Bangalore
District Court
Sri.V.Nagarajan
vs The Deputy Commissioner on 7 November, 2019
IN
THE COURT OF THE XLII ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE AT
BENGALURU CITY (CCH.NO.43).
PRESENT: Sri.P.SRINIVASA,
B.A.L., LL.M.,
XLII ADDL., CITY CIVIL
AND
SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Dated this the 7th day of November,
2019.
O.S.No.4440/2015
Plaintiffs:- 1.
Sri.V.Nagarajan,
S/o.S.Veerappa
Naidu,
Aged about 62
years,
2. Smt.Jayalakshmi,
W/o.V.Nagarajan,
Aged about 54
years,
Both are R/at No.1 (Site
No.18),
"Lakshmi
Nilaya", 4th Cross,
9th Main, Nanjappa
Reddy Layout,
HRBR, 1st Block,
Banaswadi,
Bangalore-560 043.
Bangalore East Taluk,
Bangalore-560
009.
2. The Assistant Commissioner,
Bangalore North
Taluk,
Bangalore-560
009.
Judgment
2 O.S.No.4440/2015
3. The Thasildar,
Krishnarajapuram,
Bangalore
East Taluk,
Bangalore-560
049.
(Defs.1 to 3 by Adv.
Kiran Pradeep)
Date
of institution of the suit : 22.05.2015
Nature
of the suit : Permanent Injunction
Date
of commencement of : 28.07.2016
Recording
of the evidence
Date
on which the Judgment : 07.11.2019
was
pronounced
Total
Duration : Years
Months Days
04
05 15
(P.SRINIVASA)
XLII ADDL., CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
JUDGEMENT
The
plaintiffs have filed the above suit for permanent injunction and costs.
2.
The plaintiffs' case in brief as under:-
Originally,
Sy.No.248 of Banasawadi Village, measuring 2 acres 16 guntas was owned by one
Ankanna Reddy and after his death, his children partitioned the above said
property and all the Judgement sons of Ankanna Reddy got 24 guntas each in
Sy.No.248 as per the Partition Deed dated 21.02.1969 and revenue records are
mutated in their names. The legal representatives of Ankanna Reddy formed
revenue layout and sold site No.18, Khata No.766, carved out of Sy.No.248 of
Banasawadi Village i.e., suit schedule property to one K.Krishna. Said
K.Krishna sold the suit schedule property to one K.Geetha Krishnan and
T.R.Sudarsanam vide., registered Sale Deed dated 29.09.1997. Said K.Geetha
Krishnan and T.R.Sudarsanam sold the suit schedule property in favour of
plaintiffs vide., Sale Deed dated 28.11.2001. The plaintiffs are the absolute
owner and in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The khatha
of the said property stands in the name of the plaintiff and they are also
paying taxes to the concerned authority. After obtaining sanctioned plan from
BBMP, the plaintiffs have constructed house consisting ground and first floor
in the suit schedule property and they are residing in the said house. The
plaintiffs received notice dated 09.07.2012 from defendant No.3 under Section
192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, alleging that as per survey report
conducted on 06.07.2009 the plaintiffs have constructed house by encroaching
Sy.No.211. The plaintiffs have filed reply to the said notice contending that
the said survey was conducted without notice to them and they have not
encroached any portion of Sy.No.211 of Judgement Banasawadi Village and
they have constructed their house in Sy.No.248 of Banasawadi Village and
requested defendant No.3 to drop the proceedings. The defendant No.3 without
considering the objections filed by the plaintiffs and without passing any
orders, after lapse of 2 years issued another notice dated 29.12.2014 under
Section 94 and 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, calling upon the plaintiffs
to vacate the suit schedule property. After receipt of the said notice, the
plaintiffs approached the defendants and requested them to consider their reply
but, once again issued notice in the 1st week of April, 2015 and threatened to
vacate the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiffs
filed W.P.No.15254/2015 on 22.04.2015 before the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to direct the
plaintiffs to file objections before the defendants and the defendants to
consider said objections and pass necessary orders, until such time, defendants
not to take any coercive action. As per the orders passed in the said writ
petition, the plaintiffs filed detailed reply to the defendants on 04.05.2015
and on 06.05.2015 appeared before the defendants and filed another
representation requesting the defendants not to precipitate the matter until a
decision taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.15255/2015. On
07.05.2015, the defendants Judgement and their officials came near the
schedule property to conduct survey of Sy.No.248 of Banasawadi Village. The
defendants without responding to the plaintiffs request, continued their
illegal acts and brought JCBs near the suit schedule property and threatened to
demolish the building. With great difficulty, the plaintiffs were able to
resist the illegal acts of the defendants. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the
above suit for permanent injunction.
3.
In response to the suit summons, the defendants 1 to 3 appeared before the
court through their counsel and filed the written statement before this court.
In the written statement, the defendants have contended that Sy.No.211 of
Banasawadi Village is a Government land, measuring 42 acres 38 guntas and the
suit schedule property is part of said Sy.No.211 of Banasawadi Village. The
defendants have denied plaintiff's title over the suit schedule property. The
defendants have contended that plaintiffs' vendors had no title over the suit
schedule property and Sale Deed executed by plaintiffs' vendors is non-est,
illegal and doesn't confirm any title to the plaintiffs. Sy.No.211 of
Banasawadi Village is a sarakari kere and suit schedule property comes within
Sy.No.211 of Banasawadi Village. The layout alleged to be formed by plaintiffs'
vendor is illegal and it is formed without any authority of law and it is
formed on the Government land hence, Judgement plaintiffs' vendors had no
right or title over the suit schedule property. Further, the defendants have
contended that BBMP or BDA or any other authorities have no authority to issue
khatha certificate or to approve building plan in respect of sarakari kere
i.e., Government land in the name of the plaintiffs or any other persons. The
title documents and tax paid receipts are manipulated and obtained with oblique
motive to knock of the Government land. Further, the defendants have contended
that by issuing notices to the encroachers and in the presence of the
encroachers and general public twice survey was conducted to ascertain the
encroachment. The plaintiffs have constructed their house by encroaching
Sy.No.211 i.e., Government land. The plaintiffs' possession over the Government
land is illegal and same is liable to be evicted. The defendants have denied
the plaint averment that on 1st week of April 2015, the defendants tried to
dispossess the plaintiffs. The defendants admit issuance of notices to the
encroachers including the plaintiffs. The defendants are statutory authorities
and they are discharging their statutory duty to remove illegal encroachments
in Sy.No.211 of Banasawadi Village. The plaintiffs cannot seek equitable relief
of injunction, restraining the authorities in exercising the statutory right in
accordance with law. The defendants have initiated action against every
individuals who have encroached different portion Judgement of Sy.No.211
of Banasawadi Village. The defendants have issued notices and after holding an
enquiry, the defendants have passed order under Karnataka Land Revenue Act
dated 23.04.2015, holding that encroachment should be removed. The plaintiffs
have not challenged the said order dated 23.04.2015 passed by the Tahasildar,
which has attained finality. The plaintiffs have alternative remedy and they
cannot invoke civil court and present suit is not maintainable. The plaintiffs
have not approached the with clean hands and they have suppressed material
facts. The Government of Karnataka has taken decision to remove illegal
encroachments over Government land in and around Bengaluru. The Government of
Karnataka had constituted a committee headed by Sri.A.T.Ramaswamy and said
committee submitted a report and thereafter, Government of Karnataka has taken
action to remove illegal encroachment. To confirm the encroachment, survey was
also held and the Government has set up special task force to remove illegal
encroachment. If injunction is granted, it will defeat the very purpose of
decision taken by the Government, to save and protect the Government lands. The
relief sought by the plaintiffs is against public interest. The Government is
entitle to take possession of the land which is illegally occupied by the
plaintiffs by evicting them or demolishing the structure. Hence, prayed that
suit may be dismissed with costs.
Judgement
4.
On the basis of above pleadings, below mentioned issues arise for
consideration:-
ISSUES
1.
Whether the plaintiffs prove their lawful possession over the suit schedule
property as on the date of the suit?
2.
Whether the plaintiffs prove the alleged interference of the defendants?
3.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?
4.
What order or decree?
5.
To prove the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 examined himself as PW-1
and marked Ex.P1 to P21. The defendant No.3 examined as DW-1 and got marked
Ex.D1 to D5.
6.
Heard arguments. The learned counsel for defendants 1 to 3 has relied upon the
following citations reported in:
2.
Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, in
W.P.Nos.104463/2014 & 110042-58/2014 Judgement (KLR-RES) dated
10.12.2014, in the case of Fakirappa Kareppa Hanchinamani and others v. The
State of Karnataka and others.
7.
My findings on the above said issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1 :-
In the Negative.
Issue No.2 :-
In the Negative.
Issue No.3 :-
In the Negative.
Issue No.4 :-
As per final order.
for the
following:-
REASONS
8.
Issue Nos.1 to 3:- These issues are taken up together for consideration to
avoid repetition of facts, evidence and convenience.
9.
PW-1 in his examination-in-chief has stated that Sy.No.248 of Banaswadi
Village, measuring 2 acres 16 guntas originally belonged to one Ankanna Redd
and after his death, his Judgement children partitioned the said property
and as per Partition Deed dated 21.02.1969, 24 guntas each in Sy.No.248 was
allotted to the sons of Ankanna Reddy. In support of the said contention, the
plaintiffs have produced certified copy of Partition Deed dated 21.02.1969 at
Ex.P2. Ex.P2 is more than 30 years old document, hence, presumption has to be
raised regarding execution of Ex.P2. Hence, this court can rely upon Ex.P.2.
From the recitals of the Ex.P2, it discloses that all the children of Ankanna
Reddy have partitioned their family properties including Sy.No.248 and 24 guntas
each is allotted to the share of sons of Ankanna Reddy. The defendants are not
claiming any right, title or possession over Sy.No.248 of Banasawadi Village.
Further, PW-1 in his examination-in-chief has stated that legal representatives
of Ankanna Reddy formed revenue layout and sold site No.18 i.e., suit schedule
property to one K.Krishna. Said K.Krishna sold the suit schedule property to
K.Geetha Krishnan and T.R.Sudarsanam vide., registered Sale Deed dated
29.09.1997. Said K.Geetha Krishnan and T.R.Sudarsanam sold the suit schedule
property to plaintiffs vide., Sale Deed dated 28.11.2001. Further, PW-1 has
stated that khatha of the suit schedule property is mutated in the name of the
plaintiffs and they are paying taxes to the concerned authorities and by
obtaining sanctioned plan from BBMP they have constructed residential house
consisting ground and first Judgement floor in the suit schedule property
and the plaintiffs are residing the said house along with their family members.
In support of plaintiffs' contention, the plaintiffs have produced original
Sale Deed dated 28.11.2001 at Ex.P1, certified copy of of the Sale Deed dated
29.09.1997 executed in favour of K.Geetha Krishnan and T.R.Sudarsanam at Ex.P3,
Khatha Certificate, Khatha Extract, Tax Paid Receipt, Sanctioned Plan,
photographs, electricity and water bills and receipts and encumbrance
certificate before this court at Ex.P3 to P14. Advocate for the plaintiffs
argued that suit schedule property is carved out from Sy.No.248 of Banasawadi
Village and the plaintiffs have purchased the suit schedule property vide.,
registered Sale Deed and they have constructed house in the suit schedule
property and residing in the said suit schedule property and the plaintiffs are
the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property and the
defendants illegally tried to interfere with plaintiffs' possession. Hence,
plaintiffs are entitle for permanent injunction. Per contra, advocate for the
defendants argued that suit schedule property is situated in Sy.No.211 of
Banasawadi Village and Sy.No.211 is a Government land i.e., sarakari kere and
plaintiffs have put up construction by encroaching Sy.No.211 of Banasawadi
Village. Further, argued that plaintiffs are not in lawful possession of the
suit schedule property. The defendants have discharged their duty
Judgement as per law and the plaintiffs are not entitle for the relief of
injunction against true owner i.e., Government. Hence, prayed that suit may be
dismissed. It is pertinent to note that, plaintiffs' claim that they are the
absolute owners of the suit schedule property. Per contra, the defendants
contend that suit schedule property is situated in the Government land i.e.,
sarakari kere therefore, Government is the owner of the suit schedule property.
The defendants have produced RTC of Sy.No.211 of Banasawadi Village at Ex.D2.
From Ex.D2, it goes to show that Sy.No.211 is a Government land i.e., sarakari
kere. From the pleadings and evidence of both parties, it discloses that both
parties are claiming title over the suit schedule property. In AIR 2008 Supreme
Court page 2033, in the case of Anathula Sudhkar v. P.Buchi Reddy
(Dead) by L.Rs. & Others, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
with regard to the relief of injunction in respect of immovable property as
follows:-
(A)
Specific Relief Act (47 of 1963), S.38 - Prohibitory injunction relating to
immovable property - Suit for - Scope of.
The
position in regard to suits for prohibitory injunction relating to immovable is
summarised as under:
(a)
Where a cloud is raised over plaintiff's title and he does not have possession,
a suit for Judgement declaration and possession, with or without a
consequential injunction, is the remedy. Where the plaintiff's title is not in
dispute or under a cloud, but he is out of possession, he has to sue for
possession with a consequential injunction. Where there is merely an
interference with plaintiff' lawful possession or threat of dispossession, it
is sufficient to sue for an injunction simpliciter.
(b)
As a suit for injunction simpliciter is concerned only with possession,
normally the issue of title will not be directly and substantially in issue.
The prayer for injunction will be decided with reference to the finding on
possession. But in cases where de jure possession has to be established on the
basis of the title to the property, as in the case of vacant sites, the issue
of title may directly and substantially arise for consideration, as without a
finding thereon, it will not be possible to decide the issue of possession.
(c)
But a finding on title cannot be recorded in a suit for injunction, unless
there are necessary pleadings and appropriate issue regarding title (either
specific or implied). Where the averments regarding title are absent in a
plaint and where there is no issue relating to title, the Court will not
investigate or examine or render a finding on a question of title, in a suit
for injunction. Even where there are necessary pleadings and issue, if the
matter involves complicated questions of fact and law relating to title, the
Court will relegate the parties to the remedy by way of comprehensive suit
Judgement for declaration of title, instead of deciding the issue in a
suit for mere injunction.
(d)
Where there are necessary pleadings regarding title, and appropriate issue
relating to title on which parties lead evidence, if the matter involved is
simple and straight forward, the court may decide upon the issue regarding
title, even in a suit for injunction. But such cases, are the exception to the
normal rule that question of title will not be decided in suits for injunction.
But persons having clearly title and possession suing for injunction, should
not be driven to the costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for
declaration, merely because some meddler vexatiously or wrongfully makes a
claim or tries to encroach upon his property. The Court should use its
discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases
where it will refer to plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit,
depending upon the facts of the case.
Further,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
(B) Specific Relief Act (47
of 1963). Ss.34, 38 - Suit for injunction simpliciter - Maintainability -
Plaintiffs claim for possession purely based on title through 'R' who claimed
to be owner in pursuance of oral gift in year 1961 without property being
mutated in her name - Whereas defendant claimed title from original owner who
was registered as owner in revenue records - Complicated question of title
involved - Could be examined only in a title suit, for
Judgement declaration and consequential reliefs, and not in a suit for injunction
simpliciter.
11.1
Where a plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a property and such
possession is interfered or threatened by the defendant, a suit for an
injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his possession
against any person who does not prove a better title by seeking a prohibitory
injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to an
injunction against the rightful owner.
11.2
Where the title of the plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession,
his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary,
an injunction. A person out of possession, cannot seek the relief of injunction
simpliciter, without claiming the relief of possession.
11.3
Where the plaintiff is in possession, but his title to the property is in
dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and
there is also a threat of dispossession from defendant, the plaintiff will have
to sue for declaration of title and the consequential relief of injunction.
Where the title of plaintiff is under a cloud or in dispute and he is not in
possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will
have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.
From
the above judgment, it is clear that if plaintiffs' title to the property is in
dispute or under a cloud and where the defendants Judgement asserts title
thereto and there is also a threat of dispossession from the defendants, the
plaintiff has to sue for declaration of title and consequential relief of
injunction. In the present case, the defendants are claiming that suit schedule
property is a Government land and as per plaintiffs' case the defendants are
trying to evict the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property. Therefore,
there is a cloud over the title of the plaintiffs. Hence, on the above said
ground the present suit for bare injunction without seeking the relief of
declaration is not maintainable under law.
10.
Both parties admit existence of house in the suit schedule property. The
plaintiffs contend that suit schedule property is situated in Sy.No.248 of
Banasawadi Village. It is pertinent to note that, in the Sale Deed i.e., Ex.P1
there is no recital to the effect that suit schedule property is situated in
Sy.No.248 of Banasawadi Village. Similarly, in Ex.P3 (i.e., Sale Deed of
plaintiffs' vendors) there is no recital to the effect that suit schedule
property is situated in Sy.No.248 of Banasawadi Village. The plaintiffs have
not produced any documentary evidence before this court to show the location of
suit schedule property in Sy.No.248 of Banasawadi Village. Therefore, adverse
inference has to be drawn against the plaintiffs. On the other hand, the
defendants in order to show that suit schedule Judgement property is
situated in Sy.No.211 of Banasawadi Village, have produced certified copy of
order passed by the Tahasildar in N.C.R.C.R.170/09-10 dated 23.04.2015, RTC of
Sy.No.211, Survey Sketch, Banasawadi Village Map and Settlement Akaarbandu at
Ex.D1 to D7. From Ex.D2 i.e., RTC, it discloses that Sy.No.211 is a Government
land. Ex.D1 is the proceedings initiated by Tahasildar under Karnataka Land
Revenue Act against the encroachers of Sy.No.211 of Banasawadi Village
including the plaintiffs herein. From Ex.D1, it discloses that plaintiff No.1
is arrayed as Respondent No.56 in the said proceedings. It is pertinent to note
that, PW-1 in his cross-examination admits that he has signed the order sheet
of the said proceedings. From the above admission of PW-1, it clearly goes to
show that plaintiff No.1 has participated in the proceedings before the
Tahasildar. In the said proceedings, the Tahasildar has held that the
plaintiffs and other encroachers have encroached Sy.No.211 of Banasawadi
Village i.e., Government land. From Ex.D3 i.e., Sketch, it discloses that suit
schedule property is situated in Sy.No.211 of Banasawadi Village i.e.,
Government land. The plaintiffs contend that survey was not conducted in their
presence and notices were not issued to them. It is pertinent to note that, in
Ex.D1 i.e., order of the Tahasildar, the Tahasildar has categorically stated
that at the request of the encroachers survey Judgement was ordered and
notices were issued to the encroachers and general public and survey was conducted
in the presence of encroachers and general public. There is no reason to
disbelieve the order of the Tahasildar. Therefore, contention of the plaintiffs
that survey was conducted without notice to the plaintiffs and in their
absence, cannot be accepted. From the survey sketch produced Ex.D3, it clearly
demonstrates that suit schedule property is situated in Sy.No.211 of Banasawadi
Village i.e., Government land. The defendants have produced sufficient
documentary evidence to show that suit schedule property is situated in
Government land. Therefore, plaintiffs are in unauthorized and illegal
possession of the Government land. Hence, the contention of the plaintiffs that
they are in lawful possession of the suit schedule property cannot be accepted.
11.
PW-1 in his evidence has stated that the defendants are illegally trying to
interfere with plaintiffs' possession and are trying to evict the plaintiffs
from the suit schedule property. It is pertinent to note that, the defendants
have produced sufficient material evidence before this court to show that suit
schedule property is situated in Sy.No.211 of Banasawadi Village i.e.,
Government land. Admittedly, the defendants 1 to 3 are Government Authorities.
The defendants 1 to 3 are empowered under law to take necessary legal action to
evict unauthorized / Judgement illegal occupants from the Government
lands. Therefore, contention of the plaintiffs that defendants illegally tried
to interfere with their possession cannot be accepted.
12.
Advocate for the plaintiffs argued that the plaintiffs are in possession of the
suit schedule property. Hence, they are entitle for permanent injunction.
"A.
Panchyats and Zilla Parishads - Common village land / Community land / Commons
-
Encroachment
of Gram Panchayat land - Regularization of - Impermissibility - Held, illegal
encroachments of village / Gram Panchayat lands shall not be regularized - Long
duration of occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or
political connections are no justification for regularizing such illegal
occupations - However, regularization may be permitted where lease is granted
to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes, or
where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on said
land - In present case, appellant unauthorizedly encroached village pond of
Gram Panchayat by filling it and raising constructions thereon - Collector
directing regularization of land by Judgement recovering its cost, since
huge money was spent by appellants on said land - Held, Gram Sabha land must be
kept for use of villagers of the village
-
Common interest of villagers shall not suffer merely because unauthorized
occupation has been subsisting for many years - Hence, regularization Letter
dt.26-9-2007 by State Government in favour of unauthorized occupants, held,
illegal, not valid and without jurisdiction - Constructions must be removed and
possession shall be restored to Gram Panchayat - Further held, orders issued by
all State Governments permitting Gram Sabha land to private persons and commercial
enterprises on payment of money are illegal and should be ignored - All State
Governments are directed to prepare schemes for eviction of illegal /
unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha / Gram Panchayat / promboke / shamlat land
and restoration of Gram Panchayat - Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation)
Act, 1961 (18 of 1961) - S.7 - Constitution of India - Arts.39(b) and 300-A -
Utilization of community resources for common good - Tenancy and Land Laws -
Land Grabbomg - encroachment of Gram Panchayat land - Regularization of -
Impermissibility."
In
the Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, in
W.P.Nos.104463/2014 & 110042-58/2014 (KLR-RES) dated 10.12.2014, in the
case of Fakirappa Kareppa Hanchinamani and others v. The State
Judgement of Karnataka and others, wherein the lordships have held as
follows:
"3.
It is submitted by the Additional Government Advocate that an interim direction
is issued by the Division Bench of this Court headed by the Hon'ble Chief
Justice which is pending in W.P.No.15500/2013 and connected matters wherein
specific direction is issued to revenue department to initiate necessary
proceedings to clear encroachments. In that view of the matter, question of
entertaining these writ petitions by quashing the notices issued by 5 th
respondent pursuant to direction issued by second respondent in implementation
of the report of Sri.V.Balasubramanian Committee and also the interim
directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.15500/2013 and
connected matters does not arise. Accordingly, these writ petitions are
dismissed."
From
the above citations it is clear that, unauthorized occupants of Government land
/ gomala land etc. are not entitle for relief of injunction. In the present
case, the plaintiffs are occupying the Government land unauthorizedly
therefore, they are not entitle for the discretionary relief of injunction. In
the light of the above discussion, I answer Issue Nos.1 to 3 in the Negative.
13.
Issue No.4:-
In
view of my above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
Judgement ORDER
Suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed with costs.
Draw
decree accordingly.
(Dictated
to the Judgement Writer, typed by her, the transcript thereof corrected and
then pronounced by me, in the open court, this the 7th day of November, 2019)
(P.SRINIVASA) XLII Addl., City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE
I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a)
Plaintiffs' side:
PW.1
- Sri.V.Nagarajan
(b)
Defendants' side:
DW.1
- Sri.N.Tejas Kumar II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of:
(a)
Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P1 : Original Sale Deed dated
28.11.2001
Ex.P2 : Certified copy of Partition Deed
dated
21.02.1969
Ex.P3 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
29.09.1997
Ex.P4 : Khatha Certificate
Ex.P5 :
Khatha Extract
Ex.P6 : Tax Paid Receipt
Judgement
Ex.P7 :
Sanctioned Plan
Ex.P8 & 9 :
2 Photos
Ex.P10 :
CD
Ex.P11 :
Electricity Bill
Ex.P12 :
Water Bill
Ex.P13 & 14 :
Encumbrance Certificates
Ex.P15 :
Certified copy of Order passed in
W.P.No.15254/2015
(KLR-RES)
Ex.P16 :
Documentation dated 03.05.2015
Ex.P17 :
Representation dated 06.05.2015
Ex.P18 :
Certified copy of order passed in
W.P.No.19659/2015
(KLR-RES)
Ex.P19 :
Tax Paid Receipt
Ex.P19(a) :
Acknowledgement
Ex.P20 :
Electricity Bill
Ex.P21 :
Water Bill
(a) Defendants' side:
Ex.D1 :
Certified copy of Orders passed by
Tahsildar in Case
No.N.C.R.C.R.170/09-10 dated
23.04.2015
Ex.D2 :
RTC
Ex.D3 :
Certified copy of Survey Sketch of
Re-Survey No.211, Banasawadi
Village
Ex.D3(a) :
Encroachment made by the
plaintiff
Ex.D4 :
Village Map
Ex.D4(a) :
Survey No.211 in Village Map
Ex.D5 :
Aakarbandh
XLII
ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.
Digitally signed by SRINIVASA
DN: cn=SRINIVASA,ou=HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA,o=GOVERNMEN
SRINIVASA T OF
KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka,c=
Judgement
IN
Date: 2019.11.08 15:48:13 IST