Bangalore District Court
Sri Takkolu Sreeram Karthik vs Smt.G.Vijayalakshmi on 7 March, 2022
OS No.816/2017
KABC010028022017
IN THE COURT OF THE LXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-62)
Dated this the 07 th day of March, 2022
PRESENT :- SRI R.RAVI, B.Sc., LL.B.
LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangaluru City.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.816/2017
Plaintiff/s : 1. Sri Takkolu Sreeram Karthik
Aged about 38 years
S/o.Dr.T.Sudhakar Reddy
R/a.No.42/80-8
NGO Colony, Kadapa
Andhra Pradesh.
(By Sri.S.R.K., Advocate)
V/s.
Defendant/s : 1. Smt.G.Vijayalakshmi
W/o.T.V.Ramana Reddy
R/a.GF.01, Ground Floor
Muneeswara Enclave
No.46 & 47, 1st Cross, 'A' Sector
Muneeswara Temple Road
Amruthanagar,
Amruthahalli Village
Bengaluru-92.
(By Sri.M.G.K., Advocate)
OS No.816/2017
Date of institution
of the suit : 01.02.2017
Nature of the suit
[suit on pronote, suit
for declaration and
possession, suit
for injunction] : Declaration & Possession
Date of the commencement
of recording of the evidence : 04.02.2018
Date on which the
Judgment was pronounced : 07.03.2022
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : -05- -01- -06-
JUDGMENT
This is a suit one filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and to direct the defendant or any body claiming, acting through her to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff & for directing an enquiry with regard to mesne profits from the date of illegal and unauthorized occupation of the defendant in the suit schedule properties and to decree the suit with costs and also to grant such other reliefs as deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.
OS No.816/2017 A-SCHEDULE PROPERTIES All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Site No.46 & 47, BBMP Khatha No.974/952/456/46& 47, carved out of Sy. No.96 converted vide O.M.bearing No.B:DIS/ALN/SR(N)/156/1992-93 dated 211.12.1992 by Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, situated at Amruthahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru measuring :
EAST to WEST : 60 feet NORTH to SOUTH : 40 feet In all measuring 2400 sq. ft. and bounded on thereafter East by : Site No.45 West by : Road North by : Road South by : Site No.34 & 35 B-SCHEDULE PROPERTY ITEM NO.I: Flat bearing No.GF-01, BBMP Khatha No.974/952/456/46, 47, having super built up area of 1000 sq. ft. and undivided share of 350 sq. ft.
ITEM NO.II: Flat bearing No.GF-02, BBMP Khatha No.974/952/456/46, 47/1, having super built up area of 1000 sq. ft. and undivided share of 350 sq. ft.
Both the above two flats are situate in the Ground Floor of the apartment building constructed over 'A' schedule Property now known as 'Muneshwara Enclave', ist Cross, 'A' Sector, Muneeswara Temple Road, Amruthnagar, Amruthahalli Village, Bengaluru-560
092.
OS No.816/2017
2. The case of the plaintiff is that he acquired site No.46 & 47 situated at 1st Cross, 'A' Sector, Muneeswara Temple road, Amruthnagarm, Amruthahalli Village, Bengaluru-92 vide two different gift deeds both dated 07.02.2008 executed by his grandfather Sri.T.Krishna Reddy. By an order of the Joint Commissioner, BBMP dated 24.09.2008, Kathas of both the properties are clubbed together to form single unit. The said property is more fully described hereunder referred to as 'A' schedule property. The plaintiff submits that by obtaining building plan from the competent authority he has constructed residential building over the said property and having so constructed the building, the plaintiff was intending to let out all the flats, during which period the defendant approached the plaintiff and having expressed her satisfaction about the title held by the plaintiff, the building plan as well as construction of the building, offered to purchase three flats from him. Considering the relationship (wife of plaintiffs senior uncle) and the offer made by the defendant, the plaintiff has executed three different sale deed in her favour in respect of three different flats in the said building. The first sale deed is dated 21.01.2013 pertaining to flat No.02 in the first floor of the said building having super built up area of 1000 sq. ft. along with UDS of 400 sq. ft. The second sale deed is dated 17.10.2013 pertaining to Flat No.01 in the first floor of the said building having super built up area of 1000 sq. ft. along with UDS of 400 sq. ft. and the last sale deed is dated 03.05.2014 pertaining to Flat No.01 (though the flat number is mentioned as 3 in the sale deed at the instance and for the reasons best known to the defendant) in the second floor of the said building having super built up area of 1000 OS No.816/2017 sq. ft. along with UDS of 400 sq. ft. The plaintiff submits that in view of the fact that the defendant has purchased three flats, the plaintiff has though it fit and convenient to sell the remaining flats also as he has secured job in Andhra Pradesh far away from Bengaluru. Thus the plaintiff has executed absolute sale deed dated 07.10.2015 in favour of one Mr.K.V.Prabhakar pertaining to flat No.SF.02 (next to the flat No.01 sold in favour of the defendant) on the second floor of the said building having super built up area of 1000 sq. ft. along with UDS of 350 sq. ft. Though the plaintiff executed three gift deeds all dated 26.03.2016 in favour of his sister Smt.Nishita in respect of Flat No.GF.01 & GF.02 both situated in the ground floor of the said building each having 1000 sq. ft. of super built up area and 350 sq. ft. of UDS and last one pertains to Flat No.TF.1 (pent house) situate in Terrace floor of the said building having 500 sq. ft. of super built up area along with UDS of 150 sq. ft., however in view of disputes raised by the defendant the plaintiff though it fit to cancel the same and thus the said gift deeds in respect of flat No.GF-01 and GF-02 are cancelled by executing deeds of cancellation dated 25.10.2016 and the plaintiff continue to be the owner of the said flats. The plaintiff submits that the BBMP having taken cognizance of all the documents referred to above the construction made by the plaintiff has bifurcated khathas into 7 individual flats and assigned new numbers. As per the said order the flats purchased by the defendant was assigned flat No.FF.01, FF.02 both in the first floor & SF.01 in the second floor and flat purchased by K.V.Prabhakar in the second floor was assigned SF.02 and the remaining flats which were retained by the plaintiff were assigned GF.01 & GF.02 both in the OS No.816/2017 ground floor and the flat gifted in favour of his sister Dr.Nishita was assigned flat No.TF.01 situated in the Terrace Floor of the said building and khathas in respect of the said flats are also transferred and stands in the names of respective owners of the records of BBMP and that at the time of execution of the first sale deed in favour of the defendant, it was specifically informed to the defendant that certain internal works including installation of lift was still under progress. This aspect of the matter was also within the knowledge of the defendant who made a spot inspection, however the defendant insisted the plaintiff to execute sale deed and also requested him to deliver possession of any one of his flats for her immediate self occupation stating that she has to shift her residence from Hyderabad to Bengaluru. Considering the request of the defendant, her age and the relationship, the plaintiff allowed the defendant to occupy his flat No.GF.02, situate in the ground floor of the said building having 1000 sq. ft. of super built up area and 350 sq. ft. of UDS as the interiors and other works of the said flat had been completed by then as a model flat, however with a condition that she shall vacate and move to any of the flats purchased by her in the same building after completion of works. Thus the defendant occupied flat No.GF.02 and expressed her intention to continue to occupy the said flat for some more time, and thus allowed the plaintiff to let out her flat No.FF-02 in the first floor in favour of his tenant one Sri.Gopal Reddy on the same condition that he will have to shift to the flats of the plaintiff in the ground floor once the defendant vacates and hands over the same to the plaintiff. In the mean time the plaintiff has not only completed the pending works OS No.816/2017 including installation of lift, but also informed the defendant to take possession of her flats by vacating and shifting her occupation to any one of the flats purchased by her. However the defendant has been dodging to vacate the said premises on one or the other pretext but did not comply with the request of the plaintiff. As the defendant has neglected and delayed shifting of her occupation from GF-02 to her other flats, the plaintiff had no option but to continue the tenancy of Sri Gopal Reddy in respect of flat No.FF-02 belonging to the defendant. However, instead of vacating the flat No.GF.-02 the defendant has moved to flat No.GF-01 and let out GF-02 in favour of one Mr.Shyam Reddy thus indicating her intention to continue her illegal occupation. She has also illegally changed electric meters according to her whims and demanded the plaintiff to construct watchmen house measuring about 250 sq. ft. in the stilt floor to accommodate her maid servant, which was refused by the plaintiff. In this regard complaints and counter complaints were lodged before police and revenue authorities. By the attitude and indifferent behavior of the defendant, the plaintiff does not wish to continue the illegal occupation of defendant in respect of Flat No.GF-01 and flat No.GF-02 which are more fully described in the schedule hereunder and hereinafter referred to as 'B' schedule properties and the plaintiff got issued a legal notice dated 15.12.2016 calling upon the defendant to vacate and hand over vacant possession of 'B' Schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff within one month from the date of service of the said notice and also claimed damages for her wrongful use and occupation at the rate of Rs.13,000/- per month. The said notice is served on the defendant and the defendant OS No.816/2017 instead of complying with the demand made there under, has sent an untenable reply dated 12.01.2017 and though plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, however as the defendant has not only denied his title but also claims to be the absolute owner of the same to have the cloud cast on him with respect to the title of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff is also constrained to seek the relief of declaration though unnecessary. Having no other alternative, the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking necessary reliefs.
