Bangalore District Court
Smt. Vani Srinivas vs Sri. K.Waseem Akram on 2 December, 2021
KABC010004932018
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-63) BENGALURU CITY
PRESENT:
Sri. R. ONKARAPPA, B.Sc., LL.B.,
LXII Add. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
Dated this the 2 nd day of December, 2021
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.157/2018
PLAINTIFF: Smt. Vani Srinivas
W/o H. Srinivas,
Aged about 48 years,
R/at No.18, Atri Nilaya,
3rd Main Road, Vasnathnagar,
Bengaluru - 560 052.
[By Manmohan P N, Advocate]
/v e r s u s/
DEFENDANT: Sri. K.Waseem Akram
S/o Khaleemulla @
Mohammed Kaleem
Aged about 27years,
R/at No.35, 38th Cross, 19th Main,
HBR 5th Block,
Bengaluru - 560 043.
[By Sri. H.R.S, Advocate]
Date of institution of the : 04.01.2018
suit
2 O.S. No. 157/2018
Nature of the suit : Injunction suit
Date of commencement of : 02.12.2019
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 27.11.2021
Judgment was pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
3 10 23
(R. ONKARAPPA)
LXII ACC & SJ: B'LORE.
J UD GM E N T
The present suit has filed by the plaintiff for
permanent injunction restraining the defendant, their
agents, henchmen, supporters, representatives, anybody
acting on his behalf from trespassing, interfering or entering
upon the schedule property or otherwise disturbing the
plaintiff peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule
property in any manner.
SCHEDULE
All the piece and parcel of the vacant site bearing Old
Site No.976, New No.51A, PID No.88-60-51A, situated at 3 rd
Cross, Vijaya Bank Colony, Banasawadi Village, K.R. Puram
Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, now within the limits of
Bengaluru Mahanagara palike and bounded on the;
East by : Property bearing No.51
3 O.S. No. 157/2018
West by : Property belongs to Karunanidhi
North by : Property bearing No.61
South by : 30 ft Road
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that , the
plaintiff is the absolute owner and in actual physical
possession and enjoyment of the immovable property more
fully described in the schedule at the end. The plaintiff has
purchased the schedule property through a registered sale
deed dated 26.07.2004 from Smt. Gayathri Gokuldas Nayak
W/o H. Gokuldas. The sale deed was registered in Book I as
Document No.KRI-1-11586/2004-05 and stored in CD
No.KRID65 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Krishnarajapuram,
Bengaluru. Further plaintiff submits that the original sale
deed is pledged with Bank as security for the loan availed by
plaintiff. Originally a larger property, including the suit
schedule property was belonging to the family of one A
Krishnamurthy and others. In a partition among the
members of the said family, the suit schedule property was
allotted to the share of A.Krishnamurthy, A. Narayan,
Srinivasa A., Smt.Chennamma, Smt. Puttamma, and
Chandra. Thereafter, aforesaid persons being absolute
owners of the said property have executed a General Power
4 O.S. No. 157/2018
of Attorney dated 18.12.1987 appointing one J. Prabhu,
Inter alia authorizing their attorney to sell the property. As
Power of Attorney holder of A.Krishnamurthy, A Narayan,
Srinivasa A., Smt. Chennamma, Smt. Puttamma and
Chandra J, Prabhu had executed a sale deed dated
07.05.1990, registered in Book-I, Volume 144, Pages 107-
110 as Document No.606/90-91 in the office of Sub-
Registrar, Krishnarajpura in favour of H. Gokuldas Nayak
and thereby sold the schedule property to said H. Gokuldas
Nayak. The H. Gokuldas Nayak has expired on 12.06.1996
and upon his death, his wife Smt. Gayathri Gokuldas Nayak
has inherited the right, title and interest in the schedule
property, Smt. Gayathri Gokuldas Nayak, having inherited to
the rights in the schedule property, had executed a General
Power of Attorney dated 19.09.1997 appointing the Sri. H.
