Bangalore District Court
Smt. Gullamma D/O. Rangappa vs Sri Nanjappa S/O. Ramaiah on 11 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-22)
Present: Smt. Suvarna K. Mirji, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl).,
XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU.
O.S.No.11499 / 1994
Dated this the 11th day of September 2019
Plaintiff/s:- Smt. Gullamma D/o. Rangappa,
W/o. Ramaiah, residing at Byrasandra village,
C.V. Raman Nagar,
Bangalore 560 093
[dead by her LRs]
1(a) H. Ramaiah S/o Late Hanumanthappa,
aged about 79 years,
[since dead by his LRs]
1(b) Munikrishna S/o. Late H. Ramaiah,
aged about 56 years,
1(c) Chandrashekar S/o. Late H. Ramaiah,
aged about 41 years,
1(d) Prakash S/o. Late H. Ramaiah,
aged about 39 years,
1(e) Gowramma D/o. Late H. Ramaiah,
aged about 52 years,
All are residing at New No.40/1 (Old No.34)
Byrasandra village, Sir C.V. Raman Nagar,
Bangalore 560 093.
(LRs 1(a) to (e) by Sri S.A. Sami, Advocate)
(1(d) by Sri H.S. Ramamurthy and Associates, Advocates)
V/S
2 O.S. No. 11499/1994
Defendants:-1) Sri Nanjappa S/o. Ramaiah,
[since dead by his LRs]
1(a) Smt. Yellamma W/o. Late Nanjappa,
1(b) Hanuma Reddy S/o. Late Nanjappa,
1(c) Sri Venkatesh S/o. Late Nanjappa
All are residing at Byrasandra,
Sir C.V. Raman Nagar Post,
Bangalore 560 093.
2) Sri Nagappa S/o. Ramaiah,
[since deceased by his LRs]
2(a) Smt. Thimmakka W/o. Late Nagappa, major,
2(b) Smt. Ammayamma alias Ammayya
D/o. Late Nagappa, major
2(c) N. Nanjappa S/o. Late Nagappa, major,
2(d) Hanumappa Reddy S/o. Late Nagappa, major,
2(e) Smt. Ramakka D/o. late Nagappa, major,
3) Sri Nanjappa S/o. Doddanarappa, major,
4) Sri Ramaswamy S/o. Naganna, major,
All are residing at Byrasandra village,
C.V. Raman Nagar, Bangalore 560 093.
(D No.1 to 4 by Sri R. Veerendra Sharma / Sri J.H. Venkatappa, Adv.)
(D No.1(a) to (c), 2(a) to (e) and 3 by Sri P.Venkatashiva Reddy, Adv.)
Date of Institution of the suit 17/12/1994
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit for declaration and
possession, suit for injunction, etc.)
Permanent injunction
Date of the commencement of recording of the Evidence 06/07/1999
Date on which the Judgment was pronounced. 11/09/2019
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 14 08 29
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
Mayohall Unit: Bengaluru
3 O.S. No. 11499/1994
. :J U D G M E N T:
The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants for
permanent injunction.
2. The Brief facts of plaintiffs' case is as
under:
The plaintiff submits that she is the absolute
owner in possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property mentioned below:-
SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY
Property bearing No.140/1 situated at
Byrasandra village C.V. Raman Nagar,
Bangalore 560093 measuring 90+150/2 x
16+250/2 with three sheds of asbestos
roof bounded on the East by Property
bearing Sy.No. 140/3 belonging to
defendants, west by LRDE compound,
North by Road, South by Road and private
property.
The plaintiff further submits that the suit schedule
property is ancestral property of the plaintiff comes
4 O.S. No. 11499/1994
under jurisdiction of H.A. Sanitary Board, Bangalore
17. She has constructed three sheds in the schedule
property with Asbestos roof and residing with her
family. Khatha of the suit schedule property stands in
her name and she is paying taxes in respect of the suit
schedule property to the H.A. Sanitary Board,
Bengaluru. There is a building in the schedule property
to the extent of 60' x 36' and she has put up fence
around the suit schedule property. The defendants
who are owners of property bearing No.140/3 without
any manner of right, title and interest over the suit
schedule property are making illegal attempts to
interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property by the plaintiff and also
threatened to trespass in to the suit schedule property
and dispossess her and the plaintiff resisted the same.
