Bangalore District Court
Muniraju vs Rathnamma on 4 July, 2025
KABC010126832021
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY. (CCH-63)
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2025.
PRESENT:
Sri. Raghavendra S. Channabasappa, B.A., LL.B (Spl).,
LXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
O.S.No.3308/2021
Plaintiff: Sri. Muniraju
S/o Late Kariyappa
Aged about 51 years
Ra/t No.97, Aralimarada road,
Amruthahalli, Sahakarnagar,
Bengaluru North-560 092
(By Sri.M.K.H., Advocate)
Vs.
Defendants: 1. Smt. Rathnamma,
W/o Late Muniyappa T.,
Daughter-in-law of Late Munishambhamma,
Aged about 53 years
2. Smt. Lakshmi,
D/o Late Muniyappa T.,
Grand Daughter of Late Munishambhamma,
Aged about 40 years.
2 O.S.No.3308/2021
3. Mamatha M.,
D/o Late Muniyappa T,
Grand daughter of Late Munishambhamma,
Aged about 34 years.
4. Murali M.,
S/o Late Muniyappa T,
Grand son of Late Munishambhamma,
Aged about 33 years.
5. Miss.Yokshitha,
D/o Murali M.,
Grand D/o Late Muniyappa T,
Aged about 3 years,
Since minor rep by father Sri. Murali M.,
Natural Guardian.
6. Miss Soumya,
D/o Late Muniyappa T,
grand daughter of Late Munishambhamma,
aged about 22 years.
(Defendant Nos.1 to 6 are r/at No.98, Near
Pillekamma temple, 5th Cross road, Amruthalli
Sahakara nagar post, Bengaluru North,
Bengaluru-560 092.)
7. Smt. Chanamma M.,
D/o Late Munishambhamma,
W/o Chowdappa,
Aged about 53 years,
R/at No.100, Aralimarada road,
Amruthalli, Sahakara nagar post,
Bengaluru North, Bengaluru-560092.
8. Sri. Chanappa T.,
S/o Late Munishambhamma,
Aged about 45 years.
3 O.S.No.3308/2021
9. Smt. Munirathnamma,
W/o.Channappa T.,
Daughter n law of Late Munishambhamma,
Aged about 37 years.
10. Miss Jayasri C.,
D/o Channappa T.,
Grad daughter of Late Munishambhamma,
Aged about 7 years,
Since minor rep by father T. Channappa,
Natural guardian.
(Defendant Nos.8 to 10 are r/at No.99, Near
Pillekamma temple, 5th Cross road, Amruthalli
Sahakara nagar post, Bengaluru North
Bengaluru-560 092.)
11. Sri. Manjaiah Gowda R.,
S/o Late Ramaiah
Aged about 46 years
R/at No. 5, Yellupura, Veerapura,
Bengaluru Rural District
Doddaballapura Taluk,
Karnataka.
12. Smt.Lakshmi S.,
W/o. K.R.Rajanna,
Aged about 34 years,
R/at # 21 & 22, 4th Cross, 2nd Main,
R.Villa, Telecom Layout, Jakkur Post,
Bangalore-560 064.
13. R.Suresh Kumar,
S/o. R.Doraiswamy Naidu,
Aged about 39 years,
R/at No.4, 2nd Floor,
23rd Main, J.P.Nagar, 5th Phase,
Bangalore-560 078.
(Defts. - Exparte)
4 O.S.No.3308/2021
Date of institution of the suit: 29.04.2021
Nature of the suit (suit on pronote. Suit
Declaration, Partition and
for declaration and possession suit for
separate possession
injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of 06.11.2023
recording of the evidence.
Date on which the judgment was 04.07.2025
pronounced.
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
04 02 05
(Raghavendra S. Channabasappa)
LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
(CCH-63), Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants declaring the plaintiff's half share with respect to the plaint schedule property by way of partition, division by metes and bounds.
To adjudge that the documents styled as Release deeds registered in Document No.YAN-1-07489-2020-21 in CD No. YAND1225 dt.08.03.2021 and vide registered document No. YAN-1- 07492-2020-21 in CD No.YAND1225 dated.08.03.2021 as null, void and nonest in law to which the plaintiff is not an executants and communicate the same to Sub-Registrar Office, Gandhi Nagar (Yelahanka).
5 O.S.No.3308/2021
To adjudge that the documents styled as Agreement of Sale registered in Registered document No.YAN-1-07496-2020-21 in CD No.YAND1225 dated.08.03.2021 as null, void and nonest in law to which the plaintiff is not an executants and communicate the same to Sub-Registrar Office, Gandhi Nagar (Yelahanka).
To appoint a Court Commissioner to divide the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds and to deliver peaceful and vacant plaintiff half share with respect to the plaint schedule properties, for mesne profits to the plaintiff and for costs and such other reliefs.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as under:
The plaintiff is the son of Late Kariyappa and the Grandson of Late.Kadappa S/o. Kariyanna @ Kariyappa. Sri.Kriyanna @ Kariyappa had two sons Viz., Munikadappa and Kadappa. Sri.Late Munikadappa had 5 issues viz., (1) Munikadamma, (2) Dodda Shambhamma, (3) Muni Shambhamma, (4) Bande Muniyamma and (5) Channamma. Out of the 5 issues of Late Munikadappa 1 st, 2nd and 5th issues have died before attain the age of adolescence and Bande Muniyamma was unmarried and also expired long back, and 3rd daughter Munishambamma was married and was having two 6 O.S.No.3308/2021 sons viz., Late T.Muniyappa & T.Channappa and one daughter viz., Channamma.
Further submitted that defendant No.1 is the wife of T.Muniyappa S/o. Munishambhamma and 2 to 6 are the children of T.Muniyappa and defendant No.1. The defendant No.7 is the daughter of Late Munishambhamma and defendant No.8 is the son of Late Munishambhamma and defendant No.9 wife of defendant No.8 is the daughter-in-law of Late Munishambhamma and defendant No.10 is the daughter of defendant No.8 and Grand- daughter of Late Munishanbhamma. Another son of Kariyanna @ Kariyappa, Sri.Kadappa had one son by name Kariyappa and the said Kariyappa S/o. Kadappa had two daughters Viz., (1) Muthamma & (2) Jayamma. Said Muthamma died issueless and the another daughter Jayamma has only son viz., Muniraja, who is plaintiff herein.
Further submitted that, Munikadappa and Kadappa were full blood brothers. The defendant No.11 to 13 are the illegal and ultra- vious Agreement of sale holders in this suit. The plaintiff is the Class-I heir of Kadappa and Late Kariyanna @ Kariyappa the original joint grantee. Late.Kadappa S/o. Kariyanna @ Kariyappa 7 O.S.No.3308/2021 had made an application for grant of occupancy right with the Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition Bangalore and his application was adjudicated in case No.120/1958-59 upon due enquiries by virtue of orders passed by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, Bangalore in case No.120/58-59 the Thoti service inam was jointly granted in favour of Kadappa S/o. Kariyanna @ Kariyappa and Muni Kadappa S/o. Kariyanna @ Kariyappa to an extent of 0.32 acres (32 guntas) of Sy.No.60/*/* of Amruthahalli village, Yelahankia Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.
It is further submitted that the Late Kadappa and Late Munikadappa, who were the joint Grantees/owner of the plaint schedule properties having acquired title to the same by virtue of being conferred by re-grant order passed by the Court of the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore in Case No. HOA.52/79-80 were again jointly granted and were in joint and peaceful possession of the plaint schedule properties till their life time and after their death the said property devolved upon their heirs and further devolved upon the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 10 in this case. In pursuant to the grant orders stated above the names of Kadappa and Munikadappa were jointly mutated in the R.O.R 8 O.S.No.3308/2021 records vide M.R.No.15/2011-12 after due enquires by the Joint Director of Land Records, Bangalore and Assistant Director of Land records, Bangalore and both were in peaceful joint possession and enjoyment of the property till their death. Sri.Kadappa S/o. Kariyanna @ Kariyappa has expired and leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 10 are their sole surviving legal heirs.
Further submitted that plaintiff has inherited the joint estate in the plaint schedule property being the legal heir of Kadappa S/o. Kariyanna @ Kariyappa and defendant No.1 to 10 have inherited joint estate in the plaint schedule property being the successors of Munikadappa S/o. Kariyanna @ Kariyappa. The names of the propositus of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 10 i.e., Kadappa and Munikadappa sons Kariyanna @ Kariyappa have been reflecting in the ROR's from the date of its inception till 2020-21. Very recently plaintiff found that behind his back the defendant No.1 to 13 have colluded with revenue officers with an oblique an intention to deprive plaintiff his legitimate share in the plaint schedule property have got several sham illegal and bogus documents illegally registered in the names of defendant No.1 in form of documents styled as Release deeds and documents styled as Agreement to sell in favour of 9 O.S.No.3308/2021 defendant No.11 to 13 without the plaintiff being a party or signatory to any of these illegal and sham documents and got the property mutated in their favour by excluding the plaintiff with an intention to knock-off the legitimate share of the plaintiff in plaint schedule property. The entries illegally incorporated in the ROR's are not in accordance with the law and by following the procedure established as per KLR Act 1964 and as such no importance or any presumption could be attached to such illegal entries created on the strength of the illegal and concocted documents in connivance of the revenue officers.
Plaintiff further submitted that, on 06.08.2020 defendant No.1 to 10 have entered into an illegal registered agreement of sale in favour of the defendant No.11, in respect of part of plaint schedule property i.e., 0-21 Guntas (out of 32 guntas) vide document No.BYP-1-02071- 2020-21 CD No.BPYD664 dated.06.08.2020 the said agreement is cancelled by the registered document styled as "Deed of Cancellation of Agreement of Sale" executed by defendant No.11 in favour of defendant No.1 to 10 vide document No.YAN-1-07486-2020-2021 in CD No.YAND1225 dated.08.03.2021. On the very same day i.e., 08.03.2021 defendant No.7, 9 & 10 have executed a illegal sham and a 10 O.S.No.3308/2021 concocted registered document styled as "Release Deed" in favour of defendant No.8 herein vide registered document No.YAN-1-07489- 2020-21 in CD No.YAND1225 dated. 08.03.2021 and similarly in the very day defendant No.2 to 6 have executed a illegal sham and a concocted registered document styled as "Release Deed" in favour of defendant No.1 herein vide Registered document No.YAN-1-07492- 2020-21 in CD No. YAND1225 dated.08.03.2021. The said defendant No.1 and 8 have on the very same day on 08.03.2021 have executed a registered illegal agreement of sale in favour of defendant No.11 to 13 vide registered document No.YAN-1-07496-2020-21 in CD No. YAND1225 dated.08.03.2021. The acts and conduct of the defendants is such that it is designed to deceive the plaintiff of his legitimate half share and all his rights in the plaint schedule property and knock of the property of the plaintiff like land grabbers.
Plaintiff further submitted that, due to these detrimental acts of defendant No.1 to 10 and their conduct, plaintiff has lost all faith in them and is not interest in continuing with defendants as joint co- owners, co-sharers and with them as the defendant No.1 to 10 are acting adversely and detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff has demands for partition of the plaint schedule 11 O.S.No.3308/2021 property by metes and bounds and by giving plaintiff his lawful legitimate half share in the plaint schedule property. Plaintiff having no other alternate has orally called upon the defendant No.1 to 10 immediately divide the plaint schedule property by giving his half share as per law and hand over and deliver his rightful share in the plaint schedule property and get the illegal agreements canceled. The defendants have failed to give any reply nor have they divided plaint schedule property according to his share as per law.
The plaintiff further submitted that, as a lawful joint owners and co- sharers and as per Law he has a lawful share in the plaint schedule property and the defendants are not complying to his lawful demand made by the plaintiff and as such having exhausted all the remedies and in view of the defendants urgently and behind the back of the plaintiff trying to alienate, create charge encumber the plaint schedule property to defendant No.11 to 13 and other third party and plaintiff is forced and constrained to knock of the door of this Court to get his rightful share and other reliefs.
3. After filing of the suit, suit summons issued to the defendant Nos.1 to 13. Inspite of service of suit summons they are not present. Hence placed as exparte.
12 O.S.No.3308/2021
4. In order to prove his case plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and got marked the documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21. On the other hand, the defendants are placed as exparte.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the following points are arise for my determination:
(1) Whether the plaintiff entitled for ½ share in the suit schedule property along with defendants?
(2) What order or decree?
6. My findings on the above Issues are as hereunder:
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative, Point No.2 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
7. Point No.1 :- The facts of the case is that Late.Kadappa S/o. Kariyanna @ Kariyappa had made an application for grant of occupancy right with the Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition Bangalore and his application was adjudicated in case No.120/1958- 59 upon due enquiries by virtue of orders passed by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, Bangalore in case No.120/58-59 the Thoti service inam was jointly granted in favour of Kadappa S/o. Kariyanna @ Kariyappa and Munikadappa S/o. Kariyanna @ 13 O.S.No.3308/2021 Kariyappa to an extent of 0.32 acres (32 guntas) of Sy.No.60/*/* of Amruthahalli village, Yelahankia Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. Late Kadappa and Late Munikadappa, who were the joint Grantees/owner of the plaint schedule properties having acquired title to the same by virtue of being conferred by re-grant order passed by the Court of the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore in Case No. HOA.52/79-80 were again jointly granted and they were in joint and peaceful possession of the plaint schedule properties till their life time and after their death the said property devolved upon their heirs and further devolved upon the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 10 in this case. Further that Plaintiff has inherited the joint estate in the plaint schedule property being the legal heir of Kadappa S/o. Kariyanna @ Kariyappa and defendant No.1 to 10 have inherited joint estate in the plaint schedule property being the successors of Munikadappa S/o. Kariyanna @ Kariyappa. on 06.08.2020 defendant No.1 to 10 have entered into an illegal registered agreement of sale in favour of the defendant No.11, in respect of part of plaint schedule property i.e., 0-21 Guntas (out of 32 guntas) vide document No. BYP-1-02071-2020-21 CD No. BPYD664 dated.06.08.2020 the said agreement is canceled by the 14 O.S.No.3308/2021 registered document styled as "Deed of Cancellation of Agreement of Sale" executed by defendant No.11 in favour of defendant No.1 to 10 vide document No.YAN-1-07486-2020-2021 in CD No. YAND1225 dated.08.03.2021. On the very same day i.e., 08.03.2021 defendant No.7, 9 & 10 have executed a illegal sham and a concocted registered document styled as "Release Deed" in favour of defendant No.8 herein vide registered document No.YAN- 1-07489-2020-21 in CD No.YAND1225 dated. 08.03.2021 and similarly in the very day defendant No.2 to 6 have executed a illegal sham and a concocted registered document styled as "Release Deed" in favour of defendant No.1 herein vide Registered document No.YAN-1-07492-2020-21 in CD No. YAND1225 dated.08.03.2021. The said defendant No.1 and 8 have on the very same day on 08.03.2021 have executed a registered illegal agreement of sale in favour of defendant No.11 to 13 vide registered document No.YAN- 1-07496-2020-21 in CD No.YAND1225 dated.08.03.2021.
8. In order to prove the case the plaintiff examined as PW1 and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21. PW1 in his evidence has stated that The plaintiff is the son of Late Kariyappa and the 15 O.S.No.3308/2021 Grandson of Late.Kadappa S/o. Kariyanna @ Kariyappa. Sri.Kriyanna @ Kariyappa had two sons Viz., Munikadappa and Kadappa. Sri.Late Munikadappa had 5 issues viz., (1) Munikadamma, (2) Dodda Shambhamma, (3) Muni Shambhamma, (4) Bande Muniyamma and (5) Channamma. Out of the 5 issues of Late Munikadappa 1st, 2nd and 5th issues have died before attain the age of adolescence and Bande Muniyamma was unmarried and also expired long back, and 3 rd daughter Munishambamma was married and was having two sons viz., Late T.Muniyappa & T.Channappa and one daughter viz., Channamma. The defendant No.1 is the wife of T.Muniyappa S/o. Munishambhamma and 2 to 6 are the children of T.Muniyappa and defendant No.1. The defendant No.7 is the daughter of Late Munishambhamma and defendant No.8 is the son of Late Munishambhamma and defendant No.9 wife of defendant No.8 is the daughter-in-law of Late Munishambhamma and defendant No.10 is the daughter of defendant No.8 and Grand- daughter of Late Munishanbhamma. Another son of Kariyanna @ Kariyappa, Sri.Kadappa had one son by name Kariyappa and the said Kariyappa S/o. Kadappa had two daughters Viz., (1) Muthamma 16 O.S.No.3308/2021 & (2) Jayamma. Said Muthamma died issueless and the another daughter Jayamma has only son viz., Muniraja i.e., plaintiff.
9. Further submitted that, Munikadappa and Kadappa were full blood brothers. The defendant No.11 to 13 are the illegal and ultra-vious Agreement of sale holders in this suit. The plaintiff is the Class-I heir of Kadappa and Late Kariyanna @ Kariyappa the original joint grantee. Late.Kadappa S/o. Kariyanna @ Kariyappa had made an application for grant of occupancy right with the Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition Bangalore and his application was adjudicated in case No.120/1958-59 upon due enquiries by virtue of orders passed by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, Bangalore in case No.120/58-59 the Thoti service inam was jointly granted in favour of Kadappa S/o. Kariyanna @ Kariyappa and Muni Kadappa S/o. Kariyanna @ Kariyappa to an extent of 0.32 acres (32 guntas) of Sy.No.60/*/* of Amruthahalli village, Yelahankia Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. Late Kadappa and Late Munikadappa, who were the joint Grantees/owner of the plaint schedule properties having acquired title to the same by virtue of being conferred by re-grant order passed by the Court of the 17 O.S.No.3308/2021 Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore in Case No. HOA.52/79-80 were again jointly granted and were in joint and peaceful possession of the plaint schedule properties till their life time and after their death the said property devolved upon their heirs and further devolved upon the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 10 in this case. In pursuant to the grant orders stated above the names of Kadappa and Munikadappa were jointly mutated in the R.O.R records vide M.R.No.15/2011-12 after due enquires by the Joint Director of Land Records, Bangalore and Assistant Director of Land records, Bangalore and both were in peaceful joint possession and enjoyment of the property till their death. Sri.Kadappa S/o. Kariyanna @ Kariyappa has expired and leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 10 are their sole surviving legal heirs.
10. Further submitted that plaintiff has inherited the joint estate in the plaint schedule property being the legal heir of Kadappa S/o. Kariyanna @ Kariyappa and defendant No.1 to 10 have inherited joint estate in the plaint schedule property being the successors of Munikadappa S/o. Kariyanna @ Kariyappa. The names of the propositus of plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 10 i.e., 18 O.S.No.3308/2021 Kadappa and Munikadappa sons Kariyanna @ Kariyappa have been reflecting in the ROR's from the date of its inception till 2020-21. Very recently plaintiff found that behind his back the defendant No.1 to 13 have colluded with revenue officers with an oblique an intention to deprive plaintiff his legitimate share in the plaint schedule property have got several sham illegal and bogus documents illegally registered in the names of defendant No.1 in form of documents styled as Release deeds and documents styled as Agreement to sell in favour of defendant No.11 to 13 without the plaintiff being a party or signatory to any of these illegal and sham documents and got the property mutated in their favour by excluding the plaintiff with an intention to knock-off the legitimate share of the plaintiff in plaint schedule property. The entries illegally incorporated in the ROR's are not in accordance with the law and by following the procedure established as per KLR Act 1964 and as such no importance or any presumption could be attached to such illegal entries created on the strength of the illegal and concocted documents in connivance of the revenue officers. On 06.08.2020 defendant No.1 to 10 have entered into an illegal registered agreement of sale in favour of the defendant No.11, in respect of 19 O.S.No.3308/2021 part of plaint schedule property i.e., 0-21 Guntas (out of 32 guntas) vide document No.BYP-1-02071-2020-21 CD No.BPYD664 dated.06.08.2020 the said agreement is canceled by the registered document styled as "Deed of Cancellation of Agreement of Sale"
executed by defendant No.11 in favour of defendant No.1 to 10 vide document No.YAN-1-07486-2020-2021 in CD No.YAND1225 dated.08.03.2021. On the very same day i.e., 08.03.2021 defendant No.7, 9 & 10 have executed a illegal sham and a concocted registered document styled as "Release Deed" in favour of defendant No.8 herein vide registered document No.YAN-1-07489- 2020-21 in CD No.YAND1225 dated. 08.03.2021 and similarly in the very day defendant No.2 to 6 have executed a illegal sham and a concocted registered document styled as "Release Deed" in favour of defendant No.1 herein vide Registered document No.YAN-1- 07492-2020-21 in CD No. YAND1225 dated.08.03.2021. The said defendant No.1 and 8 have on the very same day on 08.03.2021 have executed a registered illegal agreement of sale in favour of defendant No.11 to 13 vide registered document No.YAN-1-07496- 2020-21 in CD No. YAND1225 dated.08.03.2021. The acts and conduct of the defendants is such that it is designed to deceive the 20 O.S.No.3308/2021 plaintiff of his legitimate half share and all his rights in the plaint schedule property and knock of the property of the plaintiff like land grabbers.
11. Plaintiff further submitted that, due to these detrimental acts of defendant No.1 to 10 and their conduct, plaintiff has lost all faith in them and is not interest in continuing with defendants as joint co-owners, co-sharers and with them as the defendant No.1 to 10 are acting adversely and detrimental to the interest of the plaintiff and therefore the plaintiff has demands for partition of the plaint schedule property by metes and bounds and by giving plaintiff his lawful legitimate half share in the plaint schedule property. Plaintiff having no other alternate has orally called upon the defendant No.1 to 10 immediately divide the plaint schedule property by giving his half share as per law and hand over and deliver his rightful share in the plaint schedule property and get the illegal agreements canceled. The defendants have failed to give any reply nor have they divided plaint schedule property according to his share as per law. As a lawful joint owners and co-sharers and as per Law he has a lawful share in the plaint schedule property and the defendants are 21 O.S.No.3308/2021 not complying to his lawful demand made by the plaintiff and as such having exhausted all the remedies and in view of the defendants urgently and behind the back of the plaintiff trying to alienate, create charge encumber the plaint schedule property to defendant No.11 to 13 and other third party and plaintiff is forced and constrained to knock of the door of this Court to get his rightful share and other reliefs.
12. Ex.P.1 is the Order passed by the Joint Director of Land Records dt. 21.12.2004, Ex.P.2 Six photos of suit schedule property, Ex.P.2(a) is the C.D of of photos of suit schedule property, Ex.P.3 is the EC of suit schedule property from 01.04.2004 to 05.07.2021, Ex.P.4 is the Certified copy of Grant order passed by the Deputy Commissioner for inamabolition, Bangalore in case No. 120/58-59 dt. 09.08.2015, Ex.P.5 is the Certified copy of Re grant order passed by Tahasildar in case no. 52/79-80 dt. 10.09.1979, Ex.P.6 is the Online Certified copy of Sale agreement of suit schedule property dt. 06.08.2020, Ex.P.7 is the Online Certified copy of Release deed of suit schedule property dt. 08.03.2021, Ex.P.8 is the Online Certified copy of Agreement to sell suit schedule property dt. 08.03.2020, Ex.P.9 is the Register No. 8 of Survey No. 60 of Amruthahalli village dt. 05.01.1990, Ex.P.10 to 16 are the RTC Extracts, 22 O.S.No.3308/2021 Ex.P.17, Ex.P.18 are Digital online copy of Mutation dt. 02.03.2012 and dt.04.03.2021, Ex.P.19 is the Original Encumbrance Certificate from 01.06.1989 to 31.03.2004, Ex.P.20 is the Aadhar Card of plaintiff and Ex.P.21 is the Notarized copy of ವಂಶವೃಕ್ಷ. He examined as PW1 and produce the documents Ex.P1 original order copy issued by Joint Director of Land Records at Bangalore dated 21.12.2004 stated that appeal filed by the Smt.Muthamma W/o. Late Kariyappa in respect of Sy.No.60 of Amruthahalli Hobli to the extent of 0.18 guntas and 0.14 guntas totally 0.32 guntas and considered to re-grant in the name of Munikadappa and Kadappa S/o. Kariyappa i.e., plaintiff's father and father's brother by jointly. Ex.P2/three photographs along with one CD pertaining to suit property, it is now that suit property is existing. Ex.P9 Register No.VIII issued by Revenue Department at Bangalore, which stands in the name of Kadappa and Munikadappa Sy.No.60 of Amurthahalli the names of both persons are appeared in Ex.P9. Ex.P11/Computerized RTC Sy.No.60 measuring totally 0.32 guntas of Amruthahalli stands jointly in the name of i.e., father's name as the plaintiff in the year 2011-2012. Ex.P12/computerized RTC Sy.No.60 the extent of 0.32 guntas stands in the name of both the plaintiffs in the year 2012-2013. Ex.P13/ computerized RTC Sy.No.60 to the extent of 0.32 guntas in the year 2013- 2014 stands jointly in the name of Munikadappa and Kadappa i.e., plaintiff father. Ex.P14/ computerized RTC Sy.No.60 to the extent of 0.32 in the 23 O.S.No.3308/2021 year 2014-2015 stands in the name of Kadappa and Munikadappa. Ex.P15/ computerized RTC Sy.No.60 to the extent of 0.32 guntas in the year 2015-2016 stands jointly in the name of Kadappa and Munikadappa. Ex.P16/ computerized RTC Sy.No.60 to the extent of 0.32 guntas stands in the name of Kadappa and Munikadappa.
13. It is further observed that the names of Kadappa S/o. Kariyanna @ Kariyappa were/are jointly mutated in the R.O.R's Records Vide M.R.No.15/2011-2012 after due enquiries by the Joint Director of Land Records, Bangalore and Asst. Director of Land Records, Bangalore and both were in peaceful joint possession and enjoyment of the property till their death. Kadappa S/o.Kariyanna @ Kariyappa and Muni Kadappa S/o.Kariayanna @ Kariyappa have expired and leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant 1 to 10s are their sole surviving legal heirs.
14. The plaintiff has inherited the joint estate in the plaint schedule property being the legal heir of Kadappa S/o.Kariyanna @ Kariayappa and defendant No.1 to 10 have inherited joint estate in the plaint schedule property being the successors of Muni Kadappa S/o.Kriayanna @ Kariyappa. Ex.P.21 is Notarized Family Tree, it indicate the plaintiff is Class-I legal heir of his father Late Kadappa. 24 O.S.No.3308/2021
15. The names of the propositus of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 10 i.e., Kadappa and Muni Kadappa Sons. Kariyanna @ Kariyappa have been reflecting in the ROR's from the date of its inception till 2020-
21. The case Punnakkal Padmini V/s. Punnakkal Velayuddan, held that exparte partition decree was passed and binding on the defendants unless contrary is arises, it was also held in case of Mrs.Mumtaz Begum V/s. Mrs.Noorjan case. Thereafter the plaintiff has successfully established that case through Ex.P1 , 2 Ex.P11, 12, 13, 14 & 15 that the suit property belongs to her father and her brother i.e., Munikadappa and Kadappa S/o.Kariyappa,. Thereafter their dues the present plaintiff has entrusted her legitimate share for ½ share between her and defendants. Hence her father was died as per say by the PW1. Now she is only successor to her father, though as per Ex.P6. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled her legitimate share ½ share in the suit schedule property. Hence, my answer to the point no.1 as Affirmative.
16. Point No.4:- In view of my answer to Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed for ½ share in respect to plaint schedule property. 25 O.S.No.3308/2021 The plaintiff and defendants are entitled for ½ share in the suit schedule property as the suit property jointly belongs to Munikadappa and Kadappa S/o. Karaiyappa by way of right of inheritance as per Hindu Succession Act.
The defendants are hereby execute partition for ½ legitimate share of the plaintiff in respect to suit schedule property within 2 months, if he fails to do so plaintiff will be liberty to get ½ share as per due process of law.
No order as to costs.
Relief claimed for seeking mesne profit is hereby dismissed.
Draw Decree Accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer Gr-II, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 4 th day of July, 2025.) (Raghavendra S. Channabasappa) LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-63), Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff's side:-
P.W.1: Muniraju List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff's side:-
Ex.P1 Order passed by the Joint Director of Land Records dt.
21.12.2004
26 O.S.No.3308/2021
Ex.P2 In all 6 suit schedule property photos
Ex.P2(a) CD of photos of suit schedule property Ex.P3 EC of suit schedule property from 01.04.2004 to 05.07.2021 Ex.P4 Certified copy of Grant order passed by the Deputy Commissioner for inam abolition, Bangalore in case No. 120/58-59 dt. 09.08.2015.
Ex.P5 Certified copy of Re grant order passed by Tahasildar in case no. 52/79-80 dt. 10.09.1979 Ex.P6 Online Certified copy of Sale agreement of suit schedule property dt. 06.08.2020 Ex.P7 Online Certified copy of Release deed of suit schedule property dt. 08.03.2021 Ex.P8 Online Certified copy of Agreement to sell suit schedule property dt. 08.03.2020 Ex.P9 Register No. 8 of Survey No. 60 of Amruthahalli village dt.
05.01.1990 Ex.P10 RTC bearing Survey No. 60 of Amruthahalli village of Suit schedule property dt. 21.10.1989 Ex.P11 RTC bearing Survey No. 60/2 of Amruthahalli village of Suit schedule property for the year 2011-12 (3 pages) Ex.P12 RTC bearing Survey No. 60/2 of Amruthahalli village of Suit schedule property for the year 2012 -13 Ex.P13 RTC bearing Survey No. 60/2 of Amruthahalli village of Suit schedule property for the year 2013 -14 Ex.P14 RTC bearing Survey No. 60/2 of Amruthahalli village of Suit schedule property for the year 2014 -15 Ex.P15 RTC bearing Survey No. 60/2 of Amruthahalli village of Suit schedule property for the year 2015 -16 Ex.P16 RTC bearing Survey No. 60/2 of Amruthahalli village of Suit schedule property for the year 2020 -21 Ex.P17 Digital online copy of Mutation dt. 02.03.2012 (3 pages) 27 O.S.No.3308/2021 Ex.P18 Digital online copy of Mutation dt. 04.03.2021 (4 pages) Ex.P19 Original Encumbrance Certificate from 01.06.1989 to 31.03.2004 Ex.P20 Aadhar Card of plaintiff Ex.P21 Notarized copy of ವಂಶವೃಕ್ಷ List of witnesses examined for the defendants' side:- NIL List of documents exhibited for the defendants' side:- NIL (Raghavendra S. Channabasappa) LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-63), Bengaluru.
28 O.S.No.3308/2021Judgment pronounced in open Court, vide separate judgment.
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed for ½ share in respect to plaint schedule property.
The plaintiff and defendants are entitled for ½ share in the suit schedule property as the suit property jointly belongs to Munikadappa and Kadappa S/o. Karaiyappa by way of right of inheritance as per Hindu Succession Act. 29 O.S.No.3308/2021
The defendants are hereby execute partition for ½ legitimate share of the plaintiff in respect to suit schedule property within 2 months, if he fails to do so plaintiff will be liberty to get ½ share as per due process of law.
No order as to costs.
Relief claimed for seeking mesne profit is hereby dismissed.
Draw Decree Accordingly.
(Raghavendra S. Channabasappa) LXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-63), Bengaluru.
30 O.S.No.3308/2021