Bangalore District Court
N. Jayaram vs R.G. Sreenivas on 29 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH 30)
Dated this the 29th day of May 2018
PRESENT: SMT. NAGAJYOTHI. K.A., LL.M.,
XXIX ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
O.S.No. 1882/2011
PLAINTIFF: N. Jayaram,
S/o. M. Nanjappa,
Aged about 37 years,
R/a. No.35/1,
Pipeline Main Road,
(Dattatreya Temple Street)
Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru - 560 003.
(By Sri Nagaraj Damodar,
Advocate)
Vs.
DEFENDANTS: 1. R.G. Sreenivas,
S/o Late Gopalappa,
Aged Major.
2. R.G. Ramaswamy,
S/o Late Gopalappa,
Aged Major.
3. R.G. Gangadhar,
S/o Late Gopalappa,
Aged Major.
All are residing at No.V-8 (New
No.34), Pipeline Main Road,
(Dattatreya Temple Street),
Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru - 560 003.
(By Sri D. Umashankar,
Advocate)
Date of institution of the suit 11/03/2011
Nature of the suit (suit on
pronote. Suit for declaration and Permanent Injunction &
possession suit for injunction, Mandatory Injunction
etc.)
2 O.S.No.1882/2011
Date of the commencement of 02/04/2012
recording of the evidence.
Date on which the judgment 29/05/2018
was pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
07 02 18
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed against the defendants for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful usage of the schedule 'B' property and for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to remove the construction projecting over and above the common passage and remove the steps put up in the common passage in the schedule 'B' property and also direct them not to put up any construction in the schedule 'B' property and also direct them not to create any nuisance by causing obstruction to the common passage.
2. It is averred in the plaint that, plaintiff is the owner in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing old No.V-8, New No.35/1, situated at Pipeline Main Road, (Dattatreya Temple Street), Malleshwaram, Bengaluru, measuring 40 X 30 feet, as described in the schedule 'A' property. The suit schedule 'A' property is known to the common passage of 5 feet situated towards the North of the suit schedule 'A' property, running from East - West : 40 feet, referred as schedule 'B' property. After the death of plaintiff's mother, the defendants who are the adjacent owners of the suit schedule site of schedule 'A' property, started 3 O.S.No.1882/2011 creating day-to-day nuisance by intentionally obstructing and blocking the common passage. They parked their two-wheeler vehicles in the suit schedule 'B' property. Since the defendants were already purchased the South - Western corner referred as schedule 'B' property in the commissioner's report. Now, the defendants with an intention to knock off the schedule 'A' property, are trying to drive out the plaintiff from the schedule 'A' property. To block the common passage, they put up construction projecting over and above the common passage and keeping their belongings in the schedule 'B' property and dig the suit property on the pretext of repairing the drainage and not getting the work done thereafter. The continued nuisance by them in schedule 'B' property has become a day-to-day affair. Number of complaints and counter-complaints registered between him and the defendants. One of the adjacent owners Mr. K.R. Ramamurthy was also filed O.S.No.8016/2010 in respect of obstruction in the common passage, where he obtained the exparte interim order of injunction. He approached the BBMP officials, who issued direction to the defendants not to obstruct the common passage. Hence, this suit.
3. The defendants have appeared through their counsel and submitted in the written statement that, the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. They admit the ownership of plaintiff in the schedule 'A' property and usage of schedule 'B' property as passage. They further contend that, the alleged K.P. 4 O.S.No.1882/2011 Ramamurthy and his family members have no right to use the schedule 'B' property. Plaintiff, defendant and Ramaiah are using this common passage and admitted that they never obstructed the plaintiff or his family members for use of schedule 'B' property. The house property of K.R. Ramamurthy was abutting to the Pipeline Road and he is having money and muscle power in order to grab the defendants' property, he colluded with the plaintiff and he was giving all sorts of problems to these defendants, on one or the other reasons, since from long time. Defendants are the rural background persons. Plaintiff was colluding with K.R. Ramamurthy and lodged false complaint against the defendants. This suit was also filed at the instigation of K.R. Ramamurthy. If the suit is decreed, the defendants will be put to great hardship and injury. Hence, prays for dismissing the suit costs.
4. The defendants have submitted in the additional written statement that, plaintiff filed this suit on the basis of common passage referred in FDP No.21/1995 in O.S.No.7412/1980. Said order was binding only 'A', 'B' & 'C' schedule properties referred in the said suit. On the basis of the said order, he was falsely claiming the defendants' house property and Eastern side of schedule 'A' property, measuring East - West : 30 feet and North
- South : 28 feet purchased by their father, under the registered sale deed dated 12.06.1950. The passage is East - West : 30 feet and North - South : 4 feet was purchased by the mother of these 5 O.S.No.1882/2011 defendants, under the registered sale deed dated 26.07.1954 to reach their house property. Plaintiff has no right over the said passage property and the said passage property or house property is not subject-matter of either FDP No.21/95 or O.S.No.7412/1980. The order was passed by this court in FDP No.21/1995 is not binding on these defendants. The passage up to defendants' property is purchased by the parents of these defendants, to reach their house only. The defendants are allowed the plaintiff to make use of the passage in front (Northern side) of their house only on humanity consideration. Plaintiff is not entitle to the relief as claimed in the suit. Hence, prays for dismissing the suit.
5. In proof of their case, the plaintiff has got examined himself as P.W.1 and relied upon the documents Exs.P.1 to P.25. On behalf of the defendants, 2nd defendant was examined as D.W.1. Exs.D.1 to D.8 were marked.
6. Heard arguments.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances and the material available in the matter, my learned predecessor has framed the following issues and additional issues as under:
ISSUES (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful and settled possession of suit schedule property as on the date of this suit?
(2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendants are interfering or obstructing the peaceful usage of schedule 'B' property by the plaintiff and his family members?6 O.S.No.1882/2011
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for direction against the defendants to remove the steps put up in the common passage ('B' schedule property) used by the defendants to enter their house and for direction against the defendants, not to put up any construction in the said 'B' schedule property and not to create nuisance by causing obstruction for usage of common passage?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction and other reliefs as sought for?
(5) What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have illegally constructed projecting over and above the common passage as contended in the plaint?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed in the amended plaint?
8. My findings to the above issues and additional issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : Partly in the affirmative. Issue No.2 : In the Negative.
Issue No.3 : In the Negative.
Issue No.4 : In the Negative.
Addl. Issue No.1: In the Negative.
Addl. Issue No.2: in the Negative.
Issue No.5 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1:- Plaint 'A' schedule property is the plaintiff's house property. Plaint 'B' schedule property is the disputed area of common passage. It is narrated in the plaint schedule 'A' as the boundaries of house property. The measurement of the house property schedule 'A' is, East - West : 40 feet and North - South : 7 O.S.No.1882/2011
30 feet, with one house and boundaries as East : properties of defendant No's.1 to 3, West : property belonging to the defendants, North : 5 feet common passage; and South : private property. So, this boundary itself shows the access of property of schedule 'A' is a passage given in the Northern side. The boundaries of schedule 'B' property given as East - West : 120 feet and North - South : 5 feet. The boundaries as East : Pipeline Main Road, West : Public drain, North : private property, and South : defendants and plaintiff properties. So, this schedule also shows the alleged passage is existing in front of Northern side of plaintiff and defendants' properties. It gives access to Pipeline Road in one end and public drain in another end.
