Bangalore District Court
O.S./4101/2013 on 1 October, 2021
/1/ O.S.No.4101/2013
THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-40), BANGALORE CITY.
Dated on this the 1st day of October, 2021.
-: Present :-
Sri.Khadarsab, B.A, LL.M.,
XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
Original Suit No. 4101/2013
Plaintiffs :-
Sri. K.R. Chandraiah,
Since deceased by his LRs
1. Smt.K.Swetha W/o Late
Chandraiah, 35 years.
2. Puja D/o. Late Chandraiah, 17
years.
Represented by her natural
mother
Smt. K. Swetha.
Both are residing at No.542, 4 th
Cross, 5th Main Road,
Panchasheela Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 072.
[By Sri. Prashanth.C.N, Advocate]
/ VERSUS /
Defendants :-
/2/ O.S.No.4101/2013
1. M.Venkatesh S/o.Late K.
Muniyappa, 41 years,
R/o.No.130/A, 'F' Cross Road,
1st Main Road, Sanjeevini
Nagar, Moodalapalya,
Bangalore - 560 072.
2. Ramachanra. R S/o.
S.Ramaiah, 43 years, R/o.
No.501, 1 Main Road, 10th 'A'
st
Cross Road, Sanjeevini Nagar,
Moodalapalya, Bangalore -
560 072.
3. The Commissioner, Bruhat
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,
N.R. Square, Bangalore.
4. The Assistant Executive
Engineer, Bruhat Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike, 4th Main
Road, M.C.Layout, Vijaya
Nagara, Bangalore - 560 040.
[Defendant No.1 - Exparte]
[By Sri. Sanna Balappa Shetty.K.
Advocate for D.No.2]
[By Sri.NRJ, Advocate for D.No.3 & 4]
***
Date of Institution of the
: 10.06.2013
suit
Suit for declaration,
Nature of suit : Permanent and Mandatory
Injunctions.
/3/ O.S.No.4101/2013
Date of commencement of
evidence : 04.01.2016
Date on which the
judgment is pronounced : 01.10.2021
Years Months Days
Duration taken for disposal : 08 03 22
*****
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration that suit schedule 'B' property is the public road and permanent injunction restraining the defendants No.1 and 2 from proceeding with further construction on the suit schedule 'B' and 'C' properties and mandatory injunction directing the defendants No.3 and 4 to demolish the AC sheet house put up on the suit schedule 'C' property.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under :
/4/ O.S.No.4101/2013
One K.V.Chikkaramaiah has acquired the
property bearing No.542, Khaneshmari Khatha No.1087 carved in Sy.No.52, situated at Herohalli Village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk by virtue of grant from the Mysore Government Order dated 12.5.1972. Subsequently, Tahasildar, Bangalore North Taluk issued a letter to said Chikkaramaiah. As per Hakku Patra, name of Chikkramaiah has been mutated in the records and khatha has been certified and khatha No.1087 has been issued in the name of said Chikkramaiah. Said Chikkaramaiah has constructed house by obtaining necessary permission from the concerned authority. Said Chikkaramaiah has sold the said property to plaintiff under a sale deed dated 7.5.2004. On the date of sale deed itself the /5/ O.S.No.4101/2013 possession of the property has been delivered. As per sale deed, plaintiff's name has been entered in the records and presently khatha in respect of suit schedule 'A' property is standing in the name of plaintiff. Since 7.5.2004 plaintiff and his family members are in possession of the suit schedule property. Government has not formed Site No.95-A. The said site is not at all in existence. There is a 30 Feet road running from North to South i.e., suit schedule 'B' and 'C' properties. The plaintiff, his family members and general public are using the said road for the access to their houses. The defendants have created the documents only with an intention to grab the public property. The defendants have no right, title or interest over the said property. The defendants are falsely claiming the public property as Site No.95-A and the defendants No.1 and 2 are making hectic efforts to /6/ O.S.No.4101/2013 construct building over the said property. There is no ingress and egress for the property of plaintiff, if the defendants are succeeded in raising the construction over the public road. On 22.7.2012 the defendants No.1 and 2 without having any right, title or interest over suit schedule 'B' and 'C' properties have tried to dug the foundation in order to put up AC sheet building with an ulterior motive of enriching themselves by illegal and unlawful methods in order to knock off the public property. Immediately plaintiff approached Chandra Layout Police Station and lodged a complaint, but the police authorities have not initiated any action against the defendants No.1 and 2. Plaintiff has also lodged a complaint to B.B.M.P. B.B.M.P. officials have also not initiated any action against the defendants No.1 and 2. The defendants No.1 and 2 falsely claiming the public /7/ O.S.No.4101/2013 road as Site No.95-A and have also constructed residential house by encroaching public road, thereby they have caused obstruction to the easementary rights of plaintiff and general public. The act of the defendants is illegal, high handed and unauthorised. Hence, prayed for decreeing the suit.
3. In response to suit summons, defendants No.2 to 4 appeared through their respective counsels and defendant No.2 has filed written statement. Defendants No.3 and 4 have not filed their written statement. Though suit summons have been published in the local newspaper upon defendant No.1, but he failed to appear before the Court. Hence, he has been placed ex-parte.
4. Defendant No.2 has denied the claim of plaintiff and specifically contended that plaintiff /8/ O.S.No.4101/2013 has filed the present suit only with an intention to cause harassment to the defendants. There is no cause of action to file the present suit. Defendant No.2 specifically contended that he is the absolute owner in possession of Site No.95/A. The site bearing No.95/A originally allotted to one K.Muniyappa under a Hakku Patra dated 12.08.1973. After the allotment of said site, Muniyappa and his family members have constructed A.C. sheet house and are residing in the said house. Accordingly, khatha was effected. The said Muniyappa and his family members have paid taxes. The said Muniyappa and his wife - Smt. Ramakka died long back and after the death of Muniyappa and his wife Smt.Ramakka, their son M. Venkatesh (defendant No.1) inherited the property and khatha has been transferred in his name. Defendant No.1 along with his family /9/ O.S.No.4101/2013 members have sold half portion of the property bearing No.95/A i.e., 18 X 30 feet along with A.C. sheet house to defendant No.2 under the registered Sale Deed dated 05.11.2012. On the date of Sale Deed itself, the possession of property has been delivered to defendant No.2. As per Sale Deed, name of defendant No.2 has been mutated in BBMP records. Presently khatha in respect of said property is in his name. He paid update tax and has obtained electricity and water connections to the said property. Defendant No.2 has not at all made any encroachment over the public road as alleged by the plaintiff. Plaintiff is falsely claiming that Site No.95-A is a public road. Even the plaintiff has lodged a complaint in LGC(P) No.56/2017 before the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, Bengaluru. In the said case, as per directions of the Court, the B.B.M.P. authorities / 10 / O.S.No.4101/2013 have visited the spot and have filed detailed report stating that there is no encroachment over the public road. By considering the said report, the said case came to be dismissed. Plaintiff has filed the present suit only with an intention to harass the defendants. There is no cause of action to file the suit. The plaintiff sought the relief of declaration, he ought to have paid the court fee under Section 24(b) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act. The court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. On the basis of the pleadings and documents of the parties, the following issues and additional issues have been framed :
ISSUES
1) Whether plaintiff proves that the defendants No.1 and 2 are making / 11 / O.S.No.4101/2013 construction on 'B' & 'C' schedule property illegally ?
2) Whether plaintiff proves that AC sheet roof house wall is illegally put up on schedule 'C' property ?
3) Whether suit is maintainable ?
4) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
5) What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES FRAMED ON 19.03.2018
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule property is the public road?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as sought?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES FRAMED ON 15.07.2019
3) Whether the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is proper or not?
6. In order to prove his case, plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked / 12 / O.S.No.4101/2013 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.30. While cross- examining P.W.1, the counsel for defendants confronted 4 photographs. Witness admitted the said photographs. Accordingly, same have been marked as Exs.D.1 to D.4. In order to substantiate the defence of the defendants, defendant No.2 has been examined as D.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.D.5 to D.28.
7. During the pendency of suit, plaintiff died. His legal representatives came on record.
8. Heard arguments.
9. My findings to the above issues and additional issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the negative.
Issue No.2 : In the negative.
