Bangalore District Court
Chaitanya Honnavar Rao vs Smt.Vasanthi on 20 January, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY(CCH-39)
Dated this the 20th Day of January 2018
Present
Sri Devanand Puttappa Nayak B.A., LL.B.,(Spl.)
XXXVIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
Original Suit No.6101/2008
Plaintiff:
CHAITANYA HONNAVAR RAO, S/o Late
B.R.Honavar, aged about 53 years,
Residing at 'Munjunath Nilaya', 1st floor
near KAL hospital, Chitwadgi, Hospet.
[by advocate Sri Santosh S.Nagarale]
-Vs-
Defendants:
1. SMT.VASANTHI, W/o late Sri
B.R.Honavar, residing at House No.8, 2nd
Cross, SBM Officer colony, Mathikere,
Bangalore-560 054(since dead by L.Rs.)
2. SRI KARAN CHAITANYA HONAVAR,S/o
Chaitanya Honavar Rao, Major, residing at
House No.8, 2nd Cross, SBM Officer
colony, Mathikere, Bangalore-560 054
3. MRS.SUMAN DOMBLEKAR, W/o
Mr.Kishore Doblekar, D/o Late
B.R.Honavar , Major, residing at House
No.8, 2nd Cross, SBM Officer colony,
Mathikere, Bangalore-560 054
4. SMT.SRIKALA W/o Ramdas, D/o Late
B.R.Honavar, residing at House No.8, 2nd
Cross, SBM Officer colony, Mathikere,
Bangalore-560 054
[D-2 to 4 by advocate Sri K.V.Shyamaprasada ]
2 O.S.No.6101/2008
Date of institution of the 30.08.2008
suit
Nature of the suit: Partition and separate
possession and also
mesne profits and
declaration
Date of commencement of 10.03.2014
recording of evidence:
Date on which Judgment 20.01.2018
was pronounced
Total duration: Year Month Days
09 04 20
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for partition and separate possession and also mesne profits and declaration.
2. The case of the plaintiff as per the plaint averments is that he is the only son of 1st defendant Smt.Vasanthi W/o late B.R.Honavar. Defendant No.3-Mrs.Suman Domblekar and Defendant No.4- Smt.Srikala are the daughters of 1st defendant and sisters of plaintiff. Defendant No.3 married in the year November, 1987 and defendant No.4 married in the year 1986.
The plaintiff further submits that the plaintiff and defendants constituted Hindu Undivided Joint 3 O.S.No.6101/2008 Family along with husband of 1st defendant, who is the father of plaintiff.
It is further submitted by the plaintiff that the joint family owned property bearing No.B 28/112, Sundaranagar, Kalina Santakruze East Mumbai. The katha and revenue records of the said property stood in the name of Late B.R.Honavar, the husband of 1st defendant. In the year 1991, the husband of 1st defendant, Late B.R.Honavar sold the property situated at Bombay under registered sale deed for sale consideration of Rs.13,00,000/- and out of the sale proceeds, purchased the suit schedule property bearing No.82 measuring 178.77 Square Meters. The suit schedule property is purchased out of joint family nucleus and the plaintiff being coparcener of the joint family, is entitled to a share in the suit schedule property.
It is further submitted by the plaintiff that the defendants 3 and 4 received their respective shares from the plaintiff and 1st defendant, and relinquished 4 O.S.No.6101/2008 their right over the joint family properties including the suit schedule property.
It is further submitted by the plaintiff that he requested the 1st defendant to effect partition of the joint family properties and allot his share in the suit schedule property. But the 1st defendant refused to do so and asked the plaintiff to wait for some time. Though the plaintiff waited for 1½ years, the 1st defendant has been postponing partition of the suit schedule property without any reason.
It is further submitted by the plaintiff that on 25.6.2003, Late B.R.Honavar executed a registered Gift Deed in favour of defendant No.3 and gifted terrace portion of the ground floor of the suit schedule property. The said Gift Deed has been executed behind the back of plaintiff and not binding on the share of plaintiff.
It is further submitted by the plaintiff that Late B.R.Honavar, the father of the plaintiff allegedly executed a Will dt.25.6.2003 and bequeathed his proportioned undivided interest in the suit schedule 5 O.S.No.6101/2008 property in favour of defendant No.2-Sri Karan Chaitanya Honavar. But Late B.R.Honavar had no right, title and interest to bequeath the schedule property by way of Will and he was not in a sound mind and healthy at the time of executing the said Will. Therefore the said Will is a concocted and fabricated document to defeat the rights of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Late B.R.Honavar was bed-ridden and unable to understand worldly affairs due to his old age at the time of execution of alleged Will.
The cause of action for this suit arose on 10.7.2008, 2.8.2008 and 15.8.2008 when the plaintiff demanded the 1st defendant to partition the joint family property. The suit schedule property is situated within the jurisdiction of this court and hence this court has jurisdiction to try this suit. Therefore, the plaintiff requested the court to decree the suit as prayed in the prayer column of the plaint.
3. On the other hand, the 1st defendant filed written statement. The 1st defendant submits that 6 O.S.No.6101/2008 the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and liable to be rejected.
In para 3 of the written statement, the 1st defendant admits that the plaintiff is her only son and defendants 3 and 4 are her daughters and they got married.
The 1st defendant denied that the plaintiff and defendants have constituted Hindu Undivided Joint Family and enjoying the suit schedule property jointly. The 1st defendant totally contended that there is no joint family property enjoyed by the parties at any point of time.
In para 6 of the written statement, the 1st defendant submits that the father of the plaintiff sold out the property situated at Mumbai and purchased the property at Bangalore. But, the 1st defendant submits that the father of the plaintiff has not purchased any property bearing No.82 in Bangalore and the property mentioned in the schedule to the plaint is incorrect. The 1st defendant denied that the suit schedule property is acquired 7 O.S.No.6101/2008 out of the joint nucleus funds. She also denied that the plaintiff is coparcener of the joint family and entitled to a share in the suit schedule property.
In para 7 of the written statement, the 1st defendant denied that the defendants 3 and 4 received their respective shares from the plaintiff and 1st defendant, and relinquished their right over the joint family properties including the suit schedule property.
The 1st defendant denied the allegations made out in para 8 of the plaint as false and untrue. Further the 1st defendant submits that there is no cause of action arose for filing of this suit against the defendants. Further the 1st defendant submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable since there is no property as contended in the plaint and the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties, because there is no property available for partition.
In para 10(a) of the plaint, it is submitted by the 1st defendant that herself and Late B.R.Honavar 8 O.S.No.6101/2008 are the mother and father of the plaintiff. Late B.R.Honavar was working in Grindlays Bank, Mumbai and retired during the year 1982. Late B.R.Honavar had not inherited any property from his ancestors. He had purchased property bearing No.B 28/112, Sundaranagar, Santakruze (West) Mumbai from Maharashtra State Housing Board in the year 1950 i.e., prior to the birth of plaintiff. Said property was the self acquired property of Late B.R.Honavar. Subsequently Late B.R.Honavar sold the said property and out of the sale proceeds, purchased the suit schedule property on 21.1.1992. Thus the suit schedule property became the self acquired property of Late B.R.Honavar. All the revenue records stood in the name of Late B.R.Honavar. On 25.6.2003, Late B.R.Honavar executed a registered Gift Deed in favour of defendant No.3 and gifted terrace portion of the ground floor of the suit schedule property with a right to put up construction on it together with proportionate undivided share, right, title and interest in the property.
9 O.S.No.6101/2008
The 1st defendant further contended that the plaintiff married one Mrs.Aditi and out of the wedlock, the 2nd defendant was born. The plaintiff and Mrs.Aditi filed divorce petition u/s 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and obtained divorce. After divorce Mrs.Aditi handed over the child Karan Chaitanya Honavar to the plaintiff on 27.2.1987 and the whereabouts of Mrs.Aditi is not known. The plaintiff handed over care and custody of Karan Chaitanya Honavar to his father and the 1st defendant, and married again and left the house against the wishes of his parents and started living separately. The plaintiff totally severed from the family of he defendant. The 1st defendant and her husband brought up their grand-son Karan Chaitanya Honavar and now he is working as Engineer. The plaintiff never turned up to see his son or his parents. On 25.6.2003, Late B.R.Honavar executed a registered Gift Deed in favour of Karan Chaitanya who was aged 18 years and gifted terrace portion of the ground floor of the suit schedule 10 O.S.No.6101/2008 property, absolutely subject to the life interest in the property in favour of 1st defendant. In the said Will it is made clear that the plaintiff has no manner of right or interest in the suit schedule property. Late B.R.Honavar also confirmed the Gift Deed executed by him on 25.6.2003 in the said Will in favour of his daughter Mrs.Suman Dublekar. Late B.R.Honavar died on 29.4.2006. Hence the 1st defendant who is his wife acted upon. Therefore the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. The whereabouts of the plaintiff came to know to 1st defendant only after receipt of summons from the Court. Therefore the 1st defendant prays to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff in the interest of justice and equity.
4. In this case, the defendants 2 to 4 have not filed written statement.
5. On perusing the pleadings of the plaint and also written statement filed by the defendant 11 O.S.No.6101/2008 No.1, my predecessor has framed Issue Nos.1 to 7 on 14.06.2010 as follows:-
1) Whether plaintiff proves that schedule property is joint family property consisting of himself and defendant?
2) Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled to half share in suit property ?
3) Whether defendant proves that suit property is self acquired property of Late B.R.Honavar?
4) Whether defendant proves that Late B.R.Honavar by executing a registered Gift Deed dt.25.6.2003 had gifted terrace portion of ground floor of the building situated in suit property with right to put up construction on it in favour of his daughter Smt.Suman Dumblekar?
5) Whether defendant proves that Late B.R.Honavar by executing a Will dt.25.6.2003 had bequeathed ground floor of the building situated in the suit property in favour of his grand son Kumar Karan?
6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
7) What decree or Order?
6. In this case, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and in further chief examination 12 O.S.No.6101/2008 of PW1, the documents produced by him are got marked as Ex.P1 and P2. No independent witnesses have been examined by the side of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the defendant No.2 himself adduced his oral evidence as DW1 and in further chief examination of DW1, the documents produced by him are got marked as Ex.D1 and D2. The defendant No.3 adduced his oral evidence as DW2 and in further chief examination of DW2, no documents are marked except the identification of the signatures made on Ex.D1 and D2. In support of the case of the defendants, a witness by name Kiran Bobby K.N. who is attesting witness adduced his oral evidence as DW3 and closed by the side of defendants.
6. Heard the arguments on both sides and the case is posted for judgment.
7. My findings for the issues framed my predecessor as follows:-
Issue No.1: In the negative.
Issue No.2: In the negative.
Issue No.3: In the affirmative.13 O.S.No.6101/2008
Issue No.4: In the affirmative Issue No.5: In the affirmative Issue No.6: In the negative Issue No.7: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NOs.1, 2 and 6: I have taken up these three issues together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence since the burden of proving these issues lies on the plaintiff.
9. Before analyzing the reasons for the above issues, it is just and proper to know the admitted facts of this case. The main propositor Late B.R.Honavar died leaving behind him his wife Smt.Vasanti(defendant No.1) and one son(plaintiff) and two daughters(defendant Nos.3 and 4). The 2nd defendant is the grand-son of Late B.R.Honavar and son of plaintiff through first wife. There is no controversy regarding the relationship in between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4. 14 O.S.No.6101/2008
10. But it is the case of the plaintiff that himself and defendants constituted Hindu Undivided Joint Family and owning property bearing No.B 28/112, Sundaranagar, Kalina Santakruze East Mumbai. The said property, as per the contention of the plaintiff, has been purchased by father of the plaintiff through joint nucleus. It is also the case of the plaintiff that in the year 1991, his father Late B.R.Honavar,who is the husband of 1st defendant, sold the property situated at Bombay under registered sale deed for sale consideration of Rs.13,00,000/- and then out of the sale proceeds accrued, purchased the suit schedule property bearing No.82 measuring 178.77 Square Meters, as described in the schedule. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, he being coparcener of the joint family, is entitled to a share in the suit schedule property. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that the defendants 3 and 4, who are his sisters and daughters of main propositor Late B.R.Honavar and defendant No.1, received their respective shares from 15 O.S.No.6101/2008 the plaintiff and 1st defendant and relinquished their right over the joint family properties including the suit schedule property. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff is that since the suit schedule property is the joint family property, he is entitled to half share in the suit schedule property. Therefore, he requested the 1st defendant to effect partition and allot his share in the suit schedule property, but the 1st defendant refused to give share to the plaintiff in the suit schedule property.
11. Originally this suit was filed only against defendant No.1. But thereafter defendants 2 to 4 have been impleaded as per Order on I.A.Nos.2 and
3. Then the plaint was amended. In the amended plaint, para Nos.9(a) and 9(b) have been added. In para 9(a) and 9(b) it is the specific contention of the plaintiff that the Gift Deed executed on 25.6.2003 by Late B.R.Honavar in favour of defendant No.3 and unregistered Will dt.25.6.2003 executed by Late B.R.Honavar in favour of defendant No.2-Sri Karan 16 O.S.No.6101/2008 Chaitanya Honavar are not binding on his share in the suit schedule property.
12. In order to prove as to whether the suit schedule property is the joint family property of plaintiff and defendants, the plaintiff himself adduced his oral evidence as PW1 by way of filing his sworn affidavit and in further chief examination of PW1, the documents produced by him are got marked as Ex.P1 and Ex.P1(a). Here, the facts narrated in the chief examination of PW1 in his affidavit are nothing but repetition of the plaint averments made out in the amended plaint. Hence, again it need not requires for further explanation. In the cross-examination of PW1, the documents Ex.D1 and D2 are marked. Looking to the cross examination of PW1, he admitted that his father was working as clerk in Gridlays Bank, Princess Street in Bombay. PW1 in his cross-examination deposed that he had no idea whether his father Late B.R.Honavar inherited any ancestral property devolved upon him. Further PW1 also deposed that his grand-father i.e., father of Late 17 O.S.No.6101/2008 B.R.Honavar died when Late B.R.Honavar was at the age of ten years. The admissions as such in the cross-examination of PW1 explicitly goes to show that there is no ancestral property inherited by father of PW1 from his ancestors. In the cross-examination of PW1 he unequivocally admitted that suit schedule property has been purchased by his father Late B.R.Honavar at Bombay out of his own earning. PW1 also admitted that his father Late B.R.Honavar purchased the suit schedule property out of sale proceeds accrued by selling the house property stood in the name of Late B.R.Honavar at Bombay. There is no doubt about that the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of Late B.R.Honavar who is father of plaintiff.
13. Here in this case, defendants 2 and 3 adduced their oral evidence as DW1 and 2. At the initial stage of cross-examination of DW1 who is grand son of Late B.R.Honavar and son of PW1, deposed that his grand-father i.e., Late B.R.Honavar purchased the suit schedule property by selling the 18 O.S.No.6101/2008 house property situated at Mumbai. Further DW1 categorically denied and not admitted the suggestions put by counsel for the plaintiff that his grand-father Late B.R.Honavar purchased the suit schedule property by selling the property belongs to his great- grand-father i.e., father of Late B.R.Honavar. DW2 also in her cross-examination of admitted that there was a property stood in the name of her father Late B.R.Honavar and after selling that property, her father purchased the suit schedule property. So here from the cross-examination of PW1, DW1 and DW2, it is proved that the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of Late B.R.Honavar who is father of PW1 and grand-father of DW1 and father of DW2.
14. Now it is pertinent to know whether actually the plaintiff is residing along with the defendants as joint family member, as he took the same contention in the pleadings of the plaint. Here in the cross-examination of PW1, goes to show that he joined Philips India in the year 1976 after completion of his B.Sc. graduation. Then he married 19 O.S.No.6101/2008 one Mamata in the year 1983 and out of wedlock with said Mamata, the 2nd defendant Karan has been born. PW1 also admitted that he divorced his first wife Mamata in the year 1988 and got married for the second time in December 1988. PW1 also deposed that after divorce with first wife, his parents i.e., Late B.R.Honavar and defendant No.1 were looking after care and welfare of defendant No.2. Further the evidence of PW1 goes to show that after he got married second wife, he was out of country from 1988 to 1999. Even though PW1 not admitted the suggestions suggested by the counsel for the defendants that whereabouts of him was not informed to his parents, but admitted that there are no documents in order to show that some correspondences has been held in between him and his parents from 1988 till filing of this suit. The deposition of PW1 as above, goes to show that he has not at all resided and led his life by living with joint family members i.e., his parents and defendants 2 to
4. Further PW1 admitted that he has not at all 20 O.S.No.6101/2008 contributed money for purchasing the house property in the name of his father at Bombay. This itself goes to show that the suit schedule property is absolutely self-acquired property of Late B.R.Honavar. Moreover there are no documents maintained by PW1 in order to show that he has also contributed for repairing the house situated at Bombay which was sold by his father. PW1 also not at all maintained any document as to show that defendant Nos.3 and 4 relinquished their right over the suit schedule property by receiving their respective shares. PW1 categorically admitted that he has no personal knowledge about exact nature of share given to his sisters i.e., defendants 3 and 4.
15. Here in the cross-examination of PW1, the counsel for defendants 2 to 4 confronted the registered Gift Deed dt.26.6.2003 wherein, though PW1 not identified the signature of his father, but identified the photo copy of his father. Therefore the said registered Gift Deed is marked as Ex.D1 and the photograph identified by PW1 is marked as Ex.D1(a). 21 O.S.No.6101/2008 PW1 also deposed that he came to know that his father executed unregistered Will in favour of defendant No.2(DW1) in respect of ground floor of the suit schedule property. The said document after identified by PW1, is marked as Ex.D2. Now looking to the cross-examination of PW1 on 9.9.2014, he admitted that in the year 2004 only he met his father and that is his last meeting and he was with his father for about two hours. Here, the father of PW1 died in the year 2006. But PW1 deposed that when he met his father in the year 2004, at that time his father could not identify him and that he was not in a position to recognize anybody. So how far the oral evidence of PW1 can be believed since he himself deposed that there was no correspondence in between him with his father from 1988 till filing of this suit i.e., in the year 2008. Under these circumstances, the oral evidence of PW1 in his cross- examination that he met his father in the year 2004 is unbelievable and not trustworthy as to come for the opinion that his father was age-old and suffering 22 O.S.No.6101/2008 from chronic disease. Even PW2 is not sure about the date and year of death of father of PW1. In his cross- examination PW1 deposed that his father died in the month of May 2007. He admitted that his father might have died on 24.6.2006 as suggested by the counsel for the plaintiff. This goes to show that the plaintiff never resided in the family of Late B.R.Honavar along with defendants after he got married second wife in the month of December 1988. Therefore the plaintiff has never enjoyed the suit schedule property as coparcener along with his father Late B.R.Honavar and defendants 1 to 4. This goes to show that PW1 has already separated from the joint family belongs to Late B.R.Honavar soon after he got married second wife in the month of December 1988. If actually the father of PW1 was not in a sound state of mind and unable to understand the worldly affairs, then what prevented PW1 to produce the medical documents as to establish that his father was not in sound state of mind and not in healthy condition. But here PW1 admitted that he was aware the 23 O.S.No.6101/2008 reasons for executing the Will in favour of defendant No.2. PW1 also admitted that the relationship of him with his father was not at all good. Then what more is required as to establish the fact that PW1 has never resided and led his life along with his father Late B.R.Honavar and his mother deceased defendant No.1 and defendants 2 to 4. Here Ex.P1 and its translated copy are marked as Ex.P1(a), which is Sale Deed through which father of PW1 purchased the suit schedule property on 27.1.1992. So here as admitted in the cross-examination of PW1, at page 11, the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of father of PW1 i.e., Late B.R.Honavar. PW1 also admitted the suggestion suggested by the counsel for defendants 2 to 4 that as per the Gift Deed and Will he has no right over the suit schedule property. So here admissions in the cross-examination of PW1 establishes the fact that the suit schedule property has never remained as an ancestral property, after death of Late B.R.Honavar who is father of PW1, husband of 1st defendant and 24 O.S.No.6101/2008 grand-father of defendant No.2 and father of defendants 3 and 4.
16. In this case PW1 in his cross-examination of at para 11 admitted that there was no good relationship between him and his father Late B.R.Honavar. PW1 also admitted that he knew the reasons for which unregistered Will was executed in favour of his son i.e., defendant No.2. Now at this juncture, it is pertinent to know the contents of unregistered Will which is marked as Ex.D2. Ex.D2 is the unregistered Will Deed executed by Late B.R.Honavar in favour of defendant No.2 who is none other than his grand son and son of plaintiff. Here on perusal of the contents of Ex.D2, it is mentioned that his son PW1 divorced his first wife and married second wife. Further in para 2 of Ex.D2, it is mentioned that his son plaintiff did not behave properly according to the social status and traditions of the family. This goes to show that the admissions in the cross-examination of PW1 is corroborative compared to the contents written on Ex.D2 at para 2 25 O.S.No.6101/2008 to establish the fact that there is no good relationship between plaintiff with his father Late B.R.Honavar. Therefore the plaintiff after get divorced his wife, married a second wife and went abroad as admitted in his cross-examination. Hence there is no cordial relationship with him with his parents and sister i.e., defendants. The plaintiff has never bothered about care and welfare of his own son defendant No.2. This fact is admitted in his cross-examination. Under these circumstances the plaintiff has never enjoyed the suit schedule property as a joint family property of himself and defendants. Therefore the plaintiff is not entitled share in the suit schedule property. Here when the plaintiff utterly failed to prove that he is in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property or also fails to prove that the defendants are only in exclusive possession over the suit schedule property, then, under these circumstances, how can the plaintiff is entitled to claim mesne profit against the defendants. Hence I answered Issue Nos.1,2 and 6 in the negative.
26 O.S.No.6101/2008
ISSUE NO.3:
17. The burden of proving Issue No.3 lies on the defendants. In this case during the life time of 1st defendant, she independently filed a written statement. In the written statement filed by 1st defendant, she took contention that there was no joint family nucleus existed for purchasing the suit schedule property to her husband Late B.R.Honavar.
At para 10(a), the 1st defendant took contention that property bearing No.B 28/112, Sundaranagar, Santakruze (West) Mumbai has been purchased by Late B.R.Honavar out of his own earning as he was working in Grindlays Bank, Mumbai and retired during the year 1982. It is further contention of 1st defendant that Late B.R.Honavar sold the said property and out of the sale proceeds, purchased the suit schedule property on 21.1.1992 and all the revenue records stood in the name of Late B.R.Honavar. At this juncture it is better to know the admissions in the cross-examination of Pw1. PW1 in his cross-examination of at page 2 unequivocally 27 O.S.No.6101/2008 admitted that the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of Late B.R.Honavar who is father of plaintiff, husband of deceased 1st defendant, grand father of defendant No.2 and father of defendants 3 and 4. Even in the cross-examination of DW1 (defendant No.2), he deposed that there was no any ancestral property devolved on his grand father Late B.R.Honavar from his ancestors. In the cross- examination of DW1 and 2, they deposed that there was a house situated at Mumbai stood in the name of Late B.R.Honavar and he sold out the said property and purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1992. Therefore from the cross-examination of DWs1 and 2 and admissions in the cross-examination of PW1, itself goes to show that the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of Late B.R.Honavar who is father of plaintiff, husband of deceased 1st defendant, grand father of defendant No.2 and father of defendants 3 and 4. Further in the cross-examination of PW1, he admtted that he has not at all contributed any money for purchasing the 28 O.S.No.6101/2008 suit schedule property. This itself goes to show that there was no joint nucleus existed for purchasing the suit schedule property. Because Late B.R.Honavar was working in Grindlays Bank, he purchased the house property situated at Mumbai out of his own earnings and after retirement when he came to Bangalore, he purchased the suit schedule property after sold out the house situated at Mumbai. Therefore from the oral and documentary evidence and the admissions in the cross-examination of PW1, it is sufficient to establish the fact that the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of Late B.R.Honavar and he was enjoying the same as absolute owner till his death. Hence I answered Issue No.3 in the affirmative.
ISSUE NOS.4 AND 5:
18. Here, originally this suit is filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession and mesne profits. But during pendency of this suit, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1 under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. for amending the plaint by adding para 9(a) 29 O.S.No.6101/2008 and 9(b) after para 9. That I.A. was allowed and amendment was carried out by the plaintiff and amended plaint also furnished. Now looking to the amended plaint, at para 9(a), the plaintiff took contention that on 25.6.2003, Late B.R.Honavar executed a registered Gift Deed in favour of defendant No.3 and gifted terrace portion of the ground floor of the suit schedule property with a right to put up construction on it. The plaintiff took contention that alleged Gift Deed has been executed by his father Late B.R.Honavar behind his back and hence not binding on his share in the suit schedule property.
Therefore burden of proving Issue Nos.4 and 5 lies on defendant No.3 and 2 respective, because they are the beneficiary under the registered Gift Deed and unregistered Will Deed which is marked as Ex.D1 and D2 in the cross-examination of PW1.
19. Here defendant No.3 adduced her oral evidence as DW2 and in further chief examination of DW2, Ex.D1(b) to Ex.D1(m) which are the signatures of Late B.R.Honavar are identified by DW2 and also 30 O.S.No.6101/2008 identified her signature on Ex.D1. In the chief examination of DW2 at page 13 she stated that on 25.6.2003, Late B.R.Honavar executed a registered Gift Deed in favour of her and gifted terrace portion of the ground floor of the suit schedule property with a right to put up construction on it together with proportionate undivided share, right, title and interest in the property and the said Gift Deed was registered as document No.2049/2003-04 in the office of Sub Registrar, Rajajinagar, Bangalore and further it is stated that defendant No.3 has accepted the said Gift. Now it is just and proper to know the contents of Ex.D1. In Ex.D1 both schedule 'A' & 'B' properties are mentioned. Both 'A' & 'B' properties are pertaining to the suit schedule property. The 'A' schedule property is the ground floor of the building and 'B' schedule property is the terrace portion, which is the property gifted by Late B.R.Honavar with a right to put up construction on the existing ground floor to DW2. Para 2 of the Ex.D1 goes to show that Late B.R.Honavar has also handed over 31 O.S.No.6101/2008 vacant portion of the schedule property to donee(DW2) and DW2 acknowledged having taken delivery of the same. So here, as per Sec.122 of Transfer of Property Act, the 'B' schedule property as mentioned in Ex.D1 has been delivered to the donee and said donee received the delivery of said 'B' schedule property mentioned in Ex.D1 from the donor. Further the Gift Deed-Ex.D1 is a registered document. Therefore there is no infirmity in the execution of Ex.D1 by Late B.R.Honavar in gifting 'B' schedule property mentioned in Ex.D1 which is the terrace portion of the ground floor of the suit schedule property to his own daughter defendant No.3. Here in the cross-examination of DW2 there are no contradictions. Because there is no pressure, fraud or misrepresentation committed on Late B.R.Honavar while executing the Gift Deed in favour of his own daughter defendant No.3 as per Ex.D1. Here admittedly Late B.R.Honavar who is father of plaintiff, husband of deceased 1st defendant, grand father of defendant No.2 and father of defendants 3 32 O.S.No.6101/2008 and 4 is a literate and educated person as he did his work in Grindlays Bank at Mumbai. Therefore in the cross-examination of DW2 goes to show that Late B.R.Honavar was aged about 70 or 80 years old, but he was in sound state of mind and healthy while executing the Gift Deed in favour of defendant No.2 as per Ex.D1. In the cross-examination of DW2 she deposed that before entering the Sub Registrar Office on 25.6.2003, the contents of Gift Deed have been got typed through advocate engaged. But said advocate was not present while Gift Deed got registered before the Sub Registrar. DW2 also deposed that her father Late B.R.Honavar has put his signature on Ex.D1 in presence of Sub Registrar in the Sub Registrar office and the witness DW3 and another witness also put signature on Ex.D1. One of the witnesses i.e., DW3 put his signature on Ex.D1 as Ex.D1(n). From the cross-examination of DWs.1 and 2, it reveals that DW3 who is the witness for Ex.D1 is the friend of husband of DW2. So here even though there is an intimacy in between husband of 33 O.S.No.6101/2008 DW2 with DW3 to put signature on Ex.D1, it is not sufficient to infer that Ex.D1 is concocted and created document by DW2 colluding with her husband and witness DW3 as suggested by the counsel for the plaintiff. Further in the cross- examination of DW2 goes to show that her mother deceased defendant No.1 was alive while executing Gift Deed as per Ex.D1 by Late B.R.Honavar in favour of her. But here no any arrangement has been made to deceased defendant No.1 while executing Ex.D1 by Late B.R.Honavar, is also not sufficient to infer that Ex.D1 is defective and illegal, since proportionate property has not been allotted to family members while execution of Ex.D1 by Late B.R.Honavar in favour of his daughter DW2. No one has objected regarding the registered Gift Deed executed by Late B.R.Honavar in favour of his own daughter defendant No.3(DW2) from the year 2003. The cross-examination of DW2 goes to show that defendant No.4 was also present. This goes to show that defendant No.4 had also knowledge about the 34 O.S.No.6101/2008 execution of Gift Deed as per Ex.D1 by Late B.R.Honavar in favour of defendant No.3 who is sister of defendant No.4. Further in the cross- examination of DW1 at page 8 goes to show that the information was given to defendant No.4 regarding the execution of registered Gift Deed as per Ex.D1 and also regarding execution of unregistered Will Ex.D2 in favour of Defendant No.2. Even in the cross-examination of DW1 he deposed that his grand-father Late B.R.Honavar was in sound state of mind and healthy manner while executing registered Gift Deed as per Ex.D1 and also unregistered Gift Deed as per Ex.D2.
20. Here a question raises as to why Late B.R.Honavar had intention to execute registered Gift Deed in favour of his daughter defendant No.3 and unregistered Will Deed in favour of his grand son as per Ex.D2. On perusing the contents of Ex.D2 at page 2, it reveals that Late B.R.Honavar is a religious minded person used to give importance for the customs, traditions and rituals for attaining 35 O.S.No.6101/2008 spirituality. At para 2 of Ex.D2 it is mentioned that his son, the plaintiff after divorcing his wife again married second wife which is inter-caste one. It is also mentioned that his son plaintiff is residing abroad in Gulf country without having any sort of relationship with his parents. It is further mentioned that if the plaintiff begets any children out of second marriage, none of the children, if born, out of second marriage including the plaintiff shall have right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. In the cross-examination of DW1 at page 7 itself reveals that his father, the plaintiff resided with Late B.R.Honavar upto 1987. Here the plaintiff instead of taking care and welfare of his parents in their old-age went to abroad country without bothering about life of his father and mother after he got married second wife. Therefore Late B.R.Honavar looking to the attitude and behaviour of his only son, frustrated and lost hopes upon his son. Thus Late B.R.Honavar determined to make some testamentary document in respect of suit schedule property.
36 O.S.No.6101/2008
21. In this case, Late B.R.Honavar executed unregistered Will Deed dt.25.6.2003 which is marked as Ex.D2 in the cross-examination of PW1. The main contention of the counsel for the plaintiff is that Late B.R.Honavar was not healthy at the time of execution of Gift Deed as well as Will Deed on the same date, month and year, as he was 80 years old and suffering from chronic disease. It is further contention of the plaintiff that Ex.D1 and D2 are created and concocted documents by playing fraud behind back of him. Here, admittedly the enforcement of the Will would come into effect after the death of Executor. Therefore, Will has to be proved genuinely by propounder himself who has introduced and produced Will by removing suspicious circumstances. In this case Late B.R.Honavar died on 29.4.2006 and wife of Late B.R.Honavar i.e., deceased defendant No.1 died on 3.11.2016. Here it is pertinent to know as to why Late B.R.Honavar intended to execute the Will in favour of defendant No.2 who is his grand son and also son of plaintiff. With regard to the intention 37 O.S.No.6101/2008 of Late B.R.Honavar which caused to execute unregistered Will Deed has been elaborately discussed at para 20 of the Judgment. However looking to the contents of Ex.D1 and admissions in the cross-examination of PW1 goes to show that the plaintiff who is the only son of Late B.R.Honavar got divorced his first wife in the year 1988 and got married second wife in the month of December 1988. The 2nd defendant was born to the plaintiff through first wife. Soon after the plaintiff got married second wife, he has forgotten to take responsibility of his parents and family then went abroad with his second wife. Therefore Late B.R.Honavar and his wife deceased defendant No.1 took care and custody of 2nd defendant who is son of plaintiff and grand son of Late B.R.Honavar. On perusal of the contents of Ex.D2, goes to show that the family of Late B.R.Honavar is traditional family giving much importance for spirituality. The plaintiff, against the Well and wishes of Late B.R.Honavar got married second wife and went abroad. Hence in Ex.D2, Late 38 O.S.No.6101/2008 B.R.Honavar stated that marriage of his son with second wife is inter-caste one which is against the traditional family of Late B.R.Honavar. It is also mentioned in Ex.D2 that if the plaintiff begets any children out of second marriage, none of the children out of second marriage including the plaintiff shall have right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. This goes to show that Late B.R.Honavar himself, after retirement, brought up his only grand- son ie.., defendant No.2 by giving good education. Hence in order to maintain traditional family of Late B.R.Honavar, he made up his mind with love and affection on his grand-son thinking that his grand- son i.e., 2nd defendant would protect the suit schedule property with maintaining dignity and respect of the family and then executed unregistered Will Deed in favour of his only grand-son, the 2nd defendant who is son of plaintiff as per Ex.D2.
22. Looking to the facts mentioned in Ex.D2, goes to show that Late B.R.Honavar by making arrangement for maintenance of his wife-deceased 39 O.S.No.6101/2008 defendant No.1, executed unregistered Will Deed in favour of his grand son as per Ex.D2. The suit schedule property as mentioned in Ex.D2 is ground floor premises bearing No.8 formed in the layout of SBM Officers House Building Society Ltd., Bangalore in Sy.No.74/2, 84/2, 85 and 86, Mathikere village, Bangalore. Said schedule property as mentioned in Ex.D2 is bequeathed by Late B.R.Honavar in favour of his grand-son, the 2nd defendant with a condition that said property shown "B" in the schedule of Ex.D2 shall be enjoyed by his wife till her death. Further it is also mentioned that 2nd defendant has no right, title and interest over the suit schedule property mentioned in Ex.D2 during the life time of his wife-deceased defendant No.1. After demise of wife of Late B.R.Honavar, then only the 2nd defendant will become lawful owner of the suit schedule property i.e., ground floor of RCC building as mentioned in Ex.D2. So here Late B.R.Honavar by executing Ex.D1 in favour of his daughter-defendant No.3 and also by executing unregistered Will Deed in 40 O.S.No.6101/2008 favour of his grand-son i.e., defendant No.2 as per Ex.D2 made arrangement in respect of suit schedule property. Here the only contention of the plaintiff is that Late B.R.Honavar has not at all made any arrangement in Will by allotting any portion in the suit schedule property in favour of his own son, on the reasons given at para 20 of the Judgment. Hence unregistered Will Deed got created as alleged by the defendants 2 and 3 behind the back of plaintiff canot be tenable as illegal. So here defendants No.2 to 4 have been impleaded as per the order passed on I.A.Nos.2 and 3 filed under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Sec.151 C.P.C. The defendant No.4 has been separately impleaded as per order passed on I.A.No.2. Here the RPAD acknowledgment available on record goes to show that defendant No.4 herself received the notice of I.A.No.3 and also summons. The counsel Sri K.V.S. appeared on behalf of defendants 2 to 4. Here defendants 2 to 4 have not filed separate written statement,but during the life time of defendant No.1, only filed written statement. In the said written 41 O.S.No.6101/2008 statement at para Nos.11 to 13, it is the contention took by the 1st defendant that Late B.R.Honavar executed registered Gift Deed in favour of defendant No.3 and unregistered Will Deed in favour of defendant No.2. Then the plaint was amended and new para Nos.9(a) and (b) are added and after that defendants 2 to 4 were brought on record. Here the acknowledgment received by defendant No.4 available on record goes to show that she is residing in the address as mentioned in causetitle of the plaint and address of defendants 1 to 3 is also same. Therefore in the cross-examination of PW1 at page 8, he deposed that the 4th defendant had come to the house of Late B.R.Honavar after one week of execution of unregistered Will Deed as per Ex.D2 and it was also informed through the phone regarding the writing of Ex.D1 and D2. So here Late B.R.Honavar, during his life time while executing Ex.D1 and D2 has not suppressed any material fact regarding execution of registered Gift Deed in favour of defendant No.3 and also execution of unregistered 42 O.S.No.6101/2008 Will Deed in favour of defendant No.2. So under these circumstances, how the plaintiff is contending that defendant Nos.2 to 4 have created and concocted the registered Gift Deed as per Ex.D1 and unregistered Will Deed as per Ex.D2 behind the back of him. Now looking to the cross-examination of DW1(defendant No.2) at page 11, he admitted that as per the documents i.e., Gift Deed and Will Deed, he has no right over the suit schedule property. This itself sufficient to draw inference that the plaintiff had knowledge about execution of registered Gift Deed as per Ex.D1 in favour of defendant No.3 and also execution of unregistered Will Deed as per Ex.D2 in favour of defendant No.2 prior to filing of this suit. So here as per Ex.D1 and D2, the names of defendants 2 and 3 are not got entered in respect of suit schedule property, because there is condition precedent mentioned in Ex.D2 that till the demise of wife of Late B.R.Honavar by name Smt.Vasanta(deceased defendant No.1), the 2nd defendant Will have no right, title and interest over 43 O.S.No.6101/2008 the suit schedule property. Even though no such condition is mentioned in Ex.D1, but the name of defendant No.3 would not have get entered, till the demise of Smt.Vasanta, defendant No.3 would get absolute right for enjoying the possession of terrace portion of the ground floor of the suit schedule property after death of 1st defendant. That is why the names of defendants 2 and 3 have not got entered in respect of suit schedule property on the strength of Ex.D1 and D2.
23. The counsel for the plaintiff relied on the reported decision in ILR 2008 KAR 2115 in the case of Sri J.T.Surappa and Another Vs Sri Satchidhanandendra Saraswathi Swamiji(Public Charitable Trust and Others), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in caption (A) observed that as per Sec.2(b) of the Indian Succession Act, there are five steps to be considered by the Court under the said act that the Will must be valid, should be reduced in writing, signed by the testator, shall be attested by two or more witnesses and at least one 44 O.S.No.6101/2008 attesting witness shall be examined. If these legal requirements are not found, in the eye of law there is no Will at all.
24. So also the learned counsel relied on another reported decision in (2015) 8 Supreme Court Cases 615 in the cae of Jagdish Chand Sharma V/s Narain Singh Saini(dead)through Legal representatives and others, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that it is mandatory requirement of S.68 of the Evidence Act r/w.Sec.63(c) of Succession Act to prove the Will.
25. The learned counsel relied on another reported decision in (1977) 1 Supreme Court Cases 369 in the case of Smt.Jaswant Kaur V/s Smt.Amrit Kaur and others, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that where there exists the suspicious circumstances in execution of Will, further proof of the said Will ceases.
26. The learned counsel also relied on another reported decision in (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 45 O.S.No.6101/2008 780 in the case of Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi V/s Yumnam Joykumar Singh and others , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that Sec.63 of the Indian Succession Act,1925 is mandatory requirement for proving the Will through the attesting witnesses and propounder should examine at least one attesting witness to prove the Will.
27. Also relied on another reported decision in AIR 1959 SC 443 in the case of H.Venkatachala Iyengar V/s B.N.Thimmajamma and others, wherein at para 19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the Will was signed by the testator and that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind and that the testator understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free Will.
46 O.S.No.6101/2008
28. The counsel for the plaintiff relied on the reported decision in AIR 1973 BOM 242 in the case of Ramkrishna Ganpat Futane V/s Mohammad Kasam Mohammad Naki, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay observed that the execution of a document is different and registration of the document is difference. Execution of the document requires sufficient proof. Mere registration of document does not dispense with the necessity of proof of execution.
29. From the above reported decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High Courts, it is explicitly clear that Will has to be proved as per the provisions of Sec.63 of the Indian Succession Act,1925 and also as per Sec.68 of Indian Evidence Act,1872. It means the testator has to put his signature in presence of attesting witnesses who in turn put their signature in the presence the testator, so also the signature put by the attesting witnesses shall be acknowledged by Executor of the Will. Therefore as per the provisions of Sec.68 of the Indian Evidence Act, two attesting witnesses have to 47 O.S.No.6101/2008 put signature on the Will and out of two witnesses, at least one attesting witness has to be examined for the purpose of proving execution of Will. Here the propounder defendant No.2 who is beneficiary of the unregistered Will Deed(Ex.D2) executed by Late B.R.Honavar has adduced his oral evidence as DW1. In the chief examination of DW1 at para 14, it is mentioned that his grand-father who is father of the plaintiff executed unregistered Will Deed on 25.6.2003 which is marked as Ex.D2 in the cross- examination of PW1. In the cross-examination of DW1, in page 9, he deposed that his grand-father Late B.R.Honavar was in hale and healthy manner at the time of executing the registered Gift Deed as per Ex.D1 in favour of defendant No.3(DW2) and also at the time of executing unregistered Will Deed in favour of him as per Ex.D2. Again in the cross-examination of DW1, goes to show that at the end days of Late B.R.Honavar in the year 2005, he was suffering from loss of memory. Further in the oral evidence of DWs.2 and 3, they have categorically denied and not 48 O.S.No.6101/2008 admitted the suggestions suggested by counsel for the plaintiff that Late B.R.Honavar was bed-ridden and suffering from chronical disease. Here the plaintiff has not produced any medical document as to show that Late B.R.Honavar was suffering from disease and bedridden. Here the propounder DW1 who is grand-son of Late B.R.Honavar also identified signature of his grand-father i.e., Late B.R.Honavar on Ex.D2 marked as Ex.D2(a) to D2(d) and also on Ex.D1 marked as Ex.D1(b) to Deceased defendant No.1(m). Further looking to the cross-examination of DW2 at page 7, goes to show that she was at Delhi when Late B.R.Honavar has executed registered Gift Deed in favour of defendant No.3 and also unregistered Will Deed in favour of him. Therefore there is no any undue influence or fraud committed by anybody, as suggested, on Late B.R.Honavar while executing Ex.D1 and D2. So here from the cross- examination of DW1 to 3 goes to show that Late B.R.Honavar was in sound state of mind and was in the capacity of understanding before executing Ex.D1 49 O.S.No.6101/2008 and D2. Here looking to the signature on Ex.D1 and D2 belongs to Late B.R.Honavar, there is no any shaky in signing the signature of Late B.R.Honavar which are marked as Ex.D1(b) and D1(m) and D2(a) to D2(d). This itself goes to show that Late B.R.Honavar was healthy at the time of executing Ex.D1 and D2. Moreover in the cross-examination of DWs.1 to 3, nowhere it is specifically suggested that the signatures on Ex.D1 and D2 are not at all signed by Late B.R.Honavar and not belongs to him. Here, from the evidence of DWs.1 to 3 and also in the cross-examination, it is proved that the testator or executant i.e.,Late B.R.Honavar with an intention to execute Ex.D1 and D2, transferred the terrace portion above ground floor of the suit schedule property in favour of his own daughter defendant No.3 and bequeathed the ground floor of the suit schedule property in favour of his grand-son i.e., defendant No.2. voluntarily and not on the pressure of anybody. Because Late B.R.Honavar was educated and well literate person. Therefore, Late B.R.Honavar 50 O.S.No.6101/2008 after knowing the contents of Ex.D2 while in sound state of mind, put his signature and bequeathed the ground floor of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2(DW1)by executing unregistered Will Deed i.e., Ex.D2.
30. Here, in order to prove the genuinity or validity of the unregistered Will Deed i.e., Ex.D2, one attesting witness is examined as DW3. DW3 not only the witness for Ex.D1, but also attesting witness for Ex.D3. In the cross-examination of DW1 to 3, it discloses that DW3 is the friend of husband of DW2. So here suspicion cannot be raised on the veracity of oral evidence of DW3 merely because he is close friend to the family of Late B.R.Honavar. Late B.R.Honavar is educated person and all his family members are educated persons. Under these circumstances Late B.R.Honavar while he was in hale and healthy condition at the age of 80 years, executed the registered Gift Deed as per Ex.D1 in favour of DW2 and also unregistered Will Deed as per Ex.D2 in favour of DW1. Here on perusing the oral 51 O.S.No.6101/2008 evidence of DW3 in the cross-examination goes to show that the contents of Ex.D1 and D2 are got typed through one advocate on the information given by Late B.R.Honavar in his own house. Then the Gift Deed as per Ex.D1 was registered in the Sub Registrar Office. Thereafter after two hours of the Gift Deed registered, the unregistered Will Deed again executed by Late B.R.Honavar in his house and the contents of Ex.D2 also got typed in his house by the counsel on the information given by Late B.R.Honavar. Here from the oral evidence of DW3, it reveals that Late B.R.Honavar had already informed about executing Gift Deed and Will Deed before DW3 prior to writing Ex.D1 and D2. Therefore DW3 identified the signature of Late B.R.Honavar on Ex.D2 in his chief examination. Therefore DW3, who is the attesting witness on Ex.D2 put his signature which was acknowledged by Late B.R.Honavar who is executant of Ex.D2. Therefore, the legal requirement as per Sec.68(c) of Hindu Succession Act and as per Sec.68 of the Indian Evidence Act, has been fulfilled 52 O.S.No.6101/2008 on perusal of oral evidence of DWs.1 to 3. The strange thing here to be noted that in the cross- examination of PW1, he himself admitted that he had no right and title over the suit schedule property as per the registered Gift Deed and unregistered Will Deed executed by his father Late B.R.Honavar. Therefore, the principles observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and various Hon'ble High Courts as per the above reported decisions relied on by the counsel for the plaintiff is fulfilled in order to arrive for the conclusion that the Will Deed executed by Late B.R.Honavar in favour of his grand-son DW1 is a genuine and valid. The plaintiff has not got examined any independent witnesses. Here pleadings the pleadings of the plaint amended at para 9(a) and
(b) by inserting and denying about execution of registered Gift Deed as per Ex.D1 and unregistered Will Deed as per Ex.D2 in order to prove that Late B.R.Honavar was bed-ridden and suffering from chronic diseases in his old age.
53 O.S.No.6101/2008
31. But here the plaintiff has not established that there were suspicious circumstances existed while executing the registered Gift Deed in favour of defendant No.3 and unregistered Will Deed in favour of defendant No.2. On the other hand the defendants 2 and 3 removed the suspicious circumstances by leading cogent and confidential oral and documentary evidence. Viewed from any angle and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and oral evidence of DWs1 to 3, it is proved that Late B.R.Honavar has executed registered Gift Deed in favour of his daughter defendant No.3 and unregistered Will Deed in favour of his grand-son defendant No.2 while he was hale and healthy with understanding the consequences of execution of Ex.D1 and D2. Hence I answered Issue Nos.4 and 5 in the affirmative.
31. ISSUE NO.7: In view of the foregoing discussion, observation made on Issue Nos.1 to 6, the court proceeds to pass the following order:- 54 O.S.No.6101/2008
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. Under such circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the judgment Writer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of January 2018) (DEVANAND PUTTAPPA NAYAK) XXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiffs P.W.1 Chaitanya Honavar List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiffs :
Ex.P1 Certified copy of Sale Deed
dt.24.1.1992
Ex.P1(a) Typed copy of Ex.P1
Ex.P2 Genealogical tree
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendants :
DW1 Karan Chaianya Honnavar
DW2 Mrs.Suman Domblekar
55 O.S.No.6101/2008
DW3 Kiran Bobby K.N.
List of documents marked on behalf of the Defendants :
Ex.D1 Gift Deed dt.25.6.2003
Ex.D1(a) Photograph
Ex.D1(b) Signatures of grand-
to father of DW1
Ex.D1(m)
Ex.D1(n) Signature of DW3
Ex.D2 WILL
Ex.D2(a) Signature of author of
to (e) the Will
XXXVIII Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
56 O.S.No.6101/2008