Srinivas, who is the husband of plaintiff herein as her
attorney. The GPA holder of Smt. Gayathri Gokuldas Nayak,
Sri. H. Srinivas has executed the Sale Deed dated
26.07.2004, alienating the schedule property in favour of the
plaintiff Smt. Vani Srinivas. Thus, at present, the plaintiff
being the absolute owner of suit schedule property, is in
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
5 O.S. No. 157/2018
property. The plaintiff further submits that BBMP has
assigned New Property No.51A to the schedule property and
Katha also has been mutated to the name of plaintiffs and
the plaintiff has been paying property tax to BBMP. The
plaintiff has obtained a residential building plan sanctioned
by BBMP in LP No.04/2017-18, dated 06.04.2017. The
plaintiff accordingly, as per the approved building plan, is
constructing a building. The plaintiff has also obtained bank
home loan of Rs.20,00,000/- from Syndicate Bank for
construction of residential building in the suit schedule
property. The defendant is stranger to the suit schedule
property and he has no right whatsoever over the suit
schedule property. However, the defendant is trying to
interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff
over the suit schedule property. Noticing the attempt of the
defendant to trespass into the suit schedule property, a
complaint dated 07.11.2017 was lodged with Ramamurthy
Nagar Police Station by the plaintiff. The defendant alleging
that on 11.07.2017, he has purchased the suit schedule
property from one K. Venkataswamy S/o Krishnappa. The
alleged sale deed dated 11.07.2017 is a created document,
which does not confer any right, title or interest in the suit
6 O.S. No. 157/2018
schedule property in favour of the defendant. The defendant
with a dishonest intention of grabbing the property
belonging to the plaintiff, has created the Sale Deed dated
11.07.2017. In the sale deed dated 11.07.2017, Western
boundary of the property has been intentionally shown as
"Site No.53" and all other boundaries of the property are
same as shown in the sale deed dated 26.07.2004, by which
plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property. It is
impossible to have common boundaries for two properties.
Thus, it is clear that deliberately, the plaintiff has created
the sale deed dated 11.07.2017. Further, in the sale deed
11.07.2017, there is no whisper as to how the vendor of the
defendant has acquired title to the property. Since the
plaintiff has purchased the schedule property in 2004 itself,
it is impossible for the defendant to purchase same property
in the year 2017. The defendant claiming to be the
purchaser of the suit schedule property has filed a frivolous
suit for injunction in OS No.7513/2017 before the LXII Addl.
City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-63) Bengaluru City. In
the said suit, the defendant without making the plaintiff as a
party, has made her husband Sri.Srinivas as defendant and
tried to obtain temporary injunction restraining him from
7 O.S. No. 157/2018
putting up the construction in the suit schedule property.
The IA No.1 filed by the defendant in OS No.7513/2017
seeking injunction from putting up construction in the suit
schedule property came to be rejected on 02.12.2017. In the
said order, Hon'ble Court has clearly held that plaintiff after
obtaining due permission is putting up construction as a
lawful owner of the suit schedule property. The defendant,
since he failed to obtain injunction against the husband of
the plaintiff is now trying to interfere with possession of
plaintiff over the suit schedule property in illegal way. On
23.12.2017, the defendant alongwith his men visited to the
plaint schedule property and tried to take possession by
illegal methods. Therefore, the plaintiff on 23.12.2017 lodged
one more police complaint against the defendant. In
pursuance of the complaint, the concerned police officials
warned the defendant herein not to interfere with the suit
schedule property. Inspite of the police warning, the
defendant along with his men again on 31.12.2017 has
visited the suit schedule property has given life thereat to
the plaintiff and her husband with dire consequence and
tried to take forcible possession of the suit schedule
property. The plaintiff protested the illegal attempt of the
8 O.S. No. 157/2018
defendant and prevented the defendant from trespassing
into the suit schedule property. Despite of warning by the
police officials, the defendant is threatening that he would
take forcible possession of the suit schedule property. The
claim of defendant is frivolous and their intention is to grab
the suit schedule property by illegal means. The defendant is
backed by anti social elements and land grabbers. With the
intention of knocking of the schedule property, the
defendant is to forcibly grab the suit schedule property
belonging to the plaintiff by unlawful methods. In the
circumstances aforesaid, the plaintiff is not in a position to
protect her possession over the schedule property without
intervention of the Hon'ble Court. Hence the suit.
3. After admitting of the suit, the summons were
issued to the defendant. The defendant appeared through
his counsel and filed written statement along with counter
claim.
4. Schedule of the counter claim of the
defendant
All that piece and parcel of the Residential vacant
property bearing New Municipal NO.52 (Old No.18/2A and
18/2B) at 3rd Cross, Vijaya Bank Colony, Banasawadi,
9 O.S. No. 157/2018
Bengaluru having PID NO.88-60-52 in New Ward No.88,
Banasawdi (earlier Vacant Site No.52, form in Sy Nos.18/2A
and 18/2B, situated at Banasawadi Village,
Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru),
measuring East to West 20 ft and North to South 40 ft,
totally measuring 80 sq ft and bounded on the;
East by : Site No.51
West by : Site No.53
North by : Site No.61
South by : Road
5. Inter alia the defendant in his written statement
contended that, the suit filed by the plaintiff as against the
defendant seeking a relief of a decree of permanent
prohibitory injunction in respect of an immovable property
consisting a vacant site bearing Old Site No.976, New
No.51A, PID NO.88-60-51a, 3rd Cross, Vijaya Bank Colony,
Banaswadi Village, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bengaluru South
Taluk, as purported to have been stated in the schedule
stated to the written statement, suit is not maintainable,
suit is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff does not have any
right, share, title, interest or ownership in respect of the
property. That apart, the plaintiff also does not have a right
10 O.S. No. 157/2018
or possession over the property. The plaintiff's suit is based
on malafides, oblique intention, oblique motive in order to
dispossess this defendant in the lawful title, lawful
possession over the property. The defendant is the owner in
possession of the residential vacant Site bearing New No.52,
(Old NO.18/2A, 18/2B). 3rd Cross, Vijaya Bank Colony,
Banasawadi, Bengaluru having PID NO.88-60-52, New Ward
No.88, Banasawadi, earlier vacant Site No.52, formed in Sy
No.18/2A and 18/2B, situated at Banasawadi Village,
Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, to the
extent of 80 sq ft of area. The boundaries mentioned in the
schedule given to the plaint to the west, it is mentioned as
property belonging to Karunanidhi, site No.53 and the
boundaries consisting the road is available. The defendant
purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated
11.07.2017, executed by K.Venkataswamy in favour of this
defendant. K. Venkataswamy has executed right, title,
interest, ownership and possession for a valuable
consideration of Rs.24,50,000/-. The title to the property
has been considered, title to the property has delivered
together with physical possession of the property as absolute
owner thereof. The property originally belonging to
11 O.S. No. 157/2018
Krishnaveni, W/o Raju. Smt. Krishnaveni executed Power of
Attorney in favour of K.Venkataswamy. The Power of
Attorney was executed on 29.06.1989. Smt. Krishnaveni has
acquired title, interest, ownership under the registered
document, registered as document No.242/1932-33, Book I,
Volume No.1473, Pages 286-289 dated 28.11.1932,
registered in the Office of Sub-Registrar, being the daughter
of Anjinappa who left behind his legal heirs, A.
Krishnamurthy and his family who effected partition on
28.03.1989. A Krishnamurthy executed a General Power of
Attorney in favour of Krishnaveni with a right to convey the
property, which property was conveyed in favour of
Krishnaveni. The conveyance of title, interest, ownership and
possession of the property is a conveyance which can be
take into consideration for a valuable consideration and the
valuable consideration for conveying the property would
amount to a right, title, interest, ownership which is
evidenced by a consideration for having delivered title and
possession of the property. Thereby, the Power of Attorney
which enable Krishnaveni as a representative in interest
taken a Power of Attorney and the title continued to be in
possession of the property, delivered possession of the
12 O.S. No. 157/2018
property. The said document is coupled with interest for
consideration having title, interest, ownership and
possession of the property. Venkataswamy who had acquired
possessory title with a possessory right on 20.05.2004 got
the Katha of the property transferred to his name from
01.10.1995 to 2001. Thereafter, he had paid taxes. Tax paid
receipt, Katha Certificate standing in his name and was
continuing to pay taxes continuously, uninterruptedly.
Thereby, the document evidence possessory title with
possesssory possession of the property with a absolute right
to hold uninterrupted possession by taking of title, taking of
possession. In the circumstances, defendant has an
indefeasible title that a purchaser of the property belonging
to Anjinappa. Anjinappa thereafter conveyed the property to
Krishnaveni. Krishnaveni held the possession of the property
through A Krishnamurthy and Krishnaveni conveyed the
property in favour of K. Venkataswamy, the vendor and
thereby the title and possession identifiable in terms of the
schedule given mentioned in conveyed. In the
circumstances, it is submitted that the defendant is in
lawful possession with a lawful title and has been in
continuous, uninterrupted possession of the property for the
13 O.S. No. 157/2018
purposes of holding title, interest, ownership and
possession. The defendant also pleading counter claim by
way of a perpetual injunction in the written statement and
will invoke the provisions to seek injective relief as against
the plaintiff in the present suit by virtue of the earlier title
vested with this defendant on the doctrine of tacking
otherwise than that of the plaintiff. Plaintiff's title to the
property purports to be on 26.07.2004. On the date when
the Sale Deed dated 26.07.2004 was executed, plaintiffs
vendors was not in possession of the property, since the
possession, title, interest, ownership was already conveyed
in favour of Krishnaveni and Krishnaveni in favour of
Venkataswamy which is evidenced by the documents. That
apart, the Sale Deed of the previous owner by name
A.Krishnamurthy, A. Narayana, Srinivasa and others as
identified on 07.05.1990 is not a title, a document of title
without there being possession. That apart, the sale deed
had no conveyable right in view of the kathas not being
standing in the names of the vendors of the plaintiff so as to
evidence possessory title of the property in order to seek a
relief of injunction. Plaintiff has sought to indicate katha
being obtained and obtaining of a bank loan and the other
14 O.S. No. 157/2018
related documents, it need be said that those documents do
not confer any right in favour of the plaintiff. The entire
conversion on the allegations and the contentions raised in
the course of the plaint are out of place for it being
considered. The documents produced also does not confer
any right. That apart, when this defendant is in possession
of the property, the plaintiff filing of the suit and the earlier
suit in OS No.7513/2017 are all a suit which does not
confer any right in favour of the plaintiffs to maintain a suit
for injunction. The defendant has indefeasible title and those
indefeasible title is supported by the cogent material
documents and if those cogent material document is
indicated to be available, the suit of the plaintiff deserves to
be dismissed. This defendants pleads counter claim in the
following manner;
COUNTER CLAIM UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 6 OF
THE CPC: The property described in the schedule given to
the written statement was the property of Anjinappa.
Anjinappa had effected partition amongst his wife and
children and the partition was effected on 28.03.1989. The
written statement schedule property was in the possession
of Krishnamurthy. Krishnamurthy on 28.03.1989 by a
15 O.S. No. 157/2018
document executed in favour of Smt. Krishnaveni on
10.01.1989 which document is coupled with interest for
consideration conveyed right, title, interest, together with
physical possession of the property, physical possession
came to be conveyed as a litigation free property. Smt.
Krishnaveni who had title to the property coupled with
interest for consideration conveyed the property in favour of
K.Venkataswamy. K.Venkataswamy had possessory title
coupled with interest for consideration. He got the Katha of
the property transferred to his name and thereafter
continuously paid taxes in respect of the property and
conveyed the property in favour of this defendant. The
defendant is absolute owner of the property. In the
circumstances, this defendant being owner in possession of
the property, this defendant submits that the plaintiff under
the guise of written statement is making all attempts of
dispossession and taking forcible possession on the strength
of the case being pending. In the circumstances, this
defendant seeks relief at the hands of this Court to grant a
decree of permanent injunction on the cause of action in
which the above suit has been filed. This defendant submits
that after 14.04.2018 persistently plaintiff's representatives
16 O.S. No. 157/2018
and other persons keep on interfering, dispossessing and
taking forcible possession of the schedule property in the
lawful title, lawful possession of this defendant. This
defendant also brought police officials. However, police have
failed to give protection in view of pendency of above case.
Therefore, this defendant seeks injunction against the
plaintiff, and further the defendant prays for dismissal of
the suit with exemplary costs.
6. After filing written statement by the defendant
along with his counter claim the plaintiff have also filed the
written statement against to the counter claim of the
defendant. Wherein the plaintiff have contended that, the
plaintiff has filed suit seeking a decree of permanent
prohibitory injunction against the defendant. The defendant
has filed written statement and set up a counter claim
seeking a decree of injunction against the plaintiff in respect
of the property described in schedule to the written
statement. The claim of defendant is false, frivolous and
maintainable. Hence the prayer of the counter claim of the
defendant is liable to be rejected. The averment in para 12 of
the written statement that the property described in
schedule to written statement was the property of Anjinappa
17 O.S. No. 157/2018
is denied. Further averments that Anjinapa effected partition
amongst his wife and children on 28.03.1989 also is hereby
denied. It is false that the written statement schedule
property was in possession of Krishnamurthy. It is false to
state that Krishnamurthy executed a document on
28.03.1989 or on 10.01.1989 in favour of Krishnaveni and
thereby conveyed right, title and interest in favour of
Krishnaveni. It is further denied that Krishnaveni conveyed
the written statement schedule property in favour of
Venkataswamy. It is specifically denied that Venkataswamy
had possessory title on the written statement schedule
property. It is specifically denied that Venkataswamy
conveyed title to the defendant and the defendant is in
possession of the written statement schedule property.
Further averments that the plaintiff is trying to interfere
with alleged possession of the defendant over the written
statement schedule property is hereby denied. When the
defendant does not hold title nor in possession of written
statement schedule property, the question of interference
with his alleged possession does not arise. The alleged cause
of action pleaded by defendant is factious one and thereby
the same is hereby denied. It is submitted that Krishnaveni
18 O.S. No. 157/2018
never acquired title to the written statement schedule
property. Therefore, the alleged power of attorney executed
by Krishnaveni in favour of K. Venkataswamy has no value
in the eye of law. It is further submitted that the claim of the
defendant that the has purchased the written statement
schedule property from K. Venkataswamy S/o Krishnappa
for alleged consideration only totally false. The alleged sale
deed dated 11.07.2017 has not been executed by
K.Venkataswamy as power of attorney holder of the Principal
Krishnaveni The averments in the title of the property has
executed the document in favour of defendant. At no point of
time, a title deed conveying the written statement schedule
property in favour of the defendant was executed by anybody
and therefore, K.Venkaswamy never acquired title to written
statement schedule property. Therefore, the alleged sale
deed dated 11.07.2017 can not confer title on written
statement schedule property in favour of defendant, since
the vendor of the defendant never acquired title to the
written statement schedule property. In the circumstances,
the alleged sale deed dated 11.07.2017 is a created
document, which does not confer any right, title or interest
in the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant. The
19 O.S. No. 157/2018
claim of the defendant that he is in possession of the written
statement schedule property is totally false. Therefore, the
defendant is not entitled to the relief sought in his counter
claim. Hence the plaintiff sought for dismissal of the counter
claim.
7. After completion of the pleadings this court
offered the parties in compliance of section 89 of CPC.
Inspite of an opportunity, neither of the parties to this suit
came forward and ready to observed the elements of
compromise. Accordingly alternative dispute resolution
taken as complied and proceed to frame an issues.
8. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, one
Smt.Vani Srinivasa the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1.
PW1 in her favour got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P16. The plaintiff not examined any of the other
witnesses in her favour. Even inspite of proper opportunity
granted to the defendant the defendant failed to turned up
and lead his evidence either upon his written statement or
upon his counter claim. Further to support the case of the
defendant, the defendant have not marked any document in
his favour.
20 O.S. No. 157/2018
9. Heard arguments on side of plaintiff. Even inspite
of proper opportunity that this Court accorded to the
defendant, the defendant not turned up and address his side
argument.
10. Perused the material on record. On the basis of
the pleadings of the parties,this court has been framing the
following issues:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, she is
in peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule property ?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the
interference by the defendants in
peaceful possession of the suit schedule
property ?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
relief as for in the plaint ?
4. What Order or Decree?
11. As per the order dated 21.10.2021, this Court
framed following addition issue;
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether the defendant proves that,
the defendant is in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the
written statement schedule property ?
21 O.S. No. 157/2018
2. Whether the defendant proves that,
the interference by the plaintiff in
peaceful possession of the written
statement schedule property ?
3. Whether the defendant is entitled for
the relief as sought for in the counter
claim ?
4. What Order or Decree ?
12. My findings on the above points are as under
Issues No.1 and 3 : In the Affirmative;
Additional Issue Nos. 1 to 3 : In the Negative
Issue No. 4 : As per final order for the
following:
R E A S ON S
13. ISSUE No. 1 to 3: The plaintiff herself got
examined as PW1. In lieu of her examination in chief PW1
filed her sworn affidavit, wherein she reiterated that the
plaintiff is the absolute owner and in actual physical
possession and enjoyment of the immovable property more
fully described in the schedule at the end. The plaintiff has
purchased the schedule property through a registered sale
deed dated 26.07.2004 from Smt. Gayathri Gokuldas Nayak
W/o H. Gokuldas. The sale deed was registered in Book I as
Document No.KRI-1-11586/2004-05 and stored in CD
22 O.S. No. 157/2018
No.KRID65 in the office of Sub-Registrar, Krishnarajapuram,
Bengaluru. Further plaintiff submits that the original sale
deed is pledged with Bank as security for the loan availed by
plaintiff. Originally a larger property, including the suit
schedule property was belonging to the family of one A
Krishnamurthy and others. In a partition among the
members of the said family, the suit schedule property was
allotted to the share of A.Krishnamurthy, A. Narayan,
Srinivasa A., Smt.Chennamma, Smt. Puttamma, and
Chandra. Thereafter, aforesaid persons being absolute
owners of the said property have executed a General Power
of Attorney dated 18.12.1987 appointing one J. Prabhu,
inter alia authorizing their attorney to sell the property. As
Power of Attorney holder of A.Krishnamurthy, A narayan,
Srinivasa A., Smt. Chennamma, Smt. Puttamma and
Chandra J, Prabhu had executed a sale deed dated
07.05.1990, registered in Book-I, Volume 144, Pages 107-
110 as Document NO.606/90-91 in the office of Sub-
Registrar, Krishnarajpura in favour of H. Gokuldas Nayak
and thereby sold the schedule property to said H. Gokuldas
Nayak. The H. Gokuldas Nayak has expired on 12.06.1996
and upon his death, his wife Smt. Gayathri Gokuldas Nayak
23 O.S. No. 157/2018
has inherited the right, title and interest in the schedule
property, Smt. Gayathri Gokuldas Nayak, having inherited to
the rights in the schedule property, had executed a General
Power of Attorney dated 19.09.1997 appointing the Sri. H.
Srinivas, who is the husband of plaintiff herein as her
attorney. The GPA holder of Smt. Gayathri Gokuldas Nayak,
Sri. H. Srinivas has executed the Sale Deed dated
26.07.2004, referred to as Document No.1, alienating the
schedule property in favour of the plaintiff Smt. Vani
Srinivas. Thus, at present, the plaintiff being the absolute
owner of suit schedule property, is in peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff
further submits that BBMP has assigned New Property
No.51A to the schedule property and Katha also has been
mutated to the name of plaintiffs and the plaintiff has been
paying property tax to BBMP. The plaintiff has obtained a
residential building plan sanctioned by BBMP in LP
No.04/2017-18, dated 06.04.2017. The plaintiff accordingly,
as per the approved building plan, is constructing a
building. The plaintiff has also obtained bank home loan of
Rs.20,00,000/- from Syndicate Bank for construction of
residential building in the suit schedule property. The
24 O.S. No. 157/2018
defendant is stranger to the suit schedule property and he
has no right whatsoever over the suit schedule property.
