Bangalore District Court
Smt. J. Lakshmidevi @ Lakshmi vs Sri J. Boraiah on 2 July, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY (CCH-60)
Dated this the 2nd day of July 2019
: PRESENT :
Sri B. B. Jakati, B.A., LL.M.,
LIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BANGALORE CITY
O.S.No.6179/2016
PLAINTIFF: Smt. J. Lakshmidevi @ Lakshmi,
Aged about 52 years,
D/o Late Javare Gowda,
R/at No.48, 28th cross,
Bhuvaneshwari Nagara,
K.P. Agrahara,
Magadi road,
Bengaluru - 23.
(By Sri C. Prakash, Advocate)
DEFENDANTS: Sri J. Boraiah,
Aged about 66 years,
S/o late Javare Gowda,
R/at No.6, 23rd cross,
5th main road,
Bhuvaneshwari Nagara
K.P. Agrahara,
Magadi road,
Bengaluru - 23.
(By Sri N.G.R., Advocate)
2 O.S.No.6179/2016
Date of institution of the suit : 25.08.2016
:
Nature of the suit Suit for
Partition
Date of commencement of :
recording of the evidence 11.08.2017
Date on which the Judgment :
was pronounced. 02.07.2019
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
02 10 08
(B. B. JAKATI)
LIX ADDL. C.C. & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for partition and separate possession of her ½ share in the schedule properties and for permanent injunction.
2. The case of the plaintiff in nutshell is that, Javare Gowda acquired all the schedule properties during his lifetime and therefore all the schedule properties were his self-acquired 3 O.S.No.6179/2016 properties. Smt. Nanjamma is the wife of Javare Gowda. Smt. Nanjamma pre-deceased Javare Gowda. Both of them had sons by name Lokesh and he died on 15.12.1998 without any issue. The plaintiff is the daughter and defendant is the son of Javare Gowda. Javare Gowda died intestate on 14.03.1999. Therefore, after the death of Javare Gowda the plaintiff and defendant have inherited the schedule properties by way of succession under Hindu Succession Act as the parties are governed by Hindu Law. The plaintiff requested the defendant to effect partition in May 2016. The defendant got transferred all the properties in his name and he denied to effect partition and on the contrary he tried to alienate the schedule properties including the share of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this suit for partition to get her half share.
3. The defendant in the written-statement admitted the relationship with the plaintiff. He has also admitted that item No.1 property was self acquired property of Javare Gowda. He denied the nature of item No.2 to 5 properties as self 4 O.S.No.6179/2016 acquired properties of Javare Gowda. He interalia contended that item No.2, 3 and 5 properties are the ancestral properties of himself and plaintiff which was inherited by Javare Gowda from his father. It is further defence that item No.4 property was purchased by him from his self earnings and therefore, item No.4 property is his self acquired property. The defendant has contended that item No.1 property was bequeathed in his favour through sale deed dated 18.08.1990 and after the death of Javare Gowda, he became the absolute owner of item No.1 property. The defendant has pleaded that the marriage of plaintiff was performed long back and she is out of possession of schedule properties. She has not filed the suit for partition immediately after the death of Javare Gowda and therefore, the suit is barred by law of limitation and the court fee paid by the plaintiff is not proper. On these grounds the defendant prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
4. On the rival pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed:
5 O.S.No.6179/2016
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that all the schedule properties are self acquired properties of her father?
OR
2. Whether the defendant proves that the item No.2,3 and 5 of the schedule are the ancestral properties of his father?
3. Whether the defendant proves that his father bequeathed item No.1 property in his favour through will deed dt:18.08.1990?
4. Whether the defendant further proves that item No.4 property is his self acquired property?
5. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?
6. Whether the court fee paid by the plaintiff is not sufficient?
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession of any share in the schedule properties?
8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction?
5. To prove the claim, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to P.10. To substantiate the defence, the Power of Attorney Holder of 6 O.S.No.6179/2016 defendant has been examined as D.W.1. The defendant examined one more witness as D.W.2 and got marked documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.16.
6. Heard the argument of both sides. The learned counsel for the defendant in support of his submission has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in (2017) 1 LW 562 {Emperuman V/S. Rangarajan}. Perused the records.
7. My findings to the above Issues are as under :
Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative/
Partly in the Negative.
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.3 : In the Negative
Issue No.4 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.5 : In the Negative
Issue No.6 : In the Negative
Issue No.7 : Partly in the Affirmative/
Partly in the Negative.
Issue No.8 : In the Affirmative.
for the following:
7 O.S.No.6179/2016
REASONS
8. ISSUE NOs.1, 2 & 4 : - Both parties have admitted that Smt. Nanjamma is the wife of Javare Gowda. Javare Gowda and Smt. Nanjamma had two sons by name Lokesh and J. Boraiah (defendant) and daughter by name J. Lakshmi Devi (plaintiff). Smt. Nanjamma died on 01.06.1989 intestate. Lokesh died on 15.12.1998 without any issue. Javare Gowda died on 14.03.1999. Genealogy is not in dispute including the date of death referred above.
9. The plaintiff has pleaded that all the schedule properties are the self acquired properties of Javare Gowda and this contention has been denied by the defendant with plea that item No.2, 3 and 5 properties are the ancestral properties and item No.1 property was the self acquired property of Javare Gowda. It is also contended that item No.4 property is the self acquired property of defendant.
8 O.S.No.6179/2016
10. The P.W.1 in her cross-examination in Para No.3 has categorically admitted that item No.2, 3 and 5 properties shown in the schedule were inherited by her father from her grandfather / Paradeshi Gowda. By this statement the plaintiff has categorically admitted that item No.2, 3 and 5 properties shown in the schedule are the ancestral properties of Javare Gowda. This statement is made by the plaintiff and it is binding on the plaintiff. In view of admission, no more evidence from the defendant is required to substantiate the defence. Thus, I hold that item No.2, 3 and 5 properties shown in the schedule are the ancestral properties of Javare Gowda.
11. The plaintiff and defendant in the pleadings itself have admitted that item No.1 property shown in the schedule was self acquired property of Javare Gowda. So, there is no dispute between the parties about nature of item No.1 property. Thus, I hold that the plaintiff has established that item No.1 property is the self acquired property of Javare 9 O.S.No.6179/2016 Gowda.
12. The plaintiff has pleaded that item No.4 property is also the self acquired property of her father, which has been denied by the defendant with plea that such property was acquired by him through his self earnings. The defendant has stated that he got employment in Binny Mill, Bengaluru and after closure of such Mill he worked as Sales Representative in Revathi Enterprises. He has stated that from such employment he saved money and purchased the property on 03.05.2011. Therefore, item No.4 property is the self acquired property of Javare Gowda or it is self acquired property of defendant is to be decided.
13. The plaintiff in the evidence has admitted that her father left Kattekoppalu Heggur Village where item No.2, 3 and 5 properties are situated long back and shifted to Bengaluru. During the cross-examination of P.W.1 it has been suggested that item No.2, 3 and 5 are dry lands and there was no income to Javare Gowda from those lands. Such suggestions have 10 O.S.No.6179/2016 been denied by P.W.1. The P.W.1 has also admitted that her father was also not cultivating those lands personally. It has come in the evidence that in item No.2, 3 and 5 properties which are landed properties are barren lands. These evidence on record and the statement made by P.W.1 show that father of plaintiff left his native and shifted to Bengaluru long back. He was not cultivating lands in item No.2, 3 and 5. The extent of item No.2 is 11.12 guntas, extent of item No.3 is 25 guntas and extent of item No.5 is 6 guntas. The total extent of these lands is 42.12 guntas. So Javare Gowda during his lifetime holding less extent of lands which were inherited from his father. The plaintiff has not produced any records to show that her father was receiving sufficient income from item No.2, 3 and 5 properties and such income was sufficient for livelihood of the family and income was surplus so as to acquire new properties. On the other hand, the evidence of D.W.1 and the statement of P.W.1 in the cross-examination show that Javare Gowda was not receiving surplus income from item No.2, 3 and 5 properties so as to acquire new property at Bengaluru. 11 O.S.No.6179/2016 Therefore, it cannot be held that there was nucleus from the income of item No.2, 3 and 5 properties to acquire item No.4 property at Bengaluru in the year 2011.
14. The defendant has pleaded and also stated in his evidence that along with his father he shifted to Bengaluru and working in Binny Mill and also Revathi Enterprises and thereby earning money. The P.W.1 in her cross-examination has admitted that the defendant was in service in Binny Mill and getting income. She has also admitted that after closure of Binny Mill the defendant joined in Revathi Enterprises. Such employment of the defendant was prior to purchase of item No.4. So, this statement of P.W.1 shows that the defendant was employed and getting his independent income during lifetime of Javare Gowda more particularly, prior to purchase of item No.4 property.
15. The D.W.1, who is the daughter of defendant has deposed as Power of Attorney and stated that another daughter of defendant died in road traffic accident on 12 O.S.No.6179/2016 20.03.2009 and the defendant filed MVC.No.4408/2009. She has stated that defendant received compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in M.V.C Case and since deceased was Advocate compensation of Rs.1,41,000/- was received by the defendant from Karnataka State Bar Counsel in the year 2010 and from such money also item No.4 was purchased. To substantiate such statement the defendant has produced petition in MVC.No.4408/2009 at Ex.D.13, copy of the award at Ex.D.14, Memo at Ex.D.15 and order sheet at Ex.D.16. These records show that defendant, his wife and children filed claim petition for death of Hemavathi and obtained compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-. Out of Rs.4,50,000/-, the defendant in person received Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation being the father. This amount was received by the defendant on 12.03.2010. Ex.D.12 is the letter issued by Secretary, Karnataka State Bar Counsel to the defendant wherein it has been stated that cheque for Rs.1,41,000/- was issued to the defendant towards full and final settlement towards death of Hemavathi. This amount was also received on 0.10.2010. Item No.4 was 13 O.S.No.6179/2016 purchased in the year 2011. So, as on the date of purchase of item No.4 property, the defendant had received Rs.1,41,000/- from Karnataka State Bar Counsel and Rs.1,50,000/- in MVC Case, which was sufficient to pay consideration shown in the sale deed, which is at Ex.D.4. The total consideration of Rs.52,000/- was paid for the same. These records also support the statement of D.W.1.
16. Based on the evidence referred above I hold that there was no surplus income from item No.2, 3 and 5 properties to the defendant to acquire item No.4 property in the year 2011. On the other hand, the defendant was earning prior to purchase of item No.4 property and he received lump- sum amount after the death of his daughter and his earning including compensation was utilized for purchase of item No.4 property. Thus, item No.4 property is the self-acquired property of defendant and not the joint family property of plaintiff and defendant. Accordingly, I hold hat item No.4 property is not available for partition. With these findings I 14 O.S.No.6179/2016 answer Issue No.1 Partly in the Affirmative/Partly in the Negative, Issue Nos.2 and 4 in the Affirmative.
17. ISSUE No.3 :- While deciding issue No.1, 2 and 4 it has been held that item No.1 property was the self-acquired property of Javare Gowda. So, he had right and capacity to dispose of item No.1 property during his lifetime as per his will and wish. Such right of Javare Gowda is not disputed by the plaintiff. The defendant who is the profounder of the Will has produced primary evidence of the Will at Ex.D.5. In this Will deed it has been shown that Javare Gowda executed the Will deed bequeathing item No.1 property in favour of the defendant on 18.08.1990. This Will deed is attested by two witnesses by name M. Shankar and Hanumanthappa. The Will is having thumb impression of Javare Gowda and such thumb impression is on the conspicuous place on the Will. On perusal of the Will deed it is found that the Will deed was executed by complying conditions shown in Section 63(a) to (c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
15 O.S.No.6179/2016
18. Mere production of Will deed is not sufficient under law to get the property by profounder/beneficiary. The profounder is required to prove the Will deed in accordance with law. Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1972 provides that if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence. Section 69 of the Evidence Act further provides that if no such attesting witness can be found, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person.
19. In Ex.D.5 there are two attesting witnesses. The D.W.1 in his evidence has stated that one of the attesting witnesses by name Shankar handed over the Will deed at Ex.D.5 to the defendant and then only the profounder came to 16 O.S.No.6179/2016 know the execution of the Will deed after the death of testator. The D.W.1 in her cross-examination stated that Shankar is not her relative. She has further admitted that she was having knowledge that Will deed was in the custody of attesting witness / Shankar prior to filing of the written-statement. These answers given by D.W.1 are sufficient to hold that Shankar is alive and he is subject to the process of the Court and even capable of giving evidence. The D.W.1 in her evidence nowhere stated that Shankar is not alive. It is not the case of the defendant that Shankar is not subject to the process of the Court and not capable to give evidence. Therefore, it is very clear that Shankar is alive and inspite of having capacity to depose the defendant not taken any steps to examine Shankar.
20. The D.W.2 is the wife of Hanumanthappa.
Hanumanthappa is the second attesting witness to Ex.D.5. D.W.2 has stated that Hanumanthappa is no more and she has identified the signature of Hanumanthappa appearing in 17 O.S.No.6179/2016 Ex.D.5/Will deed. Though the evidence of D.W.2 is disputed by the plaintiff in cross-examination, her evidence is sufficient to prove that Hanumanthappa attested the Will deed at Ex.D.5. Such evidence of D.W.2 is sufficient to prove mandate of Section 69 of Indian Evidence Act.
21. Before complying Section 69 of Evidence Act, the defendant is required to establish that the attesting witness is not alive or is not subject to the process of the Court or he is not capable of giving evidence. In the present case the defendant has shown that one of the attesting witnesses / Hanumanthappa is no more. However, the defendant has not proved that another witness / Shankar is dead or not subject to the process of the Court or not capable to give evidence. Inspite of these facts and during the lifetime of attesting witness / Shankar, the defendant not able to examine him. No satisfactory explanation has been given by the defendant for non-examination of Shankar. Therefore, it has to be held that the defendant has not complied mandate of Section 68 of 18 O.S.No.6179/2016 Evidence Act. The examination of D.W.2, who is the wife of attesting witness would not absolve the profounder from proving Will by complying Section 68 of Evidence Act. Therefore, the evidence of D.W.2 is not sufficient for the proof of Will.
22. The defendant who is the son of testator not stepped into witness box to prove that thumb impression appearing in Ex.D.5 is of testator. Shankar who is alive and who has attested the thumb impression not been examined. Hanumanthappa, another witness is no more. The D.W.1 is the daughter of defendant who has no much knowledge about the signature or thumb impression of Javare Gowda. Therefore, absolutely there is no evidence on record to show that thumb mark appearing in Ex.D.5 is of Javare Gowda. It is worth to note that even in Ex.D.5 there is no mention of name of person who put thumb impression. Ordinarily the thumb impression would be attested by saying that such thumb impression is of some person. There is no such attestation and mention of 19 O.S.No.6179/2016 name below or opposite to thumb impression in Ex.D.5. Therefore, I hold that the defendant has failed to establish that thumb mark appearing in Ex.D.5 in the name of Javare Gowda is made by Javare Gowda while executing the deed at Ex.D.5. For these reasons I hold that the defendant has failed to prove the Will deed at Ex.D.5 in accordance with law.
23. For the sake of discussion even if it is held that Will deed at Ex.D.5 is proved by complying Section 68 of Evidence Act, then also the profounder is required to dispel all the suspicious circumstances surrounding on the Will deed. In the present case the suspicious circumstance is dis-inheritance of property by daughter along with son. To dispel such suspicious circumstance, the defendant relied upon the recital at Ex.D.5 and also the evidence of D.W.1 and P.W.1. In Ex.D.5 it has been stated that Lokesh is another son of Javare Gowda had no worldly wise knowledge and some body was required to look after Lokesh. It is further stated in the Will deed that defendant shall take care of Lokesh till his death. In the 20 O.S.No.6179/2016 evidence it has been brought on record that Lokesh was of unsound mind and he was depending on other family members. Such admitted facts and recital in Ex.D.5 clearly show that by fastening the liability on the defendant to look after Lokesh the entire item No.1 was bequeathed by the testator to the defendant. Such evidence brought on record is sufficient to dispel suspicious circumstance in respect of dis-inheritance of property by the plaintiff. The plaintiff not shown any other suspicious circumstance surrounding on the Will deed at Ex.D.5. However, the defendant has not proved the Will deed in accordance with law, which has been discussed above and therefore, even though the defendant has dispelled the suspicious circumstance, he would not get entire item No.1 property under the Will deed. Accordingly, I answer this issue in the Negative.
24. ISSUE No.5 :- Item No.2, 3 and 5 properties are the ancestral properties of plaintiff and defendant. Javare Gowda died intestate in respect of these properties and 21 O.S.No.6179/2016 therefore, the plaintiff and defendant being class-I heirs of Javare Gowda inherited and succeeded these properties under Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Item No.1 property was the self acquired property of Javare Gowda. The defendant failed to establish testamentary document of Javare Gowda i.e. Will deed dated 18.08.1990. Therefore, after the death of Javare Gowda succession opened and this property is also inherited and succeeded by plaintiff and defendant under Hindu Succession Act. 1956. Item No.4 property is the absolute property of defendant and therefore, such property is not available for partition. When the plaintiff has acquired right in item No.1 to 3 and 5 properties shown in the schedule by way of succession, she is entitled to get her legitimate share. In order to curtail such right the defendant has taken the defence that suit is not filed within limitation. Therefore, whether the suit brought by the plaintiff for partition is barred by law of limitation is to be decided.
22 O.S.No.6179/2016
25. The learned counsel for the defendant has argued that Javare Gowda died on 14.03.1999 and the marriage of plaintiff was performed in the year 1983. From the date of marriage the plaintiff is residing with her husband and she is excluded from possession of the property of family of Javare Gowda. He has submitted that there is no specific Article in the Limitation Act to sue for partition and therefore, residuary Article 113 is applicable and it provides three years period to file suit for partition. Such three years period commenced soon after the death of Javare Gowda in the year 1999 and therefore, the suit filed in the year 2016 is barred by law of limitation under Section 113 of Limitation Act. In support of this argument he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the matter of Emperuman and Rangarajan. In the said decision in Para No.37 and 38 held as under:
37. Insofar as Article 113 of the Limitation Act is concerned, this Court would like to say that this is the residuary 23 O.S.No.6179/2016 Article for suits not covered by any other Article. It corresponds to Article 120 of the previous Act, only with the addition of the word 'any' at the beginning of the first column of the present Article, and the period of limitation having been reduced from six to three years so that no special advantage would be gained by any one seeking to prove that the residuary Articles could be applied.
38. The applicability of this Article is to govern suits for which no period of limitation is prescribed anywhere in the Act.
26. The argument advanced by the counsel for the defendant referred above is to sustainable under law and even the decision cannot be pressed into service for the reasons stated hereinafter. In the present case Javare Gowda who is the father of plaintiff and defendant died in the year 1999 and soon after his death succession opened. Item No.1 to 3 and 5 properties shown in the schedule devolved upon the plaintiff and the defendant under proviso to Section 6 of Hindu 24 O.S.No.6179/2016 Succession Act, 1956 as the deceased died leaving behind male and female class-I heirs. The heirs would take share prescribed in Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The marriage of plaintiff in the year 1983 would not disentitle her to succession and inherit properties of her father. Under law the possession of one member of joint family is possession of other co-owner also. Therefore, even though the plaintiff was residing with her husband after the death of her father and defendant is in possession of the property, his possession is for himself and also on behalf of other member of the family i.e. plaintiff. Therefore, under law there is a presumption that plaintiff also is in joint possession of property inherited by her with defendant unless contrary is proved.
27. Article 110 of Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes period of 12 years to file a suit for partition of Joint family property if the member of the family is excluded from the property. Such limitation starts from the date of knowledge of the plaintiff about exclusion. In the present case there is no evidence on 25 O.S.No.6179/2016 record adduced by the defendant that the plaintiff has been excluded from the joint family properties. Even there is no evidence on record that plaintiff had knowledge of such exclusion twelve years prior to filing of the present suit for partition. Therefore, when the plaintiff is not excluded from the joint family properties in accordance with law, Article 110 of Limitation Act would not come in her way to seek partition in joint family properties. Thus, I hold that the suit of the plaintiff is not barred by law of limitation. Accordingly, I answer this Issue in the Negative.
28. ISSUE No.6 :- The plaintiff being one of the joint family members brought the suit for partition and separate possession of her share. She has established her claim over the item No.1 to 3 and 5 properties shown in the schedule. However, she has failed to establish her claim over item No.4 property of schedule. Since the suit is filed for partition of the joint family properties, the court fee has to be paid under Section 35(2) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. 26 O.S.No.6179/2016 Accordingly, the plaintiff has paid maximum court fee of Rs.200/- under Section 35(2) of the said Act. Such court fee is correct and proper. The defendant has not shown how the court fee is not sufficient. Considering these aspects of the matter, I hold that the court fee paid by the plaintiff is proper by answering this Issue in the Negative.
