Dismissed

Smt Geetha J Malli v. Cv Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Karnataka HC13 Dec 2024MFA/2522/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka disposed miscellaneous first appeals against trial court orders rejecting plaintiffs' temporary injunction applications and allowing defendants' vacation application. Bench found trial court order was not perverse, held registration dispute requires trial, and denied interim relief citing delay and complex title issues.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed; interim injunction applications rejected; trial court directed to expedite suit disposal.

Smt Geetha J Malli Vs Cv Projects Pvt. Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2522 OF 2024 (CPC)

¶6

C/W

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2552 OF 2024 (CPC), MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2555 OF 2024 (CPC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

1 . SMT. GEETHA J MALLI, W/O. JITHENDRA MOHAN MALLI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A NO. F-404, 4^TH FLOOR, RAHEJA PARK, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE-560 079.

¶10

2 . SRI SHASHANK SHETTY N., S/O LATE H.SURESH SHETTY AND LATE. N.SWATHI RAI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/A NO.C1-103, RMV CLUSTERS,PHASE-I, DEVI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560094.

¶11

3 . SMT PRIYANKA SHETTY N., D/O LATE H.SURESH SHETTY AND LATE. N.SWATHI RAI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A NO.C1-103, RMV CLUSTERS,PHASE-I, DEVI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560094.

¶12

4 . SMT. N. SUDHA NAIK, W/O N SHASHIDHAR NAIK AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/A NO.C1-103, RMV CLUSTERS,PHASE-I, DEVI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560094.

¶13

¶14

5 . SMT SHARDA S SHETTY, W/O LATE A.SADANANDA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT NO.45, 8^TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE 560 024. REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER MR.S.RAJESH SHETTY S/O LATE A.SADANANDA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A NO.45, 8^TH CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE 560 024. 6 . SRI K NAGARAJ SHETTY, S/O S.MAHABALA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A NO.45, SRUSHTI NIVAS, 2^ND MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, ASHRAM COLONY, SANJAY NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 094. 7 . SRI N. SUBRAMANIAN, S/O LATE NARAYANSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.G-06, ADITYA HOMES APARTMENT, 8^TH MAIN, 14^TH CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560065. REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER MR.S.GOPALAKRISHNA S/O T. SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A 38/10, 5^TH CROSS, PHS 707, 4^TH PHASE, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE - 560064.

¶15

¶16

8 . SMT SUBBAMMA, W/O VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, R/A NO.458/6, F BLOCK, SAHAKARA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560092 REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER MR.PRADEEP SURAPARAJU S/O LATE SRINIVASARAJU.S, AGED 34 YEARS, R/A NO.458/6, F BLOCK, SAHAKARA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560092. 9 . SMT RATHNA S., W/O LATE SRINIVASARAJU.S, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A NO.458/6, F BLOCK, SAHAKARA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 092, REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER MR.PRADEEP SURAPARAJU S/O LATE SRINIVASARAJU.S, AGED 34 YEARS, R/A NO.458/6, F BLOCK, SAHAKARA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560092.

¶17

10 . SRI JAYAPPA REDDY, S/O LATE D.SUBBI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,R/A NO.776, CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI, BANGALORE 560032.

¶18

11 . SMT C NAGAMANI W/O LATE SHANKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/A NO.G 4, RR TOWERS, 2^ND CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE 560024. 12 . SRI NITIN KUMAR REDDY, S/O LATE SHANKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/A NO.G 4, RR TOWERS, 2^ND CROSS, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, BANGALORE 560024.

¶19

¶20

13 . SRI YELLAMRAJU RAMAKRISHNA RAJU S/O LATE YELLAMRAJU KRISHNAM RAJU, AGED 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.26 9/61, 2^ND STREET, BHAKTAVATSALA NAGAR NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH 524004.

¶21

14 . M/S.PRIDHVI ASSET RECONSTRUCTION AND SECURITISATION COMPANY LIMITED, NO.1 55, 4^TH FLOOR, WING I, RAJAPRASADAMU, MASJID BANDA ROAD, KONDAPUR, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA PIN 500 034. A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT AND REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MR.K.V.RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD S/O VALLABHA RAO, AGED 54 YEARS.

¶22

15 . SRI THAKUR TEKWANI, S/O LATE CHATTARAM TEKWANI, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/A NO.BJ44, SHALIMAR BAGH WEST, DELHI 110088 REP. BY GPA HOLDER SRI.MINKUL TEKWANI S/O ASHOK TEKWANI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A NO.13, 1^ST MAIN, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE 560032.

¶23

16 . SRI RAJESH KUMAR GUPTA S/O OMPRAKASH GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/A NO. 28, CHAJJU BAGHA, PATNA 1 REP. BY GPA HOLDER . SRI.MINKUL TEKWANI S/O ASHOK TEKWANI, AGED 34 YEARS, R/A NO.13, 1^ST MAIN, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE 560032.

¶24

¶25

17 . SMT ALKA DEVI, W/O MANOJ K GUPTA, AGED 62 YEARS, R/A NO.28, CHAJJU BAGHA, PATNA 1 REP. BY GPA HOLDER . SRI.MINKUL TEKWANI ,S/O ASHOK TEKWANI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A NO.13, 1^ST MAIN, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE 560032. 18 . SRI VINOD MANGAWANI, S/O LATE RATANCHAND MANGWANI, AGED 59 YEARS, R/A BLVD DE LOS VIRREYES NO.1160, COL. LOMAS DE CHAPULTEPEC 11000 MEXICO D.F. REP BY GPA HOLDER . SRI. MINKUL TEKWANI S/O ASHOK TEKWANI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A NO.13, 1^ST MAIN, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE 560032. 19 . SRI MINKUL TEKWANI, S/O ASHOK TEKWANI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.13, 1^ST MAIN, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE 560032. 20 . SRI MAYUR TEKWANI, S/O ASHOK TEKWANI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/A NO.13, 1^ST MAIN, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE 560032.

¶26

21 . SRI DEEPAK TEKWANI, S/O LATE DHARAM TEKWANI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/A NO.13, 1^ST MAIN, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE 560032.

¶27

¶28

22 . SMT KANTA TEKWANI W/O LATE DHARAM TEKWANI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.13, 1^ST MAIN, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE 560032.

¶29

23 . SMT P SEETHALAKSHMI @ PONNAM LALITHA, W/O PONNAM LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A NO.8 20, SHANTHINAGAR, WADDEPALLY MANDAL, JOGULAMBA GADWAL, TELANGANA 509126 REP. BY GPA HOLDER SRI.G.SAMBASHIVA RAO S/O LATE GUMMADI BASAVAPUNNAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A 967, II FLOOR, 16^TH B CROSS ROAD, NEAR SYNDICATE BANK, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE 560064.

¶30

24 . SRI MAHESH T., S/O THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/A NO.535, 6^TH MAIN, 3^RD STAGE, 3^RD BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BANGALORE 560079.

¶31

25 . SRI KRISHNAGIRI, S/O DR.J.VAIDYANATHAN IYER, AGED 47 YEARS, R/A NO.984, 1A MAIN, HAL 3^RD STAGE, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BANGALORE 560075.

¶32

26 . SRI SUDANGATHAN, S/O BANKARUSWAMY, AGED 36 YEARS, R/A NO. 231, 1^ST MAIN ROAD MUTHYALANAGAR, BANGALORE 560054, REP. BY GPA HOLDER SMT.VIJAYARANI.G W/O BANKARUSWAMY, AGED 55 YEARS, R/A NO. 231, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, MUTHYALANAGAR, BANGALORE 560054.

¶33

¶34

27 . SRI BALAKRISHNEN, S/O M. R. NARAYAN, AGED 77 YEARS, R/A NO.95, 7^TH MAIN, G BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR, BANGALORE 560092. 28 . M/S.VARMA ENCLAVE SITE OWNERS ASSOCIATION A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.B 2, II FLOOR, BRINDAVAN RESIDENCY A PARTMENTS, II CROSS, AMRITHNAGAR, BANGALORE 560092 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY MR K NAGARAJ SHETTY S/O S.MAHABALASHETTY, AGED 55 YEARS.

¶35

…APPELLANTS (COMMON)

¶36

[BY SRI RADHANANDAN B S, ADVOCATE (PH)]

¶37

AND:

¶38

1 . CV PROJECTS PVT LTD A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.106 10 11 12, AMRUTHAHALLI, BYATARAYANAPURA, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE 560092, REP BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE P.ANIL KUMAR JAIN. 2 . SRI BHARATH SUBBA RAO S/O VENKATARAMAIAH SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.106 10 11 12, AMRUTHAHALLI, BYATARAYANAPURA, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE 560092.

¶39

¶40

3 . SRI SHASHIDHAR PAI S/O KOKKARNE SRINIVAS PAI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, NO.106 10 11 12, AMRUTHAHALLI, BYATARAYANAPURA, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE 560092.

¶41

4 . SRI VINOD S MENON S/O SUDHINDHRA MENON, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, NO.106 10 11 12, AMRUTHAHALLI, BYATARAYANAPURA, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE 560092.

¶42

5 . MR G NANDEESH S/O BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, NO.106 10 11 12, AMRUTHAHALLI, BYATARAYANAPURA, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE 560092.

¶43

6 . MR P ANIL KUMAR JAIN FATHERS NAME IS NOT KNOWN TO THE PLAINTIFF, MAJOR IN AGE, NO.106 10 11 12, AMRUTHAHALLI, BYATARAYANAPURA, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE 560092.

¶44

7 . M/S.CENTURY SHELTORS DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., NO.10/1, LN COMPLEX, GROUND FLOOR, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE 560052 A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, AND REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶45

8 . M/S.CENTURY SHELTERS DEVELOPERS PVT LTD., NO.10/1, LN COMPLEX, GROUND FLOOR, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE 560052 A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT AND REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶46

¶47

9 . M/S.CENTURY REALESTATE HOLDINGS PVT LTD., NO.10/1, LN COMPLEX, GROUND FLOOR, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE 560052 A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT AND REP BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶48

10 . SRI M S MAHADEVAIAH S/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/A NO.10/1, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE 560052.

¶49

11 . SMT JYOTHI VARMA W/O LATE D.YOGESHWARA VARMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.A326, SVS PATEL S CALLISTO APARTMENT, 4^TH CROSS, TALACAUVERY LAYOUT, AMRUTHAHALLI, BANGALORE 560092.

¶50

12 . SRI KARTHIKESHWAR VARMA S/O LATE D.YOGESHWARA VARMA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.A326, SVS PATEL S CALLISTO APARTMENT, 4^TH CROSS, TALACAUVERY LAYOUT, AMRUTHAHALLI, BANGALORE 560092.

¶51

13 . SRI.MUKESHWAR VARMA S/O LATE D.YOGESHWARA VARMA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.A326, SVS PATEL S CALLISTO APARTMENT, 4^TH CROSS, TALACAUVERY LAYOUT, AMRUTHAHALLI, BANGALORE 560092.

¶52

14 . DR.SUDHIR KUMAR KALE S/O MR.GOPAL RAO KALE, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A APARTMENT NO.9064, PRESTIGE WELLINGTON PARK, GANGAMMA CIRCLE, JALAHALLI, BANGALORE 560013.

¶53

¶54

15 . DR.VARSHA D. BAHADUR DESAI W/O MR.SUDHIR KUMAR KALE, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/A APARTMENT NO.9064, PRESTIGE WELLINGTON PARK, GANGAMMA CIRCLE, JALAHALLI, BANGALORE 560013.

¶55

16 . SRI.BRAHMANAND HEGDE S/O MR.MAHABALESHWAR HEGDE, AGED 63 YEARS, R/A NO.42, 5^TH CROSS, ROYAL RESIDENCY LAYOUT, BTM 4^TH STAGE, IIMB POST, BANGALORE 560076.

¶56

17 . SMT.VILASINI BRAHMANAND HEGDE, W/O SRI.BRAHMANAND HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/A NO.42, 5^TH CROSS, ROYAL RESIDENCY LAYOUT, BTM 4^TH STAGE, IIMB POST, BANGALORE 560076.

¶57

18 . MRS.C.R.SHETTY W/O SRI.P.R.SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/A NO.42, TOWER 4, PEBBLE BAY, DOLLARS COLONY, 1^ST MAIN, RMV 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE 560094.

¶58

19 . MR.P.R.SHETTY S/O PANJA MUNDAPPA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/A NO.42, TOWER 4, PEBBLE BAY, DOLLARS COLONY, 1^ST MAIN, RMV 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE 560094.

¶59

20 . SRI.MURALIDHAR NUTAKKI S/O AMARESHWARA RAO NUTAKKI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A NO.127, SRIRAMA MANDIR, WARD NO.5, BLOCK 4, BASAPATTANA, KOPPAL 583235.

¶60

¶61

21 . SMT.RAJANI NUTAKKI W/O SRI.MURALIDHAR NUTAKKI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A NO.127, SRIRAMA MANDIR, WARD NO.5, BLOCK 4, BASAPATTANA, KOPPAL 583235.

¶62

22 . SRI.VISWANATH MANJUNATH S/O KODANDARAM VISHWANATH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/A NO.58, ASHTAGRAMA LAYOUT, NEAR AROGYA KENDRA, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BANGALORE 560079.

¶63

23 . SMT.SUMATHI MANJUNATH W/O SRI.VISWANATH MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A NO.58, ASHTAGRAMA LAYOUT, NEAR AROGYA KENDRA, KAMAKSHIPALYA, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BANGALORE 560079.

¶64

24 . SRI.ANUPAM DASS S/O BASUDEV DASS, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/A NO.S 3, SAI BALAJI APARTMENT, 2^ND CROSS, THYAGARAJA LAYOUT, OFF BANASWADI MAIN ROAD, JAIBHARATH NAGAR, BANGALORE 560033.

¶65

25 . SMT.SAUMYA SHAH W/O SRI.ANUPAM DASS, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/A NO.S 3, SAI BALAJI APARTMENT, 2^ND CROSS, THYAGARAJA LAYOUT, OFF BANASWADI MAIN ROAD, JAIBHARATH NAGAR, BANGALORE 560033.

¶66

26 . SMT.ASHA ANNAPPA PAI W/O SRI.A.R.PAI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.A102, MANTRI GREENS, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, NEXT TO MANTRI MALL, BANGALORE 560003.

¶67

¶68

27 . SRI.K.MUNIYANDI S/O SRI.N.KRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/A NO.89, FLAT NO.402, PARK VIEW APARTMENT, ITI LAYOUT, M.S.R NAGAR, BANGALORE 560054.

¶69

28 . SMT.C.SUSEELA W/O SRI.K.MUNIYANDI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A NO.89, FLAT NO.402, PARK VIEW APARTMENT, ITI LAYOUT, M.S.R NAGAR, BANGALORE 560054.

¶70

29 . MR.BHARATH NAGENDRAN S/O NAGENDRAN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.1207, TOWER 2, M.N.ORCHID APARTMENT, ANANTHAPURA ROAD, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE 560064.

¶71

30 . MRS.R.A.MADHUMATHI W/O MR.BHARATH NAGENDRAN AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.1207, TOWER 2, M.N.ORCHID APARTMENT, ANANTHAPURA ROAD, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE 560064.

¶72

31 . MRS.TEJASWI NADELLA W/O MR.ADARSH P.BAVIKATTE, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/A GARDEN HOUSE, GARDEN ROAD, TUMKUR, KARNATAKA 572101.

¶73

32 . MR.ADARSH P.BAVIKATTE S/O MR.B.N.PRASANNA KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/A GARDEN HOUSE, GARDEN ROAD, TUMKUR - 572101.

¶74

¶75

33 . M/S.VARUN JALAN ADVISORS PVT LTD., A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT 1956, (HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.104A, H.M.GENEVA HOUSE, NO.14, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE 560052. REP BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY R VARUN JALAN. 34 . MR.PUNEET GUPTA S/O LATE PRAMOD KUMAR GUPTA, AGED 43 YEARS, R/A NO.A1202, NCC MAPLE HEIGHTS, B.NARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE.

¶76

35 . MRS.REEMA GOVIL W/O MR.PUNEET GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A NO.A1202, NCC MAPLE HEIGHTS, B.NARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE.

¶77

36 . MRS.PRABHA GOVIL W/O MR.RAKESH GOVIL, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/A NO.72, GROUND FLOOR, SUKHDEV VIHAR, NEW DELHI 110025.

¶78

37 . M/S.RAJHANS CREDIT AND FINVEST PVT LTD., A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.2193, SOBHA TULIP, 24^TH MAIN, J P NAGAR 6^TH PHASE, BANGALORE 560078, REP BY ITS DIRECTOR AND AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.JAI SINGH JAIN.

¶79

¶80

38 .	MRS.ASIFA KHATEEB W/O ISRAR SAFEER, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A NO.TF 1, ALPINE COURT APARTMENTS, 7^THB MAIN, 3^RDBLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560034.
39 .	MS.FAIZA SAFEER D/O ISRAR SAFEER, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
	R/A NO.TF 1, ALPINE COURT APARTMENTS, 7^THB MAIN, 3^RDBLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560034.
40 .	MR.SHUAIB SAFEER S/O ISRAR SAFEER, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/A NO.TF 1, ALPINE COURT APARTMENTS, 7^THB MAIN, 3^RDBLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560034.
41 .	MR.YASEEN AHMED SAFEER S/O ISRAR SAFEER, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
	R/A NO.TF 1, ALPINE COURT APARTMENTS, 7^THB MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560034.
42 .	MR.SANDEEP SINGH S/O RAJKUMAR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
	R/A NO.135, SOBHA MALACHITE, JAKKUR PLANTATION ROAD, JAKKUR, BANGALORE 560064.
43 .	MRS.MEENAKSHI SHARMA W/O SANDEEP SINGH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A NO.135, SOBHA MALACHITE,
	JAKKUR PLANTATION ROAD, JAKKUR, BANGALORE 560064.

¶81

¶82

44 . MR.KEVIN ALFRED BARNES S/O ARUN ALOYSIUS GREGORY BARNES, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, R/A NO.8015, PRESTIGE GARDEN BAY, IVRI ROAD, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE 560064.

¶83

45 . MRS.LEENA BARNES W/O ARUN ALOYSIUS GREGORY BARNES, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R AT NO.8015, PRESTIGE GARDEN BAY, IVRI ROAD, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE 560064.

¶84

46 . MR.ARUN ALOYSIUS GREGORY BARNES S/O FREDICK DAVID HENRY BARNES, AGED 53 YEARS, R/A NO.8015, PRESTIGE GARDEN BAY, IVRI ROAD, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE 560064.

¶85

47 . MR.T.SUNIL KUMAR S/O B.T.MANIKYA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.402, SANKESHWAR, APARTMENT 77, SERPENTINE ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE 560020.

¶86

48 . MRS.S.SAVITHA W/O T.SUNIL KUMAR, AGED 59 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.402, SANKESHWAR, APARTMENT 77, SERPENTINE ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE 560020.

¶87

49 . MR.SUDHANSHU MISHRA S/O MR.GOVIND BALLABH MISHRA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/A NO.112, PRITHVIRAJ NAGAR, MAHARANI FARM, DURGAPURA, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN 302018.

¶88

¶89

50 . MR.PRADYOT HANAMAPPA ADAVI S/O MR.HANAMAPPA ADAVI, AGED 33 YEARS, R/A NO.26/3, B414, SAMAYA SONATA, RAINBOW LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA, NEAR SAMBHARAM ENGINEERING COLLEGE, BANGALORE 560097.

¶90

51 . MRS.LAKSHYA SIVARAMAKRISHNAN W/O PRADYOT HANAMAPPA ADAVI, AGED 31 YEARS, R/A NO.26/3, B414, SAMAYA SONATA, RAINBOW LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA, NEAR SAMBHARAM ENGINEERING COLLEGE, BANGALORE 560097.

¶91

52 . MRS.PUSHPALATHA.R W/O MR.RAGHAVENDRA.G.S, AGED 46 YEARS, R/A NO.7/1,16^TH CROSS, 1^ST TEMPLE STREET, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE 560003. 53 . MR.RAGHAVENDRA.G.S S/O MR.SESHAGIRI RAO.G.K, AGED 48 YEARS, R/A NO.7/1,16^TH CROSS, 1^ST TEMPLE STREET, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE 560003.

¶92

54 . MR.KAMLESH KHANDELWAL S/O MR.K.S.KHANDELWAL, AGED 69 YEARS, R/A NO.D16, 7^TH STREET, ANNA NAGAR EAST, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU 600102.

¶93

55 . MRS.ANU SOOD W/O MR.MOHIT SOOD, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A APARTMENT NO.5, 11^TH CROSS, AKASHNAGAR, NARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE 560016.

¶94

¶95

56 . MR.MOHIT SOOD S/O MR.ANIL KUMAR SOOD, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A APARTMENT NO.5, 11^TH CROSS, AKASHNAGAR, NARAYANAPURA, BANGALORE 560016.

¶96

57 . MR.SUDEEP EDAKKATTU KARUPPAL S/O MR.SREEDHARAN EDAKKATTU KARUPPAL AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A FAT NO.2001, TOWER H, 2^ND FLOOR, MANTRI LITHOS, INSIDE EMBASSY MANYATA BUSINESS PARK, HEBBAL, MARIYANNAPALYA, BANGALORE 560045.

¶97

58 . MRS.SILJA KANIYATH POOTHAMKANDY W/O MR.SUDEEP EDAKKATTU KARUPPAL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A FAT NO.2001, TOWER H, 2^ND FLOOR, MANTRI LITHOS, INSIDE EMBASSY MANYATA BUSINESS PARK, HEBBAL, MARIYANNAPALYA, BANGALORE 560045.

¶98

59 . M/S.GREENSPACE A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.100/1, LAKKENAHALLI VILLAGE, SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 562127 REP. BY ITS PARTNER MR.SHAFIULLA H.N, S/O MR.H.NURUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶99

60 . MR.MILIND RATNAKAR VERNEKAR S/O MR.RATNAKAR VERNEKAR, AGED 56 YEARS, R/A NO.424, ST JOAQUIM ROAD, NEAR JACKSON BAR BORDA, FATORDA, MARGAO, SOUTH GOA, GOA 403602.

¶100

¶101

61 . MR.G.CHANDRAMOULY NAIK S/O MR.GANGA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/A NO.28, THIRUMALA NILAYA, 1^ST CROSS, 10^TH BLOCK, NAGARAHAVI 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE 560072. 62 . MR.NAVANEETH .C.MOULY S/O MR.G.CHANDRAMOULY NAIK AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A NO.28, THIRUMALA NILAYA, 1^ST CROSS, 10^TH BLOCK, NAGARAHAVI 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE 560072. 63 . DR.NAGASAMUDRA S.ASHOK S/O MR.NAGASAMUDRA SHAMA RAO AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/A NO.9/3, 5^TH CROSS, NETHRAVATHI STREET, MARUTHINAGAR, CHANDRA LAYOUT, NAGARBHAVI, BANGALORE 560072.

¶102

64 . MR.SANTANU MUKHERJEE S/O MR.SWADESH RANJAN MUKHERJEE, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/A VILLA NO.90, PRESTIGE OASIS, OFF DODDABALLAPURA ROAD, BEHIND ANGSANA RESORT ADDE, VISHWANATHAPURA, RAJANKUNTE, BANGALORE 560064. 65 . MRS.SUJATA MUKHERJEE W/O MR.SANTANU MUKHERJEE AGED ABOUT 57YEARS, R/A VILLA NO.90, PRESTIGE OASIS, OFF DODDABALLAPURA ROAD, BEHIND ANGSANA, RESORT ADDE, VISHWANATHAPURA, RAJANKUNTE, BANGALORE 560064.

¶103

¶104

66 . MR.MUKESH AJMERA S/O LATE MR.KANTILAL JAGIVANDAS AJMERA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.8D, RAMESWARA APARTMENTS, 19A, SARAT BOSE ROAD, OPP NEPAL SWEETS, KOLKATA 700020.

¶105

67 . MRS.KOUSER AFSHAN D/O MR.MOHAMMED ABDUL KARIM AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/A NO.OLD NO.3, NEW NO.9, PURAM PRAKASAM ROAD, BALAJI NAGAR, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU 600014.

¶106

68 . MR.JUNAID AHMED S/O MR.IQBAL AHMED, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/A NO.OLD NO.3, NEW NO.9, PURAM PRAKASAM ROAD, BALAJI NAGAR, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU 600014.

¶107

69 . MRS.ANITHA MELANTA D/O MR.MAHABALA MALLI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/A NO.364/1, 12^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, RMV 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE 560094.

¶108

70 . MR.AJAY K.SINGH S/O MR.RAMA SHANKER SINGH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.1302, TOWER 11, L AND T RAINTREE BOULEVARD, BYATARANARAYANAPURA, NEAR GKVK, SAHAKAR NAGAR ROAD, BENGALURU 560092.

¶109

¶110

71 . MRS. SWATI SINGH W/O MR.AJAY K.SINGH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.1302, TOWER 11, L AND T RAINTREE BOULEVARD, BYATARANARAYANAPURA, NEAR GKVK, SAHAKAR NAGAR ROAD, BENGALURU 560092. 72 . MR.SHASHI KUMAR SINGH S/O MR.RANDHIR KUMAR SINGH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.306, 3^RD FLOOR, RAGA ANANDAM APARTMENT, VIDYA NAGAR, BALLARI, KARNATAKA 583104. 73 . MRS.RAJALAKSHMI KRISHNAMOORTHY W/O MR.NATARAJAN KRISHNAMOORTHY AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/A NO.370, 16^TH MAIN ROAD, 36^TH CROSS ROAD, 4^TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560041. 74 . MR.Y.RADHAKRISHNA S/O MR.VASUDEV BHAT, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/A NO.320, 7TH MAIN, 6^TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560102. 75 . MR.HARSHITH.S S/O MR.SHIVALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/A NO.72/C, 7THA MAIN, 1^ST C CROSS, RPC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560040.

¶111

¶112

76 . MS.ALKA R.WADHWA D/O MR.BANSILAL F UTMANI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/A NO.1221, EMBASSY HABITAT APARTMENT, NEAR MOUNT CARMEL COLLEGE, VASANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE 560001. 77 . MR.PRASHANT SRINIVAS KINI S/O MR.SRINIVAS N.KINI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A NO.A/101, SHRINGERI APARTMENTS, VRISHI COMPLEX, HOLY CROSS ROAD, IC COLONY, BORIVLI WEST, MUMBAI 400103.

¶113

78 . MRS.KRIPALINI JANARDHAN PRABHU W/O LATE JANARDHAN UPENDRA PRABHU, AGED 87 YEARS, R/A NO.A13, CENTURY CORBEL, SAHAKARANAGAR, BANGALORE 560092.

¶114

79 . MR.GAUTHAM V.KALATHUR S/O MR.KALATHUR VENUGOPAL, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/A NO.A003, VAISHNAVI SPLENDOUR APARTMENT, 6^TH CROSS, SANJAYNAGAR, 80 FEET ROAD, RMV 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE 560094.

¶115

80 . MRS.LAKSHMI V.RAMMOHAN W/O MR.GAUTHAM V.KALATHUR, AGED 39 YEARS, R/A NO.A003, VAISHNAVI SPLENDOUR APARTMENT, 6^TH CROSS, SANJAYNAGAR, 80 FEET ROAD, RMV 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE 560094.

¶116

¶117

81 . MRS.LATA L.HARWANI D/O L.N.HARWANI AND PAWAN AHUJA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/A NO.560, KAILASH, 1^ST CROSS, 6^TH MAIN ROAD, KEMAPALA BLOCK, SADHASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE 560003.

¶118

82 . DR.SHYAMALA RAVINDRA KAMATH D/O LATE JANARDHAN UPENDRA PRABHU AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/A NO.9, BHAGAVATI, KULLAPPA ROAD, MARUTHI SEVA NAGAR, BANGALORE 560033.

¶119

83 . MRS.SNIGDHA PODDAR DESAI W/O MR.SANJAY VASANTRAI DESAI AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.F02, SKYLINE OLYMPIA, NO.2, WELLINGTON STREET, RICHMOND TOWN, BANGALORE 560025.

¶120

84 . MR.SANJAY VASANTRAI DESAI S/O MR.SANJAY VASANTRAI DESAI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.F02, SKYLINE OLYMPIA, NO.2, WELLINGTON STREET, RICHMOND TOWN, BANGALORE 560025.

¶121

85 . MR.CHETAN VENKATARAMAIAH S/O MR.M.VENKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A NO.C205, GAGAN GAURAVI, 2^ND MAIN, L.R.BANDE ROAD, SRINIVAS LAYOUT, KAVAL BYRASANDRA, BANGALORE 560032.

¶122

¶123

86 . IDBI TRUSTEESHIP SERVICES LIMITED, A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF 1956 ACT AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ASIAN BUILDING, GROUND FLOOR, 17, R.KAMANI MARG, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI 400001 REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER MR.M.MANOHAR. 87 . MR.ROOPLAL.F, S/O LATE FATEHCHAND.W, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A NO.39/17, KRISHNA VILLA, 2^ND MAIN, KEMPANNA BROTHERS LAYOUT, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BANGALORE 560020. 88 . MR.B.SRINIVAS RAO S/O MR.MOHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/A NO.4, 4^TH CROSS, 5^TH MAIN ROAD, HAMPINAGARA, VIJAYNAGAR, BANGALORE 560104.

¶124

89 . MR.ARUN BHAGAT, S/O LATE GIRDHARI LAL BHAGAT, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/A NO.402, VAISHNAVI SPRINGS, 49/5, RANGARAO ROAD, SHANKARAPURAM, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE 560004.

¶125

90 . MRS.SANDHYA BHAGAT, W/O ARUN BHAGAT, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/A NO.402, VAISHNAVI SPRINGS, 49/5, RANGARAO ROAD, SHANKARAPURAM, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE 560004.

¶126

¶127

91 . MS.NARRA SUMANA, D/O DR.N.A.KRISNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A NO.4 172, GEETHA NAGAR, MALKAJGIRI, K.V.RANGAREDDY, TELANGANA 500047. 92 . MRS.DIVYA LADHA, W/O MR.GAURAV LADHA, D/O LATE ARUN KUMAR MALPANI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A NO.46B, KHARE TOWN, BEHIND PARANJAPE SCHOOL, DHARAMPETH, NAGPUR 440010. 93 . MR.GANESH BABU.V.S, S/O MR.SRINIVASAN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/A NO.A204, DIVYA MSR GATEWAY, 72 MS RAMAIAH ROAD, NEAR BEL CIRCLE RING ROAD, GOKULA, BANGALORE. 94 . MRS.K.SHARADHA, W/O MR.GANESH BABU.V.S, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, NO.101 AND 102 ARE R/A NO.A204, DIVYA MSR GATEWAY, 72 MS RAMAIAH ROAD, NEAR BEL CIRCLE RING ROAD, GOKULA, BANGALORE. 95 . MR.G.BALASUBRAMANIAM S/O MR.KRISHNASWAMY GOVINDARAJAN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/A NO.104, 1^ST FLOOR, BRIGADE SONATA, NO.61, PALACE CROSS ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE 560051.

¶128

¶129

96 . MR.HRISHIKESH BALASUBRAMANYAM S/O MR.BALASUBRAMANIAM.G, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/A NO.104, 1^ST FLOOR, BRIGADE SONATA, NO.61, PALACE CROSS ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE 560051.

¶130

97 . MS.MACHIMANDA ASHWINI PONNAPPA D/O MR.MACHIMANDA AIYAPPA PONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/A ANUGRAHA APARTMENTS, 2^ND CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, SRINIVASA LAYOUT, KAVALBYRASANDDRA, RT NAGAR, BANGALORE 560032.

¶131

98 . DR.BHAGYASHREE ASHOK NAYAK W/O DR.ASHOK NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/A NO.25, A/47, 8^TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION, BANGALORE 560080.

¶132

99 . DR.ASHOK NAYAK S/O DR.K.P.NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/A NO.25, A/47, 8^TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION, BANGALORE 560080.

¶133

100 . MR.AXANSH SHETH ALIYAS SHETH AXANSH MUKUNDKUMAR S/O MR.MUKUND KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/A NO.803, ARGON, CENTURY ETHOS, BELLARY ROAD, OPP SAHAKARANAGAR, BANGALORE 560092.

¶134

101 . MRS.TANVI AXANSH SHETH W/O MR.AXANSH SHETH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/A NO.803, ARGON, CENTURY ETHOS, BELLARY ROAD, OPP SAHAKARANAGAR, BANGALORE 560092.

¶135

¶136

102 . MR.ANAND SAMPATHKUMAR S/O MR.SAMPATH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.301, 2^ND FLOOR, VARUN APARTMENT, KRISHNAPPA LAYOUT, 3^RD CROSS RMV II STAGE, BANGALORE 560094.

¶137

103 . MR.UMESH AGARWAL S/O MR.BASU DEO AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/A NO.G 2, EMBASSY PALACE 74, NANDIDURGA ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BANGALORE 560046.

¶138

104 . MRS.ANUPMA AGARWAL W/O MR.UMESH AGARWAL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A NO.G 2, EMBASSY PALACE 74, NANDIDURGA ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BANGALORE 560046.

¶139

105 . MR.SHIVAKUMAR RAMASWAMI S/O MR.RAMASWAMI IYER, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/A NO.8083, SOBHA CHRYSANTHEMUM, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE 560077.

¶140

106 . MRS.SUBHASHINI ACHARYA W/O MR.SHIVAKUMAR RAMASWAMI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A NO.8083, SOBHA CHRYSANTHEMUM, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE 560077.

¶141

¶142

107 . MRS.KRANTHI KALIKI W/O MR.RAJA SEKHARA REDDY KALIKI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A NO.L92, 3^RD MAIN, 14^TH B CROSS, 6^TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560102.

¶143

108 . MR.K.S.NARAHARI @ KITHANE SRINATH NARAHARI S/O LATE K.N.IYENGAR SRINATH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/A NO.002, RENAISSANCE MANGALAM APARTMENTS, 40,13^TH CROSS, 11^TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE 560003.

¶144

109 . MRS.USHA NARAHARI W/O MR.K.S.NARAHARI @ KITHANE SRINATH NARAHARI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/A NO.002, RENAISSANCE MANGALAM APARTMENTS, 40, 13^TH CROSS, 11^TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE 560003.

¶145

110 . MRS.SHIKHA SWARUP W/O MR.VARUN SURYAKUMAR BORIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/A NO.26, MARIYAPPANAPALYA, BANGALORE 560024.

¶146

111 . MR.VARUN SURYAKUMAR BORIAH S/O MR.B.SURYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/A NO.26, MARIYAPPANAPALYA, BANGALORE 560024.

¶147

112 . MRS.SUJATA VIVEK SHAH W/O VIVEK VINAY SHAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/A F 9, 4^TH FLOOR, CHATEAU MARINE, MARINE DRIVE, MUMBAI 400020.

¶148

¶149

113 . MR.SHARDENDU MALPANI S/O LATE ARUN KUMAR MALPANI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A NO.23, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE 560001.

¶150

114 . MR.VIKRAM BIHANI S/O MR.JAGADISH KUMAR BIHANI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A NO.11A/38, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE 560052.

¶151

115 . MRS.NISHA BIHANI W/O MR.VIKRAM BIHANI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A NO.11A/38, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE 560052. 116 . MRS.DOLLY VORA W/O MR.AMIT UDANI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A NO.103 B, 2^ND CROSS, YAMUNA BAI ROAD, MADHAVNAGAR, BANGALORE 560001. 117 . MR.VIVEK PAI S/O MR.GANAPATHY MIZAR PAI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A NO.501, STERLING ORCHARDS, 217/3, OLD TUMKUR ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE 560080. 118 . MRS.KAVITHA PAI PANEMANGALORE W/O MR.VIVEK PAI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/A NO.501, STERLING ORCHARDS, 217/3, OLD TUMKUR ROAD, SADASHIVANAGAR, BANGALORE 560080.

¶152

¶153

119 . MRS.PRERNA SACHDEV W/O MR.MAHESH PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A NO.A42, CENTURY CORBEL, SAHAKARNAGAR, BANGALORE 560092.

¶154

120 . MR.MAHESH PRABHU S/O MR.SUDARSHAN PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A NO.A42, CENTURY CORBEL, SAHAKARNAGAR, BANGALORE 560092.

¶155

121 . MR.VISHNUMOHAN K.DAS S/O MR.BALARAMA DAS, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A NO.554, 4^TH CROSS, 6^TH MAIN, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BANGALORE.

¶156

122 . MR.ANTONY PHILIP CHERUKARA S/O MR.JOY THOMAS CHERUKARA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.4234, TOWER 4, PRESTIGE MISTY WATERS, KEMPAPURA ROAD, OFF OUTER RING ROAD, NEAR JAIN HERITAGE SCHOOL, VAYUNANDANA LAYOUT, HEBBAL, BANGALORE 560024. 123 . MRS.ANU ANTONY W/O MR.ANTONY PHILIP CHERUKARA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, NO.130 AND 131 ARE R/A FLAT NO.4234, TOWER 4, PRESTIGE MISTY WATERS, KEMPAPURA ROAD, OFF OUTER RING ROAD, NEAR JAIN HERITAGE SCHOOL, VAYUNANDANA LAYOUT, HEBBAL, BANGALORE 560024.

¶157

¶158

124 . MR.RAGHAVENDRA RAVINDRA NAYAK S/O MR.RAVINDRA KOTA NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A NO.2312, SOBHA INDRAPRASTHA, MINERVA MILLS COMPOUND, OPP. SUJATA THEATER, OLD MYSORE ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 560026.

¶159

125 . MS.SNEHA NITHIN DEV S/O MR.UMESH VISHWANAT KATHI AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.M104, BRIGADE GATEWAY APARTMENTS, BEHIND ORION MALL, MALLESHWARAM WEST, BANGALORE 560055.

¶160

126 . MR.VIVEKANANDA NAYAK.U S/O MR.U.UMANATH NAYAK, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.A001, RENAISSANCE PARK III, 1^ST MAIN, SUBRAMANYA NAGAR, MALLESHWARAM WEST, BANGALORE -55.

¶161

127 . MRS.REKHA VIVEKANANDA NAYAK W/O MR.VIVEKANANDA NAYAK.U, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.A001, RENAISSANCE PARK III, 1^ST MAIN, SUBRAMANYA NAGAR, MALLESHWARAM WEST, BANGALORE-55.

¶162

128 . DR.GIRIJA RAO K.B, W/O DR.NAGABHUSHAN J.S, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A NO.H1202, BRIGADE GATEWAY APARTMENT, MILK COLONY, NEAR ORION MALL, MALLESHWARAM WEST, BANGALORE 560055.

¶163

¶164

129 . DR.NAGABHUSHAN.J.S, S/O LATE SANJEEVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A NO.H1202, BRIGADE GATEWAY APARTMENT, MILK COLONY, NEAR ORION MALL, MALLESHWARAM WEST, BANGALORE 560055.

¶165

130 . MRS.PADMA VISVANATHAN W/O MR.RAJAGOPALAN PARTHASARATHY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A NO.C405, PRESTIGE ST.JOHN S WOODS APARTMENTS, 80, TAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE 560029.

¶166

131 . MR.RAJAGOPALAN PARTHASARATHY S/O MR.K.RAJAGOPALAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A NO.C405, PRESTIGE ST.JOHN S WOODS APARTMENTS, 80, TAVAREKERE MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE 560029.

¶167

132 . MR.RAVINDRANATH PAI S/O MR.V.NARASIMHA PAI, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.SS 4, BHASKARA NEST, SEENAPPA LAYOUT, NEW BEL ROAD, II STAGE RMV EXTENSION, BANGALORE 560094.

¶168

133 . MR.MADHUR BEHL S/O MR.RAMNIK BEHL, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A NO.305, KRISTAL MOONSTONE, 1^ST CROSS, SERVICE ROAD, CLOSE TO 100 FT ROAD, HAL 2^ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-08.

¶169

¶170

134 . MRS.NAMITA JAYAPRAKASH D/O MR.K.JAYAPRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A NO.305, KRISTAL MOONSTONE, 1^ST CROSS, SERVICE ROAD, CLOSE TO 100 FT ROAD, HAL 2^ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 560008. 135 . MR.KALLAHALLI GANESH UMESH S/O MR.GANESH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/A NO.405, B BLOCK, MITHUNA WHITE WATERS, SRIRAMPURA MAIN ROAD, JAKKUR, BANGALORE 560064. 136 . MRS.SHAMANNA REKHA UMESH W/O MR.KALLAHALLI GANESH UMESH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A NO.405, B BLOCK, MITHUNA WHITE WATERS, SRIRAMPURA MAIN ROAD, JAKKUR, BANGALORE 560064. 137 . MR.MILIND ASHOK SHELAR S/O MR.ASHOK R.SHELAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A NO.8, UNIT NO.1, AMBAI DEFENCE COLONY, KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA 416008. 138 . MR.MADHUSUDAN PAI S/O MR.LAKSHMAN PAI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A NO.2074, PRESTIGE MISTY WATERS APT, TOWER 2, 4^TH CROSS ROAD, THIMMAKKA LAYOUT, COCONUT GARDEN, CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI, HEBBAL, BANGALORE 560024.

¶171

¶172

139 . MRS.MRIDULA DINKER KAMATH W/O MR.MADHUSUDAN PAI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A NO.2074, PRESTIGE MISTY WATERS APT, TOWER 2, 4^TH CROSS ROAD, THIMMAKKA LAYOUT, COCONUT GARDEN, CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI, HEBBAL, BANGALORE 560024. 140 . MR.SHARAD THADANI HUF REP BY ITS KARTHA MR.SHARAD THADANI S/O MR.GULU G.THADANI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/A NO.405A, LCG, THE LALBURNUM SECTOR 28, GURGAON, HARYANA 122009. 141 . MR.SANDESH KAMATH S/O MR.SRINIVAS KAMATH.K, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/A SRINIVAS KAMATH.K, NO.A205, GUNDECHA HEIGHTS, LBS MARG, OPP ST.XAVIER S SCHOOK, KANJURMARG WEST, MUMBAI, SUBURBAN, MAHARASHTRA 400078. 142 . MRS.DURGALAKSHMI KAMATH W/O MR.SANDESH KAMATH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/A C/O SRINIVAS KAMATH.K, NO.A205, GUNDECHA HEIGHTS, LBS MARG, OPP ST.XAVIER S SCHOOK, KANJURMARG WEST, MUMBAI, SUBURBAN, MAHARASHTRA 400078. 143 . MR.SANAT SUNIL RAO S/O MR.SUNIL RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A APARTMENT NO.B32, FASCINATE HOMES, 12^TH CROSS, BETWEEN 6^TH & 8^TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE 560003.

¶173

¶174

144 . MRS.GAURI BURDE W/O MR.SANAT SUNIL RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A APARTMENT NO.B32, FASCINATE HOMES, 12^TH CROSS, BETWEEN 6TH AND 8^TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE 560003.

¶175

145 . MRS.RADHIKA MADHUSUDAN S/O MR.MADHUSUDAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A APARTMENT NO.22, GA, GAYATRI APARTMENT, PALACE CROSS ROAD, BANGALORE 560020.

¶176

146 . MR.MADHUSUDAN WADHWANI S/O MR.FATECHAND WADHWANI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/A APARTMENT NO.22, GA, GAYATRI APARTMENT, PALACE CROSS ROAD, BANGALORE 560020.

¶177

147 . MR.ISHWAR SRIDHARAN S/O MR.SRIDHARAN.R, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/A NO.228, 1^ST FLOOR, 8^TH E MAIN, HRBR LAYOUT, 1^ST BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE 560043.

¶178

148 . MR.YOGESH KAPUR S/O VIJAY KAPUR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A NO.4024, PRESTIGE GARDEN BAY, AVALAHALLI, DODDABALLAPURA MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-64.

¶179

149 . MRS.JYOTI KAPUR S/O YOGESH KAPUR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A NO.4024, PRESTIGE GARDEN BAY, AVALAHALLI, DODDABALLAPURA MAIN ROAD, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-64.

¶180

¶181

150 . MRS.HEMALATHA H.PATEL W/O MR.HEERALAL PATEL, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A NO.187, 2^ND CROSS, BEHIND GOURI APARTMENT, RK GARDEN BEL ROAD, BANGALORE 560054. 151 . MRS.SAVITHRI S.PATEL W/O MR.SHANKAR PATEL, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A NO.187, 2^ND CROSS, BEHIND GOURI APARTMENT, RK GARDEN BEL ROAD, BANGALORE 560054.

¶182

152 . DR.MAHADEVAMMA.M, W/O M.N.SHASHIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A NO.307, 3^RD FLOOR, CHARAN HABITAT APARTMENT, 1^ST MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, BEHIND ADYAR ANAND BHAVAN, DENA BANK COLONY, GANGANAGAR, R.T.NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 032. 153 . MR.M.N.SHASHIDHAR, S/O MR.BANDIRAMANAHALLI PAPANNA NANDEESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/A NO.307, 3^RD FLOOR, CHARAN HABITAT APARTMENT, 1^ST MAIN, 6^TH CROSS, BEHIND ADYAR ANAND BHAVAN, DENA BANK COLONY, GANGANAGAR, R.T.NAGAR, BANGALORE 560 032. 154 . MRS.NEETU SHENOY RAKIC, D/O MR.GOPALAKRISHNA VITTAPPA SHENOY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A NO.25, PO APTS, 9^TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION, BANGALORE 560 080.

¶183

¶184

155 . M/S.IDBI TRUSTEESHIP SERVICE LIMITED, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ASIAN BUILDING, GROUND FLOOR, 17R, KAMANI MARG, BALLARD, EAST MUMBAI 400001, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.

¶185

156 . MR.SRIJAN VADHERA, S/O MR.SUKHDEV KUMAR VADHERA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A NO.A1, SWAPNALOK APARTMENT, MUNICIPAL NO.28/1, ULSOOR, AGA ABBAS ALI ROAD, ULSOOR LAKE, BANGALORE -42.

¶186

157 . MRS.SHACHI JAIN, W/O DEEPAK KUMAR JAIN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A NO.1487, ANAND AISHWARYA APARTMENT, FLAT NO.206, CIVIL LINES, KANPUR 208110.

¶187

158 . M/S.HDFC BANK LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE AT NO.8/24, SALCO CENTRE, RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE 560 025.

¶188

159 . MRS.DEEPTHI ANAND D/O LATE ANANDAN, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A NO.49 54 15, B.S.LAYOUT, VISHAKHAPATNAM, ANDHRA PRADESH 530013.

¶189

160 . DR.VIJAYKUMAR C.SIDARADDI S/O DR.CHANNABASAPPA SIDDARADDI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.2 A, BINNY CRESCENT APARTMENTS 16, BENSON CROSS ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BANGALORE 560046.

¶190

¶191

161 . DR.PRABHAVATHI VIJAYKUMAR SIDARADDI W/O DR.VIJAYKUMAR C.SIDDARADDI AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.2 A, BINNY CRESCENT APARTMENTS 16, BENSON CROSS ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BANGALORE - 46.

¶192

162 . MR.SHIVAPRASAD KALLURAYA S/O LATE GOPAL KALLURAYA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.F 2, FLAT NO.14, GIRIJA SHANKAR VIHAR, NEAR ALANKAR POLICE CHAUKI, KARVENAGAR, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA 411052.

¶193

163 . MRS.SALU JOHNSON W/O MR.MAMMEN JOHNSON JOHN AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/A NO.202, MAITHRI APARTMENT, 15/7, BRUNTON ROAD, 1^ST CROSS, BANGALORE 560025. 164 . MR.JUSTIN JOHN JOHNSON S/O MR.MAMMEN JOHNSON JOHN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A NO.202, MAITHRI APARTMENT, 15/7, BRUNTON ROAD, 1^ST CROSS, BANGALORE 560025. 165 . MR.MAMMEN JOHNSON JOHN S/O MR.KODANOOR MAMMEN JOHN, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/A NO.202, MAITHRI APARTMENT, 15/7, BRUNTON ROAD, 1^ST CROSS, BANGALORE 560025.

¶194

¶195

166 . MR.AUSTIN JOHN JOHNSON S/O MR.MAMMEN JOHNSON JOHN AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A NO.202, MAITHRI APARTMENT, 15/7, BRUNTON ROAD, 1ST CROSS, BANGALORE 560025. 167 . MR.VIKAS KUMAR S/O MR.VINODRAI DEVCHAND, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A JALARAM ASHISH, 46/5, 1^ST MAIN, 2^ND STAGE, OKALIPURAM, BANGALORE 560021. 168 . MRS.NISHA RUPARELIA W/O MR.VIKAS KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A JALARAM ASHISH, 46/5, 1^ST MAIN, 2^ND STAGE, OKALIPURAM, BANGALORE 560021. 169 . MRS.BHANUMATI VINODRAI S/O MR.VINODRAI DEVCHAND, AGED 79 YEARS, R/A JALARAM ASHISH, 46/5, 1^ST MAIN, 2^ND STAGE, OKALIPURAM, BANGALORE 560021. 170 . MR.VIPUL RUPARELIA S/O MR.VINODRAI DEVCHAND, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A JALARAM ASHISH, 46/1, 1^ST MAIN, 2^ND STAGE, OKALIPURAM, BANGALORE 560021. 171 . MRS.BHAVNA RUPARELIA W/O MR.VIPUL RUPARELIA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A JALARAM ASHISH, 46/1, 1^ST MAIN, 2^ND STAGE, OKALIPURAM, BANGALORE 560021.

¶196

¶197

172 . MR.SARAT CHAND S/O MR.NIMMAGADDA JAGADEESHWAR BABU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A NO.53, 2^ND CROSS, NTI LAYOUT, BEHIND SBI BANK, VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE 560097. 173 . MR.NIMMAGADDA JAGADEESHWAR BABU S/O MR.NIMMAGADDA VENKATA SOBHANADRI RAO AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/A NO.53, 2^ND CROSS, NTI LAYOUT, BEHIND SBI BANK, VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE 560097. 174 . MRS.GEETHA SHETTY W/O MR.SAILESH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A NO.V-102, MANTRI PARADISE, NEAR AREKERE GATE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560076. 175 . MR.SAILESH SHETTY S/O MR.LATE P.M.SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/A NO.V-102, MANTRI PARADISE, NEAR AREKERE GATE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560076. 176 . MR.SANDEEP KUMAR S/O MR.KRISHAN KUMAR JALAN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/A NO.B-11, CENTURY CORBEL, 60 FEET MAIN ROAD, NEAR ICICI BANK, SAHAKARNAGAR, BANGALORE 560092. 177 . MONA JALAN W/O MR.SANDEEP KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A NO.B-11, CENTURY CORBEL, 60 FEET MAIN ROAD, NEAR ICICI BANK, SAHAKARNAGAR, BANGALORE 560092.

¶198

¶199

178 . PROTECH ENGINEERS BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED AUTHORISED BY ABHIJITH SATYA PRASAD S/O M.K.SATYA PRASAD AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/A A-301, BRIGADE PETUNIA, BANASHANKARI 2^ND STAGE, BIDARAHALLI, BANGALORE 560070.

¶200

179 . MR.LAKSHMINARAYANA AMBI SUBRAMANIAM S/O LAKSHMINARAYANA SUBRAMANIAM AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/A NO.B-1102, HOYSALA INFANTRY TOWERS, SANJAY NAGAR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE 560094.

¶201

180 . MRS.SHREYA SURESH D/O SURESH SRINIVASAN, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/A NO.B-1102, HOYSALA INFANTRY TOWERS, SANJAY NAGAR MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE 560094.

¶202

181 . MR.PARTHASARATHY ASHOK THALAGAVARA, S/O T.V.PARTHASARATHY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/A BHOOMIKA THALAGAVARA, CHINTHAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-563125.

¶203

182 . MRS.NISHTHA GUPTA W/O RANDHIR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/A NO.205, INDIRA IRIS, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, VIDYASAGAR, BANGALORE 560077.

¶204

¶205

183 . MR.RANDHIR SINGH S/O SATBIR SINGH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A NO.205, INDIRA IRIS, THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD, VIDYASAGAR, BANGALORE 560077. 184 . MRS.ANUBHA BOHRA W/O MR.MUKESH BOHRA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A NO.15/1002, HERITAGE ESTATE, DODDABALLAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE 560064. 185 . MR.SRIDHAR VAIKUNT KAMATH S/O VAIKUNTA KRISTARYA KAMATH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A NO.23/1, 8^TH MAIN, JAYANAGAR 3^RD BLOCK, BANGALORE -11. 186 . MR.ARAVIND THIPPANAIK S/O MR.THIPPANAIK, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/A VILLA NO.4, ARCON VALLEY VISTA, PATIM ALDONA BARDEZ, NORTH GOA, GOA 403523.

¶206

187 . MR.AKHIL AGARWAL S/O MR.SADHURAM AGARWAL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A NO.C-1401, RM-2 GALLERY APARTMENT, AMBEDKAR COLONY, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE 56064. 188 . MRS.HARRIETTE SHANTHI GERTRUDE D CUNHA W/O CHRISTOPEHER OSSULAD D CUNHA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A NO FLAT NO 16038, PRESTIGE SHANTINIKETNAN, WHITEFILED ITPL ROAD, BANGALORE 560 048.

¶207

¶208

189 . MR.CHRISTOPHER OSUUALD D CUNHAMR CHRISTOPHER OSUUALD D CUNHA S/O MR.VICTOR D CUNHA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.16038, PRESTIGE SHANTHINIKETAN, WHITE FIELD, ITPL ROAD, BANGALORE 560048.

¶209

190 . MRS.POOJA KISHAN LAL D/O MR.KISHAN LACHO LAL, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/A NO.10, BHAGIRATHI, NEAR AFGHAN CHURCH, COLABA, MUMBAI 400005.

¶210

191 . MR.AKHILESH KONANUR SURESH S/O MR.SURESH NAGESWARAIAH KONANUR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/A NO.10, BHAGIRATHI, NEAR AFGHAN CHURCH, COLABA, MUMBAI 400005.

¶211

192 . MR.PRANAY SUWALKA S/O MR.NARENDRA SUWALKA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A NO.40/41, BASANTH VIHAR, OPP GOVERDHAN VILAS, UDAIPUR SHASTRI CIRCLE, RAJASTHAN 313001.

¶212

193 . MRS.SHIPRA TAK W/O MR.PRANESH SUWALKA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/A NO.40/41, BASANTH VIHAR, OPP GOVERDHAN VILAS, UDAIPUR SHASTRI CIRCLE, RAJASTHAN 313001.

¶213

¶214

194 . MRS.SHUBHA.L.P W/O MR.BINAY KUMAR CHOWDHURY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A NO.E022, ABODH VALMARK, VEERANNAPALYA MAIN ROAD, GOVINDAPURA, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BANGALORE 560045.

¶215

195 . MR.BINAY KUMAR CHOUDHURY S/O MR.BANSHRIDHAR ATIBHUDHI AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A NO.E022, ABODH VALMARK, VEERANNAPALYA MAIN ROAD, GOVINDAPURA, ARABIC COLLEGE POST, BANGALORE 560045.

¶216

196 . MR.VENKATESAN GOPALAKRISHNAN S/O MR.K.S.GOPALA KRISHNAN, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A SMR VINAY CRESCENT BLOCK-A, 305, HENNUR CROSS, BANGALORE 560045.

¶217

197 . MRS.RAMA VENKATESAN W/O MR.VENKATESAN GOPALA KRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A SMR VINAY CRESCENT BLOCK-A, 305, HENNUR CROSS, BANGALORE 560045.

¶218

198 . MR.PRADEEP KUMAR TOTLA S/O MR.RAJENDRA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A NO.1507, 21^ST R CROSS, KUVEMPU BADAVANE, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, KEMPAPURA, DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE 560 024.

¶219

¶220

199 . MRS.RANJANA TOTLA S/O MR.PRADEEP KUMAR TOTLA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A NO.1507, 21^ST R CROSS, KUVEMPU BADAVANE, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, KEMPAPURA, DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 024.

¶221

200 . MRS.PALLAVI RAO KARANTH D/O MR.SHIVASHANKARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/A NO.34, JEEVANADHI SANSKAR, VIRUPAKSHA PURA, KODIGE HALLI, BANGALORE-560 097.

¶222

201 . MR.SUBHASH SINGH CHOUDHARY S/O LATEMAHABIR SINGH CHOUDHARY, AGED 58 YEARS, R/A NEAR ZILLA PARISHAD OFFICE, PARK MARKET, HIRAPUR DHANBAD, JHARKHAND-826 001 REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER MR.MUKHESH SINGH CHOUDHARY, S/O SUBHASH SINGH CHOUDHARY, AGED 37 YEARS, R/A NEAR ZILLA PARISHAD OFFICE, PARK MARKET, HIRAPUR DHANBAD, JHARKHAND-826 001.

¶223

202 . MRS.SAROJ DEVI D/O LATE CHAKRADHAR PRASADH SINGH, AGED 58 YEARS, R/A NEAR ZILLA PARISHAD OFFICE, PARK MARKET, HIRAPUR DHANBAD, JHARKHAND. REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER MR.MUKHESH SINGH CHOUDHARY, S/O SUBHASH SINGH CHOUDHARY, AGED 37 YEARS, R/A NEAR ZILLA PARISHAD OFFICE, PARK MARKET, HIRAPUR DHANBAD, JHARKHAND-826 001.

¶224

¶225

203 . MR.RAKESH SINGH CHOUDHARY S/O MR.SUBHASH SINGH CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/A NEAR ZILLA PARISHAD OFFICE, PARK MARKET, HIRAPUR DHANBAD, JHARKHAND-826 001 REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER MR.MUKHESH SINGH CHOUDHARY, S/O SUBHASH SINGH CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A NEAR ZILLA PARISHAD OFFICE, PARK MARKET, HIRAPUR DHANBAD, JHARKHAND-826 001. 204 . MR.MUKHESH SINGH CHOUDHARY S/O SUBHASH SINGH CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A NEAR ZILLA PARISHAD OFFICE, PARK MARKET, HIRAPUR DHANBAD, JHARKHAND-826 001. 205 . MRS.C.P.NALINI W/O MR.K.M.SREENIVAS RAJU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/A NO.979, 1^ST CROSS MAIN ROAD, GOKUL 1^ST STAGE, 2^ND PHASE, MATHIKERE, DIWANARAPALYA, BANGALORE-560 054. 206 . MR.NARAYAN MANJUNATHA PRASAD S/O MR.DODDA MUNISWAMAPPA NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/A NO.235, 7^TH CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, HIG COLONY, RMV 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 095. 207 . MRS.DIMPLE MITTAL D/O NARESH MITTAL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A NO.001, STERLING APARTMENTS, 30^TH CROSS, 7^TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 082.

¶226

¶227

208 .	DR.ARPITHA RAO W/O MR.VISHWARAJ, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A N.40, 12^THCROSS, GAYATHRI HBCS LAYOUT, SHANKARMUTT, BASAVESHWARANAGR, BANGALORE-560 079.
209 .	MRS.ASHITA DEENADAYAL W/O S DEENADAYAL AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A GOLDEN ARCHID, APATMENTS S19, B BLOCK, KASTURBA ROAD OPP CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION. BANGALORE - 01.
210 .	MR.RAJAGOPAL.G.A S/O LATE.AVALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/A BANK COLONY, SIRA GATE, TUMKUR-572106.
211 .	MR.RAKSHITH.G.R. S/O RAJAGOPAL G.A, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/A BANK COLONY, SIRA GATE, TUMKUR-572106.
212 .	MRS.EKTA SONTHALIA W/O ANIL KUMAR SONTHALIA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/A NO.A/114, SHOBHA MAGNOLIA, BANNERAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, OPP.JAL BHAVAN, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 029.
213 .	MR.ANIL KUMAR SONTHALIA, S/O MR.PYARELAL SONTHALIA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
	R/A NO.A/114, SHOBHA MAGNOLIA,

¶228

¶229

BANNERAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, OPP.JAL BHAVAN, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 029.

¶230

214 . DR.VINOD GOPAL S/O MR.RAMASWAMY JANARDHAN, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A NO.AO-211, JADE GARDEN, SADAHALLI, BANGALORE-57.

¶231

215 . DR.LAVANYA HASSAN BASAVEGOWDA W/O VINOD GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A NO.AO-211, JADE GARDEN, SADAHALLI, BANGALORE-562157.

¶232

216 . MRS.UMA MALPANI W/O LATE.SURESH MALPANI, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/A NO.56, CALDERA APARTMENT, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560 052.

¶233

217 . MRS.DEEPA GANAPATHY.A W/O MR.B.M.SOMANNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A T-6, B 301, GODREJ WOODSMAN ESTATE, OPP.ASTER CMI HOSPITAL, HEBBAL, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE-560 024.

¶234

218 . MR.B.A.MUTHAPPA S/O MR.B.P.ACHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/A T-6, B 301, GODREJ WOODSMAN ESTATE, OPP ASTER CMI HOSPITAL, HEBBAL, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE-560 024.

¶235

¶236

219 . MR.SURESH AILDAS S/O LATE AILDAS GURUMUKHDAS AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/A NO.23, VYJANATHI NIVAS, CSI MISSION COMPOUND, LAL BAGH ROAD, 1ST CROSS, BANGALORE 560027.

¶237

220 . MRS.RUKHAIYA SYED SALAHUDDIN W/O MOHAMMED AZAR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/A NO.11/6, WALLACE GARDEN, 1^ST STREET, CHENNAI - 600006. 221 . MR.NARAINDAS BODARAM S/O MR.BODARAM AHUJA, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, R/A NO.35, CRESCENT ROAD, 1^ST CROSS, NEAR SINDHI HIGH SCHOOL, SRIKANTAIAH LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560001.

¶238

222 . MR.ABHISHEK AHUJA S/O MR.NARAINDAS BODARAM, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/A NO.201/202-C, ESTEEM RETREAT APARTMENTS, GEDDALAHALLI, NEXT TO PURVA ATRIA, SANJAYNAGAR, RMV 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE 560094.

¶239

223 . MR.GAURAV AHUJA S/O MR.NARAINDAS BODARAM, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A NO.35, CRESCENT ROAD, 1^ST CROSS, NEAR SINDHI HIGH SCHOOL, SRIKANTAIAH LAYOUT, BANGALORE-01.

¶240

¶241

224 . M/S.PEARL GRANEXPO PVT LTD., A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SY.NO.21/1, KOPPA GATE, JIGANI ROAD, BEGEHALLI VILLAGE, ANEKAL, BANGALORE 560105. REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.PRAMOD BHANDARI.

¶242

225 . MR.ROHIT GOEL S/O MR.SUBHASH CHAND GOEL, AGED 46 YEARS, R/A NO.11/1, 7^TH CROSS, LAKSHMI ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE 560027. 226 . MRS.ANITA GOEL W/O MR.ROHIT GOEL, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A NO.11/1,7TH CROSS, LAKSHMI ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE 560027.

¶243

227 . MR.MOHIT GOEL S/O MR.SUBHASH CHAND GOEL, AGED 48 YEARS, R/A NO.11/1, 7^TH CROSS, LAKSHMI ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE 560027.

¶244

228 . MRS.MUKTA GOEL W/O MR.MOHIT GOEL, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A NO.11/1,7^TH CROSS, LAKSHMI ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE 560027.

¶245

¶246

229 . MR.NAGESH BABU MUNISWAMY S/O C.MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/A NO.1102, ANRIYA PALATIAL, NO.08, 2^ND MAIN, LOTTEGOLLAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560004. 230 . MRS.BHARATI.B.S W/O SHIVAPRAKASH.B.C, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/A NO.98/78-8B, THINDLU MAIN ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE 560097. 231 . MR.SUSHEEL KUMAR NANDA S/O M.L.NANDA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/A NO.13/1, 1^ST FLOOR, 3^RD MAIN, NEXT TO EDEN HALL APARTMENT, JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION, BANGALORE 560046. 232 . MR.GAUTAM NANDA S/O SRI.SUSHEEL KUMAR NANDA, AGED 43 YEARS, R/A NO.13/1, 1^ST FLOOR, 3^RD MAIN, NEXT TO EDEN HALL APARTMENT, JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION, BANGALORE 560046. 233 . MR.IFTIQUAR KAZI S/O ABDUL GAN KAZI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/A GREEN VIEW, PLOT NO.144, KASABA HOBLI, BINNAMANGALA, NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE 562123.

¶247

234 . MRS.PRIYADARSHINI RAJESH D/O SRI.RAJESH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A 20 VARISTA GARDENS, ADYAR CLUB GATE ROAD, RA PURAM, CHENNAI 600028.

¶248

¶249

235 . MRS.MARYAM SYED SALAHUDDIN W/O MR.MAQBOOL KHAN ABDUL RAZICK, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A NO.11/6, WALLACE GARDEN, 1^ST STREET, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU 600006.

¶250

236 . MR.PRAKASH GURURAO S/O MR.M.GURURAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A NO.A-504, 5^TH FLOOR, HOYSALA SAMRUDDHI, TALACAUVERY, AMRUTHAHALLI, BANGALORE- 560092.

¶251

237 . MRS.LATHA.G.M W/O MR.PRAKASH GURURAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A NO.A-504, 5^TH FLOOR, HOYSALA SAMRUDDHI, TALACAUVERY, AMRUTHAHALLI, BANGALORE- 560092.

¶252

238 . SRI.VENKATA SUBRAMANYA REDDY S/O K.RANGANATHA REDDY, AGED 58 YEARS, R/A NO.07, 3^RD MAIN, ASHWINI LAYOUT, EEJIPURA, BANGALORE 560040.

¶253

239 . SRI.AKHIL SAXENA S/O RAMESHCHANDRA SAXENA, AGED 55 YEARS, R/A NO.K1706, BRIGADE GATEWAY, DR RAJKUMAR ROAD, MALLESWARAM WEST, BANGALORE 560055.

¶254

240 . SMT.ROOPALI SAXENA W/O SRI.AKHIL SAXENA, AGED 50 YEARS, R/A NO.K1706, BRIGADE GATEWAY, DR RAJKUMAR ROAD, MALLESWARAM WEST, BANGALORE 560055.

¶255

¶256

241 . SMT.USHA VAIDHYANATHAN W/O SRI.R.VAIDHYANATHAN, AGED 65 YEARS, R/A NO.226, 3^RD MAIN, PANDURANGA NAGAR, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560076. 242 . SRI.R.VAIDHYANATHAN S/O LATE S.RAMAMURTHY, AGED 71 YEARS, R/A NO.226, 3^RD MAIN, PANDURANGA NAGAR, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560076.

¶257

243 . SRI.JANARDHANA SATHYANARAYANA S/O Y.N.SATHYANARAYANA REDDY, AGED 49 YEARS, R/A NO.31, SRIMAN NILAYA, 2^ND CROSS, 3^RD A MAIN, BALAJI LAYOUT, VIDHYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE 560097.

¶258

244 . SMT.SWATHI REDDY JANARDHANA W/O SRI.JANARDHANA SATHYANARAYANA, AGED 38 YEARS, R/A NO.31, SRIMAN NILAYA, 2^ND CROSS, 3^RD A MAIN, BALAJI LAYOUT, VIDHYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE 560097.

¶259

245 . SRI.SANJAY AHUJA S/O SRI.BHAGWAN MELARAM AHUJA, AGED 57 YEARS, REP. BY GPA HOLDER MRS.SHARA CHELLANI SAWHNEY D/O LATE C.H.GORDON, W/O DEV ARJAN SAWHNEY R/A NO.301, 3^RD FLOOR, LAVINA MANSIONS, PROMENADE ROAD, BANGALORE 560042.

¶260

¶261

246 .	SRI.BHARATH BASAVARAJ BOMMAI S/O SRI.BASAVARAJ BOMMAI, AGED 34 YEARS, R/A NO.04, MLA LAYOUT, R T NAGAR, KRISHNAPPA BLOCK, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE-560032.
247 .	SMT.POORNIMA PRATEEK IBBANI W/O SRI.BHARATH BASAVARAJ BOMMAI, AGED 33 YEARS, R/A NO.04, MLA LAYOUT, R T NAGAR, KRISHNAPPA BLOCK, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE-560032.
248 .	SRI.RAVIKANT PANDURANGI S/O SRI.VENKATA RAGHAVENDRA RAO, AGED 36 YEARS, R/A NO.S2, PAMPA RELIANCE APTS, 3^RDFLOOR, 3^RDB MAIN ROAD, 5^THA CROSS, HRBR LAYOUT, BEHIND MC DONALDS, KAMMANAHALLI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560043.
249 .	SMT.RANJITHA.S W/O SRI.RAVIKANT PANDURANGI, AGED 30 YEARS, NO.S2, PAMPA RELIANCE APTS, 3^RDFLOOR, 3^RDB MAIN ROAD, 5^THA CROSS, HRBR LAYOUT, BEHIND MC DONALDS, KAMMANAHALLI ROAD, BANGALORE 560043.
250 .	SMT. RASHI MITTAL W/O SRI.VARUN DHINGRA, AGED 33 YEARS, NO.3185, CASA SERENITA SOBHA CITY, BANGALORE.
251 .	SRI.VARUN DHINGRA S/O SRI.YOGENDRA NATH DHINGRA, AGED 37 YEARS, NO.3185, CASA SERENITA SOBHA CITY, BANGALORE.

¶262

¶263

252 . M/S.T T ENGINEERS CONTRACTORS INDIA PVT. LTD.,A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT FLAT NO.3, A L, MYTHRI RESIDENCY, NO.1, PIPELINE ROAD, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY, YESHWANTHPUR, BANGALORE 560022.

¶264

253 . SMT.AMBUJA ANNARAYA TALAWAR W/O MR.ANNARAYA S.TALAWAR R/A NO.217, 9^TH MAIN, 4^TH BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560096.

¶265

254 . MS.VIDHI KHANNA D/O MR.VIJAY KHANNA, AGED ATOUT 41 YEARS, R/A NO.1305, ANRIYA PALATIAL, NO.8, 2^ND MAIN, DOLLARS COLONY, NEAR SYNDICATE BANK, RMV 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE 560094.

¶266

255 . SRI.MANOHAR PEDDIBHOTLA VENUGOPAL S/O PEDDHIBHOTLA VENUGOPALAM, AGED 52 YEARS, R/A NO.FLAT NO.1101, TOWER-2, THE PALMS, OPP CLUB PATIO, SOUTH CITY, GURGAON, HARYANA122001.

¶267

256 . SMT.SHALINI VENUGOPAL W/O SRI.MANOHAR PEDDIBHOTLA VENUGOPAL, AGED 52 YEARS, R/A NO.FLAT NO.1101, TOWER-2, THE PALMS, OPP CLUB PATIO, SOUTH CITY, GURGAON, HARYANA122001.

¶268

257 . SMT.KALA GOPALAKRISHNAN W/O GOPALAKRISHNAN NATARAJAN, AGED 61 YEARS, R/A VILLA NO.16, THE HILLS (QVC REALTY), ANGATTA VILLAGE, NANDI HOBI, KUDUVATHI POST, CHIKKABALLAPURA 562103.

¶269

¶270

258 . SRI.GOPALAKRISHNAN NATARAJAN S/O SUBBUSWAMY NATARAJAN, AGED 64 YEARS, R/A VILLA NO.16, THE HILLS (QVC REALTY), ANGATTA VILLAGE, NANDI HOBI, KUDUVATHI POST, CHIKKABALLAPURA 562103.

¶271

259 . SMT.AHAMADIYA SHAFIRA BEGAM D/O SALAR JUNG MOHAMMAD W/O MOHAMMED AHAMED SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A NO.G35, BRIGADE GATEWAY, NO.26/1, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD, MALLESWARAM WEST, BANGALORE 560055.

¶272

260 . MS.ANJUM SAMIRA D/O MOHAMMED AHAMED SHARIFF AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/A NO.G35, BRIGADE GATEWAY, NO.26/1, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD, MALLESWARAM WEST, BANGALORE-55.

¶273

261 . MR.VASHDEV NANDLAL JAISINGH S/O MR.NANDLAL MOOLCHAND JAISINGH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/A NO.14, R S HOMES, UNIT NO.002, LEWIS ROAD, COOKE TOWN, BANGALORE 560 005.

¶274

262 . MRS.MEENA VASHDEV JAISINGH W/O MR.VASHDEV NANDLAL JAISINGH, AGED 63 YEARS, R/A NO.14, R S HOMES, UNIT NO.002, LEWIS ROAD, COOKE TOWN, BANGALORE 560005.

¶275

263 . DR.VARGHESE ZACHARIAH KANNERIL S/O SRI.K.S.GEEVARGHESE, AGED 57 YEARS, R/A NO.A101, SHRIRAM SHRISHTI APARTMENTS, SUMANGALI SEVASHRAM ROAD, HEBBAL, BANGALORE - 24.

¶276

¶277

264 . DR ANITA VARGHESE W/O DR.VARGHESE ZACHARIAH KANNERIL, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A NO.A101, SHRIRAM SHRISHTI APARTMENTS, SUMANGALI SEVASHRAM ROAD, HEBBAL, BANGALORE 560024.

¶278

…RESPONDENTS (COMMON)

¶279

[BY SRI CHANDAN, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R9 (PH); NOTICE TO R1 TO R6 & R10 TO R264 IS D/W V/O DTD. 31.05.2024]

¶280

THIS MFA NO.2522/2024 IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.03.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO.3 IN OS.NO.8222/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XLIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH No.44), REJECTING THE I.A.NO.3 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

¶281

THIS MFA NO.2552/2024 IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 151 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.03.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NOS.3 AND 5 IN OS.NO.8222/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, C/C OF XLIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CH-44, REJECTING THE I.A.NO FILED UNDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC AND ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.5 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 4 OF CPC.

¶282

THIS MFA NO.2555/2024 IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 15.03.2024 PASSED ON I.A.NO2 IN OS.NO.8222/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, C/C OF XLIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH No.44), REJECTING THE I.A.NO.2 FILED UNDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

¶283

THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.06.2024, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶284

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶285

¶286

CAV JUDGMENT

¶287

Challenging common order dated 15.03.2024 passed on I.As.no.2, 3 and 5 in O.S.no.8222/2023 by XLIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-44), above appeals are filed.

¶288

Appellants herein are plaintiffs in suit, while respondents herein are defendants and are referred to as such herein. I.A.no.2 was filed by plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘ CPC’ ) for temporary injunction restraining defendants no.7 to 9, their agents etc. from putting any further construction in respect of schedule ‘C’ property, during pendency of suit. Challenging order of its rejection, MFA no.2555/2024 is filed.

¶289

I.A.no.3 was filed by plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for temporary injunction restraining defendants no.7 to 9, their agents etc. from alienating or creating any encumbrance in respect of any of schedule ‘C’ property, during pendency of suit. Challenging order of its rejection, MFA no.2522/2024 is filed.

¶290

¶291

I.A.no.5 was filed by defendants no.7 to 9 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of CPC for vacating ex-parte order of temporary injunction granted on 08.01.2024. Challenging order allowing application, MFA no.2552/2024 is filed.

¶292

Since all these appeals arise out of orders passed by trial Court in same proceedings, they were heard together and being disposed of by common judgment.

¶293

Sri B.S. Radhanandan, learned counsel for appellants – plaintiffs submitted, O.S.no.8222/2023 was filed seeking for declaration of plaintiffs as absolute owners of respective items of suit schedule ‘A’ properties; for mandatory injunction directing defendants no.7 to 264 to demolish and remove building illegally constructed in 3 acres of schedule ‘C’ property and handover vacant physical possession to plaintiffs; for declaration that compromise decree dated 07.04.2007 in O.S.no.15998/2003 passed by Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, as not binding on plaintiffs, to declare various sale deeds, mortgage deeds, sale agreements etc., executed by respective defendants in respect of schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties as not binding on plaintiffs; for

¶294

¶295

permanent injunction restraining defendants, their agents etc., from putting up any further construction in any portion of schedule ‘B’ or ‘C’ properties, for permanent injunction restraining defendants no.1 to 6 and their agents etc. from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of schedule ‘B’ property and for permanent injunction restraining defendants no.1 to 237 and defendants no.239 to 264, their agents etc. from creating any encumbrance over any portion of schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties or in respect of construction put up thereon etc.

¶296

In said suit, I.As.no.2 and 3 were filed for order of temporary injunction as stated above. Trial Court had initially granted ex-parte order of temporary injunction only on I.A.no.3 on 08.01.2024. Upon entering appearance, defendants no.7 to 9 filed I.A.no.5 for vacation of said order.

¶297

All three applications were taken up for consideration

¶298

together by framing following points for consideration:

¶299

1. Whether plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case?

¶300

2. Whether balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiffs?

¶301

¶302

3. Whether plaintiffs would suffer irreparable loss and injury, if orders of temporary injunctions are not granted as sought for in I.A.Nos.2/23 and 3/23.

¶303

4. What order?

¶304

Though, plaintiffs had specifically pleaded about their right, title and interest in respect of suit properties and also produced voluminous records to substantiate existence of prima facie case , balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury, without proper consideration, trial Court answered points no.1 to 3 in negative and point no.4 by rejecting I.As.no.2 and 3 and allowing I.A.no.5. Aggrieved thereby, present appeals were filed.

¶305

It was submitted, land bearing Sy.nos.107/3, 108/1 and 116/3 totally measuring 04 Acres 12½ guntas, shown as ‘entire property’ in plaint was acquired by D. Yogeshwara Varma (‘ DYV ’ for short) under registered Sale Deed dated 16.07.2002. It was converted for non-agricultural residential purposes and various sale deeds were executed from 18.07.2002 by selling sites. Said transactions are reflected from encumbrances in respect of schedule property. It was submitted, even defendants claim title

¶306

¶307

from very same vendor of plaintiffs. Therefore, plaintiffs ought to have sought for declaration of title, by relying on decision in M. Ramakrishna Reddy v. Sub-Registrar , reported in ILR 1999 Karnataka 2033 .

¶308

It was submitted, while defendants were claiming interest in respect of 03 acres out of ‘entire property’, sale deeds in favour of plaintiffs executed by DYV would indicate that sites were formed in ‘entire property’ measuring 04 acres 12½ guntas in Sy.nos.106/3, 108/1 and 116/3. It was submitted, as per endorsement of BBMP, 43 ‘A’ khatas and one B-khata sites were issued. And sale deeds in favour of plaintiffs were prior conveyances. It was submitted, sale deeds of defendants though subsequent to sale in favour of plaintiffs, they were fraudulently predated and drawn on unused additional sheets of stamp papers in violation of Rule 6 of Karnataka Stamp Rules, 1958, (‘ Stamp Rules ’ for short). It was submitted, fact that sale deed dated 15.07.2002 was presented for registration on 15.11.2002 would indicate predating of date of execution, since Section 23 of Registration Act, 1908, prohibits registration of any document

¶309

¶310

beyond four months of execution. Therefore, sale deed dated 15.07.2002 would be a nullity, by relying on decisions in Ram Singh Sant Ram v. Jasmer Singh Hardit Singh and Anr., reported in AIR 1959 Punj. 582 and Zestha Developers Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand , reported in 2008 SCC OnLine Utt. 27 .

¶311

Besides, said sale deed was created in order to induce litigation, since Mahadevaiah was nominee of defendant no.7 in sale deed dated 15.07.2002 and in turn defendant no.7 was nominee of Mahadevaiah in sale deed of year 2007 as well as in collusive compromise decree. Likewise, defendant no.7 was laying claim over schedule ‘C’ property under registered sale deed dated 16.07.2002, which was also stated to be executed by DYV.

¶312

Highlighting contention that source of title for both parties was same, it was submitted plaintiffs claimed that DYV acquired Sy.nos.107/3, 108/1 and 116/3 totally measuring 04 acres 12 ½ guntas under sale deed dated 16.07.2002 with registration no.3390/2002-03, which was executed by Doddamuniyappa and 19 others (as it was ancestral property), in pursuance of agreement of sale dated 18.01.1986. It was submitted, in sale deed of defendant

¶313

¶314

no.7 executed by DYV in respect of 03 acres out of 04 acres 12½ guntas, it was stated DYV acquired title under Sale Deed dated 16.07.2002 with registration no.3390/2002-03, but by stating that it was under settlement in O.S.no.15998/2003.

¶315

It was further submitted, sale deed of plaintiffs dated 16.07.2002 was drawn on 15 stamp paper sheets of Rs.25,000/each and one sheet of Rs.5,000/- bearing continuous serial numbers i.e. 34412-27. But, sale deed of defendants dated 15.07.2002 was drawn on 3 stamp paper sheets i.e. one sheet for Rs.1,000/- and two sheets of Rs.100/- each totaling to Rs.1,200/(i.e. document sheet nos.19604 to 19606). It was submitted, Section 13 of Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, (‘ Stamp Act ’ for short) prohibited use of stamp papers issued for one instrument, for any other instrument. And as per Section 14, no second instrument chargeable with duty shall be written on a stamped paper on which another instrument chargeable with duty has already been written. Rule 6 of Stamp Rules requires that in case two or more sheets of stamp paper are used for drawing any instrument, then portion of deed shall be written on each sheet so used. It was further

¶316

¶317

submitted, Section 15 provides instruments written in contravention of Section 13 or 14 shall be deemed to be unstamped.

¶318

It was submitted, while DYV claimed under Sale Agreement dated 18.01.1986, Satish Pai (who allegedly nominated Mahadevaiah) claimed under two Sale Agreements dated 17.08.1989, i.e. agreement no.506 and agreement no.507 whereunder only advance amount was paid and possession was not delivered. Hence, it was not a concluded sale transaction.

¶319

It was submitted, while in case of plaintiffs, sale deeds were executed directly by Doddamuniyappa and 18 others after receiving total sale consideration of Rs.8,62,000/-, but, in case of defendants, sale deeds were executed by S Raghunath, alleged GPA holder of Doddamuniyappa to nominee – Satish Pai, holder of agreement of sale. It was submitted, as same was not in pursuance of fully paid sale agreements, there was no creation of agency coupled with interest under Section 202 of Contract Act. Hence, sale deed dated 15.07.2002 did not convey title to Mahadevaiah.

¶320

¶321

Further, after sale deed, name of DYV was mutated in Records of Rights and land was converted for non-agricultural residential use on 28.09.2002. But, sale deed presented for registration by Mahadevaiah on 15.11.2002 still claimed it to be agricultural land.

¶322

Further alleged sale transaction in favour of defendants would attract doubt even by reference to fact that under sale deed 16.07.2002, DYV had paid full sale consideration of Rs.8,62,000/and paid proper stamp duty. In sale deed dated 15.07.2002, it was shown that no sale consideration was paid by Mahadevaiah, when total consideration shown was Rs.5,20,000/-, but value of property was shown as Rs.79,10,000/- and stamp duty paid was Rs.5,33,000/- at rate of 6.75% and registration fee of Rs.79,100/@1%. Likewise, in fraudulent sale deed dated 13.02.2007 of defendant no.7, sale consideration was shown as Rs.15,00,000/when guidance value of property was Rs.1,57,00,500/- and stamp duty @ 8.5% would be Rs.13,38,800/- and registration fee @ 1% would be Rs.1,57,500/-.

¶323

¶324

It was also contended, Sri Mahadevaiah filed suit against DYV challenging sale deed dated 16.07.2002 without arraying plaintiffs as parties, though as on date of suit, plaintiffs acquired absolute title over suit properties. Hence, compromise decree was not binding on plaintiffs. It was submitted, sale deed dated 13.02.2007 was obtained by defendant no.7 in collusion with DYV, wherein Mahadevaiah joined as confirming party. It was submitted, Hon'ble Supreme Court in T. Vijendradas v. M.Subramanian , reported in 2007 (8) SCC 751, held judgment and decree or order obtained by playing fraud on Court was a nullity and non est in eye of law and treated as nullity by every Court, superior or inferior and could be challenged in any Court at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings.

¶325

It was submitted, as per clause 4H of compromise petition, Mahadevaiah affirmed DYV as owner of property and also affirms sale deed dated 16.07.2002 executed in favour of DYV. Further, under clause 4L, Mahadevaiah gives up all his rights under sale deed dated 15.07.2002. It was submitted, as per Section 43 of Transfer of Property Act, (‘ TP Act’ for short), title affirmed in

¶326

¶327

favour of DYV accrues to benefit of plaintiffs. Consequently, as DYV had already executed sale deeds in favour of plaintiffs, he had no subsisting title to convey to defendant no.7 in year 2007. It was submitted, as per Section 43 of TP Act, plaintiffs’ claim of title would be on higher pedestal than defendant no.7. It was further submitted, subsequent sale deed by very same vendor would be void-ab-initio and as per law laid down by this Court in M. Ramakrishna Reddy v. Sub-Registrar , reported in 1999 SCC OnLine Kar 186 , there was no need for seeking it to be declared null and void.

¶328

It was submitted, cause of action for suit arose when construction of unauthorized building started in year 2019 and subsequently in year 2021, when defendant no.1 filed written statement in O.S.no.4362/2021 disclosing about compromise decree and sale deeds executed in year 2007.

¶329

It was submitted, defendants no.7 to 9 were developing a property of total extent of 13 acres 25.5 guntas as per endorsement dated 28.07.2021 issued by BBMP. It was submitted, even development plan showed larger properties were being

¶330

¶331

developed under single plan sanctioned by BBMP. It was submitted, first commencement certificate dated 21.01.2017 would show construction was started in schedule ‘C’ property, but it pertains only to building no.3, Wing-A and B and building Blocks no.4 and 5 which pertains to other properties out of extent of 13 Acres 25.5 guntas. It was reiterated that only 03 acres in schedule ‘C’ property was disputed. It was submitted, fact that defendants had not produced any other commencement certificate or sketch to show which particular block or wing was constructed on schedule ‘C’ property, would establish that no construction was put up in year 2016 and construction was started only in year 2019.

¶332

It was submitted, since plan was sanctioned in year 2014, suit for possession filed within period of 12 years therefrom would not be time barred. Relying on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sopan Rao v. Syed Mehmood , reported in 2019 (7) SCC 76 , it was submitted, suit was well within period of limitation. Even otherwise, suit filed within period of 12 years from date of possession becoming adverse to plaintiffs, would not be time barred and acquiescence under Section 51 of TP Act cannot be pleaded. It

¶333

¶334

was submitted, nobody can encroach on property of others on strength of his purse nor would law recognize forceful sale by true owner to trespasser, by relying on decision in Baini Prasad v. Durga Devi , reported in 2023 (6) SCC 708 . It was submitted, said decision though produced was not even referred by learned Trial Judge.

¶335

It was submitted, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury would lie in favour of plaintiffs as refusal to grant interim order was likely to lead to creation of further third party rights. It was submitted, since subsequent purchasers were likely to plead equity on ground of having invested their hard earned money and with cost of one apartment being around Rs.5.5 Crores, contesting defendants would not be able to indemnify each of them. Therefore, it was absolutely necessary to continue interim injunction.

¶336

It was submitted, though learned trial Judge relied on decision of Supreme Court in Mandali Ranganna v. T. Ramachandra , reported in 2008 (11) SCC 1 , while considering balance of convenience, order passed therein that construction put

¶337

¶338

up would be subject of result of suit and sale deeds executed were required to stipulate that matter was sub-judice and sale would be subject to result of suit was ignored. Thus, learned Judge had taken note of interests of only defendants. It was submitted, in Gurudas v. Basavarajan reported in 2006 (8) SCC 364, it was ordered, while conveying property, defendants were required to indicate to buyer that sale was subject to result of suit.

¶339

Insofar as observation about discrepancy in boundaries of few sites, it was submitted, description of majority of sites tallied with layout plan, sale deed and plaint schedule. Therefore, observation was contrary to record. Likewise, observation that conversion order was obtained 48 days prior to sale deed dated 16.11.2002 to deny interim relief was contrary to documents produced. It was submitted, sale deed was dated 16.07.2002, while order of conversion was dated 28.09.2002. Hence, there was exfacie non-application of mind. On this ground alone impugned order requires to be set-aside.

¶340

It was further submitted, learned trial Judge recorded incorrect finding based on oral submissions of defendant no.7 that

¶341

¶342

under two registered agreements of sale dated 17.08.1989, possession was handed over to purchaser – Satish Pai, which was contrary to specific condition in said agreements that balance sale consideration shall be paid at time of registration of Sale Deed and handed over possession. Therefore, impugned order was perverse.

¶343

It was submitted, trial Court failed to consider Section 43 of TP Act as regards prior claim; erred in not considering that registration of document four months after execution was barred under Section 23 of Registration Act. It however, held same was matter for trial.

¶344

Even insofar as construction, when it was in year 2016 as per defendants, learned trial Judge noted "material on record do indicate that right from 2011 onwards defendants no.7 to 9 took steps for building apartments in Schedule C property". As per defendants no.7 and 9, development plan was approved in year 2013, construction plan in year 2014 and Commencement Certificate issued in year 2017. Therefore, finding was perverse.

¶345

¶346

It was submitted, trial Court erred in holding that suit valuation was incorrect and court fee paid was insufficient, even though court fee of Rs.22,27,870/- was paid on plaint by applying wrong provision mentioned in valuation slip. It was submitted, undervaluation of reliefs was neither urged nor opportunity to substantiate valuation given to plaintiffs. On said ground also impugned order called for interference.

¶347

Further, learned Judge observed, case involves complicated questions of law and fact about rival claims of title. It was submitted, same would be a reason to grant interim relief rather than to refuse interim order.

¶348

It was submitted, trial Court relied on survey report produced by defendant no.7. It held fact that said report did not show existence of road, layout, park and other civic amenities, would establish plaintiffs failed to prima facie establish existence of layout in suit property. It however failed to note that said survey report was prepared at instance of police, without issuing notice to all interested parties. Admittedly, police had no role to play in civil dispute. Infact, no survey took place.

¶349

¶350

On above grounds, learned counsel submitted impugned order was perverse and untenable and therefore, prayed for setting aside of same by allowing appeals and granting order of temporary injunction as sought for in I.As.no.2 and 3.

¶351

On other hand, Sri Chandan, learned counsel for defendants no.7 to 9 opposed appeals. It was submitted, present appeals were filed against discretionary orders passed by trial Court under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. It was submitted, same was passed after consideration of material on record and by assigning detailed reasons. Therefore, there was no scope for interference.

¶352

Without prejudice even on merits, it was submitted original land owners had agreed to sell larger extent of 05 acres 24 guntas of land in favour of Satish Pai or his nominees under two registered agreements to sell, both dated 17.08.1989. They had also executed two registered Power of Attorneys in favour of one Raghunath on 17.08.1989 to complete transaction envisaged in above agreement. It was submitted, due to pendency of

¶353

¶354

proceedings under Urban Land Ceilings Act, 1978, registration couldn't be completed. At that juncture, Satish Pai, spent huge sums of money, assisted land owners to successfully secure exemption of land from such proceedings. It was submitted, physical possession of complete 05 acres 24 guntas was handed over to Satish Pai after registration of agreement to sell, in part performance of transaction. It was submitted, after proceedings concluded, land owners executed sale deed on 15.07.2002 through their POA holder to Mahadevaiah nominated by Satish Pai. Said Mahadevaiah presented document for registration and it was registered on 16.04.2003, as per provisions of Registration Act.

¶355

It was submitted, Mahadevaiah noticed land owners and their family members had colluded with DYV and created illegal parallel title deeds by registering sale deed on 16.07.2002 in respect of 04 acres 12 ½ guntas out of total extent of 05 acres 24 guntas, one day after execution of sale deed in his favour to create dispute and knock off valuable property.

¶356

Therefore, he filed O.S.no.15589/2003 for declaration of title and for permanent injunction against land owners, their

¶357

¶358

family members and DYV. Said suit ended in compromise with condition that DYV gives up his claim with respect to 03 acres of land and that both Mahadevaiah and DYV together execute sale deed in favour of defendant no.7 in respect to 03 acres of land in schedule ‘C’. In pursuance of same, both Mahadevaih and DYV executed registered sale deed on 13.02.2007.

¶359

Thereafter in year, 2008 some of legal heirs of original land owners filed suit for partition in O.S.no.450/2008 claiming share in larger extent of 05 acres 24 guntas. Even in said suit, there was compromise with respect to ownership of defendant no.7, on 02.08.2014 and schedule ‘C’ property was deleted from suit. At that time, defendant no.7 paid consideration of Rs.40 lakhs to legal heirs of original land owners. It was submitted, with regard to remaining extent, there was settlement on 25.03.2017 and judgment and decree was passed. Same was challenged in RFA no.956/2018, but dismissed by judgment dated 07.02.2022. Even RP no.418/2022 filed against said judgment was also dismissed on 19.07.2022. It was submitted, further challenge was presently

¶360

¶361

pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) no.23335 - 23336 of 2022 pending.

¶362

It was submitted, defendant no.7 being bonafide purchaser with an intention to develop property, executed a registered joint development agreement with defendant no.9 on 18.01.2011. Thereafter, defendants no.7 and 10 secured Development Plan from BDA on 14.03.2013 and property was being developed and built upon. Thereafter, defendants no.7 and 9 obtained commencement certificate on 21.01.2017 and modified development plan on 30.09.2021. Thus with efforts right from 2011, they had secured all requisite permissions for development of schedule ‘C’ property. It was submitted, photographs of constructed buildings clearly established plaintiffs were attempting to mislead this Hon'ble Court by contending that development commenced from year 2019. It was submitted, if building was commenced in 2019, with outbreak of Covid-19 Pandemic during 2020 & 2021, it would be impossible for anyone to complete such a huge structure within short span to time.

¶363

¶364

It was further submitted, in year 2021, one Subramani filed criminal case against few directors of defendants no.7 and 9, claiming right over some plot. During investigation, concerned Police Department requested Department of Land Records to ascertain existence of any layout. In pursuance of same, Assistant Director of Land Records (‘ADLR’) verified and sent report to categorically stating that there was no layout called "Varma Layout" in schedule ‘C’ property.

¶365

Apart from above, one Smt.V Sujatha filed suit for bare injunction claiming to own some plot in vicinity of suit schedule ‘C’ property. Though, initially an ex-parte order of temporary injunction was granted defendants no.7 and 10, they filed MFA no.3052/2022, which was allowed on 20.07.2022. RP 671/2022 filed there against was rejected on 02.01.2024.

¶366

It was submitted, ‘Google Timeline’ provides time stamped satellite photos on ground from year 2015 onwards. Same insofar as schedule ‘C’ property clearly show that construction commenced in year 2014-15 itself. Therefore, plaintiffs’ claim that construction did not commence, was misleading.

¶367

¶368

Appellants herein in paragraphs-37 and 38 of plaint state that they were put in possession of their respective sites and that they were visiting their respective sites and some of them had even put up a compound wall and that they stopped from visiting sites after onslaught of Covid-19 . If at all, they had visited sites, they would definitely know developments carried out from 2013-14 and filing of suit in year 2023 is only to extract money. It is clear that they do not have any site within Schedule 'C' property, if they had regularly visited their respective sites till onslaught of Covid-19. Appellants herein claim in paragraph-56 of plaint that, they approached respondent no.7 in year 2019 when respondent no.7 started putting up columns in Schedule 'C' property. This statement is nothing but misleading this Hon'ble Court to secure injunction. By seeing documents placed by respondent no.7, it is clear that respondent no.7 commenced development in 2011 itself and construction had begun during 2014-15. Hence, appellants are not entitled for any relief. Some of sale deeds produced by appellants herein do not have survey numbers as claimed by them in their plaint and schedules. Appellants have misled trial Court by including

¶369

¶370

those details which are not in sale deed and to secure interim order. Averments at paragraph 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, and item nos.14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20 of plaint are nothing but a misrepresentation that said sites were carved out of schedule property.

¶371

On above grounds, it was submitted impugned order did not call for interference and prayed for dismissal of appeals. In support of submissions, learned counsel relied on following decisions:

¶372

Citation	Proposition
Kanwar Raj Singh v. GEJO, reported in(2024) 2 SCC 416	Once registration is complete, sale deed will operate from date of its execution. Para 7 to 11
Ghanshyam v. Yogendra Rathi, reported in(2023) 7 SCC 361	A person lawfully in possession under an agreement for sale acquires possessory title which is liable to be protected under section 53A of TP Act. Para 15- 16.
Sharada Krishnappa v. Jhansi R and Ors. in MFA.no.8173/2015 (D.D on 10.12.2015)	A person who does not approach court with clean hands does not deserve any relief.
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1	A litigant who approached court is bound to produce all documents and if he withholds a vital document in order to take advantage on other side, then he would be guilty of playing fraud.

¶373

¶374

Udai Chand v. Shankar Lal, reported in(1978) 2 SCC 209	A party approaching court must come with clean hands, it he attempts to overreach or mislead court by untrue and false statements or by withholding true information, which would have a bearing on question of exercise of discretion, court would be justified in refusing to exercise such discretion.
Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd. v. Commr. (Admn.), reported in (2010) 4 SCC 728	It is settled principle of law that a person who approaches court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, is under solemn obligation to candidly disclose all material/important facts. If he is found guilty of concealment of material facts or of making an attempt to pollute pure stream of justice, Court not only has right but a duty to deny relief to such person.
Raj Kumar Dey v. Tarapada Dey, reported in(1987) 4 SCC 398	Limitation for registration of a document is 8 months & not four months as per section 23 & 25 of Registration Act.
Nestor Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 3480	Limitation for registration of a document is 8 months & not four months as per section 23 & 25 of Registration Act.
Ningthoujam Shenjai Singh v. Puyam Thoiba Singh, reported in2023 SCC OnLine Mani 196	It is settled principle of law that a registered document is presumed to be genuine and Court while hearing an application for Temporary Injunction has to presume validity and genuineness of a registered deed.

¶375

¶376

Vidarbha Industries Power Ltd. v. Axis Bank Ltd., reported in(2022) 8 SCC 352	The word "may" appearing in any provision is only directory and not mandatory and provides discretion on authority.
Metropoli Overseas Ltd. v. H.S. Deekshit, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15913	A document registered would be constructive notice for all concerned and limitation runs from date of registration.
Sri Channegowda and Anr. v. Sri N.S.Vishwanath and Ors. in RSA.no.193/2011(D.D. date 08.12.2023)	Power of Attorney if empowers attorney to sell is compulsorily registrable.

¶377

Heard learned counsel, perused impugned order and documents made available.

¶378

From above, it is seen, this is plaintiffs’ appeal against order rejecting their applications for temporary injunction in respect of schedule properties. While passing impugned order, trial Court has framed proper points for consideration and assigned reasons. Main grounds urged for challenge are non-consideration of entire material on record and perversity of conclusions. Therefore, point that arises for consideration is:

¶379

“Whether impugned order passed by trial Court on I.As.no.2, 3 and 5 calls for interference as it is without consideration of entire material on record and on ground of perversity of conclusions?”

¶380

¶381

This is an appeal against discretionary order passed by trial Court under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC. As per decision

¶382

in Mohd. Mehtab Ibrahim Khan v. Khushnuma Ibrahim Khan , reported in 2013 (9) SCC 221 , scope for interference in appeal against such discretionary orders would be limited to cases where impugned order is demonstrated to be untenable or suffering from perversity with clarification that even if view taken by trial Court on available material were to be one of possible views, there could be no interference.

¶383

In instant case, plaintiffs are claiming to be individual site owners in pursuance of separate sale deeds executed by DYV in layout formed by him. In their pleadings, plaintiffs stated, that they were individual site owners. But, as they were claiming right in respect of common areas, such as roads etc. in layout in which they have purchased sites, they were having common interest in each and every portion of ‘A’ schedule property and therefore, they sought declaration in respect of it. They stated that entire property i.e. 36.5 guntas in Sy.no.107/3, 02 Acres 28 guntas in Sy.no.108/1 and 28 guntas in Sy.no.116/3 totally measuring 04 Acres 12½

¶384

¶385

guntas (‘A’ schedule property) was joint family property of Doddamuniyappa and his family members. And that under sale deed dated 16.07.2002 bearing registration no.3390/2002-03, they sold it to DYV. It was also stated that DYV had earlier entered into various sale transactions since year 1986 with owners, obtained sanction of layout plan from Amruthahalli Gram Panchayath and got lands converted for non-agricultural – residential purposes on 28.09.2002 and sold sites to various purchasers including plaintiffs. Hence, plaintiffs were in possession.

¶386

They further stated after death of DYV on 09.05.2021, defendants attempted to trespass over their properties. Therefore, some site-owners filed O.S.no.4543/2021, O.S.no.4546/2021, O.S.no.4594/2021, O.S.no.4562/2021, O.S.no.4544/2021, O.S.no.4542/2021 and O.S.no.950/2001 and order of interim injunction granted was questioned in MFAs.no.2974/2022, 2978/2022, 2980/2022, 2982/2022, 2992/2022, 2993/2022, 2994/2022, 2995/2022, 3001/2022, 3004/2022, 3005/2022 and MFA no.3007/2022 and connected matters, wherein interim protection directing defendants to set apart extent claimed by

¶387

¶388

plaintiffs therein in one place with reasonable access. Thereafter, plaintiffs realized defendants were claiming title over ‘C’ schedule property, which they found to be illegal. Hence, present suit was filed.

¶389

Applications were opposed. Application for vacation of interim injunction was also filed, wherein defendants sought to substantiate their rights under registered sale deed. They admitted that extent of 05 Acres 24 guntas comprised in Sy.nos.107/3, 108/1, 106 and 116/3 of Amruthahalli belonged to Doddamuniyappa and 19 others. They stated that on 17.08.1989 an agreement of sale was executed by said owners in favour of Satish Pai. On same day, Special Power of Attorney was also executed in favour of Raghunath. Thereafter, on 15.07.2002, Satish Pai and Raghunath sold entire extent to Mahadevaiah. And when Mahadevaiah challenged sale deed dated 16.07.2002 (of DYV), DYV executed sale deed in favour of defendant no.7 and on 07.04.2007, compromise was entered into between Mahadevaiah, DYV and defendant no.7. Thereafter, when legal representatives of

¶390

¶391

Doddamuniyappa filed suit for partition, defendant no.7 settled their claims in respect of ‘C’ schedule property.

¶392

Thereafter, JDA was executed on 18.01.2011 between defendants no.7 and 9 and they started construction after obtaining approval of development plan on 14.03.2013. They also stated that plan was later got modified on 13.09.2021 and on 10.03.2022, Fire clearance certificate was also obtained. They stated that construction was in advanced stage and from 2021-23 more than 250 flats were already sold.

¶393

While passing impugned order, trial Court considered rival claims firstly by examining extent of each item number of suit property, comparing same with layout plan and giving finding whether description of plaintiffs’ site was proper or otherwise. Referring to auxiliary numbers given to sites such as site nos.1A, 2A, 3A, 6A, 7A, 9B, 10A and 31A to 31F and repetition of sites ns.1 to 9 in layout plan as well as variation in measurement of several sites, it observes there was improper description. It also observed that sale deed was executed to DYV even prior to order of conversion. It also noted that Amruthahalli Gram Panchayath was

¶394

¶395

stated to have approved layout plan on 18.11.1994, which was nearly 8 years prior to order of conversion. It also observes though there is recital about DYV being holder of agreement of sale dated 18.01.1986, said agreement was not produced.

¶396

While taking note of contention that sale deed dated 15.07.2002 presented for registration on 15.11.2002 i.e. after period of four months would be a nullity. Trial Court observed that question whether defendants no.1 to 7 were bonafide purchasers would require consideration. From records produced by defendants no.7 to 9, it observes steps for construction of apartments in plaint ‘C’ schedule were in progress since 2011.

¶397

Trial Court observed, contrary to plaintiffs’ claim about their sites being situated in ‘C’ schedule property in pursuance of formation of layout by DYV, report submitted by ADLR to Investigating Officer indicated that there were no parks, roads, layout or civic amenities. It therefore, concluded that subject matter involves complicated questions of law and fact which required trial.

¶398

¶399

Trial Court also took note of order dated 20.07.2022 passed by this Court in MFA.no.3052/2022, wherein this Court set aside order of temporary injunction granted by trial Court in suit filed by site holder (similar to plaintiffs herein) and protecting construction put up by defendants no.7 to 9, to conclude that same would be binding on it. Based on above observations, trial Court held plaintiffs had failed to establish prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss and injury.

¶400

As stated above, thrust of plaintiffs’ challenge is on establishing illegality of sale deed dated 15.07.2002, executed by Satish Pai – agreement holder and Raghunath to Mahadevaiah in respect of 05 acres 24 guntas in Sy.nos.107/3, 108/1, 106 and 116/3 of Amruthahalli. Said challenge is on several grounds.

¶401

In view of fact that relief sought in I.As is confined to schedule ‘C’ property, consideration herein is confined to said property only. First ground of challenge that plaintiffs ought to have sought declaration would be in vain as declaratory relief is sought in respect of ‘A’ schedule property.

¶402

¶403

Next ground of challenge is registration of sale deed beyond four months of execution rendering it a nullity. It is not in dispute that registration of said sale deed was completed without any objection about being beyond period stipulated in Section 23 of Registration Act, 1908. It is not in dispute that sale deed bearing date of execution as 15.07.2002 was presented for registration on 15.11.2002. Thus, it certainly would be within extended time limit of total of eight months provided under Section 25 of Registration Act, 1908. At same time, period of four months from date of execution would expire on 15.11.2002. On said day, further registration was suspended under Section 22-A of Registration Act, 1908, and thereafter registered on 16.04.2003, in pursuance of direction issued by Registrar, in appeal. In any case, perusal of judgments in Ram Singh Sant Ram and Zestha Developers cases (supra) reveal that they are not authorities for proposition that registration of sale deed after four months of its execution would be null and void. Even, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Dey v. Tarapada Dey , reported in 1987 (4) SCC 398 , has not laid down such proposition.

¶404

¶405

Insofar as contention about sale deed being in violation of Sections 13 and 14 read with Rule 6 of Stamp Rules, same would be available for consideration by trial Court while recording evidence since plaintiff has to be established that sale deed was drawn on stamp papers issued for some other transaction.

¶406

Insofar as contention that sale in favour of DYV was in pursuance of agreement of sale, which was prior to agreement of sale in favour of defendants, but, this would not be appropriate stage for examination. While contention that discrepancies in market value and payment of adequate stamp duty, appropriate stage would be while recording evidence.

¶407

Insofar as contention of plaintiffs by reference to compromise between Mahadevaiah and DYV and defendant no.7 in suit filed by Mahadevaiah, compromise decree and sale deed executed in pursuance thereof, it is seen, plaintiffs’ on one hand challenged said decree as null and void and non est, while on other hand they seek to rely on terms of compromise to urge contention under Section 43 of TP Act, which would be approbate and reprobate and hence impermissible.

¶408

¶409

Though observation by trial Court about construction by defendants may not appear to have begun in year 2011, but 'no objection' from BESCOM dated 27.06.2011, 'no objection' from BWSSB dated 29.12.2012, work order and approval of development plan dated 14.03.2013, 'no objection' from Pollution Control Board on 30.09.2013, commencement certificate dated 20.01.2017 and modified development plan dated 30.09.2021 cannot be ignored. Infact, this Court disposed of MFA no.3052/2022 by setting aside order of temporary injunction granted by trial Court in suit filed by some other site holder (similar to plaintiffs herein) with observation that construction put-up would require protection. Moreover even in MFA no.2974/2022 and connected matters, construction was permitted to be proceeded with by leaving an extent of 14,400/- sq. ft. of vacant area subject to outcome of suit. Said orders are in respect of same lands. Therefore, reference/reliance on same cannot be said to render impugned order untenable or perverse. Likewise, while there cannot be any dispute about position of law enunciated in Sopan Rao and Baini Prasad cases (supra), delay in approaching Court would be amongst valid consideration while

¶410

¶411

considering for deciding entitlement of reliefs of temporary injunction.

¶412

Though, plaintiffs may have grievances against certain observations being incorrect or not tallying with records, it is seen that impugned order does not pivot on same and therefore they would not substantiate interference in appeal. When plaintiffs' case is that DYV had obtained approval of layout from Amruthahalli Grama panchayat on 18.11.1994, but order of conversion of land use was passed on 28.09.2002, trial Court would be justified in entertaining doubt about grant of approval for formation of layout being in accordance with law. Approval of layout plan requires to be preceded by order of conversion of land use.

¶413

Though, plaintiffs would be justified in contending that survey report produced by defendant no.7 may not have been prepared as per procedure, by following after issuing notice to all interested, however when plaintiffs did not produce any material to substantiate any work being carried out in pursuance of approval of layout stated to have been granted by Amruthahalli Gram

¶414

¶415

Panchayat, reliance on survey report, especially, it was prepared prior to filing of present suit, that too, only at interim stage by trial Court cannot be said to be illegal or erroneous.

¶416

Reading of decisions in Mandali Ranganna and in M. Gurudas ’s cases (supra), indicate that they are authorities for proposition that conduct of parties would be amongst relevant considerations while considering application for temporary injunction. Though, whether development/construction in ‘C’ schedule property began in year 2011 or later, trial Court herein found construction to have begun much prior to suit. Infact, observations of this Court in MFA.no.3052/2022 are also to this effect. Therefore, some delay/laches on part of plaintiffs in approaching Court cannot be ruled out. Such conduct would disentitle them from equitable relief and ratio in said decisions would not be of much help to them.

¶417

Insofar as submission that each of apartments/flats were being sold for more than Rs.5.5 Crores and mere order of subjecting development/construction and alienation to outcome of

¶418

¶419

suit would not be enough, admittedly, huge commercial venture is being undertaken by defendants no.7 to 9 in suit schedule, in absence of any material by plaintiffs that they would be able to make good any loss suffered by defendants in case they ultimately loose in suit, (as considered in para-35 in M. Gurudas ’s case), order passed by trial Court would appear justified. Moreover, decision in M. Gurudas ’s case (as stated in para-40) was in specific facts and circumstances of said case.

¶420

From above, present case does involve several contentious claims by both parties, which as observed by trial Court require evidence. Therefore, refusal to grant interim order with observation by learned trial Judge that case involves complicated questions of law and fact cannot be found fault with. Common point for consideration is thus answered in negative. Consequently, following :

¶421

O R D E R

¶422

Appeals are dismissed, clarifying that

¶423

observations and findings herein are only prima facie and trial Court would be at liberty to draw independent

¶424

¶425

conclusion at time of disposal of suit, based on evidence led by parties. And with direction to trial Court for expedite disposal of suit, by setting specific timeline for each stage of suit and directing both parties to cooperate for same.

¶426

Sd/(RAVI V. HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶427

Psg*/GRD

Smt Geetha J Malli v. Cv Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Geetha J Malli v. Cv Projects Pvt. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Ningamma Vs C L Shankare Gowda

Sri P K Shantharaju Vs Sri P R Shivananda

Smt. Ganapu Hengsu Vs Smt. Kamala Devadagithi

Smt Durgamma @ Javanamma Vs Smt Shivalingamma

Smt Shobha Vs Sri Munivenkatappa

Sri D B Shankarappa Vs Sri D S Ravi Kumar