Bangalore District Court
Unknown vs Mrs. Anitha Dev on 5 October, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH No.25).
Dated: This the 5th day of October , 2021.
Present: Smt. ISHRATH JAHAN ARA, B.A.L., LL.B.,
III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
O.S.No. 9376/2014
Plaintif Mr. Suraj M.V. @ Suraj Vishwanath Gowda,
S/o. Sri.C.T.Vishwanath,
Aged about 38 years,
Residing at No.816/C, 16th Cross,
7th Block West, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru -560082.
By Sri. V.B.Shiva Kumar, Advocate.
vs.
Defendants 1. Mrs. Anitha Dev,
W/o. Late Dr.B.S.Ahamindra Dev,
Aged about 61 years,
No.87 (Old No.14), Rathnavilas Road,
Basavanagudi, Bengaluru -560004.
2. Mr. Akashy Dev,
W/o. Late Dr.B.S.Ahamindra Dev,
Aged about 38 years,
Apartment No.1094,
Shobha Rose Apartment,
Whitefeild Main Road,
Bengaluru -560066.
D1 & D2 -By Sri. K.P.Asokumar, Advocate.
2
O.S.No. 9376/2014
Date of Institution 03-12-2014
Nature of Suit Permanent injunction and
Specific Performance.
Date of commencement of 29-11-2018
Evidence
Date of pronouncement of 05-10-2021
Judgment
Total Duration: Years Months Days
06 10 02
JUDGMENT
The Plaintif has filed this Suit for permanent injunction against the defendants, from interfering with his peaceful possession and trespassing into the schedule property and illegally evicting him and leaving his respective right and also for specific performance of contract, directing the defendant to perform her part of contract by accepting the balance sale consideration of Rs.3,26,00,000/-.
The Suit schedule property is property bearing BBMP Khatha No.87 (Old No.14), PID No.59-25-87, New PID No.167-W0029-2, comprising of a residential building, having ground and 1st floor of 1430 sq. feet with RCC roofing, red oxide flooring, teak wood doors and window, built on Site No.14, measuring East-West 35 feet and North-South 100 feet, in all measuring 3500 sq. ft. situated at 2nd Cross, Rathna Villas Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru, within the limits of BBMP, Yediyur Ward No.59.
3O.S.No. 9376/2014
2. In brief, the case of the plaintif as stated in the plaint is that one Sri.B.S.Ahamindradev purchased the schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 13-4-1977 and he died in the year 1977 leaving behind the defendants as his only legal heirs to succeed all his estate including the schedule property and the defendants were in need of funds and legal necessities and also for the benefit of their estate thought it fit and expedient to sell the schedule property to the plaintif and the defendants, who are in need of funds for their legal necessities have ofered to sell the schedule property to the plaintif for a total sale consideration of Rs.3,36,00,000/- as per the agreement of sale dated 6-9-2014 and the plaintif, on inspecting the schedule property, pursuant to the defendants willingness to sell and on verification of title deeds, agreed to purchase the schedule property for the said total sale consideration. After satisfying the title of the schedule property, the plaintif agreed to purchase the same and the agreement of sale came to be executed by the defendants in favour of the plaintif on 6-9-2014 and he paid a sum of Rs.10- lakhs to the defendants towards part performance under agreement of sale dated 6-9-2014 and 4 O.S.No. 9376/2014 defendants have acknowledged the receipt of the same in the presence of witnesses under the agreement of sale and Rs.8-lakhs was paid by way of cash and Rs.2-lakhs under Cheque bearing No.764627 dated 6-9-2014 drawn on ING Vysya Bank, K.R.Road Branch, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. The defendants have agreed to receive balance sale consideration of Rs.3,26,00,000/- at the time of execution and registration of absolute sale deed in respect of schedule property either in favour of plaintif or his nominees and agreed to execute sale deed in favour of plaintif within 90 days from the date of agreement of sale. Subsequently the plaintif carried out paper publication in the local news papers on 18-9-2014 in Hindu and Udayavani and for the same, the defendant No.1 relinquished no objection to carry out paper publication.
The plaintif requested defendants to execute sale deed by receiving remaining sale consideration amount and also informed them of the availability of required consideration amount. The plaintif, ever since he had agreed to purchase schedule property, has been always ready and willing to perform his part of contract. However, the defendants have not co-operated to execute sale 5 O.S.No. 9376/2014 deed for the reasons best known to them. Therefore the plaintif issued a demand notice on 21-10-2014 requesting them for execution of sale deed, which shows that he has been always ready and and willing to perform his part of contract. After issue of notice as aforesaid, on the very next day, the plaintif went to the defendants' house and requested them to execute sale deed and also informed them of the availability of remaining sale consideration amount for the registration of the schedule property. According to clause of the agreement, the defendants having understood that they shall execute the absolute sale deed in respect of schedule property to the plaintif within 90 days. Said clause enabled the plaintif to do all the necessary acts for getting the sale deed executed by the defendants. The plaintif not only requested the defendants for registration of schedule property and also caused a notice on 21-10-2014 to execute sale deed by receiving balance consideration amount and the plaintif had gone to the defendants and shown the draft sale deed prepared for registration of schedule property. The defendants did not oblige for the same. However, the plaintif persuaded them to execute sale deed in order to over come the unnecessary litigation in 6 O.S.No. 9376/2014 this regard. Towards the legal notice dated 21-10-2014 for execution of sale deed in favour of plaintif, the defendants have replied to the notice on 23-10-2014 denying the allegation, reason better known to them, per contra they are making attempts to sell the schedule property through real estate brokers for higher price by denying the execution of agreement of sale by stating unwarned and uncalled reason, with malafide intention to cheat the plaintif.
On 25-11-2014 the defendants came near the suit property with the help of local agents and rowdy and tried to take away the agreement of sale. The plaintif safeguarded the agreement of sale. When the plaintif tried to give complaint against the defendants to the jurisdictional police, police refused to entertain the complaint and informed that this is a civil matter and advised to approach appropriate civil Court to file suit against the defendants. Hence, the suit.
3. After service of summons, both the Defendants appeared and filed their Written Statement, seriously disputing all the plaint averments and submitted that the suit is misconceived and is neither maintainable in law, nor 7 O.S.No. 9376/2014 on facts and as such deserves to be dismissed in limine.
The defendants submitted that one C.V.Mukundaraju and his brother C.V.Nataraju, erstwhile owners of defendants' adjoining property bearing No.13/86, were putting up construction in flagrant violation of approved building plan and building bye-laws to the detriment of defendants, the 1st defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.2981/2009 before CCH No.9 against the said Mukunda Raju and others, seeking declaration of her easementary right and permanent injunction and obtained decree against them on 10-2-2012 and within 2 months from thereafter, on 9-4-2012 said Mukunda Raju and others sold their property to Susheela Bai under registered sale deed dated 25-5-2012 and since she also started construction in violation of approved building plan and bye-laws, 1st defendant filed O.S.No.3391/2014 against her before CCH No.41 and in the said suit, 1st defendant has produced the title deeds of the schedule property and the plaintif herein who has collected the same from 1 st defendant in the said suit has produced them before this Court by falsely stating that they were furnished by these defendants to him at the time of 8 O.S.No. 9376/2014 alleged agreement of sale dated 6-9-2014. The plaintif approached the defendants along with Bheemraj H Jain, husband of Said Susheela Bail and told that he has financed the adjoining property located on the western side of schedule property and is very much interested in its completion and that 1st defendant should withdraw her O.S.No. 3391/2014 filed against Susheela Bai and allow her to complete the project as she desires. The defendants did not agree for the same and asked Bheemraj H, Jain to put up construction in accordance with approved building plan. Then the plaintif took a challenge and told these defendants that he knows how to teach them a lesson and went away.
Thereafter, on 19-9-2014 when 1st defendant went to SBI for updating her pass book, to her utter surprise she found that an amount of Rs.2-lakhs had been credited from VBL to her account on 16-9-2014. Immediately she addressed a letter to the bank requesting them to trace the details of the deposit and oblige. Then she was asked to approach her home branch and on 20-9-2014 1st defendant learnt from her home branch that said amount of Rs.2-lakh had been credited from the account of 9 O.S.No. 9376/2014 M.V.Suraj. 1St defendant, by letter dated 22-9-2014 impressed on her banker that she does not have any financial transaction with said M.V.Suraj and requested them to transfer the said amount to the very same account from which it had come and that if for any reason it is not possible, to keep the same in the suspense account of the bank. The plaintif, true to what he said to these defendants when he met them along with Bheemraj H.Jain after the interim order was made by the Hon'ble High Court on 2-9-2014, only with malafide intention of coercing 1st defendant to withdraw her O.S.No. 3391/2014, has cooked up the alleged agreement of sale dated 6-9-2014 and to it colour of credibility, has credited a sum of Rs.2-lakhs to the account of 1st defendant without her knowledge and got issued legal notice dated 21-10-2014 making false allegations against the defendants. After receipt of said legal notice dated 21-10-2014, the defendants issued suitable reply on 23-10-2014 denying execution of alleged agreement of sale dated 6-9-2014 and receipt of any advance amount much less Rs.10-lakhs and being scared about evidence intentions of plaintif, lodged a police complaint against him and others with the jurisdictional police on 28-10-2014 requesting them to take action 10 O.S.No. 9376/2014 against plaintif and others regarding fabrication and forgery of alleged agreement of sale dated 6-9-2014 and cheating and fraud as also other ofences practiced by them on defendants and to provide protection and police have registered an FIR in Crime No.0233/14 in this regard and curiously within few hours of lodging the same, the plaintif having learnt about the said complaint from the police, with malafide intention of preventing defendants from taking serious follow up action, has sent an SMS to 2nd defendant threatening that in case we precipitate the matter and do not keep quiet, he would commit suicide by naming the defendants as being responsible for the same. The jurisdictional police referred the alleged agreement of sale dated 6-9-2014, bank challan and other documents to FSL, who after detailed careful examination, have given a report that signatures on the alleged agreement for sale and bank challan are forged ones and Basavanagudi Police have filed CC No.20453/2018 against the plaintif, H.Bheemraj Jain and Susheela Bai on the file of II Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru for forgery and other ofences punishable under Sections 419, 506, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120(b) r/w. S.34 of IPC.
11O.S.No. 9376/2014 These defendants are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of schedule property and the plaintif is residing at his Jayanagar residence and as such, the question of his dispossession from schedule property does not arise at all. The plaintif only with the intention of creating cause of action, has falsely stated so and has sought for Injunction.
Since the suit is not properly framed, the basic averments required to be pleaded in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale having not been pleaded by the plaintif, the question of specific performance of alleged agreement of sale which is a forged one, by accepting the alleged balance sale consideration of Rs.3,26,00,000/- would not arise and the plaintif is not entitled for either specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale or for permanent injunction. The defendants are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of schedule property.
The 1st defendant was working in DRDO and retired in the month of September 2013, at which time she received a sum of Rs.50-lakhs as retirement benefits and was receiving pension of Rs.30,000/- per month at the inception and now she is getting a monthly pension of Rs.49,000/-. The 2 nd 12 O.S.No. 9376/2014 defendant is working as a Senior Director in M/s.Capgemini Technologies Services (India) Ltd., on an annual salary of Rs.43-lakhs and in 2014 was working as Programme Manager, getting an annual salary of Rs.32,00,000/- and they were and are financially sound and are above wants. These defendants never ofered to sell the schedule property to the plaintif for Rs.3,36,00,000/- under the alleged agreement of sale dated 6-9-2014 nor did they receive Rs.10-lakhs by cash and Rs.2-lakhs by cheque bearing No.764627 dated 6-9-2014 drawn on K.R.Road Branch of Vysya Bank in part performance and that they did not agree to execute sale deed within 90 days from the said date of agreement by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.3,26,00,000/- at the time of execution and registration of sale deed of schedule property and the plaint allegation that the 1st defendant had no objection for the plaintif to have a public notice published in the news papers. Nevertheless the plaintif has stated so without any regard for truth. Despite the fact that no agreement of sale much less the one dated 6-9-2014 was entered into by these defendants in favour of the plaintif, nor did they receive any advance amount much less Rs.10- lakhs from him, he has forged signatures of 13 O.S.No. 9376/2014 defendants on the alleged agreement of sale dated 6i-9-2014 and has falsely stated a bout alleged receipt of advance amount by defendants under alleged agreement of sale dated 6-9-2014 stating that he had paid Rs.8-lakhs by cash and Rs.2-lakhs by cheque, by crediting said sum of Rs.2-lakhs to 1st defendant's account, 10 days later on 16-9-2014 without her knowledge by forging her signature on the bank challan only to create evidence of payment and it is further false that he had told these defendants about the availability of balance sale consideration and being ready and willing to complete the transaction, has requested defendants to receive the same and execute sale deed and defendants have defaulted in their obligations and that two months later on 22-1-2015 plaintif lodged a complaint against defendants that at about 10.30 a.m. on 25-11-2014 defendants with their agents and rowdies attempted to take away the alleged imaginary agreement of sale from the plaintif and that the police did not entertain his complaint sating that it is a civil dispute, only with the malafide intention of creating a cause of action for the suit which is highly deplorable. In fact on 25-11-2014 being a Tuesday, was a working day for 2nd defendant and he was in his office at 10.30 a.m. 14 O.S.No. 9376/2014 On these grounds, the defendants prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs in the interest of justice and fair-play.