Plaintiff's petition FDP No.21/1995 refers to 'A', 'B' & 'C' suit schedule properties. Schedule 'B' property is given to Dayananda and the same was purchased by the defendant No.2's wife. After the common passage in the Northern side of common passage, schedule 'C' property is existing and it belongs to Ramaiah. So, this schedule 'C' property owner Ramaiah, plaintiff and defendant No.2's wife subsequently purchased the schedule 'B' property were uses this common passage. The defendants in the written statement claims it is barely 4 feet as per their title-deed. The topographically of suit property is admitted by both sides of parties. There is no dispute in respect of schedule 'A' property. However, admittedly, schedule 'A' property refers 40 X 30 feet. FDP decree shows the total measurement as 1182.84 sq.ft. 8 O.S.No.1882/2011 Plaintiff/P.W.1 denied the suggestion that, he has changed khatha more than the measurement given in the plaint schedule. However, khatha shown the property measures 30 X 40 feet. It is suggested that, the plaintiff has encroached 2 feet 3 inches in the common passage. It was denied. Whereas, it is pertinent to note that, in the written statement, there is no such defence was taken, as it is the plaintiff who encroached the common passage area. Ex.P.21 is the sale deed of 04.07.1960 executed by Changalaraya Setty and Pamadi Ramachandra Setty in favour of Smt. Nagarathnamma. Since it also refers the common passage, herein it refers the boundaries as East : Pipeline Road, West :
vacant site of Thotadappa, North : 5 feet common passage, and South : Private vacant site. Plaintiff submitted that, it is connected to the defendants' property. Ex.P.22 is the sale deed of 26.07.1954, executed by S. Krishnappa, Advocate, in favour of Pamadi Ramachandra Setty and Changalaraya Setty and here also it refers the boundary. In the Northern side, it refers "£ÀªÀÄäUÀ¼À ¨Á§ÄÛ d«Æä£À zÁj". In that, it refers "zÀQët ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ E¥ÀàvÉÛÊzÀÄ, GvÀÛgÀ - zÀQët ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ £Á®ÄÌ ¤ªÀÄUÉ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀæAiÀÄPÉÌ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ." In respect of this document, it is explained. Ex.P.22 is the sale deed of defendants' father. It refers on existence of house property in the defendants purchased land and refers disputed passage measures 4". The defendants put up construction of house property by encroaching a portion. So, it is although referred as vacant site, measuring 25 X 4 feet, it is already constructed area. Ex.P.23 is the sale 9 O.S.No.1882/2011 deed of 12.06.1950 executed by Smt. Muninanjamma in favour of R. Gopalappa and his wife/defendants' mother - Smt. Venkatamma. The boundaries of schedule property are East : 1st Hiriyappa @ Chikkanna's site, West : Manikyam Mudaliar's 3rd site, North : Road contains 4 sites and passage, and South : Land of Hiriyappa @ Chikkanna, measuring 30 X 28 feet. It is the sale deed of plaintiff's property. So, as per the sale deed of plaintiff, plaintiff's land actually measured 30 X 28 feet. So, the defendants' possession of land is 30 X 32 feet i.e., East - West :
30 feet and North - South 32 feet. However, he denied the suggestion that, out of total measurement of 30 X 32 feet, defendants constructed the house property, measuring East -
West : 30 feet and North - South : 28 feet. The same was denied. He says that, it is extended further also. Further, it is also denied the suggestion that, they left 4 feet for common passage. So, as per the defendants' title-deed, the same was produced by the plaintiff also shows defendants' land is totally measuring 30 X 32 feet. Ex.P.24 is the sale deed of 19.09.1960 executed by Smt. Nagarathnamma and her children in favour of J. Rudrappa and Smt. Gowramma. The sale deed refers on common passage, measuring 5 feet. Whereas, it is proper to consider the narration given in the document. It is a house property purchased from Changalaraya Setty and Pamadi Ramachandra Setty (Ex.P.21 document). This property is measuring 25 X 28 feet. But, in the parent document i.e., Ex.P.21, it refers as East - West : 30 feet 10 O.S.No.1882/2011 and North - South : 28 feet. So, to remove the doubt on measurement, she has taken the signature of earlier vendors Changalaraya Setty and Pamadi Ramachandra Setty. So, as per this document, the suit property infact measures 30 X 28 feet i.e., East - West : 30 feet and North - South : 28 feet. In the earlier document (parent document), it was wrongly mentioned as 25 X 28 feet. But, comparing this document with Ex.P.23 shows while constructing the schedule building, the defendants encroached the portion further. So for the purpose of rectifying this error Ex.P.23 Deed executed. Hence, the defendants' property is in measurement of 30 X 32 feet. It is pertinent to note that, it is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendants were encroached the common passage, it is his case the defendants put up steps in the common passage. Whereas, there is no proof to corroborate the same. As per the contention of the plaintiff, the plaint 'A' schedule property is obtained in the partition suit filed by their mother against the owners of 1st wife of their father Late M. Nanjappa. Suit schedule 'A' property is allotted to plaintiff in the said partition suit. Ex.P.2 is the FDP decree. Plaintiff's mother/Smt. Puttamadamma obtained suit 'A' schedule property. I perused the commissioner's report. Suit 'A' schedule property is measuring 1182.96 sq.ft. So, appreciating these documents, it shows in respect of suit 'A' schedule property, there is no dispute. In respect of suit 'B' schedule property, plaintiff and defendants' title-deeds shows existence of 11 O.S.No.1882/2011 common passage, it is 5 feet as per plaintiff's contention and it is 4 feet as per the defendants' contention. Since the defendants' title-deed shows their property is existing in 30 X 32 feet, and it is 4 feet in front of the defendants' portion. Plaintiff herein has not obtained the commissioner's report for encroachment also. So, appreciating these, I hold Issue No.1 'Partly in the affirmative'.
