Bangalore District Court
Smt. G. Susheela vs Sri. Siddappa on 12 December, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-38), BANGALORE CITY.
PRESENT:
SRI. VENKATARAMAN BHAT, B.Sc.,., LL.B. (Spl.)
XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, (CCH-38)
BANGALORE
DATED: THIS THE 12th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017
OS.NO.5895 of 2007
PLAINTIFF/S` SMT. G. SUSHEELA
S/O LATE N.P. KRISHNAPPA
AGE: MAJOR
RESIDING AT No.273-H, 1ST 'A'
CROSS, H.M.T. LAYOUT
NEW SRI DHOWDESHWARI TEMPLE
STREET,
MATHIKERE, BANGALORE.
(Plaintiff by Sri. YKN, adv.)
Versus
DEFENDANT/S SRI. SIDDAPPA,
S/O LATE VEERAIAH
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs
1(a) SMT. MANJULA R.G.
W/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGE: MAJOR
1(b) SRI. MANOHAR
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGE: MAJOR
1(c) SRI. MADHUKAR
S/O LAGE SIDDAPPA
AGE: MAJOR
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
No.1095, 36TH 'D' CROSS,
2 O.S.No.5895 of 2007
25TH MAIN, 4TH 'T' BLOCK,
JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 055.
(Defendant by Sri MBM. Adv. (Retired
from Vakalat))
Date of Institution of the 21.04.2007
suit
Nature of the suit. Suit for declaration and
recovery of possession.
Date of commencement of 17.11.2009
recording of evidence.
Date on which judgment 12.12.2017
was pronounced.
Total Duration. Years Months Days
10 07 20
XXXVII ACCJ, BANGALORE7
3 O.S.No.5895 of 2007
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff filed this suit for declaration and recovery of possession of suit schedule property . Declaration is to the effect that, she may be declared has absolute owner of suit schedule property. It is further prayed to deliver possession of suit schedule property to the Plaintiff. Suit schedule property is shown as under.
All that piece and parcel of the property in Sy.No. No.15/1A, measuring 2 guntas i.e. East to West 33 feet and North to South 66 feet situated at Seededahalli Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk bounded by -
East by Kempanna's site
West by Road
North by Narasimaiah site
South by Nirmalama's site
1. The brief facts of the case are as follows.
According to the Plaintiff her husband by name Krishnappa N.P had purchased suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 6-9-1976 from Sampangi Ramaiah . Accordingly, husband of the Plaintiff was put into possession of suit schedule property . Katha has been changed into the name of husband of the Plaintiff as per the order of Special Tahsildar on 3-5-2006. After the death of Late Krishnappa, the Katha has been changed into the 4 O.S.No.5895 of 2007 name of the Plaintiff as per MR No.5/2006-07. Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property .
That being the state of affairs, Defendant been a police inspector tried to interfere with possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Infact, Defendant dispossessed the Plaintiff, from the suit schedule property before few days ago on the date of filing of this suit. Though Plaintiff had lodged a complaint before the concerned police, no action has been taken. According to the Plaintiff Defendant is an influential person and un- lawfully dispossessed the Plaintiff from the suit schedule property and put up compound wall around suit schedule property.
Under these circumstance, Plaintiff was constrained to file this suit. It is stated that Plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit schedule property on 16-4-2007.
2. On being summoned, Defendant put appearance and filed written statement. During the pendency of the suit, Defendant was reported to be dead. LR's of Defendant were brought on record. Written statement of the Defendant reads as under:
5 O.S.No.5895 of 2007
Suit is not maintainable. Suit is barred by limitation. According to this Defendant Smt.R.G.Manjula was the absolute owner of the schedule property, having purchased the said property from the wife of Late Sampangi Ramaiah by virtue of General Power of Attorney and Affidavit dated 21-1-1995. After the purchase, Katha and other revenue records mutated in the name of Smt.Manjula. Smt.Manjula was put into possession of the schedule property. She put compound wall around the schedule property and also got electricity connection in the year 1996. Thereafter, Smt.R.G.Manjula sold this property in favour of this Defendant under a registered sale deed dated 12-1-2006. Smt.R.G.Manjula is none other than the wife of this Defendant. On the basis of the said registered sale deed , Katha and other revenue records mutated in the name of this Defendant and he is in possession of schedule property.
It is denied that Plaintiff has got title, interest and right over the suit schedule property . According to this defendant , Plaintiff had sold this property in favour of one Dr.Gopesh Kumar N.Sharma under an agreement of sale dated 20-11-1991. Apart from this Plaintiff had also executed General Power of Attorney and affidavit in favour of 6 O.S.No.5895 of 2007 Dr.Gopesh Kumar N.Sharma. According this Defendant Plaintiff has delivered the possession of suit schedule property in favour of Dr.Gopesh Kumar N.Sharma.
It is further submitted that, Plaintiff at any point of time is not in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property .
It is further submitted that, court fee paid by the Plaintiff is in-sufficient and on this count alone suit is liable to be dismissed.
It is further submitted that, suit is barred by limitation. It is submitted that, husband of the Plaintiff died on 9-1-1983. It is stated that, if at all Plaintiff is aggrieved the suit must have been filed within a period of three years from the date of death of N.P.Krishnappa.
It is further submitted that, the husband of the Plaintiff never purchased schedule property . Even if it is assumed that, N.P.Krishnappa had purchased schedule property he was put into one symbolical possession, but not actual possession of schedule property.
All other allegations are specifically denied by this Defendant.7 O.S.No.5895 of 2007
After recording the evidence, once this Court decreed the suit on 7-7-2011. It discloses that, being aggrieved against the said judgment and decree Defendant has preferred RFA No.1376/2011 before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru. Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore by the order dated 18-9-2013 remanded the appeal by set asiding the judgment and decree passed by this Court with a direction to re-frame the issue and frame a separate issue on the point of Court fee and suit valuation. Thereafter, this Court recasted the issues and framed a separate issue on the aspect of Court fee. Subsequently, amendment application came to be filed by the Defendant the written statement . This Court dismissed that application. Being aggrieved against the said order. Defendant preferred the Writ Petition No.3059/2014 (GM- CPC) Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore by its order dated 29-1-2014 allowed writ petition and set aside the order of this Court. Consequently, amendment application to the written statement came to be allowed. As a result written statement got amended at para No.12 (a) to 12 (g).8 O.S.No.5895 of 2007
3. Out of the above pleading the following issues are framed:
1. Does the plaintiff proves that she is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property?
2. Does the plaintiff proves that she was in lawful possession of the plaint schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit?
3. Does the plaintiff proves that the Defendant is interfering in her possession over the same?
4. Does the plaintiff proves that her suit is in time?
5. Does the plaintiff proves that suit is properly valued and court fee paid on the plaint is sufficient?
6. What order or decree?
4. During the course of trail, Plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.P.1 to P.34 got marked. P.W.2 and 3 were examined as witnesses on the side of the Plaintiff. Defendant was examined as D.W.1. After the death of original Defendant , his wife was examined as D.W.2 and Ex.D.1 to D.95 got marked.
5. However D.W.2 did not appear for further cross examination. Heard argument of Advocate for plaintiff . At 9 O.S.No.5895 of 2007 the stage of argument Advocate for Lr's of Defendant retired
-from the vakalath. Hence, argument was taken as heard.
6. My findings on the above issues are as under.
Issue No.1 : In affirmative
Issue No.2 : In affirmative
Issue No.3 : answered to the effect that,
Defendant tried to interfere with
the possession of the Plaintiff
earlier to 16-4-2007 and she
was dispossessed on 16-4-2007.
Issue No.4 : In affirmative
Issue No.5 : In affirmative
Issue No.6 : As per final order, for the
following.
REASONS
7. ISSUE No.1 to 3 : For the sake of convenience and
also to avoid repetition of facts, I would like to discuss all these issues together. Apart from this, the subject matter of these issues are interlinked to each other in such a way that, it is just and proper to hold a common discussion. No party will be put to any prejudice by doing so.
