Bangalore District Court
Mr.A.Jacob vs Mrs. Liza on 13 April, 2018
C.R.P. 67] Government of Karnataka
Form No. 9
(Civil)IN THE COURT OF V ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND
Title Sheet for XXIV A.C.M.M.
Judgment in Court of Small Causes Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.
Suits (SCCH.20)
Present: Smt.A.G. Shilpa, B.A., LL.B,
V Addl. Small Causes Judge,
& XXIV A.C.M.M.
Dated this the 13th day of April 2018.
S.C.No.15384/2013
Plaintiff/s : Mr.A.Jacob
S/o Anthony
Aged about 63 years
Residing at No.115, 80 feet road,
Behind Ashwin Wine store,
Rajendra Nagar
Koramangala, Bangalore - 560047
V/s
(By pleader Barrot & Barrot
Avocates
Defendant/s Mrs. Liza
W/o Late Thangaraj
Major
Residing at No.671
22nd cross, Lakshmanarao Nagar
Vivekanagar post
Bangalore - 560047
(By pleader Sri R
Venkatesh
SCCH-20 2 SC.No.15384/2013
Date of Institution of the suit : 27.09.2013
Nature of the suit(Suit on
Pronote, suit for declaration and
Possession, suit for injunction, etc.,) : Ejectment
Date of the commencement of recording
of the evidence : 27.11.2014
Date on which the judgment was : 13.04.2018
Pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Days
04 06 19
Additional Judge.
Note: The names and descriptions of all the plaintiff's and
defendants as stated in the plants should be mentioned.
JUDGEMENT
This is a suit for directing the defendant to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property by way of mandatory injunction and directing the defendant to pay damages of Rs.54,750/- for use and occupation of the suit schedule property and further directing the defendant to pay Rs.150/- per day for use and occupation of schedule property upto the till surrendering the vacant possession to plaintiff.
SCCH-20 3 SC.No.15384/20132. Brief averments of the plaint are as under:
The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property bearing No.671, 22nd cross, Lakshmanrao nagar, viveknagar post, Kormangala, Bangalore - 560047 same was allotted by the corporation city of Bangalore as on 06.04.1978 and by virtue of court by the Judgment and decree in OS No.6236/1996 (CCH-
13) holding and declaring the plaintiff as owner of schedule property. The plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The defendant being his relative and widow requested him to stay in the premises for 6 months in the year 2003.
The plaintiff permitted defendant to stay as she was having financial problem and the defendant is in permissive occupation and possession of the schedule property. The permission was withdrawn by the plaintiff by issuing a legal notice dated 24.07.2013 and RPAD calling upon the defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of schedule property and to pay damages for use and occupation @ Rs.150/- per day till the defendant vacate the schedule premises to the plaintiff. The defendant refused notice. The defendant is in unlawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the he is liable to pay damages for the use and occupation of the same from 24.07.2012 upto date of the suit amounting to Rs.54,750/- @ Rs.150/- per day for one year and the defendant SCCH-20 4 SC.No.15384/2013 is also liable to pay damages for the use and occupation of the schedule property @ Rs.4,500/- per month. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed this suit for ejectment of the defendant from the suit schedule property.
3. In pursuance of the summons, the defendant has appeared before the court through her counsel and filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint as false. The defendant has submitted that she is the wife of late Thangaraj is not correct. The Plaintiff Mr.A.Jacob, son of Anthony is also dead, no such person by name A.Jacob, son of Anthony is alive to present and file the present case. The defendant is the wife of said A.Jacob. The name of father of the defendant is one Thangaraj, who is no more and the description of the name of the defendant as wife of late Thangaraj as shown by the so called plaintiff is to knock off the property of the defendant. The defendant further submits that one Anthony, who is the son of the elder brother of the husband of the defendant filed the above suit, falsely, by misrepresenting that he is Mr. A.Jacob, son of Anthony. It is further submits that there are two sons for the defendant and her late husband A.Jacob, namely Peter and Charles, who are residing in the suit schedule property along with the defendant.
SCCH-20 5 SC.No.15384/2013It is further submitted that the property No.671, 22nd Cross, Lakshman Rao Nagar (L.R.Nagar) viveknagar post, Bangalore, is the property of the husband of the defendant Mr.A.Jacob, son of Anthony. The defendant submits that the boundaries shown by the plaintiff in the schedule of the plaint are all false. The actual boundaries for the suit schedule property is :
East by : Property bearing No.632
West by : Cross road (Galli)
North by : Road, and
South by : House No.670
The property situated to the southern side of the suit schedule property belongs to the father of the defendant by Thangaraj. The plaintiff is an utter stranger to the suit schedule property.
The averments of the plaintiff stated at Paragraph No.3 I the plaint that the Hon'ble Court declared that the plaintiffA Jacobb filed the case took an order against the defendant one Thangaraj S/o Arokyaswamy is hereby derived as false. The defendant submits that the said Thangaraj S/o Argyaswamy is the father of the present defendant and further the said Thangaraj dies in the year 1985 and Judgment and decree passed on 9.12.1998 against the dead person can not be looked into the defendant and the parents of the defendant one SCCH-20 6 SC.No.15384/2013 Thangaraj and Theresamma both of them died in the year 1987 and 2006 respectively.
The defendant further submit that the husband of the defendant namely A.Jacob son of Anthony died 11.02.2005 at his residence No.671, 22nd cross,LR Nagar, Bangalore - 560047. After death the Jacob the defendant along with her sons are the absolute owners in possession of the suit schedule property. There are two small shops facing the main road towards the northern side of the suit schedule property.
The plaintiff Mr.A.Jacob son of Anthony is also dead, no such person by name A.Jacob son of Anthony is alive to present and file the present case. The name of father of the defendant is one Thangaraj who is no more and the description of the name of the defendant as wife of Late Thangaraj as shown by the so called plaintiff is to knock off the property of the defendant. The defendant filed the above suit, falsely by misrepresenting that he is Mr.A.Jacob son of Anthony and there are two sons for the defendant and her later husband A.Jacob namely peter and Charles, who are residing in the suit schedule property along with defendant.
The averments of plaintiff stated in para 7 of the plaint that the defendant is liable to pay damages to the plaintiff for SCCH-20 7 SC.No.15384/2013 the use and occupation at Rs.4,500/- per month. The defendant submits that defendant being the successor in the suit schedule property form the defendant husband residing in the suit schedule property need not pay any amounts to the so called plaintiff.
The defendant has denied the all plaint allegations made against him and as false. Frivolous and vexatious and the said Anthony posing himself as A.Jacob son of Anthony, who is dead want to knock off the property of deceased A.Jacob, enjoyed by the defendant and her sons. The defendant submits that present plaintiff posing himself as A.Jacob S/o Anthony have filed suit in OS No.6236/1996 before Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore against one Thangaraj S/o Arogyaswamy who is the father of the defendant and obtained exparte judgment on 19.12.1998 declaring himself as the owner of suit schedule property and further ordered to deliver vacant possession of suit schedule property. Hence, she has sought for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.
4. During the evidence, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.P1 to P7(a). The defendant was examined as DW.1 and examined one witness as DW-2 and got marked documents as Ex.D1 to 37.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
SCCH-20 8 SC.No.15384/20136. Now, the points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the suit is maintainable in law?
2. Whether the plaintiff has proved that the plaintiff is landlord and defendant is tenant?
3. Whether the plaintiff proved that the tenancy of the defendant is duly terminated u/s 106 of TP Act?
4. What order or decree?
7. My answer to the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 & 2 : In Negative Point No.3 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
8. POINT NO.1 and 2: At the out set, the plaintiff has filed this suit seeking relief in the form of mandatory injunction, for ejectment of the defendant from schedule property and secondly he is seeking relief of damages of rs.54,750/- for occupation of suit schedule property. It is case of plaintiff that he is Mr. A.Jacob S/o Anthony aged about 63 years residing at No.115, 80 feet road, Behind Ashwin Wine store, Rajendra Nagar, Koramangala, Bangalore - 560047. He claim to be absolute owner of schedule property which is allotted to him by city corporation as on 06.04.1978 and also by virtue of SCCH-20 9 SC.No.15384/2013 Judgment and decree in OS No.6236/1996 holding and declaring him as owner of schedule property.
