Bangalore District Court
Mr. Aslam Pasha vs Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike on 3 March, 2015
C.R.P. 67) Govt. Of Karnataka
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS
Form No.9(Civil)
Title sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF XVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
(CCH.NO.12)
Dated, this the 3rd day of March, 2015.
PRESENT
SRI SHUKLAKSHA PALAN, B.Com.,LL.M.
PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT-XV
AND C/C OF XVI ACC & SJ, BANGALORE.
O.S.NO. 2613/2009
PLAINTIFFS 1. Mr. Aslam Pasha,
Aged about 29 years.
2. Mr. Syed Asif,
Aged about 28 years.
3. Mr. Aleem Pasha,
Aged about 27 years.
All are sons of Sri S. Maqbul Ahmed,
Residing at No.5/42, 11th Main,
16th Cross, Padmanabha Nagar,
Bangalore-560 070.
Represented by their
General Power of Attorney Holder
Sri C. Vijay Kumar,
S/o M. Chandrashekhar,
Hindu, Major,
Having his office at No.C1-21-25,
Maruthi Peral, DVG Road,
Basavanagudi, Bangalore-04.
(By Sri HRN/SKS/BKN, Advocates)
2 O.S.2613/2009
- V E R S U S -
DEFENDANT Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,
Represented by its Commissioner,
Bangalore.
(By Sri N.R.J., Advocate)
Date of institution of the suit : 15.4.2009
Nature of the suit (suit on Suit for declaration and
pronote, suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
possession suit for injunction,etc) :
Date of the commencement of 1.8.2011
recording of the evidence :
Date on which the Judgment was 3.3.2015
pronounced :
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
05 10 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(SHUKLAKSHA PALAN)
Presiding Officer, FTC-XV and
C/C of XVI ACC & SJ, BANGALORE.
3 O.S.2613/2009
J U D G M E N T
Plaintiffs have filed this suit against the defendant with the relief of declaration to declare that notice dated 18.3.2009 issued by the defendant bearing No.SA.KA.NI.A/P.0/55/08-09 under Sec.321(2) of KMC Act is null and void and the defendants, their agents etc., are to be restrained permanently in interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiffs' case are that originally the schedule property belonging to R.A. Padmanathan. After his death his legal heirs P. Srinivas and P. Sriram became the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiffs have purchased this property from P. Srinivas and P. Sriram through the registered Sale Deed dated 10.6.2002. Later on katha of the property has been transferred in the 4 O.S.2613/2009 names of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs entered into joint development agreement with M/s Kumar Constructions of Bengaluru as well even executed the power of attorney in favour of C. Vijayakumar, who being the Proprietor of this M/s Kumar Constructions. On the basis of the general power of attorney C. Vijayakumar had performing various acts on behalf of the plaintiffs and accordingly he had obtained plan for put up construction in the suit property. After that construction has put up in the suit property and their agent M/s Kumar constructions have sold some apartments to the buyer. The plaintiffs have applied for license and plan before the BBMP and after approved plan and license issued by them, plaintiffs have constructed their building in accordance with the said plan, permission and license with some little deviations which are permissible, compoundable limits. The defendant issued the notice dated 18.3.2009 to them under Sec.321(2) of KMC Act to suspend the 5 O.S.2613/2009 work and to demolish the construction which s not in accordance with the law. It is the contention of the plaintiff that they have constructed residential complex consisting of 36 apartments, out of which 8 apartments have already been sold and the respective buyers in possession of that apartments. But the officials of the defendant issued notice stated above by contending that the plaintiffs violated the building byelaws, plan and permission. But the plaintiffs have immediately approached the Hon'ble Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for the relief of quashing the aforesaid notice. But their appeal came to be dismissed since no such notices issued under Sec.321(3) of KMC Act. So, KAT has no jurisdiction to try the matter. Hence, the plaintiffs have approached this Court by filing this suit with the appropriate remedies. Hence, plaintiffs prays for decree the suit.
6 O.S.2613/2009
3. The defendant has filed written statement and took the contention that they have initiated proceedings under provisional order under Sec.321(1) of KMC Act and issued show cause notice under Sec.321(2) of KMC Act itself is not ground to file the suit. Because the plaintiffs had provided with an opportunity to put forth their case and after considering their reply only confirmation order will be passed. So, the suit is premature and even this Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such reliefs because the suit is barred under Sec.9 of CPC. There is specific provision provided under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act about preferring appeal against the order passed under Sec.321(3) of KMC Act. Even the suit is bad under Sec.482 of KMC Act. The plaintiffs have to prove their acquisition of title by producing valid documents. They have sanctioned plan to put up residential building vide LP No.DC(S)167/2006-07 dated 5.7.2006 7 O.S.2613/2009 consisting of basement floor, ground floor, first, second and terrace floors in property No.40/2/40/2C/8. During the course of routine inspection their officials found that the construction put up by the plaintiffs is against to the sanctioned plan and license even by violating the building byelaws. Their area officer engineer had taken measurement of construction in permission and sanctioned plan and found that there is no proper set backs. Hence, the provisional order was passed under Sec.321(1) of KMC Act along with the detailed statement of deviations and asked the plaintiffs to set right the illegal construction in terms of the plan and to show cause why the provisional order should not be confirmed vide show cause notice dated 18.3.2009 under KMC Act. But the owners of the property fail to remove the illegal and unauthorized construction and also fail to submit the reply to their notice. In spite of the fact that there is actual 8 O.S.2613/2009 deviations made by the plaintiffs while constructing the building in all floors. The allegations of the plaintiffs that they made the construction in accordance with the sanctioned plan without deviations are false. They have not chosen to give proper reply to their show cause notice. The building is not completed and even completion certificate is also not furnished. So the occupancy certificate is not issued. Selling of portion of the property will create no right upon either the plaintiffs or the buyers. They did not take law in to their hands as alleged. On the other hand, without replying to the show cause notice and the provisional order plaintiffs have filed this appeal before the KAT, which came to be dismissed since there is no provision to prefer appeal without passing any provisional order and show cause notice, which is in accordance with the law. Even if they pass any confirmation order, aggravated person can prefer appeal under Sec.443-A of KMC 9 O.S.2613/2009 Act. Merely issuing provisional order will not get the right to demolish the building and as such there is no cause of action and the suit is premature, hence it requires to be dismissed.
4. On the above pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor has framed the following issues :-
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the Notice dated 18.3.2009 issued by the defendant vide No.SA.KA.NI.A/P.N.N/P.O/55/08-09 under Section 321(2) of the K.M.C. Act is illegal, without any basis and null and void ?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove their lawful possession over the suit schedule property on the date of the suit ?
3. Whether the plaintiffs further prove the alleged interference and obstructions to such of their possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the defendant and their men and also the attempt of illegal demolition of the building put up in the suit property ?
4. Whether the suit is bad for non-compliance of Section 482 of KMC Act ?
5. Whether the suit is improperly valued and the Court fee paid on the valuation is insufficient ?
6. Is there no cause of action for the suit ?
7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration and injunction as prayed ? 10 O.S.2613/2009
8. What Order or Decree ?
5. To prove the case of the plaintiffs, GPA holder of the plaintiffs has been examined as PW.1 and got marked 6 documents as per Exs.P-1 to P-8 and closed their side. The defendant did not adduce any evidence and marked two documents as per Exs.D-1 & 2 in the cross-examination of PW.1.
6. Heard the arguments of Sri H.R.N., learned counsel for the plaintiffs and Sri N.R.J., learned counsel for the defendant and perused the materials on record.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under: -
(1) ISSUE NO.1 : In the Negative.
(2) ISSUE NO.2 : In the Affirmative.
(3) ISSUE NO.3 : In the Negative.
(4) ISSUE NO.4 : In the Negative.
(5) ISSUE NO.5 : In the Negative.
(6) ISSUE NO.6 : In the Affirmative.
11 O.S.2613/2009
(7) ISSUE NO.7 : In the Negative.
(8) ISSUE NO.8 : As per final order for the
following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NOS.1 & 2 :- Since these two issues are inter-related, they are dealt and discussed in common in order to avoid the repetition in appreciation of the evidence.
9. The plaintiffs have purchased the property from their vendor is not in dispute. Because they purchased the schedule property through registered Sale Deed dated 10.6.2002 from P. Srinivas and P. Sriram. It is also an undisputed fact that katha of the suit schedule property was changed in the name of these plaintiffs and later on plaintiffs are paying the tax to the said property and enjoying the same as absolute owner. The defendant even not disputing the very ownership 12 O.S.2613/2009 and possession of the schedule property by the plaintiffs.
10. The very dispute prevails in between the parties is all together different. The plaintiffs alleged that they have authorized one C. Vijayakumar, Proprietor of M/s Kumar Construction for development of the property and even appointed them as their Power of Attorney to execute certain work on their behalf for the purpose of development of the property like construction of the building etc., It is the case of the plaintiffs that after doing all those developmental work and construction of the building, M/S Kumar constructions have sold three apartments to their buyers and their construction was in accordance with the plan, permission and license obtained for that purpose. According to the plaintiffs there is no deviations except small deviations which are permissible and 13 O.S.2613/2009 compoundable limits. So, this admission of the plaintiffs itself goes to show that the construction of the building is definitely not done in accordance with the permission and license granted by the defendant Corporation. So, on this basis defendant Corporation has issued notice dated 18.3.2009 as contemplated under Sec.321(2) of the KMC Act and directed the plaintiffs to suspend the construction work and to demolish certain portion of the building which had been constructed by violating the building byelaws and permission and license. So, the plaintiffs also admitted the service of the notice to them as contemplated under Sec.321(2) of the KMC Act, 1976. On the other hand, Sec.321(2) of KMC Act which reads as under :-
Sec.321 - Demolition or alteration of buildings or well work unlawfully commenced, carried on or completed :-
(2) The Commissioner shall serve a copy of the provisional order made under sub-section (1) on the owner or builder of the building or hut or well together with a notice requiring him to show 14 O.S.2613/2009 cause within a reasonable time to be named in such notice why the order should not be confirmed.
As per this provisions the defendant Commissioner shall serve a notice of the provisional order made under Sec.321(1) of the KMC Act and if the contents of the notice is not disputed, then only he has to issue show cause for confirmation of the order passed under Sec.321(2) of KMC Act when there is deviation in construction of the building against the permission and license.
11. So, under Sec.321(2) of KMC Act if a show cause notice is issued, it is the duty of the owner of the building to answer showing the exact cause for construction of the building made against the building byelaws as well as against the permission and license within a period of 7 days. Then only Sec.321(3) of KMC Act comes into picture, which is as under :-
Sec.321(3) If the owner or builder fails to show cause to the satisfaction of the Commissioner, the Commissioner may confirm the order, with 15 O.S.2613/2009 any modification he may think fit and such order shall then be binding on the owner.
So, under Sec.321(3) of KMC Act either owner or builder fails to show exact reason for not demolishing the portion of the building constructed in contravention to the provision of KMC Act, building byelaws, plan and permission, then this provision will empowers the Corporation Commissioner to confirm the order passed under Sec.321(1) of KMC Act. Here, admittedly the defendant issued show cause notice to the plaintiffs under Sec.321(2) of KMC Act. So, now the plaintiffs have to give the exact reason for unable to demolish the portion of the building constructed by them in the suit property against the plan and permission etc., On the other hand, the plaintiffs have approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for redressal of their remedy under Sec.443-A of KMC Act, but it is premature stage to passing such an order by the Corporation 16 O.S.2613/2009 Commissioner as contemplated under Sec.321(3) of the Act. That is why their appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
12. Mere dismissal of the appeal or issuance of notice under Sec.321(2) of KMC Act will empowers the plaintiff to approach the Civil Court by filing such a suit is a matter for consideration in the present juncture. In this regard this Court has gone through the material contention of the defendant. The defendant took the specific contention that the suit is premature in nature and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such suit or to grant interim reliefs since it is against the provision of Sec.9 of CPC. It is also their specific contention that under Sec.321(3) of KMC Act, whenever order is passed by the Commissioner, then plaintiffs have to approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for redressal of the remedy. On the other hand, the plaintiffs have 17 O.S.2613/2009 approached this Court by challenging the notice issued by the Commissioner dated 18.3.2009 bearing No.SA.KA.NI.A/P.0/55/08-09 as contemplated under Sec.321(2) of KMC Act.
Sec.9 of CPC reads as follows :-
Sec.9 Commissions to make local investigations - In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court.
Provided that, where the State Government has made rules as to the persons to whom such commission shall be issued, the Court shall be bound by such rules.
The Court shall have jurisdiction to try all suits except their cognizance either specifically or impliedly barred under anyone of the statute, rule etc., So, it can be construed that in case any bar is there to entertain any civil suit under the provision of any statute, then such suits cannot be considered as suits of civil nature and that types 18 O.S.2613/2009 suits cannot be entertained before the Civil Courts. Here, Sec.443-A of the KMC Act will empowers the plaintiffs to approach Hon'ble Karnataka Appellate Tribunal for filing an appeal only in case there is confirmation order passed by the Corporation Commissioner under Sec.321(3) of KMC Act. It is not at all the case of the plaintiffs that such an order was come to be passed by the Commissioner. Because immediate to issuing of notice under Sec.321(2) of KMC Act, they have approached the Civil Court without giving any proper explanation to the concerned Corporation Commissioner. That is why the defendant took the specific contention that the suit of the plaintiffs is even premature also. In this regard this Court has gone through the admissions made by the PW.1 - C. Vijayakumar, who is the plaintiffs General Power of Attorney holder. He admitted that before instituting the suit defendant gave notice along with sketch and that Xerox copy of notice and 19 O.S.2613/2009 sketch has been confronted to the witness and he admitted and they are marked at Exs.D-1 and D-2, respectively. But the said marking is done subject to producing of original document. But, unfortunately the defendant fails to produce the original of the same, but this Court feels that when the copies of the said document is produced, it is highly impossible to produce the original because it is served to the plaintiffs or their power of attorney holder and the defendant is only retaining another copy of the same. Even otherwise, on production of the original would not invalidate the contention of the defendant because it is admitted case of the plaintiffs that such a notice was served and it is definitely supported by the sketch, which depict that construction was made by the plaintiffs against the building permission, license and byelaws as admitted. It is also further admitted by PW.1 that he had instituted the suit before issuing of notice under Sec.321(3) of KMC Act. That 20 O.S.2613/2009 admission will presupposes the fact that so far defendant did not pass any confirmation order made earlier under Sec.321(3) of the KMC Act. When the sketch is within the knowledge of the witness will also presupposes the fact that defendant officials have definitely inspected the building constructed by the plaintiff through their authority holder and the defendant officials noted some violations made by the plaintiffs or their power of attorney holder while constructing the buildings in the suit property. He has also further admitted that he do not know anything about production of commencement certificate and completion certificate and occupancy certificate. But, this PW.1 is not an illiterate person to answer like that because he is a developer of land belonging to the plaintiffs, even though he did not obtain commencement certificate and given the completion certificate to the defendant and defendant in turn did not given any occupancy 21 O.S.2613/2009 certificate for that reason. Even though there are several defects, admittedly this PW.1 himself has sold three flats to the buyers. It is his further specific admission that he had no objection to demolish front house, if constructed. So, that admission further goes to prove that construction made in the plaintiffs property is contrary to the building byelaws, plan and permission. Even he do not know anything about leaving of set back in all four sides of the building. His admission will goes to show that he is hiding something.
13. The plaintiffs have produced katha extract and katha certificate at Exs.P-1 and 2, execution of GPA as per Ex.P-3 and copies of Sale Deeds as per Exs.P-4 and 5, all these documents are not in dispute. Ex.P-6 is the copy of joint development agreement took place in between plaintiffs and this PW.1. That is also not in dispute. Under such circumstances, it can be held that the plaintiffs are 22 O.S.2613/2009 absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. But the dispute prevails in the suit property is otherwise as discussed above. The defendant's officials are discharging their duties in accordance with the provision of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act and they are bound to take notice of the fact that any construction is shown against their permission or plan, under such circumstances, they are empower to take action by issuing notices under Secs.321(1), (2) & (3) of K.M.C. Act.
14. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs filed the written arguments and high lighted about Sec.448 of the KMC Act about the fact that permission and license should be given in accordance of provision of KMC Act. That fact is not in dispute. He had also high lighted Sec.459 of the Act, which empowers the Commissioner or its sub-ordinate officials for inspection of the property in which the 23 O.S.2613/2009 property owner took the license for construction of the building. Under Sec.459(b) it is the duty of the defendant to serve the notice atleast 24 hours prior to take sufficient action. But without taking such action the plaintiffs have approached here after service of notice as contemplated under Sec.321(2) of the said Act. Further, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs high lighted that plaintiffs are not served with such notice before making such inspection by the defendant. But, this Court is unable to accept the said contention because the plaintiffs have approached this Court on service of Sec.321(2) notice. The learned counsel also high lighted before the Court about not drawing the mahazar in the spot to substantiate the contention of spot inspection. But the PW.1 admitted the copy of sketch as per Ex.D-2 will emphasizes the fact that without making spot inspection in the presence of the plaintiffs representative such a sketch could not be drawn in the spot. The 24 O.S.2613/2009 learned counsel also high lighted about the fact that measurement has been taken by the defendant in the absence of the plaintiffs. If that is the case, nothing prevented the plaintiffs to take the assistance of the Court Commissioner for revealing the true facts of suit property. Such an attempt is not made by them. But reason is not assigned for it. On the other hand, it is always to be construed that the officials act are done correctly unless its correctness or otherwise is examined before the Court through evidence. The learned counsel also relied on citations reported in AIR 1991 Supreme Court page 1117 in case of "The Scheduled Caste and Weaker Section Welfare Association(Regd.) and another v. State of Karnataka and others" and 1984(1) KLJ page 25. This Court has perused the said decisions, but the said decisions are definitely not rendered under the provision of KMC Act. But the principles can be applied if satisfactorily established about the 25 O.S.2613/2009 violation committed by the defendant or their officials. But, that aspect is not proved before this Court. So the principles are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of this case on hand. On the other hand, plaintiffs had approached this Court prior to passing of such an order by the defendant under Sec.321(3) of KMC Act as high lighted by the defendant itself. For the above made discussions, I hereby answer issue No.1 in the Negative and issue No.2 in the Affirmative.
15. ISSUE NO.3:- It is one sided case of the plaintiffs that defendant officials did not come to the property and inspected their building. It is the second contention of the plaintiffs that even though they have inspected their building, they have not served any such notices of inspection and not in their presence such an alleged inspection was done. But these two contentions will goes to 26 O.S.2613/2009 establish that the defendant officials have definitely inspected the building belongs to the plaintiffs and note down some violation made while constructing the building in the suit property. Otherwise no necessity of the plaintiffs to approach this Court by seeking remedy as claimed. The defendant's officials are discharging their duties and functions within the provision of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act 1976 and their duties and authorities could not be questioned before the Civil Courts. So, when they inspected the property under the provision of the said Act, then it could not be held or construe as an interference. Accordingly, I answer this issue No.3 in the Negative.
16. ISSUE NO.4:- The defendant also took the contention that the suit is filed without issuing notice under Sec.482 of KMC Act. Hence, it is to be dismissed. No doubt, under the provisions of 27 O.S.2613/2009 KMC Act Sec.482, two months notice is required to be issued to the defendant Corporation prior to instituting any suit before the Civil Court. But Sec.482(2) empowers the plaintiffs to institute the suit without notice under the pleasure of the Court. Here such an application is filed by the plaintiff and this Court had dispensed the notice issued under Sec.482 of KMC Act. It is not evidenced that suit required to be returned without compliance of Sec.482 of KMC Act, during the course of evidence. Hence, the said contention taken by the defendant do not hold any water at all. The plaintiffs have definitely approached the Court in the emergent circumstances on receipt of notice under Sec.321(2) of KMC Act. Hence, I answer this issue No.4 in the Negative.
17. ISSUE NO.5:- The defendant raised the contention of improper valuation of suit property. The suit property is no doubt immovable property 28 O.S.2613/2009 i.e., building. The relief claimed by the plaintiff is only in challenging the notice dated 18.3.2009 with the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. Accordingly suit is valued as contemplated under Sec.24(d) and 26(c) of K.C.F. & S.V. Act. Absolutely there is no such reliefs claimed in respect to the immovable property is concerned. Hence, I feel that the valuation made by the plaintiffs is proper and correct. Accordingly, I answer this issue No.5 in the Negative.
18. ISSUE NO.6:- About cause of action as contended by the defendant that the suit is filed without cause of action. But the plaintiffs have approached this Court in challenging the notice issued by the defendant under Sec.321(2) of KMC Act. On the other hand, under Sec.321(3) of the KMC Act, the defendant has to pass confirmation order, then onwards only the plaintiffs approach Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under Sec.443-A of 29 O.S.2613/2009 the said Act. So, there is no reason to approach Civil Court. Accordingly I answer this issue No.6 in the Affirmative.
19. ISSUE NO.7:- The plaintiffs are not entitled for the reliefs of declaration or permanent injunction as claimed because the dispute is with respect to the construction of the building made by the plaintiffs in the suit property against to the building byelaws, plan and permission. So, for the above reasons this Court feels that Civil Courts are debarred in granting such reliefs of declaration in questioning the notices issued under Sec.321 of the KMC Act. Accordingly I answer this issue No.7 in the Negative.
20. ISSUE NO.8 :- For the above made discussions in the above said issues, I proceed to pass the following :-
30 O.S.2613/2009
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed with costs of the defendant.
However, plaintiffs are granted opportunity to approach the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal under Sec.443-A of KMC Act whenever a confirmation order passed by the defendant in respect to the building constructed by them in the suit property.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 3rd day of March, 2015).
(SHUKLAKSHA PALAN) Presiding Officer, FTC-XV and C/C of XVI ACC & SJ, BANGALORE.
SCHEDULE All the piece and parcel of property Old No.40/2, New No.40/2C, in village Panchayath Khatha No.41, situated at Kadirenahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore, now the schedule property comes within the limits of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Padmanabha Nagar, Corporation Division Ward No.55, Property No.40/2C, Kadirenahalli, Bangalore, Measuring east to west northern side 83'6" (Eighty three feet six inches) and southern side 113'6"(one hundred thirteen feet six inches) north to south, eastern side 146' (one hundred forty six feet) and Western side 216'6"(Two hundred sixteen feet six inches) Totally measuring 17,876.18 Sq.ft & bounded on :
East by : Private property West by : Telecom Layout property North by : Private property South by : Uttarahalli Main road.
31 O.S.2613/2009
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PLAINTIFFS:-
PW.1 C. Vijay Kumar
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFFS:-
Ex.P-1 Khatha certificate
" P-2 Khatha extract
" P-3 G.P.A.
" P-4 & 5 Cc of Sale Deeds.
" P-6 Cc of joint development agreement.
" P-7 & 8 Sanctioned plans.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
DEFENDANTS:- - NONE -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR
DEFENDANTS:-
Ex.D-1 Copy of notice.
" D-2 Sketch. (Exs.D-1 & 2 marked in cross-
examination of PW.1)
(SHUKLAKSHA PALAN)
Presiding Officer, FTC-XV and
C/C of XVI ACC & SJ, BANGALORE.
32 O.S.2613/2009
Judgment pronounced in open Court vide separate judgment.
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed with costs of the defendant.
However, plaintiffs are granted opportunity to approach the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under Sec.443-A of KMC Act whenever a confirmation order passed by the defendant in respect to the building constructed by them in the suit property.
Draw decree accordingly.
(SHUKLAKSHA PALAN) Presiding Officer, FTC-XV and C/C of XVI ACC & SJ, BANGALORE.33 O.S.2613/2009