Bangalore District Court
Swamivelu L vs Muniyappa on 1 October, 2024
KABC010195882005
IN THE COURT OF LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE; BENGALURU CITY (CCH.No.68)
PRESENT
SMT.RASHMI.M.
BA.LL.B., LL.M.
LXVII ADDL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 1st day of October 2024.
O.S.No.9468/2005
PLAINTIFF : Sri.L.Swamivelu,
S/o.Late Lakshman Naidu,
Aged about 54 years,
R/of.Near Balan Building,
Kammagondanahalli,
Jalahalli West,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.K.T.G.P., Advocate)
.Vs.
DEFENDANTS : 1. Sri.Muniyappa,
Since deceased by his L.Rs.
1(a). Sri.M.Venkatesh,
S/o.Muniyappa.
1(b). Sri.M.Ramesh,
S/o.Muniyappa.
O.S.No.9468/2005
2
1(c). Sri.M.Dinesh Kumar,
S/o.Muniyappa.
All are residing near
Rama Temple,
Kammagondanahalli,
Yeshwanthpur Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk.
(By Sri.S.M., Advocate)
2. Sri.M.Venkatesh,
S/o.Muniyappa,
Since deceased by his L.R.
2(a). Sri.Anil,
S/o.Late Venkatesh,
Aged about 30 years,
R/of.Abhigere Main Road,
16th Main,
Muniyappa Garden,
Near Ashok Millennium
School,
Kammagondanahalli
Village,
Bengaluru.
..... (Exparte)
3. Sri.M.Ramesh,
S/o.Muniyappa,
R/of.near Rama Temple,
Kammagondanahalli Village,
Yeshwanthpur Hobli,
Near Rama Temple,
Bengaluru North Taluk.
(By Sri.M.S.G., Advocate)
4. Sri.Nathuram.K.
R/of.Kammagondanahalli
Village,
O.S.No.9468/2005
3
Yeshwanthpur Hobli,
Near Rama Temple,
Bengaluru North Taluk.
(By Sri.M.G.A., Advocate)
5. Sri.Jayakumar Joseph,
S/o.Late Loganathan,
Aged about 63 years,
Behind Millennium Public
School,
Kammagondanahalli,
Bengaluru.
....... (Exparte)
Date of institution of suit : 29.11.2005
Nature of Suit : Suit for Injunction
Date of commencement of 27.10.2022
evidence :
Date on which the judgment 1.10.2024
is pronounced:
Duration taken for disposal : Year/s Month/s Day/s
18 10 2
(RASHMI.M)
LXVII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge,
BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for injunction restraining the defendant No.4, his agents, servants, O.S.No.9468/2005 4 etc., from interfering with the suit schedule property and demolishing the compound wall situated around the schedule property and to grant such other reliefs. Further to declare that the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and that the Rectification Deed dated:4.03.2005 is null and void and to direct the defendant to demolish the construction and handover the possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff.
2. The plaint averments in brief :
The plaintiff is the absolute owner of Site No.7, formed in survey No.44 measuring East to West: 18½ feet and North to South: 56+41 feet purchased from 2 land owner Sri.K.H.Muniyappa, who in turn has executed the same in favour of Sri.C.Manjunath. On having possession and ownership, the said C.Manjunath executed the G.P.A. on 17.08.1996 in favour of the plaintiff. On execution of the G.P.A., other necessary documents has been executed and the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit schedule property. On taking possession of the suit schedule property the plaintiff has constructed a house and he is in its peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.
The defendant No.4 claims to be the owner of site bearing No.5 having recently purchased the same from O.S.No.9468/2005 5 plaintiff's vendors. Due to identification of the property, the defendants started to interfere in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property even though they are not adjacent owner either side of the property. The defendants having no manner of right, title, encroached upon the vacant possession of the property by removing the compound wall constructed along with the schedule property. Though the plaintiff has filed a complaint before the jurisdictional police, they have not taken any action against the defendant No.4 as he is an influential person.
