Bangalore District Court
Sitaram Shetty. N vs Kuntal R Amin on 22 February, 2025
KABC0A0018672014
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL, BENGALURU. (CCH-74)
P r e s e n t:
Smt. Anitha N.P., B.A.L., L.L.M.,
LXXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2025.
O.S. No.25645/2014
Plaintiff:- Dr. N. Sitaram Shetty,
S/o. C. Narayana Shetty,
Aged about 57 years,
"SMARAN", 4/1, Millers road,
Bangalore-560052.
[By Sri. Sathish V. Naik - Adv.]
Vs.
Defendants:- 1. Kuntal R. Amin
Aged about 55 years,
S/o R.B. Amin,
2. Smt. Madhavi R. Amin,
Aged about 50 years,
W/o: Kuntal R. Amin,
both residents of No.4/5,
2
O.S. No.25645/2014
Millers Road,
Bangalore-560052.
[By Sri.K.S.N., - Adv.]
Date of institution of the suit : 24.04.2014
Nature of the suit (Suit for pro-
note,suit for declaration and : Injunction suit
injunction, suit for injunction, etc)
Date of commencement of : 30.07.2019
recording of evidence
Date on which the Judgment was : 22.02.2025
pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Days
10 09 28
Digitally signed by
ANITHA
ANITHA NANJANAGUDU
NANJANAGUDU PARASHIVAMURTHY
PARASHIVAMURTHY
Date: 2025.03.01
11:02:16 +0530
(Anitha.N.P.)
LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit,
Bengaluru. (CCH-74)
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiff has filed this suit as against the defendants No.1 and 2 seeking the relief of perpetual injunction to restrain defendants and their men from cutting open the wire weld mesh on the Southern side of B schedule road or using 3 O.S. No.25645/2014 the said B schedule Road for ingress and egress to Schedule C property or laying cable in Schedule B road.
2. The brief facts of the plaint averments are as follows:
The plaintiff is the owner in possession of composite property bearing Municipal No.4/9 & 4/10 presently bearing Municipal No.4/10 situated at Millers Road Bengaluru and the same is shown as plaint A schedule property. He acquired property bearing Municipal No.4/10 under sale deed dated 26.06.1989 and another property is gifted property and the said two properties were amalgamated and assigned with municipal No.4/10. His property is situated away from the Millers road. The access to the property of the plaintiff is through B Schedule a private road which runs from the Millers road on the East and ends at the composite property bearing Municipal No.4/7 formerly bearing Municipal No.4/11. 4
O.S. No.25645/2014 The B schedule road has a length of 4279 feet and width varying from 15x21 feet. The said B schedule road is meant for access to the properties situated beyond the main bungalow in property bearing Municipal No.4 and provides access to the property with Municipal No.4/8 composite property 4/10 and 4/7. The grant of right of way to the schedule A property along the schedule B property is referred in the deed of conveyance in favour of plaintiff as well as his predecessors.
3. It is the further case of the plaintiff that originally the composite property bearing No.3, and thereafter No.4, was belongs to one Capt. B.D.Naidu by virtue of sale deed dated 26.08.1936. The said Capt. B.D.Naidu was residing in the main bungalow and rear bungalow and main bungalow was letout by him to P & T Mail Motor Service and he shifted to rear bungalow.
5
O.S. No.25645/2014
4. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the said Capt. B.D.Naidu had formed a private layout comprising of six sites, to the west of the Millers road, and they were given with Municipal No.4/1 to 4/6. The defendants claims to be the owners of the property bearing Municipal No.4/5 which is shown in the suit "C" schedule and they succeed to the same after the death of R.B. Amin the father of first defendant and father in-law of the second defendant. The said Capt. B.D.Naidu had laid a separate private road as per "D schedule" for providing access to the said 6 sites and the private road runs from Miller road on the East and ending at the gate of the P & T Mail Motor Service on the west. The said "D" schedule road has length of 180 feet and width of 20 feet.
5. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the access to the Municipal site No.4/1 to 4/6 is through schedule "D" 6
O.S. No.25645/2014 Road. The plaintiff has constructed a residential house in the schedule A property and he is residing in the said property since last 15 years. The owners of the composite property bearing Municipal No.4/7 have obtained license for construction of multi-storied building and the construction work is in progress. The property bearing Municipal No.4/8 is vacant. The access to the schedule "C' property is through schedule D road situated on the southern side of the said property.
6. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the defendants by demolishing the constructions within the suit "C" schedule have commenced the construction work of multi- storied building. At the time of demolition of the residential house the defendants have left the northern compound wall intact but demolished the southern compound wall as well as the gate. As the construction was in progress the defendants 7 O.S. No.25645/2014 also demolished their Northern compound wall abutting the schedule B road. The plaintiff was surprised at the action of the defendant in dismantling their northern wall. Along the Northern side of the schedule B road, a compound wall having a height of 10 feet had been constructed so as to avoid access by the occupants of the property in the occupation of the Superintendent of police, a wire weld mesh was also constructed along the southern side of the schedule B road sometime in the year 1989-90 to prevent the debris of the collapsing northern wall of the P & T Mail Motor Service coming on to the schedule B road and hampering movement along the said road of both men and vehicles. The plaintiff being apprehended of the intentions of the defendants applied for the certified copy of the building plan sanctioned in favour of the defendants in respect of the C schedule and noticed that the northern direction in the plan is not correctly shown 8 O.S. No.25645/2014 and the entrance to the building at ground floor level is shown to be from the Northern side opening into the schedule "B" road meant for exclusive access to the property to the plaintiff and also the Municipal bearing No. 4/7 & 4/8. On noticing the said access shown on the Northern side of the said site, the plaintiff issued notice to the BBMP so as to clarify the access shown in the sanctioned plan to the "C' schedule property. However, the BBMP not responded. On 09.04.2014 the defendants tried to cut wire weld mesh. The security person informed the same to the plaintiff and the plaintiff immediately rushed to the spot. By that time the defendants have fled the spot. However, they may again try to cut open the wire weld mesh the access to the schedule B road for ingress and egress to the schedule-C property. The defendants right of electrical, sanitary and water connections 9 O.S. No.25645/2014 to his property are through his D schedule road only. Accordingly, he filed this suit for perpetual injunction.
7. After receiving the suit summons the defendants appeared before the court through their counsel and filed their detailed written statement.
8. The brief facts of the written statement of defendants is as follows:-
The 2nd defendant is not proper and necessary party to the suit. The relief sought is only on the basis of apprehension. He admits that averment in para 10 of plaint that captain B.D. Naidu laid a separate private road i.e., suit D Schedule road to the six sites and also the measurement of said road is true and correct. He also admits the averments in para 11 of plaint that access to sites bearing Municipal No.4/1 to 4/6 is through D schedule road. However he denied the 10 O.S. No.25645/2014 plaint relied sketch. However these defendants denied that access of suit C schedule property is only through schedule-D road. He admits that he started construction work within C schedule property and has obtained sanction plan from the concerned authority and he is making construction as per by laws. He admits para 17 of the plaint that there exists compound along the northern side of B schedule road and and a wire weld mesh along the southern side of B schedule road. The access to the defendants C schedule property is through the schedule-D road and also schedule-B road. On the above grounds he prays to dismiss the suit.
9. Based on the pleadings, my Predecessor-in-office has framed following:
I S S U E S
1) Whether plaintiff proves that, he was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule 'A' property as on the date of the suit?11
O.S. No.25645/2014
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that, the access to his schedule 'A' property is through suit schedule 'B' road?
3) Whether the plaintiff proves that, the alleged interference of the defendant over the suit schedule 'B' road?
4) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to the relief's of as sought for in the plaint?
5) What order or decree?
10. That to prove the case of plaintiff, Smt. Namitha Shetty who is his GPA holder as PW.1got examined herself as PW1 and she has produced 14 documents as per Ex.P.1 to 14. On the contrary, the defendant No.1 & 2 have examined defendant No.1 as DW.1 and he has produced and got marked 9 documents as per Ex.D.1 to 9.
11.(1) The counsel for plaintiff has relied upon following decisions:
12
O.S. No.25645/2014 1998 (5) Kar. L.J. 168 between Romeo M.R.Aquinas & others Vs. Florina Mothias & another AIR 1987 SC 1242 SC between Ram Sarup Gupta (dead) By LRs. Vs. Bishun Narain Inter College and others.
Civil Appeal No.4922/2011 between Smt. Ramkanya Bai & another Vs. Jagdish & others.
11.(2) The counsel for defendant has relied upon following decisions:
2008 (4) SCC 594 (Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. & others).
AIR 2008 SC 1503 (V.J.Thomas Vs. Pathrose Abraham & others) Civil Appeal No.448/2004 (Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and others Vs. Assistant Charity Commisioner and others).
12. Heard arguments. Both plaintiff and defendants have submit their written arguments. Perused the pleadings, evidence, documents and available materials on record. 13
O.S. No.25645/2014
13. My answer to the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 :- In the Affirmative, Issue No.2 :- In the Affirmative, Issue No.3 :- In the Affirmative, Issue No.4 :- In the Affirmative, Issue No.5 :- As per final Order for the following:
R E A S O N S
14. Issue No.1 & 2:- These issues are inter-linked with each other, I proceed to discuss together, in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
It is the specific case of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of plaint A schedule property and his property is situated far away from the main road and the plaint B schedule property is the access road to plaintiff and also the properties in Municipal No.4/7 and 4/8. The property in Municipal No.4 was originally belongs to one Captain B.D.Naidu and he was residing in main bungalow 14 O.S. No.25645/2014 which is now in the posesion of P &T motors and the said Capt. B.D.Naidu formed a private layout of six sites with Municipal No 4/1 to 4/6 and a separate road as shown in D schedule is also formed. The defendant No.1 is owner of property in Municipal No.4/5 i.e plaint C schedule and he is having ingress and egress through this D schedule road. There is a compound along the northern side of B schedule road and there is a wire weld mesh along the southern side of B schedule road. The defendants while making construction have tried to cut open the wire weld mesh on the southern side of B schedule road and interfered with the right of plaintiff. The defendants have no right to use the schedule B road and it is D schedule road is the road available to them.
15. On the contrary it is the specific defence of the defendants that the defendant No.1 is the owner of plaint C 15 O.S. No.25645/2014 schedule property and he started construction of multi- storied building by obtaining license and the C schedule property is having access through schedule D road and also through schedule B road.
16. The plaintiff so as to prove his case got examined Smt. Namitha Shetty who is his GPA holder as PW.1 and during the course of evidence, she filed her chief examination affidavit reiterating the plaint averments. She has produced 14 documents as per Ex.P.1 to 14.
17. Ex.P1 is the GPA dated 12.07.2017, Ex.P2 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 26.06.1989, Ex.P3 is the certified copy of gift deed dated 11.10.1999, Ex.P4 is the Spl. notice dated 28.12.1999, Ex.P5 is the khatha certificate dated 19.04.2014, Ex.P6 is the khatha extract dated 19.04.2014, Ex.P7 is the tax paid receipt for the year 2013- 14, Ex.P8 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 16 O.S. No.25645/2014 13.08.1973, Ex.P9 is the office copy of legal notice dated 23.09.2013, Ex.P10 and 10(a) postal receipts, Ex.P11 and 11(a) postal acknowledgment, Ex.P12 is the plaint sketch, Ex.P13 is the photos and Ex.P14 is the CD.
18. On the contrary, the defendant No.1 & 2 so as prove their defence have examined Kuntal R. Amin i.e., defendant No.1 as DW.1 and during the course of evidence, he filed his chief examination affidavit reiterating the contentions of his written statement. He has produced and got marked 9 documents as per Ex.D.1 to 9.
19. Ex.D1 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 13.05.1965 A/W typed copy, Ex.D2 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 03.10.1969 A/W typed copy, Ex.D3 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 08.02.1973 A/W typed copy, Ex.D4 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 13.08.1973 A/W typed copy, Ex.D5 is the 17 O.S. No.25645/2014 encumbrance certificate, Ex.D6 is 7 photographs, Ex.D7 is the sanction plan, Ex.D8 is the CD and Ex.D9 is the certificate under sec.65B of Evidence Act.
20. On perusal of the ocular evidence of PW.1 she deposed that she is residing in A schedule since early 2000. The property was originally belongs to Captain B.D. Naidu. Ex.P12 is the plaint sketch and the extent shown in the said Ex.P12 was owned originally by Captain B.D. Naidu. Presently it bears Municipal No.4/1 to 4/11. There are three other people having access through schedule B property. The road shown in Ex.P13(b) and (c) is the D schedule road. Ex.P13(e) shows the B schedule road. Her mother purchased portion of suit schedule A. She is not aware of the boundaries shown in the sale deed dated 03.10.1969. She do not know whether at the time of sale of schedule C property by George Thangaiah in favour of Kusum Lata 18 O.S. No.25645/2014 Tanda by sale deed dated 03.10.1969, the schedule D road was not formed and schedule B road was only in Existence. She denied that the only access to schedule C property at the time of sale in favour of Kusum Latha was from schedule B road. The boundaries shown in Ex.P2 are correct. B schedule road is only access for two properties. They have no khatha in respect of B schedule.
21. On perusal of the cross-examination of DW.1 he deposed that plaint C schedule property belongs to him and it measures 60x90 feet and his father purchased same in the year 1973 and he succeeded to the said property. He demolished earlier structure and put up new construction and it is completed in the year 2013. He got the sanction plan. The original Municipal No.4 was a big property belongs to one Captain B.D. Naidu. The road leading to the 19 O.S. No.25645/2014 property of the plaintiff falls on the northern side of the plaint C schedule property.
22. DW.1 further deposed that a layout formed by Captain B.D. Naidu consisting of 6 sites and his father purchased site No.4/5 in the layout. To the south side of his site there is a road and it leads to rest of the 5 sites. The said road is 20 feet width and it is meant for the 6 sites only. He admits that at the time of reconstruction of his building northern side wall was fell off. Ex.P13(f) & (g) are the photos of his northern side wall reconstruction work. Thereafter fence was put up by the plaintiff and the same is visible in Ex.P13(f) & (g).
23. DW1 further deposed in his cross examination that in the sanction plan of his reconstruction the entrance to the property is shown on the northern side. He deposed that he do not know the entrance to his site is only from 20 O.S. No.25645/2014 the southern side of his site. But he opened on the northern side by fixing the gate because his father earlier used to park the car and enter the house from the small gate. They have mentioned this in this their written statement. This DW.1 further deposed that the main entrance of the house built by his father was from southern side and even now the main entrance of his house is on the Southern side. As per Ex.D7 sanction plan two roads are available.
24. In the case on hand the entire case of the plaintiff is that the suit B schedule road is only access to the property of plaintiff and to the property bearing Municipal No.4/7, 4/8 and the access to the property of defendants i.e., suit C schedule is only through suit D schedule road and not from the B schedule road.
21
O.S. No.25645/2014
25. At this stage it is necessary to go through the documentary evidence. On perusal of the Ex.P2 it shows that the plaintiff has purchased Municipal premises bearing No.4/8 bounded East by private road, West by vacant land sold to Upendra Madhav Kini, North by common private road leading from main Millers Road to the property in 4/8 Millers Road near Vasantha Nagar and beyond the same private property of Nirmala Kini, South by plot No.B in No.4/8.
26. Ex.P3 is the copy of gift deed dated 11.10.1999 and the same shows that property No.4/9 was gifted to plaintiff and the said property is bounded East by private road, West by vacant land, North by plot A bearing Municipal No.4/10 and South by plot C. Ex.P4 is the copy of notice dated 28.12.1999 and it shows that property No.4/9 and 4/10 were merged in Municipal No.4/10. Ex.P5 22 O.S. No.25645/2014 is the khatha certificate in respect of Municipal property No.4/10 and Ex.P6 is the khatha extract and both are issued by BBMP in favor of plaintiff in respect of plaint A schedule property. Ex.P7 is the tax paid receipt. Ex.P9 is the copy of notice issued by this Plaintiff to the BBMP. Ex.P12 is the rough sketch prepared by the plaintiff showing the plaint A to D properties and also the entire extent of property which was initially owned by Capt. B.D.Naidu.
27. Ex.P8 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 13.08.1973 the very same document is marked as Ex.D4 and on perusal of the said Ex.P8 and Ex.D4 it shows that Thilak Hegde has sold property bearing Municipal No.4/5 to one Rajendra B Amin and the said property is nothing but the plaint C schedule property. As admitted by PW1 during the course of cross examination the said TIlak Hegde is 23 O.S. No.25645/2014 father of PW1 and initially he was the owner of plaint C schedule and he sold the same to the father of defendant No.1. The said plaint C schedule as could be seen from the said sale deed bounded East by bungalow in the site No.4/4, West by main bungalow and vacant land of Captain B.D. Naidu, South by private road of 20 feet which has been laid out exclusively for purpose of lay out consists of 6 sites including schedule site and North by private road leading to the main bungalow and vacant land of Captain B.D. Naidu.
28. It is necessary to note that the defendant is claiming his right in respect of property purchased by his father under this Ex.D4 sale deed. Prior to that as per Ex.D1 Captain B.D. Naidu has sold property to one George Thangaiah which is plot No.F in the new layout formed in No.3 bounded East by plot No.D, West by main bungalow, 24 O.S. No.25645/2014 North by road leading to main bungalow and South by proposed 20 feet wide road. Thereafter the said George Thangaiah has sold property purchased by him to one Kusum Lata Tanda on 03.10.1969. In this regard certified copy of sale deed is marked as Ex.D2. On perusal of the said sale the same shows that the property No.4/5 is bounded North by road leading to main bungalow.
29. Thereafter the said Kusum Lata Tanda sold her property on 08.02.1973 to B.Thilak Hegde who is none other than the vendor of this defendant. Certified copy of sale deed is marked at Ex.D3 and on perusal of the said sale deed the northern boundary of the property of this defendant is private road leading to the main bungalow and vacant land of captain B.D. Naidu and south by private road of 20 feet width which has been laid exclusively for the layout consisting of six sites including schedule site. 25
O.S. No.25645/2014
30. It is pertinent to note that neither the vendor of the defendant or vendor's vendor of the defendant or the defendant have tried to get the sale deed corrected in respect of the Northern boundary which is shown as private road leading to main bungalow and vacant land of Captain B.D.Naidu. No such rectification deed is executed in between the vendors of the defendant and this defendant. It is well settled proposition of law that a person can convey what he is having and he cannot convey what he do not have. In the case on hand also the vendor's vendor and vendor of this defendant have conveyed what they had. The northern boundary of the property purchased by the father of this defendant is northern boundary of the property of this defendant is private road leading to the main bungalow and vacant land of captain B.D. Naidu and not a road which is also available for this defendant. 26
O.S. No.25645/2014
31. The Southern road of the property of this defendant which was culled out in a lay out suit D schedule road is exclusively meant for the usage of this layout which consists of 6 sites and no other persons have right over the said road.
32. Hence, recitals of Ex.D3 & 4 makes it clear that the northern road of plaint C Schedule i.e., the plaint B schedule road is the private road and the defendant was given with exclusive road as shown in the plaint D schedule.
33. It is the argument of the defendant that his property is bounded on Northern and southern side by road, the said fact is not in dispute. However, Northern road ie., plaint B schedule property as per the sale deed of this defendant and his vendors is a private road and it is not a public road.
27
O.S. No.25645/2014
34. The term private road is defined under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act 1976 and the same is extracted below:
Sec.2(30):
(30)"private street" means any street, road, square, court, alley, passage or riding path, which is not a "public street" but does not include a pathway made by the owner of premises on his own land to secure access to or the convenient use of such premises;
35. In the case on hand the sale deed of defendant himself shows that it is private road and not public street. The said road is meant for access to main bungalow and the vacant land of Capt. B.D.Naidu. This plaintiff being owner of suit A schedule property which was also comprised in Municipal Number No.4 now in Municipal No.4/10 is claiming right over B schedule road. The right of the plaintiff over plaint B schedule road is reflected in the sale deed of this plaintiff that is Ex.P2 and 3. The 28 O.S. No.25645/2014 plaintiff has access as could be seen from Ex.P2 to reach Millers road through this plaint B schedule Road and the plaintiff cannot use plaint D schedule road.
36. The defendant has exclusive right for his movement through D schedule road which is exclusively formed by the original owner of the layout for the use of 6 sites formed in the said layout and the said road is nothing but the plaint D schedule. The plaint D schedule road connects all the 6 sites to the main road i.e., the Millers road. Hence, the argument of the defendant that he is also having right over plaint B schedule road is not proved. The defendant can very much use the said D schedule road.
37. The private road shown on the northern side of the property of defendant i.e., Plaint B schedule is a road which is mainly for the moving to main bungalow and the sale deed of the defendant himself clearly goes to show that 29 O.S. No.25645/2014 the road shown in the plaint B schedule road leads to main bungalow. As per the recitals of Ex.P2 sale deed the plaintiff is given with exclusive right to use the private passage to reach A and B property shown in the attached sketch of Ex.P2 sale deed.
38. The defendant who is claiming right in respect of plaint B schedule road has cross-examined PW.1 at length in respect of not producing khatha in respect of plaint B schedule road. When the said private road is meant for movement to main bungalow the question of getting khatha for the same not arises. It was also argued that the plaintiff not included other 2 persons who are also using said road. It is necessary to note that under Ex.P2 the right of this plaintiff to use private passage and his right over said private passage and why the said private passage were made is clearly stated in the said Ex.P2 sale deed. The 30 O.S. No.25645/2014 counsel for the defendant has relied on judgment reported in AIR 2008 SC 1503 (V.J.Thomas Vs. Pathrose Abraham & others). I have gone through the facts and circumstances of the said case and the dictum laid down in the said case. The facts and circumstances of the case on hand is entirely different. Hence with due respect to the dictum the same is not applicable to the case on hand. Accordingly for the above reasons the question of including other persons to this suit is not warranted. That apart the defendants no where in their written statement have pleaded in respect of above fact. Hence without there being any pleading the defendant as an after thought contended that the plaintiff has not included other persons.
39. That apart the title and possession of plaintiff over plaint A schedule property is not in dispute. The defendant has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex 31 O.S. No.25645/2014 court reported in 2008 (4) SCC 594 (Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead) by LRs. & others). I have carefully gone through the dictum laid down in the above case. In the case on hand the defendant not specifically denied the title and also the possession of plaintiff over plaint A schedule property. Hence with due respect to the dictum laid down in the above case the same will not assist defendant. The plaintiff is residing there since several years in the plaint A schedule within the knowledge of these defendants as owner. Ex.P12 which is the vital document produced by the plaintiff is also not disputed by the defendant. Ex.P12 rough sketch clearly shows that the plaintiff has only one way to reach his plaint A schedule and the same is plaint B schedule road. On the contrary the defendant has not placed any evidence to show that he has also having right in respect of the B schedule road. 32
O.S. No.25645/2014 Accordingly, I answered issue No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
40. ISSUE No.3: The plaintiff specifically asserted that the defendant is interfering in the use of plaint B schedule road and he is trying to cut open the wire weld mesh on the Northern side of suit C schedule and thereby interfering with his possession over plaint A and C schedule property. It is necessary to note that during the course of cross- examination DW.1 admits that he opened on the northern side by fixing the gate and his father earlier use to park the car and enter the house from the small gate. The defendant has not made any counter claim in respect of the said fact. He himself admits that he has opened on the northern side and fixed gate and it shows that the defendant is trying to enter the B schedule road over which he had no right. The defendant is making claim in respect 33 O.S. No.25645/2014 of the plaint B schedule road though he has no such right over it. The recitals of sale deed of father of defendant marked at Ex.D4 was not rectified or corrected in respect of Northern boundary either by the defendant or his father from their vendors. If they had really right over plaint B schedule road then they would have get rectified their sale deed. However they have not done so. The contention of the defendant that he is also having right over the B schedule itself shows that he is trying to interfere with use of by plaint B schedule road by plaintiff. Accordingly I answered Issue No.3 in the Affirmative.
41. ISSUE No.4: In view of my findings on Issue No.1 to 3 which are held in the affirmative the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as sought in the plaint. Hence, I answered Issue No.4 in the Affirmative. 34
O.S. No.25645/2014
42. Issue No.5: In view of the reasoning given above, I proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R The suit filed by the plaintiff as against the defendants is hereby decreed with costs.
The defendants and their men are hereby restrained by way of perpetual injunction from cut open the wire weld mesh on the southern side of the schedule B road or using the same for ingress and egress to suit C schedule or laying electrical, water and sanitary pipes, cables in the schedule B road.
Draw decree accordingly.
--
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her and after corrections pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of February, 2025) Digitally signed by ANITHA ANITHA NANJANAGUDU NANJANAGUDU PARASHIVAMURTHY PARASHIVAMURTHY Date: 2025.03.01 11:03:03 +0530 (Anitha.N.P.) LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit, Bengaluru. (CCH-74) 35 O.S. No.25645/2014 'SCHEDULE A PROPERTY' All that piece and parcel of the site and the residential structure thereon, formerly bearing Municipal Nos.4/9 & 4/10, presently bearing Municipal No.4/10, situated at Millers Road, Bangalore-560052, bounded on the:-
East by : Property bearing Municipal No.4 belonging to P& T Mail Motor Service.
West by : Property formerly bearing Municipal No.4/11 and now bearing Municipal No.4/7 North by : Schedule-B Road and beyond that property bearing Municipal No.4/7 South by : Proper bearing Municipal No.4/8, Millers Road, Bangalore-560052.
'SCHEDULE B ROAD' Private Road having a length of 427'9" and width varying between 15' to 21' running from the Millers Road on the East and ending at the property bearing Municipal No.4/7, (formerly Municipal No.4/11), Millers Road, Bangalore- 560052, with a gate and security post on the eastern side, 36 O.S. No.25645/2014 wire weld mesh running along the southern side and compound wall of 10' height on the northern side, the schedule-B Road being bounded on the:-
East by : Millers Road.
West by : Properties bearing Municipal No.4/11 &
No.4/7
North by : Property bearing Municipal No.5 belonging to Nepal Maharaja now in the possession of the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Bangalore Rural District.
South by : Properties bearing Municipal No.4/2, 4/6, 4/5, the property bearing Municipal No.4 in the occupation of P&T Mail Motor Service and property bearing Municipal No.4/10.
'SCHEDULE C PROPERTY' All that piece and parcel of the site and the construction thereon, bearing Municipal Nos.4/5, situated at Millers Road, Bangalore-560052, bounded on the:-
East by : Property bearing Municipal No.4/6 West by : Property formerly bearing Municipal No.4 belonging to P&T Mail Motor Service 37 O.S. No.25645/2014 North by : Schedule-B Road South by : Schedule-D Road 'SCHEDULE D ROAD' Private Road having a length of 180'0" and width of 20' running from the Millers Road on the East and ending at the gate of the property belonging to P&T Mail Motor Service, the schedule-D Road being bounded on the:-
East by : Millers Road.
West by : Gate of the property bearing Municipal No.4
belonging to P&T Mail Motor Service,
North by : Properties bearing Municipal Nos.4/2, 4/6 & 4/5 South by : Properties bearing Municipal Nos.4/1, 4/3 & 4/4 A N N E X U R E 38 O.S. No.25645/2014
1. List of witnesses examined for the plaintiffs side:-
P.W.1 : Namitha Shetty
2. List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff's side:-
Ex.P.1 : GPA dated 12.07.2017 Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 26.06.1989 Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of gift deed dated 11.10.1999 Ex.P.4 : Spl. notice dated 28.12.1999 Ex.P.5 : Khatha certificate dated 19.04.2014 Ex.P.6 : Khatha extract dated 19.04.2014 Ex.P.7 Tax paid receipt for the year 2013-14 Ex.P.8 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 13.08.1973 Ex.P.9 Office copy of legal notice dated 23.09.2013 Ex.P.10 Postal receipts Ex.P.11 Postal acknowledgment Ex.P.12 Plaint sketch Ex.P.13 Photos Ex.P.14 CD.
3. List of witness examined for the defendants side:-39
O.S. No.25645/2014 D.W.1 : Kuntal R.Amin
4. List of documents exhibited for defendants side:-
Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of the sale deed dated 13.05.1965 A/W typed copy Ex.D.2 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 03.10.1969 A/W typed copy Ex.D.3 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 08.02.1973 A/W typed copy, Ex.D.4 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 13.08.1973 A/W typed copy Ex.D.5 Encumbrance certificate, Ex.D.6 Photographs Ex.D.7 Sanction plan Ex.D.8 CD Ex.D.9 Certificate under sec.65B of Evidence Act.Digitally signed by ANITHA
ANITHA NANJANAGUDU
NANJANAGUDU PARASHIVAMURTHY
PARASHIVAMURTHY
Date: 2025.03.01
11:02:42 +0530
(Anitha N.P.)
LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit,
Bengaluru. (CCH-74)