Bangalore District Court
Unknown vs R.Vasanth Kumar on 16 April, 2021
/1/ O.S.No.6678/2014
THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-40), BANGALORE CITY.
Dated on this the 16th day of April, 2021.
-: Present :-
Sri.Khadarsab, B.A, LL.M.,
XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
Original Suit No. 6678/2014
Plaintiff :
Smt. Lakshmi Kasinathan, 53 Years,
W/o.T.K.Kasinathan, R/o.No.896,
Suvasini, 1 C Main Road, 11th Cross,
st
Girinagar, II Phase, Bengaluru - 85.
[By Sri.E.V.Gopalakrishnan Potty,
Advocate]
/ VERSUS /
Defendants:
R.Vasanth Kumar, S/o. M.Ramakrishna,
27 Years, R/o.No.9, chunchaghatta Main
Road, Old Bank Colony, Konanakunte,
Bengaluru - 560 062.
[By Sri.N.S., Advocat]
***
Date of Institution of the
: 01.09.2014
suit
/2/ O.S.No.6678/2014
Nature of suit : Suit for permanent
injunction
Date of commencement
of evidence : 28.08.2015
Date on which the
judgment is pronounced : 16.04.2021
Duration taken for Years Months Days
: 06 07 15
disposal
***
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant for the relief of permanent injunctions restraining the defendant, his servants, agents, supporters and henchmen from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also from alienating the suit schedule property to third parties.
2. Defendant made a counter claim for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff, her agents, servants, officials, attorneys, contractors or any /3/ O.S.No.6678/2014 person/persons claiming under him or through her in any way trespassing on the suit schedule property.
3. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under :
Poojappa and others were the owners of land bearing Sy.No.87 and 88 measuring 6 acres situated at Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The said Poojappa and others have filed an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru for conversion of said lands. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru granted permission for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural vide its orders No.B.DIS.ALN.SR.(S)210/1991-92 and No. B.DIS.ALN.SR.(S)211/1991-92 dated 6.1.1992. After conversion, formed the layout and has sold the sites to various persons. Likewise, the said Poojappa and others through their GPA holder K.Shivaram have alienated the /4/ O.S.No.6678/2014 Site bearing No.36 measuring East - West 40 and North - South 40 Sq.Ft. Carved in Sy.No.87 situated at Dodda Kallasandra Village, Bangalore South Taluk, to the plaintiff on 6.1.1992. On the same day they have delivered the possession of the property to the plaintiff. As per sale deed, the name of the plaintiff has been mutated in the records and khatha has been transferred in her name and had paid update tax to the B.B.M.P.
4. Plaintiff further pleaded that she is working in Punjab National Bank and always unable to look after the site daily, she visited the site on 20.3.2014 with her family members, it was found that bricks and sand kept for construction of compound wall were stolen from the site. The neighbourers of the suit schedule property have intimated that some miscreants are trying to sell the property. The plaintiff apprehended illegal acts of the defendant. Therefore, she has lodged a complaint for /5/ O.S.No.6678/2014 initiating action, but the police authorities have not initiated any action. The defendant does not have any right over the suit schedule property. Hence, prayed for decreeing the suit.