8. Admittedly Plaintiff is the wife of Late N.P.Krishnappa . N.P.Krishnappa died on 9-1-1983. It is not in dispute that, Defendant was working as Circle Inspector. According to the Plaintiff her husband had purchased suit schedule 10 O.S.No.5895 of 2007 property under registered sale deed dated 6-9-1976 from one Sampangi Ramaiah. Ex.P.1 is the agreement of sale executed by Late Sampangi Ramaiah in favour of N.P.Krishnappa dated 27-11-1975. In other words, registered sale deed has been followed by agreement of sale. It can be noticed that the boundaries of agreement of sale dated 27-11-1975 tallies with Ex.P.2. Ex.P.2 is the original sale deed dated 6-9-1976. The boundaries as shown in the agreement of sale dated 27-11-1975 and registered sale deed dated 6-9-1976 tallied with schedule property. Ex.P.3 is the copy of mutation register bearing MR No.8/2005-2006 . It discloses that, N.P.Krishnappa died on 9-1-1983. This is established by death extract of N.P.Krishnappa. It is pertinent to note that though registered sale deed was executed on 9-6-1976, for the first time the name of N.P.Krishnappa mutated in the year 2005-06. It indicates that, after the death of N.P.Krishnappa his name has been mutated in the revenue records. Admittedly, Ex.P.2 is the registered sale deed executed by Late Sampangi Ramaiah in favour of N.P.Krishnappa.As per the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, Revenue Authorities are bound to mutate the name of transferee on the basis of registered instrument. 11 O.S.No.5895 of 2007 If revenue authorities failed to enter the name of N.P.Krishnappa in the record of rights, there is no fault on the part of N.P.Krishnappa. More oever, revenue records are not documents of title. That being the position, the delaying in mutating the name of N.P.Krishnappa on the basis of registered sale deed dated 9-6-1976 does not affect the title deed. Ex.P.4 is the M.R No.5/2006-07. On the perusal this Ex.P.4 it can be noticed that, the name of the Plaintiff has been mutated in the revenue records on the basis of this mutation register. On the perusal of record of rights it discloses that, the name of the Plaintiff has been entered in the revenue records. Plaintiff has produced the tax paid receipts. One thing is very clear that, by virtue of Ex.P.2 the husband of the Plaintiff has purchased suit schedule property. The description of suit schedule property including boundaries are tallied with the description of the property as shown in the agreement of sale as well as registered sale deed. According to the Defendant he has purchased suit schedule property from his wife by name R.G.Manjula under registered sale deed dated 12-1-2006. It is further stated that, Smt.Narayanamma being wife of Late Sampangi Ramaiah had executed General Power of Attorney 12 O.S.No.5895 of 2007 in favour of Smt.R.G.Manjula on 21-1-1995. Ex.D.1 is the said General Power of Attorney executed by Smt.Narayanamma in favour of the wife of Defendant. Ex.D.2 is the affidavit sworn by Smt.Narayanamma in favour of R.G.Manjula. It discloses that, by taking a sum of Rs 1 lakh from R.G.Manjula, Narayanamma transferred the owner ship over suit schedule property in favour of Smt.R.G.Manjula. On the perusal of Ex.D.1 & 2 it can be noticed that, the property is tallied with suit schedule property including boundaries . One thing is very clear that, on the perusal of WRITTEN STATEMENT filed by Defendant, it discloses that there is rival claim over suit schedule property. According to the Defendant he purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 12-1-2006 from Smt.R.G.Manjula . On the perusal of Ex.D.3 it discloses that, Smt.R.G.Manjula as General Power of Attorney holder of Lr's of Late Sampangi Ramaiah executed this sale deed in favour of Defendant. Now a question would arise whether by virtue of this General Power of Attorney and affidavit title is transferred in favour of Smt.R.G.Manjula. It can be noticed that, Smt.R.G.Manjula was the agent of Smt.Narayanamma, who 13 O.S.No.5895 of 2007 is none other than the wife of Late Sampangi Ramaiah. As far as position of law in respect of General Power of Attorney is concerned, it is more useful to refer a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2016 SC-609 (TMT. KASTHURI RADHAKRISHAN AND OTHERS V. M. CHINNIYAN AND ANOTHER). At para 42 it is held as under.
42. The law relating to power of attorney is governed by the provisions of the Power of Attorney Act, 1982. It is well settled therein that an agent acting under a power of attorney always acts, as a general rule, in the name of his principal. Any document executed or thing done by an agent on the strength of power of attorney is as effective as if executed or done in the name of principal, i.e., by the principal himself. An agent, therefore, always acts on behalf of the principal and exercises only those powers, which are given to him in the power of attorney by the principal. Any act or thing done by the agent on the strength of power of attorney is, therefore, never construed or/and treated to have been done by the agent in his personal capacity so as to create any right in his favour but is always construed as having done by the principal himself. An agent, therefore, never gets any personal benefit of any nature. Applying the aforesaid principle, this Court in Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited (2) vs. State of Haryana & Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 656 held in paragraphs 20 and 21 as under:
"20. A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property. The power of attorney is creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorises the grantee to do the acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor as if done by him (see Section 1-A and Section 2 of the Powers of Attorney Act, 1882). It is revocable or terminable at any time unless it is made irrevocable in a manner known to law. Even an irrevocable attorney does not have the effect of transferring title to the grantee.14 O.S.No.5895 of 2007
21. In State of Rajasthan v. Basant Nahata, (2005) 12 SCC 77, this Court held: (SCC pp. 90 & 101, paras 13 & 52) "13. A grant of power of attorney is essentially governed by Chapter X of the Contract Act. By reason of a deed of power of attorney, an agent is formally appointed to act for the principal in one transaction or a series of transactions or to manage the affairs of the principal generally conferring necessary authority upon another person. A deed of power of attorney is executed by the principal in favour of the agent. The agent derives a right to use his name and all acts, deeds and things done by him and subject to the limitations contained in the said deed, the same shall be read as if done by the donor. A power of attorney is, as is well known, a document of convenience.
***
52. Execution of a power of attorney in terms of the provisions of the Contract Act as also the Powers of Attorney Act is valid. A power of attorney, we have noticed hereinbefore, is executed by the donor so as to enable the donee to act on his behalf. Except in cases where power of attorney is coupled with interest, it is revocable. The donee in exercise of his power under such power of attorney only acts in place of the donor subject of course to the powers granted to him by reason thereof. He cannot use the power of attorney for his own benefit. He acts in a fiduciary capacity. Any act of infidelity or breach of trust is a matter between the donor and the donee."
An attorney-holder may however execute a deed of conveyance in exercise of the power granted under the power of attorney and convey title on behalf of the grantor."
9. An affidavit is not substitute for sale deed . Likewise by virtue of General Power of Attorney title is not transferred in favour of any other person. That being the position, how could it possible to transfer the title in favour of Smt.R.G.Manjula by virtue of Ex.D.1 & 2. Of course, 15 O.S.No.5895 of 2007 Smt.R.G.Manjula as a General Power of Attorney holder of Lr's of Late Sampangi Ramaiah executed a registered sale deed in favour of the Defendant who is none other than her husband. The suit schedule property under Ex.D.3 is tallied with suit schedule property . Already Late Sampangi Ramaiah as owner of suit schedule property executed registered sale deed in favour of husband of the Plaintiff on 9-6-1976. It indicates that, sale deed of the husband of the Plaintiff is earlier sale deed than the sale deed of Defendant. It is settled principle of law that, earlier sale deed prevails over subsequent sale deed. As soon as Late Sampangi Ramaiah executed sale deed in favour of husband of the Plaintiff, title is vested with N.P.Krishnappa. Once right is vested it cannot be divested without any another conveyance. That being the position of law any subsequent sale deed by Lr's of Late Sampangi Ramaiah is illegal and void . Of course, Defendant has produced large number of documents to establish his case. By the time case was remanded , original Defendant is reported to be dead. Wife of deceased Defendant was examined as D.W.2. She failed to come forward for further cross examination. In other words, the evidence of D.W.2 is incomplete. I have gone 16 O.S.No.5895 of 2007 through the oral testimony of P.W.1 to 3. P.W.3 is none other than one of the legal heir of Late Sampangi Ramaiah. P.W.3 has spoken to the effect that, Late Sampangi Ramaiah executed sale deed in favour of N.P.Krishnappa. Looking from any angle the sale deed of Defendant is subsequent to sale deed of husband of the Plaintiff and same is void in the eye of law. Hence, it is proved that after the death of N.P.Krishnappa Plaintiff continued in possession of the suit schedule property. It further establishes that, by virtue of Ex.P.2 N.P.Krishnappa derived title over suit schedule property. According to the Defendant , Plaintiff sold schedule property by an agreement of sale dated 20-11- 1991 in favour of Dr.Gopesh Kumar No.Sharma. Ex.D.28 is the copy of agreement of sale dated 20-11-1991. Defendant has taken up his contention in the written statement. Plaintiff filed reply to the effect that, however, Dr.Gopesh Kumar N.Sharma did not turn up for registration of sale deed and as such agreement of sale was cancelled. It has come in the evidence that, advance amount has been returned to Dr.Gopesh Kumar N.Sharma. There is no evidence to the effect that, Plaintiff has delivered possession of property in favour of Dr.Gopesh Kumar N.Sharma. When 17 O.S.No.5895 of 2007 agreement was cancelled the question of execution of sale deed does not arise. In other words, defendant has failed to prove his title over suit schedule property. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 & 2 in Affirmative. As far as Issue No.3 is concerned, on the plaint averments it discloses that, Defendant has dis-possessed the plaintiff from suit schedule property on 16-4-2007. It indicates that, Plaintiff was in possession of suit schedule property earlier to 16-4-2007 and she was dis-possessed by Defendant on 16-4-2007. This statement is not denied by the Defendant nor Lr's of deceased Defendant. Whether Plaintiff is entitled for recover of possession will be discussed in the later part of judgment. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.3 to the effect that, Defendant tried to interfere with the possession of the Plaintiff earlier to 16-4-2007 and she was dispossessed on 16-4-2007.
10. ISSUE NO.4: Defendant has taken up a specific plea in the written statement to the effect that, suit is barred by limitation. As per the averments of the written statement Plaintiff should have filed this suit for declaration within a period of 3 yrs from the date of death of N.P.Krishnappa. It 18 O.S.No.5895 of 2007 has come in the evidence of P.W.1 that N.P.Krishnappa died on 9-1-1983. Now, the question for consideration is whether suit is barred by limitation. Artcile 58 of the Limitation Act governs suit for declaration. As per this Article declaration suit shall be filed within the 3 yrs period from the date of right of cause of action, first accrued. In the case on hand, according to the Plaintiff she was dispossessed on 16-4-2007. This suit is filed on 17-4-2007. That being the position the right to sue first accrued is on 16-4-2007, but not the date of death of N.P.Krishanppa. More over, this is a suit for declaration and recovery of possession. Infact, Article 65 is attracted. Article 65 presbcribes the period of the limitation as 12 yrs from the date of the dispossession. So, looking from any angle it cannot be accepted that , the suit is barred by limitation. Accordingly, I answer above Issue No.4 in the Affirmative.
11. ISSUE No.5: Defendant has taken up a specific plea in the written statement to the effect that, Court fee is not sufficiently paid. Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore in RFA No.1376/2011 remanded this case to the trial court by set asiding the judgment and decree and 19 O.S.No.5895 of 2007 directed to frame issues with regard to Court fee. Accordingly, issues were recasted. Initially, Plaintiff has paid only Rs 25 /- as court fee. On the perusal of order sheet and records it discloses that, after the remand of the case Plaintiff valued the suit schedule property at the rate of Rs 500/- per sq.feet and paid additional court fee. No cross examination was conducted on behalf of Lr's of Defendant on this aspect. In fact, this issue is not seriously pressed into service during the course of trial. In my view, the valuation of the suit schedule property at the rate of Rs 500/- per sq.feet and payment of addl.court fee is sufficient. Even if, it is considered that suit schedule property has lost all the agricultural features the court fee and valuation is sufficient. Accordingly, I answer above Issue No.5 in the Affirmative.
12. ISSUE No.6: Now, the question for consideration is whether Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and recovery of possession. By oral as well as documentary evidence the title of the Plaintiff over suit schedule property has been sufficiently proved. According to the Plaintiff she was dispossessed by the Defendant on 16-4-2007. Earlier 20 O.S.No.5895 of 2007 to this date Plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. On the other hand, though the Defendant and the Lr's of Defendant claimed right over suit schedule property it is not proved. More over, the alleged sale deed of Defendant is subsequent to the execution of the sale deed of the husband of the Plaintiff. By virtue of Ex.D.3 Defendant is not derived any title or right over suit schedule property. In a suit for declaration when Plaintiff proved right over suit schedule property and there is cloud over title of the Plaintiff , the Court may exercise its discretion to grant the relief of declaratory relief. Plaintiff has also sought recovery of possession. In other words, adequate consequential relief is also sought by the Plaintiff. There is no legal impediment to grant the relief of declaration and recovery of possession in favour of the Plaintiff. In the light of above discussion, it is held that, Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and recovery of possession of suit schedule property.
13. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (1) Suit is decreed with costs.21 O.S.No.5895 of 2007
(2) It is declared that, Plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule property.
(3) LR's of deceased Defendant (Defendant No.1(a) to
(c)) are directed to deliver vacant possession of suit schedule property to the Plaintiff within 90 days from the date of decree.
(4) Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the TYPIST, online, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, this the 12th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017) (VENKATARAMAN BHAT) XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, (CCH-38) BANGALORE ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
PW1 Smt. Susheela PW2 Sri. Venkatesh PW3 Sri. S. Jayanna
Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
Ex.P1 - Agreement of sale
Ex.P2 - Sale deed dated 06.09.1976
Ex.P3&4 - Certified copy of mutations
Ex.P5to7 - RTC
Ex.P8&9 - EC
Ex.p10 - Death Certificate
Ex.P11 - Police complaint
Ex.P12 - Certified copy of Mutation
Ex.P13 - Certified copy of mutation
Ex.P14 - Order of Special Tahsildar
Ex.P15 - Certified copy of RoR
Ex.P16 - Certified copy of Survey Sketch
Ex.P17&18 - Certified copy of Bala Bagada
Ex.P19 - Certified copy of E/C
Ex.P20to25 - Tax Paid receipts
Ex.p26to34 - Photos
22 O.S.No.5895 of 2007
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
D.W.1 Sri. Siddappa D.W.2 Smt.R.G.Manjula
Documents marked on behalf of the Defendant/s:
Ex.D1 - General Power of Attorney Ex.D2 - Affidavit Ex.D3to6 - E/Cs Ex.D7to13 - Tax Paid Receipts Ex.D14 - Property register extract Ex.D15 - Electricity Bill Ex.D16to26 - Photographs Ex.D27 - Negative Ex.D28 - Copy Agreement of Sale Ex.D29&30 - Original sale deeds Ex.D31 - Tax paid register Ex.D32 - Endorsement Ex.D33 - Assessment register Ex.D34 - General Power of Attorney Ex.D35 - Affidavit Ex.D36to43 - E/C Ex.D44 - Hissa Ex.D45 - Akarband Ex.D46 - Settlement Akarband Ex.D47to49 - Sketch Ex.D50 - Mutation Ex.D51to53 - Pani Patrike Ex.D54 - Official Memorandum Ex.D55 - Certificate Ex.D56 - Katha extract Ex.D57 - Katha register Ex.D58 - Tax paid receipt Ex.D59 - Affidavit Ex.D60 - Katha extract Ex.D61 - Katha register Ex.D62 - Tax paid receipt Ex.D63 - Affidavit Ex.D64 - Katha extract Ex.D65 - Katha register Ex.D66 - Tax paid receipt 23 O.S.No.5895 of 2007 Ex.D67to74 - Photos Ex.D75 - C.D. Ex.D76 - Rent Agreement Ex.D77 - Complaint copy Ex.D78 - FIR Ex.D79 - B-report Ex.D80 - General Power of Attorney Ex.D81 - Certified copy of statement Ex.D82 - Certified copy of partition Ex.D83 - General Power of Attorney copy Ex.D84 - Affidavit copy Ex.D85to90 - Statement of witnesses. Ex.D91to93 - Electricity bill Ex.P94 - Affidavit Ex.D95 - Statement XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, (CCH-38), BANGALORE. 24 O.S.No.5895 of 2007 Judgment passed and pronounced in the
open court (vide separate judgment). The operative portion of the order reads thus -
ORDER (1) Suit is decreed with costs.
(2) It is declared that, Plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule property.
(3) LR's of deceased Defendant (Defendant No.1(a) to (c)) are directed to deliver vacant possession of suit schedule property to the Plaintiff within 90 days from the date of decree.
(4) Draw decree accordingly.
XXXVII ACCJ, (CCH-38)