Issue No.3 : In the negative.
Issue No.4 : In the negative.
/ 13 / O.S.No.4101/2013
Addl. Issue No.1 : In the negative.
Addl. Issue No.2 : In the negative.
Addl. Issue No.3 : The court fee paid by
plaintiff is insufficient.
Issue No.5 : As per final order, for
the following:
REASONS
10. Issue Nos.1, 2 and Additional Issue No.1 dated 19.3.2018 :- These issues are interlinked with each other. Hence, in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence, they are taken up together for discussion.
11. Plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration, permanent and mandatory injunctions.
12. In order to establish his case, plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and relied upon documents Exs.P.1 to P.30. The examination-in- chief of P.W.1 is nothing but replica of plaint / 14 / O.S.No.4101/2013 averments. P.W.1 deposed that one Chikkaramaiah was the absolute owner of Site bearing No.542 carved in Sy.No.52. The said property has been allotted by the Government to said Chikkaramaiah and Hakku Patra in respect of said property has also been issued in the name of Chikkaramaiah. The said Chikkaramaiah has constructed residential house and has obtained khatha in respect of said property. Subsequently said Chikkaramaiah has executed registered sale deed in respect of said site i.e., suit schedule 'A' property in his favour on 7.5.2004 as per Ex.P.1. On the date of sale deed itself, the possession of the property has been delivered. As per sale deed, his name has been mutated in the records and presently khatha is standing in his name. He has obtained electricity and water connections to the said property as per Exs.P.2 to P.4. Ex.P.10 is the / 15 / O.S.No.4101/2013 Water Connection Report. He paid electricity bills as per Exs.P.5 and P.12. Ex.P.6 is the Encumbrance Certificate. Ex.P.11 is the Water Bill. Exs.P.7, P.8, P.13 and P.14 are the photographs pertains to suit schedule property. Ex.P.15 is the certified copy of the Hakku Patra in respect of Site No.95 and Ex.P.16 is the Partition Deed dated 12.1.2011. Defendants No.1 and 2 are no way concerned with the public road, even then they have created documents i.e., Ex.P.17 - Hakkupathra, Ex.P.18 - Property Register Extract, Ex.P.19 - Tax Paid Receipt. Defendants No.1 and 2 are claiming that public road is Site No.95-A. Site No.95-A is not at all in existence. The defendants No.1 and 2 colluded with the B.B.M.P. officials and have created the documents. The defendants are trying to construct the building over the public road, thereby they are obstructing the right to way. The / 16 / O.S.No.4101/2013 said road is the only road to approach his house. The defendants have blocked the said road by constructing shed, thereby they have caused obstruction to ingress and egress to his property. Therefore, he lodged Complaints as per Exs.P.21 and 26, but the police authorities have not initiated any action and have issued an Endorsements as per Exs.P.22, 27 and 28. He has lodged complaint to B.B.M.P. as per Ex.P.23. Ex.P.24 is the Acknowledgement. Ex.P.29 is the Layout Plan. The defendants No.1 and 2 have constructed the house in the public road, same has been reported in the Samyuktha Karnataka Daily Newspaper as per Ex.P.30. The defendants have no right, title or interest over the public road. Hence, prayed for decreeing the suit.
13. Plaintiff claims that one Chikkaramaiah / 17 / O.S.No.4101/2013 was the owner of suit schedule 'A' property and the Government has issued Hakku Patra in favour of said Chikkaramaiah, but in his cross-examination at page No.12 he deposed that, "Government has issued Hakku Pathra in respect of Site No.542 in his name." P.W.1 in his plaint and examination-in-chief deposed that he is residing in Site No.542, but in his cross-examination at page No.9 deposed that he is residing in house bearing No.183. The evidence of P.W.1 is contrary to his own plaint pleadings and documents.
14. Though P.W.1 in his examination-in-chief deposed that Site No.95-A is not at all in existence, defendants No.1 and 2 have constructed residential house in a public road and thereby caused obstruction to his easementary rights, but, in his cross-examination at page No.10, he clearly admitted that "Defendant No.2 is residing in House / 18 / O.S.No.4101/2013 No.95/A". He further admitted in his cross- examination at page No.11 that, "Defendant No.2 has constructed building in Site No.95/A measuring 18 x 30 Feet." P.W.1 further admitted in his cross- examination at page No.17 that, "ನಪ-18 ರಲಲ 1 ನನನ ಪಪತವವದಯ ಹನಸರಗನ 30 ಇಇಟಟ 40 ನವನನಶನ ಇರಟವ ಕಟರತಟ ನಮಮದಟ ಇರಟತತದನ ಎನಟನವವದಟ ನಜ." He further deposed that " ನವನಟ ವವಸವವಗರಟವ ಮನನಯಇದ ಸನಸಟಟ ನಇ.95 ಎ ಸಟಮವರಟ 30 ರಇದ 40 ಅಡಗಳ ಅಇತರದಲಲ ಇರಟತತದನ." P.W.1 in his cross- examination at page No.18 clearly admitted that since 9 years, defendant No.2 is residing in Site No.95/A. P.W.1 in his cross-examination at page No.18 clearly admitted that '' ನ.ಪ.7, 8, 13 ಮತಟತ 14 ಫಫನಟನಮನಗಳಲಲ ಕಇಡಟಬರಟವ 2 ನನನ ಪಪತವವದಗನ ಸನನರದ ಮನನ ಪಕಕದಲಲ ರಸನತ ಕಇಡಟಬರಟತತದನ ಎನಟನವವದಟ ನಜ." He further deposed that, "ನನನ ಮನನ ಆದ ನಇತರ ಎರಡಟ ಮನನಗಳಟ ಇರಟತತದನ. ಸದರ ಎರಡಟ ಮನನಗಳಟ ಆದ ನಇತರ 2 ನನನ ಪಪತವವದಯ ಮನನ ಇರಟತತದನ. 2 ನನನ / 19 / O.S.No.4101/2013 ಪಪತವವದಯ ಮನನಯ ಉತತರಕನಕ ರಸನತ ಇದನ ಎನಟನವವದಟ ನಜ ." The evidence of P.W.1 clearly goes to show that defendant No.2 is residing in the house constructed in Site No.95/A.
15. In order to establish their defence, defendant No.2 has been examined as DW.1 and got marked documents Exs.D.5 to D.28. DW.1 deposed that, Government of Mysore has issued Hakku Patra in respect of Site No.95/A in the year 1973 in the name of K.Muniyappa as per Ex.D.5. The said K.Muniyappa died leaving behind his son M.Venkatesh i.e., defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 along with his family members have executed registered sale deed in respect of Site No.95/A on 05.11.2012 as per Ex.D.6. On the date of sale deed itself, possession of property has been delivered. Since then he is in possession of the / 20 / O.S.No.4101/2013 said site. Ex.D.7 is the Encumbrance Certificate. As per Sale Deed, his name has been mutated in BBMP records. Presently katha certificate and katha extract are standing in his name as per Exs.P.8 & P.9. He paid update tax, electricity and water bills as per Exs.D.10 to D.13. Exs.D.14 to D.17 are the photographs in respect of site bearing No.95/A. Ex.D.28 is the certified copy of ration card pertains to him. The plaintiffs have made false representation to the Government and have succeeded in getting various sites. Exs.D.19 to D.21 are the Sale Deeds. Ex.D.22 is the Gift Deed in respect of V.P. Khatha No.646. He further deposed that, as per Sale Deed, he is in possession of the site No.95/A. The plaintiffs are making false allegation that Site No.95/A is not at all in existence. Even they have filed complaint in Case No.56/2017 before the Karnataka Land Grabbing / 21 / O.S.No.4101/2013 Prohibition Court, Bengaluru. Ex.D.23 is the copy of the Complaint, Ex.D.24 is the certified copy of objection. In the said case the Hon'ble Court ordered for local inspection. The BBMP Authorities have inspected the spot and have submitted detailed report as per Ex.D.25. After considering the said report, the Hon'ble Court dismissed the complaint on 08.03.2018 as per Ex.D.27. Ex.D.26 is the order sheet in LGC (P) No.56/2017 on the file of Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, Bangalore. The plaintiffs are no way concerned with the Site No.95/A. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
16. The counsel for the plaintiffs cross- examined DW.1 in length, but the witness adhered to his original version. The counsel for the plaintiffs made a specific suggestion that Site No.95/A is not in existence, witness denied the said / 22 / O.S.No.4101/2013 suggestion. He further made a suggestion that, public road has been encroached, but witness denied the said suggestion. The counsel for the plaintiff made a suggestion that the measurement of site No.95/A is 30 X 40 feet and in the Sale Deed
- Ex.P.6 and the measurement of site No.95/A has been mentioned as 18 X 30 feet, witness admitted the said suggestions. Except this, nothing worth has been elicited from the mouth of DW.1.
