Bangalore District Court
Sridharan S vs Bda Commissioner on 10 January, 2025
1 O.S. No.9405/2004
KABC010191242004
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9
(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in
Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY : (CCH-41)
::Present::
Smt. Veena N., B.A.L., L.L.B.,
XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Dated this 10th day of January 2025.
O.S. No.9405/2004
PLAINTIFF :: Sri. Sridharan, S/o. Subramanyam, 61 years,
#1, 1st Main Road, 1st Cross, K.H.Ranganath
Colony, Jagajivanram Nagar, Bengaluru - 560
018.
(By Sri. D.R.Basavarajappa, Advocate)
V/s.
2 O.S. No.9405/2004
DEFENDANTS :: 1. The Commissioner, Bengaluru Development
Authority, Bengaluru - 560 020.
:: 2. Sri. A.Ranagaswamy, since dead Rep. by
his LR's
2(a) Smt. Maheshwari, 70 years, W/o. Late.
:: Rangaswamy,
2(b) Sri. A.R.Rajendran, 48 years, S/o. Late.
:: Rangaswamy,
2(c) Sri. A.R.Sandeep, 40 years, S/o. Late.
Rangaswamy,
::
And also all are R/at: #393, 1st B Cross, 7th
Block, Koramangala, Bengaluru - 560 095.
(By Sri. G.M.Srinivasareddy, Adv. for D-1) (By Sri.
T.S.Gurunath and Associates, Adv. for LRs. of D-
2) (By Sri. C.C.Poovaiah, Adv. for D-2)
Date of Institution of the :: 17-12-2004
Suit
Nature of the Suit :: DECLARATION & INJUNCTION
Date of commencement of :: 28-07-2010
recording of evidence
Date on which the :: 10-01-2025
Judgment was pronounced
Total Duration :: Year/s Month/s Day/s
20 00 24
(VEENA N.)
XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
3 O.S. No.9405/2004
JUDGMENT
Suit is one for Declaration of title and for declaration that the transfer agreement executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 dated 13.05.1997 is not binding on the plaintiff and for Mandatory Injunction to direct the defendant No.1 to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and for consequential relief of Permanent Injunction.
2. Case of the plaintiff in brief is as hereunder:-
One Smt. P.Muniyammal was married to Sri. Appa Dorai. The said Sri. Appa Dorai had two wives by name Smt. Lakshmi and Smt. Muniyammal. During the life time of Sri. Appa Dorai his first wife I.e, Smt. Lakshmi and the defendant No.2 lived separately, whereas, the second wife Smt. P.Muniyammal was living in a house at No.254, Anandapuram, Mysuru Road, Bengaluru by doing some work in private firms and also as maid servant at different houses. The husband of Smt. P.Muniyammal and his first wife or the defendant No.2 4 O.S. No.9405/2004 did not look after the welfare of Smt. P.Muniyammal.
The said Muniyammal out of her own earnings and with the assistance of local Corporator applied for a site before defendant No.1 and she paid the amount of Rs.3,275/- to defendant No.1 on 23.03.1976,
03.07.1978, 01.10.1983 and 20.12.1983 and the same are acknowledged by defendant No.1 and has issued challan in this regard. Pursuant to that the defendant No.1 has issued an allotment of communication letter on 31.01.1986 and 27.10.1986 to Smt. P.Muniyammal informing that site No.1323, Sarakki Layout, 1 st Phase is allotted to her and directed to pay the balance amount. Later, a lease-cum-sale agreement dated 04.02.1987 registered on 18.02.1987 was executed by defendant No.1 in favour of Smt. P.Muniyammal and possession certificate was issued on 18.02.1987 and since then, Smt. P.Muniyammal was in possession of site No.1323 without any interference of any kind and it is her self-acquired property. During her life time she 5 O.S. No.9405/2004 paid taxes to the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.1 has also issued a certificate dated 03.01.1989 declaring that the suit schedule property stands in the name of Smt. P.Muniyammal. The defendant No.2 or his parents never looked after Smt. P.Muniyammal and hence, she was unable to look after the property and her day to day works and she was unable to maintain herself and due to the conduct of defendant No.2 and his family members she was put to extreme mental agony. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff being the relative of Smt. P.Muniyammal looked after her welfare by providing food, nourishment and helping her day to day her life. As such, Smt. P.Muniyammal during her life time executed General Power of Attorney on 13.02.1989 and since then the plaintiff is looking after the suit schedule property. Smt. P.Muniyammal during her life time, when she was in good state of mind and in good health, executed a registered WILL in favour of the plaintiff on 19.06.1989 and she died on 06.07.1989. 6 O.S. No.9405/2004 By virtue of the registered WILL the plaintiff has become the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he is exercising his right as absolute owner. It is stated that taking advantage of the innocence of the plaintiff and by suppressing the material facts the defendant No.2 approached the defendant No.1 with false and fabricated documents and got the suit schedule property transferred to his name and in the affidavit submitted by defendant No.2. It is stated that deceased Smt. P.Muniyammal is his mother and she died intestate. The defendant No.1 by violating the rules and the provisions of B.D.A. Act and rules, has executed transfer agreement in favour of defendant No.2 which is not binding on the plaintiff. The defendant No.2 approached the defendant No.1 for change of the documents and immediately the plaintiff submitted an application to defendant No.1 on 01.07.2002 by producing all the documents to transfer the site in his favour and the said letter is 7 O.S. No.9405/2004 acknowledged by defendant No.1. In pursuance of the said letter, the defendant No.1 issued a final notice on 25.10.2002 directing the defendant No.2 to appear and produce documents. It is stated that the plaintiff appeared and produced the documents before the concerned authority, but the defendant No.2 failed to appear. However, on 09.06.2003 he requested to transfer the schedule site in his name. Thereafter, the plaintiff made several correspondences with the defendant No.2 and as per the endorsement issued by defendant No.1 it revealed that transfer agreement is executed in favour of defendant No.2 by defendant No.1 and sale deed is not yet executed. The defendant No.1 refused to change khata based on the WILL on the ground that they have already executed transfer agreement in favour of defendant No.2 and the suit property cannot be transferred by setting aside the transfer agreement. In view of this endorsement, the plaintiff issued a legal notice under Section 64 of 8 O.S. No.9405/2004 B.D.A., Act on 24.07.2003 and since no reply was given by defendant No.1 the plaintiff approached the Hon'ble High Court in filing W.P. No.33593/2003 and the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the writ petition with an observation to approach the civil Court for remedy. Immediately thereafter, the plaintiff issued legal notice to the defendants and filed the present suit. According to the plaintiff, the suit property is the self-acquired property of Smt. Muniyammal and she has bequeathed the same in favour of the plaintiff and thus, the plaintiff is the absolute owner in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and since the defendant No.2 tried to disturb his possession over the suit property, left with no alternative the present suit is filed.
3. In pursuance to the summons issued the defendants No.1 and 2 caused appearance and filed the written statement. The defendant No.1 BDA, in its written statement has contended that the suit is not 9 O.S. No.9405/2004 maintainable and is barred by limitation and as statutory notice under Sec.64 of B.D.A. Act is not issued the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is admitted that this defendant authority allotted the site in favour of Smt. Muniyammal and possession certificate was also issued in her favour, but it has no knowledge with regard to the WILL alleged to have been executed by Smt. Muniyammal in favour of plaintiff. It is stated that the suit schedule property was allotted to Smt. Muniyammal under allotment letter dated 06.02.1972 and lease-cum-sale deed was executed in her favour on 18.02.1987 and possession certificate was also issued. As per representation submitted by defendant No.2 dated 25.10.1989 and 20.12.1989 the defendant authority considering the fact that he is the only legal heir of Smt. Muniyammal and on enquiry of the representation submitted by the defendant No.2 transferred the suit schedule property with possession certificate dated 01.07.1997 in favour of defendant 10 O.S. No.9405/2004 No.2. After lapse of several years, the plaintiff approached the defendant authority claiming that the deceased Smt. Muniyammal executed WILL in his favour. As per the direction issued by the Hon'ble High Court, the sale deed was not executed in favour of defendant No.2. Thus, the suit against this defendant is not maintainable and sought for dismissal of suit.
4. The defendant No.2 in his written statement categorically denied the averments made in the plaint and it is stated that the plaintiff is not a relative of deceased Smt. P.Muniyammal nor a relative of this defendant or any member of his family. It is stated that his mother Smt. Lakshmi died when he was studying in 8th standard. As there was nobody to look after this defendant. His father Sri. Appa Dorai married Smt. P.Muniyammal and all the 3 were residing in the suit schedule property. It is stated that his father had nominated his wife Smt. P.Muniyammal and this defendant No.2 as his only legal heir in the Employees 11 O.S. No.9405/2004 Provident Fund. This defendant along with his parents were residing in the suit schedule property and his father died on 29.03.1975. After his father's death, this defendant along with Smt. P.Muniyammal continued to stay in the suit property and after few months the elder brother of Smt. P.Muniyammal Sri. Chinnamuniyan also was residing with them. The marriage of this defendant was performed in the year 1976 and at that time he was employed in the office of AG's. Then he along with his step mother shifted to a rented premises at Jayanagar leaving behind Chinnamuniyan to stay at Anandpuram house. After the marriage of this defendant all the 3 i.e. this defendant, his step mother and his wife were staying at Jayanagar and thereafter, they got shifted their residence to CPWD Quarters, Domlur. It is stated that since house No.254 was a slum, the defendant applied for site from B.D.A. in his step mother's name and it was allotted in the name of Smt. P.Muniyammal for which the initial payment of Rs.1,275/- was made by 12 O.S. No.9405/2004 this defendant. After receipt of allotment order from B.D.A., this defendant paid the balance amount of Rs.3,825/- to the B.D.A. and also paid yearly tax in the name of Smt. P.Muniyammal. On payment of value and taxes the B.D.A. entered into a lease-cum-sale with Smt. Muniyammal and thereafter, the possession certificate was issued. All the documents pertaining to the said site were in the custody of this defendant. On 28.02.1997 when this defendant was travelling in BTS bus from Domlur to Ulsoor he lost his hand bag in which he was carrying cash and original documents. Though he filed complaint before the police, documents could not be traced out and hence, he has obtained duplicate copies of the documents. The plaintiff at no point of time looked after Smt. Muniyammal and he is a total stranger to their family and Smt. Muniyammal was under the care of this defendant. After shifting to Jayanagar this defendant opened a joint savings bank account with Smt. Muniyammal in Syndicate Bank in 13 O.S. No.9405/2004 order to get the death benefit of her husband and also the widow pension which she was getting for 2 years at the rate of Rs.125/- p.m. It is stated that this defendant lost his mother at very young age and Smt. Muniyammal gave him all the motherly love and affection and this defendant also reciprocated in the same manner and they were living happily and Smt. Muniyammal used to visit to her elder brother's house. In the month of October 1988 Smt. Muniyammal was admitted to Bengaluru Nursing Home when she underwent surgery and due to some complications she was again treated at the hospital and during her treatment this defendant alone took care of her and met all the medical expenses and her condition deteriorated and in the month of June 1989 she expressed her desire to breath her last at the place where her husband died and as per her request, this defendant took her to Anandpuram residence where her elder brother stayed, where she died intestate on 14 O.S. No.9405/2004 06.07.1989. Smt. Muniyammal was illiterate and only Tamil speaking lady and she never worked as maid servant and she had no independent income of her own and was depending on her husband and after his death, she was looked after by this defendant till her death. The plaintiff at no point of time looked after Smt. Muniyammal and he being a stranger to the family was never in possession of suit schedule property and it is this defendant who is in actual possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as legal heir of his step mother Smt. Muniyammal and khatha is transfer to his name and there is no cause of action to file the suit and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant and perused records.
6. The aforesaid pleadings have occasioned following:-
15 O.S. No.9405/2004
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule property was the absolute property of late.
Muniyammal as alleged ?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the said owner Smt. P.Muniyammal has executed a registered Will dated 19.06.1989 in his favour and on the demise of Muniyammal he became the absolute owner and in possession of the suit schedule property as alleged ?
3. Whether plaintiff further proves that the transfer agreement of suit schedule property executed by 1st Deft. in favour of 2nd deft. on 18.05.1997 is not binding on the plaintiff as alleged ?
4. Whether the plaintiff further proves that he is entitled to get the registered sale deed of the suit schedule property from the 1st Deft. as prayed ?
16 O.S. No.9405/2004
5. Whether plaintiff further proves that the 2nd deft. has illegally interfered with his lawful possession over the suit schedule property as alleged ?
6. Whether the 2nd Deft. proves that he is the sole successor to the suit schedule property on the death of his step mother Smt. Muniyammal as alleged ?
7. Whether the 1st Deft. proves that the suit is barred by Limitation as alleged ?
8. Whether the 1st Deft. further proves that the suit is not maintainable for want of statutory notice as alleged ?
9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration as prayed ?
10. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of mandatory injunction and permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed ?
17 O.S. No.9405/2004
11. To what reliefs, if any, the parties are entitled ?
7. The plaintiff got examined as P.W.1 and he has relied upon 55 documents marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.55 and got examined another witness as PW 2 and closed the evidence. During the course of cross- examination to D.W.1, 2 documents are confronted and marked as Ex.P.56 & Ex.P.57. The plaintiff got examined witness as P.W.2 and got marked document at Ex.P.58 and closed the evidence. Per contra, the defendant No.2 got examined as D.W.1 and relied upon 25 documents marked at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.25 and defendant No.2 is examined as D.W.2 and closed the evidence. Further the Court Commissioner is examined as C.W.1 and got marked documents as Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.10.
8. My findings to the above issues are as follows:
18 O.S. No.9405/2004
ISSUE NO.1 :: In the Affirmative
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 Affirmative
ISSUE NO.7 :: In the Negative
ISSUE NO.8 :: In the Negative
ISSUE NO.9 :: In the Negative
ISSUE NO.10 :: In the Negative
ISSUE NO.11 :: As per final order for the
following;
REASONS
9. ISSUE NO.1 :: The present suit is one for Declaration of title and for declaration that transfer agreement executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 dated 13.05.1997 is not binding on the plaintiff and for Mandatory Injunction to direct the defendant No.1 to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and for consequential relief of Permanent Injunction. One Sri. Appa Dorai had two wives by name Smt. Lakshmi and deceased Smt. 19 O.S. No.9405/2004 P.Muniyammal. The said Sri. Appa Dorai through his first wife had a son by name Rangaswamy i.e. the deceased defendant No.2 herein. After the demise of his first wife Smt. Lakshmi, he got married to Smt. P.Muniyammal. The said Smt. P.Muniyammal had no issues and the defendant is her step son. In the instant suit, the plaintiff claims that the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of deceased Smt. P.Muniyammal and based on her representation the site was allotted by defendant No.1 and she had paid the amount to the defendant No.1 and as such, it is her self-acquired property. On the contrary, it is the contention of defendant No.2 that it was he who applied for allotment of site to defendant No.1 and he made the initial payment and also the payments thereafter and though the property was allotted to the name of deceased Smt. P.Muniyammal it was he who made correspondences and paid the amount. It is necessary to note that, the defendant No.1 B.D.A. has in its written 20 O.S. No.9405/2004 statement in unequivocal terms admitted that the suit schedule property was allotted to deceased Smt. P.Muniyammal. The plaintiff in order to establish that it was Smt. P.Muniyammal who paid the amount to defendant No.1 out of her own earnings and she was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property got examined himself as P.W.1 and he has in his evidence deposed that during life time of Appa Dorai. Smt. P.Muniyammal was living in a small house at Anandpuram house No.254 and she was doing work in private firms and also was working as maid at different houses, as she was deserted by her husband, his first wife and the defendant No.2 herein. He has deposed that Smt. P.Muniyammal out of her own earnings and with the assistance of local Corporator and well-wishers applied for a site for defendant No.1 and she deposited the amount of Rs.3,275/- to the defendant No.1, consequent to which the defendant No.1 issued an allotment of communication letter informing that the suit 21 O.S. No.9405/2004 schedule property is allotted to Smt. P.Muniyammal and she was directed to pay the balance amount. In pursuance of the same, Smt. P.Muniyammal deposited the amount and accordingly lease-cum-sale agreement came to be executed in her favour on 04.02.1987 which was registered 18.02.1987 and possession certificate was issued on the same day and possession was delivered and Smt. P.Muniyammal was put in vacant possession of the suit schedule property and since then she was in uninterrupted peaceful possession as absolute owner thereof till death and as such, the suit property is her self-acquired property. He has further stated that during her life time she paid property tax to defendant No.1 which is certified by the defendant No.1 by issuing a certificate and thus, it was the absolute property of deceased Smt. P.Muniyammal.
10. In support of his evidence of P.W.1, he has relied upon Ex.P.20 which is the final notice issued by B.D.A. dated 12.06.1978. Ex.P.26 to Ex.P.29 which are 22 O.S. No.9405/2004 the demand notices dated 23.03.1998, 03.09.1998, 01.10.1983 and 20.12.1983 wherein which the defendant No.1 has directed Smt. P.Muniyammal to pay the amount towards allotment of site and if the amount is not deposited the allotment of site will be cancelled without entertaining further correspondence and these documents also shows the payment is made by Smt. Muniyammal towards allotment of site and accordingly, the receipt is issued by B.D.A. for having received the amount towards allotment of site. Ex.P.30 and Ex.P.31 shows that Smt. Muniyammal has requested the B.D.A. seeking concession and she has expressed her financial difficulty towards the payment of amount and it is stated she was doing petty business of vegetable vending and she was forced to stop the business due to her ill-health and she is now dependent upon her husband's pension of Rs.125/- p.m. and she has no other financial assistance and hence, it is difficult for her to pay to total sital value of Rs.5,100/- and sought 23 O.S. No.9405/2004 for 50% of the concession amount. Ex.P.31 is also the letter issued by the Smt. P.Muniyammal to B.D.A. wherein which she has stated that her step son Sri. Rangaswamy was residing with her so far and he is now settled at Jayanagar and she has no income and sought for 50% of concession amount and Ex.P.32 is the certificate issued by the member of Karnataka Legislative Assembly wherein he has certified that the annual income of Smt. P.Muniyammal is Rs.1,200/- and she is a petty vegetable vendor. Ex.P.33 and Ex.P.34 are the letters dated 04.02.1987 which shows the Smt. P.Muniyammal has deposited the site value which is acknowledged by the B.D.A. Ex.P.35 is the receipt for having issued the payment from Smt. P.Muniyammal. Ex.P.36 to Ex.P.38 are also the demand notice issued by the B.D.A. in the year 1978 and 1986 respectively demanding Smt. P.Muniyammal for payment of the site value failing which these allotment site will be cancelled. Ex.P.39 is the certified copy of lease-cum- 24 O.S. No.9405/2004 sale agreement dated 10.02.1987. Ex.P.57 is the original lease-cum-sale agreement dated 10.02.1987 which shows the B.D.A. has executed the said document in favour of deceased Smt. P.Muniyammal and the suit schedule site is allotted in her favour. Ex.P.41 is the particulars of assessment issued by B.D.A. which shows the allotment site in favour of Smt. P.Muniyammal and Ex.P.42 is the possession certificate dated 18.02.1987 which shows the possession of suit schedule property is handed over to deceased Smt. P.Muniyammal and Ex.P.43 to Ex.P.45 are the property tax payment details which shows Smt. P.Muniyammal has paid tax to the B.D.A. Ex.P.46 is the certificate issued by the B.D.A. wherein which is certified that the property stands in the name of Smt. P.Muniyammal. Ex.P.50 is the death certificate of Smt. P.Muniyammal which shows she died on 06.07.1989. Ex.P.51 and Ex.P.52 are the Encumbrance Certificates. Ex.P.53 is the tax assessment list. Ex.P.54 is the acknowledgment 25 O.S. No.9405/2004 issued by B.D.A. So all these documents relied upon by the plaintiff establishes that it was Smt. P.Muniyammal who applied for allotment of site before B.D.A. and after several correspondences and demand notices the site value is deposited and accordingly, lease-cum-sale agreement is executed in favour of Smt. P.Muniyammal and possession certificate is also issued in her name and she has remitted the site value and has been paying property tax to the concerned authority.
11. It is necessary to note that, the defendant No.1 got examined its official as D.W.2 and he has in his evidence deposed that, the defendant No.1 was allotted the suit schedule property to Smt. P.Muniyammal vide allotment letter dated 06.07.1976 and the lease-cum-sale agreement was executed on 18.02.1987 and possession certificate was also issued in her favour and thus, the property was allotted to Smt. P.Muniyammal. On the contrary, the defendant No.2 26 O.S. No.9405/2004 who got examined himself as D.W.1 has in his evidence deposed that after the demise of his father, he applied for a site in the name of his step mother and in the year 1976 the suit property was allotted and the payment towards site was made by this defendant No.2 and all the correspondence with B.D.A. was made by this defendant No.2 and after he got shifted their residence from Anandpuram to Jayanagar all the correspondence letters from the B.D.A. was received by the brother of Smt. P.Muniyammal and later, they used to hand over the letters to this defendant and hence, the say of the plaintiff that, his step mother applied for a site with the help of well-wisher and local Corporator is false and Smt. P.Muniyammal did not pay the amount. But in his cross examination he admits that Smt. P.Muniyammal had applied for allotment of site and she deposited the initial deposit and he says the balance amount of Rs.3,700/- was paid by him in one lumpsum and admits she as no document to prove the same.
27 O.S. No.9405/2004
12. But it is necessary to note that, the documents relied upon by the plaintiff which are all the original receipts, demand notices and the lease-cum- sale agreement and all the documents related to suit schedule property establishes that it was the deceased Smt. P.Muniyammal who applied for allotment of site and the payment towards the value of the site was also remitted by Smt. P.Muniyammal and accordingly, the suit schedule property was allotted to her name and lease-cum-sale agreement was executed and possession certificate was issued and she was remitting the property tax and it is also certified by B.D.A. that the property stands in the name of Smt. P.Muniyammal. On the contrary, the defendant No.2 has failed to establish that he paid the site value and as such it was not the self-acquired property of Smt. P.Muniyammal. Thus, the documents placed on record coupled with the admission of the B.D.A. in the written statement and in the evidence establishes that the suit 28 O.S. No.9405/2004 schedule property was allotted to Smt. P.Muniyammal and she held the property as absolute owner thereof and it is her self-acquired property. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to answer issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
13. ISSUES NO.2 TO 6, 9 AND 10 :: All these issues are taken up collectively for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts and also for convenience of the Court.
In the instant suit, the plaintiff claims title based on the WILL dated 19.06.1989 alleged to have been executed by Smt. P.Muniyammal in his favour. Per contra, the defendant No.2 has seriously disputed the due execution of WILL in his favour and he claims title over the suit property as legal heir of deceased Smt. P.Muniyammal. Now the controversy in the present suit revolves around execution of WILL dated 19.06.1989 alleged to have been executed by Smt. P.Muniyammal in favour of plaintiff. It is well settled preposition of law regarding proof of WILL that burden is always on the 29 O.S. No.9405/2004 propounder to prove the due execution of the WILL and in the absence of any suspicious circumstances as to the execution of the WILL, the proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge his onus and where there are suspicious circumstances as to the genuinity of the WILL, onus is on the propounder to explain to the satisfaction of the court that the WILL is genuine. How to prove the execution of WILL has been succinctly laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in H.V. Iyangar V/s. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443, where in the Hon'ble Apex court has held as follows:
HELD- "In dealing with the proof of WILLS, the court will start on the same enquiry as in the case of the proof of documents. The propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the WILL was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature of his own free will Ordinarily, when the evidence adduced in support of the WILL is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of 30 O.S. No.9405/2004 testator's mind and his signature as required by law, courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of propounder. In other words, the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts just indicated".
14. It is also relevant to note that Section 67 of The Bharathiya Sakshya Adhniyama 2023 (68 of the Evidence Act) deals with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to be attested and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness atleast has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. These provisions prescribes the requirements and the nature of proof which must be satisfied by the party who relies on a document in a court of law. Thus the question as to whether the WILL set up by the propounder is proved to be the last WILL of the testator has to be decided in the light of these provisions. Thus, the WILL has to be proved like any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act.
31 O.S. No.9405/2004
15. As per the principles laid down in the aforesaid ratios and as per the aforementioned provisions the burden is upon the propounder of the WILL to remove all such circumstances and to prove that WILL was voluntarily executed by the testator after being fully aware of the contents and consequences of the bequeath made in the WILL and that the attesting witnesses have signed the WILL in the presence of the testator. But, as discussed supra, the said question have to be decided with reference to Section 67 of The Bharathiya Sakshya Adhniyama 2023 (68 of the Evidence Act), which requires that the examination of the attesting witness is mandatory and also as per Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, which prescribes the formalities required by law for the execution of a valid WILL by the testator.
16. So, keeping these principles in mind, this Court proceeds to analyze as to whether the WILL set up by plaintiff was duly executed by Smt. Muniyammal 32 O.S. No.9405/2004 and it is proved as contemplated under law. The plaintiff being the propounder of the WILL is bound to prove the due execution of the WILL as per the legal proposition discussed supra. In order to discharge the burden the plaintiff has in his evidence deposed that the defendant No.2 and his mother failed to take care of Smt. P.Muniyammal and they never visited her house during her life time and as such, Smt. P.Muniyammal was put to extreme hardship of mental agony and this plaintiff being her relative looked after her welfare by providing food nourishment and helped her in day to day life and out of love and affection she executed a G.P.A. on 13.02.1989. Being satisfied with the care taken by the plaintiff, Smt. P.Muniyammal with her full sense and in good health voluntarily executed a registered WILL on 19.06.1989. After her demise, on 06.07.1989 the registered WILL came into existence and plaintiff became the absolute owner of the property. The defendant No.2 taking advantage of innocence and 33 O.S. No.9405/2004 poverty of the plaintiff used his influence and submitted false affidavit and joint affidavit before the B.D.A. contending that Smt. P.Muniyammal died intestate and got succeeded in executing a transfer agreement in his favour and defendant No.1 by violating the rules executed the transfer agreement. The defendant No.1 failed to take any action on the basis of representation submitted by this plaintiff and he had also issued legal notice has contemplated under Section 64 of B.D.A. Act and the defendants No.1 and 2 in collusion with each other got succeeded in securing the transfer agreement and thus, the defendant No.2 has not acquired any right, title or interest over the schedule property and this plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property based on the G.P.A. executed by deceased Smt. P.Muniyammal and the WILL executed by in her favour.
17. In support of his evidence he has relied upon Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.49 which are the certified copy and original WILL dated 17.06.1989 which shows the 34 O.S. No.9405/2004 said WILL is executed by deceased Smt. P.Muniyammal in favour of the plaintiff and the recitals of the WILL shows that she was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and she is aged about 50 years and she had no issues out of her marital life with deceased Appa Dorai and the plaintiff who is her far relative has taken care of Smt. P.Muniyammal and hence, out of love and affection she has bequeathed the property in favour of the plaintiff and it shows Smt. P.Muniyammal has affixed her thumb impression and it also shows the signature of Smt. P.Muniyammal. Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.6 are the letters correspondence made by the plaintiff with B.D.A. and the acknowledgment issued by the B.D.A. which shows these letters are submitted by plaintiff seeking transfer of the suit schedule property to his name based on the registered WILL and has submitted objection to the representation submitted by defendant No.2 and sought to withdraw the transfer made in favour of defendant No.2. Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 35 O.S. No.9405/2004 shows that the B.D.A. has issued notice to both the plaintiff and defendant No.2 to appear before the authority with original documents. Ex.P.10 is also the letter submitted by the plaintiff to B.D.A. on 09.06.2003 requesting to transfer the suit schedule property in his name based on the registered WILL and to cancel the transfer agreement executed in favour of defendant No.2 and to these representations as per Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.12, the B.D.A. has issued endorsement stating that since transfer agreement is already executed in favour of defendant No.2, the B.D.A. cannot transfer the property to the name of the plaintiff. Ex.P.13 is the statutory notice dated 24.07.2003 issued by the plaintiff to the B.D.A. Ex.P.14 is the acknowledgment for having received the notice. Ex.P.15 and Ex.P.16 shows that the plaintiff filed writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.13593/2003 to direct the B.D.A. to transfer the suit property in the name of the plaintiff and the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 22.06.2004 has 36 O.S. No.9405/2004 dismissed the writ petition with a liberty to the plaintiff to file a suit before the civil Court. Thereafter, the plaintiff has issued statutory notice to defendant No.1 under Section 64 of the B.D.A. Act on 03.07.2004 calling upon the defendant No.1 to not to execute sale deed in favour of the defendant No.2 and to transfer the property to the plaintiff. Ex.P.18 is the acknowledgment. Ex.P.24 and Ex.P.47 are the certified copy and the original G.P.A. dated 13.02.1989 executed by Smt. P.Muniyammal in favour of the plaintiff wherein the plaintiff is empowered to do all such deeds which is necessary in respect of the suit schedule property. Ex.P.25 is the transfer agreement which is the disputed document which shows the B.D.A. has transferred the property of defendant No.2 subsequent to the demise of Smt. P.Muniyammal on the ground that defendant No.2 is her sole legal representative. Ex.P.48 is the affidavit of Smt. P.Muniyammal wherein which she has affirmed that she has sold the site in favour of the 37 O.S. No.9405/2004 plaintiff herein and she has received the full consideration of Rs.10,000/- and has undertaken to execute sale deed after Revocation of Fragmentation Act or after getting permission from the competent authority. So this affidavit shows, it is executed on 13.02.1989 on the date of execution of G.P.A. and these two documents show that the property is sold in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.P.50 is the death certificate of Smt. P.Muniyammal which shows within one month of the execution of the registered WILL Smt. P.Muniyammal died on 06.07.1989. Ex.P.56 is the joint affidavit submitted by the family of the brother of Smt. P.Muniyammal which shows that they have submitted no objection to transfer the suit property to the name of defendant No.2. So the plaintiff relying upon these documents claims that based on the registered WILL he is the absolute owner of the suit property and Smt. P.Muniyammal out of love and affection executed the WILL in his favour to the exclusion of her legal heir. 38 O.S. No.9405/2004
18. During his cross-examination he says he was born at Anandapuram slum area on 19.08.1962 and his other was working at Binni Mill and he studied at Kasturibai Central School, Anandpuram and he was also working in the flour mill of his grandfather situated at Aadimulam compound and his grandfather's name is Aadimulam. An important aspect to be taken note of is that, P.W.1 clearly admits that he is not related to Smt. P.Muniyammal and do not know when she was married and do not know about her husband's name and do not know her whereabouts before her marriage and do not know where she was residing after the marriage and with whom she was residing and do not know whether defendant No.2 is the step son of Smt. P.Muniyammal. So these elucidations shows the plaintiff is totally unaware of Smt. P.Muniyammal her family members and as to her residence and he has gone to the extent of saying that he do not know as to how defendant No.2 is related to Smt. P.Muniyammal. So this shows he is 39 O.S. No.9405/2004 stranger to the family of testator and this creates doubt as to the recital in the WILL that plaintiff is far relative of testator.
19. Further, he denies all the suggestions putforth that the alleged G.P.A. and the WILL are the concocted documents and they do not bear the signature or the thumb impression of Smt. P.Muniyammal and the plaintiff is stranger to Smt. P.Muniyammal. Further, P.W.1 also says he do not know the name of the father of defendant No.2 and the husband's name of Smt. P.Muniyammal and he has never seen defendant No.2 and only after two days of death of Smt. P.Muniyammal the defendant No.2 came to his house and he do not know to whom the house No.254 at Anandapuram belongs to and at present who is residing in the said house. He says in the year 1979- 80 he came to know that the property was allotted to Smt. P.Muniyammal and do not know whether Smt. P.Muniyammal had applied for allotment of site and he 40 O.S. No.9405/2004 says when the site was allotted in the year 1986, he was working in workshop and do not know as to whether defendant No.2 has paid the site value and the property tax towards the allotment of site in the name of his step mother. Further he totally pleads ignorance as to where Smt. P.Muniyammal was residing during her life time and do not know whether her brother and family were residing in the house at Anandapuram and Smt. P.Muniyammal was residing with defendant No.2. Further he totally pleads ignorance as to the treatment underwent by Smt. P.Muniyammal before her demise and that defendant No.2 met all the medical expenses and denies that deceased Smt. P.Muniyammal was not in a position to move and she was not physically healthy and was not in a position to execute any WILL and it is a forged document.
20. So on analysis of the evidence of P.W.1 it shows that he though claims that he looked after the welfare of Smt. P.Muniyammal and that she was 41 O.S. No.9405/2004 deserted by the defendant No.2 and out of love and affection she executed WILL in his favour, the elucidation in his cross-examination runs contrary to whatever the case he has putforth and he is totally unaware of the antecedents of Smt. P.Muniyammal and as to whom she was married, where she was residing and as to whether the defendant No.2 is her son. Added to this, his own documents shows that affidavit is alleged to have been executed by Smt. P.Muniyammal affirming that she has sold the property and again he relies upon the WILL stating that it was executed by Smt. P.Muniyammal. So all these circumstances creates doubt as to the due execution of WILL in favour of the plaintiff.
21. Further, the plaintiff in order to discharge the burden of proving the WILL has examined the Sub- Registrar as P.W.2 in whose office the WILL was registered and he has in his evidence deposed that the WILL Ex.P.58 was duly registered in their office and 42 O.S. No.9405/2004 normally they enquire the executant regarding the contents of the document and normally the witnesses will be present at the time of registration of document. P.W.2 is not cross-examined by the counsel for the defendants. It is necessary to note that, P.W.2 has only deposed about the registration of WILL in their office and he has not deposed as to the witnesses who were present at the time of registration and he has only deposed about the process of registration. So this evidence of P.W.2 is of no assistance to the plaintiff to prove the execution of WILL. As stated earlier, the burden is upon the propounder to prove that WILL was voluntarily executed by the testator after being fully aware of the contents and consequences of the bequeath made in the WILL and that the attesting witnesses have signed the WILL in the presence of the testator. But the plaintiff has not made any efforts to examine the attesting witnesses. So in the absence of the evidence of attesting witnesses the mandatory 43 O.S. No.9405/2004 requirement of proof of WILL is not full-filled. So by this, the plaintiff has failed in establishing the due execution of WILL in his favour.
22. Further, D.W.1 has in his evidence deposed that when he was studying in 8 th standard his mother expired and his father was working as Van man at Brooke Bond and since there was nobody to look after this defendant and manage their house, his father married Smt. P.Muniyammal and he treated her as his own mother and bestowed all love and affection and his father had nominated this defendant and his step mother as the legal heirs in the Employees Provident Fund authorizing 50% each in the benefits of the company. After the demise of his father on 29.03.1975 his employer sent letter intimating the payment of gratuity, bonus, pension and refund of excess IT and family pension to both the step mother and this defendant and hence, they had opened joint account 44 O.S. No.9405/2004 and the death benefits were credited to the joint account of this defendant and his step mother. Till the death of his father all the 3 were residing together at Anandapuram residence and thereafter, his step mother continued to live with him and thereafter, this defendant shifted to rented premises at Jayanagar living behind Periyamunian and his family to reside in Anandapuram residence. On 11.07.1976 his marriage was solemnized and they got shifted to quarters at Domlur were they resided together and as such, the say of plaintiff that Smt. P.Muniyammal was neglected and not looked after by this defendant is false. It is stated that in the year 1986 he was allotted quarters at Domlur and there they resided together till his retirement and she used to frequently visit to brother's house at Anandapuram. In the month of November 1988, Smt. P.Muniyammal complained of some health issues and so she was taken to treatment at Bengaluru Nursing Home where she underwent surgery of Rectum 45 O.S. No.9405/2004 and even thereafter, she was not keeping well and was bed-ridden and she became very weak due to loss of apettite and she did not recover and in the end of June 1989 she expressed her desire to visit her house at Anandapuram, where she breathed her last and this defendant performed all the final rites. It is stated that his step mother had no idea or knowledge of WILL and if at all she had, would have executed either in the name of her brother's children or in favour of this defendant as she was staying with this defendant. There was no occasion for her to meet the plaintiff or take any help from him has he was stranger to her and the purported WILL is created when his step mother was bed-ridden and so they are all forged and concocted documents. After the death of Smt. P. Muniyammal, this defendant filed necessary application before B.D.A. for transfer of title and the B.D.A. after considering all the documents has executed transfer agreement. On 28.02.1997, while he was traveling in 46 O.S. No.9405/2004 BTS bus from Domlur to Ulsoor. The bag in which the original documents were kept were lost and he could not find it though he had lodged complaint with the Ulsoor police and so it is his suspect that the bag containing the original documents is taken by the plaintiff and is now trying to establish a false case before the Court. Thus, the plaintiff has no manner of right, title or interest over the suit property and it is this defendant who is the absolute owner having inherited the same from his step mother.
23. In support of his evidence he has relied upon Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.11 which are the letter correspondences done by the Brooke Bond India Company Ltd. to both defendant and his mother Smt. P.Muniyammal and all these documents shows his father Appa Dorai Reddy in his service record as nominated Smt. P.Muniyammal and this defendant No.2 as his nominees and 50% of the share of the accumulations in the fund is to be paid to each of the 47 O.S. No.9405/2004 nominee and accordingly, after his demise the company has issued letter intimating them the 50% of the amount to which they are entitled. Ex.D.12 is the passbook which shows joint account is opened in the name of Smt. P.Muniyammal and defendant No.2. Ex.D.13 is the medical record which shows Smt. P.Muniyammal was admitted to Bengaluru Nursing Home on 26.12.1988 to show the she has underwent treatment at the hospital. Ex.D.15 is the Grave Yard report which shows Smt. Muniyammal was cremated on 07.07.1987. Ex.D.19 to Ex.D.21 shows the defendant is remitting tax to the concerned authority in respect of suit property. Ex.D.22 is the duplicate possession certificate. Ex.D.23 is the certificate issued by B.D.A. which shows the property is transferred to the name of defendant No.2 and Ex.D.24 and Ex.D.25 are the tax paid receipts. So relying on these documents it is his contention that he being the legal heir of deceased Smt. P.Muniyammal is in possession of the property as absolute owner thereof. 48 O.S. No.9405/2004
24. During his cross-examination he says somewhere in the year 1961, his father married Smt. P.Muniyammal and he has consistently deposed that his father had first wife by name Lakshmi and he was studying in 6th standard when his mother died and after her demise his father married Smt. P.Muniyammal and he was working as Van man in the Brooke Bond Company and he opened joint account as per Ex.D.12 as Smt. P.Muniyammal was unable to appear before bank personally to get the pension and other death benefits. He admits that his step mother had two brothers by name Periyamuniyan and Chinnamuniyan and denies that there is signature of Chinnamuniyan in the WILL and he says do not know who is Chinnamuniyan and denies that the Chinnamuniyan is the elder brother of Smt. P.Muniyammal. Further Ex.P.56 which is the joint affidavit dated 18.12.1989 was confronted and he admits the document and denies that the signature of Chinnamuniyan in Ex.P.56 49 O.S. No.9405/2004 and his signature in Ex.P.49 WILL are one and the same. D.W.1 says he do not know about the plaintiff and denies that the plaintiff has signed the lease-cum- sale deed as a witness. All the suggestions putforth that the deceased Smt. P.Muniyammal had executed WILL in favour of the plaintiff and as such, the defendant No.2 is excluded from inheritance are all categorically denied by D.W.1. The suggestions putforth that Smt. P.Muniyammal had executed the G.P.A., sale agreement and affidavit in favour of plaintiff and she handed over all the original documents to the plaintiff and he is in possession as absolute owner thereof are all categorically denied by D.W.1. So the evidence of D.W.1 shows that he has with stood the test of cross- examination and has consistently deposed that the WILL is a forged and fabricated document.
25. It is necessary to note that, since there is serious dispute as to the due execution of the WILL, during the pendency of the suit the admitted signature 50 O.S. No.9405/2004 of the Smt. P.Muniyammal and the disputed signatures were forwarded for comparison and opinion of the hand writing expert and the hand writing expert has submitted report which is marked as Ex.C.1 and the opinion clearly shows that the expert has examined the signature of the Muniyammal found in Ex.P.42 and Ex.P.57 as S.1 to S.8 respectively and these signatures shows natural variations when compared inter-se and there are internal consistency in the signatures S.1 to S.8. It is further reported that the signatures S.1 to S.8 shows similar writing habit and there are no sign of disguise in the signatures and they are normal signatures and it shows that the writer is not much acquainted with writing and generally person who sign the signatures only, will not deviate from the formation of the letters. Thereafter, the expert has examined the disputed signatures on the registered WILL at Ex.P.49 as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6 and thus disputed signatures were enlarged and were compared with the signatures at S.1 51 O.S. No.9405/2004 to S.8 and she has also taken into consideration the time gap between the disputed signatures and the admitted signatures and there is gap of two years. But due to time gap the acquired characteristic of the writer will not change and she has also considered the age of the person in the disputed WILL for the purpose of the comparison and has adopted the individualized characteristic method for comparison and on comparison it is opined that the disputed signatures Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6 differs from that of admitted signatures S.1 to S.8. Further, the expert has given 27 reasons for her opinion and by taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all these 27 reasons it is opined that the disputed signatures are not made by the person who made the signatures S.1 to S.8.
26. Since the report of the hand writing expert was disputed by the plaintiff, the expert was examined as C.W.2 and he has in his evidence deposed that he has examined Ex.P.49 and Ex.P.57 and the thumb 52 O.S. No.9405/2004 impressions appearing in Ex.P.49 and Ex.P.57 and the thumb impression at A.1 to A.4 are of the same pattern and the ridge characteristics are found in the relative positions among the thumb impressions marked as A.1 to A.4. Hence, the thumb impression as A.1 to A.4 are identical with each other and are made by one and the same finger and of the same person. This witness has admitted Ex.C.6 and signature of the witness marked as Ex.C.6(a) and the signature in the second page and the last page are identified as Ex.C.6(b) & Ex.C.6(c). He has identified the photo enlargements in respect of thumb impressions found in Ex.P.49 and Ex.P.57 and has identified the signatures as Ex.C.7 to Ex.C.10 respectively. During his cross examination by plaintiff counsel, he says that he has compared the signature in his own instruments to make the detail analysis and has deposed that the four thumb impressions at A.1 to A.4 are pertaining to the same person and the reason for the said opinion is that it is based on ridge 53 O.S. No.9405/2004 characteristics. So far as, the variations in the thumb impressions in Ex.P.49 and Ex.P.57 is concerned C.W.2 says the thumb impressions in the said documents does not change just because it was executed on two different dates and C.W.2 volunteers that irrespective of the date and year of execution the thumb impression will remain the same. So this shows the evidence of C.W.2 compared with the document which is marked as C.W.1 shows the signatures appearing in S.1 to S.8 and the signatures appearing in the disputed the WILL and the thumb impression do not belong to Muniyammal. So this itself nullifies the claim of the plaintiff as to the execution of the registered WILL.
27. As discussed supra, the first and the foremost point to be taken note of is that, the evidence of P.W.1 has failed to inspire the confidence of this Court as to the due execution of WILL. Added to this, the evidence of C.W.2 and the report of hand writing expert raises suspicious circumstances as to the due 54 O.S. No.9405/2004 execution of WILL in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has failed to dispel the suspicious the circumstances surrounding the due execution of WILL. Another important aspect to be taken note of is that, the disputed WILL came to be executed on 19.06.1989 and at that point of time, as per the medical certificate placed on record the health condition of Muniyammal was not in a good state and she died on 06.07.1989 within one month from the date of execution of the WILL. There is no evidence placed on record to prove that the WILL was executed while the Smt. P.Muniyammal was in a sound disposition state of mind and on the other hand, it shows she was suffering from health issues which led to her death. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly shows that he has no idea about where she was residing at the time of death. So all these suspicious circumstances coupled with the opinion of the hand writing expert proves that the WILL claimed by the plaintiff is a created document. Thus, the plaintiff 55 O.S. No.9405/2004 has failed to established the due execution of the WILL dated 19.06.1989 and thereby has failed to establish his title over the suit property. On the other hand, the defendant No.2 has established that by virtue of the transfer agreement dated 13.05.1997 executed by defendant No.1 in his favour and also by virtue of inheritance he has acquired title over the suit schedule property. Hence, this Court proceeds to answer issues No.2 to 5 in the Negative, issue No.6 in the Affirmative, issues No.9 and 10 in the Negative.
28. ISSUE NO.7 :: The plaintiff has sought for declaration that the transfer agreement executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 dated 13.05.1997 is not binding on the plaintiff with other reliefs the defendants have raised contentions that the suit is barred by law of limitation. So the plaintiff is challenging the transfer agreement dated 13.05.1997 and he has not produced the said document before the Court. However, the question that needs to be 56 O.S. No.9405/2004 considered whether the relief claimed is barred under law of limitation. As per Article 59 of the Limitation Act, any suit for cancellation or setting aside an instrument must be filed within 3 years from the date when the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument or decree canceled or set aside, first becomes known to him. According to the plaintiff, he came know about the execution of transfer agreement when the defendant No.1 issued endorsement on 18.06.2003. So soon after this fact came to his knowledge, the plaintiff filed the present suit in the year 2004. So the present suit is filed within 3 years from the date of knowledge. Hence, the suit is well within the period of limitation as per Article 59 of the Limitation Act. Accordingly, this issue No.7 is answered in the Negative.
29. ISSUE NO.8 :: The defendant No.1 has raised a defense that the plaintiff has not issued statutory notice as contemplated under Sec.64 of B.D.A. Act and hence, the suit against this defendant 57 O.S. No.9405/2004 without issuing statutory notice is not maintainable. But it is necessary to note that, documents placed on record shows that before filing the suit, the plaintiff has issued statutory notice under Sec.64 of B.D.A. Act to the defendant No.1 and hence, this defense of defendant No.1 holds no substance. Accordingly, this issue No.8 is answer in the Negative.
30. ISSUE NO.11 :: In view of my findings on issues No.1 to 10, this Court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
Both parties shall bear the cost of the suit.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcription corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of January, 2025).
(VEENA N.) XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
58 O.S. No.9405/2004ANNEXURE I. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF :
(A) PLAINTIFF SIDE ::
P.W.1 :: S.Sridharan P.W.2 :: K. Sowmy Latha (B) DEFENDANTS SIDE :: D.W.1 :: A.Rangaswamy D.W.2 :: Chikkaraya (C) COURT COMMISIONER SIDE :: C.W.1 :: Smt. C.V.Jayadevi C.W.2 :: K.S.Teekraman
II. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF:
(A) PLAINTIFF SIDE ::
Ex.P.1 :: Certified copy of original WILL dated 17.06.1989 Ex.P.2 :: Copy of representation dated 01.07.2002 Ex.P.3 :: Acknowledgment Ex.P.4 & :: Copy of letter dated 21.06.2003 Ex.P.5 59 O.S. No.9405/2004 Ex.P.6 :: Acknowledgment Ex.P.7 :: Endorsement dated 17.12.2002 Ex.P.8 :: Acknowledgment Ex.P.9 :: Final endorsement dated 25.10.2002 Ex.P.10 :: Copy of letter Ex.P.11 & :: Endorsements Ex.P.12 Ex.P.13 :: Copy of legal notice dated 24.07.2003 Ex.P.14 :: Acknowledgment Ex.P.15 :: Certified copy of interim order passed in W.P. No.33593/2003 Ex.P.16 :: Certified copy of final order Ex.P.17 :: Copy of legal notice dated 03.07.2004 Ex.P.18 :: Acknowledgment of B.D.A. Ex.P.19 :: True copy of intimation letter issued by B.D.A. dated 06.02.1976 Ex.P.20 :: Copy of final notice dated 12.06.1978 Ex.P.21 :: Copy of possession certificate issued by B.D.A. Ex.P.22 :: Copy of tax due notice dated 14.03.1988 Ex.P.23 :: Copy of certificate dated 03.01.1989 Ex.P.24 :: Copy of G.P.A. dated 13.02.1989 60 O.S. No.9405/2004 Ex.P.25 :: Copy of transfer agreement dated 30.04.1997 Ex.P.26 to :: Demand notices issued by CITB and Ex.P.29 B.D.A. Ex.P.30 :: Copy of representation Ex.P.31 :: Copy of another representation of Muniyammal dated 24.05.1976 Ex.P.32 :: True copy of certificate Ex.P.33 :: Copy of representation Ex.P.34 :: Copy of another representation Ex.P.35 :: Acknowledgment Ex.P.36 :: Final notice dated 12.06.1978 Ex.P.37 :: Notice dated 31.01.1986 Ex.P.38 :: Another notice dated 27.10.1986 Ex.P.39 :: Certified copy of lease/sale agreement dated 10.02.1987 Ex.P.40 :: Receipt issued by Sub-Registrar dated 18.02.1987 Ex.P.41 :: Particulars of assessment issued by B.D.A. Ex.P.42 :: Possession certificate dated 18.02.1987 Ex.P.43 :: Intimation of property tax 61 O.S. No.9405/2004 Ex.P.44 & :: Challens for having paid property tax Ex.P.45 Ex.P.46 :: Certificate issued by B.D.A. dated 03.01.1989 Ex.P.47 :: G.P.A. dated 13.02.1989 Ex.P.48 :: Affidavit executed by Muniyammal on 13.02.1989 Ex.P.49 :: Registered Will dated 17.06.1989 Ex.P.49(a) & :: Signatures Ex.P.49(b) Ex.P.50 :: Death certificate of Muniyammal Ex.P.51 to :: Encumbrance Certificates Ex.P.53 Ex.P.54 :: Receipt issued by B.D.A. Ex.P.55 :: Certificate issued by KSEE Board, Bengaluru Ex.P.56 :: Joint affidavit Ex.P.56(a) :: Signature Ex.P.57 :: Lease-cum-sale agreement dated 10.02.1987 Ex.P.57(a) & :: Signatures Ex.P.57(b) Ex.P.58 :: Pertaining to office Index book No.III, Volume 66 62 O.S. No.9405/2004 Ex.P.58(a) :: The relevant portion i.e. page No.175 to 179 (B) DEFENDANTS SIDE ::
Ex.D.1 :: Nomination form issued by Broke Bond India Ltd. Company Ex.D.2 :: Nomination form-A issued by Broke Bond India Ltd.
Ex.D.3 :: Covering letter dated 30.09.1974 issued by Broke Bond India Ltd.
Ex.D.4 :: Death certificate of father of
defendant No.2
Ex.D.5 to :: Letters received by Smt. Muniyammal
Ex.D.8 from Broke Bond India Ltd.
Ex.D.9 :: Letter addressed to defendant No.2
Ex.D.10 & :: Letters received by Smt. Muniyammal
Ex.D.11 from Broke Bond India Ltd.
Ex.D.12 :: Passbook of joint account Smt.
Muniyammal and defendant No.2
Ex.D.13 & :: Medical prescriptions of Smt.
Ex.D.14 Muniyammal
Ex.D.15 :: Notice issued by the Corporation
Ex.D.16 :: Letter dated 06.02.1976 issued by
CITB
Ex.D.17 :: Notice dated 27.07.1977 issued by
B.D.A.
Ex.D.18 & :: Intimation of property tax dues issued
Ex.P.19 to Smt. Muniyammal
63 O.S. No.9405/2004
Ex.D.20 :: Demand notice/special notice issued
by Corporation
Ex.D.21 :: Tax paid receipt
Ex.D.22 :: Possession certificate dated
18.02.1987 issued by B.D.A.
Ex.D.23 :: Khata Certificate issued by
Corporation
Ex.D.24 & :: Tax paid receipts
Ex.D.25
(C) COURT COMMISSIONER SIDE ::
Ex.C.1 :: Court Commissioner Report
Ex.C.2 to :: 3 photographs and one C.D.
Ex.C.5
Ex.C.6 :: Report
Ex.C.6(a) to :: Signatures
Ex.C.(c)
Ex.C.7 & :: Two photo-enlargements of the thumb
Ex.C.8 impression is marked as A.1 and A.2
against the name of Muniyammal on
the reverse side of the first sheet of
original lease-cum-sale agreement
dated 10.02.1987 (Ex.P.57)
Ex.C.9 :: The third photo-enlargement of the
thumb impression is marked as A.3
against the name of Muniyammal on
the reverse side of the first sheet of
original WILL dated 17.06.1989
(Ex.P.49)
64 O.S. No.9405/2004
Ex.C.10 :: Final photo-enlargement of the thumb
impression is marked as A.4 against
the name of Muniyammal on the
reverse side of the first sheet of
original WILL dated 17.06.1989
(Ex.P.49)
(VEENA N.)
XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Digitally signed
VEENA by VEENA N
Date:
N 2025.01.15
13:09:08 +0530