Bangalore District Court
) Mrs. Shahnaz Ali W/O. Mr. Syed Zahid Ali vs ) Sri. Rahamath Ali Jung S/O Late Muntaz ... on 11 December, 2020
0
Judgment OS.No.15237/2004
IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-22)
Present: Smt. Suvarna K. Mirji, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl).,
XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU.
O.S.No. 15237/2004
Dated this 11th day of December 2020
Plaintiff:- 1) Mrs. Shahnaz Ali W/o. Mr. Syed Zahid Ali,
Aged about 33 years, R/at No.28/1,
Robertson Road, Fraser Town,
Bangalore-05
Represented by GPA Holder,
Mr. Syed Zahid Ali S/o Syed Mohammed,
Aged about 45 years, R/at No.28/1,
Robertson Road, Fraser Town, Bangalore-05
(Rep by Sri. B.N. Phaneendar, Advocate)
V/S
Defendants:-
1) Sri. Rahamath Ali Jung S/o late Muntaz Ali,
[
Aged about 55 years,
Residing in a portion of No.28,
Robertson Road, Fraser Town,
Bangalore-05.
2) Smt. Zakia Begum W/o Rahmath Ali Jung,
Aged Major, R/at in a portion of property
bearing No.28, Robertson Road,
Fraser Town, Bangalore-05
1
Judgment OS.No.15237/2004
3) Mr. R. Jabir Ali S/o Mr. Rahmath Ali Jung,
Major,
4) Mr. Zubair Ali S/o Mr. Rahmath Ali Jung,
Major
Both R/at No.28, Robertson Road,
Bangalore-05.
(Rep by Sri.Viren Michael Peres, Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit 21/02/2004
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit for declaration and Specific Performance of Contract
possession, suit for injunction, etc.)
and Declaration.
Date of the commencement of recording of the 05/ 03 /2014
Evidence.
Date on which the Judgment was pronounced. 11/12/2020
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 16 09 20
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
Mayohall Unit: Bengaluru.
2
Judgment OS.No.15237/2004
:JUDGMENT:
The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants for Specific Performance of Contract and Declaration.
2. The brief facts of plaint averments is as under:
The GPA holder of plaintiff submits that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property mentioned below from defendant under an agreement of sale dated 01/02/1996 for sale price of Rs.10,17,500/- (Rupees ten lakhs seventeen thousand five hundred only) and out of which the defendant has received sum of Rs.5,66,000/- from the plaintiff on the date of agreement and on different dates subsequent to the said agreement of sale.
SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the immovable property being land with building thereon now known as and bearing Corporation No.28/1 situated in Robertson Road, Fraser Town in corporation division No.87, Bangalore, bounded on the North by; conservancy lane, South by; the 3 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 main premises No.28 and passage, East by; Conservancy lane and West by; private property and passage, measuring on the North; 43 feet, South; 37 feet 9 inches, East; 25 feet and West: 25 feet, totally measuring 110.315 Sq. Mtrs. The schedule property included a six feet wide passage leading from Robertson road to the schedule premises.
3. The GPA holder of plaintiff further submits that the defendant agreed to register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by the end of July 2000. In spite of repeated requests, demands and approaches the defendant failed to perform his part of obligation. However the defendant went on extending the time. That the defendant as per clause No.8 of the said agreement of sale has to obtain the Income Tax clearance certificate as required by section 230-A(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the registration of sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property. Further as per clause No.10 of the said agreement of sale the defendant has to obtain and handover to the plaintiff the other documents such as Encumbrance certificate, Khatha extract up to date 4 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 tax paid receipts etc. for the completion of sale of the suit schedule property. But the defendant could not perform his part of the said obligation within the stipulated period of 15 months as per the agreement of sale, even though the plaintiff showed her readiness and willingness to perform her part of obligation. The defendant went on postponing the time for registration of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and further the defendant failed to secure and deliver the aforementioned documents.
4. The GPA holder of plaintiff further submits that in the year 1996 itself and defendant delivered the actual possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff in part performance of the contract, since then the plaintiff is in peaceful, lawful and actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till date. The defendant has received a sum of Rs.6,000/- from the plaintiff out of the aforementioned sum of Rs.5,66,000/- being a part of the sale consideration amount on 14/05/2001, and executed receipt in favour of the plaintiff and extended the time for the 5 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 registration of the sale deed in respect of suit schedule property. The plaintiff approached the defendant number of times to receive the balance sale consideration amount and to register the sale deed in her favour. But the defendant failed to perform his part of obligation inspite of readiness and willingness of the plaintiff, but also failed to complete the registration of the sale deed. The defendant avoided to complete the sale/register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on one pretext or the other. Due to which the plaintiff is suffering mentally, physically and monetarily. Hence the plaintiff sent notice dated 04/08/2003 to the defendant calling upon him to receive the balance sale consideration amount and to register the sale deed of the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff by performing his part of obligation. The said notice was received by the defendant, but he failed to respond to the said notice.
5. The plaintiff GPA holder of plaintiff further submits that the defendant No.1 having executed an agreement of sale as stated above in favour of the plaintiff which is in full 6 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 force as on the date of filing of the suit. The alleged gift deed executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of his wife Zakia Begum and others is same document which has been created in order to harass the plaintiff and to deprive of his valuable rights over the schedule property. The alleged gift deed is illegal as the plaintiff himself has been in possession of the schedule property and the defendant No.2 will not acquire any title by virtue of the alleged Gift Deed and thus the said gift deed is not binding on the plaintiff and the same is a created document. The GPA holder of plaintiff further submits that inspite of number of approaches, demands and requests and issuance of notice dated 04/08/2003 by the plaintiff to the defendant showing her readiness and willingness, the defendant failed to perform his part of obligation. Hence the plaintiff constrained to file this suit.
6. The GPA holder of plaintiff further submits that the cause of action to file the suit arose on 01/02/1996 when the defendant executed agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property and received the major part of the sale 7 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 consideration amount of Rs.5,66,000/- under the said of sale and subsequent different dates by extending the time of registration of sale deed and the cause of action continues on 14/05/2001, when the defendant received sum of Rs.6,000/- under receipt and extended the time for registration of the sale deed and also on 04/08/2003, when the plaintiff issued notice to the defendant calling upon the defendant to perform his part of obligation and to complete the sale/register the sale deed and on all subsequent dates and is recurring and containing cause of action. The GPA holder of plaintiff prays to decree the suit for specific performance of the contract of sale dated 01/02/1996 in respect of the suit schedule property by directing the defendant, his heirs, successors, executors, administrators, legal representatives, assign or anybody through or under the defendant acting in any capacity in any manner, whatsoever to execute and register an absolute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and direct the defendant No.2 to 4 join as party to the sale deed to be 8 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 executed by the defendant No.1. The GPA holder of plaintiff further prays to declare that the gift deed dated 03/03/2000 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 as null and void and the same is not binding on the plaintiff. The GPA holder of plaintiff prays to award costs of the suit.
7. The defendant No.1 filed written statement submitting that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law and fact. The suit is speculative, vexatious and the product of sinister and oblique motives. The suit is a fraudulent raid on this court designed to overcome the decree for eviction passed against the plaintiff by the XVth Additional Small Cause Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore in HRC No.10042/2001. The defendants further submit that the contents of paras No.1 and 2 of the plaint do not warrant any comment. The plaintiff is not validity and legally represented by Syed Zahid Ali in the present suit, hence suit is liable to be dismissed. The defendants submit that the allegations contained in the para No.4 of the plaint are 9 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 absolutely false, frivolous and fraudulent. The defendant submits that it is very strange that the plaintiff seeking specific performance of contract dated 01/02/1996 in respect of the schedule property, when she asserts in para 4 of the plaint that she has purchased suit property from the defendant. The defendant No.1 submits that it is true that he had contracted to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff on 01/02/1996 at a price of Rs.10,17,500/-. He has received only Rs.4,10,000/- and not Rs.5,66,000/- towards the aforesaid sale price in dribs and drabs. The said agreement is however non-est and not justifiable or enforceable in law, as the plaintiff was hopelessly in breach of the said agreement and the same was thus rescinded and rendered void, hence suit is not maintainable in law or in fact and thus liable to be dismissed in limine.
8. The defendant No.1 submits that the losses caused to him by the plaintiff owing to her gross, patent and unconscionable breach of agreement to sell in question was in the region of Rs.15,00,000/- and the defendant was 10 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 therefore constrained to forfeit all advance paid to him after rescinding and contract. The provisions of sections 73, 74 and 75 of the Indian Contract Act justify the defendant's actions in this regard. The allegations contained in para No.5 of the plaint are absolutely false, fictitious and fraudulent. The defendant No.1 submits that in view of the default on the part of the plaintiff in performing the agreement to sell dated 01/02/1996 the defendant No.1 after rescinding the same and forfeiting the advances paid in view of the losses suffered by his gifted the plaint schedule property to his wife Zakhiya Begum under registered Gift Deed dated:03/03/2000. The plaintiff is fully aware of this above suit which sinister and oblique motives. The defendants further submit that that the plaint schedule property vests with Zakhiya Begum with effect from 03/03/2000. The plaintiff is aware of this fact, but plaintiff has not impleaded the said Zakhiya Begum as party in the above suit to set aside said Gift Deed. Hence the suit is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties and is liable 11 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 to be dismissed. The defendant No.1 submits he will be precluded from effecting specific performance of the agreement to sell in question if the Gift to Zakhiya Begum was not to be set aside if one was to assume for purpose of agreement that decree for specific performance was to be passed without conceding the same. The defendant further submits that Zakhiya Begum on the basis of Gift of the schedule property to her instituted HRC No.10042/2001 on the file of XVth Additional Small Cause Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore Court Hall No.19 seeking eviction of the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property. Even at this juncture the plaintiff failed to institute the above suit though she was fully aware that the defendant was not going to perform the agreement to sell dated 01/02/1996. In the aforesaid petition the Small Cause Court held that the Zakhiya Begum is the landlord of the plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property and had ordered the eviction of the plaintiff for non compliance with the provisions of section 45 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The plaintiff has preferred HRRP.555/2004 12 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 and HRRP 558/2004 in before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore belatedly and beyond the above suit with a view to defeat and overcome the order of eviction passed against her. The plaintiff is guilty of defaults, negligence and laches and is not entitle to any relief of any nature in the above case. The plaintiff has used the agreement to sell in question merely to harass, annoy and cause losses to the defendant and Zakhiya Begum.
9. The defendant No.1 further submits that the allegations contained in para 6 of the plaint are absolutely false, frivolous and concocted solely for the purpose of the above case. He was always ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement dated 01/02/1990 and has given the plaintiff utmost consideration but as issues become unbearable owing to the recalcitrant and indifferent attitude of the plaintiff this defendant was constrained to rescind and forfeit. The defendant has furnished the plaintiff with all requisitions made on title and has always been ready to effect the conveyance. The plaintiff who did not have the 13 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 funds to complete the sale was evading completion on one pretext or the other and never forwarded the draft of the sale deed to obtain the clearance u/s 230A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The defendant No.1 further submits that the plaintiff has fraudulently initiated OS.No.4017/2000 for injunction against him (defendant No.1). In view of the failure of the plaintiff to sue for specific performance in the aforesaid the above suit is also legally inform in view of the provision of order 11 Rule 2 of the CPC suit is liable to dismissed on this ground too. The allegations contained in para 7 of the plaint are absolutely false, fabricated and fraudulent. He has never delivered actual possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff in part performance of the contract dated 01/02/1996. The plaintiff was and has always been a tenant of the defendant in respect of the plaint schedule property and when the same was conveyed by the defendant to Zakhiya Begum became her tenant in respect thereof. Whilst it is true that the plaintiff is in possession of 14 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 the plaint schedule property as his tenant and later on tenant of Zakhiya Begum.
10. The defendant No.1 further submits the allegations contained in para 8 of the plaint are absolutely false and are hereby denied. That he has not received any monies from the plaintiff on 14/05/2001 and less the amount of Rs.6,000/- as alleged in the para No.8. He has not extended the time for completion of the agreement to sell and neither has he executed the original of Annexure 'C'. The original of Annexure 'C' is complete forgery. The defendant No.1 further submits the allegations of plaint para No.9 is false and fabricated for the sole purpose of this suit. He has explicitly informed the plaintiff of the conveyance effected by him to Zakhiya Begum long before 04/08/2003 and the need for issue of the notices dated 04/08/2003 was thus never in existence. The plaintiff has purposely failed to honour his commitments under the contract dated 01/02/1996 and was also aware of the conveyance to Zakhiya Begum long before on 04/08/2003. If he failed to 15 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 respect to the alleged notices at Annexure 'D' he was justified in doing so. The allegations contained in para 10 and 11 of the plaint are absolutely false. The plaintiff has no cause of action and is not entitle to relief claimed in plaint. The suit is barred by the law of limitation and is liable to be dismissed. The allegations in para No.13 of the plaint do not warrant comment except that repudiation of the claim that the plaintiff has cause of action is hereby made by him. The allegations in para No.14 of the plaint is false. Similar and identical issues have arisen between the parties hereto and their representatives in other litigation and the above suit is also barred in law by the principles of resjudicata. He further alleged that the suit is undervalued as the consequential reliefs have not been urged to evade payment of the prescribed court fees. The relief to have the Gift Deed set aside has not been sought to evade payment of court fee on this relief which is a necessity for the defendant to effect specific performance. The defendant No.1 prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs. Afterwards plaintiff amended 16 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 the plaint and filed amended plaint inserting defendants No.2 to 4 and para 9(a) and prayer column, then defendants No.1 to 4 filed their additional written statement denying the allegations of amended plaint of the plaintiff and prays to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with costs.
11. On the basis of above pleadings following Issues are framed :ISSUES:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant No.1 has executed an agreement of sale in favour on 01/02/1996 agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.10,17,500/-?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that she has paid Rs.5,66,000/- to the defendant as advance of sale consideration on 01/02/1996?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that in 1996 the defendant delivered the actual possession of the suit schedule property to her in part performance of contract?17
Judgment OS.No.15237/2004
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that she was always ready and willing to perform her part of the contract and it is the defendant No.1 who fellback from the agreement?
5. Whether the plaintiff proves that the gift deed dated 03/03/2000 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is null and void and the same is not binding on her?
6. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the agreement of sale dated 01/02/1996 was rescinded and rendered void as contended by him?
7. Whether the valuation of the suit and payment of court fee in respect of declaration of gift deed is proper?
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for a decree of specific performance in terms of the agreement of sale dated 01/02/1996?
9. whether the plaintiff is entitle for relief of declaration as sought for?
10. What order or decree ?18
Judgment OS.No.15237/2004
:Addl. ISSUES:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled for decree of direction to the defendant No.2 to join along with defendant No.1 and to execute the sale deed of suit property in favour of the plaintiff?
12. The GPA holder of plaintiff examined as PW.1 and marked ExP1 to ExP15 and examined the witness PW.2. The defendant No.1 filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief as DW.1 on 05/08/2016 and taken time to lead further evidence. Thereafter DW.1 was not present before the court. On 25/07/2019 the defendant's counsel submitted before the court that DW.1 not able to attend the court and his evidence may be closed. Hence taking the submission of defendant's counsel on record, the chief evidence of DW.1 deposed on 05/08/2016 was discarded. The defendant No.3 examined as DW.2 and marked ExD1 to ExD26 and defendants examined the witness DW.3 and in his evidence ExD27 and ExD28 are marked.
19
Judgment OS.No.15237/2004
13. The plaintiff counsel argued. The defendants counsel argued and filed written argument with net copies of citations in SA No.2014/20000, Civil Appeal No.760/2020, CS (OS) No.1154/1981. Perused the records.
14. My findings to the above Issues and Additional Issue are as under
Issue No.1) In Affirmative Issue No.2) In Negative Issue No.3) In Negative Issue No.4) In Negative Issue No.5) In Negative Issue No.6) In Negative Issue No.7) In Negative Issue No.8) In Negative Issue No.9) In Negative Addl Issue No.1) In Negative Issue No.10) See final order for following: 20
Judgment OS.No.15237/2004
:REASONS:
15. Issues No.1 to 6, 8, 9 and Additional Issue No.1:
The GPA holder of the plaintiff Syed Zahid Ali S/o Syed Mohammed filed his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief as PW.1 and deposed evidence that he is the GPA holder of the plaintiff and well acquainted with the facts of case and they have purchased the suit schedule property under an agreement of sale on 01/02/1996 for sale price of Rs.10,17,500/- from the defendant, out of which defendant No.1 has received some of Rs.5,66,000/- from the plaintiff on the date of agreement and on different dates subsequent to the said agreement of sale. The defendant agreed to register the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by the end of July 2000 but inspite of repeated requests, demands and approached the defendant failed to perform his part of obligation, the defendant went on extending the time. That as per the date of the said agreement of sale had to obtain the Income Tax Clearance Certificate as required under 21 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 Section 230-A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the registration of sale deed in respect of suit schedule property. Further as per the Clause 10 of the said agreement of sale the defendant has to obtain and handed over the other documents such as Encumbrance Certificate, katha extract, up-to-date tax paid receipts etc., to them for completion of sale of suit schedule property but the defendant could not perform his part of said obligation within the stipulated period of 15 months as per the agreement of sale even- though plaintiff showed her readiness and willingness to perform her part of contract, but the defendant postponing the same. In the year 1996 itself the defendant delivered actual possession of the suit schedule property the plaintiff in part performance of the contract. Since then the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Further the defendant has received a sum of Rs.6000/- from them out of sum of Rs.5,66,000/- being part of sale consideration amount on 14/05/2001 and executed receipt in their favour and extended time for the registration of the sale deed in 22 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 respect of the suit schedule property. They approached defendants for several times requesting for examination of the sale deed but the defendant failed to perform his part of contract. Then the plaintiff issued legal notice to defendant on 04/08/2003 calling upon the defendant to receive the balance sale consideration amount and execute sale deed in their favour by performing his part of obligation. The said notice was received by the defendant No.1, but failed to respond to the notice. The defendant No.1 having executed an agreement of sale as stated above in favour of the plaintiff which is in full force as on the date of filing the suit but the defendant no.1 has executed the alleged gift deed in favour of his wife Zakia Begum and others, which is a sham document and created only to harass the plaintiff and deprive her of her valuable rights over the suit schedule property. The alleged gift deed is illegal as the plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property and defendants No.2 to 4 will not acquire any right by virtue of the alleged gift deed and said gift deed is not binding on the plaintiff. That inspite 23 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 of number of approaches, demands and requests and issuance of notice dated 04/08/2003, the defendant No.1 failed to perform his part of contract. The plaintiff approached court by filing this suit. The defendant No.1 instead of executing the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, they have filed HRC petition No.10042/2001 which was came to be dismissed and the order was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the Hon'ble Supreme Court and defendants have filed frivolous suit in OS.No.25907/2011 only to harass the plaintiff and to delay in executing the sale deed in favour of plaintiff. The PW.1 prays to decree the suit as prayed in the plaint. In support of oral evidence PW.1 marked the documents ExP1 to ExP15.
16. The plaintiff examined the witness PW.2 Rafiulla Baig S/o Iqbal Baig, Hand Writing Institute India Pvt.Ltd., No.16, Church Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru. He filed his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and deposed the evidence that Zahid Ali husband of Shahnaz Ali came to his office along with three documents i.e. Certified copy of sale 24 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 agreement dated 01/02/1996, Notarized copy of 3 cash receipts and Certified copy of receipt dated 14/05/2001 to compare the signature of Rehmath Ali Jung, he compared the signature of Rehmath Ali Jung, on the above said documents and given the detail report dated 20/03/2018 . He is of the opinion for the reason given in his report that the accepted signature A1 to A30 and disputed signature D1 are of one and the same person viz Mr. Rahmath Ali Jung. The ExP15 is report given by him.
17. The defendant No.1 Rahamath Ali Jung S/o late Mumtaz Ali filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-
chief as DW.1 on 05/08/2016 and taken time to lead further evidence. Then on next date of hearing on 06/08/2016 DW.1 was not kept present. Hence case was posted for cross- examination of DW.1. Thereafter DW.1 was not present before the court. On 25/07/2019 the defendant's counsel submitted before the court that DW.1 not able to attend the court and his evidence may be closed. Hence taking the submission of defendant's counsel on record, the chief 25 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 evidence of DW.1 deposed on 05/08/2016 was discarded, then on the same day the defendants counsel filed affidavit of defendant No.3 Jabir Ali S/o Rahamah Ali Jung in lieu of examination in chief as DW.2. The DW.2 in his examination in chief deposed the evidence that he is deposing evidence on behalf of the defendant No.1, 2, 4 also, who are his father, mother and brother. The plaintiff approached the court with false case. The plaintiff is represented by her Power of Attorney who is her husband and his representation is not valid. The plaintiff seeking specific performance of alleged contract dated 01/02/1996 in respect of suit schedule property claiming that he has purchased the same from defendant No.1. The plaintiff had initially entered the suit schedule property as tenant on oral agreement. That his father defendant No.1 had contracted to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff and said agreement is however non-east and non-enforceable in law as the time was the essence of the agreement, but the plaintiff was hopelessly in breach of the said agreement and 26 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 hence the agreement was rescinded rendered void. Thereafter rental lease agreement dated 02/01/1998 was entered into between the plaintiff and his father in this respect there is an ejectment suit pending before CCH-20 in OS.No.25907/2011. That his father/defendant No.1 had contracted to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for Rs.10,17,500/- and received Rs.4,10,000/-, and the claim of plaintiff that his father received Rs.5,66,000/- towards the sale price is false. That the agreement of sale was rendered vide as the defendant did not and was not inclined to complete the sale within the time period. Hence thereby rendered the Agreement to Sale was rescinded. Loss caused to them by me plaintiff due to her gross patent and unconscionable breach of the agreement to sell in question was in the region of Rs.15,00,000/- and hence they were constrained to forfeit all the amount of Rs.4,10,000/- paid, after rescinding the contract. The provisions of sections 73, 74 and 75 of the Indian Contract Act justify their actions in this regard. That in default on the part of the plaintiff in 27 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 performing the agreement to sell, the defendant No.1 after rescinding the contract and forfeiting the advance amount in view of loss suffered by the plaintiff, he has executed the gift deed of the suit schedule property in favour of his mother (defendant No.2) and to himself and his brother Zubair Ali (defendants No.3 and 4) on 03/03/2000 and registered the same. However the plaintiff continued in possession of the suit schedule property as tenant, but she was a chronic defaulter in payment of rents and there was arrears of rent for the period of 2 years then i.e. from 01/04/1998 to 29/02/2000. In this regard the defendant No.1 had issued notice on 06/03/2000 terminating the tenancy, the plaintiff replied notice denying the tenancy. The plaint schedule property vested with his mother Zakhiya Begum and defendants No.3 and 4 with effect from the date of gift deed in their favour which impliedly rescinded the agreement of sale, since the agreement was hopelessly time barred subsequent to the gift deed his father issued a letter dated 07/06/2000 calling upon the plaintiff to attorn the 28 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 tenancy of the suit schedule premises in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 but the plaintiff not vacated the suit property. That in pursuant gift deed by his father in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 in respect of suit property, they had instituted HRC No.10042/2001 on the file of XVth Addl. Small Causes Judge- CCH 09 Bangalore seeking the eviction of the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property and same was dismissed as the proceedings were initiated prior to commencement of Rent Act 1999 and it did not apply to the premises since the agreed monthly rent was Rs.4000/- and same was abated in view of provision of Section 2(e)(i) of the Karnataka Rent Act. Even at this juncture, the plaintiff institute the suit though she was fully aware that they are not going to perform the agreement to sell dated 01/02/1996 in the aforesaid petition. The allegation of the plaintiff mentioned in the plaint para No.6 is false. That his father was always ready and willing to perform his art of contract, but the plaintiff was not ready. Hence his father was constrained to rescind the contract and 29 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 forfeit the advance amount paid under the agreement of sale and his father had furnished all the requisitions made on the title to the plaintiff and had always been ready to effect the conveyance, but the plaintiff did not have the funds to complete the sale and evading completion on one pretext or the other and never forwarded the draft of the sale deed to obtain clearance under Section 230A (1) of the Income Tax Act 1961. The plaintiff had fraudulently filed then initiated OS.No.461/2000 for bare injunction against him. In view of the failure of the plaintiff to sue for specific performance in the said suit, the suit also legally infirm in view of the provisions of Order 1 Rule 2 of CPC and is liable to be dismissed. The allegations made in para No.7 of the plaint are false. His father never delivered the actual possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff as part performance of contract dated 01/02/1996. The plaintiff was and has always being tenant under his father in respect of the suit schedule property and when the same was gifted to his father to his wife and sons, then the plaintiff has become 30 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 the tenant in respect of the same. His father has not issued money from the plaintiff on 14/05/2001 much less the amount of Rs.6,000/- and not extended time for completion of the agreement of sale, hence the allegation of plaint para No.8 is false. The agreement of sale adduced by the plaintiff is not genuine and signature of his father was forged. They have got the agreement of sale and receipt dated 14/05/2001 and examined in Truth Labs Forensic Services, but it came to their knowledge that signatures have been forged and that was not his father's signatures. He had filed criminal case against plaintiff and for forgery and cheating. His father has informed the plaintiff of the conveyance that he has effected gift deed to his wife and sons before 04/08/2003 and need for issue of notices dated 04/08/2003 was never in existence. The plaintiff had purposely failed to honour the commitments under the contact of sale dated 01/02/1996 and she was fully aware of the gift deed in favour of his mother and his brother long before 04/08/2003, but she has filed the suit. That in the year 2010 he had issued legal 31 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 notices dated 18/10/2010 calling upon the plaintiff to vacate the premises and pay the arrears of rent. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file suit and suit is not maintainable. The alleged agreement of sale not in force at the time of filing of the suit and as such the suit for specific performance is barred by limitation and the plaintiff has failed to fulfill the contact of sale which was executed in the year 1996. That since the period of contract has agreed came to an end due to efflux of time, his father therefore executed the gift deed in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 on 03/03/2000, hence the defendants No.2 o 4 have got exclusive right, title and interest over the suit property. The plaintiff has produced ExP3 dated 01/02/1996 and terms of agreement is not complied by the plaintiff. He has issued legal notices to the plaintiff on 07/06/2000 which was produced and marked by the plaintiff as ExP5 intimating the execution of gift deed in favour of him and wife and sons, he issued notices dated 06/03/2000 as per ExP8 calling upon the plaintiff to pay arrears of rent. His father 32 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 had two sons and daughter and his mother and schedule property is the only property owned by the plaintiff. The agreement was entered about 22 years back and now the value of the property is more than 1 ½ crores. The plaintiff was inducted as tenant which prior to agreement of sale and for last 20 years she has not paid any rent to him, though she was asked to deposit the court in HRRP No.60/2007. She is enjoying the suit property and further she has let it out the third parties and making wrongful gain thereof. The husband of plaintiff is doing real estate business and playing card and cheated so many persons and number of litigations have been filed against him. That his father agreed to sell the suit property with an intention to purchase some other property suitably for their family by earning earnest money and sale consideration. However in view of non performance and nonpayment of the amount agreed under the agreement by the plaintiff in time, his father and they have suffered heavy loss and could not purchase any property. The plaintiff has miserably failed to perform her 33 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 part of contract. Hence the discretionary relief of specific performance cannot be granted to the plaintiff. The DW.2 prays to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with costs. In support of oral evidence of DW.1 marked the documents ExD1 to ExD26.
18. The defendants examined the witnesses DW.3/ Shankarappa Mural Director of Forensic examination and Opinion Expert, Truth labs, Dickens Road, Bengaluru. He filed his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and deposed the evidence that since 7 years he is working as forensic and opinion expert (documents division) at Truth Labs Bengaluru. That during his service he has undergone specialized training in document examination at the National Institute of Criminology. Forensic Science, Delhi. During his service he has examined several cases and expressed his opinion and so also rendered his evidence throughout Karnataka. That Ms. Huda D/o Rehamath Ali Jung came on 01/9/2017 and on 16/11/217 submitted certain documents for authentication of signatures at Truth Labs as 34 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 Case (TLB/QD/173)2017) and case TLB/QD/228/2017) which were assigned to him by their Chairman. He has firstly examined the certified photocopy of receipt dated 14/05/2001 bearing the name of Rahamath Ali Jung S/o Mumtaz Ali, R/at No.28, Robertson Road, Frazer Town, Bengaluru-05, which question signature in disputed document has been marked as Q1 for question signature. That he was to examine the question signature aforesaid vi- a-vis the admitted signatures (standard signatures) marked a S1 to S12 which consisted of a certified photocopy of Gift deed dated 30/03/2000 and a certified photo copy of Rental Lease agreement dated 02/01/1998. He further received certified photo copy of Agreement to sell dated 01/02/1996 bearing the name of Rahamath Ai Jung, in which the questioned signatures are marked as Q1-Q6. He examined the same with the standard signatures of Rahamath Ali Jung that was marked as S-1 to S-12 consisting of certified photocopy of Gift deed dated 30/03/2000 and rental lease agreement dated 02/01/1998. Along with the above disputed 35 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 documents submitted at different dates and examined the common admitted signatures (Standard signature) dated 30/03/2000 and 02/01/1998 marked as S1 to S12. With the help of scientific instruments he expressed opinion in both the disputed signature along with supplied admitted signature, he has expressed his opinion on 28/08/2017 and 29/11/2017 in 4 sheets separately along with brief reasoning. He has very carefully and thoroughly examined the aforementioned questioned signatures and standard signatures with the help of scientific aids like magnifiers, stereo microscope coupled with computer imaging system at different lightning conditions, while examination of the disputed and admitted signature he has taken the photograph through our scientific instrument and applied in juxtaposed separately to both the reports. He expressed his opinion that the person who wrote the admitted signature S1 to S12 were not written by the same person who has written the disputed signature found in the disputed documents After a thorough examination, he has the strong opinion that the questioned 36 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 signature marked as Q1 and the standard signature marked as S1 to s12 were not written by one and the same person as opined in the report dated 29.08.2017 Similarly the questioned signature marked as Q1 to Q6 and the standard signature marked as 2 to S10 and S1, S11 and S12 were not written by one and the same person as opined by him in the report dated 28/11/2017. In support of oral evidence of DW.3 marked ExD27 and ExD28.
19. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant executed agreement of sale in respect of suit schedule property in her favour on 01/02/1996 for sale consideration of Rs.10,17,500/- and out of that amount defendant No.1 has received some of Rs.5,66,000/- from her on the date of agreement and on different dates subsequent to the said agreement of sale. The defendant agreed to register the sale deed in her favour by the end of July 2000, but in spite of repeated requests and demands the defendant failed to perform his part of obligation. Further as per the Clause 8 of the said agreement of sale defendant had to 37 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 obtained the Income Tax Clearance Certificate and required U/S 230A(1) of Income Tax Act for registration of the sale deed in respect of suit schedule property. Further as per Clause 10 of the said agreement of sale the defendant has to obtain and hand over the other documents such as Encumbrance Certificate, Khatha extract, up to date tax paid receipts for the completion of the said agreement, but the defendant could not perform his part of contract within stipulated period of 15 months as per agreement of sale. Even though she showed her readiness and willingness to perform her part of obligation. The defendants instead of executing sale deed filed HRC petition No.10032/2001 and which was came to be dismissed and same order was confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble Supreme Court and then the defendants filed frivolous suit in OS.No.25907/2011 only to harass her to delay the execution of sale deed in her favour.
20. The plaintiff has not examined in person before the court, whereas the GPA holder of the plaintiff examined as 38 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 PW.1 and in support of oral evidence PW.1 marked the documents ExP1 to ExP15. The ExP1 is Notarized copy of GPA executed by plaintiff to Syed Zahid Ali S/o Syed Mohammed/PW.1 for conducting this suit. The ExP2 is original sale deed dated 09/01/1986 executed by Farida Begum W/o Janab Ebrahim Sheriff in favour of Rehamath Ali Jung S/o late Muntaz Ali defendant No.1 in respect of the present suit property. The ExP3 is unregistered agreement of sale dated 01/02/1996 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff Shahnaz Ali in respect of the present suit schedule property, wherein there is condition No.5 that " the balance of sale price shall be paid by the purchaser to the vendor within a period of 15 months from this date" In the said agreement of sale there is averments that the consideration of sale amount was mentioned as Rs.10,17,500/- and also mentioned that Rs.6,000/- paid by way of cheque No. 0969167 dated 21/08/1995, Rs. 24,000/- by way of cheque No.0969168 dated 24/08/1995, Rs. 15,000/- by way of Cheque 39 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 No.1014441 dated 01/02/1996 and Rs.5,000/- by cash as advance amount. Further the last but before one page there are further two endorsements dated 20/06/1996 that Rs.10,000/- by way of cheque No.1014443 dated 11/05/1996 and Rs.10,000/- by way of cheque No.1014444 dated 20/06/1996 drawn on Amarnath Co-operative Bank Ltd., Shivajinagar, Bengaluru and Rs.5,000/- by way of cheque on 01/06/1995 was mentioned as received by the defendant No.1. Further the averment that in the said agreement last page that on 10/09/1996 Rs.6,5,000/- by way of cheque No.1014445 dated 13/08/1996,Rs,10,000/- cash on 15/08/1996, Rs,25,000/- by way of cheque No.10144466 dated 10/09/1996 was received by defendant No.1 from plaintiff Further there is another endorsement in the last page that on 04/11/1998 Rs,35,000/- was received by the defendant No.1 from the plaintiff. Further the ExP4 is certified copy of the receipt dated 14/05/1995 said to have been executed by defendant No.1, wherein there is averment that ss.6,000/- out of balance sale consideration was 40 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 received by defendant No.1 from the plaintiff. The ExP5 is notice given by defendants No.2 to 4 to the plaintiff for vacating the suit schedule property since Rehamath Ali Jung was executed gift deed of the suit property in their favour on 30/03/2000. The ExP6 notice dated 07/06/2000 issued by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff calling her to pay rent amount of Rs.2,000/- for the said month, wherein it is also mentioned that the defendant No.1 has gifted the suit property o her wife and children. The ExP7 is reply given by the plaintiff to the notice of the defendant No.1 dated 07/06/2000, wherein it has mentioned that already suit property was sold to her by defendant No.1, hence question of payment of rent does not arise. The ExP8 is another one notice given by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff intimating about termination of the tenancy from 31/03/2000 in respect of suit property and vacated and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The ExP9 is reply to the notice of the defendant No.1 given by the plaintiff denying the allegation of the fact that she is the tenant in the 41 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 suit property. The ExP10 is postal acknowledgement. The ExP11 is reply to the notice of the defendant No.1 by the plaintiff. The ExP7 and ExP11 are the similar replies to the notices of the defendant No.1. The ExP12 is postal acknowledgement. The ExP13 is notice issued by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff on 04/08/2003 calling upon him to receive the balance consideration amount and execute the sale deed and ExP14 postal acknowledgement regarding receipt of said notice by the defendant No.1.