3. On the other hand the defendant has filed the written statement & denied the averments of the plaint and further contended that the father of the plaintiff and husband of the defendant are own brothers and this defendant was working as Dy. Director in the Department of Information and Public relations, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad who had no intention of settling in Bengaluru or even to buy any immovable property at Benglauru. But the father of the plaintiff who happened to be younger brother of defendant's husband, approached defendant's husband in the year 2011 and put forth a proposal to buy the flats being constructed by the plaintiff (younger brother's son), so that they can live together as neighbours and their help will be available to them after retirement. By continuous persuasion of the brother of the defendant's husband and nephew, defendant then decided to buy the flats believing in the plaintiff's words. At this time it was made known to the plaintiff that due to age factor the defendant and her OS No.816/2017 husband who was also a retiree from Government Service by that time, would purchase flat only if it is nearest to the lowers stairs and to which the plaintiff and his father had agreed. Accordingly, the defendant purchased flat No.02, under registered sale deed dated 21.01.2013 fro valuable consideration. This flat is situated above the parking area accessible to the defendant and her family. This flat is the first dwelling house sold by the plaintiff and it was the first to get complete with construction and the possession was given to the defendant by the plaintiff and the defendant is in possession and the occupation of the same since then. The electricity connection and the meter are all installed in the name of the defendant and she is paying the property tax of the flat from time to time and that soon after defendant purchased flat No.02 as said above, the plaintiff induced and cajoled the defendant and the defendant's husband to purchase additional flats, so that it will yield good rental income for their living. Accordingly, the defendant purchased flat No.01 which is adjoining the flat No.02 under registered sale deed dated 17.10.2013 by availing loan from SBI. The plaintiff is aware of this fact as per his own statements in the petition. This flat 01 was mortgaged to the bank and encumbrance was noted and subsequently after complete repayment in 2 years it has been free of encumbrance. Subsequently the defendant purchased flat No.02 in the second floor under registered sale deed dated 03.05.2014 also for a valuable consideration. The averment of the plaintiff that the last sale deed dated 03.05.2014 pertains to flat No.01 in the second floor but registered as 03 at the instance of the defendant is false and misleading because in the schedule to the sale deed the flat No.03 OS No.816/2017 sold is bounded on the east by flat No.04. Hence it is clear that flat No.03 is sold to the defendant under registered sale deed dated 03.05.2014 and not flat No.01. The plaintiff has not constructed the flats in accordance with the approved building plan issued by BBMP. As per the approved plan, the plaintiff should have constructed the stilt floor for parking of 4 vehicles, 2 numbers 2 BHK flats measuring 750.40 sq ft. each in the ground floor and 2 numbers duplex flats measuring 1291.79. sq. ft. each in the first and second floors and an opening to terrace floor. Whereas the plaintiff has not constructed the stilt floor & ground floor is converted for parking of vehicles and constructed two single flats of 1000 sq. ft. each in first floor, second floor and 3rd floor and pent house in the terrace floor deviating the sanctioned plan. Since there are no flats available in the ground floor, plaintiff had no option but to cancel the gift deeds executed in respect of flat No.GF.01 and GF.02. The BBMP officials after coming to know of their mistake/error in giving khathas in respect of 7 flats (instead of 4 flats in all) which were unauthorized and in violation of sanctioned plan having issued notice dated 30.012017 calling upon the owner to produce approved plan and original documents. The defendant submits that the plaintiff has not constructed any flat in the ground floor and has converted the ground floor into parking area, hence the question of this defendant occupying flat No.GF-02 situated in the ground floor does not arise and denied as flat and baseless. After the execution and registration of the first sale deed dated 21.01.2013 by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant the defendant stayed in flat No.02 in the first floor situated immediately above the parking area as its absolute owner therein. Recently the OS No.816/2017 defendant has shifted her residence to flat No.01 in the first floor, which is also owned by her and has let out rest of the 2 flats belonging to her and that as per the approved plan of BBMP permission is given for construction of 4 flats having 4 kitchens and parking for 4 vehicles only. The BBMP in its letter No.ADTP/RTI/91/16-17 dated 04.01.2017 issued under the RTI Act, 2005 asserted that the plan is approved for 2 single flats and 2 duplex flats and 4 car parking only. As stated in para 3, the plaintiff has sold three flats under registered sale deeds in favour of the defendant and remaining flat bearing no.SF02 in favour of one Mr.K.V.Prabhakar under registered sale deed dated 07.10.2015 as stated in para No.4 of the plaint. Hence, the averment that the defendant is illegally occupying flats in GF-01 and GF-02 is false, baseless and misleading and cooked up story for the purpose of the suit. The alleged ground floor is converted for parking area violating the approved plan by the plaintiff. Hence, the question of the defendant occupying illegally flats not belonging to her does not arise either as per sanctioned plan of the BBMP or as per as built plan presently constructed by the plaintiff. As such the defendant and her husband did not endorse the illegal things of the plaintiff and have resisted to their vulnerability in the hands of the plaintiff and his family members and have pursued rightful legal course of action with BBMP and other concerned department which has been detrimental to the gainful intentions of the plaintiff, opposed the same, for which the plaintiff is making all sorts of untenable allegations against the defendant which are mainly aimed at dispossession of her rightful flats and to make her family vacate Bengaluru leaving all her OS No.816/2017 belongings which will enable the plaintiff illegally to sell all the remaining unlawfully constructed flats. The defendant reiterates that, after shifting the residence from F-2 to F-1, she has let out flat No.F- 2 to one Mr.Shyam Reddy, as the defendant is the lawful and absolute owner of the said flats and the plaintiff cannot find fault for the said action. She De refutes the allegation of plaintiff that defendant has locked the main gate. The allegation that defendant is not allowing parking of cars by plaintiffs sister and parents is false and baseless because as per the approved building plan, only four flats with four car parkings are permissible. And there is no excess area in the car parking in excess of four cars. The defendant is the purchaser of first 3 flats along with 3 car parking areas vide documents Nos.4, 5 and 6 submitted by the plaintiff, she is entitled to park 3 cars in all belonging to her family and her tenants. There is nothing wrong in demanding watchmen room for housing security which is necessary in apartments and the defendant has suitably replied the legal notice dated 15.12.2016 denying the allegations made there in and denied payment of so called damages as illegal and baseless and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.
4. On the basis of above pleadings of both the parties one of my learned predecessor has framed the following issues ;
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property?
OS No.816/2017
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of suit property from the defendant?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed?
4. What Order or Decree?
5. And in order to prove the facts of the above issues the GPA Holder of plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.60 and where as the defendant got herself examined as DW-1 & got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.36 and thereafter the matter was posted for arguments.
6. And I have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials placed on record and my findings of the above issues are as under;
ISSUE No.1 : In the negative
ISSUE No.2 : In the negative
ISSUE No.3 : In the negative
ISSUE No.4 : As per final order, for the
following;
REASONS
7. ISSUE No.1 to 3:- since these issues are interlinked with each other then they are hereby discussed commonly in order to OS No.816/2017 avoid repetition of facts.
8. On perusal of th entire materials placed on record by both the parties I found that it is an admitted fact that originally the plaintiff has acquired the suit schedule 'A' property i.e., site No46 & 47 vide two different registered gift deeds dt.7.2.2008 one executed by his grand father Sri Krishna Reddy.
9. It is also an admitted fact that by obtaining the building license plan from the competent authority the plaintiff has constructed residential buildings/flats over the said suit 'A' schedule property.
