Bangalore District Court
Smt.Nagarathnamma vs Sri.M.Subramanya on 1 April, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE XX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE(CCH.32), BANGALORE CITY
Present:
Sri. V.B.Suryavanshi, B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.),
XX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore
DATED THIS THE 1stDAY OF APRIL, 2017
O.S.No.7758/2016
Plaintiff: Smt.Nagarathnamma,
D/o Late Sri Angadi
Muninanjappa, Aged about 73
years, R/at No.97, Jakkur Post,
Jakkur Village, Yelahanka
Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore District.
(By Sri S.A.Rajendra, Adv)
/VS/
Defendants: 1. Sri.M.Subramanya,
S/o Late Sri Angadi
Muninanjappa,
Aged about 46 years,
R/at Jakkur village,
Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore
North Taluk, Bangalore District.
2. The Karnataka State Khadi
& Village Industries Worker's
HBCS Ltd., having its office
at No.10, Jasma Bhavan
Bangalore Rep. by its
President Sri N.Lingaraju,
3. The Karnataka State Khadi
& Village Industries
Workers' HBCS Ltd., having
its office at No.10, Jasma
Bhavan, Bangalore.
Rep.by its Special officer
Sri N.Lakshman
(D1 -By Sri Y.R.Ramesha, Adv.
D2- deleted Dt.21.11.2016
D3 by Sri Malanna K,Adv)
Date of Institution of the
08.11.2016
suit
2 O.S.7758/2016
Nature of the suit Declaration & Injunction
Date of commencement 14.02.2017
of recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment 01.04.2017
pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
00 04 23
JUDGEMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for declaration and consequential relief of injunction.
2. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that, she is the member of the Hindu Joint Family governed by the Mithakshara law and she is the co- parceners. The plaintiff is the absolute and lawful owner of the suit schedule property having acquired the same from its predecessor in title. A perusal of the Record of rights and Crop inspection issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore north taluk for the year 1993-94 to 1996-97 with respect to Sy.No.9/4 of Jakkur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk will reveal the name of the mother of the plaintiff i.e., Smt.Hanumakka W/o Sri Angadi 3 O.S.7758/2016 Muninanjappa as the owner to an extent of 1 acre 13 guntas.
2(a). A perusal for the year 1993-94 to 1996- 97 with respect to Sy.No.9/3 of Jakkur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk will reveal the name of the mother of the plaintiff Smt.Hanumakka w/o Sri Angadi Muninanjappa i.e., mother the 1st defendant and plaintiff as the owner to an extent of 38 guntas.
2(b). After the death of the original propositus i.e., late Sri Angadi Muninanjappa and Smt.Hanumakka w/o late Sri Angadi Muninanajappa's name alone is entered in the record of rights and as such got mutated IGC No.17/83-84. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are not brought on record with the net result, the 1st defendant is not the only heir who is entitled to succeed to the estate held by the mother of the plaintiff. Moreover, all the legal heirs including the plaintiff ought to have shown in the record of rights 4 O.S.7758/2016 as joint owners by deleting the name of Sri Angadi Muninanjappa.
2(c). It is also submitted that, taking undue advantage of the fact that, the name of the plaintiff is not appearing in the RTC and her innocence, the 1st defendant and mother of the plaintiff on account of manipulation ultimately succeeded in execution of registered agreement to sell in favour of defendant No.2. The mother and brother of the plaintiff do not have any legal right to sell the joint family property. The suit schedule properties are principal source of livelihood of the plaintiff family. Moreover, except the suit properties, there are no other properties for the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and the mother of the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 and mother of the plaintiff have no legal rights to sell the suit schedule properties when there are other co- parceners.
5 O.S.7758/2016
2(d). The suit schedule properties being the ancestral property belonging to the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and mother of the plaintiff and plaintiff is the joint co-owner along with the defendant No.1 and mother of the plaintiff. Moreover, there was no family necessity for the sale of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff was minor at the time of the sale without informing the plaintiff a registered agreement to sell Dt.03.08.1992 was came to be executed in favour of 2nd defendant in respect of Sy.Nos.9/3 and 9/4 of Jakkur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Under the said agreement of sale, no possession is delivered to the 2nd and 3rd defendants and possession is still with the plaintiff. The 2nd and 3rd defendants society is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property based on illegal documents which are not binding on the plaintiff as she is not the signatory to the aforesaid document. When plaintiff applied for loan for the development of land and also applied for 6 O.S.7758/2016 Encumbrance certificate, she came to know about illegal agreement of sale has been executed by the defendant No.1 and mother of the plaintiff in favour of the 2nd defendant and thereafter, they have obtained certified copy of the agreement of sale and the 2nd defendant who is in no way concerned with the suit schedule property. Moreover, in the absence of the absolute sale deed not being executed in favour of the 2nd defendant society, and by a just mere agreement of sell, the 2nd defendant cannot derive any kind of legal title much less possession. Time being the essence of contract and specific performance being not sought covered within the Limitation Act, there is every presumption in law that, the registered agreement of sale has become inoperative on account of delay, latches on the part of the 2nd defendant society, hence the agreement of sale Dt.03.08.1992 is void and unenforceable in the eye of law.
