Bangalore District Court
Vishalakshmi R vs Ramaiah on 25 April, 2024
/1/ O.S.No.8619/2013
KABC010028502013
THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-40), BANGALORE CITY.
DATED 25th APR 2024.
PRESENT
YASHAWANT R. TAWARE,
B.Sc., LL.B.,(Spl.),
XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.8619/2013
Plaintiffs :
1. Smt. Vishalakshi R
D/o Ramaiah,
Aged about 24 years,
R/at Devanahalli village,
Maralu Bagilu, Devanahalli taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
2. Sri.Tilak R S/o Ramaiah,
Aged about 21 years,
R/at No.258, Papereddy Palya,
Nagarabhavi II Stage,
Bangalore - 560 072.
(By Sri. M. Babu., Advocate)
/ VERSUS /
/2/ O.S.No.8619/2013
Defendants :
1. Sri.Ramaiah
S/o late Munichinappa,
Aged about 59 years,
R/at No.258, Papareddy Palya,
Nagarabhavi II stage,
Bangalore - 560 072.
2. Sri.M.S.Arunachala
S/o Late Srikantaiah,
Since deceased Reptd.
by his Lr's ,
2a. Kiran Kumar
Aged about 39 years,
2b. Chandrashekar
Aged about 38 years,
2c. Pramodkumar
Aged about 33 years,
All are residing at No.387,
Farm House, (All Win Compound)
Papareddy palya, Nagarabhavi
II Stage, Bangalore - 560 072.
3. Sri. S.V. Rama Seshaiah
S/o late Venkatasubba Rao
Aged about 58 years,
R/at No.72, Arunchala Layout,
Nagarabhavi II Stage,
Bangalore - 560 072.
4. Sri.H.D.Narasimha Murthy
S/o late Devarasaiah,
/3/ O.S.No.8619/2013
Aged about 62 years,
R/at Ashirvada Nilay,
Opp to court building court road,
Doddaballapura - 561 203,
Bangalore Rural District.
5. Sri.P.Narasimhamurthy,
S/o P. Rama Sasthry,
Aged about 53 years,
R/at No.14, 5th Cross,
Papareddy Palya,
Arunachal Layout,
Bangalore - 560 072.
6. Smt. P. Rama
W/o M.S.Arunachala,
Aged about 56 years,
R/at No.387, Farm House,
Papreddy Palya,
Nagarabhavi II stage,
Bangalore - 560 072.
( D.1 by Sri. N.R.Jayaprakash.,
D.2(a) to (c) by Sri.N.G.Sreedhar.,
D.3 by Sri.B.Venkat Rao.,
D.4 & 6 by Sri.N.G.Sreedhar.,
D.5 by Sri.Chidananda H.M., Advocates )
Date of Institution of the Suit 27.11.2013
Nature of the Suit (Suit on Partition suit
pronote, Suit for declaration
and possession, Suit for
injunction etc,)
/4/ O.S.No.8619/2013
Date of the commencement of 03.11.2016
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment 25.04.2024
was pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
10 years, 04 months, 28 days.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have filed this suit seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of their alleged 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule item Nos.1 to 11 properties by metes and bounds by declaring that the Regd. Sale Deed dated 17.11.2004 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and also the Regd. Sale Deed dated 03.09.2005 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 and also the Regd. Sale Deeds dated 09.10.2013 and dated 09.11.2012 and the Regd. Gift Deed dated 03.07.2014 executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of defendant Nos.4, 5 & 6 are not binding on the plaintiffs' share in the said properties.
/5/ O.S.No.8619/2013
2. The plaint averments in brief are that :
The schedule properties consists of dry agricultural lands, residential sites and also a house property which have been described in detail as pliant schedule item Nos.1 to 11 properties in the schedule annexed to the plaint. The plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 are sister and brother inter se. They are children of defendant No.1. It is contended that, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are coparceners. They constituted a Hindu Undivided Family governed by Mitakshara school. The plaint schedule properties are their coparcenery joint family properties. One Sri.Munichinnappa was the propositus of joint family of plaintiffs and defendant No.1. One Sri.Chowdappa was brother of said Sri.Muni Chinnappa. They both constituted a joint family. They were having large number of immovable properties. Sri.Muni Chinnappa died intestate. He was acting as a Karta of the joint family being the eldest son during his lifetime. After his demise, his sons Sri.Ramaiah (defendant No.1), Sri.Papaiah, Sri.Chowdappa, Smt.Yarra Chinnamma W/o late Muni Chinnappa and Smt.Chowdamma W/o Chowdappa /6/ O.S.No.8619/2013 have partitioned their joint family properties by a Panchayath Parikath which was reduced into writing dated 01.08.1983. As per the said partition, the parties were put in physical possession of their respective shares. As per the said Panchayath Parikath dated 01.08.1983, the following properties fell to the share of family of the defendant No.1.
1. Sy.No.24/25 measuring 8.64 guntas of land
2. Sy.No.24/25 measuring 10.24 guntas of land
3. Sy.No.24/27 measuring 02.7 guntas of land
4. Sy.No.24/27 measuring 0.06 guntas of land
5. Sy.No.24/4 measuring 0.01.24 guntas of land
6. Sy.No.25 measuring 0.04 guntas of land All the aforesaid properties are situated at Mallathalli, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North taluk.
7. The house property situated in Sy.No.24/51, situated at Paparreddy Palya, measuring East to West 50 feet, North to South 25 feet, more fully mentioned in the schedule.
/7/ O.S.No.8619/2013
8. Land measuring 0.015 guntas of land in
Sy.No.30/2 situated at Sri Gandadha Kaval,
Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North taluk.
The defendant No.1 by virtue of Panchayath Parikath has released Sy.No.24/4 measuring 1.24 guntas of Mallathalli village in favour of his brother Sri.Papaiah. Similarly, the defendant No.1 had donated Sy.No.2/27 measuring 6 guntas of land to the temple. The plaintiffs are not willing to claim their share in the said properties. It is further contended that, the defendant No.1 had sold a portion of land measuring East-West 70 feet and North-South 40 feet out of 10.24 guntas in Sy.No.24/25 in favour of defendant No.2 by a Regd. Sale Deed dated 17.11.2004. Further, the defendant No.1 has sold a portion of the land to an extent of 0.05 guntas out of total 8.64 guntas in Sy.No.24/25 in favour of defendant No.3 by Regd. Sale Deed dated 03.09.2005. The defendant No.1 has sold the aforesaid lands to defraud the rights of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the said sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are not parties to the said sale deeds. As such, the /8/ O.S.No.8619/2013 aforesaid Sale Deeds dated 17.11.2004 and dated 03.09.2005 are null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have got equal share in the said properties sold by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3. The plaintiffs being the coparceners are having 1/3rd share each in the plaint schedule properties which are their ancestral joint family properties. The aforesaid sale of land / sites in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3 came to the knowledge of plaintiffs in the month of November 2004 and subsequently, they demanded their share in the schedule properties. The defendant No.1 initially agreed and thereafter went on postponing the same on one or the other reasons. It is further contended that, during the pendency of this suit, the defendant No.2 has sold the portion of the land measuring East-West 20 feet and North- South 30 feet in all 660 Sq. feet out of item Nos.1(A) in favour of defendant No.4 by Regd. Sale Deed dated 09.10.2013, which is described as suit item No.9 property. The defendant No.2 has also sold another portion of land measuring East-West 23 feet and North-South 35 feet in all 805 Sq. feet out of the said suit /9/ O.S.No.8619/2013 item No.1(A) in favour of defendant No.5 by Regd. Sale Deed dated 09.11.2012, which is described as suit item No.10 property. The defendant No.2 has also gifted a portion of the land measuring East-West 40 feet and North-South 25 feet in all 1000 Sq. feet out of the said suit item No.1(A) in favour of his wife who is defendant No.6 by executing a Regd. Gift Deed dated 05.07.2014 which is described as suit item No.11 property. On these and certain other grounds, the plaintiffs have prayed for decreeing their suit with costs against the defendants.
3. In response to the service of summons, the defendant No.1 has entered his appearance through Sri.N.R. Jayaprakash., the learned counsel and filed his written statement inter alia admitting in toto the case of the plaintiffs and except the execution of the Sale Deeds in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3 as stated in paragraph Nos.10 & 11 of the plaint. The defendant No.1 has stated that, he sold the portion of the land stated in paragraph No.10 of the plaint in favour of / 10 / O.S.No.8619/2013 defendant No.3 and he sold the portion of the land stated in paragraph No.11 of the plaint in favour of defendant No.2. The defendant No.1 has contended that, although he is agreed to sell the site measuring 0.1.1 gunta i.e., equalent to site measuring 30 X 40 feet, the defendant No.2 by misrepresentation and playing fraud upon him has mentioned 0.05 guntas instead of 0.1.1 guntas in the sale deed and got the said sale deed executed in his favour. He contends that, the defendant Nos.1 & 2 were very close friends since many years. The defendant No.2 got prepared the sale deed and reposing confidence on him, the defendant No.1 had signed on the said sale deeds without reading the contents of the same. However, the said fact of the fraud and misrepresentation came to the knowledge of defendant No.1 only during the month of October 2013 when the defendant No.2 tried to put up compound wall to the entire 0.05 guntas of the land. When questioned by the defendant No.1, the defendant No.2 quarreled with defendant No.1 by using filthy languages. The defendant No.1 reserves his rights to challenge the same / 11 / O.S.No.8619/2013 before the court. On these and certain other grounds, the defendant No.1 has submitted that he has no objection to decree the suit as prayed for by the plaintiffs.
4. The defendant Nos.2 & 3 have entered their appearance through Sri..B.Venkat Rao, the learned counsel and filed their joint written statement in defence to this suit of the plaintiffs.
In the written statement the defendant Nos.2 & 3 have taken up contentions that, the age of the plaintiff No.2 has been deliberately shown as under aged to bring this suit during the period of limitation. The plaintiff No.1 is aged about 24 years at the time of filing of this suit. The plaintiff No.2 has shown his age as only 21 years. In order to seek declaratory reliefs, suit of this nature ought to have been filed within 3 years of attaining the age of majority by the plaintiffs. Therefore, on this count alone the suit is liable to be dismissed as barred by law of limitation. Further, the valuation made / 12 / O.S.No.8619/2013 and court fee paid is also not proper and sufficient. As some of the properties have lost the characteristic of agriculture nature. It is true that, the defendant No.1 has sold a residential site measuring 70 X 40 feet formed in Sy.No.24 /25 in favour of defendant No.3 under a Regd. Sale Deed dated 17.11.2004 for valuable sale consideration. It is true that the defendant No.1 has sold a portion of the land to an extent of 0.05 gunta out of 8.64 in Sy.No.24/25 in favour of defendant No.2 under Regd. Sale Deed dated 03.09.2005. In the above sale deeds, it is clearly mentioned that the said site / portion of the land are being sold by the defendant No.1 for discharging his loans, to meet domestic expenses and also to acquire alternative property at a convenient place. Thus, the defendant No.1 was clear in his intention to dispose of the property for acquiring other properties apart from discharging the loans. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 has sold the aforesaid properties to defraud them is false and baseless. It is unjust on the part of the plaintiffs to claim that the aforesaid sale deeds are not binding on them since they were / 13 / O.S.No.8619/2013 not parties to the sale transaction. The defendant Nos.2 & 3 are bonafide purchasers for valuable sale consideration amount. The defendant No.1 has constructed a commercial complex under the name Sri.Muni Chinnappa Complex on the main road by utilising the sale proceeds of aforesaid registered sale deeds executed by him in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3. It is denied that the plaintiffs came to know about the sale transaction in the month of November 2012. The plaintiffs have left out portion of land to an extent of 1.24 guntas in Sy.No.24/4 of Mallathalli village in respect of which the defendant No.1 had released his rights in favour of his brother Sri.Papaiah and the land measuring 6 guntas in Sy.No.2/27 donated to the temple by defendant No.1 for partition in this suit. The said two properties shall also be included in the schedule so that their interest is not prejudiced at a later stage. The description of the properties which had fallen to the share of defendant No.1 under the Panchayath Parikath may be correct. However, it is not correct to claim that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 constitute a Hindu Joint Family by virtue / 14 / O.S.No.8619/2013 of Panchayath Parikath. The plaintiffs are not entitled to claim their share in respect of the properties purchased by defendant Nos.2 & 3 for valuable sale consideration amount. The defendant Nos.2 & 3 are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the said properties since the year 2004-05 as bonafide purchasers. In the event of partition, the defendants are entitled to for retaining the properties purchased by them for themselves. The defendant No.1 has other immovable properties in Sy.No.36/2 measuring 30 guntas and Sy.No.34/7 situated at Sri Gandada kaval village, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North taluk. The defendant No.1 has constructed a huge commercial complex by name Sri.Muni Chinnappa Complex in Sy.No.25/1 which was constructed out of the sale proceeds of the sale deeds executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3. Therefore, this suit is a collusive suit filed by the plaintiffs with defendant No.1. The defendant Nos.2 & 3 have denied that the suit schedule properties are coparcenery properties and defendant No.1 and plaintiffs constitute Hindu Undivided Family. On these and certain other / 15 / O.S.No.8619/2013 grounds, the defendant Nos.2 & 3 have prayed for dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs with costs.
5. The defendant Nos.4 to 6 who have been impleaded during the pendency of this suit have entered their appearance through Sri.N.G.Sreedhar., the learned counsel and filed their joint written statement in defence to this suit of the plaintiffs.
In the written statement, the defendant Nos.4 to 6 have taken up contentions that, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are not the joint family members so as to claim joint family properties. It is denied that the suit schedule properties and other properties are subject matter of Panchayath Parikath dated 01.08.1983. The said Panchayath Parikath is dated 25.02.1984. The mutation entry was effected in MR No.13/1983-
84. Accordingly, Ramaiah, Papaiah and Chowdappa, three brothers got their share in suit schedule properties and other properties. Sri.Muni Chinnappa father of the Sri.Ramiaha, Sri.Papaiah and Sri.Chowdappa got the properties through / 16 / O.S.No.8619/2013 registered Will bequeathed by one Smt.Yerramma grand mother of Sri.Muni Chinnappa @ Chenniga. Therefore, the properties mentioned in the paragraph No.6 of the plaint is concern, they are not ancestral properties and on the other hand they are self acquired properties of defendant No.1. Since the suit schedule properties and other properties are subject matter of Panchayath Parikath dated 25.02.1984 which was subsequently mutated under MR No.13/1983-84 effected before 20.12.2004, hence suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable as per section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 against defendants. The defendant No.1 is not karta and manager of joint family properties. The plaintiffs have not claimed the property measuring 1 acre 24 guntas in Sy.No.24/4 and 0.6 guntas in Sy.No.2/27 which was given to one Sri.Papaiah brother of defendant No.1 and to the temple clearly shows that the plaintiffs have not come before this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and honest consciousness. The defendant No.1 has sold the portion of property in Sy.No.24/25 in favour of defendant No.3 vide sale deed dated 17.11.2004 i.e., earlier to the date of / 17 / O.S.No.8619/2013 20.12.2004. Hence the suit of the plaintiffs against defendant No.3 is also not maintainable as narrated supra. It is worth mentioning here that in sale deed dated 17.11.2004 the defendant No.1 has falsely mentioned that the property is ancestral property. In the said sale deed the defendant No.1 has specifically mentioned that in order to discharge the loan and for his family necessities and also to purchase other properties he had sold the same to defendant No.3. Hence the defendant No.3 is the bonafide purchaser of item No.2 of suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim declaring the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 is null and void. The suit schedule property item No.1 subject matter of Panchayath Parikath in Sy.No.24/25 is concern, the defendant No.1 has sold 0.05 gunta of land in favour of defendant No.2 vide sale deed dated 03.09.2005. It is worth mentioning here that in said sale deed dated 03.09.2005, the defendant No.1 has mentioned that he got the property through registered Will dated 29.08.1927 executed by his grand mother Smt.Yerramma. Therefore the / 18 / O.S.No.8619/2013 property acquired by Sri.Muni Chinnappa which was subsequently subject matter of panchayath parikath are self acquired property of Sri. Muni Chinnappa and subsequent acquisition by defendant No.1 becomes self acquired property. Therefore the plaintiffs cannot claim that the properties acquired by defendant No.1 is ancestral property since the said properties are not intestate succession. In view of the same also the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim declaring the sale deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is null and void. The defendant No.2 is also the bonafide purchaser of portion of item No.1 of suit schedule property. The suit schedule properties are not ancestral properties of defendant No.1, hence the plaintiff cannot claim equal share in the same. Further it is specifically mentioned that the plaintiffs are not coparceners of the property held by defendant No.1, hence they have no right to claim 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs had full knowledge of entire transaction made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3 as mentioned in the respective sale deed, hence suit / 19 / O.S.No.8619/2013 of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. Further it is specifically denied that there is no cause of action for plaintiffs to file the suit in as alleged in the plaint. The defendant No.1 has sold the portion of the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3 and utilized the same for the purpose of fulfill his family needs, development of the properties and also to purchase other properties. Hence the same is binding on the plaintiffs. The suit itself is not maintainable against defendant Nos.2 & 3, hence there is no cause of action to challenge the subsequent transaction made by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant Nos.4 to 6 and also not maintainable against subsequent purchasers. The property acquired by defendant No.2 under sale deed executed by defendant No.1 is self acquired property. The defendant No.2 who is turn sold portion of the property in favour of defendant Nos.4 & 5 through respective sale deeds and also gifted some portion of property in favour of his wife Smt.P.Rama through gift deed. On these and certain other ground, the defendant Nos.4 to 6 have prayed for dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs with costs.
/ 20 / O.S.No.8619/2013
6. On the strength of respective pleadings and documents of the parties, my learned predecessor has framed the following issues and Addl. Issues :
ISSUES (1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are the coparcenery properties and the plaintiffs are the coparceners in respect of the suit schedule properties ?
(2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they have each 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties ?
(3) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the sale deed dated 17.11.2004 executed in favour of 2 nd defendant and sale deed 03.09.2005 executed in favour of 3rd defendant by 1st defendant is not binding on them ?
(4) Whether the defendant Nos.2 & 3 prove that they are boanfide purchasers of the properties and they are entitled to retain those properties in the event of partition ?
/ 21 / O.S.No.8619/2013 (5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as prayed for ?
(6) To what order or decree?
ADDL. ISSUES FRAMED ON 23.10.2018 (1) Whether the defendant Nos.4 to 6 prove that as per Sec.6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable ? (2) Whether the defendants prove that the defendant No.3 is the bonafide purchaser of item No.2 of the suit schedule properties ?
(3) Whether the defendant Nos.4 to 6 prove that suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation ? ADDL. ISSUES FRAMED ON 28.02.2020 (1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that Sale deeds dated 09.11.2012 and 09.10.2013 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.4 and 5 in respect of suit schedule item No.9 and 10 properties is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff ?
/ 22 / O.S.No.8619/2013 (2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that gift deed dated 03.07.2014 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.6 in respect of suit schedule item No.11 ?
7. In order to prove the case, the plaintiffs have got examined the plaintiff No.1 as P.W.1 and relied upon in all sixteen documents marked at Exs.P.1 to P.16 and closed their side.
By way of rebuttal, the defendant No.1 has got examined himself as DW.3 and relied upon in all six documents marked at Exs.D.9 to 14 and closed his side. The defendant Nos.2 to 6 have got examined the defendant Nos.2 & 5 as D.Ws.1 & 2 respectively and relied upon in all eight documents marked at Exs.D.1 to D.8 and closed their side.
8. I have heard Sri.M.Babu., the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, Sri.N.R.Jayaprakash.,the learned counsel for defendant No.1, Sri.B.Venkat Rao., the learned Senior counsel for defendant No.3 and Sri.N.G.Sreedhar, the learned Senior counsel for legal heirs defendant No.2, defendant Nos.4 & 6.
/ 23 / O.S.No.8619/2013
9. My findings to the above issues are as under:
ISSUE NOs.1 to 3 & 5 : In the negative ;
ISSUE NO.4 : In the affirmative ;
ADDL. ISSUE NOs.1 TO 3
FRAMED ON 23.10.2018 : In the affirmative ;
ADDL. ISSUE NOs.1 & 2
FRAMED ON 28.02.2020 : In the negative ;
ISSUE NO.6 : As per final order passed
below for the following:
REASONS
10. ISSUE NOs.1 TO 5, ADDL. ISSUES FRAMED
ON 23.10.2018 AND 28.02.2020
As these issues are interlinked with each other, I take them at one stretch for my consideration and determination to avoid repetition of facts.
The schedule properties have been described in detail as plaint schedule item Nos.1 to 11 properties under the schedule annexed to the plaint.
It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that, plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are Hindu coparceners and they constituted a / 24 / O.S.No.8619/2013 Joint Hindu Family governed by Mitakshara school and the plaint schedule item Nos.1 to 11 properties are their coparcenery properties and they have got undivided 1/3rd share therein and there is no partition taken place between them in the said properties and such being the case, the defendant No.1 sold the suit item No.1(a) property in favour of defendant No.2 by Regd. Sale Deed dated 03.09.2005 and also sold suit item No.2(a) property in favour of defendant No.3 by Regd. Sale Deed dated 09.11.2012 without there being any legal or family necessity and as such the said two registered sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiffs' share in the said properties and as such the plaintiffs are entitled to partition and separate possession of their 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds.
Per contra, the defendant Nos.2 to 6 have taken up contentions denying that the plaintiffs are coparceners and the plaint schedule properties are their coparcenery properties and as such the said plaintiffs are entitle to 1/3rd share in the / 25 / O.S.No.8619/2013 said properties by metes and bounds. So far as defendant No.1 is concerned, he has admitted in toto the case of the plaintiffs and prays the court to decree the suit of the plaintiffs.
11. It is to note that, the plaintiffs by suppressing the material facts have intended to get a decree in the present suit from this court. The plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts that one Smt.Yerramma and Sri.Chikka Chowdappa were husband and wife inter se. The said Sri.Chikka Chowdappa had predeceased his wife long back. The said Smt.Yerramma begot a son and daughter by name Sri.Ramaiah and Smt.Muniyamma. The son Sri.Ramaiah married to one Smt.Baiyamma. The said couple begot three children viz.,
(i) Sri.Muni Chinnappa (Channiga), (ii) Sri.Chowdappa (Chowdiga) and (iii) Sri.Subbaiah. The daughter of Smt.Yerramma namely Smt.Muniyamma had married to one Sri.Muniyappa @ Papaiah who had a brother by name Sri.Bhairappa. The son and daughter-in-law of Smt.Yerramma by name Sri.Ramaiah and Smt.Baiyamma had died together / 26 / O.S.No.8619/2013 leaving behind them Sri.Muni Chinnappa (Channiga), Sri.Chowdappa (Chowdiga) and Sri.Subbaiah who were then minors. As a result, the onerous responsibility of taking care of said minor children fell on the shoulder of their grand mother Smt.Yerramma. Under these critical situation, Sri.Bhairappa who happened to be husband's brother of Smt.Muniyamma had helped to Smt.Yerramma like anything. With the help of said Bhairappa, the grand mother Smt.Yerramma had nourished and brought up her grand children viz., Sri.Muni Chinnappa, Sri.Chowdappa and Sri.Subbaiah. The said Smt.Yerramma had owned and possessed several immovable properties. As a result, the said Smt.Yerramma had bequeathed half of her entire properties in favour of her grand children viz., Sri.Muni Chinnappa, Sri.Chowdappa and Sri.Subbaiah and remaining half of properties in favour of Sri.Bhairappa by executing a Regd. Will dated 29.08.1927. After the demise of Smt.Yerramma, Sri.Muni Chinnappa, Sri.Chowdappa and Sri.Subbaiah had become absolute owners of half of the entire properties of said Smt.Yerramma bequeathed under the said / 27 / O.S.No.8619/2013 Regd. Will dated 29.08.1927. The PW.1 who is plaintiff No.1 herein has categorically admitted the execution of the said Regd. Will dated 29.08.1927 by her great grand mother Smt.Yerramma and on account of her such admission, the certified copy of the said Regd. Will dated 29.08.1927 came to be marked at Ex.D.1 and its typed copy as Ex.D.1(a) in the course of cross-examination of PW.1. It is worth to note that, all these above facts have been suppressed by the plaintiff from this court.
12. It is also not in dispute between the parties that, Sri.Muni Chinnappa, his brothers Sri.Chowdappa and Sri.Subbaiah had enjoyed the properties bequeathed to them under aforesaid Regd. Will dated 29.08.1927 in joint without effecting partition therein. As can be seen from Ex.P.8, after the demise of Sri.Muni Chinnappa, joint khata in the names of his legal heirs came to be entered as per IHC No.8/1986-87 by certification of mutation entry MR No.46/1986-87.
Subsequently, after the demise of Sri.Muni Chinnappa, his sons / 28 / O.S.No.8619/2013 Sri.Ramaiah (defendant No.1), Sri.Papaiah and Sri.Chowdappa, had partitioned in their family properties by means of Panchayath Parikath which came to be reduced in writing on 01.08.1983. As per the said partition, a mutation entry also came to be certified at MR No.13/1993-94 as per Ex.P.9. As per the said Panchayath Parikath dated 01.08.1983, the following properties fell to the share of Sri.Ramaiah who is defendant No.1 herein.
1. Sy.No.24/25 measuring 8.64 guntas of land (suit item No.1 property)
2. Sy.No.24/25 measuring 10.24 guntas of land (suit item No.2 property)
3. Sy.No.24/27 measuring 02.7 guntas of land (suit item No.3 property)
4. Sy.No.24/27 measuring 0.06 guntas of land (suit item No.4 property)
5. Sy.No.24/4 measuring 0.01.24 guntas of land (suit item No.5 property)
6. Sy.No.25 measuring 0.04 guntas of land (suit item No.6 property) / 29 / O.S.No.8619/2013 All the aforesaid properties are situated at Mallathalli, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North taluk.
7. The House property situated in Sy.No.24/51, situated at Paparreddy Palya, measuring East to West 50 feet, North to South 25 feet (suit item No.7 property)
8. Sy.No.30/2 measuring 0.015 guntas situated at Sri Gandadha Kaval, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North taluk (suit item No.8 property) It is worth to note that, these above properties that fell to the share of defendant No.1 under Panchayath Parikath dated 01.08.1983 were acquired by their father Sri.Muni Chinnappa under Regd. Will dated 29.08.1927 (Ex.D.1). Therefore, the said properties were absolute or self acquired properties of late Sri.Muni Chinnappa. After the demise of late Sri.Muni Chinnappa, the said properties devolved upon his Class-I legal heirs as per Sec.8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In other words I am to say that, the self acquired or separate properties of a male Hindu dying intestate, devolves upon his Class-I heirs / 30 / O.S.No.8619/2013 in their individual capacity and not as a coparceners as per Sec.8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. If so, then it means that, the defendant No.1 had received the plaint schedule properties in his hands in the aforesaid Panchayath Parikath dated 01.08.1983 as his individual or self acquired properties and not as a coparcenery properties. It is relevant here to note that, these plaintiffs have not at all born at the time of effecting Panchayath Parikath dated 01.08.1983. Therefore, the plaint schedule properties cannot be termed as ancestral or coparcenery properties of plaintiffs and defendant No.1. I may support my this view from a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur Vs. Chander Sen and others reported in AIR 1986 SC 1753. Based on this decision of Hon'ble Apex Court, our own High Court of Karnataka in the case of Smt.Shakuntala and others Vs. Basavaraj and Others reported in ILR 2016 KAR 3604 and in another unreported decision in the case of Koshy Abraham Vs. Smt.B.K.Jayalakshmi and others in CRP No.121/2021 decided on 29.11.2021 has held that after coming into force of / 31 / O.S.No.8619/2013 Hindu Succession Act 1956, the self acquired or separate property of a male Hindu, on his dying intestate devolves on his heirs in their individual capacity and not as a coparcenery property and in such a case, their children will not acquire any right by birth in such property.
13. In the present case, the defendant No.1 has been examined as DW.3. The said defendant No.1 in the course of his cross-examination has categorically admitted stating thus;
'.... ನನನ ತತ ರಮಯಯ ನ ತಯಯ ಹಸರ
ಯರರಮಮ ಅಅತ ಅನನ ವದ ನಜ. ಸದರ
ಯರರಮಮ ಳಗ ರಮಯಯ ಮತತ ಮನಯಮಮ ಅಅತ
ಎರಡ ಜನ ಮಕಕ ಳ ಅಅತ ಅನನ ವದ ನಜ. ನನನ
ತತ ರಮಯಯ ನಗ ಮನ ಚನನ ಪಪ , ಚಡಪಪ ಮತತ
ಸಬಬ ಯಯ ಎಅಬ ಮರ ಜನ ಮಕಕ ಳ ಅಅತ
ಅನನ ವದ ನಜ. ಮನಯಮಮ ಳನನ ಸಅಕದಕಟಟ ಯ
ಮನಯಪಪ ಅಲಯಸ ಪಪಯಯ ಎಅಬವವನ
ಮದವಯದನ ಅಅತ ಅನನ ವದ ನಜ. ಸದರ
ಮನಯಪಪ ನಗ ಬರಪಪ ಎಅಬ ಹಸರನ ಅಣಣ ಇದದ ನ
ಅಅತ ಅನನ ವದ ನಜ. ನನನ ತತನ ತಯ
ಯರರಮಮ ತನನ ಸಮಸತ ಆಸತ ಗಳನನ ಮತಯ ಪತತ
ಬರದ ಅವಳ ಮಮಮ ಕಕ ಳದ ಮನ ಚನನ ಪಪ ,
ಚಡಪಪ ಮತತ ಸಬಬ ಯಯ ಇವರಗ ವಭಗ
/ 32 / O.S.No.8619/2013
ಮಡಕಟಟ ಳ ಅಅತ ಅನನ ವದ ನಜ. ಸದರ ಮತಯ
ಪತತ ದನಅಕ 29.08.1927 ರದ ನನಅದಗದದ ನ.ಡ. 1
ರತ ಇರತತ ದ ಅನನ ವದ ನಜ. ನನನ ತದಯ
ಭಗಕಕ ಮತಯ ಪತತ ದ ಪತ ಕರ ಬದ ಆಸತ ಯನನ
ನನ, ಪಪಯಯ ಮತತ ಚಡಪಪ ಇವರಗಳ ವಭಗ
ಮಡಕಅಡವ ಅಅತ ಅನನ ವದ ನಜ. ಸದರ ವಭಗ
ನ.ಪ. 9 ಮಯ ಟಷನ ಎಅಟತ ಪತ ಕರ ದ .25.05.1984 ರದ
ಆಗರತತ ದ ಅಅತ ಅನನ ವದ ನಜ. 3 ನ ಪತ ತವದಗ
ನನ ಬರದಕಟಟ ನ.ಪ .2 ರತ ಕತ ಯ ಪತತ ದಲಲ
ಯರರಮಮ ಬರದಕಟಟ ಮತಯ ಪತತ ದ ಕರತ
ಉಲಲ ನಖ ಮಡಲಗದ ಅಅತ ಅನನ ವದ ನಜ. ...'
Thus, the defendant No.1 has categorically admitted that his father Sri.Muni Chinnappa had acquired the properties in question under Regd. Will dated 29.08.1927 and in the said properties, after the demise of Sri.Muni Chinnappa, he and his brothers effected partition as per mutation entry Ex.P.9. Thus, in the present case also the schedule properties had been acquired by plaintiffs' grand father late Sri.Muni Chinnappa under Regd. Will dated 29.08.1927 and as such the said properties were his self acquired properties. Those properties cannot said to be either joint family properties or ancestral / 33 / O.S.No.8619/2013 properties. The said properties can only be described as self acquired properties of plaintiffs' grand father late Sri.Muni Chinnappa. Any partition under Panchayath Parikath dated 01.08.1983 which is recorded as per MR No.13/1993-94 (Ex.P.9) would be covered under Sec.8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The plaintiffs being the son and daughter of defendant No.1 are not entitled to any share in the plaint schedule properties since the said properties are neither joint family properties nor ancestral properties for application of Sec.6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It is only Sec.8 of the Hindu Succession Act applies for the self acquired properties of a male Hindu dying intestate. Consequently, the defendant No.1 has received the schedule properties as his individual properties or separate properties or self acquired properties and not as coparcenery properties. Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim any share in the schedule properties during the lifetime of defendant No.1 and as such this suit for partition in the self acquired properties of defendant No.1 during his lifetime is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
/ 34 / O.S.No.8619/2013
14. It is a matter of record that, the defendant No.1 had sold the suit item No.1(a) i.e., 5 guntas of land out of 8.64 guntas in Sy.No.24/25 of Mallathalli village in favour of defendant No.2 by Regd. Sale Deed date 03.09.2005 for valuable sale consideration of Rs.2,73,000/- The certified copy of this Regd. Sale Deed dated 03.09.2005 is produced on record as per Ex.P.12.
It is also a matter of record that, the defendant No.1 had sold the suit item No.2(a) i.e., a Site measuring East-West 70 feet and North-South 40 feet in all 2800 Sq. feet out of 0.10.24 guntas in Sy.No.24/25 of Mallathalli village in favour of defendant No.3 by Regd. Sale Deed dated 17.11.2004 for valuable sale consideration of Rs.2,80,000/-. The certified copy of this Regd. Sale Deed dated 17.11.2004 is also produced on record as per Ex.P.13.
15. Once, it is arrived to a conclusion that, the plaint schedule properties in general and particularly the suit item Nos.1 & 2 properties are self acquired or separate or absolute / 35 / O.S.No.8619/2013 properties of defendant No.1 and they are not caparcenery or ancestral properties so as to attract the provisions of Sec.6 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, then it automatically follows that the sale of suit item No.1(a) property in favour of defendant No.2 as per Regd. Sale Deed dated 03.09.2005 (Ex.P.12) and sale of suit item No.2(a) property in favour of defendant No.3 as per Regd. Sale Deed dated 17.11.2004 (Ex.P.13) by defendant No.1 who was absolute owner of the said properties for valuable sale consideration is valid under law. The said two sale transactions as per Exs.P.12 & P.13 are valid irrespective of the fact whether or not the said sale of properties was for legal or family necessities of defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 being the absolute owner of the said properties has every prerogative right to sell away the said properties as per his whims and fancies, even for leading his lavish life. Even otherwise, as can be seen from the recitals of sale deeds marked at Exs.P.12 & P.13, the defendant No.1 had sold the said suit item Nos.1(a) & 2(a) properties for the purpose of discharging his debts and for his family necessities / 36 / O.S.No.8619/2013 and to acquire an alternative property at his convenient place. Therefore the contention of the plaintiffs that, the aforesaid two sale transactions in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3 by defendant No.1 were to defraud the plaintiffs cannot be accepted. Thus the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove that the sale of the suit item No.1(a) in favour of defendant No.2 and suit item No.2(a) in favour of defendant No.3 by defendant No.1 as per sale deeds marked at Exs.P.12 & P.13 were not for legal necessities or family necessities and as such they are not binding on them.
16. It is a matter of record that, the defendant No.2 had sold a portion of suit item No.1(a) i.e., site measuring East- West 20 feet and North-South 33 feet in all 660 Sq. feet in favour of defendant No.4 by Regd. Sale Deed dated 09.11.2012 for valuable sale consideration of Rs.8,05,000/-. The certified copy of this Regd. Sale Deed dated 09.11.2012 is produced on record as per Exs.P.14. It appears that, the name of defendant No.4 has been also accepted in the khata by BBMP based on the / 37 / O.S.No.8619/2013 aforesaid Sale Deed dated 09.11.2012 and as such the defendant No.4 is regularly paying its property tax which is evident from various tax paid receipts for the year 2008-09 to 2017-18 marked at Exs.D.2 to D.8 respectively.
It is also a matter of record that, the defendant No2. had sold another portion of suit item No.1(a) i.e., Site measuring East-West 23 feet and North-South 35 feet in all 805 Sq. feet in favour of defendant No. 5 by Regd. Sale Deed dated 09.10.2013 for valuable sale consideration of Rs.9,90,000/-. The certified copy of this Regd. Sale Deed dated 09.10.2013 is also produced on record as per Ex.P.15.
It is also a matter of record that, the defendant No.2 had gifted another portion of suit item No.1(a) i.e., Site measuring East-West 40 feet and North-South 25 feet in all 1000 Sq. feet in favour his wife who is defendant No.6 herein by executing Regd. Gift Deed dated 05.07.2014. The certified copy of this Regd. Gift Deed dated 05.07.2014 is also produced on record as per Ex.P.16 & Ex.D.10.
/ 38 / O.S.No.8619/2013 As the sale of suit item No.1(a) by Regd. Sale Deed dated 03.09.2005 (Ex.P.12) by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is held as a valid sale transaction, then it follows that the defendant No.2 had acquired good title over the said suit item No.1(a) property by virtue of the said Regd. Sale deed dated 03.09.2005. Once the defendant No.2 is held to have acquired valid title over the suit item No.1(a), the sale deed dated 09.11.2012 (Ex.P.14) executed in favour of defendant No.4 in respect of site No.2 formed in suit item No.1(a) and sale deed dated 09.10.2013 executed in favour of defendant No.5 in respect of site No.1 formed in suit item No.1(a) by defendant No.2 and also the gift of site No.5 formed in suit item No.1(a) by defendant No.2 in favour of his wife who is defendant No.6 by executing Regd. Gift Deed dated 05.07.2014 as per Ex.P.16 are all valid Sale deeds / Gift deed. Thus, the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove that the aforesaid Sale deeds in favour of defendant Nos.4 & 5 and Gift deed in favour of defendant No.6 by defendant No.2 in respect of the sites formed in suit item No.1(a) are not binding on them.
/ 39 / O.S.No.8619/2013
17. It is to note that, DW.3 who is defendant No.1 herein in the course of his cross-examination in page No.9 has categorically stated thus;
' ..... 2 ನ ಪತ ತವದಗ 5 ಗಅಟ ಜಗ 2005 ರಲಲ ಮರಟ ಮಡವಗ 1 ನ ವದಗ 15 1/2 ವಯಯ ಸಸ ತತ .
ಸದರ ಜಮನನ ಮರಟ ಮಡದ ವಷಯ
ವದಯರಗ ಗತತ ತತ ಅಅತ ಅಅದರ ಅವರ
ಸಮಕಮವ ಖರನದ ಮತಕತ ಮಡರತತ ನನ. ...'
Thus, the plaintiffs had the knowledge of sale transactions in respect of suit item No.1(a) and 2(a) when the same were negotiated in the year 2004 and 2005. However, the said plaintiffs in paragraph No.14 of their plaint have falsely taken up contentions that they came to the knowledge of said sale transaction in the month of November 2012. How they came to the knowledge of the said sale transactions ?, has been not pleaded in the plaint. Thus, it is elicited from the mouth of DW.1 himself that the plaintiffs were aware of the said sale transactions at the time when the sale negotiations were taking place in the year 2005. The plaintiffs have filed this suit challenging the said two sale deeds as per Exs.P.12 & P.13 / 40 / O.S.No.8619/2013 which had taken place in the year 2004-05 in the years 2013. It therefore clear that, the plaintiffs' challenge to the said two sale deeds as per Exs.P.12 & P.13 is clearly barred by Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as a right to sue first accrued in favour of the plaintiff to challenge the said sale deeds in the year 2004 & 2005 itself. However, the plaintiffs have alleged that they were minors at the time of execution of the said sale deeds as per Exs.P.12 & P.13 during the year 2004-05. It is to note that, the plaintiff No.1 has studied up to II PUC which has come in her cross-examination. However, the plaintiffs have not produced their Birth Certificates or School testimonials to show their date of birth. Plaintiff No.1 (PW.1) has categorically admitted that she had attained the age of 18 years in the year 2008. Assuming that Article 60 of Limitation Act, 1963 is attracted, the suit seeking declaratory reliefs has to be filed within 3 years from the date of attaining majority, which fact the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove since no any documents have been produced by them to prove that the suit has been brought within 3 years from the date of attaining / 41 / O.S.No.8619/2013 their age of majority. Withholding age proof documents by the plaintiffs is entitled to this court to draw an adverse inference under illustration (g) of Sec.114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The plaintiffs have placed their reliance upon a decision of Hon'ble Apex court reported in 2022 SAR (Civ) 599 to contend that a suit for declaration in respect of alienation by Karta of the joint family has to be filed within 12 years from the date when the alienee takes possession of the property, as per Article 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and as such the present suit is perfectly maintainable. It is to note that, the Article 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is attracted for setting aside of father's alienation of ancestral property by a Hindu. In the present case in hand, the schedule properties are held to be self acquired or separate property of defendant No.1. The schedule properties are not the ancestral properties of plaintiffs so as to attract the 109 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, the aforesaid citation relied upon by the plaintiffs cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case in hand. Thus, a conclusion can be made that / 42 / O.S.No.8619/2013 the present suit of the plaintiffs seeking declaration reliefs with respect to sale deeds as per Exs.P.12 & P.13 which had taken place in the year 2004 and 2005 are hopelessly barred by Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
18. It is to note that, the total extent of the suit item Nos.1 & 2 land in Sy.No.24/25 comes to be 19 guntas in extent. Out of the said extent of land, 5 guntas was sold to defendant No.2 by the defendant No.1 as per Ex.P.12 Sale deed. DW.3 who is defendant No.1 in the course of his cross-examination has categorically stated that, he had formed residential sites in the remaining 14 guntas of land in Sy.No.24/25 and sold them to the intending purchasers. The plaintiffs have not arrayed the said purchasers as party defendants in this suit and sought the reliefs for setting aside their registered sale deeds.
The said DW.3 in the course of his further cross- examination has also admitted that he had several other lands and in the said lands, he formed layout of residential sites and sold the said sites to the intending purchasers. However, the / 43 / O.S.No.8619/2013 plaintiffs have not brought the said several other lands of defendant No.1 in which he formed residential sites in the hotch pot for partition nor made the said purchasers as party defendants to this suit nor sought the declaratory reliefs for setting aside their said sale deeds.
The said DW.3 in the course of his further cross- examination has categorically admitted that, he had constructed a commercial complex in the name of Muni Chinnappa Complex and the present market value of the said complex is around two and half crores of rupees. PW.1 who is plaintiff No.1 herein has also admitted in her cross- examination that, her father had constructed a commercial complex in the name of her grand father Sri.Muni Chinnappa near Nagarabhavi Ring Road. However, the said PW.1 has pleaded ignorance of the fact that the market value of the said commercial complex is around twenty crores but she admitted that her father had invested 1.5 to 2 crores of rupees for the construction of the said commercial complex and the plaintiffs / 44 / O.S.No.8619/2013 have not sought partition in the said commercial complex in the present suit. Even DW.3 has also admitted that plaintiffs have not included the said commercial complex in the hotch pot for partition in the present suit. It therefore clear that, this suit without impleading the other properties of defendant No.1 in the hotch pot for partition becomes a suit for partial partition and not maintainable under law. I may support my this view from an unreported decision of our own Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka passed in RFA No.345/2019 in the case of Sri.C.R.Ravishankar and another Vs. Smt. Vijayamma and others decided on 26.10.2023. Thus, the present suit without including all the family properties of plaintiffs for partial partition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. This suit is also bad for non-joinder of purchasers of sites in the remaining 14 guntas of land in suit item Nos.1 & 2 properties who are necessary parties to this suit and in their absence effective decree cannot be passed at all. With these observations, I shall conclude my discussions with the following conclusions :
/ 45 / O.S.No.8619/2013
a) The plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove that, they and defendant No.1 are Hindu coparceners and plaint schedule properties are their joint coparcenery properties and as such they have got undivided 1/3rd share in the said coparcenery properties. Accordingly, the Issue Nos.1 & 2 framed herein above are answered in the negative against the plaintiffs.
b) The plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove that the Regd. Sale Deed dated 03.09.2005 executed in favour of defendant No.2 in respect of suit item No.1(a) property and Regd. Sale Deed dated 17.11.2004 executed in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of suit item No.2(a) property by defendant No.1 are not binding on them. Accordingly, the Issue No.3 framed herein above is answered in the negative against the plaintiffs.
c) The plaintiffs have also miserably failed to prove that the Regd. Sale Deed dated 09.11.2012 in favour of defendant No.4 and Regd. Sale Deed dated 09.10.2013 in favour of defendant No.5 and Regd. Gift Deed dated 05.07.2014 in favour of defendant No.6, all executed by defendant No.2 in respect of sites formed in suit item No.1(a) / 46 / O.S.No.8619/2013 property are not binding on them. Accordingly, the Addl. Issue Nos.1 & 2 framed on 28.02.2020 are answered in the negative against the plaintiffs.
d) As the sale of suit item No.1(a) in favour of defendant No.2 by Regd. Sale Deed dated 03.09.2005 and the sale of suit item No.2(a) in favour of defendant No.3 by Regd. Sale Deed dated 17.11.2004 both executed by defendant No.1 are valid sale deeds, it automatically follows that the defendant Nos.2 & 3 are boanfide purchasers of the said properties for valuable consideration. Accordingly, the Issue Nos.4 and Addl. Issue No.2 framed on 23.10.2018 are answered in the affirmative in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3.
(e) As it is held that, the plaint schedule properties cannot be held to be either joint family properties or ancestral properties or coparcenery properties for application of Sec.6 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, it follows that the suit of the plaintiffs seeking partition in the self acquired properties of defendant No.1 who is still alive is not maintainable. Accordingly, the Addl. Issue No.1 framed on 23.10.2018 is answered in the affirmative in favour of defendant Nos.4 to 6.
/ 47 / O.S.No.8619/2013
(f) The present suit of the plaintiffs seeking declaratory reliefs with respect to the sale deeds dated 03.09.2005 and 17.11.2004 is hopelessly barred under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Accordingly, the Addl. Issue No.3 framed on 23.10.2018 is answered in the affirmative in favour of defendant Nos.4 to 6.
(g) In view of my findings given on material Issue Nos.1 to 4 and Addl. Issues framed on 23.10.2018 and 28.02.2020, it automatically follows that the plaintiffs are entitled to none of the reliefs sought for in this suit. Accordingly, the Issue No.5 framed herein above is answered in the negative against the plaintiffs.
19. ISSUE NO.6 In view of my findings given on Issue Nos.1 to 5, Addl. Issues framed on 23.10.2018 and 28.02.2020 and for the reasons discussed herein above paragraphs, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed with costs.
/ 48 / O.S.No.8619/2013 Draw up decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her directly on computer, script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, this the 25th day of April, 2024.) (YASHAWANT R TAWARE) XXXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiffs:
P.W.1 Smt.Vishalakshi R.
2. List of documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiffs:
Exs.P.1 to RTC extracts P.7 Exs.P.8 & Certified copy of the Mutation Register extracts P.9 Ex.P.10 Certified copy of Hissa Mojani Ex.P.11 RTC extract Ex.P.12 Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 03.09.2005 Ex.P.13 Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 17.11.2004 / 49 / O.S.No.8619/2013 Ex.P.14 Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 09.11.2012 Ex.P.15 Certified copy of Sale deed dated 09.10.2013 Ex.P.16 Certified copy of Sale deed dated 05.07.2014
3. List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendants:
D.W.1 Sri.M.S.Arunachala
D.W.2 Sri.P.Narasimha Murthy
D.W.3 Sri.Ramaiah
4. List of documents exhibited on behalf of defendants:
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of the Will deed dated 29.08.1927 Ex.D.1(a) Certified copy of typed copy of Will Deed dated 29.08.1927 Exs.D.2 to Tax paid receipts D.8 Ex.D.9 Inaugural invitation card Ex.D.10 Certified copy of Gift deed dated 05.07.2014 Ex.D.11 Certified copy of Memorandum relating to Deposit of title deeds Ex.D.12 Statement of account / 50 / O.S.No.8619/2013 Ex.D.13 BESCOM letter along with electricity supply records Ex.D.14 4 electricity bills paid receipts (YASHAWANT R. TAWARE), XXXIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
Digitally signed by YASHWANT
YASHWANT RAMAKRISHNA
RAMAKRISHNA TAWARE
TAWARE Date:
2024.04.29
12:38:22 +0530
/ 51 / O.S.No.8619/2013
Judgment pronounced in the open Court (Vide separate Judgment) :
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw up decree accordingly.
(YASHAWANT R. TAWARE), 39th ACC&S Judge, Bangalore.