Bangalore District Court
Srinivasa Reddy H vs Jayamma on 30 April, 2026
1 O.S. 3626 / 2012
KABC010025902012
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE ( CCH - 02 ) AT BENGALURU
PRESENT : Sri. B.P. DEVAMANE, LL.M.,
I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Dated this the 30th day of April 2026
O.S.3626 / 2012
PLAINTIFFS : 1. H. Srinivasa Reddy,
DEAD, by L.Rs.:
(a) Smt. Neelamma,
W/o late H. Srinivasa Reddy,
Aged about 75 years,
(b) S. Somashekar,
S/o late H. Srinivasa Reddy,
Aged about 58 years,
Both r/o # 55/1, 23rd Cross,
24th Main, HSR layout,
BENGALURU - 560 102.
(c) Smt. H.S. Sathyavathi,
W/o P. Sadashiva,
Aged about 52 years,
R/o # 193/A, 22nd Cross,
Sector III, HSR layout,
BENGALURU - 560 102.
2. Smt. Rukkamma,
W/o late H. Narayana Reddy,
Aged about 70 years,
R/o c/o. H.N. Chandrashekar,
2 O.S. 3626 / 2012
Lake Dew Residency,
Haraluru Village,
BENGALURU - 560 034.
3. H. Rajagopala Reddy,
S/o late Patel Hanuma Reddy,
Aged about 68 years,
R/o Lake Dew Residency,
Haraluru Village,
BENGALURU - 560 034.
4. H. Guruva Reddy,
S/o late Patel Hanuma Reddy,
Aged about 65 years,
R/o # 28, Chandra layout,
Srinivagilu, Viveka Nagara,
BENGALURU - 560 047.
5. H. Jayarama Reddy,
S/o late Patel Hanuma Reddy,
Aged about 63 years,
R/o # 04, 2nd Cross, 36th Main,
BTM Dollars Colony, 1st Phase,
Madiwala, BENGALURU - 560 068.
6. Smt. Jayamma,
W/o late Ramaiah Reddy,
Aged about 84 years,
R/o # 73, 8th Block,
Koramangala,
BENGALURU - 560 095.
( P1 to P5 by Sri. V.B.S., &
P6 by Sri. J.R.J., Advocates. )
V/s.
DEFENDANTS : 1. Smt. Jayamma,
W/o H. Ramaiah Reddy,
Aged about 78 years,
R/o # 277/3, 9th 'A' Main,
2nd Block, Jaya Nagara,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
3 O.S. 3626 / 2012
2. H.R. Rajashekhara Reddy,
S/o H. Ramaiah Reddy,
Aged about 58 years,
R/o # 310, 6th Main,
HAL 2nd Stage,
BENGALURU - 560 038.
3. Smt. H.R. Lakshmidevi,
W/o Venkataswamy,
Aged about 61 years,
R/o # 498, 1st Floor,
3rd 'A' Main, 16th Cross,
HSR layout, 6th Sector,
BENGALURU - 560 034.
4. Smt. Kanthamma Chandrashekhar,
W/o N. Chandrashekhar,
Aged about 55 years,
R/o # 1146, 22nd Cross,
23rd Main, 2nd Sector, HSR layout,
BENGALURU - 560 102.
5. Smt. Rani Reddy,
W/o Ravikumar,
Aged about 53 years,
6. Smt. Shamala Rajagopala Reddy,
W/o S.N. Rajagopala,
Aged about 51 years,
D5 & D6 r/o # 277/3, 9th 'A' Main,
2nd Block, Jaya Nagara,
BENGALURU - 560 011.
7. M/s. Bren Corporation,
Office at 3rd Floor, Balavana,
Plot No.561, 5th 'A' Block,
Koramangala,
BENGALURU - 560 095.
Represented by its Proprietor
Sri. J. Bhoopesh Reddy.
( D1 to D4 & D6 by Sri. R.V.S.N.,
D5 by Sri. C.P.S., &
D7 by Sri. A.S.N., Advocates. )
*****
4 O.S. 3626 / 2012
Date of Institution of the suit 24.05.2012
Nature of the Suit (suit for pronote,
Suit for declaration & possession, Partition suit
Suit for injunction, etc.):
Date of the commencement of 09.01.2018
recording of the Evidence:
Date on which the Judgment was 30.04.2026
pronounced:
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration:
13 11 06
( B.P. DEVAMANE )
I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
*****
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 filed this suit for partition & separate possession of their 1/6th share each in respect of suit schedule properties, for declaration that in the event defendants entering into registered documents regarding suit schedule properties, they are not binding on the share of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties, for permanent injunction restraining defendants from alienating or creating charge over the suit schedule property and for mesne profits.
5 O.S. 3626 / 2012Description of the suit schedule properties :
1. Property bearing Sy.No.33/2 measuring 2 acres 37 guntas situated at Haraluru Village, Varthuru Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.
2. Property bearing Sy.No.34 measuring 3 acres 31 guntas of Haraluru Village, Varthuru Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.
3. Property bearing Sy.No.35 measuring 4 acres 18 guntas situated at Haraluru Village, Varthuru Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.
Totally measuring 11 acres 6 guntas, which is described as suit schedule 'B' property.
4. Property bearing Sy.No.51/1 measuring 37 guntas, Sy.No.55/1 measuring 1 acre 16 guntas, both situated at Haraluru Village, Varthuru Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, which is described as suit schedule 'A' property, bounded as per the boundaries mentioned in the plaint.
2. The case of plaintiffs in brief is that suit schedule properties are the undivided Hindu joint family properties. Patel Hanuma Reddy was having six sons and a daughter viz., (1) H. Ramaiah Reddy (husband of D1 and father of D2 to D6). (2) Srinivas Reddy (P1). (3) Narayana Reddy (husband of P2). (4) Rajagopal Reddy (P3). (5) Guruva Reddy (P4). (6) Jayarama Reddy (P5) and daughter (7) Jayamma (P6). The suit schedule properties belonging to M. Muni Reddy, who purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 19.04.1956. H. Ramaiah Reddy is sister's son of M. Muni Reddy. Due to close relationship between the families, Hanuma Reddy was looking after the properties purchased by M. Muni Reddy. The sons of Hanuma Reddy were looking after joint family properties as well as tenancy in respect of suit schedule properties. Plaintiffs have 6 O.S. 3626 / 2012 been in constructive possession of the properties and were cultivating said lands. Suit schedule properties were left fallow. Hanuma Reddy died at the age of 100 years. All joint family properties were being controlled by elder son H. Ramaiah Reddy. As H. Ramaiah Reddy was busy in contract work, hence family members were carrying on the joint family activities.
2(a). At the time of compromise in O.S.208/1976 suit schedule properties were under cultivation of the joint family as tenancy rights were existed. But, the suit schedule properties were not made as subject matter of the said partition suit for the reason that tenancy rights were not accrued upon. The joint family submitted an application under the provisions of Land Reforms Act in view of joint family tenancy cultivating the suit schedule land in LRF No.4593/1976-77 in respect of suit schedule 'B' property and LRF No.4592/1976-77 in respect of suit schedule 'A' property. In the said proceedings before Land Tribunal, Ramaiah Reddy admitted that suit schedule properties were joint family properties and registration of occupancy rights in his name on behalf of the joint family. The Land Tribunal has granted occupancy rights in respect of properties that were cultivated as the joint family tenancy lands. Plaintiffs including plaintiff No.4 Guruva Reddy, who entered upon the compromise, was called upon not to include the suit schedule properties in the suit for partition in O.S.208/1976 in view of occupancy rights having not been granted upon the family. By virtue of compromise, good & healthy relationship in the family continued. There were no differences of opinion among the family 7 O.S. 3626 / 2012 members.
2(b). H. Ramaiah Reddy during his lifetime brought to the notice of plaintiffs with regard to pendency of Writ Petition questioned by Smt. Eramma, wife of Muni Reddy, in W.P. No.27207-27210/1995, which came to be dismissed on 22.08.2000. Against the same, Writ Appeal No.6171/2000 came to be filed by Smt. Eramma which came to be dismissed on 09.07.2001. Thereafter, one more Writ Petition was filed in W.P. No.9671/2005 which also came to be dismissed on 15.12.2009. H. Ramaiah Reddy was providing up-to-date information to plaintiffs with regard to status & pendency of the cases and litigation pertaining to suit schedule properties. On 04.03.2007 Ramaiah Reddy died. After the death of H. Ramaiah Reddy and subsequent to the disposal of W.P. No.9671/2005, defendant No.2 was persuading and giving information about the cases. After conclusion of litigation initiated by M. Muni Reddy and others, plaintiffs demanded for partition in respect of suit schedule properties in the month of January-2012 for which defendants refused and defendant No.2 told that they have divided the properties among themselves on 23.02.2011. Said partition is not binding on the share of plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties. Hence, plaintiffs filed this suit.
3. On service of summons, defendant Nos.1 to 6 appeared through their advocate and filed common Written Statement. Defendant Nos.1 to 6 admitted relationship among plaintiffs & defendants, but denied that suit schedule properties are joint family properties. It is contended that the joint family 8 O.S. 3626 / 2012 properties owned by Hanuma Reddy were divided in O.S.208/1976 and compromise petition came to be filed and on 27.11.1976 compromise decree was drawn. Said compromise is acted upon. There was division of joint family properties under the Memorandum of Partition dated 01.08.1973 and there was severance of status among the members of joint family. Sri. Hanuma Reddy did not claim any share in the joint family properties, but joint family properties were divided among the children of Hanuma Reddy. Suit schedule 'A' & 'B' properties are self-acquired properties of Ramaiah Reddy, as these properties were under self-cultivation of Ramaiah Reddy and these properties were never treated as joint family properties.
3(a). The Land Tribunal has granted these properties under order dated 29.06.1979 & 31.10.1981 in favor of Ramaiah Reddy. The order dated 31.10.1981 was challenged in W.P. No.27207-210/1995 before The Hon'ble High Court and again it was challenged in Writ Appeal No.6171/2000 and it was confirmed by The Hon'ble High Court and same has become final & conclusive. W.P. No.9621/2007 was filed by the grand children of the petitioners in W.P. No.27207-210/1995 against present defendants after death of Ramaiah Reddy, challenging the orders passed by the Land Tribunal. Said Writ Petition was dismissed and the order of the Land Tribunal become final. In the compromise decree in O.S.208/1976 it is declared that except the suit schedule properties of that suit, there are no other properties to the joint family and thus plaintiffs are estopped from claiming share in the present suit schedule 9 O.S. 3626 / 2012 properties. Subsequent to the order dated 31.10.1981 passed by Land Tribunal, name of Ramaiah Reddy was shown as absolute owner and in exclusive possession & enjoyment of suit schedule 'A' & 'B' properties.
3(b). Ramaiah Reddy got plaint 'B' schedule property along with other properties belonging to him converted from agricultural to non-agricultural residential purpose in proceedings No. ALN-SR(E) 281/2001-2002 dated 16.03.2002 and No.ALN(E)(VB)SR 23/2005-2006 dated 23.02.2011 issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District. Ramaiah Reddy got plan approved and sanctioned by BDA in respect of suit 'B' schedule property and other properties for formation of residential sites. Subsequently, Ramaiah Reddy sold site Nos.89 & 90 for consideration in favour of B.V. Ananda Reddy under registered sale deed dated 29.07.2004 and delivered possession of the same to said purchaser. Subsequently, Ramaiah Reddy entered into registered JDA dated 18.03.2006 for construction of multi-storied residential apartment complex. Prior to execution of said JDA, public notice had also been issued calling for objections by the interested persons in respect of schedule 'B' property. Plaintiffs have not objected as they have no right or interest in the suit schedule 'B' property. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board had issued notice dated 21.06.2006 which was published in newspaper calling objections regarding the environment clearance to be granted by it. The other Departments concerned were also present and there were representations from the project team and public participants.
10 O.S. 3626 / 2012Plaintiffs aware about all these things and proceedings.
3(c). After the death of Ramaiah Reddy on 04.03.2007, defendant Nos.1 to 6 have succeeded to the suit schedule 'A' & 'B' properties and they are in possession & enjoyment of the same. On 23.02.2011 defendant Nos.1 to 6 have divided suit schedule 'A' & 'B' properties and several other properties which they inherited by succession after death of Ramaiah Reddy. In the said partition, schedule 'A' property was allotted to the share of defendant No.1 Smt. Jayamma and she sold said properties for valuable consideration and delivered possession of the same to the purchasers. Defendant Nos.2 to 6 were allotted suit schedule 'B' property. Due to laches on the part of M/s. Rohan Associates, the JDA entered into in respect of schedule 'B' property was lawfully terminated and defendant Nos.2 to 6 are in possession of suit schedule 'B' properties. Plaintiffs have filed the suit by suppressing the material facts. Para-wise contents of the plaint are replied and prayed to dismiss the suit.
4. Defendant No.7 filed his Written Statement denying the case of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.7 contended that he is concerned with Sy.No.33/2 measuring 2 acres 37 guntas of Haraluru Village only, which is item No.1 of suit schedule 'B' property. It is contended that admittedly partition suit in O.S.208/1976 ended in compromise dated 27.11.1976 and it is acted upon. This suit filed after lapse of 37 years is not maintainable. It is denied that schedule 'B' properties were tenanted and cultivated on behalf of joint family. Suit schedule 'B' property was the exclusive & absolute property of H. Ramaiah 11 O.S. 3626 / 2012 Reddy, who was confirmed with occupancy rights in terms of order dated 31.10.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal, Bangalore South. The grant was made in favour of H. Ramaiah Reddy in his individual capacity. The order also speaks that H. Ramaiah Reddy was in exclusive possession of schedule 'B' property prior & subsequent to confirming of occupancy rights. In the year 2002, Ramaiah Reddy applied for conversion of schedule 'B' property from agricultural to non-agricultural residential purpose. Subsequent to the death of Ramaiah Reddy in the year 2007, defendant Nos.1 to 6 have got the properties partitioned and their names have also been mutated in the revenue records. Sanctions have been granted by the various authorities for development of the property. There is no cause of action to file this suit. The court-fee paid by plaintiffs is not proper. The suit is barred by limitation.
4(a). As per the compromise petition in O.S.208/1976 filed before Principal Civil Judge, Bengaluru, it is clear that there is no other property left for partition. Suit schedule 'B' property was not part of the compromise as it was exclusive property of Ramaiah Reddy, which was granted by the Land Tribunal in his favour as his exclusive property. In the compromise in O.S.208/1976 in respect of joint family properties, Hanuma Reddy did not claim any share in the joint family properties. Said properties were divided among the sons of Hanuma Reddy i.e., plaintiff Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, husband of plaintiff No.2 and H. Ramaiah Reddy. There is nothing in the order passed by the Land Tribunal that suit properties were joint family properties. The 12 O.S. 3626 / 2012 order passed by the Land Tribunal is in the name of H. Ramaiah Reddy in his individual capacity. Entry of name of Ramaiah Reddy with respect to suit properties is not challenged by plaintiffs. Title of H. Ramaiah Reddy was also confirmed by The Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.27207-210/1995. Ramaiah Reddy died living behind defendant Nos.1 to 6 as his legal heirs to inherit suit schedule 'B' property. W.P. No.9621/2007 filed by the grandchildren of petitioners in W.P. No.27207-210/1995 against present defendant Nos.1 to 6 challenging the order of granting suit schedule 'B' property in favour of Ramaiah Reddy came to be dismissed.
4(b). Defendant Nos.1 to 6 after succeeding suit schedule 'A' & 'B' properties, divided the suit properties under registered partition deed dated 23.02.2011. Defendants were desirous of developing item No.1 of suit schedule 'B' property and entered into registered JDA dated 16.06.2014 with defendant No.7. In terms of said JDA, defendant No.7 put up construction of multi-storied apartment complex with all amenities over item No.1 of suit schedule 'B' property along with other properties at their cost. It was agreed that defendant No.7 was entitled for 40% of super built-up area in the form of residential apartments and balance 60% was to be retained by defendant Nos.1 to 6. Defendant No.7 after obtaining requisite permissions and approvals from the authorities concerned, commenced construction of apartment complex and constructing the project by spending crores of rupees by raising loans from various Banks. Defendant No.7 replied para-wise contentions of 13 O.S. 3626 / 2012 the plaint and prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. Based on the pleadings, the Court has framed following issues : -
ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiffs prove that suit schedule properties are their undivided joint family properties?
2. Whether Court-fee paid by plaintiffs is proper & correct?
3. Whether plaintiffs are entitle for the relief of partition and separate possession?
4. Whether defendant Nos.1 to 6 prove that there was no cause of action to file this suit ?
5. Whether defendant Nos.1 to 6 prove that joint family properties of the joint family are already partitioned in O.S.208/1976 as per the compromise decree and hence the present suit is not maintainable ?
6. Whether defendant Nos.1 to 6 prove that the suit is barred by law of limitation ?
7. Whether plaintiffs are entitle for the relief of declaration as prayed in prayer (b) of the plaint ?
8. Whether plaintiffs are entitle for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed in prayer (c) of the plaint ?
9. Whether plaintiffs are entitle for determination of future mesne profits ?14 O.S. 3626 / 2012
10. What Order or Decree ?
6. In order to prove the case, plaintiff No.3 examined as PW1 and plaintiff No.4 as PW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P42. On the other hand, defendant No.4 examined as DW1 and authorized representative of defendant No.7 as DW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to P69.
7. Heard the arguments. Perused the material on record. Advocate for plaintiffs relied upon following decisions :
i. (2024) 4 SCC 247 (Thangam & Anr. v. Navamani Ammal); ii. ILR 2002 KAR 3423 (M/s. Unnathi Projects Ltd., & Anr., v. The Bengaluru Development Authority & Ors.); iii. AIR 1982 SC 887 (Nagesh Bisto Desai Etc., v. Kando Tirmal Desai Etc.);
iv. AIR 1989 SC 1042 (Kalgonda Babgonda Patil v. Balgonda Kalgonda Patil & Ors.);
v. RFA No.1420/2012 High Court of Karnataka dated 10.03.2016 (Narayanappa v. Dodda Pattabhi);
vi. RFA No.7140/2008 High Court of Karnataka (Rasheed Hameed v. Allabaksh & Ors.);
vii. AIR 1993 KAR 30 (Booda Poojary v. Thomu Poojarthy); viii. 1982 (2) Kar.L.J. 565 (Appi Belchadthi & Ors., v.
Seshi Belchadthi & Ors.);
ix. ILR 2002 KAR 3417 (Babu Madivala & Ors., v. Kuddu Madivala & Ors.);
x. 1979 (1) Kar.L.J. 18 (Dhareppa v. State of Karnataka & Ors.);
xi. ILR 2004 KAR 3355 (Parushuram Nemani Kuduchakar & Ors., v. Smt. Shantha Bai Ramachandra Kuduchakar & Ors.);
15 O.S. 3626 / 2012xii. AIR 1956 SC 593 (Nagubalammal & Ors., v. B. Sham Rao & Ors.);
xiii. 2003 (8) SCC 752 (R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v.
Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & Anr.);
xiv. AIR 2015 (2) KCCR 1437 (Nanjamma v.
Akkayyamma);
xv. 2013 SCC Online Karnataka 10159 (Gopalappa v. Jayakumar);
xvi. 1996 (11) SCC 446 (Ganesh Ghosh v. Madan Mohan Ghosh & Ors.);
xvii. 2016 (4) SCC 434 (Nagabhushanammal (dead) by LRs., v. C. Chandikeshwaralingam);
xviii. 1995 (3) SCC 291 (Lokraj & Ors., v. Kishanlal & Ors.);
xix. AIR 1971 SC 556 (Bhuvaneshwar Prasad Narain Singh & Ors., v. Sidheswar Mukherjee & Ors.);
xx. AIR 1994 SC 1190 (Mudakappa v. Rudrappa & Ors.); xxi. ILR 1994 KAR 387 (Venkata Rao v. Narayana); xxii. (2007) 4 SCC 163 (Chintamani Ammal v.
Nandagopal Gounder & Anr.); and, xxiii. AIR 2007 SCC 218 (Appasaheb Peerappa Chandgade v. Devendra Peerappa Chandgade & Ors.) Advocate for defendants relied upon following rulings :
i. Judgment of The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.683/2003 (S.P. Subba Rao & Ors., v. M. Lakshmana Rao);
ii. Judgment of The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RSA No.5818/2010 (Shivanaik & Anr., v. Shivanand & Ors.); iii. (1954) 1 SCC 691 (Shankar Sitaram Sontakke & Anr., v.
Balkrishna Sitaram Sontakke & Ors.);
iv. (1976) 3 SCC 119 (Kale & Ors., v. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Ors.);
v. (1999) 5 SCC 590 (Hope Plantations Ltd., v. Taluk Land Board, Peermade);
16 O.S. 3626 / 2012vi. (2006) 4 SCC 683 (State of Karnataka & Anr., v. All India Manufacturers Organization & Ors.);
vii. (2021) 7 SCC 446 (Ripudaman Singh v. Tikka Maheshwar Chand);
viii. (2011) 02 MAD CK 0431 (Gurusamy v. Manickaraj); ix. Judgment of The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RSA No.878/2007 (Bettachari (Dead) by LRs., v. Jayamma & Ors.);
x. Judgment of The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RSA No.6156/2011 (Govind Beere Gowda v. Nagappa Tulasu Gouda);
xi. AIR 1962 SC 287 (Bhagwan Dayal (Dead) by LRs., & Anr., v. Mst. Reoti Devi (Dead) by LR);
xii. 2002 (4) SCC 743 (M.L. Subbaraya Setty (Dead) by LRs., & Ors., v. M.L. Nagappa Setty (dead) by LRs., & Ors.); xiii. AIR 2006 J & K 29 (Tilak Raj v. Vidhya Devi & Ors.); xiv. 2007 SCC Online BOM 317 (Sarojani Chandrakant Tirhekar v. Yamunabai Sopan Zol & Ors.);
xv. 2005 (10) SCC 38 (Manicka Poosali (Dead) by LRs., & Ors., v. Anjalai Ammal & Anr.);
xvi. 2003 (10) SCC 310 (D.S. Lakshmaiah & Anr., v. L. Balasubramanyam & Anr.);
xvii. ILR 1991 KAR 4506 (Thamme Gowda v. Sidde Gowda); and, xviii. AIR 2002 ORI. 110 (Harihar Sethi & Anr., v. Ladukishore Sethi & Ors.).
I have gone through the citations.
8. My findings on the above issues are as under : -
Issue Nos.1 to 3 & 7 to 9 : In the Affirmative Issue Nos.4 to 6 : In the Negative 17 O.S. 3626 / 2012 Issue No.10 : As per final order, for the following : -
REASONS
9. ISSUE Nos.1 & 5 : As these two issues are interconnected with each other, they are taken up together for discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
Originally suit was filed by plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 against defendant Nos.1 to 6. Subsequently, plaintiff No.6 being the sister is impleaded. Defendant No.7 is impleaded, who entered into JDA during pendency of the suit in respect of the suit schedule properties. For clear understanding of the relationship among the parties, the genealogy of the parties is as under :
Patel Hanuma Reddy H. Ramaiah Srinivasa Narayana Rajagopala Guruva Jayarama Jayamma Reddy Reddy Reddy Reddy Reddy Reddy (P6) (Dead) (P1) (Dead) (Dead) (P3) (P4) (P5) Jayamma (wife) (D1) Rukkamma(wife) H.R. Rajashekar (P2) (D2) Lakshmidevi (D3) Neelamma [P1(a)] Kanthamma C. (D4) Somashekar Rani Reddy [P1(b)] (D5) Sathyavathi Shamala [P1(c)] (D6) In this case, there is no dispute regarding relationship among the parties. On perusal of the material on record, propositus Patel Hanuma Reddy died at the age of around 100 years in the year 18 O.S. 3626 / 2012 1978. It is undisputed that Ramaiah Reddy i.e., husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 to 6 was the elder son of Hanuma Reddy. Plaintiffs have averred that joint family properties were subject matter of O.S.208/1976 on the file of Principal Civil Judge Court at Bengaluru and said suit was ended in compromise. H. Ramaiah Reddy was contractor, undertaking contract work of Public Works Department and Corporation of City of Bengaluru and was always involved in contract work. He was living in Wilson Gardens, Bengaluru City and also in the Village holding his position as Karta of the joint family and suit schedule properties were cultivated by plaintiffs and H. Narayana Reddy. Suit schedule properties were originally belonged to M. Muni Reddy. H. Ramaiah Reddy is the sister's son of M. Muni Reddy. Due to close relationship between the families, family of Hanuma Reddy was looking after the properties of M. Muni Reddy and his brothers. The joint family of plaintiffs was cultivating the suit schedule properties as tenanted lands.
10. It is the case of plaintiffs that as on the date of Memorandum of Partition dated 01.08.1973 as per Ex.D4 or as on the date of compromise decree dated 27.11.1976 as per Ex.D3, occupancy rights in respect of these suit schedule properties were not granted and these suit schedule properties were not standing in the name of the joint family members. Hence, they were not made as subject matter of Memorandum of Partition Ex.D4 or compromise decree Ex.D3. Further, H. Ramaiah Reddy being elder member of the family and he was Karta of the joint family, assured his brothers i.e., plaintiffs that 19 O.S. 3626 / 2012 once the occupancy rights granted and suit schedule properties came into his name, he will divide the properties among the joint family members i.e., plaintiffs. Accordingly, within one month after the compromise decree Ex.D3, Ramaiah Reddy filed Form No.7.in respect of suit schedule properties in the capacity of Karta of the joint family. The Land Tribunal after conducting enquiry has granted the suit schedule properties in the name of H. Ramaiah Reddy, who was Karta of the joint family. There were litigations filed by the land owners and those litigations concluded in the year 2009. In the meantime, in the year 2007, H. Ramaiah Reddy expired. Thereafter, defendants, who are the wife and children of H. Ramaiah Reddy, due to escalation of property values and greed of the property, refused to partition the suit schedule properties. Hence, plaintiffs filed this suit.
11. It is the specific defence of defendant Nos.1 to 6 that H. Ramaiah Reddy was cultivating suit schedule properties as a tenant and these were his self-acquired properties. After grant of these lands by the Land Tribunal, these properties became self-acquired properties of Ramaiah Reddy. Further, in the compromise petition Ex.D3 it is clearly mentioned that no other properties are left for partition which shows that after the compromise Ex.D3 in O.S.208/1976 no joint family property was available. As such, present suit filed in the year 2012 is barred by law of limitation and the suit is not maintainable.
12. It is the contention of defendant No.7 that defendant Nos.1 to 6 represented that they are the owners of suit schedule 'B' property regarding which JDA has been executed. Defendant 20 O.S. 3626 / 2012 No.7 in terms of said JDA, has put up construction over suit schedule 'B' property. Hence, the suit against defendant No.7 in respect of suit schedule 'B' property is not maintainable.
13. The learned counsel for plaintiffs argued that though propositus Hanuma Reddy was alive at the time of execution of the Memorandum of Partition Ex.D4 and compromise Ex.D3, but he was aged about 100 years and unable to manage properties hence, he had not taken any share in the joint family properties. It is H. Ramaiah Reddy, who was the elder member of the family and Karta of the joint family, had taken major share of the joint family properties i.e., more than 27 acres of land. H. Ramaiah Reddy was contractor and he was busy in his contract work and it is the plaintiffs, who are younger brothers of Ramaiah Reddy, were cultivating the suit schedule properties. At the time of compromise in O.S.208/1976 as per Ex.D3 Ramaiah Reddy assured his brothers i.e., plaintiffs that once the occupancy rights granted in his favor regarding suit schedule properties, he will share the suit schedule properties among plaintiffs. As on the date of Ex.D3, occupancy rights in respect of suit schedule properties were not granted in favor of joint family or in the name of H. Ramaiah Reddy, as such, those properties could not be included in the compromise. In the said compromise Ex.D3, it is not stated that suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of Ramaiah Reddy, which shows that suit schedule properties were also joint family properties cultivated on behalf of joint family by plaintiffs. After grant of occupancy rights in favor of joint family i.e., in the name of Karta H. Ramaiah Reddy, there 21 O.S. 3626 / 2012 were litigations and those litigations were concluded in the year 2009. As such, the present suit filed is within time. Hence, prayed to decree the suit.
14. The learned counsel for defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 & 6 argued that in Ex.D3 it is clearly mentioned that no joint family properties are available after Ex.D3 compromise decree. Under the law, there is no bar for a joint family member to hold/possess properties of self-acquired as well as properties of joint family. Hence, though Ramaiah Reddy was in the joint family, he was having both joint family properties as well as his self-acquired properties i.e., suit schedule properties. Further, present suit is filed in the year 2012, when the joint family was came to an end in the year 1976. As such, the present suit is barred by law of limitation.
15. The learned counsel for defendant No.7 argued that suit schedule properties were self-acquired properties of H. Ramaiah Reddy. There was partition among legal heirs of H. Ramaiah Reddy i.e., defendants and defendant No.7 entered into JDA with defendants and put up construction with knowledge of plaintiffs on the suit schedule 'B' property. Hence, the suit is not maintainable.
16. On going through the material on record, the undisputed facts are H. Ramaiah Reddy was the elder member of joint family. H. Ramaiah Reddy was contractor. Within one month of compromise decree Ex.D4 H. Ramaiah Reddy filed Form No.7 in respect of suit schedule properties before Land 22 O.S. 3626 / 2012 Tribunal. After grant of occupancy rights, there were litigations in respect of suit schedule properties and said litigation ended in the year 2009.
17. The main dispute in this case is that plaintiffs are claiming that H. Ramaiah Reddy was elder member and karta of the joint family, and suit properties were cultivated by the joint family, whereas defendant Nos.1 to 6 are claiming that H. Ramaiah Reddy was exclusively cultivating suit schedule properties. Hence, the Land Tribunal has granted suit schedule properties in the name of H. Ramaiah Reddy and these properties are his self-acquired properties. The main contention of plaintiffs is that H. Ramaiah Reddy was Karta of the joint family and admittedly he is elder brother of plaintiffs. He was contractor by profession and he was also into quarry business. In Form No.7 filed by H. Ramaiah Reddy, he has contended that since 10 years he is cultivating the suit schedule properties.
18. Ex.P4 is RTC of Sy.No.35, which shows that in the year 1967-68 name of H. Ramaiah Reddy is found in the cultivator's column No.12. In the proceedings before the Land Tribunal, H. Ramaiah Reddy and other witnesses have deposed in support of his case for grant of occupancy rights. Muniswamy son of Nanjappa, resident of Haraluru Village, being one of the witnesses, deposed before land tribunal in support of H. Ramaiah Reddy, as per Ex P-28 wherein he has clearly stated that Rajappa, who is the brother of applicant, was collecting the proceeds from the lands and was giving to the owner i.e., landlord. This witness Muniswamy, before the Land Tribunal, at 23 O.S. 3626 / 2012 an undisputed point of time, has deposed that younger brother of applicant H. Ramaiah Reddy viz., Rajappa, who is present plaintiff No.3, was cultivating the said land and collecting the proceeds and giving to the owner of the land. This statement made it clear that it is plaintiff No.3 and his brothers were cultivating the suit lands prior to filing of Form No.7 and grant of occupancy rights in the name of H. Ramaiah Reddy.
19. Defendant No.4, who is the daughter of H. Ramaiah Reddy, is examined as DW1, by filing affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, reiterating the contentions taken in her Written Statement. DW1 in her cross-examination has stated thus:
ನನ್ನ ಚಿಕ್ಕಪ್ಪ ನಾರಾಯಣರೆಡ್ಡಿ ಇವರು ವ್ಯವಸಾಯ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು. ಅವರು ವ್ಯವಸಾಯ ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಬೇರೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ವ್ಯವಹಾರ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ . ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ ರಾಮಯ್ಯ ರೆಡ್ಡಿ, ಚಿಕ್ಕಪ್ಪ ನಾರಾಯಣರೆಡ್ಡಿ ಮತ್ತು ಹೆಚ್ ರಾಜಗೋಪಾಲರೆಡ್ಡಿ ಇವರು ವ್ಯವಸಾಯ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾ ಹರಳೂರು ಗ್ರಾ ಮದಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸವಾಗಿದ್ದರು ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ, ಆದರೆ 1973 ಕ್ಕಿಂತ ಮುಂಚೆಯಿಂದ ವಾಸವಾಗಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಸ್ವಇಚ್ಛೆಯಿಂದ ಉತ್ತರಿಸುತ್ತಾ ರೆ.
This evidence corroborates Ex-P28 and it shows that plaintiff No.3 and his other brothers were cultivating the suit lands. DW1 further stated that after the death of Narayana Reddy, Srinivasa Reddy i.e., plaintiff No.1 by leaving his contract work, was managing the joint landed properties of the joint family. DW1 in her further cross-examination has also clearly stated that as per the statements before Land Tribunal, it is stated that Rajagopala Reddy i.e., plaintiff No.3, was giving vara ( premium / rent ) to the land owner on behalf of the joint family. The relevant portion of the cross-examination of DW1 reads thus:24 O.S. 3626 / 2012
ನಿಪಿ 35 ರ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ರಾಜಗೋಪಾಲ ರೆಡ್ಡಿ ಇವರು ಜಮೀನುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಬಂದ ಬೆಳೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪಾಲನ್ನು ಒಟ್ಟು ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಪರವಾಗಿ ಕೊಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇವೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ ಅಂದರೆ ಹೌದು, ಆದರೆ ನಮ್ಮ ತಂದೆ ಸಹ ಹೇಳಿಕೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟು ತಾನು ಮಾತ್ರ ಪಾಲನ್ನು ಕೊಡುತ್ತಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ ಎಂದು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಉತ್ತರಿಸುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ ತನ್ನ ಹೇಳಿಕೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಆ ಜಮೀನನ್ನು ತಾನೇ ಸ್ವತಃ ಸ್ವಯಾರ್ಜಿತವಾಗಿ ಸಾಗುವಳಿ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿಲ್ಲ ಅಂದರೆ ಸುಳ್ಳು . ಆ ಜಮೀನುಗಳನ್ನು ರಾಮಯ್ಯ ರೆಡ್ಡಿ ಇವರು ಒಟ್ಟು ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಪರವಾಗಿ ಸಾಗುವಳಿ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು ಅದರೆ ಸ್ವಯಾರ್ಜಿತವಾಗಿ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಅಂದರೆ ಸುಳ್ಳು .
20. It is not only the evidence of DW1, but DW2 has also in her cross examination deposed that the joint family members were giving the rent / premium ( vara ) to the land owner.
ಒಟ್ಟು ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಸದಸ್ಯರು ಆ ಜಮೀನುಗಳ ಮಾಲೀಕರಿಗೆ ವಾರ ಕೊಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
Thus, on perusal of this evidence of DWs 1 & 2 and the documentary evidence i.e., the statement of one of the witnesses before the Land Tribunal as per Ex.P28, it is crystal clear that the suit schedule properties were cultivated by the joint family and the rent / premium ( vara ) was given to the owner of the land out of the joint family income. This shows that H. Ramaiah Reddy alone was not cultivating the suit schedule properties and it is the plaintiff No.3 and his other brothers ie, joint family members were cultivating the suit schedule properties. Further, owner of the land i.e., Muni Reddy was not a stranger, but he was also relative of the family of plaintiffs. H. Ramaiah Reddy is the elder member of the family. Though father Hanuma Reddy was alive, but admittedly he was aged about 100 years and he has not taken any property to his share either in Ex.D4 or in Ex.D3. It shows that it is H. Ramaiah Reddy being the elder member of the family, 25 O.S. 3626 / 2012 was managing the joint family properties as a Karta of the joint family. Further, as admitted by DW1, Ramaiah Reddy was contractor and he was residing in Wilson Garden, Bengaluru City. Thus, on behalf of the joint family, it is the plaintiff No.3 and his other brothers were cultivating the suit schedule properties.
21. DW1 in her further cross-examination stated that except the compromise decree defendants have not produced any other documents to show that the properties of the joint family are divided. DW1 admitted that no property is allotted to the share of Hanuma Reddy under the compromise decree. DW1 further admitted that in the said compromise H. Ramaiah Reddy included properties standing in his own name and divided the said properties among his brothers. DW1 further stated that the properties standing in the name of H. Ramaiah Reddy were given to his brothers. DW1 further admitted that suit schedule properties were not included in the said partition and futher stated that as on the date of the said partition the suit schedule properties were not in the name of joint family members. Relevant portion of the cross-examination reads thus :
ಒಟ್ಟು ಕುಟುಂಬದಲ್ಲಿ ರಾಜಿ ಡಿಕ್ರಿ ಮೂಖಾಂತರ ವಿಭಾಗ ಆಗಿರುವುದನ್ನು ಬಿಟ್ಟು ಬೇರೆ ದಾಖಲೆಗಳನ್ನು ನಾವು ಹಾಜರ್ರ ಪಡಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ . ಆ ರಾಜಿ ಡಿಕ್ರಿ - ನಿಪಿ 30 ನೋಂದಣಿ ಆಗಿಲ್ಲ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಆದರೆ ನ್ಯಾ ಯಾಲಯಲ್ಲಿ ಅದು ರಾಜಿ ಡಿಕ್ರಿ ಆಗಿತ್ತು . ಆ ರಾಜಿ ಡಿಕ್ರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹನುಮರೆಡ್ಡಿಯವರಿಗೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಆಸ್ತಿಯನ್ನು ಹಂಚಿಕೆ ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಆ ರಾಜಿ ಅರ್ಜಿಯನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ ಮುಂದೆ ನಿಂತು ತಯಾರಿಸಿದ್ದರು ಅಂದರೆ ಸುಳ್ಳು . ಆ ರಾಜಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕೆಲವೊಂದು ವ್ಯಯಕ್ತಿಕ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಆಸ್ತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಸೇರಿಸಿ ಪರಸ್ಪರ ಹಂಚಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ . ನಮ್ಮ ತಂದೆ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಕೆಲವೊಂದು ಆಸ್ತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಅವರ ತಮ್ಮಂದಿರಿಗೆ ಹಂಚಿದ್ದಾ ರೆ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ . ಆ ರಾಜಿ ಡಿಕ್ರಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ದಾವೆಯ ಆಸ್ತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಸೇರಿಸಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಏಕೆಂದರೆ ಅವುಗಳನ್ನು ನಮ್ಮ ತಂದೆ ಸಾಗುವಳಿ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು ಮತ್ತು ಅವು 26 O.S. 3626 / 2012 ಇನ್ನೂ ಯಾರ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಆಗಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಉತ್ತರಿಸುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ಅವುಗಳನ್ನು ನಮ್ಮ ತಂದೆ ಸಾಗುವಳಿ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಆದರೆ ಒಟ್ಟು ಕುಟುಂಬದಿಂದ ಅವುಗಳನ್ನು ಸಾಗುವಳಿ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿದ್ದರು ಅಂದರೆ ಸುಳ್ಳು . ಆ ರಾಜಿ ಆಗುವ ದಿನದಂದು ಆ ಆಸ್ತಿಗಳ ಮೇಲೆ ನಮ್ಮ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರಿಗೆ ಯಾರಿಗೂ ಇನ್ನೂ ಹಕ್ಕು ಮಂಜೂರಾಗಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ (Title) ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
Thus, on going through this evidence, it clearly shows that as on the date of said compromise Ex.D3, the owner of the suit schedule properties was Muni Reddy. As on that date, no Form No.7 was not filed and occupancy rights were not granted in favor of H. Ramaiah Reddy or any of the joint family members. As such, inclusion of these properties in the said compromise does not arise. Further, the clause mentioned in the compromise that no other property is available for partition also does not helpful to the defence of defendants as on that date suit schedule properties were not the joint family properties as the properties were under the cultivation of joint family, but the occupancy rights were not granted. On the contrary, if H. Ramaiah Reddy was cultivating the suit schedule properties as his exclusive properties and he was about to file Form No.7 in his individual capacity or if he was having intention to file Form No.7 in his individual capacity, he ought to have mentioned the same in the said compromise that these suit schedule properties are cultivated by H. Ramaiah Reddy in his personal capacity and these joint family members will not have right or share if the occupancy rights in respect of said property as are granted. There is no such recital in the compromise Ex.D3. Thus, in the light of the discussion made above, it is clear that the suit schedule properties were cultivated on behalf of the joint family, 27 O.S. 3626 / 2012 but it was in the name of H. Ramaiah Reddy since he was the elder member and Karta of the joint family. In this regard, The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the ruling reported in ILR 2002 KAR 3417 (Babu Madivala & Ors., v. Kuddu Madivala & Ors. ) has held thus:
8. It is not in dispute that the Form 7 came to be filed only by the applicant Kuddu Madivala. In the Form 7 it is mentioned that he has been cultivating the land since last 25 years. In the evidence, Kuddu Madivala has specifically stated that his father was cultivating the land since last 50 years under one Narayanappa, and the said land came to be purchased by Sulochana Bhat and Ramakrishna Achar. In the evidence of Kuddu Madivala, it is no where stated that he has been separated from the family and living with his wife and children separately.
XXXXXXXX
10. This refers to the family inclusive of wife and children, minor sons, unmarried daughters etc. If the Form 7 were to have filed for himself, then the Tribunal would not have used the word "kutumba", which refers to the family. It is no doubt true that the family as defined u/s 2(12) refers to the wife, minor children and daughters. But at the same time, in the background of the evidence led in and also taking into consideration the meaning of the "joint family" as defined u/s 2(17) of the Land Reforms Act, when the grant of occupancy is for "kutumba", it enures to the benefit of the whole family. It is in this context, the Apex Court has clearly observed that the Appellate Authority was not justified in modifying the order for grant of occupancy only in favour of the applicant Kuddu Madivala. It has to be held that the grant of occupancy enures for the benefit of the family of the deceased Babu Madivala. Therefore, the other brothers are also entitled for grant of occupancy.
28 O.S. 3626 / 201222. Defendants have relied upon various decisions of The Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Courts and contended that a joint family member can hold property of joint family as well as his self-acquired property. It is undisputed that a Hindu joint family member can possess both joint family joint property as well as his self-acquired property. But, in this case, as discussed above and particularly the statements of the witnesses before the Land Tribunal and in view of the evidence of DW1, it is clear that H. Ramaiah Reddy being the elder member of the family was not having intention to cultivate the suit schedule properties as his self-acquired properties. If these suit schedule properties were the exclusive properties of H. Ramaiah Reddy, plaintiff No.3 could not have cultivated the said properties or vara / premium / rent was not given to the land owners out of the joint family income. Thus, it clearly shows that the suit schedule properties were also cultivated by the joint family members including plaintiffs. Hence, though in the partition in O.S.208/1976 the joint family properties available as on date were partitioned, the rights of the joint family members continued in respect of suit schedule properties and after the grant of occupancy rights in respect of suit schedule properties in the name of H. Ramaiah Reddy, who was the elder member of the family, plaintiffs are entitled for their share in the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative and Issue No.5 in the Negative.
29 O.S. 3626 / 201223. ISSUE Nos.2 to 4 & 6 to 9 : In this case, the main contention of the defendants is that suit is barred by law of limitation. Defendants have contended that partition as per Ex.D3 taken place in the year 1976. Thereafter, this suit is filed in the year 2012 beyond the statutory period of 12 years. Thus, the suit is barred by limitation. The learned advocate for plaintiffs contended that the period of limitation starts after the exclusion of the joint family members from the joint family property. But, in this case, plaintiffs are in joint possession of the suit schedule properties. After grant of occupancy rights, H. Ramaiah Reddy told his brothers i.e., plaintiffs that there is a non-alienation clause for a period of 15 years and he will divide the properties after expiry of said period. In the meantime, the land owners started litigation and the litigation ended in the year 2009. In the meantime, in the year 2007 H. Ramaiah Reddy expired and thereafter, defendant Nos.1 to 6 who are the legal heirs of H. Ramaiah Reddy, divided the suit schedule properties among themselves in the year 2011 and refused to partition with plaintiffs. As such, plaintiffs filed this suit. Thus, the suit is within the period of limitation.
24. It is undisputed that suit for partition is required to be filed within 12 years after the exclusion of joint owners from the joint family property. On perusal of the pleadings of defendants, they have not mentioned specifically on which date plaintiffs are excluded from the suit schedule properties. DW2 in her cross- examination clearly admitted that the litigation regarding suit schedule properties ended in the year 2009 and till conclusion of 30 O.S. 3626 / 2012 the litigation in the year 2009, it is the plaintiffs who are in possession of suit schedule properties. The relevant portion of cross-examination of DW2 reads thus:
ಆ ಜಮೀನುಗಳ ಮೂಲ ಮಾಲಿಕರು ಭೂ ನ್ಯಾ ಯಾ ಮಂಡಳಿಯ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನು ಮಾನ್ಯ ಉಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾ ಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಪ್ರಶ್ನೆ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಹೌದು. ಅದರಲ್ಲಿ ಭೂ ನ್ಯಾ ಯಾ ಮಂಡಳಿಯ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನು ತಡೆ ಹಿಡಿಯಲಾಗಿತ್ತು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ದಿನಾಂಕ 15.12.2009 ರಂದು ಆ ರಿಟ್ ಅರ್ಜಿ ವಜಾ ಆಯಿತು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಮೂಲ ಮಾಲಿಕರು ಈರಮ್ಮ ಮತ್ತು ಇತರರು ರಿಟ್ ಅರ್ಜಿ ನಂಬರ್ 27207-210/1995 ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅರದಲ್ಲಿ ಸಹಾ ಭೂ ನ್ಯಾ ಯಾ ಮಂಡಳಿಯ ಆದೇಶವನ್ನು ತಡೆ ಹಿಡಿಯಲಾಗಿತ್ತು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ, ದಿನಾಂಕ 22.08.2000 ರಂದು ಆ ರಿಟ್ ಅರ್ಜಿ ಸಹಾ ವಜಾ ಆಯಿತು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅಲ್ಲಿಯವರೆಗೂ ಸಹಾ ವಾದಿಗಳು ಆ ಜಮೀನುಗಳನ್ನು ಸಾಗುವಳಿ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಾ ವಾರ ಕೊಡುತ್ತಾ ಬಂದಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
In the meantime, in the year 2007 H. Ramaiah Reddy expired and under these circumstances, it cannot be held that the suit is barred by law of limitation.
25. As discussed above, plaintiffs are joint family members and suit schedule properties are their joint family properties. Thus, the court-fee paid by plaintiffs is proper. As discussed above, plaintiffs are joint family members and suit schedule properties are held as the joint family properties, granted by the Land Tribunal in the name of Kartha / elder member of the family. As such, the contention of defendants that there is no cause of action to file the suit cannot be sustained.
26. As per prayer (B) plaintiffs sought declaration that in the event of defendants entering into any registered documents in respect of suit schedule properties, said documents are not binding on plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have not specifically stated regarding the documents which shall be declared as not binding on plaintiffs. In view of the above discussion, when plaintiffs are 31 O.S. 3626 / 2012 entitled for share in the suit schedule properties, then the transactions made by defendants in respect of suit schedule properties will not bind on plaintiffs in respect of their share in the suit schedule properties. Hence, any documents executed by defendant Nos.1 to 6 in respect of suit schedule properties are not binding on the share of plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.7 entered into JDA with defendant Nos.1 to 6 on 16.06.2014 in respect of item No.1 of suit schedule 'B' property during pendency of the suit. As such, this transaction is covered under principle of lis pendency. Defendant No.7 can claim its right in the property allotted to the share of defendant Nos.1 to 6.
27. As per prayer (C) plaintiffs sought perpetual injunction restraining defendants from alienating or encumbering suit schedule properties. As discussed above, when plaintiffs are having their share in the suit schedule properties, defendants have no right to alienate or encumber the properties of the share of plaintiffs in suit schedule properties by taking advantage of their names appearing in the suit schedule properties. So far as mesne profits are concerned, it is not the defence of defendants that plaintiffs have also taken income from suit schedule properties during pendency of the suit. When plaintiffs are entitled for their share in the suit schedule properties, they are entitled for mesne profits also. There shall be a separate enquiry regarding mesne profits. Accordingly, I answer Issue Nos.2, 3 & 7 to 9 in the Affirmative and Issue Nos.4 & 6 in the Negative.
32 O.S. 3626 / 201228. ISSUE NO.10 : Initially, the suit was filed by plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 claiming their 1/6th share each in the suit schedule properties. Subsequently, plaintiff No.6 i.e., daughter of Hanuma Reddy is impleaded. The relationship is not disputed by the parties. In view of Section 6 of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, daughter has become coparcener and she is entitled for equal share along with sons. As such, plaintiff No.6 is entitled for equal share along with her brothers. Thus, plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 are entitled for 1/7th share each and defendant Nos.1 to 6 being legal heirs of Ramaiah Reddy, are entitled for 1/7 th share in the suit schedule properties.
29. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I proceed to pass the following : -
ORDER The suit is decreed.
Plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 are entitled for 1/7 th share each in the suit schedule properties.
Defendant Nos.1 to 6 are entitled for 1/7th share in the suit schedule properties.
There shall be separate enquiry for mesne profits.
Parties shall bear their own costs.33 O.S. 3626 / 2012
Draw preliminary decree accordingly.
Dictated to Senior Sheristedar (now under instructions to continue the work as Stenographer Grade I) directly on computer, computerized by him, revised, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 30th day of April 2026. Digitally signed by B P DEVAMANE BP DEVAMANE Date:
2026.05.02 16:00:48 +0530 ( B.P. DEVAMANE ) I Addl. City Civil And Sessions Judge (CCH-02), Bengaluru City.
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS :
PW1 : H. Rajagopala Reddy PW2 : H. Guruva Reddy
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS :
Ex.P1 : Copy of release deed
Ex.P2 : Endorsement issued by BBMP
Ex.P3 : Copy of application
Ex.P4 to P6 : Copies of RTC extracts
Ex.P7 : Index of land
Ex.P8 : Certified copy of notice
Ex.P9 : Certified copy of Occupancy Certificate
Ex.P10 : Certified copy of order passed by Land
Tribunal
Ex.P11 to : RTC extracts
P16
34 O.S. 3626 / 2012
Ex.P17 : Certified copy of order in W.P. No.27207-
27210/1995
Ex.P18 : Certified copy of order in W.A.
No.6171/2000
Ex.P19 : Certified copy of order in W.P.
No.9621/2007
Ex.P20 : Occupancy Certificate
Ex.P21, 22 : RTC extracts
Ex.P23 : Certified copy of order of Land Tribunal
Ex.P24 to : RTC extracts
P27
Ex.P28 to : Certified copies of statements
P36
Ex.P37 : Certified copy of Joint Development
Agreement
Ex.P38 : Certified copy of agreement of
cancellation
Ex.P39 : Certified copy of Joint Development
Agreement
Ex.P40 : Certified copy of gift deed
Ex.P41, 42 : Certified copies of sale deeds
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS :
DW1 : Smt. Kanthamma Chandrashekhar DW2 : Smt. Sukhirani Karegoudar
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS :
Ex.D1 : Joint Development Agreement
Ex.D2 : Certified copy of compromise petition
Ex.D3 : Certified copy of decree in O.S.208/1976
Ex.D4 : Palu-patti
Ex.D5, D6 : Certified copies of conversion orders
Ex.D7 : Certified copy of partition deed dt. 23.02.2011
Ex.D8, D12
35 O.S. 3626 / 2012
D14, D15 : Certified copies of khatha certificates
Ex.D9, D18,
D19 : Certified copies of demand register extracts
Ex.D10, D13,
D16, D17 : Certified copies of khatha registration
Ex.D20 to
D22 : Certified copies of receipts
Ex.D23 : Certified copy of registered GPA
Ex.D24 : Certified copy of Joint Development Agreement
Ex.D25 : Tax paid receipts
Ex.D26 : Certified copy of sale deed
Ex.D27 : Certified copy of compromise decree along with
schedule
Ex.D27(a) : Typed copy of compromise petition Ex.D28 : Certified copy of final decree in O.S.6670/1995 Ex.D29 : Certified copy of ordersheet in O.S.6670/1995 Ex.D30 : Certified copy of plaint in O.S.6670/1995 with Valuation slip Ex.D31 to D34 : Certified copies of sale deeds Ex.D35 : Certified copy of partition deed Ex.D35(a) : Typed copy of Ex.D35 Ex.D36 : Certified copy of final decree in O.S.666/2010 Ex.D37 : Certified copy of ordersheet in O.S.666/2010 Ex.D38 : Certified copy of plaint in O.S.666/2010 Ex.D39 : Certified copy of compromise petition in O.S.666/2010 Ex.D40 to D42 : Certified copies of sale deeds Ex.D41(a) : Typed copy of sale deed Ex.D43 : Certified copy of partition deed Ex.D44 : Certified copy of deed of amalgamation Ex.D45 : Certified copy of gift deed Ex.D46 to D48 : Certified copies of sale deeds Ex.D49 : Certified copy of rectification deed Ex.D50 to D55 : Certified copies of encumbrance certificates Ex.D56 : Online RTI application Ex.D57 : Certificate u/S.65B of Evidence Act Ex.D58 : Paper publication Ex.D59 : Proceedings of KSPCB 36 O.S. 3626 / 2012 Ex.D59(a) : Receipt Ex.D60 : Certified copy of Deccan Herald Newspaper Ex.D60(a) : Receipt Ex.D61 to D66 : Certified copies of sale deeds Ex.D67 : Certified copy of judgment in O.S.8762/2012 Ex.D67(a) : Certified copy of decree in O.S.8762/2012 Ex.D67(b) : Certified copy of order in RFA No.768/2023 Ex.D68 : Letter of authorization Ex.D69 : Certified copy of occupancy certificate I Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.