Bangalore District Court
Kanthamma vs M Munireddy on 25 February, 2025
KABC0A0039812012
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for Judgment in suit
(R.P. 91)
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL BENGALURU,
(CCH-73)
Present:
Sri. Sreepada N,
B.Com., L.L.M.,
LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 25th day of February 2025
O.S.No.26405/2012
Plaintiffs: 1. Smt. Kanthamma,
Aged about 63 years,
W/o Late Sri. Ankanna Reddy,
D/o Late Muniswamy Reddy @
Annaiah Reddy,
R/at 21/1, Maruthiseva Nagar,
Banasawadi Main Road,
Bangalore-560 033.
Since dead by LR's.
1(a) Sri. A. Ramesh Babu,
Aged about 55 years,
S/o Late M. Ankanna Reddy,
2 OS.No.26405/2012
R/at No.21/1,
Banaswadi Main Road,
Maruthi Seva Nagar,
Bengaluru-560 033.
1(b) Sri. A. Hema Reddy,
Aged about 51 years,
S/o Late M. Ankanna Reddy,
R/at No.106, 107,
7th Cross, Manjunath Layout,
Munnekolala, Marathahalli Post,
Bengaluru-560 037.
2. Smt. Sarojamma,
Aged about 57 years,
W/o Sri. Srinivas Reddy,
D/o Late Muniswamy Reddy @
Annaiah Reddy,
R/at No.449, 2nd Cross,
S.J.R College Road,
Munnekolalu Village,
Marathahalli Post,
Bangalore-560 037.
3. Smt. Bhagyamma,
Aged about 49 years,
W/o Venkataswamy Reddy,
D/o Late Muniswamy Reddy
@ Anniah Reddy,
R/at No.281/3,
Madura Nagar 1st Stage,
Janatha Colony,
Muthsandra Main Road,
Varthur, Bangalore-560087.
(By Sir. MNS Adv., for Plaintiffs)
3 OS.No.26405/2012
V/s
Defendants:1. Sri. M. Munireddy,
Aged about 60 years,
Son of Late Muniswamy Reddy @
Annaiah Reddy,
2. Sri. M.V. Venkatesh Reddy,
Aged about 54 years,
Son of Late Muniswamy Reddy @
Annaiah Reddy,
3. Sri. M. Nagaraj,
Aged about 47 years,
Son of Late Muniswamy Reddy @
Annaiah Reddy,
Defendants No.1 to 3 residing at
No.77/1, S.J.R College Road,
Munnekolalu Village,
Marathahalli Post,
Bangalore-560 037.
4. Sri. N. Srinivas Reddy,
Son of Late Nagi Reddy.
Since deceased represented by his
LR's
4(a) Smt. Radha,
Aged about 30 years,
W/o Late Srinivas Reddy,
4(b) Kum. Lavanya,
Aged about 10 years,
D/o Late Srinivas Reddy,
4 OS.No.26405/2012
4a and 4b are R/at No.686,
1st Cross,
Munnekolalu Village,
Marathahalli Post,
Bangalore-560 037.
5. Sri. Upendra K. Mangal Pandey,
Aged about 61 years,
Son of Sri. K. Kannan,
Residing at No.43,
Mohan Apartments,
Ramesh Nagar, Amboli,
Andheri West,
Mumbai-400058.
6. Sri. Kaiwan N. Billi Moria,
Aged about 42 years,
Son of Sri. Nadir N. Billi Moria,
7. Smt Dilshad Billi Moria,
Aged about 34 years,
Wife of Sri. Kaiwan N. Billi Moria,
No.6 and 7 are residing at No.5
Kotharis All Anex, V.S. Naidu Road,
Tasker Town, Bangalore-51.
8. Mrs. Shiny Willington,
Aged about 32 years,
Wife of Mr. Willington Francis,
9. Mr. Willington Francis,
Aged about 41 years,
Son of Mr. Fancis,
5 OS.No.26405/2012
No.8 and 9 are R/at No.14,
Lake House, Thimmareddy Colony,
J.B. Nagar, Bangalore-560 075.
10. Sri. Panchasheel Muralidhar
Waychal,
Aged about 50 years,
Son of late Muralidhar Waychal,
R/at 10th lane, Jayasingpur,
Shirol Taluk, Kolhapur District,
Maharastra State.
11. Smt. Asmita Bhasme,
Aged about 38 years,
Wife of Sri. Prasan Bhasme,
Residing at No.11/A, Next to LRDE
(1 to 75 Sec) Layout,
Ring Road, Shankar Nagar,
Near Railway Track,
Bangalore-560 037.
12. Smt. Asmita Bhasme,
Aged about 39 years,
Wife of Sri. Prasan Bhasme,
13. Sri. Prasan Bhasme,
Aged about 42 years,
Son of late Basavant Bhasme,
No.12 and 13 are residing at
No.11/A, Next to LRDE
(1 to 75 Sec) Layout,
Ring Road, Shankar Nagar,
Near Railway Track,
Bangalore-560 037.
6 OS.No.26405/2012
14. Sri. Esapathi Nagaraju,
Aged about 75 years,
Son of Late Esapathi Thippeswamy,
R/at C/o H.R.V. Reddy,
Kempapura Tank Road,
Yemalur, Bangalore-560 037.
15. Smt. Esapathi Gowramma,
Aged about 70 years,
Wife of Late Esapathi Nagaraju,
16. Sri. E.N. Jai Ramulu
Aged about 51 years,
Son of Late Esapathi Nagaraju,
No.15 and 16 are Residing at,
C/o H.R.V Reddy,
Kempapura Tank Road,
Yemalur, Bangalore-560 037.
17. Sri. J. Kanthraj,
Aged about 58 years,
Son of Late Jayaramappa,
R/at No.52, 11th 'A' Main,
5th Bock, Jayanagar,
Bangalore-560 041.
18. Sri. D.R. Sumanth,
Aged about 23 years,
Son of Sri. D.N. Ravishankar,
R/at No.41, Mountain Road,
1st Block East, Jayanagar,
Bangalore-560 011.
7 OS.No.26405/2012
19. Sri. Palli Madhusudhana Reddy,
Aged about 32 years,
Son of Late Palli Narayana Reddy,
R/at No.77, 2nd Main, 4th Cross,
BEML Layout, Thuburathalli,
Bangalore-560 066.
20. Sri. Ashok T.K,
Aged about 37 years,
Son of Sri. T.K. Krishna Murthy,
R/at No.2394, G-1,
1st A Main, R.P.C. Layout,
Vijayanagar 2nd Stage,
Bangalore-560 040.
21. Smt. J. Manjula
Aged about 45 years,
Wife of C. Srinivasa Reddy,
R/at No.117/1A, Munnekolalu,
Marathahalli Post,
Bangalore-560 037.
22. Smt. B. Sreelatha,
Aged about 30 years,,
Wife of Sri. B. Ramesh,
R/at No.8, 5th Cross,
Wilson Garden,
Bangalore-560 027.
23. N. Gopi
Aged about 35 years,
Son of M. Narayana Reddy,
R/at No.802, 4th Main,
Lakshmi Narayanaswamy Layout,
Munnekolalu, Marathahalli Post,
Bangalore-560 037.
8 OS.No.26405/2012
24. Sri. Butna Kantharajulu,
Aged about 35 years,
Son of Sri. B.L. Govindarajulu,
R/at C/o H.R.V.Reddy,
Kempapura Tank Road,
Yemalur, Bangalore-560 037.
25. Smt. B.L. Jaya Bai,
Aged about 66 years,
Wife of Late B.S. Lakshmi
Narayana Singh,
R/at C/o K. Chandra Singh,
'Mathru Krupa' ISRO Layout,
Munnekolalal, Marathahalli Post,
Bangalore-560 037.
26. Sri. R. Narayanaswamy,
Aged about 45 years,
Son of Late Sri Rama Reddy,
R/at No.125, Green Glen Layout,
Bellandur Village, Varthur Hobli,
Bangalore-560 103.
27. Sri. S. Babu Reddy,
Aged about 43 years,
Son of K. Shamanna Reddy,
R/at No.116/3A,
Veerappa Reddy Layout,
Munnekolalal,
Bangalore-560 037.
28. Sri. S. Srinivas,
Aged about 37 years,
Son of Shamaraju,
9 OS.No.26405/2012
R/at No.26, 2nd Cross,
Manjunatha Layout,
Munnekolalal Village,
Marathahalli Post,
Bangalore-560 037.
29. Sri. P.H. Chandra Reddy,
Aged about 71 years,
Son of Sathyanaraya Reddy,
R/at No.6, 27/D, 10th C Main,
6th Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore-10.
30. Sri. P. Kishore Reddy,
Aged about 53 years,
Son of late P.S. Guruva Reddy,
R/at No.140, T.P. Area,
Tirupati-517501.
31. Sri. Davu Sambasiva Rao,
Aged about 38 years,
Son of Sri. Davu Anjaneyulu,
R/at No.19, 4th Main, M.S.H.Layout,
Anand Nagar, attached to 2nd Stage,
Bangalore-560 024.
32. Sri. Dirakala Srinivasalu,
Aged about 59 years,
Son of T. Bujjaiah,
R/at No.19, 4th Main, M.S.H.Layout,
Anand Nagar, attached to 2nd Stage,
Bangalore-560 024.
10 OS.No.26405/2012
33. Sri. M.U. Mahesh Kumar,
Aged about 32 years,
Son of Sri. Ughrachari,
R/at No.67, 7th Cross,
Munnekolalu Village,
Bangalore-560 037.
34. Sri. Munivenkatappa,
Aged about 38 years,
Son of late Sri. Guruppa,
R/at Madhavapura Village
and Post,
Whitefield Road,
Bangalore-48.
35. Sri. Sambasiva Rao Vajja,
Aged about 42 years,
Son of Sri. Venkateshwara Rao.
36. Mrs. Annapurana Vajja,
Aged about 34 years,
Wife of Sambasiva Rao Vajja.
No.35 and 36 are residing at
No.594,
Top Ten Bakery,
Behind Govt., Middle School,
Kadugodi,
Bangalore-67.
37. Sri. Sathisan K.G,
Aged about 40 years,
Son of Sri. K.I Gangadharan,
R/at C/o K.G. Radhakrishnan,
Indira Neelam,
11 OS.No.26405/2012
Muneshwaraswamy Layout,
1st Main, Munnekolalu,
Marathahalli Post,
Bangalore-560 037.
38. Sri. K.G. Radha Krishnan,
Aged about 50 years,
Son of Sri. Gangadharan,
39. Smt. Jaya Radha Krishnan,
Aged about 41 years,
Wife of Sri. K.G. Radha Krishnan,
No.38 and 39 are residing at
Indira Neelam,
Muneshwaraswamy Layout,
1st Main, Munnekolalu,
Marathahalli Post,
Bangalore-560 037.
40. Dr. V. Srinivasulu Reddy,
Aged about 52 years,
Son of Sri. V. Ramasubba Reddy,
R/at Plot No.62, New Balaji Colony,
AIR by-pass Road,
Tirupati-2, A.P.
41. Sri. G. Jaayaram Reddy,
Aged about 72 years,
Son of Late Ganga Reddy,
R/at Bommasandra Village,
Begur Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk.
12 OS.No.26405/2012
42. Smt. G. Savithramma,
Aged about years,
W/o Narayana Reddy,
R/at No.471, 2nd Cross,
Marathahalli,
Bangalore-560 037.
43. Smt. S. Anitha Sekhar,
Aged about 40 years,
Wife of N.S. Sekhar,
R/at No.5/3,
Ammam Mandapam Road,
Srirangam,
Tiruchirappali-620006.
44. Sri. C. Narayana,
Aged about 52 years,
Son of Chinnappa,
R/at Airports Authority of India,
Bangalore Airport,
Bangalore-17.
45. Sri. S. Lakshminarayana,
Aged about 57 years,
R/at No.205, 6th Cross, 6th Main,
MICO Layout, Bangalore-76.
46. Smt. C. Gowri,
Aged about 55 years,
Wife of V Chandrashekaran,
R/at No.9, T.M.N. Street,
Santhosh Nivas,
New Thippasandra,
Bangalore-560 075.
13 OS.No.26405/2012
47. Sri. R. Sankara Raman,
Aged about 60 years,
Son of Sri. Rama Subramanian,
48. Smt. S. Radha Sankara Raman,
Aged about 55 years,
Wife of Sri. Sankara Raman,
No.47 and 48 are R/at 265,
IIIrd Main, III Phase, J.P. Nagar,
Bangalore-560 078.
49. Sri. K. Ramesh,
Aged about 50 years,
Son of N. Kuppu Swamy,
50. Mrs. Santhy Ramesh,
Aged about 47 years,
Wife of K. Ramesh,
No.49 and 50 are residing at
Type 2 Quarters, Block IV,
Neyveli Town Ship,
Neyveli-607803.
51. Mrs. Radha Balasubramanian,
Aged about 50 years,
Wife of N.R. Balasubramaniam,
Residing at 5 D, Ashwathi,
Ammam Mandapam Road,
Srirangam,
Tiruchirappalli-620 006.
14 OS.No.26405/2012
52. Smt. Anuradha Sudharsanan,
Aged Major,
W/o V. Sudharsanan,
R/at No.345/1, 1st Main, 6th Cross,
Annasandra Palya Extension,
Bangalore-560 070.
53. Sri. K.N. Balaram,
Aged about 54 years,
Son of P.G.N. Kaimal,
54. Smt. S. Chithra Balaram,
Aged about 45 years,
Wife of K.N. Balaram,
No.53 and 54 residing at
Kavumpurath,
Vaisbambhagom (P.O)
Alleppy,
Kerala.
55. Sri. S. Narayana Swamy,
Aged about 46 years,
Son of P.S.Money,
56. Smt. Sudha Narayana Swamy,
Aged about 42 years,
Wife of S. Narayana Swamy,
Nos.54 and 55 are residing at A7,
Model Terrace, Malleshpalya,
Bangalore-560 075.
15 OS.No.26405/2012
57. Sri. George J. Joseph,
Aged about 50 years,
Son of late C. Joseph,
Residing at No.5, Adjacent to Deepa
Nursing Home, Marathahalli P.O,
Bangalore-560 037.
58. Smt. Jayarani Indra,
Aged about 45 years,
Wife of Mohan Ebenezer,
R/at No.20, Hutchins Road,
2nd Cross, St. Thomas Town,
Bangalore-84.
59. Sri. C.V. Ravindran,
Aged about 47 years,
Son of Late V.V. Narayanan,
Asst. Executive Engineer (E),
Airports Authority of Indian (NAD)
Mangalore Airport,
Bajpe-574 142,
Karnataka.
60. Sri. S. Parameswaran,
Aged about 57 years,
Son of P.S. Money,
61. Smt. Thangam Parameswaran,
Aged about 55 years,
Wife of S. Parameswaran,
No.60 and 61 are residing at
No.306,
VII Cross, II Main, Domlur Layout,
Bangalore-71.
16 OS.No.26405/2012
62. Sri. K.G. Maheshwaran,
Aged about 44 years,
Son of late K Govindan Nair,
R/at No.B-1/2,
AAI Residential Colony,
Cambridge Layout, Ulsoor,
Bangalore-08.
63. Sri. V.P. Isac,
Aged about 53 years,
Son of V.J. Paulose,
R/at C/o C.V. Eldo,
No.1, New Buildings,
Thimma Reddy Lane,
Murugeshpalyam,
Bangalore-17.
64. Sri. P. Siva Das,
Aged about 46 years,
Son of A. Narayana Kutty,
65. Smt. Preeti Siva Das,
Aged about 39 years,
Wife of P. Siva Das,
No.64 and 65 are residing at
No.583,
(Hemashree) Indiranagar I Stage,
Bangalore-560 038.
66. Dr. V. Ramachandra,
Aged about 55 years,
Son of V. Venkata Rao,
17 OS.No.26405/2012
67. Smt. Padmaja Ramachandra,
Aged about 44 years,
Wife of Dr. V. Ramachandra,
No.66 and 67 are residing at
D-22/1, D.R.D.O Complex,
C.V. Raman Nagar,
Bangalore-560 093.
68. Sri. V. Krishnan,
Aged about 50 years,
Son of K. Vishwanathan,
69. Smt. Nitya Krishnan,
Aged about 47 years,
Wife of V. Krisnan,
No.68 and 69 are residing at F/3,
Zenith Flats, Bazaar Road,
Ambattur,
Chennai-600053.
70. Sri. Manikanthan K.V,
Aged about 48 years,
Son of P. Gopalan Nair,
Asst. Communication Officer,
Airports Authority of India,
Bangalore Airport,
Bangalore-17.
71. Sri. K. Ramadurai,
Aged about 48 years,
Son of N. Kannan,
R/at Block C-3, No.18,
AAI Colony, Cambridge Layout,
Ulsoor, Bangalore-08.
18 OS.No.26405/2012
72. Sri. P. Ramakrishnan,
Aged about 53 years,
Son of S. Papaiah Reddy,
R/at No.18, 1st Cross,
L.B. Shastrinagar,
Indiranagar II Stage,
Bangalore-38.
73. Smt. Vani Shivaraj,
Aged about 49 years,
Wife of K. Shivaraj Hande,
R/at No.149/154, 'Mangala'
I Floor, SBM Colony,
Bangalore-560 050.
74. Sri. I.P. Siva Kumar,
Aged about 64 years,
Son of late V. Iyen Perumal,
R/at No.78, Shasi Nivas,
5th Main Road,
HAL II Stage (Kodihalli)
Bangalore-560 008.
75. Sri. S. Anantha Narayanan,
Aged about 74 years,
Son of A Subramanian,
R/at No.862, Scientist Hostel-III,
C.V. Raman Nagar,
Bangalore-560 093.
76. Sri. K.P. Prasanth,
Aged about 46 years,
Son of P. Vasudevan,
Airport Authority of India (NAD)
Bangalore Airport,
Bangalore-17.
19 OS.No.26405/2012
77. Dr. S. Kumar,
Aged about 65 years,
Son of E. Subramaniam,
R/at No.38/1, 7th Main, 6th Cross,
Next H.M. Building,
Sriramapuram,
Bangalore-25.
78. Sri. G. Vijayarengan,
Aged about 58 years,
Son of M. Govindarajan,
R/at No.696, B/2, 'Priya Nivas',
Vinayaka Nagar,
Konena Agrahara,
Bangalore-560 017.
79. Sri. R.K.N. Pillai,
Aged about 60 years,
Son of K.V. Keshava Pillai,
R/at No.752/A, Pranayam,
Konneneagrahara, HAL Post,
Bangalore-560 017.
80. Sri. N. Ganesan,
Aged about 48 years,
Son of V.K. Rajamani,
81. Smt. Sailakshmi Ganesan,
Aged about 45 years,
Wife of N. Ganesan,
No.80 and 81 are residing
at No.82-A,
"Sai Paduka" Anand Nagar,
Marathahalli (P.O),
Bangalore-37.
20 OS.No.26405/2012
82. Sri. G. Rambabu,
Aged about 50 years,
Son of G. Dakshina Murthy,
Senior Electronics Officer,
Airports Authority of India,
Bangalore Airport,
Bangalore-17.
83. Sri. A.T. Arun Kumar,
Aged about 46 years,
Son of M.K. Thathachar,
R/at No.559,
II Ramachandra Agrahara,
Mysore-570 004.
84. Sri. N.V. Datta Raja,
Aged about 55 years,
Son of T.V.V. Sastry,
R/at No.152, 13th 'B' Main,
Gokul I Stage, I Phase,
Mathikere L/o
Bangalore-54.
85. Sri. B. Madhusudhan,
Aged about 46 years,
Son of B. Ramaiah,
Airports Authority of India,
Bangalore Airport,
Bangalore-17.
86. Sri. Y. Karunakaran,
Aged about 70 years,
Son of P. Ambumaniyani,
R/at No.48/2,
MES Quarters,
21 OS.No.26405/2012
AF Domestic Camp,
Murugeshpalya,
Bangalore-17.
87. Sri. G. Chandrakumar,
Aged about 51 years,
Son of Sri. Gopal,
R/at C/o Rajakumar,
No.376, 13th Cross,
GBJ Quarters Marathhalli,
Bangalore-37.
88. Sri. N.D. Omprakash,
Aged about 55 years,
Son of Late N.V. Dhanapal Naidur,
R/at C/o Mr. A.R. Santhana
Krishnan,
176, 10th Cross, 10th Main,
Indiranagar II Stage,
Bangalore-38.
89. Sri. D.S. Raghavan,
Aged about 51 years,
Son of Sri. S. Dorai Rajan,
R/at C-1, Airports Authority of
India,
Residential Colony, 16,
Cambridge Layout,
Ulsoor, Bangalore-08.
90. Sri. K.M. Sukumaran,
Aged about 66 years,
Son of Sri. O. Ramuni Nair,
R/at Nirmalyam,
Nallur, Feroke Post,
Calicut, Kerala.
22 OS.No.26405/2012
91. Sri. C. Elangovan,
Major,
Son of P. Chinnapppa Gounder,
R/at No.528, I Main,
6th Cross, Vinayaka Nagar,
Annasandrapalya, Extn.,
Vimanapura Post,
Bangalore-17.
92. Smt. Sarasa Mani,
Aged about 65 years,
Wife of V.S. Mani,
93. Miss. Shweta Mani,
Aged about 36 years,
D/o V.S. Mani,
No.92 and 93 are residing at E128,
Natasha Golfview, Domlur Layout,
Off Airport Road, Bangalore-71.
94. Sri. A.K. Choudary,
Aged about 62 years,
Son of Sri. Kartick Choudary,
R/at No.C-20, Airport Authority,
Residential Colony, No.16,
Cambridge Layout,
Ulsoor, Bangalore-560 008.
95. Sri. B. Subramaniam,
Aged about 47 years,
Son of Sri. K.M. Balavariar,
R/at No.89, "Abhilasha",
Main Road, Jagadish Nagar,
New Thippasandra (P.O)
Bangalore-560 075.
23 OS.No.26405/2012
96. Sri. K.M. Sukumaran,
Aged about 53 years,
Son of O. Ramunni Nair,
Asst. Technical Officer,
Airports Authority of India (NAID),
Bangalore Airport,
Bangalore.
97. Sri. P.J. Thomas,
Aged about 47 years,
Son of P.K. Joseph,
R/at No.32,
Lal Bahadur Shastri Nagar,
Vimanapura Post,
Bangalore-17.
98. Sri. A. Balaji,
Aged about 40 years,
Son of G. Annamalai,
R/at C/o E. Moorthy,
No.9, 6th Cross, 1st Main,
Gandhinagar, Munnekolalu,
Marathahalli Post,
Bangalore-560 037.
99. Smt. V. Nirmala,
Aged about 60 years,
Wife of M. Venkatasubramanian,
R/at D1/1, Type IV,
WMS Compound,
V Block, 47th Cross, 9th Main,
Jayanagar, Bangalore-41.
24 OS.No.26405/2012
100. Sri. S. Premchandar,
Aged about 57 years,
Son of P. Shanmugam,
R/at B-10, AAI Residential Colony,
16, Cambridge Layout, Ulsoor,
Bangalore-08.
101. Sri. Binu Mathews Chako,
Aged about 46 years,
Son of K.M. Chacko,
R/at C-6, AAI Residential Colony,
16, Cambridge Layout,
Ulsoor, Bangalore-08.
102. Sri. P. Lokanadh,
Aged about 46 years,
Son of Sri. P. Krishnaiah Chetty,
Working in Airports Authority of
India, Bangalore Airport,
Bangalore-17.
103. Sri. P. Sivaram,
Aged about 61 years,
Son of S.P. Periandi,
R/at F.B.56 HAL Colony,
Bangalore-17.
104. Sri. M. Elangovan,
Aged about 50 years,
Son of R. Maniyan,
R/at No.G-1266,
9th Cross, HAL Central Township
Marathahalli Post,
Bangalore-37.
25 OS.No.26405/2012
105. Smt. Nirmala,
Major,
Wife of Mani Choudhury,
R/at No.275, 5th Main,
K.R. Garden, Murugeshpalya,
Bangalore-17.
106. Sri. Hanamantraya Basappa
Ramatal,
Aged about 46 years,
Son of late Basappa,
R/at C/o Siddalingaiah,
No.327/229, Vibhuthipura,
Near Rameshnagar Post Office,
Bangalore-560 037.
107. Smt. Dhanalakshmi,
Aged about 45 years,
D/o Sri. Mani Choudhury,
R/at No.275, 5th Main,
K.R. Garden, Murugeshpalya,
Bangalore-17.
108. Sri. B. Ramachandra,
Aged about 50 years,
Son of late B. Boranna,
109. Smt. Padmavathi,
Aged about 38 years,
D/o Late B. Boranna,
No.108 and 109 residing at No.4,
Corporation Quarters,
Kumbar Street,
Behind S.J.P Police Station,
J.C. Road, Bangalore-560 002.
26 OS.No.26405/2012
110. Sri. A. Jayababu,
Aged about 43 years,
Son of Alagarswamy,
R/at No.A-208,
TVH Park Villa, Thoraipakkam,
Chennai-600096.
111. Sri. Sandeep Nanjundappa,
Aged about 30 years,
Son of Nanjundappa Narayanappa,
112. Nanjundappa Narayanappa,
Aged about 64 years,
S/o Narayanappa,
111 & 112 are R/at No.28,
2nd Cross,
Venkateshwara Layout,
Munnekolala, Marathahalli Post,
Bangalore-560 037.
113. Sri. T.R. Athmanathan,
Aged about 48 years,
Son of late Sri. P.L.Thirunavukkarasu
Chettiar,
R/at FB (S) 133,
HAL Quarters, Airport Road,
Vimanapura Post,
Bangalore-560 037.
114. Miss. M. Prema,
Major,
D/o M. Masanan,
R/at Manjunatha Building,
Suddaguntepalya,
C.V. Raman Nagar,
Bangalore-560 093.
27 OS.No.26405/2012
115. Sri. P. Senthamil Selvan,
Aged about 42 years,
Son of S. Paramasivam,
R/at No.6, Manjunatha Building,
Suddaguntepalya,
C.V. Raman Nagar,
Bangalore-560 093.
116. Smt. Rajalakshmi Thiagarajan,
Aged about 89 years,
Wife of Mr. Thiagarajan N,
R/at N. Thiagaraja Iyer,
B.67/6, New Dro Colony,
K. Pudur Post,
Madurai-625007.
117. Sri. K.S. Prakash,
Aged about 36 years,
Son of late Shantha Veeranna,
R/at C/o T. Hemanna,
No.464/3, 4th Main, 4th Cross,
Basavanagar, Bangalore-560 037.
118. Smt. Rosily Chandra Kumar,
Aged about 58 years,
Wife of Sri. T. Chandra Kumar,
R/at Mariya Nivas, 2nd Main,
4th Cross, Basavanagar,
Marathahalli Post,
Bangalore-560 037.
119. Sri. S. Balasubramani,
Aged about 38 years,
Son of Sri. K. Shivadasan,
R/at No.154, 3rd Cross,
28 OS.No.26405/2012
HAL Central Township,
Marathahalli Post,
Bangalore-37.
120. Sri. K. Manigandan,
Aged about 36 years,
Son of M. Krishnan,
R/at No.5,
Dhamodhara Mudaliar Street,
Ulsoor, Bangalore-560 008.
121. Sri. H. Thippeshappa,
Aged about 52 years,
Son of Late B.S. Hanamanthappa,
R/at C/o M.P. Reddy Bldg.,
"Srinivasa Nilaya",
Chodeshwari Temple Street,
Marathahalli,
Bangalore-560 037.
122. Sri. S. Kupparaju,
Aged about 76 year,
Son of late Subbaraju,
R/at No.124, Raju's Colony,
Yamlur Post, Bangalore-560 037.
123. Sri. N.C. Ganesh,
Aged about 48 years,
Son of V. Natarajan,
Residing at No.18/2,
Cambridge Road Cross,
Ulsoor, Bangalore-560 008.
124. Sri. Rajesh Menon,
Aged about 43 years,
Son of M. Ravindranath Menon,
29 OS.No.26405/2012
R/at No.68, "Chithra",
Suddaguntapalya,
C.V. Raman Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560 093.
125. Sri. T.R. Rajandra,
Aged about 37 years,
Son of N. Ramakrishna,
R/at No.2871, 1st Cross,
HAL II Stage,
Bangalore-560 008.
126. Sri. S. Babu,
Aged about 45 years,
Son of late K.V. Swamy,
R/at No.53/4,
Chandra Reddy Building,
Opp. Panchavathi Vidya Kendra,
Anand Nagar, Marathahalli,
Bangalore-560 037.
127. Sri. M. Mohammed Rafi,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at No.11E, No.685,
2nd Cross, Behind Eswara Temple,
Marathahalli, Bangalore-560 037.
128. Sri. Konduru Dharma Raju,
Aged about 54 years,
Son of late K. Krishnama Raju,
R/at No.935, 11th C Cross,
Vyalikaval, Bangalore-560 003.
129. Smt. Hemavathi,
Aged about 38 years,
Wife of A. Paulraj,
30 OS.No.26405/2012
R/at No.346, 5th Cross,
Kodihalli, Ulsoor Post,
Bangalore-560 008.
130. Smt. S. Poornima,
Aged about 31 years,
D/o Sri. S. Sheshagiri Rao,
R/at No.471, Behind Shiva Temple,
Shubodaya Road, 1st Main Road,
Marathahalli, Bangalore-560 037.
131. Smt. Sangeeta G,
Aged about 34 years,
D/o Sri. S.G.K. Nair,
R/at No.84, "Krishna"
1st Cross, 5th Main,
Domlur 2nd Stage,
Bangalore-560 071.
132. Sri. M. Anil Kumar,
Aged about 39 years,
Son of late M.P. Madhavan Pillai,
R/at No.264, 1st Floor,
Sri. Rama Temple Road,
New Thippasandra,
Bangalore-560 075.
133. Sri. M. Rajendran,
Aged about 47 years,
Son of late A. Murugesh Achari,
R/at No.1-44, Sriram Nagari,
HAL Post, Murugeshpalya,
Bangalore-560 017.
31 OS.No.26405/2012
134. Smt. Ramadevi,
Aged about 46 years,
Wife of Sri. R. Venkataiah,
R/at No.G-44,
Sri Ramanagari,
Murugeshpalya,
3rd Cross, HAL Post,
Bangalore-560 017.
135. Sri. Dheerendra N.V,
Aged about 47 years,
Son of Sri. N.G. Vijendra Rao,
R/at Udagani Post,
Shikaripur Taluk,
Dist. Shimoga-577 447.
136. Smt. K. Venkubai (Site No.104),
Major,
Wife of Sri. Shivaji Rao,
R/at No.G42,
Sri. Ramanagari,
Murugeshpalya,
3rd Cross, HAL Post,
Bangalore-560 017.
137. Sri. J.N. Prakash,
Aged about 36 years,
Son of Sri. Neelakantappa,
R/at Near Tulasi Theatre,
Behind Rupali Ceramic, 3rd Cross,
Marathahalli, Bangalore-560 037.
138. Sri. S. Mahesha,
Major,
Son of Sri. Shivappa,
32 OS.No.26405/2012
R/at Indramma Building,
Opp. MGA Hospital,
Varthur Main Road,
Marathahalli,
Bangalore-560 037.
139. Smt. V. Rupa Rani,
Aged about 37 years,
Wife of Sri. Krishna Reddy,
Maruthi Engineering Works,
1st Cross, Manjunath Layout,
Marathahalli, Bangalore-560 037.
140. Sri. A. Samson Jonas,
Aged about 53 years,
Son of late P.E Alexandar,
R/at No.245, Near Eswara Temple,
Jagadeesh Nagar,
New Thippasandra Post,
Bangalore-560 075.
141. Sri. M. Saravana Kumar,
Aged about 38 years,
Son of Sri. Mani Choudhary,
R/at No.275, 5th Main,
K.R. Garden, Murugeshpalya,
Bangalore-560 017.
142. Sri. A. Hema Reddy,
Aged about 42 years,
Son of Late M. Ankanna Reddy,
R/at No.74/1,
Lakshmi Narayanaswamy Temple Street,
Munnekolala, Marathahalli Post,
Bangalore-560 037.
33 OS.No.26405/2012
143. Sri. M. Lakshmi Narasappa,
Aged about 60 years,
Son of late Narasimhappa,
144. Smt. Usha,
Aged about 47 years,
Wife of M. Lakshmi Narasappa,
No.143 and 144 are residing at
No.G.B.J.89, 2nd Main, GBT Colony,
HAL, Marathahalli,
Bangalore-560 037.
145. Smt. Putu Ariani,
Aged about 36 years,
Wife of Shankara.H,
146. Sri. Shankara H,
Aged about 40 years,
Son of Late Hanumanthappa,
No.145 and 146 are residing at
No.38, 2nd Main,
Muneshwara Layout,
Munnekolala,
Marathahalli Post,
Bangalore-560 037.
147. Smt. Krishnamma,
W/o Late Muniswamy Reddy @
Annaiah Reddy,
Aged about 79 years,
148. Smt. Kanakamma,
D/o Late Muniswamy Reddy @
34 OS.No.26405/2012
Annaiah Reddy,
W/o Gurumurthy Reddy,
Aged about 58 years,
Both are residing at No.149,
3rd Cross, Panthur Denni,
Panthur Post,
Bangalore-560 103.
149. Smt. Radhamma,
D/o Late Muniswamy Reddy @
Annaiah Reddy,
W/o Late Srinivas Reddy,
Aged about 56 years,
Residing at No.690, 1st Cross,
Near Govt., High School,
Hoodi, Mahadevapura Post,
Bangalore-560 048.
150. Smt. Padma,
D/o Late Muniswamy Reddy @
Annaiah Reddy,
W/o Gopala Krishna,
Residing at No.79, 4th Cross,
Aswathanagar,
Munekolala Extension,
Marathalli Post,
Bangalore-560 037.
151. M.P. Narayana Reddy,
S/o Late Nanja Reddy @ Papaiah
Reddy,
Aged abut 67 years,
R/at No.470, 1st Cross,
Opp. Kids Global School,
35 OS.No.26405/2012
Marathahalli,
Bangalore-560 037.
Since Dead by LR's,
151(a) N. Babu Reddy,
Aged about 51 years,
S/o Late M.P. Narayana Reddy,
No.471, 2nd A Cross,
Opp. Kids Global School,
Marathahalli,
Bangalore-560 037.
151(a) N. Vasu Reddy,
Aged about 48 years,
S/o Late M.P. Narayana Reddy,
No.6, Maruthi Layout ,
Chowdeshwari Nilaya,
SGR College Road,
Munnekolalu,
Marathahalli Post,
Bangalore-560 038.
152 Smt. A. Vijaya Lalitha,
W/o Nagaraj Reddy,
D/o Late M. Ankanna Reddy,
Aged about 53 years,
R/at No.70/4, 5th Main,
Lakshmi Narayana Swamy Temple
Street,
Munnekolala, Marathahalli Post,
Bengaluru-560 037.
(By Sri. VBS Adv., - D.1 to 3, Sri. PPK Adv., - D.7, Sri. S &
Co., Adv., - D.8, 9, FX & Co., Adv., - D.10, 12, Sri. NSK
Adv., - D.13, 44, 53, 59, 71, 72, 75, 83, 84, 105, 107,
36 OS.No.26405/2012
121, 129, 130, 133, 140, 141, Sri. MG Adv., - D.21,
Sri. DNA Adv., - D.23, 91, 92, 95, 98, 104, Sri. MR Adv., -
D.26, 27, Sri. GS Adv., - D.29, Sri. JNR Adv., - D.30, 40,
Sri. LM Adv., - D.33, Sri. DNAK Adv., - D.38, 39, 42, 143,
Sri. VGB Adv., - D.47, 48, 60 to 62, Sri.VGCR Adv., - D.79,
Sri. ARG Adv., - D.93, Sri. VVK Adv., - D.118, Sri. DVP
Adv., - D.125, Sri. NVH Adv., - D.136, Sri.RJP Adv., -
D.147 to 149, Sri. RJP Adv., - D.151, Sri.GKS Adv., -
D.151(a) & (b),
Ex-parte - Defendant Nos.4 to 6, 11, 14 to 20, 22, 24,
25, 28, 31, 32, 34, 35, 41, 43, 45, 46, 49 to 52, 58, 63,
70, 74, 76 to 78, 85 to 90, 94, 96, 97, 99, 106, 114 to
117, 119, 120, 122 to 124, 126, 131, 132, 134, 135, 137
to 139, 142, 144 to 146.
No representation - Defendant Nos.36, 56, 57, 64 to 69,
73, 80 to 82, 100 to 103, 108 to 113, 152.
Date of Institution of the suit 18.7.2012
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note,
suit for declaration and Partition Suit
possession, suit for
injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of 8.1.2019
recording of the Evidence.
Date on which the Judgment 25.2.2025
was pronounced.
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
12 07 05
LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE,
Mayohall Unit: Bengaluru.
37 OS.No.26405/2012
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiffs are before this Court seeking partition and separate possession of their 1/6th share each in the Suit Schedule Properties. Further also prayed to declare that the Sale Deeds executed by the Defendant No.1 to 3 in favour of Defendant No.4 and the Sale Deed executed by Defendant No.4 in favour of Defendant Nos.5-10, 12-18, 20-25, 28, 30-34, 37 to 40 and the Sale Deed executed by Defendant No.20 in favour of Defendant No.11, Defendant No.18 in favour of Defendant No.19, Defendant No.25 in favour of Defendant No.26 & 27, Defendant No.34 in favour of Defendant No.35 & 36 are not binding on the Plaintiffs in respect of Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule Property. Further also prayed to declare that the Sale Deeds executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant No.90, 145 & 146, Sale Deeds executed by Defendant No.42 claiming to be Power of Attorney of Defendant No.41 in favour of Defendant No.43-89, 91-97, 99-110, 113-124, 126- 134, 136-142. Further the Sale Deed executed by Defendant No.97 in favour of Defendant No.98, Defendant No.110 in favour of Defendant No.111 & 112, Defendant No.124 in favour of Defendant 38 OS.No.26405/2012 No.125, Defendant No.134 in favour of Defendant No.135, Defendant No.142 in favour of Defendant No.143 & 144 are not binding on the Plaintiffs in respect of Item No.2 of the Suit Schedule Property. Further also prayed for an order for determination and payment of mesne profits payable to the share of the Plaintiffs herein out of the income from the schedule properties and also to restrain the Defendants from further alienation of the Suit Schedule Properties by granting Permanent Injunction etc.
2. The epitome of the case of the Plaintiffs is as follows:
The Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 are the sisters and brothers and they constituted a joint family and they are governed by Hindu Law. They are the members of Hindu undivided joint family owned and possessed the Suit Schedule Properties. Originally the father of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 was a tenant in respect of the Suit Schedule Properties and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Further, all the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 had two wives i.e., Smt. Dodda Thayamma 39 OS.No.26405/2012 @ Eramma and Smt. Muniyamma. Smt. Dodda Thayamma @ Eramma had no isuses and as such he married Smt. Muniyamma. The Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 are the children of Smt. Muniyamma and Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy. Smt. Muniyamma died prior to Smt. Dodda Thayamma @ Eramma. The parents of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 died in the year 1967 leaving behind the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 and Smt. Dodda Thayamma @ Eramma to succeed to his estate. Smt. Dodda Thayamma @ Eramma also died on 17.1.2000. Thereafter, both the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 continued to be members of joint family and till date there is no partition in the family. The Defendant No.2 herein on behalf of her joint family had filed LRF 3731/76-77 to grant occupancy rights in respect of the Suit Schedule Properties before the Land Tribunal. Accordingly, the Land Tribunal by its order dtd: 12.10.2001 conferred occupancy right in respect of the Suit Schedule Properties. After granting occupancy rights, the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 &
3 have become joint owners of the Suit Schedule Properties. Even, though the records of Suit Schedule Properties standing in the name of Defendant No.2, 40 OS.No.26405/2012 but till today the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Properties. After granting occupancy rights in respect of the Suit Schedule Properties in favour of joint family, the Plaintiffs have demanded for partition of the Schedule Properties. Initially the Defendant No.1 to 3 had agreed for partition of the properties, but went on postponing the same by giving one or the other reasons. Even in the month of February 2012 when the Plaintiffs demanded for partition of the schedule properties, the Defendants denied the same. Further, it is came to knowledge that the Defendant No.1 to 3 with an intention to deprive the Plaintiffs legitimate share have created some third party interest over the Suit Schedule Properties. Even the Defendant No.1 to 3 have sold a portion of Item No.1 of the Schedule Property to an extent of 33.90 Guntas in favour of N. Srinivas Reddy by way of registered Sale Deed dtd: 9.2.2005, even though they have no exclusive right, title or interest over the Schedule Properties to execute the Sale Deed. Hence, the Sale Deed is not binding on the Plaintiffs. Even the said Srinivas Reddy in turn executed Sale Deeds in favour of Defendant No.5-10, 12-18, 20-25, 41 OS.No.26405/2012 28, 30-34, 37 to 40 by forming sites. The said Srinivas Reddy died leaving behind his wife and daughter as his legal heirs and hence, have been made as parties to this suit.
3. Further, the Defendant No.1 to 3 with an intention to make wrongful gain to themselves by depriving the Plaintiffs to take their legitimate share in the Suit Schedule Properties in collusion with Defendant No.41 & 42 have made the Defendant No.41 & 42 to execute the Sale Deeds in favour of third parties in respect of Item No.2 of the Suit Schedule Properties and have signed as consenting witnesses to the said Sale Deeds. In fact, the Defendant No.41 & 42 have no right, title or interest over the Suit Schedule Properties. Even the Defendant No.2 has executed Sale Deed in respect of portion of Item No.2 of the Suit Schedule Properties in favour of Defendant No.90, 145 & 146. The Defendant No.2 claiming to be the Power of Attorney holder of Defendant No.41 had executed Sale Deeds in favour of Defendant Nos.43-89, 91-97, 99-110, 113-124, 126-134, 136-142, for which the Defendant No.1 to 3 have signed as consenting witnesses. Further 42 OS.No.26405/2012 Defendant No.97 in turn executed Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.98, Defendant No.110 in turn executed Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No111 & 112, Defendant No.124 in turn executed Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.125, Defendant No.134 in turn executed Sale Deed in faovur of Defendant No.135, Defendant No.142 in turn executed Sale Deed in favour of Defendant No.143 & 144. All these Sale are not binding on the Plaintiffs. The Defendant No.1 to 3 in order to knock off the valuable properties and to deprive them from their lawful share, have been created the documents and further trying to alienate the remaining Suit Schedule Properties. The revenue records in respect of Item No.1 to 5 are standing in the name of the Defendant No.2 and by taking undue advantage of the same, the Defendant No.1 to 3 are trying to create third party interest over the Suit Schedule Properties. Further the Defendant No.4 to 146 have also tried to create third party interest over the Suit Schedule Properties. When the Defendant No.1 to 3 have denied the lawful share of the Plaintiffs, it is necessary for the Plaintiffs to file suit for partition of their share in respect of the Suit 43 OS.No.26405/2012 Schedule Properties and other properties as claimed above. Hence, prayed to decree the suit.
4. Pursuant to summons, the Defendant No.1 to 3, Defendant No.8 & 9, Defendant No.10, 12 & 13, Defendant No.26 & 27, Defendant No.29, Defendant No.42, Defendant No.148 to 150, Defendant No.151(a) & 151(b) entered their appearance through their respective counsels and filed their separate written statements.
5. The Defendant No.1 to 3 have filed counter statement to the written statement filed by the Defendant No.151(a) & 151(b).
6. The Defendant No.1 to 3 filed their common written statement and denied most of the contents of the plaint averments. Further contended that the claim of the Plaintiffs is vexatious, intentionally filed with an intention to make monitory gain by an act of harassment, perpetual means for illegal, unlawful gain. Therefore, the suit of the Plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed with cost. Further the Defendant No.1 to 3 have admitted the relationship between the Plaintiffs 44 OS.No.26405/2012 and Defendant No.1 to 3. However, denied that the Plaintiffs and Defendants have constitute joint family and they are members of joint family owning and possessing the Suit Schedule Properties. Further admitted that the father of Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 had two wives by name Smt. Dodda Thayamma @ Eramma and Smt. Muniyamma. Further also admits that the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 are the children of Smt. Muniyamma and Sri. Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy. Smt. Muniyamma died prior to Smt. Dodda Thayamma @ Eramma. Further contended that the parties by their case, by their community cannot constitute Hindu Undivided Joint Family and that there was no family property at all as alleged to have stated. It is stated that there is no joint family at all. Therefore, the question of partition in the family arise at all. Further contended that the occupancy application and the occupancy certificate are improper statements that have purported to have been stated in the course of the plaint pleadings. It is pertinent to mention, occupancy certificates were not to Papaiah @ Nanja Reddy and he had no authority to contend that the occupancy rights could be given to him. Further 45 OS.No.26405/2012 denied that the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 have become joint owners as per the order of Land Tribunal. Neither application nor the order of the Court are encompassing the rights of the parties indicating that it is a joint family property. It is only an independent right.
7. Further specifically contended that the provision of law are not available for it being filed in order to adjudicate the dispute. The Plaintiffs are running behind a moonshine plea and are intentionally intending to undertake an act of harassment and thereby the suit does not become maintainable. Further contended that the properties described in the schedule were the personal properties of the Defendant No.2. One Muniswamy Reddy a permanent resident of Munnekolalu Village, was agriculturist and he was the owner of the properties which were landed properties earlier to the auction held by Munnekolala Co-operative Society on 13.7.1947. An extent of 01 Acre 13 Guntas of the land in Sy.No.215/2P to the extent of 21 Guntas has been taken possession by the Railways for Bangalore- Railway Lane. The ancestral properties of Venkatesh 46 OS.No.26405/2012 Reddy, 2nd Defendant, Nagaraja Reddy and Nuni Reddy. There did exist a Hindu Undivided Joint Family, 5 items of the land were very close to HAL Limited, the 2nd Defendant and his father were in possession of 5 items of land and executed a Lease Deed on 15.11.1949 and treated themselves as tenant under one K. Chinnappa, who is the father-in- law of K. Chinna Annaiah. Further it is pertinent to note that O.C.No.469/1956 also before the Land Tribunal indicates this aspect. Even the father-in-law of Chinna Annaiah by name Chinnappa, he instituted the suit and thereafter there were several other proceedings. In the meanwhile, an application was filed for grant of occupancy right. Therefore, the Land Tribunal has conferred the occupancy right and thereby the 2nd Defendant has become the owner of the property. None of the members of the family did made any application nor participated in any of the proceedings and therefore, it is this Defendant who became the owner of the property by virtue of grant made in the name of 2nd Defendant. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable.
47 OS.No.26405/20128. Further contended that the Plaintiffs were married and they were living with their respective husbands and with their families. The Plaintiff No.1 is aged 63 years and Plaintiff No.2 is aged 57 and Plaintiff No.3 is aged 49 years, but the age given is not correct. All the Plaintiffs were born prior to 1956 and their marriages were respectively performed, they neither stood as coparceners or members or a member in the family. The suit of the Plaintiffs is barred by limitation.
9. Further contended that Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy died in the year 1967. The Plaintiffs were born prior to 1956. Even their marriages have taken place prior to 1956. Therefore, they do not have any right within them for the purpose of seeking any relief. The property was not available immediately after purchase of the property, since it got vested under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act. Therefore, the Plaintiffs does not acquired right, title, interest over the properties. The suit properties are self-acquisition of the Defendant No.3. Therefore, on all these grounds, the Defendant No.1 to 3 prayed to dismiss this suit.
48 OS.No.26405/201210. The Defendant No.8 and 9 have filed their separate written statement and denied the entire contents of the plaint. Further contended that they have purchased the residential vacant site No.3A out of the property bearing No.3/5 within the limits of Mahadevapura City Municipal Council Khatha No.3/5-3A situated at Munnekolala Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, from one Srinivasa Reddy who was the absolute owner of the property. The said N. Srinivas Reddy had purchased the property in the year 2004 from the Defendant No.1 to 3 for valuable consideration under the registered Sale Deed dtd: 2.4.2005. These Defendants are in lawful possession and enjoyment of their written statement schedule properties since the date of purchase. Therefore, the suit filed against them is unsustainable and liable to be dismissed.
11. The Defendant No.10, 12 and 13 have filed separate written statement and denied most of the avemrents of the plaint. Further contended that the 2nd Defendant was the absolute owner of the Item No.1 of the Schedule Property having acquired the same by virtue of the order of the Special Tahsildar 49 OS.No.26405/2012 who granted the occupancy right vide order dtd:
23.10.2001. Accordingly mutation entries effected in his name. In the aforesaid documents, nowhere it is stated that the Suit Schedule Properties were granted to the 2nd Defendant on behalf of the joint family nor it is mentioned that the father of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 were a tenant in respect of the Suit Schedule Properties. Even subsequent, mutation and RTC were also standing in the name of Defendant No.2 in his individual and personal capacity. The Defendant No.2 sold the portion of the Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule Property i.e., property bearing Sy.No.3/5 an extent of 0-35 guntas out of total extent of 01 Acre 31 Guntas situated to one Srinivas Reddy. Thereafter, the portion of the land in Sy.No.3/5 was mutated in favour of Late Srinivas Reddy and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. He formed the residential sites in the Suit Property and sold to various persons. Later Srinivas Reddy sold Sites No.4 & 4A out of Sy.No.3/5, Municipal Council Khatha No.3/5-4 measuring 39 X 29 feet by registered Sale Deed dtd: 17.2.2005.
Subsequently, the Defendant No.10 had gifted the site bearing No.4 measuring 39 X 29 feet to Defendant 50 OS.No.26405/2012 No.12. The Defendant No.11 & 13 are in possession and enjoyment of the aforementioned Site No.4 & 4A. The Form-B Extract dtd: 30.10.2009 issued in favour of Defendant No.10 and the Form-B Extract in favour of the Defendant No.12 dtd: 24.11.2014 and these Defendants are shown as owners of the Suit Property. The Suit Schedule Properties are the absolute properties of Defendant No.2 and in turn he sold the portion of the Suit Schedule Property to one Srinivas Reddy and he formed residential sites and further sold to these Defendants and they are in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property etc.
12. The Defendant No.26 & 27 have filed their separate written statement and denied most of the plaint averments and contended that the Defendant No.26 is the absolute owner of Site No.24 formed in Sy.No.3/5 having purchased the same from Defendant No.25 under the registered Sale Deed dtd:
17.8.2011. The Defendant No.26 is in possession and enjoyment of the Site No.24.
13. Similarly the Defendant No.27 is the absolute owner of Site No.25 having purchased the 51 OS.No.26405/2012 same from Defendant No.25 under the registered Sale Deed dtd: 17.8.2011. These Defendants further contended that Defendant No.26's vendor Jaya Bai has in turn purchased the Site No.24 & 25 by virtue of the Sale Deed dtd: 27.1.2005 from one N. Srinivasa Reddy. Further contended that the Plaintiffs are very well aware of the Defendant No.1 to 3 have sold the Sy.No.3/5 in favour of Srinivas Reddy i.e., Defendant No.4 in the year 2004, as such the Plaintiffs have kept quite all these days and the Plaintiffs have filed the above suit only to extract money from the innocent purchasers. Therefore, the Defendant No.26 and 27 also sought for dismissal of the suit with exemplary cost.
14. The Defendant No.29 filed written statement and while denying the averments made in the plaint contended that he has put up RCC roofed residential construction in site bearing No.26, City Municipal Council Katha No.3/5-26, measuring East to West 40 Feet and North to South 30 Feet, formed in Sy.No.3/5 of Munnekolalu Village, Manjunatha Layout, 1 st Cross, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk i.e., the Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule Property, within the 52 OS.No.26405/2012 knowledge of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 and the Plaintiffs knowing fully aware of these transactions, in collusion with the Defendant No.1 to 3 by suppressing the material facts have filed the above suit on false and frivolous grounds, with a sole intention to mislead this Court and make wrongful gains and to harass this Defendant. Further contended that the Plaintiffs have valued the Suit Schedule Property under Section 35(2) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, as the Defendant No.1 to 3 have sold several portions of the Suit Schedule Properties and the purchasers are in possession and enjoyment of the same and the Plaintiffs are not in possession of the same, they are liable to pay the Court Fee on the market value of the Suit Schedule Properties under Section 35(1) of the Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The Plaintiffs are not at all in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Properties and they never questioned about the development of the Suit Schedule Properties by the purchasers by putting up residential constructions, which clearly establishes that the Plaintiffs have filed the above suit at this juncture with a sole intention to make wrongful gains and to extract ransom from the 53 OS.No.26405/2012 Defendant Therefore, the Defendant No.29 also sought for dismissal of the suit with heavy cost.
15. The Defendant No.42 in his written statement denied the joint possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Properties by the Plaintiffs and they denied their right over the Suit Schedule Properties. It is stated that one Muniswamy Reddy is the prepositious of the family and he got married one Yellamma and out of their wedlock, they blessed with two children by name Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy and Nanjareddy @ Papaiah Reddy. It is contended that this Defendant is the daughter-in-law of the Nanja Reddy and wife of M.P. Narayan Reddy who is the son of Nanjareddy. Further it is contended that on 18.12.2001 Nanja Reddy passed away and his wife Gowramma died on 6.10.2002 leaving behind their legal representatives one Rukkamma and Narayana Reddy. The Plaintiffs knowing fully well regarding the relationship of Muniswamy Reddy and Nanja Reddy who were the brothers to knock off some of the Suit Schedule Properties the Plaintiffs have disclosed the name of Muniswamy Reddy only in the genealogical tree and ignored the Nanja Reddy family 54 OS.No.26405/2012 and falsely stated in the plaint that Nanja Reddy do not have any issues and in fact the husband of this Defendant and Smt. Rukkamma who are the Lrs of Nanjareddy were intentionally ignored by the Plaintiff by giving the false genealogical tree.
16. Further it is contended that by Defendant No.42 that the father-in-law of the Defendant No.42 Nanjareddy and his brother Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy have mortgaged the Schedule Property to Munnekolala Co-Operative Society for the purpose of obtaining loan and later on they were unable to pay the loan within the stipulated time. Therefore, the entire Schedule Property was brought in for auction to recover the loan and at that time one Chinna Annaiah @ Arasappa was the auction purchaser and he purchased all the Suit Schedule Properties and got the title by way of Sale Deed dtd:8.5.1947 executed by the said society and for the said Sale Deed late Nanja Reddy and Late Muniswamy Reddy the father of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 have attested their signatures. Thus Chinna Annaiah has become the absolute owner of all the Schedule Properties. Once the property is 55 OS.No.26405/2012 purchased in public auction the joint family properties does not arise and the same are the self-acquired properties of Chinna Annaiah. The Defendant No.41 G. Jayarama Reddy is the own brother of the Defendant No.42 has purchased Suit Item No.2 and 5 from one Chinna Annaiah for a valuable consideration of Rs.4,000/- under the Sale Deed dtd: 13.7.1979 and got all the revenue entries in his name as absolute owner of the said properties. Sri. Jayarama Reddy on 6.6.1996 executed the registered General Power of Attorney. In favour of the Defendant No.42 in respect of Item No.2 of the property and on the strength of the General Power of Attorney, the Defendant No.42 sold Item No.2 of the Schedule Property in favour of bonafide purchasers. The said sale transaction was consented by Defendant No.1 to 3 as witnesses to avoid future litigations. Therefore, the question of partition after 16 years of alienation of the property does not arise in so far as Item No.2 of the Schedule Property is concerned.
17. Further contended that the suit of the Plaintiffs is not maintainable since the LRs of Nanja Reddy have not been arrayed as parties to the above 56 OS.No.26405/2012 proceedings. It is contended that the Defendant No.43-89, 91-97, 99-110, 113-124, 126-134, 136-142 are the bonafide purchasers of the sites formed in Item No.2 of the Schedule Property the Plaintiffs have played fraud before this Court by giving false submission. Therefore, the Defendant No.42 sought for dismissal of the suit with exemplary cost.
18. The Defendant No.148 to 150 in their written statement contended that the suit is not maintainable for non-mentioning of other ancestral properties and also non-joinder of necessary parties. It is contended by the Defendant No.148 to 150 that they are the children of Late Smt. Krishnamma W/o Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy. The Plaintiffs have filed the above suit with oblique motive without mentioning the names of Defendant No.148 to 150. The Suit Schedule Properties are the ancestral properties of Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy and Late Nanja Reddy @ Papaiah Reddy which were all inherited through one Muniswamy Reddy the father-in-law of Defendant No.147 and grand-father of Defendant No.148 to 150. According to these Defendants, Late Muniswamy Reddy during his lifetime had three wives namely 57 OS.No.26405/2012 first wife Doddathayamma @ Eramma died issueless, Muniyamma died leaving behind her Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 and third wife Late Krishnamma died leaving behind her Defendant No.148 to 150, hence, the children have got equal share in the ancestral properties of Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy.
19. Further contended Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy and his brother Late Nanjareddy @ Papaiah during their lifetime mortgaged all the Suit Schedule Properties to Munnekollalu Co-Operative Society for the purpose of obtaining loan and later on they were unable to repay the loan amount to the said Co-Operative Society and the said Co-Operative Society auctioned all the Suit Schedule Properties and one Chinnannaiah @ Arasappa was the successful auction bidder and got all the relevant documents transferred on his name on 8.5.1947. Late Muniswamy Reddy @ Anniah Reddy died and the first wife Smt. Dodda Thayamma @ Eramma filed LRV No.3731/76-77 against the Chinnannaiah @ Arasappa on behalf of her and on behalf of the joint family to grant occupational rights in respect of the 58 OS.No.26405/2012 Suit Schedule Properties before the Land Tribunal against Chinnannaiah @ Arasappa, as things stood Late Nanjareddy @ Papaiah paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- to said Chinnannaiah @ Arasappa towards his part of the share and sold the Suit Schedule Properties Item No.2 & 5 in favour of Defendant No.41 namely G. Jayaram Reddy by virtue of registered Sale Deed dtd:
13.7.1979 and Item No.2 was already alienated by the Defendant No.41 represented by his GPA Holder Defendant No.42 even before the year 2004 and the Defendant No.1 to 3 have also affixed their signatures on all the Sale Deeds which were executed in favour of the bonafide purchasers, which transaction is also within the knowledge of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.2 along with the Defendant No. 1 & 3 retained 5000 square feet land in portion of Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule Properties to be used as a Burial Ground for their family members and remaining portion of the Suit Schedule Item No.1 have been sold in the year 2005 itself by the Defendant No.1 to 3 by creating false genealogical tree to the bonafide purchasers which is also within the knowledge of the Plaintiffs and made heavy profits and invested the same by purchasing the properties and put up 59 OS.No.26405/2012 palatial building and earning lakhs of rupees every month as rentals, which items are not included in the present suit and these Defendants were deprived of their legitimate share. Therefore, the Defendant No.148 to 150 sought for decree allotting their legitimate share in the ancestral property.
20. The Defendant No.151(a) and (b) in their written statement also contended that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and contended that they are the sons of Defendant No.151 Narayana Reddy and Defendant No.42 Smt. G. Savithramma and they were living with their grandfather and grandmother namely Nanja Reddy @ Papaiah Reddy and Gowramma in Munekolalu Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, and they were cultivating the suit Item No.2 and 5 from their childhood and later on, on 8.1.2001 their grand-father expired and grand- mother on 6.10.2002. The Defendant No.151 also died due to health issues on 12.8.2019. These Defendants also narrated in detail about the mortgage of the properties by Muniswamy Reddy and his brother Nanja Reddy with Munnekolala Co- Operative Society and the said Society was brought 60 OS.No.26405/2012 the entire Suit Schedule Property for auction sale to recover the loan amount. At the relevant point of time one Chinna Annaiah @ Arasappa was the auction purchaser and he purchased all the Suit Schedule Properties and got all the title by way of Sale Deed dtd: 8.5.1945 executed by the said Society and for the said Sale Deed late Nanja Reddy and late Muniswamy Reddy have attested the signature to the said transaction. Thus Chinna Annaiah has became the absolute owner of all the Suit Schedule Properties. It is stated that once the auction purchaser purchased the property in a public auction made by the Society the Chinna Annaiah become the absolute owner and the question of the joint family properties do not arise and have lost the ownership of the properties and same are the self-acquired properties of Chinna Annaiah @ Arasappa. Further it is conteded that Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy and his brother Nanja Reddy @ Papaiah Reddy with the help of well- wishers and elders of the village compromised the matter to pay Rs.8,000/- Chinna Annaiah @ Arasappa and returned back their properties but later Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy failed to pay his share of sum of Rs.4,000/- as his share and his 61 OS.No.26405/2012 brother namely Nanjareddy @ Papaiah paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- as his share and a registered Sale Deed was executed by Chinna Annaiah @ Arasappa in favour of G. Jayarama Reddy i.e., the Defendant No.41, as per the advise of Nanjareddy @ Papaiah Reddy he has also attested his signature to the Sale Deed dtd: 13.9.1979 and the Defendant No.41 i.e., G. Jayarama Reddy the owner brother of Defendant No.42 has purchased the suit Item No.2 & 5 from one Chinna Annaiah for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.4,000/- and got registered the Sale Deed dtd:
13.9.1979 itself and after the registration all the revenue records transferred in the name of Defendant No.41 and 42 along with her family members and were cultivating in peaceful, lawful, physical possession and enjoyment of the Item No.2 and 5.
Subsequently, on 6.6.1996 G. Jayarama Reddy executed registered GPA in favour of Defendant No.42 in respect of Item No.2 of the Suit Schedule Properties. The said transaction is well within the knowledge of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 and they with an intention to harass the bonafide purchasers and to extract money have filed this suit. Further it is contended that the suit Item No.2 was alienated 62 OS.No.26405/2012 before 2004 itself under the registered Sale Deeds in favour of the purchasers and therefore the Plaintiffs have no manner of right, title and interest over the Schedule Property. Similarly, Nanja reddy who was the uncle of Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 and grand-father of the Defendant No.151(a) and (b) who sold said items in favour of Defendant No.41 in the year 1979.
21. The Defendant No.151(a) and (b) also raised counter claim wherein it is prayed for declaration declaring the document made in favour of Defendant No.2 relates to Suit Item No.2 and 5 are created, fraudulent one and the same is the result of coercion and fraud played by the 2nd Defendant and the same is against to the law and there for the documents made in favour of Defendant No.2 related to suit Item No.2 and 5 does not get any right, title, interest over all the Suit Schedule Properties. Further prayed to direct partition of the Suit Schedule Properties by metes and bounds and further directing this Defendant to be placed in possession of the suit Item No.5 of the Suit Schedule Properties and also to issue appropriate order and give rights to these Defendants 63 OS.No.26405/2012 and along with the Plaintiffs and Defendant family to perform pooja to the graveyards to their elders, issue a permanent order not alienated the portion of graveyards by Defendant No.1 to 3 nor putting nay construction over the graveyard of their elders who have been buried in portion of Sy.No.3/5 in portion of suit item No.1.
22. The Defendant No.1 to 3 filed counter claim statement under Order 8 Rule 6A of CPC to the written statement of Defendant No.151(a) and (b) to contend that there is no cause of action for the claim of the Defendant No.151(a) and (b) and their claims is hopelessly barred by limitation. The legal representatives have no right to plead fraud as provided under Section 6(e) of the Transfer of Property Act. No relief can be granted to the Defendant No.151(a) and (b) under Article 110 of the Limitation Act. According to Defendant No.1 to 3 the Defendant No.151(a) and (b) and other Defendants are strangers to the family of the Defendants and therefore, they cannot plead what is pleaded by the original parties to the proceedings. The Defendant No.1 to 3 denied the other averments of the written statement of 64 OS.No.26405/2012 Defendant No.151(a) and (b) and sought for dismissal of the counter claim of Defendant No.151(a) and (b).
23. Based on the pleadings of the parties, my leaned predecessor has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that, they and the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 constitute a joint Hindu family?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties under the propositus-ship of Muniswamyreddy @ Annaiahreddy?
3. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that, the occupancy right granted by the Land Tribunal under its Order bearing No. LRF.3731/76-77 dt.12.10.2001, enures to the benefit of all the heirs of Muniswamyreddy @ Annaiahreddy?
4. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that, Sale deeds executed by the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of Defendant No.4, the sale deeds executed by Defendant No.4 in favour of Defendant Nos. 5 to 10, 12 to 18, 20 to 25, 28,30 to 34, 37 65 OS.No.26405/2012 to 40 and sale deeds executed by Defendant No.10 in favour of Defendant No.11, Defendant No.18 in favour of Defendant No.19, Defendant No.25 in favour of Defendant No.26 and 27, Defendant No.34 in favour of Defendant Nos. 35 and 36, in respect of the item No.1 of the suit schedule property are not binding on them, as contended in para No. 9 of the suit plaint?
5. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that, Sale deeds executed by the Defendant No.2 in favour of Defendant Nos.90,145 and 146, the sale deeds executed by Defendant No.42 claiming to be the power of attorney of Defendant No.41 in favour of Defendant Nos. 43 to 89, 91 to 97, 99 to 110, 113 to 124, 126 to 134, 136 to 142, the sale deeds executed by Defendant No.97 in favour of Defendant No.98, Defendant No.110 in favour of Defendant No.111 and 112, Defendant No.124 in favour of Defendant No.125, Defendant No.134 in favour of Defendant Nos.
135, Defendant No.142 in favour of 66 OS.No.26405/2012 Defendant Nos. 143 and 144, in respect of the item No.2 of the suit schedule property are not binding on them, as contended in para No. 10 of the suit plaint?
6. Whether the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3prove that, suit of the Plaintiff is barred by Law of Limitation?
7. Whether the Court fee paid by the plaintiffs is proper?
8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitle for the relief of partition, as claimed by them, in the suit plaint?
9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitle for the relief of injunction, as sought for by them, in the suit plaint?
10. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitle for the relief of mesne profits, as claimed by them in the suit plaint?
11. What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES DTD: 8.3.2019
1. Whether the Defendant Nos. 148 to 150 proves that they are the 67 OS.No.26405/2012 children of Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy born to his 3rd wife Krishnamma as contended in para No.10 of their written statement?
2. Whether the Defendant Nos. 148 to 150 proves that they are entitle to have share in the Suit Schedule Properties as contended by them in para Nos.12 to 14 of their written statement?
3. What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES DTD: 11.4.2023
1. Whether the D151(a) and (b) prove that item No.2 and 5 are purchased by G. Jayarama Reddy from Chinna Annaiah under registered Sale Deed dated :
13.9.1979?
2. Whether the D151(a) and (b) prove that the documents in favour of D2 in respect of Item No.2 and 5 Suit Schedule Properties are fraudulent documents?
3. Whether the D151(a) and (b) are entitled for partition and 68 OS.No.26405/2012 possession of suit Item No.5 of the Suit Schedule Properties as prayed for?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES DTD: 19.9.2023
1. Whether the Defendant No.151(a) and (b) prove that, the documents in favour of 2nd Defendant in respect of Item No.2 and 5 of Suit Schedule Properties are created and fraudulent documents?
2. Whether the Defendant No.151(a) and (b) are entitle for possession of Item No.5 of the Schedule Property?
3. Whether the Defendant No.151(a) and (b) are entitled for a right to perform Pooja to the grave yards existing in Sy.No.3/5, a portion of Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule Property?
24. The 2nd Plaintiff got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked 142 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.142 and closed their side. The 2nd Defendant got himself examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.73 documents and the Power of Attorney holder 69 OS.No.26405/2012 of Defendant No.8 and 9 got examined as DW.2 and got marked Ex.D.75 to 90 and closed their side. The Defendant No.148 got herself examined as DW.3 and got marked Ex.D.91 to 106 and closed their side. The Defendant No.151(a) got examined as DW.4 and got marked Ex.D.107 to Ex.D.127 and Ex.D.151 to 165 closed his side. The General Power of Attorney holder of 29th Defendant got examined as DW.5 and got marked Ex.D.128 to 145 and closed their side.
25. Heard the Counsel for all the parties. The Counsel for Defendant No.8 and 9 also filed written arguments, perused the same.
26. The Counsel for Defendant No.145 to 148filed memo of citations. Equally the Counsel for the Plaintiffs filed memo with citations and Defendant No.1 to 3 also filed memo with citations. Perused the evidence and documents on record.
27. On appreciation of the evidence and documents on record, my findings on the above issues are as under:
70 OS.No.26405/2012Issue No.1: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.3: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.4: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.5: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.6: In the Negative.
Issue No.7: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.8: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.9: In the Affirmative.
Issue No.10: In the Affirmative.
Addl.Issues dtd: 8.3.2019 Addl.Issue No.1: In the Negative.
Addl.Issue No.2: In the Negative.
Addl.Issues dtd: 11.4.2023 Addl.Issue No.1: In the Negative.
Addl.Issue No.2: In the Negative.
Addl.Issue No.3: In the Negative.
Addl.Issue No.4: In the Negative.
Addl.Issues dtd: 19.9.2023 Addl.Issue No.1: In the Negative.
Addl.Issue No.2: In the Negative.71 OS.No.26405/2012
Addl.Issue No.3: In the Negative.
Issue No.11 & Addl.Issue No.3 dtd: 8.3.2019:
As per final order for the following:
REASONS
28. Issue No.1 to 3 :-
These issues are inter-connected with each other, hence, they are taken up together for consideration.
29. The Plaintiffs have filed the present suit against the Defendants for the relief of partition and separate possession of their 1/6th share each in the Suit Schedule Properties and also prayed to declare that the Sale Deeds executed by Defendant No.1 to 3 in favour of Defendant No.4 and the same is executed by the Defendant No.4 in favour of other Defendants are not binding on the Plaintiffs in respect of Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule Properties. Further prayed to declare that the Sale Deed executed by Defendant No.3 in favour of other Defendants and the Sale Deed executed by Defendant No.42 in favour of other 72 OS.No.26405/2012 Defendants etc., are not binding on the Plaintiffs in respect of Item No.2 of the Suit Schedule Properties and for other reliefs.
30. The Plaintiffs have categorically contended in this suit that the Suit Schedule Properties are the joint family properties under the Proprietorship of Late Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy. The Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 have constituted Hindu Joint Family. Further also specifically contended that though the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy right in respect of the Suit Schedule Properties in favour of Defendant No.2 alone, but the said occupancy right granted by the Land Tribunal inures to the benefit of all the heirs of Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy.
31. The Plaintiffs in order to prove the above facts have relied upon the oral evidence of PW.1, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.138 and as well as cross-examination portion of Defendants witnesses etc. There is no dispute with regard to relationship of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3. Further on perusal of oral evidence of DW.1/Defendant No.2 herein it is clear 73 OS.No.26405/2012 that earlier the father of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 was cultivating the Suit Schedule Properties. Further it is also not at all in dispute that the occupancy right was granted in favour of Defendant No.2.
32. It is the specific defense of the Defendant No.1 to 3 is that when the grant was made in the form of occupancy right the Plaintiffs were already married, they were living in their respect husband's house. Moreover, all the Plaintiffs were born prior to 1956, as such they never stood as co-parceners or members of joint family. Even the Defendant No.3 is the last son and he born on 8.5.1957 and all the 03 Plaintiffs are the elders to 3rd Defendant. Therefore, the reliefs claimed by the Plaintiffs is barred by law of limitation.
33. Admittedly, both the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 were much relied upon the Ex.P.1 the order passed by the Land Tribunal dtd:
12.10.2001. Regarding the contention of the Defendant No.1 to 3 is concerned, whether the Plaintiffs were married prior to passing of order by the Land Tribunal or not has to be looked into from the 74 OS.No.26405/2012 evidence of PW.1. PW.1 who is the Plaintiff No.2 in this case has examined as PW.1 and she admitted in her cross-examination that she cannot say the date of her marriage, but her marriage performed about 43 years back from today. Further she admits the suggestion that Plaintiff No.1 got married about 40 years back and Plaintiff No.3 got married about 38 years back. As on the date of her marriage her father Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy was not alive.
Further admits the suggestion that after marriage she has joined the company of her husband and was residing in a separate house in the same village i.e., Munnekolalu Village. Further admits the suggestion that after the marriage of Plaintiff No.1 & 3 they are respectively staying in their matrimonial house. Further admits the suggestion that after the death of her father, their marriages were performed by their step-mother by name Dodda Tayamma and she has no issues and died about 18 years back. PW.1 has given the evidence on 8.1.2019. So by taking into consideration of above admission of PW.1 and date of grant of occupancy right in favour of Defendant No.2 it is clear that as contended by the Defendants at the time of grant of occupancy certificate the Plaintiffs 75 OS.No.26405/2012 were already married and they were living with their respective husband's house.
34. Let me go through the order passed by the Land Tribunal in respect of the Suit Schedule Properties. The Defendant No.2 has filed Form No.7 to grant of occupancy right in respect of the Suit Schedule Properties. Earlier the matter has been went up to Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, but the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal with a direction to pass consider order with 09 months since the claim of the Respondent No.3 has remained undecided for long. On perusal of the order, it is clear that earlier the landlord preferred an appeal in LRA No.127/1987 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. However, the Hon'ble High Court by its order dtd: 19.8.1999 allowed the Writ Petition with a direction to record the additional evidence and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The Defendant No.2 is the son of late Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy and his father is the bonafide agriculturist and was in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Properties. His father passed away in the year 1967 leaving behind 76 OS.No.26405/2012 his 03 sons and 03 daughters as his legal representatives along with his brother Papaiah @ Nanja Reddy. His father continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the lands as a tenant by virtue of Lease Deed entered into between Chinnappa and his father etc. On the other hand, respondent is claiming rights to the lands through his father-in-law Chinnappa and had filed a suit in O.S.No.469/1956 for recovery of rents. Further it is also observed in the said order that considering the evidence elicited during the course of enquiry, the evidence recorded during the earlier proceedings, documents produced on both the sides as well as on the circumstantial evidence, it is held that Claimant/Applicant and his predecessor were tenants and he is entitled for registering as occupants of the land in question and he is eligible for confirmation of occupancy rights in respect of lands in question. Accordingly, the Land Tribunal unanimously resolved the confirmation of occupancy right in respect of Sy.No.3/3 measuring 04 Acres 19 Guntas, Sy.No.3/5 measuring 01 Acre 33 Guntas, Sy.No. 70/4 measuring 26 Guntas and Sy.No.87 measuring 29 Guntas situated at Munnekolala Village and Sy.No.215/2 measuring 01 77 OS.No.26405/2012 Acre 13 Guntas situated at Amani Bellandur Khana Village in favour of Defendant No.2.
35. Admittedly, the above order has not at all been challenged by neither the Respondent of the said appeal or the present Plaintiffs. So, it is clear that the Land Tribunal had granted occupancy right in favour of Defendant No.2 in respect of the Suit Schedule Properties involved in this suit.
36. As discussed above, the Plaintiffs in order to prove the Issue No.1 & 2 have much relied upon Ex.P.1 i.e., the Order of the Land Tribunal. On the other hand, the Defendant No.1 to 3 have contended that occupancy right granted in favour of Defendant No.2 only in his personal capacity, as such the suit properties are not joint family properties and before granting of occupancy right itself the marriage of the Plaintiffs have been performed and they are all leaving along with their respective husband's family.
37. The Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs during the course of arguments submitted that though the occupancy right granted in the name of Defendant No.2, but is for the benefit of entire joint family and 78 OS.No.26405/2012 even the Defendant No.2 himself has admitted the same before the Land Tribunal while giving his evidence before the Land Tribunal. Even the Land Tribunal has also specifically observed in the order that all the family members need not file Form No.7 for registration of occupancy right and it is legal if any one of the tenant's family members can file application for registration of occupancy rights in respect of tenanted land. Accordingly, the Defendant No.2 has filed Form No.7 and the family members can claim their share over the granted land through Civil Court.
38. I have gone through Ex.P.1 i.e., the Order of the Land Tribunal dtd: 12.10.2001. As pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs in his arguments the Land Tribunal has properly observed that the mother of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 died long back, after the death of their mother their step mother Dodda Thayamma @ Eramma herself looking after the children of Muniyamma as her children and in fact after the death of Muniswamy Reddy in the year 1963 their step mother looked after and brought them as her own children till her death 79 OS.No.26405/2012 and thereby her name has been entered in the revenue records. Hence, the lands were exclusive in possession and enjoyment of Defendant No.2 and his family members and thereby the junior uncle and step mother name are entered in the RTC extract. Further also observed that the father of the Defendant No.2 was in possession and enjoyment of the suit lands as a tenant under Chinnannaiah, but in the evidence of Chinnannaiah clearly admitted that the junior uncle of Defendant No.2 and step mother of Plaintiffs and Defendant No.2 are in possession and enjoyment of the tenanted lands. Further the Land Tribunal observed that the lands in question are tenanted lands are leased in favour of father of Defendant No.2 and he was in possession and enjoyment as a tenant and after his death the Defendant No.2 along with his brother and his mother as his legal representative continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the lands as tenants thereof that it is needless to say that all his family members need not file Form No.7 for registration of occupancy rights and it is quite legal and natural and valid that if anyone of the tenant family members can file an application in Form No.7 for registration of occupancy rights in respect of the 80 OS.No.26405/2012 tenanted lands. Accordingly, the Defendant No.2 being the second son of Muniswamy Reddy has filed the Form No.7. Further also clearly observed that as on 29.5.2001, the land in question are all tenanted lands and became vested with the Government and thereby the applicant/the Defendant No.2 is entitled for registration of occupancy rights and accordingly the Land Tribunal has to confer the occupancy rights in his favour in respect of the lands in question. So from the above observation in Ex.P.1 it is clear that though the Defendant No.2 alone filed Form No.7 it is for the benefit of all the heirs of Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy.
39. The Defendant No.1 to 3 have much relied upon some of the civil litigations were going on since 1959 to 1981 and according to said litigations the possession of the suit property has been ordered to be given to the owner of the land by filing Execution Petition and thereafter the Defendant No.2 alone started the cultivating the land as a tenant and thereafter occupancy rights has been granted in his favour. Therefore, he himself alone is entitled for Suit Schedule Properties etc. However, the Land Tribunal 81 OS.No.26405/2012 has clearly observed in Ex.P.1 itself that the civil litigations were going on since 1959 to 1981, but the Defendant No.2 had already filed Form No.7 long back as on 1.3.1976 and the proceedings were going on. Further, the spot inspection held by the previous Land Tribunal and the present Land Tribunal clearly established the fact that Muniswamy Reddy was cultivating the lands in question and subsequently by his legal heirs. In such an event, it has to be presumed that the lands in question were tenanted lands and particularly as on 1.3.1974 the date on which the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 came into force the land was under the tenancy and the lands were under cultivation of the family of Muniswamy Reddy. Therefore, the claim of the Defendant No.2 has to be considered. So on perusal of the above observation itself, it is clear that the Defendant No.2 himself has clearly admitted before the Land Tribunal that the family of Late Muniswamy Reddy were tenant of the Suit Properties and they were cultivating the suit lands as tenants. Further in Page-29 of the said order itself it is clearly observed by the Land Tribunal that the instant proceedings are if at all the other members of family claims their 82 OS.No.26405/2012 share they could get it settled through the Civil Court. Accordingly the Plaintiffs now come before the Court for the relief of partition.
40. The Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1 to 3 during the course of arguments submitted that according to Ex.P.1 the order of the Land Tribunal dtd:
12.10.2001, the occupancy right has been confirmed in favour of Defendant No.2 alone basing upon the application submitted before the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights. The Plaintiffs are none other than the married daughters who are married prior to death of Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy. There being the joint family on the basis of Plaint averments, but the lands granted in favour of Defendant No.2. According to Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act also they are not entitled for any share over the Suit Schedule Properties, as the father of Plaintiffs and Defendant died intestate and succession has to take place when the property left by deceased falls under Section 2 of Section 6 of the Mysore Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, if that is taken into consideration, the Plaintiffs are not entitled for any share over the Suit Schedule 83 OS.No.26405/2012 Properties. The Suit Schedule Properties are not the independent properties of the deceased, but the occupancy right has been granted in favour of Defendant No.2 by way of his cultivation. If at all the Suit Schedule Properties were separate properties of deceased only the Plaintiffs can got shares over the suit properties. In support of his arguments he has relied upon the decisions reported in ILR 1993 KAR 755 and AIR 2016 SC 352.
41. I have gone through the principles of the above decisions. Admittedly, the principles of the above decisions are not attracted to the case on hand.
42. It is the argument of the Learned Counsel for the for the Plaintiffs herein is that the Plaintiffs though they are not co-parceners, but members of the Hindu Undivided Family can claim partition in the Suit Schedule Properties. The Defendant No.2 though he has filed Form No.7 alone, but he categorically stated before the Land Tribunal that he is the legal heir of deceased Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy who is the legal heirs of original tenant, though Muniswamy Reddy was died in the year 1967, after his death the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 were 84 OS.No.26405/2012 cultivating the Suit Schedule Properties. The documents placed before the Land Tribunal itself will clearly goes to show that the Defendant No.2 was claiming their right under his father Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy. There is no dispute that the father was tenant of the Suit Properties, naturally after the death of father, the Defendant No.2 representing the joint family has filed Form No.7. Further argued that the Suit Schedule Properties cannot be the exclusive properties of the Defendants as the Defendant No.1 to 3 being the successor are entitled for equal share in the Suit Schedule Properties under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. Further argued that the Defendant No.1 to 3 have relied on the case of Nimbavva & Others V/s Channaveerayya & Others, but in a subsequent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in N. Padmamma & Others V/s Ramakrishna Reddy & Others which is reported in (2015) 1 SCC 417 Nimbavva case is unacceptable. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are entitled for equal share that of the Defendant No.1 to 3 in the Suit Schedule Properties. In support of this argument he has relied 85 OS.No.26405/2012 upon the decision reported in CDJ 2023 KAR HC 960 and unreported decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.1208 of 2021 Smt. Lakshmamma V/s Smt. Shanthamma and Another.
43. In the first decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka it is held that according to decision reported in (2015) 1 SC 417 Nimbavva case is unacceptable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. Further held that the Suit Properties were originally standing in the name of propositus and on his death the Defendant No.1 filed application seeking occupancy right in respect of the Suit Properties and therefore, the Suit Properties cannot be exclusive properties of Defendant No.1, but it has to be held that it was the property of the father of the Plaintiff & Defendant No.1 & 2 and the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 & 2 are being successors are entitle for equal share in the Suit Schedule Properties under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act.
44. Further in the second decision relied by the counsel for the Plaintiffs also the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka again relied upon the Padmamma case 86 OS.No.26405/2012 and held that there is provision in the Land Reforms Act 1961 cannot be pressed into service to negate the claim of the parties. There is no provision in the Act of 1961 which prescribes the line of succession to such granted land. Further in view of the omission of Sub- Section (2) and Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 the property of an intestate has to devolve upon the surviving legal heirs in accordance with the Act of 1956 and not as per the provisions of the Act of 1961.
45. In response to the above arguments, the counsel for the Defendant No.1 to 3 argued that the Plaintiffs who are the daughters and they cannot constitute as members of the joint family, according to Section 2,l 12 & 17 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Admittedly, the original propositus died in the year 1967 and after his death only the Defendant No.1 to 3 who are the male members of deceased and out of them Defendant No.2 filed Form No.7. Therefore, the occupancy right granted in favour of Defendant No.2 cannot be said it is for the benefit of entire joint family. Further argued that the above referred 02 decisions by the counsel for the Plaintiffs were given by the single bench of Hon'ble High Court 87 OS.No.26405/2012 of Karnataka and Nimbavva case judgment has been given by the division bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Moreover, in N. Padmamma & Others V/s S. Ramakrishna Reddy & Others case, the proposition involved in respect of Inam Land and Inam Abolition and occupancy rights. In the Nimbavva case the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has clearly held that unmarried daughters are not entitled to claim partition in the tenanted land within the definition of 'family' when a married daughter is excluded under the definition of 'family' under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. At this stage, I have gone through the provision of Section 2(A)(12) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act:
12. "family" means,--
(a) in the case of an individual who has a spouse or spouses, such individual, the spouse or spouses and their minor sons and unmarried daughters, if any;
(b) in the case of an individual who has no spouse, such individual and his or her minor sons and unmarried daughters;
(c) in the case of an individual who is a divorced person and who has not remarried, such individual and his minor 88 OS.No.26405/2012 sons and unmarried daughters, whether in his custody or not; and
(d) where an individual and his or her spouse are both dead, their minor sons and unmarried daughters;]
46. Further in the Nimbavva case the division bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that daughter who sought for partition and separate possession are married or not entitled to claim partition in the tenanted land within the definition of 'family'. Here in this case also the Plaintiffs were the unmarried daughters and after their marriage only in the year 2001 the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy right in favour of Defendant No.2. Therefore, under the definition of family as the married daughters are excluded under the definition of family under the Land Reforms Act. However, as discussed above according to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2015 (1) SCC 417 i.e., N. Padmamma case, Nimbavva Case of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka is unacceptable. The application filed for grant of occupancy right not far and on behalf of the family by the Defendant No.2, but the Land Tribunal 89 OS.No.26405/2012 granted the occupancy right in favour of not only applicant/Defendant No.2, but for entire family. However, this Court cannot rely upon the principles of Nimbavva's case in this suit.
47. That apart, there are no materials produced by the Defendant No.1 to 3 to show that after the death of propositus there exists no joint family and occupancy right has been granted in favour of the Defendant No.2 alone. Further, on perusal of all the materials placed by the Plaintiffs and Defendants it is not clear that before filing of this suit only all the Suit Schedule Properties have been divided among the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3.
48. At this stage, now I have gone through the decisions relied upon by the Plaintiffs in this suit. In the first decision CDJ 2023 KAR HC 960 Ishwar & Others V/s Jattamma & Mastamma Kom Manjappa Naik & Others the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has clearly observed by relying upon the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of N. Padmamma & Others V/s S. Ramakrishna Reddy and others reported in (2015) 1 SCC 417 wherein it is held that:
90 OS.No.26405/2012"The law declared in Nimbavva's case by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka arrived at a conclusion that there is no provision delineating the mode of succession to the lands that are conferred on tenants under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and the only substantive provision that determines succession to such property is Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which is a Central Legislation. Therefore, the reliance placed by the appellants on the judgment in Nimbavva is unacceptable to the present facts and circumstances of the case."
49. Further, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka clearly held in para No.23 of the said judgment that:
"23. In the present case, undisputedly the suit properties were standing in the name of the original propositus and on his death, defendant No.1 filed application seeking occupancy rights in respect of the suit schedule properties and therefore, the suit properties cannot be the exclusive properties of defendant No.1, but it 91 OS.No.26405/2012 has to be held that it was the property of the father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 being the successors are entitled for equal share in the suit schedule properties under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. It is relevant to state that Sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act has been omitted with effect from 09.09.2005 by amended Act 39 of 2005 and the suit is of the year 2011 and thus, the contention of the defendant that in light of Sub-Section 2 of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act would not affect the provisions of any law for the devolution of the tenancy rights is not acceptable."
50. Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka granted share to the married daughters in the granted lands. So here in this case also as observed supra the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy right, in favour of Defendant No.2, but it is for and on behalf of the joint family. Therefore, this Court has to accept the preposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in 92 OS.No.26405/2012 Padmamma's case and as well as Ishwar & Others Case. Therefore, this Court has to accept the contention of the Plaintiffs that according to Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act the Plaintiffs are also considered to be members of joint family.
51. Further in another judgment relied upon by the Plaintiffs to support their claim i.e., RSA No.1208 of 2021 dtd: 10.3.2022 between Smt. Lakshmamma V/s Smt. Shanthamma and another wherein also the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in a suit filed by the married daughters against their brothers for partition of the tenanted land clearly held by referring to Padmamma's case that there is no provision in the Act of 1961 which prescribes the line of succession to such granted land. Further in view of the omission of Sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the property of an intestate has to devolve upon the surviving legal heirs in accordance with the Act of 1956 and not as per the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act of 1961. Further held that the married druthers are entitled for share in the tenanted lands and they are members of family. Such 93 OS.No.26405/2012 being the fact, this Court is of the opinion that the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 have constituted Hindu joint family and Suit Properties are the joint family propertiess under the prepositus of Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy and occupancy rights granted in favour of Defendant No.2 inures to the benefit of all the heirs of Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy.
52. It is the main argument of the learned counsel for the Defendant No.1 to 3 is that even prior to death of Muniswamy Reddy in the year 1961 the joint family was not existed. Even after the death of Muniswamy Reddy also there is no material evidence to establish that their existed a joint family and during the pendency of the Land Reforms proceedings, even after it is the contention that the judgments relied upon by the Plaintiffs are not at all clarified that after the death of father and during the pendency of Land Reforms proceedings and after the grant was made in favour of Defendant No.2 to be adjudicated under Section 48(A) of the said Act and in this regard he has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 2009 SC 1481, 2007 AIR 94 OS.No.26405/2012 SCW 3271, 2012 AIR SCW 893 and also decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in AIR 2008 (NOC)1241 (KAR) and 2001 AIR Kant HCR 2702.
53. I have gone through all the above decisions relied by the counsel for the Defendant No.1 to 3. Admittedly, the principles laid down in the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the Defendant No.1 to 3 were not at all attracted to the case on hand and the contentions of the counsel for the Defendant No.1 to 3, in view of the above recent decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2015 (1) SCC 417.
54. This Court has to rely upon the order of the Land Tribunal and as discussed above, the Land Tribunal in its order clearly held that though the occupancy rights granted in favour of Defendant No.2 alone, but it inures to the benefit of all the members of joint family. Further also clearly observed that the Defendant No.2 himself has admitted before the Land Tribunal that earlier his father was cultivating the Suit Properties and after his death his family members including himself cultivating the Suit Properties as tenants etc. When the Defendant No.2 95 OS.No.26405/2012 himself has admitted before the Land Tribunal and as well as before this Court that the Suit Schedule Properties are not the exclusive properties and himself and grant by Land Tribunal is inure to the benefit of legal heirs of deceased Muniswamy Reddy.
55. Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court also in the above referred Padmamma's case clearly held that grant of such occupancy rights though grant in favour of any one of the member of the family, but it is benefit of the members of the joint family, accordingly, relying upon the said judgment, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the above two judgments held that even married daughters are also entitle for share in the tenanted land. Therefore, there is no substance in the arguments canvassed by the counsel for the Defendant No.1 to 3.
56. Let me go through some of the admission made by DW.1 with regard to rights of the Plaintiffs over the Suit Schedule Properties. DW.1 who is the Defendant No.2 had filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, though contended in his examination-in- chief that the Plaintiffs were married daughters and they born prior to 1956, as such they are not entitled 96 OS.No.26405/2012 for any share over the Suit Schedule Properties etc. But during the course of cross-examination admitted that he has not produced any documents with regard to the age proof of the Plaintiffs. Further also admitted in the cross-examination that the Plaintiff No.1 got married in the year 1964, the Plaintiff No.2 got married in the year 1973 and Plaintiff No.3 got married in the year 1985. Further admits the suggestion that the Plaintiffs until their respective marriage they were residing with them in the joint family. Further, admitted the suggestion that since the possession of the Suit Schedule Properties with Dodda Tayamma @ Eramma and Nanja Reddy, after the compromise entered in OS.No.220/1959 and according to the said compromise Dodda Tayamma and Nanja Reddy have to pay Rs.8,000/- to Chinnanaiah, but they failed to pay the said amount, as such Chinnanaiah had filed Execution Petition No.417/1980. Further also admits the suggestion that in the said Execution Petition delivery warrant was issued against Dodda Tayamma and Nanja Reddy. However, he specifically denied that in the said Execution petition the possession has been handed over to the Chinnanaiah. On the other hand, 97 OS.No.26405/2012 specifically stated that he has not given possession of any land to anybody. Further admits the suggestion that he has deposed before the Land Tribunal as per Ex.P.139 and in the said deposition he clearly admitted that his father was cultivating the suit lands on the basis of Agreement dtd: 15.11.1949 and his father had paid Agreement price of Rs.190/- to the owners. Further also admitted that he has deposed before the Land Tribunal that he himself and his brothers were jointly cultivating the suit lands. Further also admits the suggestion that name of his aunt was appeared in the cultivator's column of the property extract of Sy.No.3/5 of Munnekolalu Village. Further also admits the suggestion that name of aunt appears in cultivator's column of the property extract of Sy.No.87 of Munnekolalu Village. Further admits the suggestion that he has deposed before the Land Tribunal that applicants before it are the children of 2nd wife of his father. Further admits the suggestion that he has not taken the said land, he was cultivating the said land on the basis of succession.
57. From clear reading of above admission of DW.1 also it is clear that the Plaintiffs were residing 98 OS.No.26405/2012 in the joint family until their respective marriages. Even though in Execution proceedings taken place between in Ex.P.No.417/1980, possession warrant has been issued against Dodda Tayamma and Nanja Reddy for taking possession of the Suit Schedule Properties, but subsequent to the above transaction also the family of the Plaintiffs are cultivating the Suit Schedule Properties as per the order of the Land Tribunal. Accordingly, the Land Tribunal after considering the application and also after considering the oral and documentary evidence of the parties and also considering actual circumstances of this said proceedings has granted occupancy rights in favour of the Defendant No.2 to inure to the benefit of members of all the joint family.
58. Further according to the discussions referred above and also in view of the recent decisions CDJ 2023 KAR HC 960 Ishwar & Others V/s Jattamma & Mastamma Kom Manjappa Naik & Others and RSA No.1208 of 2021 dtd: 10.3.2022 between Smt. Lakshmamma V/s Smt. Shanthamma and another and also in view of the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in N. Padmamma & 99 OS.No.26405/2012 Others V/s S. Ramakrishna Reddy and others reported in (2015) 1 SCC 417 this Court is of the opinion that the Plaintiffs are being the daughters are entitle for partition and separate possession under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and though they are married daughters are constituted in a joint family and accordingly the occupancy rights granted by the Land Tribunal dtd: 12.10.2001 inures to the benefit of all the heirs of Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy. Accordingly, Issue No.1 to 3 are answered in the Affirmative.
59. Issue No.4 & 5:-
It is the specific contention of the Plaintiffs in this suit that the Defendant No.1 to 3 have no right to alienate the Suit Schedule Properties alone without the consent and knowledge of the Plaintiffs as they are having equal right that of the Defendant No.1 to 3 over the Suit Schedule Properties. However, in order to deprive their right over the Suit Schedule Properties the Defendant No.1 to 3 have illegally sold the portion of Item No.1 of Suit Schedule Properties to an extent of 33 Guntas in favour of Defendant No.4 by registered 100 OS.No.26405/2012 Sale Deed dtd: 9.2.2005. The Defendant No.4 in turn executed Sale Deeds in favour of Defendant Nos. 5 to 10, 12 to 18, 20 to 25, 28, 30 to 34, 37 to 40 by forming sites. Even the Defendant No.10 in turn sold the same to Defendant No.11, Defendant No.18 sold the same to Defendant No.19, Defendant No.25 in favour of Defendant No.26 and 27, Defendant No.34 in favour of Defendant Nos. 35 and 36, all these Sale Deeds have not at all binding on the share of the Plaintiffs over the Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule Properties. Further also specifically contended in this suit that the Defendant No.1 to 3 to make wrongful gain themselves by depriving their legitimate right over the suit properties in collusion with Defendant No.41 & 42 executed Sale Deeds in favour of third parties in respect of Item No.2 of the Suit Schedule Properties and they signed as consenting witness to the said Sale Deeds. In order to show that the Defendants have illegally executed the Sale Deed is concerned the Plaintiffs/PW.1 has produced so many Sale Deeds.
60. Admittedly, the Plaintiffs have produced many number of registered Sale Deeds to 101 OS.No.26405/2012 substantiate the contentions taken by them in this suit. During the course of cross-examination it is suggested to PW.1 that Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule Properties is the self-acquired property of the Defendant No.2, the Plaintiffs are not having any right over it. However, PW.1 has specifically denied the said suggestion. Further also suggested to this witness that already Item No.1 of Suit Schedule Properties is alienated to 138 purchasers by way of 138 separate Sale Deeds and respective purchasers are in possession of their respective properties, no property is available for partition. However, she deposed that she is not aware whether all the sites formed in Item No.1 & 2 of the Suit Schedule Properties are alienated prior to 2002. Further also admitted the suggestion that portion of Item No.1 & 2 is still vacant land and in the remaining portion buildings have been constructed and residential locality has been made. Further it is suggested to this witness that Defendant No.2 has sold an area of 35 guntas of Suit Schedule Properties Item No.1 totally measuring to 01 Acre 32 Guntas to the Defendant No.4 by virtue of registered Sale Deed dtd: 7.2.2004 and on the basis of said Sale Deed name of 102 OS.No.26405/2012 Defendant No.4 came to be mutated in the revenue records pertaining to the purchaser portion out of Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule Properties.
61. The Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1 to 3 and the counsel for Defendant No.8 to 13, 26, 27, 29, 151(a) & (b) have specifically contended in their arguments that the Defendants have alienated some portion of the Suit Schedule Properties prior to 20.12.2004, as such the Plaintiffs who are the daughters cannot claim share over the Suit Schedule Properties. Even the amended Hindu Succession Act and as well as in the decision reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717 Vineeta Sharma V/s Rakesh Sharma & Others it is held that if the properties have been already alienated prior to 20.12.2004, those sales have been protected under the provisions of Sec.6 of Amended Hindu Succession Act 2005.
62. I have gone through the above decision wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the ambit of Sec.6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by Hindu Succession (amendment) Act 2005 was pleased to observe as follows:
103 OS.No.26405/2012"(i) The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities.
(ii) The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9.9.2005 with savings as provided in section6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th day of December, 2004.
(iii) xxxxxx
(iv) xxxxxx
(v) xxxxxx."
63. Further, it is necessary to refer another ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.350/2015 dtd.28.02.2020 also wherein the Hon'ble High Court while referring to several rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus:
25. Having regard to the exposition of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench in the matters stated supra and on application of said ratio to the present case, wherein the fifth defendant has purchased the suit schedule property prior to 20th December, 2004 and as such, the alienation is made 104 OS.No.26405/2012 on 26th November, 2004 by the defendant No.1 to 4 herein in favour of defendant No.5 is valid and as such, the said registered deed dated 26th November, 2004 is saved under the proviso to amended Section 6 of the Act and in view of the same, the Trial Court having consciously dealt with the law relating to proviso to Section 6 of the Act, has rightly negatived the issue No.2.
64. Admittedly, according to above decisions and also the documents produced by the Plaintiffs and Defendants reveals that some portion of Suit Schedule 'A' & 'B' Properties have been alienated by the Defendants prior to December 20 th 2004. Whether the alienation made prior to 20.12.2004 are protected under Sec. 6 of Hindu Succession Act or not has to be looked with the facts and circumstances of this case.
65. The Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs during the course of arguments further submitted that the Defendants cannot take advantage of amended Hindu Succession Act 2005 or the decision of the Vineeta Sharma V/s Rakesh Sharma & Others Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, because the Suit Schedule Properties have been granted to the 105 OS.No.26405/2012 family of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 only in the year 2001 and what are the alleged alienation said to have been made are not at all binding on the shares of the Plaintiffs over the Suit Schedule Properties. Moreover, according to Section 61 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, within 15 years from the date of grant, the Defendant No.1 to 3 did not have any right to alienate the Suit Schedule Properties to anybody. Therefore, what are the alleged alienations said to have been made by the Defendant No.1 to 3 within 15 years from the date of grant of Suit Schedule Properties is void. The alleged transactions made by the Defendant No.1 to 3 in respect of Sl.No.1 & 2 of the Suit Schedule Properties and other properties are not at all binding upon the shares of the Plaintiffs of the Suit Properties. In support of his arguments he hash relied upon the decision reported in RSA No.2221/2005 dtd:
12.3.2020 between Late Laxman Lakkappa Durgannavar Since Deceased by his Lrs., V/s Late Donkappa Fakirappa Duragannavar & Others wherein it is held that:
7. Before, I answer the second substantial question of law, it would 106 OS.No.26405/2012 be necessary to refer to Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 which reads as under:
61. Restriction of transfer of land of which tenant has become occupant - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, no land of which the occupancy has been granted to any person under this chapter shall within fifteen years from the date of the final order, passed by the Tribunal under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) or sub-
section (5-A) of section 48-A be transferred by sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or assignment; but the land may be partitioned among members of the holder's joint family.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), it shall be lawful for the occupant registered as such or his successor-in-title to take a loan and mortgage or create a charge on his interest in the land in favour of the State Government (a financial institution, a co-operative land development bank, a co- operative society) or a company as defined in 107 OS.No.26405/2012 Section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 in which not less than fifty one per cent of the paid up share capital is held by the State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or the State Government or by both for development of land or improvement of agricultural practices; and without prejudice to any other remedy provided by any law, in the event of his making default in payment of such loan in accordance with the terms and conditions on which such loan was granted, it shall be lawful to cause his interest in the land to be attached and sold and the proceeds to be utilized in the payment of such loan.
(3) Any transfer or partition of land in contravention of sub-section (1) shall be invalid and such land shall vest in the State Government free from all encumbrances and shall be disposed in accordance with the provisions of Section 77."
The Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 creates an embargo on transfer 108 OS.No.26405/2012 of land within 15 years from the date of the order of Land Tribunal.
The language used in Section 61 of the Act would also disclose that the legislature has imposed a restriction on transfer of land. Erstwhile tenant, who has become occupant of land, is prohibited from selling land within 15 years from the date of final order passed by the Tribunal. Sale made in contravention of prohibition being invalid, would invite the State Government to resume the land free from all encumbrances, for granting same to other landless persons eligible for occupancy.
66. Here in this case also the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy right in favour of the family of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 as per Ex.P.1 on 12.10.2001. Only after granting of the occupancy right by the Land Tribunal only the Plaintiffs and Defendants have got actual right over the Suit Schedule Properties. As aforesaid, so many Sale Deeds have been taken place in respect of Item No.1 & 2 of Suit Schedule Properties, even prior to grant of 109 OS.No.26405/2012 these lands and within 15 years from the date of order of the Land Tribunal by virtue of the earlier Sale Deeds executed by the Defendant No.1 to 3 in favour of other Defendants. Therefore, according to above decision and as well as provision of Section 61 of Land Reforms Act it is clear that the legislature have imposed restriction of transfer of land within 15 years from the date of grant and the Defendant No.1 to 3 prohibited from selling land within 15 years and those Sale Deeds and some of the confirmation of Sale Deeds executed by these Defendant No.1 to 3 are in contravention of prohibition being invalid would invite the Government to resume the land free from all encumbrances for granting land to other landless persons eligible for occupancy. Therefore, what are the contentions taken by some of the Defendants in this suit that they are having possession and enjoyment of the some portion of the Suit Schedule Properties and they are enjoying the same by virtue of registered Sale Deeds executed by the Defendant No.1 to 3, as such they become absolute owners of the said land cannot be accepted.
110 OS.No.26405/201267. Here in this case, DW.5 who is the General Power of Attorney holder of Defendant No.29 also claimed some right in the Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule Properties and accordingly he relied Ex.D.129 the Property Extract and as well as Rectification of Deeds as per Ex.D.146 to Ex.D.148 and as well as Ex.D.150 i.e., the certified copy of Sale Deed. However, he admitted in the cross-examination that before purchasing of Site No.26, he does not know whether his father had obtained legal opinion from his lawyer before purchasing the same. Even he does not know the Item No.1 is the ancestral property of Defendant No.1 and others. Even he stated that he does not know whether they have obtained sanction plan for construction of the building and also he does not have any documents to prove the year of construction of the building over the Site No.26 etc.
68. Likewise other Defendants have also independently claiming right over some sites which alleged to have been formed in Item No.1 & 2 of the Suit Schedule Properties.
69. As aforesaid, Ex.D.146 & Ex.D.148 have been taken place within 15 years from the date of 111 OS.No.26405/2012 grant of the Suit Schedule Properties. So, these Sale Deeds and other Sale Deeds are relied upon by some of the Defendants are also hit under Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Defendant No.1 to 3 and other Defendants cannot take advantage of Section 6 of Amended Hindu Succession Act 2005 or the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vineeta Sharma V/s Rakesh Sharma & Others case. Therefore, this Court accepted the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs that what are the alienations were made by the Defendant No.1 to 3 after grant of Item No.1 to 5 of Suit Schedule Properties or before grant of the same are not at all binding upon the share of the Plaintiffs over the Suit Schedule Properties.
70. Though the Plaintiffs specifically contended that the Defendant No.1 to 3 have sold portion of Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule Properties to an extent of 33.9 Guntas to the Defendant No.4 by way of registered Sale Deed. But in this regard, no Sale Deed dtd: 9.2.2005 has been produced. On the other hand, on perusal of remaining Sale Deeds produced by the 112 OS.No.26405/2012 Plaintiffs and also in view of the suggestions of counsel for the Defendant No.1 to 3 to PW.1 that on 7.2.2004 itself the Defendant No.2 has alienated portion of the Suit Schedule Properties is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that some of the Sale Deeds have been taken place prior to coming into force of Amended Hindu Succession Act 2005.
71. Now, I have gone through the Ex.P.141 & Ex.P.142 which were marked and on confrontation and admission during the course of cross-examination made by counsel for the Plaintiffs. Further DW.1 has clearly admitted that they have sold Item No.1 of the Suit Properties by way of Ex.P.141 & Ex.P.142. No doubt, Ex.P.141 Sale Deed had been taken place on 7.12.2004, so much prior to cut off date of 20.12.2004 only the portion of Item No.1 of Suit Properties has been sold by the Defendants by way of Ex.P.141. Ex.P.142 Sale Deed has also been taken place on 9.2.2005 i.e., after the cut off date of 20.12.2004 as stated in the Amended Hindu Succession Act 2005.
72. Regarding the contention of the Plaintiffs that the Sale Deeds executed by Defendant No.2 in 113 OS.No.26405/2012 favour of Defendant No.90, 145 & 146, the Sale Deed executed by Defendant No.42 claiming to be the Power of Attorney holder of Defendant No.41 in favour of other Defendants etc., is concerned they have been appears to be taken place before coming force of amended Hindu Succession Act 2005.
73. It is necessary to refer the latest ruling of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717 (Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and Others) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the ambit of Sec.6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by Hindu Succession (amendment) Act 2005 was pleased to observe as follows:
"(i) The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities.
(ii) The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9.9.2005 with savings as provided in section6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th day of December, 2004.114 OS.No.26405/2012
(iii) xxxxxx
(iv) xxxxxx
(v) xxxxxx."
74. Further, it is necessary to refer another ruling of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.350/2015 dtd. 28.02.2020 wherein the Hon'ble High Court while referring to several rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus:
25. Having regard to the exposition of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the Division Bench in the matters stated supra and on application of said ratio to the present case, wherein the fifth defendant has purchased the suit schedule property prior to 20th December, 2004 and as such, the alienation is made on 26th November, 2004 by the defendant No.1 to 4 herein in favour of defendant No.5 is valid and as such, the said registered deed dated 26th November, 2004 is saved under the proviso to amended Section 6 of the Act and in view of the same, the Trial Court having consciously dealt with the law relating to proviso to Section 6 of the Act, has rightly negatived the issue No.2.
75. In the case on hand admittedly some portion of Item No.1 & 2 of Suit Schedule Properties have been alienated prior to December 20 th 2004, however, 115 OS.No.26405/2012 according to the above referred recent decision of the Hon'bl High Court of Karnataka in RSA No.2221/2005 dtd: 12.3.2020 and also taking into consideration of order passed by the Land Tribunal dtd: 12.10.2001 and so also considering the Section 61 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, what are the alienations made by the Defendant No.1 to 3 in respect of Suit Properties are not at all binding upon the share of the Plaintiffs over the Suit Properties. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.4 & 5 in the Affirmative.
76. Issue No.6:-
The Defendant No.1 to 3 have taken up specific defense in their written statement that suit of the Plaintiffs becomes barred by the provisions of Article 58 and Article 113 of Limitation Act had need to be submitted that right to sue had accrue and once it has started, the right to sue starts running until the period of limitation and it stops when the limitations commences and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation and therefore liable to be dismissed.116 OS.No.26405/2012
77. Admittedly, the Plaintiffs have taken up a contention in their plaint and as well as in oral evidence that even though in respect of Suit Schedule Properties the occupancy right granted in favour of Defendant No.2 alone, but they are in constructive possession over the Suit Schedule Properties along with Defendant No.1 to 3. That apart, it is not the case of the Defendants that already partition had been effected in the joint family. Therefore, the Plaintiffs and Defendants continued to be the members of joint family and till date there is no partition effected in the joint family. That apart, already this Court opines that the Land Tribunal in its order dtd: 12.10.2001 confirmed the occupancy right to the Defendant No.2 on behalf of the joint family. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff on 18.7.2012. So, within 12 years from the date of grant of occupancy rights in favour of Defendant No.2 only the present suit has been filed. Therefore, this Court cannot held that the suit of the Plaintiffs is barred by law of limitation. Moreover, the Defendant No.1 to 3 have failed to prove that how the suit of the Plaintiffs is barred by law of limitation. Hence, I answer Issue No.6 in the Negative.
117 OS.No.26405/201278. Issue No.7:-
The Defendants in their written statement have jointly taken contention that the court fee paid by the Plaintiffs is not proper. However, the Plaintiffs have valued the prayer of suit under Section 7(2) of the Karnataka Court Fee & Suits Valuation Act and paid the court fee as per Section 35(2) of Karnataka Court Fee & Suits Valuation Act and also they have determined the market value on the annual revenue payable to the Government under Section 7(b) of Karnataka Court Fee & Suits Valuation Act and accordingly they have paid court fee of Rs.625/-. Admittedly, now the Suit Properties have been converted into non-agricultural land and residential apartments have been situated therein. Anyhow, the Plaintiffs are still contending that without their knowledge and consent only the Defendant No.1 to 3 have alienated some portion of the Suit Schedule Properties and other properties are still agricultural land. Anyhow, as discussed above, till today no partition has been effected between the members of the joint family by metes and bounds. Even without consent of the Plaintiffs only some of the Suit 118 OS.No.26405/2012 Properties have been converted into non-agricultural land. That apart, as discussed above, even though Defendant No.1 to 3 have alienated some portion of the Suit Properties in favour of other Defendants, without taking consent of the Plaintiffs. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the court fee paid by the Plaintiffs for the relief of partition and separate possession of their 1/6th share each in the Suit Properties and in respect of declaratory relief and as well as relief of permanent injunction is proper and correct. Hence, I answer Issue No.7 in the Affirmative.
79. Addl. Issue No.1 & 2 dtd: 8.3.2019:-
During the pendency of this suit the Defendant No.148 & 150, they themselves impleaded in this suit by filing application under Order 01 Rule 10 of CPC and they claimed to be the children of 3 rd wife of Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy and further they contended that the Suit Schedule Properties are the ancestral properties of Late Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy and he during his lifetime had 03 wives namely first wife Dodda Tayamma @ Eramma who dies issueless, second wife by name 119 OS.No.26405/2012 Muniyamma, who died leaving behind the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 and third wife Late Smt. Krishnamma, who died leaving behind her children as Defendant No.148 to 150. hence, the children of Krishnamma i.e., Defendant No.148 to 150 have got equal share in the ancestral properties of Late Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy along with Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3.
80. In order to substantiate the contentions taken by the Defendant No.142 to 150, out of them Defendant No.148 files her examination-in-chief by way of affidavit and reiterated the contents of written statement filed by her. She specifically contended that herself and her sisters are the legal heirs of Late Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy who are entitle for their legitimate share in the ancestral properties, as they are in joint possession and succeeded to the estate of Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy.
81. In order to prove the contents of their written statement they have relied upon Ex.D.91 to Ex.D.106. Let me go through the documents produced by them. Ex.D.91 is the Affidavit of Krishnamma who is alleged 120 OS.No.26405/2012 to be wife of Late Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy and she has stated in his affidavit that she is the third wife of Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy and Defendant No.148 to 150 are her children born from Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy. Admittedly, in this affidavit the date of affidavit is 24.9.2012, but photograph has been affixed after execution of this document as the photograph has been affixed on the seal of notary. Anyhow, this genealogical tree or family tree is not attested by any revenue officers. Further produced Ex.D.92 which is the Ration Card wherein the name of mother of DW.2 has been mentioned, but name of husband of Krishnamma is not mentioned. Moreover, name of DW.3 is also not found place in this document. There is no explanation from the Defendant No.148 to 150 that why the name of DW.3 or name of Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy not found place in this document. Ex.D.93 is the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP.No.40/368/2001 which is dismissed as not pressed.
82. Admittedly, the Defendant No.148 to 150cannot take advantage of the order passed in 121 OS.No.26405/2012 Ex.D.93, as it was not decided on merits and Ex.P.1 order still holds good as nobody has challenged the said order. Though the Defendant No.148 to 150 are claiming that they are children of deceased Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy and produced Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.196, but as discussed above, those documents are no way helpful to them to prove their contention.
83. Let me go through the cross-examination portion of DW.3 and during the course of cross- examination this witness has clearly admitted that she has no documents to prove the marriage of Krishnamma with Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy. Further admits the suggestion that herself and her sister have no birth certificates. Further clearly admitted that Ex.D.91 got prepared after filing of this suit. Further admits the suggestion that in Ex.D.92 Invitation Card names of Krishnamma, Jayamala and Gangadhar are only found. Further clearly admitted that there are so many Muniswamy Reddy and Annaiah Reddy are in Munnekolalu Village. Further clearly admitted that she does not know who had instituted this suit and against whom 122 OS.No.26405/2012 this suit is filed. Further she also admitted that she does not remember the name of her grand-father and his wife. Further also admitted that she does not know who was the son of first daughter and does not remember all the legal heirs of her grand-father. Even she does not know whether there was partition between her father and uncle.
84. From the above admission and above discussions it is clear that these Defendants have failed to prove that they are the children of deceased Krishnammal and Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy. Even on perusal of further cross of this witness also it is very much clear that she does not know the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka confirming the order of Land Tribunal.
85. The Learned Counsel for the for the Defendant No.148 to 150 during the course of his arguments submitted that though the Defendant No.148 to 150 were not personally cultivating the suit properties at the time of grant, but these Defendants are co-heirs of the suit properties and they are children of third wife of deceased Muniswamy Reddy 123 OS.No.26405/2012 @ Annaiah Reddy, as such they are entitle for equal share in the suit properties along with the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Defendant No.148 to 150 are also to be considered as legal heirs of deceased Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy. In order to prove that they are the legal heirs, they have relied upon the documents and these documents confirms the right of Defendant No.148 to 150 over the suit properties. In support of his arguments he has relied on the following decisions:
1) AIR 1996 SC 2592 in Civil Appeal No.1334 with 1737 of 1995 dtd: 9.8.1996.
2) Civil Appeal No.4258 of 2022 dtd: 28.9.2022.
3) Civil Writ Petition No.4797 of 2013 and 11790 of 2013 with Civil Appeal No.2116 of 2014 dtd:
28.1.2015.
4) The order passed in Writ C No.3000027 of 2011.
5) The order passed in Writ Petition No.18425/2022.
86. I have gone through all the above decisions relied upon by the counsel for the Defendant No.148 124 OS.No.26405/2012 to 150. With great respect to the above decisions, this Court opines that the principles of the above decisions are not attracted to the case of the Defendant No.148 to 150. As discussed above, they have not proved that they are the children of third wife of Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy and Krishnammal is the wife of Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy, when the same is not proved, the question of considering these Defendants are the children of deceased Muniswamy Reddy @ Annaiah Reddy does not arise at all. Hence, I answer this Issue in the Negative.
87. Addl. Issue No.1 to 4 dtd: 11.4.2023:-
These issues are inter-connected with each other, hence, they are taken up together for consideration.
88. The Defendant No.151(a) & 151(b) have taken up contentions in their written statement and as well as in the evidence of DW.4 that Item No.2 & 5 are purchased by G. Jayaram Reddy and Chinna Annaiah under registered Sale Deed dtd: 13.7.1979 and the Defendant No.41 and Defendant No.42 were jointly cultivating the Item No.2 & 5 of the Schedule Properties, as such the documents in favour of 125 OS.No.26405/2012 Defendant No.2 in respect of these properties as claimed by them are fraudulent documents, therefore, they are entitle for partition and possession of suit Item No.5 property. The evidence of DW.4 is on the same line and in support of the said contention DW.4 has produced some documents.
89. Let me go through the documents produced by him in this suit. Ex.D.107 & Ex.D.108 are the Death Certificate of Naraya Reddy and Papaiah Reddy. Ex.D.109 to Ex.D.111 are the Discharge Summary of Narayana Reddy. Ex.D.112 to Ex.D.117 are Tax Paid Receipts, Encumbrance Certificates, RTC, Land Index Records and Mutation register extract in respect of Item No.2 & 5 of the Schedule Properties. Further Ex.D.118 & Ex.D.119 are the order passed in W.P.No.40368/2001 and the memo filed in the said petition. Ex.D.120 & Ex.D.121 are the Death Certificates of Papaiah Reddy and Gowramma. Ex.D.122 and Ex.D.123 are the Adhaar Card and PAN Card of Narayana Reddy. Ex.D.124 is the T.C of Narayana Reddy. Ex.D.125 is the Ration Card and Ex.D.126 & Ex.D.127 are the Identity Card of Power of Attorney standing in the name of Narayana Reddy.
126 OS.No.26405/2012Ex.D.151 to Ex.D.165 are the Sale Deeds, Power of Attorney, Encumbrance Certificate, Record of Rights, Patta Receipt Book, Tax Paid Receipts and Genealogical Tree.
90. This witness has been cross-examined by the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs and during the course of cross-examination he categorically admitted that originally all the Suit Properties are belongs to the family of Papaiah Reddy and Muniswamy Reddy. Further admitted that Chinnappa Reddy acquired the properties in Bank auction. But contended that Papaiah Reddy was in possession of Item No.2 & 5 of the properties with the permission of Chinnappa Reddy. Further stated that he does not know that the Chinnappa Reddy had filed execution for possession of the Suit Properties. Further stated that he does not know about the Defendant No.2 had filed an application before the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy right on behalf of family of Muniswamy Reddy. However, he admitted the suggestion that Chinnappa Reddy had filed W.P.No.40368/2021 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the said Writ Petition was withdrawn by Chinna Annaiah 127 OS.No.26405/2012 Reddy on the ground of compromise. Further also admits the suggestion that the order passed by the Land Tribunal has not been set aside.
91. It is an admitted fact that these Defendants are claiming right over the Suit Item No.2 & 5 Schedule Properties through their grand-father Nanja Reddy. However, the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy right in favour of Defendant No.2 holding that himself and his predecessor were tenants and accordingly, the Defendant No.2 is entitle to be registered as an occupant of lands in respect of Item No.1 to 5 of Suit Schedule Properties. Though as per Ex.D.118 Chinna Annaiah @ Chinnappa Reddy has challened the said order before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, but later he filed memo stating that he is not pressing said petition. So, the order passed by the Land Tribunal has been attained finality, as it has not been set aside. Therefore, these Defendants are not having any right over the Suit Item No.2 & 5 Schedule Properties.
92. Further DW.4 admitted in his cross- examination that revenue records of Suit Item No.2 & 5 Schedule Properties are standing in the name of 128 OS.No.26405/2012 Defendant No.2 and his family members since 2012. Further admits the suggestion that Chinna Annaiah Reddy never took possession of these two lands and they were continued in possession of the Suit Properties. Further this witness has clearly admitted in the cross-examination that as on the date of Sale Deed executed by Channaiah Reddy in favour of Jayaram Reddy i.e., Defendant No.41 Chinnaiah Reddy was not in possession of the Schedule Properties. Further stated that Jayaram Reddy has not formed any layout in Item No.2 & 5 of Schedule Properties, but layout was formed by Papaiah Reddy, Srinivas Reddy and Sundar Babu in Item No.2 of the Schedule Properties between 1996 to 2004. Further stated that he has produced the General Power of Attorney of his mother before the Court which was executed by Jayaram Reddy and Jayaram Reddy is the brother of his mother. It is further stated that his mother has got Rs.7,00,000/- from Jayaram Reddy. He does not know whether the agreement holder got converted the property for non-agricultural purpose. Further admitted that Defendant No.1 to 3 are consenting witnesses to the Sale Deed executed by his mother in favour of purchasers. Further stated 129 OS.No.26405/2012 that he does not know Ex.P.140 is the Sale Deed executed by Defendant No.2 in respect of Suit Item No.2 of Schedule Properties. Further admitted that they have not challenged the mutation orders which effected in the name of Defendant No.2 in respect of Item No.5 of Schedule Properties. Further stated that in their counter claim they sought for right to perform pooja to the graveyard existing in Sy.No.3/5 and they have sought injunction against the Defendant No.1 to 3 from putting up construction on the graveyard. They have not sought any other reliefs in this suit. In Sy.No.3/5 the Defendant No.2 has constructed building in one of the sites and the other sites have been already sold in favour of third parties. Further clearly stated that he has no objections for the Plaintiffs to claim their share in the properties of Muniswamy Reddy, but the Plaintiffs have no right to claim share in the property of his grand-father Papaiah Reddy.
93. On careful perusal of the above admission, one thing is certain that their claim is only with regard to the graveyard existing in Sy.No.3/5 and accordingly they sought injunction against the 130 OS.No.26405/2012 Defendant No.1 to 3 from putting up construction on the graveyard. Further they have no objections for the Plaintiffs to claim the properties of Muniswamy Reddy.
94. Admittedly, the Plaintiffs are claiming right over the Suit Schedule Properties contending that they are the children of deceased Muniswamy Reddy. Even these Defendants have not specifically established that Item No.2 & 5 Properties are exclusive properties of their grand-father Papaiah Reddy. This witness during the course of cross- examination made by Counsel for the Defendant No.3 also stated that he has seen the Suit Properties in the year 2004-2005 and he has seen the documents of the year 1979 which is in the name of Jayaram Reddy and Encumbrance Certificate and RTCs. Further stated that they were not aware of the proceedings before the Land Tribunal and they were not made parties to the said proceedings. Further stated that in the year 1976-77 there was no joint family properties existed to the family. There are revenue records in their name to prove their joint possession. Even though this witness contended that 131 OS.No.26405/2012 the revenue records were in the name of Papaiah Reddy @ Nanja Reddy and in this regard he relied on Ex.D.117. However, this document is no way helpful to this witness to show that there is a reference to joint family property in Ex.D.117. Even in further cross-examination also he clearly admitted that he has not produced any documents to prove the existence of burial ground.
95. From the above evidence with the documents produced by this witness it is not clear that these Defendants are also members of joint family of the Plaintiffs and they are entitle for share in the Suite Item No.2 & 5 Properties. Moreover, from the findings of forgoing issues also it is very clear that the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy right in favour of family of Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 only, but not for any others.
96. It is pertinent to note here that as admitted by this witness, nobody have challenged the Ex.P.1 or Ex.D.118. Even though Chinna Annaiah Reddy had filed the said W.P.No.40368/2021, but he himself has withdrawn the said Writ Petition as he compromised with the Defendant No.2. Since Land Tribunal order 132 OS.No.26405/2012 has not challenged and prima-facie Ex.P.1 order discloses that the Land Tribunal had granted occupancy right on behalf of the family members of Muniswamy Reddy, the present Defendant No.151(a) & (b) or Defendant No.42 who is the mother of Defendant No.151(a) & (b) are having no right over the Suit Schedule Properties. Moreover, the Defendant No.151(a) has filed the present affidavit, but he categorically contended in his affidavit evidence that he is deposing on behalf of Defendant No.151(b) and as well as Defendant No.42.
97. As aforesaid, these Defendants are not particular about the other Suit Schedule Properties, but they are claiming right over Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule Properties as the graveyard of their ancestors have been situated in Item No.1 Property and it is necessary to protect the said rights. Anyhow, in this suit, these Defendants have not placed materials about the existence of graveyard in Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule Properties. When these Defendants have prima-facie no right over the Suit Schedule Properties, it is not possible for this Court to give rights to these Defendants to perform Pooja to the 133 OS.No.26405/2012 graveyard of their elders. These Defendants in their written statement have specifically prayed the relief of declaration that the documents made in favour of Defendant No.2 relating to Suit Item No.2 & 5 are created, fraudulent and the same is the resulted in coercion and fraud played by him and as such partition of the Suit Schedule Properties has to be made by metes and bounds directing the Defendants to place in possession of Item No.5 of the Suit Schedule Properties and also prayed the relief to give rights to them along with the Plaintiffs and Defendants family to perform Pooja in the graveyard of their elders etc.
98. Admittedly, on careful perusal of above discussions, it is clear that these Defendants have not established that all the Suit Schedule Properties have been granted by the Land Tribunal to both families of Muniswamy Reddy and Nanja Reddy. Even DW.4 in the cross-examination categorically admitted that there are no revenue records in their names to prove the joint possession of the Suit Schedule Property. Even though they produced Ex.D.117, but it is not suggested that properties are in the joint names of 134 OS.No.26405/2012 these Defendants along with the children of Muniswamy Reddy. Though these Defendants contended that the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 are in illegal possession of the Suit Properties, though they have produced some of the documents i.e., Ex.D.112 to Ex.D.117, Ex.D.151, Ex.D.163, but as discussed above, in view of the Land Tribunal granted occupancy right in respect of Item No.1 to 5 properties in favour of the family of Muniswamy Reddy, no sanctity shall be attached to these documents. Though there was a challenge made by the Chinna Annaiah Reddy against the order of Land Tribunal in W.P.No.40368/2021, but he has withdrawn the same by making compromise with the Defendant No.2. Therefore, these Defendants or the Defendant No.42 have no right over the Suit Properties. Therefore, what are the judgments have been relied upon by the counsel for the Defendants No.151(a) & 151(b) in this suit are not at all attracted to the case on hand. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that they are not entitle for partition and possession of Item No.5 of the Suit Properties, in view of Ex.P.1 and as well as in view of Ex.D.118 & Ex.D.119. Therefore, no value has to be attached to 135 OS.No.26405/2012 Ex.D.151 Sale Deed and as well as Ex.D.154, Ex.D.155 Record of Rights of these properties. Therefore, this Court answer Additional Issue No.1 to 4 dtd: 11.4.2023 in the Negative.
99. Addl. Issue No.1 to 3 dtd: 19.9.2023:-
These issues are inter-connected with each other, hence, they are taken up together for consideration.
100. The Defendant No.151 (a) & (b) have contended that in this suit that the documents which are in respect of Item No.1 to 5 are fraudulently created and false documents. Therefore, they are entitle for possession of Item No.5 of the Suit Schedule Properties and also they have right to perform pooja in the Suit Schedule Properties.
101. As discussed above, there are no materials forthcoming from the side of the Defendant No.151(a) & (b) to show that the documents in favour of Defendant No.2 in respect of Item No.2 & 5 are created and fraudulent documents. As discussed above, already this Court come to conclusion that these Defendants have no right over the Item No.5 of 136 OS.No.26405/2012 Suit Schedule Properties, as the order passed by the Land Tribunal as per Ex.P.1 has been attained finality as per Ex.D.118 & Ex.D.119. Moreover, according to order passed by the Land Tribunal, as per Ex.P.1 only the Suit Properties have been changed in the name of Defendant No.2 as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. The entire revenue entries in respect of the Suit Properties are not at all challenged by anybody. If the Land Tribunal has granted occupancy right in favour of the family of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3, such being the fact, what are the documents relied upon by the DW.4 as per Ex.D.107 to Ex.D.165 are no way helpful to them to show that the Defendant No.2 has no right over Item No.2 & 5 of Suit Schedule Properties and they are entitle for possession of Item No.5 of the Suit Properties.
102. As aforesaid, regarding performing pooja to the graveyards existing in Suit Sl.No.1 Property is concerned, it is open for the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 to leave the said space as it is if they are having sentiments over the said graveyard space. However, this Court cannot say that without any materials, the Defendant No.151(a) & (b) are entitle 137 OS.No.26405/2012 for a right to perform pooja to the alleged graveyard existing in Sy.No.3/5 of Item No.1 of Suit Properties. Accordingly, I answer these Issues in the Negative.
103. Issue No.8 to 10:-
In view of findings given by this Court on Issue No.1 to 5 it is clear that the Plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession of their 1/6th share each in the Suit Schedule Properties by metes and bounds. Accordingly, in view of the Plaintiffs are entitle for 1/6th share each in the Suit Schedule Properties, the Sale Deeds executed by the Defendant No.1 to 3 as stated in plaint Prayer No.(b) & (c) are not at all binding on the shares of the Plaintiffs over the Suit Schedule Properties. Similarly, before filing of this suit and even after filing of this suit also some Sale Deeds and Confirmation of Sale Deeds executed by the Defendant No.1 to 3 in favour of other Defendants which are also not at all binding upon the Plaintiffs.
104. It is pertinent to note here that the Plaintiffs while filing the suit itself prayed for Permanent 138 OS.No.26405/2012 Injunction restraining the Defendants from further alienation of the Suit Schedule Properties in whatsoever manner in favour of any one else by way of Permanent Injunction. By going through the number of Sale Deeds which already executed by the Defendant No.1 to 3 and other Defendants in favour of others, inspite of pending of this suit and inspite of bar under Section 61 of Karnataka Land Reforms Act so it is just and necessary to restrain the Defendants from further alienation of the Suit Schedule Properties in whatsoever manner till the Plaintiffs getting their shares over the Suit Schedule Properties, otherwise the very purpose of filing of the suit and passing of the judgment in favour of Plaintiffs will be defeated and the Plaintiffs may deprive from getting their share over the Suit Schedule Properties. Therefore, this Court opines that the Plaintiffs are entitle for the rliefs of partition, declaration and Permanent Injunction against the Defendants.
105. The Plaintiffs have not only filed this suit for partition, declaration and Permanent Injunction, but also prayed for mesne profits to their share out of income of the Suit Schedule Properties. Admittedly, 139 OS.No.26405/2012 the Plaintiffs are not at all in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Properties as on the date of filing of this suit and during the pendency of this suit. Therefore, they are definitely entitle for mesne profit and the separate enquiry is required to determine the mesne profits in Final Decree Proceedings. Accordingly, I answer these Issues in the Affirmative.
106. Addl. Issue No.3 dtd: 8.3.2019 & Issue No.11:-
In view of the findings on the above issues, the suit of the Plaintiffs deserves to be decreed with costs. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Suit of the Plaintiffs is hereby decreed with costs.
The Plaintiffs are entitle for their 1/6th share each in the Suit Schedule Properties by metes and bounds.
It is declared that the Sale Deeds executed by the Defendant 140 OS.No.26405/2012 No.1 to 3 and subsequent Sale Deeds by other Defendants as stated in Plaint Prayer (b) & (c) are not at all binding on their share over Item No.1 & 2 of the Suit Schedule Properties.
The Defendants are hereby restrained by way of Permanent Injunction from further alienation of the Suit Schedule Properties in whatsoever manner in favour of any one else till the Plaintiffs get their respective shares in the Suit Schedule Properties by metes and bounds.
The Plaintiffs are directed to take necessary steps under Order XX Rule 18 of CPC to draw final decree, in view of the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2022 livelaw (SC) 549 (Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan V/s Kattukandi Edathil Valsan & Ors.) 141 OS.No.26405/2012 The office to register FDP on the basis of above preliminary decree and put up the case on: 25.3.2025.
Draw Preliminary Decree
accordingly.
(Dictation given to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, after correction, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25th day of February 2025.) [Sri. Sreepada N] LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73) SCHEDULE PROPERTIES
1. All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.3/5, situated at Munnekolalu Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, measuring to an extent of 01 Acre 33 Guntas and bounded on:
East by : Property belonging to Ramaswamy Reddy and Smt. Vasantha.
West by : Property belonging to Siddanavara Narayana Reddy.142 OS.No.26405/2012
North by : Property belonging to Domlur Ramaiah Reddy.
South by : Property belonging to M.P. Anniah Reddy.
2. All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.3/3, situated at Munnekolalu Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, measuring to an extent of 04 Acre 19 Guntas and bounded on:
East by : Raj Kaluve.
West by : Property belonging to Sujayamma and
Venkatalakshamma.
North by : Property belonging to Domlur Ramaiah Reddy.
South by : Property belonging to Domlur Ramaiah Reddy & Pattubaye.
3. All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.70/4, situated at Munnekolalu Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, measuring to an extent of 26 guntas and bounded on:
East by : Property belonging to Late Krishna Reddy.
West by : Government Land.
North by : Property belonging to M.R. Krishna Reddy. South by : Property belonging to Smt. Gowramma.143 OS.No.26405/2012
4. All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.87, situated at Munnekolalu Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, measuring to an extent of 29 guntas and bounded on:
East by : Property belonging to Late Najappa Reddy.
West by : Property belonging to Donne Narayana Reddy.
North by : Property belonging to Erappa Reddy & Subbaram Reddy.
South by : Property belonging to Thogur Narayana Reddy.
5. All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.215/P2, situated at Munnekolalu Village, Amanibelendurkane, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, measuring to an extent of 31 guntas and bounded on:
East by : Property belonging to Nalurhall Annaiah Reddy.
West by : Property belonging to Ryter Chikka Annaiah Reddy.
North by : Kaluve.144 OS.No.26405/2012
South by : Property belonging to Late Ramaiah Reddy.
ANNEXURES LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW1: Sarojamma.
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of the orders passed in LRF 3731/1976-77 by the Land Tribunal Bengaluru South Taluk dt. 12.10.2001.
Ex.P.2 & : RTC extracts of Sy.No. 3/5 for the years Ex.P.3 2010-11, 2017-18.
Ex.P.4 & : RTC extracts of Sy.No. 3/3 for the years Ex.P.5 2010-11, 2017-18.
Ex.P.6 & : RTC extracts of Sy.No. 70/4 for the years Ex.P.7 2010-11, 2017-18.
Ex.P.8 & : RTC extracts of Sy.No. 87 for the years Ex.P.9 2010-11, 2017-18.
Ex.P.10 : RTC extracts of Sy.No. 215/2 for the years & 2010-11, 2017-18.
Ex.P.11 Ex.P.12 : Certified copy of the Sale Deed dt.11.09.1997.145 OS.No.26405/2012
Ex.P.13 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
06.08.1997.
Ex.P.14 : Certified copy of sale deed dt. 13.08.1997.
Ex.P.15 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
13.08.1997.
Ex.P.16 Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.20.08.1997.
Ex.P.17 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
11.09.1997.
Ex.P.18 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
11.09.1997.
Ex.P.19 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
01.08.1997.
Ex.P.20 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
20.08.1997.
Ex.P.21 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
11.09.1997.
Ex.P.22 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
11.08.1997.
Ex.P.23 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
01.08.1997.
Ex.P.24 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
06.08.1997.
146 OS.No.26405/2012Ex.P.25 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
20.08.1997.
Ex.P.26 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
01.08.1997.
Ex.P.27 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
06.08.1997.
Ex.P.28 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
11.08.1997.
Ex.P.29 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
11.09.1997.
Ex.P.30 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
11.09.1997.
Ex.P.31 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
06.08.1997.
Ex.P.32 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
13.08.1997.
Ex.P.33 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
13.08.1997.
Ex.P.34 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
01.08.1997.
Ex.P.35 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
04.08.1197.
Ex.P.36 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
13.08.1997.
147 OS.No.26405/2012Ex.P.37 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
04.08.1997.
Ex.P.38 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
20.08.1997.
Ex.P.39 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
11.08.1997.
Ex.P.40 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
11.09.1997.
Ex.P.41 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
01.08.1997.
Ex.P.42 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
20.08.1997.
Ex.P.43 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
04.08.1997.
Ex.P.44 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
06.08.1997.
Ex.P.45 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
13.08.1997.
Ex.P.46 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
11.08.1997.
Ex.P.47 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
20.08.1997.
Ex.P.48 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
148 OS.No.26405/201201.08.1997.
Ex.P.49 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
20.08.1997.
Ex.P.50 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
17.03.2011.
Ex.P.51 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
11.08.1997.
Ex.P.52 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
11.09.1997.
Ex.P.53 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
11.08.1997.
Ex.P.54 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
01.08.1997.
Ex.P.55 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
06.08.1997.
Ex.P.56 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
01.08.1997.
Ex.P.57 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
03.09.2003.
Ex.P.58 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.06.08.1997.
Ex.P.59 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
04.08.1997.
149 OS.No.26405/2012Ex.P.60 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
04.08.1997.
Ex.P.61 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
13.08.1997.
Ex.P.62 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
31.07.2002.
Ex.P.63 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
23.01.2002.
Ex.P.64 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
28.01.2002.
Ex.P.65 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
23.01.2002.
Ex.P.66 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
23.01.2002.
Ex.P.67 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
14.02.2002.
Ex.P.68 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
14.02.2002.
Ex.P.69 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
19.03.2010.
Ex.P.70 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
22.05.1998.
Ex.P.71 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
22.05.1998.
150 OS.No.26405/2012Ex.P.72 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
22.05.1998.
Ex.P.73 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
22.05.1998.
Ex.P.74 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
23.01.2002.
Ex.P.75 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
23.01.2002.
Ex.P.76 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
18.02.2002.
Ex.P.77 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
28.01.2002.
Ex.P.78 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
28.01.2002.
Ex.P.79 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
28.01.2002.
Ex.P.80 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
22.05.1998.
Ex.P.81 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
28.07.2006.
Ex.P.82 Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
18.02.2002.
Ex.P.83 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
151 OS.No.26405/201214.02.2002.
Ex.P.84 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
28.01.2002.
Ex.P.85 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
18.02.2002.
Ex.P.86 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
14.02.2002.
Ex.P.87 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
18.02.2002.
Ex.P.88 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
18.02.2002.
Ex.P.89 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
15.04.2002.
Ex.P.90 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
23.09.2009.
Ex.P.91 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
14.02.2002.
Ex.P.92 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
14.02.2002.
Ex.P.93 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
14.02.2002.
Ex.P.94 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
28.01.2002.
152 OS.No.26405/2012Ex.P.95 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
23.01.2002.
Ex.P.96 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
14.02.2002.
Ex.P.97 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
06.12.2010.
Ex.P.98 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
04.03.2011.
Ex.P.99 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
19.01.2013.
Ex.P.100 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
29.06.2012.
Ex.P.101 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
13.03.2013.
Ex.P.102 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
22.02.2013.
Ex.P.103 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
18.03.2013.
Ex.P.104 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
22.02.2013.
Ex.P.105 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
25.03.2013.
Ex.P.106 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
26.03.2013.
153 OS.No.26405/2012Ex.P.107 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
17.04.2013.
Ex.P.108 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
14.06.2013.
Ex.P.109 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
02.04.2013.
Ex.P.110 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
05.04.2013.
Ex.P.111 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
22.02.2013.
Ex.P.112 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
19.04.2013.
Ex.P.113 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
18.06.2012.
Ex.P.114 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
18.01.2005.
Ex.P.115 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
18.01.2005.
Ex.P.116 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
02.04.2005.
Ex.P.117 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
17.02.2005.
Ex.P.118 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
154 OS.No.26405/201228.01.2010.
Ex.P.119 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
17.02.2005.
Ex.P.120 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
10.02.2005.
Ex.P.121 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
25.02.2010.
Ex.P.122 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
28.06.2010.
Ex.P.123 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
15.12.2004.
Ex.P.124 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
02.05.2005.
Ex.P.125 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
07.03.2005.
Ex.P.126 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
18.02.2005.
Ex.P.127 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
10.02.2005.
Ex.P.128 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
17.08.2011.
Ex.P.129 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
17.08.2011.
155 OS.No.26405/2012Ex.P.130 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
29.01.2009.
Ex.P.131 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
06.10.2010.
Ex.P.132 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
09.03.2005.
Ex.P.133 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
13.12.2004.
Ex.P.134 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
13.12.2004.
Ex.P.135 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
29.11.2008.
Ex.P.136 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
18.01.2005.
Ex.P.137 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
04.01.2005.
Ex.P.138 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dt.
23.02.2005.
Ex.P.139 : Certified copy of proceeding sheet taken before the Land Tribunal.
Ex.P.140 : Certified copy of registered Sale Deed dtd:
24.7.2006.
Ex.P.141 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd:7.12.2004.
156 OS.No.26405/2012Ex.P.142 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd: 9.2.2005.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
DW.1 : M. Venkatesh Reddy. DW.2 : Mr. Terrance Francis. DW.3 : Smt. Kanakamma. DW.4 : N. Babu Reddy. DW.5 : C. Vijayendra Reddy.
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd:
16.9.2013.
Ex.D.2 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd:
18.9.2013.
Ex.D.3 : Photograph of father of PW.1.
Ex.D.4 : Certified Copy of the decree passed in O.S.No.220/1959.
Ex.D.5 : Certified Copy of application filed U/O 23 R 3 of CPC in O.S.No.220/1959.
Ex.D.6 : Certified Copy of orders dt. 06.07.1981, passed in Ex. No.417/1980.
Ex.D.7 : Certified Copy of possession receipt, in Ex.
No. 417/1980.
157 OS.No.26405/2012Ex.D.8 : Objections filed by the Respondent No.2 in LRF case No.3731/1976 before Land Tribunal Bengaluru, South Taluk Bengaluru.
Ex.D.9 : Statement of K.Chinnannaih @ Arasappa recorded in LRF case No.3731/1976 before Land Tribunal Bengaluru, South Taluk Bengaluru.
Ex.D.10 : Copies of 8 notices issued in LRF Case to No.3731/1976 before Land Tribunal Ex.D.17 Bengaluru, South Taluk Bengaluru.
Ex.D.18 : Certified Copy of the Appeal memo filed in LRA Appeal No. 127/1987 before the LRDAR Bengaluru.
Ex.D.19 : Certified Copy of the application filed by the Appellant along with Affidavit in Appeal No. 127/1987 before the LRDAR Bengaluru.
Ex.D.20 : Certified Copy of the orders dt.
11.11.1983, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.33166/1981.
Ex.D.21 : Certified Copy of the orders dt. 20.1.1982, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in WP.No.33166/1981 Ex.D.22 : Certified Copy of the orders dt.30.12.1981, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in 158 OS.No.26405/2012 WP.No.33166/1981.
Ex.D.23 : Certified Copy of the orders dt.20.11.2004, passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.40368/2001(LR).
Ex.D.24 : Certified Copy of the Sale Deed dt.13.09.1979.
Ex.D.25 : Certified Copy of Registered Power of Attorney dt.06.06.1996.
Ex.D.26 : 8 R/R extract.
to Ex.D.33 Ex.D.34 : Certificate issued by the Karantakta Secondary Education Board to Nagaraju M. Defendant No.3.
Ex.D.35 : R/R of extracts.
to Ex.D.39 Ex.D.40 : 20 positive to Ex.D.60 Photographs with C.D. Ex.D.61 : Certified Copy of the mutation extract bearing No.12/200102.
Ex.D.62 : M.R.No.87/2004-05.
Ex.D.63 : M.R.No.87/2004-05.
159 OS.No.26405/2012Ex.D.64 : M.R.No.87/2004-05.
Ex.D.65 : M.R.No.87/2004-05.
Ex.D.66 : 5 RTC extracts.
to Ex.D.70 Ex.D.71, : ROR extract of property No.781 issued by Ex.D.71(a) the Tahasildar, Aridigunte along with its translation in English.
Ex.D.72 : Holding Certificate issued by the Special Tahsildar dtd: 1.3.1976.
Ex.D.73 : Transfer Certificate of DW.1.
Ex.D.74 : Electoral List.
Ex.D.75 : Special power of attorney dtd :02.08.2012.
Ex.D.76 : Certified Copies of Registered Sale Deeds & dated : 07.12.2004 and 02.04.2005. Ex.D.77 Ex.D.78 : Khata certificate issued by the BBMP dated : 01.04.2012.
Ex.D.79 : Property Extract of Property No. 693 for years 2012-13.
Ex.D.80 : 2 Property Tax receipts.
& Ex.D.81 160 OS.No.26405/2012 Ex.D.82 : 2 Encumbrance certificates. & Ex.D.83 Ex.D.84 : Positive Photographs with C.D along with to certificate U/S. 65 B of Evidence Act. Ex.D.90 & Ex.D.90(a) Ex.D.91 : Original Affidavit of Genealogy.
Ex.D.92 : Original Ration Card in the name of Late Krishnamma.
Ex.D.93 : Certified copy of order passed in WP.No.40/368/2001.
Ex.D.94 : Certified copy of order sheet in WP.No.40/368/2001.
Ex.D.95 : 3 Photographs.
to Ex.D.97 Ex.D.98 : Election Identity Card of Krishnamma.
Ex.D.99 : SSLC Marks Card of Defendant No.150.
Ex.D.100: Transfer Certificate of Defendant No.150.
Ex.D.101: Marriage Invitation Card of Defendant No.148.
161 OS.No.26405/2012Ex.D.102: School Character Certificate of Defendant No.150.
Ex.D.103: Death Certificate of Smt. Krishnamma dtd:
3.11.2012.
Ex.D.104 : 3 Encumbrance Certificates in respect of to property bearing Sy.No.87, 215/3-2, 70/4 Ex.D.106 of Munnekolalu Village.
Ex.D.107: Death certificate of M.P. Narayana Reddy.
Ex.D.108: Death card of Pappaiah Reddy.
Ex.D.109 : 3 Discharge summaries of Narayana to Reddy.
Ex.D.111 Ex.D.112 : 2 Tax paid receipts.
& Ex.D.113 Ex.D.114: Encumbrance certificate.
Ex.D.115: Record of Rights.
Ex.D.116: Index of Lands.
Ex.D.117: Certified Copy of the Mutation register.
Ex.D.118: Order in WP No. 40368/2001.
Ex.D.119: Memo filed in the said petition.
Ex.D.120: Death certificate of Pappaiah reddy and 162 OS.No.26405/2012 & Gowramma.
Ex.D.121 Ex.D.122: Aadhar card of Narayana Reddy.
Ex.D.123: Pan Card.
Ex.D.124: Mysore Secondary Leaving certificate of M.P. Narayana Reddy.
Ex.D.125: New Ration Card.
Ex.D.126: Copy of identity card is issued by BSNL.
Ex.D.127: Special Power of Attorney.
Ex.D.128: GPA dated 05.10.2023.
Ex.D.129: Property Form-B register.
Ex.D.130 : 14 Tax paid receipts.
to Ex.D.143 Ex.D.144: Electricity supply letter from BESCOM.
Ex.D.145: Meter installation letter.
Ex.D.146 : 3 Digital Copy of Rectification Deeds dtd:
to 6.10.2010, 7.12.2004, 22.12.2004. Ex.D.148 Ex.D.149: Certificate U/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act.163 OS.No.26405/2012
Ex.D.150: Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd:
29.1.2009.
Ex.D.151: Original Sale Deed dtd: 13.9.1979.
Ex.D.152: Original registered Power of Attorney dtd:
6.6.1996.
Ex.D.153: Encumbrance Certificate.
Ex.D.154: Record of Rights for the year 1984-85.
Ex.D.155: Record of Rights for the year 1989-90.
Ex.D.156: Patta Receipt Book.
Ex.D.157 : 7 Tax Paid Receipts.
to Ex.D.163 Ex.D.164: Genealogical Tree dtd: 16.12.2022.
Ex.D.165: Genealogical Tree dtd: 25.9.2012.
[Sri. Sreepada N] LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73)