29. ISSUE No.7 & 8 :- The plaintiff has established that along with defendant she succeeded item No.2, 3 and 5 properties from her father Javare Gowda and those properties were ancestral properties. As on the date of the suit the father was not alive. Therefore, the plaintiff being the daughter is not entitled to take benefit of Section 6 of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. In other words the plaintiff cannot seek equal share in these properties as that of defendant. This opinion of mine is supported with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Prakash and Others V/s. Phulavathi and Others reported in (2016) 2 SCC 36. The share of the plaintiff in these properties has to be carved out 27 O.S.No.6179/2016 through notional partition under the proviso to Section 6 of un- amended Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
30. Under notional partition the plaintiff would get ¼th share in item No.2, 3 and 5 properties. Remaining 3/4th share is to be allotted to the defendant, who is the son of Javare Gowda.
31. Item No.1 property was the self-acquired property of Javare Gowda and he died intestate. Therefore, since such property was the self acquired property, both plaintiff and defendant would get share equally under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Thus, I hold that plaintiff is entitled for ½ share in item No.1 property shown in the schedule. The plaintiff is not entitled for any share in item No.4 property shown in the schedule. When the defendant is denying the share, order of permanent injunction has to be granted against him restraining him from alienating the share of the plaintiff in item No.1 to 3 and 5 properties of schedule. Accordingly, I answer Issue No.7 Partly in the Affirmative/Partly in 28 O.S.No.6179/2016 the Negative and Issue No.8 in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs partly.
The plaintiff is entitled for
partition and separate possession
of her 1/4th share in item No.2, 3
and 5 properties shown in the
schedule.
The defendant is having 3/4th
share in item No.2, 3 and 5
properties of the schedule.
The plaintiff is entitled for
partition and separate possession
of ½ share in item No.1 property
shown in the schedule. The
remaining ½ is to be given to the
defendant.
29 O.S.No.6179/2016
The relief of partition in item
No.4 property claimed by the
plaintiff is rejected.
The defendant is restrained
permanently from alienating the
share of the plaintiff shown above
till effecting actual partition by
metes and bounds.
Draw preliminary decree
accordingly.
[Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 2nd day of July, 2019].
(B. B. JAKATI) LIX ADDL. C.C. & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff:
P.W.1 Smt. J. Lakshmidevi @ Lakshmi
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant:
DW.1 Smt. Nethra
D.W.2 Smt. Sundaramma
30 O.S.No.6179/2016
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 Genealogy
Ex.P.2 Khatha certificate
Ex.P.3 Khatha extract
Ex.P.4 to 7 Four RTCs
Ex.P.8 to 10 Mutation extracts
4.List of documents marked on behalf of the defendant:
Ex.D.1 GPA
Ex.D.2 to 4 Certified copy of Sale deeds
Ex.P.5 Original Will deed
Ex.D.6 Death certificate
Ex.D.7 Service certificate
Ex.D.8 Endorsement given by BBMP
Ex.D.9 Tax paid receipt
Ex.D.10,11 2 RTCs
Ex.D.12 Certificate issued by KSBC
Ex.D.13 Claim petition
Ex.D.14 Award
Ex.D.15 Memo
Ex.D.16 voucher
(B. B. JAKATI)
LIX ADDL. C.C. & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
31 O.S.No.6179/2016
32 O.S.No.6179/2016
02.07.2019:
Judgment pronounced in the Open Court
(Vide separate detailed judgment)
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff is
decreed with costs partly.
The plaintiff is entitled for
partition and separate possession
of her 1/4th share in item No.2, 3
and 5 properties shown in the
schedule.
The defendant is having 3/4th
share in item No.2, 3 and 5
properties of the schedule.
33 O.S.No.6179/2016
The plaintiff is entitled for
partition and separate possession
of ½ share in item No.1 property
shown in the schedule. The
remaining ½ is to be given to the
defendant.
The relief of partition in item
No.4 property claimed by the
plaintiff is rejected.
The defendant is restrained
permanently from alienating the
share of the plaintiff shown above
till effecting actual partition by
metes and bounds.
Draw preliminary decree
accordingly.
(B. B. JAKATI)
LIX ADDL. C.C. & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
34 O.S.No.6179/2016