Bangalore District Court
Shankaravva Alias Shankaramma Doni vs Prathibha on 5 January, 2026
1 O.S.No.1721/2020
KABC010065882020
IN THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-40), BENGALURU CITY.
Present: Mamtaz, M.A., LL.B., P.G.D.C.A.
XXXIX Additional City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
Dated: This the 05th day of January 2026
O.S. NO.1721/2020
Plaintiff : Smt. SHANKARAVVA @
SHANKARAMMA DONI,
W/o late Hanumanthappa
Yallappa Doni,
Aged about 61 years,
R/at No.17, Ground Floor,
1st Cross, 2nd Main,
Brundavana Layout,
Mallasandra,
Bengaluru-560 057.
[By Sri.C.R.Venkatesh.,
Advocate]
- Vs -
Defendants : 1. Smt. Prathibha,
W/o late Siddappa H Doni,
Aged about 36 years,
2 O.S.No.1721/2020
R/at Ruddam Compund,
S.N.Pet, 2nd Cross, Ballari..
2. Master Yashmith S. Doni,
S/o late Siddappa H Doni,
Aged about 11 years,
R/at Ruddam Compund, S.N.Pet,
2nd Cross, Ballari.
(since minor represented by his
mother and natural guardian,
Smt.Prathiba.
[By Sri.Vikhar Ahmed B.,
Advocate)
Date of Institution of Suit 04.03.2020
Nature of Suit Declaration & Partition
Date of Commencement 19.11.2022
of Recording of evidence
Date of which Judgment 05.01.2026
was pronounced
Total Duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
05 10 01
(MAMTAZ)
XXXIX Additional City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
-----
3 O.S.No.1721/2020
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for declaration, Partition and other consequential reliefs.
2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case is that, the plaintiff got married to one Hanumanthappa Yellappa Doni. From their wedlock they were blessed with a son by name Siddappa S Doni and a daughter by name Manjula. The said Hanumanthappa Yellappa Doni died on 20.04.2004. He was working as Assistant Operator, KPTCL (KEB). In view of his death, the plaintiff has given her consent to get the entire death benefit and job to her son Siddappa. S.Doni. Accordingly a post was given to Siddappa S. Doni in the KPTCL (KEB) as Junior Engineer. Unfortunately the said Siddappa S Doni also died on 30.09.2014. The plaintiff submits that his wife is by name Smt.Prathibha i.e. the defendant herein. She is also working as High School teacher at Bellary and residing in the address mentioned in the above cause title. It is further submitted that, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property bearing Municipal Ward No.23A, Municipal No.23, plot No.23, measuring 1 guntas situated at Gamanagatt Village, coming under the limits of Dharwad Mahanagara 4 O.S.No.1721/2020 Palike, having purchased the same from its vendor Smt.Susheelababi W/o Jeevaraji Kotari dated 11.03.2011. By virtue of the said sale deed, the plaintiff became the absolute owner and was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property having acquired every manner of right title and interest over the same. Based on the said sale deed, the katha and other documents came to be transferred into her name and the plaintiff was paying the taxes to the concerned authority.
3. It is further submitted that, in order to own a property in the Bengaluru City, the plaintiff had decided to sell the aforesaid property in favour of Abdul Gafar, S/o Abdul Rahman Bani under a registered sale deed dated 27.12.2013. That after alienation of the same out of the sale proceeds derived there from, the plaintiff has purchased the property i.e. residential house property bearing Katha No.Old V.P. No.174, present BBMP katha No.421, 17, measuring to an extent of East to West: 30 feet and North to South: 30+31/2 feet, situated at Mallasandra Village, BBMP Ward No.13, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, jointly in the name of her son and defendant out of love and affection towards them 5 O.S.No.1721/2020 under a registered sale deed dated: 20.08.2014 which property is morefully described hereunder and hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule property consisting of ground, 1st and 2nd floor. The ground floor and 2nd floor is occupied by tenants. Even the entire lease amount of the tenaments has been pocketed by the defendants even the plaintiff is also entitled for the same. It is submitted that the son of the plaintiff has also contributed a small portion of the amount towards purchase of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff in his name and his wife name i.e. the defendant herein. The defendant has not contributed any amount for purchase of the suit schedule property and she is only a name lender to the said sale deed and as such no right, title or interest is accrued to her on the suit schedule property except being the legal heir of deceased son of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is residing in the 1 st floor of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property without any let or hindrance from any corner. The plaintiff had a daughter by same Manjula and the said Manjula is residing in her matrimonial home. The plaintiff has spent huge amount towards the marriage of her daughter 6 O.S.No.1721/2020 derived from the death benefit of her husband. The plaintiff submits that even though the suit schedule property is standing jointly in the name of defendant and her husband late Siddappa S. Doni, her right, title and interest cannot be taken away by any one.
4. It is further submitted that, when such being the case, taking undue advantage of the plaintiff being old age lady and without any support from any corner and also taking undue advantage of the death of husband of defendant who is the plaintiff's son Siddappa S Doni, the defendant used to give pin priks and used to harass the plaintiff in all sorts of manner high handely and illegally with land grab intention. The defendant also tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property by bringing the rowdy and anti social elements near the suit schedule property. The said high handed acts came to be resisted by the plaintiff for the time being with the assistance of neighbours and in this regard, the plaintiff has also lodged a police complaint before the jurisdictional Bagalagunte police. The police have summoned the defendant and advised her not to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property, and to 7 O.S.No.1721/2020 settle the matter before the competent court of law as the matter is of civil in nature. It is submitted that in view of high handed acts of the defendant, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for injunction against the defendant in O.S.No.5047/2019 on the file of court of city civil and sessions judge, at Bengaluru. CCH-42, and in the said suit, the Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant an order of temporary injunction against the defendant from alienating the suit schedule property. The said suit is still pending consideration.
