Bangalore District Court
Kushal Shetty vs Sri. C. Sathynarayana on 6 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE Bangalore City (CCH-6)
This the 6th day of February 2015
Present: Sri. S.SRIDHARA,
B.Sc.,LL.B.,
th
24 Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
O.S.No.7180/2008
PLAINTIFF: 1. Kushal Shetty
S/o. Seenappa Shetty
Aged about 50 years.
2. Sakamma
W/o. Kushal Shetty,
Aged about 48 years
Both are r/at No. 14/1
8th Cross, Wilson Garden,
Bagalore-560027.
(By Sri.A.Anilkumar shetty, Advocate)
Vs.
DEFENDANTS: Sri. C. Sathynarayana,
S/o, Chikkamuniavalappa,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at No. 7, Nanjappa Layout,
II Cross, Adugodi
Bangalore-560030.
(By Sri.M.J.alva, Advocate)
Date of institution of the suit: 28.10.2008
Nature of the suit: Declaration & Injunction
Date of commencement of 02.12.2010
recording of evidence:
2 O.S.7180/2008
Date on which Judgment was 06.02.2015
pronounced:
Duration Days Months Years
09 03 06
JUDGMENT
The instant suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is one for declaration to declare that the plaintiffs are the full and absolute owners of the suit schedule property and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to demolish the compound wall put up by the defendant on the schedule 'B' property for the use of the plaintiffs as it had existed earlier before the demolition at the cost of the defendant and for costs and such other reliefs.
2. a) The plaintiffs have stated that they are the absolute owners of the premises bearing old No.3 and new No.3/2, which is morefully shown in the plaint 'A' schedule measuring East to West on the northern side 24 feet, on the southern side 26 feet and North to South on the eastern side 58 feet, on the western side 56 feet, in all measuring 1425 square feet. 3 O.S.7180/2008
b) Plaintiffs further submitted that they purchased the plaint 'A' schedule property as per the registered sale deed dated 16.12.2006 from its owner G.Kumar. After purchasing the said property, khatha was registered in the name of the plaintiff as per khatha certificate and assessment extract that are produced. Plaintiffs further stated that the defendant has got property bearing No.6 and 7 towards eastern side of the plaintiff's property. Infact between the plaintiff's and defendant's property, the conservancy lane is situated measuring 3 feet in width. But in the sale deed of the plaintiff, it is shown as a passage. After the said conservancy lane on the western side, the plaintiff's property is situated and on the eastern side, defendant's property is situated. But the defendant with high handedly completely encroached the conservancy lane. After having encroached the conservancy lane, he has encroached 50 square feet property of the plaintiff on the eastern side i.e. towards western side of the conservancy lane. He further stated that he lodged police complaint before 4 O.S.7180/2008 the concerned police, but the concerned police was booked by the defendant before the plaintiff lodging the complaint and accordingly the police did not give any assistance to the plaintiff.
c) Plaintiffs further stated that they have put up compound as per the sanctioned plan issued by BBMP and put up structure as per the plan. But the defendant high handedly demolished the compound wall of the plaintiff and encroached about 50 square feet property belongs to the plaintiff on the eastern side of the plaintiff's property and put up compound. Infact before he started the construction, while demolishing the compound of the plaintiff, the plaintiff also filed complaint before Adugodi Police, who infact did not give any assistance. In para-4 of the plaint, they also stated with regard to he lodging the police complaint and in para-5 of the plaint, they pleaded the alleged interference of the defendant i.e. with regard to alleged encroachment made by the defendant on the plaintiff's property. In para-6 of the 5 O.S.7180/2008 plaint, they pleaded cause of action and praying this Court to decree the suit as prayed for.
3. The plaint schedule reads as follows:
SCHEDULE-A All that piece and parcel of the premises bearing old No.3 new No. 3/2, old VI Main, new III Main Road, situated at Audodi, Bagalore- 560030 measuring East to West on the northern side 24 ft and on the southern side 26 feet and North to South on the eastern side 58 ft and on the western side 56 feet totally measuring 1,426 feet bounded on East by: Conservancy lane which is made as common passage;
West by: 3 feet passage & property belonging to G.Chinappa & G. Raju;
North by: Nallamma's property; South by: Private property.
SHEDULE-B Eastern portion of the premises bearing old No.3, new No.3/2, old Vi Main, new III Main Road, situated at Adugodi, Bangalore-560030 measuring East to West 1.21 ft. and North to South 36 ft. bounded on the :
East by: conservancy lane and encroached portion by the defendant.
West by: Remaining portion of 'A' Schedule property.
North by: Nallamma's property;
South by: Private property.6 O.S.7180/2008
4. a) The only defendant filed written statement denying all the plaint averments and further contended that the alleged 'B' schedule property is not in existence. The property said to have been purchased by the plaintiffs by virtue of the sale deed dated 16.12.2006 has already been covered in the schedule 'A' to the plaint. There is no reference to 'B' schedule property nor identity of the same found in the sale deed of the plaintiffs. Thus the 'B' schedule property itself is not in existence and the claim of the plaintiffs is fictitious, concocted by the plaintiff for the purpose of filing this suit. The claim of the plaintiffs is baseless and dependent upon surmises and conjunctures. There is no consistency between the relief claimed by the plaintiff and the suit property. The defendant further stated that towards eastern boundary of the plaint 'A' schedule property, it is shown as conservancy lane in the plaint schedule. But in the sale deed of the plaintiff dated 16.12.2006, so also in the mother-deed dated 12.10.2000, the conservancy lane does not find a place and the 7 O.S.7180/2008 eastern boundary is shown as property of the defendant and his deceased father etc. Plaintiffs have deliberately furnished the wrong boundary to the 'A' schedule property on the eastern side. The property of the defendant has been substituted with the conservancy lane on the eastern side to make out a ground for filing the present suit. Hence, the plaint is to be rejected for suppression of material facts.
b) The defendant further stated that the alleged 'B' schedule property does not find a place in the title deed of the plaintiff or that of their vendor dated 12.10.2000. The plaintiffs have invented schedule 'B' property for the purpose of this suit without any basis and cause of action. The boundaries furnished therein conflict with the boundary of the schedule 'A' and the schedule 'B' properties claimed to be the property situated within 'A' schedule property.
c) The defendant further contended that to the best knowledge of the defendant, the vendor of the plaintiff himself had no right to sell the suit 'A' 8 O.S.7180/2008 schedule property in their deed of partition dated 12.10.2000, which prohibits the vendor of the plaintiff from selling the same to the outsider with the insertion of prohibitory clause. The alleged sale deed of the plaintiff is defective. The suit is filed by one Chinnappa and two others against the plaintiff and their vendor is pending before this Court in O.S.2703/2007. It is also learnt by the defendant that there is prohibitory order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in MFA No.10251/2007. Thus there is cloud on the title of the plaintiffs, which does not confer absolute right or title upon the plaintiffs.
d) The defendant also stated that it is true that the defendant owns property bearing No.6 and 7, but the said properties are situated on the eastern side of the suit 'A' schedule property. There is no conservancy lane existing in between the property of the defendant and suit 'A' schedule property. It is also false to state that the breadth of the alleged 9 O.S.7180/2008 conservancy is three feet. It is also false to allege that the defendant's property is situated on the western side of the plaintiff's property. The defendant also denied the alleged encroachment as stated by the plaintiff in the plaint, so also the conservancy lane. The defendant has no knowledge about the complaint filed by the plaintiff. It is also false to state that the plaintiff put up compound as per the sanctioned plan issued by BBMP. There is no plan sanctioned by BBMP for putting up of compound. The alleged construction of the plaintiff is in gross violation of building byelaws. To the best knowledge of the defendant, there is no plan or licence for the plaintiffs to put up construction of the building of the plaintiffs as it is now existing. There is no compound wall put up by the plaintiffs on the eastern side of the suit 'A' schedule property. Infact the defendant has put up the compound wall on the western side of his property at the time of construction of his dwelling house. There was no compound whatsoever put up by the plaintiffs on the eastern side of the 'A' schedule 10 O.S.7180/2008 property and in the absence of existence of compound wall, the question of demolition does not arise. It is also false to allege that the defendant has encroached to an extent of 50 square feet area as stated in the plaint 'B' schedule. The alleged 'B' schedule itself is non-existing property. The suit is not properly valued and the Court fee paid is grossly insufficient and prays for dismissal of the suit with costs.
5. After the amendment of the plaint by the plaintiffs, the defendant also filed additional written statement, wherein the defendant has stated that the amendment of the plaint by the plaintiff has now changed the eastern boundary of the 'B' schedule property as conservancy lane and encroached portion of the defendant in place of remaining portion of the 'A' schedule property. Similarly the western boundary is substituted with the remaining portion of the 'A' schedule property in place of conservancy lane and encroached portion of the defendant etc. By virtue of the amendment, the plaintiffs have made 11 O.S.7180/2008 interchanges in respect of the boundary on the eastern and western portion mentioned in the plaint 'B' schedule, but this boundary does not find a place in the sale deed of the plaintiff dated 16.12.2006. He also stated certain other aspects and prays for dismissal of the suit with costs.
6. Based on the above pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor has framed the following issues:
1. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are the owners of the B schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendant has illegally put up compound wall on the B schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as sought for?
4. Whether the suit is properly valued and Court fee paid is sufficient?
5. Whether suit is barred by limitation?
6. What order or decree?
6. In support of the case of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff himself is examined as PW.1 and got marked 12 O.S.7180/2008 Exs.P.1 to P.5. Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.8 are marked in the cross-examination of DW.1 by confronting those documents. After the amendment of the plaint, the plaintiff also filed further chief-examination affidavit.
The learned counsel for the plaintiff also submits that plaintiffs have no further evidence.
7. The defendant himself is examined as DW.1, but no document is got marked on behalf of the defendant and accordingly closed the evidence of the defendant.
8. The record also discloses that I.A.5 filed by the plaintiffs under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is also dismissed by this Court on 10.9.2014. Even though the case is posted for arguments and even after posting the case for judgment, inspite of giving sufficient time and repeated opportunities, the plaintiffs failed to appear before the Court to show that he has questioned the orders passed by this Court on I.A.5 dated 10.9.2014. Since the matter is old, this Court proceeded to pass the Judgment.
13 O.S.7180/2008
9. The record also discloses that the learned counsel for the defendant filed written arguments. Perused the written arguments of the defendant and also perused the record. Though sufficient time and opportunity was given to the plaintiffs, plaintiffs failed to address their arguments and accordingly argument of the plaintiffs is taken as closed on 27.10.2014.
10. My findings on the above issues are:
Issue No.1: Negative.
Issue No.2: Negative.
Issue No.3: Negative.
Issue No.4: Negative.
Issue No.5: Deleted.
Issue No.6: As per the final order
for the following;
REASONS
11. Issue Nos.1 to 3: Since all these three
issues are interlinked with each other and required common discussion of facts, they have taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
12. The specific case of the plaintiffs is that they have purchased plaint 'A' schedule property. The 14 O.S.7180/2008 plaintiffs also claim that plaint 'B' schedule property is a part and parcel of the plaint 'A' schedule property, which is shown to have been encroached by the defendant. As such the plaintiffs have to establish that they are the owners of plaint 'B' schedule property. Plaintiffs must also establish that the defendant has illegally put up compound wall on the 'B' schedule property and also establish that they are entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction.
13. In support of the case of the plaintiffs, they relied upon the documents Exs.P.1 to P.8. Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 16.12.2006 executed by the vendor of the plaintiffs by name G.Kumar in favour of the present plaintiffs 1 and 2 for a sale price of Rs.12,50,000/-. The property sold under Ex.P.1 is morefully described by the plaintiffs in the plaint 'A' schedule. The measurement and description given in the schedule of Ex.P.1 tallies with the measurement and description of the property shown in the plaint 'A' schedule. 15 O.S.7180/2008
14. On careful perusal of the sale deed Ex.P.1, the plaintiffs have with held two vital documents i.e. the partition deed dated 12.10.2000, 19.10.2000 and the Rectification deed dated 17.12.2004 of the plaintiffs' vendor. This is also in view of the fact that in the schedule of Ex.P.1, towards East, it is shown as property of one Chikkamuni Avalappa, who is none other than the father of the present defendant. This is also in view of the fact that if those partition deed and rectification deed of the plaintiffs' vendor are produced, that would have thrown some light on the case of the plaintiffs to show that that there was a conservancy lane towards East of the plaint 'A' schedule property. Even in Ex.P.1, in the boundary, towards East, it is shown as property of Chikkamuni Avalappa, who is none other than the father of the defendant. However in the plaint 'A' schedule, the plaintiffs have shown the eastern boundary as conservancy lane, which is made as common passage. To substantiate this aspect, virtually the plaintiffs have not produced any convincing documents. 16 O.S.7180/2008
15. It is also worth to mention that on perusal of Ex.P.1, the property that was sold in favour of the plaintiffs is 4½ squares RCC Roofing house, but there is no reference in the sale deed with respect to the compound wall if any that was put up around the property that was sold in favour of the present plaintiffs under Ex.P.1. But in the prayer column, at prayer-(b), the plaintiffs also sought the relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendant to demolish the compound wall put up by the defendant on the plaint 'B' schedule property and to direct the defendant to put up compound wall on the 'B' schedule property for the use of the plaintiffs as it existed before demolition of the compound wall, that too at the cost of the defendant. From the material available on record, it is crystal clear that now the plaintiffs are making an attempt to show a non- existing common passage towards East of the plaint 'A' schedule property.
16. Ex.P.2 is the khatha certificate, which shows that the plaintiffs are shown to be the kathedars of 17 O.S.7180/2008 the property bearing new No.3/2, PID No.63-47-3/2, but the plaintiffs have not produced the khatha extract for the reasons best know to them. Ex.P.3 is the tax paid receipt dated 29.6.2007 paid by the plaintiffs in respect of property No.3/2 for the assessment year 2007-08. Ex.P.4 is the endorsement issued by PSI, Adugodi Police Station in respect of the complaint filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant and others on 19.1.2008 in respect of compound.
17. Ex.P.5 is an important document, which is a field book extract issued from City Survey Department in respect of property bearing No.611. In this document, the measurement of the property bearing CTS No.611 has been mentioned on all the four sides. But towards East of the property No.611, it is shown as road and towards West, it is shown as conservancy. But the plaintiffs in the plaint 'A' schedule have shown towards East as conservancy lane, which is made as common passage. But no such conservancy lane has been shown in this Ex.P.5 on the eastern side.
18 O.S.7180/2008
18. Ex.P.6 is the enquiry vahi extract in respect of property bearing CTS No.611. This document shows that one Chikkamuni Avalappa, who appears to be the father of the defendant is shown to be the holder of the property, who infact acquired the property through a partition deed dated 16.3.1951. This document also shows that the property was purchased by one K.Balakrishna from one M.Jayaramareddy. Ex.P.7 is the property card issued from City Survey Department, which is also in respect of property bearing CTS No.611, which again reveals that Chikkamuni Avalappa, the father of the defendant is shown to be the holder of the property. Ex.P.8 is the Field Book Extract, which also reveals the topography of the property bearing CTS No.611 and this document also reveals the measurement of the property as shown in Ex.P.5.
19. The 1st plaintiff, who is examined in this case as PW.1, has reiterated the plaint averments in his chief examination affidavit, so also in his further chief 19 O.S.7180/2008 examination affidavit. However, PW.1 in his cross- examination admitted that he has no document with him to identify the plaint 'B' schedule property and further admitted that he has no document to show that the defendant has encroached plaint 'B' schedule property and this admission reads as follows:
zÁªÀ © µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀéwÛUÉ £Á£Éà ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀ CAvÀ wêÀiÁð£À ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ F zÁªÉAiÀÄ°è PÉýzÉÝÃ£É CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. zÁªÁ © µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß UÀÄgÀÄvÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ §UÉÎ £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ zÁR® E®è. zÁªÁ © µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀéwÛ£À ¥ÀÇtð «¹ÛÃtð 36 Cr EzÉ. zÁªÁ © µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ MvÀÄÛªÀj ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸À®Ä £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ zÁR¯É E®è, DzÀgÉ ¥Éǰøï PÀA¥ÉèAmï PÉÆnÖzÉÝãÉ.
PW.1 in his cross-examination also admitted that towards western side of the defendant's property, there exists 'B' schedule property and further stated that there exists conservancy lane in between the property of the defendant and 'B' schedule property.
He admitted that there is no mention in the sale deed with regard to existence of conservancy lane and this admission reads as follows:20 O.S.7180/2008
¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ ¸ÀéwÛ£À ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ © µÉqÀÆå¯ï D¹Û EzÉ. © µÉqÀÆå¯ï D¹Û ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ D¹ÛAiÀÄ £ÀqÀÄªÉ PÀ£ÀìªÉð¤ì ¯Éãï EzÉ. F PÀ£ÀìªÉð¤ì ¯Éãï EgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ £À£Àß PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁr®è. ¸ÁQë ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀ ¥ÁnðµÀ£ï rÃqï EzÀÝ PÁgÀt CzÀgÀ ZÀPÀÄ̧A¢ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÉÝÃ£É CAvÀ ºÉüÀÄvÉÛÃgÉ.
PW.1 in his cross-examination has specifically admitted that the very same boundary that was shown in the partition deed of G.Kumar has been mentioned in the sale deed of the plaintiffs as per Ex.P.1 and further admitted that there is no mention in the partition deed of G.Kumar with regard to existence of conservancy lane in between the property of the plaintiffs and defendant and this admission reads as follows:
f.PÀĪÀiÁgÀgÀªÀgÀ «¨sÁUÀ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è vÉÆÃj¹zÀAvÀºÀ ZÀPÀÄ̧A¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£Àß PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è vÉÆÃj¹zÁÝgÉ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ D¹Û ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ CªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ D¹Û £ÀqÀÄªÉ PÀ£ÀìªÉð¤ì ¯Éãï EgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ f.PÀĪÀiÁgÀgÀªÀgÀ «¨sÁUÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è vÉÆÃj¹®è CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
20. The way in which PW.1 admitted in his cross- examination goes to show that the plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands and filed this 21 O.S.7180/2008 suit by suppressing material facts. PW.1 also admitted that he do not know the measurement of the property, which is shown in Ex.P.5. He also admitted that towards East of the property purchased by him, there exists property of one Chikkamuni Avalappa, who is the father of the defendant. He also specifically admitted that there exists compound wall around the property where the defendant is residing.
21. On the other hand, the defendant himself is examined as DW.1, wherein he has reiterated the written statement averments. He has specifically stated in his chief examination at para-2 stating that the alleged 'B' schedule property as claimed by the plaintiffs is not at all in existence. Nothing worth is elicited in the cross-examination of DW.1 with regard to existence of the plaint 'B' schedule property or to show that the defendant has encroached the alleged conservancy in question and further to show that the defendant has also encroached a portion of the plaint 'A' schedule property, which is morefully shown in the plaint 'B' schedule. DW.1 in his cross-examination 22 O.S.7180/2008 goes to the extent of saying that the compound wall, which is situated on the western side of the defendant's house, is in existence since from the time of his father.
22. It is an undisputed fact that the plaintiffs have purchased plaint 'A' schedule property as per the measurement and boundary shown in the schedule of Ex.P.1 and this fact is also admitted by the defendant in his written statement. But the defendant has only disputed the existence of the plaint 'B' schedule property as described by the plaintiffs in the plaint 'B' schedule. It is also not in dispute that the defendant also owned the property on the eastern side of the plaint 'A' schedule having property No. 6 and 7.
23. The allegation of the plaintiffs is that the defendant has encroached the entire conservancy lane and thereafter encroached the plaintiffs' property to an extent of 50 square feet. When the plaintiffs themselves failed to establish the existence of conservancy lane on the eastern side of their 23 O.S.7180/2008 property, the question of defendant encroaching the conservancy and further the question of defendant encroaching the plaint 'A' schedule property measuring 50 square feet does not arise at all.
24. Hence, on perusal of the material available on record, the plaintiffs failed to prove that they are the owners of the plaint 'B' schedule property. Plaintiffs also failed to prove that the defendant has illegally put up compound wall on the 'B' schedule property. Plaintiffs also failed to prove that they are entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction. Accordingly, issue Nos. 1 to 3 are answered in the 'negative'.
25. Issue No.4: The defendant in his written statement also taken the defence contending that the suit is not properly valued and the Court fee paid is insufficient.
26. The plaint and prayer discloses that the plaintiffs have sought for the relief of declaration only in respect of the plaint 'B' schedule property measuring East to West 1.21 feet and North to South 36 feet, to 24 O.S.7180/2008 declare that they are the absolute owners of 'B' schedule property and for mandatory injunction.
27. On perusal of the valuation slip filed by the plaintiffs along with the plaint, the plaintiffs have valued the subject matter of the suit under Section 7(2) r/w Section 24(b) and 26(c) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act at Rs.33,600/- as per the prevailing market value as on the date of filing of the suit and accordingly, the plaintiffs paid Court fee of Rs.1,800/- which in my opinion, is sufficient and proper. The defendant failed to prove that the suit is not properly valued and the Court fee paid is insufficient. Accordingly, I answer issue No.4 in the 'negative'.
28. Issue No.5: On careful perusal of written statement, the defendant never taken the defence stating that the suit is barred by limitation. However issue No.5 has been wrongly framed by this Court with regard to limitation. The learned counsel for the defendant in his written arguments at para-6 stated 25 O.S.7180/2008 that issue No.5 appears to have been inadvertently framed without any pleadings. It is also stated in the written arguments of the defendant that there is no defence of the defendant regarding bar of limitation and accordingly praying this Court to delete issue No.5 by exercising the power conferred on this Court Under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC. So, in view of this, issue No.5 needs to be deleted and accordingly issue No.5 is deleted.
29. Issue No.6 In view of the findings on issue No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The instant suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant is hereby dismissed with costs.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, computerized print out taken thereof is corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 6th day of February, 2015).
(S.SRIDHARA) XXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSION JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.26 O.S.7180/2008
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1: Kushal Shetty List of documents marked for the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1: Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 16.12.2006.
Ex.P.2: Certified copy of khatha extract issued by BBMP.
Ex.P.3: Tax paid receipt.
Ex.P.4: Acknowledgement issued by Adugodi Police
Station.
Ex.P.5: Certified copy of sketch issued by ADLR.
Ex.P.6: City Survey report.
Ex.P.7: Property card.
Ex.P.8: City Survey report.
List of witnesses examined for the defendants:
D.W.1 C.Sathyanarayana.
List of documents marked for the defendants: Nil.
(S.SRIDHARA) XXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSION JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.