Bangalore District Court
Smt.Padmini Ramakrisna Reddy vs K.Sreenivasa Reddy on 24 February, 2020
1
O.S.No.8137/2012.
IN THE COURT OF THE XXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH.31)
DATED THIS THE 24 th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020
PRESENT:
SRI. MAANU K.S., B.Sc., LLB.
XXX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.NO.8137 /2012.
PLAINTIFF/S : 1. Smt.Padmini Ramakrisna Reddy,
W/o Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy,
Aged about 78 years,
2. Hoodi R.Venkatesh Reddy,
S/o Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy,
Aged about 53 years,
3. Kum.Kashmira Priyadarshini
Reddy, D/o Hoodi R.Venkatesh
Reddy, Now attained Majority,
Now r/at No.11600, Paramus Drive,
North Potomac, M.D.20878, USA.
4. Kum. Divya Venkatesh Reddy,
D/o Hoodi R.Venkatesh Reddy,
Aged about 11 years,
Being minor rep.by her father &
natural guardian Sri. Hoodi
R.Venkatesh Reddy,
5. Chi.Vikram Venkatesh Vinayak
Reddy, S/o Hoodi R.Venkatesh
Reddy, Aged about 11 years,
Being minor rep.by his father &
natural guardian Sri. Hoodi
R.Venkatesh Reddy,
2
O.S.No.8137/2012.
All are r/at 'Siam House', No.1/21,
Sri Ramana Maharshi Road,
Raj Mahal Vilas Extension,
Bengaluru -560 080.
(By Pleader Sri.C.G.Gopalaswamy,
Adv.)
/VS/
DEFENDANT/S: 1. K.Sreenivasa Reddy,
S/o Sri.K.Siva Reddy,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at No.26, Sree Rama Nilaya,
Sri.Rajarajeshwari Layout,
Behind DRDO Phase II,
Mahadevapura,
Bengaluru -560 016.
2. Smt.Radha Sanjay,
W/o Sri.S.Biju Sanjay,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.677, 4th Cross,
'A' block, Vinayakanagar,
Konena Agrahara,
Bengaluru-560 017.
3. Smt.Purnima Roy,
W/o Sri.Dilip Roy,
Aged about 64 years,
R/at No.L-23, Sector 14,
HAL II stage, Jeevanbhimanagar,
Bengaluru-560 075.
4. Kamal Roy,
S/o Sri.Dilip Roy,
Aged about 41 years,
R/at No.L-23, Sector 14,
HAL II stage, Jeevanbhimanagar,
Bengaluru-560 075.
5. Babu Thomas,
S/o V.M.Thomas,
3
O.S.No.8137/2012.
Aged about 45 years,
R/at 'Nellampuzha',
Amayanoor Post-686 025,
Kottayam Dist, Kerala State.
6. Smt.Sumathi Babu,
W/o Babu Thomas,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at 'Nellampuzha',
Amayanoor Post-686 025,
Kottayam Dist, Kerala State.
7. Smt.M.Vijaya Bharathi,
W/o Sri.Obula Reddy,,
Aged about 46 years,
R/at No.12-3-788,
Jesusnagar, Ananthapur,
Andhra Pradesh.
8. Raghu Ramaiah Muvvala,
S/o Sri.Venkateswaralu Muvvala,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at No.22/94, Big Bazar,
Nellore-524 001,
Andhra Pradesh.
9. Smt.K.Kavitha,
W/o Sri.G.Madhusudhan Reddy,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at No.A-8, Staff Quarters,
S.V.S.Hospital, Mehaboob Nagar
-509 002, Andhra Pradesh.
10. Smt.Gandluru Ushasree,
W/o Sri.G.Mallikarjuna Reddy,
Aged about 33 years,
R/at Y.Kothapalli, Simhadripuram
(Mandal)-516 468, Kadapa
District, Andhra Pradesh.
11. Smt.B.Sudharani,
W/o Sri.B.Uday Reddy,
Aged about 42 years,
4
O.S.No.8137/2012.
R/at No.12/1, Kalahalli,
Kensington Road, Sivanchetty
Garden (Post), Bengaluru -560 042.
12. Smt.B.Uday Kumar Reddy,
S/o Sri. B.C. Venkata Reddy,
Aged about 44 years,
R/at No.12/1, Kalahalli,
Kensington Road, Sivanchetty
Garden (Post), Bengaluru -560 042.
13. Narala Kishore Reddy,
S/o Sri. N.C.Narayana Reddy,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at Jeevan Surbhi Colony,
Block 31, Flat No.326, 10th
'B' Cross, 25th Main, 1st Phase,
J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru -560 078.
14. Smt.Lingala Deepathi,
W/o Sri. Narala Kishore Reddy
Aged about 40 years,
R/at Jeevan Surbhi Colony,
Block 31, Flat No.326, 10th
'B' Cross, 25th Main, 1st Phase,
J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru -560 078.
15. Smt.S.Savithri,
W/o Sri. Venkata Reddy
Aged about 63 years,
R/at 2/12, Brodipet II Lane,
12th Cross, Guntur,
Andhra Pradesh.
16. Y.Prasannatha Reddy,
S/o Sri. Y.V.Narayana Reddy
Aged about 47 years,
R/at Dattapuram Post & Village,
(R.S.), Kondapuram Mandal,
Kadapa District, Pin-516 474.
17. Smt.Y.Prasuna,
W/o Sri. Y.Prasannatha Reddy,
5
O.S.No.8137/2012.
Aged about 42 years,
R/at Dattapuram Post & Village,
(R.S.), Kondapuram Mandal,
Kadapa District, Pin-516 474.
(By Pleader Sri. MSV, Adv. for D1,
Sri.RSK, Adv.for D7 &8, Sri.SHGK,
Adv.for D10, Sri.PTH, Adv. for D11 &
12, Sri.HSG, Adv.for D.16 & 17. D2 to
D6, D9, D13 to 15 exparte)
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 16-11-2012.
