Bangalore District Court
Smt.J.L.Bharathi Srinivas vs J.L.Rajashekar on 19 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE
AT BANGALORE [CCH.No.42]
PRESENT:
SRI. KASANAPPA NAIK. M.A., LL.M.
XLI Addl. City Civil Judge
Dated this the 19th day of October 2019
O.S.No.4339/2016
PLAINTIFF : Smt.J.L.Bharathi Srinivas
D/o J.N.Lakshminarayan & G.P.Rajamma
Wife of M.Srinivas
Aged about 48 years
Residing at No.58, 1st Floor
Chikkannamma Temple Street
Sunkalpete Cross
Bengaluru-560 002
(By Sri.M.G.H.S., Advocate)
V/s.
DEFENDANTS : 1. J.L.Rajashekar
S/o J.N.Lakshminarayan &
G.P.Rajamma
Aged about 53 years
Residing at No.478,
Shabarigiri 1st Floor
4th Cross, 4th Main, Opp:BDA Park
Teacher's Colony
Bengaluru-560 034
2. Smt.J.L.Sarala Prakash
D/o J.N.Lakshminarayan &
G.P.Rajamma
2 OS No.4339/2016
W/o M.Prakash Babu
Aged about 55 years
Residing at No.373, Opp. To BHEL
Layout Park, Rajarajeshwarinagar
Bengaluru-560 098
3. Smt.J.L.Nirmala Murthy
D/o J.N.Lakshminarayan &
G.P.Rajamma
W/o Narasimha Murthy
Aged about 42 years
Residing at No.182, Sushma Garden
Arakere, Bannerghatta Road,
Bengaluru-560 076.
(D1 By Sri.N.R.N., Advocate
D2 & D3 exparte)
Date of Institution of the Suit: 15.06.2016
Nature of the suit
(Suit on Pronote, suit for Partition & separate
declaration & possession, suit possession
for injunction)
Date of commencement of 30.08.2018
recording of evidence:
Date on which the Judgment 19.10.2019
was pronounced:
Total Duration: Year/s Month/s Day/s
03 04 04
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff has filed this suit for directing the defendants to effect partition of suit schedule properties by 3 OS No.4339/2016 metes and bounds and put her in separate possession of her 1/4th share in the suit schedule property, for mesne profit and to award costs of the suit.
2. The facts of the case are as under:
The 1st defendant is the brother and 2nd and 3rd defendants are the sisters of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 are the children of J.N.Lakshminarayan and Late.G.P.Rajamma and they constitute Undivided Hindu Family. The plaintiff's father J.N.Lakshminarayana expired on 18.7.1997. After the death of J.N.Lakshminarayana, plaintiff's mother G.P.Rajamma brought up the plaintiff and defendants. G.P.Rajamma was a teacher by profession and out of her earnings, she purchased property bearing No.236, Prashantha Nilaya, 3rd Cross, 5th main, Teachers Colony, Kendriya Upadyayara Sanga Layout, Venkatapura, Koramangala, Bengaluru (hereinafter 'suit schedule 4 OS No.4339/2016 property' for short) in her name and another bearing No.478, Shabarigiri, 4th Cross, 4th Main, Teacher's Colony, Bengaluru in the name of 1st defendant. (no relief claimed about this property) It is further case of the plaintiff that her mother G.P.Rajamma died intestate on 9.2.2009 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 to succeed to her estate. After the death of G.P.Rajamma, since 1st defendant is male member of the joint family and managing the affairs of the joint family, the plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3 had no objection to transfer the katha and other revenue documents pertaining to schedule property into the name of 1st defendant.
It is further contended that taking advantage of the property in the name of 1st defendant, the defendants No.2 and 3 colluding with 1st defendant, acting adversely to the interest of joint family. Defendants with active connivance of each other are trying to dispose the schedule property for 5 OS No.4339/2016 their luxuries, which is detrimental to the interest of joint family. When the plaintiff questioned illegal acts, all the defendants colluding with each other started to misuse the joint family properties and funds. Hence, plaintiff demanded for partition of the schedule property. However, the defendants did not change their attitude and in turn, developed ill-will towards the plaintiff and started to act adversely to the interest of joint family.
