Bangalore District Court
Sri.R.Anjeni vs Smt.Sheela Jagadish on 1 August, 2017
Govt. of Karnataka
C.R.P 67
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL, BANGALORE
(CCH-20)
Present:
Sri.G.S.Sangreshi, B.A., LL.B.(Spl.)
XXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
Dated this the 1st day of August, 2017.
O.S.No.26379/2011
Plaintiff: Sri.R.Anjeni,
S/o K.Ramaswamy,
Aged about 36 years,
No.72, Swathanthra Nagar,
Chikkabasavanapura, Virgo
Nagar Post, Bengaluru-49.
[By Sri.Mohan Ram.A-Advocate]
Vs.
Defendant: Smt.Sheela Jagadish,
Wife of Late M.A.Jagadish,
Aged about 38 years,
R/a.15th Main, 3rd Cross,
Vannarpet Layout,
Vivekanagar Post,
Bangalore-560 047
[By Sri.V.R.-Advocate]
2 O.S.No.26379/2011
Date of Institution of 06.08.2011
suit:
Nature of the Suit (Suit Permanent Injunction
for Pronote, Suit for
Declaration and
Possession, Suit for
Injunction, etc.):
Date of 24.11.2011
Commencement of
recording of
evidence:
Date on which the 01.08.2017
Judgment was
pronounced:
Total Duration:
Years Months Days
05 11 25
( G.S.SANGRESHI )
XXVI Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall,
Bangalore.
3 O.S.No.26379/2011
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff, seeking to grant an order of permanent injunction, restraining the defendant, her agents, henchmen, representatives, assigns, etc., from interfering with the Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
2. The brief facts of the case of the Plaintiff are that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the vacant Site No.63, Khatha No.24, Basavanapura Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, coming within the limits of BBMP and measuring East-West : 30 feet and North-South :40 feet, which is the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property from its previous owner Sri.D.Nataraj 4 O.S.No.26379/2011 S/o Late Doraiswamy, under a Registered Sale Deed dtd. 09.04.2010 and the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has paid the tax to B.B.M.P. It is further stated that, the suit schedule property has been carved out of the land bearing Survey Number- 24(P) of Basavanapura village, which was a Darkhast land. Originally, different extents of land in Survey Number-24 of Basavanapura village were granted by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, vide Official Memorandum No. Dis.LND(3)/Sub-Registrar98/1978-79 dtd. 12.03.1979, under which Sri.Doreswamy who is none other than the father of the vendor of the plaintiff, was granted 1 Acre 20 gutnas of land. The said Doraiswamy belonged to the Scheduled Caste and as per the Government order dtd. 01.09.1977 relating to the Regularization of Unauthorized 5 O.S.No.26379/2011 Occupancy scheme. Under the Grant Certificate/ Saguvali Chit, dtd. 19.04.1979, issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, the said grantee was put in possession. After death of the original grantee Doreswamy, his widow and some of his children released their right, title and interest over the granted land in favor of the vendor of the plaintiff namely D.Nataraj, under a Registered Release Deed dtd. 25.04.2006. Thereafter, the said D.Nataraj formed sites therein, out of which the suit schedule property has been sold in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, as the absolute owner. It is further contended that, on 25.07.2011 the defendant came near the suit schedule property and tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule 6 O.S.No.26379/2011 property and made hectic efforts to encroach upon the same by attempting to dig up the trenches, which was restrained by the plaintiff with the help of his neighbours. The defendant has no manner of right to interfere with the plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property. Even the efforts of the plaintiff to approach the local police also went in vain, as they have not taken any action in the matter, by saying that, the matter is civil in nature. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this suit, seeking the relief of Permanent Injunction. Therefore, it is prayed to decree the suit for Permanent Injunction.
3. In pursuance of suit summons, the defendant has appeared through her counsel and filed written-statement. It is contended by the defendant in the written-statement that, the plaintiff is a trespasser of the suit schedule 7 O.S.No.26379/2011 property and he has no manner of right, title or interest whatsoever on the suit schedule property in question, as the defendant is an absolute owner and she is in possession over the suit schedule property. It is stated that, the plaintiff's vendor's parents by name Doreswamy and Ranjithamma had sold the land bearing Survey Number-24 of Basavanapura for a valuable sale consideration, under a Registered Sale Deed dtd. 01.06.1995 in favor of one E.Venkatesh. On 24.11.1995 the title has been divested in favor of the vendor of the defendant. Then the vendor of the defendant has sold the suit schedule site interference favour of one Smt.Savitha W/o V.Chanrappa udder a Registered Sale Deed dtd. 01.03.2004 and the katha had been obtained by and her she was paying tax to the BBMP. Subsequently, the purchaser Savitha sold the suit 8 O.S.No.26379/2011 schedule property in favour of the defendant,, under a Registered Sale Deed dtd 15.04.2010 The khatha has been transferred in favor of the defendant and the defendant is remitting tax to the BBMP. It is further stated that, the Order of the Asst. Commissioner in case No.KSC/ST No.54/2004-05 and Special Deputy Commissioner in KSC/ST(A). 105/2005-06 have been question by E.Venkatesh before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No9470/2007 (SC/ST), wherein the stay was granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. In that writ petition Sri.Nataraj is the 4th respondent-who is the vendor of the Plaintiff. The plaintiff's vendor has no locus standi to alienate the suit schedule property in favor of the plaintiff under a Registered Sale Deed dtd. 20.04.2010. It is also stated that, pertaining to the suit schedule property OS No.8050/2005, O.S. 9 O.S.No.26379/2011 No.2360/2007 and W.P No.9470/2007 are pending at the time of execution of the sale deed in favor of the plaintiff by his vendor and the same is violative under law and Doctrine of Lis pendency will attract to the case of the plaintiff, as during the pendency of the court proceedings the vendor of the plaintiff is barred to alienate the suit property as per the parameters of the decision of the Hon'ble High Courts and Supreme Courts of India, reported in several decisions. The defendant has denied the plaint allegations and contended that the suit of the plaintiff is not at all maintainable on the ground that the sale deed of the plaintiff itself obtained by fraud and cheating u/s.420 of IPC. It is further stated that, without questioning the validity of the sale deed of the parties, question of seeking bare injunction suit of the plaintiff does not survive 10 O.S.No.26379/2011 and without declaration of title, the bare injunction suit will not survive on this ground also. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
4. On the pleadings of both parties, following issues are framed :-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he was in lawful possession of the suit schedule property on the date of the suit?
2. Whether plaintiff proves the alleged interference?
3. What decree or order?
5. In support of plaintiff's case, plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and got marked 31 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.31. In support of the defendant's case, the defendant got examined 11 O.S.No.26379/2011 herself as D.W.1 and a witness as D.W.2 and got marked the documents as per Exs.D.1 to D.32.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. For the reasons stated in the subsequent paragraphs, I answer above issues as follows:-
ISSUE No.1 :- In the negative
ISSUE No.2 :- In the negative
ISSUE No.3 :- As per final order
for the following
REASONS
8. Issue No.1:- The plaintiff contends that, he is the owner of the Site bearing No.63, Khatha No.24 of Basavanapura village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, as he had purchased the same from its earlier owner Sri.D.Nataraj under a Registered Sale Deed Dtd. 09.04.2010. The plaintiff has been paying tax to the said property 12 O.S.No.26379/2011 to BBMP, vide Receipts at Exs.P.8 to P.13 and P.23 to P.30. Ex.P.7 is the Demand Register Extract, issued by the B.B.M.P. It is further contended that, the suit schedule property is carved out of the land measuring 1 Acre 20 guntas in Survey Number-24(P) of Basavanapura village, granted in favour of one Doreswamy-father of the Vendor of the Plaintiff. After death of the grantee, his family members had executed a Release Deed at Ex.P.14 in favor of Sri.D.Nataraj, who is the vendor of the Plaintiff. The said D.Nataraj subsequently sold Site bearing No.63 in favour of the plaintiff. So, the plaintiff has stated that, he has been in lawful possession of the suit schedule property.
9. On the other hand, the defendant contends that, she is the absolute owner of the vacant site No.63, Khatha No.24 of Basavanapura 13 O.S.No.26379/2011 Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, measuring East-West :30 feet and North-South :
40 feet, i.e., the suit property, which has been purchased by her from its previous owner Smt.Savitha W/o V.Chandrappa, vide Registered Sale Deed dtd.15.04.2010 and the Khatha has been transferred in favour of the defendant and she has been remitting the Property tax to the BBMP upto date. She has got marked several documents marked. The plaintiff got examined herself as PW.1 and even he has given additional evidence and got further documents marked.
The Defendant is examined as D.W.1 and also adduced the evidence of a witness as D.W.2 in support of her case.
10. The plaint schedule reads as under:-
'All that piece and parcel of vacant site No.63, Khatha No.24, Basavapura 14 O.S.No.26379/2011 Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, measuring East-West :30 feet and North-South :40 feet, in all admeasuring 1,200 Square feet and bounded on the East by : Site No.64, West by: Site No.62, North by : Road and South by : Site No.66'.
11. The issues are framed on the basis of the pleadings of both the parties. Issues 1 and 2 have to be proved by the Plaintiff. This burden shifted on the plaintiff himself to prove that, he has been in lawful possession of the suit schedule property. As on the date of the suit, it is the contention that, he has been in lawful possession of the suit property.
12. Looking into the evidence and the documents, it is seen that, the plaintiff has reiterated the plaint averments in his affidavit. Ex.P.1 is the original absolute sale deed dtd. 15 O.S.No.26379/2011 04.04.2010, wherein one Sri.D.Nataraj has executed the said Registered Sale Deed in favor of the plaintiff in respect of the Petition schedule property. Ex.P.2 is the Endorsement issued by the Police. Exs.P.3 and P.4 are the Photographs of the suit schedule property. Ex.P.7 is the Property Register Extract, wherein Site No.'47' is written, which is corrected as '63', as admitted by PW.1 in his evidence. There is no Seal of the BBMP for having corrected the same along with the signature of the Officer of the BBMP, who has corrected it. It appears that, the plaintiff himself has signed after making the correction to the site no. So, accordingly, Ex.P.8 is the tax paid receipt which also discloses that site No.47 is changed to 63 by making correction. It is also seen that, Ex.P.8 is the Corporation tax paid receipt copy, wherein site No.47 is changed 16 O.S.No.26379/2011 to 63, which also does not disclose the signature of a person who has corrected it and it is the signature of the plaintiff who has corrected it. Accordingly, Exs.P.9 to P.11 are the acknowledgements, wherein the property number has been changed to 47 to 63, with the signature of a person who has corrected it. But, it does not disclose the officer or authority who has corrected it with seal of the such Officer/ Authority of BBMP. But, it appears that the plaintiff himself has signed to the said correction. Ex.P.10 is another tax paid receipt, which also discloses about the correction to the said Site No.47 to No.63 with the signature in Kannada. On perusal of all these documents, it is evident that, the site No.47 is substituted by Site No.63, without any corresponding correction by the competent officer of B.B.M.P. with his 17 O.S.No.26379/2011 signature and seal of the office. It is also admitted by PW.1 in his evidence. Surprisingly, Exs.P.12 and P.13, which are the Acknowledgments for receipt of the tax amount, disclose the clear property number as '63'. They are issued on 28.07.2011. So, there is no whisper about these two documents, since the property tax has been paid by R.Anjani, who is the plaintiff herein. It is seen that, the plaintiff though having purchased the suit property on 09.04.2010 itself, he has paid the tax in the name of D.Nataraj. Further, Ex.P.14 is the Release Deed, claiming that, all the other members of his family have executed the Release Deed in favor of D.Nataraj in respect of the property Survey Number- 24/P.11, situated at Basavapura village, measuring 1 Acre 20 guntas of Agricultural land. Thus, the Deed of Release is executed on dtd.25.04.2006 18 O.S.No.26379/2011 itself. But, there is Certified copy of the Sale deed at Ex.P.18 dtd. 01.06.1995, executed by the father of D.Nataraj i.e., Doreswamy and his wife, in favour of E.Venkatesh, in respect of the property measuring 20 guntas with boundaries on the East by : Land of Rathanappa, West by :
Land of Narayanamma, North by : Remaining portion of the same land and South by : Land of Masthan Khan.
13. It is the say of the Plaintiff that, the said E.Venkatesh has sold 20 guntas of land in the said Survey Number, in favor of two other persons by name (1) Suwalal Jain and (2) B.Diraj Kumar, under a Registered Sale Deed Dt.24.09.1999 as per Ex.P.16. On perusal of the boundaries mentioned in the schedule of the said Sale Deed at Ex.P.16, it discloses the very same boundaries which are mentioned in Ex.P.15. It is the say of the Plaintiff 19 O.S.No.26379/2011 that, when the said E.Venkatesh has executed the Registered Sale Deed dtd. 24.09.1999, in respect of 20 guntas in the said Survey Number in favour of two others, then, how could he execute the Registered Sale Deed in favor of Smt.Savitha on 01.03.2004. It is the case of the Plaintiff that, he has purchased the suit site from D.Nataraj as per the Registered Sale Deed dtd. 09.04.2010 at Ex.P.1. On perusal of Ex.P.1 and the Certified copy of the of the Registered Sale Deed dtd. 01.03.2010 executed by E.Venkatesh in the name of Smt.Savitha, which is marked at Ex.D.7, it is noticed that, the plaintiff purchased the Site No.63, measuring 30 x 40 feet, with its boundaries as mentioned above, whereas Smt.Savitha purchased the Site Nos.62 and 63, measuring 60 x 40 Feet, with its boundaries. In pursuance of Ex.D.7, the name of Smt.Savitha has 20 O.S.No.26379/2011 been appearing in the Property Record to Site Nos.62 and 63. Thereafter, the very same Smt.Savitha had executed a Registered Sale Deed Dtd. 15.04.2010, in favour of the present defendant-Sheela Jagadish in respect of Site No.63, in Survey Number-24-P, with its boundaries at Ex.D.31. It is noticed that, in case the son of Doreswamy has retained any portion of the land in Survey Number-24-P, he should have mentioned it in Ex.P.1-Registered Sale Deed, by saying that, the said site No.63 is carved out of Survey Number-24-P and that, it has come within the said land. The contention of the plaintiff is that, the said E.Venkatesh has sold 20 guntas of land purchased from the father of D.Nataraj during the year 1999, prior to the purchase of the site no.63, by Smt.Savitha from E.Venkatesh.
It is to be noted that, 20 guntas of land was sold 21 O.S.No.26379/2011 to E.Venkatesh which is the part and parcel of land bearing Survey Number-24-P on 01.03.2004. Such, being the case, if the contention of the plaintiff is admitted to be true, then, it is the burden of the plaintiff to prove that, he has been in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit. His sale deed is not specific that Site No.63 is carved out of the land of 1 Acre 20 guntas, of Survey Number-24-P. If the say of the Plaintiff is that, Sri.E.Venkatesh already sold the land in the year 1999, then how could he sell site nos.62 and 63 to Smt. Savitha by forming layout in the said land, then the same yardstick should apply to the plaintiff, as the plaintiff allegedly purchased the suit property from D.Nataraj as per Ex.P.1 dtd. 09.04.2010. There is no documentary evidence to show that, Sri.D.Nataraj was in lawful possession of the suit 22 O.S.No.26379/2011 property, before it was sold to the present plaintiff. The very correction made in Exs.P.7, 8, 9 and 10 to the site Nos. would create doubt with regard to the existence of the said site in the name of D.Nataraj. So, I am of the opinion that, the plaintiff has failed to prove that, he was in lawful possession of the suit schedule property, as on the date of the suit.
13. Now, coming to the evidence on record. It is also noticed that, PW.1 has stated that, he does not know that, Venkatesh has purchased another 1 Acre from the father of his vendor. It is further stated that, it is not true to say that, he has not put up any construction in the suit schedule property. The evidence of PW.1, in my opinion, is not sufficient to say that, he has been in lawful possession of the suit schedule property. The very documents produced by the 23 O.S.No.26379/2011 Plaintiff at Ex.P.1, 7 to 32 would create doubt to the genuineness of those documents. So also, the evidence of PW.1 is not sufficient to support his stand.
14. Now, coming to the evidence of Defendant side, it is seen that, the defendant has given her evidence and got marked the documents at Ex.D.1 to D.32. DW.1 has stated that, it is true that, originally the owners namely Doreswamy and his wife have sold 20 guntas of land in the said Survey Number to E.Venkatesh on 01.06.1995. But, she does not know that, E.Venkatesh, in turn, has sold 20 guntas of land to one Suvalal Jain and Dheeraj Kumar on 24.09.1999. But, she denied that, there was no land available in the said Survey Number after 20 gutnas of land sold. Further, it is stated by her that, she has constructed shed in the suit 24 O.S.No.26379/2011 schedule property. Further, she has stated that it is not true to say that, she is not having any right or interest or title over the suit schedule property. She has also denied that Savitha has no right or title to sell the suit schedule property to her. She denied that, she is not in possession of the suit schedule property.
15. D.W.2 is a witness who has also supported the case of the defendant, that, the defendant has constructed the shed over the suit schedule property and she is the owner of the same, as she has acquired the same, through the Registered Sale Deed from one Savitha and she has been in lawful possession of the same. Further, it is stated that, the said house belongs to the defendant, which is shown in Ex.P.26. He denied that, the said shed was constructed by the Plaintiff. He has also stated that, he is the 25 O.S.No.26379/2011 owner of the site No.56 and he has purchased the said site No.56 from E.Venkatesh. He has stated that, he does not know the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property.
16. P.W.1 has spoken about Ex.P.17 to P.30 and on perusal of the further evidence of PW.1, it is seen that, he has admitted that, certain corrections are made in Ex.P.7 to P.11. Even, it is seen that, the Sale Deed dtd. 09.04.2010 was kept pending for registration for non production of the records as could be seen by the Endorsement made by the Sub-Registrar on the back of the Page No.2 of the said document and it was later registered on 20.04.2010. It is seen that, the plaintiff after filing of the suit obtained the katha only on 16.03.2016 by paying the tax for the years 2008-09, even when he was not the owner of the suit property, since the sale deed 26 O.S.No.26379/2011 executed in his favor was of the year 2010. Further, it is to be noted that, the plaintiff has not produced any documents to show that, the said site No.63 i.e., the suit schedule property, was carved out of Survey Number-24-P, measuring 1 Acre of land, which was the remaining land. The plaintiff has not produced the document to show that, how his vendor Sri.D.Nataraj became the owner of the site No.63 i.e., the suit schedule property. There is no whisper about the said ownership over the suit schedule property, by producing any documents. The Rectification Deed does not disclose that the suit schedule property is a part and parcel of the remaining land in Survey Number-24-P. It is very clear that, this Sale Deed got executed on 09.04.2010 and later registered on 20.04.2010, after production of some 27 O.S.No.26379/2011 documents, which were taken later. Whereas, Smt.Savitha vendor of the defendant has got registered the suit schedule property on 01.03.2004 itself and she was paying the taxes to the B.B.M.P, in respect of the site and then it was sold to the present defendant on 15.04.2010, through the registered the Sale Deed. In pursuance of the purchase of the said site, the defendant has put up construction in the suit schedule property.
17. On keen perusal of all the oral and documentary evidence, along with the written arguments, it is very clear that, the tax paid receipts of the defendant, marked at Ex.D.20, 21 and 22 and the Katha at Ex.D.17 and Assessment at Ex.D.19, would all show that, the defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property, in possession. Whereas, the documents at Ex.P.7 to 28 O.S.No.26379/2011 P.13 produced by the Plaintiff, disclose that, they are the corrected documents, which were earlier issued to Site No.47 and later corrected as Site No.63 and also that, the plaintiff has procured the Katha after paying the tax only on 02.03.2016 for the period 2008-09, when he was not at all owner of the suit schedule property. So, mere possession of the Sale Deed at Ex.P.1, which was executed and registered on 09.04.2010 and 20.04.2014 respectively, would not prove the fact that, he has been in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit. Further, it is very clear that, the plaintiff has failed to prove to say that, his vendor Sri.D.Nataraj had acquired the ownership of title or interest over the suit schedule property, by virtue of any documents, like Release deed or any other documents, for that matter. 29 O.S.No.26379/2011
18. In view of all these facts and circumstances of the case, it is to be held that, Issue No.1 is not proved by the Plaintiff before the court. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in the negative.
19. Issue No.2:- It is alleged by the plaintiff that, the defendant having no title or interest over the suit schedule property, has been making false claim over the suit schedule property, on the basis of the documents and even made hectic attempt to encroach upon the suit property by attempting to dig trenches and in doing so, she has actively supported by certain rowdy elements and therefore, her interference has to be restrained by an Order of Permanent Injunction. The plaintiff, having failed to produce oral or documentary evidence to show that, he 30 O.S.No.26379/2011 has acquired the title and right over the suit schedule property, has also failed to prove the alleged interference by the defendant. When his lawful possession over the suit schedule property is not properly proved before the court, then the question of interference by the defendant, does not arise at all. Further, the plaintiff has failed to point out that, the suit site is formed in the remaining 1 Acre of land in Survey Number- 24-P, but not in other 20 Gutnas of land sold to E.Venkatesh. So, abruptly, as on 09.04.2010, Ex.P.1 was created and earlier to that date, the vendor of the plaintiff kept quiet. Therefore, this creates doubt in the mind of the court, that the documents Ex.P.7 to P.13 are manipulated and that, there is every chance that, the sale deed at Ex.P.1 is also afterthought one and to say that, it is a created one. So, I am of the clear opinion 31 O.S.No.26379/2011 that, the evidence of PW.1 is not sufficient to hold that, there was alleged interference by the defendant, with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. As such, I answer issue No.2 in the negative.
20. While answering Issue Nos.1 & 2, I have held that, the plaintiff has failed to prove the same and therefore, the suit of the plaintiff has to be dismissed and the plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs clamed in the suit.
21. Issue No.3:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
Under the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.32 O.S.No.26379/2011
Draw the decree
accordingly.
--
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, transcript thereof, is corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 1st day of August, 2017)
--
(G.S.SANGRESHI) XXVI Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore.
SCHEDULE PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of the
vacant site No.63, Khatha No.24,
Basavanapura village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, measuring East- West : 30 feet and North-South :40 feet, in all admeasuring 1,200 sq. feet and bounded on the :-
East by :- Site No.64
West by :- Site No.62
North by :- Road
33 O.S.No.26379/2011
South by :- Site No.66
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff/s:
P.W.1 Sri.R.Anjeni
2. List of witnesses examined for defendant/s:
D.W.1 Smt.Sheela Jagadish D.W.2 Derick Santhosh
3. List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff/s:
Ex.P.1 Sale Deed dtd. 09.04.2010
Ex.P.2 Endorsement of the Police
Exs.P.3 & 4 Photographs
Ex.P.5 C.D.
Ex.P.6 Cash Bill of the Photographs
Ex.P.7 Property Register Extract
Exs.P. 7 to 13 Tax paid receipts
Ex.P.14 Release Deed dtd 25.04.2006
Exs.P.15 & 16 Certified copy of the Sale
Deeds
Exs.P.17 to 19 Three Photographs
34 O.S.No.26379/2011
Ex.P.20 One C.D.
Ex.P.21 Receipt
Ex.P.22 Property Register Extract
Exs.P.23 to 30 Eight Property Tax paid
receipts
Ex.P.31 Certified copy of the Order
in WP No.9470/2007 dtd.
12.03.2012
4. List of documents exhibited for defendant/s:
Ex.D.1 Declaration of Nataraj
Ex.D.2 Certified copy of the Order in
W.P.No.9470/2007
Ex.D.3 Encumbrance Certificate
Ex.D.4 Tax paid receipt
Ex.D.5 Demand Register Extract copy
Ex.D.6 Form No.15
Ex.D.7 Certified copy of the Sale
Deed dtd. 01.03.2004
Exs.D.8 to 12 Tax paid receipts
Exs.D.13 & 14 Self Assessment Declaration
Exs.D.15 & 16 Encumbrance Certificates
35 O.S.No.26379/2011
Ex.D.17 Katha Certificate
Ex.D.18 Endorsement
Ex.D.19 Katha Certificate
Exs.D.20 to 22 Tax paid receipts
Ex.D.23 BESCOM Receipt
Ex.D.24 BESCOM Bill
Exs.D.25 to 28 Photographs
Ex.D.29 C.D.
Ex.D.30 Certified copy of the Sale
Deed
Ex.D.31 Original Sale Deed dtd.
15.04.2010
Ex.D.32 Certified copy of the Sale
Deed dtd. 15.04.2010.
(G.S.SANGRESHI)
XXVI Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore.