Bangalore District Court
Shantha Lakshmi vs Narasimhaiah on 2 March, 2024
O.S. No.2338/1999
1
KABC010021811999
In the Court of the XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2024
Present :-
Sri. G.Raghavendra, B.Sc., LL.B.,
XXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S. No.2338/1999
Between:
Smt. SHANTHA LAKSHMI,
Aged about 45 years,
Wife of Ramachandra,
D/o Late Nanjamma,
residing at: Site No.11,
Formed in Sy. No.302,
Property old No.22, Present No. No.50,
4th Cross, Magadi Road,
BENGALURU -560023.
.. Plaintiff
(By Sri. D. R. Rajashekarappa, Advocate)
And
1. Chandra Shekar,
S/o Late Narasimhaiah,
Since Dead by his LRs:
(a): Smt. Jayamm,
W/o. Late Chandrasekhar,
O.S. No.2338/1999
2
Aged about 64 years,
(b): Smt. Asha Rani,
D/o. Late Chandrasekhar,
Aged about 44 years,
(c): Sri. Raju C.,
S/o.Late Chandrasekhar,
Aged about 42 years,
(d): Sri. Suresh C,
S/o. Late Chandrashekhar,
Aged about 38 years,
(e): Smt. Nirmala .C.
D/o Late Chandrasekhar,
Aged about 34 years
Defendant Nos.1(a) to (e) are residing at:
No.17, First E-Main Road,
15Th Cross, B.K.Nagara,
Yeswanthpura,
BENGALURU -560022
02 Sadashiva,
S/o. Late Narasimhaiah,
Since dead, represented by his LRs:
02(a): Smt.RUKMINI,
W/o. Late Sadashiva,
Aged about 45 years
(b): Sri. RAVI,
S/o. Late Sadashiva,
Aged about 24 years
(c) Sri. PURNESHA,
S/o Late Sadashiva,
Aged about 21 years,
Defendants No.2(a) to 2(c) are R/At:
Somalapura Post,
O.S. No.2338/1999
3
Nittur Hobli, Gubbi Taluk,
Tumkur District
03 Sri. Krishnamurti,
S/o Late Narasimhaiah,
Since dead by his LRs:
03(a): Smt. Triveni,
W/o Late Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 51 years,
(b): Sri. NAVEEN.K.,
S/o. Late Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 32 years
(c): Sri KIRAN .K.,
S/o. Late Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 27 years
Defendant Nos. 03(a) to (c) are R/At:
D.No.82/1B, 5th Cross,
Rajendranagar,
MYSORE -570007
04 Smt.LALITHA,
D/o. Late Narasimhaiah,
Aged about 37 years,
R/At: Door No.50,
4Th Cross, Magadi Road,
BENGALURU -560023
05 Smt. AMBIKA,
W/o. Late Manjunath,
Aged about 39 years,
Office Attender,
Vasavi Vidyaniketan,
Kalya Gate, MAGADI Town,
Bengaluru District - 562120
06 Sri. NAGARAJ,
S/o. Late Narsimhaiah,
Aged about 27 years,
O.S. No.2338/1999
4
R/at: Railway Station Main Road,
Ambedkar Nagar,
Yeswanthapur
BENGALURU -560022
07 Sri CHENNA NARASIMHAIAH
S/o. Late Narayanappa
Since dead represented by his LRs
07(a) Smt. CHANDRAMMA,
W/o. Late Chenna Narasimhaiah
Aged about 61 years,
(b) Sri. RAJASHEKAR,
S/o. Late Chenna Narasimhaiah,
Aged about 40 years,
(c): Sri NATARAJ,
S/o. Late Chenna Narasimhaiah,
Aged about 31 years
(d): Sri NARAYANA,
S/o. Late Chenna Narasimhaiah,
Aged about 31 years
Defendant Nos. 07(a) to 07(d) are R/At;
Door No.50, 4th Cross,
Magadi Road,
BENGALURU -560023
08 Sri. KRISHNAPPA,
S/o. Narayanappa
Since dead by his LRs:
08(a): Smt. BYRAMMA
S/o. Late Krishnappa
(8(a) is dead, her name is deleted as per the
order, dated 07.07.2023)
Since dead by her LR:
O.S. No.2338/1999
5
08(b): Sri. K.GURUPRASAD,
S/o. Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 44 years,
Defendant No.8 (b) is R/At:
Door No.50, 4th Cross,
Magadi Road,
BENGALURU -560023
08(c): Smt. TARAKUMARI,
D/o. :Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 48 years,
D.No. 4/2, 4th Cross,
Magadi Road,
BENGALURU -560 023
08(d): Smt. TEJASWINI,
D/o Late M. Krishnappa,
Aged about 38 years,
D. No.689, 2nd Cross,
Ashok Nagara,
Banashankari 1st Stage,
BENGALURU -560050 .. Defendants
(Defendant No.1(a) to (e) : By Sri. C. Raju, advocate,
Defendant No.2(a) to (c) : In Person,
Defendant No.3(a) to (c) : By Sri. Siddappa S.J., advocate,
Defendant No.4 : Ex Parte,
Defendant No.5 : In Person / Ex Parte,
Defendant No.6 : Sri. C.R.Subramanya, advocate,
Defendant No.7(a) to (d) : Sri. K.N. Dayalu, advocate,
Defendant No.8(b) to (d) : Sri. Mani Shankar S.S., advocate)
O.S. No.2338/1999
6
Date of Institution of the suit : 22/03/1999
Nature of the suit : Partition & Separate Possession
and Permanent Injunction
Date of commencement of : 28/10/2009
recording of evidence.
Date on which the judgment : 02/03/2024
was pronounced.
Total Duration Years Months Days
24 11 11
XXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru.
Judgment
This suit under Order VII Rule 1 of Code of Civil procedure, 1908
(CPC) is filed by the plaintiff for judgment and decree directing the
defendants to effect partition of the suit schedule properties and to put the
plaintiff in separate possession and enjoyment of her 1/4th share of the
suit schedule properties by metes and bounds, for grant of Permanent
Injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff of her occupation in the suit
schedule properties and for grant of such other reliefs deem fit to grant
under the circumstances of the case.
2). The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff is as under:
O.S. No.2338/1999
7
Plaintiff is the daughter of Late Narayanappa and late Nanjamma.
Late. Narasimhaiah, defendant No.7, Late. Chenna Narasimhaiah and
defendant No.8, Late. Krishnappa are the brothers of the plaintiff. The
deceased defendant No.1, deceased defendant No.2, deceased
defendant No.3, defendant No.4 and defendant No.6 are the children of
the deceased defendant No.1. The defendant No.5 is the wife of the Late.
Manjunath, son of the Late. Narasimhaiah.
Smt. Nanjamma during her lifetime has acquired suit schedule (i)
property by virtue of the Registered Sale Deed, dated 26.05.1952. There
was some mistake in the said sale deed, which came to be rectified under
a rectification deed, dated 10.06.1954. Smt. Nanjamma during her lifetime
has purchased suit schedule (ii) property by virtue of the Registered Sale
Deed, dated 13.05.1963 from one Sri. B.Vasudev Rao. After the purchase
of the suit schedule (i) & (ii) properties Smt. Nanjamma put up
constructions on the suit schedule (i) & (ii) properties and she was living
together with her children in the suit schedule (i) & (ii) properties and she
has been paying taxes to the concerned authorities. Smt. Nanjamma died
intestate on 16.12.1994. Sri. Narayanappa, father of plaintiff predeceased
her mother, Smt. Nanjamma.
The plaintiff has been in adverse possession and enjoyment of the
portion of the suit schedule (i) & (ii) properties for many years.
O.S. No.2338/1999
8
After the death of mother, after a lapse of one year, the plaintiff
requested the defendants to effect partition of the suit schedule (i) & (ii)
properties, which was being postponed by the defendants from time to
time. But till date the defendants have not come forward to effect partition
of the suit schedule (i) & (ii) properties by metes and bounds. The plaintiff
demanded her share during the year 1998 and the defendants postponed
the same on the guise that they will be doing so on some other occasion.
The defendants started to act rudely on the plaintiff and slowly started to
pick quarrels with the plaintiff for no reasons and they started to say
indirectly that, they will not give any share to the plaintiff in the suit
schedule (i) & (ii) properties and they also indirectly posted threat of
dispossession from the suit schedule (i) & (ii) properties. On 15.01.1999,
the plaintiff again demanded the defendants to effect the partition. Then
the defendants blatantly refused to effect the partition by metes and
bounds and threatened the plaintiff to get away from the suit schedule (i)
& (ii) properties. The deceased defendants No.7 and 8 have attempted to
dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule (i) & (ii) properties on
10.03.1999 and 11.03.1999.
3). The plaintiff filed this suit on 22.03.1999 against defendant
No.1a), b), c), d), e), f), defendant No.2 and defendant No.3. Defendant
No.1a) appeared through his counsel and has filed his written statement.
O.S. No.2338/1999
9
Defendant No.6 (Defendant No.1f)) appeared through his counsel and
has filed his written statement. Defendant No.7 (Defendant No.2)
appeared through his counsel and has filed his written statement.
Defendant No.8 (Defendant No.3) appeared through his counsel and has
filed his written statement.
4). The brief contentions of the written statement of deceased
Defendant No.1a) is as under :
At the time of marriage of the plaintiff, sufficient jewelry, articles,
things and cash was given to the plaintiff by way of ARISHINA
KUMKUMA. Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the suit
schedule properties.
After the marriage the plaintiff started her marital life in her
matrimonial house. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached defendant No.1
and requested to let out a portion of the suit schedule properties on a
meager monthly rental basis. Defendant No.1 has let out a portion of the
suit schedule premises to the plaintiff on a monthly rental basis. Now the
plaintiff is not paying the monthly rents. The plaintiff is in occupation of the
portion of the suit schedule properties in the capacity of tenant only and
she does not have any share in the suit schedule properties.
Out of contribution made by the first defendant, Smt. Nanjamma,
put up construction over the suit schedule properties. The father of the
O.S. No.2338/1999
10
defendant No.1 has also contributed substantially to the family.
Smt. Nanjamma died intestate on 16.12.1994. The health condition
of late Smt.Nanjamma became worse from 1986 onwards. Her sight was
not good. She was not able to recognize any person on her own. Even
she was depending upon other persons for her movements and to
transact any of her affairs. Smt. Nanjamma has informed that during the
year 1974 - 75 she had executed a will in favour of her elder son
Sri.Narasimhaiah, who looked after her and other family members.
The sons of deceased Nanjamma, entitled to succeed over the
estates left behind by deceased Smt. Nanjamma. The father of defendant
No.1 has got definite 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. Till date
there is no partition effected between defendant No.1 (Deceased),
defendants No.2 and 3 (Deceased defendant No.7 and 8). The 1 st
defendant (Deceased), his brothers and sisters, defendant No.2 and 3
(Deceased defendant No.7 and 8), who are paternal uncles of the 1st
defendant (Deceased), are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule properties as coparceners.
7Th defendant (Deceased), did not inform either the plaintiff or the
defendant No.1 Deceased), with regard to the execution of alleged will.
The 7th defendant (Deceased), set up the theory of execution of alleged
will dated 08.08.1990.
O.S. No.2338/1999
11
5) The brief contentions of the written statement of Defendant No.6
is as under :
Smt. Nanjamma executed a registered will dated 03.10.1979
bequeathing her properties in favour of her son N.Narasimhaiah, LR's of
N. Channanarasimhaiah, the 2nd son and N.Krishnappa, the 3 rd Son. Smt.
Nanjamma did not give effect to the release deed dated 24.11.1954 and it
is not acted upon by the deceased Nanjamma or Channanarasimhaiah
since it is only a nominal document.
7Th defendant / Channanarasimhaiah who has put forth the claim
under an unregistered will dated 08/08/1990, said to have been executed
by deceased Smt. Nanjamma is a concocted will.
6) The brief contentions of the written statement of Defendant No.7
is as under :
The plaintiff has no share in the suit schedule properties and is not
in joint possession. The plaintiff cannot invoke the provision under Sec.35
(2) of the Karnataka Court fee and suits valuation act and she has to pay
the court fee on the market value of the suit schedule properties.
Smt. Nanjamma has purchased the written statement schedule
property bearing No.22, situated at 4th Cross Road, Magadi Road,
Bangalore-560023 under two registered Sale Deeds dated: 10.06.1954
O.S. No.2338/1999
12
and 26.05.1962 respectively totally measuring East to West 60 ft. And
North to South 33 ft. Smt. Nanjamma has bequeathed the written
statement schedule property to defendant No.7 under the will dated:
08.08.1990.
Smt. Nanjamma and Narayanappa have three sons by name
Narasimhaiah, Channa Narasimhaiah, Krishnappa and the Plaintiff. The
eldest son N. Narasimhaiah had already taken money and executed a
registered Release Deed. The other son Krishnappa is given the site
property bearing No.65:4, situated at Kamakshipalya, Yeshwanthpur
Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring 62 ½ ft. x 36 ft. Smt. Nanjamma
has paid the amount to purchase the said property in the name of the said
Krishnappa. Smt. Nanjamma has directed the defendant No.7 to pay
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the plaintiff and defendant
No.7 has paid the said amount to the plaintiff.
Defendant No.7 and his sons divided the written statement
schedule property among themselves under the registered Partition Deed
dated 12.11.2002. Pursuant to the said partition deed, defendant No.7 and
his sons transferred katha of the written statement schedule property to
their respective names and are enjoying the same.
During the lifetime of the Smt. Nanjamma, the plaintiff had occupied
the portion of the Schedule 'A' Property, which is schedule B property on a
O.S. No.2338/1999
13
monthly rental of Rs.400/- (Rupees Four Hundred Only) from March
1999. The plaintiff stopped paying monthly rent and started threatening
defendant No.7 to give the portion of the property.
7) The brief contentions of the written statement of Defendant No.8
is as under :
Plaintiff is the younger sister of defendant No.8. The suit schedule
properties are the self acquired property of Smt. Nanjamma and on her
death all her four children are entitled for ¼ th share each in the suit
schedule properties. Smt. Nanjamma died on 16.12.1994.
The vacant site bearing site 8 formed in Sy.No.65/4 of
Kamakshipalya, Saneguruvanahalli Dhakle, Yeshwanthpur Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk was purchased by defendant No.8 for a sale
consideration of Rs.500/- from one Chikkarudraiah and his brothers as
per the registered sale deed dated 15.12.1969.
The will dated 08.08.1990 alleged to have been executed by
Smt.Nanjamma was not executed by her and the said will is concocted
and fabricated by defendant No.7. Only in 2008, when Defendant No.7
has filed his written statement, he disclosed about the alleged wil dated
08.08.1990.
8). My predecessor has framed the following issues for
O.S. No.2338/1999
14
consideration :
Issues
1) Whether Defendant No.7 proves that his mother Late
Smt.Nanjamma had executed a will dated 8.8.1990 and
bequeathed entire suit schedule property in his favour and
hence after the death of his mother he has become
absolute owner of the same?
2. Whether Plaintiff proves he is entitled to a share in
the suit property, and if so to what share?
3. Whether Plaintiff proves that on the date of filing of
the suit she was in lawful possession and enjoyment of
portion of suit schedule property?
4. Whether plaintiff prove that defendants are illegally
interfering into her peaceful possession and enjoyment
over suit property?
5. Whether plaintiff is entitle to the relief sought for?
6. What order or decree?
Additional Issue
1. Whether defendant No.1 is entitled to a share in the
suit property, and if so what share?
9). In order to prove the case, the Plaintiff examined herself as
P.W.1 and marked 8 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The counsel for
O.S. No.2338/1999
15
defendant No.7(a) to (d) in the cross examination of P.W.1 marked 1
document as Ex.D1.
10). In order to prove his contentions, the defendant No.6 examined
himself as D.W.1 and marked 1 document as Ex.D2. The counsel for
defendant No.7(a) to (d) in the cross examination of D.W.1 marked 1
document as Ex.D3. Defendant No.6 examined one J.L. John Peter as
D.W.2 and marked signature of attesting witness, father of D.W.2 on
Ex.D2.
11). In order to prove his contentions, the defendant No.8 examined
himself as D.W.3 and marked 4 documents as Ex.D4 to Ex.D7.
12). In order to prove their contentions, the defendant No.7(b)
examined himself as D.W.4 and marked 52 documents as Ex.D8 to
Ex.D59. The L.Rs of deceased defendant No.7 examined one Sri.
C.A.Kumar, Advocate, one Sri. R.Narayanaswamy, one Sri. B.K.
Krishnamurthy, one Smt. B.K.Prema and one Smt.Gangamma as D.W.5
to D.W.9. The L.Rs of deceased defendant No.7 marked 2 documents as
Ex.D60 and Ex.D61 through D.W.7 and 1 document as Ex.D62 through
D.W.9.
13). Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and
the counsel for the defendant No.7(a) to (d). The counsel for the plaintiff
O.S. No.2338/1999
16
has filed written arguments / submission. The counsel for the defendant
No.7(a) to (d) has filed synopsis of written arguments / submission along
with 2 Judgements.
14). My findings to the above issues are as follows :-
Issue No.1:- In the Negative.
Issue No.2:- In the Affirmative. ¼ th
Issue No.3:- In the Affirmative
Issue No.4:- In the Affirmative
Issue No.5:- In the Affirmative
Additional Issue No.1:- In the Affirmative. ¼ th
Issue No.6:- As per final order for the following:
Reasons
15). Issue No.1 :- Defendant No.7(b), one of the Legal representatives
of deceased defendant No.7 who has been examined as D.W.4 in his
examination in chief evidence affidavit filed as per order XVIII rule 4 of
CPC has reiterated the contentions of written statement filed by his
deceased father defendant No.7.
Defendant No.7 in his written statement at Para No.5 has admitted
that Smt.Nanjamma, mother of plaintiff and defendant No.7 was absolute
O.S. No.2338/1999
17
owner of suit schedule properties and she has put up constructions on the
suit schedule properties.
Defendant No.7(b) / D.W.4 has produced and marked original
unregistered will dated 08.08.1990 said to be executed by Smt.
Nanjamma in respect of written statement schedule property as Ex.D15.
Defendant No.7(b) / D.W.4 has produced and marked the death
certificate of Smt. Nanjamma as Ex.D16, which shows the death of Smt.
Nanjamma on 16.12.1994.
16). Plaintiff filed this suit on 22.03.1999. Defendant No.7 has filed
his written statement dated 02.02.2008, on 06.03.2008 along with a copy
of ExD15. Defendant No.7 appeared in person on 09.12.1999 and filed
his written statement dated 02.02.2008 on 06.03.2008 after lapse of more
than 9 years after his first appearance before the Court.
17). Defendant No.7(b) / D.W.4 in his cross examination by the
counsel for the plaintiff on 02.09.2011 has answered as under :
" For the first time in the year 1998 myself and my father
came to know about Smt.Nanjamma having executed Will
dated 08.08.1990. The Will dated 08.08.1990 was kept in
an almirah kept in our house, along with other documents.
Except Exhibit D-17 and tax paid receipt produced by me
O.S. No.2338/1999
18
before Court, I am not having any other document to show
that katha of suit property was transferred in the name of
my father. I am not having a document bearing Katha
No.DV(2)/PA-B 790/94-95 referred to in Exhibit D-19
Partition Deed."
"We had not intimated City Corporation regarding
execution of dated 08.08.1990. I again say that my father
had intimated City Corporation about execution of Will
dated 08.08.1990 by Smt. Nanjamma, in the year 2002."
18). Defendant No.7(b) / D.W.4 in his cross examination has
answered that they came to know about Ex.D15 in the year 1998. But
Defendant No.7 has stated for the first time about the existence of Ex.D15
in his written Statement dated 02.02.2008, filed on 06.03.2008, which was
filed after lapse of more than 9 years after first appearance of Defendant
No.7 before the Court. Legal representatives of deceased defendant No.7
have not produced any document to show Ex.D15 was acted upon and on
the basis of Ex.D15, Katha in respect of written statement schedule
property was changed to the name of Defendant No.7.
19). In Ex.D19, original Registered Partition Deed dated 22.11.2002
entered into between Defendant No.7, his wife and his children the
O.S. No.2338/1999
19
following recitals can be seen:
"ಚನನ ನರಸಸಹಯಯ ಆದ ನನನ ಹಸರಗ ನನನ ತಯಯದ
ದವಗತ ನಜಮಮ ನವರಸದ ದನಸಕ 08.08.1990 ರದ
ವಲ ಯ ಮರಣ ಶಸನ ಪತತ ದ ಮಖನ ಬದ ಸದರ
ಸಸ ತತ ಗ ಖತಯನನ ಸಹ ಹಸದದದ ಸದರ ಖತ ನಬರ
ಡವ32/ಪಬ790/94-95 ಆಗದದ ಕದಯವನನ ಸಹ
ಪವತ ಮಡಕಸಡ ಬರತತ ರವದ ಸರಯಷಷ ಷ."
But Legal representatives of deceased defendant No.7 have not
produced any document pertaining to Khata No.ಡವ32/ಪಬ790/94-95
which is mentioned in Ex.D19 and tax paid receipts towards Khata No.
ಡ.ಎ. 32/ಪ.ಬ. /790/97-95 property.
20). The Legal representatives of deceased defendant No.7 have
examined one Sri. C.A. Kumar, Advocate as D.W.5. D.W.5 in his
examination in chief evidence affidavit has stated that Smt. Nanjamma
had approached him with two persons, she furnished necessary copies of
the documents of title and details of the family, he prepared the draft as
per the instructions of Smt. Nanjamma, after the same was read over
Smt. Nanjamma approved the same, he got typed the will on the stamp
paper given by Smt. Nanjamma, Smt. Nanjamma signed on all pages of
said will before him and two persons accompanied Smt.Nanjamma also
O.S. No.2338/1999
20
signed the Will and he also signed on the Will.
But in the cross examination, D.W.5 has answered as under :
"I don't know before whom the Will executed by
Smt.Nanjamma was notarised. In my presence Smt.
Nanjamma and attesting witnesses have not signed on the
Will."
21). The Legal representatives of deceased defendant No.7 have
examined one R. Narayanaswamy, attesting witness of Ex.D15 as D.W.6.
D.W.6 in his examination in chief evidence affidavit has stated that
Nanjamma took him along with another witness before an advocate and
Notary Smt. Lalitamma, Nanjamma signed on all the pages of Will and
thereafter, another witness and he signed the Will as witnesses.
D.W.6 has not stated what D.W.5 has stated that Smt. Nanjamma
had approached him with two persons, she furnished necessary copies of
the documents of title and details of the family, he prepared the draft as per
the instructions of the Smt. Nanjamma, after the same was read over Smt.
Nanjamma approved the same, he got typed the will on the stamp paper
given by Smt. Nanjamma, Smt. Nanjamma signed on all pages of said will
before him and two persons accompanied Smt.Nanjamma also signed the
Will and he also signed on the Will.
O.S. No.2338/1999
21
D.W.6 in his cross-examination has answered as under :
"Smt. Nanjamma had signed and also affixed her thumb
impression on all pages of Exhibit D-15 will".
"Smt. Nanjamma gave instructions for preparing her will."
"By the time we came to court premises Will was already
prepared."
D.W.6 nowhere in his examination in chief evidence affidavit has
stated that Smt. Nanjamma had also affixed her thumb impression on all
pages of Ex.D15.
22). The Legal representatives of deceased defendant No.7 have
examined one B. K. Krishnamurthy, Stamp Vendor as D.W.7. D.W.7 in his
examination in chief evidence affidavit has stated that two stamp papers
dated 07.08.1990 of Rs.5/- each were sold by him in the name of
Nanjamma.
D.W.7 in his cross examination has answered as under :
"ನ.ಡ. 15 ರ ದಖಲಗ ಸಬಧಸದ ಸಷ ಸಪ ಪಪರ
ಗಳನನ ನನನ ಬಳಯಸದ ಯರ ತಗದಕಸಡ
ಹಷಗದದ ರ ಎಸದ ಹಳಲ ಆಗವದಲಲ . ನನನ ಹಸಡತ
ಡ.ಡಬಲ .8 ರವರ ನ.ಡ. 15 ರ ದಖಲಯನನ ನಷಡ
O.S. No.2338/1999
22
ಅದರಲಲ ಬರದರವ ನಜಮಮ ಎನನ ವ ಹಸರ ಮತತ
7.08.1990 ರ ದನಸಕವನನ ನನಗ ಓದ ಹಳದದ ರ ಮರಗ
ನನ ನನನ ಪತ ಮಣ ಪತತ ಕಯಲಲ ಸದರ 2 ಸಷ ಸಪಪಪರ
ಗಳನನ ನಜಮಮ ನವರ ಹಸರನಲಲ 7.08.1990 ರಲಲ ನನ
ಮರಟ ಮಡರವದಗ ಹಳರತತ ಷನ."
23). The Legal representatives of deceased defendant No.7 have
examined one B. K. Prema, wife of D.W.7 as D.W.8. D.W.8 in her
examination in chief evidence affidavit has stated that her husband has
become blind since one year, two stamp papers of Rs.5/- each was sold
by her husband in the name of Nanjamma and she can identify signature
of her husband and the seal and signature of her husband on Ex.D15.
D.W.8 in her cross-examination has answered as under :
"ನ.ಡ. 15 ರ ದಖಲಯಲಲ ಇರವ ನನನ ಗಡನ ಸಹ,
ಅದರಲಲ ಬರದರವ ಖರಷದದರನ ಹಸರ ಮತತ ಮರಟ
ಮಡದ ದನಸಕದ ಬಗಗ ಹಗ ಸಯ ಸಪ ವಸಡರ ಸಷಲನ
ಬಗಗ ನನ ಓದ ನನನ ಗಡನಗ ಮಹತ ನಷಡವ ಪತತ ವನನ
ಮತತ ವಹಸರತತ ಷನ ."
24). The Legal representatives of deceased defendant No.7 have
examined one Smt. Gangamma wife of deceased V.G Patil, another
O.S. No.2338/1999
23
attesting witness to Ex.D15 as D.W.9. D.W.9 in her examination in chief
evidence affidavit has stated that she can identify the signature of her
husband on Ex.D15 and she identified the signature of her husband Sri.
V.G Patil, on Ex.D15, Will.
Section 3 of The Transfer of property Act, 1882 defines attestation
as under :
"Attested", in relation to an instrument, means and shall
be deemed always to have meant attested by two or more
witnesses each of whom has seen the executant sign or
affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other
person sign the instrument in the presence and by the
direction of the executant, or has received from the
executant a personal acknowledgement of his signature or
mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of
whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the
executant but it shall not be necessary that more than one
of such witnesses shall have been present at the same
time, and no particular form of attestation shall be
necessary".
25). After filing of the written statement dated 02.02.2008 on
O.S. No.2338/1999
24
6.03.2008 by defendant No.7, plaintiff filed her rejoinder on 26.08.2009. In
the rejoinder plaintiff has taken contention that the plaintiff came to know
about the Will allegedly dated 08.08.1990 only after the defendant No.2
(Defendant No.7) filed his written statement, Smt. Nanjamma had
executed a registered Will in the year 1979 and in the said Will a share in
the suit was given to Narasimhaiah and his children.
26). Plaintiff who has been examined as P.W.1 in her examination in
chief evidence affidavit has reiterated the plaint averments and rejoinder
contentions. Plaintiff has produced and marked a true copy of registered
will dated 13.10.1969 said to be executed by Nanjamma as Ex.P8. In the
cross examination of P.W.1, Counsel for L.R's of defendant No.7 has
suggested that Nanjamma had canceled Ex.P8, will.
27). Defendant No.6, who is one of the sons of Narasimhaiah, who
is first son of Nanjamma has been examined himself as D.W.1 and in his
examination in chief evidence affidavit he has reiterated his written
statement contentions. Defendant No.6 in his written statement has
contended that Smt. Nanjamma executed a registered will dated
03.10.1979 bequeathing her properties in favour of her son
N.Narasimhaiah, LR's of N. Channanarasimhaiah, the 2 nd son and
N.Krishnappa, the 3rd Son, Smt. Nanjamma did not give effect to the
O.S. No.2338/1999
25
release deed dated 24.11.1954 and unregistered will dated 08/08/1990,
said to have been executed by deceased Smt. Nanjamma is a concocted
will.
28). Defendant No.6 has produced and marked original Registered
Will dated 03.10.1979 executed by Nanjamma as Ex.D2. Defendant No.6
has examined one Sri. J. L. John Peter as D.W.2. D.W.2 is son of Sri.
Lakshmaiah alias Joseph Laxmaiah, one of the attesting witnesses of
Ex.D2. D.W.2 in his examination in chief evidence affidavit has stated that
he can identify the signature of his father and his father used to sign in
Kannada.
The counsel for the Legal representatives of deceased defendant
No.7 in the cross examination of D.W.1 has suggested as under :
"I don't know if my grand mother late Smt. Nanjamma
by executing a Registered Deed of Cancellation of Will
dated 04.10.1979 had canceled by a Resisted Will dated
03.10.1979 executed by her. I have not verified in Sub-
Registrar Office regarding cancellation of Regd. Will dated
03.10.1979 by my grandmother Smt. Nanjamma."
29). Defendant No.8 who has been examined as D.W.3 in his
examination in chief evidence affidavit has reiterated his written statement
O.S. No.2338/1999
26
contentions. Defendant No.8 in his written statement has taken contention
that the will dated 08.08.1990 alleged to have been executed by
Smt.Nanjamma was not executed by her, said will is concocted and
fabricated by defendant No.7, only in the year 2008, when defendant No.7
has filed his written statement, he disclosed about the alleged wil dated
08.08.1990, the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties
of Smt. Nanjamma and on her death on 16.12.1994 all her four children
are entitled for ¼ th share each in the suit schedule properties.
30). On 27.07.2018 summons was issued to one Sri. J.S.
Shivakumar, Director of Truth Lab, Hyderabad by allowing the
Interlocutory Application filed by the counsel for the Legal representatives
of deceased defendant No.7 and Sri. J.S. Shivakumar has been
examined as a Court witness (C.W.) No.1. C.W.1 in his examination in
chief evidence by the Court has deposed as to the contents of report /
opinion of Truth Lab dated 26.02.2015, 12.06.2015 and 17.06.2015.
31). C.W.1 has compared questioned signatures marked as ' Q1 to
Q4' 'in Ex.D15 with standard signatures / admitted signatures of
Nanjamma marked as 'S1 to S12' in Ex. D34 to 38, 40 and 41 and by
report dated 26.02.2015 gave opinion and reasons for coming to said
opinion as under :
O.S. No.2338/1999
27
" OPINION
1. The person who wrote the red enclosed signatures
marked 'S1 to S12' did not write the blue enclosed
signatures marked 'Q1 to Q4'.
REASONS
1. The signatures marked 'Q1 to Q4' exhibit in
mathematically identity with each other. They are almost
Drawings without any free execution of strokes. They can
be exactly superimposed over one another. They (Q1 to
Q4) do not exhibit natural variations. All these are
symptoms of traced forgery.
2. The Signatures 'S1 to S12' are written with free
execution of stokes and exhibit natural variations
compared inter-se.
The formation and size(bigger) of letters in 'Q1 to Q4' differ
from the same in 'S1 to S12'. The signatures 'Q1 to Q4' are
traced forgers."
32). C.W.1 has compared questioned signatures marked as ' Q1 to
Q4' 'in Ex.D15 with standard signatures / admitted signatures of
Nanjamma marked as 'S13 to S14' in Ex. D34 and by report dated
12.06.2015 gave opinion and reasons for coming to said opinion as
O.S. No.2338/1999
28
under:
"OPINION
The person who wrote the red enclosed signatures marked
'S13 and S14' did not write the red enclosed signatures
marked 'Q1 to Q4'.
REASONS
1. The questioned signatures marked 'Q1 to Q4' exhibit
slow drawn movement, lack of freedom in strokes, and
attempt to draw the letter.
2. The Signatures 'Q1 to Q4' when compared with each
one letter 'ನಜಮಮ ' exactly identical with the
corresponding letter. Thus there is suspicious identity in
letters.
3. Lack of freedom in execution of strokes, drawing and
suspicious identity in letters are all signs of copied forgery.
Hence, it can be concluded that 'Q1 to Q4' are forged
signatures.
4. The signatures 'S13' and 'S14', on the other hand exhibit
free execution of strokes, natural variations with each other
and also with other standard signatures 'S1' to 'S12'.
5. There is a difference of skill, difference in letter designs
O.S. No.2338/1999
29
and difference in vowel signs between 'S13' and 'S14' and
signatures 'Q1' to 'Q4'.
Hence, it is concluded that the person who wrote 'S13 and
'S14' did not write 'Q1' to 'Q4'.
33). C.W.1 has compared Thumb impression marked as D1 to D4 in
Ex.D15 with admitted Thumb impression of Nanjamma marked as 'S1 &
S2' in Ex. D39 and by report dated 17.06.2015 gave opinion and reasons
for coming to said opinion as under:
"OPINION
The thumb impressions against the name Nanjamma
marked 'D1' on the 1st page, 'D2' on the reverse of 1 st page,
'D3' on the 3rd page, 'D4' on the 4th page of Ex.D15 (Will
dated 08.08.1990) and the admitted thumb impressions
marked S1 and S2 of Nanjamma on the Ex.D39 are
smudged and not revealing clear characteristics for
comparison.
Hence, the thumb impressions marked 'D1, D2, D3, D4,
S1 and S2 are unfit for comparison."
The evidence of C.W.1 no way helps the Legal representatives of
deceased defendant No.7 to prove issue No.1.
O.S. No.2338/1999
30
34). Defendant No.7(b) / D.W.4 also produced a true copy of
Registered Will dated 03.10.1979 and marked the same as Ex.D33.
Ex.D2 produced by Defendant No.6 / D.W.1 and Ex.D33 are one and the
same.
In Ex.D33 Nanjamma has stated as under :
" ನನ ತರಷಕ 3-10-69 ರಲಲ Reg.No.(a) 33/69-70
BK III Vol:2 Pages 30-34 ರ ವವಷರಗ ಬಸಗಳರ ಸಟ
ಶತ ಷರಮಪರ ಸಬ ರಜಸಷ ಸರ ರವರ ಆಫಷಸನಲಲ ವಲಲ ನನ
ರಜಸಷ ರ ಮಡಸದದ ಈ ವಲ ನಲಲ ನಮದಸದತ ನನನ
ಎರಡನ ಮಗನ ವತರನ ಸರ ಹಷಗದ ಮತತ ಈಗ ನನನ
ಬದದ ಮತತ ಆರಷಗಯ ಚನನ ಗರವಗಲ ಈ ವಲಲ ನನ ವಜ
ಮಡ ಈ ದನ ಈ ಕಳಕಡತ ವಲಲ ನನ ಬರಸಟಷ ರತತ ಷನ
..........................................................................
ಹಸದನ ವಲ ನಲಲ ನನನ ಮದಲನ ಮಗನದ ಸಮರ 46 ವರರ ವಯಸಸ ನ ಎನ. ನರಸಸಹಯಯ ಎಸಬವನಗ ಯವ ಸಸ ತತ ನನ ಕಟಷ ರಲಲಲ ಇವನ ಆಲಯದ ಇದದ ಅವನ ಸಸರವನನ ನಮಮ ವವಷಲ ಬಷಳದ ಅವನ ನಡಸಕಸಡ ಬರತತ ದದ ನ. ಈಗ ಇವನ ನನನ ನನ ಸಹ ನಷಡಕಸಡ ನನನ ಹತ ಚಸತಕನಗಯ ಮತತ ನನನ ನನ ಪಷರಣ ಮಡಕಸಡ ಇರತತ ನ. ಆದದ ರಸದ ಅವನಗ ಸಹ ಒಸದ O.S. No.2338/1999 31 ಭಗವನನ ಈ ವಲ ನಲಲ ಬರಸಟಷ ರತತ ಷನ ."
35). Defendant No.7(b) / D.W.4 also produced a true copy of Registered Will dated 22.11.1979 executed by Nanjamma and marked the same as Ex.D32.
In Ex.D32 Nanjamma has stated as under :
" ನಜಮಮ ನದ ನನ ಬರಸದ ವಲಕಯ ನ ರಲರನಪತತ ಅದಗ ಪಪ ಡಯ ಲ ಮನಯ ನನನ ಮರಣನತರ ನನನ ಗಡ ಮಕಕ ಳದ ಎಸ. ಚನನ ನರಸಸಹಯಯ ಮತತ ಎನ.
ಕರಷ ಪಪ ಇವರ ಅಣಷ ನದ ಎನ ನರಸಸಹಯಯ ಈ ಮವರ ವಶರಷ ಹಕಕ ಬಧಯ ತಗ ಸರವತ ತ. 4-10-1979 ರಲಲ ಬಸಗಳರ ಸಟ ಶತ ಷರಮಪರ ಸಬ ರಜಸಷ ಸರ ರವರ ಆಫಷಸನ 3 ನ ಬಕಕ 9 ನ ವಲಯ ಸನಲಲ 39 ರಸದ 41 ನ ಪಟಗಳ ತನಕ 35 ನ ನಬರಗ ರಜಸಷ ಸಗರವ ವಲ ಯ ಮರಣ ಶಸವನನ ಬರಸ ಇಟಷ ದದ . ಈಗ ನನನ ಜಷವನ ಪಷರಣಯ ವಚರದಲಲ ನನನ ಗಡ ಮಕಕ ಳ ಅಸಡಡ ಮಡತತ ಇರವದರಸದಲ ಮತತ ನನನ ನನ ಮನಮ ಸ ಬದ ಹಡಯಲ ಬದವರಗ ಇರವದರಸದ ಇವರ ನಡತಯ ನನಗ ಸರಬಷಳದ ನನ ಬರಸರವ ಮಲಕ ಸಡ ವಲಲ ನನ ಈ ಮಲಕ ಕಯ ನಸ ಲರನ ಮಡರತತ ಷನ ."
O.S. No.2338/1999 32
36). In Ex.D15, Unregistered Will dated 08.08.1990 Nanjamma has stated as under :
"ಮದಲನ ಮಗ ಎನ. ನರಸಸಹಯಯ ನ ಸಸ ಗರಸದ ನಗರತತ ನ, ಆದರ ಈತನ 1954 ನಯ ಇಸವ ನವಸಬರ ಮಹ ತರಷಖವ ಇಪಪ ತತ ನಲಕ ರಲಲ (24-11-1954) ರಲಲ ನನನ ಸದ ರಲಷಜ ಯ ಖವಲಸ ಪತತ ವನನ ಅಸದರ, ನನನ ಬಬತ ಚರಸದ ರಸತ ಯಲಲ ಯವದ ಬಗಯ ಸಬಧ ಹಗ ಹಕಕ ಬಧಯ ತಗಳ ಇಲಲ ವಸದ ಸಕಪ ಗಳ ಮಸದ ತಷಮರನಸ ಸದರ ರಲಷಜ ಯ ಖವಲಸ ಪತತ ವನನ ಬಸಗಳರ ಸಟ ಸಬ-ರಜಸಷ ಸರ ರವರ ಕಛರಯಲಲ ಸದರ ಪತತ ವನನ ರಜಸಷ ರ ಮಡಸಲಗರತತ ."
It is pertinent to note that earlier wills executed by Nanjamma were Registered Wills. Why Nanjamma has not registered the will dated 08.08.1990 creates doubt as to the execution and genuineness of Ex.D15 unregistered will. It is also pertinent to mention that there is no reference of earlier Registered Wills and deed of cancellation of Registered Will dated 22.11.1979 by Smt. Nanjamma in Ex.D15.
37). Ex.D3, Registered release deed dated 24.11.1954 was marked by counsel for the Legal representatives of deceased defendant No.7 in the cross examination of defendant No.6 / D.W.1. In this Registered release deed it is stated that:
O.S. No.2338/1999 33 " ಎನ ನರಸಸಹಯಯ ಆದ ನನ ಬರಸ ಕಟಷ ರಲಷಜ ಯನ ಖವಲಸ ಪತತ ಏನಸದರ ನನನ ಲಗನ ಕಕ ಗಯ ಮತತ ನನ ಕಲವ ಚಲಲ ರ ಸಲ ಮಡರವದನನ ಅದನನ ತಷರಸಲ ನನಗ ರಹ ಇಲಲ ದದ ರಸದ ಈ ಕಳಗನ ಸಕಪ ಗಳ ಮಕತ ಐದನರ (500-00) ಗಳನನ ತಗದಕಸಡರತತ ಷನ. ಈ ಲಗಯತ ಇನನ ಮಸದ ನಮಮ ಒಟಷ ಕಟಸಬದ ಚರ ಸದ ರ ಸಸ ತತ ನ ಮಲ ನನಗ ಯವ ಹಕಕ ಭಧಯ ತಯ ಇರವದಲಲ .................".
But by Ex.D2, original Registered Will dated 03.10.1979 Nanjamma had bequeathed a property in favour of N. Narasimhaiah who has executed Ex.D3, Registered Release Deed dated 24.11.1954. By perusal of Ex.D2 it is clear that Ex.D3 has not been acted upon.
38). Plaintiff /P.W.1 in her cross examination by counsel for the L.Rs of deceased defendant No.7 has admitted as under :
"It is true to suggest that Katha of suit property was transferred in the name of D-7 on the basis of Will said to have been executed by Smt. Nanjamma.
I have not filed any objection or raised any objection for transferring Katha of suit property in the name of Defendant N o.7 on the basis of Will said to have been O.S. No.2338/1999 34 executed by Smt. Nanjamma on 08.08.1990.
It is settled principle of law that the party who asserts his right has to prove his case by his evidence and cannot prove his case alone on the weakness of the case of the opponents.
39). The counsel for Lrs of defendant No.7 has furnished the following judgments.
1. ILR 1985 Karnataka 1440 (Sri.Sidharood Swamy Math Trust Committee vs. Mallappa and others), wherein his lordship of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that Section 90 of The Indian Evidence Act lays down that when a document is an ancient document, being 30 years old, presumption arises as to execution, attestation and state of mind of testator.
The presumption as provided in Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act, may be drawn when Lrs of defendant No.7 proved Ex.D15 was produced from the proper custody. But, in this case defendant No.7 has produced Ex.D15 after 9 years from his appearance before the court for the 1st time.
2. AIR 2014 Supreme Court 937 ( Union of India Vs. Vasavi Co- op., Housing Society Limited and others), wherein their lordships of Ho'ble Supreme Court of India in para No.15 have opined that in a suit for declaration of title and possession plaintiff could succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient O.S. No.2338/1999 35 evidence to discharge the owners on it.
In this case to prove Ex.D15 is on Lrs of defendant No.7 and they cannot take the weakness of the case of the plaintiff alone to prove Ex.D15.
40). In view of the above discussion, I come to an opinion that the L.Rs of deceased defendant No.7 failed to prove that Late Smt.Nanjamma had executed a will dated 8.8.1990. Hence, I answer issue No.1 in Negative.
41). Issue No.3 and 4:- The counsel for the L.Rs of defendant No.7 in the cross examination of P.W.1 has suggested as under :
"It is true to suggest that I am residing in property mentioned in properties in 'B' schedule of written statement filed by D-7. It is false to suggest that in a said house as a tenant in Schedule 'B' property."
42). The counsel for the Legal representatives of deceased defendant No.7 in the cross examination of D.W.1 also has suggested as under :
"It is true to suggest that my grand mother had permitted plaintiff and her husband to reside in the portion of suit schedule property and that till today plaintiff residing O.S. No.2338/1999 36 in a portion of suit property."
Defendant No.7(b) / D.W.4 in his cross examination has answered / admitted as under :
"It is true to suggest that Plaintiff is residing in a portion of suit property. Witness voluntarily says that Plaintiff is residing in suit property as a tenant. It is true to suggest that even during the life time of my grand mother Smt. Nanjamma plaintiff was residing in a portion of suit property.
I am not having any document to show that Plaintiff has paid rent towards suit property to my grand mother. Even I am not having any document to show that Plaintiff started residing in a portion of suit property as a tenant. I am not having document to show that plaintiff was a tenant of a portion of suit property under my father and she was paying rent to my father.
Neither myself nor my father had issued notice to plaintiff calling upon her to pay arrears of rent. Neither myself nor my father had not initiated any proceedings against plaintiff for recovering arrears of rent and for evicting her from portion of suit property. Plaintiff is still O.S. No.2338/1999 37 residing in a portion of suit property. It is true to suggest that even during the life time of my grand mother Smt. Nanjamma, D-4 & 8 were residing in different portions of suit property. In which now they are residing. I am not having any document to show that D-1 & 8 occupied different portions of suit property as tenants and also to show that they had paid rent to my grand mother and to my father.
Till today Plaintiff is residing in a portion of suit property. I had not taken any steps for recovery of rent from Plaintiff. It is true to suggest that to one portion of suit property in which plaintiff is residing, plaintiff has taken electricity connection on 17.02.2002 and D-8 Krishnappa had taken electricity two portions of suit property on 05.08.1982 and 15.11.1979, and I have taken electricity connection to one portion of suit property in the year 2008. By the answer given by plaintiff/P.W.1 to the suggestion given by counsel for Lrs of defendant No.7 and the answer / admission given by defendant No.7(b)/D.W.4 in his cross examination, which I discussed above this court come to an opinion that, plaintiff able to prove her possession of suit schedule properties. Defendant No.7 in his written O.S. No.2338/1999 38 statement has contended that written statement schedule property wad bequeathed in his favour under Ex.D15, which itself amounts to interference in the possession of the plaintiff over suit schedule properties. Hence, I answer issue Nos.3 and 4 in Affirmative.
43). Issue No.2, 5 and additional issue No.1 :- In view of the finding I arrived on Issue No.1, 3 and 4, this court come to an opinion that plaintiff is entitle for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in suit schedule properties, defendant No.1(a) to (e), defendant No.2(a) to
(c), defendant No.3(a) to (c), defendant No.4, 5 and defendant No.6 together are entitle for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in suit schedule properties, defendant No.7(a) to (d) together are entitle for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in suit schedule properties and defendant No.8(b) to (d) together are entitle for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in suit schedule properties.
Hence, I answer Issue Nos.2, 5 and Additional Issue No.1 in Affirmative.
44). Issue No.7 :- In view of the finding I arrived on Issue Nos.1 to 5 and Additional Issue No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
Order The suit under Order VII Rule 1 of Code of Civil procedure, 1908 filed by the plaintiff is decreed with costs.
It is declared that plaintiff is entitle for partition and separate O.S. No.2338/1999 39 possession of 1/4th share in suit schedule properties.
It is further declared that defendant No.1(a) to (e), defendant No.2(a) to (c), defendant No.3(a) to (c), defendant No.4, 5 and defendant No.6 together are entitle for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in suit schedule properties.
It is further declared that defendant No.7(a) to (d) together are entitle for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in suit schedule properties.
It is further declared that defendant No.8(b) to (d) together are entitle for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in suit schedule properties.
Draw Preliminary decree accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer and also directly on computer, transcribed/typed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced in the open court on this the 2nd day of March, 2024). Digitally signed by RAGHAVENDRA RAGHAVENDRA G G Date: 2024.03.05 10:23:30 +0530 (G. Raghavendra) XXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru.
Annexure List of witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff:
P.W.1: Smt. Shanthalakshmi List of exhibits marked on behalf of Plaintiff:
Ex.P1 True copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 26.05.1952 Ex.P2 True copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 13.05.1963 Ex.P3 True copy of Registered Release Deed dated XZ24.11.1954 O.S. No.2338/1999 40 Ex.P4 True copy of Registered Rectification Deed dated 10.06.1954 Ex.P5 Death Certificate of Smt. Nanjamma Ex.P6 & 7 True copy 2 Registered Sale Deeds dated 12.12.1969 & 15.12.1969.
Ex.P8 True copy registered will dated 13.10.1969 List of witnesses examined on behalf of Defendant No.6:
D.W.1 Sri. Nagaraja D.W.2 Sri. J.L. John Peter
List of exhibits marked on behalf of Defendant No.6:
Ex.D2: Original Registered Will dated 03.10.1979 List of witnesses examined on behalf of L.Rs of Defendant No.8:
D.W.3: Sri. N. Krishnappa List of exhibits marked on behalf of Lrs of Defendant No.8:
Ex.D4: True copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 03.10.1969 Ex.D5: National Trade certificate Ex.D6: Medical Certificate Ex.D7: Voluntary retirement Scheme Certificate
List of witnesses examined on behalf of L.Rs of Defendant No.7:
D.W.4: Sri. Rajashekara
D.W.5: Sri. C.A. Kumar, advocate
D.W.6: Sri. R. Narayanaswamy
D.W.7: Sri. B.K. Krishna Moorthy
O.S. No.2338/1999
41
D.W.8: Smt. D.K. Prema
D.W.9: Smt. Gangamma
List of exhibits marked on behalf of L.Rs of Defendant No.7: Ex.D1: Copy of Rough sketch pertaining to written statement schedule properties.
Ex.D3: Original Registered Release Deed dated 24.11.1954 Ex.D8: True copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 26.05.1952 Ex.D8(a): Typed copy of Ex.D8 Ex.D9: True copy of Registered Rectification deed dated 10.06.1954 Ex.D9(a): Typed copy of Ex.D9 Ex.D10: True Copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 13.05.1963 Ex.D10(a): Typed Copy of Ex.D10 Ex.D11: Copy of Rough sketch pertaining to to written statement schedule properties.
Ex.D12 - 14: Doctor Prescriptions.
Ex.D15: Original unregistered Will dated 08.08.1990 Ex.D16: Death Certificate of Smt.Nanjamma Ex.D17: House and vacant places Tax Register extract 2001 -
2002
Ex.D18: Tax paid receipt
Ex.D19: Original Registered Partition Deed dated 22.11.2002
Ex.D20 & 21:House and vacant places Tax Register extract 2000 -
2003
Ex.D22 & 23: Katha certificates
Ex.D24: Property tax payment acknowledgment
Ex.D25: Property tax receipt
O.S. No.2338/1999
42
Ex.D26: Katha certificate
Ex.D27: Property tax receipt/ House and vacant places Tax
Register extract 2000 - 2003
Ex.D28: Tax paid receipt
Ex.D29: True copy of registered sale deed dated 15.12.1969
Ex.D30: Marriage Invitation card
Ex.D31: Original Registered will dated 31.1.2008
Ex.D32: True copy of Registered cancellation of will deed
dated 22.11.1979.
Ex.D32(a): Typed Copy of Ex.D32
Ex.D33: True copy of registered will dated 03.10.1979
Ex.D33(a): Typed Copy of Ex.D33
Ex.D34 to 41: On demand Promissory Note/Money paid receipt Ex.42 to 50 & 52: Tax paid receipts Ex.D51: Death Ceremony card of Smt.Nanjamma Ex.D53 : Police Complaint dated 19.10.1964 of Smt. Nanjamma Ex.D54 : Police Complaint dated 24.10.1964 of Smt. Nanjamma Ex.D55: Police Complaint dated 26.1.1966 of Smt. Nanjamma Ex.D56: Police Complaint dated 27.1.1966 of Smt. Nanjamma Ex.D57: Police Complaint dated 9.9.1971 of Sri. Narayanappa Ex.D58: Postal Acknowledgment Ex.D59: Death certificate of defendant No.7 Ex.D60: Original PAN card of D.W.7 Ex.D60(a): Photocopy of Ex.D60 Ex.D61: Original Stamp vendors Identity card of D.W.7 Ex.D61(a): Photocopy of Ex.D61 Ex.D62: Original Ration card pertaining to D.W.9 family O.S. No.2338/1999 43 List of witnesses examined on behalf of Court:
C.W.1: Sri. J.S. Shiva Kumar, Director, Truth Lab, Hyderabad List of exhibits marked on behalf of court witness:
Ex.C1: Report / opinion of truth labs dated 26.02.2015 Ex.C2: Forwarding letter dated 09.03.2015 Ex.C3: Report / opinion of truth labs dated 12.6.2015 Ex.C4: Forwarding letter dated 23.6.2015 XXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge Bengaluru.