Bangalore District Court
Dhevarath A C vs Ramaiah H on 30 January, 2026
KABC010031762016
IN THE COURT OF LXV ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY [CCH No.66]
PRESENT
Sri. S.N. Kalkani, B.Com, LL.M.
LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 30th day of January, 2026
O.S.No.1100/2016
Plaintiffs: 1. A.C. Dhevarath,
S/o H. Chandrashekar
@ H. Muniswamy,
Aged about 22 years,
2. H. Chandrashekar @ H. Muniswamy,
S/o late A. Hanumanthappa,
Aged about 57 years,
Both are R/at No.40/1, 2nd Floor,
Standage Town, Frazer Town,
Bengaluru.
(In person)
-V/s-
Defendants: 1. H. Ramaiah,
S/o late A. Hanumanthappa,
Since dead, Rept. by its LRs:
1(a). N. Vijayalakshmi,
W/o late Ramaiah,
Aged about 62 years,
1(b) R. Pallavi,
D/o late H. Ramaiah,
Aged about 40 years,
Both are R/at No.49, 2nd Cross,
Ramaiah Layout, Kammanahalli
Main Road, Bengaluru.
2 O.S.No.1100/2016
2. H. Srinivas,
S/o late A. Hanumanthappa,
Aged about 63 years,
R/at No.40/1, 1st Floor,
Standage Town, Frazer Town,
Bengaluru.
3. Kanthalakshmi,
W/o L. Ramalingappa
Aged about 71 years,
R/at No.12/11-2, Thimmaiah Garden,
Doddakunte, Cox Town,
Bengaluru.
4. A. Chakravarthi,
S/o late M. Adimoolam,
Aged about 57 years,
5. H. Venkateshaiah,
S/o Hanumantharayappa,
Aged about 67 years,
Both are R/at No.5/B, K.G. Halli,
Near Railway Gate, Arabic College Post,
Bengaluru.
6. Girija W/o H. Srinivasa .... Deleted
7. Mohammed Rafiulla,
S/o Mohammed Rehamathulla,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at No.12, 10th Cross, 3rd Main,
Pilanna Garden, 1st Stage,
Bengaluru.
8. Nisar Ahmed,
S/o S. Basher Ahmed,
Aged about 59 years,
R/at No.12, Dodanna
2nd Main Road, Venkateshpuram,
K.G. Halli, Bengaluru.
(D-1: By Sri. M.L.V, Adv.)
(D-2: By Sri. M.S,/P.P.N, Adv.)
3 O.S.No.1100/2016
(D-3: By Sri. V.V.N,/S.T.R, Adv.)
(D-4: Exparte)
(D-5: By Sri. H.R, Adv.)
(D-6: Deleted)
(D-7 & D-8: By Sri.M.T, Adv.)
Date of Institution: 05.02.2016
Nature of the suit: Partition, separate possession, declaration,
mesne profit and permanent injunction.
Date of recording 29.05.2019 to 17.12.2024
of evidence:
Date of Judgment 30.01.2026
Total Duration Days Months Years
25 11 09
*****
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties to the extent of plaintiffs' one-third share in the suit schedule A to D properties by metes and bounds, and to grant mesne profit as per the provisions of Order XX Rule 12 of CPC, and to declare that the sale date dated 15.10.2003 executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of the defendants No.4 and 5 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs, and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, or anybody claiming under them, or through them from selling, mortgaging, leasing, or dealing in any manner with the suit schedule properties.
2. The facts of the case of plaintiffs are that:
The plaintiff No.1 is the only son of plaintiff No.2 and the grandson of deceased A. Hanumantappa and deceased B. Muniyamma. The father of the plaintiff No.2, i.e., A. Hanumantappa 4 O.S.No.1100/2016 died on 11.07.1995 and left behind his wife- B. Muniyamma and three sons, i.e., plaintiff No.2 and defendants No.1 and 2, and one daughter- defendant No.3, as his legal heirs, and subsequently, the said Muniyamma also died. The plaintiff No.2 and defendants No.1 to 3 are the LRs of deceased A. Hanumantappa and B. Muniyamma. The deceased A. Hanumantappa was the Karta of the family and he was looking after and managing the family affairs till his death. He had acquired the ancestral family properties under the registered partition deed dated 02.12.1971 between his brothers and mother. According to the said partition, Hanumantappa had acquired the properties, i.e., the house property bearing Corporation Old No.20, New No. 40/1, situated at Standage Road, Frazer Town, Bangalore, measuring east to west 47 feet and north to south 60 feet. The floor mill building situated at Kadugondanahalli Village, Bangalore, North Taluk, measuring east to west 55 feet, north to south 60 feet. During the lifetime of said Hanumantappa, he had acquired the properties bearing Sy.No.48/2 of Kadugondanahalli Village, measuring east-west on north-south 70 feet and north-northern side 40 + 49 + 14 feet and north to south on eastern side 30 + 21 feet and on western side 33 + 13 feet. The portion of the property bearing Sy.No.49/2 of Kadugondanahalli Village, Bangalore, North Taluk, measuring east to west on southern side 170 feet, on northern side 192 feet and north to south on eastern side 66 feet, western side 99 feet. The said deceased Hanumantappa had also owned retail cloth shop in the name and style of Manjunatha Textile situated at rented premises No.26, BCA Road, Bangalore and the same is registered in the name of deceased Hanumantappa. The said properties are self-acquired properties of deceased Hanumantappa.5 O.S.No.1100/2016
3. In the plaint, it is further stated that the plaintiff No.2 is working in private concern and the defendant No.1 was working in Deccan Herald Press. The defendant No.1 and the plaintiff No.2 have individually acquired the property bearing No.38 measuring 50 x 40 feet situated at Postal Colony, 1st Stage, Geddalahalli, Sanjay Nagar, Bangalore under the Register sale deed dated 03.11.1980. The said property is the self- acquired property of defendant No.1 and the plaintiff No.2 and they have jointly acquired a said property out of their own earning and subsequently they have sold the said property and it is not the joint family property.
4. It is further stated in the plaintiff that the house property bearing No.40 x 1 situated at Standage Road, Frazer Town was acquired by deceased Hanumantappa and during the lifetime of said Hanumantappa he had orally allotted the ground floor portion in favour of the defendant No.1, first portion in favour of the defendant No.2 and incompleted construction of second portion was allotted to the plaintiff No.2. Thereafter, the plaintiff No.2 out of his earnings had developed and put up the construction on the second floor portion on property No.14/1 and invested huge amount out of his savings and residing in the said property along with family members. The other properties i.e. Floor Mill Building, the five factory sheds constructed on the property bearing No. 48/2, the property bearing No.49/2 are the other properties. The said Retail Cloth Shop was in possession and enjoyment of said Hanumantappa till his death. Said Hanumantappa has not left any testamentary disposition or he transferred any interest in favour of anybody during his lifetime. The said properties are the joint family properties. The plaintiff No.1 is the co-parcener and grandson of deceased Hanumantappa and the plaintiffs and 6 O.S.No.1100/2016 defendants No.1 and 2 have got equal rights over the said properties left behind by deceased Hanumantappa. After the death of Hanumantappa, the defendant No.2 has utilized the funds and income derived out of the retail cloth business left behind by deceased Hanumantappa and the defendant No.2 run the said business for a period of 20 years and now without the knowledge nor consent of the plaintiffs he has sold the entire business with materials and utilized the funds for himself and in fact the said business is not the individual property of the defendant No.2 and therefore the said transaction is not binding on the plaintiffs and therefore the plaintiffs are entitled for their share in the said sale proceeds.
5. In the plaint, it is further stated that the defendant No.2 has no individual rights over the properties left behind by deceased Hanumantappa. The plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1 were busy with their works and defendant No.2 has taken undue advantage of innocence of the plaintiff No.2 and after the death of Hanumantappa, the defendant No.2 alone is enjoying the fruits of the income derived out of the property of floor mill buildings thereon and five factory sheds constructed on the property bearing No. 48/2 and 49/2 and the retail cloth shop business etc. since all these years. In fact, the defendant No.2 alone has no individual or exclusive right over the said properties. The said properties are the ancestral and joint family properties and therefore the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 2 have got equal rights over the said properties. The associated properties are acquired and developed by deceased Hanumantappa and the defendant No.2 alone has no individual rights over the said properties. Obviously, it is joint family properties. The plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 constitute joint family. The properties left behind by deceased Hanumantappa 7 O.S.No.1100/2016 are the joint family properties developed, maintained and contributed by all the members of the family and the family is a Hindu undivided family and there is no division of the family properties by metes and bounds and the properties equally belongs to the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2.
6. It is further stated in the plaintiff that after the death of deceased Hanumantappa, the defendant No.1 utilized the funds and income derived out of the flour mill property, factory sheds and clothe business and enjoyed the said business all these years without paying any amount to the plaintiffs nor to the defendant No.1. The defendant No.2 has taken undue advantage and has got entered his name in the revenue records as holder katha in respect of the flour mill property and as well as the portion of the property bearing Sy.No.48/2 and 49/2. On the strength of the alleged revenue entries even without the A- Katha only on the strength of the holders katha, the defendant No.2 had entered into the fundamental fraudulent transaction in favour of the defendant No.4 and 5 in respect of the portion of the property bearing Sy.No.49/2 measuring east to west 32 feet and north to south 51 + 52 ½ feet under the registered sale deed dated 15.10.2003 without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiffs and other family members and the said transaction came to know by the plaintiffs in the third week of October 2015 and the said alleged transaction is not binding on the plaintiff's share. The defendant No.2 alone has no individual right or interest to transfer the plaintiff's right in favour of the defendants No.4 and 5. The defendant No.2 has relied and created the unregistered Palupatti on the strength of the alleged documents. He had created the documents and sold the portion of the joint family property in favour of the defendants No.4 and 5. The defendant No.2 8 O.S.No.1100/2016 has no individual rights on the suit property to create any third party interest in favour of the defendants No.4 and 5. In the absence of the registered partition between the plaintiff No.2 and defendants No.1 to 3 at the time of the alleged transaction in the joint family property, the alienation if any made by the defendant No.2 in favour of the defendants No.4 and 5 does not bind the right title on the plaintiff's share in the property Sy.No.49/2.
7. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have further stated that without the knowledge of the plaintiff No.2, the defendant No.1 has got issued the legal notice to the defendant No.2. The plaintiff No.2 has no knowledge about the alleged legal notice and further the alleged panchayath paluparikath relied by the defendant No.2 is also created and not acted upon at any point of time. After the death of father of plaintiff No.2, the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled to inherit the properties left behind by deceased Hanumantappa i.e., the joint family properties. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to their share in the associated properties.
8. It is further contended in the plaint that the defendant No.2 is now trying to create third-party rights on the suit schedule properties and trying to deprive the rights of the plaintiffs. The defendant No.2 alone is not having any absolute right to sell the suit schedule properties, much less to alienate the same by way of mortgage, sale, etc. If the defendants No.2, 4, and 5 are allowed to do the same illegal acts, the plaintiffs will be put to great and irreparable loss and injury, and mental agony which cannot be compensated in any manner and also leads to multiplicity of litigations. Therefore, the plaintiffs left with no other alternative except to approach this court by way of seeking 9 O.S.No.1100/2016 partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The cause of action for the suit arose on 24.10.2015 and on subsequent days when the defendant No.2 has refused to have the suit schedule properties partitioned.
9. Initially, the suit was filed against the defendants No.1 to 5 only and thereafter the defendants No.6 to 8 are impleaded. After service of summons, the defendant Nos.1 to 3, 5, 7 and 8 appeared through respective counsels and filed separate written statements. The defendant No.4 placed exparte. The defendant No.6 got deleted by the plaintiffs.
10. In the written statement, the defendant No.1 has admitted the relationship between the parties and Hanumanthappa was the kartha of the family and acquired the properties under registered partition deed between him and his brothers dated 02.12.1971. It is further stated that Hanumanthappa had his own business and he acquired landed properties separately along with his brother - Poornaiah and they divided the so acquired properties amongst themselves. The defendant No.1 admitted that he was working in Deccan Herald Press and also doing milk vending business. The plaintiff No.2 had his own income and the defendant No.1 and plaintiff No.2 jointly purchased a site at Sanjaynagar under registered sale deed 03.12.1980, which is their self-acquired property admitted subsequently, for their family necessities, they sold the said property to the third party long back and none of the other family members had questioned the same all these decades. The defendant No.1 and plaintiff No.2 out of their own income had also improved the said property and put up constructions thereon without the aid or assistance from the family or from their 10 O.S.No.1100/2016 father- Hanumanthappa and as such, said Hanumanthappa and his other heirs had/ has any right, title, interest or share int eh said property so purchased and alienated. The defendant No.2 is also aware of these aspects and hence, he did not raise any dispute all these years. There was no contribution of any kind either from Hanumanthappa or any others and there was no joint family nucleus was used and even Hanumanthappa did not stake any claim on the said property at Sanjaynagar during his life time. As the defendant No.1 laid his claim in respect of plaint B schedule property i.e., No.38, Kadugondanahalli and go addressed notice, the defendant No.2 has been making false and untrue allegations about the separate property of defendant No.1 and plaintiff No.2 at Sanjaynagar and about constructions without challenging the alienation made after long lapse of time. The defendant No.2 in the reply notice has admitted the plaint B schedule property was the property of late Hanumanthappa and he has no objection for granting shares in the said property.
11. The defendant No.1 has also admitted about oral division of house property bearing No.40/1, Standage Road, Frazer Town among plaintiff No.2, defendants No.1 and 2. It is further stated that the same was reduced into writing on 18.06.1993 as ground floor was given to defendant No.1, first floor to defendant No.2 and second floor to the plaintiff No.2 with undivided share in land, and mutations were made in the names of respective persons and they exercising exclusive ownership of respective portions allotted to them by residing along with their respective families. The mother and the sister did not take any property under the said family partition and they relinquished their rights even if any.
11 O.S.No.1100/201612. It is further stated in the written statement of defendant No.1 that in the family partition the schedule B property i.e., land and building with floor mill at Kadugondanahalli, Bengaluru measuring East to West 55 feet and North to south 60 feet was allotted to Hanumanthapa and schedule D, E and C properties were allotted to the share of defendant No.2, plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 respectively. At that time, Hanumanthappa also suggested to divide the property purchased which was jointly purchased by the plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1 under the very same partition by taking half portion i.e., southern half of the property to the defendant No.1 and northern half of the property to the plaintiff No.2 and this property was also included in the said family partition as suggested by their father- Hanumanthappa to avoid further complications or claims by any others and not otherwise.
13. The defendant No.1 has further stated in the written statement that Hanumanthappa continued his own business and kept the property and business allotted to him under the family partition which became his separate property on such division. The portion of landed property acquired by Hanumanthappa was also subject matter of the family partition and the same has been allotted to the defendant No.2. Since Hanumanthappa died intestate, schedule B property remained undivided and it is liable to be equally divided between the surviving heirs of Hanumanthappa. Hence, the defendant No.1 prays for partition and separate possession of schedule B property and he paid requisite Court fee for such division of the property.
14. It is further contended in the written statement that schedule A property has already been divided under family partition and schedule C, D and E properties have also been divided and allotted to 12 O.S.No.1100/2016 defendant No.2 and they are not amenable for partition. The defendant No.1 further stated that he was in bonafide belief that the business of late Hanumanthappa and schedule B property could be divided later on and did not insist for partition and it transpires that the defendant No.2 has wind up the business and secreted funds and he is liable to account for the business income and good will and stock in trade etc. The defendant No.2 evaded the defendant No.1 and informed that they would partition the business and B schedule property in due course and defendant No.1 had implicit faith in his younger brother and assurance and did not press the matter.
15. The defendant No.1 has further contended in the written statement that the sisters of Hanumanthappa instituted the suit in O.S.No.1635/1980 against Hanumanthappa and his family members and other brothers and the said suit came to be decreed on contest and the matter was taken up in RFA No.300/2002 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and it was held that the sisters of late Hanumanthappa i.e., plaintiffs in that suit are entitled to 1/8 th share in the plaint schedule properties in O.S.No.1635/1980. The LRs of Gowramma instituted final decree proceedings in FDP No.32/2004, wherein the compromise was entered into and Rs.35 lakh was agreed to be paid towards full relinquishment of the share to LRs of Gowramma. In that proceedings, Rs.20 lakh has been paid by the defendants No.1 and 2 equally i.e., Rs.10 lakh each and the remaining amount is to be paid by the others LRs of late Hanumanthappa who have not contributed are liable to contribution. The LRs of Lakshmidevamma, sister of late Hanumanthappa have also instituted FDP No.132/2010 on the file of the City Civil & Sessions Court, which is also pending. It is to be taken into account as it is relating to the 13 O.S.No.1100/2016 property of Hanumanthappa and the same is also liable to be accounted for at the time of division. The defendant No.1 after the death of Hanumanthappa has been prosecuting the suit and FDP and other cases by spending heavy amount and the other LRs of Hanumanthappa are liable for contribution.
16. The defendant No.1 further submits that the family is joint and the parties are in joint possession in so far as it relates to B schedule property and all are entitled to share in accordance with law and this defendant also prays for division of the said property and partition and separate possession of his share and decreeing the suit and also allotment of his share in the properties.
17. In the written statement, the defendant No.2 has admitted the relationship between the parties. Hanumanthappa and his three brothers divided the movables and immovable properties of the joint family and got separated in the year 1971 vide registered partition dated 02.12.1971 and admitted the share allotted to Hanumanthappa is a house property bearing Corporation old No.20, New No.40/1 situated at Standage Road. The schedule C and D properties purchased in the year 1974 by Hanumanthappa and his brother Poornaiah at Kadugondenahalli bearing Sy.No.48/2. Again in the year 1980, Haumanthappa acquired BDA property bearing No.38 at Postal colonay, Sanjaynagar in the joint names of Ramaiah and Chandrashekar vide sale deed dated 03.12.1980. Subsequently, Hanumanthappa constructed two floors with four houses on the said vacant land. Hanumanthappa and Muniyamma and all their legal heirs were living together as a joint family at Stangade Road, Frazer town.
14 O.S.No.1100/201618. The defendant No.2 further contended that said Poornaiah, the brother of Hanumanthappa vide oral Partition Deed dated 20.10.1985 relinquished his rights over the said Sy.No.48/2 and 49/2 (schedule C and D properties) in the name of Hanumanthappa and thus, Hanumanthappa became absolute owner of said properties. During the life time of Hanumanthappa, a deed of palupatti was executed on 18.06.1993 between Hanumanthappa, Mariyamma, plaintiff No.2, defendants No.1 to 3. In the process of division and allotment, item No.5- Flour Mill with building situated at Kadugondenahalli was allotted to the share of deceased Hanumanthappa, item No.1- bearing No.40/1 is allotted to all the three sons- plaintiff No.2 and defendants No.1 and
2. The item No.3- property bearing No.38, Sanjaynagar was allotted to defendants No.1 and plaintiff No.2 and finally, item No.2- lands bearing No.48/2 and 49/2 situated at Kadugondanahalli and item No.4 retail cloth business shop were allotted to defendant No.2 as per schedule D of Palupatti. Muniyamma and defendant No.3- Kanthalakshmi agreed to relinquish their right over the properties. All the family members of Hanumanthappa were majors when the palupatti was signed and accepted and subsequent to the allotment of respective shares, the plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1 enjoyed the property and further jointly sold the property bearing No.38 situated at Sanjaynagar around 2010 and the plaintiff No.2 out of the said sale proceeds purchased 5000 sq.ft of land in Horamavu and defendant No.1 purchased equal extent of land and constructed apartment of 4 floors of 10 flats at Kasturinagar respectively. The defendant No.2 was allotted vacant barren land in Sy.No.48/2 and 49/2 at Kadugondanahalli as both the brothers opposed to accept the said land. The defendant No.2 out of his earnings gradually leveled the uneven land by filling the huge trenches, channels over the period of time and now eking out his living 15 O.S.No.1100/2016 out of the rentals from the small sheds constructed in the property allotted to him. The said property was far lesser than the extent of measurement shown in the Palupatti. The entire extent of land that was allotted to the share of Hanumanthappa was acquired by the Indian Railway long back and that extent of land is no more existing. The said fact was also brought to the notice of plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1 through reply to the legal notice dated 30.10.2012. There exist no joint family status as of now and the joint family properties have been divided, allotted and acted upon among the family members of Hanumanthappa by metes and bounds vide Palupatti executed on 18.06.1993. The cloth business that was allotted to the defendant No.2 was suffered huge loss and it was closed during the lifetime of Hanumanthappa.
19. The defendant No.2 has further contended in the written statement that subsequent to the allotment of his share, the defendant No.2 got all the revenue records changed in his name and more than two decades the katha extract do stand in his name and taxes have been paid on the said properties and on that strength, a portion of property in Sy.No.49/2 measuring East to West 32 feet and North to South 51+52½ feet was sold to the defendants No.4 and 5 vide registered sale deed dated 15.10.2003. The defendant No.2 alone has exclusive right to sell his allotted portion of the property and thus consent of his brothers would never arise. The defendants No.4 and 5 are bonafide purchasers who acquired the title and interest from the defendant No.2.
20. The said Palupatti was accepted by all the members of Hanumanthappa by affixing their respective signatures on the pages of 16 O.S.No.1100/2016 Palupatti. The plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1 are not illiterates to blindingly accept the palupatti or affix their signatures. The suit is collusive suit by the plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1. At one breath, they have issued a legal notice on 30.10.2012 admitting the family properties so vested with Hanumanthappa under his karthaship has been partitioned and shares have been allotted to all the LRs of Hanumanthappa. On the other hand, this suit is being initiated for partition on the ground that there is no division of properties among the family members and it is a joint family and are not aware of recitals of Palupatti. Since the said Palupatti stipulates the forming of respective shares of parties and also being given effect thereto, it is evident from the fact that the defendant No.1 and plaintiff No.2 having sold the house situated at Sanjaynagar which came to their share. If at all the plaintiffs are of the opinion that there was no partition among the family members of Hanumanthappa, then the property that situated at Sanjaynagar was a joint family property and the sale proceeds received are also joint family property and as the sale proceeds are used in acquiring the land for an extent of 5000 sq.ft in Horamavu by the plaintiff No.2 and equal extent of land along with apartment of 4 floors of 10 flats at Kasturinagar by the defendant No.1 are also to be added for partition as these properties would be under the umbrella of joint family properties of late Hanumanthappa. In the absence of adding those properties, the suit is not maintainable and has to be dismissed on this count alone. The suit is even bad on the count of limitation. If minor's stake is involved, the minor has to reopen the partition within 3 years of attaining majority. It is alien to law of succession for plaintiff No.1 to seek partition on behalf of his father/ plaintiff No.2 when he is alive.
17 O.S.No.1100/201621. The defendant No.2 has not disputed the genealogical tree and also not disputed all the properties are either self-acquired or ancestral properties of Hanumanthappa. It is denied that the property bearing No.38 situated at Sanjaynagar was self-acquired property of plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1. It is also denied that the property situated at Standage Road, Frazer town was orally allotted to the three sons of Hanumanthappa. The Palupatti stipulates that all the three sons were allotted undivided share in the property and on the strength of it, the plaintiffs have let the II floor for rent to Empire Group of Hotels and the defendant No.1 let the ground floor for rent to Karma Hotels for lakhs of rupees every month. The defendant No.2 has no other premises unlike his brothers being allotted stays there with his family in the first floor.
22. The defendant No.2 further denied the plaint averments that the floor mill or small sheds existed at the time of Hanumanthappa, but the floor mill and the sheds owned and operated by Hanumanthappa were closed down during his life time itself. The sheds that existing are built by defendant No.2 out of his earnings and the plaintiffs have no right over the property or on the income derived from the sheds. There is no specific cause of action has been averred in the plaint and in the absence of cause of action, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the defendant No.2 prays to dismiss the suit.
23. The defendant No.3 has stated in the written statement that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition by suppressing several material facts and misrepresenting the facts. Admittedly though the defendant No.3 is the sister of plaintiff No.2 and defendants No.1 and 2 and having equal share in the properties of her father Hanumanthappa, the 18 O.S.No.1100/2016 plaintiffs have filed the present suit with a false claim that only the plaintiff No.2 and defendants No.1 and 2 have equal rights over the suit schedule properties. The defendant No.3 admits the relationship between the parties and the suit A and B schedule properties fallen to the share of A. Hanumanthappa in a registered partition deed dated 02.12.1971 among Hanumanthappa and his brothers. However, in respect of said properties, the sisters of Hanumanthappa had filed O.S.No.1635/1980 (old O.S.No.115/1977) for partition and separate possession, and the said suit came to be decreed in respect of suit A and B schedule properties and the same came to be confirmed in RFA No.300/2002. In pursuant to the said partition decree, FDP No.132/2010 is pending before the CCH-23. This defendant is entitled to a share in the share of Hanumanthappa. These facts are suppressed by the plaintiffs in the present suit. In so far as suit schedule C, D and E properties of late Hanumanthappa, the defendant No.3 being the Class-I heir is entitled to equal share along with plaintiff No.2 and defendants No.1 and 2.
24. The defendant No.3 has specifically denied the contention of the plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1 that they have jointly purchased the property bearing No.38 at Sanjaynagar vide sale deed dated 03.12.1980. The defendant No.3 has contended that the said property was acquired by the plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1 with the help of joint family fund during the lifetime of A. Hanumanthappa. They secretly sold the said property and acquired certain other properties from the sale proceeds and as such, the property so acquired are also the joint family property and this defendant has also got share in the said properties. She would file a necessary amendment application 19 O.S.No.1100/2016 seeking to include the said properties also in the present suit for partition after obtaining necessary particulars.
25. The defendant No.3 has further denied that the suit schedule A property orally allotted to plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 by late Hanumanthappa. It is submitted that in spite of partition decree in O.S.No.1635/1980, the plaintiffs are trying to make false claim seeking to exclude this defendant from any share in the said property. It is further denied the contention taken by the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 have equal share in the suit schedule B property. The defendant No.3 has stated that schedule B property is also subject matter of partition decree in O.S.No.1635/1980 and she has share in the share of late A. Hanumanthappa. She has admitted that after the death of her father, the cloth business was running by defendant No.2 and it appears to have clandestinely sold the said business to third party and hence, the defendant No.2 is accountable to income that was earned by him from the said business and also the sale proceeds of the said business and this defendant has equal share in the said income and sale proceeds.
26. The defendant No.3 has further stated that the allegation that the plaintiff No.2 and defendants No.1 and 2 have equal share in the properties left behind by late Hanumanthappa is patently false and untenable and the same reflects the attitude of plaintiffs in seeking to deprive this defendant of any share in the suit properties. She has further denied that only the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 constitute the joint family.
20 O.S.No.1100/201627. It is admitted the contention of plaintiff that the defendant No.2 has got changed the revenue records in his name in respect of flour mill property and land in Sy.No..48/2 and 49/2 (suit schedule C and D properties). The defendant No.3 has also contended that the defendant No.2. has no right to claim any exclusive right over the said property only on the basis of revenue entries in his favour and she has a share in the said properties. The sale deed dated 15.10.2003 executed by the defendant No.2 in favour of defendants No.4 and 5 in respect of schedule D property (suit schedule E property) is illegal and the same does not bind her share.
28. The defendant No.3 has further contended that the allegations relating to unregistered palupatti relied upon by the defendant No.2 is true. It is also contended that the said palupatti has been created by defendant No.2 and he has taken undue advantage of the said document even though the same was never acted upon. The said document clearly indicate that this defendant has not got any share in the suit schedule properties and the same was never acted upon and it was not brought to the notice of the Court in O.S.No.1635/1980 even though the plaintiff No.2 and defendants No.1 to 3 were parties to the said proceedings. In this background, the defendant No.2 cannot claim any exclusive rights over the suit schedule properties on the basis of alleged palupatti.
29. It further contended in the written statement of defendant No.3 that the various allegations relating to legal notice do not pertain to her and she is not a party to the same. The defendant No.3 has further contended that the plaintiffs have not referred about pendency of FDP No.132/2010. It is further submitted that the defendant No.3 is also 21 O.S.No.1100/2016 entitled to a share in the suit schedule 'A to E' properties and she is in joint possession of the same.
30. The defendant No.5 has filed written statement contending that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable and it is filed in collusion with defendants No.1 to 3 with malafide intention to harass the defendant No.5 who is bonafide purchaser. The defendant No.5 has contended that he has no knowledge regarding the averments of plaint and he denied the plaint para-3 to 10 as false and they are created stories only for the purpose of filing the suit.
31. It is further contended that the defendant No.3 is concerned with only the schedule E property out of the schedule properties of the suit. One Hanumanthappa- father of defendant No.2 is the vendor of this defendant and his brother is Poornaiah and both sons of Anjanappa had originally acquired the schedule E property jointly and they being the absolute owners having right and title over the schedule E property had pruchased the same vide sale deed dated 08.04.1974. After purchasing the said property, the revenue records stood in their names. Thereafter Hanumanthappa and Poornaiah entered into a oral partition on 20.10.1985 and the schedule E property was allotted to Hanumanthappa and after his death, the defendant No.2 succeeded to the said property and also acquired rights and title of the said property by way of family partition dated 18.06.1993. The defendant No.2 has been paying taxes being the owner of the property and khatha stands in his name and has got individual right and title over the said property. Thereafter defendant No.2 sold the schedule E property in favour of defendant No.4 and this defendant No.5 jointly for his family and legal necessities for valuable sale consideration of Rs.2,28,000/- vide sale 22 O.S.No.1100/2016 deed dated 15.10.2003. Thereafter the defendants No.4 and 5 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same and allt he revenue records stands in their names.
32. The defendant No.5 has further contended that on 16.11.2009, there was a partition between the defendants No.4 and 5 in respect of schedule E property and in the said partition, commercial property No.34 situated at Kadugondanahalli was divided into two parties i.e., western side of the said property measuring East to West 16 feet and North to South 52 + 51 ½ feet totally measuring 824 sq.ft. along with 8 squares shed was allotted to the defendant No.4 and and another portion of the Eastern side of the said property measuring East to West 16 feet and North to South 52 + 51 ½ feet totally measuring 824 sq.ft. along with 8 squares shed was allotted to defendant No.5. Therefore, based on the said partition, the revenue records stand in their name and they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective shares.
33. It is further stated in the written statement of defendant No.5 that as in view of the partition among the LRs of Hanumanthappa on 18.06.1993, the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and defendants No.1 to 3 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective shares, the question of again partitioning the suit schedule properties does not arise at all. The plaintiffs have come up seeking partition of schedule E property after a lapse of 13 years and as such, the suit is barred by time. The plaintiffs have not made some necessary parties and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.
23 O.S.No.1100/201634. The defendant No.7 has also taken the same contention as that of defendant No.5 in the written statement and denied the plaint allegations made in para-3 to 14 and denied the same. It is also the contention of defendant No.7 that Hanumanthappa and his brother Poornaiah had originally acquired the schedule E property jointly and and thereafter they got divided the said property, in which the above said property was allotted to the share of Hanumanthappa. During the life time of said Hanumanthappa, he and his children have entered into partition dated 18.06.1993 by dividing the family properties- A to E schedule properties, out of which D schedule property is fallen to the share of the defendant No.2. The property bearing Sy.No.49/2 of Kadugondanahalli i.e, the suit item No.D is fallen to the share of defendant No.2 and later on, the defendant No.2 had changed the relevant revenue entries in his name as per the said family partition deed. The plaintiffs without whispering anything about the partition falsely filed the suit. Thereafter the defendant No.2 for his legal necessity sold the schedule E property totally measuring 1648 sq.ft. on 15.10.2003 in favour of defendants No.4 and 5 and in turn, the defendants No.4 and 5 entered with partition on 16.11.2009, in which the defendant No.5 had acquired 824 sq.ft of the property mentioned in E schedule property and it is part and parcel of D schedule property. Subsequently, the defendant No.5 sold the property measuring 824 sq.ft in favour of this defendant No.7 for valuable consideration for his legal and family necessity vide sale deed dated 19.05.2017. This defendant had changed the revenue entries in his name and paid the taxes to the concerned authorities and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property as an absolute owner and as such, the defendant No.7 is the bonafide purchaser. The plaintiffs have intentionally suppressed the material facts and thereby they are guilty 24 O.S.No.1100/2016 of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. Hence, the defendant No.7 prays to dismiss the suit with an exemplary costs.
35. The defendant No.8 has filed written statement contending that the allegations made in the plaint in respect of portion of E and D schedule properties are denied as false and the suit is not maintainable. This defendant has also denied the averments made in para-3 to 14 as false and baseless. It is also the contention of defendant No.8 as contended by defendant No.7 that Hanumanthappa and his brother- Poornaiah had originally acquired the schedule E property jointly and thereafter they have got divided the said property, in which the above said property was allotted to the share of Hanumanthappa. During the life time of said Hanumanthappa, he and his children have entered into partition dated 18.06.1993 by dividing the family properties - A to E schedule properties, out of which, D schedule property is fallen to the share of the defendant No.2. The property bearing Sy.No.49/2 of Kadugondanahalli i.e, the suit item No.D is fallen to the share of defendant No.2 and later on, the defendant No.2 had changed the relevant revenue entries in his name as per the said family partition deed. Thereafter the defendant No.2 for his legal necessity sold the schedule E property totally measuring 1648 sq.ft. on 15.10.2003 in favour of defendants No.4 and 5.
36. The defendant No.8 has further contended that the defendants No.4 and 5 entered into partition on 16.11.2009, in which the defendant No.4 had acquired 824 sq.ft of the property mentioned in E schedule property and it is part and parcel of D schedule property. Subsequently, the defendant No.4 sold the property measuring 824 sq.ft in favour of Mohammed Aslam S/o Saleem Ahmed fo a valuable 25 O.S.No.1100/2016 consideration for his legal and family necessity vide sale deed dated 08.10.2010. Subsequently, said Mohammed Aslam sold the said property in favour of this defendant No.8 for a valuable sale consideration amount vide registered sale deed dated 13.09.2013 and thereafter this defendant had changed the revenue entries in his name and paid all the taxes and thereby he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property as an absolute owner and as such, the defendant No.8 is the bonafide purchaser.
37. The defendant No.8 has further contended that the plaintiffs have intentionally suppressed the material facts and thereby they are guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. There is no cause of action for the suit and the Court fee paid is not proper and not in accordance with law. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiffs have not come before the Court with clean hands and hence the defendant No.8 prays to dismiss the suit with an exemplary costs.
38. On basis of pleadings of both plaintiffs and defendants, the following issues and additional issues have been framed:
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that he is entitle for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule (A) to (D) properties by metes and bounds?
2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that he is entitle for mense profit out of suit schedule property?
3) Whether the defendant No.3 proves that she is in joint possession and she is entitle for share in the suit schedule (A) to (E) properties?
4) What decree or order?26 O.S.No.1100/2016
Addl. Issues No.1 and 2 framed on 27.06.2024:
1. Whether the defendant No.7 proves that the defendant No.4 and 5 have entered into partition dated 16.11.2009 and the defendant No.5 has acquired the 'E' schedule property which is part and parcel of 'D' schedule?
2. Whether the defendant No.7 proves that he has purchased the property measuring 824 sq.ft.
from defendant No.5 and he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the said property?
Addl. Issue No.3 framed on 07.12.2024:
3. Whether the defendant No.8 proves that he is the bonafide purchaser and he has purchased property measuring 824 sq.ft. in the plaint "E' schedule property part and parcel of 'D' schedule property from one Mohammed Aslam by sale deed dated 13.09.2013?
39. In support of the plaintiffs suit, the plaintiff No.2 got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.78. On the other hand, on behalf of defendants, the defendant No.2 got examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked Exs.D.1 to 72, the defendant No.3 got examined herself as D.W.2 and got marked Exs.D.73 to D.97, the defendants No.7 got examined himself as D.W.3 and got marked Exs.D.98 to D.113, the defendant No.8 is examined as D.W.4 and got marked Exs.D.114 to 130 and the defendant No.5 got examined himself as D.W.5 and one witness by name Joseph T. is examined as D.W.6 and got marked his signature as Ex.D.3(a) in Palupatti. The defendant No.2 has also got examined one witness as P.W.6.
40. Heard the arguments of counsels for plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs have filed written arguments and also filed further written 27 O.S.No.1100/2016 arguments on the merits of the suit. The defendants No.3, 7 and 8 have also filed their respective written arguments. My answer to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: Partly affirmative,
Issue No.2: Negative,
Issue No.3: Partly affirmative,
Addl. Issue No.1 to 3: Affirmative,
Issue No.4: As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS
41. Issues No.1 to 3 & Addl. Issues No.1 to 3: These issues are discussed together to avoid repetition of facts and evidence as they are inter linked.
42. As could be seen from the plaint and written statement of all the defendants which are already in detail taken on record, the relationship of the parties is not in dispute when it is thoroughly considered the entire pleadings and evidence on record. As per the admitted genealogy, it is shown as under:
A. Hanumanthappa (died) Smt. B. Muniyamma (wife) (died) H. Ramaiah K. Kanthalakshmi H. Srinivas H. Chandrashekar (Df.No.1) (Df.No.3) (Df.No.2) Muniswamy (Pl.No.2) Dhevarath A.C. (Pl.No.1)
43. As could be seen from the evidence in examination-in-chief of P.W.1/ plaintiff No.2, he has in detail reiterated the plaint averments contending that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3 rd share in the A to D schedule properties and they are entitled for mesne profit out of suit 28 O.S.No.1100/2016 schedule properties. The further evidence of P.W.1 is that no any partition has taken place in respect of the schedule properties whereas the defendant No.2 has falsely created the partition deed by way of alleged family settlement.
44. The P.W.1 has in respect of plaint contentions and the evidence in examination-in-chief got marked Ex.P.1- Affidavit sworn by the witness showing the genealogical tree, Ex.P.2- khatha extract pertaining to Schedule C property, Exs.P.3 & 4- khatha extracts, Ex.P.5- Certified copy of the sale deed dated 05.05.1974, Ex.P.6- Partition deed dated 02.12.1971, Ex.P.7- Encumbrance certificate for the year 1974-2004 pertaining to Schedule C and D property, Ex.P.8- Encumbrance certificate for the year 2004-2015 pertaining to Schedule C and D property, Ex.P.9- Certified copy of the sale deed dated 15.10.2003, Ex.P.10- Certified copy of RTC with respect to Sy.No.48 of Kadugondanahalli Village from 1965-66 to 1968-69, Ex.P.11- Certified copy of RTC with respect to Sy.No.48 ofKadugondanahalli Village from 1971-72 to 1973-74, Exs.P.12 to 16- Certified copies of RTC with respect to Sy.No.48 of Kadugondanahalli Village from 1982-83 to 1987-88, from 1988-89 to 1991-92, from 1993-94 to 1995-96, from 1997-98 to 1999-2000 and 2020-21, Exs.P.17 to 23- Certified copy of RTC with respect to Sy.No.49 of Kadugondanahalli Village from 1965-66 to 1970-71, from 1971-72 to 1975-76, from 1982-83 to 1987-88, from 1988-89 to 1991-92, from 1993-94 to 1996-97, from 1997-98 to 2000-2001 and 2018-19, Ex.P.24- Certified copy of gift deed dated 25.02.2011, Ex.P.25- Certified copy of cancellation gift deed dated 20.04.2011, Ex.P.26- Certified copy of sale deed dated 20.04.2011, Ex.P.27- Copy of RTC with respect to Sy.No.27/1 of Kadugondanahalli Village for the year 29 O.S.No.1100/2016 2018-19, Exs.P.28 and 29- Certified copies of sale deeds dated 17.05.1960 and 01.09.2004, Ex.P.30- Certified copy of sale deed dated 09.03.2006 executed by H. Srinivas represented by GPA holder Mohammed Anwar in favour of Smt. Farzana, Ex.P.31- Certifiedcopyx of sale deed dated 09.03.2006 executed by H. Srinivas represented by GPA holder Mohammed Anwar in favour of Smt. Ashrafunniss, Exs.P.32 to 34- Certified copies of sale deeds dated 08.04.2022, 05.07.2013, 07.10.2013, 08.11.2020, 16.01.2024, 10.06.2023, 21.04.2004, 26.05.2010, 17.01.2003, 13.05.2004, 23.04.2003 and 18.02.2000, Ex.P.45- Copy of RTC with respect to Sy.No.88/2 of Kadugondanahalli for the year 2018-19, Exs.P.46 to 58 Certified copy of sale deed dated 08.01.1949, Ex.P.47- Certified copy of sale deed dated 07.02.2005, 21.03.2011, 20.02.2023, 07.02.2005, 13.10.1980, 22.11.1980, 15.12.2011, 23.12.2020, 14.07.2021, 16.09.2017, 21.08.2018 and 13.02.2008, Ex.P.59- Certified copy of GPA dated 10.02.1982 executed by H. Srinivas, Ex.P.60- Certified copy of sale deed dated 31.08.1995, Ex.P.61- Certified copy of sale deed dated 03.10.2003 executed by M. Shankarnarayanarepresented by GPA holder Shanthkumar in favour of H. Ramaiah with respect to site No.99/1, Ex.P.62- Certified copy of sale deed dated 03.10.2003 executed by M. Shankarnarayana represented by GPA holder Shanthkumar in favour of H. Ramaiah with respect to site, Exs.P.63 to 70 are certified copies of sale deeds dated 07.08.2008 and 01.08.2003, rectification deed dated 29.01.2014, FIR in Cr.No.312/2023, complaint in PCR No.55293/2023, complaint in PCR No.55293/2023, sale deeds dated 08.10.2010 and 13.09.2013, Exs.P.71 to 73- certified copies of plaint, judgment and decree in O.S.No.1635/1980, Ex.P.74- certified copy of release/ relinquishment deed, Ex.P.75- certified copy of compromise petition in FDP 30 O.S.No.1100/2016 No.32/2024, Ex.P.76- Original Marks card and Exs.P.77 and 78- BESCOM Electricity bills.
45. As could be seen from the evidence in the cross-examination of P.W.1, it is admitted the suggestion that name of grandfather is H. Anjanappa, to whom the sons namely A. Hanumanthappa, A. Poornaiah, A. Jayaram and A. Shyamaiah and four daughters namely Lakshmamma, Gowramma, Pillamma and Lakshmidevamma and there was partition dated 02.12.1971 among the said persons including H. Anjanappa and in the said partition, Hanumanthappa being the father of plaintiff No.2 got two properties. It is further admitted that in the partition dated 02.12.1971, there were ancestral and self-acquired properties.
46. It is further stated that the said partition was in respect of the property in which they were resided, but no any partition had taken place in respect of other properties. In the further cross-examination, the P.W.1 admits that in O.S.No.1635/1980, filed by the daughters of H. Anjanappa, his father and uncles are the parties for partition and subsequent to the death of his father Hanumanthappa, all the legal heirs have been made as parties in the said suit.
47. The P.W.1 has shown his ignorance about the suggestion that in O.S.No.1635/1980, decree has been passed by awarding equal shares to all the daughters. In the further cross-examination by the counsel for defendant No.2, it is stated that he has no knowledge about the fact that Sy.No.48 is having an extent of 18.5 guntas. It is admitted the suggestion that suit Sy.No.49 measures 4 guntas and he has no knowledge about the fact that in Sy.No.49, land has been 31 O.S.No.1100/2016 acquired for Bangalore Development Authority. It is admitted suggestion that Sy.No.29 was allotted to the grandfather- H. Anjanappa and further stated that he has produced the document to show that documents of Sy.No.27, 48 and 49 transferred to the children of deceased H. Anjanappa. It is further stated that there is no any division of non-agricultural sites in Sy.No.27, 48 and 49.
48. In the further cross-examination on behalf of defendant No.2, P.W.1 has shown his ignorance about the suggestion that as per Ex.P.33 to 35, 38 and 40 to 44 in respect of Sy.No.27, there is sale transaction made by his father through GPA. P.W.1 has denied the suggestion that himself put his signature as witness in respect of site No.39 sold by his father only.
49. It is further shown his ignorance about the suggested fact of share given to his father in Sy.No.88/1, 88/2 and 88/3. He has further stated that in Sy.No.88/1, 88/2 and 88/3 sites were formed and the same might have been sold by H. Anjanappa and his children. P.W.1 has further stated that he has no knowledge about the fact that his father H. Anjanappa had sold 18 sites out of Sy.No.88/2 as per Ex.P.47- sale deed and further do not know about the fact that his father and his father's brothers have sold site No.1 of Sy.No.82/2 through GPA.
50. In the further cross-examination of P.W.1 by the counsel for defendant No.2, it is admitted the suggestion that his father took partition by way of registered partition deed of the year 1971. It is further admitted the suggestion that his mother- Muniyamma had income from 20 cows. It is further admitted the suggestion that suit A 32 O.S.No.1100/2016 schedule property has fallen to his father's share out of joint family properties and in the said property having three-floor building, he was residing in second floor and subsequently, which has been given on rent for Empire Hotel by having agreement.
51. In the further cross-examination evidence, the P.W.1 admits that in the year 1966, his father has purchased a site at Gavipuram and admits the suggestion that schedule C and D properties in Sy.No.48/2 and 49/2 were jointly purchased by his father Hamumanthappa and his brother Poornaiah. It is denied the suggestion that the property No.38 of Geddalahalli was purchased in the name of him and one Ramaiah by his deceased father Hamumanthappa when they were in the joint family.
52. In the further cross-examination of P.W.1 on behalf of defendant No.2, it is denied the suggestion that site No.10 of Sy.No.134/1 has been purchased in the name of defendant No.2 by his father from their own income and further house No.38 of Sanjay Nagar has been purchased in the name of Ramaiah by his father Hamumanthappa. The P.W.1 has denied the suggestion that he had no separate income in the year 1980 and hence, his father has purchased house No.38 in the joint name of him and his brother- Ramaiah. It is further denied the suggestion that as the sisters of his father had filed a suit in the year 1978, site No.10 and 38 in Sy.No.60 were purchased in the name of him and his brother jointly. In the further cross-examination, the P.W.1 has denied the suggestion that on 18.06.1993 himself and his brothers and father got partitioned by way of Palupatti and thereby the kathas of partition were affected during the lifetime of their father only.
33 O.S.No.1100/201653. In the further cross-examination of the P.W.1 by defendant No.2, it is stated that he has no knowledge about the fact that Sanjay Nagar house property No.38 has not been impleaded in the suit. It is further denied the suggestion that Kadugondanahalli site No.10 has not been inserted in this suit. It is further denied the suggestion that Sanjay Nagar property No.38 came to him and his brother Ramaiah by way of Palupatti. It is further denied the suggestion that Sy.No.48/2 and 49/2 of Kadugondanahalli fallen to the share of defendant No.2- Srinivas. In the further cross-examination, the P.W.1 has stated that he has no knowledge about the fact that sale deed dated 22.09.2005 in respect of Sanjay Nagar house property No.38 contains his signature. He denies the suggestion that Sanjay Nagar house was constructed by the aid of joint family fund and thereby all the family members have put their signatures in the sale deed of the said property.
54. In the further cross-examination evidence on behalf of the defendant No.2, the P.W.1 admits that hisfamily members have got executed the release deed from one Gowramma and Lakshmidevamma being the sisters of his father by name Hamumanthappa. It is further stated that Ramaiah and defendant No.2 gave Rs.35 lakh each to their sisters. It is further denied the suggestion that he has stated in the plaint that his brother- Srinivas has taken share as per Palupatti. In the further cross-examination, the P.W.1 has shown his ignorance about the suggestion that the defendant No.1 has in his written statement stated that Sy.No.48/2 and 49/2 given to the share of defendant No.2. It is admitted the suggestion that in Sy.No.48/2 and 49/2, the defendant No.2 has constructed shed and further stated that Ex.P.2 to 4 khatha stands in 34 O.S.No.1100/2016 the name of defendant No.2- Srinivas as per the GPA executed by his mother.
55. In the further cross-examination, the P.W.1 has stated that in the year 1980, a decree might have been passed by holding that Sy.No.48/2 and 49/2 are self-acquired properties of his father Hamumanthappa. In the further cross-examination, the P.W.1 has stated that the second floor of suit A schedule building given to his share by way of oral talks. In the further cross-examination, the P.W.1 has denied the suggestion that suit B schedule property is not in existence as the same has been acquired by the railway department. It is further denied the suggestion that suit schedule C, D and E properties of Kadugondanahalli fallen to the share of defendant No.2.
56. In the further cross-examination on behalf of defendant No.2, the P.W.1 has denied the suggestion that on 18.06.1993, a partition was taken place between him and his brothers and accordingly, suit E schedule property bearing Sy.No.49/2 fallen to the share of defendant No.2 who for his family necessity sold to an extent of 1900 sq.ft. in Sy.No.49/2 in favour of defendants No.4 and 5.
57. In the further cross-examination of P.W.1 on behalf of defendant No.5, it is denied the suggestion that Palupatti dated 18.06.1993 was entered by him and his brothers, sisters and father, but subsequently, stated that as per said Palupatti, he has got share in Frazer Town in Sy.No.40/1 and 40/2. It is further stated that himself sold the site property fallen to his share. It is further shown his ignorance about the suggestion that the property to an extent of 32 x 52 feet out of Sy.No.49/2 has been sold by defendant No.2 for his necessity as per 35 O.S.No.1100/2016 Ex.P.9. The P.W.1 has denied the suggestion that khatha standing in the names of defendants No.4 and 5 who are purchasers of said property has not been changed, but no such documents are produced. Accordingly, the possession of defendants No.4 and 5 has not been questioned. It is further denied that though himself and his sisters have put their signatures to the Palupatti, stating falsely in order to trouble the defendants No.2, 4 and 5. It is further shown his ignorance about the suggestion that defendants No.7 and 8 have purchased the property from the defendants No.4 and 5.
58. As could be seen from the entire evidence in examination-in- chief of D.W.1/ defendant No.2, it is the reiteration of entire written statement and defendant has stated as per his cross-examination of P.W.1 against the suit claim of the plaintiffs.
59. In respect of said contentions, in respect of suit properties and such other properties, the D.W.1 has got marked Exs.D.1 to 72 documents; Exs.D.1 & D.2- Certified copies of partition deeds dated 02.12.1971 and 05.05.1974, Ex.D.3- Deed of Palupatti dated 18.06.1993, Ex.D.4- Memorandum of oral partition dated 20.10.1985, Exs.D.5 to 39- Tax paid receipts with respect to Sy.No.38, 38/3, 38/1, 38/2, 38/3, 48/2, 49/2, Nagavara, KG Halli, Exs.D.40 & 41- Bangalore- One receipt with respect to Sy.No.38/2 and 38/3, Nagavara KG Halli, dated 21.12.2012 for the year 2012-13, Ex.D.42- BBMP acknowledg - ment for the year 2012-13 dated 21.12.2012. Ex.D.43- Bangalore- One receipt with respect to Sy.No.38/1, Nagavara KG Halli, dated 21.12.2012 for the year 2012-13, Ex.D.44- BBMP acknowledgment for the year 2012-13 dated 21.12.2012, Ex.D.45- Office copy of legal notice dated 30.10.2012, Ex.D.46- Tax paid receipt with respect to Sy.
36 O.S.No.1100/2016No.38 for the year 2012-13, Ex.D.47- Certified copy of sale deed dated 03.12.1980, Ex.D.48- Certified copy of sale deed dated 12.04.1982, Ex.D.49- GPA dated 16.07.1980, Ex.D.50- Notarized copy of GPA dated, 18.03.1994, Exs.D.51 to 53- Notarized affidavit dated 18.03.1994, GPA dated 20.09.1989 and affidavit dated 20.09.1989, Exs.D.54 to 61- khatha certificates dated 17.08.2019 with respect to PID Nos.94-43-38, 94-43-38/1, 94-43-38/1, 94-43-38/2, 94-43-38/2, 94-43-38/3 and 94-43-38/3, Exs.D.62 to 67- Tax paid receipts in respect of Sy.No.38, 38/1, 38/2 and 38/3, Nagavara Ring Road, KG Halli, Exs.D.68 to 71- BBMP acknowledgments for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14 in respect of Sy.No.38/1, 38/2 and 38/3 and Ex.D.72- Certified copy of partition dated 22.09.2005.
60. As could be seen from the cross-examination of D.W.1 on behalf of the plaintiff, it is suggested that as per Partition Deed dated 02.12.1971, there was partition among Hanumanthappa and four sons in respect of suit Schedule A and B Schedule properties and the said suggestion has been admitted by the D.W.1. It is further suggested that in the said partition, some of the properties were also inserted. It is admitted the suggestion that in the year 1974, his father and his brother by name Poornaiah have purchased in Kadugondanahalli land bearing Sy.No.48 and also one acre of land in Sy.No.49. It is admitted that O.S.No.1635/1980 was filed by the sisters of his father Hanumanthappa and it has been decreed in view of plaint as per Ex.P.71 and the judgment and decree as per Exs.P.72 and P.73 and subsequently, RFA No.300/2002 was filed. It is admitted the further suggestion that all the family members have put their signatures to a release deed executed by his father's sister by name Lakshmamma as per Ex.P.74- certified copy of release deed. He has shown his 37 O.S.No.1100/2016 ignorance about the suggestion that FDP No.32/2004 was filed and sister by name Gowramma had filed compromise petition. It is denied the suggestion that he has sold the land Sy.No.71/ 1 by stating that he is the only son of Hanumanthappa.
61. In the further cross-examination of D.W.1, it is denied the suggestion that there were talks to get the release deed executed on payment of Rs.35 lakh in favour of Gowramma being the daughter of Hanumanthappa. The D.W.1 has shown his ignorance about the suggestion that suit A to D schedule properties in O.S.No.1635/1980 are similar to this suit schedule properties. It is stated that Sy.No.48/2 and 49/2 are the joint family properties and some have been got divided, but in the Palapatti, no share of the plaintiff No.2- Chandrasekhar has been shown. In the further cross-examination evidence, the D.W.1 admits the suggestion that there is no partition except partition in respect of suit properties in the year 1971. It is further stated that in respect of Sy.No.48 and 49, there is no order of its division as Sy.No.48/2 and 49/2. It is further shown his ignorance about the suggestion that in Ex.P.16 and 23 still mentioned as Sy.No.48 and 49. It is denied the suggestion that the name of plaintiff No.2 was initially as Muniswami and accordingly, his school marks card appears as per Ex.P.76. The D.W.1 has denied the suggestion that the plaintiff No.2 has never put his signature as Chandrasekhar in any earlier transactions including the suit in O.S. No.1635/1980. It is further admitted the suggestion that in Kadugondanahalli Sy.No.27/1, his father gave share to his four children, but the D.W.1 only has sold site as per Ex.P.29 with regard to Kadugondanahalli Sy.No.27/1.
38 O.S.No.1100/201662. In the further cross-examination, the D.W.1 admits that partition dated 26.01.1987 has not been produced. It is further admitted the suggestion that he has put his signature as witness to Ex.D.72- partition deed. It is denied the suggestion that during the pendency of O.S.No.1635/1980, the Palupatti was entered into in the year 1993. It is further admitted the suggestion that as per Ex.D.3- Palupatti, the first floor building of Frazer Town came to the name of D.W.1. He has further shown his ignorance about the suggestion that said Palupatti was produced in FDP No.132/2010. It is further admitted that in O.S.No.1635/1980, it is ordered that all the persons have right in B schedule property therein. It is further stated that in Frazer Town, second floor building has been allotted to the plaintiff No.2. It is denied the suggestion that no any share came to him in respect of suit schedule properties herein.
63. The D.W.1 has further shown his ignorance about the suggestion that the property bearing Sy.No.88/3 is shown as joint family property in the RTC. It is further denied the suggestion that in view of no partition taken place in respect of land bearing Sy.No.48 and 49, still RTC is appearing in the name of his brothers and father. It is denied the suggestion that by violating the compromise deed terms filed in FDP No.32/2004, donated/ gifted the floor mill in B schedule property as per Ex.P.24 in favour of his wife. The D.W.1 has further stated that he has got cancelled the Ex.P.24 gift deed as per Ex.P.25- gift cancellation deed. It is admitted the suggestion that some properties have been sold by him in favour of his wife as per Ex.P.26. It is admitted the suggestion that in Ex.P.24 to 26, his children are the witnesses. It is denied the suggestion that still the suit C and D schedule properties/ Sy.No.48/2 and 49/2 are all joint family properties 39 O.S.No.1100/2016 and accordingly having khathas. It is denied the suggestion that there are no registered document and consequent khatha pertaining to Sy.No.48/2 and 49/2. The D.W.1 has further stated that he has obtained holder khatha through authority letter of his mother in respect of Sy.No.48 and 49. In the further cross-examination evidence, the D.W.1 has stated that his mother, his brother and defendant No.3 have not executed any registered relinquishment or any other kind of document by way of registration. The D.W.1 has stated that except the Palupatti, no other document executed with regard to relinquishment of rights over the properties. The D.W.1 has further stated that he has got khatha from the BBMP in respect of properties as per 1993 Palupatti. The D.W.1 has admitted that the BESCOM bills and property of Frazer Town and Kadugondanahalli are as per Ex.P.77 and 78.
64. During the course of cross-examination on behalf of defendant No.7, the D.W.1 admits the suggestion that the suit schedule property are the joint family properties and got divided as per Palupatti in the year 1993. It is further admitted the suggestion that as per Palupatti, Sy.No.48/2 and 49/2 and the first floor property at Strandage Road fallen to his share and accordingly, he is in possession and for his necessity, sold Sy.No.49/2 in favour of defendants No.4 and 5 who in turn sold the said property in favour of defendant No.7.
65. As could be seen from the entire evidence in examination-in- chief of D.W.2/ defendant No.3, it is stated as that of the written statement filed and seeks her equal share in all the suit properties A to E properties which are in joint possession as she is the sister of plaintiff No.2. The defendant No.2 has got marked Ex.D.73 to 97. They are Ex.D.73- Certified copy of petition in WP No.132/2010, Ex.D.74- 40 O.S.No.1100/2016 Certified copy of application U/O 9 Rule 7 r/w sec.151 of CPC (I.A.No.10), Exs.D.75 and 76- Certified copies of written statement of defendant No.1 and written statement of LRs of defendant No.1(a) in O.S.No.1635/1980m Exs.D.77 to 80- Uttara patras issued by BBMP with respect to PID No.94-43-38, 94-43-38/1, 94-43-38/2 and 94-43- 38/3, which are marked subject to objections of defendants No.2, 5, 7 and 8, Exs.D.81 to 84- Certificates issued by BBMP dated 04.09.2024 with respect to PID No.94-43-38, 94-43-38/1, 94-43-38/2 and 94-43- 38/3, which are marked subject to objections of defendants No.2, 5, 7 and 8, Exs.D.85 to 88- Housing vacant site extract issued by BBMP with respect to PID No.94-43-38, 94-43-38/1, 94-43-38/2 and 94-43- 38/3, which are marked subject to objections of defendant No.2, 5, 7 and 8, Exs.D.89 & 90- RTC with respect to Sy.No.49 of Kadugondanahalli Village, Bengaluru North Taluk for the year 2018-19 and 2020-21, Ex.D.91- Certified copy of records of right Form No.5, Exs.D.92 to 94- Online certified copies of orders in W.P.No.21863/2024, W.P.No.15365/2024 and W.P.No.18818/2022, and Exs.D.95 to 97- Certified copies of partition deed dated 02.12.1971 and sale deeds dated 01.04.1974 and 27.04.2015.
66. During the course of cross-examination of D.W.2 on behalf of plaintiff, it is categorically stated that no any partition has taken place in respect of suit properties derived from her father Hanumanthappa. The D.W.2 has in the cross-examination on behalf of plaintiff categorically supported the plaintiffs' suit and further admitted the suggestion that all are having equal shares.
67. During the course of cross-examination of D.W.2 by the defendant No.2, particularly denies the material aspect which have 41 O.S.No.1100/2016 been similarly denied by P.W.1 in his cross-examination. The entire evidence in the cross-examination of D.W.2 is the replica of the similar evidence in cross-examination of P.W.1 claiming equal share in the suit properties. It is particularly denied the suggestion that by hearing the words of plaintiff No.2 stating falsely.
68. During the course of cross-examination of D.W.2 on behalf of defendants No.7 and 8 who are the purchasers of suit properties in Sy.No.49/2 from the defendants No.4 and 5, she denied the earlier partition in respect of joint family properties during the lifetime of her father and mother.
69. As could be seen from the evidence in examination-in-chief of D.W.3/ defendant No.7, it is stated that he is concerned with the suit schedule E property being portion of suit D schedule property and during the lifetime of Hamumanthappa being the father of plaintiff and defendant No.3, a deed of partition dated 18.06.1993 was entered into in respect of division of family A to E schedule properties and out of the same, D schedule property was fallen to the share of defendant No.2 who subsequently got revenue entries in his name as per family partition dated 18.06.1993, as per which, it is mentioned as E schedule property fallen to the share of plaintiff No.2- Chandrasekhar who without whispering anything about the said partition filed the suit.
70. It is further stated by D.W.3 that for his legal necessity, sold the portion of D schedule property measuring 1648 sq.ft. on 15.10.2003 in favour of defendants No.4 and 5 who in turn entered into a partition on 16.11.2009, in which the defendant No.5 has acquired 824 sq.ft. which is E schedule property and since then the defendant No.5 being the 42 O.S.No.1100/2016 owner in possession and enjoyment of the same has sold the property measuring 824 sq.ft. in favour of defendant No.7 for valuable consideration for his legal and family necessity and in view of sale deed dated 19.05.2017, the defendant No.7 got changed with revenue entries and paid up-to-date tax to the concerned authorities.
71. The D.W.3 has in his further evidence in examination-in-chief got marked Exs.D.98 to 113. They are Ex.D.98- Certified copy of sale deed dated 15.10.2003, Ex.D.99- Deed of Partition dated 16.11.2009, Ex.D.100- Sale Deed dated 19.05.2017, Exs.D.101 to 103- Khatha Certificates issued by BBMP with respect to PID No.94-43-34/1A, No.94-43-34/1A and No.94-43- 34/1A, Ex.D.104- Encumbrance certificate from 01.04.2017 to 01.09.2022 dated 01.09.2022, Exs.D.105 to 110- Tax paid receipts for the years 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25, Ex.D.111- Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed dated 06.02.2010, Ex.D.112- Letter of SBM dated 13.06.2014 and Ex.D.113- Discharge Deed dated 16.06.2014.
72. In the cross-examination evidence of D.W.3 on behalf of the plaintiff, shown ignorance about the suggestion that the property bearing Sy.No.49/2 is the joint family properties of plaintiffs and their brothers. It is denied the suggestion that purchased the said property in spite having knowledge that it is joint family property.
73. During the course of cross-examination of D.W.3 by the defendant No.2, it is admitted the suggestion that at the time of purchase of Sy.No.49/2 which was in the name of defendant No.2- Srinivas, it is further admitted the suggestion that he has been paying taxes to the said property.
43 O.S.No.1100/201674. As could be seen from the entire evidence in examination-in- chief of D.W.4/ defendant No.8, he has reiterated the evidence as that of D.W.3 and further stated that he has purchased the E schedule property measuring 824 sq.ft. from one Mohamed Aslam who sold for his family necessity vide registered sale date dated 13.09.2013 and accordingly, he is possession by paying property tax.
75. The D.W.4 has in support of his evidence got marked Ex.D.114 to 130. They are Ex.D.114- Sale deeds dated 08.10.2010 and 13.09.2013, Exs.D.116 & 117- BBMP khatha certificate with respect to PID No.94-43-34 and D No.94-43-34, Exs.D.118 and 119- EC forms, and Exs.D.120 to 130- BBMP tax paid receipts with respect to PID No.94-43-34.
76. During the course of cross-examination of D.W.4 on behalf of the plaintiff, it is stated that did not inquire as to whether any case pending in respect of the said property in the Court. It is denied the suggestion that at that time, one Mohamed Aslam had no right to sell the said suit property in his favour.
77. During the course of further cross-examination of D.W.4 by the defendant No.2, it is admitted the suggestion that he has seen the Palupatti in the name of Srinivas at the time of purchasing the same and even the property khatha was in the name of defendant No.2. It is admitted that he has been paying property tax by having property khatha in his name.
78. As could be seen from the entire evidence in examination-in- chief of D.W.5/ defendant No.5, he has purchased the Eschedule 44 O.S.No.1100/2016 property and reiterated the evidence of D.W.3 who purchased the E schedule property from him only. It is further stated that the defendant No.2 has sold the E schedule property in favour of defendants No.4 and 5 on 15.10.2003 and hence after lapse of 13 years the present suit came to be filed and thereby barred by time and also barred for non-joinder of necessary parties.
79. During the course of cross-examination of D.W.5 on behalf of the plaintiff, it is denied the suggestion that he was having knowledge in the year 2003 regarding pendency of suit in respect of present suit E schedule property. It is denied the suggestion that having knowledge that suit E schedule property is the joint family property, wrongly and intentionally sold the said property in favour of defendant No.7.
80. As could be seen from the entire evidence in examination-in- chief of D.W.6- a witness to the Palupatti dated 18.06.1993 repeated the contentions of defendant No.2 in respect of Palupatti dated 18.06.1993 and further particularly stated that suit A schedule property divided among all the family members of Hamumanthappa and B schedule property was allotted to Hamumanthappa, C schedule property wasallotted to Ramaiah, E schedule property was allotted to defendant No.2- Srinivas and E schedule property was allotted to Muniswamy @ Chandrasekhar- the plaintiff No.2 herein. It is further stated that Muniyamma- wife of Hamumanthappa and daughter of Hamumanthappa were also the signatories to the said Palupatti and they have relinquished their rights and the deed of Palupatti was drafted by one M. J. Kantaraj, Advocate and it was executed before one M.R. Suvarna, Advocate, Notary on 18.06.1993. The defendant No.6 has identified his signature as per Ex.D.3(a) in the Palupatti.
45 O.S.No.1100/201681. During the course of cross-examination of D.W.6 by the plaintiff, it is admitted the suggestion that the Palupatti was shown to him at the time of its notarizing. It is further stated that he has put his signature before the notary. It is further stated that at that time, one Kanthalakshmi and Chandrasekhar were also present. It is further stated that on reading the same, put his signature. It is further stated that Hamumanthappa had allotted the shares to his children from the properties derived in partition with his brothers. It is further stated that initially, Hamumanthappa put his signature and thereafter his wife and children put their signatures to the Palupatti dated 18.06.1993. It is further admitted the suggestion that he has been called to give evidence in view of the fact that he had put signature to the Palupatti. It is denied the suggestion that Chandrasekhar, Kanthalakshmi and Ramaiah never put their signatures to Ex.D.3- Palupatti. It is further denied the suggestion that signature of Chandrasekhar- the plaintiff No.2 herein has been got forged by the defendant No.2- Srinivas and got created the Palupatti as per Ex.D.3. It is denied the suggestion that deposing falsely in order to help the defendant No.2.
82. As could be seen from the written arguments filed by the plaintiff, it is further reiterated whatever oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiffs and defendants and mainly argued by denying the genuinity of the alleged Palupatti as per Ex.D.3 and further argued that unregistered Ex.D.3 dated 18.06.1993 is untenable in law to consider the contentions of the defendants. It is further contended in entire written argument of the plaintiffs that the defendant No.2 has forged and fabricated the notarized GPA and illegally claiming the rights over the suit schedule properties on the basis of further Ex.D.4- memorandum of oral partition which is an unregistered 46 O.S.No.1100/2016 document and further does not disclose any prior partition to validate the Ex.D.3- Palupatti dated 18.06.1993.
83. In the further written arguments of the plaintiff contended that the documents relied upon by the defendants are by way of misrepresentation and invalidates Ex.D.3 which is wholly inadmissible in law. In the further written arguments, the plaintiffs have relied upon certain rulings in addition to separate list of citations produced in the suit in respect of contentions in the plaint and consequent evidence given by P.W.1/ plaintiff No.2. In the written arguments, it is further argued that the alleged sale deed executed by the defendant No.2 and subsequently. the sale deed executed by the other defendants in respect of schedule properties does not create any conveyance to the purchasers as basically the defendant No.2 do not have any valid rights over the suit properties on the basis of Ex.D.3- Palupatti dated 18.06.1993 and such other documents mentioned in the written arguments.
84. The plaintiffs have orally argued that Ex.P.6 is the alleged partition deed entered into by Hamumanthappa and his brothers during the lifetime of their father. Ex.P.71 is the suit filed by sisters of said Hamumanthappa in O.S.No.1635/1980 and consequently, as per Ex.P.72- judgment and decree in respect of the said suit, 1/8 th share awarded for plaintiffs No.1 to 4 and the defendants No.1 to 4 in the suit A schedule property shown at Sl.No.1 to 5, 7 and 8 alone and in B schedule, lands at Sl.No.1 to 3.
85. The counsel for defendant No.2 has orally argued as similarly mentioned in the written arguments by referring Exs.P.2 and 3 47 O.S.No.1100/2016 showing present C and D schedule property allotted to the share of defendant No.2, Ex.P.6- partition deed showing A schedule property allotted to Hamumanthappa, Ex.P.9- sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.5, Exs.P.10 to 23- RTCs in the name of Hamumanthappa and others, Exs.P.24 to 26- sale deeds executed for legal necessity of defendant No.2, Exs.P.27 and 28- RTCs in respect of lands for which no pleadings in the plaint, Exs.P.29 to 44- sale deeds in respect of Sy.No.27/1 for which no pleadings in the plaint, Ex.P.45 to 59 in respect of Sy.No.88/1 for which no pleadings and no prayer in the plaint.
86. In the further oral arguments of defendant No.2, it is argued that in view of admission in the cross-examination of P.W.1 regarding partition in the household property and also deriving income by the plaintiffs, they are not entitled for shares in the suit properties.
87. The learned counsel for defendant No.2 has further in the oral argument argued that Ex.D.50- GPA (with regard to B schedule property) executed by father of defendant No.2 and in view of sale of property in favour of defendant No.7, the further partition deeds entered into by the purchasers taken place in respect of suit E schedule property.
88. The counsels for defendant No.3 has adopted the arguments of plaintiffs.
89. As per the records in the case, the plaintiffs have filed memo that present suit A and B schedule properties are not to be partitioned and further filed memo that suit A schedule property herein has been decided in O.S.No.1635/1980 and against which RFA No.300/2002 has been allowed.
48 O.S.No.1100/201690. From the entire aforesaid material, it appears that the plaintiffs are not claiming any share in suit A and B schedule properties. It further appears that as per the evidence on record that the suit E schedule property is the portion of suit D schedule property and thereby the suit E schedule property has went on by hand to hand and actually in possession of the respective purchasers of it.
91. The plaintiffs have in support of their contentions that Palupatti- Ex.D.3 relied upon by the defendant No.2 is not tenable in law and further it is unregistered document and thereby no value could be attached, relied upon the following rulings:
1. 1914 SCC OnLine PC 28 (Musammat Hiran Bibi and others -Vs- Musammat Sohan Bibi
2. 1964 SCC OnLine SC 35 (Potti Lakshmi Perumallu -Vs- Potti Krishnavenamma)
3. 1965 SCC OnLine 17 (Ram Charan Das -Vs- Girja Nandini Devi and others)
4. (1973) 2 SCC 312 (S. Shanmugam Pillai and others -Vs- K. Shanmugam Pillai and others)
5. (1976) 3 SCC 119 (Kale and others -Vs- Deputy Director of Consolidation and others)
6. (1991) 3 SCC 647 (S. Sai Reddy -Vs- S. Narayana Reddy and others)
7. 1995 Supp (2) SCC 428 (Digambar Adhar Patil -Vs- Devram Girdhar Patil (Died) and another
8. 2002 SCC OnLine Bom 18 (Smt. P.N. Wankudre -Vs- C.S. Wankudre and others)
9. 2003 SCC OnLIne AP 600 (Ms. Kavitha Goud -Vs- Nookala Sudarshan Reddy and others)
10. (2004) 7 SCCC 708 (Sayed Muhammed Mashur Kunhi Koya Thangal -Vs- Badagara Jumayath Palli Dharas Committee and others)
11. (2015) 16 SCC 787 (Yellapu Uma Maheshwari and another -Vs-
Buddha Jagadheeswararao and others) 49 O.S.No.1100/2016
12. W.P.No.83569/2013 (GM-RES) (Puttalinganagouda and others
-Vs- The Union of India and others)
13. (2016) 2 SCC 36 (Prakash and others Phulavati and others)
14. (2016) 8 SCC 705 (Subraya M.N. -Vs- Vittala M.N. and others)
15. 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12046 (Shri Rakesh Malhotra -Vs- Shri Vikas Malhotra and Another)
16. 2018 SCC OnLine Kar 4492 (H.A. Venugopal -Vs- H.A. Murthy)
17. 2019 SCC OnLine All 5881 (Ganga Prasad Rai -Vs- Kedar Nath Rai and another)
18. (2019) 6 SCC 409 (Thulasidhara and another -Vs- Narayanappa and another)
19. 2020 AIR CC 2115 (KAR) (Nagappa S/o Channabasappa Soppin - Vs- Sumangala @ Basavannemma)
20. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 262 (Prasanta Kumar Sahoo and others -Vs- Charulata Sahu and others)
21. ILR 2009 KAR 458 (Jayamma -Vs- The Assistant Revenue Officer and others)
22. 2008(6) Mh.L.J (Mahadeo S/o Tulsiram Pathade (Dead) through LRs Punjab S/o Mahadeo Pathade and others -Vs- Vatsalabai wd/o Shamrao Pathade)
23. Regular First Appeal No.345/2019 (Sri. K.R. Ravishankar and another -Vs- Smt. Vijayamma and others)
24. (2003) 8 SCC 740 (Kashinath (Dead) through LRs -Vs- Jaganath)
25. (1987) 3 SCC 711 (Vinod Kumar Arora -Vs- Surjit Kaur)
26. Regular Second Appeal No.7083/2012 (DEC/INJ) (Vimalabai -Vs- Shivanand and others)
27. (2020) 9 SCC 1 (Vineeta Sharma -Vs- Rakesh Sharma and others)
28. Pushpa Devi -Vs- Commissioner Of Income Tax. New Delhi on 30 August, 1977 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
29. (1971) 79 ITR (SN) 30 (Vrajlal Trikamlal -Vs- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ahmedabad)
30. D.N.Kalia -Vs- R.N. Kalia in RFA No.72/2008 in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi 50 O.S.No.1100/2016
92. The plaintiffs have in support of their contention produced the copy of RFA No.300/2002 for reference. As per which the said appeal has been dismissed by observing that there was no partition in the family and further four daughters and four sons succeeded to the property in equal share and each one of them are entitled to 1/8 th share in the property and if the legal representative of plaintiff No.1 have relinquished their interest under a registered relinquishment dated 05.12.2002, during the pendency of the said appeal, they will not be entitled to the share under the decree in the said appeal.
93. In the said RFA No.300/2002, the present plaintiff No.2 being the son of late A. Hamumanthappa is also party and further other brothers of deceased Hamumanthappa being the father of plaintiff No.2 herein were also the parties.
94. The plaintiffs further relied upon the rulings reported in (2018) 5 SCR 36 in the case of Shyam Narayan Prasad versus Krishna Prasad and others and in the said case it is held that since Ex.P.2 is an unregistered document is inadmissible in evidence in view of Sec.49 of the Registration Act and further it can neither be proved u/s.91 of the Evidence Act nor in oral evidence can be given to prove its contents.
95. The plaintiffs have further relied upon the following rulings:
1. ILR 2015 KAR 4715 (Venkataswamy and others -Vs- Smt. Annemma)
2. W.P.No.7581/2017 (Manish Singh Malukanai and others -Vs- Hari Prasad Gupta and another)
3. W.P.No.83586/2009 (K. Manjunath -Vs- Basavaraj and another)
4. RSA No.443/2019 (DEC/INJ) (G.E. Chandrappa -Vs-
Vishalakshamma) 51 O.S.No.1100/2016
5. RSA No.87/2010 (PAR) (Krishnappa Since dead his LRs. -Vs- Smt. Ashwathamma)
(b) The plaintiffs further relied upon the following citations:
1. AIR 1961 PAT 79: The Patna High Court in Brahmanath Singh -Vs- Chandrakali Kuer.
2. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Rohtas Singh and Another VS Jiwan Singh and Others (2009).
(c) The plaintiffs further relied upon the following citations:
1. CM (M) 37/2019 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (Sumer Singh Salkan -Vs- Vikram Singh Mann and others)
2. 1958 SCR 1111 ( Razia Begum -Vs- Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and others)
3. Civil Appeal No.3570/1991 of Hon'ble Supreme Court (Ramesh Hirachand Kundanmal -Vs- Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and others)
(d) The plaintiffs further relied upon the following citations:
1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surendra Kumar V. Phoolchand (Dead) through L.Rs. and Another, AIR 1996 SC 1148
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yellapu Uma Maheshwari & Anr V. Buddha Jagadheeswara Rao & Ors., 2015 AIR SCW 6184
3. The Madras High Court in Sonaimuthu V. Alagar (2024)
4. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jasraj Singh V. Udayraj Singh & Ors. (2024)
5. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Sanneerappa VS Mahadevamma (2024)
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sk. Sattar Sk. Mohd. Choudhari V. Gundappa Amabadas Bukate, AIR 1997 SC 998
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roshan Singh and Ors. V. Zile Singh and Ors., AIR 1988 SC 881
8. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in G E Chandrappa VS Smt Vishalakshamma (2024) 52 O.S.No.1100/2016
9. The Karnataka High Court in H.M. Sadashiva VS. H.M. Rajashekarappa (2023)
10. The Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in R. Babu Reddy V. K. M. Ramaiah Reddy (2024)
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shyam Narayan Prasad V. Krishna Prasad & Ors., AIR 2018
(e) The plaintiffs further relied upon the following citations:
1. ILR 2017 Kar 3387 (Karnataka High Court in Abdulsab Nannesab Totad Since Deceased by his LRS -vs. Sahadevappa Mallappa Suragond, Since Deceased by his LRs and Ors.) - Page No. 1 to 19
2. AIR 2001 Raj 372 Rajasthan High Court in Ganpat Mal Dhariwal
-Vs. Sukhraj & Anr.) - Page No. 20 to 30
3. AIR 1972 SC 2531 (Bailkuntha Nath Paramanik (dead) by his LRs.
and heirs -V-s Sashi Bhusan Paramanik (dead) by his LRs. and others)
96. As could be seen from the above referred rulings by the plaintiffs, same are with regard to the fact that partition of the family properties as per the memorandum of partition of joint family properties must be registered as per Sec.17 of Registration Act and in case of non-registration, it does not convey any right and title to the concerned parties.
97. On the other hand, in the written arguments the defendant No.2 has argued that the deceased Hamumanthappa had an intention of dividing all his ancestral and self-acquired properties acquired by him during his lifetime and executed Ex.D.3- Palupatti dated 18.06.1993 in favour of all of his sons by dividing A, B, C, D schedule properties of the suit and Sanjay Nagar property No.38 was also the subject of said partition and further the wife and daughters have relinquished their rights in the immovable properties and hence, Hamumanthappa never 53 O.S.No.1100/2016 died intestate. The other written arguments of defendant No.2 reveals the repetition of contentions taken in the written statement and also oral and documentary evidence relied upon by the plaintiffs and defendants and also the earlier suit in O.S.No.1635/1980- Ex.P.71 decided earlier among the deceased Hanumanthappa and his brothers and sisters in respect of ancestral properties as per which father of the defendant No.2 obtained certain properties and he has subsequently acquired certain properties on his own and hence, the defendant No.2 claims that there was severance of joint family status as per Palupatti dated 18.06.1993- Ex.D.3, Exs.D.54 to 71 and Exs.D.98 to 130, and further the evidence on record reveals the binding nature of Palupatti- Ex.D.3 against the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 and hence, the suit of the plaintiffs barred by limitation and for lack of cause of action and consequently, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
98. The counsel for defendant No.2 has in support of oral and written arguments relied upon the following rulings:
1. (2019) 6 SCC 409 (Thulasidhara and another -Vs- Narayanappa and others)
2. (2020) 9 SCC 1 (Vineeta Sharma -Vs- Rakesh Sharma and others)
(b) The defendant No.2 has further relied upon the following citations:
1. (2012) 1 SCC 656 (Suraj Lamp and Industries Pvt. Ltd (2) through Director -Vs- State of Haryana and another)
2. Privy Council Appeal No.47-13 of 1928 (Mussammat Bolo -Vs- Mst. Koklan and others)
3. (2006) 5 SCC 353 (Prem Singh and others -Vs- Birbal and others)
4. ILR 2009 KAR 1524 (Shanthappa and others -Vs-
Channabasavaiah and others) 54 O.S.No.1100/2016
99. As could be seen from the above referred citations, some are pertaining to proposition of law relating to status of a daughter as coparcener in respect of ancestral and joint family properties.
100. The above referred citations (except Sl.No.1 and 2 citations) same are with regard to protection granted to power of attorney and the genuinity of the transaction entered into by them by way of executing sale deeds and further the other citations regarding applicability of bar of limitation of lapse of 12 years of transactions of partition and the sale transaction taken and also the law relating to the expiry of 3 years after attaining majority of the minor to seek any relief relating to the concerned properties conveyed by way of sale etc.
101. The counsel for defendant No.3 has filed written arguments and it is in detail as argued for the plaintiffs. The defendant No.3 being the sister of father of defendant No.2 and the plaintiff No.2 has sought for her legal right in the suit schedule properties. It is further argued that the defendant No.2/ D.W.1 in his evidence admitted that he obtained a holders katha through notarized GPA from his mother in the year 2006 and acknowledged the registered relinquishment deed as per Ex.P.74 by confirming the undivided joint possession. It is further argued that as per the Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the case of Vineeta Sharma
-Vs- Rakesh Sharma the daughters are entitled for equal share as that of a son of giant family. The defendant No.3 has in the written argument further argued that Ex.D.3- Palupatti is a forged document at the instance of defendant No.2 who attempted to override the binding decree in O.S.No.1635/1980 by raising baseless questions and contentions.
55 O.S.No.1100/2016102. In support of the entire written arguments of defendant No.3, it is relied upon the following citations:
1.The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in G E Chandrappa vs Smt Vishalakshamma (2024) - Page No.1 - 14
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad and Others (2018) - Page No.15 - 27
3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sita Ram Bhama v. Ramvatar Bhama (2018) - Page No.28 - 40
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Korukonda Chalapathi v. Korukonda Annapurna Sampath (2021) - Page No.41 - 52
103. On perusal of these citations, the observations are that a deed of partition or Palupatti cannot create any right, title or interest in favour of the persons who had no pre-existing right in the properties and further a partition is only recognition and identification of the pre- existing right and moreover, creation or destruction of any right, title or interest in immovable property value of which is more than Rs.100/- has to be by way of conveyance requires registration as mandatorily required u/s.17 of the Registration Act.
104. The learned counsel for the defendants No.7 and 8 has also filed written arguments by reiterating their evidence in the suit and also over the documents relied on by them as they are the purchasers of suit E schedule property being the portion of D schedule property out of the total suit schedule properties originally acquired by the deceased Hanumanthappa and his brothers Poornaiah vide sale deed dated 18.04.1974. It is further argued therein that the defendant No.2 had sold the suit E schedule property in favour of the defendants No.4 and 5 on 15.10.2003, as the said sale was prior to filing of this suit and thereby the suit of the plaintiffs filed after lapse of 13 years is barred by time.
56 O.S.No.1100/2016105. As could be seen from the Ex.P.72- Judgment in O.S.No.1635/1980 and the related decree as per Ex.P.73, it reveals that the present suit A and B schedule properties are also involved and the present suit defendant No.3 is also the L.R.No.5- daughter of the deceased defendant No.1- Hamumanthappa and the learned 25th Addl. City Civil Court has ordered share to an extent of 1/8 th in favour of the plaintiffs No.1 to 4 and defendants No.1 to 4 therein and also such shares in other properties mentioned in the said suit, but rejected claim of the plaintiffs therein in respect of other properties. In the said suit, the present plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 3 also represented their father- deceased Hamumanthappa and hence, in view of already filed memo by the plaintiffs, they cannot seek share in the suit for suit A and B schedule properties. With regard to the contentions of defendants No.2, 5 to 7, when it is perused at Ex.D.3 which is unregistered Palupatti dated 18.06.1993, it was sent to the District Registrar to collect the duty and penalty. It has been subsequently paid the duty and penalty in view of its non-registration. When the plaintiffs herein disputed their signatures on the said document and the defendants have failed to get the remedy available under law to get comparison of their signatures and moreover, the kathas got effected on the basis of Ex.D.3 in the name of defendants No.2 and others does not reveal any authentic procedure to make such entries after hearing the affected person regarding legal conveyance of rights, I deem it fit to hold that Ex.D.3- unregistered Palupatti does not in any manner affect the right of the plaintiff No.2 herein to claim 1/3 rd share in suit C and D schedule properties. Accordingly, the defendant No.3 being the daughter of deceased Hanumanthappa and being sister of plaintiff No.2 entitled to claim equal share of 1/9 th share in the suit C, D and E properties on payment of Court fee. When the main Ex.D.3- Palupatti 57 O.S.No.1100/2016 is not in accordance with law as its contents are not proved to show that the parties to it have not derived any rights, whereas the plaintiffs claim joint possession of the suit properties, I further deem it fit to hold that the contentions of the defendants No.5 to 8 regarding purchase of 'E' schedule property being part and parcel of suit 'D' schedule property are acceptable due to bonafide purchase and the extent of 'E' schedule property shall be reduced while making of 1/3rd share to the defendant No.2. Moreover, RFA No.300/2002 was also disposed of by confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1635/1980. Hence, it is on the basis of thorough scrutiny and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence of both sides held that the plaintiff No.2- father of plaintiff No.1 is entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule 'C' and 'D' properties and the defendant No.3 is also entitled for 1/9 th share in 'C' and 'D' schedule properties on payment of Court fee. In view of all these reasons, I answer Issue No.1 partly affirmative, Issue No.2 in the negative, Issue No.3 partly affirmative and Addl. Issues No.1 to 3 in the affirmative.
106. Issues No.4: In view of the foresaid discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is partly decreed.
The plaintiff No.2 is entitled for 1/3 rd share in the suit 'C' and 'D' schedule properties by metes and bounds.
The extent of sold 'E' schedule property shall be reduced while making demarcation for property of defendant No.2 in 'C' and 'D' schedule properties as said sale is without legal rights in favour of bonafide purchasers.58 O.S.No.1100/2016
The defendant No.3 is entitled for 1/9th share in the suit 'C' and 'D' schedule properties on payment of Court fee.
The suit of the plaintiffs and claim of the defendants No.1 to 3 rejected in respect of other suit schedule properties.
Draw preliminary decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Sr. Sheristedar, transcript corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 30th day of January, 2026) (S.N. Kalkani) LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witness examined on behalf of plaintiff:
P.W.1: H. Chandrashekar
List of documents marked for plaintiff:
Ex.P.1: Affidavit sworn by the witness showing the genealogical tree
Ex.P.2: khatha extract pertaining to Schedule C property
Ex.P.3: khatha extract pertaining to Schedule D property
Ex.P.4: khatha extract pertaining to Schedule D property
Ex.P.5: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 05.05.1974
Ex.P.6: Partition deed dated 02.12.1971
Ex.P.7: Encumbrance certificate for the year 1974-2004 pertaining
to Schedule C and D property
Ex.P.8: Encumbrance certificate for the year 2004-2015 pertaining
to Schedule C and D property
Ex.P.9: Certified copy of the sale deed dated 15.10.2003
Ex.P.10: Certified copy of RTC with respect to Sy.No.48 of
Kadugondanahalli Village from 1965-66 to 1968-69 Ex.P.11: Certified copy of RTC with respect to Sy.No.48 of Kadugondanahalli Village from 1971-72 to 1973-74 Ex.P.12: Certified copy of RTC with respect to Sy.No.48 of Kadugondanahalli Village from 1982-83 to 1987-88 Ex.P.13: Certified copy of RTC with respect to Sy.No.48 of Kadugondanahalli Village from 1988-89 to 1991-92 59 O.S.No.1100/2016 Ex.P.14: Certified copy of RTC with respect to Sy.No.48 of Kadugondanahalli Village from 1993-94 to 1995-96 Ex.P.15: Certified copy of RTC with respect to Sy.No.48 of Kadugondanahalli Village from 1997-98 to 1999-2000 Ex.P.16: Certified copy of RTC with respect to Sy.No.48 of Kadugondanahalli Village for the year 2020-21 Ex.P.17: Certified copy of RTC with respect to Sy.No.49 of Kadugondanahalli Village from 1965-66 to 1970-71 Ex.P.18: Certified copy of RTC with respect to Sy.No.49 of Kadugondanahalli Village from 1971-72 to 1975-76 Ex.P.19: Certified copy of RTC with respect to Sy.No.49 of Kadugondanahalli Village from 1982-83 to 1987-88 Ex.P.20: Certified copy of RTC with respect to Sy.No.49 of Kadugondanahalli Village from 1988-89 to 1991-92 Ex.P.21: Certified copy of RTC with respect to Sy.No.49 of Kadugondanahalli Village from 1993-94 to 1996-97 Ex.P.22: Certified copy of RTC with respect to Sy.No.49 of Kadugondanahalli Village from 1997-98 to 2000-2001 Ex.P.23: Certified copy of RTC with respect to Sy.No.49 of Kadugondanahalli Village for the year 2018-19 Ex.P.24: Certified copy of gift deed dated 25.02.2011 Ex.P.25: Certified copy of cancellation gift deed dated 20.04.2011 Ex.P.26: Certified copy of sale deed dated 20.04.2011 Ex.P.27: Copy of RTC with respect to Sy.No.27/1 of Kadugondanahalli Village for the year 2018-19 Ex.P.28: Certified copy of sale deed dated 17.05.1960 Ex.P.29: Certified copy of sale deed dated 01.09.2004 Ex.P.30: Certified copy of sale deed dated 09.03.2006 executed by H. Srinivas represented by GPA holder Mohammed Anwar in favour of Smt. Farzana Ex.P.31: Certified copyx of sale deed dated 09.03.2006 executed by H. Srinivas represented by GPA holder Mohammed Anwar in favour of Smt. Ashrafunniss Ex.P.32: Certified copy of sale deed dated 08.04.2022 Ex.P.33: Certified copy of sale deed dated 05.07.2013 Ex.P.34: Certified copy of sale deed dated 07.10.2013 Ex.P.35: Certified copy of sale deed dated 08.11.2020 Ex.P.36: Certified copy of sale deed dated 16.01.2024 Ex.P.37: Certified copy of sale deed dated 10.06.2023 Ex.P.38: Certified copy of sale deed dated 21.04.2004 Ex.P.39 Certified copy of sale deed dated 26.05.2010 Ex.P.40: Certified copy of sale deed dated 17.01.2003 Ex.P.41: Certified copy of sale deed dated 13.05.2004 Ex.P.42: Certified copy of sale deed dated 23.04.2003 Ex.P.43: Certified copy of sale deed dated 22.11.2022 Ex.P.44: Certified copy of sale deed dated 18.02.2000 60 O.S.No.1100/2016 Ex.P.45: Copy of RTC with respect to Sy.No.88/2 of Kadugondanahalli for the year 2018-19 Ex.P.46: Certified copy of sale deed dated 08.01.1949 Ex.P.47: Certified copy of sale deed dated 07.02.2005 Ex.P.48: Certified copy of sale deed dated 21.03.2011 Ex.P.49: Certified copy of sale deed dated 20.02.2023 Ex.P.50: Certified copy of sale deed dated 07.02.2005 Ex.P.51: Certified copy of sale deed dated 13.10.1980 Ex.P.52: Certified copy of sale deed dated 22.11.1980 Ex.P.53: Certified copy of sale deed dated 15.12.2011 Ex.P.54: Certified copy of sale deed dated 23.12.2020 Ex.P.55: Certified copy of rectification deed dated 14.07.2021 Ex.P.56: Certified copy of sale deed dated 16.09.2017 Ex.P.57: Certified copy of rectification deed dated 21.08.2018 Ex.P.58: Certified copy of sale deed dated 13.02.2008 Ex.P.59. Certified copy of GPA dated 10.02.1982 executed by H. Srinivas Ex.P.60: Certified copy of sale deed dated 31.08.1995 Ex.P.61: Certified copy of sale deed dated 03.10.2003 executed by M. Shankarnarayanarepresented by GPA holder Shanthkumar in favour of H. Ramaiah with respect to site No.99/1 Ex.P.62: Certified copy of sale deed dated 03.10.2003 executed by M. Shankarnarayanarepresented by GPA holder Shanthkumar in favour of H. Ramaiah with respect to site Ex.P.63: Certified copy of sale deed dated 07.08.2008 Ex.P.64: Certified copy of of sale deed dated 01.08.2003 Ex.P.65: Certified copy of of rectification deed dated 29.01.2014 Ex.P.66: Certified copy of of FIR in Cr.No.312/2023 Ex.P.67: Certified copy of of complaint in PCR No.55293/2023 Ex.P.68: Certified copy of of complaint in PCR No.55293/2023 Ex.P.69: Certified copy of sale deed dated 08.10.2010 Ex.P.70: Certified copy of sale deed dated 13.09.2013 Ex.P.71: Certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.1635/1980 Ex.P.72: Certified copy of judgment in O.S.No.1635/1980 Ex.P.73: Certified copy of decree in O.S.No.1635/1980 Ex.P.74: Certified copy of release/ relinquishment deed Ex.P.75: Certified copy of compromise petition in FDP No.32/2024 Ex.P.76: Original Marks card Ex.P.77: BESCOM Electricity bill Ex.P.78: BESCOM Electricity bill List of witness examined on behalf of defendants:
D.W.1: Srinivas H.
D.W.2: Kanthalakshmi
D.W.3: Mohammed Rafiulla
D.W.4: Nisar Ahmed
61 O.S.No.1100/2016
D.W.5: Venkateshaiah H.
D.W.6: Joseph T.
List of documents marked on behalf of defendants:
Ex.D.1: Certified copy of partition deed dated 02.12.1971 Ex.D.2: Certified copy of partition deed dated 05.05.1974 Ex.D.3: Deed of Palupatti dated 18.06.1993 Ex.D.4: Memorandum of oral partition dated 20.10.1985 Ex.D.5: Tax paid receipt with respect to No.38, Nagavara Main Road, KG Halli from 1997-98, 2004-05, 2005-06 Ex.D.6: Tax paid receipt with respect to No.38/3, Nagavara Main Road, KG Halli from 1997-98, 2004-05, 2005-06 Ex.D.7: Tax paid receipt with respect to No.38/1, Nagavara Main Road, KG Halli from 1997-98, 2004-05, 2005-06 Ex.D.8: Tax paid receipt with respect to No.38/2, Nagavara Main Road, KG Halli from 1997-98, 2004-05, 2005-06 Ex.D.9: Tax paid receipt with respect to No.38, Nagavara Main Road, KG Halli from 2007-08 Ex.D.10: Tax paid receipt with respect to No.38/1, Nagavara Main Road, KG Halli from 2007-08 Ex.D.11: Tax paid receipt with respect to No.38/2, Nagavara Main Road, KG Halli from 2007-08 Ex.D.12: Tax paid receipt with respect to No.38, Nagavara Main Road, KG Halli from 2009-10 Ex.D.13: Tax paid receipt with respect to No.38/1, Nagavara Main Road, KG Halli from 2009-10 Ex.D.14: Tax paid receipt with respect to No.38/2, Nagavara Main Road, KG Halli from 2009-10 Ex.D.15: Tax paid receipt with respect to No.38, Nagavara Main Road, KG Halli from 2010-11 Ex.D.16: Tax paid receipt with respect to No.38/1, Nagavara Main Road, KG Halli from 2010-11 Ex.D.17: Tax paid receipt with respect to No.38/1, Nagavara Main Road, KG Halli from 2010-11 Ex.D.18: Tax paid receipt with respect to No.38/3, Nagavara Main Road, KG Halli from 2007-08 Ex.D.19: Tax paid receipt with respect to No.38/3, Nagavara Main Road, KG Halli from 2006-07 Ex.D.20: Tax paid receipt with respect to No.38/3, Nagavara Main Road, KG Halli from 2010-11.
Ex.D.21: Tax paid receipt with respect to No.38/3, Nagavara Main Road, KG Halli from 2009-10.
Ex.D.22: Tax paid receipt with respect to No.38, Nagavara Main Road, KG Halli from 2006-07.
Ex.D.23: Tax paid receipt with respect to No.38/1, Nagavara Main Road, KG Halli from 2006-07.62 O.S.No.1100/2016
Ex.D.24: Tax paid receipt with respect to No.38/2, Nagavara Main Road, KG Halli from 2006-07.
Ex.D.25: Tax paid receipt with respect to Sy. No.48/2, KG Halli- 2005-06 Ex.D.26: Tax paid receipt with respect to Sy. No.49/2, KG Halli - 2005-06 Ex.D.27: Tax paid receipt with respect to Sy. No.49/2, KG Halli - 2005-06. Ex.D.28: Tax paid receipt with respect to Sy. No.9/2, KG Halli - 2005-06. Ex.D.29: Tax paid receipt with respect to Sy. No.38/2 for the year 2013-14. Ex.D.30: Tax paid receipt with respect to Sy. No.38/3 for the year 2013-14. Ex.D.31: Tax paid receipt with respect to Sy. No.38 for the year 2013-14. Ex.D.32: Tax paid receipt with respect to Sy. No.38/3 for the year 2014-15. Ex.D.33: Tax paid receipt with respect to Sy. No.38 for the year 2014-15. Ex.D.34: Tax paid receipt with respect to Sy. No.38/1 for the year 2014-15. Ex.D.35: Tax paid receipt with respect to Sy. No.38/2 for the year 2014-15. Ex.D.36: Tax paid receipt with respect to Sy. No.38 for the year 2015-16. Ex.D.37: Tax paid receipt with respect to Sy. No.38/1 for the year 2015-16. Ex.D.38: Tax paid receipt with respect to Sy. No.38/2 for the year 2015-16. Ex.D.39: Tax paid receipt with respect to Sy. No.38/3 for the year 2015-16. Ex.D.40: Bangalore-01 receipt with respect to Sy. No.38/2, Nagavara KG Halli, dated 21.12.2012 for the year 2012-13. Ex.D.41: Bangalore-01 receipt with respect to Sy. No.38/3, Nagavara KG Halli, dated 21.12.2012 for the year 2012-13. Ex.D.42: BBMP acknowledgment for the year 2012-13 dated 21.12.2012. Ex.D.43: Bangalore-01 receipt with respect to Sy. No.38/1, Nagavara KG Halli, dated 21.12.2012 for the year 2012-13. Ex.D.44: BBMP acknowledgment for the year 2012-13 dated 21.12.2012. Ex.D.45: Office copy of legal notice dated 30.10.2012. Ex.D.46: Tax paid receipt with respect to Sy. No.38 for the year 2012-13. Ex.D.47: Certified copy of sale deed dated 03.12.1980. Ex.D.48: Certified copy of sale deed dated 12.04.1982. Ex.D.49: GPA dated 16.07.1980 Ex.D.50: Notarized copy of GPA dated 18.03.1994 Ex.D.51: Notarized affidavit dated 18.03.1994 Ex.D.52: Notarized GPA dated 20.09.1989 Ex.D.53: Notarized affidavit dated 20.09.1989 Ex.D.54: Khatha certificate dated 17.08.2019 with respect to PID No.94-43-38 Ex.D.55: Khatha extract dated 17.08.2019 with respect to PID No.94-43-38 Ex.D.56: Khatha certificate dated 17.08.2019 with respect to PID No.94-43-38/1 Ex.D.57: Khatha extract dated 17.08.2019 with respect to PID No.94-43-38/1 Ex.D.58: Khatha certificate dated 17.08.2019 with respect to PID No.94-43-38/2 Ex.D.59: Khatha extract dated 17.08.2019 with respect to PID No.94-43-38/2 63 O.S.No.1100/2016 Ex.D.60: Khatha certificate dated 17.08.2019 with respect to PID No.94-43-38/3 Ex.D.61: Khatha extract dated 17.08.2019 with respect to PID No.94-43-38/3 Ex.D.62: Tax paid receipt No.38, Nagavara Ring Road, KG Halli dated 28.05.2009 for the year 2008-09 Ex.D.63: Tax paid receipt No.38/1, Nagavara Ring Road, KG Halli dated 28.05.2009 for the year 2008-09 Ex.D.64: Tax paid receipt No.38/2, Nagavara Ring Road, KG Halli dated 28.05.2009 for the year 2008-09 Ex.D.65: Tax paid receipt No.38/3, Nagavara Ring Road, KG Halli dated 28.05.2009 for the year 2008-09 Ex.D.66: Tax paid receipt No.38, Nagavara Ring Road, KG Halli dated 26.05.2011 for the year 2011-12 Ex.D.67: Tax paid receipt No.38/1, Nagavara Ring Road, KG Halli dated 26.05.2011 for the year 2011-12 Ex.D.68: BBMP acknowledgment dated 21.12.2012 for the year 2012-13 Ex.D.69: BBMP acknowledgment dated 06.07.2013 for the year 2013-
14, No.38/1 Ex.D.70: BBMP acknowledgment dated 06.07.2013 for the year 2013- 14, No.38/2 Ex.D.71: BBMP acknowledgment dated 06.07.2013 for the year 2013- 14, No.38/3 Ex.D.72: Certified copy of partition deed dated 22.09.2005 Ex.D.73: Certified copy of petition in W.P.No.132/2010 Ex.D.74: Certified copy of application U/O 9 Rule 7 r/w sec.151 of CPC (IA No.10) Ex.D.75: Certified copy of written statement of defendant No.1 in O.S. No.1635/1980 Ex.D.76: Certified copy of written statement of LRs of defendant No.1(a) in O.S.No.1635/1980 Ex.D.77: Uttara patra issued by BBMP dated 26.08.2024 with respect to PID No.94-43-38 marked subject to objections of defendant No.2, 5, 7 and 8 Ex.D.78: Uttara patra issued by BBMP dated 26.08.2024 with respect to PID No.94-43-38/1 marked subject to objections of defendant No.2, 5, 7 and 8 Ex.D.79: Uttara patra issued by BBMP dated 26.08.2024 with respect to PID No.94-43-38/2 marked subject to objections of defendant No.2, 5, 7 and 8 Ex.D.80: Uttara patra issued by BBMP dated 26.08.2024 with respect to PID No.94-43-38/3 marked subject to objections of defendant No.2, 5, 7 and 8 Ex.D.81: Certificate issued by BBMP dated 04.09.2024 with respect to PID No.94-43-38 is marked subject to objections of defendant No.2, 5, 7 and 8 64 O.S.No.1100/2016 Ex.D.82: Certificate issued by BBMP dated 04.09.2024 with respect to PID No.94-43-38/1 is marked subject to objections of defendant No.2, 5, 7 and 8 Ex.D.83: Certificate issued by BBMP dated 04.09.2024 with respect to PID No.94-43-38/2 is marked subject to objections of defendant No.2, 5, 7 and 8 Ex.D.84: Certificate issued by BBMP dated 04.09.2024 with respect to PID No.94-43-38/3 is marked subject to objections of defendant No.2, 5, 7 and 8 Ex.D.85: Housing vacant site extract issued by BBMP with respect to PID No.94-43-38 is marked subject to objections of defendant No.2, 5, 7 and 8 Ex.D.86: Housing vacant site extract issued by BBMP with respect to PID No.94-43-38/1 is marked subject to objections of defendant No.2, 5, 7 and 8 Ex.D.87: Housing vacant site extract issued by BBMP with respect to PID No.94-43-38/2 is marked subject to objections of defendant No.2, 5, 7 and 8 Ex.D.88: Housing vacant site extract issued by BBMP with respect to PID No.94-43-38/3 is marked subject to objections of defendant No.2, 5, 7 and 8 Ex.D.89: RTC with respect to Sy.No.49 of Kadugondanahalli Village, Bengaluru North Taluk for the year 2018-19 Ex.D.90: RTC with respect to Sy.No.49 of Kadugondanahalli Village, Bengaluru North Taluk for the year 2020-21 Ex.D.91: Certified copy of records of right Form No.5 Ex.D.92: Online certified copy of order in WP No.21863/2024 Ex.D.93: Online certified copy of order in WP No.15365/2024 Ex.D.94: Certified copy of order in WP No.18818/2022 Ex.D.95: Certified copy of partition deed dated 02.12.1971 Ex.D.96: Certified copy of sale deed dated 01.04.1974 Ex.D.97: Certified copy of sale deed dated 27.04.2015 Ex.D.98: Certified copy of sale deed dated 15.10.2003 Ex.D.99: Deed of Partition dated 16.11.2009 Ex.D.100: Sale Deed dated 19.05.2017 Ex.D.101: Katha Certificate issued by BBMP with respect to PID No.94- 43-34/1A dated 18.07.2013 Ex.D.102: Katha Certificate issued by BBMP with respect to PID No.94- 43-34/1A dated 04.12.2018 Ex.D.103: Katha Extract issued by BBMP with respect to PID No.94-43- 34/1A dated 18.07.2013 Ex.D.104: Encumbrance certificate from 01.04.2017 to 01.09.2022 dated 01.09.2022 Ex.D.105: Tax paid receipt for the year 2016-17 dated 20.11.2018 Ex.D.106: Tax paid receipt for the year 2017-18 dated 20.11.2018 Ex.D.107: Tax paid receipt for the year 2018-19 dated 20.11.2018 Ex.D.108: Tax paid receipt for the year 2022-23 dated 05.10.2024 65 O.S.No.1100/2016 Ex.D.109: Tax paid receipt for the year 2023-24 dated 05.10.2024 Ex.D.110: Tax paid receipt for the year 2024-25 dated 26.07.2024 Ex.D.111: Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed dated 06.02.2010 Ex.D.112: Letter of SBM dated 13.06.2014 Ex.D.113: Discharge Deed dated 16.06.2014 Ex.D.114: Sale deed dated 08.10.2010 Ex.D.115: Sale deed dated 13.09.2013 Ex.D.116: BBMP khatha certificate with respect to PID No.94-43-34, dated 20.06.2013 Ex.D.117: BBMP khatha extract with respect to PID No.94-43-34, dated 20.06.2013 Ex.D.118: EC from 01.04.2013 to 28.11.2024, dated 28.11.2024 Ex.D.119: EC from 01.04.1974 to 31.03.2004, dated 09.11.2011 Ex.D.120: BBMP tax paid receipt for the year 2014-15, dated 02.03.2019, with respect to PID No.94-43-34 Ex.D.121: BBMP tax paid receipt for the year 2015-16, dated 02.03.2019, with respect to PID No.94-43-34 Ex.D.122: BBMP tax paid receipt for the year 2016-17, dated 02.03.2019, with respect to PID No.94-43-34 Ex.D.123: BBMP tax paid receipt for the year 2017-18, dated 02.03.2019, with respect to PID No.94-43-34 Ex.D.124: BBMP tax paid receipt for the year 2018-19, dated 02.03.2019, with respect to PID No.94-43-34 Ex.D.125: BBMP tax paid receipt for the year 2019-20, dated 25.09.2024, with respect to PID No.94-43-34 Ex.D.126: BBMP tax paid receipt for the year 2020-21, dated 25.09.2024, with respect to PID No.94-43-34 Ex.D.127: BBMP tax paid receipt for the year 2021-22, dated 25.09.2024, with respect to PID No.94-43-34 Ex.D.128: BBMP tax paid receipt for the year 2022-23, dated 25.09.2024, with respect to PID No.94-43-34 Ex.D.129: BBMP tax paid receipt for the year 2023-24, dated 25.09.2024, with respect to PID No.94-43-34 Ex.D.130: BBMP tax paid receipt for the year 2024-25, dated 25.09.2024, with respect to PID No.94-43-34 LXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed by
Shankarappa Shankarappa
Nimbanna Nimbanna Kalkani
Kalkani Date: 2026.02.06
13:26:53 +0530