Bangalore District Court
Smt.Umashree vs Smt.Nanjamma on 10 November, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU. (CCH-21)
Dated: This, the 10th day of November 2017.
Present: Sri.Bannikatti Hanumanthappa.R.
B.A.,LL.B(Spl)
IV Addl.CC & SJ, Mayohall Unit,
Bengaluru.
O.S. No.25124/2013
Plaintiffs: 1. Smt.Umashree,
D/o.Late.Mariyamma and
Chinnappa @ Chinnaiah,
W/o.B.D.Chandrasekhar,
aged about 42 yrs,
R/at.Hunasamaranahalli,
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Yelahanka.
2. Smt.Bhagyamma,
D/o.Mariyamma & Chinnappa
@ Chinnaiah, W/o.R.Manjunath,
aged about 40 yrs, No.50, 22nd
Cross, 1st Main, Maruthinagar,
Yelahanka, Bengaluru-560064.
3. Sri.Santhoshkumar,
S/o.Mariyamma & Chinnappa @
Chinnaiah, aged about 34 yrs,
4. Smt.Nagamani, D/o.Mariyamma
& Chinnappa @ Chinnaiah,
W/o.Sri.Babu, aged about 32 yrs,
2 O.S. No.25124/2013
3 and 4 R/at.1st Main Road, near
Canara Bank, Varthur,
Bengaluru-560087.
5. Sri.Murthy, S/o.Late.Gowramma
& Puttappa, aged about 32 yrs,
6. Sri.Shankara,
S/o.Late.Gowramma & Puttappa,
aged about 30 yrs,
5 & 6 R/at.No.97, 10th Main,
Manjunathanagar, Bengaluru-
560010.
7. Smt.Nirmala,
D/o.Late.Gowramma &
Puttappa, W/o.M.G.Muniraju,
aged about 28 yrs, R/at.Mallur
Village & Post, Sidlaghatta
Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.
8. Smt.Mangala,
D/o.Late.Gowramma &
Puttappa, aged about 26 yrs,
R/at.Chandenahalli Village Post
and Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk,
Bengaluru District.
9. Sri.Srinivasa, S/o.Late.Jayamma
& Ramakrishna, aged about
32 yrs,
10. Smt.Pushpa, D/o.Late.Jayamma
& Ramakrishna,
W/o.Sri.K.Nagesh, aged about
28 yrs,
3 O.S. No.25124/2013
No.9 and 10 both R/at.No.223/7,
7th Main, 3rd Cross, Kengeri
Upanagara, Bengaluru-560060.
(By Sri.K.R.Chandrashekar Reddy, Advocate)
V/S
Defendants: 1. Smt.Nanjamma,
W/o.Late.Anjinappa, aged about
54 yrs,
2. Smt.Annamma,
D/o.Late.Anjinappa,
W/o.Shanthakumar, aged about
34 yrs, R/o.No.354, Bus Stand
Road, Kengeri, Bengaluru-60.
3. Sri.Kumar, S/o.Late.Anjinappa,
aged about 32 yrs,
4. Sanjeevappa,
S/o.Late.Anjinappa, aged about
29 yrs,
5. Smt.Yellamma,
D/o.Late.Anjinappa, aged about
27 yrs,
1, 3 to 5 are R/at.No.63, Sawmill
Road, Behind Venkateshwara
Theatre, Kengeri New
Extension, Kengeri, Bengaluru-
560060.
4 O.S. No.25124/2013
6. Smt.Sharadamma,
D/o.Late.Muniyappa,
W/o.Muniyappa, aged about
56 yrs, R/at.Kumbalahalli
Village & Post, Hoskote Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.
7. Smt.Rathnamma,
D/o.Late.Muniyappa,
W/o.Lakshmaiah, aged about
54 yrs, R/at.Kumbalahalli
Village & Post, Hoskote Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.
8. Sri.Sanjeevappa @ Mariyappa,
S/o.Late.Kariyappa, aged about
60 yrs,
Since dead, and the defendants
No.9 to 11 are the sons of
defendant No.8 and they are the
only legal heirs.
9. Sri.M.Sanjeevamurthy,
S/o.Sanjeevappa @ Mariyappa,
aged about 38 yrs,
10. Sri.M.Jayaram, S/o.Sanjeevappa
@ Mariyappa, aged about 36 yrs,
11. Sri.M.Muknda, S/o.Sanjeevappa
@ Mariyappa, aged about 34 yrs,
12. Sri.Shankarappa, S/o.Pillappa,
aged about 50 yrs,
5 O.S. No.25124/2013
13. Sri.S.Muniraju,
S/o.Shankarappa, aged about
27 yrs,
14. Sri.Hemanth, S/o.Shankarappa,
aged about 25 yrs,
15. Sri.Muniraju, S/o.Pillappa, aged
about 47 yrs,
16. Smt.Rukmini, D/o.Muniraju,
aged about 25 yrs,
17. Sri.Nagaraju, S/o.Muniraju, aged
about 23 yrs,
18. Smt.Mariyamma,
W/o.Late.Munisanjeevappa,
aged about 70 yrs,
19. Sri.Nagaraj,
S/o.Late.Munisanjeevappa, aged
about 38 yrs,
8 to 19 are R/at.Kengeri Village,
Kengeri Holi, Bengaluru South
Taluk, Bengaluru-560060.
20. Sri.C.P.Ramesh Kumar,
S/o.C.M.Puttaswamy, aged
about 46 yrs, R/at.No.810, 2nd
'B' Cross Road, 8th Main, HRBR
Layout, Bengaluru-560043.
6 O.S. No.25124/2013
21. Smt.Uma Shivaprasad,
W/o.Shivaprasad, aged about
40 yrs, R/at.No.1415, 8th 'A'
Main Road, HRBR Layout, II
Block, Kalyannagar, Bengaluru-
43.
22. Mrs.Carmel Prabhu,
W/o.Sri.Peter.R.J.Prabhu, aged
about 62 yrs, R/at."Kalmani",
No.78, Lavelle Road, Bengaluru-
560001.
