Bangalore District Court
Syed Ashfaq Hussain vs N Sharavanan on 7 January, 2026
KABC0A0024712019
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-29) MAYOHALL, BENGALURU
Dated this the 7th day of January, 2026.
PRESENT:
Sri BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU, B.Sc., LL.M.,
XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.25938/2019
PLAINTIFF : Syed Ashfaq Hussain,
S/o. B.S. Syed Ahmed,
Aged about 41 years,
Residing at No.272, Thimmaiah
Road, Shivajinagar,
Bengaluru - 560 051.
(By Sri P.S. Shameel Ahmed, Advocate)
-VERSUS-
DEFENDANTS: 1. N. Sharavanan,
S/o. Nagaraj,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at No.5/30,
Pemmegowda Road, 3rd Cross,
Bangalore - 560 006.
2. N. Chandra,
S/o. Nagaraj,
Cont'd..
2 O.S.No.25938/2019
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at No.12, Ramakka
Block No.1, 4th Cross,
Marappa Garden, K.G.
Baiderahalli, Bangalore-560 046.
(By Sri S.R.D., Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Institution of the Suit : 15-07-2019
Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Injunction Suit
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for
injunction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 16-02-2021
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 07-01-2026
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 06years, 05months, 22days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU)
XXVIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is instituted by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction, restraining defendants, their henchmen, workers etc., from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property and grant such other reliefs.
3 O.S.No.25938/2019
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under:
That, plaintiff is absolute owner and in possession of suit property and acquired the same under registered sale deed dated 05.03.2018. Earlier suit property was acquired by Mr. Sathar Khan under sale deed dated 24.08.1993. Mr. Sathar Khan died on 23.09.2004 leaving behind his wife Smt. Waheeda Khanum and children., B.S. Ashfaq Ahmed Khan, Smt. Tabassum Fathima and Smt. Taranum Fathima. After death of Mr. Sathar Khan all these persons have exercised their rights and ownership over suit property. Mr. Sathar Khan filed suit against B.B.M.P in O.S.No.16106/2000 on the file CCH-22 and said suit came to be dismissed.
Appeal in RFA No.1076/2006 also came to be dismissed. However, observation made, dismissed shall not bar for B.B.M.P from providing sanitary connection to schedule property. Defendant No.1 claims to have acquired residential property bearing No.3 and 4, said properties lies on western side of property of plaintiff. Defendant No.2 is elder brother of defendant No.1. Defendants have no manner of right, title or interest in suit property, they are trying to interfere with plaintiff's 4 O.S.No.25938/2019 peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property. On these pleadings, plaintiff has prayed to decree suit as prayed in plaint.
3. In response to the service of suit summons, defendants have tendered their appearance before the court through their counsel and contested the case and filed written statement.
4. The contents of written statement of defendants in brief are as under :-
That, suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed.
Plaintiff has not approached with clean hands. One Smt. Ramakka W/o. M.K. Kempaih purchased land in Sy.Nos.47, 48, 86, 101, 103 and 104, situated at Khayam Gutta Byadarahalli village, Bengaluru from Mr. A. Michael under sale deed dated 26.11.1943. After death of Smt. Ramakka, her son M.K. Sheshadri and Smt. Paramjothamma have succeeded to her estate.
M.K. Sheshadri formed layout in Sy.No.47. In said layout, 25 feet road are formed horizontally and 30 feet road touching military land perpendicularly are formed.5 O.S.No.25938/2019
Portion of block consisting of 12 building sites bearing No.1 to 4 and 11-18 sold to Bengali Association under sale deed dated 24.10.1973. Bengali Association sold site Nos.3 and 4 to Mr. Mohan Lal under sale deed dated 04.06.1979. Legal heirs of Mr. Mohan Lal sold site No.3 and 4 to defendant No.1 under sale deed dated 12.07.2010. Schedule to aforesaid sale deed of first defendant Eastern boundary of property is wrongly shown as private property whereas correct and actually Eastern portion is bounded by 30 feet road. Said mistake was crept in because vendor of defendant No.1 had lost all title documents of property. Sale deed dated 24.08.1993 allegedly executed by Mr. M.S. Kempa Raju in favour of Mr. Sathar Khan selling alleged site No.4A is sham document. During life time Mr. M.K. Sheshadri, he had sold all sites carved out in layout formed by him. There was no site left for his son Kemparaju to succeed after his death. Judgment in O.S.No.16106/2000 exposes fraud of Mr. Kemparaju and Mr. Sathar Khan. Said judgment was affirmed in Appeal by Hon'ble High Court. Plaintiff has filed this frivolous suit as done by his vendor only to grab public 6 O.S.No.25938/2019 road. On these grounds, it is requested by defendants to dismiss suit of plaintiff.
5. On the basis of above pleadings of both parties, this court has framed the following :-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as described in the plaint schedule as on the date of suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that alleged illegal interference by the defendants?
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable without claiming declaration of title over the suit schedule property?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed?
5. What order or decree?
6. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and produced in all 54 documents as Exs.P1 to Ex.P.54. The defendant No.1 examined himself as D.W.1 and one attesting witness as D.W.2 and produced 21 documents as Exs.D.1 to D.21.7 O.S.No.25938/2019
7. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff and defendants and I have perused the case records.
8. My answers 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 final order, for the following -
REASONS
9. ISSUE No.1 :- As per case of plaintiff, he being purchaser of suit property under registered sale deed, as on date of filing suit, he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit property. According to plaintiff, he purchased suit property under registered sale deed dated 05.03.2018. Original sale deed dated 05.03.2018 in respect of suit property executed by wife and children of late Sattar Khan in favour of plaintiff has been produced as per Ex.P.3.
10. It is specifically pleaded and same is deposed by plaintiff, who examined as P.W.1 that, Late Sattar 8 O.S.No.25938/2019 Khan had acquired suit schedule property from M.S. Kemparaju S/o. M.K. Sheshadri under registered sale deed dated 24.08.1993. Said sale deed has been produced as per Ex.P2. The defendants have specifically contended, land comprised in survey numbers No.47, 48, 86, 101, 103 and 104, situated at Khayam Gutta Byadrahalli village purchased by Smt. Ramakka W/o. M.K. Kemapaiah. After death of Smt. Ramakka, her son M.K. Sheshadri and co-widow Smt. Paramjothamma succeeded to above mentioned properties. Later on M.K. Sheshadri formed layout in Sy.No.47 in the year 1973. It is specifically contended by defendants and same is deposed by defendant No.1, who examined as D.W.1 before the court, in said layout 25 feet road formed horizontally and 30 feet road touching Military land perpendicularly have been formed.
11. As already discussed, as per Ex.P2 sale deed was executed by M.S. Kemparaju, who is son of M.K. Sheshadri in favour of Late Sattar Khan. Taking into note of specific contention taken up by defendants that, it is M.K. Sheshadri, who is son of original owner Smt. Ramakka formed layout, it can be held that, there is no 9 O.S.No.25938/2019 dispute between plaintiff and defendants that, M.K. Sheshadri had formed layout in Sy.No.47 of Khayam Gutta Byadarahalli Village.
12. According to plaintiff, the vendors as mentioned in Ex.P3 being Legal heirs of Late Sattar Khan have sold suit property in favour of plaintiff herein. Uttarpatra, tax paid receipts, khata extract and khata certificate in the name of plaintiff in respect of suit property have been produced before court as per Exs.P5 to P13. Tax paid receipts in the name of M.K. Sheshadri have been produced as per Exs.P14 to P23. Further tax paid receipts pertaining to suit property in the name of plaintiff have been produced as per Exs.P25 to P27.
13. Encumbrance certificate have been produced as per Exs.P28 to P34. On perusal of these documents, there is mention about sale of property by Michel in favour of Smt. Ramakka, Sheshadri and sale by M.S. Kemparaju in favour of Late Sattar Khan and sale by Legal heirs of Late Sattar Khan in favour of plaintiff herein.
10 O.S.No.25938/2019
14. Based on above documents, it is contention of plaintiff that, he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of suit property. The defendants have specifically contended, the plaintiff has not approached court with clean hands. It is specific contention of defendants that, M.K. Sheshadri and Smt. Paramjyothamma have sold block consisting of 12 sites to Bengali Association under registered sale deed dated 24.10.1973 and at that time along with sale deed they have produced layout plan of Ramakka Block in Sy.No.47. There is no existence of suit schedule property bearing Site No.4A. During life time of M.K. Sheshadri, he had sold all sites carved out in layout formed by him and there was no site left for his son M.S. Kemparaju to succeeded to after his death. As such, M.S. Kemparaju son of M.K. Sheshadri has not conveyed any lawful title to Late Sattar Khan under sale deed dated 24.08.1993 nor legal heirs of Late. Sattar Khan have not conveyed any title to plaintiff under sale deed dated 05.03.2018 as site No.4A is not in existence since formation of layout in the year 1973 by M.K. Sheshadri.
11 O.S.No.25938/2019
15. The plaintiff in order to establish existence of suit property bearing Site No.4A has relied on certified copy of sale deed dated 12.07.2010 in respect of property No.3 and 4 of Ramakka Block as per Ex.P4. On perusal of schedule mentioned in sale deed, to East of property, it is mentioned private property. The P.W.1 in his cross examination has deposed, to East of suit property there existence property of defendant No.1.
16. The D.W.1 in his cross examination has deposed, in sale deed pertaining to property No.3 and 4, it is mentioned to the East private property. It is clarified by D.W.1 that, as original documents of vendor were lost, as such boundaries of property in sale deed as per Ex.P4 are wrongly mentioned. In further cross examination, D.W.1 had admitted in sale deed itself, it is mentioned, certified copies of documents have been furnished. It is further admitted by D.W.1 that, there was no rectification deed rectifying Eastern boundary of his property.
17. It is pleaded in the plaint itself that, vendor of plaintiff, earlier filed suit in O.S.No.16106/2000 against 12 O.S.No.25938/2019 the Commissioner, Bengaluru City Corporation, same was dismissed and against said judgment and decree RFA No.1076/2006 filed and same was dismissed. The certified copy of judgment in O.S.No.16106/2000 and copy of judgment of Hon'ble High Court in RFA No.1076/2006 have been produced before court and marked as Ex.D1. It is fact that, Ex.D.1 got confronted through P.W.1.
18. The photos of suit property have been confronted through P.W.1 and same are marked as Exs.D.2 to D.5. It is fact that, judgment in O.S.No.16106/2000 was passed by the court on 20.01.2006. Sale deed in respect of suit property as per Ex.P1 in favour of plaintiff executed on 05.03.2018. It is admitted by P.W.1 that, sale deed as per Ex.P3 was drafted by him. It is denied that, in order to over come findings recorded by court in O.S.No.16106/2000, sale deed Ex.P3 was drafted by plaintiff.
19. It is admitted by plaintiff that, defendant has filed complaint against him before BMTF Police Station as per Ex.P.46. The copy of proceedings before the Joint 13 O.S.No.25938/2019 Commissioner, BBMP has been produced as per Ex.P.51. Said petition filed by defendants herein against plaintiff and others have been dismissed by concerned authority and it was held consequently khata standing in the name of plaintiff in respect of Site No.4A, Corporation No.1 situated at K.G. Byadarahalli, Ramakka Block, Jayamahal is to be continued.
20. Ex.P.52 is layout map which was obtained under RTI Act. The P.W.1 in his cross examination had admitted, said Ex.P.52 layout map not prepared by BBMP. It is further admitted by P.W.1 that, said map has been produced by plaintiff before Joint Commissioner, BBMP. It was tried to explain by PW.1 that, said map was furnished by his vendor to him. It is clearly admitted by P.W.1, after producing map before Joint Commissioner, BBMP, later on same was obtained under RTI and produced before the court.
21. It is pertinent to note here that, as could be seen from photos Exs.D.2 to D.5 which are got confronted through P.W.1, it is clear that, suit property as claimed by plaintiff is road attached to Military area. 14 O.S.No.25938/2019 This fact is also evident from layout map produced by plaintiff before the Joint Commissioner. In layout map produced before The Joint Commissioner, BBMP, suit property bearing Site No.4A not shown to be existed in between Site No.4 and Site No.5. In Ex.P2 towards Southern side of schedule property, 25 feet road is shown. This facts is also mentioned in Exs.P.3 and P.4.
22. As per Ex.P.38 which is no objection certificate issued by one of the Trustee and General Power of Attorney Holder of Bengali Association Sri. A. Debroy it is mentioned, schedule property measuring 30X60 feet and same is in between site No.4 and 5 and said Association has no objection or complication in schedule property.
23. As already discussed, in layout map produced by plaintiff before the Joint Commissioner, BBMP, site No.4A in between site No.4 and 5 is not mentioned. On the other hand, in layout map produced along with encumbrance certificate, site No.4A is inserted.
24. It is pertinent to note here that, in Ex.D7 in schedule to sale deed, to South 20 feet road shown and 15 O.S.No.25938/2019 to East 30 feet road is shown. This sale deed is pertains to property sold in favour of Bengali Association. As per Ex.D8 sketch attached to sale deed, it is clear that, sites No.1 to 4 and 11 to 18 situated at Ramakka Block were sold to Bengali Association. In Ex.D9 which is sale deed in respect of site No.3 and 4 to East 30 feet road shown and to South 25 feet road is shown. As per Ex.P11 which is sale deed in respect of site No.5 in Ramakka Block, to West it is shown 30 feet road.
25. It is evident from schedule of properties mentioned in sale deed as per Ex.D9 in respect of site No.3 and 4 and as per Ex.D11 which is sale deed in respect of site No.5 in Ramakka Block that, to the East of site No.3 and 4 and to West of Site No.5 there exist 30 feet road. Absolutely there is material such as old sale deeds to show, there exist Site No.4A in between sites No.4 and 5 of Ramakka Block.
26. It is important to note here that, in case site No.4A was formed by original owner and same was existed in layout, definitely in Ex.D9 which is sale deed pertains to sites No.3 and 4, to the East site No.4A 16 O.S.No.25938/2019 would have mentioned. Likewise, in Ex.D11 which is sale deed pertains to Site No.5, in schedule to West site No.4A would have been mentioned. On the other hand, in these documents, it is mentioned, 30 feet road in between site No.4 and site No.5 of Ramakka Block.
27. It is evident from records that, there is no material on record to show Sheshdri, who formed layout has retained site No.4A and same was succeeded by his son M.S. Kemparaju. It is fact that, after 20 years from date of death of Sheshadri, his son M.S. Kemparaju sold suit property as per Ex.P2 in favour of late Sattar Khan.
28. As already discussed, in view of schedule of sale deeds pertains to site No.4 and site No.5, there is no existence of site No.4A in between these sites No.4 and 5. As per these documents which were executed at undisputed point of time, towards East of site No.4 and towards West of site No.5 in Ramakka Block there exist 30 feet road. There cannot be any other possible conclusion that, after lapse of 20 years from date of death of M.K. Sheshadri, who formed Ramakka Layout, his son M.S. Kemparaju has created alleged existence of 17 O.S.No.25938/2019 site No.4A in between sites No.4 and 5 of Ramakka Block and executed created sale deed as per Ex.P.2 in favour of Late Sattar Khan.
29. It is pertinent to note here that, as per Ex.D.1, Late Sattar Khan filed suit in respect of suit property against the Commissioner, Bengaluru City Corporation and same was dismissed. The Hon'ble High Court has also dismissed Appeal filed challenging judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.16160/2000. It can safely inferred, after dismissal of suit and to over come observation made by court in said suit while dismissing suit, Ex.P.3 has been created by plaintiff, who has drafted said sale deed.
30. It is pertinent to note here that, nowhere in Ex.D.7 which is sale deed executed by M.K. Sheshadri in favour of Bengali Association in respect of site Nos.1 to 4 and 11-18 it is mentioned about existence of site No.4(A) which is present suit property. Ex.D.8 is sketch in respect of site Nos.1 to 4 and 11-18 which are sold to Bengali Association. In said document is also, nowhere it is mentioned about existence of site No.4(A) which is 18 O.S.No.25938/2019 suit property. In schedule to Ex.D.7 - sale deed boundaries shown to entire extent of site Nos.1 to 4 and 11-18 of Ramakka Block. In case there is existence of site No.4(A) as contended by plaintiff herein, it would have been mentioned in Ex.D.7- sale deed or sketch attached to sale deed as Ex.D.8. Exs.D.2 to D.6 photographs are prior to filing of suit. In these photographs one can very well see existence of road.
31. All above mentioned facts clearly establishes that, when M.K. Sheshadri formed layout in Sy.No.47 of K.G. Byatarahalli Village, 20 feet road are formed horizontally and 30 feet road touching Military land perpendicularly. This fact is evident from photographs and boundaries of property mentioned in above referred sale deeds.
32. As and when plaintiff has not proved existence of suit property, he cannot claim he is possession and enjoyment of suit property based on sale deed as per Ex.P.3. The tax paid receipts, khata certificate and sketch relied by plaintiff are created by him just to claim road as could be seen in Exs.D.2 to D.5 19 O.S.No.25938/2019 photographs as suit property. In this regard, learned counsel for defendants has rightly relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2003) 8 SCC 745 in case of Narbada Devi Gupta V/s. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal and another, wherein it is held that, mere production and marking of a document as exhibit by the court cannot be held to be a due proof of it's contents. It is execution has to be proved by admissible evidence that is by the evidence of those persons who can vouchsafe for the truth of fact in issue. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the negative.
33. ISSUE NO.2 :- The plaintiff has specifically pleaded and same is deposed by him before the court that, property of defendant No.1 lies on Western side of property of plaintiff. Defendants have no manner of right, title or interest in suit property, they are trying to interfere with plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of suit property. The D.W.1 in his cross examination has deposed that, he has not tried to obtain endorsement from BBMP that, suit property is road. The witness has deposed, he has lodged complaint in this regard. 20 O.S.No.25938/2019
34. The D.W.2 in his cross examination has deposed, the Joint Commissioner has conformed Khata of site No.4A in favour of plaintiff, said order is not challenged by him. The witness has specifically stated, abutting to military ground, there exist site No.1 to 7. It is further stated by witness that, as could be seen in Ex.P.54 photo the wall was constructed to said military ground. It is admitted by D.W.2 that, property existed in between site No.4 and 5 is suit property.
35. As already discussed above, plaintiff has failed to establish existence of site No.4A when layout was formed by M.K. Sheshadri and same was succeeded by his son M.S. Kemparaju. Already it is held that, the plaintiff is claiming suit property which is road attached to military ground as could be seen in photos. Once, plaintiff failed to establish existence of suit site when layout was formed by M.K. Sheshadri and same is public road formed in said layout, question of alleged interference by defendants in possession and enjoyment of suit property by plaintiff does not arise. Hence, I answer Issue No.2 in the negative.
21 O.S.No.25938/2019
36. ISSUE NO.3:- As already discussed above, plaintiff is claiming road formed in Ramakka Block, which is existed in between site No.4 and 5 as suit site No.4A. Already it is held that, sale deeds and revenue records pertaining to suit property are created by plaintiff and his vendor just to claim road existed in between site No.4 and 5 as suit property. Under these circumstances, plaintiff cannot take benefit of order passed by Joint Commissioner as per Ex.P51 and thereby contend suit property is existed and it is not road as contended by defendants.
37. On proper appreciation of dispute between plaintiff and defendants in respect of suit property there exist serious dispute with regard to very existence of suit property and its boundaries. Under said circumstances, mere suit filed by plaintiff for relief of permanent injunction against defendants is not maintainable. The plaintiff ought to have filed comprehensive suit for declaration and injunction. In this regard, learned counsel for defendants has rightly relied upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 in case of Anathula 22 O.S.No.25938/2019 Sudhakar V/s. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs and others, wherein it is held that, where in cases de-jure possession has to be established on the basis of title to the property, issue of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration as without a finding thereon it will not be possible to decide issue of possession.
38. As already discussed, plaintiff is claiming road existed in between site No.4 and 5 in Ramakka Block as suit property and it is evident from records that, the plaintiff has created documents and thereby claiming his right and possession over site No.4A which is road formed in layout. Once, plaintiff failed to establish existence of suit property and he is claiming road as suit property, he is not entitle for any relief as prayed in plaint. Hence, I answer Issue No.3 in the negative.
39. ISSUE NO.4 :- It is pertinent to note here that, very existence of suit property itself is doubtful. It is fact that, by virtue created sale deed and revenue records plaintiff is claiming road as suit property. When existence of suit property itself is doubtful, plaintiff 23 O.S.No.25938/2019 cannot claim his lawful possession and enjoyment of suit property. Further more, when plaintiff claiming road as suit property which was formed in Ramakka Block, alleged act of defendants objecting claim of plaintiff in respect of suit property contending by them it is road not amounts to alleged interference in possession over suit property as claimed by him. Further more, very suit of plaintiff for mere injunction is not maintainable. Plaintiff is not entitled for relief of injunction as prayed in plaint. Hence, I answer Issue No.4 in the negative.
40. ISSUES No.5 :- In view of the above said findings on Issues No. 1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed & computerized by her, corrected and signed by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 7th day of January, 2026).
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU) XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.24 O.S.No.25938/2019
ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:-
Examined on:
P.W.1 : Syed Ashfaq Hussain 16-02-2021
2. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:-
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of Will dated 07.11.1943. Ex.P.2 : Original sale deed dated 24.08.199. Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 5.3.2018. Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 20.7.2010. Ex.P.5 : Uttarapatra.
Ex.P.6 : Receipt dated 28.03.2018. Ex.P.7 : Khata certificate.
Ex.P.8 : Uttarapatra.
Ex.P.9 : Receipt dated 28.02.2018. Ex.P.10 : Khata certificate.
Exs.P.11: Khata extract.
to P.13 Exs.P.14 : Tax paid receipts.
to P.27 Exs.P.28 : Encumbrance certificates. to P.34 Exs.P.35 : Two receipts.
and P.36 Ex.P.37 : Approved plan.
Ex.P.38 : No objection certificate. Ex.P.39 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 18.7.1987. Ex.P.39(a): Typed copy of Ex.P.39. Ex.P.40 : Certified copy of order in RFA No.1076/2006.25 O.S.No.25938/2019
Exs.P.41 : Photographs and CD. to P.44 Ex.P.45 : Police endorsement. Ex.P.46 : BBMP endorsement.
Ex.P.47 : Police notice.
Ex.P.48 : BBMP order.
Ex.P.49 : Statement of plaintiff. Ex.P.50 : Police complaint dated 01.10.2022. Ex.P.51 : Copy of order passed by the Joint Commissioner under RTI Act.
Ex.P.52 : Layout plan obtained under RTI. Exs.P.53 : Photographs.
and P.54
3.LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:-
Examined on:
D.W.1 : N. Sharavanan 01-07-2024. D.W.2 : M. Vasu 12-03-2025.
4.LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT:-
Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of judgment in O.S.No.16106/2000.
Exs.D.2 : Photographs.
to D.5 Ex.D.6 : CD.
Ex.D.7 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 24.10.1973.
Ex.D.7(a): Typed copy of Ex.D.7. Ex.D.8 : Certified copy of layout plan.
Ex.D.9 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 04.06.1979.
Ex.D.9(a): Typed copy of Ex.D.9.26 O.S.No.25938/2019
Ex.D.10 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 12.07.2010.
Ex.D.11 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 03.12.1973.
Ex.D.12 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 06.08.1976.
Ex.D.12(a): Typed copy of Ex.D.12. Ex.D.13 : Certified copy of release deed dated 10.03.2004.
Exs.D.14 : Complaint dated 29.07.2019. to D.16 Ex.D.17 : Police Notice dated 31.08.2019. Ex.D.18 : Copy of Vakalath.
Ex.D.19 : Synopsis and List of documents. Ex.D.20 : Layout plan.
Ex.D.21 : Construction plan.
(BALAPPA APPANNA JARAGU) XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.