C.R.P.67 Govt.

of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)

TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS

IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-15) AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 12th day of October, 2020.
PRESENT:
Sri MALLANAGOUDA, B.Com.,LL.M.,
Concurrent Charge of the XVI Additional City Civil
and Sessions Judge (CCH-12), Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.8236/2017
PLAINTIFF : Sri.Aswathappa
S/o.Late Ramaiah,
Aged about 46 years
R/atNo.639/7/3,NTI
Layout
Kodigehlli, Yelahanka Hobli,
Sahakaranagara Post,
Bengaluru- 560 092,
Bengaluru North Taluk.
(By Sri.Babu M-, Advocate)
–VERSUS–
DEFENDANT : Smt.Venkamma,
D/o.Late Byrappa
@ Benne Byrappa &
W/o.Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 55 years
R/a.No.52,Byraveshwara
Nilaya,Bhoopasandra Road
Nagashettihalli,
BehindGanesha
Automobiles,
Bengaluru- 560 094.

(Defendant placed ex-parte)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
 –2– O.S. No.8236/2017

Date of Institution of the Suit : 02-12-2017

Nature of the Suit (Suit on : Injunction suit.
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for injun-
ction etc,)
Date of the commencement : 28-06-2019
of recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 12-10-2020
was pronounced
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Year/s Month/s Day/s
----------------------------------
Total duration : 2 years, 10 months, 10
days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

(MALLANAGOUDA)
Concurrent Charge of the XVI Additional City Civil
& Sessions Judge (CCH-12), Bengaluru.

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking

permanent injunction to restrain defendant from

interfering with his peaceful possession over the suit

schedule property.

2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as

under –

Plaintiff is the absolute owner in possession of the

schedule property bearing No.639/7/3 measuring East-

Cont’d..
 –3– O.S. No.8236/2017

west-62.5 feet and North-South-80 feet in all measuring

5000 Sq.ft. Situated at NTI Layout, Kodigehalli,

Yelahanka Hobli, Sahakaranagara Post, Bengaluru, suit

property is carved out of Sy.No.7/3 situated at

Kodigehalli Village, said land bearing No.7/3 in all

measuring 1 acre 23 guntas was belonging to one

Sri.Nanjappa, he had purchased the said land through

registered Sale deed dated 10.07.1938, after demise of

said Nanjappa, his only son-Sri.Ramaiah became kartha

of the family and inherited property of his father. In

the year 1970, said Ramaiah – father of the plaintiff has

formed residential sites in said Sy.No.7/3 and the suit

property is one of the site formed in the said land,

which has come to the plaintiff's possession and ever

since the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the

same. Plaintiff has constructed ACC Sheet roof shed of

150 Sq.ft in the year 2016 and subsequently, he has

obtained power supply from BESCOM. Further, after

construction of the shed, plaintiff had filed application

to BBMP for issuing katha and after verifying relevant

documents, BBMP has granted katha in the name of

the plaintiff, except the plaintiff there is no other person

Cont’d..
 –4– O.S. No.8236/2017

having right, title and interest over the suit schedule

property. The plaintiff has further constructed

compound wall to protect the suit schedule property.

The defendant is a stranger, she has no right, title

interest over the suit schedule property, inspite of it

abruptly she came near the suit property and tried to

trespass into the same and she tried to dispossess the

plaintiff from the suit property. However, with great

difficulty the plaintiff has resisted the illegal act of the

defendant, even if the plaintiff has requested the local

police to protect his possession, in collusion with the

defendant, police warned the plaintiff to handover the

possession of the suit schedule property on or before

15.12.2017. Therefore, with no other alternative, the

plaintiff has filed the present suit.

3. After service of suit summons, the defendant

has failed to appear before the court and she is placed

exparte.

4. On the basis of the above facts, the following

Points arise for my consideration –

Cont’d..
 –5– O.S. No.8236/2017

(1) Whether plaintiff proves

that he is in lawful possession
over the suit schedule
property?

(2) Whether plaintiff proves

interference of defendants as
alleged in the plaint?

(3) Whether plaintiff is entitled

for permanent injunction as
claimed?

(4) What order or decree?

5. In support of his case, plaintiff examined

himself and witness as P.W.1& P.W.2 and got marked

documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.13 on his behalf.

6. Heard arguments.

7. My findings on the above Points are as under –

POINT No.1 - Affirmative;

POINT No.2 - Affirmative;
POINT No.3 - Affirmative;
POINT No.4 - As per final order,
for the following –

REASONS

7. POINT NOs.1 TO 3 : Since all these Points are

inter-related with each other, they are being taken up

together for discussion at a stretch in order to avoid

repetitive discussion of facts.

Cont’d..
 –6– O.S. No.8236/2017

8. It is the case of the plaintiff that the land

bearing 7/3 of Kodigehalli, Yelahanka Hobli,

Sahakaranagara Post, Bengaluru North Taluk

measuring 1 acre 23 guntas was purchased by his

grand father namely Sri.Nanjappa, after the death of

said Nanjappa, his only son-Ramaiah got the suit

property through inheritance. in the year 1970, father of

the plaintiff- Ramaiah formed residential sites in

Sy.No.7/3. The suit property bearing No.639 s one

among the site formed by Ramaiah, ever since from the

date of forming residential sites, the suit property is in

possession of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has constructed

ACC sheet roof shed of 150 Sq.ft in the year 2016, he

has obtained electricity supply from BESCOM and got

Katha Certificate entered in his name from BBMP. It is

further contended by the plaintiff that the defendant

has no right, title or interest over the same, inspite of it,

she along with her henchmen tried to interfere with

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and

trespass into the same and dispossed the plaintiff.

Cont’d..
 –7– O.S. No.8236/2017

9. In his chief-examination affidavit, the plaintiff

has once again reiterated the facts alleged in the plaint.

The plaintiff examined another witness namely

-Muniyallappa, S/o. B.Muniswamy who also claims to

be the resident of vicinity, where the suit property is

situated. He has deposed that the plaintiff is the

absolute owner in possession of the suit property. The

plaintiff has constructed ACC sheet shed roof of 150

Sq.ft in the year 2016. He is residing in the said house

from 2008. He has obtained electricity connection and

BBMP katha in his name. In addition to oral evidence of

PW.1&2, the plaintiff has produced documents like copy

of sale deed dated 10.07.1938, Khatha Certificate

issued by BBMP, Electricity Bills and some

photographs.

10. Since the defendant is placed exparte,

evidence produced by the plaintiff remains

unchallenged. Further more, the documents produced

by the plaintiff also corroborate with the evidence of

PW.1 & P.W.2. Therefore, the plaintiff's contention that

the suit property is one among the sites formed in

Sy.No.7/3 of Kodigehalli Village. It was earlier belonging

Cont’d..
 –8– O.S. No.8236/2017

to plaintiff's father, now the plaintiff became the owner

of the suit property and he is in possession of the same.

The defendant tried to interfere with the possession of

the plaintiff appears to be true. Accordingly, in order to

protect the plaintiff's possession over the suit property,

it is proper and necessary to pass a decree for

permanent injunction against the defendant. Hence, the

point No.1 to 3 are answered in the Affirmative.

11. POINT No.4 : For my reasons and

discussion on the above Points, I proceed to pass the

following –

ORDER

Suit of the plaintiff is decreed with

cost.

Defendant is permanently restrained

from interfering with plaintiff's possession
over the suit schedule property.

Draw decree accordingly.

(Dictated to Judgment Writer, transcribed by him,

revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open
Court on this the 12th day of October, 2020.)

(MALLANAGOUDA)
Concurrent Charge of the XVI Additional City Civil

Cont’d..
 –9– O.S. No.8236/2017

& Sessions Judge (CCH-12), Bengaluru.

ANNEXURE
1. WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Examined on:
P.W.1 : Aswathappa 08-02-2018
P.W.2 : Muniyallappa 29.06.2018

2. DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF:

Ex.P.1 : C.C. of the Sale deed dated 10.07.1938.

Ex.P.2 : Khatha Certificate in the name of plaintiff.
Ex.P.3 : Tax Assessment extract for the 2017-2018
in the name of plaintiff.

Ex.P.4 to
Ex.P.8 : Five KEB Bills
Exs.P.9 : Form regarding connection Electricity
from BESCOM in the name of plaintiff.
Ex. P.10 to
Ex.P12 : Three photos.
Ex.P.13 : One CD related to said photos.
Ex.14 : Notary copy of Adhar Card of P.W.2
(Original seen and marked)

3. WITNESS/ES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

Nil.

4.DOCUMENT/S MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS:

Nil.

(MALLANAGOUDA)

Cont’d..
 – 10 – O.S. No.8236/2017

Concurrent Charge of the XVI Additional City Civil

& Sessions Judge (CCH-12), Bengaluru.

Judgment pronounced in open Court vide separate judgment

The operative portion of the judgment reads thus –

ORDER

Cont’d..
 – 11 – O.S. No.8236/2017

Suit of the plaintiff is decreed with

cost.
Defendant is permanently restrained

from interfering with plaintiff's possession

over the suit schedule property.

Draw decree accordingly.

(MALLANAGOUDA)
Concurrent Charge of the XVI Additional City Civil
& Sessions Judge (CCH-12), Bengaluru.

Cont’d..