Bangalore District Court
Saraswathi N vs Anniyamma K on 15 October, 2025
KABC010080962015
IN THE COURT OF XXXV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-36)
DATED ON THIS THE 15th DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
Present: Sri.J.V.Kulkarni, B.Sc., L.L.B.,
XXXV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
O.S.No.3189/2015
Plaintiff : N.Saraswathi W/o A.Pandian,
Aged about 43 years,
R/o.No.19-B, 7th Main,
4th Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore-560 010.
(Sri./Smt.M.S.G., advocate)
-Vs-
Defendants : 1. Smt.K.Anniyamma,
W/o.Late C.Narayanaswamy,
Aged about 63 years.
2. N.Murugan,
S/o.Late C.Narayanaswamy,
Aged about 47 years.
3. N.Pandurangan,
S/o.Late C.Narayanaswamy,
Aged about 45 years.
4. N.Bhagyalakshmi,
W/o.Manogar,
Aged about 39 years.
5. N.Rajeshwari,
2 O.S.No.3189/2015
W/o.Vadivel,
Aged about 39 years.
6. N.Ravi,
S/o.Late C.Narayanaswamy,
Aged about 34 years.
1 to 6 all residents of
No.841/70, 7th Main,
3rd stage, Prakashnagar,
Bangalore-560 021.
*****
Date of institution of the suit : 6-4-2015
Nature of the suit : Partition
Date of commencement of : 09-09-2019
recording of the evidence
Date on which the judgment was : 15-10-2025
pronounced
Total duration : Years/s Month/s Day/s
10 06 07
(J.V.KULKARNI)
XXXV Addl.City Civil &
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against her mother, brothers and sisters.
The suit filed by the plaintiff is for declaration that the Gift Deed, dated 18-12-2009 is null and void and she is entitled for 1/7 th 3 O.S.No.3189/2015 share in the suit property. The suit property is site No.12, formed in Sy.No.102 bearing Municipal No.841, New Municipal No.70, PID No.23-19-70 is situated at 7th Main, 3rd stage, Prakashnagar, Bangalore, measuring East to West 36ft, North to South 40ft, with specific boundaries mentioned in the plaint.
2. The summary of the case of the plaintiff is that:-
One Chinnappareddy was the propositus, he had only son by name C.Narayanaswamy and he had five daughters.
C.Narayanaswamy is the father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 6 and husband of the defendant No.1. Late Chinnappareddy executed registered Will in favour of C.Narayanaswamy bequeathing the suit property in his favour. The katha was transferred in the name of C.Narayanswamy by virtue of registered Will dated 1-12-1983. During the life time of C.Narayanswamy, he enjoyed the suit property as absolute owner.
According to the plaintiff, at the end of his life, C.Narayanswamy met with paralysis stroke in the year 2010. The plaintiff along with her mother looked after the father of the plaintiff.
The father of the plaintiff intended to partition the suit property in favour of the plaintiff, defendants but he has doubt about his sons.4 O.S.No.3189/2015
Therefore, he intended to transfer the suit property in the name of first defendant to secure her life and also his intention was not to affect the property rights of plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 6.
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant No.1 and defendant No.4 in collusion with the other defendants got drafted the Gift Deed, in a manner that it will exclude the share to the plaintiff and other defendants and it was registered fraudulently on 18-12-2012.
The plaintiff claimed that her father died on 20-12-2012. After the death of father, the katha transferred in the name of the defendant No.1, she used and enjoyed the property on behalf of plaintiff and all the defendants.
The plaintiff claimed that on 16-03-2015 when she went to the house of defendant No.1, and asked for partition, she came to know that the first defendant has fraudulently executed the Gift Deeds in favour of defendant No.4 and her son Vignesh. The plaintiff asked the first defendant to cancel the documents and effect the partition in the suit property and hand over her 1/7th share in the suit property.
The first defendant flatly refused to effect the partition. Therefore, she filed suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/7 th share and declaration that Gift Deed, dated 18-12-2010 is null and void 5 O.S.No.3189/2015 and not binding on the plaintiff and hence, she prays to decree the suit.
3. The suit summons issued to the defendants. The defendant No.3 placed exparte. The other defendants appeared through their counsels. The defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 & 6 have filed consent written statement. They are supported the case of the plaintiff.
