Bangalore District Court
N.B.Gurudeva vs B.T.Bhaskar on 5 February, 2022
1 O.S.No.4508/2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BANGALORE CITY - CCH NO.23.
DATED THIS THE 5 th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022.
PRESIDING OFFICER
PRESENT : Sri.Mohan Prabhu
M.A., L.LM.,
XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE.
O.S.No.4508/2018
PLAINTIFF/S: N.B.Gurudeva,
S/o late N.L.Bhyregowda
Aged about 52 years,
R/o No.4, 1 st floor, FTI colony,
Near Water tank,
Nandini Layout,
Bengaluru - 96.
(By Sri.HNV, Advocate)
Vs.
DEFENDANT/S: 1. B.T.Bhaskar,
S/o Late B.G.Thimmarayappa,
Aged about 44 years,
R/at Bhomika,
No. 345-C, 17 th cross,
Ideal Homes Township,
2 O.S.No.4508/2018
Rajarajeshwarinagar,
Bangalore - 560 098.
2. V.Krishnamurthy,
S/o C.K.Venkataramanappa,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No. 54,
19 th Main, 12 th cross,
Muneshwara Block,
Avalahalli,
Bengaluru - 560 026.
(Sri.BRV, Advocate)
* * * * *
Date of institution of suit : 25.06.2018
Nature of suit : Injunction
Date of commencement
of recording of evidence : 14.12.2020
Date on which the judgment
was pronounced : 05.02.2022
Duration of the suit :Year/s Month/s Day/s
03 07 11
3 O.S.No.4508/2018
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant No. 1 and 2 praying to pass judgment and decree by granting permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff by restraining the defendants, their servants, henchmen or anybody acting under them or through them from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property or in any way meddling with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff.
SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of vacant site property bearing municipal No.1360/808/1/1329/1A/3/1195, carved out of Sy.No. 290/2 (old No. 57) situated at Halagevaderahalli village, Kengeri hobli, Bengaluru south taluk, presently Rajarajeshwari Nagar, 4 O.S.No.4508/2018 Bengaluru, BBMP ward No. 160, measuring east to west 65 feet and north to south 70 feet totally admeasuring 4550 square feet bounded on East by : Property of Smt.Y.P.Hema West by : Property No. 1, Deccan Apartment North by : Remaining portion of plaintiff's property South by : 70 feet road (Devagadiga Sangh to Bangarappana Nagar
2. The plaint averments briefly stated as follows:
The plaintiff has acquired the suit schedule property by virtue of gift deed dated 28.12.2017 executed by Smt.Hema Y.P. D/o late H.Puttaswamy. After acquisition of the suit schedule property the plaintiff approached the BBMP authorities for effecting Khatha in his name from the name of 5 O.S.No.4508/2018 earlier Khatha holder Hema Y.P. The Deputy Commissioner and the Joint Commissioner of Rajarajeshwari zone BBMP approved change of Khatha as well as bifurcation of the property out of site bearing No. 1A and vide order dated 5.6.2018. The Assistant Revenue Officer of BBMP Rajarajeshwari Nagar sub-zone was pleased to assign Khatha number to the plaintiffs site property as 1360/3/808/1/1329/1A/3/1195 and also fixed the property tax and subsequently on payment of property tax in respect of suit schedule property also issued Khatha certificate and Khatha extract in respect of suit schedule property. Since the date of acquisition of the suit schedule property the plaintiff is the absolute owner having right, title, interest over the suit schedule property and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without any 6 O.S.No.4508/2018 hindrance from anybody. Recently on 17.6.2018 when plaintiff asked his contractor to clean and level the site property by bringing the JCB and Tipper when the work was going on at about 4.45 pm on that day the defendant No. 1 and 2 along with some 8 to 10 anti social elements came near the suit schedule property and threatened the plaintiff to immediately stop work and vacate the property.
When plaintiff shown his document the defendant No. 1 and 2 and their followers did not care and threatened plaintiff with dire consequences if he claims and comes near the suit schedule property once again. But some persons intervened and pacified defendants as well as plaintiff, as such defendant No. 1 and 2 and their followers went away from the spot warning the plaintiff as well as JCB drivers and Tipper drivers not to repeat the action. 7 O.S.No.4508/2018 The plaintiff went to the police station on 18 th morning requesting the jurisdictional Rajarajeshwari Nagar police complaining against the defendants but the police told the plaintiff that since it is a civil dispute they will not interfere and further asked the plaintiff to approach competent court of law. The plaintiff has also sent a registered letter / complaint dated 18.6.2018 sent on 19.6.2018 to the jurisdictional police as well as Commissioner of Police, Bangalore city fearing the illegal acts of the defendants. The defendants are having no right, title, interest over the suit schedule property. As per the information plaintiff got from the local people the defendants are troublesome people who are eying on the vacant site property and they create dispute and make extortion from the site owners. Hence on these grounds the plaintiff prayed to decree this suit. 8 O.S.No.4508/2018
3. The defendant No. 1 and 2 entered appearance by engaging their counsel and resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing their written statement which is briefly stated as follows:
The suit is misconceived and not maintainable. It appears that the plaintiff is a land grabber and he is in the habit of creating document with regard to the properties which are not at all in existence. The plaintiff is claiming the right with regard to the suit schedule property in pursuance of a gift deed dated 28.12.2017 from one Hema Y.P. D/o H.Puttaswamy.
It is alleged that the schedule site measuring east to west 65 feet and north to south 70 feet totally ad- measuring 4550 square feet. The allegation that the said property is situated in Halagevodarahalli, Village, Kengeri hobli, Bangalore south taluk, carved 9 O.S.No.4508/2018 out of converted land in Sy.No. 290/2, old No. 57 is totally mischievous. The said Hema Y.P. had no manner of right, title or interest with regard to the said property as she did not succeed to any property from her father late H.Puttaswamy. During the life time of late H.Puttaswamy he had already sold the entire property bearing Sy.No. 290/2, i.e., portion of Sy.No. 290 situated at Halagevodarahalli village, Kengeri hobli, Bangalore south taluk including the site measuring east to west 61 feet and north to south 86 feet in favour of B.R.Nanjundaiah through a registered sale deed dated 4.9.1996. In the said sale deed the schedule, i.e., boundaries have been mentioned as on the east by private property ( Sy.No.
58) west by common passage and property No. 808/2, north by northern portion of Sy.No. 808/1 and south by 40 feet road. So the very sale deed 10 O.S.No.4508/2018 indicates that the said property sold by late H.Puttaswamy was bounded on the east by Sy.No.
58. So it is clear that the said Puttaswamy never had any land or property to the eastern side of the property bearing Sy.No. 290/2 situated at Halagevodarahalli village, Kengeri hobli, Bangalore south taluk. On enquiry the defendants came to know that there was no Khatha in respect of the suit schedule property and also the existence of the very property itself was never found in any of the records. By creating fictitious documents such as Khatha etc., the plaintiff has created the alleged deed with the connivance of Hema Y.P. The said Hema Y.P. has illegally executed the alleged gift deed dated 28.12.2017 without having any title to the property mentioned as the suit schedule property. It is relevant to note that in the said gift deed there 11 O.S.No.4508/2018 is no mention with regard to the acquisition of title by the said Hema Y.P. The allegation of the plaintiff that after the acquisition of the suit schedule property he approached the BBMP authorities and got changed the Khatha as well as bifurcation of the property, etc. are all denied as false.. The plaintiff in a bid to make unlawful gains and also to establish the right over the property which is not in existence and also to encroach upon the properties which are contiguous to the alleged schedule property has created the said gift deed and based on the said registered gift deed he might have obtained the Khatha. The said Khatha certificate and Khatha extract without there being the supported by any title but have to be considered as got up document. The contention of the plaintiff is that ever since the date of acquisition of the suit schedule property he is 12 O.S.No.4508/2018 the absolute owner having right, title and interest over the same and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same is totally false. The allegation of the plaintiff is that on 17.6.2018 when he asked the contractor to clear and level the site by bringing JCB and Tipper and when the work was going on the defendants with some 8 to 10 anti social elements came near the suit schedule property and threatened the plaintiff to stop the work etc. are all false. In fact the plaintiff tried to encroach upon the properties belonging to respective owners in Sy.No. 58 based on the alleged and fictitious documents. The defendants to protect their properties from encroachment prevented the illegal acts of the plaintiff. The plaintiff inspite of repeated demands made by the defendants failed to show that deeds in support of acquisition of title by the siad 13 O.S.No.4508/2018 Hema Y.P. who has gifted the suit schedule property allegedly. Even to this day the plaintiff is not in a position to produce any prior title deeds to substantiate the fact that whether donor of the plaintiff had any manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property so that she could have gifted the same in favour of the plaintiff. Admittedly the said Hema Y.P. is not related to the plaintiff and she is a total stranger. There could not have been any valid reason for said Hema Y.P. to execute the alleged gift deed. Under the above said circumstances the very fact that the plaintiff has created the gift deed itself shows that he has a malafide intention to encroach upon the properties belonging to the others by creating documents. The allegation that on 18 th morning the plaintiff went to the police station to lodge a complaint against the 14 O.S.No.4508/2018 defendants but the police have told the plaintiff that since it is civil dispute they will not interfere are all denied as false. The alleged complaint lodged before the jurisdictional police if any will have to be considered that the plaintiff was trying to create false evidence with regard to the interference. The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendants have no right, title, interest over the suit schedule property and that as per the information the plaintiff got from the local people the defendants are eying on the vacant sites are all false. In fact the plaintiff is in the habit of encroaching on the vacant sites and also harassing the respective owners by creating documents. The municipal records such as Khatha extract, etc., which have come into existence subsequent to the gift deed dated 28.12.2017 are all of no consequence in view of the fact that the 15 O.S.No.4508/2018 alleged donor Hema Y.P. had no document in support of her title. As the trespasser of the plaintiff had no manner of right, title, interest over the suit schedule property the passage of title itself is untenable. The suit schedule property itself is not in existence and as such any document subsequent to 2017 will not create any title with regard to the suit schedule property. The defendants herein are the Power of Attorney holders of one Nirmala John who was the absolute owner in respect of Sy.No. 58. She had formed a layout of sites through the defendants who are the Power of Attorney holders and has sold in favour of various persons. The entire sale transactions have taken place prior to the year 2001 and the persons who have acquired the title in respect of sites carved out of Sy.No.58 of Halagevadarahalli village have been in possession and 16 O.S.No.4508/2018 enjoyment of the same. Quite obviously the persons who have purchased the sites in Sy.No. 58 have been in possession and enjoyment of the same and have every right to resist the illegal attempts of the plaintiff in encroaching the properties. The plaintiff in a bid to preempt has come up before this court by filing this suit of frivolous contentions and also got up document. There is no cause of action to file this suit. The defendants being the Power of Attorney holders of Nirmala John in respect of Sy.No. 58 have sold the respective sites and have also retained some portions. The plaintiff has not approached this court with clean hands is not entitled for any relief. Hence on these grounds the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit. 17 O.S.No.4508/2018
4. Based on the pleadings of the parties following issues have been framed.
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property ?
(2) Whether the plaintiff proves the
alleged interference by the
defendants ?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for the relief of permanent
injunction ?
(4) What order or decree ?
5. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P33 are marked. After closure of evidence on side of plaintiff the- defendant No. 1 18 O.S.No.4508/2018 examined as DW1 and the documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D13 are marked on the side of defendants.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendants. The learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as the learned counsel for the defendants have also filed the written arguments.
7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on the following decisions:
(1) (2019) 17 SCC 692 Jharkhand State Housing Board Vs. Didar Singh and another (2) ILR 2019 Kar 691 Licenced Electrical Contractors Association of Karnataka represented by its Secretary Vs. B.P.Devaraj since dead by legal representatives. 19 O.S.No.4508/2018
8.The the learned counsel for the defendant relied on the following decisions:
(1) (2008) 4 SCC 594 Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy dead by legal representatives and another.
9. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.4 : As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
10. Issue No.1: The plaintiff has filed this suit for
the relief of permanent injunction against the
defendants. On the side of plaintiff, plaintiff himself
examined as PW1 and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P33
20 O.S.No.4508/2018
marked. Defendant No. 1 examined as DW1 and
documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D13 are marked.
11. The plaintiff who examined himself as PW1 in his affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief has reiterated the plaint averments. PW1 has deposed that he acquired the suit schedule site property by virtue of gift deed dated 28.12.2017 executed by Hema Y.P. D/o late H.Puttaswamy. He has produced and got marked the document Ex.P1 certified copy of the gift deed dated 28.12.2017 executed by Hema Y.P. in his favour. PW1 has deposed that after the death of H.Puttaswamy his daughter Hema Y.P. succeeded to his estate and got her name entered in the official records of BBMP in respect of unsold sites, particularly site No. 1A measuring 125 x 80 feet next to Deccan at Halagevadarahalli village, 10 x 21 O.S.No.4508/2018 125 feet has gone to road widening made by BBMP and she possessed 125 x 70 feet site. PW1 has deposed that Hema Y.P. made registered gift deed in his favour with respect to the suit schedule property measuring east to west 60 feet and north to south 70 feet. She retained east to west 20 feet and north to south 70 feet. Further she sold two sites measuring 20 x 70 feet each in favour of Venkatesh H.N. and Chaithra jointly and in favour of one N.Lakshmipathy under registered sale deed duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Kengeri. He has deposed that after acquisition of the suit schedule property he approached the BBMP authorities for effecting Khatha of the suit schedule property in his name. The Deputy Commissioner and Joint Commissioner of Rajajinagar zone BBMP approved change of Khatha as well as bifurcation of property out of site bearing 22 O.S.No.4508/2018 No. 1A and vide order dated 5.6.2018 the Assistant Revenue Officer of BBMP Rajajinagar sub-zone was pleased to assign Khatha number of the plaintiff's site property as 1360/3/808/1/1329/1A/3/1195 and also fixed the property tax and subsequently on payment of property tax in respect of suit schedule property also issued Khatha certificate and Khatha extract in respect of suit schedule property in the name of plaintiff. The plaintiff has produced and got marked the document Ex.P2 encumbrance certificate from the year 2004 to 2008. Ex.P3 order passed by the Assistant Revenue Officer of Rajajinagar sub- division BBMP. Ex.P4 Khatha certificate dated 5.6.2018 standing in the name of plaintiff. Ex.P5 Khatha extract for the year 2018-2019 dated 5.6.2018 standing in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.P6 property tax receipt for the year 2018-19. Ex.P7 is the copy 23 O.S.No.4508/2018 of hand sketch map showing the bifurcation of property. Ex.P12 certified copy of Hissa tippani of Sy.No. 290/2, Ex.P13 certified copy of orders dated 8.3.2017 passed by JDLR. Ex.P14 is the certified copy of proceedings of Village Accountant in Hissa survey tippani. Ex.P15 is the certified copy of sketch of Hissa survey tippani in respect of Sy.No.
290. Ex.P16 is the receipt for having paid to obtain the sketch, Ex.P17 is the copy of village map of Halagevadarhalli village. Ex.P18 is the copy of sketch prepared at the time of formation of road by the BBMP. Ex.P19 is the sketch of Sy.No. 290/2 and other survey numbers. Ex.P22 is the copy of Uttara Patra. Ex.P23 is the property extract. Ex.P24 is the Khatha certificate.
24 O.S.No.4508/2018
12. PW1 further deposed that since from the date of acquiring the suit schedule property he is the absolute owner having right, title and interest over the suit schedule property and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. He states that on 17.6.2018 when he asked the contractor to clean and level his suit schedule property and then contractor brought the JCB and Tipper and when the work was going on at around 4.45 pm the defendant No. 1 and 2 along with some 8 to 10 anti-social elements came near the suit schedule property and threatened the plaintiff to stop work and vacate the property. When he shown the document the defendant No. 1 and 2 and their followers did not care and threatened him with dire consequences. But some persons intervened and pacified defendants as such the defendant No. 1 and 2 and their 25 O.S.No.4508/2018 followers went away from the spot warning the plaintiff as well as JCB drivers and Tipper drivers not to repeat the action. PW1 has deposed that he went to the police station on 18 th morning and lodged complaint against the defendants but the police told him that since it is a civil dispute they will not interfere and further asked him to approach competent court of law. He has deposed that he also sent a registered letter / complaint dated 18.6.2018 sent on 19.6.2018 to the jurisdictional police as well as Commissioner of police, Bangalore city fearing the illegal acts of the defendants. He has produced and got marked the document Ex.P9 copy of complaint dated 18.6.2018 given to the police and Ex.P10 acknowledgement dated 19.6.2018 issued by the police. He has produced the document Ex.P11 the receipt for having paid the advance amount to the 26 O.S.No.4508/2018 contractor. He has produced the document Ex.P20 copy of complaint dated 4.7.2018 given to the Police Inspector of RR Nagar Police station. Ex.P21 copy of complaint dated 26.8.2018 given to the police Inspector of RR Nagar police station. He has produced the document Ex.P20 the copy of Uttara patra, Ex.P23 property extract, Ex.P24 copy of Khatha certificate, Ex.P25 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 28.12.1992 having purchased the property by H.Puttaswamy. Ex.P26 copy of RTC of Sy.No. 190/2 for the year 2018-19. Ex.P27 is the endorsement issued by the office under RTI. Ex.P28 is the receipt obtained under RTI. Ex.P29 copy of proceedings of property bifurcation held in BBMP. Ex.P31 is the sketch, Ex.P32 property tax paid receipt, Ex.P34 is the property tax receipt. 27 O.S.No.4508/2018
13. PW1 has deposed that defendants who have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and for illegally made attempts to stop the cleaning activities carried on by him in the suit schedule property on 17.6.2018. He has produced the document Ex.P8 two photographs and CD.
14. During the course of cross-examination of PW1 he has deposed that Puttaswamy purchased 4 acres of land in Sy.No. 290/2. Thereafter Puttaswamy was got converted the land for non-agricultural purpose. He has not produced the document to show that Puttaswamy has formed layout by making sites through the General Power of Attorney holder. He has deposed that he do not know how many sites 28 O.S.No.4508/2018 were framed in the layout and the measurement of each sites. He has deposed that the Khatha of the suit schedule property was transferred in the name of Y.P.Hema in the year 2017. Puttaswamy father of Hema Y.P. died in the year 2002. He has denied the suggestion that he neither produced the document to show that the suit schedule property was standing in the name of Puttaswamy nor standing in the name of Hema Y.P. He has deposed that he is having the document to show that prior to Ex.P29 Tippani proceedings he had documents to show that the property was entered in the BBMP records. He has deposed that he is having the document to show that prior to execution of gift deed as per Ex.P1 the property was standing in the name of Hema Y.P. He has denied the suggestion that even though no such property was standing in the name of Hema Y.P. 29 O.S.No.4508/2018 they got created Ex.P1 gift deed. He has deposed that Hema Y.P. and her father are not his relatives but they are friends. He has deposed that he got 8 guntas of land from Hema Y.P. and her mother. He has deposed that he is having Haddubasthu sketch of Sy.No. 290/2 to show that the suit schedule property was in existence prior to making survey sketch as per Ex.P19. He has deposed that in Ex.P25 the eastern boundary of the land in Sy.No. 290/2 is shown as Sy.No. 58. He has deposed that the land in Sy.No. 57 was renumbered after phodi work and numbered as Sy.No. 290/1 and 290/2. He states that Sy.No. 58 is the adjacent land to Sy.No. 290/1. He has deposed that he do not know definitely whether Puttaswamy was holding any land adjacent to Sy.No. 58 towards western side. He has admitted the suggestion that one Lakshmi and Hemavathi filed suit 30 O.S.No.4508/2018 against him contending that he had tried to trespass into the land in Sy.No. 58. He has admitted the suggestion that the land in Sy.No. 58 is belongs to one Nirmala John. He has deposed that the BBMP has given the site number as site No. 1A/3 to the suit schedule property in the year 2017. Prior to that it was numbered as site No. 1A. He has deposed that the site No. 1A was measuring 125 feet x 70 feet. He has deposed that Ex.P7 is the sketch pertaining to site No. 1A. He has denied the suggestion that at no point of time Sy.No. 290/2 was converted to non-agricultural land. He has denied the suggestion that one Byre Gowda who formed the layout in the land belongs to Puttaswamy after forming the layout sold all the sites. He has denied the suggestion that the photo Ex.P8 is not pertaining to the suit schedule property. He has denied the 31 O.S.No.4508/2018 suggestion that even though Hema has not having any right over the property she has created the false gift deed in his favour and based on the false gift deed he has created the document in respect of non- existing land.
15. Defendant No. 1 who has examined as DW1 in his examination-in-chief affidavit has reiterated the written statement contentions. He has deposed that Hema Y.P. had no manner of right, title or interest with respect to any property. She did not succeed any property from her father late H.Puttaswamy. During the life time of late H.Puttaswamy he had already sold the entire property bearing Sy.No. 290/2 including the site measuring east to west 61 feet and north to south 86 feet in favour of B.R.Nanjundaiah through a registered sale deed dated 4.9.1996. In 32 O.S.No.4508/2018 the said sale deed the schedule i.e., boundary have been mentioned as on the east by private property (Sy.No. 58) west by common passage and property No. 808/2, north by northern portion of Sy.No. 808/1 and south by 40 feet road. So the very sale deeds indicates that the said property sold by late Puttaswamy was bounded on the east by Sy.No. 58. so it is clear that the said H.Puttaswamy never had any land or property to the eastern side of the property bearing Sy.No. 290/2 situated at Halagevaderahalli village. He has deposed that on enquiry they came to know that there was no Khatha in respect of suit schedule property and also the existence of the very property itself was never found in any of the records. He states that by creating fictitious documents such as Khatha the plaintiff has created the alleged gift deed with the 33 O.S.No.4508/2018 connivance of Hema Y.P. The said Hema Y.P. has illegally executed the alleged gift deed dated 28.12.2017 without having any right, title to the property mentioned as the suit schedule property. In the alleged gift deed there is no mention with regard to mode of acquisition of title by the said Hema Y.P. DW1 has deposed that after creating the gift deed based on the said created gift deed the plaintiff got created the Khatha and other documents. The document Ex.D1 to Ex.D13 are marked through DW1. Ex.D1 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 28.12.1992, Ex.D2 is the certified copy of the orders passed in Writ Petition No.6447/2008. Ex.D3 is the certified copy of the orders passed in Writ Appeal No. 311/2008. Ex.D4 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 13.9.2000. Ex.D5 certified copy of the gift deed dated 24.6.2011. Ex.D6 is the certified 34 O.S.No.4508/2018 copy of another gift deed dated 24.6.2011. Ex.D7 and Ex.D8 are the certified copy of judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.9708/2005. Ex.D9 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 4.2.2002. Ex.D10 to Ex.D13 are the property tax paid receipts of Sy.No.58.
16. During the course of cross-examination of DW1 he has deposed that the site No. 34 and 35 belongs to them is situated in Sy.No. 58. He has deposed that he has not produced any documents such as sale deed, sketch, with respect to land in Sy.No. 34 and 35 because these sites are not yet purchased under registered sale deed. He has denied the suggestion that he has not produced any documents to show that he is the General Power of Attorney holder of Nirmala John. He has admitted 35 O.S.No.4508/2018 the suggestion that on 17.6.2018 the plaintiff came to the property in order to get it cleaned. But he contended that the plaintiff came to the property belongs to him in order to clean the same. Hence they have prevented the plaintiff. He has admitted the suggestion that the document Ex.P8 are the two photographs where the plaintiff was started to clean the property. He has denied the suggestion that Smt.Y.P.Hema who was the owner of the property measuring east to west 125 feet and north to south 70 feet out of which she gifted the suit schedule property measuring east to west 65 feet, north to south 70 feet in favour of the plaintiff and given the property measuring east to west 20 feet and north to south 70 feet each in favour of Lakshmipathi and Venkatesh and Chitra T.R. He pleaded his ignorance that the properties which were given to the plaintiff 36 O.S.No.4508/2018 and Lakshmipathi, Venkatesh and Chitra T.R. were bifurcated. He has admitted the suggestion that the defendants are not having any right over the land in Sy.No. 290/2. He has admitted the suggestion that all the documents Ex.D2 to Ex.D9 produced by him are with respect to the Sy.No. 58. He has deposed that 1 ½ acres in Sy.No. 290/2 was converted to non-agricultural. He has deposed that towards western side of the property bearing Sy.No. 58 there exists Sy.No. 57. He has deposed that new No.290 was given to Sy.No. 57. He pleaded his ignorance to the suggestion that as per Ex.P13 the land in Sy.No. 290 was phoded as land in Sy.No. 290/1 and 290/2. He has deposed that the high-tension wire was passed through Sy.No. 58 which runs from southern direction to northern direction.
37 O.S.No.4508/2018
17. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff has produced the Khatha certificate as per Ex.P22, Khatha extract as per Ex.P23 to show that the property was standing in the name of Smt.Y.P.Hema. He argued that Smt.Y.P.Hema succeeded the property in Sy.No. 290/2 (old Sy.No.
57) which was numbered as property No. 1360/3/808/1/1329/1A/1195 which was totally measuring east to west 80 feet, north to south 125 feet. He submitted that out of total property measuring 80 x 125 feet, the BBMP formed the road in 10 feet and the remaining property measuring 70 x 125 feet was with Smt.Y.P.Hema . He argued that Smt.Y.P.Hema gifted the suit schedule property measuring we 65 feet, north to south 70 feet totally measuring 4,550 square feet in favour of plaintiff. He argued that as Smt.Y.P.Hema also sold the 38 O.S.No.4508/2018 property measuring east to west 20 feet and north to south 70 feet in favour of Venkatesh and Chitra.T.R. and sold the property measuring east to west 20 feet and north to south 70 feet in favour of N.Lakshmipathi and retained the land measuring east to west 20 feet and north to south 70 feet. Hence bifurcation of the Khatha was made. Thereafter the property which was gifted to the plaintiff was numbered as Khatha No. 1360/3/808/1/1329/1A/3/1195. He submitted that the property retained by Smt.Y.P.Hema is numbered as 1360/808/1/1329/1A/1195. The property which was sold to H.N.Venkatesh and Chitra.T.R. numbered as 1360/2/808/1/1329/1A/1195. The property which is sold to N.Lakshmipathi numbered as 1360/1/808/1/1329/1A/1/1195. He argued that the plaintiff has produced certified copy of sale deed 39 O.S.No.4508/2018 dated 28.12.1992 of late Puttaswamy, father of Smt.Y.P.Hema who had purchased 4 acres of land in Sy.No. 290. He argued that the land in Sy.No. 290 was phoded and numbered as 290/2 as per Ex.P13 as per order passed by JDLR on 8.3.2017. He argued that the plaintiff has produced documents to show that plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He relied on the decision reported in (2019) 17 SCC 692 between Jharkhand State Housing Board Vs. Didar Singh and another to contend that in each and every case where the defendant disputes the title of the plaintiff it is not necessary that in all those cases plaintiff has to seek the relief of declaration - however when the defendant raises a genuine dispute with regard to title and when he raises a cloud over the title of the plaintiff then necessarily in this circumstances 40 O.S.No.4508/2018 plaintiff cannot maintain a suit for bare injunction. He relied on the decision reported in ILR 2019 Kar 691, The Licenced Electrical Contractors Association of Karnataka represented by its Secretary Vs. B.P.Devaraj, since dead by legal representatives to contend that mere denial of plaintiff title by the defendant without disclosing his defence with details or documentary evidence - the plaintiff need not sue for declaration. He argued that the plaintiff has produced the document to show the title of his previous owner Smt.Y.P.Hema and her father H.Puttaswamy. He argued that the defendants are not claiming any title over the land in Sy.No. 290/2. DW1 has claimed that he is the General Power of Attorney holder of Nirmala John in respect of Sy.No.
58. He argued that the defendants have not produced any documents to show that DW1 is the 41 O.S.No.4508/2018 General Power of Attorney holder of Nirmala John in respect of site No. 58. He argued that the plaintiff has produced number of documents to show that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
18. The learned counsel for the defendant argued that the plaintiff has not produced any documents to show that Smt.Y.P.Hema was the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property. He argued that the plaintiff is claiming the right, title or interest over non-existing property. He argued that the revenue documents that have been produced by the plaintiff such as survey sketch Ex.P15 and 12 do not disclose the extent of suit schedule property. The document Ex.P19 also do not confirm the extent of suit schedule property. He argued that the land 42 O.S.No.4508/2018 in Sy.No. 290/1 was a part of Sy.No. 57. But the sketch produced by the plaintiff shown that Sy.No. 57 is totally different. He argued that the plaintiff by creating the document such as gift deed and revenue document trying to interfere with the sites carved out of Sy.No. 58. He argued that the document Ex.D1 and Ex.P25 sale deeds under which H.Puttaswamy had purchased Sy.No. 57 which shows Sy.No. 58 on the eastern side of the property that was purchased by H.Puttaswamy. He argued that the plaintiff is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the owners of the sites in Sy.No. 58. He argued that in this suit the defendants have questioned the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Hence the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable without the prayer of declaration of ownership. He relied on the 43 O.S.No.4508/2018 decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court which is reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchi Reddy, dead by legal representatives and another to contend that where the plaintiffs title is under a cloud and he does not have possession the remedy is suit for declaration and possession with or without consequential injunction - where his title is not disputed or under a cloud but he is out of possession, held, the remedy is suit for possession with consequential injunction - where there is mere interference with plaintiffs lawful possession or there is threat of dispossession, held, suit for injunction simplicitor would be sufficient. He argued that since the defendants have questioned the title of the plaintiff with the suit schedule property the suit of the plaintiff for bare injunction is not maintainable. 44 O.S.No.4508/2018
19. I have appreciated the rival contentions. In this suit even though the defendants have questioned the title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property but the defendants have not claimed the title over the suit schedule property. There is no rival claim for title of the suit schedule property. It is the contention of the defendants is that Smt.Y.P.Hema was not the owner of any piece of land in Sy.No. 290/2 as her father was already sold all the sites formed in Sy.No. 290/2. It is the contention fo the defendants is that as Smt.Y.P.Hema had no manner of right, title or interest with regarding to the land in Sy.No. 290/2, hence she was not having any right to execute the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff. Thus on perusal of the defence taken taken by the defendants in their written statement even though they have taken 45 O.S.No.4508/2018 contention that Smt.Y.P.Hema had no title over the property in order to execute gift deed in favour of the plaintiff but the defendants have not taken any contention that they are the absolute owners of the property in Sy.No. 290/2. Since the defendants have not taken any such contention contending that they are having right over the suit schedule property or any portion of the land in Sy.No. 290/2 this court of the opinion that the suit of the plaintiff for bare injunction without prayer of declaration of ownership is maintainable. The principles of the decision cited by the the learned counsel for the plaintiff which is reported in (2019) 17 SCC 692 and principles of decision in ILR 2019 Kar 691 is applicable to the present suit. In my humble view the principles of the decision cited by the the learned counsel for the defendants which is reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 46 O.S.No.4508/2018 can be distinguished on facts because the defendants have not taken contention that they are the owners of the suit schedule property.
20. No doubt as the plaintiff has approached this court with specific relief for permanent injunction hence the burden is on the plaintiff to prove his case basing on oral and documentary evidence. The plaintiff cannot rely on the weakness on the side of the defendant. I have gone through the oral evidence of PW1 and the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P33 marked through PW1. It is the main contention of the defendants is that Smt.Y.P.Hema was not holding any property. Hence she was no right to execute the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff. In this suit the plaintiff has produced and got marked the documents Ex.P22 copy of Uttara Patra / Khatha 47 O.S.No.4508/2018 certificate to show that the property bearing No. 1360/808/1/1329/1A/1195 was standing in the name of Smt.Y.P.Hema. The document Ex.P23 is the property register extract issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer of R.R.Nagar Sub-division, BBMP which was standing in the name of H.Puttaswamy and after his death it was entered in the name of Smt.Y.P.Hema. This document Ex.P23 is of the year 2017-2018 issued on 12.12.2017. In Ex.P23 the property number is mentioned as 808/1/1329/1A and new number is mentioned as 1195. The property measurement which is mentioned as 80 feet x 125 feet was rounded of and the measurement is mentioned as 70 feet x 125 feet. The owners name which was mentioned as H.Puttaswamy was rounded off and name of Smt.Y.P.Hema is entered in owners column. On the 48 O.S.No.4508/2018 right side portion of this document it is clearly mentioned that after the death of H.Puttaswamy the Khatha of the property measuring 70 feet x 125 feet changed in the name of Smt.Y.P.Hema. The document Ex.P23 falsifies the contention of the defendants is that no property was standing in the name of H.Puttaswamy or Smt.Y.P.Hema. The document Ex.P23 is sufficient to hold that the property measuring 70 feet x 120 feet was standing in the name of H.Puttaswamy and after his death the Khatha of this property changed in the name of Smt.Y.P.Hema.
21. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff is that after Smt.Y.P.Hema executed gift deed dated 28.12.2017 in his favour in respect of the suit schedule property measuring east to west 65 feet and 49 O.S.No.4508/2018 north to south 70 feet totally measuring 4550 square feet he approached the BBMP authorities for effecting Khatha in his name. It is the contention of the plaintiff is that the Deputy Commissioner and Joint Commissioner of Rajajinagar zone, BBMP approved and change of Khatha as well as bifurcation of the property out of site bearing No. 1A and vide order dated 5.6.2018 the Assistant Revenue Officer of BBMP, Rajajinagar sub-zone was pleased to assign Khatha number to the plaintiff site property as 1360/3/808/1/1329/1A/3/1195. In order to substantiate this contention taken by the plaintiff he has produced the document Ex.P3 order dated 5.6.2018 passed by the Assistant Revenue Officer of BBMP wherein the Assistant Revenue Officer of BBMP has referred the order of bifurcation passed by Deputy Commissioner and Joint Commissioner of 50 O.S.No.4508/2018 Rajajinagar, order dated 26.4.2018 and also mentioned regarding the gift deed executed by Smt.Y.P.Hema in favour of the plaintiff and sale deed executed by Smt.Y.P.Hema in favour of N.Lakshmipathi and sale deed executed by Smt.Y.P.Hema in favour of N.Venkatesh and Chitra.T.R. Considering the bifurcation order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and Joint Commissioner of Rajajinagar zone and by considering the gift deed executed by Smt.Y.P.Hema in favour of the plaintiff and the sale deeds executed in favour of N.Lakshmipathi, H.N.Venkatesh and Chitra.T.R. the bifurcation of the properties are made and the properties of plaintiff, N.Lakshmipathi, properties of H.N.Venkatesh and Chitra.T.R. and remaining property of Smt.Y.P.Hema were given four different numbers, i.e., 1A/1 given to N.Lakshmipathi 1A/2 51 O.S.No.4508/2018 given to the property of H.N.Venkatesh and Chitra.T.R. 1A/3 given to the property of plaintiff and No. 1A retained to the remaining property of Smt.Y.P.Hema. The plaintiff has produced the document Ex.P1 certified copy of the registered gift deed dated 28.12.2012 executed by Smt.Y.P.Hema in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the suit schedule property. On perusal of the copy of gift deed as per Ex.P1 there is clear mention regarding the purchase of land by H.Puttaswamy in old Sy.No. 57, new Sy.No. 290/2 measuring 3 acres 35 guntas along with 5 guntas karab under registered sale deed dated 28.12.1992 and also mentioned regarding the conversion order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore as per Order dated 8.12.1994 and formation of layout by N.L.Byre Gowda who was the General Power of Attorney holder of H.Puttaswamy. 52 O.S.No.4508/2018 There is also mention in Ex.P1 regarding the change of Khatha with respect to the property bearing No. 1A i.e., 1360/808/1/1329/1A/1195 in the name of Smt.Y.P.Hema from the name of her father after the death of her father H.Puttaswamy. In Ex.P1 there is also mention regarding the reason why Smt.Y.P.Hema gifted the property in favour of N.B.Gurudeva (plaintiff). Ex.P2 is the encumbrance certificate to show that in view of the gift deed executed by Smt.Y.P.Hema in favour of the plaintiff, the gifted property entered in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.P3 order passed by the Assistant Revenue Officer to have Khatha on bifurcation of property of site bearing No. 1A, Ex.P4 is the Khatha certificate dated 5.6.2018 entered in the name of the plaintiff with respect to the suit schedule property. Ex.P5 is the property register extract of the suit schedule 53 O.S.No.4508/2018 property standing in the name of plaintiff. Ex.P6 is the property tax receipt for the year 2018-19 with respect to the suit schedule property standing in the name of plaintiff. Ex.P7 is the copy of sketch showing the bifurcation of property bearing Khatha No. 1360/808/1/1329/1A/1195 Ideal Homes, Halagevoderahalli, Ward No. 160, Bangalore and in this sketch bifurcated the properties of plaintiff N.B.Gurudeva, Hema, H.N.Venkatesh and Chitra and the sketch of property of N.Lakshmipathi are all mentioned. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff is that towards western side of his property there exists property No. 1, Deccan Apartment. In Ex.P7 also the property of Deccan Hides Apartment is mentioned towards western side of the plaintiff's property. The plaintiff has produced Ex.P8, two photographs to show that he was cleaning the 54 O.S.No.4508/2018 property by using JCB and Tipper. DW1 in his cross-examination admitted the document Ex.P8 photograph of plaintiff cleaning property. No doubt DW1 in his cross-examination deposed that the plaintiff was tried to clean the property in Sy.No. 58. The plaintiff has produced and got marked the document Ex.P9, copy of complaint dated 18.6.2018 to show that he had filed the complaint against the defendants alleging that the defendants have threatened him not to clean the site. Ex.P10 is the acknowledgement issued by PSI of Rajajinagar police station for having received the complaint, Ex.P11 is the document dated 17.6.2018 to show that the plaintiff was paid advance amount to the Contractor to clean the site No. 1A/3. Ex.P12 is the Hissa Tippani of the land bearing Sy.No. 290/2, Ex.P3 is the certified copy of order passed by JDLR and the 55 O.S.No.4508/2018 Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore who passed order cancelling the Phod No. 290/3 and retained only phod No. 290/1 and 290/2. Ex.P14 is the certified copy of Hissa Tippani of Sy.No. 290, Ex.P15 is the sketch of Hissa Tippani of Sy.No. 290, Ex.P17 is the village map of Halagevoderahalli. Ex.P18 is the sketch of the land in Sy.No. 290/1, 290/2, 58 and 59 which was prepared in order to identify the road formed in the land in Sy.No. 290/2, 290/1, Sy.No. 58 and 59. Ex.P19 is the certified copy of sketch of land showing Sy.No. 290/2 and adjacent property. On perusal of Ex.P19 there is mention regarding Deccan Apartment. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property is situated just abutting to the Deccan Apartment property. Ex.P20 is the copy of complaint lodged by the plaintiff to the RR Nagar Police against the 56 O.S.No.4508/2018 defendants on 4.7.2018. Ex.P21 is the copy of complaint dated 26.8.2018. Ex.P22 is the copy of Uttara Patra with respect to the property bearing No. 1360/808/1/1329/1A/1195 standing in the name of Hema. Ex.P23 is the copy of property register extract which was standing in the name of H.Puttaswamy transferred in the name of Smt.Y.P.Hema with respect to property measuring 70 feet x 125 feet. Ex.P24 is the copy of certified copy standing in the name of Smt.Y.P.Hema. Ex.P25 is the certified copy of registered sale deed dated 28.12.1992 for having purchased the property by H.Puttaswamy in Sy.No. 57. It is not in dispute that Sy.No. 57 was renumbered as Sy.No. 290/2. Ex.P26 is the certified copy of RTC of Sy.No. 290/2 measuring 3 acres 31 guntas for the year 2018-19 standing in the name of H.Puttaswamy. Ex.P27 is 57 O.S.No.4508/2018 the document to show that the plaintiff has obtained the document Ex.P28 to Ex.P31 under RTI. Ex.P29 is the certified copy of the proceedings made in BBMP for bifurcation of the properties in the name of plaintiff, Smt.Y.P.Hema, H.N.Venkatesh and Chitra.T.R. and in the name of N.Lakshmipathi. Ex.P30 is the copy of Khatha bifurcation document which shows that out of the total land measuring 125 x 70, 20 feet x 70 feet was entered in the name of N.Lakshmipathi, 20 feet x 70 feet entered in the name of H.N.Venkatesh and Chitra.T.R., 20 feet x 70 feet entered in the name of Smt.Y.P.Hema of 65 feet x 70 feet entered in the name of N.B.Gurudeva (plaintiff). Ex.P31 is the sketch showing the bifurcation of property. Ex.P31 and Ex.P7 are same documents. Ex.P33 is the property tax receipt for the year 2020-21 standing in the name of plaintiff. 58 O.S.No.4508/2018
22. The defendants have produced the document Ex.D1 certified copy of the sale deed dated 28.12.1992. The plaintiff has produced certified copy of sale deed as per Ex.P25 and defendant has produced the same certified copy of the sale deed dated 28.12.1992 as per Ex.P17, Thus the defendants have not disputed regarding the purchase of the property by H.Puttaswamy in Sy.No. 57. The learned counsel for the defendants argued that in the sale deed Ex.D1 / Ex.P25 the eastern boundary shown as Sy.No. 58. He argued that even though Smt.Y.P.Hema had no properties in Sy.No. 290/2 she was gifted the gift deed with respect to non-existing property. This argument of the learned counsel for the defendants is not acceptable because the plaintiff has produced the document Ex.P23, Khatha register extract which would go to show that prior to 59 O.S.No.4508/2018 Smt.Y.P.Hema executed gift deed dated 28.12.2017 in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the suit schedule property the property bearing No. 808/1/1329/1A measuring 70 feet x 125 feet was standing in her name. On perusal of Ex.P23 it would go to show that the property which was standing in the name of H.Puttaswamy after his death entered in the name of Smt.Y.P.Hema. The plaintiff has also produced the document to show that after Smt.Y.P.Hema executed gift deed in favour of the plaintiff and after she executed the sale deeds in favour of H.N.Venkatesh and Chitra.T.R. and sale deed in favour of N.Lakshmipathi and retained portion of the property, hence bifurcation Khatha was made and Khatha of the suit schedule property entered in the name of plaintiff. DW1 in his cross- examination has clearly deposed that all the 60 O.S.No.4508/2018 documents Ex.D2 to Ex.D9 are pertaining to the land in Sy.No. 58. The defendants have not produced any documents to show that the Khatha which is transferred in the name of plaintiff is pertaining to the land in Sy.No. 58. the plaintiff has produced sufficient documents to show that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The oral evidence of PW1 coupled with the document Ex.P1 to Ex.P33 are sufficient to hold that the plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Hence I answer issue No. 1 in the Affirmative.
23. Issue No. 2: PW1 has deposed that on 17.6.2018 at about 4.45 pm when he was doing cleaning work of suit schedule property by engaging contractor then the defendant No. 1 and 2 and their 61 O.S.No.4508/2018 followers came there and threatened the plaintiff by dire consequences. Then some persons intervened and pacified the defendants. Hence defendants went away from the spot warning him as well as JCB driver and Tipper drivers not to repeat the action. PW1 has deposed that he has also lodged the complaint to the police as well as Commissioner of Police, Bangalore city. In order to substantiate this contention the plaintiff has got marked the document Ex.P9 complaint given to the police and produced Ex.P10 acknowledgment issued by the police. The plaintiff has also produced the document Ex.P20 complaint dated 4.7.2018 and Ex.P21 complaint dated 26.8.2018 given to the police. The plaintiff has also produced the document Ex.P8, two photographs to show that he was cleaning and levelling the site through 62 O.S.No.4508/2018 Contractor with JCB and Tipper. DW1 in his cross- examination admitted the suggestion that Ex.P8 are two photographs taken at the time of cleaning of the property by the plaintiff. No doubt DW1 claimed that the said property belongs to them. But there is no document on the side of the defendants to show that the property which can be seen in Ex.P3 photographs belongs to the defendants. DW1 who claims that he is the General Power of Attorney holder of one Nirmala John has not produced any such General Power of Attorney in this suit. The oral evidence of PW1 coupled with the document Ex.P9, Ex.P10, Ex.P8, Ex.P20, Ex.P21 are sufficient to hold that the defendants were tried to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. While discussing issue No.1, I held that the plaintiff proved that he is 63 O.S.No.4508/2018 in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The defendants have not produced any documents to show that they are having any right over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has proved the threatened interference made by the defendants. Hence I answer issue No. 2 in the Affirmative.
24. Issue No. 3: While discussing issue No. 1 I held that the plaintiff proves that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff also proved the threatened interference by the defendants. Hence the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction prayed in this suit. Accordingly I answer issue No. 4 in the Affirmative.
64 O.S.No.4508/2018
25. Issue No.4: In view of my findings on issue No. 1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with cost.
Permanent injunction is
granted in favour of the
plaintiff and against the
defendants restraining the
defendants, their servants,
henchmen or anybody acting
under them or through them from
interfering with the plaintiff's
peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule
property.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment-Writer, transcribed, computerized and printout taken by her, revised and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of February 2022.) (Mohan Prabhu) XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.65 O.S.No.4508/2018
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the plaintiff/s :
PW1 - N.B.Gurudeva Witness examined for the defendant/s :
DW1 - B.T.Bhaskar Documents marked for the plaintiff/s :
Ex.P1 - Copy of gift deed dated 28.12.2017 Ex.P2 - encumbrance certificate for 2004 Ex.P3 - Order passed by BBMP Ex.P4 - Khatha Ex.P5 - Khatha extract Ex.P6 - Tax paid receipt for 2018-19 Ex.P7 - Sketch Ex.P8 - 2 photos and CD Ex.P9 - Complaint given to police Ex.P10 - Endorsement issued by police Ex.P11 - Receipt for contractor advance Ex.P12 - certified copy of Hissa survey in Sy.No. 290 Ex.P13 - certified copy of orders dated 8.3.2017 passed by JDLR 66 O.S.No.4508/2018 Ex.P14 - certified copy of Hissa survey tippani in Sy.No. 290 Ex.P15 - certified copy of Hissa survey tippani in Sy.No.290 Ex.P16 - Receipt paid for sketch Ex.P17 - Village map of Halagevaddarahalli Ex.P18 - Sketch by BBMP Ex.P19 - certified copy of Sketch Ex.P20 - Complaint copy dated 4.7.2018 Ex.P21 - Complaint copy dated 26.8.2018 Ex.P22 - Uttara Patra Ex.P23 - Property extract Ex.P24 - Khatha certificate Ex.P25 - certified copy of sale deed dated 28.12.1992 Ex.P26 - certified copy of RTC in Sy.No.290/2 Ex.P27 - Endorsement Ex.P28 - Receipt Ex.P29 - Proceedings extract Ex.P30 - Khatha Ex.P31 - Sketch Ex.P32 - Tax paid receipts 67 O.S.No.4508/2018 Ex.P33 - Tax paid receipts Documents marked for the defendant/s : Ex.D1 - certified copy of sale deed dated 28.12.1992 Ex.D2 - certified copy of judgment in Writ Petition No. 6447/2008 Ex.D3 - certified copy of judgment in Writ Appeal No. 311/2008 Ex.D4 - certified copy of sale dated 13.9.2000 Ex.D5 - certified copy of gift deed dated 24.6.2011 Ex.D6 - certified copy of gift deed dated 24.6.2011 Ex.D7 - certified copy of judgment in O.S.No.9708/2005 Ex.D8 - certified copy of decree in O.S.No.9708/2005 Ex.D9 - certified copy of sale dated 4.2.2002 Ex.D10-13 - Property No.58 tax paid receipts (Mohan Prabhu) XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.68 O.S.No.4508/2018
Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate detailed Judgment) ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with cost.
Permanent injunction is granted in favour of the
plaintiff and against the defendants restraining the defendants, their servants, henchmen or anybody acting under them or through them from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
Draw decree accordingly.
XXV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE.
69 O.S.No.4508/2018