9. To substantiate the claim plaintiff has tendered oral and documentary evidence from Ex.P1 to 7. I have gone through all. The PW-1 has produced Ex.P1 and 2 Judgment and decree in OS No.6236/1996. Now I see Ex.P1 it is suit filed by plaintiff herein by Mr.A.JACOB S/o Anothony against Thangaraj S/o Arogyaswamy seeking relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. The suit was decreed exparte. The suit was filed on 04.09.1996 and final order was passed on 19.12.1998. The PW-1 during cross examination on 28.03.2017 admitted that and Thangaraj was dead in the year 1985. Therefore, it becomes clear that OS No.6236/1996 was field against dead man and as expected the suit was decreed exparte.
10. Per contrary to claim of plaintiff, the defendant in her written statement took contention that Mr.A.JACOB is defendant's is hi wife and Thangaraj is the father of defendant who also expired. The defendant assert that plaintiff is none other than Anthony who is son of her husband, elder brother and he has filed suit impersonating Mr.A.JACOB S/o Anthony, i.e., defendant's husband.
SCCH-20 10 SC.No.15384/201311. Now, let me analyze some material evidence of PW-1. The PW-1 admitted defendant that defendant is her uncle's wife. The PW-1 was addressing Mr.Arulappa as his uncle. The Arulappa's wife is not defendant. It is the contention of defendant that plaintiff is Anthony @ Anthony swamy. Though PW-1 denied the same, but he has born in 1947 at Tamil Nadu, Oideyath village, Widthur District. He is holding Election ID and house in the said village. It is under the constituency Thirukolu. The PW-1 evidence is found oscillating often. Firstly he admitted his place birth and voting and sensing something adverse, he denied it. He is Anthony @ Anthony swamy and now he is estopped from denying it. It is best piece of evidence U/s 21 of Indian Evidence Act 1872, The PW-1 admits of his identification proof, i.e., election ID card of Thirukolur constituency and it is suppressed in evidence. The Ex.D2 was confronted to PW-1 during cross examination. It is xerox copy of application for including his name in Electoral roll. The PW-1 admits in it his name and photo. In view of admission the document got marked as Ex.D2. PW-1 admits the application for inclusion of his name in election ID. The electoral list of her family is confronted to the witness. He identified his photo. In view of admission it got marked as Ex.D3. The PW-1 suddenly grim to question and stated due to poor vision he is unable to identify his wife and daughter, the photo in Sl.No.715 and 716. Its translation copy marked as Ex.D3(a). The name of plaintiff is SCCH-20 11 SC.No.15384/2013 Anthony Swamy S/o Savari Muthu and his wife Jesintha Mary from Thirukovilur constituency. It is a certified copy of documents issued by Assistant Electoral officer during 19.07.2016 which is relevant and identification proof of plaintiff.
12. The PW-1 studied up to 10th standard atArkada, Tamil nadu. He knows to read and write Tamil only and can speak Kannada but can't write and read Kannada. This also indicate plaintiff hail from Tamilnadu. He never lived at suit schedule property. The PW-1 has no impediment to produce his school certificate to court which can reveal he son of Anthony or Savarimuthu. The PW-1 was also demanded to produce at least death certificate of his mother and PW-1 stated there is no such death certificate, since she died many years back. According to PW-1 his wife Jacinta Mary and father is Arpudham and mother name is Susie Mary. All his six children are educated. At least their school certificate could be produced to court to know actual name of plaintiff.
13. Be that as it may, the plaintiff is married with jesintha Mary D/o Arbhudam to place on 25.04.1977 at St Xavier's Church at Thirukovilur Taluka, Villupuram Distric, Tamil nadu and Ex.D1 is the marriage certificate admitted by him. Even in the said documents his name is mentioned as Anthony. S/o of Savarimuthu and Anna Mary. He was married at St. Xavier SCCH-20 12 SC.No.15384/2013 Church at Arkada. Ex.D.1 is also issued under the seal and signature of St Xavier Church Mugayur post, Thirukovilur T.K, Villupuram District. Ex.D4 is the wedding invitation and Ex.D4(a) translation copy which even otherwise denied or disputed by PW-1. As per Ex.D4(a) the only son of A.Savarimuthu by name Anthony swamy was married to daughter of Arpudham and marriage with jesintha Mary at St Xavier Church Mugayur. The defendants are the member of Infants Jesus Church, whereas the PW-1 is member of Parish Priest church in his village at Tamil nadu. The Ex.D5 is Baptism certificate of PW-1 and his name is Anthony son of Savari Muthu and Mother is Anna Mary. All these documents goes to show that plaintiff was never residing in address given in cause title. He has willfully suppressed ID proof of himself, his wife and son. The PW-1 has refused to produce aforesaid documents. When the evidence and documents produced by the defendant ensemble goes to show that PW-1 was willfully suppressing his identity, he went on denying the fact of his descent from Tamilnadu. Even his gas connection is not his name, but in his wife name yet he was not able to produce the said document since he claimed it was at his native place. He was holding a Bank account, Ration card & Adhaar card and none of it are produced until date. He did not remember the year when he came to Bangalore. His paternal uncle Jacob was alive and residing at Bangalore. PW-1 also does not know SCCH-20 13 SC.No.15384/2013 history related to suit schedule property and earlier in the locality wherein schedule property is located was once called Nayee Doddi and Saveera Jopadi. The slum was created in the year 1975 and all the huts were burnt in 1982-1985. The corporation had formed proper lane and built small houses. The PW-1 claim that he was residing in Bangalore and own schedule property by virtue of allotment letter of issued on 06.04.1978. The PW-1 could not place cogent evidence or small details of suit schedule property.
14. It is case of defendant that Jacob is the original allotee of House No.670 and he is the son in law of Tangaraju. When the plaintiff filed uit in OS No.6236/96, the plaintiff had pleaded that Tangaraju therein is his cousin brother and summons issued to Tangaraju in OS No.6236/96 was served by way of affixture. But, the Tangaraju was already dead in the year 1985. The original allotee Jacob had filed suit in OS No.10359/1983 in Court Hall No.20th Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall against one John Jesudas which was decreed in favour of original allotee Jacob on 12.01.1988. The plaintiff's father Savari Muthu is elder brother of Original allotee A.Jocob. The PW-1 was well aware of the entire proceedings between A. Jacob and John Jesudas. The plaintiff by giving wrong address has managed to get suit in OS No.6236/1996 exparte decree. The notice was also issued to Lisa on her address door No.670.
SCCH-20 14 SC.No.15384/2013The PW-1 admit defendant is wife of A.Jacob and he lived in Door No.671, 22nd cross, LR Nagar, Bangalore Now PW-1 is estopped from denying the same. The PW-1 is well acquainted with A.Jocob and his family. He has lodged complaint before Adugodi police station, which was closed by filing B report. He does not reveal the registration number, court wherein PCR was filed. The charge sheet if any, is not produced. All these factors indicate clearly PW-1 evidence is not reliable and he has deposed false before court to suppress his identity.
15. It is settled law that for a dead man can not be sued but his Legal heirs can be sued in his properties. Thangaraj had died before filing OS No.6236/-1996 and trial of Judgment and decree not liable on a dead man estate and his Legal representatives are not bound by the judgment. Suit is not filed against survived Legal heirs and cannot be enforced against them.
16. The schedule property described as property bearing No.671, 22nd cross, Laxmanrao nagar, viveknagar post, Koramanagala, Bangalore - 560047 measuring 15X20 bounded on :
East by : House No.632 Sajida
West by ; House No.672 Mumtaz
North by : Road and
South by : House No.670 of Thangaraj
SCCH-20 15 SC.No.15384/2013
17. The plaintiff claim that he acquired suit schedule property by virtue of allotment by Corporation city, Bangalore as on 06.04.1978. Per contra, the defendant in para No.2 of written statement contended that property is same and property of defendant's husband Mr.A.Jacob son of Anthony and boundaries shown by the plaintiff are false. Actual boundaries for suit schedule property are as follows:
East by : property bearing No.632 West by : Cross road (Galli) North by; Road and South by; House No.670.
18. From evidence, it is clear the property situated to southern side of suit schedule property belongs to the father of defendant by name Thangaraj. However, the plaintiff is claiming right, title, interest over property bearing No.671 wherein defendant is having rival claim. The plaintiff has produced Ex.P8 application under right to information act 2005. The certified copy of possession certificate of property, . Ex.P9 EC of property bearing No.670 goes to show towards north is suit schedule property bearing No.671. The father of defendant is granted property bearing No.670 and defendant claim that her husband A.Jacob was granted property bearing No.671 by BBMP. The Ex.P10 is the EC in the name of Thangaraju for property No: 670 and Ex.P12 document for site No.671 is SCCH-20 16 SC.No.15384/2013 granted to A.Jacob S/o Anthony on 05.12.1987. The Ex.P13 is document certified copy of order of Deputy commissioner, Bangalore to distribute sites for victims of fire mishap to construct houses for dwelling. The plaintiff rely upon Ex.P14, Ex.P.15 Tax paid receipt to show that he is in possession of schedule property. Disputed document is Ex.P12 possession certificate of property bearing No.671 in the name of plaintiff A.Jacob S/o Anthony.
19. The Ex.D17 was confronted to PW-1, it is same document as Ex.P12. The two documents being same but the issuing authority and signature varies and when there are two rival documents and original is not produced in this case, the burden is definitely upon the plaintiff to explain which one of the document is true. There is no cogent evidence to show which of these two documents are compared and copied from original. IN view of it, it is not safe to reply on either of documents and on basis of it, cannot be held the plaintiff is land lord. The PW-1 has changed his name in 1981 and relevant document is Ex.P11. The affidavit Ex.P.16 was sweared and filed by original allottee Mr.A.Jacob for production of documents before corporation authority on 20.11.1981. Even otherwise Ex.P.11 for the change of name is not lawful.
SCCH-20 17 SC.No.15384/201320. The PW-1 has taken contention in para - 3 of plaint and para No.2 of affidavit the schedule property was allotted to him by corporation on 06.04.1978 whereas he has changed his name as A.Jacob in 1981. In the year 1978 he was still called Anthony swamy. Documents in 1978, the property was allotted in the name of A.Jacob. On reading Ex.P16 it is by affidavit A.Jacob son of Anthony gave his declaration for residing in schedule property by constructing a house at his cost and he was allotted site and 26.03.1987 there was fire accident in which house was burnt. The oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence of Defendant corroborates & establish the defence.
21. The PW-1 deposed that suit schedule property comprise of two portions there are two shops on north side. The Ex.D9 and 10 are photos of A.Jacob who constructed schedule property. The PW-1 though admitted same but adamant that A.Jacob constructed the house at his instance. The A.Jacob who is seen in photo Ex.D9 and 10 is husband of defendant. The Ex.D11 ration card, Ex.D12, BPL card, Ex.D19 defendants election ID card and Ex.D20 defendant passport confirm defendants husband name as A.Jacob. These documents are sufficient to presume the identity of defendant and her husband A.Jacob whereas plaintiff has shown defendants husband name as Thangaraju in cause title. The PW-1 admits that two shops SCCH-20 18 SC.No.15384/2013 were used by defendant's husband and Lease agreement was executed by defendant and now she is collecting rent from tenants. Per Contra the PW-1 does not know name of tenants in schedule property. He claim to have issued notice to the tenants to eject premises, but all details are unknown to him.
