Bangalore District Court
G Roopa vs Satish Chandra S K on 22 April, 2026
KABC0A0034212022
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL, BENGALURU.
(CCH-74)
P r e s e n t:
Smt. Anitha N.P., B.A.L., L.L.M.,
LXXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
Dated this the 22nd day of April, 2026.
O.S. No.26330/2022
Plaintiff:- 1. Smt. G Roopa
W/o: Sri. Muniyappa,
R/at No.131, Near Maramma
Temple, Kathruguppe, BSK III Stage,
Bengaluru 560085.
Represented by her husband cum
GPA holder, Sri. Muniyappa,
S/o: Sri. Vajrappa,
Aged about 36 years.
(By Sri. H.Manjunath-Adv.)
-Vs-
Defendants:- 1. Sri. Satish Chandra S.K.,
S/o: Sri. Krishnappa,
Aged about 54 years,
2. Smt. Shyamala,
2
O.S. No.26330/2022
W/o: Sri. Satish Chandra,
Aged about 39 years,
Sl.No.1 & 2 are residing at No.9 &
10, Opp. SSM School, Manjunath
Colony Slum, BSK III Stage,
Bengaluru 560028.
3. M/S Bengaluru Development
Authority,
Kumara Park,
Bengaluru-56
Rep. by it's Commissioner
4. M/S Brahmi Credit Co-Operative
Society Limited,
No.1030, 4th 'M' Block,
Dr. Rajkumar Road,
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru 560010.
Rep. by it's Secretary
(For D1 & 2 By Sri. N.R.N.,
For D3, By Sri. K.S.N.G.,
For D4, By Sri. BSBS -Adv.)
Date of institution of the suit : 08.08.2022
Nature of the suit (Suit for
pro-note, suit for declaration : Declaration, Possession and
and injunction,suit for damages
injunction, etc)
Date of commencement of : 10.09.2025
recording of evidence
3
O.S. No.26330/2022
Date on which the Judgment : 22.04.2026
was pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Days
03 08 14
Digitally signed by
ANITHA
ANITHA NANJANAGUDU
NANJANAGUDU PARASHIVAMURTHY
PARASHIVAMURTHY
Date: 2026.05.13
15:31:15 +0530
(Anitha N.P.)
LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit,
Bengaluru. (CCH-74)
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiffs have filed this suit as against Defendants No.1 to 4 seeking the relief of declaration of her title, for direction to the defendants No.1 & 2 to quit and deliver the vacant possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiff, for damages and for such other further reliefs.
2. Brief facts of the plaint averments are as under:-
The Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Originally portion of the suit schedule property bearing site No.9 was was allotted by defendant No.3 in favour of vendor of plaintiff by name Gurumurthy on 25.07.1996 and later lease cum sale agreement deed 4 O.S. No.26330/2022 16-10-1998 was executed in favor of his vendor and Smt.B.G.Parvathi and later the same was followed by sale deed dated 22.01.2009 in favour of vendors of plaintiff. Similarly another portion of suit schedule property bearing site No.10 was allotted by defendant No.3 in favour of vendor's vendor by name Smt. Jayalakshmi on
03.05.1997 and given with possession certificate dated 31.01.2001 and later registered lease cum sale agreement deed dated 19.09.2000 was executed by defendant No.3 in her favor and same was followed by sale deed dated 25.04.2011 in favour of said Jayalakshmi. Later she executed registered gift deed dated 12.04.2012 in favour of plaintiff's vendor by name Gurumurthy and B.G.Parvathi. Accordingly, the said Gurumurthy and B.G.Parvathi have executed registered sale deed dated 05.07.2013 in favour of plaintiff.
3. It is the further case of the Plaintiffs that the vendor's of the plaintiff have terminated the tenancy of defendant No.1 by issuing legal notice dated 14.08.2012 which is sent on 22.08.2012 on the circumstance that defendant No.1 is tenant of suit property on a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/- under oral agreement without any advance deposit. In the said legal notice it is also stated 5 O.S. No.26330/2022 that defendant No.1 is chronic defaulter of the rent since January 2012 and hence they are not interested in continuing the tenancy in respect of suit schedule property. The said legal notice is duly served on defendant No.1 on 27.08.2012. However the defendant No.1 not complied the demand made by the vendors of the plaintiff.
4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 & 2 being husband and wife they have also issued notice dated 21.11.2013 to her vendors and also to this plaintiff claiming that the vendors have to stop illegal transactions. The defendant No.1 & 2 were aware of the sale transactions between plaintiff and Gurumurthy and B.G.Parvathi and inspite of that the defendant No.1 & 2 have not included the plaintiff in O.S.No.3529/2013 which was filed by them on 10.05.2013 as against vendors of this plaintiff seeking the relief of permanent injunction. In said O.S.No.3529/2013 the vendors of this plaintiff appeared and have filed their written statement stating that they are no more owners of the suit schedule property and they have alienated the suit schedule property to the plaintiff herein. The said suit remained uncontested and 6 O.S. No.26330/2022 the same was came to be decreed on 23.04.2019 for the relief of permanent injunction and the vendors of the plaintiff were restrained from interfering and dispossessing the defendants without due process of law.
5. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.3 allotted the suit schedule property in favour of the beneficiary after considering their application, mahazar and other relevant documents. However the defendant No.1 who entered the suit schedule property as tenant on permissive possession by the vendors of the plaintiff went to the extent of claiming adverse possession though tenancy was terminated and defendant No.1 and 2 have given many representation before defendant No.3 seeking cancellation of the allotment made by defendant No.3 in favour of vendors of the plaintiff though he was tenant and the vendors of the plaintiffs were land lords.
6. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff availed loan from defendant No.4 and original documents are with defendant No.4 and the defendant No.1 & 2 have caused legal notice dated 28.08.2018 to 7 O.S. No.26330/2022 defendant No.4 to not to initiate any action for taking possession and to recall loan.
7. The plaintiff further averred that the defendant No.1 & 2 have filed PCR No.10561/2014 before the 2 nd ACMM Court as against the vendors of plaintiff alleging that they have furnished false information and created documents and the said compliant was came to be dismissed vide order dated 22.07.2016. The defendant No.1 & 2 have also filed complaint before the defendant No.3 on the circumstance of filing the PCR No.10561/2014 and W.P.No.28843/2014 and W.P.No.38421/2014 and O.S.No.3529/2013. However the defendant No.3 closed the said complaint as defendant No.1 & 2 have not given proper date, month and year of occupation of suit schedule property. W.P.No.28843/2014 and W.P.No.38421/2014 were came to be rejected on 12.8.2014. Even in O.S.No.3529/2013 the court held that defendant No.1 & 2 are in possession without having title and vendors of the plaintiff are not having the possession and possession has to be obtained with due process of law. As the defendant No.1 & 2 have denied the title of vendors of this plaintiff and as the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property has 8 O.S. No.26330/2022 stepped into the shoes of her vendors by virtue of sale deed dated 05.07.2013 and hence she has proceeded for recovery of possession from the defendant No.1 in terms of notice dated 22.08.2012. As the defendant No.2 also joined her husband and filed O.S.No.3529/2013 though she is not a party to the termination notice still she was made party to this suit.
8. It is the further case of the plaintiff that she is legally purchased the suit schedule properties by virtue of two registered sale deeds dated 05.07.2013 and her predecessors have acquired proper right and title in respect of suit schedule property and they were in possession and defendant No.1 being tenant has made an attempt and also through the defendant No.2 to get the property rights behind back of his landlords and also made an attempt to claim the property right by way of adverse possession in O.S.No.3529/2013 even after receiving tenancy termination notice. The defendant No.1 & 2 are also liable to pay Rs.25,000/- per month as damages from the date of filing of the suit till they vacate the suit schedule property for their illegal occupation of suit schedule property even after termination of tenancy. As the defendant No.3 is authority which allotted the suit 9 O.S. No.26330/2022 schedule property in favour of the vendors of the plaintiff and as defendant No.4 granted loan and obtained all original documents they were also included in the suit.
9. After receiving the suit summons, the Defendant No.1 to 4 appeared before the Court through their Counsel and defendant No.1 & 2 have filed their separate written statement and defendant No.3 filed its separate written statement and defendant No.4 also filed its separate written statement.
10. Brief facts of the written statement Defendant No.1 & 2 is as follows:-
The defendants No.1 and 2 have sought counter claim contending that they already filed O.S.No.3529/2013 in respect of suit schedule property and the said suit is already decreed. The Miscellaneous Petition filed against the Judgment and Decree was already dismissed. The suit schedule property is situated at Manjunatha Colony Slum which is comprised in two sites bearing site No.9 & 10 and the defendant No.1 is driver by profession running Auto-rickshaw for his livelihood and defendant No.2 is his wife and they have constructed a house covered with RCC roof and having 10 O.S. No.26330/2022 two doors facing towards road on eastern side and they are living in the same premises from 20 years with all the amenities including electricity, water without any disturbance from BDA or BBMP.
11. It is the further case of defendant No.1 & 2 that the defendant No.3 started to ascertain the inhabitants so as to allot the said premises and the defendant No.2 has made an application before the defendant No.3 by placing her ration card, voter ID and necessary documents seeking to issue necessary documents of allotment. On 03.04.2013 based on the said letter the proceeding has been initiated in Tippani with No.SPG/173/2014-15 and detailed enquiry report was made and fact has been referred to the task force of BDA and detailed enquiry was conducted. From the said report the defendants No.1 & 2 ascertained that one Jayalakshmi and Gurumurthy have got allotted site No.9 & 10 as if they are residing in slum area, whereas said Gurumurthy is an employee in RV School Association and Jayalakshmi was working as Administrator in Bangalore Medical Hospital at Jayanagar. The defendant No.1 & 2 have filed W.P.No.28843/2014 and 38421/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka seeking to 11 O.S. No.26330/2022 cancel the allotment made in favour of these 2 persons and they have also filed O.S.No.3529/2013 seeking permanent injunction. They also filed PCR No.10561/2014 as against said Gurumurthy and Jayalakshmi contending that said persons have submitted documents showing as if they are coolies and they are residing in slum area though it is not so.
12. It is the further contention of the defendant No.1 & 2 that the BDA authorities without examining the possession of the property have made allotment and issued possession certificate and executed sale deed in favour of Gurumurthy and Parvathi and another site in the name of Jayalakshmi. The plaintiff has deposited her original title deeds without having possession and availed loan of Rs.11 lakhs from defendant No.4. The defendant No.4 visited the spot and noticed the fact that these defendants are residing in suit schedule property. they admits they issued notice to defendant No.4. The plaintiff knowing the possession of the defendants not initiated any proceeding since 2013 and filed this suit without including her vendors as party to the suit.
12O.S. No.26330/2022
13. It is the further contention of the defendant No.1 & 2 that the plaintiff is claiming right through her vendor Gurumurthy, Parvathi and Jayalakshmi and hence they are also proper and necessary parties to the suit and their presence is necessary to decide the ownership of the suit schedule property. For not including them as party to the suit the present suit is not maintainable. The defendant No.4 is not proper and necessary party to the suit. The plaintiff has tried to get the electricity disconnected to suit schedule property and hence, the defendants have filed W.P.No.28843/2014 and 38421/2014 seeking direction to consider their representation. The defendant No.3 issued identity card to those who are residing in the Manjunatha Slum Colony. The plaintiff is neither slum dweller nor she is residing there to claim ownership. The vendors of the plaintiff were not eligible to claim the occupancy right in respect of schedule property. The vendors of plaintiff i.e., Gurumurthy was having his own multi-storied building and has given the premises to tenants and he is getting sufficient income from the rent and income from his service. Accordingly the defendant No.1 & 2 have taken the matter before the BDA task force and filed complaint along with the documents. In view of the pendency of the 13 O.S. No.26330/2022 suit the said investigation was came to be closed and complaint is closed. The documents and sale deed in favor of vendors of plaintiff and subsequent sale deed dated 05-07-2013 are not binding on these defendants.
14. The defendant No.1 & 2 further contended that they are not tenants nor they occupied at the instance of vendor's of the plaintiff and they are not paying any rent of Rs.1,500 to the vendor's of plaintiff. The legal notice dated 27.08.2012 is created only for the purpose of trying to evict defendants. The defendants are staying on their own. The plaintiff on coming to know about filing of suit by defendants No.1 and 2 not got included herself in the said suit. As there was threat of dispossession by the vendor's of the plaintiff, the defendant No.1 & 2 have filed suit for permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed.
15. It is the further case of the defendants No.1 and 2 that the defendant No.1 & 2 are having right to claim adverse possession against defendant No.3 but the said authority not interfered and dispossessed the defendants from the suit schedule property. No proceedings has been initiated to evict defendants by the vendor's of the plaintiff. Under the circumstance the defendants have 14 O.S. No.26330/2022 perfected their right, title against the vendor's of the plaintiff.
16. According to these defendants the plaintiff filed this suit on 06.08.2022 seeking the relief of declaration and the plaintiff was very well aware that the suit filed against her vendors by denying their title and several proceeding including PCR initiated against them. When the title has been denied the plaintiff ought to have filed suit within 3 years from date of knowledge of the suit filed by them but it is after lapse of several years the present suit is filed and hence the suit is barred by law of limitation. The defendants admits that private complaint filed by them is dismissed.
17. The defendant No.1 and 2 further contended that the plaintiff has not challenged the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.3529/2013 which was filed against the vendor's of this plaintiff. The plaintiff has not caused any legal notice for having assignment of title to the property. The plaintiff is neither slum dweller nor she is having right to purchase the slum dweller property and hence the defendants are not liable to pay any damages to the plaintiff.
15O.S. No.26330/2022
18. The defendant No.1 and 2 have further contended that Task Force of BDA though investigated the matter and came to know about irregularities of allotment they have not taken action as many employees of BDA also involved in creating documents in respect of suit schedule property. The proceeding initiated by defendants No.1 and 2 do not give rise cause of action to the suit.
19. The defendant No.1 and 2 further contended that prior to filing of this suit the plaintiff has not issued notice as contemplated under Sec.64 of BDA Act and no relief is sought against defendant No.3 and hence defendant No.3 is not necessary and proper party to the suit. Even mandatory notice u/sec.125 of Co-operative Societies Act is also not issued to defendant No.4 and hence, the defendant No.4 is also not proper and necessary party to the suit.
20. The suit schedule property is comprised under 2 registered sale deeds and the suit schedule is comprised of both site No.9 & 10 and schedule of 2 sale deeds is not included in the suit. No such proceedings has been initiated as per the Judgment and Decree in 16 O.S. No.26330/2022 O.S.No.3529/2013 to evict the defendants in accordance with due process of law.
22. The defendant No.1 and 2 further contended that they are in possession of suit schedule property since 1992 and BDA authorities have permitted them to reside in the slum area and no notice has been caused evicting the defendants. It is only when the defendant No.2 filed application for regularization of occupation they came to know about the creating documents in favour of the vendor's of the plaintiff. In O.S.No.3529/2013 the vendor's of this plaintiff have not given evidence. The plaintiff having knowledge of possession of these defendants purchased the suit schedule property. There is no such jural relationship between the vendor's of the plaintiff and defendants as landlord and tenants. The vendor's of the plaintiff have not initiated any action in accordance with the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.3529/2013 to evict defendants in accordance with law. The BDA authorities are having right to withdraw the allotment made in favour of vendor's of the plaintiff which was obtained by suppressing the real facts. Accordingly the defendants have sought counter claim to declare that the defendant 17 O.S. No.26330/2022 No.1 and 2 are slum dwellers having possession of property which are identified as site No.9 & 10 of Manjunatha slum colony and to get necessary documents issued by the defendant No.3 and confirm they are in adverse possession of the counter claim schedule property, for declaration that the documents in respect of site No.9 and 10 and sale deed dated 05-07-2013 created by vendor's of plaintiff by name Gurumurthy and B.G.Parvathi are not binding on defendants, for permanent injunction to restrain the plaintiff and her men from dispossessing the defendants and also to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.
23. The brief facts of the written statement of defendant No.3 is as under:-
The defendant No.3 contended that the plaintiff has not issued any statutory notice as per Sec.64 of BDA Act prior to filing of this suit as contemplated under BDA Act. Hence, the suit is not maintainable. This defendant also contended that no specific relief is sought against defendant No.3 and hence the suit is not maintainable. This defendant No.3 also contended that he has allotted site No.9 of Manjunatha slum colony in favour of Gurumurthy and lease cum sale agreement was executed 18 O.S. No.26330/2022 on 16.10.1998 and possession certificate was issued on 07.01.1999 and sale deed dated 22.01.2009 was executed. He also admits that site No.10 of Manjunatha slum colony was allotted in favour of Smt.Jayalakshmi and lease cum sale agreement was executed on 16.09.2000 and possession certificate was issued on 31.01.2001 and sale deed dated 21.04.2011 was executed. According to this defendant he has acted in accordance with BDA Act, Rules and Regulations prevailing under the Act and the suit schedule property was allotted by the defendant authority to slum dwellers for re habitation of slums and hence he is not necessary and proper party to adjudicate the suit. Accordingly defendant No.3 prays to dismiss the suit.
24. The brief facts of the written statement of defendant No.4 is as under:-
The defendant No.4 has contended that it has sanctioned loan of Rs.11 lakhs to the plaintiff and after sanction of the loan the plaintiff has not repaid the said amount along with interest. The present suit is only to dodge the repayment. The plaintiff has to repay the loan installments. The defendant No.4 is having authorization to initiate appropriate action as against plaintiff for 19 O.S. No.26330/2022 recovery of the said loan amount. Accordingly defendant No.4 prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary cost.
25. Based on the rival pleadings, the following issues are framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the absolute owner of suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deeds dated:05.07.2013?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves defendant No.01 entered suit property as a tenant on permissive possession given by her vendors?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that her vendors terminated the tenancy of defendant No.1 as per the termination notice dated:22.08.2012?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that she got attornment of tenancy to claim possession of suit property?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for vacant possession of suit property?20
O.S. No.26330/2022
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for damages as prayed for?
7. Whether defendant Nos.1 and 2 prove that they are in possession of written statement schedule property since 1992?
8. Whether the defendant Nos.1 and 2 prove that their title is confirm by way of adverse possession in respect of written statement schedule property?
9. Whether the defendant Nos.1 and 2 prove that the suit is barred by Law of Limitation?
10. Whether the defendant Nos.3 and 4 prove that the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties?
11. Whether plaintiff is entitle for relief as prayed?
12. Whether the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are entitle for the relief sought in written statement?
13. What order or decree?
21O.S. No.26330/2022
26. The plaintiff to substantiate her case examined her husband/GPA holder-Muniyappa as PW1 and he has produced and got marked 25 documents as per Ex.P1 to 25. The Plaintiff has also examined 2 witnesses as PW2 & 3. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 got examined himself as DW.1 and got marked 61 documents as per Ex.D1 to 61. The defendants got examined 2 witnesses as DW2 & 3.
27. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the pleadings, evidence, documents and available materials on record.
The learned counsel for plaintiffs and defendants have submitted their written arguments and I have perused the same.
28. The learned counsel for plaintiff has relied upon following citations:
1) (2006) 12 SCC 734 (Rohit Singh & others Vs. State of Bihar & others.
2) AIR 2019 SC 3827 (Ravinder Kaur Grewal and Ors. Vs. Manjit Kaur and Ors.)
3) 2010 (4) SCALE 322 (R.Hanumaiah and Ors.
Vs. Secretary to Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department and Ors.) 22 O.S. No.26330/2022
4) AIR 2012 SC 1727 (Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and Ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequeria (Dead) through LRs.)
5) Civil Appeal Nos.3159-3160 of 2019 (Neelam Gupta & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Kumar Gupta & Anr.)
6) 2011 (3) KCCR 2139 ( Basamma and Others Vs. Devamma and Another)
7) 2016 (3) AKR 807 (Anasuya and Ors. Vs. Putalabai)
8) (2019) 2 SCC 727 (Jamila Begum (Dead) through legal representatives Vs. Shami Mohd. (Dead) through legal representatives and Another)
9) 2015 (4) KCCR 3902 (Smt. Annapurnamma Vs. Smt. Sarojamma)
10) 2015 (5) KCCR 217 (Smt.Pilla Akkayyamma and Others Vs. Channappa since dead by LRs and Another)
11)RSA 84/2007DECIDED ON 17-07-2014
12) ILR 2015 KARNATAKA 2188 (Rudravva and Ors. Vs. Suma and Ors.)
13)2008(4)SCC594 (Anathula Sudhakar VsP.Buchi reddy (dead ) by LRs and others
14)AIR 2009 SC 2122 (Kaliaperumal Vs Rajagopal and another
15) ILR 2011 KAR 408 (S.Venkoji Rao Vs BDA) 23 O.S. No.26330/2022
16) AIR 2018 SC 1981 (The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited and Ors. Vs. S.N. Raj Kumar and Ors.
17) AIR 1992 KAR 270 (Venkatachalaiah and Ors. Vs. Nanjundaiah and Ors.
18)Misc Petition No.2480 of 2021 (Arvind Kumar Vs. Trilok Kumar)
19) 2023 LIVE LAW (SC) 404 (Damodhar Narayan Sawale (D) through LRs. Vs. Shri Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske & Ors.)
20) (2006) 12 SCC 734 (Rohit Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.)
21) AIR 2024 SC 5374 (Neelam Gupta and others Vs. Rajendra Kumar Gupta & another)
22) AIR 2021 SC 5749 (Himalaya Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Md. Zahid and Ors.)
29. The learned counsel for defendant No.1 & 2 have relied upon following citations:
1) AIR 2025 SC 4108 (Ramesh Chand (D) THR.
LRS. Vs. Suresh Chand)
2) AIR 2024 SC 1893 (Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak and others Vs. Somnath Muljibhai Nayak and others) 24 O.S. No.26330/2022
3) AIR 2004 SC 4261 (Ramaiah Vs. V.Narayana Reddy (dead) by Lrs)
4) 2024 (4) A.K.R. 466 (Namestates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Kulabandhu Ram Adarsh Sharma)
5) 2022 AIAR (CIVIL) 460 (M/s Surya Developers & Promoters Vs. M.Sailesh Prasad & Others)
6) AIR 2001 Gauhati 181 (R.K.Madhuryyajit Singh & others Vs. Takhellambam Abung Singh & others)
7) AIR 2009 SC 2966 (T.K.Mohammed Abubucker (D) their Lrs Vs. P.S.M. Ahmed Abdul Khader & Others)
8) 2004(1) K.C.C.R 662 (K.Gopalareddy deceased by LRs Vs. Suryanarayana & Others)
9) ILR 1992 KAR 213 (Manohar Ramakrishna Shirodkar Vs. Trimbak Rama Kelkar
10) (1994) 1 SCC 1 (S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. & Others)
11) ILR 2004 KAR 1445 (The Arogyanagar C- oerative Housing Society Ltd. and Another Vs. Fakiragouda and Another) I have carefully gone through the dictum laid down in the above decisions:
30. My answer to the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1:- In the Affirmative Issue No.2:- In the Affirmative Issue No.3:- In the Affirmative 25 O.S. No.26330/2022 Issue No.4:- In the Affirmative Issue No.5:- In the Affirmative Issue No.6:- In the Negative Issue No.7:- In the Negative Issue No.8:- In the Negative Issue No.9:- In the Negative Issue No.10:- In the Negative Issue No.11:- Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.12:- In the Affirmative Issue No.13:- As per final Order for the following:
REASONS
31. ISSUE No:-1, 7 & 8:-
Since the above issues are interlinked, in order to avoid repetition of facts the above issues have been taken up together for consideration.
32. The plaintiff has come up with specific case that she is absolute owner of suit schedule property by virtue of two registered sale deeds dated 05.07.2013 executed by Gurumurthy and B.G.Parvathi. According to plaintiff the defendant No.1 is tenant of suit schedule property on a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/- under oral agreement without any advance deposit and the vendor's of the plaintiff have caused legal notice dated 26 O.S. No.26330/2022 14.08.2012 sent on 22-08-2012 to defendant No.1 and terminated the tenancy and the said legal notice is duly served on defendant No.1 on 27.08.2012. However the defendant No.1 not complied the demand. On the contrary the defendant No.1 & 2 have issued notice on 21.11.2013 to the vendor's of plaintiff and also to the plaintiff claiming to stop transaction. The defendant No.1 & 2 are aware of the sale transaction between plaintiff and her vendors and inpsite of that the defendants have not impleaded plaintiff in O.S.No.3529/2013 which was filed by them on 10.05.2013. The said suit was filed seeking the relief to restrain the defendants of said suit from interfering and dispossessing plaintiffs without due process of law. Though in the written statement filed by his vendors in the said suit they have stated about the alienation of suit property to the plaintiff herein still the defendant No.1 & 2 have not included plaintiff of this suit in the said suit and the said suit being uncontested the same was came to be decreed where by the vendors of the plaintiff were restrained from interfering and dispossessing defendant No.1 & 2 herein without due process of law. The defendant No.1 & 2 have made many representation before defendant No.3 seeking 27 O.S. No.26330/2022 cancellation of allotment in favour of vendor's of plaintiff though the defendant No.1 was tenant. That apart the plaintiff availed loan from defendant No.4 and the defendant No.1 & 2 herein have caused notice dated 28.08.2018 to the defendant No.4 to not to initiate any action for taking possession and also to recall the loan availed by plaintiff. The defendant No.1 and 2 have even filed PCR No.10561/2014 against vendor's of plaintiff and the said complaint was dismissed. Even the complaint before the defendant No.3 was closed as the defendant No.1 & 2 not given proper information of date month and year of occupation of suit schedule property. Even W.P.No.28843/2014 and 38421/2014 are rejected on 12.08.2014. The plaintiff legally purchased the suit schedule properties and as the defendant No.1 & 2 have claimed adverse possession O.S.No.3529/2013 and as the vendor's of the plaintiff have already caused termination notice the plaintiff stepped into the shoes of her predecessors in title to claim ejectment of suit schedule property.
33. On the contrary it is the specific defence of defendant No.1 & 2 that they are in possession of suit schedule property since 1992 and BDA permitted them 28 O.S. No.26330/2022 to reside in the slum area and defendant No.2 filed application for regularization of occupation of slum dwellers and at that time they came to know about creating document in favour of vendor's of the plaintiff. The vendors of plaintiff are not slum dwellers. Hence, they have filed private complaint and also filed O.S.No.3529/2013. The document executed in favour of vendor's of plaintiffs are not binding on defendants. There is no such jural relationship between vendor's of plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff has no right to initiate proceedings against defendants. The Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.3529/2013 shows that it is the vendor's of plaintiff have to initiate proceeding for evicting defendants only by due process of law. The suit is not maintainable. It is by suppressing the real facts the vendor's of the plaintiff got allotted the suit property. It is these defendants who are having right and title to the suit property by way of adverse possession. Accordingly they sought counter claim to declare that the defendant No.1 & 2 are slum dwellers having possession suit property and to confirm their title by way of adverse possession in respect of counter claim schedule property and also to held that the document pertaining to suit schedule property created by vendor's 29 O.S. No.26330/2022 of plaintiff by name Gurumurthy and B.G.Parvathi and also sale deeds dated 05.07.2013 are not binding on them and for permanent injunction.
34. The plaintiff to substantiate her case got examined her husband/GPA holder-Muniyappa as PW1. During the course of his evidence he filed his chief- examination affidavit wherein he reiterated the plaint averments on oath. The plaintiff also examined 2 witnesses by name G.V.Madhukeswara and Kethan Kumar V. as PW2 & 3. These PW2 & 3 also during the course of their evidence have filed their respective chief- examination affidavits.
35. PW2 in his chief examination affidavit has stated that he is son in law of deceased Gurumurthy who was owner of site No.9 which is portion of plaint schedule property by virtue of allotment made by BDA on 25.07.1996. The BDA subsequently executed lease cum sale agreement dated 17.10.1998 in favour of said Gurumurthy and B.G.Parvathi and issued possession certificate dated 07.01.1999 and executed sale deed on 23.01.2009. Thereafter his mother-in-law and father-in- law have sold the said property to plaintiff under sale deed dated 05.07.2013. Similarly the site No.10 which is 30 O.S. No.26330/2022 also portion of plaint schedule property was allotted by BDA in favour of Smt. Jayalakshmi who is elder daughter of Gurumurthy and executed lease cum sale agreement dated 19.09.2000 and thereafter issued possession certificate dated 31.01.2001 and she sold the same to her parents and they inturn sold the said property to plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 05.07.2013. To both the said sale deeds he is attesting witness. His father-in-law passed away on 02.09.2020. The defendant No.1 & 2 are tenants and his father-in- law and mother-in-law before alienation of property they have issued termination notice dated 14.08.2012. The defendants have not given reply to the said notice. However they have issued legal notice dated 21.11.2013. After the execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiff. He is the absolute owner of suit schedule property and in view of attornment of tenancy plaintiff is entitled to possession.
36. According to PW3 the plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of suit schedule property by virtue of 2 registered sale deeds dated 05.07.2013. This PW3 has reiterated the plaint averments in his chief examination affidavit.
31O.S. No.26330/2022
37. The plaintiff has produced and got marked in all 25 documents as per Ex.P1 to 25. Ex.P1 is GPA, Ex.P2 is Digital copy of sale deed dated:05.07.2013, Ex.P3 is Digital copy of rectification of sale deed dated:19.08.2014. Ex.P4 is Certified copy of sale deed dated:05.07.2013, Ex.P5 is Certified copy of Notice dated:14.08.2012/22.08.2012, Ex.P6 is Certified copy of Notice dated:21.11.2013 issued by defendants, Ex.P7is Certified copy of acknowledgment dated:10.09.2014 issued by BDA. Ex.P8 to 11 are Certified copy of Request letter dated:12.02.2013, 29.09.2013, 03.04.2013, 09.09.2014 given by defendant No.02 to various authorities. Ex.P12 is certified copy of informal note dated 09.10.2014, Ex.P13 is Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.211/2016 of Channamanakere Acchukattu PS, Ex.P14 is Copy of notice dated:28.08.2018 issued to defendant No.04 by defendant No.01 and 02. Ex.P15 is Certified copy of order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP No.28843/2014 and 38421/2014, dated:12.08.2014. Ex.P16 is E.C. for the period 01.04.2004 to 08.07.2022. Ex.P17 to 20 are Certified copy of plaint, Written Statement, judgment, Decree in OS.No.3529/2013 Ex.P21 is Certified copy of sale deed dated:22.01.2009.
32O.S. No.26330/2022 Ex.P22 is Certified copy of order sheet in PCR No.10561/2014, Ex.P23 is Certified copy of memorandum of deposit of title deeds. Ex.P24 is Aadhar card of PW2. Ex.P25 is Digitally signed copy of sale deed dated 21.04.2011
38. On the contrary the defendants No.1 & 2 in order to substantiate their defence got examined defendant No.1 as DW1 and during the course of evidence this DW1 has also filed his chief examination affidavit reiterating the contentions of his written statement. These defendant No.1 & 2 have also examined 2 witnesses by name Manjula and Manjunatha M. as DW2 & 3. These DW2 & 3 also during the course of evidence filed their respective chief examination affidavit supporting the case of the defendant No.1 & 2.
39. DW2 in her chief examination deposed that her mother Lakshmamma purchased property from Manjunath & Nagaraj who are also allottees and slum dwellers and subsequently her mother constructed house and herself and her family members are residing there since 30 years and having voter ID and Aadhar card for the same address. DW3 deposed that his mother was 33 O.S. No.26330/2022 allotted with site No.13 and she was slum dweller. These DW2 and 3 deposed that defendant No.1 & 2 are residing there since past 25 years as a slum dwellers.
40. These defendant No.1 & 2 in support of their case have got marked in all 61 documents as per Ex.D1 to 61. Ex.D1 is Certified copy of Aadhar card of defendant No.1 Ex.D2 is Certified copy of Voter ID card of defendant No.1 Ex.D3 is Certified copy of DL of defendant No.1 Ex.D4 is Certified copy of Voter ID card of defendant No.2 Ex.D5 is Certified copy of training certificate issued by Handloom and Textiles, Ex.D6 is copy of photos, Ex.D7 is Certified copy of receipt issued by S.A.Digital Studio Ex.D8 is Certified copy of residential certificate, Ex.D9 is Certified copy of income and caste certificate, Ex.D10 is Certified copy of letter dated 02.11.2012 issued by BDA. Ex.D11is attested Certificate of photo, ID proof. Ex.D12is Certified copy of representation to the Commissioner, BDA dated 12.02.2013 Ex.D13is Certified copy of informal note dated 20.03.2013 issued by BDA, Ex.D14 is Certified copy of office note by BDA Ex.D15 is Certified copy of representation to Revenue officer dated 03.04.2013, Ex.D16 is Certified copy of legal notice dated 21.11.2013, Ex.D17is Certified copy of representation to 34 O.S. No.26330/2022 the Commissioner, BDA dated 29.11.2013, Ex.D18 is Certified copy of representation to the Commissioner, BDA dated 09.09.2014, Ex.D19 is Certified copy of acknowledgment issued by BDA dated 10.09.2014, Ex.D20 is Certified copy of representation to the Superintendent of Police, BDA Vigilance Cell dated 09.09.2014, Ex.D21is Certified copy of acknowledgment issued by BDA dated 10.09.2014, Ex.D22 is Certified copy of informal note dated 09.10.2014, Ex.D23 & 24 are Certified copy of intimation letter dated 09.10.2014 and 01.10.2014 Ex.D25 is Certified copy of order in W.P.No.28911/2015 and 32053/2015 dated 17.07.2017. Ex.D26 is Certified copy of permission letter to install the meter by the BESCOM Ex.D27 & 28 are Certified copy of two Test Certificate issued by BESCOM Ex.D29 to 31 are Certified copy of three BESCOM Bills Ex.D32 is Certified copy of 9 receipts issued by Bangalore One, Ex.D33 is Certified copy of HP GAS receipts Ex.D34 is Certified copy of Form of Application for Purchase of Site by Gurumurthy Ex.D35 is Certified copy of Form of Application for Purchase of Site by Jayalakshmi Ex.D36 & 37 are Certified copy of affidavits by Gurumurthy and B.G.Parvathi Ex.D38 is Certified copy of letter issued by R.V.Institution about salary of Gurumurthy Ex.D39 is 35 O.S. No.26330/2022 certified copy of memorandum issued by BEO dated 12.06.2013 Ex.D40 is Certified copy of letter dated 25.06.2013 issued by R.V.Institution Ex.D41 is Certified copy of salary details of B.N.Gurumurthy, Retired, P.E.Teacher Ex.D42 is Certified copy of reply notice dated 12.12.2013 issued by The Bangalore Hospital Ex.D43 is Certified copy of November 2013 pay slip of Jayalakshmi Ex.D44 & 45 are Certified copy of letter dated 10.02.2014 issued by BESCOM Ex.D46 is Certified copy of of photos Ex.D47 is Certified copy of khatha certificate dated 01.03.2008 Ex.D48 is Certified copy of khatha extract Ex.D49 is Certified copy of building plan Ex.D50 is the Certified copy of acknowledgment for receipt Ex.D51 is official memorandum issued by BESCOM dated 28.06.2008 with photo Ex.D52 is BSNL letter dated 18.09.2014 Ex.D53 & 54 are EC's Ex.D55 is sworn statement by the defendant No.2 in CC.No.1056/2014, Ex.D56 is Certified copy of FIR Ex.D57 is Certified copy of complaint in PCR No.1056/2014 Ex.D58 Certified copy of legal notice dated 28.08.2018 Ex.D59 is Certified copy of postal receipts and acknowledgment Ex.D60 is Certified copy of Aadhar card of defendant No.2 Ex.D61 is copy of ration card.
36O.S. No.26330/2022
41. During the course of cross-examination PW1 deposed that his wife is an employee and she cannot come before the court. He knows reading and writing. The information to file this suit is furnished by the vendor's son-in-law. They have purchased the suit schedule property from Gurumurthy and Parvathi. It is after 9 years of purchase the present suit is filed.
42. This PW1 in his further cross-examination deposed that the plaintiff has not given any notice terminating the tenancy of defendant No.1 & 2 however his vendor has given notice. There are totally 2 sale deeds. In the sale deeds it is mentioned that possession is delivered. He has seen his vendor Gurumurthy was visiting site No.10. The said site No.9 & 10 are situated at Manjunatha Nagar slum. He has not collected the identity cards of Gurumurthy and his daughter Jayalakshmi so as to ascertain that they are residents of the said slum. The original documents are available with bank. Ravishankar has pledged the said documents. His wife executed documents in favour of said Ravishankar for the purpose of mortgage. The documents which are produced by plaintiff are collected from son-in-law of his vendor. He do not know about the suit filed by defendant 37 O.S. No.26330/2022 No.1 & 2 as against Gurumurthy and Parvathi. He do not know what was the order passed in the said suit. He knows the schedule shown in Ex.P2 and 4 sale deeds. He denied that there is difference in the schedule of Ex.P2 & Ex.P4. On 18.09 2014 a rectified sale deed was executed. After the purchase of suit schedule property he has asked defendant No.1 & 2 to vacate the suit schedule property. He do not know about filing of request by defendants seeking cancellation of sale deed executed in favour of vendor of plaintiff. He denied that plaintiff has not given him any GPA on the contrary he has created the GPA. At the time of lodging this suit his wife was not taken to the office of Advocate.
43. On perusal of the cross-examination of PW2 he deposed that he has not received any summons to give evidence. His father-in-law Gurumurthy was a Teacher. In the year 1995 his father-in-law was retired and his father-in-law was a Teacher in a private school at Jayanagar and he was residing in house No.9 & 10 of Manjunatha Colony. He do not accompanied PW1 at the time of filing of the suit. He was informed that since 2001 the defendants are residing in suit property and they are to be vacated from the said property. Site No.9 & 10 are 38 O.S. No.26330/2022 adjacent to each other and they are bounded east by road. He also signed to the sale deed of plaintiff. Jayalakshmi was working as accounts clerk in Bangalore Hospital which is situated at Jayanagar south end circle. The said Jayalakshmi is elder sister of his wife and daughter of his father-in-law - Gurumurthy. The said Jayalakshmi was working since 1995.
44. This PW2 further deposed in his cross examination that at the time of allotment of BDA site the said Gurumurthy was retired and Jayalakshmi was still in employment. He do not witnessed the lease agreement between Gurumurthy and defendant No.1. After his marriage with the daughter of Gurumurthy he came to know that his father-in-law has issued notice to defendant No.1 & 2. He has seen defendant No.1 since 1990 and in the year 1990 the defendant No.1 was residing in rented house at Srinagar. It is in the year 2000-01 the defendant No.1 came to suit schedule property. This PW2 further deposed in his cross- examination that Gurumurthy and his wife were not having any other property in their names at any place. He denied that Jayalakshmi was government employee.
39O.S. No.26330/2022
45. On perusal of the cross-examination of PW3 he deposed that he is doing real estate business. He knows the facts of this case. At the time of execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiff the documents of suit schedule properties were standing the name of Gurumurthy. The defendant No.1 & 2 were residing in portion of the suit schedule property and Gurumurthy was residing in another portion of the suit schedule property. He has not seen the allottment letter issued by the BDA in favour of Gurumurthy. He do not know about the complaint lodged by the defendants before BDA. It is after obtaining legal opinion the property was purchased.
46. On perusal of the cross-examination of DW1 he deposed that he is having custody of originals of Ex.D1 to 3, 60 and 61. DW1 in this further cross-examination deposed that he is claiming adverse possession as against BDA and as against plaintiff. Site No.9 & 10 are not separate property but they are joint property he admits that the boundary stated in Ex.P2, 3 and 9 is correct. He has not given any request before Karnataka Slum Board.
47. According to this DW1 initially it was slum and thereafter it was formed by BDA. He admits that since 40 O.S. No.26330/2022 2012 either himself or his wife have not given any request before BDA for allotting property to them. He pleads his ignorance that in the year 2009 itself the BDA has transferred ownership of site No.9 & 10 to Gurumurthy and Jayalakshmi.
48. According to this DW1 he is in possession of suit schedule properties since 1992. When it is suggested to DW1 that the sites were allotted by BDA only through sale deed and not through hakku pathra this witness deposed that initially identity cards were issued and after ascertaining since how many years that they are in possession of said property the sale deed was executed. Either himself or his wife defendant No.2 are not having any such identity card issued by the BDA.
49. This DW1 further deposed that he do not know the rules which were prevailing in the year 1996 for allotment of BDA site. This DW1 further deposed that he do not know whether BDA has filed any suit as against this plaintiff or her vendors seeking cancellation of allotment of site. However according to this witness he has given complaint before BDA. He has not asked for reconsideration of disputed property after the disposal of 41 O.S. No.26330/2022 O.S.No.3529/2013. Since 2012 to 2015 letter correspondence were done by defendant No.2 and also by him. After receiving the notice in the year 2012 he filed O.S.No.3529/2013 in the year 2013. He denied that intentionally he has not produced original documents. This DW1 further deposed that PCR No.10561/2014 is closed in view of submission of B final report. He has not filed any appeal as against the said order.
50. This DW1 further deposed that the recital in Ex.D22 that Smt. Shymala got the election identity card on 27.04.2008 is correct. He filed writ petitions seeking direction for power supply to them without insisting for any documents. Prior to two years of 2014 he was not having any electricity connection. He admits that the electricity board and bill was standing in the name of Gurumurthy and Parvathi and according to this witness while they were not in the said place the same was obtained by them.
51. This DW1 admits that as per Ex.D15 his wife has given application on 03.04.2013 seeking regularization of site No.9 & 10 to her name. The endorsement of said application was given to his 42 O.S. No.26330/2022 advocate. He do not know about Jayalakshmi or her personal things. Ex.D53 & 54 are pertains to the husband of Jayalakshmi. He do not whether the grand father name of Jayalakshmi is Narasimhamurthy, he deposed that as per Ex.D35 the husband of Jayalakshmi is shown as Lakshminarasimha.
52. On perusal of the further cross-examination of DW1 he deposed that the witness list attached to Ex.D57 shows that RS Ramchandra is husband of Jayalakshmi. Till date he has not met said Ramachandra. He has not obtained the copy of allotment letter of Gurumurthy and Jayalaxmi. According to this DW1 none of the officials came to the spot and conducted the mahazar. This DW1 further deposed that in between 1992 and Ex.D12 dated 12-02-2013 they have not given any request seeking for regularization of their possession. As they were residing they have stated that they are the owners in Ex.D58. He obtained residential certificate Ex.D8 on 21.03.2012 and not obtained such document in between the period 1992- 2012.
53. He denied that he came to the suit schedule property as tenant through the son-in-law of 43 O.S. No.26330/2022 Gurumurthy. However, he deposed that he knows the son-in-law of Gurumurthy by name Madhukeswara. He knows T.V repair work and when he was searching for job he came to know about son-in-law of Gurumurthy. In the year 1990 he worked in the shop of said son-in-law of Gurumurthy for about 3 to 4 years. In the year 1990 he was residing in his elder sister's house at Jayanagar and there he resided for 2 to 3 years. He admits that in Ex.D36 & 37 certificates the address of Gurumurthy and Jayalakshmi is the disputed land address.
54. This DW1 in his further cross-examination deposed that he has not sought for any relief in respect of sale deed executed in favour of Gurumurthy and Jayalakshmi in his counter claim. He denied that he is making false claim against BDA which is already lost his ownership.
55. In the case on hand the plaintiff is seeking for declaration of her title on the basis of sale deed executed by her vendors Gurumurthy and Parvathi. On the contrary the defendants No.1 and 2 are claiming title in respect of suit schedule property on the ground that they have perfected their title to suit property by way of 44 O.S. No.26330/2022 adverse possession. The plaintiff so as to prove her title in respect of suit schedule property has relied upon digital copy of sale deed dated 05.07.2013 marked as Ex.P2, rectification of sale deed dated 19.8.2014 marked as Ex.P3, certified copy of sale deed marked as Ex.P4. On perusal of the Ex.P2 as well as Ex.P4 the same goes to show that the plaintiff has purchased site No.9 from Gurumurthy and his wife B.G.Parvathi. Similarly, the plaintiff purchased site No.10 from the very same Gurumurthy and B.G.Parvathi under sale deed dated 05.07.2013 marked as Ex.P4. Subsequently, on 19.08.2014 the plaintiff got rectified sale deed from the very same Gurumurthy and B.G.Parvathi in respect of site No.9.
56. On perusal of the sale deed marked at Ex.P2 in respect of site No.9 it is recited in the said sale deed that site No.9 is bounded East by road, West by slum site, North by site No.8 and South by site No.9. In view of the mistake in the southern boundary the rectification sale deed was executed wherein site No.9 is shown as bounded East by road, West by slum site, North by site No.8 and South by site No.10. Similarly, site No.10 is bounded East by road, West by slum site, North by site 45 O.S. No.26330/2022 No.9 and South by site No.11. The plaintiff has also produced certified copy of memorandum of deposit title deeds marked as Ex.P23 and on perusal of the said document the plaintiff through her PA holder has borrowed loan from the defendant No.4 society and she has mortgaged the suit schedule properties. Though the defendant denied the discription of suit property stating that suit property is not described in accordance with title deed it is vital to note that during the course of cross examination DW1 himself admits the suit schedule property and also its existence as per the plaint schedule boundary. The plaintiff has also produced digital copy of sale deed dated 21.04.2011 executed by BDA i.e., defendant No.3 in favour of Jayalakshmi in respect of site No.10. Certified copy of sale deed dated 22.01.2009 executed by defendant No.3 in favour of Gurumurthy and B.G.Parvathi in respect of site No.9. The plaintiff has also produced Ex.P16 encumbrance certificate in respect of site No.9 which shows the execution of sale deed in favour of vendors of this plaintiff and also the mortgage of said site No.9 before defendant NO.4 society and so also subsequent execution of rectification deed in respect of site No.9. From the careful consideration of above referred sale deeds, encumbrance certificate, it clearly 46 O.S. No.26330/2022 goes to show that the suit schedule property was sold in favour of vendors of this plaintiff by BDA.
57. It is also necessary to note that it is not in dispute that initially the suit schedule property was belongs to the defendant No.3 and the defendant No.3 being the owner of the suit schedule property had executed sale deed infavour of vendors of this plaintiff i.e., Gurumurthy, Parvathi for site No.9 and in favor of Jayalakshmi in respect of site No.10.
