Bangalore District Court
Eastwood Residents Association vs Rabindra Panigarhi on 8 April, 2025
KABC020247042023
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES (SCCH-24)
AT BENGALURU.
Presided Over by Smt. Roopashri, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXII ADDL., SCJ & ACJM,
MEMBER - MACT,
BENGALURU.
Dated:- This the 8thday of April 2025.
S.C.No.736/2023
Plaintiff/s : East Wood Residents Association
Registered under the Provision
of the Karnataka Society
Registration Act, 1960
SJR Eastwood Layout,
Harlur road,
(Off) Sarjapur road,
Bengaluru -560102.
Represented by its President
Mr. Ranjan Dutta,
(By Sri.Prasad Subbanna,
Advocate.)
V/s
Defendant/s : Mr. Rabindra Panigarhi,
Major,
No.28-B, SJR Eastwood Layout,
Sarjapur road,
Bengaluru -560102.
(By Sri.Prakyath Shetty,
Advocate.)
2 S.C. No.736 of 2023
SCCH-24
Date of institution of the suit : 18-08-2023
Nature of the suit (suit on : Recovery of money
pro-note, suit for declaration
and possession suit for
injunction etc.)
Date of commencement of : 05-01-2024
recording of the evidence
Date on which the judgment : 08-04-2025
is pronounced
Total duration : Years Month/s Days
01 07 21
XXII Addl. Judge
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff Association has filed this suit against the defendant for recovery of arrears of maintenance for the period from 01-04-2020 to 31-03-2023 amounting to Rs.1,16,309/- and to issue direction to pay future maintenance charges as long as he remains the owner of Unit No.28-B.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as follows;
That the plaintiff is the Association registered under the Karnataka Societies Act, 1960. The plaintiff 3 S.C. No.736 of 2023 SCCH-24 Association consists of 153 houses and the objective for forming such an Association was to protect the welfare of its residents and its members. The Association governs and regulates the properties and other facilities within the East Wood layout developed by SJR developers. As per Clause 5 of the Memorandum of Association, the membership of the Association shall be restricted to the existing owners of house properties. It shall vest with the transferee in case of sale or with the legal heirs in case of transmission. The members of the Association shall be liable to strictly comply with all the bye-laws, rules, regulations, obligations, duties and responsibilities which are included and are in force and those which may be made in future. Under the definition at 2(h) Unit is defined to mean a specified area owned by the Association member in East Wood layout, Chapter II 1(1) pertains to maintenance charges. It is categorically stated that a member shall pay maintenance charges as determined from time to time by the General Body of the Association. The maintenance charges are payable in full, three times in a year, once every four months beginning from January. Under Chapter 6(1) non compliance of the bye-laws is stipulated wherein in unequivocal terms, empowers the plaintiff Association to take such action as deemed 4 S.C. No.736 of 2023 SCCH-24 necessary in the event of failure on the part of the member to comply with any of the stipulated Bye Laws, Rules, Regulations, duties and responsibilities and to impose such penalties including but not limited to curtailment of common services, stoppage of electricity, water etc. to the property. It further empowers the plaintiff Association to initiate legal action against the defaulting members for non compliance of the bye laws of the plaintiff Association. The defendant is the owner of the Unit no.28-B and by virtue of the MOA and bye laws of the plaintiff Association; he is the member of the Association. Being the member of the plaintiff Association, the defendant is bound to follow rules and regulations and to pay the maintenance charges in time. The defendant is due in a sum of Rs.1,16,309/- towards maintenance for the period from 01-04-2020 to 31-03- 2023. The plaintiff Association addressed a letter to the defendant on 30-12-2022, calling upon him to clear the outstanding amount due to it and to continue to pay future maintenance charges. The plaintiff Association in its minutes of meetings of Annual General Meeting held on 18-09-2022 has passed resolution that the Association should take steps for recovery of maintenance dues from members and in case there is no settlement then to file a suit for recovery. The 5 S.C. No.736 of 2023 SCCH-24 defendant remained a chronic defaulter and as such the plaintiff Association got issued legal notice dated 20-02- 2023 but the defendant has not come forward to clear the same. As on the date of suit, the plaintiff is due in a sum of Rs.1,16,309/-. The defendant is using all the facilities of the plaintiff Association but he is not responding the request made by the plaintiff Association to clear the outstanding dues, hence the suit.
