Bangalore District Court
Mr.Z.Arul Joseph vs Z.Peter on 4 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH No.25).
Dated: This the 4th day of September, 2019
Present: Sri. SACHIN KAUSHIK.R.N., B.Sc., LL.M.,
III Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
O.S.Nos. 4404/2003
c/w.
O.S.No.6791/2005
Plaintiff Mr.Z.Arul Joseph,
in O.S.No. Major, s/o.Zarias, F.No.79,
4404/2003
Erappa Laout, Subbaiahnapalya,
Banasavadi Road, Bengaluru-560043,
and as the Representative and
GPA Holder of
Smt.Sarvamangala,
aged 44 years,
w/o.Sri.Gopala Rao, 17th Cross,
Malleshwaram, Ranganathapura,
Bengaluru-560003.
by Sri.Chandraiah, Advocate
vs.
Defendants 1. Z.Peter,
in O.S.No. Major, c/o.N.N.Rajan,
4404/2003
(Advocate Compound),
Goutham Nagar, Robertson Pet,
Kolar Gold Field-563122.
2. Mr.Arul Joseph
Major, No.910, 6th Cross Road,
Gandhi Nagar,
Kolar Gold Field-563122.
2 O.S.No.4404/03 c.w. O.S.No.6791/05
3. Mr.Tabraz Manzoor,
32 years, s/o.Sri.M.M.Khan.
4. Mrs.Josephine,
30 years, w/o.Mr.Tabraz Manzoor.
Both are r/at 316, 2nd B Main Road,
OMBR Layout, Bengaluru-560043.
Suit dismissed against D1
D2 - ExParte
D3 - by Sri.V.B.Shivkumar, Advocate
D4 - by Sri.K.R.Bharadwaj, Advocate.
Plaintiffs in 1. Mrs.Pragasa Mary,
O.S.No. Aged 55 years, w/o.Z.Arul Joseph,
6791/2005
r/at No.79, Erappa Layout,
Subbannanapalya, Banasawadi
Road, Bengaluru-560043.
2. Smt.Sarvamangala,
Aged about 55 years,
w/o.Sri.Gopal Rao, r/at No.26,
17th Cross, Ranganathpura,
Malleshwaram, Bengaluru-560003.
by Sri.Chandraiah, Advocate
vs.
Defendants in 1. Mr.Tabrez Manzoor,
O.S.No. 34 years, s/o.Mr.S.A.Khan.
6791/2005
2. Mrs.Josephine,
32 years, w/o.Mr.Tabrez Manzoor.
Both r/at No.316, 2nd B-Main Road,
OMBR Layout, Bengaluru-560043.
D1 -Exparte
D2-by Sri.K.R.Bharadwaj, Advocate
3 O.S.No.4404/03 c.w. O.S.No.6791/05
Date of institution:
O.S.No.4404/2003 26-06-2003
O.S.No.6791/2005 05-09-2005
Nature of suit:
O.S.No.4404/2003 Declaration,
Mandatory Injunction,
Perpetual Injunction.
O.S.No.6791/2005 Declaration,
Possession,
Mesne Profits.
Date of commencement of 15-01-2010
evidence
Date on which the 04-09-2019
Judgment was pronounced.
Total Duration: Years Months Days
16 02 08
O.S.No.4404/2003
O.S.No.6791/2005 13 11 29
COMMON JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff in O.S.No.4404/2003 has filed Suit
for Declaration that Sale Deed executed by
Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant Nos.3 and 4
is null and void and not binding on Plaintiff,
Mandatory Injunction to the Defendants to return the
original documents of Suit Schedule Property and
Perpetual Injunction restraining Defendants from
interfering with his peaceful possession and
enjoyment of Suit Schedule Property i.e., Site No.4C-
305, measuring 98.21 square meters in Banasavadi
Layout, Bengaluru.
4 O.S.No.4404/03 c.w. O.S.No.6791/05
2) The Plaintiff in O.S.No.4404/2003 states
that the Suit Property was allotted to one
Smt.Sarvamangala w/o.Gopala Rao, by B.D.A. and
Sale Deed executed on 30-07-2001. He purchased
the said Site from Sarvamangala, and she executed
General Power of Attorney (G.P.A.) in favour of
Plaintiff. Defendants No.1 and 2 are brothers of his
wife, who is Plaintiff in O.S.No.6791/2005. They
obtained the original papers from Plaintiff's wife and
executed Sale Deed in favour of Defendants No.3 and
4 by Registered Instrument dated 6-8-2003. The
Defendant No.2 has impersonated the Plaintiff,
taking advantage of same name, and hence the Suit.
3) The wife of Plaintiff in O.S.No.4404/2003
has filed Suit subsequently at O.S.No.6791/2005
against Defendants No.1 and 2, who are alleged
purchasers from Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.
4404/2003, for declaring that she is absolute owner
of Suit Property and for handing over vacant
possession by demolishing the structure and for
Mesne Profits.
4) The Plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.6791/2005
states that her brother Z.Arul Joseph, took all the
documents from her on 14-6-2003 for verification
and did not return the documents, and her husband
has filed O.S.No.4404/2003. Her said brother sold
5 O.S.No.4404/03 c.w. O.S.No.6791/05
the property to Defendants No.1 and 2 on 6-8-2003
by impersonating, as her husband. Sarvamangala,
the allottee of the Site learning that the documents
have been wrongly passed, demanded the value of
the property, and she has paid the value of Suit
Schedule Property and Sarvamangala executed fresh
General Power of Attorney in favour of her husband.
Her husband executed Registered Sale Deed, and as
the same is occupied by the Defendants No.1 and 2,
she has filed this Suit.
5) The Defendants No.3 and 4 in O.S.No.
4404/2003 and Defendants No.1 and 2 in O.S.No.
6791/2005 have denied all the averments of both
Plaints, and stated that the Plaintiff is a fraudulent
person, and he or his wife have no rights over Suit
Property, and both Suits be dismissed.
6) The Defendants No.1 and 2 in
O.S.No.4404/2003 were placed ExParte on
17-7-2004.
7) The Court has framed 5 Issues in
O.S.No.4404/2003 as such:
1. Whether Suit of the Plaintiff in the
present form is maintainable?
6 O.S.No.4404/03 c.w. O.S.No.6791/05
2. Whether Plaintiff proves that he is the
absolute owner of Suit Schedule
Property?
3. Whether Defendants No.3 and 4 are the
lawful owners in possession of the Suit
Schedule Property, as contended?
4. Whether Plaintiff is entitled to the
reliefs sought for?
5. What Order or Decree?
8) So also 5 Issues are framed in O.S.No.
6791/2005:
1. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that
Plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner of
the Suit Schedule Property?
2. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that
Defendants have illegally trespassed
into the Schedule Property and have
made construction therein?
3. Whether the Defendants prove that Suit
is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC?
4. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for
the relief as prayed for?
5. What Order or Decree?
9) The Plaintiffs in O.S.No.4404/2003 and
O.S.No.6791/2005 have examined themselves as
P.Ws.1 and 2, and have examined a known person as
P.W.3 and got 16 documents exhibited.
7 O.S.No.4404/03 c.w. O.S.No.6791/05
10) The Defendant No.4, who is also
Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.6791/2005 examined
himself as D.W.1 and got also 16 documents
exhibited.
11) The Authorized Officer of Standard
Chartered Bank produced 2 Original Sale Deeds dated
28-7-2001 of Sarvamangala and another dated
6-8-2003 of Defendants No.3 and 4 in
O.S.No.4404/2003, along with Covering Letter, and
said documents were marked as Exs.C2 and 3
respectively and Covering Letter dated 24-10-2003
as Ex.C1.
12) Writ Petitions are pending before Hon'ble
High Court of Karnataka over Orders dated
10-7-2018 passed by this Court on O.26 R.10A CPC
for referring LTM on Sale Deeds, Exs.C2, C3 with
specimen LTMs. of Defendant No.2. This Order is
challenged by Defendants No.3 and 4 at W.P.No.
32661/2018. So also alleged L.H. of Plaintiff in
O.S.No.4404/2003 has challenged the Order dated
1-2-2017 wherein, application u/O.22 R.3 CPC was
rejected. The Court had posted for Await Further
Order on 12-7-2019 and 22-7-2019. On 1-8-2019,
the Learned Advocate for Plaintiff made submission
that matter be taken up for Final Arguments, as the
8 O.S.No.4404/03 c.w. O.S.No.6791/05
matters are very old, same has been taken by this
Court.
