Bangalore District Court
Sri K.Bhaskar S/O. Late vs Sri Chikkamuni on 12 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH NO.19), BENGALURU
Dated : This the 12th day of February, 2020.
PRESENT
Smt.M.LATHA KUMARI, M.A., LL.M.,
VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No.5899/2015
Plaintiffs: Sri K.Bhaskar S/o. Late
T.N.Krishnaswamy, aged
about 55 years, r/at.No.24, 3rd
Cross, 8th Main, Hoysala
Nagar, Bengaluru-16.
(By Sri H.V.Shyame Gowda, Adv.)
Vs.
Defendants: 1. Sri Chikkamuni-
nanjamma W/o. M.Muni
raju, aged about 56 years,
r/at. No.189, B.Channa-
sandra Kalyana nagar
Post, Bengaluru-72.
2. Sri M.Muniraju S/o.
Munithimmaiah, aged
about 58 years, ra/t.
No.189, Channasandra
Kalyananagar Post,
Bengaluru-43.
3. Sri Praveen Kumar.M
S/o. M.Muniraju, aged
about 35 years, r/at.
No.189, Channasandra
Kalyananagar Post,
Bengaluru-43.
2 O.S.No.5899/2015
4. Smt.Muniyamma W/o.
Late Pillappa, aged about
71 years, r/at.Bachanna
Layout, B.Channasandra
Banasawadi Post,
Bengaluru-33.
[D1-By Smt.Shantha.B.
Mullur, D2-Ex-Parte, D3-
By Sri N.S.Rayappa, Adv.
& D4-By Sri S.Channa
Krishna, Adv.]
Date of institution of suit 06.07.2015
Nature of the suit Injunction Suit
Date of commencement 28.03.2018
of recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment 12.02.2020
was pronounced
Total duration Days Months Years
06 07 04
JUDGMENT
This is plaintiff's suit for the relief of permanent injunction against defendants in respect of residential house property bearing No.24, old house property No.840 katha No.1342 comprised in property No.91/3, measuring east to west 30 ft., and north to south 40 ft., situated at Horamavu village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru, presently called as 'Hoysala Nagar', 3 O.S.No.5899/2015 3rd Cross, 8th Main, Ward No.25, Bengaluru-16 herein after referred to as 'suit schedule property'.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case is that, plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of suit schedule property. It is plaintiff's further case that, one Subbaiah being the propositus of defendants family and owner of several properties and also owner of land bearing Sy.No.91 situated at Horamavu village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. Said Subbaiah in the year 1939 had borrowed certain loan from one Peddaiah and for security purpose he had executed a nominal sale deed in favour of Peddaiah and after discharging the said loan within a year, he got back the said land in the year 1940 under registered sale deed which was formally registered in the name of his wife Smt.Chikka Akkayamma, however, said Subbaiah being the Manager and Kartha of the family continued to be in possession and cultivation of the said land bearing Sy.No.91 in addition to other lands. The said Subbaiah and Chikka Akkayamma had two daughters by name Smt.Muniyamma and Smt.Yellamma. Smt.Yellamma died 4 O.S.No.5899/2015 leaving behind the 2nd defendant as her son. In the year 1964 Subbaiah and Chikka Akkayamma in the family arrangement allotted their family properties to the defendants No.2 and 4 and accordingly, the land bearing Sy.No.91 old Sy.No.30/2 which is now renumbered as Sy.No.91/3 measuring 1 acre 27 guntas assigned to the share of Muniyamma, 4th defendant apart from other properties. Further, as per the oral partition, Muniyamma and Muniraju are continued to be in separate possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. Said Subbaiah and Chikka Akkayamma in pursuance of family arrangement for confirmation of the same got executed a Will in the year 1965 in favour of defendants No.2 and 4. However, on the basis of oral partition, the mutations got effected in the name of Muniyamma and Muniraju, but the revenue authorities inadvertantly referred the said Will also while effecting the mutation since the mother of 4 th defendant persuaded to get the said mutation entries. It is plaintiffs further case that, from the date of partition, 4 th defendant continued to be in exclusive possession and enjoyment of land bearing Sy.No.91/3 by paying 5 O.S.No.5899/2015 necessary tax regularly and thereafter, in the year 1989- 90 4th defendant has formed a lay out of residential sites in the entire extent of 1 acre 27 guntas and sold the same in favour of various purchasers and similarly she sold suit schedule site including 2 square small house in favour of one Sri A.S Sukumaran under a registered sale deed dt:12.06.1990. Said A.S Sukumaran got changed katha in pursuance of the said sale deed and sold the same in favour of plaintiff under registered sale deed dt:15.07.2002. Plaintiff got changed khata and other documents in his name in pursuance of the said sale deed also obtained loan in the year 2002 in the bank of Canfin Homes Ltd. By pledging the original title deeds pertaining to suit schedule property and by obtaining building plan constructed residential house by investing huge amount and residing in the said house. The plaintiff got changed Ration Card, voter I.D.Card, Aadhaar Card in his name and also in the name of his family members and in possession of the suit schedule property by paying necessary tax to concerned BBMP authorities. When such being the state of affairs in the year 2006 said 6 O.S.No.5899/2015 Chikka Akkayamma lost her mental conscious, taking advantage of the same, defendants No.1 to 3 by colluding with each other forcibly carried Chikka Akkayamma in the absence of 4th defendant and got revoked the Will of the year 1965 and created other bogus Wills pertaining to the land bearing Sy.No.91/3 in the name of defendants No.1 to 3. 1 st defendant is none other than the wife of 2 nd defendant and 3rd defendant is their son. 4Th defendant by suspecting about the attitudes of defendants No.1 to 3 questioned them in the year 2007. However, defendants No.1 to 3 consoled her stating that, they have taken her just to get the old age pension done. However, 4th defendant later came to know about the fraud committed by defendants No.1 to 3 and 4th defendant in turn informed plaintiff about the same. It is also come to the knowledge of plaintiff that, defendants by themselves are making attempts behind the back of plaintiff and making litigation amongst themselves and also trying to obtain Court order in their favour with an intention to disturb the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule residential 7 O.S.No.5899/2015 house property. The entire lay out has been fully developed by constructing residential houses, there exist clear roads, electricity, water and drainage facility to the said lay out, which is now known as Hoysala Nagar which comes under BBMP. Now the defendants No.1 to 3 by creating and concocting forged documents by fraud are trying to disturb the plaintiff's peaceful possession with a malafide intention to make wrongful gain. In the 1 st week of May 2015 defendants No.1 to 3 again came near the suit schedule property proclaiming that, they are the owners of entire area and if matter is not settled with them, they are going to dispossess the plaintiff. Further, on 21.6.2015 the defendants along with goonda elements came near the suit schedule property and tried to trespass into the plaintiff's house. Hence, plaintiff constrained to file this suit for the reliefs mentioned supra.
3. On issuance of suit summons, defendants No.1 and 3 being Mother and Son appeared through common Advocate and resisted this suit by filing their 8 O.S.No.5899/2015 common written statement contending that, the plaintiff has no legal right to claim over any portion of the land. The plaintiff is laying false claim over a portion of land bearing Sy.No.91/3 of Horamavu village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk measuring 1 acre 27 guntas which absolutely belongs to 1st defendant, same was earlier owned and possessed by Chikka Akkayamma. She herself has instituted suit in OS.No.3198/2007 against her daughter Smt.Muniyamma, the 4 th defendant herein seeking an order of injunction. She died during the pendency of the said suit leaving behind her a registered Will dt:24.1.2007 bequeathing the subject matter of the said suit in favour of 1 st defendant. 1St defendant has continued the said suit as legal representative of deceased Chikka Akkayamma and got the plaint amended by incorporating additional pleading and also prayer for declaration of her owner-whip. 4 Th defendant has seriously contested the said suit. Said suit came to be decreed on 29.10.2011. Plaintiff has filed this suit now by colluding with 4 th defendant knowing fully well that, judgment and decree for owner-ship and also 9 O.S.No.5899/2015 consequential relief of permanent injunction has been granted in favour of 1 st defendant. These defendants have denied the claim of plaintiff that, he is in possession of suit schedule property having constructed a residential house.
It is further submitted that, Chikka Akkayamma has made a registered Will at the first instance in favour of her daughter Muniyamma, the 4 th defendant herein in respect of portion of land bearing Sy.No.91/3. Since 4 th defendant started acting detrimental to the interest of Chikka Akkayamma, she revoked the said Will and made a fresh Will in favour of 1st defendant under a registered Will dt:24.1.2007. Smt.Chikka Akkayamma died on 27.11.2007. The execution of said Will was already established in OS.No.3198/2007. The land bearing Sy.No.91/3 is continued to be revenue land and it has not been converted for non-agricultural purpose u/S.95 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act and no lay out has been formed in the said land of Horamavu village. Infact approval of private lay out is absolutely necessary u/S.32 of Bengaluru Development Act Act. Chikka Akkayamma 10 O.S.No.5899/2015 lost her mental status and became bed-ridden are all false statement. The case pleaded by the plaintiff is contrary to the case pleaded by defendant No.4 in OS.No.3198/2007 and nothing to show that construction was made earlier in the suit property and khata was made out and registered in the name of alleged vendor of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has created alleged documents by fraud, coercion and mis-representation. These defendants have indirectly denied the owner-whip of the plaintiff. Inspite of the same, no declaration has been sought against these defendants. Suit itself is not maintainable and hence, pray for dismissal of this suit with cost.
4. 4th defendant filed her written statement asserting that, defendants No.1 to 3 filed a false suit against this defendant and also her mother by creating bogus Will. Though this defendant strongly opposed the said civil suit, the suit came to be decreed and against the same, an appeal is filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and this defendant has already 11 O.S.No.5899/2015 obtained an order of status-quo. She was the absolute owner of entire extent of land in Sy.No.91/3 measuring 1 acre 27 guntas and she sold the entire area long back about 20 to 25 years ago by forming revenue lay out sites. This defendant or her children never dispute the owner-ship of plaintiff and she has no objection to decree the suit of the plaintiff.
5. During the pendency of this suit, 1 st defendant changed her advocate and appointed one Smt. S.B.M. as her advocate. However, 3rd defendant continued to be represented by earlier Counsel Sri G.P.R.
6. Based on these pleadings, this Court framed following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have interfered with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?
4. What order or decree?12 O.S.No.5899/2015
7. Plaintiff was examined himself as PW.1 and got marked as many as 17 documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17 in support of his claim. On behalf of defendants, only 1 st defendant stepped into the witness-box and got examined herself as DW.1 and got marked as many as 17 documents, Ex.D1 to D17 in support of her claim.
8. I have carefully scrutinized entire records before me. Heard the Arguments.
9. My findings to the above Issues are:
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative Issue No.2 : In the affirmative Issue No.3 : In the affirmative Issue No.4 : As per final Order, for the following:
REASONS
10. ISSUE NO.1 & 2: These two issues are taken up together for consideration to avoid repetition of facts and circumstances of the case on hand.
11. It is the case of plaintiff that, 4 th defendant being the daughter of Chikka Akkayamma succeeded to the suit schedule property under a Will in the year 1965 13 O.S.No.5899/2015 and thereafter, in the year 1989-90 she has formed a layout of revenue residential sites in the entire extent of 1 acre 27 guntas in suit Sy.No.91/3 and sold the same in favour of various purchasers. Suit schedule property is one such site sold by 4th defendant in favour of one A.S.Sukumaran under a registered sale deed dt:12.06.1990 and said A.S.Sukumaran in turn sold the same in favour of plaintiff under registered sale deed dt:15.07.2002.
12. It is plaintiff's further case that, in pursuance of sale deed dated 15.07.2002 he got changed khata and other documents in the office of BBMP, since the suit schedule property comes under the limits of BBMP. In the year 2002 he raised loan in the Bank of Canfin Homes Limited by depositing original title deeds pertaining to suit schedule property and after obtaining building plan constructed residential house by investing huge amount and residing in the said house. It is specifically mentioned that, the entire layout has been fully developed by constructing residential houses and there exist roads, water and electricity with drainage 14 O.S.No.5899/2015 facility to the said layout, which is presently called as 'Hoysala Nagar' and there is no existence of property bearing Sy.No.91/3 of Horamavu village, K.R.Puram Hobli and it has lost its agricultural nature. Insptie of the same, defendants No.1 and 2 by creating bogus Will in their favour are trying to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of plaintiff by colluding with other defendants. On the other hand, 4 th defendant being the vendor of plaintiff's vendor is supporting the case of plaintiff and concedes the execution of registered sale deed in favour of A.S.Sukumaran. According to her, defendants No.1 and 3 have created bogus Will. On the other hand, 1 st defendant specifically states that, they filed suit against mother of 4th defendant in OS.No.3198/2007 for declaration and also consequential relief of permanent injunction in respect of Sy.No.91/3. During the pendency of this suit, 4th defendant's mother Chikka Akkayamma died and 4th defendant was brought on record. After contest, said suit has been decreed and hence, plaintiff is 15 O.S.No.5899/2015 making false claim in respect of portion of property bearing Sy.No.91/3 measuring 1 acre 27 guntas.
13. Plaintiff, to establish his claim over suit schedule property got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked as many as documents Ex.P1 to P7. The vital documents are Ex.P2 and Ex.P7. Ex.P7 is the sale deed executed in favour of plaintiff and Ex.P2 is the encumbrance certificate issued by concerned authorities in respect of suit schedule property. Ex.P3 is another vital document, which is a plan issued by concerned authorities to put up construction over suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff. Ex.P5 is the 4 photographs in which according to plaintiff, his house is forth-coming. Plaintiff has also produced property register extract and tax paid receipt in support of his claim. In his cross- examination by defendant it is suggested that photos produced before this Court at not at all pertaining to suit schedule property. It is also suggested that the property claimed by 1st defendant is not the property No.24. PW.1 states that he is not aware of the original owner of land bearing survey No.91 and he has narrated about the 16 O.S.No.5899/2015 same in his chief affidavit based on recitals in his sale deed. Plaintiff states on oath that he is residing in suit schedule property by putting up residential house over the same by demolishing the earlier existing 2 square house. It is also suggested that even as on today the property is survey number land and there is no such suit schedule property in existence. PW.1 categorically states that he has deposited his original title documents with Canfin Home Loan Bank and produced certified copies of the same. He also states that, documents are produced for having obtained loan from concerned Bank. PW.1 states that he purchased suit schedule sites in the year 2002 from one Sukumar who inturn acquired the same from one Muniyamma. He states that, he is not aware that suit schedule property belongs to 1 st defendant herein and not said Muniyamma. He further states that, he has produced documents to suggest that said Muniyamma was neither having any right in respect of the property in question nor executed any such documents in favour of Sukumar. PW.1 was further cross examined by 1st defendant on 14.10.2019, wherein PW.1 17 O.S.No.5899/2015 deposes that he is employee of BEML since 37 years and he has filed this suit since 1 st defendant was interfering with his possession stating that said property belongs to her. In para-2 of his deposition recorded on 14.10.2019, PW.1 states that he is residing in the suit schedule property by constructing a residence over the same and 1st defendant was claiming the property in question as her property and said inconvenience happened in the year 2015. PW.1 has denied the suggestion that even as on today the said property bears survey number and there is no such site bearing No.24. According to PW.1 plan has been sanctioned in his favour considering the sale deed relied upon by him. It is also suggested that 1 st defendant never made any such galata as stated in his chief affidavit. It is also suggested that there is no nexus between suit schedule property and 1st defendant herein. It is further suggested PW.1 is not at all aware of the property in question. PW.1 admits that he has not produced his vendor's sale deed in respect of suit schedule property. He has denied the suggestion that, 18 O.S.No.5899/2015 there is no nexus between suit schedule property and the documents produced before this Court.
14. 1St defendant by reiterating the written statement averments got marked as many as 17 documents, Ex.D1 to D17. The vital document is certified copy of judgment passed in OS.No.3198/2007 and judgment passed in Os.No.1061/2014. DW.1 admits that, said Chikka Akkayamma and Subbarao were having two children by name Yellamma and Muniyamma. Said Yellamma died long back. 2Nd defendant herein is the son of said Yellamma and husband of DW.1 and also father of 3rd defendant. DW.1 also admits that, 4 th defendant is 2nd daughter of said Subbaiah and Chikka Akkayamma. DW.1 states that, as on the date of her marriage, said Subbaiah and his daughter Yellamma i.e., mother-in-law of DW.1 were no more. According to her, said Subbaiah was not owning any properties and all those properties situated at B.Chennasanda and Horamavu village belongs to Chikka Akkayamma. DW.1 voluntarily states that, in the year 1964 Will executed by Chikka Akkayamma has been canceled by her. DW.1 has 19 O.S.No.5899/2015 denied the suggestion that, under the oral partition, land bearing Sy.No.91 measuring 1 acre 27 guntas has been allotted to the share of 4th defendant and 4 properties situated at B.Chennasandra were given to the share of 2nd defendant i.e., husband of DW.1. DW.1 admits that, the house in which she is residing with her family members were belongs to Chikka Akkayamma and she executed Will in favour of 2nd defendant, her husband. She also admits that, said house property is situated at B.Chennasandra. She pleaded her ignorance about Will of the year 1965 executed in respect of four properties in favour of 2nd defendant and voluntarily states that, said Will itself has already canceled. She admits that, as per M.R.No.73/77-78, revenue entries got changed in the name of 4th defendant in respect of land bearing Sy.No.91/3. She states that, she is having no knowledge about lay out of sites formed by 4 th defendant in the said land in the year 1989-90 and also sale of those 40 sites in favour of various purchasers by her. She further states that, she do not know that, the purchasers have already constructed residential houses over the said sites formed 20 O.S.No.5899/2015 in new Sy.No.91/3 and are in possession of the same. DW.1 admits that, said survey number land now comes within the jurisdiction of BBMP and accordingly named as 'Hoysala Nagar'. She also admits that, there exist electricity and water supply connection and roads have been formed long back in respect of Hoysala Nagar locality. She has denied the suggestion that, she got instituted OS.No.3198/2007 through Chikka Akkayamma against 4th defendant. She admits that, Chikka Akkayamma died in the year 2008 and at that time, she was aged about 99 years. She has denied the suggestion that, just prior to 5 years from the date of her death, she was suffering from paralysis stroke. She has also denied the suggestion that, herself and 4 th defendant by colluding with each other just to extract some amount from the purchasers managed to file suit in OS.No.3198/2007. When DW.1 suggested that, said purchasers are not made as parties in this suit, she states that, it was agricultural land and no purchasers were there. She has denied that, she is not at all in possession of said land bearing Sy.No.91/3. When it was 21 O.S.No.5899/2015 questioned that, said land bearing Sy.No.91/3 is no more an agricultural land, DW.1 states that, during the pendency of this suit, 10-12 buildings have been constructed without her knowledge. She further states that, she is not at all aware about who has constructed those buildings. She admits that, after the death of Chikka Akkayamma, only DW.1 got impleaded herself as legal representative and voluntarily states that, Chikka Akkayamma executed GPA in her favour. She has denied the suggestion that, around 40 persons have filed cases against her and voluntarily states that, about 20 persons have filed case. She admits that, out of said 20 cases already 6 cases have been decided against her and also states that one suit is decreed. She has denied the suggestion that, during the year 2015 she tried to demolish the existing building of plaintiff and 20 other purchasers with the help of JCB with the support of 50 followers. She has also denied that, by obtaining decree in OS.No.3198/2007 she is un-necessarily troubling the plaintiff and others. When photograph was shown to witness, she has denied that the house property forth- 22 O.S.No.5899/2015 coming in the said photograph is the suit schedule property herein.
15. According to DW.1, the sale deed and other documents relied upon by the plaintiff are all bogus documents and Chikka Akkayamma has executed Will in her favour. She admits that, she has not constructed any house forth-coming in the photograph Ex.P5, which was shown to her in her evidence.
16. Plaintiff's claim is based on sale deed and it is the specific contention of plaintiff that, house, which is forth-coming in Ex.P5 was constructed by him. DW.1 admits that, she has not constructed the said house and claiming that, she is in possession of entire extent of land bearing Sy.No.91/3. Her claim is based on judgment and decree passed in OS.No.3198/2007, which was a suit filed by Chikka Akkayamma against 4th defendant herein for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. During the pendency of said suit, Chikka Akkayamma died and this defendant continued the said suit as legal heir of said Chikka Akkayamma. This is a judgment for 23 O.S.No.5899/2015 which admittedly, plaintiff is not a party. As per the provisions of Section 43 of the Evidence Act, judgments other than those mentioned in Sections 40, 41 and 42 are irrelevant unless the existence of such judgment is a fact in issue. Further, DW.1 has also produced another document as per Ex.D17, which is a suit filed by one Umashankar in OS.No.1061/2014 against 1st defendant herein for the relief of permanent injunction, which came to be dismissed on the ground that, said Umashankar failed to establish possession over property claimed by him.
17. As I have already stated, this is a plaintiff's suit for the relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff's claim is in respect of residential house property measuring 30 x 40 ft., of Hoysala Nagar lay out. DW.1 claim is against 1 acre 27 guntas of land in Sy.No.91/3. DW.1 admits that, the said location is now called as Hoysala Nagar. She also admits that, there is road, water and electricity connection and drainage facility to the said Hoysala Nagar, which comes under BBMP. Defendant though asserts that, she is owner in 24 O.S.No.5899/2015 possession of entire extent of land and no such lay out has been formed by 4 th defendant herein, she has not produced any document to establish that, land bearing Sy.No.91/3 is continued to be as agricultural land. Admittedly, according to the earlier suit in OS.No.3198/2007 filed by Chikka Akkayamma she was in possession of suit schedule property. Though DW.1 succeeded to the said suit as legal representative of Chikka Akkayamma, she has not placed any material before this Court that, in pursuance said judgment and decree, she got changed khata and revenue records pertaining to the said extent of land. The contention taken by 1st defendant in her evidence that, suit schedule property is portion of land bearing Sy.No.91/3 and she is in possession of entire extent of land establishes the alleged interference of 1st defendant, 2nd defendant herein, who remained absent is none other than the husband of 1st defendant. 3Rd defendant though filed common written statement alongwith 1st defendant later remained absent not resisted the suit of the plaintiff, who is son of 1st defendant herein. 1St defendant though 25 O.S.No.5899/2015 contended that the sale deed Ex.P16 and his vendor sale deed Ex.P.17 relied upon by the plaintiff are a bogus document, she has not placed any material to show that, said sale deeds are nothing but a bogus document. As per the recitals in the sale deed Ex.P16 and 17, it is recited that, purchaser was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of property and thereby put the plaintiff in possession of the same. Plaintiff has produced the sanction plan as per Ex.P.3 and also to put up construction over the same by him by raising housing loan from Canfin Homes Limited as per Ex.P.13. The photograph Ex.P5 also establishes the claim of plaintiff. Plaintiff has produced 'B' khata extract issued by BBMP and also tax paid receipt for having paid the tax in respect of suit schedule property, so also LPG receipts, electricity bills, Adhar card of the plaintiff and his Bank statement as per Ex.P.9 to 12. Except the self-statement of DW.1, no layout has been formed in Sy.No.91/3 and said land is continued to be agricultural land, she has not produced any piece of paper in this regard. On the other hand, she admits that, said location where land bearing 26 O.S.No.5899/2015 Sy.No.91/3 is situated is now called as 'Hoysala Nagar and there exist road, electricity, water connection, drainage facility. If no lay out of residential sites are formed, what was the necessity for providing such facilities to the said lay out styled as 'Hoysala Nagar is also not explained by defendants. All these circumstances establishes that, 1st defendant has not approached this Court with clean hand. Defendants No.2 and 3 have not stepped into the witness-box. 4 Th defendant supports the case of plaintiff. Considering the sale deed, sanction plan and other BBMP documents issued and relied upon by the plaintiff and also considering that 1st defendant failed to establish that Ex.P1 is bogus document created by colluding with concerned vendors and also 4th defendant, I have answered issues No.1 and 2 in the affirmative.
18. ISSUE NO.3: Since plaintiff has established his possession in respect of suit schedule property and also interference by defendants, he is entitled for the reliefs claimed. Accordingly, I have answered issue No.3 also in the affirmative.
27 O.S.No.5899/2015
19. ISSUE NO.4: In view of my findings on issues No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of suit schedule property, is decreed.
The defendants, their agents, legal representatives, henchmen, anti-social elements etc., or anybody claiming through or under them are permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property in any manner.
Parties to bear their own cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
*** (Dictated to the Judgment Writer and Typist on computer, computerized and print out taken by her, revised, corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court today the 12th day of February, 2020).
(M.LATHA KUMARI), VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.28 O.S.No.5899/2015
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff:
PW.1 : Sri K.Bhaskar Witness examined on behalf of Defendants:
DW.1 : M. Chikkamuninanjamma Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiffs:
Ex.P.1 : Property register extract.
Ex.P.2 : Encumbrance Certificate.
Ex.P.3 : Approved Building plan.
Ex.P.4 : Tax paid receipts
Ex.P.5 : 4 Photos
Ex.P.6 : CD
Ex.P.7 : Certified copy of the sale deed
pertaining to suit schedule
property. Witness volunteers
that original sale deed is pledged
with Canara Bank, Canfins
Homes Ltd.
Ex.P.8 : Tax paid receipt
Ex.P.9 : LPG receipt
Ex.P.10 : Electricity bill
Ex.P.11 : Original Aadhaar Card of PW.1
Ex.P.12 : Bank statement
Ex.P.13 : Certificate issued by concerned
Canfin Home Ltd. For having
Rs.58,05,000/- in respect of suit
schedule property
Ex.P.14 : Document issued by Canfin
Home for having collected the
original suit documents towards
said housing loan
Ex.P.15 : Application given by me seeking
for supply of Electricity in respect
of suit schedule property
Ex.P.16 : Certified copy of the absolute
sale deed
29 O.S.No.5899/2015
Ex.P.17 : Certified copy of my vendor's
sale deed
Documents marked on behalf of Defendants:
Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of the Sale deed dated 17.07.1940 Ex.D.2 : Certified copy of registered deed of cancellation of Will dated 03.11.2006 Ex.D.3 : Mutation extract Ex.D.4 and 5 : RTC Ex.D.6 : Certified copy of another mutation extract Ex.D.7 to 9 : 3 RTC Ex.D.10 : Certified copy of registered Will dated 24.01.2007 Ex.D.11 : Death certificate of Chikka Akkaiahaiamma, grand mother of DW.1 Ex.D.12 to 15 : Encumbrance Certificates Ex.D.16 : Certified copy of Judgment passed in O.S 3198/2007 filed by grand mother of DW.1 and another against one Muniyamma along with decree Ex.D.17 : Certified copy of Judgment passed in O.S 1061/2014 filed by grand mother of DW.1 and another against one Muniyamma along with decree (M.LATHA KUMARI), VII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.30 O.S.No.5899/2015
Judgment pronounced in the open Court (vide separate Judgment) Suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of suit schedule property, is decreed.
The defendants, their agents, legal representatives, henchmen, anti-social elements etc., or anybody claiming through or under them are permanently restrained from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful 31 O.S.No.5899/2015 possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property in any manner.
Parties to bear their own cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(M.LATHA KUMARI) VII.ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.