Bangalore District Court
Sri. M. Jagadish vs Sri. B. Rudrappa on 16 September, 2021
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS
Government of
Karnataka
Form No.9
[Civil] Title Sheet for
Judgement IN THE COURT OF V ADDL.CITY CIVIL COURT
in Suits
AT BENGALURU
(CCH.No.13)
Present: Sri. C.D. KAROSHI, B.A., LL.M.
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU
Dated this the 16 th day of September, 2021.
O.S. No.4960/2005
PLAINTIFF: Sri. M. Jagadish,
S/o Munishamappa,
Aged about 46 years,
R/at Thindlu Village,
Vidhyaranyapura Post,
Bengaluru-97.
(By Sri.HMG., Advocate)
/VS/
DEFENDANTS: 1. Sri. B. Rudrappa,
S/o Late Bayyanna,
Aged about 60 years
2. Sri. B. Shivanna,
S/o Late Bayyanna,
Aged about 58 years
Both are R/at
Thindlu village,
Vidhyaranyapura Post,
Bengaluru-97.
(By Sri.S.R., Advocate)
(After remand:- D.1 &2 - Absent)
2
O.S. No.4960/2005
Date of Institution of the suit 04/07/2005
Nature of the suit Declaration & Injunction
Date of Commencement of 23/02/2010
recording of evidence
Date on which judgment was 16/09/2021
Pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
16 02 12
( C.D.KAROSHI )
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU
******
:JUDGMENT:
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction along with cost of the suit.
2. The brief facts are as under :-
That, the plaintiff is the absolute owner in peaceful, lawful, physical possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Katha No.124, property No.112/112, measuring east to west 47 feet and north to south 17 ½ feet situated at Thindlu village, Yelahanka hobli, which is morefully described in the schedule as 'A' schedule property. It is further averred that, plaintiff is also owning property bearing katha No.113 and property No.113/112 measuring east to west 50 feet and 3 O.S. No.4960/2005 north to south 17 ½ feet situated at Thindlu village, Yelahanka Hobli, Byatarayanapura, CMC, Bengaluru North Taluk which is described as 'B' schedule property. Further it is averred that, 'A' schedule property was belonged to one Ramanjanappa which was his ancestral property and the same has been purchased by one Sri. Shankara S/o Late Thammaiah through a registered sale deed dated 08/09/2000 from Ramanjanappa and since from the date of purchase said Shankara was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owner thereof and subsequently the plaintiff has purchased the same from Shankara through a registered sale deed dated 17/01/2001, ever since plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over 'A' schedule property as absolute owner and thereafter plaintiff approached the City Municipal Council, Byatarayanapura and got transferred the katha in his name.
Further it is averred that, the 'B' schedule property was originally an ancestral property of the plaintiff which was standing in the name of his father Muniswamappa and subsequently in an oral partition 'B' schedule property is allotted to the share of plaintiff and as both 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are situated adjacent to each other CMC, Byatarayanapura has effected katha jointly in the name of plaintiff by assigning property No.124, 112/112 and 113/112 and plaintiff is paying tax to both the properties regularly to the concerned authorities.4
O.S. No.4960/2005 It is further averred that, originally the suit schedule properties were the properties belong to the joint family of the plaintiff's grandfather Thimmanna and his cousin brothers and the entire property was a single plot, several houses have been put up by themselves and the road was existing only on the northern side of the entire properties and the road which is existing at present on the western side has been formed recently. To the north of the 'A" schedule property there is a property belonged to the sons of Bayyanna i.e. the defendants herein and they have put up construction of dwelling houses on their property and there is a passage which runs from northern side main road, the houses of plaintiff situated on 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, the said passage measures east to west 6 feet and north to south 25 feet in between the defendants property. Further it is averred that, the main door of the plaintiff's house situated on 'A" and 'B' schedule properties are opened towards the said passage and so also the house of the defendants' property is also having doors open to the said passage, the plaintiff described the common passage in the schedule and referred to as 'C' schedule property. As the plaintiff, his family members, his father and his ancestors have been using the 'C' schedule property to reach the 'B' schedule property held by his father since time immemorial, so also the plaintiff's vendor were using the 'C' schedule property to reach the 'A' schedule property before purchase of the same by the plaintiff and defendants were also using the 'C' schedule property as common passage to 5 O.S. No.4960/2005 reach their respective houses constructed over their property and with regard to the existence of the common passage 'C' schedule property, there is a mention in the sale deed dated 09/09/1946 executed by Sri. Byanna in favour of Smt. Nagamma who is the ancestor of the defendants herein. The vendors of the ancestors has left the 'C' schedule common passage to reach houses which was existing in the 'B' schedule property as long as in the year 1946 itself and plaintiff is having right of ingress and egress to enjoy the 'C' schedule property to reach 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. It is further averred that, except the 'C' schedule common passage there was no other access to reach 'A' and 'B' schedule properties since time immemorial and so far as it is concerned to the road which is formed on the western side is the only of the recent one and a back doors is fixed to the same which cannot be used as main door, in respect of only 'B' schedule property and so far as it concerned to the 'A' schedule property there is no other access except 'C' schedule property, as such defendants have no exclusive manner of right, title or interest much less possession over the 'C' schedule property except using the same as common passage to reach their houses and they have been obstructing the plaintiff and his family members from making use of the 'C' schedule property to reach his house.
Further it is averred that, cause of action arose to file the suit on 28/06/2005 at about 3.30 p.m. when the plaintiff and his family members were going to their house through 'C' 6 O.S. No.4960/2005 schedule property from the northern side main road during that time the defendants and their family members have obstructed them from moving freely for reaching their house and have also proclaimed that the plaintiff cannot use the common passage and made a false claim that as if the same is belongs to them. Further averred that, the plaintiff and his family members have no other free access to reach his house as the defendants are now obstructing the plaintiff and his family members to have free access over the 'C' schedule property and defendants have also proclaimed that they are going to rise a wall across the 'C" schedule property common passage and prevent the plaintiff from using the same and in the event, if the wall is constructed across 'C" schedule property the plaintiff will have no access road to reach his property and hence himself and his family members will be put to great hardship and untold miseries. Further when the plaintiff questioned the illegal activities of the defendants for obstruction of free access of 'C' schedule property the defendants threatened that if the plaintiff continue to question the same, they will not allow the plaintiff to enjoy 'A' and 'B' schedule properties also. On these grounds prayed for decreeing the suit.
3. The defendants appeared through their counsel and filed written statement contending that the averments made in para 2 of the plaint is false and it is not true that plaintiff is the absolute owner and in peaceful possession and 7 O.S. No.4960/2005 enjoyment of the property bearing katha No.124, property No.112/112 measuring east to west 47 feet and north to south 17 ½ feet situated at Thindlu village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North which is mentioned in the 'A' schedule property. Further contend that, it is false that plaintiff is also owning property bearing Katha No.113 and property No.113/112 measuring east to west 50 feet and north to south 17 ½ feet situated at Thindlu village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk which is mentioned in the 'B' schedule property and the measurement of the 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are not properly and correctly shown with a view to grab a portion of property belonging to the defendants on the eastern side of the property.
It is further contended that, the averments made in para 3,4 and 5 of the plaint are denied as false and it is utterly false that originally the suit schedule properties which were of the properties belongs to the joint family of the plaintiff's grandfather and cousin brothers and the entire property was a single plot, several houses have been put up themselves and road was existing only on the northern side of the entire property and the road which is existing at present on the western side has been formed recently.
Further though it is true that, to the north of the schedule property there is property belongs to the sons of Bayyanna the defendant herein and they have put up constructions of dwelling house, but it is false that there is a passage from northern side main road of the house of the 8 O.S. No.4960/2005 plaintiff situate on 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and the said passage measures east to west 6 feet and north to south 25 feet in between the defendants property. Further it is false that the main door of the plaintiff's house situated at 'A' and 'B' schedule properties open towards the passage so also the house of the defendants property is also having door open to the said passage.
It is further contended that, the common passage in the schedule 'C' of the plaint is fictitious and the rough sketch with regard to the 'A" and 'B' schedule properties is prepared by the plaintiff for his convenience but it does not show the real position of the situation. It is also false that the plaintiff and his family members, his father and his ancestors have been using the 'C" schedule property to reach the 'B' schedule property held by his father since time immemorial, so also the plaintiff's vendor were using 'C' schedule property to reach 'A' schedule property before purchase of the same and it is also false that defendants were also using the 'C' schedule property as common passage to reach their respective properties to construct over their property.
