Bangalore District Court
S 1. Smt.Jayalakshmi vs ) Sri. K.Narasimhamurthy on 14 December, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH No.25).
Dated: This the 14th day of December, 2021.
Present: Smt. ISHRATH JAHAN ARA, B.A.L., LL.B.,
III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No. 1973 / 2014
Plaintiff s 1. Smt.Jayalakshmi,
Wife of Sri.Shivaram,
Daughter of late Sri.Kadirappa,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at Dodderi village,
Tavarekere Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk
Bangalore.
2.Smt.K.Lakshminarasamma,
D/o Kadirappa,
W/o M.Puttaraju,
aged about 45 years
R/o No.124, 1st Cross,
Behind burial ground,
Anjeneya slum, Wilson Garden,
Bangalore
3. Smt.Rangamma @ Radha
S/o Narasimha Murthy,
D/o Kadirappa,
aged about 38 years
R/o No.13, Kullegowdanapalya,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk
Bangalore-560 074
( By Sri.N.M., Advocate.
vs.
2
O.S.No.1973/ 2014
Defendants 1) Sri. K.Narasimhamurthy
@ K.Narasimha Uruf K.Narasimhaiah,
S/o Kadirappa,
Aged about 55 years
R/o No.121, 19th Cross,
Muniswamy Layout,
J.P.Nagar, Bangalore
2) Smt.P.Kamala,
Wife of Sri.K.G.Rajkumar,
Aged about 45 years,
R/o No.46, Basavanagudi,
Netkallappa Circle,
Rijarvayar Road,
Bangalore-560 004
3) Sri.Krishnappa,
Son of late Karehanumaiah,
Aged about 55 years,
R/o Mukkadlu village,
Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore
(D.1 by Sri G.P.L., Advocate.
D.2 & 3 Exparte)
Date of Institution 10.03.2014
Nature of Suit For partition and separate
possession, permanent injunction
and declaration
Date of commencement of 13.04.2018
Evidence
Date of pronouncement of 14.12.2021
Judgment
Total Duration: Years Months Days
7 9 04
3
O.S.No.1973/ 2014
JU DG M E NT
The Plaintiffs have filed this suit against the
defendants for the relief of partition and separate
possession of their 1/4th share each in the suit
schedule properties by metes and bounds and for
permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1
from alienating the suit schedule properties in any
manner to third parties till their legitimate share in
the suit schedule properties is allotted and also for
declaration that the Sale Deeds dt.30.5.2008 and
15.9.2005 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour
of defendant No.2 and defendant No.3 respectively
are not binding on the share of these plaintiffs with
respect to their 1/4th share in suit schedule
properties and costs of the suit.
The suit schedule properties are as follows:-
Item No.1: All that part and parcel of property
bearing Sy.No.19/2, measuring 36.08
guntas,situated at Vaddarapalya village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bangalore South taluk, Bangalore District and
the same is bounded on east by Property of
Beeranna, West by property of Pu Thimmaiah, north
by property of Narasimiah and south by property of
Narasimiah.
Item No.2: All that part and parcel of property
bearing Sy.No.182/2, measuring 8 guntas,situated
at Vaddarapalya village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore
4
O.S.No.1973/ 2014
South Taluk, Bangalore District and the same is
bounded on east by Property of Halagaiah, west by
property of Narasimiah, north by property of Eranna
and south by property of Doddakallappa.
Item No.3: All that part and parcel of property
bearing Sy.No.180/5, measuring 13½
guntas,situated at Vaddarapalya village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bangalore South taluk, Bangalore District and
the same is bounded on east by Property of
Narasimhaiah, west by property of Halagaiah, north
by property of Muddamma and south by property of
Lakkappa.
Item No.4: All that part and parcel of property
bearing Sy.No.200, measuring 1 acre 26½
guntas,situated at Sunkadakatte village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bangalore South taluk, Bangalore District and
the same is bounded on east by Property of
Narasimhaiah, west by property of Narasimhaiah,
north by private property south by property of
Ramanna.
Item No.5: All that part and parcel of property
bearing Sy.No.39/3, measuring 34½
guntas,situated at Sunkadakatte village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bangalore South taluk, Bangalore District and
the same is bounded on east by Property of
Narasimhaiah, west by property of Ranganna, north
by property of Narasimhaiah, south by property of
Halagaiah.
Item No.6: All that piece and parcel of house
property No.7, Katha No.7/2, measuring east to west
40 feet, north to south 30 feet guntas, situated at
Sarakki Kerre grama, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore
South taluk, Bangalore(now BBMP erstwhile
Bommanahalli Nagarasabhe) and same is bounded
on East by property of Puttamma, West by 25 feet
5
O.S.No.1973/ 2014
road, North by property of Kumaraswamy and South
by property of Sampangi.
2) The Plaintiffs state that late
Galihanumaiah was the Kartha of the family and he
had three sons namely Kabbalaiah, Narasimhaiah
and Kadirappa and they constituted Hindu
Undivided Joint Family governed by Mithakshara
School of Law. The Plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are
the children of Kadirappa. The grand-father of
Plaintiffs and defendant No.1 owned immovable
properties bearing Sy.No.19/2 measuring 2 acre 29
guntas, Sy.No. 182/6 measuring 023 guntas,
Sy.No.182/2 measuring 23 guntas, Sy.No.180/5
measuring 38 guntas all situated at Vaddarapalya
village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and
property bearing Sy.No.180/2 measuring 5 guntas,
Sy.No.200 measuring 5 acre, Sy.No.39/3 measuring
2 acre 23 guntas situated at Sunkadakatte village,
Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. After
death of Galihanumaiah his children were entered
into Panchayat partition dt.10.6.1985. Under the
said Panchayat Parikath, the father of Plaintiffs and
defendant No.1 got 1/3rd share in Item Nos.1 to 5 of
the suit schedule properties i.e., property bearing
Sy.No.19/2 measuring 36.08 guntas, property
bearing Sy.No.182/6 measuring 0.08 guntas,
property bearing Sy.No.180/5 measuring 0.13.08
6
O.S.No.1973/ 2014
guntas situated at Vaddarapalya village, Uttarahalli
Hobli, Bangalore south taluk and property bearing
Sy.No.200 measuring 1 acre 26.08 guntas,
Sy.No.39/3 measuring 0.34.04 guntas situated at
Sunkadakatte village, Uttarahalli hobli, Bangalore
south taluk. Based on the panchayat parikath, the
mutation was effected in the name of Kadirappa vide
MR No.40/03-04, MR No.44/2003-04 and MR
No.5/2003-04. The suit schedule properties are all
ancestral properties of Plaintiffs and defendant No.1
and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule properties. The father of the Plaintiffs has
performed the marriage of the Plaintiffs and
defendant No.1 and after marriage, the Plaintiffs are
residing in their respective matrimonial houses.
2(a). The Plaintiffs further state that their
father Sri Kadirappa died leaving behind the
Plaintiffs and defendant No.1 as his legal heirs to
succeed to his estate. The defendant No.1 is the only
male member in the family and he is managing the
joint family affairs and he is cultivating the suit
schedule properties. After death of Kadirappa, the
Katha of the suit schedule properties was mutated in
the name of defendant No.1 without the consent and
knowledge of these Plaintiffs. During the life time of
Kadirappa, he had also purchased house property
7
O.S.No.1973/ 2014
bearing vacant site No.7, measuring 30 feet x 40 feet,
situated at Sarakki kere grama, Katha No.7/2,
Bommanahalli Nagarasabhe, uttarahalli hobli,
Bangalore South taluk, Bangalore, which comes
within the jurisdiction of BBMP. After purchase of
the said property, the father of the Plaintiffs has
constructed a house and was residing in the said
house along with family members and the said
property is described as Item No.6 of the suit
schedule properties.
2(b). The Plaintiffs further state that the
defendant No.1 is mismanaging the suit schedule
properties and he has sold property bearing
Sy.No.182/2 measuring 8 guntas in favour of
defendant No.2 under Sale Deed dt.30.5.2008 and
Sy.No.180/5 measuring 13.5 guntas in favour of
defendant No.3-Sri Krishnappa under registered Sale
Deed dt.15.9.2005. The said Sale Deeds are not
binding on the Plaintiffs. The defendant No.1 has
sold the said properties without the consent of these
Plaintiffs in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3
respectively, with an intention to deprive the rights of
the Plaintiffs over the suit schedule properties. The
Plaintiffs have further stated that during the life time
of their father, there was no division in the joint
family . The Plaintiffs are the daughters of Kadirappa
8
O.S.No.1973/ 2014
and they are entitled to 1/ 4th share each in all the
suit schedule properties. They approached the
defendant No.1 and requested him to effect partition,
but the defendant No.1 failed to effect partition, and
he is trying to dispose of other properties also. Hence
having no alternative, the Plaintiffs have filed this
suit.
3) After service of summons, defendants No.2
and 3 remained absent, hence placed ex-parte. The
defendant No.1 filed his written statement under
Order VIII Rule 6(A) r/w Sec.151 of C.P.C. The
defendant No.1 admitted the relationship of the
Plaintiffs and also admitted that the suit schedule
properties were allotted to the share of Kadirappa in
the Panchayat Palu Parikath took place among the
family members. However he denied the fact that the
suit schedule properties are joint family properties
and in joint possession and enjoyment of Plaintiffs
and defendant No.1. He admitted the fact that the
Katha of the suit schedule properties mutated in his
name after death of his father. The vacate site
bearing No.7 is the self acquired property of
defendant No.1 which is item No.6 of the suit
schedule properties. The Plaintiffs have nothing to do
with this property. The father of the Plaintiffs and
defendant No.1 owned a site allotted to him by
9
O.S.No.1973/ 2014
Corporation, situated at I Cross, Hombegowda Nagar,
Wilson Garden measuring 28 ft x 26 ft and bounded
on east by property of Abbaiyappa, west by property
of Thimmaiah, north by road and south by burial
ground. The said property is not included in the suit
schedule properties, as such the present suit filed by
the Plaintiffs for partial partition is not maintainable.
This defendant No.1 is entitled for a share even in
this property. The Plaintiffs have not requested him
to effect partition in respect of the suit schedule
properties and even he has not tried to alienate the
suit schedule properties in favour of third parties.
The suit filed by the Plaintiffs is not maintainable
and even the Plaintiffs are not entitled for any share
in the suit schedule properties, hence prayed to
dismiss the suit with exemplary cost.
4) Based on the above pleadings, my
Learned Predecessor in Office has framed the
following Issues:
1.Whether the defendant No.1 proves that item No.6 is his self acquired property?
2. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that suit is bad for partial partition?
3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?
4. What Order or Decree?
10O.S.No.1973/ 2014
5) In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.2 herself got examined as Pw.1 and from her side 15 documents were marked as per Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.15 and closed her side of evidence.
After closure of the Plaintiff's side evidence, Defendant No.1 has not chosen to lead any evidence from his side. However the plaintiff No.1 has filed a Memo before this Court on 19.9.2018 stating that after recording the evidence, the defendant No.1 has paid a sum of Rs.5 lakhs towards her share in the suit schedule properties and accordingly she withdraw the suit in respect of her share in the suit schedule properties. As the plaintiff No.1 has filed Memo before this Court, she is not entitled for any share in the suit schedule properties, as such she withdrew her claim.
6) Heard the arguments and perused all documents.
7) The answers to the above Issues are:
Issue No.1 - In the Negative Issue No.2 - In the Negative Issue No. 3 - In the Affirmative Issue No. 4- As per Final Order, for the following:11
O.S.No.1973/ 2014 R E A SON S Issue Nos.1 to 3: As these three Issues are interconnected, they are taken together for consideration, in order to avoid repetition of facts.
8) Entire burden is on the defendant No.1 to prove issue Nos.1 and 2 and also to prove that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share as claimed in the plaint. However the defendant No.1 in order to prove issue Nos.1 and 2 has not chosen to lead any evidence from his side. This Court by an order dated. 08.11.2021 taken the evidence of 1 st defendant as NIL and proceeded further. As such the defendants Nos.1 has not proved their defence as well as issue Nos.1 and 2. Per contra, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 in order to prove their case and to prove that they are entitled for each 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties got examined 2nd plaintiff as Pw.1. PW1 filed her Affidavit in lieu of oral evidence by reiterating her plaint averments and deposed that, she along with her sisters plaintiff Nos.1 and 3 and defendant No.2 is her brother and they constituted an Hindu undivided family and they are the joint family members. She deposed that she along with other plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are the children of late Kadirappa and they inherited the joint family properties from Kadirappa. She deposed 12 O.S.No.1973/ 2014 that her grandfather owned immovable properties bearing Sy.No.19/2 measuring 2 acres 29 guntas, Sy.No.182/2 measuring 23 guntas, Sy.No.180/5 measuring 38 guntas, situated at Vaddrapalya village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru and likewise he was in possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Sy.No.180/2, measuring 0.5 guntas, bearing Sy.No.200 measuring 5 acres, Sy.No.39/3 measuring 2 acres 23 guntas situated at Sunkadakatte village and after the death of her grandfather there was a partition in between her father and his brothers under Panchayath Parikath dated. 10.06.1985 and under the said Panchayath Parikath his father was allotted with 1/3rd share in all the suit schedule properties. She further deposed that her father was allotted with the land bearing Sy.No.19/2, measuring 36.08 guntas, Sy.No.182/6 measuring 0.08.00 guntas, Sy.No.180/5 measuring 0.13.08 guntas situated at Vaddrapalya village and likewise in the land bearing Sy.No.200 measuring 1 acre 26.08 guntas, Sy.No.39/3 measuring 0.34.04 guntas situated at Sunkadakatte village, Uttarahalli Hobli and all these properties are described as item Nos.1 to 5 in the suit schedule properties.
9). Pw.1 further deposed that her father during his life time also acquired a vacant site 13 O.S.No.1973/ 2014 bearing Sy.No.7 measuring 30 x 40 feet situated at Sarakki Kere Grama, as described in suit item No.6 of the schedule and all these properties are the joint family properties of herself and other plaintiffs and defendant No.1. She deposed that her father died the death of an intestate without executing any testamentary documents and even there was no partition in respect of the suit schedule properties, either during his life time or subsequent to his death. She further deposed that during the life time of her father the Katha of the suit schedule properties are standing in his name and subsequently after his death Katha was mutated in the name of defendant No.1 being the only male member of the family. She deposed that she along with other plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are only legal heirs of deceased Kadirappa have jointly succeeded the suit schedule properties and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. She further deposed that the 1 st defendant and his family members without her consent and also without her knowledge and even to the knowledge of the other plaintiffs have illegally sold the property bearing Sy.No.182/2 measuring 08 guntas in favour of 2nd defendant and under a registered sale deed dated.30.05.2008 and accordingly he sold the another property bearing 14 O.S.No.1973/ 2014 Sy.No.180/5 measuring 13.5 guntas in favour of defendant No.3 under a registered sale deed dated. 15.09.2005. She deposed that the sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 are not binding upon them with respect to their share in the suit schedule properties. She further deposed that defendant No.1 with an intention to deprive their right over the suit schedule properties have illegally sold the portion of the suit schedule properties in favour of defendants Nos.2 and 3 and the said sale deeds were not binding upon them with respect to their share in the suit schedule properties. She further deposed that she along with plaintiff No.3 being the daughter of late Kadirappa had each entitled for 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. Hence filed this suit.
10) Pw.1 in order to corroborate her testimony got produced the family genealogy tree marked as per Ex.P.1. She got produced the mutation register extracts in respect of the suit schedule properties standing in the name of Kadirappa, subsequently it was mutated in the name of defendant No.1 marked as per Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.7 respectively. She got produced the certified copy of the sale deed standing in the name of defendant No.1 15 O.S.No.1973/ 2014 executed by Smt. Puttamma being the G.P.A holder of Anjanappa in respect of suit item No.6 property as per Ex.P.8. She got produced the encumbrance certificates marked as per Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 respectively. She got produced the RTC extracts of the land bearing Sy.No.182/2, Sy.No.19/2, Sy.No.180/5 and Sy.No.200 marked as per Ex.P.11 to Ex.P.15 respectively.
11) The only contesting defendant of this suit i.e., defendant No.1 subjected Pw.1 for cross- examination by denying her testimony. Pw.1 in her cross-examination admitted that the suit item No.6 property is standing in the name of defendant No.1 and he purchased the said property as per Ex.P.8. She further admitted the suggestion that her husband was the witness to the said sale deed and he made his signatures to Ex.P.8 as a witness. Likewise, she has stated that her father was allotted with a said property situated at Wilson Garden area measuring to an extent of 28 feet x 26 feet from the Corporation, as her father was working in the Corporation and during life time of her father the said property was given to her. She further admitted the suggestion that in the said property situated at Wilson Garden, plaintiff No.1 and 3 along with defendant No.1 are having equal share. She admitted 16 O.S.No.1973/ 2014 the suggestion that she has not included the said property in this proceedings as her father during his life time by executing a sale agreement in favour of her husband has given the said property. Pw.1 except adducing the oral evidence that her father during his life time has executed a sale agreement in favour of her husband in respect of the property situated at Wilson Garden has not chosen to produce the said sale agreement before this Court.
12) Even though in this case defendant No.1 has sought a counter claim by claiming that he has also having a definite share in the said property being the son of Kadirappa and he is having 1/4th share in the said property and this suit without including all the joint family properties for partial partition has not maintainable. The defendant No.1 except taking this defence and except making suggestion to Pw.1 during his cross-examination and even though Pw.1 during her cross-examination admitted that in the said property the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are having equal share, as admittedly the defendant No.1 has not filed his counter claim in accordance with the provision of order 8 Rule 6-A of C.P.C. The defendant No.1 except giving captions the written statement is filed under order 8 Rule 6-A of c.P.C, has not chosen to file his written statement 17 O.S.No.1973/ 2014 under the provision of order 8 Rule 6-A of C.P.C by clearly described in the prayer and also the cause of action arose to him along with furnishing the written statement schedule. Moreover, the defendant No.1 has not paid any Court fee with respect to his claim in the property situated at Wilson Garden area. In such being the case, mere a suggestion to Pw.1 that in the property situated at Wilson Garden he along with other plaintiffs are also having definite share has not chosen to prove his defence to the satisfaction of the Court . However Pw.1 has also not chosen to produce any documents before this Court to prove that her father during his life time by agreeing to sell the said property for the total consideration amount of Rs.1,25,000/- had executed the sale agreement and under the sale agreement her father has already received an advance sale consideration amount of Rs.62,500/-. Moreover it is not the testimony of Pw.1 that her father during his life time has executed the sale deed with respect to the said property in favour of her husband by conveying the title of the said property. In such being the case, the testimony of Pw.1 that her father his life time by agreeing to sell the property situated at Wilson Garden executed the sale agreement and as such on the said property the other children of Kadirappa have no any manner of right, title or 18 O.S.No.1973/ 2014 interest much less any share in the said property cannot be acceptable and it holds no merit.
13) The defendant No.1 during the cross- examination of Pw.1 has not chosen to deny the fact that he has sold the portion of the suit schedule properties in favour of defendants Nos.2 and 3 by executing the sale deed. No-doubt Pw.1 in order to prove the alienation made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants Nos.2 and 3, has not chosen to produce the sale deeds before this Court . On the contrary, the defendant No.1 neither in his written statement nor during the stage of cross-examination of Pw.1 denied this fact. Moreover, the defendant No.1 has not taken any defence that he has sold the properties in favour of defendants Nos.2 and 3 for the legal necessities and for the benefit of joint family and as such the said alienation is binds the plaintiffs. However as I have discusses supra no such defence was taken by defendant No.1 either in his written statement or during the stage of trial.
14) The defendants Nos.2 and 3 have not chosen to contest the proceedings. Both defendants Nos.2 and 3 remained absent and they were placed ex-parte. Such being the case, the testimony of Pw.1 that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in 19 O.S.No.1973/ 2014 favour of defendants Nos.2 and 3 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.182/2 measuring to an extent of 0.08 guntas and land bearing Sy.No.180/5 measuring to an extent of 13.05 guntas does not bind on these plaintiffs with respect to their shares in the suit properties. However the properties alienated by defendant No.1 has to be alloted in favour of defendant No.1 in order to safeguard the interest of the bonafide purchasers of the portion of the suit schedule properties i.e., defendants Nos.2 and 3. The defendant No.1 except making suggestion to Pw.1 that the suit item No6 property is his self acquired property purchased by him out of his self earning on which plaintiffs are not having any share has not chosen to prove the same to the satisfaction of the Court. The defendant No.1 has failed to convince the Court what he did with the sale consideration amount received from defendants Nos.2 and 3 after alienating the portion of the suit schedule property. Moreover defendant No.1 has not taken any defence that he is having separate independent source of income, apart from the income derived by him from the suit schedule properties and as such he was capable to purchase the suit schedule item No.6 property. In such being the case the defence taken by defendant No.1 that suit item No.6 property is a self acquired property cannot be acceptable and 20 O.S.No.1973/ 2014 believable. Likewise his defendant No.1 has not chosen to prove that suit of the plaintiffs is barred for partial partition. Per contra, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 adducing the evidence before this court to prove that they being the daughters of Kadirappa is having a definite 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds.
15) With respect to the plaintiff No.1 as I have discussed supra she by filing a memo before the court on 19.09.2018 stated that she has received her share by way of cash amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- from the defendant No.1 and according she is withdrawing her suit in respect of her share in the suit schedule properties. In such being the case, plaintiff No.1 is not entitled for any share in the suit schedule properties.
16) Likewise, plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 when the matter was referred before the Lok Adalath for settlement on 14.08.2021, has appeared before Lok Adalath and submitted that they have also settled their claim with the defendant No.1 and they agreed to receive their share by way of cash amount. The plaintiff No.2 before Lok Adalath stated that she has agreed to settle the matter was received Rs.2,00,000/- towards her share and according she 21 O.S.No.1973/ 2014 has already received sum of Rs.50,000/- from defendant No.1 and remaining Rs.1,50,000/- has to be paid by defendant No.1. Even the plaintiff No.3 who appeared before the Lok Adalath on 14.08.2021 has made a statement that she has settled her claim for Rs.8,00,000/- and out of the said amount she has received a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- from the defendant No.1 and the remaining amount has to be paid by the defendant No.1 within 5 months. Subsequently after the said settlement neither the plaintiffs nor the defendant No.1 appeared before this Court and filed their written statement before this Court . Hence by taking the absence of plaintiffs and defendants and also by considering that they have not finally reported the settlement before the Court , the case was proceeded further. In such being the case, plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 have entitled for 1/4th share each in the suit schedule properties subject to adjusting the amount that which they have already received from defendant No.1 towards the share in the suit schedule properties. Hence, by taking into consideration of the facts and evidence available on record, I answer issue Nos.1 and 2 in the Negative and issue No.3 in the Affirmative.
22O.S.No.1973/ 2014 Issue No.4:-
17) For the aforesaid reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
OR D E R The Suit of the Plaintiffs is decreed.
The plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for 1/4th share each in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds, subject to adjusting the the amount that which they have already received from defendant No.1 towards their share in the suit schedule properties.
It is declared that the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3 dated. 30.05.2008 and 15.09.2005 respectively are binding on the plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 with respect to their share in the suit schedule properties.
As the plaintiff No.1 has already taken her share in all the suit schedule properties by way of cash amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- from the defendant No.1, the suit of the plaintiff No.1 is dismissed in view of the memo filed by her on 19.09.2018.23
O.S.No.1973/ 2014 No order as to costs.
Draw preliminary Decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcription computerized, then corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 14th day of December, 2021.) (ISHRATH JAHAN ARA) III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the Plaintiff:-
P.W.1 - K.Lakshminarasamma List of witnesses examined for the Defendants:-
-NIL-
List of documents exhibited for the Plaintiff:
Ex.P1 - Genealogical tree Ex.P2 to P.7 - Mutation Extracts Ex.P.8 - C/c of sale deed dt. 27.4.2004 Ex.P.9, 10 - Encumbrance certificates Ex.P.11 to 15 - RTCs List of documents exhibited for the Defendants:
-NIL-
(ISHRATH JAHAN ARA) III Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
24 O.S.No.1973/ 2014