Bangalore District Court
Kempegowda Smaraka Prathishtana ® vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 June, 2018
C.R.P. 67) Govt. of Karnataka
Form
No.9(Civil)
Title sheet
for
Judgment in
Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
(CCH.NO.12)
PRESENT : SRI R.Y. SHASHIDHARA,
B.Com.,LL.B.,
XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
DATED THIS 13TH JUNE, 2018.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.8115/2014
*****
PLAINTIFF: Kempegowda Smaraka Prathishtana ®
No.269, 5th Cross, 2nd Main Road,
6th Stage, Mahaganapathinagara,
Bangalore - 560 044,
Represented by its Secretary,
Sri R. Thimme Gowda.
(By Sri M.Y.N., Advocate)
- Vs -
DEFENDANTS: 1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Chief Secretary,
Department of Archeology,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Deputy Director,
Karnataka Ancient and Historical
Monuments and Archeological
Department,
2 OS No.8115/2014
Venkatappa Arts Gallery,
Kasturba Road,
Bangalore -560 001.
3. The Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara
Palike, N.R. Square,
Bangalore - 560 002,
Represented by its Commissioner.
4. The Executive Engineer,
The Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara
Palike, Mathikere Sub-Division,
Nethaji Circle, Bangalore.
5. The Asst. Executive Engineer,
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike,
Mathikere Sub-Division,
Nethaji Circle, Bangalore.
(For D-1 & 2 by Sri D.G.P., Advocate)
(For D-3 to 5 by Sri K.M., Advocate)
Date of institution of the suit 25-10-2014
Nature of the suit: Permanent injunction and
mandatory injunction.
Date of the commencement of 20-11-2015
recording of the evidence:
Date on which the Judgment was 13-06-2018
pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
03 07 19
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff filed this suit for decree of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant No.3 to 5, their agents, servants, workman, labours or anybody claiming through or 3 OS No.8115/2014 under them from putting up any further construction on the protected and the restricted area of 200 meters in radius, around the Kempegowda Tower (suit schedule property). For granting decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to demolish illegal construction around the suit schedule property and remove the debris there from and put the suit schedule property to its original position.
As per the plaint, the subject matter of the property is the protected, restricted and regulated area to the extent of 200 meters in radius in and around the Kempegowda Tower situated near Mekhri Circle, Sadashiva Nagar, Bangalore.
2. It is stated in the plaint that, the plaintiff's Prathistana is a social organization formed with the aim and object of protecting the monuments and historical structures in existence since time immemorial. It has taken several steps in protecting the historical monuments and structures from illegal and unauthorized claims and possession by various land and monuments grabbers. The suit schedule property i.e., Kempegowda tower is situated in the park, near Mekhri Circle, Bangalore. It can be visible to every person walking around the said park. It has become a well renowned tourist spot. It was erected about 700 years back and it is highly recognized 4 OS No.8115/2014 by Archeological Department of India. As per Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 (herein after called as the Act) the archeology and monuments are to be protected without causing any disturbance of whatsoever nature.
3. It is stated that as per Section 20 of the said Act no person including the owner or occupier of a protected area shall construct any building within the protected area, carry out mining activity and utilize the same without the permission of the Central Government. The park is around the Kempegowda tower, the public have better sense of visible and visit to the said tower. The statue of Kempegowda is visible from all the sides, both who are in the park and moving outside the park. This area is maintained by the defendant No.1 to 3 with assistance of the State Government as per the direction of the Central Government. Without permission of the Central Government the State Government cannot made any alterations or additions in the suit schedule property.
4. It is further stated that in the month of August 2014 the defendant No.3 to 5 have tried to raise the compound wall in the protected and regulated area. If the said compound wall 5 OS No.8115/2014 is constructed, it will completely close the visibility of Kempegowda tower. The plaintiff and other Sanghas including public of the locality have objected the above said act of the defendant No. 3 to 5. As per the approach of the plaintiff, the State Vokkaligara Sangha got issued notice to the Chief Minister of Karnataka, BBMP Authorities to stop the construction of wall around the suit property. On 02-09-2014 the defendant No.2 issued letter to the defendant No.5 to stop the work in the suit schedule property. In spite of he same the defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are going on illegal construction. In the year 1989 the plaintiff had objected and stopped the construction work took by Ramanashree Ashram. Then said Ashram undertaken not to take any construction work in the suit property. It is stated that the public interest is involved in the present case. The defendant No.3 to 5 are illegally in high handed manner taking illegal work of construction in the suit schedule property. Other defendants have not taking any action against the defendants No.3 to 5. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file this suit and prayed for decree.
5. In response to the suit summons issued by this court, the defendants have appeared through their counsel. The 6 OS No.8115/2014 defendant No.1 and 2 have filed written statement. The defendant No.3 to 5 also filed written statement.
6. In the written statement the defendant No.1 and 2 stated as follows:
It is stated that in the month of September 2014 these defendants have issued notice to the BBMP Authorities who started the construction of compound wall without obtaining necessary permission from the defendant No.2. The construction work taken by the BBMP Authorities is illegal and opposed to the rules framed. The Kempegowda statue is State Archaeology monument and garden around the said area is maintained by BBMP. They put 15 feet height compound wall and it shall be liable to be removed to its original, as the monument can be seen. It is stated that the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction as prayed against the defendant No.3 to 5. Hence, it is prayed for the suit of the plaintiff may be decreed.
7. The defendant No.3 to 5 in the written statement stated as follows:
The suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for want of non issuing a statutory notice under Section 482(1) of KMC 7 OS No.8115/2014 Act. The plaintiff filed this suit in a public interest manner. But the plaintiff organization is not registered. Hence, the suit filed by the plaintiff under representative capacity is not maintainable. It is stated that the plaintiff has not obtained permission under Section 91 of CPC and the present suit filed by the plaintiff without leave of the Court is not maintainable. The suit of the plaintiff is represented by one Thimme Gowda who is a sole person. As per Section 91 of CPC there should be more than one person to file suit by form of public interest. It is denied that the plaintiff is social organization, having aim and object of protecting monuments of historical structures and protecting the same from illegal and unauthorized claims.
8. It is admitted that the suit schedule property i.e., Kempegowda tower is in the park near Mekhri Circle. It is admitted that the said tower is visible to every persons walking around the park. But it is denied that the said tower is also visible out side the park. It is admitted that under the Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 and Archeology and Monuments Act, within protected area, no person shall construct any building within the protected area, carry out any mining operation and utilize the area. It is denied that 8 OS No.8115/2014 construction of the compound wall is coming in the protected area. It is stated that there is no statue of Kempegowda in the park. There is a old Kempegowda tower in the said park which is 200 meters away from the road. These defendants are maintaining the said park.
9. It is stated that averments of para 7 and 9 plaint are false and created by the plaintiff for the purpose of this case. It is stated that Kempegowda tower is situated within 300 meters away from the main road. To protect the historical tower of Kempegowda and develop the park the defendants have put up compound to the park and statue of kempegowda is to be erected. The plaintiff has suppressed the true facts before this court. It is stated that there is no cause of action to file this suit.
10. It is stated that these defendants are maintaining the park around the Kempegowda tower. The said monument was not visible to the general public, as it is situated 300 meters away from the main road. These defendants have raised funds to install the Kempegowda statue. It is stated that the plaintiff prayed for not to construct any structure in and around 200 meters from Kempegowda tower. But statue of 9 OS No.8115/2014 Kempegowda is installing to visible the above monument to the general public that too 105 meters away from the old Kempegowda tower. These defendants obtained necessary plan and permission and constructed the compound wall to install statue of Kempegowda. With an intention to get popularity in the public general and gain wrongfully the plaintiff has filed this false suit. It is stated that Kempegowda Park situated near Mekhri Circle, it is measuring 105 x 102 meters. The present compound wall and statue of Kempegowda is distance of 105 meters from the compound wall. The said compound wall put up is only to protect the Kempegowda tower. It is stated that within the distance of 42 meters there is a private layout near northern side of Kempegowda tower, RMV Layout is situated within 60 meters towards southern side of Kempegowda tower and C.V. Raman institute is around 50 meters from old tower. These defendants have taken up development work around the Kempegowda tower since many years ago. During that time the plaintiff did not objected the same. It is stated that proposed compound and the statue of Kempegowda will not obstruct the Kempegowda tower. But it will protect the said 10 OS No.8115/2014 tower. Therefore, defendant No.3 to 5 prayed for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff with exemplary costs.
11. On the basis of the pleadings of both sides, my learned Predecessor has framed the issues as follows:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant No.3 to 5 are illegally putting up construction in the suit schedule property ?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the construction already made by the defendants in the suit schedule property is illegal and it is liable to be demolished ? 3. Whether the defendants No.3 to 5
proves that suit is not maintainable for non-compliance of section 482 of KMC Act ?
4. Whether the defendant No.3 to 5 proves that suit is not maintainable for non-compliance of section 91 of CPC ?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the decree claimed in the suit ?
6. What order or decree ?
12. In order to prove his case, the General Secretary of the plaintiff examined as PW.1. Documents got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. In spite of several opportunities, the defendants have not adduced oral evidence and got marked documents. Then the case posted for arguments on main.
11 OS No.8115/2014
13. Heard the arguments.
14. My answer to the above issues are as follows:-
ISSUE NO.1 : In the negative
ISSUE NO.2 : In the negative
ISSUE NO.3 : In the negative
ISSUE NO.4 : In the negative
ISSUE NO.5 : In the negative
ISSUE NO.6 : As per final order for the
following :
REASONS
15. ISSUE NO.1 AND 2:- These two issues are inter- connected. Therefore, for the purpose of avoiding repeated discussions, I taken up these two issues together for consideration.
From perusal of the pleadings of both parties and oral evidence of PW.1, I am of the opinion that it is undisputed fact that Nadaprabhu Kempegowda during his tenure of his Dynasty has established four border towers marking the area of then Bengaluru as his province. These four towers situated at Ulsoor East, Kempambudi lake West, Mekhri Circle North and Lalbagh South. It is also undisputed fact that the above said four towers identified and recognized as 12 OS No.8115/2014 historical monuments by Archeological department of India and they are in protected and restricted areas. It is also undisputed fact that as per Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 (herein after called as the Act) the archeology and monuments are to be protected. It is also admitted fact that around the Kempegowda tower, there is a park, it has been maintained by defendant No.1 to 3 as per the guidelines and directions issued by the Central Government.
16. Now it is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.3 to 5 misused the above said protected area. They are tried to raise a compound wall in the protected and regulated area. In the month of August 2014 they tried to raise the compound wall. If they constructed the compound wall it will completely close the visibility of Kempegowda tower. It is also case of the plaintiff that the objection raised by it, the defendants have completed the construction of compound wall, it is illegal and liable to be demolished. Per contra, it is the case of the defendant No.3 to 5 that for protection of Kempegowda tower and installation of statue of Kempegowda, they took a construction work in the suit 13 OS No.8115/2014 schedule property, they have obtained necessary plan and permission and constructed compound wall to install Kempegowda statue. It is stated that the said compound wall and statue of Kempegowda will not obstruct the Kempegowda tower but it will protect the said tower. In this background let me see about the case.
17. In the plaint it is stated that Kempegowda tower is situated in the park near Mekhri circle. It is visible to every person walking around the said park, both inside and outside also. It has become a well renowned tourist spot and it is highly recognized by the Archeological department of India. Under the Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 the monuments are to be protected without causing any disturbance of whatsoever in nature. Without permission of the Central Government no person including the owner or occupier of the protected area shall construct any building and carry out any quarry work within the protected area and utilize the said area.
14 OS No.8115/2014
18. It is stated that around the said Kempegowda tower the park has been made for the public to have better sense of visible and visit to the said old and ancient monument. The statue of Kempegowda is visible from all sides both who are in the park and who are moving outside the park. This park is maintained by the defendant No.1 to 3 as per the guidelines and direction of the Central Government. This park is maintained by Central Government with the assistance of the State Government. In the month of August 2014 they tried to raise the compound wall in the protected and regulated area. If the construction is put up, it will completely close the visibility of Kempegowda tower. In spite of objections raised by it and other Sanghas including public locality, the defendant No.3 to 5 go on with the construction of the compound wall. It is stated that the plaintiff has approached the Vokkaligara Sangha to protect the monument of Kempegowda. The said Sangha issued notice to the Chief Minister of Karnataka, BBMP authorities and demanding them to forth with stop the construction of the wall around the historical park. On 02-09-2014 the defendant No.2 issued notice to the defendant No.5 and directed him to stop any work in the aforesaid protected and 15 OS No.8115/2014 restricted area. PW.1 in his examination-in-chief reiterated the above said averments of the plaint.
19. To prove its case the plaintiff has produced several documents and got marked in evidence. Ex.P1 is the resolution passed by the plaintiff Prathistana. It is disclosing that on 29-9-2014 meeting was held in Nadaprabhu Kempegowda Bhavana in the presence of office bearers of the plaintiff. It is stated that the BBMP is gong on for construct structure measuring 20 sq.ft., nearby Kempegowda tower. The BBMP also going on for constructing 15 to 20 feet height of compound wall around Kempegowda tower. Because of above said construction, the Kempegowda tower cannot be visible to the public and it will affected the existence of said tower. It is further mentioned in the year 1989 BBMP allowed for construction of Ramansri Ashrama. Because of objection raised by the plaintiff and others, the Government has issued notice not to put up any structure nearby Kempegowda tower. Hence, it has been resolved that whatever compound wall and structure constructed by the BBMP to be stopped and submitted representation to the Government and Archeological department for stop the 16 OS No.8115/2014 above said construction and taking legal action against the same.
20. Ex.P2 to 5 are the letters dated 16-08-2014 issued by Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha to the Chief Minister, Mayor BBMP, Assistant Commissioner BBMP and Chief Engineer BBMP. It was demanded to said authorities to take action for stop the illegal construction work taken by the BBMP around Kempegowda tower and demolition of structure already constructed in that place. Ex.P6 to P15 are the photographs in respect of suit schedule property and Ex.P16 is the C.D. in respect of said photos. As per the above said photos, it reveals that constriction of compound wall is under progress, it is constructing by the side of Bellary road that too adjacent to the existing compound wall and iron grills.
21. I have perused the cross-examination of PW1 by the defendant No.3 to 5 side. It was suggested that Rajya Vokkaligara Sangha wrote a letter to the BBMP that no objection for construction of compound wall. But PW.1 stated that he does know about the same. He has stated that presently he cannot say the measurement of the suit 17 OS No.8115/2014 property. He has stated that Kempegowda monument is 200 to 300 feet distance from Bellary road, towards west within 500 meters C.V. Raman institute is situated. He has denied that the construction of compound wall by the BBMP will not causing any effect to Kempegowda monument, in spite of the same they have filed present suit for taking popularity from the public. PW.1 has denied the same. He further stated that within 60 feet of distance BWSSB property is existed and within 40 feet of distance from Kempegowda tower private layout is existed. He has stated that before construction of compound wall, structure of BWSSB is existed nearby Kempegowda tower. He further stated that they have not filed any suit in respect of above said structures belongs to the BWSSB and they will take action against private layout and BWSSB property after disposal of this suit. It was suggested that BBMP has constructed compound wall for protection of Kempegowda tower. But PW.1 has denied the same.
22. The defendant No.1 is the State Government, defendant No.2 is the Deputy Director of Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monument and Archeological department. 18 OS No.8115/2014 Except filing of written statement the defendant No.1 and 2 have not adduced oral evidence and produced documents. The defendant No.1 and 2 in the written statement stated that during the month of September 2014 they have issued notice to the AEE, BBMP that they started compound wall work without obtaining necessary permission from the defendant No.2. Therefore, the said construction is illegal and opposed to the rules framed. The Kempegowda statue is State Archeological monument and garden around the monument area is maintained by the BBMP. 15 feet height compound wall put up by the BBMP is liable to be removed to its original and as the monument can be seen. But I am of the opinion that to prove the said fact, the defendant No.1 and 2 have not adduced oral evidence and produced documentary evidence. Hence, I am of the opinion that, without oral and documentary evidence, the contention of the defendant No.1 and 2 taken in the written statement that the defendant No.3 to 5 have illegally started construction of compound wall in the suit schedule property is not believable.
19 OS No.8115/2014
23. As discussed above it is the contention of the defendant No.3 to 5 that they constructed compound wall around Kempegowda tower for protection of above said monument. It will not affected the monument. They further contended that they obtained plan and necessary permission for construction of compound wall in respect of Kempegowda statue in the suit schedule property. In the cross- examination of PW.1 it was suggested that the BBMP authorities have wrote a letter and stated no objection for construction of compound wall. But to prove the same the defendants have not produced any documentary evidence.
24. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the construction of the compound wall by the defendant No.3 to 5 is in the protected and regulated area. Without permission of the defendant No.2 (Government of India), the defendant No.3 to 5 going for construction of compound wall and it will completely close the visibility of Kempegowda tower. I have carefully perused the pleadings and oral evidence of PW.1. I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has not specifically pleaded, adduced oral evidence and produced documents that what is the actual distance in between alleged 20 OS No.8115/2014 compound wall and Kempegowda tower. But, they simply stated that construction of compound wall is in the protected and regulated area. In the present suit the plaintiff prayed for decree of mandatory injunction for removal of construction of the compound wall made by the defendant No.3 to 5. Therefore, the burden on the plaintiff to prove that alleged compound wall constructed by the defendant No.3 to 5 is within the limits of protected area. Section 20(1) of the Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961 reads as follows :-
20. Restrictions on enjoyment of property rights in protected areas. - (1) No person, including the owner or occupier of a protected area, shall construct any buiding within the protected area or carry on any mining, quarrying, excavcatin, blasting or any operation of a like nature in such area, or utilize such area or any part thereof in any other manner without the permission of the Government.
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to prohibit the use of any such area or part thereof for purposes of cultivation if such cultivation does not involve the digging of not more than one foot or soil from the surface.
25. As per Section 19 of the said Act, the Central Government has to declare archeological site and remains to be protected area, to be declared the limits or protected 21 OS No.8115/2014 area. The copy of the said notification shall be affixed in the conspicuous place near the site and remains. The Central Government also published the said notification in the official gazette specifying the boundaries of the area. But, in the case on hand the plaintiff has not produced notification issued by Central Government for specifying boundaries of the area of the Kempegowda tower. It is admitted fact that from Kempegowda tower, towards south within 60 feet distance the BWSSB property is existed, towards north within 40 feet distance private layout is existed and BWSSB building was existed prior to construction of alleged compound wall. PW.1 in his cross-examination specifically admitted the above said fact. He also admitted that buildings were constructed in the private layout before construction of alleged compound wall and till today they have not filed any suit against the owners of the said building. Therefore, it is clear that before construction of alleged compound wall by the defendant No.3 to 5, already the buildings in the private layout and building of BWSSB were existed nearby Kempegowda tower. I am of the opinion that without production of the Central Government notification for fixation of distance of protected and restricted area, I am not 22 OS No.8115/2014 accepted the contention of the plaintiff that the construction of alleged compound wall is within the protected and restricted area. It is noticed that, it is not the case of the plaintiff that alleged compound wall constructed by the defendant No.3 to 5 will affected and causing damage to the Kempegowda tower. But it is only the case of the plaintiff that alleged compound wall constructed by the defendant No.3 to 5 will completely close the visibility of Kempegoda tower.
26. As per the photographs of Ex.P6 to P15 produced by the plaintiff, reveals that prior to construction of compound wall, already there was a compound wall and iron grills fixed on the said compound wall. It further reveals that attached to the existing compound wall and iron grill alleged compound wall constructed by the defendant No.3 to 5. I am of the opinion that alleged compound wall constructed by the defendant No.3 to 5 certainly protected the Kempegowda tower. It will not affected and causing any damage to the Kempegowda tower. Hence, it cannot be say that construction of said compound wall by the defendant No.3 to 5 is illegal. Further I am of the opinion that it is true that 23 OS No.8115/2014 construction of alleged compound wall will affected visibility of the Kempegowda tower. But at the same time the said compound wall is protected the Kempegowda tower. Further I am of the opinion that for protecting the Kempegowda tower the defendant No.3 to 5 have constructed compound wall around the park and it cannot be say that it is illegal and against the Karnataka Ancient and Historical Monuments and Archeological Sites and Remains Act, 1961. From the above discussion, I come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendant No.3 to 5 are illegally putting up construction and they have already put up illegal construction/compound wall in the suit schedule property and that construction is liable to be demolished. Therefore, I answer the issue No.1 and 2 in the negative.
27. ISSUE NO.3:- In para 3 of the written statement the defendant No.3 to 5 contended that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for non-compliance of Section 482 of KMC Act. The plaintiff has not issued statutory notice to these defendants as per the above said provision. I have perused the above said contention of the defendants. It is noticed that along with plaint, the plaintiff has filed IA No.1 under Section 80(2) of CPC for dispense with the notice to the 24 OS No.8115/2014 defendant No.1 and 2. After considering the said application, this Court allowed the same and dispensed for issue of notice to the defendant No.3 to 5 under Section 80(2) of CPC. Hence, I come to the conclusion that in view of dispensation of notice to the defendant No.1 and 2 it cannot be say that the present suit is not maintainable. Hence, I answer the issue No.3 in the negative.
28. ISSUE NO.4:- In para 5 of the written statement the defendant No.3 to 5 contended that the plaintiff filed this suit without leave of the Court. The plaintiff is represented by one Thimmegowda who is sole person. As per Section 91 of CPC they should be more than two persons to file a suit by form of public interest. They further contended that the plaintiff claims to be a social organization sangha, but it is not registered under the provisions of any Act. Hence, in view of Section 91 of CPC the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable. Provision of Section 91 of CPC reads as follows :-
91. Public nuisances and other wrongful acts affecting the public. - (1) In the case of a public nuisance or other wrongful act affecting, or likely to affect, the public, a suit for a declaration and injunction or for such other relief as may be 25 OS No.8115/2014 appropriate in the circumstances of the case, may be instituted, -
(a) by the Advocate - General, or
(b) with the leave of the Court, by two or more persons, even though no special damage has been caused to such persons by reason of such public nuisance or other wrong-ful act.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any right of suit which may exist independently of its provisions.
From careful perusal of the above said provision along with the case on hand, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has not filed this suit and contended that alleged construction of the compound wall is nearby Kempegowda tower, it will causing public nuisances and affected to the public. But, it is a specific case of the plaintiff that the construction of wall is within protected area and it will completely close the visibility of the Kempegowda tower. In the plaint the plaintiff contended that it is a social organization formed with aim and object of protecting the monuments and historical structures in existence since time immemorial. Copy of the acknowledgment dated 07-07- 2012 produced by the plaintiff reveals that the plaintiff's Prathistana has been registered before the Registrar of Co- operative Societies. From the above discussion, I am of the 26 OS No.8115/2014 opinion that the provisions of Section 91 of CPC is not attracted as urged by the defendant No.3 to 5. Hence, the question of complying the provisions of Section 91 of CPC is does not arise. Therefore, I answer the issue No.4 in the negative.
29. ISSUE NO.5:- In view of the findings on issue No.1 and 2 the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove that the defendant No.3 to 5 have illegally constructed compound wall in the protected and restricted area of the suit schedule property i.e., Kempegowda tower. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the suit. I further come to the conclusion that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. From looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Therefore, I answer the issue No.5 in the negative.
30. ISSUE NO. 6:- In view of the findings on issue No.1 to 5, I proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. 27 OS No.8115/2014 No costs Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, the transcript corrected by me, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 13th day of June, 2018).
(R.Y. SHASHIDHARA), XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE.28 OS No.8115/2014
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:-
PW.1 R. Thimme Gowda
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:-
Ex.P-1 Proceedings of meeting of plaintiff company.
Ex.P-2 to 5 Letters to Chief Minister and defendants dt:
16-8-2014
Ex.P-6 to 16 10 photographs and one C.D.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT:-
- NIL -
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT:-
- NIL -
(R.Y. SHASHIDHARA),
XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
BANGALORE.
29 OS No.8115/2014
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is
dismissed.
No costs
Draw decree accordingly.
(Vide separate Judgment)
(R.Y. SHASHIDHARA),
XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
BANGALORE.