Bangalore District Court
Sri.Ayub vs Smt.Parveen on 14 February, 2022
1 O.S.4269/2014
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BANGALORE CITY - CCH NO.23.
DATED THIS THE 14 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022.
PRESIDING OFFICER
PRESENT : Sri.Mohan Prabhu,
M.A., L.LM.,
XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE.
O.S.No.4269/2014
PLAINTIFF/S: Sri.Ayub,
S/o Sri.Sheik Baba,
Since dead by his legal
representatives
1. Smt.Sajida Begum,
W/o Sri.Ayub Jan,
Aged about 56 years,
2. Miss. Rizwana Begum,
D/o Sri.Ayub Jan,
Aged about 34 years,
3. Miss. Farzana Begum,
D/o Sri.Ayub Jan,
Aged about 31 years,
4. Sri.Mohammed Shohiab
S/o Sri.Ayub Jan,
2 O.S.4269/2014
Aged about 30 years,
All are R/at No.14,
Arab Lane B Street,
Richmond town,
Bangalore - 560 025.
(By Sri.MN, Advocate)
Vs.
DEFENDANT/S: 1. Smt.Parveen,
W/o Sri.Baba Jan,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at No. 56,
M.S.Palya,
Vidyaranyapura,
Bangalore - 560 097.
(By Sri.ANM, Advocate)
* * * * *
Date of institution of suit : 09.06.2014
Nature of suit : Declaration &
possession
Date of commencement
of recording of evidence : 30.07.2019
Date on which the judgment
was pronounced : 14.02.2022
3 O.S.4269/2014
Duration of the suit :Year/s Month/s Day/s
07 08 05
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant praying to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and direct the defendant to quit, vacate and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property and direct the defendant to pay the arrears of rent at Rs.1,000/- per month from August 2010 upto April 2014 amounting to Rs.45,000/- and damages for unauthorised occupation at Rs.5,000/- and to hold enquiry into the past / future mesne profits under Order XX Rule 12 of C.P.C.
4 O.S.4269/2014
2. During the pendency of this suit plaintiff died, hence his legal representatives No.1 to 4 brought on record.
SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of residential premises bearing No. 56 with PID No.472/56-57 of M.S.Palya extension, Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore, measuring east to west 30 feet, north to south 25 feet and bounded as hereunder:
East by : Road West by : Sri.Khader Saheb's property North by : Site No. 55, South by : Site No.57
3. The plaint averments briefly stated as follows:
The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as he was purchased the same 5 O.S.4269/2014 under registered sale deed dated 7.12.1974 from Yakoob Saheb. The Khatha in respect of the suit schedule property stands in the name of plaintiff with BBMP. The Khatha extract also stands in the name of plaintiff. The plaintiff has paid the property tax. The plaintiff also paid electricity bill in respect of the suit schedule property. The defendant had requested the plaintiff to lease the suit schedule property on rent during March 2007 and the plaintiff agreed for the same. Both the parties there upon entered into an agreement of lease dated 7.3.2007. The defendant has paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards security deposit to be refundable at the time of vacating and handing over vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. The defendant agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- to the plaintiff. Initially the defendant was regular 6 O.S.4269/2014 in payment of the rents. The plaintiff was receiving the rents from the defendant in cash. Since the plaintiff was in need of suit schedule property for his bonafide use and occupation thereby the plaintiff requested the defendant in the month of May 2010 to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property. Then the defendant requested the plaintiff to accommodate her for three more months time, so that in the meanwhile she can find out an alternative accommodation and then she will vacate the suit schedule premises. Believing her the plaintiff accepted and granted her three months time to vacate the premises by the end of August 2010. The defendant did not keep up her promise to vacate the suit schedule premises as promised. The plaintiff there after reminded the defendant in the first week of September 2010 to vacate the schedule premises. 7 O.S.4269/2014 All of a sudden the defendant became wild and refused to vacate the suit schedule property. The defendant abruptly stopped paying rents to the plaintiff. The earnest efforts made by the plaintiff to persuade the defendant to pay arrears of rent and to vacate premises went in vain. Having no other go the plaintiff filed an eviction petition in HRC No.286/2010 on the file of Small Cause Court, Bangalore. The defendant entered appearance and filed her objections and also filed application under section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 r/w section 9 of C.P.C. praying the Court of Small Causes to stop all further proceedings. After hearing both the parties the Court of Small Causes was pleased to pass an order on 19.2.2014 on I.A. filed under section 43 of Karnataka Rent Act and allowed the application. All further proceedings stopped and 8 O.S.4269/2014 parties are directed to approach competent Court of Civil jurisdiction to establish their rights over the suit schedule property. Since the Small Causes Court stopped further proceedings in the HRC proceedings and directed the parties to approach the competent court of civil jurisdiction for declaration of their rights over the suit schedule property, hence the plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for other consequential relief. Hence on these grounds the plaintiff prayed to decree this suit.
4. After service of summons the defendant entered appearance by engaging counsel and resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing her written statement. The written statement filed by the defendant is briefly stated as follows:
9 O.S.4269/2014
The plaintiff has not come to this court with clean hands. The suit filed by the plaintiff against this defendant is false, frivolous, vexatious, speculative and has been instituted with the sole object of harassing this defendant. The plaintiff has nothing to do with the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has created and concocted the documents to establish his ownership. This suit is barred by period of limitation. The plaintiff has approached this court for eviction without a proper title over the suit schedule property. The contention of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff and defendants entered into an agreement of lease is denied as false. There is no agreement of lease that has been executed between the plaintiff and defendant. The agreement of lease that has been produced by the plaintiff is a forged, concocted document which cannot be taken 10 O.S.4269/2014 for the purpose of evidence. The defendant is in the absolute possession of the schedule property for almost 22 years and further the structure that is built on the said premises is constructed by this defendant and the electricity bill has been coming in the name of the defendant except the latest wherein the plaintiff by using his high-handedness was successful in putting his name along with the defendants name in the electricity bill. The plaintiff has concocted the document pertaining to the schedule property by influencing the Revenue authorities with money. The plaintiff very well knows that the defendant has purchased the vacant land from his brother who did not execute any document except that the constructive possession was handed over to the defendant of the vacant land. The defendant married to Baba Jan for almost 22 years. After the said 11 O.S.4269/2014 marriage Baba Jan took his wife the defendant to the suit schedule property and started living there in the small shed that was constructed by Baba Jan in the suit schedule premises. The defendant has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since then. The defendant has perfected the title of the schedule property by virtue of adverse possession. The plaintiff and all his family members were aware that this property is and was developed by the defendant and at that time no interference or claim was done over the property by the plaintiff or any person in the family of the plaintiff. The defendant has been living without interruption in front of the plaintiff for more than 22 years. The Court of Small Causes has stopped the proceedings of eviction after the enquiry under the application of section 43 of The Karnataka Rents Act. 12 O.S.4269/2014 It was found that the plaintiff was not the owner of the property. The plaintiff was well aware that there was no cause of action against the defendant. But he has initiated HRC proceedings. Now learning on the order passed by the Court of Small Causes the plaintiff has filed this frivolous suit which is not maintainable. The plaintiff is blowing hot and cold simultaneously. The plaintiff's first prayer seeking for declaration and possession admitted that the defendant is in possession of the property without the consent of the plaintiff and in the 2 nd and 3 rd prayer which cannot be a part of this plaint is speaking about rent as well as mesne profit. All these clearly demonstrates that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit schedule property. Even if in the remotest the plaintiff proves otherwise then also it is hit by adverse possession. The plaintiff is not 13 O.S.4269/2014 entitled for the relief as prayed in this suit. Hence on these grounds the defendant prayed for dismissal of this suit.
5. Based on the pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves his
right and title over the suit
schedule property ?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for possession of the suit
schedule property ?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for arrears of rent as claimed by
him ?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for damages at the rate of
Rs.5,000/- per month ?
14 O.S.4269/2014
(5) Whether the defendant proves the
contents of para No. 7(a) to (c)
of her written statement ?
(6) Whether the defendant proves that she has perfected her title over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession ?
(7) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation ?
(8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as sought by him ?
(9) What order or decree ?
6. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff the 4 th LR of plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 are marked on the side of the plaintiff. On the side of the defendant the defendant examined himself as DW1 and the documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D25 are marked on the side 15 O.S.4269/2014 of the defendant. One witnesses is examined as DW2. (In this suit original plaintiff filed his affidavit and examined as PW1 and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 marked through him. But subsequently he died. Hence his evidence was discarded as per order dated 30.7.2019.
7. I have heard the arguments on the side of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendant. The learned counsel for the defendant also filed written arguments.
8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the following decisions:
(1) (2019) 8 SCC 729 in Ravinder Kaur Grewal & others Vs. Manjit Kaur & others before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil appeal No.7764/2014 dated 7.8.2019 16 O.S.4269/2014 (2) Kamala Mallik & others Vs. State of Orissa & others before the Hon'ble Orrissa High Court in RSA No.391/2014 dated 12.09.2019 (3) Jebasundari Vs. S.Tharmar before the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CRP (MD)(NPD) No.1389/2015 dated 3 rd July 2018 (4) 2004(10) SCC 779 in the matter of Karnataka board of Wakf Vs. Government of India & others before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Appeal (civil) No. 16899/1996 dated 3.7.2018 (5) N.Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishnamurthy before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 3.9.1998
9. The learned counsel for the defendant has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.7764/2014 between Ravinder Kaur Grewal & others Vs. Manjit Kaur & others and produced the downloaded copy of orders passed in HRC No.286/2010.
17 O.S.4269/2014
10.. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : In the Negative
Issue No.4 : In the Negative
Issue No.5 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.6 : In the Negative
Issue No.7 : In the Negative
Issue No.8 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.9 : As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
11. Issue No.1: The plaintiff has filed this suit
against the defendant for the relief of declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant. During the pendency of this suit as the plaintiff died, 18 O.S.4269/2014 hence his legal heirs LR No.1 to 4 are brought on record. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff is that he became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as he purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated 7.12.1974 from Yakoob Saheb. It is the contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant who entered into an agreement of lease dated 7.3.2007 with the plaintiff the defendant has paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards refundable security deposit and agreed to pay monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- to the plaintiff. It is the contention of the plaintiff is that when the defendant stopped paying rents and despite of plaintiffs repeated request she was not delivered the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, hence the plaintiff had filed the case in HRC No.286/2010 before the Small Causes Court, Bangalore against the 19 O.S.4269/2014 defendant for eviction. In that HRC petition as the present defendant moved I.A. under section 43 of Karnataka Rent Act 1999 the court after recording the evidence and hearing on both the sides allowed the application filed under section 43 of Karnataka Rent Act and stopped the further proceedings and directed the parties to approach the civil court for declaration of their rights over the suit property. In this suit the defendant has not denied regarding the proceedings held in HRC No. 286/2010 and order passed on the application under section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act by the Hon'ble Small Causes Court. PW1 has produced and got marked the document Ex.P7 certified copy of the petition filed under section 27(2)(r) of Karnataka Rent Act in HRC No.286/2010, Ex.P8 is the certified copy of application filed under section 43 of Karnataka Rent 20 O.S.4269/2014 Act r/w section 9 of C.P.C. Ex.P9 is the certified copy of objection filed by the plaintiff / respondent for the application filed under section 43 of Karnataka Rent Act r/w 9 of C.P.C. Ex.P10 is the certified copy of the oral evidence of RW1 Smt.Parveen (present defendant) given in HRC No. 286/2010. Ex.P11 is the certified copy of the order dated 19.2.2014 passed by the Hon'ble Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore in HRC No. 286/2010 on I.A. filed under section 43 of Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. On perusal of the order passed by the Hon'ble Judge, Court of Small Causes in HRC No. 286/2010 it would go to show that the Hon'ble court by allowing the I.A. filed under section 43 of Karnataka Rent Act stopped further proceedings and directed the parties to approach the competent court of civil jurisdiction for declaration of their rights 21 O.S.4269/2014 over the suit schedule property. In HRC No.286/2010 the court held that the petitioner (present plaintiff) has failed to prove that there is jural relationship between the defendant and plaintiff as landlord and tenant in respect of the suit schedule premises. After passing orders on I.A. filed under section 43 of Karnataka Rent Act as the court directed the parties to approach the competent court of Civil Jurisdiction for declaration of right over the suit schedule property the plaintiff has approached this court for declaration of ownership and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property.
12. PW1 in his examination-in-chief affidavit has reiterated the plaint averments. He has deposed that his father is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as he purchased the same under the registered sale deed dated 7.12.1974 from Yakoob 22 O.S.4269/2014 Saheb. He has got marked the document Ex.P1 certified copy of the sale deed dated 7.12.1974. he has deposed that the Khatha certificate of the suit schedule property dated 1.3.2010 and Khatha extract of the suit schedule property standing in the name of his father. He has produced and got marked the document Ex.P2 certified copy of the Khatha certificate standing in the name of his father. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of the Khatha register extract for the year 2009-20 with respect to the suit schedule property standing in the name of plaintiff Ayub Jan. The document Ex.P4 is the certified copy of encumbrance certificate. PW1 has deposed that the plaintiff is paying the property tax to the suit schedule property. He has got marked the document Ex.P5 certified copy of the property tax receipt for the year 2010-11 standing in the name of 23 O.S.4269/2014 Ayub Jan. He has deposed that the electricity bill also standing in the name of the plaintiff. He has got marked the document Ex.P6 electricity bill paid receipt dated 28.1.2012 standing in the name of plaintiff.
13. PW1 has deposed that the defendant came in possession of the suit schedule property under agreement of lease dated 7.3.2007 entered into between the plaintiff and defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- and defendant has paid sum of Rs.10,000/- towards refundable security deposit. He has deposed that initially the defendant was regular in payment of rent by way of cash. Since the plaintiff was in need of suit schedule property for his bonafide use and occupation thereby the plaintiff requested the defendant in the month of May 2010 to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit 24 O.S.4269/2014 schedule property. At that time the plaintiff was requested to accommodate her for three months time so that she can find out alternative accommodation. Believing her words the plaintiff was granted three months time to her to vacate the premises by the end of August 2010. But the defendant did not keep up her promise to vacate the suit schedule premises. Thereafter the plaintiff reminded the defendant in the 1 st week of September 2010 to vacate the suit schedule premises but all of a sudden the defendant refused to vacate the suit schedule property and abruptly stopped paying rents to the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff has filed eviction petition in HRC No.286/2010. He has deposed that in HRC No.286/2010 the court by passing orders on I.A. filed under section 43 of Karnataka Rent Act and stopped further proceedings and directed the parties to 25 O.S.4269/2014 approach competent court of civil jurisdiction for declaration of their rights over the suit schedule property. Thereafter his father filed this suit. He has deposed that his father expired on 7.7.2018 leaving behind him and LR No. 1 to 3 as only legal heirs to succeed his estate.
14. During the course of cross-examination of PW1 he has admitted the suggestion that the suit schedule property belongs to his father. He has deposed that in the year 2007 they have given the suit schedule property to the defendant on rent. He has deposed that the suit schedule property consisting of one sheet roofed house with one room and one kitchen room. The suit schedule property is having electricity connection. He has denied the suggestion that since 22 years prior to filing of this suit the defendant is in possession of the suit schedule 26 O.S.4269/2014 property. He has denied the suggestion that the defendant's husband constructed a shed in the suit schedule property 22 years back. He has denied the suggestion that in the year 2010 after the Khatha of the suit schedule property transferred in their name the document copy of the sale deed dated 7.12.1974 came to light. He has denied the suggestion that the document dated 7.12.1974 copy of sale deed was created by them after 2010. He has denied the suggestion that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. He has denied the suggestion that the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 are all created documents. He has denied the suggestion that as they have failed to prove the ownership and tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant the HRC petition No. 286/2010 came to be dismissed.
27 O.S.4269/2014
15. The defendant who has examined as DW1 in her affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief has deposed that there is no agreement of lease that has been executed between her and the petitioner. The photo copy of agreement of lease that has been produced by the petitioner is a forged, concocted document. She has deposed that the petitioner was never the owner of the suit schedule property nor they have ever come to the suit schedule property until the filing of the HRC No.2010 by creating revenue document of the year 2010. She has deposed that she know the petitioner for 40 years and she know their entire family. She had given Rs.30,000/- to the elder brother of the petitioner late Nawab Jan towards the purchase of the schedule property and at the time of purchasing the schedule property the petitioner was also present but the sale 28 O.S.4269/2014 deed was never executed in her favour only the possession was handed over to her about 22 years ago. She has deposed that she in the absolute possession of the suit schedule property for almost 22 years and further the structure that is built on the said premises is constructed by her and her husband. The electricity bill has been coming in her name. The plaintiff by using his high-handedness was successful in putting his name along with her name in the electricity bill. DW1 has deposed that she married to Baba Jan for almost 22 years. After her marriage Baba Jan took her and came to the suit schedule property and started living there in the small shed that was constructed by Baba Jan with his own hands in the schedule premises. She is in the absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since then. She has deposed that 29 O.S.4269/2014 in the HRC No. 286/2010 it was found that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit schedule property.
16. The documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D24 are marked through DW1. Document Ex.D1 to Ex.D20 are all the certified copies of the document which obtained from HRC No. 286/2010. Ex.D1 is the document to show the electricity connection given in the name of defendant by KEB on 21.3.2002. Ex.D3 is the certified copy of the meter installation document. Ex.D4 is the copy of complaint dated 21.1.2012 given to KEB. Ex.D5 is the copy of the complaint dated 3.11.2011 given to the Inspector of Police, Vidyaranyapura police station. Ex.D2 is the certified copy of KEB bill receipt. Ex.D6 is the copy of KEB bill of the year 2011. Ex.D7 to Ex.D11 are the KEB bills of the year 2010. Ex.D12 to Ex.D14 are the 30 O.S.4269/2014 KEB bills of the year 2009. Ex.D15 to Ex.D18 are the copies of KEB bills of the year 2008. Ex.D19 is the copy of KEB bills of the year 2011. Ex.D20 is the copy of deposition given by this defendant in HRC No.286/2010. Ex.D21 and Ex.D22 are the photographs of the suit schedule house, Ex.D23 and Ex.D24 are the photographs of the defendants daughters.
17. During the course of cross-examination of DW1 she has deposed that in order to show that she is the owner of the suit schedule property she is not having the sale deed. She has deposed that she is residing in the suit schedule property since 32 years. She has produced the electricity bill of 12 years to show that she is in possession of the suit schedule property. She has denied the suggestion that she came in possession of the suit schedule property in 31 O.S.4269/2014 the year 2007. She has pleaded her unawareness about the document Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 which are all standing in the name of plaintiff Ayub Jan. She has deposed that Rs.30,000/- amount was given by her father to the plaintiff Ayub Jan. She has deposed that in order to say that Nawab Jan was received Rs.30,000/- and was not executed sale deed she was not filed any suit against Nawab Jan. She has admitted the suggestion that Nawab Jan was not the owner of the suit schedule property. She further deposed that her father was not given Rs.30,000/- amount to Nawab Jan but it was given to plaintiff Ayub Jan. She has deposed that she has not paid property tax to the suit schedule property. She has admitted the suggestion that she is not having any document to show that she is the owner of the suit schedule property. She has admitted the document 32 O.S.4269/2014 Ex.P7 to Ex.P11. She has denied the suggestion that in the year 2007 plaintiff Ayub Jan inducted her as a tenant for monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-. She has denied the suggestion that she was paid sum of Rs.10,000/- to the plaintiff Ayub Jan as security deposit. She claim that she is in possession of the suit schedule property since 32 years. She has denied the suggestion that her father was not paid any such amount of Rs.30,000/- to the plaintiff Ayub Jan. She states that at the time of marriage her husband Baba Jan was residing at Yelahanka. She has deposed that she was not resided in the house at Yelahanka. She started to reside in the suit schedule property after her marriage. She has admitted the suggestion that her father's house is situated separately . She states that her father's house is 33 O.S.4269/2014 situated at the distance of 10 kms from the suit schedule property.
18. DW2 in her examination-in-chief affidavit has deposed that she is residing at M.S.Palya, Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore - 560 097 from past 30 years. She is the neighbour of the defendant. She personally know the defendant from past 30 years. The defendant has been residing in the suit property for more than 30 years. The said house was constructed by the defendant's husband with his own hands along with the help of labourers. She has deposed that the electricity bill is coming in the name of defendant for more than 30 years. She used to go with the defendant for making payment to BESCOM. She personally knows the defendant and her family for almost 30 years. She has deposed that the defendant has been residing in the said 34 O.S.4269/2014 premises as an absolute owner and has never interrupted by any person and she was enjoying the absolute possession of the suit schedule property for more than 30 years.
19. During the course of cross-examination of DW2 she has deposed that she knows the defendant since 32 years. Her house is situated at the distance of half kilo meter from the house of defendant. She states that the husband of the defendant has constructed the house in suit schedule property by removing the hut.
20. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that in order to prove that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property the plaintiffs have produced and got marked Ex.P1 certified copy of sale deed dated 7.12.1974 having 35 O.S.4269/2014 purchased suit schedule property by plaintiff Ayub Jan. Ex.P2 copy of Khatha extract, Ex.P3 certified copy of Khatha certificate, Ex.P4 certified copy of encumbrance certificate, Ex.P5 certified copy of property tax paid receipt, Ex.P6 certified copy of electricity bill are all standing in the name of plaintiff Ayub Jan. He argued that the defendant has not produced any documents to show that she is the owner of the suit schedule property and she is paying property tax to the suit schedule property.
21. On the other hand the learned counsel for the defendant argued that in HRC No.286/2010 it is held that the petitioner (plaintiff) has utterly failed to prove the jural relationship of landlord and tenant relationship. It is held that the respondent (defendant) has proved that she has been in occupation of the suit schedule premises much before 36 O.S.4269/2014 2007. He argued that even though the document Ex.P1 is of the year 1974 but the Khatha of the property transferred in the name of the plaintiff in the year 2010. He argued that after transferring the revenue documents in the name of the plaintiff he had filed HRC No. 286/2010 against the defendant. He argued that defendant has been in possession of the suit schedule property for more than 22 years. He argued that Ex.P1 copy of sale deed dated 7.12.1974 seems to be created document because on the basis of that document the revenue entries were made only in the year 2010. He argued that the plaintiffs are not the owner of the suit schedule property.
22. I have appreciated rival contentions. Since issue No. 1 is framed casting burden on the plaintiff to prove his right and title over the suit schedule 37 O.S.4269/2014 property I would give finding on this issue first. In this suit the plaintiffs as well as defendant have produced same documents which are all marked in HRC No. 286/2010. The documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 produced by the plaintiffs are all certified copies of documents which obtained from HRC No.286/2010. Like wise the document has produced documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D19 which are all obtained from HRC No.286/2010. In this suit there is no such further evidence to show that jural relationship of landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. In this suit the plaintiffs have not produced any piece of documents to show the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant. During the course of cross- examination of DW1 nothing is elicited from her mouth to show that she is the tenant of the suit 38 O.S.4269/2014 schedule property under the plaintiff. Even though the plaintiff in the plaint and in chief examination of PW1 he has deposed that the defendant is the tenant under lease agreement dated 7.3.2007 but in order to substantiate this contention the plaintiffs neither produced and got marked the lease agreement nor given any cogent evidence to show the landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. Since there is no any extra evidence in this suit to give different finding regarding jural relationship of landlord and tenant relationships which was already given in HRC No. 286/2010 that there is no landlord and tenant relationships between the parties, hence the theory putforth by the plaintiffs that the plaintiff was inducted the defendant as tenant under lease agreement dated 7.3.2007 is not proved by the plaintiffs. 39 O.S.4269/2014
23. In order to substantiate the contention of the plaintiff that the deceased plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property the plaintiffs have mainly relied upon Ex.P1 certified copy of sale deed dated 7.12.1974. The plaintiffs have also relied on the documents Ex.P2 Khatha extract, Ex.P3 copy of Khatha certificate, Ex.P4 copy of encumbrance certificate of suit schedule property and Ex.P5 copy of property tax paid receipt. All these documents Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 are all standing in the name of the plaintiff. Merely because the Khatha of the suit schedule property changed in the name of plaintiff belatedly that cannot be ground to say that the plaintiff was not purchased the suit schedule property under sale deed dated 7.12.1974. Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 7.12.1974 to show that the plaintiff has purchased the suit 40 O.S.4269/2014 schedule property from one Yakoob Sab. The defendant has not disputed the boundaries and extent of the suit schedule property. The boundaries and extent of the suit schedule property is tallies with the boundaries and extent which mentioned in Ex.P1. During the course of cross-examination of PW1 suggestion put to him and answer given by him as extracted as follows " ದದವದ ಸಸತತತ ನನನ ತತದದಗದ ಸದಸರರತತತದದ ಎತದರದ ನಜ." DW1 in her examination-in-chief deposed that she had given Rs.30,000/- to the elder brother of the plaintiff late Nawab Jan towards purchase of the schedule property and at the time of purchasing the schedule property the plaintiff was present but the sale deed was never executed in her favour but the possession was handed over to her about 22 years ago. DW1 in her cross-examination admitted the suggestion that Nawab Jan was not the 41 O.S.4269/2014 owner of the suit schedule property. DW1 has deposed that plaintiff Ayub Jan and his brother Nawab Jan were owners of the suit schedule property but after she paid sale consideration amount of Rs.30,000/- she became the owner of the suit schedule property. DW1 has taken contention that after she and her father have paid Rs.30,000/- to the plaintiff and his brother she has became the owner of the suit schedule property. On perusal of oral evidence of DW1 she has not denied the ownership of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. But DW1 has taken contention that as she and her father had paid Rs.30,000/- to the plaintiff and his brother hence she has became the owner of the suit schedule property. DW1 in her cross-examination admitted the suggestion that she has no documents to show her ownership over the suit schedule property. Thus 42 O.S.4269/2014 very admission given by DW1 that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit schedule property and very admission by way of suggestion in cross-examination of PW1 that the suit schedule property is belongs to his father coupled with the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are sufficient to hold that the plaintiff Ayub Jan is having right and title over the suit schedule property as he purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 7.12.1974 under Ex.P1 from one Yakoob Saheb. The documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D19 produced by the defendant are electricity connection documents and electricity bills are not the document of title. These documents are evidencing the possession over the suit schedule property by the defendant. The plaintiffs have filed this suit not only for the declaration of ownership but also for recovery of possession. Since the defendant has 43 O.S.4269/2014 taken the defence of adverse possession I will discuss the same while answering issue No. 5 to 7. The oral evidence of PW1 and DW1 and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 are sufficient to hold that the plaintiff proved his right and title over the suit schedule property. Hence I answer issue No. 1 in the Affirmative.
24. Issue No. 5: The defendant has taken contention in para 7(a) to (c) as follows:
(a) It is submitted that the defendant is in the absolute possession of the schedule property for almost 22 years and further the structure that is built on the said premises is constructed by this defendant and the electricity bill has been coming in the name of defendant except the latest wherein the plaintiff by using his high-handedness was successful in 44 O.S.4269/2014 putting his name along with the defendants name in the electricity bill.
(b) Similarly the plaintiff has concocted the documents pertaining to the schedule property by influencing the revenue authorities with money.
(d) It is further submitted that the plaintiff very well knows that the defendant has purchased the vacant land from his brother who did not execute any document except that the constructive possession was handed over to the defendant of the vacant land.
25. In para No. 7(a) the defendant has taken contention that she is in the possession of the suit schedule property for almost 22 years. It is the contention of the defendant is that she had built the 45 O.S.4269/2014 structure in the suit schedule property and taken electricity connection.
26. In para No. 7(b) the defendant has taken contention that the plaintiff has concocted the documents pertaining to the schedule property by influencing the revenue authorities with money.
27. In para 7(c) the defendant has taken contention that the plaintiff very well knows that the defendant has purchased the land from his brother who did not execute any document except that the constructive possession was handed over to the defendant of the vacant land.
28. In this suit except bare defence taken in para No. 7(b) that plaintiff has concocted the documents pertaining to the suit schedule property by influencing the revenue authorities with money, in 46 O.S.4269/2014 order to substantiate such contention the defendant has not produced any documents. Even there is no oral evidence in support of the contention taken in para No. 7(b) of written statement. Hence such contention taken in para No. 7(b) of written statement is not acceptable.
29. With regard to the contention taken in para No. 7(c) of the written statement that the plaintiff very well knows that the defendant has purchased the land from his brother is concerned, first of all the defendant has not stated the quantum of alleged amount in the written statement. Even during the course of cross-examination of PW1 no such defence taken by the defendant that she had paid any amount to the brother of the plaintiff in order to purchase the suit schedule property. First time in the chief examination of DW1 she has deposed that she has 47 O.S.4269/2014 given Rs.30,000/- to the elder brother of plaintiff late Nawab Jan towards the purchase of the schedule property. During the course of cross-examination of DW1 at one stretch she has deposed that her father had paid Rs.30,000/- to plaintiff Ayub Jan and at another stretch she has deposed that her father was paid Rs.30,000/- to plaintiff's brother Nawab Jan. there is no consistent evidence on the side of the defendant to say who was paid the amount whether the defendant herself paid the amount or her father had paid the amount. There is also no consistent evidence with regarding to whom the amount was paid whether it was paid to plaintiff or his brother. DW1 has not deposed the date of such payment. The inconsistent version of DW1 is not sufficient to hold that she had paid Rs.30,000/- to the brother of 48 O.S.4269/2014 plaintiff towards purchase of the suit schedule property.
30. With regard to the contention of the defendant that she is in possession of the suit schedule property for almost 22 years is concerned. DW1 in her examination-in-chief deposed that she is in possession of the suit schedule property for almost 22 years and the structure which is in existence in the suit schedule property is constructed by her and her husband almost 22 years back. DW1 in her cross- examination deposed that she has been in possession of the suit schedule property since 32 years. In her chief examination DW1 has deposed that she has been in possession of the suit schedule property from 22 years. But in her cross-examination DW1 has deposed that she has been in possession of suit property since 32 years. DW2 witness has deposed 49 O.S.4269/2014 that defendant and her family residing in the suit schedule property as absolute owner from past 30 years. In the written statement the defendant has taken contention that defendant has been living in the suit property for more than 22 years. There is no corroboration in the pleading and oral evidence of DW1 with regarding to since from how many years the defendant has been in possession of the suit schedule property. No doubt the plaintiff who has taken contention that the defendant had inducted as tenant under lease deed failed to prove the same by giving cogent evidence. Similarly the defendant who has taken contention that she has been in possession of the suit schedule property from past 22 years or 32 years has not produced any document to substantiate the same. The documents Ex.D2 to Ex.D23 are not sufficient to hold that suit schedule 50 O.S.4269/2014 house was constructed 22 years ago. The defendant has not examined the witness who snapped photographs Ex.D21 to Ex.D23.
31. The defendant has produced and got marked Ex.D1 which reveals that on 21.3.2022 the electricity connection is given to the schedule property in the name of defendant. The defendant has produced the documents Ex.D2 electricity bill paid receipt dated 21.3.2002, Ex.D3 copy of document dated 21.3.2002 to show electrical connection was given in the name of defendant. Ex.D4 is the certified copy of complaint dated 21.1.2012, Ex.D5 is the certified copy of complaint dated 3.11.2011. Ex.D15 to Ex.D18 are copies of electricity bills of the year 2008. Ex.D12 to 14 are of the year 2009, Ex.D7 to Ex.D11 are of the year 2010, Ex.D6, Ex.D19 are the electricity bills of the year 2011. all these 51 O.S.4269/2014 documents would go to show that the electricity connection with respect to the suit schedule property standing in the name of the defendant since 2002. The document Ex.P6 one stray bill standing in the name of plaintiff is not sufficient to hold that prior to 2007 the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property. The documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D19 produced by the defendant would go to show that the defendant has been in occupation of the suit schedule property since 2002. The defendant has taken contention that she has been in possession of the suit schedule property from 22 years. In her cross-examination DW1 has taken contention that she has been in possession over the suit schedule property from 32 years. Since there is no documents on the side of defendant to show the exact year in which she came in possession over suit 52 O.S.4269/2014 schedule property based on the document produced by the defendant which are marked at Ex.D1 to Ex.D24 it can be said that the defendant has been in possession of the suit schedule property much before 2002. Hence I answer issue No. 5 partly in the Affirmative by holding that the defendant has failed to prove para No. 7(b) and 7(c) of written statement contention but partly proved para No. 7(a) by proving that the defendant is in possession of property from much before the year 2002. Accordingly I answer issue No. 5 partly in the Affirmative.
32. Issue No. 6 and 7: The defendant has taken contention that she has perfected her title over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. The defendant has taken contention that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. The learned 53 O.S.4269/2014 counsel for the plaintiff argued that in the suit defendant has taken inconsistent defence. The defendant has claimed that she has purchased the suit schedule property thereby she has become the owner of the property. The defendant has taken contention that she has perfected her title over suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. The defendant has not stated on which date she came in possession of the suit schedule property. What is the nature of her possession whether the plaintiff had knowledge about possession. He argued that there is only bald pleading of adverse possession without any evidence. He argued that when the defendant claims that she purchased the suit schedule property the question of adverse possession does not arise. He has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2019)8 SCC 729 between Ravinder Kaur 54 O.S.4269/2014 Grewal Vs. Manjit Kaur and others decision in N.Balakrishnan Vs. M.Krishna Murthy judgment dated 3.9.1998 decision of Hon'ble Orissa High Court in RSA No. 391/2014 dated 12.9.2019 decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in CRP(MD)(NPD) No.1339/2015 dated 3.7.2018 and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2004) 10 SCC 779.
33. The learned counsel for the defendant argued that the defendant and her family members residing in the suit schedule property for more than 22 years to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have not issued any notice to plaintiff calling her to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant and her husband constructed the house in the suit schedule property at about 22 years back. The defendant has independent absolute hostile 55 O.S.4269/2014 possession for more than 22 years. Hence the defendant has perfected the title over suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others Vs. Manjith Kaur and others case. He submitted that DW1 and DW2 have deposed that defendant / DW1 has been residing in the suit schedule property without interruption for more than 32 years till today. Hence the defendant has perfected the title over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession.
34. I have appreciated the rival contentions. Since the plaintiff has filed this suit for the relief of declaration of ownership and for recovery of possession and on the other hand the defendant has taken contention of adverse possession the Article 65 of Limitation Act applies to this suit. In the cited 56 O.S.4269/2014 decision in Ravinder Kaur Grewal case Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the plea of adverse possession not only can taken as a shield by defendant but it can be used as sword by plaintiff to protect the possession of the immovable property and to recover the possession in case of dispossession. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring the decision in P.Lakshmi Reddy case reported in 1957 SC 314 held that it should be nec vi, nec clam, nec precario that is the possession required must be adequate in continuity in publicity and in extent to show that it is possession adverse to the competitor. It was also observed therein that whatever may be the animus or intentions of a person wanting to acquire title by adverse possession his adverse possession cannot commence until he obtained actual possession with the required animus.
57 O.S.4269/2014
35. In para No.50 of this judgment in Ravinder Kaur Grewal case the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that Animus Possidendi a is well known is a requisite ingredients of adverse possession. It is now a well settled principle of law is that mere possession of the land would not ripen into possessory title for the said purpose. Possessor must have animus possidendi and hold the land adverse to the title of the true owner. For the said purpose, not only animus possidendi must be shown to exist, but the same must be shown to exist at the commencement of the possession. He must continue in the said capacity for the period prescribed under the Limitation Act. Mere long possession it is trite, for a period of more than 12 years without anything more does not ripen into a title.
58 O.S.4269/2014
36. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in (2004) 10 SCC 779 wherein by referring the various decisions such as AIR 1964 SC 1254, (1993) 4 Scc 375, (1997) 7 SCC 567, it is held that a person who claim adverse possession should show (a) on what date he came into possession (b) what was the nature of his possession (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party (d) how long his possession has continued (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession.
59 O.S.4269/2014
37. In this suit the defendant has not specifically pleaded on which date she came into possession of the suit schedule property. At one stretch in her pleading and in her chief examination defendant has taken contention that she has came in possession of the suit property at about 22 years back but in another stretch in her cross-examination she has deposed that she is in possession of the suit schedule property since from 32 years. Thus there is no consistent evidence on the side of the defendant to say when actually she came in possession over the suit schedule property. Hence one of the main ingredients of adverse possession is that what date she came into possession of the suit schedule property is absent in this suit.
38. DW1 has deposed that she has given Rs.30,000/- to the elder brother of the plaintiff late 60 O.S.4269/2014 Nawab Jan towards the purchase of the suit schedule property. It is the evidence of DW1 is that as she purchased the suit schedule property by paying consideration amount of Rs.30,000/- hence she became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Since the claim of title over property is mutually destructive the person who set up the title by way of purchase cannot seek for adverse possession. Since the defendant has claimed that she became the owner of the suit schedule property as she purchased the property by paying consideration amount of Rs.30,000/- there is no animus possidendi. According to defendant / DW1 as she purchased the suit schedule property by paying Rs.30,000/- to plaintiffs brother she came in possession and continued in possession of the suit schedule property. DW1 in her cross-examination deposed that she 61 O.S.4269/2014 became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as her father paid sale consideration amount of Rs.30,000/- to the plaintiff. First of all there is no document on the side of defendant to show that her father paid sale consideration amount of Rs.30,000/- to the plaintiff or his brother. DW1 in her cross-examination admitted that plaintiffs brother Nawab Jan is not the owner of the suit schedule property. DW1 has deposed that she is not having any documents to show that she has purchased the suit schedule property. She has no documents to show that she has paid property tax to the suit schedule property. The very contention of the defendant that she has purchased the suit schedule property thus become the owner of the property itself sufficient to hold that her intention of possessing the property as purchaser. Hence there is no required 62 O.S.4269/2014 animus which is against the 'Will' of the plaintiff. DW1 is her cross-examination deposed that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit schedule property. She is the owner of the suit schedule property as she purchased the property by paying amount of Rs.30,000/-. Thus in this suit mere long possession of defendant for a period of more than 12 years without intention to possess the suit schedule property adversely to the title of the plaintiff cannot resulting acquisition of title by the defendant by way of adverse possession. DW1 in her oral evidence has not deposed that she has acquired the title of the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. Her oral evidence is that as she came in possession of suit schedule property by way of purchase by paying amount of Rs.30,000/- hence she became the owner of the suit schedule property. In order to 63 O.S.4269/2014 substantiate this contention she has not produced any documents. During the course of cross-examination of PW1 nothing is elicited from his mouth to suggest that defendant has became the owner of the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in L.N.Ashwathama Vs. P.Prakash decision reported in (2009) 13 SCC 229 held that the plea based on title and simultaneously on adverse possession are mutually inconsistent and later does not begin to operate until the former is renounced. In this suit the defendant claimed that she has became the owner of the suit schedule property and continued in possession of the property as she purchased the property by paying amount of Rs.30,000/-. In her chief examination she has deposed that she paid purchase amount to plaintiff's brother Nawab Jan. But in her cross-examination at 64 O.S.4269/2014 one stretch DW1 has deposed that her father paid Rs.30,000/- to the plaintiff's brother Nawab Jan and in another stretch she has deposed that her father paid amount of Rs.30,000/- the the plaintiff. These inconsistent self serving statement of the defendant is not believable because there is no document to substantiate the same and there is no specific pleading regarding quantum of money paid.
39. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the decision of N.Balakrishnan case and Jebadundari case with regarding to section 5 of the Limitation Act. In my humble view these two citations can be distinguished on facts.
40. In this suit since the defendant has taken contention that she became the absolute owner and continued in possession over suit schedule property 65 O.S.4269/2014 as she purchased the suit schedule property paying amount of Rs.30,000/- hence her defence of adverse possession is not acceptable. There is no basic pleading of adverse possession such as on what date the defendant came in possession of the suit schedule property. There is no sufficient evidence on the side of defendant to show the animus possidendi. The very contention of DW1 that she has become the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as she purchased the property by paying amount of Rs.30,000/- itself disentitled her to claim adverse possession over the suit schedule property. The oral evidence of DW1 and DW2 and documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D24 are not sufficient to hold that the defendant has perfected the title over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. Merely because the plaintiff has failed to prove landlord and tenant 66 O.S.4269/2014 relationship between the plaintiff and defendant it is not sufficient to hold that defendant has perfected title by way of adverse possession. In this suit the plaintiffs have sought for the relief of declaration of ownership and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property based on title. Since the defendant has failed to prove the defence of adverse possession hence it has to be held that the suit of the plaintiff is not barred by period of Limitation. The defendant has failed to prove issue No. 6. Hence I answer issue No. 6 in the Negative and answered issue No. 7 in the Negative.
41. Issue No. 2 to 4: While discussing issue No. 1 it is held that the plaintiff proved his right and title over the suit schedule property. In this suit the plaintiffs have claim recovery of possession of the suit schedule property from defendant on two 67 O.S.4269/2014 grounds on the ground that plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule property and another ground is that the defendant is the tenant under the plaintiff. It is proved that the plaintiffs are the owner of the suit schedule property based on title. There is no cogent evidence on the side of the plaintiffs to show the landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant. The plaintiffs have not produced and got marked any lease agreement entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant. There is no document on the side of plaintiffs to show that any point of time deceased plaintiff collected rent amount from the defendant. Admittedly in HRC No. 286/2010 it is held that petitioner (plaintiff) failed to prove landlord and tenant relationship. In this suit also except documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 which were all produced 68 O.S.4269/2014 in HRC No. 286/2010 no other documents are produced by the plaintiff. The self serving statement of PW1 is not sufficient to hold that plaintiff was inducted the defendant as tenant under lease agreement dated 7.3.2007. The documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D19 produced by the defendant would go to show that the defendant has been in possession of the suit schedule property much prior to 2002. Since the plaintiffs have failed to prove the landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant the plaintiffs are not entitled for any rent as claimed in this suit. The plaintiffs have claimed damages at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per month. PW1 has not deposed anything about damages. PW1 has not produced any documents showing the rents of the properties within vicinity of the suit schedule property. In the absence of any evidence with 69 O.S.4269/2014 regarding to this issue of damages on side of PW1 this court of the opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitled for damages as prayed in the plaint.
42. With regard to the prayer of recovery of possession is concerned even though the plaintiffs have failed to prove tenant landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant but since the plaintiff have proved their ownership over the suit schedule property based on title hence the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant. In this suit the defendant has failed to prove that she has perfected her title over suit schedule property by way of adverse possession. The plaintiffs who have proved their right and title over the suit schedule property are entitled for recovery of possession over suit schedule property on the basis of title. Hence I 70 O.S.4269/2014 answered issue No. 2 in the Affirmative, issue No. 3 and 4 in the Negative.
43. Issue No. 8: While discussing issue No. 1 and 2 it is held that the plaintiffs have proved their right and title over the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs are entitled for possession of the suit schedule property. While discussing issue No. 1, 3 and 4 this court held that even though the plaintiffs proved their ownership over the suit schedule property based on title but they have failed to prove the landlord and tenant relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant. Hence the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of arrears of rent, damages and mesne profit as prayed in the plaint. The plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration of ownership and recovery of possession of suit schedule property. Hence I answer issue No. 8 partly in the affirmative. 71 O.S.4269/2014
44. Issue No.9: In view of my findings on the above issues, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is partly decreed with cost.
It is hereby declared that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of suit schedule property.
The plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant.
The defendant is hereby directed to handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to plaintiffs within six months from the date of this judgment. Failing which the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the possession through process of court.72 O.S.4269/2014
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment-Writer, transcribed, computerized and printout taken by her, revised and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of February 2022.) (Mohan Prabhu ) XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the plaintiff/s :
PW1 - Mohammed Shohaib Witness examined for the defendant/s :
DW1 - Parveen Taj DW2 - Shamshad Begaum
Documents marked for the plaintiff/s :
Ex.P1 - Certified copy of sale deed dated 7.12.1974 Ex.P2 - certified copy of Khatha extract Ex.P3 - certified copy of Khatha certificate Ex.P4 - certified copy of encumbrance certificate 73 O.S.4269/2014 Ex.P5 - certified copy of Tax receipt Ex.P6 - certified copy of KEB bill Ex.P7 - certified copy of HRC No.286/2010 Ex.P8 - certified copy of IA in HRC No.286/2010 Ex.P9 - certified copy of objection in HRC No.286/2010 Ex.P10 - certified copy of the oral evidence of RW1 Smt.Parveen (present defendant) given in HRC No. 286/2010 Ex.P11 - certified copy of orders on I.A. in HRC No.286/2010 Documents marked for the defendant/s :
Ex.D1 - certified copy of allotment letter issued by Karnataka Electricity Board dated 21.3.2002 Ex.D2 - certified copy of KEB receipt dated 21.3.2002 Ex.D3 - certified copy of document in HRC No.286/2010 Ex.D4 - certified copy of complaint dated 21.1.2020 in HRC No.286/2010 74 O.S.4269/2014 Ex.D5 - certified copy of complaint dated 3.11.2011 given to Vidyaranyapura police in HRC No.286/2010 Ex.D6 - certified copy of KEB bills of 2011 in HRC No.286/2010 Ex.D7-11 - certified copy of KEB bills of 2010 in HRC No.286/2010 Ex.D12-14 - certified copy of KEB bills of 2009 in HRC No.286/2010 Ex.D15-18 - certified copy of KEB bills of 2008 in HRC No.286/2010 Ex.D19 - certified copy of KEB bills of 2011 in HRC No.286/2010 Ex.D20 - copy of deposition given by this defendant in HRC No.286/2010 Ex.D21,22 - Photographs of the suit schedule house Ex.D23,24 - Photographs of defendants papers Ex.D25 - Notarised attested true copy of Aadhar card of DW2 (Mohan Prabhu ) XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.75 O.S.4269/2014
Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate detailed Judgment) ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is partly decreed with cost.
It is hereby declared that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of suit schedule property.
The plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property from the defendant.
The defendant is hereby directed to handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to plaintiffs within six months from the date of this judgment. Failing which the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the possession through process of court.
76 O.S.4269/2014
Draw decree accordingly.
XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
77 O.S.4269/2014