Bangalore District Court
B.V. Narayanaswamy & Company vs ) Mohammed Musa Sait Wakf on 4 December, 2018
Govt. of Karnataka
C.R.P.67]
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENT IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
Form No.9 MAYOHALL UNIT, BANGALORE
(Civil)
Title sheet for
Judgment in Present: Sri. B.NARAYANAPPA, M.A, LL.B.,
suits (R.P.91)
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
OS NO. 26106 /2009
(CCH-22)
Plaintiff:- B.V. Narayanaswamy & Company.
A partnership firm having its
registered office at No.47/1, central street,
Bangalore 560 001, represented by its
Managing Partner Mr. Surendranath C.R.
V/s. (By Sri A. Anilkumar Shetty, Advocate)
Defendant/s:- 1) Mohammed Musa Sait Wakf,
having its Registered office at No.138, Greams Road,
Chennai 600 006, represented by its
Mutawalli Mr. Muneer Sait.
2) Pushpak Estate and Traders Pvt., Ltd.,
A company registered under the Companies Act,
1956, having its registered office at No.47,
Central Street, Bengaluru 560 001
Represented by its Managing Partner.
(Defendant No.1 by Sri S.J.Chouta, Advocate
Defendant No.2 by M/s. Dua Associates, Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit 25.5.2009
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit for declaration and
possession, suit for injunction, etc.)
Perpetual Injunction
Date of the commencement of recording of the Evidence. 12.6.2013
Date on which the Judgment was pronounced. 4.12.2018
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 9 6 9
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
Mayohall Unit: Bengaluru
.
2 O.S.No. 26106/2009
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against defendants seeking relief of perpetual injunction restraining defendant No.1 or anybody claiming under it, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule 'B' property and access reserved thereto by the plaintiff, unless in accordance with due process of law; and also to restrain defendant No.2 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule 'B' property by the plaintiff by encroaching upon any portion beyond western boundary of schedule 'A' property or by obstructing any access reserved thereto; and for costs.
2) Brief facts of plaintiff's case are that:
The plaintiff is a registered partnership firm. Defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the property bearing No.47, Central Street, Bangalore 560 001. The eastern portion of the said property is the suit schedule 'A' property and western portion of the said property is the suit schedule 'B' property. Defendant No.1 has let out suit 3 O.S.No. 26106/2009 schedule 'A' property under lease deed dated 17.5.1993 to defendant No.2 and let out suit schedule 'B' property in favour of the plaintiff. As per the terms of proposed development, it was agreed and understood that the building to be constructed by defendant No.2 and the plaintiff shall be connecting to one another and there shall be no gap between the construction of suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties and mutually beneficial lifts and lobbies was to be located therein. The subject matter of the lease granted to defendant No.2 restricted to the extent referred to the lease deed and clarification of the same under letter dated 12.7.2002.
Defendant No.2 undertook construction in suit schedule 'A' property and failed to co operate with the plaintiff to develop comprehensively by adopting connectivity to the building in suit schedule 'A and 'B' properties. Due to non co operation by defendant No.2 the plaintiff was constrained to leave a set back between the buildings in suit schedule 'A and 'B' properties and put up 4 O.S.No. 26106/2009 existing structure comprising of basement, ground and three upper floors. The set back area is the part and parcel of the property leased out to the plaintiff beyond the western boundary of the suit schedule 'A' property and the defendant No.2 has put up construction till the end of boundary of the property granted on lease to him. Beyond the said construction the defendant has no right in any manner what so ever.
The plaintiff after having developed the property is entitled to enjoy uninterrupted lease of suit schedule 'B' property for a period of 65 years on ground rent. In terms of the lease agreement after having constructed the super structure the plaintiff handed over the share of the defendant No.1 in the super built up area. The Muthawalli of the defendant No.1 who has developed animosity taking advantage of adverse attitude of defendant No.2, collectively joined hands and threatening to encroach upon the suit schedule 'B' property which is in exclusive leasehold right of the plaintiff. The procession of the said 5 O.S.No. 26106/2009 property cannot be interfered by defendant No.1 without due process of law. Defendant No.2 under any circumstances cannot interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule 'B' property by the plaintiff. On 24.5.2009 defendants threatened to enter and encroach into the vacant portion of suit schedule 'B' property on its eastern side which is abutting western boundary of the suit schedule 'A' property. The cause of action for the suit arose on 24.5.2009. Hence this suit.