2(e). Further, it is also contended that, the 2nd and 3rd defendants is a house building co-operative 7 O.S.7758/2016 society, and have no legal rights to purchase agricultural land, the same is illegal. In the absence of State government not giving necessary permission and concurrence, the registered agreement of sale executed by the 1st defendant and mother of the plaintiff in favour of 2nd defendant society is not valid in the eye of law. Moreover, in the absence of the land not being converted for non-agricultural use, the provisions of Sec.79A & B of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, will come into play. Therefore, the agreement of sale executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 is null and void. Moreover, the 2nd defendant has not obtained necessary permission from the State government to acquire the lands.
2(f). Moreover, the 2nd and 3rd defendants are politically, financially sound and capable of doing anything at any time. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit against the defendants for declaration and consequential relief of injunction. 8 O.S.7758/2016
3. On the contrary, the 3rd defendant has filed written statement contending that, the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. It is the specific defence of the defendant No.3 that the 1st defendant has executed an agreement of sale Dt.03.08.1992, in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of Sy.No.9/3 and 9/4 of Jakkur village and the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief in view of the fact that, the plaintiff is not entitled to and is not possessed of any of the legality enforceable rights so as to seek a declaration to cancel the registered agreement of sale.
3(a). The 3rd defendant has paid total sale consideration of Rs.7,96,250/- as long back as on 03.08.1992 and no further amounts were ever plaid to the defendant.
3(b). Moreover, the 3rd defendant has admitted that, the plaintiff's name was not mentioned in the agreement of sale Dt.03.08.1992. Moreover, it is stated that, the plaintiff may be class-1 heir under the Hindu Succession Act, but in the instant case, 9 O.S.7758/2016 the agreement having been executed by their mother who is defendant No.1, the same is binding on the plaintiff and the Society in bonafide good faith did apply to the State government for according necessary approval under section 109 of the Act. But, no orders are yet passed by the State Government to purchase the suit schedule properties in the name of the 2nd and 3rd defendants society. The 2nd and 3rd defendants is under an obligation to form residential layout. Moreover, the suit schedule properties being adjacent and very close to Jakkur Flying School, the necessary NOC, permission was to be secured by the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant has left over the issue of securing proper NOC from the Jakkur Flying School. The 2nd and 3rd defendants has neither issued any legal notice nor has filed any suit for Specific Performance against the defendants and the defendants 2 and 3 have never tried to taken by force through illegal means and moreover, no possession has been given to this defendant under the agreement of sale 10 O.S.7758/2016 Dt.03.08.1992. Further, the court fee paid is not sufficient, hence prays for dismissal of the suit.
4. On the rival pleadings of the both the parties, the following issues have been framed by the court on 31.01.2017:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property of herself and defendant No.1 and they are the joint owner of the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the registered Agreement Dt: 03.08.1992 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 is barred by limitation and not binding on the plaintiff?
3. Whether the court fee paid is insufficient?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
5. What order or decree?
5. One H.D.Vishwesha, General power of attorney holder of the plaintiff has been examined as PW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and plaintiff's side evidence closed. On behalf of the defendants one Lakshman, the defendant No.3 has 11 O.S.7758/2016 been examined as DW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.D1 to D6.
6. Heard the arguments.
7. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No 2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No 3 : In the Negative
Issue No.4 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.5 : As per final order
for the following
REASONS
8. Issue Nos.1 & 2: Since, these issues being interconnected and interlinked to each other, to avoid repetition of facts and evidence, I have taken these issues together for common consideration.
9. It is very significant to note that, the defendant No.2 Society was represented by one N.Lingaraju as a President of the Society earlier and by virtue of the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the Government of Karnataka has appointed the Special officer for the Society. 12 O.S.7758/2016 Accordingly, the defendant No.2 was deleted and the defendant No.3 Society was impleaded and represented by its new President by name N.Lakshman was appointed by the Government of Karnataka.
10. This is the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for declaration and consequential relief of injunction.
11. It is the specific assertion of the plaintiff that, she is the member of the Hindu Joint Family governed by the Mithakshara law and she is the co- parceners. The plaintiff is the absolute and lawful owner of the suit schedule property having acquired the same from its predecessor in title. A perusal of the Record of rights and Crop inspection issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore north taluk for the year 1993-94 to 1996-97 with respect to Sy.Nos.9/4 and 9/3 of Jakkur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk will reveal the name of the mother of the plaintiff and 1st defendant i.e., Smt.Hanumakka W/o 13 O.S.7758/2016 Sri Angadi Muninanjappa as the owner to an extent of 1 acre 13 guntas and 39 guntas respectively.
12. After the death of the original propositus i.e., late Sri Angadi Muninanjappa and Smt.Hanumakka w/o late Sri Angadi Muninanajappa's name alone is entered in the record of rights and as such got mutated IGC No.17/83-84. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are not brought on record with the net result, the 1st defendant is not the only heir who is entitled to succeed to the estate held by the mother of the plaintiff. Moreover, all the legal heirs including the plaintiff ought to have shown in the record of rights as joint owners by deleting the name of Sri Angadi Muninanjappa.
13. It is also submitted that, taking undue advantage of the fact that, the name of the plaintiff is not appearing in the RTC and her innocence, the 1st defendant and mother of the plaintiff on account of manipulation ultimately succeeded in execution of 14 O.S.7758/2016 registered agreement to sell in favour of defendant No.2. The suit schedule properties are principal source of livelihood of the plaintiff family. The defendant No.1 and mother of the plaintiff have no legal rights to sell the suit schedule properties when there are other co- parceners.
14. Moreover, there was no family necessity for the sale of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff was minor at the time of the sale without informing the plaintiff a registered agreement to sell Dt.03.08.1992 was came to be executed in favour of 2nd defendant in respect of Sy.Nos.9/3 and 9/4 of Jakkur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. Under the said agreement of sale, no possession is delivered to the 2nd and 3rd defendants and possession is still with the plaintiff. The 2nd and 3rd defendants society is trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property based on illegal documents which 15 O.S.7758/2016 are not binding on the plaintiff as she is not the signatory to the aforesaid document. When plaintiff applied for loan for the development of land and also applied for Encumbrance certificate, she came to know about illegal agreement of sale has been executed by the defendant No.1 and mother of the plaintiff in favour of the 2nd defendant and thereafter, they have obtained certified copy of the agreement of sale and the 2nd defendant who is in no way concerned with the suit schedule property. Moreover, in the absence of the absolute sale deed not being executed in favour of the 2nd defendant society, and by a just mere agreement of sell, the 2nd defendant cannot derive any kind of legal title much less possession. Time being the essence of contract and specific performance being not sought covered within the Limitation Act, there is every presumption in law that, the registered agreement of sale has become inoperative on account of delay, latches on the part of the 2nd defendant society, hence, the 16 O.S.7758/2016 agreement of sale Dt.03.08.1992 is void and unenforceable in the eye of law.
15. Further, it is also contended that, the 2nd and 3rd defendants is a house building co-operative society, and have no legal rights to purchase agricultural land, the same is illegal. In the absence of State government not giving necessary permission and concurrence, the registered agreement of sale executed by the 1st defendant and mother of the plaintiff in favour of 2nd defendant society is not valid in the eye of law. Moreover, in the absence of the land not being converted for non-agricultural use, the provisions of Sec.79A & B of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, will come into play. Therefore, the agreement of sale executed by the defendants 1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 is null and void. Moreover, the 2nd defendant has not obtained necessary permission from the State government to acquire the lands. Hence, the plaintiff is constrained to file this suit against the defendants for declaration and consequential relief of injunction. 17 O.S.7758/2016
16. On the contrary, the defendants No.3 has filed his written statement and contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable, since the defendant No.1 has executed registered agreement of sale Dt.03.08.1992 in favour of the 2nd defendant, which is a registered document in respect of Sy.No.9/3 and 9/4 of Jakkur village, Yelahanka hobli and the 3rd defendant has paid total sale consideration of Rs.7,96,250/- and moreover, the defendants have admitted that, under the agreement of sale Dt.03.08.1992 they have not taken possession of the suit schedule properties and moreover, the defendant No.3 has also admitted that the plaintiff may be Class-I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act and the sale agreement executed by the defendant No.1 is binding on the plaintiff, hence the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable.
17. The General power of attorney holder of the plaintiff has been examined as PW.1 and he has reiterated the contents of the plaint averments in his oral testimony and PW.1 has produced Ex.P1 to P6. 18 O.S.7758/2016 Ex.P2 to P4 are the record of rights, report issued by the BBMP is marked as Ex.P5 and another report issued by the Registrar, Co-operative society is marked as Ex.P6.
18. On the contrary, the Special officer appointed by the Government of Karnataka represented to defendant No.3 got examined himself as DW.1 and he has reiterated the contents of the written statement. Further, he has stated in his evidence that, he is appointed as a Special officer for the defendant No.3 and he is representing the Society. Further, he has contended that, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society held an enquiry and during investigation, seized all the records of the society. Out of seized records of the society, he is able to trace out the copy of the agreement of sale Dt.03.08.1992 executed by Hanumakka and Subramanya M in favour of the Society in respect of the suit schedule property and moreover, the 1st defendant being the owner of the suit schedule property has executed the registered agreement of 19 O.S.7758/2016 sale in favour of the Society and the Society as on the date of entering into agreement of sale has paid sale consideration to the defendant No.1 and therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable.
19. This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for declaration declaring that the registered agreement of sale Dt.03.08.1992 is barred by limitation in view of the time being essence of the contract and also declaring that, the agreement of sale executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the Society is null and void and barred by time and also restraining the defendants from demolishing or in any way entering upon the suit schedule property.
20. It is the specific assertion of the plaintiff that, since she is the member of the Joint Hindu Family and she is the co-parceners. The defendant No.1 is the mother of the plaintiff. It is the specific assertion of the plaintiff that, she is the true absolute and lawful owner of the suit schedule property having acquired the same from its 20 O.S.7758/2016 predecessor in title and the defendant No.1 has executed the agreement of sale in favour of the defendant No.3 which is not binding on her because, she is not the signatory to the agreement of sale and at the time of execution of the agreement of sale she was minor hence, the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of agreement of sale said to have been executed by the defendant No.1in favour of the defendant No.3.
21. It is very significant to note that, though the defendant No.3 filed his written statement has unequivocally admitted that, the defendant No.1 has not handed over the possession of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant No.3-Society as on 03.08.1992 and the possession of the suit schedule property has not been taken over by the Society. Apart from that, the defendant No.3 has also admitted that, the plaintiff may be the Class-I heir under the Hindu Succession Act. So, on perusal of the record of rights issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk for the year 1993-94 to 1996- 21 O.S.7758/2016 97 in respect of Sy.No.9/4 Jakkur Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk standing in the name of Smt.Hanumakka W/o Angadi Muninanjappa to an extent of 1 acre 13 guntas. On perusal of the Record of Rights for the year 1993-94 to 1996-97 with respect of Sy.No.9/3 Jakkur village, Yelahanka hobli, Smt.Hanumakka W/o Angadi Muninanjappa has acquired the title from their ancestors to an extent of 38 guntas.
22. On perusal of the record of rights, as produced by the plaintiff i.e., Ex.P2 to P4, wherein, it discloses the name of the father of the 1st defendant as owner in respect of the suit schedule properties.
23. The plaintiff who claims to be the Class-I heirs of the defendant No.1 and on perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant No.3 wherein, the defendant No.4 also admitted that the plaintiffs may be the Class-I heir to the defendant No.1. So, once the plaintiff being the Class-I heir and the suit schedule property is being their ancestral property, the so called agreement of sale said to have 22 O.S.7758/2016 been executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of the suit schedule property is not binding on the plaintiff and apart from that, the plaintiff is not the signatory to the agreement of sale.
24. On perusal of Ex.D1, i.e., agreement of sale Dt.03.08.1992 said to have been executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.3 wherein, it is recited that, the vendors have agreed that they shall execute the absolute sale deed as when they are called upon by the purchaser to do so. Apart from that, it is also agreed between the parties that, the time is not the essence of the contract and as and when the purchaser get all the necessary permissions, approvals, orders from the competent authorities, they shall call upon the vendors to execute the sale deed. So, on perusal of the recitals of Ex.D1, i.e., agreement of sale, wherein, the said agreement of sale was executed on 03.08.1992. So, though the Ex.D1 was said to have been executed in the year 1992 itself, but till today 23 O.S.7758/2016 the defendant No.4 has not issued any legal notice to the plaintiff or the defendant No.1 calling upon them to execute regular sale deed. Apart from that, under Ex.D1 no possession was handed over to the defendant-Society in respect of the suit schedule property. So, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that, the agreement of sale Dt.03.08.1992 i.e., Ex.D1 is barred by limitation and it is an unenforceable, because even after more than 23 years, the defendant No.3 has not come forward to take any steps to see that the regular sale deed is to be executed.
25. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has vehemently argued and brought to my notice that, the defendant No.3 being the Society they are not suppose to acquire the agricultural land in view of Sec.79A & B of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. So, on perusal of the entire documents, wherein, the DW.1 has not placed any iota of evidence before the court that they have taken prior permission from the Government to acquire the agricultural lands before 24 O.S.7758/2016 entering into an agreement of sale. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, when the Society has not obtained prior permission from the Government to acquire the agricultural land, then the so called agreement of sale i.e., Ex.D1 does not create any right for conferring valid title over the Society in respect of the suit schedule property.
26. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and also keeping in mind the document Ex.D1 i.e., agreement of sale, wherein, agreement said to have been executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3-Society is not binding on the plaintiff, because the plaintiff is happen to be the Class-I heir of the defendant No.1 and apart from that, she is not the signatory to the so called agreement of sale, hence, the agreement as relied on by the Society i.e., Ex.D1 is not binding on the plaintiff and even after considerable length of time, i.e., after lapse of 23 years, the defendant Society had not taken any steps to see that, the 25 O.S.7758/2016 regular sale deed is executed. Apart from that, it is very significant to note that, since it is alleged by the defendant No.3 that, the defendant No.1 has executed agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property. But, by mere execution of the agreement of sale, no valid title over the suit schedule property will pass over in favour of the defendant No.4-Socieity unless and until a regular sale deed is been executed by the owners of the property. Moreover, the defendant No.3 Society so far has not taken permission from the Government nor form layouts in the suit schedule property. Apart from that, the defendant No.3 being a society without obtaining prior permission from the Government for acquiring an agricultural land they are not suppose to form any layout in the suit schedule property because the suit schedule property is an agricultural land. Therefore, the suit schedule property being ancestral property of the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.1 has no manner of rights what-so-ever nature to 26 O.S.7758/2016 execute the agreement of sale in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant No.3 Society without the consent of the plaintiff because she is also entitled share in the suit schedule property. With this observation, I answer issue Nos.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
27. Issue No.3: It is contended by the defendant No.3 that, the court fee paid is insufficient, but in order to substantiate this aspect, the defendant has not placed any iota of evidence nor stated in his oral evidence before the court, hence, I answer this issue in the Negative.
28. Issue No.4: In view of the findings on issue Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for. So, I answer this issue in the Affirmative.
29. Issue No.5: In view of finding on issue No.4, I proceed to pass the following 27 O.S.7758/2016 ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
It is ordered and decreed that, the registered agreement of sale Dt.03.08.1992 is barred by limitation and not binding on the plaintiff.
Further, it is ordered and decreed that, the defendant-Society or anybody on their behalf permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
Looking to the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the judgment writer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, this the 1st day of April 2017) ( V.B.SURYAVANSHI ) XX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
28 O.S.7758/2016ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Plaintiff :
PW.1 : Sri H.D.Vishwesha List of documents marked for the Plaintiff :
Ex.P1 GPA
Ex.P2 to 4 RTCs (18,19 & 4 in nos)
Ex.P5 Report issued by BBMP
Ex.P6 Report issued by Co-operative
society
Witnesses examined for the defendants:
DW.1 Sri Lakshman N Documents marked for the defendants:
Ex.D1 Agreement of sale
Ex.D2 Copy of FIR
Ex.D3 Report submitted by Asst. Registrar
Ex.D4 C/c of the order passed by the Hon'ble
High Court
Ex.D5 Appointment of special officer
Ex.D6 Members list
( V.B.Suryavanshi )
XX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY 29 O.S.7758/2016 Judgment pronounced in the open court. (vide separate judgment) Order The suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
It is ordered and decreed that, the registered agreement of sale Dt.03.08.1992 is barred by limitation and not binding on the plaintiff.
Further, it is ordered and decreed that, the defendant-Society or anybody on their behalf permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
Looking to the peculiar
circumstances of the case, the
parties are directed to bear their
own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
XX ACC & SJ,B'lore
30 O.S.7758/2016