Bangalore District Court
Sri. A. George vs Sri. Raja on 24 June, 2017
Govt. Of Karnataka
C.R.P.67] TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
Form No.9(Civil) AT MAYOHALL UNIT, (CCH-29) BENGALURU.
Title sheet for
Judgment in suits
(R.P.91)
Present: Sri. J.R.Mendonca, B.A.L., LL.B,
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
Dated: This the 24th day of June 2017
Original suit No.15478/2001
Plaintiffs:- 1. Sri. A. George,
Son of Late Sri. Aruldas,
Aged about 58 years,
Residing at No.11,
'C' Street, Jayarajnagar,
Murphy Town, Ulsoorr,
Bangalore.
2. Karline Mary alias Pusparani,
(LR of Arul Dass) - Plaintiff No.2.
W/o Late Arul Dass,
No.205, Garepalya,
Bandepalya, Bommanahalli Post,
Hosur Road, Bangalore-68.
3. Sri. Johnson,
S/o Joseph,
Aged 25 years,
'C' Street, Jayarajnagar,
Murphy Town, Ulsoor,
Bangalore.
(By Pleader: Sri.RKK Advocate )
V/s
2 O.S.No.15478/2001
Defendants:- 1. Sri. Raja,
Son of Late Sri. Kodandan,
Aged 46 years,
Residing at No.12,
'C' Street, Jayaraajnagar,
Ulsoor, Bangalore.
2. Chandrashekar,
S/o Late Kodandan,
Aged 45 years,
Residing at No.12,
'C' Street, Jayarajnagar,
Ulsoor, Bangalore.
3. The Commissioner,
Corporation of the
City of Bangalore,
Bangalore-560 001
4. R. Abdul Shukoor,
S/o Saleh Mohammed,
Residing at No.8,
Abdul Harris Road, Benson Town,
Bangalore-560 001.
5. S. Syed Farhan,
S/o Syed Sulaiman,
Aged 36 years,
Residing at No.217, Andal Street,
Salem, Tamil Nadu.
(By Pleader: Sri. KNS Adv., for D.1 & D.2,
Sri. BP Adv., for D.3, Sri. MN Adv., for D.4 & D.5)
3 O.S.No.15478/2001
Date of Institution of the suit 29.3.2001
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit for
declaration and possession, suit for Partition & Permanent
injunction, etc.) Injunction.
Date of the commencement of recording of 26.10.2006
the Evidence
Date on which the Judgment was 24.6.2017
pronounced
Year/s Month/s Days
Total duration 16 02 25
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the Plaintiff for partition of the Suit Schedule Property in three equal portions and for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from claiming any right over the Suit Schedule Property and for costs of the suit.
2. The description of the Plaint Schedule Properties is as under:
SCHEDULE
1. All that part and parcel of the house No.11, 'C' Street, Jayarajnagar, Murphy Town, Ulsoor, Bangalore measuring East to West 30 feet, North to South 20 feet, bounded on;
East : Property No.26, 'B' Street.
West : 'C' Street.
4 O.S.No.15478/2001
North : Property No.12, 'C' Street.
South : Property No.10, 'C' Street.
2. All that part and parcel of the house No.12, 'C' Street, Jayarajnagar, Murphy Town, Ulsoor, Bangalore measuring East to West 30 feet, North to South 20 feet, bounded on;
East : Property No.25, 'B' Street.
West : Road.
North : Property No.12, 'C' Street.
South : Property No.10, 'C' Street.
3. The description of the property shown in the written statement of Defendant Nos.1 and 2:
SCHEDULE All that piece and parcel of residential property bearing Municipal Corporation No.13, situated at 4th Main, Old BBMP Ward No.91, New BBMP Ward No.61, S.K.Garden, Bangalore. Along with land open spaces and all the structures standing thereon, (formerly being site bearing No.64, in Plot No.2, in Sy.No.29, K.G.Baidarahalli, Civil Station, Bangalore, allotted PID No.91-50-13.
MEASURING On the Easter Side : 46 feet 06 inches; On the Western Side : 44 feet 06 inches;
On the Northern Side : 30 feet;
On the Southern Side : 30 feet;
5 O.S.No.15478/2001
BOUNDED ON
East by : Property bearing Old No.65, New MC No.12.
West by : Property bearing Old No.63, New MC No.14;
North by : Road;
South by : Land in Sy.No.30; now property bearing MC
Nos.27 & 27/1.
4. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows:-
The Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and late Joseph are the children of Aruldass. The Anthonyammal had married Aruldass. She had four children who are the Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, Late Joseph who is the father of Plaintiff No.3 and a daughter by name Susheela. She later married to Kodandan. From Kodandan she had four children who are the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 and two daughters namely Rani and Sheela. The Plaint Schedule Properties were acquired by Late Anthonyammal out of her own innings. She was employed in Indian Tobacco Company, Bengaluru. The property was in the occupation and possession of Anthonyammal till her death. She had raised the building in the property out of the retirement benefits. The Plaintiff has stated that the property No.12 stands in the name of Kodandan. The property No.11 is not yet transferred from Tiruvengadam due to untimely death of 6 O.S.No.15478/2001 Anthonyammal. Anthonyammal passed away on 25.10.1975. Kodandan had passed away on 4.11.980. There was a property bearing No.143, Vasanth Nagar, Bangalore, which was jointly acquired by Anthonyammal and Kodandan. The Plaintiff has pleaded that during the lifetime of Anthonyammal and Kodandan the property was settled permanently among the surviving male heirs. The Plaint Schedule Property was came to the occupation of the Plaintiffs. The property at Vasanth Nagar was came for the occupation of Defendant Nos.1 and 2. A Will was also drawn by Kodandan under the instructions of Anthonyammal. After the death of Anthonyammal and Kodandan the Defendants have tried to change the khata of the Plaint Schedule Property and have also issued the legal notice to the Plaintiffs for vacating the premises. Therefore, the Plaintiffs had no other remedy than to file a suit for partition. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have prayed to decree the suit.
5. The suit was initially filed only against the Defendant Nos.1 to 3. The Defendant Nos.4 and 5 were later impleaded on the applications of the Defendant Nos.1 and 2. 7 O.S.No.15478/2001
6. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant Nos.1 to 5 have appeared through their counsel and have filed their written statement. The Defendant No.4 has filed his separate written statement and Defendant No.5 has adopted the written statement filed by Defendant No.4.
7. The Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have denied that the Plaint Schedule Property belonged to Anthonyammal and that there was a Will. They have also denied that the properties were settled between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants during the lifetime of Anthonyammal and Kodandan as contended by the Plaintiffs. They have stated that the property No.11 as described in the Plaint Schedule was purchased in the name of the 2nd Defendant from one Sri. Jayaraman on 4.1.1999. The property No.12 as described in the plaint schedule was purchased by late Kodandan and after his death his son the 1st Defendant has transferred the khata in his name. The Defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property. The Plaintiffs have no right over the suit properties. They have stated that the property bearing No.143, Vasanth Nagar, was sold by Kodandan in favour of Smt. Bhavani in the year 1980. The property No.64 described in the schedule to the written 8 O.S.No.15478/2001 statement was registered in the name of Sri. George and it was purchased out of the earnings of late Kodandan. There was another property bearing No.6, Car Street, 3rd Cross, Ulsoor, Bangalore, which was also purchased by late Kodandan and registered in the name of Arul Dass. The property described in the schedule to the written statement is liable for partition. The Plaintiffs have sold the suit property by a registered Sale Deed dtd: 20.10.2010 in favour of the Defendant Nos.4 and 5.
Therefore, the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have prayed to dismiss the suit and sought for declaration to declare that the Sale Deed executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the Defendant Nos.4 and 5 is not binding on the Defendants and for partition of the property by metes and bounds and also to allot 1/3rd share in the property.
8. The Defendant No.4 in his written statement has stated that the Defendant Nos.4 and 5 have purchased the property No.61 described in the schedule to the written statement of Defendant Nos.1 and 2 from C.A. George the Plaintiff herein under the registered Sale Deed dtd: 20.10.2010. The said property was purchased by the Plaintiff No.1 from Sri.V.M.Vishwanatha Mudaliar under the registered Sale Deed 9 O.S.No.15478/2001 dtd:4.8.1960. The Defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the bonafide purchasers of the property and have purchased the property after verification of the documents. They have denied that the said property was acquired by the father of the Defendants in the name of the 1st Plaintiff and that the same is liable for partition and that the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have right over the property. Therefore, they have prayed to dismiss the claim and counter claim of the Defendants and Plaintiff.
9. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues and additional issues have been framed by my learned Predecessor in office:-
1. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the suit property was acquired by late Anthonyammal?
2. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that Smt.Anthonyammal constructed the building in the suit property?
3. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the Defendants 1 and 2 are given properties at Vasanthnagar jointly acquired by Anthonyammal and Kodandan?
4. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for three equal shares in the Suit Schedule Property as sought for?10 O.S.No.15478/2001
5. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
6. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?
7. To what order or decree?
Additional Issues
1. Whether the Defendants prove that the suit property which was purchased by Kodandan in the name of George which was his exclusive property?
2. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the counter claim of partition claimed by the Defendants in respect of the property shown in the written statement schedule is not properly valued and court fee paid is insufficient?
3. Whether the Defendant No.4 proves that the relief claimed by Defendant No.2 is barred by limitation?
10. To prove the case of the plaintiffs, the Plaintiff No.1 got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked the documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.58 and got examined one more witness as PW.2 and the side of the Plaintiffs was closed. The Defendant No.1 got examined himself as DW.1 and got marked the documents as per Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.27 and closed their side.
11 O.S.No.15478/2001
11. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and Defendants.
12. My answers to the above issues is as follows:-
Issue Nos.1 to 6 : In the Negative.
Addl.Issue Nos.1 to 3 : In the Negative.
Issue No.7 : As per the final order
for the following:-
REASONS
13. Issue Nos.1 to 3:- As all these issues are inter- connected with each other, all the issues are taken up together for consideration.
14. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that the Plaint Schedule Properties were acquired by Anthonyammal out of her self earnings. The property No.12 is purchased in the name of Kodandan. The property No.11 is not yet transferred from the vendor Thiruvengadam. They have stated that during the lifetime of Anthonyammal and Kodandan the properties belonging to them were settled and the Plaint Schedule Properties were given to the Plaintiffs and the property bearing No.143 at Vasanth Nagar was given to the Defendant Nos.1 and 2.
12 O.S.No.15478/2001
15. The Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have stated that the property No.11 as described in the Plaint Schedule was purchased in the name of the 2nd Defendant from one Sri. Jayaraman on 4.1.1999. The property No.12 as described in the plaint schedule was purchased by late Kodandan and after his death his son the 1st Defendant has transferred the khata in his name. The Defendants have denied the settlement of the properties as averred by the Plaintiffs.
16. Therefore, to succeed in this case the Plaintiffs have to first show that the properties belonged to Anthonyammal. The Plaintiffs have produced Ex.P.2 the certified copy of the Sale Deed dtd: 5.4.1961 executed by Swaminathan and Smt.Varadammal in favour of Thiruvengadam in respect of the property bearing No.11. Ex.P.3 is the encumbrance certificate for the period from 5.4.1961 to 20.4.1998 which shows only the encumbrance of Ex.P.2 over the property No.11. Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.6 are the notices of enquiry issued to Anthonyammal in respect of property No.11. Ex.P.8 the record relating to this property that Smt. Anthonyammal had not appeared for the enquiry and paid the value of the site and therefore, the property vest with the 13 O.S.No.15478/2001 CBC. Therefore, these documents show that the property bearing No.11 was not transferred to the name of Anthonyammal. The Plaintiffs themselves have admitted that there is no registered deed conveying the said property by Thiruvengadam in favour of Anthonyammal. The Ex.P.8 also shows that Anthonyammal failed to appear for the enquiry and the property has vested in the Corporation. The documents Ex.P.9 the passbook, Ex.P.10 the letters written by LIC, Ex.P.11 the rental agreement, Ex.P.12 the passbook, would only show that the Plaintiffs are residing in the said property. The Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have produced Ex.D.24 the certified copy of the sale deed dtd: 4.1.1999 executed by Sri. A. Jayaraman in favour of the Defendant No.2 in respect of property No.11. Therefore, this document shows that the Defendant No.2 has purchased the property bearing No.11. It is not necessary to give a finding as to whether the Defendant No.2 has acquired valid title over this property by virtue of this Sale Deed as the Plaintiffs themselves have failed to produce documents as required by law to prove the ownership of Anthonyammal over the property bearing No.11 as described in the Plaint Schedule.
14 O.S.No.15478/2001
17. The Ex.P.16 to Ex.P.19 are the tax paid receipts and Ex.P.20 is the assessment of property tax, which shows that the property bearing No.12 stands in the name of Kodandan. Ex.P.22 to Ex.P.29 are the letters and the voters list which relate to the property No.12. These documents will not be of much help as it would only show that the Plaintiffs are in possession of this property. No much value can be attached to these documents as the property Nos.11 and 12 are abutting to each other and therefore, just because these documents are produced it cannot be said that the Plaintiffs have a right over the property. Ex.P.32 is the notice issued to Kodandan for payment of taxes.
18. The Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have produced Ex.D.1 the possession certificate in the name of Kodandan in respect of property No.12. Ex.D.3 shows that the Kodandan has remitted the value of the site to the Corporation. Ex.D.5, Ex.D.6 and Ex.D.9 the tax paid receipts show that Kodandan was paying the taxes in respect of the property. Ex.D.14 to Ex.D.16 and Ex.D.19 also show that the property was the exclusive property of Kodandan.
15 O.S.No.15478/2001
19. Ex.P.40 is the application dtd: 11.7.1998 given by the Plaintiff No.1 to the Commissioner and para No.6 of the said application the Plaintiff No.1 has prayed to issue the khata in respect of property No.11/1 in his name and property No.11/2 in the name of widow of his younger brother and the khata in respect of property No.12/1 in favour of the Defendant No.1 and property No.12/2 in the name of K. Chandrashekhar. This document also goes against the case of the Plaintiff. There was no necessity to ask for the change of the khata in respect of property No.12 in favour of the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 if the property belongs to him.
20. Ex.P.49 is the certified copy of the Will dtd: 12.9.1974 of T. Kodandan and Ex.P.50 is the Rectification Deed dtd:
27.1.1975 of the Will by Sri. T. Kodandan. The Plaintiffs have not produced the originals of this document. The Will cannot be looked into unless one of the attesting witness is examined to prove the same. Therefore, Ex.P.49 and Ex.P.50 are not duly proved. Therefore, these documents are of no help to decide this case.16 O.S.No.15478/2001
21. Ex.P.39 is the Sale Deed dtd: 27.3.1980 executed by Kodandan in favour of Smt. Bhavani in respect of property No.44 site No.143. Ex.P.38 the death certificate shows that Kodandan passed away on 4.11.1980. Therefore, this shows that the property was already sold by Kodandan during his lifetime. Therefore, the contention of the Plaintiffs that there was a settlement and this property was given to the Defendants cannot be accepted. Hence, this Court holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that the Defendants No.1 and 2 are given the properties at Vasanth Nagar in the settlement. Hence, issue No.3 is answered in the Negative.
22. Therefore, the documents on record show that the property No.12 belonged to Kodandan. There are no materials to show that the Plaintiffs have become the owners of the same. As it is admitted that Kodandan is not their natural father, they do not succeed to the estate of Kodandan. Therefore, the Plaintiffs cannot claim any right over the property No.12 described in the plaint schedule. Therefore, the materials on record do not prove that the Plaint Schedule Properties were acquired by Anthonyammal. Hence, issue No.1 is answered in the Negative. 17 O.S.No.15478/2001
23. The Plaintiffs have contended that Anthonyammal has constructed the building in the suit property out of her retirement benefits. There are no acceptable materials to prove the same. The documents only show that Anthonyammal resided in the said property. The oral evidence on record is also of no much help to decide the case. Therefore, this Court holds that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that Anthonyammal has constructed the building in the suit property. Hence, issue No.2 is answered in the Negative.
24. Issue No.4:- In view of my answers to issue Nos.1 to 3 in the Negative, the Plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in the Suit Schedule Property. Further, the frame of the suit itself is bad and the Plaintiffs could not have filed the suit for partition against the Defendants as it is not their case that the Defendants are the co-owners of the Plaint Schedule Properties. It is their specific case that the Plaintiffs alone are the co-sharers. Therefore, there is no cause of action to file the suit for partition against the Defendants. Hence, this Court holds that the Plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in the property. Hence, this issue is answered in the Negative.
18 O.S.No.15478/2001
25. Issue No.5:- Considering the relief claimed in the plaint the sisters of the Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are not necessary parties as the Plaintiffs are claiming the partition on the basis of the settlement stated to have been made by Kodandan and Anthonyammal, which they have failed to prove. Therefore, the suit of the Plaintiff is not bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. Hence, issue No.5 is answered in the Negative.
26. Issue No.6:- The Plaintiffs have failed to prove their right over the Plaint Schedule Properties and the interference of the Defendants over their right of enjoyment of the Plaint Schedule Properties. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction. Hence, issue No.6 is answered in the Negative.
27. Additional Issue No.1:- The Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have contended that Sri. Kodandan purchased the property No.64 in the name of the Plaintiff No.1. It has to be first stated that the parties cannot claim to be the joint family members and they cannot claim that the property standing in the name of the particular person is the joint family property. The Plaintiffs are 19 O.S.No.15478/2001 Christians. There is no concept of joint family property in Christians.
28. The Defendants Nos.1 and 2 have produced Ex.D.21 the certified copy of the Sale Deed dtd: 9.9.1960 executed by Sri.B.M. Vishwanatha Mudaliar in favour of Sri. C. George in respect of the property No.64. The documents produced by the Plaintiff shows that the Plaintiff No.1 has been enjoying the property in his individual capacity. The Ex.P.35 is the mortgage made by the Plaintiff No.1 George in favour of Thangavelu in respect of property No.64. Ex.P.36 is the Deed of Re-Conveyance by Thangavelu in favour of George in respect of property No.64. Ex.P.37 shows that the Plaintiff No.1 has also deposited the title deeds of this property as security for the loan. Ex.D.22 the khata extract in respect of this property from the year 1996-1997 to 2002-2003 stands in the name of the Plaintiff No.1. Therefore, this property should be held as the self-acquired property of the Plaintiff No.1. The Plaintiff No.1 has sold the property in favour of the Defendant Nos.4 and 5 as could be seen from Ex.P.26 the certified copy of the Sale Deed dtd: 20.10.2010. Therefore, at present the Defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the absolute owners of this property. Therefore, this Court holds that the Defendant 20 O.S.No.15478/2001 Nos.1 and 2 have failed to prove that the property bearing No.64 was purchased by Kodandan in the name of the Plaintiff No.1. Hence, Additional Issue No.1 is answered in the Negative.
29. Additional Issue No.2:- The Plaintiffs have failed to produce any evidence to prove that the counter claim of the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 is not properly valued. Hence, this issue is answered in the Negative.
30. Additional Issue No.3:- The Defendant Nos.4 and 5 have failed to prove that the relief claimed by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 for partition is barred by time. If the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 had proved that they had a right over the property shown in their written statement and the Plaintiff No.1 had no exclusive right over the same, their suit for partition would have been maintainable and would have been within the period of limitation. Therefore, this issue is answered in the Negative.
31. Issue No.7 :- In view of the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 preferring the counter claim in this suit and both the suit and the counter claim are dismissed, the parties are directed to bear their respective costs. In the result, this court proceeds to pass the following:
21 O.S.No.15478/2001
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed with no order as to costs.
The counter claim of the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Draw up decree accordingly.
[Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 24th day of June 2017].
[J.R.MENDONCA] XXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiffs:-
P.W.1 : George.
P.W.2 : Siva.
List of documents marked:-
Ex.P 1 : Challan dtd.5.4.1961.
Ex.P 2 Certified copy of Sale Deed
dtd.5.4.1961 Swaminathan and
Smt.Varadammal in favour of
Thiruvengadam in respect of
the property bearing No.11.
22 O.S.No.15478/2001
Ex.P 3 Encumbrance certificate.
Ex.P 4 to 6 Notice of Enquiry dtd:9.12.197,
6.1.1975 and 5.1.1975.
Ex.P 7 Voter's list of Bangalore
Mahanagara Palike of
Kodandan.
Ex.P 8 PT sheet with sketch..
Ex.P 9 Passbook of Mr. A. George of
Canara Bank.
Ex.P 10 Intimation dtd: 25.5.1995 by
LIC to Smt. Salath Mary.
Ex.P 11 Rental agreement
dtd:11.11.1992 entered into
between A. George in favour of
Smt. Narayanamma.
Ex.P 12 Passbook of Canara Bank of
Mr.A. George.
Ex.P 13 Death certificate of Anthonyammal.
Ex.P 14,15 Rent receipts.
Ex.P 16 to Tax paid receipts.
19
Ex.P 20 Assessment extract.
Ex.P 21 Identity card of ITC Ltd of
George.
Ex.P 22 ESI card.
Ex.P 23 Card issued by LIC.
Ex.P 24 Receipt issued by LIC.
Ex.P 25 Notice issued by LIC.
Ex.P 26 Loan payment voucher.
Ex.P 27 & Intimation by LIC.
28
Ex.P 29 Electoral card.
Ex.P 30 to Notices issued by BMP.
32
Ex.P 33 Electoral card.
Ex.P 34 Cumulative record.
Ex.P 35 Mortgage deed dtd: 19.4.1967
executed by C. George in favour
of R. Thangavelu.
23 O.S.No.15478/2001
Ex.P 36 Re-conveyance deed
dtd:5.10.1967 executed by
R.Thangavelu in favour of
C.George.
Ex.P 37 Deed of Agreement dtd:
23.1.1982 executed by
C.George in favour of
J.Stanislas.
Ex.P 38 Death certificate of Kodandan.
Ex.P 39 Certified copy of Sale Deed
dtd:27.3.1980.
Ex.P 40 Letter dtd: 22.5.2000 of George
addressed to The
Commissioner.
Ex.P 41 Letter dt.19.2.2001 addressed
to The Commissioner, BMP,
Bangalore.
Ex.P 42 to Photographs.
47
Ex.P 48 Negatives.
Ex.P 49 Certified copy of Will dtd:
12.9.1974 of T.Kodandan.
Ex.P 50 Rectification Deed
dtd:27.1.1975 of the Will by Sri.
T. Kodandan.
Ex.P 51 Certified copy of deposition of
Defendant examined as P.W.1
in another case.
Ex.P 52 Certified copy of evidence of
plaintiffs sister as PW.2.
Ex.P 53 Certified copy of evidence given
by Assistant Revenue Officer,
24 O.S.No.15478/2001
BBMP.
Ex.P 54 Certified copy of the order dtd:
4.9.2007 passed in
CC.22895/07.
Ex.P 55 Certified copy of Sale Deed.
Ex.P 56 Encumbrance Certificate.
Ex.P 57 Lease agreement dtd:
15.4.1967 executed by C.
George in favour of R.
Thangavelu.
Ex.P 58 Certified copy of Judgment dtd:
8.2.2010 passed in OS.2538/03.
List of witnesses examined for the defendants :-
D.W.1 : Raja.
List of documents marked :-
Ex.D 1 : Possession certificate.
Ex.D 2 Agreement Deed executed by
Sri. Kothandan in favour of The
Corporation of the City of
Bangalore.
Ex.D 3 Sale receipt.
Ex.D 4 Khata extract.
Ex.D 5 to Tax paid receipts.
13
Ex.D 14,15 Notices of enquiry dtd: 8.1.1975
and 1.7.1997.
Ex.D 16,17 Tax paid for water connection
and electricity bill.
Ex.D 18,19 Tax demand notices.
Ex.D 20 Endorsement dtd:4.1.1999
given by the Senior Sub-
Registrar, Shivajinagar,
Bangalore.
25 O.S.No.15478/2001
Ex.D 21 Certified copy of Sale Deed
dtd:9.9.1960 executed by
Sri.B.M. Vishwanatha Mudaliar
in favour of Sri. C. George.
Ex.D. 21(a) Type written copy of Ex.D.21.
Ex.D 22 Assessment extract.
Ex.D 23 Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd:
27.3.1980 executed by G.
Kodandan in favour of Smt. V.
Bhavani.
Ex.D 23(a) Type written copy of Ex.D.23 Ex.D 24 Certified copy of sale deed dtd:4.1.1999 executed by A. Jayaraman in favour of K.Chandra Sekhar.
Ex.D 25 Report of court commissioner.
Ex.D 26 Certified copy of Sale Deed
dtd:20.10.2010 executed by
C.George in favour of Mr.
R.Abdul Shukoor.
Ex.D 27 Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd:
9.9.1960.
(J.R.Mendonca),
XXVIII ACC & SJ, B'luru.
26 O.S.No.15478/2001
27 O.S.No.15478/2001
Judgment pronounced in open Court
as under :- (vide order separately)
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiffs is
dismissed with no order as to costs.
The counter claim of the
Defendant Nos.1 and 2 is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Draw up decree accordingly.
(J.R.Mendonca), XXVIII ACC & SJ, B'luru.