The plaintiff has further contended in the amended plaint that the defendant Nos.1 to 3, who were the owners of the suit schedule property had sold the same to Sri.Manjunath through G.P.A., dated:15.08.1990 for consideration of Rs.21,000/-. The said transaction was confirmed by the Possession Certificate and through Consideration Receipt. As such Sri.Manjunath was in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Thereafter on 17.08.1996 the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property through a registered G.P.A., from Sri.Manjunath. The Sale Deed could not be registered as there was prohibition to register the document in respect of the revenue sites. As such, the plaintiff became the owner in pursuance of the G.P.A. The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent O.S.No.9468/2005 6 injunction and to demolish the compound wall. The defendant No.4 with high handedness put up a compound wall by trespassing into the plaintiff's property. In the amended plaint, it is further stated that the contention taken by the defendant No.4 is false and the defendant No.4 has fabricated the documents to knock off the suit schedule property. Also there is continuous threat to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property.l Hence the plaintiff has filed this suit.
3. The L.Rs., of defendant No.1(a) to (c) and defendant 3 even though have put up their appearance through their advocate have not filed the written statement and their written statement is not taken as not filed.
Even after issuance of summons, the defendant No.5 has not put up his appearance. Hence he has been placed exparte.
Further as per the entry in the order sheet dated:18.01.2020, the summons was served on defendant No.2(a), but has not appeared before the court. In view of the service of summons, the defendant No.2(a) is considered to be placed exparte.
4. The defendant No.4 has filed detailed written statement denying the plaint averments and the O.S.No.9468/2005 7 contention taken by the plaintiff. He has taken specific stand that the properties in survey No.44 to an extent of 2 acres 12 guntas situated in Kammagondanahalli Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk was originally the ancestral property of one Sri.Munivenkatappa, who had two children by name Bajjaiah and Chikkaramaiah. After the death of Munivenkatappa, his son Bajjaiah and his grand sons by name Muniyappa and Chikkamuniyappa along with the great grand children Venkatesh, Ramesh and Dinesh i.e., sons of K.B.Muniyappa and sons of late Chikkaraimaiah by name Venkataramaiah and Smt.Gangamma partitioned the said land in survey No.44 along with other property owned by Sri.Munivenkatappa by executing a registered Partition Deed dated:16.09.1972. As per the said registered Partition Deed, the properties in survey No.44 to an extent of 2 acres 12 guntas of Kammagondanahalli Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk had fallen to the share of Sri.Venkatesh, Sri.Ramesh and Sri.Dinesh. As such they were the absolute owners of the said property and they formed sites in survey No.44 of Kammagondanahalli Holbli, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, the site No.7 is one of the sites measuring East to West : 18 feet and North to South: 40 feet, total measuring 720 sq. feet sold in favour of defendant No.4 under a registered Sale Deed dated:10.01.2005. However while executing the said O.S.No.9468/2005 8 Sale Deed dated:10.01.2005 by clerical mistake it is wrongly stated in the schedule as Site No.5 instead of Site No.7. The same was rectified by executing Rectification Deed dated:4.03.2005. Accordingly the katha of the schedule property was transferred to the name of defendant No.4 Thereafter the defendant No.4 has constructed a residential building on the said site bearing No.7 and residing in the said house. Hence the defendant No.4 is the absolute owner of site No.7 and not site No.5. The plaintiff is not the owner of site No.7. The defendant No.4 is in possession and enjoyment of site No.7. Hence the question of interfering with the possession of the plaintiff does not arise. It is denied that the defendant No.4 is an influential person and he has taken law into his own hands. The plaintiff cannot assert his right over the property by mere filing police complaint against the defendant No.4. The plaintiff has not produced any document to show that he has acquired the suit schedule property from his vendors. The documents furnished by him does not confirm any right, title, interest over the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. The plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and marked 12 documents from Exs.P.1 to 12. Despite grant of sufficient opportunities, the defendant No.4 has chosen not to adduce the defense evidence.
O.S.No.9468/2005 9
6. Heard the learned advocate for plaintiff. Despite grant of sufficient opportunity, the defendants have failed to address their arguments. Hence the arguments of defendants is taken as nil.
7. My learned Predecessor has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves his lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property ?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference ?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of perpetual injunction as prayed for ?
4. What Order or Decree ?
8. My findings to the above issues are as under:
ISSUE No.1 - Negative, ISSUE No.2 - Negative, ISSUE No.3 - Negative, ISSUE No.4 - As per the final order, for the following :
REASONS
9. ISSUE Nos.1 & 2 : As these Issues are interconnected to each other, they are taken up together for discussion. The burden of proving these Issues lies upon the plaintiffs.
O.S.No.9468/2005 10
10. The plaintiff in support his case has got himself examined as PW1. In his affidavit filed in lieu of examination in chief he has stated that one Muniyappa and his sons Venkatesh and Ramesh i.e., defendant Nos.1 to 3 were the original owners of property survey No.44 to an extent of 2 acres 12 guntas. They formed sites in the said property and they sold site No.7 to Sri.Manjunath through GPA dated:15.08.1990 for a consideration of Rs.21,000/- and also a Possession Certificate-cum-Consideration Certificate was issued. In pursuance of the said document Sri.Manjunath was in actual possession and enjoyment of the said site No.7. The registration of the Sale Deed was not effected due to Fragmention Act in respect of site No.7. Thereafter Sri.C.Manjunath sold site No.7 to the plaintiff under irrevocable registered G.P.A., on 17.08.1996. The said Sri.C.Manjunath has also executed an affidavit confirming the registration of power of attorney by receiving Rs.47,100/- which is sale consideration. In pursuance of the said document, the katha was changed to his name and he was put in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendant No.4 having no manner of right, title and interest over the schedule property encroached upon the said property by removing the compound wall. The plaintiff protested the illegal acts of the defendants and lodged a police complaint, but the jurisdictional police did not take any action against the defendant 1 as he is an O.S.No.9468/2005 11 influential person. Thereafter his wife gave a complaint against the defendant Nos.1 to 3 before Gangammanagudi Police Station, Bengaluru. One of the son of defendant No.1 namely K.M.Dinesh Kumar appeared before the police and gave written reply that by mistake in the identity of the property and the same will be rectified, however he failed to do anything.
11. Further the plaintiff has stated that the defendant No.4 has contended in his written statement that he purchased Site No.7 under a registered Sale Deed dated:10.01.2005 and due to clerical mistake Site No.7 is mentioned as Site No.5, so the same was rectified by Rectification Deed dated:4.03.2005. But the defendants have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property and the defendant No.4 is relying on false and fabricated documents to knock off the suit schedule property. Further during the pendency of this suit, the defendant No.4 sold the property to one Smt.Tara Mangala Gowri, who in turn sold the same to the defendant No.5-Sri.Jaya Kumar Joseph. The said transactions are not binding upon the plaintiff. In order to protect his property, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for permanent injunction.
12. In support of the case, the plaintiff has produced the G.P.A. (Ex.P.1), Affidavit (Ex.P.2), Possession O.S.No.9468/2005 12 Certificate-cum-Consideration Receipt (Ex.P.3), Tax Paid Receipts (Exs.P.4 to 6), Encumbrance Certificate (Ex.P.7), Property Tax Register Extract (Ex.P.8), Report/Complaint (Ex.P.9), Police Endorsement (Ex.P.10), Copy of statement of defendant No.1(c) (Ex.P.11) and Rectification Deed (Ex.P.12)
13. In the present case in hand the plaintiff claims that one Manjunath has sold the suit schedule property to him under registered G.P.A.(Ex.P.1) dated:17.08.1996 executed in his favour with respect to Site No.7 i.e., the suit schedule property. On perusal of Ex.P.1-Registered G.P.A., dated:17.08.1996, wherein it is stated that Sri.C.Manjunath is its absolute owner having purchased the same on 15.08.1990. As per the said G.P.A., Sri.C.Manjunath has appointed Sri.L.Swamivelu (plaintiff herein) as the G.P.A.Holder to deal with the schedule property mentioned in the G.P.A., i.e., survey No.44, Kammagondanahalli Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk with respect to Site No.7. further in the said G.P.A., the plaintiff herein has been authorised to represent Sri.C.Manjunath to pay taxes, change the katha in the Government office, banks and also to obtain necessary facilities to the said property. In Col.No.3, it is specifically stated that :
"ಷೆಡ್ಯೂ ಲ್ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತ ನ್ನು ನೀವು ಬೇರೆಯವರಿಗೆ ಕ್ರ ಯ, ಆಧಾರ, ಭೋಗ್ಯ ವಗೈರೆ ವ್ಯ ವಹಾರ ಪರಭಾರೆಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾಡುವುದಕ್ಕೂ , ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ್ಟ ದಸ್ತಾ ವೇಜುಗಳನ್ನು O.S.No.9468/2005 13 ನೋಂದಣಿ ಮಾಡಿಸಿಕೊಟ್ಟು ಸ್ವ ತ್ತ ನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಪರವಾಗಿ ನೀವೇ ಸ್ವಾ ಧೀನಪಡಿಸುವುದಕ್ಕೂ ".
14. The said G.P.A., does not show that the plaintiff as the owner of the suit schedule property. It also does not mention any intention of Sri.C.Manjunath to sell property No.7 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has further contended that an Affidavit has been executed by Sri.C.Manjunath, which is marked as Ex.P.2. On perusal of Affidavit (Ex.P.2), it is mentioned that Sri.C.Manjunath has received Rs.47,100/- from the plaintiff towards sale consideration confirming the registration of the power of attorney. He has furnished Ex.P.3 i.e., Possession- cum-Consideration Receipt, which is discloses that it was executed on 15.08.1990 by the defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(c) and their father stating that they are absolute owners of survey No.44 on receiving a sum of Rs.21,000/- and Rs.16,000/- respectively towards sale consideration towards full and final settlement. The said defendants have executed the G.P.A., and affidavit with respect to the schedule property in favour of Sri.C.Manjunath since it is not possible to execute a proper Sale Deed as Fragmentation Act is in force. It also stated that in future they are bound and liable to execute proper Sale Deed after registration and that they would never revoke the G.P.A. It is stated that it is the responsibility of the purchaser to bear all the costs O.S.No.9468/2005 14 of transfer of the schedule property. In the schedule of the possession certification, it is mentioned site Nos.11 and 7 formed in survey No.44 of Kammagondanahalli Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.
15. In view of the oral and documentary evidence placed before the court by the plaintiff, it is first necessary to note that as per the Possession Certificate, admittedly no Sale Deed has been executed in favour of Sri.C.Manjunath from whom the plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit schedule property. Even till this date, the said Manjunath has not got registered the Sale Deed executed in his name from the vendors. In the absence of the Sale Deed, it is settled principle of law that the ownership and title is not transferred.
16. But as it may stand, the plaintiff is claiming to be the owner in possession of the suit schedule property on the basis of the G.P.A., and Affidavit executed by Sri.C.Manjunath. As discussed supra, the said Sri.C.Manjunath himself does not have right, title and ownership over the suit schedule property. When that being the case, the status of Sri.C.Manjunath is that of G.P.A.Holder of the defendants. The plaintiff claims ownership over the suit schedule property on the basis of the G.P.A. (Ex.P.1) and Affidavit (Ex.P.2). As discussed supra, in the G.P.A. (Ex.P.1) the plaintiff is authorised to look after the property and does not declare the plaintiff O.S.No.9468/2005 15 as owner. The Affidavit (Ex.P.2) is alleged to have been executed by Sri.C.Manjunath stating that he has received sale consideration from the plaintiff and the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property, but the Affidavit and the G.P.A., does not confer any right or title to the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Even otherwise from the documents placed on record, it can be safely said that Sri.C.Manjunath himself being a GPA holder, not being the owner of the suit schedule property had executed G.P.A. (Ex.P.1) in favour of the plaintiff.
17. The plaintiff has furnished the Tax Paid Receipt Extract (Ex.P.8) for the year 1998-99, wherein he is shown to be in possession of property No.7. But it does not establish that he is the owner of the suit schedule property as claimed by him. The Encumbrance Certificate (Ex.P.7) for the year 2004-05 stands in the name of defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(c), which clearly goes to show that during 2004-2005, the suit schedule property stood in the name of defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(c). The other documents relating to the payment of tax does not display that the plaintiff is the owner of the schedule property. The copy of complaint given by the plaintiff and his wife (Exs.P.9 and 10) to the police is not helpful to the plaintiff to prove that he is the owner of the suit schedule property.
O.S.No.9468/2005 16
18. The Rectification Deed (Ex.P.12), dated:4.03.2005 correcting site No.5 as Site No.7 executed by the defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(c) in favour of the defendant No.4. furnished by the plaintiff goes to show that the vendors of defndant no 4 had executed the absolute registered Sale Deed dated:10.01.2005 with respect to Site No.5, which stands rectified as Site No.7. The rectified schedule is the plaint schedule property. From the said Rectification Deed, it can be safely said that the defendant No.4 had purchased site No.7 under registered Sale Deed from the defendant Nos.1(a) to 1(c) on 10.01.2005.
19. The plaintiff is claiming his right, title and possession under the G.P.A., and Affidavit. Section 1(A) of Power of Attorney Act deals with the power and transfer of G.P.A., which reads as under :
Section 1(A) of Power of Attorney Act reads thus :
[1A. Definition.--In this Act, "power-of-
attorney" includes any instrument empowering a specified person to act for and in the name of the person executing it.]
20. Section 33 of Indian Registration Act reads thus :
33. Power-of-attorney recognizable for purposes of section 32.
(1)For the purposes of section 32, the following powers-of-attorney shall alone be recognised, namely, O.S.No.9468/2005 17
(a)if the principal at the time of executing the power-of-attorney resides in any part of [India] [Substituted by Act 3 of 1951, Section 3 and Sch., for "the States"
(w.e.f. 1.4.1951).] in which this Act is for the time being in force, a power-of-
attorney executed before and authenticated by the Registrar or Sub- Registrar within whose district or sub- district the principal resides;
(b)if the principal at the time aforesaid [resides in any part of India in which this Act is not in force] [Substituted by Act 3 of 1951, Section 3 and Sch., for "resides in any other part of the States" (w.e.f. 1.4.1951).], a power-of-attorney executed before and authenticated by any Magistrate;(c)if the principal at the time aforesaid does not reside in [India] [Substituted by Act 3 of 1951, Section 3 and Sch., for "the States" (w.e.f.
1.4.1951).], a power-of-attorney executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public, or any Court, Judge, Magistrate, [Indian] [Substituted by A.O.1950, for "British" .]Consul or Vice-Consul, or representative [* * *] [The words "of his Majesty or" omitted by A.O.1950.] of the Central Government:Provided that the following persons shall not be required to attend at any registration office or Court for the purpose of executing any such power-of-attorney as is mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of this section, namely, O.S.No.9468/2005 18
(i)persons who by reason of bodily infirmity are unable without risk or serious inconvenience so to attend;
(ii)persons who are in jail under civil or criminal process; and
(iii)persons exempt by law from personal appearance in Court.
[Explanation. In this sub-section India means India, as defined in clause (28) of section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897).] [Inserted by Act 3 of 1951, Section 3 and Sch.
(w.e.f. 1.4.1951).] (2) In the case of every such person the Registrar or Sub-Registrar or Magistrate, as the case may be, if satisfied that the power-of- attorney has been voluntarily executed by the person purporting to be the principal, may attest the same without requiring his personal attendance at the office or Court aforesaid. (3)To obtain evidence as to the voluntary nature of the execution, the Registrar or Sub- Registrar or Magistrate may either himself go to the house of the person purporting to be the principal, or to the jail in which he is confined, and examine him, or issue a commission for his examination.
(4)Any power-of-attorney mentioned in this section may be proved by the production of it without further proof when it purports on the face of it to have been executed before and authenticated by the person or Court herein before mentioned in that behalf.
O.S.No.9468/2005 19
21. Section 54(A) of Transfer of Property Act reads thus :
"Sale" is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised. Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument.
22. On reading the said Sections, it is observed that the power of attorney holder gets right to act for and in the name of the person executing it, but it does not transfer any right or title over any movable or immovable property. More so ever said Manjunath from whom plaintiff claims title himself is GPA holder of defendants 1 and he has no title over the suit schedule property. Hence the plaintiff does not get any right title over the suit schedule property on the basis of a registered GPA (ExP1) and affidavit (ExP2). Further in the absence of registered Sale Deed or any document under the name and styled Sale Deed whether registered or unregistered, the contents of the GPA and Affidavit said to have been executed by Sri.C.Manjunath that he has received sale consideration and the plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property does not have any value in the eyes of law . As such, the plaintiff O.S.No.9468/2005 20 has failed to prove that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
23. Further it is necessary to note that in para No.2 of the plaint, he has stated that "On taking possession the plaintiff constructed the house and having peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same which is described in the schedule of the plaintiff". In para No.4 of the plaint, he has stated that "The defendants are no manner of right, title, encroach upon vacant possession of the property by removing the compound wall constructed along with the schedule property". In prayer column plaintiff has sought "direct the defendant to demolish the construction and hand over the possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff". Further in his affidavit evidence he has stated that the property is sold by the defendant No.4 to Smt.Tara Mangala Gowri, who in turn told to the defendant No.5. While the defendant No.4 has stated in his written statement that he has put up construction of house in Site No.7 and is residing in the said house.
24. As such the plaintiff has taken contradictory stand by stating that he has constructed a house. But the plaintiff has nowhere stated that the defendant No.4 O.S.No.9468/2005 21 has constructed a house in Site No.7. Even otherwise in the absence of oral and documentary evidence as discussed supra to prove that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and also there is no evidence other than the contradictory statements before the court regarding any construction over the suit schedule property. As such, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant No.4 has put up any construction of the schedule property which is in plaintiff's lawful possession.
25. The plaintiff has furnished the certified copies of the complaint (Exs.P.9 and 10) regarding the complaint given by him and his wife. The said complaints does not by itself prove the alleged interference by the defendant. The plaintiff has not produced any evidence regarding the sale of the suit schedule property to Smt.Tara Mangala Gowri and that she in turn sold it to the defendant No.5.
26. In the present case even though the defendants have not adduced any evidence nor cross examined the plaintiff which by itself does not go to establish the title and claim of the plaintiff. In view of the oral and documentary evidence placed before the court by the plaintiff it can be safely said that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the owner of the suit schedule property. Further plaintiff has failed to prove that he is O.S.No.9468/2005 22 in lawful possession of the suit schedule property. Also he failed to prove the alleged interference by the defendants. Hence, I proceed to answer the Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the Negative.
27. ISSUE No.3 : In view of the discussion made supra on Issue Nos.1 and 2, it is held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Also the plaintiff has failed to prove the alleged interference by the defendant No.4. Hence, the plaintiff has not made out grounds for grant of perpetual injunction as prayed. Accordingly, Issue No.3 is answered in the Negative.
28. ISSUE No.4: In view of my findings on Issue Nos.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1 st day of October 2024 (RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, BENGALURU.
O.S.No.9468/2005 23 SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of the property bearing No.7, formed in Survey No.44, now S.C.Katha No.116 of City Municipal Council, Dasarahalli, Bengaluru -560 057 measuring into extent East to West: 18½ feet and North to South: 56+41 feet with house and all amenities 2 and bounded on the :East by : Site Nos.8 and 9
West by : Site No.6
North by : 20 Feet Road
South by : K.B.Muniyappa's Property
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED IN FAVOUR OF THE PLAINTIFFS :
P.W.1 L.Swamivelu
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED IN FAVOUR OF THE
PLAINTIFFS :
Ex.P.1 G.P.A.
Ex.P.2 Affidavit
Ex.P.3 Possession Certificate-cum-
Consideration Receipt
Exs.P.4 to 6 Tax Paid Receipts
Ex.P.7 Encumbrance Certificate
Ex.P.8 Property Tax Register Extract
Ex.P.9 Report/Complaint
Ex.P.10 Police Endorsement
Ex.P.11 Copy of statement of defendant
No.1(c)
Ex.P.12 Rectification Deed
O.S.No.9468/2005
24
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED & DOCUMENTS MARKED IN FAVOUR OF THE DEFENDANTS :
-NIL-
(RASHMI.M) LXVII Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge, BENGALURU.
Digitally signed by RASHMI M RASHMI Date:
M 2024.10.08
15:43:30
+0530
O.S.No.9468/2005
25