Bangalore District Court
Smt.Hanumakka vs The Managing Director on 25 July, 2022
KABC010193982012
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-8)
PRESENT
SRI SANTHOSHKUMAR SHETTY N., B.Com., LL.M.
XI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
DATED THIS THE 25 th DAY OF JULY, 2022
O.S.No. 7193/2012
Plaintiffs:- 1. Smt.Hanumakka.
Since dead by her LRs.
2. Sri.Jayanna,
Aged about 41 years.
Plaintiff No.1 is the wife
and Plaintiff No.2 is the son of
Late B.C.Basavaraju.
Both are R/at Beravara Village,
Lakkenahalli Post, Solur Hobli,
Magadi Taluk,
Ramanagara District.
(By Adv. Sri.K.Murthy)
V/s.
2 O.S.No.7193/2012
Defendants:- 1. The Managing Director,
Central Office,
KSRTC, Shantinagar,
Double Road,
Bangalore - 560 027.
2. The Divisional Controller,
KSRTC, Deepanjilinagar,
BHEL Circle, KIMCO Building,
Mysore Road,
Bangalore - 560 026.
3. The Depot Manager,
Division Office,
KSRTC, Ramanagara Depot,
Mysore Road,
Ramangara Town.
4. The Accounts Officer,
Nominee of Provident Fund Officer,
KSRTC, Deepanjilinagar,
BHEL Circle, KIMCO Building,
Mysore Road,
Bangalore - 560 026.
5. P.H.Lakshmamma,
D/o.Hanumaiah,
Age: Major.
6. Nagarathna,
Father name not known,
Age: Major.
3 O.S.No.7193/2012
7. B.Bharath,
Father name not known,
Age: Major.
Defendants No.5 to 7 are
R/at No. Arasinakunte,
Basaveshwaranagar,
Kasaba Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bangalore North Taluk.
(D1, D3 & D4 - Exparte
D2 by Adv. Sri.Mahadevaiah
D3 to D5 by Adv. Sri.S.G.Ramakrishna)
Date of institution of the suit : 04.10.2012
Nature of the suit : Declaration & Injuction
Date of commencement of : 16.12.2014
Recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 25.07.2022
was pronounced
Total Duration : Years Months Days
09 09 21
XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
4 O.S.No.7193/2012
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs to declare that, they alone are entitled for all the death benefits of deceased B.C.Basavaraju and to direct the defendants No.1 to 4 to pay and disburse all the death benefits in their favour and to provide job on compensatory ground and also to restrain the defendants No.1 to 4 from disbursing the death benefits of B.C.Basavaraju and for such other favourable reliefs with cost of the suit.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs is that, they are the permanent residents of Beravara Village, Lakkenahalli Post, Solur Hobli, Magadi Taluk, Ramangara District. The deceased plaintiff No.1 was the legally wedded wife of B.C.Basavaraju, son of Channabasavaiah and their marriage was solemnised in the year 1969 as per customs and rites prevailing in their community. After their marriage, they lived together as the husband and wife at Beravara Village. In the said wedlock, the plaintiff No.1 gave birth to the plaintiff No.2 on 10.07.1971. In the said Village, they are residing in a hut. In the year 1973, in a fire accident their hut was burnt and all the documents such as Marriage Invitation Card, photograph and such other documents were burnt in the fire. In the Ration Card, Election Identity Cards, Electricity Bills, RTC Extract, Tax Paid Receipt, SSLC Marks Card, Transfer Certificate, Driving License, Caste and Income Certificates of the plaintiff No.2, it is forthcoming that he is the son of B.C.Basavaraju. B.C.Basavaraju joined the service in the Corporation of defendants No.1 to 3 on 5 O.S.No.7193/2012 01.01.1986 and serving as Bus Driver as per Token No.5103 and he was provided with provident fund facility, which was controlled by the defendants No.1 and 2. B.C.Basavaraju was regular in attending his duty and after completion of 26½ years as a Driver, he died on 26.09.2011 due to cardiac arrest, leaving behind the plaintiffs as his sole legal heirs. As the plaintiffs are the Class-I legal heirs of deceased B.C.Basavaraju, they are entitled for his death benefits, pension including job on compensatory ground. But defendant No.5 claims to be the wife of B.C.Basavaraju has made request to the defendant No.2 to pay the death benefits of B.C.Basavaraju. Further she alleged that, the defendants No.6 and 7 are her children born to deceased B.C.Basavaraju. After coming to know the same, the plaintiffs filed their objections and issued the legal notice on 07.09.2012 with all the relevant documents with a request not to disburse any death benefits in favour of the defendants No.5 to 7. The plaintiff No.1 is an uneducated lady and the plaintiff No.2 is not having any worldly knowledge and he does not possess much education and serving as a Lorry Driver. Immediately after the death of B.C.Basavaraju, the plaintiffs came to know that, the defendant No.5 playing fraud upon B.C.Basavaraju, created entries in her name in the Service Record. The defendant No.5 based on the nomination, making all efforts to withdraw the death benefits. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to file this suit. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff No.1 died and thereby necessary amendment has been made in the cause title.
6 O.S.No.7193/20123. Inspite of service of the suit summons, the defendants No.1, 3 and 4 remained absent and placed them exparte. The defendant No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed the written statement. The defendants No.5 to 7 appeared through their counsel and the defendants No.5 and 7 filed their written statement and same was adopted by the defendant No.6.
4. In his written statement the defendant No.2 has taken contention that, he is not aware about the contents in paras No.3 to 14 of the plaint, except that deceased B.C.Basavaraju was working in KSRTC. Further contended that, B.C.Basavaraju was working as a Driver in KSRTC vide Token No.5103 and nominated the defendant No.5 i.e., Smt.P.H.Lakshmamma for all his benefits in the Corporation and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. In their written statement the defendants No.5 to 7 have taken contention that, it is totally false to state that the plaintiff No.1 is the legally wedded wife of B.C.Basavaraju and the plaintiff No.2 was born to them in the said wedlock. By denying the other averments in the plaint, they are admitted that B.C.Basavaraju joined the defendant No.1 Corporation on 01.01.1986 as a Driver and further admitted that, he died on 01.09.2012 due to cardiac arrest. After the death of B.C.Basavaraju, the defendant No.5 has claimed the death benefits of B.C.Basavaraju as his legally wedded wife and the plaintiffs have objected for the same on false ground. The marriage of the defendant No.5 was solemnised with B.C.Basavaraju in the house of her maternal uncle, situated at 7 O.S.No.7193/2012 Somanahalli, Maddur Taluk. Subsequent to their marriage, they lived together as the husband and wife and residing at Anchepalya, Bengaluru and thereafter, shifted to Arasinakunte, Nelamangala Taluk. In the said wedlock, she gave birth to the defendants No.6 and 7. Deceased B.C.Basavaraju had no relationship with the plaintiffs and they are strangers to him. The Family Photos, Ration Card, Certificate issued by the Village Accountant, Tax Demand Register and other documents produced by the defendants No.5 to 7 would clearly show that, the defendants No.5 to 7 are the legal heirs of deceased B.C.Basavaraju. During his life time, his relationship with the defendant No.5 was cordial. But due to untimely death of B.C.Basavaraju, the defendants No.5 to 7 have suffered mental agony and put to great hardship. When the situation as such, the plaintiffs have filed the false suit to deprive their rights to get the death benefits of B.C.Basavaraju and thereby prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, my predecessor-in-office has framed the following issues for determination:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are only Class-I legal heirs of the deceased B.C.Basavaraju and entitled to all his death benefits?
2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the defendants No.1 to 4 are making hecting efforts to disburse death 8 O.S.No.7193/2012 benefits of the deceased B.C.Basavaraju in favour of the defendants No.5 to 7 as alleged?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs sought for?
4. What Order or Decree ?
7. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.1 has entered into the witness box as PW-1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.23 were marked through her. Plaintiff No.2 has entered into the witness box as PW-2 and Ex.P.24 to Ex.P.26 were marked through him. The witness by name Smt.Vijayamma, resident of Beravara Village has entered into the witness box as PW-3 and notarised copy of her Aadhaar Card was marked as Ex.P.27. Later on, she remained absent and did not tender for cross-examination. Hence partial evidence given by her has been discarded. The another witness by name Smt.Guddamma, resident of Beravara Village has entered into the witness box as PW-4 and her Voter ID Card was marked as Ex.P.28. The other witness by name Shivanna, resident of Beravara Village has entered into the witness box as PW-5 and notarised copy of his Aadhaar Card, Election ID Card were marked as Ex.P.29 and Ex.P.30 and closed their side.
8. On behalf of the defendants No.5 to 7, the defendant No.5 has entered into the witness box as DW-1 and Ex.D.1 to D21 were marked through her and closed their side. On behalf of the defendant No.2, his Representative by name Smt.K.Sridevi, serving as Superintendent, KSRTC, Ramanagara Division has entered into the 9 O.S.No.7193/2012 witness box as DW-2 and Ex.D22 to Ex.D.25 were marked through her and closed his side.
9. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendants No.5 to 7 and arguments on behalf of the defendant No.2 taken as heard.
10. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: Partly in the affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the affirmative.
Issue No.3: Partly in the affirmative.
Issue No.4: As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
11. Issues No.1 & 2:- Since both these Issues are interconnected, taken up together for discussion to avoid repetition. The specific case of the plaintiffs is that, deceased plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 are the sole Class-I legal heirs of deceased B.C.Basavaraju, who was working as a Driver in KSRTC. Their further case is that, even though the defendants No.5 to 7 are total strangers to B.C.Basavaraju, the defendant No.5 managed to get an entry in the Service Record of deceased B.C.Basavaraju and making serious attempts to get the death benefits, in collusion with the defendants No.1 to 4. In support of their contentions, the plaintiffs have relied upon the oral testimony of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 and documents marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.32.
10 O.S.No.7193/201212. The defendant No.2 in his written statement pleaded ignorance about certain averments made in the plaint and took categorical stand that, B.C.Basavaraju was serving as a Driver in their Corporation and in his Service Record, the defendant No.5 was nominated for his death benefits. In support of the contention taken by him, DW-2 has reiterated the same in her oral evidence. The documents marked through her at Ex.D.22 and Ex.D.23 are the Authorisation Letters issued by the defendant No.2 in favour of DW- 2 to depose on his behalf. Ex.D.24 is the notarised copy of Service Book of deceased B.C.Basavaraju. Ex.D.25 is the notarised copy of Provident Fund Declaration of B.C.Basavaraju.
13. Now, it is clear that, deceased plaintiff No.1 and the defendant No.5, both are claiming to be the wives of deceased B.C.Basavaraju. Further, it is not in dispute that deceased B.C.Basavaraju was serving as Driver in KSRTC and he hails from Beravara Village, Magadi Taluk. According to the plaintiff No.1, her marriage was solemnised with B.C.Basavaraju in the year 1969 and in the said wedlock, she gave birth to the plaintiff No.2. As such, they alone are entitled for the death benefits of deceased B.C.Basavaraju.
14. On the contrary, the defendant No.5 has taken categorical defence that, the plaintiffs are the total strangers to deceased B.C.Basavaraju and she alone is the legally wedded wife of said B.C.Basavaraju and in the said wedlock, she gave birth to 11 O.S.No.7193/2012 the defendants No.6 and 7 and as such, they alone are entitled for the death benefits of B.C.Basavaraju.
15. Looking to the oral and documentary evidence of defendant No.2, it is crystal clear that, in the Service Book of B.C.Basavaraju, name of defendant No.5 is forthcoming. Looking to the oral evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and DW-1, they have stick on to their contentions. However, PW-4 and PW-5, both are the residents of Beravara Village, Magadi Taluk, have clearly deposed before the court that, the plaintiff No.1 is the legally wedded wife of deceased B.C.Basavaraju and in the said wedlock, the plaintiff No.1 gave birth to the plaintiff No.2. PW-4 further deposed that, she is related to the plaintiff No.1 and she knows B.C.Basavaraju. PW-5 has stated that, he also participated in the marriage of the plaintiff No.1 with B.C.Basavaraju and further deposed that, both were residing as the husband and wife. Even though, both PW-4 and PW- 5 have been cross-examined on behalf of the defendants No.5 to 7, nothing worth has been elicited from their mouth to show that they are not trustworthy and deposing false before the court.
16 Placing reliance of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has vehemently argued that, in order to prove their relationship with B.C.Basavaraju, the plaintiffs have relied upon voluminous documents. Further, relying on the decisions of our Hon'ble High Court, reported in ILR 1992 KAR 213; Manohar Ramakrishna Shirodkar vs Trimbak Rama 12 O.S.No.7193/2012 Kelkar and 2014 (5) KCCR 594; Chinnawwa vs Yallappa and others, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has argued that, while granting an equitable relief, the court can mould the relief as envisaged under Order 7 Rule 7 of CPC. The sum and substance of those decisions is as under:
"Order 7, Rule 7 of C.P.C. speaks about the jurisdiction to grant relief a larger than the one claimed by the plaintiff. The relief prayed is a larger relief and if no case is made out for granting the same Order 7 Rule 7 of CPC cannot be invoked. Order 7 Rule 7 of C.P.C. permits granting of smaller relief to the parties. The relief of possession now sought by way of amendment is not a larger relief since the larger relief is the relief of declaration of title of the plaintiff based on the occupancy right granted by the Land Tribunal. It is always open to the Court to give a plaintiff such general or other relief as it deems just to the same extent as if it had been asked for provided that occasions no prejudice to the other side beyond what can be compensated for in costs. In a suit for declaration of title and for consequential relief of injunction restraining defendant from alienating, relief of partition and separate possession could be granted even in the absence of specific prayer for such relief."
17. Refuting each and every contentions taken by the plaintiffs, the learned counsel for the defendants No.5 to 7 has vehemently argued that, as looking to the cause title of the plaint, the age difference between the plaintiff No.1 and plaintiff No.2 is only 14 years and no reasons to believe that, the plaintiff No.1 gave birth to the plaintiff No.2 at the age of 14 years. Further argued that, the 13 O.S.No.7193/2012 variance in age is also forthcoming in the other documents furnished by the plaintiffs. Further argued that, in Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.18, the plaintiff No.2 was shown as son of one Basavarajaiah. The said Basavarajaiah is total stranger to B.C.Basavaraju and the documents produced by the plaintiffs makes it very clear that, they are not related to B.C.Basavaraju, who was serving as Driver in KSRTC. Further argued that, evidence of PW-5 is contrary to the case of the plaintiffs. Further he invited the attention of this court with respect to the cross-examination of PW-1. The story of fire accident was created by the plaintiffs to suit their convenience. Further argued that, the defendants No.5 to 7 themselves have performed the last rituals of B.C.Basavaraju. PW-2 in his cross- examination has clearly admitted that, B.C.Basavaraju did not attend his marriage. Even if, he is the son of B.C.Basavaraju, certainly B.C.Basavaraju would have attend the marriage of his son. As the plaintiffs are the total strangers to him, there was no occasion for B.C.Basavaraju to attend the said marriage.
18. In this background, the initial burden is always placed on the plaintiffs to prove that, they are the widow and son of deceased B.C.Basavaraju. Incidentally, the burden lies on them to prove that, the defendants No.5 to 7 are total strangers to deceased B.C.Basavaraju and thereby, they alone are entitled for his death benefits. On the contrary, the onus casted upon the defendants No.5 to 7 that, the plaintiffs are total strangers to B.C.Basavaraju and they alone are entitled for the death benefits of the deceased.
14 O.S.No.7193/201219. As per the Service Book of B.C.Basavaraju, it is clear that, he was the son of Channabasavaiah. But in Ex.D.10 i.e., Wedding Card of the defendant No.5, one Basavaiah was shown as father of Basavaraju. Such being the case, the minor discrepancy forthcoming in Ex.P.17 and Ex.P.18 would not go against the case of the plaintiffs. In the Service Book of B.C.Basavaraju the defendant No.5 was shown as his nominee to get the death benefits. Hence, there are reasons to believe that she is also the wife of B.C.Basavaraju.
20. To establish their contentions that, they are the widow and son of deceased B.C.Basavaraju, the plaintiffs have placed voluminous documents. That apart, they have relied on the oral evidence of two senior citizens of their locality. PW-4 and PW-5 in unequivocal terms deposed that, they have participated in the marriage of the plaintiff No.1 with deceased B.C.Basavaraju and in the said wedlock, the plaintiff No.1 gave birth to the plaintiff No.2. Even though, the defendants No.5 to 7 have taken contention that, the plaintiffs are total strangers to deceased B.C.Basavaraju and they have nothing to do with said B.C.Basavaraju. No piece of paper is placed before the court to show that, they are the widow and son of someone else. Looking to the background of plaintiff No.1, it is clear that, she is a rustic villager and in our Society, no lady would come forward to claim that she is the wife of a stranger Now-a-days, the situation might have been changed. But it is not so in the case of plaintiff No.1. As such, while evaluating both oral and documentary evidence, the preponderance of probability is always in 15 O.S.No.7193/2012 favour of the plaintiffs to hold that, the plaintiff No.1 is the first wife of deceased B.C.Basavaraju and in the said wedlock, she gave birth to plaintiff No.2.
21. Further, there are sufficient evidence before the court to hold that, both plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are residing at Beravara Village, which is the native place of deceased B.C.Basavaraju. Wherein, he is having landed property along with his brother i.e., one Nagaraju. The probable circumstances makes it clear that, after birth of plaintiff No.2, the aforesaid B.C.Basavaraju left his native and started residing in the places, where he was working. The Bus Pass in the name of defendant No.6 marked at Ex.D.3, Marks Card of defendant No.7 at Ex.D.5, Ration Card of the defendants No.5 to 7 with B.C.Basavaraju at Ex.D.7 and other voluminous documents placed by the defendants No.5 to 7 makes it very clear that, after left the company of plaintiff No.1, deceased B.C.Basavaraju contracted second marriage with defendant No.5 and both lived together as husband and wife and gave birth to the defendants No.6 and 7 and breathed his last, when he was in their company. The notarised copy of Service Record of deceased B.C.Basavaraju produced by DW-2 makes it very clear that, he nominated defendant No.5 to get the death benefits.
22. As stated supra, this court has come to the conclusion that, the plaintiff No.1 was the first wife of deceased B.C.Basavaraju and after the birth of plaintiff No.2, he contracted second marriage with defendant No.5 and thereby gave birth to the defendants No.6 16 O.S.No.7193/2012 and 7. But there is no piece of evidence to hold that, the marriage between the plaintiff No.1 and B.C.Basavaraju was dissolved when he contracted second marriage with defendant No.5. As such, as per Section 5 and 11 of Hindu Marriage Act, the marriage of B.C.Basavaraju with defendant No.5 was a void marriage. This being the state of affair, to come to the right conclusion in the matter, I have gone through the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar, reported in (2002) 2 SCC 637. The fact leading to the said case is similar to the case on hand. As such, the law laid down in the said decision is very much relevant to decide the point in controversy. In the said decision, it was held as under:
" Even if a Government Servant had contracted second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage, children born out of said second marriage would still be legitimate though the second marriage itself would be void."
23. Relying on the said principle, the Apex Court went on to hold that, such children would be entitled to the pension but not the second wife. The said principle was very much reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another decision reported in (2008) 2 SCC 238: Vidhyadhari Vs Sukhrana Bai. In the said decision, it was held as under:-
"Legally wedded wife not automatically entitled to the Succession Certificate to the exclusion of second defacto wife and her children when the 17 O.S.No.7193/2012 deceased had made nomination in favour of second wife to receive terminal benefits of the employment. Though she herself was not legally wedded wife yet her children were legitimate for the purpose of share in their father's employment dues."
24. In view of settled legal position, it is very clear that, the plaintiff No.1 being the first wife of deceased B.C.Basavaraju and the plaintiff No.2 is the son born to plaintiff No.1 are entitled for equal share in the death benefits. Even though, the defendant No.5 being the second wife, is not entitled for any share in the death benefits, the children born to her i.e., the defendants No.6 and 7 are entitled for equal share in the death benefits. As the defendant No.5 was the nominee, her role is only to an extent of a Trustee. With these observations, Issue No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative holding that, the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 as well as the defendants No.6 and 7 being the Class-I legal heirs of deceased B.C.Basavaraju, are entitled for his death benefits. The tone and tenor of the written statement of defendant No.2 makes it clear that, the defendants No.1 to 4 are going to disburse the death benefits in favour of defendants No.5 to 7, ignoring the claim of plaintiffs. Accordingly, Issue No.2 is answered in the affirmative.
25. Issue No.3:- While answering the afore mentioned issues, this court has come to the conclusion that, the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and the defendants No.6 and 7 being the Class-I legal heirs of deceased B.C.Basavaraju, are entitled for equal share in the death benefits of deceased B.C.Basavaraju. As plaintiff No.1 is alive as on 18 O.S.No.7193/2012 the date of suit and she herself has entered into the witness box as PW-1 and gave her oral evidence, the right accrued in her favour cannot be denied merely because now she is not alive. As such, the plaintiff No.2 being her son is entitled to get her share. Hence, in this changed scenario, the plaintiff No.2 is entitled for 50% in the death benefits of deceased B.C.Basavaraju and remaining 50% shall be shared between the defendants No.6 and 7.
26. Apart from death benefits, the plaintiffs also claiming job under compensatory ground. But looking to the case of the defendants No.1 to 4, there is no such proposal before them. Further, the plaintiff No.2 has not placed any piece of paper to hold that, he is entitled for job on the compensatory ground. Hence, said relief cannot be granted in this suit. Accordingly, Issue No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative.
27. Issue No.4: In view of the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiffs is partly decreed as under:
It is hereby ordered and declared that, the plaintiff No.2 is entitled for 50% of death benefits of deceased B.C.Basavaraju and the defendants No.6 and 7 are entitled for 25% each in the death benefits of deceased B.C.Basavaraju.19 O.S.No.7193/2012
Consequently, the defendants No.1 to 3 are hereby directed to pay and disburse all the death benefits in favour of the plaintiff No.2 and the defendants No.6 and 7, accordingly.
Considering the proximity between the parties, no order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, typed by her, the transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open court, this the 25th day of July, 2022) ( SANTHOSHKUMAR SHETTY N.) XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiffs:
PW.1 - Smt.Hanumakka
PW.2 - Sri.Jayanna
PW.3 - Smt.Vijayamma
PW.4 - Smt.Guddamma
PW. 5 - Sri.Shivanna
List of documents exhibited for plaintiffs:
Ex.P.1 : Electricity Bill
Ex.P.2 : RTC
Ex.P.3 : Death Certificate of B.C.Basavaraju
20 O.S.No.7193/2012
Ex.P.4 & 5 : 2 Speed Post Acknowledgements
Ex.P.6 : Postal Receipt
Ex.P.7 : Postal Acknowledgement
Ex.P.8 : Old Ration Card
Ex.P.9 : New Ration Card
Ex.P.10 & 11: Two Election ID Cards of Hanumakka
Ex.P.12 : Election ID card of Jayanna
Ex.P.13 : Aadhaar Card of Hanumakka
Ex.P.14 : Aadhaar Card of Jayanna
Ex.P.15 : Caste Certificate of Hanumakka
Ex.P.16 : Caste Certificate of Jayanna
Ex.P.17 : Transfer Certificate of Jayanna
Ex.P.18 : SSLC Marks Card of Jayanna
Ex.P.19 : Income Certificate
Ex.P.20 : Electricity Bill with Receipt
Ex.P.21 : Tax Paid Receipt
Ex.P.22 : LPG Gas Connection Application
Ex.P.23 : LPG Gas Receipt
Ex.P.24 & 25: Marriage Invitation Card of PW-2 along
with Postal Cover
Ex.P.26 : Electricity Bill
Ex.P.27 : Notarised copy of Aadhaar Card of
Vijayalakshmamma
Ex.P.28 : Original Election ID Card of Buddamma
Ex.P.29 : Notarised copy of Aadhaar Card of PW-5
Ex.P.30 : Notarised copy of Election ID Card of
PW-5
Ex.P.31 & 32: Shara and Account Number in Ex.D.24
Ex.D.25
List of witnesses examined for defendants :
DW.1 - Smt.Lakshmamma
DW.2 - Smt.K.Sridevi
List of documents exhibited for defendants :
Ex.D.1 : Marriage Invitation Card of
Defendant No.5
21 O.S.No.7193/2012
Ex.D.2 : Marriage Invitation Card of
B.Nagarathna
Ex.D.3 : Free Pass issued by KSRTC
Ex.D.4 : Genealogical Tree
Ex.D.5 : 7th Standard Marks Card of Defendant
No.7
Ex.D.6 : Aadhaar Card of Basavaraju B.C.
Ex.D.7 : Ration Card of B.C.Basavaraju
Ex.D.8 : Election I.D. of Basavaraju B.C.
Ex.D.9 : Election I.D. of Lakshmamma
Ex.D.10 : Death Ceremony Invitation Card
Ex.D.11 : Family Free Pass issued by KSRTC
Ex.D.12 : Certificate by Arishinakunte
Grama Panchayath
Ex.D.13 : Death Certificate of B.C.Basavaraju
Ex.D.14 : Certified copy of Order issued by KSRTC
Ex.D.15 : Report issued by BBMP
Ex.D.16 : Death Report
Ex.D.17 : Medical Certificate
Ex.D.18 : Certified copy of Affidavit of
B.C.Basavaraju
Ex.D.19 : RTC
Ex.D.20 & 21: 2 Affidavits executed by B.C.Basavaraju Ex.D.22 : Authorisation Letter Ex.D.23 : Requisition Letter by Assistant Law Officer Ex.D.24 : Notarised copy of Service Book Ex.D.25 : Notarised copy of EPF related to Basavaraj XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.