RATHNAMMA Vs. ZEENATHUNISA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the plaintiff's appeal. The present appellant as a plaintiff has instituted a suit against the original respondent Smt.Zeenathunisa herein for the relief of perpetual injunction in O.S.No.6275/2007, in the Court of learned VII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, (CCH-19), (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court').

(2.) The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the trial Court was that she had purchased the suit schedule property, which is a residential house bearing No.53 and formed in Survey No.52, Assessment No.52, measuring 50' x 30', and situated at Laggere Village of Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, now called as Chowdeshwarinagar, Bengaluru-560053, on 6.10.2003, from one Sri Gangaiah, represented by his General Power of Attorney Holder Smt.Jayaramachandra. Thereafter, on 1.12.2003, she constructed a residential building and obtained electrical connection and other amenities to the property. The defendant had filed O.S.No.5819/2003, against one Sri Ramesh E.S. and Smt.K.M.Saraswathi, for the relief of bare injunction with respect to site Nos.53 and 54, measuring 46' x 52' and obtained an ex parte decree on 2.7.2004.

(3.) In response to the summons, the defendant appeared through her counsel and filed her written statement, wherein she denied all the plaint averments. She contended that plaintiff cannot be the owner of the suit schedule property since the alleged General Power of Attorney Holder Smt.Jayaramachandra had no right to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. She also denied that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property and has put up a house structure thereupon. Though the defendant admitted of she instituting two suits i.e., O.S.No.5819/2003 and O.S.No.16818/2005, against Sri Ramesh E.S. and Smt.K.M.Saraswathi, but, denied that they were fictitious persons. She contended that the plaintiff has acted as the men of the said Sri Ramesh and Smt.Saraswathi and was in possession in part of the suit schedule property which was acquired by this defendant and execution part of the judgment and decree has been taken in accordance with law and as per the order of the Court. She denied that she had taken fraudulently an ex parte judgment against the said Sri Ramesh and Smt.Saraswathi. She further denied that on 28.7.2007, she in collusion with the Court Ameen and the police had threatened the plaintiff of forceful dispossession and took her signature by force and fraudulently in the police station on some blank papers.