Bangalore District Court
K.N.Eswara Rao vs M/S K.H.Shamarao & Sons on 31 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE
AT BANGALORE [CCH.No.42]
PRESENT: SRI.BASAVARAJ B.COM., LL.M.
XLI Addl. City Civil Judge
Dated this the 31st day of October 2018
O.S.No.3671/1988
PLAINTIFFS : K.N.Eswara Rao
S/o K.N.Nanjundarao
Since dead by LRs
1. Smt.E.K.Rukmini
W/o Late Eswara Rao
Aged about 64 years
R/at No.25/3, Shama Rao
Compound, Sampangi Ram
Nagar, Mission Road
Bangalore-560 027
2. Smt.Shobha G.R.
D/o Late Eswara Rao
W/o G.Ravindranath
Aged about 46 years
R/at No.2535, MCC 'A' Block
7th Main, Opp.to Krishnakala
Mandira, Davanagere-577 004
3. Smt.Beena S.R.
D/o Late Eswara Rao
W/o Sunil M.Relekar
Aged about 44 years
R/at Sanket, '52'
Shailesh Society
2 OS No.3671/1988
Near Alankar Police Chowky
Pune-411 052
4. Smt.Nanda.D.J.
D/o Late Eswara Rao
W/o D.P.Jagadish
Aged about 42 years
R/at M/s Gandharva
Basava Sadana Complex
Nehru Road
Shimoga-577 201
5. Smt.Deepa
D/o Late Eswara Rao
W/o Vijaykumar Murthy
Aged about 40 years
R/at D-1, Rustumji Residency
No.87, Richmond Road
Bangalore-560 025
6. E.K.Raghu
S/o Late Eswara Rao
Aged about 32 years
R/at No.25/3, Shama Rao
Compound
Sampangi Ram Nagar
Mission Road
Bangalore-560 027
(By Sri.Suraj Kote, Advocate)
V/s.
DEFENDANTS: 1. M/s K.H.Shamarao & Sons
A firm of partners
Having a Regd. Office
At No.12, Lalbagh Road
3 OS No.3671/1988
Bangalore-560 027
Rep.by its partners
2. Bangalore Dress Manufacturing Co.
Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated
under the Companies Act, having
Its registered office at
No.12, Lalbagh Road
Bangalore, rep. by its
Managing Director
B.S.Narayanarao
3. K.N.Rangarao
S/o K.S.Nanjundarao
Aged about 58 years
(dead)
4. K.N.Ashwath
S/o K.S.Nanjundarao
Aged about 51 years
5. K.N.Narayanarao
S/o K.S.Nanjundarao
Aged about 60 years
6. E.Hanumantharao
S/o K.S.Eshwararao
Aged about 58 years
Since Dead by LRs
Smt.Rathna Bai
W/o Late Hanumantha Rao
Residing at No.12, Lalbagh Road
Bangalore.
7. E.Dayashankar Rao
S/o K.S.Eshwara Rao
Aged about 49 years
4 OS No.3671/1988
8. E.Krupashankararao
S/o K.S.Eshwararao
9. E.Shamarao
S/o K.S.Eshwararao
Aged about 47 years
10. K.H.Shamarao
S/o K.S.Hanumantharao
Aged about 43 years
11. K.H.Devaraj
S/o K.S.Hanumantharao
Aged about 40 years
12. K.H.Muralidar
S/o K.S.Hanumantharao
Aged about 36 years
13. K.V.Chandramohan
S/o K.S.Vittalrao
Aged about 44 years
(Dead)
14. K.V.Ramesh
S/o K.S.Vittalrao
Aged about 39 years
15. K.V.Rajendra
S/o K.S.Vittalrao
Aged about 35 years
16. B.S.Narayanarao
S/o B.S.Brarmojirao
Aged about 59 years
5 OS No.3671/1988
Dead by LRs
i) Mrs.Sulochana Bai
W/o Late B.S.Narayana Rao
Aged about 68 years
R/at No.12, Lalbagh Road
K.H.Shama Rao Compound
Bangalore-560 027
(Dead)
ii) Mrs.K.P.Sathya Prema
W/o K.M.Prabhakar
Aged about 50 years
R/at No.1-1-234/235 Mayura
Garments, Chikad Pally
Hyderabad
iii) P.R.Gayatri
W/o P.Raja rao
Aged about 48 years
R/at A-48, Arcot Terrace
160, Arcot Road
Vadapalani
Chennai-600 026
iv) G.R.Pushpalatha
W/o G.M.Ravindra
Aged about 46 years
Durgigudi, III Cross
Park Extension
Raja Rajeshwari Street
Shimoga.
17. B.S.Pandurangarao
S/o B.S.Bharmojirao
Aged about 47 years
R/at No.12, Lalabagh Road
K.H.Shama Rao Compound
6 OS No.3671/1988
Bangalore-560 027
(Dead)
18. B.S.Parashuramarao
S/o B.S.Brarmojirao
Aged about 49 years
19. M/s Brigade Investments
A Regd. Partnership Firm
135, Brigade Road
Bangalore-560 025
By its partner
M.R.Jaishankar
20. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd.
A Company incorporated
Under the Companies Act
Having its Regd. Office at
Unity Buildings, J.C.Road
Bangalore-2, by its
Company Secretary
21. The Branch Manager
M/s Godrej and Boyee Ltd.
Having branch office at No.2
Lalbagh Road
Bangalore-560 027
22. Advait Motors Pvt. Ltd.
Sri.Venkateshwara Mansion
South End Road, Basavangudi
Bangalore-560 004
(D1 to 7, 9 to 18 By Sri.B.S.Guru Raj,
LRs of D6, 16 & 17 By
Sri.S.K.V.Chalapathy,
D8 By Sri.B.N.Jayadeva,
7 OS No.3671/1988
D19 By Smt.Ujwala A.Mandgi,
D20 In person
D21 & D22 By Sri.S.S.G., Advocates
Date of Institution of the Suit: 05.08.1988
Nature of the suit
(Suit on Pronote, suit for Partition, mesne profit and
declaration & possession, suit accounts
for injunction)
Date of commencement of 04.12.2008
recording of evidence:
Date on which the Judgment 31.10.2018
was pronounced:
Total Duration: Year/s Month/s Day/s
30 02 26
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for partition of the suit schedule movable and immovable properties and to allot 1/20th share to him, for mesne profits and rendering accounts and to pass such other reliefs.
2. The suit schedule property as described in the plaint is as under:-
SCHEDULE 8 OS No.3671/1988 Movables: (Detailed list of movable is Appended in the separate ANNEXURE 1) Immovable property:
1. All that piece and parcel of land measuring 8 and half acres situated at Municipal No.12 formerly comprised of Sy.Nos.48/1 and 48/2 of Sampigehalli, Bangalore North Taluk, now known as Lalbagh Road, Corporation Division No.73, Bangalore bounded on the:
North: Sampangiramanagar Private properties South: Lalbagh Road and property belonging to Bangalore Telephones East: 4th main Road, Partly facing telephone exchange and private properties West: road and private property
2. Immovable property No.22, Andree Road, Shanthinagar, Bangalore -27 measuring 170 feet, north to south and east to west 92 feet bounded on the east by Andree Road, West by Private property road, north by private property and south by Andree road.
3. The plaint averments in brief is as under:9 OS No.3671/1988
The plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 8 constitute Hindu Undivided Family governed by Mithakshara school of law. The plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 18 are closely related. The 1st defendant is a registered partnership firm and 2nd defendant, which is a lessee of the 1st defendant, both consisting of the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 18 as its partners/directors, having share holdings therein.
The defendants No.1 and 2 deal with the manufacturing and sale of readymade garments and having its business in both export and import, possessing and reputation inside and outside the country. The 1st defendant, which is a joint Hindu family property of which the plaintiff is one of the co- parceners is entitled to 1/20th share in all the movable and immovable properties of the Hindu Undivided Family of M/s K.H.Shamarao and sons. The 5th defendant in the suit is managing all the movable and immovable properties of the undivided properties of the 10 OS No.3671/1988 joint Hindu Family of the 1st and 2nd defendant firm/company in the capacity of karta of the joint family. The plaintiff being one of the co-parceners is entitled to 1/20th share in all the movable and immovable properties.
The 5th defendant in the capacity of Karta/manager of the joint Hindu Undivided family has developed hostile attitude towards the plaintiff and other family members and is acting detrimental to the interests of the plaintiff and others. In fact the 5th defendant is not acting in the best interests of the partners/share holders of the 1st and 2nd defendant sand misusing the joint family properties and in fact has entered into an agreement with the 19th defendant to sell the schedule immovable property, with the active connivance with the other defendants with an intention to deprive the right title and interest of the plaintiff of his legitimate share to have wrongful gain for themselves.11 OS No.3671/1988
The defendants No.2 to 18 with active connivance with each other have sold valuable land No.23 (Old Municipal No.12) Lalbagh Mission Road, Bangalore for a fabulous sale consideration but have failed to pay anything to the plaintiff. This itself shows the malafide intention of the defendants No.3 to 18. The plaintiff being one of the co-parceners is entitled to 1/20th share in the said amount also.
The plaintiff is also entitled to 1/20th share in all the business profits, goodwill, estate etc. of the defendants No.1 and 2 as one of the co-parceners of the joint Hindu Family. The plaintiff is also entitled to 1/20th share in the said consideration pertaining to the sale of the joint family property made in favour of 20th defendant.
The plaintiff has not been paid any of the benefits, profits in the business of the defendants one and two, of which the plaintiff is entitled to 1/20th share and further his request to effect the partition of all the 12 OS No.3671/1988 movable and immovable properties belonging to the Hindu Undivided family of K.H.Shamarao and Sons were all went in vain. The 1st defendant is bent upon defeating the legitimate claim of the plaintiff in order to deprive the legitimate share of the plaintiff.
When all his efforts to get his legitimate share went in vain, the plaintiff has no other alternative, except to seek the indulgence of the court for effecting partition of the movable and immovable properties and allot him 1/20th share therein and also for mesne profits by rendering accounts. The plaintiff is also entitled to 1/20th share in the rents that is being paid by the different tenements in the appended Annexure II, which the 5th defendant is alone enjoying. Hence, prayed to decree the suit.
4. Upon service of summons, the defendant No.1 to 7 and 9 to 18 appeared before the court through their counsel and filed written statement contending that the plaintiff has 13 OS No.3671/1988 made various mis-statement of facts just to suit his purpose, knowing fully well that he is putting forward a false case without any basis, just to harass these defendants.
The plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 18 constitute the Hindu Undivided Family is absolutely false. The defendants No.3 to 18 are closely related is true. It is also true that 1st defendant is a registered firm of partners. The 2nd defendant is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. All the properties of the 1st defendant firm are leased to the 2nd defendant co. The plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 18 are the joint share holders of the 2nd defendant company. Defendants No.3 to 18 except the 8th defendant are the directors of the 2nd defendant company.
The 1st defendant is not doing any manufacturing of readymade garments. It is just having one sales depot at Tumkur dealing in readymade garments. The 2nd defendant is manufactures garments against the orders placed with it. It is also not doing any export or import business as alleged. 14 OS No.3671/1988 It is also not carrying out sales of readymade garments as alleged.
There is no joint family by name K.H.Sham Rao and sons and in the circumstances the question of 5th defendant acting as the Manager or the kartha of the said joint family does not arise. There is also no truth in the allegation that the 5th defendant is not acting in the best interests of the partners of the 1st defendant and shareholders of the 2nd defendant. The allegation that he is misusing the joint family properties is absolutely baseless. It is false that this defendant i.e. 5th defendant had entered into an agreement with the 19th defendant who sell the schedule immovable property with the connivance of other defendants, with an intention to deprive the right, title and interest of the plaintiff of his legitimate share and to have wrongful gain for themselves. It is the firm of K.H.Sham Rao and sons. The 1st defendant has entered into an agreement to sell a portion of the schedule immovable property to the 19th defendant. The 15 OS No.3671/1988 15th defendant has also signed the said agreement as one of the partners of K.H.Sham Rao and sons.
It is true that defendants No.1 and 2 have sold part of the property bearing No.23, Mission Road, Bangalore to Bharath Earth Movers Ltd. the 20th defendant for a sum of Rs.1,88,73,270/-. The plaintiff is a consenting party to the said sale. He has attested the said sale deed as a witness. He has also received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- out of the sale consideration in the following manner Date Amount in Cheque Bank Rs. No. 28.08.1986 11,700 963540 Sangli Bank 28.08.1986 33,000 825106 Sangli Bank 27.10.1986 55,000 279026 Sangli Bank 28.10.1986 300 279035 Sangli Bank Total 1,00,000 He has also acknowledged the receipt of the said cheques. The plaintiff has been regularly paid the amounts to which he is entitled to every year. The balance sheets of 16 OS No.3671/1988 defendants No.1 and 2 are regularly prepared. The plaintiff has adopted the said balance sheets and in his returns of income was shown the amount received by him from defendants No.1 and 2. He has done so both under the Income Tax Act and Wealth Tax Act.
He is not entitled to seek a partition of all the properties of the firm of M/s K.H.Sham Rao and Sons or the properties of the 2nd defendant.
The firm of M/s K.H.Sham Rao and Sons was constituted several decades ago. It consisted of five partners viz. K.S.Nanjunda Rao, K.S.Eswara Rao, K.S.Hanumantha Rao, K.S.Vittal Rao and B.S.Sharmoji Rao. The first four are brothers and fifth one is their brother-in-law. It is the said firm of K.H.Sham Rao and Sons that purchased vast extent of agricultural and in its name. After converting the same to non-agricultural purposes, it constructed a factory buildings on portion of land purchased by them and residential premises for all the five partners in portions of the land. A portion of the land is still vacant. After constructing the 17 OS No.3671/1988 factory buildings, they shifted their business from a rented premises to their factory buildings in the year 1948. They were carrying on business in the manufacture and sale of readymade garments under the trade mark Samsons Dresses. Although at one point of time readymade garments under the trade mark Samsons were sold all over the country, gradually the business of selling readymade garments came to a standstill. At present no business by way of sale of readymade garments is taking place, except that the sale depot in Tumkur.
Plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 5 are the sons of K.S.Nanjunda Rao. Defendants No.6 to 9 are the sons of K.S.Eswara Rao. Defendants No.10 to 12 are the sons of K.S.Hanumantha Rao. Defendants No.13 to 15 are the sons of K.S.Vittal Rao and defendants No.16 to 18 are the sons of B.S.Bharmoji Rao.
All the original partners of the 1st defendant are dead. Upon the death of each of the original partners, the Hindu Undivided Family was admitted as a partner of K.H.Sham Rao 18 OS No.3671/1988 and Sons. Each of the said Hindu Undivided family is represented in the firm by its eldest male member of the kartha of the said family. Thus, upon the death of all the five original partners, the five separate Hindu Undivided families of each of the original partners represented by their respective managers/karthas constituted the firm of K.H.Sham Rao and Sons.
The 2nd defendant was incorporated under the Indian Companies Act in the year 1964. Plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 18 are the joint shareholders of the said company. The firm of K.H.Sham Rao and Sons was reconstituted under a partnership deed dated 1.1.1977. Under the terms of the said partnership deed the 2nd defendant was admitted as a partner of the 1st defendant firm w.e.f. 1.1.1977. The capital contribution of the 2nd defendant is Rs.10,00,000/- and its shareholding is 40% Thus, the firm of K.H.Sham Rao and Sons, which is a firm of partners has six partners viz. 5 distinct Hindu undivided families and the 2nd defendant. The shareholding of the each of the Hindu undivided family in the 19 OS No.3671/1988 1st defendant is only 12%. The plaintiff's share in the partnership assets will be only 3%.
Even before the firm of M/s K.H.Sham Rao and Sons, came into existence, K.H.Sham Rao, father of K.S.Nanjunda Rao, K.S.Eswara Rao, K.H.Hanumantha Rao and K.S.Vittal Rao the four sons and B.S.Bharmoji Rao the son-in-law were doing business jointly. Out of the income of the said business, various properties were acquired. The property so acquired by them jointly were divided among the said six persons under partition deed dated 14.8.1936. Thus there was a disruption of joint family status between K.H.Sham Rao and his four sons. A joint family ceased to exist even in the year 1936.
Plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 18 are not the members of the Hindu Undivided family and they are not the co- parceners of a single Hindu undivided family. After the partition referred to above, the four brothers and their brother-in-law constituted the firm of K.H.Sham Rao and Sons, the 1st defendant.
20 OS No.3671/1988
The suit schedule properties were acquired by the said firm of K.H.Sham Rao and Sons to start with. Each of the four brothers and brother-in-law had 1/5th share in the assets of the said firm. Upon the death of each of the original partners, his assets in the firm were inherited by his family members and with the consent of all the family members, the eldest male member was admitted as partner representing the family of the deceased.
In fact, subsequent to the death of four brothers and brother-in-law B.S.Sharmoji Rao, the members of the family of each of the deceased have also effected a partition except in so far as the assets in the 1st defendant firm.
Before the partition can be effected, the firm of /s K.H.Sham Rao and Sons will have to be dissolved and its assets will have to be distributed between the six partners viz. five families of the original partner sand the 2nd defendant, Bangalore Dress Manufacturing Co.(P) Ltd. It is only thereafter, each members of the family can seek for partition and separate possession of his share of assets from among 21 OS No.3671/1988 the assets allotted to each of the family. The plaintiff ought o have sought for dissolution o the firm of the 1st defendant, which he has not done.
The plaintiff has sought for partition of the properties held by the 2nd defendant. The same is impermissible in law. The plaintiff is only one of the joint share holders. If he has a case, he has to seek for winding up of the said company and he cannot seek the partition of the assets of the 2nd defendant. Unless the lease in favour of the 2nd defendant is validly terminated, the possession of all the properties taken by the 1st defendant, the plaintiff cannot seek for possession of any of his share in the suit schedule property.
The 2nd defendant company has been doing the business of manufacturing readymade garments. The plaintiff and defendants N.3 to 18 are its joint share holders. For the purpose of it business, it obtained loan of Rs.40,00,000/- from the Central bank of India in the year 1968. The repayment of the said loan to the bank was guaranteed by the Government of Karnataka under the 'AID 22 OS No.3671/1988 TO SMALL INDUSTRIES ACT'. For the purpose of giving the guarantee, the firm of K.H.Sham Rao and Sons its partners, Bangalore Dress Manufacturing Co.(P) Ltd., and its Directors mortgaged all the properties of K.H.Sham Rao and Sons and Bangalore Dress Manufacturing Co(P) Ltd. to the Government of Karnataka by way of equitable mortgage by depositing the title deeds. The Bangalore Dress Manufacturing Co.(P) Ltd., could not repay the debt borrowed by its from Central Bank of India. The bank filed two suits in OS.1924/1980 and 10602/1980 on the file of City Civil Court, Bangalore claiming payment of one and half crore. The government of Karnataka was also made a party to the said suit. There was no way of payment of the said debt due to the Central Bank of India except by way of selling a portion of the property owned by M/s K.H.Sham Rao and Sons, which had mortgaged the properties to Government of Karnataka.
Meanwhile, Urban Ceiling and Regulation Act, came into force. Under the said Act, it was declared that an extent of 15032.99 sq.mts. is in excess out of the land owned by the 23 OS No.3671/1988 1st defendant The said excess land would have vested in the Government, who would have paid a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- as provided under the said Act. Since the land had to be sold for the purpose of discharging the debt due to the Central Bank of India, defendants No.1 and 2 applied to the Government of Karnataka for exempting the said excess land from the provisions of the said Act, so that they can sell the same and discharge the debt due to the bank. The government of Karnataka was pleased to grant exemption under Section 20 of the Act.
Meanwhile by vigorous negotiations with the Central bank of India, the bank was persuaded to accept a sum of Rs.75.63,442.69 in full satisfaction of its claims as against a claim of one and a half crores provided the payment is made before 11.7.1986. Plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 18 considered the situation at a meeting held on 10.5.1986 and declared to sell the excess land and to discharge the liabilities to the bank as also the other liabilities. The minutes of the meeting were reduced into writing on the stamp paper and 24 OS No.3671/1988 the plaintiff and all the defendants have signed the same. Thereafter, a portion of the excess land viz. 10257.486 sq.mts. was sold to Bharath Earth Movers Ltd. the 20th defendant in the case.
The plaintiff has attested the said sale deed as a witness. Out of the consideration received payments were made to the Central bank of India and other liabilities were also met. The balance available was distributed among all the parties, in accordance with the shares to which they are entitled to after retaining a part to meet liabilities for payment of capital gain tax and also other statutory liabilities. The plaintiff has received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. He has also acknowledged the receipt of the cheques. But he has falsely stated that he has not received any payment and has made it appear that he is not aware of the said sale at all.
All the parties including the plaintiff have agreed for the sale of entire excess area of 15,000/- and add sq.mts. part of which alone is sold. If the remaining party is not sold, within the time granted by the Government of Karnataka it will vest 25 OS No.3671/1988 in the government, who will pay very meager compensation. There are still liabilities like capital gain tax to be discharged. There are claims by the labour which to be met. It is for this purpose the 1st and 2nd defendants have agreed to sell the balance excess area to the 19th defendant under an agreement of sale. He did not object to the agreement of sale. He did not object to the agreement being entered into since he his a party to the memorandum of agreement dated 10.5.1986. A sum of Rs.30,00,000/- has been received as advance from the 19th defendant, which is deposited in a bank and payments have been made towards capital gain tax. Since the plaintiff and the 8th defendant did not co-operate in the matter of making payment of capital gain tax, their arrears of capital gain tax is not paid. Defendants No.1 and 2 have no objection to make payments on behalf of plaintiff and 8th defendant also, provided they agree for the same.
The 1st item of the schedule to the plaint is shown as agricultural land, whereas it is a non-agricultural land with buildings thereon. The corporation has given various khata 26 OS No.3671/1988 numbers and has assessed both the lands and the buildings. The plaintiff has not disclosed the same. The plaintiff has included in the schedule to the plaint, the land sold to the 20th defendant also. Since the suit for partition is not maintainable, the court fees paid on the plaint is also insufficient. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. The defendant No.8 appeared through his counsel, and filed written statement admitting the plaint averments and prayed to decree the suit as prayed for by the plaintiffs seeking for partition and separate possession of the plaitniff's 1/20th share in the suit schedule property and directing enquiry into mesne profits and also rendering of the accounts as sought for by the plaintiff. Further, prayed for decree in his favour allotting 1/20th share in the suit schedule property and also direct enquiry into mesne profits to determine the amount due to him. Hence, prayed to decree the suit. 27 OS No.3671/1988
6. The defendant No.19 appeared before the court through his counsel and filed written statement contending that the plaintiff and defendant No.18 have colluded with each other in filing this suit. All the joint family properties have not been included in this suit for partition. The plaintiff has included only two items, which are part and parcel of a larger extent of the same property. The plaintiff has been set up by his other family members to file the suit only as an afterthought. So far as item No.1 of the schedule is concerned, a sale deed has been executed on 30.7.1986 in favour of the defendant No.20 for a portion of the land to which the plaintiff is also a party. This fact has been suppressed by the plaintiff in this suit. Similarly on 11.2.1988 the defendant No.1 firm has entered into an agreement of sale with him by receiving an advance sale consideration amount of Rs.25 lakhs. Immediately after collecting the said advance amount, the plaintiff has been set up other family members to file this suit only with an intention to create a spoke in the wheel for the completion of 28 OS No.3671/1988 the sale transaction between this defendant and defendant No.1 firm represented by its partners where present all the respective family members. OS.6575/1991 has been filed by him for specific performance of agreement dated 11.2.1988 and said suit is pending consideration before this court.
The defendant No.1 firm is a partnership firm consisting of defendants No.2, 5, one Narayana Rao, defendants No.6, 10 and 13 as partners. The defendant No.2 company is also started by the joint family members and it is a family concern. The suit schedule property was treated as an excess vacant land under the provisions of Karnataka Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act. The defendants No.1 and 2 had incurred heavy debts by borrowing funds from various banks and financial institutions including the Central bank of India Ltd. The original title of the suit schedule property had been mortgaged with the Government of Karnataka as it had stood guarantee for the repayment of said loan. The partners of the defendant No.1 firm had accepted personal liability for repayment of said loan, interest, bank charges etc. In view of 29 OS No.3671/1988 the Government of Karnataka having given guarantee to the Central Bank of India Ltd. for repayment of the said loan by the defendant No.1 firm, a guarantee commission was agreed to be paid to the State Government. A mortgage in favour of the Government of Karnataka by deposit of title deeds had been created. The Central Bank of India Ltd. had filed OS.894/1977 and 10602/1980 on the file of City Civil Judge for recovery of the amounts due to it from the said firm. Apart from this, the defendant No.1 and 2 firm, which belong to the joint family, were liable to pay arrears of provident fund, employees state insurance to its employees. Thus, the joint family property had to be sold for legal necessity and for the benefit of the family. The sale could not take place as the suit schedule property had been declared as excess vacant land by the Government of Karnataka.
Further the defendants No.1 and 2 made a representation to the Government of Karnataka under Section 20 of the Karnataka Urban Ceiling and Regulation Act to permit them to dispose of a part of the property bearing 30 OS No.3671/1988 Municipal No.12, Lalbagh Road, Bangalore. Taking into legal necessity for which the permission had been sought by the defendants No.1 and 2, the Government of Karnataka granted permission to the defendants No.1 and 2 to sell the suit schedule property to an extent of 1,61,955 sq.ft. Accordingly, after obtaining the Government's permission the defendants No.1 and 2 sold an extent of 1,10,370 sq.ft. in the property bearing No.12, Lalbagh Road, Bangalore for a consideration of Rs.1,88,73,270/- to the defendant No.20 on 30.7.1986. The remaining 51,585 sq.ft. of land being the balance area left, for which the Government permission had been obtained an agreement to sell dated 11.2.1988 was entered into between the defendants No.1 and 2 and its partners along with him. The sale consideration had been agreed of Rs.98,01,150/ and Rs.25,00,000/- had been paid as advance sale price to the defendants. He entered into an agreement with defendants No.1 and 2 and other members of the joint family on the basis of representation made by them that there was a valid legal necessity for the sale of the suit schedule property as the joint 31 OS No.3671/1988 family had incurred debts and also the Government of Karnataka had permitted the sale in order to enable the joint family to meet its joint family debts and legal necessity. Based on the said representation and based on the authority of the defendants No.1 and 2 and other partners of the defendant No.1 firm to enter into an agreement, this defendant altered this position by paying an advance sale consideration of Rs.25 lakhs to them.
Initially the defendant No.1 firm consisted of five partners namely K.S.Nanjunda Rao, K.S.Eshwara Rao, K.H.Hanumantha Rao, K.S.Vittal Rao. All sons of K.H.Sharma Rao and B.S.Bharmoji Rao, son-in-law of K.H.Shama Rao. The defendant No.2 after its incorporation was also admitted as one of the partners of the defendant No.1 firm. After the death of original partners the eldest son of each branch was admitted as a partner of the defendant No.1 firm by representing the other members of the family. Thus, the eldest son of each of the original partners took his place in the defendant No.1 firm. The plaintiff has admitted 32 OS No.3671/1988 in his plaint that his elder brother defendant No.5 become a partner of the defendant No.1 firm after the death of their father K.S.Nanjunda Rao and started managing all the movable and immovable properties of the joint Hindu family in the capacity of karta/manager. Even in the agreement dated 11.2.1988 entered into between the defendant No.1 by its partners and this defendant, the defendant No.5 has been authorized to deal on behalf of all other partners. This being the case and in view of the admissions made by the plaintiff, it is clear that the defendant No.5 as the kartha of the family had the authority to deal and represent other co-parceners in respect of the suit schedule property. Even otherwise, under the principles of Hindu Law, a manager or karta is entitled to alienate the joint family property and such sale is not void- ab-initio and is only voidable provided the other co-parceners establish by clear and cogent evidence that there was no legal necessity for the manager to alienate the joint family property. The agreement of sale entered into by the defendant No.5 as karta of the plaintiff's branch and also by the defendant No.1 33 OS No.3671/1988 firm is valid and binding the plaintiff. The suit schedule properties became the trading asset of the partnership firm defendant No.1 right from its incorporation. The plaintiff is claiming that the defendant No.1 partnership firm is a joint family business. However, the fact that the suit schedule property is ownership of the defendant No.1 firm is not disputed. The defendant No.1 firm represented by its partners has entered into an agreement of sale in his favour. In the suit agreement vide clause 6, the defendant No.5 and other partners have given an assurance and understanding to him that consent of all the other brothers including the plaintiff will be obtained to the sale deed executed in his favour. The agreement of sale entered into by the defendant No.1 firm is for the family necessity and for the benefit of the estate. The plaintiff has no locus standi to avoid this sale and the action of the karta in alienating the suit schedule property is binding on him.
The plaintiff has suppressed all the facts, which show that the suit for partition of the suit schedule property is only 34 OS No.3671/1988 an afterthought and a collusive suit filed in collusion with the other defendants. The agreement of sale also includes the plaintiff's share as it is for the legal and family necessity. The plaintiff is a consenting party to the sale deed in favour of defendant No.20. The plaintiff bound to abide by the decision of defendant No.5 to sell a portion of the suit schedule property to him under the agreement of sale dated 11.2.1988. In the suit for specific performance OS.6575/1991 filed by him the plaintiff has been arrayed as defendant No.15. The plaintiff is bound to joint the execution of sale deed in his favour as it is for legal necessity.
During the pendency of the suit the defendant No.19 M/s Brigade Investments partnership had been dissolved and all the partners have authorized M.R.Jaishankar to represent them in the above suit and hence he has attested his signature to this written statement. The plaintiff is aware about their fact as necessary amendments have been carried out in OS.6575/1991 filed by the plaintiff. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
35 OS No.3671/1988
7. The defendants No.20 appeared in person, but he did not file his written statement.
8. The defendants No.21 and 22 have appeared before the court through their counsel and filed written statement contending that the plaintiff and the defendants No.3 to 18 constitute Hindu Undivided Family governed by Mithakshara School of law is not within its knowledge.
The plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 18 are closely related is not within its knowledge. The averment that the 1st defendant is a registered partnership firm and that the 2nd defendant is a lessee of the 1st defendant may be true. The further averment that the 1st and defendant consists of the plaintiff and the defendants No.3 to 18 as its partners/Directors, having share holdings therein is not within its knowledge.
The defendants No.1 and 2 deal with the manufacturing and sale of readymade garment sand having its business in 36 OS No.3671/1988 both export and import, possessing good reputation inside and outside the country may be true.
The 1st defendant, which is a joint Hindu family property of which the plaintiff is one of the co-parceners is entitled to 1/20th share in all the movable and immovable properties of the Hindu Undivided Family of M/s K.H.Shama Rao & Sons is not within its knowledge.
The 5th defendant in the suit is managing all the movable and immovable properties of the undivided properties of the joint Hindu family of the 1st and 2nd defendant firm/company, in the capacity of kartha of the joint family may be true.
The plaintiff being one of the co-parceners is entitled to 1/20th share in all the movable and immovable properties is not within its knowledge. The 5th defendant in the capacity of kartha/manager of the joint Hindu Undivided Family has developed hostile attitude towards the plaintiff and other family members and is acting detrimental to the interests of the plaintiff and others and that the 5th defendant is not 37 OS No.3671/1988 acting in the best interests of the partners/shareholders of the 1st and 2nd defendants and misusing the joint family properties is not within its knowledge. The averment that the 5th defendant had entered into an agreement with the 19th defendant to sell the schedule immovable property, with the active connivance with the other defendants with an intention to deprive the right, title and interest of the plaintiff of his legitimate share, to have wrongful gain for themselves is not within its knowledge.
The defendants No.2 to 8 with active connivance with each other have sold valuable land No.23 (Old municipal No.12), Lalbagh Mission Road, Bangalore for a fabulous sale consideration of Rs.1,88,73,270/- but have failed to pay anything to the plaintiff and that this itself shows the malafide intention of the defendants No.2 to 18 and that the plaintiff being one of the co-parceners is entitled to 1/19th share in the said amount also is not within his knowledge.
The plaintiff is also entitled to 1/20th share in all business profits, goodwill, estate etc. of the defendants No.1 38 OS No.3671/1988 and 2 and the co-parceners of the Joint Hindu Family and that he is also entitled to 1/20th share in the sale consideration pertaining to the sale of the joint family property made in favour of 19th defendant is not within its knowledge.
The plaintiff has not been paid any of the benefits, profits in the business of the defendants No.1 and 2, of which the plaintiff is entitled to 1/20th share and further his request to effect the partition of all the movable and immovable properties belonging to the Hindu Undivided Family of K.H.Shamarao & Sons were all in vain and that the 1st defendant is bent upon defeating the legitimate claim of the plaintiff, in order to deprive the legitimate share of the plaintiff is not within its knowledge.
When all his efforts to get his legitimate share went in vain, the plaintiff has no other alternative, except to seek the indulgence of this court for effecting partition of the movable and immovable properties and allot him 1/20th share and also for mesne profits by rendering accounts and that the 39 OS No.3671/1988 plaintiff is also entitled to 1/20th share in the rents that is being paid by the different tenements, which the 5th defendant is alone enjoying is not within its knowledge.
It has taken the premises from the 2nd defendant on lease under the registered lease deed. It with the consent of lessor, the 2nd defendant and in terms of the lease deed has put up construction to carry on its business after obtaining the necessary plan and approval from the Corporation authority from its own costs. He has been paying monthly rents to the 2nd defendant regularly in terms of the lease deed. It has put up construction as per the sanctioned plan.
The plaintiff has filed another suit in OS.11055/1998, which is pending on the file of Hon'be City Civil Judge Mayo Hall(CCH 20) against it for an order of permanent injunction restraining it from interfering and putting up any further construction in the schedule property. The Hon'ble Court has not granted any ad-interim order of injunction in the said suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
40 OS No.3671/1988
9. On the basis of the above pleadings of both the parties, the following issues have been framed by my learned predecessor in office:-
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff and the defendants No.3 to 18 constituted a joint family?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff and defendants 3 to 18 are in joint possession of the suit properties?
3) Whether the plaintiff proves that the 1st defendant firm is the joint family property of the said joint family?
4) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to 1/20th share in all the movable and immovable properties?
5) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled 1/20th share in the sale proceeds of the land bearing No.23, Old Municipal No.12, Lalbaugh Mission Road?
6) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for partition and separate 41 OS No.3671/1988 possession of his share in the suit property?
7) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for mesne profits and for accounts?
8) Do the defendants prove that the suit is not maintainable for the reasons stated in paras 18 to 25 and 27 of their written statement?
9) Do the defendants prove that the court fee paid on the plaint is insufficient?
10) What relief or order?
10. The plaintiff in order to prove the case examined himself as PW-1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.193. The financial controller and power of attorney holder of defendant No.22 examined himself as DW1 and examined defendant No.15 as DW2 and got marked Ex.D.1 to D.20.
11. Heard the arguments and perused the records of the case.
42 OS No.3671/1988
12. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 to 8 : In the negative
Issue No.9 : In the negative
Issue No.10 : As per the final order,
for the following;
REASONS
13. ISSUE No.1 TO 8 :- Since these Issues are
interconnected with each other hence in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence they are taken together common discussion.
14. The plaintiff filed his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief as P.W.1, wherein he has reiterated the averments made in the plaint. In support of his case, the plaintiff has also produced Exs.P.1 to 193 and he was cross- examined by the defendants' counsel. The finance controller and power of attorney holder of defendant No.22, filed his 43 OS No.3671/1988 affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of DW1, wherein he has reiterated the averments made in the written statement and he was cross-examined by the plaintiffs' counsel The defendant No.15 filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in- chief of DW2, wherein he has reiterated the averments made in the written statement and got marked Ex.D.1 to D.30 and he was not tendered himself for cross-examination of the plaintiff's counsel fully and hence thereby there is no evidence on behalf of Defendant No.1 to 7 and 9 to 18
15. It is admitted fact that K.S.Nanjunda Rao, K.S.Eswar Rao, K.S.Hanumantha Rao and K.S.Vittal Rao are the children of K.H.Sham Rao and the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 5 are the sons of K.S.Nanjunda Rao, defendants No.6 to 9 are the sons of K.S.Eswar Rao, the defendants No.10 to 12 are the sons of K.S.Hanumantha Rao and defendants No.13 to 15 are the sons of K.S.Vittal Rao and Bharmoji Rao is the son-in-law of K.H.Sham Rao and the defendants No.6 to 18 are the sons of Bharmoji Rao. It is 44 OS No.3671/1988 admitted fact that the 1st defendant is registered partnership firm and 2nd defendant is a company registered under the Companies Act.
16. It is the case of the plaintiff that himself and defendants No.3 to 18 constitute Hindu Undivided Family governed by Mithakshara school of law and they are in joint possession of the item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property and the 1st defendant firm is the joint family property of the said joint family and the 2nd defendant is the lessee of the 1st defendant both consisting of the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 18 as its partners/directors having share holdings therein and defendants No.1 and 2 deal with the manufacturing and sale of ready made garments and having its business in both export and import, possessing and having reputation inside and outside the country and 1st defendant is joint family property and the defendants No.2 to 18 with active connivance with each other sold land No.23 (Old Municipal No.12), Mission Road, Bangalore, but failed to 45 OS No.3671/1988 pay anything to him and he has got share in all the business profits, goodwill, estate etc. of defendants No.1 and 2 and he has not been paid any benefits and profits in the business of defendants No.1 and 2 and the rents and he is entitle for 1/20th share in all the above in addition to movable and immovable properties belonging to the Hindu Undivided Family of K.H.Sham Rao and sons.
17. It is the case of the defendants No.1 to 7 and 9 to 18 that originally K.S. Nanjunda Rao, K.S. Eshwar Rao, K.S. Hanumantha Rao, K.S. Uttappaa and B.S.Bharmoji Rao were the partners of defendant No.1 and after the death of all the original partners of the Hindu Undivided Family was admitted as a partner of K.H.Sham Rao and sons and each of the said Hindu Undivided Family is represented in the firm by its eldest male member are the kartha of the said family and under the reconstitution of partnership deed dated 1.7.1977 the defendant No.2 was admitted as partner of the defendant No.1 and thus the said Bharmoji Rao cannot be co-parcener 46 OS No.3671/1988 along with four sons of K.H.Sham Rao and even after the defendant No.1 firm came into existence K.H.Sham Rao and his sons K.S.Nanjunda Rao, K.S.Eswar Rao, K.S.Hanumantha Rao and K.S.Vittal Rao and his son-in-law B.S.Bharmoji Rao were doing the business jointly and out of the said joint income various properties were acquired and the said properties were divided among the said six persons under the registered partition deed dated 14.8.1936 and thereby there was disruption of joint family status in between K.H.Sham Rao and his four sons and hence the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 18 do not constitute the members and co-parceners of Joint Hindu Family and after the partition the four brothers and their brother-in-law constituted defendant No.1 firm and the suit schedule properties acquired by the defendant No.1 firm and hence each of the four brothers and brother-in-law had 1/5th share in the assets of defendant No.1 and before the partition can be effected the defendant No.1 firm has to be dissolved and its assets will have to be distributed and plaintiff ought to have sought for dissolution of the firm of 47 OS No.3671/1988 defendant No.1, which he has not done and the plaintiff is only joint share holder of the defendant No.1.
18. The plaintiff produced Ex.P.124 - deed of reconstitution of defendant No.1 dated 13.08.2001 disclosed that the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 to 18 are partners of defendant No.1. The Ex.P.125- Lease deed dated 31.05.1964 discloses that the defendant No.1 partnership firm leased item No. 1 of suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2. The Ex.P.126 -Family settlement dated 30.07.1996 discloses that the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 to 18 as partners of defendant No.1 entered in to the same with respect to sale of property No. 23, Mission Road, Bangalore. The Ex.P.129 - c/c of deed of partnership dated 2.4.1992 shows that the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 18 are the partners of defendant No.1. The Ex.P.165- certified copy of the of judgment in O.S. No. 6575/19981 discloses that the said K.S. Nanjunda Roa, K.S. Eshwar Rao, K.S. Hanumantha Rao, K.S. Vittal Rao and B.S. Bharmoji Rao are the partners 48 OS No.3671/1988 of defendant No.1 and defendant No. 2 is also partner of defendant No.1. The plaintiff sought share in the benefits, profits, goodwill, estate and rents of defendant No. 1 & 2. Apart from the above most of the documents produced by the plaintiff indicates that the defendant No.1 is a partnership firm, wherein the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 18 are the partners. The PW1 during the course of cross-examination admitted that after the death his father became partner of defendant No.1 and the khatha of the item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property is standing in the name of the defendant No.1. It is elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 that since himself and defendants No.3 to 18 were living together and hence it is mentioned in para No.2 of the plaint as they all constitute Hindu Undivided Family. So from this it is clear that since the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 to 18 are residing together and hence he has stated that himself and defendant No.3 to 18 are members of the joint Hindu family and actually the plaintiff and defendant No.3 to 18 are the partners of defendant No.1. Hence, the plaintiff, defendant 49 OS No.3671/1988 No.3 to 15 only constitute Joint Hindu Family and defendants No.16 to 18 do not constitute members of Joint Hindu Family as their father Bharmoji Rao do not belongs to the family of K.H.Sham Rao. Hence, the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 18 do not constitute Joint Hindu Family. The item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property are the properties of defendant No.1, which is a partnership firm, wherein the plaintiff is a partner. Hence, it cannot be said that the item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 18 and they are in joint possession of the same. With regard to the other contention of the defendants No.1 to 7 and 9 to 18 is concerned since there is no oral evidence on their behalf and hence it cannot be said that there was registered partition deed dated 14.8.1936 and hence there is disruption of joint family status in between K.H. Sham Rao and his 4 sons and hence the suit is not maintainable. 50 OS No.3671/1988
19. So, the plaintiff failed to prove that himself and defendants No.3 to 18 constitute Joint Family and they are in joint possession of the item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property and item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the defendant No.1. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitle for any share in the movable and immovable properties and not entitle for partition and separate possession of his share, mesne profit and accounts of defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 to 7 and 9 to 18 failed to prove that there was registered partition deed dated 14.08.1936 and hence there is disruption of joint family status in between K.H.Sham Rao and his 4 sons and hence the suit is not maintainable. Hence, Issue Nos.1 to 8 are answered in the negative.
20. ISSUE NO.9: The defendants contended in the plaint that the court fee paid on the plaint is in sufficient. The plaintiff sought for partition of item No.1 & 2 of the suit schedule property treating it as joint family property and 51 OS No.3671/1988 paid the fixed court fee of Rs.200/- as per Section of 35(2) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, which is sufficient. Hence Issue No.9 answered in the negative.
21. ISSUE NO.10:- During the pendency of the suit, the defendants No.3, 13 and 16(i) are dead and their legal representatives were not brought on record. In this regard, the learned Advocate appearing for the defendants relied on the unreported decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA.540/2005(Smt.Puttakkaiah V/s Smt.Basamma and others), wherein his lordship held that in a suit for partition all the persons, who are entitle for a share are to be impleaded as partie. As stated above, the item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property are the properties of defendant No.1, which is a partnership, wherein the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 18 are the partners and the plaintiff filed suit for partition of the item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property etc. instead of filing the suit for dissolution of defendant No.1 and thereafter he has to claim the share in 52 OS No.3671/1988 the assets of defendant No.1 along with the accounts and mesne profit and hence the suit in the present form is not maintainable. For this reason and in view of my findings on Issue No.1 to 7 in the negative and against plaintiff, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed without cost. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed .
In view of the relationship between the parties no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the judgment writer on computer, thereafter corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 31st day of October 2018).
( BASAVARAJ ) XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
P.W.1 K.N.Eshwara Rao
53 OS No.3671/1988
b) Defendants' side:
D.W.1 N.V.Srinivas
D.W.2 K.V.Rajendra
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P.1 Will dated 21.9.1962
Ex.P.2 Death certificate
Ex.P.3 Paper publication at Prajavani
Ex.P.4 Receipt for having paid paper
publication charges
Ex.P.5 Deed of Revocation
Ex.P.6 Paper publication made by 8th
defendant
Ex.P.6(a) Relevant portion
Ex.P.7 Another public notice in Deccan
Hearld
Ex.P.7(a) Relevant portion
Ex.P.8 Public notice published in Deccan
Hearld by Brigade Investments
Ex.P.8(a) Relevant portion
Ex.P.9 Public notice published in Deccan
Hearld
Ex.P.9(a) Relevant portion
Ex.P.10 Public notice issued by 8th defendant
in Deccan Hearld
Ex.P.10(a) Relevant portion
Ex.P.11 to 13 Letters sent by partners of 1st defendant dt.25.10.1990 with two enclosures Ex.P.14 Letter written to 1st defendant firm dt.15.10.1992 Ex.P.15 to 20 6 COP receipts 54 OS No.3671/1988 Ex.P.21 Letter sent by 1st defendant dt.21.10.1992 Ex.P.22 Office copy of legal notice dt.15.12.1994 issued to all the partners and others Ex.P.23 Unserved envelop of K.V.Ramesh E.xP.24 to 37 14 postal acknowledgments Ex.P.38 to 40 3 sheets of postal receipts Ex.P.41 Legal notice dt.15.6.1998 Ex.P.41(a) Acknowledgment Ex.P.42 Copy of notice sent to Commissioner, City Corporation Ex.P.42(a) Acknowledgment Ex.P.43 Copy of notice sent to Asst.
Executive Engineer Ex.P.43(a) Acknowledgment Ex.P.44 Copy of notice sent to Sub-Inspector of Police, Sampangiramanagar PS Ex.P.44(a) Acknowledgment Ex.P.45 Copy of letter sent to 1st defendant and also Managing Committee of 2nd defendant dt.5.7.1999 Ex.P.46 Unserved envelope Ex.P.47 Copy of Ex.P.45 sent to defendants No.1 and 2 Ex.P.47(a) & Seal for having received the same
(b) Ex.P.48 & 49 Copy of Ex.P.45 sent to defendants No.1 and 2 through post on 13.7.1999 Ex.P.50 & 51 Unserved envelopes Ex.P.52 Copy of Ex.P.45 sent to 5th defendant Ex.P.52(a) Postal receipt Ex.P.53 Reply issued by 5th defendant by COP Ex.P.54 to 57 Copies of 4 tax paid certificates by Wealth Tax Office 55 OS No.3671/1988 Ex.P.58 Demand notice of wealth tax Ex.P.59 C/c of agreement of sale in favour of Brigade Investment dt.11.2.1988 Ex.P.60 to Covering letters of different dates P.123 (for having received money from the defendants No.1 and 2 by way of cheques) Ex.P.124 Deed of Re-constitution of defendant No.1 firm dt.13.8.2001 Ex.P.125 Copy of lease deed between defendants No.1 and 2 Ex.P.126 Copy of family settlement agreement dt.30.7.1986 Ex.P.127 Sale deed dt.30.7.1986 by 1st and 2nd defendant to BEML Ex.P.128 Agreement to sell dated 11.2.1988 by defendants No.1 and 2 to Brigade Investments Ex.P.129 Copy of deed of partnership dt.2.4.1992 Ex.P.130 Copy of agreement among the Directors of defendant No.2 dt.2.4.1992 Ex.P.131 Copy of balance sheet of defendant No.2 from 31.3.2001 to 31.3.2002 Ex.P.132 Copy of GPA executed by 3 sons of Nanjunda Rao in favour of defendant No.5 dt.20.2.1963 Ex.P.133 Copy of indemnity bond executed by 3 sons of K.Nanjunda Rao dt.20.2.1963 Ex.P.134 Copy of deed of transfer of residential portions dt.14.5.1964 Ex.P.135 to C/c of plaint, written statement and 138 issues in OS.6575/1991 Ex.P.139 to C/c of deposition of PW1, DW1, 141 DW2 in OS.6575/1991 56 OS No.3671/1988 Ex.P.142 C/c of Ex.P.1 to P.54 in OS.6575/1991 Ex.P.143 Status report of 2nd defendant company Ex.P.144 & Attested copy of share certificates 145 Ex.P.146 Office of letter written to K.N.Narayana Rao dt.12.4.1969 Ex.P.147 Reply received from K.N.Narayana Rao dt.21.6.2002 Ex.P.148 Letter dt.2.8.2000 written by K.N.Narayana Rao to K.N.Ranga Rao and Ashwath Ex.P.149 Copy of letter written to Ranga Rao Ashwath and defendant No.2 dt.10.8.2000 Ex.P.150 UCP Receipt Ex.P.151 to Letters written by 2nd defendant co.
154 to PW1 dt.1.7.1980, 1.8.1980,
31.10.1980, 13.5.1981
Ex.P.155 Letter written by 1st defendant to
PW1 dt.5.3.1990
Ex.P.156 & Letter and cover written by
157 defendant No.5 to PW1 dt.9.4.1983
Ex.P.158 Notice dated dt. 15.9.1990
Ex.P.159 & Notice received by PW1 from IT
160 department and reply issued by
PW1
Ex.P.161 & Letter written by PW1 to 5th
162 defendant dt.22.4.1983 & postal
acknowledgment
Ex.P.163 Copy of order in Company Petition
No.82/2002
Ex.P.164 C/c of order in OSA.No.15/1995
Ex.P.165 C/c of judgment in OS.i6575/1991
57 OS No.3671/1988
Ex.P.166 & C/c of application and c/c of X-A
167 register
Ex.P.167(a) Relevant portion
Ex.P.168 Xerox copy of plaint in
OS.188/1979
Ex.P.169 C/c of order in MFA.No.582/1980
Ex.P.170 Copy of letter written by PW1 to
partners of 1st defendant
dt.12.5.1993
Ex.P.171 Copy of letter written by 1st
defendant to PW1 dt.25.5.1993
Ex.P.172 Copy of letter written by PW1 to 1st
defendant firm dt.21.7.1994
Ex.P.173 to Photos
193
Ex.P.173(a) to CD
193(a)
b) Defendants' side :
Ex.D.1 Power of attorney executed by MD
Ex.D.2 Rental agreement
Ex.D.2(a) Sketch
Ex.D.3 to 8 Photos
Ex.D.3(a)to8(a) CD
Ex.D.9 C/c of certificate issued by Registrar
of Partnership firm
Ex.D.10 to 16 C/c of 7 khatha extracts
Ex.D.17 C/c of lease deed entered between 1st
and 2nd defendant
Ex.D.18 Sketch map
Ex.D.19 C/c of partition deed dt.14.8.1936
Ex.D.20 C/c of plaint in OS.3038/2013
Digitally signed
by BASAVARAJ ( BASAVARAJ )
DN: XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE
cn=BASAVARAJ, BANGALORE
ou=GOVERNME
NT OF
BASAVARAJ KARNATAKA,o=
HIGH COURT OF
KARNATAKA,st=
Karnataka,c=IN
Date: 2018.10.31
17:10:51 IST
58 OS No.3671/1988