3) After registration of this suit, suit summons were issued to defendants. In-response to the summons, defendants appeared before this court through their respective counsels and filed separate written-statements denying all the material averments made in the plaint.
4) The brief averments made in the written statement of defendant No.1 are:-
The suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. There is no 6 O.S.No. 26106/2009 cause of action for the suit. The plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. The similar suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 4964/2002 was dismissed for non prosecution on 24.10.2008.
The defendant is a Wakf by name Mohammed Musa Sait Wakf created under registered deed of Wakf dated 30.10.1920. The immediate beneficiaries of the properties of the Wakf are family and descendents of Late Mohammed Musa Sait. The 1st defendant entered into joint agreement with the plaintiff to develop the suit schedule 'A' property vide agreement dated 31.3.1998. suit schedule 'B' property also belongs to this defendant and the said portion has been developed by the 2nd defendant in accordance with Joint Development Agreement. In fact portion of the plaintiff shown in the suit schedule 'B' property has not been let out to the plaintiff and is a portion jointly developed by 2nd defendant and 1st defendant. In O.S. No. 5650/2006 filed by the Wakf against the plaintiff there was a compromise petition under order XXIII Rule 3 R/w. Sec. 151 of C.P.C. 7 O.S.No. 26106/2009
The suit schedule 'A' property developed jointly by 1st defendant and plaintiff and which has never been let out to the plaintiff. Defendants have not encroached upon any premises leased out to the plaintiff and there is no imminent threat of interference from defendants.
5) The brief averments made in the written statement of defendant No.2 are:-
The suit is barred by law and principle of constructive resjudicata. There is no cause of action. Similar suit was filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 4964/2002. Now the plaintiff has filed the present suit for the very same cause of action, which is not maintainable.
Defendant No.2 is a lessee of rear portion of the property as described in suit schedule 'A' property. The said property is accessible only from central street. 2nd defendant and 1st defendant entered in to lease agreement dated 17.5.1993. The plaintiff entered into lease agreement with the 1st defendant on 31.3.1998 for front portion of the 8 O.S.No. 26106/2009 property i.e., suit schedule 'B' property. The 2nd defendant completed construction of its portion of the building in 1999 and the plaintiff drastically delayed the construction of the front portion leased to it on one pretext or the other and denied access to the portion leased and developed by 2nd defendant. suit schedule 'A' property was bifurcated by a seventy five year old compound wall from suit schedule 'B' property even at the time of the lease, which is no more in existence now. Therefore, plaintiff's eastern boundary is his building wall. The plaintiff enclosed his property by constructing the eastern building wall till the end of his property and there is a compound wall on the eastern side of plaintiff's property towards the north. Therefore, there is no question of any encroachment on his property. This defendant is using the passage in the western side of the suit schedule 'A' property for the exit of vehicles parked in its area in view of refusal of plaintiff to let the vehicles exit from the area used for the very same purpose by the plaintiff which was supposed to be a common area for the movement of vehicles. The sanctioned plan produced by the 9 O.S.No. 26106/2009 plaintiff and schedule 'A' of the plaint show that southern side of 2nd defendant's property measures 37.79 meters and the same when seen along with the sanctioned plan produced by the plaintiff clearly shows 2nd defendant's gate which is in line with the western boundary of this defendant's property. There was no agreement to develop connectivity between suit schedule 'A and 'B' properties between the plaintiff and 2nd defendant. The plaintiff has blocked the passage on the northern side of suit schedule 'B' property which is supposed to be common passage, which is in possession of the plaintiff. 2nd defendant has left a portion of the western boundary for the movement of vehicles and the plaintiff is claiming that it is his property which is absolutely false. In a suit for bare injunction is not entitled to dispute the title of the defendant and seek adjudication on the same. In the absence of prayer for declaratory relief's, this court is precluded from deciding the question raised by the plaintiff. 2nd defendant is in possession and enjoyment of its portion of the schedule property and there is no question 10 O.S.No. 26106/2009 of interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the property. There is no such interference as stated by the plaintiff.
For all these reasons, defendants prays to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff.
6) On the basis of the above Pleadings, following Issues have been framed:-
(1) Whether plaintiff proves that he has been in lawful and physical possession of suit schedule 'A and 'B' properties as on the date of the suit?
(2) Whether plaintiff proves that defendants are trying to encroach on eastern side of suit schedule 'B' property?
(3) Whether plaintiff proves that defendants are trying to close the setback area between suit schedule 'A and 'B' properties and thereby causing interference into plaintiff's possession in suit schedule 'A' property?11 O.S.No. 26106/2009
(4) Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction as sought in the plaint?
(5) Whether defendants prove that in view of dismissal of O.S. No. 4964/2002 the present suit is not maintainable? (6) What decree or order?
7) The plaintiff in order to prove his case, got filed affidavit of its Managing Partner Mr. Surendranath C.R., by way of examination-in-chief. The same was taken as PW1 and got marked documents Ex.P1 to 5 and closed his side.
On the other hand, on behalf of the defendant, the Chairman cum Managing Director of defendant No.2 by name Mr. A.R. Modi has filed affidavit by way of examination-in- chief. Same was taken as DW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to 15 and closed side of defendants.
8) I have heard the arguments of both the sides. The learned counsel for plaintiff and also defendants filed their respective written arguments.
12 O.S.No. 26106/2009
9) My findings to the above Issues are as follows:
Issue No.1) ........Partly in the affirmative Issue No.2) ........In the negative Issue No.3) ........In the negative Issue No.4) ........In the negative Issue No.5) ........In the negative holding that the present suit is maintainable.
Issue No.6) ........As per the final orders, for the following:
REASONS
10) Issue Nos. 1 to 5:- Since these issues are inter linked with each other they are taken up together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
11) PW1 Mr. Surendranath C.R., who is the Managing Partner of the plaintiff firm, in his affidavit evidence has reiterated and re-affirmed the contents of the plaint averments and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to P5.
In his cross examination led by the learned counsel for defendant No.2 he has stated that there are 3 partners in the partnership firm of Plaintiff they are himself, his wife and his son. The partnership firm was constituted may be in the 13 O.S.No. 26106/2009 year 1980. From time to time partners were inducted and some of the partners were went out from the partnership firm. I.T. Returns is being submitted every year. Partnership firm was registered in the year 2002 as per Ex.P.4. He admits the suggestion that in the year 2002 he has filed suit in O.S.No.4964/2002 against Defendants herein for Permanent Injunction and Mandatory Injunction. The Certified copy of plaint in O.S.No. 4964/2002, Certified copy of the written statement in said suit, Certified copy of the issues and Certified copy of Order sheet are all together marked as Ex.D.1. The said suit was came to be dismissed for default on 24.10.08. He does not remember as to whether he has asked his counsel to file an application for restoration of the said suit. He has completed the construction in the year 2002 or 2003. After completion of the construction the Defendants have not caused any obstructions to his property. He admits the suggestion that both A & B schedule property were constructed on the same plan and license. As per plan both A & B schedule properties were to be constructed adjacent to each other. He 14 O.S.No. 26106/2009 denied the suggestion that both A & B properties were built separately. He admits the suggestion that two different lease deeds were came to be executed in respect of different schedules and measurement. As per lease deed executed in favour of him and as per the measurement and boundaries shown therein and as per plan he has constructed the building. He does not remember as to whether in the lease deed it is stated that both the buildings must be connected with each other. Towards North of suit schedule property, property of one Mudaliar is situated. Towards East of the suit schedule property Pushpak Estate Pvt. Ltd., is situated. Towards West of the suit schedule property Central Street is situated. Towards South of the suit schedule property Petrol Bunk is situated. He denied the suggestion that in between Central Street and Pushpak Estate Pvt. Ltd., there is a gate erected by Defendant No.2. He does not know the distance between Central Street and the gate may be about 72 ft. As per Ex.P.1 the lease deed in favour of Plaintiff in respect of suit schedule "B" property measures east -west 72 feet, North-South- 74 feet + 70/ 2 feet. By the time Ex.P1 has 15 O.S.No. 26106/2009 been executed already the suit schedule " A" property has also been leased out in favour of defendant No.2. He admits the suggestion that suit schedule "A" property situated to the East of schedule "B" property. He does not know that on 17.05.1993 the defendant No.1 had entered into lease deed with defendant no. 2. He denied the suggestion that in the year 1989-90 there was an understanding between defendant No1. and 2 that the defendant no.2 would take the suit schedule "A" "B" properties on lease. He does not know that in the year 1999 the defendant no.2 has completed the construction of building i.e. suit schedule "A" property. He admits the suggestion that as per sanctioned plan the southern as well as northern passage upto the end of "B" schedule property are common passage. As per the sanctioned plan he had to start construction of building without leaving any set back but the defendant no.2 did not allow him to construct building as per plan, therefore, he had left setback in between schedule "A" and "B" properties.
16 O.S.No. 26106/2009
12) DW1 Mr. A.R. Modi, who is the Chairman cum Managing Director of defendant No.2 in his affidavit evidence has reiterated and re-affirmed the contents of the written-statement and got marked the documents at Ex.D2 to 15. In his cross-examination led by the learned counsel for the plaintiff has stated that, the plaintiff has filed the suit alleging that defendants have encroached suit schedule property. He is working as Chariman and Managing Director in the defendant No.2 company. In his affidavit evidence he has stated that even prior to execution of lease deed in respect of suit schedule 'A' property they were in possession of the same. But, no document is produced in this regard. There was oral agreement in between him and defendant No.1. Accordingly they were in possession of suit schedule 'A' property. But no agreement was entered into in this regard. A lay out plan has been sanctioned in respect of suit schedule 'A and 'B' properties. Defendant No.1 handed over possession of the suit schedule 'A' property to him. On 17.5.1993 lease deed was executed in respect of suit schedule 'A' property. Immediately he started to put up 17 O.S.No. 26106/2009 construction thereon and completed construction in the year 1999 as per sanctioned plan. As per sanctioned plan the built up area was about 28,000 Sq. Ft. They left set back. He does not know the contents of Ex.P5. He is not aware that as per the sanctioned plan there should not be any gap between two buildings. He denied the suggestion that he is not co-operating with the Plaintiff in constructing the building by the Plaintiff on suit schedule 'B' property very close to the building which exists on suit schedule 'A' property.
13) It is the case of the plaintiff that it is a registered partnership firm. Defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the property bearing No.47, Central Street, Bangalore 560
001. The eastern portion of the said property is the suit schedule 'A' property and western portion of the said property is the suit schedule 'B' property. It is not in dispute that the Defendant No.1 has let out suit schedule 'A' property under lease deed dated 17.5.1993 to defendant No.2 and let out suit schedule 'B' property in favour of the 18 O.S.No. 26106/2009 plaintiff. It is not in dispute that the as per the terms of proposed development, sanctioned plan was obtained and it was agreed and understood that the building to be constructed by defendant No.2 and the plaintiff shall be connecting to one another and there shall be no gap between the construction of suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. It is not in dispute that the Defendant No.2 undertook construction in suit schedule 'A' property. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.2 failed to co operate with the plaintiff to develop comprehensively by adopting connectivity to the building in suit schedule 'A and 'B' properties. Due to non co operation by defendant No.2 the plaintiff was constrained to leave a set back between the buildings in suit schedule 'A and 'B' properties and constructed building on suit schedule 'B' property. As per the lease deed the plaintiff is entitled to enjoy suit schedule 'B' property for a period of 65 years on ground rent. It is further case of the plaintiff that the Muthawalli of the defendant No.1 who has developed animosity taking advantage of adverse attitude of defendant No.2, 19 O.S.No. 26106/2009 collectively joined hands and threatening to encroach upon the suit schedule 'B' property which is in exclusive leasehold right of the plaintiff. But the same was resisted by the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff is constrained to file the present suit for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining defendant No.1 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over suit schedule 'B' property and to restrain defendant No.2 from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule 'B' property by encroaching upon any portion thereof beyond western boundary of schedule 'A' property.
14) Defendants 1 and 2 in their written statement have admitted that defendant No.1 is the absolute owner of the property bearing No.47, Central Street, Bangalore 560 001 and defendant No.1 leased out suit schedule 'A' property in favour of defendant No.2 and leased out suit schedule 'B' property in favour of the plaintiff under lease deeds.
20 O.S.No. 26106/2009
15) Ex.P1 is the lease deed in respect of suit schedule 'B' property, which clearly goes to show that defendant No.1 leased out suit schedule 'B' property for a period of 65 years in favor of the plaintiff and executed Ex.P1. Ex.D2 is the Certified copy of the lease deed which goes to show that defendant No.1 leased out suit schedule 'A' property in favour of defendant No.2 under Ex.D2 for a period of 52 years. Defendant No.2 in the written statement has also admitted that defendant No.1 leased out suit schedule 'A' property in his favour and suit schedule 'B' property in favour of the plaintiff. But, denied the allegation made by the plaintiff that defendants are interfering and encroaching upon western portion upon suit schedule 'B' property. It is also not in dispute that defendant No.2 put up construction on the suit schedule 'A' property as per sanctioned plan and the plaintiff has put up construction on the suit schedule 'B' property as per sanctioned plan. But, as per the sanctioned plan, there should not be any gap in between the two buildings constructed in the suit schedule 'A and 'B' properties. But, 21 O.S.No. 26106/2009 according to the plaintiff due to non co-operation by defendant No.2 the plaintiff was constrained to leave set back in between suit schedule 'A and 'B' properties and by leaving set back in between suit schedule 'A and 'B' properties, he has put up construction on the suit schedule 'B' property.
16) From the photographs produced by the plaintiff and defendants at Ex.D3 to 14, it is clear that two separate buildings were constructed on the suit schedule 'A and 'B' properties leaving set back in between two buildings constructed on the suit schedule 'A and 'B' properties. So, it appears that two separate buildings have been constructed on the suit schedule 'A and 'B' properties, one building has been constructed by defendant No.2 on the suit schedule 'A' property and another building is constructed by the plaintiff on the suit schedule 'B' property. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule 'B' property and defendant No.2 was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule 'A' 22 O.S.No. 26106/2009 property as on the date of the suit. Therefore, it is crystal clear the plaintiff has proved that he has been in lawful and physical possession of suit schedule 'B' property, but he failed to prove that he has been in lawful physical possession of the suit schedule 'A' property, as on the date of the suit.
17) The plaintiff has alleged that defendants are trying to encroach on eastern side of suit schedule 'B' property. But, in order to substantiate the said contention of the plaintiff, he has not placed any material documents on record to show that defendants are trying to encroach on eastern side of suit schedule 'B' property. Therefore, the allegation made by the plaintiff that defendants are trying to encroach upon eastern side of the suit schedule 'B' property has remained as mere allegation without proof. Therefore, I am of the considered view that plaintiff has failed to prove that defendants are trying to encroach on eastern side of suit schedule 'B' property.
23 O.S.No. 26106/2009
18) The plaintiff further made allegations that defendants are trying to close the setback area between suit schedule 'A and 'B' properties and thereby causing interference into plaintiff's possession in suit schedule 'B' property. In order to substantiate the aforesaid allegation made by the plaintiff he has also not placed any material documents on record to establish his contention that defendants are trying to close the setback area between suit schedule 'A and 'B' properties and thereby causing interference into plaintiff's possession in suit schedule 'B' property. Therefore, I am also of the view that the plaintiff has failed to prove that defendants are trying to close the setback area between suit schedule 'A and 'B' properties and thereby causing interference into plaintiff's possession in suit schedule 'B' property.
19) The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants seeking the relief of perpetual injunction restraining defendant No.1 or anybody claiming under it, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment 24 O.S.No. 26106/2009 of the suit schedule 'B' property and access reserved thereto by the plaintiff, and also to restrain defendant No.2 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule 'B' property by the plaintiff by encroaching upon any portion beyond western boundary of schedule 'A' property. I have already come to the conclusion and held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendants are trying to encroach on eastern side of suit schedule 'B' property and also failed to prove that the defendants are trying to close set back area between suit schedule 'A and 'B' properties and thereby causing interference into possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule 'B' property by the plaintiff. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction, as sought for in the plaint.
20) Defendants have contended that in view of dismissal of O.S. No. 4964/2002 the present suit is not maintainable. Defendants in their written statement have contended that the plaintiff has filed suit against them in 25 O.S.No. 26106/2009 O.S. No. 4964/2002 on the file of 5th Addl. City Civil Court, Bengaluru for the relief of permanent injunction. The said suit was came to be dismissed for non prosecution vide orders dated 24.10.2008 and in view of dismissal of the said suit filed by the plaintiff, the present suit is not maintainable. Admittedly, the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 4964/2002 was came to be dismissed for non prosecution. Therefore it is crystal clear that the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No. 4964/2002 has not been disposed off finally by way of considered judgment. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the contention taken by defendants that in view of dismissal of O.S. No. 4964/2002 the present suit is not maintainable holds no water. Hence I am of the view that the present suit is maintainable. Therefore, I answer issue No.1 partly in the affirmative, issue No.2 to 4 in the negative, issue No. 5 in the negative holding that the present suit is maintainable.
21) ISSUE NO.6 :- In-view of the reasons stated on Issue Nos.1 to 5, above, I proceed to pass the following: 26 O.S.No. 26106/2009
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
2) No order as to costs.
3) Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of December, 2018).
(B.NARAYANAPPA) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.
SCHEDULE - A All that piece and portion of the property bearing No.47, Central Street, Bangalore 560 001.
Bounded on the:
East by Private property measuring 29.87 Mts. West by Schedule'B'property measuring 29.87 Mts. North by Private property measuring 37.79 Mts. South by Property of defendant No.1 measuring 37.79 Mts. 27 O.S.No. 26106/2009
SCHEDULE - B All that piece and portion of the property bearing No.47, Central Street, Bangalore 560 001. Bounded on the:
East by Schedule - A property measuring 74 feet.
West by Central street measuring 70 feet North by Mudaliar's property measuring 72 feet. South by Common passage measuring 72 feet.
(B.NARAYANAPPA) XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE ANNEXURES:-
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW1 Mr. C.R. Surendranath LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P1 Certified copy of lease deed Ex.P2 Receipt Ex.P3 Postal Acknowledgement Ex.P4 Acknowledgement of Registration of firm Ex.P5 Letter of defendant addressed to plaintiff
regarding clarification of property measurement. 28 O.S.No. 26106/2009
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE
DEFENDANT/S:
DW1 Mr. A.R. Modi
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE
DEFENDANT/S:
Ex.D2 Certified copy of lease deed
Ex.D3 to 14 Photographs
Ex.D15 C.D.
(B.NARAYANAPPA)
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
MAYOHALL UNIT; BANGALORE.
29 O.S.No. 26106/2009
4.12.2018
Plf: by Sri AAKS Judgment pronounced in the open court
D 1 :by Sri SJC (Vide separate detailed Judgment)
D 2 : by Sri SKS
Judgment
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
2) No order as to costs.
3) Draw decree accordingly.
(B.NARAYANAPPA)
XIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
MAYOHALL UNIT; BENGALURU