Bangalore District Court
Mani vs Kumkumaiyammal on 3 April, 2025
KABC010100132016
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-38), BENGALURU CITY.
:PRESENT:
Sri. Yashawanth Kumar, B.A.(Law)., LL.B.,
LI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
C/c XXXVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
(CCH-38),Bengaluru City.
DATED: This the 3rd day of April 2025
O.S. NO. 3269 OF 2016
PLAINTIFF/S SRI. MANI
S/O. LATE SKN KUPPUSWAMY
CHETTIAR,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.3, 1ST FLOOR,
MAVALLI TANK BUNK ROAD,
JOURNALIST COLONY,
BANGALORE-02
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES.
1.A. SMT. JANAKI
W/O. LATE MANI,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.3, 1ST FLOOR, MAVALLI
TANK BUNK ROAD, JOURNALIST
COLONY, BANGALORE-02
1.B.SMT. KUNGUMA CHAITRA,
D/O. LATE MANI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT. NO. 5/7,
2 O.S. No. 3269/2016
CHETTIAR LANE,
RAMEGOUNDANPUTHUR,
KURICHIKOTTAI, TIRUPPUR,
UDUMALAIPETTAI,
TAMIL NADU- 642112.
1.C. SMT. M. KAVITHA,
D/O. LATE MANI,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT. ARIVAGAM ILLAM,
AVERAST HOITEL BACKSIDE,
CHECK POST, ODDANCHATRAM,
DINDIGUL, TAMIL NADU-624619.
1.D. SRI.M. SANTHOSH KUMAR,
S/O. LATE MANI,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.3, 1ST FLOOR, MAVALLI
TANK BUNK ROAD, JOURNALIST
COLONY, BANGALORE-02
1.E. SMT. LAKSHMI,
D/O. LATE MANI,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.3, 1ST FLOOR, MAVALLI
TANK BUNK ROAD, JOURNALIST
COLONY, BANGALORE-02
1.F. SRI. VENKATESH MANI,
S/O. LATE MANI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.3, 1ST FLOOR, MAVALLI
TANK BUNK ROAD, JOURNALIST
COLONY, BANGALORE-02
(By Sri. CAK, Adv.)
Versus
DEFENDANT/S 1. SMT. KUMKUMAIYAMMAL
W/O. LATE KANDASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
R/AT.NO.3, 1ST FLOOR,
MAVALLI TANK BUNK ROAD,
3 O.S. No. 3269/2016
JOURNALIST COLONY,
BANGALORE-02
2:SRI. AUNGUSWAMY
S/O. LATE PETTIYAMMAL,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO.24, 2ND CROSS
SUDHAMANAGAR
LALBHAGH FORT ROAD
BANGALORE-27
3:SRI. SHANMUGAM
S/O. LATE PETTIYAMMAL,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.24, 2ND CROSS
SUDHAMANAGAR
LALBHAGH FORT ROAD
BANGALORE-27
4:SRI. RAVI
S/O. LATE PETTIYAMMAL,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.24,. 2ND CROSS
SUDHAMANAGAR
LALBHAGH FORT ROAD
BANGALORE-27
5:SMT. RAJAMANI
S/O. LATE PETTIYAMMAL,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.24, 2ND CROSS
SUDHAMANAGAR
LALBHAGH FORT ROAD
BANGALORE-27
6:SMT. LAKSHMI
D/O. LATE PETTIYAMMAL,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.24, 2ND CROSS
SUDHAMANAGAR
LALBHAGH FORT ROAD
BANGALORE-27
4 O.S. No. 3269/2016
7:SMT. SULOCHANA
D/O. LATE PETTIYAMMAL,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.3, 1ST FLOOR
MAVALLI TANK BUND ROAD
JOURNALIST COLONY
BANGALORE-02
8:SRI. SRINIVAS SATISH KUMAR R
S/O. LATE RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.3, FIRST FLOOR
MAVALLI TANK BUND ROAD
JOURNALIST COLONY
BANGALORE-02
9:SRI. SHABRI SANTHOSH R
S/O. LATE RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.3, FIRST FLOOR
MAVALLI TANK BUND ROAD
JOURNALIST COLONY
BANGALORE-02
10:SMT. KUMKUMA PRABHAVATHI
D/O. LATE RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/AT.NO.24, 2ND CROSS
SUDHAMANAGAR
LALBHAGH FORT ROAD
BANGALORE-27
11:SMT. RATIMALA
S/O. LATE RAMASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.4/106,
3RD SHIVANNA STREET
GUGAI, SALEM-6
(Suit dismissed as abated vide
Order dt: 20/2/2025)
12:SRI. BABU NACHIMUTTU
S/O. LATE SKN KUPPUSWAMY
CHETTIAR,
5 O.S. No. 3269/2016
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.3, GROUND FLOOR
MAVALLI TANK BUND ROAD
JOURNALIST COLONY
BANGALORE-02
13:SRI. THANGAVELU K
S/O. LATE SKN KUPPUSWAMY
CHETTIAR,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT. FIRST FLOOR, NO.31
1ST A CROSS, 1ST A MAIN
SUDHAMANAGAR
BANGALORE-27
14:SMT. VENKATAMMA
D/O. LATE SKN KUPPUSWAMY
CHETTIAR,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.3, FIRST FLOOR
MAVALLI TANK BUND ROAD
JOURNALIST COLONY
BANGALORE-02.
(D-5 & 12 By Sri. KA, Adv.)
(D-1 TO 4 & 6 - Exp.)
(D-13 By Sri. YNSR, Adv.)
(D-14-Exp )
Date of Institution of the suit 26.04.2016
Nature of suit Partition suit
Date of commencement of
recording of evidence. 22.03.2024
Date on which judgment was
pronounced. 03.04.2025
6 O.S. No. 3269/2016
Total Duration.
Years Months Days
08 11 08
XXXVII ACCJ, BANGALORE
7 O.S. No. 3269/2016
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of his 1/7th share in the suit property and for mesne profits and for a direction to the defendants to pay their respective share in respect of the arrears paid towards BWSSB, BESCOM, BBMP, to the plaintiff.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under:-
(a) Late Smt.Subbammal was the wife of S.K.N. Kuppuswamy Chettiar. They had seven children i.e., 4 sons and
3 daughters. They are plaintiff Mani, late Smt. Pettiyammal, late Ramaswamy, defendant No.12 Babu Nachimuttu, defendant No.13 Thangavelu, defendant No.14 Smt. Venkatamma and defendant No.1 Smt. Kunkumaiyammal. The defendants No.2 to 8 are the children of late Smt.Pettiyammal. Defendants No.8 to 11 are the children of late Ramaswamy. S.K.N. Kuppuswamy Chettiar predeceased Smt.Subbamal. Smt.Subbamal died in the year 1986. During the lifetime of late Subbammal, she had purchased the suit property. After her death, the plaintiffs and defendants became joint owners in possession of the suit property. During the lifetime of late Smt.Subbamal, her daughters i.e., defendant No.1 Smt.Kunkumaiyammal, late Smt.Pettiyamal and defendant No.14 Smt.Venkatamma were 8 O.S. No. 3269/2016 given in marriage and they were given valuables. They are residing in their respective matrimonial house.
(b) Defendants No.12 and 13 were managing the affairs of the suit property. All original documents in respect of the suit property were in their custody. The defendants participated only in the profits, but not in the liabilities. None of the defendants came forward to pay necessary legal charges to regularize the water and electricity bills etc., and payment of taxes to the suit property. BWSSB had issued a notice to suit property threatening to disconnect the sewerage if the dues are not paid. The defendants No.12 and 13 escaped when the officials came to the suit property. The plaintiff who was present at that time had to pay the BWSSB charges. The katha of the suit property stands in the name of plaintiff. The plaintiff insisted the defendants to change the name in katha, but defendants did not come forward. The defendants are avoiding payment of arrears of taxes of the suit property. The plaintiff is ready to pay his share in the taxes. The electricity connection and other connections are standing in the name of Smt.Subbamal. When the defendants are not ready to bear the expenses, the question of continuing jointly is not possible. Therefore, in the first week of March 2016, the plaintiffs approached defendants and requested 9 O.S. No. 3269/2016 them to pay their share. However, none of the defendants agreed to clear the liabilities of suit property. During the first week of April 2016, the plaintiff demanded his share in the suit property. But, the defendants refused to give her share. Hence, this suit.
3. The defendants No.5 and 12 have filed written statement. They have admitted the relationship between the plaintiff and defendants. It is admitted that S.K.N. Kuppuswamy Chettiar predeceased Smt.Subbammal and Smt.Subbammal expired in the year 1986. However, it is denied that the plaintiff and other defendants become joint owners in possession of the suit property. It is contended that the daughters of S.K.N. Kuppuswamy Chettiar have no right in the suit property, as it is an ancestral property. The suit property was purchased by S.K.N. Kuppuswamy Chettiar out of the sale proceeds he received from the sale of ancestral property that he inherited in Tamil Nadu from his father and also from the contributions made by the husband of defendant No.5. S.K.N. Kuppuswamy Chettiar separated from the joint family and came to Bengaluru city along with his family members, started tyre business along with his sons. He started the same business from the money he got from the ancestral properties. The business slowly improved and thereafter, he purchased the suit property in the name of 10 O.S. No. 3269/2016 his wife Smt.Subbammal for and on behalf of the family. Four sons of S.K.N. Kuppuswamy Chettiar are alone entitled for the share in the suit property. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. The defendants No.7 to 8 have filed their written statement. They have taken up the same contentions as that of defendants No.5 and 12. In addition to that they have contended that they and defendants No.9 to 11 together entitled for 1/4th share in the suit property.
5. The defendant No.13 has filed his written statement. He also admitted the relationship between the parties. Further, he has admitted that, the plaintiff and all the defendants herein have become the joint owners in possession of the suit property on the death of Smt.Subbammal. The defendants No.13 has supported the contentions of the plaintiff and he prayed to decree the suit.
6. The defendants No.9 to 11 have filed memo adopting the written statement filed by defendants No.7 and 8.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed by me :-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the schedule property is the self acquired property of his mother late Smt. Subbammal?11 O.S. No. 3269/2016
2. Whether the defendants No. 5, 7, 8 and 12 prove that the schedule property purchased by late SKN Kuppuswamy Chettiar husband of Smt. Subbammal , out of the sale proceeds he received from the sale of ancestral properties?
3. Whether the defendants No. 5, 7, 8 and 12 prove that the daughters of SKN Kuppuswamy Chettiar are not entitled for share in the schedule property?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief claimed in the suit?
5. Whether the defendant No. 7 and 8 are entitled for the relief claimed in their counter claim?
6. What Order or decree?
8. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff reported to be dead and one of the LR's Venkatesh got examined himself as PW-1 and got marked four documents as Ex.P-1 to P-4. The SPA holder of defendants No.5 and 12 examined herself as DW-1 and defendant No.12 Babu Nachimuttu examined himself as DW-2 got marked 18 documents as Ex.D-1 to D-18.
9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for plaintiff, and the arguments of learned counsel for defendant No.5 and 12, the counsel for defendants No.5 and 12 have filed their written arguments and the other defendants have not addressed their arguments.
10. My answer to the above issues are as under:
Issues No.1 & 2 : In the Negative, Issue No. 3 : In the Negative, 12 O.S. No. 3269/2016 Issue No. 4 : In the Affirmative, Issue No. 5 : Partly in the Affirmative, Issue No. 6 : As per final order, for the following :-
REASONS
11. Issues No. 1 & 2:- The relationship between the parties is not disputed. Late Smt.Subbammal was the wife of S.K.N. Kuppaswamy Chettiar. They had seven children i.e., 1) plaintiff Mani, 2) defendant No.1 Smt.Kunkumaiyammal, 3) Late Smt.Pettiyammal, 4) late Ramaswamy, 5) defendant No.12 Babu Nachimuttu, 6) defendant No.13 Thangavelu, 7) defendant No.14 Smt. Venktamma.
12. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff Mani died and his LRs brought on record. It is the contention of the plaintiff that S.K.N. Kuppaswamy Chettiar predeceased Smt.Subbammal. Smt.Subbammal died in the year 1986. During her lifetime Smt.Subbammal had purchased the suit property and therefore, it is her self acquired property.
13. On the other hand, it is the contention of the defendants No.5 and 12, 7 to 11 that the suit schedule property is the ancestral property. It is contended that S.K.N. Kuppaswamy Chettiar inherited ancestral property in Tamil Nadu, thereafter he came to Bengaluru city and started tyre business along with 13 O.S. No. 3269/2016 his sons by investing money he received from the sale of ancestral property. His business improved and thereafter, he purchased the suit property in the name of his wife Smt.Subbammal.
13. There is no evidence to prove the said contention. No document has been produced to show that S.K.N. Kuppaswamy Chettiar was having ancestral property in Tamil Nadu, he has sold the same and after coming to Bengaluru, he invested it in his tyre business and thereafter, from the income accrued from the type business, he purchased the suit property in the name of his wife Smt.Subbammal. On the other hand, PW-1 has stated that his father started tyre business from his own income along with his sons Ramaswamy and Babu Nachimuthu.
14. It is the contention of defendants that the suit property is the self acquired property of Smt.Subbammal. Ex.P- 1 is the certified copy of the sale deed dtd: 28.05.1960 under which Smt.Subbammal has purchased the suit property. From this document it cannot be made out that the suit property was purchased from the income of ancestral property in the name of Smt.Subbammal. In his cross examination, PW-1 has stated that Smt.Subbammal was an housewife and she had no source of income. On the other hand he has stated that his grandfather 14 O.S. No. 3269/2016 S.K.N. Kuppaswamy Chettiar was running tyre business with Ramaswamy and Babu Nachimuthu. No evidence has been produced to show that Smt.Subbammal was having independent income to purchase the suit property. On the other hand there is evidence to show that S.K.N. Kuppaswamy Chettiar was running tyre business and he was having income from it.
15. DW-1 is the Special Power of Attorney holder of defendants No.5 and 12. In their written statement, defendants No.5 and 12 have stated that the suit property is an ancestral property. However, in her cross-examination DW-1 admitted that suit property belongs to Smt.Subbammal.
16. Considering the evidence available on record, it cannot be conclusively proved that the suit property is the self acquired property of Smt.Subbammal or it is the property purchased from the sale proceeds received from the sale of ancestral property of her husband S.K.N. Kuppaswamy Chettiar. Hence, I answer both issues No.1 and 2 in the Negative.
17. Issue No.3:- The evidence show that S.K.N. Kuppaswamy Chettiar was having income from his tyre business and therefore, it is probable that S.K.N. Kuppaswamy Chettiar had purchased the suit property in the name of his wife 15 O.S. No. 3269/2016 Smt.Subbamal. Even if it is the property of S.K.N. Kuppaswamy Chettiar or his wife Subbammal, the plaintiff and defendants being the LRs are entitled for share in the suit property.
18. However, there is a twist in the tale. During the evidence of PW-1 defendants No.5 and 12 confronted a document styled as Will dtd: 20.02.1960 to PW-1, wherein PW-1 has admitted the signature as that of K.Mani in the said Will is the signature of his father. Only the signature in the said Will marked as Ex.D-1. Therefore, the said Will came to light for the first time during the cross-examination of PW-1. On 29.02.2024 in the further chief examination of DW-1, she has got marked said Will as Ex.D-17. It is the original will alleged to have been executed by Smt.Subbammal on 28.09.1981. In this Will it is stated that Smt.Subbammal has bequeathed the suit property in favour of her four sons namely K.Thangavelu, K.Mani @ Armugam, K.Ramaswamy and K. Nachimuthu @ Babu. It is stated that all her three daughters are married and well settled in life, living independently with their husband and children; their marriages were performed by her and her husband, by spending enough money.
19. In the above Will, the testator has left out daughters without giving share in the suit property. It is stated in the Will 16 O.S. No. 3269/2016 that all the daughters are married and they are settled in life and they are living with their husband. But there is no specific reason stated as to why the daughters are disinherited. In the absence of the Will, the daughters would get equal share with sons, as the suit property is the self acquired property of their parents. This is one of suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. But the profounder of the Will i.e., defendants No.5 and 12 have not come up with any explanation as to why the daughters are disinherited.
20. As already stated during the cross-examination of PW-1 for the first time the Will has seen the light of the day. The Will is dtd: 28.09.1981. The will was confronted to PW-1 on 21.09.2024. Therefore, the Will has seen the light of the day after 43 years. There is nothing as to how defendants No.5 and 12 found out the said Will and when they found out the said Will and why they have not produced the Will till 21.09.2024. It is also a suspicious circumstance surrounding the Will. The defendants No.5 and 12 have not explained these circumstances also.
21. It is the contention of defendants No.5 and 12 in their written statement that the suit property is an ancestral property. Defendants No.5 and 12 have examined their Special 17 O.S. No. 3269/2016 Power of Attorney holder as DW-1. She has stated in her evidence that suit property was the self acquired property of Smt.Subbammal. It appears that in view of the Will, defendants No. 5 and 12 have changed their stance that the suit property is an ancestral property to that it was the self acquired property of Smt. Subbammal. As already stated, the defendants No.5 and 12 have not stated when they came to know about the existence of the Will. Therefore, why they have not stated about the Will in their pleadings is a suspicious circumstance. It leads to a suspicion that the Will might have been created after the filing of written statement and just before cross-examination of PW-1 by defendants No.5 and 12.
22. It is true that the defendants No.5 and 12 have confronted the Will and got marked the signature of PW-1 in it as Ex.D-1. In her evidence DW-1 has stated that PW-1 has signed the said Will as an attesting witness. But, PW-1 has not stated that he has signed the said Will as an attesting witness. Therefore, just by confronting the Will and marking the signature from PW-1 will not amount to evidence of an attesting witness to the Will. Moreover, PW-1 is none other than son of Smt.Subbammal. As already stated in the Will, the suit property has been bequeathed to the sons. Therefore, PW-1 himself is a 18 O.S. No. 3269/2016 beneficiary of the Will. Therefore, he cannot be an attesting witness to the said Will, why the beneficiary himself made as a attesting witness to the Will also a suspicious circumstance. The defendants No.5 and 12 have not explained the suspicious circumstance.
23. DW-2 is defendant No.12. He is also one of the sons of late Smt.Subbammal. In his evidence he has identified the signature of Smt.Subbammal as Ex.D-17(a). The plaintiff has cross-examined DW-2 and suggested that his mother has not executed the Will as per Ex.D-17 and signature as per Ex.D17(a) is not her signature. DW-2 being the son of Smt.Subbammal could have explained the above said suspicious circumstance. But, he has not explained the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. Considering the above circumstances, serious doubt arises regarding execution of the Will by Smt.Subbammal as per Ex.D-17.
24. As already stated suit property belongs to either father S.K.N. Kuppuswamy Chettiar or his wife Smt.Subbammal. In the absence of Will all the children are entitled to equal share in the suit property. Therefore, it cannot be said that their daughters are not entitled for share in the suit property. Though it is stated that the daughters were given in marriage and they 19 O.S. No. 3269/2016 were given valuables is not a ground to deny their share in the suit property. Absolutely there is no evidence to show that daughters are given valuables as their share. Under the circumstances, I answer Issue No. 3 in the Negative.
25. Issues No.4 & 5 :- The plaintiff is no more, his LRs are on record. Other children are late Pettiyammal, Late Ramaswamy, defendant No.1 Smt.Kunkumaiyammal, defendant No.12 Babu Nachimuthu, defendant No.13 K. Thangavelu, defendant No.14 Venkatamma. The defendants No.2 to 7 are the LRs of late Smt. Pettiyammal. Defendants No.8 to 11 are the LRs of late Ramaswamy. All the children are entitle for equal share in the suit property. Hence, the LRs of plaintiff are entitled for 1/7th share; defendant No.1, defendant No.12, defendant No.13 and defendant No.14 are entitled for 1/7th share each; Defendant No.2 to 7 are jointly entitled for 1/7th share; the defendants No.8 to 11 are jointly entitled for 1/7th share by metes and bounds. Accordingly, I answer Issue No. 4 in the Affirmative and Issue No.5 partly in the Affirmative.
26. Issue No. 6: In view of above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:-
20 O.S. No. 3269/2016
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed. The LRs of plaintiff are entitled for 1/7th share, defendant No.1, 12, 13 and 14 are entitled for 1/7th share each and defendants No.2 to 7 are jointly entitled for 1/7th share, defendants No.8 to 11 are jointly entitled for 1/7th share in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds.
In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs, Draw preliminary decree accordingly.
The parties shall appear before the court for Final Decree Proceedings on 02/05/2025 without expecting notice from this court.
Office is directed to register Final Decree Proceedings and put up before the Court on 02/05/2025.
(Dictated to the Stenographer grade-I, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, this the 3rd day of April 2025) (YASHAWANTH KUMAR ) C/C. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, (CCH-38), BENGALURU SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the property bearing No. 10, situated at Mavalli Tank Bund road, Journalist Colony, Kalasipalya, Bengaluru, measuring East to west : 38+35/2 ft 21 O.S. No. 3269/2016 and North to South: 60 ft, totally measuring 2190 Sq. ft and bounded on the :
East by : Park road, West by: 4th Cross road, North by: Vani Institute of Commerce, South by: Ramaswamy Iyengars House.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
PW1 - Sri. Venkatesh Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
Ex.P-1 Certified copy of the registered sale deed dtd: 28.5.1960 Ex.P-2 Encumbrance certificate Ex.P-3 Electricity bill(not clearly legible.
Ex.P-4 Request letter to the Executive
Engineer, BWSSB, Bengaluru dtd:
19.3.2016.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
DW-1 B.N. Sharanya
DW-2 K. Babu Nachi Muttu
Documents marked on behalf of the Defendant/s:
Ex.D-1 Signature in Will Ex. D-17
Ex.D-2 Certified copy of the Judgment in O.S.5049/2011 dated
26.06.2015
Ex.D-3 Certified copy of the decree in O.S.5049/2011
Ex.D-4 Original endorsement dated 28.06.1975 issued by ARO,
Central, Bengaluru City Corporation
22 O.S. No. 3269/2016
Ex.D-5 Assessment Form
Ex.D-6 to 8 Tax paid receipts
Ex.D-9 Show cause notice issued by Bengaluru City Corporation
Ex.D-10 Electricity bill
Ex.D-11 Electricity bill receipt
Ex.D-12 Death certificate of M.K.Subbammal
Ex.D-13 Information furnished by Kalasipalya police station dated
21.10.2024 under RTI Act
Ex.D-14 FIR furnished along with Ex.D.13
Ex.D-15 Information furnished by BWSSB dated 26.09.2022 under
RTI Act
Ex.D-16 Information furnished by BWSSB dated 26.09.2022 under
RTI Act
Ex.D-17 The original will executed by Smt.M.K.Subbammal dated
28.09.1981
Ex. D-18 Spl. Power of attorney.
C/C. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
(CCH-38), BENGALURU.