58. It is the contention of the defendants that it is the defendant No.1 & 2 who are in possession of suit schedule property since 1992 and they have perfected their title in respect of suit schedule property by adverse possession. The defendants so as to establish that the defendant No.1 & 2 are in possession of suit schedule property since 1992 have relied upon Ex.D1 Aadahar card of defendant No.1, Ex.D2 election identity card of Defendant No.1 Ex.D3 copy of driving licence of defendant No.1, Ex.D4 copy of election identity card of defendant No.2, Ex.D6 photos, Ex.D8 residential certificate, Ex.D9 income and caste certificate, gas bills electricity bills. The defendants No.1 & 2 have contended 47 O.S. No.26330/2022 that they are residing in the suit schedule property since 1992 as owners and not as tenants under the vendors of plaintiff. According to these defendants they have even filed necessary application before the defendant No.3 seeking regularization of their possession. It is at that time they came to know about the execution of sale deed in respect of suit schedule property in favour of vendors of the plaintiff.
59. It is necessary to note that the defendants in this regard have relied upon Ex.D11 which is attestation certificate with the heading "ಹಂಚಿಕೆದಾರರ ಸಹಿ ಮತ್ತು ಭಾವಚಿತ್ರ ದೃಢೀಕರಣ ಪತ್ರ". Ex.D12 the request letter of defendant No.2 for registration of site No.10 to the name of defendant No.2.
60. On perusal of Ex.D12 which is a very vital document the same is dated 12.12. 2013 and in the said request letter of defendant No.2 she has stated that site No.10 is allotted to the name of Jayalakshmi and she has purchased the said site but she has not got any agreement from said person and she is residing there since 15 years and the allottee is residing at 48 O.S. No.26330/2022 Chamarajapete. However the defendant No.3 without visiting the property and without conducting the mahazar had directly executed the sale deed in the name of allottee. Accordingly, she prays said authority to conduct spot inspection and to cancel the sale deed executed in the name of Jayalakshmi and on the contrary to execute sale deed in her name. Ex.D13 is ಅನೌಪಚಾರಿಕ ಟಿಪ್ಪಣಿ dated 20.03.2013. Ex.D14 is continuation of Ex.D13 tippani of the office of BDA and Ex.D14 shows that after preparing necessary notice in respect of request of defendant No.2 the matter was placed before the concerned authority. Similarly Ex.D15 is also request submitted by defendant No.1 before Revenue officer dated 03.04.2013 and in the said request letter the defendant No.2 sought for regularization of site No.9 & 10 to her name. Similarly Ex.D17 is also request letter submitted before Commissioner, BDA for regularization of site No.9 & 10 to her name and the said letter is dated 29.11.2013 again this defendant No.2 given request before Commissioner, BDA on 09.09.2014 stating that she has filed PCR No.10561/2014, W.P.No.28843/2014, 38421/2014, O.S.No.3529/2013. Ex.D22 ಅನೌಪಚಾರಿಕ ಟಿಪ್ಪಣಿ dated 09.10.2014 of BDA shows that the original file of 49 O.S. No.26330/2022 disputed sites are to be sent to STF, PSI-2 for enquiry. Thereafter the enquiry report was submitted by SPG/173/2014-15. In the enquiry report Ex.D22 the concerned authority reported that as the defendant No.2 lodged private complaint and registered original suit before the court and hence as per the order of the court and as per the rules of the authority necessary action will be taken and endorsement may be given as such.
61. The defendants though contended that they perfected their title in respect of suit schedule property by way of adverse possession it is necessary to note that the defendant No.1 & 2 are claiming the relief of declaration of title by way of adverse possession as against co-defendants i.e., defendant No.3 who according to them is the owner. it is strange to note that the vendors of the plaintiff i.e., Gurumurty and Jayalakshmi got the registered sale deeds in respect of suit schedule property vide sale deed dated 22-01-2009 and 25-04- 2011 respectively from defendant No.3. Hence this defendant No.3 lost his title in the year 2009 as well as 2011 itself in respect of suit schedule property. Under the sale deed executed in their favor it is mentioned that possession is delivered to Gurumurthy andJayalakshmi 50 O.S. No.26330/2022 respectively. In the sale deed at Ex.P21 and 25 it is also mentioned that said Gurumurthy and Jayalakshmi have constructed building. That apart these allottess Gurumurthy and Jayalakshmi got allotment letter and subsequently lease cum sale agreement in the year 1998 and 2000 itself. Thereby the above said Gurumurty and his wife became owner of site No.9 and daughter of Gurumuthy by name Jayalakshmi became owner of site No.10 in the year 2011. These defendants No.1 & 2 however have not admitted the title of plaintiff and also the plaintiffs' vendor.
62. Now the crucial question for consideration is how the possession of these defendant No.1 & 2 is originated, and the possession of these defendants No.1 and 2 is originated as permissive possession as because Enquiry report marked at Ex.P12 and Ex.D22 shows the allotment of suit schedule property site No.9 & 10 to the vendors of this plaintiff in the year 1998 and 2000 itself and sale deed is executed in their favor in 2009 and 2011. The enquiry report relied on by both plaintiff and defendants shows that said allotment in favour of plaintiff's vendor is not canceled till date.
51O.S. No.26330/2022
63. Defendant No.3 had executed sale deed in respect of suit property in favour of vendors of plaintiff. Thereafter, the vendors of plaintiff have sold the suit schedule property to this plaintiff. The true owner accordingly in respect of suit schedule property is now the plaintiffs. It is under the nose of these defendants No.1 and 2 the allotment letter is given to Jayalaxmi and the same is evident from Ex.D12 letter of defendant No.2 dated12-02-2013. By the time of filing of said application by defendant No.2 before concerned authority in the year 2013 the sale deed were already executed by defendant No.3 in favor of the vendors of plaintiff. However the defendant No.1 & 2 are not admitting title of this plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property and still claiming adverse possession and they are claiming adverse possession as against co defendant I,e., defendant No.3 which is not permitted.
64. That apart as discussed supra in the year 2009 and 2011 itself the sale deed was executed by defendant No.3 in favour of vendors of plaintiff. These defendant No.1 & 2 have not challenged the sale deed of vendors of plaintiff. They have not sought any relief of cancellation of sale deeds executed in favour of vendors of plaintiff, on 52 O.S. No.26330/2022 the contrary these defendants No.1 & 2 have filed O.S.No.3529/2013 as against Gurumurthy and Jayalakshmi and B.G.Parvathi simply seeking bare injunctive relief. Though the defendants in the said suit who are none other than the vendors of this plaintiff have filed written statement contending that they have sold the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff still the defendant No.1 & 2 have not made any attempt to include the plaintiff to the said suit. Even the execution of sale deed in favor of this plaintiff in respect of suit property was well within the knowledge of these defendant No.1 & 2. As because in the notice dated 21.12.2013 which is issued by these defendants No.1 & 2 the same is issued even against this plaintiff. Hence, this plaintiff being not party to the suit in O.S.No.3529/2013 is not bound by the decree of the said suit.
65. The counsel for the defendants in support of his case has relied on decision reported in AIR 2025 SC 4108 between Ramesh Chand (D) through LRs V Suresh. Where in it is held as follows:
"According to Sec.53A of the TP Act, where there is a contract to transfer any immovable property in writing and the transferee has in part performance of the 53 O.S. No.26330/2022 contract taken the possession of the property or part thereof, then not withstanding that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed by law, the transferor will be debarred from taking the possession of the property.
66. In the above decision the suit was filed seeking the relief of possession mesne profits, declaration, mandatory injunction on the basis of GPA, Agreement to sell, affidavit and a receipt. However in the case on hand the plaintiff is claiming title on the basis of sale deed executed by Gurumurty and Parvathi and Jayalaxmi who are the original allottees and who got the sale deeds in respect of suit schedule property by BDA. It is admitted that the BDA has not executed any allotment letter or sale deed in favor of these defendants. These defendants have not paid any tax or betterment charges for the use and occupation of suit schedule property. The sale deed executed infavor of vendor of plaintiff is also not cancelled so far. Till today the defendant No.3 has not not taken any action as against plaintiff or her vendors for cancellation of sale deeds executed in their favor. Hence with due respect to the dictum laid down in the above case the same is not helpful for the defendants.
54O.S. No.26330/2022
67. The counsel for the defendant also relied on decision reported in AIR 2004 SC 1893 between Vasantiben Prahladji Nayak and others Vs Somnath Muljibhai Nayak and others in respect of his argument regarding adverse possession.
68. It is necessary to note that it is well settled principle of law that mere possession of a party even if it is true for any number of years will not clothe the person in enjoyment with the title by adverse possession. As indicated supra, the important ingredients of adverse possession should have been satisfied. It is also necessary to note that the plea of adverse possession is always based on facts which must be asserted and proved. A person who claims adverse possession must show on what date he came into possession, what was the nature of his possession, whether the factum of his possession was known to the legal claimants and how long his possession continued. He must also show whether his possession was open and undisturbed. In the case on hand the defendants at one juncture states that they are in possession of suit schedule property since 20 years and at another juncture they pleads that they are in possession of suit property since 1992. The application 55 O.S. No.26330/2022 marked at Ex.D12 shows that the defendant No.2 as on date of filing of said application on 12-02-2013 stated that she is in possession of site No.10 since 15 years. The defendant No.2 also stated that she purchased site No.10 from Jayalakshmi. If the above fact is taken into consideration then the defendant No.1 and 2 are claiming that they are in possession since 1998. the defendant No.1 and 2 hence are not certain on what date they came into possession. Hence the first and foremost ingredient to claim adverse possession is itself not proved by these defendants No.1 and 2.
69. These defendants have not denied the receipt of legal notice terminating the tenancy issued by the vendors of the plaintiff to the defendant No.1 as per Ex.P5 on 14-08-2012. The defendants to establish that they are in possession of suit property and their possession was open and undisturbed have relied on their identity cards issued by various departments and on perusal of the Aadhar card of the defendant No.1 it appears to be issued in the year 2013.Ex. D2 not reflects the date of issue, the residential certificate at Ex.D8 is issued on 21-03-2012. The caste and income certificate is also issued on 17-03-2012. It is necessary to note that 56 O.S. No.26330/2022 Ex.D10 shows that the defendant No.2 is allotted with site No.10 whereas the very same defendant No.2 in her application submitted before BDA as per Ex.D12 stated that site No.10 is allotted to Jayalakhsmi.
70. In the year 2013 for the first time this defendant No.2 seeking to register site No.10 to her name has filed request before BDA. In the said application she even sought for cancellation of sale deed executed infavor of said Jayalakshmi. Hence the same shows that the factum of possession of defendants No.1 and 2 was not at all known to the legal claimants i.e., Jayalakshmi and Gurumurthy. It is on 03-04-2013 this defendant No.2 has sought regularization of site No.9 and 10 contending that she is residing there since 15 years.
71. That apart as admitted by these defendants themselves the suit filed by them in O.S.3529/2013 was for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants of said suit from interfering and dispossessing plaintiffs without due process of law. The said suit was decreed by restraining the defendants from interfering and dispossessing the plaintiffs without due process of law from the suit schedule property. In the 57 O.S. No.26330/2022 said suit the court observed that the plaintiffs of said suit who are defendants No.1 and 2 herein are in possession without title. The said finding is not challenged by defendants. The said suit was not filed against BDA and this plaintiff is not party to the said suit. The defendants herein have not sought for any relief of declaration of their title by way of adverse possession in the said suit.
72. To establish that the defendants are in possession of suit property have mainly relied on DL of defendant No.1 and during the course of cross examination DW 1 deposed that Ex.D3 is issued on 14- 02-2012. TO show that initially while obtaining DL in the year 1995 his address is shown as suit schedule property no document is forthcoming.
73. Though this DW1 deposed that he constructed house in the suit schedule property in the year 1992-93 no documents in respect of said construction is forthcoming. The defendants have not produced any licence copy, any bill for purchase of construction material, any documents to show that he had constructed building therein is produced.
58O.S. No.26330/2022
74. It is also necessary to note that this defendant admits the receipt of legal Notice Ex.P5 and also admits that he has not given any reply. The said notice at Ex.P5 shows that the vendors of plaintiff claiming as landlords have issued said tenancy termination notice claiming possession of suit property on 22-08-2012 itself. It is thereafter the defendants No.1 and 2 have filed suit for permanent injunction. The enquiry report reveals that the defendant No.2 submitted request for regularization of site No.9 and 10 to her name on 09-09-2014 though the sale deed was executed to Gurumurthy and Jayalaxmi in the year 2009 and 2011. The electricity connections of suit property as admitted by DW1 was standing in the name of Gurumurthy and the same was disconnected and hence he filed writ petitions. Though it is contended that the Gurumurthy and his daughter have submitted false information before BDA and got the site allotted in their name and got the possession certificates and then got the sale deeds executed in their names it is vital to note that since the date of issuance of allotment letter till the date of execution of sale deed these defendants No.1 and 2 have not raised any objection before the concerned authority. The defendant No.2 herself admits the allotment of site No.10 to Jayalakshmi 59 O.S. No.26330/2022 in her letter dated Ex.D12 dated 12-02-2013. There is absolutely no material to establish that these defendants No.1 and 2 are in adverse possession of suit schedule property since 1992 and they perfected their title to suit property.
75. The defendants No.1 and 2 failed to establish the vital ingredients of adverse possession i.e.,
1. On what date they came into possession,
2. What was the nature of their possession,
3. Whether the factum of possession was known to the other party,
4. How long their possession has continued and whether their possession was open and undisturbed.
76. It is well settled proposition of law that a person who seeks adverse possession has no equity in his favor as he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner. Hence there is heavy burden on defendants No.1 to 2 to prove their title in respect of written statement schedule property by way of adverse possession. In the case on hand the plaintiff proved that she is absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed and subsequent rectification deed. The defendant No.1 & 2 are in possession of suit schedule property.
60O.S. No.26330/2022 However the possession of these defendant No.1 & 2 as contended by them since 1992 or from 20 years from the date of filing of this suit is not established by any cogent and convincing evidence. These defendants No.1 & 2 themselves have sought for regularization of site No.9 &
10. When that being the case they are in permissive possession and they cannot claim adverse possession as against true owner i.e., the plaintiff herein. Hence, I answered issue No.1 in the Affirmative. Issue No.7 in the Negative and Issue No.8 in the Negative.
77. Issue No.2 to 4:
Since the above issues are interlinked, in order to avoid repetition of facts the above issues have been taken up together for consideration. The plaintiff in this case contended that the defendant No.1 entered suit property as tenant on permissive possession and there is no written rental agreement between defendant No.1 & his vendors and it is on the basis of oral agreement he was put in possession and the monthly rent agreed was Rs.1,500/- per month. In this regard plaintiff has relied upon notice marked as Ex.P5 dated 14.08.2012(22.08.2012). On perusal of the said Ex.P5 notice the vendors of the plaintiff i.e., Gurumurthy and 61 O.S. No.26330/2022 Parvathi have issued said notice to defendant No.1. As per said notice the defendant No.1 is tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.1,500/- and the tenancy is terminated and thereby he directed the defendant No.1 to vacate the suit schedule property. It is admitted that the said notice is duly served on defendant No.1 & 2.The defendant No.1 & 2 inspite of receiving of said notice have not given any reply to the said notice. On the contrary they have filed O.S.No.3529/2013 as against the vendors of this plaintiff seeking the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants therein from interfering and dispossessing them without due process of law.
78. It is pertinent to note that in the said suit the defendant No.2 filed written statement interalia contending that he is allotted with site No.9 & 10 and defendant NO.2 & 3 are absolute owners of said suit schedule property and they have constructed a house, got electricity connection and the plaintiff therein is tenant and he is chronic defaulter of rent. He has issued notice as per Ex.P5 demanding to vacate the premises. They have also pleaded in the written statement that they have sold the property to Roopa G. wife of 62 O.S. No.26330/2022 Muniyappa. In the said suit as the defendants admits the possession of plaintiff as tenant the said suit was came to be decreed on 23.04.2019 thereby defendants were restrained from interfering and dispossessing the plaintiff without due process of law. As the plaintiff herein is not party to the said suit and as the plaintiffs inspite of having knowledge of purchase of suit schedule property by the plaintiff-Roopa herein have not impleaded her in the said suit.
79. In the case on hand the defendants No.1 & 2 have also issued notice to their vendors Gurumurthy, Parvathi and also to this plaintiff on 21.11.2013. Even in the said notice the defendant No.1 & 2 have referred to the said sale deed dated 05.07.2013 of this plaintiff Roopa. In the enquiry report marked at Ex.D22 the vendors of plaintiff have given statement that they have given suit schedule property to defendant No.1 on a oral rent. There is no bar to enter into oral rent agreement. The rent agreement may be oral or written agreement. The sale deed was executed in favour of vendors of plaintiff by the BDA on 21.04.2011 and on 22.01.2009. The material on record i.e., notice issued by the plaintiff indicates that the defendant No.1 was inducted as a 63 O.S. No.26330/2022 tenant under the vendors. The said notice was not replied by the defendant No.1 & 2. The receiving of said notice is also admitted by defendant No.1. Under circumstances the contentions of the defendant No.1 & 2 that they are living independently on their own in suit schedule property is without any basis. The notice dated 14.08.2012 is not effectively disputed by the defendants. Since the plaintiff purchased the suit property from the vendors she stepped into the shoes of her vendor and she is entitled to seek possession of suit property. Under the circumstances the plaintiff has proved that defendant No.1 entered suit property as tenant on permissive possession and the tenancy is duly terminated and the plaintiff being purchaser stepped into the shoes of her vendors and entitled to seek possession. Accordingly, I answered issue Nos.2 to 4 in the Affirmative.
80. Issue No.9: It is the contention of the defendants that the suit is barred by law of limitation. It is pertinent to note that the present suit is filed on 08.08.2022. The vendors of the plaintiff have issued notice of termination of tenancy to the defendant No.1 & 2 on 14.08.2012 (22.08.2012). Subsequently, these 64 O.S. No.26330/2022 defendant No.1 & 2 have filed O.S.No.3529/2013 as against vendors of plaintiff on 10.05.2013 and the said suit was came to be decreed on 23.04.2019 as against vendors of plaintiff. It is immediately after disposal of the said suit within 3 years the present suit is filed by plaintiff. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is to be held as filed within the period of limitation. Hence, the contention of the defendants that the suit is barred by law of limitation has no force and hence, I answered Issue No.9 in the Negative.
81. Issue No.10: The defendant No.3 & 4 in their written statement contended that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties. According to them no relief is sought against them and they are not necessary party to the suit. It is necessary to note that the defendant No.3 is the erstwhile original owner of suit schedule property. That apart the defendant No.4 is mortgagee of suit schedule property. They are only formal party to the suit. Hence the defendant No.3 and 4 are formal parties to the suit. Accordingly the contention of defendant No.3 & 4 that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties cannot be accepted. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.10 in the Negative.
65O.S. No.26330/2022
82. Issue No.5: The plaintiff proved that the defendants No.1 & 2 are in permissive possession of suit schedule property as tenant under his vendors. Since vendors of the plaintiff have issued termination of tenancy notice to defendant No.1 and the defendant No.1 has not given any reply they are liable to vacate the suit schedule property. That apart the plaintiff has proved she is absolute owner of the suit schedule property. It is well settled principles of law that the possession always follows title. The plaintiff being the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and as the defendants are tenants they are liable to vacate the suit schedule property and thereby the plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession of suit property. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.5 in the Affirmative.
83. Issue No.6: The plaintiff has claimed damages in respect of suit schedule property. However in this regard no material is placed on record. The plaintiff has not placed any document to show that he is entitled to damages at the rate Rs.25,000/- p.m in respect of suit schedule property. The suit property according to plaintiff is in Manjunatha slum colony hence the plaintiff has to establish that in the said area the property fetches 66 O.S. No.26330/2022 damages at the rate of Rs.25,000/- p.m. However absolutely there is nothing on record to establish the said fact. Hence the plaintiff failed to prove that he is entitled for damages at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per month. Hence I answered issue No.6 in the negative.
84. Issue No.11: In view of my findings on issue No.1 to 5 in the Affirmative, the plaintiff is entitled for suit relief of declaration and possession as prayed as against defendant No.1 & 2. Accordingly I answered issue No.11 Partly in the Affirmative holding that the plaintiff is entitled for suit relief of declaration and possession against defendant No.1 & 2. However in view of the defendant no.3 and 4 being formal parties to the suit and as no specific relief is sought against them in this suit the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as against defendant No.3 & 4 who are formal parties to the suit. The plaintiff is also not entitled to damages. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.11 partly in Affirmative.
85. Issue No.12: In view of my findings on issue No.7 & 8 in the Negative, the defendants No.1 & 2 are not entitled for the counter claim relief sought in the written statement. Accordingly, I answered Issue No.12 in the Affirmative.
67O.S. No.26330/2022
86. Issue No.13:- In view of the reasoning given above, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit filed by the Plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs as against the Defendants No.1 & 2.
The plaintiff is declared as absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
The defendant No.1 & 2 are directed to vacate the suit schedule property and deliver the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within 60 days from the date of this order.
The suit against defendant No.3 & 4 and suit of plaintiff for damages is dismissed.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her and after corrections pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of April 2026).
Digitally signed by ANITHA ANITHA NANJANAGUDU
NANJANAGUDU PARASHIVAMURTHY
PARASHIVAMURTHY
Date: 2026.05.13
15:31:30 +0530
(Anitha N.P.)
LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit,
Bengaluru. (CCH-74)
68
O.S. No.26330/2022
SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of the residential
immovable property property bearing No.9 & 10, situated at 3rd cross road, Manjunatha Slum Colonly, Bangalore, measuring East to West 9.15 meters North to South 6.24 meters and electric and water supply and bounded on the:
East by : Road
West by : Slum Site,
North by : Slum Site No.8
South by : Slum Site No.11.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the Plaintiff's side:-
P.W.1 : Muniyappa P.W.2 : G.V. Madhukeswara P.W.3 : Kethan Kumar V.
2. List of documents exhibited for the Plaintiff's side:-
Ex.P1 GPA
Ex.P2 Digital copy of sale deed dated:05.07.2013
69
O.S. No.26330/2022
Digital copy of rectification of sale deed Ex.P3 dated:19.08.2014.
Certified copy of sale deed
Ex.P4
dated:05.07.2013
Certified copy of Notice
Ex.P5
dated:14.08.2012/22.08.2012
Certified copy of Notice dated:21.11.2013 Ex.P6 issued by defendants Certified copy of acknowledgment Ex.P7 dated:10.09.2014 issued by BDA.
Certified copy of Request letter Ex.P8 to dated:12.02.2013, 29.09.2013, 03.04.2013, 11 09.09.2014 given by defendant No.02 to various authorities.
Certified copy of informal note dated Ex.P12 09.10.2014 Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.211/2016 of Ex.P13 Channamanakere Acchukattu PS Copy of notice dated:28.08.2018 issued to Ex.P14 defendant No.04 by defendant No.1 and 2. Certified copy of order of Hon'ble High Ex.P15 Court of Karnataka in WP No.28843/2014 and 38421/2014, dated:12.08.2014.
E.C., for the period 01.04.2004 to
Ex.P16
08.07.2022.
Ex.P17 to Certified copy of plaint, Written Statement, 20 judgment, Decree in OS.No.3529/2013 70 O.S. No.26330/2022 Certified copy of sale deed Ex.P21 dated:22.01.2009.
Certified copy of ordersheet in PCR
Ex.P22
No.10561/2014
Certified copy of memorandum of deposit of Ex.P23 title deeds.
Ex.P24 Aadhar card of PW2 Digitally signed copy of sale deed dated Ex.P25 21.04.2011
3. List of witness examined for the Defendants side:-
D.W.1 : Satish Chandra S.K. D.W.2 : Manjula D.W.3 : Manjunatha M.
4. List of documents exhibited for Defendants side:-
Ex.D1 Certified copy of Aadhar card of defendant No.1 Ex.D2 Certified copy of Voter ID card of defendant No.1 Ex.D3 Certified copy of DL of defendant No.1 Ex.D4 Certified copy of Voter ID card of defendant No.2 71 O.S. No.26330/2022 Ex.D5 Certified copy of training certificate issued by Handloom and Textiles Ex.D6 Photos Ex.D7 Certified copy of receipt issued by S.A.Digital Studio Ex.D8 Certified copy of residential certificate Ex.D9 Certified copy of income and caste certificate Ex.D10 Certified copy of letter dated 0211.2012 issued by BDA.
Ex.D11 Certified copy of photo, ID proof with respect of certificate under allottment of site. Ex.D12 Certified copy of representation to the Commissioner, BDA dated 12.02.2013 Ex.D13 Certified copy of note dated 20.03.2013 issued by BDA, Ex.D14 Certified copy of office note by BDA Ex.D15 Certified copy of representation to Revenue officer dated 03.04.2013 Ex.D16 Certified copy of legal notice dated 21.11.2013, Ex.D17 Certified copy of representation to the Commissioner, BDA dated29.11.2013, Ex.D18 Certified copy of representation to the Commissioner, BDA dated 09.09.2014, Ex.D19 Certified copy of acknowledgment issued by BDA dated 10.09.2014, 72 O.S. No.26330/2022 Ex.D20 Certified copy of representation to the Superintendent of Police, BDA Vigilance Cell dated 09.09.2014, Ex.D21 Certified copy of acknowledgment issued by BDA dated 10.09.2014, Ex.D22 Certified copy of informal note dated 09.10.2014, Ex.D23 & Certified copy of intimation letter dated 24 09.10.2014 and 01.10.2014 Ex.D25 Certified copy of order in W.P.No.28911/2015 and 32053/2015 dated 17.07.2017.
Ex.D26 Certified copy of permission letter to install the meter by the BESCOM Ex.D27 & Certified copy of two Test Certificate issued 28 by BESCOM Ex.D29 to Certified copy of three BESCOM Bills 31 Ex.D32 Certified copy of 9 receipts issued by Bangalore One, Ex.D33 Certified copy of HP GAS receipts Ex.D34 Certified copy of Form of Application for Purchase of Site by Gurumurthy Ex.D35 Certified copy of Form of Application for Purchase of Site by Jayalakshmi Ex.D36 & Certified copy of affidavits by Gurumurthy 37 and B.G.Parvathi Ex.D38 Certified copy of letter issued by R.V.Institution about salary of Gurumurthy 73 O.S. No.26330/2022 Ex.D39 Certified copy of memorandum issued by BEO dated 12.06.2013 Ex.D40 Certified copy of letter dated 25.06.2013 issued by R.V.Institution Ex.D41 Certified copy of salary details of B.N.Gurumurthy, Retired, P.E.Teacher Ex.D42 Certified copy of reply notice dated 12.12.2013 issued by The Bangalore Hospital Ex.D4 3 is Certified copy of November 2013 pay slip of Jayalakshmi Ex.D44 & Certified copy of letter dated 10.02.2014 45 issued by BESCOM Ex.D46 Certified copy of of photos Ex.D47 Certified copy of khatha certificate dated 01.03.2008 Ex.D48 Certified copy of khatha extract Ex.D49 Certified copy of building plan Ex.D50 Certified copy of acknowledgment for receipt Ex.D51 Official memorandum issued by BESCOM dated 28.06.2008 with photo Ex.D52 BSNL letter dated 18.09.2014 Ex.D53 & EC's 54 Ex.D55 Sworn statement by the defendant No.2 in CC.No.1056/2014, Ex.D56 Certified copy of FIR 74 O.S. No.26330/2022 Ex.D57 Certified copy of complaint in PCR No.1056/2014 Ex.D58 Certified copy of legal notice dated 28.08.2018 Ex.D59 Certified copy of postal receipts and acknowledgment Ex.D60 Certified copy of Aadhar card of defendant No.2 Ex.D61 Ration card.
Digitally signed by ANITHA ANITHA NANJANAGUDU
NANJANAGUDU PARASHIVAMURTHY
PARASHIVAMURTHY
Date: 2026.05.13
15:31:41 +0530
(Anitha N.P.)
LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit,
Bengaluru. (CCH-74)