However, the defendant is trying to interfere with the
possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit
schedule property. Noticing the attempt of the defendant to
trespass into the suit schedule property, a complaint dated
07.11.2017 was lodged with Ramamurthy Nagar Police
Station by the plaintiff. The defendant alleging that on
11.07.2017, he has purchased the suit schedule property
from one K. Venkataswamy S/o Krishnappa. The alleged sale
deed dated 11.07.2017 is a created document, which does
not confer any right, title or interest in the suit schedule
property in favour of the defendant. The defendant with a
dishonest intention of grabbing the property belonging to the
plaintiff, has created the Sale Deed dated 11.07.2017, which
is produced as Document No.11. In the sale deed dated
11.07.2017, Western boundary of the property has been
intentionally shown as "Site No.53" and all other boundaries
of the property are same as shown in the sale deed dated
26.07.2004, by which plaintiff purchased the suit schedule
property. It is impossible to have common boundaries for
two properties. Thus, it is clear that deliberately, the plaintiff
25 O.S. No. 157/2018
has created the sale deed dated 11.07.2017. Further, in the
sale deed 11.07.2017, there is no whisper as to how the
vendor of defendant has acquired title to the property. Since
the plaintiff has purchased the schedule property in 2004
itself, it is impossible for the defendant to purchase same
property in the year 2017. The defendant claiming to be the
purchaser of the suit schedule property has filed a frivolous
suit for injunction in OS No.7513/2017 before the LXII
Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-63) Bengaluru City.
In the said suit, the defendant without making the plaintiff
as a party, has made her husband Sri.Srinivas as defendant
and tried to obtain temporary injunction restraining him
from putting up the construction in the suit schedule
property. The IA No.1 filed by the defendant in OS
No.7513/2017 seeking injunction from putting up
construction in the suit schedule property came to be
rejected on 02.12.2017. In the said order, Hon'ble Court has
clearly held that plaintiff after obtaining due permission is
putting up construction as a lawful owner of the suit
schedule property. The defendant, since he failed to obtain
injunction against the husband of the plaintiff is now trying
to interfere with possession of plaintiff over the suit schedule
26 O.S. No. 157/2018
property in illegal way. On 23.12.2017, defendant along with
his men visited to the plaint schedule property and tried to
take possession by illegal methods. Therefore, the plaintiff
on 23.12.2017 lodged one more police complaint against the
defendant. In pursuance of the complaint, the concerned
police officials warned the defendant herein not to interfere
with the suit schedule property. Inspite of the police
warning, the defendant along with his men again on
31.12.2017 has visited the suit schedule property has given
life thereat to the plaintiff and her husband with dire
consequence and tried to take forcible possession of the suit
schedule property. The plaintiff protested the illegal attempt
of the defendant and prevented the defendant from
trespassing into the suit schedule property. Despite of
warning by the police officials, the defendant is threatening
that he would take forcible possession of the suit schedule
property. The claim of defendant is frivolous and their
intention is to grab the suit schedule property by illegal
means. The defendant is backed by anti social elements and
land grabbers. With the intention of knocking of the
schedule property, the defendant is to forcibly grab the suit
schedule property belonging to the plaintiff by unlawful
27 O.S. No. 157/2018
methods. In the circumstances aforesaid, the plaintiff is not
in a position to protect here possession over the schedule
property without intervention of the Hon'ble Court. Hence
the suit.
14. In support to the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff have
relied on Ex.P1 Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds,
Ex.P1 documents speaks that the plaintiff Mortgaged the
suit schedule property at before Syndicate Bank,
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru for sum of Rs.20,00,000/- on
20.12.2017. Ex.P2 to 4 Electricity Bill, Ex.P5 Approved
Building Plan as per Ex.P5, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara
Palike issued a approved plan upon the suit schedule
property under a serial No. LP No.04/2017-18 dated
06.04.2017. Perused the Ex.P6, Ex.P6 speaks that one H.
Srinivas GPA holder of Smt. Gayathri Gokuldas Nayak
executed Sale Deed dated 26.07.2004 in favour of the
plaintiff upon th suit schedule property. Ex.P7 Certificate
copy of Sale Deed dated 07.05.1990 speaks that upon suit
schedule property that one H. Gopaldas Nayak purchased
the suit schedule property on virtue of Ex.P7 sale deed.
