Bangalore District Court
Smt.Kusum Tayal D/O Late Baijnath vs ) Sri P. Thayappa Reddy @ V on 11 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-26).
Dated this the 11th day of December, 2015.
Present
Sri G.K. GOKHALE, M.A., LL.B.(Spl.),
X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
O.S.No.1367/2015
Plaintiff: Smt.Kusum Tayal d/o Late Baijnath
56 years, r/at House No.66
Fortune Valley, Dasarahalli Main Road
Next to St.James Church
Bangalore-560 045.
(By Sri M.A. Azeez Khuraishi, Advocate)
Vs.
Defendants: 1) Sri P. Thayappa Reddy @ V.
Thayappa s/o Sri Erappa Reddy
75 years
2) Sri Nagaraju s/o Late V. Krishna
Reddy, 53 years
3) Sri Shivakumar s/o Late V. Krishna
Reddy, 51 years
4) Smt.Papamma w/o Late V. Krishna
Reddy, 82 years.
All are represented by general power
of attorney holder M/s Addi Housing &
Industries Ltd., No.43, 1st Floor,
Mohan Towers, No.50, Residency
Road, Bangalore-560 025
Represented by its Managing Director
Sri Chetan P. Tayal
(vide resolution dt:29.12.2014)
(Placed exparte)
Date of institution of the suit 10-02-2015
2 O.S.No.1367/2015
Nature of the suit For permanent injunction
Date of the commencement 10-06-2015
of recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment 11-12-2015
Pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
0 10 01
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants praying for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession & enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff either directly or indirectly.
2. The brief facts of the plaint averments are that:-
The plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule property. She has purchased the same from its original owners- the defendants being represented by their general power of attorney holder under a registered sale deed dated 08.01.2015. Since then, she is in personal occupation of the schedule property. All the defendants have been threatening her to dispossess from the property. The claim of the defendants is that the market price of the property has raised considerably and the 3 O.S.No.1367/2015 amount paid by the purchaser i.e., the plaintiff is less than the prevailing market value. The plaintiff entered into the sale agreement with the defendants on 05.06.1997 with pre-condition that the property which happens to be a revenue property has to be converted in the hands of concerned authorities and necessary sanction permission has to be obtained by the defendants. Further she has paid the sale consideration as stipulated in the sale agreement in a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- in the year 1997 itself. The defendants or their general power of attorney despite of repeated requests and demand from the plaintiff had neither got any sanction or permission for conversion of the land into a residential layout nor had conceded to the request of the plaintiff for executing and registering the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. On the persistent requests and demand the defendants had just renewed the sale agreement on 11.05.2012 and despite of their undertaking for complying the terms of the sale agreement they did not come forward and execute the sale deed. The plaintiff constrained with the attitude of the defendants filed a suit in O.S.No.8713/2014 on the 4 O.S.No.1367/2015 file of this Court seeking specific performance of the contract agreed to between them. On coming to know of the filing of the above suit for specific performance, the defendants through their general power of attorney approached the plaintiff and conceded for execution and registration of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly, the sale deed was executed and registered on the date specified above. The defendants are not only harassing the plaintiff but making attempts to criminally trespass into the property in order to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff from the possession. The plaintiff resisted all the illegal and unlawful acts of the defendants and approached the jurisdictional police in the matter. Since the matter is of civil in nature, she has been advised in law to approach the Court for seeking necessary and appropriate reliefs. On 06.02.2015, the defendants made desperate attempts to encroach upon the suit schedule property by criminally trespassing thereupon. But they could not succeed. The defendants are carrying henchmen and unruly elements along with them. The plaintiff apprehends that she being a lady may not be in 5 O.S.No.1367/2015 a position to resist all the illegal and unlawful acts of the defendants. Hence, this suit.
3. After service of summons, the defendants did not appear before the Court, remained absent and placed exparte. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff examined P.W.1 and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22 and closed side.
4. Heard arguments.
5. The points that arise for my consideration are:-
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for?
2) What decree or order?
6. My answer to the above points is as follows:-
1) In the affirmative;
2) As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS
7. POINT No.1:- In order to prove her case, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1. The P.W.1 has filed her sworn affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief and reiterated the plaint averments. In support of her case, the P.W.1 has got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22. The Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 6 O.S.No.1367/2015 08.01.2015. The Ex.P.2 is registered general power of attorney dated 29.11.1993. The Ex.P.3 is settlement deed dated 29.10.1993. The Ex.P.4 is sale deed dated 08.01.2015. The Ex.P.5 is RTC for 2014-15. The Ex.P.6 is tax paid receipt. The Ex.P.7 is khatha certificate. The Ex.P.8 to Ex.P.19 are twelve tax paid receipts. The Ex.P.20 is letter dated 24.03.2015 addressed to Tahasildar. The Ex.P.21 are acknowledgement issued by BBMP. The Ex.P.22 is C.D. along with two photo.
8. It is seen from the sale deed that vendors i.e., defendants herein are the owners of the immovable property bearing Sy.No.92, measuring to an extent of 4 acres 28 guntas situated at Arekere Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk i.e., suit schedule property. The suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the defendants. Khatha of the suit schedule property is standing in their name as per Mutation Register Extract bearing MR No.H3/2014-15. The defendants had also executed a general power of attorney in favour of M/s Addi Housing & Industries Ltd. vide registered doc.No.413/92-93 dated 29.11.1993 for dealing with the schedule property. The defendants through their general 7 O.S.No.1367/2015 power of attorney holder had sold the schedule property to meet their legal necessity, family requirements and for minors' education and other benefits for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.40,00,000/- to the plaintiff. Thereafter the plaintiff was handed over the physical possession of the suit schedule property. The Ex.P.2- GPA shows that the defendants have executed GPA in favour of M/s Addi Housing & Industries Ltd., which is a registered document. Therefore, on perusal of the above documents, it is clear that plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property from the date of purchase from the defendants, who are represented by their general power of attorney holder. The khatha is standing in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has paid taxes to the BBMP.
9. The defendants though served with summons have not appeared before the Court, remained absent and placed exparte. As such, the case of the plaintiff- bank is unchallenged. There is nothing to discard the oral and documentary evidence of P.W.1. The plaintiff has alleged the interference of the defendants, which is not challenged by the defendants. Therefore, I come to the 8 O.S.No.1367/2015 conclusion that the plaintiff has proved interference of the defendants over suit schedule property and it is a fit case to grant permanent injunction. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
10. POINT No.2:- In view of my findings on above point, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed as prayed for.
The defendants, their agents,
workmen, supporters and any other
person/s on their behalf are hereby
restrained by an order of permanent
injunction from interfering with the
plaintiff's peaceful possession & enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer on the Computer, printout taken, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Court on this the 11th day of December, 2015).
(G.K. GOKHALE) X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:-
PW.1 : Kusum Tayal 9 O.S.No.1367/2015 List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:-
Ex.P1: Certified copy of the sale deed dt.8.1.2015 Ex.P2: Registered General Power of Attorney dt.29.11.1993 Ex.P3: Settlement deed dt.29.10.1993 Ex.P4: Sale deed dt.8.1.2015 Ex.P5: RTC for 2014-15 Ex.P6: Tax paid receipt Ex.P7: Khatha certificate Ex.P8-19: Twelve tax paid receipts Ex.P20: Letter dt.24.3.2015 addressed to Tahasildar Ex.P21: Acknowledgement issued by BBMP Ex.P22: CD along with photos List of witnesses examined and documents got exhibited for defendants:-
Nil (G.K. GOKHALE) X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.