Bangalore District Court
Mr.Mohammed Ibrahaim Shariff vs The Commissioner on 31 January, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE LXI CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE: BENGALURU CITY (CCH-62)
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2018
PRESENT:- SRI.S.A.Chikkorde, M.A.,LL.M
LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.5835/2015
Plaintiff/s : Mr.Mohammed Ibrahaim Shariff
S/o.Late Obedulla Sharieff
Aged about 43 years
R/a.No.12, 2nd Cross, 1st Main Road,
Maruthinagara, Madivala,
Bangalore-68.
(By Sri.R.S.R, Advocate)
.V/s.
Defendant/s : 1. The Commissioner
BBMP
N.R.Square,
Bangalore-02.
2. The Asst. Executive Engineer
BBMP
BTM Layout, 16th Main Road,
BTM 1st Stage,
Bangalore-68.
(By Sri. H.D., Advocate)
Date of institution
of the suit : 4.7.15
Nature of the suit
[suit on pronote, suit
for declaration and
2 O.S. No.5835/2015
possession, suit
for injunction] : Injunction
Date of the commencement
of recording of the evidence: 17.10.15
Date on which the
Judgment was pronounced : 31.1.2018
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : -02- -06- -27-
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants workmen or any person or persons claiming under or through the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff, for costs of the suit and for such other relief's.
SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of property bearing No.12, 2nd Cross, 1st main road, Maruthinagara, madivala, Bangalore (Old No.44 in Sy. No.38, situated at Jakkasandra Village, Bangalore) comes under Ward No.66, measuring East to West 50 feet and North to South 30 feet consisting ground plus fourth floor and bounded on the;
East by : Site No.33 & 34 West by : 20 feet
North by : site No.45
South by : 30 feet
3 O.S. No.5835/2015
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the said suit schedule property originally belongs to the plaintiffs' mother Smt.Begum Jan and she executed registered Gift Deed dt.11.7.02 in the name of the plaintiff and others and the said Gift deed is registered as document No.BNG(U) JNR 2412/2002-03 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Jaynagara, Bangalore. The said Gift deed was mortgaged for obtaining loan from Standard C.Bank. The BBMP Khatha stands in the name of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is paying self assessment tax with the defendants. The plaintiff also obtained sanction plan from the defendant on 12.1.01 and started construction work in the year 2002 and plaintiff has not put any new construction in the suit schedule property in the year 2012 and has put up ground plus fourth floor in the year 2002.The khatha extract clearly shows that the plaintiff has been paying property tax to the entire ground plus fourth floor and he has not put any new construction in the suit schedule property in the year 2012. The plaintiff has got electricity connection to the suit schedule property in the year 2002. Plaintiff has left all the necessary setbacks on all side of the suit schedule property for adequate natural air and light to the suit schedule property and there no objection raised by the adjacent owners or anybody else when the construction was put up. The plaintiff is enjoying the ground plus four floors from the year 2002 and he has not completed entire constructions in the year 2002. When the plaintiff completed the construction entire construction in the year 2002 the defendant not all raised any objection and they have been 4 O.S. No.5835/2015 collecting property tax to the entire building and when such being the fact the defendant No.2 who visited the suit schedule property and inspected the suit schedule property and found deviation in the construction in the month of October 2012. Defendant No.2 have not issued any notice for having violated the sanctioned plan and putting up an un authorized construction in the year 2002 as the entire four floors was completed in the year 2002 and 2003. Defendant No.2 has not issued any notice to the plaintiff for having violated the law not initiated any proceedings against the plaintiff from past 9 years. All of a sudden defendant No.2 on 15.11.12 inspected the suit schedule property and alleged that plaintiff has constructed unauthorized construction and directed to remove all unauthorized construction in illegal manner. The plaintiff though submitted all necessary documents with the defendant No.2, but the defendant No.2 is not in a stage to verify the documents placed by the plaintiff and without due process of law defendant No.2 threats to demolish or cause damage to the suit schedule property and original sanctioned plan is with bank. On 14.12.12 defendant No.2 visited the suit schedule property along with his workmen and tried to demolish the suit schedule property without due process of law and without issuing any notice, plaintiff along with his friends resisted the interference of defendant No.2 and issued legal notice dt.15.12.12 to the defendant No.2 through Advocate. The said legal notice dt.15.12.12 is duly served on the defendant No.2 and after service of legal notice on the defendant No.2, defendant No.2 has kept quit all these days and defendant No.2 along with his officials visited the suit schedule property and all of a sudden on 30.6.15 defendant No.1 along with his officials visited the suit schedule 5 O.S. No.5835/2015 property and directed the plaintiff to remove the construction put up in the suit schedule property without issuing any notice, illegal manner made attempt to disposes the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The plaintiff approached the police but police failed to take any action against defendant No.2, finally plaintiff with support of local withstand with the defendant No.2 intends to take action against the suit schedule property and the same can be strictly in a manner known to law. The defendant No.2 has not issued any notice from 2012 to till today and not visited spot and not verified the records and in any illegal manner declared the plaintiff put up unauthorized construction though the building plan very much available construction though the building plan very much available with the defendant No.2 inspite of same the defendant No.2 without any basis alleged that the plaintiff had put up illegal construction in the year 2012 and under the guise of removal of the alleged deviation the defendant No.2 once again on 1.7.15 interfered with peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The attempt on the part of the defendant No.2 is illegal and the same is nothing but a misuse of the official machinery. Defendant No.2 interfered with peaceful possession of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. Plaintiff issued notice under Section 482 of KMC Act to the 2nd defendant on 15.12.12, but till today no notice is issued to the plaintiff and defendant No.1 by the 2nd defendant. Defendant No.2 and his officials without due process of law in contravention of law forcibly trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and till today no action has been taken against the plaintiff under the law. Since from 30.6.15 the Defendant No.2 is making illegal attempt to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit 6 O.S. No.5835/2015 schedule property and plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property. Unless the defendant No.2 made proper investigation and proper report under proper of due process of law the defendant No.2 and his officials have no right to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and cause damage to the suit schedule property. Defendant No.2 and his men approached the plaintiff on 1.7.15 and threat to demolish the suit schedule property or cause to damage to the suit schedule property and there is an imminent threat to the legal rights of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for the above said relief's.
3. After issuance of the suit summons, the defendantx appeared before this Court on the date fixed for appearance and filed written statement denying the entire plaint averments in toto and contended that it is empowered to stop unauthorized construction and also to initiate proceedings for removal and demolition of deviations and initiate proceedings for removal and demolition of deviations and unauthorized construction of the building. It is further constructed that the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands for seeking the discretionary relief of perpetual injunction. The plaintiff has suppressed the true facts in order to protect the unauthorized construction with deviations in the building put up on the schedule property as against the approved plan and license. That since there were deviations in the construction under taken by the plaintiff, this defendant authority has also issued notices to the plaintiff under Section 321(1) and (2) on 19.12.2012. The plaintiff cleverly without disclosing of the 7 O.S. No.5835/2015 serving of the notices as said above and by suppressing the said facts, his filed the present suit. The suit is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected a when the confirmation Order is passed, the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the remedy lies as per Section 443 of KMC Act and the prayer at (A) and (B) are liable to be rejected. Under these circumstances it is prayed to dismiss the suit.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, this court has famed the following ;
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff prove that he is inlawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that he has become absolute owner in possession of the suit property by virtue of registered gift deed dated 11.7.02 executed by Smt.Begum Jan in his favour?
3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the construction of the residential house in the suit schedule property is as per the rules of the building bye laws and laws of the BBMP and therefore his construction in the suit schedule property is lawful?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed?
