Bangalore District Court
Thimmaraiyappa vs Muniyamma on 7 July, 2025
KABC0A0041742021
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL, BENGALURU.
(CCH-74)
P r e s e n t:
Smt. Anitha N.P., B.A.L., L.L.M.,
LXXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
Dated this the 07th day of July, 2025.
O.S. No.26583/2021
Plaintiff:- Sri. Thimmaraiyappa
S/o Late Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa
Aged about 52 years
R/at House No.171, Hennur Village,
Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru
(Rep by Sri. Chandrashekar M, Advocate)
-Vs-
Defendants:- 1. Smt. MUNIYAMMA
Wife of Late Muniswamy @
Muniswamappa,
2
O.S. No.26583/2021
Daughter-in-law of late Muniyappa
@Donnemuniyappa,
Aged about 66 years
2. Sri. RAVI KUMAR
Son of Late Muniswamy @
Muniswamappa,
Grandson of late Muniyappa
@Donnemuniyappa,
Aged about 40 years
3. Smt. GANGADHARAMMA
Daughter of Late Muniswamy @
Muniswamappa,
Grand daughter of late Muniyappa
@Donnemuniyappa,
Aged about 39 years
4. Sri. VISWANATH
Son of Late Muniswamy @
Muniswamappa,
Grandson of late Muniyappa
@Donnemuniyappa,
Aged about 36 years
5. Smt. MANJULA
Daughter of Late Muniswamy @
Muniswamappa,
Grand daughter of late Muniyappa
@Donnemuniyappa,
3
O.S. No.26583/2021
Aged about 32 years
6. Smt. MAMTHA
Daughter of Late Muniswamy @
Muniswamappa,
Grand daughter of late Muniyappa
@Donnemuniyappa,
Aged about 32 years
All are residing at:
House No. 171,
Hennur Village,
Kasaba Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk.
7. Smt. PUTTALAKSHMAMMA
Wife Sri. BYATAPPA. H. R,
Aged about 48 years,
Residing at No. 57, 3rd Cross,
Shirdi Sai Nagar, K. Narayanapura Road,
SRK Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 077.
(For D4, A.M.,
for D5, C.J.,- Adv.
D1 to D3, 6 and 7 - Exparte)
Date of institution of the suit : 23.12.2021
4
O.S. No.26583/2021
Nature of the suit (Suit for pro-
note,suit for declaration and : Declaration and Partition
injunction,suit for injunction, etc)
Date of commencement of : 13.02.2023
recording of evidence
Date on which the Judgment was : 07.07.2025
pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Days
03 06 14
Digitally signed by
ANITHA ANITHA NANJANAGUDU
NANJANAGUDU PARASHIVAMURTHY
PARASHIVAMURTHY Date: 2025.07.08
17:30:41 +0530
(Anitha N.P.)
LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit,
Bengaluru. (CCH-74)
J U D G M E N T
The plaintiff has filed this suit as against defendants No.1 to 7 seeking the relief of partition, separate possession, to declare the registered Release deed dated 06.03.2018 executed by defendant No.1, 3 to 6 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of suit item No.2 is not binding on the plaintiff, to declare registered sale deed dated 13.07.2020 executed by defendant 5 O.S. No.26583/2021 No.2 in faovur of defendant No.7 in respect of suit item No.2 is not binding on plaintiff, for permanent injunction and for such other further reliefs.
2. Brief facts of the plaint averments are as under:-
That the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 6 are members of Hindu joint family. Plaintiff's father by name Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa purchased the larger extent of immovable property bearing Khaneshumari No.75 situated at Hennur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk with CMC Khata No.176/188/189/171 now coming under limits of BBMP which are shown as suit item Nos.1 to 7 along with his brother namely Chikkamuniyappa @ Moogonu under sale deed dated 28.05.1970.
The said Chikkamuniyappa @ Moogonu died intestate as a bachelor and hence Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa succeeded to the suit item Nos.1 to 7 as sole surviving legal heir and he 6 O.S. No.26583/2021 became absolute owner. Due to encroachment and sale of portion of property now availability of property is as per suit item No.1 to 7.
3. It is further case of the plaintiff that Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa was also owner of property bearing sie No.32, BBMP khata No.106/32, previously site No.22, in Assessment No.58, which is shown as suit item No.8. The said Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa died instestate on 07.12.1998 leaving behind his sons i.e., plaintiff and one Muniswamy @ Munisamappa to succeed to his estate. Subsequently said Muniswamy @ Muniswamappa died intestate leaving behind his wife defendant No.1 and his children defendant Nos.2 to 6 to succeed his estate. Accordingly suit item Nos.1 to 8 properties devolved on the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 6. They are paying taxes before concerned authority, the khata of suit item Nos.1 to 8 still 7 O.S. No.26583/2021 stands in the name of father of plaintiff. The plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 6 are in joint possession of suit schedule item Nos.1 to 8. There is no partition among them till date. After death of his father plaintiff demanding the defendants to effect partition and allot his ½ share. However, defendant Nos.1 to 6 kept postponing the same by giving one or other reason. Recently the plaintiff came to know that defendant Nos.1 and 3 to 6 have illegally created release deed dated 06.03.208 in favour of defendant No.2. On the strength of said release deed defendant No.2 created a sale deed in respect of item No.8 on 13.07.2020 in favour of defendant No.7. The plaintiff also came to know that now the defendants are trying to create 3 rd party rights over the suit schedule properties. Accordingly the plaintiff has filed this suit and prays to decree the suit. 8
O.S. No.26583/2021
4. In pursuance of the suit summons the defendant No.1 to 3 and defendant Nos.6 and 7 not appeared. Hence they were placed as exparte. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 appeared before the court through their respective counsels. Defendant No.5 filed the written statement and contested the case of the plaintiff. Defendant No.4 not filed written statement.
5. Brief facts of the written statement of defendant No.5. The defendant No.5 in his written statement admitted the relationship of himself and defendant Nos.1 to 6 and contended that suit in respect of suit item No.8 is not maintainable as plaintiff is making false claim. Suit item No.8 was allotted to one Chikka Muniyappa @ Moogonu from the concerned authority and hence he was the absolute owner in possession of the suit item No.8. He was not having any legal heirs and during his lifetime it is the 1 st defendant who was looking after 9 O.S. No.26583/2021 all his affairs and upto his death. The said Chikkamuniyappa @ Moogonu was staying along with defendant No.1 and hence he given suit item No.8 to the family of defendants orally and the plaintiff know about it very well.
6. Defendant No.5 further contended that suit item No.8 is absolute property of Chikkamuniyappa @ Moogonu. He died intestate and it is father and mother of defendant No.5 was looking after the said Chikkamuniyappa @ Moogonu. Accordingly he allotted the suit item No.8 to Muniyamma i.e., defendant No.1 and it was his last wish. Said Chikkamuniyappa @ Moogonu was having his share in suit item No.1 to 7 and he let the same to the defendant No.1 by orally. As the plaintiff is having no issues he agreed to take ½ share in his father share and accordingly oral division was held. Hence the plaintiff is entitled to ½ share in the share of Muniyappa @ 10 O.S. No.26583/2021 Donnemuniyappa and the family of defendants are entitled to get entire share of Chikkamuniyappa @ Moogonu and ½ share in the share of Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa. Accordingly the defendant Nos.1 to 6 are in possession and enjoyment of said property. The plaintiff also agreed to not to claim right over the suit item No.8 and on the said assurance the defendants have developed the suit item No.8. The plaintiff is working in BBMP and he managed to change the documents in respect of suit item Nos.1 to 7 without knowledge of defendants and plaintiff is having only ¼ share in suit item Nos.1 to 7 only. The plaintiff himself was present at the time of execution of release deed in favour of defendant No.2 and instructed to execute the said release deed. As there was some financial constraints in their family they sold suit item No.8 in favour of defendant No.7. Accordingly they are having ¾ share in the suit item Nos.1 to 7 11 O.S. No.26583/2021 and prays to allot the said share of the defendant No.5. On the above grounds they prays to dismiss the suit in respect of suit item No.8.
7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues are framed.
I S S U E S
1. Whether plaintiff proves himself and defendants No.1 to 6 are in Joint Possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties ?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that he is having half share in the suit schedule Item No.1 to 8 properties?
3. Whether plaintiff proves that the release deed dated:06.03.2018 executed by defendant No.1, 3 to 6 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of Item No.8 of suit schedule property is not binding on plaintiff?
4. Whether plaintiff proves that the sale deed dated: 13.07.2020 executed by defendant 12 O.S. No.26583/2021 No.2 in favour of defendant No.7 in respect of Item No.8 is not binding on plaintiff?
5. Whether the defendant No.5 proves that Item No.8 of suit schedule property was belongs one Chikka Muniyappa @Mugonu and he given the same to the family of defendants ?
6. Whether plaintiff is entitle for the relief sought in the suit?
7. What order or decree ?
8. That to prove the case of plaintiff, he himself got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.8 documents. On the other hand, defendants have not chosen to examine any witness on their behalf.
9. Heard arguments on plaintiff side. Inspite of opportunity given to the defendants, they have not addressed their side arguments, hence taken as nil arguments. 13
O.S. No.26583/2021
10. My answer to the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1:- Partly in the affirmative Issue No.2:- Partly in the affirmative Issue No.3:- In the Negative Issue No.4:- In the Negative Issue No.5:- In the Negative Issue No.6:- Partly in the affirmative Issue No.7:- As per final Order for the following:
R E A S O N S
11. ISSUE No.1 to 5:-: These issues are inter-linked with each other, I proceed to discuss together, in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
It is not disputed that Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa and his brother Chikkamuniyappa @ Moogonu purchased Khaneshumari No.75 of Hennur village under registered sale deed dated 28.05.1970. It is also not disputed that suit item Nos.1 to 7 are formed out of Khaneshumari No.75 property. 14
O.S. No.26583/2021 The defendants also not denied that the plaintiff and Muniswamy @ Munisamappa are two children of Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa. The defendants also not denied that defendant No.1 is widow, defendant Nos.2 to 6 are children of Muniswamy @ Munisamappa. However defendants have denied that Chikkamuniyappa @ Moogonu died intestate and hence his brother Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa succeeded to suit item Nos.1 to 7 properties. They also denied that suit item No.8 was absolute property of Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa. On the contrary they contended that suit property was allotted to Chikkamuniyappa @ Moogonu and he was absolute owner of the suit property. It is specific contention of the defendants that it is defendant Nos.1 to 6 have taken care of Chikkamuniyappa @ Moogonu as he was not having children and because of the same said Chikkamuniyappa @ Moogonu orally allotted the suit 15 O.S. No.26583/2021 item No.8 to defendant No.1 and he also orally allotted his ½ share in the suit item Nos.1 to 7 to the defendant No.1. It is also specific contention of the defendants that as the plaintiff had no issues, he also agreed to take ½ share in the share of his father and there was oral division and the plaintiff is entitled to only ½ share in the share of Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa and hence the plaintiff is entitled ¼ share in the suit item Nos.1 to 7. The plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit item No.8 of suit property.
12. The plaintiff on the contrary asserted Chikkamuniyappa @ Moogonu died intestate as bachelor and hence Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa succeeded to item Nos.1 to 7 as sole surviving legal heir and he became absolute owner of the said properties. That apart he also contended that Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa was absolute owner of suit 16 O.S. No.26583/2021 item No.8 property. The khata of said property still stands in the name of father of the plaintiff and he is in joint possession of suit item Nos.1 to 8 properties.
13. The plaintiff in order to prove his case got examined himself as PW1 and during of course of his evidence he filed his affidavit in support of his chief examination and he re-iterated plaint averments. He has produced and got marked 8 documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. On the other hand defendant Nos.4 and 5 who appeared before the court have not chosen to cross examine the PW1 and have not produced any documents. Even defendant No.7 who is alleged to have purchased suit item No.8, also not contested the case of the plaintiff.
14. On perusal of the Ex.P1, same is the self declared family tree affidavit and as discussed above the defendants have 17 O.S. No.26583/2021 not denied the relationship of plaintiff and defendants. Hence much discussion in respect of said family tree is not warranted. Ex.P2 is sale deed dated 29.05.1970 and same shows that Muniyappa and Chikkamuniyappa have jointly purchased Khaneshuwari No.75 measuring 100x100feet. Ex.P5 khata certificate shows that HBR No.24, property No.176/188-189- 171/1 as on 2.3.2016 stands in the name of Thimmaraiyappa S/o Donne Muniyappa. Even demand register extract at Ex.P6 shows the name of plaintiff Thimmaraiyappa in respect of property No.188/189/171/1 measuring 25x16, 30x13, 18.6x15.21. Ex.P7 shows Muniyappa S/o Munimayappa died on 07.12.1998. Ex.P8 shows that H.M. Muniswamy S/o Muniyappa i.e., husband of defendant No.1 died on 2.3.2003.
15. It is pertinent to note that Khaneshumari No.175 was purchased by Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa and his 18 O.S. No.26583/2021 brother Chikkamuniyappa @ moogonu. Case of the plaintiff is that Chikkamuniyappa @ Moogonu died intestate as bachelor and without issues remained unrebutted. Case of the plaintiff that after death of Chikkamuniyappa @ Moogonu his father Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa succeeded to suit item Nos.1 to 7 and became absolute owner also remained unchallenged. Though defendant No.5 denied the fact that Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa became absolute owner of suit property, he has not placed any evidence before court. Since Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa and his brother Chikkamuniyappa @ Moogonu jointly purchased the Khaneshumari No.75 and in view of death of Chikkamuniyappa @ Moogonu, obviously the only surviving legal heir is Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa. The defendants though contended that said Chikkamuniyappa @ Moogonu was not having any issues and defendant No.1 has taken care of 19 O.S. No.26583/2021 him and hence said Chikkamuniyappa @ Moogonu orally given his ½ share in the suit item Nos.1 to 7 to defendant No.1 the same is not proved with any evidence. That apart, suit item Nos.1 to 7 being immovable property situated at Bengaluru will be definitely having value of more than Rs.100/- and in the said circumstances any transfer of said immovable property is to be effected by way of registered document only. Hence contention of the defendant No.5 that ½ share in the suit item Nos.1 to 7 was allotted to defendant No.1 by Chikkamuniyappa @ Moogonu cannot be accepted. It is not disputed that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 6 are in joint possession of suit item Nos.1 to 7 properties.
16. Now coming to the suit item No.8 property is concerned it is the case of the plaintiff that said property was also absolute property of Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa. 20
O.S. No.26583/2021 Whereas the defendant Nos.1 to 6 contended that suit item No.8 was allotted to Chikkamuniyappa @ Moogonu from concerned authority and hence he was the absolute owner of the said property. However to prove that suit item No.8 was absolute property of Chikkamuniyappa @ Moogonu no documents are produced by the defendants. In the absence of said document to shows that suit item No.8 was allotted exclusively in the name of Chikkamuniyappa @ Moogonu, the contention of the defendants that it was absolute property of Chikkamuniyappa @ Moogonu cannot be accepted. On the contrary if the case of the plaintiff is looked into plaintiff also not placed any documents to show that suit schedule property was absolute property of Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa. The plaintiff has relied upon Release deed dated 06.03.2018 and sale deed dated 13.07.2020 marked as Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. 21
O.S. No.26583/2021 Inrespect of suit item No.8, defendant No.1 and 3 to 6 have executed release deed in favour of defendant No.2 and thereafter on the basis of said release deed defendant No.2 executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.7. The plaintiff first and foremost has to prove that suit item No.8 is also joint family property and he is in joint possession of the same and same is available for partition. However plaintiff has not placed any evidence to prove the above fact. The release deed and sale deed does not establish that suit item No.8 is also joint family property of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 6 and available for partition in absence of necessary documents to show the acquisition of said property by Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa. Accordingly the plaintiff is able to establish that suit item Nos.1 to 7 are only available for partition and same is joint family property of himself and defendant Nos.1 to 22 O.S. No.26583/2021 6 and he is in joint possession of the same. Accordingly I answer issue Nos.1 and 2 partly in affirmative, issue Nos.3 to 5 in the negative.
17. Issue No.6: Admittedly the plaintiff and husband of defendant No.1 are children of Late Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa. The defendant Nos.2 to 6 are children of defendant No.1. The plaintiff being son of Late Muniyappa @ Donne Muiyappa is entitled to his ½ share in suit item Nos.1 to 7 properties only. The plaintiff is not entitled to any share in suit item No.8 property. Similarly the defendant Nos.1 to 6 being LRs of Late Muniswamy @ Muniswamappa representing the branch of said Muiswamy @ Muniswamappa are together entitled to ½ share in the suit item Nos.1 to 7 properties after payment of necessary court fee towards their share. Accordingly in view of my findings on issue No.1 and 2 partly 23 O.S. No.26583/2021 in the affirmative and issue No.3 to 5 in the negative the plaintiff is entitled for partition of his ½ share in the suit item Nos.1 to 7 only. Accordingly, I answered issue No.6 partly in the affirmative.
18. Issue No.7:- In view of the reasoning given above, I proceed to pass the following:-
O R D E R The suit filed by the plaintiff as against the defendants is hereby partly decreed.
The plaintiff is entitled to ½ share in the suit item Nos.1 to 7. His share may be worked out during the final decree proceedings.
The defendant Nos.1 to 6 together are entitled to ½ share in item Nos.1 to 7 of suit schedule properties after payment of necessary court fee towards their share.24
O.S. No.26583/2021 The suit of the plaintiff for declaration that registered Release deed dated 06.03.2018 executed by defendant No.1, 3 to 6 in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of suit item No.8 is not binding on the plaintiff and registered sale deed dated 13.07.2020 executed by defendant No.2 in faovur of defendant No.7 in respect of suit item No.8 is not binding on plaintiff, is dismissed.
Suit of the plaintiff for partition in suit item No.8 is dismissed.
Office to draw preliminary decree accordingly.
Parties to bear their own costs.
It is to be noted here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in decision reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 737 in case of Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan and another Vs. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan and others, wherein it is held that, once preliminary decree passed by the court, the court should proceed 25 O.S. No.26583/2021 with the case for drawing up the final decree suo- motu. After passing preliminary decree court has to list matter for taking steps under Order 20 Rule 18 of CPC. The court should not adjourned the matter sine die. There is no need to file separate final decree proceedings.
In view of mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court as referred above, office is directed to draw preliminary decree on or before 01.08.2025 and put up case file before the court on 02.08.2025 and keep certified copy of preliminary decree passed in present suit with file so as to proceed to take steps under Order 20 Rule 18 of CPC and to draw up final decree.
Parties to the suit are directed to appear before the court on 02.08.2025.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her and after corrections pronounced by me in the open court on this the 07th day of July, 2025) ANITHA NANJANAGUDU Digitally signed by ANITHA NANJANAGUDU PARASHIVAMURTHY PARASHIVAMURTHY Date: 2025.07.08 17:30:59 +0530 (Anitha N.P.) LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit, Bengaluru. (CCH-74) 26 O.S. No.26583/2021 SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES ITEM No. 1 All that piece and parcel of immovable property bearing Khaneshumari No. 75, situated at HENNUR Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, now called as CMC Khatha No. 176/188/189/171 within the administrative jurisdiction of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, measuring East to West 26 ft [Twenty-Six feet), North to South 14 ft | Fourteen feet), in total measuring 364 Sq. ft. [Three hundred Sixty-four square feet and bounded on:
East by - Gramatana Road;
West by - Property belongs Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa;
North by- Badigapppa's House & Munibalappa House;
South by- Property belongs Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa.
ITEM No. 2
All that piece and parcel of immovable property bearing Khaneshumari No. 75, situated at HENNUR Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, now called as CMC Khatha No. 176/188/189/171 within the administrative jurisdiction of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, measuring East to West 32 ft [Thirty-Two feet, North to South 13 ft | Thirteen feet, in total measuring 416 Sq. ft. | Four hundred Sixteen square feet and bounded on:
East by Gramatana Road; West by Road; 27 O.S. No.26583/2021 North by: Property belongs Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa; South by: Property belongs Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa. ITEM No. 3
All that piece and parcel of immovable property bearing Khaneshumari No. 75, situated at HENNUR Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, now called as CMC Khatha No. 176/188/189/171 within the administrative jurisdiction of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, measuring East to West 12 ft [Twelve feet], North to South 8+3/2-5.5 ft | Five point five feet], in total measuring 66 Sq. ft. (Sixty-Six square feet) and bounded on:
East by Gramatana Road:
West by Road;
North by Property belongs Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa;
South by Road.
ITEM No. 4
All that piece and parcel of immovable property bearing Khaneshumari No. 75, situated at HENNUR Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, now called as CMC Khatha No. 176/188/189/171 within the administrative jurisdiction of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, measuring East to West 12 ft [Twelve feet], North to South 23.6 It (Twenty-three point six feet], in total measuring 283.2 Sq. ft. [Two husbanded Eighty- three square feet) and bounded on:
28
O.S. No.26583/2021 East by Gramatana Road:
West by Road;
North by Property belongs Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa;
South by Road.
ITEM No. 5
All that piece and parcel of immovable property bearing Khaneshumari No. 75, situated at HENNUR Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, now called as CMC Khatha No. 176/188/189/171 within the administrative jurisdiction of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, measuring East to West 25 ft [Twelve Five feet), North to South 16 ft [Sixteen feet), in total measuring 400 Sq. ft. [Four Hundred square feet) and bounded on:
East by Gramatana Road; West by Property belongs Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa;
North by Thimmarayappa and Badigapppa's Property; South by Road.ITEM No. 6
All that piece and parcel of immovable property bearing Khaneshumari No. 75, situated at HENNUR Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, now called as CMC Khatha No. 176/188/189/171 within the administrative jurisdiction of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, measuring East to 'West 30 ft [Thirty feet), North to South 13 It [Thirteen feet), in total 29 O.S. No.26583/2021 measuring 390 Sq. ft. (three Hundred ninety square feet) and bounded on:
East by Gramatana Road; West by Road;
North by Property belongs Muniyappa @ Donnemuniyappa; South by Road.ITEM NO. 7
All that piece and parcel of immovable property bearing Khaneshumari No. 75, situated at HENNUR Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, now called as CMC Khatha No. 176/188/189/171 within the administrative jurisdiction of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, measuring East to West 18.6 ft (Eighty point six feet), North to South 15+21/2-18 ft | Eighteen feet), in total measuring 334.8 Sq. ft. [three hundred thirty-four square feet) and bounded on:
East by Gramatana Road:
West by Road;
North by Muniyamma House;
South by Muniyamma House;
ITEM No. 8
All that piece and parcel of immovable Property bearing Site No. 32, BBMP Khatha No. 106/32, previously Site No. 22 in Assessment No. 58, situated at HENNUR Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk now called as No. 106/32, Hennur 30 O.S. No.26583/2021 Village, Gunduthopu, Bangalore 560 043 within the administrative jurisdiction of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, measuring East to West 27 ft Twenty seven feet), North to South 22 ft Twenty two feet), in total measuring 594 sq ft [Five hundred and ninety four square feet) and bounded on:
East by Road;
West by Private Property;
North by Property belongs to Thimmarayappa;
South by Property belongs to Venkataswamy.
A N N E X U R E
1. List of witnesses examined for the plaintiffs side:-
P.W.1 : Thimmaraiyappa
2. List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff's side:-
Ex.P.1 : Family tree
Ex.P.2 : Sale deed dated 29.05.1970
Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of the deed of release dated
06.03.2018
Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of the absolute sale deed
dated 13.07.2020
Ex.P.5 : Katha certificate
Ex.P.6 : Katha extract
31
O.S. No.26583/2021
Ex.P.7 : Original death certificate of Muniyappa
Ex.P.8 : Original death certificate of H.M.
Muniswamy
3. List of witness examined for the defendants side:- NIL
4. List of documents exhibited for defendants side:- NIL Digitally signed by ANITHA ANITHA NANJANAGUDU NANJANAGUDU PARASHIVAMURTHY PARASHIVAMURTHY Date: 2025.07.08 17:31:15 +0530 (Anitha N.P.) LXXIII Addl. CC & SJ, M.H.Unit, Bengaluru. (CCH-74)