3. On service of suit summons, the defendant appeared through its counsel and filed the written statement.
4. In the written statement, the defendant has admitted that plaintiff association is a registered association but further contended that the plaintiff has not produced any document to prove that association is renewed every year as per the Karnataka Societies Act. The defendant has contended that as per alleged Bye Law, under section 3 (vi), every member shall pay a sum of Rs.500/- towards membership fee and such other fees as the governing body from time to time prescribes apart from the monthly subscription fees. The plaintiff has not produced any document which stipulates the increase in the membership fee and maintenance fee which are to be stipulated in the General body meeting 6 S.C. No.736 of 2023 SCCH-24 or rectification pertaining to the increase in membership fee and maintenance fee.
5. It is submitted by the defendant that, he had purchased site in East Wood layout under sale deed dt.20-3-2003. He built a residential house in the said layout in the year 2016 by taking necessary permission from the competent authorities. While constructing the residential house since the plaintiff caused obstruction by preventing the vehicles from entering the defendant's site and stopped the labour from working it forced him to pay sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards maintenance and penalty towards arrears.
6. It is categorically submitted by the defendant that he was not a member of the society and he did not enroll himself as a member of the plaintiff association by paying Rs.500/- nor signed any form seeking membership. Since, he was not the member of plaintiff society, the question of his default in payment of maintenance charges does not arise.
7. It is further submitted that defendant has constructed house at an approved layout and is not a gated community. The roads are maintained and laid by 7 S.C. No.736 of 2023 SCCH-24 BBMP and electricity bill is paid to BESCOM and water and sewerage charges are paid to BWSSB and there is no agreement between the plaintiff and defendant. All the roads in the layout is owned by BBMP and it is a public road and defendant is not residing in an apartment or flat but residing in an independent flat and there is no binding agreement between the developer, plaintiff and defendant.
8. The defendant further submits that in a plotted layout, the membership is voluntary and not bound to enforce rules as it is not a gated community like apartment. Hence, he is not liable to pay the suit amount towards the alleged arrears of maintenance amount.
9. In order to prove the case, the Authorized person of the plaintiff association is examined as PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. On the other hand, the defendant got examined himself as DW.1 and through him got marked Ex.D1 to D5.
10. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff and defendant.
8 S.C. No.736 of 2023SCCH-24
11. The following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the Plaintiff Association proves that defendant is a member of the plaintiff Association and he is due in a sum of Rs.1,16,309/-
towards the maintenance charges for the period from 01-04-2020 to 31-03-2023?
2. Whether the Plaintiff Association is entitled for suit claim?
3. What judgment or decree?
12. On hearing both sides and on perusal of oral and documentary evidence, this court answers the above points as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: In the Affirmative
Point No.3: As per the final order
for the following:-
REASONS
13. Point No.1 & 2 :- As these points are interconnected they are taken up together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
9 S.C. No.736 of 2023SCCH-24
14. As observed supra, the plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of arrears of maintenance on the ground that defendant being the occupant of the site has failed to pay the maintenance charges from 01-04-2020 to 31- 03-2023.
15. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff got examined its authorized person by name Mr.Abraham Joseph as PW.1 and produced 14 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.14. Ex.P.1 is the authorization letter to prove that Pw1 was authorized to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff association.
16. To prove the existence of plaintiff association, the plaintiff has produced Ex.P2 which is the renewal of registration of society along with committee list of members for 2023-2024. Ex.P3 is the Aadhar card of Mr.Abhraham Joseph. Ex.P4 is the computerized transaction statement. Ex.P5 is the computerized E- mail copy. Ex.P6 is the letter given by plaintiff to defendant demanding the defendant to pay the arrears of maintenance. Ex.P7 is the postal receipt. Ex.P8 is the minutes of meeting. Ex.P9 is the legal notice. Ex.P10 is the postal receipt and postal acknowledgment. Ex.P11 is the certificate u/Sec.65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
10 S.C. No.736 of 2023SCCH-24 Ex.P12 is the certificate of registration of society. Ex.P13 is the Memorandum of association and Ex.P14 is the Rules and Regulation of the Association.
17. In order to substantiate the defence taken by the defendant, he got examined himself as DW.1 and got marked 5 documents as per Ex.D1 to D5. Ex.D1 is the tax paid receipt issued from BBMP Bangalore, Ex.D2 is the two photographs pertaining to the East Wood Layout, Ex.D3 is the BESCOM bills, Ex.D4 is the BWSSB Bills and Ex.D5 is the registered sale deed executed in respect of Unit 28-B in favour of defendant.
18. If the averments of the plaint and written statement are perused, it is not in dispute that defendant had purchased site from the plaintiff for valuable consideration. After the purchase of site, the defendant has constructed residential house. If the written statement of defendant, the line of cross examination done to the PW.1, the evidence given by the defendant and the line of argument canvassed by the learned counsel for defendant is perused, the defendant at the outset has seriously disputed his being the member of plaintiff association and disputed his liability to pay the maintenance charges. It is categorically 11 S.C. No.736 of 2023 SCCH-24 submitted by the learned counsel for defendant that plaintiff has not produced any document to prove that the defendant is the member of plaintiff association and that when the defendant is not the member of the plaintiff association, the question of his paying maintenance charges would not arise.
19. The defendant having admitted that plaintiff association is a registered association has raised objection that the registration of plaintiff society has not been renewed during the year 2023-24.
20. In the light of the contention taken by the defendant, if the evidence of the PW.1 is appreciated, it is true that plaintiff has not produced membership form of the defendant. It is deposed by Pw1 that, when defendant admittedly has purchased site in the East wood layout it has to be considered that defendant is also the member of plaintiff association. When it was questioned to the PW.1 whether they have receipt for having collected membership fee of Rs.500/- from the defendant as per clause-6 of Ex.P14, the PW.1 deposed that the said receipt will be with the members. It is quite natural that when membership fee is paid the receipt will be given to the member and such receipt will 12 S.C. No.736 of 2023 SCCH-24 be in the custody of the members. It is deposed by PW.1 that they are maintaining register so far as collection of membership fee is concerned. When it was questioned to the PW.1, can it possible to produce the said register?, for which the PW.1 has deposed that they will retain / maintain the register only for a period of 7 year and that if the membership form is submitted within 7 years then only they can produce the said register.
21. Admittedly the defendant has purchased the site in the year 2003 and constructed the residential house in the year 2016. Hence, the defendant would have paid the membership fee during the year 2006. If the evidence of PW.1 is relied upon then, there is no chances of their maintaining register pertaining to the membership fee paid by the defendant because, now it is almost 18 years has lapsed from the date of purchase of plot by the defendant.
22. It is relevant to state here that, during the course of argument, the learned counsel for plaintiff has produced memo with Certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.5294/2023, decided on 29-09- 2024 by the Hon'ble LVI Addl., City Civil and Sessions Judge Bangalore (CCH-57) and also produced Certified 13 S.C. No.736 of 2023 SCCH-24 copy of the committee list for the year 2019 - 2020. Since said documents are the certified copies of the court proceedings, even if said documents are not marked as Exhibits, the court can rely upon the same.
If, the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.5294/2023 is perused, the Plaintiff association had filed suit of similar nature against one of the member of association for recovery of arrears of maintenance. In the said case ex-parte decree was passed as defendant in the said case has failed to contest the proceedings. The said judgment is passed by the Hon'ble City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore. Based on the materials available in the said case, the suit in O.S.No.5294/2023 was decided. Hence, the observation made in the aforesaid judgment cannot be made use of in the present case. But, so far as the certified copy of the committee list for the year 2019-20 produced by the plaintiff pertaining to East-Wood Residents Association is concerned, same can be looked into, to determine that defendant was the member of Plaintiff's Association. In the committee list for the year 2019-20 we can find the name "Mr.Rabindra Panigarhi, #28B, East Wood layout, Harlur road, Off Sarjapur road, Bangalore 560102" as the Secretary of East Wood's Residents Association. It is not in dispute that 14 S.C. No.736 of 2023 SCCH-24 defendant is the owner of Unit No.28-B in East Wood layout. Hence, it can be said that, the name and address mentioned in the committee list referred above is the name and address of the defendant. When defendant was the Secretary of the Committee of Plaintiff Association during the year 2019-20, it can be said that he was the member of the said Association. Unless person becomes the member of Association, he cannot be permitted to contest the election of the committee, he cannot be elected as the Secretary of the Association and he cannot be permitted to represent the Association in his capacity as the Secretary. As observed supra, it is not in dispute that defendant is the owner of Unit No.28/B. As per the own admission of the defendant he had paid maintenance charges of Rs.6,00,000/- which includes Rs.1,00,000/- towards penalty. It is stated by the defendant that since the Plaintiff Association obstructed the defendant in construction of residential house by preventing the vehicles from entering the defendant site, he was forced to pay the society sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as maintenance and Rs.1,00,000/- as penalty towards arrears of maintenance. The defendant has not produced any document to prove that at any point of time the Plaintiff Association had obstructed the defendant from 15 S.C. No.736 of 2023 SCCH-24 constructing the house and at the pressure of Plaintiff Association he had paid maintenance charges of Rs.6,00,000/- to the plaintiff. As per the case of plaintiff, the defendant had paid maintenance charges till 01-04-2020 and he is due of maintenance from 1-4- 2020 till 31-03-2023. The defendant has not disputed the fact of maintenance charges paid by him till 01-04- 2020. As per the very version of the defendant, during the year 2016 he had constructed the residential house in plot No.28/B. If really for the reason that the plaintiff association had obstructed the defendant from constructing the house in the said plot, he was forced to pay the maintenance, then after completion of the construction work of the house the defendant could have refused to pay the maintenance charges. But as observed supra till 1-4-2020 the defendant had paid the maintenance charges. If really plaintiff association had obstructed the defendant in constructing the house, then the defendant would have taken necessary legal action against the Plaintiff Association for their alleged illegal act of preventing the defendant from constructing the house, but no such action has been taken so far by the defendant against the Plaintiff Association.
16 S.C. No.736 of 2023SCCH-24
23. Now, at this juncture it would be relevant to refer here Section 2 of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act 1960 (hereinafter called the Act for the sake of brevity.) which has been referred both by the counsel for plaintiff and defendant.
Section 2 of the Act reads as follows:
(b) "Member" means a person who, having been admitted to membership of a society in accordance with the rules and regulations thereof, shall have paid his subscription and shall have signed the roll or list of members thereof, and shall not have resigned in accordance with such rules and regulations, but in all proceedings under this Act, no person shall be entitled to vote or to be counted as a member whose subscription at the time shall have been in arrear for a period exceeding three months.
24. If Memorandum of Association as per Ex.P13 is perused, wherein under clause 5 it is mentioned that, "The membership of the Association shall be restricted to the existing owners of house properties which shall rest with the transferee in case of sale or with the legal heir in cases of transmission. Members of the 17 S.C. No.736 of 2023 SCCH-24 Association shall be liable to strictly comply with all the Bye laws, Rules, Regulations, Obligations, Duties and responsibilities herein included and in force and those which may be made in future."
25. If Ex.P14 i.e., Rules and Regulations of the East Wood residents Association is perused, wherein also it is stated that, the "Membership of the Association shall be restricted to the owners of the sites of the layout". It is also stated that, "It is mandatory on the part of the owner to enroll as a Member of the Association and strictly comply with all the Bye laws, Rules, Regulations etc.,"
26. As observed supra, the defendant has purchased Unit No.28- B in the East wood Layout and he is the owner of the said site. Under such circumstances, by relying upon Ex.P13 and 14 also it can be said that defendant was the member of the plaintiff association.
27. The defendant having aware that he was the member of the Plaintiff Association and had represented the Association as the Secretary, has suppressed the said material fact by deposing before the court that he 18 S.C. No.736 of 2023 SCCH-24 was not the Secretary of the Association for any tenure and has disputed his being the member of the Plaintiff Association .
28. So far as the contention taken by the defendant disputing the renewal of the Registration of the Association is concerned, at the cost of repetition, the defendant has admitted the existence of plaintiff association and its registration but only taken the contention that the registration of the society was not renewed.
29. The plaintiff has produced certificate of registration of society at Ex.P12. As per Ex.P12 the society was registered on 16-05-2006. Ex.P12 is the renewal certificate dated 8-11-2023 which clearly provides that the registration of the society was renewed. Hence, there is no reason to believe that from time to time the plaintiff association was not renewed.
30. The defendant has seriously disputed the competency of PW.1 to represent the plaintiff association and to give evidence on behalf of the plaintiff Association. According to the defendant as per Chapter VII of Ex.P14, the Association shall sue and be sued in 19 S.C. No.736 of 2023 SCCH-24 the name of the Association represented by its President and the Pw1 being not the president of the plaintiff association is not competent to sue on behalf of the association, hence on that count itself suit is liable to be dismissed.
31. Admittedly PW.1 is not the President of the plaintiff association. As per the committee list produced by the plaintiff annexed to Ex.P-2, PW.1 was the member of the committee and one Ranjan Dutta was the President of the Association. As per Ex.P1 the President of the Plaintiff Association has given authority to the PW.1 to give evidence on his behalf. If the plaint is perused, the suit is filed by the Plaintiff Association represented by its President Mr.Ranjan Dutta. It is only for the purpose of giving evidence the President of Association had given authority as per Ex.P1 to the Pw1. Hence, it can be said that, PW.1 is duly authorized to give evidence and he is competent to give evidence on behalf of the Plaintiff Association.
32. Now coming to the material defence taken by the defendant regarding the liability of defendant to pay the maintenance amount claimed by the Plaintiff Association is concerned, it is vehemently argued by the 20 S.C. No.736 of 2023 SCCH-24 learned counsel for the defendant that, the Karnataka Societies Registration Act 1960 would apply only for the act defined in section 3 and not for running an association and collecting maintenance for day to day activities and the plaintiff does not fall under the category defined in section 3 of the Act and he cannot seek maintenance amount as it is registered under the wrong Act. In support of the argument the learned counsel for the defendant has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble High court in WP No 28206 of 2023 between M.S Sharmisthana Nag / State of Karnataka and Others. In the said case petitioner was one of the owners of the Apartment complex. Her grievances was that some of the apartment owners have registered an association under Karnataka Societies Registration Act 1960 and making demands for payment of maintenance amount for maintenance of apartment complex which is in violation of provisions of the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act 1972 and the particular apartment owners association registered under the Karnataka Societies registration Act 1960 cannot have as its objective maintenance of an apartment complex. The Hon'ble High court in the given set of facts has observed that the society registered under the Karnataka 21 S.C. No.736 of 2023 SCCH-24 Societies Registration Act 1960 cannot have as its objective maintenance of an apartment complex.
33. In Writ Appeal No 974/2019 between VDB Celadon Apartment Owners Association / Mr. Praveen Prakash and Others it was observed that "the objective of administering, maintaining and running the buildings and apartments and to carry on the day to day work relating to all the aspects of the buildings / apartments , common areas and common facilities will not be covered by any of the clauses (a) to(g) of section 3 of the said Act of 1960 and as such held that such a society cannot be formed for such purpose. In the said case the hon'ble Hon'ble High court having observed that in several matters where societies have been registered by the societies under the societies registration Act 1960 for the purpose of maintenance of an apartment building given direction to all the Registering authorities under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act and the Karnataka Cooperative societies Act so that the law laid down by the court is followed by them . It was observed in the said case that specific provision of law will always override the general provisions of law. With that observation liberty was 22 S.C. No.736 of 2023 SCCH-24 given to the apartment owners association to take action under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act 1972.
34. In reference to the contention taken by the defendant and the observation made in the aforesaid judgments it is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that even though the plaintiff has issued letter as per ExP6 demanding the defendant to pay the arrears of maintenance and even though E mail communication in that regard as per ExP5 was made , but the defendant has not given any reply to the said notice and he has not raised any such defense at an earliest point of time by not giving reply to the said notice. Even in the written statement also the defendant has not raised dispute regarding the correctness of the registration of the association under the Karnataka societies Registration Act, hence defendant is debarred from raising such contention at this belated stage. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for plaintiff that the defendant being the member of the plaintiff association had paid maintenance till the month of April 2020 and if really he had any objection regarding the registration of plaintiff association under Karnataka Societies registration Act, he would have raised objection in that regard. Hence the learned counsel for 23 S.C. No.736 of 2023 SCCH-24 plaintiff submitted that the defendant is liable to pay the arrears of maintenance.
35. If the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the defendant is read in whole, it is true that in both the judgment the Hon'ble High court has observed that the association referred in the said cases ought to have been registered under the Karnataka Apartment Association Act but not under Karnataka Societies Registration Act and liberty was given to the Apartment Association to register the association under Karnataka Societies Registration Act but nowhere the Hon'ble high court has observed that the apartment owners are not liable to pay the maintenance to the association on the ground that it was registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act and not under the Karnataka Apartment Association Act. In the present case the plaintiff association is not the Apartment owners association but it is East Wood Residents Association i.e the residents who are residing in the said layout.
36. In the present case when it is proved that defendant is the member of the plaintiff Association, when it is proved that he is the owner of the site in East Wood layout, it is proved as per Ex.P4 that he had paid 24 S.C. No.736 of 2023 SCCH-24 maintenance charges till 01-04-2020 and even defendant has also admitted the payment of maintenance amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, under such circumstances, in usual course defendant has to pay the arrears of maintenance of Rs.1,16,309/- to the Plaintiff Association. As per Ex.P13 the object of the Association inter-alia is to promote common interest, well being and welfare of the owners and bonafide residents, encourage mutual help and comradeship among them in accordance with cooperative principles. As per chapter II of Rules and Regulations of the East wood Residents Association, "The members shall be liable to pay the maintenance charges as determined from time to time by the General body of the Association. The maintenance charges are payable in full three times in a year, once every four months beginning January. Payment should be made to the Secretary or the Treasurer without any reminder on or before the 7th of the first month for that, particular payment cycle either by cheque or cash. However, if these charges remain unpaid for more than 4 months, penalty will be levied at the rate of 1% per month on the outstanding amount and it shall be payable to the Association along with the maintenance charges. In case of out station cheques and cheques returned unpaid, 25 S.C. No.736 of 2023 SCCH-24 the bank's collection charges shall be payable by the member. The liability of the maintenance charges shall at all time be the liability of the member and not of the tenant occupying the premises. However, it is open to the Governing body to levy such charges payable by the occupier on the occupant in the event the owner fails to pay the same. The Governing body has powers to approve any levy on the members other levies such as onetime expenses for any specific purpose, improvements in the layout such as free planting, installation of common facilities such telephone, broadband facilities etc., or for improving the security facilities, organizing programmers for the common interest of the association etc.,
37. When defendant admittedly had paid maintenance from the year 2016 till the month of April 2020 for the past 4 years by admitting that he is liable to pay the maintenance for the amenities received from the association and when the defendant once had elected as the secretary of the said association and during his tenure of secretary of the said association he had not raised any objection regarding registration of the plaintiff association under Karnataka Societies Registration Act, now he is estopped from raising 26 S.C. No.736 of 2023 SCCH-24 contention that he is not the member of the association and he is not liable to pay the maintenance . As per the observation made in the aforesaid judgment it is true that plaintiff association ought not to have registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act hence as observed in the supra judgments relied by the defendant liberty is always with the defendant to get the association registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act. Hence when the common object of the association is to administer, maintain and running the building and apartment and facilities are providing to the residents of the East Wood layout , they are bound to pay the maintenance charges . Hence defendant is liable to pay the arrears of maintenance charges. Accordingly point no1 and 2 are answered in the Affirmative.
38. Point No. 3 - For the reasons and discussions made above and findings given on Point Nos.1 and 2 , this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the Plaintiff is hereby decreed with cost.27 S.C. No.736 of 2023
SCCH-24 The Plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.1,16,309/- from the defendant.
Draw Decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer on line, revised, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this the 8th day of April 2025.) (ROOPASHRI) XXII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff:
PW.1 : Mr. Abraham Joesph List of the documents exhibited on behalf of Plaintiff:
Ex.P1 Letter of Authorization. Ex.P2 Renewal of registration of society along with
Committee list of Members for 2023-2024. Ex.P3 Aadhar Card of Mr. Abhraham Joseph.
Ex.P4 Computerized transaction statement in
respect of Unit 28-B.
Ex.P5 Computerized E-mail.
Ex.P6 Letter given by plaintiff to defendant for
asking arrears of maintenance.
Ex.P7 Postal receipt.
Ex.P8 Minutes of Meeting.
Ex.P9 Legal Notice.
Ex.P10 Postal receipt and postal acknowledgment.
28 S.C. No.736 of 2023
SCCH-24
Ex.P11 Certificate U/sec.65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P12 Certified copy of certificate of registration of society Ex.P13 Certified copy of Memorandum of Association Ex.P14 Certified copy of Rules and Regulation of the Association List of the witnesses examined on behalf of Defendant:
DW.1 : Mr. Rabindra Panigrahi List of the documents exhibited on behalf of Defendant:
Ex.D1 Tax paid receipt issued from BBMP, Bengaluru Ex.D2 Two Photographs Ex.D3 BESCOM bills Ex.D4 BWSSB bills Ex.D5 Registered sale deed XXII Addl. Small Causes Judge, Bangalore.