Bangalore District Court
Mr.G.M.Solomon Raju vs Sri.H.S.Suresh on 6 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE 42nd ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH.NO.43).
PRESENT: Mr.BAILUR SHANKAR RAMA,
B.Sc., M.A., LL.B.(Spl),
nd
42 ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
Dated this the 6th day of October 2016.
O.S.No.2785/2010
Plaintiff:- Mr.G.M.Solomon Raju,
S/o.G.Mark,
Aged about 48 years,
Residing at No.S-53/1,
1st Floor, 7th Cross,
Sharadambanagar, Jalahalli,
Bangalore-560 013.
(By - Sri.M.Shanmukhappa, Adv.)
v.
Defendants:- 1. Sri.H.S.Suresh,
S/o.M.Srinivasaiah,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at No.161, 7th Main,
13th Cross, AGB Layout,
Hesaraghatta Main Road,
Bangalore-560 090.
2. Sri.Gyan Chand Bafna,
S/o.Dhanraj Bafna,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.2, 1st Main,
Chakravarthy Iyengar Layout,
2 O.S.No.2785/2010
Sheshadripuram,
Bangalore-560 020.
(D1 - Exparte
D2 - By Sri.N.Jaipraksh Rao, Adv.)
Date of institution of the suit : 20.04.2010
Nature of the suit : Permanent Injunction
Date of commencement of : 09.04.2013
Recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 06.10.2016
was pronounced
Total Duration : Years Months Days
06 06 16
(BAILUR SHANKAR RAMA)
42nd ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of permanent injunction and costs.
2. The brief facts as averred in the plaint are that:-
The property bearing Sy.No.56/13, measuring 1 acre 9½ guntas situated at Jarakabandekaval Village, Vidyaranyapura Main Road, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore 3 O.S.No.2785/2010 North Taluk, originally belonged to one Mr.Mohammed Ghouse. He has executed a General Power of Attorney dated 18.12.1996 in favour of one Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik. In the year 1997, the said GPA Holder Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik has sold the said property in favour of the plaintiff to an extent of 25 guntas and also to his brother - Mr.G.M.Isac to an extent 24½ guntas respectively under Agreements of Sale dated 16.01.1997 after receiving part consideration amount. Under the said Agreements, the plaintiff and his brother have to convert the said land into non-agricultural land with their own costs. Accordingly, the plaintiff and his brother have got converted the said land from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose in the name of Mr.Mohammed Ghouse under Conversion Order dated 27.02.1999. Subsequently, the plaintiff and his brother have developed the property with a mutual understanding and disposed off some portions of the property to the respective purchasers through GPA Holder - Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik. The plaintiff has put his signature to all the Sale Deeds as a witness. The GPA Holder of Mr.Mohammed Ghouse - Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik has executed registered Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff 4 O.S.No.2785/2010 to the remaining extent measuring 10¼ guntas in the said 25 guntas property for a valid sale consideration and was put him in vacant possession of the same under a registered Sale Deed dated 24.08.2001. During the year 2003, the plaintiff has sold some portions in 10¼ guntas to the respective purchasers under different Sale Deeds dated 27.01.2003 and 06.03.2003 and put the purchasers in possession by retaining a portion i.e., Site No.1 measuring East to West: 60 feet and North to South:96 feet, which is morefully described in the suit schedule. He has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
The respective purchasers have put up the construction of the building after obtaining building license. The plaintiff has also put up hollow bricks compound wall to the suit schedule property and dig a borewell in the north-east corner. The plaintiff submits that earlier there was a 30 feet road on the southern side and now it has been widened to 40 feet by using some portion in the above said 10¼ guntas of land. Earlier the suit schedule property comes under Ramachandrapura Group Panchayath, later on under Byatarayanapura City Municipal Council and name of the 5 O.S.No.2785/2010 plaintiff was entered in CMC records at No.367/56/13/1, subsequently it comes within the jurisdiction of BBMP and has assigned No.367/56/13/10 for the suit schedule property. By paying tax to BBMP, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff submits that the BBMP have wrongly assigned No.367/56/13/10 instead of 367/56/13/1. The plaintiff got it rectified by approaching BBMP. The defendants without having any manner of right, interest over the suit property, have tried to interfere with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment along with supporters on 18.04.2010 at about 10.00 a.m. by way of damaging the compound wall put up to the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has resisted and thwarted their attempt. He has lodged police complaint. The police have advised him to approach the court of law as the dispute is of civil nature. Hence, the suit.
3. After service of suit summons, defendant No.2 appeared through his advocate - Sri.N.Jaipraksh Rao and defendant No.1 remained absent, as such placed exparte. The defendant No.2 has filed the written statement, denying 6 O.S.No.2785/2010 all the allegations made by the plaintiff that he has purchased 25 guntas from out of 1 acre 9½ guntas in Sy.No.56/13 under Agreement of Sale and has converted into non-agricultural land, developed the property and thereafter, portion of the said property was sold through GPA Holder to Mr.Mohammed Ghouse and remaining extent i.e., 10¼ guntas, was purchased by him through Registered Sale Deed dated 24.08.2001, are not within the knowledge of this defendant. Katha is standing in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property in the erstwhile Byatarayanapura CMC and thereafter under BBMP and by paying tax to the BBMP he has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since the date of purchase, he has put up compound wall and dug a borewell, are all false and denied by defendant No.2. The allegation that on 18.04.2010 at about 10.00 a.m. this defendant and his henchmen tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and destroy the compound wall, he has lodged a complaint etc. are all false. The defendant No.2 submits that the alleged Sale Deed referred to by the plaintiff doesn't create any right, title or interest in 7 O.S.No.2785/2010 favour of the plaintiff. The possession of the plaintiff is denied. The defendant No.2 contends that one Mr.Mohammed Ghouse was originally the absolute owner of the property had converted the land bearing Sy.No.56/13 of Jarakabandekaval Village, Vidyaranyapura and has carved out sites. The said Mr.Mohammed Ghouse passed away and on his death, his sons - Mr.Mohammed Samiulla and Mr.Mohammed Shafiulla have sold site bearing No.1 and 2 carved out of converted Sy.No.56/13 in favour of Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik in terms of registered Sale Deed dated 13.08.2007. The said Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik in turn has sold schedule property to the defendants under registered Sale Deed dated 11.04.2008. The defendant No.1 has released and relinquished his undivided right, title and interest in the schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 under registered Release Deed dated 18.02.2010. Thus, defendant No.2 has acquired absolute right, title and interest and is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Katha was changed in his name and by paying tax to the BBMP he has been in enjoyment of the suit schedule property as owner and possessor thereof. During 8 O.S.No.2785/2010 the last week of June 2010, when he has been surveying the suit property, he happens to meet the plaintiff near the schedule property and he made his claim over the property and threatened defendant No.2 that he would demolish the compound wall and take possession of the suit schedule property and even attempted to damage the wall. The plaintiff on the basis of the suit and description of the suit schedule property is holding out threats of interference and dispossession of this defendant from the schedule property without having any manner of right over the same. The defendant No.2 has got prima facie case and he is the lawful 0wner in possession and the plaintiff has interfered to his possession, by giving a threat of dispossession. As such, this defendant has cause of action to raise counter claim, which has arisen from the cause of action from the plaintiff's suit. Since the plaintiff on the basis of suit and description of the suit schedule property has attempted to interfere and dispossess defendant No.2 from the schedule property and the plaintiff had attempted the damage the compound wall and commit acts of trespass on 29.06.2010. The defendant No.2 has arranged the care takers in respect of schedule 9 O.S.No.2785/2010 property to protect his possession, hence raised counter claim against the plaintiff for permanent injunction by paying requisite court fee, filing separate valuation slip.
4. Against the said counter claim raised, the plaintiff has filed rejoinder denying the allegations of defendant No.2 that original owner Mr.Mohammed Ghouse has sold site Nos.1 and 2 through registered Sale Deed in favour of Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik dated 13.08.2007 and in turn, she has sold Site Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the defendants through Sale Deed 11.04.2008 and they became owner and possessor thereof and defendant No.1 executed registered Release Deed dated 18.02.2010 in favour of defendant No.2, katha was changed in his name and by making payment of taxes to the BBMP he has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same and further allegations that during the last week of June, 2010, the plaintiff has interfered in his possession and attempted to demolish the compound wall, that was resisted by him and on that cause of action he has raised counter claim, are all false and specifically denied by the plaintiff. He has contended that he has become owner and possessor 10 O.S.No.2785/2010 through registered Sale Deed dated 24.08.2001. Therefore, there is no question of defendants 1 and 2 purchased the property on 11.04.2008 doesn't arise at all. The name of defendant No.2 entered in the katha maintained by BBMP and tax paid by him, all these documents, doesn't create any right, title, interest, much less possession, to defendant No.2. Therefore, there is no cause of action to raise counter claim in a suit filed for injunction. The defendant No.2 cannot raise counter claim on the very same cause of action. Due to escalation of price of the property in Bangalore, the defendants being the land grabbers are making attempts to knock off the suit schedule property by colluding with Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik and others with an intention to harass the plaintiff. The documents produced by defendant No.2 are all created documents. Prima facie title and possession is with the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property and he had cause of action to seek injunction to protect his lawful possession against the threat of interference and illegal dispossession in the hands of the defendants and prayed that counter claim be dismissed with costs.
11 O.S.No.2785/2010
5. Basing on the rival pleadings the following issues and additional issues are framed:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged interference of the defendants?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?
4. What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether defendant No.2 proves that he is in lawful possession of the written statement schedule property as on the date of the suit?
2. Whether defendant No.2 proves the alleged interference of the plaintiff?
3. Whether defendant No.2 is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction against the plaintiff as prayed in the counter claim?
4. What order or decree?
12 O.S.No.2785/2010
6. The plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and two witnesses on his behalf as PW-2 and PW-3 and got marked Ex.P1 to P59 and closed his side. The defendant No.2 got himself examined as DW-1 and got marked Ex.D1 to D33 and closed his side.
7. After the closure of the evidence, heard the arguments.
8. My answers to the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1:- In the affirmative.
Issue No.2:- In the affirmative.
Issue No.3:- In the affirmative.
Addl.Issue No.1:- In the negative.
Addl.Issue No.2:- In the negative.
Addl.Issue No.3:- In the negative.
Issue No.4:- As per final order
Addl.Issue No.4:- As per final order
for the following:-
REASONS
9. Issue No.1 to 3 & Additonal Issue No.1 to 3.:-
For the sake of convenience these issues are taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.13 O.S.No.2785/2010
The pleaded case of the plaintiff is that, through the power of attorney holder of original owner Sri.Mohammed Ghouse in respect of Sy.No.56/13 of Jarakabandekaval Village, Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore, he had purchased 25 guntas of land under Agreement of Sale dated 16.01.1997 and got it converted from agricultural to non-agricultural land by approaching Deputy Commissioner and developed the said land, sites were formed and out of 25 guntas purchased under Agreement of Sale, Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik being GPA Holder to Sri.Mohammed Ghouse executed Sale Deeds dated 27.01.2003 and 06.03.2003 to the purchasers and the plaintiff had retained 10¼ guntas of land i.e., site No.1 measuring East to West: 60 feet and North to South:96 feet, i.e., suit schedule property. It was purchased through registered Sale Deed dated 24.08.2001 and since then he has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, katha was standing in his name in the erstwhile Byatarayanapura CMC, later on it falls within the jurisdiction of BBMP and by making payment of taxes to BBMP he has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the said property and put up 14 O.S.No.2785/2010 compound wall and also dug a borewell. It is his case that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as owner and possessor thereof. As the defendants and their henchmen attempting to interfere to his peaceful possession and enjoyment and tried to destroy the compound and their attempt was thwarted by the plaintiff by lodging a complaint also. To protect his lawful possession from the interference of the defendants and threat of dispossession in their hands, he has filed the instant suit for the relief of permanent injunction.
10. The defendant No.2 who has contested the suit has raised counter claim denying the plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property, contending that the documents stated by the plaintiff about previous transaction are not within his knowledge. However, he admits that original Sy.No.56/13 of Jarakabandekaval Village, Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore, belonged to Mr.Mohammed Ghouse and through his Power of Attorney Holder - Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik suit schedule property was purchased by defendants 1 and 2 under registered Sale Deed dated 11.04.2008, as Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik become a owner under 15 O.S.No.2785/2010 registered Sale Deed dated 13.08.2007 and he has set up his title in respect of the suit schedule property that the joint owners - defendant No.1 has executed registered Release Deed in his favour dated 18.02.2010. Therefore, he is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and he claims that he himself has put up the compound wall and when he intends to get the same surveyed, the plaintiff came asserting that property belonged to him and threatened him of illegal dispossession by destroying the compound wall and he has raised counter claim against the plaintiff on the cause of action dated 29.06.2010 that the plaintiff by filing the suit had attempted to interfere in his possession.
11. Therefore, in this case, as the defendant No.2 has raised counter claim denying the right and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Likewise, the plaintiff also disputes the documents produced by defendant No.2 contending that all are created documents, which doesn't confer any right, title and interest and denied the possession of defendant No.2. It is necessary to appreciate both the claims made by the plaintiff against the defendants 16 O.S.No.2785/2010 and defendant No.2 against the plaintiff on the allegations made by them that both are claiming that they are in lawful possession and making allegation of interference one against another. It is necessary to appreciate, whose case is probable and who is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same as on the date of arising out of the cause of action.
12. The plaint schedule property is as follows:-
All the piece and parcel of the property bearing site No.1, BBMP No.367/56/13/1, carved out of Sy.No.56/13 of Jarakabandekaval Village (Mohammed Sab Palya), Vidyaranyapura Main Road, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring East to West: 60 feet and North to South: 96 feet and bounded on:
East by: Private property,
West by: Site No.2 to 4 sold to
B.S.Chandran, C.Arulmani Vasagam
& Smt.V.Saradhamani,
North by: Private Layout and
South by: Road.
Counter claim mentioned property by defendant No.2 is as under:-
All that piece and parcel of the residential immovable property being a vacant site bearing 17 O.S.No.2785/2010 Corporation No.1027/385/56/13/1 (old Site No.1, CMC Khata No.385/56/13/1, carved out of the residentially converted land bearing Sy.No.56/13, Jarakabandekaval Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, converted vide Official Memorandum dated 27.02.1999, No.B.Dis.ALN.SR(NA) 82/1998-99), situated at J.B.Kaval, M.S.Palya, Bangalore, Corporation Ward No.3 and including all rights, title, interest, privileges, appurtenances and the site measuring:
East to West: 55½ feet
North to South: 93 feet
Total Area: 5161.5 Square Feet
And bounded on:
East by: Private Property (Site No.1A)
West by: Private Property (Site No.2,3 & 4)
North by: Private Property and
South by: Road.
13. DW-1 in his evidence has deposed the facts on par with the written statement averments, produced Ex.D2 registered Sale Deed dated 13.08.2007 is the title document, to show that legal heirs of original owner of Sy.No.56/13 Sri.Mohammed Ghouse namely Mr.Mohammed Samiulla and Mr.Mohammed Shafiulla sold the property mentioned in the schedule of the Deed, measuring East to 18 O.S.No.2785/2010 West: 50 feet and North to South: 34 feet, covering the boundaries shown therein in favour of vendor of the defendants 1 and 2 - Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik for consideration.
Accordingly, Encumbrance Certificate - Form No.15 - Ex.D3 shows the above said transaction. Ex.D4 is the Assessment Register Extract for the year 2008-09 shows the owner's name as Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik. Ex.D5 is the Certificate issued by BBMP dated 29.07.2008 shows that the written statement mentioned property was standing in the name of Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik by virtue of Sale Deed - Ex.D2. In the evidence of DW-1, he has deposed that from the said Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik the defendants 1 and 2 have purchased the counter claim mentioned property through Registered Sale Deed dated 11.04.2008 for a consideration of Rs.41,30,000/- as per Ex.D6. The schedule mentioned in the said Deed shows the counter claim mentioned property and accordingly, payments made to BBMP as evidenced by challan - Ex.D7. Katha was transferred in the name of defendants 1 and 2 by BBMP as per Uttara Patra - Ex.D8 dated 30.07.2008. DW-1 has stated that as it was jointly purchased by defendants 1 and 2 from Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik 19 O.S.No.2785/2010 under registered Sale Deed - Ex.D6 and became owners and possessors of the property and defendant No.1 had executed registered Release Deed dated 18.02.2010, releasing his half right in the written statement mentioned property in favour of DW-1 by receiving a consideration of Rs.14,62,500/- from him as per Ex.D10. Therefore, DW-1 claims that by virtue of Ex.D6 - registered Sale Deed and Ex.D10 - registered Release Deed executed by defendant No.1 in his favour and he has become absolute owner of entire written statement mentioned schedule property. Ex.D11 is the Encumbrance Certificate. Ex.D12 is the receipt evidencing payment made for change of katha. Based on the Release Deed - Ex.D10 the written statement mentioned property was transferred in the name of defendant No.2 as per Uttara Patra dated 09.03.2010 - Ex.D13. Ex.D14 is the Certificate issued by the BBMP to the effect that property bearing No.1027/385/56/13/1 is standing in the name of defendant No.2. Ex.D15 is the Assessment Register Extract for the year 2009-10 shows the name of defendant No.2. Ex.D16 to D23 are the tax paid receipts, evidencing payment of tax in respect of 20 O.S.No.2785/2010 written statement mentioned property from the year 2008- 09 to 2015-16. Therefore, it is the contention of defendant No.2 that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of counter claim mentioned property and according to him the plaintiff is not at all in possession of the suit schedule property and the cause of action that is stated is imaginary. In fact, he has put up compound wall around the counter claim mentioned property and on 29.06.2010 the plaintiff along with his henchmen came and attempted to destroy the compound wall put up by him and that was resisted by him. As he has filed the suit for permanent injunction falsely showing that he is in possession, obtained an order of exparte status quo, that is the reason based on such acts made by him at the spot during the last week of June, 2010 with that cause of action he has raised counter claim for injunction that the documents produced by him are sufficient to prove his prima facie title and he is in lawful possession of suit schedule property and also the interference to his possession by the plaintiff.
14. The learned counsel for defendants vehemently argued that the suit filed by the plaintiff is neither based on 21 O.S.No.2785/2010 possession nor on legal title. Even there is uncertainty about the description of the property and later on, he got it amended. In his Sale Deed - Ex.P20 the extent of land is showed as 10¼ guntas bounded by:
East: Ananda Kumar's property,
West: Road,
North: Private Layout and
South: Road
and he has not produced any documents to show what was the measurement East to West and North to South with regard to the property. It was simply showed in guntas. Even if he has pointed at Ex.P11 - Sketch is not an approved layout, not issued by the Planning Authority. Therefore, he has attacked that the description of the property stated by PW-1 in his evidence as well as in the plaint on the ground that mandatory requirements under Order 7 Rule 3 of CPC has not been complied with the plaintiff. As such, the defendant has raised definite objections that the suit is bad for lack of identification regarding incomplete description given to the schedule property. Whereas, defendant No.2 has not only produced 22 O.S.No.2785/2010 the title documents as well as katha was standing in his name, nil encumbrance, clearly showing the definite boundary, extent and they are sufficient to prove before the court about the lawful possession of DW-1 in the written statement schedule mentioned property.
15. Therefore, he has relied on a decision reported in AIR 2007 Orissa 24, in the case of Bandhu Das and another v.Uttam Charan Pattanaik, wherein the lordships have ruled as follows:-
Civil P.C. (5 of 1908), O.7 R.3 -
Description of immovable property - Absence of
- Effect - Suit for declaration of title - Absence of proper description of suit land - Neither measurement in relation to settlement map given nor sketch map drawn to scale - Even, no boundaries or extent of suit land mentioned - Plaintiff failed to give plot number and boundaries, when he was asked for, in his cross- examination - Suit held incompetent for want of proper description and sufficient identification. On this point, he has relied on the decision of our own Hon'ble High Court reported in AIR 2004 KARNATAKA 23 O.S.No.2785/2010 444 in the case of Pennaiah and others v. Thippamma, wherein the lordships have ruled as follows:-
Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.34 -
Declaration of title and possession - Suit for - Documents of title relied on by plaintiff did not correspond with suit schedule property -
Plaintiff by amendment re-described suit
property in schedule - There was no
corresponding narrative pleading in plaint
explaining how earlier description of property changed - In absence of necessary pleading and proof, plaintiff is not entitled to declaration
- Defendant being in possession, relief of possession cannot be granted to plaintiff irrespective of valid title of defendant. and urged that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction and prayed that counter claim be allowed by dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff by awarding exemplary costs.
16. Much is made by defendant No.2 about the extent that is stated by the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property 60' x 96' and as he has sold 3 sites under Ex.P8 to P10 namely Site No.3 extent 30' x 50', Site No.4 extent 30' x 50' and Site No.2 extent 34' x 50', the total 24 O.S.No.2785/2010 areas works out as 4700/- square feet and Site No.1 according to the plaintiff measures 60' x 96', therefore it comes out to 5760 square feet and entire area pertains to Site No.1 to 4 is of 10460 square feet. Therefore, as per the title deed of the plaintiff registered Sale Deed Ex.P20 dated 24.08.2001 executed by the owner Sri.Mohammed Ghouse represented by his GPA Holder - Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik, the extent works out 10¼ guntas equivalent 10933 square feet. It is not in dispute that through registered Sale Deed - Ex.P20 the plaintiff has purchased 10¼ guntas in Sy.No.56/13. The evidence of the plaintiff is supported by the documents produced by him i.e., registered Sale Deeds
- Ex.P8 to P10 Site Nos.2, 3 and 4 was sold by the plaintiff in favour of respective purchasers for consideration.
17. One of the purchaser of Site No.2, who had purchased the said site for consideration from the plaintiff under registered Sale Deed Ex.P10, one B.S.Chadran examined as PW-3 has deposed in his evidence that, on 06.03.2003 he has purchased site No.2 through registered Sale Deed and had constructed 3 storied RCC roofed 25 O.S.No.2785/2010 building in the said property, katha was changed in his name and he has let out the houses to the tenant.
18. In the cross-examination of DW-1 the learned counsel for the plaintiff confronted photos - Ex.P17. He admits that it is Site No.2 and building is standing therein.
But he doesn't know the owner of the said building. If really, defendant No.2 is in actual possession of Site No.1 he should have taken pains to know about the owner of adjacent Site No.2. But one thing is clear that a specific suggestion to DW-1 in the cross-examination that plaintiff - Sri.G.M.Solomon Raju himself has sold Site Nos.2, 3 and 4, was not denied by him. He has admitted that while filing his chief affidavit he has verified the documents produced by the plaintiff. Therefore, one thing is clear that under Ex.P8, P9 and P10 through registered Sale Deeds the plaintiff has sold Site Nos.2, 3 and 4 in favour of Sri.Arul Mani Vasagam, Smt.V.Saradhamani and PW.3 - Sri.B.S.Chandran and all these Sale Deeds are dated 27.01.2003 and 06.03.2003. The title deed of the defendants alleged to have been purchased the very same Site No.1 from Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik is of Ex.D6 dated 26 O.S.No.2785/2010 11.04.2008. That means, long before defendants 1 and 2 have purchased Site No.1 under Ex.D3, the plaintiff had became owner of 10¼ guntas area and formed sites and he himself had sold Site Nos.2, 3 and 4 exercising his right as owner and possessor, can very well be gathered and he has retained Site No.1 according to the documents produced consisting 60' x 96' i.e., 5760 square feet. In the plaint itself the plaintiff has pleaded that formerly to the southern side of the site there exist 30 feet road and in the road widening process another 10 feet width from out of the Site No.1 had merged.
19. The learned counsel for defendant No.2 wanted to highlight that if 10 feet had gone in road widening process it amounts 1100 square feet, therefore the remaining extent would be 9833 square feet only. If the extent sold by him under Ex.P8, P9 and P10, from out 10460 square feet, excess of 627 square feet has not been explained by him.
20. In the cross-examination of PW-1, he admits that Ex.P11 doesn't bear any seal and it is not approved plan, 27 O.S.No.2785/2010 but the thing is that only for the purpose of, how layout was formed and what are all the properties retained by him in support of registered Sale Deeds executed by the original owner through GPA Holder, to various persons sold the sites prepared in the said layout are produced at Ex.P30 to P45. Certified copies of all those Sale Deeds are produced are of the year 2001. The present PW-1 was a witness to all these Sale Deeds, can very well be gathered. Under such circumstances, out of 10¼ guntas which was purchased by the plaintiff under Ex.P20 - registered Sale Deed and he had been in possession and enjoyment of the property as absolute owner and possessor and he himself has sold the property i.e., Site Nos.2, 3 and 4 under Ex.P8 to P10, stands proved by the evidence of PW-1 and supported by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. Formation of road to the southern side and in the widening process some portion of the suit property was also taken. If that being so, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the plaintiff 10¼ guntas is equivalent to 11162.25 square feet, the measurement showed in Ex.P8 to P10 and also site No.1 60' x 96' amounts to 10460 square feet, if that is deducted from that 28 O.S.No.2785/2010 area the remaining 702 square feet it can be said that which is merged with widening of the road towards the southern side of the suit schedule property.
21. On careful examination of the description of the property what is mentioned in Ex.P20 - title deed of the plaintiff and Ex.P8 to P10 and Ex.D6 - title deed of the defendant dated 11.04.2008, one can very well identify the property. To the west of suit schedule property: site No.2, 3 and 4 are situated and to the south: road, to the north:
Private property and to the east: private property. The photographs produced and admission given by DW-1 in the cross-examination makes it clear that suit property is clearly identifiable. We can locate the suit property taking into consideration of the boundaries and what is stated by PWs.1 to 3 as well as DW.1 in their evidence. For the very same property mentioned in the suit schedule, the defendants lay their claims that they derived title under the Sale Deed - Ex.D6 dated 11.04.2008 and katha is standing in their name. The tax paid receipt produced by them shows that they are in possession and according to 29 O.S.No.2785/2010 defendant No.2 he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property.
22. Here in the cross-examination of PW-1, to the suggestion he has categorically stated that he is ready if Court Commissioner is appointed to have local inspection of the suit schedule property to ascertain its extent and identity. But defendant No.2 has not chosen to get the Court Commissioner appointed for the said purpose. But here original documents are produced from both the sides pertains to their rival claims in respect of suit schedule property and court can ascertain the identity of the property with the boundaries stated in the registered Sale Deeds.
Therefore, difference in extent, what is made out by defendant No.2, doesn't assume much importance as suit property is identifiable. Even in the cross-examination of DW-1 he admits that his claim is in respect of the very same property which the plaintiff claims i.e., suit schedule property belonged to him and he is in possession. However, he denies the title and possession of the plaintiff and claims that he is in possession of the property. In the cross- examination of PW-1 he has stated about the registered 30 O.S.No.2785/2010 document - Ex.D6 through which defendant No.2 has purchased the property and change of katha in his name, cannot be construed that it is an admission that defendant No.2 is the owner and possessor of the property in the glaring face that the case of the plaintiff that all the documents produced by defendant No.2 towards his claim are void.
23. Therefore, in this case, learned counsel for defendant No.2 cannot made much that after amendment the plaintiff got re-described the schedule property and there was no corresponding pleading in the plaint. Here, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that originally Sy.No.56/13 of Jarakabandekaval Village, Vidyaranyapura, measuring 1 acre 9½ guntas was the ownership property of Sri.Mohammed Ghouse, who had acquired the same under the registered Release Deed dated 06.04.1978 as per Ex.P1. As per the Ex.D6 - title deed of the defendant, there itself it is mentioned that originally Sri.Mohammed Ghouse was the owner, who died on 14.10.2001. In the cross-examination of DW-1 the plaintiff has suggested his case that through Power of Attorney Holder of Sri.Mohammed Ghouse i.e., 31 O.S.No.2785/2010 Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik on the strength of GPA dated 18.12.1996 - Ex.P2 in respect of Sy.No.56/13, the plaintiff had purchased 25 guntas and remaining 24 guntas was purchased by his brother - Sri.G.M.Isac under Agreement of Sale - Ex.P3 dated 16.01.1997. It has come in the evidence that part consideration was also taken and there was understating that as PW-1 and his brother were dealing with real estate business, they should get convert the land from agricultural land to non-agricultural land and to develop at their own costs. Therefore, Ex.P2 is the GPA given by Sri.Mohammed Ghouse in favour of Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik and on the strength of GPA long back on 16.01.1997 plaintiff and his brother under Agreement of Sale - Ex.P3 have purchased and as per the terms they approached the Deputy Commissioner and get an order of conversion into non-agricultural land as per Ex.P6 dated 27.02.1999. DW-1 in the cross-examination has stated that he doesn't have any idea. But it indirectly shows that there is no dispute with regard to the said fact, which is indicative of the fact the entire land covered under Ex.P3 - Agreement of Sale dated 16.01.1997 PW-1 and his brother have dealt with the 32 O.S.No.2785/2010 said property and got converted into non-agricultural land as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner - Ex.P6 and the layout was formed and out of the said property 10¼ guntas was purchased under Ex.P20 - registered Sale Deed through the GPA Holder of Sri.Mohammed Ghouse - Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik. In the schedule itself, that there is a mention that out of 25 guntas covered under Ex.P3 after conversion and layout was formed original owner had sold 10¼ guntas of land under Ex.P20 and he has become owner and possessor, can very well be gathered. Long back on 24.08.2001 exercising his ownership right and possession, out of the said extent Site Nos.2, 3 and 4 were sold to others for consideration under Ex.P8, P9 and P10, retaining Site No.1 by the plaintiff can be gathered. That means, the lawful possession of the plaintiff in respect of 10¼ guntas area by virtue of Ex.P20 and even after he has sold Site Nos.2, 3 and 4 is proved by the original documents produced as well as the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, who are purchasers of the sites in the layout. More particularly PW.3, he has purchased Site No.2 from the plaintiff, has categorically stated that the plaintiff is the owner and 33 O.S.No.2785/2010 possessor of Site No.1, except the plaintiff no one was there in the possession of Site No.1. Because he has constructed the house, which is seen in photographs produced is admitted by DW-1. Therefore, based on his personal knowledge he has deposed about the lawful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, can very well be appreciated. Even the photographs produced by defendant No.2 i.e., Ex.D24 to D26, shows that it is a vacant site.
24. PW-1 has clarified in the plaint itself that originally Sy.No.56/13 was fallen within the jurisdiction of Byatarayanapura CMC and number was given as Khata No.367/56/13/1 and he has paid tax to Byatarayanapura CMC and later on, it has fallen to the jurisdiction of BBMP. But while giving number mistake was crept in showing it as No.367/56/13/10 and he has deposed that later on by approaching BBMP he got it rectified.
25. To substantiate his say, he has produced Ex.P12, which shows the property number No.367/56/13/01. Ex.P13 evidencing the payment of tax, but BBMP showed for 34 O.S.No.2785/2010 Site No.1 extent 96 x 60 as No.367/56/13/10. That mistake was carried in the Certificate of Ownership - Ex.P15. But all the documents produced by him are much previous the title deed - Ex.D6 of the defendants. Ex.P25 to P28 are tax paid receipts pertains to the plaintiff in respect of suit schedule property. Ex.P55 - Certificate issued by BBMP by showing correct number of property No.367/56/13/01 standing in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.P56 also shows the said fact. Ex.P57 is Assessment Register Extract maintained by Byatarayanapura shows the extent and boundary of Site No.1 showing correct katha number. Therefore, the mistake crept in while entering the number cannot be made much and Ex.P59 shows that on 01.07.2002 itself from PW-1 betterment charges were recovered from the then Byatarayanapura CMC. All these documents would go to show that it is the plaintiff has been in possession of the said property covered under the boundaries shown in the schedule. If little difference in extent is found as per the written statement schedule property with that of plaintiff's property, but it can be identified by the boundaries. Always in a suit for injunction, 35 O.S.No.2785/2010 extent doesn't assume much, boundaries would prevail over the extent.
26. Though in the counter claim raised by defendant No.2 he has sought the relief of injunction simpliciter against the plaintiff, asserting that he has become owner and possessor by virtue of Ex.D6 - Sale Deed, katha was changed in his name and he has paid tax to the BBMP and it is argued that cloud is created on the title of the plaintiff, as such he ought to have claimed the relief of declaration and consequential injunction. Here, as both have claimed one against another the relief of injunction simpliciter and the scope of the suit was not to determine the title of the respective parties. The relief is based on the possessory remedy, suffice if the plaintiff or defendant No.2 are able to prove their lawful possession and interference by the other side and the cause of action what is stated by them is proved to the satisfaction of the court, certainly the court can grant the remedy of injunction. However, under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, in the matters of such kind, though relief of injunction simpliciter is claimed, court can very well gone into the question of prima facie title. 36 O.S.No.2785/2010
27. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied on a decision reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2033, in the case of Anathula Sudhakar v. P.Buchi Reddy (Dead by L.Rs. and Others, where the lordships have ruled that:-
Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession, a suit for declaration and possession, with or without a consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an interference with plaintiff's lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter Here the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff manifestly makes it clear that under Agreement of Sale Ex.P3 he has purchased 25 guntas on 16.01.1997 and developed the property by getting Conversion Order from the Deputy Commissioner, layout was formed and in the said layout several sites were sold to different others through registered Sale Deeds at Ex.P30 to P45, for which he is a witness and 10¼ guntas was purchased under registered Sale Deed from the original owner 37 O.S.No.2785/2010 Sri.Mohammed Ghouse through his GPA Holder - Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik. According to the defendants 1 and 2 they also purchased the property from the very said Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik under Ex.D6. But question is Ex.P20 was the Sale Deed of 24.08.2001 and events happened prior to it goes to show that the plaintiff's lawful possession over the suit schedule property stands proved atleast from the date of Ex.P20 on 24.08.2001 and katha was changed in his name in CMC, Byatarayanapura and betterment charges was paid by him, tax was paid and subsequently in BBMP his name was entered and he has been making payment of taxes, stands proved by the documentary evidence produced. He has put up compound wall is seen from the photographs and he has dug out borewell. In the cross- examination of DW-1 he has not denied the existence of borewell, but has stated that he doesn't know who has dug out the borewell. According to him much previous to the purchase of property under Ex.D6 the said borewell was existed in Site No.1. In Ex.D6, there is no mention about the borewell dug out by his vendors. Therefore, it is clear that PW-1 what he has stated he has dug out borewell has 38 O.S.No.2785/2010 grain of truth. At no point of time he was dispossessed either by Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik or original owner - Sri.Mohammed Ghouse and after his death, by his legal heirs. If that being so, question of Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik, who was well aware of the fact that the plaintiff is in possession of Site No.1 under Ex.P20 by virtue of the Sale Deed executed by her only and after the death of Sri.Mohammed Ghouse on 14.10.2001, again purchase of Site Nos.1 and 2 from the legal heirs of the Sri.Mohammed Ghouse in her favour and through her, the defendants 1 and 2 have purchased the same under registered Sale Deed -
Ex.D6 doesn't arise at all. Nothing is forth coming on record to show that the plaintiff was dispossessed by the original owner or his legal heirs. Because Ex.P20 dated 24.08.2001 was the Sale Deed executed during the lifetime of Sri.Mohammed Ghouse, original owner through his GPA Holder and possession was delivered, free from all encumbrances and there are instances before the court that PW-1 has exercised his right by executing registered Sale Deeds and sold Site Nos.2, 3 and 4 under Ex.P8 to P10, 39 O.S.No.2785/2010 which is proved by the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, independent witnesses examined in this case.
28. The cross-examination of DW-1 goes to show that he has not denied the purchase of 10¼ guntas from Sri.Mohammed Ghouse by the plaintiff and PW-1 has developed the entire Sy.No.56/13. But, DW-1 has only showed his ignorance about those facts that he has no idea. He admits that in his Sale Deed while showing the boundary Site No.1A is mentioned to the East of the property. But in the Release Deed it is mentioned as private property (Site No.1A). But other records do not disclose the same as the eastern boundary. For that he has stated that the vendor has disclosed that in the earlier document of the vendor it is mentioned as 1A. That means, some mischief was done by Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik and sons of deceased Sri.Mohammed Ghouse, through whom Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik purchased the Site No.1 under Ex.D2 dated 30.08.2007. Therefore, Mr.Mohammed Samiulla and Mr.Mohammed Shafiulla, who are the sons of Sri.Mohammed Ghouse, do not have any right to execute such Sale Deed in favour of Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik. Because during the lifetime of Sri.Mohammed 40 O.S.No.2785/2010 Ghouse only under Agreement of Sale PW-1 and his brother taken possession and developed entire Sy.No.56/13, sites were formed and Sale Deeds were executed and extent of property purchased under the Sale Deed - Ex.P20 during the lifetime of Sri.Mohammed Ghouse by PW-1 and the plaintiff is in possession since then, can be gathered from records from CMC, Byatarayanapura and entries in the Encumbrance Certificates and tax paid receipts. Therefore, once it is established before the court that the plaintiff was never been dispossessed at any point of time from out of Site No.1 i.e., suit schedule property, certainly he can maintain a suit for injunction against the defendants. Because on the strength of Sale Deed - Ex.D6 of 2008, subsequently they got entered their names in katha maintained by BBMP, payment of tax etc., under these circumstances cannot be regarded as an evidence to prove their lawful possession. At the best it can be said that, only on papers name of defendant No.2 is seen. Apart from it, in the cross-examination of DW-1 he has simply stated that he has never verified the Encumbrance Certificate and only believed the say of Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik and purchased Site 41 O.S.No.2785/2010 No.1. Had he been tried to ascertain what is the true state of affairs he would have come to know the purchase of sites by others, their names have been entered, especially Site Nos.2, 3 and 4 sold by whom and Site No.1 was standing in whose name etc., as on the date of execution of Ex.D6. The learned counsel has confronted the Encumbrance Certificate in the cross-examination he admits that there is an entry in respect of Sale Deeds executed and name of the purchasers and the transaction. He has simply stated that he believed the words of Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik. Therefore, it can be said that the documents produced by defendant No.2 cannot be considered to prove his lawful possession over the suit schedule property. In the glaring face that since the date of Ex.P20 dated 24.08.2001, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and put up compound wall, dug out borewell and the say of the DW-1 that he has put up compound wall and in possession, cannot be appreciated at all. Therefore, in reality, evidence goes to show that the defendants' title is defective and it is under cloud. Filing counter claim for the relief of injunction simpliciter against the plaintiff under these circumstances 42 O.S.No.2785/2010 cannot be appreciated at all. As such, it is held that the plaintiff has proved his prima facie title as well as lawful possession over the suit schedule property.
29. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied on a decision reported in 2002(5) Kar.L.J. 55 (DB), in the case of Veerabhadrappa and another v Jagadishgouda and others, wherein the lordships have ruled that:
"The well settled principle is that if there is a competition between registered documents relating to the same property, the document first in order of time has priority over the other, though the former document may not have been registered until after the latter. Here in this case, the plaintiff's lawful possession of the suit schedule property is substantially proved from the registered documents executed by the original owner through his GPA Holder and subsequent documents and exercise of his right and he has been in possession and enjoyment is proved by the independent witnesses i.e., PWs.2 and 3 who have also purchased the sites in the said layout, with their personal knowledge they have deposed before the court that the plaintiff has developed the said 43 O.S.No.2785/2010 layout and purchased 10¼ guntas of land by him under Ex.P20 and also spoken to the effect that the defendants have interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff on the strength of the documents relied by DW-1. In fact, those documents cannot be regarded as a proof to prove his lawful possession over the suit schedule property. Therefore, plaintiff's title deed has got priority over the documents relied by defendant No.2 to prove his lawful possession over the suit schedule property.
30. One more decision relied by the learned counsel for the plaintiff reported in ILR 2005 KAR 5155, in the case of Putlabai vs Vaijnatha and others, it is held that "The question as to whether the relief of declaration of title has to be sought depends on the facts of each case and if the title of the plaintiff is unassailable and obvious, declaration of title need not be sought for". Here, for the reasons recorded herein above the documents relied by defendant No.2 are questionable and assailable under law, because vendors of the defendants were not at all in possession as on the date of Ex.D2 or Ex.D6, because during the lifetime of Sri.Mohammed Ghouse itself, the 44 O.S.No.2785/2010 plaintiff has acquired title and possession under Ex.P20. Therefore, the plaintiff not only proved the prima facie title, but also lawful possession over the suit schedule property. It is also proved by other documents, entries in the records, supported by the evidence of independent witnesses.
31. Apart from it, the very assertion by the defendants claiming that they are in lawful possession of the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has interfered in their possession, itself is an instance to show that there is an onslaught over the lawful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property by the plaintiff in the hands of the defendants. PW-1 has deposed in his evidence that Mrs.Zuleikha Karnik by colluding with the defendants have created the fraudulent documents and they being land grabbers are making attempts to knock of the suit schedule property on the strength of created documents and they started harassing him and on 18.04.2010 the defendants along with their supporters at about 10.00 a.m. interfered with the possession and damaging the compound wall put up by him around the suit schedule property. Though he had approached the police, they advised him to approach 45 O.S.No.2785/2010 the court as the dispute is of civil nature. With that cause of action he has filed the suit. Here, in the counter claim raised by defendant No.2 he has contended that cause of action has arisen from out of the cause of action of the plaintiff suit since the plaintiff on the basis of the suit and the description of the suit schedule property has attempted to interfere and dispossess defendant No.2 from the schedule property and the plaintiff had on 29.06.2010 attempted to damage the compound wall and commit acts of trespass. Here, the defendant No.2 cannot take advantage of filing the suit for injunction simpliciter by way of counter claim, that is not available for him. That the pleadings goes to show that on the strength of the suit filed on 29.06.2010 according to defendant No.2 plaintiff has interfered with his possession. PW-1 has deposed in his cross-examination that no such instances happened on 29.06.2010 as alleged by DW-1. Here, defendant No.2 has failed to prove that he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule property and put up compound wall. Therefore, question of plaintiff after filing the suit getting an order of status quo, again on 29.06.2010 has interfered with the 46 O.S.No.2785/2010 possession of defendant is purely imaginary and cannot be believed at all. Ex.D32 the complaint given by DW-1 before Sub Inspector of Police and Ex.D33 - acknowledgement given by the police, doesn't in any way helpful to the case of defendant No.2 for the reasons it is held that defendant No.2 failed to prove that he is in lawful possession of the schedule property. Therefore, Ex.D28 to D31 produced by him, shows that the plaintiff had approached the Commissioner, BBMP to correct the katha in accordance to the entries standing in his name maintained by CMC, Byatarayanapura in respect of Site No.1 and action taken by the Authorities concerned. The defendant No.2 cannot take advantage of the same to his benefit. Therefore, it is held that absolutely there are no grounds to entertain the allegations made by defendant No.2 against the plaintiff to grant the relief claimed in the counter claim.
32. For the reasons discussed hereinabove it is held that defendant No.2 has failed to prove Addl.Issue No.1 to
3. The plaintiff has proved not only that he is in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also defendants have interfered to his possession and there 47 O.S.No.2785/2010 is a threat of interference and illegal dispossession from the hands of the defendants. Therefore, it is needless to say that the plaintiff is in lawful possession over the suit schedule property and interference to his enjoyment by the defendants. As such, it is necessary to protect his possession as he has proved that there is a actual threat of interference and he apprehends illegal dispossession from the hands of the defendants. Hence, it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 to 3 in the affirmative and Addl.Issue No.1 to 3 in the negative.
33. Issue No.4 & Addl. Issue No.4:- For the forgoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is hereby decreed with costs.
The defendants, their agents, servants, henchmen, legal representatives, successors in interest, heirs, attorney holder or anybody acts under them, are hereby restrained 48 O.S.No.2785/2010 from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in any manner by way of permanent prohibitory injunction.
The counter claim raised by defendant No.2 in the written statement seeking permanent injunction against the plaintiff is accordingly dismissed.
Draw a decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer on computer, typed by her, the transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me, in open Court, this the 6th day of October 2016) (BAILUR SHANKAR RAMA) 42ND ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff's side:
PW.1 - Mr.G.M.Solomon Raju PW.2 - Mr.G.Sushanth Kumar PW.3 - Mr.B.S.Chandran
(b) Defendants' side:
DW.1 - Mr.Gyan Chand Bafna 49 O.S.No.2785/2010 II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P1 : Certified copy of Release Deed
dated 05.04.1978
Ex.P1(a) : Typed copy
Ex.P2 : Certified copy of GPA
Ex.P3 : Sale Agreement dated 16.01.1997
Ex.P4 & 5 : Cash Receipts
Ex.P6 : Certified copy of Conversion Order
dated 27.02.1999
Ex.P7 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
24.08.2011
Ex.P8 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
27.01.2003
Ex.P9 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
27.01.2003
Ex.P10 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
06.03.2003
Ex.P11 : Layout Plan
Ex.P12 : Assessment Register Extract
Ex.P13 : Tax Paid Challan
Ex.P14 : Assessment Register Extract
Ex.P15 : Katha Certificate
Ex.P16 : Tax Paid Receipt
Ex.P17 & 18 : 2 photographs
Ex.P19 : CD
Ex.P20 : Original Sale Deed dated
24.08.2001
Ex.P21 & 22 : Cash Receipts
Ex.P23 : Assessment Register Extract
Ex.P24 : Katha Certificate
Ex.P25 : Tax Paid Challan
Ex.P26 to 28 : Tax Paid Receipts
Ex.P29 : Encumbrance Certificate
Ex.P30 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
02.09.1999
Ex.P31 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
02.09.1999
Ex.P32 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
27.10.1999
50 O.S.No.2785/2010
Ex.P33 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
18.10.2000
Ex.P34 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
18.10.2010
Ex.P35 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
23.08.2001
Ex.P36 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
23.08.2001
Ex.P37 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
23.08.2001
Ex.P38 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
23.08.2001
Ex.P39 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
23.08.2001
Ex.P40 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
23.08.2001
Ex.P41 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
23.08.2001
Ex.P42 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
24.08.2001
Ex.P43 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
30.05.2001
Ex.P44 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
30.05.2001
Ex.P45 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
30.05.2001
Ex.P46 & 47 : Affidavits
Ex.P48 & 49 : Form 1
Ex.P50 & 51 : Assessment Register Extracts
Ex.P52 : Tax Paid Receipt
Ex.P53 & 54 : Endorsements
Ex.P55 : Katha Certificate
Ex.P56 & 57 : Assessment Register Extracts
Ex.P58 : Tax Paid Receipt
Ex.P59 : Receipt for payment of
developmental charges
(b) Defendants' side:
Ex.D1 : Encumbrance Certificate
Ex.D2 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
13.08.2007
51 O.S.No.2785/2010
Ex.D3 : Encumbrance Certificate
Ex.D4 : Assessment Register Extract
Ex.D5 : Katha Certificate
Ex.D6 : Original Sale Deed dated
11.04.2008
Ex.D7 : Challan for payment
Ex.D8 : Uttara Patra
Ex.D9 : Katha Certificate
Ex.D10 : Original Release Deed dated
18.02.2010
Ex.D11 : Encumbrance Certificate
Ex.D12 : Katha Transfer Fee
Ex.D13 : Uttara Patra
Ex.D14 : Katha Certificate
Ex.D15 : Assessment Register Extract
Ex.D16 to 23 : Tax Paid Receipts
Ex.D24 to 27 : 3 Photos along with CD
Ex.D28 : Enquiry Notice dated 11.06.2015
Ex.D29 : Final Enquiry Notice dated
28.03.2016
Ex.D30 : Request Application submitted to
cancel Katha
Ex.D31 : Endorsement issued by BBMP
Ex.D32 : Police Complaint
Ex.D33 : Acknowledgement
42nd ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU.
52 O.S.No.2785/2010
(Judgement pronounced in the open
Court and order portion of the same
is extracted as under)
ORDER
Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants is hereby decreed with costs.
The defendants, their agents, servants, henchmen, legal representatives, successors in interest, heirs, attorney holder or anybody acts under them, are hereby restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in any manner by way of permanent prohibitory injunction.53 O.S.No.2785/2010
The counter claim raised by defendant No.2 in the written statement seeking permanent injunction against the plaintiff is accordingly dismissed.
Draw a decree accordingly.
(BAILUR SHANKAR RAMA) 42nd Addl.CC& SJ, Bangalore.