Bangalore District Court
Ravi K vs Kogila K on 10 December, 2025
KABC010226792019
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-38), BANGALORE CITY.
:PRESENT:
Smt. Nirmala Devi. S. B.Sc., LL.B.,
LI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
C/c. XXXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY.
DATED This the 10th day of December 2025
O.S.NO. 5240/2019
PLAINTIFF/S 1. SRI. RAVI K
S/O. LATE KODANDARAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1392/2 T M COMPOUND
NEAR BETHAL PUBLIC SCHOOL
VIJINAPURA BENGALURU - 560016
2: SRI. RAGHU K
S/O. LATE KODANDARAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1392/2 T M COMPOUND
NEAR BETHAL PUBLIC SCHOOL
VIJINAPURA BENGALURU - 560016
(Pl By Sri. GHN, Advocate)
Versus
O.S.No. 5240/2019
2
DEFENDANT/S 1.SMT. KOGILA K
D/O. LATE KODANDARAMAN,
W/O. RAJKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT TC PALYA
ANANDAPURA K R PURAM
BENGALURU - 560016
2:SRI. RAJA K
S/O. LATE KODANDARAMAN,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1367/2
1ST B 2ND ROAD T M COMPOUND
NEAR BETHAL PUBLIC SCHOOL
VIJINAPURA BENGALURU - 560016
3:SMT. SELVI K S
W/O. KALAI SELVAN,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1, OM SHAKTHI NILAYA,
9TH CROSS 2ND MAIN
NARASIMHA ROAD
VIJAYANAGARA
BENGALURU - 560016
(D 1 & 3 By Sri. AS, Advocate)
(D 2 : Exparte)
Date of Institution of the suit 17.7.2019
Nature of suit Partition
Date of commencement 13.10.2023
of recording of evidence.
Date on which judgment 10.12.2025
was pronounced.
O.S.No. 5240/2019
3
Total Duration. Years Months Days
06 04 24
LI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
C/c. XXXVII ACCJ, BANGALORE
O.S.No. 5240/2019
4
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for partition and separate possession of ½ share in the suit schedule property, to cancel the relinquishment deed dt: 29.10.2018, to declare the registered agreement of sale dt: 28.6.2019 and the sale deed dt: 14.8.2019 executed by the first defendant in favour of defendant No.3 are not binding on the plaintiff, for permanent injunction.
2. The defendant No.3 has filed counter claim for the relief of to declare her as absolute owner and to direct the plaintiffs to hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule Property.
3. The brief case of the plaintiff are as follows:-
The plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 are the siblings and are the children of deceased Sri. Kodandaraman and Smt. Savithramma. All of them are Hindus by religion and are governed by Hindu law. The parents of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 died in the year 2005 and on 12.9.2009 respectively. Both of them died intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2.
4. The father of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 did not possess any estate during his life time nor he O.S.No. 5240/2019 5 inherited any property from his parents. The defendant No.3 alleged to be an agreement holder in respect of immovable property belonging to the joint family of plaintiffs, defendants No.1 and 2 and hence she is made as a party.
5. The mother of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 purchased a vacant site which is described as suit schedule property. She purchased the said property out of the self earnings for a valuable sale consideration from Smt. Seethamma W/o. Thoti Muniyappa through registered sale deed dt:
1.4.2006.
6. During the life time of their mother, she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property along with her children i.e., the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2. During her life time the plaintiffs have put up RCC construction of ground and first floor in a portion of the suit schedule property in an area of 20x20 feet for the living of all the family members out of their earnings. The defendants No.1 and 2 did not contribute any amount for the same. The khatha of the property was standing in the name of their mother.
7. After the demise of their mother B Khatha maintained by the BBMP in the name of their mother was transferred in O.S.No. 5240/2019 6 favour of the plaintiffs and defendant No.2. The first defendant since being married daughter residing in her matrimonial home and hence her name is not reflected in the Khatha extract. Therefore, the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 constitute a Hindu undivided joint family and thereby they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs are residing in the constructed building in the suit schedule property along with their family members. The defendants No.1 and 2 are residing elsewhere with their family members.
8. There is a vacant land in front of the existing building in the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs considering the share of defendants No.1 and 2 in the suit schedule property asked them to construct houses for themselves in the said vacant land in the month of August 2018. The defendants No.1 and 2 during the last week of October 2018 approached the plaintiffs and requested them to accompany them to the Sub- registrar's office in connection with affixing signatures for the plaintiffs to the loan documents as the defendants No.1 and 2 intends to raise necessary loan for the construction of building. In this regard they informed the plaintiffs that the lending O.S.No. 5240/2019 7 financial institutions has insisted for execution of mortgage deed by the plaintiffs and also as there is no partition in the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs since being un-aware of the fraudulent intention of the defendants No.1 and 2 agreed for the same on a bonafide belief and faith. Thereafter the defendants No.1 and 2 took the plaintiffs to Sub-registrar's office at about 3 p.m. in the last week of October 2018. The plaintiffs were directed to affix their signatures and thumb impression to the documents said to be a loan document. Even the defendants No.1 and 2 not allowed the plaintiffs to go through the document on the ground that registration time is going to be closed and the Sub-registrar was about to leave the office on some official work. Believing the version of the defendants No. 1 and 2 and plaintiffs affixed their signatures and completed the process of registration as directed by defendants No.1 and 2. The plaintiffs are not used to the documentation procedure and were not conversant with the language of the document. They are innocent and most gullible persons, they had utmost faith and truth over defendants No.1 and 2 and they virtually believed them. Therefore the plaintiffs had no reason to suspect the attitude and behavior of defendants No.1 and 2. That after execution of O.S.No. 5240/2019 8 the document, the defendants No.1 and 2 not started construction work. When the plaintiffs questioned the same, the first defendant informed that they are in the process of taking necessary step and amount is yet to be released by the lending bank.
9. On 26.6.2019, defendants No.1 and 2 came near the suit schedule property and demanded the plaintiffs to vacate their houses and to surrender vacant possession. in a rude language. When same was questioned by the plaintiffs and their family members, the defendants No.1 and 2 informed that plaintiffs have no right of share in the suit schedule property as they have already relinquished their share in favour of the defendants through relinquishment deed dt: 29.10.2018. The plaintiffs and their family members were shocked and surprised to learn about the said statement and allegations. Therefore, the plaintiffs realized the fraud and misrepresentation played by defendants No.1 and 2. Immediately the plaintiffs lodged a complaint with police on 26.6.2019. On receiving the said complaint, the police summoned defendant No.1 to the police station and she has shown the copy of alleged relinquishment deed to the police. In this regard, the police advised the plaintiff O.S.No. 5240/2019 9 to approach the Civil Court. Hence the plaintiffs have approached this court. These plaintiffs for the first time on 28.6.2019 learnt about the contents of the alleged relinquishment deed and learnt the fraud and misrepresentation played by defendants No.1 and 2 on them. Later on they secured endorsement from the jurisdictional police and filed the present suit. Therefore the defendants No.1 and 2 by playing fraud and misrepresentation on the plaintiffs have created the alleged relinquishment deed and hence it is not binding on themselves and nonest in the eye of law as it is not a conscious or voluntary act of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have no other property except the suit schedule property and depending on it for the benefit of themselves and the defendants. Therefore the plaintiffs could not have executed the alleged relinquishment deed in favour of the first defendant without receiving any consideration. That it proves that defendants No.1 and 2 colluding with each other created relinquishment deed.
10. That during the first week of July 2019 when 3 rd defendant came near the suit schedule property and informed the plaintiffs that she is a prospective purchaser of the suit schedule property from the first defendant and asked them to O.S.No. 5240/2019 10 vacate the residential property. Therefore, they learnt the alleged agreement of sale between the first defendant and 3rd defendant. They applied for certified copies and obtained it on 9.7.2019. Therefore, the defendants No.1 and 2 in collusion have created a alleged documents relinquishment deed and agreement of sale to deprive the legitimate shares of plaintiffs in the suit schedule property. Hence they constrained to file the present suit.
11. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs got amended the plaint by way of addition of para No. 17(a). The plaintiffs have averred that during the pendency of the suit and after grant of temporary injunction against the first defendant she alienated the suit schedule property in favour of third defendant. The defendants No.1 and 3 have created a registered sale deed dt: 14.8.2019. Therefore the said document is hit by the principles of lis-pendence and not binding on the plaintiffs. It is a sham and collusive document created by the first defendant to complicate the matter and to see that plaintiffs should not get their shares at the earliest. In this regard the plaintiffs approached concerned police, but they did not entertain their complaint on the ground that it is civil in nature. But they were directed to approach the Civil Court.
O.S.No. 5240/2019 11
12. The plaintiffs have invested all their fortunes for the construction of the residential building in an area of 20x20 feet in the suit schedule property. They are residing with their depending family members in the said building. Most of them are school going children, apart from their respective spouses. Hence, they constrained to file the present suit.
13. The defendants No.1 to 3 appeared through advocate. The defendants No. 1 and 3 have filed separate written statement. The proposed defendants No.2 and 4 not filed written statement.
14. The first defendant has contended that the present suit is not maintainable. This defendant has admitted the relationship with plaintiffs and that they are the children of the deceased Sri. Kodandaraman and Smt. Savithramma and are governed by codified Hindu law. Further she has admitted that the parents of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 died in the year 2005 and on 12.9.2009 respectively and both of them died intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 and that the father of plaintiffs do not possess any estate during his life time O.S.No. 5240/2019 12 nor he inherited any property from his parents. This defendant has also admitted that the 3rd defendant is legal agreement holder in respect of the suit schedule property. This defendant has admitted that their mother purchased a vacant site described in the schedule out of her self earnings for valuable sale consideration from the erstwhile owner Seethamma W/o. Thoti Muniyappa resident of Bengaluru under registered sale deed dt: 1.4.2006. This defendant has admitted that during the life time of their Mother the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The rest of the plaint averments have been denied.
15. This defendant has contended that the suit schedule property belongs to the plaintiffs, and defendants No.1 and 2. The plaintiff No.1 studied up to 9 th standard and second plaintiff studied up to 10 th standard and second defendant studied up to 9th standard. Since the first defendant wanted to settle with joint family property proposed for a fair settlement amongst plaintiffs and O.S.No. 5240/2019 13 defendant No.2. The husband of first defendant namely Rajkumar obtained loan from the Gardian bank and paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the plaintiffs and defendant No.2. Further it is contended that on receipt of the said amount, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 executed registered relinquishment deed dt: 29.10.2018. That the first defendant after getting relinquishment deed from the family members got transferred the khatha into her name. She approached the Government to put up construction on the suit schedule property under Ashraya scheme. Accordingly her application was allowed by the Government and under the supervision of the first defendant a house is constructed in the suit schedule property. The first defendant availed lot of loan from known persons and paid to the plaintiffs and second defendant at the time of execution of relinquishment deed dt: 29.10.2018. The said creditors demanded for the repayment of loans. Hence having no other alternative she sold the property in favour of 3rd defendant. She executed necessary deeds in favour of O.S.No. 5240/2019 14 defendant No.3. Based on the valid title, the plaintiffs are trying to extort money from the Ist defendant. The plaintiffs all along kept quite from 29.10.2018 to till 17.7.2019 and filed this false, frivolous suit. The plaintiffs guilty of suppresio vari and suggestio falsi. The plaintiffs has not approached this court with clean hands. That there is no cause of action for the present suit and prayed to dismiss the suit.
16. The defendant No.3 has filed written statement along with counter claim seeking declaratory relief to declare her as absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the sale deed 28.6.2019 and to direct the plaintiffs to hand over vacant possession of a portion of the suit schedule property measuring 20x20 feet and for injunction restraining the plaintiffs from interfering and obstructing the possession of the 3rd defendant.
17. This defendant has contended that the plaintiffs have suppressed true and materials fact and approached this court. This defendant has admitted the plaint O.S.No. 5240/2019 15 averments that the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 are the siblings and are children of deceased Sri. Kodandaraman and Smt. Savithramma and all of them are Hindus by religion and governed by Codified Hindu law. This defendant has also admitted about the death of parents of plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 and 2.
18. This defendant has contended that this defendant is a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property. The rest of the plaint averments are denied. This defendant has admitted that after the demise of the mother plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2, B khatha maintained in the books of BBMP in the name of their mother was transferred in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 & 2.
19. This defendant has contended that the suit schedule property purchased by the Ist defendant in her mother's name plaintiffs and defendants and that the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 have executed a registered relinquishment deed dt: 29.10.2018 in favour of the first defendant by receiving Rs.1,50,000/- from the first O.S.No. 5240/2019 16 defendant. But the plaintiffs have suppressed the said fact and not approached this court with clean hands. There is no cause of action and prayed to dismiss the suit with cost and to decree the counter claim.
20. The plaintiffs have filed rejoinder/written statement to the counter claim of defendant No.3 and contended that the said counter claim is not maintainable and that the same is filed with a malafide objects, illegally motivated to grab the property of the plaintiffs and to harass them. The 3rd defendant is guilty of mis-use and abuse of due process of law and liable for a serious reprimand at the hands of this court. The plaintiffs have contended that alleged counter claim of defendant No.3 in the legal parlance constituted an independent suit and as such the alleged counter claim of the 3rd defendant is not in consonance with rules of pleadings as required to adhere to and applicable for drafting of a plaint and as such the counter claim is to be discarded on such technical issue. That the defendant No.3 has not filed valuation memo along O.S.No. 5240/2019 17 with her written statement in respect of the counter claim and she has not paid the Court fee on the counter claim as per the provisions of the Karnataka Court fee and suit valuation act 1958 and hence the same is nonest in law perse. That the defendants No.1 to 3 in collusion with each other have filed the written statement independently are replica of one and the same and as such the same manifests collusion of defendants in creating documents to defraud and deprive the plaintiffs. Since the relationship between the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 is undisputed, they cannot deny with their legitimate shares. The plaintiffs have denied that the 3 rd defendant is a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property. That defendants No.1 and 2 never pleaded that the suit schedule property came to be purchased by the first defendant in the name of her mother Savithramma out of alleged earnings of first defendant earned while being an employee in Dubai. Therefore the contention in para 4 of the written statement of defendant No.3 is nothing but an improvement of O.S.No. 5240/2019 18 defendants case and does not deserve any appreciation or consideration. Further the plaintiffs have contended that the relief of deliver of possession claimed as counter claim it is contrary to her alleged sale deed dt: 28.6.2019 and the said fact further amplifies the collusion amongst the defendants in creating documents and the said fact further proves that the alleged sale deed has never acted upon and thereby the counter claim is not maintainable. According to defendant No.3 the plaintiffs are in permissive possession and there is no explanation as to present possession to them and the same clearly shows that there is total contradiction and inconsistency in the allegation of 3 rd defendant from the plaint averments it is borne out that the plaintiffs filed the present suit at the stage of first defendant entered into an agreement of sale with 3 rd defendant in respect of the suit schedule property through registered agreement of sale dt: 28.6.2019 and secured an interim order of temporary injunction against the defendants No.1 and 3 from creating any 3rd party interest by the first O.S.No. 5240/2019 19 defendant in favour of 3rd defendant or any other person. The same was within the personal knowledge of defendants and they managed to get the service of suit summons delayed and subsequent to execution of the alleged sale deed by the first defendant in favour of 3 rd defendant on 14.8.2019. However the doctrine of lis-pendence is applicable and thereby the alleged sale deed is hit by the provisions of Transfer of property Act and said document is not sacred legal document conferring any right, title, interest or possession of the suit schedule property in favour of 3rd defendant and hence the counter claim is not maintainable.
21. That in the counter claim the 3rd defendant has not mentioned date of cause of action accrued to her to raise the counter claim as the same is a condition precedent. Rules of pleading applicable to the plaint is sparingly applicable to the counter claim. It is alleged that counter claim of defendant No.3 is not in accordance with the prescribed formate appended to code of Civil procedure O.S.No. 5240/2019 20 and on that ground same is liable to be rejected. That the relief of declaration sought by the 3rd defendant on the alleged sale deed is not sustainable as the said document is clouded by doctrine of lis-pendence and due to collusion and creation of illegal documents by the defendants by having hand in glove with each other.
22. That the relief of possession restricting only to the area of building is not at all sustainable as the surrounding area of the building are precincts of same, they are part and parcel of the building for ingress and egress and through out the same is in exclusive possession of the plaintiffs and hence the said relief is completely barred and the same does not correspondence to alleged recitals of the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of 3 rd defendant. That 3rd defendant has not described the schedule property upon which she is claiming counter claim as required in law and as such there is serious irregularity in the counter claim and the same does not deserve consideration. Hence 3rd defendant is not entitled for permanent injunction O.S.No. 5240/2019 21 against the plaintiffs as she neither got any right, title, interest nor possession over the suit schedule property. Based on said contentions prayed for dismiss the counter claim with exemplary costs.
23. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed by my learned predecessor in office;
1.Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendants No.1 and 2 have created and obtained the relinquishment deed dated 29.10.2018 by fraud and misrepresentation, as pleaded in the plaint?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendants No.1 and 2 have sold the suit schedule property to defendant No.3 with a fraudulent intention to defeat his share without having any absolute right over the suit schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that he is entitled for right to share in the suit schedule property?
4. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that plaintiffs and defendant No.2 have relinquished their right over the suit schedule property by receiving an amount to the extant of their respective shares in the suit schedule property?
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs sought for?
6. What order or decree?
O.S.No. 5240/2019 22 ISSUES ON COUNTER CLAIM dt; 29.5.2023
1. Whether the defendant No.3 proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the defendant No.3 proves that he is entitle for vacant possession of portion of the schedule property measuring 20 X 20 feet on the western portion from the plaintiffs?
3. Whether the defendant No.3 proves that plaintiffs are interfering with possession and enjoyment of the schedule property?
4. Whether the defendant No.3 is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the counter claim?
5. What order or decree?
24. In order to prove ಟheಎr case, the plaintiff got examined plaintiff No.2 as PW 1 and got marked 33 documents at Ex.P1 and P-33. The defendants got examined defendant No.1 as DW 1 and another witness as DW-2 and got marked 10 documents at Ex.D1 and D-10.
25. Heard the arguments & perused the records.
26. My answer to the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.4 : In the Negative,
Issue No.5 : In the Affirmative,
O.S.No. 5240/2019
23
Issue No.6 : As per the final order,
Counter claim issues:-
Issue No.1 : In the Negative,
Issue No.2 : In the Negative,
Issue No.3 : In the Negative,
Issue No.4 : In the Negative,
Issue No.5 : As per the final order,
for the following.
REASONS
27. Issues No.1 and 4 : Since these issues are inter-
related with each other, to avoid repetition, these issues are discussed together.
28. In this case the learned counsel for both the parties argued as per the contents of the plaint and written statements. The counsel for plaintiff has relied on the following decisions:
1) AIR 2002 P&H page 147 ( Hamelo (deceased)by L.R. Appellants Vs. Jang Sher Singh.)
2) (2007) 10 SCC 448( Lachman dass. Vs. Jagat Ram and others.)
29. On the other hand the counsel for defendants No.1 and 3 has relied on the following decisions:-
1) 2025 (4) AKR 435. Syed Jalal Taru L.R.s Vs. Syed Rehman and others.
O.S.No. 5240/2019 24
2) RSA No. 5136/2014 dt:15.1.2019 ( Jaipal Vs. Smt. Vidya Devi & Others.
3) 2019(1) AKR 346,M/s. V.M. Constructions, Bangalore and others Vs. L.Lokesh Bau and others)
4) 2014(4) AKR 254. (Vikram Ravi Menezes Vs. Victor Goveas. )
5) 2024(4) AKR 564, (M.N. Prabhakar Reddy and another Vs. M. N. Somashekar and others.) I have gone through these decisions and considered the ratio decidendi while appreciating the oral and documentary evidence.
30. In this case there is no dispute that the suit schedule property which is a house property bearing site No.4, Khatha No. 345, property No. 60 situated at Ganga street, Vijinapura at Kothur, K.R.puram is the self acquired and is purchased by the mother of the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1 and 2. In this regard the plaintiffs have produced the certified copy of the sale deed dt: 1.4.2006 at Ex. P-1 and also the B property register extract, tax paid receipts to show that said properties were standing in the name of their mother. Accordingly, there is no dispute that their mother died intestate on 12.9.2009 leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 as legal heirs and they inherited the suit property and subsequently their O.S.No. 5240/2019 25 names was entered in the Khatha. In this regard plaintiffs have produced death certificate at Ex. P-2 and Khatha extract at Ex. P-3.
31. According to the plaintiffs they constructed a house in a portion of 20x20 feet consisting of ground and first floor and plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are residing in the said house prior to that even their deceased mother was also residing in the said house. In this case the defendant No.1 has disputed that plaintiffs have constructed the house. She has contended that her husband Rajkumar raised loan and paid Rs. 1,50,000/- to the plaintiffs and got executed the relinquishment deed and she put up construction by availing the assistance of the Government under Ashraya scheme.
32. It is pertinent to note that entire measurement of the suit schedule property is East to west 43 feets and north to south 20 feet totally measuring 860 sq. ft and East west 13 feet and north to south 6 feet measuring 78 feet and in all measuring 938 sq. ft. According to the plaintiffs, only in an extent of 20x20 feet the house has been constructed and the rest of the portion is open place. In the cross-examination of DW-1, she has admitted the said description of the property. Accordingly there O.S.No. 5240/2019 26 is no dispute that the plaintiffs are in possession of the building. However the 3rd defendant who is a subsequent purchaser has claimed possession of only the building and not the open space. Therefore in this regard there is cross-examination. In the cross-examination of Dw-1 and 2 it is elicited that the open space is used by the plaintiffs as access. Further in the cross- examination of Dw-1, she has admitted that the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 have constructed building in the said property. More specifically she admitted that first plaintiff has constructed the building and he is residing therein. Therefore in view of the said admissions, the plaintiffs have proved that with joint efforts and exertion of plaintiffs, defendant No.2 and their mother, they constructed building in the suit schedule property which belonged to their deceased mother. The Ist defendant failed to prove her contention that she constructed the building.
33. Even though the first defendant has not pleaded that she was working in Dubai and earning and she used to send the same to the family. But Pw-1 has been cross-examined elaborately in this regard. Pw-1 has admitted that first defendant used to send money to the account which was in the joint names of himself and the first defendant. In the cross-
O.S.No. 5240/2019 27 examination of Dw-1, the plaintiffs have cross-examined to the effect that plaintiff No.2 sent the defendant No.1 to Dubai at his expenses. But she has denied that he spent Rs. 50,000/- towards expenses for sending her to Dubai and in this regard she repaid the said amount through joint account. In this regard Dw-1 has produced the statement of account at Ex. D-8. As per the said document a sum of Rs. 55,000/- is credited to the joint account from 25.8.2005 to 31.3.2006. She has not produced the remaining bank account. In the said document the Bank officer endorsed that the old statement of account is not available. Therefore from the said document it is evident that first defendant was working in Dubai from 2003 to December 2006 and she used to send money to the joint account. But in the cross-examination of Dw-1, she has clearly admitted that their mother purchased the suit schedule property out of her own money. Though there is no pleading, but in the cross- examination of Pw-1 and Dw-1 it is elicited that their father was working in Food Corporation of India and his earning was not sufficient and therefore the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 started working and earning to augment the income of the family. Pw-1 also deposed that their mother used to work as house maid and she O.S.No. 5240/2019 28 was earning. In order to substantiate that their mother had sufficient amount, the plaintiffs have produced Ex. P-28 which is sanction order dt: 4.11.2004, Ex. P-29 which is sanction order dt: 14.2.2005, Ex. P-30 dt: 14.2.2005 regarding grant of terminal benefits related to the father of plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 and EX. P-31 dt: 6.6.2006 regarding final settlement of GPF pertaining to their father. Ex. P-32 is the letter regarding sanction of loan in the name of their mother. Therefore from these documents it is evident that their mother had received service benefits to the tune of nearly Rs. 55,000/-. Therefore from the oral evidence it is evident that the mother of the plaintiffs, plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 contributed for purchasing and putting up construction in the suit schedule property.
34. In the cross-examination of Dw-1 it is elicited that she was married one Arasu in the year 1995 and was settled with him. It is also elicited that in the year 2003 the 2 nd plaintiff sent her to Dubai and she worked there till December 2006. Further she has deposed that she was earning 500 Dinars, which is equivalent to Rs. 6,000/- p.m. in Indian currency. On perusal of the written statement of Defendant No.1 she has not pleaded O.S.No. 5240/2019 29 that out of her earnings her mother purchased the suit schedule property. Therefore, the cross-examination of Pw-1 in this regard is without pleadings which is of no use. Therefore it is evident from the oral evidence that with the earnings of plaintiffs No.1 and 2, defendant No.1 and their mother the suit schedule property purchased on 1.4.2006. Therefore considering the earning capacity of defendant No.1 and in the absence of documentary evidence, the defendants failed to prove the written statement contention. Therefore the plaintiffs have established that the suit schedule property is a joint property of themselves, defendants No.1 and 2 and their mother. Since their mother died intestate by way of succession, the defendants, plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and defendants No.1 and 2 have acquired the suit schedule property by way of succession.
35. According to the plaintiffs, defendants No.1 and 2 played fraud and mis-representation on them that to avail loan, they required to execute registered loan agreement and got executed Release deed/ relinquishment deed dt: 29.10.2018 without their knowledge and therefore the said document is null and void. According to the plaintiffs in order to arrive at settlement as defendants No.1 and 2 also had share in the suit O.S.No. 5240/2019 30 schedule property and as they had constructed a building in the extent of 20x20 feet and there was open space in front of the said building, they asked defendants No.1 and 2 to take it towards their share and put up construction. But the said defendants under the guise of availing loan for the purpose of construction have fraudulently got executed release deed dt:
29.10.2018.
36. The first defendant has denied the said plaint averments and contended that since she wanted to get settled that joint property for a fair settlement with plaintiff and defendant No.2, her husband Rajkumar obtained loan from the Guardian Bank and paid Rs.1,50,000/- to the plaintiffs and defendant No.2. Further she has contended that she borrowed loans from various persons. Thereafter the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 executed relinquishment deed dt:29.10.2019, which is registered before the Sub-registrar, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru. The plaintiffs have vehemently denied the same by filing rejoinder. In this regard the counsel for plaintiffs argued that there is inconsistency in the pleading and evidence of Dw-1 regarding how much amount paid to plaintiffs and defendants No.2. Further it is argued that there is no specific pleading regarding O.S.No. 5240/2019 31 how much money was paid. Further as defendant has contended that since she was borrowed loans and indebted heavily, she sold the property in favour of defendant No.3, in order to discharge the loans.
37. In view of the arguments and contentions taken by the parties, on perusal of evidence of Dw-1, she has deposed that her husband had borrowed Rs. 1,30,000/- from the Bank and paid the same to plaintiffs and defendant No.2. Therefore, there is inconsistency regarding how much amount was borrowed and paid to the plaintiffs. Further the counsel for plaintiffs pointed out the recital in the relinquishment deed at Ex. P-9 wherein it is mentioned that without consideration and out of love and affection the plaintiffs have released their right, share and interest in the suit schedule property in favour of first defendant.
38. It is pertinent to note that neither in the written statement nor in the examination in chief of Dw-1, it is stated regarding how much money was paid to the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and defendant No.2. In the cross-examination of Dw-1, she has deposed that she paid amount in cash to plaintiff No.2 in presence of witnesses. On perusal of the relinquishment deed O.S.No. 5240/2019 32 there are two attesting witnesses. The defendant No.1 has not examined the said attesting witnesses to prove the payment of consideration to plaintiff No.2. She is totally silent regarding the payment related to plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.2. Hence, as rightly argued by the counsel for plaintiffs, except the vague and bald pleading, there is no specific pleading in the written statement of Defendant No.1 and supporting evidence. Therefore the first defendant has failed to prove the contention taken in the written statement that she paid Rs. 1,50,000/- to the plaintiffs and therefore by receiving the said consideration they have executed relinquishment deed in her favour.
39. It is pertinent to note that according to the plaintiffs, they have no other property except suit schedule property for their residence purpose. In this regard Dw-1 cross-examined. She has deposed that plaintiffs constructed the building in the suit schedule property. Further it is elicited from Dw-1 that Ist plaintiff studied 9th standard and was working and earning Rs. 1,500/- p.m. and plaintiff No.2 was doing coolie and earning Rs. 1,000/- p.m. She has deposed that plaintiff No.2 is now doing building contract work. She has deposed that plaintiffs No.1,2 and defendant No.2 have not studied much except studied up to O.S.No. 5240/2019 33 9th and 10th standard. Thus they are not financial well off and having good income. It is also pertinent to note that in the cross- examination of Dw-1, she has stated that plaintiff No.1 has constructed a house with the help of BBMP and is residing there. She has denied that plaintiff No.2 is also residing in the said building. As per the sale deed their mother purchased suit schedule property for Rs. 2,35,000/- in the year 2006. Thereafter according to the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 , they constructed building in an extent of 20x20 feet for dwelling purpose. Dw-1 has admitted that there is a building consisting of ground and first floor constructed in an area of 20x20 feet, Therefore the plaintiffs have invested huge amount towards construction of the said building. Therefore payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- or Rs. 1,30,000/- towards their share in the suit schedule property is on lesser side and not as per the market price of the property. Therefore it is unbelievable that for such a meager amount, the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 agreed to relinquish their share in the suit schedule property. Though the plaintiffs have admitted they signed the said document but alleged that defendant No.1 misrepresented that it is a loan agreement and taken their signatures and they did not sign the release deed.
O.S.No. 5240/2019 34 But the defendant No.1 has not examined the attesting witnesses to prove that plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and defendant No.2 have received money and relinquished their right in the suit schedule property. Further the Ist defendant has not explained as to why the said payments not recited in the relinquishment deed. Thus the Ist defendant failed to prove passing of consideration to the plaintiffs. Considering the financial conditions of plaintiffs, it is unbelievable that without consideration and out of love and affection they give up their share in the suit schedule property. Thus the defendant has failed to prove that the relinquishment deed is a valid and genuine document. Therefore for the above stated reasons the defendant No.1 has failed to prove that plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and defendant No.2 have voluntarily executed the relinquishment deed in her favour. Therefore, it is evident that the first defendant has created the said relinquishment deed with an intention to defraud the plaintiffs and by misrepresentation. Hence, I answer Issue No.1, in the Affirmative and Issue No.4 in the Negative.
O.S.No. 5240/2019 35
40. Issue No.2 and Issues No. 1 and 2 of counter claim :-
Since these issues are inter-related with each other, to avoid repetition, these issues are discussed together.
41. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs in their rejoinder/written statement to counter claim have contended that the defendant No.3 has not filed valuation memo and not paid court fee on counter claim. But inspite of the said contention, the defendant No. 3 has not submitted valuation slip nor paid Court fee. But she has paid court fee on 28/1/2025 i.e., after the plaintiffs filed memo in this regard on 29.11.2024.
42. The plaintiffs have admitted that the defendant No.1 executed the agreement of sale in favour of defendant No.3 and hence she is made as a party. According to the plaintiffs during the pendency of this suit and by avoiding service of summons and an order of temporary injunction, the defendant No.1 and 3 colluded and got created registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property.
43. The plaintiffs have filed rejoinder and contended that the counter claim filed by the defendant No.3 is not in the prescribed formate and no cause of action pleaded and accordingly the description of the schedule to the counter claim O.S.No. 5240/2019 36 is not mentioned and hence the same is not maintainable. Inview of the said contention and on perusal of the counter claim of defendant No.3, she has filed the counter claim along with written statement. She has not described the schedule to the counter claim. She has sought the relief of possession in respect of 20x20 feet and for declaration that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the registered sale deed dt: 28.6.2019. Further she has sought permanent injunction to restrain the plaintiffs from interfering and obstructing to her possession over the suit schedule property.
44. In this regard the counsel for plaintiff pointed out the recitals in the sale deed dt: 28.6.2019 wherein the first defendant has stated that she has delivered vacant possession of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3. But admittedly as per the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 are in possession of the suit schedule property. In this regard Dw-1 cross-examined. She has stated that plaintiff No.1 alone is staying in the suit schedule property and that plaintiff No.2 is residing at some other place. The said evidence is not denied by the plaintiffs as no suggestion has been made to Dw-1 stating that plaintiff No.2 O.S.No. 5240/2019 37 is also residing in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff No.1 has produced the ration card, Aadhar card and reciepts regarding receiving of LPG cylinder to show that he is in possession of the suit schedule property. However the plaintiff No.2 not adduced evidence nor produced documentary evidence. In any case the building measuring 20x20 feet is in possession of the plaintiff No.1. Further the plaintiffs have pleaded that open space situated in front of the said building is used as access to the building. Dw-1 has admitted that the open space is situated in front of the building and it is used for access. Therefore they are in actual possession of the entire suit schedule property. Therefore as the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the building situated in the suit schedule property, it is evident that they are using the open space also and therefore they are in possession of the entire suit schedule property.
45. In the cross-examination of Dw-3, he has admitted that he did not pay entire sale consideration amount to the first defendant as she failed to hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property as she had assured. Regarding O.S.No. 5240/2019 38 passing of sale consideration vide register sale deed dt:
28.6.2019 there is inconsistent pleading and evidence.
46. The counsel for plaintiff pointed out the cross- examination of Dw-1, the recitals in the sale deed dt: 28.6.2019 and the cross-examination of Dw-2 and argued that defendants No.1 and 3 have colluded and created the said sale deed to defeat the right of the plaintiffs as no sale consideration is passed in favour of defendant No.1. Further it is argued that as on the date of registered sale deed, there is recital that vacant possession is handed over, but in reality the plaintiffs are in possession and therefore no vacant possession was handed over to defendant No.3 nor symbolic possession was handed over. Therefore, the said sale deed is sham and not valid. Therefore, inview of the said arguments, I have carefully perused the records.
47. As rightly argued by the counsel for plaintiff, in the cross-examination, Dw-1 has stated that she received entire sale consideration from defendant No.3. On perusal of sale deed at Ex. P-15 , total sale consideration is Rs. 30,48,500/-. There is recital regarding payment of Rs. 10 lakhs by way of RTGS and payment of 2 lakhs on 14.9.2019 through RTGS and payment of O.S.No. 5240/2019 39 Rs. 5 Lakhs each and Rs. 6,53,500/- through cheque drawn on Union Bank of India Vijinapura branch, Bengaluru. Further there is recital that a sum of Rs. 1,95,000/- was paid by way of cash before the witnesses. But in the cross-examination, Dw-2 has deposed that he withheld the payments of two cheques. However he failed to explain regarding the details of cheques and total amount which is not paid to first defendant. Moreover defendant No.1 has not taken any steps to recover the said amount. On the other hand, Dw-1 has stated that she received entire payment. Further she has stated that she could produce Bank account details. But both the parties have failed to produce the details of the bank account to show actual payment made and the amount received by defendant No.1. Therefore, in spite of having documents defendants No.1 and 3 not produced the same. Hence an adverse inference is to be drawn against them. The conduct of defendants No.1 and 3 in with holding the documents regarding payment of sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed Ex. P-15 to substantiate the averments of plaintiffs that no consideration is passed in the said sale deed. Therefore, the oral and documentary evidence placed on record will prove that Ex. P-15 is not a valid O.S.No. 5240/2019 40 conveyance deed transferring the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3. In this case the first defendant has failed to prove that the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and defendant No. 2 have relinquished their right, title and interest in the suit schedule property in her favour. Admittedly the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 are the joint owners of the suit schedule property by way of succession as their mother passed away intestate. Therefore the right and title of the suit schedule property is not transferred in favour of first defendant. Therefore the first defendant had no title and interest over the entire suit schedule property and but therefore the same is not absolutely transferred in favour of defendant No.3. Therefore the defendants No.1 and 3 have failed to prove the validity of the relinquishment deed and also sale deed dt: 14.8.2019. Therefore by virtue of such a sham and invalid documents, no right, title and interest is transferred either in favour of the first defendant or in favour of defendant No.3. Hence, Ist defendant failed to prove that she had valid title over the suit schedule property and hence the transfer of the suit schedule property is valid. Hence the defendant No.3 has failed to prove that she is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property.
O.S.No. 5240/2019 41
48. The plaintiffs have pleaded and argued that during the pendency of the present suit and in spite of the interim order of temporary injunction in force, the first defendant alienated the suit schedule property in favour of 3rd defendant and therefore the same is not binding on them. On perusal of record, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit on 18.7.2019. Thereafter immediately the notice and summons not issued to defendants No.1 to 3. The temporary injunction was granted on 1.8.2019. As per order sheet on 21.8.2019, the first defendant served and defendant No.3 not served. In this regard Dw-1 is cross- examined, she has admitted that plaintiff No.2 had lodged a complaint with the police. The plaintiffs have produced Ex. P-7 which is a true copy of the complaint Dt: 26.6.2019. On perusal of the said document, the plaintiff No.2 has not disclosed about filing of the suit. The endorsement at Ex. P-8 which is dt:
5.7.2019 also does not disclose about the pendency of the present case. Therefore the plaintiffs have not produced document to show that defendants No.1 and 3 had knowledge about the pendency of the present suit and the temporary injunction was in force as on the date of registration of sale deed at Ex. P-15. Even otherwise the said document came into O.S.No. 5240/2019 42 existence during the pendency of the present suit. Therefore, it is hit by the principles of lis-pendence. Therefore said document is not binding on the plaintiffs in respect of their share in the suit schedule property. Therefore, it is evident that the first defendant has sold the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3 with an intention to defeat the share and interest of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule property. Hence, I answer Issue No.2 in the Affirmative and counter claim Issues No.1 and 2 in the Negative.
49. Issues No.3, 5 and Issues No. 3 and 4 of Counter claim :-
In view of the above discussions and findings given to Issues No.1, 2, 4 and Issues No.1 and 2 of counter claim, the plaintiffs have proved that the relinquishment deed dt: 29.10.2018 has been fraudulently created by the first defendant. They have also proved that first defendant had no right and title over the suit schedule property to sell the same in favour of 3 rd defendant and therefore by virtue of the registered sale deed dt: 14.8.2019, no right, title and interest is transferred from defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3. Therefore the defendant No.3 has also failed to prove her possession over the suit schedule property. On the other hand the plaintiffs have proved their possession O.S.No. 5240/2019 43 over the suit schedule property. Therefore, the question of interference with the possession of the defendant No.3 by the plaintiffs does not arise. Therefore, the plaintiffs have proved that the suit schedule property is a joint property and they and defendants No.1 and 2 are the joint owners of the said property. They have also proved that by way of succession as their mother died intestate, they became joint owners of the suit schedule property. Therefore the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and defendants No.1 and 2 are having equal share in the suit schedule property. Therefore the plaintiffs are entitled for declaratory relief in respect of relinquishment deed dt: 29.10.2018 and registered sale deed dt:14.8.2019. On the other hand, defendant No.3 has failed to prove that she became absolute owner by virtue of the registered sale deed at Ex. P-15. Hence, she is not entitled for the relief of counter claim. Therefore the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and defendants No. 1 and 2 are having 1/4th share each in the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession of their ½ share by metes and bounds. Hence, I answer Issues No. 3, 5 in the O.S.No. 5240/2019 44 Affirmative and Issues No. 3 and 4 of counter claim in the Negative.
50. Issue No. 6 and Counter claim Issue No.5 : - In view of my answer to above issues, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit is decreed with costs.
The plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants No. 1 and 2 are entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share each i.e., ½ share together in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds.
The registered relinquishment deed dt: 29.10.2018 is cancelled.
It is declared that the registered agreement of sale dt:28.6.2019 and the registered Sale deed dt: 14.8.2019 executed by the first defendant in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on the plaintiffs.
The counter claim of defendant No.3 is dismissed. Draw preliminary decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer grade-I, computerized and typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 10th Day of December 2025) ( NIRMALA DEVI S. ) LI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE C/c. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
O.S.No. 5240/2019 45 Schedule Property All the piece and parcel of residential property bearing site No.4, Khatha No. 345 in property No. 60, situated at Ganga street, Vijinapura @ Kothur, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, now under the limits of BBMP, Bengaluru measuring East to west 43 feet and North to South 20 feet, totally measuring 860 sq.ft and measuring East to west 13 feet, North to South 6 feet, totally measuring 78 sq. ft in all measuring 938 sq. ft. together with constructed RCC building consisting of ground and first floor having all the civic amenities in an area of 20 x 20 feet, and there is a sheet house in the second floor with all civic amenities, and bounded as follows:
East by : Krishnappa's property & Road, West by : Nagarathnamma's property, North by : Asmathulla's house, South by : Munian house and Chinnappa's house.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
PW-1 - Sri. K. Raghu.
Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
Ex.P-1 Certified copy of the registered sale deed
dated 01.04.2006
Ex.P-2 Death certificate of my mother Savithri
Ex.P-3 Form- B property register extract
Ex.P-4 Receipt
Ex.P-5 and Two Property tax receipts
6
Ex.P-7 True copy of the complaint dated
26.06.2019
Ex.P-8 Endorsement issued by the police dated
O.S.No. 5240/2019
46
05.07.2019
Ex.P-9 Certified copy of the release deed dated
29.10.2018
Ex.P-10 Certified copy of the registered sale
agreement dated 28.06.2019
Ex.P-11 Encumbrance certificate
Ex.P-12 Computer generated property tax receipt
Ex.P-13 Gas bill
Ex.P-14 Gas receipt
Ex.P-15 Certified copy of the sale deed dated
14.08.2019
Ex.P-16 Copy of the visitors letter for having visited
the police station
Ex.P-17 Copy of the complaint dated 31.07.2019
Ex.P-18 Tax paid receipt.
Ex.P-19 to Acknowledgments for receipt of cheque.
Ex.P-21
Ex.P-22 Tax paid receipt.
Ex.P-23 Copy of application given by the plaintiff to
BESCOM, Benniganahalli.
Ex.P-24 True copy of the Aadhar Card of plaintiff no.1
K.Ravi.
Ex.P-25 True copy of the Election ID card of plaintiff no.1
K.Ravi.
Ex.P-26 True copy of the Ration Card of the family of
R.Anitha W/o plaintiff no.2 Raghu.
Ex.P-27 True copy of my Aadhar Card.
(The originals of Ex.P.24 to Ex.P.27 are produced, after comparison returned to the witness). Ex.P-28 & Sanction letters issued by FCI. Ex.P-29 Ex.P-30 Notice dated 14.02.2005 issued by FCI.
O.S.No. 5240/2019 47 Ex.P-31 Notice dated 06.06.2006 issued by FCI. Ex.P-32 Loan sanction letter issued by Janalakshmi Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., dated 30.04.2008. Ex.P-33 Loan sanction letter issued by Janalakshmi Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., dated 27.03.2007.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
DW-1 : Smt. Kogila. K DW-2 : Sri. Kalai Selvan Documents marked on behalf of the Defendant/s:
Ex. D-1 Release deed
Ex.D-2 Original special power of attorney
Ex.D-3 B property register extract
and 4
Ex.D-5 Four Tax paid receipts
Ex.D-6 Two BESCOM receipts
Ex.D-7 One Water bill
Ex.D-8 Statement of bank account
Ex.D-9 One Receipt
Ex.D-10 Encumbrance certificate
( NIRMALA DEVI S. )
LI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
C/c. XXXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.
O.S.No. 5240/2019 48 O.S.No. 5240/2019 49 Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate Judgment ) ORDER The suit is partly decreed with costs. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share each i.e., ½ share together in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds. The registered Relinquishment deed dt: 29.10.2018 is canceled.
It is declared that the registered agreement of sale dt:28.6.2019 and the registered Sale deed dt: 14.8.2019 executed by the first defendant in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on the plaintiffs to the extent of their shares.
The counter claim of defendant No.3 is dismissed.
Draw preliminary decree accordingly.
( NIRMALA DEVI S. ) LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE O.S.No. 5240/2019 50 C/c. XXXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE; BENGALURU CITY.
O.S.No. 5240/2019 51