Bangalore District Court
Vikram Mahesh Paul vs Renuka Paul on 5 January, 2026
1
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
KABC0A0022852020
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU.
(CCH-75)
Dated this 5th Day of January 2026
PRESENT:
Sri.PRAKASH CHANNAPPA KURABETT, B.Sc., LL.B.,(Spl.),
C/C IV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
(CCH-21)
ORIGINAL SUIT No.25991/2020
C/w.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.25523/2023
ORIGINAL SUIT No.25991/2020
PLAINTIFF: Sri.VIKRAM MAHESH PAUL,
S/o.Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul,
aged about 41 yrs,
R/at.19/7, Davis Road,
Cooke Town, Bengaluru-84.
REP BY: Sri.JANEKERE.C.KRISHNA, Advocate.
V/S
DEFENDANTS: 1 Smt.RENUKA PAUL,
2
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
W/o.Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul,
aged about 60 yrs,
R/at.Old No.14, New No.26,
6th Cross, Hutchins Road,
St.Thomas Town, Bengaluru-84.
2 Sri.TARUN CHRISTOPHER PAUL,
S/o.Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul,
aged about 33 yrs,
R/at.Old No.14, New No.26,
6th Cross, Hutchins Road,
St.Thomas Town, Bengaluru-84.
3 Sri.DIVYAN SUSHIL PAUL,
S/o.Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul,
aged about 27 yrs,
R/at.Old No.14, New No.26,
6th Cross, Hutchins Road,
St.Thomas Town, Bengaluru-84.
REP BY: Sri.S.H.PRASHANTH, Advocate.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.25523/2023
PLAINTIFF: Sri.DIVYAN SUSHIL PAUL,
S/o.Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul,
aged about 32 yrs,
R/at.Old No.14, New No.26,
6th Cross, Hutchins Road,
St.Thomas Town, Bengaluru-84.
REP BY: Sri.JAYAKUMAR.N.D., Advocate.
V/S
3
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
DEFENDANTS: 1 Smt.RENUKA PAUL,
W/o.Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul,
aged about 62 yrs,
R/at.Old No.14, New No.26,
6th Cross, Hutchins Road,
St.Thomas Town, Bengaluru-84.
2 Sri.VIKRAM MAHESH PAUL,
S/o.Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul,
aged about 42 yrs,
R/at.19/17, Davis Road,
Cooke Town, Bengaluru-84.
3 Sri.TARUN CHRISTOPHER PAUL,
S/o.Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul,
aged about 34 yrs,
Permanent Resident of Old No.14, New No.26,
6th Cross, Hutchins Road,
St.Thomas Town, Bengaluru-84.
Now R/at.No.12,
Woodford Gardens,
Armagh, BT 60 2AZ,
Northern Ireland, UK.
REP BY: Smt.VINUTHA NAIDU, Advocate for defts.No.1 & 3.
REP BY: Sri.JANEKERE.C.KRISHNA, Advocate for deft.No.2.
02.09.2020
(O.S. No.25991/2020)
Date of Institution of the suit
02.11.2022
(O.S. No.25523/2023)
Nature of the Suit (Suit on pro-note, suit PARTITION & SEPARATE POSSESSION &
for declaration and possession, suit for DECLARATION
4
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
(O.S. No.25991/2020)
injunction, etc.)
PROBATE
(O.S. No.25523/2023)
Date of the commencement of recording
of the Evidence
26.07.2022
(O.S. No.25991/2020 & O.S.
No.25523/2023)
Date of pronouncement of Judgment
(O.S. No.25991/2020 & O.S. 05.01.2026
No.25523/2023)
O.S. No.25991/2020 Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 05 04 03
O.S. No.25523/2023 Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 03 02 03
COMMON JUDGMENT
O.S. No.25991/2020 - This is a Main and
Comprehensive Suit filed by Sri.Vikram Mahesh Paul
(plaintiff) against Smt.Reuka Paul & others (defendants)
seeking partition and separate possession & multiple reliefs.
5
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
2. O.S. No.25523/2023 - filed by Sri.Divyan Sushil
Paul against Smt.Reuka Paul & others seeking Probate of the
Will dated 23.04.2012.
3. The records would show that since O.S.
No.25991/2020 is a comprehensive suit, the another suit
filed by the defendant is clubbed.
4. For avoiding confusion and for clarity parties to the
suits are referred to as their ranking in the main suit; i.e.,
Sri.Vikram Mahesh Paul is hereinafter referred to as
PLAINTIFF.
5. Smt.Reuka Paul & others are hereinafter referred to
as DEFENDANTS.
O.S. No.25991/2020
6. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking
partition and separate possession of his 1/4th share in the
suit schedule properties and for mesne profits as well as for
6
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
the relief of declaration to declare that the Will dated
23.4.2012 is not binding on plaintiff with cost.
7. In brief the plaintiff has averred in the plaint that
his father Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul had married to 1 st
defendant, out of their wedlock they have 3 sons; i.e.,
plaintiff, defendants No.2 and 3. They are Christen by
religion. His father died intestate, hence all his children
along with his wife are enttitled 1/4th share in the movable
and immovable property of the deceased Late.Dr.Prithviraj
Daulat Paul. The plaintiffs grandfather Late.Sri.A.D.Paul
and grandmother Late.Joy.F.Paul have acquired the
properties during his lifetime; i.e., suit schedule 'A' property
has purchased under registered sale deed dated 25.5.1987
and it is their self-acquired property and after the demise of
Late.Smt.Joy.F.Paul who died intestate the property was
inherited by the father of the plaintiff and it is not a self
acquired property of plaintiff father. Schedule 'B' property
was purchased under registered sale deed dated
7
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
27.11.1972 from Smt.Sharadha Devi @ Dhanalakshmi and
others and it is not the self acquired property of plaintiff's
father.
8. Further plaintiff has averred that schedule 'C'
property had purchased by grandparents of the plaintiff in
the name of the mother and father of plaintiff at his 30 th age
and mother ages at 18 years. Even the 1 st defendant is not
the co-owner of this property, the same is purchased by the
plaintiff's grandfather in the name of his son and daughter
in law at her age 18 and who is a witness to the said
document who had paid the entire sale consideration of the
said property. The khata certificate of the property has been
changed to accommodate only the name of plaintiff father
and does not mention the name of the 1 st defendant.
Schedule 'D' property had purchased under a sale deed
dated 18.4.1994 in joint name of the plaintiff and
defendants which was purchased by his parents by using
the family nucleus and also from the rental income of the
8
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
properties owned by the plaintiff's grandparents. Schedule
'E' property had purchased under sale deed dated
21.11.1994 in joint name of the plaintiff and the defendants
which was purchased by his parents by using the family
nucleus and also from the rental income of the properties
owned by the plaintiff's grandparents and it is in joint name
of plaintiff and defendants.
9. Further plaintiff has averred that schedule 'F'
property is purchased under the sale deed dated 9.6.1997 in
joint name of the plaintiff and defendants which was
purchased by his parents by using the family nucleus. The
grandparents of the plaintiff's were the Dr by profession
having their own hospitals and handsome income out of the
said institutions, and kartha of the family was the plaintiff's
grandfather. The plaintiff father is inherited to the estate of
the deceased parents on their death, the only source was
from the rental income from the properties left behind by the
plaintiff grand parents, out of the said source the plaintiff
9
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
father had purchased the properties all the correspondence
original records are with the defendants. It is his right on the
property left behind by his father and grand parents, the
said right cannot taken away in a fraudulent unregistered
document, which was created between the defendants in
order to knock of the plaintiff's valuable share, no share is
allotted to the plaintiff in the alleged Will, even they ignored
the plaintiff who born in the family as first son. The
schedule properties were purchased by the plaintiff father
and the same cannot be said that it is his self earned
property.
10. Further plaintiff has averred that the defendants
are avoiding the plaintiff and are trying to take all the
properties and to keep the plaintiff away from the parental
house and income. Plaintiff is residing in a rented premises,
there is no good relation between them. The plaintiff father
and grand parents have schedule 'G' property, which was
purchased by them. The defendants have not furnished the
10
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
details of all the bank accounts, shares and movable
valuables which were owned and possessed by
grandparents of the plaintiff and also his father. The
defendants have forged and fabricated the unregistered Will
and it is not a genuine testament of the testator. The plaintiff
father Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul died on 7.9.2019
intestate without leaving behind any Will and Testament,
which is admitted by the defendants in their injunction suit
in O.S. No.26245/2019. The alleged Will is a fraudulent
document that has been admittedly created by the
defendants in order to illegally obtain records on the property
and to avoid the plaintiff share in the said properties. The
Will by not allotting to other co-owner, co-sharer of the
property is nullity in law and is not binds the plaintiff rights
in seeking his legitimate share.
11. Further plaintiff has averred that the plaintiff has
cordial relation with the defendants, among the said six
properties schedule 'A' to 'F', the properties mentioned as
11
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
schedule 'D', 'E' & 'F' are jointly owned by the plaintiff and
defendants and the plaintiff has every legal right to seek
partition and declaration of the schedule 'D', 'E' & 'F'
properties which are jointly owned by plaintiff and
defendants. The other properties are came from the plaintiffs
grandparents, again the plaintiff has the right on the said
property. The schedule properties are in joint possession of
the plaintiff and the defendants as on the death of their
father and grandparents in the family. Merely because of
execution of the fraudulent document called Will cannot be
taken away the joint ownership or joint possession of the
plaintiff as he is the first son in the family. The defendants
have suppressed the first suit in the P & SC case which they
have filed for injunction against the co-owner. The recital
indicates the creation of records manipulate the records,
fraudulently obtaining of katha records, misuse of the same
to create third party rights over the schedule property or to
exchange and transfer of the property within the family.
12
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
12. Further plaintiff has averred that there is
suppression of material fact by the plaintiff. The revenue
records in the name of the family members and those
revenue records are not the title deeds to decide the shares
of the male member in the family on the death of his
grandparents and father and on the basis of the revenue
records the defendants cannot sell the same due to the same
apprehension the plaintiff has issued the public notice dated
16.8.2020 in Prajawani and Deccan Herald daily
newspaper. As per the alleged will produced in P & SC
No.25048/2019 and filed before the court by giving false
and fabricated address of the plaintiff, the defendants are
tried to obtain the exparte order or judgment on all the
properties but with god grace the plaintiff came to know the
said case and he is contesting the same. The flow of title of
the defendants to the suit property is not correct and is
seriously disputed. The plaintiff has issued the legal notice's
dated 22.6.2020 to the tenants and copies to the defendants
13
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
demanding the share in the rental income and demanding
the 1/4th share on the properties, the notice refused by the
defendants.
13. Further plaintiff has averred that the plaintiff is
entitled the rental income on the property at the ratio of
1/4th share. The plaintiff have requested the defendants to
effect the partition and put the plaintiff in separate
possession of the schedule property not only by oral but also
in a legal notice, but the defendants have not bothered to
allot to him any share. The defendants refused the same
and furnishing the alleged Will and saying the plaintiff do
not have share in the property. The plaintiff and the
defendants are having joint possession and right in the
property but there is no partition is effected between the
parties till today. The defendants are trying to sell the
schedule property before to the equal partition between the
plaintiff. Accordingly, he has filed the suit seeking partition
14
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
& separate possession as well as multiple reliefs as prayed
in the plaint.
14. Pursuance to issuance of suit summons, the
defendants No.1 to 3 have appeared and contested the suit
by filing written statement.
15. In brief, the defendants have taken contention in
the written statement that the suit of the plaintiff is not
maintainable and further they have denied the entire
allegations and the averments made by the plaintiff in the
plaint against the defendants and by denying the entire
case, they have specifically contended that the
Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul executed a Will dated
23.4.2012. That after the death of Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat
Paul the 'Will' comes into effect under which the plaintiff and
defendants No.1 to 3 are to divide the property in accordance
to law as desired by the deceased Testator. The plaintiff is
15
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
entitled to the share as per the 'Will and hence, the plaintiff
cannot question the validity of the 'Will'.
16. Further the defendants have taken contention that
Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul did not die intestate but
executed his last 'Will' which is under adjudication in P & SC
No.25048/2019. The plaintiff is called upon to produce legal
survivorship certificate. Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul has all
the rights under the law to execute a 'Will' to provide legal
expression of his wishes and intentions with regard to his
properties, which he desires to be carried out into effect after
his death by Testamentary Succession. Late.Dr.Prithviraj
Daulat Paul though he was working and earning to add to
his savings, since his younger days. It was his savings and
gifts from his loving parents, that enabled him to purchase
the said property. It is unfortunate to undermine the hard
work of a young Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul, during his earlier
days and discredit his achievement of purchasing his first
property, to facilitate his family's shelter in the said property.
16
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
17. Further the defendants have taken contention that
it is a self acquired property of Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul
with his own funds, much before the birth of the plaintiff.
Plaintiff might be too young to understand the obligations of
a family and now he is making frivolous allegations against
his own parents and yet demanding partition in the
properties and movables. The plaintiff has no respect for his
elder parents. The plaintiff has no knowledge regarding the
income source of his own parents. The 1st defendant has
great love and affection towards the plaintiff has filed the
said P & SC case, along with the other defendants, so as to
enable the legal heirs of her husband, to get their legitimate
shares as per the 'Will'. The plaintiff has no right, title or
interest over any of the schedule properties as already there
is a 'Will', which has come into existnece duly executed by
Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul. The 1st defendant was also an
earning member of the family and is also the Principal of a
reputed college.
17
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
18. Further the defendants have taken contention that
all the movable properties, belong to the plaintiff's father.
Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul has distributed the movables
amongst the defendants No.1 to 3 along with the entire
properties which belongs to Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul and has
nothing to do with the grandparents. The said movables
mentioned and furnished in P & SC No.25048/2019 are in
the custody of the defendants and the plaintiff has no rights
over the movables and cannot claim rights over the
movables. The 'Will' executed by Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat
Paul is a genuine 'Will'. The plaintiff is not entitled for any
1/4th share. There is no cordial relationship between the
defendants and plaintiff. There is no joint ownership of any
of the properties and also there is no joint possession of the
plaintiff and defendants. After the death of Late.Dr.Prithviraj
Daulat Paul, the said 'Will' has come into existence and as
per the 'Will' the properties are divided. The plaintiff cannot
question the authority or execution of his father's 'Will'.
18
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
There is no cause of action to file this suit against the
defendants. The plaintiff has not paid proper court fees on
the plaint. This suit is barred by limitation. Accordingly, the
defendants have payed for dismissal of the suit.
O.S. No.25523/2023
19. This is a suit filed by the defendant No.3 in
original O.S. No.25991/2020 against the plaintiff and
defendants No.1 & 2 in original O.S. No.25991/2020 seeking
grant of Probate in respect of Will dt: 23.04.2012 executed
by Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul in respect of petition
schedule properties in favour of plaintiff stating that
Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul had executed his Last Will and
Testament on 23.4.2012, he died testate on 7.9.2019 leaving
behind the petitioner as his legal heir to succeed to his
estate. The petitioner is one of his sons as the Executor of
the Will under consideration. The testator was married to
Smt.Renuka Paul/respondent No.1 on 27.6.1977. Out of the
19
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
said marriage they had three sons; i.e., plaintiff, defendants
No.2 and 3. The testator was the only child to his parents
Sri.A.D.Paul and Smt.Joy.F.Paul. The Will was duly
executed by the testator in presence of two attesting
witnesses.
20. Further he has stated that the testator absolutely
owned certain movale and immovable properties; i.e.,
schedule properties. The testator under the Will has
bequeathed the schedule properties in favour of plaintiff and
defendants. The testator at the time of the execution of the
Will was in sound and disposing state of mind. Immediately
after the demise of the testator defendant No.2 created
issues and wanted to alienate some of the property of the
family. The plaintiff and defendants No.1 & 3 filed in suit in
O.S. No.26245/2019 seeking a permanent injunction
restraining defendant No.2 from alienating the said property.
The testator left behind company share/securities in this
regard the plaintiff and defendants No.1 & 3 filed a petition
20
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
seeking a Succession Certificate in P & SC No.25048/2019.
During the pendency of these proceedings, defendant No.2
has filed a suit in O.S. No.25991/2020 seeking partition of
certain properties to which he has no claim. Hence, this suit.
21. The defendants 1 & 3 and defendant No.2 have
appeared in the said suit and have filed separate written
statement stating that the suit is not maintainable and they
have denied the entire allegations and the averments made
therein and they have taken contention that the respondent
No.1 was married to Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul on
27.06.1977. Out of the said marriage they have three sons
namely plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3. Dr.Prithviraj
Daulat Paul died on 7.9.2019, who has left behind a Will
dated 23.4.2012 and instructed the manner in which his
properties are to be bequeathed amongst his legal heirs and
he has appointed his last son, the plaintiff as the executor of
the Will. The testator was acquired the schedule properties
and has bequeathed in favour of plaintiff and defendants.
21
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
22. Further the defendants No.1 & 3 have taken
contention that The testator during his lifetime had acquired
two other properties, but had it registered it in the name of
his family members. After the demise of the Testator,
defendant No.2 wanted to alienate the family properties over
which he had no right or no independent right or possession,
hence the plaintiff and defendants No.1 & 3 filed a suit in
O.S. No.26245/2019 seeking a permanent injunction. The
testator left behind company share/securities in this regard
the plaintiff and defendants No.1 & 3 filed a petition seeking
a Succession Certificate in P & SC No.25048/2019. During
the pendency of these proceedings defendant No.2 has filed
a suit in O.S. No.25991/2020 seeking partition of certain
properties to which he has no claim. The testator has
disinherited defendant No.2. The Will executed by
Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul is his last Will and Testament.
The testator had executed the said Will out of his own desire
22
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
and volition and when he was in a sound and disposing
state of mind and have prayed for dismissal of the suit.
23. The defendant No.2 has taken contention that this
respondent is the eldest son of Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul
and Smt.Renuka Paul/defendant No.1. This defendant has
two siblings, namely defendant No.3 and plaintiff. The
plaintiff and the defendants are Christians by religion. The
property of the deceased should be divided equally amongst
the legal representatives of the deceased. Therefore, th wife
and children of the deceased are entitled to equal shares in
the properties left behind by the deceased. Late.Dr.Prithviraj
Daulat Paul died intestate on 7.9.2019. Therefore this
defendant is entitled for 1/4th share in his properties along
with his mother and brothers. Schedule 'A' property was
purchased by his grandparents under registered sale deed
dated 25.5.1987. It is the self acquired property of his
grandmother, who died intestate. Schedule 'B' property was
purchased by his grandparents under sale deed dated
23
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
10.4.1978. Schedule 'C' property was purchased by his
grandparents in the name of his father, Dr.Prithviraj Daulat
Paul, when he was 25 years old and still in college. It is not
a self-acquired property of Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul.
Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul was in the possession of gold
jewellery and other precious movable articles which were
purchased by his grandparents.
24. Further the defendant No.2 has taken contention
that subsequent to the death of his grandparents, the income
of his grandfather was being transferred to his father and
the said income is the family nucleus. Dr.Prithviraj Daulat
Paul purchased various properties using the family nucleus
during the lifetime of his parents and there was no other
source of income for Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul to buy the
property in his name. The plaintiff along with defendants
No.1 and 3 have forged and fabricated an unregistered Will
dated 23.4.2012 and it is not a genuine testament of the
testator as the same was prepared in order to suit their ill
24
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
design and malafide intentions. He is also a major
beneficiary in the alleged Will. The defendant No.1 has filed
O.S. No.26245/2019 before the court to restrain this
defendant from alienating schedule 'A' to 'C' and other
properties and the same is pending. The plaintiff along has
no right over schedule 'A' property and this defendant being
one of the legal heirs, has equal right along with petitioner,
defendants No.1 and 3 for 1/4th share in all the properties,
the property must be divided equally among all the legal
heirs of the testator Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul and has prayed
for dismissal of the suit.
O.S. No.25991/2020 & O.S. No.25523/2023
25. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, my
Predecessor in office has framed the following:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves
that, by using the funds of his
grandfather Late.A.D.Paul, his
(plaintiff) father
25
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul
purchased the suit 'B' schedule
property?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves
that, his grand parents
purchased suit 'C' schedule
property by investing their
funds in the name of their son
Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul
& daughter-in-law Mrs.Renuka
Paul, the 1st defendant?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves
that, by using the family
nucleus and the rental income
of properties owned by his
grand parents, the suit 'D', 'E'
& 'F' schedule properties were
purchased jointly in his name
& in the names of defendants?
4. Whether the plaintiff proves
that, the suit 'G' schedule
movables are the family
properties in possession of
defendants?
5. Whether the defendants prove
that, Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul
has divided the suit properties
among his legal heirs by
executing a Will dated
23.4.2012?
6. Whether the plaintiff proves
that, the Will dated
26
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
23.04.2012 is null & void and
not binding on him?
7. Whether the plaintiff is
entitled for the reliefs of
Declaration & Partition as
prayed for?
8. What order or decree?
26. Plaintiff in order to substantiate the case, he
himself has given evidence before the court as P.W.1 and got
marked Ex.P.1 to P.19 documents.
27. The defendants in order to rebut the evidence and
to substantiate their contention, 3rd defendant has given
evidence before the court as D.W.1 and 1 st defendant as
D.W.2 and other five witnesses as D.W.3 to D.W.7 and got
marked Ex.D.1 to D.27 documents.
28. Heard the arguments and perused the materials
placed on record. The learned counsel for the plaintiff filed
written arguments. The learned counsel for the defendants
filed written arguments.
27
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
29. The learned counsel for the defendants has filed
memo along with the following citations:-
1. (2025) 2 SCC 804 between Gopal Krishan and
others v/s Daulat Ram & others.
2. (1953) 1 SCC 295 between Ishwardeo Narain
Singh v/s Kamta Devi & others.
3. 2004 SCC Online Cal 131 between Debjani
Niyogi v/s Bani Niyogi & another.
4. Civil Appeal No.8827/2011 between
Hemkunwar Bai v/s Sumersingh & others.
30. My answer to the aforesaid issues are as under in
O.S. No.25991/2020 & O.S. No.25523/2023:-
Issue No.1: In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2: In the Affirmative,
Issue No.3: In the Affirmative,
Issue No.4: In the Affirmative,
Issue No.5: In the Negative,
Issue No.6: In the Affirmative,
Issue No.7: In the Affirmative,
28
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
Issue No.8: As per the final order,
for the following:-
REASONS
31. ISSUE Nos.1 TO 7 in O.S. No.25991/2020 &
O.S. No.25523/2023: All these issues are interrelated, they
have been taken up for consideration together.
32. In brief it is the case of the plaintiff that his father
Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul had married to 1st defendant,
out of their wedlock they have 3 sons; i.e., plaintiff,
defendants No.2 and 3. They are Christen by religion. His
father died intestate, hence all his children along with his
wife are enttitled 1/4th share in the movable and immovable
property of the deceased Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul. The
plaintiffs grandfather Late.Sri.A.D.Paul and grandmother
Late.Joy.F.Paul have acquired the properties during his
lifetime; i.e., suit schedule 'A' property has purchased under
registered sale deed dated 25.5.1987 and it is their self-
acquired property and after the demise of
Late.Smt.Joy.F.Paul who died intestate the property was
29
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
inherited by the father of the plaintiff and it is not a self
acquired property of plaintiff father. Schedule 'B' property
was purchased under registered sale deed dated
27.11.1972 from Smt.Sharadha Devi @ Dhanalakshmi and
others and it is not the self acquired property of plaintiff's
father.
33. Further it is the case of the plaintiff that schedule
'C' property had purchased by grandparents of the plaintiff
in the name of the mother and father of plaintiff at his 30 th
age and mother ages at 18 years. Even the 1 st defendant is
not the co-owner of this property, the same is purchased by
the plaintiff's grandfather in the name of his son and
daughter in law at her age 18 and who is a witness to the
said document who had paid the entire sale consideration of
the said property. The khata certificate of the property has
been changed to accommodate only the name of plaintiff
father and does not mention the name of the 1 st defendant.
Schedule 'D' property had purchased under a sale deed
30
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
dated 18.4.1994 in joint name of the plaintiff and
defendants which was purchased by his parents by using
the family nucleus and also from the rental income of the
properties owned by the plaintiff's grandparents. Schedule
'E' property had purchased under sale deed dated
21.11.1994 in joint name of the plaintiff and the defendants
which was purchased by his parents by using the family
nucleus and also from the rental income of the properties
owned by the plaintiff's grandparents and it is in joint name
of plaintiff and defendants.
34. Further it is the case of the plaintiff that schedule
'F' property is purchased under the sale deed dated
9.6.1997 in joint name of the plaintiff and defendants which
was purchased by his parents by using the family nucleus.
The grandparents of the plaintiff's were the Dr by profession
having their own hospitals and handsome income out of the
said institutions, and kartha of the family was the plaintiff's
grandfather. The plaintiff father is inherited to the estate of
31
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
the deceased parents on their death, the only source was
from the rental income from the properties left behind by the
plaintiff grand parents, out of the said source the plaintiff
father had purchased the properties all the correspondence
original records are with the defendants. It is his right on the
property left behind by his father and grand parents, the
said right cannot taken away in a fraudulent unregistered
document, which was created between the defendants in
order to knock of the plaintiff's valuable share, no share is
allotted to the plaintiff in the alleged Will, even they ignored
the plaintiff who born in the family as first son. The
schedule properties were purchased by the plaintiff father
and the same cannot be said that it is his self earned
property.
35. Further it is the case of the plaintiff that the
defendants are avoiding the plaintiff and are trying to take
all the properties and to keep the plaintiff away from the
parental house and income. Plaintiff is residing in a rented
32
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
premises, there is no good relation between them. The
plaintiff father and grand parents have schedule 'G'
property, which was purchased by them. The defendants
have not furnished the details of all the bank accounts,
shares and movable valuables which were owned and
possessed by grandparents of the plaintiff and also his
father. The defendants have forged and fabricated the
unregistered Will and it is not a genuine testament of the
testator. The plaintiff father Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul
died on 7.9.2019 intestate without leaving behind any Will
and Testament, which is admitted by the defendants in their
injunction suit in O.S. No.26245/2019. The alleged Will is a
fraudulent document that has been admittedly created by
the defendants in order to illegally obtain records on the
property and to avoid the plaintiff share in the said
properties. The Will by not allotting to other co-owner, co-
sharer of the property is nullity in law and is not binds the
plaintiff rights in seeking his legitimate share.
33
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
36. Further it is the case of the plaintiff that the
plaintiff has cordial relation with the defendants, among the
said six properties schedule 'A' to 'F', the properties
mentioned as schedule 'D', 'E' & 'F' are jointly owned by the
plaintiff and defendants and the plaintiff has every legal
right to seek partition and declaration of the schedule 'D', 'E'
& 'F' properties which are jointly owned by plaintiff and
defendants. The other properties are came from the plaintiffs
grandparents, again the plaintiff has the right on the said
property. The schedule properties are in joint possession of
the plaintiff and the defendants as on the death of their
father and grandparents in the family. Merely because of
execution of the fraudulent document called Will cannot be
taken away the joint ownership or joint possession of the
plaintiff as he is the first son in the family. The defendants
have suppressed the first suit in the P & SC case which they
have filed for injunction against the co-owner. The recital
indicates the creation of records manipulate the records,
34
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
fraudulently obtaining of katha records, misuse of the same
to create third party rights over the schedule property or to
exchange and transfer of the property within the family.
37. Further it is the case of the plaintiff that there is
suppression of material fact by the plaintiff. The revenue
records in the name of the family members and those
revenue records are not the title deeds to decide the shares
of the male member in the family on the death of his
grandparents and father and on the basis of the revenue
records the defendants cannot sell the same due to the same
apprehension the plaintiff has issued the public notice dated
16.8.2020 in Prajawani and Deccan Herald daily
newspaper. As per the alleged will produced in P & SC
No.25048/2019 and filed before the court by giving false
and fabricated address of the plaintiff, the defendants are
tried to obtain the exparte order or judgment on all the
properties but with god grace the plaintiff came to know the
said case and he is contesting the same. The flow of title of
35
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
the defendants to the suit property is not correct and is
seriously disputed. The plaintiff has issued the legal notice's
dated 22.6.2020 to the tenants and copies to the defendants
demanding the share in the rental income and demanding
the 1/4th share on the properties, the notice refused by the
defendants.
38. Further it is the case of the plaintiff that the
plaintiff is entitled the rental income on the property at the
ratio of 1/4th share. The plaintiff have requested the
defendants to effect the partition and put the plaintiff in
separate possession of the schedule property not only by oral
but also in a legal notice, but the defendants have not
bothered to allot to him any share. The defendants refused
the same and furnishing the alleged Will and saying the
plaintiff do not have share in the property. The plaintiff and
the defendants are having joint possession and right in the
property but there is no partition is effected between the
parties till today. The defendants are trying to sell the
36
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
schedule property before to the equal partition between the
plaintiff.
39. Wherein the defendants have filed the written
statement and contested the suit. They have denied the
allegation. The defendants have contended in the written
statement that Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul executed a Will
dated 23.4.2012. That after the death of Late.Dr.Prithviraj
Daulat Paul the 'Will' comes into effect under which the
plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 are to divide the property
in accordance to law as desired by the deceased Testator.
The plaintiff is entitled to the share as per the 'Will and
hence, the plaintiff cannot question the validity of the 'Will'.
40. Further the defendants have contended that
Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul did not die intestate but
executed his last 'Will' which is under adjudication in P & SC
No.25048/2019. The plaintiff is called upon to produce legal
survivorship certificate. Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul has all
37
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
the rights under the law to execute a 'Will' to provide legal
expression of his wishes and intentions with regard to his
properties, which he desires to be carried out into effect after
his death by Testamentary Succession. Late.Dr.Prithviraj
Daulat Paul though he was working and earning to add to
his savings, since his younger days. It was his savings and
gifts from his loving parents, that enabled him to purchase
the said property. It is unfortunate to undermine the hard
work of a young Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul, during his earlier
days and discredit his achievement of purchasing his first
property, to facilitate his family's shelter in the said property.
41. Further the defendants have contended that it is a
self acquired property of Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul with
his own funds, much before the birth of the plaintiff. Plaintiff
might be too young to understand the obligations of a family
and now he is making frivolous allegations against his own
parents and yet demanding partition in the properties and
movables. The plaintiff has no respect for his elder parents.
38
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
The plaintiff has no knowledge regarding the income source
of his own parents. The 1st defendant has great love and
affection towards the plaintiff has filed the said P & SC case,
along with the other defendants, so as to enable the legal
heirs of her husband, to get their legitimate shares as per the
'Will'. The plaintiff has no right, title or interest over any of
the schedule properties as already there is a 'Will', which
has come into existnece duly executed by Dr.Prithviraj Daulat
Paul. The 1st defendant was also an earning member of the
family and is also the Principal of a reputed college.
42. Further the defendants have contended that all
the movable properties, belong to the plaintiff's father.
Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul has distributed the movables
amongst the defendants No.1 to 3 along with the entire
properties which belongs to Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul and has
nothing to do with the grandparents. The said movables
mentioned and furnished in P & SC No.25048/2019 are in
the custody of the defendants and the plaintiff has no rights
39
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
over the movables and cannot claim rights over the
movables. The 'Will' executed by Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat
Paul is a genuine 'Will'. The plaintiff is not entitled for any
1/4th share. There is no cordial relationship between the
defendants and plaintiff. There is no joint ownership of any
of the properties and also there is no joint possession of the
plaintiff and defendants. After the death of Late.Dr.Prithviraj
Daulat Paul, the said 'Will' has come into existence and as
per the 'Will' the properties are divided. The plaintiff cannot
question the authority or execution of his father's 'Will'.
There is no cause of action to file this suit against the
defendants. The plaintiff has not paid proper court fees on
the plaint. This suit is barred by limitation.
43. In this regard plaintiff examined as P.W.1. In this
case in his examination in chief he reiterated the content of
the plaint averments and also produced Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19
documents. Ex.P.1 Genealogical tree of his family, Ex.P.2 C/
C of sale deed dated 25.5.1987, Ex.P.3 C/C of sale deed
40
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
dated 27.11.1972, Ex.P.4 C/C of sale deed dated 9.6.1997,
Ex.P.5 C/C of petition in P & SC No.25048/2019, Ex.P.6 C/C
of objections filed in P & SC No.25048/2019, Ex.P.7 C/C of
plaint in O.S. No.26245/2019, Ex.P.8 & 9 Public notice
regarding scheduled properties published in newspapers
namely Prajavani and Deccan Herald both dated
16.08.2020, Ex.P.8 (a) & 9 (a) Relevant portion, Ex.P.10 C/C
of plaint in O.S. No.26245/2019, Ex.P.11 to 16 Photographs,
Ex.P.17 Complaint and Ex.P.18 & 19 Affidavits.
44. On the other hand, in order to substantiate the
contention of the defendants one of the defendant; i.e.,
defendant No.3 has given evidence before the court as D.W.1
and 1st defendant as D.W.2 and other five witnesses as
D.W.3 to D.W.7 and also produced Ex.D.1 to D.27
documents. Ex.D.1 Text message communication in mobile,
Ex.D.2 Will deed dated 23.4.2012, Ex.D.3 Death certificate
of Prithviraj Daulat Paul, Ex.D.4 Sale deed dated 25.5.1987,
Ex.D.5 Sale deed dated 27.11.1972, Ex.D.6 Sale deed dated
41
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
10.4.1978, Ex.D.7 Sale deed dated 18.04.1994, Ex.D.8 Sale
deed dated 21.11.1994, Ex.D.9 Sale deed dated 9.6.1997,
Ex.D.10 to 12 Share Certificates (3 Nos.), Ex.D.13 OPD
record, Ex.D.14 Medical record of Vikram Paul (14 sheets),
Ex.D.15 to 20 Five photographs and its CD, Ex.P.21 Attested
copy of the relevant page No.22 of the Notary Register,
Ex.D.22 Report of the Truth Labs Forensic Services along
with document sent for examination (total 55 pages), Ex.D.23
Letter issued by the D.W.2 to the Truth Labs Forensic
Services, Ex.D.24 Letter dated 27.6.2025 by D.W.2 to the
Truth Labs Forensic Services, Ex.D.25 Letter dated
26.6.2025 issued by the D.W.2 to the advocate and Notary,
Sri.Kanchi Varadaraju, Ex.D.26 E-mail dated 10.6.2025 and
Ex.D.27 Certificate u/S 63 of BNSS Act.
45. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.1 he
has admitted that:
42
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
"ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆಯವರು ಆ ರೀತಿ ದಾವಾ ಎ ಶೆಡ್ಯೂಲ್ ಸ್ವತ್ತನ್ನು ಪಡೆದುಕೊಂಡ
ಕಾರಣದಿಂದ ಅವರು ಆ ಸ್ವತ್ತನ್ನು ತನ್ನ ಇಚ್ಚೆಯಂತೆ ಪರಭಾರೆ ಮಾಡುವ ಹಕ್ಕು
ಹೊಂದಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದು ಸೂಚಿಸಿದಕರೆ ಸರಿ.
ದಾವಾ ಬಿ ಶೆಡ್ಯೂಲ್ಸ್ವತ್ತನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಕೊಂಡುಕೊಂಡಾಗಿನಿಂದಲೂ
ಅವರೇ ಆ ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನ ಮಾಲೀಕರು ಎಂದು ಸೂಚಿಸಿದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಆ ಕಾರಣದಿಂದ ಆ
ಸ್ವತ್ತನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆಯವರು ಅವರ ಇಚ್ಚೆಯಂತೆ ಪರಭಾರೆ ಮಾಡಲು
ಹಕ್ಕುವುಳ್ಳವರಿಾಗಿದ್ದರು ಎಂದು ಸೂಚಿಸಿದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ದಾವಾ ಸಿ ಶೆಡ್ಯೂಲ್ ಪ್ರಾಪರ್ಟಿ ನನ್ನ ತಂದೆ ಹಾಗೂ ತಾಯಿಯ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ
ಜಂಟಿಯಾಗಿ ಖರೀದಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಸೂಚಿಸಿದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ದಾವಾ ಎಫ್ ಶೆಡ್ಯೂಲ್ ಸ್ವತ್ತನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಹಾಗೂ ನನ್ನ ಸಹೋದರರ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ
ಖರೀದಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದು ಸೂಚಿಸಿದರೆ ಸರಿ."
46. During the course of cross-examination of D.W.1
he has admitted that according to the document O.S.
No.26245/2019 is the first suit filed against the plaintiff and
in O.S. No.26245/2019 and in P & SC No.25048/2019 same
address is given to the plaintiff and there is no seal of
St.John's Hospital on Ex.D.14 and when the plaintiff tried to
enter the suit schedule 'C' property they did not let him enter
the property and in Ex.P.10, Para-8 they have pleaded that,
'after the death of his father themselves and the plaintiff
43
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
succeeded to the suit schedule properties'. Further he has
admitted that suit schedule 'D' and 'E' properties are
situated in Ketti Valley in between Ooty and Coonoor in
Tamil Nadu and as per Ex.D.10 to 11 the shares are
transferred from his grandmother to his father and his father
was a lifetime member of Gymkhana club
47. Further D.W.1 has admitted that:
"ಪ್ರಾಸಾ-1 ರವರ ಮುಖ್ಯ ವಿಚಾರಣೆ ಪ್ರಮಾಣಪತ್ರ ಖಂಡಿಕೆ-9 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಮೃತ್
ಯುಪತ್ರದ ಮೇಲೆ ಡಾಃ ಪೃಥ್ವಿರಾಜ್ದೌಲಸ್ಪಾಲ್ರವರು ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿದ ವಿಚಾರ
ದಿನಾಂಕಃ 23-4-2012 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದು ನಮೂದಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ದಿನಾಂಕ
29-10-2022 ರಂದು ಅಫಿಡೆವಿಟ್ ನ್ನು ಸತ್ಯರಾಜನ್ ಮತ್ತು ರಾಜು ಸೈಮನ್
ಇವರು ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅವರಿಬ್ಬರೂ ತಮ್ಮ ಪ್ರಮಾಣಪತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ
ದಿನಾಂಕ 23-4-2012 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಡಾಃ ಪ್ರಥ್ವಿರಾಜ್ ದೌಲತ್ಪಾಲ್ ಸಮಕ್ಷಮದಲ್ಲಿ
ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದು ನಮೂದಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ನಿಡಿ-2 ಮೃತ್ಯುಪತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ 24 ಮಾರ್ಚ್, 2012 ಎಂದು ನಮೂದಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ನಿಡಿ-2 ರ ಮೇಲೆ ನೋಟರಿಯವರು ದಿನಾಂಕ 23-4-2012 ರಂದು ತಮ್ಮ ಸೀಲು
ಮತ್ತು ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾರ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ."
48. During the course of cross-examination of D.W.2
she has admitted that during the lifetime of her father in law
44
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
and mother in law, she was residing separately and she and
her two younger sons have filed suit in O.S. No.26245/2019
for permanent injunction against her elder son Sri.Vikram
Paul in respect of schedule 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'F' properties in
O.S. No.25991/2020 and in O.S. No.26245/2019 she has
pleaded that after the death of her husband, her two sons
were taking care of all the properties referred in O.S.
No.26245/2019 and she was not taking care of the suit
properties. Further she has admitted that Ex.P.11 photo is of
suit 'A' schedule property and the plaintiff Sri.Vikram filed a
complaint against her and her two younger sons before the
police on 12.9.2019 and in Ex.P.17 she has mentioned that
the Will of her husband is with one advocate, Sri.Sharif and
in Ex.D.2 in page-2 there is lot of space in between the
paragraphs when compared to paragraphs written on page-3
and her husband had double Barrel Gun and her husband
had membership in Gymkhana Club, Bengaluru and after
separation from her husband, she has not seen
45
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
Sri.Sathiarajan till the funeral of her husband and wife of
Sri.Sathiarajan was working as Teacher in Bishop Cotton
School.
49. Nothing has been elicited during the course of
cross-examination of D.W.3.
50. During the course of cross-examination of D.W.4
he has admitted that houses of Balaguru and Renuka Paul
are near in the same locality about 2 minutes walking
distance.
51. During the course of cross-examination of D.W.5
he has admitted that his house is situated about half
kilometer away from the house of Renuka Paul.
52. During the course of cross-examination of D.W.6
he has admitted that generally if there is any correction in
any document before signing the same, he would mention
number of errors on each page, at the bottom of each page.
46
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
53. During the course of cross-examination of D.W.7
he has admitted that:
"ನಿಡಿ 22 ರ ಪುಟ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ 4 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಹೆಸರು ಮತ್ತು ವಿದ್ಯಾರ್ಹತೆ ನಮೂದಿದೆ
ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಅದೇ ರೀತಿಯಾಗಿ ನಿಡಿ 22 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಪುಟ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ 4 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಂದಿತಾ
ಇಚರ ಹೆಸರು, ಅವರ ವಿದ್ಯಾರ್ಹತೆ ಹಾಗೂ ಅವರ ಅನುಭವ ನಮೂದಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ
ಸರಿ. ನಿಡಿ 22 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಪುಟ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ 14 ರಲ್ಲಿ ನಿಡಿ2-ವಿಲ್, ದಿಃ 20-04-2012
ಅಂತ ಛಾಪಾಕಾಗದವನ್ನು ಖರೀದಿ ಮಾಡಿದ ದಿನಾಂಕ ನಮೂದಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ನಿಡಿ22 ರ ಪುಟ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ 21 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದ ದಿಃ 24-03-2012 ಅಂತ ನಮೂದಿದೆ
ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ನೀವು ನಿಮ್ಮ ವರದಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವ ಯಾವ ಅಕ್ಷರಗಳು individual
characteristic and class characteristic ಎಂದು ನಮೂದಿಸಿಲ್ಲ
ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
ನಿಡಿ22 ರ ವರದಿಯ ನಿಡಿ2 ರ ಪುಟ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ 15 ಮತ್ತು 16 ರಲ್ಲಿ y, s, g, and
comma (,) font ಬೇರೆ ಬೇರೆ ಇದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ."
54. So, from the documents produced by the plaintiff
and oral evidence of the plaintiff goes to show that the suit
schedule properties are the joint family properties of the
plaintiff and defendants. The suit schedule properties are
the ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendants. So,
the suit schedule properties were not the personal and self-
47
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
acquired properties of the father Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul.
Because the suit schedule properties standing in the name of
propositors Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul. So such being the case,
the contentions of the defendants cannot be accepted.
Hence, defendants failed to prove that suit schedule
properties were personal and self-acquired property of father
of plaintiff and defendants
55. Herein this case I have already held that suit
properties are the ancestral property of the plaintiff and
defendants. Herein this case the father of the plaintiff and
defendants Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul is having no absolute
right over the suit schedule properties to execute the Will
dated 23.04.2012 of schedule properties in favour of the
defendants. I have perused the documents produced by the
plaintiff and I have perused the oral evidence. I have
perused Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19 documents produced by the
plaintiff, which clearly goes to show that the suit properties
are the ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendants.
48
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
So, defendants failed to prove that the father of plaintiff and
defendants Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul bequeathed schedule
properties in their favour by making Will dated 23.04.2012.
Perusal of the records and perusal of the documents, which
clearly goes to show that defendants are interfering the
possession of the suit schedule properties of the plaintiff.
56. Perusal of the materials available on record, it
clearly goes to show that in the Will plaintiff name is not
mentioned and mental state of the testator medical certificate
is not produced to prove that he was the sound state of mind
while executing the Will and without sound state of mind it
cannot be presumed that Will is executed in a sound state of
mind and to prove the Will burden is on the defendant u/S
102 of the Evidence Act and during the cross-examination
D.W.1 clearly stated that he was not seen signature of the
testator and during the cross of D.W.1 he was the son of the
Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul and clearly admitted that signature
on Ex.D.2 is not tallied. So, there arises suspicious
49
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
circumstances about the Will. So going through the Will it is
clear that it is the fabricated Will. Herein this case plaintiff
is brother of defendants No.2 and 3 and the defendant No.1
is the mother of plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3. So
there arises a doubt about the execution of the Will and
according to Section 63 of Indian Succession Act it is a bench
mark to prove the Will and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence
Act. The beneficiary has to prove according to the Section 63
(c) of Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence
Act.
57. Herein this case, defendant Dr.Prithviraj Daulat
Paul getting a rent and it is also family nucleus of the
plaintiff and defendant. I have perused schedule 'G' and
movable article list in the Will. In O.S. No.25523/2023
schedule 'D' item No.1 Arms and Ammunition and Pistol is
shown and item No.2 Car Skoda, item No.3 bank accounts
and item No.5 jewelleries are shown. But in this respect both
parties are not produced single paper before this court about
50
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
their existence. Hence, with respect to movable property
relief is rejected and item No.4 share certificates are Ex.D.10
to D.12 are marked in this case. Herein this case, Will is
executed on 23.4.2012. At the time of notarization
Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul on the Will written date as
24.3.2012. So, it create a doubt about the execution of the
Will on which date the Will is executed. The legal
requirement of proof of the Will u/S 63 (C) of the Indian
Succession Act and 67 of the BSA Act, 2023. So proof of
execution of the document of the Will require attestation.
Attesting witnesses are D.W.4 & 5. Both witnesses have
spoke about the relationship of the testator and his wife.
Ex.D.22 is opinion of the expert. It is in her evidence stated
that initials next to the handwritten portion on the last page
of the Will has not been examined by the expert. So, the
expert opinion is incomplete one.
58. Perusal of the materials available on record, it
clearly goes to show that the plaintiff entitle 2/3rd share
51
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
together with the defendants No.2 and 3 and defendant No.1
entitle 1/3d share. Will dated 23.4.2012 is null and void.
Herein this case, plaintiff proved that he is entitle share in
the suit schedule properties. Herein this case, Dr.Prithviraj
Daulat Paul died intestate even then plaintiff will not entitled
to 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. He is only
entitled 2/3rd share along with the defendants No.2 & 3.
59. Herein this case, suit schedule 'A' property is the
plaintiff grandmother property and it is not self acquired
property of Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul. Perusal of Ex.P.2 and
Ex.D.4 the certified copy of the sale deed dated 25.5.1987
and considering the evidence of the parties and pleading of
the parties it is clear that plaintiff is entitle share in the 'A'
schedule property. The suit schedule 'B' property is
mentioned in plaint schedule is came to the family of the
plaintiff through registered sale deed dated 27.11.1972 and
it is marked Ex.P.3 and Ex.D.5 and perusal of the registered
sale deed the consideration paid by the plaintiff's
52
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
grandfather Dr.A.D.Paul and it is already mentioned in the
sale deed dated 27.11.1972 and this fact is admitted during
the cross of D.W.1 and D.W.2, so in the schedule 'B' property
the plaintiff is entitled share in the schedule 'B' property. 'C'
Schedule property is shown Ex.D.6 Sale deed dated
10.4.1978.
60. Perusal of the Ex.D.6 it clearly goes to show that it
is jointly acquired by Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul and
Smt.Renuka Paul; i.e., defendant No.1. In this case plaintiff
contending that from the family nucleus and rented income of
the property owned by the plaintiff's grandparents and in
this case, defendant No.1 is not having any source of income
and defendant No.1 states that property purchased wedding
gift. But, in this connection no iota of document produced
before the court by the defendant No.1. 'D' & 'E' Schedule
properties are shown in Ex.D.7 & Ex.D.8 Sale deed dated
18.4.1994 and 21.11.1994. Perusal of the document it
clearly goes to show that it is purchased by the plaintiff's
53
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
grandfather in the name of the defendant No.1 and plaintiff,
defendant No.2, defendant No.3. Hence, Dr.Prithviraj Daulat
Paul has no role to play and make a Will. 'F' schedule
property is shown as Ex.D.9 Sale deed dated 9.6.1997.
Perusal of the same it is plaintiff's grandfather purchased in
the name of the plaintiff and defendants No.2 & 3. So,
Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul has no role to make a Will. So, all
these things clearly goes to show that Will deed Ex.D.2 dated
23.4.2012 is created one.
61. Herein this case the parties are disputing nature
of the property and defendant denied the share of the
plaintiff and plaintiff claiming the share in the suit schedule
property. I have gone through Ex.D.2 Will deed dated
23.4.2012. Perusal of the same E stamp paper purchased
on 20.4.2012 and Will is signed on 24.3.2012 and Testator
signed on 24.3.2012 and Notaray Advocate signed on
23.4.2012. From al the facts and circumstances of the case,
it clearly goes to show that it is highly impossible for a
54
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
document executed on 24.3.2012. This alone discrepancy
for disbelieve the Will and Will is fabricated and not proved
beyond reasonable doubt and it is fabricated. The Will is
surrounded by the suspicious circumstances. The
defendants are not removed suspicious circumstances by
oral and documentary evidence and perusal of the evidence
lead by the defendants goes to show that there is a
conflicting statement about Will custody and there is a
contradiction by their own previous admission in O.S.
No.26245/2019 and P & SC 25048/2019, now it is
converted in O.S. No.25523/2023. The alleged Will is
unregistered Will. Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul is highly
educated, but he is not registered the said Will. So, it creates
a doubt in the mind of the court. So, Will suffers multiple
material defects and suspicious circumstances and more over
D.W.2 admitting in his evidence that there are a different font
and style in first page and second page and third page and
eighth page of the Will. Ex.D.22 is the report of the Truth
55
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
Labs Forensic Services along with document sent for
examination.
62. The evidence of D.W.2 is inconsistent one and
moreover FSL report and evidence of D.W.2 does not remove
any suspicious circumstances as discussed above and
Ex.D.22 FSL report is incomplete and unreliable. Schedule
'B' property was not self-acquired property of Dr.Prithviraj
Daulat Paul and it is deemed to be ancestral property and
should be shared equally among the legal heirs of
Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul. Plaintiff further has a family
nucleus as on the death of his parents who were Doctor by
profession and had lot of rental income property in their
name. Hence, by using the said family fund, the plaintiff
had purchased this property in the name of the defendant
No.1. Defendant No.1 is the housewife, she do not have any
source of income and no material placed before the court
what is the income of defendant No.1.
56
O.S. No.25991/2020
C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
63. The Will by not allotting the other co-owner, co-
sharer of the property is nullity in law and is not binding on
the plaintiff right in seeking his legitimate share and going
through the pleading it is clear that schedule 'D', 'E', 'F'
properties are joint ownership of the plaintiff and defendants
and it is the allegation of the plaintiff that 'A', 'B', 'C'
schedule properties are came from the plaintiff's
grandparents and plaintiff is having right in the suit
schedule properties and with respect to movable properties,
there is no single iota of document produced by the plaintiff.
Hence, with respect to prayer of movable properties is hereby
rejected. Accordingly I have answered issue No.1 to 4, 6 & 7
in Affirmative and issue No.5 in Negative.
64. ISSUE No.8 in O.S. No.25991/2020 & O.S.
No.25523/2023: In view of the aforesaid reasoning and
answer to the issues, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
Suit of the plaintiff in O.S. No.25991/2020 is partly decreed.
57O.S. No.25991/2020 C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023 Suit of the plaintiff in O.S. No.25523/2023 is dismissed.
Plaintiff and defendants No.2 & 3 are entitled 2/3rd share in the suit schedule properties and also past, present and future mesne profits after holding an enquiry. The defendant No.1 entitled 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties.
Further it is hereby declared that the Will dated 23.4.2012 alleged to have been executed by Late.Dr.Prithviraj Daulat Paul is not binding on the plaintiff.
No order as to costs.
Keep the original judgment in O.S. No.25991/2020 and its copy in O.S. No.25523/2023.
Draw preliminary decree
accordingly.
As per the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.6406/2010 58 O.S. No.25991/2020 C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023 (Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v/s Kattukandi Edathil Valsan & others), after drawing preliminary decree for statistical purpose office is directed to register the case as FDP and send the file to the court on 06.02.2026 for taking steps for division of the property.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5 th day of January, 2026).
Digitally signed byPRAKASH PRAKASH CHANNAPPA CHANNAPPA KURABETT Date: 2026.01.06 KURABETT 11:48:02 +0530 (PRAKASH CHANNAPPA KURABETT) C/C IV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, City Civil Court, Bengaluru. (CCH - 21) SCHEDULE PROPERTIES IN O.S. No.25991/2020 SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of property with a house bearing katha No.1060, situated at Kariyanapalya, Gramatana, Kacharakanahalli Panchayath presently New No.13, 2nd Cross, L N R Gadens, old Kacharakanahalli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru- 560084 add measuring East to West 58 feet and North to South 36 feet and bounded on the:
59O.S. No.25991/2020 C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023 East by: Vendors property; West by: Road;
North by: Lake; and on South by: Property No.1050 belongs to Mano Jesudason.
SCHEDULE 'B' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the property of a land formed into a building No.12, renumbered as 11 to 24 again renumbered as 14-37 formed out of Sy.No.110/1 and 110/2 situated at Lingarajapuram Bengaluru North Taluk, Now new No.14, 6th Cross, Hitchins Road, St.Thomas Town, Bengaluru-560084 ad measuring East by 78 feet, West by 78 feet, North by 44 feet and South by 46 feet and bounded on the:
East by: Private property; West by: Site No.13/15;
North by: 2nd Cross Road leading to 6th Cross Road, Hutchins Road; and on South by: Residential land belongs to Sharadadevi and others/Vendors.
SCHEDULE 'C' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of land into a Plot No.1, situated at Sy.No.111/1, Lingarajapuram Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, presently New 60 O.S. No.25991/2020 C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023 No.1, "Paule Clinic" situated at Hennur Main Road, St.Thomas Town Post, Bengaluru-560084, the property is ad measuring East 41 feet 6 inches, West 37 feet 6 inches, North 48 feet and South 46 feet in all at 166.74 sq.mtrs., and bounded on the:
East by: Hennur Road; West by: Plot No.4;
North by: Plot No.2 and 30 feet Road; and on South by: Plot No.3.
SCHEDULE 'D' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of site which has curved out of Sy.No.827/2B ad measuring 0.09 acres and Sy.No.828/2 measuring 0.05 acres in total 14 acres of property situated at Ketti Village, which is within the limits of Ketti Village, Ketti Town Panchayath, Connoor Taluk, Registration District at Niligiris T.N. and bounded on the:
East by: N R B Hariram and brother; West by: N R B Hariram and brother; North by: N R Balakrishna Naidu's land; and on South by: N R B Hariram and brothers.
SCHEDULE 'E' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of property Sy.No.828/2 measuring 0.07 cents of House Site land, situated at 61 O.S. No.25991/2020 C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023 Ketti Village and within the limits of ketti town panchayath, connoor Taluk and bounded on the:
East by: N R B Srinivasalu Naidu land; West by: N R B Hariram and brother and common right of way;
North by: N R B Hariram brothers land; and on South by: N R B Hariram and brothers.
SCHEDULE 'F' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of residential property bearing house list No.1055/1, old No.125, New Katha No.1050/1, Kariyanapalya, Kacharakanahalli Dhakle, presently new No.21 situated at 2 nd Cross, LNR Gardens, Kacharakanahalli Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru-560084, the property is ad measuring East to West 48 feet and North to South 22 feet, sq.ft., and bounded on the:
East by: Ajay Kumar property; West by: Road;
North by: Property belongs to Suguna; and on South by: Property belongs to G P Arokia Dass.
SCHEDULE 'G' PROPERTY All the movable properties of the family which was retained and holding by the 1st defendant along with the defendants No.2 and 3.62
O.S. No.25991/2020 C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023
a) Jewelleries,
b) House hold items,
c) Money kept and maintained in Canara Bank
account No.0432101004000 and 0295617253,
d) Money kept in State Bank of Mysore/SBI at present 54011680191,
e) Skoda Car belonging to plaintiff father.
SCHEDULE PROPERTIES IN O.S. No.25523/2023 SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the residential House at No.13, (Old Katha No.1060) 2nd Cross, L N R Garden, old Kacharakanahalli, Bengaluru-560084 land measuring East to West 58 Ft., and North to South 36 ft., totally measuring 2088 Sq.ft., together with building consisting of ground + upper One floor and bounded on the:
East by: Property of L Mohan; L Chander & L Srinivas;
West by: 20 ft. Road;
North by: Lake; and on South by: Mr.Mano Jesudason's property.
SCHEDULE 'B' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the Property, known as 'Paul Clinic Property', at Plot No.1, situated at 63 O.S. No.25991/2020 C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023 Sy.No.111/1, Lingarajapuram Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring East by 41'6 Ft., West by 37'6 Ft., North by 45 Ft., South by 46 Ft., in all measuring 1,786.8 Sq.ft., together with building consisting of ground + one upper floors and bounded on the:
East by: Hennur Road;
West by: Plot No.4;
North by: Plot No.2 and Road; and on South by: Plot No.8.
SCHEDULE 'C' PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the Property, being residential House, at No.16, 6th Cross, Hutchins Road, St.Thomas Town, Bengaluru-560084, land measuring East by 78 Ft., West by 78 Ft., North by 44 Ft., South by 46 Ft., in all measuring 3510 Sq.ft., together with building consisting of ground + one upper floor and bounded on the:
East by: Private Property; West by: Site No.13/15;
North by: 2nd Cross Road; and on South by: Residential house of the Vendor.
SCHEDULE 'D' PROPERTY Item 1 64 O.S. No.25991/2020 C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023 Arms and ammunition, being i. 12 Bore DBBL Gund - sold by the Testator during his lifetime ii. Pistols Sole by the Testator during his lifetime iii. 1 Air Gun SCHEDULE 'D' PROPERTY Item 2 All Vehicles being Car - Skoda of manufacturing dated 2014, bearing Registration No.KA03 MU 5790 SCHEDULE 'D' PROPERTY Item 3 All Bank Accounts being i. Canara Bank Account No.0432101004000 ii. Post Office Savings Bank Account No.0295617253 iii. State Bank of India (Erstwhile SBI) Account No.54011680191 SCHEDULE 'D' PROPERTY Item 4 All Shares being i. Manipal Industries Limited, Share Certificate No.B 00982 Folio No.847 Distinctive Nos.130831 to 130870, No. of share 40.65
O.S. No.25991/2020 C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023 ii. East West Hotels Limited, Share Certificate No.E 0732, L F No.334, Distinctive No.209651 to 209700, No. of shares 50.
iii. East West Hotels Limited, Share Certificate No.E 0733, L F No.334, Distinctive No.209701 to 209750, No. of Shares 50.
SCHEDULE 'D' PROPERTY Item 5 All Jewellery being i. One Gold Bracelet of 30.2 grams ii. 2 Gold Coins totally of 16 grams (8 grams each) iii. 2 sets of Gold Cufflinks 2 sets of 5 grams iv. 1 Gold Chain of 20.1 grams v. 1 Gold Chain of 20.2 grams ANNEXURES (O.S. No.25991/2020 & O.S. No.25523/2023) LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
P.W.1 - Sri.Vikram Mahesh Paul LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 - Genealogical tree of P.W.1's family Ex.P.2 - C/C of sale deed dated 25.5.1987 Ex.P.3 - C/C of sale deed dated 27.11.1972 Ex.P.4 - C/C of sale deed dated 9.6.1997 66 O.S. No.25991/2020 C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023 Ex.P.5 - C/C of petition in P & SC No.25048/2019 Ex.P.6 - C/C of objections filed in P & SC No.25048/2019 Ex.P.7 - C/C of plaint in O.S. No.26245/2019 Ex.P.8 & 9 - Public notice regarding scheduled properties published in newspapers namely Prajavani and Deccan Herald both dated 16.08.2020 Ex.P.8 (a) & 9 (a) - Relevant portion Ex.P.10 - C/C of plaint in O.S. No.26245/2019 Ex.P.11 to 16 - Photographs Ex.P.17 - Complaint Ex.P.18 & 19 - Affidavits LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
D.W.1 - Sri.Divyan Sushil Paul D.W.2 - Smt.Renuka Paul D.W.3 - Sri.S.I.Bala Guru D.W.4 - Sri.A.A.M.Sathiarajan D.W.5 - Sri.Rajiv Simon D.W.6 - Sri.N.Kachivaradaraj D.W.7 - Ms.Apoorva.C.G.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:67
O.S. No.25991/2020 C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023 Ex.D.1 - Text message communication in mobile Ex.D.2 - Will deed dated 23.4.2012 Ex.D.3 - Death certificate of Prithviraj Daulat Paul Ex.D.4 - Sale deed dated 25.5.1987 Ex.D.5 - Sale deed dated 27.11.1972 Ex.D.6 - Sale deed dated 10.4.1978 Ex.D.7 - Sale deed dated 18.04.1994 Ex.D.8 - Sale deed dated 21.11.1994 Ex.D.9 - Sale deed dated 9.6.1997 Ex.D.10 to 12 - Share Certificates (3 Nos.) Ex.D.13 - OPD record Ex.D.14 - Medical record of Vikram Paul (14 sheets) Ex.D.15 to 20 - Five photographs and its CD Ex.P.21 - Attested copy of the relevant page No.22 of the Notary Register Ex.D.22 - Report of the Truth Labs Forensic Services along with document sent for examination (total 55 pages) Ex.D.23 - Letter issued by the D.W.2 to the Truth Labs Forensic Services Ex.D.24 - Letter dated 27.6.2025 by D.W.2 to the Truth Labs Forensic Services 68 O.S. No.25991/2020 C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023 Ex.D.25 - Letter dated 26.6.2025 issued by the D.W.2 to the advocate and Notary, Sri.Kanchi Varadaraju Ex.D.26 - E-mail dated 10.6.2025 Ex.D.27 - Certificate u/S 63 of BNSS Act PRAKASH Digitally signed by PRAKASH CHANNAPPA CHANNAPPA KURABETT Date: 2026.01.06 KURABETT 11:48:24 +0530 (PRAKASH CHANNAPPA KURABETT) C/C IV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, City Civil Court, Bengaluru. (CCH - 21) 69 O.S. No.25991/2020 C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023 70 O.S. No.25991/2020 C/w.
O.S. No.25523/2023