Bangalore District Court
V.K.Lalco Pvt.Ltd vs Varsha Flat Owners Association on 16 September, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY : (CCH.18)
Dated this 16th day of September, 2017.
Present
SRI.RAJASHEKAR VENKANAGOUDA PATIL, B.A.LL.B.,(Spl.)
XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
O.S.NO.780/2015
PLAINTIFF : V.K.Lalco Pvt.Ltd.,
A Company registered under the
Companies Act, 1956 and having
its registered office at No.1017/1018,
Dalamal Towers, Nariman Point,
Mumbai - 400 021 and having a
Branch office at 221,
Varsha Apartments, Sri.C.V.Raman Road,
Raj Mahal Vilas Extension, Sadashivanagar,
Bangalore-560 080.
Represented by its General Manager
And authorized signatory
Ms.Latha Chandrashekar.
(By Sri Kashyap Naik.N. Advocate)
-VS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. Varsha Flat Owners Association,
A society registered under the Karnataka
Societies Registration Act, 1964 and having
Its registered office at 221,
Varsha Apartments, Sir C.V.Raman Road,
RMV Extension, Sadashivnagar,
Bangalore-560 080.
Represented herewith by its Secretary.
2. Joseph S.Rego,
Father's name not known to the plaintiff,
Aged about 75 years, r/at Flat No.204,
Varsha Apartments, 221, Sir C.V.Raman
2 O.S.No.780/2015
Road, RMV Extension, Sadashivnagar,
Bangalore-560 080.
3. Kri Padmanabhan,
Father's name not known to the plaintiff,
Aged about 52 years, r/at Flat No.501,
Varsha Apartments, 221,
Sir C.V.Raman Road,
RMV Extension, Sadashivnagar,
Bangalore-560 080.
4. Lalit Nayak,
Father's name not known to the plaintiff,
Aged about 55 years, r/at Flat No.203,
Varsha Apartments, 221,
Sir C.V.Raman Road,
RMV Extension, Sadashivnagar,
Bangalore-560 080.
5. Dinesh D Bajaj,
Father's name not known to the plaintiff,
Aged about 51 years, r/at Flat No.G5,
Sree Niketan, No.11, Appa Garden Street,
Kilpauk, Chennai-600 010.
( D.1 to D.5 - By Sri.NSB, Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit : 22/1/2015
Nature of the Suit : Declaration and Injunction
Date of commencement of recording
of evidence : 28/9/2016
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced : 16/9/2017
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : 02 07 24
3 O.S.No.780/2015
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for the relief of declaration that the election dtd:14/9/2014 of the 1st defendant association is illegal, null and void and further consequent actions/resolution passed by the office bearers/defendant Nos.2 to 5 are illegal, null and void. Further, consequently, directing defendant No.2 - joint secretary of the 1st defendant association to provide 7 or 14 days prior notice to all members of 1st defendant association before conducting fresh elections and to declare the appointment of defendant No.5 Mr.Dinesh D Bajaj as the secretary of the 1st defendant association as illegal, null and void and also to declare all actions in that capacity as null and void and further to direct the defendant Nos.2 to 5 to render accounts of 1st defendant association and to provide details of income and expenditure of 1st defendant association from 14/9/2014 till the date of new election and further to restrain defendants from restricting the access and usage and ingress or egress of any common areas in schedule "A" property by plaintiff or by any members, residents, staff, employees, workmen, visitors etc., and also to grant further permanent injunction restraining defendants their men, and 4 O.S.No.780/2015 agents, employees and any one claiming through them from constructing or raising the compound wall or developing or putting up any additional structure in the schedule "A" property and for permanent injunction restraining defendants and his employees, contractors from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over schedule "B" property and restraining defendants from preventing any person or customer from entering the schedule "B" property and such other reliefs.
2. The case of plaintiff in nutshell is that the 1st defendant is a registered society represented by its secretary as per the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. Originally, the plaintiff was the absolute owner of the entire land bearing No.221, RMV Extension, C.V.Raman Road, Bangalore which is described as 'A' schedule property. Same was purchased by the plaintiff under registered sale deed dtd:
19/12/1988 and plaintiff constructed residential and commercial apartments on the schedule 'A' property known as "Varsha Apartments" and sold various apartments to various buyers including defendant Nos.2 to 5. Further, at the time of selling apartments, plaintiff retained two residential flats 5 O.S.No.780/2015 Nos.701 & 704 in 7th floor and 2 commercial units bearing No.99-29-7 & 7/1 in the ground and basement floor. The said commercial units owned and possessed by the plaintiff are morefully described in the schedule 'B' property. Plaintiff is in occupation of the same and he is using the same for commercial purposes for several years. After 15 years of construction of said "Varsha Apartments", occupants of the flats ultimately decided to form an apartment owners' association and it was registered in the name and title of defendant No.1 - "Varsha Flat Owners Association". 2(a). It is further averred in the plaint that according to the Bye-laws of defendant No.1 association, all the flat owners of Varsha Apartments have been made as members of said association. Seven members from and out of total members, form the Managing Committee of defendant No.1 association. As per rules, annual general body meeting of the 1st defendant has to be held by giving prior notice of atleast 7 to 10 days in advance. Plaintiff being the absolute member of defendant No.1 association, having 4 units in the apartments has been regularly attending the meetings since 2014 and some rifts raised between members and the managing committee of 6 O.S.No.780/2015 defendant No.1 association and it was to be resolved. Plaintiff was also running its shop in the building in the name of "Lalco Interiors" in the "B" schedule property and renovated it from time of time and defendant No.2 and others did not follow the rules in conducting regular meetings and violated the society rules and started holding meetings without giving notice to the plaintiff and others without even bothering for required quorum being reached in the meeting.
2(b). It is further averred in the plaint that defendant Nos.2 to 5 illegally on 14/9/2014 held the Annual General Body Meeting without giving adequate notice to the members and got the resolution unanimously passed inspite of plaintiff's serious objections about the quorum not being reached and defendant Nos.2 to 5 nominated themselves as office bearers of the 1st defendant association without following the rules such as rules to be followed in holding election, giving adequate notice and without following the regular attendance of members. Later, it was brought to the notice of plaintiff that minutes of meeting passed by the defendant association was displayed on the notice board falsely marking the attendance of the members numbered as 18 members and 7 O.S.No.780/2015 being inconsistent with the object of society and the arbitral resolutions were passed by defendant Nos.2 to 5 without being supported by society rules statutory requirements and defendant Nos.2 to 5 have followed such irregularities in order to misuse the funds of society and several subsequent resolutions are arbitrarily passed by the illegally elected committee members to demolish the compound wall constructed by plaintiff at the time of building the original apartments and raised the height of the compound wall. So that shops held by plaintiff should be obstructed for access and visibility of the shop to the public passing the road and it affects the business of the plaintiff held in the said shops. 2(c). Further, defendants passed unanimous resolutions arbitrarily without necessary quorum as per Bye-laws, rules and regulations. Plaintiff's representatives immediately requested the defendants to provide copies of all the minutes of meetings and board resolutions passed by the 1st defendant association. But, defendants refused to give the same to plaintiff. Ultimately, on 6/12/2014 plaintiff got issued notice to defendant No.1 association calling upon him to conduct fresh elections in accordance with the rules of the association and no 8 O.S.No.780/2015 reply was given to the said notice. When the matter stood thus, defendant Nos.2 to 5 with the help of illegal elements tried to trespass in to the flats premises and tried to lock the shops and further raised the compound wall existing in front of the commercial shops of plaintiff. In this regard, police complaint was lodged and further defendants indulged in locking the common area bathroom and power room which contains the generator which led to the interference to the entire Varsha apartments occupied by owners and defendants further made one more attempt to construct compound wall in front of Varsha Apartments and said proposed construction is taken up to obstruct the direct access and visibility of commercial shops held by plaintiff or access to basement and this raising of compound wall is not supported by any resolution or rules being followed and further, these constructions are admitted to be taken up without taking prior permission from BBMP or other authorities. 2(d). All these activities caused inconvenience to plaintiff and further defendant Nos.2 to 5 are misusing the funds of defendant association and raising construction and not calling annual general body meeting as required under rules and 9 O.S.No.780/2015 regulations of society registered of defendant No.1 and requirement has arisen that defendant Nos.2 to 5 required to be directed to hold annual general meeting and call for elections and their earlier resolutions passed without following any rules and regulations are required to be declared as illegal and further direct them not to raise any compound wall facing towards C.V.Raman Road which is in front of the Varsha apartments which affects the direct vicinity of the shops to the road and in the result, it will affects the business of the plaintiff run in 2 shops relating to interior decoration. Hence, prays to decree the suit as prayed in the plaint.
3. After institution of suit and after service of summons, defendant Nos.1 to 5 appeared through this counsel Sri.NSB Advocate.
3(a) Defendant No.1 association has filed its detailed objections by contending that the suit filed by plaintiff is false, frivolous, vexatious and speculative and not being supported by any law.
3(d). With regard to the construction of the flats in the name of "Varsha Apartments" is almost admitted and also 10 O.S.No.780/2015 formation of society in the name of Varsha Flat Owners' Association and also forming of rules for maintenance and defendant has seriously denied with regard to election being conducted without giving adequate notice to the members of "Varsha Apartments" and with regard to resolution illegally being passed and further with regard to misusing defendant No.1 funds by defendant Nos.2 to 5. It is admitted that plaintiff is in occupation of residential flat No.701 & 704 and also 2 commercial shops in the ground floor. Except dimension and measurement, they have denied that plaintiff alone has right over the property termed as "B" schedule property. 3(e). It is specifically contended that Annual General Body Meeting on 14/9/2014 was conducted consistent with the rules and regulations of the society and secretary and joint- secretary were legally elected and further contended that plaintiff was regular person in all these meetings and election meetings and election proceedings. All the resolutions were passed with the full consent of the members of the defendant No.1 society. It is also contended that plaintiff being agreed with all the decisions taken by the 1st defendant association, has suddenly taken up objections with regard to minutes of 11 O.S.No.780/2015 meeting dtd:14/9/2014 he being present in the meeting and not raised any objections. Plaintiff has not raised objections relating to the minutes passed in the meeting because he was consenting party to the proceedings. All these association meetings were held with proper attendance of members and quorum being completed and no violation of rules were made by defendant Nos.2 to 5 for conducting the activities of defendant No.1 society. It is specifically contended that it was resolved in the Annual General Body Meeting to heighten the compound wall of the society for the purpose of security and defendants did not pass the resolution with arbitral attitude in order to cause inconvenience to the business of the plaintiff conducted in 2 commercial shops held by him in the building. It is admitted that defendant have no grievance relating to business being run by plaintiff in those 2 shops. It is specifically contended that existing wall in front of the apartment is hardly 2 feet. It requires to be heightened for 2 more feet to avoid illegal crossing of the compound wall by public. All the resolutions are unanimously passed by the 1st defendant association will full consent of the members present therein. Plaintiff's representative was co-opted ordinary 12 O.S.No.780/2015 member of the new managing committee. Therefore, defendant association has no intention to affect the business of plaintiff run in the name of "Lalco Interiors" and further denied with regard to defendant involving in any activities which will affect the right of any member in the society and further contended that they never refused to provide copies of association meeting proceedings.
3(f). It is specifically contended that basement floor of the apartment never belonged to plaintiff absolutely since he is the builder, taking undue advantage of the Act, he was using the same by violating the society rules and defendant No.1 association decided to take back the possession of the basement floor from the plaintiff. Plaintiff has filed this suit to block or obstruct the other occupants to have access to the base floor. Plaintiff is in illegal occupation of the basement floor of the building and subsequently, 1st defendant association locked the common area bathroom and power room is a false allegation and further denied that generator being installed in the both room existing therein. Defendant No.1 never involved in obstructing the enjoyment of right of plaintiff to have access to generator, common area bath room 13 O.S.No.780/2015 and toilet facilities. It is further contended that it is resolved in the Annual General Body Meeting to raise height of the compound wall and it is not one sided decision by defendants and no malafide intention is existing behind it. 3(g). It is further denied with regard to construction being raised without taking consent and also denied that with regard to society funds being misused by passing resolution by defendants. It is further contended that one M.B.Achar was elected as secretary of the 1st defendant association and later, he resigned and plaintiff is taking advantage of it and then, after his resignation, Mr.Lalith Nayak - 4th defendant was co- opted as secretary on 23/11/2014. So, he could not issue fresh notice of change of committee members and further denied that 5th defendant was got nominated himself as committee member with the consent of defendant Nos.2 to 4 without the consent of other members of defendant association. It is contended that all the transactions of the society are done by issuing cheques and contended that plaintiff has no authority to question the internal administrative matters of the society. Adequate notice was given by before holding annual general body meeting. It is further contended 14 O.S.No.780/2015 that plaintiff failed to make fresh grounds to declare the elected body has illegal or activities or acts done by elected body members as illegal and further claim of plaintiff that society funds is misused is not correct and it is false allegation and building constructions were done according to the plan approved by concerned authorities.
3(h). It is specifically contended that plaintiff has approached this court with malafide intention and also to be part of administration of society in order to protect and manage his business run in the 2 shops held by him. Plaintiff is not entitled for permanent injunction against defendant to have access right towards common area and bath room, generation room for his workmen etc. and plaintiff cannot seek injunction not to restrict his men to use the common area facilities by his workers. It is further specifically contended that relief sought by plaintiff is not maintainable particularly, firstly, relating to not to obstruct from using "A" schedule property by any members, residents, staff, etc. and 2ndly for injunction not to raise compound wall as decided in the annual general body meeting and not being illegal an further contended that plaintiff cannot seek injunction restraining defendant No.1 not 15 O.S.No.780/2015 to interfere with his peaceful possession of "B" schedule property and also for directing not to raise compound wall in front of his occupied 2 commercial shops. It is specifically contended that plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as claimed by him. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with costs.
4. From the above facts, the following issues were framed:-
ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiff proves that the Annual General Body Meeting dated 14-09-2014 for 1st defendant Association is against the bye-laws of the 1st defendant Association?
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration that the election of office bearers to 1st defendant Association in the election held on 14-09-2014 is illegal, null and void?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the consequential relief of issuance of direction to defendant No.2 as prayed in para 'B' of the plaint prayer?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed in para 'C' of the plaint prayer?16 O.S.No.780/2015
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled for issuance of direction to defendants for rendition of accounts and consequential prayer prayed in para 'D' of the plaint prayer?
6. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed in para 'E' of the plaint prayer?
7. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed in para 'F' of the plaint prayer?
8. Whether plaintiff proves that suit 'B' schedule property is in its lawful possession of plaintiff as on the date of filing of the suit?
9. Whether plaintiff proves the alleged interference from defendants to its lawful possession and enjoyment over suit 'B' schedule property?
10. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed in para 'G' of the plaint prayer?
11. What order or decree?
5. On behalf of plaintiff, the authorized representative of plaintiff company by name Smt.Latha Chandrashekar is examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19 and 17 O.S.No.780/2015 closed its side. Inspite of giving sufficient opportunities, defendants did not cross-examine P.W.1 and not led any evidence on their behalf.
6. Heard arguments of plaintiff's counsel. Counsel for plaintiff filed written arguments. I have carefully perused the same.
7. Findings of this court on the above issues are :-
Issue No.1:- In Negative;
Issue No.2:- In Negative;
Issue No.3:- In Negative;
Issue No.4:- In Negative;
Issue No.5:- In Negative;
Issue No.6:- In Affirmative;
Issue No.7:- In Affirmative;
Issue No.8:- In Affirmative;
Issue No.9:- In Affirmative;
Issue No.10:- In Affirmative;
Issue No.11:- As per the final order for the following:-
REASONS ISSUE No.1 to 5
8. Issue No.1 to 5 framed by this court relates to prayer made by plaintiff in prayer column (A) to (D) of the plaint. 18 O.S.No.780/2015
9. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the plaintiff has filed memo on 5/8/2017 which discloses to the fact that fresh elections were held on 25/9/2016 for defendant No.1 society and prayer made in column No.(A) to (C) have become infructuous and also their prayer to claim for rendition of accounts has also become infructuous and prays for dismissal of suit relating to prayer (A) to (D) as they have become infructuous and they restricted their claim only to Sl.No.(E) to (H).
10. In view of filing of Memo on 5/8/2017 by the counsel praying for dismissal of suit with regard to prayer(A) to (E), issue Nos.1 to 5 are answered in negative as they become infructuous.
ISSUE No.6 to 10
11) These issues are taken together as they require common discussion.
12) On behalf of the plaintiff company, authorized representative of the plaintiff company by name Smt.Latha Chandrahekar is examined as P.W.1 and she has stated before the court what has been pleaded in the plaint that she is the 19 O.S.No.780/2015 owner of the schedule property where "Varsha Apartments"
were constructed and she has contended that plaintiff company being the owner has retained 2 residential flats in the 7th floor and 2 commercial units in the ground floor and basement and they are running the business in the name of "Lalu Interiors".
13) When the matter stood thus, 1st defendant association came to be registered and elections were conducted and defendant Nos.2 to 5 got elected without following the bye- laws of the society and also not giving adequate notice to members and subsequent to that, they also started making use of passing of the bills without taking appropriate approval of the Committee and in 2016 some committee members were appointed at their convenience and inspite of opposition from plaintiff and other members of the society, meetings of the 1st defendant society were conducted by defendant No.2 to 5 though adequate number of members were not present to reach the requisite quorum and further defendants also refused to furnish the copies of meetings and defendant No.2 to 5 taking undue advantage of being elected as committee members such as president, vice-president, secretary, joint- 20 O.S.No.780/2015 secretary etc., started causing obstructions to plaintiff for making use of 2 flats held by plaintiff in the same apartment and so also use and occupation of ground and basement where Lalco Interior business was run and they are also obstructing them from making use of common area, generator room, water supply pump and also with regard to appointment of security men for maintenance of their occupied premises.
14. It is further stated that defendants are willfully raising the height of the compound wall in front of the commercial shops of plaintiff. So that 2 shops should not be seen by customers dealing with Lalco Interiors. P.W.1 has stated that the activities of the elected body members of 1st defendant association as illegal and without being supported by any documentary evidence.
15. In order to corroborate the oral evidence of P.W.1, plaintiff/P.W.1 has produced the authorization letter at Ex.P.1, the legal notice issued to defendant at Ex.P.2, postal acknowledgment at Ex.P.3, original sale deed of the land dtd:4/9/1972 on which Varsha Apartment is built at Ex.P.4, sale certificate dtd:19/12/1998 at Ex.P.5, approved sanctioned 21 O.S.No.780/2015 plan at Ex.P.6, trade license certificate at Ex.P.7, khatha extracts at Ex.P.8 & Ex.P.9, khatha certificates at Ex.P.10 & Ex.P.11, certified copy of the police complaint given to Sadashivanagar police station along with endorsement at Ex.P.12 and Ex.P.13, encumbrance certificates at Ex.P.14 & Ex.P.15, tax-paid receipts along with certificate U/S 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 15 Ex.P.16 to Ex.P.18 and certified copy of the Minutes of 19th Annual General Body Meeting of defendant association at Ex.P.19.
16. In the course of arguments, counsel for the plaintiff argued that the evidence of P.W.1 has remained unchallenged and unrebutted because P.W.1 is not cross-examined by defendants. All these documents marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19 have remained unchallenged because, plaintiff did not choose to cross-examine P.W.1 and dispute the contents of documents inspite of putting his appearance and having filed detailed objections disputing the claim of plaintiff.
17. Perusal of the issues framed by my predecessor makes it clear that the burden of proving the disputed fact is shifted on the plaintiff along from issues Nos.1 to 10. [ 22 O.S.No.780/2015
18. Perusal of the plaint makes it clear that the plaintiff has made as many as prayer (A) to (H). Now, plaintiff is restricting his claim for decree of the suit from prayer (E) to (H). Prayer (E) deals with regard to permanent injunction i.e., right of protection of being interfered by defendants relating to access and usage of any common area in schedule "A" property. Prayer (F) is relating to permanent injunction restraining defendants, their agents from constructing or raising the compound wall or putting up any additional structure in the schedule "A" property. Prayer (G) is relating to permanent injunction restraining defendants or any one claiming under them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the over the 'B' schedule property and also restraining defendants preventing any person or customer from entering the schedule "B" property.
19. So, after filing of this memo, it becomes obvious that plaintiff has given up the claim over the prayer relating to election held by defendant No.1 association and misappropriation of amount or misusing of funds and rendering of accounts.
23 O.S.No.780/2015
20. What is claimed is for permanent injunction retraining defendants from restricting the access and usage of any common area in the schedule "A" property, not to raise compound wall and restraining defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the "B" schedule property.
21. Perusal of the plaint makes it clear that schedule "A" property is the land or ground or site inclusion of separate portions baring site No.221 i.e, entire Varsha apartment building with surrounding area. "B" schedule property is the commercial units bearing Corporation No.99-29-7 & 7/1 being part of Varsha Apartment building in the ground and basement floor of "A' schedule property.
22. In the course of his arguments, plaintiff argued that defendant had restrained of his right to maintain the building with the help of his employers relating to using of generators, maintained of children park and so also raising of compound wall etc.
23. Further, it is argued that his prayer relating to right to using of common area of "A' schedule property requires to be 24 O.S.No.780/2015 protected as defendant Nos.2 to 5 are residing in the same building and will interfere with the possession of plaintiff and with regard to schedule "B" property, defendant No.1 management be restricted from building the wall by violating the sanctioned plan approved in Ex.P.6 and further they should be restrained from heightening the compound wall without sanctioning from BBMP. Thus, prays to allow prayer (E) to (G) made in the prayer column in the plaint.
24. After being heard and on perusal of the records on hand, it is obvious that the title of the plaintiff and ownership over the 'B' schedule property and he built "Varsha Apartments" in schedule property has remained undisputed and unchallenged, because, P.W.1 has not been cross- examined by the defendants and the documents produced by the plaintiff remained unchallenged. Under these circumstances, considering the nature of the suit and the restrictive prayer made by him subsequent to the filing of the suit, after filing memo, this court has decided to decree the suit relating to prayer (E) to (H). Hence, court is inclined to answer issue No.6 to 10 in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, Issue No.6 to 10 are answered in affirmative. 25 O.S.No.780/2015
ISSUE No.11
25. In view of findings on issue Nos.1 to 10, this court proceeds to pass the following:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff partly decreed against defendants. Permanent injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff against defendants and defendants are hereby directed not to obstruct the right of plaintiff or their members, residents, staff, employees, workmen, visitors etc. to have access and usage/ingress or egress of any common area in schedule "A" property of "Varsha Apartments".
It is further decreed that defendants are restrained by way of injunction from constructing or raising compound wall or developing or putting up any additional structure in the schedule "A" property in violation of the approved plan by BBMP mentioned in Ex.P.6.
It is further decreed that defendants and their henchmen, agents, employees, contractors, and anyone claiming through them are restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule "B" property being in occupation of the plaintiff and also directed not to prevent any person or customer from entering the "B" schedule property in connection with their business.
It is further decreed that the compound wall of the "A" schedule property shall not be raised in height except with prior permission of the BBMP.26 O.S.No.780/2015
No order as to costs.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of September, 2017).
(Rajashekar Venkanagouda Patil) XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
P.W.1 - Smt.Latha Chandrashekar
b) Defendants' side :
- NIL -
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
Ex.P.1 Authorisation letter
Ex.P.2 Office copy of the legal notice
Ex.P.3 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.4 Original sale deed dtd:4/9/1972
Ex.P.5 Sale certificate dd:19/12/1998
Ex.P.6 Approved sanction plan
Ex.P.7 Trade License Certificate
Ex.P.8 & Ex.P.9 2 khatha extracts
Ex.P.10 & 2 khatha certificates
Ex.P.11
Ex.P.12 Certified copy of complaint
dtd:15/11/2014
Ex.P.13 Certified copy of the police complaint
dtd:15/11/2014
Ex.P.14 & 2 encumbrance certificates
Ex.P.15
Ex.P.16 to 2 tax-paid receipts along with
Ex.P.18 certificate U/S.65-B of Evidence Act
27 O.S.No.780/2015
Ex.P.19 Certified copy of Minutes of 19th
Annual General Body Meeting of
defendant association
(b) Defendants' side : - NIL -
(Rajashekar Venkanagouda Patil)
XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
GVU/-
28 O.S.No.780/2015
16/9/2017
Plaintiff - By KRN
D.1 to D.5 - Sri.NSB
Judgment pronounced in open court vide
separate detailed judgment with the following operative portion:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff partly decreed against defendants. Permanent injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff against defendants and defendants are hereby directed not to obstruct the right of plaintiff or their members, residents, staff, employees, workmen, visitors etc. to have access and usage/ingress or egress of any common area in schedule "A" property of "Varsha Apartments".
It is further decreed that defendants are restrained by way of injunction from constructing or raising compound wall or developing or putting up any additional structure in the schedule "A" property in violation of the approved plan by BBMP mentioned in Ex.P.6.
It is further decreed that defendants and their henchmen, agents, employees, contractors, and anyone claiming through them are restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule "B" property being in occupation of the plaintiff and also directed not to prevent any person or customer from entering the "B" schedule property in connection with their business.
It is further decreed that the compound wall of the "A" schedule property shall not be raised in height except with prior permission of the BBMP.
No order as to costs.
[ (Rajashekar Venkanagouda Patil) XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, B'LORE.