Bangalore District Court
Sri. Ranganatha Shastry vs Smt. Jayanthi on 28 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AT MAYO HALL BENGALURU, (CCH73)
Present:
Sri.AbdulRahiman. A. Nandgadi,
B.Com, LL.B., (Spl.,)
LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 28th day of January, 2020.
O.S.No.25971/2013
Plaintiff: Sri. Ranganatha Shastry,
Aged about 54 years,
S/o Late T. K Rameshwara Shastry,
R/at No.32/1, Car Street,
Ulsoor, Bangalore560 008.
[By Sri. V. PrabhakarAdv.]
V/s
2 OS No. 25971/2013
Defendants: 1. Smt. Jayanthi,
Aged about 47 years,
D/o Late T. K. Rameshwara Shastry,
W/o Sri. M. Chandrashekar,
R/at No.16, SBI Colony,
Near Ganesha Stores,
Kodichikkanahalli,
Bangalore560 076.
2. Smt. Lakshmi,
Aged about 39 years,
D/o Late T. K. Rameshwara Shastry,
W/o Sri. Nagaraj,
R/at No.16, SBI Colony,
Near Ganesha Stores,
Kodichikkanahalli,
Bangalore560 076.
3. Ms. Shanthamma,
Aged about 51 years,
D/o Late T. K. Rameshwara Shastry,
R/at No.16, SBI Colony,
Near Ganesha Stores,
Kodichikkanahalli,
Bangalore560 076.
(Died on 09.01.2018,
memo filed by the Plaintiff on 11.09.2018.)
3 OS No. 25971/2013
4. Smt. Gayathri,
D/o Late T. K. Rameshwara Shastry,
W/o Sri. Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 40 years,
R/at No.16, SBI Colony,
Near Ganesha Stores,
Kodichikkanahalli,
Bangalore560 076.
(Died on 24.03.2014)
5. Smt. Nagaveni,
D/o Late T.K Rameshwara Shastry,
W/o Sri. Nanjunda Rao,
Aged about 36 years,
R/at Chikkanayakana Halli Taluk,
Jodithirumala Pura Grama,
Tumkur District.
6. Smt. Kalavathi,
D/o Late T. K Rameshwara Shastry,
W/o Late Gundanna,
Aged about 44 years,
R/at No.9, 1st Cross, Car Street,
Ulsoor, Bangalore560 008.
[By Sri. H. S. VivekanandaAdvocate)
[Defendant Nos.2, 3, 5, and 6 Exparte]
4 OS No. 25971/2013
Date of Institution of the suit
26.06.2013
Nature of the (Suit or pronote,
suit for declaration and
possession, suit for injunction, Partition Suit
etc.)
Date of the commencement of
recording of the Evidence. 15.09.2017
Date on which the Judgment
was pronounced. 28.01.2020
Year/s Month/s Day/s
06 07 02
Total duration
LXXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
Mayohall Unit: Bengaluru.
5 OS No. 25971/2013
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants, claiming Partition of his 1/7th share in the Suit Schedule Properties, by metes and bounds and to put the Plaintiff in separate possession and enjoyment of his share, in the suit schedule properties, by cancelling the alleged Release Deeds dtd.24.04.2009, executed infavour of the Defendant No.1.
2. Facts of the Plaintiff's case are as under:
It is the case of the Plaintiff that, he is the brother of the Defendant Nos.1 to 6 and they all are the children of T. K Rameshwara Shastry and Manjulamma. T. K Rameshwara Shastry the father of the Plaintiff and the Defendants was working in M/s Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Ltd., having its 6 OS No. 25971/2013 office at Mysore Road, Bangalore, acquired the Suit Schedule 'A' Property through the society formed by M/s Government Electric Factory (Kavika) Employees House Building Cooperative Society Ltd. The said property was alloted to him, as per the allotment letter dtd.20.06.1989. Thereafter, the society has executed Registered Sale Deed in his favour, in respect of the said property on 29.07.1989. The original Sale Deed is with the Defendant No.1.
The Suit Schedule BProperty was alloted by M/s Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Ltd., to the father of the Plaintiff and the DefendantsT. K Rameshwara Shastry. After his death, as per the family arrangement M/s Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Ltd., represented by its Company Secretary, executed a Sale Deed in the name of the mother of the Plaintiff and the Defendants by name, Smt. Manjulamma on 7 OS No. 25971/2013 28.12.1999. The original Registered Sale Deed is with the Defendant No.1.
It is further contended by the Plaintiff that, T. K Rameshwara Shastry died on 11.11.1993 and his wife Smt. Manjulamma died on 03.08.2011, leaving behind them, the Plaintiff and the Defendants, as their only legal heirs, to succeed the estate left by them. No Partitions have been effected, inrespect of the Suit Schedule Properties, till today.
It is further contended by the Plaintiff that, he has constructed a building on suit schedule 'A' property alongwith his father, consisting of ground floor and 1st floor, which was under the use and occupation of the Plaintiff. After the death of the parents, the Plaintiff suffered mental depression and serious nervous problems and he was taking treatment in NIMHANS, as an outdoor patient, since 8 OS No. 25971/2013 1992. During April 2009, taking advantage of the ailment and weakness of the Plaintiff, the 1 st Defendant who was playing dominating role, in his family has taken the Plaintiff to the office of the Sub Registrar and asked him to sign the documents, stating that the said documents are pertaining to the Lease Deeds of the Suit Schedule Properties. The advocate who has drafted the deeds, as well as the SubRegister who registered the said documents, have neither readover the nature of the document or the contents of the said documents, respectively. At the time of registration of the said document, the Defendant No.1 and her husband assured the Plaintiff that, he will not be cheated and he will not be deprived of his share in the properties. The Plaintiff who doesn't know English language and unaware about the contents of the said documents, has signed the same without knowing the referred questions of the alleged deeds, which has resulted in 9 OS No. 25971/2013 misrepresentation, fraud, undue influence, coercion, played by the Defendant No.1, on the Plaintiff.
As per the assurance of the Defendant No.1, the Plaintiff could continue to stay at the ground floor of Suit Schedule 'B' Property, but lateron with a malafide intention to knockoff the entire properties, the Defendant No.1 asked the Plaintiff to vacate the ground floor of the said Suit Schedule BProperty and asked him to have rented premises for his residence. The Plaintiff having believed the advice of the 1 st Defendant, vacated the said premises and took a small house at Ulsoor, on rental of Rs.4,000/ per month. Thereafter, the Defendant No.1 without consenting the Plaintiff letout the entire premises on rent by collecting the advance amount. The rental amount of the house occupied by the Plaintiff is paid by his fatherinlaw, due to his ill health.
10 OS No. 25971/2013The Plaintiff has got recovered himself from his mental illhealth. On 20.01.2013, when the Plaintiff approached the 1st Defendant claiming his share in the rents received from the Suit Schedule Properties, the Defendant No.1 adamantly behaved with him and rudely informed him that, he had lost all the rights over the Suit Schedule Properties, as he has released the said properties, in her favour. Thereafter, the Plaintiff got verified the same and obtained the certified copies of the Release Deeds and has filed the present suit, seeking the relief of Partition and Declaration of the Release Deeds dtd.24.04.2009, as null and void.
3. Suit Summon was issued to the Defendants. Defendant No.1 appeared through her counsel on 13.08.2013. The Defendant No.3 was placed Exparte on 13.08.2013. The Defendant Nos.5 and 6 placed Exparte 16.06.2014. The Defendant 11 OS No. 25971/2013 No.2 is placed Exparte on 04.04.2015. On 16.01.2016 Plaintiff filed a memo reporting the death of Defendant No.4.
4. The Defendant No.1 has filed her Written Statement on 05.10.2013, denying all the contents taken up by the Plaintiff in the suit plaint and specifically contended that, the Plaintiff and her other siblings have executed two Release Deeds in her favour and there is no misrepresentation, fraud, coercion, caused by her, at the time of execution of the said Release Deeds. She is an earning hand, she alongwith her husband, has acquired the said properties with the full knowledge of other siblings. The documents executed by her siblings have been acted over. Thus, contends that, the Plaintiff has filed the present false suit, claiming the relief of Partition, to over come the documents executed by 12 OS No. 25971/2013 him alongwith others, in her favour. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. On the basis of the above said pleadings of the Plaintiff, following Issues have been framed on 10.04.2017:
:ISSUES:
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that, Plaintiff and all the Defendant Nos.1 to 6 are succeeded the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties from their father T. K Rameshwara Shastry and the same are continued till today, as joint family properties, without effecting Partition in between them?
2. Whether the Plaintiff proves that, the release deeds dtd.24.04.2009 is created by playing a fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence, as alleged in para 13 OS No. 25971/2013 No.6 to 10 of the plaint and same is deserved to be cancelled?
3. Whether the Plaintiff proves that, he is entitled for Partition and separate possession of his 1/7th share in suit schedule properties by metes and bounds as prayed for?
4. What order or decree?
6. The Plaintiff inorder to prove his case, got examined himself as PW1 and got marked 09 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. PW1 was cross examined on behalf of the Defendants on 12.09.2018. The Plaintiff got examined T.V.
Sreekanthaiah as PW.2. PW.2 was cross examined on behalf of Defendant No.1 on 08.01.2019. Plaintiff got examined Dr. C.Naveen Kumar, Professor of Psychiatry, working at NIMHANS hospital at Bengaluru. Medical file maintained by the NIMHANS 14 OS No. 25971/2013 hospital pertaining to the Plaintiff was got marked as Ex.P.10. PW.3 was cross examined on behalf of Defendant No.1 on 27.08.2019.
Per contra, the Defendant No.1 got herself examined as DW1. No documents have been marked from her side. DW.1 was cross examined on behalf of the Plaintiff on 25.10.2019 and 04.12.209.
7. Heard the Arguments of the Learned Counsels representing the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1, respectively. The Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff has placed his reliance on two decisions reported in 1) 2010(3) KCCR 1638; in the case of B.C.Ravindra and Another V/s Deviramma; and 2) AIR 2007 SC 2967; in the case of Chacko & Another V.s Mahadevan.
The Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1 has placed his reliance on five decisions reported in
1) LAWS (PVC) 1927 611; in the case of Ram Sundar saha V/s Kali Narain Sen Choudhury; 2) LAWS (PVC) 15 OS No. 25971/2013 1934 3 155; in the case of Someshwar Duttt V/s Tribhawan Dutt; 3) AIR 1941 Nagpur 251, in the case of Mohanlal Madangopal Marwadi V/s Vinayak Sadasheo Sonak and Others; 4) AIR 1956 Calcutta 213 ; in the case of Bahadur Singh Chhetri and Another V/s Bir Bahadur Singh and Another; and 5) AIR 1958 Andhra Pradesh 22; in the case of (Pathuri) Subrahmanya Sastry V/s (Pathuri) Lakshminarasamma and Others.
I have carefully gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff and the decisions relied on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1.
8. My findings on the above said issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative;
Issue No.2 : In the Negative;
Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative;
Issue No.4 : As per final orders,
for the following
16 OS No. 25971/2013
:R E A S O N S:
9. ISSUE NOS.1 & 2:
Since both these issues are interlinked with each other, so they have been taken for common discussion, inorder to avoid repeatition, confusion and to have brevity in the discussion.
As per the contentions of the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1, the undisputed facts are as under:
a) That the Plaintiff and the Defendants are the brother and sisters interse and they are the children of T.K.Rameswara Shastry and Smt. Manjulamma.
T.K. Rameswara Shastry was serving with M/s Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Ltd., having its office at Mysore Road, Bengaluru26 and he had acquired the Suit Schedule AProperty through the society formed M/s. Government Electric Factory (Kavika), Employees House Building Cooperative Society Ltd., as per the allotment letter dtd.20.06.1989. On the 17 OS No. 25971/2013 basis of which, a Registered Sale Deed was executed in his favour on 29.07.1989, as per Ex.P.1. The said property is shown as Suit Schedule AProperty.
Coming to the documentary evidence, more specifically the encumbrance certificate produced by the Plaintiff at Ex.P.5. The said document evidences about the transaction of sale, taken place in favour of T.K. Rameswara Shastry on 29.07.1989.
Coming to the ocular evidence on this point, more specifically cross examination of DW.1 at Page No.5, Para No.4, which reads as under;
"It is true to suggest that during the lifetime of my father M/S. Karnataka Viduthshakti Karkane Ltd., (KAVIKA), has executed Sale Deed infavour of my father, inrespect of Suit Schedule A Property. It is true to suggest that the said Sale Deed was executed infavour of my father on 29.07.1989, as per Ex.P.1. It is false to suggest that ground level floor and the first level floor building was constructed in the Suit Schedule Property, during the lifetime of my father, with the 18 OS No. 25971/2013 joint funds of my father and my brother the Plaintiff".
As per this evidence, the Defendant No.1 admits that, during the life time of her father M/s Karnataka Vidyuth Shakti Karkhane Ltd., (Kavika) has executed the Sale Deed in favour of his father on 29.07.1989 as per Ex.P.1. But Defendant No.1 denies that ground level floor and the first level floor building was constructed in the Suit Schedule AProperty during the lifetime of her father with the joint funds of her father and her brotherthe Plaintiff.
b) The Suit Schedule BProperty was also allotted to the father of the Plaintiff and the Defendants T.K. Rameshwara Shastry. After his death, as per family arrangement M/s. Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Ltd., represented by its Company Secretary executed a Sale Deed infavour of the 19 OS No. 25971/2013 mother of the Plaintiff and the Defendants Smt. Manjulamma on 28.12.1999 as per Ex.P.2.
Coming to the documentary evidence, more specifically Ex.P.2, which evidences that the vendee had furnished the particulars of the legal heirs alongwith indemnity bond, joint affidavit and self affidavit to transfer the said property in her name. Accordingly, Sale Deed Ex.P.2 was executed in the name of Manjulamma.
Coming to the ocular evidence on this point, more specifically, cross examination of DW.1 at Page No.6, Para No.3, which reads as under;
It is true to suggest that after the death of my father M/S. Karnataka Viduthshakti Karkane Ltd., (KAVIKA), has executed a Sale Deed infavour of my mother inrespect of Suit Schedule B Property, on we the other Legal Heirs of my father giving consent and submitting the indemnity bond to that regard".
As per this evidence, the Defendant No.1 admits that, after the death of her father, M/s Karnataka 20 OS No. 25971/2013 Vidyuth Shakti Karkhane Ltd., (Kavika) has executed the Sale Deed in favour of her mother inrespect of Suit Schedule BProperty, on the basis of the consent and indemnity bond submitted by the other heirs of her father.
c) The father of the Plaintiff and the Defendants T.K. Rameshwara Shastry, died on 11.11.1993 as per the death certificate produced by the Plaintiff at Ex.P.7.
d) The mother of the Plaintiff and the Defendants Manjulamma, died on 03.08.2011 as per the death certificate produced by the Plaintiff at Ex.P.8.
10. The disputed facts are:
As per the Plaintiff, he contends that he was suffering from mental disorder and taking the advantage of the situation, the Defendant No.1 who was playing a dominating role in his family took him 21 OS No. 25971/2013 to the office of the SubRegistrar and got executed the Release Deeds, projecting that those documents are the Lease Deeds. Thus, Defendant No.1 has played fraud on him, in getting executed the Release Deeds.
On the contrary, the Defendant No.1 contends that, after the death of her father, all the heirs of her father, including her mother, have executed two different Release Deeds inrespect of the Suit Schedule A & B Properties on 24.04.2009, in her favour and no any fraud is played by her nor any misrepresentation has been offered by her, at the time of execution of the said Release Deeds by her siblings.
11. The Plaintiff has produced the certified copy of the Release Deeds dtd.24.04.2009 at Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. As per these documents, it is seen that, Manjulamma; Ranganatha Shastry the Plaintiff; Smt. Kalavathi Defendant No.6; Smt. Lakshmi Defendant 22 OS No. 25971/2013 No.2 and Smt. Nagaveni Defendant No.5, are the Releasers and Smt. Jayanthithe Defendant No.1 is the Releasee. The schedule of property shown under these documents are, the present Suit Schedule A & BProperties. There is a recital in Ex.P.3 that, M/s Karnataka Vidhuth Karkane Ltd., had allotted the scheduled property infavour of K.Rameswara Shastry and upon the death of K. Rameswara Shastry, as per the family arrangement, said Karnataka Vidhuth Karkane Ltd., through its company secretary, has sold and conveyed the vacant site bearing No.207/1 Suit Schedule BSite, infavour of Smt. Manjulamma Wife of K. Rameshwara Shastry dtd.28.12.1999.
There is a recital in Ex.P.4 that, M/s Karnataka Vidhuth Karkane Ltd., had allotted the scheduled property infavour of K.Rameswara Shastry and the said M/S. Karnataka Vidhuth Karkane Ltd., has 23 OS No. 25971/2013 executed a Sale Deed infavour of K. Rameswara Shastry on 29.07.1989.
The said Rameshwara Shastry died inteste on 11.11.1993 leaving behind him, the Releasors and the Releasee to succeed/inherit the right, title and interest over the scheduled property. Further there is a recital in the said document that the Releasee married to M. Chandrashekar and have no issues out of her wedlock. Releaser No.1 has been suffering from multiple biopsies, brondhitis and allied problems. The second daughter Smt. Shanthamma and the fourth daughter Smt. Gayathri of K. Rameshwara Shastry and Releaser No.1 are of unsound mind and are undergoing rehabilitation/medical treatment and they are under the care of the Releasee. The minor daughter of the said Gayathri is also under the care of Releasee. The Releasee has been taking care of medical expenses of her two disabled sisters and is continuing to take 24 OS No. 25971/2013 care of daily needs and day to day welfare of her mother Releaser No.1. The Releasee has borne the entire cost of the marriage expenses incurred for her brother Ranganath, her sisters Kalavathi; Smt. Lakshmi and Nagaveni.
As per Clause No.8, there is a recital that, the Releasee with the express consent of the Releasors, reconstructed the ground floor unit, during the year 2002 out of her and her husband's income, the said unit is now in occupation of the Releaser No.2.
Further as per Clause No.9, there is a recital that, Releasee out of humanitarian consideration has paid Rs.25,000/ each by way of cash to the Releaser No.3 and 5. And this Deed is collectively and severally confirmed by all the Releasors.
Further the Plaintiff has produced encumbrance certificate pertaining to Suit Schedule AProperty at Ex.P.5. This document evidences about the transaction of sale taken place inbetween 25 OS No. 25971/2013 Government Vidyuth Karkane (KAVIKA) and K Rameshwar Sharty on 29.07.1989, the said document is registered at No.1511, with the office of the Senior SubRegistrar, Vijay Nagar, Bengaluru.
Further the Plaintiff has produced encumbrance certificate pertaining to Suit Schedule AProperty at Ex.P.6. This document evidences about the transaction of Release taken place inbetween 1) Manjulamma W/o Late T.K. Rameswara Shastry; 2) Rangantha Shastry S/o Late T.K. Rameshwara Shastry; 3) Smt. Kalavathi D/o Late T.K. Rameswara Shastry; 4) Smt. Lakshmi D/o Late T.K. Rameswara Shastry; 5) Smt. Nagaveni D/o Late T.K. Rameswara Shastry, on one hand and Jayanthi D/o Late T.K. Rameswara Shastry on the other hand, on 24.04.2009. The said document is registered in the office of Senior SubRegistrar, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, at SRI100150200910 dtd.24.04.2009.
26 OS No. 25971/2013Further the said document also evidences about the transaction of Release taken place inbetween 1) Manjulamma W/o Late T.K. Rameswara Shastry; 2) Rangantha Shastry S/o Late T.K. Rameshwara Shastry; 3) Smt. Kalavathi D/o Late T.K. Rameswara Shastry; 4) Smt. Lakshmi D/o Late T.K. Rameswara Shastry; 5) Smt. Nagaveni D/o Late T.K. Rameswara Shastry, on one hand and Jayanthi D/o Late T.K. Rameswara Shastry on the other hand, on 24.04.2009, inrespect of Suit Schedule BProperty. The said document is registered in the office of Senior SubRegistrar, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, at SRI100151200910 dtd.24.04.2009.
12. The first contention set up by the Plaintiff that, he has contributed towards the construction of the Suit Schedule A & B Properties alongwith his father T.K.Rameswara Shastry, as he was 27 OS No. 25971/2013 performing the duties of an Archaka and was having earning capacity.
The Plaintiff has not produced any document to this effect. But as per the ocular evidence more specifically cross examination of PW.1, Page No.9, Para No.1, Line Nos.1 to 6, which read as under;
"In the year 1989 when my father purchase a site in the Suit Schedule A Property, I was about 2022 years of age. At that time I was assisting my father for performing Pooja. Since from the year 1989 I was residing at Bengaluru. I was not having an independent income at that time......"
As per this evidence, Plaintiff admits that he was of 20 to 22years of age when his father purchased a site Suit Schedule AProperty, in the year 1989. He contends that he was assisting his father for performing pooja. Further he contends that, since 1989, he was residing at Bengaluru and he was not having any independent income at that time.
28 OS No. 25971/201313. The second contention taken up by the Plaintiff is that he was not keeping good mental health and in that tenure, the Defendant No.1 was playing a dominating role in the family and out of such situation, she has got executed Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4Release Deeds dtd.24.04.2009.
a) Before adverting to this issue, let us consider the prevailing situation in the family which can be borne out from the ocular evidence.
Coming to the ocular evidence on this point, more specifically cross examination of PW.1, Page No.10, Para No.2 and cross examination of PW.1 at Page No.12, Para No.3, which read as under;
"Defendant No.1 was and is serving, with the postal department. On purchase of Suit Schedule BProperty Defendant No.1 was also residing with us in the said property. As on the death of my father, my sister Defendant No.1 was alone serving in our family".29 OS No. 25971/2013
"My father got paralytic stroke at the age of 70 years."
As per this evidence, the Plaintiff admits that Defendant No.1 was and is serving with the postal department. At the time of purchasing the Suit Schedule BProperty, she was residing in the said property and after the death of his father, Defendant No.1 was alone serving in their family.
Further Plaintiff admits that his father received paralytic stroke at the age of 70years.
Further as per the cross examination of DW.1, Page No.11, Para No.4 to Page No.12, Para No.2, which read as under;
"It is true to suggest that my mother died on 03.08.2011 and she was not keeping good health immediately one year prior to her death. It is false to suggest that after the death of my father in the year 1993, my brotherthe Plaintiff was taking care of my mother, till her last breath. Witness volunteers that my brother Plaintiff alongwith his family and 30 OS No. 25971/2013 my mother, got shifted their residence to my house situate at No.16, SBI Colony, Kodichikkanahalli, Bengaluru76. It is false to suggest that I have never taken care of my brother the Plaintiff. Witness volunteers that I had taken the Plaintiff to Nimhans Hospital. It is false to suggest that my brother was keeping good health only under the care of medicine. It is false to suggest that, since I have not afforded medical treatment my brother the Plaintiff since 1993 to 2003, so illness of his mental health has been accelerated. It is false to suggest I had an intention not to get cure by brotherthe Plaintiff from his mental illness.
It is false to suggest that in the year 2003, the fatherinlaw of my brother the Plaintiff had taken the Plaintiff and has administered treatment for his mental illness. It is false to suggest that on getting regular medical treatment from 20032013, my brother - the Plaintiff has received stability in his mental health".
As per this evidence, Defendant No.1 admits that her mother died on 03.08.2011 and she was not 31 OS No. 25971/2013 keeping good health immediately one year prior to her death. But the Defendant No.1 denies that her brother the Plaintiff was taking care of his mother after the death of his father, in the year 1993. The Defendant No.1 further contends that, her brother the Plaintiff along with his family and her mother got shifted their residence to her residence situated at No.16, SBI Colony, Kodichikkanahalli, Bengaluru 76. Further the Defendant No.1 denies a suggestion made to her that, she has not taken care of her brotherthe Plaintiff. But the Defendant No.1 contends that she has taken the Plaintiff to NIMHANS hospital as he was not keeping good mental health. Further the Defendant No.1 denies that, since she has not afforded medical treatment to her brother since 1993 to 2003, so his mental illhealth has been accelerated.
32 OS No. 25971/2013b) Withregard to execution of Release Deeds Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4:
Coming to the ocular evidence on this point, more specifically, cross examination of PW.1, at Page No.10, Para No.4, which reads as under:
"It is true to suggest that in the year 2009 myself, my mother, my other sisters have executed a registered release deed Ex.P.3, infavour of my sisterthe Defendant No.1. Now I see Ex.P.3 and P4 documents wherein my signature is there on the said document. Witness volunteers that my signature is obtained on the said document Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 by playing fraud upon me and by assuring that rental amount will be paid to me".
As per this evidence, Plaintiff admits that the mother of the Plaintiff and the other sisters of the Plaintiff have executed a Registered Release Deed Ex.P.3 infavour of the Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff admits his signature on Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, but he contends that, his signature is obtained on the said document Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 by playing fraud upon 33 OS No. 25971/2013 him and by assuring that rental amount will be paid to him.
Further as per the cross examination of PW.1, at Page No.12, Para No.2, which reads as under;
"I do not remember as to which advocate has drafted Ex.P.3 and cross examination .P.4 and the said advocate has not read over the contents of Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 to me at the time of affixing my signature over it. Witnesses shown in Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 viz., 1) Chandrashekar Shastri is my fatherinlaw and 2) M. Chandrashekar is my brotherinlaw (husband of Defendant No.1Jayanthi). Both the said witnesses were present at the time of execution of Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4".
As per this evidence, Plaintiff contends that, he does not remember as to which advocate has drafted Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4Release Deeds. But the said advocate has not read over the contents of Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 to him at the time of affixing his signature over it. Further Plaintiff contends that, one 34 OS No. 25971/2013 Chandrashekara Shastry is his fatherinlaw and one M. Chadrashekara is his brotherinlaw, husband of Jayanthi Defendant No.1, who have stood attesting witnesses to the said documents Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4.
On close perusal of this evidence, it can be said that, affixing the signature by the Plaintiff on Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 is not denied, by the Plaintiff. But the Plaintiff contends that fraud is played upon him by misrepresenting that Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 are the Lease Deeds which are to be executed by the Plaintiff and those documents are not the Release Deeds. Further the Plaintiff admits that, both the documents Ex.P.3 and Ex.P4 have been attested by two attesting witnesses (1) Chandrashekara Shastry, who is none other than, his fatherinlaw and another attesting witness (2) M. Chandrashekara, the husband of the Defendant No.1. If at all, fraud has been played upon the Plaintiff by misrepresentation, as contended by him, then the Plaintiff ought to have led the evidence 35 OS No. 25971/2013 of his fatherinlaw Chandrashekara Shastry to prove that, infact the signatures of the Plaintiff were obtained on Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, by projecting those documents as Lease Deeds. But no such evidence is forth coming from the side of the Plaintiff, to contend that the Defendant No.1 has played a fraud upon the Plaintiff by misrepresenting that Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 are the Lease Deeds, the Plaintiff considering Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 as Lease Deeds, has affixed his signature on it.
The Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff would contend that, there is a fraudulent misrepresentation not merely as to the contents of document, but even as to its character. Thus, the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff by relying the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in 2010 (3) KCCR 1638; would contend that such misrepresentation would lead to the transaction as void.
36 OS No. 25971/2013A clear distinction is to be made withregard to fraudulent misrepresentation as to the character of the document and fraudulent misrepresentation as to the contents of the document. In the former, transaction is void, but in the later transaction is merely voidable at the instance of the person who alleges the fraud. I found support to my above view as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lingawwa V/s Byrappa; reported in AIR 1968 SC 956.
As well as relying the decision in the case of Foster V/s Mackinnon, reported in (1869) LR 4 CP 704; wherein it is held that;
"Mere proving existence of fraud will not invalid the transaction, but the person who alleges must prove that, he never intended to sign and therefore in contemplation of law never did sign the contract".
Applying the above principles of law, in the instant case at hand, as already discussed above, 37 OS No. 25971/2013 the Plaintiff has admitted the execution of Release Deeds Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 as well as the other executants of Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 have not challenged the execution, on the ground of fraud, as challenged by the Plaintiff, Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the fraudulent misrepresentation alleged by the Plaintiff will lead to invalidate the transaction taken place under Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4.
The Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff has also relied upon the decision reported in AIR 2007 SC 2967, wherein it is held that;
"Execution of a document, executed by the transferor, when he was suffering from alcoholic psychosis. The fact of his mental illness proved by medical certificate. As well as deed in question also showing that, valuable land was sold at very paltry amount. Held; Sale being by person who was not of sound mind.
Applying above principles of law to the instant case at hand, in this case the Plaintiff has produced 38 OS No. 25971/2013 Ex.P.10, but has failed to prove that the Plaintiff was suffering from mental illhealth or mental disorder as on the date of execution of Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 i.e., on 24.04.2009. If Plaintiff could have proved it, then the onus would have shifted to the Defendant No.1. But in the absence of proof, onus will not shift to the Defendant No.1.
Secondly, the Plaintiff has contended that, there was an undue influence on him from the side of the Defendant No.1, at the time of executing the said documents Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, as Defendant No.1 was playing a dominating role in the family.
It remains an admitted fact from the side of the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 that, the Defendant No.1 was the only earning hand in their family. But that is not sufficient to say that, that has induced the mind of the Plaintiff to execute or affixed his signature on Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, the more which is required is that, the Defendant No.1 must play 39 OS No. 25971/2013 certain act, which has to induce the mind of the Plaintiff, such that, it should compel the Plaintiff to affix his signature. In the present case, the Plaintiff has nowhere stated that at the time of executing Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 documents, he had attended certain compelling circumstances, which are the results of the acts, to be attributed on the Defendant No.1. Treating the alleged domination of the Defendant No.1 over the Plaintiff as an ancillary consideration to the main consideration of fraudulent misrepresentation, this Court does not find any evidence, which suggest the attending circumstances at the time of execution of Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, by the Plaintiff, is under any pressure, for less of coercion, exercised by the Defendant No.1 over the Plaintiff. Even there is no any evidence from the side of the Plaintiff that, the Plaintiff has affixed his signature on Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, "at the instance of her sister the Defendant No.1". Being educated person in the 40 OS No. 25971/2013 family or being a single earning hand in the family is for short, of a case, to contend that, that person, in this case the Defendant No.1 was in a superior position than that of the Plaintiff, which impetrated the deedsEx.P.3 and Ex.P.4, in her favour. Here the Plaintiff, in the opinion of the Court is trying to substitute an atmosphere of an suspicion for a clear and definite evidence, which is on record. Thus, Plaintiff has failed to prove domination over him by the Defendant No.1, at the relevant point of time i.e., at the time of execution of Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4.
Thirdly, the Plaintiff has taken up a contention that, he was suffering from mental disorder, after the death of his father, which he had maintained the same till the year 2013.
The Plaintiff has produced identity card dtd.12.03.1992 at Ex.P.9. As per this document, it is seen that, the card is issued by the Department of Psychiatry, National Institute of Mental Health and 41 OS No. 25971/2013 Neuro Sciences, Bengaluru, to the Plaintiff showing his Number as 110851 and date of registration is 12.03.1992 and follow up day is shown as Friday at 8 A.M. As per this document, it can be said that this is a card issued by the hospital for having registered the Plaintiff as an patient on 12.03.1992 and to have follow up treatment on Friday at 8 A.M., which is a succeeding day to 12.03.1992.
The Plaintiff has got produced the medical records from the NIMHANS, Bengaluru, at Ex.P.10 and got adduced the evidence of the Doctor as PW.3 .
On careful perusal of Ex.P.10, it can be said that, the Plaintiff has taken treatment as an in patient from 26.11.1993 till 30.11.993. Further it is seen that medical recordings pertaining to the mental health condition of the Plaintiff is taken on 12.06.1992, 25.06.1992 , 10.11.1992, 13.11.1992, 18.12.1992, 15.01.1993, 12.02.1993, 08.03.1993, 19.03.1993, 16.04.1993, 23.04.1993, 30.04.1993, 42 OS No. 25971/2013
14.05.1993, 23.07.1993, 27.08.1993, 20.11.1993, 26.11.1993, 27.11.1993, 28.11.1993, 29.11.1993, 30.11.1993, 01.12.1993, 02.12.1993, 03.12.1993, 04.12.1993, 05.12.1993, 06.12.1993, 07.12.1993, 08.12.1993, 09.12.1993, 11.12,1993, 12.12.1993, 13.12.1993, 14.12.1993, 15.12.1993, 16.12.1993, 17.12.1993, 19.12.1993, 20.12.1993, 21.12.1993, 07.01.1994, 04.02.1994, 04.03.1994, 01.04.1994, 03.06.1994, 17.06.1994, 24.06.1994, 25.06.1994, 06.07.1994, 08.07.1994, 12.07.1994, 18.07.1994, 26.07.1994, 28.07.1994, 01.08.1994, 02.08.1994, 16.09.1994, 30.09.1994, 04.11.1994, 09.12.1994, 17.02.1995, 29.03.1995, 28.04.1995, 02.06.1995, 03.11.1995, 08.03.1996, 12.03.1996, 10.05.1996, 07.06.1996, 05.07.1996, 16.08.1996, 13.09.1996, 10.11.1996, 15.11.1996, 20.11.1996, 10.01.1997, 28.02.1997, 11.04.1997, 02.05.1997, 06.06.1997, 11.07.1997, 29.08.1997, 26.09.1997, 14.04.1997, 12.12.1997, 16.01.1998, 13.02.1998, 20.03.1998, 43 OS No. 25971/2013 13.09.2002, 27.12.2002, 24.01.2003, 07.03.2003, 18.07.2003, 18.04.2004, 30.08.2013, 19.10.2010, 08.11.2012, 04.01.2019, 26.03.2019.
The Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1 would contend that, onus to prove unsoundness of mind is on the Plaintiff, more particularly at the time of execution of the Release DeedsEx.P.3 and Ex.P.4. To this effect, Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1 has placed his reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Nagapur, in the case of Mohanlal Madangopal Marwadi V/s Vinayak Sadasheo Sonak & Others; reported in AIR 1991 Nagpur 251; wherein it is held that;
"Onus is on the person alleging insanity. Person establishing insanity or unsoundness of mind. Burden of proof is on the party alleging execution of the document, during lucid interval. At the time of considering insanity on the basis of evidence, cumulative effect should be gauged."44 OS No. 25971/2013
Further the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1 has placed his reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta; in the case of Bahadur Singh Chhetri & Another V/s Bir Bahadur Singh and Another; reported in AIR 1956 Cal. 213; wherein it is held that;
"When a transaction is attempted to be impeached on the ground that, the person who has executed the document was a person of unsound mind, the initial burden lies upon such person to prove that such person has executed a Deed under a transaction, as an person of unsound mind. In normal parlance, the presumption is of sanity. If however, there is a sufficient evidence to prove that the person had been adjudged under the Lunacy Act to have been a Lunatic, or if there is other sufficient evidence to show that, a person had at a certain stage been of unsound mind, the onus shifts to the person, who alleges his sanity.
But the mere proof of a solitary fact that, during the day when the 45 OS No. 25971/2013 conveyance was being drafted or executed, the executant did not show any signs of insanity or instability would not, if unaccompanied by other proofs, be sufficient to demonstrate that the person had been acting as a normal man during a lucid interval."
Further the Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1 has placed his reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in (Pathuri) Subrahmanya Shastry V/s (Pathuri) Lakshminarasamma & Others; reported AIR 1958 AP 22Item No. F; wherein it is held that;
"A Lunatic is not a person who is continuously in a state of unsoundness of mind and once it had been established that a person is a lunatic, the burden of proof is on the party, who alleges that a document he relies on, as having been executed by the alleged lunatic, was executed by him during a lucid interval."46 OS No. 25971/2013
Applying the above principles of law, the Plaintiff has not produced any evidence to show that he has been adjudged under the Lunacy Act, to have been a lunatic. Secondly, the Plaintiff has not led any evidence to show that, at the time of execution of Release Deeds Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, that he was suffering from lunacy or mental disorder. Even the Plaintiff has not led the evidence of his fatherinlaw to this effect, who is one of the attesting witnesses to Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 to speak about the said fact, as to the mental status and disposing state of mind of the Plaintiff, at the time of execution of the documents Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4.
Coming to the ocular evidence more specifically cross examination of PW.3, at Page No.4, Para No.4 and 5, Page No.4, Para Nos.1 and 2, and Page No.6, Para Nos.2 and 4, which read as under;
"As per Ex.P.10, recordings pertaining to the Plaintiff for the years 199899, do not suggest as to the 47 OS No. 25971/2013 pathetic condition of the Plaintiff, which will lead him, from taking the decisions (decision orientation)."
"As per the recordings in Ex.P.10, more specifically dt.18.07.2003, wherein Plaintiff has suffered from symptoms of playing pranks and anger outburst".
"I have not treated the Plaintiff, but I am deposing on the basis of the medical records available with out hospital".
"Drug induced Tardive Dyskinesia is one of the side effect of Anti Psychotic Medications. On the basis of such disease a person my or may not have any impact on his temperament, behavior activities, decision making and interaction with others".
"As per Ex.P.10, the condition of the Plaintiff initially in the year 199394 was serious, but after 2013 the condition of the Plaintiff is seen to be stable. It is true to suggest that on the basis of Ex.P.10, it cannot be said anything about the condition of the Plaintiff for the years 20042013, as there is no recordings with 48 OS No. 25971/2013 regard to the condition of the Plaintiff in Ex.P.10."
"It is true to suggest that as per Ex.P.10,it can be said that after 03.08.1994 Plaintiff has not been admitted in our hospital as on indoor patient. It is true to suggest that prior to 03.08.1994 the admission of the Plaintiff as an indoor patient was due to the nature of the medical condition of the Plaintiff".
As per these evidence, the Doctor who has been examined as PW.3 has not stated that Plaintiff was suffering from mental disorder, more specifically on 24.04.2009 when Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 came to be executed by him. Further as per Ex.P.10 also there is no medical evidence that either preceding or succeeding the date of execution of Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 i.e., 24.04.2009, the Plaintiff was suffering from some mental disorder. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that, Plaintiff was suffering from mental disorder and that can be extended to 49 OS No. 25971/2013 impeachment of the transaction taken place under Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. Thus, there is no evidence from the side of the Plaintiff that, at the time of execution of Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, Plaintiff was of unsound mind or he was suffering from mental disorder. If the Plaintiff would have proved it, then the onus would have been shifted on the Defendant No.1 to prove that the Plaintiff has executed Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, in the interval when he was of sound and disposing state of mind. In the absence of proof of mental disorder from the side of the Plaintiff, onus will not shift to the Defendant No.1. So the Plaintiff has failed to prove that, either he was of unsound mind or was suffering from Lunacy or suffering from mental disorder either immediately before or on or immediately subsequent to the date of execution of the Release Deeds Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, i.e., on 24.04.2009.
50 OS No. 25971/2013c) Conduct of the parties subsequent to execution of Release DeedsEx.P.3 and Ex.P.4 (Whether Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 are acted over);
Coming to the ocular evidence on this point, more specifically cross examination of DW.1, Page No.13, Para No.1, which read as under;
"It is true to suggest that I had given the ground level floor and the 1st level floor building in Suit Schedule AProperty, on rent, in the year 200910".
As per this evidence, Defendant No.1 admits that she had given the ground level floor and the first level floor building in Suit Schedule AProperty on rent, in the year 20092010.
Further as per the cross examination of PW.1, Page No.11, Para No.4, which read as under;
"I have never resided in Suit Schedule AProperty. I have resided in Suit Schedule BProperty for about 1520 years. After the death of my mother we never resided in Suit Schedule B 51 OS No. 25971/2013 Property. Witness volunteers that my sister gave the said property on rental basis to the others. I have voluntarily left the Suit Schedule BProperty in the year 2013".
As per this evidence, Plaintiff admits that he had never resided in Suit Schedule AProperty, but had resided in Suit Schedule BProperty for about 15 20 years. Further Plaintiff admits that he has voluntarily left the Suit Schedule BProperty in the year 2013.
Further as per cross examination of PW.1, Page No.12, Para No.5, Line Nos.1 to 6, which read as under;
"After the death of my father Suit Schedule "A" and "B" Properties was managed by my sisterthe Defendant No.1 Jayanthi. Tenants were inducted in both the properties by my sister. I came to know about inducting of tenants, in the said suit properties by my sister in the year 2013. I have not issued any legal notice to the said tenants. ......."52 OS No. 25971/2013
As per this evidence, Plaintiff admits that after the death of his father, Suit Schedule A & B Properties were managed by his sister the Defendant No.1. Tenants were inducted in the said properties by his sister and he came to know about inducting of tenants in the said properties by his sister, in the year 2013.
Further Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 Release Deeds, have not only been executed by the Plaintiff alone, but alongwith the Plaintiff, his mother and three sisters have executed the said documents. The said three sisters are the present Defendant Nos.2,5 and 6, but they have not raised any voice against the execution of the said documents. Even this can be seen as per the ocular evidence, more specifically cross examination of PW.1, Page No.11, Para No.3, which reads as under;
"My mother died in the year 2011.
My mother till her lifetime nor my sisters 53 OS No. 25971/2013 Defendant Nos.2,4,5 and 6 had and have never challenged Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 on the ground of fraud".
As per this evidence, Plaintiff admits that his mother died in the year 2011. His mother till her death or any of his sisters the present Defendant Nos.2,4, 5 and 6 have not challenged execution of Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, on the ground of fraud.
As per Ex.P.6Encumbrance certificate, Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 have been registered, as per the Registration Act and looking to the conduct of the parties, the said transaction has been acted over.
Thus, the Plaintiff has failed to prove that the Release Deeds dtd.24.04.2009 is the outcome of fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence, as contended by him in para Nos.6 to 10 of the Suit Plaint. Hence, I answer ISSUE NO.2 IN THE NEGATIVE.
54 OS No. 25971/201314. Since the Plaintiff as well as the Defendant No.1 admits that, both the properties have been acquired by their father T.K. Rameshwar Shastry, under Ex.P.1 inrespect of Suit Schedule AProperty and under Ex.P.2 inrespect of Suit Schedule B Property, though the Sale Deed dtd.28.12.1999 is executed by Karnataka Vidhyuth Karkane Ltd., infavour of Smt. Manjulamma, but the same enures to the benefit of the entire family of T.K. Rameshwara Shastry. This analogy can be observed as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case reported in ILR 2000 Kar 4809 (SC), wherein it is held that, "when the eldest member makes an application for grant of occupancy rights it enures to the benefit of all".
Applying the said principles of law, to the instant case at hand, it can be said that acquisition of the property by the mother Smt. Manjulamma, 55 OS No. 25971/2013 after the death of T.K.Rameshwara Shasry, enures to the benefit of all the heirs of T.K.Rameshwara Sastry.
So both the Suit Schedule Properties will become the Joint Family properties.
But since the Plaintiff, Defendant No.2, 5and 6 have executed Release Deeds dtd.24.04.2009Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, infavour of Defendant No.1, so to the extent of their respective shares, get transferred infavour of the Defendant No.1, by operation of Law. Hence, I answer ISSUE NO.1 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
15. ISSUE NO.3;
The Plaintiff has claimed 1/7th share in the Suit Schedule Properties.
Since the Suit Schedule Properties are the properties acquired by T.K.Rameshwara Shastry, on his death, the said properties are to be succeeded by 56 OS No. 25971/2013 his heirs, namely his wife Manjulamma, his son Ranganatha Shastrythe Plaintiff, his daughters Shanthamma the Defendant No.3, Jayanthithe Defendant No.1, Kalavathythe Defendant No.6, Gayathrithe Defendant No.4, Lakshmithe Defendant No.2, Nagaveni the Defendant No.5. But the wife of T.K.Rameshwara Shastry Manjulamma, the Plaintiff the Defendant Nos.2,5 and 6 have executed the Release Deeds Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 infavour of Defendant No.1, so the Release DeedsEx.P.3 and Ex.P.4, will operate, to the extent of their respective shares. But two daughters of T.K.Rameshwara Shastry by names Shanthammathe Defendant No.3 and Gayathrithe Defendant No.4 have not released their respective shares, under Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, infavour of Defendant No.1.
Having observed so, the Defendant No.3 Shanthamma died on 09.01.2018 and Defendant 57 OS No. 25971/2013 No.4 Gayathri died on 24.03.2014 during the pendency of this suit.
Coming to the ocular evidence on this point, more specifically cross examination of PW.1, Page No.12, Para No.1, which reads as under;
"I have not stated regarding family arrangement in para No.4 of my affidavit. I am having still two sisters, they are Defendant No.4Gayathri and Defendant No.3Shanthamma, both have died recently. They were not married and died issueless".
As per this evidence, Plaintiff admits that Plaintiff is having two more sisters i.e., Defendant No.3 and Defendant No.4, who have died recently. They were not married and died issueless.
Further as per the cross examination of DW.1, Page No.8, Para No.2, Line Nos.3 to 7, which reads as under;
"...... My sister Shanthamma Defendant No.3 was unmarried and she died on 09.01.2019, issueless. My sister 58 OS No. 25971/2013 Gayathri Defendant No.4 died prior to filing of this suit. She was married but died issueless. Her husband also died".
As per this evidence, Defendant No.1 admits that her sister Shanthammathe Defendant No.3 was unmarried and she died on 09.01.2018, issuless and her another sister Gayathri the Defendant No.4 died prior to filing of this suit. She was married, but died issueless. Her husband also died.
Thus, as per the above evidence, the Defendant No.3 and 4 have not released their rights, infavour of Defendant No.1 under Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. They being the heirs of T.K.Rameshwara Shastry, they are having 1/8th share each in the Suit Schedule Properties. Since they have died issueless, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Nos.1,2,5 and 6 will become their heirs as per the Hindu Law, to succeed their estate.
59 OS No. 25971/2013Thus, the Plaintiff will be entitle to have 1/20th share in the Suit Schedule Properties; Defendant No.1 will be entitle to have 4/5th share in the Suit Schedule Properties (3/4th share as per Release Deeds Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 and 1/20th share in the estate of Defendant No.3 and 4); Defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5 will be entitled to have 1/20th share, each in the Suit Schedule Properties.
Hence, I answer ISSUE NO. 3 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
16. ISSUE NO 4:
For having answered Issue No 1 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, Issue No.2 in the negative, and issue No.3 partly in the affirmative; I proceed to pass the following:60 OS No. 25971/2013
ORDER Suit of the Plaintiff is Decreed, in part.
It is declared that the Plaintiff is entitle to have 1/20th share, in the Suit Schedule 'A & B' Properties.
The Defendant No.1 is entitled to have 4/5th share in the Suit Schedule A & B Properties.
The Defendant Nos.2,5 and 6 are entitled to have 1/20th share each, in the Suit Schedule A & B Properties.
Partition be effected as per Partition Act. 61 OS No. 25971/2013 Looking to the relationship inbetween the parties, both the parties to bear their own costs. Draw Preliminary Decree, accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer system, computerized by her and print out taken by her, after correction, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28th day of January, 2020) [AbdulRahiman. A.Nandgadi] LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH73) 62 OS No. 25971/2013 :Schedule 'A' Property:
All that piece and parcel of the residential property bearing Municipal No.191, situated at Kavika Layout, Mysore Road, Ward No.42, Bangalore, bounded on:
East by: Road.
West by: Property No.179.
North by: Property No.190.
South by: Property No.192.
Measuring East to West: 30 feet.
North to South: 20 feet.
Together with ground floor unit having a built up area of 400 sq.ft and first floor having built up area of 400 sq.ft.
:Schedule 'B' Property:
All that piece and parcel of the residential property bearing Municipal No.207/A, measuring East to West: 25 feet and North to South: 40 feet, in all measuring about 1000 sq.ft of plot area together with Ground Floor having built up area of 600 Sq.ft situated at 2nd Main Road, 4th Cross, Bapujinagar, BBMP Ward No.42, Bangalore560 026 and bounded on:63 OS No. 25971/2013
East by: House No.38 B.
West by: House No.207 B,
North by: 4th Cross,
South by: House No.40 B.
:Schedule 'C' Property:
1. Gold Chain - 24 gms.
2. Gold Chain - 16 gms.
3. Gold Bracelet - 10 gms.
4. Gold Rings3 Nos. - 12 gms.
5. Gold Ear Rings - 6 gms.
5. Silver plate2 Nos. - 1 ½ kgs.
6. Silver Articles viz., - ½ kg.
Kunkuma Barene
etc., 5 Nos.
7. Ashtalakshmi Chombu ½ kg.
8. Brass Vessels - 10 kgs.
9. Godrej Cupboard - 1 No.
10. Steel plates - 20 Nos.
11. Steel pots - 8 Nos.
12. Cooking utensils - 10 Nos.
13. Steel Containers - 20 Nos.
14. Teakwood Cot - 1 No.
15. Steel Tables & Chairs 2 Nos.
[AbdulRahiman. A.Nandgadi]
LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH73)
64 OS No. 25971/2013
ANNEXURES:
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW.1: Ranganatha Shastry.
PW.2: T. V Srikantaiya.
PW.3: Dr. C. Naveen Kumar.
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P1 & 2: Certified copies of Sale Deeds dtd.28.12.1999.
Ex.P3 & 4: Certified copies of Release Deeds dtd.24.04.2009.
Ex.P5 & 6: Certified copies of Encumbrance certificates.
Ex.P7 & 8: Death certificates of Rameshwar Shastry and Manjulamma, respectively.
Ex.P9: Medical ID Card of Rangnatha Shastri issued by the NIMHANS.
Ex.P10: File maintained by the National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Science.65 OS No. 25971/2013
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
DW.1: Smt. Jayanthi.
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
NIL [AbdulRahiman. A.Nandgadi] LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH73)