Bangalore District Court
Sri. K.S.K. Raj vs Kumari. L.Ramya on 17 December, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE XXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY
DATED THIS THE 17 th DAY OF DECEMBER 2020
-: PRESENT:-
SRI. MAANU K.S., B.Sc., LLB.
XXX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.NO.2751/2015
PLAINTIFF/S. Sri. K.S.K. Raj,
S/o Late K.S.
Krishnaswamy,
Aged 49 years,
R/at No.260/1, 6th Cross,
6th Block, Nagarbhavi 2nd
Stage, Bengaluru-560 072.
(By Pleader Sri.Ravishnakar,
Adv.)
/VS/
DEFENDANT/S. 1. Kumari. L.Ramya,
D/o A.C.Lakshmaiah,
Aged about 17 years,
Since minor, rep.by her
father and natural
Guardian
A.C.Lakshmaiah,
R/at No.6, Bairaveshwara
Nilaya, 2nd Main, 2nd Cross,
Vinayak Nagar, Nagasandra
Post, Bengaluru-560 073.
2. A.C.Lakshmaiah,
S/o Chikkabyraiah,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at No.6, 2nd Main, 2nd
Cross, Vinayak Nagar,
Nagasandra Post,
Bengaluru-560 073.
2 O.S.No.2751/2015.
3. Chemm Finance Limited,
Unity Building, J.C. Road,
Bengaluru-560 002.
Rep.by its Managing
Director,
4.Chemmanur Finance
Limited,
Unity Building, J.C. Road,
Bengaluru-560 002.
Rep.by its Chairman,
(By Pleader Sri.T.P., Adv.
For D1 & D2,
Sri.S.D.N.Prasad, Adv.for
D3 & 42, D1-exparte.)
DATE OF INSTITUTION 23-03-2015
NATURE OF THE SUIT (Suit on Suit for
Pronote, Suit for declaration and Declaration.
Possession, Suit for injunction, etc.)
DATE OF THE COMMENCEMENT
OF RECORDING OF THE EVIDENCE 08-03-2017
DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGEMENT
WAS PRONOUNCED 17-12-2020
TOTAL DURATION : YEAR/S MONTH/S DAY/S
05 08 25
( MAANU K.S.),
XXX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
3 O.S.No.2751/2015.
JUDGEMENT
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of declaration to declare that he is the only legal heir to succeed to the estate of his father late K.S.Krishnaswamy described in the plaint schedule and for consequential relief of permanent injunction and mandatory injunction with costs.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as under:
(a). It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the son of one late K.S.Krishnaswamy and Smt.Shanta Krishnaswamy who passed away leaving him as their only legal heir to succeed to their estates. He has further contended that his mother Smt. Shanta Krishnaswamy was an employee in Reserve Bank of India from 1962 to 1993 and was a pensioner from 1993 till October 2010 when she died and his father late K.S.Krishnaswamy after resigning from Kamani Engineering in Mumbai in 1981 was leading his life with his wife by making use of the income of his wife and had invested the said salary of his wife with the defendants 3 and 4 under Fixed Deposits as described in the plaint schedule to the tune of Rs.17,50,000/- in respect of which the 1st defendant was nominated as nominee.
(b). It is further contended by the plaintiff that his father late K.S.Krishnaswamy was staying in a leased house belonging to the defendant No.2 and he used to 4 O.S.No.2751/2015. look after his father by giving him all comforts by visiting once in a week or more and since his father late K.S.Krishnaswamy was performing voluntary services in Radhasoami Satsang Beas Bengaluru Center, he had taken a house on lease from the 2 nd defendant which is situated near to the said Satsang so as to involve himself as a full time voluntary Sewadar and as such, he was keeping himself away from the plaintiff and his wife inspite of their requests to stay with them.
(c). The plaintiff further contended that his father late K.S.Krishnaswamy met with a road accident on 24-2-2014 and was hospitalized for treatment at Premier Sanjeevani Hospital, wherein he succumbed to injuries on the same day and thereafter, as per the wish of his father, he completed the formalities of eye donation of his father to Narayana Nethralaya and has performed all his obsequies and ceremonies. That he being the only Class-I legal heir of his father as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is entitled to succeed to the entire estate of his father, who died intestate and as such, he has got right, title and interest over the plaint schedule assets left behind by his father.
(d). The plaintiff further contended that his father late K.S.Krishnaswamy had paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the 2nd defendant as advance at the time of inception of the lease repayable to him on expiry of the lease, which was extended twice on 10- 5 O.S.No.2751/2015.
09-2010 and 10-09-2013 and on the death of his father, the lease came to an end and as such, the 2 nd defendant was liable to repay the said Rs.2,00,000/- advance amount to him on he vacating the said premises. He further contended that after the sudden death of his father, taking advantage of plaintiff's involvement in performing obsequies of his father, the 2nd defendant has illegally entered into the leased house which was in possession of his father and removed the valuables including FD receipts, lease deed, other movable properties and documents in respect of which he had complained before the jurisdictional police, wherein the 2nd defendant had admitted that he had taken all the valuables belonged to his father and undertook to return all the said valuables and the advance amount to him on his vacating the said premises, which the 2 nd defendant postponed by giving one or the other reasons, etc. and as such the FD receipts pertaining to the suit schedule assets which are stolen by the 2nd defendant are still in his custody.
(e).The plaintiff has further contended that the 1 st defendant is the daughter of 2nd defendant and his father being a tenant under the 2 nd defendant had maintained good relation with the 1st and 2nd defendants and except for the said reason, there was no relationship between his father and the 1 st defendant. He further contended that after the death of his father, when he approached the defendants 6 O.S.No.2751/2015. No.3 and 4 to realize the plaint schedule FDs which have been invested by his father during his life time, to his utter shock, it came to his knowledge that his father had nominated the 1st defendant as his nominee and the defendants No.1 and 2 have also approached defendants No.3 and 4 to release the said amounts in favour of 1st defendant and the defendants No.3 and 4 informed him that in order to settle the plaint schedule deposits, a Court order is necessary. Since his father had not left any testamentary documents to succeed to his estates described in the plaint schedule, he being the only class-I legal heir of his father is entitled to succeed to the plaint schedule assets and the defendants No.1 and 2 have got nothing to do with the same except the fact that they are the landlords of late K.S.Krishna Swamy who have by creating false documents have laid their claim and since defendants No.3 and 4 sought for probate and succession certificate from this Court, left with no option, he has come with this suit seeking for declaration to declare that he is the only legal heir to inherit to the suit schedule assets of his father and for consequential relief and prayed to decree the suit with costs.
3. After service of summons, the defendants No.1 and 2 appeared and the 2nd defendant filed his written statement, which has been adopted by the defendant No.1 by filing a memo, the brief facts of which are as follows:
7 O.S.No.2751/2015.(a). While denying several averments made in the plaint regarding the avocation of plaintiff and his parents and the investment made by them with defendants No.3 and 4 as not known to him, he admitted that late K.S.Krishna Swamy was staying in a house belonging to him as a lessee and was performing voluntary services at Radhasoami Satsang Beas Bangalore Centre. He denied the averments that late K.S.Krishna Swamy was staying at his house only for the reason that the plaintiff's house was located far away from the Centre and contended that since the plaintiff and his wife have deserted the said K.S.Krishna Swamy and not allowed him to stay with them, the said K.S.Krishna Swamy was residing in the house belonged to him by taking the same on lease.
While admitting that late K.S.Krishna Swamy met with a road accident on 24-02-2014 due to which he succumbed to injuries at Premier Sanjeevini Hospital and that the plaintiff performed the formalities of eye donation to Narayana Nethralaya as per his father's wish and cremated the body of his father, he denied that the plaintiff is a only legal heir to his parents and that he succeeded to the estate of his parents as per the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as not within his knowledge. While admitting that the 1 st defendant is his daughter and late K.S.Krishna Swamy had paid a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as advance at the time of entering into the lease agreement and that after the death of K.S.Krishnaswamy, on various occasions, the plaintiff had lodged complaints before 8 O.S.No.2751/2015. the Peenya Police against him, he contended that the plaintiff by making false averments against him had lodged those complaints even though he had not committed any such acts as complained by the plaintiff.
(b). While denying that late K.S.Krishna Swamy had invested a total sum of Rs. 17,50,000/- with defendants No.3 and 4 as not within his knowledge, he admitted that late K.S.Krishna Swamy had kept some amount in FD as mentioned in the plaint schedule with the defendants No.3 and 4 and that after the death of K.S.Krishna Swamy, plaintiff had approached the defendants No.3 and 4 claiming the said amount and he along with defendant No.1 has also claimed the said amount on the strength of the nomination made by late K.S.Krishna Swamy in favour of his daughter, who is the 1st defendant herein. While denying that he is in custody of all the original FD receipts pertaining to the schedule assets, he contended that he has got only the original FD receipt pertaining to FD No.9152 which forms part of schedule item No.1 and original documents pertaining to all schedule item No.2 FDs While further admitting that late K.S.Krishna Swamy was not related to himself and the 1st defendant, he contended that since the plaintiff and his wife had deserted late K.S.Krishna Swamy in the year 2005 itself, the said late K.S.Krishna Swamy was under the care and custody of himself and the 1st defendant since 10-05- 9 O.S.No.2751/2015. 2005 by staying in the rented house belonging to him and he was very much attached to his family and as such, neither himself or the 1st defendant have treated the deceased K.S.Krishna Swamy as a tenant or an outsider, but treated him as a member of their family and since he had an ambition to give good eduction to 1st defendant and was not capable of giving the same, understanding the said situation, late K.S.Krishna Swamy who used to treat the 1 st defendant as his own daughter, had nominated the 1st defendant as his nominee in the said FD receipts and had promised to take care of her education and as such, being the nominee in respect of the schedule mentioned FDs, the 1st defendant has got every legal right to claim the schedule properties and the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the schedule mentioned assets and as such, he sought for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.
4. The defendants No.3 and 4 in their written statement while admitting that the plaintiff is the son of late K.S.Krishna Swamy and Smt.Shantha Krishna Swamy and that late K.S.Krishna Swamy had invested the amount with them under various FDs as stated in plaint schedule, they also admitted that the plaintiff had approached them with a request to release the payments in his favour claiming to be the sole heir of K.S.Krishna Swamy. They further contended that since the original certificates were not produced by the plaintiff and claimed that the same are lost, they directed the plaintiff to get the declaration from the 10 O.S.No.2751/2015. competent Court to the effect that he is entitled to receive the amount in deposits in the name of late K.S.Krishna Swamy. They further contended that as per the records available with them, late K.S.Krishna Swamy had nominated the defendant No.1 as nominee and that the defendants No.1 and 2 had also approached them seeking for the release of the said FD amounts and since both have made rival claims, they have directed both of them to obtain a proper decree from the hands of this Court by keeping the said amount in suspense account and they are willing to settle the death benefits of K.S.Krishna Swamy as per the final orders that may be passed by this Court in this proceedings and that they are not liable to pay interest on the FDs from 24-02-2014 onwards and therefore, they sought for a declaration to declare as to who is entitled for the amount in deposit as per the plaint schedule and that they would make payment as per the orders of this Court.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the learned predecessor in office:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that as an heir he is entitled to the plaint schedule properties?
2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for in the suit?
3. Whether the defendants prove that defendant No.1 as a nominee to Fixed 11 O.S.No.2751/2015. deposits deposited by deceased K.S.Krishna Swamy is entitled to receive the same?
4. What order or decree?
6. In order to substantiate his case, the plaintiff got examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked 17 documents as Exs.P.1 to 17 and after his cross- examination, he closed his side evidence and during the course of cross-examination of D.W.1, Ex.P.18 to 23 and Ex.P.18(a) were got marked by way of confrontation by his counsel. In order to prove the case of the defendants, the defendant No. 2 got examined himself as D.W.1, but no documents were got marked on their side and after cross-examination, they closed their side evidence. Defendants No.3 and 4 have submitted that they have no evidence. Thereafter, the matter was posted for arguments.
7. The counsels for the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 have filed their written arguments. Heard the arguments of the counsel for the defendants No.3 & 4. Along with the written arguments, the counsel for the plaintiff has filed a memo with a decision reported in (2010)10 SCC 671 in the matter between Ram Chander Talwar & Anr. Vs. Devender Kumar Talwar & Ors. Thereafter, the matter was posted for judgment.
8. Perused the records, written arguments of both the counsels for plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 and the decision submitted by the counsel for the plaintiff.
12 O.S.No.2751/2015.9. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1: In the affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the affirmative.
Issue No.3: In the negative.
Issue No.4: As per the final order.
for the following:
REASONS
10. ISSUES NO.1 to 3: Since, these issues are interlinked with each other, to avoid repetition of facts and appreciation of evidence, all these issues are taken up together for joint discussion.
11. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff is the son of late K.S.Krishnaswamy and Smt.Shantha Krishnaswamy. The plaintiff has specifically contended that his father K.S. Krishnaswamy died intestate and he is the only legal heir of the said K.S. Krishnaswamy, who during his life time had deposited some amount in Fixed Deposits to the tune of Rs. 17,50,000/- with defendants No.3 and 4. The said fact has not been seriously disputed by any of the defendants. In fact the defendants No.3 and 4 have clearly admitted that the plaintiff is the son of late K.S.Krishnaswamy and that late K.S.Krishnaswamy had invested some amount belonged to him in various FDs as detailed in the plaint schedule. That apart the defendants No.1 and 2 have also not denied that the plaintiff is the son of late K.S.Krishnaswamy. The way in which the defence was taken by the 2 nd defendant 13 O.S.No.2751/2015. in his written statement stating that the plaintiff and his wife neglected to look after late K.S. Krishnaswamy, as such late K.S.Krishnaswamy started residing separately by taking a house belonging to him on lease, indirectly fortifies that the plaintiff is the son of late K.S.Krishnasway.
12. That apart, plaintiff who has examined himself as P.W.1 and reiterated the plaint averments has produced the Death certificate of late K.S.Krishnasway as per Ex.P.1, Ex.P.2 certified copy of FIR, Ex.P.3 certified copy of Charge sheet, Ex.P.4 notary attested true copy of autopsy report, Ex.P.5 certified copy of IMV report which clearly goes to show that the father of the plaintiff died in a road accident and his eyes were donated to Narayana Nethralaya as per Ex.P.19, 20 and 21 certificates and acknowledgement issued by Dr.Rajkumar Eye Bank, Narayana Nethralaya in favour of the plaintiff and his father late K.S.Krishnaswamy. The notary attested true copy of the family survival certificate issued by Government of Karnataka as per Ex.P.6 clearly demonstrates that the plaintiff is the sole legal heir of late K.S. Krishnaswamy. Therefore, from the above said documentary evidence, it is clear that late K.S. Krishnaswamy was the father of the plaintiff and they are Hindus by religion and late K.S.Krishnaswamy died intestate leaving plaintiff alone as his Class-I legal heir to succeed to his estate under Sec.8 of 14 O.S.No.2751/2015. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as detailed in plaint schedule.
13. It is the further case of the plaintiff that after his father's death, he approached the defendants No.3 and 4 and claimed for release of amount deposited under plaint schedule assets for which defendants No.3 and 4 directed him to obtain decree from this Court and informed him that defendants No.1 and 2 have also made claim. In support of the said contention, he relied on Ex.P. 11 to P.17. Ex.P.11 to 13 are the letters written by the plaintiff to defendants No.3 and 4 claiming for settlement of the amount with interest deposited by his father late K.S. Krishnaswamy. Ex.P.14 and P.15 are the letters written by the defendants No.3 and 4 to the plaintiff to obtain the probate and succession certificate from the competent Court of law for settling the claims of the plaintiff. Ex.P.16 & 17 are the bank pass books relating to late K.S.Krishnaswamy in which entries are found evidencing investments made with defendants No.3 and 4 in respect of plaint schedule FDs. All these documents coupled with the admission made by defendants clearly establish that Late K.S. Krishnaswamy had invested the amount in defendants No.3 and 4 under various FDs as detailed in the plaint schedule and the said amounts have not yet been disbursed by the defendants No.3 and 4 in view of the rival claim made by plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2.
