Bangalore District Court
Venus Suites Pvt. Ltd vs The Commissioner on 2 May, 2015
Govt. Of Karnataka
C.R.P.67] TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE.
Form No.9 Present: Sri. T.M.Nagaraja, B.A, LL.B.,
(Civil)
Title sheet for (Name of the Presiding Judge)
Judgment in
suits (R.P.91)
OS NO.26508/2011
(CCH-22)
Plaintiff:-
Venus Suites Pvt. Ltd., A Company registered under The Companies Act, 1956,
Having its office at No.A001, 'Royal Towers', Hennur Road, Ring Road, Kalyana
nagar, Bangalore-560 043, Rep. by its Director, Mr.Kurien Varghese.
(Plaintiff: By Advocate Sri.B.V.Rama Moorthy)
V/s.
Defendants:-
1. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, K.P.West,
Bangalore-560 020.
2. Executive Engineer, North Division, Bangalore Development Authority,
Bangalore.
(Defendants-1 and 2: By Advocate Sri.K.K.Surendra)
2 OS No.26508/2011
Date of Institution of the suit 27.08.2011
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit for Declaration and Permanent
declaration and possession, suit for Injunction
injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of 20.4.2015
recording of the Evidence.
Date on which the Judgment was 02.05.2015
pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 03 08 06
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL
BANGALORE.
3 OS No.26508/2011
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff filed this suit for decree of declaration that, the 2nd defendant is not competent to issue notice dated: 23.8.2011 at Annexure 'N' and the same is void in the eye of law. Further the plaintiff sought for decree of Permanent Injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents and anybody claiming under them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the schedule property or damaging any portion of the schedule property on the guise of the notice dated: 23.8.2011. Further the plaintiff sought for the decree of Permanent Injunction to restrain the defendants, their agents, servants, henchmen from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and for costs of the suit.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case are that:
Originally the land bearing Sy.No.36/2, Old No.37, measuring 2 acres 4 guntas, situated at Hennur Village, Bangalore North Taluk belonged to one Smt.Meri Bayamma and her children. Smt.Meri Bayamma and her children sold the said 4 OS No.26508/2011 land bearing Sy.No.36/2 measuring 2 acres 4 guntas to one Mrs. Sucy Koshy for valuable consideration under the registered Sale Deed dated: 4.9.1964. Further, Mrs.Sucy Koshy has executed Registered Power of Attorney dated: 10.1.1980 in favour of one Mr.George Philips in respect of land bearing Sy.No.36/2 measuring 2 acres 4 guntas land. By virtue of Power of Attorney executed by Mrs.Sucy Koshy in favour of Mr.George Philips, said George Philips has sold the entire land in favour of one Mr.Thadathil Varghese Thomas and Mr.Varghese John for valuable consideration under the registered Sale Deed dated: 4.2.1980. Further, Mr.Varghese John has executed Registered power of attorney dated: 26.5.1984 in favour of Mr.George Philip. The plaintiff submits that, the Property bearing Site Nos. 19 to 22 situated at Hennur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk was owned by P.Daniel Varghese. During his lifetime, P.Daniel Varghese developed the said Property by construction of apartment units comprising of ground and three upper floors by obtaining license from 5 OS No.26508/2011 Byhatrayanapura CMC. The plaintiff purchased 15 apartments with undivided interest in the land proportionate to the apartment super built up area. These apartments are morefully described in the schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule property. Since, the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property, as an absolute owner. The plaintiff has taken power connection to the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has also obtained trade license and food license from BBMP. The plaintiff has also paid tax to BBMP in respect of the suit schedule property and Khata of the suit schedule property stands in the name of the plaintiff. As on the date of issue of preliminary notification, Mrs. Sucy Koshy was the notified khatedar of land bearing Sy.No.36/2 (old No.37), measuring 2 acres 4 guntas of Hennur Village and not Mrs.Suey Kosly. The boundaries mentioned in the preliminary notification and final notification are entirely different from the boundaries mentioned in the Sale Deed dated: 4.9.1964. Even the defendants authority have also admitted that, Mrs.Suchy Koshy 6 OS No.26508/2011 was the notified khatader of the land bearing Sy.No.36/2 of Henuur Village. Hence, the defendants have not acquired the suit schedule property. Thus, the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as owner and has been legally utilizing the suit schedule property for the purpose of running serviced apartments. But, the 2nd defendant threatened to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property on 21.8.2011 and the same was resisted by the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant has affixed a notice on the suit schedule property. The 2nd defendant has no locus-standi to issue such notice. The defendants have no right in respect of the suit schedule property. On the guise of the notice, the defendants are intending to demolish or damage the suit schedule property. Hence, there is imminent threat of dispossession and interference by the defendants to the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The defendants have no any right, title and interest over the suit schedule property to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Thus, 7 OS No.26508/2011 the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit seeking reliefs of declaration and Permanent Injunction. On the above among other grounds, the plaintiff prays for decreeing the suit.
3. The defendants filed written-statement denying the case of the Plaintiff. Further contended that, the suit is not maintainable in law and facts. The land Sy.No.36/2 measuring 1 acre 39 guntas was acquired by the BDA under preliminary notification No.BDA/ALAO/S/11/78-79 dated: 27.6.1978 and also issued final notification No.HUD/567/MNX/84, dated: 9.1.1985. Possession was taken and award was also passed. Further denied that, the defendants have not formed any site Nos. 19 to 22 in the said Sy.No.36/2 and it is not within the knowledge of the defendants that, Site Nos. 19 to 22 were owned by P.Daniel Varghese. Further denied that, these defendants have not issued any sanctioned plan in respect of the suit schedule property. Further contended that, the defendants have taken the possession of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. 8 OS No.26508/2011 Further denied that, the defendants have not issued any notice to the khatedhars of the land. Even if the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property, the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property is that of an illegal occupant, encroacher and the plaintiff has no exclusive right over the public Property. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file this suit. After amendment of the plaint, the defendants have filed Additional written-statement by denying the amended portions of the plaint and further contended that, the suit schedule property has been acquired by the defendants and the defendants never attempted to demolish the suit schedule property and never attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property, as the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. The defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property, since the suit schedule property is notified and acquired by the defendants and hence the plaintiff has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. On the above among other grounds, the defendants pray for dismissing of the suit. 9 OS No.26508/2011
4. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, my learned Predecessor has framed the following Issues:
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that notice dated: 23.8.2011 is barred?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Permanent Injunction claimed?
3) Whether the suit is maintainable for the relief claimed?
4) What order or decree?
5. In support of plaintiffs case, examined PWs-1 and 2 witnesses and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P203. Defendants-1 and 2 have not led any oral or documentary evidence, though the counsel for defendants-1 and 2 cross-examined PWs-1 and 2.
6. The advocate for the plaintiff and the advocate for defendants-1 and 2 have filed their written arguments. I have perused the documents and also the written arguments filed by the advocate for the plaintiff and the advocate for defendants-1 and 2.
