Bangalore District Court
Smt.Saraswathi vs The Bruhath Bangalore on 19 December, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY : (CCH.18)
Dated this 19th day of December, 2020.
Present
SRI.DINESH HEGDE, B.A.LL.B.,
XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
O.S.NO.2096/2014
PLAINTIFF : Smt.Saraswathi,
w/o late S.A.Lakshman,
aged 53 years,
r/o No.5, 7th Cross,
Bhavaninagar,
Bannerghatta Road,
Bangalore-560 029.
Represented by her G.P.A.Holder
Sri.S.L.Sreenath,
s/o late S.A.Lakshman,
aged 35 years,
r/at No.5, 7th Cross, Bhavaninagar,
Bannerghatta Road,
Bangalore-560 029.
( By Sri.R.A.Devanand, Advocate)
-VS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. The Bruhath Bangalore
Mahanagar Palike, N.R.Road,
Bangalore-560 001,
By its Commissioner.
2. The Slum Development Board,
Nethaji Road,
Sheshadripuram,
Bangalore-560 020.,
By its Commissioner.
(D.1 - By Sri.NRJ, Advocate)
(D.2 - BySri.MSP, Advocate)
2
O.S.No.2096/2014
Date of Institution of the suit : 13/3/2014
Nature of the Suit : Injunction Suit
Date of commencement of recording
of evidence : 14/7/2016
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced : 19/12/2020
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : 06 09 06
(Dinesh Hegde)
XIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction.
2. The case of plaintiff in nutshell:-
On 23/2/2013 plaintiff has executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of her son S.L.Sreenath authorizing him to act as her attorney holder in respect of Sy.No.77 to an extent of 1.36 guntas situated at Audugodi village, Bangalore South Taluk 3 O.S.No.2096/2014 and two other properties. Husband of plaintiff by name S.A.Lakshman by the order of the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore, vide Order No.LND:73/7172 dated 27/3/1971 under the provisions of Revenue Law was granted an extent of 1.00 acres of land along with quarry in Sy.No.77 of Audugodi village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk as against up-set price of Rs.1,200/-. In pursuance to the said order of grant, plaintiff's deceased husband S.A.Lakshman was put in possession of said 1 acre of land which is bounded by:-
East by - Sy.No.66 of Audugodi West by - Road North by - Sy.No.77/1 & South by - Sy.No.67/1.
3. It is further stated that plaintiff's husband's elder brother S.A.Krishnappa s/o late Annayappa was also granted an extent of 0.36 guntas of including 0.03 guntas of phut kharab land by the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk which is comprised in Sy.No.77 of Audugodi Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South 4 O.S.No.2096/2014 Taluk, Bangalore against an up-set price and issued a Saguvali chit indicating the extent of the granted land which is bounded by:-
East by - Sy.No.66/5 West by - Sy.No.77 North by - Sy.No.66 South by - Sy.No.67 The property which has been granted in favour of S.A.Krishnappa is adjoining to the property granted in favour of S.A.Lakshman on the Northern side. Said S.A.Krishnappa has deposited a sum of Rs.49,948/- towards grant charges through remittance challan on 29/8/1989 and thus, completed all the formalities relating to grant.
4. It is further stated that said S.A.Krishnappa approached the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, seeking conversion of 0.36 guntas of land for residential purpose. The said authority after considering his representation vide proceedings No.DIS.ALN.SN(S)94-86-87 in the year 1986 sanctioned his request. He declared his immovable assets under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) 5 O.S.No.2096/2014 Act of 1976 regarding his holding of immovable properties under Section 691) of the Act of 1976. The said declaration was accepted by the said Authority and issued an endorsement.
5. It is further stated that in pursuance to the grant made in favour of S.A.Lakshman, the same came to be mutated in the record of rights and index of land. In so far as grant of land in favour of S.A.Krishnappa, same came to be mutated in his name. In the order of grant made in favour of S.A.Lakshman and S.A.Krishnappa is a rocky land where agricultural operations is not permissible to its full extent and therefore, the said grantees gave up agricultural operation keeping the land barren and it was not questioned by anybody nor same was set- aside by the State even to this day.
6. It is further stated that on 25/12/1993 S.A.Krishnappa took a decision to bequeath the said 0.36 guntas of land in favour of plaintiff's husband by way of Will by excluding his family members due to 6 O.S.No.2096/2014 disloyalty. Said S.A.Krishnappa died on 20/4/1994 and after his death, Will came in to force and the plaintiff's husband became the absolute owner in possession of said extent of land. The said Will has not been questioned by the family members of late S.A.Krishnappa even to this day. The plaintiff's husband having become owner of 1.36 guntas of land in total of Sy.No.77, had executed a Will in favour of plaintiff on 21/1/2001 in respect of the said property and also 3 other items of properties. Therefore, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the said extent of the property.
7. It is further stated that Smt.Jayalakshmamma w/o late S.A.Krishnappa approached the defendants and instigated them to take possession of the schedule property by bringing political force in order to deprive the plaintiff's right over the same as a measure of retaliation against S.A.Krishnappa having left a Will in favour of S.A.Lakshman. On 4/3/2014, the defendant No.1 & 2 with them men came to the schedule property with an intention to clear the 7 O.S.No.2096/2014 shrubs. By seeing the same, plaintiff along with her son rushed to the schedule property and questioned their act. When plaintiff showed the photo copy of the title deed pertaining to the schedule property, defendants left the schedule property. On 8/3/2014 also defendants interfered with the possession of the plaintiff by stating that the schedule property belongs to them. They informed the plaintiff's son that they would take the help of the police and revisit the schedule property and take possession. The plaintiff's request was denied by the jurisdictional police on earlier occasion. Hence, plaintiff did not approach the police for the 2nd time.
8. It is further stated that defendants are the statutory bodies and hence, in view of urgency, dispensation of notices under Section 80 of CPC has been sought by filing necessary I.A. along with this plaint. The cause of action for the suit arose on 4/3/2014 when defendants' men tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the schedule property and subsequently, on 8/3/2014 when the 8 O.S.No.2096/2014 defendants' officials re-visited the suit schedule property and tried to interfere with the suit schedule property which is well within the jurisdiction of this court to try the suit. Hence, prays to decree the suit.
9. After service of suit summons, defendant No.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their separate written statement.
10. The defendant No.1 in his written statement has contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in law for the reason that they have filed a false suit based on created, fabricated and concocted documents. The entire Audugodi village has lost its agriculture character about 5 decades back itself and it is fully developed area and is vested with the BBMP limits and as such the suit is not maintainable.
11. He has further contended that there exists no panchayath and it has lost the revenue character and the entire area is vested with the BBMP. As such, the 9 O.S.No.2096/2014 plaintiff ought to have exercised the right of ownership by obtaining the khatha certificate by paying the taxes to the BBMP etc. But, in the present case, plaintiff has no title and no khatha is obtained from the defendant, since the alleged property comes within the limits of BBMP and the revenue department is not empowered either to grant the lands or to issue Saguvali chit.
12. He has further contended that no RTC will be issued in respect of the alleged property. The plaintiff has succeeded to the cradle of filing frivolous suit by inheritance from her husband. Her husband who has already failed in obtaining the judgment of declaration, is making every attempts to file false and frivolous suit is based on created and fabricated documents. In fact, the entire Byrasandra, Tavarakere and Madivala villages are acquired for the formation of BTM layout during the year 1977 and no land in Sy.No.77 is left out. In the said notification Sy.No.74 is mentioned as Government Tank and in the earlier suits, the plaintiff and her husband have claimed the 10 O.S.No.2096/2014 rights in respect of Sy.No.74 of Tavarekere Village which is a tank, which is exclusively belonging to the State Government under Section 67 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. In fact, the husband of the plaintiff had filed O.S.No.448/1996 for declaration and the suit came to be dismissed. Thereafter, plaintiff has filed O.S.No.8247/2010 for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of Sy.No.74. Since they have not succeeded to grab the said property, the plaintiff has created the documents in respect of alleged Sy.No.77 and filed the suit.
13. The defendant No.1 has further contended that the suit is not maintainable in law for the reason that agricultural land bearing Sy.No.77 of Audugodi village is not in existence at all and the entire area is fully developed and no agricultural activities are going on. As per the provisions of the Land Grant Rules, a person is not entitled for grant once a grant is made by the Government. The official memorandum issued in respect of conversion is concerned, the same is created document and same is in the name of 11 O.S.No.2096/2014 S.A.Krishnappa. Likewise, in the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Urban Land Ceiling dated 27/11/1986 is in respect of declaration made by S.A.Krishnappa and there is no mention about Sy.No.77 in the said order. Further, the alleged approval of layout plan is in respect of alleged application of S.A.Krishnappa. When the lands situated at Adugodi village has been included in the limits of BBMP, the question of approving the plan by the BDA does not arise at all and no such plan is produced before the court. The plaintiff has not produced the RTC extract in respect of Sy.No.77 to show that the plaintiff is in possession of the said land and therefore,the suit is liable to be dismissed.
14. Defendant No.1 has further contended that no grant was made by the Tahsildar in favour of anybody else much less in favour of any body else much less in favour of the husband of the plaintiff and S.A.Krishnappa. The Tahsildar has no right to grant quarry land and as such the entire averments is made with malafide intention to grab the valuable property 12 O.S.No.2096/2014 of the public by creating a documents. In the alleged saguvali chit, there is no reference to the treasury challan number and date on which date amount was paid and the plaintiff has not produced the alleged original saguvali chit. In the alleged records of rights, the alleged upset price fixed by the authorities is Rs.1,700/- per acre, but in the alleged saguvali chit and pleadings is Rs.1,200/- and the aforesaid documents and pleadings clearly establish that the documents are forged and concocted one.
15. Defendant No.1 has further contended that the Tahsildar has not empowered to grant the land which is well within the limits of the BBMP earlier it was Bangalore City Corporation and under the land grant rules, the granting of land is vested with the Land Grant Committee. Further, the plaintiff has not produced any documents to show that there were proceedings before the Land Grant Committee in respect of the alleged grant. This clearly goes to show that the husband of the plaintiff has created the suit documents.
13
O.S.No.2096/2014
16. He has further contended that no plan approval charges of Rs.49,948/- was paid by S.A.Krishnappa to the authorities and no authorities have collected the said charges from anybody else much less Krishnappa. No amount is remitted to any authority as per the demand made in the alleged approved layout plan and no plan is produced before this court. Further, if the land is converted in accordance with law, the land automatically looses its agricultural character. When the alleged order is issued for the alleged group housing scheme, there must be a layout plan approved by the authorities and there must be property number assigned by the BDA or BBMP and khatha should have been issued to the property.
17. Defendant No.1 has further contended that before entering in to the Record of Rights Register, the entries should be made in the Mutation Register and thereafter, only entries will be made in the Record of Rights. In the Record of Rights, there is mentioning of mutation register number. While granting the land 14 O.S.No.2096/2014 issuing the Saguvali Chit, the revenue authorities will fix the assessment and the same is absent in the Sagauvali chit and record of rights. The alleged Will is a created and fabricated document. The alleged LTMs and signatures are put in the blank papers and the same are made use for fabricating the Will, since the signatures are put in the end of the every page and it is not a registered document and there is no need to use the stamp paper. When the said Krishnappa and Lakshman are suffering from various diseases like Blood Pressure, Heart, Kidney etc., no medical certificates with regard to health condition and disposing state of mind is not obtained and as such, the alleged document will not give any right to the plaintiff. Further, the name of the plaintiff is not entered in the RTC records to show that the plaintiff was in possession in respect of the alleged suit schedule property and no documents are produced to show the alleged possession of the plaintiff in respect of the alleged suit schedule property. 15
O.S.No.2096/2014
18. Defendant No.1 has further contended that the plaintiff has filed the above suit based on concocted and fabricated documents. The plaintiff has contended that the land was converted for residential purpose vide official memorandum dated 18/8/1986 issued by the Deputy Commissioner issued in favour of S.A.Krishnappa s/o Annayappa. In fact, in the alleged Will executed on 25/1/1993, it is mentioned that nature of land as agricultural land. In the preamble, Krishnappa has stated that the said land has been granted to him under Land Grant Rules and there is no any reference to the grant order and saguvali chit date are given. S.A.Krishnappa has filed declaration under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land Ceiling & Regulations Act in the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner in page 1, there is no reference to Sy.No.77. Without there being a declaration, the Deputy Commissioner cannot discuss and decide in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.77 for which no description is made. In view of the same, 16 O.S.No.2096/2014 the alleged Order and Saguvali Chit are created with malafide intention. If there is such grant before entering the particulars in the Record of Rights Register, the mutation will be effected and in the alleged Record of Rights there is no reference to mutation entries and the plaintiff is not in possession of the property and produced any documents to show her possession.
