Bangalore District Court
Abbaiah vs Dodda Venkatappa on 20 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XLIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. (CCH 44)
Dated: This the 20th day of January, 2016
PRESENT
Sri. R.K.TALIKOTI, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl.),
XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU, (CCH-44).
O.S. No.783/2004
PLAINTIFFS : 1. Abbaiah
S/o Late Benki Muniswamy
Since dead rep. by L.R.
Wife Muniyamma
W/o Latete Abbaiah
Aged about 75 years
Occ: Nil, R/at Kodichikkanahalli,
Bangalore South Taluk.
2. Chetan Babu
S/o Yellappa
Aged about 19 years
3. Rajeswari,
D/o Yellappa major
4. Shalini
D/o Yellappa, major
5. Chitra,
D/o Yellappa, major
6. Srinivasa
S/o Papanna, Aged about 21 years
2 O.S.No.783/2004
7. Arun Kumar,
S/o Papanna, Aged about 20 years
8. Renuka,
S/o Papanna, Aged about 18 years
9. Murali,
S/o Hanumanthappa
Aged about 12 years
10. Manohara,
S/o Hanumanthappa,
9 & 10 are minors represented by
Smt. Lakshmamma,
Mother and natural guardian
All are residing in
Kodichikkanahalli, Begur Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk.
(By Sri V.C. Jagannath, Advocate)
VS.
DEFENDANTS 1. Dodda Venkatappa
: S/o Late Dodda Balappa
Aged about 57 years
2. Manjunath
S/o Dodda Venkatappa
Aged about 20 years
3. Shashi Kumar
S/o Dodda Venkaappa,
Aged about 15 years
Minor represented by mother and
natural guardian
Smt. Munirathnam
3 O.S.No.783/2004
4. Hanumappa,
S/o Late Dodda Balappa
Aged about 48 years
5. Smt. Kakamma
W/o Late Chikka Balappa
Aged about 85 years
6. Mangamma,
W/o Yellappa, D/o Chikka Balappa,
Aged about 58 years
7. Muniyellamma Since dead by
L.Rs. Ramappa
S/o Late Yellappa
8. Mangamma
W/o late Gurappa
Aged about 47 years
9. Kaveramma
D/o Late Gurappa,
Aged about 30 years
10. Yellamma,
D/o Late Gurappa,
Aged about 33 years
11. Narayanaswamy @ Ambarish
S/o Late Gurappa
Aged about 27 years
12. Gopala,
S/o Late Gurappa,
Aged about 20 years
13. Satish, Aged about 15 years
4 O.S.No.783/2004
14. Santhosh,
S/o Late Gurappa,
Aged about 16 years
13 & 14 minors, both represented
by Mother and natural guardian
Smt. Mangamma
15. Yellappa,
S/o Abbaiah, Aged about 40 years
16. Manju
S/o Abbaiah, Aged about 28 years
17. Puttamma,
W/o late Papanna,
Aged about 44 years
18. Muniyappa
S/o Late Yellappa,
Aged about 48 years
19. Srinivasa,
S/o Muniyapa
Aged about 20 years
20. Harish,
S/o Muniyappa
Aged about 14 years
21. Shashi Kumara, S/o Muniyappa,
Aged about 13 years
22. Ananda, S/o Muniyappa
Aged about 11 yu;
23. Shanta Kumar, S/o Muniyappa
Aged about 8 years,
5 O.S.No.783/2004
20, 21, 22 & 23 minors
Represented by Smt.
Munirathnamma, mother and
natural guardian.
24. Gundappa,
Aged about 43 years
S/o Late Yellappa
25. Saritha,
Aged about 16 years
D/o Gundappa
26. Deepa, Aged about 17 years
D/o Gundappa
27. Vijayakumar,
Aged about 15 years,
S/o Gundappa
28. Raghavenra,
Aged about 11 years
S/o Gundappa
29. Papanna,
S/o Yellappa, Aged about 50 years
30. Kaveeramma,
Aged about 16 years, D/o Papanna
31. Prakash,
Aged about 15 years S/o Papanna
32. Roopa,
Aged about 14 years, D/o Papanna
6 O.S.No.783/2004
33. Manjunatha,
Aged about 17 years, S/o Papanna
34 Subramani,
Aged about 13 years S/o Papanna
Defendants 30 to 34 minors
Represented by mother and natural
guardian Smt. Yellamma
Defendants 1 to 34 residing in
Kodichikkanahalli, Begur Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk.
