Bangalore District Court
S. Rohini Bai vs Muniswamy Odeyar @ Ananda on 30 September, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-75)
Dated this 30th day of September 2020
PRESENT:
Sri. MOHAMMED MUJEER ULLA C.G.B.A. LL.B.,
LXXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.26600/2014
PLAINTIFF: S. ROHINI BAI
W/o Vasudevan
Aged about 74 years
R/at: Site No.191 and 191/A
carved out in Land bearing Sy.No. 24
5th cross, Agarahara Layout
Jakkur Post, Yelahanka Layout Hobli
Bengaluru - 560 064.
V/s
DEFENDANTS: 1 MUNISWAMY ODEYAR @ ANANDA
MASTER
S/o. Late. Shankarappa @ Muniswamappa
Odeyar,
Aged about 45 years
R/at: Site No.123
carved out in Land bearing Sy.No. 24
5th cross, Agarahara Layout
Jakkur Post, Yelahanka Layout Hobli
Bengaluru - 560 064.
2 R. MANJUNATH
2
OS.26600/2014
(Water Supplier)
S/o P. Ramanna
R/at: Site No.191
carved out in Land bearing Sy.No. 24
5th cross, Agarahara Layout
Jakkur Post, Yelahanka Layout Hobli
Bengaluru - 560 064.
3 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Bangalore Urban District
Kandaya Bhavan
K.G.Road
Bangalore-560 009.
4 GUNASHEELA
Aged Major
R/at:Site No.190/A
carved out in Land bearing Sy.No. 24
5th cross, Agarahara Layout
Jakkur Post, Yelahanka Layout Hobli
Bengaluru - 560 064.
Date of Institution of the suit 25.11.2014
Nature of the Suit (Suit on pro-note, suit for declaration
INJUNCTION
and possession, suit for injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of recording of the Evidence. 11.08.2017
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 30.09.2020
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
05 10 05
3
OS.26600/2014
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff has filed the instant suit for the relief of perpetual prohibitory injunction restraining defendants 1, 2 & 4 from trespassing into the suit property and for costs.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
2. plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the suit properties. The government granted site No.191 & 191/A to plaintiff under Ashraya scheme.
The revenue records of the suit properties are standing in her name and she has been paying tax to the Government. She has put up construction on the suit properties and obtained electricity connection. Plaintiff contends that, defendants 1, 2 & 4 by creating documents, made attempts to commit trespass into the suit properties. In this regard, she has given complaint to the concerned police, Tahsildhar & Deputy Commissioner. The Tahsildhar after conducting enquiry has submitted report stating that, she is in possession of the suit properties. Nevertheless defendants 1, 2 & 4 continuously making attempts to commit trespass into the suit properties. Therefore left with no alternative, she 4 OS.26600/2014 filed the instant suit. On these and other grounds stated in the plaint, plaintiff prays to decree the suit and to grant the relief of injunction as prayed for.
3. Defendant No.2 resisted the suit by filing written statement. He denied the plaintiff's possession over the suit properties. He contends that, the Government has allotted site No.191 formed in Sy.No.24 of Agrahara village, Bengaluru North Taluk in favor of one E.K.Gopinathan on the occasion of 28th Independence day and issued grant certificate dated:26.12.1977 in his favor. The said E.K.Gopinathan has executed Power of Attorney in favor of Smt.Lakshmi Devamma to manage the said site. At the time of grant, the said site situate within jurisdiction of Yelahanka Town Municipal Council. The Panchayath documents of the said site were made in the name of E.K.Gopinathan. E.K.Gopinathan through his attorney holder Smt.Lakshmi Devamma offered to sell the said site. His (defendant No.2) father T.Ramanna agreed to purchase the same. Accordingly on 29.08.2005 Smt.Lakshmi Devamma executed Sale Deed in favor of T.Ramanna. Since then, T.Ramanna has been in possession & enjoyment of the said site. On the basis of the said sale deed, the panchayath records of the site No.191 mutated in the 5 OS.26600/2014 name of T.Ramanna & he has been paying taxes. He has put up ACC sheet shed in the site No.191 & also in the adjacent site i.e., site No.192. 2 Nd defendant contends that, he has no personal interest in the suit properties. His father was having interest over site No.191. Therefore he is misjoinder to the case. He contends that, there is no site as site No.191/A. Plaintiff was never in possession of suit properties. Therefore she is not entitled for the relief of injunction. In addition to the above, 2 nd defendant contends that, plaintiff has filed the instant suit against the 3 rd defendant, the Deputy Commissioner without complying the provision of Sec.80 of CPC. On this count alone the suit is to be dismissed in-limine. On these and other grounds stated in the written statement, 2nd defendant prays to dismiss the suit.
4. 4th defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments in toto. He also contends that, plaintiff was never in possession of suit properties. He contends that, originally the Government has granted site No.190/A formed in Sy.No.24 of Agrahara village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk in favor of one S.N.Kavitha by issuing grant certificate dated:28.11.1979. Since the date of grant the said S.N.Kavitha had 6 OS.26600/2014 been in possession & enjoyment of the said site. On 21.02.2004 he (4 th defendant) purchased the said site from S.N.Kavitha for a sum of Rs.60,000/-. By receiving full consideration amount Kavitha has executed possession certificate in his favor and put him in possession of the said site. Since then he has been in possession & enjoyment of site No.190/A. He contends that, he is no way concerned to the suit properties. Plaintiff who is not in possession of any ashraya site has filed the instant suit making false allegation against him. He contends that, plaintiff had filed OS.No.303/2009 seeking the relief of injunction. On 20.04.2011 she filed memo. Accordingly the suit was dismissed as not pressed. After dismissal of the said suit, plaintiff kept mum for 3 years and thereafter filed instant suit to harass him and other defendants. Defendant No.4 contends that, there is no cause of action for the suit. The cause of action one alleged is false. On these and other grounds stated in the written statement, defendant No.4 prays to dismiss the suit.
5. Defendant No.1 & 3 though appeared through counsel, not filed written statement.
7
OS.26600/2014
6. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the then presiding officer has formulated the following:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, she has been in lawful possession of the suit property as on the date of the suit?
2. Whether plaintiff further proves that, the defendants have attempted to interfere in the suit property?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, she is entitled to the relief claimed in the suit?
4. What order or decree?
7. Plaintiff examined herself as PW1 & produced documents marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.70. Defendant No.4 examined himself as DW1 & examined 2 witnesses as DW2 & 3. Defendant No.4 produced documents marked at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.66. Defendant No.2 examined himself as DW4 and produced documents marked at Ex.D.67 to Ex.D.81.
8. Heard the arguments on both side and perused record.
9. My findings on the above issues are as under:
ISSUE NO.1: In the Negative.8
OS.26600/2014 ISSUE NO.2: In the Negative.
ISSUE NO.3: In the Negative.
ISSUE NO.4: As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
10. ISSUE NO.1: It is settled principle of law that, in a Civil case, the parties have to lead evidence as per their pleadings. The Court cannot countenance the evidence without pleadings. Plaintiff has filed the instant suit for the relief of injunction in respect of 2 immovable properties. Para No.1 & 2 of the plaint are in respect of addresses of the parties. In para No.3 plaintiff has stated about allotment of sites. She has not stated, when, who & in whose favor the sites were allotted. In the rest of para No.3 she stated about filing of complaint against 1st defendant. Para No.4 to 8 are about complaints against defendants to various authorities. Para No.9 is about caveat filed by her in the Court of Jr.Civil Judge at Bengaluru against 1 st defendant. In para No.10 & 11 she stated about registration of FIR against defendant No.1 & 4. In para No.12 she stated about issuance of statutory legal notice to defendants 1, 2 & 4 U/Sec.106, 108 of IP Act. In para No.13 she stated that, government has formed Ashraya sites & layout plan was also prepared. In para No.14 she 9 OS.26600/2014 stated that, she obtained information about allotement of the said sites. In para No.15 she stated about direction given by the 3 rd defendant the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District to Tahsildhar to conduct enquiry. In para No.16 she stated about submission of report dated:04.05.2002 by the Tahsildhar to the 3rd defendant. In para No.17 she stated about preparation of mahazar regarding actual possession. In para No.18 she stated about reply given by 4th defendant to her notice dated:10.07.2014. In para No.19, 20 & 24 she stated about payment of tax under self assessment scheme. In para No.21, 22 & 25 she stated about payment of electricity bills to BESCOM. In para No.26 she stated about release of defendant No.1 & 4 on bail in a criminal case. In para No.27, 28 & 29 she stated about creation of bogus and fake documents by defendants 1 & 4. In para No.30 she mentioned the dates on which the cause of action for the suit arose. In para No.31 she stated that, defendants 1, 2 &4 are the trespassers of the schedule properties. In para No.32 she stated about valuation. In para No.33 she stated that, except this suit, she has not filed any other suit. Thus in the entire plaint, plaintiff has nowhere stated, when and how she acquired the suit properties & what is there in the suit properties. She has not stated, when & who was put her in possession of 10 OS.26600/2014 the suit properties. Thus the plaint is silent regarding plaintiff's right, title, interest & possession over the suit properties. As I have already stated above, when there is no pleadings, the Court cannot looked into evidence. Therefore due to want of pleadings, the Court cannot countenance the evidence lead by plaintiff to prove her possession over the suit properties.
11. Plaintiff to prove her possession over the suit properties examined herself as PW1 by way of affidavit. In the examination in chief she reiterated & reaffirmed the averments of the plaint. She produced Ex.P.13 Certified copy of Layout residents list; Ex.P.17 Katha extract; Ex.P.18, 19 Electricity bill; Ex.P.20, 21, 34, 35, 63 Self assessment of property tax challans; Ex.P.22, 23, 50, 51, 55, 57, 58, 59 & 65(1 & 2), Electricity bill paid receipts; Ex.P.24, 25, 36 & 46 Bangalore one receipts; Ex.P.26, 28, 30, 32, 33, 37 & 49 BBMP acknowledgments; Ex.P.27, 29, 31, 56 & 60 Tax paid receipts; Ex.P.38 to 40 tax paid challans; Ex.P.45 Electricity bill; Ex.P.47 BBMP receipt; Ex.P.48 Payment challan; Ex.P.52 & 53 SBM Bank challans; Ex.P.54 Pyament challan & Ex.P.61 Original Margasuchi book issued by CMC; 11
OS.26600/2014 Ex.P.62 Grant certificate; Ex.P.64 (1 to 5) rent agreement; Ex.P.67 & 68 Power of Attorneys dated:10.11.2011 & 25.07.2019.
12. I went through the affidavit of plaintiff filed in lieu of examination in chief. It is re-affirmation & reiteration of plaint averments in verbatim. Thus in the examination in chief, plaintiff has not stated, when and how she acquired right & possession over the suit properties. She also not stated what is there in the suit properties and how she is enjoying the said properties.
13. A perusal of plaint schedule would show that, plaintiff has sought the relief of injunction in respect of house bearing No.191 measuring 30 X 40 feet and another house bearing No.191/A measuring 1500 sq.ft. As I have already stated above, either in the plaint or in evidence, plaintiff has not stated when and who constructed the said houses and who are residing therein. A perusal of the cause title of the plaint would show that, first she stated that, she is in possession of site No.191 & 191/A. While furnishing the address of 2 nd defendant, she stated that, 2nd defendant is also in possession of site No.191. Thus from the address mentioned in the cause title, according to the plaintiff, she and 2nd defendant both are in possession of site No.191. A perusal of cross 12 OS.26600/2014 examination of PW1 at page No.18 & 19 would show that, her evidence was recorded in the question & answer form. The question and answer reads thus:
Q. You have mentioned in the notice dated:10.07.2014 mentioned above that, the defendant No.2 is residing in suit property house No.191. What do you say?
Ans: Yes. I have mentioned It is true that afterwards I lodged a complaint against defendant No.1 & 4 before Sampigehalli police station. It is true that I did not lodge the said complaint against the defendant No.2. It is false to suggest that, defendant No.1 & 4 are in occupation of site No.190-A (not the suit property). It is true that I am in possession of suit property bearing site No.191-A. It is true that I have put up two sheds in site No.191-A and let out the same.
Q. Suit property site No.191 earlier belonged to the ownership of Kochukunju Pillai. What do you say?
Ans: Yes. Gopinathan and myself have both constructed. Witness again states that Gopinathan has constructed in a separate site and I have constructed in a separate site (Witness was again instructed about the question as she was evasive in giving answer but even then she continues to give indirect answers).
Q. Suit site No.191 had been allotted to Kochukunju Pillai and he sold the said site to one Ramanna under the Certified copy of sale deed now shown to me. What do you say?
Ans: It is false to suggest that suit site No.191 and the house therein is not in my possession but it is in the possession of the defendant No.2.
14. From the above excerpted deposition of PW1 would show that, according to her site No.191 was allotted to 2 persons & both are in possession 13 OS.26600/2014 of the said property. In the cross examination at page No.14 PW1 has stated that, government has allotted site No.191 to her in the year 1979 & site No.191/A was allotted to her husband. In the cross examination at page No.15, PW1 has stated that, site No.191/A is not in existence. She stated that, she has not filed the instant suit in respect of site No.191/A. During the course of cross examination of PW1, when the learned counsel for defendant No.4 confronted certified copies of 2 gift deeds, DW1 has admitted the said gift deeds. Therefore they were marked at Ex.D.1 & 2. A perusal of Ex.D.1 would show that, on 09.11.2011 plaintiff has executed Gift deed in favor of her daughter Rekha in respect of site No.191. A perusal of Ex.D.2 would show that, on 05.01.2009 her husband Vasudevan has executed Gift deed in respect of site No.191/A in favor of his daughter Rekha.
15. Plaintiff has produced Ex.P.69 Registered deed of cancellation of Gift dated:20.07.2019 executed by her daughter Rekha in favor Vasudevan, the husband of plaintiff. A perusal of the same would show that, it was made to cancel Ex.D.2 Gift deed dated:05.01.2009 made in respect of site No.191/A. Ex.P.70 is the registered deed of cancellation of the gift 14 OS.26600/2014 dated:22.07.2019 executed by plaintiff's daughter Rekha in her favor canceling Ex.D.1 gift deed dated:09.11.2011. If the recitals of Ex.D.1 & 2 executed by plaintiff and her husband in favor of their daughter is admitted as true, then as on the date of filing of the suit, plaintiff is not in possession of either site No.191 or 191/A.
16. Plaintiff has produced Ex.P.7 Notice dated:10.07.2014 issued to defendants 1, 2 & 4. In para No.2 of the said notice it is stated that, defendants 1, 2 & 4 have trespassed into the site No.191 & 191/A. In para No.8 of the said notice, the plaintiff has called upon the defendants 1, 2 & 4 to vacate and handover the vacant possession of site No.191 & 191/A to her within 60 days from the date of receipt of notice. The instant suit was filed on 25.11.2014. Therefore as per the recitals of Ex.P.7 notice dated:10.07.2014 issued by plaintiff, as on the date of filing of the suit, she is not in possession of any of the suit properties. A perusal of the plaint would show that, originally the plaint was drafted to seek the relief of declaration & possession. Thereafter for the reasons best known, plaintiff strike out the relief of declaration & possession and sought the relief of injunction.
15
OS.26600/2014
17. 2Nd defendant who was examined as DW4 has stated that, his father T.Ramanna has been in possession of site No.191. During the cross examination of DW4, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has made a suggestion that, site No.191 was allotted to 2 persons. DW4 has denied the said suggestion and stated that, site No.191 was allotted to E.K.Gopinathan. The statement of PW1 that, the Government has allotted site No.191 to 2 different persons and both are in possession of the said property cannot be believed.
18. In the plaint schedule, the measurement of site No.191 is shown as 30 X 40 feet. In Ex.P.17 assessment extract, the measurement of site No.191 is shown as 50 X 40 feet. Plaintiff has not given explanation regarding the said difference of measurement of site No.191. Plaintiff has produced katha extract, assessment extract, tax paid receipts, electricity demand bills & paid receipts. In electricity demand bill & paid receipts, property number is not mentioned. Therefore the said documents are of no assistance for plaintiff to prove her possession over the suit properties. As I have already stated above, the measurement of site No.191 mentioned in katha and 16 OS.26600/2014 assessment extract would not support the case of the plaintiff that, the measurement of site No.191 is 30 X 40 feet.
19. A perusal of Ex.D.2 Gift Deed dated:05.01.2009 would show that, plaintiff's husband Vasudevan has executed the said gift deed in favor of his daughter by contending that, he was the owner and in possession of site No.191/A, plaintiff is the witness to the said gift deed. Thus the recitals of Ex.D.2 Gift deed admitted by plaintiff would not support her contention that, as on the date of filing of the suit, site N.191/A was in her possession. PW1 once states that, site No.191/A is not in existence. Again she states that, site No.191/A was allotted to her husband. If it is allotted to plaintiff's husband, plaintiff will have no right over the said property. Therefore plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the suit in respect of site No.191/A. In view of my afore said findings, I hold that, plaintiff failed to prove her possession over the suit properties as on the date of suit. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in the Negative.
20. ISSUE NO.2: In view of my finding on issue No.1 that, plaintiff failed to prove her possession over the suit properties, her statement 17 OS.26600/2014 that, defendants 1, 2 & 4 interfered with her possession & enjoyment of the suit properties and made attempts to commit trespass in the said properties cannot be believed. Thus plaintiff failed to prove the cause of action. In view of my finding on Issue No.1 in Negative, issue No.2 is to be answered in the Negative. Accordingly I answer Issue No.2 in the Negative.
21. ISSUE NO.3: Defendant No.3 is the Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru Urban District. As per Sec.80(1) of the CPC, before filing a suit against Government or a Government employee, 2 months prior notice is to be given. If there is an emergency, the plaintiff has to file application U/Sec.80(2) of CPC exempting him from issuing mandatory notice U/Sec.80(1) of CPC. In the instant case, before filing the suit, plaintiff has neither issued notice to 3rd defendant U/Sec.80(1) of CPC nor she filed application U/Sec.80(2) of CPC along with the suit to seek exemption. In view of plaintiff has not complied the mandatory provision of Sec.80 of CPC, the suit is to be dismissed in-limine. In addition to the above, in view of my findings on Issue No.1 & 2, plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of injunction. In view of my afore said findings, I answer Issue No.3 in the Negative. 18
OS.26600/2014
20. ISSUE NO.4: In view of my reasons & findings on Issues 1 to 3, I pass the following:
ORDER Plaintiff's suit is dismissed. No order as to costs.
****** (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of September 2020) (MOHAMMED MUJEER ULLA C.G.) LXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Mayohall Unit, City Civil Court Bengaluru. (CCH - 75) ANNEXURES:-
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
PW1 S. ROHINI BAI
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 Police complaint
Ex.P.2 Requisition given to D.C.dated:26.02.2014
Ex.P.3 Requisition given to D.C.dated:14.03.2014
Ex.P.4 Letter of Addl.D.C.dated:04.04.2014 to Tahsildar,
Bengaluru North
Ex.P.5 Letter of Addl.D.C.dated:26.05.2014 to Police Inspector,
19
OS.26600/2014
Sampigehalli, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.6 Copy of F.I.R
Ex.P.7 Copy of legal notice
Ex.P.8 Reply notice
Ex.P. 9 Certified copy of petition in Cr.Misc.No.3325/2014
Ex.P. 10 Endorsement issued by Ex.Officer, Bengaluru North Taluk
Panchayath dated: 6.7.2014.
Ex.P. 11 Certified copy of paper notification
Ex.P. 12 Certified copy of letter dated: 23.1.2001
Ex.P. 13 Certified copy layout residents list
Ex.P. 14 Certified copy of letter dated: 13.11.2006
Ex.P. 15 Certified copy of letter dated: 8.2.2007
Ex.P. 16 Certified copy of letter dated: 6.3.2007
Ex.P. 17 Khata extract Form No.III Rule 20
Ex.P.18&19 Electricity bills
Ex.P. 20 Self assessment of property tax challan dated: 30.09.2017
Ex.P. 21 Self assessment of property tax challan dated: 27.09.2017
Ex.P.22&23 Two electricity bill paid receipts Ex.P. 24 Bangalore One receipt dated: 5.12.2012 Ex.P. 25 Bangalore One receipt dated: 20.07.2012 Ex.P. 26 BBMP acknowledgment dated:20.07.2012 Ex.P. 27 Tax paid receipt Ex.P. 28 BBMP acknowledgment dated:18.07.2011 Ex.P. 29 Tax paid receipt Ex.P. 30 BBMP acknowledgment dated:26.11.2010 Ex.P. 31 Tax paid receipt Ex.P. 32 BBMP acknowledgment dated:31.12.2009 for Rs.134/-20
OS.26600/2014 Ex.P. 33 BBMP acknowledgment dated:31.12.2009 for Rs.1209/- Ex.P. 34 Self assessment of property tax challan dated: 29.09.2017 Ex.P. 35 Self assessment of property tax challan dated: 27.09.2017 Ex.P. 36 Bangalore One receipt dated: 20.07.2012 for Rs. 435/-
Ex.P. 37 BBMP acknowledgment for the year 2012-13
Ex.P. 38-44 7 Tax paid challans
Ex.P. 45 Electricity bill for Rs. 1,270/-
Ex.P. 46 Bangalore One receipt dated: 17.07.2012
Ex.P. 47 BBMP receipt Form No.3
Ex.P. 48 Payment challan
Ex.P. 49 Bangalore One receipt dated: 31.12.2007 for Rs. 435/-
Ex.P. 50 BESCOM receipt dated: 11.01.2013
Ex.P. 51 Tax paid bank challan for the year 2006-07
Ex.P. 52 SBM Bank Challan dated: 19.09.2005
Ex.P. 53 SBM Bank Challan dated: 13.02.2004
Ex.P. 54 Payment challan for the year 2002-03
Ex.P. 55 Tax paid bank challan for the year 2005-06
Ex.P. 56 BBMP Tax paid challan for the year 2007-08
Ex.P. 57 Electricity bill for Rs.300/- dated: 23.01.2009
Ex.P. 58 Electricity bill for Rs.146/- dated: 23.09.2008
Ex.P. 59 Electricity bill for Rs.341.79/- dated: 11.03.2002
Ex.P. 60 Tax paid receipt No.1154
Ex.P. 61 Original Margasuchi Book issued by CMC.
Ex.P. 62 Hakkupathra
Ex.P. 63 Tax assessment list
Ex.P. 64 5 rental agreements
Ex.P. 65 2 electricity bills paid receipts
21
OS.26600/2014
Ex.P. 66 Application dated: 10.05.2019 given to Prosecution
Department
Ex.P. 67 General Power of attorney dated: 10.11.2011
Ex.P. 68 General Power of attorney dated: 25.07.2019
Ex.P. 69 Cancellation Deed of Will dated:20.07.2019
Ex.P. 70 Cancellation Deed of Will dated:22.07.2019
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
DW1 SRI. C. GUNASHEELA DW2 SRI. VENKATESH .N DW3 SRI. A.RAVINDRA DW4 SRI. MANJUNATHA
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D.1 Copy of Gift Deed dated:09.11.2011 Ex.D.2 Copy of Gift Deed dated:05.01.2009 Ex.D.3 Withdrawal Memo filed in OS.No.303/2009 Ex.D.4 Hakku Patra dated:28.11.1977 Ex.D.5 House and site register extract Ex.D.6 Demand register extract
Ex.D.7 & 8 Receipts dated:09.10.1983 & 06.10.1994 Ex.D.9 House construction license dated:19.10.1983 Ex.D.10 Assessment list for the year 1994-95 Ex.D.11 Demand register extract Ex.D.12 Tax paid challan dated:20.10.2006 Ex.D.13 Tax self declaration form for the year 2004-05 22 OS.26600/2014 Ex.D.14 Tax challan for 2002-03 Ex.D.15 Guidelines for self declaration of tax Ex.D.16 Self Declaration form for 2002-03 Ex.D.17 Tax challan dated:20.10.2006 Ex.D.18 Self declaration form for 2003-04 Ex.D.19 Self declaration form No.3 dated:24.09.2003 Ex.D.20 Residential certificate dated:18.09.2003 Ex.D.21 Self declaration form dated:20.06.2006 Ex.D.22 Residential certificate dated:16.03.2005 Ex.D.23 & 24 E.C. in form No.16 Ex.D.25 Tax challan dated:19.01.2009 Ex.D.26 Self declaration form for 2006-07 Ex.D.27 Tax challan dated:19.01.2009 Ex.D.28 Self declaration from for 2007-08 Ex.D.29 Acknowledgment dated:16.03.2009 issued by BBMP Ex.D.30 Tax paid receipt dated:16.03.2009 Ex.D.31 Acknowledgment dated:09.11.2009 issued by BBMP Ex.D.32 Tax paid receipt dated:09.11.2009 Ex.D.33 Tax paid receipt dated:07.07.2010 Ex.D.34 Acknowledgement dated:07.07.2010 issued by BBMP Ex.D.35 Tax paid receipt dated:27.07.2011 Ex.D.36 Application dated:27.07.2011 Ex.D.37 Tax receipt dated:01.12.2013 Ex.D.38 Acknowledgement dated:01.02.2013 Ex.D.39 Tax receipt dated:21.08.2014 Ex.D.40 Acknowledgement dated:28.01.2014 Ex.D.41 Tax receipt dated:21.08.2014 23 OS.26600/2014 Ex.D.42 Acknowledgement dated:21.08.2014 Ex.D.43 Challan dated:31.03.2017 Ex.D.44 Tax receipt dated:31.03.2017 Ex.D.45 Tax challan dated:03.02.2018 Ex.D.46 Tax receipt dated:03.02.2018 Ex.D.47 Challan dated:24.07.2018 Ex.D.48 Tax receipt dated:24.07.2018 Ex.D.49 Tax challan dated:18.07.2018 Ex.D.50 Tax receipt dated:18.07.2018 Ex.D.51 BESCOM receipt dated:23.08.2012 Ex.D.52 - 54 Electricity bills Ex.D.55 Certified copy of order sheet in OS.No.303/2009 Ex.D.56 Certified copy of plaint dated:07.03.2009 Ex.D.57 Certified copy of IA U/O.39 Rule 1 & 2 R/w Sec.151 of CPC and affidavit dated:07.03.2009 Ex.D.58 Notice issued by BESCOM dated:23.08.2012 Ex.D.59 Notice issued by BBMP dated:25.11.2009 Ex.D.60 Notice dated:03.03.2011 issued by BBMP Ex.D.61 Notice dated:26.02.2011 issued by BBMP Ex.D.62 Copy of complaint given to the P.I. Sampigehalli Police Station dated:20.01.2009 Ex.D.63 Acknowledgement dated:14.12.2013 issued by Police Ex.D.64 Possession deed dated:21.02.2004 executed by Kavitha S.N in favor of C.Gunasheela Ex.D.65 GPA dated:27.08.2007 executed by S.N.Kavitha in favor of C.Gunasheela Ex.D.66 Rental agreement dated:10.05.2013 executed by Sri.Ravi in favor of C.Gunasheela 24 OS.26600/2014 Ex.D.67 Hakku patra Ex.D.68 GPA dated:10.06.1994 Ex.D.69 Affidavit Ex.D.70 Certified copy of sale deed dated:29.08.2005 Ex.D.71 Encumbrance certificate Ex.D.72 Guidelines book Ex.D.73 & 74 Tax paid receipts Ex.D.75 Certified copy of sale deed dated:29.08.2005 Ex.D.76 Guidelines book Ex.D.77 Tax paid receipts Ex.D.78 BESCOM electricity bill Ex.D.79 Photograph Ex.D.80(1 to 8) Electricity demand bill Ex.D.81 Photographs & CD.
(MOHAMMED MUJEER ULLA C.G.) LXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Mayohall Unit, City Civil Court Bengaluru. (CCH - 75)