23. M/s.D.A.Developers Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep.by its Director Sri.Avinash
Prabhu, No.11, Hayes Road,
Bengaluru-25.
(By Sri.B.Srinath, Advocate for deft.No.4)
(By Sri.M.Ambareesh, Advocate for defts.No.6 & 7)
(By Sri.H.N.M.Prasad, Advocate for deft.No.21)
(By Sri.Mandgi Associates, Advocate for defts.No.22 & 23)
(Defts.No.1 to 3, 5, 9 to 20-Exparte)
(Deft.No.8-Dead)
Date of institution of the suit 19.01.2013
Nature of the suit (Suit for Pro-note, Suit for Partition &
Suit for Declaration and Possession, Permanent Injunction
Suit for Injunction, etc.)
Date of commencement of recording 11.08.2014
of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment was 10.11.2017
pronounced
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
04 09 21
7 O.S. No.25124/2013
JUDGMENT
Present suit has been filed under Order VII Rule 1 of CPC for seeking the reliefs of partition that the plaintiffs are entitle for ½ share in the suit schedule properties and direct the defendants to affect the partition of the schedule properties by metes and bounds and put the plaintiffs in separate possession, on their failure, do the same through the court, by holding the GPA dated 25.01.2005 executed by the defendants No.1 to 5 and 8 to 19, in favour of the defendant No.20, registered sale deed dated 13.04.2005, executed by the defendant No.20 in favour of defendant No.21, the registered sale deed dated 23.06.2005 executed by defendants No.1 to 5 in favour of defendant No.21, sale deed dated 24.03.2008 executed by the defendant No.21 in favour of defendant No.22, and joint development agreement dated 24.03.2008 entered into between the defendants No.21 and 23, in respect of the suit schedule properties, are not binding on the plaintiffs' ½ share in the suit schedule properties and also for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from alienating the schedule properties in favour of anyone and for costs.
8 O.S. No.25124/2013
2. The description of the suit schedule properties as shown in the schedule to the plaint is as follows:-
1. All that piece and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.239 measuring 5 acres 17 guntas, situated at Kengeri Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, and bounded on:
East by: Gomala land of Doddabele Village; West by: Property of Eranagaiah; North by: Property of Abdul Rehman; and on South by: Property of Abdul Razaak.
2. All that piece and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.273 (Old.No.121/9) and Sy.No.274 (Old. No.121/10) measuring 1 acre 17 guntas out of 10 acres, situated at Kengeri Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, and bounded on:
East by: Government Road; West by: Property Muddaiah & others of Babapalya; North by: Property of Chenigappa & others; and on South by: Property of Muniyappa and Syed Suman Pasha.
3. Case of the plaintiffs, in brief, is as below: -
One Munishamappa is the Moolapurusha of the family of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 19. The said Munishamappa had 7 sons by name 1) Munikalappa @ Ayyanna, 2) Kariyappa, 3) Muniyappa, 4) Yellappa, 5) Muniyelappa, 6) Vagata Sanjeevappa,
7) Munisanjeevappa @ Muniswamappa. The plaintiffs and the 9 O.S. No.25124/2013 defendants No.1 to 7 are the LRs of Muniyappa/3rd son of said Moolapurusha Munishamappa. The defendants No.8 to 19 are the LRs of the other sons of said Moolapurusha Munishamappa. The item No.1 of the schedule properties is the self-acquired property of the said Muniyappa/3rd son of Moolapurusha Munishamappa, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 20.04.1950, for valuable consideration and all the revenue documents continued in the name of the said Muniyappa till his death. The land bearing Sy.No.(121/9) New No.273 and (121/10) New No.274 measuring 5 acres each, is the ancestral and joint family property of the said Muniyappa and his said 6 brothers and they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. The LRs of Munikalappa @ Ayyanna, S/o.Moolapurusha Munishamappa have filed a suit in O.S. No.5176/1992 before the City Civil Court for seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of their 1/7th share in the above said ancestral property and the same was decreed, wherein 1/7th share in the said property; i.e., 1 acre 17 guntas out of 10 acres/item No.2 of the schedule properties was allotted to the share of said Muniyappa/3rd son of Moolapurusha 10 O.S. No.25124/2013 Munishamappa. During the lifetime of said Muniyappa, himself, plaintiffs, and defendants No.1 to 7 constituted a Hindu undivided joint family and the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 7. The said Muniyappa died intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs and the defendants No.1 to 7 as his legal heirs to succeed the suit schedule properties. Thereafter, they being his legal heirs, continued to be in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.
Among the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 7 either during the life time of said Muniyappa or after his death, no partition had taken place in respect of the suit schedule properties. During the lifetime of their respective mothers, they were demanding the defendants No.1 to 7 to effect the partition of the suit schedule properties as there was some misunderstandings among them and the defendants No.1 to 7 in managing the affairs of the suit schedule properties. The defendants No.1 to 7 on one or the other pretext evaded to effect partition of the suit schedule properties. After the death of the plaintiffs respective mothers, the defendants No.1 to 7, started secreting the affairs of the suit schedule properties with an 11 O.S. No.25124/2013 intention to deprive the legitimate share of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties, and the same rendered the plaintiffs to persist the defendants No.1 to 7 to effect partition of the suit schedule properties. The defendants No.1 to 7 who were hither to evading to effect the partition of the suit schedule properties and finally on 20.10.2012 failed and refused to effect the partition of the suit schedule properties. After obtaining the documents pertaining to the schedule properties in the month of November 2012 with an intention to file a suit for partition, to their shock and surprise, the plaintiffs noticed that, the defendants No.1 to 5 and 8 to 19 and in collusion with the 20th defendant, fraudulently, have got created the GPA dated 25.1.2005 in respect of item No.2 of the suit schedule in favour of the 20th defendant and in turn the defendant No.20 got created a fictitious sale deed dated 13.4.2005 in favour of defendant No.21. They further noticed that the defendants No.1 to 5 in collusion with the defendant No.21 got concocted a fictitious sale deed dated 23.06.2005 in favour of defendant No.21, in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule and also a fictitious rectification deed dated 11.02.2008 came to be concocted, rectifying the said 12 O.S. No.25124/2013 sale deed dated 23.06.2005 by wrong persons. Further noticed that the defendant No.21 fraudulently alienated 3 acres of land out of 5 acres 17 guntas in item No.1 of the suit schedule in favour of defendant No.22 under a fictitious sale deed dated 24.03.2008. On the basis of the said fictitious fraudulent documents the defendant No.21 in collusion with the defendant No.23 got concocted and fabricated a joint development agreement dated 24.3.2008 in favour of the defendant No.23 in respect of the schedule properties. The defendants No.1 to 5 & 8 to 19 have no exclusive right, title and interest or possession over the suit schedule properties. Under the alleged transactions the defendants No.20 to 23 will not derive any valid right, title or possession over the suit schedule properties and the said transactions are not binding on the plaintiffs legitimate ½ share together in the schedule properties. Based on the said fictitious and concocted documents, the defendants No.20 to 23 in collusion with the other defendants are attempting to alienate the schedule properties. Hence, this suit arose.
4. After issuance of the suit summons and duly served upon them, the defendants No.1 to 3, 5, 9 to 20 have not chosen to 13 O.S. No.25124/2013 appear before this court, they have been placed exparte; and the defendant No.4, and the defendants No.6 & 7 both and the defendant No.21 and the defendants No.22 and 23 both appeared through their advocates Sri.B.Srinath and Sri.M.Ambareesh and Sri.H.N.M.Prasad and Sri.Mandgi Associates respectively and filed their independent and joint WS. The defendants No.6 & 7 both have also filed their joint counter claim along with joint WS. But, the defendant No.21 has not filed the WS. The advocate for plaintiffs filed memo dated 14.09.2017 reporting about the death of defendant No.8.
5. Case of the defendant No.4, in brief, is as below:-
Defendant No.4 contended in his WS that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either on law or on facts and it is fundamentally defective. It is admitted that the land in Sy.No.239 measuring 5 acres 17 guntas, situated at Kengeri Village is the self- acquired property of the said Muniyappa/3rd son of Moolapurusha Munishamappa, having purchased the same under sale deed dated 20.04.1950 and all the revenue documents continued in his name.
It is denied that during the lifetime of said Muniyappa, himself, 14 O.S. No.25124/2013 plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 7 constituted a Hindu undivided joint family and the suit properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 7. Further it is contended that the mothers of the plaintiffs and defendants No.6 and 7 got married and they have been living in their respective matrimonial houses. Further it is denied that during the lifetime of plaintiffs respective mothers, they were demanding the defendants No.1 to 7 to effect the partition of the schedule properties as there was some misunderstanding among them and defendants No.1 to 7 in managing the affairs of the schedule properties and that the defendants No.1 to 7 on one or the other pretext evaded to effect the partition of the schedule properties. Further it is contended that the transactions referred to in para No.8 and 9 of the plaint are very much within the knowledge of the plaintiffs. The suit is devoid of any merits and the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share as sought for by them and there is no cause of action for this suit and also the court fee paid is insufficient. Thus, this defendant prays to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with heavy costs.
6. Case of the defendants No.6 & 7, in brief, is as below:- 15 O.S. No.25124/2013
Defendants No.6 & 7 contended in their joint WS and counter claim that the plaintiffs have filed this suit for the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the schedule properties. It is admitted that the item No.1 schedule property is the self acquired property of their father Late.Muniyappa, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 20.04.1950. Further it is admitted that the land bearing Sy.No.(121/1) New No.273 and (121/10) New No.274 measuring 5 acres each, is the ancestral and joint family property of the said Muniyappa/father of these defendants and 6 brothers and they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the same and the LRs of Munikalappa @ Ayyanna had filed a suit in O.S. No.5176/1992 for the relief partition and separate possession of his 1/7th share in the above said ancestral property and in the said partition 1 acre 17 guntas of land was allotted to the share of said Muniyappa. Further it is admitted that during the lifetime of said Muniyappa, the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 5 and these defendants constituted a Hindu Undivided Joint Family and the schedule properties are their joint family properties and the same Muniyappa died intestate leaving 16 O.S. No.25124/2013 behind the plaintiffs, defendants No.1 to 5 and these defendants as his legal heirs to succeed the schedule properties. Further it is contended that after the death of said Muniyappa, the plaintiffs, defendants No.1 to 5 and these defendants continued to be in joint possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties and either during the lifetime of their father said Muniyappa or after his death no partition had taken place in respect of the schedule properties among the plaintiffs, the defendants No.1 to 5 and these defendants. It is denied that during the lifetime of the plaintiffs respective mothers, they were demanding the defendants No.1 to 7 to effect partition of he schedule properties; after death of plaintiffs respective mothers, the defendants No.1 to 7 started secreting the affairs of the suit schedule properties with an intention to deprive the legitimate share of the plaintiffs in the schedule properties. Further it is admitted that the defendants No.1 to 5 in collusion with the defendant No.21 got concocted the fictitious sale deed dated 23.06.2005 in favour of defendant No.1 in respect of item No.1 of the schedule properties and rectification deed dated 11.02.2008 came to be concocted rectifying the sale deed dated 17 O.S. No.25124/2013 23.06.2005 by wrong persons and that the defendant No.21 fraudulently alienated 3 acres of land out of 5 acres 17 guntas in item No.1 of the schedule properties in favour of defendant No.22 under a fictitious sale deed dated 24.03.2008. Further it is admitted that based on the said fictitious, fraudulent documents in favour of defendant No.21, she in collusion with the defendant No.23 got concocted and fabricated a joint development agreement dated 24.3.2008 in favour of the defendant No.23 in respect of schedule properties. Further it is contended that plaintiffs being the grand-
children of legal heirs of prepositor Munishamappa, through his daughters Muniyamma, Gowramma and Jayamma, are together entitled for half share in the schedule properties. The defendants No.1 to 5 being the wife and children of Anjinappa, the grand-son of prepositor Munishamappa through his 3rd son Muniyappa are entitled for 1/6th share together in the schedule properties. These defendants being the daughters of Muniyappa are entitled for 1/6th share each in the schedule properties. Further it is contended that these defendants have paid requisite court fee on the WS/counter claim in respect of their 1/6th share each in the schedule properties. 18 O.S. No.25124/2013 All the sale transactions referred to in the plaint in respect of schedule properties in favour of defendants No.20 to 23 are not binding on these defendants 1/6th share each in the schedule properties. Thus, these defendants pray to allot to these defendants of their legitimate 1/6th share each in the schedule properties, by holding that the sale transactions alleged to have been taken place in respect of schedule properties as not binding on these defendants 1/6th share each in the schedule properties.
