Bangalore District Court
Smt.Shaik Rabia Banu vs Smt.S.Tahrunissa on 8 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF LXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALURU. (CCH.74)
PRESENT:
Sri.Yamanappa Bammanagi, B.A., LL.B., (Spl.,)
LXXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Mayohall Unit, Bangaluru.
Dated this the 8th day of March, 2021.
O.S. No.27120/2012
Plaintiff: Smt.Shaik Rabia Banu,
W/o.Sri.Shaik Shakeel Ahamed
Basha, aged about 34 yrs,
Residing in premises No.3,
1st Floor, 20th Cross, 16th Main,
BTM II Stage, Bangaluru76.
(By Sri.S.M.G.Azam- Adv.)
V/S
Defendants: 1. Smt.S.Tahrunissa,
W/o.Sri.Javeed Pasha,
Aged about 36 years,
Residing at No.846, 10th Cross,
16th Main, BTM Layout, 2nd Stage,
Bangalore560 076.
2. Sri.Javeed Pasha,
S/o. Sri Abdul Rahim Khan,
Aged about 51 years,
2
O.S. No.27120/2012
Residing at No.846, 10th Cross,
16th Main, BTM Layout 2nd Stage,
Bangalore560 076.
3. Sri.Mohammed Ahmed Sheriff,
S/o. Mohammed Ismail Sheriff,
Aged about 38 years,
(Ahmed, MD (IE10),
(Mail:[email protected])
Employed with M/s.HoneyWell Co.,
C/o. H.R.Manager,
HoneyWell Tech Solutions Lab
Pvt. Ltd., 151/1, Doraisanipalya,
Bannerghatta Road,
Bangalore76.
(4. Sri.Ravi,
Adult, South Indian Restaurant,
Corporation No.12,
13th AMain Road,
N.S.Palya, B.T.M. 2nd Stage,
Bangalore560 076.) Deleted
(By Sri.T.C.Shiva Prasad - Adv. for
defts.No.1 & 2)
(Deft.No.3 - Exparte)
(Deft.No.4 - Dismissed)
Date of Institution of the suit 07.11.2012
Nature of the (Suit or pronote, suit
for declaration and possession, suit DECLARATION & POSSESSION
for injunction, etc.)
3
O.S. No.27120/2012
Date of the commencement of
20.02.2016
recording of the Evidence.
Date on which the Judgment was
08.03.2021
pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 08 04 01
(Yamanappa Bammanagi)
73rd Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit,
Bangaluru. (CCH74)
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration declaring that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and direction directing the defendants to hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule property. Further, for cancellation of sale deed dated 10.03.2008, executed by defendant No.2 as GPA holder of plaintiff's husband, in favour of defendant No.1. Further declaration declaring that, judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.2914/2010, against the defendant No.3, in respect of suit property is invalid and 4 O.S. No.27120/2012 unenforceable and consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case:
It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 are natural sisters and the defendant No.2 is the husband of the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.3 was the tenant under plaintiff and the defendant No.4 is the present tenant in the suit schedule property and defendant No.4 has deleted as per order on memo. During the year 200506, the husband of the plaintiff was working in Saudi Arabia, the husband of plaintiff had purchased the suit schedule property with assistance of the defendant No.2, under registered sale deed dated 2.7.2006. Thus, the husband of the plaintiff became owner and in possession of the suit schedule property and khatha got transferred in the name of plaintiff's husband on 28.01.2008.5
O.S. No.27120/2012
3. Thus, having regard to the relationship with plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and the plaintiff's husband had faith and trust on the defendant No.2, the husband of plaintiff had executed GPA, in favour of the defendant No.2, to manage the schedule property, on 26.7.2006. Thereafter, on 31.1.2008 plaintiff's husband revoked/canceled the GPA in the presence of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and 2, at that time the defendant No.2 assured to the plaintiff's husband to return the GPA, but, the defendant No.2 could not returned the GPA to the husband of plaintiff. At the time of revocation of GPA the plaintiff and her husband were residing in the defendant No.1 and 2's house at ground floor.
4. Thereafter, the plaintiff's husband had executed registered gift deed dated 31.1.2008, in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of suit schedule property and symbolic possession was handed over to the plaintiff on the same day. 6
O.S. No.27120/2012 Thus, the plaintiff became owner and in symbolic possession of the suit schedule property. On basis of registered gift deed, executed by her husband, the plaintiff had applied for transfer of khatha in her name before the BBMP, at that time, the plaintiff found that, the defendant No.2, on basis of GPA, executed by plaintiff's husband, has sold the suit property to his wife who is the defendant No.1, under registered sale deed dated 10.3.2008. Thus, the defendant No.2 has misused GPA executed by the plaintiff's husband, which has already been revoked, played fraud on the plaintiff.
5. Thus, on basis of registered sale deed dated 10.3.2008, executed by the defendant No.2, the defendant No.1 had applied for transfer of khatha in her name and BBMP has transferred the khatha in the name of the defendant No.1. Thereafter, the plaintiff had applied the BBMP for cancellation of khatha stands in the name of the 7 O.S. No.27120/2012 defendant No.1, on the application of the plaintiff, the BBMP has canceled the khatha by its order dated 10.4.2012. Thus, the khatha in respect of suit schedule property stands in the name of the plaintiff. The order of BBMP was challenged by the defendant No.1 before the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble High Court has setaside the BBMP order and directed the BBMP to register the khatha in the name of defendant No.1.
6. When the plaintiff's husband had executed gift deed in her favour, the defendant No.3 was in the suit schedule property as tenant under plaintiff's husband Sri.Shaik Shakeel Ahamed Basha on monthly rent of Rs.8,000/, thus, the defendant No.3, after gift deed, become tenant under the plaintiff. When the defendant No.3 become chronic defaulter, the plaintiff got issued notice to the defendant No.3, on 3.1.2009, terminated the tenancy, filed suit O.S. 8 O.S. No.27120/2012 No.26606/2009, against the defendant No.3 for eviction and for mesne profit. But, meanwhile, suit O.S. No.2914/2010 came to be filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 against the defendant No.3 for possession, which was decreed. Thus, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 had filed Execution Petition No.1298/2011 and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 recovered the possession of the suit property from the defendant No.3. Thus, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are in possession of the suit property, thereafter it is learnt that, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 had let out the suit property to the defendant No.4 on rent. Thus, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have played fraud, which led her to file this suit for the reliefs sought in the plaint.
7. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendants No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and the defendant No.3 placed exparte, the suit against the defendant No.4 dismissed as not pressed. It is contended in the written 9 O.S. No.27120/2012 statement filed by the defendant No.1 and 2 that, except relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and 2, all the averments of the plaint have been denied by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 specifically.
It is specifically denied by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 the fact that, plaintiff's husband had purchased suit schedule property with assistance of defendant No.2, the GPA executed by plaintiff's husband has been revoked, denied the execution of gift deed by the plaintiff's husband as the plaintiff's husband had no right, title over the suit schedule property, these facts are all specifically denied by the defendants No.1 and 2 parawise.
Further the averments of para9 to 22 of the plaint are specifically denied by the defendant Nos.1 and 2. The defendants No.1 and 2 contended that order of Commissioner for cancellation of khatha of defendant No.1 has been 10 O.S. No.27120/2012 challenged by the defendant No.1 before the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petn. No.16054/2012, the order passed by the BBMP Commissioner has been quashed. Further contended that when 3rd defendant was not tenant under plaintiff, then the question of payment of rent to the plaintiff by the defendant No.3 does not arose. Thus, when there was no relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant No.3 as a landlord and tenant then the termination of lease does not arise. With this, the defendants No.1 and 2 denied the case of the plaintiff except relationship between plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
8. Initially this suit is filed before the CCH22, in view of the Notification No.ADM1(A)413/18, dated 31.07.2018, this case has been transferred to this court as per order dated 01.08.2018 from CCH22. And suit was called out in this court for the first time on 02.08.2018.
11
O.S. No.27120/2012
9. On basis of the pleadings, my learned Predecessor has framed the following: ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled for vacant possession of schedule schedule property from the defendants?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deed dated 10.3.2008, executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 is invalid, ineffective and unenforceable in law and not binding on her?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 20914/2010, against the defendant No.3, is invalid and unenforceable?
12
O.S. No.27120/2012
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought in the plaint?
6. Whether suit of the plaintiff is hit by law of resjudicata?
7. Whether suit is barred by limitation?
8. What order or decree?
10. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff got herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P1 to 31 and P.W.1 was subjected to crossexamination by the learned counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2. Further the plaintiff examined her husband as P.W.2 and P.W.2 was crossexamined by the learned counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2. The defendant No.2 is examined as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to D.39(a) and D.W.1 was subjected to crossexamination by the learned counsel for the plaintiff.
13
O.S. No.27120/2012
11. Heard argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendants No.1 & 2. The learned counsel for the parties have filed their written arguments. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the decisions reported in:
1. A.I.R 2011 SC 1653
2. Civil Appeal No.5158/2009
3. I.L.R 2008 KAR 2245
4. A.I.R 2005 S.C 439
5. A.I.R 2001 KAR 231
6. (2010) 10 SCC 512
7. Laws (Cal) 2003, 83 Further in support of his argument the learned counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2 has relied on citations reported in:
1. A.I.R. 2017 SC 2491
2. A.I.R. 1978 SC 213
3. A.I.R. 1978 SC 551
4. A.I.R. 1971 SC 1676
5. A.I.R. Allahabad Court 555
6. ILR KAR 2015 14 O.S. No.27120/2012
7. A.I.R. 1968 RAJ 51
8. A.I.R. 1988 Madras 156
9. A.I.R. SC 161
10. A.I.R. KERALA 112
11. A.I.R. 1952 MYSORE 99
12. A.I.R. 1996 SC 378
13. A.I.R. 1970 SC 1059
14. A.I.R. 1941 DATNA 37
15. A.I.R. 1954 SC 82
16. A.I.R. 1952 PATNA 270
17. A.I.R.1971 SC 442
18. A.I.R. 2020 SC 395
19. Civil Appeal No.1500/2019
20. Civil Appeal No.17486/2017
12. I have perused oral and documentary evidence led by the parties and considered material placed before the court and I have also considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
13. My answer to the above issues are as follows: 15 O.S. No.27120/2012 Issue No.1: In the Affirmative, Issue No.2: In the Affirmative, Issue No.3: In the Affirmative, Issue No.4: In the Affirmative, Issue No.5: In the Affirmative, Issue No.6: In the Affirmative, Issue No.7: In the Affirmative, Issue No.8: As per final order, for the following: REASONS
14. ISSUE No.1 & 2: These issues are interconnected to each other and in order to avoid the repetition I proposed to answer these two issues commonly. In order to prove her case, the plaintiff got herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.25. P.W.1 is examined by filing affidavit in lieu of examinationinchief, reiterating the averments of the plaint. P.W.1 deposed before the court that, during the year 200506 her husband was employed at Saudi Arabia and 16 O.S. No.27120/2012 was interested to purchase the property at Bangaluru. Further deposed before the court that, defendant No.1 is her elder sister and defendant No.2 is husband of defendant No.1 and defendant No.3 was the tenant in the suit premises and defendant No.4 is also tenant, but, the suit against defendant No.4 dismissed as not pressed and defendant No.4 was ordered to be deleted. Having regard to the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3 the husband of plaintiff has trusted and believed in the defendant No.2 and took his assistance in purchasing the suit schedule property.
The husband of plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 2.5.2005. Thereafter, the husband of plaintiff got changed the khatha in his name and revenue records were stands in the name of the plaintiff's husband.
17
O.S. No.27120/2012 Such being the fact, the plaintiff's husband had executed unregistered GPA on 26.7.2006 in favour of the defendant No.2 to manage the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the plaintiff's husband has executed gift deed in favour of plaintiff on 31.1.2008 which was registered before the competent authority. On the same day the plaintiff's husband had handed over the symbolic possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiff and symbolic possession was also accepted by the plaintiff. Further the plaintiff deposed before the court that, after execution of gift deed, the plaintiff went to the BBMP authority for transfer of khatha in her name and found that the defendant No.2 has executed sale deed in favour of his wife defendant No.1 by misusing the GPA which has already revoked by her husband. Thus, the plaintiff had applied for cancellation of khatha stands in the name of defendant No.1, the BBMP authority 18 O.S. No.27120/2012 had canceled the khatha by its order dated 10.4.2012. As against the BBMP order the defendant No.1 had challenged the said order before the Hon'ble High Court by filing writ petition and same was allowed and order passed by the BBMP Commissioner was set aside. Thus, the khatha stands in the name of defendant.
15. Thereafter, after execution of registered gift deed, the plaintiff's husband had informed through email to the defendant No.3, who was the tenant in the suit premises under plaintiff's husband that, the defendant No.3 to pay the rent to the plaintiff and the defendant No.3 agreed and replied through email as plaintiff become absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered gift deed executed by her husband.
16. In order to prove the ownership of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has produced Ex.P.1 Absolute Sale Deed dated 19 O.S. No.27120/2012 2.7.2005, under which the plaintiff's husband had purchased the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the plaintiff's husband got changed khatha in his name. When plaintiff's husband was absolute owner in possession of suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed the plaintiff's husband had executed a registered gift deed dated 31.1.2008, in favour of plaintiff, in respect of suit schedule property.
17. In order to prove her case the plaintiff has produced as many as 31 documents, which have been marked at Ex.P.1 to P.31. Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed under which the plaintif's husband Sri.Shaik Shakeel Ahamed Basha has purchased a suit schedule property for consideration of Rs.7,20,000/ by virtue of said sale deed the plaintiff's husband become absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. On basis of said sale deed the revenue records changed in the name of 20 O.S. No.27120/2012 plaintiff's husband which have been marked at Ex.P.2 Khatha Certificate, Ex.P.3 Khatha Certificate, Ex.P.4 Khatha Extract, Ex.P.5 Khatha Extract.
18. Ex.P.6 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed, executed by defendant No.2 by acting as a GPA holder of plaintiff's husband in favour of his wife defendant No.1. Ex.P.7 is the original registered gift deed, executed by plaintiff's husband, in respect of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff and the symbolic possession of the gifted property was accepted by the plaintiff, on basis of said registered gift deed the revenue documents have been changed in the name of plaintiff. Ex.P.8 is the taxpaid receipt stands in the name of plaintiff.
19. Ex.P.9 is the email sent by the plaintiff's husband to the tenant defendant No.3, informing him that he has executed registered gift deed in favour of his wife; i.e., 21 O.S. No.27120/2012 plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property. Thus, the plaintiff become owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered gift deed and requested the defendant No.3 tenant to pay the rent to the plaintiff and it is also reflects the reply given by the defendant No.3 admitting the relationship as landlord and tenant.
20. Ex.P.10 is the certified copy of plaint in O.S. No.26606/2009, filed by the present plaintiff against the tenant who was in possession of the suit property at the time of execution of gift deed in favour of the plaintiff. This suit was filed by the plaintiff when tenant defendant No.3 was defaulter in payment of rent for eviction and arrears of the rent. Ex.P.11 is the certified copy of the written statement filed by the defendant No.3 herein in O.S. No.26606/2009, denying the relationship of defendant No.3 with plaintiff's 22 O.S. No.27120/2012 husband as a landlord and tenant. Further denied that he is not tenant under the plaintiff.
21. Ex.P.12 is the memo filed by the defendant No.3 herein and defendant in O.S. No.26606/2009, stating that by virtue of decree passed in O.S. No.2914/2010, filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 herein and possession warrant issued in Ex.Petn.No.1298/2011, this suit O.S. No.26606/2009 become infructuous as the possession of the suit property was taken from the defendant in E.P. No.1298/2011 and possession of the suit property was handed over to the defendant Nos.1 and 2. With the said memo the defendant prayed for dismissal of suit O.S. No.26606/2009.
22. Ex.P.13 is the certified copy of judgment in O.S. No.26606/2009. In the said suit it was held that the present plaintiff who is also plaintiff in O.S. No.26606/2009, is entitled for the relief of ejectment, arrears rent, mesne 23 O.S. No.27120/2012 profits. Consequently, the defendant in the said suit and defendant No.3 in the present suit was directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises within 90 days from the date of the judgment and directed to pay the arrears of rent of Rs.1,36,000/ and also made him liable for damages. Ex.P.14 is the decree in O.S. No.26606/2009.
23. Ex.P.15 is the certified copy of plaint in O.S. No.2914/2010, filed by the present defendants No.1 and 2 against defendant No.3 herein for eviction during the pendency of suit filed by the plaintiff O.S. No.26606/2009, against the same tenant. Ex.P.16 is the written statement filed by the defendant in the said suit who is also defendant No.3 herein admitting the relationship with present defendant Nos.1 and 2 as a landlord and tenant. Ex.P.17 is the certified copy of order sheet in O.S. No.2914/2010. Ex.P.18 is the certified copy of Ex.Petn.No.1298/2011, 24 O.S. No.27120/2012 Ex.P.19 is the certified copy of warrant for delivery of possession, Ex.P.20 is the notice dated 6.1.2009 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant No.3 herein and defendant in O.S. No.26606/2009, calling upon him to quit and hand over the possession of suit schedule property. Ex.P.21 is the passport. Ex.P.22 is the statement of account. Ex.P.23 is the certified copy of judgment in O.S. No.25181/2011, filed by the defendants No.1 and 2 herein against the plaintiff's husband for specific performance of contract, which was dismissed on merits. Ex.P.24 is the certified copy of judgment in O.S. No.2799/2011, filed by the defendant No.2 only against the plaintiff's husband for permanent injunction, which was dismissed.
24. Ex.P.25 is the suvarna khatha stands in the name of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property. Ex.P.26 is the transfer of khatha in the name of plaintiff in respect of suit 25 O.S. No.27120/2012 schedule property. Ex.P.27 is the application filed by the plaintiff to the authority for changing khatha in her name by virtue of registered gift deed. Ex.P.28 is the RTS petition filed under Rule 114 (A) of the Karnataka Corporation Rules. Ex.P.29 is the khatha certificate stands in the name of plaintiff. Ex.P.30 is the khatha extract stands in the name of plaintiff and Ex.P.31 is the certified copy of bank statement.
25. Thus, the plaintiff has become absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered gift deed dated 31.1.2008. Thereafter, the plaintiff got changed the khatha certificate and khatha extract in her name in respect of suit schedule property. The case of the defendants No.1 and 2 is that, the plaintiff is not owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of gifted deed, because, the husband of the plaintiff has executed GPA on 26.7.2006, in favour of the defendant No.2 in respect of suit schedule property, by virtue 26 O.S. No.27120/2012 of authority under GPA. The defendant No.2 has sold the suit property to the defendant No.1 by executing registered sale deed dated 10.3.2008, thus, the defendant No.1 is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit property.
26. The case of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 is that since the plaintiff's husband has not been revoked or canceled the GPA executed by him in favour of the defendant No.2 in respect of suit schedule property, hence, the sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of his wife defendant No.1 in respect of suit schedule property is valid and binding on the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is not owner of the suit schedule property.
The second defence of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 is that suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by resjudicata.
Third defence of the defendants No.1 and 2 is that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. 27
O.S. No.27120/2012 Fourth defence of the defendants No.1 and 2 is that the suit filed by the plaintiff is hit by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of CPC and judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.2914/2010 is binding on the plaintiff. On these grounds the defendants No.1 and 2 submitted that the plaintiff is not a owner of the suit property and she is not entitled for the possession of the suit property and reliefs sought in the plaint.
27. In support of their defence the defendants No.1 and 2 have produced as many as 39 documents which have been marked at Ex.D.1 to D.39. Ex.D.1 is the original sale deed dated 20.10.1997, which took place between the previous owner and purchaser of the land bearing Houselist No.13, khatha No.44/3, measuring EastWest: 40 feet, North South: 30 feet of Naynappashettypalya, which is schedule property herein. Ex.D.1 (a) is the certified copy of judgment 28 O.S. No.27120/2012 in Writ Appeal No.6907/2013, Ex.D.2 is the ledger account from 1.3.2005 to 24.5.2016 stands in the name of defendants No.1 and 2.
28. Ex.D.3 is the original registered sale deed executed by vendor of the plaintiff's husband in respect of suit schedule property. Ex.D.4 is the unregistered GPA dated 26.7.2006 executed by plaintiff's husband in favour of defendant No.2. Ex.D.4 (a) is the taxpaid receipt paid by the defendant No.1. Ex.D.5 is the agreement of sale said to have been executed by the plaintiff's husband in favour of defendant No.1. Ex.D.5
(a) is the receipt issued by the BBMP for having received tax.
29. Ex.D.6 is the sale deed dated 10.3.2008 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 as a GPA holder of plaintiff's husband. Ex.D.7 is the encumbrance certificate for the period from 1.3.2008 to 17.1.2011. Ex.D.8 is the special notice u/S 147 of the KMC Act. Ex.D.9 to D.14 29 O.S. No.27120/2012 are the taxpaid receipts stands in the name of defendant No.1. Ex.D.15 is the certificate issued by the BBMP in the name of defendant No.1. Ex.D.16 and 17 are the khatha extract and khatha certificate dated 2.9.2010 stands in the name of defendant No.1. Ex.D.18 is the certified copy of decree in O.S. No.2914/2010. Ex.D.19 is unregistered rental agreement executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of suit schedule property.
30. Ex.D.20 is the memo filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.26606/2009. Ex.D.21 is the certified copy of IA filed u/O I Rule 10 of CPC in O.S. No.26606/2009. Ex.D.22 is the IA filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.26606/2009 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. Ex.D.23 is the certified copy of writ petition filed by the defendant No.1 against BBMP Commissioner and plaintiff. Ex.D.24 is the certified copy of delivery of possession warrant. Ex.D.25 is the memo filed in 30 O.S. No.27120/2012 Ex.Petn.No.1298/2011. Ex.D.26 is the possession warrant. Ex.D.27 is the spot mahazar. Ex.D.28 is the receipt for having taken the possession.
31. Ex.D.29 is the deposition of plaintiff's husband in O.S. No.25181/2011. Ex.D.29 (a) is the certified copy of order in CCC No.344/2017 passed by the Hon'ble High Court. Ex.D.30 is the receipt issued by the BBMP. Ex.D.31 is the tax paid receipt of defendant No.1. Ex.D.32 & 33 are the khatha certificate and khatha extract, Ex.D.34 is the receipt for having paid the tax. Ex.D.35 is the taxpaid receipt. Ex.D.36 & 37 are the khatha certificate and khatha extract. Ex.D.38 & 38 (a) are the electricity bills and Ex.D.39 and 39 (a) are the electricity bills.
32. So far as issues No.1 and 2 are concerned, it is relevant to appreciate the fact, as to whether the GPA executed by the plaintiff's husband in favour of the defendant 31 O.S. No.27120/2012 No.2 has been revoked and consequently the sale deed executed by GPA holder in favour of the defendant No.1 is hold good or not.
33. In order to prove the ownership of plaintiff, the plaintiff has produced registered title deeds of donor and registered gift deed and khathas. So, these registered sale deed dated 2.7.2005, establish the title of the plaintiff's husband which is unchallenged documents. So, when the donor was the absolute owner and in possession of the suit property at the time of execution of the registered gift deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property and donee accepted symbolic possession of the property, the plaintiff become absolute owner of the suit property.
34. So far as the defence of the defendants No.1 and 2 is concerned as the plaintiff's husband has not been revoked the GPA and the GPA holder the defendant No.2 was 32 O.S. No.27120/2012 authorised to sell the suit property, hence, sale deed executed by the GPA holder in favour of the defendant No.1 in respect of suit property holds good and sustainable under law. Now it is relevant to appreciate the fact about revocation of GPA. On 10.3.2008, grantor who has executed GPA in favour of the defendant No.2 was not owner of the suit property, as the grantor has already lost his ownership by executing registered gift deed on 31.1.2008, in favour of the plaintiff. When principal himself was not owner of the property on the date of execution of sale deed dated 10.3.2008, in favour of defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 get no interest over the property. So, when vendor himself has no transferable title over the suit property at the time of transfer, then vendee gets no right.
35. The contention of the defendants No.1 and 2 that, the plaintiff's husband did not revoked the GPA at the time of execution of sale deed, in favour of the defendant No.1, is not 33 O.S. No.27120/2012 correct under the law, because, the execution of registered gift deed in favour of the plaintiff itself is revocation. The purpose of registration is to made known the transaction to the whole world not only the defendant No.2.
The advantage of registration of the documents compulsorily u/S 17 of the Indian Registration Act is intention of providing orderliness, discipline and public notice in regard to transaction relating to the immovable property and protection from fraud and forging of documents of transfer.
36. Thus, the power of attorney is creation of agency whereby the grantor authorises the grantee to do to the acts specified therein, on behalf of the grantor, it is terminable, revocable at any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law, even irrevocable attorney does not have the effect of transfering title to the grantee. 34
O.S. No.27120/2012
37. It is also well settled law that even after execution of power of attorney the principal need not take consent to deal with the property, because the power of attorney is not title deed, it is only creation of agency.
The defence of the learned counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2, is that, even the plaintiff's husband has not published in the newspaper about the revocation of GPA. So, it was not revoked.
Ofcourse, the plaintiff's husband has not taken any paper publication for revocation of GPA, it is not registered GPA to force the plaintiff to prove the revocation of GPA by publication. That apart, it is not in dispute that the plaintiff is younger sister of the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.2 GPA holder is husband of the defendant No.1. Under these facts and circumstances, no prudent man could believe the version of the defendants No.1 and 2.
35
O.S. No.27120/2012
38. That apart, surprising fact noticed in this case is that, the defendant No.2 is the GPA holder of the plaintiff's husband, in other words, the defendant No.2 is an agent of the husband of plaintiff who has executed GPA in favour of defendant No.2. Under the law of agency the agent is duty bond to act for the principal, any act of agent against his principal liable for criminal action.
The agency relationship is not permanent either by action of the parties or by law, the relationship will eventually terminate, termination may be expressly or implicitely, under certain circumstances whose occurrence signals the end of the agency.
Since the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in catena of judgment that power of attorney is creation of agency, so implied termination has been recognized under the law of agency, express termination and termination of agency by 36 O.S. No.27120/2012 operation of law and by act of the parties. So, in the case on hand, the plaintiff's husband has executed registered gift deed in favour of the plaintiff that itself sufficient to hold that GPA revoked on the date of registered gift executed by plaintiff's husband.
39. There are number of other circumstances that will spell the end of the relationship by implication. Unspecified events are changes in transaction in respect of suit schedule property which is subject matter of GPA under which the defendant No.2 is an agent of plaintiff's husband, which led to a reasonable inference that the agency has been terminated. So, the plaintiff's husband has revoked the GPA by executing registered gift deed in favour of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property.
40. In the case on hand, in the entire proceedings not only this case there are many other proceedings as it could be 37 O.S. No.27120/2012 seen from the documents produced by the plaintiff and defendants, the defendnat No.2 acting against his principal.
In the case on hand, the defendant No.2 is the agent of his principal Shaik Shakeel Basha under GPA. But, the defendant No.2, contesting the matter on behalf of the defendant No.1. That too, the defendant No.2 without having any authority from the defendant No.1 has given evidence, signed proceedings. Alteast the defendant No.2 has produced authorised letter from the defendant No.1. Without having any authority from the defendant No.1, the defendant No.2 cannot give any evidence or act on behalf of defendant No.1, which is not permissible under law.
41. That apart, the defendant No.2 contended that the defendant No.1 is the pardhashini lady, so she could not come to court and contest the matter. For this the learned counsel for the plaintiff brought the notice of this court that, 38 O.S. No.27120/2012 admittedly, when the defendant No.1 was present before BBMP for change of khatha, appeared before the Sub Registrar Office at the time of execution of sale deed by the defendant No.2, appeared before Notary, was she not pardhashini lady at the time of appearance before the authority referred supra. Further, the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that, it is only for concealing the true fact from the court of law.
So, without any authorisation from the defendant No.1 the defendant No.2 giving evidence on behalf of the defendant No.1. This conduct of the defendant No.2 is not only playing fraud against the plaintiff, but, it is fraud on the court. With this the learned counsel for the plaintiff prayed for drawing adverse inference against the defendants No.1 and 2.
42. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, it is clear that at the time of execution of gift deed the defendant No.3 was in possession of suit schedule property as 39 O.S. No.27120/2012 a tenant and plaintiff has accepted symbolic possession of the property. When defendant No.3 failed to pay the rents the plaintiff has filed suit O.S. No.26606/2009, for ejectment against the defendant No.3. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed suit O.S. No.2914/2010, against the defendant No.3, for eviction during the pendency of suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.26606/2009 and obtained decree of eviction against the defendant No.3 and filed Ex.Petn. against the defendant No.3 and obtained possession of the suit schedule property.
43. Now the question before the court is though the plaintiff's husband has executed GPA in favour of defendant No.2, but, the plaintiff's husband has revoked GPA by executing the registered gift deed on 31.1.2008 in favour of plaintiff. Thus, the sale deed executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 has no value under the law, since, the defendant No.2, who had executed sale deed in 40 O.S. No.27120/2012 favour of defendant No.1 was not having an authority to transfer the suit property in favour of defendant No.1 and even the defendant No.2 was not having transferable title over the suit schedule property. Thus, by virtue of registered sale deed, executed by defendant No.2, in favour of defendant No.1, in respect of suit schedule property, defendant No.1 gets no right or interest over the property under said document. Thus, the defendants No.1 and 2 are liable to hand over the physical possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiff. By virtue of registered gift deed executed by the plaintiff's husband the plaintiff become absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Hence, plaintiff is entitled for vacant possession of suit schedule property. Thus, the plaintiff has proved that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by producing cogent 41 O.S. No.27120/2012 documentary evidence. With this observation, I answer issue No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
44. ISSUE No.3: It is specific case of the plaintiff that her husband has executed GPA in favour of defendant No.2 for managing the suit schedule property. Further the plaintiff deposed before the court that the GPA executed by plaintiff's husband has been revoked by executing gift deed in favour of plaintiff. Hence, the defendant No.2 was not having any right, title or authority over the suit schedule property to transfer the property in favour of defendant No.1, because GPA has already been revoked by the plaintiff's husband. Hence, when vendor has no right over the suit property to transfer the same in favour of defendant No.1, the vendee gets no rights, interest over the suit schedule property. Hence, the sale deed dated 10.3.2008 is not in existence under the law and it has no value under the law. Thus, the 42 O.S. No.27120/2012 sale deed dated 10.3.2008 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 is illegal, invalid, inefffective and unenforceable document and same is not binding on the plaintiff.
45. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff's husband was the absolute owner in possession of the suit property at the time of execution of registered gift deed.
46. On careful perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, Ex.P.1 Registered Sale Deed, executed in favour of the plaintiff's husband, in respect of suit property, Ex.P.7 is the registered gift deed executed by the plaintiff's husband in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of suit property, all revenue documents got changed on basis of registered title deeds, Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.7 title deeds have not been challenged.
47. On perusal of the documentary and oral evidence, it is clear that, at the time of executing Ex.D.6 Registered Sale 43 O.S. No.27120/2012 Deed dated 10.3.2008, by the defendant No.2 in favour of the defendant No.1 in respect of suit property, the defendant No.2 neither owner nor authorised person to sell the suit property in favour of the defendant No.1.
When the person executes sale deed without having any right, title and interest over the property, the transferee gets no right, interest and title over the property, the documents so, executed has no existence of it in the eye of law. Thus, the sale deed executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 is not enforceable and possession of the defendant No.1 of the suit property under illegal document cannot be protected and defendants No.1 and 2 are liable to hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Thus, the sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 is not enforceable and is invalid document. Thus the sale deed dated.10.03.2008 executed by defendant 44 O.S. No.27120/2012 No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 is not binding on the plaintiff. With these reasons, I answer this issue in the Affirmative.
48. ISSUE No.4: The defendant Nos.1 and 2 have filed suit O.S. No.2914/2010 against the defendant No.3 for eviction. During the pendency of the suit the defendant in the said suit; i.e., defendant No.3 herein, has filed a memo undertaking that he will vacate the suit premises within 6 months, if 6 months time is granted for vacating the suit premises. The defendant No.1 and 2 herein and plaintiffs in the said suit have consented that they have no objection for granting 6 months time to the defendant No.3 for vacating the suit schedule premises. On basis of said memo, the court has passed the decree directing the defendant in the said suit to hand over the vacant possession of suit premises to the 45 O.S. No.27120/2012 defendant No.2 herein. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 took the possession of the suit property under the said decree.
49. Now question is whether defendant No.1 acquired suit property by virtue of sale deed executed by defendant No.2. When, at the time of execution of sale deed, in favour of defendant No.1, the defendant No.2 was not having any interest over the suit schedule property, then, the defendant No.1 get no interest and right over the property. On perusal of the material placed before the court it is clearly established that the defendants No.1 and 2 obtained decree in O.S. No.2914/2010, by playing fraud not only against the plaintiff, but defendant Nos.1 and 2 played the fraud on the court. Thus, the decree obtained by fraud would not confirm any right on the parties. Further on perusal of the Ex.P.15 certified copy of the plaint in the said suit it is clear that plaintiff is not a party to the suit. Hence, the judgment and 46 O.S. No.27120/2012 decree passed in O.S. No.2914/2010 is not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, I answer this issue in the Affirmative.
50. ISSUE No.5: It is a specific case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff's husband has purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed for valuable consideration as per Ex.P.1 and thereafter the plaintiff's husband got transferred khatha in his name in respect of suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 2.6.2005. Thereafter, he has executed registered gift deed on 31.1.2008, in favour of his wife; i.e., plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property and donee has accepted the possession of suit schedule property on the date when gift deed has been executed by her husband. Thus, by virtue of registered gift deed the plaintiff become absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the plaintiff got changed khatha in her name by virtue of registered gift deed. Thus, the plaintiff 47 O.S. No.27120/2012 established her ownership, right, over the property by producing cogent documentary evidence. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought in the plaint. Hence, I answer this issue in the Affirmative.
51. ISSUE No.6: The defence taken by the defendants No.1 and 2 is that the plaintiff has filed suit O.S. No.26606/2009, against the defendant No.3 herein, for eviction of defendant No.3 from the suit schedule property. The cause of action shown in the said suit was that the defendant No.3 being a tenant under the plaintiff's husband and thereafter when plaintiff has become owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of gift deed executed by her husband, the defendant No.3 become tenant under the plaintiff. Thus, after execution of gift deed by the plaintiff's husband, the tenant failed to pay the rents, hence, the plaintiff has initiated action against the defendant No.3 and 48 O.S. No.27120/2012 sought for possession of the suit schedule property and arrears of rent. The defendants No.1 and 2 are not party to the suit O.S. No.26606/2009.
52. Thus, there is no material before the court to hold that suit is barred by resjudicata as the material placed before the court are not satisfies the requirement of Section 11 of CPC, because to comply the Section 11 of CPC both parties are one and the same and property involved in the suit previously instituted is also one of the property in subsequent suit and issues which have been heard and finally decided by the court of competent jurisdiction and same issue has been raised in subsequent suit. But, the case on hand, the present defendants No.1 and 2 are not party to the previous suit and further the cause of action is also not one and the same, previous suit is in between the landlord and tenant, present suit for declaration of title. Hence, doctrine of resjudicata is 49 O.S. No.27120/2012 not applicable to the case on hand. The doctrine of resjudicata has been defined in Section 11 of CPC. Resjudicata means matter is already judged. It means that no court will have the power to try any fresh suit or issues which has been already settled in the former suit between the same parties. Also, the court will not try the suits and issues between those parties under whom the same parties are litigating under the same title and matter are already been decided by the court of competent jurisdiction. When the court finds any suit or issues which has been already decided by the court there is no appeal pending before any court, the court has the power to dispose off the case by granting decree of resjudicata.
53. This doctrine is based on premises that if the matter is already decided by the court of competent jurisdiction then no one has a rights to reopen it with a 50 O.S. No.27120/2012 subsequent suit. But, in the case on hand, the previous suit between the plaintiff and defendant No.3 is with regard to landlord and tenant. But, present suit is with regard to title of the property. Thus, there is no material before the court to invoke the doctrine of resjudicata.
54. Further the learned counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2 contended that the suit is barred by the provisions of Orde II Rule 2. As I have already discussed that the cause of action in the previous suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No.26606/2009 is only with regard to arrears of rent and eviction of tenant. Further there is no cause of action with regard to title of suit schedule property and defendants No.1 and 2 are not the parties in the said suit. Thus, in support of my finding I relied on the decision reported in 2018 AIR Civil Cases 739 (KAR) in case of Channappa Hanumanth Chikkareddy v/s Kallappa Mallappa Thambad. It is held 51 O.S. No.27120/2012 thus, plaintiff had filed a earlier suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with plaintiff's possession as protected tenant. In the subsequent suit plaintiff claimed absolute ownership of the property on the basis of subsequent sale deed obtained. Bar of Order II Rule 2 of CPC not attracted. Thus, there is no material before the court to attract the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of CPC. With the above observation and reasons assigned, I answer this issue in the Affirmative.
55. ISSUE No.7: Sec.3 of the Limitation Act says Court will not take cognizance of any suit, which is barred by limitation even if issue of limitation is not taken as a defence. Thus, the law of limitation bars remedy but not the right.
56. Sec.27 of Limitation Act is an exception to the general principle law of limitation and origin of concept of possession. It reads as if a person fails to file suit for recovery 52 O.S. No.27120/2012 of possession within period of limitation, his right to recover the possession of that property also extinguishes. If such situation occurs a true owner extinguishes his ownership over the property. But at the same time property cannot left owner less. It must be in the name of any other person or any other person must be entitle to have a right over it. This situation gives origin to the concept of adverse possession. If any person possess any property in adverse to the interest of true owner and true owner fails to file suit for recovery of possession within a period of limitation, then the person in possession becomes owner of the property by way of adverse possession.
57. The law of possession is contained in the Indian Limitation Act Article 65, Schedule 1 of the Limitation Act prescribes a limitation of 12 years for a suit for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title. It 53 O.S. No.27120/2012 is important to note that, the starting point of limitation of 12 years is counted from the point of time when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiffs. Article 65 of the Limitation Act is an independent article to all suits for possession of immovable property based on title i.e., proprietary title as distinct from possessary title. Article 64 of Limitation Act governs suits for possession based on the possessary right. 12 years from dispossession is the starting point of limitation under Article 64 and 65 of the Indian Limitation Act.
58. The defendants No.1 & 2 are in possession of the suit schedule property from the date of delivery of possession by virtue of delivery warrant issued by the court in Ex.Petn.No.1298/2011. Ex.P.24 the delivery warrant issued by the court clearly establishes that the defendant No.1 and 2 have taken possession on 18.6.2011. This suit filed for 54 O.S. No.27120/2012 declaration and possession on 7.11.2012. Thus, the suit filed by the plaintiff is for declaration and possession which falls under the provisions of Article 65 of Limitation Act, not u/S 64 of the Limitation Act. If, the date of execution of sale deed, executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 is considered to be date of commencement of limitation, even then also suit is in time, because, suit is filed for declaration and possession. For possession of the suit property the limitation is for 12 years. Thus, suit is not barred by limitation. Hence, I answer this issue in the Affirmative.
59. ISSUE No.8: In view of the findings on issue No.1 to 7, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs.
55
O.S. No.27120/2012 Consequently, plaintiff is hereby declared as absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
Further it is ordered and directed the defendants to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff within 45 days from the date of judgment.
Further it is declared that sale deed dated 10.3.2008, executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of suit schedule property, is hereby declared as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff.
Further it is declared that the judgment and decree passed 56 O.S. No.27120/2012 in O.S. No.2914/2010 filed by the defendants No.1 and 2 against the defendant No.3 in respect of suit schedule property, as unenforceable against the plaintiff and not binding on the plaintiff.
If the defendants failed to hand over the vacant possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiff within 45 days from the date of judgment, then the plaintiff is entitled to take possession of suit schedule property in accordance with law.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer system, computerized by her, after online correction by me, printout taken by her and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of March, 2021).
(Yamanappa Bammanagi) 73rd Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit, Bangaluru. (CCH74) 57 O.S. No.27120/2012 SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of property bearing No.13, Khata No.44/3, situated at Nayanasetty Palya Village, Begur Hobli, Bangaluru South Taluk, present Corporation No.12, 13th A Main Road, N.S.Palya, 65th Ward of Bangaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bangalore560 076 measuring East to West: 40 feet and North to South: 30 feet, totally measuring 1200 Square feet, bounded on the:
East by: Road;
West by: Property No.16;
North by: Property No.14 belongs to Sri.D.S.Jeevankumar;
South by: Property No.12.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff's side:
P.W.1 Smt.Shaik Rabia Banu P.W.2 Sri.Shaik Shakeel Ahmed Basha
List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff's side:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of Sale deed dt.0207.2005 Ex.P.2, 3 Two Khatha Certificates Ex.P.4, 5 Two Khatha Extracts Ex.P.6 Sale deed 58 O.S. No.27120/2012 Ex.P.7 Gift deed Ex.P.8 Tax paid receipts Ex.P.9 EMail Ex.P.10 Certified copy of Plaint in O.S.26606/2009 Ex.P.11 Certified copy of Written Statement in O.S.No.26606/2009 Ex.P.12 Certified copy of Memo in O.S.No.26606/2009 Ex.P.13 Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No.26606/2009 Ex.P.14 Certified copy of Decree in O.S.No.26606/2009 Ex.P.15 Certified copy of Plaint in O.S.No.2914/2010 Ex.P.16 Certified copy of Written Statement in O.S.No.2914/2010 Ex.P.17 Certified copy of order sheet in O.S.No.2914/2010 Ex.P.18 Certified copy of E.P.No.1298/2011 Ex.P.19 Certified copy of Order Sheet in E.P.No.1298/2011 Ex.P.20 Copy of Legal Notice Ex.P.21 Recent Passport Ex.P.22 Statement of Accounts of ICICI Bank Ex.P.23 Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.25181/2011 Ex.P.24 Certified copy of Judgment in O.S.No.2799/2011 Ex.P.25 Acknowledgment dated 20.01.2009 Ex.P.26 Acknowledgment dated 15.04.2010 Ex.P.27 Acknowledgment dated 28.10.2011 Ex.P.28 Certified copy of order passed in PR.No.673/201011 59 O.S. No.27120/2012 Ex.P.29 Khatha Certificate dated 02.12.2013 Ex.P.30 Khatha Extrat dated 02.12.2013 Ex.P.31 Certified copy of Bank Statement List of witness examined for the defendants' side:
DW1 Sri.Javeed Pasha List of documents exhibited for the defendants' side:
Ex.D.1 Sale deed Ex.D.2 Bank Statement Ex.D.3 Sale deed Ex.D.4 G.P.A. Ex.D.5 Agreement of sale Ex.D.6 Sale deed Ex.D.7 Encumbrance Certificates Ex.D.8 Notice U/sec.147 of KMC Act Ex.D.9 to 14 6 Tax paid receipts Ex.D.15 Uttara Patra Ex.D.16 Khatha Extract Ex.D.17 Khatha Certificate Ex.D.18 Certified copy of Decree in O.S.No.2914/2010 Ex.D.19 Certified copy of Rental Agreement Ex.D.20 Certified copy of Memo filed in O.S.No.26606/2009 Ex.D.21 Certified copy of I.A.No.5 and affidavit filed in O.S.No.26606/2009 Ex.D.22 Certified copy of I.A.No.6 and affidavit filed in O.S.No.26606/2009 Ex.D.23 Certified copy of Writ Petition No. 60 O.S. No.27120/2012 16054/2012 Ex.D.24 Certified copy of order sheet in Ex.P.No.1298/2011 Ex.D.25 Certified copy of Memo filed in Ex.P.No.1298/2011 Ex.D.26 Certified copy of Warrant issued in Ex.P.No.1298/2011 Ex.D.27 Certified copy of spot mahazar conducted in Ex.P.No.1298/2011 Ex.D.28 Certified copy of handing over possession Ex.D.29 Certified copy of Defendant's evidence in O.S.No.25181/2011 Ex.D.29(a) Certified copy of order dated 10.04.2017 passed in CCC No.344/2017 by Hon'ble High Court Ex.D.30 Tax paid challen dated 28.09.2018 Ex.D.31 Tax paid receipt for the year 201819 Ex.D.32 Khatha Certificate dated 16.04.2018 Ex.D.33 Khatha Extract dated 16.04.2018 Ex.D.34 Tax paid challen dated 26.04.2019 Ex.D.35 Tax paid receipt for the year 201920 Ex.D.36 Khatha Certificate dated.10.10.2019 Ex.D.37 Khatha Extract dated.10.10.2019
Ex.D.38, 38(a) 2 Electricity bills issue dby BESCOM Ex.D.39, 39(a) 2 Water bills issued by BWSSB (Yamanappa Bammanagi) 73rd Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit, Bangaluru. (CCH74) 61 O.S. No.27120/2012 62 O.S. No.27120/2012