The defendants are strangers to the suit schedule
property and they have no manner of right, title and
interest over the suit schedule property. Hence the
5 O.S. No. 11499/1994
plaintiff is constrained to file the suit for permanent
injunction against defendants. The cause of action for
the suit arose on 10/02/1991, 29/4/1991, 28/9/1991,
25/11/1994 an 15/12/1994 and on subsequent dates.
The plaintiff prays to decree the suit for permanent
injunction restraining defendants, their men, servants
or any other person or persons claiming under or
through them from interfering with the possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the
plaintiff.
3. The defendants 1 to 4 have filed written
statement submitting that the schedule property does
not include land measuring 16+250/ 2as claimed by
the plaintiff. The defendants deny that they are
owners of property bearing No.164/3. The defendants
1 to 4 further submit that plaintiff is the owner of
property in Sy.No.140/1 of Byrasandra village, to the
extent of 90' x 150'/2 and defendants are owners of
land in Sy.No.140/3 of Byrasandra village, which is
6 O.S. No. 11499/1994
neighbouring land of plaintiff totally measuring 9
guntas. The plaintiff has encroached the land of
defendants to an extent of 16x250/2 feet and they
objected the encroachment. The Khatha extract of the
plaintiff's land obtained from Deputy Commissioner's
Office shows that plaintiff is the owner only to an
extent of 90 x 150 / 2 feet. The land having two
different measurements cannot be identified by the
same bar number. The number 140/1 is issued only
to the land to an extent of 90 x 150/2 feet and as such
no two different lands with different measurements
are given the same number. The last Survey number
in Byrasandra village is No.153 and the plaintiff has
shown one of the boundaries bearing No.164/3. The
plaintiff is not sure about the boundaries of her land.
The defendants have no interest in the lands of the
plaintiff, but at the same time are not ready to allow
the plaintiff to encroach upon their lands.
7 O.S. No. 11499/1994
The defendants 1 to 4 pray to dismiss the suit of the
plaintiff.
4. During pendency of the suit defendant No.1 died
and his LRs were brought on record as defendants
1(a) to (c). The LR of defendant No.1 (a) has filed her
written statement and LRs of defendant No.1(b) and
1(c) have filed memo dated 24/11/2009 adopting the
written statement filed by LR of Defendant
No.1(b).The LR of defendant No.1 (a) submits that
the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable both in law and
on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in
limine. The plaintiff has filed the suit only to harass
defendants though she has no right or interest over
the schedule property. She denied that plaintiff is the
absolute owner in possession of the property No.140/1
situated at Byrasandra village, Bangalore 93. She
denied that schedule property is the ancestral property
of plaintiff and plaintiff constructed three sheds in the
suit schedule property with asbestos sheet roof and
8 O.S. No. 11499/1994
residing with family and Khatha stands in the name of
plaintiff. LR of defendant No.1 further submits that
they are owners of the property bearing No.140/3.
There is no cause of action for the suit. The plaintiff
has not produced any document to show that property
bearing Sy.No.140/1 is ancestral property of
Smt.Gullamma. The defendants further submit that
property bearing Sy.No.140/3 is a granted land in
favour of this defendant's grand father by name Sri
Ramaiah by the order dated 6/7/1958 passed by the
Special Tahsildar and in the said property land bearing
Sy.No.140/3 measuring 9 guntas is the granted
property of this defendant's grand father and including
the above said property this defendant's father have
also granted the property in respect of land bearing
Sy.No.140/1A for an extent of 1 acre 1 guntas and the
land bearing Sy.No.11/12 for an extent of 1 guntas
and the defendants 1 to 3 are in possession and
enjoyment of the same. The land bearing
9 O.S. No. 11499/1994
Sy.No.140/1A measuring 1 acre 1 guntas is subjected
for acquisition of LRD and the defendants father have
taken compensation amount. The defendants 1 to 3
are residing therein in respect of land bearing
Sy.No.140/3, the legal heirs of Ramaiah have
constructed the house in the said Sy.No.140/3 about
35 years back and the defendants 1 to 3 and their
family members are residing therein as an absolute
owner. The plaintiff has no manner of right or interest
over the property bearing Sy.No.140/3, 140/1A and
Sy.No.11/12 situated at Byrasandra village, Bangalore
and this defendant is paying the taxes to the
concerned authority regularly and the plaintiff had
filed this false suit only in order to grab the property of
this defendant. The suit of the plaintiff is not
maintainable and consequently the suit of the plaintiff
is liable to be dismissed. The defendants No.1 (a) pray
for dismissal of the suit.
10 O.S. No. 11499/1994
5. On the basis of above pleadings following Issues
are framed:-
:ISSUES:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves her
lawful possession over the suit
schedule property as on the date of
filing of the suit and earlier to it?
(2) Whether the plaintiff further proves
the alleged interference by the
defendant with her possession of
the suit schedule property as stated
in para 6 of the plaint?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to
the relief of permanent injunction?
(4) What order or decree?
6. Special Power of attorney holder of plaintiff H.
Ramaiah is examined as PW1 and marked documents
at ExP1 to ExP7 and closed the plaintiff side evidence.
During pendency of the suit the plaintiff Smt.
Gullamma reported to be dead and her LRs were
brought on record as Plaintiff No.1(a) to (e). The
defendant No.3/ Nanjappa is examined as DW1 and
marked documents at ExD1 to ExD21. After hearing
11 O.S. No. 11499/1994
arguments of both the sides, this court had
pronounced judgment on 19/01/2001 decreeing the
suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment
and decree, defendants have preferred
R.F.A.No.307/2001(INJ) before the Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka, Bangalore, wherein the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka vide judgment dated 18/02/2009
set aside the judgment and decree passed by this
court and remanded the matter with a direction to this
court to hold fresh enquiry and also allowed IA-II filed
in the said R.F.A. for production of the documents.
The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the said
judgment has observed that this court has ordered for
appointment of Court Commissioner for spot
inspection and later on report was not called for and
further it is observed that 'The order for appointment
of Assistant Director of Land Records as Court
Commissioner is rightly passed by the Trial Court. As
the same has not seen its logical culmination of
12 O.S. No. 11499/1994
receiving the report from him and as the conflict
between ExP2 and ExD19 is not resolved, I deem it
necessary and just to remand his matter to the trial
court for fresh enquiry'. The Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka by giving such findings remanded the
matter to this court for holding fresh enquiry.
7. After receipt of records, this court issued
reminder to the Court Commissioner, who was
appointed in this suit to submit report. Even after
lapse of nearly 7 to 8 years the Court Commissioner
has not submitted the report and finally on
03/04/2019 the Court Commissioner submitted report.
That inspite of grant of sufficient opportunity
defendants have not filed any objections to the Court
Commissioner report. Further plaintiff counsel has
submitted no objections to the Commissioner report
and made his endorsement in the order sheet dated
27/05/2019.
13 O.S. No. 11499/1994
8. The plaintiff counsel filed written arguments on
the main suit. The defendant counsel argued. Perused
the records.
9. My finding on the above Issues is as under:-
Issue No.1) In Negative
Issue No.2) In Negative
Issue No.3) In Negative
Issue No.4) See final orders for following:
:REASONS:
10. Issue No.1 to 3:-
The Special Power of Attorney holder of the
plaintiff Sri Ramaiah S/o. Hanumanthappa is examined
as PW1, who has deposed in his evidence that plaintiff
is his wife and since she is suffering from paralysis and
unable to move from bed, she has executed Special
Power of Attorney in his favour as per ExP1. The
plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction in
respect of Sy.No.140/1 situated at Byrasandra village,
14 O.S. No. 11499/1994
C.V. Raman Nagar, Bengaluru and towards east of the
said property there is a road and the property
belonging to the defendant. To the west there is
LRDE compound, to the north there is a road and on
the south there is a road and adjacent to that land
belonging to one Shanbough. The plaintiff acquired
the suit property on ancestral right. The suit property
is in 'L' shape. The measurement of the suit property
90'+15'/2 x 16' + 250'/2. There is a residential
building with asbestos sheet roofing. The building is
erected within 60' x 36'. Himself and his wife plaintiff
are residing in the suit house. He has produced
property extracts, tax paid receipts, Khatha extract
which are marked at ExP2 to ExP6. When they were
about to put fence around their plot, defendants
interfered in their enjoyment of the suit schedule
property. Since outsiders began to commit trespass
into the compound belonging to them they intended to
put fence for which defendants objected. Defendants
15 O.S. No. 11499/1994
interfered with their possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property when they started putting
fence. Defendants have no manner of right title or
interest over the suit schedule property. Plaintiffs
after taking help from relatives and friends put up
fence around the property. The PW.1 prays to decree
the suit as prayed in the plaint. In support of oral
evidence the PW.1 marked documents ExP1 to ExP7.
11. The defendant No.3 Sri Nanjappa is examined as
DW1 and in his evidence he has deposed that he is
residing in Sy.No.140/3 of Byrasandra for the past 40
years. He is residing along with his children and his
uncle in the property. Four houses are built in the said
Sy.No. The Special Deputy Commissioner Sanctioned
Sy.No.140/3 by way of re-grant. The Deputy
Commissioner re-granted Sy.No.140/3, 140/1A and
11/12. LRDE acquired the land bearing Sy.No.140/1A
measuring 1 acre 1 guntas. LRDE has given to them
amount of compensation for acquiring Sy.No. 140/1A.
16 O.S. No. 11499/1994
The plaintiff filed objections before L.A.O. in O.S. No.
2279/81 and that case was got withdrawn on
14/01/1988 as not pressed. The plaintiff after
obtaining exparte order on IA-I fenced in some portion
of his land bearing no.140/3 and thereafter they
appeared in this suit and filed objections. He has
produced sketch of the property of the plaintiff. For
the past 15 years he has not encroached upon the
property of the plaintiff. An area of 160 x 12 feet land
is at the back of his building and he has grown
coconut trees etc., and in the said land plaintiff has
laid fencing in his property which has caused him
untold hardship and injury. Hence he prays to dismiss
the suit of the plaintiff and to direct plaintiff not to
interfere in land bearing Sy.No. 140/3. The DW1
marked ExD1 to ExD21.
12. The burden is on LRs of the plaintiff to prove that
the suit schedule property belongs to Smt. Gullamma
[original plaintiff] and she is the owner of the suit
17 O.S. No. 11499/1994
schedule property having acquired the same from her
ancestors and she was in possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule property and after her death now
LRs of the plaintiff are in possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule property. The PW.1 H. Ramaiah,
Special Power of attorney holder of the original
plaintiff Smt. Gullamma, who is also her husband is
reported to be dead. Earlier to that H. Ramaiah, Power
of attorney holder of original plaintiff examined on
06/07/1999 and thereafter original plaintiff Smt.
Gullamma reported to be dead and while bringing her
LRs on record, husband of plaintiff namely H.
Ramaiah is also stated to be dead. Hence, children of
deceased plaintiff Smt. Gullamma who are on record
as plaintiffs 1(b) to (e) have not led any further
evidence on their side. They have also not got marked
any documents in their favour.
13. The PW1 marked documents ExP1 to ExP7. The
ExP1 is GPA executed by deceased plaintiff Smt.
18 O.S. No. 11499/1994
Gullamma authorizing her husband Ramaiah to
conduct the case. The ExP2 is extract of assessment
for building and lands liable for taxation for the year
1988-89 issued by H.A. Sanitary Board, Bangalore, in
respect of the property bearing No.164/140/1
measuring 90+150/2 x 16+250/2 situated at
Byrasandra village, C.V. Raman Nagar, Bangalore 560
093 and the said document is of the year 1988-89
wherein name of Smt. Gullamma is mentioned and
Khatha number is mentioned. The ExP3 to ExP6 are
tax paid receipts. The ExP7 is Encumbrance
Certificate for the period 01/04/1995 to 01/09/1995
wherein there is entry about sale of property in Khatha
No. 75/61 measuring 50 x 33 on 23/08/1995 by Sri N.
Ramaswamy to Sudha V. and Lakshminarayana. But,
how this ExP7 concerned to the present suit is not
explained since the property mentioned in ExP7 is not
connected to suit schedule property.
19 O.S. No. 11499/1994
14. In the plaint Smt. Gullamma has contended that
she has obtained suit schedule property from her
ancestors, but she has not produced documents to
show that she has acquired the suit schedule property
from her ancestors. Further in the plaint averments
she has not mentioned the name of her ancestors in
whose name earlier the suit schedule property was
standing. The plaintiff has not produced any
documents to show the name of their ancestors to the
suit schedule property or any other documents to
show how her ancestors have obtained the suit
schedule property. The defendant in the written
statement denied that plaintiff is the owner of the
Sy.No.140/1 of Byrasandra village whereas defendant
No.1 in the written statement taken contention that
Sy.No.140/3 was granted in favour of his grand father
by name Ramaiah by Special Tahsildar to the extent of
9 guntas on 06/07/1958. Further defendant's father
was also granted the property in respect of land
20 O.S. No. 11499/1994
bearing Sy.No.140/1A for an extent of 1 acre 1 guntas
and the land bearing Sy.No.11/12 for an extent of 1
guntas and the defendants 1 to 3 are in possession
and enjoyment of the same. The land bearing Sy.No.
140/1A measuring 1 acre 1 guntas is subjected for
acquisition of LRD and the defendants father have
taken compensation amount.
15. The defendant No.3 Sri Nanjappa is examined
as DW.1 and he has got marked documents ExD1 to
ExD21. The ExD1 is endorsement issued by Spl.
Tahsildar, Bengaluru District., ExD2 is the Certified
copy of order sheet in O.S. No. 30/55, ExD3 is record
of rights of Sy.No. 140/3, ExD4 is receipt for payment
of land revenue, ExD5 is Certified copy of order sheet
in O.S. No. 2279/81 from 31/07/1981 till last date of
order sheet, ExD6 is Certified copy of plaint in O.S.
No. 2279/81, ExD7 is Certified copy of written
statement filed by 2nd defendant in the above suit,
ExD8 is the Certified copy of issues framed in O.S.
21 O.S. No. 11499/1994
No. 2279/81, ExD9 is Certified copy of endorsement
issued by SLAO, ExD10 is Certified copy of letter of
the plaintiff got issued through counsel to Tahsildar,
Bangalore North Taluk, ExD11 is Certified copy of
endorsement of SLAO, ExD12 is Certified copy of IA-I
in O.S. No. 2279/1981 with affidavit, ExD13 is Certified
copy of IA U/o.17 R 1 CPC filed on 13/8/1995 in O.S.
No. 2279/81 with affidavit, ExD 14 is Certified copy of
memo of withdrawal filed by plaintiff in the above suit.
ExD15 is Certified copy of of IA u/s. 10 of CPC dt
11/10/85 in O.S. No. 2279/81, ExD16 is the sketch
prepared by ADLR Bangalore, ExD17 is one more
sketch prepared by ADLR, ExD18 is Certified copy of
Record of Rights of Sy.No. 140/3 for the period 94-95,
ExD19 is Certified copy of assessment list for building
and lands liable for taxation for the year 1988-89 in
respect of property No.140/1 measuring 90' x 150',
ExD20 is the extract of Record of Rights and Pahani in
respect of Sy.No. 140/2 in the name of Bachanna S/o.
22 O.S. No. 11499/1994
Venkataramanappa, ExD21 is the Certified copy of
sale deed dated 7/10/1971.
16. As per ExP2 Assessment list for building and
lands liable for taxation for the year 1988-89 issued by
H.A. Sanitary Board, Bangalore, the dimension of the
property bearing No.164/140/1 is shown as measuring
90'+150'/2x 16'+250'/2 situated at Byrasandra village,
and the dimension of the suit schedule property
bearing No.140/1 situated at Byrasandra village, C.V.
Raman Nagar, Bangalore is shown as 90+150/2 x
16+250/2. In ExP2 name of Smt. Gullamma is shown
at column No.4. Then burden is on the plaintiff to
prove that she is in possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property totally measuring 90'+150'/2 x
16'+250'/2, but the plaintiff has not produced any
other documents to substantiate her contention.
17. After remand of the suit, direction was issued
to the Court Commissioner to submit report and
23 O.S. No. 11499/1994
accordingly the Court Commissioner i.e., Surveyor
from the office of Asst. Director Land Records,
Bengaluru East Taluk, submitted his report through
ADLR, Bengaluru East Taluk. As per the contention of
plaintiffs, they are in possession of suit schedule
property bearing No.140/1, situated at Byrasandra
village, C.V. Raman Nagar, Bangalore 560 093,
measuring 90+150/2 x 16+250/2. But, as per the
report of the Court Commissioner, "Aakar Bandh in
Sy.No. 140/1A measuring 1-01 guntas, 140/1B
measuring 01-22 guntas were acquired for LRDE
(Defence Department). The land claimed by plaintiffs
to an extent of 0-12 guntas situated in Sy.No. 140/2.
But, total extent of land in Sy.No. 140/2 is 1-16
guntas. The boundary of the land acquired for
Department of Defence bounded by - East by
remaining portion of land in Sy.No. 140/2, 140/3 and
Sy.No. 32, West by 140/1A and Sy.No. 140/1B, North
by Ooni and South by Sy.No.139 and totally 1-06
24 O.S. No. 11499/1994
guntas of land acquired and only 0-10 guntas has
been denotified from acquisition and defendants are in
possession of Sy.No.140/3 to an extent of 0-09
guntas." But, as per the plaint averments the suit
schedule property bearing No.140/1, situated at
Byrasandra village, C.V. Raman Nagar, Bangalore 560
093, measuring 90+150/2 x 16+250/2. But, the Court
Commissioner in his report noted that the area of
plaintiffs comes in Sy.No.140/2. Either plaintiffs nor
defendants have submitted any objections to the
report of the Court Commissioner. The Court
Commissioner report does not disclose clearly that
plaintiffs are in possession of property bearing
Sy.No.No.140/1 situated at Byrasandra village, C.V.
Raman Nagar, Bangalore 560 093, measuring
90+150/2 x 16+250/2.
18. Further, the present plaintiff Smt. Gullamma had
filed O.S. No. 2279/1991 against the Land Acquisition
Officer, and another one Sri Ramachandra Reddy, for
25 O.S. No. 11499/1994
permanent injunction and also direction to the
defendant No.1 Land Acquisition Officer to dispose the
amount of compensation in respect of the suit
schedule property therein to her. ExD6 is the Certified
copy of plaint in the said suit wherein she has
contended that she is the owner of Sy.No.140/2
measuring 1 acre 16 guntas of Byrasandra, Bengaluru
South and she claimed compensation of the said
property acquired by defendant No.1 Land Acquisition
Officer, in the said suit and also direction to defendant
No.1 to pay compensation of the suit schedule
property therein to her. ExD5 is the Certified copy of
ordersheet in the said O.S. No. 2279/1981 wherein the
order sheet dated 14/01/1988 discloses that the suit is
not pressed by the plaintiff. On comparison of plaint
schedule in O.S. No. 2279/1981 as per ExD6 with the
suit schedule property in the present suit, there is
variation regarding property number and
measurement.
26 O.S. No. 11499/1994
19. Further H. Ramaiah, GPA holder of the plaintiff
Smt. Gullamma examined as PW1 and he was cross
examined by defendants. After remand of the suit the
plaintiff Smt. Gullamma reported dead and her legal
heirs were brought on record as LRs 1(a) to 1(e). But,
LRs of plaintiff also not led any oral evidence and not
marked any specific documents to show that they are
in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property to an extent of 90+150/2 x 16+250/2.
20. Further, the plaintiff Smt. Gullamma has
contended in her plaint that she had acquired suit
schedule property from her ancestors. But to prove
the said fact, she has not produced any documents.
Further, in ExP2 Assessment list for building and lands
liable for taxation for the year 1988-89 issued by H.A.
Sanitary Board, Bangalore, the dimension of the
property bearing No.164/140/1 is shown as measuring
90'+150'/2 x 16'+250'/2 situated at Byrasandra
village. But, how such measurement is mentioned and
27 O.S. No. 11499/1994
on what basis such measurement of the property
shown in the said document ExP2 is not explained by
the plaintiff Smt. Gullamma and subsequently by her
LRs on record, relating to entry and measurement of
the property shown in ExP2 and there is no supporting
document produced by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the
version of plaintiff Smt. Gullamma that she was in
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property bearing No.140/1, situated at Byrasandra
village, C.V. Raman Nagar, Bangalore 560 093,
measuring 90+150/2 x 16+250/2 and after her death
her legal heirs are in possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property is not proved by leading
evidence. Further, the plaintiff failed to prove that the
defendants have caused interference to their
possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule
property. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitle for
the relief of permanent injunction as prayed.
Therefore, I answer Issues 1 to 3 in the Negative.
28 O.S. No. 11499/1994
21. Issue No.4:-
In view of above discussion I proceed to pass
following:
:ORDER:
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this 11th day of September 2019).
(Smt.Suvarna K. Mirji) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT: BANGALORE :ANNEXURE:
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW1 Sri H. Ramaiah, Special Power of attorney holder of plaintiff DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P1 Special Power of attorney Ex.P2 extract of assessment for building and lands liable for taxation for the year 1988-89 issued by H.A. Sanitary Board, Bangalore ExP3 to 6 Tax paid receipts 29 O.S. No. 11499/1994 ExP7 Encumbrance Certificate for the period 01/04/1995 to 01/09/1995 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT/S:
DW1 Sri Nanjappa DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT/S: ExD1 Endorsement issued by Spl. Tahsildar, Bengaluru District.
ExD2 Certified copy of order sheet in O.S. No. 30/55, ExD3 Record of rights of Sy.No. 140/3 ExD4 Receipt for payment of land revenue ExD5 Certified copy of order sheet in O.S. No. 2279/81 from 31/07/1981 ExD6 Certified copy of plaint in O.S. No. 2279/81, ExD7 Certified copy of written statement filed by 2nd defendant in the above suit ExD8 Certified copy of issues framed in O.S. No. 2279/81 ExD9 Certified copy of endorsement issued by SLAO ExD10 Certified copy of letter of the plaintiff got issued through counsel to Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk ExD11 Certified copy of endorsement of SLAO, ExD12 Certified copy of IA-I in O.S. No. 2279/1981 with affidavit ExD13 Certified copy of IA U/o.17 R 1 CPC filed on 13/8/1995 in O.S. No. 2279/81 with affidavit, 30 O.S. No. 11499/1994 ExD 14 Certified copy of memo of withdrawal filed by plaintiff in the above suit.
ExD15 Certified copy of IA u/s. 10 of CPC dt 11/10/85 in O.S. No. 2279/81 ExD16 Sketch prepared by ADLR Bangalore ExD17 one more sketch prepared by ADLR ExD18 Certified copy of Record of Rights of Sy.No. 140/3 for the period 94-95 ExD19 Certified copy of assessment list for building and lands liable for taxation for the year 1988- 89 in respect of property No.140/1 measuring 90' x 150', ExD20 extract of Record of Rights and Pahani in respect of Sy.No. 140/2 in the name of Bachanna S/o. Venkataramanappa ExD21 Certified copy of sale deed dated 7/10/1971.
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.
31 O.S. No. 11499/1994
11/09/2019
P 1(a) to (e) SAS
P 1(d) HSR
D No.1 to 4 RVS/JHV
D 1(a) to (c) 2(a) to (e) & 3 PVR D No.2 to 4 RVS Judgment pronounced in the open court (Vide separate detailed Judgment) The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE