Bangalore District Court
M.Deepak Kumar vs M.Sandeep Kumar on 8 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE XLII ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH.NO.43).
PRESENT: Sri.P.SRINIVASA,
B.A.L., LL.M.,
XLII ADDL., CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
Dated this the 8th day of April 2019.
O.S.No.278/2012
Plaintiffs:- 1. M.Deepak Kumar,
S/o.Munikrishnalal,
Age 35 years,
R/at No.G/115, 1st Main,
4th Cross, O.T.S. Road,
H.A.L. Vimanapura Post,
Bangalore -17.
2. M.Santosh Kumar,
S/o.Munikrishnalal,
Age 37 years,
R/at Siddappa Building,
No.52, 'F' Cross, 2nd Main,
Avalahalli, Byatarayanapura,
Bangalore -2.
(By Adv. B.Yesu Rathinam)
v.
Defendants:- 1. M.Sandeep Kumar,
S/o.Munikrishnalal,
Age 33 years,
R/at No.401, H.P.Nagar,
BEML Nagar Post, K.G.F.,
Kolar District.
2. Munikrishnalal,
S/o.Chotulal Singh,
Age 65 years,
R/at No.40, H.P.Nagar,
BEML Nagar Post, K.G.F.,
Kolar District.
Judgement
t
2 O.S.No.278/2012
3. B.N.Nagaraj,
S/o.B.V.Narasimha Iyengar,
Age 40 years,
Residing at Flat No.5,
No.65, Saikrishna Apartment,
15th Cross, 2nd Temple Street,
Malleshwaram, Bangalore -03.
4. Senniyappan,
S/o.Kumarappa Gowender,
Age 65 years,
Kumar Traders,
Dr.Ambedkar Road,
Robertsonpet, K.G.F.
Kolar District.
5. Mohanraj
S/o.Subramani,
Age 42 years,
No.187, 12th Cross,
2nd Phase, J.P.Nagar,
Bangalore - 560 078.
(D1 & D2 by R.Jaganatham
D3 by Samuel S.Dandin
D4 by C.Pattabi Raman
D5 - Exparte)
Date of institution of the suit : 05.01.2012
Nature of the suit : Partition & Permanent
Injunction
Date of commencement of : 16.08.2017
Recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 08.04.2019
was pronounced
Total Duration : Years Months Days
07 03 03
(P.SRINIVASA)
XLII ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Judgement
3 O.S.No.278/2012
JUDGEMENT
The plaintiffs have filed the above suit for partition, permanent injunction and costs.
2. The plaintiff's case in brief as under:-
The plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendant No.1 are the children of defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 was working in M/s.BEML and while in service in the year 1993-94, he purchased suit schedule property in his name vide., registered Sale Deed dated 30.03.1994 for sale consideration of Rs.40,000/-. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 had contributed Rs.10,000/- each and defendant No.1 contributed Rs.5,000/- towards purchase of the suit schedule property and remaining amount of Rs.15,000/- and miscellaneous expenses were contributed by defendant No.2. Due to non-
alienation clause defendant No.2 agreed to partition the suit schedule property after 5 years from the date of purchase. Subsequently, defendant No.2 borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- from defendant No.4 and furnished suit schedule property as a security. Plaintiffs, defendants 1 and 2 jointly repaid the said loan amount and defendant No.2 agreed to partition the suit schedule property. On 15.07.2011, plaintiffs demanded for partition of the suit schedule property but, defendant No.2 informed the plaintiffs that he is going to partition and allot share to defendant No.1 only. On 18.10.2011, when plaintiff No.1 approached Bruhat Judgement 4 O.S.No.278/2012 Bangalore Mahanagar Palike Office, they came to know that defendant No.3 has created some false documents and transferred the suit schedule property in his name. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the above suit.
3. In response to the suit summons, defendants 1 to 4 have appeared before the court through their respective counsels. Inspite of service of suit summons, defendant No.5 failed to appear before this court hence, he was placed exparte. The defendants 1 and 2 have filed common written statement, admitting plaintiffs' case and contended that second defendant's wife namely, Mrs.Rajakumari Bai had paid the interest amount to defendant No.4 hence, she is also entitle for share in the suit schedule property and claimed that suit property may be partitioned into 5 equal shares.
4. The defendant No.3 has filed separate written statement. In the written statement, defendant No.3 has contended that suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and also barred under the provisions of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. Defendant no.2 has alienated the suit property to defendant no.5 vide., sale deed dated 13.3.1998 and defendant No.5 in turn sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3 vide., registered Judgement 5 O.S.No.278/2012 Sale Deed dated 11.09.2001 for valuable consideration and defendant No.3 is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are not in possession of the suit schedule property. The court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient hence, suit is liable to be dismissed. The suit is also barred by limitation. There is no cause of action to file the above suit. Hence prayed that suit may be dismissed with costs.
5. On the basis of above pleadings, below mentioned issues arise for consideration:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they have contributed the amount to purchase the suit schedule property in the name of 2nd defendant and it is their joint family property?
2. Whether the 3rd defendant proves that the suit is barred under the provisions of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988?
3. Whether the 3rd defendant proves that the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties?
4. Whether the 3rd defendant proves that suit is barred by limitation?
5. Whether the 3rd defendant proves that he is the bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property?
Judgement 6 O.S.No.278/2012
6. Whether the 3rd defendant proves that suit is not properly valued and the court fee paid is insufficient?
7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
8. What order or decree?
6. To prove the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff No.1 examined himself as PW-1 and examined one witness as PW-2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P4. The defendant No.3 examined as DW-1 and got marked Ex.D1 to D13.
7. Heard arguments. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs has relied upon the following citations reported in:
1. ILR 1999 KAR 2930, in the case of The Karnataka Theosophical Federation (R) v. Balakrishna Ashrama.
2. ILR 1998 KAR 904, in the case of Shivaleela and others v. Rudrayya and others.
3. W.P. No.3062/2018 (GM-CPC), in the case of Smt.Gowramma v. Andyappa and others.
4. AIR 2012 SC 206, in the case of Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) v. State of Haryana and another.
The learned counsel for the defendant No.3 has relied upon the following citations reported in:
Judgement 7 O.S.No.278/2012
1. 2017 (1) Mh.L.J., in the case of Ashok s/o Wasudeorao Marchettiwar v. Arun s/o Wasudeorao Marchettiwar (since deceased) Minakshi Will Deed/o Arun Marchettiwar.
2. AIR 2001 Kar 384, in the case of B.S.Malleshappa v. Koratagigere B.Shivalingappa and others.
3. ILR 2008 Kar 2245, in the case of Binny Mill Labour Welfare House Building co-
operative Society Limited v.
D.R.Mruthyunjaya Aradhya.
4. 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4377, in the case of Surinder Kaur v. Ram Narula and others.
8. My findings on the above said issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1:- In the Negative.
Issue No.2:- In the Affirmative.
Issue No.3:- In the Negative.
Issue No.4:- In the Affirmative.
Issue No.5:- In the Affirmative.
Issue No.6:- In the Affirmative.
Issue No.7:- In the Negative.
Issue No.8:- As per final order.
for the following:-
REASONS
9. Issue Nos.1 to 7:- These issues are taken up together for consideration to avoid repetition of facts, evidence and convenience.
Judgement 8 O.S.No.278/2012 PW-1 in his examination-in-chief has stated that plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendant No.1 are the children of defendant No.2. The defendants 1 and 2 in their written statement admit the said relationship between the parties. The defendant No.3 has denied the said relationship. The onus is on the defendant no.3 to prove that plaintiffs and defendant no.1 are not the children of defendant no.2. It is pertinent to note that, there is no suggestion by defendant No.3's counsel to PW-1 to the effect that plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendant No.1 are not the children of defendant No.2. No evidence is produced by defendant No.3 to show that plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendant No.1 are not the children of defendant No.2. Hence, contention of the plaintiffs that plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendant No.1 are the children of defendant No.2 has to be accepted.
10. PW-1 in his examination-in-chief has stated that defendant No.2 was working in M/s.BEML and while in service in the year 1993-94 after consulting the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendant No.1 and taking their consent purchased the suit schedule property vide., registered Sale Deed dated 30.03.1994 for valuable consideration of Rs.40,000/-. Further, PW-1 has stated that plaintiffs 1 and 2 contributed Rs.10,000/- each and defendant No.1 contributed Rs.5,000/- for purchase of the suit schedule property. Per contra, defendant No.3 in his written Judgement 9 O.S.No.278/2012 statement has denied that plaintiffs and defendant No.1 contributed towards purchase of the suit schedule property. Defendant no.3 has contended that at the time of purchase of suit schedule property by defendant No.2, plaintiffs and defendant No.1 were minors and they had no income to contribute towards purchase of the suit schedule property. The defendant No.3 has produced the original Sale Deed dated 30.03.1994 at Ex.D3. Ex.D3 is original and registered document hence, admissible in evidence. Execution of Ex.D3 is not in dispute hence, Ex.D3 can be relied upon by this court. From the recitals of Ex.D3, it discloses that defendant No.2 has purchased the suit schedule property for valuable consideration of Rs.40,000/- . From the Sale Deed, it reveals that consideration amount was paid by defendant No.2 himself to the said Society. There is no recital in Ex.D3 to the effect that plaintiffs and defendant No.1 contributed towards purchase of suit schedule property. PW-1 in his cross-examination admits that PW-1 was born on 29.04.1977, plaintiff No.2 was born in the year 1975 and defendant No.1 was born on 14.12.1978 and they were studying in the school and school fee was paid by their father. From the above evidence of PW-1, it clearly goes to show that at the time of purchase of suit schedule property by defendant No.2, plaintiffs and defendant No.1 were minors and they were students and had no independent source of Judgement 10 O.S.No.278/2012 income. On the other hand, defendant no.2 was gainfully employed and had sufficient source of independent income to purchase the suit schedule property. PW-1 in his evidence has stated that plaintiffs' relatives had given money to the plaintiffs and they saved the said money in the Hundi and contributed for purchase of the suit schedule property. It is pertinent to note that, in the plaint there is no averment to the effect that plaintiffs had saved money in the Hundi and contributed towards purchase of the suit schedule property. It is settled proposition of law that any amount of evidence without pleadings will not serve any purpose. The plaintiffs have not examined any independent witnesses before this court to prove that plaintiffs' relatives gave money to the plaintiffs. Hence, contention of the plaintiffs cannot be accepted. The plaintiffs have failed to prove that they had contributed money towards purchase of the suit schedule property. Hence, it has to be inferred that suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of defendant No.2. Further, PW-1 in his evidence has stated that after purchasing the suit schedule property, defendant No.2 borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- from defendant No.4 and furnished the suit property documents as security. Further, PW-1 has stated that plaintiffs 1 and 2 jointly paid Rs.20,000/- and defendant No.1 paid Rs.5,000/- and defendant No.2 paid Rs.35,000/- and repaid the borrowed Judgement 11 O.S.No.278/2012 amount. Except self serving oral evidence of PW-1, no material document is produced by the plaintiffs to show that they contributed Rs.20,000/- and defendant No.1 contributed Rs.5,000/- and defendant No.2 contributed Rs.35,000/- towards discharge of said loan amount. The plaintiffs have not produced any discharge receipt issued by defendant No.4 before this court to show that the said loan amount was cleared by defendant No.2. Hence, contention of the plaintiffs that they repaid the borrowed of Rs.60,000/- to defendant No.4 cannot be accepted. PW-2 is examined by the plaintiffs. PW-2 in his evidence has stated that defendant No.2 was working in M/s.BEML and plaintiffs studied at KGF and after getting job shifted to Bengaluru and he is aware of the dispute. PW-2 in his cross-examination admits that he doesn't know about alienation of suit schedule property by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.5 and subsequent alienation of suit schedule property by defendant No.5 in favour of defendant No.3. From the above evidence it is clear that PW-2 has no knowledge about the suit schedule property. Evidence of PW-2 is vague and not helpful to the plaintiffs. DW-1 in his evidence has stated that defendant No.2 alienated the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.5 and defendant No.5 alienated the suit property in favour of defendant No.3 and defendant No.3 is the bonafide purchaser of Judgement 12 O.S.No.278/2012 the said property for valuable consideration and he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. In support of the said contention, DW-1 has produced original GPA at Ex.D5, Sale Deed executed by defendant No.2 through his GPA Holder in favour of defendant No.5 at Ex.D2 and Sale Deed executed by defendant No.5 in favour of defendant No.3 at Ex.D4. Ex.D5 is the notarized GPA. Therefore, presumption has to be raised regarding its execution. It is pertinent to note that, defendant No.2 who is the executant of said GPA has not denied the GPA. The plaintiffs have not specifically denied the execution of said GPA in their plaint. Therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn against defendant No.2 and plaintiffs. PW-1 in his evidence has stated that his father's and brothers' signatures were taken on blank papers and later GPA was created. It is pertinent to note that, there is no pleading in the plaint to the effect that signature of defendant No.2 was taken on blank papers as stated by the plaintiffs. Hence, above evidence of PW-1 cannot be relied upon. Hence, Ex.D5 produced by defendant No.3 can be relied upon by this court. From the recitals of Ex.D5, it clearly goes to show that defendant No.2 has obtained loan from defendant No.4 and executed GPA authorizing defendant No.4 to alienate the suit schedule property in default of payment of the loan amount. The defendant No.2 has not produced any document to show that he Judgement 13 O.S.No.278/2012 has discharged the said loan amount. Admittedly, till date the said GPA is not cancelled by defendant No.2. Neither the plaintiffs nor defendant No.2 have filed any suit challenging the said GPA. The said GPA is in force. On the strength of the said GPA, defendant No.4 has executed Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.5 as GPA Holder of defendant No.2. From Ex.D2, it reveals that suit schedule property is alienated in favour of defendant No.5 for valuable consideration. The plaintiffs have not sought for cancellation of GPA or Sale Deed i.e., Ex.D2. As per Ex.D2 title is passed on from defendant No.2 to defendant No.5. Further, DW-1 has produced Sale Deed executed by defendant No.5 in favour of defendant No.3 at Ex.D4. From the recitals of Ex.D4, it clearly goes to show that defendant No.5 has alienated the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3 and title is passed on in favour of defendant No.3. Further, DW-1 has produced Khatha Certificate, Tax Paid Receipt and Possession Certificate before this court to show that khatha has been mutated in the name of defendant No.3 and he is in possession of the suit schedule property. It is pertinent to note that, PW-1 in his evidence admits that defendant No.3 is in possession of the suit schedule property. The documentary evidence produced by defendant No.3 corroborates his title over the suit schedule property. Hence, contention of defendant No.3 that he is the Judgement 14 O.S.No.278/2012 bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property for valuable consideration and he is the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property has to be accepted.
11. The defendant No.3 has contended that suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. During the pendency of the above suit, plaintiffs have impleaded defendants 4 and 5 in the above suit. Hence, contention of defendant No.3 that suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties falls to ground.
