Bangalore District Court
Sri. Rudolph Desmond William Yates vs Smt.Khurshid Bi on 13 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XLII ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH.NO.43).
PRESENT: Sri.P.SRINIVASA,
B.A.L., LL.M.,
XLII ADDL., CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
Dated this the 13th day of December, 2018.
O.S.No.2998/2012
Plaintiff:- Sri. Rudolph Desmond William Yates,
S/o.late Collin Edger Yates,
No.432/15, 10th Main, 6th Cross,
Mathikere, Yeshwanthapura,
Bangalore - 560 022.
Rep. by his GPA Holder
Mahabood Jan @ Mrs.M.Yates,
Aged about 65 years.
(By Adv.Karthikeyan.K)
v.
Defendants:- 1. Smt.Khurshid Bi,
W/o.Shamiulla Khan,
Major by age,
R/o. 2nd Cross, Gokula,
Behind New Petrol Bunk,
Yeshwanthapur,
Bangalore - 22.
2. Sri.Imthiyaz Pasha,
S/o.Abdul Nabi,
Aged about 45 years,
R/o.No.44, 6th Cross,
Kali Temple Road,
Yeshwanthapura,
Bengaluru - 560 022.
(D1 by Adv.Shankaraiah.B
D2 by Adv.H.P.Leeladhar)
Judgement
2 O.S.No.2998/2012
Date of institution of the suit : 19.04.2012
Nature of the suit : Declaration, Possession &
Permanent Injunction
Date of commencement of : 21.09.2015
Recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 13.12.2018
was pronounced
Total Duration : Years Months Days
06 07 24
(P.SRINIVASA)
XLII ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
JUDGEMENT
The plaintiff has filed the above suit for declaration, possession, permanent injunction and costs.
2. The plaintiff's case in brief as under:-
One Mr.Colin Edger Yates and Mrs.Claudius Yates are the plaintiff's parents. Plaintiff, Mr.Condred Reymond Milton Yates and Smt.Patrioka Naomi Moral Yates are the children of Mr.Colin Edger Yates. Mr.Colin Edger Yates had purchased site bearing No.23 (New No.432/15), measuring East to West:45 feet and North to South:45 feet from one Munihanumappa vide., registered Sale Deed dated 05.12.1958. Said Mr.Colin Edger Judgement 3 O.S.No.2998/2012 Yates had constructed a house and was residing in the said house along with plaintiff till his death. Mr.Colin Edger Yates died in the year 1966, leaving behind his wife and three children. After the death of Mr.Colin Edger Yates, plaintiff and his family members are residing in the suit schedule property. Mrs.Claudius Yates died in the year 1995. The defendant No.1 is in occupation of the portion measuring 15 x 45. Plaintiff's property and the property in occupation of defendant No.1 are bifurcated by a common wall. The defendant No.1 attempted to demolish portion of the property alleging that she has purchased the same and any attempt to demolish the property would have serious impact on plaintiff's building. The defendant No.1 has no right to remove the common wall or the roof over it. The plaintiff requested defendant No.1 not to meddle with the common wall but, defendant No.1 is bent upon removing the structure. The defendant No.1 has no right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property. In order to grab plaintiff's property, on 15.04.2012 at 10:30 a.m., defendant No.1 along with her supporters tried to interfere with plaintiff's possession and dispossess him. The plaintiff was able to resist the illegal acts of defendant No.1. The plaintiff tried to lodge complaint before the local police but, the police advised the plaintiff to approach the Judgement 4 O.S.No.2998/2012 civil court. Hence, the plaintiff filed the above suit for permanent injunction.
During the pendency of the above suit, the plaintiff amended the plaint and has pleaded that when the plaintiff and his family members had gone out of station, the defendants illegally entered into the premises and have put some strangers in possession of the suit property. The plaintiff approached the BBMP Authorities to get the khatha changed in his name but, the defendants have raised objections and claimed ownership over portion of the property. Hence, the authorities have refused to mutate the khatha in the name of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has sought for declaration of title, possession and injunction.
3. In response to the suit summons, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have appeared before the court through their respective counsels and filed the written statement separately. Defendant No.1 in her written statement has contended that earlier the plaintiff had filed similar suit for injunction in O.S.No.25161/2008 against the defendant herein and said suit was dismissed on merits on 08.02.2012 therefore, the present suit is barred by res- judicata. Further, defendant No.1 has denied plaintiff's title and possession over the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 has also denied cause of action alleged by the plaintiff. Defendant Judgement 5 O.S.No.2998/2012 No.1 admits that Mr.Colin Edger Yates had purchased the property bearing No.23 formed in Sy.No.31/2, Mathikere Village, Bengaluru. Further, defendant No.1 admits Mr.Colin Edger Yates died in the year 1966, leaving behind his wife and three children. Further, defendant No.1 also admits that Mrs.Claudius Yates died in the year 1995. Defendant No.1 is in occupation of 30 x 45 feet of total house. Mr.Colin Edger Yates had executed a registered Will on 25.06.1959 and had bequeathed the suit property to his wife and three children. After the death of Mrs.Claudius Yates, plaintiff, Mr.Condred Reymond Milton Yates and Smt.Patrioka Naomi Moral Yates have divided the suit property into three parts, each measuring East to West: 15 feet and North to South:
45 feet. Except the plaintiff, others have sold their share in favour of defendant No.1 vide., registered Sale Deeds dated 13.06.1996 and 20.12.1996. Defendant No.1 has purchased two portions i.e., western side measuring 15 x 45 feet and eastern side 15 x 45 feet. The middle portion measuring 15 x 45 feet is in the occupation of the plaintiff. From the date of purchase defendant No.1 is in occupation of the purchased portions and paying taxes to the concerned authorities and khatha stands in the name of defendant No.1. The plaintiff has suppressed the above facts and filed a suit. Hence, prayed that suit may be dismissed with cost.
Judgement 6 O.S.No.2998/2012 Further, defendant No.1 has filed additional written statement denying plaintiff's averment that when the plaintiff and his family members had gone out of station the defendants have put strangers in possession of the suit schedule property. Further, defendant No.1 has stated that she has gifted the property and executed Gift Deeds in favour of defendant No.2 with respect to purchased portions and defendant No.2 is in possession and enjoyment of gifted portion of the property and khatha is mutated in the name of defendant No.2. There is no cause of action to file the above suit. Hence, prayed that suit may be dismissed with cost.
4. Defendant No.2 in his written statement has contended that Mr.Colin Edger Yates had purchased the property and had executed a Will on 24.06.1959 and bequeathed the suit property to his wife and children and after the death of Mrs.Claudius Yates, plaintiff, Mr.Condred Reymond Milton Yates and Smt.Patrioka Naomi Moral Yates had divided the property into three shares, measuring 15 x 45 feet each and defendant No.1 has purchased shares of Mr.Condred Reymond Milton Yates and Smt.Patrioka Naomi Moral Yates. Further, has contended that defendant No.1 has gifted the said property to defendant No.2 vide., registered Gift Deeds dated 13.01.2014 and handed over possession to defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 is in possession of the said Judgement 7 O.S.No.2998/2012 property and has leased the properties to tenants. There is no cause of action to file the above suit. Hence, prayed that suit may be dismissed with cost.
5. On the basis of above pleadings, below mentioned issues arise for consideration:-
ISSUES DATED 31.10.2012
1. Whether the plaintiff proves the existence of common wall between both the properties?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendant is trying to demolish the common wall?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?
4. What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE DATED 22.07.2015
1. Whether the defendant proves that he is the owner of the suit property?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES DATED 02.09.2016
1. Whether the defendant proves that she had executed gift deed dated 13.01.2014 in favor of her younger brother Sri.Imthiyaz Pasha, as such property is in possession and enjoyment of the said Imthiyaz Pasha as owner thereof?
2. Whether the defendant proves that plaintiff has not showed proper extent and description of the suit schedule property?
Judgement 8 O.S.No.2998/2012
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to get the relief of possession as sought?
6. To prove the case of the plaintiff, GPA Holder of plaintiff examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P37. GPA Holder of defendant No.1 examined as DW-1, defendant No.2 examined as DW-2 and examined one witness as DW-3 and got marked Ex.D1 to D49.
7. Heard arguments.
8. My findings on the above said issues are as follows:-
ISSUES DATED 31.10.2012 Issue No.1 :- In the Negative.
Issue No.2 :- In the Negative.
Issue No.3 :- In the Negative.
Issue No.4 :- As per final order.
ADDITIONAL ISSUES DATED 22.07.2015
Addl.Issue No.1 :- In the Negative.
ADDITIONAL ISSUES DATED 22.07.2015
Addl.Issue No.1 :- In the Affirmative.
Addl.Issue No.2 :- In the Affirmative.
Addl.Issue No.3 :- In the Negative.
Addl.Issue No.4 :- In the Negative.
Judgement
9 O.S.No.2998/2012
for the following:-
REASONS
9. Issue Nos.1 to 3, Additional Issue No.1 dated 22.07.2015 and Additional Issue Nos.1 to 4 dated 02.09.2016:- These issues are taken up together for consideration to avoid repetition of facts, evidence and convenience.
PW-1 in her examination-in-chief has stated that Mr.Colin Edger Yates and Mrs.Claudius Yates are the plaintiff's parents. Plaintiff, Mr.Condred Reymond Milton Yates and Smt.Patrioka Naomi Moral Yates are the children of Mr.Colin Edger Yates. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their written statement admit that Mr.Colin Edger Yates and Mrs.Claudius Yates are husband and wife and plaintiff, Mr.Condred Reymond Milton Yates and Smt.Patrioka Naomi Moral Yates are their children. There is no dispute regarding relationship between the parties.
10. PW-1 in her examination-in-chief has stated the Mr.Colin Edger Yates died in the year 1966 at Bengaluru and Mrs.Claudius Yates dies in the year 1995. In support of the same, plaintiff has produced Death Certificates of Mr.Colin Edger Yates and Mrs.Claudius Yates at Ex.P34 and P35. Ex.P34 and P35 are issued by competent authority hence, admissible in evidence.
Judgement 10 O.S.No.2998/2012 From Ex.P34 and P35, it goes to show that Mr.Colin Edger Yates died on 26.08.1966 and Mrs.Claudius Yates died on 28.04.1995. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their written statement admit the date of death of Mr.Colin Edger Yates and Mrs.Claudius Yates. There is no dispute regarding date of death of Mr.Colin Edger Yates and Mrs.Claudius Yates. Further, PW-1 has produced Death Certificate of Mr.Condred Reymond Milton Yates and Smt.Patrioka Naomi Moral Yates at Ex.P36 and P37. From Ex.P36 and P37, it goes to show that Mr.Condred Reymond Milton Yates died on 21.04.2005 and Smt.Patrioka Naomi Moral Yates died on 03.02.2010.
11. PW-1 in her examination-in-chief has stated that Mr.Colin Edger Yates had purchased the bearing No.23, measuring 45 x 45 feet from Munihanumappa vide., registered Sale Deed dated 05.12.1958. In support of the same, the plaintiff has produced certified copy of Sale Deed dated 05.12.1958 at Ex.P2. Ex.P2 is marked without any objection and bears seal and signature of competent authority hence, admissible in evidence. From the recitals of Ex.P2, it clearly goes to show the Mr.Colin Edger Yates had purchased site No.23, measuring 45 x 45 feet from Munihanumappa for valuable consideration. It is pertinent to note that, defendant Nos.1 and 2 in their written statement admit the Mr.Colin Edger Yates had Judgement 11 O.S.No.2998/2012 purchased site No.23, measuring 45 x 45 feet. Therefore, contention of the plaintiff that Mr.Colin Edger Yates had purchased site No.23, measuring 45 x 45 feet has to be accepted.
12. PW-1 in her examination-in-chief has stated that Mr.Colin Edger Yates had constructed building and after the death of Mr.Colin Edger Yates, plaintiff and his family members are residing in the suit property. Further, has stated that plaintiff's property and property in occupation of the defendants are bifurcated by common wall. When the plaintiff and his family members had gone out of station, one Ramakrishna illegally entered into the premises. Said Ramakrishna is in unauthorized possession and harassing the plaintiff. Per contra, DWs.1 and 2 in their examination-in-chief have stated that Mr.Colin Edger Yates had executed a Will, bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of his wife and children and after the death of Mrs.Claudius Yates, plaintiff, Mr.Condred Reymond Milton Yates and Smt.Patrioka Naomi Moral Yates have divided the suit schedule property into three parts, Mr.Condred Reymond Milton Yates and Smt.Patrioka Naomi Moral Yates have sold their shares to defendant No.1 vide., registered Sale Deeds and defendant No.1 had gifted the said property to defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 is in possession and enjoyment of said gifted property and has leased the property to the tenants. DW-3 in his Judgement 12 O.S.No.2998/2012 examination-in-chief has stated that he is tenant under defendant No.2 and in possession of southern portion of suit schedule property. The plaintiff has contended that schedule property totally measures East to West: 30 feet and North to South: 45 feet and sought the relief of declaration of his title with respect to "B" schedule property i.e., property measuring East to West: 45 feet and North to South: 15 feet. It is pertinent to note that, plaintiff claims that Mr.Colin Edger Yates purchased site No.23, measuring 45 x 45 feet. The Sale Deed produced by plaintiff at Ex.P2 also goes to show that Mr.Colin Edger Yates had purchased site No.23, measuring East to West: 45 feet and North to South:
45 feet. Therefore, plaint schedule mentioned by the plaintiff as 30 x 45 feet is incorrect. It is pertinent to note that, the plaintiff contends that his father had purchased the property and after his death, plaintiff is in possession of the property therefore, he should be declared as absolute owner of "B" schedule property.
There is no specific pleading by the plaintiff regarding how he succeeded to "B" schedule property. In the absence of specific pleadings by the plaintiff, adverse inference has to be drawn against the plaintiff. The plaintiff has produced electricity bills, ration card, water bills, gas receipts, tax paid receipts, Khatha Certificate and Khatha Extract before this court. Admittedly, the said electricity bills, ration card, water bills, gas Judgement 13 O.S.No.2998/2012 receipts, tax paid receipts, Khatha Certificate and Khatha Extract are not title documents. Therefore, contention of the plaintiff that he is the absolute owner of the "B" schedule property cannot be accepted. The defendants have produced certified copy of the Will of Mr.Colin Edger Yates at Ex.D6. Further, the defendants have produced original Sale Deeds executed by Mr.Condred Reymond Milton Yates and Smt.Patrioka Naomi Moral Yates at Ex.D31 and D37. Ex.D31 and D37 are original registered documents hence, admissible in evidence. The plaintiff has not specifically denied the execution of Sale Deeds by Mr.Condred Reymond Milton Yates and Smt.Patrioka Naomi Moral Yates in favour of defendant No.1. Ex.D31 and D37 are not set aside by any competent court of law therefore, Ex.D31 and D37 can be relied upon by this court. From the recitals of Ex.D31 and D37, it goes to show that after the death of Mr.Colin Edger Yates and Mrs.Claudius Yates, the suit schedule property was bifurcated among three children and southern portion measuring East to West:45 and North to South:15 feet was allotted to Mr.Condred Reymond Milton Yates, middle portion measuring East to West:45 and North to South:15 feet was allotted for plaintiff and northern portion measuring East to West:45 and North to South:15 feet was allotted to Smt.Patrioka Naomi Moral Yates. From the recitals of Ex.D31 and D37, it clearly goes to show that Mr.Condred Judgement 14 O.S.No.2998/2012 Reymond Milton Yates and Smt.Patrioka Naomi Moral Yates have sold their portion in the schedule property to defendant No.1 herein and defendant No.1 has acquired title over the said property. Therefore, contention of the defendants that suit schedule property was divided among three children of Mr.Colin Edger Yates and Mr.Condred Reymond Milton Yates and Smt.Patrioka Naomi Moral Yates sold the property to defendant No.1 has to be accepted. Further, from Ex.D31 and D37 it goes to show that defendant No.1 was put in possession of the purchased portion of the property. Further, the defendants have produced Khatha Extract and tax paid receipts standing in the name defendant No.1 at Ex.D12 to D25, D39 and D40. The said revenue documents also corroborate contention of defendant No.1 that she was put in possession of the purchased portion of the suit property. It is pertinent to note that, PW-1 in her cross- examination admits that plaintiff is residing in the middle portion of the house. From the said admission, it clearly goes to show that the suit schedule property has been divided as contended by the defendants. Further, the defendants have produced registered Gift Deeds at Ex.D32 and D38 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 with respect to portion of the suit schedule property. Ex.D32 and D38 are original registered documents hence, admissible in evidence. From the recitals of Judgement 15 O.S.No.2998/2012 Ex.D32 and D38, it clearly goes to show that defendant No.1 has gifted southern and northern portion of suit schedule property to defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 has accepted the gift and defendant No.2 is put in possession of the said property. Further, the defendants have produced khatha and tax paid receipts standing in the name of defendant No.2 at Ex.D33, D41 and D42. The above said revenue documents corroborate defendant No.2's possession over portion of the suit property. Hence, contention of defendant No.2 that he has acquired title and possession over portion of the suit schedule property under the Gift Deeds executed by defendant No.1 in his favour has to be accepted. DW-3 in his evidence has stated that he is the tenant under defendant No.2 and he is residing in the southern portion of the suit property. In support of the same, the defendants have produced Rental Agreement, Electricity Bill and Water Bill ad Ex.D44 to D46. Rental Agreement produced by the defendants at Ex.D44 corroborates defendants contention that defendant No.2 has leased the property to the tenant. Therefore, contention of defendant No.2 that he is in possession of the suit schedule property through his tenant has to be accepted.
13. The defendants in their evidence have stated that plaintiff earlier had filed a suit for partition against Mr.Condred Reymond Milton Yates and Smt.Patrioka Naomi Moral Yates in Judgement 16 O.S.No.2998/2012 OS.No.1954/1997 and in the said suit, Mr.Condred Reymond Milton Yates had filed written statement contending that after the death of Mr.Colin Edger Yates and Mrs.Claudius Yates, suit property was divided among three children of Mr.Colin Edger Yates and said suit was dismissed as not pressed. The defendants have produced certified copy of plaint, written statement and order sheet in OS.No.1954/1997 at Ex.D7 to D9. From Ex.D8 i.e., written statement, it goes to show that Mr.Condred Reymond Milton Yates had filed written statement on 17.06.1999 contending that partition was effected in the family and suit property was divided into three shares. From Ex.D8, it goes to show that the plaintiff was aware of the contentions taken by Mr.Condred Reymond Milton Yates in the said suit. Inspite of said contention taken by Mr.Condred Reymond Milton Yates, the plaintiff has not filed any suit challenging the alleged partition. Therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn against the plaintiff.
14. The defendants have contended that plaintiff had filed suit for injunction against defendant No.1 in O.S.No.25161/2008 and said suit is dismissed. Therefore, present suit is not maintainable and barred by res-judicata. The defendants have produced certified copy of the plaint, judgement and decree in Judgement 17 O.S.No.2998/2012 O.S.No.25161/2008 at Ex.D26 to 28. From the plaint, it clearly goes to show that plaintiff had filed earlier suit for injunction against defendant No.1 contending that he is in possession of the 45 x 45 feet and said suit was dismissed as per Ex.D27. Now, the plaintiff contends that he is in possession of the schedule property i.e., 30 x 45 feet and claims relief of declaration with respect to "B" schedule property i.e., 45 x 15 feet. It is pertinent to note that, the plaintiff has not correctly mentioned the extent of the suit property in the schedule and further, the plaintiff has not specifically pleaded in which portion of suit property he is in possession of the suit property. More over, the plaintiff has suppressed filing of earlier suits in OS.No.1954/1997 and O.S.No.25161/2008 in the plaint. Therefore, contention of the plaintiff that he is in possession of the suit schedule property cannot be accepted. The plaintiff has contended that the defendants are trying to demolish the common wall existing in between plaintiff's property and defendants' property. Except self serving statement of PW-1, the plaintiff has not produced any evidence before this court to show that the defendants tried to demolish the common wall as contended in the plaint. Therefore, contention of the plaintiff that defendants tried to demolish the common wall cannot be accepted. The plaintiff has failed to prove his title and possession over the suit schedule property as Judgement 18 O.S.No.2998/2012 contended in the plaint. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitle for any relief. In the light of the above discussion, I answer Issue Nos.1 to 3, Additional issue No.1 dated 22.07.2015 and Additional Issue Nos.3 and 4 dated 02.09.2016 in the negative and Additional Issue Nos.1 and 2 dated 02.09.2015 in the affirmative.
15. Issue No.4:-
In view of my above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgement Writer, typed by her, the transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open court, this the 13th day of December, 2018) (P.SRINIVASA) XLII Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff's side:
PW.1 - Sri.Mahabood Jan @ Mrs.M.Yates
(b) Defendants' side:
Judgement 19 O.S.No.2998/2012 DW.1 - Sri.Shabir Ahmed DW.2 - Sri.Imthiyaz Pasha DW.3 - Smt.Gousiay Khanum II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P1 : General Power of Attorney
Ex.P2 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
05.12.1958
Ex.P3 : Death Certificate of Mr.Colin Edjer
Yates
Ex.P4 : Death Certificate of Gladys Yates
Ex.P5 : Ration Card
Ex.P6 to12 : Electricity Bills & Receipts
Ex.P13 : Consumer Water Card
Ex.P14 to 17 : Water Bills
Ex.P18 to 21 : Gas Receipts
Ex.P22 to 29 : Tax Paid Receipts
Ex.P30 : Khatha Certificate
Ex.P31 : Holder Khatha Certificate
Ex.P32 : Khatha Extract
Ex.P33 : Encumbrance Certificate
Ex.P34 : Death Certificate of Colinedgar
Yats
Ex.D35 : Death Certificate of Gladys Yates
Ex.D36 : Death Certificate C.Yates
Ex.D37 : Death Certificate of Patricia Yates
(a) Defendants' side:
Ex.D1 to D4 : Photos
Ex.D5 : GPA dated 04.06.2012
Ex.D6 : Certified copy of Will dated
24.06.1959
Ex.D6(a) : Typed copy of Ex.D6
Ex.D7 : Certified copy of Plaint in
OS.No.1954/1997
Ex.D8 : Certified copy of Written Statement
Judgement
20 O.S.No.2998/2012
in OS.No.1954/1997
Ex.D9 : Certified copy of Order Sheet in
OS.No.1954/1997
Ex.D10 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
13.06.1996
Ex.D11 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
20.12.1996
Ex.D12 : Khatha Certificate
Ex.D13 : Khatha Extract
Ex.D14 to 18 : Tax Paid Receipts
Ex.D19 : Khatha Extract
Ex.D20 : Khatha Certificate
Ex.D21 to 25 : Tax Paid Receipts
Ex.D26 : Certified copy of Plaint in
O.S.No.25161/2008
Ex.D27 : Certified copy of Judgment in
O.S.No.25161/2008
Ex.D28 : Certified copy of Decree in
O.S.No.25161/2008
Ex.D29 : Certified copy of Gift Deed dated
13.01.2014
Ex.D30 : Certified copy of Gift Deed dated
13.01.2014
Ex.D31 : Original Registered Sale Deed
dated 13.06.1996
Ex.D32 : Original Gift Deed dated
13.01.2014
Ex.D33 : Khatha Certificate
Ex.D34 : Khatha Extract
Ex.D35 & 36 : Tax Paid Receipts
Ex.D37 : Original registered Sale Deed
dated 20.12.1996
Ex.D38 : Original Gift Deed dated
13.01.2014
Ex.D39 : Khatha Certificate
Ex.D40 : Khatha Extract
Ex.D41 & 42 : Tax Paid Receipts
Ex.D43 : Electricity Bill
Ex.D44 : Rental Agreement dated
08.03.2016
Ex.P45 : Electricity Bill
Judgement
21 O.S.No.2998/2012
Ex.P46 : Water Bill
Ex.P47 : Khatha Certificate
Ex.P48 : Khatha Extract
Ex.P49 : Notarized copy of Ration Card
XLII ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU.
Digitally signed by
SRINIVASA
DN:
cn=SRINIVASA,ou=HIGH
COURT OF
SRINIVASA KARNATAKA,o=GOVERN
MENT OF
KARNATAKA,st=Karnatak
a,c=IN
Date: 2018.12.15 12:37:41
IST
Judgement