Bangalore District Court
Master Dinakar vs Sri. K. Subair on 7 September, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY : (CCH.18)
Dated this 7th day of September, 2020.
Present
SRI.DINESH HEGDE, B.A.LL.B.,
XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
O.S.NO.4867/2015
PLAINTIFF : 1. Master Dinakar,
S/o Sri. Vasudev,
Aged about 14 years,
2. Master Chinmay,
S/o Sri. Vasudev,
Aged about 6 years,
Since minors represented by
their guardian and natural mother
3. Smt. Nanda V. Nayka,
W/o Sri. Vasudev,
Aged about 41 years,
All are R/at No.14, Old No.174,
18th Cross, MRCR Marenahalli,
Old No.35, Bengaluru.
( By Sri. N.R. Naik & Asso.,
Advocate)
-VS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. Sri. K. Subair,
S/o Sri. M.K. Assai,
Aged about 50 years,
2. Sri. N.P. Nizar,
S/o K. Abdul Khadar,
Aged about 46 years,
2 O.S.No.4867/2015
Both are R/at No.330, 17th Main,
18th Cross, M.C. Layout,
Vijayanagar, Bengaluru - 560 040.
(By Sri.B.J. & K.S., Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit : 05/6/2015
Nature of the Suit : Ejectment Suit
Date of commencement of recording
of evidence : 17/2/2016
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced : 07/9/2020
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : 05 03 02
(Dinesh Hegde)
XIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have filed this suit against defendants for ejectment of the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and permanent injunction.
2. The case of the plaintiffs in nutshell:-
Chavan Korra Balanaik was the original owner of several properties and he had bequeathed the properties under a registered WILL dated 26.06.2013 in 3 O.S.No.4867/2015 favour of the plaintiffs and nominated guardians by names Chavali Bai, C. Vasudeva & Nanda V. Naik.
The plaintiffs represented through their natural guardian mother and brought this suit against the defendants. The plaintiffs have acquired the title in respect of Ground Floor house and shop properties bearing New No.14, Old No.174 situated at 18 th Cross, M.R.C.R. Marenahalli, Bengaluru.
3. It is further stated that Chavan Korra Balanaik died on 12.04.2014 and after his death, the registered WILL has been placed before the revenue authorities of BBMP and got the properties are assessed allotted under the WILL and on assessment, issued the Khatha Certificate and the plaintiffs continuously paying tax. While issuing khatha, the property has been identified as PID No.35-4-14, 18th Cross, MRCR, Bengaluru, Ward No.35, BBMP, Bengaluru.
4. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendants are tenants of non-residential premises measuring into extent of 13x80 feet and in all 1040 square feet having 8 rolling shutter shop premises 4 O.S.No.4867/2015 situated at No.14, Old No.174 situated at 18th Cross, M.R.C.R. Marenahalli, Ward No.34, Bengaluru. Both the defendants are entered as tenants during lifetime of Chavan Korra Balanaik on monthly rent of Rs.7,000/- per month in the year 2005 and as per the terms and conditions of the then lease agreement continuously enhanced the rent and now the defendants are paying rent a sum of Rs.21,000/- per month for having possession of the schedule premises.
5. It is further averred in the plaint that the premises which is used by the defendants for commercial purpose and at the instance of defendants, the BBMP authorities fixed the taxes as if the schedule property is using for commercial purpose. The lease period comes to an end in the month of December 2014 and as per the terms and conditions of the lease it was not renewed and no agreement has been entered between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs are not interested to continue the tenancy of the defendants and hence, the lease agreement is not renewed by them.
5 O.S.No.4867/2015
6. It is further averred in the plaint that the plaintiffs themselves represented through their guardian wants to occupy the premises for their own use and occupation and the lease is not continued. Accordingly, the lease agreement has been terminated. The plaintiffs were demanded the defendants calling upon them to handover vacant possession of the schedule premises, but for one or the other reasons they asked time without vacating and handing over the premises. The plaintiffs have caused a legal notice calling upon the defendants to handover vacant possession in terms of lease agreement dated 22.04.2013 and as per the terms, three months has been granted and called upon the defendants to pay the rent by way of damages till the possession is handed over.
7. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendants have replied to the notice with evasive answers and created some new story. The defendants have not paid three months rent to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are calling upon the defendants to vacate the 6 O.S.No.4867/2015 premises within three months from the date of receipt of notice.
8. It is further averred that though the deceased Chavan Korra Balanaik had executed a GPA in favour of Sri. Chandra Naik, but he died on 24.04.2009. On termination of tenancy, the defendants are liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.21,000/- which is to be paid continuously during subsistence of tenancy.
9. It is further averred in the plaint that since the defendants failed to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the petition schedule premises to the plaintiffs in spite of repeated requests and demands, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the present suit for eviction of the defendants from the schedule premises. They refused to handover vacant possession and pay damages payable to the plaintiffs. They are searching for another person as a tenant to induct in the schedule premises with an intention to defeat the rightful claim of the plaintiffs and to avoid handing over vacant possession of the schedule premises. 7 O.S.No.4867/2015
10. It is further averred in the plaint that the defendants are very influential persons and they are trying to induct third parties to the schedule premises. Hence, it is prayed for grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from inducting third parties into the schedule premises. Hence this suit.
11. After service of suit summons, defendants appeared through their counsel and filed written statement by contending that deceased Chavan Korra Balanaik was the original owner of the property bearing New No.14, Old No.174, situated at 18 th Cross, M.R.C.R. Marenahalli, Bengaluru. It is denied that the said Chavan Korra Balanaik died on 12.04.2014 and after his death, the registered WILL has been placed before revenue authorities of BBMP and got the properties assessed as per the allotment made under WILL and it is also false to allege that BBMP has assessed and issued khatha certificate No.BBMP/REV/2014- 15/KC/877501 dated 12.08.2014 and it is also false to allege that plaintiff is continuously paying the tax. 8 O.S.No.4867/2015
12. It is further denied that the defendants are tenants under the plaintiffs in respect of non-residential premises measuring 13x80 feet and in all 1040 sq.ft. Having 8 rolling shutter shop premises situated at No.14, Old No.17, situated at 18 th Cross, M.R.C.R. Marenahalli, Ward No.34, Bengaluru.
13. It is further averred that the defendants are the tenants under one Sri. P. Chandra Naik in respect of non-residential premises bearing No.174/14, situated at 18th Cross, 15th Main Road, Junction at Vijayanagar, M.C. Layout, Bengaluru measuring 13x80 feet in all 1040 sq.ft. Provided with 8 rolling shutter and bounded on east by Premises No.42, West by 18th Cross road, north by remaining portion of property belonging to Sri. P. Chandra Naik and South by 15 th Main road, on a monthly rent of Rs.12,000/- exclusive of light charges and in this regard the lease agreement was entered between their clients and Sri. P. Chandra Naik on 01.02.2015. At the inception of tenancy they have paid in all a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to Sri. P. Chandra Naik in the aforesaid premises as an advance.
9 O.S.No.4867/2015
14. The defendants further submitted that the aforesaid Sri. P Chandra Naik had appointed Sri. K Bala Naik as his GPA holder and he was receiving monthly rent from the defendants and thereafter Sri. K Bala Naik used to send his relative Sri. C Vasudev to collect the rents from the defendants. The defendants submitted that they have paid monthly rents to Sri. C. Vasudev upto date. Hence, the plaintiffs are not the owners of the aforesaid property and they do not possess any manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule premises. The defendants submitted that the plaintiffs are not owners of the suit schedule premises and hence, they are not liable to pay any rents to the plaintiffs and also they are not liable to pay any damages at the rate of Rs.21,000/-. The plaintiffs have no rights or locus standi to send a legal notice or file a suit for ejectment. The plaintiffs are total strangers to the suit schedule property.
15. The defendants further stated that, the termination notice issued by the plaintiffs is illegal and unlawful. The plaintiffs have no right to terminate the tenancy and there is also no jural relationship of 10 O.S.No.4867/2015 landlord and tenant between the defendants and the plaintiffs. In other words, the plaintiffs are total strangers to the defendants. The defendants further submits that there is no cause of action for the suit on 26.06.2013 or on any other dates and as such, the suit against the defendants is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
16. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they have terminated the tenancy of defendants by complying with the issuance of statutory notice as required U/Sec.106 of The Transfer of Property Act?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for eviction of defendants and vacant possession of suit schedule property?
3. Whether the defendants prove that they were tenants under one P. Chandra Naik and they paid advance amount of Rs.10,00,000/-11 O.S.No.4867/2015
(Rupees Ten Lakhs) to the said P.
Chandra Naik?
4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the
defendants are making hectic efforts to induct 3rd parties to suit schedule property?
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of permanent injunction as prayed in the plaint?
6. What order or decree?
17. On behalf of plaintiffs, Smt. Nanda V. Nayka, who is the natural guardian and mother of plaintiffs is examined as P.W.1 and a witness by name Nagesh has been examined P.W.2. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 are marked. The defendant No.1 and 2 are examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and a witness has been examined as D.W.3. Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.7 are marked.
18. Heard the arguments, perused the records and also written argument.
19. My findings on the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1:- In the affirmative Issue No.2:- In the affirmative Issue No.3:- Partly in the affirmative 12 O.S.No.4867/2015 Issue No.4:- In the affirmative Issue No.5:- In the affirmative Issue No.6:- As per the final order for the following:-
REASONS
20. ISSUE No.1 to 4:- These issues are taken up together for consideration as it requires common discussion on the question of facts and law.
21. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they are the owners of the suit schedule property by virtue of a registered WILL dated 26.06.2013 executed by the original owner by name Balanaik. To prove the fact that K. Balanaik was the owner of the suit schedule property, the plaintiffs have relied upon the oroginal sale deed dated 16.10.2004 marked at Ex.P.1 reveal that the Bengaluru Development Authority executed a registered sale deed in favour of Sri. K. Balanaik for a sale consideration amount of Rs.33,367/-. The description of the property purchased by K. Balanaik under Ex.P.1 is site No.174 situated at Magadi Road, Chord Road Layout, bounded with East by: Site No.42, West by: Road, North by: Site No.173 and South by: 13 O.S.No.4867/2015
Road, totally measuring East to West 91 feet, North to South 60 feet.
22. So Ex.P.1 reveal that under the sale deed dated 16.10.2004 Sri. K Balanaik concerned with the proeprty mentioned above. On perusal of the plaint schedule, the proeprty number is mentioned as 174/14 comprised with a residential building bounded with East by: Premises No.42, West by: 18 th Cross Road, North by: remaining property belonging to the plaintiffs and South by: 15th Main Road. However, there is no dispute regarding identity and location of the property is concerned.
23. ExP.4 is the original registered WILL dated 26.06.2013, under which the plaintiffs claim a title over the suit schedule property reveal that K. Balanaik was aged 88 years as on the date of the WILL. The contents of the WILL discloses that he had siblings by name Rathnabai, Ramadas Naik and Chandra Naik. Ramadas Naik was adopted by Daka Naik, who is the brother of Lakshman Naik. Master Dinakar and Kum. Chinmaya are the children of Vasudeva and Smt. Nanda V. Naik. 14 O.S.No.4867/2015
24. Under the WILL marked at Ex.P.1, the testator has stated that main house and the property measuring 91x15 except 8 commercial premises situated in Ground Floor. Rest of 7 commercial premises were bequeathed to Master Dinakar and Kum. Chinmaya.
25. In the same WILL, the testator Balanaik had bequeathed certain property in favour of Mohan, son of Kalu Naik to an extent of 12x15 feet comprised in 1 st Floor. It is mentioned in the WILL that after the demise of Balanaik, said Mohan will become the owner. Further, 8 rooms situated in 1st Floor was bequeathed in favour of Ambacharal son of B.K. Prasanna Kumar and Smt. Saraswathi.
26. Ex.P.2 is the death certificate issued by the Registrar of Births & Deaths reveal that K. Balanaik died on 12.04.2014 at Vijayanagar, Bengaluru. So, it is clear that K. Balanaik, who was the owner of property mentioned in Ex.P.1 Sale Deed dated 16.10.2004 died. Based on the registered WILL executed by K. Balanaik, 15 O.S.No.4867/2015 khatha in respect of the suit schedule property changed into the name of Master Dinakar and Kum. Chinmayi as reflected in the khatha certificate marked at Ex.P.3 dated 12.08.2014.
27. The khatha extract issued by the BBMP marked at Ex.P.5 dated 12.08.2004 reveal that Master Dinakar and Kum. Chinmaya are shown as owners of the schedule property. Ex.P.6 to P.9 are the property tax paid receipts also reveal that the payment of property tax by the plaintiffs. Both the plaintiffs are minors represented by their natural guardian and mother Smt. Nanda V. Naika, who has deposed as P.W.1.
28. Ex.P.10 is a copy of the agreement of lease dated 01.02.2005 reveal that P. Chandra Naik had entered into lease agreement with Subair and Nizar N.P. Therefore, it is clear that the P. Chandra Naik being landlord had leased out the schedule premises in favour of Subair R.M. and Nizar N.P., who are none other than the defendants herein.
16 O.S.No.4867/2015
29. To prove the execution of the WILL, the plaintiff had examined a witness by name Nagesh, son of H. Devaiah who is examined as P.W.2. The plaintiff in her evidence by way of affidavit reiterated the fact stated in the plaint and deposed that K. Balanaik had executed a WILL in favour of the plaintiffs bequeathing the suit schedule property.
30. On perusal of Ex.P.4 registered WILL, there are two witnesses are shown as attestors i.e. D. Nagesh and B.S. Siddegowda. U/Sec.68 of Indian Evidence Act, if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence.
31. Hence, it is clear that unless, one of the attesting witness to the WILL is examined, the WILL shall not be used as evidence. In compliance of Sec.68 of the Indian Evidence Act, the plaintiff has examined 17 O.S.No.4867/2015 P.W.2, who is none other than the attestor of the WILL marked at Ex.P.4.
32. In his evidence, P.W.2 has stated that K. Balanaik had executed a WILL on 26.06.2013 before Sub-Registrar, Yeshwanthpura and he was called as witness for having executing the WILL by Balanaik in respect of his properties. He knew K. Balanaik since 1976, as he hails from his village. After signing the WILL by K. Balanaik, himself and another witness Siddegowda signed it as witnesses.
33. In his cross-examination P.W.2 has stated that he is called as D. Nagesh and he can produce record to show that his name D. Nagesh. He is a Bsc. LLB graduate. He do not know the family details of deceased and his personal affairs. He denied the suggestion that K. Balanaik was not in a sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the WILL.
34. P.W.1 in her cross-examination denied the suggestion that K. Balanaik was not maintained sound 18 O.S.No.4867/2015 state of mind. Ex.P.11 is the notice dated 12.04.2015 reveal that the plaintiffs being the landlords of the suit schedule property issued a notice to the defendants terminating the tenancy and called upon them to delivery of vacant schedule property within 3 months. Ex.P.12 is the reply issued by the defendants to the notice dated 22.04.2015 reveal that on 16.05.2015 the defendants denied the jural relationship of landlord and tenant and also denied their liability towards rent.
35. To rebut the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, except the oral evidence of D.W.1 to D.W.3 they also relied upon Ex.D.1 to D.7. Ex.D.1 to D.6 are the photographs of the schedule premises and Ex.D.7 is the copy of the notice dated 16.05.2015 which is already marked from plaintiff side as Ex.P.2 as discussed supra.
36. In the cross-examination, D.W.1 has stated that K. Balanaik the original landlord. He entered into rent agreement with Balanaik. He used to pay rent to Balanaik during his lifetime. He do not know as to 19 O.S.No.4867/2015 whether Balanaik executed a WILL in favour of plaintiff . He do not know in whose name the khatha stands and who is paying tax. He was paying rent to Smt. Nanda Naik after the demise of Balanaik. He has admitted that Smt. Nanda Naik issued a notice on behalf of the plaintiffs. Vasudeva had not issued receipt for having received the rent. He has admitted that court has directed him to deposit the rent in the court and he has deposited the rent of Rs.4,20,000/-. He has further stated that after going through the doucments produced by the plaintiffs, he came to know that the plaintifs are the owners of the suit schedule property and there is no difficulty to pay rent to the plaintiffs and he has volunteered that if court orders, he is ready to pay the rent to the plaintiffs. He used to pay the rent to Balanaik till the year 2005 i.e. till his death. He has admitted that Vasudeva is the father of the plaintiff. He has admitted that he has not paid renewed rent to the plaintiffs.
