Bangalore District Court
Sri Venkatesh Reddy vs Smt. Narayanamma on 18 January, 2023
KABC010140192007
IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY: (CCH.7)
Dated this the 18 th day of January, 2023.
PRESENT
BALAGOPALAKRISHNA
XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
O.S.NO.5543/2007
PLAINTIFF : 1. Sri Venkatesh Reddy
S/o. Late Chikkapapaiah
Aged about 53 years.
2. Sri. Munireddy
S/o. Late Chikkapapaiah,
Aged about 52 years.
3. Smt. Shakunthalamma
W/o. Late Gopalareddy.
Aged about 38 years.
4. Sri. Umesh
S/o. Late Gopalareddy
Aged about 23 years
(As per Court Order dated
03-02-2018).
Plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are residing
at Munnekolala village, Varthur Hobli
Bengaluru East Taluk.
2 O.S.No.5543/2007
5. Smt. Thimmakka
W/o. Late Chikkapapaiah
since dead by her Lrs.
5(a). Smt. Saraswathamma
W/o. Venkatesh Reddy
Major, R/at.No.24/2,
Venkateshwara Provision Store
Konappana Agrahara
Near Anjaneya Temple
Bengaluru-560100.
5(b) Smt. Padma.N
W/o. Venkatesh Reddy
Major, R/at. Govt. PU College Road
8th cross, S.V.Tailors
V.V.Extension, Hoskote-562114.
5(c). Smt. Bhagyamma
W/o. Chalapathi Reddy
R/at. 3/A, Purmakanahalli village
Malur Taluk, Kolar District.
5(d). Smt. Nagarathna.N
W/o. Manjunatha Reddy
Major, R/at. No.117/A
Hulimangal, Anekal Taluk
Jigani Hobli, Bangalore-560105.
( By Sri. NGR / YNSR for plaintiffs,
Advocate)
-VS-
DEFENDANTS : 1. Smt. Narayanamma,
W/o. Late. Doddappaiah
since dead by her Lrs - the
Defendants No.2 to 6.
2. Narayanareddy
Aged about 65 years.
3 O.S.No.5543/2007
3. Smt. Gowramma
Aged about 60 years.
4. Smt. Rukkamma
Aged about 58 years.
5. Munikrishna Reddy
Aged about 50 years.
6. Sri. Venkatesh Reddy
Aged about 45 years.
Defendants 2, 5 & 6 are sons and 3 & 4 are
the daughters of Late Doddapapaiah.
7. Sri. Nagareddy
S/o. Chikkapapaiah @ Narayanareddy
Aged about 55 years
defendants No.1 to 7
Residing at Munnekolalu village, Varthur
Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk.
8. Mr. A.R.Mohammed Ishaq
S/o. Late Abdhul Rehaman
Aged about 63 years
R/at No.187 4, HAL 3rd stage
7th cross, 4th main
New Thippasandra
Bangalore-560075.
9. Mr. S. Noor Pasha
S/o. Late Syed Kasim
Aged about 40 years
No.1403/A, 13th main, HAL 3rd stage
Kodihalli, Bangalore-560008.
10. Mr. Amrith Pal Singh
s/o. Late Harman Singh
aged about 47 years
R/at No.321, CMH Road,
Indiranagarm Bangalore-560008.
4 O.S.No.5543/2007
11. Sri. Narayanaswamy
Aged about 34 years.
12. Sri. Rajareddy
Aged about 32 years.
Defendants 11 & 12 are sons of
late Krishnareddy, grandsons of
late Doddaramaiah,
R/at. Munnekolalu village
Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk.
13. Smt. Nethra
D/o. Late Gopalareddy
R/at. Munnekolalu village
Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk.
( By Advocates
Sri. RCS / KLS for D1 to 6
Sri. MK for D7
Sri. KMKR for D8, 9 )
D1 - Dead)
Date of Institution of the suit : 19/ 07 / 2007
Nature of the Suit : PARTITION
Date of commencement of recording
of evidence : 24/ 03 / 2014
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced : 18/ 01/ 2023
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : 15 05 29
(BALAGOPALAKRISHNA)
XXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
5 O.S.No.5543/2007
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have filed this suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit schedule properties, alleged release deed executed by father of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 by name Chikkapapaiaha dated 07-06-1955 / 06-06-1955, sale deed dated 25-07-1956, 05-07-2004, 16-06-2005 and 27-08-2005 are not binding on the share of the plaintiffs since those documents are fraudulent and created documents, mesne profits and other reliefs as claimed in the plaint.
2. In a nut shell, the Case of the plaintiffs are as under:-
It is submitted that, the late Hosahalli Biddappa and Chikkathayamma had two sons viz., Doddapapaiah and Chikkapapaiaha @ Narayana reddy. The said Doddapapaiah married the defendant No.1 by name Narayanamma, she died during the pendency of the suit. Chikkapapaiah @ Narayanareddy married one Thimmakka who is arrayed as plaintiff No.5, she also died during pendency of suit.
3. The said Doddapaiaha and Narayanamma had following issues i.e., Narayanareddy - defendant No.2, Gowramma - defendant No.3, Rukkamma - defendant No.4, Munikrishnareddy - defendant No.5 and Venkatesha Reddy - defendant No.6.
6 O.S.No.5543/20074. Second son Chikkapapaiah @ Narayanareddy and plaintiff No.5 had following issues viz., Nagareddy - defendant No.7, Venkateshareddy - plaintiff No.1, Gopalareddy died and his wife Shakunthalamma is the plaintiff No.3, Munireddy - plaintiff No.2. During the pendency of suit plaintiff No.5 died leaving behind plaintiff No.5(a) to (d), plaintiff No.4 and defendant No.13 are the sons of plaintiff No.3.
Defendant No.8 to 12 are the purchasers of portion of the suit schedule properties.
5. It is submitted that, after the death of Doddapapaiaha on 30-11-2002 all the plaintiffs, defendant Nos.1 to 7 and defendant No.13 are continued to be in the joint family and Narayana Reddy being elder son has become Kartha of the joint family. It is further submitted that, after the death of Doddapapaiah there was misunderstanding between the womenfolk in the joint family of Chikkapapaiah and his sons and Doddapapaiaha's sons and daughters, so from 5 years they are started leaving separately and enjoying the joint family properties according to their convenience. The Gopalareddy son of Chikkapapaiah died on 06-03-2001, the plaintiff No.3, 4 and 13 are his Lrs. However, plaintiffs and defendants are continued to be in joint family and cultivating the suit schedule properties jointly. The husband of the plaintiff No.5 died on 28-11-2005 leaving behind him the 7 O.S.No.5543/2007 plaintiffs, defendant Nos.7 and 13 as his Lrs. During lifetime of Doddapapaiah and Chikkapapaiah, there was no partition in their family.