4. What order or decree?
8 O.S. No.5835/20155. The plaintiff in order to prove his case, examined himself as PW-1 by way of filing his affidavit evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC and in all got marked fifteen documents at Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.15 and closed his evidence prior to filing written statement by the defendants. But subsequently on 10.12.2015 defendants filed their written statement along with I.A.No.3 under Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking permission of the court to file written statement and the hearing of I.A. No.3 remained unnoticed but since the counsel for plaintiff or the counsel for the defendants who remained absent before the court on several dates of hearing therefore the above said aspect remained as it is. Subsequently after reserving the case for judgment, this court noticed the above said aspect and after securing the presence of the counsel for plaintiff the above said aspect of brought to the notice of the counsel for plaintiff and thereafter issues were framed by this court on 29.1.2018 itself and subsequently case was posted for plaintiffs side evidence if any by adjourning this case to 30.1.2018. On the above said date Advocate for plaintiff filed memo stating that plaintiff has no further evidence in this case, after framing issues and requested to consider the earlier evidence of the plaintiff in this case and thereafter the case posted for evidence of defendant if any by posting this case to 31.1.2018. Accordingly the case called out on 31.1.2018, defendants and their counsel called out absent and no representation, accordingly evidence by defendants is taken as not adduced since the defendants though filed their written statement in this case have neither chosen to cross-examine Pw-1 not chose to adduce oral evidence but produced list with four documents dated 10.12.2015. Accordingly, this case is posted for arguments.
9 O.S. No.5835/20156. Heard arguments. Perused the entire materials available on records
7. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 to 3: In the negative. Issue No.4 : As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Issue Nos.1 to 3:- These issues have been taken up together for consideration in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence and as the subject matter of these issues are interconnected.
9. On perusal of entire records of this case it reveals that the plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants seeking decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, , their men, servants workmen or any person or persons claiming under or through the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff, for costs of the suit and for such other relief's.
10. In this case, plaintiff in order to substantiate his case has got examined himself as PW-1 by filing his affidavit evidence under Order 18 Rule 4 of C.P.C., by reiterating all material plaint averments as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 i.e., Ex.P.1- Certified copy of gift deed dt.11.7.02, Ex.P.2-Khatha Certificate, 10 O.S. No.5835/2015 Ex.P.3-Khatha Extract, Ex.P.4-self assessment notice dt.26.2.11, Ex.P.5-Building Plan, Ex.P.6-Inspection report of BESCOM, Ex.P.7- Receipts, Ex.P.8 and 9-Two photographs of suit property, Ex.P.10- CD, Ex.P.11-Office copy of legal notice dt.15.12.12, Ex.P.12-Postal Receipts, Ex.P.13-Postal Acknowledgement dt.26.12.12, Ex.P.14- Postal acknowledgement dt.2.7.12, Ex.P.15- Legal notice dt.2.7.15.
11. On the other hand defendants though filed their written statement but they have not chosen to adduce their defence evidence to rebut the oral evidence of PW-1 and above documentary evidence relied by the plaintiff in this case but they have produced five documents in this case as per the list dated 10.12.2014 i.e., notice issued under section 321(1) of KMC Act dt.11.12.12, notice issued under Section 321(2) of KMC Act dt.11.12.12, notice issued under sectin321(3) of KMC Act dt.19.12.12, reply notice dt.15.12.12, sanction plan.
12. It is pertinent to note that though opportunity was given neither defendant nor counsel on their behalf have came forward either to cross-examine PW-1 or to adduce their evidence in order to rebut the evidence of PW-1 and above documentary evidence since, they remained absent before the court through out the proceedings. Under these circumstances it is necessary to consider contentions taken by the defendant in their written statement. On perusal of the entire contentions taken therein it clearly reveals that they denied the case of the plaintiff in toto, but inorder to substantiate their defence they have not stepped into the witness box.
11 O.S. No.5835/201513. On perusal of evidence of PW-1 it reveals that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered gift deed dt.11.7.02 executed by his mother Smt.Begam Jan and the said original Gift Deed dt.11.7.02 was mortgaged with Standard C.Bank, obtained loan and as such the original documents are deposited with the said bank. The BBMP Khatha stands in the name of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is paying self assessment tax with the defendants. The plaintiff also obtained sanction plan from the defendant on 12.1.01 and started construction work in the year 2002 and plaintiff has not put any new construction in the suit schedule property in the year 2012 and has put up ground plus fourth floor in the year 2002. The khatha extract clearly shows that the plaintiff has been paying property tax to the entire ground plus fourth floor and he has not put any new construction in the suit schedule property in the year 2012. The plaintiff has got electricity connection to the suit schedule property in the year 2002. Plaintiff has left all the necessary setbacks on all side of the suit schedule property for adequate natural air and light to the suit schedule property and there no objection raised by the adjacent owners or anybody else when the construction was put up. The plaintiff is enjoying the ground plus four floors from the year 2002 and he has not completed entire constructions in the year 2002. When the plaintiff completed the construction entire construction in the year 2002 the defendant not all raised any objection and they have been collecting property tax to the entire building and when such being the fact the defendant No.2 who visited the suit schedule property 12 O.S. No.5835/2015 and inspected the suit schedule property and found deviation in the construction in the month of October 2012. Defendant No.2 have not issued any notice for having violated the sanctioned plan and putting up an un authorized construction in the year 2002 as the entire four floors was completed in the year 2002 and 2003. Defendant No.2 has not issued any notice to the plaintiff for having violated the law not initiated any proceedings against the plaintiff from past 9 years. All of a sudden defendant No.2 on 15.11.12 inspected the suit schedule property and alleged that plaintiff has constructed unauthorized construction and directed to remove all unauthorized construction in illegal manner. The plaintiff though submitted all necessary documents with the defendant No.2, but the defendant No.2 is not in a stage to verify the documents placed by the plaintiff and without due process of law defendant No.2 threats to demolish or cause damage to the suit schedule property and original sanctioned plan is with bank. On 14.12.12 defendant No.2 visited the suit schedule property along with his workmen and tried to demolish the suit schedule property without due process of law and without issuing any notice, plaintiff along with his friends resisted the interference of defendant No.2 and issued legal notice dt.15.12.12 to the defendant No.2 through Advocate. The said legal notice dt.15.12.12 is duly served on the defendant No.2 and after service of legal notice on the defendant No.2, defendant No.2 has kept quit all these days and defendant No.2 along with his officials visited the suit schedule property and all of a sudden on 30.6.15 defendant No.1 along with his officials visited the suit schedule property and directed the plaintiff to remove the construction put up in the suit schedule property without issuing any notice, illegal 13 O.S. No.5835/2015 manner made attempt to disposes the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The plaintiff approached the police but police failed to take any action against defendant No.2, finally plaintiff with support of local withstand with the defendant No.2 intends to take action against the suit schedule property and the same can be strictly in a manner known to law. The defendant No.2 has not issued any notice from 2012 to till today and not visited spot and not verified the records and in any illegal manner declared the plaintiff put up unauthorized construction though the building plan very much available construction though the building plan very much available with the defendant No.2 inspite of same the defendant No.2 without any basis alleged that the plaintiff had put up illegal construction in the year 2012 and under the guise of removal of the alleged deviation the defendant No.2 once again on 1.7.15 interfered with peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The attempt on the part of the defendant No.2 is illegal and the same is nothing but a misuse of the official machinery. Defendant No.2 interfered with peaceful possession of the suit schedule property of the plaintiff. Plaintiff issued notice under Section 482 of KMC Act to the 2nd defendant on 15.12.12, but till today no notice is issued to the plaintiff and defendant No.1 by the 2nd defendant. Defendant No.2 and his officials without due process of law in contravention of law forcibly trying to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and till today no action has been taken against the plaintiff under the law. Since from 30.6.15 the Defendant No.2 is making illegal attempt to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property. Unless the defendant No.2 made proper 14 O.S. No.5835/2015 investigation and proper report under proper of due process of law the defendant No.2 and his officials have no right to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and cause damage to the suit schedule property. Defendant No.2 and his men approached the plaintiff on 1.7.15 and threat to demolish the suit schedule property or cause to damage to the suit schedule property and there is an imminent threat to the legal rights of the plaintiff.
14. If all these circumstances are taken into consideration in the light of above documentary evidence there is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1. It is also pertinent to note from the entire assessment of the evidence of PW-1 it is clear that tough the entire evidence of PW-1 remained unchallenged by the defendants but having regard to the contentions taken by the defendants in their written statement with reference to Section 321(1) and (2) of KMC Act by highlighting deviations made by the plaintiff while constructing his building in the suit schedule property as per the sanction plan or construction of the residential building in the ground floor and 1st floor and put up construction in the 2nd floor, 3rd floor and 4th floor unauthorizedly and as wella s taken up contention that there is a deviation in the set back area and the plaintiff have not obtained the sanction plan for residential purpose has been making use of the said floor for commercial purpose and the contention of the plaintiff no notice has been issued to him by the defendant is denied and notice was issued to the plaintiff on 11.12.12 and has been received by the plaintiff and has signed the same. Defendants have also taken up contentin that order has been passed by the defendants under Section 482 of 15 O.S. No.5835/2015 KMC Act to demolish the unauthorized construction being undertaking by the plaintiff and plaintiff by suppressing these facts has also approached Karnataka Appellat Tribunal questioning the orders under Section 321(1)(2)(3) of KMC Act and in an appeal No.72/13 and the same is pending before the court for adjudication and it is also clear from the remaining contention taken in the written statement so far as the para No.1 and 2 of the plaint are concerned not denied but remaining averments made in para No.3 to 12 are concerned have been categorically denied in toto that plaintiff should be put to strict proof of the same and in no cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file this suit. Therefore, inview of these circumstances it is contended Civil Court have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the remedy lies as per Section 443 of KMC Act when there is a confirmation order is passed.
15. It is pertinent to note that so far as the entire evidence of Pw-1 in the light of documents at Ex.P.1 to 4 and also Ex.P.5 building plan is concerned plaintiff construction his building in suit schedule property as per the photocopies produced at Ex.P.8 and 9 and its CD at Ex.P.10. In this context so far as the construction made on the ground floor and 1st floor as per the documents produced by the defendants in this case are taken into consideration i.e., copy of temporary order dt.11.12.12 under Section 321(1) of the KMC Act 1976 is concerned there is no dispute between the parties but so far as the alleged construction made by the plaintiff from 2nd to 4th floor are concerned they are in dispute that the said construction are unauthorized construction.
16 O.S. No.5835/201516. It is pertinent to note that so far as copy of the confirmation order dt.19.12.12 passed by the defendants under Section 321(3) of KMC Act is taken into consideration along with the copy of the sanction plan issued by the defendants is taken into consideration, plaintiff has not produced any documents before this court to show that he obtained sanction plan in respect of construction of the building from 2nd floor to 4th floor in the suit schedule property. Documents produced by the plaintiff at Ex.P.5 which is Certified copy of the sanction plan pertains to ground and 1st floor of the construction in the suit schedule property. According to plaintiff as per his evidence he produced original sanction plan in the bank wherein he had secured the loan and that document is not made available to this court by the plaintiff by making attempt by filing application before this court. But he has not done so. When such being the situation it is clear from the contention taken by the defendants at para No.6 of written statement that plaintiff preferred appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal No.72/2013 is said to be still pending but in this regard neither the counsel for the plaintiff nor the counsel for the defendants produced any materials before this court regarding confirmation of the particulars of the said appeal filed before the said authority nor any subsequent developments taken place after filing of the said appeal has been brought to the notice of this court. Hence, under these circumstances it is clear from the evidence of PW-1 that there is threat of his dispossession by the defendants. Defendant No.2 visited the suit schedule property along with his workmen and tried to demolish the suit schedule property without due process of law and without issuance of notice i.e., on 14.12.12 and as well as on 17 O.S. No.5835/2015 15.12.12 after issuance of legal notice defendants kept quit all these days and his officials have not visited the suit schedule property and all of a sudden on 30.6.15 defendant No.2 along with his officials visited the suit schedule property and directed the plaintiff to remove the construction put up in the suit schedule property appears to be baseless allegations because filing of the said appeal by the plaintiff before KAT is a fact not in dispute. It is also pertinent to note that defendants are local autonomous body has to function under the KAT and of any rules or byelaws which are in force under Karnataka State in case of any construction is to be made by the person with in the jurisdiction of defendants. Suit schedule property undisputedly comes within the jurisdiction of the defendants when such being the situation and also as per the copy of the documents produced at Sl. No.1 and 2 produced by the defendants the order of defendant No.1 is confirmed and the same is pending before the competent court of law. Inveiw f the provision of Section 443A of the KMC Act 1976 it can be inferred that the Acts and Orders of the defendants which have been challenged by the plaintiff by filing this suit is not maintainable under the law and also the said confirmation order passed by the defendant No.2 as per the copy of the documents produced at Sl. No.2 is also not challenged before the competent authority when such being the situation plaintiff is entitled for relief of permanent injunction against the defendants though in the absence of cogent proof of probabilities the case of the plaintiff that the disputed construction from 2nd floor to 4th floor of the building is proper. The photocopies produced before this court are concerned cannot be said to be in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by 18 O.S. No.5835/2015 the plaintiff and the cause of action taken by the defendants is in with accordance with the law. When such being the situation the entire evidence of PW-1 and above documentary evidence have remained unchallenged by the defendant but inview of the provision of Section 20(1)(2) and (3) of the KMC Act and also inview of Section 443A of the said Act at this stage in the absence of any documents placed before this court with regard to any legal circumstances taken by the plaintiff before competent authority, his suit is not maintainable under the law or on facts and therefore he is not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed for. Accordingly, issue No.1 to 3 have been answered in the negative.
17. ISSUE NO.4:- In view of my above finding on issue No.1 to 3 in the negative, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of January, 2018).
(S.A.Chikkorde) LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff:
PW.1: Mohammed Ibrahim Shariff List of documents exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff: 19 O.S. No.5835/2015
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of gift deed dt.11.7.02
Ex.P.2 Khatha certificate
Ex.P.3 Khatha extract
Ex.P.4 Self assessment notice dt.26.2.11
Ex.P.5 Building plan
Ex.P.6 Inspection report of BESCOM
Ex.P.7 Receipts
Ex.P.8 & 9 Two photographs of suit property
Ex.P.10 CD
Ex.P.11 Office copy of legal notice
dt.15.12.12
Ex.P.12 Postal receipts
Ex.P.13 Postal acknowledgments
dt.26.12.12
Ex.P.14 Postal acknowledgment dt.2.7.12
Ex.P.15 Legal Notice dt.2.7.15
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants:
NIL List of documents exhibited on behalf of the defendants:
NIL (S.A.Chikkorde) LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.20 O.S. No.5835/2015
18.7.2017 P-BMSLP D-NM JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT VIDE SEPARATE TYPED ORDER 21 O.S. No.5835/2015 The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed.
The defendant, his agents, servants or
any person acting on his behalf are hereby
restrained from interference with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property and also from
dispossessing the plaintiff otherwise than
due process of law.
Under the above circumstances both
parties are directed to bear their respective
costs of this suit.
Draw decree accordingly.
(S.A.Chikkorde)
LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.