Bangalore District Court
Smt.L.Padmini vs Smt.B.Pramila Devi on 26 March, 2018
IN THE COURT OF XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU
NGALURU (C.C.H.No.7).
(C.C.H.No.7).
Dated This the 26TH Day of March, 2018.
Dated:
Present: Ms.VELA. D.K., B.A., LL.B.(Hons.)
XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge.
Bengaluru.
O. S. No. 8 5 6 9 / 2006
Plaintiff Smt.L.Padmini,
w/o.late P.Yogesh Govindaraj,
Hindu, aged about 35 years,
r/a 46/2, 12th Main, 80 feet road,
6th Block, Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru-560010.
by Sri.Ravi Shankar.S, Advocate.
Vs.
Defendants 1. Smt.B.Pramila Devi,
W/o.late T.Pillanna, Hindu,
aged about 60 years, r/at No.734,
Lakshman Nagar, Hegganahalli Cross,
Sunkadakatte, Bengaluru.
2. Smt.Rajeshwari,
W/o.Anantharaj, Hindu, major,
No.936, Mallathahalli Village,
Yeshwanthpur Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk.
3. Sri.Hrishikesh @ Keshav,
S/o.late Pillanna, Hindu, major,
working at BEML, KGF, Kolar.
D1-by Sri.N.R.Jagadeeswara, Advocate.
D2-Absent, vide Order dated:13-9-2011.
D3-Exparte, vide Order dated:11-11-2014.
2 O.S.No.8569/2006
Date of institution of suit 25-09-2006
Nature of the suit Partition and Separate
Possession,
Mesne Profits.
Date of commencement of 06-09-2017
recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment 26-03-2018
was pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
11 06 01
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for Partition and Separate Possession and Mesne Profits.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that, the defendant is the wife of Pillanna and mother of Yogesh Govindaraj. The plaintiff is said to be the wife of Yogesh Govindaraj. This Pillanna and Yogesh Govindaraj are said to have passed away leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendant to succeed to their estate.
One Thammaiah-grand father of the husband of the plaintiff and the father-in-law of the defendant, is said to have owned and possessed property bearing No.46/2, 12th Main, Rajajinagar, acquired vide registered sale deed dated:24-1-1962 in Document No.10487/1961-62. Thammaiah is said to have sold a portion on the southern side and retained major portion on northern side of property. This Thammaiah is said to have executed a Will 3 O.S.No.8569/2006 dated:30-6-1993, in Document No.98, bequeathing item No.1 of the schedule property in favour of husband of the plaintiff and passed away on 1-2-1994. The original of the Will is said to have been lost. Therefore the certified copy of the Will is said to be produced.
Pillanna-husband of the defendant and father- in-law of the plaintiff, is said to have owned and possessed the property bearing No.916 in the layout formed by the ITI Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., situated at Mallathahalli, Yeshwanthpur, Bengaluru North, referred as item No.2 property. That property was said to be acquired under registered sale deed dated:28-12-1996, registered in Document No.5220. The original sale deed is said to be with the defendant and therefore the certified copy is said to be produced.
The suit schedule properties items No.3 and 4are said to be self acquired properties of Yogesh Govindaraj-husband of the plaintiff, who is said to have put up construction therein and let out to the tenants. The husband of the plaintiff is said to have acquired item No.1 of suit schedule property under registered Will dated:30-6-1993 executed by his grand father B.S.Thammaiah, who passed away on 1-2-1994. After the grand father had passed away, the husband of the plaintiff is said to have got the 4 O.S.No.8569/2006 Khatha of the property deleted and transferred to his name. The husband of the plaintiff is said to have executed the Will dated:24-6-2002 bequeathing the property that was got under the Will dated:
30-6-1993, in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore that property is said to be not available for partition.
Item No.2 of the schedule property is said to have been acquired by the rule of succession in favour of the husband of the plaintiff and the defendant. The husband of the plaintiff and the son of the defendant is said to have passed away on 22- 7-2002, leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendant. Therefore the plaintiff is said to be entitled for equal share along with the defendant in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff is said to be entitled for equal share along with the defendant. The schedule properties were said to be acquired by the plaintiff and the defendant by the rule of succession and there was said to be no partition between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant being the eldest member of the family, is said to be managing the affairs of the schedule properties and to have been getting the rents to the tune of more than Rs.20,000/- per month. After the husband of the plaintiff had passed away, the defendant is said to have been provided a sum of Rs.1,000/- per month for about 4 months towards 5 O.S.No.8569/2006 her maintenance and thereafter to have not paid any amount. The defendant is said to be enjoying the usufructs from the schedule properties. The plaintiff is said to be entitled for half share in the said usufructs and thereby entitled for the Mesne Profits. On account of the obvious reasons, there was said to be quarrel within the family and no cordial relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. Therefore the plaintiff was said to be constrained to demand for partition. That was said to have been postponed by the defendant on one or the other ground by giving evasive answer. The defendant is said to have refused to give the partition of the suit schedule property, but to have been making hectic efforts to dispose off the schedule property. This is said to deprive the legitimate share of the plaintiff and therefore has instituted the suit.
3. In the written statement, the defendant has contended that the suit to be based upon the fabricated documents. The property bearing No.57 in Assessment No.18/1, situated at Hegganahalli Village, Yeshwanthapura, is said to be her self acquired property, acquired vide sale deed dated:
25-9-2006 in Document No.BLN.I.40393/2006-07. The plaintiff was said to have been residing separately during the lifetime of her husband and deserted her husband, therefore the plaintiff is said 6 O.S.No.8569/2006 to be not in possession of the property. Item No.2 of the suit property was said to be purchased by the husband of the defendant and sold by the defendant and her daughters to K.Gangamma, vide sale deed dated:5-4-2004 and the daughters of Pillanna are said to have been not made as parties to the suit. Gangamma is said to have sold property in favour of C.P.Hemalatha. Therefore suit is said to be not maintainable. Item No.4 is said to be not available for partition. There is said to be another suit pending before the Mayo Hall Court in regard to item No.1 property, which is said to have been acquired by the defendant on account of the Will executed by his son. The valuation of the suit property for the purpose of the court fee is said to be incorrect, as the possession is said to be not with the plaintiff. The plaintiff was said to be not residing with her husband. Therefore to be not entitled to claim joint possession. The suit of the plaintiff is said to be hopelessly barred by limitation and contrary to the Transfer of Property Act as well as Specific Relief Act. Denying all the other averments of the plaint, therefore has sought for the dismissal of the suit.
4. The defendant No.2 has remained absent, though notice was served, as per the Office Note dated: 30-9-2011. The defendant No.3 has been placed Exparte vide Order dated:11-11-2014.
7 O.S.No.8569/20065. My Predecessor-in-Office had framed the following Issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves the relationship pleaded by her?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that suit properties are the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a share in the suit properties?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits?
5. Whether the suit is barred by time?
6. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
7. What Decree or Order?
6. To prove the case, the plaintiff has got examined herself as P.W.1, got marked Exs.P1 to P5. The 1st defendant has got examined herself as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D3.
7. Heard arguments of Learned Counsel for both the parties.
8 O.S.No.8569/20068. The findings on the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 - in the Affirmative, Issue No.2 - in the Affirmative for suit Item No.1 only, Issue No.3 - in the Affirmative, for suit Item No.1 only, Issue No.4 - in the Affirmative in terms of Final Order, for item No.1 property, Issue No.5 - in the Negative, Issue No.6 - in the Negative, Issue No.7 - as per Final Order, for the following:
Reasons
8. Issue Nos. 1 to 3 : The plaintiff has claimed that the plaintiff and the defendant to be related and the suit schedule properties to be joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendant, therefore to be entitled for the share in the suit schedule properties. These Issues therefore are inter-linked and discussed and answered together, in order to avoid repetition.
As per the plaint, there is no averments against the defendants 2 and 3, who have been subsequently added by virtue of Order of this Court dated:11-1-2016. The relationship between the parties is that the plaintiff is the wife of Yogesh 9 O.S.No.8569/2006 Govindaraj. This Yogesh Govindaraj was the son of Pillanna and the defendant.
In the oral evidence P.W.1 has identified the Death Certificate of Pillanna as Ex.P3, which shows that he passed away on 16-2-1999. Yogesh Govindaraj has also passed away. His Death Certificate is also identified by the plaintiff as Ex.P4, which shows that he passed away on 22-7-2002. Thereby, the dispute before the Court is between the daughter-in-law and the mother-in-law and hence Exs.P3 and P4 are formal documents.
The description of the suit schedule properties are as follows:
"{Deleted Item No.1: All that piece and parcel of the property bearing No.46/2, which was a part of Sy.No.18/9, Jedahalli Village, now called as 80 feet road, 12th Main, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-560010, measuring East to West on northern side 58 feet and on southern side 71 feet and North to South on western side 34 feet and on eastern side 52.6 feet and bounded on:East by:Property of Marichikanna, West by:80 feet road, North by:Property of Hucchappa, South by:Property of Venkatagiriyappa.} Item No.1 (old Item No.2):
All that piece and parcel of the property bearing No.916 in the layout formed by the ITI Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., situated at Mallathahalli Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 53 feet and bounded on:10 O.S.No.8569/2006
East by : Site No.917, West by : Site No.915, North by : Road, South by : Private Property.
Item No.2 (Old Item No.3):
All that piece and parcel of the property bearing No.57 formed in Sy.No.18/1 of Hegganahalli Village, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 40 feet and bounded on:
East by : Site No.56, West by : Site No.58, North by : 25 feet Road, South by : Site No.62.
Item No. 3 (Old Item No.4):
All that piece and parcel of the property bearing No.734, Lakshman Nagar, Hegganahalli Cross, Yeshwanthpur Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 40 feet and bounded on:
East by : Private property, West by : Private property, North by : Road, South by : Private property."
By way of amendment, the earlier Item No.1 property has been deleted and subsequently the remaining Items No.2 to 4 have been renumbered as Items No.1 to 3. In spite of that, the reference of the property as Items 2 to 4 still appears in the averments of the plaint, therefore while discussing 11 O.S.No.8569/2006 the nature of the properties, the reference is made noting the property number and the present renumbered suit schedule properties.
With respect to the Item No.1 property bearing No.916, as per the plaint, it is said to have been acquired by the deceased Pillanna, vide registered sale deed dated:28-12-1996, which is marked as Ex.P5. The original of this Ex.P5 is said to be with the defendant. This Ex.P5 is dated:
28-12-1996 executed between the ITI Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., represented by the President Venkatappa as the vendor in favour of T.Pillanna s/o.Thammaiah. As per this sale deed, the property sold in favour of Pillanna is the site bearing No.916, measuring East to West 30 feet, North to South 53 feet, in total 176.66 square yards or 1950 square feet, with the boundaries as above noted. This document states that the ITI Employees Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. being the absolute owner of number of survey numbers, had formed the layout after its acquisitions in the proceedings before the LAO.
In the oral evidence, P.W.1 has admitted that Pillanna was the employee of the ITI. The suggestion put-forth to P.W.1 is that, indeed this property is the self acquired property of Pillanna and it is as follows:12 O.S.No.8569/2006
"It is true that, thereafter the Society had executed the registered sale deed in favour of Pillanna and therefore that property is the self acquired property of Pillanna."
The mother of deceased Yogesh, i.e., the defendant, examined as D.W.1, has stated in support of this Ex.P5. Further D.W.1 has stated that the Khatha of that document to have been transferred to her name and then she has sold that property in favour of Smt.Gangamma, vide sale deed dated: 5-4-2004 and in return, Gangamma has sold the very same property in favour of Hemalatha, vide sale deed dated:16-9-2004. Those sale deeds have been identified by P.W.1 as Exs.P1 and D1. They are the certified copies and the originals are said to be with the purchasers. The certified copies of the sale deed in favour of Hemalatha has been produced by the defendant during the confrontation of P.W.1 and marked as Ex.D1. Therefore, it is admitted fact of P.W.1 that the possession of this property to be with Hemalatha.
As per Ex.P2, which is the certified copy of the sale deed dated:25-9-2006, the item No.2 is sold by the 1st defendant in favour of one Shekhar. The father of P.W.1 is said to have informed her about the said alienation and therefore it may be that the said Shekhar to be in its possession. This P.W.1 has 13 O.S.No.8569/2006 identified one more sale deed dated:2-12-2002, marked as Ex.D2 in favour of defendant No.1 by Channappa pertaining to Item No.2 property. Entire evidence of P.W.1 goes to show that the suggestion put-forth has been admitted by her and therefore it means that, as per Ex.P1 and Ex.D1, the possession of the item No.2 property is with Hemalatha. Ex.P1 dated:5-4-2004 shows that it is executed in favour of Gangamma by the 1st defendant, her children Rajalakshmi, P.Hrishikesh. There is reference of Ex.P5 in this Ex.P1. Ex.D1-certified copy of the sale deed executed in favour of Smt.Hemalatha by this Gangamma, pertaining to the very same property. Ex.P2 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated:
25-9-2006 executed in favour of one Shekhar by the present 1st defendant and the property sold is Assessment No.18/1, with Khatha No.57, which is the present item No.2 property. In oral evidence D.W.1 has stated not to have any document to show that they are tenants of item No.2 property. In the affidavit for chief examination, D.W.1 has stated that, this property was purchased vide sale deed dated:2-12-2002 and therefore it is her self acquired property. Her son was said to be not alive. But the death certificate of her son-Ex.P4, shows that he passed away on 22-7-2002. Therefore, when this property was purchased, the son was not alive. Her 14 O.S.No.8569/2006 husband Pillanna passed away much earlier on 16-2-1999 as noted above-Ex.P3.
P.W.1 has further stated not to know who is the original owner of the item No.2 property. The plaintiff has not contributed any finance towards purchase of the item No.2 property and in fact they did not have the requisite finance also to purchase that property. When the item No.2 property was purchased, this P.W.1 was said to be residing at her father's house. Similarly, P.W.1 does not know as to who is the owner or in possession of item No.3 property. Item No3 is property No.734. As on today, she has admitted not to have purchased any documents by stating as follows:
"As on today, I have not produced any documents pertaining to item No.3 property."
When the husband had passed away, indeed, the gold ornaments were said to be pledged and that they were released after the repayment of the amount due, in terms of document-Ex.D3. This Ex.D3 is an Affidavit stating, the gold ornaments that were pledged to have been returned. It is the affidavit of the plaintiff herself. P.W.1 has also admitted that her mother-in-law to have contributed sum of Rs.19,000/- towards the release of those gold ornaments.
15 O.S.No.8569/200610. On the other hand, D.W.1 has stated that after the demise of her husband, the house to have been maintained out of the retirement benefits of her deceased husband and with the help from her mother. After four years of retirement, the husband is said to have passed away. Item No.1 property was said to be a vacant site and the amount towards the allotment of item No.1 property was said to have been paid periodically out of the salary of her husband.
11. Regarding the maintenance of the household expenditure, D.W.1 has stated that her mother's house supplied ration to maintain the family and that, she had also utilized the retirement benefits for other household expenditure.
12. Though in the plaint it is averred that item Nos.3 and 4 are the self acquired properties of the husband of the plaintiff, in the oral evidence the plaintiff herself, as above noted, has not stated anything about the ownership or the possession of the properties. In fact there are no documents produced in this regard before the Court. Actually there is no item Nos.3 and 4 properties. They are renumbered as suit item Nos.2 and 3. It was the husband of the plaintiff who is said to have put up construction in these properties and that they have been let out to the tenants. In regard to the pledging 16 O.S.No.8569/2006 of the gold ornaments, etc., it is noted that the suit schedule properties 1 to 3 are only immovable properties.
In the plaint it is pleaded that, item Nos.3 and 4, i.e., Items 2, 3, are the self acquired properties of Yogesh Govindaraj, husband of the plaintiff. How these properties have been acquired by the husband of the plaintiff, is not forthcoming in the plaint, but it is averred that the husband of the plaintiff to have put up construction in these properties and let out to the tenants. D.W.1 herself has sold the property Item No.1, No.916 to the third parties in 2004. In respect of this property, it is the self acquired property of Pillanna. As per Ex.P1, the item No.1 has been alienated on the ground to repay the debts and for house necessity and sold on behalf of the children. This Ex.P1 is dated:5-4-2004, which is after the son Yogesh passed away, which is on 22-7- 2002. This property has been further sold in favour of Hemalatha, as per Ex.D1 dated:16-9-2004. The only relief claimed by the plaintiff has been for partition. After the death of Pillanna, this sale deed has been executed by his widow-D.W.1 and their children Rajalakshmi and Hrishikesh. No doubt, on account of the son Yogesh had passed away, the plaintiff had become a widow, but the widow is not a party to that sale deed. When Pillanna passed away, 17 O.S.No.8569/2006 the succession opens and that property being the self acquired property of Pillanna, as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the widow, their children as well as the plaintiff being the widow of the predeceased son, fall in the category of class-I heirs.
13. The marriage of the plaintiff has taken place in the year 1998 and the husband has passed away in the year 2002. It could be that, after the son passed away, daughter-in-law, i.e., the plaintiff and the mother-in-law, i.e., the 1st defendant, were not residing together. But the fact remains that, by operation of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, the daughter-in-law, one of the legal heirs under class-I of the schedule .
14. The item No.2 property of the schedule property has been purchased by the 1st defendant as per the sale deed-Ex.D2 and it is sold to Shekhar, as per Ex.P2. When the son of the 1st defendant, who is the husband of the plaintiff, had passed away prior to Ex.D2, then item No.2 cannot be the self acquired property of the husband of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant in the oral evidence has deposed not to be connected to the item No.3 property, as it is said to not belong either to her or the joint family. P.W.1 has also admitted, as above noted, not to have produced any documents pertaining to item No.3 property. Therefore these properties i.e., Items 2 18 O.S.No.8569/2006 and 3, are not the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant.
15. The alienation with respect to the suit item No.1 property has taken place and the question of the right of the third party has to be decided in the subsequent proceedings. For the purpose of the suit, the main sharers only are necessary, as the relief is confined only to the partition. The right of extent of share of the plaintiff as the widow of the pre-deceased son, cannot be taken away by virtue of the sale deed executed by the widow of the original propositor-Pillanna. At the same time, it is also noted that, there is no relief sought in respect of the sale deed, but the fact remains that there has been execution of the sale deed with respect to the suit schedule property. After Pillanna has passed away, the class-I legal heirs under the Schedule of the Hindu Succession Act by operation of Section 8 has to be divided equally. In the facts and circumstances of the case, they would be his widow i.e., the 1st defendant, her son and daughter, as well as the widow of the pre-deceased. Thereby, each of them would get 1/4th share, but in the plaint, the plaintiff has sought for half share in the suit schedule properties.
19 O.S.No.8569/200616. On account of item No.1 suit property being the self acquired property, invariably, the extent of the share of the plaintiff would be 1/4th in the suit item No.1 property. Hence, the relationship is proved and the nature of the suit schedule properties are proved only with respect to the suit item No.1 property. The Issues No.1 to 3 are therefore answered in the affirmative.
17. Issue No. 4 : Admittedly, in the present case, the suit item No.1 being the self acquired property of Pillanna and that the sale has taken place in 2004 itself, it means that the plaintiff has not been in enjoyment of her 1/4th share in this property. After the death of Pillanna, the widow alone cannot be the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Such being the case, the plaintiff will be entitled for the Mesne Profits to the extent of her 1/4th share only in the suit item No.1 property. For this purpose, there is need of separate enquiry. In addition, the right of the third party has to be also decided and determined in the appropriate F.D.P. proceedings. Such being the case, this Issue is answered in the affirmative in terms of the Final Order.
20 O.S.No.8569/200618. Issue No. 5 : During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the plaintiff has referred the citation reported in 2013(4) KCCR 3170 (Gopalaiah and others vs. Smt.Jayakumari and others), wherein it is held as under:
"C. Hindu Law-Partition-Suit for maintainability-Plea of earlier partition- Registered deed excluding a member of family as he was deceased by then-
Omission to include his heirs also-They are entitled to their legitimate share-Their suit maintainable.
D. Limitation Act, 1963-Article 110-Suit for partition-Limitation-Ouster of a member-Suit to be filed within twelve years from that date otherwise, no period of limitation is prescribed for a suit for partition-Exclusion of deceased member and his heirs in earlier partition-Hence, family remaining undivided-Suit for plaintiffs/heirs of deceased member not barred by limitation.
E. Limitation Act, 1963-Articles 74 and 75-Adverse possession-Plea in partition suit-Is different from other suits-There should be specific plea of ouster in a suit for partition."
No doubt, the scope of the present suit is only for partition, but the plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed executed by the mother and her existing children. In spite of that, the right claimed by the plaintiff, which is to the extent of 1/4th share, in the 21 O.S.No.8569/2006 given facts and circumstances of the case, has been sought for within the span of three years from the date of that sale, which has taken place in 2004 and the above suit has been filed in 2006. Therefore, in view of the averments of the plaint and the admitted facts, hence this Issue is answered in the negative.
19. Issue No. 6 : It is only the widow of the pre-deceased son of the defendant No.1, who has sought for Partition. Such being the case, the right claimed by the plaintiff will only be in terms of the extent, which as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, entitles this plaintiff for 1/4th share only. All the class-I legal heirs under the Schedule, Hindu Succession Act, are entitled to enjoy together equally. Such being the case, this suit therefore cannot be said to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The right of the third parties, it is settled law that it has to be determined in the F.D.P. proceedings on the principles of equity and this Issue is answered in the negative.
20. Issue No. 7 : Due to the findings as above, the following:
22 O.S.No.8569/2006ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in part, as follows:
The plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule Item No.1 property only and the claim of the plaintiff in respect of the suit items No.2 and 3 is hereby dismissed.
The plaintiff is entitled for separate enquiry regarding the Mesne Profits in the F.D.P. Under the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.
Draw Preliminary Decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerised print-out taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 26TH day of March, 2018.) (VELA.D.K.) XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, *sb Bengaluru.23 O.S.No.8569/2006
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1 L.Padmini List of witnesses examined for defendants:
D.W.1 B.Pramila Devi List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff:
Ex.P1 Certified copy of sale deed dated 5-4-2004 executed by defendants in favour of K.Gangamma in respect of Property No.916 Ex.P2 Certified copy of sale deed dated 25-9-2006 executed by 1st defendant in favour of M.N.Shekar in respect of property No.57.
Ex.P3 Death Certificate of Pillanna showing date of death as 16-2-1999.
Ex.P4 Death Certificate of P.Yogesh Govindraj showing date of death as 22-7-2002.
Ex.P5 Certified copy of sale deed dated 28-12-1996 executed by ITI Employees' Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. in favour of T.Pillanna in respect of property No.916 List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Ex.D1 Certified copy of sale deed dated:
10-9-2004 executed by K.Gangamma in favour of C.P.Hemalatha, in respect of property No.916.24 O.S.No.8569/2006
Ex.D2 Certified copy of sale deed dated:
2-12-2002 executed by Channappa in favour of 1st defendant in respect of property No.57.
Ex.D3 Affidavit of plaintiff regarding gold ornaments that were pledged to have been returned.
(VELA.D.K.) XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.25 O.S.No.8569/2006
26-3-2018 Judgment passed and pronounced in Open Court. (vide separate Judgment). Operative portion thereof reads as under:
Order Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in part, as follows:
The plaintiff is entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule Item No.1 property only and the claim of the plaintiff in respect of the suit items No.2 and 3 is hereby dismissed.
The plaintiff is entitled for separate enquiry regarding the Mesne Profits in the F.D.P. Under the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.
Draw Preliminary Decree accordingly.
XXII A.C.C. & S.J., Bengaluru.