Bangalore District Court
Smt.Annamma vs Smt.A.S.Shantha Kumari on 20 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU (C.C.H.No.7).
Dated: This the 20th Day of September, 2016.
Present: Sri. M.S.Patil, B.Sc., LL.B.
XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge.
Bengaluru.
O. S. No. 4 5 9 9 / 2006
Plaintiff Smt.Annamma,
w/o.K.Balaraj, aged about 47 years,
No.72, IV Main Road, Jai Bheema Nagar,
1st Stage, B.T.M.Layout,
Bengaluru-560068.
by Sri.G.S.Prasanna Kumar, Advocate.
Vs.
Defendant Smt.A.S.Shantha Kumari,
w/o.Veerabhadraiah,
aged about 50 years, No.216,
I 'E' Cross, H.B.R.Layout, III Block,
Hennur-Banaswadi Road,
Bengaluru-560084.
by Sri.V.Vishwanath, Advocate.
Date of institution of suit 01-06-2006
Nature of the suit Permanent injunction,
Declaration and
Mandatory injunction.
Date of commencement of 22-10-2011
recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment 20-09-2016
was pronounced
Total duration Days Months Years
21 03 10
2 O.S.No.4599/2006
JUDGMENT
This suit filed by the plaintiff is for declaration to declare that, plaintiff is owner of A-schedule property, of which, 'B' schedule property is portion and for mandatory injunction to direct defendant to handover vacant possession of 'B' schedule property, by demolishing structure constructed in it and to declare that, the sale deed executed by Rajamma through R.Srinivasaiah, as her G.P.A., in favour of defendant-Shantha Kumari, is null and void and not binding upon plaintiff and for mandatory injunction to direct defendant to demolish illegal construction put up by defendant on "B" schedule property at her own costs, failing which, to authorize plaintiff to demolish the same at the defendant's costs and to grant any other reliefs, which Court deems fit, in the circumstances of this case.
2. The brief facts of the plaint averments are that:
Plaintiff is owner of residential site No.72 of Sy.No.99 of IV Main, Jaibheemanagar, B.T.M. I Stage, Bengaluru-08, measuring East-West 40 feet and North-South 49 feet as per Hakku Patra given by B.D.O. to plaintiff on 25-11-1980, which is "A" schedule property and that, plaintiff obtained sanction plan from BBMP to construct structure into 30 feet x 40 feet in suit "A' property and left 19 feet x 40 feet as vacant land and the same is "B"3 O.S.No.4599/2006
schedule property and that, plaintiff has paid taxes to Madiwala Group Panchayat, as suit property was within the jurisdiction of Madiwala Group Panchayat and later, plaintiff paid taxes to BBMP, as suit property now came into jurisdiction of BBMP and that, defendant encroached into "B" schedule property, i.e., vacant land of plaintiff, measuring 19 feet x 40 feet, on the ground that, she has purchased it from erstwhile owner-Smt.Rajamma through her husband-Srinivasaiah, as her G.P.A. under registered Sale Deed Dated:6-3-1996 and constructed illegal structure into it by violating bylaws of Municipal Corporation Act and without having approved sanction plan, during pendency of suit and hence, this suit against defendant.
3. Defendant files her written statement, additional written statements dated 28-6-2010 and 14-12-2012, wherein she denies that, plaintiff is owner of A-schedule property and denies that, B- schedule property is portion of A-schedule property and contends that, B-schedule property was originally belonging to Rajamma, wife of Srinivasiah, which she has sold the same to defendant through her husband-Srinivasaiah, as her power of attorney holder, under registered sale deed and rectification deed dated 6-3-1996 and 20-6-2008 respectively and since then, the defendant is in possession of B- schedule property as it's absolute owner and that, the defendant has constructed structure in it, by 4 O.S.No.4599/2006 taking permission from BBMP as per sanction plan and that, the plaintiff had obstructed the defendant in construction of the structure, by contending that, B-schedule property is part and parcel of A-schedule property and that, the suit is barred by time and court fee paid by the plaintiff on the suit is incorrect and improper and that, the plaintiff has not impleaded the vendor of the defendant as proper and necessary party to this suit and therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and that, the defendant has given complaint to BBMP as well as police, for taking action against plaintiff for having constructed illegal and unlawful structure in A-schedule property by her, although she is not owner of said property. On these grounds, it is prayed for dismissal of this suit, with costs.
4. On the basis of these rival contentions taken by both the parties, following Issues and Additional Issues are framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant had illegally encroached upon the schedule property and put illegal construction on the plaint B-schedule property?5 O.S.No.4599/2006
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant interfered with her possession and enjoyment of A-schedule property?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant should be directed to pull down the structure put upon the plaint B-
schedule property?
5. What Decree or Order?
Additional Issue:
6. Whether court fee paid by plaintiff is sufficient?
....... Decided Vide Order Dated 20-3-2012 Additional Issues dated 14-3-2013:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, of which, "B" schedule property is a portion?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that sale deed dated 6-3-1996 executed by one Smt.Rajamma in favour of Sreenivasaiah is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff?
3. Whether suit is barred by limitation?
4. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?6 O.S.No.4599/2006
5. The plaintiff, to prove her case, examined her power of attorney holder as P.W.1 and relied upon fifty three documents, marked as Exs.P1 to P53 and closed her side.
On the other hand, Defendant has examined her power of attorney holder, as D.W.1 and relied upon forty one documents, marked as Exs.D1 to D41 and closed her side.
6. Heard arguments of Learned Counsels for both the parties. Learned counsel for plaintiff has submitted written arguments.
7. My answer to the above Issues and Additional Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 - in the Affirmative; Issue No.2 - in the Affirmative; Issue No.3 - in the Negative, as does not survive for consideration;
Issue No.4 - in the Affirmative; Issue No.5 - as per Final Order below; Additional Issue No.6 - in the Affirmative;
... Vide Order dated 20-3-2012; Additional Issue No.1 - in the Affirmative; Additional Issue No.2 - in the Affirmative; Additional Issue No.3 - in the Negative; Additional Issue No.4 - in the Negative. for the following:7 O.S.No.4599/2006
Reasons
8. Issue Nos. 1, 2, Additional Issues 1 and 2:
For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts and in view of the fact that, these Issues are inter-linked and inter-connected with each other, all these Issues are taken-up together for common consideration.
9. The plaintiff contends that, she is owner of site No.72 measuring East-West 40 feet and North-South 49 feet as per Hakku Patra given by B.D.O. on dated 25-11-1980, which is "A" schedule property and she obtained sanction plan from BBMP to construct structure into 30 feet x 40 feet and left 19 feet x 40 feet as vacant land, which is "B" schedule property and she paid taxes to Madiwala Group Panchayat, and later, to BBMP. Defendant encroached into "B" schedule property, i.e., vacant land of plaintiff measuring 19 feet x 40 feet, on the ground that, she has purchased it from her erstwhile owner-Smt.Rajamma through her husband- Srinivasaiah, as her G.P.A. under registered Sale Deed Dated:6-3-1996 and constructed illegal structure into it, by violating bylaws of Municipal Corporation Act and without having approved sanction plan, during pendency of suit.
8 O.S.No.4599/200610. To substantiate her contention, plaintiff has examined her G.P.A. holder, as P.W.1. P.W.1 has reiterated the same facts of plaint averments in his evidence.
11. Further, P.W.1 has relied upon documents, marked as Exs.P2, P7, P10, P29, P31, P40, P41, P42, which are:
Ex.P2- Sanction plan of structure constructed by plaintiff to the extent of East-West 40 feet and North-South 49 feet.
Ex.P7- Encumbrance Certificate for the period from 1-4-2005 to 27-5-2006 in respect of Site No.72, measuring 40 x 49 ft., in the name of plaintiff.
Ex.P10 - Copy of Layout plan of Sy.No.99, Site No.72, showing boundaries of Site No.72 as, Site No.73 on West, Road on East, Sy.No.103 on North and site No.71 on South.
