Bangalore District Court
Sri.Altaf Ahmed vs Smt.Ashwathamma on 27 January, 2016
Govt. Of Karnataka
C.R.P.67] TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE,
Form No.9 MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE.
(Civil)
Title sheet for Present: Sri. B.NARAYANAPPA, M.A, LL.B.,
Judgment in
suits (R.P.91) (Name of the Presiding Judge)
OS NO.25653/2008
(CCH-22)
PLAINTIFF:-
Sri.Altaf Ahmed, S/o Sri.L.Abdul Ghaffoor, Aged about 41 yrs, R/at # 298/1,
Thimmiah Road, Shivajinagar, Bangalore-51. By his GPA Holder
Sri.M.Sanaulla, S/o Late. Sri.Amanulla, R/at # 298/1, Thimmiah Road,
Shivajinagar, Bangalore-51.
(Plaintiff: By Advocate Sri.M.L.Dayananda Kumar)
V/s.
DEFENDANTS:-
1. Smt.Ashwathamma, W/o Late. Sri.Papaiah, Major.
2. Sri.P.Umesh, S/o Late. Sri.Papaiah, Major.
3. Sri.Radhakrishna.P, S/o Late. Sri.Papaiah, Major,
All r/at # 5/36, Kadugondanahalli, Bangalore-45.
(Defendants-1 to 3: By Advocate Sri.Shantesh Gureddi)
Date of Institution of the suit 11.04.2008
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit for Permanent Injunction
declaration and possession, suit for
injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of recording of 30.8.2011
the Evidence.
Date on which the Judgment was 27.01.2016
pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 07 09 16
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL UNIT: BANGALORE.
2 OS No.25653/2008
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants seeking relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case are that:
The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he has acquired the same under Deed of Sale dated: 31.3.2004 and got Khata transferred in his name and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by paying taxes to BBMP and he has paid upto date tax. The defendants have no manner of right, title and interest in the schedule premises, are trying to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful and enjoyment of the same. The suit schedule property is enclosed with a compound wall on all the sides. The defendants with an intention to grab the land tried to interfere with the plaintiff's possession over the suit 3 OS No.25653/2008 schedule property and tried to demolish the compound wall. Immediately, the PA holder of the plaintiff obstructed the illegal act of the defendants on 9.4.2008. Then the defendants went away from the scene by threatening the plaintiff that, they will dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff approached the jurisdictional police, but, they did not receive the complaint and informed the plaintiff to approach civil court. Hence, the plaintiff has constrained to file the present suit seeking relief of Permanent Injunction against the defendants.
3. After registration of this suit, suit summons were issued to defendants-1 to 3. In-response to the summons, defendants-1 to 3 appeared before this court through their counsel and filed written-statement denying all the material averments made in the plaint and contended that, the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands. Property in Sy.No.141 of Kadugondanahalli, Bangalore, now coming 4 OS No.25653/2008 within the limits of BBMP Ward No.94 to an extent of 1 Acre 30 Guntas belonged to Sri.Papaiah, the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants-2 and 3 and the husband of defendant No.1 passed away on 26.8.1999. After his demise, said Property belongs to the defendants and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The husband of defendant No.1 late.Papaiah during his lifetime not conveyed the Property or any portion thereof in favour of the plaintiff nor executed any GPA in favour of anybody and the defendants have also not parted with the right and possession of the Property in favour of anybody. The alleged execution of Sale Deed dated: 31.3.2004 in favour of the plaintiff by Papaiah through his GPA holder, does not arise and even otherwise, on the date of execution of the alleged Sale Deed dated: 31.3.2004, Papaiah was not alive. The plaintiff does not have any manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and he is not in possession of the same. The 5 OS No.25653/2008 alleged interference by the defendants as alleged by the plaintiff are all false. The defendants are in possession of the entire extent of 1 Acre 30 Guntas. Hence, alleged trespass or interference does not arise. Therefore, defendants prays to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.
4. On the basis of the above Pleadings, following Issues have been framed:
1) Whether the Plaintiff proves his lawful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property, as on the date of the suit?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves alleged interference by the defendants?
3) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the relief sought for?
4) What decree or order?
5. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, has got his filed affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. In support of his case, the plaintiff has also got filed affidavit of one 6 OS No.25653/2008 witness by way of examination in chief. Same were taken as PW1 and PW2 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P17 and closed his side evidence. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendants, defendant No.2 has filed his affidavit by way of examination in chief. Same was taken as DW1 and got marked the documents at Exs.D1 to D18 and closed the evidence of the defendants.
6. I have heard the arguments of the both sides.
7. My findings to the above Issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: In the affirmative Issue No.2: In the affirmative Issue No.3: In the affirmative Issue No.4: As per the final orders, for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NOS. 1 TO 3:- Since, Issue Nos. 1 to 3 are inter-linked with each other they are taken up together for common discussion in order to avoid the repetition of facts. It 7 OS No.25653/2008 is the case of the plaintiff that, he has purchased the suit schedule property vide registered Sale Deed dated: 31.3.2004 and got Khata transferred in his name and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by paying taxes to BBMP and he has paid upto date tax. The defendants have no manner of right, title and interest over the suit schedule property, are trying to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful and enjoyment of the same. Hence, the plaintiff has constrained to file the present suit for the relief of Permanent Injunction against the defendants. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendants that, Property in Sy.No.141 of Kadugondanahalli, Bangalore-45, measuring 1 Acre 30 Guntas belonged to Sri.Papaiah who is none other than the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants- 2 and 3 and the husband of defendant No.1 passed away on 26.8.1999. After his demise, said Property belongs to the defendants and they are in possession and enjoyment of the 8 OS No.25653/2008 same. Said Papaiah during his lifetime has not at all executed any GPA nor Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff through his GPA holder. Hence, there is no conveyance of the suit schedule property made in favour of the plaintiff by Papaiah and the possession of the suit schedule property was not at all delivered to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property and he is not in possession of the same and plaintiff has not come before the court with clean hands and it is the further case of the defendants that, they are in possession of the entire extent of 1 Acre 30 Guntas in Sy.No.141, including the suit schedule property, which is part and parcel of said Survey Number.
9. PW1/plaintiff in his affidavit evidence has reiterated and re-affirmed the contents of the plaint averments and he has got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P17. The description of the documents at Exs.P1 to P17 are as under: 9 OS No.25653/2008
Ex.P1 : Original Sale Deed dated: 31.3.2004 Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW2 on Ex.P1 Ex.P2 : Khata certificate Ex.P3 : Khata Registration Ex.P4 : Tax paid receipts total 7 in numbers Ex.P5 : Nil Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P6 : Two photographs Ex.P7 : CD of Ex.P6 Ex.P8 : Receipt of betterment charges Ex.P9 : Office Copy of the plaint in OS No.911/2006 sent by the Hon'ble City Civil Court, Bangalore.
Ex.P10 : Office copy of written-statement in OS
No.911/2006
Ex.P11 : Certified copy of the order sheet in OS
No.911/2006
Exs.P12 : Photographs
to P17
Pw-1 in his cross-examination led by the defendants counsel has stated that, one Papaiah had made sites in the Survey Number. He does not know as to whether there is a layout plan. Said Papaiah had executed GPA in favour of 10 OS No.25653/2008 Anwar Shariff. He has denied the suggestion that, Papaiah had not executed any GPA to anybody. He does not know that, on 26.8.1999, said Papaiah died. He denied the suggestion that, on 31.3.2004, said Papaiah was not alive. He further denied the suggestion that, the GPA holder had no power to sell the Property in his favour. He denied the suggestion that, till the date of the death of Papaiah, he [Papaiah] was in possession of 1 Acre 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.141 and he denied the suggestion that, as on the date of the suit, defendants were in possession of the suit schedule property, as owners and he further denied the suggestion that, he is not in possession of the suit schedule property.
10. PW2-Masood Parveez in his affidavit has supported the affidavit evidence of PW1. Cross-examination of PW2 was taken as Nil, since the defendants and their counsel were absent and did not cross-examine PW2.11 OS No.25653/2008
11. DW1/defendant No.2 in his affidavit evidence has reiterated and re-affirmed the contents of written-statement and has got marked the documents at Exs.D1 to D18. The description of documents at Exs.D1 to D18 are as under:
Ex.D1 : Certified copy of the land tribunal order Ex.D2 : Certified copy of the sketch Ex.D3 : Endorsement Ex.D4 : Certified copy of the mutation register extract Ex.D5 : Notary prepared affidavit of Genealogical tree Exs.D6 : RTC extracts with respect to Sy.No.141 to D17 Ex.D18 : Certified copy of the death certificate of Papaiah DW2 in his cross-examination led by the plaintiff's counsel has stated that, no sites were formed in Sy.No.141. He is not residing in land Sy.No.141. Once in a week, he used to visit the suit schedule property. After the death of his 12 OS No.25653/2008 father, he has not sold any Property to anybody. He denied the suggestion that, several houses have been constructed in Sy.No.141 and roads have been formed by the Government. He denied the suggestion that, his father had executed Power of attorney in favour of Anwar Sharieff in the year 1988 in respect of site Nos. 1 and 2 and he denied the suggestion that, on the strength of the power of attorney, Anwar Sharieff sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. He denied the suggestion that, from the date of Sale Deed dated: 31.3.2004, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and constructed compound wall around the suit schedule property. He denied the suggestion that, he has created Ex.D18-Death Certificate of Papaiah and he further denied the suggestion that, the death certificate produced is not the death certificate of Papaiah and he further denied the suggestion that, about 60% of land in Sy.No.141 has been developed by constructing buildings. He further 13 OS No.25653/2008 denied the suggestion that, during the lifetime of his father, his father himself had executed Sale Deeds and a GPA in respect of 60% of the developed land in Sy.No.141. He further denied the suggestion that, he is not in possession of the suit schedule property and he has no right over the same and he further denied the suggestion that, he has created the RTCs.
12. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that, he has purchased the suit schedule property through the GPA holder of M.Papaiah by name A.S.Anwer Shareef, but, the defendants have denied that, said Papaiah had executed GPA in favour of A.S.Anwer Shareef nor executed absolute Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property by M.Papaiah through the GPA holder A.S.Anwer Shareef and the defendants have contended that, the original landlord of Sy.No.141 of Kadugondanahalli, Bangalore-45, measuring 1 Acre 30 Guntas by name Papaiah was passed 14 OS No.25653/2008 away on 26.8.1999, whereas, the alleged Sale Deed was came into existence on 31.3.2004 and further contended that, said M.Papaiah was not alive as on the date of execution of Ex.P1-Absolute Sale Deed. Even if said Papaiah had executed GPA in favour of A.S.Anwer Shareef is taken into consideration, but, contended that, when M.Papaiah was not alive on the date of execution of Ex.P1, the question of execution of Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff by the GPA holder of Papaiah does not arise at all, since on the date of execution of Ex.P.1 the said Papaiah was not alive.
Therefore, the Defendants contends that Ex.P1-Absolute Sale Deed has no value in the eye of law. But, the plaintiff has totally denied Ex.D18-Death certificate of Papaiah and PW1/plaintiff in his cross-examination has stated that, he do not know that, on 26.8.1999 said Papaiah had died and he further denied the suggestion that, on 31.3.2004, said Papaiah 15 OS No.25653/2008 was not alive and he contended that, Ex.D18-Death certificate of Papaiah is created.
13. The defendants in order to prove the death of Papaiah on 26.8.1999, except marking Ex.D18-Death Certificate of Papaiah, have not got examined the Author of Ex.D18. In the absence of evidence of the Author of Ex.D18 who had issued Ex.D18-Death certificate of Papaiah, the contents of Ex.D18 that, said Papaiah had died on 26.8.1999 cannot be believed. On perusal of Ex.P1-Absolute Sale Deed, it is crystal clear that, the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property on 31.3.2004 from the GPA holder by name A.S.Anwer Shareef executed by the original landlord M. Papaiah for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.75,000/-. Ex.P1 is the registered Sale Deed, therefore, it has got its own evidentiary value in the eye of law. Therefore, the contention of the defendants that, said Papaiah had not at all executed Ex.P1-registered Sale Deed through his GPA holder 16 OS No.25653/2008 A.S.Anwer Shareef in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the suit schedule property, holds no water and by virtue of Ex.P1-registered Sale Deed, the plaintiff has become the owner of the suit schedule property, which is part and parcel of Sy.No.141 of Kadugondanahalli, Bangalore-45, totally measuring to an extent of 1 Acre 30 Guntas and the suit schedule property is part and parcel of Sy.No.141.
14. On perusal of Ex.P2-Khata certificate , which clearly goes to show that, the Khata of the suit schedule property is standing in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.P3 goes to show that, the BBMP had issued Notice to the plaintiff regarding fixation of tax to the suit schedule property. Ex.P4-Tax paid receipts in 7 numbers goes to show that, the plaintiff has paid tax to the suit schedule property to the concerned authority and more particularly Ex.P4 goes to show that, the plaintiff has paid tax to the suit schedule property for the years 2008-09 the year in which the present suit was came 17 OS No.25653/2008 to be filed by the plaintiff. Exs.P6 and P7-Photograps, which shows the existence of the suit schedule property. Ex.P8- Betterment charges paid receipt, which goes to show that, the plaintiff has paid betterment charges to the suit schedule property. So, from the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff at Ex.P1-registered Sale Deed, it is crystal clear that, the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property and become the owner of the same and got changed the Khata of the suit schedule property in his name and by paying the tax, the plaintiff was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, as on the date of filing of the present suit.
15. Defendant No.1 is none other than the wife of late.Papaiah, who was the original owner of Sy.No.141 of Kadugondanahlli, Bangalore-45, measuring 1 Acre 30 Guntas. The suit schedule property is part and parcel of the said Sy.No.141 alleged to have been sold by Late.Papaiah through his GPA holder in favour of the plaintiff and defendants-2 18 OS No.25653/2008 and 3 are none other than the sons of late.Papaiah and defendant No.1 and all the defendants claiming that, after the death of Papaiah, they succeeded the land Sy.No.141 of Kadugondahanalli, Bangalore measuring 1 Acre 30 Guntas and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and they further contended that, at no point of time said Papaiah had sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff through his GPA holder. Therefore, the defendants contended that, the Sale Deed at Ex.P1 is illegal. Therefore, the plaintiff does not have any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and he [plaintiff] is not in peaceful possession of the same.
16. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon a ruling reported in AIR 2004 SC 4609 [Rame Gowda [D] by LRs Vs. M.Varadappa Naidu [D] by LRs], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed thus:
"Specific Relief Act[ 47 of 1963]-S.38-Injuncton- Restraining defendant from interfering with peaceful 19 OS No.25653/2008 possession of plaintiff- Failure by either party to prove title- Plaintiff in settled possession-It entitles him to protect his possession-Grant of In junction proper".
The afore cited respected ruling is aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand. In the present case on hand, the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property under the registered Sale Deed and by getting transfer the Khata in his name and by paying the tax to the suit schedule property, he was in lawful/settled possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, as owner thereof. Therefore, the afore cited respected ruling rendered on the point of settled possession, is applicable to the present set of facts on hand.
17. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendants has relied on a ruling reported in (2012) 1 SCC 656 [Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited Vs. State of Haryana and another], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held thus:
20 OS No.25653/2008
" Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Ss. 54, 55, 53-A, 105, 107, 5 and 8-Immovable Property-Proper mode of transfer/conveyance of-General Power of attorney sales (GPA sales) or sale agreements/general power of attorney/will transfers while testator is alive (SA/GPA/living will transfers)-Legality- Held, immovable Property can be transferred/conveyed only by deed of conveyance (Sale Deed) duly stamped and registered as required by law-Explaining the nature and scope of an agreement of sale, power of attorney and living will, held, GPA sales or SA/GPA/living will transfers neither convey any title nor do they amount to transfer of, or create interest in, immovable Property except to the limited extent of S.53-A-Observations of Delhi High Court in Asha.M.Jain case (2001) 94-DLT 841 that attorney sale was a recognized mode of transaction, held, unwarranted and unjustified".
As per the aforementioned respected ruling relied by the learned counsel for the defendants, the GPA holder can transfer the immovable Property only when the testator is alive. In the present case on hand, the learned counsel for the defendants has contended that, at the time of execution of 21 OS No.25653/2008 Ex.P1-registered Sale Deed, the testator of the GPA was not alive. Hence, Ex.P1-Registered Sale Deed has no value in the eye of law. I have already come to the conclusion while answering Issue No.1 that, though the defendants have relied on Ex.D18-Death certificate of Papaiah stating that, said Papaiah died on 26.8.1999 and subsequent to the death of Papaiah, Ex.P1-registered Sale Deed was came to be registered in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property, but, the defendants have not at all examined the Author of Ex.D18 in order to prove the contents of Ex.D18 and the plaintiff has totally denied Ex.D18 and also he denied the death of Papaiah on the date of execution of Ex.P1-Registered Sale Deed in his [plaintiff] favour. Therefore, under such circumstances the afore-cited ruling relied by the defendants counsel will not come to the aid of the defendants. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, the plaintiff has proved that, he was in lawful/settled possession of 22 OS No.25653/2008 the suit schedule property, as on the date of filing of the present suit.
18. I have already come to the conclusion and hold that, the plaintiff was in lawful/settled possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has contended that, the defendants have no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property and they tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property on 9.4.2008 and the plaintiff/PW1 in his affidavit evidence has also stated the same and in view of the defendants are claiming that, they are in possession of entire land of Sy.No.141 of Kadugondanahalli, Bangalore, measuring 1 Acre 30 Guntas, by denying the execution of Ex.P1-registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property, which is part and parcel of Sy.No.141, by late.Papaiah through his GPA holder, under such circumstances, it is clear that, the defendants tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff 23 OS No.25653/2008 over the suit schedule property, even though the defendants are knowing fully well that, late.Papaiah had executed Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property through his GPA holder. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, the plaintiff has also proved alleged interference by the defendants.
19. The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendants seeking relief of Permanent Injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. I have already come to the conclusion and hold that, the plaintiff has proved his lawful/settled possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the present suit and also the Plaintiff has proved the alleged interference of the defendants over the suit schedule property. Though the defendants have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property, they have tried to interfere over the 24 OS No.25653/2008 same. Even though the defendants are knowing very well that, the suit schedule property has been sold by late.Papaiah who is none other than the husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants-2 and 3, through his GPA holder in favour of the plaintiff, even then, defendants tried to interfere with the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Under such circumstances, the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property has to be protected by the order of the court. Therefore, I am of the considered view that, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief, as sought for. Hence, I answer Issue Nos. 1 to 3 in the Affirmative.
20. ISSUE NO.4:- In-view of the reasons stated on Issue Nos.1 to 3 above, I proceed to pass the following: 25 OS No.25653/2008
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed.
2) Defendants- 1 to 3, their men, agents, etc., are hereby restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff, by way of Permanent Injunction.
3) No order as to costs.
4) Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 27th day of January 2016).
(B.NARAYANAPPA) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.
SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of premises bearing No.3, 1st Main Road, Kushalnagar, Ward No.94, Kadugondanahalli, Bangalore with PID No.94-127-3, (earlier Site No.2, in Block 1, 26 OS No.25653/2008 portion of Katha No.141, situated at Kadugondanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore) measuring 25'x 57', bounded on:
East by: 25' wide Road West by: Remaining portion of the land North by: Private Property South by: Private Property.
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURES:-
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
P.W.1 : Altaf Ahmed 30.8.2011
P.W.2 : Masood Parveez 26.7.2012
27 OS No.25653/2008
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P1 : Original Sale Deed dated: 31.3.2004
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW2 on Ex.P1
Ex.P2 : Khata certificate
Ex.P3 : Khata Registration
Ex.P4 : Tax paid receipts total 7 in numbers
Ex.P5 : Nil Encumbrance Certificate
Ex.P6 : Two photographs
Ex.P7 : CD of Ex.P6
Ex.P8 : Receipt of betterment charges
Ex.P9 : Office Copy of the plaint in OS
No.911/2006 sent by the Hon'ble City
Civil Court, Bangalore.
Ex.P10 : Office copy of written-statement in OS
No.911/2006
Ex.P11 : Certified copy of the order sheet in OS
No.911/2006
Exs.P12 : Photographs
to P17
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE
DEFENDANTS:
DW1 : P.Umesh 5.7.2014/4.8.2014
28 OS No.25653/2008
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D1 : Certified copy of the land tribunal order
Ex.D2 : Certified copy of the sketch
Ex.D3 : Endorsement
Ex.D4 : Certified copy of the mutation register
extract
Ex.D5 : Notary prepared affidavit of
Genealogical tree
Exs.D6 : RTC extracts with respect to Sy.No.141 to D17 Ex.D18 : Certified copy of the death certificate of Papaiah XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT: BANGALORE.29 OS No.25653/2008
27.1.16 Pltff: MLD Defts:SG Judgement Judgement pronounced in the open court (Vide separate detailed Judgement) Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed.
2) Defendants- 1 to 3, their men, agents, etc., are hereby restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff, by way of Permanent Injunction.
3) No order as to costs.
4) Draw decree accordingly.
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT: BANGALORE.
30 OS No.25653/2008