10. It is also an admitted fact that the defendant has purchased three flats from the plaintiff through three registered sale deeds dated 21.10.2013, 17.10.2013 and 03.05.2014 respectively.
11. Now it is the specific contention of the plaintiff that at the time of execution of the first sale deed it was informed to the defendant that certain internal works including installation of lift was still under progress, but however the defendant insisted the plaintiff to execute the sale deed and requested him to deliver possession of any of his flats from her immediate self occupation and thus by considering her request the plaintiff has allowed the defendant to occupy his flat No.GF-02 in the ground floor having 1000 sq. ft. super built up area and 350 ft. of UDS with a condition that she will vacate and move to the flats purchased by her and in the meanwhile the plaintiff has completed the pending works including installation of lift OS No.816/2017 and asked the defendant to vacate the said flat No.GF-02, but however instead of vacating the said flat No.GF-02 the defendant has moved to flat No.GF-01 and let out GF-02 in favour of one Shyama Reddy and hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the above suit for declaration and possession.
12. On the other hand it is the specific case of the defendant that the plaintiff has not at all constructed the flats over the suit 'A' Schedule property in accordance with the approved building plan of BBMP and since the plaintiff has not at all constructed the stilt floor, the ground floor is converted for parking of vehicles and so also constructed two single flats of 1000 sq. ft. each in the first, second and third floor & pent house in the terrace floor deviating the sanction plan then as per the first sale deed dated 21.01.2003 the defendant stayed in flat no.02 of first floor situated immediately above the parking area & as per sale deed dated 17.10.2013 she has purchased flat No.01 in the first floor and so also as per sale deed dated 03.05.2014 she as purchased flat No.03 in the 2nd floor and as such the alleged contention of the plaintiff that she is in illegal occupation of suit B Schedule property does not arise at all.
13. And thus in order to rebut the above contention of the defendant and also to prove his contention though the GPA Holder of the plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.62, the same do not hold any water as there are all lot of variance in the above said oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiff that are place on record. Now let me examine it.
OS No.816/2017
14. First of all though the plaintiff has specifically pleaded that after obtaining the building plan from the competent authority he has constructed residential flats over the said suit schedule property consisting of stilt, ground, first & second floors, the same do not hold any water as the above facts are not at all proved by him with cogent material documentary evidence.
15. And even though the plaintiff has allegedly produced a sanction building plan at Ex.P.4 and even though the said plan shows that the plaintiff was permitted to make construction over the suit 'A' schedule property consisting of stilt, ground, first, second floors & terrace floor, the same are of no help to the case of the plaintiff as contrary to the plaint pleadings & contents of Ex.P.4 the GPA holder of the plaintiff/PW-1 who is none other than the father of the plaintiff at para No.12 of his cross-examination has clearly admitted that 'The over all building is three floors one is ground floor, first floor and second floor and one room is terrace floor'.
16. And more over since the said GPA holder of the plaintiff/PW- 1 at page 14 of his cross-examination has further admitted that 'as per the sanction plan plaintiff has to construct duplex flats at first & second floor of the building' & further admitted at page 15 of his cross-examination that 'The khatha of Ex.P.5 is rather cancelled by the BBMP' and further admitted at page No.16 of his cross- examination that 'The alleged gift deeds of Ex.P.22 and Ex.P.23 one executed in respect of flat No.GF-01 and GF-02 in favour of the sister of the plaintiff are rather cancelled through the registered cancellation OS No.816/2017 deeds of Ex.P.24 & 25 and further admitted at the same page that 'the BBMP has issued demolition order for illegal constructions over the suit schedule property' and further admitted at page 13 of his cross- examination that 'the plaintiff has not at all questioned the registered sale deeds one executed in favour of the defendants' and since the plaintiff is allegedly claiming a relief of declaration and possession over the entire 'A' & 'B' Schedule properties and since the plaintiff has not at all produced any other cogent material documentary evidence that the defendant has allegedly occupied the suit 'B' schedule property then it has to be held in unequivocal terms that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that he is the absolute owner of the entire 'A' & 'B' suit schedule properties & the defendant is in illegal possession of the alleged 'B' suit schedule property.
17. On the other hand the defendant by clearly pleading and leading her oral evidence at DW-1 and further producing the documentary evidence at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.36 has clearly rebutted the case of the plaintiff and further proved that she is the absolute owner of flat No1 & 2 in the first floor and flat No.3 in the second floor situated over the suit 'A' schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 21.01.2013, 17.10.2013 and 03.05.2014.
18. And the said oral evidence of defendant/DW-1 and the documentary evidence of Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.7 further proved that as per the sanction plan since the plaintiff did not construct the stilt floor then ground floor construction itself is treated as car parking area and the above floors were considered as first and second floors and as such OS No.816/2017 as per the orders of D-1 to D-4, the BBMP Authorities have issued an order for demolition of unauthorized construction duly mentioning the deviation measurements in violation of the sanction plan.
19. And even though the defendant has not led the evidence of any witnesses, the same is not at all fatal to her case as in a ruling of 2005 (2) KCCR 831 it has been clearly held that 'Evidence Act, 1872-Section 101 - Burden of Proof -Unless the plaintiff lays some semblance of evidence, it is not necessary for the defendant to rebut. However the plaintiff without proving his case cannot solely rely upon the lapse of non production of evidence by the defendant and argue that adverse inference must be drawn against the defendant'.
20. And even other wise since at page No.4 of the cross- examination of the said DW-1 the plaintiff himself has clearly suggested and admitted that as per the sale deed of Ex.P46 the defendant has purchased flat No.2 in the first floor & as per the sale deed of Ex.P.47 the defendant has purchased flat No.01 in the first floor & as per the sale deed of Ex.P.48 the defendant has purchased flat No.03 in the second floor which is rather fatal to the case of the plaintiff because as per section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act the above admitted facts need not be further proved by the defendant.
21. And moreover since the plaintiff has neither examined any independent witness nor examined any BBMP officials to prove the OS No.816/2017 alleged bifurcation khathas one allegedly shown in the documentary evidence of Ex.P.5 and since the GPA holder of the plaintiff as PW-1 at page 15 of his cross-examination has clearly admitted that 'After obtaining the said khatha of Ex.P.5, the defendant has lodged complaint against the same before the BBMP Authorities and police authorities and thereafter the said bifurcation khatha of ExP.5 has been cancelled by the BBMP authorities' and further admitted at page No.12 that 'the defendant has carried out interior work of her three flats' and since in a ruling of 2004 (1) KCCR 662 it has been clearly held that "Whenever a party approaches the Court for a relief based on the pleadings and issues, he has to prove his case. The suit has to be decided based on the merits & demerits of the party who approached the Court. The weakness of the defendant cannot be considered as a trump card for the plaintiff" then it has to be held in unequivocal terms that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the absolute owner of the entire suit schedule property & the defendant is in illegal possession of the alleged B schedule property.
22. So in view of the discussion made above I am of the opinion that since the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and further failed to prove that the defendant is in illegal possession of the suit schedule property with cogent oral and documentary evidence and since the defendant has clearly rebutted the case of the plaintiff with cogent oral & documentary evidence then the plaintiff is not at all entitled to any reliefs as sought by him and accordingly I have answered the above OS No.816/2017 issue No.1 to 3 in the negative.
23. ISSUE No.4:- In view of the discussion made on issue No.1 to 3 and further holding them in the negative, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff against the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property is hereby dismissed.
Inview of the peculiar circumstances parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 07 th day of March, 2022).
