Bangalore District Court
Suresh N vs Ratnamma on 7 June, 2024
KABC010079352023 TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF V ADDL.CITY CIVIL COURT
AT BENGALURU
(CCH.No.13)
Present: Sri. ONKARAPPA.R, B.Sc., LL.B.
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU
Dated this the 7th day of June, 2024
O.S. No.1982/2023
PLAINTIFFS: 1. Sri. N. Suresh,
S/o Late Sri. Narayanappa,
Aged about 53 years,
R/at No.25/1, Narayanappa Garden,
Near JKM College,
J.P. Nagar Post,
Jaraganahalli village,
Bengaluru.
2. Sri. Puttaswamy,
S/o Sri. Mallegowda,
Aged about 44 years,
R/at No.92/92,
Annappa Road,
Near Gangadheshwara Temple,
Jaraganahalli,
J.P. agar Post,
Kanakapura Main Road,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.MSA, Advocate)
/VS/
DEFENDANT: Smt. Ratnamma,
W/o Sri. Krishnappa @ Perumalappa,
D/o Sri. Munivenkatappa,
Aged about 58 years,
R/at No.103/149,
Near Ramanjaneya Temple,
Care of Sri. Gangadharappa
(Byanna), Jaraganahalli,
Bengaluru.
(Ex-parte)
2
O.S.No.1982/2023
Date of Institution of the suit 21/03/2023
Nature of the suit Injunction
Date of Commencement of recording of 23/04/2024
evidence
Date on which judgment was 07/06/2024
Pronounced
Total Duration Year Months Days
01 02 16
[ ONKARAPPA.R]
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU
******
:JUDGMENT:
The plaintiffs have filed the suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant and her henchmen from interfering/meddling the plaintiffs suit schedule property and also for the cost.
2. The brief facts of the case as averred in the plaint are as under :-
That, the plaintiffs are the absolute joint owners of property bearing Gramatana Khata No.78, Jaraganahalli village, BBMP Ward No.186, situated at Bommanahalli Nagara Sabhe, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, coming within BBMP limits, measuring east to west 23 feet and north to south 24 feet totally measuring 552 square feet which is schedule property. Originally property bearing Gramatana Khata No.78 was measuring east to west 40 feet and north to south 46 feet totally measuring 1840 square feet was the ancestral property jointly belonging to Smt. Tanamma and Sri. Perumalappa paternal 3 O.S.No.1982/2023 grand parents of the defendant. After demise of Smt. Tanamma and Sri. Perumalappa one Sri. Munivenkatappa and his daughter Smt. Rathnamma i.e. defendant herein entered in to registered partition deed dated 23/04/2005. By virtue of said partition deed each of the parties became the absolute owners to the extent of 50% each in the property bearing Gramatana No.78. Subsequently, defendant herein for family and legal necessities sold a portion of property bearing Gramatana No.78 measuring east to west 35 feet and north to south 23 feet in favour of one Sri. R. Muniraju, S/o Sri. Ramanna under a registered sale deed dated 29/07/2006 and retained remaining portion to herself. R. Muniraju in turn retaining a smaller extent in Gramatana property bearing No.78, sold an extent measuring east to west 19 feet and north to south 23 feet in favour of one Sri. B. Ramachandra. Subsequently, in the year 2016, said Sri. Munivenkatappa, Smt. Rathnamma i.e. defendant herein along with her family members sold the remaining portion of property retained by the defendant and Sri. R. Muniraju bearing Gramatana No.78, measuring east to west 23 feet and north to south 24 feet totally measuring 552 square feet i.e. schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs under a registered sale deed dated 30/03/2016. Thus the plaintiffs are the absolute joint owners of the suit schedule property. When this being the case, the defendant who no longer has any right, title and interest in the schedule property began meddling with the same by bringing men and material at the suit schedule property on 19/03/2023 claiming the suit schedule property as her own. Immediately the plaintiffs questioned and enquired as to what the matter was but the defendant was evasive in her approach towards the plaintiffs. With great difficulty the plaintiffs prevented the defendant 4 O.S.No.1982/2023 from taking any further course in this regard. The intention of the defendant is to knock off the property belonging to the plaintiffs. The defendant has no semblance of right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. Cause of action for the suit aroused on 19/03/2023 when the defendant and her henchmen tried to interfere with the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs valued the suit as per law for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. Paid court fee is sufficient. Hence, the plaintiffs sought for decreed the suit.
3. After filing of the suit and even service of suit summons on the defendant, the defendant remained absent before the court, hence she placed ex-parte as per order sheet dated 09/02/2024.
4. In order to prove the case of plaintiffs, 1 st plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P.8.
5. Heard the argument and perused the material on record.
6. Points that arise for my consideration are;
1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
2. What Order or Decree?
7. My findings on the above points are as under :
Point No.1 In the Affirmative
Point No.2 As per final orders for
the following,
5
O.S.No.1982/2023
-: R E A S O N S :-
8. Point No.1:- It is of the plaintiffs case that, they are the
absolute joint owners of property bearing Gramatana Khata No.78, Jaraganahalli village, BBMP Ward No.186, situated at Bommanahalli Nagara Sabhe, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, coming within BBMP limits, measuring east to west 23 feet and north to south 24 feet totally measuring 552 square feet which is schedule property. Originally property bearing Gramatana Khata No.78 was measuring east to west 40 feet and north to south 46 feet totally measuring 1840 square feet was the ancestral property jointly belonging to Smt. Tanamma and Sri. Perumalappa paternal grand parents of the defendant. After demise of Smt. Tanamma and Sri. Perumalappa one Sri. Munivenkatappa and his daughter Smt. Rathnamma i.e. defendant herein entered in to registered partition deed dated 23/04/2005 at Ex.P.1. By virtue of Ex.P.1 partition deed each of the parties became the absolute owners to the extent of 50% each in the property bearing Gramatana No.78. Subsequently, defendant herein for family and legal necessities sold the portion of property bearing Gramatana No.78 measuring east to west 35 feet and north to south 23 feet in favour of one Sri. R. Muniraju, S/o Sri. Ramanna under a registered sale deed dated 29/07/2006 and retained remaining portion to herself. R. Muniraju in turn retaining a smaller extent in Gramatana property bearing No.78, sold an extent measuring east to west 19 feet and north to south 23 feet in favour of one Sri. B. Ramachandra. Subsequently, in the year 2016, said Sri. Munivenkatappa, Smt. Rathnamma i.e. defendant herein along with her family members sold the remaining portion of property retained by the defendant and Sri. R. Muniraju bearing Gramatana No.78, measuring east to west 23 feet and north to 6 O.S.No.1982/2023 south 24 feet totally measuring 552 square feet i.e. schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs under a registered sale deed dated 30/03/2016 at Ex.P.2 sale deed. The transaction at Ex.P.2 sale deed have also reflected at Ex.P.7 encumbrance certificate. Thus the plaintiffs are the absolute joint owners of the suit schedule property. Further case of the plaintiffs that, based on Ex.P.2 sale deed he got obtained the katha over the suit schedule property at Ex.P.5 property 'B' register extract. In lieu of Ex.P.5 property 'B' register extract and also on the basis of Ex.P.2 sale deed the plaintiffs have paid the revenue tax to the concerned authorities continuously at Ex.P.3 and P.4 tax paid receipts. Further to show the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, P.W.1 have also got marked Ex.P.6 electricity bill. It could be seen from Ex.P.6 electricity bill that the suit schedule property stands in the name of 1 st plaintiff. So from the above all documents it could seen how it evolved the title of the property to the plaintiffs and their possession. Admittedly Ex.P.1 to P.7 documents are all the revenue documents. Under law of evidence, revenue documents have its own presumptive value with respect to possession of the property. There is no legal embargo under law of evidence to drawn an presumption in favour of the plaintiffs unless the contrary have been proved. As Ex.P.1 to P.7 documents have consistently evidenced how the source of title devolved to the plaintiffs, on what basis the plaintiffs have possession over the suit schedule property, that I have no hesitation herein to drawn an presumption over the documents Ex.P.1 to P.7. Further also case of the plaintiffs herein that the plaintiffs being a lawful joint owners in possession of the suit schedule property the defendant who no longer has any right, title and interest in the schedule property began meddling with the plaintiffs by 7 O.S.No.1982/2023 bringing men and material on 19/03/2023 claiming the suit schedule property as her own. With respect to assertion of title, possession over the suit schedule property along with assertion of alleged interference by the defendant with the plaintiffs peaceful possession of the suit schedule property the case of the plaintiffs stood as affirm. It pertinent to note that, despite the suit summons duly served on the defendant, the defendant not appeared before the court and to contested the claim of the plaintiffs claimed against her. Thereby the case theory of the plaintiffs stood as unilateral without any obstacle. That since the corroborative testimony of the plaintiffs remains as unshaken that I have no other option other wise to disbelieve the case of the plaintiffs. That since the case theory of the plaintiffs stood as unilateral without of any obstacle, I am of the view that the plaintiffs have successfully proved their case by placed an corroborative oral and documentary evidence. Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.
9. Point No.2 :- For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs hereby decreed.
The defendant and her henchmen hereby permanently restrained from interfering or meddling with the plaintiffs suit schedule property.
No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer on Computer, typed by her, corrected and signed by me and pronounced in the open Court this the 7th day of June, 2024) [ ONKARAPPA.R ] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU ***** 8 O.S.No.1982/2023 :ANNEXURE:
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW.1 : N. Suresh
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
NIL
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P1 Digital copy of registered partition deed dated 23/04/2005
Ex.P2 Digital copy of registered sale deed dated 30/03/2016
Ex.P3 Tax paid receipt
Ex.P4 Receipt
Ex.P5 B property register extract
Ex.P6 Electrical bill
Ex.P7 Encumbrance certificate Form No.15
Ex.P8 Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE DEFENDANT:-
NIL
[ ONKARAPPA.R ]
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU
9
O.S.No.1982/2023
Operative portion of the judgment
pronounced in open court vide separate
judgment:-
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiffs hereby
decreed.
The defendant and her
henchmen hereby permanently
restrained from interfering or meddling
with the plaintiffs suit schedule property.
No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
[ ONKARAPPA.R ] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU 10 O.S.No.1982/2023 11 O.S.No.1982/2023