22. The plaintiff claim that he permitted the defendants to stay in schedule property as they were his relatives and they were facing financial problems. But, from evidence it becomes clear that plaintiff has sought mandatory injunction as main relief for possession of immovable property and does not include suit for ejectment. Therefore, I draw my attention Sec.8 of Court of Small Causes Act 1964 which presumed cognizance of suit by Court of Small Causes Act 1964 (1), Court of Small Causes Act 1964 shall not take cognizance of suit specified in scheduled excepted from cognizance of Court of Small Causes Act 1964. In the schedule excepted from cognizance in Court of Small Causes Act 1964 (4) is the suit for possession of immovable property. From pleadings and evidence it is clearly understood the suit is one for possession of schedule property and not suit for ejectment. Where it involves property let out under lease, the jurisdiction of court to entertain suit depends upon averments contended in the plaint. The averments of plaint do not confirm jurisdiction to this court. The opposite party was successful to controvert plea of plaintiff by placing material in support of her SCCH-20 19 SC.No.15384/2013 stand. Cogent evidence Ex.D11 to 29 produced by the defendant establish the truth. Smt.Teresamma is the wife of Thangaraju. The Ex.D15 marriage certificate of Thangaraju, who got married to Teresamma. Thangaraju and Teresamma son of Joseph are married at Infant Jesus Church at Ex.P16. The A.jacob is son in law of Thangaraju as he married defendant who is daughter of Thangaraju. The learned counsel for plaintiff also suggested to PW-1 that plaintiff is defendants elder brother's son, per contra plaintiff has addressed the defendant is wife of Thangaraju in pleadings and contrary to his own evidence. The DW-1 always suggested Mr.Thangaraju in OS No.6236/1996 is her father, All these factors are sufficient to intimate that the plaintiff has misrepresented before court from inception to build up records and claim over suit schedule property. It amounts to abuse of process of court. When in pleadings it is the contention of plaintiff that Thangaraju is the father of defendant new plea can not be allowed to be raised in cross examination of DW-1 and suggested that Thangaraju is her father. Evidence of PW-1 contrary to the pleadings of plaintiff. By such an act of plaintiff the opposite party has suffered prejudice as a result of many years litigants in respect to schedule property. The small causes court is authorized U/o 35A of CPC to impose Rs.250/- as compensation cost to plaintiff in case of false and vexatious claim. It is meager amount for act of plaintiff and therefore, I am not imposing the same. There is a decree in OS No.6236/1996 SCCH-20 20 SC.No.15384/2013 in favour of the plaintiff and if he had filed Execution petition, yet he could not eject the defendant from suit schedule property. When execution was not enforced before court it is presumed that plaintiff that had filed suit in OS No.6236/1996 to create document of title over suit schedule property and did not enforce it against legal heirs of late A.Jacob, because the decree was passed against dead person. The documents Ex.P8 to 16 in respect to schedule property does not in any way prove the plaintiff is lawful owner of landlord of schedule property. The question of determining the relationship is barred from jurisdiction of this court. Even then, the fact of misrepresentation played by plaintiff can be certainly judicial noted and suit is false, vexatious claim to get an order for ejectment of defendant from court without jurisdiction. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for any relief or cost. Litigation was inspired by motive to create a right title over suit schedule property and litigants have fought this case for 5 years. The suit is barred by jurisdiction of Court of Small Causes Act 1964 U/s
8. None of the relief sought for plaint can be entertained by Court under the Act. Hence, I answer the point No.1 in negative.
23. Point No.2 and 3: As already discussed above suit is for possession of immovable suit schedule property and not for ejectment. The schedule property is not let out under lease. The evidence given by PW-1 is contrary to the pleadings and the SCCH-20 21 SC.No.15384/2013 defendant was able and successful in establishing, the wrongful deception intended to make financial and personal gain to plaintiff. It is established the plaintiff made claim typically by unjustified prayer to make personal gain. I have carefully gone through the written arguments of learned counsel for both parties and applied to fact relevant at the time of analyzing evidence. The oral evidence coupled with documentary evidence of plaintiff does not entitle him for any relief through this court. In view of it there is no relationship of landlord and tenant. The question of termination of tenancy does not arise. Hence, I answer point No.2 and 3 in negative.
24. POINT NO.4: In view of above discussion and findings, I proceed to pass following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with no cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Typed directly on the laptop, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this 13th day of April, 2018) (A.G.SHILPA) V ASCJ & 24th ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.SCCH-20 22 SC.No.15384/2013
SCHEDULE All that peace and parcel of the property bearing No.671, 22nd cross, Lakshmanrao nagar, Viveknagar post, Koramangala Taluk area, Bangalore - 560047 measuring 15X20 bounded on :
East by : House No.632 of Sajida
West by : House No.672 of Mumtaz
North by : Road and
South by : House No.670 of Thangaraj
(A.G.SHILPA)
V ASCJ & 24th ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS:
PW.1 A.Jacob
Defendants
DW.1 Mrs.Liza
DW.2 Sri.Joseph
ExP1& 2 Judgment and decree in OS No.6236/1996
ExP3 legal notice
ExP4 Postal receipt
ExP5 Postal cover
SCCH-20 23 SC.No.15384/2013
Ex.P5(a) Legal notice
Ex.P6 Photo
Ex.P7 Tax paid receipt
Ex.P7(a) Signature of A.Jacob
Ex.P8 RTI form
Ex.P9-10 Encumbarance
Ex.P11 Affidavit
Ex.P12 BBMP letter
Ex.P13 Sanction of site
Ex.P14 Acknowledgment
Ex.P15 receipt
Ex.P16 copy of affidavit
Ex.P17 copy of sanction letter
Defendant's
Ex.D.1 Register of marriage
Ex.D.2 Electoral roll
Ex.D.3 Voter ID List
Ex.D.3(a) translation copy of voter ID List
Ex.D.4 Marriage invitation card
Ex.D.4(a) Translation copy of Marriage invitation card Ex.D.5 Register of Baptisms Ex.D.6 Death certificate Ex.D.7 Election ID Ex.D.8 Adhaar card SCCH-20 24 SC.No.15384/2013 Ex.D.9-10 Photos Ex.D.11 Original BPL ration card issued to my family Ex.D.12 Original old BPL ration card dt:03.09.2002 issued to my husband Mr.Jacob Ex.D.13 Burial certificate of my father Thangaraju Ex.D.14 election ID card of my mother Theresamma Ex.D.15 Marriage certificate of my parents Tahnagaraju and Theresamma Ex.D.16 Marriage certificate of my brother Joseph Ex.D.17 Income and caste certificate of my brother Ex.D.18 KEB bill of schedule property Ex.D.19 My Election ID Card Ex.D.20 My pass port Ex.D.21 Out patient book of my son Charles Ex.D.22 Out patient slip of my son Charles Ex.D.23 OPD card of Charles Ex.D.24 Copy of the police complaint by husband Jacob against plaintiff Ex.D.25 police acknowledgment for receive of complaint Ex.D.26 Burial certificate of my mother Theresamma Ex.D.27 Ration card of my brother Mr Jacob and his family Ex.D.28 Voter ID card of my brother Mr Joseph Ex.D.29 Adhaar card of my brother Mr Joseph Ex.D.30 Plaintiff family book issued by Infant Church Ex.D.31 Ear wearing ceremony invitation of plaintiff daughter SCCH-20 25 SC.No.15384/2013 Ex.D.32 Original invitation of plaintiff wedding (Ex.D.4) Ex.D.33 7 photographs with CD of schedule property Ex.D.34 certified copy of order sheet in OS:6236/96 Ex.D.35 certified copy of plaint in OS:6236/96 Ex.D.36 certified copy of Judgment in OS:6236/96 Ex.D.37 certified copy of my husband Jacob deposition in OS:10359/96 (A.G.SHILPA) V ASCJ & 24th ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore.