Bangalore District Court
Papamma vs Venkatamma on 7 January, 2025
KABC010031962012
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-26).
Dated this the 7th day of January, 2025.
Present
Sri Vijaya Kumar Rai, B.Com., LL.B.,
X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No.3876/2012
Plaintiff/s: Smt.Papamma
(Dead by LRs)
1(a). C. Anjanappa
s/o Late Chikkayellappa
aged about 88 years
1(b). A. Srinivas
s/o C. Anjanappa
aged about 53 years
1(c). Smt.Lakshmamma
w/o M. Muniraju
aged about 48 years
1(d). Smt.Saraswathi
w/o Venkatesh
aged about 42 years
1(e). Gopinath
s/o C. Anjanappa
aged about 38 years
All are r/at No.2-3-51/1, 13th Cross
Byrasandra Main Road, G.M. Palya
Bengaluru-560 075.
(By Sri S.M. Sreerama Reddy, Adv.)
2 O.S.No.3876/2012
Vs.
Defendants: 1) Venkatamma
(Dead by Lrs)
1(b). Smt.Shanthamma
w/o Muniswamy
aged 55 years
1(c). Smt.Parvathamma
w/o Balakrishna
aged about 45 years
1(d). Smt.Suguna
w/o Narayanappa
aged about 42 years
1(e). Smt.Lalitha
w/o Krishnappa
aged about 40 years
D.1(b) to 1(e) are r/at No.80(old) New 1
Bennaganahalli, Doorvaninagar Post
Bengaluru-560 016.
2) L. Narayanappa
s/o Chichiga @ Chichappa
aged about 52 years
r/at No.44/1, Byrasandra Village
C.V. Raman Nagar Post
Bengaluru-560 093.
3) Rajamma
d/o Late Chinnathayamma
aged about 40 years
4) Ramesh
s/o Late Chinnathayamma
aged about 37 years
D.3 & 4 are r/at Byrasandra Village
C.V. Raman Nagar Post
Bengaluru-560 093.
3 O.S.No.3876/2012
5) Babu
s/o Late Nagamma and
Venkataramanappa
aged about 33 years
6) Keshava
s/o Late Nagamma and
Venkataramanappa
aged about 27 years
7) Lakshmidevi
d/o Late Nagamma and
Venkataramanappa
aged about 26 years
D.5 to 7 are r/at No.44, Byrasandra Village
C.V. Raman Nagar Post
Bengaluru-560 093.
(By Sri A.C. Patil, Adv. for D.1(c); D.1(e) by
Sri Venkatesh, Adv.; D.2 by Sri Babu, Adv.;
D.3 to 7 by Sri K. Surendra Babu, Adv.and
D.1(a)-Dead; D.1(c) & (d) placed exparte)
Date of institution of the suit 04.06.2012
Nature of the suit For declaration and
permanent injunction
Date of the commencement 08.08.2017
of recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment 07.01.2025
Pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
12 07 03
(Vijaya Kumar Rai)
X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
4 O.S.No.3876/2012
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the compromise preliminary decree dated 28.06.1996 passed in O.S.No.7166/1995 and the final decree dated 06.08.2011 passed in FDP No.89/2011 are not binding on the plaintiff's suit schedule property.
2. The case of the plaintiff/s in brief is as hereunder:-
The suit schedule property is the portion and part and parcel of larger extent of 1 acre 5 guntas situated in Sy.No.51/1, Byrasandra Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk belonged to defendant No.2 L. Narayanappa. During the year 1986-88, defendant No.2 Narayanappa had formed a residential layout and 26 sites which were sold by him through his GPA holder to various persons including one Lakshmamma. L. Narayanappa executed general power of attorney dated
03.07.1985 in favour of H Ratan Lal and it was coupled with interest. Said H. Ratan Lal had executed a registered GPA dated 25.07.1997 in favour of Lakshmamma and said Lakshmamma in turn sold the suit schedule property in favour of Mrs.Afsar Zehra under a registered sale deed dated 26.07.2001. Said Afsar Zehra in turn sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiff through a sale deed dated 15.07.2004 and thereby plaintiff became the 5 O.S.No.3876/2012 absolute owner of the suit schedule property and enjoying the same by putting up construction in it. Such being the case, the plaintiff's husband had received a notice in FDP No.70/2005 and learnt that the first defendant by colluding with others and along with L Narayanappa filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.7166/1995 on the file of Additional City Civil & Sessions, Bengaluru (CCH-
13) on 27.10.1995 and obtained a decree to the entire extent of 1 acre and 5 guntas in Sy.No.51/1 including the suit schedule property. Later when the plaintiff came to know about it, she had filed an application to implead her which came to be dismissed on 29.05.2009. In the FDP, the defendants have claimed that the suit schedule property is their joint family property and in O.S.No.7166/1995, a compromise petition was filed and the parties have obtained a compromise decree as it was a collusive suit, the second defendant L Narayanappa allotted 11 guntas, remaining portion was allotted to the other parties. Initially they have instituted FDP No.70/2005 and later withdrawn and filed FDP No.89/2011 without impleading any of the purchasers including the plaintiff and obtained a final decree on 06.08.2011. The application filed by the plaintiff in FDP No.89/2011 came to be dismissed on 21.02.2012. In the meantime, the defendants have tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and tried to forcefully dispossess the 6 O.S.No.3876/2012 plaintiff and tenants. The suit schedule property lost its agricultural nature in the year 1986 itself. The defendants have obtained the fraudulent decree to cheat the purchasers of the sites including the plaintiff and also to extort money and thereby blackmailing them in the guise of collusive compromise decree. In this regard, the defendants have even executed memorandum of understandings with several purchasers including with one D. Jagannath on 28.08.1998. The second defendant being the kartha of the family formed layout sold it to various purchasers and now in the guise of the collusive compromise decree they are trying to interfere with the suit schedule property which has necessitated the plaintiff to file this suit.
3. Pursuant to the suit summons issued by this Court, the defendants entered appearance. The first defendant has filed a written statement. The defendants No.3 to 7 have filed a common written statement. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, she has taken up a contention that the suit schedule property being the family property, defendant No.2 L Narayanappa had no absolute right over the suit schedule property to sell the share of the first defendant and therefore the decree obtained in O.S.No.7166/1995 and in FDP is a genuine decree. It is contended by her that the suit schedule property was a joint family property and it was succeeded by all the defendants 7 O.S.No.3876/2012 together including late Chinnathayamma and Nagamma from their father Chikkod and therefore, the plaintiff cannot derive any right, title and interest over the suit schedule property on the basis of the sale deed relied upon by her. It is also contended that as per the decree, 'A' schedule property was allotted to the share of the first defendant and other properties were allotted to the other sharers. It is also contended that the second defendant has not sold the suit schedule property for the legal necessities of the family and therefore, the sale is not binding on the other sharers. Further, it is contended that the suit is filed after lapse of three years from the date of dismissal of the application filed by the plaintiff for her impleadment in the FDP proceedings and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.
4. In the written statement filed by defendant No.3 to 7, they have also reiterated the stand taken by the first defendant and contended that the larger extent of 1 acre 5 guntas in Sy.No.51/1 of Byrasandra village was granted under Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act 1954 to Chikka Chigappa @ Chichiga son of Munivenkatappa and therefore the second defendant had no absolute title to sell the suit schedule property. They have specifically pleaded that the suit schedule property is their ancestral property and therefore a person who has no title cannot convey better title to the plaintiff. It is 8 O.S.No.3876/2012 contended by them that the defendants No.3 to 7 are the co- owners in respect of the suit schedule property and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed and the court fee paid is not sufficient. They have filed additional written statement also reiterating their stand.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, this Court has framed the following issues:-
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the owner and possessor of the suit property by virtue of sale deed dated 15.07.2004?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that her vendor Smt.Afsar Zehra had right to execute the sale deed and that she is bonafide purchaser of the suit property?
3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the compromise decree in O.S.No.7166/95 and final decree in FDP No.89/2011 are not binding upon her?
4) Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged illegal interference of defendants?
5) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the land in Sy.No.51/1 was divided and partitioned in 1996 and she was put in possession of 1/4th share in the said land in 1996?
6) Whether defendant No.1 proves that she is owner and possessor of suit property and that suit 9 O.S.No.3876/2012 property is part and parcel of the land allotted to her share in partition decree?
7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
8) What decree or order ?
6. During the pendency of the suit, original plaintiff and defendant No.1 died and their legal heirs are brought on record.
7. In support of the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1(b) A. Srinivas is examined as PW1 and plaintiff No.1(e) Gopinath is examined as PW2. During the evidence of PW1, Ex.P1 to 124 documents are marked. Though sufficient opportunity was given to the contesting defendants to lead their evidence, they have not chosen to lead their evidence.
8. Heard the arguments.
9. Findings of this Court on the above issues are as hereunder:
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the affirmative
Issue No.3 : In the affirmative
Issue No.4 : In the affirmative
Issue No.5 : In the negative
Issue No.6 : In the negative
Issue No.7 : In the affirmative
10 O.S.No.3876/2012
Issue No.8 : As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
10. Issues No.1 to 3, 5 & 6:- The plaintiff has instituted this suit to declare that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property holding that the compromise preliminary decree dated 28.06.1996 passed in O.S.No.7166/1995 and the final decree passed in FDP No.89/2011 dated 06.08.2011 passed by CCH-13 is not binding on her in respect of the suit schedule property and also to restrain the defendants from interfering with her possession over the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff Papamma died and her legal heirs have prosecuted the suit.
11. It is the case of the plaintiff that originally suit schedule property belonged to the second defendant L. Narayanappa who had executed a GPA dated 03.07.1985 in favour of H Rathan Lal in respect of the suit schedule property and it was coupled with interest. It is also stated that said Rathan Lal transferred the title in favour of Lakshmamma under a registered document dated 25.07.1987 and said Lakshmamma in turn sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiff's vendor Mrs.Afsar Zehra under a registered sale deed dated 26.07.2001 and later Afsar Zehra in turn sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiff through a registered sale deed dated 15.07.2004 and thereby she became 11 O.S.No.3876/2012 the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. On the other hand, the contention of the defendants is that the suit schedule property was granted under Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act 1954 to Chikka Chigappa @ Chichiga s/o Munivenkatappa and the defendants No.1 & 2 being the children of the grantee and other defendants being heirs of said Chichiga and suit schedule property is the ancestral/joint family property of all the defendants, the second defendant had no exclusive right to form the layout in the suit schedule property and convey title over the same to the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. It is further contended that the first defendant had instituted O.S.No.7166/1995, which came to be decreed allotting 1/4 share to her and later her share is also demarketed in FDP No.89/2011 and therefore the plaintiff cannot claim right in the suit schedule property. In view of this rival contentions, it is necessary to record a finding with regard to the decree passed in O.S.No.7166/1995 and also FDP No.89/2011.
12. The plaintiff has produced the compromise petition filed in O.S.No.7166/1995 at Ex.P30. The plaintiff has also produced the order sheet in OS No.7166/1995 as per Ex.P28. It reveals that the defendants have entered into a compromise decree in O.S.No.7166/1995 without filing any written statement 12 O.S.No.3876/2012 and it is accepted by the court as per Ex.P28 and a preliminary decree came to be passed. Ex.P44 order sheet shows that a final decree petition was instituted in FDP No.70/2005 and later FDP No.89/2011 came to be filed. As per Ex.P22 order sheet shares have also been allotted to the respective parties. The defendants have taken up a contention that it is a genuine litigation and therefore in view of the decree passed therein the plaintiff cannot claim title over the suit schedule property. On the other hand, the plaintiff has taken up a contention that it is a collusive decree.
13. In order to substantiate the contention of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1(b) is examined as PW1 and plaintiff No.1(e) Gopinath is examined as PW2. Though PW1 is subjected to cross-examination, PW2 has not been subjected to cross- examination. In addition to their oral evidence, the plaintiffs have produced a memorandum of understanding executed by the defendants as per Ex.P52. The defendants No.1 to 4 and the mother of defendants No.5 to 7 are parties to the memorandum of understanding dated 28.08.1998 entered between them and one Jagannath as per Ex.P52. Said Jagannath said to be purchaser of a site in the larger extent of 1 acre and 5 guntas situated in Sy.No.51/1, wherein the present suit schedule site was also formed. In the memorandum of understanding, the defendants have categorically admitted that the defendant No.2 Narayanappa 13 O.S.No.3876/2012 alone is the absolute owner of entire extent of 1 acre 5 guntas in Sy.No.51/1. In this regard, the specific recitals made and admitted by the defendants in the memorandum of understanding dated 28.08.1998 as per Ex.P52 is extracted for ready reference:-
"Whereas the first member of the first party is the sole and absolute owner of the immovable property bearing Survey No.51/1, measuring 01 acre 05 guntas situated at Byrasandra village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and other members mentioned in first party are the relatives of the first member of the first party".