17. On perusal of Ex.D.5 - Hakku Patra, it reveals that Government of Mysore allotted Site No.95/A to K.Muniyappa and accordingly, Tahasildar, Bengaluru North issued Hakku Patra to said Muniyappa. On perusal of Ex.P.20 it reveals that said K.Muniyappa died on 5.5.1994. After death of Muniyappa, his son M.Venkatesh and family members have alienated said site No.95/A / 23 / O.S.No.4101/2013 to defendant No.2 as per sale deed - Ex.D.6. Ex.D.7 - Encumbrance Certificate clearly reflects said sale transaction. As per sale deed, name of the defendant No.2 has been mutated in the BBMP records and presently khatha extract and khatha certificate are standing in his name as per Exs.D.8 and 9. In Ex.D.28 - Ration Card pertains to defendant No.2, wherein there is a recital regarding Site No.95/A. Defendant No.2 paid tax, electricity and water charges as per Exs.D.10 to
13. The evidence of P.W.1, D.W.1 coupled with Exs.D.5 to 13 and 23 to 27 - Proceedings and Report submitted in Case No.56/2017 on the file of Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Court, Bengaluru, it clearly goes to show that defendant No.2 has purchased Site No.95/A and has constructed residential house and residing in the said house.
/ 24 / O.S.No.4101/2013
18. On perusal of entire material available on record, it reveals that plaintiffs are claiming that defendant No.2 has made an encroachment over the public road and has constructed the building over the public road and thereby caused obstruction to their easementary right i.e., right to way. Admittedly, present plaintiff and his relatives have filed a complaint against the present defendants No.1 & 2 in LGC (P) No.56/2017 on the file of Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, Bengaluru. The allegation made in the said case and the allegation made in the present suit are one and the same. On perusal of Ex.D.25 - Report submitted by the Assistant Executive Engineer, B.B.M.P., it reveals that there is no encroachment over the public road as alleged by the plaintiff.
19. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.2 has constructed the building by / 25 / O.S.No.4101/2013 encroaching the public road. But, there is no material on record to show that the defendants have constructed building by encroaching the public road. Besides, plaintiff himself produced Exs.D.7 & D.8 photographs. On perusal of said photographs, it clearly reveals that there is no encroachment over the said public road. Besides, PW.1 himself in his cross-examination unequivocally admitted that defendant No.2 is residing in site No.95/A. Further PW.1 in his cross- examination at page No.18 admitted that, '' ನ.ಪ.7, 8, 13 ಮತಟತ 14 ಫಫನಟನಮನಗಳಲಲ ಕಇಡಟಬರಟವ 2 ನನನ ಪಪತವವದಗನ ಸನನರದ ಮನನ ಪಕಕದಲಲ ರಸನತ ಕಇಡಟಬರಟತತದನ ಎನಟನವವದಟ ನಜ.", which clearly goes to show that defendant No.2 has constructed residential house in the Site No.95/A and residing in the said house. Plaintiff claims that defendant No.1 has constructed building in public / 26 / O.S.No.4101/2013 road, but in order to establish the same plaintiff hs utterly failed to produce reliable evidence. It is well settled law that by mere asking Court cannot grant relief.
