Bangalore District Court
K.A.Thomas vs Ganeshwar S.L on 31 March, 2022
KABC010118012020
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT
BENGALURU
Dated this the 31st day of March, 2022.
PRESENT: SRI. SATHISHA L.P., B.A.,LL.B.,
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH.No.27), BENGALURU
O.S.No.3145/2020
PLAINTIFF : K.A.Thomas
S/o K.V.Abrham,
aged about 63 years,
R/at No. 886, A Type Quarters,
II stage, Austin Town,
Bangalore - 560047.
(By J.A.K., Advocate)
VS.
DEFENDANT : Ganeshwar S.L.,
S/o Late L.Surendra,
aged about 43 years,
R/at No. 14, II cross,
Gopalappa layout,
2
H.R.Palya, Bangalore - 32.
(By J.C.K., Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit : 08-07-2020
Nature of the suit : Specific Performance
Date of commencement of : 03-03-2021
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 31-03-2022
was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
01 08 23
(SATHISHA L.P.)
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff is before the court against the defendant to execute the registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule property within a specific time. In the event of failure on the part of defendant to execute the registered sale deed to appoint court commissioner to execute the sale deed, for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant / anybody claiming through him from interfering with peaceful possession of the suit schedule property for cost and such other reliefs. 3
2. The gist of the plaintiff case is that, father of the defendant Mr.L.Suresndra son of late Narayana Rao was allotted of flat No. 886, situated at Austin Town, II stage, Bangalore as per allotment letter dated 05-06-1980 by the BDA, thereby possession was handed over. The BDA in its first instance executed lease-cum-sale-agreement in favour of the allottee. In the said document there was a condition of non alienation of the suit schedule property for a period of 20 years. However the father of the plaintiff was in financial crisis and he wanted to dispose of the suit schedule property. Thereafter he has entered into an agreement of sale dated 07-06-2000 with the plaintiff agreeing to sell the schedule property for a consideration of Rs. 2,45,000/- and has received entire sale consideration and in the clause No. 4 of the agreement he has stated that he will execute the registered sale deed once the BDA executes, absolute sale deed in his favour. Further the father of the defendant the allottee of the suit schedule property on 15-04-2005 executed registered power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff authorizing him to work, manage, let out, received 4 the advance amount and collect the rent from tenants and pay taxes to the BBMP, and thereby plaintiff was put in possession of the schedule property. The power of attorney coupled with interest on the agreement of sale dated 07-06-2000. The plaintiff was under the bonafide impression that father of the plaintiff will execute title deed in his favour i.e., after the execution of sale deed BDA. However father of the defendant i.e., Surendra died in the year 2016 and lease-cum-sale- agreement came to end in the year 1998 and the joint secretary
-4 BDA on 06-05-2020 executed registered sale deed in favour of the defendant in respect of the suit schedule property which was registered. Thereafter the defendant has issued legal notice to the tenants who are in occupation of the suit schedule property under the plaintiff and legal notice dated 12-06-2020 is suitable replied by the tenants on 22-06-2020. it is there the plaintiff came to know about the demise of original grantee father of the defendant Mr.L.Surendra. and on further enquiry the plaintiff came to know that after completion of the lease period BDA has executed registered sale deed in favour of the 5 defendant in respect of suit property as the legal representative of the allottee. In view of condition of non alienation lease-cum- sale-agreement the father of the defendant was unable to execute the absolute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. On the other hand he has received the entire sale consideration amount from the plaintiff and executed the agreement of sale on 07-06-2000 virtually it is a nominal sale deed. Pursuant to the said agreement of sale plaintiff has constructed the building with ground floor, 1st and 2nd floor and let out same to different tenants. Subsequent events the father of the defendant on 15- 04-2005 has also executed registered power of attorney in favour of plaintiff authorising him to let out premises and collect rent, advances and to pay the tax and thereby plaintiff continued to be in possession of the suit schedule property.
3. The agreement of the sale dated 07-06-2000 entered into by the plaintiff and father of the defendant is binding on the defendant as he is the legal heir, instead of calling upon the plaintiff to execute the sale deed in his favour in respect of suit schedule property the defendant is trying to 6 take possession suit schedule property. The address mentioned in the absolute sale deed dated 06-05-2020 by the BDA in favour of defendant clearly shows that defendant is residing at No. 14, 2nd cross, Gopalappa Layout, M.R.Palya, Bangalore
-32. Plaintiff has executed lease deed in favour of tenants clearly shows plaintiff is in possession of the schedule property. The power of attorney executed by father of defendant is coupled with interest. Since father of defendant has received entire sale consideration of Rs. 2,45,000/- from the plaintiff and also on the agreement that he was execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff soon after BDA execute the sale deed in his favour. Thereafter defendant is duty bound to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Hence plaintiff seeks specific performance of contract dated 07-06- 2000.
4. The defendant got issued the legal notice to the tenants on 12-06-2020, thereafter he is trying to interfere to the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. From the date of agreement plaintiff is in peaceful possession and 7 enjoyment and also collecting rents from his tenants, plaintiff is paying electricity bill and tax to the concerned authorities which clearly shows that plaintiff is in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. With the above contentions seeks to decree the suit.
5. The defendant who has appeared before the court has filed the written statement to oppose the claim by contending that, the suit filed by the plaintiff is false, frivolous, vexatious, capricious and not maintainable either on law or facts of the case, hence liable to be dismissed in limine with cost.
6. The father of the defendant was a allottee of flat No. 886 situated at Austin Town, II Stage, Bangalore as per the allotment letter dated 05-06-1980 by the BDA. The father of the defendant never had any financial crises and he never wanted to dispose of the property and never entered into any sort of agreement of sale and never received any amount from the plaintiff. The defendant father and plaintiff were close friends. The defendant father was a drunkard and this plaintiff has taken 8 undue advantage of the defendant father attitude and nature, and used to feed alcohol to the defendant's father and took the papers pertaining to the suit schedule property and created the agreement of sale. The plaintiff gained the trust of defendant father and by misleading took the power of attorney on 15-04-2005 to manage and supervise schedule property. After the death of father of defendant L.Surendra, the defendant requested many times to the plaintiff to handover the suit schedule property but the plaintiff on one or the other pretext was dragging to handover property to defendant. Hence by seeing attitude the defendant caused legal notice 12-06-2020 to the tenants to vacate the houses. The suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff has taken the advantage of the defendant father innocence and has created sale agreement and has suppressed material fact. The defendant however states that the property is 74.31 sq.mtrs and not 358 sq.ft., as mentioned in the schedule. It is also to be noted that khatha extract 03-01-2006 and BBMP Assessment 31-07-2006 it is mentioned as 756 sq.ft., The plaintiff by suppressing material 9 facts and has not come to the court with clean hands, the plaintiff in order to knock off valuable property has created agreement of sale. The plaintiff does not know how much area of sq.ft. the property has. The plaintiff mentioned in the plaint schedule is different and the schedule in agreement different. Plaintiff by seeing his sale deed schedule executed by BDA, the has incorporated in the plaint schedule. "Measuring total extent of 358 sq.ft., consisting of 74.31 sq.mtrs of building". Actually built up area is 2100 sq.ft., and not 74.31 sq.mtrs. This itself shows that the plaintiff has approached this court with malafide intention and to make unlawful money and to knock of the valuable property. Hence plaintiff is not entitled for any reliefs as claimed and suit is liable to be dismissed in limine. With these and other contentions seeks to dismiss the suit.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues are framed.
1) Whether plaintiff proves that there is valid agreement of sale of suit schedule property between father of the defendant Late L.Surendra and himself on 07-06-2000? 10
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he has paid entire sale consideration amount under the agreement dated 07-06-
2000?
3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of suit?
4) Whether the plaintiff proves that there is interference by the defendant to his possession?
5) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is always ready and willing to perform his part of contract?
6) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitle for relief of specific performance of contract?
7) What order or decree?
8. To substantiate plaint averment plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 and another witness by name Varghese @ Rajan is examined as P.W.2 and Ex.P.1 to 15 documents are marked. Ex.P.1 is Original agreement of sale dated 07-06-2000, Ex.P.2 is original power of attorney dated 15-04-2005, Ex.P.3 to 13 are electricity bills, Ex.P.14 is photograph, Ex.P.15 is CD.
9. From the defendant side defendant himself is 11 examined as D.W.1 and witness by name Girish.K is examined as D.W.2 and Ex.D.1 to 45 documents are marked. Ex.D.1 is lease cum sale agreement for flats, Ex.D.2 is certified copy of the sale deed, Ex.D.3 is K.A.Thomas letter to Deputy Secretary BDA, Ex.D.4 is certified copy of allotment intimation, Ex.D.5 & 6 are xerox copies of tax paid receipts obtained under RTI, Ex.D.7 to 15 are tax paid receipts, Ex.D.16 & 17 are EC's, Ex.D.18 is notice issued under Section 147 of KMC Act obtained under RTI, Ex.D.19 is khatha certificate obtained under RTI, Ex.D.20 is reply letter issued by BBMP, Ex.D.21 is letter dated 28-02-2013 obtained under RTI, Ex.D.22 acknowledgment issued by BDA obtained under RTI, Ex.D.23 is copy of the GPA holders sign and photograph obtained under RTI, Ex.D.24 & 25 are copies of the affidavit obtained under RTI, Ex.D.26 is copy of the indemnity bond obtained under RTI, Ex.D.27 is copy of the Aadhar card obtained under RTI, Ex.D.28 is copy of the entire order sheet obtained by BDA under RTI, Ex.D.29 is copy of the engineering report obtained under RTI, Ex.D.30 is copy of the endorsement dated 23-03- 12 2020 issued by BDA obtained under RTI, Ex.D.31 is copy of the postal tracking obtained under RTI, Ex.D.32 is copy of death certificate of Surendra, Ex.D.33 is copy of medical case record of Surendra, Ex.D.34 is copy of notice dated 12-02-2020 issued by BDA, obtained under RTI, Ex.D.35 is copy of the challan obtained under RTI, Ex.D.36 is copy of he endorsement issued by BDA dated 25-09-2020, Ex.D.37 to 39 are photographs, Ex.D.40 is CD, Ex.D.41 is certificate under Sec. 65(b) of Evidence Act. Ex.D.42 is certified copy of current account opening form of constructions of K.A.Thomas, Ex.D.43 is certified copy of letter of proprietorship, Ex.D.44 is statement of account of S.L.Constructions from 28-11-1998 to 13-12-2021. Ex.D.45 is certificate U/s 65(b) of Evidence Act.
10. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
11. My finding on the above issues are :-
Issue No.1: In the affirmative Issue No.2: In the affirmative Issue No.3: In the affirmative Issue No.4: In the affirmative Issue No.5: In the affirmative 13 Issue No.6: In the affirmative Issue No.7: As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
12. Issue Nos. 1 & 2 : Issue Nos. 1 & 2 are taken together for common discussion since both issues are interlinked as well as needs common discussion.
13. The plaintiff is before the court for the relief of specific performance of the contract dated 07-06-2000 on the ground that, the suit schedule property was allotted by the BDA in favour of the father of the defendant as per the allotment letter / order dated 05-06-1980 and as there was non alienation for 20 years period, the father of the defendant who was in dire need of the money has offered to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 2,45,000/- on 07- 06-2000 and entire sale consideration has been paid as on the date of agreement of sale and even possession has also delivered and plaintiff by demolishing the structure has put up the building consisting of grounds floor, first floor and second 14 floor and has let out to different tenants and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and even the electricity connection is in the name of plaintiff. Further in continuation of agreement of sale the father of the defendant has also executed a registered GPA dated 15-04-2005 as there was no sale deed in favour of Surendra father of the defendant, he was agreed to execute the sale deed only after the BDA executes the final sale deed in favour of him, thereby entered the agreement as per Ex.P.1.
14. Per contra the defendant who has appeared before the court has filed the written statement by denying and disputing the plaint averments has contended that, there was no need of money for his father and his father who was a drunkard and by taking undue advantage of the same the plaintiff by feeding alcohol took the papers pertaining to the suit schedule property and created agreement of sale and by gaining the trust of the father of the defendant, he by misleading took the power of attorney dated 15-04-2005 to manage and supervise suit schedule property and after the 15 death of his father he requested several times to hand over the possession of suit schedule property to him but he dodged the same, hence he issued the notice to the tenants on 12-06-2020 and thereby he seeks to dismiss the suit.
15. Before the commencement discussion on merits let me consider the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Haryana & Another dated 11-10-2011 in SLP (C) No. 13917 of 2009. Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is considered at length the transactions of GPA, Will and Special Authority etc., In para 2 of the said decision it is held that;
2. The modus operandi in such SA/GPA/WILL transactions is for the vendor or person claiming to be the owner to receive the agreed consideration, deliver possession of the property to the purchaser and execute the following documents or variations thereof:
(a) An agreement of sale by the vendor in favour of the purchaser confirming the terms of sale, delivery of possession 16 and payment of full consideration and undertaking to execute any document as and when required in future.
Or An agreement of sale agreeing to sell the property, with a separate affidavit confirming receipt of full price and delivery of possession and undertaking to execute sale deed whenever required.
(b) An irrevocable General Power of Attorney by the vendor in favour of the purchaser or his nominee authorizing him to manage, deal with and dispose of the property without reference to the vendor Or A General Power of Attorney by the vendor in favour of the purchaser or his nominee authorizing the attorney holder to sell or transfer the property and a Special Power of Attorney to manage the property.
(c) A will bequeathing the property to the purchaser (as a 17 safeguard against the consequences of death of the vendor before transfer is effected.
And it is further held at para 3 This kind of transaction has disastrous collateral effects also. For example, when the market value increases, many vendors (who effected power of attorney sales without registration) are tempted to resell the property taking advantage of the fact that there is no registered instrument or record in any public office thereby cheating the purchaser. When the purchaser under such power of attorney sales comes to know about the vendors action, he invariably tries to take the help of musclemen to sort out the issue and protect his rights. On the other hand, real estate mafia many a time purchase properties which are already subject to power of attorney sale and then threaten the previous Power of Attorney Sale purchasers from asserting their rights. Either way, such power of attorney sales indirectly lead to growth of real estate mafia and criminalization of real estate transactions.
18
And it is further held at para 18
18. We have merely drawn attention to and reiterated the well-settled legal position that SA/GPA/WILL transactions are not transfers or sales and that such transactions cannot be treated as completed transfers or conveyances. They can continue to be treated as existing agreement of sale. Nothing prevents affected parties from getting registered deeds of conveyance to complete their title. The said SA/GPA/WILL transaction's may also be used to obtain specific performance or to defend possession under section 53A of TP Act. If they are entered before this day, they may be relied upon to apply for regularization of allotment/s leases by Development Authorities. We make it clear that if the documents relating to SA/GPA/WILL transactions has been accepted acted upon by DDA or other developmental authorities or by the Municipal revenue authorities to effect mutation, they need not be disturbed, merely on account of this decision.
The said decision is rendered on 11-10-2011 the 19 agreement of sale in this case is dated 07-06-2000 and GPA dated 15-04-2005. Hence this case is squarely covered under the said decision.
16. There is no dispute that suit schedule property was allotted to father of the defendant as per Ex.D.1 i.e., lease cum sale agreement for flats. So on perusal of Ex.D.1 it is clear that, initially father of the defendant I.e, Surendra was treated as lessee of the building and he was permitted to occupy the flat on payment of consideration amount, the said lease is for a particular period. After completion of the said duration an absolute sale deed will be executed by the BDA in favour of the said Surendra. Before execution of absolute sale deed Surendra has entered into agreement of sale on 07-06-2000 for a consideration of Rs. 2,45,000/- and he received the said consideration amount by delivering the property. The said aspect is reflected in Ex.P.1 agreement of sale and put the plaintiff in possession by undertaking to execute the sale deed after the BDA executes the sale deed in his favour. Execution of Ex.P.1 is substantiated by production of Ex.P.2 which is the 20 registered GPA. The signature of the Surendra is not denied by the defendant in his written statement but he has taken a contention that by feeding alcohol the documents have been created by the plaintiff. It is to be noted that Ex.P.1 is dated 07- 06-2000 and Ex.P.2 is dated 15-04-2005 and Surendra died on 09-01-2016 that means to say after lapse of 16 years from the date of Ex.P.1 and 11 years from Ex.P.2. During the lifetime of Surendra never challenged the Ex.P.1 & 2. If at all the contention of the defendant is taken into consideration then definitely Surendra who lived after 16 years from the date of agreement should have challenged both the documents on the ground that he was forced to execute those documents under the intoxication. Apart from that Ex.P.2 is a registered GPA and same cannot be lightly weighed. There is clear reference on receiving the sale consideration amount and handing over of possession and in Ex.P.1. The defendant never taken a definite stand how the possession of the suit schedule property is went to the hand of plaintiff. If at all as contended by him if the documents were manipulated / created under the intoxication of 21 his father then possession cannot be taken under the intoxication if the same is taken definitely it is nothing but throwing him away from the possession of the suit schedule property, in such situation the father of the defendant should have taken some legal steps in recovering the possession. Apart from that the documents produced as per Ex.P.3 to 13 which are the electricity bills and receipts standing in the name of plaintiff. There is no any explanation from the defendant how electricity connection is in the name of plaintiff.
17. On perusal of Ex.D.1 schedule it is clear that BDA has allotted A Type ground floor building constructed at Austin Town, II stage, Bangalore to the possession of father of defendant. The defendant himself has produced photographs as per Ex.D. 37, 38 & 39 which reflects that there is 3 storeyed building is constructed in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has taken a definite stand that he has constructed the 3 storeyed building in the suit schedule property after taking possession from Surendra. When there is clear reference of handing over possession and payment of consideration. I am of 22 the opinion that the plaintiff is able to prove issue Nos. 1 & 2, hence issue Nos. 1 & 2 are answered in affirmative.
18. Issue No. 3: As already we have noticed that plaintiff is before the court for the relief of specific performance of the contract dated 07-06-2000 stated to have been executed by father of the defendant. Though the defendant has disputed the agreement and GPA, this court while answering the issue Nos. 1 & 2 has considered that, the said documents are executed by father of the defendant because the defendant has contended that, the said documents are obtained by plaintiff from his father under the intoxication but father of the defendant never questioned those documents during his lifetime even if he lived for 16 years from the date of agreement. Nowhere in the written statement defendant has taken contention how the possession of the suit schedule property is fallen to the custody of the plaintiff. Mere denial of the documents is not sufficient he should explained how the possession of the property fell to the custody of the plaintiff. However plaintiff claims possession and there is some material and even defendant admits that plaintiff 23 is in possession of the property. Hence this court having no option but to hold possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property is lawful and thereby issue No. 3 is answered in affirmative.
19. Issue No.4: Undisputedly the defendant is claiming the possession from the hands of plaintiff. Claiming possession of the plaintiff is nothing but interference because there is long standing possession of the plaintiff other suit schedule property by virtue of the agreement dated 07-06-2000 which is undisputed by father of the defendant during his lifetime. When the defendant is questioned the possession of the plaintiff over suit schedule property is nothing but interference, hence issue No.4 is answered in affirmative.
20. Issue No.5: Admittedly the suit schedule property was alloted to the father of the defendant by the BDA as per Ex.D.1 and the father of the defendant for his financial crisis has agreed to sell the suit schedule property. And by agreeing he has executed the sale agreement on 07-06-2000 but by the time there was no absolute sale deed by the BDA in 24 favour of father of the defendant, hence he executed the agreement of sale as per the Ex.P.1. There is clear recital in Ex.P.1 regarding the handing over of possession and payment of sale consideration as on the date of agreement. When the plaintiff paid the entire sale consideration as on the date of agreement there nothing remains from the side of plaintiff to perform, hence issue No. 5 has to be answered in affirmative.
21. Issue No.6: This court has already answered that the plaintiff has able to prove there was valid agreement of sale in between himself and father of the defendant and he has also paid the entire sale consideration amount under the said agreement of sale. There was some hurdle to Surendra the father of the defendant to execute the sale deed as there was no absolute sale deed was executed by the BDA in his favour. And he was agreed in the agreement after execution of absolute sale deed in his favour by the BDA he will execute the sale deed but unfortunately before execution of the sale deed in his favour Surendra died. It appears that after the death of 25 Surendra the defendant moved necessary papers before the BDA to get the property in his favour and other family members have also stated no objection to the BDA to execute sale deed in favour of the defendant. The same is reflected in the documents produced by the defendant. Prior to defendant the plaintiff himself has approached the BDA to execute absolute sale deed in his favour by contending that he is the GPA holder of the said property but the BDA after taking legal opinion from its department has opined that as the original allottee Surendra died on 09-01-2016 the GPA executed by him is also terminated automatically and hence same cannot be considered. And in view of the fact that the defendant has submitted necessary application and he being the legal heir his application was considered by the BDA and as per the Ex.D.2 sale deed has been executed in his favour by the BDA and it appears that after the execution of the sale deed from the BDA the defendant has got issued the legal notice to the tenants in the suit premises. It is also noticed that plaintiff has filed necessary objections to the BDA to grant/execute the sale deed in favour 26 of the defendant but as the original allottee died, his objection was not considered by the BDA. Now as the sale deed is executed by the BDA in favour of defendant on the no objection of other family members and he being the legal heir has to execute the promise made by his father. In this situation the Section 43 of Transfer of Property Act will come into the aid of the plaintiff. For the sake of convenience Section 43 is extracted which is as under;
43. Transfer by unauthorised person who subsequently acquires interest in property transferred.- Where a person (fraudulently or) erroneously represents that he is authorised to transfer certain immovable property and professes to transfer such property for consideration, such transfer shall, at the option of the transferee, operate on any interest which the transferor may acquire in such property at any time during which the contract of transfer subsists.
Nothing in this section shall impair the right of transferee in good faith for consideration without notice of the existence of 27 the said option.
22. The defendant being the dutiful son has to perform / carry out obligations of his father under the agreement dated 07-06-2000. The defendant who is prompted by the hike in land value to get the sale deed in his favour from the BDA for the allotment of his father though it was sold/ agreed to be sold by his father during his lifetime under the Ex.P.1 and now the defendant is trying to interfere in the property of plaintiff. This court at the beginning has considered the decision rendered by the Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Haryana and Ors. That is aptly applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case and moreover the Supreme Court itself has clarified that the said decision will not come in the way of earlier transaction and GPA/SA/Will have to be treated as agreement of sale to enforce the same but luckily here in this case there is agreement of sale as per Ex.P.1 executed by original allottee and the same has to be enforced as there was no limitation to the said agreement and limitation started from the date of execution of sale deed by the BDA as per Ex.D.2. In this 28 situation when the plaintiff who has paid entire sale consideration of Rs. 2,45,000/- way back in the year 2000 and who has made huge investment by constructing the 3 storeyed building after demolishing the original structure and he should not be made to suffer, hence issue No.6 is answered in affirmative.
23. Issue No.7: For the above said reasons I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost, The defendant is hereby directed to execute the registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule property on the basis of Ex.P.1 without demanding any further amount within 60 days from the date of judgment.
If the defendant fails to execute the register the sale deed then plaintiff is at liberty to get the sale deed executed through the process of court by enforcing 29 the judgment and decree passed by this court.
Defendant and any person claiming through him hereby restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by plaintiff.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 31 st day of March, 2022.) ( SATHISHA L.P.) XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of flat bearing No. 886, BDA quarters A Type, second stage, Austin Town, Bangalore, measuring total extent of 358 sq.ft., consisting of 74.31 sq.mtrs of building with super built up area, passage, lobby stair case with brick construction red oxide flooring and RCC roofing, bounded by;
30
East by: Flat No. 887 and A20
West by: Road
North by: Flat -A855
South by: Main road and open area.
ANNEXURE
I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff' side :
P.W.1: K.A.Thomas
P.W.2: Varghese @ Rajan
(b) Defendant's side :
D.W.1: Ganeshwar.S.L.
D.W.2: Girish.K.H.
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff' side :
Ex.P.1 Original agreement of sale dated
07.06.2000
Ex.P.2 Original power of attorney dated
15.04.2005
Ex.P.3 Electricity bills
to 13
31
Ex.P.14 Photograph
Ex.P.15 CD
(b) Defendants side :
Ex.D.1: Lease cum sale agreement for flats
Ex.D.2: Certified copy of the sale deed
Ex.D.3: K.A.Thomas letter to Deputy
Secretary BDA
Ex.D.4 Certified copy of allotment intimation
Ex.D.5 Xerox copy of Tax paid receipts
and 6 obtained under RTI
Ex.D.7 to Tax paid receipts
15
Ex.D.16 Encumbrance certificates
and 17
Ex.D.18 Notice issued under section 147 of
KMC Act obtained under RTI
Ex.D.19 Katha certificate obtained under RTI
Ex.D.20 Reply letter issued by BBMP
Ex.D.21 Letter dated 28.02.2013 obtained
under RTI
32
Ex.D.22 Acknowledgment issued by BDA
obtained under RTI
Ex.D.23 Copy of the GPA holders sign and
photograph obtained under RTIs
Ex.D.24 Copy of the affidavit obtained under RTI Ex.D.25 Copy of the affidavit obtained under RTI Ex.D.26 Copy of the indemnity bond obtained under RTI Ex.D.27 Copy of the Aadhar card obtained under RTI Ex.D.28 Copy of the entire order sheet obtained by BDA under RTI Ex.D.29 Copy of the Engineering report obtained under RTI Ex.D.30 Copy of the endorsement dated 23.03.2020 issued by BDA, obtained under RTI Ex.D.31 Copy of the postal tracking obtained under RTI Ex.D.32 Copy of Death certificate of Surendra Ex.D.33 Copy of Medical case record of Surendra 33 Ex.D.34 Copy of the notice dated 12.02.2020 issued by BDA, obtained under RTI Ex.D.35 Copy of the challan obtained under RTI Ex.D.36 Copy of the endorsement issued by BDA dated 25.09.2020 Ex.D.37 Photographs to 39 Ex.D.40 CD Ex.D.41 Certificate under sec.65(b) of Evidence Act Ex.D.42 Certified copy of Current account opening form of Constructions of K.A.Thomas (Original seen and returned to witness) Ex.D.43 Certified copy of letter of proprietorship (Original seen and returned to witness) Ex.D.44 Statement of account of S.L.Constructions from 28.11.1998 to 13.12.2021 Ex.D.45 Certificate U/s65(b) of Evidence Act XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.