14. The first member of the first party referred to above in Ex.P.52 is none other than defendant no.2 Narayanappa. The above admission of the defendants made in Ex.P52 memorandum of understanding executed by them in favour of one Jagannath is not disputed by the defendants. Therefore, it is an unequivocal admission made by the defendants that the larger extent of 1 acre 5 guntas in Sy.No.51/1 in which the suit schedule site was formed was the exclusive property of the defendant No.2 Narayanappa alone. In addition to this, Ex.P55 is the compromise petition filed in O.S.No.2629/2012 filed by one B.K. Anand before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru before this court. In the said suit, the first defendant Venkatamma has specifically admitted that the decree obtained in OS No.7166/1995 and FDP No.89/2011 are 14 O.S.No.3876/2012 collusive decrees obtained by them. Further, she has admitted that she has no right whatsoever over the entire land in Sy.No.51/1 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas or any of the sites formed therein. In this regard the specific portion of the recital made by the first defendant Venkatamma in para No.4 and 9 are extracted for ready reference.
"The First Defendant Smt.Venkatamma colluding with among others against the said L. Narayanappa i.e., the vendor of the plaintiff's father has filed a collusive suit for partition in OS No.7166/1995 on the file of the Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-13) on 27.10.1995 for the relief of partition in respect of the property in Sy.No.51/1 of Byrasandra village, measuring 1 Acre 5 Guntas and in collusion, the parties therein have filed a compromise petition and obtained a compromise decree dtd.28.06.1996 and that pursuant to the said collusive compromise decree, the First Defendant herein has filed the said FDP proceedings in FDP No.89/2011 and in the said FDP proceeding also the plaintiff nor his father were not the parties. However, the preliminary decree and the final decree passed in the aforesaid collusive proceedings are not binding on the plaintiff or any other site owners who have purchased the sites in land bearing Sy.No.51/1. Therefore, the said preliminary decree passed in OS No.7166/1995 and the final decree passed in 15 O.S.No.3876/2012 FDP No.89/2011 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 hereby admits that she does not have any rights over the said land or the schedule property prior to or after filing of the above case".
"...........................The defendant No.1 further declares that the Compromise Preliminary Decree dated 28.06.1996 passed in O.S.No.7166/1995 on the file of the Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH-13), Bangalore City and Final decree dated 06.08.2011 passed in FDP No.89/2011 on the file of the Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH-13), Bangalore City are null and void and not binding on the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and any other sites which have been carved out in the said land".
Similar admission is made in the compromise petition filed by her in various suits instituted by different site purchasers which are produced by the plaintiff at Ex.P56 to 59.
15. Though the above admissions are made by the first defendant in the other suits instituted by other site owners in all these suits the first defendant has admitted that the second defendant L. Narayanappa was the absolute owner of the entire extent of the property and the decree obtained by them in O.S.No.7166/1995 and FDP No.89/2011 is null and void and not binding on any of the purchasers of the site carved in Sy.No.51/1 16 O.S.No.3876/2012 measuring 1 Acre 5 Guntas. Therefore, this admission of the first defendant and other defendants referred to above makes it clear that the second defendant alone was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and other defendants have no right over it. In the light of the above admissions made by the defendants, the title of the plaintiff is required to be examined.
16. The plaintiff has produced the power of attorney executed by defendant No.2 L. Narayanappa in favour of Rathan Lal on 03.07.1985 as per Ex.P2, the GPA executed by Rathan Lal in favour of Lakshmamma on 25.07.1997, which is a registered GPA and the sale deed executed by Rathan Lal through Lakshmamma in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff Afsar Zehra through the sale deed dated 26.07.2001 and also the original sale deed executed by Afsar Zehra in favour of the deceased plaintiff Papamma dated 15.07.2004 as per Ex.P23.
17. The second defendant L. Narayanappa has not disputed that he has formed layout in the in the larger extent of 1 Acre 5 Guntas in Sy.No.51/1 and the suit schedule property is one of the site formed in it. The second defendant has also not disputed the GPA executed by him in favour of Rathan Lal in respect of the suit schedule property on 03.07.1985. Further, the defendants have not disputed the registered GPA executed by Rathan Lal in favour of Lakshmamma on 25.07.1997. Though the 17 O.S.No.3876/2012 sale deed dated 26.07.2001 produced at Ex.P26 was executed in the name of Rathan Lal through Lakshmamma, the fact that it was executed by Rathan Lal is not under dispute. The court is conscious of the fact that Rathan Lal was only GPA holder and not a title holder and therefore, he cannot execute a GPA to Lakshmamma on the basis of the GPA obtained by him from defendant No.2. However, Ex.P26 sale deed is dated 26.07.2001, which is not challenged by the defendants more particularly the second defendant. Later Afsar Zehra has executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as per Ex.P23. Under these circumstances, so far as conveyance of title in favour of Afsar Zehra, the second defendant has authorised to sell the suit schedule property to Rathan Lal and Rathan Lal had executed a GPA in favour of Lakshmamma. It is true that in the normal circumstances, such transfer of title and interest is a defective transfer. But, in the present case, the transactions have taken place right from the year 1985. Other defendants have admitted that the second defendant was alone the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The other defendants have executed a memorandum of understanding to that effect as per Ex.P52 on 28.08.1998 itself. The deceased plaintiff Papamma has acquired the sale deed in respect of the property subsequent to MOU dated 28.08.1998 produced at Ex.P52. Therefore, the defendants 18 O.S.No.3876/2012 are estopped from questioning the transfer of title in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. Needless to mention that the doctrine of estoppel is not a mere principle and it is required to be given due weightage and thereby the defendants are debarred from questioning the transfer of right in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff .
18. It is also necessary to note that the first defendant who is one of the prime contestant has admitted through various documents that the preliminary decree obtained in O.S.No.7166/1995 and FDP No.89/2011 are collusive decrees obtained by them. She was the prime conspirator to file O.S.No.7166/1995. The other defendants have also not disputed the stand taken by the first defendant in this regard. The defendants have not even stepped into the witness box to state their case. They have remained silent. Therefore, the evidence on record clearly shows that the defendants have not only colluded each other, but also misrepresented the court and induced the court to pass decree in O.S.No.7166/1995 and FDP No.89/2011. This is a serious issue and in fact, an offence committed by the defendants who are parties to O.S.No.7166/1995 and FDP No.89/2011. Therefore, there is considerable force in the submission of the plaintiffs that the defendants have obtained the compromise preliminary decree in O.S.No.7166/1995 and FDP 19 O.S.No.3876/2012 No.89/11 in order to extract money from the purchasers of the site who have purchased the various sites right from the year 1985.
19. It is also necessary to note that various sites formed in Sy.No.51/1 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas are sold to several purchasers and in the suit filed by some of the purchasers in O.S.No.8412/2006, 2633/2012, 2634/2012 and 3877/2012, this court has considered the rights of the purchasers and the defences raised by the defendants and decreed all the suits in respect of the site purchasers through the judgement and decree passed by this court dated 14.08.2017. Therefore, this court has already recognised the rights of similar purchasers of the site formed in the very same property and therefore it would be appropriate to confirm the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property more particularly considering the collusive conduct of the defendants in obtaining the decree in O.S.No.7166/1995 and FDP No.89/2011.
20. Having regard to these exceptional circumstances in the opinion of the court in order to put a complete rest on the litigation and to prevent further litigation, the court finds it appropriate to exercise its discretion to declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property holding that the decree passed in O.S.No.7166/1995 and final decree passed 20 O.S.No.3876/2012 in FDP No.89/2011 are not binding on the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and the defendants have not acquired any right, title and interest over the suit schedule property on the basis of the above collusive decrees obtained by them.
21. The plaintiff has also contended that she has been in possession of the suit schedule property. In support of this contention, in addition to the oral evidence of PW1 and 2, they have produced the khatha and related documents at Ex.P18 to 21, tax paid receipts at Ex.P4 to 17, electricity bills at Ex.P69 to 98 and photographs at Ex.P99 to 111. All these documents clearly shows that the deceased plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property and after her death, the plaintiff No.1(a) to
(e) are in possession of the suit schedule property. In view of the reasons stated above, issues No.1 to 3 are answered in the affirmative and issues No.5 & 6 are answered in the negative.
