Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. What decree/order the plaintiff is entitled to?

5. In order to prove/substantiate the case of plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 (a) examined as PW-1 and examined two witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked documents as Ex.P-1 to 16 on their behalf. On the other hand on behalf of the defendants, defendant No.1 himself examined as D.W.1 and examined one witness on their behalf as D.W.2 and got marked documents Ex.D1 to 26 and closed their side and case is posted for arguments. One Sri.Sachin.N.S. ADLR examined before the court as CW-1 and Sri. Vasanth Chawan- Surveyor examined before this Court as CW-2 and got marked documents as per C.Ws. 1 to 7.

10. In view of the observation made by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka this Court appointed Surveyor/ADLR and ADLR after issuing N.B.W. filed report on 31-07-2024.

11. After filing of the report by the Commissioner the plaintiff object the Commissioner report, hence, this Court issued summons to Commissioner. Then bailable warrant issued to ADLR and Surveyor, both are appeared and examined as C.W.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.C-1 to C-7 also cross-examined by both the counsel and then posted the matter for arguments as per the observation of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.

14. The plaintiff relied on Ex.P-1 which is Gift Deed executed by one Muthappa and his sons in favour of original plaintiff C.G.Krishnamurthy Rao and plaintiff is claiming his right over the suit schedule property by virtue of the Ex.P-1 i.e. Gift Deed. Then plaintiff counsel also argued that Ex.P-14, 15, and 16 are important documents in which it discloses that the report of the ADLR stated that Society i.e. defendant No.2 Society, i.e. M/s Bharath Housing Co.Op.Society Ltd., has encroached the property. Hence, even after the examination of the Commissioner also he admits in his evidence that suit schedule property existed in the border of Uttarahally village and Chikkallasandra village. The Counsel for the plaintiff argued that while deposing the Commissioner admitted that there an existence of suit schedule property. Hence, to decree the suit in favour of plaintiff.

28. However, even allowing of the application under Order 26 rule 9 the ADLR appointed by this Court plaintiff counsel disputed ADLR has not prepared and presented his report. However, on recording the evidence of ADLR as CW-1 he clearly testifying that he deputed one Mr.Vasanth Chowan, Surveyor for measuring the property. Besides, ADLR has not appointed any other persons who is other than the Survey Department. Hence that argument canvassed by the plaintiff cannot be satisfied.