurement of site No.85 is 30X40 feet, out of which she has purchased site measuring 20X40 feet out of the total extent of 30X40 feet in site No.85. She further stated that remaining 20X40 feet was purchased by Sri. Gangacheluvaiah and admittedly the said Gangacheluvaiah is not examined nor produced any documents to show that Gangacheluvaiah purchased remaining half site measuring 20X40 feet from the alleged vendor of the plaintiff by name Smt.Jayalakshmamma. Though PW.1 goes to the extent of saying that he has produced the said sale deed obtained by Gangacheluvaiah, but no such sale deed is produced in this case. In the cross- examination also, he admitted that there exists a vacant land towards western side, but he do not know to whom it belongs to. He also admitted that towards South of the suit property, there exists a vacant land and he has not made any attempt to note to whom the said vacant land belongs to. If really the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property on the date of the suit, there was no impediment for the plaintiff to depose 23 O.S.4647/2005 before the Court as to who are all the persons situated on all the four sides of plaint schedule property. He also stated that he do not know whether the 1st defendant in this case by name Lakshmidevamma filed a suit against his vendor Jayalakshmamma and the said suit was decreed in favour of the 1st defendant.
37. On the other hand, the 2nd defendant is examined as DW.1, wherein he has reiterated the written statement averments. He admitted in his cross- examination that originally Sy.No.11/2 of Hegganahalli belongs to one Smt.Lakshmidevamma and also stated that he do not know whether Sy.No.11/2 is situated on the boundary of Hegganahalli village. He also admitted that he do not know Sy.No.82/2 of Srigandada Kaval village. He admitted that the 1st defendant Lakshmidevamma is his mother-in-law. He further admitted that his mother-in-law formed sites in Sy.No.11/2. However he denied the suggestion that his mother-in-law has sold all the sites carved out of Sy.No.11/2. But also voluntarily stated that his mother-in-law has sold some sites and she also 24 O.S.4647/2005 retained some of the sites. He specifically denied the suggestion that plaint schedule property belongs to the plaintiff in this case and also stated that he do not know the suit schedule property and also stated that he do not know to whom the suit schedule property belongs to and also voluntarily stated that there exists no suit schedule property. He also admitted in his cross-examination that he do not know where suit schedule property is situated. He further stated that the suit schedule property belongs to one Sathyabhama, who is his wife.
38. A strange suggestion is made in the cross- examination of DW.1 by suggesting that the written statement schedule property i.e. site No.35 carved out of Sy.No.11/2 is a vacant site and this suggestion is admitted by DW.1 in his cross-examination. This suggestion in my opinion in a way the plaintiff admitted the existence of site No.35 as shown in the written statement schedule. He also admitted that Lakshmidevamma already obtained decree in respect of property shown in the written statement schedule. 25 O.S.4647/2005
39. In addition to oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Court Commissioner was also appointed in this case, who infact visited the spot and prepared the sketch and also answered the memo of instructions filed by the plaintiff and defendants in this case and the sketch prepared by the Court Commissioner is also produced, wherein the Court Commissioner also shows the property of the plaintiff, which measures about East to West 3¾th feet on the northern side and North to South 23 feet and also shows the property of the defendant as East to West 24¼ feet on the northern side and East to West 28 feet on the southern side and North to South 40 feet. This sketch of the Court Commissioner so also the report submitted by the Court Commissioner clearly falsifies the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff is in possession of the plaint schedule property measuring 20X40 feet.
40. In the mahazar drawn by the Court Commissioner, he also specifically stated that he has measured Sy.No.11/2. He further stated that there 26 O.S.4647/2005 was no phodi of Sy.No.82 as Sy.No.82/2 in the revenue records of Survey Department.
41. According to the plaintiff, he is in lawful possession of the plaint schedule property i.e. site No.85 carved out of Sy.No.82/2 measuring about 20X40 feet, but the plaintiff failed to prove the same. In the plaint schedule, the plaintiff specifically claims that he has purchased western half portion of site No.85 measuring 20X40 feet. But as discussed earlier, the person, who purchased the eastern half portion of site No.85 has not been examined and no documents are produced to show that the eastern half portion of site No.85 was sold in favour of Gangacheluvaiah.
42. On careful perusal of the material available on record, even assuming for a moment that the plaintiff has purchased a portion of site No.85, it should have been either 20X30 feet or 15X40 feet, but not 20X40 feet as claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint schedule. The plaintiff also failed to examine the neighbourers and also failed to examine his alleged vendor 27 O.S.4647/2005 Smt.Jayalakshmamma. The layout plan if any is not produced to show the identity and location of the plaint schedule property as shown in the plaint schedule. Record also discloses that the Xerox copies of GPA and also affidavit is available in the Court file, which is not marked.
43. It is also worth to mention that the 1st defendant in this case has already obtained Judgment and decree in O.S.6644/1997 in respect of the property shown therein measuring 28X40 feet i.e. the written statement schedule property. The 2nd defendant in O.S.6644/1997 is none other than the alleged vendor of the plaintiff. The Judgment and decree passed in O.S.6644/1997 is not questioned by the said Smt.Jayalakshmamma any further. In addition to all these, the Court Commissioner's report so also the sketch i.e. produced falsifies the case of the plaintiff that he is in lawful possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of the suit. When plaintiff failed to prove that he is in lawful possession of the 28 O.S.4647/2005 plaint schedule property as on the date of the suit, the question of interference of the defendants does not arise at all. To prove the alleged interference of the defendants, plaintiff failed to produce any convincing documents. On the other hand, to prove the alleged interference of plaintiff's vendor, defendants have produced Ex.D.5. Accordingly I answer issue No.1 and 2 in the 'negative'.
44. Issue No.3: In view of the findings on issue No.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The instant suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is hereby dismissed with costs.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, computerized print out taken thereof is corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 13th day of July, 2015).
(S.SRIDHARA) XXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSION JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.29 O.S.4647/2005
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1: K.T.Somashekar.
List of documents marked for the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1: Sale deed dated 21.10.2004.
Ex.P.2: Receipt issued by Gramapanchayath on
10.8.1990.
Ex.P.3: Assessment register Extract for the year
1990-91.
Ex.P.4: Self Declaration Assessment Form.
Ex.P.5 to Tax paid receipts.
P.7:
Ex.P.8: Self declaration Form pertaining to the
year 2002-03.
Ex.P.9: Self declaration Form pertaining to the
year 2004-05.
Ex.P.10: Record of Rights and tenancy certificate.
Ex.P.11: Photograph.
Ex.P.11(a): Negative.
List of witnesses examined for the defendants:
DW.1: K.Rajanna.
List of documents marked for the plaintiff:
Ex.D.1: Certified copy of the partition deed dated 8.5.1967.
Ex.D.2: Record of rights.
Ex.D.3: Index of Land.
Ex.D.4: Certified copy of Record of rights.
Ex.D.5: Certified copy of the Judgment and
decree passed in O.S.6644/1997.
Ex.D.6: Self declaration form.
Ex.D.7 to Tax paid receipts.
D.12:
Ex.D.13: Certified copy of the gift deed dated
30 O.S.4647/2005
15.10.2008.
Ex.D.14: Form 'B' Extract.
Ex.D.15 to Endorsement issued by BBMP for receipt D.17: of cash and cheques. Ex.D.18: Certified copy of the gift deed dated 31.3.2000.
Ex.D.19: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 16.12.2002.
(S.SRIDHARA) XXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSION JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.