Ex.P29 - Application dated 4-3-1999 for transfer of Khata given by plaintiff, showing boundaries of Site No.72 as, East by Road, West by Site No.73, North by Sy.No.103 and South by site No.71.9 O.S.No.4599/2006
Ex.P31 - Khata Certificate dated 13-5-1999, of Site No.72 in the name of plaintiff, issued by Corporation of the City of, Bangalore.
Ex.P40 - Khata Certificate dated 28-4-2011, of Site No.72 issued by BBMP, in the name of plaintiff.
Ex.P41 - Khata extract of Site No.72, issued by BBMP in the name of plaintiff.
Ex.P42 - Copy of Caveat dated 3-6-2006, filed by defendant against plaintiff in City Civil Court, stating in paras 3 and 4 that, she (defendant) is owner of Site No.125 of Sy.No.99, Khata No.404 of Madiwala.
12. On the other hand, the defendant contends that, she has purchased "B" schedule property from erstwhile owner-Smt.Rajamma, under registered Sale Deed Dated:6-3-1996 and rectification deed dated 20-6-2008.
13. In order to substantiate her contention, defendant has examined her G.P.A. holder as D.W.1, who reiterated the same facts of written statement, in his evidence.
10 O.S.No.4599/200614. Further, D.W.1 has relied upon documents, marked as Ex.D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9, D10 and D26, which are:
Ex.D2 - Original Hakku Patra issued to vendor of defendant, by name Rajamma, D/o.Muniyappa, in respect of Site No.125 in Sy.No.99 of Madiwala Village.
Ex.D3 - Copy of Demand Register in respect of Sy.No.384, property No.421, standing in the name of defendant, in Madiwala Group Panchayat, for the year 1992-93.
Exs.D4 and D5 - Sanction Plans of house of defendant, showing Site No.103 to North, Site No.72 to South, Road towards East and Site No.126 towards West.
Ex.D6 -G.P.A. dated 6-3-1996 executed by Rajamma in favour of Srinivasaiah, in respect of B-schedule property.
Ex.D7 -riginal Sale Deed dated: 6-3-1996 executed by Srinivasaiah in favour of defendant-Shantha Kumari.
Ex.D8 - Rectification deed dated 20-6-2008 executed by Rajamma in favour of plaintiff.
Exs.D9 and D10 - Tax paid receipts.11 O.S.No.4599/2006
Ex.D26 - Sanction plan of structure constructed by plaintiff to the extent of East-West 40 feet and North-South 49 feet.
15. On going through Exs.D4 and D5 and Exs.P2 and P20, it goes to show that, defendant, as well as plaintiff, have constructed structures in the areas measuring 40 feet x 19 feet of B-schedule and 30 feet x 40 feet, in A-schedule in their site No.125 and 72, respectively.
16. On going through Ex.P49-copy of Hakku Patra, it goes to show that, plaintiff is owner of site No.72 in Sy.No.99 of Madiwala, as per Hakku Patra issued by B.D.O. and defendant is owner of Site No.125 in Sy.No.99 of Madiwala, as per Exs.D6, D7 and D8.
17. On going through Ex.P10-Copy of Layout plan of Sy.No.99, the boundaries of Site No.72 are:-
Site No.73 on West, Road on East, Sy.No.103 on North and site No.71 on South.
On going through Ex.P26- Endorsement issued by BBMP dated 25-6-2011, it states that, in Sy.No.99 of Madiwala Village, out of 122 sites, Khata has been registered in respect of 56 sites and Khata has not been registered in respect of remaining sites.12 O.S.No.4599/2006
On perusal of Ex.P27 -Endorsement issued by Sub-Divisional Officer, Bangalore North Sub-Division, dated 19-9-2011, it states that, only 122 free sites have been formed and distributed in Sy.No.99 of Madiwala Village.
18. Defendant contends in Ex.P42-Caveat filed by defendant in Civil Court that, she is owner of Site No.125 in Sy.No.99 of Madiwala.
19. On perusal of pleadings of both parties, it is clear that, site No.125, as per defendant's contention, is suit "B" property.
20. In view of the fact that, no site number as "125" exists in layout plan of Sy.No.99 of Madiwala as per Exs.P10, P26 and P27, stated supra, it can be said that, Ex.D2-Hakku Patra issued to vendor of defendant in respect of site No.125 in Sy.No.99 of Madiwala Village, Ex.D6-G.P.A. dated 6-3-1996 executed by Rajamma in favour of Srinivasaiah for B-schedule property, Ex.D7-original Sale Deed dated:6-3-1996 executed by Srinivasaiah in favour of defendant-Shanta Kumari and Ex.D8-Rectification deed dated 20-6-2008 executed by Rajamma in favour of defendant, can not be relied upon, to hold that, defendant is lawful owner in possession of site No.125.
13 O.S.No.4599/2006In other words, the vendor of defendant, by name Rajamma, had no title to suit "B" property i.e., Site No.125 and hence, defendant, who purchased suit "B" property (Site No.125), has not got better title to site No.125.
21. Ex.D2-Hakku Patra issued by defendant's vendor, on which defendant relies, shows that, " Sd/-
Niveshana Koduva Adhikariya Sahi "
and it did not contain signature of Officer who issued Ex.D2-Hakku Patra to defendant. Hence, Ex.D2 cannot be accepted as genuine document.
22. The contention of defendant's counsel that, plaintiff is not sure, whether the Hakku Patra given to plaintiff, measuring East-West 49 feet and North-South 40 feet or East-West 40 feet North- South 49 feet, cannot be accepted, as boundaries of Á-schedule property granted to plaintiff stated in Ex.P2-Sanction Plan, Ex.P10-Layout Plan, Ex.P49- Hakku Patra, given to plaintiff and Ex.P7- Encumbrance certificate, resemble with each other, in respect of boundaries and measurements mentioned in each of them.
14 O.S.No.4599/200623. Thus, on overall consideration of evidence on record, produced and relied by both parties, it can be said that, plaintiff is owner in possession of suit "A" schedule property and defendant has failed to substantiate the fact that, she is lawful owner of "B" schedule property. Consequently, I hold that, defendant has to give vacant possession of "B" schedule property to plaintiff.
In view of the foregoing reasons, I hold that, plaintiff has proved Issue Nos.1 and 2 and Additional Issue Nos.1 and 2. Accordingly, these Issues are held in the Affirmative.
24. Learned Counsel for defendant files a List of four citations, which are as under:
1). Smt.Sumitra Bai vs. P.Siddesh and another, reported in ILR 2014 Kar. 1311, wherein it is held that:
"Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 100- Regular Second Appeal-Suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction-Burden heavily rests on the plaintiff to prove his title- Need to produce convincing and cogent evidence to the satisfaction of the Court to establish the title to the property in dispute- Claim of the plaintiff was based on the grant made by the Mandal Pranchayat-Production of 15 O.S.No.4599/2006 Hakkupatra by the plaintiff-Absence of evidence to show that, how the Mandal Panchayat acquired the ownership of suit property-Admission of the defendants is not material, plaintiff to prove his case independently to the satisfaction of the Court with convincing, cogent and legal evidence- Appellate Court deciding the issue by taking the evidence of the defendants as admissions to grant decree in favour of the plaintiff-HELD, The first Appellate Court has committed an error in taking the evidence of the defendants as admissions to favour the plaintiff.- Weakness of the defendant's case would not strengthen plaintiff's case. The plaintiff has to prove his case to the satisfaction of the Court by means of convincing and cogent evidence not necessarily beyond reasonable doubt. If this burden is discharged, then only onus shifts on to the defendant to establish the plaintiff's case as false and on the other hand the defendant's case is probabalized on the basis of the materials on record.. The Courts cannot on the basis of distorted admission or on the basis of the disputed/not proved documents draw an inference in order to grant any remedy to any of the parties to the suit. "16 O.S.No.4599/2006
2). T.L.Nagendra Babu v. Manohar Rao Pawar, reported in ILR 2005 Kar.884, wherein it is held that:
"(C) Suit for declaration and injunction-
Requirement of evidence-Duty of the Court- Held-Unless the Court is satisfied with regard to material details in the light of the material evidence with regard to the identification of the property, no declaration and injunction can be granted."
3). Union of India & Ors, vs. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2014 SAR (Civil) 191 S.C., wherein it is held that:
"(A) Burden of proof-Suit for declaration of title and possession-Burden always lies on the plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration-Weakness, if any, of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff-Plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and possession could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on lit irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their case or not-Even if the title set up by the defendant is found against, in the absence of establishment of plaintiffs own title, plaintiff must be non-suited. "17 O.S.No.4599/2006
4). Yamuna Nagar Improvement Trust vs. Khariati Lal, reported in 2005 (6) SRJ 337, wherein it is held that:
"Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Order 39 Rule 1 and 2-Suit for permanent injunction- Ingredients of-Scope of-Held-plaintiff must be owner and in possession of disputed property otherwise suit is liable to be dismissed."
25. Issue No. 3 : In view of my answer to Issue No.2 in the Affirmative, I hold that, this Issue for permanent injunction for restraining defendant from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of "A" schedule held by the plaintiff, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, I hold Issue No.3 in the Negative.
26. Issue No. 4 In view of my answer to Issue Nos. 1 and 2 and Additional Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the Affirmative, I hold that, defendant should be directed to pull down the structure put up in "B" schedule property. Accordingly, I hold Issue No.4 in the Affirmative.
18 O.S.No.4599/200627. Additional Issue No. 3 : The contention of defendant that, plaintiff ought to have claimed possession of "B" schedule property within limitation period and now it is barred by limitation, cannot be accepted, in view of the principles stated in the following citation, relied upon by plaintiff, held in the case of B.Koosappa vs. P.Veerappa, in 2010(1) AIR Kar R 695, wherein it is held in para No.4 as under:
"Limitation Act (36 of 1963), Art.65-Adverse possession-Suit for possession of immovable property based on title-Not case of defendant that his possession was adverse to plaintiff- There is no period of limitation to such claim-Suit filed after 12 years cannot be said to be barred by limitation."
28. In view of the principles stated in the citation stated above, I hold that, suit is not barred by limitation. Accordingly, I hold Additional Issue No.3 in the Negative.
29. Additional Issue No. 4 : Defendant contends that, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The contention of defendant that, vendor of defendant, by name Rajamma, is necessary party to this suit and she is not impleaded as proper party to this suit and hence suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, cannot be accepted.
19 O.S.No.4599/200630. The suit can effectively be adjudicated between the plaintiff and defendant in respect of the real controversy between them, in the instant suit and therefore, impleading of erstwhile owner of B- schedule property, i.e., Site No.125 of Sy.No.99 of Madiwala Village, which is said to have been granted in favour of Rajamma, is not proper and necessary party to this suit. Hence, I hold this Issue in the Negative.
31. Additional Issue No. 6 : This Issue has been decided Vide Order Sheet dated 20-3-2012 by this Court, holding that, the court fee paid by the plaintiff is proper and answering this Issue in the Affirmative. Hence, there is no necessary to decide this Issue again, under this Judgment.
32. Issue No.5 : In view of the foregoing reasons and in the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit of plaintiff is decreed.
Plaintiff is hereby declared that, she is absolute owner of A-schedule property, of which, B-schedule property is portion.20 O.S.No.4599/2006
Plaintiff is also entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for in this suit. Accordingly, defendant shall pull down and demolish the structure constructed by her in B-schedule property and handover vacant possession of suit B-schedule property to the plaintiff, within three months from the date of Decree, at her own costs, failing which, plaintiff shall get the structure constructed in B-schedule property demolished as per law, at the cost of defendant.
The suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction, for restraining defendant from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over A-schedule property in favour of plaintiff, is hereby rejected.
Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Draw up Decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer and also typed to my manuscript by the J.W., transcribed and computerised print-out taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 20th day of September, 2016.) (M.S.PATIL) XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, *sb Bengaluru.21 O.S.No.4599/2006
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1 K.Balaraj List of witnesses examined for defendant:
D.W.1 G.Veerabhadraiah List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff:
Ex.P1 Special Power of attorney executed by plaintiff in favour of P.W.1 Ex.P2 Sanction plan of structure constructed by plaintiff to the extent of East-West 40 feet and North-South 49 feet.
Exs.P3 to P5 -Three tax paid receipts Ex.P6 Complaint dated 15-5-2006 given BY Plaintiff to BBMP Ex.P7 Encumbrance Certificate from 1-4-2005 to 27-5-2006 in respect of Site No.72, measuring 40 x 49 ft., in the name of plaintiff.
Ex.P8 Copy of Hakku Patra issued by State Bank of Mysore Ex.P9 Endorsement dated 1-7-2013 issued by BBMP under R.T.I.Act Ex.P10 Copy of Layout plan of Sy.No.99, Site No.72, showing boundaries of Site No.72 as, Site No.73 on West, Road on East, Sy.No.103 on North and site No.71 on South, with endorsement 22 O.S.No.4599/2006 Ex.P11 copy of letter submitted to the Deputy Commissioner dated 30.12.1986 in respect of Hakku patra Ex.P12 acknowledgement for having received Ex.P11 Ex.P13 tax demand extract pertaining to schedule property Exs.P14 to P19 - Tax paid receipts Ex.P20 sanctioned approved plan Ex.P21 copy of application submitted to BESCOM providing electricity connection Exs.P22 & P22(a)- Electricity bill and receipt Ex.P23 copy of application dated 26-3-2004 submitted to BWSSB Ex.P24 Initial deposit receipt dated 28-7-2004 Exs.P25 & P25(a) -water bill and Receipt Ex.P26 Endorsement issued by BBMP dated 25-6-2011 Ex.P27 Endorsement issued by Sub-Divisional Officer, Bangalore North Sub-Division, dated 19-9-2011 given by State Government Ex.P28 certified copy of Acquisition proceedings in LAQ SR LAP 449/87 Ex.P29 Application dated 4-3-1999 given by plaintiff, for transfer of Khata, showing boundaries of Site No.72 as, East by Road, West by Site No.73, North by Sy.No.103 and South by site No.71.23 O.S.No.4599/2006
Ex.P30 copy of application dated 8-4-1999 submitted to BBMP Ex.P31 Khata Certificate dated 13-5-1999, of Site No.72 in the name of plaintiff, issued by Corporation of the City of, Bangalore.
Exs.P32 & P33 -copy of complaint and endorsement Exs.P34 to P39 -Six tax paid receipts Ex.P40 Khata Certificate dated 28-4-2011, of Site No.72 issued by BBMP, in the name of plaintiff.
Ex.P41 Ex.P41 - Khata extract of Site No.72, issued by BBMP in the name of plaintiff Ex.P42 Copy of Caveat dated 3-6-2006, filed by defendant against plaintiff in City Civil Court, stating in paras 3 and 4 that, she (defendant) is owner of Site No.125 of Sy.No.99, Khata No.404 of Madiwala.
Ex.P43 Police complaint dated 14-5-2006 given by Defendant Ex.P44 Copy of Hakkupathra standing in the name of Rajamma Ex.P45 Copy of Hakkupathra given by Rajamma to BWSSB Exs.P46 Copy of Application dated 25-8-2008 & P47 given by Rajamma to BESCOM for transferring electricity connection in favour of defendant, with copy of Hakkupatra Ex.P48 Service certificate dated 14-6-2007 issued by BESCOM.24 O.S.No.4599/2006
Ex.P49 Hakkupathara dated 25-11-1980 given to Plaintiff in respect of suit A-property Ex.P50 Encumbrance certificate from 1-4-1990 to 31-3-1997 in respect of Site No.125 Ex.P51 Information issued by Bengaluru South Taluk Panchayat dated 4-3-2015 under R.T.I.Act Ex.P52 Endorsement issued by BESCOM Ex.P53 Endorsement issued by BBMP List of documents marked for defendant:
Ex.D1 Special power of attorney executed in favour of D.W.1 Ex.D2 Original Hakku Patra dated 18-2-1980 issued to M.Rajamma, D/o.Muniyappa, in respect of Site No.125 in Sy.No.99 of Madiwala Village.
Ex.D3 Demand Register extract in respect of Sy.No.384, property No.421, in the name of Rajamma, in Madiwala Group Panchayat, for the year 1992-93 Exs.D4 & Sanction Plans of house of defendant, D5 showing Site No.103 to North, Site No.72 to South, Road towards East and Site No.126 towards West Ex.D6 G.P.A. dated 6-3-1996 executed by Rajamma in favour of Srinivasaiah, in respect of B-schedule property 25 O.S.No.4599/2006 Ex.D7 - Original sale deed dated 6-3-1996 executed by Srinivasaiah in favour of defendant in respect of Property No.376, Khata No.404.
Ex.D8 - Rectification deed dated 20-6-2008 executed by Rajamma in favour of defendant in respect of Site No.125, Sy.No.99, Ward No.65, House No.376 and Khata No.404.
Exs.D9 & D10 - Tax paid receipts. Ex.D11- Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds dated 6-8-1992 executed between M.Rajamma and The Bharat Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Ex.D12 - Service Certificate dated 14-6-2007 issued by BESCOM, dated 14-6-2007 Ex.D13 - Official Memorandum dated 7-9-2008 issued by BESCOM Exs.D14 to D18 - 5 electricity bills Ex.D19 - Demand Notice issued by BWSSB Ex.D20 - complaint dated 15-5-2006 given to BBMP Ex.D21 - Status Report in respect of complaint, issued by BBMP Ex.D22 - Order dated 18-7-2006 issued by BBMP Ex.D23 - Provisional Order dated 18-7-2006 issued by BBMP Ex.D24 - Confirmation Order dated 2-8-2006 passed by BBMP Ex.D25 - khatha extract in respect of Site No.72 Ex.D26 - Sanction plan of structure constructed by plaintiff to the extent of East-West 40 feet and North-South 49 feet.26 O.S.No.4599/2006
Exs.D27 to D29- 3 photos Exs.D30 to D32 - negatives of Exs.D27 to D29 Ex.D33 & D34 - Voters I.D. cards of V.Lakshmi and C.V.Mahadevaswamy Ex.D35 - Notice dated 14-7-2006 issued by Karnataka Information Commission.
Ex.D36 - Order dated 9-8-2006 passed by the Karnataka Information Commission Ex.D37 - Initial Deposit Receipt issued by BWSSB Ex.D38 - Encumbrance certificate from 1-4-1995 to 31-3-2004 in respect of Property No.376, Khata No.404 measuring 40 ft. x 18 ft.
Ex.D39 - Encumbrance certificate from 1-4-2004 to 19-3-2014 in respect of Site No.125 Exs.D40 & D41 - Discharge Notes dated 13-2-1996 issued by Bharath Co-operative Bank issued in favour of M.Rajamma in respect of Property bearing Municipal No.125.
(M.S.PATIL) XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.27 O.S.No.4599/2006
Order Suit of plaintiff is decreed.
Plaintiff is hereby declared that, she is absolute owner of A-schedule property, of which, B-schedule property is portion.
Plaintiff is also entitled to mandatory injunction as prayed for in this suit. Accordingly, defendant shall pull down and demolish the structure constructed by her in B-schedule property and handover vacant possession of suit B-schedule property to the plaintiff, within three months from the date of Decree, at her own costs, failing which, plaintiff shall get the structure constructed in B-schedule property demolished as per law, at the cost of defendant.
The suit of the plaintiff for permanent injunction, for restraining defendant from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over A-schedule property in favour of plaintiff, is hereby rejected.
Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Draw up Decree accordingly.
XXII A.C.C. & S.J., Bengaluru.