5. It is further submitted that, when the plaintiff demanded the defendant to allot her share i.e. half share over the suit schedule property and another half share over the remaining. half share of her son as the plaintiff being the class-1 legal heir of the deceased son, for which the defendant has refused to allot the plaintiff's share. Inspite of several repeated requests, demands and panchayaths conveyed before the elders and well wishers and even the advise of the elders to the defendant to allot the plaintiffs share did not yield any fruitful results. The said demand was made on several time by the plaintiff in the month of October and November 2018 8 O.S.No.1721/2020 and finally on 1st week of June 2019, the defendant has totally refused to allot plaintiffs share and also went to the extent of dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property in a high handed and illegal manner with the assistance of rowdy elements. Having left with no other option the plaintiff has approached this Hon'ble Court with present suit seeking for partition and separate possession over the suit schedule property and for other consequential reliefs. Hence this suit. The cause of action for the above suit arose on as and when the plaintiff demanded her share and when the panchayat were conveyed and on the date of death of her son during 30.09.2018, and when the defendant flatly refused to effect the partition and on subsequent dates therein within the territorial limits of this Hon'ble Court. Hence, the present suit.
6. After receipt of the suit summons, the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed separate written statements. In the written statement of 1st defendant contended that, the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts and there is no cause of action against the defendants. It is further submitted that, the deceased Sri.Siddappa H Doni 9 O.S.No.1721/2020 was working as Junior Engineer in Ballari Thermal Power Station, in KPCL at Kudathini, Ballari District, Karnataka, who is other than the husband of the defendant. The defendant is also employed as a government High school teacher working at Sidiginamola in Ballari District, out of the wed-lock of the defendant and the deceased Sri. Siddappa H Doni a male son was born by name Yashmith .S who is presently aged 10 years. The deceased Sri.Siddappa H Doni during his lifetime along with the defendant, out of their savings have purchased Immovable property of a residential house consist of ground, 1st and 2nd floor which is morefully described as suit schedule property situated at Bengaluru for a valuable sale consideration amount of Rs.48,00,000/-, out of that Rs.10,00,000/- is paid out of their own savings and Rs.38,00,000/- housing loan was raised from LIC Housing Finance Ltd vide cheques No. 055599 dated 19-08-2014 and the said sale consideration amount was paid to the seller by the deceased Sri. Siddappa H Doni and the defendant jointly and the registered sale deed was also obtained jointly in the name of Sri. Siddappa H Doni and this defendant. The say of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has purchased the house by selling 10 O.S.No.1721/2020 her own property to Sri. Abdul Gaffor son of Abdul Rahiman Bani on 27-13-2013 does not hold any water and the said assertions were made by the plaintiff only to grab the suit schedule property. In pursuance of the registered sale deed the name of the deceased Sri. Siddappa H Doni and defendant was duly mutated in the BBMP Uttara Patra dated 04.12.2014 as well as in the BBMP Khatha certificate as well as in the extract which clearly shows that the schedule property was jointly stood in the name of deceased Sri. Siddappa H Doni and this defendant. This defendant is also paying the taxes to BPMP till to this day as being the absolute and impeachable owner of the suit schedule property. Thereafter wards the said Sri. Siddappa H Doni was died on 30-09-2018 leaving behind the defendant and his minor son Yashmith S. are only the class-I heirs to succeed the estate of the deceased Sri. Siddappa H Doni.
7. It is further submitted that, thereafter wards the defendant moved an application before the concerned BBMP authorities to change the mutation of the suit schedule property in her name which was stood jointly, in pursuance of the application filed by the defendant the BBMP authorities have 11 O.S.No.1721/2020 inspected the suit schedule property at that time the plaintiff has not raised any little finger or any objections for change of Khatha. In pursuance of the application the Khatha was duly transferred in the name of the defendant vide Uttarapatra dated 21-06-2019 and Khatha certificate and extract dated 21-06-2019, the defendant has also paid upto date taxes to BBMP in her name, the above documents produced by the defendant clearly vouch that the defendant is having clear, marketable and lawful title over the suit schedule property. The defendant further submits that after availing the loan from LIC housing finance Ltd, now the defendant has shifted the loan to SBI, RACPC branch, Ballari, since from the date of the purchase this defendant is paying the regular installments in respect of the suit schedule property, The say of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has got the rights over the property is absolutely a futile, imagination not only false but are all buttress to the claim of the plaintiff. The defendant further submit that taking into consideration that the plaintiff is none other than the mother-in-law of the defendant has allowed the plaintiff to stay in the 2nd floor of the suit schedule property without any consideration or without 12 O.S.No.1721/2020 payment of any rent. The ground and 1st floor was let out to the tenants and the tenants are in occupation and in possession of the ground and 1st floor suit schedule property.
8. It is further submitted that, Sri. Siddappa .H Doni during his lifetime has purchased the another property bearing Plot No. 652 measuring 01-01 guntas in Block No. 330 at Gamanagatti, Panchakshari Nagar, Mahanagarapalike of Dharwad under a registered sale deed dated 17-04-2010. Being the absolute owner of the said property the said Sri. Siddappa .S Doni has gifted the property to the plaintiff who is none other than his mother under registered gift deed bearing document No. 8973/2015-2016 dated 19-12-2015. The said market value of the property will cost of Rs.50,00,000/-. The plaintiff who achieved her nefarious desires by obtaining the properties from his son during his lifetime, now the plaintiff has come up with this infractuous suit though she fulfilled all her desires. It is also germane to note that the plaintiff by paying mischief and misrepresentation to the KPCL authorities, Kudathini has accumulated all the death benefits of her son Sri. Siddappa H Doni by 13 O.S.No.1721/2020 obtaining blank signatures from this defendant and achieve her nefarious desires. As such being a legal wedded wife the defendant is unable to get the entire benefits of his deceased husband Sri. Siddappa H Doni. In view of the wrongly disbursement of death benefits by the KPCL, this defendant has also filed a P & S.C. No. 6/2019 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ballari and the same is stood for consideration and was pending before the competent court. The plaintiff is a arrogant in nature and she wanted to achieve her objects by hook or cook with all intention to deceive the defendant.
9. It is further submitted that, the suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff as co-owner is exclusively not maintainable in law or on the facts of the case and for declaration of sale deed as sham and nominal and partition of the suit schedule property by meets and bounds is absolutely not maintainable. It is pertinent to note that during the lifetime of Sri. Siddappa H. Doni all the properties were partitioned and the plaintiff has opted and had choiced to take the Dharwad property which is more valuable in nature, hence the said deceased Sri.Siddppa H Doni has gifted the property in 14 O.S.No.1721/2020 favour of the plaintiff on or before 19-12-2015, hence the question of 2nd partition for the present property is exclusively not maintainable either in law or on the facts of the case. The plaintiff is not the party to the sale deed and cannot seek a relief for cancellation of the sale deed without paying the present market value of the property as contemplated under law. The relief sought by the plaintiff is misconceived the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.
10. In the written statement the defendant No.2 submitted that, the present suit is clearly an abuse of the process of law and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The Plaintiff is clearly guilty of suppression very suggestion falsi. On this ground to, the suit of the Plaintiff merits rejection. As the Plaintiff has chosen not to state the true facts in the present case. The deceased Sri. Siddappa H Doni was working as Junior Engineer in Ballari Thermal Power Station, in KPCL at Kudathini, Ballari District, Karnataka, who is none other than the father of this defendant. The deceased Sri. Siddappa H Doni during his lifetime along with the first defendant, out of their savings have purchased immovable property a residential 15 O.S.No.1721/2020 house consist of ground, 1st and 2nd floor which is more fully described as suit schedule property situated at Bengaluru for a valuable sale consideration amount of Rs.48,00,000/-, out of that Rs.10,00,000/- is paid out of their own savings and Rs.38,00,000/- housing loan was raised from LIC Housing Finance Ltd vide cheques No. 055599 dated 19-08-2014 and the said sale consideration amount was paid to the seller by the deceased Sri. Siddappa H Doni and the defendant No.1 jointly and the registered sale deed was also obtained jointly in the name of Sri. Siddappa H Doni and defendant No.1. The say of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has purchased the house by selling her own property to Sri. Abdul Gaffor son of Abdul Rahiman Bani on 27-13- 2013 does not hold any water and the said assertions were made by the plaintiff only to grab the suit schedule property.
11. It is further submitted that, in pursuance of the registered sale deed the name of the deceased Sri. Siddappa H Doni and defendant No.1 was duly mutated in the BBMP Uttara patra dated 04-12-2014 as well as in the BBMP Khatha certificate as well as in the extract which clearly shows that the schedule 16 O.S.No.1721/2020 property was jointly stood in the name of deceased Sri. Siddappa H Doni and defendant No. 1. The Defendant No. 1 is also paying the taxes to BBMP till to this day as being the absolute and impeachable owner of the suit schedule property. Thereafter wards the said Sri. Siddappa H Doni was died on 30-09-2018 leaving behind the defendants as the only the class-I heirs to succeed the estate of the deceased Sri. Siddappa H Doni. Thereafter wards the defendant moved an application before the concerned BBMP authorities to change the mutation of the suit schedule property in her name which was stood jointly, in pursuance of the application filed by the defendant the BBMP authorities have inspected the suit schedule property at that time the plaintiff has not raised any little finger or any objections for change of Khatha. In pursuance of the application the Khatha was duly transferred in the name of the defendant No.1 vide Uttarapatra dated 21-06-2019 and Khatha certificate and extract dated 21-06-2019, the defendant No. 1has also paid up to date taxes to BBMP in her name, the above documents produced by the defendant clearly vouch that the defendant is having clear, marketable and lawful title over the suit schedule property.
17 O.S.No.1721/202012. It is further submitted that, after availing the loan from LIC housing finance Ltd, now the defendant No.1 has shifted the loan to SBI, RACPC branch, Ballari, since from the date of the purchase this defendant No. 1 is paying the regular instalments in respect of the suit schedule property. The assetion that the plaintiff has got the rights over the property is absolutely a futile, imagination not only false but are all buttress to the claim of the plaintiff. The ground and 1st floor was let out to the tenants and the tenants are in occupation and in possession of the ground and 1st floor suit schedule property. The said Sri. Siddappa H Doni during his lifetime has purchased the another property bearing Plot No. 652 measuring 01-01 guntas in Block No.330 at Gamanagatti, Panchakshari Nagar, Mahanagarapalike of Dharwad under a registered sale deed dated 17- 04-2010. Being the absolute owner of the said property the said Sri. Siddappa S Doni has gifted the property to the plaintiff who is none other than his mother under registered gift deed dated 19-12-2015. The said market value of the property will cost of Rs.50,00,000/-. The plaintiff who achieved her nefarious desire by obtaining the properties from his son during his lifetime, now the plaintiff has come up 18 O.S.No.1721/2020 with this infructuous suit though she fulfilled all her desires. The suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff as co-owner is exclusively apt maintainable in law or on the facts of the case and for declaration of sale deed as sham and nominal and partition of the suit schedule property by meets and bounds is absolutely not maintainable. It is pertinent to note that during the lifetime of Sri. Siddappa H Doni all the properties were partitioned and the plaintiff has opted and had choiced to take the Dharwad property which is more valuable in nature, hence the said deceased Sri.Siddppa H Doni has gifted the property in favour of the plaintiff on or before 19-12-2015, hence the question of 2nd partition for the present property is exclusively not maintainable either in law or on the facts of the case. The plaintiff is not the party to the sale deed and cannot seek a relief for cancellation of the sale deed without paying the present market value of the property as contemplated under law. The relief sought by the plaintiff is misconceived the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.
13. In support of the case of plaintiff, the plaintiff herself has got examined as P.W.1 and got marked 19 O.S.No.1721/2020 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P18 was marked through DW1, through confrontation in the cross examination.
14. In support of the case of defendants, the defendant No.1 has got examined as D.W.1 and got marked documents at Ex.D.1 to D.10.
15. Heard the arguments.
16. On the above pleading of the parties, my predecessor in office has framed the following Issues:
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that she had made contribution for purchase of suit schedule property?
2. Whether the Plaintiff proves that she has got 1/2 share in the suit schedule property ?
3. Whether the court fee paid by the Plaintiff is sufficient?
4. What reliefs Plaintiff is entitled?
5. To what decree or order?20 O.S.No.1721/2020
17. After hearing arguments and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, my findings on the above issues are here under:
Issue No.1 : In the Negative
Issue No.2 : In the Negative
Issue No.3 : In the Negative
Issue No.4 : Partly in the Affirmative
Issue No.5 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
18. Issue Nos.1 To 4 : These issues are taken
together for discussion, since they are interconnected with each other and so also they require common discussion.
19. I am of the opinion that, I need not repeat the contention raised by the plaintiff here also, since I have already narrated the inception of this judgment.
20. The plaintiff filed declaration suit and prays to declare the plaintiff as the co-owner of the plaint schedule property having undivided share in that and also sought for partition by metes and bounds with other consequential reliefs.
21 O.S.No.1721/202021. The plaintiff Counsel vehemently argued that, the plaintiff is mother in law of the defendant. The plaintiff counsel further vehemently argued that, plaintiff got married to Hanumanthappa Yellappa Doni out of their wedlock they are blessed with son by name Siddappa S. Doni and Manjula. The said Hanumanthappa died on 20-4-2004 and he was working as assistant operator in KPTCL(KEB). After his death the plaintiff got the entire death benefit and job to her son Siddappa. Accordingly a post was given to Siddhappa Doni in KPTCL as junior engineer and unfortunately Siddhappa Doni also died on 3-9-2014.
22. The plaintiff counsel further submits that, Siddappa's wife is Prathiba the defendant is also a high school teacher at Bellary. The plaintiff counsel further submitted that, plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property bearing municipal ward No.23, Plot No.23, measuring about 1 gunta situated at Gamanagatta village, coming under the limits of Darwad, it was purchased by virtue of sale date dated 11-3-2011. Thus, plaintiff becomes the absolute owner of the property and Katha was transferred in her name.
22 O.S.No.1721/202023. The plaintiff counsel further submitted that, in order to own a property in the Bengaluru city, plaintiff had decided to sell the above said property and sold it in favor of Abdul Gafar on 27-12-2013 and out of the proceeds, the plaintiff has purchased the plaint schedule property in the name of her son Siddappa and daughter-in-law, the defendant. Even though daughter-in-law has not contributed any money to purchase the property, she became the nominal owner. Her son has given small contributions to buy the property, but almost all the proceeds were paid by the plaintiff.
24. The plaintiff counsel further submitted that the plaintiff is residing in the first floor of the plaint schedule property and she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff also further submitted that, the daughter of the plaintiff by name Manjula is also residing with the plaintiff. The plaintiff further submitted that, even though the plaint schedule property is standing jointly in the name of the defendant and her husband, late Siddappa S. Dhoni, plaintiff's right title and interest cannot be taken away by anybody.
23 O.S.No.1721/202025. The plaintiff counsel further submitted that, due to old age the plaintiff without the support from any corner became weak and the defendant taken undue advantage of the death of the husband of the defendant, the defendant used to give pinpricks and used to harass the plaintiff in all sorts of manner and high-handedly, illegally with land grab intention and tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff has given the police complaint and police have summoned the plaintiff to allot her share that is half share over the plaintiff's property and another half share over the remaining half share of her son as the plaintiff being the class 1 legal heir of the deceased son for which the defendant has refused to allot the plaintiff's share. In spite of several repeated requests, demands and panchayats, the defendant refused to partition the property.
26. The defendant counsel vehemently argued that, the defendant is working as the high school teacher and she married with the Siddappa Dhoni and out of wedlock defendant No.2 was born and at present he is a minor. The defendant counsel further submitted that, the deceased Siddappa Dhoni during his lifetime along with the defendant No.2 out of their savings have 24 O.S.No.1721/2020 purchased immovable property of the residential house consisting of ground floor, first floor, second floor which is the plaint schedule property for a valuable sale consideration of Rs. 48 lakh. Out of that, Rs. 10 lakh is paid out of their own savings and for Rs.38 lakhs they have obtained housing loan raised from LIC Housing Finance Limited and the sale deed was registered jointly with the name of Siddappa Dhoni and defendant No.1. After the death of the Siddappa Dhoni the defendant No.1 had been to change the katha in her name. At that time plaintiff has not raised any objections to that.
27. The defendant counsel further submitted that, after availing the loan from LIC Housing Finance Limited the defendant No.1 has shifted the loan to SBI RACPC branch Bellaray. Since from the date of the purchase this defendant No.1 is paying the regular installments in respect of the plaint schedule property.
28. The defendant counsel further submitted that taking into consideration that the plaintiff is none other than the mother-in-law of the defendant the defendant has allowed the plaintiff to stay in the second floor of the plaint schedule property without 25 O.S.No.1721/2020 any consideration or without any payment of the rent. The ground floor and first floor was let out to the tenants and tenants are in occupation and possession of the ground floor and first floor schedule property. The defendants counsel further submitted that, the Siddappa Dhoni during his lifetime has purchased the another property bearing plot No.652 by virtue of sale deed and afterwards he gifted the same to the plaintiff.
29. The defendant counsel further submitted that, the plaintiff by playing mischief and misrepresentation to the KPCL authorities has accumulated all the death benefits of Siddappa by obtaining blank signatures from this defendant No.1 and the defendant No.1 being the legal wedded wife was unable to get the entire benefits of the deceased. In view of the wrongly disbursement of the death benefits by the KPCL, the defendant filed case as P and sc No. 6/2019 on the file of Principal Civil Judge Senior Division Bellary and same stood for consideration. The defendant counsel further submitted that plaintiff is not the co-owner of the plaint schedule property and she doesn't have any right over the property. And she doesn't have any right to get the partition over the property.
26 O.S.No.1721/202030. To prove the case of the plaintiff, she herself examined as PW.1 and produced 17 documents which are marked as Ex. P1 to 17. To prove the case of the defendants, defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1 and has produced 10 documents which are marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D10. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P18 was marked through DW.1, through confrontation in the cross examination.
31. I have gone through the materials, records, documents, and arguments of the, both the parties. It is pertinent to note that, both the parties admitted the relationship between themselves. Both the parties admitted that the plaintiff's property stands in the name of Defendant no.1 and both the parties admitted that the plaint schedule property was jointly purchased by Siddappa Dhoni and defendant No.1. The plaintiff also admitted that the plaintiff's property was bought through loan of LIC Finance and plaintiff also admitted that the loan is paid by the defendant No.1 and she also admitted that she has not paid any amount to repay the loan and she also admitted that she is not paying the property tax.
27 O.S.No.1721/202032. It is pertinent to note that, plaintiff has produced the family tree Affidavit, which was marked as Ex. P1 and Ex.P2 sale deed dated 20-8-2014 and E.C of Plaint Schedule property Ex.P3, death certificate of Siddappa Dhoni Ex.P4 and Survival certificate Ex.P5. It is not disputed by both the parties. So, no need to discuss about exhibit P1,3 to 5.
33. It is pertinent to note that, relationships not in dispute. Foremost it is noted that plaintiff had filed earlier suit as per O.S.No. 5047/2019 seeking for share in the property present plaint schedule property, PW.1 deposed in her cross examination as follows :
Cross of PW.1, Page No.10, 1st line " ನನಗೆ ಮನೆ ಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಈ ದಾವೆ ಹೂಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ. ನಾನು ಒ.ಎಸ್ 507/2019 ಎಂಬ ದಾವೆ ಹೂಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ ಎನ್ನು ವುದು ನಿಜ. ಆ ದಾವೆಯನ್ನು ಸಹ ನನಗೆ ಮನೆ ಬೇಕು ಎಂದು ಹಾಕಿದ್ದೇನೆ. '' It means as she has already filed similar case but no party produced the documents pertaining to it.
34. The contention of the plaintiff is that, she had one flat No. 23 at Dharawad, Mahanagara and she has purchased as per Ex.P8 and she sold the property 28 O.S.No.1721/2020 and received Rs.14,89,000/-. Here the plaintiff is contesting that to avoid the tax, they have written as Rs.14,89,000/- but actually it was sold for Rs.25,00,000/- and out of that amount she has purchased and she has given contribution to purchase the plaint schedule property. While perusing Ex.P8, dated 23-12-2013, it was executed by the plaintiff in favor of Abdul Gafar. It is a sale deed pertaining to flat No. 23, survey block no. 331B plus 332, measuring about 1 gunta, 15.25 ana.
35. While perusing Ex.P2 sale deed dated 20-8-2014 executed by Y. L. Angadageri in favor of Siddhapa H. Dhoni and defendant No.1 Prathibha D for the sale consideration of Rs.48 lakh in which Rs.8 lakh given in cash and Rs.2 lakh given in cheque and in the sale deed it specifically stated that Rs. 38 lakh was been paid by the LIC housing finance. Thus the sale consideration was Rs.48 lakhs. It also be noted that to purchase the schedule property the defendant No.1 and her husband Siddappa Dhoni has availed loan from LIC Hosing Finance. It is also carefully noted that there is a gap between sale date Ex.P8, it is 23-12- 2013 and Ex.P2 executed on 20-8-2014. There is a gap of 8 months from sale of the Gamanagatti 29 O.S.No.1721/2020 property Ex.P8 and sale deed of Plaint Schedule property Ex.P2. The plaintiff has not explained the gap of 8 months. While perusing the cross examination of DW.1 she specifically stated as follows :
Cross of DW.1, Page No.9, 4th para 3rd line " ಸ್ವ ತ್ತನ್ನು ದಿನಾಂಕ 27.12.2013 ರಂದು ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡಿದ ನಂತರ ಈ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತನ್ನು ಖರೀದಿ ಮಾಡಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯು ಮುಂದುವರಿದು ಅದು ಮಾರಾಟವಾದ ಒಂದು ವರ್ಷದ ನಂತರ ಖರೀದಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದು ನುಡಿಯುತ್ತಾರೆ. ದಿನಾಂಕ 27.12.2013 ರ ಸಮಯದಲ್ಲಿ ನಮ್ಮ ಕುಟುಂಬದಲ್ಲಿ ಹಣಕಾಸಿನ ಅಡಚಣೆ ಯಾವುದೂ ಇರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ. '' The defendant also clearly stated that after one year from the sale of Gamanaghatti property the plaint schedule property was purchased. The plaintiff not explained in between two sale deeds what happened to money received by the plaintiff.
36. The plaintiff admitted that to purchase the plaint schedule property by the defendant No.1 and her husband Siddappa H. Doni availed loan. PW.1 deposed in her cross examination follows :
30 O.S.No.1721/2020Cross of PW.1, Page No.10, 12th line " ದಾವಾ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಮಗ ಮತ್ತು ಸೊಸೆಯ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಖರೀದಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಅದರ ಕ್ರಯ ಪತ್ರ ನಿಪಿ-2 ರಂತೆ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ನಿಪಿ-2 ಕ್ರಯ ಪತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ ಖರೀದಿ ಹಣ 48 ಲಕ್ಷ ಎಂದು ಬರೆಯಲಾಗಿದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಟ್ಯಾಕ್ಸ್ ತಪ್ಪಿಸಲು ಆ ರೀತಿ ಬರೆಯಲಾಗಿದೆ. '' Cross of PW.1, Page No.10, 15th line " ಸದರಿ ಕ್ರಯದ ಮೊಬಲಗು ಪೈಕಿ 38 ಲಕ್ಷ ಹಣ ಎಲ್.ಐ.ಸಿ ಹೌಸಿಂಗ್ ಫೈನಾನ್ಸ್ ನಿಂದ ಸಾಲ ತೆಗೆದಿದ್ದು ಇದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ನಿಜ. '' As per above version of PW.1 she admitted that plaint schedule property was purchased in the name of defendant No.1 and her husband Siddappa Dhoni and they availed loan to purchase the same. As per the Ex.P2 sale deed out of sale consideration of Rs.48,00,000/- the LIC Finance issued a cheque for Rs.38,00,000/- and defendants Issued cheque for Rs.2,00,000/ and only Rs.8,00,000 paid in cash. The PW.1 also admitted that the said loan is still pending and she has not a penny to repay the loan the PW.1 in cross examination deposed as follows :31 O.S.No.1721/2020
Cross of PW.1, Page No.11, 1st line " ಸದರಿ ಸಾಲ ಬಾಕಿ ಇದೆ. ನಾನು ಸದರಿ ಸಾಲದ ಕಂತು ಕಟ್ಟಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಆದರೆ ನನ್ನ ಮಗ ಕಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ. ಸದರಿ ಸಾಲ ತಿರುವಳಿಗಾಗಿ ನಾನು 1 ರೂಪಾಯಿ ಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಎನ್ನು ವುದು ನಿಜ. ಈಗ ಸದರಿ ಸಾಲದ ಕಂತು ನನ್ನ ಸೊಸೆ ಮಗನ ಪೆನ್ಷ ನ್ ಹಣದಿಂದ ಕಟ್ಟು ತ್ತಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ನನ್ನ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಪ್ರಮಾಣ ಪತ್ರದಲ್ಲಿ ನನ್ನ ಮಗನ ಪೆನ್ಷ ನ್ ಹಣದ ಕುರಿತು ಯಾವುದೇ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖ ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ನಿಜ. '' PW.1 admitted that she is not paying the loan nor paid anything for the payment of the loan. The plaintiff is saying that she is paying the loan from the pension which is derived from plaintiff's son's death. It is pertinent to note that if the plaintiff is getting pension it will not be said that it is the money of Siddappa Dhoni nor joint family fund. The pension becomes the absolute property of the defendant No.1 in which nobody as the share. It is also pertinent to note that, the plaintiff is also getting the pension from same department as her husband also died during the course of employment. The plaintiff cannot say that the pension is the money of her son and it is joint family money and it is not the money of defendant No.1.32 O.S.No.1721/2020
37. It is pertinent to note that both defendant No.1 and husband of defendant no 1 Siddappa Dhoni were working in Government High School teacher and in KEB respectfully and they had sufficient salary today the consideration of Rs.10,00,000/-. It is also noted that the defendant No1 was working before getting marriage. While perusing cross of DW.1 she deposed as follows :
Cross of DW.1, Page No.7, 9th line " ನಾನು ವಿವಾಹವಾಗುವ ಪೂರ್ವದಿಂದಲೂ ಅಂದರೆ 2006 ರಿಂದಲೂ ಬಳ್ಳಾರಿ ಜಿಲ್ಲೆಯ ಸಿಡಿಗಿನಮೊಳದ ಪ್ರೌಢಶಾಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಹಾಯಕ ಶಿಕ್ಷಕಿಯಾಗಿ ಇಲ್ಲಿಯವರೆಗೂ ಕಾರ್ಯ ನಿರ್ವಹಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದೇನೆ. '' The DW.1 clearly stated that from 2006 she is working as a government teacher. It means there is no scarcity of money to buy plaint schedule property. The plaintiff has not shown her contribution made to buy the plaint schedule property. No documents produced to prove the same. Here only oral evidence put forth without the support of documentary evidence.33 O.S.No.1721/2020
38. It is pertinent to note that, the plaint schedule property was purchased on 20-8-2014 as per Ex.P2 and Siddappa Dhoni died on 30-9-2018 as per Ex.P4 it means he was alive only 4 years after purchase of plaint schedule property. Immediately after the death the plaintiff filed O.S.No.5047/2019 and the present suit. It is pertinent to note that, the plaint schedule property some portions were given in rent and when the defendant wanted to vacate the same, the plaintiff is obstructing and this fact can be glanced in complaint given by the plaintiff to the police as per ExP15, 16, 17. It should be noted that, the tenants never given any complaint as against the Defendants. This present suit filed in the year 2022 and tenants are inducted but the plaintiff never whispered how much rent she is deriving from the property and whether she has given the share of that rent amount or lease amount to the defendants. The plaintiff admitted that the plaint schedule property not stands in her name and she admitted that the tenants are inducted. When the property not stands in her name then she does not have any right to induct tenants when real owners are there. The PW.1 deposed as follows :
34 O.S.No.1721/2020Cross of PW.1, Page No.12, 1st line " ಸದರಿ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಮಗ ನನ್ನ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ದಿನಾಂಕಃ19- 12-2015 ರಂದು ದಾನ ಪತ್ರ ಬರೆದುಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ ಅನ್ನು ವುದು ನಿಜ. ಸದರಿ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತಿನ ಮಾರುಕಟ್ಟೆ ಬೆಲೆ ಎಷ್ಟು ಇದೆ ಎಂದು ಈಗ ನನಗೆ ಹೇಳಲು ಬರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ . ಸದರಿ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತಿನಲ್ಲಿ 3 ಹಂತಸ್ತಿನ ಕಟ್ಟ ಡ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ನೆಲ ಮಹಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನು ವಾಸವಾಗಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಮೊದಲನೇ ಮಹಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಾಗೇಶ್ ಎಂಬುವವರಿಗೆ 7 ಲಕ್ಷಕ್ಕೆ ಭೋಗ್ಯ ಕ್ಕೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟ ದ್ದು ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಎರಡನೇ ಮಹಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ನಾಗರಾಜ್ ಎಂಬುವವರಿಗೆ 7 ಲಕ್ಷಕ್ಕೆ ಭೋಗ್ಯ ಕ್ಕೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟ ದ್ದು ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಈ ಕುರಿತು ಕರಾರು ಪತ್ರ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಸದರಿ ಕರಾರು ಪತ್ರ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸುತ್ತೀರಾ ಎಂದರೆ ಯಾಕೆ ಹಾಜರುಪಡಿಸಬೇಕು. ಸದರಿ ಕರಾರು ಪತ್ರದ ಅಡಿಯಲ್ಲಿ 14 ಲಕ್ಷ ರೂಪಾಯಿ ಪಡೆದಿದ್ದು ಅದಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಸದರಿ ಕರಾರು ಪತ್ರ ಹಾಜರು ಮಾಡಿತಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ . 1 ಮತ್ತು 2 ನೇ ಮಹಡಿಯ ಕುರಿತು ತಿಂಗಳಿಗೆ ನಾನು ಬಾಡಿಗೆ ಪಡಿಯುವುದಿಲ್ಲ . '' Thus it is clear that, tenants were inducted and the plaintiff is deriving the money from that. It is pertinent to note that the property stands in the name of defendant No.1 and the lease agreement was made and executed by the plaintiff without having right and title and without the consent of defendants. When asked her to produce the rent/ lease agreement she refused and asked why should she has to produce. It is pertinent to note that these 35 O.S.No.1721/2020 rents amounts are not given to the defendants when they are the real owners of the property. It is pertinent to note that, Plaintiff is also receiving pension amount from her deceased husband. The rent or lease agreement should be executed by the defendants who have major share holders and before the death of Siddappa Doni the property stands in the name of Siddappa Doni and his wife defendant No.1. At that point of time also the plaintiff never acquired right to lease out / rent out the property as she was not the owner of property.
39. It is pertinent to note that, the property which was sold by her as per Ex.P8 earlier was purchased by defendant no.1's husband Siddappa Dhoni and he gifted the same to the plaintiff. She admitted in the cross examination. The Pw1 in her cross examination she deposed as follows :
Cross of PW.1, Page No.12, 1st line " ಸದರಿ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತನ್ನು ನನ್ನ ಮಗ ನನ್ನ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ದಿನಾಂಕಃ 19-12-2015 ರಂದು ದಾನ ಪತ್ರ ಬರೆದುಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾನೆ ಅನ್ನು ವುದು ನಿಜ. '' Thus it is clear that, Siddappa Dhone purchased that Dharwad Gamanagatti property later he gifted the 36 O.S.No.1721/2020 same to the plaintiff and plaintiff sold the same as per Ex.P8. These facts were not stated by the plaintiff in the plaint and she suppressed the same.
40. It is pertinent to note that even though she has received rental and lease income she never paid the property tax of the plaint schedule property. In the cross examination of PW.1 she specifically admitted this facts, it is as follows :
Cross of PW.1, Page No.13, 1st line " ನನ್ನ ಮಗ ತೀರಿಕೊಂಡ ನಂತರ ನಾನು ಇವತ್ತಿನವರೆಗೂ ದಾವಾ ಆಸ್ತಿಯ ಆಸ್ತಿ ತೆರಿಗೆ ನಾನು ಪಾಲಿಕೆಗೆ ಕಟ್ಟಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ . ಇವತ್ತಿನವರೆಗೂ ಸದರಿ ಆಸ್ತಿ ತೆರಿಗೆ ನನ್ನ ಸೊಸೆಯೇ ಕಟ್ಟು ತ್ತಿದ್ದಾಳೆ ಅಂತ ಅನ್ನು ವುದು ನಿಜ. '' It means Pw.1 wants to enjoy and get the profits from the property but she does not want to bear the liabilities. It is also noted that, while filing the suit 2nd defendant not made as an party to the suit. Even though she knew that she has grand son. Here the conduct of the plaintiff to be noted.
41. The plaintiff counsel also produced Ex.P18 i.e. order passed in P and SC No. 6/2019 dated 11-12-2023 37 O.S.No.1721/2020 filed by present Defendants as against present plaintiff in which the counsel for respondent/ present Plaintiff's counsel admitted that respondent has received the amount under the policy and also amount which was contributed by the deceased to the Employees Sangha the court has observed in that petition at page 19 stating that the present plaintiff received a sum of Rs.24,99,999/- on 2-5-2019, a sum of Rs.5,15,343/- under the policy bearing no 637306779 on 11-12-2018 and also another sum of Rs.3,09,373/- under policy bearing No. 63163640/-. It means plaintiff had taken these amounts without giving share to the defendants nor made them as party to that application made to concerned. It shows the greed of plaintiff towards the money and she never bothered about defendants. The court also given liberty to the defendants to recover the said amounts from the plaintiff in accordance with law. The plaintiff also not paid the loan amount from that amount nor given the share to the defendants.
42. The plaintiff sought here for declaration and cancellation of sale deed. She has not paid the court fee to the same. The Plaintiff has shown the measurement of the plaint schedule property as 30 X 30.5 feet in toto it comes 915 sq. feet. When it is 38 O.S.No.1721/2020 converted to square meters it comes 85 sq. meter. As per the 2019 guideline value book at page No.191 Rs.26,000/- mentioned for per sq. meter. 85 sq. meter X Rs.26,000/- = 22,10,000/- it is the suit valuation. The relief claimed by the Plaintiff is half share in the plaint schedule property. Hence, it to be calculated under Sec.24(a) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act. She has to pay the court fee of Rs.67,375/- as she prayed half share.
43. It is pertinent to note that, Plaintiff is also sought for separate and independent share on the plaint schedule property. The plaint schedule property is a house consisting of ground floor, first floor and second floor. The Plaintiff has not given any measurement to this ground, first and second floor and she has sought for the half separate and independent share in the plaint schedule property by metes and bound as one of the co-owner and another half share in the remaining half share and the Plaintiff has to pay court fee upon this independent and separate share.
44. It is pertinent to note that, the defendant No.1 is the co-owner of the property along with her deceased husband in which she already had half share.
39 O.S.No.1721/2020Deceased had half share in it. In the half share of the deceased both defendants and plaintiff have 1/3rd share. As the plaintiff also admitted that, the defendant had availed loan for purchase of the plaint schedule property and defendant also admitted that she had not paid single penny to repay the loan amount and the defendant still repaying the loan. when she is liable for the assets of the deceased then she is also liable to take the liabilities on the plaint schedule property i.e in the loan also. She also have 1/3rd share of liabilities to pay the loan of the share of deceased.
45. Thus plaintiff partly proved the case through oral and documentary evidence. Hence I answered Issue Nos.1 to 3 in the Negative and Issue No.4 Partly in the Affirmative.
46. Issue No.5 : In view of the findings on the above issues, I proceed to pass the following :
O R D E R The suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with costs.
It is hereby ordered that, Plaintiff has 1/ 3rd share pertaining to 40 O.S.No.1721/2020 half share of the deceased in plaint schedule property and she also liable to pay the liabilities of loan to the share of 1/3rd of the half share of deceased in the plaint schedule property and the plaintiff has to pay court fee of Rs.67,375/- and also plaintiff has to pay court fee upon independent and separate share on the ground floor, first floor and second floor and the plaintiff is hereby directed to furnish the measurement of ground floor, first floor and second floor of the plaint schedule property and office is hereby directed to calculate court fee upon it and collect all the court fees from the plaintiff.
Draw preliminary decree
accordingly.
(Dictated to the Grade -III Stenographer directly on the Computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 05th day of January 2026 ).
(MAMTAZ) XXXIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.41 O.S.No.1721/2020
A N N E X U R E Witnesses examined for the plaintiff :
PW.1 Smt.Shankaravva @ Shankaramma
Doni
Documents marked for plaintiff :
Ex.P1 C/c family tree affidavit
Ex.P2 C/c registered sale deed dated
20.8.2014
Ex.P3 C/c Encumbrance certificate
Ex.P4 C/c Death certificate
Ex.P5 C/c survival certificate
Ex.P6 C/c Aadhar card
Ex.P7 C/c digital photo
Ex.P8 C/c registered sale deed dated
23.12.2013
Ex.P9 C/c Encumbrance certificate
Ex.P10 C/c gas bill
Ex.P11 C/c gas bill
Ex.P12 C/c police endorsement
Ex.P13 C/c digital photos
Ex.P14 C/c Aadhar card
Ex.P15 Office copy of police complaint
to P17
Ex.P18 Copy of order in P & SC No.6/2019
42 O.S.No.1721/2020
Witnesses examined for defendants:
DW.1 Prathibha
Documents marked for defendants :
Ex.D1 Loan certificate
Ex.D2 Statement of account
Ex.D3 Statement of account
Ex.D4 4 Medical prescriptions
Ex.D5 & Police acknowledgments
D6
Ex.D7 4 tax paid receipts
Ex.D8 Electricity bill paid receipt through UPI
Ex.D9 Statement of loan account
Ex.D10 65B certificate
(MAMTAZ)
XXXIX Additional City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City.
-----
Digitally
signed by
MAMTAZ
MAMTAZ Date:
2026.01.13
12:50:08
+0530