Further the defendants would contend that, in between the 1st defendant's property there is a galli of three feet which is left by the defendants to use their own only and it is never common passage as alleged by the plaintiff. The averment made in para 8 of the plaint is denied as false. Further it is utterly false that, with regard to the existence of the common passage 'C" schedule property there is a mention in 9 O.S. No.4960/2005 the sale deed dated 09/09/1946 executed by Sri. Byanna S/o Veerappa in favour of Smt. Nagamma who is the ancestor of the defendants and it is also false that the vendors of the ancestors has left 'C' schedule common passage to reach the house which was existing in the 'B" schedule as long as in the year 1946 itself.
Further the defendants deny that, the plaintiff having right of ingress and egress to enjoy the 'C" schedule property to reach 'A' and 'B' properties. Further it is also false that, except the 'C' schedule common passage there was no other access to reach 'A' and 'B' schedule properties since time immemorial and so far as it concerned to the road which is formed on the western side is only the recent one and a back doors is fixed to the same which cannot be used as main door in respect of only 'B' schedule property also denied as false. Further it is false that, so far as it concerned to 'A" schedule property there is no other access except 'C' schedule property. Further it is false that defendants have no exclusive manner of right, title or interest over the 'C" schedule property except using the same as common passage to reach their houses, as such when there is no common passage as claimed in the schedule question of obstructing the plaintiff and his family members from making use of 'C' schedule to reach their houses does not arise. Further, no such galata or dispute has taken on 28/06/2005 and no cause of action arose to file the suit as alleged in the plaint.
10O.S. No.4960/2005 Further the defendants would specifically contend that, there is a house of the plaintiff on the western side of the house of the defendants. The road as stated in the plaint on the western side was constructed since time immemorial and door of the house of the defendant open towards the west. It is further contended that, the sketch furnished by them clearly shows on western side of the sketch there is a 80 feet main road but intentionally the door of the house of the plaintiff which is opened to western side is not shown and in the rough sketch the main road on the western side of the plaintiff property is very accessible to ingress and egress his house very conveniently, as such plaintiff is falsely claiming that there is a passage measuring east to west 6 feet and north to south 25 feet to access his house. Further contended that, on the eastern side of the defendant house there is a cattle shed and in between the said cattle shed and house of the defendant there is a gap of 3 feet which was left by the defendant to lead their cattle shed only and now the plaintiff is claiming the said three feet as common passage without any reason and suppressing the material facts before this court. On these grounds prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.
4. Records reveal that, initially suit filed by the plaintiff came to be decreed vide judgment and decree dated 16/08/2011. Aggrieved by the said judgment the defendants preferred RFA No.432/2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, which came to be allowed by setting aside the 11 O.S. No.4960/2005 judgment and decree on 21/01/2021 and restored the suit to its original file for reconsideration on merits with directions to dispose of the suit within six months.
5. Before remand of the case, on the basis of the above pleadings, my learned predecessor in office framed the following issues:-
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of suit schedule 'A" and 'B' property?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves the existence of suit schedule 'C' property as a common passage measuring east west 6 feet and north south 25 feet?
3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed in the suit ?
4) What order or decree?
6. In order to prove his case, initially i.e. before remand, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to P.23. After remand P.W. 1 once again entered into the witness box and submitted that he has no further examination-in-chief and posted for cross- examination of P.W. 1. On the other hand as per the observation made and opportunity given by the Hon'ble High Court in RFA No.432/2013 dated 21/01/2021 even after remand the defendants have neither paid cost of Rs.15,000/-
12O.S. No.4960/2005 by appearing on the date of hearing fixed by the Hon'ble High Court on 22/02/2021 nor challenged the evidence of P.W. 1 or adduced oral or documentary evidence before this court.
7. In view of the specific direction of the Hon'ble High Court, this court taken the above numbered case on board on 22/02/2021, restored to its original file with CIS entires and called in the open court. On that day, Sri. HMG advocate present and filed vakalath for the plaintiff, but defendants and counsel have neither appeared on 22/02/2021 nor deposited cost of Rs.15,000/- as directed by the Hon'ble High Court or challenged the evidence of P.W. 1 or stepped into the witness box. Further in view of orders of the Division Bench of our Hon'ble High Court dated 24/05/2021 regarding extension of dead line given to the subordinate courts for disposal of the cases within time bound manner for further three months and new SOP of our Hon'ble High Court dated 25/06/2021 due to Covid-19 pandemic 2nd wave again this court issued court notice to the defendants with a direction to be present along with their counsel and to proceed with the case/address arguments on merits, but the defendants and counsel did not turn up, accordingly case was posted for arguments and after having heard the learned counsel for plaintiff case was posted for arguments on defendant side with information to the defendants through district court web site, but again 13 O.S. No.4960/2005 defendants and counsel remained absent. Consequently on 25/08/2021 arguments on defendants side taken as nil and case was posted for judgment.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per final order for the
following:
:R E A S O N S:
9. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 :- I take these issues together for my discussion as they are inter-related to each other and for the sake of convenience.
10. Admittedly, the plaintiff has filed the above numbered suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration to declare that schedule 'C" property is a common passage to reach the schedule 'A" and 'B" properties and to restrain the defendants from putting up any structure on 'C"
schedule property or blocking the access through common passage measuring east to west 6 feet and north to south 25 feet which runs from northern side main road towards the houses of plaintiff situated on schedule 'A" and 'B' properties bearing katha No.124, property No.112/112 measuring east west 47 and north south 17 ½ feet and Katha No.113, property No.113/112 measuring east west 50 feet and north south 17 ½ feet both situated at Thindlu village, Yelahanka Hobli, Byatarayanapura then CMC, Bengaluru North Taluk.14
O.S. No.4960/2005
11. Records reveal that, initially on receipt of suit summons the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed written statement in the year 2005 by denying the claim of plaintiff. The then learned P.O. framed issues in the month of November 2009. Thereafter the plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 on 23/02/2010 and 20/07/2010 in part and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to P.23. Further case was posted to 22/06/2011 for cross-examination of P.W. 1 at the request of defense counsel, but it appears that on that day defendants and counsel remained absent accordingly cross of P.W. 1 was being taken as nil.
12. Further it is evident that, after having heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and perusal of the written arguments suit filed by the plaintiff came to be decreed vide judgment and decree dated 16/08/2011. Aggrieved by the said judgment the defendants preferred RFA No.432/2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, which came to be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree on 21/01/2021 and restored the suit to its original file for reconsideration on merits with following directions:-
b. The parties shall appear before the Civil Court on 22/02/2021 without further notice.
c. The Civil Court shall decide the suit expeditiously, and in any event within a period of six months from the date of first hearing. The parties shall co-operate with the civil court in such expedited decision.
d. The appellants shall pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent on the date of first hearing before the civil court.15
O.S. No.4960/2005
13. In view of the aforesaid specific directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court this court taken the above numbered case on board on 22/02/2021, restored to its original file with CIS entires and called in the open court. On that day, Sri. HMG advocate present and filed vakalath for the plaintiff. P.W. 1 once again stepped into the witness box, but the defendants and counsel remained absent, accordingly cross-examination of P.W. 1 taken as nil, which indicates that, despite specific direction of the Hon'ble High Court defendants and counsel have neither appeared on 22/02/2021 nor deposited cost of Rs.15,000/- or challenged the evidence of P.W. 1 or stepped into the witness box. Accordingly case was posted for arguments and after having heard the learned counsel for plaintiff, case was posted for arguments on defendants side by issuing court notice as per SOP and with information to the defendants through district court web site with a direction to be present along with their counsel and proceed with the case, but again defendants and counsel remained absent. In such circumstances this court has to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence available on record only and to see that in whose favour preponderance of probability lies.
14. It is settled that according to section 101 of Evidence Act- burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his case on basis of material available, as such he cannot rely on weakness or absence of defense of defendant to discharge the onus.
16O.S. No.4960/2005
15. In this regard, in order to prove his case the plaintiff filed an affidavit in lieu of oral evidence before remand of the case by reiterating entire averments of the plaint, examined himself as P.W. 1 stating that, himself, his family members, his father and his ancestors have been using the 'C' schedule property to reach the 'B' schedule property held by his father since time immemorial. Further states that, his vendor was also using the 'C' schedule property to reach the 'A' schedule property before purchase and defendants were also using the 'C' schedule property as common passage to reach their respective houses constructed over their property. Further states that, with regard to the existence of the common passage 'C' schedule property, there is a mention in the sale deed dated 09/09/1946 executed by Sri. Byanna in favour of Smt. Nagamma who is the ancestor of the defendants. Further, the vendor of the ancestors has left the 'C' schedule common passage to reach houses which was existing in the 'B' schedule property as long as in the year 1946 itself and plaintiff is having right of ingress and egress to enjoy the 'C' schedule property to reach 'A' and 'B' schedule properties.
16. P.W. 1 further states that, except the 'C' schedule common passage there was no other access to reach 'A' and 'B' schedule properties since time immemorial, the defendants have no exclusive manner of right, title or interest much less possession over the 'C' schedule property except using the same as common passage to reach their houses, but they 17 O.S. No.4960/2005 have been obstructing himself and his family members from making use of the 'C' schedule property to reach his houses situated at schedule 'A" and 'B" properties. In order to support this oral testimony P.W. 1 got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to P.23.
17. It is pertinent to note here that on careful evaluation of the pleadings, oral an documentary evidence available on record we can find that though the defendants would dispute in their written statement about ownership as well as possession of the plaintiff over the schedule 'A' and 'B' properties, but as admitted in para 7 of the written statement so far as in respect of existence of house of the plaintiff on western side of the defendants house is concern there is no dispute. Similarly, though the defendants would dispute the fact that plaintiff, their vendors and ancestors as well as defendants were/are using the suit schedule 'C"
common passage to reach their house constructed over their respective properties, but the defendants would contend that in between the 1st defendant's property there is a galli of 3 feet which has been left by the defendants for their own use only, as such there is no common passage/C schedule as alleged by the plaintiff. But in order to substantiate their contention the defendants failed to adduce rebuttal evidence before this court.18
O.S. No.4960/2005
18. On perusal of Ex.P.1 registered sale deed dated 08/09/2000 relied by the plaintiff reveals that the plaintiff's vendor has purchased the schedule 'A" property from its erstwhile owner Ramanjanappa, but admittedly Ex.P.1 the registered document bearing No.2806/2000 containing 7 pages, on the contrary the plaintiff has produced incomplete document/Ex.P.1 containing two pages only. As could be seen from perusal of Ex.P.2 that, in turn the plaintiff M. Jagadish has purchased schedule 'A" property bearing katha No.124 with property No.112 from the said vendor Shankar under a registered sale deed dated 17/10/2001. Admittedly the plaintiff has not filed the suit for declaration claiming title over the schedule 'A" and 'B" properties, as such at this stage it can be considered as ancillary to schedule 'C" common passage. Further, Ex.P.3 to 5, 8 to 10, 13 to 17 reflects the name of plaintiff M. Jagadish along with character of possession over the schedule 'A" and 'B" properties as on the date of suit.
19. It is relevant to point out that, so far as in respect of existence of schedule 'C' common passage is concern though Ex.P.1 and 2 do not disclose the same, but in this regard the learned counsel for plaintiff relying on Ex.P.6 and 7 certified copies of sale deeds urged that there exists schedule 'C" common passage so as to reach schedule 'A" and 'B' properties as stated in the plaint. In this connection if we go through the contents of Ex.P.6 and 7 sale deeds along with Ex.P.19 to 23 photographs we cannot find exact measurement 19 O.S. No.4960/2005 of the schedule 'C" common passage to the extent of 6 x 25 feet as stated by P.W. 1 which has been corroborated by Ex.P.11 endorsement given by then CMC, Byatarayanapura. In this regard plaintiff has neither produced supportive documents to show exact measurement of the schedule 'C"
common passage measuring 6 x 25 feet nor took steps for appointment of commissioner for inspection of the spot. However they disclose existence of common passage in between the properties belongs to the parties to the suit from the year 1946 and the said fact has been supported with the boundaries mentioned in Ex.P.1, 2, 6 and 7 sale deeds referred supra to believe that plaintiff and his ancestors have acquired the right of easement to access through schedule 'C' common passage since the time immemorial by grant. So the material on record indicates that plaintiff is able to show existence of schedule 'C' common passage so as to access to his houses situated in schedule 'A' and 'B' properties as it was existed in the year 1946 without disclosing exact measurement by adducing oral and documentary evidence referred supra. In para 9 of the plaint states that cause of action arose to file the suit on 28/06/2005 at 3.30 p.m. when the defendants came along with their labours with an intention to put up structure on the schedule 'C" property with an intention to block the common access passage and thereby obstructed, which has been remained unrebutted. For these reasons evidence of P.W. 1 to that extent can be accepted as worthy of credence.20
O.S. No.4960/2005
20. This being the fact, again the burden shifts on the defendants to adduce cogent, oral and documentary evidence so as to substantiate their contention and to rebut the claim of the plaintiff, it is evident that, in the case on hand even before remand, the defendants did not turn up and though the defendants have challenged the judgment and decree by this court dated 16/08/2011 in RFA No.432/2013 and also the Hon'ble High Court has considered the same with specific direction to the defendants to appear before this court and to proceed with the case on merits as referred supra, but the defendants and their counsel have neither appeared on 22/02/2021 nor deposited cost of Rs.15,000/- or challenged the evidence of P.W. 1 or stepped into the witness box with contrary oral and documentary evidence so as to disbelieve the claim of the plaintiff to the extent of existence of common passage. For these reasons an adverse inference can validly be drawn against the defendants. Accordingly, it can be held that arguments advanced by the learned counsel for plaintiff partly holds good. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the affirmative and Issue No.2 partly in the affirmative.
21. ISSUE No.3:- In view of my discussion made supra while dealing with Issue No.1 and 2, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration to access the schedule 'C" common passage to reach schedule 'A' and 'B' properties as exists on the date of suit along with permanent injunction against the defendants.21
O.S. No.4960/2005 Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, suit of the plaintiff deserves to be partly decreed without costs. Hence, I answer Issue No.3 partly in the affirmative.
22. Issue No.4:- For the foregoing reasons I proceed to pass the following :
O R DE R The suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed.
It is ordered and declared that suit schedule 'C' property is common passage to the plaintiff as exists on the date of suit to access the properties situated in schedule 'A" and 'B" properties.
It is further ordered that the defendants and their henchmen are hereby permanently restrained from putting up any structure on the 'C' schedule property and also from causing further obstruction to the plaintiff and his family members to access A"
and 'B' schedule properties through schedule 'C"
property/common passage as exists on the date of suit.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected, signed by me and then pronounced in the open Court this the 16 th day of September, 2021.) ( C.D.KAROSHI ) V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU ***** 22 O.S. No.4960/2005 :ANNEXURE:
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 : M. Jagadish WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
NIL DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 Sale deed dated 08/09/2000
Ex.P.2 Sale deed dated 17/10/2001
Ex.P.3&4 Assessment register extract
Ex.P.5 Tax paid receipt
Ex.P.6 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 09/09/1946
Ex.P.7 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 24/02/1953
Ex.P.7(a) Typed copy of Ex.P.7
Ex.P.8 to10 Assessment register extract
Ex.P.11 Endorsement issued by City Municipal Corporation
Byatarayanapura
Ex.P.12 Certified copy of the Gramtana Khaneshumari
Ex.P.13 to 15 Tax paid receipts
Ex.P.16 to 18 Self Assessment scheme receipts
Ex.P.19 to 22 Photographs
Ex.P.23 C.D.
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:-
NIL ( C.D.KAROSHI ) V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU ***** 23 O.S. No.4960/2005 As per modified SOP dated 28/08/2021 case called out in the open court. Parties are absent. Counsel for plaintiff present. Counsel for defendants absent.
Operative portion of the judgment pronounced in open court vide separate:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed.
It is ordered and declared that
suit schedule 'C' property is
common passage to the plaintiff as
exists on the date of suit to access
the properties situated in schedule
'A" and 'B" properties.
It is further ordered that the
defendants and their henchmen
are hereby permanently restrained
from putting up any structure on
the 'C' schedule property and also
from causing further obstruction to
the plaintiff and his family
members to access A" and 'B'
schedule properties through
schedule 'C" property/common
24
O.S. No.4960/2005
passage as exists on the date of
suit.
There shall be no order as to
costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
Office to submit compliance report to
the Hon'ble High Court forthwith.
[ C.D. KAROSHI ]
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU