Bangalore District Court
Sri.Chandrashekar Y. Patil vs Sri.C.S.Krishnamurthy on 30 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. SMALL CAUSES
JUDGE & 24th ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE
Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore
(SCCH-20)
Dated this the 30th day of December, 2015
Present: Smt.K.BHAGYA,
B.Com., LL.B.
V Addl. Small Causes Judge & XXIV
A.C.M.M., Bangalore.
C.C.No.27238/2011
Judgment U/s 355 of Cr.P.C
Complainant : Sri.Chandrashekar Y. Patil,
S/o late Dr.Y.V.Patil,
"Sri Vinayaka", No.90,
2nd Main, HAL 3rd Stage,
New Thippasandra,
Bangalore - 75.
(By Pleader Sri.D.Prabhakar)
V/s
(SCH-20) 2 CC 27238/11
Accused : Sri.C.S.Krishnamurthy,
S/o Sri.C.G.Sheshachalam,
No.3367/1, 13th Main Road,
HAL 2nd Stage,
Indiranagar,
Bangalore - 38.
(By Pleaders Sri.C.Vijaya Kumar and
Sri.K.C.Sreenivasa)
The offence complained
of or proved : U/s 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
Plea of accused &
his examination : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acting U/sec. 255(1) of
Cr.P.C. accused is acquitted
Date of such order : 30-12-2015
* * * * *
J U D G M E N T
The complainant by name Sri.Chandrashekar Y. Patil, has filed this complaint against the accused by name Sri.C.S.Krishnamurthy, for the offence punishable U/Sec 138 of N.I. Act.
(SCH-20) 3 CC 27238/11
02. It is the case of the complainant that:-
The complainant is businessmen by profession and Chairman and Managing Director of M/s Bilwa Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., and also Managing Partner of M/s Bilwa Enterprises, Bangalore and doing Real Estate business, by developing, built, bought and by selling the properties. The accused has introduced himself as one of the Real Estate Agent and developed intimacy with the complainant and also has got inspected certain properties. The complainant believed the accused due to the aforesaid intimacy and reposed faith with the accused. The accused came to know that, the complainant has sold one property for Rs.1,00,00,000-00 (Rupees One Crore only) and the same was with the complainant and he approached the complainant and has assured negotiating a property in Indiranagar and induced the complainant to part a sum of Rs.30,00,000-00 and promised that the property upon entering into agreement of sale would fetch Rs.50,00,000-00 within short period of six months. The complainant believed the accused in (SCH-20) 4 CC 27238/11 good faith and paid a sum of Rs.26,33,000-00 to the accused on various dates from 05-06-2007 to 08-08-2007 by cash and cheque. Thereafter, the accused has informed him that, due to technical reasons he could not procure the land as promised and agreed to repay the said amount along with interest at 18% p.a. The complainant instead of keeping the money idle, he has agreed to the said proposal to treat the said amount as loan and he will get good returns on the same given to the accused. In this regard the accused has executed a letter of undertaking on 09-09-2009 in favour of complainant by admitting the said facts and issued two cheques bearing No.187395 dt:08-10-2010 for Rs.26,33,000-00 drawn on State Bank of Mysore, Indiranagar Branch, Bangalore, towards the principal amount and another cheque bearing No.957792 dt:11-10-2010 for Rs.14,21,820-00 drawn on Indian Bank, M.G. Road Branch, Bangalore, towards the interest, in favour of the complainant by assuring that, the said cheques will be honoured on its presentation. When the complainant (SCH-20) 5 CC 27238/11 presented the said cheques for encashment through his banker i.e., Corporation Bank, HAL 2nd Stage Branch and the same were dishonoured & the same was intimated to the accused, the accused has requested the complainant for re-present the same on 05-12-2010 and as per instructions of the accused, the complainant again re-presented the said cheques on 05-12-2010, but again the said cheques got dishonoured for the reason as "Insufficient Funds" on 06-12-2010. Thereafter, on 04-01-2011 the complainant got issued a legal notice through RPAD, COP and Courier, calling upon the accused to pay the cheques amount. The accused has received the said notice sent under Courier and COP and refused the receive the notice sent through RPAD and it was returned unserved. Inspite of receipt of the notice, the accused has failed to pay the cheques amount, but he gave untenable reply on 17-01-2011. So, the complainant is before this Court with this complaint against the accused.