20. Plaintiff claimed the relief of mandatory injunction. As per Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, in order to claim the relief of mandatory injunction the plaintiff has to establish his rights over the suit schedule property. Besides, mandatory injunction is an order requiring the defendants to do some positive act for the purpose of putting an end to wrongful state of things created by them or otherwise in fulfillment of their legal obligation. In this case plaintiff has utterly failed to prove the fact that the defendant No.2 has constructed building by encroaching public road, hence the question of demolition of building does not arise at all.
/ 27 / O.S.No.4101/2013
21. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent and mandatory injunctions, thereby claiming the easementary rights. It is well settled law that in order to claim the relief of easementary rights, plaintiff ought to have pleaded and proved his easementary rights over the suit schedule property.
22. On perusal of the plaint, it clearly goes to show that entire case of the plaintiff is that, the defendant No.2 has constructed building in the public road and thereby caused obstruction to his easementary rights. The plaintiff has not pleaded that how he is entitled to easementary right of way over the suit schedule property. The fact to be pleaded and proved for establishing title are different from the facts that are to be pleaded and proved for making out easementary rights. In a suit for enforcement of an easementary right relates to / 28 / O.S.No.4101/2013 a right possessed by a dominant owner over a property not his own having the effect of restricting the natural rights of the owner of such property. Easement can be acquired by different ways and are of different kinds, i.e., easement by prescription, easement by necessity, easement by grant, etc., A dominant owner seeking relief relating to an easement by prescription shall have to plead and prove the nature of easement, manner of acquisition of easementary right and the manner of disturbance or obstruction to the easementary right. But, in this case the plaintiff has not at all specifically pleaded regarding what type of easementary rights he has acquired over suit schedule property. Hence, without pleading Court cannot infer that plaintiff has got easementary rights by referring to a stray sentence here and there in the pleadings.
/ 29 / O.S.No.4101/2013
23. On perusal of entire plaint, the plaintiff is claiming the prescriptive easementary rights as provided under Section 15 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882 and not for easement of necessity.
24. In view of the above discussions and also subject matter of the suit, the plaintiff has filed this suit for the relief of declaration, permanent and mandatory injunctions claiming that he has got easementary rights over the suit schedule 'B' and 'C' properties. Hence, as per Section 15 of Indian Easement Act, 1882, plaintiff has failed to prove his alleged easementary rights over the suit schedule 'B' and 'C' properties. The plaintiff has filed the present suit on imaginary cause of action. There is no cause of action to file the present suit. Accordingly, I answer Issue Nos.1, 2 and additional Issue No.1 dated 19.03.2018 in the negative.
/ 30 / O.S.No.4101/2013
25. Issue No.3:- Admittedly, defendants
No.3 and 4 are the B.B.M.P. officials. As per
Section 482 of K.M.C.Act, 60 days prior notice is mandatory. Plaintiff neither issued prior notice as contemplated under Section 482 of K.M.C.Act nor he has filed an application under Section 482 (1-A) of K.M.C. Act seeking leave to institute suit, without serving any notice as required under Section 482 (1) of K.M.C.Act, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form. Hence, suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 in the negative.
26. Additional Issue No.3 dated 15.07.2019:- The defendants in their written statement have contended that plaintiff ought to have paid court fee on actual market value of the suit schedule 'B' & 'C' properties. On perusal of the / 31 / O.S.No.4101/2013 plaint pleadings, it reveals that the plaintiff has sought the relief of declaration that suit schedule 'B' property is the public road and permanent and mandatory injunctions and has paid the court fee under Section 44 of the Karnataka Court Fee & Suits Valuation Act. Section 44 deals with the suits relating to the public matter. But, the plaintiff has filed the present suit on individual capacity. Hence, he has to pay the court fee under Section 24(b) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Hence, the court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient. Accordingly, I answer Additional Issue No.3 as the court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient.
27. Issue No.4 & Addl. Issue No.2 dated 19.03.2018:- As discussed supra, the plaintiff has failed to establish his rights over the suit schedule / 32 / O.S.No.4101/2013 'B' & 'C' properties and also failed to prove that suit schedule 'B' & 'C' properties are the public road and defendant No.2 has constructed residential house in the public road and thereby caused hindrance to his easementary rights. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.4 and Addl. Issue No.2 in the negative.
28. Issue No.5:- For the forgoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, typed directly on computer, script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, this the 1st day of October, 2021).
(KHADARSAB) XXXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
***
/ 33 / O.S.No.4101/2013
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for plaintiff :
P.W.1 : K.R. Chandraiah
2. List of documents exhibited for plaintiff :
Ex.P1 Sale deed dated 07/05/2004. Ex.P2 Card issued by BWSSB for water connection.
Ex.P3 Application for water connection (4 sheets).
Ex.P4 Application for electricity connection.
Ex.P5 3 Electricity bills.
Ex.P6 Encumbrance certificate.
Ex.P7& P8 Photos.
Ex.P9 CD.
Ex.P10 C/c of application for water
connection.
Ex.P11 Electricity bills.
& P 12
Ex.P13 & 14 C/c of photos.
Ex.P15 C/c of Hakkupathra.
Ex.P16 C/c of partition deed dt. 12/1/2011.
Ex.P17 Hakkupatra dated 12/8/1973.
Ex.P18 C/c of property register extract.
Ex.P19 C/c of tax paid receipt.
Ex.P20 C/c of death certificate of
K.Muniyappa.
Ex.P21 Notarized copy of complaint dated
22/7/2012 given to Chandra Layout PS. / 34 / O.S.No.4101/2013 Ex.P22 Endorsement issued by Chandra Layout PS. Ex.P23 Copy of Complaint lodged to BBMP. Ex.P24 Acknowledgement issued by BBMP. Ex.P25 Complaint lodged to Asst.
Executive Engineer, BBMP. Ex.P26 True copy of police complaint dated 02.12.2013.
Ex.P27 NCR issued by SHO, Chandra Layout PS. Ex.P28 Endorsement dated 2/12/2013 issued by Chandra Layout PS. Ex.P29 Certified copy of the layout plan.
Ex.P30 Samuyuktha Karnataka Kannada
Daily Newspaper dated
14.12.2015.
Ex.P30(a) Relevant portion of publication
relating to this suit in Ex.P30.
3. List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendants : -
D.W.1 : Ramachandra R
4. List of documents produced by
defendants :-
Ex.D.1 to D.4 : Four photographs.
Ex.D.5 : Hakkupathra in respect site No.95A.
Ex.D.6 : Original Sale Deed dated 05.11.2012.
Ex.D.7 : C/c of Encumbrance Certificate
/ 35 / O.S.No.4101/2013
Ex.D.8 & 9 :C/c of Khatha certificate & Khatha extract in respect of site No.95A.
Ex.D.10 : Tax paid receipt dated
04.12.2014.
Ex.D.11 : Tax paid receipt dated 19.09.2020. Ex.D.12 : Two electricity bills.
Ex.D.13 Water bill along with receipt. Exs.D.14 : Four photographs.
to D.17 Ex.D.18 : CD in respect of Exs.D.14 to D.17. Ex.D.19 : C/c of Sale Deed dt. 17.02.2005. Ex.D.20 : C/c of Sale Deed dt. 04.01.2013. Ex.D.21 : C/c of Sale Deed dt 20.08.2015. Ex.D.22 : C/c of Gift Deed dated 8.02.2016. Ex.D.23 : C/c of complaint filed in Case No.56/2017 on the file of Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Court, Bangalore.
Ex.D.24 : Statement of objections filed in Case No.56/2017 on the file of Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Court, Bangalore.
Ex.D.25 : C/c of report submitted by AEE, Chandra Badavane Sub-Division, Bangalore.
Ex.D.26 : C/c of order sheet in Case No.56/2017 on the file of Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Court, Bangalore.
Ex.D.27 : Order passed in Case No.56/2017 on the file of Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Court, Bangalore.
/ 36 / O.S.No.4101/2013 Ex.D.28 : C/c of ration card issued by Food,
Civil Supplies & Consumers Affairs Dept. (KHADARSAB), XXXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
***
/ 37 / O.S.No.4101/2013
01/10/2021
Judgment pronounced in the Open
Court, vide separate Judgment :
ORDER
Suit of the plaintiff is hereby
dismissed with cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(KHADARSAB)
XXXIX ACC & S Judge,
Bangalore City.
***