10 OS No.26508/2011
7. My findings on the above Issues are held as follows:
Issue No.1) Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.2) In the affirmative
Issue No.3) In the affirmative
Issue No.4) As per final orders, for
the following:
REASONS
8. Issue No.1:- The Plaintiff has asserted that, he has
purchased Site Nos. 19 to 22, situated at Hennur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, from one P.Daniel Varghese. Since the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has taken power connection and also obtained license from BBMP and Khata of the suit schedule property also stands in the name of the plaintiff. But, the 2nd defendant with ulterior motive, threatened to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant has also affixed a notice on the schedule property, which is at Annexure 'N' dated: 23.8.2011 purported to have been issued under Sec.33 of the Bangalore Development Act, 1976 stating 11 OS No.26508/2011 that, land bearing Sy.No.36/2, measuring 1 Acre 39 Guntas of Hennur Village, was acquired by the defendants for formation of layout by issuing Preliminary notification dated: 27.6.1978, final notification dated:9.1.985, Award dated: 16.12.1986 and possession was taken by the defendant on 29.12.1986 and Notification under Sec.16(2) of Land Acquisition Act for taking possession of the land in Sy.No.36/2 of Hennur Village dated: 15.5.1987. Thus, the defendants have contended that, land bearing Sy.No.36/2 measuring 1 acre 39 guntas of Hennur Village has already been acquired by the defendants. The defendants not produced any documents to show that, the notice is issued in the name of the plaintiff i.e., notice dated: 23.8.2011 at Annexure 'N'. But, the 2nd defendant is competent to issue notice dated: 23.8.2011, but, not issuing notice in the name of the plaintiff, the notice is void. As such, I am of the opinion that, the 2nd defendant is competent to issue notice dated: 23.8.2011, but, the said notice is not issued in the name of the plaintiff. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 partly in the affirmative. 12 OS No.26508/2011
9. Issue No.2:- The plaintiff has asserted that, originally the land bearing Sy.No.36/2, Old No.37, measuring 2 acres 4 guntas, situated at Hennur Village, Bangalore North Taluk belonged to one Smt.Meri Bayamma and her children. Smt.Meri Bayamma and her children sold the said land bearing Sy.No.36/2 measuring 2 acres 4 guntas to one Mrs. Sucy Koshy for valuable consideration under the registered Sale Deed dated: 4.9.1964. Further, Mrs.Sucy Koshy has executed Registered Power of Attorney dated: 10.1.1980 in favour of one Mr.George Philips in respect of land bearing Sy.No.36/2 measuring 2 acres 4 guntas land. By virtue of Power of Attorney executed by Mrs.Sucy Koshy in favour of Mr.George Philips, said George Philips has sold the entire land in favour of one Mr.Thadathil Varghese Thomas and Mr.Varghese John for valuable consideration under the registered Sale Deed dated: 4.2.1980. Further, Mr.Varghese John has executed Registered power of attorney dated: 26.5.1984 in favour of Mr.George Philip. The plaintiff submits that, the Property 13 OS No.26508/2011 bearing Site Nos. 19 to 22 situated at Hennur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk was owned by P.Daniel Varghese. During his lifetime, P.Daniel Varghese developed the said Property by construction of apartment units comprising of ground and three upper floors by obtaining license from Byatrayanapura CMC. The plaintiff purchased 15 apartments with undivided interest in the land proportionate to the apartment super built up area. These apartments are morefully described in the schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule property. Since, the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property, as an absolute owner. The plaintiff has taken power connection to the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has also obtained trade license and food license from BBMP. The plaintiff has also paid tax to BBMP in respect of the suit schedule property and Khata of the suit schedule property stands in the name of the plaintiff. As on the date of issue of preliminary notification, Mrs. Sucy Koshy was the notified khatedar of land bearing Sy.No.36/2 (old No.37), 14 OS No.26508/2011 measuring 2 acres 4 guntas of Hennur Village and not Mrs.Suey Kosly. The boundaries mentioned in the preliminary notification and final notification are entirely different from the boundaries mentioned in the Sale Deed dated: 4.9.1964. Even the defendants authority have also admitted that, Mrs.Suchy Koshy was the notified khatader of the land bearing Sy.No.36/2 of Henuur Village. Hence, the defendants have not acquired the suit schedule property. Thus, the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as owner and has been legally utilizing the suit schedule property for the purpose of running serviced apartments. But, the 2nd defendant threatened to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property on 21.8.2011 and the same was resisted by the plaintiff. The defendants have no any right, title and interest over the suit schedule property to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Thus, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit seeking reliefs of declaration and Permanent Injunction. Accordingly, 15 OS No.26508/2011 PWs-1 and 2 have reiterated in their evidence. The learned counsel for the defendants not succeeded to elicit anything worth from the mouth of PWs-1 and 2. Further, the plaintiff placed reliance on the documents. Exs.P1, P3 to P5, P8 and Exs.P76 to P90 are the certified copies of the Sale Deeds in respect of the suit schedule property. Ex.P8 and Exs.P76 to P90 are the certified copies of the Sale Deeds in respect of the Apartments on suit schedule property executed in favour of the plaintiff by the vendor of the plaintiff. Ex.P2 is the Certified copy of the power of attorney. Exs.P6 and P7 are the RTCs in respect of the suit schedule property. Ex.P9 is the Certified copy of the Map of Hennur Village, Exs.P10, P91 and P92 are the Bank certificates, Exs.P11 to P13 are the certified copies of the Income Tax Returns of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. Certified copies of the Certificates in respect of the suit schedule property issued in the name of the plaintiff by the BBMP are at Exs.P14, P20, P25, P29, P31, P37, P39, P46, P48, P50, P52, P54, P60, P66 and P71. The Khata of the suit schedule property 16 OS No.26508/2011 stands in the name of the plaintiff. Exs.P15, P21, P26, P30, P32, P38, P40, P47, P49, P51, P53, P55, P61, P67 and P72 are the Khata extracts standing in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property issued by BBMP. Encumbrance Certificates are also issued which also stands in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. Exs.P16 to P19, P22 to P24, P26 to P28, P33 to P36, P41 to P45, P56 to P59, P62 to P65 and P68 to P70 are the Encumbrance Certificates which shows that, the suit schedule property is free from all encumbrances and the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. Further, PW1 has placed reliance on the Building Possession certificate at Ex.P73, which shows that, the plaintiff has been given the possession of the suit schedule property. Ex.P74 is the Notice issued by Byataranayanapura CMC in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff to pay the requisite fee. Ex. P75 is the Challan for having paid the requisite fee by the vendor of the plaintiff to the suit schedule property. Exs.P3 to P100 and Exs.P102 to P112 are the Airtel documents issued in 17 OS No.26508/2011 the name of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. Further PW1 has asserted that, the plaintiff has taken electricity connection to the suit schedule property and relied on Exs.P101, P157 to P164, P174 to P178 which are the electricity bills issued in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property for having taken the electricity connection to the suit schedule property. Exs.P113 to P156, P156 to P173, P179 and P180 are the BESCOM receipts for having paid the electricity bills by the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. Exs.P181 to P184 are the Attendance Register maintained by the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. Further, PW1 placed reliance on Exs.P185, P186, P187, P188, P189, P190, P191, P192, P193, P194, P195, P196 and P197 which are the certified copies of judgements and decrees in various suits filed by the plaintiff of this suit in respect of various properties situated in land bearing Sy.No.36/2, Old No.37, of Hennur Village and having obtained decree against the BDA in all the suits. Ex.P198 is the Certified copy of the evidence in one of the 18 OS No.26508/2011 suits filed by this plaintiff in OS No.27069/2011. Further, PW1 also placed reliance on the photographs of the apartments in the suit schedule property. Exs.P199 to P201 are some of the apartments constructed by the plaintiff in the suit schedule property. Exs.P202 and P203 are the CD of Exs.P199 to P201. Thus, all these documents [Exs.P1 to P203] are evident that, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by constructing apartments. Said apartment and buildings cannot be constructed within a day or month. Thus, when such buildings were constructed, the defendants not whispered anything. Even PW2 has stated that, the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and supported the case of the plaintiff. The advocate for the defendants has nothing worth elicited from the mouth of PWs-1 and 2. Even the defendants have not stepped into the witness box to prove regarding of issuance of preliminary and final notifications for acquisition of the suit schedule property, taking possession and depositing of award amount in respect of the suit schedule property. In 19 OS No.26508/2011 support of his view, the plaintiff's counsel has placed reliance on the following rulings:
(1) AIR 1972 Supreme Court Page 2299. (2) 1989 Vol.4 SCC 131 (Krishna Ram Mahale)Dead) by his LRs Vs. Mrs. Shobha Venkat Rao) (3) AIR Supreme Court Page 1674 (Puran Singh and others Vs. The State of Punjab) (4) AIR 1986 Karnataka 194 (M/s.Patil Exhibitors (Pvt.) Vs. The Corporation of the City of Bangalore) (5) AIR 1999 Karnataka 1451 (6) 2005(2) KCCR 1134 (D.Naryanappa Vs. The State of Karnataka and others) (7) ILR 2000 Joh. B James Case (8) ILR 1990 Karnataka Page 3148 (IIM Employees Association Vs. Indian Institute of Management) (9) ILR 2000 Page 435 (P.PRabhavathi and another Vs. Divisional Controller and others).
(10) 2005(2) KCCR 1134 20 OS No.26508/2011 (11) ILR 2011 Karnataka Page 3657 (Sri.R.Adikesavalu Naidu and others Vs. The State of Kar. By its Secretary, U,D.D and others) (12) ILR 2011 Karnataka Page 574 (Mrs. Poornima Girish Vs.Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka and others) (13) 2011(5) KLJ 524 (Adikesavalu Naidu and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others) (14) ILR 2005 Karnataka 295 (D.Narayanappa Vs. State of Karnataka) (15) AIR 1963 Bombay Page 100 (Jaiprakash Mangilal Agarwal Vs. Smt. Lilabai and another) (16) AIR 1980 Kerala Page 224 (Karthiyayani Amma Vs. Govindan) Thus, the principles laid-down in the above stated rulings are exactly applicable to the case of the plaintiff on hand. The defendants counsel also relied on the ruling reported in (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 66 (Commissioner, BDA and another Vs. Brijesh Reddy and another). The said ruling relied on by the 21 OS No.26508/2011 defendants counsel is not helpful to the case of the defendants to disagree with the plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule pro and the voluminous documents produced by the Plaintiff. Thus, I am of the opinion that, the plaintiff has proved that, he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit and that the defendants have caused threat to demolish and dispossess the plaintiff from the possession of the suit schedule property. As such, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction as claimed. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 in the affirmative.
10. Issue No.3:- On Issue No.1, the court came to the conclusion that, the 2nd defendant is competent to issue Notice dated: 23.8.2011. But, the said Notice is not issued in the name of the plaintiff and held that, in view of not issuing Notice dated: 23.8.2011 in the name of the plaintiff, Issue No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative. Further, the plaintiff has also sought for the reliefs of Permanent Injunction against the defendants. In a suit for bare injunction, the plaintiff has to prove 22 OS No.26508/2011 his lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also interference by the defendant to the lawful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The court came to the conclusion on Issue No.2 that, the plaintiff has proved his lawful possession over the suit schedule property and the defendants have caused interference to demolish the suit schedule property. As such, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction, as sought in the plaint. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable for the reliefs claimed. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 also in the affirmative.
11. Issue No.4:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following Order:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed against the defendants in the following terms:
It is hereby declared that, Notice dated: 23.8.2011 produced by the plaintiff at Annexure 'N' is void, in view of not issuing the said Notice in the name of the plaintiff. 23 OS No.26508/2011
Permanently restrained the defendants, their agents and anybody claiming under them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property or damaging any portion of the suit schedule property.
Further, permanently restrained the defendants, their agents, servants, henchmen from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.
The Declaration relief regarding that, the 2nd defendant is not competent to issue the Notice dated: 23.8.2011, is hereby dismissed.
2) No order as to costs.
3) Draw decree accordingly.
(Typed to my dictation directly on the Computer by the Stenographer, corrections carried out and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 2nd day of May 2015) (T.M.NAGARAJA) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.
24 OS No.26508/2011
SCHEDULE All the piece and parcel of the residential apartment units bearing Nos. A001, A002, A003, A004, B001, B002, B003, B004, C001, C002, C003, C004, D001, D002, D003, D004 situated in the ground, first, second and third floor of the Property bearing site Nos. 19 to 22, situated at Hennur, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, along with proportionate undivided interest in the land on which apartment are constructed.
All the apartments units totally approximately Measuring: 18,000 Square Feet, And the entire Property is Bounded on the:
East by : Private Road and Property.
West by : Private Property bearing Nos. 18 & 23.
North by : Private Road and Property.
South by : Road.
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL, BANGALORE.
25 OS No.26508/2011
ANNEXURES:-
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
P.W.1 : Kurien Varghese 20.4.2015 P.W.2 : C.Prakash 20.4.2015
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P1 --- Certified copy of the sale deed Ex.P2 --- Certified copy of the power of attorney Exs.P3 --- Certified copy ofhte Sale Deeds to P5 Exs.P6 --- Certified copy of the RTCs and P7 Ex.P8 --- Certified copy of the Sale Deed Ex.P9 --- Certified copy of the Map Ex.P10 --- Bank certificate Exs.P11 --- Certified copy of the Income Tax returns to P13 Ex.P14 --- Certified copy of the certificate Ex.P15 --- Khata extract Exs.P16 --- Encumbrance Certificates to P19 Ex.P20 --- Certificate Ex.P21 --- Khata extract Exs.P22 --- Encumbrance Certificates to P24 Ex.P25 --- Certificate 26 OS No.26508/2011 Ex.P26 --- Khata extract Exs.P26 to --- Encumbrance Certificates P28 Ex.P29 --- Certificate Ex.P30 --- Khata extract Ex.P31 --- Certificate Ex.P32 --- Khata extract Exs.P33 --- Encumbrance Certificates to P36 Ex.P37 --- Certificate Ex.P38 --- Khata Ex.P39 --- Certificate Ex.P40 --- Khata extract Exs.P41 to --- Encumbrance Certificates P45 Ex.P46 --- Certificate Ex.P47 --- Khata Ex.P48 --- Certificate Ex.P49 --- Khata extract Ex.P50 --- Certificate Ex.P51 --- Khata extract Ex.P52 --- Certificate Ex.P53 --- Khata extract Ex.P54 --- Certificate Ex.P55 --- Khata extract Exs.P56 to --- Encumbrance Certificates P59 Ex.P60 --- Certificate 27 OS No.26508/2011 Ex.P61 --- Khata extract Exs.P62 --- Encumbrance Certificates to P65 Ex.P66 --- Certificate Ex.P67 --- Khata extract Exs.P68 to --- Encumbrance Certificates P70 Ex.P71 --- Certificate Ex.P72 --- Khata extract Ex.P73 --- Building possession certificate Ex.P74 --- Notice Ex.P75 --- Challan Ex.P76 --- Certified copies of the Sale Deeds To P90 Ex.P91 --- Bank certificate Ex.P92 --- Bank letter Exs.P93 --- Airtel documents to P100 Ex.P101 --- Electricity bill Exs.P102 --- Airtel documents to P112 Exs.P113 --- Receipts to P156 Exs.P157 --- Electricity bills to P164 28 OS No.26508/2011 Exs.P165 --- Receipts to P173 Exs.P174 --- Electricity Bills to P178 Exs.P179 --- Receipts and P180 Exs.P181 --- Attendance Registers to P184 Ex.P185 --- Certified copy of the judgement Ex.P186 --- Certified copy of the decree Ex.P187 --- Certified copy of the judgement Ex.P188 --- Certified copy of the Decree Ex.P189 --- Certified copy of the Judgement Ex.P190 --- Certified copy of the decree Ex.P191 --- Certified copy of the judgement Ex.P192 --- Certified copy of the decree Exs.P193 --- Certified copies of the judgments and P194 Ex.P195 --- Certified copy of the decree Ex.P196 --- Certified copy of the judgement Ex.P197 --- Certified copy of the decree 29 OS No.26508/2011 Ex.P198 --- Certified copy of the evidence Exs.P199 --- Photos to P201 Exs.P202 --- C.D.s and P203 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFNEDANTS-1 AND 2: NIL XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE; MAYOHALL BANGALORE.30 OS No.26508/2011
2.5.15 P:BVRM D1,2:KKS Judgement Judgement pronounced in the open court (Vide separate detailed Judgement) The suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed against the defendants in the following terms:
It is hereby declared that, Notice dated: 23.8.2011 produced by the plaintiff at Annexure 'N' is void, in view of not issuing the said Notice in the name of the plaintiff.
Permanently restrained the defendants, their agents and anybody claiming under them from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property or damaging any portion of the suit schedule property.
Further, permanently restrained the defendants, their agents, servants, henchmen from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. 31 OS No.26508/2011 The Declaration relief regarding that, the 2nd defendant is not competent to issue the Notice dated: 23.8.2011, is hereby dismissed.
2) No order as to costs.
3) Draw decree accordingly.
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL, BANGALORE 32 OS No.26508/2011