In the written statement of defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 & 6, they admitted the relationship of plaintiff with C. Narayanswamy first defendant and with them. They also admitted the fact that the suit property previously belongs to Chinnappareddy and Chinnappareddy has executed the registered Will in favour of C.Narayanaswamy. They also admitted the fact that during the life time of C.Narayanaswamy, he executed registered Gift Deed in favour of the first defendant. Their contention is that the intention of C.Narayanawamy executing the registered Gift Deed in favour of the first defendant was not to give the property absolutely to the first defendant but nominally transferred in the name of first defendant without affecting the rights of either the plaintiff or the defendant Nos.2, 3 , 5,and 6. These defendants contended that 6 O.S.No.3189/2015 C.Narayanswamy met with paralysis stroke in the year 2010 by that time, the first defendant was looking after C. Narayanswamy. He intended to effect the partition in the suit property. But he is having doubt about his wife. He instructed the drafters of the document that he wanted to give the suit property to all the children of him. But, the first defendant in collusion with the 4th defendant drafted the Gift Deed fraudulently against the wishes of C. Narayanswamy and gifted the entire suit property in the name of first defendant. After the death of father of the defendant Nos.2, 3 5 & 6, they went to the first defendant and asked for partition.
The first defendant stated that she has executed Gift Deed in favour of 4th defendant, plaintiff and other two defendants and asked each of the defendants to give ₹2,00,000/- to her. The defendants contended that the first defendant has executed registered Will Deed on 9-12-2012 bequeathing the portions of the properties in favour of N.Murugan, N.Ravi, N.Pandurangan. Therefore, they sought to decree the suit as claimed by the plaintiff and allot share to them.
4. The defendant Nos.1 and 4 are the contesting defendants. They filed the written statement contending that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation because the plaintiff and her husband 7 O.S.No.3189/2015 are the signatories to the registered Gift Deed dated 18-12-2010 executed by C.Narayanswamy in favour of the first defendant. The defendant Nos.1 and 4 also took contention that the suit property is the self acquired property of Chinnappareddy. He executed registered Will Deed in favour of C.Narayanswamy. Therefore, at the hands of C.Narayanswamy, the suit property becomes the absolute property. C.Narayanswamy has executed registered Gift Deed on 18-12-2010 in favour of the first defendant. It is admitted by the plaintiff as well as other defendants.
The first and 4th defendants contended that in the year 2010, C.Narayanawamy met with mild paralysis by that time, the first defendant and defendant No.4 took care of him providing all kinds of medical facilities. C.Narayanaswamy out of love and affection rendered by the first and 4th defendant expressed his intention to gift the property in favour of first defendant so as to secure her life. Therefore, by informing the plaintiff and other defendants, C.Narayanaswamy has executed Gift Deed on 18-12-2010 by gifting this entire suit property in favour of the first defendant. Based unregistered Gift Deed and after the death of C.Narayanaswamy, the katha was transferred in the name of the first defendant and she 8 O.S.No.3189/2015 used and enjoyed the suit property as the absolute owner and possessor.
The suit property becomes the absolute property of first defendant by excluding all other heirs including defendant No.4. During the life time of the first defendant, she disposed of the property firstly by executing Gift Deed on 25-08-2011 by gifting the South Eastern portion of the suit property measuring East to West 19ft, North to South 24 ft in favour of the defendant No.4. This property was consisting of ground floor, one room on the first floor along with electricity and water connection and common passage. This Gift Deed was accepted by the defendant No.4.
Subsequently, the first defendant on 12-10-2011 executed a registered Gift Deed in favour of defendant No.4 conveying South Eastern portion measuring 76.6 sq.ft consisting of one house. This Gift Deed was also acted upon. On 9-12-2011, she executed a Will in favour of second defendant bequeathing Western portion of suit property measuring East to West 12ft, North to South 16ft including 3ft passage which consists of a house on the ground floor along with electricity and water connection.
9 O.S.No.3189/2015
The first defendant on 12-7-2012 has executed a Will in favour of defendant No.6 bequeathing Center portion of the suit property measuring East to West 12ft, North to South 16 ft, including 3ft passage consisting of a house on the ground floor along with electricity and water connection.
The first defendant on 17-9-2012 executed a Will Deed in favour of third defendant thereby, bequeathing Eastern portion of the suit property measuring East to West 12ft, North to South 16ft, including 3ft passage consisting of a house on the ground floor along with electricity and water connection.
It is also the case of first and 4th defendant that on 9-5-2014, the first defendant has executed registered Gift Deed in favour of defendant No.4 conveying two portions of the suit property i.e., South Eastern portion measuring 68 square feet consisting of a house and item No.2 i.e., South Eastern portion of suit schedule property measuring 119 sq.ft consisting of the house.
On 26-2-2015, she executed a Will Deed in favour of the son of defendant No.4 by name M.Vignesh bequeathing Southern portion of the suit property measuring 146.2 sq.ft consisting of a shop along with electricity and water connection.
10 O.S.No.3189/2015
The case of the defendant Nos.1 and 4 that the defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 & 6 are acting adverse to the interest of defendant No.1 and they are inimical against the first defendant and 4 th defendant. Therefore, during the life time of first defendant she cancelled the registered Will Deeds executed in favour of the defendant Nos.2, 3 &
6. All these facts are within the exclusive knowledge of these defendants. Therefore, the defendants or the plaintiff have no any right, title or interest whatsoever over the suit property. Hence, they pray to dismiss the suit.
5. Based on the pleadings, the following issues are framed by my Predecessor in office:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiff and the defendants?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that the Gift Deed dated 18-12-2010 executed by C.Narayanaswamy in favour of the 1st defendant is not binding on the plaintiff?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/ 7th share in the suit schedule property?4. Whether the defendant Nos.1 and 4
prove that the reliefs claimed for declaration, gift deed dated 18-10-2010 is not binding on the plaintiff and is barred by limitation?
5. Whether the defendant No.4 proves that 11 O.S.No.3189/2015 the 1st defendant has executed Gift Deed dated 24-08-2011 gifting a portion of the suit schedule property measuring 456 sq.ft?
6. Whether the defendant No.4 proves that the 1st defendant has executed Gift Deed dated 12-10-2011 gifting a portion of the suit schedule property measuring 76.6 sq.ft?
7. Whether the defendant No.4 proves that the 1st defendant has executed Will dated 09-12-2011 in favour of the 2nd defendant bequeathing a portion measuring 192 sq.ft?
8. Whether the defendant No.4 proves that the 1st defendant has executed Will dated 12-07-2-12 in favour of the 6th defendant bequeathing a portion measuring 192 sq.ft?
9. Whether the defendant No.4 proves that the 1st defendant has executed Will dated 17-09-2012 in favour of the 3rd defendant bequeathing a portion measuring 192 sq.ft?
10. Whether the defendant No.4 proves that the 1st defendant has executed Gift Deed dated 09-05-2014 gifting eastern portion of the suit schedule property measuring 68 sq.ft and another portion measuring 119 sq.ft?
11. Whether the defendant No.4 proves that the 1st defendant has executed Will dated 26-02-2015 in favour of her grandson by name M.Vighnesh and bequeathed a portion of the suit property measuring 146.2 sq.ft?
12. What Order or Decree?
12 O.S.No.3189/2015
6. The trial commences. The plaintiff examined as P.W.1. Exs.P.1 to P.5 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff, she closed her side. The defendant No.2, the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.4 examined as D.Ws.1 to 3. The defendant No.1 who is examined as D.W.2 died and therefore, she did not tendered for cross-examination. Ex.D.1 to D.53 were marked on behalf of the defendants. The defendants closed their side.
7. I heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 4 and also the other defendants.
8. Learned counsel for the defendant No.1 & 4 have filed the list with decisions:-
1. (2003) 10 Supreme Court Cases 310 in case of D.S.Lakshmaiah and another Vs.L.Balasubramanyam and another
2. AIR 2020 Supreme Court 2361 in case of Bhagwat Sharan (Dead Thr.L.rs) Vs. Purushottam and Others
3. (2011)9Supreme Court Cases 451 in case of Marabasappa (Dead) by L.Rs and others Vs. Ningappa (Dead) by L.Rs and others
4. (2020)16 Supreme Court Cases 255 in case of Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel and others Vs. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai
5. 2018(3) KCCR 2094 in case of K.V.Ananda Rao Vs. K.V.Muralidhar and others
6. AIR 2019 Supreme Court 4374 in case of Raja Ram Vs.Jai Prakash Singh and others
7. (2003)8 Supreme Court Cases 740 in case of 13 O.S.No.3189/2015 Kashinath (Dead) through L.Rs Vs. Jaganath
8. (2025)5 Supreme Court Cases 198 om case of Umadevi and others Vs.Anand Kumar and others
9. ILR 2022 KAR 2231 in case of M/s.Metropoli Overseas Limited Vs.Sri.H.S.Deekshit and others
9. My findings to the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1 : Affirmative
Issue No.2 : Negative
Issue No.3 : Negative
Issue No.4 : Affirmative
Issue No.5 : Affirmative
Issue No.6 : Affirmative
Issue No.7 : Partly in Affirmative
Issue No.8 : Partly in Affirmative
Issue No.9 : Partly in Affirmative
Issue No.10 : Affirmative
Issue No.11 : Partly in Affirmative
Issue No.12 : As per final order for the following
REASONS
10. Issue No.1:- The burden of proving the issue No.1 is on the plaintiff. Before adverting to the merits of this petition, let me remember the admitted facts.
It is undisputed fact that the suit property is the absolute property of Chinnappareddy, the grandfather of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 6 and father in law of defendant No.1. It is also 14 O.S.No.3189/2015 not in dispute that Chinnappareddy has executed registered Will Deed bequeathing the suit schedule property to his son C.Narayanaswamy on 1-12-1983 as per Ex.P.1. Subsequent documents such as registered Gift Deed, dated 18-12-2010 executed by C.Narayanaswamy to the defendant No.1 do not specifically disputed but the contents of the Gift Deed are disputed by the plaintiff as well as defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 & 6.
11. The contention of plaintiff as well as defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 & 6 is that the intention of their father C.Narayanaswamy is not to execute the Gift Deed in favour of the first defendant. His intention was to nominally transfer the property in the name of the first defendant. He assured the plaintiff and other defendants that after the death of the first defendant she will distribute the suit property equally among her children. Therefore, the true nature of Ex.P.2 is disputed by the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 & 6.
12. The first defendant is mother of the plaintiff and other defendants and she is wife of late C.Narayanaswamy. At the time of filing of the suit, he was alive, filed the written statement examined 15 O.S.No.3189/2015 her as D.W.2. But she died on 13-10-2023 leaving behind the plaintiff and other defendants.
13. So far as nature of the property is concerned, the plaintiff claimed that it is the joint family property in the hands of the parties to the suit. Whereas, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 claimed that it is the absolute property of the first defendant, majority of the portion of the suit property was either gifted or bequeathed in favour of defendant No.4 and her son Vignesh. There is no ancestral property as could be treat the suit property as ancestral property. The suit property is the absolute property of late Chinnappareddy. He bequeathed the said property in favour of his only son C.Narayanaswamy as per Ex.P.1. Therefore, at the hands of C.Narayanaswamy suit property becomes his separate property.
14. During the lifetime itself on 18-12-2010 he executed a registered Gift Deed in favour of his wife K.Anniyamma i.e., late defendant No.1 as per Ex.P.2. The case of defendant No.1 to 4 is that the suit property is the absolute property of K.Anniyamma by operation of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. During the life time of K.Anniyamma, she entered into several transactions 16 O.S.No.3189/2015 which will be discussed in due course and ultimately settled majority of the suit property in favour of defendant No.4 and her son Vignesh. The execution of Ex.D.,1 is disputed by both plaintiff and defendant No.2, 3 5 & 6. This Ex.P.2 is produced by the plaintiff. Interestingly, the plaintiff and her husband A.Pandian are the signatories to Ex.P.2.
15. According to the case of the defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 & 6 as well as the plaintiff, the intention of C.Narayanaswamy was not to gift the entire property to the defendant No.1. In para No.5 of the plaint, the plaintiff took contention that in the year 2010, her father C.Narayanaswamy met with paralysis stroke. During hospitalization, he i.e., defendant No.1 took care of C.Narayanaswamy. There is a dispute regarding who has taken care of C.Narayanaswamy during the time of paralysis stroke but none of them have produced any documents to prove their assistance. Because everyone claims that they are treated and assisted C.Narayanaswamy and first defendant at the time of paralysis stroke during the time of hospitalization. Let it be as it is, the plaintiff in para No.5, further stated that the father of the plaintiff intended to partition the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and defendants bu the he has doubt about his son. 17 O.S.No.3189/2015 Therefore, he transferred the entire suit property in the name of first defendant without effecting the rights of plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 6 to seek partition.
16. The further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant Nos.1 and 4 in collusion with each other not drafted the Gift Deed as per the wish of C.Narayanaswamy. Firstly, it is not the Will, it is the registered Gift Deed. The intention of the donor has to gift the entire property in favour of his wife.
17. Contrary to these pleadings, the defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 & 6 have contended in para No.8(b) of their written statement that C.Narayanaswamy was intended to effect the partition in favour of the children but he is having doubt about his wife. These pleadings are contrary to each other. While interpreting a document, the document has to be write in while to ascertain the intention of the Executant of the document. Therefore, after knowing through the contents of Ex.P.1, I came to know that the intention of C.Narayanaswamy is to gift the entire suit property in favour of his wife i.e., the defendant No.1.
18 O.S.No.3189/2015
18. In page No.6 of Ex.P.2, he expressed his intention that he was suffering from paralysis. During his paralysis, the first defendant looked after him very well. Therefore, he is gifting the said property in favour of defendant No.1. In the next para the Executant stated that he is he absolute owner of the property. His children have no kind of right, title or interest and he expressed utmost faith on the first defendant. Therefore, without any consideration in pure love and affection, he executed Gift Deed bequeathing the suit property. Interestingly, the plaintiff and husband of the plaintiff are the attesting witness to Ex.P.2. When it was confronted to P.W.1, i.e., the plaintiff she admitted that she signed the Gift Deed along with her husband in page No.6 of the Gift Deed. This admission can be seen on perusal of cross-examination of P.W.1 in page No.12. Therefore, the plaintiff was conscious about the contents of Ex.P.2.
19. The four corners rule is legal doctrine holds that the interpretation of a contract should be confined to the document's contents. If the language is clear and unambiguous, no extrinsic evidence (external information) should be considered to determine the parties' intent. It is trite Law that whenever a person put his or 19 O.S.No.3189/2015 her signature to any document, the initial presumption is that he shall to be know the contents of the document. This presumption is only in cases of illiterate persons but the plaintiff is literate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court (2010) 1 Supreme Court Cases 83 [Grasim Industries Limited and another Vs. Agarwal Steel] wherein the Court held that when a person signs a document, presumption is that he has read the document properly and understood it and only then affixed his signatures thereon, unless there is proof of force or fraud. She singed Ex.P.2 in English. Her husband has also signed in English. Her husband was also accompanied the plaintiff to the defendant. He was present at the time of cross-examination of P.W.1 before the Court. Therefore, Rule of estoppel operates against the plaintiff to contend that her father C.Narayanaswamy has doubt on his sons. Therefore, he nominally executed Gift Deed in favour of first defendant. Therefore, at the outset on perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, Exs.P.1 and P.2 and cross-examination of D.Ws.1 to 3, it reveals that the suit property is no more a joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant.
20. The suit property is the absolute property at the hands of the first defendant. During the arguments, the learned counsel for 20 O.S.No.3189/2015 the defendant Nos.1 and 4 relied upon (2003)10 Supreme Court Cases 310 in case of D.S.Lakshmaiah and another Vs.L.Balasubramanyam and another held that a property cannot be presumed to be joint family property merely because of the existence of a joint family. The person who claims the suit property is joint family property. But, on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence referred above, it reveals that the suit property transferred from Chinnappareddy to C.Narayanaswamy from C.Narayanaswamy to the first defendant. At the hands of the first defendant, the suit property becomes absolute property by operation of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tejban (d) through L.Rs Vs.Ram Kishan (d) through L.Rs decided on 9-12-2024 stated that there are there are at least 18 Judgments from Hon'ble Supreme Court comprising decisions from two and three Judgments taking inconsistent view regarding the interpretation of Section 14(1) and (2) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and referred the matter to the constitution Bench. The Constitution Bench is not yet constituted. Therefore, law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Tulasamma and others Vs.Shesha Reddy reported in (1977) 3 SCC 99 still holds the field. 21 O.S.No.3189/2015 Therefore, in the hands of the first defendant, the suit property is the absolute property. A female Hindu cannot joined her separate property into the joint family nucleus. Apart from it, in order to blend the separate property into common hotchpot, the existence of other property is also necessary. Therefore, the decisions referred by the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 and 4 is applicable.
21. He relied upon AIR 2020 Supreme Court 2361 in case of Bhagawat Sharan (dead through L.Rs Vs. Purushottam and others, wherein, the similar proposal of law was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court. He relied upon (2011) 9 Supreme Court cases 451 in case of Marabasappa (dead) by L.Rs and others Vs. Ningappa (dead) by L.Rs and others, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreted Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act and held that any property carried by female Hindu by any means is her self property in the same line, the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 and 4 relied upon (2020) 16 Supreme Court Cases 255 in case of Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel and others Vs.Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai. This is also in respect of Section 30 of Hindu Succession Act. This decision is also applicable to the present case.
22 O.S.No.3189/2015
22. The Advocate for defendant Nos.1 and 4 relied upon 2018 (3) KCCR 2094 in case of K.V.Ananda Rao Vs.K.V.Muralidhar and others, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court held that the execution of the Gift Deed if admitted by the plaintiff, the contents cannot be disputed.
23.The learned counsel for he defendant Nos.1 and 4 relied upon AIR 2019 Supreme Court 4374 in case of Raja Ram Vs.Jai Prakash Singh and others. It is in respect of the physical conditions of the Executant of the sale deed. In this case except examination of the family members, the plaintiff and other defendants have not examined any other witnesses and not produced any documents to show that on 18-12-2010, the father of plaintiff C.Narayanaswamy has no physical capacity to execute Gift Deed as per Ex.P.2.
24. The learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 and 4 relied upon (2003) 8 SCC 740 in case of Kashinath (Dead) through L.Rs Vs.Jaganath and contended that there is variance between the pleading and proof regarding para Nos.4 and 8(b) of plaint and written statement of plaintiff and defendant Nos.2, 3, 5 & 6. At the outset, on examination of he entire materials on record, I am of he 23 O.S.No.3189/2015 opinion that the suit property is the absolute property of the first defendant. Therefore, by exercising her absolute right she executed Will and Gift Deed in favour of defendant No.4 and her son Vignesh transferring majority of the property in favour of them. Accordingly, I answer issue No.1 in affirmative.
25. Issue Nos.2 to 11:- Since all these issues are revolving around the capacity of he first defendant to independent deal with the suit property by execution of various documents. Therefore, in order to avoid he repeated discussions, all these issues are taken together for discussion.
It is undisputed fact that Gift Deed executed by C.Narayanaswamy in favour of defendant No.1 on 18-12-2010 vide Ex.P.2. He was in sound disposition of mind because plaintiff and her husband have signed Ex.P.2 as attesting witnesses. After two years of execution of Ex.P.2, C.Narayanaswamy died on 20-12-2012 vide Ex.P.3. Based on Ex.P.2, katha transferred in the name of the first defendant as per Exs.P.4 & P.5. On 12-7-2012, the first defendant executed registered will in favour of defendant No.3 as per Ex.D.4. This Will Deed was subsequently cancelled as per Ex.P.5. The first defendant executed Will Deed in favour of 24 O.S.No.3189/2015 defendant No.4 on 24-8-2011 as per Ex.P.9. She executed Gift Deed in favour of defendant No.4 as per Ex.D.10 on 12-10-2011. On 9-12-2011, she executed registered Will in favour of defendant No.2 as per Ex.D.1 and it was cancelled on 9-5-2017 by another registered instrument. The first defendant has executed registered Will Deed in favour of defendant No.3 on 17-09-2012 as per Ex.D.12 and it was cancelled by her as per Ex.D.3 by another registered instrument.
26. On 9-5-2014, she executed Gift Deed in favour of defendant No.4 as per Ex.D.11 and again on 26-02-2015, she executed registered Will in favour of son of defendant No.4 by name Vignesh as per Ex.D.8. Subsequently, it was cancelled by execution of another registered document which is marked as Ex.D.14. Exs.D.2, D.3, D.5 and D.6 are the cancellation of Will Deeds executed in favour of her sons and daughter. On 18-05-2017, 29-1- 2022, 21-6-2016 and on 29-1-2022. The first defendant consciously made all these transactions with the knowledge of plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 6. Again, the first defendant has executed registered Gift Deed on 10-04-2017 in favour of son of defendant No.4 as per Ex.D.7. She executed another Gift Deed on 16-04-2022 25 O.S.No.3189/2015 as per Ex.D.16. On the same day, she executed cancellation of Gift Deed, cancelling Ex.D.11 dated 9-5-2014. Several registered transactions entered in respect of suit property. It seems that the defendant No.4 and her son used the deceased K.Anniyamma to cancel the registered Will Deeds and for execution of Gift Deed, Will Deed in their favour. But, the first defendant examined herself as D.W.2 and reaffirmed the fact that she has voluntarily executed all the documents in favour of defendant Nos.2, 3, 4, 6 and son of defendant No.4. It is the fact that the defendant No.4 obtained Gift Deed executed by the first defendant in respect of 450 sq.ft on 25-08-2011. Similarly, the first defendant has executed Gift Deed in favour of 4th defendant on 12-10-2011 gifting 76.6sq.ft. Similarly, the first defendant has executed Will on 9-12-2011 in favour of second defendant bequeathing 192 sq.ft in the suit property. This Will Deed was subsequently cancelled by executing Ex.D.5 on 21-6-2016. The first defendant has also executed registered Will on 17-09-2012 in favour of 3rd defendant bequeathing the portion measuring 192 sq.ft. This Will Deed was also cancelled by executing registered cancellation deed, as per Ex.D.3 on 29-1-2022. The first defendant has executed Gift Deed on 9-6-2014 as per Ex.D.11 and she 26 O.S.No.3189/2015 executed registered Will Deed, dated 236-02-2014 in favour of M.Vignesh as per Ex.D.8. Subsequently, it was cancelled as per Ex.D.14. The foundational fact is that the plaintiff and her husband Pandyan are the attesting witnesses to the Gift Deed, dated 18-12- 2010.
27. The learned counsel for the defendant Nos.1 and 4 argued that the limitation begins to run from 18-12-2010 and the suit was filed on 6-4-2015. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation but in this regard, the learned counsel for the defendant O.s1 and 4 relied upon (2025) 5 acc 198 in case of Umadevi and others Vs. Anandkumar and others, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by interpreting Article 110 of Limitation Act held that the partition was took place long ago and it was effected by a registered instrument. The limitation begins from the date of registration of the sale deed. This decision was relied by the advocate for the defendant Nos.1 and 4 to show that the plaintiff and her husband have knowledge about the execution of registered Gift Deed by C.Narayanaswamy in favour of first defendant on 18-12-2010. The true nature of Ex.P.2 was disputed by the plaintiff. At the cost of repetition, the contents of Ex.P.2 reveals that the Executant 27 O.S.No.3189/2015 C.Narayanaswamy declared that the suit property is his absolute property, his wife i.e., first defendant looked after him very well when he was suffering from paralysis. Therefore, out of love and affection, he is gifting the property to her. There are no clauses incorporated in EX.P.3 as stated in para 8 and written statement of the other defendants.
28. The plain reading of Ex.P.2 gives me the indication that there is no any coercion, fraud, misrepresentation on C.Narayanaswamy to execute the Gift Deed exclusively in the name of first defendant. He voluntarily made out the plaintiff and other defendants by distributing suit property to them. Therefore, plaintiff to challenge the Gift Deed dated 18-10-2012 begins from that date because it is in the exclusive knowledge of the plaintiff. Article 59 of the Limitation Act provides limitation of three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. Therefore, this decision and another decision reported in ILR 2022 KAR 2231 in case of M/s.Metropoli Overseas Limited Vs.Sri.H.S.Deekshit and others are aptly application to this case.
28 O.S.No.3189/2015
29. The evidence of D.W.2 is also very material though not she was cross-examined by the advocate for plaintiff, defendant Nos.2, 3 and 6 but in the chief examination she stated that the suit property is her absolute property. She stated that previously she executed the Will Deeds in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 6 also. Subsequently, those Will Deeds are cancelled she has only furnished reason why she cancelled the Will Deed in para Nos.24 and 25 of her chief examination. No-doubt, this having cannot be relied upon for the reason that it has not undergone test of cross- examination. An evidence includes the chief examination, cross- examination and re-examination. Since the testimony of D.W.2 does not undergone the rigour of cross-examination, it cannot be relied upon the same facts narrated in the plaint as well. Therefore, from the inception, the evidence of the first defendant was to keep the plaintiff, defendant Nos.2, 3 and 6 out of the purview of the suit property, because they have not taken care of the first defendant. I could not find any misrepresentation, undue influence, coercion on behalf of the 4th defendant and her son. The suit filed by the plaintiff is clearly barred by limitation. The Will Deeds executed in favour of the defendant Nos.2, 3 and 6 including the name of M.Vignesh was 29 O.S.No.3189/2015 cancelled by the first defendant during her life time by executing the registered instrument. Therefore, I answer issue Nos.2 in negative, issue No.33 in negative, issue No.4 in affirmative, issue No.5 in affirmative, issue No.6 in affirmative, issue No.7 partly affirmative, issue No.8 partly in affirmative, issue No.9 partly affirmative, issue No.10 in affirmative and issue No.11 partly in affirmative.
30. Issue No.12:- For the foregoing reasons, I pass the following:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment-Writer, transcribed and typed by her and then corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15 th day of October 2024) (J.V.KULKARNI) XXXV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
P.W.1 : Smt.N.Saraswathi Witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants.
D.W.1 : Sri.N.Murugan
30 O.S.No.3189/2015
D.W.2 : Smt.K.Anniyamma
D.W.3 : Smt.N.Bhagyalakshmi
Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff.
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of the Will dated 2-12-1983
Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of Gift Deed,
dated 18-12-2020
Ex.P.3 : Death Certificate
Ex.P.4 : Khata Certificate
Ex.P.5 : Khata Extract
Documents marked on behalf of the defendants.
Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of the Will, dated 9-12-2011 Ex.D.2 : Certified copy of the cancellation of Will Ex.D.3 : Certified copy of Cancellation of Will Ex.D.4 : Certified copy of Will dated 12-7-2012 Ex.D.5 : Certified copy of cancellation of Will dated 12-7-2012 Ex.D.6 : Certified copy of Cancellation of Will dated 21-06-2016 Ex.D.,7 : Certified copy of the Gift Deed, dated 10-04-2017 Ex.D.8 : Certified copy of Will dated 26-02-2015 Ex.D.9 : Online Certified copy of Gift Deed, dated 25-08-2011 Ex.D.10 : Certified coy of Gift Deed, dated 12-10- 2011 Ex.D.11 : Certified copy of Gift Deed, dated 09-05-
2014
Ex.D.12 : Certified copy of Will Deed,
31 O.S.No.3189/2015
dated 17-09-2012
Ex.D.13 : Certified copy of Will Deed,
dated 21-06-2016
Ex.D.14 : Certified copy of cancellation of Will Deed dated 10-04-2017 Ex.D.15 : Certified copy of Gift Deed, dated 14-10-2022 Ex.D.16 : Certified copy of Gift Deed, dated 16-04-2022 Ex.D.17 : Certified copy of cancellation of Gift Deed, Dated 16-04-2022 Ex.D.18 : Certified copy of Will Deed, dated 02-12-1983 Ex.D.19 : Certified copy of Mortgage by deposit of title deeds Ex.D.20 : Letter ISSUED BY THE Rajajinagar Co-
operative Bank Ltd.
Ex.D.21 : Memorandum of deposit of title deed, dated 5-3-2018 Ex.D.22 : Receipt Ex.D.23 : Wedding card Ex.D.24 : Cash/Credit Bill Ex.D.25 : Cash/Credit Bill Ex.D.26 : Tax Invoice Ex.D.27 : Karnataka State Building and Other Construction Beneficiary Identity Card Renewal application and identity card Ex.D.28 : Karnataka State Building and Other Construction Beneficiary Identity Card Ex.D.29 : Cash/Credit Bill Ex.D.29 : Estimate Ex.D.30 : Bill Ex.D.31 : Tax invoice 32 O.S.No.3189/2015 Exs.D.32 : Photographs to E.51 Ex.D.52 : CD Ex.D.53 : Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act Digitally signed by JEEVAN JEEVAN KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2025.10.15 16:41:53 +0530 (J.V.KULKARNI) XXXV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru