Bangalore District Court
Shanthi K vs Suresh S D on 13 September, 2024
KABC010077212016
IN THE COURT OF THE LII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-53)
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2024
PRESENT
Sri.Gangappa Irappa Patil, B.A., LL.B. (Spl.).,
LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
O.S.No.2582/2016
Plaintiffs: 1. Smt. K.Shanthi,
W/o Sri. S.Kasinagalingam,
Aged about 54 years,
2. Smt. Shobha Murali,
W/o Late Sri. S.D.Murali,
Aged about 48 years,
3. Dr. Smt. M.S.Kavya,
D/o S.D.Murali,
W/o Sri.Aditya,
Aged about 28 years,
4. Sri. M.S.Vijay,
S/o Late Sri. S.D.Murali,
Aged about 25 years,
2
O.S.No. 2582/2016
5. Sri. M.S.Akash,
S/o Late Sri. S.D.Murali,
Aged about 20 years,
Plaintiff No.1 to 5 are
Residing at No.982/130, II Main,
4th Block, Rajaji Nagar,
Bengaluru-560 010.
(By Sri. S.Kasinagalingam, Advocate)
- vs -
Defendants 1. Sri. S.D.Suresh,
S/o Late Sri. Siddalingaiah,
Aged about 46 years,
Residing at Old Door No.21,
New Door No.11,
Anna Salai 40 Feet Main Road,
Lakshmi Nagar, Porur,
Chennai -600 116.
2. The Manager,
Canara Bank,
Rajaji Nagar III Block Branch,
Rajaji Nagar,
Bengaluru-560 010.
(D1 by Sri. B.R.S., Advocate)
(D2 by Sri. S.K., Advocate)
Date of institution of the suit: 29.03.2016
Nature of the suit: Suit for partition
3
O.S.No. 2582/2016
Date of commencement of 15.02.2022
recording of evidence:
Date on which Judgment was 13.09.2024
pronounced:
Duration: Year Months Days
08 05 04
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have filed this suit under Order VII Rule 1 r/w sec. 26 of CPC, against the defendants.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs as averred in the suit plaint are as follows:-
It is averred by the plaintiffs that (1) first plaintiff, (2) husband of 2nd plaintiff who is father of plaintiff No. 3 to 5 and (3) defendant No.1 are the children of late Siddalingaiah and late Smt. Dhanalakshmi. It is contended by the plaintiffs that the suit schedule `A` property belongs to late Smt. Dhanalakshmi w/o late Sri Siddalingaiah and the said property was purchased by late Smt. Dhanalakshmi from her vendors one Smt. B.A.Anusuya and Smt. C.Meenakshi vide registered document No. 4597/75-76 of Book I, volume 249 in pages 66 to 70 dated 29.01.1976 from her own earnings and savings 4 O.S.No. 2582/2016 and she had constructed a dwelling house comprising of ground floor and first floor and the said property is morefully described in the schedule `A` annexed to the plaint.
3. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that Smt. Dhanalakshmi died intestate on 13.11.1999 leaving behind her husband Sri Siddalingaiah, her daughter Smt. K.Shanthi and sons Sri S.D.Murali and Sri S.D.Suresh as her legal heirs. Their elder son Sri S.D.Murali died on 08.09.2010 leaving behind his wife Smt. Shobha Murali, daughter Smt. M.S.Kavya, sons Sri M.S.Vijay and Sri M.S.Akash as his legal heirs, who are shown as plaintiffs No. 2 to 5. Sri Siddalingaiah who is the father of the plaintiff No.1, defendant No.1 and father-in-law of 2nd plaintiff died on 12.03.2015. After the demise of Smt. Dhanalakshmi the khatha of the suit schedule property had been transferred to late Sri Siddalingaiah with the consent of other legal heirs Smt. K.Shanthi, S.D.Murali and S.D.Suresh as Pavthi khatha.
4. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that all the children of late Siddalingaiah and late Dhanalakshmi have 5 O.S.No. 2582/2016 handed over the original title deed of the suit schedule `A` property and some other relevant documents to defendant No.1 who demanded that with oblique motive and handled the said title deed and relevant documents on the pretext of khatha transfer in the name of the plaintiffs and first defendant. Subsequently, the first defendant has stated that the title deeds of the property and other relevant documents have lost and hence the transfer of khatha was not made. As a legal recourse the plaintiffs have lodged a police complaint and paper publication regarding the lost of the Title Deeds.
5. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that they came to know that the third persons are approaching the suit schedule property stating that they have parted advance amount towards the purchase of the suit schedule `A` property . Apart from that the first defendant is coercing the first plaintiff to vacate the suit schedule property with an oblique motive.
6. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that during the life time of Sri Siddalingaiah as a pavthi khatha holder in the status of representative lessor entered lease rental agreement 6 O.S.No. 2582/2016 with respect to the ground floor of the schedule `A` property with one M/s Icon Copier Care on 01.09.2014 for a lease term upto 31.07.2015. As per clause mentioned at sl.No. 14 of the Lease Agreement the lesseee handed over the rental cheques upto July 2015 to the first plaintiff after the demise of late Sri Siddalingaiah on 12.03.2015. As per clause No. 14 the rental share of the plaintiff No. 2 to 5 have been remitted online by first plaintiff. But defendant No.1 with deliberate intention refrain from the receipt of his share for the reasons best known to him only. The defendant No.1 caused alleged legal notice dated 11.02.2016 on the Lessee and the Lessee had caused reply notice to the defendant No.1 with a copy to the plaintiff No.1 on 23.1.2016 . The first defendant is forcing the lesseee to vacate the ground floor of the property without assigning any reason and without consulting other legal heirs.
7. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that late Sri Siddalingaiah died intestate leaving behind a credit cash balance of Rs. 10,01,531/- as on 31.01.2016 in his personal S.B account No. 0411101055408 with Canara Bank, 7 O.S.No. 2582/2016 Rajajinagar III block Branch, Bengaluru which is morefully described as Schedule `B`. The first defendant approached the Bank Manager and restrained the bank from disbursing the amount to the plaintiffs.
8. It is further averred by the plaintiffs that as on today there is no partition in respect of the suit schedule `A` property between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. The plaintiffs and the first defendant are the joint owners of the suit schedule properties and schedule `A` property is in peaceful physical possession and enjoyment of the first plaintiff. The plaintiffs are entitled 2/3rd share in the suit schedule properties.
9. The cause of action to file this suit arose on 12.03.2015 when Sri Siddalingaiah died and on 11.01.2016 when the legal notice was issued by the defendant No.1 to the Lessee of the ground floor of the suit schedule `A` property. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed this suit and prays for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs` 2/3 share in the suit schedule `A` property and direct the 2nd defendant to disburse 8 O.S.No. 2582/2016 the balance amount of Rs. 10,01,531/- with interest lying in the SB Account No. 0411101055408 to the plaintiff No.1 and 2 and first defendant in equal proportion i.e. 1/3 ratio.
10. After the service of suit summons, the defendants have appeared through their respective counsels. D1 has appeared through Sri BRS Advocate. While Defendant No.2 has appeared through counsel Sri.S.K. Defendant No.1 filed his separate written statement and contended that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed as they are not entitled for any relief, the suit is filed only to extort money from the defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 alone is entitled to own, possess and enjoy the suit schedule properties. It is contended by the defendant No.1 that the first plaintiff is not entitled for any share either in the suit schedule properties or in any other properties owned by their parents, since she was provided with her share in the immovable and movable properties owned and possessed by late Siddalingaiah and Dhanalakshmi at the time of marriage itself.
9
O.S.No. 2582/2016
11. It is contended by the defendant No.1 that the plaintiff No.1 is not entitled for any share in the immovable properties as she was provided with all amenities at the time of marriage in lieu of her share and apart from that the father of the first defendant when immovable property situated at Thirumalapura village, Solur hobli, Magadi taluk was sold, the plaintiff No.1 was provided 1/4th sale consideration by their father. Thus the plaintiff No.1 is not entitled for any share in the suit schedule properties.
12. It is contended by the defendant No.1 that out of joint family nucleus two items of immovable properties were got purchased in the name of husband of plaintiff No.2 and in the name of plaintiff No.2 in Tamil Nadu. The father of the first defendant had purchased immovable properties bearing plots No. 17,18 and 19 measuring 7200 sq ft comprised in Sy. No. 181/1A/1B, situated at Indira nagara, Valasaravakkam village, Ambattur taluk, Thirvallur District through registered Sale deed dated 27.2.1997 in the name of his second son Sri.S.D.Murali, the husband of 2nd plaintiff and father of plaintiff No.2 to 5 10 O.S.No. 2582/2016 herein. Likewise out of the joint family nucleus, their father had purchased immovable properties bearing plots No. 26,27 and 28 measuring 16.5 cents comprised in Sy. No. 181/1A/1C, situated at Indira nagara, Valasaravakkam village, Ambattur taluk, Thirvallur district through registred Sale Deed dated 7.4.1997 in the name of his daughter-in-law, the wife of his second son, Sri S.D.Murly namely Smt. Shobha Muraly the 2 nd plaintiff herein.
13. It is further contended by the defendant No.1 that plaintiff No.2 to 5 have entered into Sale Agreement to sell the above properties with one Mr. Jaswanth Chand Bhandari, for sale consideration of Rs. 6 crores and executed the Agreement of Sale on 6.4.2015, however no part of sale consideration being shared with defendant No.1. The above said properties are also the joint family properties.
14. It is contended by the defendant No.1 that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in the suit schedule properties, their father Siddalingaiah during his life time had executed a registered Will dated 21.01.2009 and in the said 11 O.S.No. 2582/2016 Will the defendant No.1 has been granted with major share in the suit schedule properties since, late Siddalingaiah had provided all kinds of means to first plaintiff and husband of 2nd plaintiff. But the said Will came to be revoked on 23.07.2013, since their father had incurred liabilities and thereby sold some of the properties owned and possessed by him. In view of the intention as expressed in the registered Will by the father of defendant No.1, it can be gathered that defendant No.1 has to own and possess all the immovable properties.
15. It is contended by the defendant No.1 that the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed for non inclusion of other immovable properties which were got purchased by late Siddalingaiah in the name of husband of 2nd plaintiff. The suit for partial partition being not maintainable. Late Siddalingaiah had also purchased another immovable property at Chengalpattu district measuring 2400 sq ft. on 9.1.1990 and also purchased plots at Chengalpattu district on the same day. He had also purchased plots at Valasaravakkam and Thiruvallur district. Hence the first defendant is also entitled for 12 O.S.No. 2582/2016 one share in the above said properties. He also entitled for 1/4th share in the amount deposited in the S.B account bearing No. 3227 Textile Cooperative Bank Ltd. LN Pura standing in the name of first plaintiff. The plaintiffs have clandestinely have not included the above immovable properties in the above suit. In case this court to hold the suit is maintainable, the plaintiffs be directed to include the above immovable properties for partition by metes and bounds and to order for partition and to allot 1/4th share in the suit schedule property in favor of first defendant.
16. It is contended by the defendant No.1 that he has not denied the relationship between the parties. However he has denied para 7 to 9 and 10 to 14 of the plaint.
17. It is further contended by the defendant No.1 that the plaintiff No.1 alongwith her husband S.Kasinagalingam have mishandled the bank accounts belongs to their father and swindled huge amount by assigning vague reasons . Hence, the defendant No.1 prays to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff or in the alternative to direct the plaintiffs to include other 13 O.S.No. 2582/2016 immovable properties owned and possessed by the father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and to effect partition of the W.S. schedule properties.
18. The defendants No.2 Canara Bank represented by its Manager has also appeared through their counsel and filed their W.S. by denying all the plaint averments, but admitting the fact that late Siddalingaiah was maintaining a personal S.B account No. 04111055408 with 2nd defendant and he had nominated his daughter K.Shanthi the first plaintiff herein in respect of the S.B account and this defendant did not know about the death of Siddalingaiah and in this regard the 2nd defendant bank has not received any representation by any legal heirs of said Siddalingaiah for settlement of the amount lying the above S.B account of deceased Siddalingaiah, so far. It is submitted that there is nomination of first plaintiff Smt. K.Shanthi herein made by her father Siddalingaiah in respect of above S.B account, the first plaintiff is entitled to prefer claim in the proper form alongwith the set of requirements to be filed to the 2nd defendant bank for settlement of the account 14 O.S.No. 2582/2016 lying in the above said S.B account of the deceased Siddalingaiah. There is no cause of action arose against this defendant. Hence, defendant No.2 prays to dismiss the suit.
19. Based on the pleadings of both parties, following 9 issues came to be framed by my learned Predecessor-in- office.
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they and defendant No.1 are the joint family owners of suit 'A' schedule property?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that Late Siddalingaiah had intestate leaving behind a credit cash balance of Rs.10,01,531/- in his personal savings account bearing No.041110665408 with Canara Bank, Rajajinagar Branch, Bengaluru?
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are having 2/3rd share in the suit 'A' schedule property?
4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief as prayed for?
5. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that written statement schedule properties are the joint family properties of himself and plaintiffs and they are acquired out of joint family nucleus and he is having 1/4th share in the written statement schedule properties?
15
O.S.No. 2582/2016
6. Whether the defendant No.1 is entitled for the relief of partition as prayed for in his counter claim?
7. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the counter claim of the defendant No.1 is barred by law of limitation?
8. Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendant No.1 has not properly valued counter claim schedule properties and he has not paid proper court fee on the counter claim?
9. What order or decree?
20. After framing of the Issues, case was posted for recording the evidence of the parties. The first plaintiff in lieu of her chief examination has filed affidavit evidence and examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P. 1 to 18. the 2 nd plaintiff is also examined as PW. 2. On the other hand the defendant No. 1 is examined as DW. 1 and got marked EX.D. 1 to D.13.
21. Heard the arguments. Perused the plaint, written statement, oral and documentary evidence on record and also the written arguments.
22. Having done so, my answer to the aforesaid issues are as follows:
16
O.S.No. 2582/2016 Issue No.1 to 4 : In the Affirmative Issue No.5 to 7 : In the negative.
Issue No.8 : In the affirmative
Issue No. 9 : As per final order,
for the following :
REASONS
23. ISSUES NO.1 TO 4: These issues are inter related to each other and as such they are taken up together for discussion so as to avoid repetition of facts.
24. The plaintiff has filed this suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule `A` property and they are also claiming share in the amount mentioned at Schedule `B` property. The plaintiffs in order to prove their case has examined the plaintiff No.1 as PW. 1 and plaintiff No.2 as PW.2. They have reiterated the plaint averments and got marked Ex.P. 1 to 17.
25. On perusal of the records it is forthcoming that late Siddalingaiah and late Dhanalakshmi were the husband and wife and first plaintiff, husband of 2 nd plaintiff and father of 17 O.S.No. 2582/2016 plaintiff No. 3 to 5 and defendant No.1 are the children of late Sri. Siddalingaiah and late Smt. Dhanalakshmi. PW. 2 in her evidence deposed that during life time of late Smt. Dhanahalakshmi, late Smt. Dhanalakshmi purchased the suit schedule `B` property and after her death it was transferred in the name of Sri.Siddalingaiah, as they are the successors of late Sri.Siddalingaiah and late Smt. Dhanalakshmi the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are entitled for share in the schedule `B` property and also they deposed that the schedule `B` property which is the account having an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs in the bank i.e. defendant No.2 is also to be divided equally between the plaintiffs and defendant as they are the successors of late Sri.Siddalingaiah and late Smt. Dhanalakshmi. DW.1 has cross examined PW. 1 and 2, but nothing has been elicited by PW. 1 and 2 in favor of the defense of the DW.1.
26. On the other hand DW.1 has filed Written Statement by way of counter claim. He claimed that in the suit schedule `A` property major of the share has been allotted to him by his father late Sri.Siddalingaiah as per the Will dated 18 O.S.No. 2582/2016 21.01.2009 as per Ex.D.10. But during the course of cross-
examination of DW. 1 by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, he deposed that Ex.D.10 the Will was canceled and also DW.1 deposed that said cancellation of the Will has not been produced by him. Further, even though he has relied upon Ex.D. 10 Will dated 21.01.2009 he has not proved the said Will as per the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, now Sec. 67 of Bharathiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and that Will has not been proved as per the mandate of Section 63 of Indian Succession Act. Under such circumstances the alleged Will as contended by DW.1 do not support the contention of DW. 1.
27. On perusal of the records, it is forthcoming that the plaintiff No.1 is the elder daughter of late Smt. Dhanalakshmi . The plaintiff No.2 is the wife of late Sri S.D.Murali who is the son of late Sri. Siddalingaiah and late Smt. Dhanalakshmi. The plaintiff No. 3 to 5 are the children of Sri S.D.Murali who are none other than the grand children of Sri. Siddalingaiah and Smt.Dhanalakshmi and it primafacie shows that the 19 O.S.No. 2582/2016 plaintiff No.1 will get one share, defendant No.1 will get one share and plaintiff No. 2 to 5 collectively will get one share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs and the defendant No.1 are the successors of late Sri Siddalingaiah and late Smt. Dhanalakshmi as per Sec. 8 of Hindu Succession Act, and they are the class I heirs within the schedule appended to Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act. Hence they are entitled to claim share in the suit schedule properties. In view of the discussion made above, this court answered Issue No.1 to 4 in the affirmative.
28. ISSUE NO.5 AND 6; These Issues are inter connected to each other, hence they are taken up together for discussion so as to avoid the repetition of facts.
DW.1 in his evidence deposed that the Written Statement schedule properties are joint family properties. They are also the subject matter of the present suit. On the other hand the plaintiff No. 2 who is examined as PW.2 deposed that the Written Statement schedule properties are self acquired properties of her husband late S.D.Murali. To show that the 20 O.S.No. 2582/2016 Written Statement schedule properties are joint family properties DW.1 has not produced any documents in this regard or in support of his contention. Further DW. 1 has produced Ex.D. 12 and 13 which are original Sale Deed of property bearing No. 627 and flat bearing No. 646, 647, 648 which were purchased by Smt. Dhanalakshmi, but he has not produced any recent documents to show the current status of the said properties mentioned in Ex.D.12 and 13. He has not shown whether those properties are available for partition. Even defendant No.1 not proved that the Written Statement schedule properties are joint family properties, purchased out of joint family funds. Under such circumstances, the contentions raised by DW.1 in his Written Statement as a counter claim do not survive for consideration.
29. In the cross-examination of DW.1 he deposed that in the alleged Will at Ex.D.10 the written statement schedule properties are not mentioned therein, which itself shows that the counter claim properties are not joint family properties. 21
O.S.No. 2582/2016 Hence, in view of the aforesaid reasons Issue No.5 and 6 are answered in the negative.
30. ISSUE NO.7; Defendant No.1 in his Written Statement has made counter claim and contended that the Written Statement schedule properties are also the joint family properties and they are also liable to be partitioned. The claim of the partition can be made at any point of time by the members of the joint family, if the properties are joint family are not partitioned. Hence the question of limitation raised by the plaintiffs do not arise, there is no bar to claim the legitimate share in the joint family properties by the members of the joint family. Hence, the claim of the defendant No.1 is not barred by law of limitation. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid reasons Issue No. 7 is answered in the negative.
31. ISSUE NO. 8; DW.1 has claimed his share in the properties mentioned in written statement as counter claim. The said counter claim is not filed in proper form and even he has not bothered to pay the court fee of his share and even he has not valued the Written Statement schedule properties and 22 O.S.No. 2582/2016 not filed the Valuation Slip to that effect. The same is reflecting on perusal of the records before this court.
32. The DW.1 has not produced any document to show the current status of those properties as on the date of the suit or as on the date of the said counter claim before this court. Hence, under these circumstances the contentions of DW.1 by way of counter claim is not sustainable in the eye of law. Moreover the counter claim is not in the proper form and no court fee has been paid by the defendant No.1 on the said counter claim. Hence, this court answer Issue No. 8 in the affirmative.
33. ISSUE NO.9; : In view of the findings given on Issue No. 1 to 8, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 1 r/w Sec. 26 of CPC is hereby allowed.
The plaintiff No.1 and the defendant No.1 are entitled for 1/3rd share each in suit schedule `A` property. The plaintiff No. 2 to 5 are collectively entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule `A` property. 23
O.S.No. 2582/2016 The plaintiff No.1 and the defendant No.1 are entitled for 1/3rd share each in suit schedule `B` property. The plaintiff No. 2 to 5 are collectively entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule `B` property. The defendant No.2 Canara Bank, Rajajinagar III Block Branch is directed to disburse the amount lying in the S.B account No. 0411101055408 of late Sri Siddalingaiah to the tune of Rs. 10,01,531/- as shown in schedule `B` of the plaint, to plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to their respective shares as shown above. The counter claim of defendant No.1 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Draw preliminary decree accordingly. As per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.6406/2010 (Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan Vs Kattukandi Edathil Valsan & Ors) after drawing preliminary decree for statistical purpose, office is directed to register FDP and send the file to the court on 19.11.2024 for taking steps for division of suit schedule `A` property.
(Dictated to the Sr.Shr/SG I on computer, script thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 13th day of September, 2024) Digitally signed by GANGAPPA I GANGAPPA I PATIL PATIL Date: 2024.09.26 11:08:26 +0530 (Gangappa Irappa Patil) LII Addl. CC & Sessions Judge, City Civil Court,B`lore.24
O.S.No. 2582/2016 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1 Smt. K.Shanthi PW.2 Smt. Shobha Murali
II. List of the documents marked for the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 Geonological tree
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of title deed dated 29.01.1976 of
Schedule A property
Ex.P.3 Death certificate of late Smt.Dhanalakshmi
Ex.P.3(a) Death certificate of late Sri.S.D.Murali
Ex.P.3(b) Death certificate of late Sri.Siddalingaiah
Ex.P.4 Khatha certificate of Schedule A property
Ex.P.5 Khatha extract of Schedule A property
Ex.P.6 Certified copy of agreement to sell of
Thirumalapura land
Ex.P.7 Certified copy of Special power of Attorney with
respect to Thirumalapura land
Ex.P.8 Digital Police complaint receipt dated
23.12.2015 with certificate U/S.65B(4) of IE Act Ex.P.9 Paper publication in kannada Ex.P.9(a) Paper publication in English Ex.P.10 Lease rental agreement Ex.P.11 Legal notice by defendant no.1 dated 11.01.2016 Ex.P.12 Indenture of Understanding dated 15.04.2016 Ex.P.13 Manual receipt by Defendant no.1 dated 07.05.2016 Ex.P.14 File copy of police complaint dated 12.05.2016 25 O.S.No. 2582/2016 Ex.P.15 NCR NO.158/16 dated 15.05.2016 Ex.P.16 Savings account of passbook of Schedule B property Ex.P.17 Original Deed of Dissolution of partnership "Kamadenu Art Productions' dated 1.4.1991.
Ex.P.18 Reply notice III. List of the witnesses examined for the defendants:
DW.1 : Sri. S.D.Suresh IV. List of the documents marked for the defendants:
Ex.D.1 Office copy of legal notice dated 01.03.2017. Ex.D.2 to 5 Four Postal acknowledgments.
Ex.D.6 Unserved RPAD cover. Ex.D.7 Reply notice dated 20.03.2017. Ex.D.8 Certified copy of agreement of sale 06.04.2015. Ex.D.9 Certified copy of Layout plan. Ex.D.10 Certified copy of will deed dated 12.01.2009. Ex.D.11 True copy of complaint dated 12.05.2016. Ex.D.12 Original sale deed dated 29.12.1989. Ex.D.13 Original sale deed dated 09.01.1990. Digitally signed by GANGAPPA I GANGAPPA I PATIL PATIL Date: 2024.09.26 11:08:36 +0530 LII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 26 O.S.No. 2582/2016 Judgment pronounced in open court (vide separate order) ORDER
The suit filed by the plaintiff under Order VII Rule 1 r/w Sec. 26 of CPC is hereby allowed.
The plaintiff No.1 and the defendant No.1 are entitled for 1/3rd share each in suit schedule `A` property. The plaintiff No. 2 to 5 are collectively entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule `A` property. The plaintiff No.1 and the defendant No.1 are entitled for 1/3rd share each in suit schedule `B` property. The plaintiff No. 2 to 5 are collectively entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule `B` property. The defendant No.2 Canara Bank, Rajajinagar III Block Branch is directed to disburse the amount lying in the S.B account No. 0411101055408 of late Sri Siddalingaiah to the tune of Rs. 10,01,531/- as shown in schedule `B` of the plaint, to plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to their respective shares as shown above. The counter claim of defendant No.1 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Draw preliminary decree accordingly 27 O.S.No. 2582/2016 As per judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal Nos.6406/2010 (Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan Vs Kattukandi Edathil Valsan & Ors) after drawing preliminary decree for statistical purpose, office is directed to register FDP and send the file to the court on 19.11.2024 for taking steps for division of suit schedule `A` property.
(Gangappa Irappa Patil) LII Addl. CC & Sessions Judge, City Civil Court,B`lore.