Bangalore District Court
Sri.Juggaram vs The Bengaluru Development on 27 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU. (CCH-21)
Dated: This, the 27th day of April 2019.
Present: Sri.Bannikatti Hanumanthappa.R.
B.A.,LL.B(Spl)
IV Addl.CC & SJ, Mayohall Unit,
Bengaluru.
O.S. No.25765/2017
Plaintiff: Sri.Juggaram, S/o.Sri.Bhuraram,
aged about 31 yrs, R/at.No.1432,
Nagawara Main Road, Near
Manjunatha Hotel, Bengaluru-
45.
(By Sri.B.V.Ramamoorthy, Advocate)
V/S
Defendant: The Bengaluru Development
Authority, by its Commissioner,
Palace Road, Kumarapark East,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.K.V.Keshava, Advocate)
Date of institution of the suit 10.07.2017
Nature of the suit (Suit for Pro-note, Suit for Permanent
Suit for Declaration and Possession, Injunction
Suit for Injunction, etc.)
Date of commencement of recording 07.02.2019
of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment was 27.04.2019
pronounced
2 O.S. No.25765/2017
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 09 17
JUDGMENT
Present suit has been filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC for seeking the reliefs of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and also not to dispossess, the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and also from demolishing, alienating or allotting the suit schedule property to other and for costs.
2. The description of the suit schedule property as shown in the schedule to the plaint, is as follows:-
All the piece and parcel of the property bearing CMC No.20, khatha No.196/197 in Sy.No.196 & 197 of Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, now BBMP khatha No.196/1/197/20, HBR 3rd Block, K.K.Halli, 10th Main Alhilal Nagar, New PID No.024-W0810-3, new BBMP Ward No.24, Bengaluru, measuring East to West: 30 Feet and North to South: 50 feet totally measuring 1500 sq feet and bounded on:-
East by: Private property;
West by: Private property;
North by: Road; and on
3 O.S. No.25765/2017
South by: Road.
3. Case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as below: -
Originally the land bearing Sy.No.196 & 197 of Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, belongs to one Seethamma. She has acquired the said land under registered sale deed dated 11.09.1964. After her death his son succeed the deceased estate and formed layout and solds to different persons. The son of Lakshmamma namely Rajanna had executed GPA dated 22.11.1986 and affidavit in favour of Smt.Najmunnisa W/o.Late.H.S.Naseer Ahmed. Exercising the powers conferred on Smt.Najmunnisa by R.Rajanna in respect of suit schedule property has sold the schedule property in favour of Syed Abid Ali under registered sale deed dated 28.11.2006. The said Syed Abid Ali has executed GPA in favour of Sabir Ali in respect of the schedule property. Exercising the powers conferred on Sabir Ali by Syed Abid Ali in respect of schedule property has sold the schedule property in favour of plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 10.02.2016 and it is free from all encumbrances and all revenue records stands in his name and paid the taxes to the 4 O.S. No.25765/2017 BBMP and obtained the other civic amenities and sanctioned plan and also constructed the house. The plaintiff is continuously in lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property more than 35 years. The name of the plaintiff was not shown either in preliminary notification or in final notification and also the property was not identified in the said preliminary notification, no possession was taken and no award was drawn in the name of plaintiff; hence, the schedule property was not acquired by the BDA. The entire area is fully developed and the same is not fit for formation of layout. Scheme is already lapsed. Even mahazar drawn by the defendant has clearly shown that possession is in respect of the schedule property was not taken. Mere mentioning in paper is not sufficient and when the defendant has not taken possession from the land owners, and leave alone to them or owner to enjoy them physically possession amounts to admitting indirectly the possessionary title of the owners. Hence, the plaintiff's possession is settled one. The plaintiff is in physical possession and enjoyment of the schedule property over the sufficient long period. At the time of construction of the building 5 O.S. No.25765/2017 the defendant has not raised any objection for the said construction. Even the Hon'ble High Court in John B James case clearly held that if a person is in possession of the property then he shall be evicted under the public premises act and if he proves his possession more than 12 years then he is entitled possessory title over the schedule property. The defendant authority has failed to follow the above said directions and attempted to demolish the schedule property in brad day light on 30.05.2017 at 10.30 p.m. and also attempted to interfere without issue of notice to the plaintiff. Plaintiff is having a prima facie case over the suit schedule property with sufficient documents as above stated. Defendant made an attempt on 30.05.2017 to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property. Hence, the cause of action arose for filing this suit for seeking permanent injunction against the defendant.
4. After issuance of the suit summons and duly served upon it, the defendant appeared through its advocate Sri.K.V.Keshava;
thereafter the defendant has filed its WS.
5. Case of the defendant, in brief, is as below:-
6 O.S. No.25765/2017
This defendant contended in its WS that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either on law or on facts and it is fundamentally defective. Further it is contended that the entire of Sy.No.196 measuring 2 acres 36 guntas and 197 measuring 3 acres 14 guntas of Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, has been acquired by the defendant authority for an improvement scheme for public purpose for the formation of a residential layout called "HBR Layout Hennuru-Bellary Road", 1st Stage. The defendant authority notified the said Sy. Nos. under preliminary notification vide BDA/ALAO/S/11/78-79 dated 27.06.1978, which was followed by final notification No.HUD 567 MNX 84 dated 09.01.1985 and the above said entire acquired land came within above said acquisition proceedings. Possession has been taken by the BDA and compensation awarded in respect of the above said acquired land; hence neither the plaintiff nor previous anubhavadar or khathedars of the said land are owners in respect of the above said land are not entitled to any claim or interest over the same. No person other than BDA has formed any sites in the said Sy.No.196 & 197. As such, execution of the power 7 O.S. No.25765/2017 of attorney, sale deed or any other document, after preliminary notification in respect of the acquired land does not hold any validity in the eyes of law, if any building constructed on the said acquired land is unauthorized. Further it is contended that the BDA cannot transfer the property in favour of anybody which is illegal, such document in which the property got transferred will not be in accordance with law. Obtaining any khatha by making false representation and paying taxes in respect of the property which does not belong to him, cannot create any right in his favour and such possession if any is illegal and unauthorized and which cannot give him any ownership. The description given in the suit schedule is not admitted by this defendant; but, admitted that in the preliminary and final notification notifying khathedars were Sri.Ayyappa and others and Sri.Venkatashama Setty & others as per the documents in respect of said Sy.No.196 & 197 and acquisition proceedings were accordingly based on records.
Further it is contended that since the possession of the above said acquired land acquired by the authority vest with the defendant only, interference of the defendant authority does not arise, it is 8 O.S. No.25765/2017 only cooked story with ulterior motive. The plaintiff is not having any legal right do any process of availing loan in any bank in respect of the said land 196 & 197 of Kacharakanahalli Village acquired by the defendant. Thus, this defendant prays to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with heavy costs.
6. From the above said pleadings, following issues have been framed:-
1. Whether plaintiff proves that, he is the lawful purchaser and owner of the suit schedule property?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that, he is in settled possession of the suit schedule property as pleaded in the plaint?
3. Whether defendant proves that, the suit schedule property was acquired by the BDA as per the Land Acquisition Act?
4. Whether defendant proves that, plaintiff is an illegal occupant of suit schedule property and his possession is deserved to be evicted?
5. Whether the plaintiff proves that, he is entitled to the suit reliefs as prayed for?
6. What order or decree?9 O.S. No.25765/2017
7. On behalf of the plaintiff, affidavit evidence of plaintiff himself has been filed and he has been examined as P.W.1, affidavit evidence of plaintiff witness by name Sri.Lokesh.N.Reddy as a P.W.2, and also filed a another affidavit evidence of another witness by namely Sri.P.Shankar as a P.W.3 and Exs.P.1 to P.36 documents have been got marked. Defendant has not adduced any evidence on its behalf and also not got marked any documents on its behalf in order to disprove the case of plaintiff.
8. Heard, the learned advocates for the plaintiff and defendant and perused the records. Learned advocate for the plaintiff has submitted written arguments also and the same has been considered.
9. After considering the evidence on record, my findings on the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1: Affirmative, Issue No.2: Affirmative, Issue No.3: Negative, Issue No.4: Negative, 10 O.S. No.25765/2017 Issue No.5: Affirmative, Issue No.6: As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS.
10. ISSUE No.1 to 4: All these four issues are interlinked each other; hence, for avoiding repetition I have taken up all these four issues for discussion at one stretch. In order to prove the case of plaintiff, he himself is got examined as a P.W.1; he has reiterated the plaint averments in his affidavit evidence that originally the land bearing Sy.No.196 & 197 of Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, belongs to one Seethamma. She has acquired the said land under registered sale deed dated 11.09.1964. After her death his son succeed the deceased estate and formed layout and solds to different persons.
The son of Lakshmamma namely Rajanna had executed GPA dated 22.11.1986 and affidavit in favour of Smt.Najmunnisa W/o.Late.H.S.Naseer Ahmed. P.W.1 further stated in his chief- examination that exercising the powers conferred on Smt.Najmunnisa by R.Rajanna in respect of suit schedule property 11 O.S. No.25765/2017 has sold the schedule property in favour of Syed Abid Ali under registered sale deed dated 28.11.2006. The said Syed Abid Ali has executed GPA in favour of Sabir Ali in respect of the schedule property. Exercising the powers conferred on Sabir Ali by Syed Abid Ali in respect of schedule property has sold the schedule property in favour of plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 10.02.2016 and it is free from all encumbrances and all revenue records stands in his name and paid the taxes to the BBMP and obtained the other civic amenities and sanctioned plan and also constructed the house. P.W.1 further stated in his chief- examination that the plaintiff is continuously in lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property more than 35 years. The name of the plaintiff was not shown either in preliminary notification or in final notification and also the property was not identified in the said preliminary notification, no possession was taken and no award was drawn in the name of plaintiff; hence, the schedule property was not acquired by the BDA. P.W.1 further stated in his chief-examination that the entire area is fully developed and the same is not fit for formation of layout. Scheme 12 O.S. No.25765/2017 is already lapsed. Even mahazar drawn by the defendant has clearly shown that possession is in respect of the schedule property was not taken. Mere mentioning in paper is not sufficient and when the defendant has not taken possession from the land owners, and leave alone to them or owner to enjoy them physically possession amounts to admitting indirectly the possessionary title of the owners. Hence, the plaintiff's possession is settled one. P.W.1 further stated in his chief-examination that the plaintiff is in physical possession and enjoyment of the schedule property over the sufficient long period. At the time of construction of the building the defendant has not raised any objection for the said construction. Even the Hon'ble High Court in John B James case clearly held that if a person is in possession of the property then he shall be evicted under the public premises act and if he proves his possession more than 12 years then he is entitled possessory title over the schedule property. P.W.1 further stated in his chief- examination that the defendant authority has failed to follow the above said directions and attempted to demolish the schedule property in brad day light on 30.05.2017 at 10.30 a.m. and also 13 O.S. No.25765/2017 attempted to interfere without issue of notice to the plaintiff. Plaintiff is having a prima facie case over the suit schedule property with sufficient documents as above stated and prays to decree the suit.
11. Further the plaintiff has got examined the one Lokesh.N.Reddy and P.Shankar on his behalf as a P.W.2 and P.W.3; they have specifically stated in their affidavit evidence that originally the land bearing Sy.No.196 & 197 of Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, belongs to one Seethamma. She has acquired the said land under registered sale deed dated 11.09.1964. After her death his son succeed the deceased estate and formed layout and sold to different persons. The son of Lakshmamma namely Rajanna had executed GPA dated 22.11.1986 and affidavit in favour of Smt.Najmunnisa W/o.Late.H.S.Naseer Ahmed. P.W.2 & P.W.3 stated that exercising the powers conferred on Smt.Najmunnisa by R.Rajanna in respect of suit schedule property has sold the schedule property in favour of Syed Abid Ali under registered sale deed dated 28.11.2006. The said Syed Abid Ali has executed GPA in favour 14 O.S. No.25765/2017 of Sabir Ali in respect of the schedule property. Exercising the powers conferred on Sabir Ali by Syed Abid Ali in respect of schedule property has sold the schedule property in favour of plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 10.02.2016 and it is free from all encumbrances and all revenue records stands in the name plaintiff and paid the taxes to the BBMP and obtained the other civic amenities and sanctioned plan and also constructed the house. The schedule property is let out to P.W.3/P.Shankar by the plaintiff. The plaintiff is continuously in lawful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property more than 35 years. P.W.2 and P.W.3 further stated that on 30.05.2017 at about 10.30 a.m. the officials of the defendant along with others came to the schedule property attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. With great difficulty P.W.2 & P.W.3 including neighbourers saved the possession of the schedule property.
12. Supporting to the case of plaintiff, plaintiff's advocate submitted Ex.P.6 a certified copy of power of attorney dated 9th January 2007 executed by Sri.Syed Abid Ali in favour of Sri.Sabir 15 O.S. No.25765/2017 Ali/vendor of plaintiff to be his lawful attorney in his name and on his behalf to do or cause to be done or any acts, deeds and things in respect of the suit schedule property. Ex.P.8 is a certified copy of registered absolute sale deed dated 10.02.2016 executed by Sri.Syed Abid Ali through his GPA holder Sri.Sabir Ali in favour of Sri.Juggaram/plaintiff in respect of site bearing CMC No.20, khatha No.196/197 in Sy.No.196 & 197 of Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, now BBMP khatha No.196/1/197/20, HBR 3rd Block, K.K.Halli, 10th Main Alhilal Nagar, New PID No.024-W0810-3, new BBMP Ward No.24, Bengaluru, measuring East to West: 30 Feet and North to South: 50 feet totally measuring 1500 sq feet and bounded by East: Private property; West by: Private property; North by: Road; and on South by: Road for a sale consideration of Rs.49,50,000/-. Ex.P.2 is a attested copy of family tree of Seethamma which discloses the family members of Seethamma as Sri. R.Rajanna is her only son. Ex.P.1 is a certified copy of sale deed dated 10.09.1964 which discloses that Smt.Seethamma has purchased the land bearing Sy.No.196 & 197 of Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, 16 O.S. No.25765/2017 Bengaluru North Taluk from Mery Bayamma W/o.Late.Venkataswamy Shetty, Gowramma, Susheelamma D/o.Late.Venkataswamy and others for a valuable sale consideration. Plaintiff has produced a certified copy of the irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 22.11.1986 executed by R.Rajanna S/o.M.Ramaiah in favour of Namunissa W/o.Late.H.S.Nazeer Ahmed. Ex.P.12 issued on 23.01.2016 by the Revenue Officer of HBR Sub-Division, BBMP, is the khatha certificate. Plaintiff has produced Ex.P.16 is the tax-paid receipt in respect of CMC No.20 for the year 2015-16; even in the said document also the name of the Sri.Syed Abid Ali/vendor of plaintiff is shown as a owner and possessor of the property site No.196/1/197/20. Ex.P.3 is the death certificate of Smt.Seethamma/vendor's vendor of plaintiff who died on 10.01.1979 at Kacharakanahalli. The plaintiff has produced certified copy of the affidavit sworn by R.Rajanna S/o.M.Ramaiah dated 22.11.1986 and affidavit sworn by Syed Abid Ali dated 09.1.2007. The plaintiff has produced certified copy of the memorandum of deposit of title deeds dated 22.2.2016 by 17 O.S. No.25765/2017 Sri.Juggaram/plaintiff and M/s.Pavan Automobiles, Proprietor Sri.Juggaram as the 'Security Owner (if the security owner is Andhra Bank, a body corporate under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act 1980 and certified copy of the supplementary deed dated 5.3.2019 by Juggaram/plaintiff as the 'Security Owner' (if the security owner is Andhra Bank, a body corporate under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act 1980 and letter dated 07.03.3019 issued by Andhra Bank, (A Govt of India Undertaking) Kalyan Nagar Branch, Bengaluru (Logdement of documents) and certified copies of the challans issued by CMC Byatarayanapura for the year 2005-06 and 2007-08 in the name of Najmunnisa and certified copy of the assessment register issued by CMC Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru-92 in the name of Syed Abid Ali/vendor of plaintiff and certified copy of the assessment register issued by BBMP in the name of Syed Abid Ali for the year 2015- 16 and certified copies of the acknowledgements for receipt issue by BBMP in the name of Syed Abid Ali and certified copy of the Suvarna khatha certificate dated 16.02.2016 issued by BBMP in 18 O.S. No.25765/2017 the name of Juggaram/plaintiff. Ex.P.13 a uttara pathra issued by the BBMP dated 16.02.2016 and Ex.P.15 also a property register extract of the year 2015-16 etc., therein appearing that the name of plaintiff as a owner and possessor of the schedule property. Ex.P.17 to 21 are the encumbrance certificates issued on 11.2.2016, 22.2.16, & 06.03.2019 by the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagara, Bengaluru, for the period from 1.4.15 to 10.2.16, 1.4.2015 to 22.2.2016, & 1.3.2019 to 6.3.2019 respectively in respect of suit schedule property and these are standing in the name of Sri.Juggaram/plaintiff and notice under Section 64 of Bangalore Development Authority Act issued by advocate on behalf of the plaintiff and acknowledgment issued by Bangalore Development Authority and also produced total 12 colour photos with one CD, which are at Ex.P.22 to 34. In the colour photographs produced by the plaintiff appears that therein constructed a buildings and also appearing residential area, in the photographs. The same are produced by stating that the said photographs are situated in a suit Sy.No.196 & 197 of Kacharakanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, wherein the suit schedule property of the 19 O.S. No.25765/2017 present suit CMC No.20, Katha No.196/197 and presently comes under BBMP khatha No.196/1/197/20, HBR 3rd Block, K.K.Halli, 10th Main Alhilal Nagar, New PID No.024-W0810-3, new BBMP Ward No.24, Bengaluru measuring East to West: 30 feet and North to South: 50 feet, and bounded by East: Private property; West by:
Private Property; North by: Road; South by: Road. Thus, the plaintiff advocate with the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and above said documents submits that from the year 2015-16 plaintiff has been paying the tax relating to the suit schedule property and also got changed the khatha of the same in his name and obtained the electricity connection and water connection and other civic amenities to the suit schedule property, which are not objected by the defendant by submitting a complaint to the concerned authority and not got cancelled the same. Therefore, the plaintiff prays to decree the suit as prayed for against the defendant. Over all, plaintiff and plaintiff witnesses denied that the suit schedule property is acquired by the BDA and allotted to its beneficiaries. In support of the case of the plaintiff, the advocate for plaintiff relied on the following rulings:-20 O.S. No.25765/2017
1) AIR 1972 Supreme Court Page 2299.
2) 1989 Vol.4 SCC 131 (Krishna Ram Mahale(Dead) by his LRs v/s Mrs.Shobha Venkat Rao).
3) AIR Supreme Court Page 1674 (Puran Singh and others v/s The State of Punjab).
4) AIR 1986 Karnataka 194 (M/s.Patil Exhibitors (Pvt.) v/s The Corporation of the City of Bengaluru).
5) AIR 1999 Karnataka 1451.
6) 2005 (2) KCCR 1134 (D.Naryanappa v/s The State of Karnataka and others).
7) ILR 2000 Joh. B James Case.
8) ILR 1990 Karnataka Page 3148 (IIM Employees Association v/s Indian Institute of Management).
9) ILR 2000 Page 435 (P.Prabhavathi and another v/s Divisional Controller and others).
10) 2005 (2) KCCR 1134.
11) ILR 2011 Karnataka Page 3657 (Sri.R.Adikesavalu Naidu and others v/s The State of Kar. By its Secretary, U.D.D. and others).
12) ILR 2011 Karnataka Page 574 (Mrs.Poornima Girish v/s Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka and others).
13) 2011 (5) KLJ 524 (Adikesavalu Naidu and others v/s State of Karnataka and others).
14) ILR 2005 Karnataka 295 (D.Narayanappa v/s State of Karnataka).21 O.S. No.25765/2017
15) AIR 1963 Bombay Page 100 (Jaiprakash Mangilal Agarwal v/s Smt.Lilabai and another).
16) AIR 1980 Kerala Page 224 (Karthiyayani Amma v/s Govindan).
All the above said citations are aptly applicable to the case of the plaintiff. During the chief-examination of P.W.1 to P.W.3 it is not stated that the defendant has acquired the suit property layout and preliminary and final notification is published about the suit schedule property and plaintiff has not legally purchased the suit schedule property from his original vendors till his purchase and also he is not in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since last 12 years. In this case, though the sufficient opportunity was given to the defendant to rebut the said documents and oral evidence of the P.W.1 to P.W.3 nobody appeared and tried to cross-examine the all the three witnesses to rebut the case of plaintiff. It is also pertinent to note that defendant has not entered into witness box to prove its defence only WS is filed. It is also crystal and clear that defendant has not produced any documents to show that the suit schedule property of the plaintiff is coming within the acquired land and it was allotted to 22 O.S. No.25765/2017 specific beneficiary and the plaintiff has illegally occupied the same by depriving the right of beneficiary etc. On the other hand, the above discussed number of citations will help to the case of plaintiff. Under such circumstances, it is crystal and clear that the defendant has not succeeded to disprove the possession, right, title and enjoyment of plaintiff over the suit schedule property and the same is proved by the P.W.1 and his witnesses P.W.2 and P.W.3 and through the above discussed plaintiff's documents Exs.P.1 to P.36. Thus, the plaintiff has successfully proved his title, settled possession and purchasing of the suit schedule property from its original owners and also a possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. However, it is appearing in this case through the oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiff he is in continuous possession of the suit schedule property from the date of purchase till filing the suit, which discloses that he is in possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, for all the above discussed reasons, I would like to say that the plaintiff has successfully proved the issue No.1 & 2; on the other hand, defendant failed to prove the issue No.3 and 4. 23 O.S. No.25765/2017 Therefore, I would like to answer issue No.1 & 2 in favour of the plaintiff as a Affirmative and issue No.3 & 4 against the defendant as a Negative.
13. ISSUE No.5: P.W.1 to P.W.3 stated in their affidavit evidence that the officials of the defendant has attempted to demolish the building of the plaintiff situated in suit property in broad day light after taking police protection on 30.05.2017 at about 10.30 a.m. and the officials of the defendant have partially demolished the house situated in the suit property without issuing notice to the plaintiff. Then the plaintiff opposed it by putting a fence with hard earned money. There is a imminent threat of dispossession interference by the defendant and also BDA at any time alienate or allot the said property to some others; if the same is done the 12 years possession and title of the plaintiff which is came from their earlier vendor; i.e., from the period of last 30 years will be loosen by the plaintiff and plaintiff will be put into hardship and monetary loss. Plaintiff is having a prima facie case over the suit schedule property with sufficient documents as above stated. Defendant made an attempt on 30.05.2017 to dispossess the 24 O.S. No.25765/2017 plaintiff from the suit property. Hence, the cause of action arose for filing this suit for seeking permanent injunction against the defendant. The above said allegations made out against the defendant not disproved in the chief-examination of the P.W.1 to P.W.3 as the defendant has not caused the interference and not partially demolished the building of the plaintiff. It is pertinent to note that only the defendant has denied the allegation of interference of the plaintiff by taking a contention that the said property is acquired by the BDA and the plaintiff is not having any right, title, interest, possession over it. On the other hand, the plaintiff has produced the number of colour photos to show that defendant has taken a steps for demolishing the portion of the plaintiff's house property situated in suit property. The above said oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 itself shows that the defendant has caused a alleged interference to the plaintiff. Further I would like to say that as already above discussed, it is held that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in settled possession of the suit schedule property, which is not at all disproved by the defendant, when the ownership and possession is with the plaintiff and the interference 25 O.S. No.25765/2017 of the defendant is also successfully proved by the plaintiff; it is clear that the plaintiff is entitled for the permanent injunction against the defendant as prayed for. Hence, I would like to answer issue No.5 in favour of the plaintiff as a Affirmative.
14. ISSUE No.6: In view of my findings given to above said issue Nos.1 to 5, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER.
Suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. Defendant and its representatives or its officials anybody claiming through the defendant are hereby permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property.
Further it is ordered that the defendant and its representatives or its officials anybody claiming through the defendant are hereby permanently restrained from demolishing, alienating or allotting the suit schedule property to any other person.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.26 O.S. No.25765/2017
Draw the decree accordingly.
(Dictation computerized by Stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 27th day of April, 2019).
(Bannikatti Hanumanthappa.R.) IV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1 - Sri.Juggaram
P.W.2 - Sri.Lokesh N.Reddy
P.W.3 - Sri.P.Shankar
List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 - C/C of sale deed dated 10.9.64
Ex.P.2 - Attested copy of family tree of
Seethamma
Ex.P.3 - C/C of death certificate
Ex.P.4 - C/C of irrevocable GPA
Ex.P.5 - C/C affidavit
Ex.P.6 & 7 - C/C of GPA with affidavit
Ex.P.8 - C/C of sale deed dated 10.2.16
Ex.P.9 - C/C of Title deeds deposit memorandum
Ex.P.10 - C/C of supplementary deed
Ex.P.11 - C/C of letter dated 7.3.19
Ex.P.12 - Khatha certificate
Ex.P.13 - Uttara pathra
Ex.P.14 - Khatha certificate
Ex.P.15 - C/C of property register extract
27 O.S. No.25765/2017
Ex.P.16 - Tax-paid receipt
Ex.P.17 to 21 - ECs
Ex.P.22 to 34 - 12 Colour photos with one CD
Ex.P.35 - Copy of notice
Ex.P.36 - Acknowledgement
List of witness examined for the defendant:
-NIL-
List of document exhibited for the defendant:
-NIL-
(Bannikatti Hanumanthappa.R.) IV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.28 O.S. No.25765/2017