Karnataka High Court
M/S Shangrila Flat Owners Association vs Capt. Mohan Prabhu on 9 September, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
R.S.A.NO.722 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
M/s. SHANGRILA FLAT
OWNERS ASSOCIATION
AN ASSOCIATION FORMULATED AND
REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 2
OF KARNATAKA APARTMENT OWNERSHIP ACT 1972,
REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS FORMER TREASURER
MR. GREGORY F. PERES
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
S/O LATE MICHAEL PERE
PRESENTLY R/AT
# 301, SHANGRILA APARTMENTS
BALIKASHRAM ROAD
KANKANADY, MANGALURU-575 002.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.REGO, L.P.E., ADVOCATE AND
SRI. ARJUN REGO, ADVOCATES )
AND:
CAPT. MOHAN PRABHU
@ MOHAN DAS J. PRABHU
S/O LATE J V PAIS
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
PRESENTLY R/A CAPTAIN HOUSE
"MARIA", OPPOSITE RYSHIVANA INSTITUTE
KEMMADY, PERMANNUR VILLAGE
MANGALURU-575 017.
... RESPONDENT
(CAPT: MOHAN PRABHU -PARTY-IN-PERSON-VC)
THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 R/W. ORDER LXII RULE
1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
2
12.01.2023 PASSED IN RA NO.17/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, D.K.MANGALURU, ALLOWING THE
APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
16.11.2021 PASSED IN OS.NO. 242/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MANGALURU, D.K.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
CAV JUDGMENT
This regular second appeal is filed by the plaintiff
aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 12.01.2023
passed in R.A.No.17 of 2021 on the file of III Additional
District and Sessions Judge Dakshina Kannada,
Mangaluru (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate
Court) in and by which the first appellate court while
allowing the appeal filed by the defendant- respondent
set aside the Judgment and decree dated 16.11.2021
passed in O.S.No.242/2016 on the file of III Additional
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangaluru Dakshina
Kannada (hereinafter referred to as trial Court) and
consequently, dismissed the suit.
2. The said suit in O.S.No.242 of 2016 was filed by
the plaintiff-M/s.Shangrila Flat Owners Association for the
relief of recovery of sum of Rs.6,58,695/- with interest at
12 percent per annum from the date of suit till realization
with cost.
3. Brief facts of the case are that;
(a) Plaintiff is an Association registered under
the provisions of Karnataka Apartment Ownership
Act, 1972 in terms of Deed of Declaration dated
29.12.1995. Defendant is the owner of an
apartment bearing No. 104, morefully described in
the schedule to the plaint and is also member of
the plaintiff association.
(b) Defendant, along with 20 other persons,
had entered into an agreement for construction of
apartment building with one Mr.Antony Alfred
Kutina. Defendant had been the office bearer of the
plaintiff association and had participated in the
meetings of the plaintiff association in fixing the
maintenance charges payable per month towards
sinking fund and other ancillary expenses from time
to time.
(c) Plaintiff association is incharge of common
areas, maintenance, common facilities, cleanliness,
employment of watchmen paying for fuel and AMC
of generator, paying consumption bills for common
areas and facilities, maintenance charges. The deed
of declaration which was executed provides for
fixing of maintenance charges payable every month
by all apartment owners. It is also agreed that if
there is any delay in making the payment the
member was liable to pay the late fee as fixed by
the board of Managers.
(d) Board of Managers are functioning as per
clause 19 of Chapter 4 of Deed of Declaration.
Defendant is a party to the said deed of declaration
and therefore he is bound by all the obligations and
to pay the maintenance charges and also the
delayed fees.
(e) Defendant is a chronic defaulter in the
matter of payment of maintenance charges. That
despite several reminders and requests, defendant
has not paid the amount due to the plaintiff
association.
(f) Whenever demand was raised, defendant
is in the habit of writing defamatory letters making
allegations against the association members. The
defendant instead of paying the amount as
demanded, had filed a suit for damages on the
ground of defamation in O.S.No.218 of 2004 on the
file of Senior (II Additional) Civil Judge, Mangalore
against the then office bearers. The said suit was
dismissed. He had filed an appeal against the said
decree which was also dismissed. Plaintiff
Association had filed a suit for recovery of amount
due from the defendant in O.S.No.774 of 2003 and
the file of I Additional Civil Judge Mangalore, the
said suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff
association. Defendant filed an appeal before the
Civil Judge Senior Division in R.A. No.28 of 2014
alleging the said suit and regular appeal pertain to
a different period.
(g) Defendant was intimated in writing by the
Board of Managers with regard to exact amount
due towards the maintenance charges and sinking
fund and also towards late fee payable by the
defendant. As per clause Nos.16, 18 and 19 of the
Deed of Declaration, the sum assessed form the
first charge on the apartment owned by the
defendant. Therefore, defendant had no manner of
right to avoid liability arising out of the ownership
of the apartment. Plaintiff had issued notice
explaining the exact amount due and payable by
the defendant from the month of January, 2003 till
the date of notice. Thus, the total amount due and
payable by the defendant as on 01.10.2016 was
Rs.6,54,195/-. Since the defendant deliberately
failed, attempted to make the payment, plaintiff
filed the above suit seeking decree to recover the
amount.
4. Defendant filed his written statement;
(a) Admitting that the plaintiff is an
association registered under Section 2 of the
Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, as per
Deed of Declaration dated 29.12.1995. It is also
admitted that the defendant is the owner of an
apartment described in Schedule A to the plaint,
having purchased the same in terms of deed of Sale
dated 02.06.1992. It is also admitted that the
defendant had entered into an agreement for
construction along with other 20 persons, as
contended in the plaint. The defendant has also
admitted that he had been the office bearer for
some years and had actually participated in all the
meetings of the plaintiff association, while fixing the
maintenance charges payable per month, sinking
fund and other ancillary expenses from time to
time. The defendant has also admitted that the
plaintiff's association is in charge of common areas,
maintenance of common facilities, cleanliness,
employment of watchmen, paying for fuel and AMC
of generators, paying electricity consumption,
billing for common areas and facilities, cleaning of
the entire building, painting, and many other
duties.
(b) However, he has denied that, as per the
Deed of Declaration, the Board of Managers are
required to fix the maintenance charges payable
every month by all the apartment owners. It is
contended as per the Deed of Declaration,
maintenance charges cannot be fixed by the Board
of Managers.
(c) He, however, admitted that he has an
obligation to pay the maintenance charges and
contribution to the sinking fund if it is lawfully done.
(d) He denied payment of late fee if there was
a delay in payment of maintenance charges.
(e) He also admitted that, since he's a party
to the Deed of Declaration, he is bound by all the
obligations, payment of maintenance, and if delay
takes place for payment of late fee, contribution
towards sinking fund, contribution towards building,
painting, repairs of the terrace portion, watchmen,
etc., provided same is lawfully made. He also
admits that the plaintiff's association, represented
by its managing committee, have legal rights to
collect the maintenance and other charges under
the statute and also as per the Deed of Declaration.
(f) He further denied that he is a chronic
defaulter in the matter of payment of maintenance
charges. He also denied allegation that, despite
several reminders and requests, he did not pay the
amount due to the plaintiff's association. He
admitted filing of suit in O.S.No.218/2004 against
the plaintiff's association.
(g) It is contended that the defendant used to
regularly pay the maintenance charges and other
charges to the association in advance for the
period of one year in lump sum. However, as the
payment made by him on 20.03.2001 for a sum of
Rs.5,400/- was returned by the association without
assigning any reason by putting the same in the
post box of the defendant, he demanded for the
accounts of the association and the resolution.
That is when he learnt that the Board of managers
then constituted were not the Board of Managers
at all, that the allegation of resolution for increased
maintenance and levying of the late fee and other
charges had not been lawfully made as there was
no quorum as contemplated under the deed of
Declaration and therefore, the said resolution was
invalid. It is further contended that persons who
are representing the plaintiff Association at the
time when the alleged resolution for increase in
maintenance and levying of the late fee were not
the owners of apartments as contemplated under
the deed of Declaration as such, the resolutions
were void ab initio. So also the members of
association, themselves included, present
treasurer, who had signed the plaint on behalf of
the association, have themselves resolved to
declare the resolution for increased maintenance to
be legally invalid and unenforceable.
(h) That the defendant had repeatedly
requested the association to furnish the accounts,
which have been ignored. Even the order passed by
the Court in O.S.No.774 of 2003 directing the
Association to furnish the accounts to the defendant
has also not been complied with. It is denied
defendant instead of making the payment, filed a
suit for damages on the ground of defamation as
false. The allegation of defendant having been
intimated in writing by the Board of Managers
regarding the exact amount due by the defendant
towards maintenance and sinking fund is also
denied.
(j) The defendant has further denied the
details of the amount being claimed by the plaintiff
in a sum of Rs.6,54,195/- as on 01.10.2016. The
defendant has further contended that Shri. Gregory
Peres, who is engaged in the real estate business
with a vested interest of extorting money from the
defendant, has filed the present suit only to harass
the plaintiff. That he has no locus standi to file the
present suit. Thus, on these grounds, the defendant
has sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. The defendant has also filed a counterclaim,
seeking action against Gregory Peres, Deepthi Sharon
Martis, for misrepresenting themselves to be the owners
of Shangrila Apartments and to file a false case against
him.
6. Based on the above, the trial Court framed the
following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
defendant being member of Association and
owner of the apartment bearing number 104 on
the first floor, a chronic defaulter and he
stopped the payment of maintenance charges
as alleged?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the
defendant is liable to pay Rs.6,58,695/- towards
the building maintenance amount?
3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the
defendant is trying to alienate A schedule
apartment as alleged?
4. Whether the defendant proves that the
plaintiff association has violated the norms and
conditions set out in the Karnataka Apartment
Ownership Act and Deed of Declaration as
alleged?
5. Is the plaintiff entitled for recovery of
Rs.6,58,695/- as prayed for?
6. Is the plaintiff entitled for the relief of
permanent injunction as prayed for?
7. What order or decree?
Re-cast issue number 3 framed on 28/10/2021:
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is
entitled to charge on the apartment owned by
the defendant for the amount due from the
defendant?
Additional issue framed on 28/10/2021:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest at
12% per annum on the amount due from the
defendant as sought for?
2. Whether the defendant is entitled to
counterclaim as sought for?
7. The plaintiff examined one Gregory F. Peres as
PW-1, and seven documents have been marked as
Exhibits P-1 to P-7. The defendant has examined himself
as DW1 and does not mark any documents. The trial
court held that the plaintiff's answer to issue Nos.1 to 3,
5 and 6 in the affirmative, additional issue No.1 partly in
the affirmative, and issue No.4 and additional issue No.2
in the negative, and consequently decreed the suit,
directing the defendant to pay the amount as claimed by
its judgment and decree dated 16.11.2021, aggrieved by
the said judgment and decree, the defendant preferred a
regular appeal in R.A.No.17 of 2021. Considering the
grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, the First
Appellate Court framed the following points for its
consideration:
1. Whether the plaintiff association proves that
maintenance amount of Rs.1,64,100/- sinking fund of
Rs.26,000/- and water/power generator
disconnection and reconnection charges of Rs.3,500/-
is due from the defendant?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves the defendant
was required to pay late fee and the total late fee is
Rs.4,23,190?
3. Whether the trial court has committed any error in
decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in toto?
4. What order?
8. The First Appellate Court, on re-appreciation
of evidence, answered point No.1 and 2 in the
negative, point No.3 in the affirmative and
consequently allowed the appeal and set aside the
judgment and decree passed by the trial court, and
dismissed the suit.
9. This Court by order dated 20.11.2023
admitted the appeal, and the court framed the
following substantial question of law:
"Whether the finding of the appellate court that
plaintiff having succeeded in establishing that
defendant is liable to pay maintenance in
terms of deed of declaration vide Ex.P-7 erred
in non-suiting the plaintiff on the ground that
plaintiff has not produced evidence to
substantiate the rate of maintenance
chargeable and the said finding is perverse,
palpably erroneous and contrary to Exhibit P3,
which is the ledger account extract indicating
the rate of maintenance collected from all the
flat owners?"
10. Sri. Arjun Rego, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the
memorandum of appeal submitted that;
(a) the first appellate Court grossly erred
in setting aside the judgment and decree of the
trial court on the erroneous premise of plaintiff
not having proved its case. The first appellate
Court has not appreciated the document
produced at Exhibit P3 and Exhibit P7. That the
amount of monthly maintenance, sinking fund,
late fee charges, which are payable as stated in
Exhibit P3, are made applicable to all the
members of the plaintiff association and same
have been paid by all those members who are
liable to pay in terms of the deed of declaration.
(b) Further drawing attention of this Court
to Clauses 16, 18, and 19 of the deed of
declaration produced at Exhibit P7 learned
counsel for the appellant submits that each of
the apartment owner is under obligation to pay
the maintenance charges as and when
demanded by the association towards the
maintenance and other funds of the association.
(c) He further submits that all the
members of the association are entitled to have
access for inspection of the accounts of the
association, which are presented annually and
also displayed on the notice board. Thus, he
submits entire transaction of the association is
transparent and made known to the defendant.
As such there is no case made out by defendant
of he having been selectively been made to
make the payment.
(d) Thus he submits that the first appellate
Court has not appreciated these aspects of the
matter, but has proceeded to dismiss the suit on
erroneous premise, hence seeks for allowing of
the appeal.
11. Per contra, the defendant who appeared in
person through video conferencing repeatedly contended
that;
(a) the suit as filed by one Gregory Peres claiming to
be the treasurer of plaintiff association is not
maintainable as he is not the owner of the apartment.
(b) That no audited accounts are produced to prove
the claim made against him. The demand therefore
made cannot be granted.
(c) That there are other owners of the apartments
similar to that of the petitioner. They being in their
advanced age are not able to defend themselves.
Therefore they are succumbed to the demand of the said
Mr.Gregory Peres which is illegal.
(d) He submits that he is ready and willing to
make the payment if the same is demanded by a person
who is appointed lawfully by the association an
authorized legally to collect the amount.
(e) On a query by this Court as to whether he has
paid the amount as demanded, the respondent-party-in-
person submits that he would make the payment only if
it is demanded by the person rightfully appointed by the
association.
On these grounds, he seeks for dismissal of the
appeal.
12. Heard and perused the records.
13. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to
extract Clauses 16, 18, 19, and byelaws 48, 49 and 50 of
the deed of declaration produced by the plaintiff at
Exhibit P7, which reads as under:
"Clause 16: That each apartment owner shall
comply with the provisions of this Deed of
Declaration, the byelaws, the decisions and
resolutions of the Association of Apartment Owners
or its representatives; and failure to comply with
any such provisions or decisions or resolutions, shall
be grounds for action to recover sums dues, for
damages or for injunction, etc.
Clause 18: That no apartment owner may exempt
himself from liability for his contribution towards the
common expenses by waiver of use or enjoyment of
any of the common areas and facilities or by the
abandonment of his apartment.
Clause 19: All sums assessed by the association
but unpaid for the share of the common expenses
chargeable to any apartment shall constitute a
charge on such apartment prior to all other charges,
except only (a) charge, if any, on the apartment, for
payment to government or municipal taxes or both
and (b) all sums outstanding on a first mortgage of
the apartment.
48. ACCOUNTS:
(i) A bank account shall be opened by the
Association in such bank and all moneys received by
the Association shall be paid into it, provided that
the Treasurer may retain in his personal custody an
amount not exceeding Rs.500/- for petty expenses.
All the payments above Rs.100/- shall be made by
cheques, signed by the Treasurer and Secretary.
(ii) Each Apartment Owner shall have a pass book,
in which the Treasurer shall enter the amounts
received by him towards contributions, towards
expenses and his share of assessment and other
dues, if any, in respect of his Apartment.
(iii) The Association shall on or before the 31st May,
in each year, have an audited Annual Financial
Statement for the year ended 31st March, in respect
of the Common Areas and Facilities, containing:-
(a) Profit and Loss Account.
(b) The receipt and expenditure of the year ended
31st March.
(c) Summary of the properties and assets and
liabilities of the common areas and Facilities of the
Association, giving such particulars and disclosing
the general nature of these assets and liabilities and
how the value fixed for the assets is arrived at.
(d) Audited Financial Statement shall be open for
inspection by any member of the Association and
copy thereof shall be submitted to the Competent
Authority, not later than the 31st December every
year.
(e) Every Financial Statement shall be accompanied
by a complete list of the Apartment Owners and a
complete list of liabilities.
(f) A copy of the last Financial Statement and
Audited report shall be available for inspection by
the members.
49. PUBLICATION OF ACCOUNTS AND REPORTS:
A copy of the last Financial Statement and of
the report of the Auditor, if any shall be kept in a
conspicuous place in the office of the Association.
50. APPOINTMENT OF AUDITORS:
The Association shall appoint at its general
meeting, an auditor who shall audit the accounts of
the Association to be prepared by the Board as
herein before provided and shall examine the annual
return and verify the same, with the accounts
relating thereto and shall either sign the same as
found by him to be correct, duly vouched and in
accordance with law, or specially report to the
Association in what respect he finds it incorrect, un-
vouched or not in accordance with law.
14. Defendant does not dispute the contents of the
deed of declaration produced at Exhibit P7. In fact, the
defendant is one of the signatory to the said deed of
declaration. His name being found at Sl.No.9. Perusal of
the written statement would also indicate that the
defendant specifically and categorically has admitted that
he is under obligation in terms of the deed of declaration
to pay the maintenance charges. He has also admitted
that the association which is formed for the maintenance
of the building is incurring monthly expenses towards
maintenance and other charges.
15. Further perusal of the written statement
reveals that except making a bald allegation of the
resolutions passed by the association not being valid, the
defendant has not made out as to why the said
resolutions are invalid. He has not produced any details
as to whether he has made the payments, even as
admitted by him in paragraph 6 of the written statement.
When deed of declaration -Exhibit P7, to which the
defendant himself is a party/signatory which mandates
and contractually compels all the members to make the
payments towards the common expenses, there is no
gain-saying by the defendant that he would not make
the payment merely because the resolutions, according
to him, were invalid without proving how and why the
said resolutions were invalid.
16. Defendant admits to have filed a suit against
the Association in O.S.No.218/2004, which even
according to him was dismissed. An appeal filed by him
against the said judgment of dismissal was also
dismissed. It appears defendant had sought direction to
furnish the accounts. No further details are made
available on record as to whether the defendant had
challenged the resolutions passed by the association on
and after the year 2004 till 2016. Mere bare denial or the
validity of the resolutions would not be denial in the eye
of law, unless the defendant makes out the reason and
justification why the resolutions were not acceptable.
17. Exhibit P3 is a document containing statement
of dues payable by the defendant from the year 2003 till
2016. Even as per the written statement averments
defendant had paid the maintenance charges of
Rs.5,400/- on 20.03.2001, which was allegedly returned
by the Association without assigning any reason. Thus,
on and after the said payment, the defendant has not
stated anything with regard to he having paid the
maintenance charges.
18. In fact during his Cross examination he has
admitted that he has not furnished the details as to the
actual amount due from him. He admits that after his
term as president of the Association he has neither
participated nor tried to ascertain the proceedings of the
Association. Even when the defendant himself cross
examined the plaintiff witness, there is no specific denial
or suggestion either of his liability to pay the amount or
to the correctness of the demand made by the plaintiff
association.
19. The trial Court in its judgment has taken into
consideration these aspects of the matter, more
particularly the clauses of the deed of declaration-Exhibit
P7, mandating the members to make the payment.
20. The first appellate Court though has taken note
of the admission made by the respondent/defendant with
regard to he being a party/signatory to the deed of
declaration at Ex.P7 and his admission with regard to his
liability to pay the amounts towards common
maintenance, has however proceeded to cast the burden
on the plaintiff to prove the basis on which the amount is
charged by them. When the defendant has categorically
and in unambiguous terms admitted to his liability to
make the payment of maintenance charges, the question
of requiring plaintiff to prove the basis of the claim is
uncalled for. Though the first appellate Court has opined
that the defendant has denied the quantum of the
amount claimed, has lost sight of the fact that such
denial is bald and general without any specific. Order
VIII Rule 5 CPC contemplate specific denial of the
allegations in the plaint.
21. The first appellate Court though has referred to
Clauses 16, 18, 19 and byelaws 48, 49 and 50 of the
deed of declaration extracted hereinabove, which is the
basis for the plaintiff association to make demand for
payment of maintenance charges, has failed to
appreciate that in terms of said clauses of deed of
declaration the documents are always available for
inspection, accounts are audited by the auditor appointed
by the association and the members as that of the
defendant are expected to have participated in the
proceedings unless otherwise proved in the manner
known to law. Defendant has not produced any
acceptable evidence to the contrary.
22. It is not the case of the defendant that the
amount shown at Exhibit P3 is charged only against the
defendant. He has not even put a suggestion to the
plaintiff witness that the other members of the
association have not been charged or paid the amount as
demanded by the plaintiff. In the absence of the same,
this Court is of the view that the first Appellate Court has
not appreciated Exhibit P3 and P7 in its proper
perspective. It has grossly erred in further holding the
plaintiff has not proved the basis on which the amount is
charged.
23. Necessary to note at this juncture, the amount
being claimed by the plaintiff association is towards the
common maintenance and upkeep of the apartment
building which even according to the defendant he is
liable to pay along with other members. This is not a
transaction of borrowing and lending or any other
commercial transaction. This is towards meeting the
recurring expenses of maintenance of apartment building
which is admittedly payable by all the members. The
liability to pay the maintenance amount is in terms of
the deed of declaration -Exhibit P7 mutually agreed by all
the members for a common good and welfare of all the
members. Plaintiff is an association registered under the
provisions of Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972
and is accountable for its affair to a competent authority
appointed under the said Act. Admittedly plaintiff is
having an auditor appointed in terms of the deed of
declaration as noted above. Should there be any illegality
or irregularity in maintaining the accounts the defendant
is entitled under law to bring to the notice of the
competent authority under the Act, 1972. Instead mere
refusal by the defendant to pay the amount, which is a
collective and common liability of all the members, in the
absence of any evidence of he paying the dues, would
not only be unjustified but would also hinder the welfare
of other members of the association, apart from being in
breach of terms of deed of declaration as noted above.
Therefore, the approach and appreciation of the evidence
by the first Appellate Court ought to have been taking a
holistic view to the nature of dispute between the parties,
their status and their inter-se contractual relationship. In
the absence of this approach, the Judgment passed by
the first Appellate Court is not sustainable.
24. As regards the contention of the respondent-
party-in-person that the association is run by a person
without authority, no evidence of any nature has been
brought on record in this regard.
25. The counterclaim made by the defendant has
been rightly rejected by both the courts. When the first
Appellate Court confirms the rejection of the
counterclaim made by the defendant with regard to locus
standi of a person, who has filed the suit, which is the
only ground urged by the defendant before the trial court
as well as before this Court refusing to make the
payment, the consequence ought to have been directing
the defendant to make the payment.
26. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the
view that the first appellate Court has grossly erred in
not appreciating Exhibit P3 and P7 and has thereby erred
in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. Substantial question
of law is answered accordingly, Hence the following :
ORDER
Appeal is allowed. Judgment and order dated
12.01.2023 passed in R.A.No.17/2021 by the III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dakshina
Kannada, Mangaluru is set aside. Judgment and decree
dated 16.11.2021 passed in O.S.No.242/2016 by the III
Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mangaluru, D.K.,
is confirmed.
SD/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE
SBN
