Bangalore District Court
Smt.C.R.Rajeshwari vs Sri.Suraj Prakash.B on 16 September, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH.No.27), AT BENGALURU
PRESENT:SRI. SHUBHAVEER B., B.Com.,LL.B.
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017
O.S.No.9166/2015
Plaintiff:- Smt.C.R.Rajeshwari,
w/o. Sri.Shivakumar,
aged about 41 years
r/at. No.M/28,
3rd Main Road,
8th cross Road,
Lakshminarayanapuram,
Bengaluru -21.
(By Sri.M.Ravikumar,
Advocate)
-VS-
Defendants:- 1. Sri.Suraj Prakash.B
s/o. late Byrappa,
aged about 29 years.
2. Smt.Sowmya,
w/o. Sri.Suraj Prakash.B.
aged about 25 years.
2 O.S.No.9166/15
Both are R/at. No.7,
3rd B1 Main Road,
Arogya Badavane,
Annapoorneshwari Nagara
2nd stage, Nagarabhavi,
Vishwaneedam Post,
Bengaluru -91.
3. Sri.S.B.Shivialingaiah,
s/o. late Badre Gowda,
aged about 56 years,
R/at. No.115/116,
4th Cross Road,
1st Main Road,
HVR Badavane,
Magadi Road,
Bengaluru -79.
(Defs.exparte)
Date of Institution of the suit : 05/11/2015
Nature of the suit : Permanent Injunction
Date of commencement of
recording of the evidence : 06/07/2017
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced : 16/09/2017
Total Duration Years Months Days
: 01 10 11
(SHUBHAVEER B.)
XII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
3 O.S.No.9166/15
J U D G M E N T
The above suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction.
2. Defendants 1 to 3 are placed exparte.
3. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are that originally, Sy.No. 36/3, measuring 1 acre 5 guntas, situating at Eraiahnaplaya village, was sold by Muniyamma to Nagappa, as per registered, saledeed, dated 12.11.1963. The said Nagappa executed GPA, in favour of 3rd defendant, dated 27.6.1991 in respect of the said property. The 3rd defendant developed the said area and sold the suit schedule site, bearing gramatana khatha No.892, assessment No.36/3, site No.13/A, measuring East to West 30 ft. and North to South:40 ft., situating at Srigandadakavalu Dakale, Eraiahnaplya village, with specific boundaries, to the plaintiff, as per registered saledeed, dated 29.06.2000. Afterwards, the plaintiff has been the absolute 4 O.S.No.9166/15 owner in possession of the same. She constructed ACC roofed building thereon.
4. The defendants, who have no right, title, or interest, over the same and particularly defendants 1 and 2, on 31.01.2015, tried to interfere with the possession of the suit property by the plaintiff. The defendants are illegally claiming and interfering with the suit schedule property on the basis of the alleged saledeed, dated 17.11.2014. Hence the above suit.
5. From the facts and circumstances of this case, the following points arise for consideration-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to for the relief of permanent injunction?
2. What order?
6. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself got examined as P.W.1. Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 are marked. Another witness is examined as P.W.2, who deposes in accordance with the evidence of P.W.1.
5 O.S.No.9166/15
7. The answers to the above points are-
Issue No.1- In the affirmative
Issue No.2- As per final order,
for the following-
REASONS
8. Issue No.1- The evidence of P.W.1 and 2, who depose in accordance with the allegations made in the plaint, is corroborated by Ex.P1, certified copy of the registered, saledeed, dated 29.5.2000, executed by the 3rd defendant, as Power of Attorney of the owner in respect of the suit property, in favour of the plaintiff; Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, encumbrance certificates, Ex.P4 to Ex.P11, tax paid receipts for the period from 2008-09 to 2015- 16, paid on 30.10.2015; Ex.P16, certified copy of the saledeed; Ex.P17, Form-D extract; Ex.P18, challans; clearly establish that as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and the defendants have interfered with the possession of the same. The unchallenged testimony of P.W.1 has to be accepted.
6 O.S.No.9166/15
9. Further the defendants are not persons under disability. Hence the allegations made in the plaint, shall be taken to be admitted as per Or.8, R 5 of CPC. The admitted facts need not be proved as per Sec.58 of Evidence Act. Hence the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property and the defendants interfered with her possession. Hence this point is answered accordingly.
10. Issue No.2:- Considering the special facts and circumstances of this case, there is no order as to costs. In view of the answer to the point No.1 the following-
ORDER The suit is decreed partly.
The defendants, their servants, agents, supporters and henchmen are hereby permanently restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, by the plaintiff.
SCHEDULE All the piece and parcel of the property, bearing Gramatana Khatha No.892, Assessment No.36/3, site No.13/A, measuring 7 O.S.No.9166/15 to an extent of East to West:30 feet and North to South : 40 feet, totally 1200 Sq.Ft.; situated at Srigandadakavalu Dakale, Eraiahnaplaya village, presently BBMP ward 129, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and bounded as follows:-
East by: Site No.13 West by: Road North by: others property (earlier was road) South by: others property Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 16th day of September, 2017.) (SHUBHAVEER B.) XII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru ANNEXURE s I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff:
P.W.1 - Smt.C.R.Rajeshwari P.W.2- Sri.Ramesh II. List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendants:
-N I L-8 O.S.No.9166/15
III. List of documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiff:
Ex.P1- Certified copy of the saledeed
Ex.P2- Encumbrance certificate
Ex.P3- Encumbrance certificate
Ex.P4 to P11- 8 tax paid receipts
Ex.P12- Electricity bill
Ex.P13 to P15- Three photographs Ex.P16- Certified copy of the saledeed Ex.P17- Form -B property register Ex.P18- Computer receipt issued by BBMP IV. List of documents exhibited on behalf of defendant:
-N I L-
(SHUBHAVEER.B) XII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru 9 O.S.No.9166/15 (Judgment pronounced in open court) ORDER The suit is decreed partly.
The defendants, their servants, agents, supporters and henchmen are hereby permanently restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.
SCHEDULE All the piece and parcel of the property baring Gramatana Khatha No.892, Assessment No.36/3, site No.13/A, measuring to an extent of East to West:30 feet and North to South : 40 feet totally 1200 Sq.Ft.
situated at Srigandadakavalu Dakale, Eraiahnaplaya village, presently BBMP ward 129, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk and bounded as follows:-
East by: Site No.13
West by: Road
North by: others property
(earlier was road)
South by: others property
Draw decree accordingly.
XII ACCJ;Bengaluru
10 O.S.No.9166/15