(R.RAVI) LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
PW-1 : T.Sudhakar Reddy
b) Defendant's side:
DW-1 : Smt.G.Vijayalakshmi
OS No.816/2017
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P.1 GPA dtd:02.09.2018
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of the Gift Deed
dtd:07.02.2008
Ex.P.3 Certified copy of the Gift Deed
dtd:07.02.2008
Ex.P.4 Original Building Plan dtd;26.10.2010
Ex.P.5 Special Notice dtd:02.05.2015 issued by
BBMP in favour of Takkolu Sreeram Karthik
Ex.P.6 Original Khatha Certificate and extract in
respect of GF-1
Ex.P.7 Original Khatha Certificate and extract in
respect of GF-2
Ex.P.8 Original Khatha Certificate and extract in
respect of SF-2
Ex.P.9 Original Khatha Certificate and extract in
respect of TF-1
Ex.P.10 to P.13 4 - Original Tax paid receipt in respect of
GF-1
Ex.P.14 to P.17 4 - Original Tax paid receipt in respect of
GF-2
Ex.P.18 to P.21 4 - Original Tax paid receipt in respect of
TF-1
Ex.P.22 Certified copy of the Gift Deed
dtd:26.03.2016
Ex.P.23 Certified copy of the Gift Deed
OS No.816/2017
dtd:26.03.2016
Ex.P.24 Original Cancellation of Gift Deed
dtd:25.10.2016
Ex.P.25 Original Cancellation of Gift Deed
dtd:25.10.2016
Ex.P.26 Certified copy of the Gift Deed
dtd:26.03.2016
Ex.P.27 Original Uttarapatra dtd:16.04.2016
Ex.P.28 Original Khatha certificate dtd:16.04.2016
Ex.P.29 Original Khatha Extract dtd:16.04.2016
Ex.P.30 Original Valuation report issued by
R.K.Makija and Co. dtd:17.06.2016
Ex.P.31 Letter dtd:07.11.2016
Ex.P.32 Letter dtd:01.12.2016
Ex.P.33 Letter dtd:05.12.2016
Ex.P.34 Letter dtd:07.12.2016
Ex.P.35 Letter dtd:07.01.2018
Ex.P.36 Letter dtd:04.01.2017
Ex.P.37 Letter dtd:17.12.2016
Ex.P.38 to P.45 8 - Tax paid receipts
Ex.P.46 Certified copy of the Sale Deed
dtd:21.01.2013
Ex.P.47 Certified copy of the Sale Deed
dtd:17.10.2013
Ex.P.48 Certified copy of the Sale Deed
dtd:03.05.2014
OS No.816/2017
Ex.P.49 Office copy of the Legal Notice
dtd:15.12.2016
Ex.P.50 Postal Receipt
Ex.P.51 Postal Acknowledgment
Ex.P.52 replay Notice dtd:12.01.2017
Ex.P.53 Letter dtd:25.06.2014 issued by
G.Vijayalakshmi to the Addl.
Commissioner.
Ex.P.54&55 Encumbrance certificate (2 nos.)
Ex.P.56 to 58 Photographs (3 nos.)
Ex.P.59 CD
Ex.P.60 Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act
b) Defendants side :
Ex.D.1 : Order of BBMP dated 29.07.2019
Ex.D.2 : Letter dt.21.08.2019 issued by BBMP
Ex.D.3 : Notice dt.24.08.2018
Ex.D.4 : Temporary order letter dated 24.08.2018
Ex.D.5 : Order letter dated 15.09.2018
Ex.D.6 : Letter issued by BBMP under RTI ACT
Ex.D.7 : BBMP Letter dated 19.11.2018
Ex.D.8 : Acknowledgement issued by BESCOM
Ex.D.9 : BESCOM Challan
Ex.D.10 : State Bank of Hyderabad Challan
OS No.816/2017
Ex.D.11 to 13 : BESCOM Bill (3 nos.)
Ex.D.14 to 16 : Receipts (3 nos.)
Ex.D17 to 19 : Receipts (3 nos.) for having paid tax
Ex.D.20 : C.C. of PCR No.5859/2018
Ex.D.21 : C.C. of daily proceedings in PCR No.5859/2018
Ex.D.22 : C.C. of order in Crl.R.P. No.360/2019
Ex.D.23 : C.C. of order in Crl. Petition No.3996/2020 passed
by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
Ex.D.24 : Original Notice dated 29.07.2019
Ex.D.25 : Receipt
Ex.D.26 : Acknowledgement
Ex.D.27 & 28 : Reply
Ex.D.29 : Another notice dt.29.09.2020
Ex.D.30 : Receipt
Ex.D.31& 32 : Acknowledgement (2 nos.)
Ex.D.33 : Notice dated 30.11.2020
Ex.D.34 : Receipt
Ex.D.35 & 36 : Acknowledgement (2 nos.)
(R.RAVI)
LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
OS No.816/2017
07.03.2022
P-SRK
D1-MGK
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED IN OPEN
COURT VIDE SEPARATE TYPED
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff against the
defendant in respect of the suit schedule
property is hereby dismissed.
OS No.816/2017
Inview of the peculiar
circumstances parties are directed to
bear their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(R.RAVI)
LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.