03. After the registration of the complaint, summons and NBW have been issued to the accused. (SCH-20) 6 CC 27238/11 After the issuance of NBW, the accused has appeared before the Court through his counsel and enlarged on bail. Thereafterwards, this Court has recorded the plea of the accused. As the accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the case was posted for complainant's evidence.
04. The advocate for accused has relied upon the following decisions:-
01. AIR 2008 SC 1325 (Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G. Hegde)
02. ILR 2008 KAR 4629 (Shiva Murthy Vs Amruthraj)
03. ILR 2008 KAR 3635 (K.Narayana Nayak Vs Sri M.Shivarama Shetty)
04. 2012(4) KCCR 3593 (T.T.Naveen Kumar Vs B.Somegowda)
05. 2010(1) AIR KAR R 304 (Venkatesh Bhat.A Vs Rohidas Shenoy)
06. 2009(2) AIR KAR R 186 (A.Viswanatha Pai Vs Vivekananda S. Bhat)
07. 2012(2) DCR 741 (Baiju G. Nath, Laiju Nivas Vs Girija Krishnakumar)
08. 2008 AIR SCW 738 (Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs Dattatraya G. Hegde)
09. (2013) 1 SCC 327 (Reverend Mother Marykutty Vs Reni C. Kottaram and another)
10. 2015 AIR SCW 64 (K.Subramani Vs K.Damodara Naidu) (SCH-20) 7 CC 27238/11
11. I (2010) BC 158 (Matheson Bonsanquet Vs K.V.Manjunatha)
12. 2012 CRI.LJ 1463 (M.B.Rajesekhar Vs Savithramma)
05. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself got examined as P.W.1 and two witnesses got examined as P.W.2 & P.W.3 and 17 documents got marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 and Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9 on behalf of the accused through P.W.1. He was fully cross-examined by the advocate for the accused. Then this Court has recorded the accused statement U/sec 313 of Cr.PC. As the accused submitted that, he would adduce his defence evidence, then the case was posted for defence evidence. Inspite of sufficient opportunity, the accused did not adduce his defence evidence. But as already mentioned above, Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.9 got marked on behalf of the accused through P.W.1. Then the case was posted for arguments.
06. Then this Court has heard the arguments of both side. The written arguments filed by the counsel for the accused is taken into consideration. Now the case is for pronouncement of Judgment. (SCH-20) 8 CC 27238/11
07. Now the points that arise for my consideration are as follows:
1. Whether the complainant proved that, the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act?
2. What Order?
08. My answers to above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the negative
Point No.2 : As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
09. Point No.1:- As already observed above, the complainant by name Sri.Chandrashekar Y. Patil, has filed this complaint against the accused by name Sri.C.S.Krishnamurthy, for the offence punishable U/Sec 138 of N.I. Act.
10. It is the case of the complainant that, he is a businessmen by profession and Chairman and Managing Director of M/s Bilwa Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., and also Managing Partner of (SCH-20) 9 CC 27238/11 M/s Bilwa Enterprises, Bangalore. The accused is a Real Estate Agent as per the complainant. There was intimacy between the complainant and accused as both were dealing with real estate business.
11. It is further case of the complainant that, he has sold one property for Rs.1,00,00,000-00 (Rupees One Crore only) and he had that amount with him. The accused knew about that fact. So, he approached the complainant for negotiating a property in Indiranagar and induced the complainant to part a sum of Rs.30,00,000-00 and promised that, he would fetch Rs.50,00,000-00 after entering into sale agreement within six months. So, by believing the words of accused, he paid Rs.26,33,000-00 to the accused on various dates from 05-06-2007 to 08-08-2007 by cash and cheque. But thereafterwards, due to technical reasons the accused could not procure the land as promised by him and agreed to repay the said amount along with interest at 18% p.a. In that regard, the accused also executed a letter of undertaking on 09-09-2009. He has issued two (SCH-20) 10 CC 27238/11 cheques towards the said amount. One cheque is dt:08-10-2010 for a sum of Rs.26,33,000-00, towards the principal amount and another cheque is dt:11-10-2010 for Rs.14,21,820-00 towards the interest. But when the complainant presented the cheques for encashment, they were dishonoured on 06-12-2010 as "Insufficient Funds". Then he got issued a legal notice to the accused, calling upon him to pay the cheques amount. Inspite of receipt of the notice, the accused has failed to pay the cheques amount, but he gave untenable reply. Hence, the complainant is before this Court with this complaint.
12. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself got examined as P.W.1. He has filed his affidavit in lieu of his chief examination, in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint itself. Further, he has produced as many as 17 documents. They are, Ex.P.1 is the Letter of undertaking given by the accused, Ex.P.1(a) is the Signature of P.W.2, Ex.P.1(b) is the Handwriting of P.W.2, Ex.P.1(c) is (SCH-20) 11 CC 27238/11 the Signature of P.W.3, Ex.P.2 is the original cheque for Rs.26,33,000-00 alleged to be issued by the accused in favour of the complainant, the signature identified by P.W.1 as that of the accused is got marked as Ex.P.2(a), Ex.P.3 is the Bank endorsement given by the State Bank of Mysore as "Insufficient Funds", Ex.P.4 is the original cheque for Rs.14,21,820-00 alleged to be issued by the accused in favour of the complainant, the signature identified by P.W.1 as that of the accused is got marked as Ex.P.4(a), Ex.P.5 is the Bank endorsement given by the Indian Bank as "Insufficient Funds", Ex.P.6 is the Office copy of the Legal notice issued by the advocate of the complainant to the accused dt:04-01-2011 calling upon him to pay the cheques amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice, Ex.P.7 is the Reply dt:17-01-2011 issued by the advocate of the accused to the advocate of the complainant, Ex.P.8 is the Courier receipt, Ex.P.9 is the UCP receipt, Ex.P.10 is the RPAD receipt, Ex.P.11 & Ex.P.12 are the returned RPAD covers, Ex.P.13 is the HDFC Bank statement (SCH-20) 12 CC 27238/11 of account for the period from 07-05-2005 to 14-05-2007, Ex.P.14 is the Indian Overseas Bank statement of account for the period from 01-07-2007 to 31-03-2009, Ex.P.15 to Ex.P.17 are the copy of Absolute Sale Deeds dt:17-03-2007. These are all the documents on which the complainant has relied upon.
13. Here, the defence of the accused is that, he had issued cheques to the hands of one Gangaraju in connection with land dealing for Chikkaballapura property and the same dealing was settled in the presence of Indiranagar Police Inspector Sri.Kishore Barni, Dr.Suresh Babu and advocate Sri.P.C.Chinnappa Reddy and Mr.C.K.Vinay and Sri.Guna of Indiranagar. Mr.Gangaraju, Mr.V.Shankar and Chandrashekar Y. Patil are friends. He has filed a cheque bounce case against this complainant in PCR No.66193/2009, which is pending before the 14th ACCM, Mayo Hall Court, after receival of summons from the said Court, by taking the advantage of the friendship of Gangaraju, Suresh Babu, have misused the cheque (SCH-20) 13 CC 27238/11 given by him to one Mr.Gangaraju, by forging his signature and filed the present false case against him. It is further defence of the accused that, he has not at all received any amount from the complainant as a loan and he has not at all issued the present cheques in favour of the complainant. It is also further defence of the accused that, Sec.138 attracts only when there is a existence of legally enforceable debt. But, here the complaint itself clearly reveal that, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.26,33,000-00 to the accused on various dates to purchase a property at Indiranagar. So, as per the complaint itself, the cheques was not issued towards any legally enforceable debt. So, Sec.138 does not attracts to the present complaint on hand. So, this complaint itself is not at all maintainable, hence prayed to dismiss the complaint. This is the defence of the accused.
14. Ofcourse, the complainant has produced one Letter of undertaking, which is marked at Ex.P.1. As per this Ex.P.1, this letter of undertaking is executed by the accused in the presence of two (SCH-20) 14 CC 27238/11 witnesses. In this Ex.P.1, it is clearly stated as, "This letter of undertaking is made on this Ninth day of September 2009 by Sri.C.S.Krishnamurthy S/o Sri.C.G.Sheshachalam, aged about 72 years and residing at No.3367/1, 13th Main Road, HAL II Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore - 560 038, to the effect that I shall refund the total amount which I received from Sri.Chandrasekhar Y. Patil S/o Late Dr.Y.V.Patil, aged about 64 years and residing at "Sri Vinayaka", No.90, 2nd Main Road, HAL III Stage, New Thippasandra, Bangalore - 560 075, in the year 2007 towards my promise to procure land in Thippasandra.
Due to technical reasons, I have failed to procure the land & therefore I promise to refund/repay the amount of Rs.26,33,000-00 (Rupees Twenty Six Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand) only, along with simple interest of 18% per annum in the form of cheque".
The above contents itself reveal that, this accused has received the amount from the complainant to procure a land in Thippasandra. Thereafterwards, (SCH-20) 15 CC 27238/11 due to technical reasons, he has failed to procure the land, hence he has issued two cheques towards the principal amount of Rs.26,33,000-00 and another cheque for Rs.14,21,820-00 towards the interest. Actually, this letter of undertaking is signed by two witnesses. One is Mr.Govindaraju and another one is Santosh. The said Govindaraju got examined as P.W.2. He has identified his handwriting on Ex.P.1, which is marked as Ex.P.1(b). He has deposed that, he do not know the contents of Ex.P.1 and the complainant and accused were not present, at the time of signing on the said Ex.P.1, and he was under the influence of alcohol. In the cross-examination he has deposed that, he came to the Court as per the instructions of accused- Krishna Murthy.
15. Another witness by name Santosh also got examined as P.W.3. He has also identified his signature on Ex.P.1, which is marked as Ex.P.1(c). Ofcourse, he has deposed that, at the time of signing on the Ex.P.1, the accused handed over two cheques to the complainant, one is drawn on Indian (SCH-20) 16 CC 27238/11 Bank and another one is drawn on State Bank of Mysore. He has identified those cheques which are before the Court. In the cross-examination he has very clearly deposed as, "DgÉÆæ w¥À¸ à ÀAzÀæzÀ°è ¸ÉÊmï £ÀA 89£ÀÄß ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ PÉÆr¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉý ºÀt ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÝgÀÄ. DzÀgÉ CªÀgÀÄ ºÉýzÀAvÉ ¸ÉÊmï£ÀÄß ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ PÉÆqÀ°®è. DUÀ DgÉÆæ ¥ÉÇøïÖ qÉÃmÉAqï ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ PÉÆlÖgÀÄ. D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¤¦ 1£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ªÀiÁr¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ". So, this witness also deposed that, the accused has received the amount from the complainant to procure a land to the complainant.
16. At this juncture, I would like to mention that, the learned counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that, this complaint itself is not at all maintainable. Because, first of all, the accused has not at all issued these cheques in favour of the complainant. Even in case, agree with the argument of the complainant, the accused has not at all issued these cheques towards repayment of any legally enforceable debt. Because the complainant in the complaint itself clearly stated that, he has paid the amount in order to get a land and when the accused (SCH-20) 17 CC 27238/11 failed to procure a land due to technical reasons, he had agreed to repay the said amount with interest and hence issued these two cheques. By arguing like this, the learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the decision reported in ILR 2008 KAR 4629 (Shiva Murthy Vs Amruthraj), in which it is held as:-
"Before considering the conduct of the accused to find out as to whether or not he has been able to rebut the Statutory Presumption available U/Sec 139, the Courts ought to have considered as to whether the complainant has proved the existence of legally enforceable debt. It is only after satisfying that the complainant has proved existence of legally enforceable debt or liability, the Courts could have proceeded to draw presumption U/Sec 139 of the N.I. Act and thereafter find out as to whether or not the accused has rebutted the said presumption. - Judgment of conviction and sentence are liable to be set-aside - Accused is acquitted".