Perused the Ex.P8. Ex.P8 is the Katha Extract dated
19.12.2017. As per Ex.P8 Katha Extract, Katha of the suit
28 O.S. No. 157/2018
schedule property stands in the name of the plaintiff Smt.
Vani Srinivas. Perused the Ex.P9. Ex.P9 Katha Certificates,
same speaks that upon the suit schedule property one of the
PID number has been issued in a number 88-60-51A upon
the suit schedule property in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.P9
also speaks that Katha of the suit schedule property stands
in the name of the plaintiff. Perused the Ex.P10. Ex.P10 is
tax paid receipt dated 22.04.2017. As per Ex.P10 also name
of the plaintiff finds in the katha colum of Ex.P10 tax paid
receipt. Ex.P11 is one of the complaint lodged by the plaintiff
against the defendant at before the Rammurthy Nagar Police
Station dated 07.11.2017. Ex.P12 Postal Receipt, Ex.P13
Postal Acknowledgement, Perused the Ex.P14. Ex.P14 is one
of the Sale Deed dated 11.07.2017 stated to be executed by
one K.Venkataswamy in favour of the defendant upon the
schedule property mentioned under the counter claim. When
compare the sale deed as per Ex.P6 with Ex.P14 sale deed,
Ex.P6 sale deed is one of the earlier sale deed than to the
Ex.P14 Sale Deed. Ex.P15 is the Certified copy of order
passed in O.S. No.7513/2017 and Ex.P16 NCR Receipt.
Whenever the documentary evidence and oral evidence put
on record and same has been unchallenged by the
29 O.S. No. 157/2018
defendant, the same oral and documentary evidence on side
of the plaintiff substantiated the case facts of the plaintiff.
Therefore I answered the issue No.1 to 3 as affirmative.
15. Additional Issue No. 1 to 3: Since the defendant
failed to turned up and give his evidence to support the
counter claim of the defendant, even inspite of an court
notice. Further the defendant have also failed to cross
examined the PW.1. As such, that I am of the view that the
defendant failed to elicit anything case of the defendant
through the mouth of PW.1. accordingly that the additional
No.1 to 3 is here before me without any oral and
documentary evidence . Therefore I answer the additional
Issue No.1 to 3 in the negative and I proceed to pass the
following -
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with cost.
That hereby permanently restrain the defendant, his men, agents, servants or any other person claiming under the defendant from entering into or interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
30 O.S. No. 157/2018Further counter claim of the defendant claimed upon the schedule property mentioned under counter claim is hereby dismissed with cost.
The defendant failed to paid the proper court fee on his counter claim.
Accordingly office is hereby directed to collect the same from the defendant.
Draw decree accordingly.
[Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by him and then corrected, signed and pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 2nd day of December, 2021).
[R. ONKARAPPA] LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge BANGALORE.
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
PW.1 - Dr. Sudha Dharmarajan
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
NIL
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
31 O.S. No. 157/2018Ex.P1 - Memorandum of Deposit of the title deeds Ex.P2 - Electricity Bill Ex.P3 - Electricity Bill Ex.P4 - Electricity Bill Ex.P5 - Sketch Ex.P6 - Sale deed Ex.P7 - Sale deed Ex.P8 - Tax paid receipt Ex.P9 - Tax paid receipt Ex.P10 - Tax paid receipt Ex.P11 - Complaint copy Ex.P12 - Postal acknowledgement Ex.P13 - RPAD acknowledgement Ex.P14 - Absolute sale deed Ex.P15 - Order copy Ex.P16 - Receipt
4. List of documents marked on behalf of the defendant/s:
-NIL-
LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE.