Smt. A. Kempamma D/O Late. Arasaiah vs ) L. Rajesh S/O Lokanatha Reddy on 30 April, 2015

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bangalore District Court

Smt. A. Kempamma D/O Late. Arasaiah vs ) L. Rajesh S/O Lokanatha Reddy on 30 April, 2015

IN THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
JUDGE BANGALORE CITY

Dated this the 30th day of April, 2014.

Present: Sri. R.B. Garasangi, B.A. LL.B [Spl],
XXXIX Additional City Civil & Session Judge,
Bangalore City.

O.S.NO.4230/2006 & 4147/2006

In O.S.No.4230/2006:
Plaintiff/s: Smt. A. Kempamma d/o late. Arasaiah, 40
years, residing at no.2, PID No.67-30-2,
Gramadevatha street, Bangalore

(By Sri.C.M., Advocate)
Vs.
Defendant/s: 1) L. Rajesh s/o Lokanatha Reddy, 26
years,
2) L. Satish s/o Lokanatha Reddy, 24
years,
Both are residing behind
Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Adugodi,
Bangalore.
( By Sri.PVSR, Advocate)
: 16.05.2006
Date of Institution of the suit
Suit for Permanent Injunction &
Nature of suit : mandatory injunction

Date of commencement of
: 12.03.2010
evidence
Date on which the judgment is
: 30.04.2015
pronounced
Years Months Days
Duration taken for disposal : 08 11 14
2 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

In O.S.No.4147/2006:
Plaintiff/s: 1) L. Rajesh s/o Lokanatha Reddy, 26
years,
2) L. Satish s/o Lokanatha Reddy, 24
years,
Both are residing behind Anjaneyaswamy
Temple, Adugodi, Bangalore.

( By Sri.PVSR, Advocate)

Vs.
Defendant/s: Smt. A. Kempamma d/o late. Arasaiah, 40
years, residing at no.2, PID No.67-30-2,
Gramadevatha street, Bangalore

(By Sri. SKR, Advocate)
: 06.05.2006
Date of Institution of the suit
Suit for permanent injunction
Nature of suit :
Date of commencement of
: 06.07.2013
evidence
Date on which the judgment is
: 30.04.2015
pronounced
Years Months Days
Duration taken for disposal : 08 11 24

-- -- --

COMMON-JUDGMENT

Both two suits are clubbed together as per the order

dated 10.09.2009. So, the evidence is recorded in
3 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

O.S.No.4230/2006 which is comprehensive in nature.

More over both suits are between same parties in respect

of same property. So, both suits are clubbed as per the

above order. The plaintiffs are referred as per the ranks in

O.S.No.4230/2006 herein after.

.2. In O.S.No.4230/2006, the plaintiff has filed this

suit for the relief of permanent Injunction as well as

mandatory injunction in respect of suit schedule properties,

which are described in the schedule as well as well as in

the 'B' schedule property and requested for decreeing the

same.

.3. The brief averments of the plaint are as

under:

The plaintiff is an absolute owner and in possession

and enjoyment of the suit schedule property bearing no.2,

P.I.D. No.67-30-2, measuring East to West 48 feet and

North to South 29 feet, with sheet roofed building and

vacant place, situated at Gramadevatha street, Bangalore

City Corporation ward no.67, Adugodi, Bangalore which is
4 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

more fully described in the schedule hereunder and herein

onwards referred to as the schedule property.

.4. Further, the plaintiff had purchased the schedule

property under the sale deed dated 30.09.1990 registered

as document no.1651/1990-91 from its owner A.N. Raju.

Pursuant to her purchase, the Bangalore City Corporation

has also assessed the schedule property in her name. All

the revenue documents are standing in her name. The

plaintiff has also raised the loan from Janapragathi Credit

Co-operative Society Ltd., by pledging the original

documents and records. The said bank has also issued

acknowledgement to that effect and also attested Xerox

copies of the documents and records. Such being the

case, one Lokanatha Reddy the father of the defendants

made an attempt on 06.04.2008 along with 6 -7 rowdy

elements to put up construction on the vacant place

towards northern side on the suit schedule property and at

which the plaintiff stopped their illegal acts with the help of

neighbours and relatives.
5 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

.5. However, the defendants have given threat to

her and then the plaintiff went to Adugodi police station

and filed complaint. But the police have advised her to go

for Civil Court as the matter is civil in nature. Hence, the

plaintiff filed the present suit against Lokanatha Reddy the

father of the defendants on the file of Addl. City Civil

Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore in O.S.No.15660/2006 and

the said Hon'ble court granted exparte interim order dated

15.04.2006, directing both parties to maintain status quo

over the suit schedule property and the same has been

extended, in which the said Lokanatha Reddy had entered

appearance and the case is now posted to 09.06.2006 for

filing of written statement and objections by the defendant

therein.

.6. The defendants herein are very much aware of

the said case and the order passed by the court and in

spite of the orders the said Lokanatha Reddy and the

defendants along with large number of workers,

supporters, henchmen came near the suit schedule
6 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

property and proceeded to put up construction towards

northern side of the suit schedule property on 11.05.2006,

at which the plaintiff approached the jurisdictional police for

protection and to take action against the said Lokanatha

Reddy and the defendants. Even there is existence of

order passed by Mayo Hall in O.S.No.15660/2006, the

defendants started construction and the defendants and

the said Lokanatha Reddy are continued to put up

construction consisting of ground floor and roof less first

floor by encroaching upon the vacant place in the schedule

property towards its northern side to an extent of East to

West 48 feet and North to South 2 feet. The said

construction is made in the day and over nights.

.7. The defendants and their father Lokanatha

Reddy are in joint family and the Lokanatha Reddy being

father, senior member is acting as Manager and Kartha.

Even after granting of injunction in O.S.No.15660/2006,

they carried construction. So, the plaintiff has filed the
7 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

present suit on the basis of cause of action arose on

11.05.2006 and on subsequent dates and requested to

decree the suit.

.8. In response to the court process, the defendants 1

and 2 have appeared and filed written statement, contending

that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on

facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine as the

plaintiff is neither owner nor in possession of the suit schedule

property. Further they have contended that there is no vacant

space on the northern side of the suit schedule property. More

over, the contents of para no.4 and 5 are emphatically denied

as false and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. The

plaintiff has created concocted story to knock of the defendants'

valuable property and for the purpose of filing of the above suit.

It is submitted that these defendants have no knowledge about

the case in O.S.No.15660/2006 and they are not parties to the

said suit. The said Lokanatha Reddy and the defendants are

residing separately.
8 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

.9. Further, they have submitted that the plaintiff

knowing fully well that these defendants have filed a suit

against the plaintiff in O.S.No.4147/2006 before this court

and the said Hon'ble court has granted temporary

injunction in their favour. Further, they have denied the

para No.8, 9 and 11. There is no cause of action for the

plaintiff to file the present suit and the suit is filed on

imaginary cause of action. Further they have contended

that the defendants have already constructed ground and

first floor in their property but not on 11.05.2006.

.10. The defendants have submitted their true

facts as under: The defendants are the absolute owners

and in possession and enjoyment of the property situated

at Corporation No.1, Adugodi village, Gramadevatha

temple street, Bangalore 30 measuring East to west 45.09

feet and North to South 25-06 + 20.0 by 2. Further they

have taken contention that the defendants' grand father

purchased the property from one Chikkapapanna under

the Registered sale deed dated 13.10.1948 and the same
9 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

was registered before Sub-registrar office is the self-

acquired property of Narayana Reddy. From the date of

purchase, the defendants' grand father Narayana Reddy

constructed the tiled roofed house and he was in

possession and enjoyment of the same as an absolute

owner of the property. Thereafter he bequeathed the Will

dated 25.01.1989 in favour of defendants. The suit 'B'

schedule property of the Will fallen to the share of

defendants.

.11. Further, after the demise of the said Narayana

Reddy on 07.07.2001 the Will came into existence. The

khata has been transferred in the names of defendants.

After demise of Narayana Reddy, the defendants have

obtained the sanctioned plan from the concerned authority

and demolished the old tiled roofed house and left setback

passage around the property and on the southern side 2

feet passage and newly constructed the ground and first

floor RCC building.
10 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

.12. Further the plaintiff is the adjacent owner to the

property of defendants and she is absolutely nothing to do

with the same. However, with an intention of causing

harassment to the defendants on 06.05.2006 the plaintiff is

trying to keep the windows to the southern side i.e.,

southern side of the defendants' property where the

defendants left the setback 2 feet passage over the

property. The plaintiff has no right to do so without left the

setback in her site she has violated the building bylaws the

defendants resisted the illegal acts of the plaintiff by filing a

suit in O.S.No.4147/2006 and the temporary injunction was

granted by this court directing the defendants not to keep

any windows on the northern side of the plaintiff's property.

.13. Further, the defendants have already

constructed the ground and first floor as per the plan since

two months back but not on 11.05.2006. Hence, the

injunction suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and

the same is liable to be dismissed. The defendants 1 and

2 have also filed additional written statement, contending
11 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

that they have not encroached any area belongs to the

plaintiff. Even they have contended that the plaintiff has no

manner of right, title and interest over the suit 'B' schedule

property. Further, they have contended that the suit 'B'

schedule property is demolished on the cost of defendants

and hence, they have requested for dismissal of the suit.

.14. O.S.No.4147/2006: This suit is filed by the

defendants of O.S.No.4230/2006 for the relief of

permanent injunction restraining the defendant, her agents,

supporters and anybody claiming through them from

keeping the windows in the southern side of the setback

area of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

.15. The brief facts of the case are that the

plaintiffs are the absolute owners and in possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property bearing old

Kanisumari no.46, new corporation no.1 situated at

Adugodi village, Gramadevatha temple street

(Muneshwara temple street, Bangalore measuring East to

West 45.09 feet and North to South 25.06 + 20.00 by 2
12 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

RCC roofed ground and first house with setback area

around the building left by the plaintiffs, which is described

in the schedule. The plaintiffs' grand father purchased the

suit schedule property from one Chikkapapanna under the

Registered sale deed dated 13,10.1948 and the same was

registered before Sub-registrar office, is the self acquired

property of Narayana Reddy. From the date of purchase

the plaintiffs' grand father Narayanareddy constructed the

tiled roofed house and he was in possession and

enjoyment of the same as on absolute owner of the suit

schedule property. Thereafter he bequeathed the Will

dated 25.01.1989 in favour of the plaintiffs. The suit 'B'

schedule property of the Will fallen to the share of the

plaintiffs. After the demise of the said Narayana Reddy on

07.07.2001 the Will came into an existence the khata has

been transferred in the names of plaintiffs. After the

demise of Narayana Reddy the plaintiffs obtained the

sanctioned plan from the concerned authority and

demolished the old tiled roofed house and left the set back
13 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

passage around the suit schedule property and newly

constructed two floor RCC building. The defendant is the

adjacent owner to the suit schedule property and she is an

absolutely nothing to do with the same.

.16. However, with the intention of causing

harassment to the plaintiffs on 06.05.2006 the defendant is

trying to keep the windows to the southern side i.e.,

southern side of the suit schedule property where the

plaintiffs left the setback 2 feet passage over the suit

schedule property. She has no right to do so without left

the setback in her site she has violated the bylaws the

plaintiffs resisted the illegal acts of the defendant. Hence,

the plaintiffs have filed the present suit on the basis of

cause of action arose on 06.05.2006 and requested for

decreeing the same.

.17. In response to the court process, the defendant

has appeared and filed detailed written statement

contending that suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable

either in law or on facts and hence, the same is liable to be
14 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

dismissed. The plaintiffs have not come to the court with

clean hands and have suppressed the material facts and

have misled this court. Further they have denied that the

plaintiffs are the absolute owners and in peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the suit property measuring

East to West 45.09 feet and North to South 25.06 + 20.00

by 2.

.18. Further, they have denied that the plaintiffs'

grand father purchased the suit schedule property from

one Chikkapapanna under the Registered sale deed dated

13.10.1948 and suit property is self acquired property of

Narayana Reddy and he has bequeathed the same in

favour of the plaintiffs under Will dated 25.01.1989.

Further she has denied that on demise of Narayana Reddy

the Will in question came into existence and the khata was

changed in the name of plaintiffs. Further she has denied

that the defendant is the adjacent owner of the suit

schedule property and she denied other allegation of the

plaint. There is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file
15 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

the present suit. The alleged cause of action is imaginary,

unintelligible and highly improbable besides false.

.19. It is pertinent to submit that the grand father of

the plaintiffs was not the owner of the property which they

claim and was not in possession of the same. The grand

father of the plaintiffs did not have any capacity and was

not in a position to execute the alleged Will, which is

fabricated, created, concocted and invalid documents.

There is no revenue records stand in the name of plaintiffs.

Under the guise of the said documents they have got

sanctioned plan and are now putting up construction by

encroaching towards northern side of the vacant place in

the property of the defendant and the sanctioned plan was

obtained only in the month of April 2006.

