Bangalore District Court
Parveen Taj vs Mohammed Anif on 2 March, 2024
KABC010039922020
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-26).
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2024.
Present
Smt.SAVITRI SHIVAPUTRA KUJJI, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl.),
X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No.1083/2020
Plaintiff: Mrs.Parveen Taj
w/o Late Hussain Khan
Aged about 52 years
R/at #4, North Street
Neelasandra, Bengaluru-47.
(By Sri S.A. Wajid, Adv.)
Vs.
Defendants: 1) Mr.Mohammed Anif
s/o Karim Saab
Aged about 50 years
2) Mr.K.Waheed
s/o Karim Saab
Aged about 35 years
Both are r/at No.42/1
Aslam Manjil, Popular Colony
Bommanahalli, Bengaluru-68
and both are Traders At
Onion And Garlic Merchants
Madivala Mandi Market
Madival Road, Bengaluru-34.
3) Mr.Khaleelulla Khan
s/o Maqbool Khan
Aged about 49 years
R/at #1/3, 4th Cross
2 O.S.No.1083/2020
Telecom Layout
Vijangara, Bengaluru-23.
4) Mr.K. Nagendra Reddy
s/o Venkata Reddy
Aged about 33 years
R/at No.45, 2nd Cross
N.R. Layout, Gavehavipalya
Bengaluru-68.
5) Mr.Majeed Poonnankott
s/o: Ammad Haji
Aged about 51 years
R/at Ponnankutt House
Elayadam Kadameri Post Purameri
Kozhikode, Kerala State-673 542.
6) Mr.Sooppy P K
s/o: Kunhabdulla Haji
Aged about 58 years
R/at Thakav Mazil
Punnakkandiyil Purameri
Kozhikode, Kerala State-673 503.
7) Mr.Majeed P K
s/o Kumhabdulla
Aged about 49 years
R/at Panayullakandy House
P O Purameri
Vatakara Taluk
Kozhikode, Kerala State.
8) Mrs.Rabiya w/o Majeed
Aged about 44 years
r/at No.156, Panayulla Kanadiyil-2
Purameri, Vadakara, Kozhikode
Kerala.
9) Mr.Haseena w/o Khaleel
Aged about 40 years
R/At Anandrakandiyil
Purameri, Vadakara, Kozhikode
Kerala State-673 503.
10) Mr.Siraj K P s/o Kunhabdulla
Aged about 41 years
3 O.S.No.1083/2020
R/at Kodakka Palayil
Purmeri, Vadakara
Kozhikode, Kerala-673503.
11) Mr.Hameed P s/o Andru P
Aged about 48 years
R/at Purmeri, Kozhikode
Kerala-673 503.
12) Mrs.Mubeena P P
w/o Latheef T.K.
Aged about 34 years
R/at Thattam Kandiyil
Purameri, Kozhikode
Kerala-679 503.
13) Mrs.Jamshida d/o Moidu Haji
Aged about 26 years
R/at Edalote, Villyappalli
Kozhikode, Kerala-673 542
Rep by her GPA Holder
Moosa T s/o Sainaba
aged aobut 55 Years
R/at Thayyullathil House
Post Purameri, Vatakara Taluk
Kozhikode District, Kerala.
14) Mr.Shereef Valiyaparmbath
s/o Kunhimmoosa
Aged about 41 years
R/at Valiyaparambath House
P O Kunnummakkara
Vatakara, Kozhikode
Kerala
Rep by his GPA Holder
Kunhimmoosa V P
s/o Kunhammad
aged about 69 Years
R/at Valiyaparambath House
P O Kunnummakkara
Vatakara, Kozhikode
Kerala.
15) Mr.Hamsa Kandoth Kuniyil
s/o Kunhammed Kondoth
Aged about 48 years
4 O.S.No.1083/2020
r/at Kondoth Kuniyil House
Eramala, Kunnummakkara
Kozhikode, Kerala-673 308.
16) Mrs.Fasina d/o Abdul Kareem
Aged about 25 years
R/at No.1/538, Pullamkannoth
Purameri, Kozhikode
Kerala-673 503.
17) Mrs.Jameela E K
w/o Hussain
Aged about 47 years
R/at No.16/434, Valiya Kavil
Kunnummakkara PO, Chombala
Kozhikode, Kerala-673308.
18) Mr.Ismayil Koyor Kunnath
s/o Abbobacker
Aged about 44 years
R/at Challayil, Kunnummakkara
Eramala, Kozhikode
Kerala-673 308.
19) Mr.Majeed Vanikapoyil Thazha
Kuniyil s/o Ebrahim Vanika Poyil
Thazha Kuniyil, Aged 54 years
R/At Vaniyapeedikayil
Thazhakuni House
P O Kunnummakkara
Chombala Kozhikode
Kerala-673 308.
20) Mr.Salim M s/o Ibrahim Haji
Aged about 35 years
R/at Poolallaparambath House
P O Mayyannur, Via Vataka
Kozhikode, Kerala.
21) Mrs.Fathima Marawa A K
d/o Arayakkool Kasim
Aged about 23 years
R/at Arayakkool House
Orkkatteri P O, Eramala
Kozhikode, Kerala-673 501.
5 O.S.No.1083/2020
22) Mrs.Rabiya w/o Arayskkol Kasim
Aged about 42 years
R/at Arayakool House
Orkkatteri P O, Eramala
Kozhikode, Kerala-673501
Rep by Purchaser No.15, 16 & 17
GPA Holder Mr. Azeez V K
s/o Moossa, aged about 61 Years
R/at Vattakkatt Thazha Kuniyil
House, P O Kunnummakkara
Eramala, Vatakara, Kozhikode
Kerala-673 308.
23. Mr.Hussain E.K.
s/o Ibrahim Haji
aged about 59 years
r/at Valliyakavl House
Eramala Kunnummakkara Post
Vadakara, Kozhikode
Kerala-673308.
(Placed exparte)
Date of institution of the suit 10.02.2020
Nature of the suit For declaration and
mesne profits
Date of the commencement 13.09.2023
of recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment 02.03.2024
pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
03 11 21
(SAVITRI SHIVAPUTRA KUJJI)
X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
6 O.S.No.1083/2020
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for declaration that the sale deed dated 05.04.2018 in favour of defendant No.5 to 22 is null and void and also for mesne profits.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are summarized as under:-
That the subject matter of the suit is detailed in the schedule of the plaint which is said to be an immoveable property bearing site No.13, old khatha No.6/1B towards western side, CMC khatha No.6/1B-13, situate at Bommanahalli village, Begur hobli, Bengaluru south taluk measuring east-west 40 feets and north-south 25 feets along with the constructed building stilt with three floors. The plaintiff claims to be a pardanashin lady who was assisting her husband for launching a small scale industrial unit at Bommanahalli and while participating in the operation of the said factory, her husband as a promoter gradually consolidated the business of ice blocks for supplying them to the customers and over a time the demand for Ice blocks surged which required larger supply which has necessitated the addition of three separate units in one composite premises in occupation of her husband as a lessee. The plaintiff has further stated that during the year 2015, her daughter too joined her parents contributing into transforming small scale factory into a larger unit for supply of Ice blocks and all the three devoted their full time towards running of the said factory. It is further stated that while the factory turnover turned financially viable, the plaintiff managed to set aside some funds at her disposal. However, it is stated that during the early October 2015 when certain differences cropped up between the promoter and the owner of he premises, the owner started troubling the promoter by keeping all the power 7 O.S.No.1083/2020 switches in his control and thus the factory was at his mercy to get power switches turned on for drawing water for making ice blocks from the borewells that are located in the factory premises itself. It is further urged by the plaintiff that she and her daughter had a plan for future development of the business and in a far- sighted manner they were planning to purchase their own flat with an intention to shift their factory unit to their own property and negotiated for a transaction to purchase a vacant site closed to their factory and accordingly negotiated with defendant Nos.1 & 2 who are the owners of the adjacent sites. It is further stated that defendant Nos.1 & 2 agreed to sell the schedule property for a total sale consideration amount of Rs.26,00,000/- and entered into a sale agreement dated 16.102.2015 with the plaintiff for selling the schedule property and the plaintiff's husband said to have extended financial support and accordingly the plaintiff said to have paid Rs.22,00,000/- to defendant Nos.1 & 2 towards earnest money at the time of execution and registration of the above said sale agreement and insisted defendant Nos.1 & 2 to execute the registered sale deed. It has been further carved out that the plaintiff was informed by defendant Nos.1 & 2 that they had availed a bank loan by deposit of title deeds with respect to schedule property and the plaintiff said to have reposed trust in defendant Nos.1 & 2 and waited for the fulfillment of their part of contractual agreement by the defendants as per the agreed terms. It is further stated that subsequent to the execution of the said sale agreement defendant Nos.1 & 2 engaged in raising funds to get the bank documents released and therefore the plaintiff never pressurized them as there was mutual understanding with defendant No.3 about the bank mortgage discharge and release of documents and they were making joint efforts to procure the original documents from the bank thereby 8 O.S.No.1083/2020 keeping the plaintiff assured that the schedule property would be duly registered in her name as per the terms of agreement. The plaintiff has further stated that during the year 2016 her husband seriously fell ill due to cardiac related issues which made their family disturbed which also affected their business and ultimately the plaintiff's husband said to have passed away on 21.12.2017 and therefore the business was badly struck and also they faced money related issues including BESCOM bill problems and objections from the BBMP and at some point of time the plaintiff had to even seek intervention of police. It is however alleged that only with a limited support from her daughter, the plaintiff could manage to run the factory with so many issues and thereby they were said to have exploited by both their factory owner as well as BESCOM officials creating a series of hurdles regarding electricity and power billing issues as the plaintiff's daughter being a qualified Engineer probed into a larger scale scam in the electricity and power billing with the owner as well as BESCOM officials and due to all these problems their business was seriously affected as a result of which the plaintiff suffered huge loss and considerable time was consumed for all these issues. It is further urged that as the plaintiff had already paid entire sale consideration amount short of Rs.2,00,000/- which was also paid at the time of registration of sale agreement, they were calling upon defendant Nos.1 & 2 to execute the registered sale deed as per the agreed terms. However it is the allegation of the plaintiff that defendant Nos.1 & 2 defrauded her and thereby illegally transferred schedule property in favour of defendant No.3 on 08.12.2015 and defendant No.3 in turn, sold the said property of defendant No.4 under a sale deed dated 12.01.2017. It has been further alleged that subsequently defendant No.4 also entered into a sale agreement dated 15.02.2018 with one E.K. Hussain 9 O.S.No.1083/2020 followed by a formal transfer of title of suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.5 to 22 and thus the schedule property is said to be presently standing in the joint names of defendant No.5 to 22 by way of an absolute registered sale deed dated 05.04.2018. It is alleged that the plaintiff could learn about all these successive transactions recently and it is further alleged that all these transactions have been effected fraudulently even though she is holding a valid and enforceable sale agreement in her favour with created a legal charge which subsists till today and therefore plaintiff said to have retained her right to purchase the suit schedule property as the entire sale consideration amount has already been paid and therefore she has to file the present suit seeking for a decree declaring the sale deed dated 05.04.2018 in favour of defendant Nos.5 to 22 as null and void since there has already been existing charge created in favour of the plaintiff by defendant Nos.1 & 2 under the registered sale agreement dated 16.10.2015 and directing the defendants to pay past and future mesne profits and hence the suit.
3. Despite service of suit summons, none of the defendants appeared before the Court and accordingly they have been placed exparte.
4. To substantiate her claim, the plaintiff has deposed before the Court as P.W.1 and she has produced five documents marked from Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5.
5. The counsel for the plaintiff submitted arguments.
6. On hearing and on perusal of materials and evidence on record, following points arise for consideration of this Court:-
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant Nos.1 & 2 have entered into a sale 10 O.S.No.1083/2020 agreement with her with respect to suit schedule property under a registered sale agreement dated 16.10.2015 by receiving the entire sale consideration amount of Rs.22,00,000/- from her?
2) Whether the plaintiff further proves the alleged default committed by defendant Nos.1 & 2 in executing the registered sale deed in her favour as per the terms of the sale agreement?
3) Whether she further proves that now all the defendants have fraudulently got executed a registered sale deed dated 05.04.2018 with respect to suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.5 to 22?
4) If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek the declaratory relief as sought for in para-
19(a) of the plaint?
5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim mesne profits as sought for in para-19(b) of the plaint?
6) What order or decree?
7. The findings of this Court on the above points are as under:-
11 O.S.No.1083/2020Point No.1:- In the negative Point No.2:- In the negative Point No.3:- In the negative Point No.4:- In the negative Point No.5:- In the negative Point No.6:- As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Point Nos.1 to 5:- Since all these points are interconnected, they are tried together to avoid repetition of facts. It is the specific claim of the plaintiff that she along with her deceased husband and her daughter, was jointly running a ice factory in a rented premises and during the year 2015 they planned of securing a site of their own to shift their business from the tenanted premises where they were running their factory and accordingly they entered into the suit sale agreement dated 16.10.2015 with the owners of the suit schedule property i.e., defendant Nos.1 & 2. According to her claim under this sale agreement defendant Nos.1 & 2 agreed to sell the suit schedule property to her for a total sale consideration of Rs.26,00,000/- out of which she paid Rs.22,00,000/- as earnest amount to defendant Nos.1 & 2 on the date of execution of the sale agreement which was duly registered. However it is the further claim of the plaintiff that since defendant Nos.1 & 2 had mortgaged the schedule property for availing a bank loan by depositing all the original title deeds of the suit schedule property with the bank, they were raising funds for getting released the schedule property and the original title deeds and hence the plaintiff did not pressurize them for completion of the sale transaction.
12 O.S.No.1083/20209. The plaintiff has also stated that during the intervening period during 2016-17 her husband seriously fell ill and ultimately he passed away on 21.12.2017 and thereafter they suffered huge business loss and were also exploited by the factory owner and also by the BESCOM authorities in connection with payment of electricity bills with respect to their factory and in resolving all these issues, considerable time was consumed due to which she could not follow the issue regarding execution of the sale deed from defendant Nos.1 & 2. However it is her grievance that taking advantage of this situation, defendant Nos.1 & 2 in order to defraud her, illegally transferred the schedule property in favour of defendant No.3 on 08.12.2015 and defendant No.3 in turn, transferred the same under a registered sale deed dated 12.01.2017 in favour of defendant No.4 who in turn, entered into a subsequent sale agreement dated 15.02.2018 with one E.K. Hussain and subsequently sold the schedule property to defendant Nos.5 to 22 under a registered sale deed dated 05.04.2018. It is the claim of the plaintiff that she could learn about all these illegal sale transactions inter-se defendant No.1 to 22 only recently and therefore according to her claim, since she is having a valid and enforceable sale agreement in her favour which has already created a legal charge which is still subsisting on the title of the schedule property and hence, she has retained her legal right to purchase it since she has been already parted with the entire sale consideration amount with defendant Nos.1 &
2. For these reasons she has sought for a declaratory relief regarding nullity of the disputed sale deed dated 05.04.2018 in this suit.
10. To dispute or controvert the claim of the plaintiff, admittedly we have no defence from any of the defendants since 13 O.S.No.1083/2020 none of them have attempted to appear before the Court to contest the matter as they have been placed exparte. However even in the absence of any defence from the defendants, the initial burden is cast on the plaintiff to prove her case independently. As already discussed above, to substantiate her claim the plaintiff has deposed before the Court as P.W.1 and she has relied on five documents of which Ex.P.1 is the original registered sale agreement dated 16.10.2015 executed by defendant Nosa.1 & 2 in her favour with respect to the suit schedule property. The online certified copy of the sale deed dated 12.03.2020 executed by defendant Nos.14, 15 and 18 to 22 in favour of D.23 is produced as per Ex.P.2. The encumbrance certificate pertaining to the suit schedule property is produced at Ex.P.3. She has also produced the sale agreement dated 15.02.2018 executed in favour of D.23 as per Ex.P.4. She has also produced the certified copy of the sale deed dated 15.04.2018 executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.5 as per Ex.P.5.
11. In the backdrop of the above oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court by P.W.1, now it is to be seen whether she could prove her entitlement to seek the suit reliefs. Under Ex.P.1 sale agreement dated 15.10.2015 which is a registered document, it is shown that defendant Nos.1 & 2 had agreed to sell the suit schedule property to P.W.1 for a total sale consideration of Rs.26,00,000/- and received Rs.24,00,000/- as advance amount. P.W.1 is shown to have agreed to pay the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.2,00,000/- within 3 months from the date of the said agreement. It is revealed from this document that the parties had agreed to get completed the sale transaction after defendant Nos.1 & 2 being the vendors get 14 O.S.No.1083/2020 cleared the outstanding loan amount and after getting released the original documents from the bank which were mortgaged to avail the loan. Thus it is revealed from this agreement that the transaction was agreed to be completed only after the performance of the above said obligations and acts by the vendor. Prima-facie this document indicates that the vendor had to get cleared the encumbrance with respect to the suit schedule property and thereafter to executed the registered sale deed in favour of P.W.1.
12. No doubt from Ex.P.1 agreement it is shown that the vendor had obligation to perform those acts referred to therein and it was only after completion of those acts the sale transaction was to be concluded, but it is to be noted that this agreement was entered into in the year 2015. Under such circumstances what prudent efforts P.W.1 had made to demand the execution of the sale deed in her favour as per the agreed terms from the vendors defendant Nos.1 & 2, is the material aspect which she has to prove before the Court. However it is relevant to note that as per her own documents at Ex.P.4 & 5 itself there was subsequent sale transaction between defendant No.4 & 5 with respect to same property on 05.04.2018 as per Ex.P.5 under which defendant No.4 had sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.5 and again as per Ex.P.4 once again defendant No.4 has sold the said property in favour of one E.K. Hussain. Both these documents are registered sale deeds which have come into existence in the year 2018 itself.
13. Thus, from the above registered sale transactions in favour of D5 to 22 it could be inferred that the purchasers under these documents must have purchased the schedule property only after defendant Nos.1 & 2 as vendors, had got cleared the 15 O.S.No.1083/2020 encumbrance on the suit schedule property and also after getting released the original title deeds pertaining to the suit schedule property. Therefore a reasonable question certainly arises as to what efforts the present P.W.1 had made to get completed the sale transaction covered under Ex.P.1. No explanation is offered by her in this regard. Therefore merely because she had entered into a registered sale agreement under Ex.P.1 by paying huge sum towards advance sale consideration amount to defendant Nos.1 & 2 and that the sale transaction was to be completed after defendant Nos.1 & 2 performing certain acts as narrated supra, that itself is not sufficient unless and until P.W.1 could establish before the Court that she was ever ready and willing to perform her part of contract to get completed the sale transaction. However no documents, much less any legal notice is produced before the Court by P.W.1 to show that she had called upon defendant Nos.1 & 2 demanding the completion of sale transaction as per the terms of Ex.P.1.
14. Therefore when the readiness and willingness on the part of PW1 to complete the sale transaction is not proved by her with cogent evidence, the only inference which has to be drawn is that she had slept over her right for all these years since 2015 or 2018 till 2020. Even otherwise it is to be noted that under the present suit the plaintiff has sought for nullity of the disputed sale deed dated 05.04.2018 executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant Nos.5 to 22 i.e., Ex.P.5 sale deed without seeking for the cancellation of the subsequent sale transaction which even according to her was entered into between D.14, 15, 18 to 22 and D.23 who was subsequently impleaded in the proceeding.
15. It is pertinent to note that even after impleading D.23 in the proceeding, P.W.1 has not sought for any declaratory relief 16 O.S.No.1083/2020 regarding cancellation of this sale deed dated 12.03.2020 executed in favour of D.23. Under such circumstances when no such additional relief has been sought for by the plaintiff against the subsequent purchaser D.23, who has already acquired a registered sale deed in his favour with respect to the suit schedule property, the relief which has been sought for in the suit at para-19(a) of the plaint has become redundant. Therefore when even after execution of Ex.P.5- sale deed which is sought to be nullified in the present suit already the suit schedule property has been further sold in favour of D.23 as per subsequent registered sale deed, unless and until that subsequent sale deed is cancelled or set aside, the relief as prayed for in the present form in this suit cannot be granted which has become infructuous as on today.
16. It is further pertinent to note that though P.W.1 has sought for declaration regarding the disputed sale deed at Ex.P.4 executed earlier in favour of D.5 to 22, but it is an admitted fact that till this date she is merely holding a sale agreement as per Ex.P.1 in her favour. It is material to note that though a declaratory relief regarding nullity of the sale deed has been sought for by the plaintiff, but she has not sought for the substantive relief of specific performance of contract against defendant Nos.1 & 2 or the rest of the defendants based on Ex.P.1, because her entire claim is based on this sale agreement. When she is a mere agreement holder with respect to the suit schedule property, the appropriate relief which ought to have been claimed by her was for specific performance of contract. Unless and until such substantive relief is sought for by the plaintiff, this Court cannot grant the other reliefs particularly with regard to the subsequent series sale transactions entered into 17 O.S.No.1083/2020 between defendant Nos.1 to 23 till this date. Therefore the very frame of the suit and the relief sought for in the present form by the plaintiff are incapable of enforcement.
17. However, it is urged on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendants have not attempted to appear before the Court to contest the claim of the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff is entitled to the suit reliefs. This line of argument canvassed on behalf of the plaintiff is totally misconceived for the reason that as discussed above, from the own pleadings and the nature of reliefs sought for by PW1 itself it cannot be said that she is entitled to seek any of the suit reliefs. When the plaintiff herself has failed to discharge the initial burden of proving all the above points in order to seek the suit reliefs, she cannot rely on the weakness or infirmities crept in the defence of the defendant. It is a well settled position of law that non-examination of the defendants in a suit will not in all circumstances, entitle the plaintiff to seek the reliefs when the initial burden of proving the disputed issues involved in the suit itself could not be discharged by the plaintiff. This position of law is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in Pandurang v/s Ramchandra in AIR 1981 SC 2235 as under:
"Evidence Act(1 of 1872), Section 114-Party failing to appear in court-
Drawing an adverse inference-
Question as to would arise only when there is no other evidence on record on the point in issue".
By applying the principles laid down in the above cited decision to the facts on hand, even in the instant case it could be said that when the Court can decide the suit based on the 18 O.S.No.1083/2020 available evidence placed before the Court by the plaintiff herself, the court need not call upon the defendants to prove the negative. Therefore none of the reliefs sought for by P.W.1 in the present form could be granted by this Court.
18. One more material aspect which invites consideration at this juncture is that though P.W.1 has repeatedly urged that under Ex.P.1 she has parted with a huge sum of Rs.24,00,000/- by way of payment of entire sale consideration amount to defendant Nos.1 & 2, but even there is no specific relief, much less any alternative relief sought for by her for refund of the said earnest amount from defendant Nos.1 & 2. However a desperate attempt is made by P.W.1 by urging before the Court that by holding Ex.P.1 sale agreement which is a registered instrument in her favour, she is still entitled to seek for the suit reliefs. This claim of P.W.1 cannot be sustained, because Ex.P.1 is though a registered document it is merely an agreement of sale with respect to suit schedule property without delivery of possession of the suit schedule property in her favour. On the contrary subsequent to the execution of Ex.P.1 in the year 2015 there have been series of sale transactions with respect to the said property inter-se defendant Nos.1 to 23 which consequently establish that under those registered sale transactions entered into between defendant Nos.1 to 23 at different points of time, even the vendors have delivered the physical possession of the suit schedule property to all these subsequent purchasers. Under such circumstances without seeking for the relief of specific performance of contract against the defendants, nor seeking for the alternative relief of refund of earnest amount, the plaint presented and the reliefs sought for in the present form are totally unsustainable both under law or on facts. Consequently, it is to 19 O.S.No.1083/2020 be held that the plaintiff has failed to prove any of the above points to seek the suit reliefs. Hence all these points are accordingly answered against the plaintiff in the negative.
19. Point No.6:- In the light of the findings given on the above points and in the facts and circumstances of the case the parties to this suit are hereby directed to bear their own cost of litigation. In the result, the Court hereby proceeds to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of declaration and mesne profits is hereby dismissed.
Parties to bear their own cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him on Computer, carried out corrections, print out taken and then pronounced in the Open Court on this the 2nd day of March, 2024) (SAVITRI SHIVAPUTRA KUJJI) X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
PW.1 : Mrs.Parveen Taj List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P1 : Original registered sale deed dtd:16.10.2015 20 O.S.No.1083/2020 Ex.P2 : Online certified copy of sale deed dtd:12.3.2020 Ex.P3 : EC Ex.P4 : C/c of sale agreement dtd:15.2.2018 Ex.P5 : C/c of the sale deed dtd:15.04.2018 List of witnesses examined and documents exhibited for defendants:
Nil X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.