- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43573 RFA NO.398 OF 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.398 OF 2014 (INJ) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VALLIAMMAL D/O LATE T. PONNUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, NO.59, KADIRANNAPALYA, INDIRANAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 038. REP. BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY MR. P. NATARAJAN. 2. SMT. PADMAVATHI W/O MR. RAMESH AGE: MAJOR, R/AT NO.40, 7TH CROSS, LAKSHMIPURAM, ULSOOR, BENGALURU - 560 008. REP. BY HER POWER OF ATTORNEY MR. K. RAMESH. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR N.D., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASHANTH S.H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. P. BALASUBRAMANI S/O LATE PERUMAL AND LATE DHANALAKSHMI AMMAL, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43573 RFA NO.398 OF 2014 2. SHRI P. TULASIRAMAN S/O OF LATE PERUMAL AND LATE DHANALAKSHMI AMMAL, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 3. SHRI P. VIJAYAKUMAR S/O OF LATE PERUMAL AND LATE DHANALAKSHMI AMMAL, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NO.57, KADIRANNAPALYA, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 038. 4. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BENGALURU - 560 002. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS N., ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 TO R3; SRI. J. JAYAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS REGUALR FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 READ WITH ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 25TH NOVEMBER, 2013 PASSED IN ORIGINAL SUIT NO.2614 OF 2006 ON THE FILE OF THE XXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY, DISMISSING THE SUIT FOR MANDATORY INJUNCTION. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 25th November, 2013 passed in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43573 RFA NO.398 OF 2014 Original Suit No.2614 of 2006 on the file of the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit filed by the plaintiffs for mandatory injunction came to be dismissed; consequently, allowed the counter claim sought for by the defendants 1 to 3 and thereby restrained the plaintiffs from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of defendants in the suit property as shown in the written statement. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The necessary facts for adjudication of this appeal as averred in the plaint are that the plaintiff No.1 is the absolute owner of Western half portion of Site No.59/1 in land bearing Survey No.91 of Kadirannapalya, Bengaluru shown in Schedule-A and defendant No.1 is the owner of Eastern half portion of Site No.59/1 of Kadirannapalya, Bengaluru shown in Schedule-B. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendants 1 to 3 are the joint owners of Site No.57 of Kadirannapalya, Bengaluru in Survey No.91 shown in Schedule- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43573 RFA NO.398 OF 2014 C. The Schedule-C property is situated abutting the Western side of the property of the plaintiff No.1. It is also stated in the plaint that, one late Subramaniam was the owner of the land bearing Survey No.91 of Kadirannapalya, Bengaluru measuring East-West 92 feet and North-South 30 feet and the father of the plaintiff No.1-T Ponnuswamy purchased an extent of East- West 46 feet and North-South 30 feet along with suit passage 5 feet width and 46 feet in length throughout the Western portion of the land bearing Survey No.91. Thereafter, the mother of the defendants viz., Dhanalakshmi Ammal had purchased the remaining Western portion of the land, leaving 5 feet width passage measuring East-West 46 feet; North-South 25 feet. It is further stated that the said Dhanalakshmi Ammal encroached the suit passage and as such, the father of the plaintiff No.1 viz., T. Ponnuswamy filed Original Suit No.166 of 1970 before the Additional Munsiff, Civil Station, Bengaluru, seeking relief of declaration and injunction. The said suit came to be decreed on 17th November, 1975, declaring his right over the suit passage of 5 feet width, consequently restrained the said Dhanalakshmi Ammal, mother of the defendants from interfering with the suit passage on the 5 feet width. The said - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43573 RFA NO.398 OF 2014 judgment and decree is confirmed in Regular Appeal No.140 of 1980, by judgment and decree dated 18th August, 1982 before the X Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. Thereafter, the said Dhanalakshmi Ammal filed Miscellaneous Petition No.10130 of 1982 before the Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 23rd July, 1983 on the basis of a withdrawal memo filed on behalf of the said Dhanalakshmi Ammal. It is also stated that the said Dhanalakshmi Ammal filed Original No.10260 of 1983, seeking relief of cancellation of the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.166 of 1970 and the said suit also came be dismissed on 13th February, 1987. Further, it is stated in the plaint that the passage of 5 feet width, 46 feet length abutting Southern side portion purchased by the said Dhanalakshmi Ammal was the exclusive passage forming part of the rear portion purchased by T. Ponnuswamy, the father of the plaintiff No.1. By virtue of Partition deed dated 16th August, 1984 and the plaintiff No.1 and her sister Smt. Bhakiyhavathi became absolute owners of the said property. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43573 RFA NO.398 OF 2014 4. Thereafter, the plaintiff No.1 and her sister Smt. Bhakiyavathi got partitioned the property and the plaintiff No.1 became absolute owner of Western portion of property measuring East-West 23 feet and North-South 25 feet, along with common passage which reaches main road on Western side. The mother of the defendants viz., Dhanalakshmi Ammal died on 01st April, 2001 and as such, defendants 1 to 3 became joint owners of property bearing Site No.57 and they have put- up construction in the said property along with chajja by protruding to the the suit passage and encroached portion of suit Schedule-A property on the Western side to an extent of 2 1/2 feet and put-up doors towards the property of plaintiff No.1. Despite the legal notice has been issued to defendants 1 to 3, they have not rectified the encroachment made therein and therefore, it is contended that, same is in violation of the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.166 of 1970. It is also stated that the plaintiffs have approached the respondent No.4-Bruahat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike with regard to encroachment made by defendants 1 to 3, however, the defendant No.4-BBMP has not taken any decision in the matter. Hence, plaintiffs preferred Original Suit No.2614 of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43573 RFA NO.398 OF 2014 2006, seeking relief of mandatory injunction to remove obstruction in suit Schedule-A property. 5. After service of summons, defendants 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the specific case of the defendants 1 to 3 that, the defendant No.1 has filed Original Suit No.17675 of 2005 before the Civil Court, Bengaluru and therefore, the present suit is hit by Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendants 1 to 3 sought for appointment of Court Commissioner to measure the suit property and to submit a report to ascertain the encroachment if any, by the defendants. It is further contended in the written statement that, the common passage has been encroached by the brother of the plaintiff No.1 viz., P. Ganeshan, who had constructed the building and the plaintiffs have not taken any action against him for encroachment of common passage. The defendants have also filed counter claim against the plaintiffs by stating that, after the death of the mother of defendants 1 to 3 viz., Dhanalakshmi Ammal, defendants 1 to 3 got partitioned the property and constructed the building during the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43573 RFA NO.398 OF 2014 year 1997-98 and 2000 as per the sanction plan issued by defendant No.4. It is further stated that, the brother of the plaintiff No.1 viz., Natarajan, filed Original Suit No.5243 of 2001 in which, plaintiffs were not arrayed as a party. It is further stated that, the Court Commissioner was appointed in Original Suit No.5243 of 2001 and the report of the Court Commissioner reveals that, there is no encroachment by the defendants 1 to 3 and the defendant No.3 has put-up construction by leaving set back and therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. Defendant No.4 filed separate written statement denying the averments in the plaint and sought for dismissal of the suit. 7. Based on pleadings on record, the Trial Court has framed the following issues and additional issues for its consideration: ISSUES: (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants 1 to 3 have encroached upon the 5 feet width passage to the south of their property and also on A schedule property? - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43573 RFA NO.398 OF 2014 (2) Whether plaintiff is entitled for Mandatory injunction against defendants as prayed? (3) Whether the defendants 1 to 3 prove that they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the written statement schedule property? (4) Whether the defendants 1 to 3 prove the alleged interference of plaintiff in the written statement schedule property? (5) Whether defendants 1 to 3 are entitled for Permanent injunction against the plaintiff as prayed? (6) What decree or order? ADDITIONAL ISSUES: (1) Whether the plaintiffs proves that the existence of common passage in the property of defendants for their use and for the use of public as alleged in the plaint? (2) Whether plaintiffs further prove that the defendants illegally have closed the said common passage by constructing the building as alleged in the plaint? (3) Whether defendants 2 and 3 prove that the passage which is available is exclusively meant for them as per the Will stated to have been - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43573 RFA NO.398 OF 2014 executed by their mother as contended in the written statement? (4) Whether the description of the property so described by the plaintiffs is correct? 8. In order to prove their case, plaintiffs have examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and marked 16 documents as Exhibits P1 to P16. On the other hand, defendants have examined one witness as DW1 and produced 8 documents as Exhibits D1 to D8. 9. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 25th November, 2013, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs have preferred this Regular First Appeal. 10. Heard Sri. Jayakumar N.D., learned counsel on behalf of Sri. Prashanth S.H., appearing for appellants; Sri. Srinivas N., learned counsel appearing for Caveator/respondents 1 to 3; and Sri. T. Jayaprakash, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4. 11. Sri. Jayakumar N.D., learned counsel for appellants contended that the Trial Court had failed to consider the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43573 RFA NO.398 OF 2014 material evidence, particularly, the admission made by the DW1 with regard to the passage in question and that apart, the DW1 deposed that, the defendants 1 to 3 have not left any set back on Eastern side of their building. It is further contended by the learned counsel for appellants that, the Trial Court failed to consider the schedule in the Sale Deed dated 15th April, 1958 said to have been executed by one Subramaniam in favour of T. Ponnuswamy (father of the plaintiff No.1), wherein, provision has been made for access to the road and the said aspect has been ignored by the Trial Court. It is further argued that the Trial Court, committed a serious error in appreciating the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.166 of 1970 in the right perspective, as the Civil Court declared about the passage measuring East-West 46 feet and North-South 5 feet, connecting the plaintiffs property to the main road on the Western side. It is further argued that, the Trial Court ignored the admission made by the DW1 about the proceedings in Original Suit No.166 of 1970. It is also argued by the learned counsel for appellants that the Trial Court has ignored the report of the Commissioner in Original Suit No.166 of 1970, mentioning about the right of the plaintiffs to access passage - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43573 RFA NO.398 OF 2014 and the said report of the Commissioner is unchallenged and the judgment of the Trial Court passed in Original Suit No.166 of 1970 was confirmed in Regular Appeal No.140 of 1980. It is also submitted that, the learned Trial Judge failed to note that there are two passages, one measuring 5' x 46' feet towards South of Municipal No.57 being acquired by the plaintiffs as per the registered Sale Deed dated 15th April, 1958 and therefore, sought for interference of this Court, as the Trial Court has ignored the factual aspects on record in the right perspective. 12. Per contra, Sri. Srinivas N., learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 sought to justify the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in Original Suit No.2614 of 2006 and in this regard, he refers to judgment in Original Suit No.166 of 1970 and submitted that, in the said judgment, the question was relating to Northern side of the plot and this fact in the said suit is altogether different. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the appeal. 13. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, plaintiffs have sought for relief of mandatory injunction, directing the defendants to remove the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43573 RFA NO.398 OF 2014 obstruction in the Schedule-A property. In view of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, the points arise for consideration in this appeal are as follows: 1) Whether the plaintiffs proved that the defendants 1 to 3 have encroached the Southern side of the Schedule-A property? 2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court requires interference by this Court? 14. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.1 is the owner of the Western half portion of the Site No.59/1 in Schedule-A property and the defendant No.1 is the owner of Eastern half portion of Site No.59/1 of Schedule-B property. The defendants 1 to 3 are the joint owners of the Schedule-C property, which is abutting the Western side of the property of the plaintiffs. Originally suit property belongs to one Subramaniam and same was sold in favour of the father of the plaintiff No.1 viz., T. Ponnuswamy as per the registered Sale Deed dated 15th April, 1958. It is also to be noted that the mother of the defendants 1 to 3 viz., Dhanalakshmi Ammal had purchased the Western portion of the Schedule-A property. It - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43573 RFA NO.398 OF 2014 is pertinent to mention here that, on the alleged encroachment said to have been made by the said Dhanalakshmi Ammal in respect of the suit passage, the father of the plaintiffs has filed Original Suit No.166 of 1970 (Exhibit P3), wherein the suit filed by the father of the plaintiffs came to be decreed. In the said suit, the question before the Trial Court is as to the passage of 5 Feet on the Northern side from the main road. Paragraphs 7 to 9 of the said judgment reads as under: "7. A. Commissioner was appointed in this case and he has given his report. It is seen from the Commissioner's report that he has visited the disputed property and has taken the measurement with reference to the sale deeds of the parties. He has observed at para 7 of his Report that there is a reference in the sale deeds of both the plaintiff and the defendant to the effect the purchaser is at liberty to enter into the land from East to West by 5 feet. The Commissioner has recorded his opinion that the plaintiff has not encroached and that the plaintiff has no way to enter into his site except from the premises in his occupation. He has also stated that there is a recital in the sale deed of the defendant that a passage or 5 feet left on the northern side is left and now the defendant has not left any passage for the plaintiff to gain entry into his site. The defendant has not filed any objection to the Commissioner's report. Therefore it is clear that - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43573 RFA NO.398 OF 2014 the defendant has encroached upon the passage of 5 feet and put up a construction as alleged by the plaintiff. It is further clear from the evidence placed on record that what has been purchased by the defendant is 46 feet of land from East to West and 30 feet North to South leaving 5 feet on the Northern side which was reserved as passage to the plaintiff's site and it is on this passage the defendant is said to have put up a construction and blocked the way for the plaintiff's entry to his site. Though the Commissioner has shown in the rough sketch submitted by him that there is a gate on the southern side of the plaintiff's site facing the Corporation Road, the defendant has not adduced any evidence to prove that the plaintiff has alternative gate on the southern side facing the Corporation Road. Therefore in the absence of any evidence by the defendant it is not possible to appreciate whether plaintiff has some other alternative gate to his building of land. It is clear on perusal of the documents sale deed Exs. P2 and P3 that the plaintiff's vendor has covenanted passage of 5 feet on the Northern side of the building to gain entry to the plaintiff's land. Therefore it is clear that the defendant has encroached upon the passage of 5 feet and blocked plaintiff's entry to his plot. As the defendant has not come to the witness box to prove her case, I have to draw adverse inference and hold that the plaintiff has satisfactorily established that he is entitled to the passage of 5 feet on the Northern side from the Main Road. He has also proved that this the only passage to his plot and - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43573 RFA NO.398 OF 2014 therefore I answer the first two issues in the affirmative in favour of the plaintiff. 8. ISSUE NO.3: It is clear from the discussion that the defendant has encroached upon the passage and constructed the house. The defendant has stated in her written statement that the plaintiff has not raised any objection at the time of her construction of the building and therefore he has acquiesced his right if any. The Commissioner has also reported that the defendant has not left any passage to gain entry to her site. It is clear from the contention of the defendant in her written statement as well as Report of the Commissioner that the defendant has encroached on the 5 feet passage and built a house on it and therefore answer this issue in the affirmative in favour of the plaintiff. ISSUE NOS. 4, 5 AND 6: The burden of this these three issues as on the defendant, the defendant has come to the Court to prove these three issues. Therefore I answer these three issues in the negative against the defendant. 9. ISSUES 7, 8 AND 9: In view of my finding on issues 1 to 3, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43573 RFA NO.398 OF 2014 the reliefs prayed for. The plaintiff has satisfactorily proved that the defendant has encroached upon 5 feet passaged. Therefore he is entitled to the possession of the suit passage or in the alternative the defendant is directed to leave passage of 5 feet on the Southern side to gain entry to the plaintiff's land. I also hold that the plaintiff is entitled to the mandatory injunctions in case defendant fails to provide alternative passage to the plaintiff." 15. In the present case, the question as to the alleged encroachment as contended by the plaintiffs is towards Eastern side of the Schedule-A property in which, the Commissioner Report in Original Suit No.5243 of 2001 clarifies that the alleged encroachment if any, by the plaintiff. In this regard, perusal of cross-examination of the PW1 dated 24th November, 2009 at paragraph 5 reads as under: "5. I am the brother of plaintiff. The original owner of khata No.57 was one Smt. Dhanalakshmiamma. The said Smt. Dhanalakshimiamma had purchased the said Khata No.57 from one Sri Muniswamy. The property so purchased by Smt. Danalakshmiamma was measuring east west 46 feet and north south 40 feet with 10 feet common passage. The said common passage is situated towards - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43573 RFA NO.398 OF 2014 the northern side of the said property. The said common passage is included in the said 40 feet stated above. Now at present the entire 40 feet area is not avialable. According to me only 30 feet area is available. I do not know that who have encroached upon the 10 feet in the said 40 feet area. It is true to suggest that Smt. Dhanalakshmiamma purchased the property from Sri. Muniswamy measuring east west 46 feet and south north 30 feet. I do not know that the said Smt. Dhanalskshmiamma during her lifetime had executed a Will in favour of defendants of her property measuring 46 feet x 30 feet. I do not know that the said 46 feet x 30 feet divided amongst defendants 1 to 3 and also I do not know that the eastern portion measuring 15.4 feet was allotted to defendant No.3 center portion was allotted to defendant No.2 and western portion towards road side allotted to defendant No.2 and western portion towards road side allotted to defendant No.1. It is false to suggest that there exist 5 feet common passage in between the property of defendant No.3 and the plaintiff. It is false to suggest that the said 5 feet common passage have been blocked by Smt. Salamma and Sri. Ganesh. It is false to suggest that even till now there are symptoms of blocking the said 5 feet common passage." 16. On 20th January, 2010, in the further cross- examination, PW1 admits that the plaintiff was allotted with Site No.59/1 measuring 30 feet x 46 feet. It is further - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43573 RFA NO.398 OF 2014 admitted that, his father had purchased property measuring 46 feet x 30 feet. In the cross-examination, PW1 has categorically admitted that, he does not aware about the properties of all the defendants. The PW2 in the cross-examination deposed that, she was not aware about the measurement of the suit property and the property being allotted to the plaintiff No.1. The schedule of the property as per the registered Sale Deed dated 15th April, 1958 (Exhibit P2) by Sri. Subramaniam in favour of the father of the plaintiff No.1 reads as under: "SCHEDULE Portion of property in Sy.No.91, situated in Kadiranapalya, Bhinnamangala, Civil Station, Bangalore bounded on East by : Byrappa's land West by : Government road North by : Byrappa's land South by : M. Ammal's land" 17. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs had purchased the Eastern portion of 40 feet x 30 feet area and there was a road on the Western side of both the properties. It is also relevant to extract the Schedule of the property i.e., Schedule- C [allotted to Vijayakumar (Defendant No.3)], which reads as under: - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43573 RFA NO.398 OF 2014 "Schedule - C (allotted to P. Vijayakumar) All that the land with the structure thereon being a portion out of Corporation number 57, situated at Kadiraiahnapalya Civil Area. Bangalore, measuring East to West 15 feet 4 inches, North to South 30 feet and bounded on the East by property of R. Subramani. West by Portion allotted to P. Thulasidas, North by Byrappa's property, South Ammayamma's property." 18. In the Sale Deed dated 12th August, 1959 (Exhibit D3), executed by Sri. Muniswamy in favour of the mother of defendants Dhanalakshmi Ammal, the schedule reads as under: "SCHEDULE Portion of property in Sy.No.91 (Ninetyone), situated in Kadiranapalya, Bhinnamangala, Civil Station, Bangalore bounded on East by : land belonging to Sri. R. Subramanian West by : Road North by : Land belonging to Sri. Byrappa South by : Land belonging to Ammal W/o Ponnuswamy. East to West Forty six feet. North to South thirty feet." 19. In the backdrop of these aspects, on careful appreciation of the evidence on record, the same would indicate that, there is no encroachment by the defendants in the Schedule-A property passage as claimed by the plaintiffs and - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43573 RFA NO.398 OF 2014 therefore, the Trial Court, after appreciating the material on record, particularly with reference to the additional issue No.2, rightly arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the common passage in which the defendants have alleged to have closed the path way. The reasons assigned by the Trial Court particularly while, analyzing the documents produced by the plaintiffs with reference to the paragraphs 17 and 18 of the judgment would makes it clear that there is no encroachment said to have been made by the defendants. It is also to be noted that the common passage runs from North- South starts from the property belonging to one Janardhan as per the partition deed and release deed so also, the report of Commissioner in Original Suit No.5243 of 2001 probables that there is no encroachment on Eastern, Western and Northern side as the buildings are already been constructed. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Trial Court is just and proper on all the issues framed therein. Therefore, I am of the view that, the Trial Court, after appreciating the material on record, rightly dismissed the suit. The points for consideration referred to above favours the defendants as the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of common passage in - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43573 RFA NO.398 OF 2014 the property of defendants 1 to 3 for their use and the defendants 1 to 3 have closed the said common passage by constructing the building. The said aspect has been rightly answered by the Trial Court in additional issues 1 to 3. In that view of the matter, plaintiff failed to prove the encroachment alleged to have been made by defendants 1 to 3. Accordingly, Regular First Appeal is dismissed. Judgment and decree dated 25th November, 2013 passed in Original Suit No.2614 of 2006 on the file of the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City is hereby confirmed. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38