Now, it is settled principle that, the presumption U/Sec 139 of N.I. Act is a rebuttable presumption. Moreover, first of all, the complainant has to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt. (SCH-20) 18 CC 27238/11
17. In the same way, the learned counsel for the accused has relied upon the another decision reported in ILR 2008 KAR 3635 (K.Narayana Nayak Vs Sri M.Shivarama Shetty), in which it is held as:-
"That the cheque issued by the respondent to the appellant is only as a security and not for discharge of any existing debt. So far as the presumption as to issuance of the cheque for consideration and in discharge of debt, the respondent/accused need not disprove the appellant's case in its entirety. He can discharge his burden on the basis of preponderance or probabilities through direct or circumstantial evidence, for which he can also rely on the evidence adduced by the complainant - Evidence on record clearly establishes that the cheque was not issued towards discharge of any legally enforceable debt, but the blank signed cheque was issued as security - Order of acquittal is Justified".
In the same way, he has relied upon the another decision reported in 2012(4) KCCR 3593 (T.T.Naveen Kumar Vs B.Somegowda), in which it is held as:-
"N.I. Act, 1881, S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Concept of legally enforceable (SCH-20) 19 CC 27238/11 debt - The buyer of the property had issued cheque for the seller - The seller did not keep up his word in selling the property
- The seller presented the cheque for realization - The cheque was dishonoured - Could the issue of cheque be considered as to discharge the debt - No, it is a transaction of a civil nature. The acquittal of the accused is in accordance with law".
Actually, the above cited decisions are applicable to the present case on hand. Here also, in this case, the complainant paid the amount to the accused as the accused promised that, he will get a land to him. Thereafterwards, the accused has failed. So, he had issued these two cheques. In this regard it is necessary to go through the deposition of the P.W.1. He has deposed in his cross-examination on 27-12-2013 as, "¸ÉÊmï £ÀA§gï 89£ÀÄß PÉÆr¸ÀÄvÉÃÛ £ÉAzÀÄ DgÉÆæ ºÉýzÀÝjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÁ£ÀÄ D ¸ÀéwÛ£À DVæªÉÄAmï ºÉÆîØgï JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀj Ý AzÀ £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆæUÉ PÉÆnÖzÉÝ".
Thus, the complainant himself has admitted that, towards the purchase of property, he has paid the amount to the accused by believing the words of the accused. Then as per the decisions cited above, (SCH-20) 20 CC 27238/11 the present transaction is of a civil in nature. In the same way, the learned counsel for the accused also relied upon another decision reported in 2010(1) AIR KAR 304 (Venkatesh Bhat.A Vs Rohidas Shenoy), in which it is held as:-
"(A) N.I. Act (26 of 1881), S.138 -
Dishonour of cheque - Legally enforceable liability or other liability - Agreement of sale of two shops between accused and complainant - Accused paid part of consideration amount and issued post dated cheque towards balance consideration amount which was dishonoured - Complainant was in possession and enjoyment of shops and did not deliver to accused any of shops even after receiving part of consideration amount - Complainant would be entitled to receive balance consideration amount only on execution and registration of sale deed in favour of accused - Payment of balance consideration amount was other liability and not legally enforceable debt".
"(B) N.I. Act, (26 of 1881), S.138 -
Dishonour of cheque - Acquittal of accused
- Validity - Cheque was issued by accused to complainant under an agreement between them - If there was any violation of terms of agreement by accused, remedy open to complainant to take appropriate steps (SCH-20) 21 CC 27238/11 before Civil Court and not criminal Courts - Acquittal proper".
Thus, here also in this case the complaint as well as the deposition of the complainant clearly reveal that, the accused has not received any debt. In the same way he has not issued the cheques towards repayment of any legally enforceable debt. The transaction took place in between the complainant and accused is of civil nature in view of the above cited decisions. Hence, definitely, this complaint do not attracts Sec. 138 of N.I. Act.