NATURE OF THE SUIT (Suit on : Suit for Partition &
Pronote, Suit for declaration and Separate possession.
Possession, Suit for injunction, etc.)
DATE OF THE COMMENCEMENT
OF RECORDING OF THE EVIDENCE : 16-09-2016.
DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGEMENT
WAS PRONOUNCED : 24-02-2020.
TOTAL DURATION YEAR/S MONTH/S DAY/S
07 03 08
(MAANU K.S.),
XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
6
O.S.No.8137/2012.
JUDGEMENT
1. This is a suit for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' 5/6th share over the suit 'A' & 'B' schedule properties along with the costs of the proceedings.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs are as follows:
(a). It is the case of the plaintiffs that the 1 st plaintiff is the wife, 2nd plaintiff is the son and the plaintiffs No.3 to 5 are the grand children of Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy and that the 3rd plaintiff was born on 10-11-2000 and 4th and 5th plaintiffs who are twins were born on 02-05-2002. It is their further case that one Hoodi Guruva Reddy, the father of Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy was born into a family of agriculturists in Hoodi Village of K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk and the said family had also ancestral Inam lands in the nearby village of Kaggadasapura. They further contended that late Guruva Reddy was progressive in his thinking who had realized that there was no substitute for good education and therefore, he came to Bengaluru for his education and after graduating, he went to Poona and after securing a decree of law, came back to Bengaluru and set up practice as a lawyer and made a good name in his profession. They further contended that said Guruva Reddy got married to 7 O.S.No.8137/2012.
Smt.Akkamma and out of their wedlock, they have begotten two daughters and three sons and in the partition of the joint family properties which was then made up of himself and his brothers governed by Mithakshara School of Hindu Law and possessed some ancestral properties, Sri.Guruva Reddy got certain lands to his share and by his hard work and probity, he not only improved the lands, but has also acquired other properties, gave good education to his children, got married his daughters and conscientiously discharged his obligations. They further contended that apart from acquiring a formidable status in the society, he had also rendered yeoman's service by contributing to a meaningful social and charitable activities and he being one of the four members of the erstwhile princely State of Mysore in the Constituent Assembly strove hard to make people to get good education and as such, he gave up the Inam lands at Kaggadasapura to the actual cultivators for nominal sums of money and retained other lands and he dedicated part of his property at Hoodi for establishment of 'Sri. Vivekananda Ashrama' to manage which he created a trust by name 'Swami Vivekananda Ashrama Trust of Hoodi' being a founder president of the said Trust. They further contended that the said Sri.Guruva Reddy was a prudent man who used the proceeds from the sale of the Inam lands at Kaggadasapura for acquiring other immovable properties and as such, he 8 O.S.No.8137/2012.
purchased sites at Jayanagar and Gandhinagar in Bengaluru and constructed a house on the site at Gandhinagar and made some improvement to the house situated adjoining Sri.Vivekananda Ashrama, which was a very small for his stay and he was conscientious income tax assessee who used to regularly file income tax returns as a kartha of HUF.
(b). They further contended that Dr.H.G. Ramakrishna Reddy also became an assessee of income tax and used to file returns as kartha of his branch that then consisted of himself and plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and the other sons of Sri.Guruva Reddy were also assessees to income tax representing their branches as karthas. They further contended that on 08-09-1977, Sri.Guruva Reddy and his sons effected oral partition of the joint family properties and in the said partition, Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy got 1/4th share in the property bearing Site No.277, II Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru and 1/3rd share in the property bearing No.41/42, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru for and on behalf of joint family consisting of himself and plaintiffs No.1 and 2 as a kartha and late Guruva Reddy kept agricultural lands for himself and in due course, he sold the said properties for money required for Sri. Vivekananda Ashrama and later died on 05- 10-1982.
9O.S.No.8137/2012.
(c). They further contended that Dr.H.G. Ramakrishna Reddy sold his 1/4th share in site bearing No.277, II Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru somewhere in the year 1979 and purchased an extent of 3 acres 4 guntas of land in Sy.No. 87/1, Hoodi Village on 02-09-1983 along with his cousin Smt.Anasuya Reddy and they became the joint owners of the said extent with equal share and for acquiring his half share in the said extent, Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy had invested the proceeds of the sale of his 1/4th share in the said site bearing No.277, II Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru. They further contended that on 23-04-1991, the said Smt.Anasuya Reddy relinquished her half share in the aforesaid land bearing No.87/1, Hoodi Village in favour of Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy for valuable consideration which he had paid out of the funds of the joint family and as such, he became the owner of the entire extent of the said property which is described as suit 'A' schedule land. They further contended that Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy sold the 1/ 3rd share which belonged to his branch in the property bearing No.41/42, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru and out of the said sale proceeds, he had purchased an extent of 2 acres 7 guntas of land bearing Sy.No. 87/2 , Hoodi Village, morefully described as suit 'B' schedule property from said Smt.Anusuya Reddy under the sale deed dtd.26-12-1990 and since both the said properties were purchased out of the sale proceeds of 10 O.S.No.8137/2012.
the joint family properties, both the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties acquired the status of joint family properties.
(d). They further contended that since the 2nd plaintiff had gone to USA at his young age and completed his education there and got employed there and eventually became a citizen of that country and his visit to India was very rare, he hardly knew about the affairs of the joint family and in April 2005, when Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy developed pain in his ankles and knees, 2nd plaintiff requested him to come to USA to undergo treatment there and despite many requests made by the plaintiffs No.1 and 2, Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy did not change his mind to go to USA, but went to Chennai for consultation and when his ailment became too serious, he got admitted to a private hospital at Bengaluru and undergone surgical procedures and despite under going treatment, he could not survive and on April 30,2005 he died due to a clot in the blood. They further contended that the 2nd plaintiff after returning from USA has performed the cremation and also the 11th day rituals of Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy and returned to USA with his wife and children and due to his mother's loneliness and sufferings, he decided to shift back to his residence to India and as such, on 06-06-2007 he returned to Bengaluru with his wife and children and took up residence in the cause title 11 O.S.No.8137/2012.
mentioned address and had took considerable time for him, wife and his children to settle at Bengaluru by securing employment for himself and his wife and due to above said busy avocations, he could not pay his attention to the affairs of the joint family until March 2012 when he visited to USA, wherein he learnt that under the latest change in the tax laws of that country, its residents and citizens had to add their properties and financial assets and income accruing in their native countries to the properties held and the income earned in the USA, hence, when he returned to India in April 2012, he began making enquiries about the properties of the joint family and the income therefrom, but could not make much headway as he could not locate the documents and records that Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy had maintained and when matter stood thus, the trustees managing Sri.Vivekananda Ashrama Trust invited the 2 nd plaintiff to a meeting of the trustees to be held at the Ashram on 25-08-2012, to which he had attended, where he was surprised to know that he was being appointed as a trustee in the vacancy caused by the demise of his father Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy and he gladly accepted the said appointment and after conclusion of the meeting, he enquired about the suit schedule properties at which point of time he was shocked to receive the reply that his father Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy had parted with both suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties some time ago.
12O.S.No.8137/2012.
(e). They further contended that the 2nd plaintiff had absolutely no knowledge about selling of suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy had not taken his consent for sale at any time and while 2nd plaintiff asked the 1st plaintiff about the sale of schedule lands, she also pleaded her ignorance stating that still she was under the impression that schedule lands were with the family and as such, he started making enquiries and securing the documents pertaining to the suit schedule properties, at which point of time, he came to know that Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy had sold suit 'B' schedule property to the 1st defendant under sale deed dtd.08- 07-2002 by which date, the plaintiffs No.3 to 5 were born and had acquired the status of co-parceners of the joint family of Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy. They further contended that Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy had also obtained the permission for conversion of 1 acre of land out of suit 'A' schedule land from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purpose and had sold 2 acres out of suit 'A' schedule land to 1 st defendant under another sale deed dtd.24-02-2003 and after obtaining necessary permission for change of land user, the 1st defendant claiming himself to be the GPA holder of Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy formed sites in both the schedule properties and sold the sites in favour of defendants No.2 to 10 herein.
13O.S.No.8137/2012.
(f). They further contended that since the consent of all the plaintiffs were not taken by Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy while executing the said sale deed in favour of 1st defendant, the said sale transactions not being for discharging antecedent debts or to meet the expenses of the legal necessities of the plaintiffs No.3 to 5, are void and not binding on them and as such, the said alienations made by Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy could at the worst bind the said Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy's 1/6 th share over the suit schedule properties and not in respect of the remaining 5/6th share of the plaintiffs. Therefore, by contending that they are in joint possession of suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and that the cause of action for them to file the suit arose on various dates right from the death of Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy till 25-08-2012 being the date on which the 2nd plaintiff came to know about the sale of suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, they have come up with this suit for partition of suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties to an extent of their 5/6 th share over the same along with costs of the proceedings and prayed to decree the suit.
3. Originally the suit was filed against defendants No.1 to 10. Later defendants No.11 to 17 were impleaded. After service of summons, the defendants No.1, 7 and 8 have filed their respective written statements. In spite of service of summons, the defendants No.2 to 6, 14 O.S.No.8137/2012.
13 & 14, remained absent, hence, they were placed exparte. In spite of service of summons by way of paper publication to defendant No.9 & 15 they remained absent, hence, defendant No.9 & 15 were also placed exparte. The defendants No.10, 11, 12, 16 and 17 who have appeared through their counsels have not filed their written statements. The brief facts of the written statement filed by defendant No.1 are as follows:
(a). The defendant No.1 in his written statement while denying the relationship of the plaintiff with late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy and that the suit schedule properties are all the joint family properties of the plaintiffs sought for dismissal of the suit and contended that Guruva Reddy did not possess any ancestral properties and that he was a practicing lawyer who had made a name for him in the profession, having a permanent source of income and whatever properties he had acquired were acquired out of his self earned income and while admitting that late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy was an income tax assessee, he contended that late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy was highly educated and was working both in India and abroad and had is own source of independent income and while denying that late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy was the kartha of the joint family consisting of his branch who are the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 herein, he contended that late 15 O.S.No.8137/2012.
Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy did not possess any joint family ancestral properties or co-parcenery properties from Guruva Reddy as contended by the plaintiffs and while showing his ignorance regarding the oral partition dtd.08-09-1977, he denied that late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy got 1/4th share in Jayanagar property and 1/3rd share in Gandhinagar property representing his branch consisting of himself and plaintiffs No.1 and 2.
(b). He further contended that late Guruva Reddy had his own source of income and whatever properties which were stood in the name of said Guruva Reddy were his self acquired and absolute properties and after his death, his sons including Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy succeeded to the same, the said properties in law be deemed to be the self acquired properties of the children of Guruva Reddy and they cannot be considered or deemed as joint family properties or co-parcenery properties in the hands of the sons of Guruva Reddy and therefore, the grand children of Guruva Reddy cannot claim to have acquired any right over the said properties. While admitting that the suit 'A' schedule property was purchased on 02-09-1983 along with one Smt.Anasuya Reddy, he denied that late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy had utilized the sale proceeds of Jayanagar property for acquiring the same and contended that since Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy 16 O.S.No.8137/2012.
working both in India and abroad, he had his own source of income and he purchased the said property along with Smt.Anasuya Reddy out of his own income. While admitting the execution of the registered rekease deed by Smt.Anasuya Reddy in respect of half share of the suit 'A' schedule property for a valuable consideration in favour of Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy, the defendant No.1 further denied that the said consideration was paid by Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy out of the joint family funds. Similarly, while admitting the purchase of the suit 'B' schedule property from Smt.Anasuya Reddy through sale deed dtd.26-12-1990 by Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy, he denied that for purchasing the said property, the sale proceeds of his 1/3rd share in Gandhinagar property was utilized by Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy.
(c).He further contended that even if it is conceded that the sale proceeds of Gandhinagar and Jayanagar properties were utilized by Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy for acquiring the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, still the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties did not acquire the status of the joint family properties as the said properties situated in Jayanagar and Gandhinagar which were sold by Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy were the absolute properties of late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy having acquired by his father Guruva Reddy and therefore, the suit schedule properties became the self acquired 17 O.S.No.8137/2012.
properties of Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy. While denying that the plaintiffs are the joint family members and that they have got a share over the suit schedule properties and that the plaintiffs were not aware of all the transactions said to have taken place as false and frivolous, he contended that the said averments are made only with an intention to avoid the suit being hit by limitation. He further contended that late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy being the absolute owner of suit schedule properties had sold an extent of 2 acres of land in suit 'A' schedule property to him through a registered sale deed dtd.24- 02-2003 and by executing a registered GPA dtd.24- 02-2003 with respect to the remaining 1 acre 4 guntas in suit 'A' schedule property in his favour and he having acquired the right to sell the same through the said registered GPA, has sold the sites formed in 1 acre 4 guntas in suit 'A' schedule property in favour of other defendants and that the other defendants being the absolute owners of their respective sites purchased by them are in possession of the said sites. He further contended that in the remaining 2 acres of suit 'A' schedule property, he has already sold a portion of the same by forming sites to different purchasers and retained the rest and that the purchasers of the respective sites are in possession of their respective sites.
18O.S.No.8137/2012.
(d). He further contended that, similarly he had purchased the suit 'B' schedule property from Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy through a registered sale deed dtd.08-07-2002 and has sold the portion of the same by forming sites in favour of different persons and he is in possession of the remaining extent of suit 'B' schedule property. He further contended that since both the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties were the absolute properties of Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy, he had every right, title and liberty to sell the same in his favour by reason of which he became the absolute owner in possession of both suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim any share in either of the suit schedule properties. He further contended that since the suit schedule properties were the absolute properties of Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy, there was no question of obtaining any consent from any of the plaintiffs by Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy to sell the same or to execute the GPA with respect to the suit schedule properties and there was no necessity for him to show the fact of legal necessity. He further contended that even otherwise, the suit schedule properties were sold by late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy to meet his legal necessities and he has purchased the same from Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy by paying handsome consideration to him and as such, the said sale deeds executed by late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy is binding on the plaintiffs. In the alternative, he also 19 O.S.No.8137/2012.
contended that since late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy in the capacity as a kartha of the alleged joint family has sold the suit schedule properties, the said sale transactions are binding on the plaintiffs as it is well established principle of Hindu Law that a kartha of the joint family has got all liberty to deal with the joint family or co-parcenery properties and therefore, by contending that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation and that the suit is devoid of merits and that the plaintiffs have got no right of whatsoever nature to question the alienations made by late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy in his favour and that there are several other purchasers of the sites formed in suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties by him who have not been arrayed as necessary parties and that there were several other properties standing in the name of late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy which have not been included by the plaintiffs and therefore, the suit is also bad for partial partition and for non- joinder of necessary parties, he sought for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.
4. The defendants No.7 and 8 in their written statements supported the case of defendant No.1 by denying all most all the plaint averments and further contended that the suit is not properly valued and the Court Fees paid is insufficient as the plaintiffs are not in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and that they are the bonafide purchasers 20 O.S.No.8137/2012.
of the sites formed in both suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties by the 1st defendant who sold the same in their favour as GPA holder of deceased Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy, for valuable consideration under two different registered sale deeds and that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective sites bearing sites No.164 and 180 respectively by recording the katha in their names and therefore, by denying the claim of plaintiffs for partition and separate possession, they also sought for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.
5. On the basis of the rival contentions taken up by the respective parties, the following issues have been framed by my Learned predecessor in office for disposal of the case:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the members of the joint family as on the date of suit?
2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the suit schedule 'A' & B' properties are the joint family properties amenable for partition?
3. Whether defendant No.1 proves that the suit schedule 'A' & 'B' properties are the absolute and self acquired properties of Dr.Ramakrishna Reddy?
4. Whether the valuation made and the Court Fee paid is improper?
5. Whether defendant Nos.7 & 8 proves that they are the bonafide purchasers of the site Nos.164 21 O.S.No.8137/2012.
& 180 respectively comprised in converted Sy.No.87/1, which is a self acquired property of Sri.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy?
6. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of their legitimate 5/6 th share over the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties by metes and bounds?
7. What order or decree?
6. In order to substantiate the case made out by the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.1 got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.21 & 21(a). To rebut the case of the plaintiffs, the defendant No.1 got examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents as per Ex.D.1 to D.5 and closed their respective evidences. The defendants No.7 and 8 except filing written statements have not participated in the proceedings and have not examined P.W. 1 nor have led their evidence. Thereafter, the case was posted for arguments.
7. I have heard the arguments of both the counsels appearing for the plaintiffs and defendants. Perused the materials placed on record.
8. On perusal of issue No.5 framed by the predecessor of this Court shows that aportion of said issue is nothing but a repetition of issue No.3. Hence, later part of issue No.5 is not necessary for effective consideration of the same. Accordingly, the issue No.5 is recasted as follows:
22O.S.No.8137/2012.
RECASTED ISSUE NO.5 Whether defendant Nos.7 & 8 proves that they are the bonafide purchasers of the site Nos.164 & 180 respectively formed in suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties?
9. Since, the recasted issue No.5 is nothing but a rectified issue, to give better meaning with out again indulging to answer the previously dealt issue bearing No.3 and since nothing new has been replaced in its original place and since parties have already lead their evidence and concluded the trial by understanding real matter in controversy between them, there is no necessity to call upon the parties to adduce evidence on recasted issue. Accordingly, I proceed to record my findings on the above issues and recasted issue as follows:
Issue No.1: In the negative.
Issue No.2: In the negative.
Issue No.3: In the affirmative.
Issue No.4: In the negative.
Recasted Issue No.5: In the negative.
Issue No.6: In the negative.
Issue No.7: As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
10. ISSUES NO.1 to 3:- Since these issues are interconnected and reciprocal with each other and 23 O.S.No.8137/2012.
answering issues No.1 and 2 in affirmative, will automatically render the issue No.3 in the negative and vice-versa, in order to avoid repetition of facts and appreciation of evidence, they are taken together for joint discussion.
11. The relationship of plaintiffs with deceased Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy is not in much dispute between the parties to the suit. Though initially the defendants No.1, 7 and 8 have denied the relationship of plaintiffs No.2 to 5 with late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy, they never denied the relationship of 1 st plaintiff with late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy and admitted that she happened to be his wife and in the later course of their written statements and during the trial, the defendants have admitted that the 2nd plaintiff happened to be the only son of Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy and that the plaintiffs No.3 to 5 are the children of 2 nd plaintiff. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that they all constituted the members of the Hindu joint family headed by late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy and that the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are the joint family properties amenable for partition having acquired by late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy through two registered sale deeds dtd.02-09-1983 and 26-12-1990 and a registered release deed dtd.23-04-1991 out of the sale proceeds received from sale of 1/3 rd share belonged to 24 O.S.No.8137/2012.
his branch in property bearing No.41/42 situated at Gandhinagar and 1/4th share belonged to his branch in the property bearing No.277, II Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru which were acquired by late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy under a partition between himself, his father and brothers and as such, the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties became the joint family properties.
12. To show that the plaintiffs constituted members of joint family and that the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are the joint family properties acquired by late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy out of the joint family funds, the 2nd plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 and got marked 21 documents as per Ex.P. 1 to P.21 and P.21(a) and strongly relied on Ex.P.1, P.2, P.3, P.17, P.20 and P.21.
13. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the defendants No.1, 7 and 8 that the suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy having acquired the same under Ex.P. 1 to P.3 and Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy had purchased the said properties out of his own independent income as he started earning at the age of 20 years itself and he had worked at various places outside India and had also worked in the various departments of Union of India and State Government 25 O.S.No.8137/2012.
and out of his self earnings, he had purchased the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and the properties which he had acquired from his father late Guruva Reddy were also his separate properties as his father late Guruva Reddy had acquired the said properties out of his own earnings. It is their further contention that late Guruva Reddy was an eminent advocate and had his own self earnings and out of his self earnings, he had acquired properties situated at Jayanagar and Gandhinagar and the said properties which were in his hands were his absolute properties and therefore, the properties which were acquired by the children of said Guruva Reddy including late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy became their self acquired properties and as such, even if it is believed that the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties were acquired by late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy out of the sale proceeds received by him from the sale of Gandhinagar and Jayanagar properties, then also the suit schedule properties did not acquire the status of the joint family properties and therefore, at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be held that the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiffs amenable for partition. They further contended that since, the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties were self acquired properties of late Dr.H.G. Ramakrishna Reddy, he had every authority to dispose of the suit schedule properties as per his wish and accordingly, he had sold the portion of suit 'A' 26 O.S.No.8137/2012.
schedule property and 'B' schedule property in favour of defendant No.1 under Ex.P. 4 and 5 and had executed a registered GPA in respect of the remaining portion of suit 'A' schedule property as per Ex.D. 1 and based on the said GPA, the 1st defendant had executed several sale deeds in favour of the defendants No.2 to 17 as per Ex.D. 2 to D.5 and Ex.P. 4 to P.10 and in the remaining portion of suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, by forming residential sites, he had sold various sites in favour of various persons and the plaintiffs have not brought all the said purchasers as parties to this suit except bringing some of the site purchasers, who are defendants No.2 to 17. In support of his case, the defendant No.1 has examined himself as D.W. 1 and got marked 5 documents as per Ex.D. 1 to D.5. But, defendants No.7 and 8 have neither examined P.W. 1 nor lead their evidence and remained absent.
14. Acquisition of suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties by Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy through Ex.P. 1 to P.3 is not in dispute. It is an admitted fact that late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy had purchased the suit 'A' schedule property bearing Sy.No. 87/1 situated at Hoodi Village, totally measuring 3 acres 4 guntas from Sri.H.S.Gopala Reddy for a total sale consideration of Rs. 48,000/- along with his cousin Smt.Anasuya Reddy under Ex.P. 1 sale deed dtd.02-09-1983 and both of them became the joint owners with equal share 27 O.S.No.8137/2012.
over the same and subsequently on 23-04-1991, the said Smt.Anasuya Reddy relinquished her half share in the suit 'A' schedule property by receiving valuable consideration of Rs.50,000/-in favour of Dr.H.G. Ramakrishna Reddy as per Ex.P. 2 Release Deed and therefore, late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy became the absolute owner of the full extent of 3 acres 4 guntas of suit 'A' schedule property. Therefore, from the recitals found in Ex.P. 1 and P.2, prima facie it appears that late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy had purchased the suit 'A' schedule property and therefore, he became the absolute owner of the same. However, it is the specific contention of the plaintiffs herein that on 04- 02-1980 Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy had sold the 1/4th share right belonged to his Hindu Undivided Family branch in site bearing No.277, II Block, Jananagar, Bengaluru for a valuable consideration of Rs. 75,000/- under Ex.P. 17 sale deed and out of the said sale proceeds, he has purchased the suit 'A' schedule property along with his cousin Smt.Anusuya Reddy by paying only a sum of Rs. 48,000/- and had retained the remaining sale consideration with him and subsequently out of remaining amount and out of the other joint family income, he had paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to his cousin Smt.Anasuya Reddy when she executed a release deed as per Ex.P. 2 in his favour and therefore, the suit 'A' schedule property acquired the status of joint family property.
28O.S.No.8137/2012.
15. Similarly, it is not in dispute that the suit 'B' schedule property which is a land bearing Sy.No. 87/2 measuring 2 acres 7 guntas of Hoodi Village was purchased by Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy from the very same Smt.Anasuya Reddy for a valuable consideration of Rs. 1,35,000/- under Ex.P. 3 sale deed dtd.26-12-1990. According to the plaintiff before acquisition of the said property also, Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy had sold the 1/3 rd share that belonged to his HUF branch in property bearing No.41/42 Gandhinagar, Bengaluru as per Ex.P. 21 sale deed dtd.18-11-1984 and out of the said sale proceeds in the year 1990, he had purchased the suit 'B' schedule property and therefore, the suit 'B' schedule property also acquired the status of joint family property.
16.To show that the said Jayanagar property and Gandhinagar property fell to the branch of late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy, the plaintiff relied on Ex.P. 20 a registered Deed of partition dtd.25-05-1967 and by relying on all these documents, they contended that in the family partition between late Guruva Reddy, the grandfather of 2 nd plaintiff and his sons named Sri.H.G.Sunder Ram Reddy, Sri.H.G.V.Reddy and Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy, the ancestral joint family properties came to be partitioned between them and out of the sale proceeds by selling the said joint family properties, the suit 'A' 29 O.S.No.8137/2012.
and 'B' schedule properties have been acquired and therefore, the suit schedule properties became the joint family properties and they are available for partition. This contention has been taken by plaintiffs for the first time in the evidence of PW.1 without there being any foundation in pleadings as rightly argued by the counsel for the defendants. Therefore, any amount of evidence in the absence of pleadings cannot be looked into as per the established principle of law. Presuming for the sake of convenience that there was sufficient pleadings, then also, a perusal of Ex.P. 20 partition deed dtd.25-05-1967 makes it clear that no where in the said partition deed, the words 'ancestral co-parcenery properties' were used and though the words 'Hindu undivided joint family properties' have been used, the recitals with rgard to the description of the properties and about the acquisition of the said properties would tend to show that late Guruva Reddy had acquired the said properties out of his self earnings and that he during his life time had partitioned the said properties among his children. The recitals found in Ex.P. 20 further goes to show that all the children of said Guruva Reddy had their own self acquired properties which were not subjected to the said partition under the partition deed. Though the plaintiffs have contended that the said Guruva Reddy had certain ancestral Inam lands in his possession and out of the income of the said properties, the properties situated at 30 O.S.No.8137/2012.
Jayanagar and Gandhinagar were purchased, absolutely no materials have been placed by the plaintiffs to show the existence of the said properties and to show that late Guruva Reddy had inherited the said Inam lands from his ancestors.
17.Of course in Ex.P. 20 certain agricultural lands have been shown to have fell to the share of late Guruva Reddy, but no where it is forthcoming that the said agricultural properties were acquired by late Guruva Reddy from his ancestors. Even in the cross- examination of P.W. 1, he has clearly admitted that he does not know the details of the properties which were acquired by late Guruva Reddy which were situated at Hoodi Village and how the said properties were acquired by the said Guruva Reddy. Similarly, P.W. 1 has also clearly admitted that he does not have any documents to show that by disposing all the said ancestral joint family properties, late Guruva Reddy had acquired the properties situated at Gandhinagar and Jayanagar. That apart, he has also admitted that late Guruva Reddy was an eminent Advocate having independent source of income and was assessed to income tax. Even in the plaint itself, there is an admission that said Guruva Reddy strongly believed that there is no substitute for good education and came to Bengaluru to pursue his education, graduated at Bengaluru, went to Puna and secured Law Decree and set up his practice as a lawyer and 31 O.S.No.8137/2012.
that he worked hard and got certain lands acquired. But, the plaintiffs only added that he worked hard in the said ancestral properties possessed by him and out of the income generated, he had acquired several other properties, but no details as to what was the earnings that he used to receive from the agricultural lands and what was the extent and survey number of the said agricultural lands, how much of properties were acquired from his ancestors and how much of properties have been acquired by him out of the earnings from the said ancestral properties and that whether the said ancestral properties were sufficient to acquire the properties situated at Jayanagar and Gandhinagar. As such, in the absence of proof regarding all the above said averments made by the plaintiffs, it cannot be believed that late Guruva Reddy had certain ancestral agricultural properties which were sufficient for him to acquire the properties situated at Jayanagar and Gandhinagar and as such, the said properties also acquired the status of joint family properties.
18.If Ex.P. 21 sale deed is carefully perused, it has been clearly mentioned in the recitals of Ex.P. 21 that how the said Gandhinagar property has been acquired by late Guruva Reddy, wherein it has been clearly stated that the said property situated at Gandhinagar was allotted to him by the Bangalore City Municipality and title deeds were executed on 03-01-1933 in respect of 32 O.S.No.8137/2012.
site No.41 and on 01-10-1935 in respect of site No.42 in favour of Guruva Reddy.
19.Similarly, if Ex.P. 17 sale deed is carefully perused, it has been clearly recited that the property situated at Jayanagar was also allotted to the daughter of Guruva Reddy named Smt.J.Kalyanamma by the then CITB and the said Kalyanamma executed a release deed on 21-04-1972 in favour of her father Sri.Guruva Reddy, exchanged her site bearing No.277 in lieu of site No.276 on compassionate ground which was originally allotted in favour of late Guvuva Reddy and on the application made to the Chairman of CITB, the said site No.277, II Block, Jayanagar was transferred to the name of H.R.Guruva Reddy and subsequently after the death of late Guruva Reddy, his son Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy represented by his power of attorney holder H.G.Vijaya Raghava Reddy has sold the portion of the site bearing site No.277/27 which had fallen to his share for valuable consideration of Rs. 75,000/- under the said Ex.P. 17 sale deed in favour of H.Ramaiah Reddy. The said document also clearly demonstrates that late Guruva Reddy who had acquired the said property during his life time through his hard earned money had during his life time itself settled the said property also by effecting partition among his children and merely because he had effected partition of the said 33 O.S.No.8137/2012.
properties among his children, that by itself did not confer the status of ancestral Hindu joint family property that too a co-parcenery property in the hands of Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy thereby creating a birth right over the said properties in favour of the 2nd plaintiff and his children to claim a share over the same.
20.Even if it is presumed that the said properties situated at Jayanagar and Gandhinagar were the ancestral joint family properties in the hands of late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy, then also it cannot be held that the suit schedule properties have been acquired by Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy out of the sale proceeds received by him which were sold long back as there is no proximity of time to presume that out of the said sale proceeds, the suit schedule properties have been purchased as stated by the counsel for the plaintiffs in his written arguments. Though it has been stated in the written arguments by the counsel for the plaintiff that out of Rs. 75,000/- sale consideration received from the sale of Jayanagar property, suit 'A' schedule property was acquired joint by Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy and Smt.Anasuya Reddy for a sum of Rs. 48,000/- only and therefore, the said sale proceeds was more than sufficient to acquire the said property. The time gap between the sale of the property situated at Jayanagar as per Ex.P. 17 which took place on 04-02-1980 and 34 O.S.No.8137/2012.
the purchase of the suit 'A' schedule property which took place on 02-09-1983 reveals that there was almost nearly 3 years time gap between both the said transactions and it cannot be expected that the said amount which was received in the year 1980 was retained by him till 1983 to purchase the suit 'A' schedule property in the absence of any documentary evidence to show that the said sale proceeds were retained by Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy to purchase the suit 'A' schedule property and it cannot be further presumed that till 1991 when Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy paid a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the joint owner Smt.Anasuya Reddy to get the release deed in his favour under Ex.P. 2, he had kept the said sale proceeds safely with him, particularly in the absence of any documentary evidence to that effect.
21. Similarly, the property situated at Gandhinagar was sold in the year 1984 and the suit 'B' schedule property was purchased in the year 1990 as per Ex.P. 3 and in between the said two transactions, there is a time gap of almost 7 years and as discussed above, it cannot be expected that the sale proceeds of the year 1984 could be retained till 1990 to purchase the suit 'B' schedule property as the proximity of time gap between said two transactions is too long.
22. Apart from that if Ex.P. 21 is carefully perused, the 2 nd plaintiff herein named Hoodi.R.Venkatesh Reddy 35 O.S.No.8137/2012.
himself has been arrayed as one of the seller of the said joint family property situated at Gandhinagar and he has been arrayed as 6 th seller and he had received a sum of Rs. 2,70,000/- through Demand Draft bearing No.312763/2683 dtd.16-11-1984 drawn on Syndicate Bank, J.C.Road, Bengaluru towards his 12/6th share in the said property. Therefore, having separately received the sale consideration towards his undivided 12/6th share over in the said Gandhinagar property, at no stretch of imagination, the 2 nd plaintiff could have claimed that the suit 'B' schedule property was acquired by his father out of the undivided sale proceeds received by his father Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy. Therefore, even if it presumed that Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy had purchased the suit 'B' schedule property out of the sale proceeds received by him from the sale of Gandhinagar property, then also it can be safely held that the suit 'B' schedule property was the self acquired property of Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy as the said sale proceeds received by him was towards his individual share and not towards the undivided share of himself and his branch as contended by the plaintiffs.
23. That apart, P.W. 1 during the course of his cross- examination categorically admitted various facts like his father Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy had done his PHD in Organic chemistry and he was employed at the age of 20 years as a Managing Director in Mysore 36 O.S.No.8137/2012.
Soaps and Detergent Factory and thereafter, went to America in the year 1958 and has served in various companies at Texas and thereafter, in the year 1966 after returning to India, he had served in the Union of India and thereafter, he shifted to Bangkok and again shifted to America and that his father had a very good income from his salary. He has also admitted that his grandfather Guruva Reddy was also an Advocate and he had purchased the Jayanagar property during his life time, but he had shown his ignorance when he was asked that the property situated at Gandhinagar was purchased by him out of his personal income.
24. Similarly, he has also shown his ignorance to the question that what were all the ancestral joint family properties which were acquired by his grandfather and what was the extent of said lands and whether the said lands were granted to his grandfather after the Inam Abolition Act came into force. But, he has admitted that he has got no documents to show that his father Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy had purchased both suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties out of the sale proceeds received from the sale of Gandhinagar and Jayanagar properties.
25. Apart from that he has also admitted that he does not know what is his father did with the sale proceeds received from the sale of said properties and whether the said amounts were kept in any bank accounts so 37 O.S.No.8137/2012.
as to utilize the said amounts for purchase of suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. Therefore, from the above said observations, it is clear that the plaintiffs have thoroughly failed to prove that they all formed the members of the Hindu joint family headed by Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy and that the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties were acquired by Dr.H.G. Ramakrishna Reddy out of the sale proceeds of the ancestral joint family properties and therefore, the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties acquired the status of the joint family properties and that the said properties are amenable for partition. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 has proved that the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties were the self acquired properties of late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy and that he has disposed off all the said properties as per his wish to meet the legal necessities of himself and his family members. Though D.W. 1 has been cross- examined at length, nothing has been elicited from his mouth by the counsel for the plaintiffs. Strangely no allegations were also leveled against late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy at least during the cross- examination of D.W. 1 that he had bad wises and was not protecting the joint family properties and that he sold the suit schedule properties for his bad wises and has not kept any accounts in respect of the same and that the same was not for legal necessities of joint Hindu family. Hence, even if it is presumed that the suit schedule properties are the joint family 38 O.S.No.8137/2012.
properties, then also in view of the plaintiffs failure to prove that Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy had bad habits and that he has not kept the interest of the alleged joint family members and has wasted the joint family properties for his bad-wises, the alienations made by Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy as a kartha of the alleged joint family cannot even otherwise be challenged by the plaintiffs without there being any allegations against him and proof of the said allegations. Admittedly, the plaintiffs in their pleadings itself have stated that late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy was a wiseman and was looking after the family affairs in a good manner till his death. Therefore, viewed from that angle also, the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the alienations made by Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy in favour of the defendants herein in respect of both suit schedule properties are not binding on them and therefore, the suit schedule properties are amenable for partition. The counsel for the plaintiffs relied on the decision reported in 2013(9 SCC 419 in the matter between Rohit Chauhan Vs.Surinder Singh, wherein it is held as follows:
A. Family and Personal Laws-Hindu Law- Joint family/ Joint family property /Joint property - Coparcenary property or separate/self-acquired property - Partition of ancestral property - Property falling in share of a single coparcener would be treated as his separate property vis-a- vis his relatives and he would be competent to alienate/deal with it in any manner he would like
- But upon his marriage subsequently when a son is born (and after the 2005 Amendment to Hindu Succession Act, 1956, also a daughter), property 39 O.S.No.8137/2012.
in his hand would be treated as coparcenary property in which son(s)/daughter(s) as coparceners would get shares - Hence after birth of a child, he could dispose of such property only as karta for legal necessity - Suit filed by son for declaration that alienations of such property by way of sale and gift after he was born, having not been made by his father as karta for any legal necessity, were null and void, deserved to be decreed - However, in respect of property which would have fallen in share of his father at the time of execution of sale and release deeds, parties can work out their remedies in appropriate proceedings, - Partition- Hindu Succession Act, 1956 -Ss.6 & 8- Specific Relief Act, 1963- S.34-Transfer of Property Act, 1882- Ss.44, 38, 7,8, 54 and 123 - Partition Act, 1893, S.4.
B. Family and Personal Laws - Hindu Law- Joint family/Joint family property/Joint property - Coparcener - Coparcenary property - Meaning - Partitioned share of ancestral property held by single person again becomes coparcenary property as soon as child is born to such holder of the partitioned share of ancestral property- Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - S.6- Words and Phrases- "Coparcener", "Coparcenary".
26. The said decision is more helpful to the case of defendants, rather than the case of plaintiffs as plaintiffs have failed to prove that alienation made by Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy was not for legal necessities of alleged HUF, the existence of which was also not duly proved by them. Therefore, there is no hesitation for this Court to answer issues No.1 and 2 in the negative and issue No.3 in the affirmative. Accordingly, I answer issues No.1 and 2 in the negative and issue No.3 in the affirmative.
40O.S.No.8137/2012.
27. ISSUE NO.4:- Though the defendants have contended that the suit has not been properly valued and the Court Fees paid is insufficient, absolutely, no materials have been placed by the defendants to show that the suit is not properly valued and the Court Fees paid is improper. Per contra, the plaintiffs by contending that they are in constructive joint possession of the suit schedule properties and that the alienations made by late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy without their knowledge is not binding on their shares and that they need not seek for any cancellation of the sale deeds in favour of the defendants as they are deemed to be in joint possession of the suit schedule properties, valued the suit under Sec.35(2) of The Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and paid the fixed Court Fees of Rs. 1,000/- in respect of their 5/6th share over the suit schedule properties claimed by them, which appears to be proper and sufficient for the purpose of this suit. Therefore, in view of the defendants failure to prove that the valuation made by the plaintiffs and the Court Fees paid by them are improper, there is no hesitation for this Court to answer issue No.4 in the negative. Accordingly, I answer issue No.4 in the negative.
28. RECASTED ISSUE NO.5:- Though the defendants No.7 and 8 by filing their separate written statements contended that they are the bonafide purchasers of 41 O.S.No.8137/2012.
site Nos.164 and 180 respectively formed in the converted lands bearing Sy.No. 87/1 and 87/2, which are the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, they failed to prove the same by leading their evidence. Except filing their written statements, they have not at all participated in effectively defending their defence put up by them either by cross examining P.W. 1 or by leading their evidence and placing cogent materials before this Court. Hence, in view of the failure of the defendants No.7 and 8 in proving that they are the bonafide purchasers of their respective sites by effectively participating in the proceedings, this Court has no other option but to answer the said issue in the negative. Accordingly, I answer recasted issue No.5 in the negative.
29. ISSUE NO.6:- Since the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are the members of the Joint Hindu Family as on the date of suit and that suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are the joint family properties amenable for partition and that the alienations made by late Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy are not binding on their shares, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession of their alleged 5/6th share over the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties as sought by them. Hence, I answer Issue No.6 in the negative.
42O.S.No.8137/2012.
30. ISSUE NO.7:- In view of the discussion made above and my findings on the above issues, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed with costs. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed thereof, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this THE 24 th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020).
(MAANU K.S.), XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF/S:
P.W.1 Hoodi R.Venkatesh Reddy.
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS/S:
D.W.1 K.Srinivasa Reddy.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF/S:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.2-9-1983.
Ex.P.1(a) Typed copy of Ex.P. 1.
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of Release Deed dtd.23-4-1991.
Ex.P.2(a) Typed copy of Ex.P. 2.
43
O.S.No.8137/2012.
Ex.P.3 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.26-12-1990
Ex.P.3(a) Typed copy of Ex.P. 3.
Ex.P.4 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.08-07-2002.
Ex.P.5 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.24-02-2003.
Ex.P.6 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.27-09-2003.
Ex.P.7 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.27-09-2003.
Ex.P.8 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.27-09-2003.
Ex.P.9 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.26-05-2003.
Ex.P.10 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.15-10-2004.
Ex.P.11 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.10-05-2004.
Ex.P.12 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.09-01-2006.
Ex.P.13 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.09-01-2006.
Ex.P.14 & 15 Certified copy of RTCs.
Ex.P.16 Death certificate of Dr.H.G.Ramakrishna Reddy.
Ex.P.17 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.04-02-1980.
Ex.P.17(a) Typed copy of Ex.P. 17.
Ex.P.18 & 19 Paper publications.
Ex.P.18(a) Relevant entries.
& 19(a)
Ex.P.20 Certified copy of Partition Deed dtd.25-05-1967.
Ex.P.20(a) Typed copy of Ex.P. 20.
Ex.P.21 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.18-11-1984.
Ex.P.21(a) Typed copy of Ex.P. 21.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANTS/S:
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of GPA dtd.24-02-2003. Ex.D.2 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.31-03-2005. Ex.D.3 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.29-10-2004. Ex.D.4 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.01-10-2004. Ex.D.5 Certified copy of sale deed dtd.20-09-2004.
(MAANU K.S.), XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.