4. Based on the above pleadings, this Court has framed the following Issues and Additional Issues:
1. Whether the plaintif proves the maintainability of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintif proves his lawful possession and enjoyment over suit property as on the date of suit?
3. Whether the plaintif proves the unlawful interference?
4. Whether the plaintif is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
5. What Order or Decree?
Additional Issues:
1. Whether the plaintif proves that agreeing to sell the schedule property for their legal necessities, the defendants executed an agreement of sale on 6-9-2014 by receiving advance consideration of Rs.10-Lakhs?
2. Whether the plaintif proves that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract?15
O.S.No. 9376/2014
5. The Plaintif, in order to prove his case, got examined himself as P.W.1 and from his side 13 documents are marked as Exs.P1 to P13, P13(a) to (z) and closed his side of evidence.
After closure of the Plaintif's side evidence, Defendant No.2 got examined himself as D.W.1 and from his side 12 documents are marked as Exs.D1 to D12.
The defendants, in order to prove Exs.D2 - FSL Report, summoned the Scientific Examiner of Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru and she is examined as C.W.1. From her side Ex.D2(a) marked and closed their side of evidence.
6. Heard the arguments. Learned Counsel for the plaintif also filed his Written Arguments.
7. The answers to the above Issues are:
Issue No.1 - In the Negative, Issue No.2 - In the Negative, Issue No.3 - In the Negative, Issue No.4 - In the Negative, Additional Issue No.1 - In the Negative, Additional Issue No.2- In the Negative, Issue No.5 - As per Final Order, for the following:16
O.S.No. 9376/2014 REASONS
8. Issue No. 1 : Initially the plaintif has filed this suit only for the relief of bare Injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, supporters or anybody claiming under them or through them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property by claiming that under the sale agreement dated 6-9-2014 the defendants put him in lawful possession of the suit property after receiving the advance sale consideration amount of Rs.10-Lakhs and since from the date of execution of sale agreement, he is in lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. However, subsequently after the defendants have appeared before the Court and filed their Written Statement by taking up the specific defence that the suit itself is not maintainable unless the plaintif has exhausted the efficacious remedy by filing a comprehensive suit for specific performance of contract, after framing of Issues, the plaintif, by filing amendment application to the Plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C., got amended the plaint by seeking prayer for specific performance of contract dated 16-9-2014. Hence this Issue does not survive for consideration.
17O.S.No. 9376/2014 Accordingly, I have answered this Issue in the Negative.
9. Issues No.2, 3, Additional Issues No.1 and 2 :
As these Issues are interconnected, they are taken together for consideration, in order to avoid repetition of facts.
10. The entire burden is on this Plaintif to prove his case and also to prove all these Issues. The Plaintif, in order to prove his case, stepped into the witness box and got examined as PW1. PW1 filed his Affidavit in lieu of oral evidence wherein he reiterated the plaint averments and deposed that the defendants being the absolute owners of the suit property having purchased the same by the husband of 1st defendant Sri.B.S.Ahamindradev, under a registered sale deed dated 13-4-1977 for valuable sale consideration and subsequently, after his death in the year 1977, the defendants being the legal heirs of B.S.Ahamindradev succeeded the suit property and became the absolute owners in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He further deposed that the defendants were in need of funds for their family and legal necessity and therefore they brought this suit property for sale 18 O.S.No. 9376/2014 and he being a willing purchaser, contacted the defendants and after verifying all the title documents relating to the suit property, agreed to purchase the suit property for total sale consideration amount of Rs.3,36,00,000/-. He deposed that the defendants by agreeing to sell the suit property for Rs.3,36,00,000/- executed the sale agreement in his favour on 6-9-2014 by agreeing to sell the suit property for Rs.3,36,00,000/- after receiving the advance sale consideration amount of Rs.10-lakhs under the sale agreement. He further deposed that out of Rs.10-lakhs paid by him as earnest money to the defendants, a sum of Rs.8- lakhs was paid through cash and remaining sum of Rs.2-lakhs was paid under Cheque bearing No.764627 dated 6-9-2014 drawn on ING Vysya Bank, K.R.Road Branch, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. He further deposed that the defendants have agreed to receive the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.3,26,00,000/- at the time of execution of absolute sale deed in his favour and they agreed to execute the sale deed within 90 days from the date of sale agreement. He deposed that he has also taken paper publication in the news paper on 18-9-2014 publishing the matter in Hindu and Udayavani news papers by calling upon objections 19 O.S.No. 9376/2014 from the public at large. He deposed that subsequently after the defendants have executed the sale agreement, since from the date of sale agreement he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract and he requested the defendants to execute the sale deed after receiving balance sale consideration amount and even in spite of his repeated requests and demand, the defendants failed to perform their part of contract and they failed to execute the registered sale deed as per the terms of sale agreement after receiving the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.3,26,00,000/-. He deposed that since from the date of execution of sale agreement, he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract and he is ready with the balance sale consideration amount. But however, it is these defendants who have failed to perform their part of contract and to execute the registered sale deed within 90 days from the date of execution of sale agreement. He deposed that after his repeated requests and demand, as the defendants have failed to perform their part of contract, on 21-10-2014 he got issued the legal notice through his counsel, calling upon the defendants to perform their part of contract as per the terms of sale agreement after receiving balance sale consideration amount and 20 O.S.No. 9376/2014 also calling upon the defendants by stating that he is ready with the draft sale deed. He deposed that the defendants, after receipt of legal notice, instead of complying the demands made in the notice, have sent an untenable reply by denying the execution of sale agreement, with a malafide intention to cheat him and to make a wrongful gain. He further deposed that since from the date of execution of sale deed he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and he was put in possession of the suit property on the very same day on 6-9-2014 and these defendants, on 25-11-2014 came near the suit property along with local agents and rowdy elements and started interfering with his possession and enjoyment over the suit property. He deposed that the defendants are trying to alienate the suit property in favour of third party with an intention to deprive him to execute the sale deed dated 6-9-2014. Hence, without any alternative he approached this Court and filed this suit.
11. P.W.1, in order to corroborate his testimony got produced the BBMP Khatha Certificate and Khatha Extract in respect of suit property standing in the name of defendant No.1, 21 O.S.No. 9376/2014 marked as per Exs.P1 and P2, respectively. He got produced Encumbrance Certificates of the suit property, marked as per Exs.P3 and P4 respectively. He got produced the certified copies of Sale Deeds of the vendors of the husband of the 1 st defendant dated 29-11-1973 and 4-2-1960 to prove that the husband of the 1st defendant has lawfully purchased the suit property from the lawful owner and subsequently he died the death of intestate, marked as per Exs.P5 and P6 and its typed copies are marked as per Exs.P5(a) and P6(a), respectively. Copy of Legal Notice, along with the reply notice issued by the defendants are marked as per Exs.P7 and P8, respectively. The certified copy of sale deed of the husband of 1st defendant Ahamindra Dev executed on 13-4-1977 is marked as per Ex.P9 and typed written copy of the sale deed is marked as per Ex.P9(a). He got produced his Bank Account extracts pertaining to Vijaya Bank, ICICI Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank, marked as per Exs.P19 to P12, respectively. He got produced the original Sale Agreement dated 6-9-2014, marked as per Ex.P13. He deposed that both the defendants have signed the sale agreement on each page of the agreement and he identified the signatures of both the defendants, marked as per Exs.P13(a) to P13(x), 22 O.S.No. 9376/2014 respectively. He got identified his signatue on each page of the sale agreement and the signature even on the last page of the sale agreement is marked as Ex.P13(y). He got identified the signature of the witness Nandish on Ex.P13 marked as per Ex.P13(z).
12. The defendants have denied the entire case of the plaintif and denied the very fact that they have executed a sale agreement on 6-9-2014 by agreeing to sell the suit property for total sale consideration amount of Rs.3,36,00,000/- and further they denied the very fact that under the sale agreement dated 6-9-2014 they have received advance sale consideration amount of Rs.10-lakhs from this plaintif and put him in possession of the suit property. The defendants have denied the very execution of Ex.P13 document and denied the fact that the signatures found on the said document are that of them.
13. The learned counsel for the defendants extensively cross-examined P.W.1 by denying his testimony. P.W.1 even though stated that the 1 st defendant is a retired employee of DRDO, but, however, he has stated that he is not aware of the fact that after her retirement from the DRDO she has received a retirement benefit of Rs.50-lakhs and 23 O.S.No. 9376/2014 also she is getting pension of Rs.47,000/- per month and as such, she has no any financial difficulty to sell away her suit property. Likewise, P.W.1 stted that he is not aware of the fact the defendant No.2 is getting annual salary of Rs.32-lakhs. However he admitted the suggestion that since from 2014, the defendant No.2 is working a Company M/s.Cap Gemini Technologies Services (India) Ltd., and from the said service, he is getting salary. P.W.1 has categorically stated that he is not aware of the fact that the defendants have no any financial difficulties to sell away their property. On the contrary, P.W.1 has stated that these defendants have approached him by stating that they were in need of funds and for this purpose they brought the suit property for sale and they have voluntarily agreed to sell the suit property for total sale consideration amount of Rs.3,36,00,000/-. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that during the year 2014 market value of the suit property was more than Rs.7-Crore and as such, these defendants were not at all interested to sell away their property for meager amount of Rs.3,36,00,000/- and even they have not executed the sale agreement on 6-9-2014 for the sale consideration amount of Rs.3,36,00,000/-. P.W.1 further denied the 24 O.S.No. 9376/2014 suggestion that the defendants, under Ex.P13 have not received any kind of consideration amount, much less, a sum of Rs.10-Lakhs towards earnest money and they have not agreed to receive the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.3,26,00,000/- at the time of execution of registered sale deed. He denied the suggestion that he, by playing fraud on defendant No.1, after obtaining their PAN Number and Aadhar Card Number, has illegally credited a sum of Rs.2-lakhs in the Bank Account of defendant No.1 on 16-9-2014 without the knowledge and permission of the defendants. He denied the suggestion that he himself forged the signatures of defendant No.1 on the bank Challan with an intention to create a document in his favour to create that he made payment in the name of defendant No.1. He further denied the suggestion that defendant No.1, immediately after the knowledge of the amount credited to her bank account amounting to Rs.2- lakhs on 19-9-2014 itself she instructed her banker to re-send the said amount which was credited to her bank account, with an instruction that the said amount is not belonging to her. P.W.1, in his cross- examination admitted that the defendant No.1 came to know that from ING Vysya Bank Ltd., a sum 25 O.S.No. 9376/2014 of Rs.2-lakhs was credited to her bank account and immediately after the knowledge she requested her Home Branch bank to return the same, or else, to keep it in suspense account. P.W.1, in his cross- examination has clearly and categorically admitted the suggestion that the defendants, after the sale agreement on 28-11-2014 made a complaint before the Basavanagudi Police Station against him, regarding sale agreement dated 6-9-2014 by making allegation that the said document is a created and concocted document by forging their signatures. He further admitted the suggestion that Basavanagudi Police have registered a case against him in F.R.No. 233/2014. However he denied the suggestion that after the defendants have filed a complaint against him, he has sent an S.M.S. to the defendants. Even though P.W.1 admitted the copy of SMS confronted to him and admitted that the said SMS was sent by him to the defendant No.1 and as the P.W.1 has admitted the said photocopy of the SMS, the said document is marked through confrontation as Ex.D1. However he denied the suggestion that he, by threatening the defendants to withdraw the complaint filed against him, sent an SMS by stating that if they failed to withdraw the complaint, he will commit suicide. On the contrary, P.W.1, in his cross-
26O.S.No. 9376/2014 examination has clearly and categorically admitted the suggestion that in the criminal case registered against him, the Investigating Officer, for the purpose of investigation, sent the disputed sale agreement to the forensic science laboratory for scientific examination and before sending the said document they have collected his specimen signatures along with specimen signatures of the defendants and also collected disputed bank Challan from his custody and both these documents were sent to forensic science laboratory. He admitted the suggestion that the forensic science laboratory, Bengaluru, after scientific examination of both the bank Challan as well as the sale agreement, submitted their report and he further admitted the report confronted to him, marked as per Ex.D2. He admitted the suggestion that the forensic science laboratory, after scientific examination of both the documents, have submitted their report that the signatures found on both the bank Challan as well as the sale agreement are not that of these defendants and those signatures have been forged. He admitted the suggestion that the police, after investigation, filed the charge sheet against him and the said case was registered in C.C.No.20453/2018. He admitted the 27 O.S.No. 9376/2014 suggestion that in the said charge sheet, along with him, the neighboring owner Smt. Susheela Bai and her husband Bhima Rao Jain were arrayed as co- accused and they are all facing criminal charges leveled against them in C.C.No.20453/2018. P.W.1, in his cross-examination denied the suggestion that he forged the signatures found in Ex.P13, marked as per Exs.P13(a) to P13(x) as these signatures are not of these defendants and it is a created, concocted and forged documents. He denied the suggestion that under Ex.P13 document, defendants have not received any kind of consideration, much less, a sum of Rs.10-lakhs. He denied the suggestion that he is not financially capable either to pay the advance sale consideration of Rs.10-lakhs under Ex.P13 or to purchase the suit property for Rs.3,36,00,000/-. P.W.1, during his cross-examination denied the suggestion that in his bank account statement produced by him before this Court relating to Vijaya Bank, ICICI Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank, he is not having more than Rs.5,000/- amount as on 6-9-2014, 21-10-2014 and 2-3-2014 and as such, he is not able to pay huge amount of Rs.10-Lakhs to these defendants on 6-9-2014 or on the subsequent hearing dates. He denied the suggestion that he, without the knowledge of the defendant No.1, on 28 O.S.No. 9376/2014 16-9-2014 deposited Rs.2-lakhs in her bank account and deposing false before this Court that he paid Rs.2-lakhs through cheque in favour of defendant No.1 under Ex.P13-sale agreement. P.W.1 in his cross-examination even though admitted the suggestion that on 8-9-2014 he deposited Rs.2-lakhs in his ING Vysya Bank account. However he denied the suggestion that he issued cheque No.764727 towards depositing of Rs.2-lakhs in the name of defendant No.1 and due to his anxiety to commit the fraud, he issued cheque in the name of Anitha Day and the same thing is reflected in his bank account.
14. As I have discussed supra, the defendants have not only denied the execution of Ex.P13 document along with their signatures found on the said document, but they have specifically taken up the defence that the plaintif is not financially capable either to pay Rs.10-lakhs by way of earnest money in their favour as on 6-9-2014 or to the subsequent dates or to purchase the suit property for sale consideration amount of Rs.3,36,00,000/-. However the P.W.1, during his cross-examination, even though denied the suggestion that after these defendants have filed M.F.A. proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court in 29 O.S.No. 9376/2014 M.F.A. No.3028/2014 against one Bhim Raj Jain and his wife, he, colluding with said Bhim Raj Jain and his wife, with an intention to teach a lesson to these defendants, created and concocted Ex.P13 document, after collecting bank particulars of defendant No.1, from said Bhim Raj Jain and with an intention to make a claim over the suit property has falsely deposited a sum of Rs.2-lakhs in the name of this defendant No.1 and making false claim over the suit property, even though on 6-9-2014 the defendants have not executed Ex.P13 document in his favour. He further denied the suggestion that when these defendants have refused to withdraw the M.F.A. proceedings against Bhimraj Jain and his wife, said Bhimraj, colluding with him, created and concocted documents, even though Ex.P13 document was not executed by these defendants, by agreeing to sell the suit property for the sale consideration amount of Rs.3,36,00,000/-.
15. The plaintif, in order to prove the execution of Ex.P13 document, except adducing the oral documents and by producing and marking Ex.P13, which has been seriously disputed and denied by the defendants, has not chosen to prove the execution of the document by these 30 O.S.No. 9376/2014 defendants, as per the provisions of law. No doubt, the plaintif has taken steps against the witnesses of Ex.P13 document to examine before this Court, but, however, even after service of summons to the witnesses, the plaintif has failed to secure the presence of the witnesses before the Court to examine them before the Court and this Court, after granting amble opportunities, taken the plaintif's side evidence as closed, after noticing that in spite of issuance of arrest notice to the witnesses, the plaintif has failed to secure the witness before this Court. As such, the plaintif, except producing and marking Ex.P13 document, has failed to prove the execution of the document and failed to prove passing of advance sale consideration amount to the defendants under Ex.P13 document.
16. Moreover, it is an admitted fact that based on the complaint lodged by the defendants, which was registered in Crime No.233/2014, a case was registered against this plaintif and during investigation of the said case, Ex.P13 document, along with the disputed bank challan and the admitted signatures of the plaintif and defendants was sent to forensic science laboratory for scientific examination.
31O.S.No. 9376/2014 P.W.1, in his cross-examination, categorically admitted the report of the Handwriting Expert of the Forensic Science Laboratory, marked as per Ex.D2. The defendants, in order to prove the contents of Ex.D2 document, summoned the Scientific Examiner, who had issued Ex.D2 document, before the Court and she has been examined as C.W.1.
C.W.1, in her evidence deposed that Basavanagudi Police, with respect to a case registered in Crime No.233/2014, have sent documents for scientific investigation, seized during the stage of investigation and as peer the request of the Investigation Officer, she has examined the disputed documents along with the admitted signatures of the party, sent along with the documents and she, after thoroughly examining the disputed signatures found on the document along with the admitted signatures sent for scientific investigation, given her report as per Ex.D2 to the Investigation Officer. C.W.1 also got produced the copy of Ex.D2 kept in her file and the same is marked as Ex.D2(a). As per the recitals of Ex.D2, the Scientific Examiner, after fully examining the disputed signatures, along with standard signatures 32 O.S.No. 9376/2014 sent for scientific examination, given her opinion by stating that the person who wrote the standard signatures, which is marked as A1 to A5, R1 to R10, R21 to R30 for her examination, did not write the questioned signatures marked as Exs.D1 to D13 and likewise, given her opinion that the person who wrote he standard signatures marked as A6 to A10, R11 to R20, did not write the questioned signatures marked as Exs.D14 to D25. She has specifically stated that the questioned signatures marked as Exs.D14 to D25 are produced by means of imitation forgery and likewise, the person who wrote subsequent writing marked as Ex.R31 to R40 did not write the questioned writing marked as Ex.D26. CW1 in her evidence deposed that she has examined original Ex.P13 document sent for scientific investigation and the letters denoted by her in Ex.D2, marked as Exs.D14 to D25 refers in Ex.P13 and it is related to defendant No.2 herein. Likewise, the letters denoted and marked as Exs.D1 to D13 are related to defendant No.1 herein and she has specifically stated that she, after verifying Ex.P13 along with the admitted signatures, sent along with Ex.P13 relating to defendants No.1 and 2 herein, she has given her report as per Ex.D2.
33O.S.No. 9376/2014 Learned counsel for plaintif extensively cross examined C.W.1 by denying her testimony and also by suggesting that she, without properly following the procedure and even without proper analyzing the signatures found on Ex.P13, as per the request of the Investigation Officer, with an intention to help the defendants herein under influence, she has issued her Exs.D2 and D2(a) reports and these reports are issued under influence. The C.W.1, in her cross-examination has categorically denied the entire suggestions made to her and denied that the report sent by her as per Ex.D2 is only with an intention to help these defendants and she has issued the said report under influence of defendants herein.
17. As I have discussed supra, even after comparison of the signatures of these defendants found in Ex.P13, along with the signatures of the defendants found in the Written Statement, Vakalathnama and other affidavits filed before the Court by the defendants, one can easily identify and state that the signatures found on Ex.P13 are imitation signatures and it is not related to the same person and these signatures are not identical and similar. As I have discussed supra, the plaintif, 34 O.S.No. 9376/2014 except producing and marking Ex.P13 document, has not chosen to prove the execution of the document of these defendants and even he has not chosen to prove the passing of advance sale consideration amount under Ex.P13 document to these defendants.
No doubt, P.W.1 got produced the Account Ledger Extracts marked as per Exs.P10 to P12, the recitals of Ex.P10 document discloses that till 31-12-2014 in the Bank account of this plaintif, there was no sufficient cash to pay huge sum of Rs.10-lakhs as claimed by the plaintif. The contents of Ex.P10 discloses that till 31-12-2014 the bank account of this plaintif has not exceeded more than Rs.50,000/-. In such being the case, Ex.P10 document does not convince this Court that till 31-12-2014, the plaintif was capable to pay a huge sum of Rs10-lakhs.
Likewise, the contents of Ex.P11 document is from 1-7-2015 and even this document does not prove that the plaintif was capable to pay a sum of Rs.10-lakhs as earnest money in favour of these defendants under Ex.P13. Even in Ex.P11, available balance amount in the bank account of this plaintif has not crossed more than Rs.2-lakhs at any point of time.
35O.S.No. 9376/2014 However, in Ex.P12 it discloses that on 14-9-2014, cheque bearing No.764627 was cleared issued in the name of Anitha Day amounting to Rs.2- lakhs. However. Even Ex.P12 document does not prove that the plaintif, at any point of time, was having bank balance more than Rs.2-lakhs in his bank account. Ex.P12 document clearly discloses that the plaintif, only on 8-9-2014, by cash, credited a sum of Rs.2-lakhs in his bank account and the very same amount was encashed under cheque bearing No.764627 issued in the name of Anitha Day. The plaintif, in order to corroborate that the cheque issued in the name of Anitha Day bearing No.764627 was encashed by this defendant No.1 in her name, has not chosen to produce the bank account of the defendant No.1, nor he has summoned the said document before this Court to prove the encashment of the cheque. As I have discussed supra, even Ex.P12 document does not prove that the plaintif was financially capable to pay huge advance amount of Rs.10-lakhs under Ex.P13 document and he paid the said amount to these defendants on 6-9-2014 under Ex.P13.
36O.S.No. 9376/2014
18. The bank statement does not prove that earlier to the date of execution of Ex.P13 or subsequent to the date of Ex.P13, plaintif has withdrawn more than Rs.8-lakhs from his bank account to advance the same in favour of these defendants towards the earnest money. As I have discussed supra, the bank documents produced by the plaintif before the Court proves that at no point of time the plaintif was having bank balance more than Rs.2-lakhs in his bank account. In such being the case, the testimony of P.W.1 that under Ex.P13 document he advanced a huge advance sale consideration amount of Rs.10- lakhs to these defendants and these defendants, after receipt of sum of Rs.10-lakhs as an earnest amount, executed Ex.P13 by agreeing to sell the suit property for total sale consideration amount of Rs.3,36,00,000/- and agreed to execute the sale deed within 90 days from the date of execution of sale agreement after receipt of balance sale consideration amount of Rs.3,26,00,000/- cannot be acceptable and it holds no merit. Likewise, the testimony of P.W.1 that the defendants, by agreeing to sell the suit property for total sale consideration amount of Rs.3,36,00,000/-, executed Ex.P13 document in his favour and under Ex.P13, they have received the earnest amount of Rs.10-lakhs towards 37 O.S.No. 9376/2014 part performance of contract, is not convinced this Court and it cannot be believable and acceptable and it holds no merit. Even according to P.W.1, the defendants, immediately after receipt of Ex.P7 legal notice, on 23-10-2014 itself, issued their reply as per Ex.P8,wherein they have clearly and categorically denied the execution of Ex.P13-sale agreement and even denied the receipt of advance sale consideration amount of Rs.10-lakhs under the sale agreement. Ex.P7 document proves that on 21-10-2014 the plaintif has issued the notice and within 2 days the defendants have sent reply as per Ex.P8. This clearly proves that the defendants, since from the beginning, have clearly disputed and denied the execution of sale agreement dated 6-9-2014 and denied the signatures found on the said document and they have specifically stated that those signatures are forged signatures, created and concocted by this plaintif with an intention to make a wrongful gain for himself and to cause monetary loss to these defendants. In such being the case, without there being any proof before this Court, the evidence adduced by P.W.1 before this Court that the defendants, by agreeing to sell the suit property for total sale consideration amount of Rs.3,36,00,000/-, executed Ex.P13 document and 38 O.S.No. 9376/2014 under Ex.P13 they have received an earnest amount of Rs.10-lakhs towards part performance, cannot be acceptable and it holds no merit.
19. However, the defendants, in order to prove their defence, got examined the 2nd defendant as D.W.1. D.W.1 filed his affidavit in lieu of oral evidence, wherein he deposed that his mother - defendant No.1, was working at DRDO and retired from her service in the month of September 2013 and at the time of retirement she has received retirement benefits of Rs.50-lakhs and she is also getting pension of Rs.49,000/- per month and as such, she has no any financial difficult to alienate her property. He further deposed that he is also working as a Senior Director in M/s.Capgemini Technologies Services (India) Ltd., and getting annual salary of Rs.43-lakhs and as such, they have not at all executed sale agreement on 6-9-2014 for sale consideration amount of Rs.3,36,00,000/- in favour of this plaintif by showing their financial difficulties to alienate the suit property. He deposed that they have not received any kind of consideration, much less, a sum of Rs.10-lakhs either by way of cash or through cheque from this plaintif. He deposed that they have not executed the sale 39 O.S.No. 9376/2014 agreement by agreeing to sell the property for sale consideration amount of Rs.3,36,00,000/- and even they have not undertaken to execute the sale deed within 90 days from the date of execution of sale agreement. He further deposed that one Sri.C.V.Mukunda Raju and his brother Sri.C.V.Nataraju, erstwhile owners of the property bearing No.13/86, located on the Western side of their property, were putting up construction in violation of approved building plan and licence by detrimental to their interest and as such, his mother had filed a suit in O.S.No.2981/2009 before CCH No.9 against the said Mukunda Raju and thers, seeking declaration of easementary right and permanent injunction and within 2 months from the date of filing of the suit, the said Mukunda Raju and his family members sold their property in favour of one Susheela Bai under registered sale deed dated 25-5-2012 and said Susheela Bai was also making construction by violation of approved building plan and bye-laws and as such, his mother had also filed a suit in O.S.No.3391/2014 against said Susheela Bai before CCH No.41. He further deposed that in the said suit, his mother got produced all the title documents relating to their property and this plaintif, colluding with said Susheela Bai, created 40 O.S.No. 9376/2014 and concocted the documents after collecting the information relating to the suit property belonging to them. He further deposed that his mother has also preferred MFA Proceedings No.5028/2014 before Hon'ble High Court wherein an interim order was granted in favour of his mother on 2-9-2014 by the Hon'ble High Court. He further deposed that Susheela Bai, colluding with Bheemraj H Jain,threatened his mother to withdraw the suit filed by them in O.S.No.3391/2014 or else they will teach a lesson and the said Bheemraj Jain colluding with this plaintif and Susheela Bai, created the documents in the name of this plaintif, even though they have not executed any kind of agreement in favour of this plaintif, much less the sale agreement. He deposed that they have no any intention to sell away their property in favour of this plaintif or in anybody's favour and even they have not executed sale agreement. He deposed that his mother has also lodged police complaint against the plaintif and others for forgery and also creating and concocting sale agreement dated 6-9-2014 which was registered in Crime No.0233/2014 by the Basavanagudi Police and during investigation, the disputed sale agreement dated 6-9-2014, along with bank challan and other documents were sent to 41 O.S.No. 9376/2014 forensic science laboratory for scientific examination and the Forensic Officer, after carefully examination of all the documents, given her report to the Basavanagudi Police Station by stating that the documents are created and concocted and the signatures are forged. He further deposed that based on the FSL Report, the Basavanagudi Police, after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the plaintif herein, along with H.Bheemaraj Jain and Susheela Bai, which was registered in CC.No.20453/2018 for the ofences punishable under Sections 419, 506, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120(b) r/w. S.34 of IPC and the said criminal case is pending adjudication. He deposed that, the plaintif is not entitled for any relief sought in the plaint. The D.W.1 prays to dismiss the suit of the plaintif.
20. D.W.1 got produced the letter of defendant No.1 dated 19-9-2014 and 22-9-2014, along with postal receipts, marked as per Exs.D3 to D5, respectively. He got produced the Track details of Postal Department, marked as per Ex.D6. He got produced BSNL Bill marked as per Ex.D7. He got produced the certified copy of orders passed in RFA No.867/2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court 42 O.S.No. 9376/2014 marked as per Ex.D8. He got produced the Bank Passbook of defendant No.1 relating to State Bank of India, marked as per Ex.D9. He got produced his Salary Certificate alongwith Salary Revision, marked as per Ex.D10. He got produced his Bank Statement marked as per Ex.D11. He got produced the certified copies of Index, Chargesheet, copy of FIR along with witness statements of C.C.No. 20453/2018 which comprises of 133 sheets to prove that the police authorities, after investigating against the plaintif herein, filed the charge sheet against the plaintif and others, which is registered in C.C.No.20453/2018, marked as per Ex.D12.
21. Even though learned counsel for plaintif extensively cross-examined the D.W.1 by denying his testimony and also by suggesting that he, along with his mother, by agreeing to sell the suit property for total sale consideration amount of Rs.3,36,00,000/-, executed the sale agreement as per Ex.P13 in favour of this plaintif, by making their signatures to the document as per Ex.P13(a) to P13(x) and all these signatures are relating to these defendants, which has been categorically denied by D.W.1. Nothing fruitful has been elicited from the mouth of D.W.1 either to prove the execution of 43 O.S.No. 9376/2014 Ex.P13 document or to prove that the signatures found on Ex.P13 marked as per Ex.P13(a) to P13(x) are relating to these defendants and they, after receipt of advance sale consideration of Rs.10-lakhs, out of which, a sum of Rs.8-lakhs by way of cash and Rs.2-lakhs by way of cheque, executed Ex.P13 document. D.W.1, during his cross-examination denied the entire suggestion made to him and denie dthe suggestion that they are liable to execute the sale deed as per the terms of sale agreement dated 6-9-2014 after receiving balance sale consideration amount of Rs.3,26,00,000/- from the plaintif.
22. As I have discussed supra, in order to prove the execution of Ex.P13 document, the plaintif has not chosen to produce any iota of documents before this Court. The oral and documentary evidence adduced before this Court by the plaintif does not prove the execution of Ex.P13 document and likewise, it does not prove that under the document dated 6-9-2014 the defendants have received an earnest amount of Rs.10-lakhs by way of cash and cheque and they agreed to execute the sale deed within 90 days from the date of execution of Ex.P13 document. Exs.P10 to P12 documents 44 O.S.No. 9376/2014 does not prove that the plaintif was capable to purchase the suit property by paying the sale consideration amount of Rs.3,36,00,000/- and he was financially capable to pay such a huge sale consideration amount to the defendants.
P.W.1, except adducing oral evidence that since from the date of execution of sale deed, he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract and he is ready with the balance sale consideration amount, has not chosen to prove the same by adducing evidence before this Court. When the plaintif has failed to prove the execution of sale agreement itself by these defendants for the sale consideration amount of Rs.3,36,00,000/-, the evidence of P.W.1 that he is ready and willing to perform his part of contract as per the terms of Ex.P13, cannot be believable and acceptable and it holds no merit.
P.W.1, except adducing oral evidence that under Ex.P3 the defendants put him in possession of the suit property and since from 6-9-2014 he is in lawful possession of the suit property, in order to corroborate his testimony, has not chosen to adduce any piece of evidence before this Court. Even the recitals of Ex.P13 does not corroborate the 45 O.S.No. 9376/2014 testimony of P.W.1 that under the sale agreement, the defendants have put the plaintif herein in lawful possession of the suit property. As per the recitals of Ex.P13, the vendors have agreed to deliver vacant possession of the suit property at the time of execution of sale deed, after receipt of entire sale consideration amount. Except the oral evidence of P.W.1, there is nothing on record to believe the testimony of P.W.1 that the plaintif was put in possession of suit property under Ex.P13 and since from the said date he is in possession of the suit property. In Ex.P13, there is a clear recital that the vacant possession of schedule property, together with all the original title deeds and documents of the schedule property shall be delivered by the vendors to the purchasers herein at the time of execution and registration of absolute sale deed. In such being the case, without there being any proof, the testimony of P.W.1 that he is in possession of the suit property, cannot be acceptable and it holds no merit. Moreover, P.W.1 in his cross-examination clearly and categorically admitted that he is not in possession of the suit property. In his cross-examination P.W.1 stated that he has not claimed in this plaint that he is in possession of the suit property. P.W.1 stated tt;he 46 O.S.No. 9376/2014 has prayed for Injunction against the defendants from alienating the suit property, in the plaint, which is contrary to the plaint averments as well as the affidavit evidence of P.W.1. These facts and evidence clearly proves that the plaintif is not in possession of the suit property. In such being the case, the evidence of P.W.1 that the defendants are causing unlawful interference to his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property, cannot be believable and acceptable.
23. The written arguments filed by the learned counsel for plaintif that the plaintif, by adducing oral and documentary evidence before this Court proved the execution of sale agreement dated 6-9-2014 and likewise, proved the passing of advance sale consideration amount under Ex.P13 and by considering all the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties before this Court, the suit of the plaintif has to be decreed as prayed in the plaint, is not convinced this Court and it cannot be acceptable. Likewise, his arguments that C.W.1, colluding with these defendants under influence with the instigation of Basavanagudi Police, issued her report as per Ex.D2 and as such, no much importance has to be given to Ex.D2, is also 47 O.S.No. 9376/2014 not convinced this Court. As I have discussed supra, even after this Court has compared the admitted signatures of the defendants found on the records along with the disputed Ex.P13, one can easily identify and state that these 2 signatures are not of the same person. In such being the case, the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the plaintif cannot be acceptable and it holds no merit.
However, the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the defendants that the plaintif has failed to prove the execution of Ex.P13 by these defendants and failed to prove the passing of advance sale consideration amount under Ex.P13 and in such being the case, the plaintif is not entitled for any relief sought in the plaint, is fully convinced this Court. Hence, by taking into consideration of facts and evidence, I have answered Issues No.2 and 3 and Additional Issues No.1 and 2 in the Negative.
24. Issue No.4 : The plaintif has failed to prove that the defendants being the absolute owners of the suit property, by agreeing to sell the suit property for the total sale consideration amount of Rs.3,36,00,000/-, executed the sale agreement on 6-9-2014 and under the sale 48 O.S.No. 9376/2014 agreement, they have received advance sale consideration amount of Rs.10-lakhs, both through cash and cheque and they have undertaken to execute the sale deed within 90 days from the date of execution of sale deed.
Likewise, the plaintif, while answering Issues No.2 and 3 and Additional Issues No.1 and 2, failed to prove that the defendants have executed the sale agreement on 6-9-2014 by agreeing to sell the suit property in his favour and failed to prove that since from the date of execution of sale agreement he is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, as per the terms of the sale agreement and he is ready with the balance sale consideration amount to get the sale deed registered.
Likewise, the plaintif has failed to prove that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit property since from the date of execution of sale agreement and these defendants are causing unlawful interference to his possession and enjoyment over the suit property. This Court has already answered Issues No.2 and 3 and Additional Issues No.1 and 2 against the plaintif, in the Negative, in such being the case, the plaintif is not 49 O.S.No. 9376/2014 entitled for any relief sought in the Plaint. Hence, I have answered Issue No.4 in the Negative.
25. Issue No. 5 : For the aforesaid reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER The Suit of the Plaintif is hereby dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only), to the defendants.
Draw Decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcription computerized, then corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 5th day of October, 2021.) (ISHRATH JAHAN ARA) III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.50
O.S.No. 9376/2014 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Plaintif :
P.W.1 - Mr.Suraj M.V. @ Suraj Vishwanath Gowda List of witnesses examined for the Defendants:
D.W.1 - Akshay Dev List of documents exhibited for the Plaintif :
Exs.P1 & P2 - BBMP Khatha Certificate and Khatha Extract Exs.P3 & P4 - Encumbrance Certificates Exs.P5 & P6 - Certified Copies of Sale Deeds dated 29-11-1973 and 4-2-1960 Exs.P5(a) & P6(a) - Typed copies Ex.P7 - Office copy of Legal Notice Ex.P9 Certified copy of sale deed dated 13-4-1977 Ex.P9(a)- Typed copy Exs.P10 to P12 - PW1's Vijaya Bank, ICICI Bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank Accounts extracts Ex.P13 - Original Agreement of Sale dated 6-9-2014 Exs.P13(a) to P13(x) -signatures of both defendants on each page of Ex.P13 Ex.P13(y) - Plaintif's signature Ex.P13(z) - Signature of witness Nandish 51 O.S.No. 9376/2014 List of documents exhibited for the Defendants:
Ex.D1 - Photocopy of SMS Ex.D2 - Copy of FSL Report Ex.D3 to D5 - Letters of defendant No.1 dated 19-9-2014 and 22-9-2014 and postal receipt Ex.D6 - Track result of the postal department Ex.D7 - Bill of BSNL Ex.D8 - Certified copy of order in RFA No.867/19 dated 9-10-2019 Ex.D9 - Passbook of defendant No.1 of SBI Ex.D10 - DW1's Salary certificate alongwith Salary Revision Ex.D11 - DW1's Bank Statement Ex.D12 - Certified copies of Index, Chargesheet, FIR, complaint and all documents and statements of witnesses in C.C. No.20453/2018 comprising of 133 sheets excluding index, together Witness :
C.W.1 - Shamima Banu K.Patil (Senior Scientific Officer, Questioned Document Section, Forensic Science Laboratory, Bengaluru) Ex.D2(a) - certified copy of Ex.D2.
(ISHRATH JAHAN ARA) III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.