Bangalore District Court
Smt.Vanaja Srikumar vs Mrs.Divya Deepak Bhat @ Deepa on 11 November, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY : (CCH.18)
Dated this 11th day of November 2020.
Present
SRI.DINESH HEGDE, B.A.LL.B.,
XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
O.S.No.7059/2017
PLAINTIFFS : 1. Smt.Vanaja Srikumar,
aged about 61 years,
R/at No.62, 'Gauri Mansion',
5th Main Road, Chamarajpet,
Bangalore-560 018.
2. Mr.Jayant Srikumar Gauri,
Aged about 28 years,
S/o Mr.B.V.Srikumar,
R/at No.1171, 22nd A Cross,
23rd Main Road,
Banashankari 2nd Stage,
Bangalore-560 070.
(By Sri.S.K.Mithun, Advocate)
-VS-
DEFENDANT : Mrs.Divya Deepak Bhat @ Deepa,
Aged about 36 years,
D/o Sri.Mohandas Pai,
R/at No.602,
Mangalya Ashirvada Apartment,
B.G.Road, Bangalore-83.
(By Sri.M.T.Harish, Advocate)
2
O.S.No.7059/2017
Date of Institution of the suit : 17/10/2017
Nature of the Suit : Injunction Suit
Date of commencement of recording
of evidence : 25/9/2018
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced : 11/11/2020
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : 03 00 24
(Dinesh Hegde)
XIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have filed this suit against the defendant for the relief of permanent injunction restraining her from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties.
2. The case of plaintiffs in nutshell:-
The plaintiff No.1 & 2 are the wife and son of Mr.Srikumar respectively. By natural love and affection, 3 O.S.No.7059/2017 he executed 3 Registered Gift Deeds in favour of the plaintiffs i.e., under the Gift Deed dated 6/4/2016, he gifted the Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties ie., property bearing No.62 situated at K.P.Puttanna Chetty Road, Chamarajpet, K.G.Nagar, measuring East to West 42 ft North to South 140 ft, totally measuring 5880 sq.ft along with a building consists of 5000 sq.ft in favour of the plaintiff No.1.
3. It is further stated that on 24/3/2016, he executed another Registered Gift Deed in favour of his son i.e., the 2nd plaintiff by gifting the Item No.2 to 4 of the schedule properties.
4. The properties covered under 2 Gift Deeds dated 24/3/2016 are as follows:-
a) Property bearing Municipal Khatha No.61, situated at K.P.Puttanna Chetty Road, (5th Main Road) Chamarajapet, Ward No.49, K.G.Nagar, in BBMP Limits, PID No.49-40-61, East to West 65 feet and North to South 50 feet totally measuring 3250 Square feet which consists of basement, Ground Floor and First Floor measuring 6000 Square feet 4 O.S.No.7059/2017 more fully described as 'Item No.2 of the schedule property'.
b) Property bearing Municipal Khatha No.61/1, situated at K.P.Puttanna Chetty Road, (5th Main Road) Chamarajapet, Ward No.49, K.G.Nagar, in BBMP Limits, PID No.49-40-61/1, having super built up area of 2500 Square feet in 2 nd Floor more fully described as 'Item No.3 of the schedule property'.
c) Property bearing Municipal Khatha No.61/2, situated at K.P.Puttanna Chetty Road, (5th Main Road) Chamarajapet, Ward No.49, K.G.Nagar, in BBMP Limits, PID No.49-40-61/2, measuring East to west 47.58 Feet and North to South 104 and totally measuring 4948 Square feet and a building consisting 14,400/- Square feet more fully described as 'Item No.4 of the schedule property'.
5. It is further stated that by virtue of the Gift Deeds, both the plaintiffs were put in possession of the suit schedule properties and khatha certificate are standing in their name with respect of the schedule properties. The original Gift Deeds are lost and plaintiffs could not trace it immediately. The second plaintiff immediately after his education is taking care of Osteen School and College in the Item No.2 to 4 of the schedule properties. 5
O.S.No.7059/2017 By virtue of the above said Gift Deeds the second plaintiff is the absolute owner and is in peaceful possession over the item No.2 to 4 of the schedule properties. The Khatha of Item No.2 to 4 of the schedule properties are standing in the name of the second plaintiff. The plaintiff No.2 who is one of the trustee of Osteen College and school is taking care of management of school and college. Hundreds of students studies in the said school and college.
6. It is further stated that the defendant for the sake of money and with a bad motive to tarnish the image of Mr.Srikumar and his family members had initiated false criminal proceedings against him. As against the criminal proceedings, Mr.Srikumar had obtained anticipatory bail and also sought for quashing of the above said proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. The said criminal petitions are still pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. 6
O.S.No.7059/2017
7. It is further stated that the defendant and her daughter in order to damage the reputation of plaintiffs' family, had lodged one more complaint against Mr.Srikumar before the Konankunte Police station. The said police have filed one more FIR for the same offence against Mr.Srikumar and he has been arrested and has been remanded to Judicial Custody. The defendant has caused damages to the plaintiffs' family and their institutions.
8. It is further stated that on 16.10.2017 @7.30 P.M. the defendant came near Item No.1 and 4 of the schedule properties and tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs. The defendant along with her supporters created a big scene and used abusive language against the security and threatened them to open the doors of the Item No.1 and 4 of the schedule properties. The plaintiffs with great difficulty sent them back. The defendant while going, she openly threatened that she would come back again and would 7 O.S.No.7059/2017 do 'Dharni' in front of Item No.1 and 2 of the schedule properties. The defendant is doing such illegal acts for the sake of money. The plaintiffs immediately went to jurisdictional police station and gave complaint. But the police has not yet taken the complaint. The defendant in order to put the plaintiffs to yield to her demands is making false and defamatory statements against the plaintiffs.
9. It is further stated that hundreds of students come to the Item No.2 of the schedule properties. Ff the defendant comes and use abusive language and create a scene, the plaintiffs' reputation will be at stake and students of school and college will be put to extreme inconvenience. Any sort of nuisance created by the defendant will seriously affect the plaintiffs business. The defendant threatened the plaintiffs that she would do 'Dharani' in front of the schedule properties. Hence, without any other alternative, plaintiffs were constrained to file this suit for the relief of permanent injunction 8 O.S.No.7059/2017 restraining the defendant from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties and prays to decree the suit.
10. After service of suit summons, defendant appeared through her counsel and filed her detailed written statement by contending that there is no iota of truth in the plaint averments. She has contended that Mr.Srikumar husband of the plaintiff No.1 is none other than her husband and the marriage between them was solemnized on 17.01.2015, as per Hindu customs before the well-wishers and relatives of both sides at the residence of Mr.Srikumar.
11. The defendant has further contended that prior to the above said marriage the defendant was a widow having two children from her previous husband by name Sneha Deepak Bhat aged about 17 years and Anubhav Deepak Bhat aged about 14 years. After the death of her husband on 19.09.2006, she was all alone who was 9 O.S.No.7059/2017 facing financial difficulties and hardship and met the above said Mr.Srikumar through a Marriage Bureau by name 'Bharath Matrimonial'. After the first meeting, the said Srikumar falsely stated that he is a widower and his wife is passed away due to cancer and he has one son and a daughter who are already married and well settled in Australia and London respectively and he has also given the properties worth Rs.10 Crores to each of them. Since he is all alone, there must be someone to look after him, so was in search of a poor lady who is a Divorcee or a widow. The said Srikumar assured that he will look-after defendant and her children and take their responsibilities in future. As such, believing the words of the said Srikumar, on 17/1/2015, the defendant got married him in front of elders and family members and started to living with him in her matrimonial home at Chamarajapet.
12 The defendant has further contended that both defendant and Srikumar lived happily only for a short 10 O.S.No.7059/2017 period. At this stage, the said Srikumar had changed the name of the defendant from 'Divya Deepak Bhat' to 'Deepa Srikumar'. Srikumar and the defendant have also sworn a joint affidavit stating their marriage was performed according to Hindu customs. She has also changed the names of her children from 'Sneha Deepak Bhat' to 'Ishata Srikumar' and from 'Anubhav Deepak Bhat' to 'Yash Srikumar'. The said change of names was also published in paper 'Vartha Bharathy'.
13. The defendant has further contended that after the marriage, the said Srikumar started to show his true colors, that at Osteen School Annual Day, she came to know that her husband is having an affair with an administrator of the school by name Usha Reddy and subsequently, she came to know that her husband is having extra marital affairs with so many ladies and he is using his office chamber at Osteen college for his dirty sexual activities. The defendant is having the video clippings showing the dirty sexual activities of the said 11 O.S.No.7059/2017 Srikumar with the above said Usha Reddy.
14. The defendant has further contended that when she came to know about the character of the said Srikumar, when she questioned him the same, the said Srikumar boldly accepted his bad relations with the ladies by name Vijayatha residing at Mysore, Lakshmi who was working in Tulip Resort, a girl by name Bharathy and with few others ladies. When these relationships were accepted by the said Srikumar, the defendant requested him to stop all his bad activities and to lead a happy marital life with her. She has made several attempts to mend her husband Srikumar, but, all the efforts went in vain.
15. The defendant has further contended that when she repeatedly forced her husband to stop his bad sexual activities, her husband Srikumar started assaulting and scolding her in filthy language. He is a sex maniac and was not ready to stop his bad sexual 12 O.S.No.7059/2017 activities and started man handling the defendant and also started to misbehave with the defendant's daughter who was just 17 years old at that time. Hence, a criminal case was lodged against him under POSCO Act. After all these incidents, the said Srikumar started to behave violently and harassed the defendant physically and mentally. When she showed her husband Srikumar the video clippings of his bad sex activities with other ladies, the said Srikumar kicked the defendant with his leg and threw her out of his residence. Having no other alternative, the defendant has filed criminal miscellaneous petition under Domestic Violence Act.
16. The defendant has further contended that when the above said case is pending, the said Srikumar with a malafide intention to escape from his liability, had fraudulently transferred all his properties in to the name of the plaintiffs and later filed this suit to avoid the defendant from entering into her matrimonial home and to escape from his liability. The plaintiffs have not come 13 O.S.No.7059/2017 before this Court with clean hands. They have suppressed all the material facts and are trying to get injunctive order. The cause of action in the plaint is invented by the plaintiffs for the purpose of the case and as such, there is no cause of action of the suit. There is no prima-facie case, balance of convenience does not lie in favour of the plaintiffs and the suit is mis-conceived, liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost . Hence, prays to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs with exemplary costs.
17. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed:-
ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession of the schedule properties by virtue of the Gift Deed dated 24/3/2016 executed by Srikumar husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2?14
O.S.No.7059/2017
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference caused by defendant with regard to the management of school situated on suit schedule properties and also its administration?
3. Whether plaintiffs prove the alleged interference from defendant?
4. What order or decree?
18. On behalf of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.2 is examined as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.28. Defendant is examined as D.W.1 and marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.15.
19. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
20. My findings on the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1:- In the Affirmative; Issue No.2:- In the Affirmative; Issue No.3:- In the Affirmative; Issue No.4:- In the Affirmative; Issue No.5:- As per the final order for the following:-15
O.S.No.7059/2017 REASONS ISSUE
21. ISSUE No.1 to 3 :- These issues are taken up together for consideration in order to avoid repetition of facts.
22. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of the suit schedule properties by virtue of the 3 Gift Deeds i.e., one Gift Deed 6/4/2016 and 2 Gift Deeds dated 24/3/2016 and khatha of the suit schedule property stands in their name. Without having any right over the suit schedule properties, the defendant is interfering.
23. The case of the defendant is that without disclosing the 1st marriage, her husband B.V.Srikumar has ill-treated her and after assaulting her, thrown out from the residence.
24. Some of the admitted facts are that Sri.B.V.Srikumar was the owner of the suit schedule properties mentioned in item No.1 to 4 of the plaint 16 O.S.No.7059/2017 schedule. It is also admitted fact that plaintiff No.1 is the wife and plaintiff No.2 is the son of B.V.Srikumar. According to the defendant, this fact came to her knowledge only after her marriage with B.V.Srikumar.
25. To prove the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.2 has been examined as P.W.1. He also relied upon documentary evidence marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.28. Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of the Gift Deed dated 6/4/2016 reveal that B.V.Srikumar has executed a Regd.Gift Deed in favour of Smt.Vanaja Srikumar who is the plaintiff No.1. Under Ex.P.1, he has gifted the immovable property bearing Municipal Khatha No.62, situated at K.P.Puttannnachetty Road, K.G.Nagara, Bangalore, measuring East to West 42 ft and North to South 140 ft totally 58870 sq.ft with a building consisting of 5000 sq.ft i.e., the Item No.1 of the suit schedule property. The donee has also put her signature in the Ex.P.1. Clause No.2 of the Gift Deed reveal that the donor has put the donee in vacant possession of the 17 O.S.No.7059/2017 schedule property.
26. Similarly, the Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of the Regd.Gift Deed dated 24/3/2016 reveal that a gift was made by same B.V.Srikumar in favour of Jayant Srikumar Gauri who is the plaintiff No.2 herein, in which the property bearing Municipal Khatha No.61 situated at K.P.Puttanna Chetty Road, Chamarajpet, measuring East to West 65 ft and North to South 50 ft totally measuring 3250 sq.ft along with a building consists of basement, ground floor and 1st floor, totally measuring 6000 sq.ft and another immovable property bearing Municipal Khatha No.61 situated at Chamarajpet, having super built up area of 2500 sq.ft in the 2 nd floor i.e., Item No.2 & 3 of the suit schedule property were gifted.
27. On the same day i.e., 24/3/2016, he also executed another Registered Gift Deed in favour of plaintiff No.2. Certified copy of the Registered Gift Deed is marked as Ex.P.3. This document reveal that B.V.Srikumar executed 18 O.S.No.7059/2017 Gift Deed with respect of property bearing Municipal Khatha No.61/2, situated at K.P.Puttannna Chetty Road, Ward No.46, K.G.Nagara to an extent of East to West 47.58 ft and North to South 104, totally measuring 4948 sq.ft with a building consisting 14,400 sq.ft i.e., the Item No.4 of the suit schedule property.
28. In all the 3 Gift Deeds, there is a clear recital that donor has put the donee in vacant possession of the schedule properties and the donor has handed over all the original documents of title of the schedule properties to the donee.
29. Under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882:- Gift is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration by one person called the donor, to another , called the donee, and accepted by all on behalf of the donee. Such acceptance be made during the life time of the donor and while he is still capable of giving. If the 19 O.S.No.7059/2017 donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void.
30. For the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and attested by at least 2 witnesses.
31. On perusal of Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3, it is clear that the plaintiff No.1 & 2 being the donees, have accepted the gift and their signature find place in the Gift Deeds. In all the 3 Gift Deeds, 2 witnesses have attested the Gift Deeds. Admittedly, the Gift Deeds are registered documents. Hence, the plaintiffs have proved the due execution of the 3 Gift Deeds by the donor in favour of donees i.e., the plaintiff No.1 & 2.
32. Pursuant to the Registered Gift Deeds, khatha certificates and khatha extracts changed in to the name of plaintiff No.1 & 2. Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.7 are the such khatha certificates stands in the name of plaintiffs i.e., Ex.P.4 stands in the name of plaintiff No.1 with respect of 20 O.S.No.7059/2017 Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties. Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.7 khatha certificates stands in the name of plaintiff No.2 with respect of Item No.2 to 4.
33. Apart from the khatha certificates, the plaintiffs have also paid property tax to the BBMP as reflected in the tax-paid receipts marked at Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.11. The plaintiffs have also produced electricity bills and receipts marked at Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.19. That discloses they have taken the electricity connection to the suit schedule property and they are the electricity consumers.
34. All the above referred documents goes to show that plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property. In the oral evidence also, the P.W.1 has reiterated the facts stated in the plaint. The cross- examination of the P.W.1 reveal that there is a strained relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant and also B.V.Srikumar.
21
O.S.No.7059/2017
35. To rebut the evidence of plaintiffs, the defendant has stepped in to the witness box and examined as D.W.1 . She has relied upon Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.15. According to the defendant, the photos i.e., Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4 reflects herself and B.V.Srikumar. She also produced CD marked at Ex.D.5 with respect of Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.4. On the basis of Ex.D.6, joint marriage affidavit the defendant has contended that she married B.V.Srikumar on 17/1/2015. This affidavit was sworn before a Notary Public.
36. Ex.D.7 is the certified copy of the order sheet in Crl.Mis.45/2016 and Ex.D.8 is the application filed by her u/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Ex.D.9 is the joint-memo filed in the said proceedings reveal that defendant filed a petition before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate contending that B.V.Srikumar is her husband and they married on 17/1/2015. Prior to the marriage, she was a widow having 2 children from her previous husband. 22
O.S.No.7059/2017 She contacted B.V.Srikumar through on line marriage bureau. B.V.Srikumar being a wealthy person married the defendant. After some time, she came to know that B.V.Srikumar is having extra marital affair. Since said B.V.Srikumar committed domestic violence against her, she filed a petition for the relief of protection order, residential order, monetary reliefs etc.
37. Subsequently, both B.V.Srikumar and the defendant herein filed a joint-memo stating that the dispute hasa been settled amicably. Therefore, the petition was disposed off in view of the joint memo.
38. Ex.D.10 is the certified copy of the order sheet in M.C.2056/2018 and Ex.D.11 is the certified copy of the petition filed u/s 13(B) of the Hindu Marriage Act reveal that the defendant herein and B.V.Srikumar filed a joint- petition for dissolution of their marriage and the said proceedings is pending on the file of the Hon'ble Family Court, Bangalore. Ex.D.13 is the copy of the private 23 O.S.No.7059/2017 complaint in P.C.R.No.9565/2018 and Ex.D.12 is the copy of the FIR reveal that B.V.Srikumar lodged a complaint against Jayanth S.Gowri and others for the offence punishable under Section 443, 451, 504, 453, 506, 341, 511 r/w S.34 of Indian Penal Code. Ex.D.14 is the police acknowledgement.
39. Ex.D.15 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.8390/2018 reveal that the defendant herein filed a suit against B.V.Srikumar and the plaintiffs for the relief of partition and also to declare the Gift Deed dated 24/3/2016 and Gift Deed dated 6/4/2016 with respect of the suit schedule properties are not binding on her.
40. In her cross-examination, D.W.1 has stated that plaintiffs were not residing in the Item No.1 when she went to Item No.1 after her marriage. She has further stated that Srikumar is financially sound person and suit schedule properties are self-acquired properties. She has further stated that Srikumar has executed Gift 24 O.S.No.7059/2017 Deeds in favour of his wife and son. She has further stated that plaintiff No.1 & 2 are in possession of the suit schedule property.
41. In a suit for injunction, the plaintiff is expected to prove his possession over the property and interference by the defendant. To prove the interference by the defendant, the plaintiffs have produced photographs marked at Ex.P.20 to Ex.P.26 along with a CD. They also produced a copy of the police complaint dated 16/10/2017 that reveal that plaintiff No.1 lodged a police complaint before K.G.Nagara police station, Bangalore for criminal trespass being attempted by Smt.Deepa along with other persons. In the cross-examination of D.W.1, she has stated that Ex.P.20 to Ex.P.26 are the photos that reflects the suit schedule property and her photos are reflected in Ex.P.20, Ex.P.23 to Ex.P.26. She went to the suit schedule property on 16/10/2017 since it is her husband's residence. In the suit schedule property, a school and a college is situated and that was 25 O.S.No.7059/2017 run by Srikumar. She has further stated that now the 2 nd plaintiff is looking after the school and colleges.
42. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, the Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19 reveal that by virtue of the Registered Gift Deeds, the plaintiffs were put in possession of the suit schedule property. Ex.P.20 to Ex.P.28 are the photographs and the police complaint reveal that the defendant went to the suit schedule properties and made an attempt to interfere. The plaint averments reveal that the defendant while going, threatened that she would come back again and would do Dharani in front of Item No.1 & 2 of the schedule property. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs are running the educational institutions in the suit schedule properties.
43. If the defendant is allowed to interfere with the suit schedule property, irreparable loss and hardship will be caused to the plaintiffs. It is true that the defendant filed a suit for partition in O.S.No.8390/2018 on the file 26 O.S.No.7059/2017 of City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore. However, she cannot oust the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property without due process of law. Hence, I hold that plaintiffs have proved that they are in possession of the suit schedule property and defendant is interfering. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 to 3 in the Affirmative.
44. ISSUE NO.4:- In view of my findings on Issue No.1 to 3, I hold that plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties. Hence, I answer Issue No.4 in the Affirmative.
45. ISSUE No.5:- In view of my findings on Issue No.1 to 4, I pass the following:-
27
O.S.No.7059/2017 ORDER Suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with costs.
The defendant is hereby permanently restrained from interfering with the suit schedule properties.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11th day of November 2020.) (Dinesh Hegde) XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
P.W.1 - Jayant Srikumar Gauri
b) Defendants' side :
D.W.1 - Divya Deepak Bhat @ Deepa Srikumar 28 O.S.No.7059/2017 II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of Gift Deed
dtd:6/4/2016
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of Gift Deed
dtd:24/3/2016
Ex.P.3 Certified copy of Gift Deed
dtd:24/3/2016
Exs.P.4 to P.7 True copy of Khatha certificates
Exs.P.8 to P.11 Copy of Tax paid receipts Exs.P.12 to 8 Electric bills P.19 Exs.P.12(a) to 8 Receipts P.19(a) Exs.P.20 to 7 photographs P.26 Ex.P.27 CD Ex.P.28 Copy of complaint
(b) Defendants' side : -
Exs.D.1 to D.5 4 Photos and 1 CD
Ex.D.6 Joint marriage affidavit
Ex.D.7 Certified copy of order sheet in
Crl.Misc.45/2016
29
O.S.No.7059/2017
Ex.D.8 Copy of the petition in
Crl.Misc.No.45/2016
Ex.D.9 Copy of joint memo
Ex.D.10 Copy of order sheet in
M.C.No.2056/2018
Ex.D.11 Copy of petition in
M.C.No.2056/2018
Ex.D.12 Copy of FIR
Ex.D.13 Copy of complaint
Ex.D.14 Copy of Police acknowledgement
Ex.D.15 Copy of the plaint in
O.S.No.8390/2018
(Dinesh Hegde)
XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
GVU/-
30
O.S.No.7059/2017 Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate detailed judgment with the following operative portion:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with costs. The defendant is hereby permanently restrained from interfering with the suit schedule properties.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dinesh Hegde) XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY