Bangalore District Court
The vs Appeared Through Their Respective ... on 17 April, 2021
BEFORE Ist ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE. (SCCH11)
DATED THIS 17th DAY OF APRIL, 2021
PRESENT: SMT. B.S.RAYANNAWAR, B.A., L.L.B.
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE & MACT
SC.1071/2013
BETWEEN
1. Mrs.Dilshad Begum,
W/o.Iqbal Pasha,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at No.5, Sait Palya,
Lingarajapuram, Hennur Main Road,
Thomas Town Post,
Bangalore560 084.
2. Mrs.Shamshad Begum,
W/o.Fayaz Pasha,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.176, 3rd Cross,
9th Main, N.R.Layout,
Bommanahalli,
Bangalore560 068.
3. Mr.R.Afroz Pasha,
S/o.Late Rahim Sab,
R/at Opp. Satish Bar,
Begur Church Road,
Bangalore560 068.
(By Sri.M.S....., Advocate) ....Petitioners.
AND
SCCH-11 2 S.C.No.1071/2013
1. Mrs.Gowhar Taj,
W/o.Late Ali Jan,
Aged about 40 years.
2. Mrs.Noor Fathima,
D/o.Late Ali Jan,
Aged about 18 years,
Respondents No.1 & 2
Are residing at No.58/2/2,
1st Floor, Bommanahalli Village,
Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore560 068.
(By Sri.S.K.P.......... Advocate)
2. Mrs.Noor Fathima,
D/o.Late Ali Jan,
Aged about 18 years,
Respondents No.1 & 2,
Are residing at No.58/2/2,
1st Floor, Bommanahalli Village,
Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore560 068.
(By Sri.M.S...Advocate) .....Respondents.
JUDGMENT
Present suit filed by the petitioners for ejectment and directing the respondents to vacate and hand over the vacant physical possession of the petition schedule premises and SCCH-11 3 S.C.No.1071/2013 directing the respondents to pay arrears of rent to an extent of Rs.1,00,000/ at the rate of Rs.4,000/ per month from 1.07.2011 to till date of filing the suit in respect of schedule premises and for such other reliefs.
2. Brief averments of the petitioners case is as follows:
The petitioners are the absolute coowners of property bearing site No.2, Katha No.58/2/2, situated at Bommanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, the respondents are tenants of petitioners in respect of the first portion of the residential premises in the property bearing No.58/2/2, measuring 7 ½ square, which is more fully described in the petition schedule. They jointly purchased the said site from Jogindar Kaur represented by his GPA Holder Anver Sab through a registered sale deed dated 22.06.2011, the respondents was tenant under previous owner Jogindar Kaur.
After the purchase of schedule premises by petitioners their vendors Jogindar Kaur attorned the ownership in favor of SCCH-11 4 S.C.No.1071/2013 petitioners.
The respondents were tenant under petitioners vendors and used to pay monthly rent of Rs.4,000/ and deposited interest free refundable security of Rs.20,000/ before the purchase of schedule premises petitioners vendors has informed the respondents and also endorsed the transfer of ownership in favor of petitioners and accordingly respondents agreed to pay monthly rents to petitioners. The respondents failed to pay monthly rent of Rs.4,000/ to petitioners from July 2011 to till date of filing the petition. Petitioners requires the petition schedule premises for their own bonafide use and occupation and requested the respondents orally to vacate the schedule premises. After repeated oral request to the respondents to vacate the schedule premises, the respondents failed to vacate the schedule premises and to pay arrears of rent. Thereafter the petitioners issued legal notice dated 01.08.2012 through their counsel by way of RPAD, calling upon respondents to vacate the schedule premises, respondents requested the SCCH-11 5 S.C.No.1071/2013 petitioners to give 6 months time to vacate the schedule premises and also granted another 6 months to vacate and time was granted up to August 2013, but even then respondents did not vacate the schedule premises. Hence, this suit.
3. In pursuance of summons issued by this court, respondents appeared through their respective counsels and filed written statement denying the contents of plaint in toto. Respondent denied the relationship of land lord and tenant between them and the petitioners. It is contended by the respondents that, the respondents are in a peaceful possession and enjoyment of the immovable property bearing Site No.2, formed in Sy.No.58/2, situated at Bommanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore south taluk. The said property was purchased by the respondent No.1 from its original owner Sri.Joginder Kour, S/o.Sri.Nirmal Singh who had executed a General Power of Attorney as there was prohibition of Registration of Revenue sites at that time. The original owner had executed a General SCCH-11 6 S.C.No.1071/2013 Power of Attorney in favor of the 1 st respondent herein. The said owner had also executed an affidavit confirming the 1 st respondent and the said site was sold to the 1st respondent herein for a sum of Rs.85,000/ dated: 07.03.1997. The respondent had constructed a house building comprising of ground, first and second floor with the financial assistance of her husband. The respondents are living in the 1 st floor and the ground floor and second floor portion of the said property is leased to tenants.
Further averred that, the original owner at the time of executing the General Power of Attorney and affidavit dated 07.03.1997 confirming sale to the respondent No.1 has categorically mentioned that the General Power of Attorney which was cancelled by the original owner Sri.Joginder Kour have only to knock off the property from the respondents, have created the sale deed dated 22.06.2011 having been executed by the said Anwar Sab in favor of the petitioners. When the GPA executed dated 18.11.1995 by the previous owner Joginder SCCH-11 7 S.C.No.1071/2013 Kour in favour of Anwar Sab was canceled and thereafter a GPA and the Affidavit confirming the sale deed was done in favour of the respondent No.1 herein, the question of the sale deed dated 22.06.2011 in favor of the petitioners by Sri.Anwar Sab does not arise. There is no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and the respondents. The issuance of legal notice dated 01.08.2012 to the respondent is not within the knowledge of the respondents. The petitioners are not the owners or landlords nor the respondents their tenant. The question of vacating or requesting the petitioners to grant time to vacate will never arise. The cause of action mentioned in the plaint is created for the purpose of filing this case. On these grounds prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
4. In support of their case the, 3 rd petitioner got examined as P.W.1 and got marked in all 5 documents as Ex.P.1 to 5 and petitioner got examined one more witness as PW.2 and got marked document at Ex.P.6 and closed their side. SCCH-11 8 S.C.No.1071/2013 Defendant No.1 got examined herself as DW.1 and Defendant No.2 got examined herself as DW.2 and got marked 37 documents as Ex.D.1 to 37 and closed their side evidence.
5. Heard argument by both respective counsels for the plaintiffs and defendants.
6. The points that arise for my considerations are;
1) Whether the petitioners proves the relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and the respondents?
2. Whether the petitioners complied Sec.106 of T.P.Act?
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the relief sought for?
4. What order?
7. After hearing the arguments and perusal of the records my findings to the above points are as under for the following reasons Point No.1 : In the Negative.
Point No.2: In the Affirmative SCCH-11 9 S.C.No.1071/2013 Point No.3: In the Negative Point No.4 : As per the final order:
REASONS
8. Point No.2 : This is a suit filed by the petitioners against the respondents for eviction. It is the contention of petitioners that before filing the suit, they have issued legal notice on 01.08.2012 in complaince of Sec.106 of T.P.Act. Though the respondents denied the service of notice. Petitioner produced Ex.P.2 Office copy of Legal Notice dated: 01.08.2012. Produced Ex.P.3 returned Postal cover addressed to the respondents, the legal notice returned with shara "Not claimed".
9. Petitioner is in requirement of the suit premises for their personal use. Hence, they decided to terminate the tenancy. Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act contemplates that in case of termination of a monthly tenancy, 15 days notice is to be given to the tenants intimating them regarding termination of tenancy. In the instant case, petitioners produced Ex.P.2 i.e., SCCH-11 10 S.C.No.1071/2013 termination notice issued to the respondents on 01.08.2012. Ex.P.3 is return postal cover with an endorsement that, Unclaimed. Unclaimed is a deemed service. The present petition is filed on 07.09.2013 Hence clear 15 days time was given to the respondent to comply with the notice.
10. At this juncture, it is useful to refer the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2008 (1) KLJ 305 (VGK Design and Development Engineering (P) Ltd., Bangalore V/s H.N.Narayana Reddy) wherein it is held that:
B) GENERAL CLAUSES ACT,1897, Sec. 27 Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Sec.106Notice for termination of tenancyDeemed service of Notice sent by registered post acknowledgment due to proper address, returned undelivered, as "not claimed" by addresseenotice is deemed to have been duly served.
In 2004 (1) KCCR 625 (Chinnathambi V/s N.Veerappa and others) it is held that.
SCCH-11 11 S.C.No.1071/2013
B. TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882Sec.106 Notice terminating tenancy Clear 15 days notice given. Held, valid."
11. In view of the principles enunciated in the above referred decisions, it is clear that the petitioner has validly terminated the tenancy of the respondent by issuing the notice as per law. It is also wellsettled legal principles of law that, instituting of the suit itself is a notice of termination of tenancy U/Sec.106 of Transfer of Property Act. In view of the ratio laid down by the above the question of termination of tenancy pales into insignificance. Considering the same plaintiff has established that, they have complied section 106 of Transfer of Property Act. Hence, service held sufficient. Hence, it shows that the petitioners have issued legal notice to the respondents before filing the suit in compliance of Sec.106 of T.P.Act. Hence, Issue No.2 answered in the Affirmative.
12. Point No.1 & 3 : It is the case of the petitioners that, they are the absolute coowners of suit premises, petitioners SCCH-11 12 S.C.No.1071/2013 jointly purchased the suit site from Jogindar Kaur represented by GPA holder Anwar Sab through a registered sale deed dated 22.06.2011.
13. To show that petitioners are the are absolute owner of the suit schedule property petitioners produced Ex.P.1 Property extract, Ex.P.4 Tax paid receipt and Ex.P.5 original registered sale deed.
14. It is the contention of petitioners that, the respondents are the tenant under the petitioners, after purchasing the property, vendor of the petitioner Sri.Jogindar Kaur attorned the ownership in favour of petitioners and informed the same to the respondents. It is the contention of petitioners that they are owner of the suit property by virtue of register sale deed dated 22.06.201. petitioners produced Ex.P.5 original register sale deed. Register sale deed got its own presumptive value under the law. Plaintiff produced Ex.P.5 Registered Sale Deed. Therefore presumptions can be drawn with regard to the SCCH-11 13 S.C.No.1071/2013 execution and validity of the said sale deed as held by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in 2000(3) KLJ S.N.Item No.39 (A.V.Rangacharya and Another V/s. Pillananjippa and another).
"(A) Evidence Act, 1872, Sec.68 Proviso Registration Act, 1908, Sec.17Registered Sale Deed
- Proof of - Registered Instrument itself is proof - It is for party denying its execution to prove his assertion - unless Registered Instrument is set aside in accordance law, validity of registered instrument and purpurt for which it is executed must be upheld by court."
Hence, there is a presumption that a registered document is validly executed. A registered document therefore prima facia would be valid in law.
15. PW.1 deposed in his evidence that, respondents were tenant under their previous vendors and use to pay monthly rent of Rs.4,000/ and has deposited interest free refundable security of Rs.20,000/. Before purchase of suit schedule premises vendor of the petitioner informed the respondents and SCCH-11 14 S.C.No.1071/2013 also endorsed the transfer of ownership in their favour and accordingly respondents agreed to pay monthly rents to petitioners. But respondents not paid the rents to the petitioners. Now the petition premises is required for their own us and occupation, they requested the respondent to vacate the suit premises, but respondents failed to vacate the petition schedule premises.
16. PW.1 subjected to cross examination, deposed that as the respondent no.1 is his sister in law hence rent deed not executed between them, PW.1 admitted that, they have not produced any document to show that, the respondents are tenant under the petitioners. It is denied suggestion that, erstwhile owner Sri.Jogender Kour sold the suit property through his GPA holder and with affidavit to first respondent on 07.03.1997 for consideration of Rs.85,000/ and the Power of attorney executed by Sri.Jogender Kour in favour of Sri.Anwar Sab was canceled and hence the said Sri.Anwar Sab has no SCCH-11 15 S.C.No.1071/2013 rights to sale the suit property.
17. This is suit for eviction, hence, the burden is on the petitioners to prove they are the owners of suit schedule property and the respondents are tenant under the petitioners. To prove that, they are the owners of suit schedule property, petitioners produced original sale deed.
18. But in the present case, the respondents denied the jural relationship of landlord and tenant and also denied the title of the suit proeprty. This is the court of small causes and the scope of small causes court is very limited. This court cannot decide the dispute of title. This court being a rent court, is require to adjudicate the jurisdictional fact, like relationship of landlady and tenant, therefore, this court is having jurisdiction to adjudicate the same. At the same time, the law is well settled that if really the dispute is complicated, perhaps involving the dispute of title, or otherwise, the relationship of landlord and tenant is raising the serious dispute, where this SCCH-11 16 S.C.No.1071/2013 court may not obtain the jurisdiction to a adjudicate the said dispute except referring the parties to approach civil court for the adjudication for their dispute of title of the parties U/s.43 to refer matter to civil court. It is held by Hon'ble court in KAR HC 2007(6) KAR LJ 125, between Ashok Kumar Vs. Sri.Ananda Vadivellu (Raju), wherein it is held that: Ratio Decidend:
"If once the relationship has been disputed by the tenant and denied the existence of relationship of land lord and tenant between the parties, it is duty of the Court below to follow the mandatory provisions of the Rent Act.".
"The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that, petitioner has filed an application under section Karnataka Rent Act, 1999 before the Trial Court, in HRC No.298/2006, seeking appropriate relief to further proceedings and to direct the petitioners therein to approach the competent court of civil jurisdiction declaration of their rights, on the ground that, he is disputing the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. The Trial Court after hearing both sides, has rejected the I.A.No.V filed by petitioner in HRC No.298/2006 holding that, respondents herein have prima facie produced documents to show that schedule property is SCCH-11 17 S.C.No.1071/2013 transfered in their names and respondents therein have got opportunity to rebut the presumption and this a mixed question of law and fact which requires the evidence and opined that the said application filed by petitioner is not maintainable, when the matter is at the stage of recording the evidence of parties."
"After careful perusal of the impugned order passed by the Trial Court on I.A. It is manifest on the face of the order that the Trial Court has committed a grave error and material irregularity in passing the said order, without assigning and valid reasons for rejecting the application filed by petitioner herein, except making a reference that, prima - facie respondents herein have produced the documents to show that the schedule property is transfered in their favour and the petitioner herein has got opportunity to rebut the presumption and the said application is not maintainable at the stage when the matter is posted for recording the evidence. The said reasoning given by the Trial Court for rejecting the application filed by petitioner cannot be sustained, in view of non following the ingredients of Section 43 of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999. The Trial Court has not appreciated the stand taken by petitioner as well as the respondents in their written statements filed and in view of the well settle preposition of law laid down by this court that, if once the relationship has been disputed by the tenant and denied the existence of relationship of land lord and tenant between the parties, it is duty of the Court below to follow the mandatory provisions of the Rent Act, and after SCCH-11 18 S.C.No.1071/2013 considering the stand taken by both the parties and after appreciation of relevant materials available on file dand then proceed with the matter in strict compliance of the relevant provisions of the Act. But in the instant case, the Court below has not strictly followed section 43 and it has proceeded to dismiss the application without testifying the objections raised by petitioner in their application. The impugned order passed by Court below cannot be sustained, in view of non consideration of the mandatory provisions of the rent act."
In the decision reported in MANU/KA/0796/2002:
ILR 2003 KAR 4255 (Ayesha Begum V. Shahzadi) wherein this court took into consideration the provisions of Section 43 of the 1999 Act, wherein there was concurrent findings by both the Courts below in favour of the tenant and it is held by this Court that Section 43 makes it mandatory for the Court to stop all further proceedings and direct the parties to approach the competent Court of Civil jurisdiction for declaration of their rights. He also relied upon the decision reported in ILR 2007 KAR 374 (R. Abbaiah Reddy and Ors. V. Udaya Chandra) wherein the jural relationship of landlord and tenant was disputed and both the courts below dismissed the petition and this court held that there was a complicated dispute regarding the title and it directed the parties to approach the competent civil court for declaration of their rights.
19. So now, as could be seen from the provisions of SCCH-11 19 S.C.No.1071/2013 section 43, it reads:
"Admittedly, there is no written agreement of lease between the parties and also there is no rent receipt, i am of the opinion that there is a civil dispute which cannot be determined under the provisions of the Act of 1999 by adopting summary procedure.
The proof of the relationship of landlord and tenant is not a matter of presumption and there must be positive evidence to prove the same. No doubt, there is some inconsistency so far as the sale consideration is concerned, but it is for the Civil Court to take into consideration the same and decide the validity of the agreement of sale.
So ultimately, the only course left open to this Court is to have the recourse to the provisions of Section 43 of the Act of 1999 and to direct the parties to approach the Civil Court for declaration of their rights. In view of the fact that already the parties are before the Civil Court to different litigations, the findings will have to attain finality.
Taking into consideration the appreciation of the materials on record by the trial court and also the Revisional Court, i do not find any such grounds to set aside the findings. In that view of the matter to prove the jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, they have to get a declaration from the Civil Court.
Though the provisions of Section 43 Clause (b) provides that the Courts shall at once stop all SCCH-11 20 S.C.No.1071/2013 further proceedings before it and direct the parties to approach the competent Civil Court for declaration of their rights, as the parties are already before the Civil Court, they can seek the relief before the said Courts and in case, if they need an order of this Court after the termination of the proceedings in the Civil Cases, they are at liberty to approach this court and to reopen these proceedings. In that view of the matter, i answer Point No.1 - directing the parties to get the declaration from the Civil Court, Point No.2 - reserving a right to the parties to approach this Court after the termination of the proceedings in the Civil Court, if they require;
Order - The revision petition is disposed of by stopping all further proceedings in this court and directing the parties to get declaration of their rights in the competent court of civil jurisdiction and reserving them a right to approach this court after the termination of the proceedings in the civil court, if they need an order of this court".
20. in the present case respondent disputed the relationship of land lord and tenant as well as title of the suit property. Admittedly, this court being the small cause court cannot adjudicate and try upon the dispute involving the title and hence suit has to be dismissed or direct the parties under SCCH-11 21 S.C.No.1071/2013 section 43 to approach proper civil court. Section 16 of Karnataka Small Causes Act deal with return of plaint.It is held in decision Mubarak Ali V/s IV Addl. District Judge, Gorakpur, reported in 1991(1) CRC 275 at pat 277, wherein it is held that:
"while dealing with section 23 of Provincial Small Causes Court act, which is similar to that of section 16 of Karnataka Small Causes Courts act, it is held that the Section confers on the court of small causes a discretion either to decide the question of title or not at its option. It is not to act under the section and return the plaint."
21. In the decision of Narayan V/s Balaji reported in ILR 21 Bom 246 it is held that:
"By virtue of the bare fact that a question of title arises in the suit, it does cease to be cognizable by a court of Small Causes court. All that the section does is to point out a course which the court may adopt when it is of the opinion that it cannot conveniently try such question as small causes court."
22. In the same manner, it is held in decision of Lahbu Ram V/s Mool Chand reported in AIR 1921 Lah 91 Patna SCCH-11 22 S.C.No.1071/2013 that:
"A question title to immovable property can no doubt be decided incidentally by a small causes court, but section 23 clearly gives the court a discretion in cases in which the right of the plaintiff dependents upon the proof or disproof of the title to the immovable property or other title which the court cannot finally determine, to return the plaints."
23. In the same manner in decision of Shankar Shai V/s Prabhu Dayal reported in AIR 1934 All pat 696 it is held "where the plea of title set up by the defendant is not bonafide or where the court of small causes court considers that it is not necessary to decide the question of title, it will not return the plaint." Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court also in Budhu Mal V/s Mahabir Prasad reported in 1988(2) ARC 260(SC) has expressed the same opinion. However, it is pertinent to note that as per the ruling reported in ILR 1987 KAR 3464 (Pratapsingh V/s Jaibunissa Begum) held that "if the question of title is complicated one and it is raised with bonafide intention, then court has to return the plaint. In the same SCCH-11 23 S.C.No.1071/2013 judgment, it is also laid down that whether a question of title raised by the defendant is complicated one or not and whether it is bonafide or not will be a mixed question of fact and law and to decide it the court has to consider the nature of plea, facts giving raise to such plea, genuineness of plea, material placed by the parties and various circumstances of the case." It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Gangabai V/s Chhabuabai reported in (1982) 1 SCC 4 that "when finding as to the title to immovable property is rendered by a court of small causes, resjudicata cannot be pleaded as a bar in a subsequent suit in respect the same immovable property. In order operate as resjudicate, the finding must be one disposing of a matter directly and substantially in issue in the former suit and issue should have been heard and finally decided by the court trying such suit. A matter which is collaterally incidentally in issue, for the purpose of deciding the matter which is directly in issue the case cannot be making on the basis of rejudicate. A SCCH-11 24 S.C.No.1071/2013 question of title in a small cause suit can be regarded as incidental only to the substantial issue in the sit and cannot operate as resjudicata in a subsequent suit in which the question of title is directly raised."
24. From the above discussion and decisions in Para No.25, it is very clear that, it is the discretionary and convenient of the small cause court to decide or not to decide the question of title. However, it is pertinent to note that the small cause court cannot decide the title if it is arisen as main question and grant the relief of title and it can only decide title incidentally and not finally. In the present case there is dispute regarding ownership between petitioners, hence as per provisions of Section 43 Clause direct the parties to approach the competent Civil Court for declaration of their rights, but In the present case, the respondents produced Ex.D.35 Certified Copy of the O.S.No.4343/2019, wherein the petitioners of present case i.e., Ms.Dilshad Begum, Ms.Shamshad Begum and Mr.R.Afroz SCCH-11 25 S.C.No.1071/2013 Pasha, who are the petitioners have filed O.S.No.4343/2019 against the respondents to pass judgment declaring that plaintiffs are absolute joint owner in respect of suit schedule property registered vide Sale Deed dated: 22.06.2011. Hence, the petitioners already approached the Civil Court for declaration of their title. Hence, there is no necessity to direct the parties to return the plaint and direct them to approach Civil Court. Hence before deciding the title of parties in O.S,No.4343/2019 respondents cannot be evicted. Hence, till declare the ownership before the Civil Court, this court cannot direct the respondent for eviction holding that the petitioners are the landlord. Moreover in this case, petitioner not produced any document like Lease Agreement, Rent receipt to show that there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondents. Hence, as the suit is pending between petitioners and respondents for declaration of title at this stage this court cannot held that the petitioners are the absolute owners of suit premises and the respondents are SCCH-11 26 S.C.No.1071/2013 tenant under the petitioners. Hence, respondent cannot be evicted as they are tenant under the petitioners. Petitioners failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and respondents, Hence, as the title is disputed between both parties, this court has no jurisdiction to decide the question of title. Hence, the suit of the petitioners is not maintainable. Hence, petitioners not entitled for relief claimed. Hence, the suit of the petitioner is not maintainable. In the light of the above discussion Point No.1 & 3 in the Negative.
25. POINT No.4: In view of above discussion I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the petitioners is hereby dismissed.
No order for costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the property bearing No.58/2/2, SCCH-11 27 S.C.No.1071/2013 situated at Bommanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, 1st Floor Portion with a super built up area of 7 ½ Sq. and bounded on:
East by: Site No.3
West by: Site No.1
North by: Siddappas property
South by: 25 feet Road.
(Dictated to the stenographer over computer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this 17TH day of April, 2021.) (B.S.RAYANNAWAR) I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 Sri.R.Afroz Pasha PW.2 Sri.H.Anwar Sab DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF: Ex.P.1 Property Extract Ex.P.2 Office Copy of Legal Notice Ex.P.3 Returned Postal Envelope Ex.P.4 Tax Receipt SCCH-11 28 S.C.No.1071/2013 Ex.P.5 Original Registered Sale Deed Ex.P.6 Registered GPA WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT: DW.1 Smt.Gowhar Taj DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT: Ex.D1 Original Power of Attorney Ex.D2 Affidavit Ex.D3 Death Certificate Ex.D4 to 9 6 Gas bills Ex.D10 to 13 4 Water bills Ex.D14 One electricity bill Ex.D15 LIC Reciept Ex.D16 & 17 Election Identity Cards and her daughter Ex.D18 & 19 Aadhaar Card of her and her daughter Ex.D20 Pass book Ex.D21 & 22 Passport of her and her daughter Ex.D23 Gas book Ex.D24 Ration Card Ex.D25 Pass book of India Overseas Bank Ex.D26 to 29 4 Rental Agreements Ex.D30 Gift Deed Ex.D31 'B' Register Extract SCCH-11 29 S.C.No.1071/2013 Ex.D32 11 Tax paid receipts Ex.D33 & 34 Two E.Cs Ex.D35 Signature on Certified copy of O.S.No.4343/19 Ex.D36 Certified copy of Application U/s.80(2)
Ex.D36(a & b) Signatures of 3rd petitioner Ex.D.37 Certified copyof Application U/o.39 Rule 1 & 2 Ex.D.37(a to c) Signatures of 3rd petitioner I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE SCCH-11 30 S.C.No.1071/2013 (Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate Order.) ORDER The suit of the petitioners is hereby dismissed. No order for costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
I ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE SCCH-11 31 S.C.No.1071/2013 DECREE S.C.C.H.No.11 IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT BANGALORE SC.1071/2013 BETWEEN
1. Mrs.Dilshad Begum, W/o.Iqbal Pasha, Aged about 42 years, R/at No.5, Sait Palya, Lingarajapuram, Hennur Main Road, Thomas Town Post, Bangalore560 084.
2. Mrs.Shamshad Begum, W/o.Fayaz Pasha, Aged about 40 years, R/at No.176, 3rd Cross, 9th Main, N.R.Layout, Bommanahalli, Bangalore560 068.
3. Mr.R.Afroz Pasha, S/o.Late Rahim Sab, R/at Opp. Satish Bar, Begur Church Road, Bangalore560 068.
(By Sri.M.S....., Advocate) ....Petitioners. AND SCCH-11 32 S.C.No.1071/2013
1. Mrs.Gowhar Taj, W/o.Late Ali Jan, Aged about 40 years.
2. Mrs.Noor Fathima, D/o.Late Ali Jan, Aged about 18 years, Respondents No.1 & 2 Are residing at No.58/2/2, 1st Floor, Bommanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore560 068.
(By Sri.S.K.P.......... Advocate)
2. Mrs.Noor Fathima, D/o.Late Ali Jan, Aged about 18 years, Respondents No.1 & 2, Are residing at No.58/2/2, 1st Floor, Bommanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore560 068.
(By Sri.M.S...Advocate) .....Respondents.
Claim: Suit filed on prays for directing
defendants to pay a sum of Rs. with interest at
% , costs and such other reliefs.
SCCH-11 33 S.C.No.1071/2013
This suit coming on for final disposal before
Smt.B.S.Rayannawar, I Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore, in the presence of Sri/Smt. Advocate, for the plaintiff and Sri/Smt Advocate, for the defendants.
ORDER The suit of the petitioners is hereby dismissed. No order for costs.
SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the property bearing No.58/2/2, situated at Bommanahalli Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, 1st Floor Portion with a super built up area of 7 ½ Sq. and bounded on:
East by: Site No.3
West by: Site No.1
North by: Siddappas property
SCCH-11 34 S.C.No.1071/2013
South by: 25 feet Road.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court this 17th day of April 2021.
ASST.REGISTRAR, Court of Small Causes, Bangalore.
SCCH-11 35 S.C.No.1071/2013MEMORANDUM OF COST INCURRED IN THIS SUIT By the Plaintiff defendants Court fee on plaint Court fee on power Court fee on exhibits Service of process + Postal charges Commissioner's ,fees Pleaders fee Total of Rs.
Amount payable by the defendants to the plaintiff is Rs. Decree Drafted Scrutinised by ASST.REGISTRAR, Court of Small Causes, Decree Clerk Sheristedar Bangalore.