7. Case of the defendants No.22 and 23, in brief, is as below:-
Defendants No.22 and 23 contended in their joint WS that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either on law or on facts and it is fundamentally defective. Further it is contended that the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the schedule properties. The plaintiffs have sought the suit reliefs by valuing the suit and further have paid court fees under Sections 35 (2) and 26 (c) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. The court fees paid by the plaintiffs is insufficient. The plaintiffs have not paid the required court fees under Section 38 (1) of the K.C.F 19 O.S. No.25124/2013 & S.V. Act for setting aside the suit relief documents to the extent of the plaintiffs share in the schedule properties. The plaintiffs are not in joint possession of the schedule properties along with defendants No.1 to 19. It is defendants No.21, 22 and 23 who are in actual, constructive and physical possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties. Therefore, the plaintiffs ought to have valued the suit and paid appropriate court fees under Section 35 (1) of the K.C.F. & S.V.Act. Further it is contended that this suit is barred by the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. The plaintiffs have filed this suit in the year 2012 after considerable delay and beyond the time period prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963.
Further it is contended that item No.1 schedule property was sold to Late.Sri.Muniyappa by Sri.Abdul Razack under registered sale deed dated 20.04.1950 and he became the sole and absolute owner of the same. Sri.Muniyappa had a son Sri.Anjinappa. Defendant No.1 is the wife of Anjinappa and defendants No.2 to 5 are the children of Anjinappa. Anjinappa predeceased his father on 03.02.1984. Muniyappa died intestate on 25.03.1994. After, the death of Muniyappa, by virtues of the provisions of the Hindu 20 O.S. No.25124/2013 Succession Act, 1956, defendants No.1 to 5 succeeded to the schedule as his sole surviving legal heirs. Further it is contended that on 23.06.2005 defendants No.1 to 5 sold item No.1 of the schedule property in favour of defendant No.21 under registered sale deed and she became absolute owner and the revenue records came to be transferred to her name. On 24.03.2008 defendant No.21 sold 3 acres out of the entire extent of 5 acres 17 guntas in favour of defendant No.22 under registered sale deed and she became the absolute owner of the same. Further it is contended that item No.2 of the schedule properties in total measures to an extent of 10 acres and it was originally owned by Late.Munishamappa, the father of Late.Muniyappa, who is the father-in-law of defendant No.1 and the grandfather of the defendants No.2 to 5. Late.Muniyappa, the father-in-law of defendant No.1 and grandfather of defendants No.2 to 5 became the sole and absolute owner of the item No.2 of the schedule property by virtue of the decree of the court in O.S. No.5176/1992. After, the death of Late.Muniyappa, who died intestate, item No.2 of the schedule property devolved upon his only son 21 O.S. No.25124/2013 Late.Anjinappa and upon his death to defendants No.1 to 5 and in turn they have sold the same in favour of Smt.Shantamma under registered sale deed dated 06.05.2006. Smt.Shantamma has sold the same in favour of defendant No.21 under registered sale deed dated 20.05.2006 and the revenue records transferred to her name. Further it is contended that on 24.03.2008 defendant No.21 in order to develop the remaining extent of 2 acres 17 guntas in item No.1 and the entire extent of item No.2 of the schedule property into residential apartments executed a registered Joint Development Agreement in favour of defendant No.23. This defendant has been put in permissive possession of the entire extent of item No.1 and 2 of the schedule property in order to develop the same. Defendant No.23 has commenced developmental activities on the suit schedule property. Further it is contended that defendant No.23 has taken all reasonable precautions before executing the JDA on 24.03.2008 with defendant No.21. Defendant No.23 has invested crores of rupees for the development of the schedule properties by taking huge loans. The plaintiffs who are strangers to the family of Muniyappa are now trying to cheat defendants No.22 and 23 out of 22 O.S. No.25124/2013 their right, title and interest in the schedule property. Even for the sake of arguments and without admitting to the claim of the plaintiffs it is assumed that they are the legal heirs of Late.Muniyappa, they have been ousted from their share in the joint family property by the acts of defendant No.1 to 5 in alienating the same in favour of defendant No.21. The plaintiffs having slept over the matter since 2005, cannot now file a suit claiming a share in the schedule property. Thus, these defendants pray to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs with heavy costs.
8. From the above said pleadings, following issues have been framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitle for half share together in the suit schedule properties?
2. Whether the defendant No.4 proves that the transactions referred to in para-8 and 9 of the plaint were within the knowledge of the plaintiffs?
3. What order or decree?
ADDL. ISSUES:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the suit schedule properties are self-23 O.S. No.25124/2013
acquired properties of their grandfather Muniyappa?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, GPA dated 25.01.2005, sale deeds dated 13.04.2005, 23.06.2005, 24.03.2008 and JDA dated 24.03.2008 are not binding upon the joint half share of the plaintiff?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, they are entitled for half share together in the suit schedule properties being the grandchildren of Muniyappa?
4. Whether the defendants No.6 and 7 prove that, they are entitled for 1/6th share each in the suit schedule properties being the daughters of Late.Muniyappa, as claimed in the written statement and counter claim?