6. It is submitted that, inspite of the above fact defendant Nos.1 to 7 joining together have sold some of the joint family properties in favour of 3rd parties and same was came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs through 3 rd person and immediately, the plaintiffs have verified the Revenue documents and filed the suit. It is further stated that, at the time of verifying the documents the plaintiffs came to know that, a document styled as Release Deed dated 07-06-1955 alleged to have executed by the father of the plaintiff No.1 by name Chikkapapaiah @ NarayanaReddy in favour of Doddapapaiaha. In fact no such document was executed by Chikkapapaiah and he has not received any consideration of Rs.400/- and the said release deed was not acted upon. Therefore, it is not binding on the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs and defendants are continued to be members of joint family and cultivating the suit schedule properties jointly.
7. It is submitted that, on 25-07-1956 the Doddapapaiah again got the sale deed executed in his favour without paying any consideration. Thus, it is contended that a fraud played by the Doddapapaiah and created the said documents and to make believe that the properties are belonged to him. Inspite of the above deeds the revenue 8 O.S.No.5543/2007 documents are continued to be in the name of Doddapapaiah and Chikkapapaiah.
8. It is submitted that Doddapapaiah and his sons have got transferred the Katha of the suit schedule properties to their different names stating that, there was a panchayat partition. In fact, there was no any panchayat partition in the family of Doddapapaiah. The revenue entries are all got transferred by misleading the revenue officials which is illegal. On the basis of the change of Katha in their name the defendant Nos.1 to 6 have sold survey number 60/2, Sy.No.60/3 to various persons. The said sale deeds are not binding on the share of the plaintiffs. The defendant No.8 to 12 are not the bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration and the sale deeds were effected by the defendant Nos.1 to 7 only with an intention to defraud the plaintiff's share in the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, prayed to decree the suit.
9. In response to the summons issued by this court the Defendant No.2 has appeared and filed written statement as under:-
This defendant has admitted the relationship exist among plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 7 and 13. Further, this defendant denied all the averments made in the plaint that, suit schedule properties are joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendant nos.1 to 7 and they are all the joint family members. The plaintiffs have created the story of joint family and joint family properties for the purpose of this suit.9 O.S.No.5543/2007
10. It is the specific case of this defendant is that, grand father of the defendant Nos.3 to 6 by name Hosahalli Biddappa was the absolute owner and in possession of lands bearing survey number 62 and 60/2 and he was cultivating the same. The said Hosahalli Biddappa died in the year 1945. The father of defendant No.3 to 8 i.e., Doddapapaiah got married in the year 1938 and Chikkapapaiah got married in the year 1940. It is submitted that, immediately after marriage of Chikkapapaiah in the year 1940 he got separated from the joint family of his father and stayed in his father-in-law's house namely Abbaiah along with his wife Thimmakka as illotam son- in-law since the said Abbaiah had no other issues. It is further stated that, in view of the above in the year 1955 Chikkapapaiah demanded money in lieu of his share in survey number 62 and 60/2 left by his father Hosahalli Biddappa. In a Panchayath the said Chikkapapaiah @ Narayana Reddy had agreed to execute release deed for Rs.400/- and accordingly, he executed registered release deed dated 06-06-1955 by receiving the said amount. Thus, question of joint family and joint family properties are created.
11. It is further submitted that, suit item No.1 and 4 i.e., survey number 60/3 and survey number 7 are not the joint family properties and those properties are self acquired properties of Doddapapaiah having purchased the same from one Annaiah under registered sale deed of the year 1955-56. In pursuance of the sale deed Katha and other revenue records were accepted in the name of Doddapapaiah in 10 O.S.No.5543/2007 M.R.NO.7/93-94. Though the said two properties are the self acquired properties of Doddapapaiah, the said two properties were included in the release deed executed by Chikkapapaiah in favour of Doddapapaiah. It is also stated that, suit item No.5 is not the joint family properties. It is submitted that, the family of Doddapapaiah was separated / disrupted prior to execution of the release deed in the year 1955.
12. It is further submitted that, after execution of the release deed by Chikkapapaiah in favour of Doddapapaiah he has become the absolute owner in respect of the entire lands. The Doddapapaiah being a absolute owner he has sold the same in favour of one Pai Doddi Ramaiah under registered sale deed dated 07-06-1956 for valuable consideration of Rs.500/- and put the vendee in possession of the same. To the said sale deed Chikkapapaiaha @ Narayanareddy was also one of the attesting witness to the said sale deed.
13. It is further defence of the defendants that, Doddapapaiah i.e., father of defendant Nos.2 to 6 has repurchased the properties sold by him from Pai Doddiramaiah in the year 1956 and in pursuance of the said sale deed revenue records are coming in the name of Doddapapaiah. Thus, whatever the properties purchased by Doddapapaiah are all his absolute and self acquired properties.
11 O.S.No.5543/200714. It is submitted that, the suit schedule properties being the absolute properties of Doddapapaiah there was a partition among himself and his family members under partition deed dated 05-01-1981:-
a). In the said partition an extent of 27 guntas in survey number 60/3 and an extent of 26 guntas in survey number 60/2 was allotted to Narayanamma wife of Doddapapaiah / defendant No.1.
b). Land bearing Sy.No.7 measuring 15 guntas and sy.no.68/12 measuring 39.5 guntas was allotted to the share of H.Narayanareddy i.e., defendant No.2.
c). Land bearing Sy.No.68/12 measuring 39.5 guntas and house property bearing Khanesumari No.57/1 and 57/2 was allotted to the share of 5th defendant i.e., Munikrishna Reddy.d). Land bearing Sy.No.62 measuring 1 acre 4
guntas and portion of Khanesumari number 57/1 and 57/2 was allotted to the share of 6 th defendant i.e., Venkatesh Reddy.
In pursuance of the said partition all the defendants are in possession of their respective shares and got changed the Khatha in their name and paying tax to the revenue department to their respective share independently. Thus, the averments made in the plaint that, plaintiffs and defendant nos.1 to 7 are joint family members and suit schedule 12 O.S.No.5543/2007 properties are joint family properties is created for the purpose of this suit.
15. It is further stated that, in the year 1978-79 Doddapapaiah was in financial crisis, at that time he had taken a loan from Bengaluru South Taluk primary co-operative land development Bank Ltd., Munekolala by mortgaging survey number 62 and 68/12 under registered mortagage deed dated 11-09-1978 and subsequently, on 10-01-1995 the said Doddapapaiah got released the mortgage in respect of the said properties. It is also stated that, though the Doddapapaiah had purchased survey number 60/3 it was wrongly shown as 68/3 and extent is also wrongly shown as 1 acre 27 guntas. Subsequently, it was noticed by the defendant, so the 6th defendant has given a representation to the concerned Tahsildar to correct the said mistake, the Tahsildar after visiting the spot corrected the survey number and also extent as per his order dated 15-04-1997 in RRT (1) CR 805 / 95-96 and accordingly, revenue entries were corrected. One Venkataswamy s/o Annaiah being aggrieved by the said order has preferred an appeal before the AC in RA.No. 193/98-99, wherein Asst. Commissioner after holding due enquiry dismissed the appeal on 19-02-2002 and it is attained finality.
16. It is further submitted that, in the year 1995 plaintiffs i.e., Venkatesh Reddy, Munireddy, Gopalareddy, Shakuntalamma and defendant No.7 Nagareddy have 13 O.S.No.5543/2007 purchased portion of survey number 7 of Munekolala village under different sale deeds from the defendants. This clearly fortifies that, there was a partition. It is also contended that suit of the plaintiffs is hopelessly barred by time. On these grounds and amongst others the defendant No.2 prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
17. Defendant No.1, 3 to 6 have filed a memo to the effect that, they are going to adopt the written statement of defendant No.1.
18. The defendant No.7 has appeared through his counsel and filed the written statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs and also sought for his share in the suit properties.
19. The defendant No.8 & 9 have appeared through their counsel and filed written statement as under:-
These defendants at the first instance have denied the averments made in the plaint are all false and created for the purpose of this suit. These defendants have reiterated the written statement of defendant No.2. It is the case of the defendant No.8 that, he had purchased suit item No.1 i.e., survey number 60/3 from the defendant No.1 to 6 for valuable consideration under registered sale deed and also he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant No.8 in turn sold portion of suit item No.1 in favour of defendant 14 O.S.No.5543/2007 No.9 & 10 and accordingly, they are in possession of the same.
20. It is also stated that he is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration and he has purchased the suit item No.1 after making due enquiry and confirming himself that the defendant No.1 to 6 are the absolute owners of the said properties, he purchased the same. Therefore, his interest has to be protected. The plaintiffs only with an intention to harass the defendants has filed the present suit. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
21. On the basis of the above pleadings of the respective parties, my learned predecessor has framed the following:-
ISSUES
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that registered release deed dated 07-06-1956 executed by Chikkapapaiah is a concocted document?
2) Whether plaintiffs prove that the registered release deed dated 07-06-1956 was not acted upon?
3) Whether plaintiffs prove that registered sale deed dated 07-06-1956 executed by Dodda Papaiah's concocted and not binding on the plaintiffs?
4) Whether plaintiffs prove that registered sale deed dated 25-07-1956 executed in favour of Doddapapaiah is concocted and not binding on the plaintiffs?15 O.S.No.5543/2007
5) Whether plaintiffs prove the registered sale deed dated 05-07-2004 executed in favour of defendant No.8 is concocted and not binding on the plaintiffs?
6) Whether plaintiffs prove that registered sale deed dated 16-06-2005 executed in favour of defendant No.9 is concocted and not binding on the plaintiffs?
7) Whether plaintiffs prove that registered sale deed dated 27-08-2005 executed in favour of defendant No.11 is concocted and not binding on the plaintiffs?
8) Whether the plaintiffs prove that suit properties are undivided joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 7?
9) Whether defendants 1 to 6 prove that suit item No.1 and 4 are not the family properties?
10) Whether the defendant Nos.1 to 6 prove that the said properties were self acquisitions of Doddapapaiah?
11) Whether defendants 1 to 6 prove that the alienations questioned by plaintiffs were validly made?
12) Whether plaintiffs have a share in the suit properties?
13) Whether defendant No.1 to 6 prove that late Chikka Papaiah had validly executed the registered release deed dated 06-06-1955?
14) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profits?16 O.S.No.5543/2007
15) Whether defendants 1 to 6 prove the prior partition dated 05-01-1982 and it was valid?
16) Whether the court fee paid is insufficient?
17) Whether suit is bad of non-joinder for necessary parties?
18) Whether suit is barred by time?
19) What decree or order?
22. On the side of the plaintiffs, PW.1 is examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P.22 are got marked. On the side of the defendants, Dws.1 & 2 are examined, Ex.D1 to Ex.D57 are got marked and closed their side.
23. Heard the arguments on both the sides. Perused the records.
24. On the basis of the evidence available on record, my findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the Negative;
Issue No.2 : In the Negative;
Issue No.3 : In the Negative;
Issue No.4 : In the Negative;
Issue No.5 : In the Negative;
Issue No.6 : In the Negative;
Issue No.7 : In the Negative;
Issue No.8 : In the Negative;
Issue No.9 : In the Affirmative;
Issue No.10 : In the Affirmative;
17 O.S.No.5543/2007
Issue No.11 : In the Affirmative;
Issue No.12 : In the Negative;
Issue No.13 : In the Affirmative;
Issue No.14 : In the Negative;
Issue No.15 : In the Affirmative;
Issue No.16 : In the Affirmative;
Issue No.17 : In the Negative;
Issue No.18 : In the Affirmative;
Issue No.19 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
25. I S SUE Nos.1 to 4 and 13:-
These issues are interlinked and they are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition.
Before discussing the above said issues, it is necessary to mention the relationship among plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 7.
Defendant No.8 to 12 are the purchaser of portion of the suit properties.
(a). The relationship among plaintiffs, defendant Nos.1 to 7 and 13 is not in dispute. As per the 'G' tree produced by the plaintiffs which is marked at Ex.P8 clearly reveals that, the propositous by name deceased Hosahalli Biddappa and his wife deceased Chikkathayamma had 2 sons viz., Late Doddapapaiah and late Chikkapapaiah @ 18 O.S.No.5543/2007 Narayanareddy. The said Doddapapaiaha married one Narayanamma who is the defendant No.1. The said Doddapapaiaha and Narayanamma had sons and daughters viz., Narayanareddy - defendant No.2, Gowramma - defendant No.3, Rukkamma -
defendant No.4, Munikrishnareddy - defendant No.5, Venkatesha Reddy - defendant No.6. During the pendency of suit defendant No.1 died leaving defendant No.2 to 6 as his Lrs.
(b). The second son Chikkapapaiaha @ Narayanareddy had married Thimmakka who is plaintiff No.5. They have sons and daughters viz., Nagareddy - defendant No.7, Venkatesha Reddy - plaintiff No.1, Gopala Reddy died and his wife made as plaintiff No.3, Munireddy - plaintiff No.2, the son and the daughter of plaintiff No.3 made as plaintiff No.4 and defendant No.12 respectively. During the pendency of suit plaintiff No.5 died, her Lrs are 5(a) to 5(d) viz., Saraswathamma, Padmamma, Bhagyamma and Nagarathna, respectively.
26. As per the plaint schedule following are the subject matter of the suit:-
1. Survey number 60/2 measuring 24 guntas of Hynu Land and 2 guntas of Kharab land situated at Munekolala village.19 O.S.No.5543/2007
1(a). Survey number 60/3 measuring 25 guntas of Hynu land and 2 guntas of Kharab land situated at Munekolala village.
2. Survey number 68/12 measuring 1 acre 28 guntas situated at Munekolala village.
3. Survey No.62 measuring 1 acre 4guntas situated at Munekolala village.
4. Survey No.7 measuring 15 guntas situated at Munekolala village.
5. Khaneshumari No.46 measuring East to West 60ft and North to South 60ft of Munekolal village.
All the said properties having specific boundaries which are morefully described in the schedule.
27. According to the plaintiffs all the above said properties are joint family properties which consist plaintiffs, defendant Nos.1 to 7. There was no partition among them in respect of the suit properties by metes and bounds. It is also stated that, due to misunderstanding among the women in the family they are messing separately and also cultivating the suit properties for their convenience, but no partition. In spite of it, the defendant Nos.1 to 6 without the knowledge of the plaintiffs have sold the portion of the suit schedule properties in favour of the third parties, it was came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs before filing of the suit after verification of the revenue records. Therefore, they have demanded the 20 O.S.No.5543/2007 partition, but defendant Nos.1 to 6 have refused to effect partition. It is also stated that, alleged release deed alleged to be executed by his father Chikkapapaiah on 07-06-1955 is created and concocted etc., and same is not binding on the plaintiffs.
28. On the other hand, it is the simple defense of the defendant Nos.1 to 6 to the effect that, the grand father of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 6 was owning only two properties i.e., survey number 62 and 60/2.
(a). It is further stated that, grandfather of defendant No.2 died in the year 1945. The father of the 2nd defendant got married in the year 1938, whereas marriage of father of plaintiff No.1 by name Chikkapapaiah was performed in the year 1940.
From the date of marriage, Chikkapapaiah never resided as joint family member along with Doddapapaiah for the simple reason that, Chikkapapaiah's father-in-law by name Abbaiah had only one daughter i.e., wife of Chikkapapaiah and no other issues. Therefore, Chikkapapaiah used to reside in the house of Abbaiah as illotam son-in-law and used to look after the properties of father in law Abbaiah.
(b). It is further stated that, as stated above grandfather of the Defendant No.2 and plaintiff No.1 by name Biddappa had only two properties ie., survey No.62 and 60/2. When the Chikkapapaiah 21 O.S.No.5543/2007 residing in his in-laws house, he demanded money of his half share in the said two properties, at that time in the presence of Panchayatdars Chikkapapaiaha @ Narayan Reddy had agreed to execute Release Deed by receiving Rs.400/- and accordingly, he has executed Registered Release Deed dated 06-06-1955 in favour of Doddapapaiah by receiving said consideration. Therefore, Chikkapapaiah never resided as a joint family member along with Doddapapaiah.
(c). It is also stated that, Doddapapaiah had purchased survey number 60/3 and survey number 7 under registered sale deed of 1955-56 and the said two properties are the self acquired properties of Doddapapaiah. However, in the Release Deed the said properties were also included.
(d). In view of the Release Deed Doddapapaiah has become the absolute owner of the said properties and as a absolute owner he has sold above said properties in favour of one Pai Doddi Ramaiah under registered sale deed dated 06/07-06-1955 for valuable consideration of Rs.500/- and put the vendee in possession of the same.
(e). Again Doddapapaiah had repurchased the said properties from Pai Doddi Ramaiah for valuable consideration in the year 1956.
22 O.S.No.5543/2007(f). The sons of Doddapapaiah have divided all the suit schedule properties on 05-01-1982. Thus, neither the Doddapapaiah nor the Chikkapapaiah were joint family members prior to execution of release deed. Further, whatever the right Chikkapapaiah owned in two properties left by his father Biddappa, he relinquished his right by executing release deed and same is binding on the plaintiffs and plaintiffs cannot seek partition in the self acquired properties of the defendant Nos.1 to 6.
29. In view of the above defense taken by the defendants the burden is upon the plaintiffs to prove the contents of the plaint by producing cogent evidence. The plaintiffs in order to prove the averments made in the plaint the plaintiff No.1 himself examined as PW.1 and his examination- in-chief has been filed by way of affidavit, wherein he reiterated the averments made in the plaint and following documents are got marked:-
Ex.P.1:- Is the Certified copy of registered release deed dated 06-06-1955.
Ex.P1(a) Typed copy of release deed.
Ex.P.2:- Is the Certified copy of sale deed
dated 07-06-1955.
Ex.P2(a) Typed copy of sale deed.
Ex.P.3:- Is the Certified copy of sale deed
dated 05-07-2004.
23 O.S.No.5543/2007
Ex.P.4:- Is the Certified copy of sale deed
for the year 16-06-2005.
Ex.P.5:- Is the Certified copy of another sale
deed dated 27-08-2005.
Ex.P.6:- Is the Memo for having deposited
court fee dated 29-02-2012.
Ex.P.6(a) Challan
Ex.P.7:- Is the Copy of MR No.110/2004-05
Ex.P.8:- Is the Genealogical tree.
Ex.P.9 & Are the 2 Record of right extracts.
10:-
Ex.P.11 to Are the RTC extracts.
22 :-
In the cross-examination, it is got elicited the following:-
a). My father i.e., Chikkapapaiah and uncle i.e., Doddapapaiah were residing separately in the same village. Since 40 years Doddapapaiah and Chikkapapaiah were residing separately.
b). We all the brothers and sisters are residing separately since our marriage and we are managing our family affairs separately since then.
c). It is true to suggest that suit schedule properties were in possession of Doddapapaiah since 1956.24 O.S.No.5543/2007
d). It is true to suggest that my father died on 28-11-2005. No one has told me that, my father executed Release deed in favour of Sri. Doddapapaiah.
e). It is true to suggest that myself and my brothers and sisters have partitioned all our ancestor and joint family properties on 28-08-2007.
30. On the other hand, the defendant No.6 himself examined as DW.1 and his examination-in-chief has been filed by way of affidavit wherein, he reiterated the written statement of defendant No.2 Narayanareddy. Through him following documents are got marked:-
Ex.D.1:- Gazette Notification dated 17-04-2007.
Ex.D1(a):- Photograph Ex.D.2:- Certified copy of sale deed dated 05.02.1996 executed by Sri. H Narayana Reddy in favor of Sri. Muni Reddy in respcet of Sy. No. 7 measuring 0-01.3 (1 1/4) Guntas.
Ex.D.3:- Certified copy of sale deed dated 5-02-1996 executed by Sri. H Narayana Reddy in favor of Sri. Nagareddy in respect of Sy. No. 7 measuring 0-01.3 (1-1/4) Guntas.
Ex.D.4:- Certified copy of sale deed dated 05.02.1996 executed by Sri. H Narayana Reddy in favor of Sri. Gopala Reddy in respect of 25 O.S.No.5543/2007 Sy. No. 7 measuring 0-01.3 (1-1/4) Guntas.
Ex.D.5:- Certified copy of sale deed dated 05.02.1996 executed by Sri. H Narayana Reddy in favor of Venkatesh Reddy in respect of Sy. No. 7 measuring 0.15 Guntas.
Ex.D.6:- Certified copy of sale deed dated 05.02.1996 Sri.H Narayana Reddy in favor of Venkatesh Reddy and his wife Smt. N Aruna in respect of Sy.
No. 7 measuring 0-2.77Guntas.
Ex.D7:- Registered original release deed dtd: 06-06-1955.
Ex.D7(a):- Typed copy of Release deed dated:06-06-1955.
Ex.D.8 :- Original Sale deed dated 07-06-1955.
Ex.D.8(a):- Typed copy of original sale deed.
Ex.D.9 28 RTC's to 36:- Ex.D.37 Mutation extracts (3 in no.) to 39 :- Ex.D.40 :- Aadhara Pathra Ex.D.41:- One Receipt Ex.D.42 Tax paid Receipts (6 in no.) to 47 :-
Ex.D.48 :- Certified copy of partition deed 26 O.S.No.5543/2007 dated 28-02-2007.
Ex.D.49 Photographs (7 in no.)
to 55:-
Ex.D. 56 :- C.D. containing photos and
videos.
Ex.D.57 :- Genealogical tree
In the cross-examination case of the plaintiffs has been suggested, same is denied by the witness.
31. The plaintiffs who have approached the court for relief, they have to prove their case independently without taking the weakness of the defendants. Firstly, the plaintiffs have not produced any document before this court what was the properties owned by his grandfather Biddappa at the time of his death. According to the defendants his grandfather during his lifetime he was enjoying and cultivating survey number 62 and 60/2 of Munekolala village. The said suit properties are shown as item No.1 and 3 in the schedule. In respect of the said properties the plaintiff has produced Ex.P9 to 13 which are the RTC extracts originally standing in the name Biddaiah and then it was transferred in the name of Doddapapaiah. Ex.P14 & 15 are the RTC extracts in respect of suit item No.2, wherein name of Biddaiah and subsequently, it was changed in the name of defendants. Ex.P19 to 22 are the RTC extracts in respect of survey number 62 i.e., suit item No.3 originally it was standing in the name of Biddaiah and it was transferred in the name of 27 O.S.No.5543/2007 defendant No.6. As per the said documents, item No.1, 2 and 3 originally belonged to Biddaiah. In respect of item No.4 and 5 are concerned no documents are produced by the plaintiff.
32. According to the defense of the defendant the father of the PW.1 was married to plaintiff No.5 who is the daughter of Abbaiah, she was only daughter of Abbaiah so father of the PW.1 gone to the house of Abbaiah as illotam son-in-law and he was looking after the entire properties of Abbaiah. It is further pleaded that, after some time Chikkapapaiah demanded the Doddapapaiah his brother to give money in lieu of his share in the properties of Biddaiah. In the Panchayat convened in this regard, the Chikkapapaiah had agreed to relinquish his share in the said properties of Biddaiah by receiving Rs.400/- and accordingly, he had executed Relinquishment deed dated 06-06-1955. Thereby, it is contended that whatever the right owned by the Chikkapapaiah in his father's properties, he lost his right by executing said release deed. Now, the plaintiffs are contending that, the said release deed marked at Ex.P1 is created, concocted and not acted upon. Therefore, it is not binding on them. It is pertinent to note that, the father of the PW.1 died on 28-11-2005, whereas Ex.P1 came into existence on 06-06-1955. After execution of Ex.P1 Chikkapapaiah @ Narayana Reddy has not questioned the release deed executed by him though he was alive for more than 50 years on any ground. Therefore, now after the death of Chikkapapaiah the plaintiffs cannot contended that the 28 O.S.No.5543/2007 Ex.P1 is created and concocted and it was not acted upon. When the father of the plaintiff No.1 himself has not challenged the Ex.P1, the plaintiffs by filing this suit cannot contended that, the Ex.P1 is created and concocted. Further, as per the recitals made in Ex.P1 it is obviously clear that Chikkapapaiah @ Narayan Reddy had been to the house of Abbaiah as illotam son-in-law. In further recitals reveals that, ಈ ರರತ ನನರನಯಣಪಪ ಉರರಫಫ ಚಕಕಪನಪಯಯನನದ ನನನರ ನಮಮ ತತದದ ಕರಟರತಬದತದ ನಮಮ ತತದದ ಜರವತತರನಗದನದಗಲದರ ಬದರರದ ಹದಹರಗ ನನನ ಇಷನಷ ನರಸನರ ನನನ ಆದನಯನಷಷಗಳಗದ ನನನದರ ಬನದಯನನಗ ವಯವಹನರ ನಡದಸರತನತ ಬರರತತದದದರನದ. ಹನಲ ನನಗದ ನನಲರಕ ಜನ ಗತಡರ ಮಕಕಳರರತನತರದ. ನನನರ ಮಕಕಳದಹತದಗನನಗ ನನನ ಸತಸನರ ದನದರ ದನದರ ಅಭವವದದಯನಗರತತರರವವದರತದಲಹ ನನಗದ ಈಚದಗದ ಜರವನಕದಕ ತದಹತದರದ ಬಹಳವನಗರರವವದರತದಲಹ ನರವವ ಕನಕಪಟರಷ ನನನ ಮರಲದ ನಮಗರರವ ಪವರತ ವಶನಶಸಗಳಗನಗ ಸಹನಯ ಮನಡರವತತದ ಪತಚನಯತರ ಮಹಲಕ ಹದರಳಸದದರ ಮರಲದ ನರವವ ಒಪಪ ನನಗದ ನನಲರಕನಹರರ ರಹಪನಯಗಳನರನ ಕದಹಡರವವದನಗ ಒಪಪ ರರತತರರ .
Further it is also recited that, Chikkapapaiah @ Narayanareddy has received consideration of Rs.400/- in the presence of Sub-Registrar. Thus, from the above recitals it is gathered that Chikkapapaiah @ Narayana Reddy voluntarily relinquished his right in the properties of his father and in lieu of that he has received consideration of Rs.400/- from his brother Doddapapaiah. That is the reason why after execution of the Ex.P1 Doddapapaiah @ Narayanareddy alive for 50 years he has not questioned the same on any grounds.
29 O.S.No.5543/2007The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs in his arguments pressed into the service of ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its decision reported in AIR 1975 SC 895 between Rajagopal Pillai and Anr. Vs. Pakkiam Ammal and Others. As per the said ruling it is contended that, the Release deed marked at Ex.P1 is not in consonance with the rules laid down in the said ruling. I have carefully gone through the said ruling, in the said ruling the Sri Annavi Pillai himself treated his self acquired properties as joint family properties. Therefore, whatever the right given up by his son Armugam is not valid one. The facts and circumstances of the present case are not similar, in this case the father of the plaintiff No.1 after his marriage with plaintiff No.5 gone to her house and started residing in his in-laws house as illotam son-in-law, subsequently due to his financial problem he sent a message to his elder brother that, he would like to relinquish his right in his father's properties for Rs.400/- . Accordingly, it was given by Doddapapaiah and father of the plaintiff No.1 lost his right.
33. At this juncture, it is necessary to site a reported ruling of our Hon'ble High Court what value could be attached to registered document. In a reported ruling reported in ILR 1999 KAR Page No.1524 in the matter of A.V.Rangacharya V/s. Pillananjappa, wherein it is pleased to hold that:
"The presumption U/Sec.17 of the Registration Act, has to follow in respect of the liability and 30 O.S.No.5543/2007 proof of registered sale deed. The effect of a registered document under Sec.49 & 50 of the Registration Act cannot be taken away by merely, asserting that the document is bad. Even under Sec.67 and 68 of the Evidence Act, if it is found that, the document has been presented by the person who executed the document and if he admits execution those documents cannot be attacked as invalid in the eye of law."
The said ruling is aptly applicable to the case on hand, because Ex.P1 i.e., the release deed is a registered document and it was not questioned by father of the plaintiffs during his lifetime though he was alive for 50 years. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot contend it is a created document and not acted upon. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs has also argued that, in pursuance of the Ex.P1 the entries in the revenue records has not been made out, so no entries referring to Ex.P1 in RTC of suit properties. The said argument cannot be accepted, because the moment document is registered it is the duty of the registering authority forward the J-slip to the concerned revenue officials to effect and enter the same, because of the fault of the registering authority the defendants cannot be punished.
34. The father of the defendant No.2 by name Doddapapaiah had purchased survey No.60/3 and Survey No. 7 from its erstwhile owner Annaiah, after execution 31 O.S.No.5543/2007 of the Release deed by his brother Chikkapapaiah. In spite of it, at the time of execution of the Ex.P1, the said self acquired properties of Doddapapaiah was also included, why it was included etc., is not relevant to discuss. What is important is Doddapapaiah in order to make a payment to his brother Chikkapapaiah under Ex.P1 he has sold the properties in favour of Pai Doddi Ramaiah for Rs.500/-. This document is also questioned by the plaintiffs on various grounds. The sale deed executed by Doddapapaiah in favour of Pai Ramaiah Reddy is marked at Ex.P2 and it is of the date 06-06-1955. In fact, both Ex.P1 and 2 are came into existence on the same day. From this what is gathered is since Doddapapaiah has no money with him in order to make a payment under Ex.P1 he has sold the schedule properties in favour of Pai Doddi Ramaiah, for this father of the plaintiffs Chikkapapaiah @ Narayanareddy was also a signatory as a witness. Merely, the Ex.P1 and 2 are came into existence on the same day it cannot be said that, it is created and concocted. Even Ex.P2 also is not questioned by Chikkapapaiah @ Narayana Reddy during his life time, so how the plaintiffs can question the same.
35. The father of the defendant No.2 by name Doddapapaiah after some time he has repurchased the properties sold in favour of Pai Doddi Ramaiah under Ex.P2 on 07-06-1955 under registered sale deed. Therefore, again in respect of the properties covered under Ex.P1 was repurchased by Doddapapaiah. All the above said 32 O.S.No.5543/2007 transactions have taken place in the year 1955 & 1956. The said documents have not been questioned by the parties to the documents i.e., father of the plaintiffs in any manner within 3 years. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot challenge the said documents on any ground including fraud, collusion, misrepresentation etc. Therefore, the court cannot come to conclusion that those documents are created.
36. It is pertinent to note that, the plaintiffs have not offered any explanation why the Chikkapapaiah and Doddapapaiah are residing separately prior to execution of the Ex.P1 and PW.1 in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that, since 40 years Doddapapaiah and Chikkapapaiah are residing separately. The reason behind is that, Chikkapapaiah has become illotam son-in-law of the family of Abbaiah and residing in his house separately, though he is residing in the same village. Further, in order to meet out his financial contingency he relinquished his share in the properties of his father and in lieu of that, he has taken money from his elder brother Doddapapaiah.
37. It is also contended that, Ex.P1 and 2 and sale deed of the year 1956 was not acted upon. The said argument cannot be accepted because as per Ex.D40 the Doddapapaiah mortgaged the suit schedule properties to Bengaluru South Taluk Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., and obtained Rs.7600/- for the purpose of digging well and subsequently, as per Ex.D41 the said loan was cleared.
33 O.S.No.5543/2007Thus, Ex.P1 and 2 was acted upon and that is the reason why all the RTC's and other revenue documents are independently coming in the name of defendant's excluding Chikkapapaiah @ Narayana reddy as shown in Ex.D9 to 39. Viewed from any angle the plaintiffs utterly fail to prove that Ex.P1, P2 are the created and concocted document and not acted upon. On the other hand, defendant Nos.1 to 6 have proved that, at an undisputed point of time the father of the plaintiff No.1 has relinquished his share in the properties of his father on 06-06-1955 by receiving consideration. Accordingly, issue Nos.1 to 4 are answered in the Negative and Issue No.13 is answered in the Affirmative.
38. ISSUE No. 8 to 10:-
These issues are interlinked and they are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition.
When the defendants have established that, the father of the plaintiffs Chikkapapaiah has lost his right over the properties of his father under Ex.P1 by releasing his right in favour of his elder brother Doddapapaiah he has become the absolute owner of survey number 62 and 60/2. It is also contention of the defendants No.2 to 6 that, his father Doddapapaiah has purchased survey number 60/3 and 7 from its erstwhile owner Annaiah under registered sale deed of the year 1955-56. In this regard, there was a mistake in extent and also pode number i.e., it is wrongly mentioned as Sy.No.68/13 instead of 60/3 and measurement wrongly mentioned as 1 acre 27 guntas instead of 27 guntas.34 O.S.No.5543/2007
Therefore, Doddapapaiah by filing RRT proceedings got corrected the same. When Chikkapapaiah i.e., father of the plaintiffs has lost his right in the properties of his father including said properties naturally all the properties of Doddapapaiah is of his self acquired properties and not the joint family properties. Accordingly, Issue No.8 is answered in the Negative, Issue Nos.9 and 10 are answered in the affirmative.
39. ISSUE No.15 :-
All the documents produced by the parties reflects that, plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 6 are not the joint family members. Further the revenue documents produced by both the parties clearly reveals that, all the suit properties are standing in the name of Doddapapaiah. The defendant Nos.1 to 6 being the wife and sons of Doddapapaiah have partitioned all the suit schedule properties on 05-01-1982. In this regard, no documents are produced by the defendants, but revenue entries reflects the same. In the said partition, following properties were fallen to the share of defendants:-
a). In the said partition an extent of 27 guntas in survey number 60/3 and an extent of 26 guntas in survey number 60/2 was allotted to Narayanamma wife of Doddapapaiah / defendant No.1.
b). Land bearing Sy.No.7 measuring 15 guntas and sy.no.68/12 measuring 39.5 guntas was allotted to the share of H.Narayanareddy i.e., defendant No.2.35 O.S.No.5543/2007
c). Land bearing Sy.No.68/12 measuring 39.5 guntas and house property bearing Khanesumari No.57/1 and 57/2 was allotted to the share of 5th defendant i.e., Munikrishna Reddy.d). Land bearing Sy.No.62 measuring 1 acre 4
guntas and portion of Khanesumari number 57/1 and 57/2 was allotted to the share of 6 th defendant i.e., Venkatesh Reddy.
In pursuance of the said partition all the Ex.P9 to 39 were entered in the name of defendant's family interse.
40. Further, the plaintiffs and brothers have partitioned their ancestral joint family properties as per Ex.D48 on 28-02-2007 under registered partition deed. On comparison of the plaint schedule properties and schedule properties mentioned in Ex.P48 are totally separate and distinct properties. The said partition has been admitted by the PW.1 deposing that, "It is true to suggest that, myself and my brothers and sisters have partitioned all our ancestral and joint family properties on 28-02- 2007." If really, the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties why the plaintiffs excluding suit schedule properties have effected partition as per Ex.D48 has not been explained. The apparent reason is that, the plaintiffs knowing very well their father at an undisputed point of time relinquished his right in his father's properties and residing separately. Therefore, whatever the properties left 36 O.S.No.5543/2007 by Chikkapapaiah was partitioned among the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs have effected partition to their properties why not by the defendants in the suit schedule properties. Merely, the defendants have partitioned the properties orally on 05-01-1982 in respect of the suit schedule properties and no documents are produced like registered documents the defense cannot be brushed aside, because it is among the family of the defendants No.1 to 6. Therefore, whatever the partition entered into among the defendants is valid and in pursuance of that M.R was affected and RTC entries are coming in the name of defendant Nos.1 to 6. Accordingly, this Issue under reference is answered in the Affirmative.
41. ISSUE No. 5 to 7 & 11:-
These issues are interlinked and they are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition.
These issues are touching the alienation made by the defendant Nos.1 to 6 in portion of the suit properties. According to the defendant No.8 he had purchased the suit item No.1 i.e., survey number 60/3 and 60/2 measuring 24 and 25 guntas respectively. It further reveals that, after the death of Doddapapaiah i.e., defendant Nos.1 to 6 have sold the same in favour of defendant No.8. This item No.1 is also a subject matter of Ex.P1 / Ex.D7, where under Chikkapapaiah lost his right and his brother Doddapapaiah has become the absolute owner of the same. After the death of Doddapapaiah 37 O.S.No.5543/2007 defendant Nos.1 to 7 have sold the very same property in favour of defendant No.8 as per Ex.P3 on 05-07-2004. Further defendant No.8 has sold some of the portion of the said two properties in favour of defendant Nos.9 to 12. When plaintiffs have no right over the suit properties how can they question the alienation made by the defendant Nos.1 to 6. Therefore, alienation made by the defendant Nos.1 to 6 on 05-07-2004, 16-06-2005, 27-08-2005 is definitely valid transactions and same cannot be questioned by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, issue Nos. 5 to 7 under reference are answered in the Negative and Issue No.11 is answered in the Affirmative.
42. ISSUE NO.12, 14:-
These issues are interlinked and they are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition.
While answering issue Nos.1 to 4, I have come to conclusion that, in the year 1955 itself the father of the plaintiff No.1 by name Chikkapapaiah had executed registered Release deed in favour of his elder brother Doddapapaiah under Ex.P1 on 06-06-1955 by relinquishing his share in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, question of giving share to the plaintiffs does not arise at all and consequently, question of giving mesne profits does not arise at all. Accordingly, these issues are answered in the Negative.38 O.S.No.5543/2007
43. Issue No.16:-
This issue is touching the court fee aspect. The plaintiffs along with the suit they have furnished valuation slip, as per that they have valued the subject matter for the purpose of jurisdiction is Rs.5,00,000/- and invoked Sec.35(2) of Karnataka Court Fee & Suit Valuation, Act and paid Rs.200/- + 150/- in all Rs.350/-.
In view of the Ex.P1 i.e., Release deed dated 06-06-1955 father of the plaintiffs No.1 was lost his possession over the two properties of his father. No doubt, in the said release deed properties purchased by the Doddapapaiah was also included. The father of the plaintiffs including the said properties also relinquished his share in the said two properties and in lieu of that, he has received consideration of Rs.400/-. This further reveals that, neither the father of the plaintiffs nor plaintiffs or in possession of the suit properties from 1955. Further more, the PW.1 in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that, "It is true to suggest that, suit schedule properties were in possession of Sri.Doddapapaiah since 1956." This admission clearly establishes that, as on the date of filing of the suit the plaintiffs were not in joint possession of the suit schedule properties along with defendant Nos.1 to 6. Therefore, valuation should be under Sec.35(1) of the KCF & SV Act, i.e., without possession. Therefore, the court fee paid by the plaintiffs is not in accordance with law. Instead of dismissing the suit on that point, considering the age of the 39 O.S.No.5543/2007 case it is just and proper to direct the office to collect the necessary court fee as per Sec.35(1) of KCF & S.V Act, from the plaintiffs. Accordingly, this issue is answered in the Affirmative.
44. ISSUE NO.17:-
This issue touching the aspect of suit of the plaintiffs is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
As per the defence taken by the defendant No.2 such a issue has been framed by this court. Subsequently, the plaintiffs have included all the necessary parties to the suit by filing application. Therefore, suit of the plaintiffs is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, this issue is answered in the Negative.
45. ISSUE NO.18:-
According to the defense of defendant Nos.1 to 6 the suit of the plaintiffs is hopelessly barred by time.
The plaintiffs in the plaint apart from seeking partition they have also sought for declaration that, the alleged Release deed alleged to be executed by father of the plaintiff No.1 i.e., Chikkapapaiah is created, concocted and not acted upon and also other reliefs. As per the Ex.P1 the father of the plaintiff No.1 had executed Ex.P1 on 06-06-1955. After execution of the said release deed the father of the plaintiff No.1 was alive nearly for a period of 50 years and according to the plaintiffs Chikkapapaiah died on 28-11-2005. In 40 O.S.No.5543/2007 between that period Chikkapapaiah has not questioned the said release deed in the manner known to law on any ground. Soon after the death of father of the plaintiffs i.e., Chikkapapaiah @ Narayanareddy the present suit is filed by taking so many contentions. Apparently, suit of the plaintiffs is barred by time, because when the father of the plaintiffs has not questioned the release deed during his lifetime i.e., within 3 years, how can plaintiffs question the same. Further, on the basis of the release deed at Ex.P1 the father of the defendant No.2 sold the suit schedule properties in favour of Pai Doddiramaiah in the year 1955 and subsequently, he has repurchased the very same properties in the year 1956. The said deeds was also not questioned by Chikkapapaiah during his life time. After the death of Doddapapaiah on 30-11-2002 the defendants were divided the properties left by the Doddapapaiah. It is pertinent to note that, as per Ex.D48 after the death of Chikkapapaiah the plaintiffs have partitioned his properties under registered partition deed dated 28-02-2007 by excluding suit schedule properties and also excluding the defendants. Thus, viewed from any angle suit of the plaintiff's is hopelessly barred by time. Accordingly, this issue is answered in the Affirmative.
46. ISSUE NO.19:-
For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following:-41 O.S.No.5543/2007
ORDER Suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed with costs.
Office is directed to collect the court fee from the plaintiffs as per Sec.35(1) of Karnataka Court Fee & Suit Valuation Act, 1958.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of January, 2023).
(BALAGOPALAKRISHNA) XXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for the plaintiff :
P.W.1 - Venkatesh Reddy S/o. Late Chikkapapaiah.
List of Documents exhibited for the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1:- Is the Certified copy of registered release deed dated 06-06-1955.
Ex.P1(a) Typed copy of release deed.
Ex.P.2:- Is the Certified copy of sale deed
dated 07-06-1955.
Ex.P2(a) Typed copy of sale deed.
42 O.S.No.5543/2007
Ex.P.3:- Is the Certified copy of sale deed
dated 05-07-2004.
Ex.P.4:- Is the Certified copy of sale deed
for the year 16-06-2005.
Ex.P.5 Certified copy of another sale deed
dated 27-08-2005
Ex.P.6 Memo for having deposited
court fee
Ex.P.6(a) Challan
Ex.P.7 Copy of MR No.110/2004-05
Ex.P.8 Genealogical tree
Ex.P.9 & 10 2 record of rights.
Ex.P.11 to 21 RTC extracts
Ex.P.21(a) RTC extract
Ex.P22 RTC Extract as on 23-02-2007.
List of Witnesses examined for the Defendant :
D.W.1 - Venkatesh Reddy S/o.
Late Doddapaiaha.
D.W.2 - Nagareddy S/o. Chikkapapaiah. List of Documents exhibited for the defendant:
Ex.D.1:- Gazette Notification dated 17-04-2007.
Ex.D1(a):- Photograph Ex.D.2:- Certified copy of sale deed dated 43 O.S.No.5543/2007 05.02.1996 executed by Sri. H Narayana Reddy in favor of Sri. Muni Reddy in respcet of Sy. No. 7 measuring 0-01.3 (1 1/4) Guntas.
Ex.D.3:- Certified copy of sale deed dated 5-02-1996 executed by Sri. H Narayana Reddy in favor of Sri. Nagareddy in respect of Sy. No. 7 measuring 0-01.3 (1 1/4) Guntas.
Ex.D.4:- Certified copy of sale deed dated 05.02.1996 executed by Sri. H Narayana Reddy in favor of Sri. Gopala Reddy in respect of Sy. No. 7 measuring 0-01.3 (1 1/4) Guntas.
Ex.D.5:- Certified copy of sale deed dated 05.02.1996 executed by Sri. H Narayana Reddy in favor of Venkatesh Reddy in respect of Sy. No. 7 measuring 0.15 Guntas.
Ex.D.6:- Certified copy of sale deed dated 05.02.1996 Sri. H Narayana Reddy in favor of Venkatesh Reddy and his wife Smt. N Aruna in respect of Sy. No. 7 measuring 0-2.77Guntas.
Ex.D7:- Registered original release deed dtd: 06-06-1955.
Ex.D7(a):- Typed copy of Release deed dated:06-06-1955.
44 O.S.No.5543/2007 Ex.D.8 :- Original Sale deed dated
07-06-1955.
Ex.D.8(a):- Typed copy of original Sale deed Ex.D.9 28 RTC's to 36:-
Ex.D.37 Mutation extracts (3 in no.) to 39 :- Ex.D.40 :- Aadhara Pathra Ex.D.41:- One Receipt Ex.D.42 Tax paid Receipts (6 in no.) to 47 :-
Ex.D.48 :- Certified copy of partition deed dated 28-02-2007.
Ex.D.49 Photographs (7 in no.)
to 55:-
Ex.D. 56 :- C.D. containing photos and
videos.
Ex.D.57 :- Genealogical tree
(BALAGOPALAKRISHNA)
XXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
Digitally signed by BALAGOPALAKRISHNABALAGOPALAKRISHNA Date: 2023.01.21 13:30:15 +0530 45 O.S.No.5543/2007 46 O.S.No.5543/2007