12. The defendant No.3 has contended that suit is barred under the provisions of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988. In 2017 (1) Mh.L.J., in the case of Ashok s/o Wasudeorao Marchettiwar v. Arun s/o Wasudeorao Marchettiwar (since deceased) Minakshi Will Deed/o Arun Marchettiwar, wherein the lordships have held as under:-
"(a) Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act (45 of 1988), S.4(1) - Partition - Right to possession - Prohibition of right to recover property held benami - Maintainability of suit -
Property purchased by three brothers who were residing jointly - Plaintiff claimed 1/3rd share in suit property on ground that he has contributed amount in total consideration for which property was purchased in name of defendant - Sale deed also registered in the name of appellant-defendant - In Judgement 15 O.S.No.278/2012 view of sub-section (1) of section 4 of the said Act, no such claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against person in whose name property was held or against any other person shall lie by or on behalf of person claiming to real owner of such property - Suit was clearly covered by prohibition contained in sub- section (1) of section 4 - Suit not maintainable". From the above judgment, it is clear as per sub-section (1) of section 4 of Benami transactions (Prohibition) Act, no suit, claim or action to enforce any right in respect of any property held benami against person in whose name property was held or against any other person shall lie by or on behalf of person claiming to real owner of such property. In the present case, Sale Deed is registered in the name of defendant No.2. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 claim that they have contributed amount for purchase of suit schedule property in the name of defendant No.2. It is not the case of plaintiffs that, plaintiffs and defendant No.1 constitute Hindu undivided joint family. Therefore, contention of plaintiffs that they have contributed money for purchase of suit schedule property and they are the co-owners of the suit schedule property is not sustainable under the said Act. Hence, suit is also barred under the provisions of the Benami transactions (Prohibition) Act.
Judgement 16 O.S.No.278/2012
13. The defendant No.3 has contended that suit is barred by limitation. In 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4377, in the case of Surinder Kaur v. Ram Narula and others.
"18. Mr.Pradeep Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for BMRC referred to Section 31(1) of the SRA and submitted that despite the Plaintiff disclosing in the plaint that she was aware of the mutation effected by the DDA, she had not sought cancellation of such mutation or cancellation of the sale deeds. Referring to the relevant provisions of the LA, Mr.Bakshi pointed out that a declaration would have to be sought within three years from the date of such knowledge and the suit was therefore barred by limitation. Relying on the decision in N.V.Srinivasa Murthy v. Mariyamma (Dead) by Proposed LRs (2005) 5 SCC 548 he pointed that failure to seek such declaration would render the suit prima facie barred by law and also under Order II Rule 2 CPC since no such relief had been claimed till date. Mr.Aviral Tiwari, learned counsel for Defendants 1, 2, 18 and 29 respectively supported the submissions of Mr.Bakshi.
...............
23. In N.V.Srinivas Murthy the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the Plaintiffs were absolute owners of the suit lands and sought permanent injunction on that basis. In the body of the plaint it was asserted that the registered sale deed executed on 5 May 1953 in favour of the predecessors of the Defendants was in fact a loan Judgement 17 O.S.No.278/2012 transaction to secure the amount borrowed by the Plaintiffs predecessor. It was contended by the Defendants that the Plaintiffs could not seek the mere relief of declaration of their title without seeking a declaration that the registered sale deed was in fact a loan transaction and without seeking the consequential relief of specific performance of an alleged oral agreement of re-conveyance of the suit lands. The Supreme Court agreed with the Defendants. It found that the suit as framed was prima facie barred by limitation as well as the SRA and Order II Rule 2 CPC. The Supreme Court observed that "the plaint has been very cleverly drafted with a view to get over the bar of limitation and payment of ad valorem court fee and that is liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC. It held that "a suit merely for declaration that the Plaintiffs are absolute owners of the suit lands could not have been claimed without seeking declaration that the registered sale deed dated 5 May 1953 was a loan transaction and not a real sale".
In the present case, Ex.D5 i.e., GPA was executed in the year 1995 and Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.5 is executed in the year 1998 and Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.3 is executed in the year 2001. The defendant No.3 has filed the written statement on 08.01.2013, contending that suit schedule property was alienated by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant Judgement 18 O.S.No.278/2012 No.5 as per Sale Deed dated 13.03.1998 and defendant No.5 alienated the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3 vide., registered Sale Deed dated 11.09.2001. Upon filing of the written statement by defendant No.3, the plaintiffs are aware of the documents namely, Ex.D2, D4 and D5. Inspite of knowledge of the above said documents, the plaintiffs have not amended the plaint and sought for relief of declaration or cancellation of the said documents. As per Limitation Act, 3 years is the time limit within which the plaintiffs ought to have sought for declaration or cancellation of the said Sale Deeds. The plaintiffs have failed to seek for cancellation of the said Sale Deeds. Hence, the above suit is barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act.
14. The defendant No.3 has contended that plaintiffs have not properly valued the suit and court fee paid by the plaintiffs is insufficient and suit is liable to be dismissed. In AIR 2001 Kar 384, in the case of B.S.Malleshappa v. Koratagigere B.Shivalingappa and others.
"(iv) If the plaintiff claims that he is in joint possession of a property and seeks partition and separate possession, he categories the suit under Section 35(2) of the Act. He is therefore liable to pay Court fee under Section 35(2) if on evidence, it is found that he was not in joint possession, the consequence is that the relief, may be refused in regard to such property or the suit may be Judgement 19 O.S.No.278/2012 dismissed. But the question of Court treating the suit as one falling under Section 35(1) of the Act and directing the plaintiff to pay the Court fee under Section 35(1) of the Act does not arise.
Even after written statement and evidence, (which may demonstrate absence of possession or joint possession) if the plaintiff chooses not to amend the plaint to bring the suit under Section 35(1) and pay Court fee applicable thereto, he takes the chance of suit getting dismissed or relief being denied.
(v) On appreciation of evidence, if the Court disbelieves the claim of plaintiff regarding joint possession, it can only hold that the case does not fall under Section 35(2) and therefore plaintiff is not entitled to relief. It cannot, in the judgment, hold that the case of plaintiff should be categorised under Section 35(1) nor direct the plaintiff to pay Court fee on market value under Section 35(1) of the Act."
From the above judgment, it is clear that if the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property, the reliefs may be refused. In the present case, the plaintiffs have contended that they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Per Contra, PW-1 in his evidence admits that defendant No.3 is in possession of the suit schedule property. Inspite of above said admission the plaintiffs have not valued the suit under Section 35(1) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act Judgement 20 O.S.No.278/2012 and paid the court fee. Therefore, as per above judgment, the plaintiffs are not entitle for the reliefs claimed.
The learned counsel for the plaintiffs has relied upon the following citations reported in:
1. ILR 1999 KAR 2930,
2. ILR 1998 KAR 904,
3. W.P. No.3062/2018 (GM-CPC),
4. AIR 2012 SC 206, The above citations are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the above case. In the light of the above discussion, I answer Issue Nos.1, 3, 7 in the Negative and Issue Nos.2, 4, 5, 6 in the Affirmative.
15. Issue No.8:-
In view of my above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed with costs. Draw decree accordingly. (Dictated to the Judgement Writer, typed by her, the transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open court, this the 8th day of April, 2019) (P.SRINIVASA) XLII Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Judgement 21 O.S.No.278/2012 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiffs' side:
PW.1 - Sri.M.Deepak Kumar PW.2 - Sri.Vijay Kumar
(b) Defendants' side:
DW.1 - Sri.B.N.Nagaraj II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiffs' side:
Ex.P1 : Certified copy of Sale Deed
dated 30.03.1994
Ex.P2 & P3 : Assessment Register Extracts
Ex.P4 : Possession Certificate
(b) Defendants' side:
Ex.D1 : Signature on copy of GPA
Ex.D2 : Original Sale Deed dated
13.03.1998
Ex.D3 : Original Sale Deed dated
30.03.1994
Ex.D4 : Original Sale Deed dated
11.09.2001
Ex.D5 : Original GPA dated 16.05.1995
Ex.D6 : Khatha Certificate
Ex.D7 : Assessment Register Extract
Ex.D8 to 12 : Tax Paid Receipts
Ex.D12(a) : Bank Challan
Ex.D13 : Possession Certificate
XLII ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU.
Digitally signed by
SRINIVASA
DN:
cn=SRINIVASA,ou=HIGH
COURT OF
SRINIVASA KARNATAKA,o=GOVERN
MENT OF
KARNATAKA,st=Karnatak
a,c=IN Judgement
Date: 2019.04.10 12:42:49
IST
22 O.S.No.278/2012
Judgement