Bangalore District Court
Sri. B.K.Ramareddy vs Sri. B.P.Rangaswamy @ Driver on 11 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE CITY (CCH-6)
This the 11th day of October, 2018
Present: Smt. ROOPA NAIK,
B.Sc.,MA,LLM,PGD (Human Rights)
24th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
O.S.No.3037/2007
PLAINTIFF: Sri. B.K.Ramareddy,
S/o Late Sri. Krishna Reddy,
Aged about 49 years,
R/o House List No.346,
Khata No.35, Khanushmari No.72/1,
Bommanahalli Village,
Begur Hobli,
Bangalore-560 068.
(By Sri. V.B.Shiva Kumar, Advocate)
-Vs-
DEFENDANT: 1 Sri. B.P.Rangaswamy @ Driver
Rangaswamy,
S/o Papaiah, Major,
R/at No.1771/1, Begur Road,
Bommanahalli,
Bangalore- 560 068.
(By Sri. C.V.Nagesh, Advocate)
Date of institution of the suit: 12.04.2007
Nature of the suit: Declaration & Injunction
2 O.S.No.3037/2007
Date of commencement of 25.02.2009
recording of evidence:
Date on which Judgment was 11-10-2018
pronounced:
Duration Days Months Years
30 05 11
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by plaintiff against defendant for declaration that he is absolute owner in lawful possession of suit schedule property and for further declaration that plaintiff's possession is lawful in respect of entire extent of schedule property and that there is no property of defendant towards western side of constructed area as shown in sketch and for costs and such other reliefs.
2(a). It is contended by plaintiff that he is absolute owner of suit schedule property. Suit schedule property originally belonged to Ankannareddy, Ramaiah and Govindappa. In the year 1948 there was partition in their family and Ankanna Reddy got right, title and interest in respect of entire extent measuring 100feet X 60 feet. Chinnappa @ Ankanna Reddy is father of Krishna Reddy and grand-father of plaintiff. Entire suit schedule property came to be succeeded by plaintiff under partition deed 3 O.S.No.3037/2007 of 1948. Plaintiff is exercising his right, title, interest and ownership over suit schedule property.
2(b). Father of plaintiff Krishna Reddy, S/o Chinnappa @ Ankanna Reddy filed O.S.No.132/1973 against one Munireddy in respect of suit schedule property. Said suit being suit for permanent injunction was decreed on 23.7.1975. K. Munireddy, son of Kakappa preferred Regular Appeal before Prl.Civil Judge, Bangalore District, who dismissed said appeal. In his property measuring 100feet X 60 feet plaintiff has constructed residential premises in area measuring 30feet X 30 feet. On front portion, plaintiff has left entire extent of area for the purpose of tethering cattle and storing waste . He has also fixed a gate and there are standing trees. Defendant's property is towards north-east corner of plaintiff's property . Defendant only sets up certain resolutions of panchayath and thereby claims alleged title only on a document which neither confers title nor possession.
2(c). Defendant filed O.S.No.3795/1987 on the file of 15th Addl.City Civil Judge, Bengaluru seeking perpetual injunction which was decreed. The matter was assailed in RFA 7/2004, which was also dismissed on 31.7.2006 confirming judgment passed in O.S.No.3795/1987. Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka 4 O.S.No.3037/2007 had observed that plaintiff is required to vindicate his right in comprehensive suit in accordance with law. Plaintiff had filed suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.1338/1994 in respect of suit schedule property. In said suit, injunction order was not granted by the Court and plaintiff filed RFA. No.314/2016 against said order. Plaintiff is putting forth his claim that he is owner in possession of entire extent of area measuring 100feetX 60 feet and there is no property of defendant towards western side of construction made by defendant. It is prayed that suit may be decreed.
3. The plaint schedule reads as follows:
SCHEDULE Property bearing Kaneshumari No.72/1, House List No.346, katha No.35, Bommanahalli village, BEgur Hobli, Bangalore-560 068, measuring 100 feet X 30 feet and bounded on the :-
East by: Begur Road and portion of
the defendant's house property
measuring 40 feet X 40 feet.
West by: Venkataswamy Reddy's Property.
North by: Ramappa and Munikrishnappa's Property
South by: Gundappa's property now in the occupation of Nagappa and Narayanappa.5 O.S.No.3037/2007
4(a). In pursuance of suit summons, defendant appeared through his counsel and filed written statement contending that plaintiff has filed frivolous and vexatious suit against defendant with malafide intention to cause unnecessary harassment to defendant in order to grab valuable property of defendant bearing No.177/1, katha No.122 situated at Bommanahalli, Begur road, Bangalore. Plaintiff is misusing and is abusing process of law. Present suit is third round of litigation between the parties. In the year 1987 defendant had filed suit for permanent injunction against plaintiff in O.S.No.3795/1987 which was decreed by judgment and decree dated: 20.12.2003 and the same was upheld and confirmed by Hon'ble High Court of Karantaka in RFA. NO.7/2004 on 31.7.2006. Plaintiff had also filed O.S.No.1338/1994 against defendant and the same was dismissed. Said judgment and decree was challenged by present plaintiff in RFA.NO.314/2006 which was confirmed by Hon'ble High Court by its order dated: 23.08.2012. In view of all these proceedings, present suit is not maintainable.
4(b). Defendant is absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of property bearing No.177/1, katha No.122 measuring 40ftX40ft situated at Bommanahalli, Begur Road, 6 O.S.No.3037/2007 Bangalore South. Said property was granted to him by then Village Panchayath of Bommanahalli on 14.1.1964. Since then, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and had put up residential construction in land leaving space measuring 18 feet X 40 feet in back-yard of constructed portion of his property and has also left vacant space in front of his house towards eastern side measuring 8ft X 40 feet. Apart from that, defendant had acquired property towards eastern side of his property No.177/1 from one Smt. Gangamma for valuable sale consideration in accordance with law and that portion is also in his peaceful possession and enjoyment and measures 35ftX 28 ft East to West: 25 feet, North to South: 28 feet and said plot is vacant except construction of residence towards northern side.
Property purchased by defendant from Gangamma bears old No.63 and thereafter 79 and present number: 73/1.
4© Plaintiff having an eye over raise in the price of vacant land has got an eye over vacant land belonging to defendant and in order to grab the same, he is making hectic efforts for years by filing frivolous suit. By filing present suit, plaintiff has caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony and inconvenience to defendant. Plaintiff is liable to pay exemplary costs to defendant. 7 O.S.No.3037/2007 Viewed from any angle, suit of plaintiff is opposed to public policy. It is prayed that suit may be dismissed.
5. Based on the above pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed.
1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that there is no property of the defendant towards western side of the constructed area as shown in the sketch?
3. Whether defendant proves that this suit is hit by principles of res-judicata?
4. What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE
1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief of declarations as prayed?
6. In support of his case, plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.22. On the other hand defendant got himself examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D.89.
7. Heard both sides and perused records.
8 O.S.No.3037/2007
8. My findings on the above issues are:
Issue No.1: In Negative
Issue No.2: In Negative
Issue No.3: In Negative
Addl.Issue No.1: In Negative
Issue No.4: As per the final order
for the following;
REASONS
9. Issue No. 3:- Section 11 of C.P.C contemplates thus:
No Court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such Court.
Following are ingredients of the section:
1. There should be a suit in which an issue is already decided by the Court on merits and subsequent suit should be in respect of same issue.
2. Parties to both suits should be the same or parties litigating under them.9 O.S.No.3037/2007
3. The matter directly and substantially in issue in subsequent suit should be directly and substantially in issue in former suit also.
4. The Court which disposed former suit should be of competent jurisdiction and should also be competent to try subsequent suit also.
5. Former suit should be heard on merits and disposed on merits and it should have become final and conclusive.
10. It is main contention of defendant that in the year 1987 he had filed suit for permanent injunction against plaintiff in O.S.No.3795/1987 which was decreed by judgment and decree dated: 20.12.2003 and the same was upheld and confirmed by Hon'ble High Court of Karantaka in RFA. No.7/2004 on 31.7.2006. Plaintiff had also filed O.S.No.1338/1994 against defendant and the same was dismissed. Said judgment and decree was challenged by present plaintiff in RFA.No.314/2006 which was confirmed by Hon'ble High Court by its order dated:
23.08.2012. Therefore, present suit is barred by res-judicata. I have carefully perused materials on record. Both the previous suits were only suits for permanent injunction. In order passed in RFA. No.7/2004 dated: 31.07.2006 Hon'ble High Court had 10 O.S.No.3037/2007 opined thus, "if at all present plaintiff has any lawful title over the property he can vindicate the same by comprehensive suit in accordance with law". Such being the circumstance, it cannot be said that present suit is barred by res-judicata. Accordingly, I answer this issue in Negative.
11.Issue No.1 and 2 :- First of all, I would like to point out that present suit is for declaration that plaintiff is absolute owner in lawful possession of suit schedule property and for further declaration that plaintiff's possession is lawful in respect of entire extent of schedule property and that there is no property of defendant towards western side of constructed area as shown in sketch.
12. It is well settled proposition of law that in such suit for declaration, plaintiff who seeks indulgence of the Court should establish and prove that he is owner of said property and that he is in lawful possession of suit schedule property and also should further prove that there is no property of defendant towards western side of constructed area. If plaintiff fails to establish these ingredients satisfactorily, it would suffice to say that he will not be entitled for any relief. Keeping these facts in mind, now 11 O.S.No.3037/2007 let me analyze available evidence on record to determine as to whether plaintiff has discharged initial burden cast upon him.
13. In present case, plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and he reiterates the plaint averments and has relied upon documents Exs.P.1 to P.22. In his cross-examination, PW.1 states that he does not know exact share acquired by Ankanna Reddy in partition. He further states that he has not produced any document showing that property originally belonged to Thimmaiah. He further states that one person who was sitting in CMC office had filled up Ex.P.10 and 11. He further states that partition deed was prepared by Panchayathdars, but, he does not know their names. He further admits that portion marked with rend ink in Ex.P.8 is construction of defendant. These statements of plaintiff in his cross-examination are fatal to his case.
14. Bone of contention of plaintiff is that suit schedule property originally belonged to Ankanna Reddy, Ramaiah and Govindappa. In the year 1948 there was partition in their family and Ankanna Reddy got right, title and interest in respect of entire extent measuring 100 feet X 60 feet. Chinnappa @ 12 O.S.No.3037/2007 Ankanna Reddy is father of Krishna Reddy and grand-father of plaintiff. Entire suit schedule property came to be succeeded by plaintiff under partition deed of 1948. Plaintiff is exercising his right, title, interest and ownership over suit schedule property and he is absolute owner of suit schedule property.
15. First of all plaintiff has to prove that his grand-father Chinnappa @ Ankanna Reddy was owner of property bearing No.72/1 measuring 100ft X 60 feet which was inherited by his father Krishna Reddy from his father and that now he is owner in possession of property bearing No.72/1 measuring 100ft X 60 feet.
16. Admittedly, there were various proceedings between plaintiff and defendant and third parties. O.S.No.3795/1987 filed by present defendant against present plaintiff. RFA.No.7/2004 under which judgment passed in O.S.No.3795/1987 was challenged before Hon'ble High Court. O.S.No.1338/1994 which was filed by present plaintiff against present defendant.
RFA.No.314/2006 under which judgment passed in O.S.No.1338/1994 was challenged. O.S.No.132/1973 filed by one Krishnappa, father of plaintiff against one Munireddy. RA.92/1975 which was filed by one Munireddy against father of 13 O.S.No.3037/2007 plaintiff. It is significant to note that present defendant was not party to O.S.No.132/1973. Thus, judgment passed in O.S.No.132/1973 and RA.No.92/1975 which are judgments in personum do not effect him in any way. It is significant to note that remaining two proceedings were filed by plaintiff against defendant and vice versa. Both the proceedings between present plaintiff and present defendant were suits for permanent injunction and were decided in favour of present defendant and judgment passed in said suits were confirmed in RFAs. Thus, Ex.P.1 Certified copy of judgment of R.A.No.92/1975, Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.5 Certified copy of depositions in O.S.No.132/1973, Ex.P.12 Certified copy of judgment and decree in O.S.No.132/1973, Ex.P.13 Certified copy of judgment and decree in O.S.No.3795/1987 are not of any use to plaintiff in proving his ownership over present suit schedule property.
17. In order to prove his case, plaintiff has mainly relied on Ex.P.7 Certified copy of Panchayath parikath dated: 18.07.1948 between Chinnappa @ Ankanna Reddy, Ramaiah's LRs and Govindappa. Careful perusal of Ex.P.7 shows that there is reference in respect of kanesumari 72 in said document but, it is stated that kanesumari 72 was equally divided between 14 O.S.No.3037/2007 Chinnappa @ Ankanna Reddy and LRs of Ramaiah and Govindappa. But very strangely, in entire document, measurement of Kanesumari No.72 and measurement of portion allotted to Ankanna Reddy are not mentioned. Thus, Ex.P.7 does not come to aid of plaintiff to prove his case. Plaintiff has not produced RTCs, mutation entries etc pertaining to kanesumari No.72 showing total extent of kanesumari owned by father of Ankanna Reddy and so also extent of portion allotted to Ankanna Reddy. Likewise, plaintiff has not put-forth any material showing that kanesumari No.72 was owned by father of Ankanna Reddy.
18. I have carefully perused entire material on record and have no hesitation to say that plaintiff has not put-forth any material showing measurements of kanesumari No.72 and measurements of portion allotted to Ankanna Reddy. He has also not produced revenue records pertaining to said property for the reasons best known to him. Ex.P.7 panchayath parikath is also not of any use to plaintiff to prove that Ankanna Reddy was allotted 72/1 measuring 100ft X 60 ft. In addition to this, careful perusal of Ex.P.7 shows that the same is not authenticated Certified copy of the original partition deed and that it is zerox 15 O.S.No.3037/2007 copy on which there is seal of City Civil Court. There are no evidences of said document being copy of original or said document being Certified copy of original marked in any previous proceeding. With bare eyes, it can be said that it was not marked in any previous proceeding as it does not bear signature of the Officer and seal of the Court and exhibit number. It seems that copy of some unmarked document was issued by the Office. It is not explained by PW.1 as to what happened to original partition deed. Thus, plaintiff has not assigned any reason as required under Section 65 of Indian Evidence Act and as a result of the same, Ex.P.7 is inadmissible in evidence. Apart from this, PW.1 is unable to say names of Panchayathdars and as to who had signed said partition deed. On this count also, no reliance can be placed on Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.7 remains a piece of paper for plaintiff.
19. Here it is to be borne in mind that PW.1 states that his grand-father Ankanna Reddy had two children by name Krishnappa and Gopalappa and Krishnareddy had two children. But, it is not explained by him as to how he became owner of entire property allotted to Ankanna Reddy when there were other legal representatives and has not explained as to what 16 O.S.No.3037/2007 happened to remaining LRs. He has not put-forth relinquishment deed or any other document under which remaining LRs had relinquished their right over suit schedule property which is fatal to his case.
20. Next important document is Ex.P.8 alleged approved plan issued by panchayath in favour of plaintiff. But, Ex.P.8 does not bear seal and signature of the panchayath and careful perusal of the document shows that said document is Certified copy of un-marked document. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the same as the document is inadmissible in evidence.
21. Ex.P.2 is copies of six Tax paid receipts. Unfortunately, these copies are not at all legible and we are unable to find out number and extent of the property. In last two receipts name of kathedar is shown as Gundappa and it is not explained by plaintiff as to who is said Gundappa. Likewise, Ex.P.9 is certified copies of two Tax paid receipts. Unfortunately, these copies are also not at all legible and we are unable to find out number and extent of the property. Ex.P.10 and 11 are Tax paid receipts along with self-declaration form. Of-course, in Ex.P.10 and 11 measurement of property is mentioned as 60feet X 100 feet. Now let us see what PW.1 has to say in respect of these 17 O.S.No.3037/2007 documents? PW.1 states that one person who sits CMC has written Ex.P.10 and 11. It is not explained by him on the basis of which document, measurement of the property was mentioned as 60 feet X 100 feet in Ex.P.10 and 11. Plaintiff has not produced any supporting document showing measurement of the property as 60feet X 100 feet. There is some material in argument of learned counsel for defendant that Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 were created to suit purpose of plaintiff. Therefore, Ex.P.10 and 11 cannot be believed.
22. Ex.P.14 is Akarbandh, Ex.P.16 is village map and Ex.P.18 is copy of Tippani. In these documents, measurements of suit schedule property or measurements of property allotted to share of Ankanna Reddy are not mentioned and suit schedule property is not de-marketed. Thus, these documents are of no significance to plaintiff in order to prove measurements of suit schedule property. Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.15 are plans alleged to be those of plaintiff. But, these documents also do not bear seal and signature of concerned authorities. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on these documents. Likewise, Ex.P.19 and 20 are notices issued by BBMP, Ex.P.21 notification and Ex.P.22 cover do not come to aid of plaintiff in any way. Plaintiff has also 18 O.S.No.3037/2007 produced Ex.P.6 four photographs along with negatives. These photographs also are of no use to plaintiff to prove his ownership over suit schedule property measuring 100feet X 60 feet according to him.
23. Even though plaintiff contends that he is absolute owner in possession of suit schedule property measuring 100feet X 60 feet, no documents are forthcoming from him in support of this contention. Except self-serving testimony of PW.1, there is nothing on record showing that suit schedule property measures 100feet X 60 feet as contended by plaintiff. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that story of plaintiff of being owner of suit schedule property measuring 100feet X 60 feet has not seen light of the day and that materials on record are insufficient to hold that plaintiff is owner of suit schedule property as contended by him.
24. On the other hand, defendant has produced Ex.D.1 Certified copy of resolution dated: 14.01.1964 of Bommanahalli village panchayath, which shows that site measuring 40feet X 40 feet was granted to him by Village Panchayath, Bommanahalli. He has also produced Ex.D.2, Ex.D.4 to 16, Ex.D.19 , Ex.D.24, 19 O.S.No.3037/2007 25, 32 and 33, Ex.D.39 and Ex.D.40 , Ex.D.42 to Ex.D.48, Ex.D.72 Tax paid receipts in respect of his property.
25. Ex.D.56 to Ex.D.66, Ex.D.70 and Ex.D.80 are judgments, decrees, orders and various documents pertaining to various proceedings between present plaintiff and present defendant. Ex.D.3 is copy of demand register extract, Ex.D.17 and Ex.D.18 are electricity bills, Ex.D.20 is licence issued by Panchayath, Ex.D.21 is sale deed executed by Gangamma in favour of defendant dated: 28.8.1980. Ex.D.26 to 31, Ex.D.49 to Ex.D.51 are Tax paid receipts along with self-declaration forms, Ex.D.34 is initial deposit receipt issued by BWSSB, Ex.D.35 is Form No.3, Ex.D.36 is sale deed dated: 24.10.2009, Ex.D.37 is Uttara Pathra, Ex.D.38 is khata certificate, Ex.D.41 is Encumbrance certificate. Ex.D.52 is khata certificate issued by BBMP, Ex.D.53 and 54 are property extracts, Ex.D.55 is receipt issued by BWSSB. Ex.D.65 is statement given before Police. Ex.D.66 is copy of endorsement, Ex.D.67 and 68 are complaints filed before Madivala Police, Ex.D.69 is FIR, Ex.D.71 is memo issued by BESCOM, Ex.D.75 to 78 are statements given before Investigation officer, Ex.D.80(a) is gazette notification, Ex.D.81 is order-sheet in LAC proceeding, Ex.D.82 and 83 are Tippanies, 20 O.S.No.3037/2007 and Ex.D.84 to 89 are objections filed by defendant. Documents produced by defendant show that he is owner in possession of property bearing No.177/1 as contended by him. In view of above discussion, I am of clear opinion that case of plaintiff is devoid of merits and that plaintiff has utterly failed to prove his case and I answer issue No.1 and 2 in 'Negative'.
26. Additional Issue No.1: As issue No.1 and 2 are answered in negative, plaintiff is not entitled for relief of possession. Accordingly I answer this issue in Negative.
27. Issue No.4: when Issue No.1 and 2 are answered in Negative, plaintiff is not entitled for reliefs claimed. Accordingly I answer this issue in Negative.
28. Plaintiff has filed present suit contending that he is absolute owner of Sy.No.72/1 measuring 100ft X 60 feet and that there is no property of defendant towards western side of constructed area eventhough in both the previous proceedings this contention of plaintiff was negatived. He has filed present proceeding in the year 2007 and has kept it alive up to this date and has dragged on the case for more than 11 years. Therefore 21 O.S.No.3037/2007 I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if present plaintiff is directed to pay compensatory costs of Rs.50,000/- to the defendant.
29. Issue No.4:- In view of above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The instant suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is hereby dismissed with costs and compensatory costs of Rs.50,000/-.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer on-line, print out taken thereof is corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court on this 11th day of October, 2018).
(ROOPA NAIK) XXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
PW.1: B.K.Ramareddy List of documents marked for the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1: Certified copy of the Judgment in 22 O.S.No.3037/2007 R.A.No.92/1975 Ex.P.2: Certified copy of the Tax Paid Receipts. Ex.P.3-5: Certified copy of the depositions pertaining to O.S.No.132/1973.
Ex.P.6: Four photographs
Ex.P.6(a): Negatives
Ex.P.7: Certified copy of Panchayath Parikath
Ex.P.8: Certified copy of plan
Ex.P.9: Certified copy of the Tax paid Receipts( 2
numbers)
Ex.P.10 Tax Paid Receipts along with self declaration
form
Ex.P.11 Tax Paid Receipts along with self declaration
form
Ex.P.12 Certified copy of the Judgment and decree
pertaining to O.S.No.132/1973
Ex.P.13 Certified copy of the Judgment and Decree
O.S.No.3795/1987
Ex.P.14 Akarbandh
Ex.P.15 Plan
Ex.P.16 Village map
Ex.P.17 Certified copy of the order passed in RFA
No.7/2004
Ex.P.18 Certified copy of Tippani
Ex.P.19 Notice issued by BBMP dt:24.1.2012
Ex.P.20 Intimation issued by BBMP dt: 4.8.2014
Ex.P.21 Gazette notification dated: 19.1.2012
Ex.P.22 Postal cover.
List of witnesses examined for defendants DW.1: B.P.Ranga Swamy @ Driver Rangaswamy List of documents marked for defendants:
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of the Resolution dated 14.1.1964 of Bommanahalli Panchayath Ex.D.2 Receipt dated 17.4.1965 23 O.S.No.3037/2007 Ex.D.3 Copy of the Demand Register Extract for the year 1986-1987 Ex.D.4 to Receipts for having paid tax to the Ex.D16 Bommanahalli Panchayathi Ex.D.17 Electrical Bill Ex.D18 Receipt Ex.D.19 Licence issued by Bommanahalli Panchayath Ex.D.20 Sanctioned Plan Ex.D.21 Agreement dated 28.8.1980 Ex.D.22 Affidavit sworn to by Smt. Lakshmamma Ex.D.23 GPA executed by Smt. Lakshmamma Ex.D.24&25 Tax Paid Receipts Ex.D26 to Challans for having paid the tax to Ex.D31 Bommanahalli Municipality Ex.D32 and Receipts issued by BBMP Ex.D33:
Ex.D34: Initial deposit receipt issued by BWSSB Ex.D35: Form No.3 issued by Bommanahalli Municipality Ex.D36: Sale Deed dated 24.10.2009 Ex.D37: Letter (uttara pathra)written by BBMP Ex.D38: Certificate issued by BBMP Ex.D39 and Receipts issued by Bommanahalli CMC Ex.D40:
Ex.D41: Encumbrance Certificate Ex.D42 and Receipt issued by Bommanahalli CMC Ex.D44: Ex.D45 Receipts issued by BBMP to 24 O.S.No.3037/2007 Ex.D48: Ex.D49 to Challans for having paid the tax to CMC, Ex.D51: Bommanahalli Ex.D52 : Certificate issued by BBMP Ex.D53: Property Extract Ex.D54: Copy of Form No.3 Ex.D55: Initial deposit Receipt issued by BWSSB Ex.D56: Certified copy of the plaint filed in O.S.No.3795/87 Ex.D57: Certified copy of the Judgment in O.S.No.3795/87 Ex.D58: Certified copy of the Decree passed in O.S.No.3795/87 Ex.D59: Certified copy of the orders passed in RFA No.7/2004 Ex.D60: Certified copy of the Judgment passed in O.S.No.1338/1994 Ex.D61: Certified copy of the Decree passed in O.S.No.1338/1994 Ex.D.62 Certified copy of order sheet in E.P.849/09 Ex.D.63 Certified copy of petition in E.P.849/2009 Ex.D.64 Certified copy of affidavit in E.P.849/2009 Ex.D.65 Statement given before Police Ex.D.66 Acknowledgment Ex.D.67 Complaint filed in Madivala Police Station on 23.08.2008 Ex.D.68 Complaint filed in Madivala Police Station on 21.12.2008 Ex.D.69 Certified copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.980/2008 Ex.D.70 Certified copy of written statement in O.S.No.3795/1987 25 O.S.No.3037/2007 Ex.D.71 Memo issued by BESCOM Ex.D.72 Tax paid receipt Ex.D.73 Certified copy of order sheet in C.C.No.44962/2010 Ex.D.74 Certified copy of Charge-sheet in C.C.No.44962/2010 Ex.D75-78 Statements given before I.O. Ex.D.79: Certified copy of order in RFA No.314/2006 Ex.D.80: Certified copy of orders passed in O.S.No.6121/2011 dated: 10.8.2012
Ex.D.80(a) Gazette Notification dt: 19.01.2012 Ex.D.81 Certified copy of proceedings in No.LAG:CR:20:2010-11 of Dy.
Commissioner(Acquisition, BBMP) Ex.D.82 Certified copy of order sheet in LAQ:CR:20:2010-11 Ex.D.83 Office note dt: 11.07.2011 of BBMP Ex.D.84 Objections filed before Dy.commissioner Ex.D.85 Further objection dt: 11.7.2011 Ex.D.86 Further objections dt: 22.7.2011 Ex.D.87 Further objections dt:17.2.2012 Ex.D.88 Copy of application given to Commissioner , BBMP on 16.06.2010.
Ex.D.89 Copy of another application given to Commissioner, BBMP on 16.06.2010.
(ROOPA NAIK) XXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
Digitally signed by ROOPA
ROOPA SHIVAPPA NAIK DN: cn=ROOPA SHIVAPPA NAIK,ou=HIGH COURT OF SHIVAPPA KARNATAKA,o=GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka,c=IN 26 O.S.No.3037/2007