5. Whether the defendants No.22 and 23 prove that, suit is barred by limitation?
6. Whether the defendants No.22 and 23 prove that, suit is not properly valued and court fee paid is insufficient?
9. On behalf of the plaintiffs, affidavit evidence of plaintiff No.6 has been filed and he has been examined as P.W.1, and affidavit evidence of plaintiff witness by name Sri.Ayyanna as a P.W.2, and Exs.P.1 to P.19 documents have been got marked. 24 O.S. No.25124/2013
10. On the other hand, on behalf of the defendants also, affidavit evidence of Power of Attorney holder of defendants No.6 & 7, has been filed and he has been examined as DW.1 and Exs.D.1 to D.3 documents have been got marked; except them no other defendants who have filed the WS by defendants No.4, 22 and 23 are not chosen to lead their respective evidence supporting to their WS and their documents produced in this case in order to prove their defence.
11. Heard, the learned advocates for the plaintiffs and defendants No.6 & 7. Learned advocate for the plaintiffs has submitted written arguments also very long back on 25.8.2014 and the same has been considered. But, it is pertinent to note in this case that none of advocates of defendants No.4, 21 to 23 not come forward even to submit their argument as they have taken a defence in this case, perused the records of both plaintiffs and defendants and written arguments of the counsel for the plaintiffs.
12. After considering the evidence on record, my findings on the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1: Affirmative, 25 O.S. No.25124/2013 Issue No.2: Negative, Addl.Issue No.1: Affirmative, Addl.Issue No.2: Affirmative, Addl.Issue No.3: Affirmative, Addl.Issue No.4: Affirmative, Addl.Issue No.5: Negative, Addl.Issue No.6: Negative, Issue No.3: As per final order, for the following:-
REASONS.
13. ISSUE Nos.1 & 2, & ADDL.ISSUE Nos.1 to 6: In this case, there is no difference in between main issue No.1 and addl.issue No.3 both are one and same and other main issue No.2, addl.issue No.1, 2, & 4 to 6 are interlinked each other; hence, for avoiding repetition I have taken up all these issues for discussion at one stretch. In order to prove the case of plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.6 by namely Sri.Shankara is got examined as a P.W.1 and submitted a sworn affidavit evidence, in which he has categorically 26 O.S. No.25124/2013 reiterated the plaint averments. The plaintiff No.6/P.W.1 has stated in his evidence that he is swearing this affidavit evidence for himself and also on behalf of other plaintiffs. One Munishamappa is the Moolapurusha (Prepositor) of the family of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 19. The said Munishamappa had 7 sons by name 1) Munikalappa @ Ayyanna, 2) Kariyappa, 3) Muniyappa, 4) Yellappa, 5) Muniyelappa, 6) Vagata Sanjeevappa, 7) Munisanjeevappa @ Muniswamappa. The plaintiffs and the defendants No.1 to 7 are the LRs of Muniyappa/3rd son of said Moolapurusha Munishamappa. The defendants No.8 to 19 are the LRs of the other sons of said Moolapurusha Munishamappa. P.W.1 further stated in his addl. chief-examination that the item No.1 of the schedule properties is the self-acquired property of the said Muniyappa/3rd son of Moolapurusha Munishamappa, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 20.04.1950, for valuable consideration and all the revenue documents continued in the name of the said Muniyappa till his death. After the death of said Muniyappa, his children namely 1) Mariyamma, 2) 27 O.S. No.25124/2013 Gowramma, 3) Anjinappa, 4) Jayamma, 5) Sharadamma, and
6) Rathnamma, have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the said land being the LRs of said Muniyappa. The said Mariyamma died leaving behind the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 as her LRs. The said Gowramma died leaving behind P.W.1 and the plaintiffs No.5, 7 & 8 as her LRs. The said Anjinappa died leaving behind the defendants No.1 to 5 as his LRs. Similarly the said Jayamma died leaving behind the plaintiffs No.9 & 10 as her LRs.
After the death of aforesaid four children of Muniyappa, P.W.1, other plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 7 have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the said land being the LRs of said Muniyappa. It is also stated by P.W.1 that the land bearing Sy.No.(121/9) New No.273 and (121/10) New No.274 measuring 5 acres each, is the ancestral and joint family property of the said Muniyappa and his said 6 brothers and they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. The LRs of Munikalappa @ Ayyanna, S/o.Moolapurusha Munishamappa have filed a suit in O.S. No.5176/1992 before the City Civil Court for seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of their 1/7th share in the 28 O.S. No.25124/2013 above said ancestral property and the same was decreed, wherein 1/7th share in the said property; i.e., 1 acre 17 guntas out of 10 acres/item No.2 of the schedule properties was allotted to the share of said Muniyappa/3rd son of Moolapurusha Munishamappa. P.W.1 further stated in his chief-examination that after the death of said Muniyappa, and his aforesaid deceased four children, himself, other plaintiffs, and defendants No.1 to 7 constituted a Hindu undivided joint family and have continued to be in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties being the LRs, as the said Muniyappa died intestate. It is also stated by the P.W.1 that among the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 7 either during the life time of said Muniyappa or after his death, no partition had taken place in respect of the suit schedule properties. After the death of the plaintiffs respective mothers, the defendants No.1 to 7, started secreting the affairs of the suit schedule properties with an intention to deprive the legitimate share of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties, and the same rendered the plaintiffs to persist the defendants No.1 to 7 to effect partition of the suit schedule 29 O.S. No.25124/2013 properties. The defendants No.1 to 7 who were hither to evading to effect the partition of the suit schedule properties and finally on 20.10.2012 failed and refused to effect the partition of the suit schedule properties. After obtaining the documents pertaining to the schedule properties in the month of November 2012 with an intention to file a suit for partition, it become shock and surprise, the plaintiffs