Bangalore District Court
Himmatmal Kankaria S vs Rao Bahadur Dharmapravartha Gubbi ... on 17 November, 2025
KABC010146842022
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-38), BENGALURU CITY.
:PRESENT:
Smt. Nirmala Devi, B.Sc., LL.B.,
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
C/c XXXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
(CCH-38),Bengaluru City.
DATED: This the 17th day of November 2025
O.S. NO. 3534 OF 2022
PLAINTIFF/S SRI. HIMMATMAL KANKARIA S
S/O. SOHANRAJ KANKARIA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR OF
HONESTY GARMENTS, SHOP NO.5,
EARLIER BEARING SHOP NO.1,
GROUND FLOOR, RBDGTC
BUILDING EARLIER KNOWN AS
JBR PLAZA, MAMULPET, BELLI
BASAVANNA GUDI BEEDHI,
BENGALURU-53
( Pl By Sri. YHGB, Adv.)
Versus
DEFENDANT/S 1. RAO BAHADUR
DHARMAPRAVARTHA GUBBI
THOTADAPPA CHARITIES
NO.88, RBDGTC BULDING,
NEAR CITY RAILWAY STATION,
O.S. No. 3534/2022
2
GUBBI THOTADAPPA ROAD,
BENGALURU REP BY ITS
PRESIDENT/SECRETARY
2:VIKRAM KUMAR R
S/O. K. RAMESH KUMAR JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NO.12/13, 1ST FLOOR
BOMMALINGANNA MANSION
3RD CROSS, SV LANE
CHICKPET, BENGALURu-53
(D-1 by Sri. BBS, Adv.)
(D-2 Exparte)
Date of Institution of the suit 1.6.2022
Nature of suit Injunction suit
Date of commencement of
recording of evidence. 20.4.2023
Date on which judgment was
pronounced. 17.10.2025
Total Duration. Years Months Days
03 05 16
XXXVII ACCJ, BANGALORE
O.S. No. 3534/2022
3
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction to restrain the first defendant, its Trustees, office bearers, representatives, agents or any body claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The first defendant is a charitable Trust created by late Dharmapravartha Rao Bahadur Gubbi Thotadappa as per his Will dt: 20.2.1908 having its registered office at No. 88, RBDGTC building, Gubbi Thotadappa road, Benglauru and he is the absolute owner of all that piece and parcel of the immovable property presently bearing No. 104 (old No.36 and earlier bearing No.35) situated at Belli Basavanna gudi Beedhi, Mamul pet, Bengaluru-53 together with the commercial building constructed thereon known and called as RBDGTC building (Earlier known as JBR Plaza) consisting of ground and first floors constructed by defendant No.2 in terms of lease deed executed by first defendant in favour of defendant No.2.
3. That based on the lease deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of (a) Jeetmal, (b) Babulal and (c) K. Ramesh Kumar Jain (Father of defendant No.2) have constructed a commercial O.S. No. 3534/2022 4 building consisting of ground and first floor in property No. 104 (old No.36 and earlier No. 35) situated at Belli Basavanna gudi Beedi, Mamulpet, Bengaluru. Subsequently the father of 2 nd defendant during the year 2005 had inducted the plaintiff into all that piece and parcel of shop No.5,(earlier to that assigned shop No.1 by Jeetmal and others). It is having built up area of 162 sq.ft in the commercial building called as JBR plaza and later known as RBDGTC building. The said shop is bounded on East by Shop No.4, West by: shop No.6 and shop No.7 and South by Main road, which is more fully described in the schedule. The plaintiff paid Rs. 26 lakhs to the defendant No.2. During the year 2009 defendant No.2 (Son of K. Ramesh Kumar jain who had fallen ill by then) received a sum of Rs,. 30 lakhs vide acknowledgment dt: 21.12.2009 from the plaintiff. Thus ever since from year 2005 the plaintiff is in occupation and enjoyment of the suit schedule property which is carrying on business of sale of ready made dresses, garments under the name and style of Honesty garments registered under the provisions of Karnataka Shops and Commrcial Establishment Act 1961, on obtaining Registration under Value O.S. No. 3534/2022 5 Added Tax Act, 2003, Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, Goods and Services Act, TIN, Enrollment under Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trades, callings and Employments Act, 1976. The said business activities carried on by the plaintiff is only source of livelihood for him and his family, the first defendant being the owner of suit schedule property has fully aware of the said facts.
4. That defendant No.2 who is neither in possession nor enjoyment of the suit schedule property not carrying on business activities in the name and style SKS Honesty at any point of time. He having inducted plaintiff into and put the plaintiff in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property to establish and run business of sale of ready made dresses garments. When the factual position stood thus, recently during the first week of April 2022, the plaintiff learnt that defendants No.1 and 2 have got executed registered lease agreement dt: 27.11.2018. On 2.2.2022 first defendant has instituted a suit in O.S. No.854/2022 on the file of the 65 th City Civil & Sessions Judge(CCH-66) against the second defendant for his ejectment from the suit schedule property, though he is not in possession and enjoyment of it nor carrying on business O.S. No. 3534/2022 6 and for recovery of alleged arrears of rent and damages without showing the address of defendant No.2 as reflecting in the lease agreement dt: 27.11.2018. But showing the plaint schedule property, thoroughly aware of that plaintiff is in lawful possession and occupation of the said property without serving the suit summons to the second defendant in accordance with resulting the Hon'ble Court placed defendant No.2 exparte on 31.3.2022. Thereafter the said case posted on 31.5.2022 for evidence. So has to obtain exparte decree for ejectment of defendant No.2 and to evict the plaintiff from the suit schedule property under the guise of execution of the decree passed in O.S. No. 854/2022. Since the defendant No.2 is not in occupation of the suit schedule property, its address is wrongly given by defendant No.1, the summons in O.S. No. 854/2022 was not served, deemed or otherwise and defendant No.2 is not in occupation is not contesting the said suit.
5. The plaintiff is in lawful possession and occupation of the suit schedule property. The first defendant is not legally entitled to evict or eject or throw the plaintiff or dispossess him from the suit schedule property without taking recourse to due O.S. No. 3534/2022 7 process of law. The defendant No.1 cannot take law into his own hands without having recourse of law seeking eviction or ejectment of plaintiff from the suit schedule property under the guise of execution of decree in O.S. No. 854/2022 a false suit filed against defendant No.2. Therefore the aforesaid case of plaintiff amounts to interference with lawful possession and occupation of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. Therefore, having no other alternative or efficacious remedy, he constrained to file the present suit.
6. The defendant No.2 remained exparte, defendant No.1 appeared and filed written statement. This defendant has vehemently contended that plaintiff has nothing to do with the suit schedule premises. This defendant has admitted that the suit schedule property belongs to said defendant. It is contended that first defendant leased the suit schedule property to second defendant under registered lease deed dt: 27.11.2018 and thus he is in physical possession and enjoyment of the said property as a lessee under the first defendant. Further it is contended that since his tenant Vikram Kumar committed default in payment of rent, hence first defendant got tenancy of second defendant duly terminated and thereafter filed O.S. O.S. No. 3534/2022 8 No. 854/2022 for ejectment and for arrears of rent or damages. The said suit decreed vide judgment and decree on 30.11.2022. This defendant has contended that suit schedule premises in O.S. No. 854/2022 and the present schedule premises are one and the same.
7. This defendant has contended that admittedly there is no transaction between plaintiff and first defendant and it is not in dispute that first defendant is the owner of the premises and second defendant is a tenant under the first defendant through a registered lease deed. Hence, second defendant has suffered decree of ejectment and for arrears of rent and damages. As defendant No.2 is a tenant in the suit schedule property the plaintiff is a total stranger to first defendant to the suit schedule property. Hence the first defendant cannot file a suit for ejectment against the plaintiff, but he is not in occupation of schedule shop on one hand and secondly second defendant tenant to first defendant under the registered lease deed and therefore first defendant has rightly filed suit for ejectment against second defendant. There is no cause of action for the present suit and alleged cause of action totally false and imaginary and hence suit is not maintainable. Further there is O.S. No. 3534/2022 9 no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and first defendant and hence the plaintiff cannot claim that he is in lawful possession of the schedule premises when admittedly he is not a tenant in the schedule premises and there is a registered lease deed dt: 27.11.2018 between the defendant No.1 and 2. Hence the suit itself is not maintainable. That the plaintiff with an intention to mislead this court has alleged that earlier shop No.1 and it is renumbered. Shop No.1 is now in occupation of another tenant by name Jayanthi lal and first defendant has terminated the said tenancy, there is a registered lease deed between the first defendant and the said Jayanthi lal dt: 1.4.2018 and therefore, the plaintiff is trying to mislead and play fraud on this court. Based on said contentions prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed by my learned predecessor in office:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property ?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the interference by the defendants in his possession over the suit schedule property?
O.S. No. 3534/2022 10
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the suit ?
4. What order or decree?
9. To prove his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW-1 and relied on 30 documents as Ex. P-1 to P-30. The Supervisor of defendant No.1 Trust got examined as DW-1 and relied on documents as Ex. D-1 and D-10.
10. Perused the written argument filed by the plaintiff and heard on behalf of the defendant.
11. My answer to the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative, Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative, Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative, Issue No.4 : As per final order for the following :-
REASONS
12. Issue No. 1 :- According to the plaintiff, he is a lessee of the suit schedule property which is a shop bearing No.5 (earlier shop No.1) having built up area of 162 sq ft in the commercial building called as RBDGTC building earlier known as JBR Plaza constructed on immovable property bearing No. O.S. No. 3534/2022 11 104( Old No.36 earlier to it No. 35) situated at Belli Basavana gudi Beedi, Mamul pet, Bengaluru-53. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that by virtue of the rights vested vide lease deed executed by first defendant in favour of Sri. Jeethmal, Babulal and K. Ramesh Kumar Jain (Father of defendant No.2) have constructed a commercial building consisting of ground and first floor in all that piece and parcel of the immovable property bearing No. 104. During the year 2005 the plaintiff was inducted into shop No.5 ( Then shop No.1) by K. Ramesh Kumar jain, (father of 2nd defendant). He paid Rs. 26 lakhs to the defendant. Further the second defendant who is S/o. K. Ramesh Kumar jain received a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs vide acknowledgment dt:
21.12.2009 and therefore since from the year 2005, he has occupied the suit schedule property and carrying on business of sale of ready made dresses and garments in the name and Style of 'Honesty Garments'.
13. The first defendant has denied the said plaint averments and the relationship between the plaintiff and first defendant. He has denied that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. The first defendant has contended that second defendant entered into a registered lease agreement O.S. No. 3534/2022 12 dt: 27.11.2018 and since the second defendant became defaulter in payment of rent and as there is arrears of rent, first defendant filed O.S. No. 854/2022 against the second defendant for ejectment and secured the judgment and decree dt: 30.11.2022, wherein the suit is decreed and 2nd defendant is directed to vacate and deliver vacant possession. It is also held that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of damages of Rs. 75,000/-p.m. from the date of default till the possession is handed over. Further it is contended that shop No.1 is occupied by one Jayanthilal and his tenancy is already terminated. Further it is contended that the plaintiff is trying to mis-lead the court.
14. In order to prove the plaint averments, the plaintiff got examined as Pw-1 and relied on Ex. P-1 to P-30. The defendant got examined its authorized agent as Dw-1 and relied on documentary eviction at Ex. D-1 to D-10.
15. The first defendant has specifically denied that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as a lessee. The plaintiff claims that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property through defendant No.2. But the said O.S. No. 3534/2022 13 defendant remained exparte. In order to prove the relationship between the plaintiff and second defendant the plaintiff has not produced the lease agreement. Further the plaintiff is not at all pleaded about the existence of lease agreement between him and the second defendant.
16. In order to show that plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property, he has produced Ex. P-1, which is commercial tax certificate dt: 1.4.2005, wherein the address of suit schedule property has been mentioned. But shop number is mentioned as No.1. The plaintiff has also produced the electricity and telephone bills and receipts from December 2004 to May 2023 at EX. P-2, P-3 and P-9. He has also produced the VAT Registration certificate, CST Registration certificate, CST Commodities list at Ex. P-4 to P-6.
17. According to the plaintiff initially defendant No.1 leased out the property No. 104 in favour of Jeethmal, Babu lal and K. Ramesh Kumar jain and they constructed a building called JBR Plaza and leased out shop No.1 in his favour. In order to prove the said plaint averments, the plaintiff got summoned the original lease deed between the first defendant and the said O.S. No. 3534/2022 14 persons and it is marked as Es. P-26, which is a registered lease deed dt: 17.8.1987. The plaintiff also got summoned photographs of the building called as RBDGTC building wherein the suit schedule property is situated. The first defendant produced the photographs and the same is marked as Ex. P-27 to 29. The present suit is for permanent injunction against defendants No.1 and 2. Admittedly the first defendant filed O.S. No. 854/2022 against the second defendant and has secured judgment and decree. In the cross-examination of Pw-1 and Dw-1, it is elicited that first defendant filed Ex. No. 1688/2023 for taking possession and that plaintiff filed an application as a objector and same is dismissed. Pw-1 has deposed that he challenged the said order before the Hon'ble High Court. In this regard both parties have produced Judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 854/2022 and certified copy of the order sheet in Ex. Petn. NO. 1688/2023. The application filed by the plaintiff under order 21 rule 97 to 100 of CPC and the orders passed therein in the said petitions. Further it is elicited from Dw-1 that second defendant has filed Misc. No. 961/2023 challenging the Judgment and decree dt: 30.11.2022 passed in O.S. No. 854/2022. In this regard the plaintiff has produced certified O.S. No. 3534/2022 15 copy of the order sheet of Ex.Petn No. 1688/2023, Misc. No. 961/2023. Certified copy of petition, IA's and the order passed therein at Ex. P-11 to P-24. Therefore admittedly regarding the relationship of lessor and lessee and for ejectment of tenant from the suit schedule property, separate proceedings is pending. Therefore considering the scope of present suit, it is restricted only to ascertain whether the plaintiff proves his possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of suit. Therefore considering the nature of litigation, it is not necessary to give findings regarding whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession or not . So, he has to establish the identity of suit schedule property and his possession as on the date of the suit.
18. As per Ex. P-26 which is the certified copy of the lease deed dt: 17.8.1987, the first defendant entered into an agreement with one Jeethmal S/o. Sumarmalji, Babu lal S/o. Pukraj, Ramesh Kumar S/o. Kundan mal authorizing them to put up construction of a commercial building in property No. 104, situated at Belli Banavanna gudi Beedi, Mamul pet, Bengaluru and to enjoy the same for the period from 1.9.1987 to 31.8.2012. As per the said document there is recital that O.S. No. 3534/2022 16 expression lessees shall mean and includes firm, partners, successor in interest, executors, administrators and assignees. Therefore as plaintiff is claiming that second defendant is son of one Ramesh Kumar who is legal heir of one of original lessee. Therefore defendant No.1 has not disputed that second defendant is S/o. Ramesh Kumar jain. It appears that he is the legal heir of said Ramesh Kumar jain, who was original lessee having interest in the said building. Further the said lease deed authorised the lessees to put up construction and to let out constructed building in favour of tenants. Therefore it appears that the said lessees put up construction and let-out shop premises and they were in possession and enjoyment of building from 1.9.1987 till 31.8.2012. As per clause No. 21 of said lease deed, first defendant authorised the lessees to grant, lease, leave or license or sub-let or under-let or part with lease property or in part thereof. Therefore, inview of Ex. P-26 the plaintiff has proved the plaint averments made in para 4 that the first defendant had executed lease deed in favour of one Jeethmal, Babulal and K. Ramesh Kumar jain. According to the plaintiff he was inducted as a lessee in the year 2005 by father of defendant No.2 and later on defendant No.2 and he continued to be in O.S. No. 3534/2022 17 possession of the said property as on the date of suit. Therefore he has produced Ex. P-1, which is the certificate issued by the Commercial tax office which is a public document. It discloses that he occupied shop No.1, situated in the ground floor in property No. 104, JBR plaza, Mamulpet. In the cross- examination of DW-1, he has stated that he does not know whether the said building was called as JBR Plaza. But in the further cross-examination he has admitted that earlier the RBDGTC building was called as JBR Plaza. Therefore the documentary evidence placed on record by the plaintiff proves that he occupied shop No.1 of the said building and carrying on the business of sale of ready made dresses, Garments under the name and style as Honesty Garments. In this regard DW-1 has categorically admitted about the existence of Honesty Garments. But claimed that defendant No.2 carrying on business of SKS Garments. In this regard no evidence produced except the registered lease agreement dt: 27.11.2008. But admittedly the 2nd defendant not contested O.S. 854/2022 and that he has challenged the exparte judgment and decree and miscellaneous petition pending. So, the said judgment and decree not O.S. No. 3534/2022 18 attained finality. So, whether the registered lease agreement dt:27.11.2018 is genuine or not is yet to be decided. Regarding identity of the property is concerned, Dw-1 has admitted that the commercial building was earlier called as JBR plaza now it is called as RBDGTC building. So admittedly the name of the building changed. Since the original lease dt 17.8.1987 was valid till 30.8.2012, it appears thereafter the Ist defendant has taken steps to take back the building. So, considering the same it appears that the Ist defendant Trust has changed the shop numbers as pleaded by the plaintiff. So, inview of the evidence placed on record, the plaintiff proved that he was/is in possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore the plaintiff has proved that as on the date of the suit, he was in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of the authority given by the second defendant. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
19. Issue No. 2:- On perusal of the order sheet, plaint and judgment and decree in O.S. No. 854/2022 admittedly the plaintiff is not a party. The said suit is filed in respect of shop No.5 earlier shop No.1 situated at the ground floor. According to the Ist defendant, the second defendant is in possession of the O.S. No. 3534/2022 19 said shop. Further the first defendant has contended that one Shanthimulljee. G was in possession of shop No. 1 situated in RBDGTC building. In this regard the said defendant not adduced evidence. On the other hand the documents produced by the plaintiff discloses that the plaintiff is the proprietor of Honesty garments shop and he is carrying on the business as averred in the plaint. Therefore it is evident that without making plaintiff as a party, the first defendant has secured judgment and decree in O.S. No. 854/2022. Therefore the conduct of first defendant amounts to interference with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property without due process of law. The plaintiff has pleaded that on 4.12.2021 the President, Secretary and others of first defendants without taking recourse to due process of law came to the suit schedule property and demanded the plaintiff to vacate and hand over vacant possession. The first defendant without making him as a party in O.S. No. 854/2022 has secured judgment and decree. Therefore, the said judgment and decree is not binding on the plaintiff. As the plaintiff has been inducted into the suit schedule property in the year 2005 as a lawful tenant or lessee and he continued to be in O.S. No. 3534/2022 20 possession of the said property till the date of filing the suit, the first defendant cannot vacate the plaintiff from suit schedule property without due process of law. Therefore the conduct of first defendant amounts to interference with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff proved that first defendant interfered with his possession and enjoyment of the property without taking recourse of law. Hence, I answer Issue No. 2 in the Affirmative.
20. Issue No. 3:- In view of the evidence placed on record by plaintiff and defendant, the plaintiff has proved that he is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit. The plaintiff has also proved that first defendant interfered with his possession without due process of law. As the plaintiff is in possession against forceful dispossession of the property, he has right to protect his possession as he cannot be evicted or vacated from the suit schedule property without due process of law. It is also settled law that the person who is in possession of property cannot be dispossessed without due process of law. In this regard it can be appropriate to relied on the following decisions:-
O.S. No. 3534/2022 21
1) (1996) 4 SCC 144 ( Samil Sobhan Sanyal Vs. Tracks Trade Pvt. Ltd., and Others)
2) AIR 2012 SC 1727(Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes Vs. Earsmo Tack De Sequeira)
21. Therefore, in view of the settled position of law, as the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property, he has right to protect his interest against defendant No.1, from dispossessing him unlawfully or illegally from the suit schedule property. Hence it is just and necessary to protect the possession of the plaintiff by granting permanent injunction restraining the first defendant or their agents, from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. Hence, I answer Issue No. 3 in the Affirmative.
22. Issue No. 4:- Inview of my above discussions, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit is decreed with costs.
Permanent injunction is granted restraining the first defendant, its trustees, office bearers, representatives and their agents or anybody claiming through or under it from interfering with O.S. No. 3534/2022 22 the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff of the suit schedule property without due process of law.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer grade-I, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 17 th day of November 2025) ( NIRMALA DEVI S. ) LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE C/c. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
SCHEDULE PREMISES All that piece and parcel of Shop No.5(earlier to that assigned with Shop No.1) having built up area of 162 sq. ft in the commercial building ow called RBDGTC building (earlier to that known as JBR Plaza) constructed on the immovable property presently bearing No. 104, (Old No.36 and earlier to that bearing No.35), situated at Belli Basavanna Gudi Beedhi, Mamulpet, Bengaluru-560053 and bounded on ;- East by : Shop No.4, West by : Shop No. 6 & 7, North by: Shop No.12, South by: Main road, ANNEXURE O.S. No. 3534/2022 23 List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
PW1 - Himmatmal S. Kankaria, Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
Ex.P-1 Commercial Tax certificate
Ex.P-2 Telephone bill
Ex.P-3 Telephone receipt (plaintiff is directed to produce
certified copy of Ex.P.3)
Ex.P-4 VAT Registration certificate
Ex.P-5 CST Registration certificate
Ex.P-6 CST Commodities list
Ex.P-7 Refund order by Department of Commercial Taxes
dated 07.08.2014
Ex.P-8 Demand notice
Ex.P-9 357 Electricity bills and receipts
series
Ex.P-10 187 Telephone bills and receipts
series
Ex.P-11 Certified copy of the order sheet in Ex.No.1688/2023.
Ex.P-12 Certified copy of the petition in Ex.No.1688/2023. Ex.P-13 Certified copy of the IA u/O 21 R 26 of CPC in Ex.No.1688/2023.
Ex.P-14 Certified copy of the objections filed by JDr to IA u/O 21 R 26 of CPC in Ex.NO.1688/2023.
Ex.P-15 Certified copy of the order on IA u/O 21 R 26 of CPC in Ex.No.1688/2023.
Ex.P-16 Certified copy of the IA u/O 21 R 97 of CPC in Ex.No.1688/2023.
O.S. No. 3534/2022 24 Ex.P-17 Certified copy of the objections filed by DHr to IA u/O 21 R 97 of CPC in Ex.No.1688/2023.
Ex.P-18 Certified copy of the objections filed by JDr to IA u/O 21 R 97 of CPC in Ex.No.1688/2023.
Ex.P-19 Certified copy of the order on IA u/O 21 R 97 of CPC in Ex.No.1688/2023.
Ex.P-20 Certified copy of the order sheet in Misc.No.961/2023. Ex.P-21 Certified copy of the petition in Misc.No.961/2023. Ex.P-22 Certified copy of the application filed U/s 151 of CPC in Misc.No.961/2023.
Ex.P-23 Certified copy of the objections filed by respondent to IA U/s 151 of CPC in Misc.No.961/2023.
Ex.P-24 Certified copy of the objections filed by the respondent to the main petition in Misc.No.961/2023.
Ex.P-25 C/c of Rules Governance of defendant No.1 Trust.
Ex.P-26 C/c of lease deed Ex.P-27 3 photos to 29 Ex.P-30 Deposition of Pw-1
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
DW-1. Shivasharanappa.
Documents marked on behalf of the Defendant/s:
Ex.D-1 Authorization letter issued by Gubbi Thotadappa's Charities i.e., defendant no.1 Ex.D-2 Certified copy of the plaint with valuation slip in O.S. No. 3534/2022 25 O.S.No.854/2022.
Ex.D-3 Evidence of PW-1 Anand B.G. in O.S.No.854/2022. Ex.D-4 Certified copy of the Judgment in O.S.No.854/2022. Ex.D-5 Certified copy of the decree in O.S.No.854/2022.
Ex.D-6 Execution petition in Ex.No.688/2023. Ex.D-7 Bank Account statement of defendant no.1 from 01.01.2018 till 31.12.2018.
Ex.D-8 Bank Account statement of defendant no.1 from 01.01.2019 till 31.12.2019.
Ex.D-9 Bank Account statement of defendant no.1 from 01.01.2020 till 14.08.2024.
Ex.D-10 Certified copy of the lease agreement dated 27.11.2018.
( NIRMALA DEVI S. ) LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE C/c. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
O.S. No. 3534/2022 26 O.S. No. 3534/2022 27 Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate judgment.
The suit is decreed with costs.
Permanent injunction is granted restraining the first defendant, its trustees, office bearers, representatives and their agents or anybody claiming through or under it from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff of the suit schedule property without due process of law.
Draw decree accordingly.
( NIRMALA DEVI S. ) LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE C/c. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
O.S. No. 3534/2022 28 O.S. No. 3534/2022 29