Bangalore District Court
Smt.Jyothi Shri Shail Kittur vs Smt.Keerthana on 22 September, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE 42nd ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH.NO.43).
PRESENT: Sri.BAILUR SHANKAR RAMA,
B.Sc., M.A., LL.B.(Spl),
nd
42 ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
Dated this the 22nd day of September 2016.
O.S.No.5864/2014
Plaintiff:- Smt.Jyothi Shri Shail Kittur,
W/o.Sri.Shrishail G.Kittur,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at No.G-1,
Lake View Apartments,
Kommaghatta Road,
Bandemata,
Kengeri Satellite Town,
Bangalore-60.
(By - Sri.G.Jairaj, Adv.)
v.
Defendants:- 1. Smt.Keerthana,
W/o.E.Sanjay,
D/o.G.Dayananda,
Major, No.17,
"Subhapradha Nilay",
4th Cross,
Javaraiah Garden Extension,
Thyagarajanagar,
Bangalore-28.
2 O.S.No.5864/2014
2. Smt.Malliga,
W/o.Late S.Murugesan,
Aged about 65 years,
3. Smt.M.Anandi,
D/o.Late S.Murugesan,
Aged about 45 years,
4. Smt.M.Sathya,
D/o.Late S.Murugesan,
Aged about 40 years,
All are R/at "HARSHA"
No.1431, 11th Cross Street,
Krishnappa Garden,
Kengeri Satellite Town,
Bangalore - 60.
5. Sri.R.Shankar,
S/o.Sri.Rama Gowndar,
Aged about 41 years,
R/at No.54/55,
1st Main Road, MTS Layout,
Kengeri Upanagar,
Bangalore-60.
(D1 - Sri.S.K.Mithun, Adv.)
D5 - Sri.M.V.Chandra Shekar, Adv.
D2 to D4 - Exparte)
Date of institution of the suit : 31.07.2014
Nature of the suit : Permanent Injunction
Date of commencement of : 19.08.2015
Recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 22.09.2016
was pronounced
3 O.S.No.5864/2014
Total Duration : Years Months Days
02 01 21
(BAILUR SHANKAR RAMA)
nd
42 ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction and costs.
2. The brief facts as averred in the plaint are that:-
Originally the property bearing No.34 and 39, BBMP Katha No.336/34/338 and 337/39/339 situated at Channasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, morefully described in suit A-schedule, was acquired by defendant No.1 through Registered Sale Deed dated 21.03.1996. She decided to develop the property by constructing the flats in the name and style of "Vasu Pradha" and for the said purpose she has entered into a registered Joint Development Agreement dated 28.07.2012 with the Developers namely M/s.Sathya Constructions, a 4 O.S.No.5864/2014 proprietaryship concern owned by Mr.Murugesan. On the same day, defendant No.1 has also executed registered General Power of Attorney in favour of Mr.S.Murugesan for the sale of his 50% share. Subsequently Developer has entered into an Agreement of Sale with the plaintiff dated 29.07.2012 by receiving Rs.10,00,000/- from the plaintiff and her husband Shrishail Kittur for sale of flat bearing No.301, 3rd Floor, measuring 1000 square feet with undivided share 287 square feet and agreed to give vacant possession of the property on the date of registration of the Sale Deed. The plaintiff submits that as per the Joint Development Agreement, the Developer is expected to finish the work within 18 months with an extended period of
3 months, but he was not able to complete the construction work. After completion of 60% work, GPA Holder - Mr.S.Murugesan requested the plaintiff to get registered the Sale Deed with an assurance that he would complete remaining 40% work within 2 months. Accordingly, the plaintiff purchased the property through Registered Sale Deed dated 02.01.2014 in respect of flat bearing No.T-300, situated at 3rd floor with super built up area of 950 square 5 O.S.No.5864/2014 feet and undivided share of 289 square feet of the land comprised in A-schedule property and the property purchased by the plaintiff is separately shown in B- schedule. The plaintiff submits that when she has questioned the change in the flat number, defendant No.1 and Builder informed the plaintiff that, they have renumbered the flats and accordingly the flat which they are agreed to sell under Agreement of Sale is renumbered as T-300 and even further threatened the plaintiff to purchase the flat No.T-300 or otherwise, they will not going to return the entire advance amount paid by the plaintiff. Having no other alternative, the plaintiff has agreed to purchase the flat bearing T-300 and she was delivered with possession by the GPA Holder of defendant No.1 in respect of B-schedule property and since then she has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same. Even after lapse of 2 months, neither defendant No.1 nor Builder - M/s.Sathya Constructions have come forward to complete the remaining work, that is the reason the plaintiff herself got done the works inside her flat and fixed the door. She got transferred the property in her name and paid tax to the 6 O.S.No.5864/2014 BBMP. The plaintiff submits that Mr.S.Murugesan expired on 05.05.2014, leaving behind his legal heirs - defendants 2 to 4. On 26.06.2014, when plaintiff and her husband were in B-schedule property, defendant No.5 claiming to be owner of B-schedule property came to the spot along with anti-social elements and started interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property and tried to forcibly dispossess her and her husband and threatened the plaintiff to hand over possession of B-schedule property to him. Abused at her in filthy language and tried to put iron door in front of the main door fixed by the plaintiff and locked it. With the help of neighbours and passerby such attempt was thwarted. The plaintiff has filed complaint before jurisdictional Rajarajeshwarinagar Police Station, but in vain. The defendant No.5 threatened that he would come with more men and dispossess the plaintiff. They are monied persons, without the aid of court order, she cannot protect her lawful possession over the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit.
3. After service of suit summons, defendants 2 to 4 remained absent, placed exparte. The defendant No.1 7 O.S.No.5864/2014 appeared through her advocate - Sri.S.K.Mithun and defendant No.5 has appeared through his advocate - Sri.M.V.Chandra Shekar. The defendant No.1 filed the written statement, admitting that A-schedule property originally belonged to defendant No.1 and she has entered into Joint Development Agreement in favour of M/s.Sathya Constructions and executed GPA in favour of Mr.S.Murugesan, who died on 05.05.2014 and defendants 2 to 4 are the legal heirs of Mr.S.Murugesan, but denied that the plaintiff had purchased flat No.T-300 under Agreement of Sale and thereafter, GPA Holder of defendant No.1 when building was incomplete had executed Registered Sale Deed for consideration in favour of the plaintiff dated 02.01.2014 and delivered the possession, are specifically denied by her. She contends that she has never put in possession of A- schedule property to Mr.S.Murugesan, as he was a Builder he has taken up the construction work as a licensee of defendant No.1. It is her say that M/s.Sathya Constructions have also entered into Sharing Agreement with defendant No.1 dated 28.07.2012. On the said agreement, 4 flats in the ground floor, 4 flats in the first floor and 2 pent houses 8 O.S.No.5864/2014 and terrace portion is allotted to defendant No.1. M/s.Sathya Construction was allotted 4 flats in second floor and 4 flats in third floor. As per the Sharing Agreement, it clearly discloses that there is no flat number T-300. The allegation of interference is also denied. The defendant No.1 contended that no such T-300 flat in A-schedule property. The Sale Deeds executed by the GPA Holder in favour of plaintiff as well as defendant No.5, is denied by her on the ground that the Power of Attorney Holder did not authorize to execute none of the Sale Deeds by her and Sale Agreements and Sale Deeds were executed without consulting defendant No.1, as such both the Sale Deed of the plaintiff as well as defendant No.5 are void ab-initio and no right would flow in favour of them. The said aspect was informed to the plaintiff and defendant No.5 under legal notice dated 27.06.2014 issued by defendant No.1. The suit is not properly valued and court fee paid is not proper and sought for dismissal of the suit.
4. The defendant No.5 in his written statement has admitted that A-schedule property belonged to defendant No.1 and Joint Development Agreement for construction 9 O.S.No.5864/2014 was executed and denied all the allegations of the plaintiff made in the plaint. The purchase of B-schedule property from GPA Holder of defendant No.1 and plaintiff's contention that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property and allegation of alleged interference by defendant No.5 is specifically denied. He contends that he himself is the owner of flat bearing No.300 under Registered Sale Deed dated 28.11.2012 executed by GPA Holder of defendant No.1 in his favour and katha was changed in his name and he has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of B-schedule property since the date of purchase by making payment of taxes to BBMP. As the plaintiff is not at all in possession of the property, the court fee paid is not proper, suit is not properly valued and she is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants and sought for dismissal of the same.
5. Basing on the rival pleadings the following issues are framed:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves her lawful possession over the suit schedule-B property as on the date of the suit?10 O.S.No.5864/2014
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference of the defendants?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?
4. What order or decree?
6. The plaintiff got herself examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P1 to P10 and closed her side. The defendant No.5 got himself examined as DW-1 and got marked Ex.D1 to D15 and closed his side.
7. After the closure of the evidence, heard the arguments.
8. My answers to the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1:- In the affirmative.
Issue No.2:- In the affirmative.
Issue No.3:- In the affirmative.
Issue No.4:- As per final order.
for the following:-
REASONS
9. Issue Nos.1 to 3:-
For the sake of convenience these issues are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
11 O.S.No.5864/2014
The pleaded case of the plaintiff is that defendant No.1 is the owner of A-schedule property and the plaintiff has purchased B-schedule property through GPA Holder of defendant No.1 one Mr.S.Murugesan, who had constructed the apartment - "Vasu Pradha" built by M/s.Sathya Constructions. Flat No.T-300 was purchased by her for valuable consideration through Registered Sale Deed dated 02.01.2014 and she has taken delivery of possession. Since defendant No.1 or Developer failed to complete the balance work remained, she and her husband by investing money furnished the house interiors, House Warming Ceremony was also performed. Katha was changed in her name. By making payment of taxes to the BBMP, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Since defendant No.5 came and put up iron safety door in their absence, immediately they resisted and lodged complaint as per Ex.P8 on 26.06.2014 in Rajarajeshwarinagar Police Station. Ex.P9 is the acknowledgement, evidencing receipt of complaint. Even thereafter also he laid such threats of dispossession. That 12 O.S.No.5864/2014 is the reason, she has filed the instant suit seeking the relief of permanent injunction.
10. The defendant No.1 in her written statement denied the claim made by PW-1 as well as DW-1 that they don't have any right to purchase the flats and no such Flat No.T-300 was in existence as claimed by the plaintiff. In fact, Developer - Mr.S.Murugesan was not given possession of A-schedule property. He has entered A-schedule property as a licensee of defendant No.1. Therefore, it is the case of defendant No.1 is of total denial of the rights of the plaintiff as well as defendant No.5 and possession of both is denied by her. Whereas the claim made by DW-1 is on the strength of Registered Sale Deed executed by Mr.Murugesan for M/s.Sathya Constructions in respect of Flat No.300 under Registered Sale Deed dated 28.11.2012 produced at Ex.D1 and his name was entered in the katha of BBMP as per Ex.D2 and D3. B-Form is produced at Ex.D4 which is standing in his name and property tax receipts produced at Ex.D5 to D9, he has been enjoying B-schedule property as owner and possessor thereof and according to 13 O.S.No.5864/2014 him the plaintiff is not at all in possession of any flat in the said apartment, it is only a story stated by PW-1
11. Therefore, both have set up the case that through Power of Attorney Holder of defendant No.1 they purchased suit B-schedule property and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff has denied the case of the defendants and defendant No.5 denied the case and allegations of the plaintiff. Therefore, prima facie it is necessary to appreciate that whether the plaintiff is able to show that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property as on the date of suit and the alleged interference by the defendants to her enjoyment in order to succeed for the relief of permanent injunction in her favour.
12. The defendant No.1 in her written statement denied the respective case put forth by the plaintiff and defendant No.5. The defendant No.1 being the owner of A- schedule property, has come up with the version denying that both the plaintiff and defendant No.5 are not at all in possession of B-schedule property, much less any flat in the 14 O.S.No.5864/2014 said "Vasu Pradha Apartment". The ownership of defendant No.1 in respect of A-schedule property and Joint Development Agreement as per Ex.P10 dated 28.07.2012 entered into between defendant No.1 with M/s.Sathya Constructions represented by its Proprietor - Mr.S.Murugesan, is admitted. Sharing Agreement between Owner and Builder and defendant No.1 had executed GPA in favour of said Mr.S.Murugesan, can also be gathered.
13. Here, in respect of B-schedule property both the plaintiff and defendant No.5 have got executed Registered Sale Deed. According to defendant No.1 there is no flat as such T-300 in the 3rd floor. It has come in the evidence of PW-1 that an Agreement of Sale in respect of flat No.301 on 29.07.2012 was executed by S.Murugesan, GPA Holder to defendant No.1, that on the very next day after Joint Development Agreement - Ex.P10 and GPA executed by defendant No.1, Builder has collected money from the prospective purchasers with an assurance to give flats, entered into an Agreement of Sale. If we read Ex.P10 and PW-1 in the cross-examination has admitted that as per the Agreement, Builder will get 50% share and Builder has got 15 O.S.No.5864/2014 right in the flats over 3rd floor and 4th floor in the apartment constructed in A-schedule property. PW-1 has given explanation why Sale Deed was not executed in respect of Flat No.301 by GPA Holder of defendant No.1 - Mr.S.Murugesan that Builder has insisted to get the Sale Deed executed for Flat No.T-300 under Sale Deed executed under Ex.P1 dated 02.01.2014 and at that time, she has asked the Seller that Agreement of Sale was in respect of Flat No.301, why Flat number is changed. He has told that flat numbers 300 to 303 have been renumbered and as such, he has mentioned in Ex.P1 - Registered Sale Deed as Flat No.T-300. Here, it has come in the evidence that on the date of execution of Ex.P1, 60% construction work was over, no front door was fixed and interiors electrification and plumbing was not made, 40% work remain to be done. As per Ex.P10 - Joint Development Agreement, he has to complete the construction work within 18 months with an extension of 3 months. Obviously, the plaintiff and her husband insisted the said Mr.S.Murugesan to deliver possession of the flat.
16 O.S.No.5864/2014
14. Much is made by the learned counsel for defendant No.1, pointing towards the admission in the cross-examination of PW-1 that Mr.S.Murugesan has not given possession of the flats for his advantage that already by virtue of the Sale Deed - Ex.D1 dated 28.11.2012 suit B- schedule property was taken possession by defendant No.5 and he has been making payment of tax to BBMP, that is the reason he has not given possession as Flat No.T-300 was not at all in existence.
15. Here, the entire pleading, evidence and documents as a whole need be taken into consideration and appreciate while deciding the case and not pick up some stray sentences here and there in the evidence of PW-1 to arrive at a conclusion. Here crucial point involved in this case is that, who is actually in lawful possession of plaint B- schedule property. Because except showing Flat No.T-300 in the Sale Deed of PW-1 i.e., Ex.P1 and in the Sale Deed of DW-1 i.e., Ex.D1, the other particulars are similar and both are claiming that suit B-schedule property itself is the subject matter and they are in possession and fighting one against another on the said ground. Therefore, 17 O.S.No.5864/2014 determination of the fact that, who is actually in lawful possession of the property need be appreciated. Here, PW.1 has maintained that by virtue of Ex.P1, she occupied plaint B-schedule property and as Builder has not turned down to complete the incomplete work done about 40% on the date of execution of Ex.P1, main door was fixed by them. Some interior works were also done. House Warming Ceremony was done by them. They are in possession and enjoyment of the property since the date of Ex.P1. Therefore, what she has stated in the cross- examination that Mr.S.Murugesan has not given possession of the flats, cannot be termed that she was not delivered with the possession. Because, Mr.S.Murugesan has not completed work as assured because of the insistence of the buyers he was compelled to execute Sale Deed at Ex.P1 by showing boundaries, description to the property that is sold and PW-1 occupied the property, can be gathered, which throw light that PW-1 sensing that something fishy in the acts of defendant No.1 and also Builder - Mr. S.Murugesan. Even though, very next day after the execution of Ex.P10 by taking Rs.10,00,000/- as part consideration Sale Agreement 18 O.S.No.5864/2014 was executed showing Flat No.301 to be constructed in A- schedule property in 3rd Floor, by showing Flat No.T-300 such a Sale Deed was executed by taking remaining balance consideration from PW-1 and her husband. Here, by virtue of the said Sale Deed from 2013-14 she paid tax as per Ex.P2 and P3 and Katha Extract - Ex.P4. Ex.P5 is the Copy of Form No.15, showing that after execution of the Registered Sale Deed her name was entered in the katha maintained by the BBMP and she has paid tax, can be gathered. If we appreciate the photographs produced in all 6 in numbers, that it was a four storied building, wherein several flats were formed. The photos produced by DW-1 at Ex.D10 to D14 are of the same building, can be gathered, because the corridors, grills seen in the photographs produced by DW-1 are similar. But one point worth to appreciate that the plaintiff has filed this suit on 31.07.2014 and the photographs were taken prior to the filing of this suit, which is the circumstance to believe that House Warming Ceremony was conducted by them with regard to the said flat i.e., B-schedule property. The pooja room, wherein the photos and fixed tile of Lord Basaveshwara and 19 O.S.No.5864/2014 they are offering pooja. That in the dwelling house they occupied pursuant to the Sale Deed - Ex.P1, the photo of the door newly fixed by them is also seen, shows that as possession was taken with an assurance that within 2 months the balance 40% work would be completed, as Mr.S.Murugesan did not keep of his words, the plaintiff and her husband they themselves have effected the interior works and put up the front door, can be gathered from Ex.P6 - six photographs, because these photographs were taken inside the house. If really, the case of defendant No.5 is that, he has been in possession of suit B-schedule property from 28.11.2012 under Ex.D1, question of the plaintiff entering inside and get photographs, doesn't arise at all. Therefore, the suggestion to PW-1 that by taking photographs of some other property, they created photographs, is denied by PW-1 and that suggestion, cannot be appreciated. For the simple reason, the conduct of defendant No.5 is also is of importance.
16. In the cross-examination of DW-1, though he claims that he has purchased flat No.300 under Ex.D1 on 28.11.2012 and according to him, on the said date itself he 20 O.S.No.5864/2014 was delivered with possession. Then, why he has not immediately approached the BBMP and get transferred the katha in his name, is again a question. He admits in the cross-examination that the lighting, lift, flooring and water connections are still not complete and it is an incomplete construction.
17. The tenor of defence taken by defendant No.1 in her written statement, questioning the right of Mr.S.Murugesan to execute Sale Deed on the basis of GPA and according to her he was only permitted to put up construction and possession of A-schedule property was not delivered to him and he was only a licensee and denying the rights of plaintiff and defendant No.5 speaks that as Mr.S.Murugesan died and because of something happened between said Mr.S.Murugesan with the plaintiff, she has come up with such version, can be gathered.
18. Whatever may be, as per Section 38 of Specific Relief Act, in a suit for the relief of bare injunction incidentally the court can be gone into the question of title also. But, under these peculiar circumstances, all the 21 O.S.No.5864/2014 questions of title are concerned could be adjudicated in a properly constituted suit for declaration of title. Suffice in this case, if the plaintiff is able to show that she is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from the date of Ex.P1 and the alleged interference by defendant No.5 to her enjoyment, the court can pass orders to protect her possession from illegal dispossession in the hands of the defendants.
19. The defendants 2 to 4 are the children of Mr.S.Murugesan, they remained exparte. The defendant No.1, owner of the property though filed written statement, but not cross-examine PW-1 and DW-1 and not entered into witness box. Therefore, the real lis between the parties is only the plaintiff against defendant No.5. One is claiming against another and both are claiming that they are in possession, derived title under Ex.P1 by the plaintiff and Ex.D1 by defendant No.5.
20. Therefore, even till today it is an incomplete building without having lighting, lift, flooring, water connections, shows that why the plaintiff has insisted to 22 O.S.No.5864/2014 occupy the incomplete flat when only 60% work was completed, can be gathered. Here, DW-1 admits that he has paid tax for 3 years at once by getting katha changed in his name. He further admits that after the service of suit summons in this suit he has paid tax to BBMP. If we read Ex.D2 to D9, we can make out that only after filing the suit, just to show that he is in possession, hectic efforts were made by DW-1 by approaching BBMP by making payment of tax for 3-4 years at once, obtained receipts. It is only thereafter on 06.10.2015 by taking a photographer to the corridor portion of the suit property and obtained photographs. Though he has stated that much earlier to the said date, these photographs were taken, but CD and the receipt Ex.D15 shows that it is only on 06.10.2015, he has made attempt to take photographs by placing lock to the door grill and standing in the corridor in front of the main door and these photographs doesn't show any snaps taken from inside the house. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that, during the absence of the plaintiff, he has placed the grill door outside in the corridor. Immediately, after such attempt was made, the 23 O.S.No.5864/2014 plaintiff approached the Rajarajeshwarinagar Police Station by filing a complaint at Ex.P8. The attempt that is made by the plaintiff seeking protection from the police as evidenced by Ex.P9 - acknowledgement, evidencing lodging of such complaint at the relevant point of time and that is the cause of action for the plaintiff to file the instant suit.
21. The very fact that in the photo the grill door was fixed outside the main door of the house in the corridor portion and in all the photos he was found locking from the outside and standing at the corner of the corridor, that somehow he wants to show that he is in possession of the property. But, only subsequent to the filing of the suit he has paid tax at once and had taken photographs on 06.10.2014 as per the receipt and CD - Ex.D15, can very well be gathered. Therefore, under what circumstances, the plaintiff has taken possession and started residing in the property, House Warming Ceremony was made and she being a Lingayath, Lord Basavanna's tile was also fixed in the pooja room and offered pooja much prior to the filing of the suit, can also be gathered.
24 O.S.No.5864/2014
22. Further more, Joint Development Agreement - Ex.P10 was on 28.07.2012 and A-schedule property was a vacant site then can be gathered. Therefore, it is only subsequently the Builder must have approached the Competent Authorities and must have taken Approved Plan and started constructing the building. Therefore, the Sale Deed of defendant No.5 i.e., Ex.D1 dated 28.11.2012, it is impossible for put up structure 4 storied apartments within a short period of 2-3 months, that too the flats are so furnished person could reside in the said flat for the dwelling purpose. That means, the recital of Ex.D1 regarding handing over of possession of Flat No.300 in 3rd floor in favour of defendant No.5 is far from truth and not believable. Even during 2014 only 60% work was carried as per Ex.P1 and evidence of DW-1 goes to that it is incomplete building as lighting, lift, flooring and water connections are still not completed. Therefore, DW-1's say that he is in possession since the date of Ex.D1 - Sale Deed, cannot be appreciated at all. That is the reason, in Ex.D10 in the schedule regarding flooring and other things not mentioned, whereas in Ex.P1 in the schedule it is 25 O.S.No.5864/2014 mentioned with vitrified flooring and ceramic tiles flooring along with one covered car parking space at ground level is specifically mentioned. Therefore, it is only thereafter the plaintiff entered into possession of B-schedule property, put up main door and effected internal furnishing and also House Warming Ceremony was performed, apart from getting katha changed and payment of tax. As it is incomplete building, they are residing elsewhere and PW-1 in the evidence has stated that they used to visit frequently to the suit schedule property and in their absence, on the date of arising of cause of action defendant No.5 has put up iron safety door and locked it from outside. Pasting his mobile number is nothing but an attempt to dispossess the plaintiff forcibly, preventing them from entering into the suit schedule property. That is the reason, under Ex.P8 - police complaint was given before Rajarajeshwarinagar Police Station as evidenced by Ex.P8 and P9. Therefore, it is needless to say that the say of defendant No.5 that he is in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, cannot be appreciated at all. Whereas, from all the circumstances discussed hereinabove it can be said that 26 O.S.No.5864/2014 man may lie, but not the circumstances and circumstances goes to show that the plaintiff is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and defendant No.5 has attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from suit B- schedule property. Therefore, the relief claimed is an equitable relief, a possessory remedy, certainly the plaintiff cannot be dispossessed without following due process of law and such possession should be protected by aiding with permanent prohibitory injunction. Therefore, it is held that the plaintiff has successfully proved that she is entitled to get permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed in the suit. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 to 3 in the affirmative.
23. Issue No.4:- For the forgoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is hereby decreed with costs.
The defendants, their agents, servants and persons claiming under them and their henchmen are hereby restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful 27 O.S.No.5864/2014 possession and enjoyment of B-schedule property by way of permanent prohibitory injunction.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer on computer, typed by her, the transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me, in open Court, this the 22nd day of September 2016) (BAILUR SHANKAR RAMA) ND 42 ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff's side:
PW.1 - Smt.Jyothi Shri Shail Kittur
(b) Defendants' side: Nil.
DW.1 - Sri.Shankar.R II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P1 : Original Sale Deed dated
02.01.2014
Ex.P2 & 3 : Tax Paid Receipts
Ex.P4 : Form-B Property Register Extract
Ex.P5 : Encumbrance Certificate
Ex.P6 : 6 Photos
28 O.S.No.5864/2014
Ex.P7 : CD
Ex.P8 : Police Complaint
Ex.P9 : Acknowledgement
Ex.P10 : Certified copy Joint Development
Agreement dated 28.07.2012
(b) Defendants' side:
Ex.D1 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
28.11.2012
Ex.D2 & 3 : Encumbrance Certificates
Ex.D4 : Form-B Property Register Extract
Ex.D5 to 9 : Tax Paid Receipts
Ex.D10 to 14 : 5 Photos
Ex.D15 : CD
42nd ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU.
29 O.S.No.5864/2014
(Judgement pronounced in the open
Court and order portion of the same
is extracted as under)
ORDER
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is hereby decreed with costs.
The defendants, their agents, servants and persons claiming under them and their henchmen are hereby restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of B-schedule property by way of permanent prohibitory injunction.
Draw decree accordingly.
(BAILUR SHANKAR RAMA) 42nd Addl.CC& SJ, Bangalore.