Bangalore District Court
In Sri. A.H.Kesanur vs In 1. Sri. Rangappa on 6 February, 2017
THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE
BANGALORE CITY
Dated on this the 6th day of February 2017
-: Present :-
Smt. Hemavathi, BBM, LL.B,
XXXIX Additional City Civil & Judge,
Bangalore City.
Original Suit No. 585/2006 C/W 7501/2012
Plaintiff in Sri. A.H.Kesanur
O.S.No.585/2006 since deceased by his
: LRS
1(A) Anand Kesanur
Age: Major
S/o Late A.K.Kesanur
1(B) Kumari Prema
Age: Major
D/o Late A.K.Kesanur
Both are residing at
No.181,7th Main,
Gokul Extension,
1st stage, 2nd Phase,
Bangalore-560054
(Sri.Kanvi M.B,
advocate
Vs
Defendants in 1. Sri. Rangappa
O.S.No.585/2006: S/o Muniswamappa
Aged: major
2. Smt. Reddamma
W/O Late Shamanna
Aged: major(Deleted)
3. Sri. Rajanna
Aged: major
Father's name
not known
Defendants 1 to 3 are resident
of Lottegollahalli, Kasaba
Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk
Plaintiff in O.S 1. Anand Kesanur
No.7501/2012: Age: Major
S/o Late A.K.Kesanur
2. Kumari Prema
Age: Major
D/o Late A.K.Kesanur
Both are residing at
No.181,7th Main,
Gokul Extension, 1st
stage, 2nd Phase,
Bangalore-560054
(Smt. N.V. advocate)
..Vs..
Defendant in Sri.Naveen Kumar,
O.SW.No.7501/2012: S/o C.Yuvaraj,
Aged about 29 years,
R/O No.173, Near
Jalgeramma Temple,
R.M.V. II Stage,
Lottegollahalli,
Bangalore -560094
(Sri.T.N.B advocate)
Date of Institution of the : 18.1.2006
suit in O.S.No.585/2006:
Date of Institution of the
18.10.2012
suit in
O.S.No.7501/2012:
Nature of suit in both
: Suit for permanent
suits injunction
Date of commencement of
common evidence in : 27.8.2010
O.S.No.585/2006:
Date on which the
Common judgment is : 6.2.2017
pronounced in both suits:
Duration taken for Years Months Days
disposal
11 00 18
:
In O.S.No.585/2006: 04 03 18
In O.S.No.7501/2012:
JUDGMENT
As per order dated 14.9.2015 suit in O.S No.7501/2012 is clubbed with O.S.No.585 of 2006 for common trial and judgment. Accordingly the common evidence is recorded in O.S.No.585/2006.
2. O.S.No.585/2006 was initially filed by the deceased plaintiff against the defendant for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, his henchmen or agents or anybody claiming under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and such other reliefs with costs.
3. During the pendency of the suit, original plaintiff died and his L.Rs were brought on record. They got amended the plaint claiming relief of declaration to declare that they are the absolute owners of suit schedule property and also to direct the defendants to restore or hand over the "A" schedule property and for mandatory injunction to direct the defendants to demolish the structure put on "A" schedule property and also to declare that the Registered sale deed dated 9.1.2006 does not bind them and such other reliefs.
4. The brief facts of the case of the original plaintiff is that he acquired suit schedule property bearing site No.6 to 8, totally measuring 90'X40' formed in Survey No.5 of Lottegollahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk under a registered sale deed dated 22.5.1980 and these sites are part and parcel of survey No.5 , totally measuring 2 acres 13 guntas and defendant N o.1 and his brother one Shamanna have partitioned the said survey number property in the year 1979-1980 among the brothers. And Shamanna sold the suit schedule property, which was fallen to his share to this plaintiff through registered sale deed and after purchase, original plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same as an absolute owner and he paid conversion fees, development charges and tax and Katha changed in his name. The defendants are residents of Lottegollahalli Village, where the suit schedule property situated and they have no manner of right, title and interest over the suit schedule property inspite of that to knock off the suit schedule property, the defendants all of a sudden on 14.1.2006 came near the suit schedule property along with their henchmen and trespassed into the suit property and they started to clean the suit schedule properties and also dig the trenches to lay foundation to put up construction of the suit property high handedly and illegally. When the plaintiff questioned the high handed act and illegal acts of the defendants they picked up a quarrel with the plaintiff and they tried to assault him. Though he resisted the illegal act of the defendants and their henchmen while leaving the spot they declared that they will come again and see that they will oust the plaintiff from the portion of the suit property as the defendants are very powerful influential persons backed with men and money, he cannot prevent them when he approached jurisdictional police on the very same day, they informed him to approach civil Court as the matter is civil in nature. Hence, file the suit.
5. The brief facts of the case of the legal heirs in relation to the relief of declaration and other reliefs claimed by them by way of amendment is that after the demise of the original plaintiff, taking advantage of the situation that these plaintiffs do not have worldly wise and they did not know the legal proceedings completely, the defendants in or about August/September 2006 along with their henchmen forcibly trespassed into the eastern portion of suit schedule property to an extent of East to West 75 sq.ft and North to South 40 sq.ft, which is "A" schedule property and subsequently they constructed 8 small sheds on the "A" schedule property and the defendant No.1 claim his interest of the suit property on the basis of the alleged proceedings in O.S.No.1387/1980 and FDP No.39/1984 and earlier to the decree in O.S.No.1387/1980, there was a partition between 1st defendant and his brother Shamanna, who is the vendor of the plaintiff and in the said partition, the property purchased by this plaintiff was fallen to share of Shamanna and he sold the same in favour of deceased plaintiff. Hence, proceedings in O.S.No.1387/1980 or FDP No.39/1984 does not bind them or their interest and deceased plaintiff is the bonafide purchaser of the property from Shamanna and said proceedings are collusive and intended to defraud the plaintiff and Shamanna having partitioned the Sy.No.5, suit schedule property having fallen to his share and sold the same in favour of deceased plaintiff under a registered sale deed did not contest the suit in O.S.No.1387/1980 and allowed to pass the decree. So, the doctrine of lis-pendency does not apply and the said proceedings do not affect the interest of these plaintiffs. But on the basis of collusive decree, the defendant No.4 claiming to be the power of attorney holder of defendant No.1 claims to have executed the registered Sale Deed dated 9.1.2006 in favour of defendant No.3 and one Kodanda Ramu. On the basis of the alleged sale deeds pertaining to certain imaginary site No.12 to 14, they are claiming right over the suit property. The defendant No.1 did not have any interest, right, title over the suit property, so he could not confirm any power of attorney in favour of defendant No.4 and there is no valid power of attorney executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.4, which itself clear on going through the alleged sale deed in respect of site No.12 to 14, which has been executed by defendant No.1 himself and the alleged sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.3 and in the light of subsequent development, there is cloud on the title and there is a cause of action arose in the month of August/September 2006, when the defendants forcibly enter the "A" schedule property and dispossess these plaintiffs and when the defendants put up the construction over the "A" schedule property. Hence, sought for declaration and other reliefs.
6. Defendant No.1 filed written statement denying the averments in the plaint and contended that plaintiff is not the owner nor in possession of suit property and Sy.No.5 measures 2 acres 13 guntas originally belonged to his father and it was joint family property . Rangappa filed final decree proceedings for metes and bounds of the property and Special Deputy Commissioner after issuance of notice was pleased to partition the properties by metes and bounds and put the defendant No.1 in exclusive possession and allotted Item No.1 of defendant No.1 and in the said FDP proceedings, Sy.No.56, which measures 2 acres 20 guntas out of 2 acres 13 guntas was allotted in his favour and he became the absolute owner in exclusive possession of the same. Later, it is assigned as Sy.No.5/1 measuring 2 acres 13 guntas and he executed GPA in favour of defendant No.4 to look after the affairs of the said property and to alienate the same and based on the said power of attorney, defendant No.4 sold site No.12 to 14 under a registered Sale Deed dated 9.1.2006 in favour of defendant No.3 and since the date of purchase, defendant No.3 is in possession and enjoyment of the same. He has been paying tax, Katha transferred to his name and he obtained electricity connection, put up compound wall, constructed 8 sheds and let out the same to the tenants by exercising his right of ownership and suit schedule sites do not exist and plaint schedule is imaginary and the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.7470/1994 against this defendant, which was contested, wherein the right of the plaintiff was denied and as the plaintiff knew that it is difficult for him to succeed, got the suit dismissed the suit and filed a Mis.Petition No.267/2002, which is also dismissed on 10.1.2005 and the plaintiff also filed other two cases against these defendants having failed to get any relief, he filed a present suit suppressing the material facts and he has not come to the Court with clean hands. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit for relief of permanent injunction with exemplary costs.
7. Summons issued to defendant No.2 returned unserved for the reason he is dead and even the learned counsel for the plaintiff filed a memo stating that he died. Hence, suit against defendant No.2 was not pressed by the plaintiff.
8. Defendant No.3 filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that one Rangappa, who is the defendant No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.1387/1980 against Shamanna and others for partition and separate possession of property of old Sy.No.5 and new Sy.No.5/1 measuring 2 acres 13 guntas at Lottegollahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and other joint family property, it was decreed under a judgment and decree dated 28.9.1981. Against the judgment and decree, defendant No.1 filed FDP No.39/1984 for his separate share and in that proceedings, Sy.No.5/1 measuring 2 acres 13 guntas has been allotted to share of 1st defendant and Shamanna has not been allotted any share in that survey number and he got allotted other properties. So 1st defendant became the absolute owner in exclusive possession of Sy.No.5, which was later assigned as Sy.No.5/1 measuring 2 acres 13 guntas and defendant No.1 executed GPA in favour of defendant No.4 to look after the properties and to conduct the case and to alienate the properties and after partition, defendant No.1 formed layout in Sy.No.5/1 sold site No.12 to 14 measuring 75'X40' through GPA holder in favour of these defendants and also one Kodanda Ramu jointly under registered Sale Deed dated 9.1.2006 and after purchase, Katha changed in the name of this defendant, R.K.Kodanda Ramu and he also put up 8 sheds in the sites and obtained electricity and water connection and they have let out the same to the various persons. Now the tenants are in possession of the said sites and they have been paying taxes. The deceased plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.7470/1994 against the 1st defendant, which was contested by him. The plaintiff got dismiss the said suit and again he filed Miscellaneous petition for restoration of the same and it was also dismissed suppressing all these facts, he filed present suit for bear injunction and the plaintiff has no manner of right, title and interest over the property purchased by these defendants and Kodanda Ramu.
9. In view of the amendment of the plaint claiming relief of declaration and possession by the legal heirs of original plaintiff. The defendant No.3 filed amended the written statement denying the averments made in amended portion of the plaint and contended that the legal heir of deceased plaintiff have no manner of right, title or interest or possession over the suit property and the Sy.No.5, new Sy.No.5/1 along with other property originally belonged to Muniswamappa, who is the father of 1st defendant having purchased the same under sale deed dated 16.8.1946 and after death of her father, there was a misunderstanding between 1st defendant and his brother Shamanna. Hence, 1st defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.762/1976 , which has been renumbered as O.S.No.1387/1980 and the said suit was contested by Shamanna and his step mother Nagamma and after trial, said suit was decreed holding that 1st defendant is entitled for 5/12th share in all the properties including Sy.No.5 (5/2) and based on the said judgment and decree, 1st defendant initiated FDP proceedings, wherein the matter referred to Special D.C to effect a partition allotted in Sy.No.5 measuring 2 acres 13 guntas along with other properties to the share of the defendant No.1 and though he was allotted 2 acres 13 guntas actual availability was only 2 acres 7 guntas and possession was handed over the GPA holder of the 1st defendant since then 1st defendant has been in continued possession and enjoyment of the said property and the alleged sale deed dated 22.5.1980 by Shamanna in favour of original plaintiff is hit by Section.53 of T.P. Act and it is illegal transaction and only with an intention to deprive the 1st defendant's share, they might have entered into said transaction and plaintiffs have no manner of right, title and interest over the same and they have amended the plaint after lapse of 3 years and the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs have not valued the suit properly. The averments made in amended portion of the plaint are all false. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim of the legal heir of deceased plaintiff with exemplary costs.
10. Defendant No.4, inspite of his appearance, has not filed his written statement.
11. During the pendency of the suit, he died, though applications are filed in I.A.No.2 to 4 to bring the L.Rs of defendant No.4. Later the plaintiff filed memo to withdraw the said applications. Accordingly, the said applications are dismissed as withdrawn and in view of that suit against defendant No.4 is abated.
12. Defendant No.5 though appeared before the Court has not filed written statement, but filed memo adopting additional written statement filed by Defendant No.3 as his Written statement.
13. The suit in O.S.No. 7501/2012 is filed for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, his men or agent or anybody claiming under him from interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the over the suit schedule property.
14. Brief facts in that case is that their father Late A.H.Kesanur purchased property bearing site No.6 to 8 totally measuring 90'X40' formed in Sy.No.5 of Lottegollahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk under a registered sale deed dated 22.5.1980 and their father was in possession and enjoyment of the of the same. After his death, on 27.5.2006 these plaintiffs succeeded the properties as legal heir and Katha standing in their name, they have paid tax to BBMP and their Late father had built a residential house on site No.6, which is the western site of sites No.7 and 8 measuring East to West 15 feet and North to South 40 feet which is the schedule property herein and they are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the same. They let out the said house to the tenants by name Ravindran. The defendant has no manner of right, title and interest over the property, inspite of that to knock off the valuable property, he is coming near the suit schedule property and attempting to trespass over the suit schedule property and threatening the tenants of the suit property to vacate the suit property, Thereafter, they went to spot when they enquired the defendant started threatening them to stating that they should vacate the suit property and he wants to construct the building on the suit property. Though they approached the jurisdictional police, they have not taken action and instructed them to approach civil Court and hence, filed the suit.
15. The defendant filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that one Sri.Rangappa and Sri.Shamanna are the sons of Muniswamappa and said Muniswamappa died in the year 1973 leaving behind his two sons and two wives and after his death, his two sons and two wives are in joint possession and enjoyment of the joint family properties. Subsequently, Sri.Rangappa filed the suit in O.S.No.762/1976 on 20.9.1976 for partition and separate possession against Sri.Shamanna and others and later said suit was renumbered as O.S. No.1387/1980 and it was decreed on 28.9.1981 declaring that the Sri.Rangappa is entitled for 5/12th share in all the immovable properties and as per the said Judgment and decree, Sri.Rangappa initiated final decree proceedings in FDP No.39/1984 for partition of all the properties including Sy.No.5/1 by metes and bounds and in that final decree proceedings, the properties were demarcated and one Sri.A.H.Kesanur filed an application to implead him in that final decree proceedings by alleging that they are claiming right under Shamanna, but the said application was rejected as per order dated 2.8.1984. The said FDP reached finality and same has not been questioned and the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore district had effected a partition of the properties. As per the order in FDP, he conducted enquiry in Case No.OS/Exe/2/1988- 1989 and effected partition demarking the share of Sri.Rangappa vide order dated 11.5.1989. and Sri.Rangappa was allotted share in Sy.No.5 measuring 2 acres 13 guntas along with other properties towards his 5/12th share. In that proceedings, Revenue Inspector inspected the spot drawn mahazar on 22.8.1989 and handed over the properties to Sri.Rangappa. Thereafter mutation effected in the name of Sri.Rangappa and Sri.Rangappa formed revenue layout in respect of Sy.No.5, present Sy.No.5/1 of Lottegollahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk and carved the suit sites and to sold the different persons . Site No.12 is one of the site formed in the said layout was gifted by Sri.Rangappa in favour of his son Sri.H.R.Srinivasa Murthy under gift deed dated 2.5.2016 and Sri.H.R.Srinivasa Murthy sold the same in favour of this defendant on 6.8.2012 under a registered sale deed. Since then, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and site No.13 and 14 were also formed in that layout and Sri.Rangappa sold site No.13 in favour of Sri.C.Amarnath, site No.14 in favour of Sri.Nyanachari under different sale deeds dated 3.5.2005 and in turn C.Amarnath sold the site No.13 in favour of this defendant on 5.11.2012, since then he has been in possession of the said site and Nyanachari sold the site No.14 in favour of S.Vijaykumar and Sri.Mohan Kumar under sale deed dated 15.2.2012. Later these two persons sold in favour of this defendant on 4.8.2012 and since then, this defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the of said site as absolute owner and consolidated Katha changed in his name, he has been paying tax. Subsequent to purchase, he put up a watchman shed in the small portion of the building situated in site No.12 and he obtained power connection. Plaintiffs are not in possession of suit property and the plaintiffs are claiming that suit property was purchased on 22.5.1980 from Sri.Shamanna, brother of Sri.Rangappa . But as on the date of suit in O.S.No.762/1976 (O.S.No. 1387/1980) was pending. So the alleged transaction will not bind defendant No.1 and father of the plaintiff will not get right in respect of the property in question and Sri.A.H.Kesanur filed the suit in O.S.No.7470/1994 against Sri.Rangappa in respect of site No.6 to 8 formed in Sy.No.5/1 of Lottegollahalli village, Bangalore North Taluk, which was contested by defendant No.1 herein and it was dismissed for non prosecution and even the application filed by the Sri.A.H.Kesanur for restoration was dismissed. Subsequently, Sri.A.H.Kesanur filed the suit in O.S.No.585/2006 against Sri.Rangappa and others seeking the relief of declaration and possession and mandatory injunction. By suppressing all these facts, this suit is filed, which is not maintainable. There is no cause of action for the suit neither the plaintiffs nor their father were in possession of suit property at any time. It is the defendant, who is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, which is the subject matter of the suit, which forms the part of Sy.No.12 formed in Sy.No.5/1. Hence, prayed to dismiss the same with costs.
16. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues and additional issues have been framed by this Court :
ISSUES IN O.S.No. 585 OF 2006 (1) Whether plaintiff proves that he is in possession and enjoyment of the of the plaint schedule property as on the date of the suit?
(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property as alleged?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as sought?
(4) What order or decree ?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES IN O.S.No. 585 OF 2006
1. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that they are the absolute owners of suit "A"
schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that sale deed dated 9.1.06 as contended in his pliant is not binding on him?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the proceedings in O.S.No.1387/1980 or FDP No.39/1994 is not binding on him?
4. Are the plaintiffs entitled for possession of the properties as prayed?
5. Are the plaintiffs are entitled for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish the structures put in schedule "A" property?
ISSUES IN O.S.No. 7501/2012
1. Do the plaintiffs prove that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the of suit property as on the date of suit?
2. Do the plaintiffs prove that there is interference by the defendant to their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property?
3. Do the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant?
4. What order or decree?
17. The plaintiffs in both the suits have examined Kum.Prema as P.W.1 and got marked 68 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.68 and also examined one Seetharamaiah retired Survey Supervisor as P.W.2. The defendant in O.S.No. 585/2006 inspite of their appearance and written statement filed by them, did not enter into the witness box. The defendant in O.S.No.7501/2012 examined him as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to D.103 and also examined one Venkatachalapathi as D.W2.
18. Heard advocate for plaintiff in both the cases and advocate for defendant in O.S.No.7501/2012. 19: My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1, 2,3 and additional In negative issues 1 to 5 in O.S.No.585/2006:
Issue No.1 to 3 in O.S.No. In negative
7501/2012:
Issue No.4 in both the cases: As per final order for
the following
REASONS
19. Issue No.1 and Additional Issue No.1, 2 in
O.S.No.585/2006 and Issue No.1 in
O.S.No.7501/2012:
Herein the fact that Sy.No.5, present Sy.No.5/1 originally belonged to one Muniswamappa, who is the father of defendant No.1 and Sri.Muniswamappa had another son by name Sri.Shamanna and after death of Muniswamappa, Sri.Rangappa and Sri.Shamanna have inherited the Sy.No.5/1 of Lottegollahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk along with other properties are all admitted facts. The case of the plaintiffs in both the cases that during the year 1979-80 said Sri.Shamanna and defendant No.1 partitioned said Sy.No.5, present Sy.No.5/1 along with other properties and Sri.Shamanna sold the property fallen to his share under registered sale deed dated 22.5.1980 in favour of Sri.A.H.Kesanur, who is the original plaintiff herein and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the of said property, which is the suit schedule property herein as a owner thereof. Plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the of the suit property, but after death of original plaintiff, the defendants in O.S.No.585/2006 taking advantage of the situation along with their henchmen trespassed into the Eastern portion of the schedule property in and around September 2006 to the extent of East to West 75 feet and North to South 40 feet, which is the "A" schedule property. The defendant No.1, 3 in O.S.No.585/2006 and also defendant in O.S.No.7501/2012 contended that there was no partition in the year 1979-80 as contended by the either original plaintiff or his legal heirs and after death of father of defendant No.1 Sri.Rangappa and Sri.Shamanna, there was dispute arose between them.
Hence, the defendant No.1 filed the suit in O.S.No.762/1976, which is renumbered as 1387/1980 against Sri.Shamanna and others. Said suit was contested and decreed allotting 5/12th share in favour of defendant No.1 Sri.Rangappa in respect of the property belonged to their father including Sy.No.5, present Sy.No.5/1 measuring 2 acres 13 guntas belonged to their father and against the Judgment and Decree, he initiated FDP proceedings in FDP No.39/1984, which was referred to Spl. Deputy Commissioner after conducing enquiry has divided the properties and allotted his 5/12th share and in that division, 2 acres 13 guntas in Sy.No.5/1 was allotted to share of Sri.Rangappa and put into possession of the same and this Sri.Rangappa had executed GPA in favour of defendant No.4 to look after the said properties and alienate the same and Sri.Rangappa formed a revenue layout carved the sites and sold the site No.12 to 14 measuring through his power of attorney holder in favour of defendant No.3 and one R.K.Kodanda Ramu on 9.1.2006 and they have put up 8 sheds and obtained electricity power connection and have let out the same to the tenants. Now tenants are in possession and enjoyment of the of the same and Sri.Shamanna had no right, title over Sy.No.5/1. These sites No.12 to 14 have been purchased by defendant in O.S.No.7501 of 2012 under different sale deeds dated 6.8.2012, 5.1.2012 and 4.8.2012 respectively and now he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.
20. PW1 in her chief-examination deposed that earlier to passing of the decree in O.S.No.1387/1980, defendant No.1 and his brother Sri.Shamanna, who is their vendor had partitioned the property and suit schedule property fallen to the share of Sri.Shamanna. In the course of cross-examination, she deposed that she does not know when the children of Muniswamappa divided Sy.No.5/1 and what was the extent of land allotted to share of Sri.Shamanna and 1st defendant in that partition and whether they have carved any sites in those properties and how many sites were formed and she does not know when Sri.Shamanna formed a layout. She further deposed that 1st defendant might have formed layout in Sy.No.5/1 measuring 2 acres 13 guntas and she does not know, which portion of Sy.No.5/1 allotted to Sri.Shamanna and why the suit in O.S.No.1387/1980 was filed and she does not know, which properties were allotted in that partition to Sri.Shamanna and she does not know that no property in Sy.No.5/1 was allotted to Sri.Shamanna and no partition had taken place earlier to Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.1387/1980 and she does not know how many sites were formed by Sri.Rangappa in Sy.No.5/1. She further deposed that there is no approved layout plan for formation of sites in Sy.No.5 and she does not know, under which document, Sri.Shamanna acquired right over Sy.No.5 from his father and she admitted that Sy.No.5/1 of Lottegollahalli village belonged to 1st defendant and the partition referred in para No.3 of her chief-examination is the partition that had taken place as per Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.1387/1980. She admitted that as per Judgment and Decree in FDP dated 15.2.1985 property in Sy.No.5/1 was allotted to 1st defendant and original Sy.No.5 and in Sy.No.5, Sri.Rangappa and Sri.Shamanna owned 2 acres 13 guntas. She also deposed that, they are in possession of property shown in Ex.P.54.
21. If this evidence of P.W.1 is taken into consideration, it is very clear that there is no document on the part of the plaintiff to show that there was a partition in the year 1979-1980 as stated in the plaint and para No.3 of chief affidavit of P.W.1 and suit schedule property allotted to the share of Sri.Shamanna or what was the total extent of Sy.No.5(5/1) allotted to share of Sri.Shamanna and they are in possession of property measuring 16'X20' vacant site bounded by east by road, west by railway lane, North krishnappa's property and south Nagaraju property which is not the suit schedule property herein.
22. The defendant produced Ex.D.76, which is the certified copy of the decree in O.S.No.1387/1980(Old No.762/1976), which reveals that Sri.Rangappa herein filed a suit against Sri.Shamanna and two others for partition of Sy.No.184/1, 184/2, 184/5 and Sy.No.15, 15/3 and also Sy.No.5/1 measuring 2 acres 13 guntas. The copy of the order by Special Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Bangalore District in case No.OS EX.E 2/1988-89 dated 11.5.1989 produced along with Ex.P.76 reveal that the Special Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) had effected partition based on the final decree in FDP No.39/1984 and allotted 2 acres 13 guntas in Sy.No.5 along with other properties to the share of Sri.Rangappa.
23. Ex.D.77 is certified copy of order on I.A.No.5 to 10 filed in FDP.39/1984 though it does not reveal that, who has filed this application, this document is produced stating that one Sri.A.H.Kesanur had filed this application to implead him and it was dismissed. This document has not been disputed by the plaintiff in the course of chief-examination of D.W.1. So it proves that the application filed by father of plaintiff to implead in that FDP proceeding was rejected. No document has been produced by the plaintiff to show that said order has been challenged by the plaintiff or their father. So it is very clear that the said order reached finality.
24. It is the plaintiff who has to prove that there was a partition in the year 1979-80 between their vendor Sri.Shamanna and defendant No.1, but evidence of P.W.1 itself falsifies the said contention. When such being the fact, till partition effecting as per order in FDP.No.39/1987 the Sy.No.5 , present Sy.No. 5/1 was in joint possession and enjoyment of the Sri.Shamanna and defendant No.1. So, Sri.Shamanna had no absolute and exclusive right to execute sale deed as per Ex.P.1. Further in Ex.P.1 nowhere it is stated that there was a partition either in the year 1979-80 or any other date as on the date of this sale deed between Sri.Shamanna and defendant No.1 in respect of this survey number. On the other hand, it is recited that, " ÉPÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀ±PÀ ÉÌ §AzÀÄ CªÀgÀ PÁ¯Á£ÀAvÀgÀ £À£Àß ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨÀsªz À ° À ègÀĪÀ £À£Àß ¸ÀA¥ÀÅÁtð ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀéPÉÆ̼À¥n À ÖgÀĪÀ F vÀº¯ À ɪÀgÉUÉ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ PÀnÖ C£ÀĨÀs«¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ F PɼÀPÀAqÀ µÉqÀÆå°£À°è «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀ SÁ° ¸Éål£ÀÄß É É
25. This also falsifies that, there was partition in the year 1979-80. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that, the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.585/2006 has stated in para No.8 of the plaint that while handing over possession of Sy.No.5 (present No.5/1) it is also referred by Revenue Inspector that even though there is an extent of 2 acres 13 guntas shown in the decree, there was availability of only 2 acres 7 guntas as per proceedings. So it is very clear that only 2 acres 7 guntas given to the share of defendant No.1 and remaining 6 guntas was in possession of Sri.Shamanna and he formed the sites and sold the same to the plaintiff, but this argument is without pleading. In the plaint, it is not stated that what is the extent of land fallen to the share of Sri.Shamanna in Sy.No.5 (5/1). So, any amount of argument or suggestion do not prove the case of plaintiff that Sri.Shamanna was given share in Sy.No.5.
26. The plaintiffs have produced, Ex.P.1 certified copy of sale deed dated 26.8.1946 execute in favour of Venkataswamappa in respect of Sy.No.5 measuring 2 acres 13 guntas, Ex.P.3 to 6 are the encumbrance certificates . Ex.P.7 is the tax assessment register extract, Ex.P.8 khatha certificate in the name of plaintiffs, Ex.P.9 property register extract, Ex.P.10 tax receipt, Ex.P.13 demand register extract, Ex.P.14 to 33 are tax paid receipt and challen for payment of tax, Ex.P.34 is the self assessed tax register extract, Ex.P.356 to p.37 are electricity bill and receipt. These documents no way help the plaintiff to say that there was a partition prior to sale deed as per Ex.P.1.
27. Further Ex.P.42 and P.43, which are RTC in respect of Sy.No.5 for the period 1971 to 1980 do not reveal the name of Sri.Shamanna. If there is a partition his name should have been reflected in these documents. So, it clearly proves that as on the date of sale deed, the vendor of the plaintiff has no exclusive right over the suit property and there was no partition between him and defendant No.1. So the said sale deed in favour of father of the plaintiff is without there being exclusive right over the suit property. When such being the fact, the said sale deed do not convey any right over the suit property in favour of father of the plaintiff.
28. Ofcourse, document produced by the plaintiff as discussed above are in the name of father of the plaintiffs i.e., original plaintiff, but that alone is not sufficient to say that plaintiffs are in possession of suit schedule property as on the date of suit. In the plaint in O.S.No.585/2006 initially stated that original plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the of suit property and the defendant to knock off the property, all of a sudden on 14.1.2006 came near the suit property along with their henchmen and by trespassing into the suit property started to clean the same and dig a trench to lay the foundation to put up construction in the suit property. Subsequently by amendment, it is stated that the after death of original plaintiff in or about August/September 2006, the defendants forcibly trespassed into eastern portion of suit property to the extent of 75 ft.,X 40 ft., which is "A" schedule property and constructed a small shed. As per Ex.P.39 endorsement issued by PSI, Sanjayanagar Police Station, it can be said that, one Renuka, daughter of Sri.A.H.Kesanur lodged a complaint on 14.1.2006 alleging that one Raju has been constructing house in site No.6 to 8 of Sy.No.5 of Lottegollahalli village belonged to him and he requested the police to stop the said construction. But police had issued endorsement to approach civil Court. So it is very clear that as on the date of 14.1.2006, one Raju was constructing house in site No.6 to 8 of Sy.No.5 which are suit schedule property. This suit is filed on 17.1.2006. So it is very clear that as on the date of suit, original plaintiff was not in possession of suit property. Further P.W.1 in her cross
-examination admitted that the Ex.P.57 is the document executed by defendant No.1 in favour of his son Srinivas and it is in respect of portion of suit property and she also admitted that since 9.1.2006, defendant No.3 and 5 are in possession of property and put up a shed. It also proves that as on the date of suit, the original plaintiff was not in possession of suit property .
29. Further, Ex.P.79, which is the certified copy of order sheet in O.S.No.7470/1994 filed by the original plaintiff Sri.A.H.Kesanur against the defendant No.1 herein for the relief of permanent injunction in respect to the present suit schedule property was dismissed for default. Even Ex.P.82 reveal that the petition filed for restoration of said suit was dismissed. So, there is no document on the part of plaintiff to show that as on the date of suit, either their father original plaintiff or they were in possession of suit property. The documents produced by the plaintiff as discussed above itself sufficient to say that the suit schedule property was not in possession of original plaintiff or these plaintiffs as on the date of suit.
30. Ofcourse, P.W2 deposed that he prepared Ex.P59, after survey as per the instruction of Deputy Commissioner, BBMP, Yelahanka zone. But, either this document or the evidence of this witness no way help the plaintiffs because it is not prepared by conducting survey after giving due notice to the defendants in this case, or neighboring site owners of the suit property.
31. O.S.No. 7501/2012 is filed alleging that Sri.A.H.Kesanur has built house on site No.6, which is the western side of site No.7 and 8 measuring East to West 15 ft., and the plaintiffs are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, which is described as site No.6(out of site No.6 to 8) formed in Sy.No.5 of Lottegollahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk measuring East to West 15 ft., North to South 40 ft., bounded by east by property of Munivenkatappa, west by site No.7 and 8, North by road and south by site No.9,10 and 11 and their tenants is residing in the suit property since 1985 and he is paying rent to them and the defendant to knock of the said property came near the property and attempted to trespass over the same. But in O.S.No.585/2006 it is stated in para No.5(a) to (c) of the plaint that, after demise of original plaintiff in the year 2006 about in the month of August/September, the defendants in that suit, forcibly trespassed into the eastern portion of the suit property bearing site No.6 to 8 to the extent of 75'X40' and the plaintiffs have sought for the possession of this area. In the schedule of the plaint in O.S. No.585/2006 the said encroached area is described as eastern portion of suit schedule property measuring East to West 75' North to South 40' consisting 8 sheds bounded by east- property of Munivenktappa and west-remaining portion of suit schedule property in possession of plaintiff and not road, south-site No.9 to 11 and in this suit, property is described as site No.6 out of site No.6 to 8 measuring 15'X40' bounded by east-property of Munivenkatappa, west-site No.7 and 8 of the plaintiff north-road, south- site No.9 to 11, If these two schedules are taken into consideration along with the aforesaid averments in the respective plaint, it is hard to believe that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property as described in O.S.No. 7501/2012. When an area measuring 75'X40' as described as "A" schedule of O.S.No.585/2006 has been encroached by the defendants in that suit how plaintiff could be in possession of the site No.6 or any portion thereof which is described in schedule of O.S.No.7501/ 2012. In O.S.No.7501/2012, there is no whisper about the suit filed in O.S.No.585/2006. The contention of defendant in this case is identical to the contention taken by the respective defendants in O.S.No.585/2006. He has produced sale deed dated 3.5.2005, 5.11.2012 and 5.2.2012, 4.8.2012, 6.8.2012 to support his contention that, site No.13 formed in Sy.No.5/1 measuring 30'X4-0' was sold by Sri.Rangappa in favour of C.Amarnath and said C.Amarnath sold the same in favour of this defendant and Sri.Rangappa also sold site No.14 measuring 30'X40' in favour of one Nyanachari on 3.5.2005, in turn Nyanachari sold the same in favour of Vijayakumar and MohanKumar on 15.2.2012 and these two persons sold the same in favour of this defendant and Sri.Rangappa gifted site No.12 in favour of his son H.R.Sreenivasa Murthy and he in turn sold the same on 6.8.2012 in favour of this defendant and since the date of purchase, he has been in possession of these properties. The defendants produced Ex.D.5 to 12 to support his claim. The plaintiff has produced Ex.P.56, which is the certified copy of sale deed dated 3.5.2005 by Sri.Rangappa in favour of Amarnath in respect of site No.13 and Ex.P.57 which is the gift deed dated 3.5.2005 executed Sri.Rangappa in favour of Srinivasa Murthy in respect of site No.12 and Ex.P.8 the certified copy of sale deed dated 3.5.2005 by Sri.Rangappa in favour of Nyanachari in respect of site No.14 , Ex.P.55 is the certified copy of sale deed by Sri.Rangappa through his GPA holder Anjinappa in favour of V.Raju and Kodanda Ramu, who are the defendant No.3 and 5 in O.S.No.585/2006 in respect of eastern portion of site No.12, 13 and 14. P.W.1 in her cross examination in O.S.No.585/2006 stated that the property sold under Ex.P.54 and P.56 by Sri.Rangappa are one and the same property. But the property under Ex.P.54 and Ex.P.55 do not tally one another including the boundaries mentioned therein. In the course of cross-examination of D.W.1, it is suggested that after purchase of the site in the year 1980, Sri.A.H.Kesanur put up some shed on those sites and let out those sheds on rent and tenants are residing till today, but either in the schedule of O.S.No.585/2006 or in the plaint, no where it is stated that, Sri.A.H.Kesanur had constructed the shed and let out the tenants. On the other hand, it is contended that after the death of Sri.A.H.Kesanur, the defendants in that suit have trespassed into the property and put up the 8 sheds. So the aforesaid suggestion is falsified by the averment in plaint O.S.No.585/2006. The plaintiffs suppressing the filing of the suit in O.S.No.585/2006 had taken different contentions in this suit. The learned counsel for the defendant in this suit has argued that by suppressing the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.585/2006, the plaintiff played a fraud on the Court and relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court page 853 S.P.Chengalavaraiah Naidu dead by LRs Vs.Jagannatha dead by LRs.
32. In the course of cross-examination of D.W.1, nothing is elicited to say that plaintiff is in possession of suit property as on the date of suit, though there is lengthy cross-examination. Though it is suggested that this defendant is claiming suit schedule site No.6 to 8 in O.S.No.585/2006 as site No.12 to 14, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that said site No.12 to 14 is nothing but site No. 6 to 8 said to have been purchased by plaintiff under Ex.P.1. It is the argument of learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendant has purchased the property during the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.585/2006, hence, it is hit by Section.52 of T.P.Act and he does not derive any title over the said property, but that argument cannot be accepted, because as on the date of suit in O.S.No.585/2006 original vendor Sri.Rangappa had acquired right, title over Sy.No.5(5/1) measuring 2 acres 13 guntas and the defendants in O.S.No.585/2006 had purchased some property from Sri.Rangappa and there is no preventive order either against Sri.Rangappa or vendor of this defendant not to alienate the property.
33. The defendant also produced Ex.D.13 to 16, which are the Form B property extract stands in the name of this defendant and his vendor and Ex.D.17 to 50, which are the tax paid receipts which stand in his name and in the name of his vendor, Ex.D.51 to 63 which are the encumbrance certificates reveals the alienation of site No.12 to 14 property by Sri.Rangappa and purchase of these sites by defendants, Ex.D.64 to 75 reveal that this defendant had obtained electricity connection to the sheds situated on the property purchased by him. Ex.D.88 and 89 are the RTC for the period 2014 to 16 stands in the name of Sri.Rangappa in respect of Sy.No.5/1 of Lottegollahalli village, Ex.D.104 and 105 Form No.B stands in the name of defendants. Even Ex.P.41 to 43, the name of Muniswamappa found place in respect of Sy.No.5 till 1988 -89 and the name of Sri.Rangappa found place in Ex.P.44 to 46 after 1989. It is well settled that the presumption in the revenue records is rebuttal presumption under Section.133 of Karnataka Land Revenue . The plaintiff has not produced any material to rebut the said presumption to show that their vendor has right over the property or that his name was found in the revenue records. The learned counsel for the defendant in O.S.No.7501/2012 relied upon a decision reported in KLJ 1978 (1) page 119 Lakshmi Shetty Vs Udupi Taluk Land Tribunal . Of course, the plaintiff produced Ex.P.47 to P.51, which are the endorsements and letter issued by BESCOM and also receipt for payment of amount to the BESCOM, but this document do not help the plaintiff to say that it is in respect of the shed situated in the suit schedule property in O.S.No.7501/2012. The plaintiff though contended that their father let out the shed situated suit property to one Ravindran and he is residing there has not examined either said Ravindran and any other witness. It also falsifies their possession over the suit property .
34. As I have discussed above, Ex.P.1 was came into existence during the pendency of suit in O.S.No. 1387/1980 (O.S.No. 762/76) so, it was hit by principles of lispendence, plaintiff cannot acquire any right. The learned counsel for the defendant in O.S.No.7501/2012 relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1973 S.C 2357 Rajendra Singh Vs. Shantha Singh and others. 2012(7) Supreme Court Cases 738 A.Nawab John and others Vs. V.N.Subramanyam.
35.. The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon a decision reported in 2005(11)Supreme Court Cases 403 Amith Kumar Shah and another Vs.Faridha Catoon and another.
36. In view of these discussion, I hold that the plaintiff has failed to prove Issue No.1 and Additional Issue No.1 in O.S.No. 585/2006 and Issue No.1 in O.S.No.7501/2012, I answer the same in the negative.
37. Additional Issue No.2 in O.S.No.585/2006: When the vendor of the original plaintiff had no right over suit schedule property as on the date of sale deed Ex.P.1 and said sale deed was hit by Section.52 of T.P.Act, the plaintiffs have no right to challenge the sale deed dated 9.1.2006 execute in favour of the defendants No.3 and 5 by defendant No.1 after disposal of FDP.39/1984 and allotment of property in Sy.No.5/1 measuring 2 acres 13 guntas in his favour and said Judgment and decree has reached the finality and it has not been challenged by either original plaintiff or these plaintiffs or their vendor. Therefore I hold that, the contention of the plaintiff that said sale deed dated 9.1.2006 is not binding on them is not proper and correct. Hence, I answer this issue in the negative.
38. Additional Issue NO.3 IN O.S.NO.585/2006:
Admittedly either original plaintiff or these plaintiffs were not party either in O.S.No.387/1980 or FDP No.39/1984, but as discussed above, the application filed by original plaintiff in FDP to implead him has been dismissed. Thereafter, they have not challenged the said order. Their vendor has also not challenged the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1387/1980 and allotment of Sy.No.5 measuring 2 acre 13 guntas in favour of defendant no.1 towards his share as per FDP No. 39/1994. Even these plaintiffs have also not challenged the said judgment and decree and FDP proceedings.
Further the sale deed as per Ex.P.1 in favour of original plaintiff is hit by section.52 of T.P.Act. Therefore, their contention that, the aforesaid proceedings are not binding on them does not hold good. But, it binds on them as soon after purchase of the property during the pendency of the suit, they steps into the shoes of their vendor. Hence, I answer this issue in the negative.
39. Issue No.2 in both the cases: when the plaintiff have failed to prove that their possession over the respective suit property, the question of interference by the respective defendants does not arise. Hence, I answer this issue in the negative.
40. Issue.3 in both the cases and Additional Issue No.4 and 5 in O.S.No. 585/2006: It is the argument of learned counsel for the defendant in O.S.No.7501/2012 that, when the suit filed by Sri.A.H.Kesanur in O.S.No.7470/1994 as per Ex.P.79 and P.80 was dismissed for default. The suit in O.S.No.585/2006 is not maintainable and hence it is hit by Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C. Admittedly as per Ex.D.79 and 80, suit in O.S.No.7470/1994 is filed for the relief of permanent injunction. When such being the fact, the suit in O.S.No. 585/2006 is not hit by Order 2 Rule 2 C.P.C.
41. It is further argument of learned counsel for defendant that, though the this defendant has denied the title of the plaintiff, she has not sought for declaration of title over the suit property against this defendant in this suit . Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and even the Court fee paid is insufficient, when there is a denial of title, the plaintiffs ought to have valued the suit under Section.26(A) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, for which, the learned counsel relied upon a decision reported in ILR 2002 Karnataka 3512 K.R.Subbaraju Vs. MM/S Vasavi Trading company and others and AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2987 N.V.Sreenivasa Murthy Vs. Mariyamma and others. But when there is no pleading and no issues, there is no merit in the argument.
42. However, when as on the date of O.S.No.7501/2012 the suit in O.S.No.585/2006 was comprehensive suit, there is any interference over the suit property therein and the defendant in O.S.No.7501/2012 was claiming right under Sri.Rangappa, the plaintiff instead of filing the suit might have impleaded this defendant in that suit to avoid any conflict of Judgment, but suppressing the pendency of earlier suit in respect of very same subject matter, they filed a present suit, which itself shows that the plaintiffs with an intention to get the order from the Court has filed separate suit.
43. When the plaintiffs have failed to prove the ownership over the suit property, they are not entitled for possession and mandatory injunction as prayed in O.S.No.585/2006. Hence, I answer these three issues in the negative.
44. Issue No.4 in both the suits:- In view of the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Both suits filed by the plaintiffs against the respective defendants are hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
Original Judgment shall be kept in O.S.No. 585/2006 and copy shall be kept in O.S.No. 7501/2012.
(Dictated partly to the Judgment Writer and also directly on computer, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, this the 6th day of February, 2017.) (Hemavathi) XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
*** ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for plaintiff in O.S.No.585/2006:
P.W.1 : Kum.Prema
P.W.2 : Sri.Seetharamaiah
2. List of documents exhibited for plaintiffs in O.S.No.585/2006:
Ex.P.1 Original sale deed dated 22.5.1980 Ex.P.2: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 26.8.1946 Ex.P.3 to 6: Encumbrance certificates Ex.P.7 Tax paid receipt Ex.P.8 Khatha certificate Ex.P.9 Register extract of houses and vacant sites Ex.P.10 to 12: Tax paid receipts Ex.P.13: Register extract(Objection for tax) Ex.P.14 to 33: Tax paid receipts, and duplicate tax paid receipts and list of tax details Ex.P.34: Self assessed property tax Ex.P.35: Document given by KEB Ex.P.36 & 37: Electricity bill and receipt Ex.P.38: Endorsement given by Tahasildar Ex.P.39: Endorsement given by police Ex.P.40: Notice issued by BBMP Ex.P.41 Certified copy of the of RTC Ex.P.42: RR extract Ex.P.43 to 46: RTC extracts Ex.P.47: Document given by BESCOM Authority Ex.P.48 to 50: Electricity bills Ex.P.51 to 53: Endorsements Ex.P.54 to 56: Certified copies of sale deeds Ex.P.57: Certified copy of the gift deed Ex.P.58: Certified copy of the another s.d Ex.P59 Sketch prepared by BBMP Ex.P60 & 61 2 tax paid receipts Ex.P62 Copy of complaint to PI of Kodigehalli POLICE STATION Ex.P63 Endorsement Ex.P64 & 65 2 Objections to applications to BBMP sub division Kodigehalli Ex.P66 to 68 3 letters to the Bescom
3. List of witnesses examined for defendants:
D.W.1 : Y.Naveen Kumar
D.W.2 Sri.Venkatachalapathi
4. List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Ex.D1 Certified copy of the RTC in respect of survey No.5/1 for the year 2004-05 Ex.D2 Certified copy of the RTC in respect of survey No.5/1 for the year 2012-13 Ex.D3 Certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.5514/2008 Ex.D4 Certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.4965/2007 Ex.D5 Sale deed dated 6/8/12 Ex.D6 Conformation deed dated 2/11/2012 Ex.D7 Sale deed dated 3/5/2005 Ex.D8 Sale deed dated 5/11/2012 Ex.D9 Sale deed dated 3/5/2005 Ex.D10 Sale deed dated 15/2/2012 Ex.D11 Sale deed dated 4/8/12 Ex.D12 Conformation deed dated 6/8/12 Ex.D13 Property register extract relating to property No.5/1/12 Ex.D14 Property register extract relating to property No.5/1/12 Ex.D15 Property register extract relating to property No.5/1/13 Ex.D16 Property register extract relating to property No.5/1/14 Ex.D17 34 Tax paid receipts 50 Ex.D51 Encumbrance certificate for the period 1/4/1975 to 31/3/2004 Ex.D52 Encumbrance certificate for the period 1/4/2004 to 29/10/2012 Ex.D53 Encumbrance certificate for the period 5/11/12 Ex.D54 Encumbrance certificate for the period 6/8/12 Ex.D55 Encumbrance certificate for the pried 1/4/2004 to 29/4/2012 Ex.D56 Encumbrance certificate for the period 5/11/2012 Ex.D57 Encumbrance certificate for the period 1/4/2005 to 28/1/2006 Ex.D58 Encumbrance certificate for the period 1/4/2004 to 29/10/12 Ex.D59 Encumbrance certificate for the period 4/8/12 Ex.D60 Encumbrance certificate for the period 15/2/2012 Ex.D61 Encumbrance certificate for the period 6/8/12 Ex.D62 Encumbrance certificate for the period 1/4/2004 to 22/1/2012 Ex.D63 Electricity payment receipt Ex.D64 Endorsement dated 2/3/2013 by Bescom Ex.D65 Electricity payment receipt Ex.D66 Endorsement dated 2/3/2013 by Bescom Ex.D67 Application form for water and sanitary connection Ex.D68 Receipt issued by BWSSB with bill Ex.D69 Provisional demand note by BWSSB annexed with sketch Ex.D70 Application form for water and sanitary connection Ex.D71 Receipt issued by BWSSB with bill Ex.D72 Provisional demand note by BWSSB annexed with sketch Ex.D73 Application form for water and sanitary connection Ex.D74 Receipt issued by BWSSB with bill Ex.D75 Provisional demand note by BWSSB annexed with sketch Ex.D76 Certified copy of the decree in O.S.1387/2012 Ex.D77 Certified copy of the order on IA NO.5 to 10 in FDP.39/1984 Ex.D78 Certified copy of the order sheet FDP.39/1984 along with certified copy of the sketch Ex.D79 Certified copy of the order sheet in O.S.7470/1994 Ex.D80 Certified copy of the plaint in O.S.7470/1994 along with valuation slip Ex.D81 Certified copy of the written statement in O.S.7470/1994 Ex.D82 Certified copy of the order sheet in Misc.267/2002 Ex.D83 Certified copy of the petition in Mis.267/2000 Ex.D84 Encumbrance certificate for the period 1/4/2012 to 19/7/2016 with respect to property NO.13 Ex.D85 Encumbrance certificate for the period 1/4/2012 to 19/7/2016 with respect to property NO.12 Ex.D86 Encumbrance certificate for the period 1/4/2012 to 19/7/2016 with respect to property NO.14 Ex.D.87 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 9.1.2006 Ex.D.88 RTC of Sy.No.5/1 for the period 2015-
2016 Ex.D.89: RTC of Sy.No.5/1 for the period 2014-
2015
Ex.D.90 7 photographs
to 96:
Ex.D.97 CD
Ex.D.98: 17 electricity bills
Ex.D.99 5 rent agreements dated:11.8.2013
to 103:
(Hemavathi)
XXXIX Additional City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
***