noticed that, the defendants No.1 to 5 and 8 to 19 and in collusion with the 20th defendant, fraudulently, have got created the GPA dated 25.1.2005 in respect of item No.2 of the suit schedule in favour of the 20th defendant and in turn the defendant No.20 got created a fictitious sale deed dated 13.4.2005 in favour of defendant No.21. P.W.1 further stated in his chief-examination that himself and other plaintiffs noticed that the defendants No.1 to 5 in collusion with the defendant No.21 got concocted a fictitious sale deed dated 23.06.2005 in favour of defendant No.21, in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule and also a fictitious rectification deed dated 11.02.2008 came to be concocted, rectifying the said sale deed dated 23.06.2005 by wrong persons. Further noticed that the defendant No.21 fraudulently alienated 3 acres of land out of 5 30 O.S. No.25124/2013 acres 17 guntas in item No.1 of the suit schedule in favour of defendant No.22 under a fictitious sale deed dated 24.03.2008. On the basis of the said fictitious fraudulent documents the defendant No.21 in collusion with the defendant No.23 got concocted and fabricated a joint development agreement dated 24.3.2008 in favour of the defendant No.23 in respect of the schedule properties. It is also stated by P.W.1 that the defendants No.1 to 5 & 8 to 19 have no exclusive right, title and interest or possession over the suit schedule properties. Under the alleged transactions the defendants No.20 to 23 will not derive any valid right, title or possession over the suit schedule properties and the said transactions are not binding on the plaintiffs legitimate ½ share together in the schedule properties. P.W.1 further stated in his chief-examination that the schedule properties are their ancestral and joint family properties, and in view of the same the court fee paid under Section 35 (2) of the K.C.F and S.V Act, is appropriate and correct and they are not required to pay court fee under Section 35 (1) of the Act. Just because the defendants No.1 to 5, stealthily and without their knowledge alienated the schedule properties, it cannot be said they 31 O.S. No.25124/2013 have been ousted from their legitimate rights and possession of the schedule properties. They came to know regarding the alleged sale and other transactions in respect of the schedule properties, only after obtaining the suit documents, and immediately they filed this suit, and as such, from the date of knowledge, the suit is well within time. It is also stated by the P.W.1 that himself and other plaintiffs have also got right, title, interest and joint possession in item No.2 of the schedule property. In fact, himself, the other plaintiffs being the maternal grandchildren of deceased Muniyappa, through his deceased daughters namely Mariyamma, Gowramma and Jayamma, have also succeeded to the schedule properties along with the defendants No.1 to 7. P.W.1 further stated in his chief- examination that the defendant No.22 intentionally to defraud and to deprive their valuable right and share in item No.1 of the schedule property, has created fictitious sale deed in her name. It is also stated by P.W.1 that the plaintiffs No.1 to 4, being the children of deceased Mariyamma/1st daughter of Late.Muniyappa, the plaintiffs No.5 to 8 being the children of deceased Gowramma/2nd daughter of deceased Muniyappa, and the plaintiffs No.9 & 10 32 O.S. No.25124/2013 being the children of deceased Jayamma/3rd daughter of Late.Muniyappa are together entitle for half share in the schedule properties. The defendants No.1 to 5 being the wife and children of deceased Anjinappa/only son of Muniyappa are together entitle for 1/6th share in the schedule properties. Similarly, the defendants No.6 & 7 being the daughters of deceased Muniyappa are entitle for 1/6th share each in the schedule properties. Based on the said fictitious and concocted documents, the defendants No.22 & 23 in collusion with the other defendants are attempting to alienate the schedule properties; as such it is just and necessary to restrain the defendants from alienating the schedule properties.
14. Further the plaintiffs have got examined the one Ayyanna on their behalf as a P.W.2; he has specifically stated in his affidavit evidence that he know the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 19 as himself, the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 19 are the descendents of common ancestor and prepositor Late.Muniswamappa and he know the schedule properties. It is also he has stated that item No.1 of the schedule property is the self-acquired property of one Muniyappa and the plaintiffs and 33 O.S. No.25124/2013 defendants No.1 to 7 are the LRs of said Muniyappa and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the said land. P.W.2 further stated that he is the great grand son of Prepositor Muniswamappa, through his 1st son Munikalappa @ Ayyanna and he himself and his brothers have filed a suit in O.S. No.5176/1992 for the relief of partition against the other LRs of prepositor Late.Munishamappa in respect of land in Sy.No.121/1, New No.273 and Sy.No.121/10, New No.274, measuring 5 acres each and in total 10 acres situated at Kengeri Village. In the said suit 1/7th share together was allotted to himself and his brothers in the said lands. Similarly the Muniyappa was allotted 1 acre 17 guntas in the said lands; i.e., item No.2 schedule property. After death of Muniyappa, the plaintiffs and the defendants No.1 to 7 have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the item No.2 of the schedule property also. There is no partition among the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 7 in respect of schedule properties. It is also P.W.2 stated that plaintiffs No.1 to 4 are the grand children of Muniyappa, through his 1st daughter Mariyamma, the plaintiffs No.5 to 8 are the grandchildren of Late.Muniyappa through his 2nd 34 O.S. No.25124/2013 daughter Gowramma. The plaintiffs No.9 and 10 are the grandchildren of said Late.Muniyappa through his 4th daughter Jayamma. Defendants No.1 to 5 are the wife and children of Anjinappa, the 3rd son of said Late.Muniyappa. The defendants No.6 and 7 are the daughters of Late. Muniyappa. The plaintiffs and the defendants No.1 to 7 constituted a Hindu Undivided Joint Family and the schedule properties are their joint family properties and they have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the same.
15. On the other hand, the power of attorney holder of defendants No.6 & 7 V.M.Muniraju given his evidence as a D.W.1 by stating that he is also the son of 6th defendant and faster son of 7th defendant. One Munishamappa is the Moolapurusha of the family of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 19. The said Munishamappa had 7 sons by name 1) Munikalappa @ Ayyanna,
2) Kariyappa, 3) Muniyappa, 4) Yellappa, 5) Muniyelappa, 6) Vagata Sanjeevappa, 7) Munisanjeevappa @ Muniswamappa. The plaintiffs and the defendants No.1 to 7 are the LRs of Muniyappa/3rd son of said Moolapurusha Munishamappa. The defendants No.8 to 19 are the LRs of the other sons of said 35 O.S. No.25124/2013 Moolapurusha Munishamappa. D.W.1 further stated in his chief- examination that the item No.1 of the schedule properties is the self-acquired property of the said Muniyappa/3rd son of Moolapurusha Munishamappa, having purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 20.04.1950, for valuable consideration and all the revenue documents continued in the name of the said Muniyappa and he along with his wife Muniyamma and their children and grandchildren continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the said property. It is also stated by D.W.1 that the land bearing Sy.No.(121/9) New No.273 and (121/10) New No.274 measuring 5 acres each, is the ancestral and joint family property of the said Muniyappa and his said 6 brothers and they were in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. In a suit for partition in O.S. No.5176/1992, filed by the LRs of Munikalappa @ Ayyanna, the 1st son of prepositor Muniswamappa out of said 10 acres in the aforesaid Sy.Nos., the land to an extent of 1 acre 17 guntas had fallen to the share of said Muniyappa; i.e., item No.2 of the schedule properties and the said Muniyappa and his wife and children continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the same. 36 O.S. No.25124/2013 D.W.1 further stated in his chief-examination that the said Muniyappa had 6 children namely 1) Mariyamma, 2) Gowramma,
3) Anjinappa, 4) Jayamma, 5) Sharadamma/defendant No.6, and 6th daughter of Muniyappa/Rathnamma/defendant No.7. The said Anjinappa predeceased his father said Muniyappa, leaving behind his wife Anjinamma/defendant No.1 and 4 children; i.e, defendants No.2 to 5. The said Muniyappa died intestate on 26.03.1994 leaving behind his wife Muniyamma, and his aforesaid 5 daughters and the defendants No.1 to 5 to succeed the schedule properties. The said Muniyamma, W/o.Muniyappa, also died on 12.08.2009. Subsequently their 3 daughters namely 1) Mariyamma died leaving behind the plaintiffs No.1 to 4, 2) Gowramma died leaving behind the plaintiffs No.5 to 8 & 3) Jayamma died leaving behind the plaintiffs No.9 and 10 to succeed their respective shares in the schedule properties. The defendants No.6 & 7 being the daughters and the LRs of said Muniyappa are entitle for their legitimate share in the schedule properties. D.W.1 further stated that after the death of said Muniyappa, and his wife Muniyamma and their said 3 daughters, the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 7, have continued 37 O.S. No.25124/2013 to be members of the Hindu Undivided Joint Family and they continued to be in joint possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties. It is also D.W.1 stated that either during the lifetime of the said Muniyappa or after his death no partition had taken place in respect of schedule properties among his LRs, including the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 7. As such, the defendants No.1 to 5, in collusion with defendant No.21, got concocted a fictitious registered sale deed dated 23.6.2005 and also rectification deed dated 11.02.2008 in favour of defendant No.21 in respect of item No.1 of schedule properties. The defendant No.21 fraudulently alienated 3 acres of land out of 5 acres 17 guntas in item No.1 schedule property in favour of defendant No.22 under a registered sale deed dated 24.3.2008. The above said registered deeds have taken place without consent knowledge of defendants No.6 & 7 and are not binding on the legitimate share of defendants No.6 & 7. D.W.1 further stated in his chief-examination that the defendants No.1 to 5, and 8 to 19 in collusion with defendant No.20 have fraudulently concocted a fictitious GPA dated 25.1.2005 in the name of defendant No.20 in respect of item No.2 of the schedule 38 O.S. No.25124/2013 property and in turn defendant No.20 in collusion with defendant No.21 concocted a fictitious registered sale deed dated 13.4.2005 in favour of defendant No.21 and it was taken place behind the back of the defendants No.6 & 7. It is also D.W.1 stated that the defendants No.21 to 23 in collusion with each other, have concocted registered JDA dated 24.3.2008 in respect of schedule properties without consent of the defendants No.6 and 7. In spite of all the said fictitious registered documents and revenue records, being in the names of defendants No.21 to 23 in respect of schedule properties, the plaintiffs, defendants No.1 to 7, have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties. D.W.1 further stated in his chief-examination that the schedule properties are required to be divided into 6 equal shares among the LRs of said Muniyappa and the defendants No.6 & 7 are entitle for 1/6th share each in the schedule properties. The plaintiffs are together entitle of ½ share in the schedule properties; similarly defendants No.1 to 5 also entitle of 1/6th share in the schedule properties.
39 O.S. No.25124/2013
16. Upon perusal of the oral evidence of P.W.1 & P.W.2 and also D.W.1 there is a similarity in the evidence of all witnesses regarding the suit schedule properties as well as the claim of the share of plaintiffs and defendants No.6 & 7. There is no doubt nobody cross-examined to said witnesses. It is pertinent to note that plaintiffs have not denied the case of the defendants No.6 & 7 and at the same time defendants No.6 & 7 have not denied the case of the plaintiffs. They have admitted each other regarding claim of their share including the same contention taken regarding the alleged sale deed and GPAs and as well as agreement pleaded in the plaint by stating that upto the year 2012 the said alienation made by the defendants No.1 to 5 and 21 to 23 not came to their knowledge when about the sale deeds, GPA and agreement of sale came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs immediately he filed a suit in the year 2013 within the one year for which a 3 years limitation is fixed as per the Limitation Act. It means the said documents against whom which will be damaged and deprive the rights of the parties on the registered documents like sale deeds, GPA etc., are to be sought for cancellation or a relief of not binding upon them 40 O.S. No.25124/2013 within the 3 years as per the Limitation Act; i.e., according to Article-56 & 59 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. It is pertinent to note in this case that, the defendant No.4 and 21 to 23 appeared in this case and denied the case of the plaintiff with a contention that the father of the defendants No.2 to 5 ousted to the plaintiff from the jointness of their undivided joint family very long back; therefore, the suit of the plaintiffs suffers from the point of limitation as they have not filed a suit for partition and cancellation of the above said sale deeds, GPA and agreement of sale as required to be cancelled or declared to be null and void and the same are not binding on the share of plaintiffs and defendants No.6 & 7; but, in order to substantiate their defence they have not chosen to cross-examine the P.W.1, P.W.2 and D.W.1. Even in order to prove their defence they have not led any oral evidence. It is pertinent to note that defendants No.2 to 5 and other defendants who have entered with registered sale deeds, GPA and agreement of sale as above stated are not participated in this proceedings by filing their WS and placing their respective evidence. Under such circumstances, it appears that the very oral evidence and 41 O.S. No.25124/2013 documentary evidence of plaintiffs and D.W.1 remained unchallenged. Thus being the situation, this court does not hesitate to accept the unchallenged version of the plaintiffs and defendants No.6 & 7 at any cost; because, the very nature of the properties item No.1 being a self-acquired property of the Muniyappa and item No.2 properties came to his share under the partition deed along with his brothers. The said matter is not disputed and even a half share together claimed by the plaintiffs and 1/6th share each claimed by the defendants No.6 & 7 are appears a legitimate claim according to Hindu Amended Succession Act-6 (A), which is not disproved by the other sharers of the suit schedule properties including a purchasers of the properties, to whom also made a defendants 8 to 23. It is further pertinent to note that defendant No.4 taken a contention that the above said transactions referred in para No.8 & 9 of the plaint were within the knowledge of the plaintiffs; but, the same is denied by the plaintiffs with pleading that it was came to their knowledge in the year 2012. It is clear in this case that, defendant No.4 or defendant No.22 and 23 never tried to prove their contention taken in their WS on the point of 42 O.S. No.25124/2013 limitation and also regarding the said documents of alienation taken place in between defendants No.1 to 23 was within the knowledge of the plaintiffs, no any oral evidence is led by the defendant No.4 and 21 to 23 as supporting to their defence and to disprove the plea of the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendants have failed to establish their case as the suit of the plaintiff is out of limitation as per Article 56 & 59 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, there is no chance to discard the case of plaintiff and defendants No.6 & 7 in this suit. At the most, the purchaser of the portion of the suit schedule properties under the registered sale deeds, GPA and agreement of sale will be entitled to have the properties to the extent of share of the vendors defendants No.1 to 5 and others; but, they are not entitled for having a properties coming to the share of the plaintiffs and defendants No.6 & 7. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled for seeking the relief of declaration sought regarding the said documents. It appears that plaintiffs and defendants No.6 & 7 have paid the sufficient court fee for their claim of partition and declaration, in the suit and counter claim of defendants No.6 & 7, which is also not rebutted 43 O.S. No.25124/2013 by the defendants. Accordingly, addl.issue No.1 to 3 and issue No.1 answered in favour of the plaintiffs as a Affirmative and further addl.issue No.4 answered in favour of the defendants No.6 & 7 as a Affirmative and main issue No.2 answered against the defendant as a Negative and addl.issue Nos.5 & 6 against the defendants No.22 and 23 as a Negative.
17. ISSUE No.3: For the reasons discussed in Issue No.1 & 2, and addl.issues No.1 to 6, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER.
Suit of the plaintiffs is hereby decreed with costs.
It is declared that the plaintiffs are entitled for ½ their together share in the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, defendants are directed to effect the partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs share along with the other share of the co-owners; i.e., defendants in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds.
It is declared that GPA dated 25.01.2005 executed by defendants No.1 to 5, and defendants No.8 to 19 in favour of defendant No.20 and a registered sale deed dated 13.4.2005 executed by 44 O.S. No.25124/2013 the defendant No.20 in favour of defendant No.21 and other registered sale deed dated 23.6.2005 executed by defendants No.1 to 5 in favour of defendant No.21 and sale deed dated 24.3.2008 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.22 and JDA dated 24.3.2008 entered into in between defendants No.21 & 23 in respect of the suit schedule properties are not binding upon the plaintiffs' half share as prayed for.
Accordingly, it is further declared that defendants No.6 & 7 are entitled for 1/6th share each in the suit schedule properties as claimed in counter claim.
Defendants are hereby permanently restrained from alienating or creating any
encumbrance over the suit schedule properties in favour of third persons or anybody until effecting the partition and separate possession in between the suit schedule properties.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.45 O.S. No.25124/2013
Draw the preliminary decree accordingly. (Dictation computerized by Stenographer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this, the 10th day of November, 2017).
(Bannikatti Hanumanthappa.R.) IV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the plaintiffs:
P.W.1 - Sri.Shankara
P.W.2 - Sri.Ayyanna
List of documents exhibited for the plaintiffs:
Ex.P.1 - C/C of MR No.33/91-92
Ex.P.2 - RTC (6 nos)
Ex.P.3 - C/C of registered sale deed dated
26.03.2005
Ex.P.4 - C/C of rectification deed dated 11.02.08
Ex.P.5 - C/C of registered sale deed dated
24.03.2008
Ex.P.6 - C/C of MR No.14/05-06
Ex.P.7 - Two RTCs
Ex.P.8 - C/C of Mutation No.52/2007-08
Ex.P.9 - RTCs (5 nos)
Ex.P.10 - C/C of MR No.30/08-09
Ex.P.11 - C/C of MR No.62/07-08
Ex.P.12 - C/C of JDA dated 24.03.2008
Ex.P.13 - C/C of registered sale deed dated
13.04.2005
Ex.P.14 - RTCs (4 nos)
46 O.S. No.25124/2013
Ex.P.15 - C/C of MR No.77/05-06
Ex.P.16 - RTCs
Ex.P.17 - C/C of plaint in O.S. No.5176/1992
Ex.P.18 - C/C of judgment in O.S. No.5176/1992
Ex.P.19 - C/C of decree in O.S. No.5176/1992
List of witness examined for the defendants:
D.W.1 - Sri.V.M.Muniraju
List of documents exhibited for the defendants:
Ex.D.1 - Power of Attorney
Ex.D.2 & 3 - Death Certificates
(Bannikatti Hanumanthappa.R.)
IV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru.
47 O.S. No.25124/2013
48 O.S. No.25124/2013