Bangalore District Court
) C. Ravi Raju vs ) Srinivas on 10 July, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE BANGALORE CITY (CCH-6)
This the 10th day of July, 2015
Present: Sri. S.SRIDHARA,
B.Sc.,LL.B.,
th
24 Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
O. S. No.3492/2013
Plaintiffs: 1) C. Ravi Raju,
son of V.C. Raju,
aged abut 46 years,
2) Smt. Hamsa Raju,
wife of C. Ravi Raju,
aged about 38 years,
Both are R/at No.50,
Old Ward No.7,
New ward No.65,
6th main road,
Malleshwaram,
Bangalore 560 003.
By Sri.N.C.Narayana, Advocate.
Vs.
Defendants: 1) Srinivas
son of late Sampatkumar,
aged about 53 years,
2) Smt. Anuuradha,
wife of Srinivas,
aged about 47 years,
Both are residing at No.101,
R.V. Apartments, 'D' block,
2 O.S.3492/2013
6th main road, Malleshwaram,
Bangalore 560 003.
By Sri. BSK, Advocate.
Date of institution of the suit: 07.05.2013
Nature of the suit: Injunction Suit
Date of commencement of 28.10.2014
recording of evidence:
Date on which Judgment was 10.07.2015
pronounced
Duration Days Months Years
03 02 02
JUDGMENT
The instant suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants is one for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents or anybody acting under or through the defendants from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property or in any way demolishing the existing compound wall in order to put up new height compound wall in place of existing compound wall and also for costs and such other reliefs.
2. a) Plaintiffs have stated that they are the absolute owners in lawful possession and enjoyment of 3 O.S.3492/2013 the property bearing No.50 situated at 6th main Road, 15th cross, Behind R.V.Apartments, Malleswaram, Bangalore, new ward No.65 with building thereon comprising of 880 square feet in the ground floor and 650 square feet in the first floor. The plaintiffs acquired the same by virtue of registered sale deed dated 28.4.2011 from its erstwhile owner for valuable sale consideration and sale deed also produced. They further stated that khatha in respect of the suit property is also made in the name of the plaintiffs and accordingly khatha certificate and khatha extract are produced. After purchase of the building, the plaintiffs have demolished the old building and constructed a new building consisting of basement, ground, first and second floors and they are also residing in the ground floor.
b) Plaintiffs further stated that the entire property is popularly known as R.V.apartments consisting of 'A' to 'E' Blocks. Towards the southern side of the said apartment including western side, there exists a passage East to West and South to North for ingress 4 O.S.3492/2013 and egress. After the passage, there are independent houses are situated. Plaintiffs are the owners of the western side of the said independent house as shown in the rough sketch attached to the plaint.
c) According to the plaintiffs, they are using the said passage between R.V.Apartment and independent apartment as shown in the sketch to reach to the house of the plaintiffs' suit property. The front passage of the plaintiffs' suit property is part and parcel of the suit schedule property and same is left out for ingress and egress and also plaintiffs have installed fish pond in the said passage. According to the plaintiffs, in between 'D' block and the fish pond of the plaintiffs' schedule property, there exists three Ashoka Trees and abutting to the said Ashoka trees, old compound wall constructed by R.V.Apartment is situated without any foundation. At the time of demolition and construction of a new building by the plaintiffs, the said compound wall was fell down. After that the plaintiffs have constructed three feet 5 O.S.3492/2013 compound wall with Iron Railings to safeguard the Ashoka trees and also for safety purpose of both properties i.e. plaintiffs' property and property bearing No.102 belongs to one Balaram.
d) Plaintiffs have also stated that towards eastern side of the plaintiffs' suit property, property of one Balaram bearing No.102 is situated and the said Balaram is the absolute owner of the said property. According to the plaintiffs, in front of Balaram's property, the property of the defendants in 'D' Block bearing No.101 is situated. In R.V.Apartment behind the Balaram's property, there exists the plaintiffs' property and they are residing in the said property. Hence, the defendants 1 and 2 are nothing to do with the property of the plaintiffs towards eastern side and in any way they do not have any right to poke their nose and to cause any interference. Defendants have no manner of right even on the property of Balaram as stated above. Plaintiffs further stated that in between the property bearing No.102 and the plaintiffs' suit 6 O.S.3492/2013 schedule property, there exists Ashoka Trees in the property of Balaram i.e. property bearing No.102 and the compound wall.
e) Plaintiffs also stated that there is no interse dispute between the plaintiffs and the said Balaram, who is having property No.102. Defendants claimed to be the owners of the property bearing No.102 (appears to be 101) i.e. after the property of Balaram. In between plaintiffs' suit property and the defendants' property, there is property of Balaram as stated above. When such being the case, defendants are no way concerned either in the suit property of the plaintiffs' easementary right area or the compound or the affairs of the trees of Balaram property and they started interfering with the affairs of the said compound wall and trying to demolish the existing compound wall and to put up six feet compound wall, even though the defendants have no manner of right or interest either to demolish or to reconstruct the said compound wall in the said area used as easementary area by the 7 O.S.3492/2013 plaintiffs, which is not at all belongs to the defendants. Plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property and they are also using the front portion for their ingress and egress and for better enjoyment of the suit property.
f) In para-7 of the plaint, they also pleaded the alleged interference of the defendants. To show the suit schedule property, existence of compound wall, Ashoka trees and easementary right area of the plaintiffs, they also produced the photographs with compact disc and negatives. They also pleaded cause of action and praying this Court to decree the suit as prayed for.
3. The plaint schedule reads as follows:
All that piece and parcel of residential immovable property bearing corporation No.50, PID No.7-5-50, situated at 6th main road, Malleshwaram, Bangalore, old ward No.7, New ward No.65, together with the building thereon comprising of basement floor, ground floor, first floor and second floor building is of RCC roofing, brick wall with cement, with water, light and sanitation and including all rights, privileges and appurtenances thereto and measuring East to West 30-0 feet and North to South 41 feet, in all measuring 1230 square feet with 6 x 41 8 O.S.3492/2013 feet easementary right area towards eastern side and bounded on East by: Private property (Balaram's property) West by Private property North by Private property South by Private road leading from 6th main road and private property
4. a) The defendants filed written statement denying all the plaint averments and further contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. all the owners of plats in 'D' Block. In para-4 of the written statement, defendants also denied the fact that plaintiffs are the absolute owners and lawful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing No.50, 6th main Road, 15th cross behind R.V.Apartment, Malleswaram, Bangalore New Ward No.65 with building thereon comprising of 880 square feet in the ground floor and 650 square feet in the first floor.
b) The specific defence of the defendants finds a place in para-10 of the written statement, wherein they stated that according to the original sale deed dated 30.10.1987 executed by the original owner 9 O.S.3492/2013 Smt.M.T.Sreerangammal wife of Late M.T.Srinivasan in favour of M/s. Chetan Chandan Trust and Smt.Anand Vasundara registered in the Sub-Registrar, Rajajinagar, Bangalore for greater clarity and to avoid any doubt or cloud about the property measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 41 feet bearing Municipal No.50, 6th Main Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore, a clear sketch of the property was prepared and registered along with the sale deed dated 30.10.1987. The property measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 41 feet sold under the said sale deed by the original owner to M/s. Chetan Chandan Trust and Smt.Anand Vasundara is clearly delineated and marked ABCA1 in the sketch and clearly mentioned that the said property measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 41 feet and bounded on North by Schedule 5 property allotted to the share of Smt.Devaki Narasingam, South by Private property, East by Schedule 2 property allotted to the share of Sri.M.T.Sampathkumaran and West by old Normal School.
10 O.S.3492/2013
c) Defendants further contended that the six feet width common passage shown on the eastern boundary of the property sold belonged to Sri.M.T.Sampath Kumaran, who had left the 6 feet common passage for the use of the owners of premises No.50, 6th main road, Malleswaram, Bangalore and also for the use of property allotted to the share of Smt.Devaki Narasingam and also for the use of Smt.Radha Upendra, which is very clear from the sketch. The subsequent purchasers of the said property baring Municipal No.50, 6th Main Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore cannot get any right, title and interest more than what has been sold by the original owner Smt.M.T.Sreerangammal to M/s. Chetan Chandan trust and Smt. Anand Vasundara under the sale deed dated 30.10.1987. Admittedly plaintiffs purchased the above said property from Umashankar V.M. and Pavan Kumar through sale deed dated 28.4.2011 and the said vendors of the plaintiffs purchased the property under two sale deeds one dated 14.2.2007 executed by Mrs. Anand Vasundara 11 O.S.3492/2013 and Usha Muralidhar in favour of Pavan Kumar U.M. in respect of the ground floor situated in the property bearing Corporation No.50, 6th Main Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore and another sale deed dated 14.2.2007 executed by Mrs. Anand Vasundara and Usha Muralidhar in favour of Umashankar V.M. in respect of the first floor situated in the property bearing Corporation No.50, 6th main Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore.
d) Defendants specifically contended that plaintiffs could purchase by the sale deed dated 28.4.2011 nothing more than the plot of land with a total area of 1230 square feet bearing Municipal No.50, 6th Main Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore and measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 41 feet, which is bounded on North by schedule property allotted to the share of Smt.Devaki Narasingam, South by Private property, East by schedule 2 property allotted to the share of Sri.M.T.Sampathkumaran and West by old Normal School with all appurtenances thereto as well as all easements enjoined therewith, as definitely 12 O.S.3492/2013 delineated in the plan annexed to the sale deed dated 30.10.1987, which is also referred to the memorandum of settlement relating to the oral partition effected on 6.12.1983, which is subsequently confirmed by the memorandum of settlement deed dated 30.3.1984 and the same is also referred to in the original sale deed dated 30.10.1987.
e) According to the defendants, in the sale deed dated 28.4.2011 executed in favour of the plaintiffs, there is a recital at Clause No.11 stating that the access to the schedule property leading from the 6th main road is through a road and the purchasers shall have free access to the schedule property through the said road without obstruction or disturbance of any kind whatsoever etc. This recital does not refer to 6 feet common road situated on the East of the property No.50 measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 41 feet. This fact is also evident from the boundaries given in the schedule to the sale deed dated 28.4.2011 executed in favour of the plaintiffs. This 6 feet common road situated to the East has not 13 O.S.3492/2013 been mentioned at all, but mentioned as a private property i.e. the property originally schedule 2 property allotted to the share of M.T.Sampathkumaran as mentioned in the original and first sale deed dated 30.10.1987 executed by Smt.M.T.Sreerangammal. From this, it is also clear that the 6 feet width common road, which is referred to in the original sale deed dated 30.10.1987, which is read with registered sketch clearly indicates that premises No.50, which is purchased by the plaintiffs has got access only through the 6 feet wide common road and the plaintiffs have no other right to have a garden or fishpond in the said common road etc. Defendants also resisted the suit on several other grounds and pray for dismissal of the suit with costs.
5. Based on the above pleadings of the parties, this Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?14 O.S.3492/2013
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference of the defendants as stated in the plaint?
3. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that defendants attempted to demolish existing compound wall and put up a new huge compound all as stated in the plaint?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as sought for?
5. What order or decree?
6. In support of the case of the plaintiff, the 1st plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.9. Ex.D.1 is also marked in the cross-examination of PW.1 by confronting the same. Since the plaintiffs failed to adduce further evidence, their further evidence is taken as closed. The 1st defendant is also examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D.2 to D.6 and closed their evidence.
7. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records.
8. My findings on the above issues are: 15 O.S.3492/2013
Issue No.1: Partly Affirmative.
Issue No.2: Negative.
Issue No.3: Negative.
Issue No.4: Negative.
Issue No.5: As per the final order
for the following;
REASONS
9. Issue No.1 to 3: Since these three issues are
interlinked with each other and require common
discussion of facts, they are taken together for
common discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
10. To get an order of permanent injunction from the hands of this Court, plaintiffs have to establish before the Court that they are in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as per the measurement, boundaries shown therein and they must also establish the alleged interference of the defendants as stated in the plaint.
11. In addition to all these, to get the discretionary relief of permanent injunction, they have to approach the Court with clean hands without suppressing any material facts.16 O.S.3492/2013
12. In support of the case of the plaintiffs, they relied upon Ex.P.1 to P.9.
13. Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 28.4.2011 executed by Mr.Umashankar V.M. and Pavan Kumar U.M. in favour of the present plaintiffs for sale consideration of Rs.56,05,000/- and possession of the property is shown to have delivered in favour of the purchasers acting in pursuance of Ex.P.1.
14. On careful perusal of Ex.P.1, clause-11 at page-9 of the sale deed reads as follows:
The access to the schedule property leading from the 6th Main Road is through a road and the PURCHASERS shall have free access to the schedule property through the said road without any obstruction or disturbance of any kind whatsoever either from the VENDORS, any person/s claiming under the trust for the VENDORS or the occupants of the properties situated on the either side of the said road.
15. On careful perusal of Ex.P.1, it is seen that the vendors under Ex.P.1 executed sale deed in favour of the present plaintiff measuring East to West 30 feet 17 O.S.3492/2013 and North to South 41 feet i.e. totally measuring 1230 square feet and boundaries are shown as East, West, North by private properties and South by private road leading from 6th main road and private property. This private road leading to 6th main road appears to reach the plaint schedule property. This private road appears to be the only right, which is given to the present plaintiffs to reach the plaint schedule property from the 6th main road. It is also worth to mention that the plaintiffs have purchased the property under Ex.P.1 i.e. property bearing No.50 measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 41 feet, but in the plaint schedule, intelligently, he goes to the extent of saying that he sought permanent injunction in respect of the property measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 41 feet in all measuring 1230 square feet along with 6X41 feet easementary right area towards eastern side and with regard to the boundary is concerned, they have given the very same boundary shown in the sale deed. But intelligently he has included 6X41 feet common area in the schedule and 18 O.S.3492/2013 seeking permanent injunction even though he has no independent right, title, possession over the said 6X41 feet square feet easementary area. This also clearly indicates that they also added 6X41 feet common passage area in the plaint schedule so as to seek permanent injunction against the present defendants.
The contents of the sale deed at para-11 also falsifies the case of the plaintiffs that the front passage of the plaintiffs' suit schedule property is a part and parcel of the suit property and also falsifies the case of the plaintiffs that the same is left for ingress and egress. At best the plaintiffs can use the said common area along with other co-owners. But they cannot put up the fishpond in the common area at their whims and fancies. Intelligently the plaintiffs have not produced the title deeds of their vendors for the reasons best known to the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs' vendors have no independent right, title or interest over 6X41 feet common area, they cannot convey the title in favour of the present plaintiffs in respect of the said common area measuring 6X41 feet. This itself clearly 19 O.S.3492/2013 indicates that plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands and filed this suit by suppressing material facts.
16. Ex.P.2 is the khatha certificate and Ex.P.3 is the khatha extract, which clearly indicates that plaintiffs have shown to be the owners and kathedars in respect of property i.e. old No.411/3 and new No.50 measuring 1230 square feet and the constructed area is shown as 1530 square feet.
17. Ex.P.4 is the police endorsement given by the concerned police for having filed complaint against the defendants and others. Ex.P.5 to P.8 are all photographs showing the existing state of affairs at the spot and also shown the existence of fishpond put up by the plaintiffs in this case in a common area and also shows putting up of small compound by the plaintiffs after demolishing the earlier existing compound wall, which according to the plaintiffs, the same was damaged while putting the house of the plaintiffs. Ex.P.9 is the compact disc of the said photographs. 20 O.S.3492/2013
18. Defendants on the other hand relied upon Ex.D.1 to D.6. Ex.D.1 is an important document, which clinches the issue and the same is also an essential document to determine the real question in controversy between the parties, which is the sketch prepared by the erstwhile owner of the entire property showing the common areas, place left for ingress and egress etc. In this Ex.D.1 the area shown as ABCA1 is the area which is said to have been purchased by the plaintiffs measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 41 feet, out of which, built up area is shown as 564.5 square feet. Towards East of the said property purchased by the plaintiffs, there is a clearly mention of 6 feet wide common passage, which is left by the original owners for the common use and enjoyment of all the concerned. Admittedly it is not the case of the plaintiffs that they have put up fishpond either in their property measuring 1230 square feet or they have put up fishpond after the common passage in question measuring 6 feet. It is worth to mention that there exists a 10 feet wide common passage. It is the 21 O.S.3492/2013 specific defence of the defendants that this 10 feet wide common passage is the road left for the plaintiffs to reach their house i.e. plaint schedule property.
19. Ex.D.2 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 30.10.1987 executed by Smt.M.T.Sreerangammal through her GPA holder M.T.S.Rajan in favour of M/s. Chetan Chandan trust and Smt.Anand Vasundara and in this sale deed also, there is a recital for having delivered the possession in favour of the purchasers and this sale deed is also in respect of the property bearing No.50 measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 41 feet, which is demarcated by the letters ABCA1, which correspondence to the area shown in Ex.D.1. The boundary shown in the schedule of Ex.D.1 clearly correspondence to the boundary shown by the defendants in their written statement at para-12. Even in this sale deed, no independent right, title or interest was given to the vendors of the plaintiffs to use the common passage in question exclusively. When such 22 O.S.3492/2013 being the case, the vendors of the plaintiffs cannot convey any better title in favour of the present plaintiffs.
20. Ex.D.3 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 14.2.2006 executed by Anand Vasundara and Smt. Usha Muralidhar in favour of Pavan Kumar represented by his power of attorney holder Smt.U.M.Sheela, who is none other than the vendor of the present plaintiffs and this sale deed is in respect of property bearing No.50 i.e. undivided 50% share of the vendor measuring 615 square feet out of the total extent of 1230 square feet. Ex.D.4 is the rectification deed executed between the very same parties, wherein the date mentioned in the principal deed as 14.2.2006 has been corrected as 14.2.2007.
21. Ex.D.5 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 14.2.2006 executed by one Mrs.Anand Vasundara and Usha Muralidhar in favour of one Umashakar, who is the vendor of the present plaintiffs, which is in respect of the very same property bearing 23 O.S.3492/2013 No.50 i.e. 50% of the undivided share of the vendor measuring about 615 square feet out of the total extent of 1230 square feet. Ex.D.6 is the again rectification deed executed between the very same parties as shown in Ex.D.5 rectifying the mistake that was crept in Ex.D.5 by correcting the date of document as 14.2.2007 instead of 14.2.2006.
22. The 1st plaintiff, who is examined as PW.1, has reiterated the plaint averments. However, PW.1 in his cross-examination admitted that in all six persons are the owners of the land, wherein apartment was constructed. He also specifically admitted that he purchased site No.50 from Pavan Kumar and Umashankar as shown in Ex.P.1, which is demarcated by the letters ABCA1. He goes to the extent of saying in his cross-examination that except the portion that he has purchased as ABCA1, he is not claiming any other property. But inspite of that, in the plaint schedule, he sought for injunction not only in respect of the property that he has purchased, but also sought 24 O.S.3492/2013 permanent injunction in respect of the common passage measuring 6X41 feet. In his cross- examination he goes to the extent of saying that the said passage was transferred to the names of Anand Vasundara and Umashankar and again from the said Anand Vasundara and Umashankar, he got the common passage. But there is no recital in the sale deed Ex.P.1 or in the sale deeds of the vendors of the plaintiffs as per Ex.D.3 and D.5 to show that plaintiffs or their vendors have got exclusive right over the said common passage measuring 6X41 feet. A specific suggestion is also made in his cross-examination by suggesting that he has no independent right to put up fishpond in the common passage and this suggestion is denied by PW.1 in his cross-examination. He specifically admitted that he has no right over the compound wall, which belongs to the defendants and further admitted that he has no objection for putting up of compound wall with regard to the property of the defendants.
25 O.S.3492/2013
23. On the other hand, the 1st defendant is examined as DW.1, wherein he has reiterated the written statement averments. Nothing worth is elicited in his cross-examination to show that plaintiffs have got exclusive right over the common passage in question situated towards eastern side of the plaint schedule property measuring 6X41 feet. DW.1 in his cross- examination also admitted that there are six apartments in the total extent of the land and the common area. He also specifically admitted that all the apartment owners are the owners of the common area and he also admitted that he is not the independent owner of either common area or the total extent of land. But DW.1 has stated that he is also one of the joint owners of the total extent of land. DW.1 in his cross-examination specifically admitted that the property, which was acquired by Umashankar under Ex.D.5 has been conveyed in favour of the plaintiffs as per Ex.P.1. DW.1 in his cross-examination specifically stated that the plaintiffs have not put up 26 O.S.3492/2013 fishpond in question and mini park in the place belongs to the plaintiffs.
24. It is an undisputed fact that Ex.D.1 is a sketch, which is a part and parcel of the partition deed, which clearly depicts the property that was sold to the plaintiffs by the letters ABCA1. The passage that was shown on the eastern side of the property No.50 is meant for common use and common enjoyment. The vendors of the plaintiffs can only convey and transfer the property to the plaintiffs only in respect of what they have acquired under Ex.D.2 and nothing more than that.
25. What is not purchased by the plaintiffs under Ex.P.1 sale deed has been included in the plaint schedule by separately showing the common passage as 6X41 feet, but while mentioning the boundary, plaintiffs intelligently have given boundary by including the common area. This clearly indicates that plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands and obtained an order of temporary injunction by 27 O.S.3492/2013 suppressing all the material facts and ultimately the interim order of injunction that was granted by this Court was vacated by imposing costs.
26. Intentionally plaintiffs have not produced the vendors' sale deeds and filed this suit by suppressing material facts and they have withheld the vital documents. But the defendants have produced those title deeds by producing the certified copies to show what has been acquired by the plaintiffs and their vendors. The plaintiffs are neither the owners nor in exclusive possession of the common passage measuring 6X41 feet.
27. At best plaintiffs might be in exclusive possession of the property that they were purchased under Ex.P.1 measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 41 feet. When the plaintiffs are not in exclusive possession of the passage in question, the question of interference does not arise at all.
28. Virtually there is no dispute with regard to the property purchased by the plaintiffs under Ex.P.1, but 28 O.S.3492/2013 the real dispute only with regard to the common passage measuring 6X41 feet. When plaintiffs are not the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the common passage or common area measuring 6X41 feet, the question of interference of the defendants does not arise and plaintiffs cannot seek injunction in respect of the common area.
29. The plaintiffs in this case go to the extent of admitting that the compound wall was damaged in the process of demolishing the old construction of the plaintiffs and fancifully put up compound to the little height instead of restoring the old compound wall in the place where it was existed by putting a new compound wall. In addition to the demolishing the compound wall, the plaintiffs also resorted to putting up fishpond in the common area, though plaintiffs are not in exclusive owners nor exclusive possession of the same.
30. So, on careful perusal of the available material on record, the plaintiffs failed to prove that they are in 29 O.S.3492/2013 lawful possession of the entire plaint schedule property including common area, but at best, they might be exclusive possession of the property that they were purchased under Ex.P.1 measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 41 feet. Plaintiffs also failed to establish the alleged interference of the defendants and also failed to establish that defendants attempted to demolish the existing compound wall and put up a new compound wall as stated in the plaint. Accordingly I answer issue No.1 'partly in the affirmative' and issue Nos. 2 and 3 in the 'negative'.
31. Issue No.4: Plaintiffs prove that they are in lawful possession of the property only to an extent of 30X41 feet and they failed to prove that they are in lawful possession of the common area. Plaintiffs also failed to prove the alleged interference of the defendants and as such, they are not entitled for the reliefs as prayed. Accordingly issue No.4 is also answered in the 'negative'.
30 O.S.3492/2013
32. Issue No.5: In view of the findings on issue No.1 to 4, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The instant suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants is hereby dismissed with costs.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, computerized print out taken thereof is corrected, signed and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 10th day of July, 2015).
(S.SRIDHARA) XXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSION JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1: Ravi Raju List of documents marked for the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1: Certified copy of sale deed dated 28.4.2011 Ex.P.2: Khatha certificate.
Ex.P.3: Khatha extract. Ex.P.4: Police endorsement. Ex.P.5 to Photographs. P.8: Ex.P.9: Compact disc.
List of witnesses examined for the defendants:
D.W.1 M.T.Srinivas.31 O.S.3492/2013
List of documents marked for the defendants: Ex.D.1: Sketch annexed to sale deed.
Ex.D.2: Certified copy of sale deed dated 30.10.1987 Ex.D.3: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 14.2.2006.
Ex.D.4: Rectification deed dated 22.6.2007. Ex.D.5: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 14.2.2006.
Ex.D.6: Rectification deed dated 21.6.2007.
(S.SRIDHARA) XXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSION JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.