Bangalore District Court
Smt.Sirajunnisa vs Sri.H.S.Venugopal on 14 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL&
SESSIONS JUDGE,MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU
(CCH74)
Present: Sri.YAMANAPPA BAMMANAGI,
B.A., LL.B., (Spl.,)
LXXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
Dated this the 14th day of October, 2019.
O.S. No.25038/2014
Plaintiff: Smt.Sirajunnisa,
W/o.Sri.Zikriya Baig,
aged about 35 yrs,
R/at.No.40, 13th Cross,
Padarayanapura,
Bengaluru560026.
(By Smt.Shwetha Ravishankar - Adv.)
V/s
Defendants: 1. Sri.H.S.Venugopal,
S/o.Late.Sri.Dodda Byanna,
Major, R/at.No.27, 6th Cross,
Padarayanapura, Hosahalli
Main Road, Bengaluru40.
2. Sri.B.Gopal,
S/o.Late.Sri.Dodda Byanna,
Major, R/at.No.27, 6th Cross,
Padarayanapura, Hosahalli
Main Road, Bengaluru40.
(Defts.Exparte)
2 O.S.No.25038/2014
Date of Institution of the suit 06012014
Nature of the (Suit or pro
note, suit for declaration and
Injunction Suit
possession, suit for injunction,
etc.)
Date of the commencement of
18.03.2019
recording of the Evidence.
Date on which the Judgment
14.10.2019
was pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 05 09 08
(Yamanappa Bammanagi)
73rd Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit,
(CCH74), Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for permanent injunction against the defendants, restraining them from interfering/encroaching with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case:
The plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 15.10.2013. Defendants without having any right, interest, over the property, tried to interfere in the possession of the suit property, tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit 3 O.S.No.25038/2014 schedule property, with intention to deprived the right of the plaintiff over the suit property. Further contended that defendants are powerful persons in the locality, having men and material, the plaintiff is not in position to resist the illegal act of the defendants without interference of the court. With this, plaintiff prayed for decreeing the suit.
3. This court has issued the summons to the defendants. But, summons were not served through court and RPAD, lastly the summons to the defendants issued through paper publication, even after paper publication, the defendants did not appeared. Hence, defendants placed exparte.
4. The plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.10 and closed her side. Heard, argument of the learned counsel for plaintiff. Defendants placed exparte. I have perused the oral and documentary evidence, considered the arguments of the learned counsel for plaintiff. On perusal of the same, the points that would arise for my consideration are as follows: 4 O.S.No.25038/2014
1) Whether plaintiff proves that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property at the time of filing of this suit?
2) Whether plaintiff proves that the defendants have interfered in possession and enjoyment of the suit property?
3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought in the plaint?
4) What order or decree?
5. My answer to above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative, Point No.2 : In the Affirmative, Point No.3 : In the Affirmative, Point No.4: As per the final order, for the following: REASONS
6. Point No.1: In order to prove her case, the plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.10. Plaintiff is examined, by filing affidavit in lieu of examination in chief, reiterating the averments of the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed. In support of oral evidence the plaintiff 5 O.S.No.25038/2014 has produced as many as 10 documents which have been marked at Ex.P.1 to P.10. I have perused Ex.P.1 to P.10. Ex.P.1 is the registered GPA. Ex.P.2 is the original registered sale deed dated 05.03.2007. I have perused Ex.P.2, which clearly shows that the vendor of the plaintiff had valid title and possession, at the time of execution of sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, in respect of suit schedule property.
7. Ex.P.3 is the registered sale deed dated 22.10.2012, executed by the plaintiff's vendor, who was the owner and in possession of the suit property at the time of execution of Ex.P.3, in favour of vendor of the plaintiff as it could be seen from Ex.P.2, in respect of suit schedule property. On perusal of the same, it is seen that after execution of Ex.P.3, in favour of plaintiff, the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit property. Further I have perused schedule property, shown in Ex.P.2, registered sale deed of plaintiff's vendor, schedule property shown in the Ex.P.3, and suit schedule property, the vendor of the plaintiff has sold her suit property to the plaintiff and handed over the possession to the plaintiff. Ex.P.4 is the registered sale deed dated 15.10.2013, executed 6 O.S.No.25038/2014 by the vendor of the plaintiff, in favour of plaintiff. I have perused Ex.P.4, it is clearly reflects that on the date of its execution the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit schedule property. Ex.P.5 is the original EC, for the period from 01.04.1983 to 26.06.2000. Ex.P.6 EC for the period from 30.04.1990 to 31.03.2004. Ex.P.7 is EC for the period from 01.04.2004 to 30.11.2013, Ex.P.8 is the EC for the period from 01.04.2004 to 15.03.2019. I have perused the Ex.P.5 to P.8, it is seen that the transaction in respect of suit property till in favour of plaintiff are reflected in the EC. Ex.P.9, Ex.P.9 (a) are the photos and Ex.P.10 is the CD.
8. I have carefully perused Ex.P.2 to P.4 are the registered sale deeds, which clearly establishes that the plaintiff's vendor's vendor, plaintiff's vendor have title and possession over the suit property, transferred the title and possession of the suit property to the plaintiff. Ex.P.2 to P.4 clearly shows the follow of the title and possession of the suit property. Further I have perused Ex.P.5 to P.10, the revenue extracts and photos and CD are clearly establishes the possession of the suit property of the plaintiff. The oral and 7 O.S.No.25038/2014 documentary evidence, led by the plaintiff, remained unchallenged. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, I am of the opinion that it is clearly shows that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property at the time of filing of the suit. With the above reasons and observation, I answer this point in the Affirmative.
