Bangalore District Court
Chikkanna S/O Late Chinnappa vs Balappa S/O Late Balanagappa on 10 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (C.C.H.No.25).
Dated: This the 10 th day of September 2015
Present: Sri.Ron Vasudev, B.Com. LL.B, (Spl),
III Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No:1516/2005
Plaintiff Chikkanna S/o late Chinnappa, Aged about
53 years, R/at No:24, Sy.No.174/5,
Chikkabanasawadi, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore.
(By Sri.Chandrashekhar Vithal Jadhav,
Adv.)
Vs
Defendants 1. Balappa S/o Late Balanagappa, Major
in age,
2. Muniswamy, Deceased by his Legal
heirs,
2(a). Smt.Katamma W/o late Muniswamy,
R/at No:174/5, Banasawadi,
K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East
Taluka, Bangalore.
2(b). Kumari Gowramma D/o late
Muniswamy, Aged about 7 years,
2(c). Kumari Padma D/o Late Muniswamy,
Aged about 5 years,
2(d). Master Bharath, S/o Late Muniswamy,
Aged about 2 years,
Represented by their natural guardian of
mother of L.Rs No.2 to 4 of
Smt.Katamma. All are residing at the
above said address.
2 O.S.No:1516/2005
3. Venkatesh, Deceased by his Legal
Heirs,
3(a). Smt.Narayanamma W/o late
Venkatesh, Aged about 48 years,
3(b). Smt.Komala D/o late Venkatesh,
Aged about 31 years,
3(c). Smt.Anitha W/o Poojappa, D/o Late
Venkatesh, Aged about 28 years,
3(d). Smt.Asha D/o Late Venkatesh, Aged
about 25 years,
3(e). V.Manjunath S/o Late Venkatesh,
Aged about 22 years,
All are residing at No.174/5, Banasawadi,
K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluka,
Bangalore.
(D1 & D3 by Sri.KMM, Advocate)
(D2's L.Rs by Sri.M.G., Advocate)
Date of Institution 24.2.2005
Nature of suit Declaration, Injunction &
Possession
Date of commencement of 1.10.2007
evidence
Date on which the judgment was 10.9.2015
pronounced.
Total Duration: Years Month Days
10 6 16
(RON VASUDEV),
III Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
3 O.S.No:1516/2005
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and for possession. The suit schedule property is property bearing Sy.No.174/5, situated at Banasawadi, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluka measuring 2 guntas consisting of three houses with following boundaries:
East : Property belonging to Muniramaiah & Thimmappa West : Property of Doreswamy South: Property of Muniyappa North: Property of Thirumallappa
2. The substance of the plaint averments is that, suit property originally stood in the name of plaintiff's father by name late Chinnappa and on the death of his father, plaintiff had inherited to the same. The defendants have no manner of right, title or interest on any portion of the schedule property, but taking undue advantage of innocence of plaintiff, they have encroached the vacant site bearing Sy.No.174/5 and have unauthorisidely constructed three residential houses in it in the month of May 2002. The plaintiff resisted said illegal act and approached the jurisdictional police but it was of no use. Local police are colluded with the defendants, so having no other option, plaintiff has come to the court seeking the relief of declaration to declare that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property consisting of three houses and for recovery of vacant site as well as for costs of the suit.