18. Ofcourse, the complainant is a businessmen and also Managing Director of one private company and also Managing Partner of another enterprises. He has admitted that, he is a developer. In order to prove the facts that, he had sufficient money on his hand, he has produced as many as three Sale Deeds, which are marked at Ex.P.15 to Ex.P.17. These three Sale Deeds are dated 17-03-2007. As a General Power of Attorney holder, he has sold out the property through these Sale Deeds in favour of one Mr.Babu Ram Aggarwal, Mr.Pramod Kumar Aggarwal (SCH-20) 22 CC 27238/11 and Smt.B.N.Geetha Gowda. Ofcourse, these Sale Deeds clearly reveal that, he has received sale consideration amount from those purchasers. There is no doubt that, he had sufficient money to pay the same to the accused as stated in the complaint in between 05-06-2007 to 08-08-2007. But as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the accused, definitely he has not paid the said amount as a loan i.e., legally enforceable debt to the accused. He has paid those amounts to obtained a land. Ofcourse, all the relevant documents have been produced by the complainant before this Court. But as per the citations cited by the learned counsel for the accused, this transaction do not attract Sec.138 of N.I. Act, as the complainant has failed to prove the aspect of 'Legally enforceable debt". When the complainant has failed to prove the same, definitely other aspects would not coming to consideration for discussion also.
19. Ofcourse, some documents got marked on behalf of the accused through the complainant. They are regarding the conviction against this (SCH-20) 23 CC 27238/11 complainant by the Court in a cheque bounce case and other property details. The accused might have got marked those documents to prove the conduct of the complainant. But when the aspect of "Legally enforceable debt", has not been proved by the complainant, the discussion regarding the conduct of the complainant is also unnecessary.
20. Thus, by going through all the materials on record, it can be held without any hesitation that, the complainant has failed to prove that, the accused has committed an offence punishable U/sec 138 of N.I. Act. Hence, I answered point No.1 in the negative.
21. Point No.2:- In view of my findings on Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.(SCH-20) 24 CC 27238/11
The accused is acquitted U/Sec 255(1) of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable U/Sec 138 of N.I. Act.
The bail bonds of accused hereby stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this day of 30th December, 2015) (K.BHAGYA) V ASCJ & XXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.
Annexures Witnesses examined for Complainant:
P.W.1 Chandrashekar Y. Patil Documents marked for Complainant:
Ex.P.1 Letter of undertaking given by the accused Ex.P.1(a) Signature of P.W.2 (SCH-20) 25 CC 27238/11 Ex.P.1(b) Handwriting of P.W.2 Ex.P.1(c) Signature of P.W.3 Ex.P.2 original cheque for Rs.26,33,000-00 Ex.P.2(a) Signature of the accused Ex.P.3 Bank endorsement Ex.P.4 original cheque for Rs.14,21,820-00 Ex.P.4(a) Signature of the accused Ex.P.5 Bank endorsement Ex.P.6 Office copy of the Legal notice Ex.P.7 Reply dt:17-01-2011 Ex.P.8 Courier receipt Ex.P.9 UCP receipt Ex.P.10 RPAD receipt Ex.P.11 & Ex.P.12 returned RPAD covers Ex.P.13 HDFC Bank statement of account Ex.P.14 Indian Overseas Bank statement Ex.P.15 to Ex.P.17 copy of Absolute Sale Deeds dt:17-03-2007.
Witnesses examined for defence:
-Nil-
Documents marked for defence:
Ex.D.1 Copy of Paper publication regarding site No.89 Ex.D.2 Copy of Legal opinion regarding title derivation certificate cum search report dt:02-12-2001 Ex.D.3 Copy of Deed of Simple Mortgage (SCH-20) 26 CC 27238/11 Ex.D.4 Copy of Discharge of Mortgage Ex.D.5 Copy of Agreement of Sale Ex.D.6 Copy of Plaint in O.S. No.5287/2007 Ex.D.7 Copy of Judgment in CC No.30837/2008 Ex.D.8 original Cheque for Rs.7,50,000-00 Ex.D.8(a) Signature of the complainant Ex.D.9 Bank endorsement (K.BHAGYA) V ASCJ & XXIV ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.