Bangalore District Court
Smt.S.N.Nethravathi vs Sri.K.V. Nagaraj Mirajkar on 22 November, 2022
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-12) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 22 nd day of November 2022.
PRESENT: Smt. Jyothsna. D, LL.B.,LL.M .,
XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.8084/2021
PLAINTIFF Smt.S.N.Nethravathi,
w/o.T.Ramakrishna,
aged about 53 years,
residing at No.1839,
6th 'A' Main, 'D' Block,
2nd Stage, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore-560 010.
(By Sri. K.P.Ashok Kumar -
Advocate)
VS
DEFENDANT 1. Sri.K.V. Nagaraj Mirajkar,
Major,
2. Smt. Lakshmi Bai,
W/o K.V.Nagaraj Mirajkar
Major,
Both Residing at No.12,
(Old No.1840), 6th 'A' Main,
'D' Block, 2nd Stage,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore-560 010.
3. Bruhat Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike,
Hudson Circle, Bangalore,
By its Commissioner.
( D-1& 2 By Sri.M.G.R, D.3
By Sri.B.S.- Advocates)
Date of Institution of the Suit 25.10.2014
2
OS No.8084/2014
OS. No.6803/2018
osoO
Nature of the Suit (Suit on Injunction suit
Money Suit pronote, Suit for
declaration and possession, Suit
for injunction etc.)
Date of the commencement of 08.01.2020
recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment was 22.11.2022
pronounced
Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
08 00 27
(JYOTHSNA. D)
XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant seeking declaration to declare her easementary right of light and air from the side of schedule property to her property, for mandatory injunction for demolishing the unauthorized construction put up in the mandatory setback ares on eastern, southern and northern side in particular of the schedule property, for permanent injunction restraining defendants No.1 & 2 from putting up construction on schedule property in violation of the approved building plan and building bye laws in the setback areas and also to direct the 3 rd defendant BBMP to remove the unauthorized construction made Cont'd..
3
OS No.8084/2014 OS. No.6803/2018 osoO by defendants No.1 and 2 in the set back areas in violation of the approved building plan and see that the further construction is put up thereon strictly in accordance with the approved building plan.
2. The brief facts of the Plaintiffs case are that-
The plaintiff's vendor Smt. Andalamma acquired the site bearing No.1839, 6th 'A' Main, 'D' Block 2nd Stage, Gayathrinagar, (Rajajinagar), Bengaluru, under the registered Sale Deed dated 15.11.1967, executed by BDA and she constructed the house thereon in the year 1969 and was enjoying the easementary right of light and air from all sides including from the right side. It is further stated that the said Smt. Andalamma sold the said property to the plaintiff under the registered Sale Deed dated 21.04.2004. Ever since then the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property as absolute owner. It is further stated that the defendants 1 & 2 purchased the property adjoining to the plaintiff's property located on the southern side bearing No.12 (old No.1840) described Cont'd..
4
OS No.8084/2014 OS. No.6803/2018 osoO as suit schedule property. In the year 2013, the defendants demolished the structure and have been trying to put up a new construction after obtaining the approved building plan from BBMP. It is further stated that according to the approved building plan and building bye-laws, the defendants No.1 & 2 should have left a set back of 1 meter on either side of the plaint schedule property and 1.81 meters on the Eastern side of the plaint schedule property. The defendants in violation of the approved building plan and the building bye-laws started construction without leaving any setbacks at all, resulting in infringement of easementary right of light and air to the plaintiff's property. The plaintiff protested and also approached the 3rd defendant BBMP, who in turn conducted a detailed enquiry and came to the conclusion that there has been cent percent violation on Eastern, Southern and Northern sides and issued notices to the defendants No.1 & 2 on 10.10.2014 and called upon them to demolish the unauthorized construction. It is further stated that the defendants stopped the further Cont'd..
5
OS No.8084/2014 OS. No.6803/2018 osoO construction apprehending action from BBMP regarding demolition of unauthorized construction. However, the BBMP did not take any follow-up action. The defendants No.1 & 2 feeling encouraged by the inaction on the part of the 3 rd defendant, again started construction. Therefore, the plaintiff has come up with this suit for the above stated reliefs.
3. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant No.1 appeared through counsel and filed his written statement. However, the defendants No.2 & 3 though appeared through counsel, have not chosen to file their written statement.
4. In the written statement, the first defendant has contended that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The averments made in the plaint are all absolutely false, highly imaginary, baseless and an after thought. It is further contended that, the defendants 1 & 2 are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property having purchased the same under the registered Sale Deed dated 19.03.2012 from its Cont'd..
6
OS No.8084/2014 OS. No.6803/2018 osoO previous owner Smt.Yasmin Banu W/o late Syed Khasim and others and they obtained possession of the suit schedule property from their vendors on the said date itself. It is further contended that the 3rd defendant BBMP sanctioned the building plan for construction in the suit schedule property and also issued license to put up ground, first and second floors and as per the said plan, the defendants No.1 & 2, did not have to leave any set-back on the northern side of the schedule property or on the southern side of the plaintiff's property, which clearly shows that the Plaintiff's suit is illegal without any legal basis and without authority of law and therefore, liable to be dismissed in limine. It is further contended that even though, the defendants were not required to leave the set backs, the defendants have left 2ft. on the northern side of the schedule property. It is further contended that the 3rd defendant based on the false complaint given by the plaintiff in order to harass the defendants No.1 & 2, the 3 rd defendant issued the notices to the defendants No.1 & 2 stating that the Cont'd..
7
OS No.8084/2014 OS. No.6803/2018 osoO defendants had violated the sanction plan, when actually there is no violation at all. It is further stated that the plaintiff being the neighbour of the defendants' property, she herself violated the building bye-laws i.e., she has not left any set back. It is further contended that the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and there is no cause of action to file the suit. The alleged cause of action are all absolutely false, and fictitious and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by this court:-
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that she has got easementary right to get light and air to her property, from the side of the suit property?
2.Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant No.1 and 2 have made illegal constructions, which violates her easementary rights?
3.Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference and obstruction caused by the defendants?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree claimed in the suit?
Cont'd..
8
OS No.8084/2014 OS. No.6803/2018 osoO
5. What Order or Decree?
6. In order to prove the suit of the plaintiff, the GPA holder of the plaintiff Sri. R.Hariprasad, who is the son of plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.14.
7. On the other hand, defendant No.1 got examined himself as DW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.D.1 to D.7.
8. Heard the arguments and perused the materials placed on record.
9. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the Negative Issue No.2 : In the Negative Issue No.3 : In the Negative Issue No.4 : In the Negative Issue No.5 : As per final Order for the following -
REASONS
10. Issue Nos.1 to 4: Since these issues are inter- connected with each other, they are being taken up together for discussion at a stretch in order to avoid repetitive discussion of facts.
Cont'd..
9
OS No.8084/2014 OS. No.6803/2018 osoO
11. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants with multiple prayers, they are;
i. Declaration of her easementary right of light and air from the side of Schedule property to her property.
ii. Mandatory injunction for demolishing the unauthorized construction put up in mandatory setback areas on Eastern, Southern and Northern side in particular of the Schedule property. iii. Permanent injunction, restraining the defendants No.1 and 2 from putting up construction on Schedule property in violation of approved building plan and building bye- laws in setback areas.
iv. Direct the 3rd defendant BBMP to remove the unauthorized construction made by Defendant No. 1 and 2 in the setback areas in violation of the approved building plan and building bye-laws on schedule property and see that further construction is put up thereon, strictly in accordance with the approved building plan. And consequently prayed for awarding cost of the suit.
12. In this case, the son of the plaintiff named R.Hariprasad examined as PW1 on the basis of Power of attorney. He filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief reiterating all the plaint averments. He has produced number of documents to prove his case and they are marked as Ex.P.1 Cont'd..
10
OS No.8084/2014 OS. No.6803/2018 osoO to Ex.P.14. He was cross-examined by the counsel for defendants No.1 and 2. Even after providing sufficient opportunities, counsel for Defendant No.3 has not cross examined PW.1 and on 22-11-2018 cross-examination of PW.1 from the counsel for Defendant No.3 was taken as Nil. On the other hand, on behalf of both the Defendants No.1 and 2, Defendant No.2 stepped into witness box and examined as DW.1 to deny the plaintiff's claim and defend themselves . His affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-Chief as DW.1, reiterated all the written statement averments and to prove his side and to disprove plaintiff's contention, he has produced certain documents marked as Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.9. Ex.D.1 is marked through PW.1 while confronting him in his cross-examination by the Counsel for Defendants No.1 and 2. Besides, the Defendant No.3 has not come forward to lead it evidence, hence their evidence taken as Nil. On perusal of order sheet, after cross-examination of PW.1, there is no representation from the plaintiff's side and in spite of sufficient opportunities, counsel for plaintiff has not cross- examined DW.1 and hence, on 10-08-2021, the cross- examination of DW.1 by the plaintiff was taken as nil. On the Cont'd..
11
OS No.8084/2014 OS. No.6803/2018 osoO same day, counsel for defendant No.3 submitted that there is no cross-examination of DW.1 from their side. After recalling and re-opening the stage for further chief-examination of DW.1, after marking of further documents also, the counsel for plaintiff has not cross-examined DW.1. On perusal of the Order sheet dated 15-09-2021, it is noted as even after sufficient opportunities, the counsel for plaintiff has not addressed his argument, hence this court posted the case for defendants' arguments with a liberty to the plaintiff to file his written arguments, but it was not filed later.
13. In this case on 25-7-2015 this court rejected the application of the plaintiff filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, with a direction to the Defendants No.1 & 2 to put up construction leaving 2 feet set back towards the southern side of the plaintiff's house or towards northern side of the suit schedule property. Further, it was directed that the defendants shall not put up any construction/ not to erect any pillar in the compound wall of the plaintiff.
14. Counsel for Defendant No.1 and 2 argued that the plaint averments and documents are not establishing the plaintiff's case as per evidence of PW.1. As per plaint pleadings Cont'd..
12
OS No.8084/2014 OS. No.6803/2018 osoO the plaintiff's Vender Smt.Andalamma, who acquired the site bearing No 1839, 6th A Main, D Block, 2nd stage, Gayathrinagar (Rajaji nagar) Bangalore, under the registered Sale deed dated 15-11-1967, executed by the BDA, constructed the house thereon in the year 1969 and was enjoying the easementary right of light and air from all sides including from the right side, as absolute owner of the property. The same property is sold to this plaintiff by Smt. Andalamma under registered Sale deed dated 21-04-2004 and ever since then, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property as absolute owner enjoying the easementary right of light and air which is totally denied by the defendants No.1 and 2. The defendants No.1 and 2 admitted the averments in paragraph-4 of the plaint that is, the defendants No. 1 and 2 who purchased the property adjoining to the plaintiff's property located on the southern side of the same, and bearing No.12 ( old No.1840), 6th 'A' Main, 'D' Block, 2 nd Stage, Rajajinagar, Bangalore 560 010, and that in the year 2013, demolished the structure and have been trying to put up a new construction after obtaining the approved building plan from BBMP. The main question of controversy in this case is easementary right of the plaintiff Cont'd..
13
OS No.8084/2014 OS. No.6803/2018 osoO and on that basis they have sought for mandatory and permanent injunction. The relief of both the injunctions depends upon the extent of establishment of easementary right of the plaintiff.
15. Now, this court gone through documentary evidence of the plaintiff. As PW.1 the GPA holder of plaintiff marked the GPA as Ex.P.1. Ex.P.2 is the sale deed dated 21-04-2004, which is mentioned in paragraph-3 of the plaint through which the plaintiff purchased the property from Smt Andalamma. Ex.P.3 is the Khatha Certificate in the name of the plaintiff Smt.S.N. Nethravathi. Ex.P.4 is tax paid receipt in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.P.5 and P.6 are the two notices issued by BBMP to the defendants. In Ex.P.5, the BBMP directed the defendants to produce documents regarding construction in plaint schedule property. In Ex.P.6 the BBMP that is the 3 rd defendant issued notice to Defendants No.1 and 2 to remove the construction which is built against the rules of sanctioned plan. Ex. P.7 is the temporary order of 3 rd defendant against the defendants No.1 and 2 to remove the construction built in the plaint schedule property against the sanctioned plan. Ex.P.8 is show cause notice issued by BBMP to the 1 st and 2nd Cont'd..
14
OS No.8084/2014 OS. No.6803/2018 osoO defendants. Ex.P.9 is approved plan of BBMP, Ex.P.10 to P.14 are the photographs along with CD. In connection to the above documents, in paragraph-2 of page No.9 of the cross- examination of PW.1, it is stated that to the south and north of the suit schedule property, on two sides the setback of two and half feet has been provided. In page Number 11 of the cross-examination of PW.1, he stated that " ಪಪತವವದ ಆಸಸಯ ಉತಸರಕಕಕ ನಮಮ ಆಸಸ ಬರರತಸದಕ. 1 ಮತರಸ 2 ನಕನ ಪಪತವವದಗಳರ ಉತಸರಕಕಕ ಜವಗ ಬಡಬಕನಕಕಕದರ ನ.ಪ.9 ರಲಲ ನಮಮದಸಲಲ ಎಕದರಕ ನಜ. ನಮಮ ಖರನದ ಪತಪದಕತಕ ನಮಮ ಆಸಸಯ ಸರತಸಲಮ ಎರಡರ ಅಡ ಜವಗದಲಲ ಗವಳ ಬಕಳಕನ ವವವಸಕಸ ಇರರತಸದಕ . ಆ ಬಗಕಗ ಕಪಯಪತಪದಲಲ ನಮಮದಸಲಲ. ಆ ರನತ ಎರಡರ ಅಡ ಜವಗದಲಲ ಗವಳ ಮತರಸ ಬಕಳಕನ ಹಕರಕ ಇದದ ಬಗಕಗ ಬಕನರಕ ಯವವ ದವಖಲಕಗಳನರನ ಹವಜರರಪಡಸಲಲ. ಆ ರನತ ಎರಡರ ಅಡ ಜವಗವನರನ ಗವಳ, ಬಕಳಕಗಕ ಬಟಟ ಬಗಕಗ ನವವವ ದವಖಲಕಗಳನರನ ಹವಜರರಪಡಸಲಲ. ಆ ರನತ ಎರಡರ ಅಡ ಜವಗ ಗವಳ ಬಕಳಕಗಕ ಇರರವ ಬಗಕಗ ನವವವ ಕವರರರಕನಷನನಕದ ದದಢನಕರಣ ಪಡಕದಲಲ." Again in page No 9 it was stated that plaintiff has not produced sale deed of Andalamma from whom she has purchased the property. As per his evidence in Ex.P.2, there is no mention about easementary rights. Even there is no any mention about the discontinuation of continuity of easementary right and there is also no proof as to whether prior purchase of plaint schedule property by vendor of the plaintiff Smt Andalamma in the year Cont'd..
15
OS No.8084/2014 OS. No.6803/2018 osoO 1969, she had any easementary rights. So, absolutely there is no document produced by the plaintiff to prove continuity of easementary rights, if any easementary rights subsisted over the suit schedule property. In paragraph-3 he stated that as per Ex.P.1, plaintiff's property situated on the northern side of the property of the 1 st and 2nd defendants and in that document, there is no mention about the fact that the defendants have to leave space on the northern side of their property. As per Ex.D.1, PW.1 admitted that the house situated on the right side is his mother's house and there was a house already built up and "in para 4, it is stated that " ನಮಮತವಯಯ ಆಸಸಯಲಲ ಸಕಪಪಣರ ಕಟಟಡ ನರರಸಲವಗದಕ ಎಕದರಕ ನಜ. ಬಬಎಕಪ ಬಕಬಲವದಕತಕ ಅರರ ಸಕಬಟದದರಕ ಒಕದರ ಕಡಕ ಮವತಪ ಜವಗ ಬಡಬಕನಕರ ಎಕದರಕ ನಜ. ನ.ಪ.9 ರಕತಕ 1 ಮತರಸ 2 ನಕನ ಪಪತವವದಗಳ ಆಸಸಯ ದಕಕಣಕಕಕ ಎರಡರ ಅಡ ಜವಗ ಬಡಬಕನಕರ ಎಕದರಕ ನಜ. ನ.ಪ.9 ರಕತಕ 1 ಮತರಸ 2 ನಕನ ಪಪತವವದಗಳ ಜವಗದ ಉತಸರಕಕಕ ಮತರಸ ನಮಮ ಆಸಸಯ ದಕಕಣಕಕಕ ಯವವವದಕನ ಜವಗ ಬಡಬಕನಕವಗಲಲದ ಕವರಣ ಅವರರ ಸಕಪಪಣರವವಗ ಮನಕ ಕಟಟಕಕಮಳಳಬಹರದರ ಎಕದರಕ ನಜ." and again in para 5 "ನಮಮ ಮನಕಯ ಗಕಮನಡಕಯನರನ ಒಡಕದರ ನ.ಪ.9 ರಕತಕ 1 ಮತರಸ ತನಕನ ಪಪತವವದಗಳರ ಪಲಲರರ ಹವಕರತಸದದ ಕವರಣ ನವನರ ಬಬಎಕಪಯವರಗಕ ದಮರರ ಕಕಮಟಟದಕದ . ಪಪತವವದಗಳರ ನಮಮ ಗಕಮನಡಕ ಒಡಕದರ ಪಲಲರರ ಹವಕರತಸದವದರಕ ಎಕದರ ನವನರ ಮನಲಕ ಹಕನಳದ ದಮರನಲಲ ನಖರವವಗ ನಮಮದಸಲಲ. ನ.ಪ.7 ಮತರಸ ನ.ಪ.8 ರಲಲ ನಮಮ ಗಕಮನಡಕ ಒಡಕದ Cont'd..
16
OS No.8084/2014 OS. No.6803/2018 osoO ಬಗಕಗ ನಮರವದಸಲಲ ಎಕದರಕ ನಜ. ಒಟಟನಲಲ ಪಪತವವದಗಳರ ವಕಬಯಲಕನಶನರ ಮವಡದವದರಕ ಎಕದರ ನಮಮದಸಲವಗದಕ ಎಕದರ ಸವಕಕದವರರರ ಹಕನಳರತವಸರಕ."
16. The counsel for defendant argued that if the said construction is for the right side from the side of the plaintiff, then it is left side from the side of the defendants and as per Ex.P.8/order of BBMP dated 10.10.2014, on the left side of the defendant's construction, in the column of percentage of unauthorized construction is shown as "0.00". In Page No.14 PW.1 has stated that "ನವನರ ಕಕಮಟಟ ಅರರಯ ಮನರಕಗಕ ಬಬಎಕಪಯವರರ ಬಕದರ ಸಸಳ ಪರಶನಲನಕ ಮವಡ ನಮಗಕ ಸಕನರದ ಯವವವದಕನ ಕವಕಪಪಕಡರಒಡಕದಲಲ ಎಕದರ ಹಕನಳದದರರ ಎಕದರಕ ನಜ."and again in page No.16, it is stated that "ನಪ.9 ರಕತಕ ನ.ಪ.9 ರಕತಕ 1 ಮತರಸ 2 ನಕನ ಪಪತವವದಗಳ ಆಸಸಯ ಉತಸರ ಭವಗಕಕಕ ಅಕದರಕ ನಮಮ ಸಸತಸನ ಭವಗಕಕಕ ಯವವವದಕನ ಜವಗ ಬಡಬಕನಕವಗಲಲ ಎಕದರಕ ನಜ." Further, on perusal of Ex.P.10 and 11 and Ex.D.2 to 5, the photograghs of suit schedule property clearly shows that there is a passage between two buildings and the sunlight passes through the said passage. That means plaintiff has not established any easementary right over the plaint schedule property.
17. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 is examined as DW.1 and he has reiterated all his written statement averments in his affidavit filed in lieu of chief-examination. To Cont'd..
17
OS No.8084/2014 OS. No.6803/2018 osoO disprove plaintiff's case and to defend their averments, he has produced number of documents and they are marked as Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.9. Ex.D.1 is a photograph confronted to PW.1 and marked through him and in his cross-examination through that photo, he recognized his mother's house situated on the right side. In that Ex.D.1 also, there is a passage between both the houses. But counsel for plaintiff has not cross- examined DW.1. Ex.D.2 to D.7 are the photographs and the Certificate under Section 65-B Indian Evidence Act. Ex.D.8 and D.9 are the Judgment and decree in OS No.7014/2015. On perusal of the said Judgment and decree, the said suit was filed by one Smt. K.V.Bhagya against the defendants of this case connected to the claim in this suit. In page No.8, paragraph-4 of Ex.D.8, it is stated that "the Defendants No.1 and 2 have violated the sanctioned plan and put up construction on the southern side of their property, which is abutting to the property of one Smt. S.N.Nethravathi who filed suit in O S No 8084/2014". Both the cases are regarding the construction by the same defendants and the building in question in both the cases are same. The said case in O.S. No.7014/2015 was dismissed. Even though the judgment and Cont'd..
18
OS No.8084/2014 OS. No.6803/2018 osoO decree of that case were got marked as Ex.D.8 and D.9 by these defendants, the plaintiff has not come forward to deny the said fact. As discussed earlier, the plaintiff himself admitted that there is no easementary right mentioned in their sale deed that is Ex.P.2. They have not produced the sale deed of Smt.Andalamma under which the vendor of this plaintiff purchased the plaint schedule property to know whether any easementary right prevailed to Smt.Andalamma prior to sale of the property to this plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove that defendants have constructed the building without leaving set back area. The photographs marked by both the parties shows a gap and a passage between plaintiff's house and the building of Defendants No.1 & 2. As discussed earlier, PW.1 admitted that the BBMP had stated that there is no unauthorized construction. In page-14 of his cross examination, P.W.1 admitted that " the BBMP on inspection of the place, had stated that the defendants No.1 & 2 have not demolished any compound wall of the plaintiff's property." Therefore, the plaintiff has utterly failed to make out a prima facie case in his favour by establishing his easementary rights and the plaintiff also failed to cross examine DW.1 and no Cont'd..
19
OS No.8084/2014 OS. No.6803/2018 osoO rebuttal evidence is there to go against the defendants. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and on the basis of above discussions and reasons, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs as claimed by her. Therefore, Issue Nos.1 to 4 are answered in the NEGATIVE.
18. Issue No.5 : For the foregoing reasons and discussions and considering the findings on the above issues, suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. In the result, this Court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
The office is hereby directed to return the original documents marked as exhibits in this case to the concerned parties after taking certified copies on proper identification.
(Dictated to Judgment Writer on Computer, typed by her, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 22 nd day of November, 2022.) (JYOTHSNA. D) XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Cont'd..20
OS No.8084/2014 OS. No.6803/2018 osoO ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
P.W.1 : Sri. R.Hariprasad
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 GPA
Ex.P.2 Sale Deed
Ex.P.3 Khata Certificate
Ex.P.4 Tax paid receipt
Ex.P.5 & 6 Two BBMP Notices
Ex.P.7 & 8 Two Orders passed by BBMP
Ex.P.9 Approved BBMP Plan
Ex.P.10 to Three photographs
P.12
Ex.P.13 CD
Ex.P.14 Another CD
3. WITNESS/ES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
D.W.1 : Sri. K.V.Nagaraj Mirajkar
4. DOCUMENT/S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:
Ex.D.1 Photograph
Ex.D.2 to 4 photographs and CD
D.6
Ex.D.7 Certificate under Sec.65B of Indian
Evidence Act
(JYOTHSNA. D)
XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Cont'd..
21
OS No.8084/2014 OS. No.6803/2018 osoO 22.11.2022 Judgment pronounced in open Court vide separate detailed order. The operative portion is as hereunder:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
No order as to cost.
The office is hereby directed to return the original documents marked as exhibits in this case to the concerned parties after taking certified copies on proper identification.
XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Cont'd..