Bangalore District Court
Smt.T.J.Sulasa vs Mrs.Tanseer Anjum on 31 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXIII ADDL. CITYCIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL BENGALURU (CCH-74)
Present:
Sri.Yamanappa Bammanagi, B.A.LL.B(Spl)
LXXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2019.
O.S.No.26169/2013
Plaintiff:- Smt.T.J.Sulasa,
Age about 49 years,
R/at 161, 2nd Stage, 2nd Main,
11th Cross, Mahalakshmipuram,
WCR, Bangalore-86.
[By Sri.M.B.Basavaraju-Advocate]
V/s
Defendants:- 1. 1.Mrs.Tanseer Anjum,
Aged about 33 years,
W/o late Md.Kadeer Ahamed,
R/a 12, First Floor, Norris Road,
Richmond Town,Bangalore-25.
2. 2.Md. Sharfuddin,
Age Minor
S/o late Md.Kadeer Ahamed,
R/a 12, First Floor, Norris Road,
Richmond Town,Bangalore-25.
3. 3.Md. Abuzoor,
Age Minor
S/o late Md.Kadeer Ahamed,
R/a 12, First Floor, Norris Road,
Richmond Town,Bangalore-25.
2 O.S.No.26169/2013
(DefendantNo.2 &3 are minors and
are represented by natural guardian
mother/defendant No.1)
4.Mr.Ameer Pasha,
Aged about 47 years,
B/o late Md.Kadeer Ahamed,
R/at 12, Ground Floor, Norris Road,
Richmond Town, Bangalore-25.
5.Mrs.Shawhar Begam
W/o late Khadeer Ahmed,
R/a No.24, Aparna Block,
RT Nagar, Bengaluru.
[Defendant No.1 to 3 DVJ., Adv.,]
[Defendant No.4 K.Nandish Babu]
[Defendant No.5 Exparte]
Date of Institution of the suit 24.07.2013
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit
for declaration and possession, suit Money suit
for injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of
07.01.2014
recording of the Evidence.
Date on which the Judgment was
30.01.2019
pronounced.
Year/s Month/ Day/s
s
Total duration 05 07 07
LXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
Mayohall Unit: Bengaluru
3 O.S.No.26169/2013
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) with interest of Rs.48,250/- based on oral contract, which took place between plaintiff and deceased Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed, i.e the husband of defendant No.1, with 18% interest per annum to the plaintiff.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case:
The plaintiff and deceased Late. Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed were colleagues practicing Advocates in Bengaluru, acquainted each other and they were the best friends, as such the Mohammed khadeer Ahmed had requested, during his life time, to the plaintiff for hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) on 18.11.2010, for his family need and promised to repay the same with 18% interest within two years.
3. As the Late. Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed was being a good friend and colleague practicing advocate, 4 O.S.No.26169/2013 looking to the economic condition of the Late. Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed, the plaintiff agreed to give a hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) to the Late. Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed And the plaintiff had advanced an a hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh), by way of cheque No.543711, dated 18.11.2010, drawn on Karnataka Bank, City Civil Court branch, Bengaluru and said Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed presented the said cheque before the concerned bank on 18.11.2010 and withdrawn Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh), from the plaintiff's account and after the withdrawal, the said Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed died, before the repayment of the said loan
4. The defendant No.1 is the wife of deceased Late. Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed and defendant No.5 is the first wife of Late. Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the minor children of defendant No.1 and deceased, represented by their natural mother defendant No.1, defendant No.4 is the brother of the deceased Late. Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed, who is also 5 O.S.No.26169/2013 witness to the loan. After taking loan amount the deceased died in the month of December 2012. Due to untimely demise of Late. Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed, the plaintiff approached first defendant for repayment of loan, inspite of repeated demand, defendant No.1 did not responded and neither principal amount nor interest is repaid by the defendant No.1. As such the plaintiff has issued legal notice to the defendant No.1, on 18.06.2013. Defendant No.1 had replied to the notice, stating that, the above transaction is false, untrue. Hence, she is not liable for the said loan amount. Hence the present suit, for recovery of amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) with 18% interest per annum.
5. After receipt of the suit summons, the defendant No.1 appeared through her counsel and defendant No.1 is natural guardian of her children defendant Nos.2 and 3 and filed WS. Defendant Nos.4 appeal through counsel and 5 placed exparte. The case of the defendant No.1 is, as per her written statement that, the plaintiff has filed 6 O.S.No.26169/2013 false suit and there is no transaction as stated in the plaint and suit is liable to be dismissed.
6. Further it is avered that, the plaintiff was the junior colleague advocate of Late. Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed, there was no reason, for the Late. Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed to take the loan from the plaintiff, for his family needs, with 18% interest per annum, the plaintiff colluded with the defendant No.4 to harass the defendant Nos.1 to 3. Further, the defendant No.1 stated in her written statement that, her husband Late. Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed was financially good condition during his life time, and he was never under need of money to borrow sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(one lakh), with 18% interest. With this, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 denied the said transaction.
7. That, this court having perused the pleadings of the parties, impressed upon the parties the need for settling the dispute by resorting to means available u/s 89 of CPC, but they evinced interest and as such this court 7 O.S.No.26169/2013 has framed following issues on basis of pleadings of the parties, on 21.09.2015.
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that on 18.11.2010 Late Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed (the husband of 1st defendant and father of other defendants) had availed hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that Late Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed had agreed to repay the alleged loan amount with interest at 18% per annum?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief?
4. What order or decree?
8. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7. Further the plaintiff examined PW.2 and 3 and got marked Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.8(a), through PW.3 and during cross-examination of DW.1, the plaintiff confronted the documents and got marked Ex.P.9. In order to prove the defence of the defendant No.1, defendant No.1 herself is examined as DW.1 and closed defendant's side evidence. And defendant No.5 placed exparte. Defendant 8 O.S.No.26169/2013 No.4 though appeared through counsel, not filed any written statement and not cross-examined PW1 to 3. DW.1 cross-examined fully. Hence, defendant's side evidence is closed.
9. The plaintiff has filed written arguments and case is posted for arguments of defendant's side on 11.09.2018. The learned counsel for defendant No.1 prays time for arguments. On 15.09.2018 the learned counsel for defendant No.1 called out absent and defendant No.1 present prays time for arguments as her advocate is out of station. Time granted finally and posted for arguments of defendant's side on 27.09.2018. On 27.09.2018 case called out, plaintiff and defendant No.1 present. The learned counsel for defendant No.1 absent. Hence, arguments of defendant No.1 side is taken as heard. When case is posted for judgment the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 has filed advancement application and case advanced and again both side argument heard and the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 and plaintiff has filed Written arguments.
9 O.S.No.26169/2013
10. My findings to the above issues are as follows:-
Issue Nos. 1: In the Affirmative. Issue Nos. 2: In the Affirmative Issue Nos. 3: Partly in the Affirmative Issue No.4 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
11. Issue Nos.1 to 3: These issues are inter-linked each other and I have taken these issue for common discussion and answered. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of money of Rs.1,50,250/-, against the defendants on the basis of oral contract. It is not disputed by the parties that plaintiff and Late. Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed ware colleague practicing advocate, at City civil court, Bengaluru. Further it is also not disputed by the parties that there is no written contract between the plaintiff and deceased Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed, about the said transaction. To prove the oral agreement, the plaintiff is examined herself as PW.1 and got marked 10 O.S.No.26169/2013 documents and deposed that deceased Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed was her professional colleague and he was under need of financial assistance of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) for his family need and requested the plaintiff for financial assistance. Looking to the situation of the deceased Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed and being a colleague practicing advocate and being a good friend of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has advanced hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh), to the deceased Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed advocate, by issuing cheque No.543711 dated 18.11.2010 of Karnataka bank, City Civil Court branch, Bengaluru, for the amount Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) and deceased Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed encashed it on the same day, by presenting the said cheque before concerned bank at Bengaluru. before repayment of the said hand loan amount, Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed passed away. After this, the plaintiff has demanded defendant No.1, for repayment of hand loan of her deceased husband. But defendant No.1 denied the said hand loan of her deceased 11 O.S.No.26169/2013 husband. PW.1 got issued legal notice to the defendant No.1, calling upon her to repay the said hand loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) with interest. The defendant No.1 had replied to the notice, issued by the plaintiff and denied the contents of the notice. In support of her oral evidence, the plaintiff relied on Ex.P.1 to P.7. Further plaintiff examined PW 2 & 3 & got marked Ex.P8 & Ex.P8(a), through PW3 and during the Cross- examination of DW1 the plaintiff confronted the document and got marked Ex.P.9.
12. In order to prove the defence of the defendant No.1, defendant No.1 herself is examined as DW.1 and closed defendant's side evidence.
13. Ex.P1 is statements of account of PW1, for the period from 18.01.2010 to 17.07.2011. Ex.P2 is the cheque belongs to the deceased Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed, produced by the plaintiff to prove the signature of the deceased. It is also important to scrutinize Exs.P.7 and 8 and Ex.P.8 (a). Ex.P.7 is the true copy of the cheque, issued by the plaintiff, for advancing the hand 12 O.S.No.26169/2013 loan to the deceased Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed. In order to prove the fact of withdrawal of an amount of Rs.1.00,000/-,(Rupees one lakh), by the deceased, from the account maintained by the PW.1, Ex.P.7,clearly shows that, the deceased, Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed has produced the cheque issued by the PW.1, by presenting the same, deceased Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed has withdrawn the amount of cheque, from the plaintiff's account.
Further it is relevant to appreciate the evidence of PW.3, who is Bank Manage of the Karnataka Bank, PW.3 deposed that the signature appeared on back side the Ex.P7, is the signature who presented the cheque for encashment and the said person has written his mobile number near his signature under these circumstances it clearly shown the deceased Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed has withdraw the cheque amount.
14. Further he deposed in chief-examination that:
ªÀÄÄÁ® ZÉPÀÄÌ K¼ÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀ ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄ zÁR¯ÉAiÀiÁzÀ PÁgÀt CzÀ£ÀÄß £Á±ÀUÆ É ½¸À¯ÁVzÉ. DzÀgÉ ¸ÀzÀj ZÉQÌUÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀ¥ÀlÖ ¨ÁåAPï SÁvÉAiÀÄ zÀÈrüÃPÀÈvÀ £ÀPÀ®£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¤±Á£É 13 O.S.No.26169/2013 ¦.8 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj ZÉPÀÄÌ £ÀUÀ¢ÃPÀgÀtUÉÆAqÀ §UÉÎ EgÀĪÀ £ÀªÀiÆzÀ£ÀÄß ¤±Á£É ¦.8(J) JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¤¦.7 gÀ »A¨ÁUÀzÀ°è ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ ¸À» ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀįÁVzÉ.
15. The learned counsel for the defendant cross- examined PW.3, it is deposed in the cross-examination, by the PW.3 that, his predecessor, in the bank, had endorsed Ex.P.7 as true copy. Further deposed in the cross- examination that his predecessor has not mentioned date, on which, Ex.P.7 was endorsed as true copy. PW.3 has denied the suggestion put by the defendant counsel that Ex.P.7 made as a true copy without seeing the original cheque. On appreciation of deposition of PW.3 nothing has been elicited from the cross-examination to disbelieve Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.8 (a). Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.8 (a), are the statement of bank account belong to plaintiff, which clearly shows that on 18.11.2010, Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed has produced the cheque bearing No.573411, before the concerned bank, for encashment and withdraw Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh), from the account belongs to plaintiff. But the defendant has denied that, 14 O.S.No.26169/2013 the name appeared as Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed in Ex.P.8(a), is not belongs to her husband. Further the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 to 3 submitted that, the signature and mobile number appeared on the back side of the Ex.P.7, are not belongs to deceased Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed. But he has not denied the front page of the Ex.P.7. But in support of this, no documents are produced by the defendant to disbelieve the Ex.P.7. Mere denial of documents and its content does not gives raise any suspect on Ex.P.8 and P.8 (a) and also Ex.P.7. Further DW.1 has deposed in her deposition that, her deceased husband was not under need of money for his family need, to take the hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh), from the plaintiff, at the rate of 18% interest. To substantiate it, the DW.1 did not produce any document or any bank statement or any documentary evidence to show that deceased Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed was financially well settled, during the year 2010. DW.1 did not examined any witnesses, in support of her defence, taken in the written statement. Further it is 15 O.S.No.26169/2013 pertinent to scrutinize the cross of DW.1, in the cross of DW.1 it is admitted by the DW.1 that Ex.P.2 is belongs to her deceased husband Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed, which bears signature of her husband. But denied the signature appeared on back side of Ex.P.7. Ex.P.2 is the original cheque belongs to deceased Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed, which has been produced by the plaintiff to prove the signature of the deceased Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed. I have compared admitted signature and disputed signature appeared on back side of Ex.P.7 and Ex.P2, no difference found in between admitted and disputed signature of the deceased Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed. Defendant denied the signature of deceased her husband, appeared on back side of Ex.P.7, but did not take any step to prove her defence that, the signature appeared on back side of the Ex.P.7 is not belongs to her deceased husband. The signature appeared on back side of Ex.P.7, which is comparatively correct and matched with admitted signature appeared on Ex.P.2. But defendant did not lead any evidence to disprove the signature appeared on the 16 O.S.No.26169/2013 back side of Ex.P.7 and mobile number written on the back side of Ex.P.7. Further DW1 deposed in cross- examination that, she do not know whether her deceased husband had received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh), from the bank by presenting the original cheque Ex.P.7. The learned counsel for the defendant No.1 to 3 submitted in his argument that, defendant No. 1to 3 have replied legal notice Ex.P3 and denied the transaction between plaintiff and deceased and plaintiff has not stated source of income of the loan amount, and brought the notice of this court about the evidence PW.2, submitted that, PW.2 is also practicing advocate, but PW.2 admitted in Cross-examination that she did not know about the financial condition of the deceased, during his life time and he brought the notice of this court that, there is no date in respect of date on which the bank has attested Ex.P7, because PW.3 bank manager has stated in his Cross-examination that for attestation, their must be original document. Further PW.3 deposed that original cheque was destroyed by 17 O.S.No.26169/2013 deposing that cheque was 7 years old document. And further he deposed that normally 5 years old documents are destroying.
16. The plaintiff has claimed 18% interest in the plaint but plaintiff has stated that deceased had agreed to repay the said loan amount with 24% interest. So, the plaintiff is not certain about the interest. So, with this, there is no cogent evidence with regard to the interest. I have considered the argument of learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 to 3 and Ex.P7 and deposition of PW3 and PW2. PW2 has deposed that, at the time of the transaction, she was present and plaintiff and husband of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 were present. Further, PW2 deposed that she is practicing advocate. Hence, she knew the deceased Khadeer Ahamed from 2009. I have perused the cross-examination of PW.2, she deposed that, she is not a colleague in the same office of deceased. Further, PW2 deposed that, she do not know what was transformed in between plaintiff and deceased, 18 O.S.No.26169/2013 but PW.2 deposed that, she was present when cheque was issued by plaintiff to the deceased Khadeer Ahamed. But, the learned counsel for defendant has denied the presence of the PW.2, at the time of talks between the plaintiff and deceased, but there is no cross-examination about the presence of PW.1, while issuing the cheque by the plaintiff to the deceased . So, it is clear that, the presence of PW.2, while issuing cheque, in order to advance the loan amount of Rs.1 lakhs to the deceased is not denied.
17. The learned counsel brought the notice of this court that PW.3 bank Manager has deposed that original cheque was destroyed as it was 7 years old cheque and Ex.P7 is the attested copy of original cheque and PW3 admitted that Ex.p7 is not bears the date on which it was attested. This admission does not affect the case of the plaintiff because there is no effective and complete cross- examination to the effect that,at the time of attestation the original cheque was destroyed or not and it was also not clear from the Cross-examination of PW3 that date on 19 O.S.No.26169/2013 which original cheque was destroyed. But, it is clear from the deposition of PW3 that the original cheque was destroyed as it was 7 years old. Further, he deposed that, normally the bank is destroying 5 years old documents. But, suit was filed on 27.7.2013 and Ex.P7 is produced along with plaint. Ex.P7 is the attested copy of original cheque, issued by the plaintiff to advance the loan to the deceased. So, it is clear from the deposition, when Ex.P7 is produced along with plaint and plaint filed on 27.7.2013 and at the time of filing of this suit, the cheque was just two years old document as date of cheque is 18.11.2010. As per the deposition of PW3 the original cheque was destroyed as it was 7 years old cheque. Under these circumstances it can be safely inferred that, at the time of attestation of Ex.P7, the original cheque was not destroyed.
18. Ex.P.9 is the enrolment certificate of deceased Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed, husband of the defendant No.1. On appreciation of Ex.P.1 and P.7, P.8 and P.8(a). 20 O.S.No.26169/2013 It is clear that, plaintiff has proved that she had advanced hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh), to his colleague advocate Sri. Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed, by issuing cheque dated 18.11.2010, on presentation of the said cheque, before the concerned bank, the deceased had withdrawn the cheque amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh), from the account maintained by the plaintiff in the concerned bank and before repayment of the said loan, said Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed passed away. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the legal heirs of the deceased and they are liable to repay hand loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh), to the plaintiff.
19. It is also admitted by the DW.1 that herself and her children are succeeded to estate of late Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed and they have filed a partition suit in respect of family properties of deceased Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed, against the family members of the deceased Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed, which is pending before the competent court and the properties shown in 21 O.S.No.26169/2013 the Schedule ABC, in O.S.No.2854/2014, are belongs to deceased Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed and brother of deceased. Hence, defendants are succeeded to the estate of deceased Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed as a legal heirs and they are liable to pay hand loan of deceased Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed.
20. On perusal of the entire material placed before the court the plaintiff has not led any evidence against the defendant No. 4 & 5 and there is no evidence against the defendant No.4 & 5, to put them under liability. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, it is clearly shows that, the plaintiff has advanced hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh), to deceased Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed, during his life time and before repayment of same, said Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed passed away. This clearly shows that, there was an agreement between the deceased Mohammed Khadeer Ahmed and plaintiff and deceased had withdrawn Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh), by presenting the cheque, issued by the PW.1. 22 O.S.No.26169/2013
21. There is no cogent evidence on record to show that deceased has admitted 18% interest on hand loan of Rs.1 lakh as stated by PW.1. PW.1 has stated in her legal notice about interest as 24% and in the plaint it is stated about the interest as 18%. Hence, there is no cogent and firm evidence and pleading in respect of interest. Hence, plaintiff is not entitled for 18% interest on the said amount of Rs.1.00,000/-(Rupees one lakh), But in the interest of justice and looking to the fact and circumstances of the case 9% interest per annum, on the hand loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh), is to be awarded from the date of suit till date of decree and thereafter 6% interest per annum from the date of decree till realization.
22. With the observation made above, I am of the firm opinion that, the plaintiff has proved issue No. 1 to 3, categorically. Hence, I answer Issue Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative.
23 O.S.No.26169/2013
23. In view of my findings on Issue Nos.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following :-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed on the following terms:
The defendant No.1 shall repay the hand loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh), taken by her husband with 9% interest per annum from the date of suit till date of decree and thereafter 6% interest per annum on the said hand loan amount from the date of decree till realization, to the plaintiff and suit of the plaintiff is dismissed as against defendant Nos.4 and 5.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, after computerization, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this the 31st day of January, 2019) 24 O.S.No.26169/2013 (Yamanappa Bammanagi) LXXIII Addl.C C & SJ, M.H.Unit Bengaluru. (CCH-74) ANNEXURES:-
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: PW.1: Sri.T.J.Sulasa PW.2: Smt.Kanthamani PW.3: Sri. Srinivasa Holla LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P.1 : Letter regarding Bank transaction dt.4.7.2013
Ex.P.2 : Cheque leaf of SBM
Ex.P.3 : Notice dated 18/6/2003
Ex.P.4 : Reply to notice issued dt.18/6/2003
Ex.P.5 : postal cover with A/d
Ex.P.6 : opened cover with letter
Ex.P.7 : Xerox copy of cheque for Rs.1 lakh
ExP.8 : Bank Statement
Ex.P8(a) : Portion of Ex.8
Ex.P.9 : Enrollment certificate of deceased Khadeer
Ahmed.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
1. Smt.Tanseer Anjum LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
--NIL--
[Yamanappa Bammanagi] 25 O.S.No.26169/2013 LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-74).