Bangalore District Court
In Os Kum.N.Ranjini vs In O.S. Sri.B.N.Nanjunda Swamy on 30 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (C.C.H.No.25).
Dated: This the 30th day of May 2018
Present: Sri.Ron Vasudev, B.Com. LL.B, (Spl),
III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No.8326/2000 Clubbed with O.S.No.7802/2000
Plaintiff in OS KUM.N.RANJINI,
No.8326/2000 D/o Sri. T.Narayana,
Aged about 20 years,
R/o No.298, 26th Cross,
BSK IInd Stage, BANGALORE-70.
(By Sri.MSG, Advocate)
V/S
Defendant in O.S. SRI.B.N.NANJUNDA SWAMY,
No. 8326/2000 S/o.Sri.Nanjundaiah,
Major,
R/o No.101/39, 20th Main,
BSK IInd Stage, Padmanabhanagar,
BANGALORE-70.
(Defendant: Sri.KSV-Advocate)
Plaintiff in O.S SRI.B.N.NANJUNDA SWAMY,
No.7802/2000 S/o.Sri.Nanjundaiah,
Aged about 33 years,,
R/o No.101/39, 20th Main,
BSK II Stage, Padmanabhanagar,
BANGALORE-560 070.
[ Plaintiff by Sri.KSV-Advocate]
//VS//
Defendants in 1. KUM.N.RANJINI,
O.S.No.7802/2000 D/o Sri. T.Narayana,
Aged about 20 years,
R/o No.298, 26th Cross,
BSK II Stage, BANGALORE-560070.
2 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
2. Sri.B.Puttaswamy,
S/o Sri.Basavaiah,
Aged about 50 years,
[Dead represented by his LR's]
2.a] Smt.Manjula,
W/o.Late B.Puttaswamy,
Aged about 47years.
2.b] Sri.Vinayakumar
S/o. Late. B.Puttaswamy,
Aged about 27 years.
Both are Residing at:
Hullagana Halli,
Hemmanahally Post,
Maddur Taluk,
Mandya District.
2.c] Smt.Anitha,
D/o. Late. B.Puttaswamy,
Aged about 24 years,
No.10, 16th Cross, East Park Road,
Malleshwaram,
Bangalore-55.
[D1: By Sri MSG, Advocate
LR D2(a): Sri. SND, Advocate
LR D2(b): Sri.RN, Advocate
Date of Institution
[O.S No.8326/2000] : 08.12.2000
[O.S.No.7802/2000] : 18.11.2000
Nature of Suit
Suit for Declarations, Mandatory
[O.S.No.8326/2000] :
Injunction, Permanent Injunction,
Possession and for Mesne Profits
Declaration and Permanent
[O.S.No.7802/2000] : Injunction
3 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
Date of Commencement of : 12.1.2006
evidence
Date of pronouncement of : 30.05.2018
Judgment
Total Duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
[O.S.No.8326/2000] : 17 05 22
[O.S.No.7802/2000] : 17 06 12
(Ron Vasudev),
III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
COMMON JUDGEMENT
In both these suits, the suit schedule property is one
and the same i.e., property No. 21/38/1-C, situating at
Kaderenahalli, 2nd Main Road, J.H.B.C.S., Padmanabhanagar,
Bangalore-70, measuring East to West: 50.06 feet and
North to South: 51.09 feet and bounded by;
East: Site No.20
West :Road
North :Road
South : Site No.22
2. Initially, O.S No.8326/2000 was filed for permanent
injunction, later by an amendment, the plaintiff sought the
reliefs of declaration, mandatory injunction, recovery of
possession and for mesne profits. Summary of the said plaint
averments are as under:
4 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
The suit schedule property originally belonged to
Jayanagar Co-operative Housing Society Limited, Bangalore
and the said Society allotted vacant site to one
Mr.B.Puttaswamy son of Basavaiah[the defendant No.2 in O.S
No.7802/2000] and executed a Lease-cum-sale agreement in
his favour on 1.12.1988 and also it issued possession
certificate to him on 24.12.1988. Pursuant to it the khata of
the said property was made in his name and he was paying
the property taxes. That the said B.Puttaswamy executed a
registered GPA in favour of one Smt.Jayalaxmi w/o Narayan
on 20.5.1995 and the said Jayalaxmi Narayan in turn
executed registered sale deed on 30.3.2000 in favour of this
plaintiff as GPA holder of said Puttaswamy and she also
delivered possession. As a result the plaintiff came in
possession of the suit schedule property and she has
constructed a shed there and kept a watchman. That said
Jayalaxmi Narayan had paid property taxes for the year 1992
to 1999 and after purchasing the suit schedule property, the
plaintiff is paying the property taxes and khata has been
changed in her name. That on 2.12.2000 when the plaintiff
was cleaning the suit schedule property, the defendant came
there and started attempting to interfere in her possession,
wherefore, the plaintiff filed suit for permanent injunction to
protect her possession, but, during the pendency of the suit,
the defendant high-handedly dispossessed this plaintiff and
took forcible possession of the suit schedule property on
1.12.2013 taking advantage that, major portion of the suit
schedule property is a vacant site. Thereafter, he obtained
5 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
electricity connection to the said shed in his name but it was
got disconnected by the plaintiff by giving representations to
the BESCOM. That before disconnecting the BESCOM
authorities corresponded with the BBMP to know in whose
name the khata of the suit schedule property stands, but in
spite of it, the defendant continued his further illegal acts
and in total disregard to the status-quo order passed in this
case, he constructed six sheds and got power connections to
them. Once again the plaintiff requested the BESCOM
authorities to disconnect the electricity, but it was of no use.
The efforts of the plaintiff to seek assistance from the
jurisdictional police have gone in vain. They have washed-off
their hands stating that it is a civil dispute. That once the
said Jayalaxmi Narayan sold the suit schedule property to
this plaintiff the said Puttaswamy had no subsisting right in
that property, despite that he executed sale deed in favour of
this defendant on 21.8.2000 and on the strength of the said
instrument the defendant has concocted few more
documents, though he has no manner of interest in the suit
schedule property. Wherefore the plaintiff prays to declare
that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property
by virtue of the sale deed dated: 30.3.2000; to further declare
that the sale deed dated: 21.8.2000 executed by said
Puttaswamy in favour of this defendant as null and void and
not binding on her; to direct the defendant to vacate and
hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule
property; to grant relief of mandatory injunction and thereby
demolish the sheds illegally constructed there and failing
6 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
which to demolish them through the agency of this court; for
grant of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, his
agents, servants or anybody claiming through him from
interfering in the plaintiff's peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property and to hold enquiry
into the mesne profits, as provided under Order 20 Rule 12 of
CPC and for costs.
3. The defendant appeared and filed his written
statement and when the plaintiff got amended the plaint, he
also filed his Additional written statement. Summary of the
said averments are as under:
that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable
either in law or on facts. It is not within the knowledge of this
defendant that the suit schedule property was allotted to
Puttaswamy by Jayanagar Co-operative Housing Society
Limited, Bangalore and it executed Lease-cum-Sale
Agreement and issued possession certificate to him. The
contention that said Puttaswamy was put in possession of the
suit schedule property and later he executed registered GPA
in favour of Jayalaxmi Narayan are all false and are denied.
In-fact this defendant purchased the suit schedule property
for Rs.4,90,000/- through registered sale deed dated:
21.8.2000. That at the time of purchasing the said property
this defendant made reasonable enquiry by enquiring the said
Puttaswamy and local people. At that time the said
Puttaswamy represented that he has not mortgaged the suit
7 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
schedule property nor he has given any GPA in favour of
anybody, therefore, this defendant purchased the said
property on the bonafide belief. That the said GPA holder of
Puttaswamy executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is
totally false, concocted and created one. It is the defendant
who has put up shed in the suit schedule property and he
has obtained power connection. The plaintiff having no
manner of right, title or interest in the schedule property had
come to it with goonda elements and tried to interfere in his
possession, as such, in order to protect his possession this
defendant filed O.S.No.7802/2000 on the file of this court
and in that case this plaintiff remained absent and so she
was placed exparte. Thereafter the plaintiff has filed this suit
and obtained interim order by mis-leading this Court. Since
the defendant has borrowed loan from Jayanagar Housing
Co-operative Society on the strength of the original
documents they are in the custody of said society. It is denied
that this defendant illegally dispossessed the plaintiff on
1.12.2013 and put up sheds and obtained power connections
illegally. It is also denied that Jayalaxmi Narayan executed
sale deed in favour of this plaintiff as GPA holder of said
Puttaswamy and she delivered vacant possession of schedule
property to this plaintiff. The sale deed executed in favour of
this defendant being valid and for consideration, by virtue of
that sale deed the defendant is in possession of the suit
schedule property and all other contrary plaint averments are
false, frivolous and are vexatious. Apart from that, by filing
written statement though the plaintiff's title was denied long
8 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
back, after 17 years of delay the plaintiff filed an application
to amend the plaint and sought for declaratory reliefs to
declare her title, therefore, the suit is hopelessly barred by
time. This defendant is in possession of the suit schedule
property from the year 2000 by constructing house in it.
When the Jayanagar Housing Co-operative Society executed
Lease-cum-Sale Agreement in favour of Puttaswamy,
prohibiting him from alienating the said site for a period of 10
years he could not have executed alleged registered GPA and
alienated the suit schedule property to said Jayalaxmi
Narayan. Therefore, it is totally denied that the plaintiff
became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by
way of registered sale deed dated: 30.3.2000 executed by
Smt.Jayalaxmi Narayan. Thus, on these grounds and other
grounds the defendant prays to dismiss the suit.
4. O.S No.7802/2000 is filed by the defendant in
O.S.No.8326/2000 for the reliefs of declaration and for
permanent injunction. In that case he arrayed the said
B.Puttaswamy as defendant No.2. Substance of the plaint
averments of that suit barely reiterate the contents of the
written statement filed in O.S No.8326/2000, I refrain from
reproducing them again. Similarly the plaintiff in O.S.No.
8326/2000 is the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.7802/2000 she
has filed her written statement in accordance with her
pleadings in her suit, so there is no need to set-out those
contentions once again. Only pleadings that needs to be
9 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
highlighted in so far as this suit are the version of defendant
No.2, who filed his written statement as under:
It is true that the suit schedule property originally
belonged to Jayanagar Housing Co-operative Society and it
executed Lease cum Sale Agreement in favour of this
defendant No.2 and issued Possession Certificate to him. It is
also true that defendant No.2 got changed the khata in his
name and he was paying property tax. It is also true that this
defendant executed sale deed in favour of the plaintiff [the
defendant in O.S.No.8326/2000] and put him in possession
of the suit schedule property. It is denied that registered GPA
was executed in favour of Smt.Jayalaxmi Narayan by this
defendant and by virtue of that GPA she executed sale deed
in favour of defendant No.1 [plaintiff in O.S.No.8326/2000].
Therefore the defendant No.2 prays to decree the suit.
5. Based on the said pleadings following Issues
and Additional Issues are framed in O.S.No.8326/2000;
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in
lawful possession of the suit schedule
property as on the date of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that
the defendant is interfering with the
possession of the suit schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
relief of injunction as sought for?
4. What order or decree?
10 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves her title to
the suit property by virtue of the Sale
deed dated: 30.3.2000?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves
that sale deed dated: 21.8.2000 is not
binding on her and is null and void?
3. Whether the defendant proves that suit
additional prayers are barred by time?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
defendant put up illegal construction
during the pendency of the suit?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
reliefs as prayed for?
Issues framed in O.S.No.7802/2000 are as under:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the
absolute owner of the suit property?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in
lawful possession and enjoyment of the
suit property?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves interference
by the defendants?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the
reliefs as claimed?
5. What Order or Decree?
6. In support of her case plaintiff examined herself
as PW1 and got marked 76 documents, on the other
11 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
hand the defendant examined himself as DW1 and he
also examined witness by name Anjanappa as Dw2 and
he got marked 11 documents.
7. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant
No.2 in O.S.No.7802/2000 [B.Puttaswamy] died and his
LRs were brought on record, but they have not taken
interest to contest.
8. I have heard the arguments of Sri.MSG-Advocate
for the plaintiff and Sri.KSV, Advocate for the defendant.
There was no representation for LRs of defendant No.2
[B.Puttaswamy]. Both the plaintiff and the defendant
have filed their written-arguments. Throughout this
Judgment for the sake of convenience I address
Smt.N.Ranjini [plaintiff in O.S.No.8326/2000 and
defendant No.1 in O.S.No.7802/2000] as plaintiff and
B.N. Nanjunda Swamy [plaintiff in OS No.7802/2000
and the defendant in O.S.No.8326/2000] as the
defendant and late. B.Puttaswamy-defendant No.2 in
O.S.No.7802/2000 as defendant No.2.
9. On careful reading of the pleadings and evidence
made available by the parties, my findings on the Issues
and Additional Issues framed in O.S.No:8326/2000 are
as under:
Issue Nos.1 to 3- In the Affirmative
Additional Issue Nos.1,2,4 and 5: In the Affirmative
Addl Issue No.3: In the Negative
12 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
Issue No.4 - As per final order, for the following
10. My findings on the Issues framed in
O.S.No.7802/2000 are as under:
Issue Nos.1 to 4 - In the Negative
Issue No.5- As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
11. Issue No.1, Additional Issue Nos. 1 and 2 of
O.S.No:8326/2000 and Issues -1 and 2 of
O.S.No.7802/2000: Since these Issues are closely inter-
woven in order to avoid possible repeated discussion of
very same facts and law, I have taken them
simultaneously.
12. It is often said that the pleadings in a civil
dispute form the foundation for deciding the issues
involved between the parties, therefore, I would like to
show how this defendant is bit in confused state of mind
in presenting his defence in a suit, which involves
substantial relief of declaration of title, recovery of
possession and for demolition of alleged structure put up
by him during the pendency of the suit. As stated earlier
initially the plaintiff had approached the court alleging
that she is in possession of the suit schedule property
and her possession is interfered by the defendant and
she had sought for the relief of permanent injunction. Of-
course, suit in O.S.No.7802/2000 preceded the suit of
13 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
this plaintiff, which one has to take note of. Filing of
written statement by this defendant in the main matter
i.e., O.S.No:8326/2000 and filing of additional written
statement by him, once the plaintiff got amended her
plaint seeking several substantial reliefs, requires to be
gone through thoroughly. In that context I have gone
through the written statement and additional written
statement filed by him in juxta position. So far as
contention of the plaintiff that, suit site was originally
belonged to Jayanagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.,
and it executed Lease-cum-Sale Agreement in favour of
defendant No.2 and later it issued possession certificate
to him etc., in his written statement as well as in his
additional written statement, the defendant submitted
that he has "no personal knowledge" of the said
averments and the plaintiff must be put to strict proof
the same. It is surprising that when this defendant
claims that, he made all reasonable enquiry about title
of defendant No.2 in posterior part of Para No.4 of his
written statement and he further claimed that he paid
Rs.4,90,000/- as sale consideration to purchase that
property from the said person under the registered sale
deed, he could not have pleaded his ignorance about flow
of title to his alleged vendor. It is not in dispute that
originally the suit schedule property belonged to
Jayanagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., and it
executed Lease cum Sale agreement on 1.12.1988 in
favour of defendant No.2 and issued possession
14 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
certificate on 24.12.1988 to him. It is crucial to note that
the plaintiff has produced the said "original" Lease-Cum-
Sale Agreement at Ex.P1 and the defendant has
produced the "certified copy" of it at Ex.D2. The plaintiff
has also produced "original" Possession Certificate at
Ex.P5 and the defendant has produced its "certified
copy" at Ex.P4. Intentionally I am emphasizing on
production of the said originals by the plaintiff and the
copies thereof by the defendant. I would come to this
aspect and importance of the same when I take up the
discussion on the contention of defendant No.2 that, the
said registered GPA dated: 20.5.1995, produced by the
plaintiff at Ex.P3, is a fraudulent document. For the time
being it is suffice to note that, the original documents
namely Exs.P1 and P5 have come from the custody of the
plaintiff and in his (Dw1) cross examination DW1
admitted their genuinity stating that they are the
documents which were executed and handed over by the
Society to the defendant No.2.
13. Turning to Para No.3 of the plaint regarding
the alleged continuous peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the defendant No.2, who was the owner of
the said property and execution of registered GPA by him
in favour of Jayalaxmi Narayan, in his written statement
as well as in the Additional written statement the
defendant contends that, the said claim is totally false,
concocted and are denied by him. Naturally when such
15 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
denial is made, it is for the plaintiff to prove the said
aspect. Again I would advert to it in the following
paragraphs, but so far as his said version is concerned, it
remained the same in the written statement as well as in
the additional written statement. However, if one reads
Para No.4 of his written statement and Para No.4 of his
additional written statement with reference to the
contents of Para No.4 of the plaint, that the society
executed absolute sale deed in favour of defendant No.2
on 2.12.1999 and by virtue of the registered GPA
Jayalaxmi Narayan paid the property taxes for the years
1992-1999 etc., in Para No.4 of his written statement the
defendant contended that the said pleading is false,
frivolous and vexatious, but surprisingly in para No.4 of
his additional written statement nevertheless he denied
execution of the sale deed by the society in favour of
defendant No.2, then changing his version in the last
three lines of that paragraph contended that in fact
execution of the sale deed in favour of defendant No.2
and execution of registered GPA by defendant No.2 are
not within his knowledge. According to me, here lies the
crux of the matter. His later version in the additional
written statement that he has no knowledge of those
facts would prevail over his earlier version of total denial.
Again in respect of contention in Para No.5 of the plaint
that, the said GPA holder sold the suit schedule property
for consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- on 30.3.2000 in favour
of this plaintiff, in Para No.5 of his written statement,
16 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
the defendant contended that the said pleading is totally
false, concocted, created and it is denied by him.
However in Para No.5 of his additional written statement
in total ignorance of what he pleaded in his earlier
written statement, he contended that those things are
"not within his knowledge". With certain object, I have
compared his bit inconsistent defence versions to the
very same plaint averments through written statement
and additional written statement, at different intervals.
Here one has to understand the importance of pleadings.
14. It is too elementary for me to say that, as per
Order 8 Rule 3 and 5 of CPC, when there is denial of
certain plaint allegation, it must be specific and precise.
If the defendant contends that he has no personal
knowledge of those allegations, it does not amount to
denial and the court can relieve the plaintiff from
proving those facts. Even evasive denial is not an answer
to the specific contention of the plaintiff. In this regard I
would refer to the larger bench decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported at AIR 1967 SC 109 in the case
of Jahuri Sah and others Vs. Dwarika Prasad
Jhunjhunwala and others. In that case the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that, as per Order 8 Rule 5 of CPC,
if the defendant contends that he has no knowledge of
the facts pleaded in the plaint it does not tantamount to
denial of existence of facts, not even an implied denial
and in such case the court can take that the facts alleged
17 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
by the plaintiff is admitted by the defendant, therefore I
can very well hold that in so far as execution of sale deed
by the society in favour of defendant No.2 and payment
of property taxes by Jayalaxmi Narayan for the period
1992-1999 as the GPA holder of defendant No.2 and
execution of sale deed by the said GPA holder in favour of
this plaintiff on 30.3.2000 are not denied by the
defendant and the said facts can be safely taken as
admitted by the defendant in the light of his later version
in his additional written statement. Here I am also
surprised what was the necessity for the defendant to file
additional written statement again by reference to each
plaint paragraphs, when through the amendment, the
plaintiff only introduced para No.8(a) and 8(b) and sought
additional reliefs. The plaintiff has produced the
registered GPA dated: 20.5.1995 at Ex.P3 and sale deed
executed by the said GPA holder on 30.3.2000 at Ex.P4.
She has also produced certified copy of the absolute sale
deed dated: 1.12.1999 executed by the society in favour
of the defendant No.2 at Ex.P2 and likewise the
defendant has also produced copy of it (sale deed dt:
1.12.1999)at Ex.D3. In addition to the above documents,
there is one more certified copy of the sale deed dated:
21.8.2000 said to have been executed by defendant No.2
in favour of this defendant and it is at Ex.D1.
15. Since there are two sale deeds one is
dated: 30.3.2000 [Ex.P4] and another one is
18 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
dated: 21.8.2000 [Ex.D1] in respect of the very same suit
property definitely one will be confronted with the
genuinity of the said instruments and right, title and
interest of the person who executed them as well as who
took them. Notwithstanding my primary observations
with reference to the inconsistent pleadings of the
defendant, I would like to examine the title of the plaintiff
thoroughly as both the suits require findings on this
aspect as both sides are alleging and counter-alleging
their own titles to the very same property. Here identity
of the suit schedule property is not in dispute. The suit
schedule property is bearing No.21/38/1-C and it is
consisting of one shed. At the same time, I would like to
impress upon another thing i.e., whether there are more
than one shed and if so when they came into existence
being another disputed fact, that will be decided at an
appropriate stage, but for the sake of issues in hand I
have to confine myself as to how title over the suit
property flown from one person to another person.
16. Here again, I wonder how the defendant can
dispute the execution of the absolute sale deed [Ex.P2] in
favour of defendant No.2, when he himself claims that,
he purchased that property from the said defendant
under Ex.D1. What I mean to say is that, the defendant
is not definite in defending the suit claim. In the cross-
exam of the plaintiff [PW1] the defendant has not denied
the genuinity of Ex.P1/Ex.D2, Ex.P5/Ex.D4 and
19 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
execution of Ex.P3 and consequential execution of Ex.P4.
I would demonstrate with the robust evidence that is
readily available on record. At the cost of repetition I
would say that, in his cross-exam on Page No.9 the
defendant admitted the authenticity of Exs.P1 and P5
and also genuinity of tax paid receipts for the years
1992-1999 by Smt.Jayalaxmi Narayan. Though he stated
that, before he purchased the suit schedule property he
had gone through the said documents namely Exs.P1, P5
and P8, he did not notice that the said property taxes
were paid by Smt.Jayalaxmi Narayan. It is material to
note that in Ex.P8 dated: 10.9.1999 it is clearly
mentioned that said taxes are for the year 1992-1999
and they were paid by said Jayalaxmi Narayan, who is
none other than the registered GPA holder of defendant
No.2. In addition to the above admissions on Page No.10
of his cross-exam, the defendant admitted that, Ex.P11 is
the encumbrance certificate of the schedule property and
before purchase of the property he did not enquire the
antecedents of the suit property. It may be noted that
the Ex.P11 clearly points out that during the period
1.4.1999 to 31.3.2000 the suit property suffered two
transactions, first one is the Ex.P2 and the second one is
Ex.P4. So the contention of the defendant in Para No.4
of his written statement that he made reasonable enquiry
before purchasing the suit property shall have to be
rejected and accordingly I reject it.
20 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
17. All the while the defendant wanted to take
shelter under the written statement of the defendant
No.2 filed in his suit at O.S.No.7802/2000. It is true that
defendant No.2 denied execution of registered GPA at
Ex.P3 in favour of Jayalaxmi Narayan and also the right,
title and interest of Smt.Jayalaxmi Narayan in execution
of Ex.P4. But the fact remains that during the pendency
of the suit the defendant No.2 died and his LRs were
brought on record, however the said LRs did not show
any interest to continue with the defence of their
predecessor, therefore the said allegation of denial of
execution of Ex.P3 by the late defendant No.2 remained
as bare denial without any attempt to prove it. It should
be borne in mind that Ex.P3 is not an ordinary document
rather it is a registered one, registered in accordance with
the provisions of The Registration Act. The contents of
Ex.P3 reveal that the defendant No.2 claiming himself
as a contractor and an agriculturist of Hulaganahalli,
Hemanahalli Post, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District
appointed Smt.Jayalaxmi Narayan not only to look after
the suit property even to transfer it or any part of it by
way of sale, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise to
whomsoever she prefers [Clause No.11] and to appear
before the Sub-Registrar to execute the necessary sale
deed or mortgage deed and to sign such deeds on his
behalf and to receive the consideration on such transfer,
on his behalf [Clause No.12]. The GPA also contains the
description of the suit property. I once again record that
21 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
there is no dispute regarding the identification of suit
property.
18. It is the contention of the defendant that, said
Ex.P3 is a fraudulent and concocted document and
based on such document the Ex.P4 came into existence.
According to me the defendant not being a party to the
said document, he cannot dispute its execution. At the
most it can be denied by the defendant No.2 and on his
death, by his LRs. Though the defendant No.2 did it
during his lifetime he did not show any interest to
challenge it by taking any legal action. On the contrary
the Ex.P16 viz. the letter written by Smt.Jayalaxmi
Narayan to defendant No.2 on 16.8.1999 would show
that adverting the attention of the defendant No.2, the
said GPA holder, called upon him to take the sale deed
from the Jayanagar Housing Co-operative society as
already 10 years lease period has expired and she
insisted him to obtain No Objection Certificate from
Karnataka Bank towards discharge of loan as he had
borrowed loan from that bank on the strength of Lease-
cum-Sale Agreement. The plaintiff has produced the
postal receipt to confirm dispatching of that letter to
defendant No.2 at Ex.P17 and postal acknowledgement
at Ex.P18 to show that it was duly served on defendant
No.2. Curiously in the cross-exam of the plaintiff [PW1],
on Page No.22, at about 6 lines from below the
defendant admitted the correspondence between the
22 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
plaintiff and defendant No.2 as per Ex.P16 and service of
it to the defendant No.2. If the defendant No.2 has no
grievance to the contents of Ex.P16 there is no substance
in his denial in execution of Ex.P3. Moreover when Ex.P3
is a registered document as per Sec.114(e) of Evidence
Act the court has to presume that the official acts have
been regularly performed and apart from that when
defendant No.2 and on his death his LRs did not show
any interest to take the denial of execution of Ex.P3 to a
logical end by adducing corresponding defence evidence
or by cross examining the plaintiff, court has to draw an
adverse inference holding that the said defence of denial
of its execution is a myth.
19. In this regard I may lay my hand to the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported at (2010) 10 SCC
512 in the case of Man Kaur (dead) by LRs Vs. Hartar
Singh Sangha. In that case regarding Secs. 101, 106,
145 and 114(g) of Evidence Act the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that, where a party to the suit does not
appear in person in the witness box and states his own
case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross
examine by the other side, presumption would arise that
the case set up by him is not correct. Therefore I
straight-way reject the contention that Ex.P3 is a sham
and fraudulent document.
23 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
20. I would corroborate the above findings by
reference to Exs.P1, P5, P8 and two more documents
namely Exs.P14 and P23. Ex.P14 is the No Objection
Certificate dated: 18.2.1990 issued by Jayanagara
Co-operative Housing Society Limited to defendant No.2
to offer the suit site as collateral security to Karantaka
Bank, Srirampura Branch, Bangalore. Ex.P23 is the
Receipt issued by the said Housing Society on
30.10.1999 towards receipt of Rs.12,300/- from
defendant No.2. At the cost of repetition I would say that,
in the cross exam of the plaintiff, the defendant has not
disputed the genuinity of those documents and instead
he admitted their correctness during his own cross exam.
Then he has to explain how these original documents
came into the custody of the plaintiff. If Ex.P3 was a fake
document and this defendant is honest purchaser of the
suit property it is his obligation to explain why he did not
collect those original documents from defendant No.2
when he took Ex.D1 from him. Except the original sale
deed dated: 1.12.1999 executed by the said Society in
favour of defendant No.2, which the defendant has
offered as security to obtain loan from the said Society as
evidenced by Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds
produced at Ex.P41, this defendant has no other worth
document to show that he made efforts to ascertain the
title of his alleged vendor [defendant No.2] as on the date
of Ex.D1. Even while borrowing the loan from the
Housing Society the defendant played trick and he
24 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
produced the Encumbrance certificate of the suit
property for the period from 1.4.1988 to 31.5.1999 from
1.6.1989 to 1.6.1999 and from 1.4.1999 to 27.2.2000.
Intelligently he avoided to produce the encumbrance
certificate subsequent to 27.2.2000 as Ex.P4 is dated:
30.3.2000. So on overall consideration of the conduct,
pleadings and evidence of the defendant as well as the
total absence of evidence by defendant No.2 and his LRs
and also their failure to cross examine the plaintiff with
reference to Ex.P3, I have no hesitation to say that, it is a
valid and genuine document. If this finding is arrived
the recitals of that GPA would abundantly show that for
consideration he received the defendant No.2 authorised
Smt.Jayalaxmi Narayan to deal with the said property
and it was an agency coupled with interest. As such the
said agency or power of attorney being irrevocable, the
defendant No.2 could not have revoked it. In the decision
reported at ILR 1993 KAR.2306 in the case of
Mohammed @ Podiya Vs. Assistant Commissioner
Hon'ble Court held that where the power of attorney is
coupled with interest it cannot be revoked or cancelled.
Moreover there is no evidence either from the defendant
or from defendant No.2 to show that it was revoked at
any point of time. Here question may also arise whether
such "written" GPA can be orally revoked? The law on
this point is very much clear. In the decision reported at
AIR 2005 Rajasthan 41 in the case of Smt. Amina
Begum Vs. Mohd. Ramzan and another the Hon'ble High
25 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
Court held that, when the power of attorney is in writing,
it cannot be cancelled orally. Therefore it is totally ruled
out that Ex.P3 could have been cancelled or revoked or
that it was revoked. This finding would totally take away
the defendant's case. Once it is held that, Ex.P3 is a
genuine document and it held the field till the death of
defendant No.2 it was perfectly within the powers and
authority of Smt.Jayalaxmi Narayan to execute the sale
deed as per Ex.P4 and she could have validly conveyed
the title to the plaintiff. The fact that during his lifetime
defendant No.2 did not reply to Ex.P16 and instead he
sworn to an affidavit as per Ex.P19 on 4.2.2000
confirming the execution of registered GPA as per Ex.P3
and receipt of Rs.8,20,000/- on different dates would
reveal that he had no grievance in parting with the suit
property. In his cross exam on Page No.15 from the
second line onwards the defendant admitted that he
came to know about Ex.P19 and it contains the signature
of defendant No.2 and he himself identified the said
signature at Ex.P19(a). The said admission has to be
read with the suggestion made in the cross-exam of
plaintiff on Page No.9. There at 8th line from top, the
defendant himself suggested that after execution of Ex.P3
amount was paid to defendant No.2. The said evidence
seals the fate of defendant.
21. A lot of hue and cry was made by the defendant
referring to Clause No.5 of Ex.P1 by stating that
26 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
defendant No.2 could not have executed Ex.P3 and
thereby alienated the suit property as lease cum sale
agreement prohibited from alienating it for a period of 10
years. It is true that there is such restriction on
alienation, but authorizing a person through registered
or unregistered power of attorney does not fall within the
definition of 'Transfer' as contained in Sec.5 of Transfer
of Property Act. As per the requirement of that Section to
constitute transfer of property, a living person must
convey either in present or in future to another living
person his interest in an immovable property. However
the said GPA/Ex.P3 did not convey the property to
Smt.Jayalaxmi Narayan either in present or in future but
it only enabled her to execute conveyance deed on behalf
of defendant No.2 and in-pursuance of it, after
completion of the said 10 years lock-in period,
Smt.Jayalaxmi Narayan executed sale deed [Ex.P4] in
favour of this plaintiff. So I have no hesitation to hold
that absolutely Clause 5 of Ex.P5 was not violated or
breached by defendant No.2 or by Smt. Jayalaxmi
Narayan.
22. Now question may arise as to what is the fate
of registered sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in
favour of the defendant on 21.8.2000 [Ex.D1]?
Admittedly it is later in point of time as compared to
Ex.P4 dated: 30.3.2000. Here law is simple as much as
possible. As per Sec.48 of Transfer of Property Act earlier
27 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
sale deed would prevail over the later one. In the
decision reported at AIR 1973 Mysore 276 in the case of
Azeezulla Sheriff and others Vs. Bhabhutimul, at head
note 'C' our Hon'ble High Court held that, where a
compulsorily registerable sale deed executed earlier in
point of time will when registered would prevail over the
subsequent sale deed even though such later deed was
registered at an earlier point of time. In the instant case
let alone registration of Ex.D1 preceded the Ex.P4 it even
was not in existence when Ex.P4 came into existence. As
on the date of the alleged execution of Ex.D1 defendant
No.2 had no subsisting right, title and interest over the
suit property so as to convey valid title to the defendant.
Therefore Ex.D1 has no sanctity in the eye of law. In this
regard I would refer to one more decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported at AIR 2002 Supreme Court 959
in the case of Gurbax Singh Vs. Kartar Singh and
others.
23. I have not given importance to production of
khata certificate [Ex.P6], khata endorsement [Ex.P7], tax
paid receipts [Exs.P25 to P28] as they have no bearing in
deciding the title of the property and more so majority of
them came into existence after execution of Ex.D1 or
immediately before its execution. Throughout his cross
examination giving evasive replies by stating that he did
not obtain EC and did not verify it before purchasing the
suit property nor he enquired about the borrowing of
28 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
loan by defendant No.2 by securing the suit property to
Karnataka Bank by the said defendant No.2 and further
that he was not aware of the ill health of defendant No.2
which forced him to take financial help from the said
Smt. Jayalakshmi Narayan and her family members, the
defendant demonstrated that absolutely he has no
knowledge the alleged sale transaction contained Ex.D1.
On page No.14 of his cross exam without challenging the
legality of Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 he negligently and carelessly
replied that he has questioned them in his suit. When a
direct suggestion was put to him page No.15 of his cross
exam that Rs.8,20,000/- was paid by Jayalakshmi
Narayan to the defendant No.2 even he did not deny that
suggestion. Further he did not deny that for his ill
health and education of his children the defendant No.2
borrowed that sum from Jayalakshmi Narayan. His reply
on page No.18 of his cross exam that he did not enquire
defendant No.2 about the Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 would further
show that he is not at all a bonafide purchaser and there
was no real sale transaction between him and the
defendant No.2.
24. Without touching these aspects written
arguments running for 40 pages were filed by the
defendant reproducing the written statement of
defendant No.2 and cross examination of the plaintiff.
Whereas in her written arguments the plaintiff has totally
omitted the issues framed in O.S.No.7802/2000. Any
29 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
way there is enough documentary evidence coupled with
oral evidence to show that, title to the suit schedule
property was validly flown from Jayanagar Housing
Society Limited to defendant No.2 and from the
defendant No.2 to the plaintiff through his GPA holder.
On the other hand, as discussed above, the Ex.D1 is a
hallow document conferring no valid title to the
defendant.
25. The production of tax paid receipts at Exs.P8
to P10, filing of complaint as per Exs.P12 and Ex.P13
and contents of Ex.P4 unhesitatingly demonstrate that,
the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property as on
the date of the suit. If really the defendant was in
possession of the suit property by virtue of Ex.D1 he
ought to have produced atleast tax paid receipts obtained
immediately after he purchased that property or effecting
of khata in his name. In his cross exam he categorically
stated that khata was not changed in his name because
of objections raised by the plaintiff but for obtaining of
electricity connections he produced a fake khata in his
name as evidenced by Ex.P56 and khata extract as per
Ex.P57 and one tax paid receipt as per Ex.P58. I would
come to the validity of the said documents when I take
up the other issues, but here it is suffice to hold that,
out of the 11 documents produced by the defendant,
there is no document to prove his possession except the
unreliable Ex.D1. From the documents like photographs
30 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
one cannot hold that he came in possession of the suit
schedule property in the year 2000 itself.
26. In order to support his make believe
documentary evidence to prove his possession the
defendant examined the Dw2 and tried to demonstrate
that he is in possession of the schedule property
immediately after Ex.D1. In that context I have gone
through the evidence of Dw2. The said witness is an
auto driver and according to him the defendant is the
owner of the suit property and he constructed it in the
year 2000 by hiring his auto for transportation of
construction materials for the construction of house
there. However in his cross exam he was not able to
describe the boundaries the suit property to which he
visited repeatedly. Then telling the real truth he replied
that his examination chief affidavit was got prepared by
the defendant only. Apart from that he admitted that
prior to April 2000 suit property was vacant site and in
the month of April 2000 a sheet house was built there.
This rules out the contention of the defendant that it is
he who constructed a temporary shed there after he took
Ex.D1. I need not repeat that Ex.D1 came into existence
in the month of August 2000 and not in April 2000. In
fact the Ex.P4 was executed in March 2000, so if
construction was made in April 2000 as stated by Dw2,
certainly that construction was carried out by plaintiff
and not by the defendant. Therefore the evidence of Dw2
31 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
instead of helping the defendant, helps the plaintiff. For
the foregoing discussion I answer Issue No.1, Additional
Issue Nos. 1 and 2 of O.S.No:8326/2000 in the
Affirmative, whereas Issue Nos. 1 and 2 of
O.S.No.7802/2000 are answered in the Negative.
27. Issue No.2, Additional Issue No.4 of
O.S.No:8326/2000 and Issue No.3 of
O.S.No.7802/2000:- Since these Issues deal with the
rival claim of possession of both contesting parties and
consequential interference, I have taken these Issues
simultaneously.
28. While discussing on earlier Issues, by
answering Issue No.1 of O.S.No:8326/2000 in the
affirmative and Issue No.2 of O.S.No.7802/2000 in the
negative, I have already held that as on the date of both
suits the defendant was not in possession of the suit
property and instead it was the plaintiff who was in
possession of it. The very conduct of the defendant in
denying the plaintiff's possession and production of
documents by him i.e., the photographs at Exs.D5 to
D10 and with their CD at Ex.D11 and claiming that he is
in possession of the said property proves his interference,
that too against the interim status-quo order passed by
this court in O.S.No:8326/2000 on 8.12.2000. In his
cross exam the defendant admitted that such an order
was passed by this court to directing the both parties to
32 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
maintain status-quo. Inspite of it unfortunately he took
the forcible possession of the suit schedule property from
the plaintiff, constructed six sheds there and obtained
power connections to them in 2013 and 2015. In view of
the said subsequent developments the plaintiff got
amended her plaint and sought recovery of possession
and also for cancellation of the sale deed [Ex.D1]. The
plaintiff specifically pleaded that on 1.12.2013 her
watchman, who was kept there to guard the property,
was thrown out by the defendant and he constructed
sheds there. She also stated regarding the said incident
by adducing her further evidence and she filed complaint
in the jurisdictional police station, but it was of no use.
She has produced copy of the complaint at Ex.P29,
acknowledgement issued by the concerned police at
Ex.P30 and another endorsement of the said police at
Ex.P31. She has also produced letter addressed to
BESCOM on 1.12.2013 at Ex.P32 for changing the power
connection in the name of the defendant and addressed
another complaint to the BWSSB for changing the water
and sanitary connections in the name of the defendant as
per Ex.P33. Thereupon the BESCOM got alerted and by
wiring the letter as per Ex.P35 dated: 23.1.2014 to the
BBMP received reply as per Ex.P36 confirming that the
khata of the suit property is in the name of the plaintiff.
When the defendant illegally started digging in the suit
schedule property, the plaintiff filed another complaint
on 9.12.2014 as per Ex.P37, but by giving endorsement
33 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
as per Ex.P38 the concerned police expressed their
inability to help her as it is civil dispute. The illegal act
of the defendant in obtaining the power connections to
the additional sheds constructed by him stand proved
with certificate issued by the BESCOM as per Ex.P47 and
the Consumer History Sheets at Exs.P48 to P54. They
show that in gross violation of the status-quo order the
defendant constructed additional sheds and obtained
power connection to them. The photographs produced at
Exs.P68 to P71 and the CD at Ex.P72 prove the said
construction activities during the pendency of the suit,
therefore here once again I refer to the plaint schedule of
the defendant in O.S.No.7802/2000 there according to
him as on the date of that suit there was only one shed.
The Exs.P66 and P67 show that the BESCOM Officials
acting on the representation of the plaintiff requested
their law officer regarding disconnecting of six power
installations sanctioned to the defendant during the year
2013 and 2015. The said acts of the defendant are
highly deplorable and condemnable. He acted in total
disregard to the interim order passed by this court.
Much against his own pleadings in para No.14 of his
chief he stated that he has put up two sheds and let
out them to Gajendra and Sajjan, but in the cross-exam
on Page No.24 he replied that he does not know the said
persons. So he went on blowing hot and cold at every
moment. Therefore I have no hesitation to hold that the
defendant interfered in the possession of the plaintiff and
34 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
he put up illegal constructions during the pendency of
the suit. Consequently his allegation that his possession
was interfered by this plaintiff shall have to be rejected
and accordingly I reject it. In view of the above discussion
I answer Issue No.2 and Additional Issue No.4 of
O.S.No:8326/2000 in the affirmative and Issue No.3 of
O.S.No.7802/2000 in the negative.
29. Additional Issue No.3 of O.S.No:8326/2000:
The discussion and findings on Additional Issue No.4 in
O.S.No:8326/2000 would sufficiently show that the
defendant took law in his own hands and acted high-
handedly and he was probably aided by some tainted
brains, therefore filing of amendment application by the
plaintiff and consequential additional reliefs on the basis
of the said subsequent developments cannot be termed
as barred by time. It is contended by the defendant that
when he denied the title of the plaintiff in his suit at
O.S.No.7802/2000 it was too much for the plaintiff to
seek declaration of title by filing IA for amendment long
after 17 years. According to him she ought to have
prayed for declaration of title immediately when he filed
suit denied her title and filed his written statement
reiterating the same. In this regard I would like to refer
the decision reported at AIR 2008 SC 2033 in the case of
Anathula Sudhakar Vs. P.Buchireddy [Dead] by LRs and
others. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that merely for the reason that a person denies title of
35 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
the plaintiff, such plaintiff cannot be compelled to seek
declaration of title when he is having clear title and
possession. Therefore I have no hesitation to hold
additional prayers for declaration of title, recovery of
possession and cancellation of the sale deed [Ex.D1] are
not barred by time. Consequently I answer this Issue in
the negative.
30. Issue No.3 and Additional Issue No.5 of
O.S.No:8326/2000 and Issue No.4 of
O.S.No.7802/2000: - The discussion made on the
foregoing issues and the findings arrived on them
unhesitatingly point out that this defendant has no
respect for law and order and he seeks to mislead the
court from which he expects substantial reliefs. His
conduct in remaining absence to duty on the pretext that
he was suffering from some disease, which he has not
proved and that too after borrowing loan from Karnataka
Bank, would reflect on his sinister design not only to
cheat the plaintiff, even to cheat the society which
provided employment to him. The plaintiff has produced
the notice issued by the Jayanagar Co-operative Housing
Society wherein this defendant was working as a peon at
Exs.P42 to P44 and paper publication issued by the
Society at Ex.P45. The said society has taken steps to
recover that amount from him by raising dispute before
the Joint Registrar as per Ex.P46 and has obtained order
as per Ex.P39. The said authority has directed the
36 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
defendant to pay Rs.4,08,686/- along with interest. All
these deeds would show that the defendant's every walk
of life is tainted thereby disentitling him to seek any kind
of relief from the hands of this court. He has abused the
court process to the extent possible. Therefore while
summing up my discussion on issues in hand I feel that
it is not enough to decree the suit in O.S.No:8326/2000
and dismiss suit of O.S.No.7802/2000 with costs,
instead in order to uphold the dignity of law and to
show its long arm, I am of the firm opinion that court has
to impose realistic cost considering the length of both
litigations, mental agony suffered by the plaintiff and the
legal expenses incurred by her. In this context I am
guided by the decision reported at AIR 2012 SC 2010 [G]
in the case of A. Shanmugam Vs Ariya Kshatriay
Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai
Sangam, represented by its President. In the light of the
aforegoing discussions, imposing realistic cost of
Rs.1,00,000/- in each suit in addition to the suit costs,
would meet the ends of justice.
31. As per Sec.31(2) of the Specific Relief Act,
once it is held that, Ex.D1 is a fake document and when
the court decides to cancel the same, copy of the decree
shall be sent to the concerned Sub-Registrar to note
regarding its cancellation. For illegally squatting in the
suit property by constructing additional sheds, during
the pendency of the suit, the defendant is very much
37 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000
liable to pay the damages, which can be quantified by
holding a separate enquiry. Hence, I hold that the
plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration of her title
to the suit schedule property by virtue of her sale deed
dt:30.3.2000 and demolish the illegal structures
put up in that property in addition to the other reliefs
she has prayed. With these observations, I answer Issue
No.3 and Additional Issue No.5 of O.S.No:8326/2000 in
the affirmative and Issue No.4 of O.S.No.7802/2000 in
the negative.
32. Issue No.4 of O.S.No:8326/2000 and Issue
No.5 of O.S.No.7802/2000:- In the result, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
O.S.No.8326/2000 is decreed with costs and realistic costs of Rs.1,00,000/- payable by the defendant to the plaintiff in that suit.
O.S.No.7802/2000 is dismissed with costs and realistic costs of Rs.1,00,000/- payable by the plaintiff in that suit to the defendant No.1 of that suit.
It is declared that the plaintiff of O.S.No:8326/2000 is the absolute owner of 38 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000 the suit property. Consequently, the sale deed dated: 21.8.2000 is held as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. The defendant in that suit is directed to demolish the illegal structures put up in the suit property and hand over the vacant possession of it, including the one shed constructed by the plaintiff in it, to the plaintiff within three months from the date of this Judgement, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get it done through the court process.
There shall be separate enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC to determine the mesne profits in respect of O.S.No. 8326/2000.
This Judgment shall be kept in O.S.No:8326/2000 and copy of the same shall be kept in O.S.No.7802/2000.
Office to send copy of the decree in O.S.8326/2000 to the Sr.Sub-Registrar, Kengeri to note regarding the cancellation of Sale deed dt:21/8/2000 and registered at Book No.1 of 2008 at Page No.172 - 178 of 2000- 2001 at Sl.No.4544 dt.21/8/2000 39 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000 [BNG(U) KNGR/4544/2000-2001/1-7 BK I CKGSR(S)].
Draw decrees accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcription computerized, then corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 30th day of May, 2018).
(Ron Vasudev), III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff : [O.S. No.8326/2000] PW1 N.Ranjini List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff side:
[O.S. No.8326/2000] Ex.P1 Certified copy of the Lease cum sale deed dated: 1.12.1988 Ex.P2 Certified copy of the sale deed dtd: 1.12.1999 Ex.P3 General Power of attorney executed by Puttaswamy in favour of Jayalaxmi Narayan dated: 20.5.1995 Ex.P4 Sale deed executed by Jayalaxmi Narayan in favor of PW1 Ex.P5 Possession certificate Ex.P6 Khata certificate Ex.P7 Khata Endorsement Ex.P8 to Tax paid receipts Ex.P10 Ex.P11 Encumbrance certificate Ex.P12 Complaint given to the police Ex.P13 Acknowledgement Ex.P14 Letter of Jayanagar Housing society Ex.P15 Affidavit of Puttaswamy
40 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000 Ex.P16 Office copy of the legal notice Ex.P17 Postal receipt Ex.P18 Postal acknowledgement Ex.P19 Another affidavit of Puttaswamy Ex.P20 BMP certificate Ex.P21 Khata extract Ex.P22 Endorsement Ex.P23 Receipt issued by Jayanagar Society Ex.P24 Receipt of Sub-Registrar Exs.P25 Tax paid receipts to P28 Ex.P29 Copy of the complaint Ex.P30 Police endorsement Ex.P31 Notice of Banashankari police Exs.P32 Letters to the BESCOM and BWSSB to P34 Ex.P35 Letter of BESCOM Ex.P36 Letter of BBMP Ex.P37 Copy of the complaint Ex.P38 Police endorsement Ex.P39 Copy of the order of Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies Ex.P40 Certified copy of the order sheet in that case Ex.P41 Copy of Memorandum of Title Deeds Exs.P42 Notice issued by Jayanagar Society to P44 Ex.P45 Public notice issued in Newspaper Ex.P46 Memorandum of Petition filed in Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies Ex.P47 BESCOM Certificate Exs.P48 Consumer history sheets to P54 Ex.P55 Copy of the voters card Exs.P56 Copies of BBMP Khata certificate and khata and P57 extract Ex.P58 Tax paid receipt Ex.P59 BBMP khata extract Ex.P60 Property tax receipt 41 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000 Ex.P61 BBMP khata extract Exs.P62 BBMP Khata Certificates and P63 Ex.P64 BBMP Katha extract Ex.P65 Property tax receipt Ex.P66 Letter to the BESCOM written by PW1 Ex.P67 Letter of BESCOM Exs.P68 Four photographs to P71 Ex.P72 CD Exs.P73 Three newspapers to P75 Ex.P76 Order in WP No.13197/2016 List of witness examined for the defendant side: [O.S. No.8326/2000] DW1 B.N.Nanjunda Swamy DW2 Anjanappa List of documents exhibited for the defendant side:
[O.S. No.8326/2000] Ex.D1 Certified copy of registered sale deed dt:21.8.2000 Ex.D2 Certified copy of Lease cum sale agreement from Jayanagar Housing Society Ex.D3 Certified copy of sale deed dated: 1.12.1999 Ex.D4 Certified copy of possession certificate dated: 24.12.1988 Exs.D5 Photos to D10 Ex.D11 CD (Ron Vasudev), III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
42 O.S.8326/2000 C/W O.S. 7802/2000