9. Point No.2: It is the case of plaintiff that she is the absolute owner and in possession of suit property by virtue of registered sale deed and defendants without having any right, title, interest over the suit property, has interfered and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. Though, the plaintiff has not produced any documents to show interference of the defendants. But, in the absence of documentary evidence, the oral evidence of the plaintiff is to be relied on. The plaintiff has deposed before the court that on 2.1.2013 the defendants have tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The oral evidence of the plaintiff remained unchallenged. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has proved the interference of the defendants in her 8 O.S.No.25038/2014 peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Hence, I answer this point in the Affirmative.
10. Point No.3: The plaintiff has produced Ex.P.2 to P.4, which are registered sale deeds of plaintiff's vendor's vendor and vendor of the plaintiff and plaintiff. These registered documents clearly establishes that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed. When plaintiff proved his possession then she is entitled for the equitable relief of permanent injunction. In support of my opinion I relied on the decision reported in AIR 2008 SC 2033 in case of Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs and Others.
The lordship have held in the decision thus:
Where Plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such possession is interfered or threatened by the Defendant a suit for an injunction simpliciter will lie.
11. Ex.P.5 to P.8 are the revenue records. On perusal of the Ex.P2 to P4, it is clear that, Plaintiff is in possession and 9 O.S.No.25038/2014 enjoyment of the suit schedule property at the time of filing of the suit. Ex.P5 to P8 are the ECs., stands in the name of plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property. Ex.P.9 and P.9 (a) are the photos of suit schedule property and Ex.P.10 is the CD of the suit schedule property. All these revenue records stand in the name of the Plaintiff. On perusal of the revenue records it clearly establishes that the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property at the time of filing of the suit. The entries in revenue records has got presumptive value under the law of evidence. As per Sec.35 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads thus:
35.Relevancy of entry in public [record or an electronic record] made in performance of duty.__ An entry in any public or other official book, register or [record or an electronic record], stating a fact in issue or relevant fact, and made by public servant in the discharge of his official duty, or by any other person in performance of a duty specially enjoined by the law of the country in which such book, register, or [record or an electronic record] is kept, is itself a relevant fact.10 O.S.No.25038/2014
Editor's Note._The words "Fact", "Facts in issue" and 'Relevant" are defined in Section 3 of this Act.
In support of my opinion I relied on the decision reported in ILR 2004 KAR.1074 in case of Naganna Vs. Shivanna. The lordship have held at Head note B. thus:
REBUTTAL EVIDENCE - entries in the ROR carries presumptive value in law
- if there is no convincing evidence to rebut the legal presumption, lessor relief of injunction can be granted. But the declaration title cannot be granted.
Further relied on decision reported in AIR 2008 SC 901 in case of Gurunath Manohar Pavaskar and others Vs. Nagesh Siddappa Navalgund and Others. The lordship have held at Head note B. reads thus:
Evidence Act, (1 of 1872), Ss. 35, 114 revenue records not document of title it merely raises presumption of possession.
The lordship have discussed at Para 12 of the judgment, which reads thus:11 O.S.No.25038/2014
A revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession. Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof both forward and backward can also be raised under Section 110 of the the Indian Evidence Act. The Courts below, were, therefore, required to appreciate the evidence keeping in view the correct legal principles in mind.
12. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence it is clearly established that Plaintiff has proved her possession of the suit property at the time of the filing of the suit and Plaintiff has proved the interference of the Defendants in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property of the Plaintiff. With these reasons and relying on the decision referred above, I hold that the Plaintiff is entitle for the relief sought in the Plaint. Hence, I answer this point in the Affirmative.
13. Point No.4: In view of the discussion made on points No.1 to 3, I proceed to following:
12 O.S.No.25038/2014
ORDER The Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed. Consequently, the defendants, their agents, are hereby, by decree of permanent injunction, restrained from interfering and encroaching with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
No order as to costs.
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 14th day of October, 2019).
(Yamanappa Bammanagi) LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H. Unit, Bengaluru. (CCH74) SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the site bearing site No.5 formed in site No.3 situated at old ward No.43 and new ward No.135, Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, old Guddadhahalli, presently West Padarayanapura, Bengaluru, measuring East to 13 O.S.No.25038/2014 West: 30 feet, South: 15 feet, NorthSouth: 30 feet, totally measuring 675 Sq. feet, bounded on:
East by: Property of site No.3; West by: Pipe line Road; North by: Drainage; and on
South by: The property of the same site, presently pipe line.
(Yamanappa Bammanagi) LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H. Unit, Bengaluru. (CCH74) ANNEXURE List of witness examined for the plaintiff's side:
PW1: Smt.Sirajunnisa.
List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff's side:
Ex.P.1: C/C of GPA Ex.P.2: Original sale deed dated 05.03.2007 Ex.P.3: Original sale deed dated 22.10.2012 Ex.P.4: Original sale deed dated 15.10.2013 Ex.P.5: EC for the year 1.4.83 to 26.6.00 Ex.P.6: EC for the year 30.4.90 to 31.3.04 Ex.P.7: EC for the year 1.4.04 to 30.11.13 Ex.P.8: EC for the year 1.4.04 to 15.3.19 Ex.P.9 & 9(a): Two photos Ex.P.10: CD
List of witness examined for the defendants' side :
Nil 14 O.S.No.25038/2014 List of documents exhibited for the defendants' side:
Nil (Yamanappa Bammanagi) LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H. Unit, Bengaluru.(CCH74) 15 O.S.No.25038/2014 16 O.S.No.25038/2014