It is further contended that the defendants colluding with each other with malafide intention to deprive her legitimate share in the joint family property have made hectic efforts to alienate the suit schedule property. Thereafter, she failed to get partition of the suit schedule property and hence caused legal notice to the defendants on 19.3.2016 calling upon them to effect partition of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds and put the plaintiff in 1/4th share in the suit schedule property. Thus, 6 OS No.4339/2016 cause of action arose and suit is filed for the relief referred above.
3. In pursuance to suit summons served upon defendants, but defendant No.1 only appeared through his Advocate and whereas defendants No.2 and 3 remained exparte.
4. The defendant No.1 has filed his written statement denying plaint claim and allegations. Defendant No.1 admitted that he is brother of plaintiff, but denied the genealogy produced by the plaintiff, since it is not giving true picture of the family members. He alleged that plaintiff is not a member of Joint Hindu Family and she is not entitled to seek partition of the suit schedule property. He admitted that his father has expired and after his death his mother brought up children, but denied that his mother purchased property in her name and in the name of 1st 7 OS No.4339/2016 defendant. The defendant No.1 denied that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share in suit schedule property.
The defendant No.1 has taken up defence that he being only son and male member of the family after the death of his father, took entire responsibility of managing the family and performed the marriage of his 3 sisters including plaintiff. He stated that he made efforts to settle the plaintiff and other defendants in life. He has given a brief history of his family stating that in the year 1981 his family was staying in a rented house at R.R.M.R. Extension, Bengaluru by paying rent of Rs.400/- p.m. and at that time i.e. on 29.41981 the marriage of 2nd defendant was performed. The 1st defendant secured job in Vitari Enterprises at Bengaluru on 23.7.1986 as a sales representative and earning a salary of Rs.900/- p.m. On 25.2.1987 his family was shifted to a rented house in Koramangala by paying a rent of Rs.1,200/- and advance of Rs.15,000/-, which was arranged by 1st defendant. He 8 OS No.4339/2016 claimed to be arranged for performing 'earth braking ceremony' of the Site No.236 at Teachers Colony, Koramangala, whereon, the suit property is standing, which was allotted o his mother. The marriage of 1st defendant was performed on 10.3.1988. he claimed to have performed the marriage of plaintiff on 21.9.1988 at Moola Rangappa Kalyana Mantapa, Bengaluru in a very grand manner by contributing finance. It is further stated that he constructed ground floor of the house of the suit property in the year 1988 and house warming ceremony was held in the year 1989 and he claimed to have rendered financial assistance in constructing the suit house. The marriage of 1st defendant was performed on 24.5.1991 at Moola Rangappa Kalyana Mantapa, Bengaluru. In the year 1993 the mother of 1st defendant requested him to construct two rooms in 1st floor of schedule property and he in the year 1994 constructed two rooms on the suit property by spending Rs.70,000/-. On 9.2.1995 he 9 OS No.4339/2016 performed the marriage of defendant No.3 at Srinivasa Kalyana Mantapa and reception was held and he claimed to have spent money for the said marriage. Immediately after his retirement, the father of 1st defendant in the year 1985 has suffered paralysis stroke and he was treated in NIMHANS as well as St.John's Hospital, Bengaluru for 25 days as inpatient and defendant No.1 claimed to have borne medical expenses. He claimed to have borne nursing home charges during delivery of a baby boy by 3rd defendant in the year 1996 and claimed to have borne post delivery expenses including naming ceremony etc. His mother was retired from service on 30.2.1986. He lost his job in the year 2000 and as per the say of his mother, he constructed the 1st floor in the suit property and let out the same on rent. He claimed to have constructed 1st floor by utilizing his retirement benefits, savings and sale of his wife's gold and thus the cost of 1st floor was reached upto Rs.5,50,000/-. Further, as per instruction nof his mother, 10 OS No.4339/2016 he took up construction of 2nd and 3rd floors on 25.9.2006 on the suit property. His mother fell sick and he claimed to have borne medical expenses of Rs.8,50,000/- Even in the month of January 2009, his mother was again hospitalized and again he incurred expenses of Rs.8,50,000/-. Her mother died on 9.2.2009.
It is alleged that plaintiff wanted to perform the marriage of her son with daughter of 1st defendant, but 1st defendant was not willing for the marriage, because of a close blood relation. The plaintiff became very much frustrated with this. When the marriage of daughter of 1st defendant was scheduled on 18.5.2016, the plaintiff out of frustration and to teach lesson to these defendants has filed this false suit. Thus, he contended that he has sacrificed his life for the well being and welfare of his family members. He being only male member in the family must own and possess the suit property for himself as he worked hard for improving the suit property. If the plaintiff wants 11 OS No.4339/2016 share in the suit property, then she has to share the improvement charges incurred by the 1st defendant. The plaintiff is well settled in life having lot of assets and there is no need for her to claim share in the suit property. She is not entitle for any share in the suit property as the same is given to him by his mother. Thus, with these among other grounds the defendant No.1 prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed:
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that herself and defendants constitute Joint Hindu Family?
2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that their mother G.P.Rajamma purchased the suit schedule property out of her earnings?
3) Whether the plaintiff further proves that the suit schedule property is 12 OS No.4339/2016 the joint family property of herself and defendants?
4) Whether the plaintiff is entitle for reliefs sought for?
5) What order or decree?
6. In support of his claim, the plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and produced documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.13 and closed the side. In support of his case, the defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1 and produced documents as per Ex.D.1 to D.79.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record including written arguments filed by learned counsel for the plaintiff.
8. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 to 4 : In the affirmative
Issue No.5 : As per the final order,
for the following
13 OS No.4339/2016
REASONS
9. ISSUE No.1 TO 4:- Since these issues are
interconnected with each other hence they are taken together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that there is ample evidence on record to show that the suit property is self acquired property of mother of plaintiff - G.P.Rajamma and such being the case after the death of her mother, the plaintiff is entitled for definite share in the suit property, which comes to 1/4th share. It is further argued that the defendant No.1 though claimed to have contributed to purchase the suit property, but no documents produced to prove the same. There is no evidence to show that the defendant No.1 has contributed anything with her mother to purchase the suit property. Thus, prayed to decree the suit.
14 OS No.4339/2016
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 contended that the defendant No.1 has produced ample evidence on record to show that he has looked after his mother and so also contributed money to purchase the suit property and so also while constructing the suit property. It is further argued that the 1st defendant has performed the marriage of plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3 by contributing amount and thereafter, he has borne expenses arise during delivery of his sisters and also post delivery expenses. Thus, contended that the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and plaintiff has no right to claim share in the suit schedule property and thus prayed to dismiss the suit.
12. Keeping in mind the rival submissions, I carefully perused the materials on record. In this case, as 15 OS No.4339/2016 I already narrated, PW1 has filed his evidence affidavit narrating material facts of the plaint. The PW1 has categorically deposed that suit property was purchased by her mother and that she died intestate on 9.2.2009 and herself and defendants No.1 to 3 being legal heirs of her mother have right to succeed her estate. She also deposed that after the death of her mother, defendants No.1 to 3 tried to dispose off the suit schedule property misusing the facts that suit property is standing in the name of 1st defendant. She has also stated that she got issued legal notice to the defendants on 19.3.2016 calling upon them to effect partition and when they failed to reply, the suit is filed.
13. The plaintiff produced the documentary evidence. Ex.P.1 is genealogy of family of plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3, Ex.P.2 is certified copy of sale deed dated 30.6.2004 executed by Kendra Upadhyayara Sangha 16 OS No.4339/2016 (Regd), Basavanagudi, Bengaluru in favour of G.P.Rajamma i.e. mother of the parties to the suit, Ex.P.3 is katha extract of suit property standing in the name of J.L.Rajashekar/1st defendant as on 7.12.2015, Ex.P.4 and 5 two encumbrances of suit property, Ex.P.6 is death certificate of G.P.Rajamma, who died on 9.2.2009, Ex.P.7 is office copy of legal notice dated 19.3.2016 issued by plaintiff to the defendants No.1 to 3 calling upon them to effect partition of the suit schedule property, Ex.P.8 to 10 are 3 postal receipts for having sent legal notice to the defendants No.1 to 3, Ex.P.11 to 13 are RPAD covers sent to defendant No.1 to 3 respectively along with acknowledgments and notices contained therein.
14. The PW1 was cross-examined by learned counsel for the defendant No.1, wherein she has denied that 1st defendant performed the marriage of herself and defendants No.2 and 3 out of his own earnings. She has 17 OS No.4339/2016 denied that the 1st defendant has financially helped to perform the marriage of herself and defendants No.2 and 3. She has denied that the house in the suit property was constructed by defendant No.1 by spending his own earnings. She admitted that she has not contributed any amount for construction of suit property, but she reiterated that her mother constructed the house in the suit property. She has denied that as per the instruction of her mother, the defendant No.1 spent his earnings to construct the suit property. She has admitted that there was no family business in their family. She has denied that she is not a member of joint family.
15. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 has also filed his evidence affidavit narrating material facts of his written statement. He deposed categorically that the plaintiff is not a member of joint family and she is not entitled for partition of suit property. He deposed that he 18 OS No.4339/2016 performed the marriage of plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3. He further deposed that he constructed ground floor in the suit property in the year 1988 and financially helped in constructing the house. He has further deposed that he got treatment to his mother at NIMHANS and St.John's Hospital and borne medical expenses. He further deposed that he has spent Rs.8,50,000/- for the treatment of his mother. He further deposed that he has spent Rs.5,51,000/- for construction of 1st floor in the suit property by utilizing his retirement benefits, savings and by sale of his wife's gold. He also deposed that for the treatment of his mother second time in Mallya Hospital, he has borne medical expenses of Rs.8,50,000/-. He has even deposed that he was paying Rs.2,000/- p.m. to his mother out of the rent realized from the suit property. He has produced documentary evidence.
19 OS No.4339/2016
16. Ex.D.1 is increment certificate of defendant No.1 along with Annexure - I, which reveals that he was sanctioned with increment in the month of April 2012 by his employer, Ex.D.2 is appointment letter of defendant No.1, which reveals that he was appointed as Manager w.e.f. 18th March 2003 on total salary of Rs.10,000/- p.m. Ex.D.3 is copy of resignation letter of defendant No.1, which reveals that he was resigned from the service on 12.7.2012. Ex.D.4 is relieving letter of defendant No.1, which reveals that he was relieved from the service w.e.f. 13.8.2012, Ex.D.5 is call letter on 23.7.1986issued to defendant No.1 by Vitari Enterprises calling upon him to approach them immediately for further action, Ex.D.6 is estimate of materials for construction of building, Ex.D.7 is receipt regarding purchase of materials, Ex.D.8 is tax invoice of materials purchased, Ex.D.9 is purchase bill for Rs.11,725/-, Ex.D.10 and D.11 are letters of estimate for proposed residential building of 2nd and 3rd floor at suit 20 OS No.4339/2016 property with annexure, Ex.D.12 is Letter of Govindraju.P., Contractor to release the balance payment spent towards construction of building with annexure, Ex.D.13 and Ex.D.14 are Letters of Accountant General, Karnataka with Annexure regarding finalization of pension claims of mother of the plaintiff - G.P.Rajamma, Ex.D.15 is Letter of District Treasury Officer with regard to fixation of pension of mother of plaintiff, Ex.D.16 is Statement of account of Canara bank of mother of plaintiff, Ex.D.17 is Statement of account of Syndicate bank of mother of plaintiff, Ex.D.18 is Letter of Bharath Electronics Ltd. to father of plaintiff along with cheque for Rs.39,173/- towards arrears of wages, Ex.D.19 is bill cum receipt of Narayana Hrudayalaya with respect to treatment of Rajamma.G.P., Ex.D.20 is Medical certificate of Mallya Hospital of G.P.Rajamma, Ex.D.21 is Prescription of Green View Medical Centre of G.P.Rajamma, Ex.D.22 is Blood Test report of Vijaya Clinic of G.P.Rajamma, Ex.D.23 is prescription of Narayan 21 OS No.4339/2016 Hrudayalaya of G.P.Rajamma, Ex.D.24 is Lab report of Green View Medical Centre of G.P.Rajamma, Ex.D.25 is outpatient card of Green View Hospital of G.P.Rajamma, Ex.D.26 is prescription of Vijaya Clinic of G.P.Rajamma, Ex.D.27 is medical bill issued Radocs Associates Imaging Pvt. Ltd. with respect to Rajamma.G.P., Ex.D.28 to D.50 are medical records cum receipt of Mallya Hospital, Ex.D.51 is trip sheet of Madeshwara Ambulance Service, Ex.D.52 to 61 are 10 medical bills, Ex.D.62 and 63 are two inpatient bills of Mallya Hospital, Ex.D.64 is discharge summary of Mallya Hospital, Ex.D.65 to 72 are 8 lab reports of Mallya Hospital, Ex.D.73 is death certificate of Rajamma.G.P., who died on 9.2.2009, Ex.D.74 to 76 are 3 wedding cards of plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3, Ex.D.77 is death certificate of J.N.Lakshminarayan i.e. father of the parties, who died on 18.7.1997, Ex.D.78 is letter of HDFC dated 29.11.1995 for having repaid the 22 OS No.4339/2016 housing loan of Rs.65,000/- in respect of suit property and Ex.D.79 is letter of settlement of loan by HDFC.
17. DW1 was subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, wherein he stated that he started work from the year 1986. He admitted that his father was working as Junior Planning Officer in B.E.L. Company. He has denied that his father used to save money after expenditure of the family. He has admitted that his father retired in the year 1996 and that after retirement his father got gratuity and other retirement benefits. Though he admitted that his mother was working as teacher in aided school, but denied that she used to save money out of her salary income and purchased the suit property. But he admits that sale deed of suit property is in the name of his mother. Though he admit that his family is not owning any ancestral property, but denied that the suit property is the self acquired property of his 23 OS No.4339/2016 parents. He has denied that the marriage of plaintiff and his other two sisters was performed by his parents by spending money. But, however he admits that their marriage was performed when his parents were employed. He admits that he has received a cheque for Rs.1,00,000/- under Ex.D.16 from his mother. He further admits that he has received cheque for Rs.25,000/- from his mother. He admits that after the death of his mother, he has received the entire amount standing in her name and also admits that his mother has paid money towards her medical expenses. He admits that his parents have availed loan from HDFC Bank for construction of building in the suit property and that the same was repaid by them before 1995. He admits that suit property was allotted to his mother and that the installments of the site of suit property was being deducted from the salary of his mother. He also admits that Ex.D.78 is pertaining to the clearance of housing loan by his parents. He also admits that his 24 OS No.4339/2016 parents have repaid the loan as mentioned in Ex.D.78. However, he denied that his parents have borne expenses regarding construction of suit property. He admits that the construction of suit property was completed in the year 2006.
18. A careful perusal of the oral and documentary evidence available on hand reveal that there is ample evidence on record to show that site on which suit property was constructed, was allotted to mother of the plaintiff and though defendant No.1 contended that he has contributed for construction of house, but no document produced to show that he has sufficient money or earning to contribute for construction of house. It is clear from the evidence of DW1 that the marriages of plaintiff and other sisters i.e. defendants No.2 and 3 were performed during life time of his parents. DW1 himself in his chief-examination has clearly stated that he got job on 23.7.1986 and earning 25 OS No.4339/2016 salary of Rs.900/- p.m. It is seen that DW1 lost job in the year 2000 and thereafter, there is no evidence to show that he was employed anywhere and earning considerable amount of salary to enable him to contribute for construction of house. Thus, the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties clearly establish that the suit property is the self acquired property of the mother of the parties. When such being the case, as per the provision of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the suit property is the absolute property of the mother of the plaintiff. When such being the case, Section 15 of the said Act comes into operation in so far as succession of the property of mother of the parties. It is there in the evidence that mother of the parties has not left any Will with respect to suit property. Thus, when the mother of the parties died intestate, her property shall devolved on the parties as per Section 15(1)(a) of the said Act. Thus, the son and daughters of mother of the parties i.e. plaintiff and 26 OS No.4339/2016 defendants are entitled for equal share in the suit property as even the father of the parties is no more and died intestate.
19. Though the defendant No.1 has contended that he has contributed much for development of suit property, and so also construction of house in the suit property, but there no satisfactory evidence produced to prove his income, which can be considered sufficient towards his contribution for construction of house, but there is no satisfactory evidence is produced to prove his contribution in the suit property. On the other hand, it is there in the evidence that the 1st defendant is enjoying the rent received from the tenants in the suit property. Thus, considering over all oral and documentary evidence available on hand, I came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has established her suit claim and hence I have answered Issue Nos.1 to 4 in the affirmative.
27 OS No.4339/2016
20. ISSUE NO.5: In view of my findings on above said issues, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs.
The plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in the suit property by metes and bounds.
There shall be separate enquiry
regarding mesne profit.
Draw preliminary decree
accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and typed by her, thereafter corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 19th day of October 2019).
( KASANAPPA NAIK ) XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE 28 OS No.4339/2016 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
P.W.1 Smt.J.L.Bharathi Srinivas
b) Defendant's side:
D.W.1 J.L.Rajashekar
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P.1 Genealogical tree
Ex.P.2 C/c of sale deed dated 30.6.2004
Ex.P.3 Khatha extract
Ex.P.4 & 5 Two Encumbrance certificates
Ex.P.6 Death Certificate
Ex.P.7 Office copy of legal notice dated
19.3.2016
Ex.P.8 to 10 3 Postal receipts
Ex.P.11 Returned RPAD cover sent to
defendant No.1
Ex.P.11(a) Notice
Ex.P.11(b) Unserved postal acknowledgment
29 OS No.4339/2016
Ex.P.12 Returned RPAD cover sent to
defendant No.2
Ex.P.12(a) Notice
Ex.P.12(b) Unserved postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.13 Returned RPAD cover sent to
defendant No.3
Ex.P.13(a) Notice
Ex.P.13(b) Unserved postal acknowledgment
b)Defendant's side :
Ex.D.1 Salary Certificate
Ex.D.2 Appointment letter
Ex.D.3 Copy of resignation letter
Ex.D.4 Relieving letter
Ex.D.5 Another appointment letter
Ex.D.6 Estimate
Ex.D.7 Receipt regarding purchase of
materials
Ex.D.8 Tax Invoice
Ex.D.9 Purchase bill
30 OS No.4339/2016
Ex.D.10 Letter of estimate with annexure Ex.D.11 Another Letter of estimate with annexure Ex.D.12 Letter of Govindraju.P. with annexure Ex.D.13 Letter of Accountant General with Annexure Ex.D.14 Another letter of Accountant General Ex.D.15 Letter of District Treasury Officer with regard to pension Ex.D.16 Statement of account of Canara bank Ex.D.17 Statement of account of Syndicate Bank Ex.D.18 Letter of Bharath Electronics Ltd.
Ex.D.19 Bill cum receipt Ex.D.20 Medical certificate of Mallya Hospital Ex.D.21 Prescription of Green View Medical Centre Ex.D.22 Blood Test report of Vijaya Clinic Ex.D.23 Prescription of Narayana Hrudayalaya 31 OS No.4339/2016 Ex.D.24 Lab report of Green View Medical Centre Ex.D.25 Out patient card of Green View Medical Centre Ex.D.26 Prescription of Vijaya Clinic Ex.D.27 Bill of Radocs Associates Imaging Pvt. Ltd.
Ex.D.28 to 50 23 Out patient bills cum receipt of Mallya Hospital Ex.D.51 Trip sheet of Madeshwara Ambulance Service Ex.D.52 to 61 10 Medical bills Ex.D.62 & 63 Indoor patient bill of Mallya Hospital Ex.D.64 Discharge summary of Mallya Hospital Ex.D.65 to 72 8 Lab reports of Mallya Hospital Ex.D.73 Death Certificate of Smt.Rajamma.G.P. Ex.D.74 to 76 3 Wedding cards Ex.D.77 Death certificate of J.N.Lakshminarayan Ex.D.78 Loan sanction letter of HDFC 32 OS No.4339/2016 Ex.D.79 Letter of settlement of loan by HDFC ( KASANAPPA NAIK ) XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE 33 OS No.4339/2016