Bangalore District Court
Gajendra B.L vs Nil on 30 April, 2026
1
KABC010138092006
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS COURT, BENGALURU.
PRESENT:
SRI.VIJETH.V, B.A.L, LL.B.,
XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF APRIL, 2026
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/W. O.S. NO.26345/2009
Plaintiff/s in OS : 1 Keethi.B.L.
No.5348/2006 W/o.Pramod
Since dead by her LRS
1a Pramodh.B.V.
S/o.Vasanth Kumar
Aged about 56 years
1b Hrithvik.P
S/o.Pramodh.V
Aged about 21 years
2
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
1c Kum.Hrishitha.P
D/o.Pramodh.B.V.
Aged about 21 years
All are R/a.No.710, 2nd Floor, 2nd Cross,
4th Stage, BEML Layout
R.R. Nagar, Bengaluru-560 098.
(By Sri.A.M.R., Advocate for LRS of
Plaintiff No.1)
V/s.
Defendants in OS : 1. C.S.Nagarathnamma
No.5348/2006 W/o.B.S.Lakshmanappa
Since dead by her LRs i.e., Defendant
No.2 to 6
2. B.L.Chayadevi
W/o.Ramachandra
Aged about 48 years
R/a.No.36, B.S.Lakshmanappa
Lottegollahalli, RMV II Stage,
Bengaluru.
3. B.L.Parimala
W.o.Gopalaiah
3
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
Aged about 41 years
R/a.No.213, 4th Main
2nd Cross, Sampige Layout
Prashanth Nagar
Bengaluru-560 071.
4. Vijayasimha
S/o.Narasimhamurthy
Aged about 26 years
R/a. No.133, DVG Road
Basavanagudi
Bengaluru-560 004.
5. B.L.Shobha
W/o.Kumar
Aged about 37 years
R/a.No.21, 2nd Cross
4th Main, Srinivasanagara
Banashankari 1st Stage
Bengaluru-560 050.
6. B.L.Gajendra
S/o.B.S.Lakshmanappa
Aged about 45 years
R/a.No.18, Sanjeevini Nilaya
Lottegollhalli, RMV II Stage
Bengaluru.
7. B.L.Indumathi
4
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
W/o.Srinivasan
Aged about 35 years
5307, North Macarthur Road
Apartment No.3016,
IRWING Texat-75038, USA.
8. Smt.Shanthala Ajit
W/o.T.N.Ajith
R/a.Tumkur Town
Agrahara
Tumkur
9. Smt.Jayanthi Anand
W/o.T.N.Anand
R/a.Tumkur Town
Agrahara
Tumkur
10. B.N.Rajkumar
S/o.B.R.Narayanaswamy Naidu
Aged about 48 years
R/a.No.G51, 1st Cross, Anajaneya
Block, Opp. Mahila Vidyalaya School,
Sheshadripuram, Bengaluru-560 003.
(By Sri.M.R., Advocate for defendant
No.2 & 3)
(By Sri.S.D.N.P, Advocate for Defendant
No.4 & 5)
5
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
(By Sri.M.S., Advocate for Defendant
No.6)
(By Sri.N.C.S., Advocate for Defendant
No.7)
(By Sri.H.G.P., Advocate for Defendant
No.8 and 9)
(By Sri.N.C.N., Advocate for Defendant
No.10)
Plaintiff/s in OS : 1. B.L.Gajendra
No. 26345/2009 S/o.Late B.S.lakshmanappa
Aged about 44 years
R/a.No.18, Sanjeevini Nilaya
Lotte Gollahalli, RMV II Stage
Bengaluru-560 094.
(By Sri.M.S., Advocate)
Defendant/s in : 1 Keethi.B.L.
OS No. W/o.Pramod
26345/2009 Since dead by her LRS
1a Pramodha.B.V.
S/o.Vasanth Kumar
Aged about 56 years
1b Hrithvik.P
S/o.Pramodh.V
Aged about 21 years
6
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
1c Kum.Hrishitha.P
D/o.Pramodh.B.V.
Aged about 21 years
All are R/a.No.710, 2nd Floor
2nd Cross, 4th Stage, BEML Layout
R.R. Nagar, Bengaluru-560 098.
2 Smt.B.L.Shobha
S/o.Kumar
Aged about 37 years
R/a.No.21, 2nd Cross
4th Main, Srinivasnagar
BSK 1 Stage, Bengaluru-560 050.
3 N.Vijaya Simha
S/o.C.M.Narasimha Murthy
Aged about 27 years
R/a.No.133
D.V.G. Road
Bengaluru-560 004.
4 Smt.B.L.Indumathi
W/o.Srinivasan
Aged about 35 years
5307, North Marcarthur Road
Apartment No.3016
Irwing, Texas-75038
7
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
USA
5 Smt.J.T.Padma
Aged about 42 years
W/o.Late K.Devaraj
6 Kumari Niveditha
Aged about 16 years
D/o.Late K.Devaraj
Since Minor Rep. By her Mother and
Natural Guardian
Smt.J.T.Padma
Defendant No.5 and 6 are
R/a.No.130/C
PWD Colony, Kavel Byrasandra
RT Nagar, Bengluru-560 032.
7 Smt.B.N.Kamala
Aged about 52 years
W/o.Late K.Gopal
8 Sri Vijaya Kumar
Aged about 28 years
S/o.Late K.Gopal
9 Smt.G.Kavitha
Aged about 31 years
W/o.Ravishankari
8
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
Defendant Nos.7 to 9 are R/a.No.2,
1st Floor, Channamma Choultry Road
RMV 11 Stage
Bengaluru-560 094.
(By Sri.A.M.R, Advocate for LRS of
defendant No.1)
(By Sri.S.D.N.P., Advocate for D2)
(By Sri.S.D.N.P., Advocate for D3)
(By Sri.N.C.S., Advocate for D4)
(By Sri.K.T.D., Advocate for D5 to 7)
(By Sri.K.T.D, Advocate for D8 & 9)
IN OS NO.5348/2006
Date of Institution of the suit : 23.06.2006
Nature of the suit : Partition
Date of commencement of : 06.02.2010
recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment : 30.04.2026
was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
19 10 07
9
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
IN OS NO.26345/2009
Date of Institution of the suit : 06.07.2009
Nature of the suit : Probate
Date of commencement of : 06.02.2010
recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment : 30.04.2026
was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
16 09 24
(VIJETH.V)
XXII Addl. City Civil & Session Judge,
BENGALURU.
COMMON JUDGMENT
The instant suit in OS No.26345/2009 filed by the plaintiff
against the defendants to grant probate of the Will dated 21.11.2003
executed by Sri B.S.Lakshmanappa in favour of plaintiff/applicant
B.L.Ganjendra with respect to 'A' to 'D' schedule properties.
10
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
2. Initially the present plaintiff filed P & SC No.15028/2006 on
06.06.2006 for grant of probate with respect to Will dated
21.11.2003 & in the said petition the defendant Nos.1 to 4 were
impleaded as defendants and the case is registered as original suit.
3. The suit in OS No.5348/2006 has been filed by the plaintiff
against the defendant Nos.1 to 10 for the relief of partition and
separate possession of her 1/8th share in item No.1 to 33 of the suit
schedule properties.
4. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case in OS No.26345/2009 is
as under;
That one B.S.Lakshmanappa S/o. H.Sanjeevappa was the
absolute owner and in peaceful possession & enjoyment of the house
and vacant land in Sy. No.1/1, BMP No.18 of Lottegollahalli Village,
11
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk as shown in schedule 'A'
property, five acres of land in Sy. No.34 and eight acres of land in Sy.
No.32 of Guniagrahara Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bengaluru North
Taluk as referred in schedule 'B' item No.1 of property and Sy.
No.12/1 measuring eight guntas and Sy. No.13 measuring six acres
10 guntas and Sy. No.14 measuring four acres four guntas of
Kasagatta Pura Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk
as referred in schedule 'B' item No.2, 3 and 4, house and shops built
of site No.11 & 14, new Nos.12 and 12/1 of Poornapura Village,
Sundaranagara, Gokula, Bengaluru as referred in 'C' schedule
property and said B.S.Lakshmanappa having deposits in UTI Bank
Ltd., Jayanagara Branch, Bengaluru, Indian Bank, RMV Extension,
2nd stage, Bengaluru described as item No.1 to 4 of 'D' schedule
property. B.S.Lakshmanappa died on 06.04.2006.
B.S.Lakshmanappa married Smt.C.S.Nagarathnamma and begot a
son by name B.L.Ganjendra i.e., the petitioner herein and &
12
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
daughters namely B.L.Chayadevi, B.L.Bhagayalakshmi, B.L.Shoba,
and B.L.Parimala. B.S.Lakshmanappa also married one Smt.Asha
and begot two daughters name B.L.Indumathi & B.L.Keerthikumari.
Smt.Asha died in the year 1970 & whereas Smt.Nagarathnamma is
alive. The said B.S.Lakshmanappa had performed the marriage of
his daughters & son during his life time. The said
B.S.Lakshmanappa had partitioned the joint family properties on
08.01.1987 under panchayath palu patti and allotted the respective
shares in the name of his sons and daughters and he retained 'A'
schedule property to his share. The daughters of said
B.S.Lakshmanappa have disposed off certain properties allotted to
their share and been enjoying the remaining properties allotted to
their respective shares and they are residing with their family
members. However B.L.Bhagyalakshmi died during the year 2004.
The remaining suit schedule properties are the self acquired
properties of B.S.Lakshmanappa. The said B.S.Lakshmanappa and
13
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
his first wife C.S.Nagarathnama have been looked after by the
plaintiff. B.S.Lakshmanappa died on 06.04.2006 at M.S.Ramaiah
Hospital due to massive heart attack. On 16.04.2006 one Sri
T.L.Lingaiah residing at No.26, JP Nagar, Bengaluru, a close friend
of B.S.Lakhsmanappa handed over a Will dated 21.11.2003 to the
plaintiff executed by B.S.Lakshmanappa bequeathing all the
schedule properties in his favour and the Will was executed in
presence of attestors namely T.L.Lingaiah and M.R.Gopal. The said
Will is the last testament bequeathing all the properties belonging to
B.S.Lakshmanappa in favour of his only son B.L.Ganjendra which
was attested by two witness and drafted by family legal advisor
M.Sudarshan Murthy.
Further the schedule 'B' and 'C' Properties are the properties
purchased by B.S.Lakshmanappa which was his self acquired
properties. The schedule 'A' property is the property allotted to his
14
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
share in the family partition dated 08.01.1987 & the property
described in the schedule 'D' are the bank accounts standing in the
name of said B.S.Lakshmanappa. As the B.S.Lakshmanappa died on
06.04.2006 leaving behind a Will dated 21.11.2003 bequeathing the
schedule properties in favour of the plaintiff as such he is entitled for
probate of said Will so as to enable him to get the revenue
documents to his name and also to draw the amount standing in the
bank account of deceased B.S.Lakshmanappa. The plaintiff is
required funds for medical treatment of his mother
Smt.C.S.Nagarathnamma. Hence, prayed to grant probate of the Will
dated 21.11.2003 executed by B.S.Lakshmanappa in favour of
plaintiff with respect to suit schedule properties.
5. The defendant Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 in OS No.26345/2009 appeared
before the court and filed their separate written statements.
15
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
6. The sum and substance of the separate written statements
filed by defendants No.1 to 4 is as under;
That B.S.Lakshmanappa S/o.Sanjeevappa is the father of
defendant No.1, 2 and 4 and grand father of defendant No.3.
B.S.Lakshmanappa had two wives. He had five children from his first
wife C.S.Nagarathnama namely B.L.Chayadevi, B.L.Gajendra.
B.L.Parimala, B.L.Bhagyalakshmi (died) & B.L.Shoba. Through his
second wife Asha he had two daughters namely B.L.Indumathi and
B.L.Keerthi. B.S.Lakshmanappa died on 06.04.2006 at Bengaluru.
After the death of B.S.Lakshmanappa the defendants have
succeeded the estate of B.S.Lakshmanappa. All the suit schedule
properties are not the self acquired properties of B.S.Lakshmanappa.
After the demise of B.S.Lakshmanappa inspite of requests the
partition was not took place. Being aggrieved, the defendant No.1
filed suit for partition in OS No.5248/2006 pending in the file of this
Court. B.S.Lakshmanappa has not executed any Will as claimed in
16
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
the suit. The alleged Will is a forged and fabricated Will to deny the
rights of sisters. The plaintiff never looked after his parents. The
claim that T.L.Lingaiah, a friend of B.S.Lakshmanappa handed over
a unregistered Will alleged to have been executed by
B.S.Lakshmanappa on 21.11.2003 bequeathing all the schedule
properties in favour of plaintiff Ganjendra is false and the same was
created one. Plaintiff is not the only successor to the estate of
B.S.Lakshmanppa. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.
7. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case in OS No.5348/2006 is
as under;
The grand father of the plaintiff Sri H.S.Sanjeevappa had three
sons. B.S.Lakshmanappa was the elder son, Sri B.S.Ramappa and
Hanumanthappa are the brothers of Lakshmanappa. The plaintiff is
the daughter of B.S.Lakshmanappa. Late B.S.Lakshmanappa had
17
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
two wives. First defendant Smt.Nagarathanamma is the first wife,
the plaintiff and defendant No.7 are the daughters of Lakshmanappa
through his second wife Smt.Asha. Smt.Asha is the mother of the
plaintiff and defendant No.7 who died in the year 1974. defendant
No.2, 3 and 5 are the daughters of B.S.Lakshmanappa through his
first wife Smt.C.S.Nagarathnamma. Defendant No.4 is the son of
Late Smt.B.L.Bhagyalakshmi who was one of the daughter of
B.S.Lakshmanappa through first defendant. Defendant No.6 is the
son of B.S.Lakshmanappa.
The grandfather of the plaintiff entered into partition along
with his sons through partition deed dated 27.08.1970. After the
partition the father of the plaintiff was put in separate possession of
his share. Grand father of plaintiff namely Sri H.S.Sanjeevappa died
in the year 1987. But after the death of Sanjeevappa his share was
not partitioned among the brothers. After the birth of Smt.Shobha,
18
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
the defendant No.1 became ill and lost orientation. She is being
treated since 1967 for her illness. As the children were young the
father of the plaintiff married the mother of the plaintiff Smt.Asha
who took care of all children of first defendant. After marriage of
Asha with B.S.Lakshmanappa she got two daughters who are the
plaintiff and defendant No.7 in the present case. After one year from
the date of birth of plaintiff her mother Asha died. All the children
were taken care of their father B.S.Lakshmanappa. The plaintiff
married one Pramod in the year 1996 and she is residing in her
matrimonial house. After the marriage of plaintiff she has not got
any support from parental family. During the minority of plaintiff her
father B.S.Lakshmanappa and other members of the family had
entered into unregistered palu patti, more of a family arrangement
than partition and therein the plaintiff was allotted some property
which was self acquired properties of father of the plaintiff. Probably
the father of the plaintiff had done so with a view to protect the
19
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
interest minor girl child and also may be towards maintenance and
other expenses of the plaintiff. However, out of huge properties
owned by her father, only two small extent of sites were given to the
plaintiff during her minority. The said fact came to the knowledge of
the plaintiff only after attaining majority. The said unregistered palu
patti was illegal as the same was not equitable. Allotment of two
small sites that too during minority does not even represent a
fraction of a share for which the plaintiff is legally entitled to the
properties left behind by her father B.S.Lakshmanappa. The
unregistered palu patti does not represent the correct picture nor it
can be termed as partition which was done during the minority of
the plaintiff and the same is not binding on her. Sri
B.S.Lakshmanappa died intestate of 06.04.2006. Sri
B.S.Lakshmanappa owned number of properties which were both
self acquired and ancestral properties. He had moveable and
immovable properties. He is also entitled to a share in the estate of
20
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
grand father of the plaintiff by name H.S.Sanjeevappa. Inspite of
demands the defendants are not effecting partition. The plaintiff is
entitled for 1/8th share in the suit schedule properties. Hence, prays
to decree the suit as prayed for.
8. After service of suit summons in OS No.5348/2006 the
defendant No.2 appeared through her counsel and filed her written
statement and subsequently the defendant No.2 & 3 filed
application seeking permission to adopt the written statement of
defendant No.5.
9. The defendant No.4 to 9 have filed their separate written
statements. During pendency of proceedings, defendant No.1 died
leaving behind the defendant No.2 to 6 as her legal heirs.
21
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
10. The sum and substance of the written statement filed by
defendant No.6 in OS No.5348/2006 is as under:-
The suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either under law or
on facts. The plaintiff is not the member of the defendants family.
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are the children of one Late
Krishnasingh through his wife Late Asha. The said Krishnasingh was
working with the father of defendant No.6 in Lakshmi Service Station
as a workmen. The said Krishnasingh was an ex-servicemen and
after his retirement he was working in the service station of
B.S.Lakshmanappa. Smt.Asha wife of Krishansingh was also
working for the family of defendant. They had two children i.e.,
Plaintiff and defendant No.7 in the present case. As the parents of
plaintiff and defendant No.7 died unnaturally within a period of one
month, the plaintiff and defendant No.7 became orphans. As the
parents of plaintiff and defendant No.7 worked for the family of
22
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
defendant No.6 and as they were close to the father of defendant
No.6 B.S.Lakshmanappa brought up the plaintiff and defendant No.7
out of compassion and to avoid the ruining of life of plaintiff and
defendant No.7 B.S.Lakshmanappa looked after them. As all other
children of B.S.Lakshmanappa were young they were told that the
plaintiff and defendant No.7 are their sisters only to avoid ill
treatment and embarrassment to plaintiff and defendant No.7 who
are other wise orphans. This fact of they being children of Late
Krishnasingh and Asha was never disclosed to the children of
B.S.Lakshmanappa and the same was only known to defendant No.1
and 2. Out of compassion and to make a platform for plaintiff and
defendant No.7 to lead a dignified life, B.S.Lakshmanappa gave them
good education, performed their marriages and gave two sites each
to the plaintiff and defendant No.7 through palu patti dated
08.01.1987 which was sold by them to third parties. Taking undue
advantage of compassionate and gesture act of B.S.Lakshmanappa,
23
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
the plaintiff with ulterior motive and to cheat the family members
has filed the present suit for partition of joint family properties. All
most all the properties shown in the suit schedule are already either
sold or acquired by the authorized for the various purposes.
B.S.Lakshmanappa executed a Will dated 21.11.2003 bequeathing
his self acquired properties to defendant No.6 who is the only son.
After the demise of B.S.Lakshmanappa on 06.04.2006, the execution
of said Will was make known to defendant No.6 by family friend
Sri.Lingaiah and thereafter, the defendant is in peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the properties bequeathed in the said Will. The
remaining proprieties which came from joint family are already sold
and few of them are acquired by various authorities including Indian
Railway, the house retained by the B.S.Lakshmanappa is also
bequeathed to defendant No.6. The suit is barred by limitation. The
palu patti was acted upon. As such the present suit is not
maintainable. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule
24
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
properties. As such the court fee paid is insufficient. Hence, among
all other grounds prays to dismiss the suit.
11. The sum and substance of the written statement filed by
defendant No.4 in OS No.5348/2006 is as under;
The relationship between the parties to the suit are true and
correct that the grand father of plaintiff namely Sri
H.S.Sanjeevanppa had 3 sons namely B.S.Lakshmanappa,
B.S.Ramappa and B.S.Hanumanthappa. It is further true that
Sri.B.S.Lakshmanappa had two wives and defendant No.1 is the first
wife. Plaintiff and defendant No.7 are the daughters of
B.S.Lakshmanappa through his second wife Smt.Asha. Smt.Asha
the mother of plaintiff died in the year 1974. The defendant No.2, 3
and 5 are the daughters of B.S.Lakshmanappa through his first wife
and defendant No.4 is the son of deceased daughter
Smt.Bhagyalakshmi, defendant No.6 is the son of
25
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
B.S.Lakshmanappa through his first wife. It is true that the grand
father of the plaintiff had entered into partition with is sons on
27.08.1970 and as per partition deed the father of the plaintiff was
put in separate possession of his share. The grand father of the
plaintiff H.S.Sanjeevappa died in the year 1987 and after his demise
his share has not been partitioned among B.S.Lakshmanappa & his
brothers. It is true that defendant No.1 became ill and lost
orientation and that she was being treated since 1967 for her illness
and during the said period the children were young and
B.S.Lakshmanappa had married the mother of the plaintiff Smt.Asha
to look after them. In the said wed lock with Smt.Asha,
B.S.Lakshmanappa got two children i.e., plaintiff and defendant
No.4. After one year from the date of birth of plaintiff, her mother
was died and all the children were taken care by the father
B.S.Lakshmanappa. It is true that plaintiff married one Pramod and
she is residing in her matrimonial home. It is true that the defendant
26
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
No.6 who being the only son of B.S.Lakshmanappa started acting
against the interest of the joint family with the active assistance of
defendant No.2 and started alienating the joint family properties to
deprive the legitimate share of other joint family members. The
defendant No.6 also gone to the extent of creating a Will claiming
that B.S.Lakshmanappa has executed a Will in his favour only to
legitimate share of other family members. It is true that Sri
B.S.Lakshmanappa has made an unregistered palu patti was a sort
of family arrangement in which the plaintiff was allotted two small
sites only to protect the interest of minor girl child and the same was
for maintenance and other expenses. It is true that the said palu
patti is only a family arrangement but not a partition deed to effect
the partition of all joint family properties. It is further true that the
allotment of two small sites in favour of plaintiff when she was a
minor does not represent even a fraction of her share and the
unregistered palu patti cannot be termed as partition and the same
27
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
is not equitable one. It is true that B.S.Lakshmanappa died intestate
on 06.04.2006 and after his death all his children have succeeded to
his estate. B.S.Lakshmanappa had owned several properties
including ancestral and self acquired properties. He has owned
movable properties. The B.S.Lakshmanappa is also entitled to a
share in the properties of his father H.S.Sanjeevappa. The defendant
No.2 and 6 in collusion with each other and to deprive the legitimate
share of other daughters did not convey the meeting and instead
started proclaiming that other daughters are not having any share in
the properties of B.S.Lakshmanappa. The defendant No.4 is also
entitled for his legitimate share over the suit schedule properties
along with other joint family members. Hence, prays to decree the
suit and allot the share of defendant No.4.
12. The sum and substance of the written statement filed by
defendant No.5 in OS No.5348/2006 is as under;
28
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
The relationship between the parties to the suit are true and
correct that the grand father of plaintiff namely Sri
H.S.Sanjeevanppa had 3 sons namely B.S.Lakshmanappa,
B.S.Ramappa and B.S.Hanumanthappa. It is further true that
Sri.B.S.Lakshmanappa had two wives and defendant No.1 is the first
wife. Plaintiff and defendant No.7 are the daughters of
B.S.Lakshmanappa through his second wife Smt.Asha. Smt.Asha
the mother of plaintiff died in the year 1974. The defendant No.2, 3
and 5 are the daughters of B.S.Lakshmanappa through his first wife
and defendant No.4 is the son of deceased daughter
Smt.Bhagyalakshmi, defendant No.6 is the son of
B.S.Lakshmanappa through his first wife. It is true that the grand
father of the plaintiff had entered into partition with is sons on
27.08.1970 and as per partition deed the father of the plaintiff was
put in separate possession of his share. The grand father of the
29
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
plaintiff H.S.Sanjeevappa died in the year 1987 and after his demise
his share has not been partitioned among B.S.Lakshmanappa & his
brothers. It is true that defendant No.1 became ill and lost
orientation and that she was being treated since 1967 for her illness
and during the said period the children were young and
B.S.Lakshmanappa had married the mother of the plaintiff Smt.Asha
to look after them. In the said wed lock with Smt.Asha,
B.S.Lakshmanappa got two children i.e., plaintiff and defendant
No.4. After one year from the date of birth of plaintiff, her mother
was died and all the children were taken care by the father
B.S.Lakshmanappa. It is true that plaintiff married one Pramod and
she is residing in her matrimonial home. It is true that the defendant
No.6 who being the only son of B.S.Lakshmanappa started acting
against the interest of the joint family with the active assistance of
defendant No.2 and started alienating the joint family properties to
deprive the legitimate share of other joint family members. The
30
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
defendant No.6 also gone to the extent of creating a Will claiming
that B.S.Lakshmanappa has executed a Will in his favour only to
legitimate share of other family members. It is true that Sri
B.S.Lakshmanappa has made an unregistered palu patti was a sort
of family arrangement in which the plaintiff was allotted two small
sites only to protect the interest of minor girl child and the same was
for maintenance and other expenses. It is true that the said palu
patti is only a family arrangement but not a partition deed to effect
the partition of all joint family properties. It is further true that the
allotment of two small sites in favour of plaintiff when she was a
minor does not represent even a fraction of her share and the
unregistered palu patti cannot be termed as partition and the same
is not equitable one. It is true that B.S.Lakshmanappa died intestate
on 06.04.2006 and after his death all his children have succeeded to
his estate. B.S.Lakshmanappa had owned several properties
including ancestral and self acquired properties. He has owned
31
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
movable properties. The B.S.Lakshmanappa is also entitled to a
share in the properties of his father H.S.Sanjeevappa. The defendant
No.2 and 6 in collusion with each other and to deprive the legitimate
share of other daughters did not convey the meeting and instead
started proclaiming that other daughters are not having any share in
the properties of B.S.Lakshmanappa. The defendant No.5 is also
entitled for her legitimate share over the suit schedule properties
along with other joint family members. Hence, prays to decree the
suit and allot the share of defendant No.5.
13. The sum and substance of the written statement filed by
the defendant No.2 in OS No.5348/2006 is as under;
The defendant No.2 denies the relationship of plaintiff and
defendant No.1 to 6 and pleaded that plaintiff is not daughter of
B.S.Lakshmanappa, as such she is not entitled for any share and
prays to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff. But subsequently on
32
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
03.12.2026 the defendant No.2 and 3 engaged new counsel and also
filed applications to permit them to adopt the written statement of
defendant No.5 & according to the written statement of defendant
No.5 prays to decree the suit.
14. The sum and substance of the written statement filed by
the defendant No.7 in OS No.5348/2006 is as under;
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are the children of
B.S.Lakshmanappa through his second wife Smt.Asha and they
became the co-parcener and co-owners in respect of the properties
left by Sri.B.S.Lakshmanappa and they are having definite legitimate
share in the joint family properties. The defendant No.7 is also in
joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties along
with other defendants. No equitable partition was took place in
respect of joint family properties during the life time of
B.S.Lakshmanappa and even after his death. The defendant No.6
33
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
who is managing the affairs of the joint family denied to allot the
legitimate share of plaintiff and defendant No.7 in respect of joint
family properties. They left with no options decided to file suit for
partition. The defendant No.7 is also agreed to file the suit along with
the plaintiff. But due to preoccupation of defendant No.7 is abroad
she is unable to present here to give instructions to file the suit and
to sign the papers. The suit schedule properties are ancestral and
joint family properties and there is no partition between the plaintiff
and defendant by metes and bounds. The defendant No.7 is also
entitled for definite share in the family properties. The defendant
No.6, his mother and sister kept the defendant No.7 away from the
affairs of the suit schedule properties for the reasons best known to
them. The defendant No.6 is mismanaging the family properties and
he is trying to create third party rights. Defendant No.6 always tried
to postpone the equitable partition in the suit schedule properties by
one or other pretext. The defendant No.7 is also entitled for
34
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
legitimate share as such prays to decree the suit and allot her
legitimate share.
15. The sum and substance of the written statement filed by
the defendant No.8 & 9 in OS No.5348/2006 is as under;
The joint family properties were previously partitioned among
the joint family members, the plaintiff also allotted her share and
thereby dissolve the joint family among the joint family members.
Since from the date of partition, the plaintiff herself enjoying her own
share and there is no joint family status between the plaintiffs and
defendants. The suit schedule properties are the exclusive properties
of defendant No.8 and 9. The plaintiff has no right to seek any
partition against defendant No.8 and 9. Item No.25 and 26 are the
self acquired properties of B.L.Ganjendra who is the defendant No.6
in the present case. The defendant No.6 acquired the same under
registered Will dated 21.11.2003. As per the recitals of the Will and
35
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
also as per the recitals of sale deed executed in favour of defendant
No.8 and 9 it testify that item No.25 and 26 originally belonged to
B.S.Lakshmanappa. Out of love and affection and as
B.S.Lakshmanappa was under the care and custody of Gajendra
executed a registered Will dated 21.11.2003 and during his death
bed time he has handed over the Will in favour of Ganjendra and
after the death of B.S.Lakshmanappa defendant No.6 Gajendra being
the exclusive owner of item No.25 and 26 and sold the same under
registered sale deed dated 06.06.2007 and delivered the same in
favour of defendant No.8 and 9 and they are in peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the same. The revenue documents were also
mutated to their names. The plaintiff is stranger to the family of
Ganjendra, she has no right over item No.25 and 26. Hence, prays to
dismiss the suit.
36
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
16. On the above pleadings the following issues were framed in
OS No.26345/2009;
1. Whether the plaintiff proves execution of
Will dated 21.11.2003 executed by
B.S.Lakshmanappa?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
probate of the Will dated 21.11.2003?
3. What decree or order?
17. On the above pleadings the following issues were framed in
OS No.5348/2006;
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that suit
properties are undivided family properties of
the plaintiffs and defendants?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a share in
the suit properties?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
permanent injunction as sought for?
37
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne
profits?
5. Whether defendant No.2 proves that suit
schedule properties were self acquisitions of
Late B.S.Lakshmanappa?
6. Whether defendant No.2 prove prior partition
alleged by defendant No.2?
7. What order or decree?
Addl. Issues framed on 30.03.2012
8. Whether the plaintiff proves that Late
Smt.Asha was the legally wedded wife of Late
B.S.Lakshmanappa?
9. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is other
wise entitled to succeed the estate of deceased
B.S.Lakshmanappa?
Addl. Issues framed on 08.07.2017
10 Whether the defendant No.8 and 9 proves suit
schedule properties to be their exclusive
properties as contended in their written
statement?
38
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
11. Whether the defendant No.8 and 9 prove th4
Will dated 21.11.2003?
Addl. Issues framed on 14.01.2019
1 Whether plaintiff proves that she is the
daughter of Late Sri B.S.Lakshmanappa?
2 Whether the defendant No.6 proves that late
Sri B.S.Lakshmanappa has executed a Will
dated 21.11.2003?
3 Whether the suit is barred by law of
limitation?
4 Whether the defendant No.6 further proves
that earlier unregistered palu patti dated
08.01.1987 executed by Late Sri
Lakshamanappa?
5 Whether the defendant No.6 further proves
that schedule item No.1 to 24 properties were
acquired by Government authorities?
39
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
18. The OS No.26345/2009 is clubbed with OS No.5348/2006
by the order of this Court dated 30.03.2012.
19. In order to substantiate the case of the plaintiff in OS No.
5348/2006, the plaintiff examined herself as PW-1and produced &
got marked documents at Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.47 and closed her side
evidence. On the other hand the defendant No.5 Smt.Shobha in OS
No.5348/2006 examined herself as DW-1. The power of attorney of
defendant No.7 examined herself as DW-2 and got marked Ex.D.1 to
Ex.D.3(a) documents. The defendant No.4 examined as DW-3. The
SPA Holder of defendant No.8 and 9 filed his examination in chief as
DW-4 and got marked Ex.D.4 to Ex.D.10 documents. Ex.D.11 is
marked through confrontation. Defendant No.6 examined himself as
DW-5 and got marked documents at Ex.D.12 to Ex.D.38 documents.
One Pawan Kumar examined as DW-6.
40
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
20. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire
materials available on records.
21. My findings to the issues in OS No.26345/2009 are as
under:
ISSUE NO.1 : In the negative
ISSUE NO.2 : In the negative
ISSUE NO.3 : As per final order, for the following;
22. My findings to the issues in OS No.5348/2006 are as
under:
ISSUE NO.1 : Partly affirmative
ISSUE NO.2 : Partly affirmative
ISSUE NO.3 : Partly affirmative
41
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
ISSUE NO.4 : Affirmative
ISSUE NO.5 : Partly Affirmative
ISSUE NO.6 : Affirmative
Addl. Issue No.8 : In the negative
framed on
30.03.2012
Addl. Issue No.9 : Partly affirmative
framed on
30.03.2012
Addl. Issue : In the negative
No.10 framed on
08.07.2017
Addl. Issue : In the negative
No.11 framed on
08.07.2017
Addl. Issue No.1 : As Affirmative
framed on
14.01.2019
Addl. Issue No.2 : In the negative
framed on
14.01.2019
42
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
Addl. Issue No.3 : In the negative
framed on
14.01.2019
Addl. Issue No.4 : As affirmative
framed on
14.01.2019
Addl. Issue No.5 : In the negative
framed on
14.01.2019
ISSUE NO.7 : As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
23. Addl. Issue No.8 framed on 30.03.2012 & Addl. Issue
No.1 dated 14.01.2019 in OS No.5348/2006:- In order to avoid
repetition of facts Addl. Issue No.8 framed on 30.03.2012 & Addl.
Issue No.1 dated 14.01.2019 in OS No.5348/2006 are taken for
common discussion.
43
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
24. The learned Advocate for plaintiff contended that grand
father of plaintiff by name H.S.Sanjeevappa had three sons namely
B.S.Lakshmanappa, B.S.Ramapppa and B.S.Hanumanthappa.
Plaintiff is the daughter of B.S.Lakshmanappa. B.S.Lakshmanappa
had two wives. First defendant Smt.C.S.Nagarathnamma is the first
wife. One Smt.Asha is the second wife. Plaintiff and defendant No.7
are the daughters of B.S.Lakshmanappa through his second wife
through Asha. Defendant No.2, 3 and 5 are the daughters of
B.S.Lakshmnappa through his first wife C.S.Nagarathanamma.
Defendant No.4 is the son of deceased daughter of
B.S.Lakshmanappa by name Smt.Bhagaya Lakshmi and defendant
No.6 is the son of B.S.Lakshmanappa through his first wife
C.S.Nagarathnamma.
25. On the other hand the defendant No.6 contended that the
plaintiff and defendant No.7 are the children of one Late Krishna
44
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
Singh through his wife Smt.Asha. The said Krishna Singh was
working with B.S.Lakshmanappa in Lakshmi Service Station as a
workman. The said Krishna Singh was an ex-service man and after
his retirement he was working in the service station of
B.S.Lakshmanappa. Smt.Asha W/o.Krishna Singh was also working
for family of defendant No.6. Smt.Asha and Krishna Singh had two
children i.e., the plaintiff and defendant No.7 in the present case. As
the parents of plaintiff and defendant No.7 died unnaturally within a
span of one month, the plaintiff and defendant No.7 became
orphans. As the parents of plaintiff and defendant No.7 worked for
the family of Defendant No.6, Sri.B.S.Lakshmanappa father of
defendant No.6 brought-up the plaintiff and defendant No.7 out of
compassion and to avoid the life of plaintiff and defendant No.7
being ruined. All the other children of B.S.Lakshmanappa were
young they were told that the plaintiff and defendant No.7 are their
45
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
sisters only to avoid ill-treatment and embarrassment to the plaintiff
and defendant No.7.
26. The learned Advocate for defendant No.4 and 5 contended
and admitted the relationship and submitted that H.S.Sanjeevappa
had three sons namely B.S.Lakshmanappa, B.S.Ramapppa and
B.S.Hanumanthappa. Plaintiff is the daughter of
B.S.Lakshmanappa. B.S.Lakshmanappa had two wives. First
defendant Smt.C.S.Nagarathnamma is the first wife. One Smt.Asha
is the second wife. Plaintiff and defendant No.7 are the daughters of
B.S.Lakshmanappa through his second wife through Asha.
Defendant No.2, 3 and 5 are the daughters of B.S.Lakshmnappa
through his first wife C.S.Nagarathanamma. Defendant No.4 is the
son of deceased daughter of B.S.Lakshmanappa by name
Smt.Bhagaya Lakshmi and defendant No.6 is the son of
B.S.Lakshmanappa through his first wife C.S.Nagarathnamma.
46
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
27. The learned Advocate for plaintiff has produced and relied
on the following decisions;
1. 1974 SCC 242 between Nagindas Ramdas
V/s. Dalpatram Ichharam @ Brijaram and
others wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that - 'As per Section 58 of Indian
Evidence Act, admissions in pleadings or
judicial admissions in comparison with
evidentiary admission should be considered
and also held that admissions if true and
clear, are by far the best proof of facts
admitted. Admitted admissions in pleadings
are judicial admissions, admissible under
Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act, made by
the parties or their agents or before hearing
47
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
of the case, stand on a higher footing than
evidentiary admissions. The former class of
admissions are fully binding on the party
that makes them and constitute a waiver of
proof. They by themselves can be made the
foundation of the rights of the parties. On
the other hand evidentiary admissions which
are receivable as evidence, are by
themselves, not conclusive. They can be
shown to be wrong'.
2. (2006) 12 Supreme Court cases 552
between Avathar Singh & Others V/s.
Gurdial Singh and others wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that - 'A.
Evidence Act, 1872 - Ss. 17 and 31 - Proof
48
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
by admission - Held, Admission forms the
best evidence - As per S.58, Evidence Act,
1872, things admitted need not be proved -
though admission does not create any title,
nature of land can form subject - matter of
admission - Thus, where respondents in
their suit not calling for records from the
state of the local authorities to show, that
the land in question was a public street,
keeping in view the fact that the appellants
witnesses admitted the said fact in their own
suit, held, the findings of fact arrived at by
the first appellate court and affirmed by the
High Court need not be interfered with -
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Or. 12 R 6'.
49
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
28. Further even though defendant No.2 and 3 initially filed
written statement and denied the relationship of plaintiff and
defendant No.7 with B.S.Lakshmanappa but subsequently,
defendant No.2 and 3 adopted the written statement of defendant
No.5. As such, defendant No.2 and 3 also admitted the relationship
of plaintiff and defendant No.7 with B.S.Lakshmanappa stating that
plaintiff and defendant No.7 are the daughters of B.S.Lakshmanappa
through his second wife Smt.Asha.
29. It is significant to note that in order the substantiate the
contention of plaintiff she has produced Ex.P.30 the 2 nd PUC Marks
Card of plaintiff Smt.Keerthi.B.L. wherein her father's name is shown
as B.S.Lakshmanappa. She has also produced Ex.P.31 and Ex.P.32
Bank Passbooks pertaining to plaintiff wherein also the name of
father of plaintiff is shown as B.S.Lakshmanappa. The plaintiff also
produced Ex.P.33 and Ex.P.34 which are the marriage invitation
50
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
card of plaintiff and defendant No.7 wherein the name of father of
plaintiff Keerthi and defendant No.7 Indumathi is shown as
B.S.Lakshmanappa.
30. Further it is significant to note that the plaintiff has
produced Ex.P.35 to Ex.P.45 photographs and Ex.P.46 Compact
Disk pertaining to marriage of plaintiff wherein B.S.Lakshmanappa
has performed her marriage.
31. Further it is significant to note that the defendant No.6 has
filed O.S. No.26345/2009 for probate wherein also the present
defendant No.6 B.L.Gajendra clearly pleaded that
B.S.Lakshmanappa S/o.H.Sanjeevappa married
Smt.C.S.Nagarathnamma and they had a son B.L.Gajendra and
daughers namely Chayadevi.B.L, B.L.Bhagyalakshmi, B.L.Shobha
and B.L.Parimala. Sri B.S.Lakshmanappa also married Smt.Asha
and begot two daughters namely Smt.B.L.Indumathi and
51
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
Smt.B.L.Keerthikumari and the said Smt.Asha mother of Keerthi and
Indumathi died in the year 1970 and the first wife
Smt.C.S.Nagarathanamma is alive. It is further significant to note
that the defendant No.6 B.L.Ganjendra in his cross-examination
clearly admitted that his father B.S.Lakshmanappa ahd two wives.
The first wife name is C.S.Nagarathanamma and 2 nd wife name of
Smt.Asha. The first wife C.S.Nagarathnamma had children namely
Chayadevi, Parimala, Bhagayalkshmi B.L.Shobha and
B.L.Ganjendra. The second wife Smt.Asha had two daughters
namely Indumathi and Keerthi. He has also admitted that after the
birth of Smt.Shobha her mother C.S.Nagarathnamma became
mentally ill, as such to look after the children B.S.Lakshmanappa
married Smt.Asha, which clearly reveals that plaintiff Keerthi and
defendant No.7 Smt.Indumathi are the daughters of
B.S.Lakshmanappa through his second wife Smt.Asha. This is one
aspect.
52
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
32. It is further significant to note that no doubt the plaintiff
established that the plaintiff and defendant No.7 are the daughters
of B.S.Lakshmanappa but admittedly as they is no dissolution of
marriage between B.S.Lakshmanappa and
Smt.C.S.Nagarathanamma and as the B.S.Lakshmanappa married
Smt.Asha during the life time of first wife Smt.C.S.Nagarathnamma
without obtaining decree for dissolution of marriage. As such,
Smt.Asha is not the legally wedded wife of Sri.B.S.Lakshmanappa.
As such, I answer Add. Issue No.8 dated 30.03.2012 in the negative
and Addl. Issue No.1 framed on 14.01.2019 as affirmative.
33. ISSUE NO.1, 2 IN OS NO.26345/2009, ADDL. ISSUE
NO.11 FRAMED ON 08.07.2017, ADDL. ISSUE NO.2 FRAMED ON
14.01.2019 :- In order to avoid repetition of facts the above issues
have taken for common discussion.
53
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
It is the contention of B.L.Ganjendra that his father
B.S.Lakshmanappa residing at No.18, Sanjeevini Nilaya,
Lotegollahalli, RMV 2nd Stage, Bengaluru being the owner in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of house and vacant land in Sy. No.1/1,
BMP No.18 of Lotegollahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North
Taluk has executed a Will dated 21.11.2003 bequeathing all the
properties shown in the Will dated 21.11.2003 in favour of
B.L.Ganjendra in presence of attestors namely T.L.Lingaiah and
M.R.Gopal which is the last Will and Testament bequeathing all his
properties in favour of his only son B.L.Ganjendra which was duly
attested by two witnesses and drafted by his family legal advisor
M.Sudarshan Murthy. That B.S.Lakshmanappa died on 06.04.2006
and execution of said will was made known to the B.L.Ganendra by
is family friend Ningaiah and thereafter the defendant No.6 Sri
B.L.Gajendra is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
54
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
properties bequeathed in the said will. As such the plaintiff became
the absolute owner of the properties as shown in the Will dated
21.11.2003.
34. On the other hand, learned Advocate for plaintiff in OS
No.26345/2009 contended that her father B.S.Lakshmanappa has
not executed any Will dated 21.11.2003. The Will relied by the
defendant No.6 Ganjendra is forged and fabricated Will to deny the
partition to the other documents of B.S.Lakshmanappa that the
claim that T.L.Lingaiah a friend of B.S.Lakshmanappa handed over a
unregistered Will alleged to have been executed by
B.S.Lakshmanappa on 21.11.2003 bequeathing al the schedule
properties in favour of B.L.Ganjendra in presence of T.L.Lingaiah
and M.R.Gopal is false and cooked up story.
55
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
35. Further, the learned Advocates for defendant No.2 to 5,
defendant No.6 also contended that Sri B.S.Lakshmanappa has not
executed any Will dated 21.11.2003 and not bequeathed the
properties as contended by Sri B.L.Gajendra. The alleged Will dated
21.11.2003 is a forged and fabricated Document.
36. In order to substantiate the contention of B.L.Ganjendra he
has produced the original unregistered Will marked at Ex.D11 dated
21.11.2003. The defendant No.6 Ganjendra.B.L also examined a
witness by name Pavan Kumar, S/o.M.R.Gopal as DW-6 who filed
his examination his chief and stated that Late M.R.Gopal and
B.S.Lakshmanappa were very close friends. B.S.Lakshmanappa
during his life time visited the house of DW-6 Pawan Kumar several
times. DW-6 has heard from his father that B.S.Lakshmanappa has
executed a Will in favour of his son B.L.Ganjendra to show the father
of Pawan Kumar DW-6 is one of the attesting witness. Further DW06
56
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
identified the signature of his father M.R.Gopal who is said to be a
attesting witness to the alleged Will dated 21.11.2003.
37. It is further significant to note that initially B.L.Ganjendra
filed P & SC NO.15028/2006 for grant of probate which was
registered and renumbered as OS No.26345/2009 in which before
registration of the case as O.S. 26345/2009 the alleged attesting
witness have filed their affidavits supporting that contention of
B.L.Ganjendra. But before cross-examination of said witnesses they
were died. As such without cross-examination of said witnesses their
affidavits is of no value under law.
38. The learned advocate for defendant No.6 in OS
No.5348/2006 produced and relied on the following decision.
1. Civil Appeal No.2435/2010 between
Moturu Nalini Kanth V/s. Gainadi Kali
Prasad dead by LRs. wherein the Hon'ble
57
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
Supreme Court held that - 'The propounder
must demonstrate not only the testator
signature but also the proper attestations
and required under Section 63 (C) of
Succession Act. Even if that execution Will is
not denied by the opposite party, Section 68
of Indian Evidence act mandates that atleast
one attesting witness must be examined to
prove that execution of the Will and in
absence of attesting witnesses due to death
or unavailability, Section 69 of Evidence Act
empowers the propounder of the Will with
recourse'.
39. On the other hand learned advocate for plaintiff in Os
No.5348/2006 produced and relief on the following decisions;
58
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
1. ILR 2009 Karnataka 992 between
Smt.Giddamma and another V/s. Venkatamma
dead by LRS.
(A) Indian evidence Act, 1872 - Section
67 to 69 - Section 68 - Proof of
Execution of the document -
Mandatory requirement - Section 69 -
Proof of a document where no attesting
witness found, held;
Section 68 of the Act lays down
the mode of proof of a document. The
mandatory requirement is that, atleast
one of the attesting witnesses should
be examined. Section 69 provides for
proof of a document where no attesting
witnesses is found. The provision of
59
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
Section 69 contemplates that, the
handwriting of atleast one attesting
witness and the signature of the
person executing the document is
required to be identified and proved
through the witnesses. The proof of
handwriting and/or the signature of a
scribe is not the stipulation under
Section 69 of the Act. - On facts, held,
the evidence of DW.3, merely
identifying the handwriting and also
the signature of his father, the scribe of
the WILL Ex.D.1, is of no legal
consequence and does not meet the
stipulation under Section 69.
60
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
40. It is pertinent to note that as per the contention of
defendant No.6 the attesting witnesses to the alleged Will dated
21.11.2003 are the alive. Section 69 of Indian Evidence Act,
envisages that - 'If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the
documents purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it
must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness atleast is
in his handwriting and the signature of the person executing the
document is in the handwriting of that person shall be proved'. But
in the present case, even though DW-6 who is said to be the son of
attesting witness by name M.R.Gopal has identified the signature of
attesting witness M.R.Gopal but in the present case the signature of
executant in the presence of attesting witnesses is not proved. This
is one aspect.
41. Further, it is significant to note that as per alleged Will
dated 21.11.2003 all the properties of deceased B.S.Lakshmanappa
61
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
has said to have been bequeathed in favour of B.L.Ganjendra the son
of B.S.Lakshmanappa. Admittedly, as on the date of the alleged Will
deed, the wife of B.S.Lakshmanappa and daughters of
B.S.Lakshmanappa were alive. But the Will does not reveals why the
testator disinherit the daughters and wife in the Will, creates doubt
regarding the genunity of the Will.
42. It is further significant to note that as per Ex.P.9
B.S.Lakshmanappa purchased property bearing Municipal No.12/1,
situated in first main, Sundara Nagara, bearing Kaneshumari No.84
& No.11 and 14 out of No.7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of Poornapura Village
on 22.02.2005. But, as per the alleged Will dated 21.11.2003 the
properties purchased by B.S.Lakshmanappa on 22.02.2005 is also
included in the alleged Will dated 21.11.2003. When
B.S.Lakshmanappa has not at all purchased the properties
mentioned above as on 21.11.2003 and when the same were
62
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
purchased on 22.02.2005 it is impossible to mention the said
properties in the Will dated 21.11.2003 i.e., two years earlier to
purchase of the said properties which will also clear that the alleged
Will dated 21.11.2003 is a created one.
43. Further, it is significant to note that the plaintiff has
produced Ex.P.49 by confronting the signature of
B.S.Lakshmanappa to B.L.Gajendra who admitted that the signature
found in Ex.D.49 belongs to his father where in B.S.Lakshmanappa
has lodged complaint against his own son B.L.Ganjendra stating
that B.L.Ganjendra has forged the signatures of B.S.Lakshmanappa
which clearly reveals that B.S.Lakshmanappa had no faith at the
relevant point of time on his own son B.L.Ganjendra and he went to
the extent of lodging complaint against his own son for forging his
signatures, as such it is unbelievable that B.S.Lakshmanappa has
executed Will deed bequeathing all his properties in favour of
63
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
B.L.Ganjendra. Hence, among all these grounds, the defendant No.6
B.L.Gajendra failed to establish that B.S.Lakshmanappa executed
Will deed dated 21.11.2003 in his favour. Hence, I answer Issue No.2
in OS NO.26345/2009, Addl. Issue No.11 framed on 08.07.2017,
Addl. Issue No.2 framed on 14.01.2019 in the negative.
44. Issue No.5 in OS No.5348/2006, Issue No.6 in OS
No.5348/2006 and Addl. Issue No.4 in OS No.5348/2006 dated
14.01.2019:- Inorder to avoid repetition of facts, the above issues are
taken together for common discussion.
45. The learned Advocate for plaintiff in OS No.5348/2006
contended that during the minority of the plaintiff her father
B.S.Lakshmanappa and other members of the family had made an
unregistered palu patti more of a family arrangement than partition
and therein the plaintiff was allotted which were self acquired
64
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
properties of plaintiffs father, probably the father of the plaintiff had
done so with a view to protect the interest of minor girl child and
also may be towards maintenance and other expenses of the plaintiff
out of huge properties of her father. In the said palupatti only two
small extents of sites were given to the plaintiff during her minority.
The said fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiff only after
attainment of majority. Even otherwise the said unregistered palu
patti was illegal as the same was not equitable. The allotment of two
small sites that too during her minority does not even represent a
fraction of the share for which the plaintiff is legally entitled to in the
properties left behind by her father B.S.Lakshmanappa. In any case,
the said unregistered palu patti does not represent the correct
picture not it can be terms as a partition more particularly as the
same was done during the minority of the plaintiff and further the
plaintiff had no option but to accede to the Will and wish of her
father. Under such circumstances it cannot be said that there was a
65
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
division in the properties of B.S.Lakshmanappa under the said
palupatti. As the said palu patti was executed during the minority of
the plaintiff hence the same is not legally binding on her. Hence, the
said deed of partition cannot be termed as an equitable partition.
46. Learned advocate for defendant No.2 to 5 and 7 also
contended that the said palupatti is not binding on them.
47. On the other hand learned Advocate for defendant No.6
contended that the palu patti dated 08.01.1987 is binding on al the
family members of B.S.Lakshmanappa as the same was executed
during the life time of B.S.Lakshmanappa if the consent of all his
children and his first wife.
66
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
48. In support of contention of plaintiffs in OS No.5348/2006
the learned Advocate for plaintiffs produced and relied on the
following decisions;
1. 1980 Supp
Supreme Court cases 298 between Kalayani
dead by LRS V/s. Narayanan and others,
- 'Hindu Law - Family arrangement-
Ingredients of - Deed created by father
specifying shares of members of joint family
and making it effective from the date of his
death, in absence of consent of affected
members of the family and other ingredients,
held, not a family arrangement.
Hindu Law- Partition - Disruption of joint
family status as a preliminary step towards
67
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
partition by metes and bounds - how,
effected - incidents of - Father governed by
Mitakshara law living jointly with is sons can
effect the disruption without consent of his
sons - But if a partition is effected by the
father by a Will, consent of the family
members must be obtained - Registered
deed, specifying shares of co-parceners and
making provisions for female members,
made, effective from a future date of death of
the creator of the deed, held, not a deed of
partition by metes and bounds - TPA 1882,
Section 5.
Hindu Law - Partition - When any of
the co-parceners sought partition and
68
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
separated from the joint family there is no
presumption from the subsequent conduct
of the remaining co-parceners that they
remained joint, if there is no specific
evidence of their reunion.
Hindu Law - Joint family-Branches-
Sub branches can exist within a joint family
- But a branch of family wife wise is
unknown to Hindu Law.
2. (1976) 1 Supreme Court cases 214
between Ratnam Chettiar and Others V/s.
M.Kuppuswami Chettiar and Others wherein
it is held that - (3) Where, however a
69
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
partition effected between the members of
the Hindu undivided family which consists
of minors is proved to be unjust and unfair
and is detrimental to the interest of the
minor the partition can certainly be
reopened whatever the length of time when
the partition took place. In such a case it is
the duty of the Court to protect and
safeguard the interest of the minors and the
onus of proof that the partition was just and
fair is on the party supporting the partition.
3. 1979 (2) Supreme Court Cases 463
between Smt.Sukarani dead by LRs v/s.
Harishankar and Others wherein it is held
70
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
that - 'Even though there was no fraud,
misrepresentation or undue influence, a
partition could be reopened at the instance
of a minor co-parcener despite the fact that
his branch was represented by his father at
the partition. If the partition was unfair or
prejudicial to the interest of the minor. It
was also held that - 'The entire partition
need not be reopened if the partition was
unfair in regard to a distinct and separable
part of the scheme of the partition. In such
an event the reopening of partition could be
suitable circumscribed'.
71
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
4. (2023) 10 SCC 1 between Revanna
Sidhappa and another V/s. Mallikarjun and
Others wherein it is held that - 'A. Family
and personal Laws-Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 - S.16 - Child born from void or
voidable marriage conferred legitimacy under
S.16(1) or S.16(2)HMA - Property that such
child may inherit- will have rights to or in
absolute and exclusive property of parents,
such child would have rights, held, includes
share of parents in co-parcenary property,
though such child is not a coparcener in
their own right.
72
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
B. Family and personal Laws- Hindu
Marriage Act,1 955-Ss.16(1) and 16(2) R/w.
S.3(j) proviso HSA- A child who is legitimate
under S.16(1) or S.16(2) HMA would, for
purposes of S.3(J) HSA, held fall within the
main definition of 'relate' therein i.e., 'related
by legitimate kinship' and cannot be
regarded as an illegitimate child. For
purpose of S.3(j) proviso HSA.
c. Family & personal law- Hindu
succession Act, 1956, Ss.6, 8, 10, 15 and 16
R/w. Section 16 HMA - Child born from void
or voidable marriage conferred legitimacy
under S.16 HMA, held is not a coparcener in
73
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
Hindu Mitakshara joint family - However,
such child would be entitled to share of
parents in coparcenary property in
accordance with mandate of S.6 HSA (as
subs. In 2005) where the parent dies after
the commencement of the HSA (Amendment)
Act, 2005 w.e.f. 09.09.2005 - Quaere
whether the same position obtains when
parent(s) died prior to commencement of
HSA (Amendment) Act, 2005 where the case
falls under original un-substituted S.6
proviso R/w. Explains 1 and 2 HSA.
- Further held, as child conferred legitimacy
under S.16 HMA has rights only in exclusive
74
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
and absolute property of parents, such child
cannot seeks partition of the ancestral/joint
family/co-parcenary property in which
parents have a share, during lifetime of
parents.
49. On the other hand the learned Advocate for defendant No.6
produced and relied on the following decisions;
1. Civil Appeal No.3934/2006(SC) between
P.Anjanappa dead by LRs V/s.
A.P.Nanajunappa and others wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that - 'Once
parties act on a family settlement they
cannot go back on it even if the document is
not formally registered, establishing its
enforceability and impact.
75
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
It is also held that to constitute a
partition all that is necessary is a definite
and unequivocal indication of intention by a
member of a joint family to separate himself
from the family, what form such intimation,
indication or interest should take would
depend on the circumstances of each case'.
50. It is pertinent to note that the unregistered palu patti was
produced before the Court which was marked by confrontation as
Ex.P.8 wherein B.S.Lakshmanappa, his first wife
C.S.Nagarathanamma his daughters through first wife and also
daughters through second wife were allotted properties as mentioned
in the schedule. The defendant No.2 to 5 and 7 have acquired almost
76
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
equal share in the said palu patti. The defendant No.2 to 6 have
received two sites each. It is significant to note that no doubt the
plaintiff was minor at the time of palu patti dated 08.01.1987
represented by B.S.Lakshmanappa. But it is not the case of plaintiff
that B.S.Lakshmanappa has sold the properties allotted to the
plaintiff nor defendant No.7. Moreover the plaintiff herself admitted
that she has sold the properties which were acquired by her in palu
patti dated 08.01.1987 and it is also admitted by the parties in the
evidence that defendant No.2 to 5 who acquired properties have
constructed houses and they have rented the properties which
clearly reveals that the unregistered palu patti dated 08.10.1987 is
acted upon. Further it is significant to note that no doubt palu patti
dated 08.01.1987 is not a registered one but there is no bar under
Hindu Law for oral partition. Further, even the plaintiff and
defendant No.2 to 7 admits the execution of palu patti dated
08.01.1987. But it is the only contention of the plaintiff that it is not
77
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
fair partition. It is significant to note that while answering Addl.
Issue No.8 dated 30.03.2012 this Court held that the marriage of
Smt.Asha with B.S.Lakshmanappa is not legal and Smt.Asha is not
the legally wedded wife of B.S.Lakshmanappa. As such, the plaintiff
and defendant No.7 who are born out of second marriage when the
first marriage is in subsistence they are not entitled for any direct
share in the ancestral properties. They are only entitled for a
notional share in the properties allotted to their father. But in the
present case even defendant No.2 to 5 have got equal shares in palu
patti dated 08.01.1987 who are the legitimate children of
B.S.Lakshmanappa and C.S.Nagarathnamma. At the same time
plaintiff and defendant No.7 are also allotted equal share as that of
defendant No.2 to 5. Even if notional share in the ancestral
properties acquired by B.S.Lakshmanappa is allotted to plaintiff and
defendant No.7 they will not get share as much as share allotted to
them in palu patti dated 08.01.1987. As it can be inferred that there
78
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
is equitable share was given to plaintiff and defendant No.7 when the
palu patti dated 8.1.1987, hence question of reopening the said palu
patti does not arise.
51. Further it is significant to note that Ex.P.19 clearly reveals
that the property shown in the said document is purchased by
B.S.Lakshmanappa after partition deed and the said property is also
the joint family property of plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 7.
Moreover as registered Will dated 21.11.2003 is not proved the
properties u8nder the Will are also joint family properties. Hence, I
answer issue No.1 in OS No.5348/2006 as partly affirmative, issue
No.5 in OS No.5348/2006 as partly affirmative, issue No.6 in OS
No.5348/2006 as affirmative, Addl. issue No.4 dated 14.01.2019 in
OS No.5348/2006 as affirmative.
79
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
52. Addl. Issue No.10 in OS No.5348/2006 dated 08.07.2017 :-
Learned Advocate for defendant No.8 and 9 contended that the joint
family properties were previously partitioned among the joint family
members, the plaintiff also allotted her share and thereby dissolve
the joint family among the joint family members. Since from the date
of partition, the plaintiff herself enjoying her own share and there is
no joint family status between the plaintiffs and defendants. The suit
schedule properties are the exclusive properties of defendant No.8
and 9. The plaintiff has no right to seek any partition against
defendant No.8 and 9. Item No.25 and 26 are the self acquired
properties of B.L.Ganjendra who is the defendant No.6 in the present
case. The defendant No.6 acquired the same under registered Will
dated 21.11.2003. As per the recitals of the Will and also as per the
recitals of sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.8 and 9 it
testify that item No.25 and 26 originally belonged to
B.S.Lakshmanappa. Out of love and affection and as
80
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
B.S.Lakshmanappa was under the care and custody of B.L.Gajendra
executed a registered Will dated 21.11.2003 and during his death
bed time he has handed over the Will in favour of Ganjendra and
after the death of B.S.Lakshmanappa defendant No.6 Gajendra being
the exclusive owner of item No.25 and 26 and sold the same under
registered sale deed dated 06.06.2007 and delivered the same in
favour of defendant No.8 and 9 and they are in peaceful possession
and enjoyment of the same. The revenue documents were also
mutated to their names. The plaintiff is stranger to the family of
Ganjendra, she has no right over item No.25 and 26.
53. In support of contention of defendant No.8 and 9 the SPA
holder of defendant No.8 and 9 filed his examination in chief on oath
as DW-5 and reiterated the averments of written statement of
defendant No.8 and 9. He has produced and got marked Ex.D.4 to
Ex.D.10 documents. Ex.D.4 is the SPA, Ex.D.5 is C.C. of Sale deed
81
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
dated 06.06.2007 executed by Defendant No.7 B.L.Ganjendra in
favour of Shanthala Ajith. Ex.D.6 is C.C. of sale deed dated
06.60.2007 executed by Defendant No.6 in favour of Smt.Jayanthi
Anand. Ex.D.7 is the Computerized RTC Extract pertaining to Sy.
No.286/2 of Tumkur Ammanikere Village, measuring 19 guntas
standing in the name of Jayanthi Anand for the year 2022-23.
Ex.D.8 is the Computerized RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.286/3
of Tumkur Ammanikere Village, measuring 13 guntas standing in
the name of Jayanthi Anand and 32 guntas in the name of
Shanathal Ajith, Ex.D.9 is computerized M.R. No.66/2008-09,
Ex.D.10 is Computer M.R.67/2008-09.
54. It is significant to note that this Court while answering the
issue on execution of Will dated 21.11.2003 clearly held that
defendant No.6 failed to establish the execution of the Will dated
21.11.2003. As such, when we meticulously gone through the sale
82
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
deeds of defendant No.8 and 9, the said documents clearly reveals
that B.L.Ganjendra executed sale deeds in their favour on he
strength of Will dated 21.11.2003. When the Will is not established
before this Court, then the said sale deeds executed in favour of
defendant No.8 and 9 is not binding on the share of defendant No.2
to 5 and 7 and except the share of defendant No.7. As such I answer
Addl. Issue no.10 dated 08.07.2017 in OS No.5348/2006 in the
negative.
55. Issue No.1 in OS No.5348/2006, Addl. Issue No.5 dated
14.01.2019 in OS No.5348/2006:- The learned Advocate for plaintiff
contended that all the suit schedule properties are the joint family
properties of plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 7.
56. On the other hand the learned Advocate for defendant No.6
contended that the properties mentioned in item No.1 to 24 were
83
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
acquired by Government authorities and the properties shown at
item No.29 to 33 are not available for partition.
57. In order to substantiate the contention of plaintiff, the
plaintiff filed her examination in chief and she has reiterated the
averments of plaint. She has also produced and got marked Ex.P.1 is
the RTC Extract for the year 2000 pertaining to Sy. No.14 of
Kasaghattapura Village, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 7 acres
34 guntas standing in the name of B.S.Lakshmanappa and
B.L.Ganjendra. Ex.P.2 is the RTC Extract for the year 2000
pertaining to Sy. No.13 of Kasaghattapura Village, Bengaluru North
Taluk, measuring 6 acres 30 guntas standing in the name of
B.S.Lakshmanappa. Ex.P.3 is the computerized RTC Extract
pertaining to Sy. No.14 measuring 7 acres 34 guntas of
Kasaghattapura Village for the year 2005-06 standing jointly in the
name of B.S.Lakshmanappa and B.L.Ganjendra. Ex.P.4 is the
84
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
computerized RTC Extract for the year 2005-06 pertaining to Sy.
No.12 of Kasaghattapura Village, Bengaluru North Taluk,
measuring 3 acres 20 guntas standing in the name of
B.S.Lakshmanappa. Ex.P.5 is the computerized RTC Extract
pertaining to Sy. No.13 of Kasaghattapura Village for the year 2005-
06 measuring 6 acres 30 guntas standing in the name of
B.S.Lakshmanappa. Ex.P.6 is the C.C. of RTC Extract for the year
1999 - 2000 pertaining to Sy. No.34 of Guniagrahara Village
measuring 5 acres standing in the name of B.S.Lakshmanappa and
4 acres in the name of B.L.Ganjendra. Ex.P.7 is the C.C. of RTC
Extract pertaining to Sy. No.32 of Guniagarahara Village measuring
8 acres standing in the name of B.S.Lakshmanappa for the year
1999-2000. Ex.P.8 is C.C. of RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.46 of
Guniagarahara Village measuring 2 acres 9 guntas standing in the
name of B.S.Lakshmanappa for the year 1999-2000. Ex.P.9 is the
C.C. of RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.32 of Guniagarahara Village
85
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
measuring 33 guntas standing in the name of B.L.Ganjendra for the
year 1999-2000. Ex.P.10 is the Computerized RTC Extract
pertaining to Sy. No.34 of Guniagarahara Village measuring 4 acres
standing in the name of B.L.Ganjendra and 5 acres in the name of
B.S.Lakshmanappa for the year 2005-2006. Ex.P.11 is the
Computerized RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.46 of Guniagarahara
Village measuring 29 guntas standing in the name of one Arasappa
for the year 2005-2006. Ex.P.12 is the Computerized RTC Extract
pertaining to Sy. No.32 of Guniagarahara Village measuring 3 acres
20 guntas standing in the name of Devappa and Munishyamappa for
the year 2005-2006. Ex.P.13 & Ex.P.14 are the Tax paid receipts.
Ex.P.15 is the C.C. of sale deed dated 27.05.1991. Ex.P.16 is the
C.C. of sale deed dated 20.12.1991. Ex.P.17 is the C.C. of sale deed
dated 13.09.1993. Ex.P.18 is the C.C. of sale deed dated 25.04.1997.
Ex.P.19 is the C.C. of sale deed dated 22.02.2005 purchased by
B.S.Lakshmanappa. Ex.P.20 is the sale deed dated 11.06.1973
86
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
purchased by B.S.Lakshmanappa. Ex.P.21 is the C.C. of sale deed
dated 06.06.2007 executed by B.L.Ganjendra in favour of one
Shanthala Ajith with respect to Sy. No.286/3 of Tumkur Kasaba
Taluk, measuring 32 guntas. Ex.P.22 is the C.C. of sale deed dated
06.06.2007 executed by B.L.Ganjendra in favour of Jayanthi Ananth
pertaining to Sy. No.286/3 measuring 13 guntas and Sy. No.286/2
measuring 19 guntas. Ex.P.26 is the C.C. of sale deed dated
28.02.2011 executed by B.L.Ganjendra in favour of B.N.Rajkumar
with respect to property bearing PID No.4-34-32 of Mathikere Village,
2nd main, bearing Municipal No.32 measuring 2440 sq. fts., Ex.P.27
is the C.C. of sale deed dated 13.02.2009 executed by B.L.Ganjendra
in favour of B.N.Rajkumar with respect to property bearing PID No.2-
105-12 Municipal No.12 totally measuring 2100 sq. ft. Ex.P.28 is the
C.C. of sale deed dated 13.02.2009 executed by B.L.Ganjendra in
favour of B.N.Rajkumar bearing PID No.2-105-12/1, Old No.11,
present Municipal No.12/1, measuring 1260 sq. ft., Ex.P.29 is the
87
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
C.C. of partition deed dated 27.08.1970 executed between
Sanjeevappa and his sons. Ex.P.29(a) is the typed copy of Ex.P.29.
Ex.P.30 is the Marks Card of Plaintiff wherein her fathers name is
shown as B.S.Lakshmanappa. Ex.P.48 is the copy of palu patti
dated 08.01.1987.
58. On the contrary, the defendant No.6 filed his examination
in chief on oath as DW-5 and he reiterated the averments of his
written statement. He has produced and got marked Ex.D.12 is
Gazette Notification with respect to Acquisition of land by CITB
Bangaluru wherein land bearing Sy. No.21 and Sy. No.1 belonged to
Sanjeevappa was acquired by the Government. Ex.D.13 is copy of
final notification of Housing and Urban Development wherein Sy.
No.110 belonged to B.S.Lakshmanappa and Sy. No.111 belonged
Sanjeevappa was acquired and Sy. No.1/1 and 1/2 was acquired.
Ex.D.14 is the notice given by LAO Officer with respect to Sy. No.110
88
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
of Mathikere Village with respect to acquisitions, Ex.D.15 is the
notice given by LAO Officer with respect to Sy. No.111/1 and 111/2
of Mathikere Village with respect to acquisitions to
B.S.Lakshmanappa and others, Ex.D.16 is the notice given by LAO
with respect to acquisition with respect to land in Sy. No.23 of
Purnapura Village to B.S.Lakshmanappa, Ex.D.17 is the notice given
by LAO with respect to Sy. No.110 of Mathikere Village, Ex.D.18 is
the letter of LAO with respect to acquisition of land bearing Sy.
No.110 of Mathikere Village, Ex.D.19 is the award notice with
respect to land bearing Sy. No.110 of Mathikere Village, Ex.D.20 is
the notice given by LAO with respect to acquisition of Sy. No.22 of
Purnapura Village, Ex.D.21 is award notice with respect to
acquisition of Sy. No.22 of Purnapura Village with respect to 20
guntas, Ex.D.22 is the notice of LAO with respect to acquisition of
Sy. No.22 of Purnapura Village. Ex.D.23 is the notice of LAO with
respect to Sy. No.23 of Purnapura Village, Ex.D.24 is the Award
89
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
Notice with respect to Sy. No.23 of Purnapura Village, Ex.D.25 is the
Award Notice with respect to Sy. No.1 of Lottegollahalli Village,
Ex.D.26 is the notice given by LAO with respect to acquisition of Sy.
No.1 of Lottegollahalli Village, Ex.D.27 is the letter issued by
Lakshmanappa dated 10.03.1975 to SLAO, Bengaluru. Ex.D.28 is
the Endorsement issued by LAO, CITB Bengaluru to
B.S.Lakshmanappa with respect to acquisition of 10 guntas in Sy.
No.110 of Mathikere Village, Ex.D.29 is the claim application of
B.S.Lakshmanappa before LAO, Bengaluru in LAC No.11/74-75,
Ex.D.30 is the letter issued by LAO, Ex.D.31 is the letter issued by
LAO to B.S.Lakshmanappa, Ex.D.32 is the C.C. of Sale Deed dated
18.04.1986, Ex.D.33 is the C.C. of sale deed dated 28.08.2006
executed by Defendant No.6 B.L.Ganjendra in favour of one
K.Krishnama Raju with respect to Sy.No.13 Kasagattapura Village
measuring 6 acres 10 guntas, Ex.D.34 is the C.C. of sale deed dated
21.02.1986, Ex.D.35 is the C.C. of sale deed dated 14.09.2006
90
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
executed by B.L.Ganjendra in favour of Narayana with respect to Sy.
No.14 of Kasaghattapura Village measuring 3 acres 37 guntas.
Ex.D.36 is the C.C. of sale deed dated 16.08.1984, Ex.D.37 is the
orders passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.
No.15067/2006, Ex.D.38 is the notice issued by BDA.
59. As per the contention of plaintiff Item No.14 to 16 of suit
schedule properties are the properties belonged to Sanjeevappa who
was the father of B.S.Lakshmnappa, as such the plaintiff if also
entitled for share in item No.14 to 16 of the suit schedule properties.
But it is pertinent to note that Sanjeevappa had three sons namely
B.S.Lakshmanappa, B.S.Ramappa and B.S.Hanumanthappa. In the
present case the plaintiff has not made B.S.Ramappa and
B.S.Hanumanthappa as not parties & with out their presence nor
presence of their legal heirs the plaintiff cannot claim share in the
properties of Sanjeevapppa. Hence, the plaintiff and defendant No.2
91
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
to 7 are the liberty to file fresh suit with respect to item No.14 to 16
of the suit schedule properties. This is another aspect.
60. It is further significant to note that with respect to item
No.29 to 33 i.e., Motor Vehicle Mahendra Scorpio bearing
registration No.KA-05-MR-171, Motor Vehicle Tata Indigo bearing
registration No.KA-04-MC-5091, Tata Sumo bearing registration
No.KA-12-M-4005, Motor Vehicle HM Contesa bearing registration
No.KA-04-P-483 and deposits in the banks to an extent of
Rs.2,50,00,000/- is concerned the plaintiff has not produced cogent
materials before the Court to show their existence. As such the
plaintiff is not entitled for share in item No.29 to 33 of suit schedule
property.
61. Further, it is significant to note that while discussing Addl.
Issue No.4 dated 14.01.2019 this court held that unregistered palu
patti dated 08.01.1987 is valid and acted upon. As such the plaintiff
92
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
and defendant No.2 to 7 are entitled for their shares as mentioned in
unregistered palu patti dated 08.01.1987. Apart from that as the Will
was not proved by defendant No.6, the properties mentioned in the
Will dated 21.11.2003 is also available for partition.
62. Further in Sy. No.34 of Guniagrahara measuring 5 acres of
land in which the plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for
5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th
share each.
63. Further in Sy. No.32 of Guniagarahara Village measuring 8
acres of land in which the plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled
for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for
6/40th share each. Further in Sy.No.12/1 of Kasaghattapura
Village measuring 8 guntas in which the the plaintiff and defendant
93
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are
entitled for 6/40th share each.
64. Further in Sy. No.13 of Kasaghattapura Village, the
plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and
defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each.
65. Further in Sy. No.14 of Kasaghattapura Village measuring
4 acres 4 guntas the plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for
5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th
share each.
66. Further, in houses and shops built on old No.11 and 14,
new No.12 and 12/1 of Purnapura Village, measuring east west (104
ft + 108 ft)/2 the plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th
94
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share
each.
67. Further as per Ex.P.48 land available in Sy. No.101 of
Lottegollahalli village measuring east west 250 ft., north south
towards east 42 ft, towards west 50 ft., which was allotted to the
share of B.S.Lakshmanappa as such the plaintiff and defendant No.7
are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are
entitled for 6/40th share each.
68. Further, in the land bearing Sy. No.113/1 and 114/1
measuring east west 130 ft., towards south 137 ft., towards south
east - 109 ft., and towards west 102 ft., was also allotted to the
share of B.S.Lakshmanappa in palu patti dated 08.01.1987. As
such, the plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share
each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each.
95
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
69. Further land bearing Sy. No.13 of Kasaghattapura Village
measuring 3 acres 20 guntas fallen to the share of
B.S.Lakshmanapappa in the palu patti dated 08.01.1987. In which
the plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each
and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each.
70. Further in land bearing Sy. No.14 of Kasaghattapura
Village, measuring 4 acres 4 guntas fallen to the share of
B.S.Lakshmanappa in palu patti dated 08.01.1987 in which the
plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and
defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each.
71. Further in Sy. No.286/2 of Tumkuru Amanikere Village,
measuring 25 guntas is concerned, the plaintiff and defendant No.7
96
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are
entitled for 6/40th share each.
72. Further in Sy. No.286/3 of Tumkuru Amanikere Village,
measuring 1 acre 5 guntas in concerned, the plaintiff and defendant
No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are
entitled for 6/40th share each.
73. Further in Sy. No.286/3 of Tumkuru Amanikere Village,
measuring 1 acre 1 gunta in concerned, the plaintiff and defendant
No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are
entitled for 6/40th share each.
74. Further, with respect to properties allotted to deceased
defendant No.1 C.S.Nagarathnamma in palu patti dated 08.01.1987
is concerned, the plaintiff and defendant No.7 has no right as they
97
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
are not the legal heirs of Smt.C.S.Nagarathnamma. The defendant
No.2 to 6 being the legal heirs of C.S.Nagarathnamma are entitled for
1/5th share each in the properties allotted to C.S.Nagarathnamma
under palu patti dated 08.01.1987.
75. The suit of the plaintiffs with respect to other suit schedule
properties is concerned does not survive as the plaintiff has not
produced sufficient materials before the court regarding the
availability of said properties as on the date of filing the suit.
76. Further, the sale deeds executed by defendant No.6 in
favour of defendant No.8 to 10 are not binding on the shares of
plaintiff and defendant No.2 to 5 and 7.
77. It is significant to note that the defendant No.6 produced
Ex.D.19 award notice which reveals that only ten guntas of land is
98
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
acquired by the authority in Sy No.110 of Mathikere Village,
belonged to B.S.Lakshmanappa, Ex.D.21 award Notice reveals that
20 guntas of land no Sy. No.22 of Purnapura Village is acquired by
the authority, Ex.D.24 award notice reveals that 10 guntas of land in
Sy. No.23 of Purnapura Village belonged to B .S.Lakshmanappa is
acquired by the authority and Ex.D.25 award notice reveals that only
6 guntas of land in Sy. No.1 of Lottegolahalli belonged to
B.S.Lakshamanappa is acquired by the authority, as such the
contention of learned Advocate for defendant No.6 stating that item
No.1 to 24 of suit schedule properties were acquired by the
Government authorities holds no water.
78. Further the documents produced i.e., the palu patti dated
08.01.1987 clearly reveals that the properties shown in the paly pati
is available for partition. As such I answer Issue No.1 in OS
99
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
No.5348/2006 as partly affirmative and Addl. issue No.5 dated
04.01.2019 in OS No.5348/2006 in the negative.
79. Addl. Issue No.3 framed on 14.01.2019 in OS
No.5348/2006:- The learned Advocate for defendant No.6 contended
that as the palu patti was took place on 08.01.1987 and the present
suit filed in the year 2006, as such the suit is barred by limitation
which was denied by the plaintiffs.
80. It is pertinent to note that it is the contention of plaintiff
that she is in constructive possession of the suit schedule properties.
81. On the other hand it is not the contention of defendant
No.6 stating that plaintiff is ousted from the possession of the suit
schedule properties. When there is no pleadings or material before
the Court to show that plaintiff is ousted from the possession of the
suit schedule properties, as such she has filed the suit with in 12
100
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
years from date of denial of her right. As such the suit is well within
limitation. Hence, I answer Addl issue No.3 dated 14.01.2019 in OS
No.5348/2006 in the negative.
82. Issue No.4 in OS No.5348/2006 in OS No.5348/2006 :-
Learned Advocate for plaintiff contended that she is entitled for
mesne profit, as the defendant No.6 is mismanaging the properties
and not providing her profits arose from the suit schedule property.
But she has not given evidence regarding the exact income from the
suit schedule properties and exact expenditure to maintain the suit
schedule properties. As su8ch, the mesne profit cannot be
considered at this stage. However the plaintiff is at liberty to eak out
her remedy with respect of mesne profit in final decree proceedings.
Accordingly, I answer issue No.4 in OS No.5348/2006 as Affirmative.
101
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
83. Issue No.2 and 3 in OS No.5348/2006 & Addl. Issue No.9
dated 30.03.2012 in OS No.5348/2006:- Inview of my findings on
issue No.1 and 2 in OS No.26345/2009 in the negative, issue No.1
in OS No.5348/23006 as partly affirmative, Issue No.4 & 6 in OS
No.5348/2006 as affirmative, issue No.5 in OS No.5348/2006 as
partly affirmative, addl. Issue No.8 dated 30.03.2012 in OS
No.5348/2006 in the negative, addl. Issue No.10 & 11 dated
08.07.2017 in OS No.5348/2006 in the negative, Addl. Issue No.1
dated 14.01.2019 in OS No.5348/2006 as affirmative, addl. Issues
no.2 and 3 dated 14.01.2019 in OS No.5348/2006 in the negative,
addl. Issue No.4 dated 14.01.2019 in OS No.5348/2006 as
affirmative, Addl. Issue No.5 dated 14.01.2019 in OS No.5348/2006
in the negative, the plaintiff is partly entitled for share as held by
this Court. Hence, I answer Issue No.2 and 3 in OS No.5348/2006
and Addl. Issue No.9 dated 30.03.2012 in OS No.5348/2006 as
partly affirmative.
102
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
84. ISSUE NO.3 in OS No.26345/2009 and Issue No.7 in OS
No.5348/2009:- In view of my findings on issue No.1 in OS
No.26345/2009 in the negative, Issue No.2 in OS No.26345/2009 in
the negative, Issue No.1 in OS No.5348/2006 as partly affirmative,
Issue No.2 in OS No.5348/2006 as partly affirmative, Issue No.3 in
OS No.5348/2006 as partly affirmative, Issue No.5 in OS
No.5348/2006 as partly affirmative, issue No.4 in OS No.5348/2006
as affirmative, Issue No.6 in OS No.5348/2006 as affirmative, Addl.
Issue No.8 dated 30.03.2012 in the negative, Addl. Issue No.9 dated
30.03.2012 as partly affirmative, Addl. Issue No.10 dated
08.07.2017 in the negative, Addl. Issue No.11 dated 08.07.2017 in
the negative, Addl. Issue No.1 dated 14.01.2019 as affirmative, Addl.
Issue No.2 dated 14.01.2019 in the negative, Addl. Issue No.3 dated
14.01.2019 in the negative, Addl. Issue No.4 dated 14.01.2019 as
103
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009
affirmative, Addl. Issue No.5 dated 14.01.2019 in the negative, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff in OS No.26345/2009 is hereby dismissed.
The suit of the plaintiff in OS No.5348/2006 is hereby decreed in part.
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for the share allotted to them in unregistered palu patti dated 08.01.1987.
The defendant No.2 to 6 are also entitled for shares allotted to them in unregistered palu patti dated 08.01.1987 and defendant No.2 to 6 are also entitled for 1/5th share each in the share of deceased 104 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 defendant No.1 Smt.C.S.Nagarathanamma if defendants furnished requisite Court Fee.
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each in Sy. No.34 of Guniagrahara measuring 5 acres of land if defendants furnished requisite Court Fee.
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each in Sy. No.32 of Guniagarahara Village measuring 8 acres of land if the defendants furnished requisite Court Fee.
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and 105 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each in Sy.No.12/1 of Kasaghattapura Village measuring 8 guntas if the defendants furnished requisite Court fee.
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each in Sy. No.13 of Kasaghattapura Village if the defendants furnished requisite Court fee.
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each in Sy. No.14 of Kasaghattapura 106 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 Village measuring 4 acres 4 guntas if the defendants furnished requisite Court Fee.
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each in houses and shops built on old No.11 and 14, new No.12 and 12/1 of Purnapura Village, measuring east west (104 ft + 108 ft)/2 if the defendants furnished requisite Court fee.
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each in Sy. No.101 of Lottegollahalli village measuring east west 250 ft., north south towards east 42 ft, towards west 50 107 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 ft., which was allotted to the share of B.S.Lakshmanappa if the defendants furnished requisite Court fee.
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each in the land bearing Sy. No.113/1 and 114/1 measuring east west 130 ft., towards south 137 ft., towards south east - 109 ft., and towards west 102 ft., was also allotted to the share of B.S.Lakshmanappa in palu patti dated 08.01.1987 if the defendants furnished requisite Court Fee.
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th 108 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 share each in land bearing Sy. No.13 of Kasaghattapura Village measuring 3 acres 20 guntas fallen to the share of B.S.Lakshmanapappa in the palu patti dated 08.01.1987 if the defendants furnished requisite Court Fee.
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each in land bearing Sy. No.14 of Kasaghattapura Village, measuring 4 acres 4 guntas fallen to the share of B.S.Lakshmanappa in palu patti dated 08.01.1987 if the defendants furnished requisite Court Fee.
109
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each in Sy. No.286/2 of Tumkuru Amanikere Village, measuring 25 guntas if the defendants furnished requisite Court Fee.
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each in Sy. No.286/3 of Tumkuru Amanikere Village, measuring 1 acre 5 guntas if the defendants furnished requisite Court Fee.
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and 110 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each in Sy. No.285/1 of Tumkuru Amanikere Village, measuring 1 acre 1 gunta if the defendants furnished requisite Court Fee.
The defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 1/5th share each in the share fallen to C.S.Nagarathanamma in palu patti dated 08.01.1987, if the defendants furnished requisite Court Fee.
In the circumstances of the case and by considering the relationship between the parties, there is no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
111
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 Office is directed to keep the original judgment in OS No.5348/2006 and copy of the same in OS No.26345/2009. (Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by him, revised by me and after corrections pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of April, 2026.) (VIJETH.V) XXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff:
PW.1: Keerthi.B.L. List of documents exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 : RTC Extract for the year 2000 pertaining to Sy. No.14 of 112 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 Kasagattapura Village, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 7 acres 34 guntas standing in the name of B.S.Lakshmanappa and B.L.Ganjendra Ex.P.2 : RTC Extract for the year 2000 pertaining to Sy. No.13 of Kasagattapura Village, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 6 acres 30 guntas standing in the name of B.S.Lakshmanappa Ex.P.3 : Computerized RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.14 measuring 7 acres 34 guntas of Kasagattapura Village for the year 2005-06 113 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 standing jointly in the name of B.S.Lakshmanappa and B.L.Ganjendra Ex.P.4 : Computerized RTC Extract for the year 2005-06 pertaining to Sy. No.12 of Kasagattapura Village, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring 3 acres 20 guntas standing in the name of B.S.Lakshmanappa Ex.P.5 to 7 : Computerized RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.13 of Kasagattapura Village for the year 2005-06 measuring 6 acres 30 guntas standing in the name of 114 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 B.S.Lakshmanappa Ex.P6 : C.C. of RTC Extract for the year 1999 - 2000 pertaining to Sy. No.34 of Guniagrahara Village measuring 5 acres standing in the name of B.S.Lakshmanappa and 4 acres in the name of B.L.Ganjendra Ex.P7 : C.C. of RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.32 of Guniagarahara Village measuring 8 acres standing in the name of B.S.Lakshmanappa for the year 1999-2000 Ex.P8 : C.C. of RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.46 of Guniagarahara Village measuring 2 acres 9 guntas 115 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 standing in the name of B.S.Lakshmanappa for the year 1999-2000 Ex.P9 : C.C. of RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.32 of Guniagarahara Village measuring 33 guntas standing in the name of B.L.Ganjendra for the year 1999-2000 Ex.P10 : Computerized RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.34 of Guniagarahara Village measuring 4 acres standing in the name of B.L.Ganjendra and 5 acres in the name of B.S.Lakshmanappa for the 116 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 year 2005-2006 Ex.P.11 : Computerized RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.46 of Guniagarahara Village measuring 29 guntas standing in the name of one Arasappa for the year 2005-
2006 Ex.P.12 : Computerized RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.32 of Guniagarahara Village measuring 3 acres 20 guntas standing in the name of Devappa and Munishyamappa for the year 2005- 2006 Ex.P.13 & 14 : Tax paid receipts 117 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 Ex.P.15 : C.C. of sale deed dated 27.05.1991 Ex.P.16 : C.C. of sale deed dated 20.12.1991 Ex.P.17 : C.C. of sale deed dated 13.09.1993 Ex.P.18 : C.C. of sale deed dated 25.04.1997 Ex.P.19 : C.C. of sale deed dated 22.02.2005 purchased by B.S.Lakshmanappa Ex.P.20 : Sale deed dated 11.06.1973 purchased by B.S.Lakshmanappa Ex.P.21 : C.C. of sale deed dated 06.06.2007 executed by B.L.Ganjendra in favour of one Shanthala Ajith with respect to Sy. No.286/3 of Tumkur 118 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 Kasaba Taluk, measuring 32 guntas Ex.P.22 : C.C. of sale deed dated 06.06.2007 executed by B.L.Ganjendra in favour of Jayanthi Ananth pertaining to Sy. No.286/3 measuring 13 guntas and Sy.
No.286/2 measuring 19 guntas Ex.P.23 : Office copy of legal notice issued by plaintiff to Smt.Shanthala Ajith and Jayanthi Anand dated 07.10.2011 Ex.P.24 & 25 : Postal acknowledgment forms Ex.P.26 : C.C. of sale deed dated 28.02.2011 executed by B.L.Ganjendra in favour of B.N.Rajkumar with respect to property bearing PID 119 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 No.4-34-32 of Mathikere Village, 2 nd main, bearing Municipal No.32 measuring 2440 sq. fts., Ex.P.27 : C.C. of sale deed dated 13.02.2009 executed by B.L.Ganjendra in favour of B.N.Rajkumar with respect to property bearing PID No.2-105-12 Municipal No.12 totally measuring 2100 sq. ft. Ex.P.28 : C.C. of sale deed dated 13.02.2009 executed by B.L.Ganjendra in favour of B.N.Rajkumar bearing PID No.2-105-12/1, Old No.11, present Municipal No.12/1, measuring 1260 sq. ft., 120 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 Ex.P.29 : C.C. of partition deed dated 27.08.1970 executed between Sanjeevappa and his sons Ex.P.29(a) : Typed copy of Ex.P.29 Ex.P.30 : Marks Card of Plaintiff wherein her fathers name is shown as B.S.Lakshmanappa Ex.P.31 & 32 : Bank Passbook of Plaintiff wherein her fathers name is shown as B.S.Lakshmanappa Ex.P.33 : Marriage invitation card of plaintiff wherein her father name is shown as B.S.Lakshmanappa Ex.P.34 : Marriage invitation card of defendant No.7 wherein the father 121 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 name of defendant No.7 is shown as B.S.Lakshmanappa Ex.P.35 to 45 : Photographs Ex.P.46 : Compact Disk Ex.P.47 : Certificate filed under Section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.48 : Copy of palu patti dated 08.01.1987 Ex.P.49 : Copy of complaint lodged by B.S.Lakshmanappa against B.L.Gajendra dated 09.07.2004 List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants:
DW-1 Smt.Shobha
DW-2 N.Sarala
122
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 DW-3 Vijayasimha DW-4 Ajith.T.N. DW-5 B.L.Gajendra DW-6 Pawan Kumar List of documents exhibited on behalf of the defendants:
Ex.D.1 : GPA
Ex.D.2 : PUC Marks Card
Ex.D.3 : Vijaya Karnataka daily newspaper
dated 14.05.2006
Ex.D.3(a) : Relevant portion marked in Ex.D.3
Ex.D.4 : SPA
Ex.D.5 : C.C. of Sale deed dated 06.06.2007
123
O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 executed by Defendant No.7 B.L.Ganjendra in favour of Shanthala Ajith Ex.D.6 : C.C. of sale deed dated 06.6.2007 executed by Defendant No.6 in favour of Smt.Jayanthi Anand Ex.D.7 : Computerized RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.286/2 of Tumkur Ammanikere Village, measuring 19 guntas standing in the name of Jayanthi Anand for the year 2022-23 Ex.D.8 : Computerized RTC Extract pertaining to Sy. No.286/3 of Tumkur Ammanikere Village, measuring 13 guntas standing in the name of Jayanthi Anand and 32 guntas in the 124 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 name of Shanathal Ajith Ex.D.9 : Computerized M.R. No.66/2008-09 Ex.D.10 : Computer M.R. No.67/2008-09 Ex.D.11 : Unregistered Will dated 21.11.2003 Ex.D.12 : Gazette Notification with respect to Acquisition of land by CITB Bangaluru wherein land bearing Sy. No.21 and Sy. No.1 belonged to Sanjeevappa was acquired by the Government Ex.D.13 : Copy of final notification of Housing and Urban Development wherein Sy.
No.110 belonged to B.S.Lakshmanappa and Sy. No.111 125 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 belonged Sanjeevappa was acquired and Sy. No.1/1 and 1 / 2 was acquired Ex.D.14 : Notice given by LAO Officer with respect to Sy. No.110 of Mathikere Village with respect to acquisitions Ex.D.15 : Notice given by LAO Officer with respect to Sy. No.111/1 and 111/2 of Mathikere Village with respect to acquisitions to B.S.Lakshmanappa and others Ex.D.16 : Notice given by LAO with respect to acquisition with respect to land in Sy. No.23 of Purnapura Village to B.S.Lakshmanappa Ex.D.17 : Notice given by LAO with respect to 126 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 Sy. No.110 of Mathikere Village Ex.D.18 : Letter of LAO with respect to acquisition of land bearing Sy. No.110 of Mathikere Village Ex.D.19 : Award notice with respect to land bearing Sy. No.110 of Mathikere Village Ex.D.20 : Notice given by LAO with respect to acquisition of Sy. No.22 of Purnapura Village Ex.D.21 : Award notice with respect to acquisition of Sy. No.22 of Purnapura Village with respect to 20 guntas Ex.D.22 : Notice of LAO with respect to acquisition of Sy. No.22 of Purnapura 127 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 Village Ex.D.23 : Notice of LAO with respect to Sy.
No.23 of Purnapura Village Ex.D.24 : Award Notice with respect to Sy.
No.23 of Purnapura Village Ex.D.25 : Award Notice with respect to Sy. No.1 of Lottegollahalli Village Ex.D.26 : Notice given by LAO with respect to acquisition of Sy. No.1 of Lottegollahalli Village Ex.D.27 : Letter issued by Lakshmanappa dated 10.03.1975 to SLAO, Bengaluru Ex.D.28 : Endorsement issued by LAO, CITB Bengaluru to B.S.Lakshmanappa with respect to acquisition of 10 guntas in 128 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 Sy. No.110 of Mathikere Village Ex.D.29 : Claim application of B.S.Lakshmanappa before LAO, Bengaluru in LAC No.11/74-75 Ex.D.30 : Letter issued by LAO Ex.D.31 : Letter issued by LAO to B.S.Lakshmanappa Ex.D.32 : C.C. of Sale Deed dated 18.04.1986 Ex.D.33 : C.C. of sale deed dated 28.08.2006 executed by Defendant No.6 B.L.Ganjendra in favour of one K.Krishnama Raju with respect to Sy.No.13 Kasagattapura Village measuring 6 acres 10 guntas Ex.D.34 : C.C. of sale deed dated 21.02.1986 Ex.D.35 : C.C. of sale deed dated 14.09.2006 129 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 executed by B.L.Ganjendra in favour of Narayana with respect to Sy. No.14 of Kasaghattapura Village measuring 3 acres 37 guntas Ex.D.36 : C.C. of sale deed dated 16.08.1984 Ex.D.37 : Orders passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P. No.15067/2006 Ex.D.38 : Notice issued by BDA (VIJETH.V) XXII Addl. City Civil & Session Judge, BENGALURU.
130O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 COMMON JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT VIDE SEPARATE TYPED ORDER The suit of the plaintiff in OS No.26345/2009 is hereby dismissed. The suit of the plaintiff in OS No.5348/2006 is hereby decreed in part. The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for the share allotted to them in unregistered palu patti dated 08.01.1987. 131 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 The defendant No.2 to 6 are also entitled for shares allotted to them in unregistered palu patti dated 08.01.1987 and defendant No.2 to 6 are also entitled for 1/5th share each in the share of deceased defendant No.1 Smt.C.S.Nagarathanamma if defendants furnished requisite Court Fee.
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each in Sy. No.34 of Guniagrahara measuring 5 acres of land if defendants furnished requisite Court Fee.
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each in Sy. No.32 of Guniagarahara Village measuring 8 acres of land if the defendants furnished requisite Court Fee.
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant 132 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each in Sy.No.12/1 of Kasaghattapura Village measuring 8 guntas if the defendants furnished requisite Court fee.
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each in Sy. No.13 of Kasaghattapura Village if the defendants furnished requisite Court fee.
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each in Sy. No.14 of Kasaghattapura Village measuring 4 acres 4 guntas if the defendants furnished requisite Court Fee.
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each in houses and shops built on old No.11 and 14, new No.12 and 12/1 of Purnapura Village, measuring east west (104 ft + 108 133 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 ft)/2 if the defendants furnished requisite Court fee.
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each in Sy. No.101 of Lottegollahalli village measuring east west 250 ft., north south towards east 42 ft, towards west 50 ft., which was allotted to the share of B.S.Lakshmanappa if the defendants furnished requisite Court fee.
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each in the land bearing Sy. No.113/1 and 114/1 measuring east west 130 ft., towards south 137 ft., towards south east - 109 ft., and towards west 102 ft., was also allotted to the share of B.S.Lakshmanappa in palu patti dated 08.01.1987 if the defendants furnished requisite Court Fee.
134O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each in land bearing Sy. No.13 of Kasaghattapura Village measuring 3 acres 20 guntas fallen to the share of B.S.Lakshmanapappa in the palu patti dated 08.01.1987 if the defendants furnished requisite Court Fee. The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each in land bearing Sy. No.14 of Kasaghattapura Village, measuring 4 acres 4 guntas fallen to the share of B.S.Lakshmanappa in palu patti dated 08.01.1987 if the defendants furnished requisite Court Fee.
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each in Sy. No.286/2 of Tumkuru Amanikere 135 O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 Village, measuring 25 guntas if the defendants furnished requisite Court Fee.
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each in Sy. No.286/3 of Tumkuru Amanikere Village, measuring 1 acre 5 guntas if the defendants furnished requisite Court Fee.
The plaintiff and defendant No.7 are entitled for 5/40th share each and defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 6/40th share each in Sy. No.285/1 of Tumkuru Amanikere Village, measuring 1 acre 1 gunta if the defendants furnished requisite Court Fee.
The defendant No.2 to 6 are entitled for 1/5th share each in the share fallen to C.S.Nagarathanamma in palu patti dated 08.01.1987, if the defendants furnished requisite Court Fee.
136O.S. NO.5348/2006 C/w. O.S. NO.26345/2009 In the circumstances of the case and by considering the relationship between the parties, there is no order as to costs. Draw decree accordingly.
Office is directed to keep the original judgment in OS No.5348/2006 and copy of the same in OS No.26345/2009.
(VIJETH.V) XXII Addl. City Civil & Session Judge, BENGALURU.