Bangalore District Court
B.V.Dayanand vs Smt.K.Manjula on 28 November, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE
AT BANGALORE [CCH.No.42]
PRESENT: SRI.BASAVARAJ B.COM., LL.M.
XLI Addl. City Civil Judge
Dated this the 28th day of November 2017
O.S.No.4479/2012
PLAINTIFF : B.V.Dayanand
S/o K.Viswanatha Swamy
38 years
R/at No.245/B, 3rd Block
4th Stage, Agrahara Dasarahalli
Main Road, Basaveswaranagara
Bangalore-560 079
(By Sri.R.B.S., Advocate)
V/s.
DEFENDANTS : 1. Smt.K.Manjula
W/o K.R.Mukunda
45 years
R/at No.39/26, I 'A' Cross
5th Block, BSK III Stage
3rd Phase
Bangalore-560 085
2. The Commissioner
Bangalore Development Authority
K.P.West
Bangalore-560 020
(D1 By Sri.C.P.P.
D2 By Sri.K.S.G., Advocates)
2 OS No.4479/2012
Date of Institution of the Suit: 25.06.2012
Nature of the suit
(Suit on Pronote, suit for Permanent injunction
declaration & possession, suit
for injunction)
Date of commencement of 27.06.2014
recording of evidence:
Date on which the Judgment 28.11.2017
was pronounced:
Total Duration: Year/s Month/s Day/s
05 05 03
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff filed this suit for permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant, her agents and servants from interfering with his lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment with respect to the suit schedule property, for permanent injunction restraining the 2nd defendant, its agents and officials from executing any title deeds(sale deed or any other deed) in favour of the 1st defendant with respect to the suit schedule property and to pass such other reliefs. 3 OS No.4479/2012
2. The suit schedule property as described in the plaint is as under:-
SCHEDULE Site bearing No.80-D situated at K.P.Agrahara, Division No.21, RPC Layout, Vijayanagara, Bengaluru-40 measuring east to west: (42' 6" + 38'6")/2 and north to south: 40' with 1½ squares shed with AC Sheet roofing and bounded on:
East by : Road
West by : Site No.81-C
North by : C.A.Site
South by : Site No.80-C
3. The plaint averments in brief is as under:
The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he acquired the same under registered sale deed dated 9.7.1985 executed by the President and Secretary of Kalyan Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and since there was some mistake in the sale deed, the society has also executed the Rectification Deed dated 9.7.1995 and the Possession 4 OS No.4479/2012 Certificate was also issued by the said Society in favour of K.H.Parashiva Murthy i.e. the grand father of the plaintiff.
The grand father/donor expired on 2.4.2008 and after the gift deed the khatha of the schedule property has been transferred in the name of the plaintiff. The grand father of the plaintiff by name K.H.Parashiva Murthy was the owner of the suit schedule property since 9.7.1985 and he has executed the registered gift deed in favour of present plaintiff dated 28.9.2007 and since then the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the same is in physical possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and in fact the plaintiff intends to put up residential-cum-commercial building according to the sanctioned plan issued by the BBMP on 19.6.2009.
The 1st defendant has no manner of right, title and interest with respect to the suit schedule property but however she filed a suit against K.H.Parashiva Murthy in OS.7119/1997 on the file of City Civil Judge, Bangalore and during the pendency of the said suit, K.H.Parashiva Murthy 5 OS No.4479/2012 died and no steps were taken by the 1st defendant to prosecute the said suit and consequently the said suit was dismissed on 25.6.2008 and that has become final and conclusive.
The 1st defendant is claiming that she is the owner of the site bearing No.723, RPC Layout (B&ASON Extension) measuring east to west: 40 feet and north to south: 30 feet and that site has nothing to do with the suit schedule property. The site claimed by the 1st defendant is altogether different from the suit schedule property in all respects i.e. measurement, boundaries, site no. etc. The 1st defendant is trying to get the sale deed from the 2nd defendant - BDA with respect to the suit schedule property and when the same came to the notice of the plaintiff, a legal notice dated 29.9.2011 was issued to the 2nd defendant requesting the 2nd defendant not to execute any sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant Smt.K.Manjula, or P.L.V.Reddy with respect to the schedule property and the said legal notice was served on the 2nd defendant. 6 OS No.4479/2012
The officials of the 2nd defendant are colluding with the 1st defendant and trying to execute the sale deed with respect to the schedule property in favour of the 1st defendant though 1st defendant has no manner of right, title and interest in respect to the schedule property, which absolutely belongs to the plaintiff and the 1st defendant is interfering with the plaintiff's lawful and peaceful possession and enjoyment with respect to the schedule property alleging that the 2nd defendant is going to favour her with the sale deed and made an attempt to dispossess the watchman of the plaintiff residing in the suit schedule property on 3.6.2012.
The plaintiff had filed suit in OS.4114/2012 and on account of the technical defect, the same was withdrawn and this court was permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to file the fresh one and accordingly the present suit is filed.
Subsequent to the filing of the suit, there are material changes/subsequent events and the 2nd respondent BDA has modified the layout plan and deleted the alleged site No.80/D 7 OS No.4479/2012 belonging to the plaintiff and in its place mentioned the site No.723, which is claimed by the 1st defendant and this change was made by the 2nd defendant by his order dated 6.3.2014 and aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff and another filed the Writ Petition for quashing the said order and the said Writ Petition was numbered as W.P.No.42535/2014 and during the pendency of the said writ petition, there was an order by the 2nd defendant and cancelled the allotment made in favour of the 1st defendant by executing registered cancellation deed dated 30.12.2014 and therefore it is clear that the 1st defendant has absolutely no manner of right, title and interest claimed by her in her written statement with respect to site No.723 as the allotment by itself is cancelled by execution of a cancellation deed by 2nd defendant. Further on cancellation of the allotment made in favour of the 1st defendant the 2nd defendant has issued a modified layout plan also indicating the site No.80/D in the modified plan and removed the site No.723, which was claimed by the 1st defendant and in view of the said submission made in writing 8 OS No.4479/2012 by the 2nd defendant in W.P.No.42535/2014 (BDA) and the connected one, the writ petition was disposed off. Hence prays to decree the suit.
4. Upon service of summons, the defendant No.1 appeared before the court through his counsel and filed written statement contending that the plaint is manifestly vexatious and merits less in the sense it does not disclose a clear rights to sue. The relief sought for the plaintiff cannot be given and the suit is liable to be dismissed in limine. She is the absolute owner of property bearing No.723 formed by the City of Bangalore Development Authority in Block No.B & A.S.O. Association in the R.P.C.Layout Extension measuring east to west: 40 feet and north to south: 30 feet in all measuring 133.3 square yards.
In the year 1973 the then CITB had acquired certain lands for the formation of the (RPC Layout)and at that point of time the purchasers of the sites in the private layout formed an association called "Bapujinagar and Attipuppe 9 OS No.4479/2012 Extension Site Owners" Association. The said Association on behalf of its members represented to the CITB to allot to the members of the association, sites in private layout, now called as RPC Layout, Vijayanagar. The said representation was accepted by the CITB and CITB fixed the allotment at the rate of Rs.16 per square yard and by taking into consideration the members of association had paid fully consideration, which has been acknowledged by the CITB.
Later on the CITB was amalgamated as present BDA. The said BDA had issued a letter to the 1st defendant and 1st defendant as one of the member of the "Bapujinagar and Attiguppe Extension Site Owners" Association paid full consideration to the BDA and the said BDA has executed a lease cum sale agreement in favour of the 1st defendant in the year 1991 and also issued possession certificate in favour of 1st defendant. The 1st defendant right from that day is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property without any hindrance.
10 OS No.4479/2012
For the first time in the year 1997 one K.H.Parashiva Murthy had interfered with his peaceful possession and enjoyment for which he was restrained to file a suit for bare injunction against him before the Civil Court in OS.7119/2007 and during the pendency of the said suit the said defendant had passed away and same was reported before the court and said suit was abetted on 25.6.2008.
The 1st defendant had filed a WP.21534/2009 against the 2nd respondent seeking direction for getting sale deed executed in favour of 1st defendant and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka under order dated 31.8.2010 directed the BDA to execute the sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant, accordingly the 2nd respondent has issued a letter to the 1st defendant for which the 1st defendant has produced all the documents before the 2nd defendant and the same is pending for further action.
The 2nd defendant have issued a letter dated 18.6.2012 to the 1st defendant to produce all the documents so that they can execute the sale deed as per the directions of High Court 11 OS No.4479/2012 in WP.No.21534/2009 in its order dated 31.8.2010, this plaintiff who come to know about the said development just to harass the defendant No.1 and to misguide the defendant No.2 not to execute the sale deed in favour of the defendant no has filed this suit to harass the defendant No.1.
The plaintiff by suppressing the material facts has filed the present suit without disclosing the proper site number, dimension, which prevails as property bearing No.723, 7th main Road, B & A.S.O. Layout, Hampi Nagar, R.P.C.Layout, Bangalore and same is within the knowledge of the plaintiff as he has filed written statement and other applications and objections in OS.7119/1997 by stating that the property of the plaintiff and defendant are different and same does not tally to the present prevailing site. As per the contention of the grand father of the plaintiff, the property of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 are different and how come there is any interference caused by the defendant No.1 to the property of the plaintiff.
12 OS No.4479/2012
This court before this court is nothing but disobeying the orders and directions passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition and for this serious action should be taken against the plaintiff. After verifying with the 2nd respondent officials she came to know that the suit schedule property is entirely different from that of her site No.723.
The schedule property as mentioned by the plaintiff in the present suit is not in existence and same is the creation of the plaintiff. The defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing No.723, 7th Main Road, B & A.S.O. Layout, Hampi Nagar, R.P.C. Layout, Bangalore by paying necessary tax to the concerned authority till date.
She had originally purchased the site from Papaiah dated 19.7.1990, who was the land owner and later as the defendant No.1 has paid the charges to the 2nd defendant, they have allotted the said site No.723 to the defendant No.1 in the year 1991 vide allotment letter dated 7.3.1991 and later the 2nd defendant have executed the lease cum sale agreement in favour of the 1st defendant on 22.3.1991 and 13 OS No.4479/2012 later have issued the possession certificate to the 1st defendant on 24.3.1991. From that date she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of her property.
The plaintiff's grand father had been giving trouble to him for no reasons and hence she had filed the suit in OS.7119/1997 this after the demise of the grand father of the plaintiff died came to be abated.
As per the plan approved to the Kalyan Co-operative Housing Society by the 2nd defendant in resolution No.192 dated 14.4.1976 there no such sites as 77A, 77B, 77C, 80B, 80C, 80D, 81A, 81B, 81C and 81D. As per this record of the 2nd defendant it shows that there is no site existing as the plaintiff, who is claiming that the site No.80D belongs to him, which is also the suit schedule property. The grand father of the plaintiff has falsely created the said site by his own and hence he was creating the problems from then and now the plaintiff is doing the same. As there is existence of the suit schedule property as per the records of the defendant No.2, 14 OS No.4479/2012 then the matter of interfering with the said property does not arise.
The defendant No.1 has constructed a shed and compound wall to the above said property and defendant is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. The defendant No.2 filed written statement contending that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable, it is barred by limitation. Before allotment, the possession certificate has been issued in favour of the plaintiff by the Kalyan Co-operative Society and the delay in executing the rectification deed also. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. This defendant has no knowledge in respect of sale deed executed by the President and Secretary of Kalyan Co-operative Society and also executed Rectification Deed and possession certificate issued in favour of K.H.Parashivamurthy. This defendant has no knowledge that the 1st defendant filed the suit against 15 OS No.4479/2012 K.H.Parashivamurthy in OS.7119/1997 and it has been dismissed on 25.6.2008. She is the owner of the site bearing No.723 situated at RPC Layout is true. Further, the plaintiff has to prove the differentiation of the site No.80D and 723. The Hon'ble High Court in W.P.No.21534/2009 filed by the 1st defendant against the 2nd defendant BBMP and the Hon'ble Court made an order and consider the 1st defendant representation dated 5.2.2007 and six weeks time has been granted to consider the 1st defendant representation. The list of Allotties of 42 persons had questioned before the Hon'ble High Court in WP.No.9049/2008 clubbed with other writ petitions, a common order has been passed and as per the direction, the BDA has passed a Resolution to collect the necessary fees and execute the sale deed in favour of the true persons for the above said findings the 2nd defendant executed the sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
16 OS No.4479/2012
6. On the basis of the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues have been framed by my learned predecessor in office:-
1) Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession over the schedule property?
2) Does he prove the alleged obstruction of the defendants?
3) Whether defendant No.1 proves that plaintiff has no cause of action to sue defendants and his plaint is liable to be rejected u/O 7 Rule 11 of CPC?
4) Whether plaintiff is entitle for the relief sought for?
5) What order and decree?
7. The plaintiff in order to prove the case examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.16. The power of attorney holder of 1st defendant examined himself as DW1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to D.4.
8. Heard the arguments and perused the records of the case.
17 OS No.4479/2012
9. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 & 2 : In the affirmative
Issue No.3 : In the negative
Issue No.4 : In the affirmative
Issue No.5 : As per the final order, for
the following;
REASONS
10. ISSUE No.1 to 3:- Since these Issues are
interconnected hence they are taken up together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
11. It is the case of the plaintiff that the Kalyan Co- Operative Housing Society Limited allotted the suit schedule property in favour of his grand father by name K.H.Parashivamurthy and it executed registered sale deed dated 9.71985 and accordingly he became the absolute owner in physical possession and enjoyment of the same. The said 18 OS No.4479/2012 K.H.Parashivamurthy gifted the suit schedule property in his favour under gift deed dated 28.9.2007 and thereafter katha was transferred in his name. The 1st defendant has no manner of right, title and interest over the suit schedule property filed OS.7119/1997 against the said K.H.Parashivamurthy and during the pendency of the suit he died and hence the suit was dismissed. The 1st defendant is claiming that she is the owner of Site bearing No.723, RPC Layout (B & ASON Extension) measuring 40 X 30 feet and that site is nothing to do with the suit schedule property and the same is all together different from the suit schedule property but he is trying to get the sale deed from the 2nd defendant with respect to the suit schedule property and hence he has got issued legal notice dated 29.9.2011 to the 2nd defendant requesting him to not execute sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant or P.L.V.Reddy. The defendant No.1 interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property alleging that the 2nd defendant is going to execute sale deed in his favour and made an attempt to 19 OS No.4479/2012 dispossess the watchman of the plaintiff on 3.6.2012. Subsequent to the filing of the suit there are material changes/subsequent events and the 2nd defendant has modified the layout plan and deleted the suit schedule property and in its place mentioned the Site No.723, which is claimed by 1st defendant as per the order of the 2nd defendant dated 6.3.2014 and aggrieved by the same he has filed WP.No.42535/2014 for quashing the said order and during the pendency of the Writ Petition the 2nd defendant cancelled the allotment made in favour of the 1st defendant by executing registered cancellation deed dated 30.12.2014 and therefore 1st defendant absolutely no manner of right, title