C.R.P. 67) Govt. of Karnataka Form No.9(Civil) Title sheet for Judgment in Suits (R.P.91) TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGEMENTS IN SUITS IN THE COURT OF XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY. (CCH.NO.12) PRESENT : SRI [ENTITY], B.Com.,LL.B., XVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY. DATED THIS 6TH AUGUST, 2018. ORIGINAL SUIT NO.2433/2014 PLAINTIFF: [ENTITY], S/o Mr. Nisar Ahmed, Aged about 37 years, R/o No.2, Thuba Layout, Main Road, Saray Palya, Thanisandra, Bangalore - 560 077. (By Sri [ENTITY], Advocate) - Vs - DEFENDANT: The [ENTITY], Opp: Windsor Manner Hotel, Bangalore -560 020. (By Sri [ENTITY], Advocate) 2 OS No.2433/2014 Date of institution of the suit 25-03-2014 Nature of the suit: Permanent injunction. Date of the commencement of 01-02-2016 recording of the evidence: Date on which the Judgment was 06-08-2018 pronounced Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s 04 04 11 JUDGMENT
This suit filed by the plaintiff for passing a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant, its official, agent, servants or anybody acting on behalf of them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.
2. In the plaint it is stated that the plaintiff is absolute owner, in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties i.e., site No.2, khatha No.987, measuring 30 x 40 feet and site No.1, house list No.410, measuring 45+ 43/2 x 39 + 30 feet situated at Thanisandra village, K.R. Puram hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. The above said properties consisting of commercial shops and residential houses. The plaintiff described the above said two properties in the plaint as 'A' and 'B' schedule properties.
3. It is further stated that the plaintiff has purchased 'A' and 'B' schedule properties from [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY] through registered sale deeds dated 16-06-2004 and 28-07-2006 respectively. It is stated that said [ENTITY] had purchased land measuring 20.08 guntas through registered sale deeds. 10 guntas of land in Sy.No.40/1B of Thanisandra village purchased on 17-07-2002 from one [ENTITY] and 10 acres 18 guntas of land in Sy.No.40/1A situated at Thanisandra village purchased through registered sale deed dated 17-10-2002 from Smt. [ENTITY] and others. After purchase of the said 20.08 guntas of land, [ENTITY] formed residential layout by way of obtained approval plan from the concerned authorities. The said layout called as Tuba layout. Thereafter he sold all sites to the prospective purchasers. The plaintiff purchased 'A' and 'B' schedule properties from said [ENTITY]. After the purchase, he has constructed residential houses and commercial shops and he is started to reside in the suit schedule properties. He took a electricity connection, khatha has been changed in his name and encumbrance certificate is shown in his name. He is paying tax to the suit schedule properties.
4. It is stated that on 17-03-2014 the defendant officials along with unknown persons have started to demolish the residential houses constructed in Tuba layout. Without issue of prior notice to the residents of the said layout they are started for demolish and saying that the land bearing Sy.No.40/1A and 40/1B of Thanisandra village was acquired on 21-02-2004. The plaintiff and other residents of the locality have resisted the illegal acts of the defendant. The defendant officials and other persons threatening the plaintiff and others for demolition of the suit schedule properties and other properties. It is stated that the defendant is not empowered to complete his project after five years of notified land and demolish the residential houses. It is stated that the suit schedule property is only residential accommodation to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff constrained to file this suit and prayed for decree.
5. After service of summons the defendant has appeared through his counsel and resisted the case of the plaintiff by way of filing the written statement.
In the written statement it is stated that the plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts. He has no legal right to file this suit. It is denied that the plaintiff purchased the suits schedule properties by way registered sale deeds, is owner, in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. It is denied that the plaintiff has constructed the residential hoses and commercial shops in the suit schedule property and is residing in the same. It is denied that the khatha of the suit property changed in the name of the plaintiff, he get the electricity connection to the suit schedule properties and paying tax. It is stated that vendor of the plaintiff viz., [ENTITY] purchased the land measuring 20.08 guntas in Sy.No.40/1B, formed residential layout and sold sites to the plaintiff and others is not within the knowledge of this defendant. It is denied that the defendant and its officials have started to demolish the suit schedule properties and other properties in the layout, the above said act of the defendant is illegal. It is denied that except the suit schedule property there is no alternative accommodation to the plaintiff and his family members. There is no cause of action arose to file this suit.
6. It is stated that the land bearing Sy.No.40/1 measuring 34 guntas of Thanisandra village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, originally belongs to one [ENTITY]. All the original records were standing in his name and he was khathedar of said land. The Government of Karnataka has passed order to acquire the above said land for formation of Arkavathi layout. Accordingly Government has passed an order on 21-02-2004. Preliminary notification was on 03-02- 2003 and final notification was on 18-06-2014. Award has been passed and compensation amount fixed in terms of award payable to the certified khathedar. The defendant has taken the possession of the acquired land. It is stated that such being the case, the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant has trying demolish the existing commercial shops and residential buildings is not correct. The plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. From the above said grounds the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff.
7. From the above pleadings the following issues framed by my learned predecessor :-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves his actual and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties ?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves the alleged illegal interference and obstruction caused by the defendant ?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the decree claimed in the suit ?
4. What order or decree ?
8. To prove the said issues plaintiff himself examined as PW.1. Documents got marked Ex.P1 to P17. A.E.E. of the defendant examined as DW.1. Documents got marked Ex.D1 to D5. After completion of evidence of both side, the case posted for arguments on main.
9. My answer to the above 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
10. ISSUE NO.1:- In the plaint, the plaintiff contended that he purchased 'A' schedule property through registered sale deed dated 16-06-2004 and purchased 'B' schedule property through registered sale deed dated 28-07-2006 from one [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY]. The plaintiff further contended that after purchase, khatha has been changed in his name, he is lawful owner, in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. He is paying tax to the suit properties. He constructed residential houses and commercial shops and started to reside in the suit schedule properties. He took a water and electricity connection to the suit schedule properties. PW.1 in his evidence reiterated the above said averments of the plaint.
11. To prove his case, the plaintiff produced several documents and got marked in his evidence. Ex.P1 is original sale deed dated 16-06-2004, it reveals that he purchased 'A' schedule property from [ENTITY] for a consideration of Rs.72,000/-. Ex.P2 is the another original sale deed dated 28-06-2006 and it reveals that he purchased 'B' schedule property from [ENTITY] through his GPA holder for a consideration of Rs.4,17,500/-. From perusal of the description and boundaries mentioned in Ex.P1 and 2 of the sale deeds along with plaint schedule, I found that they are one and the same. The plaintiff has produced two electricity bills dated 04-12-2004 and got marked as Ex.P3 and P4. He has produced two tax paid receipts dated 16-05-2013 in respect of 'A' and 'B' properties and got marked Ex.P5 and P6. He has produced six photographs with C.D. and got marked as Ex.P7 to P12. He has stated that the said photographs are related to the suit schedule properties.
12. It is the contention of the defendant that the land bearing Sy.No.40/1 measuring 34 guntas situated at Thanisandra village originally belongs to one Sri [ENTITY]. All revenue documents were standing in the name of said [ENTITY] and he was kathedar of the said land. It is further contended that the Government of Karnataka passed an order on 21-2-2004 for acquisition of said land for formation of Arakavathi layout in favour of this defendant. Preliminary notification was on 3-2-2003 and final notification was on 18-6-2014. Award has been passed in the name of the kathedar and the defendant has taken possession of the land in question. DW.1 in his examination- in-chief reiterated the above said averments of the written statement.
13. The defendant has produced documents and got marked through DW.1. Ex.P1 is certified copy of the preliminary notification dated 03-02-2003. Ex.P2 is final notification dated 23-02-2004. These documents are reveals that the land bearing Sy.No.40/1 measuring 34 guntas of Thanisandra Village has been acquired by the Government for [ENTITY] for the purpose of formation of Arkavathi layout. As per preliminary and final notification [ENTITY], [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY] (vendor of the plaintiff), [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY] are the kathedars and anubhavdars of land bearing Sy.No.40/1. Ex.D3 is the award dated 04-12-2013 passed in respect of land bearing Sy.No.40/1 measuring 34 guntas. In the said award it is mentioned that the khathedars of the said lands are [ENTITY], [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY], [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY]. In the said award it is also mentioned that on 14-3-2002 land bearing Sy.No.40/1A measuring 5 guntas sold by [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and others in favour of [ENTITY]. On 23- 10-2002 [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] sold land bearing Sy.No.40/1A measuring 10.8 guntas in favour of [ENTITY]. On 18-7-2002 [ENTITY] - GPA holder ([ENTITY]) sold land bearing Sy.No.40/1B measuring 10 guntas in favour of [ENTITY]. On 26-12-2002 [ENTITY] sold land bearing Sy.No.40/1B measuring 5 guntas in favour of D.G. [ENTITY]. From perusal of the said award, it is clear [ENTITY] purchased 10.8 guntas in Sy.No.40/1A and 10 guntas in Sy.No.40/1B, accordingly his name entered in the acquisition notifications and award. It is clear that the vendor of the plaintiff [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY] is one of the party to the acquisition proceedings and award also passed in his name. It is further clear that the suit schedule properties purchased by the plaintiff from the above said [ENTITY] is part and parcel of the acquired land bearing Sy.No.40/1A and 40/1B which are subject matter of acquired land.
14. Ex.D4 is the certified copy of 16(2) notification. As per the defendant they took the possession of the acquired land. But in Ex.D.4, it is not mentioned the land bearing Sy.No.40/1 and taking over the possession of the same. Ex.D5 is the certified copy of acquisition mahazar dated 05.08.2016 conducted by the Revenue Inspector for taking over the possession of the acquired land bearing Sy.No.40/1 measuring 34 guntas of Thanisandra Village.
15. I have perused the pleadings oral and documentary evidence placed by both side. The plaintiff is claiming that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. As discussed above, he has produced two electricity bills for the year 2004. These KEB bills are related to 'A' schedule property. The plaintiff has not produced the documents of electricity connection to the 'B' schedule property. I am of the opinion that he has not produced any electricity bills which are related as on the date of the suit. The plaintiff has claiming that he took a water connection to the suit schedule properties. To prove the same he has not produced any documents.
16. The plaintiff has produced six photographs with one C.D. and stated that the said photos are related to the suit schedule properties. I am of the opinion that in the cross- examination of PW.1, the defendant side taken contention and suggested that he has created said photos for the purpose of this case and they are not related to the suit schedule properties. Such being the case, it is the duty of the plaintiff to prove said photos by way of examination of photographer. But the plaintiff has not chosen to examine the photographer. Hence, I am not accepted the contention of the plaintiff that Ex.P.7 to P.12 photos are related to the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff contended that after purchase of 20.08 guntas of land, his vendor had formed residential layout by obtaining approval plan from the concerned authorities. But to prove the same no documentary evidence produced.
17. I am of the opinion that to prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties as on the date of the suit no iota of documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff. He has claiming that after purchase, he constructed residential houses and commercial shops in the suit schedule properties. To prove the same also he has not produced any documentary evidence. He has not produced license and sanctioned plan. The plaintiff contended that he is residing in the suit schedule property along with his family. To prove the same also he has not produced any documentary evidence like ration card, voters' list, Aadhar card etc.,. He further contended that after purchase of suit schedule properties, all the revenue records including khatha changed in his name. To prove the same he has not produced any revenue documents before this Court. The plaintiff has not produced the documents to show that he has paying regular tax to the suit schedule properties. As stated above, Ex.P.5 & Ex.P.6 are not related to the suit year. Therefore, I am of the opinion that on the basis of Ex.P1 to P12 and encumbrance, it cannot be held that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit. In the cross-examination of D.W.1, it was suggested that in the year 2004, the plaintiff dug a bore well in 'A' schedule property, he is running shop in the said property. I am of the opinion that to prove the said fact also the plaintiff has not produced the documents. Hence, without documentary evidence the contention of the plaintiff that he dug a bore well, running shop and residing in the suit schedule property is not believable.
18. In the cross-examination of PW.1 the defendant side was suggested that including suit schedule properties the entire land has been acquired in the year 2003-04 for formation of Arkavathi layout, preliminary and final notification was issued and award amount given to the khathedars, [ENTITY] took the possession of the land. Hence, the plaintiff has no right over the suit properties, he has purchased the suit property after preliminary notification, hence, he has no right over the suit properties, he has created sale deeds and other documents for the purpose of this case. But, PW.1 has denied the same.
19. In the cross-examination of DW.1, the plaintiff side was suggested that there is an existence of residential houses and commercial shops in the suit schedule properties, electricity and water connection taken to the said properties, BBMP has formed road and drainage in the area of the suit schedule properties, BBMP provided civic amenities to the said area, suit schedule properties are not coming in the acquired land, there is no vacant of land in Sy.No.34, there are existence of houses in the said land, plaintiff dug a bore well in the 'A' schedule property, he is running shop and residing along with his family members and no acquisition notice issued to the land owners. But, DW.1 has denied the same.
20. It is the contention of the plaintiff that prior to acquisition the land bearing Sy.No.40/1, it was phoded as Sy.No.40/1A and 40/1B. But, to prove the said fact no documentary evidence produced. As per Ex.D.3 of the award it is clear that the vendor of the plaintiff- [ENTITY] had purchased 20.08 guntas of land in Sy.No.40/1A and 40/1B respectively. The said lands are part and parcel of Sy.No.40/1 measuring 34 acres. For that reason including the lands belongs to the said [ENTITY] acquisition notifications were issued and award passed. Therefore, I am not accepted the contention of the plaintiff that, the suit schedule properties are not acquired by the defendant. From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that as per Ex.D1, preliminary notification issued on 03-02-2003 for acquisition of land bearing Sy.No.40/1 measuring 34 guntas and other survey numbers of land of Thanisandra village for formation of Arakavathi layout. As per Ex.D2 final notification was issued on 23-02-2004. In the preliminary and final notification, it is mentioned that [ENTITY], [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY], [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY] are the khathedars and anubhavdars of Sy.No.40/1 measuring 34 guntas of Thanisandra village. Preliminary and final notification issued in their name and award passed as per Ex.D3 on 04-12-2013. I am of the opinion that in the cross-examination of DW.1 the plaintiff side have not denied and challenged Ex.D1 to D5.
21. I have perused Ex.P.4 of 16(2) notification dated 29.11.2013. It is not mentioned that possession of the land in question bearing Sy.No.40/1 measuring 34 guntas situated at Thanisandra Village has been taken over by the defendant. In Ex.D.5, it is mentioned that on 05.08.2016, the mahazar drawn and taken over the possession of the said land. It is noticed that in the pleadings it is not mentioned that 16(2) notification issued. I am of the opinion that that aspect is not a ground to hold that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove his possession over the suit schedule property with cogent documentary evidence.
22. From the above discussion, it is noticed that after issue of preliminary notification on 03-02-2003 and final notification on 23-02-2004, thereafter the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule properties by way of sale deeds dated 16-06-2004 and 28-07-2006. After preliminary and final notifications he has purchased the suit schedule properties and claiming that he is absolute owner and in possession of the same. It is admitted fact that the suit schedule properties are part and parcel of the acquired land bearing Sy.No.40/1 measuring 34 guntas of Thanisandra Village.
23. Our Hon'ble High Court in their decision reported in [PRECEDENT] held that once the land stood divested from the owner and vested with the acquiring authority, no one can lay any claim to it. A person who purchases the land/property subsequent to the issuance of acquisition notification will not get any valid title to the land. I am of the opinion that the ratio laid down in the decision is squarely applicable to the case on hand. I am of the opinion that vendor of the plaintiff viz., [ENTITY] is a party to the acquisition proceedings. In preliminary and final notification, award his name has been mentioned. He was fully knowing that suit schedule properties acquired in the year 2003. In spite of the same, he sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiff. Further I am of the opinion that as on the date of sale deed of Ex.P1 and P2, the vendor of the plaintiff had no title over the suit schedule property. Hence, on the basis of alleged sale deeds the plaintiff cannot claiming that he acquired title and possession of the suit schedule properties. Moreover, as discussed above the plaintiff has not produced documents to show that he is in possession of the suit schedule properties as on the date of filing of the suit. From the above discussion, I come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove his actual and peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Hence, I answer the issue No.1 in the negative.
24. ISSUE NO.2 :- In view of the findings on issue No.1, the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession over the suit schedule properties. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, when the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property, the question of the defendant is causing interference in the plaintff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties is does not arise. Hence, I answer the issue No.2 in the negative.
25. ISSUE NO.3:- As discussed above in issue No.1, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is in possession of the suit schedule properties. He also failed to prove that the defendant is causing interference in the suit schedule properties. Hence, I come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the suit.
26. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property through registered sale deeds, he constructed residential houses and commercial shops in the suit schedule properties and he is in settled possession. He further submitted that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule properties since 2003 without any obstructions and he has perfected his title over the suit schedule properties by way of adverse possession. The defendant authorities cannot dispossess the plaintiff and demolish the structure in the suit schedule properties. In support of his arguments he has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Courts as follows :
(1) [PRECEDENT] Unreported judgment dated 31-07-2015 passed by our Hon'ble High Court in [CASE NUMBER]. (3) [PRECEDENT].
(4) [PRECEDENT] [PRECEDENT] I have perused the Hon'ble Court decisions cited supra along with the case of the plaintiff. As stated above, the plaintiff has not proved his possession over the suit schedule property. He purchased the suit schedule property after final notification of acquisition proceedings and claiming his title and possession over the same. From looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, Hon'ble Court decisions will not help the case of the plaintiff. Hon'ble Supreme Court in their decision reported in [PRECEDENT] Bangalore Development Authority and [ENTITY] and another) held that the matter related to the land acquisition proceedings is beyond the jurisdiction of Civil Court.
27. I have perused the arguments canvassed by the plaintiff's side about settled possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule properties and plea of adverse possession. As stated above, the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule properties after acquisition and final notification. His vendor was party to the acquisition proceedings. Knowing fully the suit schedule properties acquired by the Government, the plaintiff purchased the properties and cannot claiming that he is in settled possession of the suit properties. Hon'ble Supreme Court by their decision in [PRECEDENT] held that the plaintiff cannot claiming adverse possession in respect of acquired properties. It is noticed that the plaintiff has not pleaded about adverse possession. More over, as discussed above, the plaintiff has not proved his possession over the suit schedule properties. Hence I come to the conclusion that the contention of the plaintiff's side that the plaintiff is in settled possession and he has perfected his right over the suit schedule properties by way of adverse possession is not sustainable.
28. As per the contention of the plaintiff, he purchased the suit schedule properties vide registered sale deeds of Ex.P1 and P2 dated 16-06-2004 and 28-07-2006 respectively. He purchased the said properties from [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY]. As discussed above the suit schedule properties are coming in the land bearing Sy.No.40/1 measuring 34 guntas of Thanisandra village. The said land acquired for formation of Arakavathi layout. Preliminary notification was on 03-02-2003 and final notification was on 23-02-2004. I am of the opinion that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule properties after the final notification. As on the date of sale deeds of the plaintiff, the vendor of the plaintiff viz., [ENTITY] had no title over the suit properties. Preliminary and final notification issued in the name of [ENTITY] and also award passed in his name. It is not the case of the plaintiff that either himself or his vendor challenged the acquisition proceedings before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Hence, I am of the opinion that the present suit filed by the plaintiff for decree of permanent injunction in respect of acquired property is not maintainable. This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the plaintiff under [SECTION] of [ACT] in respect of acquired land. Further, I am of the opinion that without challenging the acquisition proceedings before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the plaintiff cannot question the validity of the acquisition proceedings by way of this suit. Whether scheme has been lapsed under [SECTION] of [ENTITY] Act and no procedure followed during the time of acquisition proceedings is not decided by this Court. In this context, I relied upon the decision of our Hon'ble High Court reported in ILR 2008 Karnataka 2506 (The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority vs. Addi Housing Industries Limited and others).
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by their judgment reported in [PRECEDENT] Bangalore Development Authority and [ENTITY] and another) held as follows :-
[ACT] - Ss. 4 and 6 r/w [SECTION] [ACT] - Maintainability of suit in civil Court when scheduled lands acquired under land acquisition proceedings - Remand of proceedings to trial Court without examining issue of maintainability - Propriety - Reiterated, [ACT] is a complete code in itself and is meant to serve public purpose - By necessary implication, power of civil Court to take cognizance under [SECTION] [ACT] stands excluded and civil court has no jurisdiction to go into question of validity or, legality of notification under [SECTION], declaration under [SECTION] and subsequent proceedings
- Civil court is devoid of jurisdiction to give declaration or even bare injunction on invalidity of procedure contemplated under [ACT] - Only right available to aggrieved person is to approach High Court under [SECTION] and Supreme Court under [SECTION] of [ACT] with self-imposed restrictions on their exercise of extraordinary power - On facts held, civil suit filed by plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining Defendants 1 and 2 i.e., [ENTITY], from interrering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule property was not maintainable - High Court erred in remitting matter to trial Court when suit itself was not maintainable - [ACT] - Civil Procedure Code, 1908, [SECTION].
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by their decision reported in [PRECEDENT] (The [PRECEDENT]) held as follows :-
C) [ACT] -
Courts to try all civil suits unless barred - suit schedule property is a part of the layout which has been formed out of lands acquired by the defendant - Acquisition of land by the [ENTITY] - Land vests with [ENTITY] - Suit for declaration of title and consequential relief of permanent injunction - Specific assertion in the written statement with materials about the acquisition of suit lands - Jurisdiction of Civil Court to entertain the suit - HELD :
Suit is not maintainable and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit under [SECTION] of [ACT].
29. In the case on hand, including suit schedule properties, the land bearing Sy.No.40/1 measuring 34 guntas situated at Thanisandra village has been acquired by the defendant in the year 2003, after the final notification the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule properties and claiming his right. Therefore, the present suit filed by the plaintiff in respect of acquired property is not maintainable. This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the plaintiff in respect of acquired land. The plaintiff and his vendor have not challenged the acquisition proceedings before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by way of Writ Petition. From the above said discussion, I come to the conclusion that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. From looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. Hence, I answer the issue No.3 in the negative.
30. ISSUE NO. 4:- In view of the findings on issue No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, the transcript corrected by me, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 6th day of August, 2018).
DN: cn=[ENTITY],ou=HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,o=GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka,c=IN ([ENTITY]), XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:-
PW.1 [ENTITY] LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:- Ex.P-1 Sale deed dated 16-6-2004 Ex.P-2 Sale deed dated 28-7-2006 Ex.P-3 & 4 Electricity bill and receipt Ex.P-5 & 6 Tax paid receipts. Ex.P-7 to 13 Photos with C.D. Ex.P-14 to 16 R.T.C. extracts Ex.P-17 Encumbrance certificate
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT:-
DW.1 [ENTITY] LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT:- Ex.D-1 Cc of preliminary notification dt: 3-2-2003 Ex.D-2 Cc of final notification dt: 23-2-2004 Ex.D-3 Cc of award dt: 4-12-2013 Ex.D-4 Cc of 16(2) notification dt: 29-11-2013 Ex.D-5 Cc of Mahazar ([ENTITY]), XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE. ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Draw decree accordingly. (Vide separate Judgment) ([ENTITY]), XVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, BANGALORE.