Bangalore District Court
Shri.N.Jayarama Reddy vs Shri.B.Siddappa on 1 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF XXXV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-36)
DATED ON THIS THE 1st DAY OF OCTOBER 2018
Present: Sri.Manjunath.G.A., B.A.L.,L.L.B.,
XXXV Addl.CC & SS Judge, Bengaluru.
O.S.No.4113/2008
Plaintiff/s : Shri.N.Jayarama Reddy,
Since deceased by his L.Rs
1(a) Smt.J.Lalithamma,
W/o.late N.Jayarama Reddy,
Aged about 62 years.
1(b) Smt.J.Vijayamma,
D/o.Late N.Jayarama Reddy,
Aged about 40 years.
1(c) Shri.J.Vishwanath,
S/o.Late N.Jayarama Reddy,
Aged about 38 years.
1(d) Shri.J.Neelakanta,
S/o.Late N.Jayarama Reddy,
Aged about 34 years.
1(e) Smt.J.Usha,
D/o.Late N.Jayarama Reddy,
Aged about 31 years.
All are residing at No.17,
3rd Cross, 23rd Main, II Stage,
B.T.M.Layout,
Bangalore-560 076.
(By Sri.J.P.H., Advocate)
-Vs-
2 O.S.No.4113/2008
Defendant/s : 1. Shri.B.Siddappa,
S/o.Shri.Byrappa,
Aged about 51 years,
R/at No.G.863, 9th Cross,
Central Township,
H.A.L.Colony,
Marathahalli Post,
Bangalore-560 037.
2. Shri.Ravindra,
S/o.Late Doddegowda,
Aged about 34 years,
R/at No.1292, 10th Cross,
4th Main, H.A.L.Colony,
Central Township,
Marathahalli Post,
Bangalore-560 037.
3. Shri.A.H.Narahari Nayaka,
S/o.Shri.A.Hanumantharayappa,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at:FA.75, H.A.L.Colony,
Behind H.A.L.Hospital,
Vimanapura Post,
Bangalore-560 017.
4. Shri.N.Muninarayana Reddy,
S/o.Late Nanja Reddy,
Aged about 65 years,
R/at: Maragondanahalli,
Thambuchetty Palya Post,
Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk.
5. Shri.S.Babu,
S/o.S.Sundara Murthy,
Aged about 42 years,
Seetharama Palya Village,
Mahadevapura Post,
Bangalore-560 048.
3 O.S.No.4113/2008
6. Shri.Balakrishna Krupu,
S/o.Late Dr.K.V.Gopala Krupu,
Aged about 74 years,
R/at: C/o.N.S.Kaimal,
No.548/1A,
Near Venkateshwara Temple,
Kodialli, Bangalore-560 008.
7. Shri.Vishwanath Nambiar,
S/o.Late A.K.Damodaran
Nambiar, Aged about 46 years,
United Arab Shipping Company,
S.A.G., P.B.No.3636,
Safat No.13037, KUWAIT.
8. Smt.Kalyani Nambiar,
D/o.Late A.K.Damodaran
Nambiar, Aged about 66 years,
R/at :C/o. N.S.Kaimal,
No.548/1A,
Near Venkateshwara Temple,
Kodihalli, Bangalore-560 008.
9. Shri.Kunhiraman,
S/o.Late Kunhi Krishnan
Nambiar, Aged about 71 years,
Residing at E.11,
Shri Kumar Society, Nehru Road,
Santacruz East,
Mumbai-400 055.
(Sri.C.P.S., Advocate for defendant
Nos. 1 to 4,
Defendant Nos.5 to 9 - exparte)
******
Date of institution of the suit : 24-06-2008
Nature of the suit Declaration & Possession
4 O.S.No.4113/2008
Date of commencement of : 08-12-2017
recording of the evidence
Date on which the judgment : 01-10-2018
was pronounced
Total duration : Years/s Month/s Day/s
10 03 07
(MANJUNATH.G.A.)
35th Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
Sri.N.Jayarama Reddy filed this suit against defendant Nos.1 to 9 for declaration, for possession and for mandatory injunction.
2. During the pendency of the proceedings, Sri.N.Jayarama Reddy died. His wife and children were brought on record as plaintiff Nos.1(a) to 1(e). The wife of deceased N.Jayarama Reddy also died on 18-4-2017.
3. In brief, the case of Plaintiff is as follows:-
The deceased plaintiff, defendant No.4 - N.Muninarayana Reddy, and N.Krishna Murthy are the sons of Nanja Reddy and Smt.Nanjamma. On 18-10-1974, Nanja 5 O.S.No.4113/2008 Reddy and his three sons partitioned the family properties, under a registered Partition Deed. In the said Partition, among other items, the land measuring 4 acres 3 guntas in Sy.No.74/1 of Munikolalu Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore was got divided as under:-
i) Shri Nanja Reddy's share - 3 Acres 13
(Eastern side of the property) Guntas
ii) Shri N.Muninarayana Reddy's share - 0.15 Guntas
iii) Shri N.Krishna Murthy's share - 0.15 Guntas
(South-West side)
The said partition was acted upon. Accordingly,
mutation is effected. The said extent of 3 acres 13 guntas
was allotted to the share of Nanja Reddy and Smt.Nanjamma towards their maintenance. Nanja Reddy died in the year 1982. After his death, 3 acres 13 guntas was mutated in the name of Smt.Nanjamma.
On 7-7-2004, Smt.Nanjamma gifted East-West 120 feet and North-South 30 feet = 3.4 guntas out of 3 acres 13 guntas, under a registered Gift Deed in favour of the deceased plaintiff. The deceased plaintiff accepted the Gift Deed and was in possession of the said property which is described as 6 O.S.No.4113/2008 'A' schedule property. The plaintiff is paying tax to the said property.
In the year 2004, defendant Nos.1 to 3 started to interfere with the possession of the deceased plaintiff over 'A' schedule property. Accordingly, he lodged a complaint before the police. Thereafter, he filed O.S.No.6767/2004 against defendant No.1, O.S.No.6766/2004 against defendant No.2 and O.S.No.6768/2004 against defendant No.3. In the said suits, interim order was also passed in favour of the deceased plaintiff granting temporary injunction. However, interim order was not continued. Taking advantage of the said situation, defendant Nos.1 to 3, put up construction on 'A' schedule property. Defendant No.1 put up construction on the western side of 'A' schedule proeprty and the same is shown as 'B' schedule property. Defendant No.2 has put up construction on the middle of 'A' schedule property which is described as 'C' schedule property. Defendant No.3 has put up construction on the eastern side of 'A' schedule property which is described as 'D' schedule property. In the said suits, defendant Nos.1 to 3 herein filed written statement denying the title of the plaintiff.7 O.S.No.4113/2008
On 18-10-1993, defendant No.4 - Muninarayana Reddy claimed to have executed General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.5 - Mr.S.Babu, in respect of property bearing Sy.No.74/1 of Munikolalu Village, measuring 160 feet and 30 feet representing that the said proeprty was fallen to his share in the partition of 1974. But, the boundaries mentioned in the General Power of Attorney are virtually the boundaries pertaining to the Gift Deed of deceased plaintiff. The boundaries mentioned in General Power of Attorney did not tally with the boundaries mentioned in respect of 15 guntas of the land allotted to the share of 4th defendant in the Partition Deed of the year 1974. Because, as per the registered Partition Deed of the year 1974, 15 guntas allotted to the share of 4th defendant was lying on the North-West of total extent of 4 acres 3 guntas. The said General Power of Attorney was executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.5 with an intention to cause legal injury to the plaintiff. Based on the alleged General Power of Attorney, the 5th defendant has executed a Sale Deed to an extent of 30ft x 40 ft in favour of Khunhiraman, the defendant No.9 in the year 1996. Defendant No.9 in turn sold the said property 8 O.S.No.4113/2008 in favour of defendant Nos.2 on 22-11-2002. The 5th defendant executed a Sale Deed on 8-1-1996 in favour of 7th defendant to an extent of 80ft x 30ft. The 7th defendant in turn divided the said site into 30ft x 40ft and sold the same in favour of defendant Nos.1 and 9. The 5th defendant again on 19.1.1996, sold 30ft x 40ft in favour of defendant No.6.
Defendant No.4 had no right to execute General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.5. In turn on the basis of General Power of Attorney, defendant No.5 had no right to execute Sale Deed as referred above. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 or their predecessors never derived any right, title, interest in respect of 'B', 'C' & 'D' schedule properties. The construction put up by them is illegal and unauthorised. The plaintiff having noticed the construction on the 'B', 'C' & 'D' schedule properties withdrew the three suits referred above and filed the present suit.
3 acres 13 guntas in Sy.No.74/1 was exclusively allotted to the share of Sri.Nanja Reddy and Smt.Nanjamma for their maintenance. The same became absolute property of Sri.Nanja Reddy and Smt.Nanjamma. Upon the death of Sri.Nanja Reddy, 3 acres 13 guntas was absolutely vested 9 O.S.No.4113/2008 with Smt.Nanjamma. She became the absolute owner. Revenue entries were effected in her name. She has executed Gift Deed in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendants have no manner of right, ownership over 'B', 'C' and 'D' properties. Their possession over 'B', 'C' & 'D' properties is illegal.
4. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed common written statement. Defendant No.4 filed his written statement separately. Defendant Nos.5 to 9 are placed exparte.
5. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the written statement admit that plaintiff and defendant No.4 are the sons of deceased Sri.Nanja Reddy and Smt.Nanjamma. They also admit that there was a registered Partition between them on 19-10-1974. They also admit that 3 acres 13 guntas was allotted to the share of Nanja Reddy and 15 guntas each was allotted to the share of defendant No.4 and one Krishna Murthy. They also admit that the said Partition Deed was acted upon. It is denied that after the death of Sri.Nanja Reddy, his share was inherited by his wife Smt.Nanjamma alone. In fact, after the death of Nanja Reddy, Nanjamma and her children inherited 10 O.S.No.4113/2008 equal share. After the death of Nanja Reddy, defendant No.4 got his share in the said proeprty i.e., 3 acres 13 guntas. It may be true that on 7-7-2014, Smt.Nanjamma had gifted a portion of the property out of 3 acres 13 guntas after the death of her husband. But, Smt.Nanjamma alone does not had any right to execute Gift Deed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff withdrew the three suits knowingly that he does not have any right over the schedule properties. It is denied that taking advantage of discontinuation of injunction order they have constructed structures on the suit schedule property. Before filing of the said suits, by the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 to 3 had almost completed the construction of residential houses. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have borrowed loan from HDFC bank and constructed houses. Since the defendants have acquired property, under registered Sale Deeds from their rightful owner of Sy.No.74/1, they are the absolute owners. Smt.Nanjamma was not the absolute owner of 3 acres 13 guntas. Defendant No.4 under the partition of 1974 as well as being one of the legal heir of deceased Nanja Reddy, sold properties in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 through his General Power of Attorney. Accordingly, they are 11 O.S.No.4113/2008 in actual possession of 'B', 'C' & 'D' properties. In the year 2004, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 tried to interfere with the possession over the 'A' schedule property is denied. The plaintiff was never in actual possession of 'A' schedule property. Defendant No.4 was in actual possession. After execution of the Sale Deeds, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are in actual possession. Their possession over 'B', 'C' and 'D' properties is not unauthorised or illegal. On 18-10-1993, defendant No.4 has executed General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.5. The boundaries mentioned in General Power of Attorney are the boundaries of Gift Deed of the plaintiff is denied. Defendant No.4 has got only 15 guntas in the land bearing Sy.No.74/1 and he does not have any right over the proeprty after the death of his father is denied. These defendants are in possession since 2002. The averments of the plaint mentioned at Para Nos.8 to 16 are denied. They are bonafide purchasers. The plaintiff has filed a false suit. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit.
6. Defendant No.4 in his written statement admits about the Partition Deed, dated 18-10-1974. Plaintiff is his 12 O.S.No.4113/2008 brother is admitted. 3 acres 13 guntas was allotted to the share of Nanja Reddy and 15 guntas is allotted to his share is admitted. After the death of Nanja Reddy, his share was inherited by Smt.Nanjamma alone is denied. In fact, defendant No.4 is having equal share after the death of his father in 3 acres 13 guntas. He is not aware about his mother executing a Gift Deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of 'A' schedule property. The plaintiff must have obtained the same by playing fraud. After the death of Nanja Reddy, his property was inherited by his children and wife equally. He has sold 'B', 'C' and 'D' properties to defendant Nos. 1 to 3 through defendant No.5. The plaintiff has no right over the suit schedule properties. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are in possession. They have constructed pakka houses. He had executed General Power of Attorney in favour of Sri.S.Babu, defendant No.5 who in turn has sold 'B', 'C', & 'D' properties to defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The boundaries of General Power of Attorney are the boundaries of the Gift Deed is denied. Smt.Nanjamma was not the absolute owner of 3 acres 13 guntas. She has no right to execute Gift Deed in favour of the plaintiff. Para Nos. 5 to 15 of the plaint are denied. Cause of 13 O.S.No.4113/2008 action pleaded to the suit is denied. Finally, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with cost.
7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues are framed:-
1. Do the plaintiffs prove to be absolute owner of the suit schedule 'A' property?
2. Do the plaintiffs further prove the defendants No.1 to 3 to have put up illegal structure as suit schedule property 'B' to 'D' properties in the suit schedule 'A' property?
3. Do the plaintiffs further prove to be entitled to seek possession of suit schedule properties?
4. If so, do the plaintiff prove to be entitled for the relief of Mandatory Injunction as sought for?
5. Whether defendants No.1 to 3 prove to be bonafide purchaser of suit schedule property?
6. Does the defendant No.4 proves to have inherited suit schedule property by virtue of partition deed, dated 18-10-
1974?
7. What Order or decree?
14 O.S.No.4113/2008
8. The son of deceased plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.22. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are examined as D.Ws 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.D.1 to D.95.
9. My answer to the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the affirmative
Issue No.3 : In the affirmative
Issue No.4 : In the affirmative
Issue No.5 : In the negative
Issue No.6 : Wrongly framed
Issue No.7 : As per final order for the
following:-
REASONS
10. Issue Nos.1 to 4:- To avoid repetition and for
proper appreciation of evidence on record, issue Nos. 1 to 4 are taken together.
Deceased plaintiff N.Jayarama Reddy, defendant No.4 N.Muninarayana Reddy and one Krishnamurthy are the children of deceased Sri.Nanja Reddy and Smt.Nanjamma is not in dispute. Between Nanja Reddy and above referred 15 O.S.No.4113/2008 three sons, there was a registered Partition as on 18-10-1974 is not in dispute. In the said Partition, in the land bearing Sy.No.74/1 of Munikolalu Village out of 4 acres 3 guntas, 3 acres 13 guntas was fallen to the share of Sri.Nanja Reddy, 15 guntas was fallen to the share of N.Muninarayana Reddy - the defendant No.4 herein. Another 15 guntas was fallen to the share of Sri.N.Krishna Murthy who is not a party to the suit. In the plaint at para No.2, it is pleaded that 3 acres 13 guntas fallen to the share of Sri.Nanja Reddy was on the eastern side to the property. 15 guntas fallen to the share of defendant No.4 is shown to be on the North-West side. 15 guntas fallen to the share of N.Krishna Murthy is shown to be on the South-West side. The very registered Partition Deed is marked in evidence at Ex.P.1. There is no dispute about this Partition Deed by the parties to the suit. In Ex.P.1, the property fallen to the share of Sri.Nanja Reddy is described as follows:-
'1£Éà £ÀAeÁgÉrØAiÀĪÀgÀ ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ §A¢gÀvÀPÀÌ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À «ªÀgÀB- ' 16 O.S.No.4113/2008 ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, ªÀvÀÆðgÀÄ ºÉÆç½, ªÀÄÄ£ÉÃPÉƼÁ¯Á UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.74/1 ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ZÀPÀÄÌ §A¢B-
¥ÀǪÀðPÉÌ B PÀȵÁÚgÉrØ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±ÁªÀiÁgÉrØgÀªÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ B EzÉà £ÀA§j£À ¥ÉÊQ J£ï.ªÀÄĤ£ÁgÁAiÀÄtgÉrØ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J£ï.PÀÈ¥ÀÚªÀÄÆwðgÀªÀjUÉ ©nÖ gÀĪÀ 30 UÀÄAmÉ eÁUÀ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ B J£ï.¥Á¥ÀAiÀÄågÉrØAiÀĪÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ zÀQëtPÉÌ B gÁªÀÄAiÀÄågÉrØ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±ÁªÀÄgÚ ÉrØ d«ÄãÀÄ F ªÀÄzsÉå EgÀĪÀ RÄ¶Ì d«ÄãÀÄ 3 JPÀgÉ 13 UÀÄAmÉ From this recital in Ex.P.1 - Partition Deed, it is very clearly mentioned that 15 guntas fallen to the share of defendant No.4 and his brother Krishna Murthy is on the western side of the property fallen to the share of their father Nanja Reddy.
11. As per Ex.P.1, the description of the property fallen to the share of defendant No.4 is described as follows:- 17 O.S.No.4113/2008
rmÉÆà ªÀÄÄ£ÉßPÉƼÁ® UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ HgÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¢£À ºÉÆ®zÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.74/1 gÀ ¥ÉÊQ ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ZÀPÀÄÌ §A¢B-
¥ÀǪÀðPÉÌ B £ÀAeÁgÉrØAiÀĪÀgÀ »¸Éì
¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ B UÁæªÀÄoÁt ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÁj
GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ B ¨Á«UÉ ºÉÆÃUÀĪÀ zÁj
zÀQëtPÉÌ B J£ï.PÀȵÀÚªÀÄÆw𠻸ÉìAiÀÄ zÁ£ÀzÀ
ªÀÄ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ SÁ° eÁUÀ
F ªÀÄzsÉå EgÀĪÀ ¥À²ÑªÀÄzÀ PÀqÉ vÁQ «¹ÛÃtð ºÀ¢£ÉÊzÀÄ UÀÄAmÉ ................
On reading these recitals, it can be certainly said that 15 guntas fallen to the share of defendant No.4 is on the eastern side of the property of Nanja Reddy.
12. It is further clear that to the right side of 15 guntas fallen to the share of defendant No.4. 15 guntas fallen to the share of Krishna Murthy is situated. Similarly, in Ex.P.1 itself to the 15 guntas allotted to the share of N.Krishna Murthy, the boundaries are as follows:-
¥ÀǪÀðPÉÌ B £ÀAeÁgÉrØAiÀĪÀgÀ d«ÄãÀÄ Same is the boundary towards eastern side to the property of defendant No.4 also. This goes to show that 18 O.S.No.4113/2008 defendant No.4 and his brother N.Krishna Murthy are adjacent owners.
GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ B J£ï.ªÀÄĤ£ÁgÁAiÀÄtgÉrØ d«ÄãÀÄ This shows that the property of defendant No.4 and N.Krishna Murthy are situated side by side. On the eastern side of the property of defendant No.4 and N.Krishna Murthy, the property of Nanja Reddy is situated is established.
13. The plaintiff has produced rough sketch to show identity of shares allotted to Nanja Reddy, defendant No.4 and Krishna Murthy as per Ex.P.9. In view of my discussion with regard to the boundaries as per Ex.P.1, Ex.P.9 appears to be right and correct. Ex.P.1 is acted upon is not in dispute.
Based on this, revenue entries have been effected in the name of Nanja Reddy, defendant No.4 and Krishna Murthy is also not disputed.
14. The plaintiff has got marked Exs.P.3 to P.6 - RTC extracts pertaining to the land bearing Sy.No.74/1 and the mutation as per Ex.P.7. As per Ex.P.3, RTC for the year 2004-05 at column No.12, the name of defendant No.4 is 19 O.S.No.4113/2008 shown to be the owner of 15 guntas. Nanjamma, W/o.Nanja Reddy is shown to be the owner of 3 acres 2 guntas. As per Ex.P.7, after death of Nanja Reddy, in the year 1982, mutation is effected in the name of his wife Smt.Nanjamma. Property tax register standing in the name of deceased plaintiff is marked at Ex.P.8.
15. According to the plaintiff, his father died in the year 1982. Thereafter, the property measuring 3 acres 13 guntas was inherited by his mother Smt.Nanjamma. Out of love and affection, she executed a registered Gift Deed in his favour to an extent of 120ft x 30ft in the land bearing Sy.No.74/1, which is described as 'A' schedule property. The said registered Gift Deed is marked at Ex.P.18. According to the plaintiff, he has accepted the said Gift Deed. Therefore, he has become the owner of 'A' schedule property. According to the plaintiff, the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 tried to interfere with his possession in the year 2004 and accordingly, he filed three original suits for permanent injunction. As the defendants had constructed structures on the 'A' schedule property, he withdrew the said three suits and the certified 20 O.S.No.4113/2008 copy of the order sheet are marked at Exs.P.15 to P.17. As per these three documents, liberty was given to the deceased plaintiff herein to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action/subject matter. Accordingly, the present suit is filed.
16. According to the deceased plaintiff, defendant No.4 had executed General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.5 - S.Babu on 18-10-1993 in respect of Sy.No.74/1 to an extent of 160ft x 30ft. Accordingly, defendant No.5 sold 30ft x 40ft in favour of defendant No.9 in the year 1996 as per Ex.P.10. Defendant No.9 in turn sold the said property in favour of second defendant on 22.11.2002 as per Ex.P.14. The 5th defendant on the strength of alleged General Power of Attorney, executed a Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.7 on 8-11-1996. The 7th defendant in turn sold the same in favour of defendant No.1 as per Ex.P.13. Defendant No.5 based on the General Power of Attorney sold 30ft x 40ft in favour of defendant No.6 as per Ex.P.11. Defendant No.6 in turn sold the same to defendant No.3 as per Ex.P.12. Based on Exs.P.12, P.13 and P.14, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have put up construction on the 'A' 21 O.S.No.4113/2008 schedule property. According to the plaintiff, the defendant Nos.1 to 3 have illegally put up residential houses in 'B', 'C' and 'D' schedule properties. It is also the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.4 had no right to execute General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.5. It is the further case of the plaintiff that defendant No.5 had no right to execute Sale Deeds as referred supra. It is further contended that the boundaries of 'A' schedule property are shown in the alleged General Power of Attorney. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed common written statement. Defendant No.4 has filed written statement separately. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in the written statement very clearly say that defendant No.4 has executed General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.5. Accordingly, defendant No.5 has executed Sale Deeds in their favour. Similarly, defendant No.4 also pleads in his written statement that he has executed General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.5. Based on the General Power of Attorney, defendant No.5 has executed several Sale Deeds. Shockingly, neither defendant Nos. 1 to 3 nor defendant No.4 have produced the General Power of Attorney before the court. No attempt is made by these defendants to 22 O.S.No.4113/2008 produce the General Power of Attorney before the court. Defendant No.5 who was the General Power of Attorney holder is placed exparte in the case on hand. Defendant No.4 who has executed General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.5 though filed written statement has not contested the suit. He has not offered his evidence before the court. How, by way of a General Power of Attorney the Sale Deeds are executed is not clearly demonstrated before the court on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 4. Because, in Ex.P.10, the registered Sale Deed, dated 19-1-1996 where under, defendant Nos.5 executed a Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.6. In Ex.P.10, the registered Sale Deed, in the second paragraph, it is recited like this:-
"Whereas the seller is the sole and absolute owner in possession, occupation and enjoyment ....................
17. At page No.2 in Ex.P.10 only, 5th line from the bottom, it is recited like this:-
WHEREAS, the seller has acquired the schedule property out of his own separate funds, that is to say it is his self acquired property. (underline by the court) 23 O.S.No.4113/2008
18. As per Ex.P.10, defendant No.5 sold 30ft x 40ft in the land bearing Sy.No.74/1. In this document, the seller is defendant No.5. No where in Ex.P.10, there is a whisper about execution of General Power of Attorney by defendant No.4 in his favour. Admittedly, defendant No.5 is not a family member of deceased Nanja Reddy and Smt.Nanjamma.
Defendant No.5 is a stranger to the family of defendant No.4 and plaintiff. Therefore, defendant No.5 had no right to execute Sale Deed as per Ex.P.10. In other words, defendant No.9 did not derive any title in respect of the property purchased under Ex.P.10. Similarly, defendant No.1 who has purchased the property covered under Ex.P.10 as per Ex.P.14 on 22-11-2002 also did not derive any right, title over the said property. As per Ex.P.11 defendant No.5 sold to defendant No.6 property measuring 30ft x 40ft on 19-1-1996. In this Sale Deed also, there is no reference about existence of General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.5. On the other hand, the seller is shown to be the owner of the said property. Defendant No.6 sells the very same property in favour of defendant No.7 on 27-9-2002 as per Ex.P.12. In turn, defendant No.7 sells the said property in favour of 24 O.S.No.4113/2008 defendant No.1 as per Ex.P.13. Therefore, it can be said that defendant No.5 had no right to execute Sale Deed as discussed supra. Accordingly, defendant Nos.6, 7 and 1 have not derived any right, title or ownership over the property purchased there under. The basis of the defence of the defendant Nos.1 to 4 is the General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.5. The said General Power of Attorney is not at all produced before the court. Whether it is a registered General Power of Attorney or unregistered General Power of Attorney is also not made clear before the court. Therefore, it can be certainly said that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have not derived any title or ownership over 'B', 'C' and 'D' properties.
19. Defendant No.1 is cross-examined as D.W.1. At para No.5 of the chief-examination, he has deposed that on 8.1.1996, defendant No.4 executed General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.5. But, the said General Power of Attorney is not at all produced before the court. He has further deposed that he purchased 'B' schedule property. He has constructed pakka building on the same. By way of this 25 O.S.No.4113/2008 evidence, defendant No.1 clearly admits the existence/identity of 'B' schedule property. Defendant No.1 in support of his oral evidence got marked three photographs showing the existence of building along with CD at Exs.D.3 to D.6. He has produced 'B' form Extract pertaining to 'B' schedule property as per Ex.D.7. It is true that he has paid tax to 'B' schedule property as per Exs.D.9 to D.12 - tax paid receipts. He has also obtained water connection. He has paid fee to the effect as per Ex.D.13. He has also obtained electricity connection as per Ex.D.14 to the constructed house. He has paid electricity bills as per Exs.D.15 to D.22. He has obtained facility of LPG cylinder and the bills are marked at Exs.D.23 to D.26. He has also obtained loan by mortgaging the property and the notice issued in that regard is marked at Ex.D.29. It is true that all these documents do establish possession of defendant No.1 over 'B' schedule property.
20. Defendant No.3 is examined as D.W.2. He has deposed that he has purchased 'D' schedule property by way of registered Sale Deed. He has deposed that defendant No.4 has executed General Power of Attorney in favour of 26 O.S.No.4113/2008 defendant No.5. He has constructed pakka building on the 'D' schedule property. In that regard, he has produced three photographs and CD. They are marked at Exs.D.30 to D.33. The electricity bill pertaining to the building in 'D' schedule property is marked at Ex.D.34. Gas receipt and three tax paid receipts are marked at Exs.D.35 to 38. 15 electricity bills pertaining to 'D' schedule property are marked at Exs.D.39 to D.53. Encumbrance certificates are marked at Exs.D.54 to D.56. These documents are produced to establish possession of defendant No.3 over 'D' schedule property.
21. Defendant No.2 is examined as D.W.3. He also as that of defendant Nos.1 and 3, deposed about execution of General Power of Attorney by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.5. He has further deposed about his acquisition of title to 'C' schedule property by way of registered Sale Deed. He has produced three photographs along with CD at Exs.D.58 to D.61. Five tax paid receipts are marked at Exs.D.62 to D.66. Electricity bills are marked at Exs.D.67 to D.75. BWSSB bills are marked at Exs.D.76 to 27 O.S.No.4113/2008 D.79. Water bill and gas payment receipts to 'C' schedule property are marked at Exs.D.80 to D.86. To show that 'C' schedule property is mortgaged, Ex.D.87 is got marked. Other eight electricity bills pertaining to suit schedule property are marked at Exs.D.88 to D.95. All these documents produced by defendant No.3 do establish his possession over 'C' schedule property. In fact, the L.Rs of deceased plaintiff are not disputing the possession of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 over 'B', 'C' and 'D' properties. According to the L.Rs of deceased plaintiff, the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have no right to continue possession on 'B', 'C' and 'D' properties. It is the deceased plaintiff who is the owner of the suit 'A' schedule property as per Ex.P.18 - registered Gift Deed. Admittedly, the Gift Deed is dated 7-7-2004. Even to this day, defendant No.4 has not questioned the same. The other legal heirs of deceased Sri.Nanja Reddy and Smt.Nanjamma also have not questioned this Ex.P.18 - Gift Deed. As of now, the Gift Deed is in existence and it is not cancelled.
28 O.S.No.4113/2008
22. It is the case of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 that after the death of deceased Nanja Reddy, Smt.Nanjamma alone will not succeed to the entire 3 acres 13 guntas. On the other hand, all the legal heirs of deceased Nanja Reddy are entitled for equal shares. In other words, 3 acres 13 guntas fallen to the share of Nanja Reddy was his self acquired property and therefore, defendant No.4 is having 1/6th share. In the same lines, P.W.1 was cross-examined. It is an admitted fact that deceased Nanja Reddy had not executed any will or Settlement Deed in respect of 3 acres 13 guntas. He died intestate. P.W.1 denied that deceased Nanjamma inherited only 1/6th share in the property of Nanja Reddy. P.W.1 admits in his cross-examination that five children of deceased Nanja Reddy have not signed to the Gift deed. It is suggested that Nanjamma alone had no right to execute the Gift Deed in favour of the deceased plaintiff. The same is denied.
23. D.Ws 1 to 3 claim their ignorance about registered Partition Deed which is marked at Ex.P.1 at the time of cross- examination. However, they have admitted the correctness of 29 O.S.No.4113/2008 the Partition Deed in their pleadings itself. D.W.1 to 3 in the cross-examination clearly admit like this:-
"It may be a fact that 3 acres 13 guntas of land was retained for the purpose of the maintenance in the name of Sri.Nanja Reddy. It is true to suggest that after the death of Nanja Reddy, 3 acres 13 guntas of land in Survey No.74/1 was succeeded by his wife Nanjamma".
24. D.Ws 1 to 3 denied in their cross-examination that Smt.Nanjamma sold portions of 3 acres 13 guntas in favour of different persons to perform the marriage of daughters. D.Ws 1 to 3 denied a suggestion that Smt.Nanjamma has executed a Gift Deed as per Ex.P.18 in favour of deceased plaintiff. D.Ws 1 to 3 in their cross-examination admit like this:-
"It is true to suggest that Nanjamma has alienated the properties an area of 3 acres 13 guntas of the land to various persons.
25. Defendant No.4 has not filed any suit for partition after the death of his father claiming his share in 3 acres 13 guntas. The very D.Ws 1 to 3 have admitted that Smt.Nanjamma has disposed of entire 3 acres 13 guntas. Defendant No.4 has not questioned the said sales. On the 30 O.S.No.4113/2008 other hand, D.Ws 1 to 3 have repeatedly deposed that defendant No.4 has admitted about the execution of the Sale Deeds in their favour. According to Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, defendant No.4 has executed Exs.D.2 and D.58 admitting the sales in their favour. As such, the plaintiff cannot question the Sale Dees of defendant Nos.1 to 3.
26. Ex.D.2 is a declaration made by defendant No.4 on 20th August 2002. It is a declaration made before a notary. As per Ex.D.2, defendant No.4 has declared that he has executed General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.5. According to the court, this document has no sanctity in the eye of law. This document will not in any way benefit defendant Nos. 1 to 3 or defendant No.4 for that matter. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are further relying upon Ex.D.57 which is executed by defendant No.4 during the pendency of the present suit. Ex.D.57 is also executed before a notary in the form of an affidavit. The said affidavit was on 6-3-2018. As per Ex.D.57, defendant No.4 has deposed that he is defendant No.4 in the present suit. He nextly pleads about Partition Deed of the year 1974. At para No.3, he pleads 31 O.S.No.4113/2008 about execution of General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.5. At para Nos. 4 and 5, he pleads about the various Sale Deeds executed in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and defendant Nos.6 to 9. He says that the Sale Deeds standing in the name of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are true and correct. The Sale Deeds are executed on the strength of General Power of Attorney etc., etc., etc., Finally, at paragraph No.6, it is pleaded like this:-
"The claim of Sri.Jayaram Reddy (deceased plaintiff) and others that the schedule- 'B', 'C' and 'D' are out of late Nanja Reddy portion are false. It is forming part of my 15 guntas, even otherwise I also inherited a portion of the property out of my father's share of 3 acres 13 guntas being one of the legal heirs".(underline by the court)
27. Defendant No.4 is not specific about his stand. At one stretch, he pleads that he has executed Sale Deeds in respect of 15 guntas fallen to his share. But, he is not making it very clear before the court. What amount of importance can be attached to Ex.D.57 is not explained by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants. Defendant No.4 is a party to the suit. He has engaged the services of an Advocate. He has filed his written statement. His counsel 32 O.S.No.4113/2008 has cross-examined P.W.1 at length. But, defendant No.4 has not chosen to enter the witness box. Instead of swearing to an affidavit, as per Ex.D.57 (which is unknown to law), defendant No.4 ought to have entered the witness box to depose about these facts. He avoided the cross- examination. He is guilty of his conduct. The boundaries of Exs.P.10 to P.14 reveal that the sale was in respect of 'A' schedule property only, which the deceased plaintiff had acquired through Gift Deed as per Ex.P.18. In the affidavit evidence, D.Ws.1 to 3 clearly admit the identity of 'B', 'C' and 'D' schedule properties. The plaintiff has clearly pleaded that 'B', 'C' and 'D' properties are situated in 'A' schedule properties. The boundaries mentioned in Ex.P.1 and the boundaries mentioned in Gift Deed will prove that 'A' schedule property is the portion of property allotted to the share of Nanja Reddy. The Sale Deeds of defendant Nos.1 to 3 are in respect of the said portion which the plaintiff has acquired as per Gift Deed. Defendant No.4 had no authority to execute General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.5. At the cost of repetition, it is to be stated that the said alleged General Power of Attorney is not produced for 33 O.S.No.4113/2008 inspection of the court. The very basis of defence of defendants is the proof of General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.5. But the very General Power of Attorney is not produced. Defendant No.4 is not examined. Defendant No.5 is also not examined. Finally, the court is of the opinion that General Power of Attorney in favour of the defendant No.5 is not proved. Therefore, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have not derived any title or ownership over the suit 'B', 'C' and 'D' schedule properties.
28. The learned counsel representing the contesting defendants has placed reliance upon (2014) 2 SCC 269 - Union of India and others Vs.Vasavi Co-operative Housing Society Limited and others. (2016) 2 SCC 200 - City Municipal Council Bhalki Vs.Gurappa by legal representatives and another. In both the cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a suit for declaration and possession, it is the onus on the part of the plaintiff to establish his title to the disputed property. Weakness of the case set up by the defendants cannot be a ground to grant relief claimed by the plaintiff.34 O.S.No.4113/2008
29. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiff placed reliance upon (2006) 5 SCC 558 - Anil Rishi Vs.Gurbaksh Singh. Wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court enunciated the difference between burden of proof and onus of proof. In the case on hand, the plaintiff has clearly proved his title to the suit schedule property by placing Ex.P.18 - the registered Gift Deed in his favour. The defendant No.4 who is the direct brother of deceased plaintiff has not questioned the Gift Deed even to this day. He is not even ready to deny the correctness or otherwise of Ex.P.18 by entering the witness box. The other legal heirs of deceased Nanja Reddy and Smt.Nanjamma have also not questioned Ex.P.18 - the Gift Deed. Therefore, the plaintiff has proved his title over the suit schedule property. The court is not relying upon the weakness of the defence set up by the defendants. On the other hand, the very defence set up by the defendants is weak. At the cost of repetition, it has to be stated that though defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are harping upon General Power of Attorney executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.5 have not produced the same before the court. The executor of General Power of Attorney i.e., defendant No.4 is 35 O.S.No.4113/2008 not ready to enter the witness box. The person who was the alleged Attorney- the defendant No.5 has also not entered the witness box.
30. The learned Advocate for the plaintiff at the time of arguments produced the certified copy of the Sale Deed executed by defendant No.5 in favour of one Viswanath Nambiar on 8-1-1996. The court can take judicial notice of the certified copy of the Sale Deed. In the said Sale Deed also defendant No.5 is shown to be the absolute owner of the property under sale and he sells the same for his legal necessity. In this Sale Deed also, there is no mention of General Power of Attorney executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.5. In the said Sale Deed, dated 8.1.1996, the boundaries of the property are shown like this:-
East : Private Property
West : Private Property
North: Private Property
South: Road
31. This shows the casual attitude in executing the Sale Deed, in respect of a portion of land bearing Sy.No.74/1 (regarding boundaries stated above). In Exs.P.10 to P.14 also 36 O.S.No.4113/2008 the description of the property is not clearly narrated in the Sale Deeds. Defendant No.4 assuming that he has 1/6th share in the property left by his father has executed Sale Deeds through defendant No.5. Of course, General Power of Attorney is not produced and not proved. But, defendant No.4 is not ready to plead the same defence in his written statement. Under these circumstances, the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases cited by the Advocate for the defendants is not made applicable to the case on hand.
32. Nextly, the learned counsel for the defendants relied upon (2007) 8 SCC 600 - Shiva Kumar Sharma Vs.Santhosh Kumar. It appears the proposition in the case is under Order 2 Rule 2 and 4 CPC R/w Order 20 Rule 12 CPC. The said proposition is not at all applicable to the case on hand. Same is the opinion of the court with regard to the citation relied upon by the defendants reported in AIR 2005 SC 439 - Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another Vs.IndusInd Bank Ltd and others. Because, in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with Order 3 Rule 2 37 O.S.No.4113/2008 CPC about Power of Attorney holder to depose in place of the principal. P.W.1 examined in this case is not the Power of Attorney Holder of deceased plaintiff. P.W.1 is the son of deceased plaintiff. Therefore, this proposition is also not applicable to the case on hand.
33. The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon (1990) 3 Supreme Court Cases 291 - Vannarakkal Kallalathil Sreedharan Vs.Chandramaath Balakrishnan and another. In the said case, the Hon'ble High Court was considering the effect of a Sale Agreement and the said proposition has no application to the case on hand.
34. Nextly, the learned counsel for the defendants relied upon (1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases 715 - Hamda Ammal Vs.Avadiappa Pathar and three others. In the said case also, the proposition was laid under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.
The said proposition also has no application to the case on hand.
35. The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon (2015) 6 Supreme Court cases 412- Foreshore Co- 38 O.S.No.4113/2008 op.Housing Society Ltd., Vs.Praveen D Desai and (1995) 1 Supreme Court Cases 198 - Ramti Devi Vs.Union of India. In both the suits, the proposition was with regard to point of Limitation when suits are filed based on title.
36. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff relied upon AIR 1999 Supreme Court 1549 - Smt.Indira Vs.Arumugam and another. Wherein, the Hon'ble High Court while considering Article 65 of Limitation Act at para No.5 held like this:-
"5. It is therefore, obvious that when the suit is based on title for possession, once the title is established on the basis of relevant documents and other evidence unless the defendant proves adverse possession for the prescriptive period, the plaintiff cannot be non suited.
Unfortunately, this aspect of the mater was missed by the learned Judge and therefore, the entire reasoning for disposing of the Second Appeal has got vitiated. Only on that short ground and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the question of law framed by the learned Judge for disposing of the Second Appeal, this appeal is allowed. The impugned decision rendered is set aside and the Second Appeal is restored to the file of the High Court with a request to proceed further with the hearing of the appeal with respect to the substantial 39 O.S.No.4113/2008 question aforementioned in accordance with law. No costs.
In view of the said proposition, the court is of the opinion that the suit is within time.
37. Finally the learned counsel for the defendant placed reliance upon AIR 1996 SC 1522 - Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras Vs.M/s.Gemini Pictures Circuit Private Limited. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering what includes an agricultural land. The said proposition is also not applicable to the case on hand. Because, the defendants being the alleged purchasers of site properties and having constructed pakka buildings cannot take advantage of the proposition laid down in the said case.
38. To conclude, on a careful reading of the boundaries mentioned in 'B', 'C' and 'D' schedule properties and the boundaries mentioned in Exs.P.10 to P.14, it can be certainly said that the said sales are not in respect of 15 guntas of land fallen to the share of defendant No.4 in a partition of 1974. On the other hand, the say of the plaintiff that the said sales 40 O.S.No.4113/2008 are in respect of 'A' schedule properties is sufficiently established. Accordingly, issue Nos.1 to 4 are answered in the affirmative.
39. Issue No.5:- Except a single line in the written statement, no attempt is made by D.Ws 1 to 3 to prove the same. The very sales in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are bad in law. Therefore, question of considering bonafides on the side of defendant Nos.1 to 3 does not arise. Hence, I answer this issue in the negative.
40. Issue No.6:- In view of findings on issue Nos.1 to 4, the court is of the opinion that the defendant has failed to establish that he has inherited 'A' schedule property after the death of his parents. This issue is wrongly framed. Because, there is no dispute about the Partition Deed, dated 18-10- 1974. It is the contention of the defendant No.4 that he is having 1/6th share after the death of his father in property bearing Sy.No.74/1 to an extent of 3 acres 13 guntas. It is also not proved before the court. Accordingly, the said issue is answered as 'wrongly framed'.
41 O.S.No.4113/2008
41. Issue No.7:- In view of my discussions and findings on issue Nos.1 to 6, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Suit filed by deceased N.Jayarama Reddy continued by his L.Rs is decreed with cost.
The L.Rs of deceased plaintiff are declared as the owners of 'A' schedule property.
Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are directed to hand over vacant possession of 'B', 'C' and 'D' schedule properties in favour of the L.Rs of deceased plaintiff.
By way of Mandatory Injunction defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to demolish the illegal structures on 'B', 'C' & 'D' schedule properties.
Draw Decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by her and then corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of October 2018).
(MANJUNATH.G.A.) XXXV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.42 O.S.No.4113/2008
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
P.W.1 : Sri.Neelakanta Witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants.
D.W.1 : Sri.B.Siddappa
D.W.2 : A.H.Narahari
D.W.3 : Ravindra
Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff.
Ex.P.1 : The certified copy of the Partition Deed, Dated 8-10-1974 (Typed copy of the partition deed is produced) Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of the judgment passed In Crl.A.No.177/1987 Exs.P.3 : Certified copies of RTCs to P.6 Ex.P.7 : True copy of Mutation register extract Ex.P.8 : The assessment register extract Ex.P.9 : Rough Sketch Ex.P.10 : The certified copy of absolute sale deed, dated 19-1-1996 Ex.P.11 : The certified copy of Sale Deed, Executed on 19-1-1996 Ex.P.12 : The certified copy of Sale Deed, dated 27-9-2012 43 O.S.No.4113/2008 Ex.P.13 : The certified copy of absolute Sale Deed, dated 18-9-2002 Ex.P.14 : The certified copy of Sale Deed, Dated 22-11-2012 Ex.P.15 : The certified copy of order sheet in O.S.No.6766/2004 on the file of Prl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
Ex.P.16 : The certified copy of order sheet in O.S.No.6767/2004 on the file of Prl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
Ex.P.17 : The certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.No.6768/2004, on the file of Prl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
Ex.P.18 : The certified copy of the Gift Deed,
dated 7-7-2004
Ex.P.19 : Certified copy of the sketch
Ex.P.20 : Notice
Ex.P.21 : Copy of Mahazar
Documents marked on behalf of the defendants.
Ex.D.1 : The deposition of P.W.1 including examination in chief recorded on 13-12-2017 in O.S.No.4742/2008 Ex.D.2 : The certified copy of the declaration of N.Muninarayana Reddy 44 O.S.No.4113/2008 Exs.D.3 : Photographs to D.5 Ex.D.6 : C.D. Ex.D.7 : Original For B extract of BBMP Exs.D.8 : Property tax receipts to D.12 Ex.D.13 : The application form submitted for water and sanitary connection, which was sanctioned on 30-8-2014 by the Asst.Executive Engineer, BWSSB Ex.D.14 : Acknowledgment for having received Rs.25,710/- by the AEE Exs.D.15 : Electricity Bills to D.20 Exs.D.21 : Paid bills & D.22 Exs.D.23 : Bharath Gas Customer copy receipt of to D.26 LPG Ex.D.27 : Original Encumbrance for 9 years starting from 01-04-1995 to 31-3-2004 Ex.D.28 : Encumbrance certificate for two years from 18-09-2002 to 31-03-2004 Ex.D.29 : The letter, dated 23-4-2017 issued by LIC Housing Finance Limited for repayment of housing loan.
Exs.D.30 : Three Photographs to D.32 Ex.D.33 : C.D. 45 O.S.No.4113/2008 Ex.D.34 : Electricity bill Ex.D.35 : Gas receipt Exs.D.36 : Tax receipts to D.38 Exs.D.39 : 15 electricity Bills to D.53 Exs.D.54 : Encumbrance certificates to D.56 Ex.D.57 : Affidavit of Muninarayana Reddy Exs.D.58 : Photographs to D.60 Ex.D.61 : C.D. Ex.D.62 : Certified copies of tax paid receipts to D.66 Exs.D.67 : Two BESCOM Bills & D.68 Exs.D.69 : Electricity charges are paid to D.75 through receipts Exs.D.76 : BWSB bills to D.79 Exs.D.80 : Water bill Exs.D.81 : Gas payment receipts to D.86 Ex.D.87 : LIC Housing Finance Limited Letter for Having mortgaged schedule 'C' proeprty 46 O.S.No.4113/2008
Exs.D.88 : Original receipts for having paid the to D.95 electricity charges (MANJUNATH.G.A.) XXXV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru