Bangalore District Court
Thara vs Sumathi on 20 November, 2025
KABC010213382013 KABC010276922018
IN THE COURT OF XVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (C.C.H.16)
Dated this 20th Day of November, 2025
Present: Smt.M.Anitha,
B.Sc., LL.B.
XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
O.S.No.1557/2013
C/w
O.S.No.7293/2018
O.S.No.1557/2013
Plaintiff/s
: Smt. Sumathi,
D/o.Late P.D Suryanarayan Rao,
W/o.Madhava Gurkar,
Aged about 63 years,
R/at: No.47/41,11th Main,
Padmanabhanagar,
Bangalore-560 070.
(By Sri/Smt.MNN., Adv)
-Vs-
2
O.S.No.1557/2013
C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018
Defendants/s : 1. Sri. Ganesh,
S/o. Late. P.D.Suryanarayana Rao,
Aged about 53 years,
2. Sri Ramesh, Since deceased by his Lr's
a. Smt.Leena Ramesh,
W/o.Late. Ramesh,
Aged about 50 years,
b. Smt. Deepthi Ramesh,
D/o. Late. Ramesh,
Aged about 23 years,
Both are R/at.
Apt No.S -001
SSVD Forest View Apartment,
J.P. Nagar, 7th Phase,
Bangalore-560 078.
3. Sri.Harish,
S/o.Late. P.D.suryanarayana Rao,
Aged about 46 years,
4. Smt.Lakshmi,
D/o.Late.P.D. Suranarayana Rao,
Aged about 40 years,
Defendant No.1, 3, 4 are
R/at:Old No.301/B,
New No.79, 9th Main Road,
IV Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore-560 011.
5. Smt. Neetha,
D/o.Late.P.D. Suryanarayana Rao,
W/o. Sriram,
Aged about 44 years,
R/at No. 37/A,
Sumuka Sannidhi,
3
O.S.No.1557/2013
C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018
5th Cross, 3rd Main,
Sarvabhowanagar,
Chikkalasndra,
Bangalore-560 061.
6. Smt. Tara,
D/o. Late.P.D. Suryanarayana Rao,
W/o.Anantaram,
Aged about 58 years,
R/at No.44 'A',
"Paramanu", 7th Main Road,
Hanumageri Hill Extention,
Nandakumar Layout,
Arahalli, Bangalore-560 061.
7. Smt. Sudha,
D/o.Late .P.D.Suryanarayana Rao,
W/o. Vijaya sarathy,
Aged about 60 years ,
R/at No. 52/T, 34th Cross,
4th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore -560 041.
8. Smt. Sunanda,
Since deceased by her LR's
a. Sri.Dinesh V Maliye,
S/o. Late. Vasudevarao Maliye,
Aged about 57 years,
b. Sri. Umesh V Maliye,
S/o. Late . Vasudevarao Maliye,.
Aged about 55 years,
Both are R\at.
No.168, 'Samrudhi', 5th Main,
11th Cross, Nrupathunga Nagar,
Nagarabhavi, NGEF Layout,
Bangalore-560 056.
4
O.S.No.1557/2013
C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018
(D1 by Sri/Smt. MND, Adv)
(D2(a&b) by Sri/Smt. DL, Adv)
(D3,4,7 by Sri.Smt. JP Adv)
(D5 & 6 By Sri/Smt.JSK, Adv)
(D8 (a&b) by Sri/Smt. JSK, Adv)
O.S.No.7293/2018
Plaintiff/s
: Smt. Tara,
D/o. Late.P.D. Suryanarayana Rao,
Aged about 58 years,
R/at No.44 'A',
"Paramanu", 7th Main Road,
Hanumageri Hill Extension,
Nandakumar Layout,
Arahalli, Bangalore-560 061.
(By Sri/Smt.HMKM., Adv)
-Vs-
Defendants/s : 1. Smt. Sumathi,
D/o.Late P.D Suryanarayan Rao,
W/o.Madhava Gurkar,
Aged about 63 years,
R/at: No.47/41,11th Main,
Padmanabhanagar,
BANGALORE-560 070.
2. Sri Ramesh,
S/o Late P.D. Suryan Narayan Rao,
Aged about 55 years,
3. Sri.Harish,
S/o.Late. P.D.Suryanarayana Rao,
Aged about 51 years,
4. Ganesh,
Late P.D. Suryanarayana Rao,
Aged about 58 years,
5
O.S.No.1557/2013
C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018
5. Smt.Lakshmi,
D/o.Late.P.D. Suranarayana Rao,
Aged about 45 years,
Defendant No.2 to 5 are
R/at:Old No.301/B,
New No.79, 9th Main Road,
IV Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore-560 011.
6. Smt. Neetha,
D/o.Late.P.D. Suryanarayana Rao,
W/o. Sriram,
Aged about 47 years,
R/at No. 37/A, Sumuka Sannidhi,
5th Cross, 3rd Main,
Sarvabhowanagar,
Chikkalasandra,
Bangalore-560 061.
7. Smt. Sudha,
D/o.Late .P.D.Suryanarayana Rao,
W/o. Vijaya sarathy,
Aged about 65 years ,
R/at No. 52/T, 34th Cross,
4th Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore -560 041.
8. Smt. Sunanda,
D/o. Late P.D. Surya Narayan Rao,
W/o. Maliye,
Aged about 70 years,
R/at. No.168,
'Samrudhi', 5th Main,
11th Cross, Nrupathunga Nagar,
Nagarabhavi, NGEF Layout,
Bangalore-560 056.
6
O.S.No.1557/2013
C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018
(D1 by Sri/Smt. MNN, Adv)
(D3, 5, 7 by Sri/Smt. SK, Adv)
(D4 by Sri.Smt. MJS Adv)
(D2, 6, 8 - Dismissed)
Date of institution of the suits
O.S.No.1557/2013 25.02.2013
O.S.No.7293/2018 04.10.2018
Nature of the suit
O.S.No.1557/2013
Partition
O.S.No.7293/2018
Date of commencement of 08.11.2016
recording the evidence
Date on which the judgment 20.11.2025
was pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
O.S.No.1557/2013 12 08 26
O.S.No.7293/2018 07 01 16
(M. Anitha)
XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in O.S.No.1557/2013 has instituted the suit for partition of suit schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property.
7
O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018
2. The epitome of plaintiff's case, in O.S.No.1557/2013 is as follows:-
Plaintiff and defendants are children of late P.D Suryanarayan Rao and late Rukminiamma. Sri. P.D Suryanarayan Rao died on 09.04.1990 and his wife Rukminiamma died on 26.09.1997 leaving the defendants and plaintiff as their legal heirs. The plaintiff's brother Sri. Sachidananda died on 10.05.2012 without issues and her sister Saroja also died as unmarried. The Late P.D Suryanarayan Rao had purchased the property bearing No.301/B, formed by Bangalore City Improvement Trust Board in Block No.IV, West in the Jayanagar Extension, Bengaluru through registered sale deed dated 12.05.1966 in an auction conducted by the then Bangalore City Improvement Trust, which is the suit schedule property and now the property comes under Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike, ward No.60, Pattabiramanagar, 4th Black Jayanagar, Bangaluru. Upon the execution of the said sale deed in favour of P.D Suryanarayan Rao, the said Bangalore City Improvement Trust Board handed over the physical possession of the suit schedule property in his favour. Accordingly, P.D Suryanarayan Rao was in enjoyment of the property and his name is recorded in encumbrance with respect to suit schedule property. Thereafter, the said P.D Suryanarayan Rao constructed a ground floor and first floor residential house from his own fund and he was resided in the suit schedule property till his death along with his family. Since from the childhood, the parties to the suit were together residing in the suit schedule property along with their father P.D Suryanarayan Rao. After the 8 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 death of P.D Suryanarayan Rao, the plaintiff continued in joint possession of the suit schedule property as a co-parcener with the defendants.
During the lifetime of P.D Suryanarayan Rao, he had not bequeathed the suit schedule property in anybody's favour and he had left behind him his legally wedded wife Smt. Rukminiamma and his children i.e. plaintiff and defendants. During his lifetime, P.D Suryanarayan Rao had not effected partition and as such the plaintiff and defendants are in joint possession of the property till today. Likewise, Smt. Rukminiamma, wife of Late P.D Suryanarayan Rao also had not bequeathed the suit schedule property in anybody's favour till her death. After the death of her parents. The plaintiff, on several occasions requested the defendants to divide the suit schedule property and put her in separate possession of her share. But, the defendants did not showing any interest. Finally the defendants refused to partition the suit schedule property. After the death of her parents, the defendants have always collecting the amount to pay tax with respect to suit schedule property from the plaintiff. But recently they stopped to collect the amount and when the plaintiff enquired the same, she learnt that, the defendants colluding each other are trying to grab the suit schedule property without giving her legitimate share in the same. All the original documents related to suit schedule property are in the custody of defendants and therefore the plaintiff could not produce the same before court. When the plaintiff approached the defendants on 04.12.2012 the defendants not obliged to effect partition. Again the plaintiff approached the defendants on 02.02.2013 to effect partition and the defendants refused to effect partition. The defendants are trying 9 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 to grab the undivided share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property and are trying to alienate the property. Hence the suit for partition and permanent injunction.
3. All the 8 defendants entered appearance through their respective counsels and have filed their respective written statements.
4. The written statement filed by defendant No.1 and adopted by defendant No.2 would be summarized thus:-
These defendants admitted the relationship between the parties to the suit. They further admitted that, the father of plaintiff and defendants Late P.D Suryanarayan Rao had purchased the property bearing number 301/B formed by the Bangalore City Improvement Trust Board by way of registered sale deed dated 12.05.1966 in an auction conducted by the Bangalore City Improvement Test Board. Besides, they admitted that, after execution of the said sale deed, the Bangalore City Improvement Test Board handed over the physical possession of suit schedule property in favour of P.D Suryanarayan Rao. However, these defendants denied that said P.D Suryanarayan Rao has constructed the ground and first floor of residential building from his own fund and he has residing in the schedule property till his death along with his family. Denying rest of the plaint averments these defendants contended that there is no cause of action for the suit and the alleged cause of action is false. They contended further that, plaintiff has not paid the proper court fee and she is not in 10 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and she has suppressed the material facts. The plaintiff in the year 1971 eloped with her pair by severing all family ties. From 1971, whereabouts of the plaintiffs are not known to the family members. Due to the said act of plaintiff, parents of the defendants and other family members had suffered great mental agony and unable to stand before the society in those days and it has become very difficult to the parents to perform the marriage of other daughters of the family. After some days, the parents Cought hold the plaintiff and her pair and got married them and paid them hand full sum to live separately away from the family. The family ties with the plaintiff was cut off since 1971 and parents of these defendants never considered her as a daughter and never allowed her to enter into their house. Due to the said act of plaintiff, another sister by name Saroja, who was immediately in line for marriage, could not get a suitable match and due to said agony, she died at her young age. This incident took the father of these defendants in deep sorrow and he decided not to look into the face of plaintiff. The father of these defendants on 19.04.1989 executed a will bequeathing all his properties in favour of his wife Smt. Rukminiamma, the mother of the defendants. The said will came into force after the death of P.D Suryanarayan Rao in the year 1990. Immediately after the death of P.D Suryanarayan Rao, these defendants and their mother continued to live in the suit schedule property. These defendants with the consent of their mother constructed a residential building over the suit schedule property. Smt. Rukminiamma, after acquisition of the suit schedule property under will, became absolute owner in possession of the property and enjoying the 11 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 same as absolute owner. Smt. Rukminiamma, in order to fulfill the desire of father of these defendants as absolute owner, had bequeathed the suit schedule property in favour of Sachidananda, Ganesha, Ramesh, Harish and Lakshmi equally through a Will dated 05.11.1996. These defendants are absolute owners of suit schedule property by virtue of above said will executed by their mother. The suit schedule property never has got the characteristic of joint family property. The plaintiff, in order to knock off the family property of these defendants, has come up with a cooked up story. Plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with cost.
5. During the proceedings of this suit, defendant No.2 passed away and his LRs brought on record as 2(a) and 2(b) and have filed written statement, which would be summarized as follows:-
These defendants adopted the written statement filed by deceased defendant No.2. In addition they stated that, the katha of suit schedule property is in the name of defendants 1 to 4 and plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff was brought up since her childhood by the sister of mother-in-law of defendant no.2(a) by name late Ammanakka at Hiriyur Village, Chitradurga District as she has no children. The said late Ammanakka adopted the plaintiff as daughter. Hence, the plaintiff severed all relationship with the family of defendants since childhood and she eloped in the year 1971 and got married without the knowledge of any members of the family of the 12 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 defendants. After some time the parents of the plaintiff caught hold the plaintiff and she demanded money and jewellery in consideration of share in the possession of property. Apart from having received share from adopted family, that they have been duly complained by the parents. Since then parents of the defendants never allowed the plaintiffs on any occasion of the family. The plaintiff also never visited the family of the defendants since 35 years. The strange attitude of the plaintiff made to suffer not only the adopted parents and also the natural parents of the plaintiff, that has been caused untold misery and serious impact on the aged parents of the defendants and other family members of the family.
6. The defendants No.3 and 4 filed their joint written statement stating that suit is barred by limitation and plaintiff does not have any substantive right to file the suit against the defendants and they admitted the relationship of the parties as true. Further they admitted that the P.D. Suryanarayana Rao had purchased the property in an auction conducted by the Bangalore City Improvement Trust Board and after purchase he was put in possession of the property. The plaintiff since early child wood severed from the joint family property and brought up in the relatives home in Hriyur, Chidtradurga District and thereafter she got married against the wishes of both the father and mother. 13
O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 Plaintiff demanded and received the share in the property which constrained the father of the plaintiff to give an amount of Rs.60,000/- and Jewels. Thus the plaintiff voluntarily relinquished all rights in respect of the joint family property and thereby ceased to be a member of joint family since more than 45 years. The parents of the defendants have executed testamentary documents with respect to the suit schedule property in favour of defendants No.1 to 4 and their brother deceased Sachidananda. Thus the entire property was bequeathed in favour of defendants No.1 to 4 and their deceased brother Sachidananda. The plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the property. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suit.
7. Defendants no.5 and 6 filed their joint written statement, wherein they admitted the relationship and the fact that P.D. Suryanarayana Rao had purchased the property under public auction from Bangalore City Improvement Trust Board and he was put in possession of the property. These defendants admitted that, after the demise of father of plaintiff and defendants, they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as 14 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 co-parceners and during the lifetime of their parents they have not bequeathed the suit schedule property in favour of anybody. Further these defendants admitted that during her lifetime their mother Rukminiamma had also not executed any testamentary document. These defendants denied the allegations made in the written statement filed by defendants no.1 to 4. They denied the execution of a will dated 19.04.1989. These defendants contended that, the documents produced by defendants1 to 4 are all concocted, created and forged documents. They denied the Will allegedly executed by their mother Smt. Rukminiamma. These defendants contended that Smt. Rukminiamma during her lifetime has not executed any Will. These defendant contended that their mother always put her signature in Kannada language only. Hence the documents produced by defendant no.1 to 4 are created documents and are trying to grab the entire suit schedule property. The father of the plaintiff and defendants P.D. Suryanarayana Rao is the absolute owner of the properties situated at Paladka Village, which the plaintiff has not mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. These defendants are entitled for share in the suit schedule property and also in the property 15 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 situated at Paladka Village. The defendants 1 to 4 have fraudulently transferred the katha of the property in their name after the death of their father without the knowledge of these defendants. The plaintiff approached the defendants on 02.02.2013 for effecting petition is not within the knowledge of these defendants. These defendants admitted that defendants no.1 to 4 are trying to alienate the schedule property in favour of third parties for wrongful gain. Further admitted that, plaintiff is the successor for the joint family properties and as such she has got legitimate share in the property. These defendants are entitled for an equal share as per Hindu law, as they are the co-personers of Hindu undivided joint family. Wherefore these defendants prays this court to pass a judgment and decree in similar terms as the one made by the plaintiff in favour of these defendants also in respect of suit schedule property and to declare the Wills produced by defendants 1 to 4 as null and void documents.
8. The written statement filed by defendant no.7 runs on the same line as that of the written statement filed by defendants no.1 and 2, as well as, defendant no.2(a) and (b). 16
O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018
9. The written statement filed by defendant no.8 runs on the same line as that of the written statement filed by defendants no.5 and 6. However, defendant No.8 died during the pendency of suit and her Lrs brought on record as D8(a) and (b).
10. In the background of pleadings of the parties, the court framed the following issues and additional issues and re-casted issue No.1 in O.S.No.1557/2013:-
ISSUES in O.S.No.1557/2013:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, on 19.04.1989 decease Suryanarayan Rao executed the Will in favour of the wife Rukminiamma?
2. Whether the defendants prove that, suit is not properly valued and court fee paid is in sufficient?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as sought for?
4. What order or decree?
Recasted Issue No.1 framed on 13.12.2017:
1. Whether the defendant No.1 and 2 proves that Sri.P.D. Suryanarayan Rao has bequeathed the 17 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 suit schedule property in favour of his wife Smt. Rukminiamma through a Will dated 19.04.1989?
Additional issues framed on 13.12.2017:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she and the defendants formed the members of a joint Hindu undivided family?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the suit schedule property is the joint family property of herself and the defendant?
3. Whether the defendant No.1 and 2 further prove that Smt. Rukminiamma has bequeathed the suit schedule property in favour of P.S.Sachhidanand, P.S.Ganesh, P.S.Ramesh, P.S. Harish and P.S.Lakshmi through a Will dated 05.11.1996?
4. Whether the defendant No.3, 4 and 7 prove that the plaintiff has relinquished her rights over the suit schedule property by receiving a sum of Rs.60,000/- and jewels worth Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents?
11. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that the defendant no.6 Smt. Thara has filed a separate suit in OS No.7293/2018 for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit schedule property against the plaintiff and defendants herein. On noticing the fact that, the parties in both the suits are 18 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 the same parties, as well as, the property involved in both the suits is the same property, this court by the order dated 25.02.2022 allowed the application filed for clubbing of suits. Accordingly, the suit in OS No.7293/2018 clubbed with present OS No.1557/2013 and parties are directed to lead common evidence in OS No.1557/2013.
12. The suit in O.S.No.7293/2018 is filed for the relief of partition and to hold that the will dated 19.04.1989 said to have been executed by Late. P.D. Suryanarayana Rao and another will dated 05.11.1996 said to have been executed by Smt. Rukminiamma are not binding on the share of plaintiff in the suit schedule property.
13. Contextual facts in O.S.No.7293/2018 are as follows:-
The plaintiff averred in the plaint that, she and the defendants have constituted Hindu undivided joint family governed by Hindu Mithakshara School of Law. They are the sons and daughters of late P.D.Suryanarayana Rao and Smt. Rukminiamma. Their father Sri. P.D. Suryanarayana Rao was the absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property having acquired the same under Registered Sale Deed dated 12.05.1966 19 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 executed by the Bengaluru City Improvement Trust, now called as BDA in the auction sale. Thereafter, Sri. P.D. Suryanarayana Rao was in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and had constructed a residential building consisting of ground and first floor. Since from their childhood, the plaintiff and defendants were residing in the suit schedule house along with their parents. Sri. P.D Suryanarayana Rao died on 09.04.1990. Thereafter, the plaintiff and defendants have continued in joint possession and enjoyment of the property as co-parceners. During his lifetime P.D.Suryanarayana Rao had not executed any will in favour of anybody and had not effected partition in respect of suit schedule property. The mother Smt. Rukminiamma has also not executed any will. Sri. P.D. Suryanarayana Rao died on 09.04.1990 and his wife Smt. Rukminiamma died on 20.06.1997. Thereafter, the parties to the suit are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property and they have equal share in the property. After the demise of her parents, the plaintiff approached the defendants to effect partition of suit property. The defendant No.3 to 4 have obtained katha of the property in their name without the consent and knowledge of other defendants and the plaintiff to grab the property. Thereafter, the first defendant being the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.1557/2013 for partition and other reliefs. In the said suit the defendants filed written statement stating that Sri. P.D. Suryanarayana Rao has executed a Will dated 19.04.1989 in favour of his wife Smt. Rukminiamma and Smt. Rukminiamma also executed a Will dated 05.11.1996 in favour of P.S.Sacchidananda, P.S.Gagesh, P.S. Ramesh, P.S. Harish and P.S.Lakshmi who are defendants No.1 to 4 herein.
The parents of plaintiff has no such intention to 20 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 execute the alleged will and the Wills are created and concocted documents in the order to snatch the suit schedule property. The plaintiff and the defendants have got equal share in the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit for the reliefs mentioned supra.
14. The defendant No.1 though represented by his counsel Sri.MNV but not filed the written statement. As no steps taken again defendants No.2, 6 and 8 the suit came to be dismissed against defendants No.2, 6 and 8 as per the order dated 01.04.2022.
15. The defendant No.3, 5 and 7 filed their joint written statement. They stated that the suit is barred by limitation and the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property at any point of time and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed. They stated further that, it is the defendants No.2 to 5 who have constructed the house in the suit schedule property and are living their as absolute owners by virtue of the will that has been got executed by their father and mother. The plaintiff has filed similar suit as the one filed by the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.1557/2013, which indicates this is a collusive suit subsequently filed by the plaintiff for the same reliefs. They admitted the relationship and 21 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 the fact that, the P.D. Suryanarayana Rao acquired the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed executed by the then Benagluru City Improvement Trust. They contended that, P.D. Suryanarayana Rao has executed the will dated 19.04.1989 bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of wife Smt. Rukminiamma. Sri. P.D. Surayanayana Rao passed away on 09.04.1990. After the demise of P.D.Surayanarayana Rao his wife Smt. Rukminiamma executed the will 05.11.1996 bequeathing suit schedule property in favour of defendants No.2 to 5 and deceased Sachhidananda. The said 2 sale deeds are not created as alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has complete knowledge about the testamentary documents related to the suit property. Wherefore, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with cost.
16. The defendant No.4 filed his separate written statement and his written statement runs on same line as that of the joint written statement filed by defendant No.3, 5 and 7. Wherefore, the written statement filed by defendant No.4 is not extracted separately.
22
O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018
17. In the premise of pleadings of parties, following issues are framed in O.S.No.7293/20108.
ವಿವಾದಾಂಶಗಳು
1. ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿ ವಾದಿ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯರ ಒಟ್ಟು ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಜಂಟಿ ಸ್ವಾಧೀನ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಅಂತ ವಾದಿ ರುಜುವಾತು ಪಡಿಸುವರೇ ?
2. ವಾದಿ ಮತ್ತು ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯರ ತಂದೆ ಪಿ.ಡಿ. ಸೂರ್ಯನಾರಾಯಣ ರಾವ್ ರವರು ದಿನಾಂಕಃ 19-04-1989 ರಂದು ಶ್ರೀಮತಿ ರುಕ್ಮಿಣಿಯಮ್ಮ ಇವರಿಗೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಟ್ಟಂತಹ "ಮರಣ ಶಾಸನ" ವಾದಿಯ ಭಾಗಾಂಶಕ್ಕೆ ಬದ್ಧಪಡಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಅಂತ ವಾದಿ ರುಜುವಾತು ಪಡಿಸುವರೇ?
3. ಮೃತ ರುಕ್ಮಿಣಿಯಮ್ಮ ಇವರು ದಿನಾಂಕಃ 05-11-1996 ರಂದು ಮೃತ ಪಿ.ಎಸ್.ಸಚಿದಾನಂದ, 2 ರಿಂದ 5 ನೇ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯರಿಗೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಟ್ಟಂತಹ "ಮರಣ ಶಾಸನ" ವಾದಿಯ ಭಾಗಾಂಶಕ್ಕೆ ಬದ್ಧಪಡಿಸುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಅಂತ ವಾದಿ ರುಜುವಾತು ಪಡಿಸುವರೇ?
4. ವಾದಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ ದಾವೆಗೆ "ಕಾಲಮಿತಿ ಬಾಧಕ" ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಅಂತ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯರು ರುಜುವಾತು ಪಡಿಸುವರೇ?
5. ವಾದಿ ತನ್ನ ವಾದ ಪತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ ವಿನಂತಿಸಿದ ಪ್ರಕಾರ 1/10 ನೇ ಭಾಗಾಂಶ ಪಡೆಯಲು ಅರ್ಹರಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಅಂತ ರುಜುವಾತು ಪಡಿಸುವರೇ?
6. ಯಾವ ಆದೇಶ ಅಥವಾ ಡಿಕ್ರಿ ?
18. The plaintiff in OS No.1557/2013 got examined as PW1 and got the documents marked as Ex.P1 to P-8. Among the defendants, the defendant No. got examined as DW1 and got marked the document Ex.D1 to D-36 23 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018
19. At this juncture, it is of interest to mention that, after passing of the order related to clubbing of suits, as stated supra the plaintiff in O.S.No.7293/2018 filed a memo dated 31.07.2013 seeking leave of the court to withdraw the suit in OS No.7293/2018. As can be seen from order sheet, the defendants No.3 and 4 in OS No.1557/2013 and the plaintiff in OS No.1557/2013 made a submission before court that they have no objections to the said memo dated 31.07.2013. Objections of other defendants in OS No.1557/2013 and in O.S.No.7293/2018 to the memo taken as not filed. Today, the court yet to pass an order on the memo dated 31.07.2013 filed in OS No.7293/2018. Wherefore though the suits in OS No.1557/2013 and O.S.No.7293/2018 are clubbed, but due to the withdrawal of the suit in OS No.7293/2018 this judgment is confined to OS.No.1557/2013. Further, the court will pass the orders on the aforementioned memo, while passing final orders in the operative portion of this judgment. Be that as it may.
20. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff, the court perused the written notes of arguments filed by 24 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 defendants No.3 to 7, whereas the arguments of defendant no.1 and LRs of defendant no.2 taken as nil as they failed to address arguments.
21. The court carefully percolated through the evidence accrued on record in the background of pleadings of the parties and the issues framed in the suit. Now, findings of the court on the issues are as follows for the reasons herein after assigned:-
Recasted Issue No.1 : In the Negative Issue No.2 : In the Negative Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative Addl. Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative Addl. Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative Addl. Issue No.3 : In the Negative Addl. Issue No.4 : In the Negative Issue No.4 : As per final order :-
REASONS
22. Recasted Issue No.1 and Addl. Issues No.1 to 3: As these issues are interconnected and to avoid repeated discussion the court take up these issues collectively for discussion. 25
O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018
23. As borne out from the pleadings of the parties and the evidence that they placed before court, following are the admitted facts.
1. Sri. P.D. Suryanarayana Rao is the father and Smt.P.S. Rukminiamma is the mother of plaintiff and the defendants no.1 to 8.
2. P.D. Suryanarayana Rao and Smt. P.S. Rukminiamma had 11 children, four sons and seven daughters. They are namely Smt. Sunanda, Smt. Sumathi (plaintiff). Kum. Saroja, Smt. Sudha, Smt. Tara, Smt. Sachhidananda, Sri. Ganesh, Sri. Ramesh, Sri. Harish, Smt. Geetha and Smt. Lakshmi.
3. Out of aforementioned 11 children, Sri. Sachhidanandha died on 10.05.2012 as bachelor and Kum. Saroja died as spinster. Sri. P.D. Suryanarayana Rao died on 09.04.1990 and his wife Smt. Rukmuniamma died on 20.06.1997.
4. P.D. Suryanarayana Rao had purchased the site property bearing No. 301/B, formed by the Bengalore City Improvement Trust Board in Block No.IV, West Jayanagara Extension, Bengaluru in an auction conducted by the Bangalore City Improvement Trust Board through a registered deed of sale dated 12.05.1966 and now the property comes under Bruhath Bengaluru Mahangara Palike, Ward No.60, Pattabiramanagar, old No.301, new No.79, 9the main road, 4th block Jayanagar Bengaluru.
5. After the execution of aforementioned sale deed dated 12.05.1966, the then Bengaluru City 26 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 Improvement Trust Board handed over the physical possession of the site property in favour of P.D. Suryanarayana Rao. Thereafter the said P.D. Suryanarayana Rao has constructed ground floor and first floor of residential house in the said site from his own funds and he was resided in the suit schedule property till his demise.
24. Despite, the afore enlisted admitted facts, the parties are at controversy in respect of their claim to the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiff, after the demise of her parents P.D. Suryanarayana Rao and Smt. Rukminiamma, all their children continued in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as co-parceners and despite she demanded for partition of the property, the defendants have not effected partition and therefore she has filed the suit O.S.No.1557/2013 for partition. Whereas, according to the defendants No.1 to 4 and 7, Sri P.D. Suryanarayana Rao during his life time bequeathed the suit schedule property in favour of his wife Smt. Rukminiamma through a Will dated 19.04.1989 and Smt. Rukminiamma thereafter, bequeathed the suit schedule property through her Will dated 05.11.1986 in favour of defendants No.1 to 4 herein and deceased P.S. Sachhidananda. Wherefore, according to the 27 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 defendants No.1 to 4 they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property having acquired the same through the Will dated 05.11.1996 executed by their mother Smt. Rukminiamma. However, the defendants no.5, 6 and 8 are supporting the plaintiff and they denied the Wills allegedly executed by P.D. Suryanarayana Rao and Smt. Rukminiamma.
25. So, even though undisputedly the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of the P.D. Suryanarayana Rao, but the burden is on defendants No.1 to 4 and 7 to prove their contention that deceased P.D. Suryanarayana Rao has bequeathed the suit schedule property in favour of his wife Smt. Rukminiamma through a Will dated 19.04.1989, who in turn bequeathed the suit schedule property in favour of defendants 1 to 4 and Late Succhidananda through the Will dated 19.04.1989. Likewise, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that P.D. Suryanarayana Rao and Smt. Rukminiamma died intestate and as such the suit schedule property is the joint family property of plaintiff and defendants and all of them are entitled for equal share in the same.
28
O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018
26. As per re-casted Issue No.1 and addl. Issue No.3, the defendants No.1 and 2 are required to establish their theory that P.D. Suryanarayana Rao has bequeathed the suit schedule property in favour of his wife Smt. Rukuminiamma through a Will dated 19.04.1989, who in turn bequeathed the property in favour of defendants no.1 to no. 4 and P. Sachhidananda through a will dated 05.11.1996. In this connection, the defendant no.4 deposed on his behalf and on behalf of defendant no.3, 7 and LRs of defendant No.2 as DW1. Needless to state that, the affidavit filed by DW1 in lieu of his examination-in-chief is nothing but the replica of the written statement filed by defendants no.1 to 4 and
7. As their respective statements is already extracted in the opening paragraph of this judgment, there is no need to reproduce the chief-examination of DW1.
27. DW1 has produced 36 documents which are at Ex.D.1 to D.36. The Ex.D.3 is the original will dated 19.04.1989, said to have been executed by P.D. Suryanarayana Rao and Ex.D.4 is yet another Will dated 05.11.1996 allegedly executed by Smt. P.S. 29 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 Rukminiamma in favour of her 5 children who are defendants no.1 to 4 herein and their deceased brother Sri. Sachhidananda.
28. It is settled law that in view of the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, r/w Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, 'Will' is required to be proved by examining at least one attesting witness if he is alive. According to Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, a 'Will' needs to be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the 'Will' and further each of the witness to the 'Will' should have signed the 'Will' with the requisite animus testandi. Likewise, according to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, a document required by law to be attested has to be proved by calling for the purpose of proving its execution, at least one attesting witness. Besides, in the matter of Girija Datt Singh Vs. Gangotri Datt Singh the Hon'ble Apex Court of India, laid down the following three points test with regard to the manner in which the propounder of the 'Will' has to discharge the burden albeit the proving of the 'Will'. 30
O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 (1) The propounder of the 'Will' has to prove that the 'Will' was signed by the testator in the presence of two attesting witnesses.
(2) The attesting witnesses should have seen the testator sign the 'Will' or else, the attesting witnesses should depose that they were being told by the testator that the 'Will' is that of the testator and it is the testator who has signed the 'Will' and (3) It is not necessary that both or all the attesting witnesses to the 'Will' must be examined to prove the 'Will', rather, at least one attesting witness should be called to prove the due execution of the 'Will'.
29. Bearing in mind the aforementioned settled law related to the manner in which the propounder of the 'Will' has to discharge the burden of albeit, let me proceed to delve with the evidence produced and adduced by DW1 in proof of Ex.D.3 and D4 Wills.
30. Unfortunately and apparently, the propounder of the second Will who are defendants No.1 to 4 have not made an endeavor to examine any of the witnesses relating to Ex.D.3 and Ex.D.4 Wills. As can be seen from the contents of Ex.D.3 Will, the witnesses to that Will are namely Sunanda and V. Rajanna. At this juncture, be it noted that, Smt. Sunanda who is mentioned as 31 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 one of the attesting witness to Ex.D.3 'Will' is according to the contesting defendants is none other than their sister the defendant no.8 herein. Now, it is of interest to mention that defendant no.8, Smt. Sunanda, stoutly denied the contention of contesting defendants that, she is one of the witnesses to Ex.D.3 'Will' allegedly executed by P.C. Suryanarayana Rao dated 19.04.1989. In this connection, it is relevant to mention about the statement made by defendant no.8 at paragraph number 6 (Page number 4) of her written statement, which reads as follows:
The allegations made in the written statement filed by the defendants No.1 to 4 that during the lifetime of father of plaintiff and defendants i.e. P.D. Suryanarayana Rao has executed a Will in favour of his wife i.e. mother of plaintiff and defendant Smt. Rukminiamma on 19.04.1989 is denied as false. The documents produced by the defendants No.1 to 4 are all looks to be concocted, created and fabricated and forged documents and during his lifetime, he has not executed any 'Will' in favour of Rukminiamma, actually the defendant no.2 in the year 2007, came to the house of this defendant and he requested to put her signature in the blank stamp paper and requested her to put Darwad address instead of present Bangalore address, its value of Rs.10 and he requested that, he is intending to change the katha, hence to produce the documents before the CITB (BDA), hence this defendant had put her signature in the said document. The documents produced by the defendant nos.1 to 4 are all created and forged 32 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 documents and father of plaintiff and defendants P.D. Suryanaraya Rao has several times told to this defendant that, he has not executed any documents in favour of anybody. All the plaintiff and defendants are entitled equal share in the suit schedule property.
31. Wherefore, from the aforementioned statements of defendant no.8, it becomes clear that she stoutly denying the Ex.D.3 'Will' dated 19.04.1989. Wherefore, the only option left to the contesting defendants to prove the due execution of Ex.D.3 'Will' is by examining another witness, namely Rajanna s/o Veerabhadrappa. But, the contesting defendants have not made an endeavor to examine the said V. Rajanna s/o Veerabadhrappa. Indeed, in the cross-examination of DW1 dated 12.09.2024, the following points are elicited with regard to said Rajanna.
ನಾನು ಹೇಳುವ ನಿಡಿ-3 ಮೃತ್ಯು ಪತ್ರದ ಸ್ಟಾಂಪ್ ಪೇಪರ್ ಅನ್ನು ಕೋಲಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಖರೀದಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ಸ್ಟಾಂಪ್ ಪೇಪರ್ ಅನ್ನು ಯಾರು ತಂದು ಕೊಟ್ಟರು ಎನ್ನುವುದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತು. ನಾನು ಹೇಳುವ ನಿಡಿ-3 ಮೃತ್ಯು ಪತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರೆಂದು ಆಗಿರುವ 1 ನೇ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ನನ್ನ ಅಕ್ಕ ಸುನಂದ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಈಗ ಸುನಂದ ಮೃತ ಪಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಪ್ರಸ್ತುತ ವ್ಯಾಜ್ಯವನ್ನು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸುವಾಗ ಸುನಂದ ಜೀವಂತ ಇದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಪ್ರಸ್ತುತ ವ್ಯಾಜ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಸುನಂದ ರವರನ್ನು 8 ನೇ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿ ಎಂದು ಕಾಣಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಪ್ರಸ್ತುತ ವ್ಯಾಜ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿ 8 ನೇ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯು ತಮ್ಮ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. 8 ನೇ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯು ತನ್ನ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಪತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ ತಾನು ಯಾವುದೇ ಮೃತ್ಯು ಪತ್ರಕ್ಕೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರಳೆಂದು ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ, ಅವರ ತಂದೆಯು ಅವರಿಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಮೃತ್ಯು ಪತ್ರದ ಮೇಲೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯಾಗಿ ಸಹಿ 33 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 ಮಾಡಲು ಹೇಳಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಕಾಣಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ನಿಜ, ಆದರೆ 8 ನೇ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯು ಹೇಳುವುದು ಸುಳ್ಳು ಇರುತ್ತದೆ.
ನಾನು ಹೇಳುವ ಹಾಗೆ ಮೃತ್ಯು ಪತ್ರ ನಿಡಿ-3 ಅನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆಯವರು ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ನನ್ನ ತಾಯಿಯವರು ನನಗೆ 1995 ನೇ ಇಸವಿ ಹಾಗೂ 1997 ನೇ ಇಸವಿಯಂದು ತಿಳಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. 1989 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆಯು ಮೃತ ಪಡುವಾಗ ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿಯ ವಿಳಾಸದಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು. ಆ ಸಂದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆಯ ಜೊತೆಗೆ ನನ್ನ ಅಣ್ಣಂದಿರಾದ ಸಚ್ಚಿದಾನಂದ, ಗಣೇಶ, ರಮೇಶ, ಹರೀಶ, ನನ್ನ ಅಕ್ಕಂದಿರಾದ ಸರೋಜ, ಸುಧಾ, ತಾರಾ, ನೀತಾ ಹಾಗೂ ನಾನು ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದೆವು. ಹಿರಿಯ ಅಕ್ಕಳಾದ ಸುನಂದ ಬಂದು ಹೋಗುತ್ತಿದ್ದಳು.
8 ನೇ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯು ತಮ್ಮ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಪತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ 2 ನೇ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯು ಖಾತೆ ಬದಲಾವಣೆಗೋಸ್ಕರ 8 ನೇ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯ ಹತ್ತಿರ ಖಾಲಿ ಹಾಳೆಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ಸಹಿ ಪಡೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ಕಾಣಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ನಿಜ, ಆದರೆ ಅವರು ನನ್ನ ಬಳಿ ಎಂದೂ ಹೇಳಿಲ್ಲ.
ನಾನು ಹೇಳುವ ನಿಡಿ-3 ಮೃತ್ಯು ಪತ್ರದ ಮೇಲೆ 2 ನೇ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿದಾರರೆಂದು ರಾಜಣ್ಣ ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ರಾಜಣ್ಣನವರು ತಮ್ಮ ವಿಳಾಸವನ್ನು ಕೋಲಾರದವರು ಎಂದು ತೋರಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ರಾಜಣ್ಣ ನಮ್ಮ ಪರಿವಾರದ ಸ್ನೇಹಿತರು. ನಮ್ಮ ತಂದೆ-ತಾಯಿ ಹಾಗೂ ನಮಗೆಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಪರಿಚಯಸ್ಥರು. ರಾಜಣ್ಣನವರು 2 ನೇ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯ ಆತ್ಮೀಯ ಸ್ನೇಹಿತರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸುಳ್ಳು. ನಮಗೆಲ್ಲರಿಗೂ ಪರಿಚಯಸ್ಥರು. ರಾಜಣ್ಣನವರು ಸದ್ಯಕ್ಕೆ ಈಗ ಬದುಕಿರುತ್ತಾರೋ ಇಲ್ಲವೊ ನನಗೆ ತಿಳಿದಿಲ್ಲ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಮುಂದುವರೆದು ಕಳೆದ 2-3 ವರ್ಷಗಳಿಂದ ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ರಾಜಣ್ಣ ಮತ್ತು 2 ನೇ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿ ಸೇರಿ ಪ್ಲಾನ್ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ಕೋಲಾರದಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ಟಾಂಪ್ಪೇಪರ್ ಅನ್ನು ತರಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ, ನಮ್ಮ ತಂದೆಗೆ ವಿಷಯ ಗೊತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸುಳ್ಳು.
ನಾನು ಓದಿಲ್ಲ, ಆದರೆ ವಿಷಯಗಳು ಗೊತ್ತು. ವಿಲ್ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿ, ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಪ್ರಮಾಣಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸುವ ಕಾಲಕ್ಕೆ ನನ್ನ ಅಣ್ಣನಾದ 2 ನೇ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಯ ಮುಖಾಂತರ ನಮಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ನಿಡಿ- 3 ಅನ್ನು ಯಾವಾಗ, ಯಾರು, ಎಲ್ಲಿ ಬೆರಳಚ್ಚು ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ.
34
O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018
32. So, from the afore extracted statements of DW.1, it becomes clear that, Sunanda and Rajanna are attesting witnesses to the Ex.D.3 'Will'. But, as already pointed out, Smt. Sunanda has totally denied that, she is the one of the attesting witness to Ex.D.3 'Will'. It is not the case of defendant nos.1 to 4 that another attesting witness Rajanna is dead. On the other hand, as stated by DW1 in his cross-examination, they are not aware whether Rajanna is dead or alive.
33. In respect of Ex.D.4 'Will' dated 05.11.1996 allegedly executed by Smt. Rukminiamma, it is of interest to mention that nothing has been whispered in this Ex.D.4 'Will' about Ex.D.3 'Will'. To elaborate, in the body of Ex.D.4 'Will' dated 05.11.1996 no sentence has been whispered about the Ex.D.3 'Will' dated 19.04.1989, said to have been executed by Sri P.D. Suryanarayana Rao in favour of his wife Smt. Rukminiamma. Needless to mention that Smt. Rukminiamma is the testator of Ex.D.4 'Will' and even then she has not whispered a sentence about the 'Will' allegedly executed by her husband Sri P.D Suryanarayana Rao in her favour as benificiary of suit schedule 35 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 property. On the other hand, at page number 2 of Ex.D.4 'Will' it is recited as follows.
ನನ್ನ ಪತಿಯಾದ ಶ್ರೀ ಪಿ ಡಿ ಸಾರ್ಯನಾರಾಯಣರಾವ್ 1990 ರಲ್ಲಿ ದೈವಾಧೀನರಾದ ಬಳಿಕ ಅವರ ಸ್ವಯಾರ್ಜಿತ ಅಸ್ತಿಯಾದ ಜಯನಗರದ 9 ನೇ ಮುಖ್ಯರಸ್ತೆಯ ನಂ.301:ಬಿ:79, 4 ನೇ ವಿಭಾಗ ಪಶ್ಚಿಮದಲ್ಲಿರುವ 1969 ರಲ್ಲಿ 49X75 ಅಡಿಗಳ ನಿವೇಶನದಲ್ಲಿ ಕಟ್ಟಿರುವ ಮನೆಯು ಸುಮಾರು ರೂ-30 ರಿಂದ 35 ಲಕ್ಷದವರೆಗೆ ಬೆಲೆಬಾಳುವ ವಾಸದ ಮನೆಯು ನನ್ನ ಹೆಸರಿಗೆ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆಯಾಗಿ ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ದಾಖಲೆ ಪತ್ರಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ನೋಂದಣಿಯಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ.
ಈ ಮೇಲ್ಕಂಡ ನನ್ನ ಸ್ವಯಾರ್ಜಿತ ಆಸ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ನಾನು ಆರೋಗ್ಯವಾಗಿರುವಾಗಲೀ ನನ್ನ ಮರಣಾ ನಂತರ ಈ ಕೆಳಕಂಡ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹಂಚತಕ್ಕದು ಯಾ ವರ್ಗಾಯಿಸತಕ್ಕದು ಎಂದು ಸ್ವ ಇಚ್ಛೆಯಿಂದ ಈ ಉಯಿಲನ್ನ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.
34. So, the recital as extracted above in Ex.D.4 'Will' is a suspicious circumstance of the Ex.D.3 'Will'. Because, if really Sri. P.D. Suryanarayana Rao bequeathed the suit schedule property through Ex.D.3 'Will' in favour of his wife Smt. Rukuniamma, in all probability, Smt. Rukuniamma has to mention about Ex.D.3 'Will', while executing her Ex.D.4 'Will'. On the other hand, without whispering a sentence about Ex.D.3 'Will', Smt. Rukminiamma stated in Ex.D.4 'Will' that the property is her self acquired property. Yet another suspicious circumstance of the Wills marked as Ex.D.3 and D4 is that the plaintiff and defendants No.5 to 8 have not been provided with any property in 36 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 those Wills. Of course, the defendant no.7 is supporting the contesting defendants No.1 to 4. But the fact remains that, the defendants no.1 to 4 and 7 have not examined any of the attesting witnesses to Ex.D.3 and D4 Wills. As a matter of fact, the contesting defendants have not made an endeavor to examine at least the scribe of Ex.D.4 'Will'. As can be seen from Ex.D.4 one R. Lalithamma, Advocate and Notary, is the scribe of Ex.D.4 'Will'. But, R. Lalithamma has not been examined as witness.
35. Wherefore, the defendants no.1 to no. 4 and 7 have utterly failed to prove the execution of Ex.D.3 and Ex.D.4 Wills. As such the production of documents related to suit schedule property such as Ex.D.5- Uttara patra, Ex.D.6-Khata Certificate, Ex.D.7-Khata Extract, Ex.D.8 to 19 - Property tax receipts and Ex.D.20 to D.33 Tax Paid receipts could not establish anything in respect of the theory of defendant Nos.1 to 4. On the other hand, the aforementioned documents, established the admitted fact that the suit schedule property was acquired by the late P.D. Suryanarayana Rao and the records related to the property initially stood in the name of P.D. Suryanarayana Rao and later 37 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 transfered to the name of his wife Smt. Rukminiamma. The Ex.D.34 is the marriage photo and Ex.D.35 is the CD related to the same. Ex.D.36 is the medical prescription related to defendant no.3 Harish.
36. As already noted, it is the specific case of plaintiff that after the demise of her parents P.D. Suryanarayana Rao and Smt. Rukminiamma, their children who are the plaintiff and defendants herein are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as co-parceners and the property is their joint family property. In this context, it is relevant to mention that the contention of defendants 1 to 4, as well as 7 that suit schedule property is bequeathed initially in favour of Smt. Rukminiamma by her husband P.D. Suryanarayana Rao and later Smt. Rukminiamma bequeathed the property in favour of defendants 1 to 4 and C. Sachidhananda is already ruled out. Wherefore, what is left out is to delve with the evidence of plaintiff who got examined as PW1.
38
O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018
37. Needless to mention that, in the affidavit filed in lieu of her examination-in-chief, she has reiterated the plaint averments, which is already extracted in the opening paragraph of this judgment. In the cross-examination of PW1, following statements are made:-
ನನ್ನ ಮದುವೆ ನಮ್ಮ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರು, ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ-ತಾಯಿಗಳು ನೋಡಿ ಮಾಡಿದ ಮದುವೆ. ನನ್ನ ಗಂಡ ಸಹ ಬ್ರಾಹ್ಮಣ ಜಾತಿಯವರು. ನಾನೆ ಇಚ್ಚೆ ಪಟ್ಟು ಮದುವೆ ಆಗಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ನನ್ನ ಗಂಡ ನನ್ನ ತಾಯಿಯ ತಮ್ಮ, ನಾನು ಯಾವುದೆ ಉದ್ಯೋಗ ಮಾಡುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ನನ್ನ ಗಂಡ 'ಸಿಂಗರ್ಸ್ ಮಿಷಿನ್ ಕಂಪನಿ'ಯಲ್ಲಿ ಏರಿಯಾ ಮ್ಯಾನೇಜರಾಗಿ ಕೆಲಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು.
ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ ನನ್ನನ್ನು ಅವರ ಮನೆಗೆ ಸೇರಿಸುತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ನನ್ನ ಗಂಡನ ಮೂಲ ಮನೆ ಮಂಗಳೂರು, ಆದರೆ ಅವರು ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸವಿದ್ದರು. ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ ಮೊದಲು ಹೋಟೆಲ್ ವ್ಯವಹಾರ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು. ನನ್ನ ತಾಯಿಗೆ ಯಾವುದೆ ಉದ್ಯೋಗ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ 1990 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಮೃತಪಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಅವರು ಮೃತಪಡುವಾಗ ಅವರಿಗೆ ಎಷ್ಟು ವಯಸ್ಸಾಗಿತ್ತೆಂದು ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ ದೈಹಿಕವಾಗಿ ಮತ್ತು ಮಾನಸಿಕವಾಗಿ ಆರೋಗ್ಯವಾಗಿದ್ದರು ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ.
ನನ್ನ ತಾಯಿಯ ಅಂತಿಮ ಸಂಸ್ಕಾರದ ಕಾರ್ಯಗಳು ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿಯೆ ಆಗಿದೆ. ನನ್ನ ತಾಯಿ ಮೃತಪಡುವಾಗ ಆರೋಗ್ಯ ಸರಿ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ. ಅವರು ಮಾನಸಿಕವಾಗಿ ಚೆನ್ನಾಗಿಯೇ ಇದ್ದರು. 4 ನೇ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿ ದಿ:19.03.1971 ರಂದು ಹುಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಅವರು ನನ್ನ ಮದುವೆಯ ನಂತರ ಹುಟ್ಟಿದ್ದಾರೆ. 1 ಮತ್ತು 2 ನೇ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿಗಳು ಒಳ್ಳೆ ಉದ್ಯೋಗದಲ್ಲಿದ್ದು, ಒಳ್ಳೆಯ ಸಂಪಾದನೆ ಹೊಂದಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ.
ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆಗೆ ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿ ಖಾಲಿ ನಿವೇಶನವಾಗಿ ಮಂಜೂರಾಗಿತ್ತು ಎನ್ನುವುದು ಸರಿ.
ನಾನು ಎಸ್ಎಸ್ಎಲ್ಸಿ ವರೆಗೂ ಓದಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ನಾನು ೨ ವರ್ಷದ ವರೆಗೂ ಹಿರಿಯೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಇದ್ದೆ ಅನಂತರ ೩ನೇ ವರ್ಷದಿಂದ ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆಯ ಜೊತೆ ವಾಸ ಇದ್ದೆ. ನಾನು ಹಿರಿಯೂರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ದೊಡ್ಡಮ್ಮ 39 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 ಗೌರಮ್ಮನ ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ ೨ ವರ್ಷಗಳಿದ್ದೆ. ಸದರಿ ಗೌರಮ್ಮನವರಿಗೆ ಯಾವುದೆ ಮಕ್ಕಳಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ ಕಾರಣದಿಂದ ಗೌರಮ್ಮನವರು ನನ್ನನ್ನು ಮಗಳಾಗಿ ಸಾಕಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದರು ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
ನನ್ನ ದೊಡ್ಡಮ್ಮ ಗೌರಮ್ಮನ ಆಸ್ತಿ ಎಲ್ಲ ನನಗೆ ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತದೆಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ ಗೌರಮ್ಮ ಇವರು ನನ್ನನ್ನು ಮಗಳು ಅಂತಲೆ ಸಾಕಿದ್ದರು ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
ನಾನು 3 ನೇ ಪ್ರತಿವಾದಿ ಹರೀಶನಿಗೆ ನನ್ನ ಪಿತ್ರಾರ್ಜಿತ ಆಸ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪಾಲು ಕೇಳಿ ಈಗ ನನಗೆ ತೋರಿಸಿದ ದಿ:18.06.2012 ರ ರೀತ್ಯಾ ಒಂದು ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಬರೆದಿದ್ದೆ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಒಪ್ಪಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಅದನ್ನು ನಿಡಿ.1 ಎಂದು ಗುರುತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು.
ದಾವೆ ಆಸ್ತಿಗಳು ಈಗ ನನ್ನ ತಾಯಿಯ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿರುತ್ತವೆ. ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ ಸತ್ತ ನಂತರ ನನ್ನ ತಾಯಿಯ ಹೆಸರಿಗೆ ಆಗಿರುವ ವಿಷಯವೇ ಮಾತ್ರವೆ ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ದಾವೆ ಆಸ್ತಿಗಳು ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆಯ ಸ್ವಂತ ಆಸ್ತಿಗಳು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ, 1996 ನೇ ಇಸವಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ತಾಯಿಯು ಚೆನ್ನಾಗಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆಯು ಲಾಲ್ಬಾಗ್ನಲ್ಲಿ ಒಂದು ಹೋಟೆಲ್ ಇಟ್ಟಿದ್ದರು. ನಾನು ಮದುವೆಯಾಗಿ ಹೋದ ನಂತರ ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆಯು ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ ಹೋಟೆಲ್ನ್ನು ಮುಚ್ಚಿದ್ದು ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ ತಾಯಿಗಳ ಇಚ್ಚೆಗೆ ವಿರುದ್ದವಾಗಿ ಲಗ್ನವಾಗಿದ್ದು, ಆ ಕಾರಣದಿಂದ ನಮ್ಮ ತಂದೆ ತಾಯಿಗಳು ಬೇಜಾರಾಗಿ ಹೋಟೆಲ್ ನಡೆಸಲಾರದೆ 1971 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಮುಚ್ಚಿದ್ದು ಇರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ.
ಮೊದಲಿಗೆ ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆಗೆ ಸಿಐಟಿವಿಯಿಂದ ಖಾಲಿ ಸೈಟು ಮಂಜೂರಾಗಿದ್ದು, ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆಯು 1968 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಅವರ ಖರ್ಚಿನಿಂದಲೆ ಮನೆಯನ್ನು ಕಟ್ಟಿದ್ದು ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆಯು ಎಷ್ಟು ಖರ್ಚು ಮಾಡಿ ಸದರಿ ಮನೆಯನ್ನು ಕಟ್ಟಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದು ನನಗೇನು ಗೊತ್ತಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
ನನ್ನ ಸಹೋದರರೆಲ್ಲರೂ ಕೆಲಸಕ್ಕೆ ಹೋಗಿ ಆದಾಯ ಹೊಂದಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆಯು ಮೂಲತಃ ಮಂಗಳೂರಿನವರು. ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆಯು ಮೂಡುಬಿದಿರೆಯ ಸುಮಾರು 12 ಕಿ.ಮೀ. ದೂರದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಪಿಜಿಕೂಡೇಲು 40 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 ಎಂಬ ಗ್ರಾಮದವರಾಗಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ. ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆಗೆ ಪಿತ್ರಾರ್ಜಿತವಾಗಿ ಬಂದ ಸ್ವತ್ತು ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ ಗ್ರಾಮದಲ್ಲಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅದು ಎಷ್ಟಿದೆ ಎಂದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ ಆಸ್ತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಈ ಕೇಸಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಸೇರಿಸಲು ನನಗೇನು ತೊಂದರೆ ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
38. With regard to the points elicited in the cross examination of PW1, it is relevant to mention that, there is no issue as to the aspect of 'partial partition'. Indeed, though the plaintiff and all the defendants stated that, properties are available for their deceased father P.D. Suryanarayan Rao at Pijikodelu Village of Dakshina Kannada, but, none of them have given the details of that properties. As a matter of facts, the defendants have not made any counter claim with regard to claiming share in the property allegedly available for their deceased father P.D. Suryanarayan Rao at Pijikodely of Dakshina Kannada. Of course, the plaintiff admitted that, she wrote the Ex.P.1 letter dated 28.06.2012 to defendant No.3 Harisha. But, it can not be ignored that as per the contents of Ex.D.1 letter the plaintiff demanded her share in the property after the demise of her parents. Now, it is relevant to mention that though Ex.D.1 is a document confronted to PW1 in her cross examination, but the defendants 1 to 4 have not placed before court any document to show that they have responded to 41 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 Ex.D.1 letter. Wherefore, the very production of Ex.D.1 letter written by plaintiff, demanding share in the property established that she made herself clear way back in the year 2012 that, she wanted a share in the property of her deceased parents. If really the Ex.D.3 and Ex.D.4 wills are executed as alleged, what was the impediment on the part of defendants No.1 to 4 particularly, the defendant No.3 Harish to whom Ex.D.1 letter is addressed, to give suitable reply to the letter stating about the Ex.D.3 and D4 Wills. Therefore, this is yet another suspicious circumstance related to Ex.D.3 and D.4 Wills.
39. The defendants No.1 and 2 in their joint written statement, as well as, defendants No.3 and 4 in their joint written statement have commonly contended that, their parents executed the Ex.D.3 and D.4 Wills and further contended that, as the plaintiff eloped in the year 1971 with her pair by severing all family ties, the parents and other family members had suffered mental agony and unable to stand before this society in those days and it has become very difficult to the parents to perform the marriage of other daughters of the family.
42
O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018
40. However, after the demise of defendant No.2, his LRs filed separate written statement wherein they not only adopted the defence that their deceased father Sri. Ramesh had taken in his written statement, but further contended that, since childhood the plaintiff brought up by the sister of mother-in-law of defendant no.2 by name Late Ammanakka at Hiruyur Taluk, Chitradurga District as they does not have children. The said Late Ammanakka adopted the plaintiff as daughter and hence the plaintiff sever all relationship with family of the defendants from her childhood. The defendant no.7 also contended that, plaintiff has been brought up since childhood in their relative house at Hiriyur Village, Chithradurga District and got married in the year 1970 against the wishes of members of the joint family, more particularly against the aspirations of mother and father of the parties.
41. But, the defendants No.1 to 4 and 7 have not produced an iota of evidence to show that, plaintiff has been brought since childhood in their relative house at Hiruyura, Chithradurga District. Indeed, no witnesses has been examined towards this end, particularly the relatives of one Akkanamma, about whom 43 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 the reference is made in the written statement filed by the LRs of deceased defendant no. 2.
42. At this juncture, it is relevant to mention that, the presumption is always that, the family is a joint family and the property is in possession and enjoyment as joint family property unless contrary is proved. In the present case, undisputedly, the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of the father of the parties to the suit, P.D. Suryanarayan Rao. The contesting defendants no.1 to 4 and 7 failed to establish that the said P.D. Suryanarayan Rao executed the 'Will' dated 19.04.1989, bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of his wife Smt. Rukminiamma. Likewise the defendants no.1 to 4 and 7 failed to prove that Smt. Rukminiamma in turn had executed Ex.D.4 'Will' and thereby bequeathed the suit schedule property in favour of defendants 1 to 4 and deceased Sachidhananda. Wherefore, when once Ex.D.3 and Ex.D.4 Wills are not proved and in view that suit schedule property is the self acquired property of P.D. Suryanarayan Rao, immediately after his demise, all his children become tenants in common to the suit schedule property. There is 44 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 no document to prove that partition has been effected between the children of Sri. P.D. Suryanarayan Rao and Smt. Rukminiamma. Indeed, it is not the case of defendants that, already partition has been effected between the parties to the suit. Hence, the inevitable conclusion is that, the plaintiff and defendants are members of a joint Hindu undivided family and the suit schedule property is their joint family property.
43. Hence, in view of aforementioned discussion, I am inclined to hold Recasted Issue No.1 and Additional Issue No.3 in the Negative, whereas Additional Issue No.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
44. Addl. Issue No. 4:- The defendants no.3, 4 and no.7 put forth the plea that plaintiff has relinquished her rights over the suit schedule property by receiving a sum of Rs.70,000/- and jewels worth Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents. But towards this end, no iota of document is placed before court. That is to say, except the self-sworn testimony of DW1, nothing survives on record to show that the plaintiff on receiving the aforementioned 45 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 amount and jewels has relinquished her right in the suit schedule property. As a matter of fact, nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 in respect of Additional Issue No.4. Wherefore, in the absence of evidence, the conclusion is that, the defendants No.3, 4 and 7 failed to prove that plaintiff has relinquished her rights over the suit schedule property by receiving a sum of Rs.70,000/- and jewels worth Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents. Hence without much pondering around this Addl. Issue No.4, I am inclined to hold the issue in the Negative.
45. Issue No.2:- The contested defendants contended that suit is not properly valued and court fee paid is insufficient. Apparently, the suit is filed for partition in respect of plaint schedule immovable property. As can be seen from the Valuation Slip appended to the plaint, the plaintiff on invoking Section 35 (2) and Section 26(c) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act has paid respectively Rs.200/- and Rs.25/- as court fee i.e. totally Rs.225/-. The first prayer made by the plaintiff is for partition and this prayer is based on her contention that suit schedule property is joint family property and she is also in joint possession 46 O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 and enjoyment of the property. The defendants failed to establish that the plaintiff is ousted from the possession of property. More importantly, the possession of the joint family property is in the sense that deemed possession and not the physical possession. Wherefore, the court fee of Rs.200/- as paid under Section 35(2) is proper. Likewise in respect of the relief of permanent injunction, the plaintiff valued the suit under Section 26(c) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act and has paid Rs.25/-. Absolutely no fault is find with regard to the valuation as made by the plaintiff. As such, without much pondering around this issue, I am inclined to hold this issue in the Negative.
46. Issues No.3:- In view of findings on the Recasted issue No.1 and additional issue No.1 to 4, as well as Issue No.2, the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs in term sought. Wherefore, I am inclined to hold this issue in the Affirmative.
47. Issue No.4:- As per final order:-
47
O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 ORDER The suit in O.S.No.1557/2013 is decreed.
It is declared that, the plaintiff is entitled for 1/9th share in the suit schedule property. The defendant Nos.1 to 8 are also entitled for 1/9th share each in the suit schedule property.
The defendants are hereby restrained by way of permanent injunction from alienating the suit schedule property till the allotment of her share to the plaintiff.
No order as to cost.
The suit in O.S.No.7293/2018 is hereby dismissed as withdrawn as prayed by the plaintiff in the memo dated 31.07.2023.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer through Dictaphone, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 20th day of November, 2025).
sd/-
(M.Anitha) XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.48
O.S.No.1557/2013 C/w. O.S.No.7293/2018 ANNEXUR List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
P.W.1 Sumathi List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 to 3 : 3 Death certificates Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 23.06.1966 Ex.P.4(a) : Typed copy of Ex.P.4 Ex.P.5 : E.C Ex.P.6 : Katha Extract List of witnesses examined for defendants:
D.W.1 Lakshmi List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Ex.D.1 : The letter dated 28.06.2012 Ex.D.2 : Empty postal cover Ex.D.3 : Original will dated 19.04.1989 Ex.D.4 : Original will dated 05.11.1996 Ex.D.5 to 7 : Uttara pathra, Katha Certificate, Katha Extract Ex.D.8 to 19 : 12 Tax receipts
Ex.D.20 to 32 : 13 Tax receipts for the period of 1990-2009 Ex.D.33 : Suvarna Katha Acknowledgment Ex.D.34 : Photograph Ex.D.35 : CD Ex.D.36 : Laboratory report given by Dr.B.Shivajorao sd/-
XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.