10. Issue No's.2 & 3 & Addl. Issue No.1:- In O.S.No.8016/2010, which was filed against the same defendants of this suit, wherein also the Hon'ble Court has passed the judgment by partly decreeing the suit and directed the defendants to take care of the passage by avoiding of leakage of water pipelines and causing nuisance in the passage. So, the plaintiff was already existing decreed against these defendants. It is admitted by the defendants that, they have repaired their water pipes and even then the photocopies reflects, at present there is no such nuisance in the passage. the defendants were dumped the materials over the steps existing attached to their wall. In such circumstances, it shows there is no necessity of any mandatory injunction. Plaintiff failed to prove the construction of the projection and steps. Hence, I opine there is no need of mandatory injunction.
11. On perusal of the plaint shows it was elaborately narrated as circumstances causing obstruction in the suit property, by putting blocking the common passage by projecting over and above common passage. It is also narrated on digging 12 O.S.No.1882/2011 the property for repairing the drainage. On perusal of the same shows often there was quarrel between plaintiff and defendants. So, several criminal cases and counter cases were filed by either of the parties. So, it only clearly reflects the gravity of enmity existing between them. Even in para-18 of plaint on referring the cause of action, it was not referred date of construction of projection. There is no photocopies produced in respect of earlier construction and Exs.P.8 & P.9 are referred as earlier photocopies. Whereas, it was taken about little above. On clear perusal of the same also shows existence of projection and steps even earlier to suit also. It is not new construction. In respect of interference, P.W.1 was cross-examined, where he replied as follows:
"The defendants were residing in the property prior to the plaintiff's mother purchased the suit 'A' schedule property. He was not aware that, defendants' mother purchased the property, measuring 30 X 40 feet, for common passage for their purpose."
As per the sketch, suit 'B' schedule property belongs to Dayananda, and it was purchased by 2nd wife - Smt. Sarojamma, on 20.01.2006. From May 2006, it was given on rent. In suit 'A' schedule property, there are 3 persons on rent, in that in one house, plaintiff is residing. He was not aware that, how many people are on rent in the 2nd defendant's house 'B' schedule property. Even in suit 'C' schedule property given to Ramaiah, the tenants are residing. It is true that, the tenants of 'A' 'B' & 'C" schedule properties are getting access through this common 13 O.S.No.1882/2011 passage only. These tenants were owning two-wheeler vehicles. It is admitted that, the defendants were residing in other place. So, at present, the defendants' tenants are residing in schedule houses. Plaintiff's tenants were also residing in suit 'A' schedule property and all of them were residing in this common passage. The crucial admission is all the drainage, electric wires and water pipelines were running through this common passage. It is true that, in front of the defendants' house, the drainage pipe was broken and water come out during repairing work, so the water stored in the passage area. It is also admitted that, the defendants were repaired this passage after taking permission from the court. It is denied that, after defendants purchased the portion of property, the dispute arose between them. According to the plaintiff, when the plaintiff not accepted the offer of defendants for purchasing the suit 'A' land, the dispute arose between them. The defendants' contention is that, the suit was filed on the basis of instigation of Ramamurthy, who was also filed suit against the same defendants. The judgment is marked as Ex.P.20 in O.S.No.8016/2010, dated 11.02.2013. It is specifically said that the suit was dismissed in respect of usage of the common passage. However, the permanent injunction was issued against the defendants restraining them from putting any construction over the passage and causing nuisance and also said that the defendants shall not meddle with seweage and water pipelines frequently by causing any nuisance to the 14 O.S.No.1882/2011 plaintiff or other residents. He admits that, after taking Exs.P.8 & P.9/photocopies, the defendants were repairs the sewerage. It is argued and suggested that, the defendants' house was existing in a little height and because of that steps are existing. For this, he says the steps are existing in the photocoy/Ex.P.30. He denied the suggestion that, without these steps, the defendants cannot enter the house property. His house property is existing in the Western side of defendants' house. It is true that, the defendants were not made any digging work in front of his house. He was also running two-wheeler vehicle in the common passage. It is admitted that, as per Ex.P.15, it shows it is existing in front of common passage and when it was suggested that this building is also causing obstruction to the common passage. He denied the same as saying that he was not causing any obstruction for common passage. So, on perusal of plaintiff's evidence and documents, there is no prima-facie material for causing obstruction by the defendants. All these matters are already considered in O.S.No.8016/2010.
12. 2nd defendant deposed as D.W.1 and replied that, the said steps were put up during the lifetime of his father as their house property was existing in little height. It is admitted that, his wife purchased the property came to the share of Dayananda in FDP proceedings of plaintiff. In the Ex.D.1/sale deed of Smt. Nagarathnamma, it refers 5 feet of common passage. Smt. Nagarathnamma sold it to Rudrappa in the year 1960. At that 15 O.S.No.1882/2011 time, it refers 5 feet of common passage. Rudrappa bequeathed the property through the Will to his children and Ramamurthy purchased the property from Rudrappa's children and in their property also, it refers the common passage of 5 feet. For all these suggestions, D.W.1 replies as not known. It is denied the suggestion that, the encroachment area of 30 X 4 feet, they gives backside of the house property, the same was denied. It is also admitted that, in the said suit, it was decreed in respect of common passage, as defendants shall not cause obstruction to other persons. It is suggested as follows:
"¤.¦.8gÀ bÁAiÀÄavÀæzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj §ºÀÄvÀézÀ zÁjAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄä ªÀĺÀr PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɹ PÀnÖzÉÝÃªÉ JAzÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÉÄà PÀnÖ¹zÁÝgÉ. "
It is denied the suggestion that, by constructing steps in the common passage and by keeping the two-wheeler vehicles, cylinders and utensils, they caused obstruction to the users of common passage. All the suggestions were denied and further suggested that because of that often quarrels starts between them. Defendant replied that, it is the plaintiff who quarreled. It is also admitted that, police were also filed complaint under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. to the Tahsildar against the plaintiff and defendants for making galata. It is admitted that, his children were also educated and his elder brother was also retired from the Police Department. So, it is admitted that, their family members were educated. However, in the written statement, it is said that they are from rural background. On perusal of the photocopies shows the cylinders and utensils were kept over the 16 O.S.No.1882/2011 steps platform and they are not newly constructed. So, in such capacity, it cannot be considered as new cause of obstruction. There is no evidence to show that there is no steps were existing attached to the house building of the defendants.
13. In respect of judgment referred in Ex.P.20, the plaintiff referred the citation (1998) 3 SCC 331 in the case of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Vs. K.M. Krishnaiah, which reads thus:
"Judgment not inter partes admissible in evidence under S.13 as evidence of assertion of a right to property in dispute - Judgment rendered in an earlier suit declaring title of the present appellant in a land - Held, admissible and could be relied upon by appellant in the subsequent suit filed by respondent for grant of permanent injunction against the appellant in respect of the same land, even though respondent was not a party to the earlier suit."
In view of the same, I appreciate the judgment. It also concludes on existence of common passage. But, I consider the width of passage referred here is restricted to passage in front of schedule 'A' only. Plaintiff and defendants admits the common passage. But, there is no evidence to prove that there was no steps attached to the house building of the defendant. Moreover, there is no evidence to show that, steps are made, subsequent to encroaching the common passage. Whereas, the photocopies reveals that, they are existing much earlier and are not newly formed so as to obstruction. While making the projection building, plaintiff was not filed any suit / complaint, there is no iota of evidence to show the construction work. There is no commissioner work for measurement of projection. Moreover, the 17 O.S.No.1882/2011 defendant's title documents clearly reveals they are enjoying the measurement of 30 X 30 feet. So, certainly in front of the defendant's house building i.e., existing in the Eastern side of plaintiff's suit 'A' schedule property, the common passage was measuring 4 feet or less than 5 feet. Truly, the defendants were not parties in FDP proceedings. The common passage measurement in front of suit 'A' schedule property may not continue in the same width even in front of defendant's property, at the Eastern side of suit 'A' schedule property. So, even the plaintiff's pleadings does not says that after 2nd defendant purchased the property of Dayananda, suit 'B' schedule property of FDP proceedings, there is encroachment in front of said suit 'B' schedule property (FDP). Hence, appreciating the same, I hold Issue No's.2 & 3 and Addl. Issue No.1 in the 'Negative'.
14. Issue No.4 & Addl. Issue No.2:- In O.S.No.8016/2010, Ramamurthy filed suit against the defendant No's.1 to 3 of this suit, in respect of the same 'B' schedule passage and the Hon'ble Court has partly decreed the suit and restrained the defendants from causing any obstruction or nuisance to the schedule 'B' property. Admittedly, the tenants of plaintiff and defendants are using the schedule 'A' property. In such circumstances, they are in need of the passage for their day to day life. Certainly, the direction given in the above suit is already binding on the defendants. Hence, there is no necessary of further same order on the same passage. Hence, in view of my findings on Issue 18 O.S.No.1882/2011 No's.1 to 3 and Addl. Issue No.1, plaintiff is not entitle for any reliefs. Accordingly, I hold Issue No.4 & Addl. Issue No.2 in the 'Negative'.
15. Issue No.5:- In view of the reasons stated supra, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw the decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 29th day of May, 2018) (NAGAJYOTHI.K.A) XXIX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiffs' side:-
PW.1 N. Jayaram List of documents exhibited for the plaintiffs' side:-
Ex.P.1 CC of Report of the court commissioner in FDP No.21/1995.
Ex.P.2 CC of final decree in FDP No.21/1995.
Ex.P.3 Certificate issued by BBMP.
Ex.P.4 CC of documents pertaining to houses and vacant
sites.
Ex.P.5 Tax paid receipt.
Ex.P.6 Electricity bill.
Ex.P.7 Water bill.
Exs.P.8}{ Photocopies.
to P.15}{
Exs.P.16}{ Copies of complaints issued to police and
to P.19 }{ acknowledgements from them.
Ex.P.20 CC of judgment in O.S.No.8016/2010, dated
11.02.2013.
19 O.S.No.1882/2011
Ex.P.21 CC of sale deed dated 04.07.1960.
Ex.P.22 CC of sale deed dated 26.07.1954.
Ex.P.23 CC of sale deed dated 12.07.1950.
Ex.P.24 CC of sale deed dated 19.09.1960.
Ex.P.25 CC of letter obtained from BBMP on 25.07.2008.
List of witnesses examined for the defendants' side:-
D.W.1 R.G. Ramaswamy List of documents exhibited for the defendants' side:- Ex.D.1 CC of registered sale deed dated 12.06.1950. Ex.D.2 CC of registered sale deed dated 26.07.1954. Ex.D.3 CC of registered sale deed dated 20.01.2006.
Ex.D.4 CC of Khatha extract.
Ex.D.5 CC of Khatha certificate.
Ex.D.6}{ CC of 3 tax paid receipts.
to D.8}{
XXIX Addl. City Civil Judge,
Bengaluru City.
20 O.S.No.1882/2011
Judgment pronounced in
open Court, vide separate
judgment.
ORDER
The suit is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw the decree accordingly.
XXIX Addl. City Civil Judge,
Bengaluru City.