15 O.S.No.2751/2015.14. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the defendant No.2 by taking advantage of the sudden death of his father late K.S.Krishnaswamy, trespassed into the leased premises of his father, where his father had kept all valuable items including the plaint schedule FD receipts and has stolen all the said belongings of his father including FD receipts pertaining to plaint schedule FDs and in this regard he had lodged complaints before the Peenya Police and to prove the same, he relied on Ex.P.7 and P.22 the copies of the complaints and Ex.P.23 acknowledgement issued by the said Peenya Police. He has also relied on Ex.P.18 copy of lease agreement dtd.10-09-2007 under which his father had obtained a house for lease from the 2 nd defendant by paying advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. The said documents relied by the plaintiff coupled with the admission made by the 2 nd defendant both in his written statement and depositions demonstrates that the 2nd defendant is in custody of the FD receipts in respect of the plaint schedule assets and has handed over some movables to plaintiff due to intervention of police.
15. It is the further contention of the plaintiff that since the defendants No.1 and 2 have not placed any plea before this Court stating that late K.S.Krishnaswamy had left any testamentary document bequeathing the plaint schedule assets in favour of 1 st defendant, merely because his father had nominated the 1st defendant as nominee, the 1st defendant is not entitled 16 O.S.No.2751/2015. to succeed to the estate of his father without there being any testamentary document.
16. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the decision reported in (1984)1 Supreme Court Cases 424 in the matter between Sarbati Devi v. Usha Devi, wherein it has been held that "Life Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938) - Sec.39 - Nominee's interest in the amount received under a policy when assured dying intestate - Held, subject to the claim of heirs of the assured under law of succession". It has been further held that "A mere nomination made under Sec.39 of the Act does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee any beneficial interest in the amount payable under the policy on the death of the assured. The nomination only indicates the hand which is authorized to receive the amount under the policy........A nominee cannot be treated as being equivalent to an heir or legatee. The amount received under the policy therefore can be claimed by the heirs of the assured in accordance with the law of succession governing them."
17. The counsel for the plaintiff has also relied on another decision reported in 2010(10) SCC 671 in the matter between Ram Chander Talwar & Anr, Vs. Devender Kumar Talwar & Ors. wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while interpreting Sec.45ZA(2) of Banking Regulation Act has held as follows:
17 O.S.No.2751/2015."Sec.45ZA(2) merely puts the nominee in the shoes of the depositor after his death and clothes him with the exclusive right to receive the money lying in the account. It gives him all the rights of the depositor so far as the depositor's account is concerned. But it by no stretch of imagination makes the nominee the owner of the money lying in the account. It needs to be remembered that the Banking Regulation Act is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to banking. It is in no way concerned with the question of succession. All the monies receivable by the nominee by virtue of Sec.45 ZA(2) would, therefore, form part of the estate of the deceased depositor and devolve according to the rule of succession to which the depositor may be governed."
18. Even though P.W.1 has been cross-examined by the counsel for the defendants No.1 and 2 at length, nothing has been elucidated from the mouth of P.W.1 to disbelieve the evidence of the plaintiff. Moreover, the defendant no.1 who has been nominated to the said FDs has not even stepped into the witness box nor has produced the said FD receipts which are admitted to be in the custody of herself and her father who is the 2nd defendant herein. Though the defendants No.1 and 2 have contested the above suit by filing their written statement opposing the claim of the plaintiff and though the defendant No.2 examined himself as DW.1, except laying their right over the plaint schedule assets only on the basis of the nomination found in favour of 1st defendant, nothing has been placed before this Court by them to show that they are entitled to receive the amounts which are lying with defendants No.3 and 4 under plaint schedule FDs.
18 O.S.No.2751/2015.19. Therefore, from the above said oral and documentary evidence relied by both the parties and in view of the decisions relied by the counsel for the plaintiff, which are clearly applicable to the case on hand and have laid down law that nomination puts the nominee in the shoes of depositor and the same is in no way concerned with question of succession and monies receivable by nominee forms part of estate of deceased depositor which devolves as per rule of succession, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has proved that he is the only legal heir of his father late Sri. K.S.Krishna Swamy to succeed to the plaint schedule mentioned assets and that he is entitled for a declaration along with consequential reliefs as prayed and the defendants No.1 and 2 have thoroughly failed to prove that they are entitled to receive the amounts mentioned in the plaint schedule FDs. Hence, I answer issues Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative and issue No.3 in the negative.
20. ISSUE NO.4: In view of the discussions and reasons stated above and my findings on the above issues, the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed with costs and defendants No.3 and 4 are to be directed to pay the amounts due under plaint schedule FDs with up to date interest and the contentions of defendants No.3 and 4 that they are not liable to pay interest from the date of death of late K.S.Krishnaswamy as the said amount is kept in suspense account cannot be accepted as the defendants No.3 and 4 have not 19 O.S.No.2751/2015. placed any material before this Court to prove the said contention. Hence, the defendants No.3 and 4 being depository institution having taken the FDs with an undertaking to pay the said amount with interest cannot take advantage of the dispute and refuse to pay interest and therefore, they are liable to pay the amounts covered under FDs with up to date interest. Since, the defendant No.2 is the root cause which made the plaintiff to approach this Court, the defendant No.2 alone is liable to pay the suit costs to plaintiff. Hence, with these observations, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed with costs.
It is hereby declared that the plaintiff Sri. K.S.K. Raj is the sole legal heir of late K.S. Krishnaswamy and is entitled to succeed to the estates of late K.S. Krishnaswamy mentioned in the plaint schedule.
The defendants No.1 and 2 are hereby restrained from withdrawing the amounts kept under the plaint schedule deposits made with defendants No.3 and 4 by means of permanent injunction.
The defendants No.3 and 4 are hereby directed by way of mandatory injunction to settle the amounts due under the plaint schedule deposits to the plaintiff with up to date applicable interest within one month from this date.20 O.S.No.2751/2015.
The plaintiff is directed to pay the deficit Court Fees in respect of the total value of the plaint schedule deposits by filing fresh valuation slip.
The costs of the suit shall be payable by defendant No.2 alone.
The office is directed to draw decree after the plaintiff paying the deficit Court Fees with fresh valuation slip.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer on computer, transcribed thereof, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this THE 17 th DAY OF DECEMBER 2020).
(MAANU K.S.), XXX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.21 O.S.No.2751/2015.
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF/S:
P.W.1 : K.S.K. Raj.
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS/S:
D.W.1 : A.C.Lakshmaiah.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF/S:
Ex.P.1 : Death certificate.
Ex.P.2 : CC of FIR.
Ex.P.3 : CC of Charge sheet.
Ex.P.4 : CC of autopsy.
Ex.P.5 : CC of Motor Accident report.
Ex.P.6 : CC of family survival certificate.
Ex.P.7 & 8 : CC of Complaints.
Ex.P.9 : CC of mahazar.
Ex.P.10 : CC of Sketch.
Ex.11 to 13 : Letters issued by plaintiff to D3 & 4.
Ex.P.14 & 15 : Reply issued by D3 & D4.
Ex.P.16 : Pass book of Canara Bank
relating to late K.S.Krishnaswamy.
Ex.P.17 : Statement of Account for the period
from 01-04-2010 to 10-04-2014.
Ex.P.18 : Copy of Lease Agreement.
Ex.P.18(a) : Signature of the plaintiff.
Ex.P.19 : Eye Donation Certificate.
Ex.P.20 : Certificate of Appreciation.
Ex.P.21 : Acknowledgement issued by
Dr.Rajkumar Eye Bank.
Ex.P.22 : Complaint.
Ex.P.23 : NCR issued by the police.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANTS/S:
-NIL-
( MAANU K.S.), XXX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.