4 O.S.No:1516/20053. In response to the suit summons, defendants entered appearance and have filed written statement as under:
4. All the plaint averments are false, frivolous, vexatious and untenable. The true facts are that the entire suit schedule property is a gramatana area and it belonged to one Thoti Appajappa, the forefather of the defendants. The description and particulars of the suit property are incorrect and it do not bear survey number as alleged in the plaint schedule since it is a gramatana land. That defendants fathers, Muniramappa, Muniyappa, Sathnur Abbaiah and Thirumalappa were the relatives of said Appajappa and since they had no houses to reside, said Appajappa gave northern portion to the fathers of defendants and others. The said Appajappa was residing in Daddabanasawadi. There is a small temple and bhajanemane towards south-west corner of the suit property and to its immediate western portion of the temple and bhajanemane was given to Sathnur Abbaiah. Whereas, next southern portion was given to Thirumalappa and similarly different portions were given to Muniramappa and Muniyappa. Thus, as mentioned above, there are two portions in the suit property and in the portion belonging to the defendants fathers they constructed houses long back and presently the defendants are residing in them. In between the northern portion and southern portion, towards eastern side, there is a temple and bhajanamane and the portion given to Sathnur Abbaiah there is a small street in the southern side portion. The temple and bhajanemane are towards eastern side and they are adjacent to the road. The remaining western 5 O.S.No:1516/2005 portion out of southern portion is now occupied by the plaintiff belonged to said Abbaiah and the said Abbaiah died long back without issues. Taking advantage of the same, said Thirumalappa claiming himself as the relative of said Abbaiah occupied the portion held by said Abbaiah and brought his sister as well as her husband Channappa who belonged to Kitaganur of Hosakote taluk and kept them there. Said Channappa is none other than the father of the plaintiff and on the death of his father, plaintiff as well as his mother continued to occupy the portion, which was once held by said Abbaiah. It is denied that suit property belonged to Channappa and he was in possession of it as the absolute owner. It is also denied that plaintiff is paying taxes to the schedule property and he has applied for change of khatha. Previously there was litigation in respect of the area comprising bhajanamane and temple at the instance of Thirumalappa and said litigation was decided holding that the said area belongs to community at large. Hence, neither Channappa nor this plaintiff have any right, title or interest in the schedule property and the documents produced and relied on by the plaintiff are all bogus, concocted and fabricated. In-fact, the defendants and others are the owners in actual possession and enjoyment of the northern portion consisting of three houses as they were constructed long back. The said area was included in the village limits long back as constructions were made in the suit land and no-longer it is an agriculture land. It has lost all the characteristics of an agriculture land. The suit property stands in the name of defendants and their forefathers and the khatha is also made in their names. The 6 O.S.No:1516/2005 defendants are paying the property taxes regularly and now that area is included within the limits of Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. It is strongly denied that defendants have encroached and put up construction in the schedule property. Since the defendants are in possession of the schedule property by constructing houses from the days of their forefathers, they have perfected their right, title and interest by way of adverse possession. The right, title or interest if any existed in the plaintiff has ceased to have effect as he is not in possession of the said property. Suit is barred by limitation and it also suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties. There is no cause of action for the suit and the alleged one is false and invented. Thus, on these grounds and other grounds, defendants pray to dismiss the suit with costs.
5. Based on the said pleadings my predecessor in office has framed the following issues:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property?
2. Whether the defendants prove that they are the owners of the suit property?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of vacant possession?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of mandatory injunction prayed?7 O.S.No:1516/2005
6. During the pendency of the suit defendant no.2 and 3 died and their L.Rs are brought on record. In support of his case plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked 22 documents. On the other hand defendant no.1 examined himself as DW1 and got marked 29 documents. Heard the arguments of Sri.CVJ, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri.KKM, Advocate for defendants. Perused the written arguments and the reply argument submitted by them.
7. My finding on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 - In the affirmative Issue No.2 - In the negative Issue No.3 - In the affirmative Issue No.4 - In the affirmative [ REASONS Issue No.1 and 2:
8. Since these two issues are inter-related, I have taken them simultaneously. As I have already set out the pleadings of the parties instead of repeating them again, I would like to straightaway examine the plaintiff's case in the background of oral and documentary evidence let-in by him. In the affidavit filed in lieu of his examination-in-chief reiterating the plaint averments, PW1 stated that he inherited the suit property from his father and he is the absolute owner of it. He further stated that in the year 2002, the defendants encroached the said property and have constructed three residential houses illegally. Thus, he prayed to 8 O.S.No:1516/2005 declare his title, sought mandatory injunction to demolish the illegal structures viz the three houses built by them and for recovery of possession. To substantiate the said oral evidence, he produced in all 22 documents. I would refer to them chronologically.
9. According to me, Ex.P18 is the first document on which this court can bestow its attention. It evidences the proceedings of the Special Tahsildar for Inam Abolition, Bengaluru 'B' Division and Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, Bengaluru. It reveals that registering the petition of Chinnappa S/o Venkatappa (father of PW1) at Case No:281 against Inamdar of Bengaluru, the Special Tahsildar of Inam Abolition reported that in Sy.No.174 the applicant/Chinnappa S/o Venkatappa is a bonafide agriculturist and accordingly he recommended to register him as quasi permanent tenant as per the provisions of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inam Abolition Act. Based on the said recommendation Dt.30.4.1958, the Special Dy.Commissioner by his Order dt.10.9.1958 exercising the power conferred on him U/Sec.10 of the said Act, registered Chinnappa S/o Venkatappa as quasi permanent tenant for the said survey number. In pursuance thereto, an endorsement was issued by the Special Dy. Commissioner for Inam Abolition as per Ex.P4/19. Ex.P4 is the original endorsement and Ex.P19 is the certified copy of it. Since Ex.P4 is a mutilated condition Ex.P19 is produced and it is dt.15.10.1958. Through the said endorsement, the Special Dy. Commissioner for Inam Abolition granted two guntas in 9 O.S.No:1516/2005 sy.no.174 to Chinnappa S/o Venkatappa with a condition to pay Rs.5/- as a premium in ten instalments. Apart from this, PW1 has produced tippani sheets of sy.no.174 of Banasawadi village at Ex.P20 and P21 to confirm the existence of land in the said survey number a Settlement Akarbandh at Ex.P22. These documents prove the existence of land in the said survey number to the revenue department so as to grant the same to Chinnappa S/o Venkatappa and others. It is not that only Chinnappa S/o Venkatappa was grantee in the said survey number even other occupants of the said survey number were granted different extents by the competent authority. In this regard, PW1 has produced Ex.P14, i.e., proceedings in respect of one Muniyappa S/o Obalappa. It also evidences that the Special Tahsildar for Inam Abolition and Special Dy. Commissioner of Abolition of Inams, Bengaluru after following due procedure registered the said Muniyappa as quasi permanent tenant at Case No:280. Ex.P15 is the endorsement issued in favour of one Muniyappa S/o Muniobalappa to whom two guntas were granted and Ex.P16 is the proceedings of Case No:72 pertaining to Kugoor Venkatappa S/o Muniswamy and the endorsement issued in respect of said Kugoor Venkatappa ia at Ex.P17. These Ex.P14 to P17 are further corroborated by a hand written RTC of Sy.No.174 produced at Ex.P7. It shows that the total extent of the said survey number is 1 Acre 35 guntas and that entire land is a karab land. The said extent was occupied by 15 different persons including Chinnappa S/o Venkatappa and as per the endorsements made by the revenue authorities in the total extent of 1 acre 35 guntas, 31 10 O.S.No:1516/2005 guntas was used as backyard and 35 guntas was used for residential purpose by constructing houses and the remaining 9 guntas was used as pathway by the said occupants. The said RTC is for the years 1966-67 to 1970-71. In Column No.9 the said RTC as stated earlier, names of 15 occupants are shown with the extent of land granted to them. The name of Chinnappa S/o Venkatappa can be seen at Sl.No.5 and granting of 2 guntas of land to him. It also evidences that among other grantees names of Muniyappa, Thirumalappa and Muniramaiah can be seen. That apart the subsequent hand written pahanis produced at Ex.P8 to P11 for the years 1977-78 to 2001-02 continuously show the name of Chinnappa S/o Venkatappa in Column No.9 of Sy.No.174/5 indicating that 2 guntas granted to Chinnappa S/o Venkatappa was phoded later and was numbered as 174/5. In addition to it, the extract of the Register No:VIII maintained as per Sec.11 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act by the revenue department show the name of Chinnappa S/o Venkatappa in respect of Sy.No.174 to the extent of 2 guntas indicating that his said piece of land was assessed to pay two anas as land revenue and Rs.5/- as a premium towards granting of it. In this Ex.P12 once again the case number of Chinnappa S/o Venkatappa is shown as 281 and Ex.P13 is the continuation page of Ex.P12. Ex.P6 is computerized pahani of Sy.No.174/5 issued for the year 2002-03 showing the name of said Chinnappa S/o Venkatappa as Khatedar and Possessor.
11 O.S.No:1516/200510. As contended by the plaintiff on the death of his father Chinnappa S/o Venkatappa he gave an application to the Tahsildar, Bengaluru East, K.R. Puram to mutate his name in the records of the said land. The copy of the said application is at Ex.P5. Pursuant to that application, mutation was effected at M.R.No:9/2002-03 on 4.3.2003 and names of PW1 and his mother Muniyamma were entered. Accordingly, a new computerized RTC came to be issued. The said documents are at Ex.P1 and P2 respectively. Of them Ex.P2 is for the year 2005-06. Thus, the documents produced by PW1 prove the granting of 2 guntas of land i.e. suit property to his father and its flow of title to him and his mother.
11. Now let me turn to the contentions of defendants. According to them it is a gramatana land and was held by one Thoti Appajappa and he gave that land to their fathers, Muniramappa, Muniyappa, Sathnur Abbaiah and Thirumalappa for construction of houses as they had no place to reside. They have stated that on the death of Sathnur Abbaiah as he had no heirs, his portion was occupied by Thirumalappa and he brought his sister namely the plaintiff's mother and kept her there. On careful reading of the said pleadings, one cannot understand what exactly the defendants want to plead and prove. The pleadings is totally ambiguous and it makes no sense at all. In one breath defendants submit that the said land is gramatana land and in the next breath they allege that it belonged to Thoti Appajappa. Even they have not stated by what mode Thoti Appajappa gave 12 O.S.No:1516/2005 different extent of lands to their fathers, Muniramappa, Muniyappa, Sathnur Abbaiah and Thirumalappa so as to construct houses there. Even they have not stated property number which was allegedly held by Thoti Appajappa. With this kind of obscure pleading, when the defendants went to trial by adducing evidence through DW1 (defendant no.1), improvising their version it was stated that said land is having Janjar No:139/5 of Chikkabanasawadi and to confirm the same, he produced house/land tax assessment extract for the year 1975-76 at Ex.D1, the alleged NOC issued by the Administrator, Banasawadi Group Panchayath to obtain electricity connection as Ex.D2, letter issued by Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Member on 10.3.2002 at Ex.D3, common receipts towards payment of taxes at Ex.D4 to D7, D13, D24, D26 and notices issued by Banasawadi Revenue Inspector of BMP at Ex.D8 and D28, BESCOM bill and receipts at Ex.D9 to D12 and Ex.D14 to D23 and notifications of BMP at Ex.D25 and D27 and voter list at Ex.D29. I have gone through them carefully. First of all, there is no pleading by the defendants in their written statement that three houses constructed by their fathers are in Janjar No:139/1 to 139/5, therefore, any kind of improvement made during the trial cannot be looked into. Moreover, when PW1 alleges that the suit property is the part of Sy.No.174 situating in "Banasawadi Village" by producing documents "Chikkabanasawadi", defendants harp upon their possession. Except the stray Ex.D1, there is no other document to show that continuously records of said janjar number stood in the name of defendants fathera, Sathnur Abbaiah, Balanagappa 13 O.S.No:1516/2005 etc. In the cross-examination, for the first time DW1 has stated that Appajappa is his great grandfather and Muniramappa, Muniyappa and Thirumalappa are his uncles. Admittedly, he has not produced documents to show that a granatana land can be owned by any person.
12. The other contention of the defendants that they are residing in the suit property by constructing three houses from the days of their forefather and they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession etc., I say that it is also without any basis. First of all, the defendants should bear in mind that if they set up the plea of adverse possession, they must concede the title of the plaintiff, without doing so, they cannot plead that they have perfected their title by way of adverse possession. Secondly, in the cross-examination of PW1, no such suggestion was put to him to prove their so-called defence. Thirdly, there is no document to show when these defendants built the said houses. Wherefore, their allegation that they have perfected their title by way of adverse of possession is liable to be rejected.
13. Defendants also contended that previously, there was litigation in respect of a temple and bhajanemane situating in the suit schedule property and it was at the instance of said Thirumalappa and it was ended in favour of the community. Thus, a veiled attack was made to assert their interest in the suit property. Again the said pleading is not only insufficient, it lacks supporting evidence. It is not stated when that litigation took place, what are its particulars and which forum has decided that 14 O.S.No:1516/2005 matter. Even assuming that temple and Bhajanemane are situating in the suit property, it has nothing to do with the illegal structures/houses put up by the defendants and existence of temple and bhajanemane will not legalize illegal occupation of the defendants.
14. Defendants further contended that suit is not maintainable and it is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Even the said submissions are without the particulars as to who are necessary parties and on what basis they submit that suit is not maintainable. With this kind of inconsistent, incomplete and inaccurate pleadings, the defendants went to the trial and tried to make a case out of nothing. Ex.D1 to D29 relied by them at the most indicate that they may possess some property in Chikkabasanawadi and not at Banasawadi, where the suit property is situating. They also made an attempt to contend that Chikkabanasawadi and Banasawadi are jodi villages with an intention to use the Ex.D1 to D29 so as to prove their alleged legal possession over the suit property. Atleast, in that regard no convincing evidence was letin.
15. Here a question may also arise regarding the identity of the property. The case file shows that plaintiff has filed I.A.8 U/O 26 Rule 9 of CPC for appointment of Surveyor as a Commissioner to measure the schedule property and to locate it so as to dispel any ambiguity that was raised by the defendants in the written statement by stating that it is a gramatana land. My predecessor in office kept that IA pending till conclusion of the trial, but after 15 O.S.No:1516/2005 hearing both parties on merits of the case as well as on the said IA and having gone through the evidence placed by them, I am of the firm opinion that there is no need to appoint the Court Commissioner to identify the suit land. I would like to substantiate this finding with the cross-examination of DW1. On Page No.9 in the second paragraph at last four lines DW1 substantially stated the boundaries of the schedule land and thereby set rest ambiguity if any, raised by them in their pleadings. When this court has formed an opinion that Ex.D1 to D29 pertain to some other property, if any in existence at Chikkabanasawadi, on the strength of such unproved documents, the court need not embark further by sending a Survey Commission. Therefore, in the course of this judgment itself, I hold that I.A.No.8 is redundant.
16. By referring to the cross-examination of PW1, the defendants have argued that plaintiff has no knowledge of the suit property and his admissions prove their defence. In this regard, I have gone through the cross-examination of said witness again and again. No-doubt at some places PW1 expressed his ignorance about payment of kandayam by his father or by himself in respect of the suit land and also that suit property is part of gramatana land, but while assessing the evidence court has to weigh the evidence as a whole and it should not be carried away by ignorant answers of the witnesses. The education background of the witness also matters in assessing the evidence. When plaintiff has placed enough 16 O.S.No:1516/2005 documentary evidence to support his claim, even if he concedes something for lack of his knowledge, he cannot be non-suited on that ground. The basic principle in evaluating evidence in a civil litigation is the preponderance of probability and not the strict proof. The plaintiff evidence on record shows that he has a case and his evidence is reliable rather than the inconsistent and unproved version of the defendants. Therefore, the so-called admissions of the plaintiff are of no help to the defendants.
17. An attempt was also made by the defendants by cross- examining PW1 touching to the legality of grant of 2 guntas of land in favour of Chinnappa S/o Venkatappa. According to me, the said cross-examination is totally irrelevant. If the defendants were really aggrieved by the grant made by the Special Dy. Commissioner for Inam Abolition, the only course open to them is to move the competent higher authority for cancellation of the same and not this civil court. When the documents consistently show the possession of Chinnappa S/o Venkatappa till the year 2001-02 as per Ex.P6, the contention of plaintiff that the defendants illegally encroached and constructed the residential houses in 2002 cannot be denied. Admittedly, the defendants have no documents to show when they constructed and even they have not obtained license from any competent authority to erect houses in the suit property, which was evidentially not belonging to them. There is no document to show when the said land was brought within the village limit and similarly, there is no document to show how the defendants acquired title to the said three houses. Therefore, I have no hesitation to conclude that 17 O.S.No:1516/2005 plaintiff has proved his title to the suit land, conversely defendants have failed to show that they are the owners of it. Hence, I answer issue no.1 in the Affirmative, whereas, issue no.2 in the negative.
Issue No.3:
18. By answering issue no.1 in the affirmative and issue no.2 in the negative, I have concluded that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and defendants have constructed three houses there illegally. When the defendants have no manner of right, title or interest in the encroached portion, the plaintiff is very-much entitled to recover the said encroached land at free of encumbrance.
19. It was contended by the defendants counsel that there is a temple and bhajanemane in the suit property and some more persons have also constructed houses there. In this regard, I have already observed that so far as temple and bhajanemane are concerned, it is for the plaintiff to initiate suitable action against them or allow them to continue in the said property. In so far as encroachments made by the defendants are concerned, as he has chosen to get them vacated in the manner known to law and when the defendants have no manner of right to continue there as contemplated U/Sec.34 of the Specific Relief Act, plaintiff can very well seek the vacant possession of the schedule property.
18 O.S.No:1516/200520. A half hearted attempt was also made by the defendants by contending that the suit is barred by time and again without any precise pleading. No arguments was addressed on this aspect nor there was any cross-examination of PW1 on that point. The other contentions of the defendants that they have constructed the said houses long back is also without supporting documentary evidence. Wherefore, I have no hesitation to conclude that the plaintiff is very much entitled to recover the vacant possession of schedule property and accordingly, I answer this issue in the affirmative.
Issue No.4:
21. When it is held that construction of three residential houses by the defendants in the suit property is illegal and they have no right to continue there and further that they have to hand over the vacant possession of the encroached land, there is no other option except to pull down the illegal constructions made there. I have examined the claim of the plaintiff even on the ground of equity so that the said constructions can be saved from demolition. But I am unable to find any reason which can be legally and validly up-held within the four corners of law.
22. The defendants have also contended that since plaintiff has not stated the extent of encroachment by each defendant, the relief of mandatory injunction for demolition and for recovery of possession cannot be granted to him. On hearing the said argument, I would only say that the defendants have not 19 O.S.No:1516/2005 properly read and understood the plaint pleadings. It may be noted that in the plaint schedule plaintiff had shown the whole extent of two guntas including three houses illegally constructed there and has sought for declaration of his title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction to demolish the said three houses, therefore, I find no ambiguity or inconsistency in attending his prayers. In view of the above discussion, left with no option, I am constrained to observe that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction for demolition of three residential houses occupied by the defendants and to take possession of the encroached portion. Since all the while, defendants went on alleging that they have constructed in the gramatana land and residing there from long ago etc., they did not like to protect their illegal constructions atleast by setting a proper defence by way of pleading and evidence on it. Hence, I hold that the plaintiff is very much entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed for.
23. Before I wind up my discussion, I am also bound to make observation on the filing of I.A.No.I U/O 33 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC by the plaintiff seeking permission to sue as an indigent person. The said I.A. was registered as P.Mis.Petition No:211/03 and after holding enquiry it was came to be allowed on 10.1.2005. While disposing of the said petition on Page No.7 of the order at bottom four lines, my predecessor in office held that in the event plaintiff succeeds in the suit, court can recover the court fee on the plaint. So when the findings on issues have gone 20 O.S.No:1516/2005 in favour of the plaintiff, it is needless to say that he has to pay the court fee before he proceeds to enjoy the fruits of the judgment. With this observation, I answer this issue in the affirmative and proceed to make the following:
ORDER Suit is decreed with costs.
It is declared that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and defendants are directed to quit, vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the encroached portion.
It is further held that the plaintiff is also entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction for demolition of the three residential houses occupied by the defendants.
Office to draw the decree after payment of court fee by the plaintiff.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcription computerized, then corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 10th day of September 2015) (RON VASUDEV), III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.21 O.S.No:1516/2005
ANNEXURE List of witness examined for the plaintiff/s side:
PW1 Chikkanna List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff/s side:
P1 Mutation register copy P2 Pahani P3 Election card P4 Endorsement P5 Tahsildar notice P6 RTC extract P7 to P11 Pahani copies P12 & P13 Copies of Register No.8 P14 Copy of order P15 Endorsement P16 Copy of order P17 Endorsement P18 Order copy of Spl. Tahsildar for Inams P19 Endorsement (copy) P20 Tippani copy P21 Tippani sheet P22 Settlement Akarbandh
List of witness examined for the defendant/s side:
DW1 Balappa List of documents exhibited for the defendant/s side:
D1 Assessment list D2 Endorsement D3 NOC D4 to D7 Tax paid receipts D8 Notice D9 to D12 Electricity bills D13 Tax paid receipt D14 to D23 Electricity bills 22 O.S.No:1516/2005 D24 Tax paid receipt D25 Notice D26 Tax paid receipt D27 & D28 Notices D29 Voter list (RON VASUDEV), III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 23 O.S.No:1516/2005 Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate order ORDER Suit is decreed with costs. It is declared that plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and defendants are directed to quit, vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the encroached portion. It is further held that the plaintiff is also entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction for demolition of the three residential houses occupied by the defendants. Office to draw the decree after payment of court fee by the plaintiff. III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.