Bangalore District Court
Sri. J. Gopal vs Rajesh Kumar on 28 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE VII. ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH. No.19)
Dated: This the 28th Day of January 2015
Present: Sri. V. K. Badiger, B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.,)
VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
O.S. No. 2285/2001
Plaintiff/s: Sri. J. Gopal,
S/o. Javaraya,
R/at; No.1749/3, 6th Main,
2nd Stage, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore- 10.
(By Sri. B.S. Manjunath -Advocate)
//Vs//
Defendant/s: 1. Rajesh Kumar,
S/o. R. Sampath Raj,
No.64, 3rd Cross,
Srirampuram,
Bangalore.
2. Smt. Nagamma,
W/o. Munisttappa,
Aged about 68 years,
3. Sri. Govindaraju,
S/o. Late Munisttappa,
Aged about 37 years,
4. Smt. Gangamma,
W/o. Ventakaramanappa,
Aged about 63 years,
5. Sri. Krishna,
S/o. late Venkataramanappa,
Aged about 38 years,
2 O.S.No.2285/2001
6. Sri. Ramachandra,
S/o. late Venkataramanappa,
Aged about 32 years,
7. Sri. S. Rajanna,
S/o. late Subbanna,
Aged about 41years,
8. Sri. N. Vasu,
S/o. late M. Gopalappa,
Aged about 41 years,
9. Sri. N. Raghavendra,
S/o. late M. Gopalappa,
Aged about 38 years,
Defendants 2 to 9 residing at:
Kammanagondanahalli,
Bangalor North Taluk,
Bangalore.
(D1 by Sri. C.N.A.Murthy and
D2 to 9 by Sri. B.S. Gurudath,
-Advocates)
Date of institution of suit 02/04/2001
Nature of the suit Permanent Injunction
Date of commencement of
recording of evidence in 08-10-2009
Date on which Judgment 28-01-2015
was pronounced
Total duration Days Months Years
26 09 13
3 O.S.No.2285/2001
/ JUDGMENT /
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent
injunction.
2. The plaintiff's case, in brief, is as follows:-
The property bearing Khaneshmari No.73,
Gramtana Khatha No.359, situated at
Kammagondanahalli, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore
North Taluk, is referred as suit schedule property. The
defendants No.2 to 9 through a registered sale deed
dated 24.01.1994 sold the schedule property to K.R.V.
Rao. By an agreement dated 05.07.2000 agreed to sell
the schedule property to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff
carrying on the development activities on the suit
schedule property. The defendants came to the
schedule property and started interfering. The 1st
defendant alleging me to be power of attorney of
defendants No.2 to 9 threatened with the dire
consequence. The defendants have no any right, title,
interest to the suit schedule property.
4 O.S.No.2285/2001
3. On 23.03.2001 at about 12.00 noon the
defendants along with anti social elements came to the
suit schedule property and attempted to dispossess the
plaintiff. However, plaintiff resisted with the help of
neighbors on gone to the defendants threatened with
dire consequences. Hence, for all these reasons, it is
prayed to decree the suit.
4. In response to the suit summons, the
defendants appeared through their counsel. The 1st
defendant filed written statement contending that the
plaintiff with evil intention to grab the property belonging
to the defendants and filed this suit in order to defeat the
lawful rights, title and possession over the suit schedule
property of this defendant. This defendant is registered
power of attorney holder of the defendants No.2 to 9 in
pursuance of sites formed in Survey No.65/2 and 65/3 of
Kammagondanahalli, Bangalore. The plaintiff is the
witness to the said registered power of attorney and it
was through this plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 9.
This defendant paid huge amount. Factually Sy.No.65/2
and 65/3 in all measures 4 acres 4 guntas and sites
5 O.S.No.2285/2001
were formed by name 'Raghavendera Layout'. Prior to
entry of this defendant few sites were sold by the
defendants No.2 to 9. They have never availed any
registered power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff to
the knowledge of this defendant. The defendants No.2
to 9 have retained for their utility 17 sites bearing Nos.
75 to 79, 106, 107, 111, 112, 115, 113, 114, 116, 117,
118, 199 and 120.
5. The defendants No.2 to 9 had sold totally 25
sites in the said layout, the sites Nos.29, 30, 37, 38, 39,
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 61, 67, 68, 69, 81, 82, 84, 88, 94, 95,
97, 99, 100, 101 and 54 totally 25 sites. This fact was
narrated, confirmed on spot and availed possession to
the remaining 78 sites under the power of attorney by
the defendants No.2 to 9 registered on 30.06.1994.
Plaintiff herein was the promoter, dealings and
consented to the document conferred to 78 sites
belongs to this defendant through the power of attorney
on and from 30.06.1994. Apart this defendant is in
lawful possession and enjoyment of the 78 sites one
such site was formed and carved out in the said layout
6 O.S.No.2285/2001
said site No.73 as per the Layout plan is now subjected
by this plaintiff styling as Khaneshmari No.73 and to the
boundaries thereof is subjected to proof. On 30.06.1994
this plaintiff conferred and accepted and received
Rs.18,00,000/- from this defendant a sum of
Rs.11,00,000/- on 30.06.1994, Rs.1,00,000/- on
10.10.1994 by cash, balance of Rs.7,00,000/- by
cheque and sum of Rs.80,000/- being interest for
delayed payment. Inspite of these amounts from this
defendant and conferring rights, hold and possession of
site No.73 and in all consisting of total 78 sites, the suit
presented by the plaintiff is fallacious, fraudulent.
6. It is false that defendants No.2 to 9 had
Khatha No.359 and site in style of Khaneshmari No.73
to execute or they have acted in execution of such
schedule in favour of K.R.V. Rao on the alleged date
24.01.1994. The defendants No.2 to 9 have never
executed nor availed site as Khaneshmari No.73 in
favour of K.R.V. Rao and sale deed adverted to exposes
act of fraud and malafide intention of the plaintiff. The
documents are fabricated and authenticity is disbelieved
7 O.S.No.2285/2001
and as such the plaintiff is subjected to substantiate the
authenticity of the documents No.1 to 4. This defendant
through power of attorney upon this plaintiff and K.R.V.
Rao in O.S.No.4959/2003 in CCH-6 pending.
7. Regarding an agreement dated 05.07.2000
was entered between K.R.V. Rao and this plaintiff by
virtue of the same for all false. The averments that the
plaintiff was carrying development activities and these
defendants came to the suit property started interfering
and this defendant alleged on this spot holding power
and further threatened of dire consequences, if such
alleged construction is continued by the plaintiff are all
false. The plaintiff never in possession nor could secure
any possession from any person who has no better title
than this defendant under the power from the
defendants No.2 to 9.
8. On 23.03.2001 at 12.00 noon defendants
along with antisocial elements came to schedule
property and attempted to dispossess the plaintiff
resisted with the help of neighbors etc., are denied as
false. There is no cause of action the suit of the plaintiff
8 O.S.No.2285/2001
without proper relief and proper payment of court fees
and designed and promoted for clandestinely and
causing being fabricated. The suit is equally barred by
limitation. Hence, for all these reasons it is prayed to
reject the suit.
9. The defendants No.2 to 9 filed written
statement contending that plaintiff brought to frivolous
suit on imaginary. The cause of action to the knowledge
of these defendants execution of sale deed in favour of
K.R.V. Rao is conducted by them on 25.01.1994 in
respect of property having Khaneshmari No.73 is false
and incorrect. With regard to tax paid and Khatha
extract, encumbrance certificate etc., subjected to proof
K.R.V. Rao is not appeared before the court. The said
contention as averred in the plaint are denied without
their consent nor authority the plaintiff cannot style these
averments to his fancy and cannot take advantage of
any such alleged sale deed. The documents are
fabricated behind these defendants without their
consent.
9 O.S.No.2285/2001
10. The alleged K.R.V. Rao having agreed to
enter into sale agreement executed on 05.07.2000 is
another design by the plaintiff which is denied.
11. These defendants further contended that
plaintiff was carrying on development activity on suit
property and defendants started interference alleged to
be power of attorney of defendants No.2 to 9, they gave
threatened are all false. These defendants upon
payments made to the plaintiff by the defendant No.1,
power of attorney is availed by these defendants to
defendant No.1 except the same. The averments are
denied para-6 of the plaint, these defendants specifically
denied. The plaintiff filed the suit with oblique motive to
defray the rights and title with possession of these
defendants. The plaintiff has no substantial right seeking
any specific relief. The plaintiff concealed the material
facts. The plaintiff after giving his fullest consent and
bringing the defendant No.1 and defendant No.6 and
drawing his retirement from transaction earlier with
these defendants and giving all his rights to the
defendant No.1 by securing monies from the defendant
10 O.S.No.2285/2001
No.1 in respect of Sy.No.63 and 63/1 properties. Sites
were formed as these defendants were made to execute
registered power of attorney and plaintiff recognizing
defendant No.1 and both framing and making these
defendants to legal proceedings as plaintiff collecting
huge amount for now brings to K.R.V. Rao into and
demonstrating with false statements.
12. Schedule in respect of suit property is
incorrectly drawn. The plaintiff is not in alleged
possession of the suit property he has no right, title,
interest. The plaintiff has not craved specific reliefs of
specific performance, declaration and consequential
reliefs. The plaintiff has not approach proper and
necessary parties, prayer in the suit is incorrect and suit
is based on agreement. Hence, for all these reasons, it
is prayed to reject this suit.
13. The defendant No.3 filed written statement
contending that plaintiff has filed a false suit upon this
defendant and other defendants. He has no legal right
to file the above suit. The plaintiff is nothing to do with
the suit property nor he is in any sort of possession.
11 O.S.No.2285/2001
The plaint is concocted as regarding his claim and
possession.
14. 3rd defendant also adopts the written
statement filed by the defendants No.2, 4 to 9.
15. On the basis of the above pleadings of the
parties, the following issues have been framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in
lawful possession over the suit schedule
property as on the date of the suit by
virtue of agreement of sale dated
05.07.2000 executed by K.R.V. Rao?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves the
alleged obstruction caused by the
defendants in his peaceful possession
and enjoyment over the suit schedule
property?
3. To what order or decree?
16. In support of the case J. Gopal is examined
as PW.1 and documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P1(c) is
marked.
17. On the other hand, S. Rajesh Kumar is
examined as DW.1 and documents at Exs.D1 to Ex.D6
are marked.
18. Heard argument.
12 O.S.No.2285/2001
19. In support of the case, the 1st defendant relied
upon decision:-
(1) KLJ 2012(3) Kar.L.J. 591
(2) ILR 2013 KAR 4983
(3) 2012(3) AIR Kar R 663.
20. My findings on the above issues are as
under:-
Issue No.1 : In the negative
Issue No.2 : In the negative
Issue No.3 : As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
21. Issue No.1 in O.S.No.2285/2001:- For this
issue, the contention of the plaintiff is that he is in lawful
possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. To
substantiate this aspect, the PW1 during the cross-chief
evidence has deposed that, the schedule property
bearing Khaneshmari No.73 and same has been sold by
defendants No.2 to 9 through a registered sale deed
dated 24.01.1994 to K.R.V. Rao. On 05.07.2000 said
K.R.V. Rao agreed to sell the schedule property to this
plaintiff and he has carried out development activities on
13 O.S.No.2285/2001
the schedule property. The sum and substance of chief
evidence of this witness is he is in lawful possession
and enjoyment of the schedule property. In support of
the case, the plaintiff has produced original agreement
Ex.P1. During the course of cross-examination, this
witness stated that there is no recital in Ex.P1 that Smt.
Leelavathi is putting him in physical possession of the
said property and there is no recital regarding handing
over the possession to him to the schedule property. He
has not produced voter list, ration card to show Smt.
Leelavathi and K.R.V. Rao are husband and wife.
Further it is stated he has put RCC building in site No.73
but he gave evasive answer with regard to the building
license, at last he has stated that he is not obtained any
building license. On the very next breath he stated that
he has not put up the RCC building in site No.73 and he
has also not produced any bills to show that he has
purchased the materials for building compound. Further
it is admitted the said K.V. Leelavathi is yet to execute
the sale deed in his favour. On perusal of entire oral
evidence of PW1 along with the evidence of DW1 who is
14 O.S.No.2285/2001
the 1st defendant. It is specifically stated by the DW1 in
the chief evidence that site No.73 formed and carved
out in Sy.No.65/2 and 65/3 of Kammagondanahalli
Village. The plaintiff is neither the owner nor have any
possession over the schedule property nor paid any
taxes. The defendants No.2 to 9 were the owners of the
land Sy.No.65/2 and 65/3, they have given a registered
power of attorney on 30.06.1994 and he was given
power of attorney to deal totally 78 sites in the said
layout, out of which, this suit property is one of the sites
availed to him. This fact is known by the plaintiff who
has endorsed as witness to the said registered power of
attorney. By virtue of registered power of attorney has
sold site No.73 to Vijaya Kumar Jodege who is in lawful
possession by constructing house. The sum and
substance of chief evidence of this witness is the
defendants No.2 to 9 have never sold site No.73 under
registered sale deed dated 24.01.1994. As such, the
said K.R.V. Rao was not in possession as owner
thereof. No such power of attorney has been given to
the plaintiff to execute the alleged sale deed dated
15 O.S.No.2285/2001
24.01.1994. The similar issue was raised in
O.S.No.2283/2001 same is dismissed. Further it is
stated the sale agreement is concocted and false
document made only to file this suit in respect of site
No.73. The alleged agreement dated 05.07.2000 is bad
in law and unaware of the contents of sale agreement.
None of the developmental activities carried on by the
plaintiff on the schedule property. In support of version,
the defendant relied on documents, certified copy of
General power of attorney, certified copy of Judgment in
O.S.No.2283/2001, Decree, Un-served registered cover,
Postal acknowledgment, copy of legal notice Ex.D1 to
Ex.D6. Even during the course of cross-examination,
this witness has been suggested regarding the site
No.73 has been sold by defendants No.2 to 9 on
24.01.1994 in favour of K.V. Leelavathi but this witness
denied the same and also suggested regarding the
agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff by the said
K.V. Leelavathi. The said suggestion is also denied.
This witness has been suggested with regard to General
power of attorney and sale of the schedule property in
16 O.S.No.2285/2001
favour of K.V.Leelavathi on 24.01.1994. The said
suggestion has been denied and also suggested with
regard to O.S.No.4959/2003 for that this witness shown
his ignorance. It is also suggested the defendant is in
possession of the schedule property for that this DW1
stoutly denied. On perusal of entire oral and
documentary evidence of both sides, the plaintiff has
come up with this case based on an agreement dated
05.07.2000 stating that he is in possession and
enjoyment of the schedule property. On carefully
perusal of the original agreement which is marked at
Ex.P1, there is no recital about the handing over of
possession of the said site No.73 in favour of the plaintiff
except this Ex.P1, the plaintiff has not produced any
documents nor led any evidence of the neighbors to
establish the possession of the plaintiff on the schedule
property. On looking by all angles, absolutely there is
no iota of strong positive evidence for the plaintiff to
prove his possession on the schedule property as on the
date of suit. The pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence of the plaintiff not coupled with each other.
17 O.S.No.2285/2001
Hence, on the foregoing reasons, I answer this issue in
the negative.
22. Issue No.2:- The contention of the plaintiff
for this issue is he is in possession and enjoyment of the
schedule property. By virtue of agreement of sale dated
05.07.2000 and carrying on the developmental activities
on the schedule property. Further it is alleged that the
defendants came to the schedule property and started
interfering. The 1st defendant alleging to be power of
attorney of defendants No.2 to 9 came to the schedule
property and threatened with dire consequences saying
that if the construction is continued. Further it is
deposed that on 23.03.2001 at about 12.00 noon
defendants along with antisocial elements came to the
schedule property and attempted to dispossess the
plaintiff, but with the help of neighbors the plaintiff
resisted the defendants, while going the defendants
threatened the plaintiff. The sum and substance of chief
evidence of this witness is the defendants are interfering
with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff on the
schedule property. To substantiate this aspect, except
18 O.S.No.2285/2001
the document at Ex.P1 is produced no other documents
are forth coming to show the alleged interference of the
defendants. More over, during the course of cross-
examination, this witness very clearly admitted that he
has not produced any documents to show that he has
purchased building materials to construct the
compound. It is also admitted that when the 1st
defendant obstructed him he did not filed any complaint
and he has not produced any photographs to show that
on 23.01.2001, the 1st defendant came and caused
obstruction. On perusal of entire version of this
witness, first of all the plaintiff is failed to prove the
possession of him on the schedule property. Under
such circumstances, the question of the interference by
the defendants does not arise. Another one important
aspect is, none of the documents forth coming from the
plaintiff to show his possession on the schedule site or
interference of the defendants. The oral and
documentary evidence of plaintiff not coupled with each
other with the pleadings. Whereas, the oral and
documentary evidence placed on record by the
19 O.S.No.2285/2001
defendants coupled with each other with the pleadings.
Another one aspect is similar suit of the plaintiff against
the defendants has been already dismissed. Looking by
all angles, absolutely there is no an iota of strong
positive evidence for the plaintiff. Hence, on the
foregoing reasons, I answer this issue in the negative.
23. Issue No.3:- I proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER
The suit is dismissed. No cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court today the 28th day of January, 2015.) (V.K.Badiger) VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE.
BANGALORE CITY.
/ANNEXURE/ Witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff/s:-
PW.1 J. Gopal 20 O.S.No.2285/2001 Witnesses examined on behalf of Defendant/s:-
DW.1 S.Rajesh Kumar Documents marked on behalf of plaintiff/s:-
Ex.P1 The original agreement Ex.P1(a) Signature of Leelavathi Ex.P1(b) Signature of K.V. Rao Ex.P1(c) LTM of Smt. Leelavathi Documents marked on behalf of Defendant/s:
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of GPA
Ex.D.2 Certified copy of Judgment in
O.S.No.2283/2001
Ex.D.3 Decree
Ex.D.4 The un-served registered cover
Ex.D.5 The postal acknowledgment
Ex.D.6 Office copy of legal notice
VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE
(CCH.No.19) BANGALORE.
21 O.S.No.2285/2001
28.01.2015
P - MDA
D1 - CMA
D2 to 9 - BSG
(Judgment pronounced in the open Court (vide separate) and the order portion of the Judgment is as under:-
(V.K.Badiger) VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE.
BANGALORE CITY 22 O.S.No.2285/2001 IN THE COURT OF THE VII. ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH. No.19) Dated: This the 28th Day of January 2015 Present: Sri. V. K. Badiger, B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.,) VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
O.S. No. 2285/2001
C/w. O.S. No. 2288/2001
Plaintiff: Sri. J. Gopal,
In O.S. No.2285/2001 S/o. Javaraya,
R/at; No.1749/3, 6th Main,
2nd Stage, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore- 10.
(By Sri. B.S. Manjunath -Advocate) //Vs// Defendants: 1. Rajesh Kumar, In O.S.No.2285/2001 S/o. R. Sampath Raj, No.64, 3rd Cross, Srirampuram, Bangalore.
2. Smt. Nagamma, W/o. Munisttappa, Aged about 68 years,
3. Sri. Govindaraju, S/o. Late Munisttappa, Aged about 37 years,
4. Smt. Gangamma, W/o. Ventakaramanappa, Aged about 63 years,
5. Sri. Krishna, S/o. late Venkataramanappa, 23 O.S.No.2285/2001 Aged about 38 years,
6. Sri. Ramachandra, S/o. late Venkataramanappa, Aged about 32 years,
7. Sri. S. Rajanna, S/o. late Subbanna, Aged about 41years,
8. Sri. N. Vasu, S/o. late M. Gopalappa, Aged about 41 years,
9. Sri. N. Raghavendra, S/o. late M. Gopalappa, Aged about 38 years, Defendants 2 to 9 residing at:
Kammanagondanahalli, Bangalor North Taluk, Bangalore.
(D1 by Sri. C.N.A.Murthy and
D2 to 9 by Sri. B.S. Gurudath,
-Advocates)
//Vs//
Plaintiff: Sri. J. Gopal,
In O.S. No.2288/01 S/o. Javaraya,
R/at; No.1749/3, 6th Main,
2nd Stage, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore- 10.
(By Sri. Ajay. M.D- Advocate)
Defendants: 1. Rajesh Kumar,
In O.S.No.2288/2001 S/o. R. Sampath Raj,
No.64, 3rd Cross,
24 O.S.No.2285/2001
Srirampuram,
Bangalore.
2. Smt. Nagamma,
W/o. Munisttappa,
Aged about 68 years,
3. Sri. Govindaraju,
S/o. Late Munisttappa,
Aged about 37 years,
4. Smt. Gangamma,
W/o. Ventakaramanappa,
Aged about 63 years,
5. Sri. Krishna,
S/o. late Venkataramanappa,
Aged about 38 years,
6. Sri. Ramachandra,
S/o. late Venkataramanappa,
Aged about 32 years,
7. Sri. S. Rajanna,
S/o. late Subbanna,
Aged about 41years,
8. Sri. N. Vasu,
S/o. late M. Gopalappa,
Aged about 41 years,
9. Sri. N. Raghavendra,
S/o. late M. Gopalappa,
Aged about 38 years,
Defendants 2 to 9 residing at:
Kammanagondanahalli,
Bangalor North Taluk,
Bangalore.
(D1 by Sri. C.N.A.Murthy and
D2 to 9 by Sri. B.S. Gurudath-
25 O.S.No.2285/2001
Advocates)
Date of institution of suit
In O.S. No. 2285/2001 02/04/2001
In O.S. No.2288/2001 02/04/2001
Nature of the suit Permanent Injunction
Date of commencement of
recording of evidence in 08-10-2009
Date on which Judgment 28-01-2015
was pronounced
Total duration Days Months Years
26 09 13
/ JUDGMENT /
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction.
Plaint in O.S.No.2285/2001
2. The plaintiff's case, in brief, is as follows:-
The property bearing Khaneshmari No.73, Gramtana Khatha No.359, situated at Kammagondanahalli, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, is referred as suit schedule property. The defendants No.2 to 9 through a registered sale deed 26 O.S.No.2285/2001 dated 24.01.1994 sold the schedule property to K.R.V. Rao. By an agreement dated 05.07.2000 agreed to sell the schedule property to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff is carrying on the development activity on the suit schedule property. The defendants came to the schedule property and started interfering. The 1st defendant alleging me to be power of attorney of defendants No.2 to 9 threatened of dire consequence. The defendants have no any right, title, interest to the suit schedule property.
3. On 23.03.2001 at about 12.00 noon the defendants along with anti social elements came to the suit schedule property and attempted to dispossess the plaintiff. However, plaintiff resisted with the help of neighbors on gone to the defendants threatened with dire consequences. Hence, for all these reasons, it is prayed to decree the suit.
15. In response to the suit summons, the defendants appeared through their counsel. The 1st defendant filed written statement contending that the 27 O.S.No.2285/2001 plaintiff with evil intention to grab the property belonging to the defendants and filed this suit in order to defeat the lawful rights, title and possession over the suit schedule property of this defendant. This defendant is registered power of attorney holder of the defendants No.2 to 9 in pursuance of sites formed in Survey No.65/2 and 65/3 of Kammagondanahalli, Bangalore. The plaintiff is the witness to the said registered power of attorney and it was through this plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 9.
This defendant paid huge amount. Factually Sy.No.65/2 and 65/3 in all measures 4 acres 4 guntas and sites were formed by name 'Raghavendera Layout'. Prior to entry of this defendant few sites were sold by the defendants No.2 to 9. They have never availed any registered power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff to the knowledge of this defendant. The defendants No.2 to 9 have retained for their utility 17 sites bearing Nos. 75 to 79, 106, 107, 111, 112, 115, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118, 199 and 120.
16. The defendants No.2 to 9 had sold totally 25 sites in the said layout, the sites Nos.29, 30, 37, 38, 39, 28 O.S.No.2285/2001 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 61, 67, 68, 69, 81, 82, 84, 88, 94, 95, 97, 99, 100, 101 and 54 totally 25 sites. This fact was narrated, confirmed on spot and availed possession to the remaining 78 sites under the power of attorney by the defendants No.2 to 9 registered on 30.06.1994. Plaintiff herein was the promoter, dealings and consented to the document conferred to 78 sites belongs to this defendant through the power of attorney on and from 30.06.1994. Apart this defendant is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the 78 sites one such site was formed and carved out in the said layout said site No.73 as per the Layout plan is now subjected by this plaintiff styling as Khaneshmari No.73 and to the boundaries thereof is subjected to proof. On 30.06.1994 this plaintiff conferred and accepted and received Rs.18,00,000/- from this defendant a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- on 30.06.1994, Rs.1,00,000/- on 10.10.1994 by cash, balance of Rs.7,00,000/- by cheque and sum of Rs.80,000/- being interest for delayed payment. Inspite of these amounts from this defendant and conferring rights, hold and possession of 29 O.S.No.2285/2001 site No.73 and in all consisting of total 78 sites, the suit presented by the plaintiff is fallacious, fraudulent.
17. It is false that defendants No.2 to 9 had Khatha No.359 and site in style of Khaneshmari No.73 to execute or they have acted in execution of such schedule in favour of K.R.V. Rao on the alleged date 24.01.1994. The defendants No.2 to 9 have never executed nor availed site as Khaneshmari No.73 in favour of K.R.V. Rao and sale deed adverted to exposes act of fraud and malafide intention of the plaintiff. The documents are fabricated and authenticity is disbelieved and as such the plaintiff is subjected to substantiate the authenticity of the documents No.1 to 4. This defendant through power of attorney upon this plaintiff and K.R.V. Rao in O.S.No.4959/2003 in CCH-6 pending.
18. Regarding an agreement dated 05.07.2000 was entered between K.R.V. Rao and this plaintiff by virtue of the same for all false. The averments that the plaintiff was carrying development activities and these defendants came to the suit property started interfering and this defendant alleged on this spot holding power 30 O.S.No.2285/2001 and further threatened of dire consequences, if such alleged construction is continued by the plaintiff are all false. The plaintiff never in possession nor could secure any possession from any person who has no better title than this defendant under the power from the defendants No.2 to 9.
19. On 23.03.2001 at 12 noon defendants along with antisocial elements came to schedule property and attempted to dispossess the plaintiff resisted with the help of neighbors etc., are denied as false. There is no cause of action the suit of the plaintiff without proper relief and proper payment of court fees and designed and promoted for clandestinely and causing being fabricated. The suit is equally barred by limitation. Hence, for all these reasons it is prayed to reject the suit.
20. The defendants No.2 to 9 filed written statement contending that plaintiff brought to frivolous suit on imaginary. The cause of action to the knowledge of these defendants execution of sale deed in favour of K.R.V. Rao is conducted by them on 25.01.1994 in 31 O.S.No.2285/2001 respect of property having Khaneshmari No.73 is false and incorrect. With regard to tax paid and Khatha extract, encumbrance certificate etc., subjected to proof K.R.V. Rao is not appeared before the court. The said contention as averred in the plaint are denied without their consent nor authority the plaintiff cannot style these averments to his fancy and cannot take advantage of any such alleged sale deed. The documents are fabricated behind these defendants without their consent.
21. The alleged K.R.V. Rao having agreed to enter into sale agreement executed on 05.07.2000 is another design by the plaintiff which is denied.
22. These defendants further contended that plaintiff was carrying on development activity on suit property and defendants started interference alleged to be power of attorney of defendants No.2 to 9, they gave threatened are all false. These defendants upon payments made to the plaintiff by the defendant No.1, power of attorney is availed by these defendants to defendant No.1 except the same. The averments are 32 O.S.No.2285/2001 denied para-6 of the plaint, these defendants specifically denied. The plaintiff filed the suit with oblique motive to defray the rights and title with possession of these defendants. The plaintiff has no substantial right seeking any specific relief. The plaintiff concealed the material facts. The plaintiff after giving his fullest consent and bringing the defendant No.1 and defendant No.6 and drawing his retirement from transaction earlier with these defendants and giving all his rights to the defendant No.1 by securing monies from the defendant No.1 in respect of Sy.No.63 and 63/1 properties. Sites were formed as these defendants were made to execute registered power of attorney and plaintiff recognizing defendant No.1 and both framing and making these defendants to legal proceedings as plaintiff collecting huge amount for now brings to K.R.V. Rao into and demonstrating with false statements.
23. Schedule in respect of suit property is incorrectly drawn. The plaintiff is not in alleged possession of the suit property he has no right, title, interest. The plaintiff has not craved specific reliefs of 33 O.S.No.2285/2001 specific performance, declaration and consequential reliefs. The plaintiff has not approach proper and necessary parties, prayer in the suit is incorrect and suit is based on agreement. Hence, for all these reasons, it is prayed to reject this suit.
24. The defendant No.3 filed written statement contending that plaintiff has filed a false suit upon this defendant and other defendants. He has no legal right to file the above suit. The plaintiff is nothing to do with the suit property nor he is in any sort of possession. The plaint is concocted as regarding his claim and possession.
25. 3rd defendant also adopts the written statement filed by the defendants No.2, 4 to 9.
Plaint in O.S.No.2288/2001 This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction.
15. The plaintiff's case, in brief, is as follows:-
The property bearing Khaneshmari No.74, Gramtana Khatha No.360, situated at Kammagondanahalli, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore 34 O.S.No.2285/2001 North Taluk, is suit property. The defendants No.2 to 9 through a registered sale deed dated 24.01.1994 sold the suit schedule property to K.V. Leelavathi. By an agreement dated 05.07.2000 K.V. Leelavathi agreed to sell the schedule property to the plaintiff.
16. When the plaintiff is carrying on the development activity on the suit schedule property. The defendants came to the suit schedule property and started interfering. The 1st defendant alleging to be power of attorney of the defendants No.2 to 9 came to the suit property and threatened with the dire consequences saying if the construction activities is continued. The defendant does not have any right, title, interest in the suit schedule property. On 23.03.2001 at about 12.00 noon the defendants along with antisocial elements came to the suit schedule property attempted to dispossess with the plaintiff with the help of neighbors resisted with the defendants' illegal acts. The defendants illegally interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. 35 O.S.No.2285/2001 Hence, for all these reasons, it is prayed to decree the suit.
16. In response to the suit summons, the 1st defendant filed written statement stating that plaintiff filed fullest suit. The plaintiff will be put to strict proof of the para-2 of the plaint and substantiate the schedule to be Khaneshmari No.74 and Gramatana Katha No. 360. The defendants No.2 to 9 were holders of land bearing Sy.No.65/2 and 65/3 of Kammagondanahalli, Bangalore this land falling within the City Municipal Council authorities. This defendant formed 78 sites and enjoyed the same and some of the sites were sold and owners of the same are enjoying with lawful possession and enjoyment. This defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the same and some sites formed and unsold by him and it is within his control and occupation of this defendant title deeds reflect about his lawful possession and enjoyment of the sites. This defendant accrued rights of the 78 sites under power of attorney registered documents given by the defendants No.2 to
9. The plaintiff was the negotiator to the said 36 O.S.No.2285/2001 transaction and he has consented to the same. This plaintiff is now promoting the above suit on fallacious documents and seeking relief which is bad in law and concealed material facts. Regarding para-3 of the plaint that the defendants No.2 to 9 sold under a registered sale deed dated 24.01.1994 is false and incorrect. The defendants No.2 to 9 have never given any power and transferred their rights to the vendor of the sale deed dated 24.01.1994 and it is a fabricated document and this defendant do not personally know the person by name Smt. K.V. Leelavathi and she could not accrued any right, title, possession of the sites belonging to this defendant and this defendant has not sold any site to K.V. Leelavathi.
17. Regarding para-4, plaintiff cannot frame this suit nor claim any rights or title by any such alleged agreement dated 05.07.2000. Para-5 the plaintiff is carrying on development activities on the suit property is false suit. Para-6 and 7 of the plaint are denied.
18. On the contrary, it is contended that the suit brought without proper and necessary parties which is 37 O.S.No.2285/2001 bad in law and this suit is filed without the relief of declaration based on agreement without specific relief also bad in law. Court fee is not proper. Suit is premature there is no cause of action. Hence, for all these reasons, it is prayed to dismiss the suit.
18. The defendants No.2 to 9 filed written statement contending that the suit is filed by the plaintiff with oblique motive. This plaintiff is trying and taking advantage by framing the above suit to infringe the rights of the defendants. Further contended that these defendants have not executed any registered sale deed as alleged in favour of K.V. Leelavathi without specific consent nor legal authority. Said K.V. Leelavathi cannot take advantage about the execution of the sale deed in her favour and documents are engineered one without approval documents are concocted. She is not a bonafide lady. The plaintiff cannot have any legal right to hold up any such date 05.07.2000. Thus, the alleged sale and agreement transaction cannot deceive these defendants No.2 to 9.
38 O.S.No.2285/2001
19. Regarding Para-5 of the plaint, plaint is fabricated. There is no iota of truth.
20. On the contrary, it is contended that there is no prima facie case the plaintiff designed the transaction to file the suit concealing material facts. These defendants further contended that the plaintiff is concealing facts about his involvement of site transactions and about he is giving his consent about retirement about his dealings with these defendants and by giving right to the 1st defendant and to conduct the activities in the land Sy.No.63 and 63/1 of Kammagondanahalli. These defendants are already given a General power of attorney registered in favour of 1st defendant to recognizing for they have availed power to transaction on respect of the site properties formed and carved out in the land Sy.No.63 and 63/1. The plaintiff collected huge money for his involvement, now designs the alleged K.V. Leelavathi and demonstrates the above suit on the guise of agreement. These defendants have challenged the suit accordingly. 39 O.S.No.2285/2001
21. These defendants further contended that the sites property as scheduled is incorrect. These defendants under a registered sale deed through the 1st defendant has sold site property No.74 in favour of Yallappa and on 04.02.1998. The plaintiff is not in possession of the site property. The schedule is improperly engraved by the plaintiff. The above suit for the relief of injunction is bad and necessary parties are not included. The plaintiff upon the alleged prayers on the agreement without proper prayers is bad in law. The plaintiff or his vendors in title have no perfect and lawful title and approval by themselves. Hence, for all these reasons, it is prayed to dismiss the suit.
22. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed:-
ISSUES in O.S. No.2285/2001
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit by virtue of agreement of sale dated 05.07.2000 executed by K.R.V. Rao?
5. Whether the plaintiff further proves the alleged obstruction caused by the 40 O.S.No.2285/2001 defendants in his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property?
6. To what order or decree?
ISSUES in O.S. No.2288/2001
1. ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ zÁªÁ µÉqÀÆå¯ï D¹ÛAiÀÄ°è zÁªÁ ¢£ÁAPÀzAÀ zÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ §zÀÞ ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨsª À À ºÉÇöA¢zÀÝ£ÉAzÀÄ ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛ£ÉAiÀÉÄÃö?
2. zÁªÁ µÉqÀÆå¯ï D¹ÛAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ ±ÁAwAiÀÄÄvÀ ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨsª À PÀ ÉÌ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ CrØ ¥Àr¹zÁÝ£ÉAzÀÄ ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛ£ÉAiÀÉÄÃö?
3. AiÀiÁªÀ wÃ¥ÀÅð, AiÀiÁªÀ DzÉñÀö?
23. In support of the case J. Gopal is examined as PW.1 and documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P1(c) is marked.
24. On the other hand, S. Rajesh Kumar is examined as DW.1 and documents at Exs.D1 to Ex.D6 are marked.
25. Heard argument.
26. In support of the case, the 1st defendant relied upon decision:-
(1) KLJ 2012(3) Kar.L.J. 591
(2) ILR 2013 KAR 4983
(3) 2012(3) AIR Kar R 663.
41 O.S.No.2285/2001
27. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
ISSUES in O.S. No.2285/2001 Issue No.1 : In the negative Issue No.2 : In the negative Issue No.3 : As per the final order for the following:
ISSUES in O.S. No. 2288/2001 Issue No.1 : In the negative Issue No.2 : negative Issue No.3 : As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
28. Issue No.1 in O.S.No.2285/2001:- For this issue, the contention of the plaintiff is that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. To substantiate this aspect, the PW1 during the cross-chief evidence has deposed that, the schedule property bearing Khaneshmari No.73 and same has been sold by defendants No.2 to 9 through a registered sale deed dated 24.01.1994 to K.R.V. Rao. On 05.07.2000 said K.R.V. Rao agreed to sell the schedule property to this 42 O.S.No.2285/2001 plaintiff and he has carried out development activities on the schedule property. The sum and substance of chief evidence of this witness is he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. In support of the case, the plaintiff has produced original agreement Ex.P1. During the course of cross-examination, this witness stated that there is no recital in Ex.P1 that Smt. Leelavathi is putting him in physical possession of the said property and there is no recital regarding handing over the possession to him to the schedule property. He has not produced voter list, ration card to show Smt. Leelavathi and K.R.V. Rao are husband and wife. Further it is stated he has put RCC building in site No.73 but he gave evasive answer with regard to the building license, at last he has stated that he is not obtained any building license. On the very next breath he stated that he has not put up the RCC building in site No.73 and he has also not produced any bills to show that he has purchased the materials for building compound. Further it is admitted the said K.V. Leelavathi is yet to execute the sale deed in his favour. On perusal of entire oral 43 O.S.No.2285/2001 evidence of PW1 along with the evidence of DW1 who is the 1st defendant. It is specifically stated by the DW1 in the chief evidence that site No.73 formed and carved out in Sy.No.65/2 and 65/3 of Kammagondanahalli Village. The plaintiff is neither the owner nor have any possession over the schedule property nor paid any taxes. The defendants No.2 to 9 were the owners of the land Sy.No.65/2 and 65/3, they have given a registered power of attorney on 30.06.1994 and he was given power of attorney to deal totally 78 sites in the said layout, out of which, this suit property is one of the sites availed to him. This fact is known by the plaintiff who has endorsed as witness to the said registered power of attorney. By virtue of registered power of attorney has sold site No.73 to Vijaya Kumar Jodege who is in lawful possession by constructing house. The sum and substance of chief evidence of this witness is the defendants No.2 to 9 have never sold site No.73 under registered sale deed dated 24.01.1994. As such, the said K.R.V. Rao was not in possession as owner thereof. No such power of attorney has been given to 44 O.S.No.2285/2001 the plaintiff to execute the alleged sale deed dated 24.01.1994. The similar issue was raised in O.S.No.2283/2001 same is dismissed. Further it is stated the sale agreement is concocted and false document made only to file this suit in respect of site No.73. The alleged agreement dated 05.07.2000 is bad in law and unaware of the contents of sale agreement. None of the developmental activities carried on by the plaintiff on the schedule property. In support of version, the defendant relied on documents, certified copy of General power of attorney, certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No.2283/2001, Decree, Un-served registered cover, Postal acknowledgment, copy of legal notice Ex.D1 to Ex.D6. Even during the course of cross-examination, this witness has been suggested regarding the site No.73 has been sold by defendants No.2 to 9 on 24.01.1994 in favour of K.V. Leelavathi but this witness denied the same and also suggested regarding the agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff by the said K.V. Leelavathi. The said suggestion is also denied. This witness has been suggested with regard to General 45 O.S.No.2285/2001 power of attorney and sale of the schedule property in favour of K.V.Leelavathi on 24.01.1994. The said suggestion has been denied and also suggested with regard to O.S.No.4959/2003 for that this witness shown his ignorance. It is also suggested the defendant is in possession of the schedule property for that this DW1 stoutly denied. On perusal of entire oral and documentary evidence of both sides, the plaintiff has come up with this case based on an agreement dated 05.07.2000 stating that he is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. On carefully perusal of the original agreement which is marked at Ex.P1, there is no recital about the handing over of possession of the said site No.73 in favour of the plaintiff except this Ex.P1, the plaintiff has not produced any documents nor led any evidence of the neighbors to establish the possession of the plaintiff on the schedule property. On looking by all angles, absolutely there is no iota of strong positive evidence for the plaintiff to prove his possession on the schedule property as on the date of suit. The pleadings, oral and documentary 46 O.S.No.2285/2001 evidence of the plaintiff not coupled with each other. Hence, on the foregoing reasons, I answer this issue in the negative.
29. Issue No.2 in O.S.No.2285/2001:- The contention of the plaintiff for this issue is he is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. By virtue of agreement of sale dated 05.07.2000 and carrying on the developmental activities on the schedule property. Further it is alleged that the defendants came to the schedule property and started interfering. The 1st defendant alleging to be power of attorney of defendants No.2 to 9 came to the schedule property and threatened with dire consequences saying that if the construction is continued. Further it is deposed that on 23.03.2001 at about 12.00 noon defendants along with antisocial elements came to the schedule property and attempted to dispossess the plaintiff, but with the help of neighbors the plaintiff resisted the defendants, while going the defendants threatened the plaintiff. The sum and substance of chief evidence of this witness is the defendants are interfering with the peaceful possession 47 O.S.No.2285/2001 of the plaintiff on the schedule property. To substantiate this aspect, except the document at Ex.P1 is produced no other documents are forth coming to show the alleged interference of the defendants. More over, during the course of cross-examination, this witness very clearly admitted that he has not produced any documents to show that he has purchased building materials to construct the compound. It is also admitted that when the 1st defendant obstructed him he did not filed any complaint and he has not produced any photographs to show that on 23.01.2001, the 1st defendant came and caused obstruction. On perusal of entire version of this witness, first of all the plaintiff is failed to prove the possession of him on the schedule property. Under such circumstances, the question of the interference by the defendants does not arise. Another one important aspect is, none of the documents forth coming from the plaintiff to show his possession on the schedule site or interference of the defendants. The oral and documentary evidence of plaintiff not coupled with each other with the pleadings. Whereas, the oral 48 O.S.No.2285/2001 and documentary evidence placed on record by the defendants coupled with each other with the pleadings. Another one aspect is similar suit of the plaintiff against the defendants has been already dismissed. Looking by all angles, absolutely there is no an iota of strong positive evidence for the plaintiff. Hence, on the foregoing reasons, I answer this issue in the negative.
33. Issue No.3 O.S.No.2285/2001:- I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit in O.S.No.2285/2001 is dismissed. No cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
xxxxxxx
30. Issue No.1 in O.S.No.2288/2001:- For this issue the evidence of PW1 reveals that the property bearing Khaneshmari No.74, Gramatana Khata No.360, situated at Kammagondanahalli, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The defendants No.2 to 9 through a registered sale deed dated 24.01.1994 sold the suit schedule property to K.V. Leelavathi. The said 49 O.S.No.2285/2001 K.V. Leelavathi on 05.07.2000 agreed to sell the suit schedule property and executed by an agreement of sale. Further it is deposed that he was carrying on the development activities on the suit schedule property.
The sum and substance of chief evidence of this witness is he is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property as on the date of suit. In support of version, has produced document at Ex.P1 the original agreement of sale. During the course of cross-examination, it is admitted that there is no such recital in Ex.P1 that the possession has been handed over to him. It is also admitted that he has not produced voter list, ration card to show that Smt. Leelavathi and K.R.V. Rao are husband and wife. Further it is deposed that he has put up RCC building in site No.74 but he has not obtained building license. On the very next breath, this witness has stated that he has not put up RCC building in site No.74 and also admitted that he has not produced bills to show the purchase of building materials.
31. On the other hand, the DW1 has deposed that the plaintiff is neither the owner nor in possession or 50 O.S.No.2285/2001 paid any taxes to the schedule property. The defendants No.2 to 9 were the owners of the land Sy.No.65/2 and 65/3 of Kammagondanahalli Village, Bangalore City and they have given a registered power of attorney on 30.06.1994. He was given power of attorney to deal totally 78 sites in the said layout, out of which, this suit property is one of the sites availed to him. The same is known to this plaintiff who has endorsed to the said registered power of attorney. By virtue of registered power of attorney, he has sold the site No.74 to Yellappa, who is in lawful possession by constructing house and availing amenities. The sum and substance of chief evidence of this witness is plaintiff was and he is never in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The defendants No.2 to 9 never sold the site No.74 under registered sale deed dated 24.01.1994. As such, the said K.V. Leelavathi she is not in possession of the schedule property as owner thereof. In support of version, further it is deposed that the sale agreement is concocted and false document made only to file this suit. None of the 51 O.S.No.2285/2001 developmental activities where carried on by the plaintiff. In support of version, this witness relied on Ex.D1. During the course of cross-examination, no such grounds or reasons brought to discard the evidence of this witness. On perusal of entire version of PW1 and DW1 and having regard to the documents. The plaintiff come up with indefinite case, and he failed to establish the possession as on the date of suit on the schedule property. The document at Ex.P1 not reflects about the possession of the plaintiff. Except Ex.P1 no such document is forth coming to show the possession of the plaintiff. It is only an agreement of sale the plaintiff has not obtained registered sale deed. The plaintiff failed to examine the neighboring witnesses at least to prove his possession on the schedule property. The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff not coupled with each other with the pleadings. Hence, on the foregoing reasons, I answer this issue in the negative.
32. Issue No.2 in O.S.No.2288/2001:- For this issue, the contention of the plaintiff is that the 52 O.S.No.2285/2001 defendants have no right, title, interest on the schedule property. On 23.03.2001 at about 12.00 noon along with antisocial elements came to the suit schedule property and attempted to dispossess the plaintiff. At that time, with the help of neighbors, the plaintiff resisted the illegal acts of the defendants. It is also the contention that he was carrying on the developmental activities on the suit schedule property. To substantiate this aspect, in the oral evidence it is deposed by the plaintiff that the defendants attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of him and attempted to dispossess from the schedule property. However, with the help of neighbors it was resisted. In the cross examination, this witness stated that he do not remember the week day of the incident and also stated that he has put up RCC building in site No.74, but when he was questioned about the building license, this witness gave evasive answer and ultimately stated that he has not obtained any building license and also stated that he has not put up RCC building in site No.74. Further it is admitted that he has not filed any complaint 53 O.S.No.2285/2001 with regard to the alleged interference of the defendants. On perusal of entire evidence of PW1 and DW1, first of all the plaintiff failed to establish his possession on the schedule property if that is so the question of interference by the defendants does not arise. More over, the plaintiff has not produced any documents to show the interference nor examined any neighboring witnesses. If really there was interference there was nothing prevented the plaintiff to file complaint. In the absence of the same and having regard to the oral and documentary evidence placed on record and looking by all angles, absolutely there is no an iota of strong positive evidence for the plaintiff to demonstrate his possession on the suit schedule property and interference of the defendants. Hence, on the foregoing reasons, I answer this issue in the negative.
33. Issue No.3 in O.S.No.2285/2001 and 2288/2001:- I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER 54 O.S.No.2285/2001 The suit in O.S.No.2285/2001 is dismissed. No cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
The suit in O.S.No.2288/2001 is dismissed. No cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court today the 28th day of January, 2015.) (V.K.Badiger) VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE.
BANGALORE CITY.
/ANNEXURE/ Witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff/s in O.S.No.2285/2001:
PW.1 J. Gopal For Defendants DW.1 S.Rajesh Kumar
Documents marked on behalf of plaintiff/s:
Ex.P1 The original agreement Ex.P1(a) Signature of Leelavathi Ex.P1(b) Signature of K.V. Rao 55 O.S.No.2285/2001 Ex.P1(c) LTM of Smt. Leelavathi Documents marked on behalf of Defendant/s:
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of GPA
Ex.D.2 Certified copy of Judgment in
O.S.No.2283/2001
Ex.D.3 Decree
Ex.D.4 The un-served registered cover
Ex.D.5 The postal acknowledgment
Ex.D.6 Office copy of legal notice
Witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff/s in O.S.No.2288/2001:
PW.1 J. Gopal For Defendant/s:- DW.1 S.Rajesh Kumar
Documents marked on behalf of plaintiff/s:
Ex.P1 The original agreement Ex.P1(a) Signature of K.V.Rao Ex.P1(b) Signature of K.V. Rao Ex.P1(c) LTM of K.V. Rao Documents marked on behalf of Defendant/s:
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of registered GPA VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE 56 O.S.No.2285/2001 (CCH.No.19) BANGALORE.57 O.S.No.2285/2001
28.01.2015 P - B.S.N. D1 - CNAM D2 to 9 - BSG (Judgment pronounced in the open Court (vide separate) and the order portion of the Judgment is as under:-
The suit is dismissed. No cost. Draw decree accordingly.
(V.K.Badiger) VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE.
BANGALORE CITY 28.01.2015 P - MDA D1 - CMA D2 to 9 - KVP (Judgment pronounced in the open Court (vide separate) and the order portion of the Judgment is as under:-
The suit is dismissed. No cost. Draw decree accordingly.
(V.K.Badiger) VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE.
BANGALORE CITY