Bangalore District Court
Sri Madhu vs Sri T.C. Mehta on 10 November, 2017
[C.R.P. 67] Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in
Suits (R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF THE XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. (CCH 44)
Dated: This the 10th day of November, 2017
PRESENT
Sri. V.H. WADAR, B.A., LL.B.(Spl.),
XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
O.S. No.5359/2012
PLAINTIFF : Sri Madhu,
Aged about 45 years,
S/o late M. Mariyappa,
R/at No.874, 4th Block Layout,
1st Stage, 5th Cross,
Hennur Bellary Road, HBR Layout,
Bengaluru-560 043.
(By Sri S.M. Advocate)
VS.
DEFENDANTS : 1. Sri T.C. Mehta,
Aged about 57 years
S/o R.N. Mehta,
R/at No.T3, Lakshmi Complex,
No.40, K.R. Road,
Bengaluru-560 002
2. Smt. Madhu Mehta,
Aged about 53 years
2 O.S.No.5359/2012
W/o T.C. Mehta,
R/at No.T3,Lakshmi Complex,
No.40, K.R. Road,
Bengaluru-560 002.
3. Sri Ramana Gupta
Aged about 57 years,
S/o Hemachandra Gupta,
R/at No.415, Ranka Park,
Bengaluru-560 027.
4. Smt. Latha Gupta,
Aged about 52 years,
W/o Ramana Gupta
R/at No.415, Ranka Park,
Bengaluru-560 027.
(By Sri MRK, Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit: 26/07/2012
Nature of the Suit (Suit for
pronote, suit for declaration and Suit for Injunction
possession, Suit for injunction,
etc,) :
Date of the commencement of 30/01/2014
recording of the Evidence:
Date on which the Judgment was 10/11/2017
pronounced:
Total Duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
05 03 14
(V.H. WADAR)
XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
3 O.S.No.5359/2012
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff has filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendants.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as under:
Plaintiff contends that one L. Meghanathan is the owner of the suit property having purchased the same under sale deed dated 23/09/2011. Khatha was standing in his name and he has paid up to date tax. Plaintiff is tenant under the said Meghanathan. The said landlord has executed rental agreement dated 11/06/2012 and plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as per the rental agreement. He used to pay monthly rental of Rs.2,000/- and he has given security deposit of Rs.10,000/- on 10/03/2012. The said rental agreement is for a period of 11 months. The defendants are strangers to the suit schedule property. They are interfered in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence he filed complaint before Assistant Commissioner of Police on 20/07/2012. 4 O.S.No.5359/2012 Thereafter he has moved complaint before jurisdictional police station, the said police have not taken action, as it is a matter of civil in nature. Hence he approached the owner/landlord Meghanathan, who advised him to file suit for injunction. The cause of action arose on 19/07/2012 and on 25/07/2012. Hence filed this suit for bare injunction.
3. The defendants appeared through counsel and filed written statement contending that they are in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property under agreement of sale dated 26/09/1997 from the original allottee deceased C.T. Krishna after paying entire sale consideration and the said deceased C.T.Krishna has executed agreement of sale and also executed GPA and delivered possession of the suit schedule property to the defendants on the very day of the agreement of sale as part performance of the contract. The defendants are in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since the date of agreement and handed over the original allotment letter, original title deeds to the defendants and it is in the possession of the defendants. That on 19/7/2012 the plaintiff 5 O.S.No.5359/2012 tried to dispossess the defendants from the suit property. Hence they filed complaint before Hennur-Banaswadi police station and they filed suit bearing O.S.No.6924/2012 before City Civil Court (CCH-5) against the legal heirs of deceased C.T.Krishna for specific performance of the contract dated 26/09/1997. Hence the suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed.
4. Based upon these rival pleadings of the parties, following issues have been framed:-
1. Does plaintiff prove that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property as on the date of suit?
2. Does the plaintiff prove that there is interference by the defendants to his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property?
3. Does the plaintiff prove that he is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants?
4. What order or decree?
5. Plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1, Ex.P.1 to P.25 got marked. The landlord of the suit property L. Meghanathan is 6 O.S.No.5359/2012 examined as P.W.2 and closed plaintiff's side. Defendant No.1 is examined as D.W.1, Ex.D.1 to D.14 got marked and closed defendants' side.
6. Heard the arguments on both sides.
7. My findings on the above Issues are:-
Issue No.1: In the negative Issue No.2: In the negative Issue No.3: In the negative Issue No.4: As per final order for the following :-
REASONS
8. Issue Nos.1 to 3 discussed jointly:- These issues are interconnected with each other. To avoid repetition of the facts and evidence, I have discussed the above issues jointly.
9. It is admitted fact that suit schedule property was originally belonged to BDA which is allotted to deceased C.T.Krishna as per Ex.D.7 dated 03/08/1991. It is also admitted fact that deceased C.T.Krishna died on 11/05/2001. It is admitted fact that defendants have filed suit bearing 7 O.S.No.5359/2012 O.S.No.5128/2012, which came to be dismissed for non-
prosecution against L.Rs. of vendor for bare injunction as per Ex.P.20 plaint copy and Ex.P.21 is order sheet of the said case bearing O.S.No.5128/2012.
10. Plaintiff contends that Meghanathan is absolute owner of the suit property as per the sale deed dated 23/09/2011. Plaintiff has produced sale deed dated 23/09/2011, which is marked at Ex.P.15. The plaintiff further contends that landlord L. Meghanathan has let out the suit schedule property to the plaintiff who is running a scrap business on rental basis of Rs.2,000/- per month and deposit of Rs.10,000/-. The plaintiff contends that he has produced the rental agreement. Hence he is in possession of the suit schedule property.
11. On the other hand, the defendants have taken contention that the sale deed Ex.P.15 dated 23/09/2011 from the legal heirs of deceased C.T.Krishna who was original allottee, to Meghanathan is void abinitio, as they have no right to execute the sale deed in favour of Meghanathan. Hence Meghanathan has 8 O.S.No.5359/2012 not acquired valid title. It is admitted fact that the suit schedule property originally belonged to BDA. BDA has not yet executed regular sale deed in favour of deceased C.T.Krishna or to his legal heirs. Hence legal heirs of deceased C.T.Krishna have no right, title or interest to execute the sale deed-Ex.P.15 in favour of Meghanathan. The said contention of the learned advocate for the defendants has got force, as the plaintiff/P.W.1 during his course of cross-examination admits that BDA has not executed sale deed in favour of deceased C.T.Krishna nor in favour of the legal heirs of deceased C.T.Krishna. Hence the said sale deed is not valid sale deed.
12. P.W.2 who is purchaser from the legal heirs of deceased C.T.Krishna, also admits during his course of cross- examination that it is true that as on today BDA has not executed sale deed in favour of heirs of C.T. Krishna. Hence Meghanathan has not acquired valid title and the sale deed is void abinitio and it has no legal value.
9 O.S.No.5359/2012
13. The defendants contend that this is suit for injunction. It is submitted that plaintiff is not in possession of suit schedule property, in the facts and circumstances of this suit by no stretch of imagination it could be said that plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit property. Plaintiff contends that he has taken possession of the suit property from one Meghanathan under unregistered rental agreement, which terms Meghanathan as owner of the suit schedule property, as per the sale deed dated 23/09/2011. The said sale deed Ex.P.15 is not a valid document. The landlord has not acquired valid title from the said sale deed Ex.P.15, as legal heirs of deceased C.T.Krishna have no right, title and interest to execute the registered sale deed. BDA has not conveyed title to the LRs. of C.T. Krishna nor Meghanathan who claims to be the owner of the suit schedule property. It is admitted fact that even as on this day, the suit property belongs to BDA, which has not parted with the title of the suit property.
14. The defendants have taken contention that they are agreement holders. The original allottee deceased C.T.Krishna 10 O.S.No.5359/2012 had executed agreement of sale in favour of defendants on 26/09/1997 and original allotment letter had been handed over to the defendants. The defendants have produced the allotment letter which is marked at Ex.D.6, the defendants have also produced Ex.D.7 the possession letter. The original possession letter is with the defendants. The defendants have also produced cash paid receipt dated 11/12/1988 which is marked at Ex.D.8. The defendants have produced Ex.D.9 the tax paid receipt dated 01/10/2001, the defendants have produced Ex.D.10 the notice issued by the defendants to the legal heirs of C.T.Krishna. The defendants have produced agreement dated 04/10/2002 executed by the legal heirs of deceased C.T.Krishna, which is marked at Ex.D.11. Ex.D.12 is GPA dated 21/08/2006 executed by the LRs. of C.T. Krishna, i.e., Uma Krishna, Naveen Kumar and Vinay Kumar, who are wife and sons of deceased C.T.Krishna respectively. Ex.D.13 and D.14 are tax paid receipts for the period 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. These documents clearly goes to show that defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property.
11 O.S.No.5359/2012
15. The plaintiff claims that he is in possession of the suit schedule property as a lease holder and he used to pay rent to the landlord Meghanathan. Meghanathan has no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property, as the title vests with BDA. It is admitted fact that BDA has not executed sale deed in favour of deceased C.T.Krishna who was the original allottee of the suit schedule property nor the legal heirs of C.T. Krishna. The legal heirs of C.T.Krishna have no right, title or interest to execute sale deed in favour of the said Meghhanathan. The sale deed Ex.P.15 itself is void abinitio.
16. The plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1. He has produced the certificate issued by BBMP, which is marked at Ex.P.1. Ex.P.2 is the extract issued by the BBMP for the year 2011-12. Exs.P.3 to P.6 are four rental receipts. These are not the title deeds. The title of the original owner Meghanathan is in dispute and plaintiff has not pleaded in his plaint how Meghanathan has come in possession of the suit schedule property. Whereas the defendants have produced documents to show that they are in possession of the suit schedule property 12 O.S.No.5359/2012 from 1997. To prove and establish this fact, the defendants have produced Ex.D.2 wherein they have paid duty and penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- on 27/08/2012 as per the order passed by the District Registrar, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. Exs.D.6 to D.14 clearly reveals that defendants are in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the date of agreement dated 26/09/1997. There is no reason to disbelieve the contention of defendants that the defendants were put in possession of the suit schedule property by original allottee deceased C.T.Krishna. The documents produced by the plaintiff the rental agreement dated 11/06/2012 at Ex.P.7, complaint filed by the plaintiff which is marked at Ex.P.8, Ex.P.9 the rental agreement dated 23/03/2013, Ex.P.10 to P.12 three rent receipts, one electricity bill-Ex.P.13 and receipt about payment of electricity bill at Ex.P.14. These documents are produced by the plaintiff. But these documents are not proved and established by the plaintiff by examining the author of the documents. Hence plaintiff has failed to prove that he is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit. Hence I answer issue Nos.1 to 3 in the 'negative'. 13 O.S.No.5359/2012
17. Issue No. 4:- For the reasons discussed above and in view of findings given on the above issues, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 10th day of November, 2017.) (V.H. WADAR) XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel the property bearing No.874, BBMP Khatha No.1531/874, situated at 4th Block Layout, 1st Stage, 5th Cross, Hennur Bellary Road, HBR Layout, Bengaluru-560 043, measuring east to west: 80 feet and north to south: 50 feet consisting of one shed with electricity connection surrounded by a compound wall and bounded on the East by: property No.899 and 14 O.S.No.5359/2012 900, West by: Road, North by: property No.873 and South by:
property No.875.
ANNEXURE List of witness examined for the plaintiff/s:-
P.W.1 : Madhu P.W.2 : L. Meganathan
List of witness examined for the defendant/s:-
D.W.1 : T.C. Mehta List of documents marked for the plaintiff/s:-
Ex.P.1 : Certificate issued by BBMP
Ex.P.2 : Extract issued by BBMP for the year 2011-12
Ex.P.3 to : 4 rent receipts
P.6
Ex.P.7 : Rental agreement dated 11/06/2012
Ex.P.8 : Complaint filed by plaintiff
Ex.P.9 : Rental agreement dated 23/03/2013
Ex.P.10 to : 3 rent receipts
P.12
Ex.P.13 : One electricity bill
Ex.P.14 : Receipt about payment of electricity bill
Ex.P.15 : Copy of sale deed dated 23/09/2011
Ex.P.16 : One encumbrance certificate
Ex.P.17 : Advance receipt
Ex.P.18 : Copy of complaint
Ex.P.19 : Another complaint copy filed before ACP
Ex.P.20 : Certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.5128/2012
Ex.P.21 : Certified copy of order sheet
Ex.P.22 : 2 photos
Ex.P.23 : CD
15 O.S.No.5359/2012
Ex.P.24 & : Two electricity sanctioned letters P.25 List of documents marked for the defendant/s:-
Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 26/09/1997 Ex.D.2 : Certified copy of letter of District Registrar of Stamp dated 27/08/2012 Ex.D.3 : Certified copy of declaration dated 26/09/1997 Ex.D.4 : Certified copy of indemnity bond dated 26/09/1997 Ex.D.5 : Certified copy of registered GPA dated 26/09/1997 Ex.D.6 : Certified copy of allotment issued by BDA dated 10/11/1987 Ex.D.7 : Certified copy of possession certificate dated 18/08/1991 Ex.D.8 : Certified copy of receipt dated 11/02/1988 Ex.D.9 : Certified copy of tax paid receipt dated 01/10/2001 Ex.D.10 : Certified copy of legal notice dated 03/06/2002 Ex.D.11 : Certified copy of agreement of sale dated 04/10/2002 Ex.D.12 : Certified copy of GPA dated 21/08/2006 Ex.D.13 & : 2 tax paid receipts D.14 (V.H. WADAR) XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.