21. The plaintiff filed application under Order 16 Rule 1 and 2 CPC praying permission to examine the witnesses Raffiulla Baig, Hand Writing Expert and said application was allowed on 22/11/2018. Then on 04/02/2019 the said witness filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of PW.2 and marked ExP15 with annexures i.e. his hand writing expert opinion along with the copies of documents. The said PW.2 deposed the evidence that husband of Shahnaz Ali came to his office with documents certified copy of sale agreement dated 01/021996, notarized copy of 42 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 3 cash receipts and certified copy of one receipt dated 14/05/2001, who compared the signatures of Rehamath Ali Jung on the said documents and given the report on 20/03/2018 and in his opinion he has given report that the accepted signatures A1 to A30 and disputed signatures D1 are one and the same person i.e. Rehamath Ali Jung. That the said Hand Writing Expert was not appointed by the court and for examination of the signature of Rehamath Ali Jung. But the husband of plaintiff had taken said opinion ExP15 from the PW.2 by producing the documents before the hand writing expert. But the admitted signatures and disputed signatures of defendant No.1 were not sent to PW.3 hand writing expert by the court.
22. That on the contrary the defendants No.1 initially filed the written statement on 18/01/2005, wherein the defendant No.1 admitted that he had agreed to sell the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff on 01/02/1996 for Rs.10,17,500/- and he has received Rs.4,10,000/- but the said agreement is however non-east is not justifiable or 43 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 enforceable in favour of in law as the plaintiff was hopelessly in breach of the said agreement and the same was rescinded. Further the defendant No.1 contended that he was rescinded the contract with the plaintiff and forfeited the advance amount and thereafter on 03/03/2000 he gifted the suit property to his wife and sons. The said defendant No.1 filed his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief a DW.1 and narrated the same set of facts of written statement in his evidence. But later on the said DW.1 not appeared before the court to mark documents in his favour and to face the cross-examination on plaintiff side and the defendants counsel submitted before the court that DW.1 unable to attend the court and his evidence may be discarded. Hence on 25/07/2019 the chief evidence of DW.1 was discarded. But no reasons assigned by the defendants counsel for non- appearance of DW.1 before the court for deposing the evidence, because the defendant No.1 is the material person who depose regarding the agreement of sale taken place between himself and plaintiff. But he has not come in the 44 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 witness box to depose evidence. Hence adverse inference is drawn against the defendant No.1 in this regard.
23. The defendant No.3 Jabir Ali S/o Rehamath Ali Jung examined as DW 2 as discussed above and in his examination-in-chief he deposed the evidence that the agreement of sale taken place between defendant No.1 and plaintiff on 01/02/1996 was rescinded by his father, since the plaintiff did not inclined to complete the sale within the time period. The contention of DW.2 is that defendant No.1 i.e. his father has executed gift deed of suit property in favour of himself and his mother and brother (defendants No.2 to 4) on 03/03/2000, hence since then they are owners of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is residing in the suit property as tenant, but she was not vacated the suit property. Hence HRC No.10042/2001 was filed by them before the 15th Additional Small Causes Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru CCH-19 seeking the eviction of the plaintiff from the suit property. But the said case was dismissed as the said proceedings were initiated prior to the commencement of 45 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 Rent Act 1999 and did not apply to the premises since the agreed monthly rate of rent was Rs.4,000/- and same was abated in view of provisions of Section 2(e)(i) of the Karnataka Rent Act. Further HRRP 60/2007 was preferred wherein plaintiff was asked to deposit the rent amount. The plaintiff is enjoying the property and also let out the property to third persons and making wrongful gain. In support of oral evidence, DW.2 marked documents ExD1 to ExD26. The ExD1 is zerox copy of certified copy of rental agreement dated 02/01/1998 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of plaintiff relating to the suit schedule property, wherein it is mentioned that the plaintiff taken the suit property on rent. The ExD2 is certified copy of gift deed dated 30/03/2000 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 4. The ExD3 is notice issued by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff on 06/07/2000 informing about termination of tenancy on 31/10/2000 and intimating to vacate the suit property and hand over the vacant possession. The ExD4 reply given by plaintiff to the 46 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 defendant No.1 counsel denying the fact of alleged tenant in the suit property by the plaintiff. The ExD5 is certified copy of postal acknowledgement. The ExD6 is certified copy of notice issued by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff intimating that suit property was gifted by him to his wife and sons and inform the plaintiff to pay the rent. The ExD7 is certified copy of the FIR and ExD8 is certified copy of the complaint in Crime No.261/2017 of Pulakeshinagar police station (CC No.50227/2019) filed by defendant No.1 against the plaintiff and her husband for an offences punishable U/S 420, 464, 465, 468, 471 R/W 34 of IPC regarding forgery of signatures and creating agreement of sale in respect of the property belonging to them. The ExP9 is certified copy of the spot panchanama. The ExD10 is certified copy of statement of defendant No.2. The ExD11 is certified copy of statement of defendant No.3. The ExD12 is certified copy of statement of defendant No.4, ExD13 is certified copy of statement of Huda Fathima D/o Rehamath Ali Jung in the said case CC.No.50227/2019. The ExD14 is certified copy 47 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 of charge sheet in CC.No.50227/2009. The ExD15 is certified copy of the notice issued by defendants No.2 to 4 to the plaintiff on 18/10/2010 calling upon the plaintiff to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.5,34,000/- and vacate the suit schedule property and deliver the vacant possession. The ExD16 and ExD17 are certificates of postal receipts and UCP postal receipt. The ExD18 is certified copy of postal acknowledgement. The ExD19 is certified copy of order sheet in OS.No.25907/2011. The ExD20 and ExD21 are medical reports of defendant No.1 Rehamath Ali Jung. The ExD22 is photo of defendant No.1 and ExD23 CD of the said photo and ExD24 is receipt of the said photo. The ExD25 and ExD26 are the receipts of tax received by the BBMP from the defendants No.1 to 3.
24. The defendants examined the witness DW.3 Shankarappa Mural, Forensic examination and Opinion Expert. On 19/09/2019 the defendants counsel filed IA.No.15 U/O 16 Rule 1 and 2 R/W Sec.151 CPC praying to summon the witness Shankarappa Mural and said 48 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 application was allowed on 03/01/2020. Then on 06/02/2020 the said witness Shankarappa Mural filed his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief as DW.3 and deposed the evidence as discussed above and in support of oral evidence marked ExD27 and ExD28. The ExD27 and ExD28 are reports given by the said witness. That on examination of signatures of defendant No.1 Rehamath Ali Jung on the photo copy of receipt dated 14/05/2001 and for comparing the said signatures admitted signature on gift deed was compared and given number as S1 to S10 and also admitted signature on four sheet certified photo copy of rental lease agreement dated 02/01/1998 marked as S1, S11 and S12 and these S1 to S12 admitted signatures were compared with questioned signature Q1 by the said DW.3 and given the opinion that the questioned signature A1 and standard signatures marked as S1 to S12 were not written by one and the same person.
25. The defendant No.1 in his written statement admits that he has executed agreement of sale in respect of suit 49 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 schedule property in favour of plaintiff on 01/02/1996 for sale consideration of Rs.10,17,500/-. The defendant No.1 submits that he received only Rs.4,10,000/- and not Rs.5,66,000/- as contended by the plaintiff. But the plaintiff has not get executed sale deed in her favour by paying the remaining amount. Hence he has rescinded the contract and forfeited the advance amount and same was intimated by him to the plaintiff. Therefore the allegation of the defendants No.2 to 4 that defendant No.1 has not executed agreement of sale on 01/02/1996 in favour of plaintiff and said document is created by the plaintiff is not proper to accept. Further the defendant No.1 is the material person and he appeared before the court and filed his affidavit evidence in examination-in-chief as DW.1 on 25/07/2019, but later on he has not appeared before the court for marking of documents and subjecting for cross- examination and his counsel submitted before the court who are discarded the evidence of DW.1, on 25/07/2019 the evidence of DW.1 filed in lieu of examination-in-chief was 50 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 discarded. Hence the defendant No.1 is the material person who deposed regarding the agreement of sale dated 01/02/1996 taken place between himself and plaintiff, but he has not subjected for cross examination and as per prayer of his counsel examination in chief of DW.1 was discarded. That DW.2 is the son of defendant No.1 and he deposed the evidence as discussed above and in the cross-examination the DW.2 deposed the evidence that "ದನನನಕ 01/02/1996 ರನದದ ನನನ ತನದದಯದ ವನದಗದ ಬರದದದಕದಕಟಟ ಅಗಗಮನಟಟ ನನಗದ ಗದಕತತದದ. ಅನದನಜದ 10 ಲಕಕಗಳಗದ ಕಗಯದ ಕರನರದ ಪತಗ ಆಗದದ. ನನನ ತನದದಯದ ರಕ.4,10,000/- ಅಡನಡನಟನ ಹಣವನದನ ಪಡದದದನದರದ". He further deposed before the evidence that "ದನನನಕ 01/12/1996 ರ ಕಗಯದ ಕರನರದ ಪತಗದ ಕನಪ ನಮಮ ಹತತರ ಇಲಲ. ಈ ಕದಕಸನಲಲ ವನದಯದದ ಹನಜರದಪಡಸದ ದನಖಲನತಗಳನದನ ನದಕಕಡದದದಕನದ. ಮಕಲ ಕಗಯದ ಕರನರದ ಪತಗದ ಪಗಕನರ 6 ತನಗಳದ ಸಮಯ ನಗದಯನಗತದತ ಆದರದ ವನದ ಮತದತ ಅವರ ಹದನಡತ ಸಸಷಟ ಮನಡದ ಕಗಯದ ಕರನರದ ಪತಗದ ಪಗಕನರ 15 ತನಗಳದ ಸಮಯ ನಗದ ಮನಡದನದರದ ಅನತ ಸನಕಕಯದ ಸಡತತ ಹದಕಳದತನತರದ". He further deposed that " ಮಕಲ ಕಗಯದ ಕರನರದ ಪತಗದ ಪಗಕನರ ದನವನ ಆಸತಯ ದನಖಲನತಗಳನದನ ವನದಗದ ಕದಕಡಲನಗದದ. ಆದರದ ಸಸಷಟ ಮನಡದ ಕಗಯದ ಕರನರದ ಪತಗದ ಪಗಕನರ ಸದಸಯದಟಮಸಕದಟಅಹಮಮದ ರವರಗದ ದನಖಲನತಗಳನದನ ಕದಕಡಲನಗದದ ಅನತ ಬರದದದದ. 1 ನದಕ ಪಗತವನದಯದ ಸಲಲಸದ ಪಗತವನದ ಪತಗದಲಲ 51 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 ಕಗಯದ ಕರನರದ ಪತಗವನದನ ಸಸಷಟ ಮನಡಲನಗದದ ಅನತ ಬರದದಲಲ ಎನದರದ ಸರ ಸನಕಕಯದ ಮದನದದವರದದ ಸಡತತ ಹದಕಳದತನತರದ. ನನನ ತನದದಯದ ಮಕಲ ದನಖಲನತಗಳನದನ ವನದಗದ ಕದಕಟಟದದರದ ಅವರ ಹತತರ ಯನವವದದಕ ದನಖಲನತ ಇಲಲ ಅನತ ಹದಕಳದತನತರದ". Therefore it is clear from evidence of DW.2 that his father executed the agreement of sale in respect of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff. Further the defendants No.1 to 4 have not denied the document marked by the plaintiff at ExP3 agreement of sale which is the original document. Further the defendant No.1 contended that he has received only Rs.4,10,000/- from the plaintiff but not 5,66,000/- from the plaintiff. But to prove the said contention the defendants have not produced any documents. Where as the DW.2 in his cross-examination deposed the evidence that "ದನನನಕ 24/08/1995 ರನದದ ನನನ ತನದದಯದ ವನದಯನದ ರಕ.15,000/- ಹಣವನದನ ಚದಕಟ ಮಕಲಕ ಪಡದದದನದರದ ಎನದರದ ಸನಕಕಯದ ನನಗದ ನಮಮ ತನದದಯದ ಎನದಕ ಹಣವನದನ ನದರಟರವನಗ ಪಡದದದನದರದ ಅನತ ಗದಕತತಲಲ ಅನತ ಹದಕಳದತನತರದ. ದತ 01/02/1996 ರನದದ ನನನ ತನದದಯದ ವನದಯನದ ರಕ 15,000/- ಹಣವನದನ ಚದಕಟ ಮಕಲಕ ಪಡದದದನದರದ ಎನದರದ ಸನಕಕಯದ ನನಗದ ನಮಮ ತನದದಯದ ಎನದಕ ಹಣವನದನ ನದರಟರವನಗ ಪಡದದದನದರದ ಅನತ ಗದಕತತಲಲ ಅನತ ಹದಕಳದತನತರದ. ದತ 01/02/1996 ರನದದ ನನನ ತನದದಯದ 52 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 ವನದಯನದ ರಕ.5,000/- ಹಣವನದನ ನಗದನಗ ಪಡದದದನದರದ ಎನದರದ ಸನಕಕಯದ ನನಗದ ನಮಮ ತನದದಯದ ಎನದಕ ಹಣವನದನ ನದರಟರವನಗ ಪಡದದದನದರದ ಅನತ ಗದಕತತಲಲ ಅನತ ಹದಕಳದತನತರದ. ದತ 20/06/1996 ರನದದ ನನನ ತನದದಯದ ವನದಯನದ ರಕ. ಹತದತ ಸನವರ ಹಣವನದನ ಚದಕಟ ಮಕಲಕ ಪಡದದದನದರದ ಎನದರದ ಸನಕದಯದ ನನಗದ ನಮಮ ತನದದಯದ ಎನದಕ ಹಣವನದನ ನದರಟರವನಗ ಪಡದದದನದರದ ಅನತ ಗದಕತತಲಲ ಅನತ ಹದಕಳದತನತರದ. ದತ 11/05/1996 ರನದದ ನನನ ತನದದಯದ ವನದಯನದ ರಕ. ಹತದತ ಸನವರ ಹಣವನದನ ಚದಕಟ ಮಕಲಕ ಪಡದದದನದರದ ಎನದರದ ಸನಕಕಯದ ನನಗದ ನಮಮ ತನದದಯದ ಎನದಕ ಹಣವನದನ ನದರಟರವನಗ ಪಡದದದನದರದ ಅನತ ಗದಕತತಲಲ ಅನತ ಹದಕಳದತನತರದ. ದತ 01/06/1995 ರನದದ ನನನ ತನದದಯದ ವನದಯನದ ರಕ.ಎನಟದ ಸನವರ ಹಣವನದನ ನಗದನಗ ಪಡದದದನದರದ ಎನದರದ ಸನಕಕಯದ ನನಗದ ನಮಮ ತನದದಯದ ಎನದಕ ಹಣವನದನ ನದರಟರವನಗ ಪಡದದದನದರದ ಅನತ ಗದಕತತಲಲ ಅನತ ಹದಕಳದತನತರದ. ದತ 13/08/1996 ರನದದ ನನನ ತನದದಯದ ವನದಯನದ ರಕ.6,500 ಹಣವನದನ ಚದಕಟಮಕಲಕ ಪಡದದದನದರದ ಎನದರದ ಸನಕಕಯದ ನನಗದ ನಮಮ ತನದದಯದ ಎನದಕ ಹಣವನದನ ನದರರಟವನಗ ಪಡದದದನದರದ ಅನತ ಗದಕತತಲಲ ಅನತ ಹದಕಳದತನತರದ. ದತ 15/08/1996 ರನದದ ನನನ ತನದದಯದ ವನದಯನದ ರಕ ಹತದತ ಸನವರ ಹಣವನದನ ನಗದನಗ ಪಡದದದನದರದ ಎನದರದ ಸನಕಕಯದ ನನಗದ ನಮಮ ತನದದಯದ ಎನದಕ ಹಣವನದನ ನದರಟರವನಗ ಪಡದದದನದರದ ಅನತ ಗದಕತತಲಲ ಅನತ ಹದಕಳದತನತರದ. ದತ 10/09/1996 ರನದದ ನನನ ತನದದಯದ ವನದಯನದ ರಕ 25,000/- ಹಣವನದನ ಚದಕಟ ಮಕಲಕ ಪಡದದದನದರದ ಎನದರದ ಸನಕಕಯದ ನನಗದ ನಮಮ ತನದದಯದ ಎನದಕ ಹಣವನದನ ನದರರಟವನಗ ಪಡದದದನದರದ ಅನತ ಗದಕತತಲಲ ಅನತ ಹದಕಳದತನತರದ. ದನನಕ 04/11/1998 ರನದದ ನನನ ತನದದಯದ 53 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 ವನದಯನದ ರಕ 35,000/- ಹಣವನದನ ನಗದನಗ ಪಡದದದನದರದ ಎನದರದ ಸನಕಕಯದ ನನಗದ ನಮಮ ತನದದಯದ ಎನದಕ ಹಣವನದನ ನದರರಟವನಗ ಪಡದದದನದರದ ಅನತ ಗದಕತತಲಲ ಅನತ ಹದಕಳದತನತರದ. 2000 ನದಕ ಸನಲನಲಲ ನನನ ತನದದಯದ ವನದಯನದ ರಕ 60,000/- ಹಣವನದನ ಪಡದದದನದರದ ಎನದರದ ಸನಕಕಯದ ನನಗದ ನಮಮ ತನದದಯದ ಎನದಕ ಹಣವನದನ ನದರರಟವನಗ ಪಡದದದನದರದ ಅನತ ಗದಕತತಲಲ"
26. Further the DW.2 in his cross-examination denied that his father by receiving Rs.6,000/- advance endorsed signature in ExP4. The DW.2 denied the signature of his father on ExP4. That the ExP4 xerox copy of the receipt regarding receipt of Rs.6,000/- by defendant No.1 from plaintiff as per the said document on 14/05/2001 and this ExP4 is disputed by the defendant No.1. The defendants examined one witness DW.3 Shankara Mural, Hand Writing Expert who has given the report as per ExD27 and ExD28, as per the report of DW.3 the question signature on ExP4 marked as Q1 and admitted signatures of DW.1 compared by him and both signatures are not of similar person. But the original receipt is not available in the record and even along with ExD27 and ExD28 Reports, the xerox copy of 54 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 the said receipt ExP4 is produced by the DW.3 wherein disputed signature of defendant No.1 is marked as Q1. That for comparison of the signatures or Finger prints the original signatures and original finger prints are necessary but the admitted signatures and disputed signature of defendant No.1 are not compared by DW.3. Further the DW.3 in his cross-examination clearly admitted that "ರದಹಮತಟ ಆಲ ಜನಗಟರವರ ಸಹಗಳಲಲಯ ವಭನನತದಗಳನದನ ಒಪಪದ ದನಖಲನತಗಳಲಲಯ ಸಹಗಳನದನ ಪರಶಕಲಸದವ ಕದರತದ infrared ಮತದತ Ultraviolet ಉಪಕರಣಗಳನದನ ಉಪಯಕಗಸದದದಕನದ. infrared ಮತದತ Ultraviolet ಗಳನದನ ಇನಕಟ ಪರಶಕಲನದಗದ ಮನತಗ ಉಪಯಕಗಸದದದಕನದ ಅನದರದ ಸರ. ಈ ಪಗಕರಣದಲಲ ರದಹಮತಟಆಲ ಜನಗಟರವರ ಸಹಗಳಲಲಯ ಇನಕಟ ಗಳನದನ ಪರಶಕಲನದಗನಗ infrared ಮತದತ Ultraviolet ಉಪಕರಣಗಳನದನ ಉಪಯಕಗಸದದದಕನದ. ನನನದ ಈ ಪಗಕರಣದಲಲಯ ದನಖಲನತಗಳದ ಫಕಟದಕಕಕನಪಗಳನದನ ಪರಶಕಲನದ ಮನಡದದರನದ infrared ಮತದತ Ultraviolet ಉಪಕರಣಗಳದ ನನಗದ ಅನದಕಕಲ ಆಗಲಲ ಅನದರದ ಸರ infrared ಮತದತ Ultraviolet ಉಪಕರಣಗಳನದ ಮಕಲ ದನಖಲನತಗಳಲಲಯ ಸಹಗಳಲಲ carbon stains ಅಥವನ pencil led stains ಗಳನದನ ನದಕಕಡಲದ ಬರದತತದದ ಅನದರದ ಸರ. Hence the said reports ExD27 and ExD28 are not accepted. 55
Judgment OS.No.15237/2004
27. The plaintiff examined the witness PW.2, he is also Hand writing expert and as per PW.2 he examined sale agreement dated 01/02/1996 Notarized copy of receipts and one Certified copy of receipt dated 14/05/2001. The PW.2 deposed the evidence that he examined the signatures of Rehamath Ali Jung with admitted signatures of Rahamath Ali Jung and given the report as per ExP15. The PW.2 also examined the signatures of Rahamath Ali Jung on the xerox copy of documents with disputed signature marked as ExD1 in the receipt dated 14/05/2001. This witness has also not examined admitted signature of defendant No.1 with signature of defendant No.1 on original receipt dated 14/05/2001 and the plaintiff has also not produced the original receipt and not explained in whose custody the original receipt of ExP4 is available. Further both PW.2 and DW.3 Hand Writing Experts are not appointed by the court and it was not directed them to compare the admitted signature of defendant No.1 with the disputed signatures. The plaintiff obtained ExP15 Report from PW.2 and 56 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 defendant No.2 obtained ExD27 and ExD28 reports i.e. Hand Writing Expert reports from DW.3 and there is no order of court for comparison of the signature of defendant No.1. Therefore the reports ExP2, ExD27 and ExD28 are not accepted.
28. The defendant No.1 on the one strength admits that he had executed ExP3 agreement of sale of suit property in favour of the plaintiff. But the plaintiff himself has not came forward to execute the sale deed by paying remaining balance consideration amount and other strength the defendant No.1 contended that plaintiff is residing in the suit schedule property as a tenant since earlier to execution of agreement of sale by him but later on he has rescinded the agreement of sale with the plaintiff due to non- compliance of conditions by the plaintiff and he has gifted the suit schedule property to his wife and sons defendants No.2 to 4 on 3/3/2000 and since then they are the owners of the suit property and they have filed HRC petition No.10047/2001 before 15th Additional Small Causes Court 57 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 Bengaluru seeking eviction of the plaintiff from the suit schedule property which the same was dismissed as the proceedings were initiated prior to the commencement of rent act 1999 and it did not apply to the permission since the agreed monthly rate of rent was Rs.4,000/- and same was awarded in view of prices of section (2)(e)(i) of the Karnataka Rent Act and further HRRP 60/2007 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and there was direction to pay the rent but plaintiff has not paid the rent. The DW.2 has not marked the certified copy of the orders in HRC Petition No.10047/2001 and also orders passed in HRRP No.60/2007 to prove his contention.
29. In the agreement of sale ExP3 there is a condition that the balance of sale price shall be paid by the purchaser to the vendor within the period of 15 months from the date of agreement. The defendant No.1 contended that due to non-compliance of the condition and non-payment of remaining amount by the plaintiff he has rescinded the contract and forfeited the advance amount and in the written 58 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 statement the defendant No.1 contended that he has intimated the said fact to the plaintiff. But the DW.2 son of the defendant No.1 in his cross-examination deposed the evidence that "ವನದಗದ ಅಡನಡನಟನ ಹಣವನದನ ಮದಟದಟಗದಕಕಲದ ಹನಕಕದಕನಡದದದಕವದ ಅನತ 2 ರನದ 4 ನದಕ ಪಗತವನದಗಳದ ನದಕಕಟಕಸದ ಕದಕಟಟಲಲ ಎನದರದ ಸರ." Therefore the defendant No.1 has not given any intimation to the plaintiff regarding rescinding of contract and forfeiture of the advance amount by me as alleged in his written statement.
31. That as per ExP3 the time prescribed for execution of the sale deed by defendant No.1 within 15 months from the date of execution of agreement of sale by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff that the said agreement of sale was executed on 01/02/1996 the 15 months period completes by 01/05/1997. But the plaintiff has not narrated in his plaint as well as his oral evidence but whether she has not issued notice to the defendant No.1 by the end of completion of 15 months from the date of agreement of sale calling upon the defendant to execute the sale deed as per the terms and 59 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 conditions of the agreement of sale by handing over the necessary document along with Income Tax clearance certificate obtained u/s 230(A)(1) of the Income Tax Act and register the sale deed to show her readiness and willingness to perform her part of contract. But the plaintiff has not produced such legal notice if any issued to the defendant No.1. The ExP5 letter sent by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff on 06/07/2000 wherein it is informed that he has gifted the suit schedule property to his wife and sons on 30/03/2000 and also mentioned that plaintiff has to pay the rent of Rs.2,000/- as she is residing in a suit property as a tenant. Further the ExP7 is reply to the notice of the defendant No.1 dated 07/06/2000 by the plaintiff on 22/06/2000 wherein the plaintiff contended that Rehamath Ali Jung has no right to gift the suit property in favour of his wife and since as he already sold the suit property to her and there is no question of payment of monthly rents. Hence in the said reply ExP7 the plaintiff has not narrated about her readiness and willingness to perform her part of 60 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 contract by paying the remaining sale consideration amount to the defendant No.1. Therefore from ExP7 reply notice by the plaintiff it is crystal clear that she was aware of said gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 as on 22/06/2000. But while filing the present suit on 21/02/2004 in the plaint the plaintiff prayed only for the relief of specific performance of contract in respect of agreement of sale dated 01/02/1996 only against the defendant No.1. That later on plaintiff filed application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC for amendment in their plaint for impleading defendants No.2 to 4 and also inserting para 9(a) in prayer column (a)(1) relief for declaration that the gift deed dated 30/03/2000 executed by defendant No.1 to defendants No.2 to 4 as null and void and not binding on her. At that time of filing suit on 21/04/2004 she was aware about the gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 on 30/03/2000, but she has not claimed the relief of declaration that said gift deed is not binding on her. But she filed IA.No.4 on 61 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 23/07/2011 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment in the plaint for impleading the defendants No.2 to 4 and also inheriting para 9(a) in the prayer column, the said relief claimed is for declaration that the gift deed dated 30/03/2000 executed by defendant no.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 is null and void is not binding on her. The said application was allowed on 07/06/2012. The plaintiff impleaded defendants No.2 to 4 and also inherited para 9(a) in the plaint as per the order on I.A.No.4 and also the GPA holder of the plaintiff deposed evidence on 05/03/2014 wherein he deposed about the said gift deed dated 30/03/2000, but the PW.1 not marked the copy of the gift deed. That when the plaintiff claiming relief relating to declaration that said gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 in respect of suit schedule property is not binding on her, then she ought to have produce the copy of gift deed and mark in the evidence, but the plaintiff has not produced the said document and marked in this suit. But the certified copy of the gift deed is 62 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 marked by DW.2 in his evidence as ExD2 as discussed above. Hence this is lacuna on the part of plaintiff's side. Further as discussed above the plaintiff was aware of execution of gift deed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 on 30/03/2000. On 22/06/2000 when she was replied to the notice of the defendant No.1 as per ExP7 wherein she has denied the gift deed. That after nearly 4 years in the year 2004 she filed the present suit but she has not claimed the relief relating to said gift deed as null and void and not binding on her. Hence regarding execution of the gift deed by defendant No.1 to the defendants No.2 to 4 came to the knowledge of plaintiff on 22/06/2000. Hence she ought to have claim the relief of declaration that the said gift deed is not binding on her within 3 years from the date of her knowledge i.e. before 20/06/2003 as per Limitation Act, but she claimed the said relief, even after filing suit by she filed application for amendment in plaint for inserting para No.9(a) on 23/07/2011 i.e. after nearly 11 years from the date of came to knowledge to her about the 63 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 said gift deed executed by defendant No.1 to defendant No.2 to 4. Hence the said relief of declaration claimed in para 9(a) of the plaint by the plaintiff is barred by limitation.
32. Further as per ExP3 agreement of sale the time fixed to get execute the sale deed of suit property by the plaintiff is 15 months, but immediately after completion of 15 months whether she has issued any notice to the defendant No.1 for specific performance of contract is not explained. Further as per Article 54 of the Limitation Act, the Limitation period for filing suits relating to specific performance of contract is 3 years from the date fixed for performance, or if no such date is fixed when the plaintiff has noticed that performance is refused. That in the present suit the date fixed for specific performance of contract is 15 months from the date of execution of agreement of sale as per ExP3. That the said agreement of sale was executed on 01/02/1996 and 15 months specified time completed by 01/05/1997. But the plaintiff has not issued any notice to 64 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 the defendant No.1 after completion of 15 months for execution of sale deed in her favour. Further as per ExP5 notice issued by defendant No.1 to the plaintiff on 06/07/2000, wherein the defendant No.1 mentioned that he has executed gift deed in favour of his wife and sons on 30/03/2000 relating to suit property and plaintiff is a tenant in the suit property has to pay monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- and directed the plaintiff to pay the monthly rent, then plaintiff given reply to the said notice on 22/06/2000 as per ExP7 denying say of the defendant No.1 that she is tenant in the suit property, she averred that suit property is sold to her and defendant No.1 has no right to gift the suit property in favour of his wife and children. Hence when the plaintiff came to knowledge about the said gift deed on 22/06/2000 then also she ought to have issue notice to the defendant No.1 for executing the sale deed in her favour as per the terms and conditions of agreement of sale marked as ExP3. But she has not issued any notice and immediately when the said fact of gift deed came to her knowledge. She has filed 65 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 suit for specific performance of contact after 4 years i.e. on 21/04/2004 from the date of giving reply to the notice on 22/06/2000, there is delay of more than 3 years 8 months in filing the suit for specific performance of contract. The said delay is not properly explained. Hence the suit of plaintiff in respect of specific performance of contract against the defendant is barred by limitation. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitle for the relief of specific performance of contract and declaration that gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 is not binding on her. The plaintiff proved that defendant No.1 executed agreement of sale on 01/02/1996 in her favour for sale consideration of Rs.10,17,500/-, but she failed to prove ExP4 receipt regarding receipt of Rs.6,000/- by defendant No.1 on 14/05/2001 and time was extended for execution of sale deed. Hence the plaintiff failed to prove that defendant No.1 in all received advance amount of Rs.5,66,000/- from her, but ExP3 discloses only an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- was received by the defendant No.1 from the plaintiff. The 66 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 plaintiff failed to prove that she was ever ready and willing to perform her part of contract. The defendant No.1 failed to prove that he was intimated the plaintiff about rescinding of an agreement of sale and forfeiture of advance amount. The plaintiff proved Issue No.1 and failed to prove Issues No.2 to 6 and 8, 9 and Additional Issue No.1. Therefore I answer Issue No.1 in Affirmative and Issues No.2 to 6, 8 and 9 and Additional Issue No.1 in Negative.
33. Issue No.7:-
That as per the order on IA.No.4 the plaintiff amended the plaint and inserted para No.9 (a) regarding the relief of declaration that the gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 4 is not binding on her. It is noticed from the order sheet of the case that there is no entry in the order sheet after passing order on IA.No.4 from 07/06/2012 regarding payment of court fee in respect of the declaration of the gift deed by the plaintiff and even the valuation slip relating to the said relief of declaration is 67 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 also not filed and court fee relating to said relief is not paid by the plaintiff. Therefore I answer Issue No.7 in Negative.
34. Issue No.10:-
In view of above discussion I proceed to pass the following :ORDER:
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw Decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer then typed by her. Then corrected on line in computer by me and taken printout, then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this 11th day of December 2020).
(Smt.Suvarna K. Mirji) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE :ANNEXURE:
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW.1 Syed Zahid Ali S/o Syed Mohammed
PW.2 Raffiulla Baig
68
Judgment OS.No.15237/2004
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
ExP1 Certify copy of the General Power of Attorney
ExP2 Original Sale Deed dated 09/01/1986
ExP3 Original Agreement to sell dated 22/11/2006
ExP4 Certify copy of the receipt dated 14/05/2001
ExP5 Notice dated 07/06/2000
ExP6 Letter dated 07/06/2000
ExP7 Reply notice dated 20/06/2000
ExP8 Notice dated 06/03/2000
ExP9 Reply dated 22/03/2000
ExP10 RPAD acknowledgement
ExP11 Notice dated 22/06/2000
ExP12 RPAD acknowledgement
ExP13 Legal Notice issued by the plaintiff to the
defendant
ExP14 Acknowledgment
ExP15 Forensic report
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT/S:
DW.1 Rahamath Ali Jung S/o late Mumtaz Ali
(Discarded)
DW.2 Jabir Ali S/o Rehamath Ali Jung
DW.3 Shankar Mural
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT/S:
ExD1: Certified copy of Rental Lease Agreement ExD2: Certified copy of Gift Deed 69 Judgment OS.No.15237/2004 ExD3: Certified copy of Legal Notice to plaintiff ExD4: Certified copy Reply Notice ExD5: Certified copy Postal Acknowledgment ExD6: Certified copy of certificate of posting ExD7: Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.261/2017 in Pulakeshinagar P.S ExD8: Certified copy complaint ExD9: Certified copy of spot mahazar ExD10 to ExD13: Certified copy of Statements of witnesses ExD14: Certified copy of charge sheet ExD15: Certified copy of Legal Notice dated 18.10.2010 to Plaintiffs ExD16 and ExD17:certified copy of postal Receipt & VCP ExD18: Certified copy of Acknowledgment ExD19: Certified copy of order sheet in O.S.No.25907/2011 ExD20 and ExD21: Medical Bills ExD22: Photographs ExD23: C.D ExD24: Receipt of Digital lab and studio ExD25 and ExD26: Tax paid receipts ExD27: Report of Truth Labs ExD28: Forwarding letter of Truth Labs XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.