Bangalore District Court
O.S./1533/2013 on 13 October, 2017
THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
Dated on this the 13th day of October 2017
-: Present :-
Smt. M.Komalatha, B.Sc., LL.B.
XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.1533/2013
Plaintiff :-
A.M.Sridhar S/o. Late A.B.Muniavalappa,
47 years, R/o.No.8, 2nd Main, Adugodi,
Bengaluru - 560 030.
[By M/s.M.J.Alva & Co., Advocate]
/ VERSUS /
Defendants :-
1. The Commissioner, Bruhat
Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,
N.R.Square, Bengaluru - 560 002.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
BBMP, Koramangala Sub-Division,
2nd Cross, 17th A Main, 5th Block,
Koramangala, Bengaluru-560 034.
3. Smt.K.Shailaja W/o.Parameshwara,
39 years, R/o.No.12, Peddanna
Galli, Bazaar Street, Adugodi,
Bengaluru - 560 030.
(Sri.H.P.L., Advocate for D.No.3.
Defendants No.1 and 2 - Ex-parte)
Date of Institution of the suit : 23.02.2013
Nature of suit : Suit for injunction
Date of commencement of : 19.11.2015
evidence
Date on which the judgment is : 13.10.2017
pronounced
Years Months Days
Duration taken for disposal :
04 07 21
***
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants seeking the relief of mandatory injunction for directing the defendants No.1 and 2 to demolish the unauthorised construction put up by the defendant No.3 on the 'B' schedule property deviating from sanctioned plan. Alternatively, for a decree of mandatory injunction by directing the defendant No.3 to demolish the construction put up by him on 'B' schedule property deviating from the sanctioned plan. In the event of her failure to comply, pass a Judgment and Decree to demolish the deviated portion in the 'B' schedule property through the process of the Court and to recover the cost of demolition from the defendant No.3.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows :-
That, the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of the 'A' schedule property. Defendant No.3 is the owner of 'B' schedule property. 'A' schedule property is comprising of two shops and other residential units, out of which, the plaintiff had got demolished the residential portion with a view to put up new building in its place by retaining the two shop portions. He has already got evicted the tenants from the said shops also and the same is in his exclusive possession.
3. That, the third defendant commenced the construction of commercial building by demolishing the old existing residential building in gross violation of the building byelaws and without leaving setback area as statutorily prescribed under the building bye-laws of the City of Bengaluru, by encroaching upon the eastern portion of the 'A' schedule property. Plaintiff lodged complaint with defendants No.1 and 2 on 15.11.2011 complaining about the illegal and unauthorised construction and encroachment, wherein the defendant No.2 had got issued a notice to her under Section 321 of K.M.C.Act. Immediately defendant No.3 filed suit in O.S.No.9072/2011 on the file of this Court seeking injunction without making the plaintiff as party therein. In the said suit he had filed an application to implead him as defendant No.3. The said application has been dismissed by this Court. While rejecting the application this Court has held that if there is any grievance, the proposed defendant has got right to challenge the same in an independent proceedings and he cannot be impleaded. He got issued notice to the defendants No.1 and 2 on 18.10.2012 in compliance of Section 482 of K.M.C. Act and the same was personally served on the defendants No.1 and
2. In spite of service of notice, the defendants failed to take any action against the defendant No.3 or reply to the notice or prevent her from proceeding with the illegal construction.
4. That, the actual measurement of the 'B' schedule property of defendant No.3 is East to West 35 Feet (10.66 meters) and North to South 47 Feet (14.36 meters), totally measuring 1,645 Sq.Ft. In between schedule A and B properties there was rain water drain with a width of 2 feet. On the eastern side of the property of defendant No.3 there was a common passage with the width of 8 feet. While putting up the construction, the defendant No.3 has encroached upon the 2 feet wide rain water drain area and also encroached upon the common area situated on the eastern side of the 'B' schedule property. The defendant has completely covered the rain water area on the western side of the 'B' schedule property and put up construction touching the existing old building of the plaintiff. The rain water drain area of 2 feet width was common to both the plaintiff and the defendant No.3 and the same has been now completely encroached by the defendant No.3 in the process of putting up construction. Defendant No.3 has put up ventilators on the western wall of the building constructed by her for air and light from the 'A' schedule property. There is no setback area left and the construction is not in conformity with the sanctioned plan or the building bye-laws.