22. Issue No.4:- The plaintiff has pleaded that the defendants have tried to interfere over the suit schedule property. In this regard, the plaintiffs have produced the copy of the complaint lodged to the police and also the charge-sheet filed by the IO after investigation at Ex.P.115 against the first defendant and others for the offences punishable under Sections 448 & 506 read with section 34 IPC. These documents clearly reveals the illegal interference committed by the defendants over the suit 21 O.S.No.3876/2012 schedule property possessed by the plaintiff. Hence issue No.4 is answered in the affirmative.
23. Issues No.7 & 8:- In view of the answer given to the above issues, the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs sought in the suit. Accordingly issue No.7 is answered in the affirmative and the following order is passed:-
ORDER Suit is decreed with costs.
It is declared that plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property.
It is further declared that the compromise preliminary decree dated 28.08.1996 passed in O.S.No.7166/1995 and final decree passed in FDP No.89/2011 by the Court of CCH-13, Bengaluru City is not binding on the plaintiffs' right over the suit schedule property.
Further the defendants, their men or any other persons claiming on behalf of them are permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Judgment prepared through Speech to Text App with the assistance of the Senior Sheristedar, carried out corrections, print out taken and then pronounced in the Open Court on this the 7th day of January, 2025) (Vijaya Kumar Rai) X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.22 O.S.No.3876/2012
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiffs:
PW.1 : A. Srinivasa PW.2 : Gopinath List of documents exhibited for plaintiffs: Ex.P1 : Original SPA Ex.P2 : Original GPA Ex.P3 : Sale deed Ex.P4 to 8: 5 Tax paid receipts Ex.P9 : Betterment charge paid receipt Ex.P10: Acknowledgement issued by BBMP Ex.P11: Tax paid receipt Ex.P12: Acknowledgement Ex.P13: Tax paid receipt Ex.P14: Acknowledgement Ex.P15: Tax paid receipt Ex.P16: Acknowledgement Ex.P17: Tax paid receipt Ex.P18: Khatha endorsement Ex.P19: Khatha registration certificate Ex.P20: Khatha extract Ex.P21: Khatha certificate Ex.P22: Certified copy of order sheet in FDP No.89/2011 Ex.P23 & 24: Certified copies of I.As in FDP No.89/2011 Ex.P25 : Certified copies of orders on IAs Ex.P26 : Sale deed Ex.P27 : GPA Ex.P28 : Certified copy of order sheet O.S.No.7166/1995 Ex.P29 : Certified copy of amendment plaint Ex.P30 : Certified copy of compromise petition Ex.P31 : Certified copy of sketch Ex.P32 : Certified copy of decree 23 O.S.No.3876/2012 Ex.P33 : Certified copy of plaint copy FDP No.70/2005 Ex.P34 & 35: Certified copies of IAs Ex.P36 : Certified copy of complaint Ex.P37 : Certified copy of caveat petition Ex.P38 & 39: Certified copies of confirmation deeds Ex.P40 : Certified copy of mutation Ex.P41 to 43: Certified copies of 3 RTCs Ex.P44 : Certified copy of order sheet FDP No.70/2005 Ex.P45 to 47: Certified copies of IAs Ex.P48 to 51: Certified copies of objection to IAs Ex.P52 : Certified copy of MOU Ex.P53 & 54: Certified copies of pliant in O.S.No.2631/2012 & 2632/2012 Ex.P55 to 59: Certified copies of compromise petitions Ex.P60 to 64: Certified copies of deeds of confirmation Ex.P65 to 68: Certified copies of compromise decrees Ex.P69 to 98: Electricity bills and receipts Ex.P99 to 112: 13 Photos along with CD Ex.P113 & 114: Certified copies of evidence Ex.P115 : Certified copy of charge sheet Ex.P116 : Certified copy of FIR Ex.P117 : Certified copy of complaint Ex.P118 : Certified copy of mahazar Ex.P119 to 121: Certified copies of statement of witness Ex.P122 : Certified copy of judgment and decree Ex.P123 & 124: Medical reports List of witnesses examined and documents exhibited for defendants:Digitally signed
Nil VIJAYA by VIJAYA KUMAR RAI B KUMAR Date:
RAI B 2025.01.09 16:41:59 +0530 X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.