13) Heard Learned Counsels of both sides and
perused all documents.
14) The answers to the Issues in O.S.No.
4404/2003 are:
Issue No.1 - In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 - In the Negative,
Issue No.3 - In the Negative,
Issue No.4 - In the Negative,
Issue No.5 - As per Final Order.
15) The answers to the Issues in O.S.No.
6791/2005 are:
Issue No.1 - In the Negative,
Issue No.2 - In the Affirmative,
Issue No.3 - In the Negative,
Issue No.4 - In the Negative,
Issue No.5 - As per Final order,
for the following:
9 O.S.No.4404/03 c.w. O.S.No.6791/05
REASONS
16) Issues No.2, 3, 4 in O.S.No.404/2003
and Issues No.1 and 4 in O.S.No.6791/2005: As
all these Issues are inter-connected, they are taken
together for consideration.
17) The Plaintiff in O.S.No.4404/2003/P.W.1
has not produced any title document in his favour,
except 2 G.P.As. dated 9-9-1999, Exs.D2 and
another dated 3-10-2003, Ex.P14. The G.P.As. do not
confer title on its Agent, and hence, it can be easily
determined that Plaintiff in O.S.No.4404/2003 has
not proved his title over Suit Schedule Property, and
therefore, Issue No.2 in O.S.No.4404/2003 is
answered in the Negative.
18) It is not in dispute that Smt.Sarvamangala
is the original allottee of Suit Schedule Property, and
she has given G.P.As. dated 9-9-1999 and
3-10-2003, through which SuIt Property has passed,
according to Defendants No.3 and 4 to them, and
according to Plaintiff in O.S.No.6791/2005 to her. It
is the contention of Plaintiff in O.S.No.4404/2003 and
Plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.6791/2005, that Defendant
No.2 in O.S.No.4404/2003 has cheated them by
taking original documents, and selling the property to
Defendants No.3 and 4 in O.S.No.4404/2003. To
prove this, the said Plaintiffs have produced Letter of
10 O.S.No.4404/03 c.w. O.S.No.6791/05
Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.4404/2003 dated
14-6-2003, Ex.P13, of having received original
documents from Plaintiff in O.S.No.4404/2003. The
Defendants No.3 and 4 in O.S.No.4404/2003,
vehemently contended that Defendant No.2 in
O.S.No.4404/2003, has sold the property to them,
and he is G.P.A. Holder of Sarvamangala, and the
Plaintiff in O.S.No.4404/2003 is only a fraudster, and
his name is not Z.Arul Joseph at all, but Frank Lazar,
as can be seen in said Ex.P13, Acknowledgment, as
well as Ex.P4(a) APL Card of Plaintiff in O.S.No.
4404/2003. But the Plaintiff in O.S.No.4404/2003
has said, he has 2 names, and in support of same,
he has produced Ex.P5(a) that is, Letter of Church of
having Baptised dated 14-9-2004, wherein his name
is shown as Z.Arul Joseph, son of Bastian Zarias
Franklazar.
19) Now, if Ex.P4(a), APL Card, Ex.P5(a),
Letter of Church bearing Photograph of Plaintiff in
O.S.No.4404/2003 are looked into, along with copy
of Death Certificate showing date of death as
26-6-2017, it can be seen that the name differs in all
3 documents. In Ex.P4(a), name is Frank Lazer, in
Ex.P5(a) it is Z.Arul Joseph (Frank Lazer), and in
Death Certificate it is B.Frank Lazarus, which shows
very clearly that Plaintiff in O.S.No.4404/2003 is
11 O.S.No.4404/03 c.w. O.S.No.6791/05
hiding his actual name. If father's name is looked
into, Ex.P4(a) does not show father's name, Ex.P5(a)
shows as son of Bastian Zarias Franklazar, while
Death Certificate shows as S.L.Bastain, Again name
of even father differs. At one time, he says he is
Frank Lazar, Death Certificate shows as B.Frank
Lazarus. He styles himself in Plaint as Z.Arul Joseph
as his another name, but 'Z' disappears in Death
Certificate and 'B' gets associated with Frank
Lazarus. Yet, assuming that, it will be too technical,
to come to conclusions based on mere mis-spellings,
and look into crux of the matter, the documents
further disclose plenty of material variations.
20) The Plaintiff in O.S.No.4404/2003/P.W.1's
as well as P.W.2's/Plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.
6791/2005, entire case revolves around the assertion
that brother-in-law of P.W.1, whose name is also
Z.Arul Joseph, wherein 'Z' stands for Zacharias, that
is father's name of Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.
4404/2003, took the original documents for
verification on 14-6-2003, Ex.P13, and fraudulently
sold to Defendants No.3 and 4 on strength of G.P.A.
dated 9-9-1999, Ex.D2 on 6-8-2003, Ex.C3. The first
thing is that no one hands over original documents to
anyone for verification. Copies are handed over.
Second thing is that, even if assumed true, how
12 O.S.No.4404/03 c.w. O.S.No.6791/05
could Plaintiff in O.S.No.4404/2003, remains silent
from 14-6-2003 till filing of Suit on 26-6-2003, i.e.,
12 days, why he has not immediately lodged
complaint against Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.
4404/2003. P.W.1 filed Private Complaint No.
181/2003 on 1-12-2003 against all Defendants No.1
to 4 in O.S.No.4404/2003, Ex.P2 and P3. No Charge-
Sheet or Order registering as Criminal Case or Final
Order is produced by P.W.1 or 2 that substantiates
the Complaint. P.W.1 has produced the Report of
Investigating Officer in said P.C., Ex.P5 along with
documents. Ex.P5 also contains documents which the
I.O. has collected in course of his investigation and
Learned Advocate for Defendants No.3 and 4 in
O.S.No.4404/2003 has submitted, during course of
Argument that no charge-sheet is filed. Learned
Advocate for Plaintiff said, he has no idea about it, as
he is not the counsel in that matter. In Ex.P5, the
Passport of Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.4404/2003 is
produced, Ex.P5 is certified copy, that is not denied
by anyone. The Passport of Defendant No.2, Arul
Joseph Zackarias clearly shows that he was in Brunei
Darusslam from 12-3-1998 to 27-6-2004. It does
not show that he was in India on 14-6-2003, as
averred by P.Ws.1 and 2, when he took documents,
or on 6-8-2003, when Sale Deed was executed in
favour of Defendants No.3 and 4 in O.S.No.
13 O.S.No.4404/03 c.w. O.S.No.6791/05
4404/2003. This falsifies the entire case of P.Ws.1
and 2, husband and wife, who have gone to
extremities to get the Property, by playing fraud
almost everywhere, by creating suspicious
documents, to win litigation.
21) This fraud can be seen in Ex.C3, where, in
Sale Deed of Defendants No.3 and 4, it is shown that
age of G.P.A. Holder of Vendor, Sarvamangala, as 52
years, and name resembling Defendant No.2, and
Photograph of Defendant No.2 is fixed. When
Defendant No.2 was abroad on 6-8-2003, how could
he ever execute Sale Deed in India, Ex.C3 and
procure original documents on 4-6-2003, Ex.P13.
Passport, Ex.P5, shows signature of Defendant No.2
with capital 'J' while writing 'Joseph', but in Ex.C3,
Sale Deed, it is small 'j' while writing Joseph. In
Ex.P13, alleged Letter of Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.
4404/2003, on 14-6-2003, signature has Capital 'J',
while remaining portion is torn. Defendant No.2's in
O.S.No.4404/2003 date of Birth is mentioned in
Passport as '2-3-1970' that is, he was 33 years aged
in 2003, but in Ex.C3, his age is shown as 52 years.
In Ex.C2, Sale Deed dated 28-7-2001 of
Sarvamangala represented by G.P.A. Holder, Plaintiff
in O.S.No. 4404/2003 is admitted by Plaintiff, and he
has signed the same. He signs with small 'j' in word
'joseph', and shows his name, as son of F.Zackrias,
14 O.S.No.4404/03 c.w. O.S.No.6791/05
while name of father of P.W.1 is either S.L.Bastain as
per his alleged Death Certificate or Bastian Zarias
Franklazar as per Ex.P5(a) Letter of Church or
Zarias. as per Plaint. But in Ex.C2, admitted
document of P.W.1, he has shown his father's name,
yet different, as F.Zackrias, as that of Defendant
No.2's father's name. Going further, P.W.1 in his
admitted documents, shows in said Ex.C2, his age as
50 years as on 28-7-2001, in G.P.A. dated 9-9-1999
as 30 years, Ex.D2 and G.P.A. dated 3-10-2003 as
52 years, Ex.P14 and in Sale Deed dtd 11-12-2003,
Ex.P15 as 56 years. In his own documents, he
shows himself to grow from 30 years on 9-9-1999 to
56 years on 11-12-2003. To say, Plaintiff in O.S.No.
4404/2003, from inception to everywhere, has been
playing fraud. This Plaintiff's wife, P.W.2, Plaintiff
No.1 in O.S.No.6791/2005 filed impleading
application to implead Smt.Sarvamangala as Plaintiff
No.2, and that was allowed on 6-4-2015. But Plaintiff
No.1 never filed Amended Plaint copy with signature
of Plaintiff No.2, Smt.Sarvamangala, nor any
Vakalathnama is filed for Plaintiff No.2, nor Plaintiff
No.2 is examined by anyone, which means, Plaintiff
No.1 got Plaintiff No.2 impleaded without actually
bringing into Plaintiff No.2's knowledge. The
Amended Plaint copy in O.S.No.6791/2005 dated
10-6-2015 bears signature of Plaintiff No.1 only and
15 O.S.No.4404/03 c.w. O.S.No.6791/05
her Affidavit alone is filed in support of Amended
Plaint. Even before Court, P.W.2 has played fraud. By
all this, the Court finds clearly that P.Ws.1 and 2
have played fraud, creating suspicious documents,
and creating litigation by taking advantage of the
suspicious documents created by them. As far as,
passing of consideration is concerned, which is
paramount in determining veracity, it is all cash
transaction as alleged by Plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.
6791/2005, or Defendants No.3 and 4 in O.S.No.
4404/2003. No cheque or D.D. transaction are
brought forth, though Plaintiff No.1 says she has paid
Rs.3,07,000/- to Sarvamangala, or by/GPA Holder,
P.W.1, Ex.P15, and Defendants No.3 and 4 says that,
they have paid total Rs.12,72,000/- to
Sarvamangala, Ex.D1, Agreement to Sell dated
1-7-2003, and Ex.D3 Receipt of part balance
Rs.6,55,470/-, certified copies, though again in
Ex.C3, Sale Deed, only Rs.3,07,000/- is shown,
which does not tally with balance consideration
shown in Ex.D3, represented by G.P.A. Holder, who
was not given any power to receive sale
consideration, as per Ex.D2, Ex.P14, G.P.As.
Transactions are on strength of G.P.A. and executant
of G.P.A. is actually not made party, though even
Khata Certificate stands in name of
Smt.Sarvamangala, Ex.P12, Ex.D6. There is no Khata
16 O.S.No.4404/03 c.w. O.S.No.6791/05
Certificate or Khata Extracts produced, standing in
name of Plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.6791/2005, Plaintiff
in O.S.No.4404/2003 or Defendants No.3 and 4 in
O.S.No.4404/2003. Even the say of Defendants No.3
and 4 that Defendant No.2 has executed Sale Deed
in their favour is false, as also reasoned in
Paragraph No.20, and Ex.D2, GPA or Ex.C3, Sale
Deed are not proved as required u/S67, 68 of Indian
Evidence Act, respectively. Signatures of executants
are not marked and proved. Therefore, for all these
reasons, Issues No.3 and 4 in O.S.No.4404/2003 are
answered in the Negative, and Issues No.1 and 4 in
O.S.No. 6791/2005 are also answered in the
Negative.
22) Issue No.1 in O.S.No.4404/2003: The
Suit is maintainable based on averments of Plaint on
its face. There is nothing that bars the Suit, and
hence the Issue is answered in Affirmative.
22) Issue No.2 in O.S.No.6791/2005: Issue
No.3 in O.S.No.4404/2003 being answered in
Negative, relating to lawful ownership and possession
of Suit Schedule Property by Defendants No.3 and 4
in O.S.No.4404/2003, it is seen that in Paragraph
No.9 of deposition of D.W.1, D.W.1 i.e., Defendant
No.4 in O.S.No.4404/2003 has admitted that they
have constructed building comprising Ground, First,
17 O.S.No.4404/03 c.w. O.S.No.6791/05
Second and Sheet above Second Floor. But, no
Building Licence or Approved Building Plan is
produced by D.W.1. D.W.1 having availed loan for
said purpose from Standard Chartered Bank, Exs.C1
to C3, does not legalise any false transactions or
illegal constructions, based on false title documents,
Ex.C3 is not proved as required u/S.68 of Indian
Evidence Act and decisions of Defendants No.3 and 4
i.e., :
1. AIR 1973 Mysore 276 (Azeezulla Sheriff & ors.
vs. Bhabhutimu) and
2. ILR 2003 Kar. 3042 (Veerabadhrappa & anr.
vs. Jagadishgouda and Ors.)
are not applicable to facts and circumstances of the
case. D.W.1 in said Paragraph No.9 also admits that
she has not obtained Completion Certificate.
Therefore, this Issue is answered in Affirmative.
23) Issue No.3 in O.S.No.6791/2005: The
Plaintiff in O.S.No.4404/2003 and Plaintiff No.1 in
O.S.No.6791/2005, being different, it cannot be
construed as Suit is hit by u/O.II R.2 of C.P.C., and
therefore, this Issue is answered in the Negative.
18 O.S.No.4404/03 c.w. O.S.No.6791/05
24) Issue No.5 in O.S.No.4404/2003 and
O.S.No.6791/20005:
For the aforesaid reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following:
ORDER
The Suit of the Plaintiff in O.S.No.4404/2003 is dismissed.
The Suit of the Plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.6791/2005 is dismissed Parties shall bear their own costs in both Suits.
Draw Decree accordingly.
The Original Judgment shall be kept in O.S.No.4404/2003 and copy thereof in O.S.No.6791/2005.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcription computerized, then corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 4th day of September, 2019) (Sachin Kaushik.R.N.) III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
19 O.S.No.4404/03 c.w. O.S.No.6791/05SCHEDULE COMMON IN BOTH SUITS) All that piece and parcel of the schedule property bearing No.4C-305, measuring East-West 12.20 Mts, North- South 7.60+8.50 by 2 Mts, (Total 98.21 Sq.Mts.) bounded on the East by Site No.4C-307, West by Site No.4C-303, North by Site No.4C-4AC-308 and South by 4th Cross Road, situates at Old Madras Road, Banasawadi Layout, Bengaluru-560043.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiffs:
P.W.1 - Z.Arul Joseph alias Frank Lazar P.W.2 - Pragasa Mary P.W.3 - B.Murudappa List of witnesses examined for the defendants:
D.W.1 - Josephine List of documents exhibited for the plaintiffs:
Ex.P1 - c.c. of Sale Deed Exs.P2 & 3 - c.c. of Private Complaint Report No.181/03 Ex.P3 - c.c. of Order Sheet in PCR No.181/03 Ex.P4 - c.c. of Letter Ex.P4(a) - Ration Card Ex.P5 - c.c. of Report filed by the Police Ex.P5(a) - Part of Ex.P5 Ex.P6 - c.c. of Caveat Petition Ex.P7 - Copy of Legal Notice Exs.P8 & P9 - Postal Acknowledgments Ex.P10 - copy of Legal Notice Ex.P11 - Reply Notice Ex.P12 - Khata Certificate Ex.P13 - Acknowledgment Ex.P14 - General Power of Attorney Ex.P15 - Original Sale Deed Ex.P15(a) - Signature of PW3 Ex.P15(b) - Signature of Hiriyanna Ex.P15(c) - Signature of Chandraiah Ex.P16 - Encumbrance Certificate 20 O.S.No.4404/03 c.w. O.S.No.6791/05 List of documents exhibited for the defendants:
Ex.D1 - Original Agreement of Sale dated 1-7-2003 Ex.D2 - Original GPA Ex.D3 - Receipt Ex.D4 - Encumbrance Certificate Ex.D5 - BBMP Khata Notice Ex.D6 - Khata Certificate Ex.D7 - Possession Certificate Ex.D8 - Endorsement of BDA Ex.D9 - BMP Acknowledgment Form Exs.D10 & D11 - Remittance Challans Ex.D12 - Allotment Letter Exs.D13 & D14 - Tax Paid Receipts Ex.D15 & D16 - c.c. of Exs.C2 & C3 Documents summoned from Standard Chartered Bank:
Ex.C1 - Covering Letter Ex.C2 - Registered Sale Deed dated 28-7-2001 Ex.C3 - Registered Sale Deed dated 6-8-2003 (Sachin Kaushik.R.N.) III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.