35. K.Ravindra Reddy,
S/o P. Purushotama Reddy,
Aged about 58 years,
468, 12th Cross, Wilson Garden,
Bengaluru-560 027
36. M/s. Engineers Syndicate (India)
Ltd. By Chairman & Managing
Director K.Ravindra Reddy,
468, 12th Cross, Wilson Garden,
Bengaluru-560 027
37. Narayan
S/o Muniyappa,
Aged about 25 years
Kodichikkanahalli,
Bangalore South Taluk.
Date of Institution of the suit: 23/01/2004
Nature of the Suit (Suit for
pronote, suit for declaration Suit for Partition
and possession, Suit for
injunction, etc,) :
7 O.S.No.783/2004
Date of the commencement of 11/09/2012
recording of the Evidence:
Date on which the Judgment 20/01/2016
was pronounced:
Total Duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
11 11 27
(R.K.TALIKOTI)
XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
BENGALURU, (CCH-44).
JUDGMENT
Suit of the plaintiffs is for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs share in the suit property by metes and bounds and for permanent injunction to restrain defendant Nos.35 and 36 from interfering in lawful peaceful possession and enjoyment of property.
2. In brief the averments of the plaint are as under:-
i) Plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 34 are members of Hindu Undivided Joint Family. No partition has 8 O.S.No.783/2004 taken place in respect of family properties. Plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 34 are joint owners and in joint possession of land bearing Sy.No.25/2, 25/3 and 25/4 of Kodichikkanahalli Village totally measuring 4 acres 4 guntas described in the schedule. This is ancestral property having devolved by succession from original propositus late Sahadeva.
ii) After death of propositus, his children, grandchildren and great grandchildren have jointly cultivated the schedule property. The property was managed by the elders in the family. Plaintiffs have got their share in the suit schedule property. Defendants have executed a registered power of attorney in favour of Ravindra Reddy, defendant No.35. There was no requirement for execution of power of attorney and therefore it is not binding on the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 34 were cultivating the schedule property. 35th defendant based on the illegal and invalid power of attorney has sold portion of property to his own company arrayed as defendant No.36 when the time plaintiffs 2 to 8 were minors.
First plaintiff has not executed any power of attorney 9 O.S.No.783/2004 or sale deed. There was no legal and actual necessity for alienation of the property to defendant Nos.35 and
36. The power of attorney holder cannot hold agricultural land. Said alienation is not binding on the plaintiffs. Defendant Nos.35 and 36 have no right to possession.
iii) Plaintiffs have also come to know that there was an agreement of sale prior to sale deed for Rs.81,00,000/-. However the sale deed has been executed for Rs.19,31,400/- by devaluation of the property with intention to defraud the plaintiffs. First plaintiff is entitled to 1/15th share. Plaintiffs 2 to 5 are jointly entitled to 1/15th share, plaintiffs 6 to 8 are jointly entitled to 1/20th share and plaintiffs 9 and 10 are jointly entitled to 1/10th share. Defendant Nos.35 and 36 have tried to dispossess the plaintiffs. Effort of the plaintiffs for reporting the matter to the police had gone in vain. Therefore suit is filed.
10 O.S.No.783/2004
3. Defendant Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6, 8 to 10, 12 to 14 and 29 to 34 have filed written statement. In brief the contention taken up in the written statement is as under:-
i) It is contended that suit schedule property originally belongs to one Sri Munibala and he was in possession of the property. He had two sons namely Muniyela and Deka. They succeeded to the property after death of Munibala. During that time there was no partition.
First son of Munibala namely Muniyela had four sons namely Doddabalappa, Chikkabalappa, Benki Muniswamy and Yellappa. Doddabalappa had expired leaving behind first defendant and defendant No.4. Second son of Muniyela namely Chikkabalappa has died leaving behind defendant No.5 and one son by name Gurappa. Said Gurappa has died leaving behind defendant No.8 Mangamma and her children by name Yellamma, Kaveramma, Narayanaswamy, Ambarish, Gopala, Satish and Santhosh who are arrayed as defendant Nos.9 to 14. Third son of Muniyela namely Benki Muniswamy has died leaving behind Benki Abbaiah who has died leaving behind 11 O.S.No.783/2004 firs plaintiff, Yellappa -defendant No.1, Yellamma defendant No.16. One Kaveramma is not party to suit. Fourth son of Muniyela namely Yellappa has died leaving behind defendant Nos.29 to 34 and defendant Nos.17, 18 and 24. Second son of Munibala, namely Dekha has died leaving behind Guramma. Said Guramma is no more and she has left behind Mangamma-defendant No.8 in this case, Papanna defendant No.29. Muniyellamma and Muniyamma are not parties to the proceedings. Suit properties are in joint possession and enjoyment of these persons and it is ancestral property and it has not been divided so far. Defendants had given General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.35 in respect of suit schedule property. However defendant No.35 has been mismanaging the suit schedule property and therefore General Power of Attorney was cancelled on 27/03/2003 and published by paper publication on 01/04/2003 not to deal with the property. 35th defendant being fully aware of these facts has executed sale deed in favour of his wife by executing sale deed dated 26/06/2001 and played fraud against the defendants. Therefore the 12 O.S.No.783/2004 said sale deed is not binding on the defendants. They are having share and therefore defendants are ready to pay the court fee.
ii) It is contended that a legal notice was sent to defendant No.36 to appoint arbitrator. But defendant No.36 has not sent reply. The memorandum of understanding dated 30/11/2006 has been agreed but the dispute is not resolved. Therefore joint petition dated 30/11/2006 has to be set aside. Hence defendants claim their share over the property.
4. Defendant No.11 has filed the written statement. In brief the contention taken up by defendant No.11 in the written statement is as under:-
i) It is admitted that plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 34 are members of Hindu Undivided Joint Family and they are all joint family members. The averments of para 4 and 5 are also admitted. The registered General Power of Attorney obtained by Ravindra Reddy has been cancelled by family members on 27/03/2003 by issuing paper publication on 13 O.S.No.783/2004 01/04/2003. This defendant has entered into joint petition on 04/12/2006 along with memorandum of understanding dated 30/11/2006. In the said memorandum of understanding defendant No.36 had agreed to pay Rs.1,38,29,000/- to defendant No.11 including minors benefits. Defendant No.36 had also agreed to provide flats in the proposed residential complex and also to allot 8534 sq.ft super built area and sharing of flats. 36th defendant had also agreed to give sharing of flats of 800 sq ft. each totally 3200 sq. ft super built area along with undivided share. Defendant No.36 has not fulfilled the memorandum of understanding and not been acting upon and as such legal notice was sent to defendant No.36. But defendant No.36 got sent reply notice by saying that it will resolve the dispute and they are going to pay the amount. 36th defendant has not resolved the dispute and therefore the memorandum of understanding dated 30/11/2006 has to be set aside. Defendant No.11 be allotted his share.14 O.S.No.783/2004
5. Defendant No.35 has filed the written statement. In brief the contention taken up by defendant No.35 in the written statement is as under:-
i) The averments of the plaint are denied. Plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts and therefore suit is liable to be dismissed. Plaintiffs 1 to 10, defendants 1 to 34 and others in all 51 members have executed the registered General Power of Attorney dated 04/04/2001 in favour of K.Ravindra Reddy- defendant No.35 in respect of 4 acres of land comprised in Sy.No.25/2, 25/3 and 25/4 of Kodichikkanahalli Village. The said land was also agreed to be sold by them to defendant No.35. An agreement of sale was executed by receiving valuable consideration. Thus General Power of Attorney is coupled with interest. As per the General Power of Attorney, defendant No.35 was empowered to deal with the property in any manner including transfer by way of sale. Before executing General Power of Attorney, 35th defendant had got filed application dated 13/09/2000 duly signed by 15 O.S.No.783/2004 Dodda Venkatappa, Hanumappa, Ambarish @ Nrayanaswamy, Gopala, Satish, Santhosh Kumar, Mangamma, Abbaiah, Puttamma, Gundappa and Muniyappa on behalf of the their family seeking conversion of 2 acres 23 guntas of land comprised in Sy.No.25/2 measuring 1 acre 17 guntas, Sy.No.25/3 measuring 15 guntas and Sy.No.25/4 measuring 31 guntas. Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru District, Bengaluru has passed order for permission of conversion of land and has levied conversion fine in a sum of Rs.1,40,314/-. 35th defendant has deposited the said amount on 07/06/2001 on behalf of the owners. Accordingly sanction order dated 14/06/2001 has been passed.
ii) 35th defendant has executed a registered sale deed dated 26/06/2001 in favour of 36th defendant represented by its directors and sold an extent of 2 acres 23 guntas of converted land and has put the company defendant No.36 in possession of the property. Remaining 1 acre 11 guntas of 'A' kharab land was also got converted for non-
agricultural residential purpose. 34th defendant has issued bank guarantee on behalf of owners for 16 O.S.No.783/2004 Rs.10,20,000/- under protest. The said Deputy Commissioner has levied conversion fine of Rs.69,424/- as conversion charges. The said amount is paid by the defendant Nos.35 and 36 vide challan dated 21/08/2001. Even amount of Rs.10,20,000/- was also credited into treasury on 17/09/2003. Then order dated 14/10/2003 was passed. Accordingly total extent of 3 acres 34 guntas was converted out of 4 acres. Plaintiffs are very well aware about the proceedings and have filed this false suit on imaginary grounds. Other allegations in the plaint that they are members of Undivided Hindu Joint Family and they are in joint possession are all denied. It is denied that the property is ancestral property of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 34. Rest of the allegations made in the plaint are all denied.
iii) Defendant No.36 is in possession of the property and has developed the property by putting up compound around the property and a watchman shed is also built. It is denied that plaintiffs were cultivating the land. It is denied that prior to sale 17 O.S.No.783/2004 deed, defendant Nos.35 and 36 had entered into agreement of sale for consideration of Rs.81,00,000/-. Plaintiffs are not in possession of the property. The land is converted. Court fee paid is insufficient. The suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence the suit be dismissed.
6. From the above pleadings, following issues have been framed by my predecessor in office:-
1. Whether plaintiffs prove that the suit property are joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendant 1 to 34?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of their share in suit property? If yes, at what share?
3. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property?
4. Whether plaintiffs prove that the defendant No.35 & 36 are illegally interfering in plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property?18 O.S.No.783/2004
5. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profits?
6. Whether plaintiffs prove that the defendant No.35 by using G.P.A. has sold suit property illegally to defendant No.36?
7. Whether plaintiffs prove that the sale made by defendant No.35 as General Power of Attorney holder in favour of defendant No.36 is not binding on the plaintiffs?
8. Whether defendant No.35 and 36 prove that the executants of General Power of Attorney have executed the registered rectification deed in favour of defendant No.36 rectifying the earlier sale deed dated 26/06/2001?
9. Whether defendant No.35 and 36 prove that the Court fee paid is not proper?
10. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
11. What order or decree?
Addl. Issues dated 17/12/2011:
1. Whether defendant No.11 proves that the memorandum of understanding dt.30/11/2006 is not binding on him?
2. Whether defendant No.11 is entitled for partition and separate possession of his share in suit property? If yes, at what share? 19 O.S.No.783/2004
Addl. Issues dated 20/07/2012:
1. Whether defendants No.1 to 3, 5, 6, 8 to 10, 12 to 14, 29 to 34 prove that defendant No.35 has mismanaged the suit property on the basis of GPA executed in his favour?
2. Whether defendants No.1 to 3, 5, 6, 8 to 10, 12 to 14, 29 to 34 prove that they have cancelled the GPA executed by them in favour of defendant No.35 on 27/3/2003, and published them in paper on 1/4/2003?
3. Whether defendants No.1 to 3, 5, 6, 8 to 10, 12 to 14, 29 to 34 prove that the sale deed dated 26/6/2001 executed by defendant No.35 in favour of his wife is not binding on them?
7. Plaintiff No.3 is examined as P.W.1 and as many as 12 documents are marked as Exs.P.1 to P.12. Inspite of giving opportunity, P.W.1 did not turn up for cross- examination. GPA holder of defendant No.35 and 36 is examined as D.W.1 and as many as 6 documents are marked as Exs.D.1 to D.6.
8. No arguments advanced on behalf of plaintiffs. Heard the arguments of defendant Nos.35 and 36. 20 O.S.No.783/2004
9. My findings on the above Issues are:-
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: In the negative
Issue No.6: In the negative
Issue No.7: In the negative
Issue No.8: In the affirmative
Issue No.9: In the negative
Issue No.10: In the negative
Addl. Issue No.1 In the negative
dated 17/12/11 :
Addl. Issue No.2 In the negative
dated 17/12/11 :
Addl. Issue No.1 In the negative
dated 20/7/12 :
Addl. Issue No.2 In the negative
dated 20/7/12 :
Addl. Issue No.3 In the negative
dated 20/7/12 :
Issue No.11: As per final order
for the following :-
21 O.S.No.783/2004
REASONS
10. Issue Nos.1, 3, 4, 6, 8 and addl. Issue Nos.1 and 2 dated 20/07/2012:- All these issues are inter-linked and therefore they are taken up for determination together.
11. Suit of the plaintiffs is for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.25/2, 25/3 and 25/4 measuring 4 acres 4 guntas as described in the plaint. According to the plaintiffs, the property was originally owned by Sahadeva and after his death plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 34 have succeeded to the property and it is joint family property. In this regard plaintiff No.3 is examined as P.W.1 and she has stated that suit property is owned by propositus Sahadeva. She has also stated that the property has been illegally sold in favour of defendant Nos.35 and 36. P.W.1 was recalled for cross-examination but inspite of giving opportunity, P.W.1 did not turn up for 22 O.S.No.783/2004 cross-examination. No other witness is examined by the plaintiffs.
12. GPA holder of defendant No.35 and 36 is examined as D.W.1. He has stated in his evidence that plaintiffs 1 to 10, defendants 1 to 34 and other members of the family totally 51 members have jointly executed registered GPA dated 04/04/2001 in favour of defendant No.35 in respect of land Sy.No.25/2, 25/3 and 25/4 measuring 4 acres situated at Kodichikkanahalli Village and they have empowered defendant No.35 to deal with the property including transferring the same. He has further stated that the land has been got converted for non-agricultural purpose by depositing necessary fees. General Power of Attorney holder of plaintiffs 1 to 10 and defendants 1 to 34 has executed registered sale deed dated 26/06/2001 in favour of defendant No.36 M/s. Engineers Syndicate (India) Ltd. Except plaintiffs 1 to 5 and defendant No.15 rest of the plaintiffs and defendants in the suit have executed three registered confirmation 23 O.S.No.783/2004 deeds dated 08/09/2013 in favour of defendant No.36 confirming sale deed dated 26/06/2001 as well as registered rectification deed dated 30/12/2002. Defendant No.35 is not party to the revocation deed dated 20/04/2001. Therefore that does not take away any right. Hence the suit be dismissed.
13. Defendants have produced the General Power of Attorney executed by defendant Nos.35 and 36 at Ex.D.1. Khatha certificate and khatha extract are produced at Ex.D.2 and 3. The confirmation sale deeds executed in favour of defendant No.36 are marked as Ex.D.4, D.5 and D.6. Plaintiffs have not cross-examined this witness. Defendant No.11 and 15 have also not let in any evidence even though he has taken up contention that defendant Nos.35 and 36 are not having any right.
14. Learned Counsel for defendants has relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1969 Supreme Court 73 (Seth Loon Karan Sethiya vs. Ivan E. John and 24 O.S.No.783/2004 others). This decision is regarding power to terminate GPA. Learned Counsel has also placed reliance on the decision reported in AIR 1970 Madras 76 (Kathoom Bivi Ammal and another vs. Arulappa Nadar and another). This is also regarding principles governing termination of power of attorney. Further reliance is placed on the decision reported in ILR 1993 KAR 2306 (Mohammed @ Podiya vs. Assistant Commissioner). This is regarding powers of power of attorney where the authority is irrevocable.
15. In the instant case on hand, though plaintiffs have pleaded that the power of attorney executed has been revoked by deed dated 27/03/2003 i.e., Ex.P11. But P.W.1 has not subjected herself for cross- examination and it can be seen that the sale deed was executed by the power of attorney holder in the year 2001 much prior to revocation of power of attorney. There is ample evidence to show that power of attorney was coupled with interest and it was registered document. 25 O.S.No.783/2004 Therefore the rectification of power of attorney cannot be taken into consideration. Apart from that since P.W.1 has not subjected to cross-examination, question of considering revocation of power of attorney document does not arise. Defendant No.35 has produced the confirmation sale deed executed by other defendants as well as plaintiffs apart from plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 at Ex.D.4 to D.6, wherein they have confirmed the sale deed dated 26/06/2001. In the absence of any evidence and cross- examination of P.W.1 plaintiffs have not proved that the suit property is joint family property and that they have share in it.
16. Plaintiffs have contended that defendant Nos.35 and 36 are illegally interfering in plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. As mentioned above, P.W.1 has not tendered for cross-examination. Further they have not proved joint possession and that they are entitled to share. Therefore interference is not proved. Hence issue Nos.1, 3, 4 and 6 and additional 26 O.S.No.783/2004 issues Nos.1 and 2 dated 20/07/2012 are answered in the 'negative' and issue No.8 is answered in the 'affirmative'.
17. Addl. Issue No.1 and 2 dated 17/12/2011:-
11th defendant has contended in his written statement that memorandum of understanding dated 30/11/2006 is not binding on him. He has not got himself examined in this case. Further defendant Nos.35 and 36 have produced deed of confirmation dated 18/09/2003 at Ex.D.4. As per this document, defendant No.11 along with others has executed a confirmation sale deed in respect of property. Under the circumstances, these two issues does not survive for determination. Even otherwise since there is no evidence of defendant No.11, defendant No.11 is not entitled to share. Hence these issues are held in the 'negative'.
18. Issue No.7 and Addl. Issue No.3 dated 20/07/2012:- Plaintiffs and other defendants have contended that the sale made by defendant No.35 as 27 O.S.No.783/2004 General Power of Attorney holder in favour of defendant No.36 is not binding on them. As mentioned above, plaintiff No.3 has not offered for cross-examination when she was recalled by defendant Nos.35 and 36. Defendant Nos.35 and 36 have produced copy of sale deed as well as confirmation deed executed by some of the plaintiffs and most of the defendants, except defendant No.11. Under the circumstances, plaintiffs and other defendants have failed to prove that the sale deed dated 26/06/2001 is not binding on them. Hence issue No.7 and addl. issue No.3 dated 20/07/2012 are answered in the 'negative'.
19. Issue No.9:- Defendant Nos.35 and 36 have contended that court fee paid is not sufficient. The suit was for partition and separate possession. Plaintiffs have contended that it is their joint family property and they are in joint possession. As far as court fee is concerned, averments of the plaint are sufficient regarding court fee. P.W.1 did not enter witness box for cross-examination and joint possession is not established. Anyhow during the 28 O.S.No.783/2004 course of trial confirmation sale deeds have been executed by the defendants and under those circumstances, it cannot be held that court fee paid by the plaintiffs is not proper. Hence issue No.9 is answered in the 'negative'.
20. Issue Nos.2, 5, 10 and 11:- In view of findings given on the above issues, plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of partition and separate possession. Therefore suit is liable to be dismissed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed. No costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 20th day of January, 2016.) (R.K.TALIKOTI) XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, BENGALURU, (CCH-44).29 O.S.No.783/2004
ANNEXURE List of witness examined for the plaintiff/s:-
P.W.1 : Rajeshwari List of witness examined for the defendant/s:-
D.W.1 : M.S. Kumar List of Exhibits/Documents marked for the plaintiff/s:-
Ex.P.1 : Death certificate of Abbaiah Ex.P.2 & : Certified copies of two sale deeds P.3 Ex.P.4 : Rectification deed dated 07/04/2003 Ex.P.5 : Death certificate of Muniyamma Ex.P.6 to : RTC extracts P.8 Ex.P.9 : Genealogy Ex.P.10 : Certified copy of rectification deed dated 07/04/2003 Ex.P.11 : Certified copy of deed of revocation of power of attorney Ex.P.12 : Encumbrance certificate List of Exhibits/Documents marked for the defendant/s:-
Ex.D.1 : General Power of Attorney
Ex.D.2 : Khatha certificate
30 O.S.No.783/2004
Ex.D.3 : Khatha extract
Ex.D.4 : Certified copy of deed of confirmation dated 18/09/2013 Ex.D.5 : Certified copy of deed of confirmation Ex.D.6 : Certified copy of deed of confirmation (R.K.TALIKOTI) XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, BENGALURU, (CCH-44).