and interest over the suit schedule property and the 2nd defendant also issued modified layout plan undertaking that the suit schedule property in the modified plan and removed the Site No.723 and accordingly the WP.No.42535/2014 (BDA) was disposed off. In support of his case the plaintiff produced as many as 16 documents. Ex.P.1 is sale deed dated 9.7.1985, Ex.P.2 is rectification deed dated 5.7.1995, 20 OS No.4479/2012 possession certificate, khatha certificate and property tax challan of BDA shows that the grand father of the plaintiff by name K.H.Parashivamurthy was allotted the suit schedule property by the Kalyan Co-operative Housing Society Limited and possession was handed over to him and accordingly the khatha was made in his name and he paid the property tax. Ex.P.6 is gift deed dated 28.9.2007, Ex.P.7 khatha certificate and Ex.P.9 tax paid receipts shows that the grand father of the plaintiffs K.H.Parashivamurthy gifted the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly the khatha was transferred in his name and he paid tax. Ex.P.10 is approved plan issued by BDA, which discloses the existence of the suit schedule property. Ex.P.11 is the proceedings of the BDA dated 17.7.2013 discloses that in the meeting of the BDA the proposal for including the Site No.723 and other sites in the plan were rejected. Ex.P.12 is c/c of the order sheet in OS.7119/1997 shows that the because of the death of the grand father of the plaintiff the suit was dismissed as the right to sue does not survive. Ex.P.13 is c/c of the order 21 OS No.4479/2012 in WP.No.50459/2012(BDA), which shows that the defendant No.1 filed the same against the defendant No.2 to direct the BDA to execute the sale deed with respect to Site No.723 and the same was disposed off directing to approach Civil Court. Ex.P.14 is certified copy of the orders in WP.No.42536/2014 (BDA) connected with WP.No.42535/2014(BDA), which were filed by one B.V.Sharada and the plaintiff and Ex.P.15 is c/c of the memo filed in those connected petitions discloses that the BDA deleted the Site No.723 and other sites as they are not unavailable for allotment and taken possession to restore the suit schedule property in the original layout plan of RPC Layout. The Ex.P.16 is the approved plan, which discloses the suit schedule property.
12. It is the case of the defendant No.1 that the plaint does not disclose cause of action and she is the absolute owner of the site bearing No.723 formed by BDA in Block No.B and ASON Association in RPC Extension measuring 40 X 30 feet in the year 1973, the then CITB has acquired 22 OS No.4479/2012 certain lands for formation of RPC Layout and at that point of time purchasers of the sites in the private layout formed an association called "Bapujinagar and Attipuppe Extension Site Owners" Association and it represented to the CITB to allot the sites to its members in RPC Layout and said representation was accepted by the CITB and CITB has allotted the sites and later on CITB was amalgamated as present BDA and it executed a lease cum sale agreement in favour of the 1st defendant in the year 1991 and also issued possession certificate in favour of her and thereby she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. In the year 1997 the grand father of the plaintiff had interfered with her peaceful possession and enjoyment and for that she filed OS.7119/2007 and during the pendency of the said suit the he passed away and hence the suit was abated. She filed WP.21534/2009 against the 2nd defendant directing him to execute the sale deed and the same was allowed and then the 2nd defendant issued letter to her to produce all the documents and the same is pending. The plaintiff by 23 OS No.4479/2012 suppressing the material facts filed present suit without disclosing the proper Site number and dimension and the suit schedule property is not in existence and the same is creation of the plaintiff. As per the approved plan of Kalyan Co- operative Housing Society, there is no site No.80D and other sites. In support of her case, the defendant No.1 produced Ex.D.1 to D.4. Since the defendant No.4 did not tender herself for cross-examination, hence her examination-in-chief was expunged and thereby there is no evidence of the defendant No.1 on record. The learned Advocate appearing for the defendant No.1 cross-examined the PW1 as contended by the defendant No.1 in her written statement and the same was denied by him.
13. It is the case of the defendant No.2 that the defendant No.1 is the owner of the Site No.723 situated at RPC Layout. The plaintiff has to prove differentiation of the Site No.80/D and 723. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP.No.21534/2009 directed him to consider the 24 OS No.4479/2012 representation of the 1st defendant dated 5.2.2007. List of 42 allottees had questioned before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP.9049/2008 clubbed with other Writ Petitions and common order has been passed and as per direction the BDA passed resolution to collect necessary fees and to execute the sale deed in favour of the true purchasers. The defendant has not entered into witness box.
14. As stated above, in view of not tendering of the DW1 for cross-examination, the examination-in-chief of her was expunged and the PW1 denied the case of the defendant No.1 during the course of cross-examination. So, also the defendant No.2 has not examined any of the officials on his behalf and the cross-examination on behalf of him was denied by the PW1. There is no rebuttal evidence on behalf of the defendants. The case of the plaintiff goes unchallenged and his case has to be accepted in toto. There is no reason to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff.
25 OS No.4479/2012
15. From the oral evidence of PW1 and Ex.P.1 to P.16, it is very clear that the suit schedule property was allotted by the Kalyan Co-operative Housing Society Limited in favour of the grand father of the plaintiff by name K.H.Parashivamurthy and the said K.H.Parashivamurthy executed gift deed in favour of the plaintiff on 9.7.1985. The 1st defendant claimed to be the owner of Site bearing No.723 of RPC Layout and tried to get the sale deed from the 2nd defendant with respect to the suit schedule property and the plaintiff filed WP.42535/2014, wherein the defendant No.2 submitted before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka for cancellation of deed with respect to Site No.723 and removed the same from the modified plan and shown the suit schedule property in it and thereby the claim of the defendant No.1 over the suit schedule property and the intention of the defendant No.2 to execute any deed with respect to the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.1 is negatived by the order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the plaintiff is in lawful possession over the suit schedule property and 26 OS No.4479/2012 the 1st defendant tried to dispossess the watchman of the plaintiff, who is residing in the suit schedule property and the 2nd defendant is going to favour the defendant No.1 with respect to the execution of sale deed. So, the defendants caused obstruction to the lawful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Since the defendant No.1 tried to dispossess the watchman of the plaintiff and hence it is the cause of action for the plaintiff to sue her and she has not shown that the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
16. From the discussions made above, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff proved his lawful possession over the suit schedule property and the alleged obstruction by the defendants and the defendant No.1 failed to prove that the plaintiff has no cause of action to sue her and defendant No.2 and plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. Hence, Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative and Issue No.3 is answered in the negative. 27 OS No.4479/2012
17. ISSUE NO.4: In view of my findings on Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and in favour of the plaintiffs and Issue No.3 in the negative, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1 from interfering with his lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from executing any sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant with respect to the suit schedule property. So, Issue No.4 is answered in the affirmative.
18. ISSUE NO.5:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs.
The defendant No.1 is permanently restrained from interfering with lawful and 28 OS No.4479/2012 peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.
The defendant No.2, its agents and
officials are permanently restrained from
executing any title deeds (Sale deed or any other deed) in favour of the 1st defendant with respect to the suit schedule property.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the judgment writer on computer, thereafter corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 28th day of November 2017).
( BASAVARAJ ) XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
P.W.1 B.V.Dayanand
b) Defendant's side:
29 OS No.4479/2012
D.W.1 : K.R.Mukunda
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P.1 Sale deed dated 9.7.1985
Ex.P.2 Rectification Deed dated 5.7.1995
Ex.P.3 Possession Certificate dated 1.8.1993
Ex.P.4 Khatha letter issued by BDA
Ex.P.5 Challan cum receipt
Ex.P.6 Gift deed dated 28.9.2007
Ex.P.7 Khatha Certificate
Ex.P.8 Certificate issued by BMP
Ex.P.9 Property tax receipt
Ex.P.10 Approved blue sketch
Ex.P.11 Letter with meeting proceedings
Ex.P.12 C/c of order sheet in OS.7119/1997
Ex.P.13 Order copy in W.P.50459/2012
dated 1.3.2013
Ex.P.14 & 15 Order and memo in
W.P.No.42535/2014
Ex.P.16 Modified layout plan
30 OS No.4479/2012
b) Defendant's side :
Ex.D.1 Notarized copy of General Power of
Attorney
Ex.D.2 C/c of lease cum sale deed executed
by BDA in favour of 1st defendant
Ex.D.3 Endorsement given by the BDA
asking to furnish original documents
Ex.D.4 C/c of cancellation deed executed by
BDA
( BASAVARAJ )
XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE
BANGALORE
31 OS No.4479/2012