5. That the plaintiff has been repeatedly complaining about the illegal construction of third defendant. The defendants No.1 and 2 have allowed the building construction to be proceeded with and did not try to take any action against defendant No.3. The defendants No.1 and 2 are duty-bound to stop the unauthorised construction. The deviated portion of the building put up on the 'B' schedule property is liable to be demolished.
6. The plaintiff is immediate neighbour on the western side of the 'B' schedule property. In view of the illegal and unauthorised construction of defendant No.3, the right of the plaintiff to use the 'A' schedule property has been diminished and violated. The value of the 'A' schedule property has also been diminished considerably due to the construction. The third defendant has been now attempting to use the 'A' schedule property for air and light by blocking the easement of air and light from the 'B' schedule property towards the 'A' schedule property. Thus, the right of the plaintiff for better use and enjoyment of the 'A' schedule property has been infringed and reduced considerably affecting his personal right of use and enjoyment of 'A' schedule property. Hence, this suit.
7. In response to summons, the third defendant entered her appearance before the Court through her counsel and resisted the suit by filing the written statement. In spite of service of summons, the defendants No.1 and 2 remained absent. Hence, they have been placed ex-parte.
8. The written statement of the third defendant in brief is as follows :
The third defendant pleaded her ignorance regarding the averments made in the plaint that the plaintiff is the owner of the 'A' schedule property. She admits that she is the owner of 'B' schedule property. She denied all other averments made in the plaint. She contends that she is the absolute owner and in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Municipal Khatha No.5/3 (PID No.67-24- 5/3) situated at Bazaar Street, Adugodi, Bengaluru, measuring out of 50 feet towards the eastern side and western side 55 feet and presently measuring East to West 40 feet and North to South 50 feet in which, when the property purchased consists of 10 Square ACC roofed house, which is described as written statement schedule property.
She purchased the same under registered Sale Deed dated 18.10.2002 from her previous vendor S.Gopala Reddy. After purchasing the property, the khatha of the property was mutated in her name. The written statement schedule property is mortgaged to Janapragathi Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd., Bengaluru. All the title deeds are with the bank. In pursuance of acquisition of property by her, she intended to put up residential building and defendants No.1 and 2 have approved the plan to put up construction in the written statement schedule property, and thus she started construction in accordance with the approved plan and the building construction is already completed, the interior plastering is over and the external plastering was about to start. At this juncture, the plaintiff has filed a false complaint before the defendants No.1 and 2. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the plaintiff, the second defendant who is the local Assistant Executive Engineer, who is supervising the construction being made as per the KMC Act, has kept quite and with the political pressure, the defendants No.1 and 2 with malafide intention in order to harass her, used to come near the suit schedule property on 20.12.2011 and threatened the workers to stop the work. On enquiry, the defendants No. 1 and 2 informed her that the local politicians are behind back at the instance of the plaintiff and they have no other go except to direct her to stop the construction and she demanded them to give in writing in that regard, but they evaded to do so. Hence, she was forced to file a suit against the defendants No.1 and 2 in O.S.No.9072/2011. Further, she contends that the plaintiff has not produced any documents to show his title, interest over the 'A' schedule property. The relief sought by the plaintiff is beyond the scope of this Court. The present form of suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff has no locus standi to file this suit as it prejudice from KMC Act, by initiating proceeding in the present form of suit. There is no jural relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant in respect of construction made by her in her own written statement schedule property. The plaintiff has encroached about 3 feet East to West on the western side of defendant's written statement schedule property and about 11 feet North to South. The survey sketch of the schedule property claims to have been surveyed and prepared by the Survey Department is false and fabricated document created by the plaintiff without following due procedure of law. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff are not title deeds to confirm his title. On these grounds the third defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
9. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues are framed :
(1) Does the plaintiff prove that the defendant No.3 put up a unauthorised construction over the 'B' schedule property, constructing by him deviating from the sanction plan bearing No.LP.No.2578/2010-11 dated 22/12/2010 issued by Assistant Director Town Planning south range BBMP ?
(2) Does the plaintiff prove that he is
entitle for mandatory injunction in the
form of direction against defendant
No.3 to direct defendants No.1 and 2
for demolishing unauthorised
consideration constructed by
defendant No.3 ?
(3) What order or decree?
10. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff has examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 and P.24 and closed his side. Third defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D.1 to D.7 and closed her side.
11. Heard the arguments of both sides.
12. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In the negative.
Issue No.3 : As per final order, for the
following:
REASONS
13. Issue No.1 :- On perusal of the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties, there is no dispute regarding the existence of 'A' and 'B' suit properties. Further, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff is the owner of 'A' schedule property and defendant is the owner of 'B' schedule property. 'B' schedule property is situated on the western side of 'A' schedule property. Further, it is not in dispute that after obtaining sanctioned plan from the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike the defendant put up construction on the 'A' schedule property after demolishing the earlier structure which was situated in 'B' schedule property.
14. Now the plaintiff has come up with this suit on the ground that the third defendant has put up construction over the 'B' schedule property by deviating sanctioned plan and without leaving setback area as statutorily prescribed under the building bye-laws of the City of Bengaluru. The defendant No.3 has totally deviated the sanctioned plan and put up construction in the entire site area and also encroached upon the area of the plaintiff from the eastern portion of the 'A' schedule property abutting to 'B' schedule property while putting up construction. In spite of service of summons, the defendants 1 and 2 remained absent. They have not contested the suit. The third defendant has contested the suit by filing the written statement wherein she admits that she is the owner of the 'B' schedule property and denied the title of the plaintiff with respect to the 'A' schedule property. She contends that she put up construction over 'B' schedule property as per the approved sanctioned plan. To appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, the evidence adduced by the parties has to be looked into.
15. The plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1, who filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the plaint averments. Hence, no need to repeat the same here. In support of the oral testimony, he has placed reliance on the documents-Exs.P.1 to P.24. Exs.P.7 to P.11 are the documents pertaining to the property belongs to the plaintiff. Exs.P.7 and P.8 are the khatha certificate and khatha extract pertaining to the property bearing No.4, which is standing in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.P.9 is the Tax Paid Receipt for the period 2012-2013 pertaining to 'A' schedule property, which is standing in the name of the plaintiff. Exs.P.10 and P.11 are the sketch and Property Card issued by ADLR, City Survey with respect to the property belonging to the plaintiff. These documents have not been denied by the defendant. No doubt, these documents are not title deeds. The plaintiff has not produced title deeds pertaining to 'A' schedule property to prove his ownership over 'A' schedule property. But, these documents establish that the plaintiff is in possession of the 'A' schedule property.
16. The evidence of plaintiff is supported by third defendant during her cross-examination. She admits that the plaintiff's building is situated towards the western side of her property. The third defendant has produced certified copy of the sale deed - Ex.D.2 pertaining to 'B' schedule property, which reveals that third defendant has purchased 'B' schedule property from one S.Gopala Reddy on 18.10.2002.
The boundaries to the 'B' schedule property discloses that the property belongs to A.Balappa is situated on the western side of the 'B' schedule property. The sale deed Ex.D.2 itself shows that 'A' schedule property is situated on the western side of 'B' schedule property. The document Ex.D.2 - sale deed and Exs.D.3 to D.6 establish that third defendant is in possession of 'B' schedule property. The plaintiff is in possession of 'A' schedule property and the defendant is in possession of 'B' schedule property.
17. According to the plaintiff, the actual measurement of the 'B' schedule property of third defendant is East to West 35 Feet (10.66 meters) and North to South 47 Feet (14.36 meters), totally measuring 1,645 Sq.Ft. In between schedule A and B properties there was rain water drain with a width of 2 feet. On the eastern side of the property of defendant No.3 there was a common passage with the width of 8 feet. While putting up the construction, the defendant No.3 has encroached upon the 2 feet wide rain water drain area and also encroached upon the common area situated on the eastern side of the 'B' schedule property. The defendant has completely covered the rain water area on the western side of the 'B' schedule property and put up construction touching the existing old building of the plaintiff. The rain water drain area of 2 feet width was common to both the plaintiff and the defendant No.3 and the same has been now completely encroached by the defendant No.3 in the process of putting up construction. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not produced the title deeds pertaining to 'A' schedule property to show that there is existence of drain water area in between his property and third defendant's property. Even in the sale deed - Ex.D.2 there is no recital to the effect that towards the western side of the 'B' schedule property there was a drain water area situated in between A and B schedule properties. The boundary of the suit schedule property in Ex.D.2 would show that towards the western side of the 'B' schedule property the property belongs to A.M.Balappa is situated. Said A.M.Balappa is the grand-father of plaintiff and it indicates that plaintiff has inherited the property from his grand-father. If there is a drain water area in between 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, there must be a recital in the sale deed - Ex.D.2. To substantiate the same, the plaintiff has not placed any material before the Court. Further, he has not sought for any declaration that the drain water area is situated between 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. Both have equal right over the properties and the plaintiff has also not sought for declaration for removal of the encroachment. In the absence of declaration and prayer for removal of encroachment and in the absence of evidence, it cannot be held that the drain water area is situated in between 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, the said area has been encroached by the defendant No.3 as contended by the plaintiff.
18. The photographs of the suit schedule properties are marked as Exs.P.13 to P.17. Ex.P.13(a) is the property belonging to the third defendant. The said photographs have not been disputed by the third defendant. The photographs found in Exs.P.13 to P.17 depict that 'B' schedule property is abutting to the 'A' schedule property. No setback has been left while constructing 'B' schedule property. While the construction of the 'B' schedule property was going on, the plaintiff herein has given representation to BBMP as per Ex.P.19 dated 15.11.2011 wherein it was stated that the third defendant was constructing the building by encroaching his property by keeping windows in his compound wall and without leaving set-back place according to BBMP regulations. Further, it was stated that she has already constructed a pillar in the first floor for the house. The said representation was received by the BBMP which is evident from Ex.P.20, that after receipt of the representation, BBMP has given acknowledgment as per Ex.P.20. Again on 31.3.2012 the plaintiff herein had given representation to BBMP to take stringent action against the third defendant. In the meanwhile, the third defendant herein had filed a suit before this Court in O.S.No.9072/2011 against the Commissioner and Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP for the relief of bare injunction. Said suit was contended by the defendants therein, after the contest, the suit has been dismissed, which is evident from the Judgment and Decree passed by this Court in O.S.No.9072/2011 - Exs.P.3 and 4. Exs.P.1 and P.2 are the plant and written statement filed in O.S.No.9072/2011. In the said suit the plaintiff herein had filed an application to implead him as proposed defendant. Said application has been dismissed by this Court, which is evident from the Order passed by this Court on I.A.No.5 in O.S.No.9072/2011 - Ex.P.12. While construction was going on on the 'B' schedule property, the plaintiff herein had given representation to the BBMP to take stringent action against the defendant No.3 for deviating the sanctioned plan by her. Subsequently, on the representation, BBMP officials visited the 'B' schedule property. Thereafter third defendant had filed suit for permanent injunction for restraining from visiting the 'B' schedule property. The said suit has been dismissed on 17.9.2013. Prior to disposal of this case, BBMP passed provisional Order under Section 321(1) of the KMC Act by passing an order that the owner of the Site No.5/3, Bazaar Street, Adugodi, Koramangala in Ward No.147, has constructed the building deviating from the sanctioned plan vide No.LP.No.JC/South/S.P./2578/2010-11 dated 22.12.2010 as per Ex.P.24. After passing the provisional order, on the same day the BBMP had issued Notice to the third defendant under Section 321(1) of the KMC Act to show-cause to the said notice within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice, which is evident from Ex.P.25. Ex.P.26 is the Confirmation Order passed by the BBMP dated 26.12.2011 wherein the BBMP has confirmed the Order under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act. The document - Ex.P.27 is the sketch prepared by BBMP showing the deviation. The said document discloses that the BBMP officials visited the spot and noticed the deviation made by the third defendant while putting up construction on the 'B' schedule property. As per Ex.P.27, third defendant has completely violated the building bye-laws and deviated the sanctioned plan. The deviation is 100%. She has not left set-back as per sanctioned plan. She ought to have left set-back around the property measuring 1.72 meters. But, she has not left any set-back around the suit schedule property as per sanctioned plan. The deviation is 100%. She has not constructed the building as per the sanctioned plan. After production of Exs.P.24 to P.27, the defendant has not chosen to cross-examine the plaintiff. The evidence of the plaintiff remained unchallenged. Hence, the documents Exs.P.24 to P.27 could be relied. These documents establish that the third defendant has constructed the house on the 'B' schedule property by deviating plan and she has not left set-back as per the sanctioned plan.
19. The third defendant has examined herself as D.W.1, who filed affidavit in support of her examination-in- chief, wherein she has reiterated the contentions taken in the written statement. She has admitted that the building constructed by her on the 'B' schedule property which is found in Exs.P.13 to P.17. She has deposed that she has left set-back of 3 feet around the property. Her evidence is contrary to the documents Exs.P.24 to P.27. The contention of the third defendant is that the plaintiff himself has encroached her property. He promised that he would correct the encroachement while she puts up construction, but he has not fulfilled his promises, but till today she has not taken any legal action against the plaintiff to prove the encroachment made by him. Her entire evidence is contrary to the documents Exs.P.24 to P.27. The photographs - Exs.P.13 to P.17 themselves show that third defendant put up construction over 'B' schedule property abutting to 'A' schedule property without leaving any space as set-back in between 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. Further, she has not challenged the Judgment and Decree passed by this Court in O.S.No.9072/2011. The Judgment reaches finality. It appears that while the defendant was putting construction, the defendants No.1 and 2 visited the spot and noticed the deviation in the sanctioned plan. Despite, the defendant No.3 did not take care to leave set-back and put up construction as per the sanctioned plan. She has violated the sanctioned plan and put up construction. As discussed above, the third defendant has not disputed the documents Exs.P.24 to P.27 and she has not challenged the Confirmation Order passed by BBMP dated 26.12.2011. The oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence prove that the third defendant put up unauthorised construction over 'B' schedule property by deviating the sanctioned plan bearing No.LP.NO.2578/2010-11 dated 22.12.2010. The plaintiff has proved Issue No.1. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the affirmative.
20. Issue No.2 :- The plaintiff has proved that the defendant has deviated the sanctioned plan and put up construction over 'B' schedule property. Now the question before the Court is, whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction as sought in the suit. Admittedly, the plaintiff is in possession of 'A' schedule property. It is not the case of the plaintiff that third defendant has encroached his property and put up construction over the encroached area. Since there is no encroachment by the third defendant over the 'A' schedule property, the right of the plaintiff is not infringed. When the civil right of the plaintiff is infringed, this Court has got every jurisdiction to grant the relief in favour of the plaintiff. The right of plaintiff has not been infringed. Even the plaintiff has not claimed easementary right in the present suit. No specific pleadings or evidence has been placed by the plaintiff that the construction put up by the third defendant has infringed his right. At present, only two shops are situated in 'A' schedule property. The third defendant has contended that the plaintiff himself encroached 3 Feet in her property. But, no evidence to that effect. Even there is no evidence before the Court that the plaintiff has put up construction as per the sanctioned plan over his property. Since the personal right of the plaintiff is not infringed, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant the relief as sought by the plaintiff.
21. Defendants No.1 and 2 are statutory bodies. They have got every right and discretionary power to take action against the third defendant. As per the Municipal Corporation Act, already defendants No.1 and 2 passed confirmation order by noticing the fact that the third defendant has deviated the plan and put up construction over the 'B' schedule property. The right is vests with the statutory body. The statutory body can initiate necessary action against the third defendant. This Court has no jurisdiction to direct the statutory body to do any act in pursuance of the duty cast on them.
22. The Advocate for the defendant has argued that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction when there is no personal right infringed, the statutory body alone has discretionary power to take necessary action against the concerned who committed wrong. The counsel for the third defendant has argued the case placing reliance on the following decisions :-
(1) ILR 1989 KAR 3104 - Dr.K.Panduranga Nayak Vs. Jayashree.
(2) 2007 (1) AIR Kar R 76 - A.V.N.Prasad Vs. Sitabai Raj Purohit.
(3) (2016) 2 Supreme Court Cases 653 -
D.N.Jeevaraj Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and others.
23. While rendering the Judgment in Civil Appeal No.13785/2015 by the Hon'ble Apex Court, their Lordships have observed at page No.658 that:-
"Where discretion is required to be exercised by a statutory authority, it must be permitted to do so. It is not for the Courts to take over the discretion available to a statutory authority and render a decision...... However, if the Court were to take over the decision taking power of the statutory authority, it must only be in exceptional circumstances and not as a routine."
24. Now the discretion vests with the statutory authority. The statutory authority on the said discretion can initiate action against the third defendant regarding deviation of the sanctioned plan. Already the defendants No.1 and 2 have passed Confirmation Order for removal of deviated portion. Then the discretion vests with the defendants No.1 and 2 to take appropriate action for demolition of the same. That the said power is not vests with the Civil Court to give direction to the defendants No.1 and 2 for demolition of the deviated portion. The duty casts on the defendants No.1 and 2 to take appropriate action against the wrong doer. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as sought in the suit. Accordingly I answer Issue No.2 in the negative.
25. Issue No.3 :- In view of the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, this the 13th day of October, 2017.) (M.KOMALATHA) XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
*** ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
P.W.1 : A.M.Sridhar
2. List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 : C/c of plaint in O.S.No.9072/2011 Ex.P.2 : C/c of written statement in O.S.No.9072/2011 Ex.P.3 : C/c of Judgment in O.S.No.9072/2011 Ex.P.4 : C/c of decree in O.S.No.9072/2011 Ex.P.5 ; Copy of notice dated 18.10.2012 Ex.P.6 : Acknowledgment issued by BBMP Ex.P.7 : khatha certificate Ex.P.8 : Khatha extract Ex.P.9 : Tax paid receipt Ex.P.10 : Sketch issued by ADAL City survey Ex.P.11 : Attested Xerox copy of property card issued by ADLR city survey Ex.P.12 : C/c of order on I.A.No.4 in O.S.No.9072/2011 Ex.P.13 to 17: 5 photographs Ex.P.18 : C.D. Ex.P.19 : Copy of complaint dated 15.11.2011 to BBMP Ex.P.20 : Acknowledgment dated 15.11.2011 by BBMP Ex.P.21 : Copy of complaint 31.3.12 to BBMP Ex.P.22 : Acknowledgment the 31.3.12.
Ex.P.23 : approved plan copy.
Ex.P.24 : Provisional order passed by BBMP
Ex.P.25 : notice issued by BBMP to defendant No.3
dated 16.12.11.
Ex.P.26 : Confirmation order by BBMP dated 26.12 11.
Ex.P.27 : Sketch prepared by BBMP.
3. List of witnesses examined on behalf of
defendant :
D.W.1 : K.Shylaja.
4. List of documents exhibited by the defendant : -
Ex.D.1 : Rough sketch produced along with written statement Ex.D.2 : C/c of Sale Deed dated 18.10.12. Ex.D.3 : C/c of khatha certificate Ex.D.4 : C/c of khatha extract.
Ex.D.5 : C/c of tax paid receipt Ex.D.6 : C/c of Encumbrance Certificate Ex.D.7 : C/c of letter dated 9.1.2013 by Janata Co-
op. society.
(M.KOMALATHA), XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
***