19. Defendant No.1 has further contended that the land bearing Sy.No.77 is a Government land and it was not granted to anybody else by the Government. The Deputy Commissioner by his Order No.LND(S)CR- 301/87-88 has granted two acres of land in favour of this defendant in order to provide dump yard and Taluk Surveyor, Bangalore South Taluk, has surveyed the land and delivered the possession of the same to the BBMP and BBMP is in possession of the same. The same has been entered in the property register of the defendant No.1. The 1st defendant who is in possession of the property has decided to put up the compound wall for which a tender was called and 17 O.S.No.2096/2014 after acceptance of the tender, the Work Order was issued on 1/12/2011 and put up the compound wall and the said property is being developed by the BBMP. The Sy.No.77 of Adugodi is called as Mahalingeswara Slum. The work estimate was prepared and job number certificate was issued. This defendant has decided to develop the area as a Park and Children Park and accordingly, estimate for Rs.70,00,000/- was prepared and the same is approved. The said work was sanctioned. The Government has sanctioned 5 acres 30 guntas in favour of the defendant No.2. As such, no land is granted to S.A.Lakshman and S.A.Krishnappa. As such, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit of plaintiff with exemplary costs.
20. Defendant No.2 in his written statement has contended that the suit schedule property in Sy.No.77 of Audugodi village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, along with another extent of 4 acres has been handed over to the 2nd defendant vide order dated 12/12/1997 of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore 18 O.S.No.2096/2014 District, Bangalore. The other portion of the land was originally notified under Section 3 of the Karnataka Slum Area (Clearance and Development) Act, 1973 in the Official Gazette on 12/3/1981. The notification No.HUD 273 MCS 79 dated 27.2/2.3.1981 clearly provides that the extent of 4 acres of land in Sy.No.77 pertaining to the Government in Audugodi Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, bounded on the East by Hosur Road and Sy.No.66, West by Sy.No.76, 78 and 86, North by Hosur Road and Sy.No.66 and South by Sy.No.67 and 76 and quarry pit has been notified as a slum under Section 3 of the Act. The notification clearly shows that the extent of 4 acres as claimed to have been belong to the Government. The record of right in respect of the total extent of land of 5 acres 30 guntas which includes 1 acre 30 guntas of the suit schedule property. After the same was transferred to the 2nd defendant has been shown to be belonging to the 2nd defendant in the record of rights.
21. Defendant No.2 has further contended that in 19 O.S.No.2096/2014 the instant case, 2nd defendant conducted spot inspection along with the Deputy Commissioner of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, Legal Assistants and Asst.Executive Engineer and the Surveyor and it was noted that the land to the extent of 1 acre 30 guntas comprises of rocks and on behalf of the Palike, steps were taken to fill up the mud in order to level the ground. The 2nd sketch which has been prepared on instructions clearly shows that 1 acre 30 guntas of suit schedule property which is part of the property which was handed over to the Slum Board by the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The property which is being claimed by the plaintiff has come in to the hands of the 2nd defendant Board as way back in the year 1997 in furtherance of the order dated 12/12/1997 of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore. Hence, plaintiff cannot maintain any claim over the property.
22. The defendant No.2 has further contended that as per Section 66 of the Karnataka Slum Area (Clearance and Development) Act, 1973 clearly bars 20 O.S.No.2096/2014 the jurisdiction of the Civil Court as per the provision provides that no civil court was for jurisdiction in respect of any matter which the Government or the prescribed authority is empowered by or under this Act, to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any court or other authority in respect of any action taken or to be taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under the Act.
23. Defendant No.2 has further contended that the genuineness of the Will executed by S.A.Krishnappa in favour of plaintiff's husband unless being established, it cannot be said merely for the reason that as claimed by the plaintiff that no challenge is made by the family members of S.A.Krishanppa that the property is vested with the family members of the plaintiff. If it is the claim of the plaintiff that Smt.Jayalakshmamma had instigated the defendants, then Smt.Jayalakshmamma ought to have been made as a party to the present case. However, she is not arrayed as a party i.e., defendant in the case. As such, no such allegations can be made against her. 21
O.S.No.2096/2014 Even otherwise, it is contended that the said allegation is false and baseless. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit of plaintiff with exemplary costs.
24. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed:-
ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiff proves her lawful possession over the schedule property?
2. Does she prove the alleged obstruction of the defendants 1 & 2?
3. Does she entitle for the relief sought for?
4. What order and decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the plaintiff has forged and created the documents?
25. On behalf of plaintiff, her GPA Holder is examined as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.38. On 22 O.S.No.2096/2014 behalf of the defendants, Asst.Executive Engineer working in BBMP is examined as D.W.1 and marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.29. Ex.C.1 is also marked.
26. Heard the arguments and perused the written arguments and the records.
27. My findings on the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1:- In the Negative; Issue No.2:- In the Negative; Issue No.3:- In the Negative; Addl.Issue No.1:- In the Negative; Addl.Issue No.2:- In the Affirmative; Issue No.4:- As per the final order for the following:-
REASONS
28. ADDL.ISSUE No.1 & 2 & ISSUE No.1 & 2:-
These issues are taken up together for consideration in order to avoid repetition of facts.
29. Initially, the plaintiff filed suit for injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule property and subsequently, amended the 23 O.S.No.2096/2014 plaint by seeking the relief of declaration of the title.
30. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that her husband Sri.S.A.Lakshman was granted with a land measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.77 by the order of the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk. Elder brother of S.A.Lakshman i.e., Mr.S.A.Krishnappa was also granted with the land of 36 guntas of kharab land in Sy.No.77 as per the orders of the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk. S.A.Krishnappa had approached the Special Deputy Commissioner for conversion of 36 guntas of land for residential purpose. It is further case of the plaintiff that after the grant, the revenue records mutated. It is further case of the plaintiff that granted land is a rocky land wherein agricultural operation is not permissible. It is also the case of the plaintiff that S.A.Krishnappa bequeathed 36 guntas of land in favour of S.A.Lakshman. He died on 20/4/1994.
31. After the demise of S.A.Krishnappa, his brother S.A.Lakshman become the owner of 36 guntas of land 24 O.S.No.2096/2014 by virtue of the Will along with 1 acre of land that was granted to him and he become the owner of 1 acre 36 guntas of land. It is further case of the plaintiff that her husband executed a Will in her favour on 21/2/2001 with respect of the entire 1 acre 36 guntas of land in Sy.No.77 and 3 other items. Upon the death of her husband, the plaintiff become the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the Will executed by her husband in her favour. It is further case of the plaintiff that defendants are interfering with the suit schedule property.
32. To prove the contention of the plaintiff, her son as her GPA Holder has been examined as P.W.1 and he has relied upon Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.38. Ex.P.1 is the General Power of Attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of her son S.L.Srinath. Ex.P.2 is the special power of attorney executed by the plaintiff in favour of P.W.1 to prosecute the above suit.
33. Ex.P.3 is the copy of the land grant extract which reveal that 36 guntas of land shown as granted 25 O.S.No.2096/2014 in favour of S.A.Krishnappa s/o K.Annayappa comprised in Sy.No.77 of Audugodi village. Ex.P.4 is the death certificate of S.A.Krishnappa reveal that he died on 20/4/1994. Ex.P.5 is the death certificate reveal that S.A.Lakshman who is the husband of the plaintiff died on 26/9/2009. Ex.P.6 & Ex.P.7 are the 2 encumbrance certificates in Form No.16 discloses that property in Sy.No.77 of Audugodi Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore to an extent of 33 guntas and this property is not encumbered.
34. Ex.P.8 is the RTC extract with respect 33 guntas of land in Sy.No.77/P1 for the year 2013-2014 stands in the name of S.A.Krishnappa. Ex.P.4 the death certificate of S.A.Krishnappa reveal that he died in the year 1994, but, the revenue records continued in his name. On the other hand, it is the case of the plaintiff that S.A.Krishnappa had executed a Will in favour of S.A.Lakshman. However, no revenue records were changed in to the name of S.A.Lakshman based on the Will said to have been executed by S.A.Krishnappa.
26
O.S.No.2096/2014
35. Ex.P.9 is an endorsement issued by the Slum Development Board dated 15/4/2014 that reveal that 5½ Acres of land handed over to defendant No.2 and this property belonging to the Slum Development Board. Ex.P.10 is a Grant Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk dated 27/3/1971 reveal that by the Order of the Deputy Commissioner in LND.No.73/71-72 dated 27/3/1971, the land measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.77 of Audugodi, Begur Hobli was granted in favour of S.A.Lakshman. The defendants have vehemently contended that there is no such order of the Deputy Commissioner granting land in favour of S.A.Lakshman in LND No.73/71-72 dated 27/3/1971.
36. Ex.P.11 is the record of rights extract reveal that khatha changed in to the name of S.A.Lakshman based on the orders of the Deputy Commissioner in LND.No.73/71-72. Index of land marked at Ex.P.12 also reflect the name of S.A.Lakshman to an extent of 1 acre in Sy.No.77 of Audugodi village based on the order of the Deputy Commissioner in 27 O.S.No.2096/2014 LND.No.73/71-72. Ex.P.13 is the land special register extract also reveal the order of the Deputy Commissioner in LND.No.73/71-72. However, reference in Ex.P.13 mentioned as "unauthorized occupation and cultivation of 1 acre land in Sy.No.77 of Audugodi village, Begur Hobli. Regularization in favour of Sri.S.A.Lakshman." The land is mentioned as Kallu Bande (quarry).
37. On perusal of the entire plaint, no where in the plaint, it is averred that S.A.Lakshman was in unauthorized cultivation of the land measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.77 that too a quarry land. Ex.P.14 to Ex.P.21 are the RTC extracts reveal the name of S.A.Krishnappa to an extent of 33 guntas in Sy.No.77/P1 for the year 2001-2002, 2014. Ex.P.22 is the copy of City Survey Enquiry Report pertaining to Sy.No.77/5 reveal the name of S.A.Krishnappa. It also reveal S.A.Krishnappa is a holder as per order No.BNG LNG SR 96/78-79 dated 9/1/1979. The plaintiff has produced only the copy of the Form No.1 issued by the Tahsildar as Grant Certificate. But, no such order 28 O.S.No.2096/2014 of the Deputy Commissioner granting land under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 is produced. [
38. It is the contention of the defendants that no such land was granted in favour of S.A.Krishnappa or S.A.Lakshman by the Deputy Commissioner and all the documents are created by the plaintiff. When such being the contention of the defendants, the burden of proof heavily lies upon the plaintiff to prove that the suit schedule properties were granted to S.A.Lakshman and S.A.Krishnappa under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 and they were put in possession.
39. Ex.P.23 is the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer, City Survey, K.R.Circle, Bangalore, dated 16/2/2015 reveal that the land to an extent of 3626.00 Sq.Meters is declared as "J" Tenure in the name of Saraswathi w/o late S.A.Lakshman. Ex.P.24 is the RTC extract reveal that land measuring 33 guntas changed in to the name of plaintiff Smt.Saraswathi with respect of land in Sy.No.77/P1 for 29 O.S.No.2096/2014 the year 2016-2017 based on the Will in MR.No.H3/2014-2015. Ex.P.25 is the mutation register extract with respect of the same land. Ex.P.26 is the survey sketch with respect of the same Sy.No.77. Ex.P.27 is the City Survey Enquiry Report pertaining to other survey number properties. Ex.P.28 is the copy of the Index of Land pertaining to Sy.No.77 reveal 33 guntas of land standing in the name of S.A.Krishnappa s/o Annayappa which is shown as 'Kallu Bande'. Ex.P.29 is the RTC extract with respect of the land in Sy.No.77/P1 to an extent of 33 guntas stands in the name of S.A.Krishnappa s/o Annayappa for the year 2000-2001.
40. To prove the title over the property, the plaintiff has relied upon 2 Wills dated 25/12/1993 and 21/1/2001 marked at Ex.P.30 & Ex.P.31. Ex.P.30 reveal that Sri.S.A.Krishnappa executed the same in favour of his brother S.A.Lakshman with respect of 2 items i.e., the land in Sy.No.47 measuring an extent of 20 guntas situated at Byrasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, and the land in Sy.No.77 to an extent of 1.36 30 O.S.No.2096/2014 guntas situated at Audugodi village. According to the plaintiff, the Item No.2 in the said Will marked at Ex.P.30 is the land bequeathed by S.A.Krishnappa in favour of S.A.Lakshman who is none other than her husband.
41. Ex.P.31 reveal that S.A.Lakshman executed the same in favour of plaintiff wherein, Item No.2 is mentioned as agricultural property bearing Sy.No.77 measuring 1 acre 36 guntas situated at Audogodi village. No doubt, in both the Wills, 2 each attesting witnesses' signatures finds place. However, the plaintiff has not examined any of the witnesses.
42. Under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence. One of the requirement of due execution of Will is its attestation by 2 or more 31 O.S.No.2096/2014 witnesses is necessary which is mandatory. Section 68 speaks as to how the document is required by law to be attested can be proved. In the absence of the examination of any of the attesting witnesses, both the Will marked at Ex.P.30 & Ex.P.31 conveys title to the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Therefore, the theory of the execution of the Will by S.A.Krishnappa in favour of S.A.Lakshman as well as execution of Will by S.A.Lakshman in favour of the plaintiff is not proved.
43. Ex.P.32 is the copy of the complaint dated 15/9/2014 reveal that the P.W.1 lodged a complaint to the Deputy Police Commissioner, South Division, Bangalore, complaining violation of temporary injunction by the officials of BBMP. Ex.P.33 is another complaint dated 15/9/2014 given to the Commissioner of BBMP. Ex.P.34 is a letter issued by BDA dated 24/12/2014 which is subsequent to filing of the suit. Ex.P.35 is a copy of the approval of layout plan of BDA dated 9/12/1988. Ex.P.36 is the copy of the request letter to remit the development charges with respect 32 O.S.No.2096/2014 of 33 guntas of land. Ex.P.37 is the copy of remittance challan and Ex.P.28 is the postal cover. On perusal of the records, Ex.P.35 to Ex.P.37 are only the copies of the request letter and challan form are not proved in accordance with law.
44. Ex.C.1 is the layout map reveal that the property mentioned in A to G is the property measuring 1 acre 30 guntas was transferred to public utility and 4 acres of land has been acquired by the Government. Further, it is mentioned that 3626 sq.meters land has been changed in to the name of S.A.Krishnappa.
45. To rebut the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, Assistant Executive Engineer attached to the BBMP by name Mohammad Obedulla Sherieff has been examined as D.W.1. He has produced the documents marked at Ex.D.18 to Ex.D.29. However, Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.17 were confronted during the course of cross- examination of P.W.1 and marked.
33
O.S.No.2096/2014
46. Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6 are the 6 RTC extracts pertaining to Sy.No.77 measuring 5 acres 30 guntas situated at Audugodi village for the period 1986 to 2000 reveal that the land is a quarry land in nature and Column No.9 reveal that the land has been given to Slum Development Board as per the orders of the Deputy Commissioner in Case K.SA.CR 21/97-98 dated 12/12/1997 and mutation effected in MR.No.1/97-98. In all, the Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6, name of either S.A.Lakshman or S.A.Krishnappa finds place.
47. Ex.D.7 is the Karnataka Revision Settlement Akarabandh with respect of Sy.No.77 reveal the total extent of land 5 acres 30 guntas. Ex.D.8 is a letter dated 6/8/2014 issued by Tahsildar to Assistant Executive Engineer reveal that no such records in respect of the proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner in LND 19/78--79 and LND 73/71-72 are available. Therefore, it is clear that the order said to have passed by the Deputy Commissioner in LND No.19/78-79 and LND 73/71-72 is not available so as to come to the conclusion that the suit schedule 34 O.S.No.2096/2014 properties were granted by the State Government in favour of S.A.Krishnappa and S.A.Lakshman.
48. Ex.D.9 is the order passed by the District Collector, Bangalore dated 11/10/1994 reveal that the Deputy Commissioner passed Official Memorandum transferring 2 acres of land in Sy.No.77 in favour of the BBMP for the purpose of waste management. This order is not challenged by the plaintiff. Ex.D.10 is the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore dated 9/2/1987 reveal that he passed order by rejecting the application for alienation of the land in Sy.No.124/1 of Horamavu village in ALN SR(S) 94/86- 87 wherein Annamalai of Doddakunte village, Cox Town filed an application seeking conversion of 2 acre 35 guntas of land of Horamavu village, K.R.Puram Hobli. The reason for rejection of the application for conversion is that the Commissioner of Bangalore Development Authority and Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk have furnished their opinion in their letters stating that the land comes within the Green 35 O.S.No.2096/2014 Belt area and the request for conversion was accordingly rejected. However, in Para 8 of the plaint, it is mentioned that Sri.S.A.Krishnappa approached the Special Commissioner, Bangalore seeking conversion of 36 guntas of land for residential purpose and after considering his representation, in proceedings No.DIS.ALN.SN(S) 94/86-87 sanctioned the request.
49. The documents produced by the defendants reveal that order of the Deputy Commissioner with respect of alienation of the property in ALN SR 94 86- 87 dated 9/2/1987 is in respect of Sy.No.124/1 of Horamavu village. On perusal of Ex.D.10, it is clear that what ever averred in Para No.8 of the plaint is false.
50. Ex.D.11 is an endorsement issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District reveal that the document pertaining to ALN SR 94/86-87 is not pertaining to the land comprised in Sy.No.77 of Audugodi village of Begur Hobli. But, it is 36 O.S.No.2096/2014 pertaining to Sy.No.124/1 of Horamavu village, K.R.Puram Hobli. Ex.D.12 is the RTC extract pertaining to the land in Sy.No.77 for the year 2013-14 reveal that 5 acres 30 guntas of land stands in the name of defendant No.2 Slum Development Board as per the orders of the Deputy Commissioner dated 12/12/1997. Ex.D.13 is the RTC extract of the year 1997-98 with respect of the land in Sy.No.77 to an extent of 5 acres 30 guntas also reveal the name of Slum Development Board.
51. Ex.D.14 to Ex.D.17 are the photographs in which compound wall is seen. On perusal of the entire plaint, it is clear that it is not the case of the plaintiff that she erected compound wall to the suit schedule property. Ex.D.18 is the authorization letter issued by the Commissioner of BBMP on 20/3/2019 authorizing the D.W.1 to give evidence in this suit. Ex.D.19 is the copy of the plan and property register extract reveal that 2 acres of land in Sy.No.77 of Audugodi village was delivered to the defendant No.1 as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner in 37 O.S.No.2096/2014 LND(S) CR 301-87-88 dated 11/10/1994.
52. It is the contention of the defendant No.1 that it has proposed to erect compound wall to the suit schedule property and called for tender. In support of the contention, the defendant No.2 has produced Ex.D.20 to Ex.D.29. Ex.D.20 is the original note sheet of the Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP for the purpose of erection of compound wall of vacant properties. Ex.D.21 is the list of estimation for construction of compound wall. This estimation was prepared in the year 2011 itself. Ex.D.22 is the Job Number Certificate reveal the name of the work as construction of the compound wall at Lakkasandra, Mahalingeshwara Layout. Ex.D.23 & Ex.D.24 are 2 photographs reveal the construction work of compound wall. Ex.D.25 is an agreement dated 1/12/2011 between BBMP and one Mr.C.Vijay Kumar who is the contractor to execute the construction of compound wall to the corporation property in Mahalingeshwara Slum in Ward No.126, Lakkasandra. Ex.D.26 is the tender approval for construction of 38 O.S.No.2096/2014 compound to the corporation property in Mahalingeshwara Slum in Ward No.146. Ex.D.27 is the contract certificate issued by the Executive Engineer of BBMP for construction of compound wall to the corporation property in Ward No.146 of Lakkasandra. Ex.D.28 is the note sheet for providing ornamental granite stones in Ward No.148 in Ward No.46 of Lakkasandra. Ex.D.29 is the job certificate issued on 18/1/2014 with respect of development of park at 6th Cross, Mahalingeshwara Layout and Audugodi Main Road in Ward No.146.
53. The learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff has relied upon a decision reported in Civil Appeal No.6466/2004 between "Madan Mohan Singh & others v/s Rajni Kant and others", wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "so far as in the entries made in official records by an official or person authorized in performance of official duties are concerned, they may be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, but, the court has a right to examine their probative value. The authenticity of 39 O.S.No.2096/2014 the entries would depend on whose information such entries stood recorded and what was his source of information."
54. In 1990 SCC (2) 22 between "Vimala Bai v/s Hiralal Gupta and others", the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "Section 37 of the Evidence Act, 1872 postulates that any statement made in Government Gazette of public nature is a relevant fact."
55. In AIR 1963 SC 510 between "Poohari Fakir Sadavarthy of Bondalipuram and another v/s Commr.Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments", it was held that "Though in the absence of the original grant, the Inam Register is of great evidentiary value. It does not mean the entry or entires in any particular columns of the register should be accepted at their face value without giving consideration to other matters recorded in the entry itself. There is no doubt that the entries cannot displace actual or authentic evidence in individual cases."
40
O.S.No.2096/2014
56. In the instant case, though the plaintiff contended that the Deputy Commissioner granted the land in favour of S.A.Krishnappa and S.A.Lakshman under particular proceedings, no such orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner is produced by the plaintiff to come to the conclusion that they were granted with the suit schedule property. Therefore, the facts of the above case is not applicable to the instant case.
57. The advocate for plaintiff has also relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1968 SC 1413 between "Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v/s Mohamed Haji Latif and others" wherein it was held that "A party in possession of best evidence which would throw light on the issue in controversy withholding it - Court ought to draw an adverse inference against him not withstanding that onus of proof does not lie on him - Party cannot rely on abstract doctrine of onus of proof or on the fact that he was not called upon to produce it."
41
O.S.No.2096/2014
58. In the present case, there is a specific order from the court to produce the document in question. The letter dated 31/1/2020 issued by the Tahsildar of Bangalore South Taluk reveal that no such grant order is available. When such being the fact, the defendant No.1 withholding the document and court drawing adverse inference for non-production of document does not arise.
59. The advocate appearing for the defendant No.1 has relied upon a decision reported in ILR 2020 KAR 212 between "State of Karnataka by Chief Secretary and another v/s Sri.Krishnappa"
wherein, it was held that "The claim of the plaintiffs that they have been granted land in Sy.No.8 to the extent of 5 acres each in each case and they relied upon RTC extract of the said property. But, they did not file original grant certificate or mutation extract. The fraud nature of mutation or RTC extract could be possible would be the result if the documents are perused meticulously. There is no reconciliation between the pleadings and the evidence. None of the 42 O.S.No.2096/2014 documents produced by the plaintiffs are tenable. When the documents itself are forged, claiming possession or title or any kind of interest over the property do not arise and it deserves to curbed."
60. In Civil Appeal No.9683/2019 between "Raj Kumari and Others v/s Surinder Pal Sharma" arising out special leave petition No.26957/2018, the requirement of the proof of Will is discussed. How the Will to be proved by examination of attesting witness under Section 38 of the Indian Evidence Act is also discussed elaborately.
61. In ILR 2008 KAR 2115 between "Sri.J.T.Surappa and another v/s Sri.Satchidhanandendra Saraswathi Swamiji Public Charitable Trust and others", the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that "The Will is a document required by law to be attested under Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, it is open to the profounder of the Will to examine a person who was 43 O.S.No.2096/2014 present at the time of attestation."
62. In ILR 2007 KAR 339 between "Sri Aralappa v/s Sri.Jagannath and others", the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that "In a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction, the plaintiff has to prove his title to the property and also his possession over the property on the date of the suit, when the plaintiff is not in possession of the property on the date of the suit, relief of permanent injunction is not an appropriate consequential relief. The appropriate relief consequential to declaration of ownership would be recovery of possession of the property. When the plaintiff is out of possession of the property and does not seek relief of possession, a mere suit for declaration is not maintainable. The court below was justified in dismissing the suit."
63. It is pertinent to mention here that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 197 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the Govt.of 44 O.S.No.2096/2014 Karnataka made the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 for the purpose of grant of land to a person who is not a sufficient holder. Under Rule 7 of the Land Grant Rules, 1969, the Deputy Commissioner shall be competent to grant land for agricultural purpose other than cultivation of plantation crop not exceeding one hectare of dry and half-hectare of wet land or garden including present holdings.
64. The procedure for grant of land for agricultural purpose is envisaged under Rule 8 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. Any person who is eligible for grant of lands for agricultural purpose, shall make an application in writing to the Tahsildar of the Taluk in Form No.1 giving the particulars. Under Rule 8 (6), where the Tahsildar was not competent to grant lands under this Rule or extent of land applied for is more than the extent of the land which he is competent to grant, he shall submit the application to the Officer who is competent to grant such extent of land along with the report in the matter and such competent officer may pass order granting the land. 45
O.S.No.2096/2014
65. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, he has deposed that he knew that aspirant applicant shall have to file an application before the Revenue Authorities for grant of Government lands under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules. He is not aware as to whether an application filed for grant of Government land.
66. Under Rule 24, the State Government may constitute for each Taluk a consultative committee consisting of such member of official and non-offficial members and for such period as may be determined by it for the purpose of grant of land. Under Rule 24(4), the Committee shall be consulted in respect of all the application for grant of land for agricultural purpose including the raising of plantation crops in the Taluk concerned and the recommendations of the Committee shall ordinarily be accepted by the authority competent to grant the land.
67. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, in Para No.15, he has stated that under the Land Grant Rules, the 46 O.S.No.2096/2014 Committee will be formed to hear the applications filed for grant of revenue land. After receiving the applications by the applicants, the said Committee will enquire in to the requirement of land and eligibility of the applicants. He has further deposed that the Land Grant Committee shall register enquiry number pertaining to application and hold an enquiry and collect record and also record evidence and then, pass a final order of granting land to the applicants. He has further stated that the Land Grant Committee can reject the application if the applicants are not eligible for grant under the statute. [
68. P.W.1 has further stated that he do not know as to whether his father filed an application before the Karnataka Land Grant Committee for grant of the suit schedule property. He has further stated that in spite of all efforts, he could not trace the proceedings relating to grant of schedule land. He has further stated that the Tahsildar has issued an endorsement stating that no records are available in the revenue office pertaining to grant of suit schedule property to 47 O.S.No.2096/2014 his father or his brother under Karnataka Land Grant Rules.
69. P.W.1 has further stated that the suit schedule property is a stone quarry land. On perusal of the provisions of Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, it provides for grant of agricultural land to a person who is not a sufficient holder. The plaint averments itself shows that the suit schedule property is not an agricultural property. According to P.W.1, the suit schedule property is situated at the distance of 8 K.Ms from the City Civil Court premises as deposed by him in Page No.14 of his cross-examination. In Page No.20 of his cross-examination, he has stated that normally the Government grants the agricultural land for cultivation purpose to the land less agriculturist who are agriculturist by profession.
70. On perusal of the entire records, the plaintiff has not produced the application filed by S.A.Lakshman and S.A.Krishnappa for grant of land mentioned in the plaint schedule. He has also not 48 O.S.No.2096/2014 produced any of the records pertaining to the proceedings conducted by the Land Grant Committee contemplated under Rule 24 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. P.W.1 in his cross-examination in Page No.26, has stated that he can produce the records to show that his father and his uncle were in possession of Sy.No.77 of Audugodi village totally measuring 5 acres 30 guntas before filing the application for land grant. But, he has not produced any such document to show that they were in possession of the property in Sy.No.77 even before filing the application before the Land Grant Committee.
71. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the suit, an application was filed in I.A.No.39 to summon the records pertaining to the grant of land in Sy.No.77 of Audugodi village in favour of S.A.Lakshman and S.A.Krishnappa. In response to the said order, the Tahsildar of Bangalore South Taluk submitted a letter dated 31/1/2020 stating that document sought in I.A.No.39 is not available. 49
O.S.No.2096/2014 Therefore, it is clear that order of grant of land in favour of S.A.Lakshman and S.A.Krishnappa said to have been passed by the Deputy Commissioner in LND 73/71-72 is not available to hold that S.A.Lakshman was granted with land of 1 acre. Likewise, no such grant order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is produced to show that 36 guntas of land was granted in favour of S.A.Krishnappa.
72. D.W.1 in his cross-examination stated that the BBMP will maintain property registers and such property register extract is not produced. He do not know the date on which the BBMP has taken out the possession.
73. No doubt, under Section 133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the revenue documents have presumptive value to show the possession of the land. However, such presumption is rebuttable in nature. The plaintiff has produced RTC extracts marked at Ex.P.14 to Ex.P.21 that reveal the name of S.A.Krishnappa to an extent of 33 guntas in 50 O.S.No.2096/2014 Sy.No.77/P1 based on the orders in LND SR 96/78-79 MR No.229/78-79. The plaintiff has not produced any such order passed in LND SR 96/78-79. It is well settled law that mere entries in revenue records will not confer title to a property unless the mode of acquisition of title is proved.
74. In the absence of any cogent evidence, the court cannot declare title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Apart from the contention of the grant of land in favour of S.A.Lakshman and S.A.Krishnappa, the plaintiff has also contended that S.A.Krishnappa had bequeathed 36 guntas of land in favour of S.A.Lakshman and S.A.Lakshman bequeathed 1 acre 36 guntas of land in Sy.No.77, no such Will executed by them marked at Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31 are proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.
75. Viewed from any angle, the plaintiff has failed to prove that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the Grant made in 51 O.S.No.2096/2014 favour of her husband S.A.Lakshman and S.A.Krishnappa who is the brother of S.A.Lakshman and they executed Will in her favour. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 has proved that the revenue records produced by the plaintiff are created without there being lawful order from the Deputy Commissioner. The plaintiff has also failed to prove her lawful possession over the schedule properties. Therefore, the obstructions as alleged by the plaintiff by defendant No.1 & 2 does not arise at all. Hence, I answer the Addl.Issue No.1, Issue No.1 & 2 in the Negative and Addl.Issue No.2 in the Affirmative.
76. ISSUE No.3:- The plaintiff has failed to prove her title and possession over the suit schedule property. Therefore, she is not entitled for the relief as sought for. Hence, I answer Issue No.3 in the Negative.
77. ISSUE No.4:- In view of my findings on Issue No.1 to 3, I pass the following:-
52
O.S.No.2096/2014 ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs. Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19 th day of December, 2020.) (Dinesh Hegde) XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
P.W.1 - S.L.Srinath
b) Defendants' side :
D.W.1 - Mohammed Obedulla Sharief II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
Ex.P.1 General Power of Attorney
Ex.P.2 Special power of attorney
Ex.P.3 Certified copy of Land Grant
extract issued by Tahsildar
Ex.P.4 Death certificate of
S.A.Krishnappa
53
O.S.No.2096/2014
Ex.P.5 Death certificate of father of
P.W.1
Ex.P.6 & P.7 2 encumbrance certificates Ex.P.8 RTC pertaining to Sy.No.77/P1 for 2013-14 Ex.P.9 Endorsement dated 15/4/2014 issued by 2nd defendant Ex.P.10 Original Saguvali chit dated 27/3/1971 issued in favour of Lakshman pertaining to Sy.No.77 Ex.P.11 Record of Rights pertaining to Sy.No.77 Ex.P.12 Index of land pertaining to Sy.No.77 Ex.P.13 Darkhast Special Register extract Ex.P.14 to RTCs from 2001-2002 to 2013-14 Ex.P.21 pertaining to Sy.No.77/P1 Ex.P.22 City Survey Enquiry Report pertaining to Sy.No.77/P1 Ex.P.23 Certified copy of the orders passed in EO.CTS.3/20/2015-16 dated 16/2/2015 Ex.P.24 RTC extract pertaining to Sy.No.77/P1 for the year 2016-17 Ex.P.25 Mutation Register Extract pertaining to MR.No.H2/2014-15 dated 30/3/2015 Ex.P.26 Survey Sketch pertaining to Sy.No.77 Ex.P.27 City Survey Enquiry Report pertaining to other survey numbers 54 O.S.No.2096/2014 Ex.P.28 Index of lands pertaining to Sy.No.77 Ex.P.29 RTC of Sy.No.77/P1 for 2000-01 Ex.P.30 Will dated 25/12/1993 executed by Krishnappa in favour of plaintiff's father Ex.P.31 Another Will executed by P.W.1's father in favour of his wife Smt.Saraswathi Ex.P.32 Copy of the complaint dated 15/9/2014 given to Deputy Police Commissioner Ex.P.33 Copy of the complaint dated 15/9/2014 given to Commissioner, BBMP Ex.P.34 Letter issued by BDA dated 24/12/2014 Ex.P.35 Document pertaining to approval of layout plan of BDA dated 4/12/1988 Ex.P.36 Document pertaining to approval of layout plan of BDA No.225/1989-90 Ex.P.37 Remittance challan dated 29/8/1989 Ex.P.38 Postal cover sent by BD
(b) Defendants' side : -
Ex.D.1 to Certified copy of the 6 RTCs Ex.D.6 pertaining to Sy.No.77 55 O.S.No.2096/2014 Ex.D.7 Karnataka Revision Assessment Extract of Sy.No.77 Ex.D.8 Letter dated 6/8/2014 written by Tahsildar to AEE, BBMP, layout Section, Bangalore.
Ex.D.9 Official memorandum issued by the District Collector,DC Office, Bangalore dated 11/10/1994. Ex.D.10 Proceedings of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore dated 9/2/1987 regarding conversion of land Ex.D.11 RTC Ex.D.12 Letter dated:11/8/2014 written by the office of Deputy Commissioner, to AEE, BBMP Ex.D.13 RTC Ex.D.14 to 4 photographs Ex.D.17 Ex.D.18 Authorization letter Ex.D.19 Plan and property register extract Ex.D.20 Original note sheet Ex.D.21 Estimation list Ex.D.22 Job number certificate Ex.D.23 & 2 photographs Ex.D.24 56 O.S.No.2096/2014 Ex.D.25 Agreement dated 1/12/2011 Ex.D.26 Tender approval Ex.D.27 Contract certificate Ex.D.28 Note sheet Ex.D.29 Job certificate (Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.17 are marked in the cross-
examination of P.W.1)
(c) Court's document marked :
Ex.C.1 Layout Map
(Dinesh Hegde)
XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
GVU/-57
O.S.No.2096/2014 Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate detailed judgment with the following operative portion:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
uu (Dinesh Hegde) XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.