Bangalore District Court
Rakesh Kumar vs Chowdamma R on 20 April, 2024
1 O.S. No.2535/2008
KABC010109262008
In the Court of the XXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
Dated this the 20 th day of April, 2024
Present :-
Sri. G.Raghavendra, B.Sc., LL.B.,
XXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S. No.2535/2008
Between:
1. SRI.RAKESH KUMAR,
Aged about 48 years,
Son of late M. Rama Reddy,
Now residing at No.121, Royal Palms,
2nd Cross, 3rd Main, L.B. Shastrinagar,
Bangalore -560017 .. Plaintiff
(By Sri. K.Abhinav Anand, Advocate)
And
1. SMT. R. CHOWDAMMA,
since deceased by her Lrs.
(a) Smt. R .SUJAYA,
aged about 57 years,
(c) Smt. SNEHA R. REDDY,
aged about 38 years
both are residing at
2 O.S. No.2535/2008
No.60, 7th 'A' Cross,
4th 'B' Block, Bangalore-560034
(d) Sri. R. SATHYANARAYANA REDDY,
aged about 53 years,
Residing at No.59, 6th Cross,
4th Phase J.P.Nagar, Bangalore-560078.
(e) Sri. R.VIJAYA RAGHAVA REDDY,
aged about 45 years
Residing at B-702, Adarsh Gardens,
47th Cross, 8th Block,
Jayanagar, Bangalore-82
2. SRI. R. MANJUNATHA REDDY,
Aged about 44 years,
Son of late M. Rama Reddy,
No. Ranka VIII A 'F' Block, Ranka Colony,
Bilekahalli Village, Bannerghatta Road,
Bangalore.
3. SMT. R. SRIDEVI
W/o. Sri. J.V. Rangaraju
Aged about 42 years,
4. SRI. KRISHNA CHAITANYA VERMA
S/o. Sri. J.V.Rangaraju
Aged about 24 years,
Defendants 3 and 4 are
Represented by their GPA holder
Sri. Venjugopal K. Raju,
Son of Sri Sathyanarayana Raju,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at No.437, 8th 'A' Cross,
12th 'A' Main, Sector 'A', Yelahanka New Town
Bangalore- 560 064
5. SRI. A. RAMAKRISHNA.
S/o Anjaneyachar, Major,
R/at No.10/1, Lakshminarayana Complex,
Ground Floor, Palace Road,
3 O.S. No.2535/2008
Bangalore -560 052.
6. SRI. RAJA JAYASHANKAR
Since deceased represented by his LRs
(a) Shantha Raja Jayashankar,
W/o Raja Jayashankar,
Aged about 74 years,
No.3, 36th Cross, VIII Block,
Jayanagar, Bangalore - 560082.
(b) Raja Udayashankar
S/o Raja Jayashankar,
Aged about 54 years,
R/at No.3, 36th Cross, VIII Block,
Jayanagar, Bangalore - 560 082.
(c) Raja Suchindra,
S/o Raja Jayashankar,
Aged about 52 years,
#485, 75/1, 38th Cross, 8th Block,
BSK II Stage, Bangalore 560070.
(d) Raja Dutta Kumar
S/o Raja Jayashankar,
Aged about 47 years,
Residing at No.G-1,
Meenakshi Manor, No.14/2,
10th & # 39; B & # 39, Main,
5th Cross, I Block Jayanagar, Bangalore -560 011
Corporate office of Lrs of Defendant No.6,
#124, Raja Galaxy Building,
3 MN, 9th Block, 100 ft Road,
J.P.Nagar, Bangalore - 560078
AND also at:-
Raja Mahalakshmi,
F-2, #12, Basappa Road,
Shantinagar, Bangalore - 560 027. .. DEFENDANTS
4 O.S. No.2535/2008
(Defendant No.1(a) & (c): Sri. G.A.Vishwanatha reddy, Advocate,
Defendant No.1(d) : Sri. T.P.Ravishankar., Advocate,
Defendant No.1(e) : Sri. H.K.Vikram., Advocate,
Defendant No.2 : Sri. K.S.Karanth., Advocate,
Defendant No.3 & 4 : Sri. Chinmay J. Mirji., Advocate,
Defendant No.5 : Sri. Subramanyam G.M., Advocate,
Defendant No.6 a) to d) : Sri. V.B. Shiva Kumar, Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit : 06-10-2007
Nature of the suit : Declaration, re open of
Partition etc.,
Date of commencement of : 18-10-2019
recording of evidence.
Date on which the judgment : 20-04-2024
was pronounced.
Total Duration Year Months Days
16 06 14
XXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil procedure, 1908, is filed by the plaintiff to re-open the partition dated 15-11-2000 effected amongst defendant No.1, defendant No.2 and the husband of defendant No.1, for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to half share (50%) in all the suit schedule properties, for direction against the 5 O.S. No.2535/2008 defendants to effect partition of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and to put the plaintiff in exclusive possession of his half share, to conduct an enquiry to ascertain mesne profit since the date of filing of this suit till the plaintiff is put in possession of his half share, for declaration that the Partition Deed dated 15-11-2000 between Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2; the Gift Deed dated 03-06-2005 executed by the Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2; Sale Deed dated 01-09- 2006 executed by the Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.3 & 4; sale Deed dated 11-10-2005 executed by the Defendant No.1 & 2 in favour of Defendant No.5 and Sale Deed dated 21.02.2005 and 10-03- 2005, executed by the Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.6 as not binding, for costs of this proceeding and to grant such other reliefs deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff is as under:
The 1st defendant is the wife of the late Sri.M. Ramareddy. Smt. R. Sujaya (Defendant No.1(a)), Smt. R Prabhavathi, Sri.R. Sathyanarayana Reddy (Defendant No.1(d)), Sri. Rakesh Kumar (PLaintiff), Sri. R. Manjunatha Reddy (Defendant No.2), Sri. R. Vijayaraghava Reddy (Defendant No.1(e)) and Smt. Sneha R Reddy (Defendant No.1(c)) are the children of the 1st defendant and late Sri.M. Ramareddy. Late Sri. M. Ramareddy and his children together constituted a Hindu Joint Family. 6 O.S. No.2535/2008 The Joint family possesses certain movable and immovable properties. The joint family acquired certain properties both movable and immovable out of joint family nucleus and by virtue of joint labour efforts and contributions of all the members and were registered either in the name of Sri. Late M. Rama Reddy or in the name 1 st defendant. The properties which stood in the name of the 1st defendant and her deceased husband were treated as joint family properties. Sri. M. Ramareddy passed away on 07.07.2001.
During the lifetime of late Sri. M. Ramareddy, the daughters were married. Whatever they were entitled to in the joint family properties were given to them at the time of their marriage. Even after the marriage the cash, gold, and silver were given to them. They have given up their right, title and interest in the remaining properties of the joint family.
R. Sathyanarayana Reddy, through the Registered partition deed dated 31-03-1997 separated from the joint family after taking certain properties and has released and relinquished all his right, title and interest in respect of the remaining properties of the joint family.
R. Vijayaraghavareddy through the registered partition deed dated 23-03-1997 separated from the joint family by taking certain properties and has released, relinquished and given up all his right, title and interest in respect of the remaining properties of the joint family.
Under the partition deed dated 11-12-1997 seven properties fell to 7 O.S. No.2535/2008 the share of the Plaintiff. But, it was not acted upon by any of the parties to the document due to difference of opinion among the family members with regard to the value of the properties and extent of share. The partition which was effected on 11-12-1997, came to be reconstituted under a Deed of partition dated 21-01-2000, entered into between the Plaintiff, his father and mother. The Plaintiff transferred back 6 properties out of 7 properties allotted under the document dated 11-12-1997 subject to certain terms and conditions under the agreement dated 21-01-2000. The 1st defendant and her husband have agreed to pay Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) within one year from the date of the agreement and the plaintiff has agreed to relinquish his right in respect of item No.5 property of the suit schedule. The 1 st defendant and her husband have agreed to clear the pending litigation in respect of item No.5 property of the suit schedule within one year. The 1 st defendant and her husband have further agreed that If the 1st defendant and her husband fails and neglects to comply with the above terms and conditions, the Plaintiff is entitled for his share in all the joint family properties.
The 1st defendant and her husband have failed and neglected to fulfil the terms and conditions which were required to be performed within a period of one year. Due to non-fulfillment of the terms and conditions contained in the agreement dated 21-01-2000, the deed of partition dated 8 O.S. No.2535/2008 21-01-2000 shall become ineffective, unenforceable and non-est in the eye of law.
After execution of the partition deed dated 21-01-2000 and the Agreement dated 21-01-2000, the plaintiff went back to the USA to resume his duties. During the end of March 2002 again came to India and stayed in India till the 2 nd week of April 2002. During this period the plaintiff was requesting the 1st defendant and her husband to fulfill their part of the obligations and the duties as per the agreement dated 21-01- 2000, in order to give effect to the partition deed dated 21-01-2000. The 1st defendant and her husband went on taking time on one pretext or the other.
The father of the plaintiff died on 7-07-2001. Thereafter the first defendant entered into agreement with the plaintiff on 10-04-2002, which is in continuation of the Agreement dated 21-01-2000. The 1 st defendant expressed her inability to perform the terms and conditions contained in the Agreement dated 21-01-2000 and has agreed to give half share (50 percent) in all the suit schedule properties to the plaintiff and the remaining half share to the second defendant. The plaintiff has been requesting the first defendant to give half share in all the suit schedule properties. In fact she was taking time on one pretext or the other.
The plaintiff came to India during the month of May 2006 and went back to the USA in July 2006. Again came to India in September 2006 9 O.S. No.2535/2008 and stayed in Bangalore till 10th November 2006. Then requested the 1st defendant to honour the terms and conditions contained in the Agreement dated 10-04-2002 and she took time on one pretext or the other. The plaintiff again came back to India, during the last week of July 2007 and demanded his half share in the suit schedule property and she started giving evasive replies. That necessitated the plaintiff to investigate the title of the properties.
On verification it came to light that the 2 nd defendant has obtained a gift deed from the first defendant on 03-06-2005 in respect of item No.5 property of the suit schedule, which was given to the plaintiff under the partition deed dated 11-12-1997, which was one of the seven while giving back six properties under the deed of partition dated 21-01-2000. The plaintiff was allowed to keep this property subject to the terms and conditions contained in the agreement dated 21-01-2000. Suppressing this gift deed dated 3-6-2005, the defendant No.1 and 2 have executed a Sale Deed in favour of the fifth defendant on 11-10-2005. The 5 th defendant was aware of the partition deed dated 11-12-1997, another partition deed dated 21-01-2000, an Agreement dated 21-01-2000 and agreement dated 10-04-2002. The 2nd defendant and his daughter, son and wife have executed a Sale Deed in favour of the defendants No.3 and 4 in respect of item No.3 property of the suit schedule on the basis of partition deed dated 15-11-2000 entered into between the first defendant, 10 O.S. No.2535/2008 and her husband and the 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant had also executed 2 registered Sale Deeds both dated 10-03-2005 in respect of item No.4 property of the suit schedule in favour of the 6 th defendant, based on the partition deed dated 15-11-2000. The defendants 3 to 6 were aware of the terms and conditions contained in the partition deed dated 21-01-2000, Agreement dated 21-01-2000 and the continuation Agreement dated 10-04-2002.
3. After the institution of the suit, suit summons were issued to the defendants. The summons were duly served on the defendants. Defendant No.1 appeared through her Advocate and filed her written statement. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1 died and her legal representatives defendant No.1(a), (c), (d) and (e ) were brought on record. Defendant No.1(a) & (c) together appeared through their Advocate and Defendant No.1(a) filed her written statement. Defendant No.1(d) and 1(e ) appeared separately through their Advocates and filed their written statement. Defendant No.3 and 4 together appeared through their Advocate and filed their written statement. Defendant No.5 appeared through his Advocate and filed his written statement. Defendant No.6 appeared through his Advocate and filed his written statement. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.6 died and his legal representatives defendant No.6(a) to (d) were brought on record. Defendant No.6(a) to 11 O.S. No.2535/2008
(d) appeared together through their Advocates and filed their written statement.
4. a) The brief contentions of the written statement of the Defendant No.1 is as under :
The plaintiff took item No.5 property of the suit schedule and gave back 6 properties through a reconstituted partition deed dated 21.01.2000, entered between the Plaintiff, his father and the 1st defendant. To overcome the loss to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant and her husband entered into an agreement, which was incorporated into partition deed dated 21.01.2000 agreeing to pay 30 lakhs out of joint family funds and solve the dispute in respect of item No.5 property of the suit schedule. That due to non-availability of funds the agreed amount of Rs.30 lakhs could not be given to the plaintiff. On 10.01.2002 another agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, which was in continuation of an agreement dated 21.01.2001, through which the plaintiff was allotted half share in all the joint family properties as agreed before.
That on 30.06.2005, the defendant gifted item No.5 property of the suit schedule in favour of the 2nd defendant and thereafter 1st and 2nd defendants have jointly executed the sale deed in favour of the 5th defendant. The 2nd defendant sold the land in Sy No.15 of Govindapura Gollahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli (item No.3 property of the suit 12 O.S. No.2535/2008 schedule) in favour of defendant No.3 and 4. The 2nd defendant sold the land in Sy No.119 of Harapanahalli village (item No.4 property of the suit schedule) in favour of the 6th defendant. As on the date of demand for partition, by the plaintiff all the suit schedule properties were sold. Hence this defendant was unable to give 50% share in all the joint family properties.
Plaintiff claim is barred by statute of limitation. The cause of action made out by the plaintiff is vague and the same is not disclosed properly. Hence the suit doesn't survive. That the right of the Plaintiff is only to the extent of recovering the amount of Rs.30,00,000(Thirty Lakhs) with interest and not entitled for any of the relief claimed in the suit.
4. b) The brief contentions of the written statement of the Defendant No.1
(a) is as under :
The movable and immovable properties acquired by the Late Rama Reddy and first defendant are self acquired properties. M Rama Reddy during his lifetime doing money lending business and also running a transport company, namely Satyanarayana Transport Company at kalasipalyam, Bangalore and getting substantial income. During his lifetime, out of his self earned money purchased some items of the suit schedule properties under registered sale deeds. Defendant No.1 purchased some items of the schedule properties in her name under a different sale deeds for valuable consideration out of the money given by 13 O.S. No.2535/2008 her parental side and also by self earnings of her husband as she was supporting her husband in doing money lending business.
Registered partition deed dated 31.03.1997 is a created, concocted and got up document, which is a void document under law and not at all binding on defendant No.1 (a). Deed of partition dated 21.01.2000 and Agreement dated 10.04.2002 are created, fabricated and concocted documents. Agreement dated 10.04.2002 is a created, concocted and fabricated document.
Defendant No.1 (a) is entitled for equal share under Section 6 A of the Hindu Succession Amended Act of 2005.
4. c) The brief contentions of the written statement of the Defendant No.1 (d) is that having taken his share he walked out of the joint family.
4. d) The brief contentions of the written statement of the Defendant No.1 (e) is that he received his share through a registered partition deed dated 23.03.1997 and separated from the joint family.
5. The brief contentions of the written statement of the Defendants No.3 and 4 is is as under :
Defendants No.3 and 4 purchased item No.3 property of the suit schedule from (1) Sri. R. Manjunatha Reddy, (2) Smt.Kavitha, (3) Kum. 14 O.S. No.2535/2008 Reha Reddy and (4) Rohnit Reddy under a registered Sale Deed dated 01.09.2006. In the year 2000, Sri. M. Rama Reddy along with Smt. R. Chowdamma (Defendants No.1) and R. Manjunatha Reddy (Defendants No.1) entered into a registered Partition Deed dated 15.11.2000 and has allotted several properties including the item No.3 property of the suit schedule in favour of the defendant No.2. Defendants No.3 and 4 after thorough verification and detailed enquiry about the item No.3 property of the suit schedule only forwarded to purchase the same. Since the purchase, they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.
As per Section 35 of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, the plaintiff should be in possession of the suit schedule properties. But, the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule properties. Defendants No.3 and 4 are in possession of the suit schedule properties. As per the Section 35(1) and (2) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act the plaintiffs are required to pay the court fee on the market value of the suit schedule properties.
That the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. After more than 11 years from the date of execution of registered Partition Deeds among their family members excluding the defendant No.2, plaintiff has filed this suit.
6. The brief contentions of the written statement of the Defendant 15 O.S. No.2535/2008 No.5 is as under :
In Execution Petition No.68/1997 Sale deed in favour of the 1 st defendant in respect of item No.5 property of the suit schedule was registered. 1St defendant alienated item No.5 property of the suit schedule in favour of Defendants No.5 by a registered sale deed dated 11.10.2005. Defendants No.5 is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. Defendants No.5 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of item No.5 property of the suit schedule since the date of sale.
7. a) The brief contentions of the written statement of the Defendant No.6 is as under :
Item No.4 property of the suit schedule came to the share of the second defendant by registered partition deed 15.11.2000 entered between Sri. M. Rama Reddy, Smt. R. Chowdamma (Defendant No.1) and Sri. R Manjunatha Reddy (Defendant No.2). Thereafter item No.4 property of the suit schedule has been converted for non-agricultural, residential use by order No.ALN/SR(A)608/2004-05, Dated 08.02.2005, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore South Division, Bangalore.
Defendant No.6 has purchased 1 Acre and 20 Guntas of item No.4 property of the suit schedule from the second defendant by registered sale deed dated 21.02.2005 for valuable consideration and was put in 16 O.S. No.2535/2008 physical possession of the said property. Defendant No.6 has purchased 20 Guntas of item No.4 property of the suit schedule from the second defendant by registered sale deed dated 10.03.2005 for valuable consideration and was put in physical possession of the said property.
Defendant No.6 has spent huge amounts of money for securing and developing item No.4 property of the suit schedule.
As per section 35(1) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, the plaintiff is required to pay the court-fee on the market value of the item No.4 property of the suit schedule.
7. b) The brief contentions of the written statement of the Legal representatives of Defendant No.6 that is defendant No.6. a) to d) is as under :
The relief at prayer (a) and for such other consequential reliefs is barred by limitation. In the absence of any allegations as regards the parties who have entered into the partition Deed and dis entitlement as mentioned therein, the suit is not maintainable.
8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues and Additional issues were framed by my predecessor for consideration. :
:ISSUES:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the partition deed dated 15.11.2000 is to be reopened?17 O.S. No.2535/2008
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is having half share in the suit schedule properties?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the partition deed dated 15.11.2000 between defendants 1 and 2 and gift deed dated 03.06.2005 executed by the Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2, the sale deed dated 01.09.2006 executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.3 and 4, sale deed dated 11.10.2005 executed by Defendant No.1 and 2 in favour of Defendant No.5 and sale deed dated 21.02.2005 dated 10.03.2005 executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of 3. Whether the plaintiff Defendant No.6 is not binding on him?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition as prayed for?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mesne profits as prayed for?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as sought for?
7. What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiff proves that Court fee paid by him on the plant is sufficient after amending the plant prayer ? 18 O.S. No.2535/2008
9. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and marked 20 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. Plaintiff has marked 1 document as Ex.P21 in the cross examination of D.W.2.
10. In order to disprove the case of the plaintiff and to prove his contentions, the defendant No.5 examined herself as D.W.1 and marked 9 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D9.
11. In order to disprove the case of the plaintiff and to prove their contentions, the defendant No.6(d) examined himself as D.W.2.
12. In order to disprove the case of the plaintiff and to prove their contentions, the defendant No.3 and 4 examined their Special Power of Attorney holder one Mr. Chinmaya Saibabu Velamati as D.W.3 and marked 27 documents as Ex.D10 to Ex.D36.
13. The Counsel for plaintiff has filed a sequence of events and written argument of plaintiff on 31.10.2023. Heard the arguments of the Counsel for defendant No.5 on 31.10.2023. Heard the arguments of the Counsel for defendant No.3 and 4 on 27.11.2023. Heard the arguments of the Counsel for LR's of defendant No.6 on 18.12.2023. On 20.12.2023 the Counsel for Defendants No.3 and 4 has filed an index showing synopsis, written arguments and memo showing four citations with citations. That on 20.12.2023 the Counsel for LR's of defendant No.6 has 19 O.S. No.2535/2008 filed memo and list of five citations with citations. On the same day that is 20.12.2023, the Counsel for plaintiff has filed an analysis/ rebuttal to the written argument filed by the Counsel for LR's of defendant No.6. That on 04.01.2024 the Counsel for plaintiff has filed rebuttal to the written argument filed by Counsel for defendants No.3 and 4 and written argument filed by the Counsel for LR's of defendant No.6.
14. My findings to the above issues are as follows :-
Issue No.1:- In the Negative.
Issue No.2:- In the Negative
Issue No.3:- In the Negative
Issue No.4:- In the Negative
Issue No.5:- In the Negative
Issue No.6:- In the Negative
Additional Issue :- In the Affirmative
Issue No.7:- As per final order for the following:
REASONS
15. Issue No.1 to 3 :- As these issues are interrelated and overlapping, to avoid repetition these issues are taken together for discussion.
The Counsel for the defendants No.3 & 4 has furnished the 20 O.S. No.2535/2008 following Judgments in support of his argument :
1. MANU/SC/7679/2008 : Civil Appeal No.s 5659-5660 of 2002 :
(K.B. Saha and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Development Consultants Ltd.).
2. MANU/MP/0564/2019 : WP No.5914/2012 (Omprakash Vs. Ganesh Shankar Mehta) In the first Judgment Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Para No.21 have opined as under :
"21. From the principles laid down in the various decisions of this Court and the High Courts, as referred to herein above, it is evident that:
1. A document required to be registered, if unregistered is not admissible into evidence under Section 49 of the Registration Act.
2. Such unregistered document can however be used as an evidence of collateral purpose as provided in the Proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act.
3. A collateral transaction must be independent of, or divisible from, the transaction to effect which the la2.
MANU/MP/0564/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH) WP No.5914/2012 Omprakash Vs. Ganesh Shankar Mehtaw required registration.
21 O.S. No.2535/2008
4. A collateral transaction must be a transaction not itself required to be effected by the registered document, that is, a transaction creating, etc. any right, title or interest in Immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards.
5. If a document is inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, none of its terms can be admitted in evidence and that to use of document for the purpose of proving an important clause would not be using it as a collateral purpose.
In the second Judgment / Decision his Lordship of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) has referred to the above opinion.
3. MANU /SC/0757/2021 : Civil Appeal No. 6141 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP © No.25745 of 2016) (Korukonda Chalapathi Rao and Ors. Vs. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath Kumar).
In this Judgment Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Para No.35 have opined as under :
"35. As far as stamp duty goes, on our finding regarding the nature of the document, viz., Khararunama, being record of the alleged transactions, it may not require to be stamped. We notice the following conclusion of the Division Bench of 22 O.S. No.2535/2008 the Madras High Court in A.C. Lakshmipathy and Ors. v.
A.M. Chakrapani Reddiar and Ors.
MANU/TN/0019/2001:AIR 2001 Madras 135:
42. To sum up the legal position xxx xxx xxx (V) However, a document in the nature of a Memorandum, evidencing a family arrangement already entered into and had been prepared as a record of what had been agreed upon, in order that there are no hazy notions in future, it need not be stamped or registered."