5. On service of suit summons, defendant appeared through his counsel and filed written statement and made counter claim, contending that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Plaintiff is not the owner in possession of the suit schedule property. Plaintiff has no right over the suit schedule property. Plaintiff has created the document and is making false claim over the suit schedule property. Defendant further contended that the lands comprised in Sy.No.87 and 88 of Doddakallasandra Village were the ancestral joint family properties of one Vajrappa and M.Poojappa. They had filed O.S.No.3355/2000 for the relief of partition. The said /6/ O.S.No.6678/2014 suit came to be decreed. The mother of defendant has been allotted certain sites in Sy.No.87 and 88. Accordingly, revenue entries have been transferred in her name. The coparceners namely Shankaramma, Munirathnamma and Chandramma have not executed any power of attorney appointing Shivaram as their power of attorney holder to deal with the property. The power of attorney which is being claimed from Muttamma is not in accordance with law as she did not had any power to do so and the said power of attorney is not legal and binding on the true owners. The sites formed in the share of Vajrappa have not at all been divided by metes and bounds. Therefore, O.S. No.2731/2007 came to be filed for the relief of partition and separate possession and in the said suit parties have entered into compromise and the counter claim suit property and other sites have been alloted to /7/ O.S.No.6678/2014 Smt.Chandramma and she got the khatha transferred in her name and she has donated the counter claim schedule property to the defendant by executing registered Gift Deed on 9.10.2013. On the basis of said gift deed, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment over the counter claim schedule property. The mother of the defendant has been possession and also constructed the shed on the said property and including the said shed donated it to the defendant. The defendant is in physical possession. The plaintiff is an alien to the counter claim schedule property. Plaintiff is no way concerned with the counter claim schedule property. The defendant is the absolute owner in possession of House Property bearing No.36 carved in Sy.No.87, Bangalore South Taluk now comes within the jurisdiction of B.B.M.P. The plaintiff is no way concerned with the suit schedule property, even then making false claim /8/ O.S.No.6678/2014 over the suit schedule property and is also making an attempt to trespass into the suit schedule property. On 9.12.2014 the plaintiff came near the counter claim schedule property and tried to trespass into the said property. Defendant resisted the illegal acts of the plaintiff. The act of the plaintiff is illegal and high handed. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit and for allowing the counter claim.
6. On the basis of the pleadings and documents of the parties, following issues and additional issues have been framed :
1) Does the plaintiff prove that she 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 defendant to her peaceful possession and enjoyment over /9/ O.S.No.6678/2014 the suit property?
3) Does the plaintiff prove that, she is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant?
4) What order or decree?
Additional Issues framed on 7.12.2018
1) Whether the defendant proves that he is in possession of written statement schedule property as on the date of suit ?
2) Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff is interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the written statement schedule property ?
3) Whether the defendant is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?
7. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked documents as Exs.P.1 / 10 / O.S.No.6678/2014 to P.22. While cross-examining P.W.1, the counsel for defendant confronted one photograph, property register extract and 3 tax paid receipts. Witness admitted the said documents. Accordingly same have been marked as Exs.D.1 to D.5. In order to substantiate his defence, the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and got marked documents Exs.D.6 to D.24.
8. Heard arguments and perused the written arguments.
9. My findings to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the negative.
Issue No.2 : In the negative.
Issue No.3 : In the negative.
Addl.Issue No.1 : In the affirmative.
Addl.Issue No.2 : In the affirmative.
Addl.Issue No.3 : In the affirmative.
Issue No.4 : As per final order, for
the following:
/ 11 / O.S.No.6678/2014
REASONS
10. Issue No.1 and Additional Issue No.1 :-
These issues are interlinked with each other. Hence, in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence, they are taken up together for discussion.
11. Plaintiff filed the present suit for the relief of permanent injunctions restraining the defendant, his servants, agents, supporters and henchmen from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also from alienating the suit schedule property to third parties.
12. The counsel for plaintiff argued that plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the schedule property and has purchased the said property on 6.5.1993 as per Ex.P.1. Subsequently, the owner of the property has executed Consent Deed on 7.7.2002 as per Ex.P.2. Since 6.5.1993 the plaintiff is in possession / 12 / O.S.No.6678/2014 and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and has paid tax to the concerned authority. Khatha in respect of the suit schedule property is standing in the name of plaintiff. The defendant is no way concerned with the suit schedule property, even then making an attempt to trespass into the suit schedule property. In order to establish plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property, she has produced photographs, hence, he prayed for decreeing the suit and for dismissal of the counter claim.
13. Per contra, the counsel for defendant argued that plaintiff is no way concerned with the counter claim schedule property, it is the joint family ancestral property of the defendant and the mother of the defendant has acquired the said property in a partition suit i.e., O.S.No.3731/2007. As per compromise decree the name of the defendant's mother name has been / 13 / O.S.No.6678/2014 mutated in the records. Subsequently the mother of the defendant has executed gift deed on 9.10.2013 in favour of defendant. As per said gift deed, the name of the defendant has been mutated in the municipal records. The defendant has paid update tax. The defendant is in possession of the counter claim schedule property. Plaintiff is no way concerned with the said property. Hence, he prays for dismissal of suit and for allowing the counter claim.
14. In order to establish her case, plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.P.1 to P.22. The examination-in-chief of the plaintiff is nothing but replica of plaint averments. P.W.1 deposed that she is the absolute owner in possession of Site bearing No.36 measuring East - West 40, North -
South 40 Feet, carved in Sy.No.87 situated at
Doddakallasandra, Bangalore South Taluk. She has
/ 14 / O.S.No.6678/2014
purchased the suit schedule property on 6.5.1993 as per Ex.P.1 from Poojappa and Muttamma through their GPA holder K.Shivaram. On the date of sale deed itself the possession of the property has been delivered. Subsequently the said Muttamma executed deed of consent on 7.7.2002 as per Ex.P.2. As per sale deed her name has been entered in the records as per Exs.P.3 and P.4, 6 and she has paid tax to the concerned authorities as per Exs.P.5 & 7 to P.13. Ex.P.14 is the encumbrance certificate. Exs.P.15 to 20 are the photographs in respect of suit schedule property, Ex.P.21 is the C.D. of Exs.P.15 to 20. Since 6.5.1993 she is in possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant is no way concerned with the suit schedule property. On 20.3.2014 she along with her family members visited the suit schedule property, at that time she came to know that building materials stored in the suit schedule property have been / 15 / O.S.No.6678/2014 stolen. It was informed by the neighbourers that some miscreants are trying to sell the property. Accordingly, she has lodged a complaint as per Ex.P.22. Though she has lodged the complaint but police authorities have not initiated any action against the defendant. Hence, prayed for decreeing the suit.
15. Though P.W.1 deposed that Poojappa and Muttamma through their GPA holder have executed registered sale deed as per Ex.P.1 in respect of suit schedule property, but in her cross-examination deposed that, in Ex.P.1 it is mentioned that suit schedule property has been carved in Sy.No.20. She further admitted that, the said Poojappa and Muttamma have not executed GPA in respect of Sy.No.20.
16. P.W.1 in her cross-examination at page No.10 clearly admitted that Ex.D.1 - photographs pertains to / 16 / O.S.No.6678/2014 suit schedule property. She further admits about the existence of shed in the suit schedule property and the said shed belongs to defendant. P.W.1 unequivocally admitted that the shed situated in the suit schedule property belongs to defendant, which clearly goes to show that plaintiff is not in possession of the property and defendant is in possession of the property. On perusal of Ex.D.1 it clearly goes to show that there is a shed in the suit schedule property. As per Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, the facts admitted need not be proved. P.W.1 further admits Exs.D.2 to D.5 - Property Register Extract and Tax Paid Receipts in respect of suit schedule property. On perusal of Exs.D.2 to D.5 it reveals that suit schedule property is standing in the name of Vasanthkumar i.e., defendant and he has paid tax to the B.B.M.P. The evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.D.1 to D.5 clearly goes to show that plaintiff is not in / 17 / O.S.No.6678/2014 possession of the property and it is the defendant who is in possession of the property.
17. It is the case of the plaintiff that she has purchased the suit schedule property as per Ex.P.1 - sale deed on 6.5.1993 from Poojappa and Muttamma through their GPA holder K.Shivaram. The defendant has denied the alleged GPA. Once the defendant denies the execution of GPA, it is the plaintiff who has to prove the due execution of alleged GPA. Plaintiff has failed to produce alleged GPA executed by Poojappa and Muttamma and even she has not examined the said Shivaram in order to substantiate her case. Even there is no material on record to show that as on the date of sale deed Shivaram was in possession of the suit schedule property and has delivered the same to the plaintiff. Plaintiff much relied upon Exs.P.3 and P.4 - House/Land Tax Assessment List. On perusal of the said / 18 / O.S.No.6678/2014 documents it reveals that said documents have been issued by the Secretary, Doddakallasandra Village Panchayath, Bangalore South Taluk and Secretary, Sarakki Village Panchayath, Bangalore South Taluk.
18. P.W.1 in his cross-examination at page No.12 deposed that since 2007 the suit schedule property comes within the jurisdiction of B.B.M.P. Admittedly the suit schedule property comes within the jurisdiction of B.B.M.P. Plaintiff has failed to produce the khatha certificate and khatha extract pertains to suit schedule property issued by B.B.M.P.
19. Plaintiff relied upon tax paid receipts - Exs.P. 3, 4, 7 to 13 and photographs - Exs.P.15 to 20. The defendant has denied the said documents. Once the defendant denies the genuineness of the documents, it is the plaintiff to prove her case by producing cogent evidence. Besides, it is well settled law that, tax paid / 19 / O.S.No.6678/2014 receipt and photographs will not create any right, title or interest or even they will not establish the plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property. Plaintiff relied on one more document i.e., Ex.P.2 - Deed of Consent, which is the unregistered document. It is well settled law that only registered documents conveys the valid title. Besides, Ex.P.1 shows the names of 2 vendors, but Ex.P.2 shows only one vendor i.e., Muttamma's name is appearing. There is no explanation regarding another owner viz., Poojappa. Except oral testimony of P.W.1 no other acceptable evidence is on record.
20. The counsel for plaintiff argued that the present defendant is claiming on the basis of Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.3355/2000 on the file of Additional City Civil Court, Bengaluru. But, Punjab National Bank and another have filed O.S.No.5198/2002 against Muttamma and others for the relief of / 20 / O.S.No.6678/2014 declaration and injunction. In the said suit they have challenged the validity of compromise decree passed in O.S.No.3355/2000. The said O.S.No.5198/2002 came to be decreed and the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.3355/2000 was declared as null and void and not binding upon the plaintiffs in that suit. Hence, the defendant is not at all possession of the suit schedule property and on the basis of said Judgment and Decree defendant cannot claim rights over the suit schedule property. On perusal of Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.5198/2002 it reveals that the subject matter of the said suit was land bearing Sy.No.88 Old No.20 situated at Doddakallasandra Village. Whereas, the subject matter of the present suit is in respect of Site No.36 carved in Sy.No.87 of Doddakallasandra. Hence, the Judgment and Decree passed in the said O.S.No.5198/2002 will not come to the aid of plaintiff.
/ 21 / O.S.No.6678/2014
21. In order to establish his defence, defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.D.1 to D.24. D.W.1 clearly deposed that land bearing Sy.No.87 of Doddakallasandra, Bangalore South Taluk was owned and possessed by Mallappa and same has been inherited by him from his ancestors. The said Mallappa had two sons viz., Vajrappa and Poojappa. The said Mallappa died without effecting partition by metes and bounds. All the affairs of the said land was being looked after by Poojappa, whereas Vajrappa died leaving behind him his wife Muttamma and children viz., Munirthnamma, Chandramma and Shankramma. At the time of death of Vajrappa, his children were very small and they did not have worldly knowledge and all the revenue entries were mutated in the name of their mother Muttamma, she being the eldest member of the family. Said Muttamma did not had exclusive right over / 22 / O.S.No.6678/2014 the said site. After the demise of Vajrappa, i.e., maternal grandfather of Muttamma, she has filed O.S. No.3355/2002 for the relief of partition and separate possession. In the said suit parties have compromised matter. Accordingly, land bearing Sy.No.87 was fallen to the share of Muttamma, Chandramma, Munirathnamma and Shankramma. Exs.D.6 and D.7 are the compromise petition and Order Sheet in O.S.No.3355/2002. Subsequently her mother Munirathnamma and another have filed O.S.No.2731/2007 for the relief of partition and separate possession as per Ex.D.8. The said suit came to be compromised. Exs.D.9 and 10 are the Compromise Petition and Order Sheet in O.S.No.2731/2007. As per said compromise, sites bearing Nos. 36 to 40, 42 to 45, 49, 50, 52 and 53 were fallen to the share of Chandramma and other sites were fallen to the exclusive share of Munirathnamma and / 23 / O.S.No.6678/2014 Shankramma. He further deposed that as per compromise decree Chandramma had acquired exclusive rights over the said sites. Accordingly, municipal records have been transferred in her name as per Ex.D.12. His mother has put up a residential construction over Site No.36 consisting of small house with ACC sheet roofing and same was gifted to him on 9.10.2013 as per Ex.D.11 and possession has been delivered to him. As per gift deed, khatha has been changed in his name as per Ex.D.14 and he has paid update tax to the municipal authority as per Exs.D.13, 15 to 18 and 20 to 23. He has obtained the electricity connection to the suit schedule property. Exs.P.19 and 24 are the Electricity Bills and Receipts. The plaintiff is no way concerned with the suit schedule property, even then making an attempt to trespass into the suit schedule property, the act of the plaintiff is illegal and / 24 / O.S.No.6678/2014 high handed. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the suit and for decreeing the counter claim.
22. D.W.1 was subjected to detailed cross- examination, wherein he adhered to his original version. The counsel for plaintiff made specific suggestion that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and the defendant has made obstruction to her possession. Witness denied the said suggestion. Though the counsel for plaintiff cross-examined D.W.1 in length, but there is no specific suggestion as regards to the alleged interference.
D.W.1 clearly deposed that he acquired the title and possession over the suit schedule property as per gift deed - Ex.P.11 and he is in possession of the suit schedule property, his name has been mutated in the municipal records as per Ex.D.14. The plaintiff has not denied the documents produced by the defendant. If / 25 / O.S.No.6678/2014 these documents are considered, the prima facie impression emerging is that, property bearing No.87/36 measuring 40 x 40 situated at Doddakallasandra Village belongs to defendant and he is in possession of the suit schedule property.
23. The plaintiff has failed to establish that as on the date of sale deed, his vendor had got rights over the suit schedule property, hence, on the basis of Ex.P.1 - sale deed, plaintiff has not acquired any right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. Except Exs.P.1 to P.22, the plaintiff has not placed any cogent and convincing evidence to establish that she was in physical possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. If she was in physical possession of the property, there must be khatha standing in her name. No documents have been produced to show her possession over the suit schedule property. Besides, / 26 / O.S.No.6678/2014 P.W.1 herself admitted that defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property.
24. Here in the instant case also the defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The mode of acquiring the title by the defendant is valid or not is a different aspect, the same cannot be adjudicated as this is a suit for bare injunction. In a decision reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 (Anathulla Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs and others), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, "If complicated question of title involved could be examined only in a title suit for declaration and for consequential reliefs and not in a suit for injunction simpliciter." When the title is seriously disputed, it is the duty of the plaintiff to seek declaration, thereby the captioned Judgment referred is squarely applicable to the facts of the case. The plaintiff has utterly failed to / 27 / O.S.No.6678/2014 prove her possession over the suit schedule property and further failed to prove that the defendant is trying to alienate the suit schedule property to third party. As discussed supra, the plaintiff is not at all in possession over the suit schedule property and it is shown that the defendant is in possession over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has utterly failed to establish his lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit. Per contra, defendant clearly established that he is in possession of the written statement schedule property. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in the negative and Additional Issue No.1 in the affirmative.
25. Issue No.2 and Additional Issue No.2 : -
On perusal of entire plaint pleadings there is no pleadings as regards to the alleged obstruction. Plaintiff in her plaint pleaded that she visited the suit schedule / 28 / O.S.No.6678/2014 property on 20.3.2013 along with her family members, at that time she came to know that bricks and sand stored in the suit schedule property have been stolen by some miscreants. If at all bricks and sand have been stolen, the plaintiff could have initiated the proceedings as provided under the Indian Penal Code. Without resorting the remedy as provided under law, she has filed the present suit. Even there is no pleadings as to when and who have made obstruction. The plaintiff much relied upon Ex.P.2 - complaint. On perusal of Ex.P.2 also there is no recital as regards to the alleged obstruction. It is well settled law that without pleadings any amount of evidence is not acceptable. It is well settled law that, any amount of evidence without pleadings are inadmissible. That, in a decision reported in [2018] 11 Supreme Court Cases 119 (Ratanlal Vs. Sundrabai Govardhan Das), in which the Hon'ble Apex / 29 / O.S.No.6678/2014 Court held that : "Parties to suit are always governed by their pleadings - Any amount of evidence or proof adduced without proper pleadings in consequential and would not come to rescue of parties." The said decision is aptly applicable to the case in hand.
26. D.W.1 unequivocally deposed that he is in possession of the written statement schedule property and plaintiff has made obstruction. The counsel for plaintiff cross-examined D.W.1 in length, but there is no suggestion as regards to the alleged obstruction. The plaintiff has failed to prove the alleged obstruction. Per contra, defendant has proved the obstruction made by the plaintiff. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.2 in the negative and additional Issue No. 2 in the affirmative.
27. Issue No.3 and Additional Issue No.3 : -
These issues have been framed with regard to the entitlement of relief. The counsel for plaintiff argued / 30 / O.S.No.6678/2014 that plaintiff's sale deed is earlier one and has got priority over the defendant and the defendant is not entitled for any relief. He further argued that title of the defendant is defective liable to be cancelled. As discussed supra, this is the suit for bare injunction. In this suit Court will consider the possession as on the date of suit and the alleged obstruction nothing more than that. Plaintiff has utterly failed to prove issues No.1 and 2 and hence, she is not entitled for the relief. Per contra, defendant has proved the additional Issue No.1 and 2, hence he is entitled for the relief. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 in the negative and additional Issue No.3 in the affirmative.
28. Issue No.4 and Additional Issue No.4 :- In view of the forgoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:
/ 31 / O.S.No.6678/2014
ORDER
Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
The counter claim of the defendant is hereby decreed and plaintiff, her agents, servants, officials, attorneys, contractors or any person claiming under or through her are hereby permanently restrained from trespassing on to the written statement schedule property by illegal means.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, typed directly on computer, script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, this the 16th day of April, 2021).
(KHADARSAB) XXXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
*** ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for plaintiff :
P.W.1 : Smt. Lakshmi Kasinathan
/ 32 / O.S.No.6678/2014
2. List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 : Sale deed dated 6.5.2003
Ex.P.2 : Consent Deed dated 7.7.2002
Ex.P.3 : Copy of Tax Assessment list
Ex.P.4 : Copy of Demand Register Extract
Ex.P.5 : General Receipt issued by Secretary,
Saki Grama Panchayath.
Ex.P.6 : Copy of tax assessment list.
Ex.P.7 to 12: Tax Paid Receipts
Ex.P.13 : Receipt issued by Doddakallasandra
Panchayath.
Ex.P.14 : Encumbrance Certificate.
Ex.P.15 to 20: Photographs
Ex.P.21 : CD.
Ex.P.22 : Copy of complaint given to
Commissioner of Police.
Ex.P.6,7 : Holder Khatha Certificates.
Ex.P.8 : Notice dated 10.4.2002 by B.B.M.P.
Ex.P.9 : 12 Tax Paid Receipts
Ex.P.10 : Notice issued by B.B.M.P. dt 22.1.2002
Ex.P.11 : Property Assessment List for the year
1982-83
/ 33 / O.S.No.6678/2014
3. List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendant : -
D.W.1 : R.Vasanth Kumar
4. List of documents produced by defendant :-
Ex.D.1 : Photograph.
Ex.D.2 : X/c of property register extract
Ex.D.3 to 5 : Tax Paid Receipts
Ex.D6 & 7 C/c application filed U/o 23 R.3 CPC
& Order Sheet in O.S.3355/2000
Ex.D8 to 10 C/c plaint, compromise petition
and Order Sheet in O.S.
No.2731/2007
Ex.D11 Original gift deed dated 9/10/2013
Ex.D12 Form No.B property register extract
dated 6/9/2013
Ex.D13 tax paid receipt dated 28/11/2016
Ex.D14 Form No.B property register extract
dated 27/2/2019
Ex.D15 Receipt dated 27/2/2019 issued by
BBMP
Ex.D16 to Tax paid receipts
18
Ex.D19 2 Electricity bills and receipts
Ex.D.20 to Tax paid receipts
23
/ 34 / O.S.No.6678/2014
Ex.D.24 3 Electricity bills with receipts
(KHADARSAB),
XXXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
***
/ 35 / O.S.No.6678/2014
01/04/2021
Judgment pronounced in the Open Court, vide separate Judgment :
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
The counter claim of the defendant is hereby decreed and plaintiff, her agents, servants, officials, attorneys, contractors / 36 / O.S.No.6678/2014 or any person claiming under or through her are hereby permanently restrained from trespassing on to the written statement schedule property by illegal means.
Draw decree accordingly.
(KHADARSAB), XXXIX ACC & S Judge, Bangalore City.