Bangalore District Court
Parvathi M vs Muniyappa on 9 April, 2025
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
KABC010143992010
IN THE COURT OF V ADDL.CITY CIVIL COURT
AT BENGALURU
(CCH.No.13)
Present: Sri. ONKARAPPA.R, B.Sc., LL.B.
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU
Dated this the 9th day of April, 2025
O.S. No.3429/2010
PLAINTIFF: Smt. Parvathi,
W/o Late C. Narayanaswamy,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at No.2/48, VST Road,
Lingarajapuram,
St. Thomas Town Post,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. VC advocate)
.Vs.
DEFENDANTS: 1. Muniyappa
Since dead by his L.Rs
1(a). Sri. Jairaj,
S/o Late Muniyappa,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at Vaddarapalya,
Ganeshappa Layout,
(Agastha Church),
Horamavu Agara Post,
K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bengaluru.
1(b). Sri. Gangadhar,
S/o Late Muniyappa,
Aged about 48 years,
1st Floor, K.V. Krishnappa
Building, Near Sri Rama
temple, Opp. Srishanthi Sagar
Hotel, Hennur Main Road,
Lingarajapuram,
Bengaluru.
2
O.S.No.3429/2010
1(c). Sri. Anjinappa,
S/o Late Muniyappa,
Aged about 46 years
1(d). Sri. Raghavendra,
S/o Late Muniyappa,
Aged about 40 years
1(e). Sri. Shivaprasad,
S/o Late Muniyappa,
Aged about 38 years
Sl.No.1(c) to 1(e) are
R/at No.2/51, VST Road,
Lingarajapuram,
St. Thomas Town Post,
Bengaluru.
1(f). Krishnamma,
D/o Late Muniyappa,
W/o Shamanna,
Aged about 56 years
1(g). Asha (Ammaiah),
D/o Late Muniyappa,
W/o Krishnappa,
Aged about 44 years
1(h). Sumi,
D/o Late Muniyappa,
Aged about 52 years
Sl.No.1(f) to 1(h) are
R/at No.2/51, VST Road,
Lingarajapuram,
St. Thomas Town Post,
Bengaluru.
2. Mahalakshmamma,
Dead L.Rs already on record
3. Srinivas,
S/o Late T. Munivenkatappa,
Aged about 45 years
3
O.S.No.3429/2010
4. Kumar.M
S/o Late T. Munivenkatappa,
Aged about 38 years
Defendant No.2 to 4 are
R/at No.2/44, VST Road,
Lingarajapuram,
St. Thomas Town Post,
Bengaluru.
5. Gowramma
Dead, Issue less
6. Smt. Muniyellamma,
W/o Late Muniswamy
Dead
7. Smt. Muniyamma @
Thayamma, Aged about
45 years
Sl.No.6 and 7 are
Residing at Jogi Colony,
Madivala,
Hosur Main Road,
Bengaluru.
(D.1- Dead
L.R of D1(a,b)- Absent
D.1(c, e, h)- Sri. B.R
D.1(f, g)- Ex-parte
D.2 to 4- Sri. NM
D.5- Dead
D.6, 7- Sri. TS advocates)
EFENDANTS: 1. HOMIGO REALTY PRIVATE LTD.,
4
O.S.No.3429/2010
Date of Institution of the suit 26/05/2010
Nature of the suit Declaration and Injunction Suit
Date of Commencement of recording of 03/09/2022
evidence
Date on which judgment was 09/04/2025
Pronounced
Total Duration Year Months Days
14 10 13
[ONKARAPPA.R]
V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU
******
:JUDGMENT:
The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration, to declare the plaintiff is absolute owner by virtue of the Will dated 16/10/2006 executed by her uncle to an extent of 5/16th of the suit schedule property and also for the relief of permanent injunction, in restrained the defendants and their henchmen from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit
2. Brief facts are as under:-
That, the plaintiff's grandfather had three sons viz., Muniyappa i.e. 1st defendant and the plaintiff's father late T. Munivenkatappa and Muniswamy and one daughter i.e. 5 th defendant. The plaintiff's grandfather had possessed the 5 O.S.No.3429/2010 house list bearing No.11, Khaneshumari No.16/17, measuring east to west 12 ½ feet and north to south 17 ½ feet situated at VST Road, Lingarajapuram, Bengaluru. During the life time of plaintiff's grandfather he had executed a Will bequeathing the house list bearing No.11, Khaneshumari No.16/17, measuring east to west 12 ½ feet and north to south 17 ½ feet to the plaintiff's uncle viz., Muniswamy. The plaintiff's uncle Muniswamy had no issues and due to that reason the plaintiff has taken care about Muniswamy with regard to his health and providing food and she has discharged duties as a daughter to him. The plaintiffs' uncle Muniswamy died on 23/03/2007. During the life time of said Muniswamy he had bequeathed the property by executing a Will dated 16/10/2006 in favour of the plaintiff, in case whatever the decision likely to be rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.164/2002 and on which side he will get share at the time of final partition and said property will be given or will be allotted to the plaintiff's uncle, the plaintiff will entitled the said property in view of the Will. The plaintiff is residing in the same portion as per the schedule in the Will since 20 years along with her uncle and even after his death the plaintiff continued in possession. About three days back 1st defendant came near the suit schedule property along with his henchmen and tried to 6 O.S.No.3429/2010 dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. However the plaintiff resisted the illegal acts of 1 st defendant with the help of supporters and well wishers. 1 st defendant went away saying that he will come back with large number of supporters and he will achieve his illegal goal. As such the plaintiff went to the police station and requested to give protection, the police have denied the same on the ground that the case is purely of civil in nature and advised the plaintiff to approach the jurisdictional civil court. The plaintiff is a poor lady and she is staying in the suit schedule property since 20 years. 1st defendant is a powerful person having men and material with them and he may dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property and in such an event the plaintiff will be put to irreparable loss and injury. Admittedly, the trial court has decreed the share of the parties that 1st defendant is entitled for 5/16 th share, 2nd defendant is entitled for 5/16 th share and the plaintiff's uncle is entitled for 5/16th share and 5th defendant is entitled 1/6th share. As such the plaintiff has succeeded to the uncle's share in view of the Will executed by him on 16/10/2006. Therefore the plaintiff is entitled 5/16 th share in respect of property bearing No.11, measuring east to west 12 ½ feet and north to south 17 ½ feet. The plaintiff is legally entitled the share likely to be fallen to the plaintiff's uncle viz., 7 O.S.No.3429/2010 Muniswamy. The defendants are well aware about the genuineness of the Will, therefore the plaintiff has sought for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is entitled to the plaintiff's uncle share by virtue of Will dated 16/10/2006. cause of action for the suit arouse when the plaintiff's uncle had executed the Will in her favour on 16/10/2006 and other subsequent dates. The plaintiff valued the suit as per separate valuation slip for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fee. The plaintiff has paid the required court fee on plaint. Hence, the plaintiff sought for decreed the suit.
3. In against the suit defendant No.1 has appeared through his counsel and he chosen to filed his written statement. Wherein the written statement he has denied the entire averments of the plaint as false. Further he contended, suit of the plaintiff not maintainable either in law or on facts. Hence liable to be dismissed. The present suit is devoid of merits filed just in order to harass this defendant and to avoid this defendant to reap the fruits of preliminary decree passed in O.S. No.1/1996 and in pursuant to said decree final decree in FDP No.47/2002 pending on the file of CCH-7. The alleged Will is the concocted document. The present suit is premature one. Actually above final decree proceedings are not concluded and share of the plaintiff's uncle Muniswamy is not determined. When such being the 8 O.S.No.3429/2010 case, how the plaintiff maintain the present suit. The alleged Will came in to existence on 16/10/2006, how the plaintiff is residing in the said premises since 20 years? This itself clearly shows malafide intention in filing the suit. The ration card and voters list are recent documents. The story of interference by this defendant and filing a complaint against him are all created by the plaintiff to suit her claim. The plaintiff and other defendants in order to avoid this defendant to reap the fruits of decree passed in his favour have filed the suit by colluding with each other with concocted documents by fabricating the documents at their convenience. Absolutely there is no bonafide in the case. There is no cause of action for the suit. The alleged cause of action was false one. In view of pendency of FDP No.47/2002 on same issue, this court does not got jurisdiction to try the suit. Since there is FDP proceedings pending on the same cause of action the averment stating that the plaintiff has not filed any other suit on the same cause of action is false. The court fee paid on the plaint are not at all sufficient. The plaintiff has to pay the court fee on the market value of the property. Since the plaintiff is not in the possession of the suit schedule property and suit is for declaration the court fee paid on the plaint are not at all sufficient. The plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and suppressed the real facts and 9 O.S.No.3429/2010 circumstances of the case. As such the plaintiff not entitled for any relief. the first defendant one Munivenkatappa and Muniyappa are the sons of late Thimmaiah. Smt. Gowramma is their sister. The First defendant and above persons constitute joint family. Their father Thimmaiah died intestate on 05.03.1987. Their mother is also no more. Late Thimmaiah acquired the suit schedule property along with another property under the registered partition deed dated 17.10.1956 in the partition between himself and his brothers and developed the same out of the joint family funds. After the death of Thimmaiah, the Munivenkatappa the late father of defendants 3 and 4 looking after the properties as manager of the joint family consisting of above said persons. The first defendant had also let out the suit schedule property to the tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- and receiving the rents without sharing it. The said Munivenkatappa gradually mismanaging the joint family properties and he tried to dispose off the joint family properties without the consent of other members of joint family. Therefore, this defendant demanded for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule property and other joint family properties. When Munivenkatappa and Muniyappa refused to partition the suit schedule property and other properties, he had filed suit for 10 O.S.No.3429/2010 partition and separate possession of his share in O.S.No. 1/1996. After prolonged enquiry the trial court passed judgment and decree decreeing the suit of this defendant granting him 5/16th Share in the suit schedule properties. Accordingly, this defendant had filed Final Decree proceedings in FDP 47/2002 on the file of the Hon'ble XXII Additional City civil Judge, Bangalore city. Thereafter the plaintiff and the other defendants 2 to 5 herein colluding with each other in order to avoid this defendant to reap the fruits preliminary decree passed by this court, had filed Regular Appeal against the judgment and Decree in RFA 164/2002. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka after considering all the aspects, confirmed judgment and decree passed by trial court on 06.02.2010. The plaintiff herein in order to delay the RFA proceedings and in order to avoid this defendant to reap the be fruits of order passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 5 colluding with each other have filed above suit on false and flimsy grounds. The above suit is devoid of merits absolutely there is no bonafides in the above suit. By considering the above facts, if this court dismisses the above suit no body will be prejudiced. Otherwise, the First Defendant will be put to great hardship and loss. On these grounds prayed for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.
11O.S.No.3429/2010
4. L.rs of defendant No.1(c) also chosen to filed his addl. Written statement. Wherein the addl. Written statement he contended, the plaintiff based on false, frivolous and vexatious grounds and by inventing the alleged Will to have been executed by late Muniswamy is making a futile attempt to grab the schedule property though she is not entitled for the relief claimed by her, when such is the reality the suit itself is unsustainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff with ulterior motive to grab the property belonging to the joint family members had come up with the suit and trying to grab the property and the application for amendment was filed after the lapse of 10 years and on this score also the instant suit of the plaintiff requires to be dismissed. The plaintiff in active collusion got compromised in FDP No.47/2002. He filed a petition for setting aside the FDP proceedings which is pending consideration before the court. As such under the circumstances when the plaintiff not entitled for any relief claimed by her the averments made in the amended plaint concerning to the amendment as regard to the measurement does not arise. Therefore suit of the plaintiff requires to be dismissed with heavy cost. The plaintiff not entitled for the relief claimed by her as she bases her claim based on the created Will alleged to have been executed by Muniswamy. Muniswamy has left behind his 12 O.S.No.3429/2010 wife Smt. Muniyellamma and therefore the instant suit of the plaintiff lack bonafide and liable to be dismissed. On these grounds prayed for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings my predecessor in office has framed the issues at below:-
1. Whether the plaintiff to prove the pedigree pleaded in her plaint is true and correct?
2. Whether the plaintiff to prove that she has become the absolute owner of 5/16th share of the suit schedule property by virtue of the Will executed by late Muniswamy dated 16/10/2006?
3. Whether the plaintiff to prove her lawful possession over a portion of the suit schedule property as mentioned in the Will since last 20 years?
4. Whether the plaintiff to prove the alleged interference made by the defendant on her possession?13
O.S.No.3429/2010
5. Whether the first defendant to prove the present suit is devoid of merits filed just in order to harass this defendant and to avoid this defendant to reach the fruits of the preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.1/1996 and FDP No.47/2002 on the file of CCH-7?
6. Whether the defendants to prove the court fee paid is insufficient and the valuation made by the plaintiff is incorrect?
7. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for relief claimed in the suit?
8. What order or decree?
6. As to prove the plaintiff's case, the plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1 and she got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to P.9, P.9(a) to P.9(d). Further also to prove the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff have examined two witnesses by name Sri. Mallikarjun and Sri. A. Suresh as P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 and through them, their signature got marked at Ex.P.9(e) and 9(f) respectively . The defendants has got confronted one document to P.W. 1 at Ex.D.1 and D.1(a). On the other hand, defendant No.1(c) by name Anjinappa examined 14 O.S.No.3429/2010 himself as D.W.1 and he got marked Ex.D.2 to D.6 documents.
7. Heard argument on both the sides. Perused the records. Perused the written arguments filed by both the parties. The learned counsel for L.RS of defendant No.1(c, e & h) have relied on the decision reported in AIR 1994 MP 5 ( Bherulal Vs. Ramkunwarbai and others).
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the negative
Issue No.3 : In the negative
Issue No.4 : In the negative
Issue No.5 : In the affirmative
Issue No.6 : Already answered as per
order sheet dated
15/02/2013
Issue No.7 : In the negative
Issue No.8 : As per final order for
the following:
:R E A S O N S:
9. Issue No.1 to 5:- Since Issue No. 1 to 5 are
interlinked with each other, that I have taken the same are all issues for my common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts.
15O.S.No.3429/2010
10. As could be seen from the deposition of P.W.1, plaintiff's grand father Thimmaiah had 3 sons viz., Muniyappa 1st defendant, T. Munivenkatappa and Muniswamy and one daughter Gowramma.
T. Munivenkatappa is the father of plaintiff. Muniswamy is the uncle of plaintiff. Grand father of the plaintiff by name Thimmaiah possessed the suit schedule property. In during the life time of Thimmaiah , Thimaiah bequeathed one Will in pertains to suit schedule property in the name of Muniswamy. Muniswamy had no issues. Hence the plaintiff has taken all care about Muniswamy with regard to his health, food and shelter. Further, the plaintiff have also discharged all ritual duties of Muniswamy after his death as a daughter to him. Muniswamy was died on 23.03.2007. In during the life time of Muniswamy, Muniswamy bequeathed Will dated 16.10.2006 to the Plaintiff with respect to the suit schedule property. In the said Will Muniswamy diverted his intestate succession of the suit schedule property what Muniswamy entitled in that property at the decision of the Hon'ble High court in RFA No.164/2002. Thereby according to the plaintiff, legate Muniswamy bequeathed his interest in the suit property to the plaintiff at his normal life time. In its contrary it could also seen from the deposition of DW1, suit is not 16 O.S.No.3429/2010 maintainable either in law or in facts. Suit is devoid of merits. Suit initiated by the plaintiff with ulterior motive to harass the defendant and also to avoid the defendants to reap the fruits of preliminary decree passed in OS No.1/1996 and to avoid for drawn the final decree in FDP proceedings pending in FDP No.47/2002 at before CCH-7. When at the time of pendency of the suit the plaintiffs have concocted the documents only with malafide intention to knock off the property. But in the same deposition of DW1 it could also been seen, derival of title of the suit property to Thimmaiah, pendency of the suit in between the son's and daughter's of Thimmaiah as well as relationship of plaintiff and defendants. With this background the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.
11. On assimilating the controversy in the suit, no dispute with respect to relationship in between the Plaintiffs and defendants. Also not in dispute derival of title of the suit schedule property to grand father of the plaintiff Thimmaiah. Further it also not in dispute judgment in OS No.1/1996 have been passed by the court by declaring partition rights of Plaintiff's father Munivenkatappa, 1 st defendant Muniyappa, uncle of Plaintiff Muniswamy and aunt of Plaintiff Gowramma. Case of the plaintiff is, in during the life time of Muniswamy he bequeathed Ex.P.9 Will dated 16/10/2006 to 17 O.S.No.3429/2010 the plaintiff. Signature of the testator Muniswamy got marked by P.W.1 as per Ex.P.9(a), P.9(b), P.9(c) and P.9(d). Since the plaintiff took all the responsibilities of her uncle M. Muniswamy, including ritual performance, M.Muniswamy bequeathed Ex.P.9 Will upon the suit property to the plaintiff and put the plaintiff in to possession of the suit property. Since Muniswamy was died on 23/03/2007 the plaintiff now become an absolute owner in possession of the suit property on virtue of Ex.P.9 Will. But the same case of plaintiff have denied by the defendants as false and concocted story. As per the defendants the plaintiff and other defendants make harass the defendant No.1 with just to avoid reap the fruits of judgment and decree passed both in O.S.No.1/1996 and FDP No.47/2002. Further according to 1 st defendant yet the properties including the suit schedule property have not been divided by metes and bounds even the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.1/1996 as well as the compromise petition filed in FDP No.47/2002. Hence according to the defendant suit of the plaintiff not maintainable. Important to note though it not disputed the date of death of testator M.Muniswamy no death certificate brought forth in record as an evidence. Further, to substantiated the case theory of the plaintiff and in compliance of Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, the plaintiff has also examined two more witnesses by name 18 O.S.No.3429/2010 Mallikarjuna as P.W.2 and A. Suresh as P.W.3. According to the plaintiff at before P.W.2 and P.W.3, testator M.Muniswamy bequeathed Ex.P.9 Will upon the suit schedule property in the name of plaintiff. Not in dispute P.W.2 identified his signature at in Ex.P.9 as per Ex.P.9(e) and signature of one Gowramma identified by her nephew's son A. Suresh P.W.3 as per Ex.P.9(f). Also important to note, make identification of the suit schedule property no revenue documents brought forth on the record as evidence. According to the plaintiff testator M.Muniswamy was in possession of the suit schedule property, he got the right, title and possession upon the suit schedule property one by virtue of Will said to bequeathed by Thimmaiah and another one by means of intestate succession. With this being the facts Ex.D.4 judgment and Ex.D.5 decree passed in O.S. No.1/1996 and one compromise petition filed in FDP No.47/2002 as per Ex.D.3 also rest in the record as undisputed. But, if appreciated the things which stood and decided by the court in O.S. No.1/1996 in its judgment and decree, one thing have been evidence the factum bequeathing if the Will by father of Muniswamy by name Thimmaiah to his sons upon the joint family property have already been decided by that court. As per the decision of that court the claim of the plaintiff with respect to source of 19 O.S.No.3429/2010 title in the suit schedule property on virtue of Will executed by Thimmaiah to Muniswamy would not to be holds any kind of water. Further if it appreciated the evidentiary value of Ex.P.9 Will where in the said Will it could be seen the interest which would entitled by Muniswamy have been bequeathed in the name of plaintiff and no material in the same Ex.P.9 that it could possible to see suit property in entirety bequeathed by Muniswamy to the plaintiff. In its contrary, the case of plaintiff is, Muniswamy was in possession of the suit schedule property and he bequeathed Ex.P.9 Will in to the name of plaintiff and Muniswamy put the plaintiff in to the possession of suit schedule property. Thereby, the plaintiff have also sought for relief of permanent injunction in against all the defendants as consequential relief of the declaration of title. If the plaintiff have admitted case proceedings in between the brothers and sister of the plaintiff's father as per Ex.D.2 to D.6, how it could possible to described the property as suit schedule property as well as the schedule property at Ex.P.9 Will. Admittedly, though parties are even if entered in to the compromise in the FDP proceedings by filing Ex.D3 compromise petition, the same compromise have also under challenged in the miscellaneous petition No.104/2021. If partition rights of sons and daughters of Thimmaiah once have not been acted upon despite of the 20 O.S.No.3429/2010 judgment and decree by means of metes and bounds, how it could possible to grant the relief of declaration to the plaintiff upon the suit schedule property based on Ex.P.9 Will. If suppose the relief of declaration grant in the name of plaintiff in the suit schedule property based on Ex.P.9 Will then how it could possible to drawn the final decree proceedings upon the properties including the suit schedule property in effect to Ex.D.4 judgment and Ex.D.5 decree. Such of an attempt for granted the relief to plaintiff based on Ex.P.9 Will certainly will cause res sub-judice the right of partition in between the brothers and sister of plaintiff's father. No doubt, the plaintiff is entitled the property fallen to the share of M.Muniswamy if the plaintiff once would proved the Ex.P.9 Will beyond all doubts as per the law at before the court. Further also no bar under the law to diverted the intestate succession belongs to Muniswamy by bequeathing like that of Ex.P.9 Will to the plaintiff upon the share which would allotted to Muniswamy. Thereby though the plaintiff sought for the relief of declaration of intestate succession belongs M. Muniswamy under Ex.P.9 Will, the consequential relief sought by the plaintiff upon the suit schedule property make it surprise to the law. On the other hand admittedly the present plaintiff have also one of the party in Ex.D.3 compromise petition filed in FDP No.47/2002 and in Ex.D.6 21 O.S.No.3429/2010 miscellaneous petition filed in Misc.No.104/2021. If the plaintiff would have the interest to adjudicated the controversy in completely and effectively in the single window manner, certainly the plaintiff would have take the present controversy accrued on Ex.P.9 Will either at in FDP No.47/2002 compromise petition at Ex.D.3 or at in Ex.D.6 Misc. Petition No.104/2021. Admittedly Ex.D.9 Will is of the dated 16/10/2006. Not in dispute, the present plaintiff have also one of the party to the proceeding at in FDP No.47/2002, Ex.D.3 compromise petition filed in FDP No.47/2002 and also in Ex.D.6 Misc. Petition No.104/2021. If argued the plaintiff became an party to all the proceedings, at FDP No.47/2002, compromise petition at Ex.D.3 filed in FDP No.47/2002 and also Ex.D.6 Misc. Petition No.104/2021, certainly the plaintiff would have the remedy upon Ex.P.9 Will as per Order 22 Rule 10 CPC in the same case proceedings. As the plaintiff fail to worked out the needful remedy upon Ex.P.9 Will either at in FDP No.47/2002 or in Misc. Petition No.104/2021 at Ex.D.6 the approach of the plaintiff on its face that it evidence the case of the defendants. Further the plaintiff contended she be in the possession of suit schedule property. As to evidence she got marked Ex.P.7 election I.D. card, Ex.P.8 Aadhar card and Ex.P.3 phone bills issued by BSNL. As I already point out 22 O.S.No.3429/2010 herein the above with respect to availability as well as identification of the suit schedule property, no revenue documents forth come on the record. As to appreciated the same case of the plaintiff the cross-examination portion of P.W.1 have take its own meaning. Wherein the cross- examination of P.W.1 it elicited ದಾವ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತು ಗಳು ಪಿತಾರ್ಜಿತ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತು ಗಳು ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ನನ್ನ ಚಿಕ್ಕ ಪ್ಪ ನನ್ನ ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲೆ ೕ ಮರಣ ಹೊಂದಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ನನ್ನ ಚಿಕ್ಕ ಪ್ಪ ಮುನಿಸ್ವಾ ಮಿರವರಿಗೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಿಸಿದ ರೇಷನ್ ಕಾರ್ಡ್ ಮತ್ತು ಮತದಾರರ ಚೀಟಿಯನ್ನು ನಾನು ನ್ಯಾ ಯಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಿಲ್ಲ . ವಿಲ್ ಮರಣ ಶಾಶನ ನಂತರ ನಾನು ದಾವ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತಿ ನ ಮೇಲೆ ಯಾವುದೇ ಕಂದಾಯ ಪಾವತಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ . If legatee Muniswamy once would have under the nourishing and care of the plaintiff at before his death, certainly the plaintiff would have the more opportunity to owned such of the ration card and election I.D card belonging to Muniswamy. Further Muniswamy once would have under the nourishing and care of the plaintiff and the plaintiff if once would discharged her pious of Muniswamy after his death, certainly the plaintiff would have the more opportunity to owned the death certificate of legatee. If it questioned with respect to production of death certificate of Muniswamy, the plaintiff have taken her own blunted defense with respect to production of death certificate. The same answer which elicited from the mouth of 23 O.S.No.3429/2010 P.W.1 herein noted. ನನ್ನ ಚಿಕ್ಕ ಪ್ಪ ಮುನಿಸ್ವಾ ಮಿ ಮರಣದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನನ್ನ ಬಳಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ದಾಖಲೆ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಯು ನ್ಯಾ ಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಮರಣ ಸಮರ್ಥನಾ ಪತ್ರ ನೀಡಿರುತ್ತೆ ೕನೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. Even if suggested the P.W.1 with respect to non production of death certificate of Muniswamy, but P.W.1 contradictorily answered and she deposed that she produced the death certificate of Muniswamy. The same such of the omission view taken by the plaintiff in her cross- examination make it obvious, the plaintiff may deposed her evidence just for the reason to her undue enrichment. With this being of answer which elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 have make it diluted the evidentiary value of Ex.P.3 phone bill, Ex.P.7 election I.D card and Ex.P.8 Aadhar card.
12. Even if I go through the cross-examination portion of P.W.2 and P.W.3 who said to be the attested witnesses of Ex.P.9 Will, at through the mouth of P.W2 it elicited the same herein extracted ನನ್ನ ಪ್ರ ಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರ ದಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ಹೇಳಿರುವಂತಹ ವಿಳಾಸದಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿ ದೆದೕನೆ ಎಂದು ತೋರಿಸಲು ನಾನು ಯಾವುದೇ ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಕರಾರನ್ನು ನ್ಯಾ ಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ನೀಡಿಲ್ಲ .ನಾನೇ ನೈಜ್ಯ ಮಲ್ಲಿ ಕರ್ಜುನ್ ಎಂದು ತೋರಿಸಲು ನ್ಯಾ ಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ನಾನು ಆಧಾರ್ ಕಾರ್ಡನ್ನು ಸಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿರುತ್ತೆ ೕನೆ. ನಾನು ಹೇಳುವಂತಹ ಯಾವುದೇ ಆಧಾರ ಕಾರ್ಡನ್ನು ನ್ಯಾ ಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಹಾಜರು 24 O.S.No.3429/2010 ಪಡಿಸಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ . Further it also elicited from the mouth of P.W.2 is ನಿಪಿ-9 ವಿಲ್ ಗೆ ನೋಟ್ರಿ ಮಾಡಿರುವ ವಕೀಲರ ಹೆಸರು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿ ಲ್ಲ . ನೋಟ್ರಿ ರವರ ಲೇಡ್ಜ ರ್ ಬುಕ್ಕಿ ಗೆ ನಾನು ಸಹಿ ಮಾಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ . ನಿಪಿ-9 ವಿಲ್ ಗೆ ಮುನಿಶಾಮಪ್ಪ ಬರೆದಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಹೊರತು ಮುನಿಸ್ವಾ ಮಪ್ಪ ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ . ನಿಪಿ-9 ವಿಲ್ ಮಾಡಿರುವ ಮುನಿಶಾಮಪ್ಪ ಯಾರು ಎಂದು ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿ ಲ್ಲ . The same such of the above answer which elicited from the mouth of P.W.2 have also created suspicious circumstances with respect to identification as well as residential address of P.W.2. Even if P.W.2 have answered that he produced such of the Aadhar card belonging to him for his identification, no such of the document available in the case record. Thereby the stands taken by P.W.2 at before the court have also created the suspicious circumstances with respect to P.W.2, whether P.W.2 really an attested witness or he suppose to acted as attested witness. Further even if go through the deposition of P.W.3, wherein the deposition of P.W.3 that such of the above all suspicious circumstances which covered all around Ex.P.9 Will could be seen. With this being of observation that I am of the view, despite the plaintiff take the case and its procedure as per the law but the plaintiff have fail to established Muniswamy bequeathed 25 O.S.No.3429/2010 Ex.P.9 Will beyond all reasonable doubt. With the score of that also make the plaintiff in to disentitle the relief. With the background of the above all observation that I answered Issue No.1 and 5 in the affirmative and Issue No.2 to 4 in the negative.
13. Issue No.7:- Though the plaintiff proved her relationship with the defendants but for the foregoing all reasons finds on issue No.2 to 5, the plaintiff not entitled any of the relief as they sought. Hence, I answer Issue No.7 in the negative.
14. Issue No.8:- For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following;
:ORDER:
Suit of the plaintiff hereby dismissed with cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
In view of disposal of the suit and all pending interlocutory applications if any do not survive for consideration. Hence, they stands disposed off.
(Dictated directly to the Stenographer on computer typed by her, corrected and then signed by me and pronounced in the open Court on this the 9th day of April, 2025) [ ONKARAPPA.R] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU ***** 26 O.S.No.3429/2010 :ANNEXURE:
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 : Smt. Parvathi PW.2 : Sri. Mallikarjun PW.3 : Sri. A. Suresh
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
DW.1 : Anjinappa DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex. P1 Certified copy of compromise petition in FDP No.47/2002 Ex. P2 Billing account Ex. P3 BSNL receipt Ex. P4 Certified copy of order passed in RFA No.164/2002 Ex. P5 Death certificate pertains to Mahalakshmamma Ex. P6 Death certificate pertains to Gowramma Ex. P7 Election I.D card Ex. P8 Aadhar card Ex. P9 Will Ex. P9(a to d) Signatures of Muniswamy Ex. P9(e) Signature of P.W. 2 Ex. P.9(f) Signature of P.W. 3
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:-
Ex.D1 Certified copy of vakalath
Ex.D1(a) Signature of Muniswamy
Ex.D2 Certified copy of application in FDP No.47/2002
Ex.D3 Certified copy of compromise petition filed in FDP No.47/2002
27
O.S.No.3429/2010
Ex.D4 Certified copy of judgment in O.S.No.1/1996 Ex.D5 Certified copy of decree in O.S.No.1/1996 Ex.D6 Certified copy of application filed in Misc.No.104/2021 [ ONKARAPPA.R ] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU ***** 28 O.S.No.3429/2010 If I go through the case record to pass an judgment, no other than to defendant No.1 and defendant No.1(c) other all defendants though represented through their counsel they have not chosen to filed their written statement. In this regard, no entry in the order sheet also. Accordingly written statement of on behalf of defendant No.1(a), 1(b), 1(d to h), defendant No.2 to 4 and defendant No.6 and 7 taken as not filed.
For judgment call again.
V ACC&SJ, Bengaluru.
29
O.S.No.3429/2010
Operative portion of the judgment
pronounced in open court vide separate judgment:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff hereby dismissed with cost.
Draw decree accordingly. In view of disposal of the suit and all pending interlocutory applications if any do not survive for consideration. Hence, they stands disposed off.
[ ONKARAPPA.R ] V ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU 30 O.S.No.3429/2010