Bangalore District Court
Smt.Mamatha vs Sri.Muniyappa on 26 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY (CCH No.8)
Dated this the 26th day of August 2015.
PRESENT:
S.V.KULKARNI, B.Com., LLB(Spl)
XI Addl.City Civil Judge, B'lore city.
O.S.No.354 of 2013
Plaintiff:- Smt.Mamatha,
W/o N.K.Babu Reddy,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at Doddanekkundi village,
1st Main, 5th cross,
1st left, Near Auto stand,
Bangalore - 560 037.
[By Sri. N.R.N -Advocate]
: Vs :
Defendants:- Sri.Muniyappa,
S/o Late Chowdappa,
Aged about 75 years,
R/at No.171, 4th cross,
Doddanekkundi circle,
Bangalore - 560 037.
[ By Sri.PSM-Advocate]
Date of the institution of suit: 9.1.2013
Nature of the suit : Permanent injunction
Date of the commencement of 7.3.2014
recording of the evidence :
2 O.S.No.354 of 2013
Date on which the judgment 26.08.2015
was pronounced :
Total duration: Year Months Days
02 07 17
XI Addl.City Civil Judge,
B'lore city.
JDGMENT
This the suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant seeking
the relief of permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule
property as described in the schedule annexed to the plaint
and for costs of the suit.
The plaintiff as described the suit schedule property in
the plaint schedule and this property is the subject matter of
suit and it reads as follows:-
SCHEDULE
All that piece and parcel of residential site bearing No. 2,
bearing property No. 196/2 formed out of Sy.No.196 of
Doddanekkundi village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East
Taluk, the same is measuring east-west 40 ft., and north-south
60 ft., and bounded as under:-
East by: Site No.1
West by: Remaining portion of site No.2
3 O.S.No.354 of 2013
North by: Property belongs to C.Ramakrishna and
South by: Road
For the sake of convenience, the schedule property
herein after referred to as suit schedule property.
2. The case of the plaintiff as averred in the plaint
briefly stated as follows:-
It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule
property is the residential property bearing site No. 2, katha
No.196, Sl.No.466 being a portion of site No.2 and formed out
of property in Sy.No.196 of Doddanekkundi village, K.R.Puram
Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk measuring east-west 40 ft., north-
south 60 ft.,, wherein the schedule site was formed in
Sy.No.196 of Doddanekkundi village in the said land, it was
totally measuring 2 acres 14 guntas was originally belongs
to one Chowdappa, who is the father of defendant herein.
After demise of defendant's father Chowdappa, Sy.No.196
measuring 2 acres 14 guntas was subjected for partition
amongst his 5 sons and his wife as per the registered
partition deed dated 10.12.1970 and in the said partition, the
defendant being one of the son of late Chowdappa was allotted
16 guntas of land in Sy.No.196 and the share of defendant
shown under schedule "C" in the said partition deed dated
10.12.1970 and it is further alleged by the plaintiff that the
defendant herein, his brother and wife of his late brother have
4 O.S.No.354 of 2013
formed revenue layout in Sy.No.196 property and out of the
said layout, defendant, his brother and wife of deceased
brother together alienated site no.2 formed in that land in
favour of one Thomas Abraham under registered sale deed
dated 24.1.2003 and he was put in possession of the said
property. The present property was the subject matter under
registered sale deed dated 24.1.2003, which is the schedule
property herein and the other part of property retained by the
purchaser under the said sale deed. The purchaser Thomas
Abraham subsequently alienated the said property purchased
under sale deed dated 24.1.2003 in favour of one Dr.Manohar
Krishna Mallya under registered sale deed dated 22.5.2008
and the purchaser Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya under
registered sale deed dated 22.5.2008 and the purchaser
Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya under sale deed dated 22.5.2008
is the immediate vendor of the plaintiff herein. The plaintiff
further stated that she acquired title in respect of suit
schedule property as she has purchased the suit schedule
property from its previous owner Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya
under registered sale deed dated 18.11.2011 registered as
document No.MDP-1-05412-2011012 in Book No.1, preserved
in C.D.No.MDPD-101 in the office of Sub Registrar ,
Mahadevapura, Bangalore and since the date of registered sale
deed dated 18.11.2011 the plaintiff is an exclusive possession
of the suit schedule property as attesting witness thereof and
5 O.S.No.354 of 2013
as such, there is no other person including defendant have no
manner of right, title and interest in respect of suit schedule
property. The plaintiff further stated that in pursuance of
the sale deed dated 18.11.2011, she obtained katha changed in
her name in the records maintained by BBMP and katha has
been mutated in the name of plaintiff and she is paying tax to
BBMP authorities in respect of suit schedule property. The
plaintiff further alleged that the defendant herein being the
vendor under sale deed dated 24.1.2003 for the 2nd time with
an intention to blackmail the plaintiff or to grab money from
the plaintiff or for proposing plaintiff to come for illegal
settlement used to file a suit in O.S. No.8650/2012 in
collusion with his daughter namely Geetha , who is the sole
defendant in that suit and defendant had filed that suit, which
created false cause of action and as such, the suit filed by the
defendant is as a result of fraud and defendant's act is evident
in filing that suit to take undue advantage of due process of
law and hence, plaintiff is not party in that suit filed by the
defendant and plaintiff has produced the Xerox copy of the
order sheet of O.S. No.8650/2012 filed by the defendant in
this case for kind perusal of this court. The plaintiff further
alleged that on 6.1.2013, the defendant under the guise of
interim order obtained in O.S. No.8650/2012 and tried to
interfere with her possession though plaintiff resisted the
illegal acts of interference over her possession in respect of
6 O.S.No.354 of 2013
suit schedule property, wherein the defendant on the strength
of interim order passed in O.S. No.8650/2012 approached the
jurisdictional Police Station with an intention to bring around
the plaintiff under the interim order passed in the said suit,
wherein the concerned jurisdictional Police Station officials
have summoned the plaintiff and further they heard the parties
and advised the plaintiff and defendant herein on the ground
that plaintiff is not a party in O.S. No.8650/2012 and as such,
interim order passed in the said suit is not binding upon
plaintiff and after such advise by the police authorities, the
defendant became very ferocious and on 7.1.2013 the
defendant and his unruly followers started causing
interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
plaintiff and they caused interference with the construction
work undertaken by the plaintiff and plaintiff approached the
jurisdictional Police Station , wherein the concerned police
authorities instead of protecting the possession of the plaintiff,
they advised the plaintiff to approach civil court alleging that
the dispute one raised in the complaint is of civil nature and as
such, plaintiff alleged that the defendant is a powerful person
in the locality and plaintiff is unable to restrain the restrain
the defendant without the aid of court order and hence,
plaintiff constrained to file the suit for the relief of permanent
injunction to restrain the defendant or his agents, servants or
anybody claiming under the defendant from interfering with
7 O.S.No.354 of 2013
the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property.
3. After entertaining the suit in response to suit
summons issued by this court, defendant appeared and filed
his written statement on 7.2.2013, wherein defendant
contended that suit filed by the plaintiff is false, frivolous and
vexatious and defendant denies the averments made in the
pleadings, except expressly admitted by him in his written
statement. The defendant denied the description of the
schedule property i.e., vacant residential site bearing site No.2
in the plaint averments, wherein defendant called upon the
plaintiff to prove the existence and identity of suit schedule
property i.e., site No.2 carved out in Sy.No.196 of
Doddanekkundi village measuring 40 X 60 ft., within the
boundaries as alleged in the plaint schedule. Defendant
admits that Sy.No.196 of Doddanekkundi village measuring 2
acres 14 guntas was belongs to his late father Chowdappa
and defendant admits that after demise of his father
Chowdappa, the aforesaid property i.e., Sy.No.196 was
subjected to partition amongst the legal heirs of Chowdappa
i.e.,, 5 sons and his wife, who have partitioned in Sy.No.196
under registered partition deed dated 10.12.1970 and
defendant admits that in the said registered partition, he was
allotted with 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.196 of
8 O.S.No.354 of 2013
Doddanekkundi village , but defendant denied the allegations
of the plaintiff that defendant, his brother and wife of late
brother have formed revenue layout in Sy.No.196 and
defendant also specifically denied after formation of sites and
layout, himself, his brother and wife of his deceased brother
together have alienated the site No.2 in favour of Thomas
Abraham under sale deed dated 24.1.2003 and as such, the
said purchaser Thomas Abraham was came in possession of
the said property sold under sale deed and the property
involved in the sale deed of Thomas Abraham is the very
property, which is subject matter of the suit and defendant
contended that the sale deed dated 24.1.2003 is fabricated
document and defendant further stated that his brother died
on 26.6.2000 and therefore, question of he alienating the
property on 24.1.2003 did not arise. Defendant further denied
that the averments made in para No.5 that Thomas Abraham
subsequently alienated the suit property under sale deed dated
22.5.2008 in favour of Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya and the
said purchaser is the immediate vendor of plaintiff and
defendant contended that plaintiff could not derive any title
from sale deed dated 18.11.2011 in the alleged sale deed dated
24.1.2003 , the date of partition deed is wrongly shown as
15.12.1970 instead of 10.12.1970. Defendant also denied the
right, title and possession in respect of suit schedule property
and defendant specifically denied the sale deed relied by the
9 O.S.No.354 of 2013
plaintiff dated 18.11.2011 and the said sale deed registered in
the office of Sub Registrar , Mahadevapura, Bangalore. The
defendant also denied the alleged exclusive possession as
alleged by the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property and
also denied that the defendant has no manner of right, title
and interest in respect of suit schedule property and
defendant also denied para No.7 of the plaint averments that
plaintiff obtained change of katha in her name in the records
maintained by the BBMP as per sale deed dated 18.11.2011
and she is paying tax to the property and defendant contended
that plaintiff has created all these revenue documents, which
are fabricated to assert some right without valid title
transferred in the name of plaintiff as lawful owner and
defendant also denied that defendant being the vendor under
sale deed dated 24.1.2003 has filed suit in order to blackmail
the plaintiff and in order to extract money or proposed to call
upon the plaintiff for illegal settlement and he filed the suit in
O.S. No.8650/2012 and managed to get interim order and on
the strength of such interim order, he tried to interfering in the
possession of the plaintiff and defendant also denied the
allegations that he filed the suit in O.S. No.8650/2012 in
collusion with his daughter namely Geetha on the created and
false cause of action and the said suit was fraud and to take
undue advantage of due process of law and defendant also
denied the alleged interference by denying para No.9 of the
10 O.S.No.354 of 2013
plaint averments dated 6.1.2013 and also further denied that
on the basis of complaint, the police authorities have called
both the parties and informed about interim order passed in
O.S. No.8650/2012 and police authorities have also informed
that plaintiff is not party in that suit and as such, the said
order is not binding upon plaintiff and defendant also denied
the alleged interference dated 7.1.2013 and as such, plaintiff
constrained to approach the jurisdictional Police Station and
they in turn directed the plaintiff to approach civil court on the
pretext of the lis between the parties is of civil nature. Hence,
defendant denied the plaint averments in toto and also denied
the plaintiff's title and in respect of suit schedule property
and also denied cause of action.
Defendant in para No.13 of written statement pleaded
that he has not sold the schedule property in favour of
plaintiff, wherein plaintiff has not produced any approved
layout plan and also not produced material particulars such as
when the layout was formed in Sy.No.196, wherein the
boundaries shown in the schedule and the on the western site
of schedule property is shown as remaining portion of site no.2,
but as per the alleged sale deed dated 24.1.2003 on the
western side, it is shown as site No.3. One of the brothers of
defendant died on 26.6.2000 and therefore, the averments
made by the plaintiff that the defendant and his brothers
11 O.S.No.354 of 2013
executed sale deed dated 24.1.2003 is false and cannot be
believed. The defendant contended that he has filed a suit
ino8 against Smt. Geetha as she is attempted to put up
construction in the property belongs to defendant and in that
suit, there was an order of status-quo obtained by the
defendant and in order to defeat the said interim order , the
plaintiff has filed this suit. Hence, defendant contended that
there is lot of manipulation and creation of documents and as
such, he would initiate criminal proceedings against all the
concerned parties as otherwise his legal right over the
schedule property is under threat. Hence, defendant
contended that taking undue advantage of interim order
granted by this court, the plaintiff has put up construction in
the property, though plaintiff is not having any legal right and
therefore,, the interim order is liable to be vacated as
otherwise irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the
defendant. Hence, defendant on these defense resisted the suit
filed by the plaintiff and pray for dismissal of the suit.
4. Based upon these pleadings of the parties, the
following issues are framed :-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in
possession of the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
interference of the defendant?
12 O.S.No.354 of 2013
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for reliefs as
sought for?
4. What order or decree?
5. In order to prove the above issues, the parties to the
suit have adduced their respective and documentary evidence,
wherein plaintiff herself is examined as P.W.1 and documents
Ex.P.1 to P.14 and plaintiff also examined one witness namely
Munireddy son of Late Nagappa Reddy residing at
Doddanekkundi village, Bangalore East Taluk as P.W.2 in this
case and with this evidence, plaintiff side evidence is closed.
On behalf of defendant, his son as G.P.A. holder is examined as
D.W.1 and in his evidence, documents Ex.D.1 to D.10 are
came to be marked and with this evidence, defendant side
evidence is closed. Therefore,, the suit is posted for judgment.
6. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing
for the plaintiff and learned counsel appearing for the
defendant. The counsel appearing for the defendant also
submitted his written arguments filed in the above case. On
10.8.2015 along with Xerox copy of order passed in Revision
Petition No. 185/2015-2016 filed before the Deputy
Commissioner, Bangalore District by the defendant herein,
wherein defendant had preferred this revision under Sec.
136(3) of KLR Act against the orders of learned Asst.,
13 O.S.No.354 of 2013
Commissioner, Bangalore passed on 21.7.2014 and counsel
for defendant also produced Xerox copy of orders passed on
I.A.No.1 and 2 in O.S. No.287/2014 dated 19.8.2014 by the
P.O of 44th ACCJ, Bangalore (CCH No.45) in support of his
written arguments. The counsel for plaintiff relying upon two
decisions reported the following decisions:-
1. 1998(5) K.L.J 128( N.S.Satyanarayana
Vs. Thimmappa and another);
2. 1999(1) K.L.J 536(Smt. Lakshmamma Vs.
M.P.Krishnappa and others)
In support of his arguments, whereas counsel for
defendant relied upon the following two decisions:-
1. AIR 2008 SC 2033( Anathulla
Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (Dead)
by L.Rs and others);
2. ILR 2013 Karnataka 4983( Smt.
Narasamma and others Vs. D.S.Narasi
Reddy and another)
7. After hearing the arguments of both sides and on
perusal of the pleadings, on appreciation of evidence both oral
and documentary evidence placed on record that of P.W.1 an 2
and that of D.W.1 and after considering arguments canvassed
by the learned counsel on record and on appreciation of the
oral and documentary evidence, I answer the above issues are
as follows:-
14 O.S.No.354 of 2013
Issue No.1 to 3: In the affirmative;
Issue No.4: The suit of the plaintiff
deserves to be decreed with
costs for the following reasons:-
REASONS
8. Issue No.1 and 2: The plaintiff has filed this suit for
bare injunction relief against the defendant herein in respect
of suit schedule property, which is a residential site bearing
site No.2 property formed in Sy.No.196 of Doddanekkundi
village bearing property No.196/2 of K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk measuring east-west 40 ft., and north-
south 60 ft., within the boundaries as shown in plaint
schedule. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that she
purchased the schedule site property from its previous owner
one Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya under sale deed dated
18.11.2011 and since the date of purchase of schedule site
under this sale deed, she got mutated her name in the
corporation records in respect of schedule site and
accordingly, got changed katha in her name and she is paying
tax in respect of schedule site and as such, plaintiff alleged
that ever since from the date of sale deed, she is in exclusive
possession and enjoyment of the schedule site as absolute
owner thereof and having lawful possession of the site without
15 O.S.No.354 of 2013
anybodies interference and plaintiff alleged that the defendant
under the guise of interim order of status-quo obtained in O.S.
No.8650/2012, which was suit filed by the defendant without
any cause of action against his daughter namely Geetha and
on the strength of status-quo order, defendant is trying to
obstruct the plaintiff's possession and causing interference
over the plaintiff's possession and as such, plaintiff's alleging
cause of action dated 6.1.2003 and on 7.1.2013 filed the suit
for grant of injunction relief. The defendant appears and
denied the case of the plaintiff and defendant denied the
validity of the transaction of sale deeds dated 24.1.2003
dated 22.5.2008 and also sale deed dated 18.11.2011 now
relied by the plaintiff and defendant denied the identification of
the schedule property and also denied that plaintiff is in
possession of the schedule property by virtue of sale deed
dated 18.11.2011. Hence, the plaintiff in order to prove Issue
no.1 and 2, plaintiff herself has deposed before this court by
filing her affidavit evidence filed under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC
as examination-in-chief and on perusal of plaintiff's evidence ,
wherein P.W.1 has deposed verbatim evidence as pleaded in
her pleadings and she deposed regarding partition held
amongst the heirs of deceased Chowdaiah under registered
partition deed dated 10.12.1970 in Sy.No.196 of
Doddanekkundi village and defendant was allotted with 16
guntas of land in the said registered partition deed, which was
16 O.S.No.354 of 2013
shown in schedule "C" in the partition deed and P.W.1
deposed in para No.4 to 6 regarding the transaction of sale
deed held in respect of site No.196/2 i.e., site no.2 wherein
originally defendant, his brother and wife of late brother have
formed sites in Sy.No.196, which was agricultural land and
they sold site No.2 formed in revenue layout in favour of one
Thomas Abraham under registered sale deed dated 24.1.2003
and subsequently Thomas Abraham alienated the property in
favour of plaintiff's vendor namely Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya
by sale deed dated 22.5.2008 and as such, P.W.1 stated that
her vendor Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya was in possession of
schedule site and he was paying tax to the authorities and
thereafter Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya sold schedule site in
her favour by execution of sale deed dated 18.11.2011 and as
such, she obtained katha changed in her name before BBMP
and hence, plaintiff/P.W.1 deposed that she is in lawful
possession of the purchased site since the date of sale deed,
but defendant without any right, title and interest is causing
interference to her possession under the guise of interim
order obtained by the defendant in O.S. No.8650/2012 and
plaintiff also deposed regarding interference by the defendant
on 6/7.1.2013 respectively and she approached jurisdictional
Police Station, but they did not give any protection in respect
of schedule property and in turn police authorities have
directed her to approach competent civil court as it is a dispute
17 O.S.No.354 of 2013
of civil nature. Hence, P.W.1 deposed corroborative evidence
as per her pleadings filed in this case and P.W.1 got marked
documents Ex.P.1 to P.13 in her oral evidence which are
marked as below:-
Ex.P. 1 is the 2nd set of agreement of sale executed by
Thomas Abraham to Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya, Ex.P.2 is the
property assessment register in the name of Dr.Manohar
Krishna Mallya, Ex.P.3 is the original sale deed in favour of
P.W.1 through GPA holder of Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya,
Ex.P.4 is the tax assessment register, Ex.P.5 is the tax paid
receipt four in number, Ex.P.6 is the photos in four in
numbers Ex.P.7 is the negatives, Ex.P.8 is the certified copy
of sale deed dated 24.1.2003 executed in favour of Thomas
Abraham by deceased Krishnappa and others, Ex.P.9 is the
certified copy of partition deed dated 10.12.1970 between
defendant and his brothers, Ex.p.10 and P.11 are the certified
copy of plaint and order sheet in O.S. No.8650/2012, Ex.P.12
is the RTC regarding Sy.No. 196 from 1967-68 to 1996-97,
Ex.P.13 are the photos and Ex.P.14 is marked in the cross-
examination of D.W.1 i.e., certified copy of order passed bay
the learned counsel Asst., Commissioner in RA(B.E) 319/2012-
2013 dated 21.7.2014 , wherein the learned Asst.,
Commissioner allowed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff
herein, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Special
Tahasildar, Bangalore East Taluk order dated
18 O.S.No.354 of 2013
RRT(CR)77/2012-2013 in respect of Sy.No.196 of
Doddanekkundi village and learned Asst., Commissioner set
aside the order passed by Tahasildar dated 29.8.2012 by
allowing RTC appeal. Hence, P.W.1 relying upon Ex.P.14
coupled with her oral evidence pray for grant of decree for
permanent injunction against defendant.
9.The learned counsel for the defendant cross examined
to P.W.1 on 11.9.2014., wherein P.W.1 admits that the total
extent of Sy.No.196 is measuring 2 acres 14 guntas , but she
denied her knowledge about 3 guntas of land in that survey
number is kharab land. P.W.1 admits that Sy.No.196
originally belongs to one Chowdappa and she further admits
that after demise of Chowdappa , his wife and 5 children of
Chowdappa have got partitioned in the said land under
registered partition deed dated 10.12.1970 and she denied her
knowledge regarding sons and Chowdappa and his wife
namely Sakamma, Krishnappa, Gopalappa, Mariyappa,
Ramakrishna and Raghupathy, but P.W.1 admits that she
know Chowdappa died leaving behind his wife and children
and she admits that in the said partition dated 10.12.1970
held between wife and sons of Chowdappa each sharer has got
16 guntas of land and P.W.1 admits that Sakamma and her
children have sold the land allotted to their share and P.W.1
denied her knowledge that Sakamma and her 5 children
19 O.S.No.354 of 2013
after they got allotted 16 guntas of land to each sharer , they
still retained possession of 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.196 and
P.W.1 denied her knowledge that after demise of Raghupathy,
the son of Chowdappa, his wife and remaining sons of
Chowdappa have sold some property on 24.1.2003 in
Sy.No.196 and P.W.1 admits that she has purchased the
schedule property from one Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya and
prior to her purchase, she has verified the sale deed
purchased by Thomas Abraham , wherein her vendor
Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya had purchased site from Thomas
Abraham and P.W.1 also stated that she has verified the katha
standing in the name of Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya in BBMP
records at the time of her purchase of site and she has
produced the said katha extract in this case and P.W.1 admits
that prior to purchase of schedule property, she has verified
the sale deed executed by Thomas Abraham in favour of
Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya and also she has verified katha
extract in respect of schedule site and she did not verified any
other documents except sale deed and ka at that time and she
denied her knowledge that from whom Thomas Abraham had
purchased the property and P.W.1 denied the suggestion that
as per registered partition held on 10.12.1970 between wife of
Chowdappa and her sons and each sharer got divided their
share of 16 guntas and 3 guntas was kharab land and
remaining 10 guntas was sold by heirs of Chowdappa and
20 O.S.No.354 of 2013
hence the son of Chowdappa have no rights to execute any sale
deed in favour of Thomas Abraham and P.W.1 denied that
Ex.P.8 is falsely created document and P.W.1 admits that
defendant and his brothers have formed layout in Sy.No.196
and she has got documents in that respect and she undertakes
to produce the layout formed by defendant and his brothers in
Sy.No.196 and P.W.1 stated that she has constructed
residential house and she is residing therein and P.W.1 also
stated that she has obtained sanctioned plan permission from
the corporation, but P.W.1 stated that she do not know where
she has kept the said documents and she denied the
suggestion that she has constructed the building illegally in the
schedule property.
10. The plaintiff got examined P.W.2 as her witness,
wherein P.W.2 namely N.Munireddy son of late Nagappa Reddy
had filed his affidavit evidence filed under Order 18 Rule 4 of
CPC and this witness hails from Doddanekkundi village and
he deposed in his affidavit evidence stating that he is the
agriculturist by profession and he is possessing lands at
Doddanekkundi village and Sy.No.196 is measuring 2 acres 4
guntas belongs to late Chowdappa, who is father of defendant
herein and after demise of Chowdappa, his LRs have got
partitioned in Sy.No.196 amongst the sons of Chowdappa and
his wife Sakamma and P.W.2 deposed that the defendant and
21 O.S.No.354 of 2013
his brothers have formed revenue layout in Sy.No.196 and out
of the said layout, the defendants and his brother and wife of
his deceased brother together have alienated sites in
Sy.No.196 in favour of so many purchasers and plaintiff has
purchased a site formed in Sy.No.196 and after her purchase,
she has constructed residential building and at present,
plaintiff is residing along with her family members and hence,
P.W.2 stated that in entire Sy.No.196 buildings have come up
in Doddanekkundi village and at present, defendant and his
family members are not in a possession of property in
Sy.No.196 and P.W.2 stated that he has witnessed illegal
interference by the defendant in the plaintiff's possession in
respect of schedule site. Hence, P.W.2 deposed by way of this
affidavit evidence regarding possession held by the plaintiff in
respect of schedule site.
11. The counsel appearing for defendant cross examined
to P.W.2 on 27.10.2014, wherein P.W.2 admits that his chief
examination affidavit is prepared as per his information and
P.W.2 admits that he has not produced any documents to show
that he is permanent resident of Doddanekkundi village and
he admits that extent of Sy.No.196 is measuring 2 acres 14
guntas and the said land belongs to late Chowdappa and after
demise of Chowdappa, his wife and children have got divided
the said land and P.W.2 stated that he did not verified the
22 O.S.No.354 of 2013
partition deed, but he admits that in the said partition deed,
each sharer was allotted 10 guntas of land and P.W.2 denied
the suggestion that each sharer of defendant and his brothers
including the wife and Chowdappa are in possession of their
respective allotted portions in Sy.No.196 and P.W.2 stated that
the sons of Chowdappa have sold sites and P.W.2 denied the
suggestion that the wife of T.Raghupathy namely Lakshmi and
the sons of Chowdappa together have sold 10 guntas of land in
favour of one Nandeesha Reddy and P.W.2 admits that in
Sy.No.196 there are residential sites laid and houses have
been constructed, but P.W.2 admits that he did not verified
layout plan and also he has not verified the sale deed executed
by defendant in favour of plaintiff in respect of schedule site
and P.W.2 admits that the plaintiff has purchased the schedule
site from one Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya and plaintiff's vendor
Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya has purchased the site from
Thomas Abraham and P.W.2 stated that defendant and his
brothers have sold the schedule site in favour of Thomas
Abraham and P.W.2 further admits that the sons of
Chowdappa and his daughter-in-law Lakshmi together have
sold some portion of land in favour of Nandeesha Reddy in
Sy.No.196, there do not remain any land in Sy.No.196 and
P.W.2 denied that as there was no land remained in Sy.No.196.
Hence, question of selling the schedule site by defendant nor
his brothers does not arises and P.W.2 denied his knowledge
23 O.S.No.354 of 2013
whether plaintiff had obtained any permission to construct
residential house in the suit site and P.W.2 admits that he is
related to plaintiff as uncle. However, P.W.2 denied that he is
deposing false evidence as he is related to plaintiff in this
case.
12. The defendant got examined his son as GPA holder
in this case, wherein the son of defendant namely Rajendra
has filed his affidavit evidence and he is examined as D.W.1
and on perusal of the evidence of D.W.1 filed in the form of
affidavit as examination-in-chief, wherein D.W.1 deposed in
para No.3 of his affidavit regarding Sy.No.196 measuring 2
acres 14 guntas and it was belongs to his grand-father land
Chowdappa and after his death, there was partition amongst 5
sons and wife of Chowdappa under registered partition deed
dated 10.12.1970 and each member have got 16 guntas of
land as per the partition dated 10.12.1970 and the share of
defendant is shown under schedule "C" in the partition deed
and P.W.1 deposed that Sy.No.196 measuring 2 acres 14
guntas and after partition, each sharer got 16 guntas and
remaining 10 guntas is sold in favour of Nandeesh Reddy in
the year 2003 by sale deed dated 24.1.2003 and 3 guntas was
kharab land and therefore, there was no land remaining in
Sy.No.196 and said survey number is not converted into non
agricultural tenure and therefore, there is no question of
24 O.S.No.354 of 2013
framing any layout of residential site in that survey number
and D.W.1 denied the case of the plaintiff in his rebuttal
affidavit evidence and also sale deed dated 22.5.2008
executed by Thomas Abraham in favour of Dr.Manohar
Krishna Mallya and D.W.1 also denied the sale deed dated
18.11.2011 executed by Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya in favour
of present plaintiff and D.W.1 also denied the case of the
plaintiff that as per the sale deed dated 18.11.2011, she is in
possession of schedule site and D.W.1 also denied the alleged
interference by defendant in O.S. No.8650/2012. Hence,
D.W.1 denied para No.10 to 13 of case made out by the
plaintiff and D.W.1 stated that defendant has not sold the
schedule site in favour of plaintiff's father and plaintiff has not
produced any approved layout plan or map and also not
produced any material before this court that her vendor had
acquired title to the schedule property. Hence, D.W.1 deposed
through this affidavit evidence by giving verbatim evidence as
per the written statement contention raised by the original
defendant, father of this witness and D.W.1 got marked Ex.D.1
to D.10 in his evidence. They are Ex.D.1 is the Spl. Power of
attorney dated 8.10.2014 executed by defendant in his favour
and Ex.D.2 is the family genealogy , Ex.D.3 is the certified
copy of registered partition deed dated 10.12.1970, Ex.D.3(a)
is a typed copy, Ex.D.4 is the certified copy of sale deed dated
24.1.2003 under which his uncles and his father, defendant
25 O.S.No.354 of 2013
herein have sold the land in favour of one Nandeedsha Reddy,
Ex.D.5 is the endorsement issued by the Tahasildar dated
20.11.2012, Ex.D. 6 is the certified copy of Mutation extract
dated 21.9.2012, Ex.D.7 is the RTC extract of Sy.No.196 dated
15.3.2013, Ex.D.8 is the office copy of complaint filed before
Deputy Commissioner of Police by defendant dated 2.1.2013,
Ex.D.9 is the Xerox copy of ration card issued to defendant
and Ex.D.10 is the identity card issued by ESI corporation in
favour of defendant No.1 (The P.O of 17th ACCJ has compared
the original of Ex.D.9 and Ex.D.10 while marking these two
documents and returned the originals of Ex.D.9 and Ex.D.10 to
D.W.1 on the date of his deposition with a direction to produce
these documents whenever directed to produce by the court)
Hence, D.W.1 by his oral evidence and coupled with Ex.D.1 to
D.10 pray for dismissal of suit.
13. The counsel appearing for the plaintiff cross
examined D.W.1 wherein D.W.1 admits that he has studied up
to SSLC and he knew about the schedule property, but D.W.1
denied that plaintiff is in possession of schedule site since
18.11.2011 and D.W.1 stated that the schedule property is in
his possession and D.W.1 admits that he is aware of the
contents of the written statement filed by his father. D.W.1
admits that Sy.No.196 belongs to his grandfather late
Chowdappa, but D.W.1 denied that in Sy.No.196 they have
26 O.S.No.354 of 2013
formed layout and they have also formed two roads by east-
west in that survey number, wherein D.W.1 stated that there
is no layout formed in Sy.No.196 and D.W.1 admits that his
grand-father and his brothers have sold 10 guntas of land
and he is one of the attesting witness for the said sale deed and
witness confronted with Ex.P.8, wherein he identified his
signature on this Ex.P.8 and D.W.1 stated that his signature
was obtained on the same day and they sold 10 guntas of land
in Sy.No.196 and D.W.1 denied his knowledge how his
signature has been obtained on Ex.P.8 and D.W.1 admits the
photographs confronted to witness at Ex.P.13 regarding the
house visible in Ex.P.13 are constructed in Sy.No.196, but
D.W.1 unable to state how many houses have been
constructed in Sy.No.196 and he admits that Ex.P.8 is
executed by his uncle and others and D.W.1 denied his
knowledge that as per Ex.D.4 towards west whose property is
situated and D.W.1 admits that in 10 guntas of land towards
western side, there are constructed buildings have come up
and he denied that after division of Sy.No.196 they have formed
sites in that land and sold such revenue sites prior to 2003
itself and D.W.1 stated that except they sold 10 guntas of land
remaining land is not sold to anybody and D.W.1 admits that
his father did not got effected katha changed in his name
after partition was effected and D.W.1 denied that though there
was no property in their names, but they have falsely created
27 O.S.No.354 of 2013
Ex.D.6 and D.W.1 admits that the mutation order passed in
the name of his father has been cancelled and witness
confronted with the order of Asst., Commissioner passed in
revenue appeal wherein witness admits this document and it is
marked at Ex.D.14 and D.W.1 admits that Sy.No.196 had lost
its features of agricultural land prior to the year 2003 and
D.W.1 admits that plaintiff had constructing house in the
schedule property is residing therein. However, D.W.1 stated
that he has objected at the time of plaintiff started to construct
residential house and D.W.1 admits that he has not filed any
suit against plaintiff and he denied that Ex.D.8 is not belonging
to plaintiff and D.W.1 admits that he has filed several suits
against the purchasers, who have started construction of
houses in Sy.No.196 and D.W.1 denied the suggestion that he
has caused obstruction to plaintiff when she tried to construct
houses and D.W.1 denied his knowledge regarding sale of
property by Thomas Abraham and he denied that Ex.D.5 is
not concerned to schedule property and D.W.1 further denied
that plaintiff is in possession of schedule property since
18.11.2011 and D.W.1 stated that he objected to start house
property and D.W.1 also admits that he has filed police
complaint against plaintiff and he further admits that plaintiff
was called to Police Station, but D.W.1 denied his knowledge
regarding the proceedings held before the partition deed and
D.W.1 admits that his father was not called by the police and
28 O.S.No.354 of 2013
D.W.1 further admitted that towards southern side of plaintiff's
house, there is public road and it leads to Mohan Enclaves
and D.W.1 denied the suggestion that though they have
formed layout by forming revenue sites and sold the said sites,
but now he denying the said fact that defendant is having no
right, title and interest in Sy.No.196 and D.W.1 admits that
he came to know at this stage that they have not filed any suit
challenging the sale deed executed by Thomas Abraham.
14. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence
placed on record, wherein it is admitted fact that Sy.No.196 of
Doddanekkundi village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East
Taluk measuring 2 acres 14 guntas was belongs to father of
defendant namely Chowdappa and after his demise, there was
partition amongst wife of Chowdappa and her 5 sons and
each sharer was allotted with 16 guntas of land under
registered partition deed dated 10.12.1970 and it is also proved
fact on record that in Sy.No.196 of Doddanekkundi village.
Revenue sites were formed and property was sold in favour
of one Thomas Abraham under registered sale deed dated
24.1.2003 (as per Ex.P.8) and on perusal of Ex.P.2 sale deed
dated 24.1.2003 marked through P.W.1, wherein this sale
deed was executed by sons of Chowdappa namely
Krishnappa, Gopalappa, preset defendant C.Muniyappa and
also wife of deceased brother Raghupathy Smt. Lakshmi,
29 O.S.No.354 of 2013
wherein on perusal of Ex.P.8, there is reference in respect of
registered partition deed, though there is mention of
registered partition deed dated 10.12.1970, but it is admitted
fact that Sy.No.196 of Doddanekkundi village was divided
amongst heirs of late Chowdappa (wife and children) of 16
guntas each under registered partition deed dated 10.12.1970
and on perusal of the sale deed Ex.P.8, wherein they have
conveyed property bearing site No.2, katha No.196, situated at
Doddanekkundi village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East
Taluk , now coming under the jurisdiction of CMC,
Mahadevapura , Bangalore, wherein they have sold revenue
sites measuring east-west 60 ft., and north-south 60 ft., had
measuring 3600 square feet for sale consideration amount of
Rs.2,52,000/-, wherein the present defendant is also one of the
executants in this sale deed and D.W.1, who is the son of
original defendant is consenting witness for the sale deed and
Ex.P.1 is the original sale deed executed by Thomas Abraham
through his GPA holder Sri.Abraham Plaintiff Thomas in favour
of Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya by conveying title under this
sale deed dated 22.5.2008, wherein the vendor Thomas
Abraham sold the site purchased by him under sale deed
dated 24.1.2003 in favour of Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya in
respect of site No.2, katha No.196, situated at Doddanekkundi
village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk and present
plaintiff claiming right, title and interest through absolute
30 O.S.No.354 of 2013
sale deed dated 18.11.2011 executed by vendor Dr.Manohar
Krishna Mallya through his power of attorney Sri. Ghansham
Krishna Mallya and plaintiff has produced Ex.P.3, the sale
deed as her title deed in respect of suit schedule property
and plaintiff also produced Form No.B property register extract
as per Ex.P.2, wherein the plaintiff's vendor name has been
mutated in respect of katha No.196/2 to an extent of 3600
square feet before CMC, Mahadevapura as per sale deed dated
22.5.2008 and thereafter plaintiff purchased the site
measuring 60 X 40 ft., from her vendor Dr.Manohar Krishna
Mallya under Ex.P.3 and plaintiff's name has been mutated in
Form No.B extract maintained by BBMP in respect of katha
No.196/2 site No.2 measuring an extent of 2400 square feet
and plaintiff also paying tax to the Mahadevapura range
attached to BBMP and plaintiff has produced tax paid receipts
in this case from Ex.P.5. The defendant in his written
statement and also in evidence taken up specific contention
that Sy.No.196 of Doddanekkundi village was measuring 2
acres 14 ft, wherein 3 guntas Kharab land and after division
of the said land between the legal heir of Chowdappa wherein
each sharer was allotted with 16 guntas of land and there
remains of 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.196, which
was sold in favour of Nandeedshwar Reddy
under sale deed dated 24.1.2003 as per Ex.P.4 and as such,
there do not have any alleged site or open
31 O.S.No.354 of 2013
space available in Sy.No.196 for sale in favour of Thomas
Abraham under sale deed and defendant has taken up specific
contention that the sale deed relied by the plaintiff at Ex.P.8 of
Thomas Abraham is created document dated 24.1.2003 and
defendant further contended that there was no site
measuring 60 X 40 guntas alleged to have been sold by
plaintiff's vendor and as such, the alleged sale deed dated
24.1.2003, 22,5,2008 and present sale deed of the plaintiff
dated 18.11.2011 are created documents in respect of alleged
site. Hence, defendant specifically contended that there is no
such site inexistence as relied by plaintiff and also plaintiff has
not established identity of the suit schedule property and
D.W.1 denied the alleged sale deeds relied by the plaintiff in
this suit, but on the contrary, after appreciation of evidence
placed on record, wherein plaintiff by adducing her evidence
and also by adducing the evidence of P.W.2, who is a witness
for the plaintiff and also by producing documentary evidence,
wherein D.W.1 himself admits the possession of plaintiff over
the suit schedule property and D.W.1 also admitted that
plaintiff by constructing residential house is residing in that
property constructed over site No.2 in Sy.No.196 and
admittedly the original defendant, who is party to the sale
deed Ex.P.8, wherein under Ex.P.8, Thomas Abraham had
purchased site measuring 60 X 60 ft., i.e., 3600 square feet
from its original vendors i.e., sons of Chowdappa and even
32 O.S.No.354 of 2013
wife of deceased brother C.Raghupathy also joint as one of the
executants in the sale deed dated 24.1.2003 and D.W.1, who
is deposed for his father in this case is also consenting witness
for Ex.P.8. Hence, the schedule property, which is described
in the plaint schedule is having definite boundaries as carved
out in Sy.No.196 of Doddanekkundi village and this residential
site property, which has transferred from hands to hands from
24.1.2003 under sale deed purchased by Thomas Abraham
from its old owners and thereafter, he sold the said property in
favour of Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya under Ex.P.1 dated
22.5.2008 and Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya conveyed the
property/site purchased by him through his GPA holder in
favour of present plaintiff and plaintiff has purchased the
schedule site measuring 60 X 40 measuring 2400 square feet
in respect of site No.2 of katha No.196 and then changed as
196/2 and plaintiff's name duly mutated in respect of this
schedule property in the corporation records. However, since it
is a residential site that there is no approved layout plan
approved by the corporation for construction of the house
property and as it is revenue site transferred from hands to
hands and the corporation authority has issued "B" katha in
favour of plaintiff and this suit is being one filed for injunction
relief, wherein it is suit not declaration of title. However in
respect of "B" katha issued by the corporation under sale deed
Ex.P.3 relied by the plaintiff, Ex.P.3 is not absolute title deed
33 O.S.No.354 of 2013
as it is revenue site, wherein though plaintiff name has been
mutated in respect of site No.2 as katha holder having
possession of this revenue site, but plaintiff could not get clear
and absolute title, but however, plaintiff has proved her
possession as on the date of suit in respect of site no.2 i.e.,
katha No.196/2 as existed in Sy.No.196. The contention of the
defendant denying the identify of the schedule property and
also contending that there is no site remained for sale after sale
of 10 guntas of land in favour of Nandeesha Reddy is not
proved on record and on the contrary, the plaintiff has filed
I.A.No.1 for grant of exparte temporary injunction along with
the suit on 9.1.2013 for grant of ad-interim temporary
injunction and this court granted ad-interim temporary
injunction exparte on 11.1.2013 and thereafter after
appearance of defendant, wherein defendant had filed I.A.No.3
under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC for vacating the exparte
injunction order granted on I.A.No.1 dated 11.1.2003, wherein
this court heard the arguments on I.A.No.1 and 3 and decided
these two interim applications by passing considered order on
I.A.No.1 and 3, wherein I.A.No.1 filed by the plaintiff is allowed
and I.A.No.3 filed by defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC
is dismissed vide order dated 11.3.2013 and as such, the
interim order injunction granted in this court is made absolute
and temporary injunction order granted in favour of plaintiff
is made absolute pending disposal of the suit and hence, the
34 O.S.No.354 of 2013
interim order of injunction granted on I.A.No.1 is still
subsisting pending disposal of this case though defendant has
preferred MFA No.7947/2013(CPC) before the Hon'ble High
Court under Order 43 Rule 1 ( r) of CPC against the orders
dated 11.3.2013 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S. No.354/2013 and
challenged the order on I.A.No.1 and 3 dated 11.3.2013,
wherein this MFA came to be disposed off by the Hon'ble High
Court on 21.4.2014, wherein MFA preferred by defendant came
to be dismissed. Hence, the order passed on I.A.No.1 and 3 as
attained finality and defendant has not challenged this order
further.
15. This court at the time of hearing arguments on
main suit and after perusal of documents produced by the
plaintiff, wherein plaintiff has relied upon sale deed Ex.P.3 as
her title documents in respect of schedule site , site No.2 in
order to Sy.No.196 and plaintiff did not produced the original
GPA executed by her vendor Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya in
favour of his GPA holder Sri. Ghanasham Krishna Mallya and
accordingly, this court raised this quarry regarding non
production of GPA along with sale deed Ex.P.3 by the
plaintiff. However, plaintiff took time to produce original GPA
in this case and plaintiff has filed I.A.No.7 to 9 after arguments
were partly heard by this court. However, plaintiff produced
Xerox copy of GPA along with I.A.No.7 to 9 and defendant has
35 O.S.No.354 of 2013
filed objections to I.A.No.7 to 9 and opposed the production of
Xerox copy of GPA by the plaintiff in this case and this court
after hearing the arguments of both sides on I.A.No.7 to 9 and
this court dismissed I.A.No.7 to 9 filed by the plaintiff holding
that this Xerox copy of SPA produced by the plaintiff dated
30.8.2011 is not secondary evidence or it is primary evidence
under the provision of Evidence Act, wherein plaintiff has
produced notary attested SPA deed dated 30.8.2011 in respect
of suit schedule property. Hence, plaintiff has not produced
original GPA as handed over by her vendor in respect of
Ex.P.3, but mere non production of original GPA is not
disproved the case of the plaintiff and on perusal of this Xerox
copy of SPA, wherein plaintiff's vendor Dr.Manohar Krishna
Mallya had executed this SPA deed in favour of his brother
Sri. Ghanasham Krishna Mallya in respect of site No.2, katha
No.196 situated at Doddanekkundi village, K.R.Puram hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk for entire measurement measuring 60 X
60 totally measuring 3600 square feet, but the plaintiff's
vendor had sold site No.2 measuring 60 X 40 ft., under sale
deed dated 18.11.2011 under Ex.P.3. Hence, plaintiff's vendor
might not have handed over original GPA at the time of
execution of sale deed in favour of plaintiff along with Ex.P.3.
However, Ex.P.3 reveals that the plaintiff's vendor Dr.Manohar
Krishna Mallya sold this site property through his power of
attorney holder i.e., brother of Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya in
36 O.S.No.354 of 2013
favour of plaintiff and Ex.P.3 is registered before the Sub
Registrar office at Mahadevapura, Bangalore and registration
authorities have not objected for registration of the site and as
such, Ex.P.3 is a sale deed in respect of revenue site sold
measuring 60 X 40 ft., and hence, non production of original
GPA is not come in the way of plaintiff proving her lawful
possession over the schedule property as on the date of suit in
respect of site no.2. Hence, non production of original GPA is
not fatal to the case of the plaintiff. On the other hand ,
though defendant has produced the copy of stay order along
with written arguments as granted by the Deputy
Commissioner of Bangalore District in revision petition bearing
No.195/15-16 filed by the defendant herein against the present
plaintiff against order of Asst., Commissioner Bangalore North
sub division and Spl. Tahasildar , Bangalore East Taluk
under Sec. 136(3) of KLR Act against the orders of learned
Asst., Commissioner passed in RA No.319/12-13 (Ex.P.14)
dated 21.7.2014. Hence, the revenue proceedings, which are
now seized before the Deputy Commissioner in the revision
petition and that order of stay as granted by the Deputy
Commissioner in revision petition No.185/15-16 will not come
in the way of disposal of the suit, wherein the plaintiff has
proved her lawful possession in respect of site No.2, katha
no.196/2 as on the date of suit and it appears that plaintiff
also constructed residential house property over the site and
37 O.S.No.354 of 2013
she is in possession of the said house as admitted by D.W.1
and defendant has not objected for construction of residential
building by the plaintiff and defendant also not initiated any
legal proceedings against the plaintiff and hence, considering
the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, wherein
the defendant has filed the suit against his own daughter
namely Geetha in O.S. No.8650/2012 and on the strength of
status-quo order obtained in that suit, the defendant is
obstructing over the plaintiff's possession in respect of
schedule property, wherein plaintiff is not party to the said suit
filed by the defendant against his daughter in O.S.
No.8650/2012 and hence, plaintiff also proved the interference
over her possession by the defendant and his followers,
henchmen and others and as such, plaintiff constrained to file
the suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction and though
plaintiff has filed bare injunction suit, wherein the defendant
has not specifically challenged the sale deeds right from
24.1.2003 and even defendant's other brothers have not
challenged the sale of site no.2 of plaintiff's purchaser in title
in respect of sale deeds standing in the name of Thomas
Abraham, Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya and present plaintiff
and hence, the contention of defendant that bare suit for
injunction is not maintainable unless plaintiff seeks
declaration of her title and this contention of the defendant is
not tenable on record, wherein plaintiff in order to protect her
38 O.S.No.354 of 2013
possession in respect of schedule property has filed the suit
for permanent injunction relief. Hence, the court has to
enquire the lawful possession in respect of schedule site and
alleged interference. However, plaintiff proved her possession
as on the date of suit in respect of schedule property and as
such, defendant's contention raised in his written statement
and also in his oral evidence through evidence of D.W.1 stands
rejected and entire defense of the defendant is not tenable and
citations also relied by the defendant are not comes to the aid
of defendant and on the contrary, citations relied by the
plaintiff are applicable to the facts of the case on hand and as
such, plaintiff, who has proved her possession in respect of
schedule site and also she has constructed house and though
plaintiff has not produced any sanctioned plan given by the
corporation and it is for the corporation authority being the
proper authority under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation
Act to take any action against the plaintiff for any illegal
construction made over the site property under the provision
of Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act 1976 and statutory
authority BBMP has got right in that regard, but this suit one
for permanent injunction filed under the provision of Specific
Relief Act under Sec. 38, wherein plaintiff has established her
lawful possession in respect of site No.2 under sale deed
Ex.P.3 and as such, plaintiff's possession has to be protected
by grant of permanent injunction and plaintiff has also
39 O.S.No.354 of 2013
established the alleged interference by the defendant and his
associates over the plaintiff's possession. Hence, plaintiff
proved Issue No.1 and 2 against defendant and accordingly,
Issue No.1 and 2 are answered in affirmative.
16. Issue No.3: In view of my findings submitted on
Issue No.1 and 2, plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent
injunction as sought for against defendant. Accordingly, Issue
No.3 is answered in affirmative.
17. Issue No.4: In view of my findings on Issue No.1 to
3, the suit filed by the plaintiff deserves to be decreed with
costs against defendant. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following:-
ORDER
The suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed with costs against defendant herein.
It is further ordered and decreed that defendant, his men, agents, workers, supporters or any other persons claiming under defendant are restrained by grant of permanent injunction not to cause any interference or obstruction over 40 O.S.No.354 of 2013 the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property .
Draw decree accordingly.
{Dictated to the Judgment writer , transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court this 26th day of August, 2015.} (S.V.Kulkarni) XI Addl.City Civil Judge Bangalore city.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:-
P.W.1 Smt. Mamatha P.W.2 Sri. M.Munireddy
List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:-
Ex.P.1 2nd set of agreement of sale executed by Thomas Abraham to Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya, Ex.P.2 Property assessment register in the name of Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya Ex.P.3: Original sale deed in favour of P.W.1 through GPA holder of Dr.Manohar Krishna Mallya, 41 O.S.No.354 of 2013 Ex.P.4: Tax assessment register Ex.P.5: Tax paid receipt four in number Ex.P.6: Photos four in numbers Ex.P.7: Negatives Ex.P.8: Certified copy of sale deed dated 24.1.2003 executed in favour of Thomas Abraham by deceased Krishnappa and others Ex.P.9: Certified copy of partition deed dated 10.12.1970 between defendant and his brothers Ex.P.10 & 11: Certified copy of plaint and order sheet in O.S. No.8650/2012 Ex.P.12: RTC regarding Sy.No. 196 from 1967-
68 to 1996-97
Ex.P.13 Photos
Ex.P.14 Certified copy of order passed by the
learned Asst., Commissioner in RA(B.E) 319/2012-2013 dated 21.7.2014 , List of witnesses examined for defendant:
DW.1 Sri. Rajendra List of documents exhibited for defendant:-
Ex.D.1 Spl. Power of attorney dated 8.10.2014 executed by defendant in his favour 42 O.S.No.354 of 2013 Ex.D.2 Family genealogy Ex.D.3 Certified copy of registered partition deed dated 10.12.1970 Ex.D.3(a): Typed copy of registered partition deed dated 10.12.1970 Ex.D.4: Certified copy of sale deed dated 24.1.2003 under which his uncles and his father, defendant herein have sold the land in favour of one Nandeedsha Reddy Ex.D.5: Endorsement issued by the Tahasildar dated 20.11.2012 Ex.D.6: Certified copy of Mutation extract dated 21.9.2012, Ex.D:7 RTC extract of Sy.No.196 dated 15.3.2013 Ex.D.8: Office copy of complaint filed before Deputy Commissioner of Police by defendant dated 2.1.2013 Ex.D.9: Xerox copy of ration card issued to defendant Ex.D.10: Identity card issued by ESI corporation in favour of defendant No.1 (S.V.Kulkarni) XI Addl.City Civil Judge Bangalore city.43 O.S.No.354 of 2013 44 O.S.No.354 of 2013 45 O.S.No.354 of 2013