16. The Counsel for the defendants No.6(a) to (d) has furnished the following Judgments in support of his argument that the Court is under obligation to find out whether the suit is within the period of limitation, which is mandatory, Article 113 of the Limitation Act is applicable to reopening of partition and there cannot be reopening of partition, when already there is a partition:
1. AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 4138 :: 2005 AIR SCW 3285 (V.M. Salgaocar and Bros vs. Board of Trustees of Port of Mormugao and another.)
2. AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 1206(Krishna Pillai Rajasekharan (D) by L.R.s Vs. Padmanabha Pillai (D) by L.Rs. and others.) 23 O.S. No.2535/2008
3. AIR 2004 SUPREME COURT 1596 (Union of India and others V. West Coast Paper Mills Ltd. and another.) In the first decision Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Para No.20 have opined as under :
"20. The mandate of S.3 of Limitation Act is that it is the duty of the Court to dismiss any suit instituted after the prescribed period of limitation irrespective of the fact that limitation has not been set up as a defence. If a suit ex facie barred by the law of Limitation, a Court has no choice but to dismiss the same even if the defendant intentionally has not raised the plea of limitation."
4. AIR 1976 SUPREME COURT 1 :: 1976(1) SCC 214 (Ratnam Chettiar and others V. S.M. Kuppuswami Chettiar and others.)
5. AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 3672:: 2006 AIR SCW 3768, Ramesh B. Desai and ors. Vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta and others.
In the first decision Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Para No.19 have opined that a partition effected between the members of the Hindu Undivided Family by their volition and with their consent cannot be reopened unless it is shown that the same is obtained by fraud, coercion, misrepresentation or undue influence.
Now this Court has to look into how these decisions furnished by 24 O.S. No.2535/2008 Counsel for defendant 3 and 4 and Counsel for LR's of defendant No.6 are applicable to this case.
17. The plaintiff, who has been examined as PW.1 in his examination in chief evidence affidavit filed as per order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC has reiterated the plaint averments in the affidavit.
The plaintiff is seeking ½ share in Item No.1 to 7 properties of suit schedule on the basis of Ex.P.1- registered partition deed dated 07.11.1997, Ex.P.2- registered partition deed dated 21.01.2000, Ex.P.19 unregistered agreement dated 21.01.2000 and Ex.P.20- unregistered continuation of the agreement dated 21.01.2000 made and executed on 10.04.2002.
Ex.P.1 is a true copy of the deed of partition dated 07.11.1997 entered into between plaintiff and his father, M Ramareddy and his mother, defendant No.1. Ex.P.1 (a) is a typed copy of Ex.P.1. As per Ex.P1, the parents of plaintiff gave Item No.1 to 7 properties described in 'A' schedule of Ex.P.1 to the share of plaintiff.
Ex.P.2 is an original registered deed of partition entered on 21.01.2000 into between plaintiff and his parents, who were parties of Ex.P.1. In this deed at Page No.3 plaintiff and his parents have stated as under:
"Whereas, a partition has been effected between the 25 O.S. No.2535/2008 parties to this deed on 11.12.1997 in respect of this joint family properties. The said partition was registered in the office of the sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru, under Document No.3016 of 1997-98. According to the partition Deed, the SECOND PARTY acquired rights against seven properties. Earlier partition has been ineffective due to difference of opinion among the family members with regard to value of the properties, extent of share etc. The khatha of the properties have not been transferred in the name of the respective parties, in pursuance of the partition. Thereafter the parties have decided to re-constitute the partition among themselves. Accordingly six properties have been transferred back to the FIRST PARTY by the SECOND PARTY with an agreement that the FIRST PARTIES would fulfil certain conditions and a separate agreement dated 21.01.2000 to this effect has been entered into between the parties".
By Ex.P.2, Item No.1 and 2 properties described in First schedule were allotted to the share of plaintiff and Item No.1 to 6 properties described in Second schedule, which are Item No.1, 2, 4 to 7 properties of Ex.P1 were transferred back to the share of parents of plaintiff. 26 O.S. No.2535/2008
18. Ex.P.19 is an original unregistered agreement entered into between the plaintiff and parents of plaintiff on 21.01.2000. Ex.P.20 is an original unregistered continuation of the agreement dated 21.01.2000 made and executed on 10.04.2002 entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 on 10.04.2002.
19. Defendant No.1 in her written statement has admitted as to execution of Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2, Ex.P.19 and Ex.P.20. During the pendency of the suit defendant No.1 died and her other legal representatives that is defendant No.1(a), (d) and (e) were brought on record. Defendant No.1(a) in her written statement has contended that Registered partition deed dated 31.03.1997, Deed of partition dated 21.01.2000 and Agreement dated 10.04.2002 are created, concocted, fabricated and got up documents, which are void documents under law and not at all binding on defendant No.1 (a). Defendant No.1 (d) in his written statement has contended that having taken his share he walked out of the joint family and he neither denies nor admits the transactions transpired between other joint family members. Defendant No.1(e) in his written statement has contended that he received his share through a registered partition deed dated 23.03.1997 and separated from the joint family and he is unaware of the developments after separation from the joint family. Though defendant No.1 (a), (d) and (e) have appeared through their 27 O.S. No.2535/2008 advocates and filed their written statements, they have not participated in further proceedings of the suit. Only defendant No.3 and 4, defendant No.5 and defendant No.6 (a) to (d) have participated in further proceedings of the suit.
20. Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:
"58. Facts admitted need not be proved.- No fact need be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings:
Provided that the court may, in its discretion , require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions."
21. Defendant No.3 and 4 in their written statement have contended that after thorough verification and detailed enquiry about the item No.3 property of the suit schedule only they forwarded to purchase the same. Defendant No.5 in his written statement has contended that he is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration. Defendant No.6 in his written statement has contended that he has purchased 1 Acre and 20 Guntas of item No.4 property of the suit schedule from the second defendant by 28 O.S. No.2535/2008 registered sale deed dated 21.02.2005 for valuable consideration and he has purchased 20 Guntas of item No.4 property of the suit schedule from the second defendant by registered sale deed dated 10.03.2005 for valuable consideration. Counsel for defendant No.6(a) to (d) in the cross examination of P.W.1 has suggested that plaintiff has created Ex.P.19 and Ex.P20 after the the death of his mother, defendant No.1. Counsel for defendant No.3 and 4 and counsel for defendant No.5 were also suggested to P.W.1 that Ex.P.20 is a created document. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the plaintiff requires to prove the execution of Ex.P.2, Ex.P.19 and Ex.P.20.
22. Both Ex.P.19 and Ex.P20 are unregistered documents. Plaintiff has not examined the witnesses, who signed Ex.P.19 and Ex.P20 to prove the execution of Ex.P.19 and Ex.P20. Counsel for plaintiff in the cross examination of D.W.1 / Defendant No.5 has suggested that the right of defendant No.1 and 2 on Item No.5 property of suit schedule was released on the basis of Ex.P.1, P.19 and Ex.P.20 and DW.1 has denied the said suggestion. Counsel for the plaintiff in the cross examination of D.W.2 / Defendant No.6(d) has suggested that Item No.4 property of suit schedule was allotted to the share of plaintiff under Ex.P.19 and Ex.P.20 and said suggestion was denied by DW.2. D.W.3 / Special Power of Attorney holder of defendant No.3 and 4 in his cross examination has denied the 29 O.S. No.2535/2008 suggestion put by counsel for plaintiff, which reads as under :
"ನ.ಪ. 1, 2, 19 ಮತತ 20 ಮಡಕಟಟ ರವದ ಮತತ ಅವಗಳಲಲ ನ ಒಳಳಶಗಳ ಕರತ ನನಗ ಗತತ ದದ ರ ದವ ಅನಸಚ -3 ನ ಸಸ ತತ ನನ 2 ನ ಪಪ ತವದಯಳದ ಅವರಗ ಸದರ ಸಸ ತತ ಮರಟ ಮಡಲ ಯವದ ರರತ ಕನನಬದದ ಹಕಕ ಇಲಲ ದ ಇದದ ರ ನ.ಡ.10 ರ ಮಲಕ ನನ ಕಳಡರತತ ರನ ಎನನ ವದ ಸರಯಲಲ . "
23. Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:
"68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.- If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence;
Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1980 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied."
Section 72 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under: 30 O.S. No.2535/2008
"72. Proof of document not required by law to be attested.- An attested document not required by law to be attested may be proved as if it was unattested."
In Ex.P.19 in line No.1 of the first page in '' 21 st day of January " "21st " is typed in bold letters and it appears "21 st " is over typed after erasing earlier typed. In Ex.P.19 in second page, first para, line 5 " the partition deed dated 21.01.2000 " is typed in bold letters and it appears " the partition deed dated 21.01.2000 " is over typed after erasing the earlier typed.
In Ex.P.20 in page 1 in witnesseth as under "" between the " and "agreement was incorporated" were written in handwriting in the blank space, in page 2, para No.4 in the bracket "-h" and in page No.3, at description of Item No.3 property "South Taluk Bangalore" and "on the "
are written in handwriting.
In Ex.P.19 and 20, who prepared these documents is not shown. Who made all the alterations / corrections in Ex.P19 and Ex.P20, which are stated above is not shown in these documents. Both Ex.P19 and Ex.P20 are signed by 2 witnesses. Plaintiff has not examined the witnesses of Ex.P19 and Ex.P20 to prove the execution of Ex.P.19 and
20. Plaintiff has failed to prove the execution of Ex.P.19 and 20 as per the provisions of Sections provided in chapter V, of Documentary Evidence of the Indian Evidence Act.31 O.S. No.2535/2008
24. As per plaintiff, Ex.P.19 was entered between him and his parents for fulfilment of certain conditions towards transfer of six properties by plaintiff to his parents under Ex.P.2. In Ex.P.19, plaintiff and his parents have agreed as under:
"If the first party fails to pay the agreed amount of Rs.30,00,000/- to the second party within the stipulated period of one year, the second party is at liberty to claim share in all the joint family properties".
What was agreed between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 is stated in page No.2, para No.4 of Ex.P.20, which reads as under:
"And Whereas the First Party to this Agreement i.e., R. Chowdamma has agreed to give 50% share (One - half) in all the schedule properties in favour of the Second Party, for which the Second Party has given his consent. By taking 50% share in all the schedule properties, the Second Party hereby gives up his right to claim a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only). The balance half share (50%) shall be allotted to R. Manjunath Reddy, third son of the First Party".
In the schedule of Ex.P.20, totally Item No.1 to 9 properties were described and as per Ex.P.20, plaintiff is having half share in these Item 32 O.S. No.2535/2008 Nos.1 to 9 properties. Perused the description of Item No.1 to 7 properties of suit schedule and Item No.1 to 9 properties of Ex.P.20.
Item No.1 and 2 properties of suit schedule are not mentioned in Ex.P.20. Only Item No.3 to 6 properties of suit schedule were mentioned in Ex.P.20 as Item No.3, 6, 9 and 5 respectively. Plaintiff is not seeking half share in Item No.1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 properties of Ex.P20. As per Ex.P.20, the plaintiff is entitled to seek for half share in all the Item No.1 to 9 properties described in Ex.P.20. But, plaintiff has not included Item No.1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 properties of Ex.P.20 in the suit schedule. It is pertinent to mention that as per Ex.P.2, Item No.1 and 2 properties described in First schedule were allotted to the share of plaintiff. The plaintiff is seeking to reopen the partition of Ex.P2. But, plaintiff has not included Item No.1 and 2, properties of Ex.P.2, which were allotted to his share.
25. Ex.P.3 is the true copy of registered partition deed entered into between defendant No.2 and his father, M. Ramareddy and his mother, defendant No.1 on 15.11.2000, which was executed after execution of Ex.P.2 on 21.01.2000 that is after more than 10 months from the execution of Ex.P.2. As per Ex.P.3, Item No.1 to 5 properties described in the schedule of Ex.P.3, which includes item No.3, 4 and 6 properties of suit schedule were allotted to the share of defendant No.2. 33 O.S. No.2535/2008
26. Ex.P.6 is a true copy of registered Gift Deed dated 03.06.2005 executed by defendant No.1 in respect of Item No.5 property of suit schedule. In this deed in page No.2 and 3, defendant No.1 has stated as under:
"Whereas, the Donor being the wife of late M. Rama Reddy, have constituted a joint family and the family properties belonging to the Donor, Donor's husband, and sons by name Sathyanarayana Reddy, Rakesh Kumar, R. Manjunatha Reddy, R. Vijaya Raghava Reddy, have been pooled together and the partition within the family has taken place during the life time of Donor's husband M. Rama Reddy. The schedule property being the exclusive property of the Donor after the partition the schedule property has become the sole and absolute property of the Donor with the consent of all the sons, daughters and the husband of the Donor ............................................... "
27. The plaintiff in his plaint at Para No.5 and 5(a) has stated that The partition effected on 11-12-1997 reconstituted under a Deed of partition dated 21-01-2000, entered into between the Plaintiff, his father and mother. The Plaintiff transferred back 6 properties out of 7 properties allotted under the document dated 11-12-1997 subject to certain terms 34 O.S. No.2535/2008 and conditions under the agreement dated 21-01-2000. The 1st defendant and her husband have agreed to pay Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs Only) within one year from the date of the agreement and the plaintiff has agreed to relinquish his right in respect of Item No.5 property of suit schedule.
As per Ex.P.1, Item No.5 property of suit schedule was allotted to the share of plaintiff. In Ex.P.2, there is no mention of retaining Item No.5 property of suit schedule by plaintiff. In Ex.P.2, there is no whisper about Item No.5 property. In Ex.P19 and Ex.P.20 there is mention of Item No.5 property of suit schedule. As per Ex.P.2 plaintiff has returned six properties out of 7 properties which were allotted to him under Ex.P.1, to his parents. Plaintiff has retained Item No.3 property of Ex.P.1, which is Item No.5 property of suit schedule.
28. In the plaint, the plaintiff has pleaded that defendants 3 to 6 were aware of the terms and conditions contained in the partition deed dated 21-01-2000, Agreement dated 21-01-2000 and the continuation Agreement dated 10-04-2002.
Defendant No.5, who has been examined as DW.1 in his examination in chief evidence affidavit in para No.12 has sworn to that he had no knowledge about the alleged agreement dated 10.04.2002 that is Ex.P.20 at the time of purchase of Item No.5 property of suit schedule and 35 O.S. No.2535/2008 the same is created by the plaintiff and first defendant for the purpose of filing this suit.
Ex.P.10 is a true copy of registered Sale Deed dated 11.10.2005 executed by defendant No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.5 in respect of Item No.5 property of suit schedule. Ex.D.7 and Ex.P.10 are one and the same. The counsel for plaintiff failed to elicit any admission or favourable answer in the cross examination of D.W.1, by which the plaintiff can prove defendant 5 was aware of the terms and conditions contained in Ex.P19 and Ex.P20, Agreement dated 21-01-2000 and the continuation Agreement dated 10-04-2002.
Defendant No.6(d), who has been examined as D.W.2 in his examination in chief evidence affidavit in page No.7 has sworn that Ex.P.19 and 20 are the creature of speculation. Ex.P.4 is a true copy of registered Sale Deed dated 21.02.2005 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.6 in respect of 1 acre 20 gunta in Item No.4 property of suit schedule. Ex.P.5 is a true copy of registered Sale Deed dated 10.03.2005 in favour of defendant No.6 in respect of 20 guntas in Item No.4 property of suit schedule property. The counsel for plaintiff failed to elicit any admission or favourable answer in the cross examination of D.W.2, by which the plaintiff can prove defendant 6 was aware of the terms and conditions contained in the Ex.P19, Agreement dated 21-01-2000 and the Ex.P20, continuation Agreement dated 10-04- 36 O.S. No.2535/2008 2002.
D.W.3, who is SPA holder of defendant No.3 and 4 in his examination in chief evidence affidavit has reiterated the contentions of the written statement of defendant No.3 and 4. Ex.P.7 is a true copy of registered Sale Deed dated 01.09.2006 executed by defendant No.2, wife of defendant No.2 and defendant No.2 on behalf of their minor children in favour of defendant No.3 and 4 in respect of Item No.3 property of suit schedule. The counsel for plaintiff in the cross examination of defendant No.3 also failed to elicit any admission or favourable answer, by which plaintiff can prove the execution of Ex.P.19 and 20 and defendant No.3 and 4 were aware of execution of Ex.P.19 and 20 on the date of execution of Ex.P.7.
29. The defendant No.1 in her written statement has contended that the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Defendant No.3 and 4 in their written statement in para No.29 have contended that the suit of the plaintiff filed after lapse of more than 11 years from the date of execution of Registered Partition deeds among the family members excluding defendant No.2 is barred by limitation. Plaintiff is seeking 50% of share in suit schedule properties and reopening of the partition dated 15.11.2000 on the basis of Ex.P20, agreement entered into between him and defendant No.1 on 10.04.2002. The plaintiff has filed this suit on 37 O.S. No.2535/2008 06.10.2007 after more than 5 years and 5 months from the date of execution of Ex.P20 on 10.04.2002. As per Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for filing of any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the schedule of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation is 3 years from the right to suit accrues. The plaintiff in his plaint in para No.8 has pleaded that during the last week of July 2007 he returned to India and demanded his half share in the suit schedule properties to defendant No.1. As defendant No.1 started giving evasive replies, which necessitated him to investigate the title of the properties. Except self serving evidence by plaintiff, there is no evidence substantiating what plaintiff has pleaded and deposed as to demanding his half share in suit schedule properties to defendant No.1 from the date of execution of Ex.P20 on 10.04.2002 till the cause of action, which he pleaded in para No.8 of his plaint.
30. In view of the discussion I made above, I come to an opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove issue No.1 to 3. Hence, I answer Issue No. 1 to 3 in Negative.
31. Additional Issue No.1:- The defendants No.3 and 4 in their written statement have contended that as per Section 35 of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, the plaintiff should be in possession of the suit schedule properties. But, the plaintiff is not in possession of the 38 O.S. No.2535/2008 suit schedule properties. Defendants No.3 and 4 are in possession of the suit schedule properties. As per the Section 35(1) and (2) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act the plaintiffs are required to pay the court fee on the market value of the suit schedule properties.
The defendant No.6 in his written statement has contended that as per section 35(1) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958, the plaintiff is required to pay the court-fee on the market value of the item No.4 property of the suit schedule.
In a judgment passed in Regular First Appeal No.345 of 2019 (Sri. K. R. Ravishankar and another vs. Smt. Vijayamma and others.) produced by Counsel for defendant No.3 and 4 his lordship of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in Para No.12 has opined as under:
"12: We may now conveniently summarise the principles relating to Court fee in regard to suits for partitions and appeal therefrom:
iv) If the plaintiff claims that he is in joint possession of a property and seeks partition and separate possession, he categorises the suit under Section 35(2) of the Act. He is therefore liable to pay Court fee only under Section 35(2).
If on evidence, it is found that he was not in joint possession, the consequence is that the relief may be refused in regard to such property or the suit may be 39 O.S. No.2535/2008 dismissed. But the question of Court treating the suit as one falling under Section 35(1) of the Act and directing the plaintiff to pay the Court fee under Section 35(1) of the Act does not arise. Even after written statement and evidence (which may demonstrate absence of possession or joint possession), if the plaintiff chooses not to amend the plaint to bring the suit under Section 35(1) and pay Court fee applicable thereto, he takes the chance of suit getting dismissed or relief being denied".
In view of the above principles relating to Court fee in regard to suits for partitions, this court is of the opinion that this issue does not survive for consideration. Hence, I answer Additional Issue No.1 as it does not survive for consideration.
32. Issue No.4 to 6:- In view of the finding, I arrived at Issue Nos. 1 to 3, I came to an opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled for Partition, Mesne profits and Declaration as prayed. Hence, I answer Issue No.4 to 6 in Negative.
33. Issue No.7:- In view of the finding, I arrived at Issue Nos. 1 to 6 and Additional Issue No.1, I proceed to pass the following :-
ORDER The Suit under Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil procedure, 40 O.S. No.2535/2008 1908 filed by the plaintiff, is dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and also directly on computer, after transcribed / typed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of April, 2024).
Digitally signed by
RAGHAVENDRA RAGHAVENDRA G
G Date: 2024.04.23
12:56:48 +0530
(G. Raghavendra)
XXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru.
Annexure
List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff:
P.W.1: Sri. Rakesh Kumar List of exhibits marked on behalf of plaintiff:
Ex.P1: True copy of Registered partition deed dated
07.12.1997 Ex.P1(a): Typed copy of Ex.P1 Ex.P2: Original Registered Partition Deed dated 21.01.2000 Ex.P3: True Copy of Registered partition deed dated 15.11.2000 Ex.P4: True Copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 21.02.2005 Ex.P5: True Copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 10.03.2005 Ex.P6: True Copy of Registered Gift Deed dated 03.06.2005 41 O.S. No.2535/2008 Ex.P7: True Copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 01.09.2006 Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 : Record of Rights, Tenancy and Pahani Ex.P10: True Copy of Sale Deed dated 11.10.2005 Ex.P.11 & Ex.P.12: Record of Rights, Tenancy and Pahani Ex.P13 & 14 : Mutation Register Extracts Ex.P 14 to 18 : Encumbrance Certificates Ex.P.19 : Original Unregistered Agreement dated 21.01.2000 Ex.P.20: Original Unregistered Agreement dated 10.04.2002 Ex.P.21: Family Tree Affidavit List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendants No.5 :
D.W.1: Sri. A. Ramakrishna List of exhibits marked on behalf of defendants No.5:
Ex.D1: Certified copy of amended plaint of O.S.75/1990. Ex.D2: Certified copy of Judgment of O.S.No.75/1990 Ex.D3: Certified copy of appeal in R.A. No.16/2000-2001 Ex.D4: Certified copy of order of Revision Petition No.80/2004
-05 Ex.D5 & 6: Certified copy of application in Misc. Application No.13/2015 and order in Misc.Application No.13/2015 Ex.D7: Digital copy of Registered Sale Deed dated 11.10.2005 Ex.D8: Digital copy of Registered Confirmation Deed dated 29.06.2006 Ex.D9: Digital copy of Registered Confirmation Deed dated 14.03.2011 42 O.S. No.2535/2008 List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendants No.6(a) to (d) :
D.W.2: Sri. Raja Datta Kumar List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendants No.6(a) to (d) :
Nil List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendants No. 3 & 4 :
D.W.3: Mr. Chinmaya Saibabu Velamati List of exhibits marked on behalf of defendants No.3 & 4 :
Ex. D10: Digital copy of Registered Absolute Sale Deed dated
01.09.2006
Ex.D11: Encumbrance Certificate
Ex.D12 & 29: RTC
Ex.D30: Mutation Register Extract
Ex.D31: Official Memorandum of office of DC,Bengaluru District
Ex.D32: Mutation Register Extract
Ex.D33: BBMP Receipt
Ex.D34: Khata Certificate of BBMP
Ex.D35: Houses and vacant places Register Book Extract
Ex.D36: Property Tax Receipts
XXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
Bengaluru.