37. D.W.1 has further admitted that the plaintiffs issued tenancy termination notice, but he denied that schedule property is required to the plaintiffs for their 20 O.S.No.4867/2015 bonafide usage. He has further volunteered that he is ready to pay the rent.
38. D.W.2 is another tenant, in his cross- examination stated that he has received the demand notice issued by the plaintiffs and he knows the contents of the demand notice. D.W.3 is the witness examined for the defendants side, has stated that Balanaik had demised the schedule property in favour of the defendants. He do not know as to whether Balanaik received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the defendants as advance amount. Till the death of Balanaik, he used to receive the rent from the defendants No.1 and 2. He has further denied that he is natural guardian of the plaintiffs. In his cross- examination he has stated that minor plaintiffs are in his custody, he had instructed his wife to appear as a guardian of the minor plaintiffs since he is busy in his work.
39. The learned advocate appearing for the defendants has relied upon a decision report in (2006) 13 SCC 433 between Niranjan Umesh Chandra Joshi Vs Mrudula Jyoti Rao & Ors. It was held that: 21 O.S.No.4867/2015
'Execution of will should be proved by primary evidence, except where proof of leading secondary evidence is permitted, at least on attesting witness must prove the execution'.
He has relied another decision reported in (2007) SCC 91 between Adivikka & Ors. Vs Hanamavva Kom Venkatesh dead by LR's & Anr wherein it was held that 'The WILL made by terminally ill testator just 2 weeks before his death, minor children dis-inherited in favour of nephews and also number of suspicious circumstances remained unxplained. Genuineness of the will doubtfully'.
The learned advocate appearing for the defendants has also relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1959 SC 443 between H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs B.N. Kimmajamma & Ors., wherein it was held that 'Onus of proof on propounder of the WILL'. He has relied upon another decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2008 KAR 2115 between J.T. Surappa & Anr. Vs Sri. Satchidhanandendra Saraswathi Swamiji Public Charitable Trust & Ors. Wherein, it was held that, five 22 O.S.No.4867/2015 steps to be considered by the Court while appreciation of evidence on the execution of the WILL.
1. Whether the WILL bears a signature or mark of the testator and is duly attested by two witnesses and whether any attesting witness is examined to prove the WILL
2. Whether the natural heirs have been dis- inherited if so what is the reason?
3. Whether the testator was in a sound state of mind at the time of executing the WILL?
4. Whether any suspicious circumstances exist surrounding the execution of the WILL?
5. Whether a WILL has been executed in accordance with Sec.63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 r/w Sec.68 of the Evidence Act?
40. On perusal of the records, the plaintiffs have produced the original will itself for appreciation of evidence before the court under Ex.P.4 that bears the signature of the testator and also two attesting witnesses. The beneficiaries under WILL are none other than legal heirs of deceased K. Balanaik. The evidence on record reveal that testator was aged 88 years as on 23 O.S.No.4867/2015 the date of execution of WILL and he was in a sound state of mind at the time of executing the WILL. The defendants have not made out any suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the WILL. The plaintiff has examined an attester of the WILL as P.W.2 in compliance of Sec.63 of Indian Succession Act r/w Sec.68 of the Evidence Act.
41. Therefore, I find no reason to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the plaintiff with respect of execution of the WILL by the testator K. Balanaik with respect of his own self acquired property. Moreover, the defendants are the tenants under deceased K. Balanaik and they have no title over the suit schedule property.
42. In ILR 2004 KAR 4782 between Silva Uddin Vs Nagaraj wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that;
'in view of transfer of ownership, the transferee becomes the owner of the premises. The tenant cannot dispute the right of the transferee landlord to maintain an eviction petition under the Rent Act or to 24 O.S.No.4867/2015 pay him rent. Attornment by the tenant is unnecessary to confer validity to the transfer of the lessors rights. Sec.109 of the Transfer of Property Act protects payments of rent by the tenant to the transferrer without notice of the transfer, as Sec.109 creates a statutory attornment'.
43. On perusal of the evidence of D.W.3 it is crystal clear that he is none other than the father of minor plaintiff No.1 and 2. However his wife Smt. Nanda V. Naika being the natural guardian and mother of the plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants for ejectment.
44. U/Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act, in the absence of a contract or local law or usage to the contrary, a lease of immovable property for agriculture or manufacturing purpose shall be deemed to be a lease from year to year terminable on the part of either lessor or lessee by six months notice and a lease of immovable property for any other purpose shall be deemed to be the lease from month to month, 25 O.S.No.4867/2015 terminable on the part either lessor or lessee by 15 days notice.
45. Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiffs being the landlords by virtue of a WILL dated 26.06.2013 terminated the agreement of lease dated 01.07.2005 by issuing a notice under Ex.P.11 dated 22.04.2015 that was duly served upon the defendants. Hence, the tenancy has been terminated as the requirement under Sec.106 of Transfer of Property Act.
46. After termination of notice of 15 days, the defendants have no right to remain in possession of the suit schedule property. It is the duty of the defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs. Though the defendants have contended that they have paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the original owner as a advance amount at the time of entering into agreement of lease, the agreement of lease produced by the plaintiffs marked at Ex.P.10 reveal that only a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- was paid by the defendants as advance amount to the deceased landlord P. Chandra Naik, who is the General Power of 26 O.S.No.4867/2015 Attorney holder of K. Balanaik. Therefore, the defendants are entitled for deduction of the advance amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from the rent payable by them and also the damages if they are liable to pay. However, there is no relief sought by the plaintiffs for recovery of arrears rent or damages.
47. Therefore, the plaintiffs have proved that upon the death of Balanaik, they become the landlords of the suit schedule property by virtue of the WILL executed by Balanaik. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for vacant possession of the suit schedule property. The defendants being tenants under deceased landlord K. Balanaik cannot sublet or induct 3rd parties as a tenant in the suit schedule property. Therefore, I answer the issue No.1, 2 and 4 in the Affirmative and issue No.3 partly in the Affirmative.
48. ISSUE NO.5:- The plaintiffs have proved that they are entitled for vacant possession of the suit schedule property. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the defendants are trying to induct 3rd parties in the suit schedule property. They being the tenant have 27 O.S.No.4867/2015 no right to induct any 3rd parties in the schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for injunction against the defendants restraining them from inducting 3rd parties in the suit schedule property. Hence, I answer above issue in the Affirmative.
49. ISSUE No.6:- In view of findings on Issue No.1 to 5, I hold that plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of eviction of the plaintiffs and delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property and injunction against the defendants restraining them from inducting 3rd parties in the suit schedule property Hence, I pass the following:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with costs.
The defendant No.1 and 2 shall quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs within 3 months from today.
Consequently, the defendants are restrained from inducting 3 rd parties in the suit schedule property.28 O.S.No.4867/2015
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7th day of September, 2020).
(Dinesh Hegde) XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
P.W.1 - Smt. Nanda V. Nayka
b) Defendant's side :
D.W.1 - K. Subair D.W.2 - N.P. Nizar D.W.3 - C. Vasudeva II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
Ex.P.1 Original Sale deed
dtd:18/10/2004
Ex.P.2 Death certificate
Ex.P.3 Khatha Certificate issued by
BBMP dtd:12/8/2014
Ex.P.4 Original WILL dated 26.06.2013
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of the attestor
Ex.P.4(b) Signature of the testator
Ex.P.5 Khatha Extract
Ex.P.6 to P.9 Property Tax receipts issued by
BBMP
Ex.P.10 Copy of lease agreement dated
01.02.2005
Ex.P.11 Legal notice dated 22.04.2015
Ex.P.12 Legal notice dated 16.05.2015
29 O.S.No.4867/2015
(b) Defendants' side : -
Ex.D.1 to D.6 Photographs of shop
Ex.D.7 Reply notice dated 16.05.2015
Court Court Document marked
Ex.C.1 - Signature of D.W.3 in his depositions (Dinesh Hegde) XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.30 O.S.No.4867/2015
7/9/2020 Plaintiff - NRN Defendants - BJ & KS For Judgment Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate detailed judgment with the following operative portion:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs.
The defendant No.1 and 2 shall quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiffs within 3 months from today.
Consequently, the defendants are restrained from inducting 3rd parties in the suit schedule property.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dinesh Hegde) XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.