Bangalore District Court
Smt. Ramamma vs Sri. Venkat Ramu on 4 January, 2022
IN THE COURT OF XLII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-43)
Present: Sri. Kengabalaiah,
B.Com., LL.B.
XLII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge.
Dated this 4 th Day of January , 2022
O.S.No. 873/2012
Plaintiff/s : 1. Smt. Ramamma
W/o Aswathappa
D/o Late Chikkannayappa
Aged about 69 years,
R/at House No.26, 4th Main,
Shamanna Gowda Layout,
Saraswathipura, Ulsoor,
Bangalore -8.
2. Smt. Jayamma
W/o Late Lakshmappa
D/o Late Chikkannayappa
Aged about 68 years,
R/at Om Sri Lakshmi Chicken Centre
No.3, Vajarahalli, Kanakapura Main Road
Thalaghattapura Post,
Bangalore.
[By Sri. K. Sreedhar, Adv.]
-Vs-
Defendant/s : 1. Sri. Venkat Ramu
S/o Late Chikkannayappa
Since dead by his LRs.
1a) Smt. Kanthamma
W/o Late Venkata Ramu
Aged about 60 years,
R/at No.27, Shivaramakaranth Road
Chikkannayappa Building,
OS.No.873/2012
2
Chikkalasandra, Subramanyapura
Post, Bangalore - 61.
2. Smt. Savithramma
Since death by her LRs
2a) Devikarani
W/o V.Lokesh
Aged about 48 years,
R/at Chikkalasandra,
Uttarahalli Post,
Bangalore South Taluk.
2b) Smt. Shailaja
W/o Srinivas
Aged about 45 years,
R/at Vijipura, Devanahalli Taluk
Bangalore Rural Taluk.
2c) S.Narayana Swamy
S/o B.Sonnappa
Aged about 44 years,
R/at Near Maramma Temple,
Chikkalasandra,
Bangalore.
2d) S.Rajendra Babu
S/o B.Sonnappa
Aged about 40 years,
R/at Near Maramma Temple,
Chikkalasandra,
Bangalore.
3. Sri. V.Kanthraj Kumar
S/o Venkataram
Aged about 30 years,
R/at No.27, Shivaramakaranth Road
Chikkannayappa Building,
Chikkalasandra, Subramanyapura
Post, Bangalore - 61.
OS.No.873/2012
3
4. Sri. Varaprasada Reddy
S/o Hanuma Reddy, Age : Major,
R/at No.102, Gangotri Enclave,
22nd Main, Raghavendra Layout,
Padmanabhanagar,
Bangalore - 70.
5. Sri. Kishore
Aged about Major,
R/at No.15 Sy.No.8/2, 9/2,
Opp. Vinayaka Talkies,
Avalahalli Village, J.P.Nagar
8th Phase, Bangalore - 62.
6. Suresh Chandra
S/o Late Satyanarayanamurthy
Aged about 52 years,
7. P.K.Umalakshmi
W/o Suresh Chandra
Aged about 46 years,
D6 & D7 are R/at No.13/32,
Sri Vidya Vilasa, 1st Floor,
Rangarao Road, Shankarapuram,
Bangalore - 4.
8. Smt. S.Sharada
W/o Late B.N.Nanjappa
Aged about 85 years,
9. Smt. B.N.Ramadevi
D/o Late B.N.Nanjappa
W/o Rabindranath
Aged about 60 years
10. Sri. B.N. Shylesh Kumar
S/o Late B.N. Nanjappa
Aged about 58 years,
D8 to 10 are R/at No.38,1st Cross,
OS.No.873/2012
4
6th Main, Sarvabhowmanagar,
Chikkalasandra, Bangalore - 61.
[D1(a) & D3 - By Sri. K.T.D., Adv.]
[D2 (a & b) - by Sri. V.C., Adv.]
[D2 (c & d) - by Sri. V.B.S., Adv.]
[D4 & 5 - Deleted]
[D6 & 7 - by Sri. S.P., Adv.]
[D8 to 10 - by Sri. M.S.V., Adv.]
Date of institution of the suit 28.1.2012
Nature of the suit Partition
Date of commencement of 22.06.2015
recording the evidence
Date on which the judgment 04.01.2022
was pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
09 11 07
(Kengabalaiah),
XVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge.
*********
J UD GM E N T
The plaintiffs have filed this suit against the defendants
for partition and separate possession.
2. The case of the plaintiffs is that, the plaintiffs and
the defendants 1 and 2 are the children of Late
Chikkannayappa. Late Chikkannayappa inherited vast
property from his forefather and also accumulated number of
OS.No.873/2012
5
properties from the nucleus of joint family properties. Late
Chikkannayappa died on 18.4.1999 leaving behind the
plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 as his legal heirs. As per
the Amended Hindu Succession Act, the daughters are also
entitled for equal share as that of sons. But unfortunately, no
share is given to the daughters and all the properties are
being enjoyed by the defendants 1 and 3. The defendants 1
and 3 have acquired new properties from the income of the
ancestral properties and they are getting income more than
Rs.6 lakhs p.m.
3. It is further submitted that one of the suit
schedule property bearing Site No.205 and 206 have been
given by Sri Anjaneya Swami Co-operative House Building
Society to the 1st and 3rd defendants without giving anything
to the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant by filing a wrong
affidavit by the 1st defendant has not left any other LRs. The
said site has been given by the Society as incentive sites for
having given consent by Late Chikkannayappa for formation
of layout in Sy.No.5 of Uttarahalli Village and plaintiffs and
defendant No.2 are also entitled for equal share in those
properties. But in those 2 sites defendants 1 and 3 have
OS.No.873/2012
6
illegally entered into joint development agreement with 4 th
defendant and received substantial amount as advance and
also getting the share in the developed area. The 4 th
defendant without properly verifying the title of the sisters
entered into an agreement with defendants 1 and 3 which is
not binding on the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant.
4. It is further submitted that the 1st defendant
purchased Sy.No.84/1 of Gulakamalli Village, Uttarahalli
Hobli and other Sy. Nos. to the extent of more than 8 acre.
After selling the property belonging to Late Chikkannayappa.
Therefore, the sisters are also entitled for equal share in
those properties. The 1st defendant has made a wrong claim
that he is the sold surviving legal representative of the
deceased Chikkannayappa. It is false to his knowledge as his
sisters are also entitled for a share. Out of the family
property, the 1st defendant made layout and sold the sites in
favour of different persons without giving any share to his
sisters. Late Chikkannayappa had constructed about 8 house
and some commercial complexes and income derived from
those buildings is enjoyed by the 1 st and 3rd defendant
without giving any share to the sisters since 1999 when Late
OS.No.873/2012
7
Chikkannayappa passed away. The 5th defendant is
developing Sy.No.21/26 by taking illegal documents from the
1st defendant. The plaintiff have made several requests to give
their legitimate share, but the 1st defendant on one pretext or
the other postponed the same. The plaintiffs have issued legal
notice on 24.11.2011 and the said notice served upon the
defendants 1 to 4, but no reply is given. The plaintiffs and
defendant No.2 being sisters of 1st defendant are also entitled
for equal share i.e., 1/4th share each. Unfortunately the 1 st
defendant is denying their legitimate right. The cause of
action for the suit arose on or after 24.11.2011 when the
legal notice was issued to the defendants. Hence, the suit.
5. In pursuance of the summons, the defendants
have appeared through their counsel and the defendants 1
and 3, defendant No.2, defendant No.6 and defendant No.10
have filed their separate written statements.
6. The 2nd defendant has filed the written statement
and submitted that the plaint averments are true. This
defendant also entitled for partition and her 1/4th share in
the suit schedule properties. She admits the plaint para-3 to
6. The 4th defendant ignoring the title of the sisters has
OS.No.873/2012
8
entered into agreement with the defendants 1 and 3 and the
same is not binding on the plaintiffs and this defendant. The
1st defendant purchased the Sy.No.84/1 of Gulakamalli
Village and other survey numbers to the extent of moe than 8
acres are true by investing ancestral properties after selling
the property belonging to Late Chikkannayappa and
therefore, the sisters including this defendant are entitled for
equal share in those properties. The 1 st defendant has made a
wrong claim that he is the sold surviving legal representative
of Late Chikkannayappa is false. Being the sisters this
defendant and the plaintiffs are also entitled for share in the
family properties. The 1st defendant made layout and sold the
sites in favour of different persons without any giving any
share to his sisters and the said sales do not bind this
defendant.
7. It is further submitted that Late Chikkannayappa
had constructed about 80 houses and some commercial
complexes and income derived from those buildings is
enjoyed by the 1st and 3rd defendants without giving any
account thereof since 1999 when Late Chikkannayappa
passed away. The averments made in para-10 to 13 are true.
OS.No.873/2012
9
This defendant has also demanded for partition of her share
and the 1st defendant on one pretext or the other has
postponed the same. Hence sought for dismissal of the suit.
8. The defendants 1 and 3 have filed their written
statement alleging that the suit is not maintainable either in
law or on facts and the counter claim made by the 2 nd
defendant is abuse of process of law and procedure. The
allegations made in the plaint averments that the suit
properties are the properties of Chikkannayappa and
Chinnappa inherited vast properties from his forefathers and
also accumulated number of properties from the nucleus of
the joint family properties are all false. The suit schedule
properties are not at all the joint family properties and the 2 nd
defendant is not the member of the joint family. They admit
that Chinnappa died on 18.4.1999 and admit that the
plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 and 2 are his legal heirs,
but rest of the allegations made that they are entitled for
equal share is denied as false. As per Para-4 of the plaint
allegations as well as the counter claim it is the definite case
of the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant that they are the
daughters of Chikkannayappa and as per the amended
OS.No.873/2012
10
Hindu Succession Act, they are entitled to equal share in the
suit schedule properties. But by looking to the cause title and
genealogy, it is clear that the age of the 1 st plaintiff is 68
years, 2nd plaintiff is 68 years and the 2nd defendant is aged
61 years and as on the date of filing of the suit, all of them
were born to prior to 1956. The family members born prior to
1956 are not entitled for any share in the coparcenary
property or joint family property. Hence, the suit itself is not
maintainable. The allegations made that the 1 st and 3rd
defendants acquire number of properties from the income of
the ancestral properties and they are getting income more
than Rs.6,00,000/- p.m. are all false and imaginary. The
allegations made in para-6 of the plaint are all false. The
allegations made that the sites were given as incentives for
formation of layout in sy.No.51 of Uttarahalli Village and the
plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant are entitled for sites is denied
as false. Neither the plaintiffs nor the 2nd defendant are
entitled for any share in the said sites. All the said sites are
the absolute property of the defendants 1 and 3. Further
allegations that the defendants 1 and 3 illegally entered into
a Joint Development Agreement with the 4 th defendant and
OS.No.873/2012
11
received substantial amount as advance and also getting
share in the developed area, is nothing to do with the 2 nd
defendant. The allegations that the 4 th defendant without
proper verification of the title of the sisters entered into an
agreement with the defendants 1 and 3 and it is not binding
on the plaintiffs and the defendant No.2 is also denied as
false. The plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant have no right to
question the said joint development agreement and they have
no right or interest over the suit schedule properties
including Site No.205 and 206. The allegations made in para-
7 of the plaint are denied as false. The allegation that the 1 st
defendant purchased the land in Sy.No.84/1 of Ganakallu
Village and other survey numbers to an extent of 8 acres after
selling the property of Late Chikkannayappa and the sisters
are entitled share in the same are is false. The said lands are
the self-acquired properties of the 1 st defendant. The
allegations that the plaintiffs are the LRs of Chikkannayappa
is false. The allegation that the sisters of the 1 st defendant are
also entitled for share is false and contrary to law. The
allegation that Chikkannayappa constructed 80 houses and
commercial complexes and deriving the income is false. The
OS.No.873/2012
12
allegations made in para-10 and 11 of the plaint are all false.
Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.