.20. When the father of the plaintiffs attempted to

put up construction by encroaching towards northern side

of the vacant place in property of defendant which led the

defendant to file a suit against the father of the plaintiffs in

O.S.No.15660/2006, in which an interim order was passed
16 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

which is in force. The defendant in O.S.No.15660/2006 is

none other than father of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and

their father are very much aware of the said case. Later

the plaintiffs came up with a statement that these plaintiffs

are putting up constructions and that there is no order

against them. When the plaintiffs attempted to put up

construction by encroaching towards northern side of

vacant place in property of the defendant which lead the

defendant once again file a suit in O.S.No.4230/2006

before this court. Hence, she has requested for dismissal

of the suit.

.21. In view of the above pleadings, following issues

have been framed by the Court:

In O.S.No.4230/2006:

1) Whether the plaintiff is in possession
and enjoyment of the plaint schedule
property as on the date of the suit?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that after
grant of injunction in
O.S.No.15660/2006, Lokanath Reddy,
by violating the court order had put up
construction on behalf of the defendants
in plaint 'B' schedule property?
17 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

3) Whether the plaintiff proves interference
by the defendants as alleged?

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
relief of permanent injunction as sought?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
relief of mandatory injunction as sought?
6) What order or decree?

In O.S.No.4147/2006:

1) ªÁ¢AiÀÄjUÉ vÉÆ AzÀgÉ PÉÆ qÀÄªÀ GzÉÝÃ ±À¢AzÀ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ
zÁªÁ D¹ÛAiÀÄ ¥ÀPÀÌPÉÌ CAzÀgÉ zÀQët ¢QÌUÉ ¤UÀ¢vÀ ¸Émï ¨ÁåPï
©qÀzÉ QlQ EqÀÄªÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß ªÀiÁr ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ ºÀQÌUÉ vÉÆ AzÀgÉ

ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀÄªÀgÉÃ?

2) ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ PÉÆ ÃjgÀÄªÀAvÉ ±Á±ÀévÀ ¥Àæw§AzsÀPÁeÉA
Õ iÀÄ rQæ

ºÉÇ AzÀ®Ä CºÀðgÉÃ?

3) AiÀiÁªÀ rQæ CxÀªÁ DzÉÃ±À?

.22. This court has recorded the evidence in

O.S.No.4230/2006, which is comprehensive in nature. In

order to prove the above said issues, in

O.S.No.4230/2006, the plaintiff got examined herself as

PW-1 and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-36. Thereafter, the

defendant got examined himself as DW-1 and got marked
18 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

the documents as Ex.D-1 to D-23 and one more witness is

examined as DW-2 and closed his side. The Advocate is

appointed as commissioner in this case and examined as

CW-1 and got marked Ex.C-1 to 6.

.23. Heard the arguments.

.24. Findings of the Court on the above Issues are

as follows:

In O.S.No.4230/2006:

1. In Affirmative,
2. In Affirmative,
3. In Affirmative,
4. In Affirmative,
5. In Affirmative,
6. As per final order,

In O.S.No.4147/2006:

1. In Negative,
2. In Negative,
3. As per final order,
for the following:
19 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

REASONS

.25. ISSUE NO. 1 TO 5 IN O.S.NO.4230/2006 AND ISSUE

NO.1 AND 2 IN O.S.NO.4147/2006:

These issues are inter-linked. So, they considered

at a stretch to avoid repetition of facts.

.26. In O.S.No.4230/2006, the burden of proof of the

above said issues lies on the plaintiff, who has filed

evidence affidavit. The content of the evidence affidavit

are nothing but replica of plaint averments. She has

produced the documents. Ex.P-1 to 3 are the original sale

deeds. Ex.P-4 is the tax paid receipt. Ex.P-5 is the

encumbrance certificate. Ex.P-6 is the khata certificate.

Ex.P-7 is the rough sketch. Ex.P-8 to 14 are the tax paid

receipts and acknowledgements. Ex.P-15 is the notice.

Ex.P-16 and 17 are the postal receipts. Ex.P-18 and 19

are the postal acknowledgements. Ex.P-20 is the certified

copy of the postal document. Ex.P-21 is the reply notice.

Ex.P-22 is the copy of complaint. Ex.P-22 is the copy of
20 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

complaint. Ex.P-23 to 26 are the postal receipts. Ex.P-27

to 29 are the postal acknowledgements. Ex.P-30 is the

postal document. Ex.P-31 to 36 are six photos. Ex.P-

31(a) to 36(a) are the negatives.

.27. Now it is necessary to consider the cross-

examination of PW-1, which reads as under:
£Á£ÀÄ zÁªÁ vÀ¦ìÃ®Ä D¹ÛAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 20
ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ £É. £Á£ÀÄ
¨ÁrUÉzÁ gÀ¼ÁVzÁÝUÀ ¨ÁrUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CªÀÄätÚ¥Àà JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ
vÉUÉ zÀÄPÉÆ ¼ÀÄîwÛzÀÝgÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ EzÀ£ÀÄß
PÉÆ AqÀÄPÉÆ AqÉ£ÀÄ , J J£ï gÁdÄgÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÀºÀ £Á£ÀÄ
¨ÁrUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆ qÀÄwÛzÉÝ£ÀÄ. 1986_87£ÉÃ E¸À«AiÀÄ°è J J£ï
gÁdÄ PÉÆ AqÀÄPÉÆ ArgÀ§ºÀÅzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ £É£À¦ ®.è F ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ
MAzÀPÉÆ ÌAzÀÄ JzÀÄgÀÄ§zÀÄgÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F JgÀqÀÆ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À
£ÀqÀÄªÉ EgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀªÀÅ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 3 Cr §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
£ÁªÀÅ F ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À £ÀÄß ¢B 13.09.90 gÀ°è
PÉÆ AqÀÄPÉÆ ArzÉÝÃ £É. CAzÀgÉ 2 ¨sÁUÀzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À £ÀÄß
PÉÆ AqÀÄPÉÆ ArzÉÝÃ £É.
FUÀ vÉÆ Ãj¹zÀ ¥ÉÇ ÃmÉÆ ÃzÀ°è CAzÀgÉ ¤¦ 31 gÀ°è
JgÀqÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À £ÀqÀÄªÉ ¥Áå¸ÉÃeï PÁtÄvÀÛzÉ J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj
EzÉ. ¸ÁQÌUÉ vÉÆ Ãj¹zÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¥Áå¸ÉÃeï ¸ÀÜ¼ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦
31© JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. EzÀgÀ CUÀ® 4 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀÄÝ
EzÀgÀ°è £ÁªÀÅ MqÁqÀÄvÉÛÃ ªÉ. F ¥Áå¸ÉÃf£À JgÀqÀÆ
PÀqÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ£ÀÉUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¸ÉÃj gÀÄvÀÛªÉ.
21 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

¤¦31 ¥ÉÇ ÃmÉÆ ÃzÀ°è PÁtÄªÀ £ÀªÀÄäß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ
zÀQët C¼ÀvÉAiÀÄÄ, ¥À²ÑªÀÄ ¢QÌ£À°è ºÉZÁ ÑVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀÄ
¥ÀÇªÀð ¢QÌ£À°è PÀrªÉÄ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.
£ÀªÀÄä JgÀqÀÄ ¨sÁUÀzÀ°g
è ÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À°è MAzÀÄ ¨sÁUÀzÀ
ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À CUÀ® 11 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀÄÝ E£ÉÆ ÊAzÀÄ ¨sÁUÀzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À
CUÀ® 12 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. CAzÀgÀÉ F JgÀqÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À
£ÀqÀÄªÉ 4 CrUÀ¼À ¥Áå¸ÉÃeï ¸ÀºÀ ªÉÄÃ ¯É ºÉÃ½ zÀAvÉ
EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
F ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À £ÀÄß PÉÆ AqÀÄPÉÆ ¼ÀÄîªÀÅzÀPÉÌ ªÀÄÄAavÀªÁV
F ¸ÀÜ¼ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÉÇ ÃduÉzÁ gÀjAzÀ C¼ÀvÉ ªÀiÁr¹®è. £Á£ÀÄ
zÁªÁ vÀ¦ìÃ®Ä ¸ÀÜ¼ÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆ AqÀÄPÉÆ ¼ÀÄîªÀÅzÀPÉÌ ªÀÄÄAavÀªÁV
EzÀgÀ zÀQëtPÉÌ EgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀªÀÅ SÁ° ¸ÀÜ¼À DVvÀÄÛ. £Á£ÀÄ
¨ÁrUÉ EzÁÝUÀ¤AzÀ®Æ zÁªÁ vÀ¦ìÃ®Ä ¸ÀÜ¼ÀzÀ zÀQëtPÉÌ SÁ°
¸ÀÜ¼À EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 1985£ÉÃ E¸À«UÉ ªÀÄÄAavÀªÁV £ÀªÀÄä zÁªÁ
vÀ¦ìÃ®Ä ªÀÄ£ÉAÄ¬ÄgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀzÀ zÀQëtPÉÌ ¥ÀÇtðªÁV SÁ°
¸ÀÜ¼ÀªÉÃ EvÀÄÛ. F SÁ° ¸ÀÞ¼ÀªÀÅ AiÀiÁjUÉ ¸ÉÃj zÉÝAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ
UÉÆ wÛ®.è EzÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄ Ê PÉÆ Ã UÉÆ Ã«AzÀ¥Àà £ÀAvÀgÀ
PÉÆ AqÀÄPÉÆ ArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
»AzÉ F J¯Áè ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ªÀÄºÀzÉÃªÀ
PÉÆ AqÀÄPÉÆ AqÀ ¸ÀÜ¼À ºÁUÀÆ £ÁªÀÅ PÉÆ AqÀÄPÉÆ AqÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ
M§âgÉÃ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁzÀ CªÀÄätÚ¥ÀàgÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃj vÀÄÛ. £Á£ÀÄ
PÉÆ AqÀÄPÉÆ AqÀ D¹Û ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄºÀzÉÃªÀ PÉÆ AqÀÄPÉÆ AqÀ
D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CªÀÄätÚ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÉÃ »AzÉ PÉÆ AqÀÄPÉÆ ArzÀÄÝ E°è
ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ CªÀÄätÚ¥Àà PÉÆ AqÀÄPÉÆ ¼ÀÄîªÁUÀ¯ÉÃ EzÀÝªÀÅ.
ªÀÄºÀzÉÃªÀ UÉ CªÀÄätÚ¥Àà ªÀiÁjzÀ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀzÀ zÀQëtPÉÌ
ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀÝªÀÅ. ªÀÄºÀzÉÃªÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä
22 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ CªÀÄätÚªÀÄä PÉÆ AqÀÄPÉÆ ¼ÀÄîªÁUÀ¯ÉÃ SÁ° ¸ÀÜ¼À
EvÀÄÛ. F SÁ° ¸ÀÜ¼ÀªÀÅ AiÀiÁjUÉ ¸ÉÃj vÉÛA zÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆ wÛ®è
ºÁUÀÆ DAd£ÉÃAiÀÄ ¸Áé«Ä zÉÃªÀ ¸ÁÝ£À ¸ÀºÀ EvÀÄÛ. F SÁ°
¸ÀÜ¼À DzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ DAd£ÉÃAiÀÄ ¸Áé«Ä zÉÃªÀ ¸ÁÜ£À §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
EzÀgÀ «¹ÛÃtð £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆ wÛ®.è
C zÁ £ÀA. 15660_2006 gÀ°è JAzÀÄ zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrzÉÝ£ÀÄ J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À
vÀAzÉAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÞ zÁR¯É ªÀiÁrzÉÝ£ÀÄ J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj EzÉ.
¸ÀzÀj zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÁdgÁ®Ä vÀ¦àzÀÝPÉÌ
ªÀeÁ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. D zÁªÉAiÀÄ®Æè ¸ÀºÀ F zÁªÁ vÀ¦ìÃ®Ä
D¹ÛAiÉÄÃ M¼ÀUÉÆ ArzÀÄÝ J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj EzÉ. D zÁªÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß
¥ÀÅ£Àgï ¸ÁÜ¦¸À®Ä ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À°®è.
ªÀÄºÀzÉÃªÀ ¥Àà£À ªÀÄ£É ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ EgÀÄªÀ
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ UÉÆ ÃqÉAiÀÄ £ÀqÀÄªÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ §ºÀÅvÀézÀ ¸ÀÜ¼À FUÀ
E®è J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj EzÉ.
£À ªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ ¯ÉÆ ÃPÀ£ÁxÀgÉrØ AiÀÄªÀgÀ
CAzÀgÉ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À £ÀqÀÄªÉ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ
GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À ªÀÄ£É EzÀÄÝ, CªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ
DAd£ÉÃAiÀÄ ¸Áé«Ä zÉÃªÀ ¸ÁÝ£À §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À
ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ DAd£ÉÃAiÀÄ ¸Áé«Ä zÉÃªÀ ¸ÁÝ£À §gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è
J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹gÀÄªÀ PÀZÁÑ £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ
¸ÀÄAUÀAzÀªÀÄä£À ªÀÄ£É §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.
zÁªÁ vÀ¦ìÃ¯ï£À°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀ £ÀªÀÄä D¹ÛAiÀÄ
ZÀPÀÄÌ§A¢AiÀÄÄ ªÁ¸ÀÛªÀªÁV ¸Àj EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî.
¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ ®UÀvÁÛV
23 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

DAd£ÉÃAiÀÄ ¸Áé«Ä zÉÃªÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ SÁ° ¸ÀÜ¼À EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ
£ÀÄr¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
£À £Àß PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀÄªÀAvÉ £À£Àß D¹ÛAiÀÄ
GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ ®UÀvÁÛV DAd£ÉÃAiÀÄ ¸Áé«Ä zÉÃªÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ SÁ° ¸ÀÜ¼À
§gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj EzÉ. £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ
PÀÈµÁÚgÉrØAiÀÄªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£É CAzÀgÉ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ vÁvÀ£À ªÀÄ£É
EzÉ J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj EzÉ. EzÀÄ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 1930_35£ÉÃ
E¸À«AiÀÄ°è PÀnÖgÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ£É J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆ wÛ®.è

These are the oral evidence which has been led by

the plaintiff in the cross-examination. There is no dispute

in respect of suit 'A' schedule property where the plaintiff

A. Sannakempamma is residing. Now the dispute is in

respect of suit 'B' schedule property, which is described as

under:

:B SCHEDULE PROPERTY:

All that piece and parcel of the House
property bearing no.2, PID No.67-30-2 measuring
East to West 48 years, North to South 2 feet
towards northern side out of the property
measuring East to West 48 feet and North to
South 29 feet, with sheet roofed building and
vacant place, situated at Gramadevatha street,
24 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

Bangalore City Corporation ward no.67, Adugodi,
Bangalore and bounded on:
East by - House of bank Sanjeevalu and
road
West by - property of Mahadev

North by - Vacant place of Anjaneya
Swamy temple and defendant's
property

South by - Remaining property of the
plaintiff

.28. The 1st defendant got examined himself as

DW-1 i.e., Rajesh and one more witness is examined as

DW-2. Now it is necessary to consider the documents

which are produced by the defendants. Ex.D-1 is the

original sale deed. Ex.D-2 is the original rough sketch.

Ex.D-3 is the khata certificate. Ex.D-4 is the khata extract.

Ex.D-5 is the Uttara patra. Ex.D-6 is the tax paid receipt.

Ex.D-7 is the sanction plan. Ex.D-8 is the licence issued

by BBMP. Ex.D-9 is the Death certificate. Ex.D-10 is the

complaint. Ex.D-11 is the postal acknowledgement. Ex.D-

12 is the endorsement issued by police. Ex.D-13 and 14

are the photos. Ex.D-15 is the negative. Ex.D-16 is the
25 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

carbon copy issued by KEB. Ex.D-17 and 18 are the

electricity bill and receipt. Ex.D-19 is the receipt. Ex.D-20

to 23 are other receipts.

.29. Now it is necessary to consider the cross-

examination of DW-1 as under:

"¤¦
¤¦ 31 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¹gÀÄªÀ
ªÀ ¥ÉÇ ÃmÉÆ ÃzÀ°è PÁtÄªÀ
C¸ï¨Á¹Ö¸ï ªÉÄÃ ¯ÁÑªÀtÂAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄÄ ªÁ¢ ¸ÀtÚPÉA¥À ªÀÄä¤UÉ
¸ÉÃj zÀ D¹Û J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj EzÉ. ¤¦ 31 ¥ÉÇ ÃmÉÆ ÃzÀ°è
JgÀqÀÄ ²ÃlÄUÀ½gÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÜ¼À CAzÀgÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄÄ ªÁ¢
¸ÀtÚPÉA¥À ªÀÄä£À
£ÀzÀÄÝ J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj EzÉ. F C¸ï¨Á¹Ö¸ï
²Ãn£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÀ¼À £ÀÄß ¤¦31¹ JAzÀÄ CAzÀgÉ 1, 2, 3, 4 JAzÀÄ
UÀÄgÀÄw¹gÀÄªÀ C¸ïÖ¨Á¹Ö¸ï ªÉÄÃ ¯ÁÑªÀtÂAiÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄÄ ªÁ¢
¸ÀtÚPÉA¥À ªÀÄä£ÀzÀÄ J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj EzÉ. 1_2 JAzÀÄ
UÀÄwð¹gÀÄªÀ
ªÀ UÉÆ ÃqÉAiÀÄ zÀQëtPÉÌ ªÉÄÈPÉÆ Ã UÉÆ Ã«AzÀgÀ
gÀªÀgÀ D¹Û
§gÀÄvÀÛzÉ J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀÄ ¸Àj EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¤¦31 ¥ÉÇ ÃmÉÆ ÃzÀ°è 1 _
2 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀtÚPÉA¥À ªÀÄä£À ªÀÄ£É
£ÉAiÀÄ zÀQëtzÀ
UÉÆ ÃqÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, 3_4 EªÀgÀzÉÃ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ GvÀÛgÀzÀ
UÉÆ ÃqÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¤¦ 31 ¥ÉÇ ÃmÉÆ ÃzÀ°è 2 jAzÀ 3 JAzÀÄ
UÀÄgÀÄw¹gÀÄªÀ PÀlÖqÀzÀ C¼ÀvÉAiÀÄÄ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 27 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ
§gÀÄvÀÛªÉ J£ÀÄßªÀÅzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆ wÛ®è
It is true that the northern wall of
Sannakempamma towards East fell down to
the extent of 15 feet. The said wall fell down
at the time of our construction but not
26 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

intentionally. It is true that I myself
demolished the said wall to the extent of 15
feet. There is a 2 feet open space in between
my building and northern wall of
Sannakempamma. The construction
building measures South to North 18 feet and
East to West 43 feet.
I came to know about the order passed
when my construction was in little level in the
ground floor.
It is true that the 'B' schedule property
is property of Sannakempamma. It is true
that we came to know about passing of status
quo order within 1 week in the present case.

In support of evidence of DW-1, one M. Mahadev is

examined as DW-2. It is necessary to consider the cross-

examination of DW-2 as under:

"It is true to suggest that, there was a
passage in between tiled house and Ganesha
Reddy house. It is true to suggest that the
building of said Sannakempamma now
measuring 27 feet in north south direction. It
is true to suggest that the Lokanatha Reddy
27 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

constructed house presently by joining roof
towards northern wall of Sannakempamma.
Witness volunteers that below the said
joining of roof there is a passage left by
Lokanatha Reddy. I do not know the
Lokanatha Reddy and his sons constructed
their building by encroaching 2 feet area of
Sannakempamma".

.30. In O.S.No.4147/2006 the plaintiffs have filed

the present suit for the relief of perpetual injunction in

respect of the suit schedule property bearing new

corporation no.1 situated at Adugodi village,

Gramadevatha temple street, Bangalore measuring East to

West 45.09 feet and North to South 25.06 + 20.00 by 2

RCC roofed ground and first floor house with setback area

around the building left by the plaintiffs bounded on:

East by - private property
West by - passage
North by - passage
South by - Defendant property
28 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

On going through the above said boundaries, it is

undisputed fact that there is property of defendant who is

plaintiff in O.S.No.4230/2006 situated towards southern

side of the plaintiff's property in this case. Even in this suit

there is appointment of a commissioner and he himself got

examined as CW-1 before this court. The commissioner

has submitted his report which is marked at Ex.C-1.

Rough sketch is marked at Ex.C-2, Commission work is

marked at Ex.C-3, sketch is marked at Ex.C-4, another

sketch prepared by him at the time of commission, same is

marked at Ex.C-5. Photos are marked at Ex.C-6.

.31. Now it is necessary to consider the report

submitted by the commissioner as under:
«ªÁ¢vÀ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±À PÉÌ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉÃ±À zÀAvÉ
¢£ÁAPÀ 1 7.02.2013
.02.2013 gÀAzÀÄ ¨ÉÃn ¤Ãr ªÁ¢ ºÁUÀÆ
¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ¥ÀgÀ ªÀQÃ®gÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÁ¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ
ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉÃ ¸ÁPÀëåUÀ¼À ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄzÀ°è zÁªÁ ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß C¼ÀvÉ
ªÀiÁqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ F ªÉÄÃ ®ÌAqÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄÄäRzÀ°è
«ªÁ¢vÀ ¥ÀæzÀÃ±ÀzÀ PÀZÁá £ÀPÀ®£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ vÀAiÀiÁgÀÄ
ªÀÆqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. C£ÀAvÀgÀ PÀZÁà £ÀPÀ°£À ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
PÀÆ®APÀÄµÀªÁV CzsÁåAiÀÄ£À ªÀiÁr ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀzÀ
zÀ°è EzÀÝAvÀºÀ
29 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

ªÁ¸ÀÛ«PÀ CA±ÀzÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ ¯É F ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß
vÀAiÀiÁj¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.
F ªÀgÀ¢ vÀAiÀiÁj¸À®Ä £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉÃ±À zÀAvÉ
¢£ÁAPÀ 15.02.2013 gÀ°è ªÁ¢ ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À
ªÀQÃ®jUÉ zÀÆgÀªÁtÂ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄnÖ¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.
ºÁUÀÆ ªÁ¢ ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ½UÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 15.02.2013
gÀAzÀÄ CAZÉ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £ÉÆ ÃnÃ¸ï ¤Ãr ¤UÀ¢vÀ
¢£ÁAPÀzÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¸Àéw£À°è ºÁdjgÀÄªÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆZÀ£É
¤ÃqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. EzÀgÀ CAZÉ gÀ¹Ãw ºÁUÀÆ »A§gÀºÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
F ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ eÉÆ vÉ ®UÀwÛ¸À¯ÁVzÉ.
bÀ£À £ÁåAiÀÆ®AiÀÄªÀÅ ªÀÄÆ® zÁªÁ ¸ÀASÉå
4230_2006 eÉÆ
Æ vÉUÉ 4147_2006 gÀAvÉ JgÀqÀÄ ¥ÀævÉåÃ PÀ
µÀqÀÆå¯ïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤Ãr ªÀgÀ¢ vÀAiÀiÁj¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ DzÉÃ±À
ªÁgÀAmï ¤ÃrzÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ gÉUÉ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀPÉÌ ¨ÉÃn ¤Ãr C¼ÀvÉ ªÀiÁr
ªÀgÀ¢ vÀAiÀiÁj¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

The commissioner report is marked at Ex.C-1,

wherein para no.1 to 3 are in respect of issuing notice to

the advocate as well as executing commission warrant.

The commissioner has described the schedule-1 and 'B'

schedule as under:

SCHEDULE-1

F ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è ¸ÀéwÛ£À £ÀA.2 ¦Lr £ÀA 67_30_2 EzÀgÀ «¹ÛÃtð

¥ÀÇªÀð¢AzÀ _ ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ 48 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ GvÀÛgÀ¢AzÀ _ zÀQëtPÉÌ 29
30 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

CrUÀ¼ÀÄ ²Ãn¤AzÀ PÀnÖzÀ ªÀÄ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ SÁ° eÁUÀ, UÁæªÀÄ zÉÃªÀ vÁ

¹ÖçÃmï, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¹n PÁ¥ÉÇ ðÃgÉÃµÀ£ï ªÁqïð £ÀA 67, CqÀÄUÉÆ Ãr

¨ÉAUÀ ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EzÀPÉÌ ZÀPÀÄÌ §A¢B

¥ÀÇªÀðPÉÌ _ ¨ÁåAPï ¸ÀAfÃªÀ®ÆgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£É

¥À² ÑªÀÄPÉÌ _ ªÀÄºÀzÉÃªÀ gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ

GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ _ SÁ° eÁUÀ ºÁUÀÆ DAd£ÉÃAiÀÄ¸Áé«Ä zÉÃªÀ ¸ÁÜ£À

zÀQëtPÉÌ _ ZÉ£Àß ªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÄ Ê PÉÆÃ UÉÆ Ã«AzÀ ªÀÄ£É

F ªÉÄÃ °£À ¸ÀéwÛ£À ZÉPÀÄ Ì§A¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ¥ÀÇªÀðPÉÌ ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ

ºÁUÀÆ zÀQëtPÉÌ UÀÄgÀÄw¹gÀÄªÀ ZÀPÀÄÌ§A¢ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

G vÀÛgÀPÉÌ B PÉÃªÀ ® ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À ¸ÀévÀÄÛ EzÀÄÝ DAd£ÉÃAiÀÄ ¸Áé«Ä

zÉÃªÀ ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ SÁ° eÁUÀªÀÅ EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.

48 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀÄÝ EzÀgÀ°è ²Ãmï¤AzÀ PÀnÖgÀÄªÀ ªÀÄ£É EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. GvÀÛgÀ

ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV ¥À²ÑªÀÄzÀ PÀqÉUÉ 25.6 CrUÀ¼À°è ªÀiÁvÀæªÉÃ ²Ãmï¤AzÀ PÀnÖzÀ

«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CAzÀgÉ ¥ÀÇªÀðzÀ PÀqÉUÉ ZÀPÀÄÌ§A¢AiÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ MAzÀÄ Cr

eÁUÀªÀÅ PÀrªÉÄ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ, ¥À²ÑªÀÄzÀ PÀqÉ 3.5 eÁUÀ PÀrªÉÄ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄªÀgÀ PÀlÖqÀ MAzÀÄ Cr M¼ÀUÉ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
31 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

'B' SCHEDULE
F ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è ¸ÀéwÛ£À £ÀA.2 ¦Lr £ÀA 67_30_2 EzÀgÀ «¹ÛÃtð

¥ÀÇªÀð¢AzÀ _ ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ 48 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ GvÀÛgÀ¢AzÀ _ zÀQëtPÉÌ 02

CrUÀ¼ÀÄ, GvÀÛgÀzÀ PÀqÉUÉ EgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ, ¥ÀÇªÀð_¥À²ÑªÀÄ 48 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ,

GvÀÛgÀ zÀQëtªÁV 29 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ ²Ãmï PÀlÖqÀzÀ ªÀÄ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ SÁ° eÁUÀ,

UÁæªÀÄ zÉÃªÀ vÁ ¹ÖçÃmï, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¹n PÁ¥ÉÇ ðÃgÉÃµÀ£ï ªÁqïð £ÀA

67, CqÀÄUÉÆ Ãr ¨ÉAUÀ ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EzÀPÉÌ ZÀPÀÄÌ §A¢B

¥ÀÇªÀðPÉÌ _ ¨ÁåAPï ¸ÀAfÃªÀ®ÆgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£É

¥À² ÑªÀÄPÉÌ _ ªÀÄºÀzÉÃªÀ gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ

GvÀÛgÀPÉÌ _ SÁ° eÁUÀ ºÁUÀÆ DAd£ÉÃAiÀÄ¸Áé«Ä zÉÃªÀ ¸ÁÜ£À

zÀQëtPÉÌ _ ªÁAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ G½PÉ eÁUÀ

F ªÉÄÃ °£À ¸ÀéwÛ£À ZÉPÀÄ Ì§A¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV ¥ÀÇªÀðPÉÌ ¥À²ÑªÀÄPÉÌ

UÀÄgÀÄw¹gÀÄªÀ ZÀPÀÄÌ§A¢ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

G vÀÛgÀPÉÌ B PÉÃªÀ ® ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À ¸ÀévÀÄÛ EzÀÄÝ DAd£ÉÃAiÀÄ ¸Áé«Ä

zÉÃªÀ ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ SÁ° eÁUÀªÀÅ EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.

CzÉÃ jÃw zÀQëtPÉÌ ªÁ¢AiÀÄªÀgÀ G½PÉ eÁUÀ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.

F eÁUÀzÀ°è ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ¤«Äð¹gÀÄªÀ PÀlÖqÀzÀ »A¨sÁUÀªÀÅ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ

PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
32 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀÇªÀð_¥À²ÑªÀiPÉÌ 48 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ, GvÀÛgÀ_zÀQëtPÉÌ B ¥ÀÇªÀðzÀ

PÀqÉUÉ 28 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¥À²ÑªÀÄzÀ PÀqÉUÉ 25.06 CrUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÉ.

EzÀgÀ°è ²Ãn¤AzÀ ¤«ÄðÀ¹zÀ PÀlÖqÀ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

GvÀÛgÀzÀ PÀqÉUÉ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀ 2 Cr eÁUÀªÀÅ EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.

£ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß C¼ÀvÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV ªÁ¢AiÀÄªÀgÀ

PÀlÖqÀPÀÆÌ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ PÀlÖqÀPÀÆÌ »A¨ÁUÀzÀ°è ¥ÀÇªÀðzÀ PÀqÉUÉ 1 ªÀgÉ

CrUÀ¼À SÁ° eÁUÀªÀÅ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÉÃ jÃw ¥À²ÑªÀÄzÀ PÀqÉUÉ 2 ªÀgÉ

eÁUÀ SÁ° EzÉ. ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ°è 3.2 eÁUÀªÀÅ

ºÉaÑ UÉ PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CAzÀgÉ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß

ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ¥À²ÑªÀÄzÀ PÀqÉUÉ ºÉaÑUÉ G½¹PÉÆ AqÀÄ »A¨sÁUÀzÀ°è

ªÁ¢AiÀÄªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃgÀ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß MvÀÄÛªÀj ªÀiÁrPÉÆ ArgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ

PÀAqÀÄ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

Even the commissioner has produced the photos,

which are marked at Ex.C-6 and he has made

endorsement, which reads as under:
ªÁ¢AiÀÄªÀgÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ
»A¨sÁUÀ CAzÀgÉ «ªÁ¢vÀ ¸ÀÜ¼À E°è ªÁ¢AiÀÄªÀjUÉ
¸ÉÃj zÀ ²Ãn£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ UÉÆ ÃqÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ
MqÉzÀÄ ºÁQgÀÄªÀ ¥ÀæzÉÃ±À , E°è ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ
ªÁ¢AiÀÄªÀgÀ eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß MvÀÄÛªÀj ªÀiÁrPÉÆ ArgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ.
33 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

Another photo where there is presence of plaintiff and the

defendants and their advocates shown.

.32. On perusal of the cross-examination of DW-1

which is referred above it is crystal clear that there is

existence of way and also there is 2 feet open space in

between defendant's building and northern wall of

Sannakempamma where the defendant has kept 2

windows in southern wall of their building on each floors

i.e., totally 6 windows. The construction building measures

South to North 18 feet and East to West 43 feet. There is

4 feet common passage after northern wall. It is true that

the 'B' schedule property is property of Sannakempamma.

This witness directly admitted that 'B' schedule property is

owned by plaintiff.

.33. Further consideration of cross-examination of

DW-2 is necessary. Where he has given admission that:

"It is true to suggest that, there was a passage in
between tiled house and Ganesha Reddy house.
I know the property purchased by
Sannakempamma measures north south is 29
34 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

feet. It is true to suggest that, the building of
said Sannakempamma now measuring 27 feet in
north south direction. It is true to suggest that,
the Lokanatha Reddy constructed house
presently by joining roof towards northern wall
of Sannakempamma. Witness volunteers that
below the said joining of roof there is a passage
left by Lokanatha Reddy.

.34. Now it is necessary to consider the relevant

evidence which is forth-coming in the cross-examination of

CW-1 i.e., Commissioner dated 07.12.2013 as under:

"There is no entrance to reach the passage
from the plaintiff's house i.e., neither eastern nor
western. Now I see photo where there is a
damage caused to the wall of the plaintiff. The
said photos is marked at Ex.C6. It is true that, the
chajjas left by the defendant are within the area
of the passage. There is a 2 ft passage beyond
and back of defendant's house starting from east
and ends to the boundary of the defendant's
house. It is true that, the passage in between
plaintiff's and defendant's house ends to the
house of Mahadevappa. There are no windows in
the plaintiff's wall situated towards northern side
of plaintiff's. It is not true to suggest that there is
35 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

a defendant's house towards north of schedule
A property. Towards north of plaintiff's house
there is a property belongs to defendant and
there is no open space and temple. It is true that,
I had shown at page NO.18 of my report that
there is a property of defendants only towards
north and also there is no existence of
Anjaneyaswamy temple and also vacant space of
temple. It is true that, there is no passage in
between the house Govindappa and plaintiff
towards south of the plaintiff's house. It is not
true to suggest that the boundaries and
measurement of schedule shown in the plaint
are not correct. I got measure the defendant's
property and same is submitted in my report. It
is not true to suggest that I have not verified the
documents of the defendant and not measured
defendant's property".

So, on going through the above said admissions as

well as commission report, it is crystal clear that the

defendants 1 and 2 i.e., L. Rajesh and L. Satish caused

obstruction and carried illegal construction over the suit 'B'

schedule property which is described above. Under such

circumstances, the admission given by DW-1 itself
36 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

discloses that the suit 'B' schedule property is owned by

plaintiff. Further there is demolition of compound wall as

per commissioner report as well as cross-examination of

DW-1 before this court.

.35. On the basis of the above admission given by

DWs.1 and 2 and commissioner report, this court comes to

conclusion that the plaintiff has succeeded in proving her

lawful possession over the suit schedule property and also

construction carried by the defendants over the suit 'B'

schedule property. More over, the plaintiff has produced

copy of complaint which is marked at Ex.P-12. So, the

plaintiff has succeeded in proving her peaceful possession

and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and further the

unauthorized construction carried by the defendants over

the suit 'B' schedule property. So, the plaintiff is entitled

for the relief of perpetual injunction as well as mandatory

injunction against the defendants 1 and 2. Hence, I

answer the above issues in O.S.No.4230/2006 as

Affirmative and issues in O.S.No.4147/2006 as negative.
37 O.S.No.4230/2006
&
4147/2006

.36. Issue No.6 in O.S.No.4230/2006 & Issue No.3

in O.S.No.4147/2006:

In view of the finding of this Court on the above

issues, I proceed to passing the following:

ORDER

In O.S.No.4230/2006:

Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed. The defendants are hereby permanently restrained from causing interference in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit 'B' schedule property.

The defendants are hereby directed to remove unauthorized construction over the suit 'B' schedule property within 90 days from the date of this order.

In case of failure, the plaintiff has got right to demolish unauthorized construction carried by the defendants 1 and 2 by cost and consequence of the defendants.

Parties should bear their own cost. Draw a decree accordingly.

38 O.S.No.4230/2006

& 4147/2006 In O.S.No.4147/2006:

Suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed against the defendant.

Parties should bear their own cost. Draw a decree accordingly.

Original Judgment be kept in O.S.No.4230/2006 and its copy be kept in O.S.No.4147/2006.

(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court, this the 30th day of April, 2015.) (R.B. Garasangi) XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.

-0o0- ANNEXURE:-

1. List of witnesses examined for plaintiff in both cases:

PW-1 : Smt. Sannakempamma

2. List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:

Ex.P-1 to 3 Original sale deeds Ex.P-4 Tax paid receipt Ex.P-5 Encumbrance certificate Ex.P-6 Khata certificate Ex.P-7 Rough sketch 39 O.S.No.4230/2006 & 4147/2006 Ex.P-8 to 14 Tax paid receipts and acknowledgements Ex.P-15 Notice Ex.P-16 & 17 Postal receipts Ex.P-18 & 19 Postal acknowledgements Ex.P-20 Certified copy of the postal document Ex.P-21 Reply notice Ex.P-22 Copy of complaint Ex.P-23 to 26 Postal receipts Ex.P-27 to 29 Postal acknowledgements Ex.P-30 Postal document Ex.P-31 to 36 Six photos Ex.P-31(a) to 36(a) Negatives .

3. List of witnesses examined for defendants in both cases:

         D.W.1             :      Rajesh
         D.W.2             :      M. Mahadev

4. List of documents exhibited for defendants in both cases:

Ex.D-1 Original sale deed Ex.D2 Original rough sketch Ex.D3 Khata certificate Ex.D4 Khata extract Ex.D5 Uttara patra Ex.D6 Tax paid receipt Ex.D7 Sanction plan 40 O.S.No.4230/2006 & 4147/2006 Ex.D8 Licence issued by BBMP Ex.D9 Death certificate Ex.D-10 Complaint Ex.D-11 Postal acknowledgement Ex.D-12 Endorsement issued by police Ex.D-13 & 14 Photos Ex.D-15 Negative Ex.D-16 Carbon copy issued by KEB Ex.D-17 & 18 Electricity bill and receipt Ex.D-19 Receipt Ex.D-20 to 23 Other receipts

4. List of witnesses examined and list of documents produced for court commissioner in both cases:

C.W.1 : Krishnegowda M` Ex.C-1 Commission report Ex.C-2 Sketch Ex.C-3 Rough sketch Ex.C.4 Sketch Ex.C.5 Sketch Ex.C.6 Photos (R.B. Garasangi) XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.

-0o0- 41 O.S.No.4230/2006 & 4147/2006 42 O.S.No.4230/2006 & 4147/2006 30.04.2015 P BY SRI.CM, Adv., D by Sri.KSR, Adv., For Judgment Judgment pronounced (vide separate order) in open court.

In O.S.No.4230/2006:

Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed. The defendants are hereby permanently restrained from causing interference in peaceful 43 O.S.No.4230/2006 & 4147/2006 possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit 'B' schedule property.

The defendants are hereby directed to remove unauthorized construction over the suit 'B' schedule property within 90 days from the date of this order.

In case of failure, the plaintiff has got right to demolish unauthorized construction carried by the defendants 1 and 2 by cost and consequence of the defendants.

Parties should bear their own cost. Draw a decree accordingly.

In O.S.No.4147/2006:

Suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed against the defendant.

Parties should bear their own cost. Draw a decree accordingly.

Original Judgment be kept in O.S.No.4230/2006 and its copy be kept in O.S.No.4147/2006.

XXXIX Addl.C.C.J.B'lore.

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bangalore District Court

Smt. A. Kempamma D/O Late. Arasaiah vs ) L. Rajesh S/O Lokanatha Reddy on 30 April, 2015