Bangalore District Court
Ravikumara M N vs Suryanarayana A J on 4 November, 2024
KABC010140562009
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-8)
PRESENT
SRI. B.DASARATHA., B.A., LL.B.
XI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
O.S.No.4154/2009
Plaintiff: Sri. M.N.Ravikumara,
S/o. M.G.Nanjegowda,
Aged about 38 years,
No.26, 14th Main Road,
1st "B" Cross,
Venkateshwara Layout,
BTM I Stage, Madiwala,
Bangalore - 560 068.
(By Adv. Sri.T.K.Rajagopala)
Vs.
Defendant: Sri. A.J.Suryanarayana,
S/o. A.Jayarama,
Aged about 63 years,
R/a. No.3/1, I Floor,
V.S.Lane, Chickpet Cross,
2 O.S.No.4154/2009
Chickpet, Bangalore - 560 053.
(By Adv. Sri.K.Chandranath Ariga)
Date of institution of the suit : 26.06.2009
Nature of the suit : Specific Performance of
Contract
Date of commencement of : 11.03.2014
Recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 04.11.2024
was pronounced
Total Duration : Years Months Days
15 04 08
XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for judgment and decree of specific performance of contract and for permanent injunction.
2. The brief averments of the plaint is as follows: -
The defendant is the absolute owner of suit schedule property. The defendant purchased the suit schedule property under the Registered Sale Deed dated 11.05.1994 from one M.Venkateshwara Reddy. The defendant agreed to sell the suit 3 O.S.No.4154/2009 schedule property in favour of plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant executed an Agreement of Sale on 06.03.1992 in favour of plaintiff. The total sale consideration payable was ₹3,00,000/-. At the time of Agreement, the plaintiff paid a sum of ₹2,50,000/- to the defendant. The possession of suit schedule property was delivered to the plaintiff under the agreement of sale. The plaintiff has paid maximum sale consideration to the defendant. The plaintiff has to pay remaining balance amount ₹50,000/- only. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to pay the remaining balance amount of ₹50,000/-. The plaintiff tried to contact the defendant by searching his address, but it ended in vain. The defendant was a Government Servant and always on transfers from place to place. It had become difficult for the plaintiff to trace the defendant. The plaintiff also constructed a residential house with all amenities.
2(a). During 2005, the plaintiff requested the defendant to complete the sale transaction as per Agreement of Sale dated 06.03.1992. The defendant assured the plaintiff that he would trace out the necessary papers and hand over it to the plaintiff to complete sale transaction. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by putting up residential house trusting the words of defendant. The defendant filed H.R.C. case against the plaintiff in respect of house bearing No.40/1, 35th Main, II Cross, Old Madiwala, Venkateshwara Layout, Bangalore-68. The property shown in 4 O.S.No.4154/2009 H.R.C. Case and Agreement of Sale are entirely different. The decree in favour of defendant in H.R.C. No.360/2005 is not in respect of the suit schedule property. The order passed in H.R.R.P. No.346/2007 was without the consent of plaintiff. The property reflected in HRC and the suit schedule property are not similar, entirely different. The defendant by taking advantage of order passed in H.R.C. No.360/2005 and H.R.R.P. No.346/2007, forcibly tried to vacate the plaintiff.
2(b). The plaintiff was due only ₹50,000/- towards the balance sale consideration. The plaintiff is always ready and willing to pay the said balance sale consideration and get the Sale Deed registered. However, the defendant did not come forward to complete the sale transaction. Hence, this suit for specific performance of contract directing the defendant to execute the Sale Deed and restraining him from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. On these grounds, prays to decree the suit.
3. The defendant appeared though his counsel and filed the following written statement. The brief averments of the written statement is as follows: -
The suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff is guilty of suppression of facts, misrepresentation and fraud. The plaintiff is not entitled for any equitable or discretionary reliefs. The plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hand. The suit is instituted as a counter blast to trying to hold possession of 5 O.S.No.4154/2009 the property as the plaintiff has suffered decree of eviction. The plaintiff has also received a sum of ₹30,000/- from the defendant in settlement and the plaintiff is trying to deprive the defendant of the fruits of eviction decree under the guise of this suit and also trying to prevent the defendant from eviction of plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The suit is barred by limitation.
3(a). The defendant denied that he had agreed to sell the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. The defendant denied the execution of Agreement of Sale in favour of plaintiff on 06.03.1992. The defendant has not signed or executed any such Agreement and there was no transaction either sale or otherwise. The alleged Agreement of Sale is fabricated, got up and forged. The defendant never agreed to sell the suit schedule property for ₹3,00,000/-. The defendant never received a sum of ₹2,50,000/- from the plaintiff. The defendant also denied delivery of possession of suit schedule property to the plaintiff as contended by the plaintiff. The intention of plaintiff is to knock off the valuable property of defendant.
3(b). The plaintiff is a tenant of first floor. The plaintiff is in possession of the same under the Lease Deed dated 01.11.1999. The plaintiff was never in possession of the property since 1992 as put forward. The defendant admitted the filing of H.R.C. No.360/2005. The plaintiff is giving the old No. of the very same property with measurements and boundaries 6 O.S.No.4154/2009 belonging to the defendant and the defendant is owning only one property. Both the properties are one and the same with measurements and boundaries. The plaintiff demanded money in H.R.R.P. No.246/2007. Accordingly, the defendant paid a sum of ₹30,000/- under Receipt dated 11.08.2008. Accordingly, the plaintiff got dismissed H.R.R.P. No.346/2007 on 28.07.2008. The plaintiff granted 4 months time to vacate the property and to pay damages.
3(c). There is no Agreement of Sale executed by defendant in favour of plaintiff. During 1992, the value of the property was more than ₹3,00,000/- and the present value of suit schedule property is ₹30,00,000/-. The relationship between plaintiff and defendant is only the landlord and tenant. There is no cause of action to the suit of plaintiff. The plaintiff is not entitled for the decree of specific performance of contract. The suit is barred by limitation. The schedule given in the plaint is incorrect.
3(d). The defendant is a Retired Government Servant. The defendant has no other property for himself and his family. The defendant is eking his livelihood from the pension that he is getting. The plaintiff is dealing with real estate business and trying to knock off the schedule property. If the relief of specific performance is ordered, the defendant will be put to great hardship. The defendant has only one property with old and new number and there are no two properties as contended by 7 O.S.No.4154/2009 the plaintiff. The plaintiff is a tenant of the suit schedule property and there was no occasion for the defendant to sell the property to the plaintiff. The said Agreement of Sale is created by the plaintiff. On these grounds, prays for dismissal of suit with exemplary costs.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, my predecessor-in-office has framed the following issues for determination:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant entered into an agreement to sell the suit schedule property in his favour for consideration of ₹3,00,000/- and received a sum of ₹2,50,000/- as advance and executed an Agreement of Sale dated 06.03.1992?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he was put in possession of the suit schedule property in pursuance of the Agreement of Sale dated 06.03.1992?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has always been ready and willing to perform his part of contract?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance of contract?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as sought for?
6. What decree or order?8 O.S.No.4154/2009
5. The plaintiff in support of his case examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.35 documents. The defendant is examined as DW-1 and produced Ex.D.1 to D.63 documents in support of his case.
6. Heard the arguments of plaintiff and defendant.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In the negative.
Issue No.2: In the negative.
Issue No.3: Does not arise for consideration.
Issue No.4: In the negative.
Issue No.5: In the negative.
Issue No.6: As per final order below
for the following:
REASONS
8. Issue No.1 & 2: - Since both these issues are interconnected, taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition.
9. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant being a absolute owner of suit schedule property, offered to sell the same for a sum of ₹3,00,000/-. The defendant received an advance of ₹2,50,000/- on the date of the execution of Agreement of Sale on 06/03/1992. According to the plaintiff, on the date of Agreement of Sale, he has paid an advance of ₹2,50,000/-. The defendant agreed to receive the remaining balance consideration of ₹50,000/- at the time of registration 9 O.S.No.4154/2009 of the Sale Deed. The defendant also delivered possession of the property to the plaintiff under the Agreement of Sale.
10. The defendant denied the case of plaintiff. The defendant in his written statement denied of entering into Agreement of Sale with the plaintiff, agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for ₹3,00,000/- and denied of receiving advance amount of ₹2,50,000/- from the plaintiff. The defendant also denied of delivering possession of the suit schedule property under the Agreement of Sale. The defendant denied the execution of Agreement of Sale in favour of plaintiff. The defendant denied his signature and execution of Agreement of Sale in favour of plaintiff. According to the defendant, the plaintiff has fabricated, got up and forged the Agreement of Sale. The plaintiff is trying to play fraud on the defendant and he is trying to knock off the valuable property of defendant.
11. The defendant further in the written statement has stated that plaintiff is a tenant of first floor. The defendant has put the plaintiff in possession under the Lease Deed dated 1/11/1999 and not otherwise. The plaintiff was never in possession of the suit schedule property since 1992 as contended by plaintiff. The defendant also filed HRC No.360/2005 against the plaintiff. The said HRC No.360/2005 was allowed vide Order dated 28/07/2007. The order was passed against the plaintiff in the HRC petition. The plaintiff 10 O.S.No.4154/2009 being aggrieved by the Order passed in HRC No.360/2005 preferred HRRP No.346/2007 before the Hon'ble High Court. The plaintiff in the said HRRP petition received ₹30,000/- from the defendant and Hon'ble High Court dismissed HRRP No.346/2007 by granting four months time to plaintiff to vacate the suit schedule property. But the plaintiff in utter disregard has not delivered possession to the defendant. The plaintiff in order to avoid vacating the suit schedule property and knowing that he would be dispossessed from the suit schedule property has filed this suit. Thereby, the defendant denied of entering into Agreement of Sale with the plaintiff agreeing to sell the suit schedule property for ₹3,00,000/- and denied of receiving advance amount of ₹2,50,000/- from the plaintiff.
12. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove the execution of Agreement of Sale by the defendant and also to prove that defendant has come forward to sell the suit schedule property for ₹3,00,000/- and agreed to execute Sale Deed by receiving balance sale consideration of ₹50,000/- from the plaintiff. The burden is also on the plaintiff to prove that defendant also delivered possession of suit schedule property under the Agreement of Sale in favour of the plaintiff.
13. The plaintiff in support of his case examined himself as PW-1 and filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief. The plaintiff has got marked Ex.P.1 to P.35 documents in support of his case. The plaintiff has not examined any other 11 O.S.No.4154/2009 independent witness in support of his case. The defendant has adduced counter evidence to the case of plaintiff. The defendant is examined as DW-1 and defendant filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination in chief. The defendant has produced Ex. D.1 to D.63 documents in support of his case.
14. PW-1 in his affidavit evidence reiterated the averments of plaint. The plaintiff has not adduced any further evidence and not examined any independent witnesses. The defendant has adduced counter evidence to the case of plaintiff. The defendant is examined as DW .1 and produced exhibit D1 to D 63 documents in support of his case.
15. The plaintiff has produced Agreement of Sale stated to have been executed by defendant as per Ex.P.26. The defendant has denied the execution of Ex.P.26 and also denied his signature on Ex.P.26. According to the defendant, plaintiff has fabricated, forged and concocted the Agreement of Sale. The defendant has also denied of receiving advance amount from the plaintiff. The defendant also denied delivery of possession under the Agreement of Sale in favour of plaintiff. According to the defendant, plaintiff is a tenant of first floor of the property and plaintiff was inducted into the suit schedule property under the Lease Deed dated 1/11/1999 and plaintiff was never in possession of suit schedule property since 1992 as contended by the plaintiff.
12 O.S.No.4154/200916. PW-1 in the cross-examination has stated that during the period in the year 1992, he was working as a driver in the Call Centre. This witness was earning ₹110/- per month in the year 1992. It is also admitted by this witness that during such period, he was facing a lot of difficulty to eke out his livelihood. The plaintiff has not produced the Bank Passbook to substantiate his claim and to establish that he had ₹2,50,000/- with him for payment of advance to the defendant on the date of Agreement of Sale. PW-1 clearly admitted that, he has no documents to prove that he had ₹2,50,000/- with him in the year 1992. The plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence in this regard. The plaintiff has adduced only oral evidence with regard to payment of ₹2,50,000/- to the defendant on the date of entering into Agreement of Sale. It is clearly admitted by PW-1 in the cross-examination that he had no documents to prove that he had ₹2,50,000/- with him on the date of execution of Agreement of Sale. It is also clearly admitted by PW-1 that he has not produced any documents with regard to his income during the year 1992 and he has also not produced any documents to establish that he had ₹2,50,000/- or ₹3,00,000/-. Considering the payment that plaintiff was getting during the relevant point of time and plaintiff not producing any documents with regard to the cash of ₹3,00,000/- and with regard to advance amount of ₹2,50,000/-, the case of the plaintiff becomes doubtful with regard to the payment of advance amount of ₹2,50,000/- by way of cash to the defendant on 06/03/1992.
13 O.S.No.4154/200917. PW-1 states that defendant is owning two properties in the Venkateshwara Layout, Madivala. According to the defendant, he is owning only one property in the Venkateshwara Layout, Madivala. The defendant has also offered an explanation regarding property number. According to the defendant, property No.40/1 is the old number and property No.26 is the new number of same property. PW-1 expressed his ignorance with regard to the suggestion that defendant is owning only one property.
18. It is the case of defendant that, he had filed a HRC No.360/2005 against the plaintiff to vacate the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The said HRC petition came to be allowed. The plaintiff being aggrieved by the said Order passed in HRC No.360/2005, preferred HRRP No.346/2007 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. PW-1 denied of filing HRC No.360/205 by the defendant in respect of suit schedule property. According to the plaintiff, the said petition was filed in respect of different property. But, the plaintiff has not denied filing of HRC petition by the defendant. But according to the plaintiff the said petition is not related to him. But, PW-1 has not denied filing HRRP No.346/2007 against the Order passed in HRC No.360/2005. The careful perusal of cross-examination of PW-1, it discloses that plaintiff is not clear in his stand and deliberately denying filing of HRC petition by the defendant and Eviction Order passed in the said HRC petition and also plaintiff filing HRRP before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka against 14 O.S.No.4154/2009 the Order passed in HRC No.360/2005. PW-1 is blowing hot and cold together. From this admission of PW-1, filing of HRRP is clear that he is a tenant of the defendant. However, plaintiff never admitted that he is a tenant under the defendant. This conduct of the plaintiff in not admitting filing of HRC No.360/2005 by the defendant against plaintiff and this plaintiff not filing HRRP against the Order passed in HRC No.360/2005 discloses that, the plaintiff is not telling the truth and he has not approached the court with clean hand. It is interesting to note that, the plaintiff himself has produced the certified copy of Order passed in HRC. No.360/2005 as per Ex.P.25. The perusal of the said certified copy of Order, clearly discloses that defendant being a owner of property bearing house No.40/1, situated at Venkateshwara Layout, Madivala, Bangalore filed Eviction Petition against the plaintiff/tenant to evict him from the suit schedule property. The petition filed by the defendant was allowed on 28/7/2007 and plaintiff is directed to be vacated from the suit schedule property within one year. The plaintiff also produced the certified copy of order sheet of Execution No.2408/2008. The perusal of the order sheet also discloses that, defendant also obtained delivery warrant for possession from the Executing Court against the plaintiff. All these materials , evidence adduced by DW-1 and also the documents produced by DW-1 clearly establishes that, the plaintiff is a tenant under defendant in respect of suit schedule property and defendant had filed Eviction Petition against the plaintiff and defendant had also obtained an Order of Eviction 15 O.S.No.4154/2009 against the plaintiff. PW-1 at another juncture in his cross examination clearly admitted the filing of HRRP against the Order passed in HRC No.360/2005. But, PW-1 denied of entering into compromise with the defendant and also receiving ₹30,000/- from the defendant. PW-1 at one juncture admitted the filing of HRRP and at another juncture, denied of engaging Counsels. The plaintiff has not produced any documents to establish that he had lodged complaint against Advocates who had represented him before the Hon'ble High Court. The oral evidence of PW-1 in this regard is not supported by any proof. It is interesting to note that, in the cross examination of DW-1, the plaintiff has not denied filing of HRC No.360/2005 by the defendant. But, the plaintiff in the cross-examination of DW-1, the plaintiff has taken a different stand than the stand taken in his pleadings, evidence and stand taken by the plaintiff in his cross-examination. The plaintiff in the cross-examination of DW.1 has clearly admitted the filing of Eviction Petition by the defendant, Eviction Order passed against the plaintiff, plaintiff filing HRRP against the Order passed in HRC No.360/2005 and also entering into compromise before the Hon'ble High Court. It is also admitted by the plaintiff in the cross-examination of DW.1 that, the defendant dispossessed the plaintiff by getting an Order of delivery warrant in the Execution Petition on 22/01/2010. PW-1 in the cross-examination also admitted the filing of SLP No.30586/2012 against the Order passed in HRRP No.346/2007 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is also admitted by him that the said SLP Petition came to be 16 O.S.No.4154/2009 dismissed. Hence, the indifferent stand taken by the plaintiff by denying the filing of eviction petition by the defendant, this plaintiff filing of HRRP petition before the Hon'ble High Court creates doubt in the case of plaintiff and plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hand.
19. PW-1 was confronted with first page of his plaint with regard to his signature and his signature found on the second page of Ex.P.26 and it was suggested to him that the signatures are not tallying with each other. To this suggestion, PW-1 has expressed his ignorance. PW-1 has not denied the said suggestion by asserting that the signatures are one and the same. The perusal of signature of PW-1 found on of the plaint and also his signature found on the second page of Ex.P.26, it clearly establishes that both the signatures are not similar and different. This indifferent signature of the plaintiff also creates doubt in the testimony of plaintiff with regard to the genuineness of Ex.P.26 Agreement of Sale.
20. PW-1 in the cross-examination has stated that, he had met the defendant on 01/06/1992 along with one Govind and another broker. PW-1 has stated that, it was the said Govind, who had told that defendant is intending to sell his property. The plaintiff has not examined the said witness Govind and also the real estate broker. PW-1 further stated that Ex.P.26 was prepared near the Office of Sub-Registrar, situated in Jayanagar. PW-1 was unable to tell the name of said Typist 17 O.S.No.4154/2009 who got typed Ex.P.26. According to PW-1, the Deed Writer prepared Ex.P.26 and affixed his seal with his signature. But, Ex.P.26 does not contain seal of the Deed Writer and his signature on the page No.2. The plaintiff has not examined the witnesses to Ex.P.26. Admittedly, there are witnesses to the document executed by the defendant. The defendant has not admitted the execution of document. The defendant denied the execution of Ex.P.26 and also his signatures on Ex.P.26. When the defendant has not admitted the execution of Ex.P.26 and also denied its genuineness and authenticity, the plaintiff ought to have examined the witnesses to Ex.P.26. The plaintiff has not offered any explanation for non-examination of these witnesses anywhere in the suit. The non-examination of the witnesses has also creates doubt in the genuineness of Ex.P.26. The plaintiff has also not taken any steps for comparison of admitted and disputed signatures of the defendant through Expert. Further, there is no evidence of Expert witness to support the case of plaintiff.
21. Regarding genuineness of document is concerned, the document can be created falsely by obtaining signatures of some persons. The document must therefore stand test of genuineness, when produced in evidence. No suggestion was made in the cross examination of DW-1 that Ex.P.26 was executed in the presence of witnesses mentioned in Ex.P.26 and defendant signed Ex.P.26 in the presence of witnesses.
18 O.S.No.4154/2009The mere filing of document is not sufficient proof of contents of the said document and also its execution.
22. The plaintiff has clearly admitted that defendant was a Government Employee and he was getting hand some salary during the relevant point of time. It is the case of defendant that, he had no occasion to dispose of the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff. It is also suggested to PW-1 that defendant has no other property except the suit schedule property. The PW-1 to these suggestions expressed his ignorance and not denied these suggestions.
23. It is also the case of plaintiff that within one year from the date of Agreement, the defendant had agreed to execute the Sale Deed. It is admitted by the plaintiff that, he has not taken any steps for enforcing the contract by issuing notice etc., against the defendant. Admittedly Ex.P.26 is dated 06/03/1992. The defendant has not taken any steps till 2009 for enforcement of the contract. The explanation offered by the plaintiff that for non-availability of Khatha and Kandayam, the defendant did not execute Sale Deed is not acceptable. The plaintiff has not issued any legal notice to the defendant, calling upon him to execute the Sale Deed to perform the contract. The plaintiff has not taken any steps for execution of Sale Deed from the defendant. The delay in filing the suit for specific performance after 16 years also creates doubt in the case of plaintiff with regard to genuineness of Ex.P.26. It is relevant to note at this 19 O.S.No.4154/2009 stage itself that, there is a probability in the case of defendant that the plaintiff has filed this suit just to prevent the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. The witnesses to Ex.P.26 have not stepped into the witness box by contending that defendant signed Ex.P.26 in their presence. There is no evidence from the witnesses that they have seen plaintiff paying advance of ₹2,50,000/- by way of cash to defendant in their presence. The whole testimony of PW-1 is not supported by independent witnesses to Ex.P.26. The Scribe of Ex.P.26 is also not examined. Hence, the plaintiff fails to prove that defendant agreed to sell the suit schedule property for ₹3,00,000/- and received an advance of ₹2,50,000/- on the date of Agreement of Sale. The plaintiff also failed to prove that defendant executed an Agreement of Sale on 06/03/1992. The plaintiff also failed to prove that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property in pursuance of Agreement of Sale dated 06/03/1992. Hence, the Issue No.1 and 2 are answered in the negative.
24. Issue No.3: - The plaintiff fails to prove issue No.1. When the plaintiff fails to prove the very execution of Agreement of Sale dated 06/03/1992 by the defendant in favour of plaintiff and plaintiff also failing to prove that he had paid ₹2,50,000/- by way of cash on the date of Agreement of Sale to the defendant. The question of plaintiff establishing that he is/was always ready and willing to perform his part of the 20 O.S.No.4154/2009 contract does not arise. Hence, this issue No.3 is answered as does not arise for consideration.
25. Issue No.4: - The plaintiff fails to prove issue No.1 and 2. When the plaintiff fails to prove the main ingredient of the suit for specific performance of proving execution of Agreement of Sale, the question of plaintiff entitled into specific performance of the contract also does not arise. Accordingly, this Issue No.4 is answered in the negative.
26. Issue No.5:- The plaintiff in this case has also sought for permanent injunction, restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant under the Agreement of Sale also delivered the possession of suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to establish that defendant delivered possession of the suit schedule property in pursuance of Agreement of Sale dated 06/03/1992. The plaintiff has failed to prove Issue No.2. Even otherwise, PW-1 during the course of cross-examination clearly admitted that defendant by obtaining delivery warrant in the Execution Petition with the help of the police obtained possession of the suit schedule property from the plaintiff. PW-1 admitted at present, it is the defendant who is in possession of the suit schedule property. Under these circumstances, the question of plaintiff getting permanent injunction also does not arise. Hence this issue No.5 is answered in the negative.
21 O.S.No.4154/200927. Issue No.6: - The learned counsel for the plaintiff during the course of his argument as relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court;-
1. 2007 (1) Kar.L.J. 437; Abdul Rashid Vs. Smt.Suganda Kamalakar Kudtarkar
2. 2003(3) Kar.L.J. 158;
Smt.H.K.Puttathayamma Vs Smt.K.Bharathi and another.
3. 2006 AIR (SC) 1556; Gunwantbhai Mulchand Shah and others Vs. Anton Elis Farel and others.
4. AIR 2000 SC 191; Manzoor Ahmed Magray Vs. Gulam Hassan Aram and others.
5. AIR 1963 MP 31; Mulla Badruddin Vs. Master Tufail Ahmed.
6. 1994 AIR (SC) 853; S.P.Changalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by LRs.
7. 2010 AIR (SC) 3025; Laxman Tatyaba Kankate and another Vs. Smt.Taramati Harishchandra Dhatrak.
With great respect to their Lordships, those decisions are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case hand. In this case the plaintiff has not proved the execution of Agreement of Sale. In view of the above discussions, this court proceed to pass the following:-
22 O.S.No.4154/2009ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I on computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open court, on this the 4th day of November, 2024) (B.DASARATHA) XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
PW.1 : Sri.M.N.Ravikumara List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of Sale Deed
dated 11.05.1984
Ex.P.2 : License dated 13.03.1993
Ex.P.3 : General License
Ex.P.4 : Tax Paid Receipt
Ex.P.5 : Demand Register Extract
Ex.P.6 : Land Tax Assessment Register
Extract
Ex.P.7 : Housing Plan
Ex.P.8 : Receipt of HP Gas
Ex.P.9 : Encumbrance Certificate
23 O.S.No.4154/2009
Ex.P.10 : Telephone Bill
Ex.P.11 : Electricity Bill
Ex.P.12 : Electricity Receipt
Ex.P.13 : Receipt of HP Gas
Ex.P.14 : Suvarna Katha
Ex.P.15 : Water Supply Bill
Ex.P.16 : Nil Encumbrance Certificate
Ex.P.17 : Residential Certificate
Ex.P.18 : Endorsement
Ex.P.19 : APL Card
Ex.P.20 to 22: Photos
Ex.P.23 : C.D.
Ex.P.24 : Computerised copy of Aadhaar Card
Ex.P.25 : Certified copy of Order passed in
HRC.No.360/2005
Ex.P.26 : Sale Agreement dated 06.03.1992
Ex.P.27 & 28: 2 Encumbrance Certificates
Ex.P.29 & 30: 2 Domestic Gas Bills
Ex.P.31 & 32: Telephone Bill & Receipt
Ex.P.33 : Wedding Card
Ex.P.34 : Certified copy of Order Sheet in
Ex.No.2408/2008
Ex.P.35 : Certified copy of Judgment in
C.C.No.36039/2010
List of witnesses examined for defendant:
DW.1 : Sri.A.J.Suryanarayana List of documents exhibited for defendant:
Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of Vakalath in
Ex.P.No.2408/2008
Ex.D.2 : Certified copy of Vakalath in H.R.R.P.
No.346/2007
Ex.D.3 : Certified copy of Vakalath in H.R.C.
No.360/2006
Ex.D.4 : Wedding Card
Ex.D.5 : Certified copy of Registered Sale
Deed dated 11.05.1984
24 O.S.No.4154/2009
Ex.D.6 : Office copy of the Legal Notice
dated 18.05.2005
Ex.D.7 : Postal Acknowledgement
Ex.D.8 to 11: 4 Receipts with respect to Telegram
Ex.D.12 : Tax Paid Receipt
Ex.D.13 : Rent Receipt
Ex.D.14 & 15: Served copies of 2 Office Orders
Ex.D.16 : Served copy of Transfer Order
Ex.D.17 : Certificate issued by BBMP regarding
Payment of Tax
Ex.D.18 : Endorsement dated 04.08.2011 issued
by BBMP
Ex.D.19 : Digital copy of Residential Certificate
Ex.D.20 to 22: Encumbrance Certificates Ex.D.23 : Certified copy of the Complaint dated 16.02.2005 Ex.D.24 : Certified copy of the Decree in H.R.C. No.360/2005 Ex.D.25 : Certified copy of Delivery Warrant along with Report of Court Bailiff in Ex. Case No.2408/2008 Ex.D.26 : Certified copy of Mahazar in Ex. Case No.2408/2008 Ex.D.27 : Certified copy of the Partial Order Sheet in H.R.R.P. No.346/2007 Ex.D.28 & 29: Certified copies of Memos filed in H.R.R.P. No.346/2007 Ex.D.30 : Certified copy of Order of Dismissal in SLP (Civil) No.30586/2012 Ex.D.31 : Endorsement issued by the Police Ex.D.32 : Acknowledgement issued by the Police Ex.D.33 : Served copy of Letter of Intimation dated 22.11.2012 issued by the Sheristedar, Bengaluru South Taluk, under Right to Information Act Ex.D.34 : Served copy of Information under Right to Information Act furnished by the Deputy Secretary, Bengaluru Zilla Panchayat 25 O.S.No.4154/2009 Ex.D.35 : Served copy of Certificate dated 10.10.2023 issued by the Assistant Director, SC/ST Special Employment Exchange Office, Bengaluru Ex.D.36 : Letter dated 10.10.2023 issued by Deputy Chief, University Employment Information & Guidance Bureau, Bengaluru Ex.D.37 : Holder Khatha Certificate issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer, BBMP Ex.D.38 : Holder Khata Extract issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer, BBMP Ex.D.39 : Notice demanding Arrears of Tax issued by the Revenue Officer, Madiwala, BBMP Ex.D.40 : Tax Paid Receipt Ex.D.41 : Acknowledgment issued by BBMP regarding receipt of tax Ex.D.42 : Served copy of Endorsement dated 01.12.2018 issued by Public Information Officer and Senior Sub-
Registrar, Jayanagar, Bengaluru Ex.D.43 : Served copy of Intimation sent by BWSSB under Right to Information Act Ex.D.44 : Water Bill issued by BWSSB Ex.D.45 : Copy of Initial Deposit Receipt certified by the Assistant Director, State Special Exchange for SC/ST, Bengaluru, Ex.D.46 : Certified copy of Order passed in Ex. No.2408/2008 Ex.D.47 : Certified copy of Order dated 04.12.2004 in Ex. No.2408/2008 Ex.D.48 : Certified copy of the Order on I.A.No.9 in Ex. Case No.2408/2008 Ex.D.49 : Aadhaar Card of defendant Ex.D.50 : Bank Passbook of Saraswathi N. Ex.D.51 & 52: 2 Visiting Cards relating to Plaintiff Ex.D.53 : Endorsement dated 29.12.2009 obtained from the office of BBMP 26 O.S.No.4154/2009 under Right to Information Act Ex.D.54 : Study Certificate of A.S.Mamatha Ex.D.55 : Letter dated 06.09.2019 issued by Joint Registrar & State Public Information Officer, Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Ex.D.56 : Tenancy Lease Agreement dated 01.11.1999 Ex.D.57 : Registered Sale Deed dated 11.05.1984 Ex.D.58 : Letter dated 28.11.2018 issued by BESCOM, Madiwala Sub-Division Ex.D.59 : Letter dated 05.12.2023 issued by BESCOM Ex.D.60 : Certified copy of Copy Application filed in Execution No.2408/2008 Ex.D.61 : Certified copy of the Order dated 13.08.2012 in C.R.P. No.292/2012 Ex.D.62 : Ration Card of defendant Ex.D.63 : Voter Identity Card of Saraswathi N. XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.
Digitally signedDASARATHA by DASARATHA B
B Date: 2024.11.05
10:41:44 +0530