9. The defendant No.6 and 7 have also filed the
written statement stating that the plaintiffs have no locus
standi to file the suit, as such the suit requires to be
dismissed as being not maintainable. It is further submitted
that these defendants being related as husband and wife, are
the purchasers of residential vacant Site No.11 measuring
East to West 40 feet and North to south 30 feet carved out of
Sy.No.27/3 of Chikkallasandra Village which is incidentally
item no.4 of the suit schedule properties and they have
purchased the said site under registered Sale Deed dated
12.8.2002 from the 1st defendant who claimed to be the sold
and absolute owner of the above said site which he claimed
through a registered Sale Deed dated 5.3.1970. In pursuance
of the said transaction, the names of these defendants
mutated in the revenue records and the site property is
numbered as 11/4/16, presently situated at 7 th Cross,
Hanumagiri Badavane, Chikkallasandra, Bangalore. The
allegations made para-4 of the plaint that Late
Chikkannayappa inherited vast properties from his
OS.No.873/2012
13
forefathers and also accumulated number of properties from
the nucleus of the joint family properties are all false. The
suit schedule properties are not the joint family properties as
alleged and the 2nd defendant is not the member of the joint
family. These defendants admit that Chikkannayappa died on
18.4.1999 and the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant are the
legal heirs. However, the allegation that they are entitled for
equal share is denied as false. The allegations made in para-5
and 6 of the plaint are all denied as false. The allegations
made in para-7, 9 and 10 are very vague in so far as it relates
to item No.18 and regarding construction of 80 houses and
some commercial complexes set to be made by Late
Chikkannayappa and the income derived out of the same and
that is set to be, being enjoyed by the defendants 1 and 3
without giving any share to the sisters since 1999 and further
relating to Sy.No.21/26. The allegations made in para-8 is
denied as false. These defendants are bonafide purchasers for
valuable consideration in respect of the site property that is
carved out of item No.4 of the suit schedule properties.
Hence, they sought for dismissal of the suit.
OS.No.873/2012
14
10. The defendant No.10 has filed the written
statement alleging that the plaintiffs have filed this suit
stagnant the original defendants for partition and separate
possession of their alleged share in the schedule properties.
The plaintiffs have given up their claim in the suit by filing a
memo. However, the 2nd defendant in her written statement
has made a counter claim a decree of partition of her share in
the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs case is that they
and the defendant No.2 are children of Chikkannayappa and
the defendant No.3 is stated to be the son of the 1 st defendant
and the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties
as they belonged to their father Chikkannayappa and his
forefathers and they have a share in the suit schedule
properties. The defendant No.2 is sailing with the plaintiffs
and she has also sought for a share in the same by way of
counter claim.
11. It is submitted that, item No.16 of the suit
schedule properties is Sy.no.71 measuring 3 acres of
Chikkallasandra village and this defendant denied that the
plaint schedule item No.16 is the ancestral property of the
plaintiffs or their father. Sy.No.71 of Chikkalasandra Village
OS.No.873/2012
15
was granted in favour of Jogappa @ Jogegowda and the said
grant was during early 1960's. There was a registered
partition amongst Jogappa and his children on 16.8.1962 in
which Jogappa's sons Patel Marappa and Venkateshappa got
their respective shares of 2 acres 19 guntas each and later
both sold 3 acres in Sy.No.71 in favour of the 1 st defendant
through a registered Sale Deed dated 2.2.1967. The 1 st
defendant formed sites in the said 3 acres i.e., plaint
schedule item No.16 and one such site is bearing Site No.38
and the 1st defendant sold the said site No.38 for valuable
consideration in favour of one M.S.Srinivasan through a
registered GPA dated 28.4.1982 because there was no
registration on revenue sites in those days. However, later
Srinivasan purchased the said Site No.38 from the 1 st
defendant through the registered Sale Deed dated 24.5.1989.
In turn the said Srinivasan sold the Site No.38 in favour of
A.G.Manjunath through a registered Sale Deed dated
7.11.2006 for valuable consideration who constructed a
residential house therein comprising of ground floor and
upper floors. This defendant along with his mother, brother
and sister has purchased the Site No.38 formed in Sy.No.71
OS.No.873/2012
16
i.e., plaint schedule item No.16 along with the residential
house constructed therein from the said Manjunath for
valuable consideration through the registered Sale Deed
dated 1.9.2014 and in pursuance of the said Sale Deed
defendants 8 to 10 have been possession and enjoyment of
the Site No.38 along with three stored building therein. Thus
it can be seen that the plaint schedule item No.16 i.e.,
Sy.No.71 measuring 3 acres of Chikkalasandra village is the
subject matter of the registered Sale Deed dated 2.2.1967,
the registered GPA dated 28.4.1982 and the registered Sale
Deed dated 24.5.1989. The plaintiffs have referred to Hindu
Succession Amendment Act and the 2nd defendant who is
sailing with the plaintiffs and who has made counter claim,
obviously is also placing reliance on the said amendment Act.
However, the Act does not enable either the plaintiffs or the
2nd defendant to seek reopening of the matter with respect to
those properties which are sold through registered Sale Deed
for valuable consideration before the cut off date stipulated in
the Amendment Act i.e., 20.12.2004. In other words, neither
the plaintiffs nor the 2nd defendant can seek for any share in
OS.No.873/2012
17
the item No.16 which was sold in favour of the 1st as long as
on 2.6.1967 through a registered Sale Deed.
12. It is further submitted that neither the plaintiffs
nor the 2nd defendant can question the transaction brought
about in relation to plaint schedule item N.16 and registered
GPA dated 28.4.1982 and the subsequent Sale Deed dated
24.5.1989. Therefore, the claim made by the plaintiffs and
the counter claim of the 2nd defendant with respect to item
No.16 is patently untenable and legally unsustainable. The
site No.38 is one of the sites formed by the 1st defendant in
plaint schedule item No.16 which he later sold in favour of
Srinivasan and the said Srinivasan sold the same in favour of
A.G.Manjunath through registered Sale Deed dated
7.11.2006 and the Sale Deed executed by Manjunath in
favour of this defendant and the defendants 8 and 9 with
respect to Site No.38 is dated 1.9.2014 hardly matters in so
far as considering the claim of the plaintiffs and the counter
claim of the 2nd defendant with reference to the Hindu
Succession Amendment Act. Though the plaint schedule item
No.16 is sold in favour of the 1 st defendant on 2.2.1967 the
said item is unnecessarily included in the suit schedule and
OS.No.873/2012
18
it is needless to point out that it is so included with malafide
intention, oblique motive and evil design.
13. It is further submitted that, the plaint schedule
Item No.16 is purchased by the 1 st defendant on 2.2.1967
and after forming sites, one such site bearing No.38 is sold in
favour of Srinivasan and in turn Srinivasan sold the said site
in favour of Manjunath from whom this defendant along with
defendants 8 and 9 has purchased the said site. All the said
transactions are brought about through registered Sale Deed
and all the Sale Deeds are for valuable consideration. The
purchasers of the sites formed by the 1 st defendant in plaint
schedule item No.16 are not impleaded in the above suit and
therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of
necessary parties. If at all the 2 nd defendant is entitled for a
decree of partition, then in equity and also having regard to
the sale transactions in respect of Site No.38 formed in plaint
schedule item No.16, the said item should be allotted to the
share of the 1st defendant so that it will ensure to the benefit
of the defendants 8 to 10 and also the other purchasers of
the sites and the share of the 2 nd defendant in plaint schedule
item No.16 can be adjusted in equity from the other items as
OS.No.873/2012
19
the same is permissible in the equity. It is pertinent to note
that both plaintiffs and the 2 nd defendant have suppressed
the several sale transactions that have taken place with
respect to the plaint schedule item no.16 and the 1 st of the
Sale Deed is dated 2.2.1967 and there is no challenge to the
said Sale Deed and the subsequent Sale Deeds. Even if the
2nd defendant now wants to challenge the same, it is too late
for her to do so. In other words, the suit for partition is
barred by limitation in so far as plaint schedule Item No.16 is
concerned and this is another reason why the above suit
should be dismissed with respect to the said item. Hence,
sought for dismissal of the suit.
14. On the basis of the above pleadings, my learned
predecessor has framed the following issues :-
1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit
schedule properties are the joint family
properties?
2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitle for relief
as sought for ?
3) What order or decree?
Additional Issues :-
1) Whether the defendants 6 and 7 prove that
they are the bonafide purchasers for value
OS.No.873/2012
20
without notice in respect of item No.4
property, as such said property is not
available for partition?
2) Whether the defendant Nos.8 to 10 prove
that they are the bonafide purchasers of
site no.38 formed in plaint schedule Item
No.16 for valuable consideration as
contended in their written statement?
3) Whether defendant Nos.8 to 10 prove that
suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties?
4) Whether defendant Nos.8 to 10 prove that
suit is barred by limitation?
5) Whether defendant Nos.8 to 10 prove that
in equity they are entitle for allotment of
plaint schedule Item No.16 in favour of
defendant No.1?
15. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the GPA
holder of the 2nd defendant namely Narayanaswamy himself
examined as DW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1
to P149. On the other hand, the 3 rd defendant examined
himself as DW.2 and got marked documents at Ex.D150 to
D152. The 6th defendant examined himself as DW.3 and got
marked the documents at Ex.D153 to D179. On behalf of the
defendants 1 and 3, one witness is examined as DW.4 and
the defendant No.10 himself examined as DW.5 and got
marked the documents at Ex.D180 to Ex.D201.
OS.No.873/2012
21
16. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused
the written arguments.
17. The learned counsel for the defendants 2(a) and
(b) has relied upon the following decisions :-
1) AIR 2017 S.C. 4465
2) AIR 2007 SC. 218
3) AIR 1959 S.C. 906
4) AIR 1972 S.C. 2531
5) (2020) 9 SCC 1
6) ILR 2003 Kar. 2253
7) (2008) 17 S.C.C. 491
8) ILR 1994 Kar. 2728
9) ILR 2008 Kar. 3500
18. The learned counsel for the defendants 2(c) and
(d) has relied upon the following decisions :-
1) ILR 2001 Kar 4853
2) AIR 1992 Kar 393
3) AIR 1986 Kar 90
4) AIR 1984 Kar 27
5) AIR 2006 Kar 143
6) AIR 2003 SC 3800
7) AIR 2017 SC 4465
OS.No.873/2012
22
8) AIR 2007 SC 1324
9) AIR 2006 Kar 68
10) O.S.A. No.59 & 159/2012
11) ILR 2014 Kar 1335
12) AIR 2020 SC 3717
13) AIR 2013 SC 3525
14) AIR Online 2006 SC 237/ (2006) 8 SCC 58
15) (2017) 9 SCC 586
16) AIR 2003 KAR 245
17) (2019) 10 SCC 259
18) (2009) 5 SCC 184
19) AIR 1976 SC 807
20) AIR 2011 SC 2161
19. The learned counsel for the defendants 1 and 3
has relied upon the following decisions :-
1) 2017 (4) KCCR 3138
2) AIR 1954 SC 379
3) AIR 1969 SC 1076
4) AIR 2007 SC 1808
5) AIR 2009 SC 1481
6) AIR 1984 SC 1171
7) AIR 1993 KAR 148
8) AIR 1988 M.P. 155
OS.No.873/2012
23
9) AIR 1980 Patna 237
10) AIR 2006 SC 1971
11) 2006 -12 SCC 552
12) AIR 1997 Madras 226
13) ILR 2009 KAR 1524
14) AIR 2009 SC 2996
15) ILR 2008 KAR 1170 (SC)
16) AIR 2008 NOC 1606
17) AIR 2016 SC 352
20. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.2: Partly in the affirmative
Addl. Issue No.1: In the affirmative
Addl. Issue No.2: In the affirmative
Addl. Issue No.3: In the negative
Addl. Issue No.4: In the negative
Addl. Issue No.5: In the negative
Issue No.3: As per final order, for the following:
R E A SON S
21. Issue No.1 :- In this case, the plaintiffs have filed
this suit against the defendants for partition and separate
possession. When the defendants have appeared and filed the
written statement, the plaintiffs have filed a memo seeking
permission to withdraw the suit as not pressed and they are
OS.No.873/2012
24
not claiming the share. But the 2nd defendant has filed
objection to the memo and opposed for withdrawal of the suit
contending that she being a sister of the plaintiffs and the 1 st
defendant and she filed her written statement alleging that
the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family
properties of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 and she is
entitled for equal 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties
and she has paid the court fee on her written statement. The
learned counsel for the defendant No.2(a) to (d) submitted
that the 2nd defendant being sister of the plaintiffs and 1st
defendant sought for partition and separate possession by
paying court fee, she is having the right to continue the
proceedings. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon
the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported
in ILR 2001 Karnataka 4853 -Gowramma Vs. Nanjappa
and others. Admittedly, the 2nd defendant being sister of
plaintiffs and 1st defendant and she is seeking partition by
paying court fee. In the light of the above decision, the 2 nd
defendant is at liberty to proceed with the matter and suit is
maintainable as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for
the defendants 2(a) to (d).
OS.No.873/2012
25
22. The learned counsel for the defendant No.2(a) to
(d) argued that in order to prove the case the GPA holder of
the 2nd defendant examined as DW.1 and got marked the
documents Ex.D1 to D149 to substantiate the case of the 2 nd
defendant and proved that the suit schedule properties are
the joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants 1 and
2. It is further submitted that, there is a presumption under
Hindu Law presumed to be joint unless the defendant rebut
the presumption. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and 2 are
the children of Chikkannayappa, the suit schedule properties
acquired by Chikkannayappa. The 1st defendant being the
son of Chikkannayappa acquired the same after demise of
Chikkannayappa since no partition had taken place with
respect to the schedule properties between the plaintiffs and
defendants 1 and 2. It is further submitted that as per
Amended Hindu Succession Act, 2005, Section 6(1)(a),
Devolution of interest in co-parcenery property - (1) On and
from the commencement of the Hindu Succession
[Amendment] Act, 2005, in a joint Hindu family governed by
the Mithakshara law, the daughter of a coparcener shall -
(a)by birth become a coparcener in her own right in the same
OS.No.873/2012
26
manner as the son. In support of their arguments they have
relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reported in AIR 2020 S.C. 3717 in case of Vineeth
Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma, wherein their lordship held
that :-
"Devolution of interest in coparcenary property - Right
of daughter - Provision in retroactive in application -
Benefit conferred based on antecedent event of birth -
Daughters born before Amendment can claim rights
only from 09.09.2005 - to form a coparcenary it is not
necessary that predecessor, coparcener should be alive
- Birth within degrees to which coparcenary extends is
relevant - To claim benefit under amended provision
daughter should be alive on 09.09.2005."
AIR 2013 S.C. 3525 - Rohit Chouhan Vs. Surinder Singh and
others and AIR Online 2006 S.C. 237 - Sheela Devi Vs. Lal
Chand,
23. It is further argued that, the 1st defendant being a
son of Chikkannayappa who acquired the properties in his
name out of joint family nucleus. The property acquired by
the 1st defendant presumed to be joint family property, the 1 st
defendant has not lead evidence to establish his separate
income to purchase the property, in the absence of any proof
OS.No.873/2012
27
regarding self-acquisition. What are the properties acquired
by the 1st defendant are also the joint family properties of the
plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 and the defendants 2(a) to
(d) are entitled to share in the said properties. In support of
their arguments they have relied upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2003 S.C. 3800 -
T.S.Lakshmaiah and others Vs. Balasubramanyam and
another, AIR 2017 S.C. 4465 - Adiveppa Vs. Bhimappa and
AIR 2006 Karnataka 68 - Radhamma and others vs.
H.N.Muddukrishna and others, 2017(9) SCC 586 - Adiveppa
and others Vs. Bhimappa and another, AIR 2003 Karnataka
245 -V.K.Thimmaiah and others Vs. V.K. Parvathi and others,
2019(10) SCC 259 - Prahlad Pradhan and others Vs. Sonu
Kumhar and others, AIR 1959 S.C. 906 - Mallappa
Girimallappa Betgiri and others Vs.Yallappa Gound Patil and
others, AIR 1972 S.C. 2531 - Bykuntnath Paramnaik dead by
his LRs Vs. Shahibhushan Paramnaik dead by his LRs. and
others.
24. It is further argued that if the Kartha alienated
the joint family properties, he failed to discharge for existence
of necessity for alienation, the alienation made by the kartha
OS.No.873/2012
28
is not binding on the family members. In support of their
argument they have relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in AIR 1992 Karnataka 393 -
A.Basavaraj and another Vs. Kaushal Chand and another,
AIR 1986 Karnataka 90 - Ningegowda and others Vs.
K.B.Doddagowda and others, AIR 2007 S.C. 1324 -
Subodhkumar and others Vs. Bhagwant Namadev Rao
Mehetre and others and M.Yogendra and others Vs.
Neelamma and others - Civil Appeal No.4818-4819 of 2009.
25. The learned counsel for the defendants 2(a) to 2(d)
argued that as per the Amended Hindu Succession Ac, 2005,
the daughters are also entitled for equal share as that of son.
But no share allotted to the 2nd defendant with respect to the
joint family properties of the father of the defendants 1 and 2
Chikkannayappa. The documents relied by the defendant
No.2 at Ex.D1 to D45 reveals that all the properties stood in
the name of Chikkannayappa who is the father of the 2 nd
defendant and the said properties are the joint family
properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. The 1 st
defendant got transferred the properties in his favour after
the demise of Chikkannayappa and out of the joint family
OS.No.873/2012
29
nucleus, the 1st defendant acquired some properties in his
name and all the schedule properties are the joint family
properties of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3.
Whatever the properties acquired by the 1 st defendant in his
name are out of the joint family nucleus. When a joint family
is found to be in possession of nucleus sufficient to make the
impugned acquisition then a presumption arises that the
acquisitions standing in the name of the persons who were in
the management of the family properties are family
acquisitions. In support of his argument he has relied upon
the decision reported in AIR 2007 SC 218 - Appasaheb
Peerappa Chandgade Vs. Devendra Peerappa Chandgade and
others.
26. It is further submitted that under Section 3(d) of
the Act, deals with women's full estate, Section 4 of the Act,
defines the order of sub-section and it sets out the members
of the members of the family who would be entitled to
succeed to Hindu male dying intestate. Section 8 for the first
time conferred on certain females a share in the
coparcenery/joint family properties at a partition. The object
of section 8 of the Act was to confer larger rights on females
OS.No.873/2012
30
by giving them a share in the joint family property. Section 8
envisages to two different circumstances in which that right
is to accrued to them. The first circumstances is when there
is a partition of a joint family property between coparceners
and others is even though there is no partition, the entire
joint Hindu family property passes to a single a single male
owner. In both cases the Act envisages that the property may
lose its character of coparcenery property, because the
coparcenery body may cease to exist on partition. The
purpose of section 8 was to safeguard the interest of female
in such contingencies where the coparcenery property were to
disappear either by partition or by survival of a sole male
member. If the coparcenery property were to lose its
character as coparcenery property then their interest is
seriously effected. Therefore, a right to a share was conferred
on those female members, if the coparcenery were to
disappear, thus enlarging their limited right, in those
circumstances enumerated in section 8 of the Act into an
absolute right. In support of his argument he has relied upon
the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported
OS.No.873/2012
31
in ILR 2014 Karnataka 1335 - Ramakka and others Vs.
Thanamma since dead by LRs.
27. The learned counsel for the defendant No.2(a) to
(d) submitted that though the defendant No.1 and 3 have
contended that the suit is not maintainable for non-joinder of
all the necessary parties, but they have not taken specific
plea in their written statement. In the absence of pleadings
no evidence can be looked into. It is further submitted that
under Order 1 Rule 9 of CPC no suit shall be defeated by
reasons of mis-joinder or non-joinder of parties. Sub-Rule 2
of Rule 10 of Order 1 of CPC, empowers the court to direct
the plaintiff to add the persons to the suit who ought to have
joined whether as plaintiff or defendant whose presence is
necessary in order to effectively adjudicate upon the matter.
In support of their argument, they have relied upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in ILR 2003
Karnataka 2253 - Boundersingh and others Vs. Nihalsingh
and others, 2008 (17) SCC 491 - Bachhajnahar Vs. Nilima
Mandal and another, ILR 1998 Karnataka 786.
28. It is further argued that the plaintiffs have
relinquished their rights in respect of the schedule properties
OS.No.873/2012
32
in view of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC they are not entitled for any
share in respect of schedule properties. As such the 1 st and
2nd defendants are only entitled for equal share in the
schedule properties. Hence, sought for decree the suit.
29. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
defendant No.1 and 3 argued that though there is
presumption of Hindu joint family, the presumption is
rebuttable presumption. It is further argued that there was
no presumption that property owned by member of joint
Hindu family could a forterior be deemed to be of same
character and to prove such status it has to be established by
propounder that a nucleus of joint Hindu family income was
available and that the said property had been purchased
from said nucleus, the burden to prove such situation lay on
the party who so asserted it where the suit property had been
purchased by his income. In the absence of evidence about
possession of adequate nucleus out of which joint family
might have purchased the property. It is further argued that
in a suit for partition and determination of share, the initial
burden is on the plaintiff to show that the entire property
was a joint Hindu family property. After initial discharge of
OS.No.873/2012
33
the burden, it shifts on the defendants to show that the
property claimed by them was not purchased out of joint
family nucleus and it was purchased independent income.
But in the instant case, the defendant No.2(a) to (d) have not
produced any evidence to show that the properties purchased
by the 1st defendant purchased out of joint family nucleus. It
is further argued that the defendant No.2(a) to (d) have not
established that the suit schedule properties are joint family
properties with cogent evidence. It is further submitted that
the father of the defendant No.1 and 2 and the 1st defendant
alienated the family properties much prior to amendment of
Hindu Succession Act, 2005, Section 6. Any property
alienated or disposition before 20 th December, 2004, the
defendants 2(a) to (d) are not entitled to seek partition with
respect to alienated items, the 2nd defendant has not
questioned the sale made by Chikkannayappa or the 1 st
defendant during her life time. As such the defendant No.2(a)
to (d) are not entitled for any share in the schedule
properties. It is further submitted that the 1 st defendant who
acquired the properties out of his own earnings without the
aid of joint family nucleus. This fact has been established by
OS.No.873/2012
34
the defendant No.3 by adducing evidence and producing the
documents. As such what are the properties acquired by the
1st defendant are all his self-acquired properties. The
defendant No.2 is not having any right over the said
properties. In support of his arguments he has relied upon
the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR
1954 S.C. 379 - Srinivas Krishnarao Kango Vs. Narayana
Diviji Kango and others, AIR 1969 S.C. 1076 - Mudigouda
Gowdappa Sanka and others Vs. Ramachandra Revagowda
Sanka dead by his LRs and another, AIR 2007 S.C. 1108 -
Makhansingh dead by LRs Vs. Kulavanthsingh, AIR 2009
S.C. 1481 - Virupakshaiah Vs. Sarvamma and another, AIR
1993 Karnataka 148 - Dandappa Rudrappa Hampali and
others Vs. Renukappa @ Revanappa and others, AIR 1988
Madhya Pradesh 155 - Ramdas Gupta Vs. Babulal and
another, AIR 1980 Patna 237 - Shibram Missir Vs. tularam
Missir and others, AIR 2006 SC 1971 - Anil Rishi Vs.
Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 12 SCC 552 - Avtar Singh and
others Vs. Gurdial Singh and others, AIR 1997 Madras 226 -
Shanmugham and others Vs. Saraswathi and others, ILR
2009 KAR 1524 - Shanthappa and others Vs.
OS.No.873/2012
35
Channabasavaiah and others, AIR 2009 SC 2996 - , ILR 2008
KAR 1170 (SC) and AIR 2008 NOC 1606. Hence he sought for
dismissal of the suit.
30. Before going to probe into the matter, it is relevant
to mention here the admitted facts between the parties. It is
an admitted fact that the defendants 1 and 2 and plaintiffs
are the children of Chikkannayappa. Only dispute between
the parties is that according to the 2 nd defendant, their father
Chikkannayappa inherited vast properties from his forefather
and also accumulated number of properties from the nucleus
of joint family properties. It is further stated that the property
Site No.205 and 206 have been given by Anjaneyaswamy
House Building Co-operative Society in the name of
defendants 1 and 3 as incentive sites for having given
consent by late Chikkannayappa for formation of layout in
Sy.No.5 and the 1st defendant purchased Sy.No.85/1 by
investing ancestral properties after selling the property
belongs to Chikkannayappa and he made layout, sold the
sites in favour of different persons and Chikkannayappa
constructed residential houses and commercial complex and
from the income derived from those buildings, the defendant
OS.No.873/2012
36
No.1 and 3 enjoyed the same without giving any share to her
and the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint
family properties of their father and she is entitled for equal
share.
31. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 and 3 have
denied the existence of joint family properties and per contra
they have contended that the 1st defendant had purchased
the properties out of his own earnings and the suit properties
are not the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the
defendants. When the defendants 1 and 3 have denied the
existence of joint family properties, though there is a
presumption regarding joint family the said presumption is
rebuttable presumption. The parties who approaches the
court have to establish their case by producing cogent
evidence to prove that the suit schedule properties are
ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the
defendants 1 and 2.
32. In order to prove the case, the GPA holder of the
2nd defendant namely Narayanaswamy examined as DW.1. In
his evidence he has deposed that the suit schedule properties
are the properties of Chikkannayappa. Chikkannayappa is
OS.No.873/2012
37
the father of plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2. On the
death of Chikkannayappa, the plaintiffs and the defendants 1
and 2 succeeded to his estates as Class-1 heirs.
Chikkannayappa was the last male heir who had succeeded
to the estate of the erstwhile joint family. The record of rights
for the year 1967 pertaining to Sy.No.79/4 is in the name of
Chikkannayappa. In the record of right pertaining to the
Sy.No.87 measuring 30 guntas situated at Chikkalasandra
Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, the name
of Chikkannayappa find a place in Column No.9 and 12. The
record of rights pertaining to Sy.No.27/2 to an extent of 22
guntas situated at Chikkalasandra Village. The record of
right pertaining to item No.7 land bearing Sy.No.20
measuring 9 guntas situated at Chikkalasandra Village.
Sy.No.18/2 measuring 34 guntas i.e., item No.8 of the suit
schedule properties is situated at Chikkalasandra village.
Sy.No.29/1 measuring 7 guntas situated at Chikkalasandra
village standing in the name of Chikkannayappa. Sy.No.8
measuring 22 guntas i.e., item No.10 is also standing in the
name of Chikkannayappa. Sy.No.9 measuring 3 guntas i.e.,
item No.11 and Sy.No.27/4 measuring 1 acre 33 guntas i.e.,
OS.No.873/2012
38
item No.12 and Sy.No.27/3 measuring 17 guntas i.e., Item
No.13 of the suit schedule properties and Sy.No.21/2B
measuring 14 guntas and item No.18 i.e., Sy.No.84/1
measuring 3 acres 23 guntas and 3 guntas kharab and
Sy.No.85/1 measuring 20 guntas totally measuring 4 acres 3
guntas situated at Chikkalasandra village is in the name of
Chikkannayappa and item No.19 and 20 i.e., Sy.No.86
measuring 1 acre 12 guntas and Sy.No.90/2 measuring 1
acre 9 guntas and item No.21 i.e., Sy.No.90/1 measuring 1
acre 7 guntas out of which 6 guntas situated at
Chikkalasandra, are standing in the name of
Chikkannayappa.
33. Further he has deposed that V.Kantharaj Kumar
who is the son of the 1st defendant has sold the property to
one Shankar in Sy.No.27/2 i.e., item No.4 without their
consent on 28.2.2000 through GPA, sold another extent of
property misrepresenting that he is the sole owner in respect
of the property stating that Chikkannayappa has executed a
power of attorney. Chikkannayappa died, therefore, the
power of attorney had no subsisting interest and what was
alienated was in respect of the portion of the property in the
OS.No.873/2012
39
said survey number. That on 27.6.2000 another Sale Deed
has been executed in favour of Rupa D.R. in the same
Sy.No.27/3 by way of misrepresentation and on 12.8.2002,
another extent is sold in favour of N.S.Badari Nath and
S.Jayanthi in the same Sy.No.27/3. Further he has deposed
that on 12.8.2002 item No.4 was sold in favour of N.S.Suresh
Chandra and P.K.Umalakshmi by misrepresentation to the
purchasers that he is the sole owner. That on 27.2.2002, the
1st defendant has also sold another extent of land in favour of
S.Krishna Murthy by misrepresenting that he is the sole
owner. The 1st defendant sold item No.2 of the suit schedule
properties in favour of Venkat Ramu on 25.2.2010 by way of
misrepresentation. Item No.5 of the suit schedule properties
i.e., Site No.205 and item No.6 i.e., Site No.6 were sold under
registered Sale Deed dated 29.3.2000. Item No.14 and 15
were sold by the 1st defendant by way of misrepresentation.
Item No.16 i.e., Sy.No.71 has been alienated under the
registered Sale Deed dated 2.2.1967. Item No.18 has been
sold by misrepresentation. Item No.21 and 22 were also
alienated by way of misrepresentation. The said defendants
in collusion with the plaintiffs 1 and 2 have effected the
OS.No.873/2012
40
alienations. Hence, the 2nd defendant is entitled for equal
1/4th share in the suit schedule properties.
34. In support of his evidence, he has relied upon the
documents i.e., SPA executed by the 2 nd defendant to lead
evidence on her behalf marked at Ex.D1. RTC extracts
pertaining to Sy.No.79/4 item No.1 of the suit schedule
property for the period 1967-68 to 2000-01 got marked at
Ex.D2 to D8. RTC extracts pertaining to Sy.No.87 i.e., item
No.2 for the period 1967-68 to 2013-14 got marked at Ex.D9
to D16, wherein in column No.9 reference was made as
Shanubogh Naukari Inamti and in column No.12(2) the name
of Chikkannayappa find a place. From Ex.D12 it appears that
the Deputy Commissioner has converted the land in
No.ULC/1716/84-85 dated 28.11.1996 and taken
possession. RTC extracts pertaining to Sy.No.31 i.e., item
No.3 measuring 18 guntas for the period 2013-14 got marked
at Ex.D17 and D18. Ex.D19 to D26 are the RTC extracts
pertaining to Sy.No.27/2 i.e., item No.4 measuring 21 guntas
for the period 1967-68 to 2013-14. RTC extracts pertaining to
Sy.No.20 i.e., item No.7 measuring 35 guntas for the period
1972-73 to 2013-14 got marked at Ex.D27 to D32. RTC
OS.No.873/2012
41
extracts pertaining to Sy.No.18/2 i.e., item No.8 measuring
33 guntas for the period 1967-68 to 2013-14 got marked at
Ex.D33 to D38. RTC extracts pertaining to Sy.No.29/1 i.e.,
item No.9 measuring 1 acre 16 guntas for the period 1972-
73 to 2013-14 got marked at Ex.D39 to D45. RTC extracts
pertaining to Sy.No.8 i.e., item No.10 measuring 1 acre 23
guntas for the period 1967-68 to 2013-14 got marked at
Ex.D46 to D52. RTC extracts pertaining to Sy.No.9 i.e., item
No.11 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas for the period 1982-83 to
2013-14 got marked at Ex.D53 to D59, the above said RTC
extracts stood in the name of Chikkannayappa. RTC extracts
pertaining to Sy.No.27/4 i.e., item No.12 measuring 1 acre 32
guntas for the period 1967-68 to 2013-14 got marked at
Ex.D60 to D67. RTC extracts pertaining to Sy.No.27/3 i.e.,
item No.13 measuring 17 guntas for the period 1967-68 to
2013-14 got marked at Ex.D68 to D75. RTC extracts
pertaining to Sy.No.21/2B i.e., item No.17 measuring 1 acre
4 guntas for the period 2013-14 got marked at Ex.D76 to
D77. RTC extracts pertaining to Sy.No.84/1 i.e., item No.18
measuring 3 acre 23 guntas for the period 2013-14 are got
marked at Ex.D78 to D79. RTC extracts pertaining to
OS.No.873/2012
42
Sy.No.85/1 i.e., item No.18 measuring 20 guntas for the
period 2013-14 got marked at Ex.D80. RTC extracts
pertaining to Sy.No.90/7 measuring 0.06 guntas i.e., item
No.20 for the period 2013-14 got marked at Ex.D81. RTC
extracts pertaining to Sy.No.90/8 measuring 0.03.12 guntas
for the period 2013-14 got marked at Ex.D82. RTC extract
pertaining to Sy.No.96/2 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas for the
period 2013-14 got marked at Ex.D83, the above said RTC
extracts stood in the name of Venkataramu. Ex.D84 is
pertaining to Sy.No.79/4 i.e. item No.1 transferred from
Chikkannayappa on 7.6.2007 vide MR.No.7/2006-07 which
is in the name of Kantharaju. Ex.D85 is the MR.No.8/2006-
07 which is in the name of Venkataramu in respect of
Sy.No.87/1. Ex.D86 and D87 are the MR.No.9/2003-04 in
respect of Sy.No.84/1 and 85/1 which is transferred from
Thyagaraju in the name of Venkataramu. Ex.D88 and D89
are the MR.No.59/2010-11 in respect of Sy.No.80/2. Ex.D90
is the MR.No.31/2009-10. Ex.D91 and D92, are the
MR.No.12/2011-12, the above said MRs stood in the name of
Venkataramu and others. Ex.D93 is the MR.No.9/81-82.
Ex.D94 is the MR.No.18/81-82. Ex.D95 is the MR.No.20/81-
OS.No.873/2012
43
82. Ex.D96 is the MR.No.6/81-82. Ex.D97 is the
MR.No.6/83-84. Ex.D98 is the MR.No.2/1989-90. Ex.D99 is
the shara prepared by the Revenue Inspector for acceptance
of khatha in favour of wife and children of Chikkannayappa
on 2.10.1997. Ex.D100 is the MR.No.6/94-95. Ex.D101 is
the MR.No.6/81-82. Ex.D102 is the MR.No.2/89-902.
Ex.D103 is the MR.No.9/81-82. Ex.D104 is the certified copy
of the Sale Deed dated 2.1.1995 executed by the GPA holder
of Sitharm namely B.Venkataramu S/o Doddannayappa in
favour of Venkataramu S/o Munivenkatappa @
Chikkannayappa pertaining to propert No.62/1, House List
No.11 and 12. Ex.D105 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed
dated 17.11.1995 executed by Channappa S/o Chilegowda
and his sons Chilegowda and Rajanna in favour of
Thyagaraju S/o N.Doreswamy Reddy with respect to
Sy.No.84/1 measuring 3 acres 26 guntas with respect to item
No.18. Ex.D106 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated
2.2.1967 executed by Patel Marappa and Venkatashamappa
sons of Borappa in favour of Venkataramu S/o
Chikkannayappa. Ex.D107 is the certified copy of the Sale
Deed dated 8.7.2002 executed by Thyagaraju S/o
OS.No.873/2012
44
N.Doreswamy Reddy in favour of Venkataramu with respect
to Sy.No.84/1 measuring 3 acres 23 guntas and Sy.No.85/1
measuring 20 guntas, totally 4 acre 03 guntas with respect to
item No.18. Ex.D108 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed
dated 19.11.2007 executed by G.Krishnappa S/o Ghattappa
and Nagaraju S/o G.Krishnappa and his minor children in
favour of Venkataramu with respect to Sy.No.90/2 measuring
3 ¾ guntas out of 1 acre 9 guntas with respect to item No.20.
Ex.D109 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated
19.11.2007 executed by C.A.Lakshmamma W/o
G.V.Hanumaiah and her children in favour of Venkataramu
with respect to Sy.No.90/1 measuring 6 ½ guntas out of 1
acre 7 guntas with respect to item No.21. Ex.D110 is the
certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 29.3.2000 executed by
Anjaneyaswamy House Building Co-op. Society Ltd., in
favour of V.Kantharaju Kumar S/o Venkataramu who is the
member of the Society with respect of Site No.205 formed by
the Society in Sy.No.67/2, 68/4, 69 and 79/3 of
Chikkalasandra Village and Sy.No.12/3, 12/4, 12/5 and
14/6 of Arehalli Village and Sy.No.4 and 5 of Uttarahalli
Village. Ex.D111 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated
OS.No.873/2012
45
29.3.2000 executed by Anjaneyaswamy House Building Co-
op. Society Ltd., in favour of Venkataramu with respect to
Site No.206. Ex.D112 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed
dated 25.2.2010 executed by Venkataramu and his son
V.Kantharaju in favour of Lakshmamma and her son
Santhosh H.N. with respect to property No.11, Khatha No.87
situated at Chikkalasandra Village. Ex.D113 is the certified
copy of the Sale Deed dated 27.6.2002 executed by
Venkataramu, Yelagamma W/o Chikkannayappa and
V.Kantharamu in favour of Shankar Kotrannavar with
respect of Site No.21 formed in Sy.No.27/2 i.e., item No.4.
Ex.D114 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated
27.6.2002 executed by Venkataramu in favour of Roopa D.R.
with respect of Site No.4 situated at Chikkalasandra Village
i.e., item No.13 of the suit schedule property. Ex.D115 is the
certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 28.2.2002 executed by
GPA holder of Chikkannayappa namely Narasimhaiah in
favour of A.R. Muthurayappa with respect of house property
bearing No.3, Village Panchayath Khata No.8 situated at
Chikkallasandra Village. Ex.D116 is the certified copy of the
Sale Deed dated 12.8.2002 executed by Venkataramu in
OS.No.873/2012
46
favour of N.S.Badrinath and S.Jayanthi with respect of Site
No.12 formed in Sy.No.27/3 i.e., item No.13. Ex.D117 is the
certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 12.8.2002 executed by
Venkataramu in favour of N.S.Suresh Chandra and
P.K.Umalakshmi with respect of Site No.11 of
Chikkallasandra Village formed in Sy.No.273 i.e., item No.13.
Ex.D118 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated
27.7.2002 executed by Venkataramu, Yelagamma W/o
Chikkannayappa and V.Kantharamu in favour of S.Krishna
Moorthy with respect of Site No.16 situated at
Chikkallasandra Village formed in Sy.No.27/2 i.e., item No.4.
Ex.D119 to D122 are the certified copies of the RTC extracts
for period 1973-74 to 2000-01 in respect of Sy.No.8
measuring 1 acre 23 guntas i.e., item No.10 of the suit
schedule property. Ex.D123 to D125 are the certified copies
of the RTC extracts for period 1989-90 to 1995-96 in respect
of Sy.No.9 measuring 3 guntas i.e., item No.11 of the suit
schedule property. Ex.D126 to D137 are the certified copies
of the RTC extracts for period 1967-68 to 2000-01 in respect
of Sy.No.70 measuring 39 guntas, land has been acquired on
28.7.1986 by the Government. Ex.D138 to D140 are the
OS.No.873/2012
47
certified copies of the RTC extracts for period 1973-74 to
1996-97 in respect of Sy.No.87 measuring 30 guntas i.e.,
item No.2 of the suit schedule property. Ex.D141 to 145 are
the certified copies of the RTC extracts for period 2011-12 to
2013-14 in respect of Sy.No.85/1 i.e., item No.18 of the suit
schedule property which are stood in the name of
Venkataramu S/o Chikkannayappa. Ex.D146 is the
encumbrance certificate pertaining to Khatha No.62/1 for the
year 1994 to 2004. Ex.D147 is the endorsement issued by
the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk in favour of
Narayanswamy in respect of Sy.No.70. Ex.D148 is the
endorsement issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore south Taluk
in favour of Narayanswamy with respect to Sy.No.8,9,18/2,
17/2, 24/3, 27/4, 29/1, 70,71, 79/4 and 87 since R.R. are
not available. Ex.D149 is the index of lands.
35. Whereas in the cross-examination, he has denied
the suggestion put forth by the counsel for the defendant
No.1(a) and 3 that the suite item No.1 to 4 are not remained
as an agricultural properties. They have formed layout and
sold the sites prior to 2002 and they were not stood in the
name of Chikkannayappa as on the date of filing of the suit.
OS.No.873/2012
48
He admits that Chikkalasandra village comes within the
BBMP limits from 1995. He admits that all the suit properties
are comes under BBMP limits. He pleads ignorance that some
of the properties of Chikkalasandra Village have been sold by
the GPA holder after getting the khatha in their names. He
admits that the layout was formed in Sy.No.27/2, 27/3, 27/4
and Sy.No.31, but he volunteers that no layout is formed in
Sy.No.27/4. He admits that he do not know the names of the
persons who have purchased the sites. Further he has stated
that some of the purchasers are made as parties and some of
the purchasers are not made as parties to the proceedings.
He admits that item No.2 has been sold in the year 2009-10.
However, he deposed that Sy.No.20 measuring 21 guntas has
been purchased by their grandfather and he saw the Sale
Deed and mutation extract, but he do not know from whom
he has purchased the said property. He pleads ignorance that
what are all the transactions taken place with respect to the
survey numbers during the life time of their grandfather.
Further he has stated that their grandfather has sold out
entire extent in Sy.No.18/2, but he volunteers that their
mother was not signatory to the said document. He pleads
OS.No.873/2012
49
ignorance about the sharers of Sy.No.8 and also expressed
his ignorance about what are all the transactions taken place
with respect to Sy.No.8.
36. Further he has stated that he is not having any
knowledge about selling of sites which were formed in
Sy.No.8 prior to filing of the suit. He pleads ignorance that
there is a reference in the RTC that Sy.No.8 sold in favour of
B.Muniramu and the agricultural land has been converted for
non-agricultural purpose and formed sites. He deposed that
he do not know the total extent of Sy.No.9, but 3 guntas was
in the name of Chikkannayappa as on the date of filing of the
suit, but he admits that he has not produced any documents
to show that 3 guntas stood in the name of
Chikkannayappaas on the date of filing of the suit. He admits
that except the RTC he has not produced any documents to
show that son of Chikkannayappa has purchased Sy.No.27/4
out of joint family nucleus in their names. He admits that
Sy.No.21/2B i.e., item No.17 is in the name of Venkataramu
and he pleads ignorance that how Venkataramu had acquired
the said property. However, he deposed that Venkataramu
had purchased Sy.No.84/1 after selling the Sy.No.27/4 and
OS.No.873/2012
50
27/2. He admits that the said property has been sold in the
year 2001-02 after the death of Chikkannayappa. He denied
that Sy.No.90/7, 90/8, 86/2 and Sy.No.79/4 are stood in the
name of Venkataramu. However he deposed that their
grandfather Chikkannayappa has purchased the property
under the Sale Deeds at Ex.D104, D105, D107, D108 and
Ex.D109 in the name of Venkataramu. He denied that the
said Sale Deeds are not belonged to Chikkannayappa, they
are belonged to Venkataramu. Though this witness has
denied that the sale deeds are in the name of Venkataramu,
but on perusal of sale deeds it appears that they are stood in
the name of Venkataramu but not in the name of
Chikkannayappa. As such there is no force in the contention
of the defendant No.2 that the sale deeds are belonged to
Chikkannayappa. However, he admits that sale deeds are
stood in the name of Venkataramu. He admits that Ex.D110
is in the name of Kantharaju and he also admits that
Ex.D111 is also stood in the name of Venkataramu. He
admits that Ex.D112 stood in the name of Lakshmamma and
Santhosh and he has not made them as parties to the
proceedings. He pleads ignorance that he has not made the
OS.No.873/2012
51
purchasers of Ex.D113, to D118. He is not having knowledge
that grandfather Chikkannayappa had sold out Sy.No.70
during his life time. He admits that Sale Deed pertaining to
Sy.No.85/1 measuring 20 guntas which is marked at
Ex.D141 is in the name of Venkataramu. However deposed
that he has sold the joint family properties and purchased
the said property in his name in the year 2001, but he has
not produced any documents to show that Venkataramu has
sold the Sy.No.27/3 of Chikkalasandra village and out of sale
proceeds he has purchased Sy.No.85/1 under Ex.D141. He
pleads ignorance about the Site No.11 and 12. He denied that
the Site No.11 and 12 originally stood in the name of
Thyagaraju.
37. Further he has deposed that he is not able to say
the extent and Sy.No. which referred in Ex.D42 to D45. He
denied that there is no any correspondence to the document
relied by them as well as the schedule properties. At page
page-35, para-2 of his cross-examination, he deposed like
this, which is relevant to extract the same " MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ DzÁAiÀÄzÀ
§UÉÎ K£ÁzÀgÀÆ zÁR¯Áw ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹¢ÝÃgÁ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë D PÁ®zÀ°è DzÁAiÀÄ EgÀ°®è
OS.No.873/2012
52
JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ½UÉ MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§¢AzÀ DzÁAiÀÄ §gÀÄwÛvÀÄÛ
JAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¸À®Ä AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà zÁR¯ÁwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹¢ÝÃgÁ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë
E®è JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. In view of admission made by this witness it
is very obvious that there is no any income out of joint family
properties to the defendant No.1 and 3 to purchase the
properties in their names. As such at no stretch of
imagination believe the version of this witness that the
defendant No.1 and 3 have purchased the properties in their
names out of joint family nucleus. In further cross-
examination he admits that no reference was made in the
Sale Deed that Anjaneya Cooperative Society has given a site
to the defendants 1 and 3 as incentive. Though this witness
stated that Anjaneyaswamy Co-operative society given a site
as incentive but during the life time of Chikkannayappa itself
the property has been acquired for formation of sites by
awarding compensation. When the properties have been
acquired and awarded the compensation during the life time
of Chikkannayappa itself, the properties which were acquired
by Anjaneyaswamy Co-operative society for formation of sites
not remained as a joint family properties of plantiffs and the
OS.No.873/2012
53
defendants 1 and 2. Further he admits that no documents
have been produced to show that the defendants have
executed a Joint Development Agreement with respect to the
schedule properties. He admits that no documents have been
produced by him to show that the defendants 1 and 3 have
leased 80 houses for rent. In view of admission made by this
witness, makes it clear that there is no joint development
agreement between the defendant No.1 and others and there
is no documents to show that there are 80 houses have been
constructed and leased the same for rent except oral
evidence. In the absence of documentary evidence, mere oral
evidence is not sufficient to consider the same.
38. The learned counsel for the defendants 6 and 7
elicited from DW.1 in his cross-examination that some of
them have constructed houses in item no.13, there are 10 to
15 houses are there in the said property. From this piece of
evidence, it clearly reveals that the houses are constructed in
item No.13 of the suit schedule property and it is not
remained as agricultural property as shown in the schedule,
in spite of it, the defendant No.2 shown the property as
agricultural land. Further he has stated that he has no
OS.No.873/2012
54
knowledge about selling of Sy.No.27/3 in the year 2002 in
favour of the defendants 6 and 7 by Venkataramu with
respect to Site No.11. In his further cross-examination he has
deposed that Venkataramu had purchased Sy.No.27/3 under
the registered Sale Deed dated 5.3.1970, the said property is
his self-acquired property and he has sold the same in favour
of the defendants 6 and 7 in the year 2002. The defendants 6
and 7 are in possession and enjoyment of the said property
by constructing compound wall and shed, but he is unaware
about the construction of the compound wall and shed in the
said property. In view of admission made by this witness, it
indicates that the suit item No.13 is the self-acquired
property of Venkataramu. In turn he has sold the same in
favour of defendants 6 and 7 in the year 2002 itself. As such
the said property not remained as a joint family property of
the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2.
39. On the other hand, to substantiate the defence
taken by the defendants, the 3rd defendant namely
V.Kantharamu himself has filed an affidavit in lieu of his
examination-in-chief as DW.2 and he has deposed that he is
the only son of Venkataramu and Kanthamma. Venkataramu
OS.No.873/2012
55
was the 1st defendant, he died on 17.1.2016. Further he has
deposed that the father of DW.1 was the resident of Kagi
Hosahalli, Hosakote Taluk. On the death of his father about
15 to 20 years back, his father has brought his sister i.e.,
defendant No.2 to Bengaluru and provided shelter to the 2 nd
defendant and her children. The plaint schedule properties
are not in existence except item No.1 of portion 6, 12, 14, 15,
18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 properties and other properties are
not belonged to them. Sy.No.79/4 is not at all in existence.
The documents produced by DW.1 are not indicating the
existence of property as on the date of filing of the suit.
Sy.No. Properties were sold much earlier to filing of the suit,
so also Sy.No.87. The revenue records produced by DW.1
have no any significance. The said property was sold much
prior to the date of suit and also Sy.No.27/2. Item No.5
properties are not in existence. Further he has deposed that
item No.1 to 5, 7 to 11, 13, 16 and 17 were not in the hands
of their father, the said properties were sold during the life
time of Chikkannayappa much prior to filing of this suit.
40. Further he has deposed that his father from the
age of 18 years started real estate business. Thereafter, he
OS.No.873/2012
56
started finance business and out of the amount earned by
the said business, he had purchased Sy.No.27/4, Site No.11,
12 and 13, Sy.No.84/1, Sy.No.86 and item No.20 to 23 and
Site No.206. All the said properties are the self-acquired
properties of their father. The properties which are situated at
Gulikmale Village are the absolute self-acquired properties of
his father. Their father had not got any amount from the sale
of ancestral properties. Whatever the portion sold by
Chikkannayappa or his father, were sold openly by way of
registered documents much prior to the date of suit.
41. In support of his evidence he has relied upon the
documents i.e., certified copy of the registered Sale Deed
dated 29.7.1974 which is marked at Ex.P150 and the
certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 29.11.2002 which is
marked at Ex.P151, certified copy of the Sale Deed dated
3.10.1994 which is marked at Ex.D152 and typed copy of the
Sale Deed is marked at Ex.P152(a).
42. Whereas, in the cross-examination, he has
deposed that all the schedule properties are the self-acquired
properties of their father. They are not belonged to
Chikkannayappa. Further he has deposed that their father
OS.No.873/2012
57
was doing land development work and also real estate agency
and finance business. He admits that there is no documents
to show that their father was doing finance business. He
admits that item No.1 stood in the name of Chikkannayappa.
He denied that Chikkannayappa and his daughters doing
agricultural in Sy.No.79/4. He pleads ignorance that item
No.2 RTC stood in the name of Chikkannayappa and he got
transferred the same in the name of their father under
Ex.D15 in the year 2012-13. He pleads ignorance that their
father got transferred all the revenue records in his favour
after the demise of Chikkannayappa. He pleads ignorance
that the name of Chikkannayappa find a place in column
No.12 in RTC extract with respect to item No.2. However he
pleads ignorance about the RTC transferred in the name of
their father in Ex.D15 after the death of Chikkannayappa,
but the witness volunteers that Chikkannayappa himself has
sold the said property. He denied that the property which
were shown in Ex.D2 to D83 RTCs are belonged to the
ancestral property of their father and their father had
purchased the said properties. He admits that Khatha has
been transferred in the name of their father with respect to
OS.No.873/2012
58
Sy.No.27/2. He pleads ignorance that the properties which
were shown in Ex.D2 to D83 are the self-acquired properties
of Chikkannayappa. Further he has deposed that the sisters
of the 1st defendant were not taken consideration at the time
of alienation of the property, but he volunteers that the
properties not sold by their father, their grandfather has sold
the properties. He denied that they have purchased the
properties in Ex.D110 in the name of the 1st defendant out of
the sale proceeds of the properties sold in favour of Anjaneya
Co-operative Society. He denied that except the income
derived from the properties of their ancestors, no other
income for them to acquire the properties. Further, he has
deposed that they have not obtained any documents to do the
real estate business. It is further stated that they have
constructed houses in Sy.No.27/4, 79/4, 71/2 and Site
No.11 and 13 and leased the same for rent. There are 20 to
25 houses have been let out by them. He denied that all the
25 houses were in the name of their grandfather
Chikkannayappa. He denied that all the houses which were
constructed are all in the name of their grandfather and they
are not the self-acquired properties of their father. Though
OS.No.873/2012
59
the learned counsel for the 2 nd defendant suggested to this
witness that the houses which were constructed in
Sy.No.27/4, 79/4, 71/2 and site No.11 and 13 are in the
name of their grandfather Chikkannayappa, but they have
not produced any documents to show that the said house
properties are in the name of Chikkannayappa except the
suggestion. In the absence of material evidence mere
suggestion put forth to the witness is not sufficient to come
to conclusion that the house properties which are in the item
No.12, 16 and Site No.11 and 13 are in the name of
Chikkannayappa. As such at no stretch imagination believe
the suggestion put forth by the 2nd defendant that the houses
which are let out by the 1st defendant they are all constructed
by Chikkannayappa. Further he has stated that the photo
which appearing on Ex.D113 is belongs to him, but he
volunteers that their grandmother has sold the said property.
He denied that Sy.No.27/3 is the ancestral property of
Chikkannayappa, but he volunteers that it is the self-
acquired property of their father.
43. In order to substantiate the defence taken by the
1st defendant, apart from the evidence of DW.2, he also
OS.No.873/2012
60
examined one of the witness namely Venkataramu who is the
cousin of the 1st defendant as DW.4. In his evidence he has
deposed that the 1st defendant is his junior uncle's son.
Himself and Venkataramu, the 1st defendant together used to
do the real estate business from the very young age and their
brother Venkataramu acquired the properties out of his self-
earnings. Savithramma who is the 2nd defendant staying in
the house of their brother Venkataramu. The husband of
Savithramma was from Kaji Hosahalli of Hosakote Taluk. She
was brought to Bangalore and given shelter by his brother
and used to help her and her son. Further he has deposed
that there is no properties of their uncle.
44. Whereas in his cross-examination he has deposed
that Venkataramu and himself were doing brick business and
real estate business and also share business. He admits that
Venkataramu was the finance investor and he also running
diary. He denied that Chikkannayappa has not sold any
property. He admits that during the life time of
Chikkannayappa he has received the compensation with
respect to acquisition of the property by Anjaneya Co-
operative Society in the year 1981 of Rs.3,00,000/-. He
OS.No.873/2012
61
admits that the suit item No.1, Sy.No.79/4 measuring 19
guntas is in existence and further he has stated that all the
sites which formed in item No.2 have been sold through GPA
holder. Further the 2nd defendant's counsel has elicited that
except self-acquired property no other properties to
Venkataramu. He denied that Venkataramu has not acquired
any property except the property of their father. Further he
has denied that Venkataramu had purchased the property
out of his own earnings. He denied that Venkataramu not
doing any real estate business and bricks business and he
was not earning anything except the earnings which fetching
from the rented houses. It is further stated that Savithramma
was brought by their father Chikkannayappa from Hosakote
and constructed a house and given to Savithramma. Though
the learned counsel for the 2nd defendant cross-examined this
witness in length but nothing material has been elicited by
him that Venkataramu not having any independent source of
income to purchase the properties in his name, From the
evidence of this witness makes it clear that Venkataramu was
having independent source of income to purchase the
OS.No.873/2012
62
properties and as such I have not find any reasons to
disbelieve the evidence of this witness.
45. The very contention of the defendant No.6 and 7
that they are the bonafide purchasers of item No.4 of suit
schedule property and they are in possession and enjoyment
of the said property. To substantiate the said fact, the 6 th
defendant namely N.S.Sureshchandra examined as DW.3
who has reiterated the contents of the written statement in
his evidence and he has deposed that himself and his wife
have jointly purchased the residential vacant Site No.11 and
item No.13 of the suit schedule properties under a registered
Sale Deed dated 12.8.2002 which is marked at Ex.D153 from
the 1st defendant. The 1st defendant has acquired the said
property through registered Sale Deed dated 5.3.1970. In
pursuance of the sale transaction, their names mutated in
the revenue records of BBMP and the said property is
numbered as 11/4/16. Further he has deposed that himself
and his wife are the bonafide purchasers purchased the
property for valuable consideration. In support of his
evidence, he has relied upon the documents i.e., betterment
charges paid receipt marked at Ex.D154, Khatha certificate
OS.No.873/2012
63
issued by the BBMP in their favour with respect to item
No.13 of the suit schedule property marked at Ex.D155,
houses and vacant land property register extract issued by
the BBMP is marked at Ex.D156 and encumbrance certificate
marked at Ex.D157 and they have also produced the tax paid
receipts pertaining to the item No.13 which are marked at
Ex.D158 to D171 and the photographs of the houses are
marked at Ex.D172 to D178 and a C.D. is marked at
Ex.D179.
46. Whereas in his cross-examination, the learned
counsel for the 2nd defendant has elicited that Venkataramu
has sold the property in Sy.No.27/3 which is agricultural
land acquired by Chikkannayappa to their family under
Inamti. He pleads ignorance about the mutation extract and
RTC transferred to whose name after the death of
Chikkannayappa. Further he has deposed that he had
purchased the property in the year 2002 for a sum of
Rs.3,60,000/-. He denied that he had purchased the property
for lessor price than the market value. Though the learned
counsel for the 2nd defendant cross-examined this witness in
length by put forth the defence taken by him, but nothing
OS.No.873/2012
64
material has been elicited from him to disbelieve the evidence
of this witness. From the evidence of this witness, it reveals
that he has purchased the item No.4 of the suit schedule
property in the year 2002.
47. It is relevant to state here that defendants 8 to 10
have specifically contended that they have purchased the
item No.16 of the suit schedule property for valuable
consideration under registered sale deeds much prior to
2002. To substantiate their defence, the 10 th defendant
namely B.N.Shylesh Kumar, who is the purchaser of the suit
schedule property item No.16 has filed his affidavit in lieu of
his examination-in-chief as DW.5 by reiterating the contents
of the written statement and he has deposed that item No.16
i.e., Sy.No.71 measuring 3 acres originally granted in favour
of Jogappa @ Jogegowda as per the order of the Special
Deputy Commissioner. There was partition among Jogappa
and his children under a registered partition deed dated
16.8.1962 which is marked at Ex.D200. Sy.No.71 partitioned
between Venkatashamappa and Patel Marappa, both of them
have sold 3 acres of land in favour of the 1 st defendant under
a registered Sale Deed dated 2.2.1967 and the certified copy
OS.No.873/2012
65
of the Sale Deed is marked at Ex.D201. The 1 st defendant has
sold the Site No.38 in favour of Srinivasan for valuable
consideration and inducted him in possession of the said
site. As there was ban on registration of revenue sites during
those days, the 1st defendant could not execute the registered
Sale Deed with respect to Site No.38 and hence the 1 st
defendant executed a registered GPA on 28.4.1982 in favour
of Srinivasan which is marked at Ex.D181. The said
Srinivasan got the registered Sale Deed with respect to Site
No.38 on 24.5.1989 which is marked at Ex.D182. In turn
sold the said Site No.38 in favour of A.G.Manjunath under a
registered Sale Deed dated 7.11.2006 which is marked at
Ex.D183. The khatha made out in the name of said
Manjunath and he has constructed a residential complex in
the said site comprising of ground floor and 3 upstairs.
Himself and defendant No.8 and 9 have purchased the
residential complex constructed by Manjunath in Site No.38
under a registered Sale Deed dated 1.9.2014 which is marked
at Ex.D188. Himself and the defendants 8 and 9 are the
owners and khatha and the BBMP assessment records made
out in their names, they are marked at Ex.D184 and D185
OS.No.873/2012
66
and Ex.D189 and D190. Further he has deposed that the 1 st
defendant who has purchased the item No.16 in the year
1967 has formed number of sites and sold most of the sites
including Site No.38. Himself and the defendants 8 and 9 are
the bonafide purchasers of Site No.38.
48. In support of his evidence, he has relied upon the
documents i.e., certified copy of the order sheet in Case
No.5/59-60 marked at Ex.D180 and the original registered
GPA dated 28.4.1982 executed by the 1st defendant in favour
of M.S.Srinivasan with respect to Site No.38 & 39/71 marked
at Ex.D181 and the Sale Deed dated 24.5..1989 executed by
Venkataramu in favour of M.S.Srinivasan with respect to Site
No.38 is marked at Ex.D182. Sale Deed dated 7.11.2006
executed by Srinivasan in favour of A.G.Manjunath with
respect to Site No.38 is marked at Ex.D183. Ex.D184 is the
khatha certificate issued by the BMP in favour of Manjunath.
Ex.D185 is the Uttara Pathra issued by BMP. Ex.D186 is the
demand register extract pertaining to Site No.38 which is
stood in the name of Manjunath and Ex.D187 is the sanction
plan issued by BMP. Ex.D188 is the Sale Deed dated
1.9.2014 executed by Manjunath in favour of S.Sharada,
OS.No.873/2012
67
Smt.B.N.Ramadevi, B.N.Shylesh Kumar and B.N.Dinesh with
respect to Site No.38, Khatha No.45/71. Ex.D189 to D191
are the khatha certificate, Uttara Pathra and demand register
extract issued by the BBMP in favour of S.Sharada,
Smt.B.N.Ramadevi, B.N.Shylesh Kumar and B.N.Dinesh.
Ex.D192 to 199 are the tax paid receipts. Ex.D200 is the
certified copy of the partition deed dated 16.8.1962 and
Ex.D201 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated
2.2.1967.
49. Whereas in his cross-examination, he has
deposed that there are several sites have been formed in
Sy.No.71 in the year 1982. He admits that Sy.No.71 was fully
developed and become a residential layout in the year 2014
when he has purchased the property. He admits that
Venkataramu had purchased the Sy.No.71 in the year 1967.
He admits that all the civic amenities have been provided to
the layout.
50. On careful scrutiny of the evidence of DW.1 to 5
and the documents relied by them, from Ex.D2 to D8 they
appears that item No.1 Sy.No.79/4 from 1967-68 to 2000-01
and from Ex.D9 to D14, it appears that item No.2 Sy.No.87
OS.No.873/2012
68
stood in the name of Chikkannayappa from 1967-68 to 1976-
77, then it has been transferred in the name of the 1 st
defendant in the year 2013-14 which is evident from Ex.D15.
From Ex.D17, item No.3 also stood in the name of
Chikkannayappa for the period 2011-12 to 2013-14. From
Ex.D19 to D26, it appears that item No.4 also stood in the
name of Chikkannayappa, whereas in the Sale Deed dated
27.7.2002 executed by the 1st defendant and their mother
Yelagamma W/o Chikkannayappa and the 3rd defendant in
favour of one Krishnamurthy under a registered Sale Deed
Ex.D118 which they have acquired in the court of Special
Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition Act in Case
No.78/59-60 dated 30.8.1962 has been sold out, as such the
said property is not available since it has been sold out in the
year 2002 itself. But in spite of it, the defendant No.2 has
produced the RTC which is stood in the name of
Chikkannayappa, they are no way helpful to the case of the
defendant No.2.
51. The defendant No.2 also relied upon the RTC
pertaining to Sy.No.20 item No.7 of the suit schedule
property which are marked at Ex.D27 to D31 for the year
OS.No.873/2012
69
1972-73 to 2013-14 which are stood in the name of
Chikkannayappa. From Ex.D33 to D38, it appears that item
No. 8 stood in the name of Chikkannayappa from 1967-68 to
2013-14. From Ex.D39 to D45 RTCs in respect of Sy.No.29/1
I.e, item No.9 stood in the name of Chikkannayappa from
1972-73 to 2013-14. From Ex.D46 to D51 RTCs in respect of
Sy.No.8 I.e, item No.10 stood in the name of Chikkannayappa
from 1967-68 to 2013-14. From Ex.D53 to D59 RTCs in
respect of Sy.No.9 i.e., item No.11 stood in the name of
Chikkannayappa from 1982-83 to 2013-14. The the 2nd
defendant has relied upon the RTC pertaining to item No.11,
Yelagamma, wife of Chikkannayappa and 1 st defendant
Venkataramu have sold the item No.11 much prior to 2002.
52. However, DW.1 has relied upon the documents at
Ex.D62 to D63 RTCs in respect of Sy.No.27/4 measuring 1
acre 33 guntas i.e., item No.12 which is stood in the name of
the 1st defendant. From the document relied by the
defendants at Ex.D150 certified copy of the Sale Deed dated
29.7.1974 it appears that the 1st defendant had purchased
the item No.12 of the suit schedule property from
Munivenkatappa, Muniramu and Somashekar. As such the
OS.No.873/2012
70
documents relied by the defendant No.2 at Ex.D62 to 67
RTCs are no way concerned to Chikkannayappa. From
Ex.D68 to D71 RTCs in respect of Sy.No.27/3 i.e., item No.13
stood in the name of Venkataramu and not stood in the name
Chikkannayappa. Venkataramu has sold the said property in
favour of one Roopa D.R. under a registered Sale Deed dated
27.6.2002 which is marked at Ex.D114 and he also sold the
Site No.12 in favour of one N.Badrinath and Jayanthi under a
registered Sale Deed dated 12.8.2002 which is marked at
Ex.D116 and he also sold the Site No.11 under a registered
Sale Deed dated 12.8.2002 in favour of N.S.Sureshchandra
and P.K.Umalakshmi which is marked at Ex.D117. However,
the defendant No.2 has relied upon the RTCs pertaining to
Sy.No.84/1 marked at Ex.D78 to D79 i.e., item No.18 of the
suit schedule property which are stood in the name of
Venkataramu. The defendant No.2 has relied upon the
certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 21.11.2002 executed by
the GPA holder of Janakiraman namely M.Sathyanarayan in
favour of the 1st defendant with respect to item No.19 of the
suit schedule property i.e., Sy.No.86 measuring 1 acre 12
guntas which is marked at Ex.D151. Ex.D152 is the certified
OS.No.873/2012
71
copy of the Sale Deed dated 3.10.1994 executed by
Gunashekaran in favour of the 1 st defendant with respect to
Khatha No.393, Assessment No.62-1, property No.13 along
with Mangalore tiled house measuring 35 x 54 feet i.e., item
No.15 which is in the name of Venkataramu. The document
relied by the 1st defendant makes it clear that the said
properties are all self-acquired properties of the 1 st defendant
which were purchased out of his own earnings, the same has
been established by the defendant No.1 and 3 with cogent
evidence. As such the said properties not belongs to the joint
family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2.
53. The defendant also relied upon the order copy in
Case No.5/59-60 of Special Deputy Commissioner of Inam,
which was granted in favour of Jogappa which is marked at
Ex.D180. On perusal of Ex.P180, it appears that the
Sy.No.71 i.e., item No.16 was granted in favour of one
Jogappa @ Jogegowda along with other properties. Jogappa
and his sons got divided the properties under a registered
partition deed dated 16.8.1962 which is marked at Ex.D200.
In that partition Sy.No.71 measuring 3 acres fallen to the
share of Venkateshappa and Patel Marappa. Both of them
OS.No.873/2012
72
have sold the said property in favour of the 1 st defendant on
22.2.1967 which is evident from Ex.D201. The 2 nd defendant
has contended that the suit schedule Item No.12 to 21 are
purchased by the 1st defendant out of joint family nucleus
and as such the said properties are also the joint family
properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 3. Though
the 2nd defendant has contended that the 1 st defendant has
purchased the said properties out of the joint family nucleus,
absolutely no pleadings to that effect in which property
Chikkannayappa fetching the income to purchase the
properties in the name of the 1st defendant. It is significant to
note here that all the Sale Deeds pertaining to item No.12 to
21 are stood in the name of the 1 st defendant. The father of
the 1st defendant Chikkannayappa was very much alive at the
time of purchasing the properties by the 1 st defendant. If
really the properties have been purchased out of the joint
family nucleus of the properties of Chikkannayappa,
Chikkannayappa himself got registered the Sale Deeds in his
name being the Manager of the joint family. There is no
pleading in the plaint or the written statement of the 2 nd
defendant that, what are the forced circumstances arisen to
OS.No.873/2012
73
Chikkannayappa to purchase the properties in the name of
the 1st defendant. On the other hand, from the evidence of
DW.2 and DW.4, it reveals that the 1st defendant was doing
real estate business and finance business along with DW.4
from the early age and he has purchased the said properties
out of his own earnings. The said properties are the self-
acquired properties of the 1st defendant. However, the plaintiff
has averred in the plaint that the defendants 1 and 3
acquired new properties from the income of ancestral
properties and they were getting income of more than Rs.6
lakhs p.m. But there is no specification that in which
property the defendants 1 and 3 were fetching the income of
more than Rs.6 Lakhs except the bald allegations. Moreover,
the 2nd defendant has not produced any iota of evidence to
substantiate the fact that the defendants 1 and 3 are getting
income of more than Rs.6 Lakhs. Whatever the documents
relied by the defendant No.2 pertaining to the suit schedule
properties are all RTC extracts pertaining to the agricultural
land. The initial burden is on the party who approaches the
court to establish that whatever the properties acquired by
them, are acquired out of joint family nucleus by placing
OS.No.873/2012
74
cogent evidence, then only the onus shifts on the shoulder of
the defendant who claims that the properties purchased are
his self-acquired properties. In the instant case, no iota of
evidence placed by DW.1 to prove that what are all the
properties purchased in the name of the 1st defendant are all
purchased out of the joint family nucleus. In the absence of
evidence, mere contention of the defendant No.2 is not
sufficient to consider that what are all the properties
purchased in the name of the 1 st defendant are all purchased
out of the joint family nucleus and no adequate income to
purchase the properties in the name of 1 st defendant. On the
other hand, from the evidence of DW.2 and 4 and the
documents relied by the defendants at Ex.D150 to D152, will
clearly indicate that all the properties have been purchased
by the 1st defendant out of his own earnings and 1 st
defendant has independent source of income, he has not
utilized the income of joint family to purchase the properties.
As such, there is no force in the arguments canvassed by the
learned counsel for the defendant No.2(a) to (d) that the suit
item No.12 to 21 are purchased out of the joint family
OS.No.873/2012
75
income, they are also the joint family properties of the
plaintiffs and the defendants.
54. During the course of cross-examination of DW.1,
the counsel for the defendant No.1(a) and defendant No.3
suggested that after the death of Chikkannayappa, item No.1
measuring 15 guntas transferred in the name of Kantharaju.
In view of the suggestion put forth by the learned counsel for
the defendant No.1(a) and 3 makes it clear that suit item
No.1 was in the name of Chikkannayappa, the same has been
transferred in the name of Kantharaju. Though the counsel
suggested to this witness that the said property has been sold
after forming of sites, but no any iota of evidence placed by
the defendants to show that the said property has been sold
except the suggestion. As such, no force in the contention of
the defendant No.1(a) that item No.1 is not available for
partition. However, DW.1 has denied that item No.2 and 4
were also sold after formation of sites prior to 2002. But he
pleads ignorance that the properties have been sold through
GPA holder after getting the khatha from Chikkallasandra
Village Panchayath. But he admits that in Sy.No.27/2, 27/3,
27/4 and other 31 items, layout has been formed. But he
OS.No.873/2012
76
pleads ignorance that the purchasers are in possession of the
sites formed therein. DW.1 has admitted in his cross-
examination at page-39 that there are 10 to 15 houses are
there in Sy.No.27/3 i.e., item No.13 to 17 properties, but he
pleads ignorance that the entire Sy.No.27/3 has been sold
prior to 2002.
55. It is significant to note here that the defendant
No.2 claiming share with respect to item No.7 measuring 9
guntas of land in Sy.No.20. Whereas in his evidence, he has
deposed that their grandfather acquired 21 guntas of land in
Sy.No.20. To that effect, he has relied upon the RTC extract
marked at Ex.D28 to D31, but DW.1 himself has admitted
that in the year 1998 itself all the schedule properties which
are situated at Chikkalasandra villages comes within the
jurisdiction of BBMP limits. When such being the fact, the
question of continuing the RTC extracts in the name of
Chikkannayappa does not arise at all. DW.1 has not
produced any documents to show that till now the item No.7
is in existence in Sy.No.20. Whereas in the cross-examination
of DW.1 at page-23 in second line, he pleads ignorance that
Sy.No.8 i.e., item No.10 of the suit schedule property has
OS.No.873/2012
77
been sold in favour of B.Muniramu, the said Muniramu
converted the said property for non-agriculture and formed
sites therein and sold the sites. The suggestion put forth by
the learned counsel for the 1 st defendant to DW.1 makes it
clear that item No.10 has been sold prior to 2002, as such
the said property not available for partition. Hence, though
the defendant No.2 has furnished the RTCs pertaining to
item No.10, they are no helpful to his case. Though the
defendant No.1 and 3 contended that item No.8 and 9 are not
available for partition and they are sold prior to filing of the
suit. Except the contention, no any documents placed by
them to show that the said properties are not available of
partition. On the other hand, the RTCs produced by the
defendant No.2 at Ex.D33 to D52 reveals that the said
properties stood in the name of Chikkannayappa. As such
there is no force in the contention of defendant No.1 and 3
that the said properties are not available for partition.
56. Though the learned counsel for the defendant
No.1(a) and 3 suggested to DW.1 that item No.2 and 3 have
been sold after formation of sites, but he denied the said
suggestion. The defendant No.1 and 3 have not produced any
OS.No.873/2012
78
documents to show that the said properties have been sold
except the suggestion. On the other hand, the documents
relied by the 2nd defendant Ex.D2 to D8 and Ex.D17 to D18
reveals that the said properties stood in the name of
Chikkannayappa. Hence, no force in the suggestion put forth
by the counsel for the defendant No.1 and 3 that the said
properties are not available for partition.
57. It is pertinent to note here that defendant No.2(a)
to (d) claiming that item No.4 is also the properties of
Chikkannayappa by producing the documents Ex.D19 to
D26. No doubt, the said documents stood in the name of
Chikkannayappa till 2013-14, but the Sale Deed produced by
the defendants at Ex.D118 dated 27.7.2002 executed by
Venkataramu and Yelagamma and Kantharaju in favour of
Krishnamurthy, which reveals that item No.4 has been sold
in the year 2002 itself and the said property is not available
for partition.
58. Though the learned counsel for the 2nd defendant
elicited from DW.2 that they have purchased the property
item No.5 and 6 under Ex.D110 out of the compensation
amount given by the Anjaneya House Building Co-operative
OS.No.873/2012
79
Society with respect to the property acquired which stood in
the name of Chikkannayappa, but he denied the suggestion
put forth by the counsel for the 2 nd defendant. The learned
counsel for the 2nd defendant argued that Anjaneya House
Building Society has acquired land to an extent of 5 acres 18
guntas of Sy.No.5 of Uttarahalli Village belongs to
Chikkannayappa for formation of private layout for the
benefit of their members, society has provided in favour of 3 rd
defendant V.Kantharaju who is the grandson of
Chikkannayappa and member of the society, item No.5 and 6
allotted to the 3rd defendant, the said properties are also joint
family properties of defendants 1 and 2. Admittedly the land
has been acquired by Anjaneya House building Society in the
year 1987 during the life time of Chikkannayappa and sites
were formed and allotted to the 3rd defendant after recovery of
sale consideration in the year 2001. The amount paid by the
3rd defendant for allotment of sites. On perusal of Ex.D110, it
appears that Anjaneya House Building Co-operative society
has executed the Ex.D110 with respect to item No.5 and 6 of
the suit schedule property in favour of this witness i.e.,
Kantharaju, but the 2nd defendant has not produced any
OS.No.873/2012
80
documents to show that item No.5 and 6 were given to the
defendants as incentive of the property acquired by Anjaneya
House Building Co-operative society from Chikkannayappa.
From Ex.D110 it appears that the said transaction has taken
place prior to 2001. As such there is no force in the argument
canvassed by the learned counsel for the defendants (2) to (d)
that item No.5 and 6 are also the joint family properties of
plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2.
59. From the evidence of DW.1 and the documents
relied by the defendant No.2 at Ex.D2 to D59, it reveals that
the suit item No.1, 2, 3 and 7 to 9 are the ancestral
properties of plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 and no
partition had taken place with respect to the said properties.
The learned counsel for the defendants 2(a) to (d) argued that
item No.4, 5, 6, 10, 11 and 12 are also the joint family
properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 and
the defendant No.2(a) and (d) are also entitled for a share in
that properties also. From the sale deeds produced by the
defendant No.2, it reveals that the 1 st defendant alienated the
said properties prior to 2002. As per the proviso of Section 6
of Hindu Succession Act makes it clear that any properties
OS.No.873/2012
81
alienated before 20th December, 2004 there is a bar to claim
in the share. As such the defendant No.2(a) to (d) are not
entitled for any share in the said properties.
60. The learned counsel for the defendants 2(a) to (d)
submitted that the suit schedule property item No.13 to 21
purchase out of joint family nucleus in the name of the 1 st
defendant and hence the defendants 2(a) to (d) are entitled for
share in the said properties. On the other hand, the learned
counsel for the defendants 1 and 3 argued that the properties
are purchased by the 1st defendant out of his own earnings,
the 1st defendant has proved that he has purchased the
properties out of his independent source of income without
the aid of joint family nucleus. What are all the properties
purchased by the defendant No.1, they are the self-acquired
properties of the 1st defendant. DW.2 has established the fact
that the 1st defendant has purchased the properties out of his
own earnings by producing cogent evidence. What are the
properties acquired by the 1st defendant are all his self-
acquired properties as rightly pointed out by the learned
counsel for the defendants 1 and 3. Hence, the defendants
OS.No.873/2012
82
2(a) to (d) are not entitled for any share in item No.13 to 21 of
the suit schedule property.
61. It is further argument of the learned counsel for
the defendants 2(a) to (d) that the plaintiffs filed a memo to
dismiss the suit as not pressed under Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC
and hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in
respect of the suit schedule properties since he plaintiffs have
relinquished their rights, the defendants 1 and 2 are entitled
to equal share i.e., half share in the suit schedule properties.
No doubt the plaintiffs filed memo for dismissal of the suit as
not pressed, but the plaintiffs have not relinquished their
right except filing the memo for dismissal of the suit, unless
and until relinquish the rights of the plaintiffs in accordance
with law, the 2nd defendant not entitled for half share. Hence,
there is no force in the argument canvassed by the learned
counsel for the defendant 2(a) to (d) that the 2 nd defendant is
entitled for half share in the suit schedule properties. The
defendants 2(a) to (d) are jointly entitled for only 1/4th share
in the item No.1,2, 3, 7 to 9 of the suit schedule property.
Hence, no force in the arguments canvassed by the learned
OS.No.873/2012
83
counsel for the defendants 2(a) to (d) that the 2 nd defendant is
entitled for half share in the suit schedule property.
62. I have carefully perused the decision relied by the
learned counsel for the defendants, I am of the humble
opinion that the ratio of the decisions are undisputed but the
facts and circumstances of the case on hand are differ from
the ratio of the decisions. In the light of the above
discussions, I hold issue No.1 partly in the affirmative.
63. Additional Issue No.1 and 2 :- The defendants 6
to 10 have contended that they have purchased the item No.4
and 16 for valuable consideration and they are the bonafide
purchasers. However, the 2nd defendant contended that the
properties which were purchased by defendant No.6 to 10 are
also the joint family properties, she is entitled for share in
that properties since she has not given consent to alienate
the properties, her interest also involved in it. From the
evidence of DW.2, 3 and 5 will clearly reveals that the
defendants 6 to 10 have purchased the item No.4 and 16
under registered sale deed for valuable consideration much
prior to 20th December, 2004. Though the 2 nd defendant
acquired right over the property under Section 6(a) of the
OS.No.873/2012
84
Amended Hindu Succession Act, 2005, the proviso is very
clear that what are all the properties alienated prior to
20.12.2004, 2nd defendant is not entitled for any share in the
properties. As such it cannot be said that the defendants 6 to
10 are not the bonafide purchasers of the properties. Hence, I
hold additional Issue No.1 and 2 in the affirmative.
64. Additional Issue No.3 :- The 10th defendant has
contended that the 1st defendant sold the Site No.38 i.e., item
No.16 in favour of M.S.Srinivasan, in turn said
M.S.Srinivasan sold in favour of A.G.Manjunatha, all the
above purchasers are not made as parties. Hence, suit is bad
for non-joinder of necessary parties. Admittedly, the
defendants 8 to 10 have purchased the Site No.38 i.e., item
No.16 of the suit schedule property from A.G.Manjunatha.
When they have purchased the property and they are in
possession and enjoyment of the said property, the vendor of
these defendants are not necessary party to the proceedings.
Hence, I hold additional issue No.3 in the negative.
65. Additional Issue No.4 :- Though the defendants
8 to 10 have taken a contention that suit is barred by
limitation, in a suit for partition unless the defendants take
OS.No.873/2012
85
the plea regarding ouster from the family more than 12 years
there is no limitation to file suit for partition. In the instant
case, there is no pleading of the defendants 8 to 10 that the
2nd defendant ousted from the family for more than 12 years.
Moreover, there is no any iota of evidence placed by the
defendants 8 to 10 to show that suit is barred by limitation.
Hence, I hold additional issue No.4 in the negative.
66. Additional issue No.5 :- The defendants 8 to 10
are the bonafide purchasers since they have purchased the
property prior to amendment of Hindu Succession Act came
to force, when the 2nd defendant not entitled for any share
with respect to item No.16 of the suit schedule property, the
question of allotting the item No.16 in favour of the 1 st
defendant does not arise at all. Hence, I hold additional issue
No.5 in the negative.
67. Issue No.2 :- When hough the 2nd defendant
proved that the suit item No.1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 are the joint
family properties by producing cogent evidence and the 2 nd
defendant failed to prove that the item No.4, 5, 6, 10, 11 to
21 are the joint family properties, consequently I hold issue
No.2 in partly affirmative.
OS.No.873/2012
86
68. Issue No.3:- In view of the above discussions, I
proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
The counter claim of the 2nd defendant is hereby partly decreed with respect to item No.1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 and the suit is hereby dismissed with respect to item No.4, 5, 6, 10 to 21.
The defendant No.2(a) to (d) jointly and defendant No.1(a) and 3 jointly entitled for 1/4th share with respect to item No.1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 of the suit schedule property.
The defendant No.1(a) and 3 are hereby directed to effect the partition accordingly and put the defendants No.2(a) to (d) in separate possession of their share with respect to item No.1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 9 of the suit schedule property.
Considering the relationship of the parties, no order as to cost.
Draw a preliminary decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, typed by him, the transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me, in open court, on this the 4th day of January , 2022).
(Kengabalaiah), XLII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
OS.No.873/2012 87 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiffs:
Nil List of documents exhibited for plaintiffs:
Nil List of witnesses examined for defendants:
D.W.1 Narayanaswamy DW.2 V.Kantharaj DW.3 N.S.Suresh Chandra DW.4 Venkataramu D. DW.5 B.N.Shylesh Kumar
List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Ex.D1 S.P.A.
Ex.2 to 83 RTC extracts
Ex.D84 to 103 Mutation registers
Ex.D104 Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd.2.1.1995
Ex.D105 Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd.17.11.995
Ex.D106 Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd.2.2.1967
Ex.D107 Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd.8.7.2002
Ex.D108 Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd.19.11.2007
Ex.D109 Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd.19.11.2007
Ex.D110 Certified copy of the conditional Sale Deed
dtd.29.3.2000
Ex.D111 Certified copy of the conditional Sale Deed
dtd.29.3.2000
Ex.D112 Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd.25.2.2010
OS.No.873/2012
88
Ex.D113 & 114 Certified copy of Sale Deeds dtd.27.6.2002 Ex.D115 Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd.28.2.2002 Ex.D116 & 117 Certified copy of Sale Deeds dtd.12.8.2002 Ex.D118 Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd.27.7.2002 Ex.D119 to 145 RTC extracts Ex.D146 Encumbrance certificate Ex.D147 Endorsement issued by Tahsildar Ex.D148 Endorsement issued by Tahsildar Ex.D149 Index of land Ex.D150 Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd.29.7.1974 Ex.D151 Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd.21.11.02 Ex.D152 Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd.3.10.1994 Ex.D152(a) Typed copy of Ex.D152 Ex.D153 Original Sale Deed dtd.12.8.2002 Ex.D154 Betterment charge receipt Ex.D155 Khata certificate Ex.D156 House and Land register extract Ex.D157 Encumbrance certificate Ex.D158 to 171 Tax paid receipts Ex.D172 to 178 7 Photographs Ex.D179 C.D. Ex.D180 Order sheet in Case No.5/1959-60 Ex.D181 Original GPA dtd.28.4.1982 Ex.D182 Original Sale Deed dtd.24.5.1989 Ex.D183 Original Sale Deed dtd.7.11.2006 Ex.D184 Khata certificate Ex.D185 Uttara Pathra OS.No.873/2012 89 Ex.D186 House and Land register extract Ex.D187 Sanction plan Ex.D188 Original Sale Deed dtd.1.9.2014 Ex.D189 Khata certificate Ex.D190 Uttara Pathra Ex.D191 House and Land register extract Ex.D192 to 199 Tax paid receipts Ex.D200 Certified copy of Partition deed dtd.16.8.1962 Ex.D201 Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd.2.2.1967 XLII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.