Bangalore District Court
Sri.P.S.Venkatesh vs Sri.K.Munichenna on 23 November, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY.
(CCH30)
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER
2017.
PRESENT; SMT.NAGAJYOTHI.K.A., LL.M.,
XXIX ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE.
O.S.NO. 2168/2011
PLAINTIFF: Sri.P.S.Venkatesh
Babu, Aged about 51
years, S/o.
K.P.K.Srinivasaiah,
Residing at
nd
No.1197/B, 22 "A"
Cross, 23rd Main
nd
Road, BSK 2 Stage,
Bangalore-560 070.
(By Sri. B.R.V.-
Advocate)
Vs.
DEFENDANT/S: 1. Sri.K.Munichenna
Aged 45 years,
S/o. Krishnappa,
R/at No. Y. 155,
Yadnur Dinne, 3rd
Block,
Rajajinagar,
Bangalore-
560 010.
2 O.S.No. 2168-2011
2. Sri.K.Lakshmana,
Aged about 42
years, S/o.
Krishnappa,
Residing at
No.11, 1 "G"
Cross,
Subbannagarden,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore-
560 040.
3. Sri.Ramakrishnai
ah T.G., Aged
about 43 years,
S/o. Giriyappa,
R/at No.674, 10th
Main "C" Cross,
4th Block, 3rd
Stage,
Basaveshwara
nagar, Bangalore-
560 079.
4. Smt. Muniyamma,
Aged about 71
years, W/o. late
Krishnappa,
Residing at
No.11, G Cross,
Subbanna
Gardens,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore-
560 040.
3 O.S.No. 2168-2011
5. Smt.K.
Bhagyamma,
Aged about 39
years, Daughter
of late
Krishnappa, R/at
Konankunte,
Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore South
Taluk.
6. Smt. K Kamala,
Aged about 34
years, Daughter
of late
Krishnappa,
Residing at
Konankunte,
Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore South
Taluk.
(By Sri.C.P.(D1),
HVV(D3),(D2, D4 and
D6 exparte.).-
Advocate.)
Date of institution of the 22/03/2011
suit
Nature of the suit (suit on Specific performance
pronote. Suit for Suit
declaration and possession
suit for injunction, etc.)
Date of the 30/03/2015
commencement of
recording of the evidence.
Date on which the 23.11.2017
4 O.S.No. 2168-2011
judgment was pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
06 08 01
JUDG M ENT
This suit is filed for directing the
defendants 1 and 2 to execute the sale deed in
favour of plaintiff, in respect of the suit schedule
property as per the agreement of sale dated
17/02/1983 and restraining the defendants 1 to 3
from alienating the suit property or interfering the
enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for
such other relief.
2. It is averred in the plaint that, the
plaintiff entered into agreement for sale dated
17/02/1983 with Mr. Krishnappa for sale
consideration of Rs. 4,000/- in respect of the suit
schedule property and paid Rs. 3,900/-. Mr.
5 O.S.No. 2168-2011
Krishnappa is the absolute owner of the suit
schedule property. The defendant No. 1 and 2 are
the only legal heirs. Defendant No.3 illegally
claims as he purchased the said property. During
the agreement for sale there is a legal bar for
registration for revenue sites under the
Fragmentation Act. So Krishnappa undertaken to
execute the sale deed after the commencement of
the Registration. Subsequently he also received
the balance of Rs. 100/- on 18/02/1983 and
executed a GPA in favour of the plaintiff and also
executed affidavit on receipt of entire sale
consideration confirming the delivery of the
possession of the schedule property. He was also
undertaken not to revoke the said GPA. Since from
the agreement for sale the plaintiff was in
possession and enjoyment of the same. The
Khatha changed in his name. He obtained
6 O.S.No. 2168-2011
electricity bill, he paid betterment charges also.
When plaintiff approached the defendant to
execute the sale deed they postphoning the same
on one or the other pretext. The plaintiff put up
construction in the schedule property and also
obtained the conversion. Krishnappa died on
16/07/1996. He even approached the legal heirs of
deceased Krishnappa to execute the sale deed.
Then they represented about the pendency of the
suit. So plaintiff is always ready and willing to get
the sale deed executed. Defendant No.3 purchaser
of the schedule property. He purchased Suit
schedule property on 30/12/2010 through M.Palini,
who claims as GPA holder of late Krishnappa. The
3rd defendant in collusion of Mr. Palini executed
the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule
property. Whereas in view of the sale agreement
the defendants are bound to execute the sale deed
7 O.S.No. 2168-2011
in favour of the plaintiff. They failed to comply the
terms and conditions of Sale agreement. Hence
filed this suit.
3. The 1st defendant filed written statement
wherein he denied all the averments made in the
plaint and suit is not maintainable. It is barred by
law of limitation. The plaintiff approached the
Court after lapse of more than 28 years after the
agreement for sale. Krishnappa died leaving
behind his wife and four children. But plaintiff has
not arrayed all of them as party. It is bad for non
joinder of the necessary parties. Sy. No. 84 was
purchased by A. Krishnappa under registered sale
deed dated 16/04/1970. After that for formation
of residential layout in this land he was executed
GPA on 20/09/1982 in favour of M.Palini
authorizing him to deal with the suit schedule
property in any manner. So except this GPA, he
8 O.S.No. 2168-2011
has not executed any other GPA. Mr.M.Palini
executed a registered sale deed dated 30/12/2010
in favour of 3rd defendant. The plaintiff was never
in possession of the suit property. He has no right
to deal with the property. This suit filed based on
bogus document. Hence prays for dismissing the
petition.
The 3rd defendant filed separate written
statement considering the same facts of 1st
defendant written statement and it is further
contended that there is no privity of contract for
sale of schedule property. The suit is barred by
limitation. The plaintiff has suppressed the true
facts and not approached this court with clean
hands. He was not entitled for any relief of specific
performance. The suit is liable to be dismissed
with cost and further denied the sale agreement
dated 17/02/1983. It is he who purchased the
9 O.S.No. 2168-2011
schedule property through the sale deed dated
30/12/2010 through the power of attorney holder
Mr. M.Palini and denied that he is making hectic
efforts to sell the property. The plaintiff has no
locus-standi to seek the specific performance of the
sale. The Court fee is paid is insufficient. The
plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule
property. Without cancellation of the sale deed of
3rd defendant plaintiff cannot seek the enforcement
on agreement of sale. The late Krishnappa
developed the land forming layout and sold the site
No. 21 in favour of M.Palini by executing GPA dated
20/09/1982. But not get executed the sale deed in
view of the ban of Registration of revenue sites.
Palini also obtained Khatha in his name and paid
the taxes upto the period of 2010-11. He enjoyed
the property as owner for 18 years. M.Palini for
want of funds for his legal necessities sold the
10 O.S.No. 2168-2011
schedule property to the 3rd defendant on
30/12/2010 by executing sale deed. Defendant
No.1 and 2 also executed M¦àUÉ ¥ÀvÀæ in his
favour. So thereafter 3rd defendant developed his
property by constructing the residential building
and let out the property to the tenant by name
Venkatesh. The 3rd defendant obtained electricity
connection to the schedule property. The suit is
not maintainable as filed after 18 years of
agreement for sale. Hence prays for dismissing
the suit.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances and
the material available in the matter, my
predecessor has framed the following issues as
under -
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that one
Krishnappa had executed an
11 O.S.No. 2168-2011
agreement of sale on 17/02/1983 in
respect of the suit schedule property in
favour of the plaintiff and thereby
agreed to sell the suit schedule
property for a sale consideration of Rs.
4,000/-?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that
said Krishnappa had received entire
sale consideration from the plaintiff
and had executed GPA in favour of the
plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule
property and the plaintiff is in
possession of the suit schedule
property?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that said
Krishnappa as well as the defendants
No.1 and 2 have failed to perform their
part of contract?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
relief of specific performance of
contract as prayed in the plaint?
5. Whether the plaintiff further proves that
the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are trying to
interfere in the peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
relief of permanent injunction as
prayed in the plaint?
12 O.S.No. 2168-2011
7. What decree or order?
Additional issues:
1. Whether the 1st defendant proves that
the suit is bared by limitation?
2. Whether the 1st defendant proves that
the suit is barred by non joinder and
mis joinder of parties?
5. In proof of their case, the plaintiff has got
examined himself as PW.1 and relied upon the
documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.36. The 3rd defendant
has got examined as D.W.1 Ex.D 1 to D 28 was
marked.
6. Heard arguments.
7. My findings to 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 : In the Negative
13 O.S.No. 2168-2011
Issue No.5 : In the Negative,
Additional
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative
Additional
Issue No.2: In the Negative.
Issue No.6 : As per final order for
the following-
REASONS
8. ISSUE No. 1 to 4 : These issues are
taken up together for discussion as they are inter-
linked with each other.
9. The plaintiff claims his title in the suit
schedule property on the basis of the Sale
Agreement, Affidavit and GPA executed by his
Vendor deceased Krishnappa. However the same
was executed at the time of existence of Proviso of
the Fragmentation Act. So the sale deed was not
executed. He claims his possession on the suit
14 O.S.No. 2168-2011
schedule property by producing the documents
khatha, Encumbrance Certificate, Tax paid
receipts, Water supply certificate and Electricity
supply certificate are marked as Ex.P. 1 to 6, Ex.P.
10 to 23. It is alleged on interference of
defendant No.3. The defendant No.1, 2, 4 to 6
were the legal heirs of deceased Krishnappa. The
defendant No.3 claims his right on the schedule
property on the basis of the sale deed executed by
Palini on the basis of GPA of deceased Krishnappa.
Even the legal heirs of deceased Krishnappa
contended the execution of sale deed in favour of
3rd defendant. So even after knowing the defence
of defendant plaintiff has not claimed any relief
against the registered sale deed executed in
favour of 3rd defendant. The plaintiff claim is
restricted to directing the defendant No.1 to
execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. So
15 O.S.No. 2168-2011
considering the pleading of the either side it
clearly shows 3rd defendant strongly opposed the
suit.
10. The plaintiff himself deposed as P.W.1.
In the cross-examination he admits that the suit
property originally belongs to deceased Krishnappa
and his family members and his legal heirs and
denied the execution of GPA in favour of Palini on
20/09/1982 and also denied the sale deed
executed in favour of 3rd defendant and the legal
heirs of Krishnappa also signed the document. On
perusal of the plaintiff documents shows he has
agreement for sale which executed for the amount
of Rs. 4,000/- only. The document executed on
17/02/1983. Whereas he referred that he is selling
the site No. 21 for Rs. 4,000/- out of the said
amount he received Rs. 3,900/- because of the
Government ban for Registration of the Revenue
16 O.S.No. 2168-2011
Sites Under The Karnataka Prevention of
Fragmentation And Consolidation of Holdings
(Repeal) Act, 1990 he was not executed the sale
deed. It was assured for registering the Sale deed
after repeal of the Act. So after execution this
document on 18/2/1983 he gave the possession
of the suit land to the plaintiff. Thereafter
Krishnappa also executed the affidavit on
18/02/1983 and also on same date he received the
balance amount of Rs. 100/-. In respect of the
schedule property he also executes the GPA dated
18/2/1983. The schedule property is mentioned
the boundaries as East : Site No.29, West: 30 Ft
Road, North: Site No. 20 and South: Site No. 22
measuring 40 X 30 ft. vacant site. Whereas the
defendant documents is the GPA executed in
favour of Palini is dated 20/09/1982. It is marked
as Ex.D.2 i.e. prior to the execution of GPA in
17 O.S.No. 2168-2011
favour of the plaintiff deceased Krishnappa
executes the GPA in favour of Palini Son of
Murugam. It is also in respect of property bearing
No.21 suit schedule property the boundaries and
measurements exactly referred as same of the
plaintiff's document. However the 3rd defendant
got executed the sale deed on 30/02/2010. But at
the time of the execution of GPA, Krishnappa died
much prior to the sale deed in the year 1996. So
the validity of the 3rd defendant's sale deed is
remained as questionable document.
11. He replied further that on the date
of execution of Agreement Krishnappa prepared
the document and he gave the amount of Rs.
3,900/- on the same day in the spot but at that
time Krishnamurthy and another person came with
him. So it shows the said Krishnamurthy is also
one of the important witnesses to this suit.
18 O.S.No. 2168-2011
Whereas the plaintiff has not examined him. Non
examination of this witness caused fatal to the
case in view of the ratio in the citation
AIR 2012 SC 206 Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd.
/v/ State of Haryana & another.
"Immovable property can be legally and lawfully
transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of
conveyance. Transactions of the nature of 'General Power
of Attorney Sales' or Sale Agreement/WILL transfers' do not
convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be
recognized as valid mode of transfer of immovable
property. The Courts will not treat such transactions as
completed or concluded transfers or as conveyances as
they neither convey title nor create any interest in an
immovable property. They cannot be recognized as deeds
of title, except to the limited extent of Section 53 A of the
TP Act. Such transactions cannot be relied upon or made
the basis for mutations in Municipal or Revenue Records.
This rule applies not only to deeds of conveyance in regard
to freehold property but also to transfer of leasehold
property. A lease can be validity transferred only under a
registered Assignment of Lease. "
He was doing the grocery business from the
period 1982 prior to that he was working as
Managing Partner in financial firm. He has the
document of his business. But the same was not
produced. Krishnappa died in the year 1996. After
Krishnappa's death, he went to the deceased house
19 O.S.No. 2168-2011
and requested his family members for execution of
sale deed. Even during the life time of deceased
Krishnappa he requested for execution of sale deed
in several times. However there is no single
document/ evidence in corroboration of the same.
The Ban of Fragmentation Act repealed in the year
1990. So if truly the plaintiff is cautious of his
right, he could have insist for the sale deed in the
period of 1990-91. He was not even issued any
legal notice in the said period. He denied the
suggestion that in the same, lay out the sites were
registered in the period of 1992-93. So if truly the
plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule
property, he could have certainly opposed on
registration of subsequent Sale Deed and insisted
by writing for execution of sale deed. He was not
even aware that deceased wife also alive. The
neighbours of the deceased told him that
20 O.S.No. 2168-2011
Muniyamma was died. Even on perusal of the
cause title shows he was impleaded only two sons
of the deceased. But during the evidence stage he
impleaded deceased Krishnappa's wife and
remaining children of the deceased as defendant 4
to 6. So it clearly shows the plaintiff has not
visited the Krishnappa's house for insisting
execution of the sale deed. Only after filing of this
suit he came to know that the deceased executed
GPA in favour of Palini. Whereas even the plaint
pleading Para 9 clearly shows it narrates about
defendant No.3 and also execution of GPA in favour
of Palini. So it shows the answer of the witness is
not true. It is pertinent to note that this witness
replies he built the house in the schedule property
in the year 2010. When the persons claims his
title and possession from 18/2/1983 why he took
such a long period to built the shed in the suit
21 O.S.No. 2168-2011
schedule property is not explained. It is also true
that prior to building of the house he was not
obtained any license, permission from the
respective authority. He admits that Ex.P. 1 does
not show the delivery of the possession. Whereas
on perusal of the Ex.P. 7 shows it mentioned as
follows: µÉqÀÆå®Ä ¸ÉÊl£ÀÄß ¸ÀévÀÄÛ gÀf¸ÀÖj£À ªÉÃ¼É ¤ªÀÄä ¸ÀÄ¥À¢üðUÉ
©lÄÖPÉÆqÀ®Ä M¦àgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. There is no averment on delivery
of possession i.e. property will be delivered at the
time of registration of Sale Deed. Ex.P. 8
certificate shows except to the plaintiff he was not
executed any sale deed to any 3rd person. Ex.P. 9
dated 18/2/1983 also refers the powers given to
the GPA. But it has not referred on delivery of
possession. The Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P. 10
refers the mode of transfer is agreement for sale.
It is for the period of 1982 to 2004. In fact legally,
E.C. must be restricted on registration of Sale
22 O.S.No. 2168-2011
Deed and not on agreement for sale. If truly
enquired properly he could have referred all the
children of deceased Krishnappa including the
widow. He also admitted that he was not at all
claiming relief against the sale deed executed in
favour of 3rd defendant.
12. The defendant No.3 was examined as
D.W.1. Whereas it is the burden of the plaintiff to
prove the possession. While arguing the case the
learned counsel for the plaintiff stress that the
defendant No. 1, 2 not adduced any evidence and
seeks draw adverse inference against them and
referred citation I.L.R. 2009 Kar. 1534. Whereas it
is the burden of the plaintiff to prove his
agreement for sale and lawful possession. Without
discharging his burden, he cannot seek adverse
inference against the defendant. On perusal of the
contents of Ex.P. 7 agreement shows the time
23 O.S.No. 2168-2011
fixed as till the repeal of the Karnataka Prevention
of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings
(Repeal) Act, 1990. But after the repeal of the
Act plaintiff has not requested for execution of the
sale deed. His evidence reveals that he has not
even approached the deceased, so there is
unreasonable delay in approaching the defendant
to get the sale deed.
13. The 3rd defendant against whom the
plaintiff alleges of causing interference. The 3rd
defendant submitted in the written statement that
the plaintiff has no locus-standi to seek relief and
admits Krishnappa is the owner of the schedule
property and he obtained the sale deed through
G.P.A.holder. The other defendants also consented
with the sale deed. The plaintiff was never in
possession of the suit schedule property. He built
the shed in the schedule property and also gave it
24 O.S.No. 2168-2011
on rent. So to prove the claim of bonafide right
he produced the sale deed, GPA, tax receipts,
rental receipts along with photo copies were
marked as Ex.P. 1 to 28. In the cross examination
he was questioned in respect of the sale deed and
the original owner of the suit schedule property.
He replied that he was not enquired on this matter.
He was not even enquired whether Krishnappa is
alive at the time of execution of sale deed. It is
pertinent to note that Palani executed the sale
deed on the basis of GPA of Krishnappa. But
Krishnappa was died in the year 1996. So in the
year 2010 GPA of Krishnappa does not gives any
right to the Palani. He also relies on the sale deed
executed in his favour. However, the plaintiff has
not sought any relief in respect of this sale deed.
He was suggested that he took up the photo copies
by standing infront of the house of plaintiff. The
25 O.S.No. 2168-2011
same was denied. He also further says he will
examine the Palani. But the Palani was not
examined. Since there is no relief against the sale
deed of the 3rd defendant the question of the
examination of the Palani does not arises. The 3rd
defendant purchased the suit schedule property for
the amount of Rs. 7,80,000/- in the year 2010.
The plaintiff purchased this same schedule
property in the year 1983 for Rs. 4,000/-. But has
not claimed possession. Hence for all the reasons I
hold issue No.1 to 4 in the negative.
14. ISSUE NO.5:- On adjudication of the
above evidence shows the plaintiff failed to prove
his lawful possession in the suit schedule property.
Admittedly he has no sale deed, but his document
relied upon the sale agreement , Power of Attorney
also silent on the delivery of possession of the
property. However the tax receipts and Khatha
26 O.S.No. 2168-2011
were not proved the plaintiff title and lawful
possession of the suit schedule property. Moreover
he has no document to show the building materials
purchased for constructing the building in the
schedule property. So it clearly shows when the
possession is not proved the question of
interference from defendants does not arise.
Accordingly I hold the issue No.5 in the negative.
15. ADDL.ISSUE NO. 2:- The 1st defendant
taken the contention that the mis-joinder and non-
joinder of necessary parties. It is contended on
the basis of wife and daughters of the deceased
Krishnappa did not impleaded as parties to this
suit. However during the evidence of the suit the
widow and daughters are impleaded as defendant
No. 4 to 6. So necessary parties were impleaded.
Hence I consider the objection is complied. So I
hold the additional issue No.2 in the negative.
27 O.S.No. 2168-2011
16. Additional Issue No.1: It is the 1st
defendant as well as the 3rd defendant question the
plaintiff relief. An agreement for sale is executed
on 17/02/1983 The suit for Specific Performance
filed in the year 2011. So in support of the same
referred the citations
AIR 2004 MADRAS 8
(Suryagandhi Appellant /vs/
Lourduswamy, Respondent)
Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) S.10
Agreement to sale immovable property-
Vendor keeping silence for 9 years and
thereafter asking vendor to execute sale
deed-Vender's conduct indicating that he
made no attempt to keep contract alive
but abandoned it-Though time was not
essence of contract, his claiming specific
performance after 9 years was not within
reasonable time.
AIR 2004 ANDHRA PRADESH 18 (Central
Bank of India Staff Co-operative Building
Society Ltd., Vijayawada, Appellant V
Dulipalla Ramachandra Koteswara Rao.
Respondent.
(A) Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963) S.10-
Agreement to purchase vacant land -
Specific performance-Suit for - plaintiff
28 O.S.No. 2168-2011
purchaser aware of prohibition against
alienation of vacant land-Defendant
owner not at fault in not obtaining
permission of competent Authority to sell-
plaintiff remaining silent for 19 years from
date of agreement and filing suit
thereafter-Amounted to abandoning
agreement-Suit hit by doctrine of
frustration-Dismissed.
The ratio of the same aptly applied to the
case on hand. The defendant also produced
Repeal of the Act. On perusal of the same shows
the Act was repealed on 1990. It was received the
assent of the Governor on the 2nd day of February
1991 and published in the Karnataka Gazette on
February 5 1991. So Limitation on right to get the
registered sale deed commence from February
1991. The plaintiff has no evidence or material to
show that he was insisted for execution of the sale
deed. However in respect of the Repeal Act, it
says that provided that the repeal shall not affect
in (b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability
29 O.S.No. 2168-2011
acquired, accrued or incurred under the repealed
Act, also the repeal Act has not repealed i.e. the
plaintiff entered into agreement for sale during the
Prevention of the Act for alienation of the property
i.e. the Agreement for Sale is the violation of then
existing law. So the execution of the documents of
GPA cannot get any right to the plaintiff to claim
his right over the schedule property. But even then
plaintiff needs to explain reason for inordinate
delay there is no evidence on reason for delay. It
is argued there is no time limit. But the Ex.P.1
Agreement for Sale clearly says 'after repeal of the
Act'. Hence appreciating the same I hold the above
issue in the Affirmative.
17. Issue No.6: In view of the reasons stated
supra, I proceed to pass the following ;
30 O.S.No. 2168-2011
ORDER
The suit is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(Dictated to the Judgmentwriter, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by my in the open court, this the 23rd day of NOVEMBER, 2017.) (NAGAJYOTHI.K.A) XXIX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMIEND FOR PLAINTIFF :
PW.1. P.S.Venkatesh LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR PLAINTIFF :
Ex.P.
1) B.W.S.S.B. Card.31 O.S.No. 2168-2011
2) Application to BWSSB
3) Copy of Khatha certificate of BBMP
4) Certificate of BBMP
5) Tax paid receipt
6) Tax paid receipt
7) Agreement for sale
8) Certificate
9) GPA
10) E.C.
11) Betterment charge receipt
12) RBI Challan
13) Tax particulars list
14) Receipt of BBMP
15) Tax paid receipt
16) Self assessment particulars
17) Tax paid receipt
18) Self assessment particulars
19) Revenue receipt
20) Electricity bill
21) Electricity bill
22) Objection to BDA
23) Sanction letter of Bescom.
24) Complaint to police
25) Endorsement of Police
26) Copy of notice
27) Returned cover
28) Postal acknowledgement 32 O.S.No. 2168-2011
29) to 31) Postal receipts
32) Postal acknowledgement
33) Receipt of Srinidhi Concrete block
34) Tax receipt
35) Tax receipt
36) Registered Agreement for sale copy.
LIST OF WITNESES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS:
D.W1 : Sri. Ramakrishna T.G. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D.
1) Sale Deed
2) GPA
3) B.Khatha
4) Tax paid receipt
5) to 13) Tax receipts
14) Sajala
15) Receipt of BWSSB
16) BWSSB counter file
17) Order of BWSSB
18) Water bill
19) Water bill
20) Electricity bills 33 O.S.No. 2168-2011
21) Electricity bill
22) Receipt from Venkatesh
23) Rent receipt
24) Rent receipt
25) to 27) Photos
28) C.D. (NAGAJYOTHI.K.A) XXIX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City.34 O.S.No. 2168-2011
Judgment pronounced in open Court vide separate judgment.
ORDER The suit is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
XXIX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore City.
35 O.S.No. 2168-2011The suit is decreed with Costs.
The defendant is directed to pay the decretal amount of Rs. 1,64,130/- with future interest 10% p.a. from the date of this suit till complete realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
36 O.S.No. 2168-2011