Bangalore District Court
Smt. Swapna Reddy vs Sri K.N. Chandra Reddy on 13 April, 2018
[C.R.P. 67] Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in
Suits (R.P.91)
IN THE COURT OF THE XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU. (CCH 44)
Dated: This the 13th day of April, 2018
PRESENT
Sri. V.H. WADAR, B.A., LL.B.(Spl.),
XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
O.S. No.7939/2011
PLAINTIFF : Smt. Swapna Reddy
W/o Late Lokesh Reddy C
Aged about 28 years,
R/o No.19, 1st Floor, II Cross
Muneshwara Nagar,
Padmanabha Nagar
Bengaluru-560 061.
(By Sri S.S. Advocate)
VS.
DEFENDANTS : 1. Sri K.N. Chandra Reddy,
S/o Late Narayana Reddy
Aged about 65 years,
R/at No.5, Chowdeshwari Nilaya
H.V. Reddy Layout, Kundalahalli
Bengaluru-560 037
2. Smt Nirmala Suresh,
W/o E. Suresh,
2 O.S.No.7939/2011
D/o K.N. Chandra Reddy,
Aged about 40 years,
SLS Square Apartment,
Next to I-Gate, EPIP Zone
2nd Phase, White Field,
Bengaluru-560 066.
3. Smt. Hemavathy
W/o Srinivas Reddy,
D/o K.N.Chandra Reddy,
Aged about 39 years,
Residing at No.481,
Adithi Nival, Thubarahalli,
Bengaluru-560 066.
4. Smt. Geetanjali
W/o Nagaraja K.G.,
D/o K.N. Chandra Reddy,
Aged about 35 years,
Residing at No.231, 'D' Block,
SLSL Square Apartment,
Next to I-Gate, EPIP Zone,
2nd Phase, White Field,
Bengaluru-560 066.
5. M/s. SLS Developers,
Sy.No.9/1, EPIP Phase II
Whitefield, Next to I Gate
Bengaluru-560 066
Represented by its
Authorised signatory.
6. Smt. Parvathamma,
W/o Sri K.N.Chandra Reddy,
Major in age,
Residing at No.5,
Chowdeshwari Nilaya,
H.V. Reddy Layout, Kundanahalli,
3 O.S.No.7939/2011
Bengaluru-560037
(D1 by Sri SVS, D2 by Sri BSK,
D3 by Sri SAM, D4 by Sri HMP,
D5 by Sri BKA and D6 by Sri HVH
Advocates)
Date of Institution of the suit: 09/11/2011
Nature of the Suit (Suit for
pronote, suit for declaration and Suit for Partition
possession, Suit for injunction,
etc,) :
Date of the commencement of 31/03/2016
recording of the Evidence:
Date on which the Judgment was 13/04/2018
pronounced:
Total Duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
06 05 04
(V.H. WADAR)
XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff has filed suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/10th share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds, direct the defendant No.1 to render accounts in respect 4 O.S.No.7939/2011 of the income derived from the schedule properties, mesne profits and other reliefs as deemed fit by the Court.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case is that defendant No.1 is propositus of the family of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6. Defendant No.6 is wife of the defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 Nirmala, defendant No.3 Hemavathi and defendant No.4 Geethanjali are daughters of defendant No.1 and defendant No.6. Deceased Lokesh Reddy is only son of defendant No.1 and defendant No.6. Plaintiff is the wife of deceased Lokesh Reddy. Defendant No.5 is the developer.
The plaintiff contends that she is the daughter-in-law of defendant No.1 and defendant No.6. Defendant No.1 had a son by name Lokesh Reddy, who was husband of the plaintiff died on 15/06/2009 at Sagar Hospital leaving behind him his wife - the plaintiff as his legal heir and legal representative. Plaintiff has no issues through her husband deceased Lokesh Reddy. Deceased Lokesh Reddy, first defendant, plaintiff and other defendant Nos.2 to 4 and 6 are Hindu undivided joint family members. Defendant 5 O.S.No.7939/2011 Nos.2 to 4 are daughters who are residing in their respective husband's house. Plaintiff is residing with defendant No.1, defendant No.6 and her husband during the lifetime of her husband deceased Lokesh Reddy. Unfortunately deceased Lokesh Reddy died at a young age. Suit item No.1 bearing Sy.No.9/1 measuring 2 acres 38 guntas, present BBMP khatha No.1668 which is converted land, item No.2 land bearing Sy.No.130/1 measuring 28 guntas, situated at Kundanahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru, item No.3 property bearing Sy.No.285/2 measuring 30 guntas, situated at Tubaranahalli village, Varthur Hobli, item No.4 house property bearing No.5, Chowdeshwari Nilaya, H.V. Reddy Layout, item No.5 residential house property bearing door No.10 in Sy.No.110/16 measuring 40 x 25 feet situated at Kundanahalli, these properties are joint family and ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6. These properties are shown as 'A' schedule properties.
The plaintiff contends that apart from the immovable properties stated above, the family owned movable properties 6 O.S.No.7939/2011 such as 1 kg gold, 6 kg silver, bank account No.134610100018112 in Andhra Bank, Marathahalli Branch, 3 cars, one Alto car bearing Registration No.KA-53-M-3357, Accent car bearing registration No.KA-53-M-151 and Innova car bearing registration No.KA-05- MK-3717 are all movable properties shown at schedule 'B'.
The plaintiff contends that above said properties are joint family ancestral properties of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6. Hence plaintiff's husband deceased Lokesh Reddy is entitled to 1/5th share and plaintiff and mother of deceased Lokesh Reddy are entitled to equal shares. Hence share of the plaintiff is 1/10th share in the suit schedule properties.
The plaintiff further contends that defendant No.1 after the demise of his son deceased Lokesh Reddy, the husband of the plaintiff, had entered into Joint Development Agreement in respect of item No.1 of the schedule property on 31/03/2011, which is registered before the Sub-Registrar, Mahadevapura and first defendant is entitled to 43% of super built area and also first 7 O.S.No.7939/2011 defendant had received a sum of Rs.3 Crores from defendant No.5, which is a developer. Hence plaintiff is also entitled to share in this suit property. The cause of action arose in the third week of August 2011. Hence filed this suit.
3. All the defendants appeared through their counsel and filed separate written statement.
4. Defendant No.1 filed written statement contending that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The relationship of plaintiff and deceased Lokesh Reddy as well as defendant No.1 to 4 and 6 are admitted. The suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, as mother of deceased Lokesh Reddy is proper and necessary party, as she is class-I heir of deceased Lokesh Reddy along with the plaintiff.
Defendant No.1 contends that one Malla Reddy was grand father of defendant No.1. He had five sons by name Nagappa Reddy, Venkatappa Reddy, Narayana Reddy, the father of defendant No.1, Nanjunda Reddy and Ramaiah Reddy. Out of 8 O.S.No.7939/2011 the said five brothers, fourth son Nanjunda Reddy gone out of the joint family of Malla Reddy and started residing separately from the joint family. He had relinquished his share in favour of his brothers in the joint family property. Remaining four brothers partitioned joint family properties under partition deed dated 03/04/1961. Under the said partition, the land bearing Sy.No.285/2 measuring 30 guntas, Sy.No.9/1 measuring 2 acres 38 guntas, Sy.No.19/2 measuring 3 acres 28 guntas, Sy.No.130 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas and vacant site measuring 10 yards x 13 yards in Kundalahalli Village had fallen to the share of father of defendant No.1 Narayana Reddy. Out of the said lands, except Sy.No.285/2 measuring 30 guntas item No.3 remaining lands were dry lands. They were not yielding any appreciable income for the maintenance of the family. Hence Narayana Reddy was not able to give good education to his sons. Defendant No.1 studied up to 7th standard in Government school and it is very difficult to maintain the family of defendant No.1 by his father.
Defendant No.1 had taken contention that he has joined his uncle Nanjunda Reddy as a clerk/writer. Nanjunda Reddy was 9 O.S.No.7939/2011 carrying on extensive business as a contractor and also carrying on business of bricks.
Defendant No.1 contends that his father Narayana Reddy had five children, i.e., defendant No.1, Malla Reddy and three daughters by name Kamalamma, Yashodamma and Rathnamma. Mother of defendant No.1 Akkayamma had filed suit bearing O.S.No.4976/1987 against defendant No.1 and his brother for partition and separate possession of the joint family properties allotted to Narayana Reddy under partition deed dated 03/04/1961. The said case came to be ended in compromise. In the said compromise decree passed in O.S.No.4976/1987, out of land bearing Sy.No.19/2, Malla Reddy was allotted 3 acres 28 guntas and 1 acre 20 guntas to Akkayamma and her daughters. Out of Sy.No.130, 28 guntas was allotted to the defendant No.1 and 28 guntas was allotted to K.N. Malla Reddy. The vacant site at Kundalahalli was allotted to Malla Reddy. As far as land bearing Sy.No.9/1 is concerned, since his brother Malla Reddy got 2 acres 8 guntas in the land Sy.No.19/2, first defendant should have got only 2 acres 8 guntas in Sy.No.9/1. However he was 10 O.S.No.7939/2011 allotted extra 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.9/1 for discharging the debts incurred by the family and all family liabilities. Thus 2 acres 38 guntas was allotted in the land bearing Sy.No.9/1, what can be construed as ancestral joint family property, which the first defendant got is only 2 acres 8 guntas. 30 guntas, which was allotted to him for the purpose of discharging the debts and liabilities in the family, so it is self acquired property of defendant No.1 and remaining land 2 acres 8 guntas is joint family property of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6.
The income from these lands allotted to defendant No.1 was not sufficient to maintain the family and defendant No.1 was working with his uncle Nanjunda Reddy and he was getting salary from him. The family of the defendant No.1 did not have even residential house in Kundalahalli Village. As the uncle of defendant No.1 Nanjunda Reddy had provided residential accommodation to the family in the northern portion of the house property bearing No.10 in Kundalahalli, item No.5. The family had to live at the mercy of Nanjunda Reddy. Hence item No.5 is self acquired property of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 was doing 11 O.S.No.7939/2011 timber business from 1983. He was having separate income apart from the joint family income from the joint family properties.
Defendant No.1 had taken contention that Nanjunda Reddy had filed suit bearing O.S.No.3667/87 against defendant No.1 and his brother Malla Reddy. The matter was ended in compromise. As per the compromise decree passed in the above said suit, given one portion to defendant No.1 and another portion to his brother Malla Reddy. Hence this portion of property given to defendant No.1 does not constitute joint family property. It is for this reason, when the family partitioned the property in O.S.No.4976/1987, this property was not shown as joint family property, since it constituted the self acquired property of defendant No.1. Hence the property shown in item No.5 of 'A' schedule properties is self acquired property of defendant No.1.
Defendant No.1 contends that item No.4 is also self acquired property of defendant No.1 and defendant No.6. He contends that defendant No.1 sold the gold jewellery of his wife 12 O.S.No.7939/2011 defendant No.6 Parvathamma and from the money realized and from out of his own earnings purchased the site item No.4 under registered sale deed dated 03/05/2001 from one Sridharanath Reddy. No portion of the family income was used for purchasing the said site item No.4 and availed loan from Oriental Bank Ltd., and constructed a building on the said site. Hence item No.4 is not joint family property of the plaintiff and defendants.
Defendant No.1 has also contended that item No.3 bearing Sy.No.285/2, was acquired by BWS & SB and awarded compensation of Rs.1,36,20,719/- . Defendant No.1 contends that he had paid loan of deceased Lokesh Reddy, who had availed loan, as Lokesh Reddy was doing money lending business independently and was also doing real estate. Defendant No.1 had paid Rs.78,00,000/- out of the compensation amount to the creditors of his son deceased Lokesh Reddy. Hence item No.3 is not available for partition.
The said amount of Rs.78,00,000/- paid in the following manner: Rs.38,00,000/- paid to one Nishanth Reddy from whom 13 O.S.No.7939/2011 deceased Lokesh Reddy had borrowed Rs.30,00,000/- and issued to him two cheques each for Rs.15,00,000/-. Together with interest this defendant had paid Rs.38,00,000/- and took back two cheques. In addition to this, defendant No.1 had paid Rs.40,00,000/- to the chit funds consisting of 30 members in the village. Hence the compensation amount received from BWS & SB, for item No.3 is not available for partition.
Defendant No.1 contends that property bearing Sy.No.9/1 item No.1 and land bearing Sy.No.130/1 item No.2 are available for partition.
Defendant No.1 contends that he is kartha of the family and for the benefit of the family entered into joint development agreement with defendant No.5 M/s. SLS Developers for constructing residential apartments in land bearing Sy.No.9/1. The terms of the development agreement will have to be completely satisfied. As already stated above, 30 guntas of land in land bearing Sy.No.9/1 was self acquired property of defendant No.1 and remaining land measuring 2 acres 8 guntas is joint 14 O.S.No.7939/2011 family property of plaintiff and defendants. Item No.2 Sy.No.130/1 is concerned, defendant No.1 has no objection for partition. Further defendant No.1 contends that defendant No.6 who is wife of defendant No.1 and mother of defendant Nos.2 to 4 and deceased Lokesh Reddy is also class-1 heir. Hence Lokesh Reddy is entitled to 1/6th share and plaintiff is entitled to 1/12th share in the said 1/6th share. The other allegations in the plaint are all denied in toto except the above said contentions. Defendant No.1 has also denied all the averments made in respect of schedule 'B' properties and had taken contention that Alto car bearing No.KA-534 M-3357 is sold by plaintiff herself. Accent car bearing No.KA-53 M-151 was sold by defendant No.6, mother of deceased Lokesh Reddy. Defendant No.1 had purchased Innova car bearing No.KA-05 MK-3717 by availing loan. Hence it is self acquired property of defendant No.1. Hence 'B' schedule properties are not available for partition and also denied that he has received Rs.3 crores from defendant No.5. Whereas he has taken contention that he has received Rs.2 crores only which is refundable deposit from defendant No.5 15 O.S.No.7939/2011 and it has to be refunded to the developer upon delivering possession of the apartments to the defendant No.1. As it has to be refunded at any time, the said amount has been kept in fixed deposit in a bank and it is not available for partition.
Sharing of apartments that are being constructed in the land bearing Sy.No.9/1 arises only after construction work is completed. Hence suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed.
5. Defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 have filed separate written statement taking same defence as contended by defendant No.1.
6. Defendant No.5 has filed separate written statement contending that suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. There is no cause of action to file the present suit and denied all the averments made in the plaint.
Defendant No.5 contends that defendant No.1 and defendant No.5 M/s. SLS Developers had entered into joint development agreement during the month of March 2011 for development of item No.1 of the suit schedule property, subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein and this defendant 16 O.S.No.7939/2011 No.5 is concerned only about item No.1 of the schedule property and further defendant No.5 contends that as per the terms of the joint development agreement, the land owner who is defendant No.1 has been allotted with 43% of flats in the project and the builder, who is defendant No.5 herein is entitled for 57% of the flats in the project and all the flats have been alienated/sold to the purchasers and all of them have availed loan from different banks and financial institutions. Defendant No.1 had acquired the said land under compromise decree. Defendant No.5 contends that plaintiff is entitled to 1/12th share from the owner's share of flats in 43% share flats allotted to the owner in the joint development agreement. The plaintiff is not entitled to share in the share allotted to the builder's share of 57% flats in item No.1 of the suit schedule property.
Defendant No.5 contends that as per the joint development agreement, defendant No.5 has deposited Rs.2 crores, whereas the plaintiff has claimed that defendant No.1 has received Rs.3 Crores from defendant No.5. The other averments made in the 17 O.S.No.7939/2011 plaint are all denied in toto and prays to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff, in the interest of justice and equity.
7. Defendant No.6 has filed separate written statement contending that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case and the same may be dismissed in limine. There is no cause of action to file the present suit. Plaintiff has not paid proper and correct court fee, as the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit schedule property.
Defendant No.6 has contended the same contention as pleaded by defendant No.1 that item Nos.4 and 5 of the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of defendant No.1 and item No.4 of the suit schedule property was purchased by defendant No.1 by selling gold jewellery of defendant No.6 and out of the self earnings of defendant No.1.
Item No.3 of the schedule property has already been acquired and the same is not available for alleged partition. These facts are suppressed by the plaintiff.
18 O.S.No.7939/2011
Defendant No.6 contends that in item No.1 in Sy.No.9/1, 30 guntas is self acquired property of defendant No.1 and the land measuring 2 acres 8 is only available for partition. Item No.2 bearing Sy.No.130/1 measuring 28 guntas is also available for partition and this defendant No.6 is also entitled to share U/Sec.8 of Hindu Succession Act and also as per the Will executed by deceased Lokesh Reddy in favour of plaintiff and this defendant No.6. 'B' schedule property is not available for partition. Item No.1 of 'B' schedule property Alto car is sold by the plaintiff herself. Item No.2 of 'B' schedule property Accent car is sold by this defendant No.6. Item No.3 of 'B' schedule property is self acquired property of defendant No.1, as he purchased the same by availing loan from the bank. Item No.4 of 'B' schedule property is not in existence. Item No.5 of 'B' schedule property, it is not joint family earnings or savings. Hence plaintiff is not entitled for any share in 'B' schedule property. Further defendant No.6 contends that defendant No.1 has received Rs.2 Crores as refundable security from defendant No.5.
19 O.S.No.7939/2011
Defendant No.6 admits that plaintiff is sister-in-law of defendant Nos.2 to 4 and daughter-in-law of defendant No.1 and this defendant. It is a fact that defendant No.1 and defendant No.6 had a son by name Lokesh Reddy, husband of the plaintiff who died on 15/06/2009 at Sagar Hospital. Plaintiff and this defendant No.6 are legal heirs of deceased Lokesh Reddy. They being class-1 heirs, they are entitled to equal share in the share allotted to deceased Lokesh Reddy.
This defendant No.6 contends that plaintiff's husband late Lokesh Reddy, first defendant, defendant Nos.2, 3, 4 and this defendant No.6 constitute Hindu joint family and item No.1 measuring 2 acres 8 guntas and item No.2 of 'A' schedule properties are joint family properties.
Defendant No.6 contends that her son deceased Lokesh Reddy had started business of financing from 2002 in the name and style "Sai Finance" which was registered with the office of Controller of Finance Business. He had several debts and was in a lot of financial crisis. Lokesh Reddy during his lifetime fell in 20 O.S.No.7939/2011 love with the plaintiff and married her in the year 2006. The plaintiff and her husband Lokesh Reddy were residing with the parents of the plaintiff and the plaintiff and her husband never resided with this defendant or other defendants in the residence of first defendant. Due to chronic drinking habits attributable to plaintiff, he was under treatment. He was advised by the doctors that he will not be able to survive for long. In such circumstances, the said Lokesh Reddy fearing his death and being interested in protecting the welfare of his wife and to protect the interest of his financiers to whom he was liable to pay, and others, had during his lifetime executed a Will dated 14/05/2009. The said Lokesh Reddy died on 15/06/2009. After his death, the finance office of late Lokesh Reddy was defunct. However, Manjunath also vacated and the belongings of the deceased Lokesh Reddy were dumped in the car garage in the residence of defendant No.1. Recently while cleaning the garage, during November 2013, the said Will was found.
Defendant No.6 states that as per the Will, plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share out of the share in the ancestral property 21 O.S.No.7939/2011 inherited by deceased Lokesh Reddy. As per the Will, this defendant No.6 is also entitled to share out of the share in ancestral property inherited by deceased Lokesh Reddy. As per the said Will, 1/4th share shall be used to clear all dues to the legitimate claimants over his loans and remaining 1/4th share out of the share allotted to deceased Lokesh Reddy shall be distributed to dharma karyas in his name. Thus keeping in view the interest stated in the said Will of late Lokesh Reddy, this defendant No.6 being his mother and Class-1 heir of deceased Lokesh Reddy is entitled to share as per the provisions of Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act and also as a legatee of the Will. Hence the suit of the plaintiff may be dismissed for partition as claimed and made by the plaintiff with respect to item Nos.3 to 5 of 'A' schedule and 'B' schedule properties. Consequently allot share to this defendant in item No.1 and item No.2 of schedule 'A' properties of the plaint.
8. Based upon these rival pleadings of the parties, following issues have been framed:-
22 O.S.No.7939/2011
Issue Nos.1 and 3 are re-casted.Re-casted Issue Nos.1 and 3
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and she is entitled 1/10th share in the suit schedule properties?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled to separate possession of her 1/10th share in the suit schedule properties?"
2. Whether plaintiff proves that 1st defendant is liable to render accounts in respect of the income derived from the schedule properties?
4. Whether defendant No.1 proves that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged in para-3 of the written statement?
5. Whether defendant No.1 proves that the only properties that are available for partition are land bearing No.9/1 which is described as first item and land bearing Sy.No.130/1 which is described as second item in the schedule as alleged in para-23 of the written statement?
6. Whether defendant No.2 proves that the suit deserves to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party as alleged in para-1 of the written statement?
7. Whether defendant No.2 proves that she is entitled for 1/6th share in suit item No.2 as alleged in the written statement?
8. Whether defendant No.3 proves that Smt. Parvathamma who is the wife of 1st defendant and who is the mother of 3rd defendant has 23 O.S.No.7939/2011 not been made as party to this suit and she is proper and necessary party as alleged in para-16 of the written statement?
9. Whether defendant No.4 proves that the suit is liable for dismissal on the ground of non- joinder of Smt.Parvathamma, who is necessary party to the suit as alleged in para- 10 of the written statement?
10. Whether defendant No.5 proves that plaintiff has not paid the proper Court Fee and the Court Fee paid is insufficient as alleged in para-28 of the written statement?
11. Whether defendant No.6 proves that Lokesh Reddy has executed a Will dated 14/5/09 as alleged in para-20 of the written statement?
12. Whether defendant No.6 proves that she is entitled to a share in A-schedule item No.1 measuring 2 acres 8 guntas and item No.2 of A-schedule in the ancestral properties inherited by late Lokesh Reddy, being his mother and class-I heir, under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, and also a legatee of the Will as alleged in para-22 of the written statement?
13. Whether plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits?
14. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
15. What order or decree?24 O.S.No.7939/2011
Addl. Issues:
1. Whether the first defendant proves that Item No.4 and 5 of the suit schedule-A properties are his separate/self-acquired properties?
2. Whether the first defendant proves that he has exclusive right over 30 guntas of land in Item No.1 of the suit schedule-A property?
3. Whether the first defendant proves that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the compensation amount relating to item No.3 of the suit schedule-A property as first defendant had discharged the debts of Lokesh Reddy, the deceased husband of the plaintiff?
4. Whether plaintiff proves that first defendant is under obligation to render accounts?
9. Plaintiff herself examined as P.W.1, Ex.P.1 to P.10 got marked and closed plaintiff's side. Defendant No.1 himself examined as D.W.1, 4 witnesses have been examined as D.Ws.2 to 4 and D.W.6, defendant No.3 is examined as D.W.5, Ex.D.1 to D.22 got marked and closed defendants' side.
10. Heard the arguments on both sides.
11. My findings on the above Issues are:-
25 O.S.No.7939/2011
Re-casted Partly in affirmative, plaintiff is issue No.1 : entitled to 1/4th share in the share allotted to deceased Lokesh Reddy Issue No.2 : In the affirmative Re-casted Partly in affirmative, plaintiff is issue no.3 : entitled to 1/4th share in the share allotted to deceased Lokesh Reddy Issue No.4 : Not necessary to answer Issue No.5 : In the negative Issue No.6 : Not necessary to answer Issue No.7 : In the affirmative Issue No.8 : Not necessary to answer Issue No.9 : Not necessary to answer Issue No.10: In the negative Issue No.11: In the affirmative Issue No.12: In the affirmative Issue No.13: In the affirmative Issue No.14: As per final order Addl. Issue In the affirmative No.1 :
Addl. Issue In the affirmative No.2 :
Addl. Issue In the negative
No.3 :
26 O.S.No.7939/2011
Addl. Issue In the affirmative
No.4 :
Issue No.15: As per final order
for the following :-
REASONS
12. Re-casted Issue Nos.1 and 3, additional Issue No.1 and additional Issue No.2 discussed jointly:- These issues are interconnected with each other. To avoid repetition of the facts and evidence, I have discussed the above issues jointly.
13. It is admitted fact that defendant No.1 is husband of defendant No.6 Parvathamma. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 are daughters of defendant No.1 and 6 and deceased Lokesh Reddy was only son to defendant No.1 and defendant No.6 Parvathamma. It is also admitted fact that plaintiff is wife of deceased Lokesh Reddy, daughter-in-law of defendant Nos.1 and
6. The relationship of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 is also admitted fact. It is admitted fact that the marriage of plaintiff was solemnized with deceased Lokesh Reddy in the year 2006 and it is a love marriage. It is admitted fact that deceased 27 O.S.No.7939/2011 Lokesh Reddy died on 15/06/2009 leaving behind him his wife plaintiff Swapna Reddy and mother defendant No.6 Parvathamma. It is also admitted fact that plaintiff has no issues out of her wedlock. It is admitted fact that deceased Lokesh Reddy was addicted to bad vices like drinking and he died due to such bad addiction.
14. Plaintiff contends that suit schedule properties mentioned in 'A' and 'B' schedule are joint family ancestral properties of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and defendant No.6. Deceased Lokesh Reddy died on 15/06/2009 at Sagar Hospital leaving behind him his wife plaintiff Swapna Reddy, his mother defendant No.6 Parvathamma as class-1 heirs. Deceased Lokesh Reddy and plaintiff had no issues out of their wedlock.
Defendant Nos.2 to 4 are married daughters of defendant No.1 and 6. They are settled in their life after their marriage. Hence deceased Lokesh Reddy is entitled to 1/5th share in the suit schedule property. Out of the said 1/5th share, plaintiff and defendant No.6 are entitled to ½ share each in the share of deceased Lokesh Reddy. Hence plaintiff is entitled to 1/10th share 28 O.S.No.7939/2011 in suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. Whereas mother of deceased Lokesh Reddy, defendant No.6 is entitled to 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties.
15. Defendant No.1 to 4 and 6 have filed separate written statement contending that grandfather of defendant No.1 Malla Reddy had 5 sons. Among 5 brothers Nanjunda Reddy separated from the joint family of Malla Reddy and he had executed relinquishment deed in favour of Malla Reddy and other four sons. Remaining 4 brothers had effected partition on 03/04/1961 as per Ex.D.4. Following properties had fallen to the share of father of defendant No.1 Narayana Reddy.
Sy.No.285/2 measuring 30 guntas, Sy.No.9/1 measuring 2 acres 38 guntas-item No.1, land bearing Sy.No.19/2 measuring 3 acres 28 guntas, Sy.No.130 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas. Further defendant No.1 contends that income derived from the above said agricultural land was not sufficient to maintain the family. Hence defendant No.1 joined and he was working with Nanjunda Reddy 29 O.S.No.7939/2011 and he used to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month to defendant No.1 and with this he started timber business.
15. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 contends that suit item No.1 Sy.No.9/1 measuring 2 acres 8 guntas, suit item No.2 Sy.No.130/1 measuring 28 guntas and suit item No.3 Sy.No.285/2 measuring 30 guntas are joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6. 30 guntas in item No.1 Sy.No.9/1 is self acquired property of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 contends that Akkayamma had filed suit bearing O.S.No.4976/1987 for partition. As per Ex.D.7 compromise petition and Ex.D.8 compromise decree dated 29/10/1994 the case ended in compromise. As per the decree, 30 guntas had been allotted to defendant No.1 Chandra Reddy, as there is liability and he shall discharge the liability of the family. Hence the said 30 guntas is self acquired property of defendant No.1 in item No.1 of the suit schedule property. This fact is proved by producing Ex.D.7 compromise petition and Ex.D.8 compromise decree. Hence the said 30 guntas in item No.1 of suit schedule property is self acquired property of the defendant No.1. 30 O.S.No.7939/2011
16. Defendant No.1 had pleaded in his written statement that as per the partition between brothers of father of the defendant No.1 on 03/04/1961, 4 properties i.e. item Nos.1 to 3 and land bearing Sy.No.19/2 measuring 3 acres 28 guntas allotted to the father of defendant No.1 Narayana Reddy. The said land is dry land and the income yielded from the said land is not sufficient to maintain the family of Narayana Reddy. Further defendant No.1 pleaded that he was working with Nanjunda Reddy, brother of Narayana Reddy as a clerk and he was receiving salary of Rs.5,000/- and he was also doing timber business by purchasing trees, cutting them and making windows, doors and door frames. Hence the said avocation as pleaded by defendant No.1 and this has been established by adducing evidence of D.W.3 Narayanappa who had constructed residential house and he has purchased doors, door frames, and window frames from defendant No.1. Though he has not produced receipts, but it clearly goes to show that defendant No.1 is having a separate independent income from the said business. D.W.4-Narasimhaiah also constructed a house in the year 1990 by 31 O.S.No.7939/2011 purchasing doors, door frames, window frames and window doors from defendant No.1. There is no any reason to disbelieve the evidence of D.W.3 and 4. Hence defendant No.1 has proved and established that he is having independent source of income apart from the joint family income. The compromise decree clearly goes to show that 30 guntas of land was allotted to defendant No.1 to discharge the liabilities of the joint family of father of defendant No.1 Narayana Reddy. Hence item No.1 measuring 2 acres 8 guntas is joint family ancestral property of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6. 30 guntas in the said item No.1 is self acquired property of defendant No.1. Item No.1 is available for partition.
17. Defendant No.1 and other defendant Nos.2 to 4 and 6 have no objection to effect partition in item No.2 land bearing Sy.No.130/1 measuring 28 guntas. Hence this is available for partition and plaintiff is entitled to share in item No.2.
18. Item No.3 land bearing Sy.No.285/2 measuring 30 guntas was acquired by BWS & SB, as could be seen from the 32 O.S.No.7939/2011 award notice dated 03/01/2011. As per Ex.D.10, a sum of Rs.1,36,20,719/- was awarded as compensation. Defendants have taken contention that deceased Lokesh Reddy had incurred heavy debts for his finance business and the said compensation was utilised for the purpose of discharging his debts. Late Lokesh Reddy had issued two cheques Ex.D.13 and Ex.D.14. Though signature found on Ex.D.13 and D.14 are not in dispute, but the defendants have not discharged the burden by examining the cheque holder of Ex.D.13 and D.14. Hence plaintiff is entitled to share in the said compensation amount of Rs.1,36,20,719/-.
19. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 and defendant No.6 contends that item No.4 is self acquired property of defendant No.1, as he purchased site from one Sridharnath Reddy vide sale deed dated 03/05/2001 as per Ex.D.11. Defendant No.1 has taken contention that he has sold the jewellery of his wife defendant No.6 and to prove this fact, defendant No.1 has produced Ex.D.15. Defendant No.1 had constructed a building by borrowing loan from the Bank of Commerce, Indiranagar Branch, Bengaluru. I have perused Ex.D.15, where the name of 33 O.S.No.7939/2011 defendant No.1 found in the said receipt. The said receipt is pertaining to the date, dated 20/04/2001. Though defendant No.1 has not examined the author of the said document, but the said document was marked as Ex.D.15. The contention of the plaintiff is that the signature found on Ex.D.15 is at the place where sales man is written. Except the said defence, plaintiff has not taken contention that it is not the document pertaining to defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 has proved and established that he has purchased suit item No.4 site as per Ex.D.11- sale deed. Hence suit item No.4 is self acquired property of defendant No.1 and it is not available for partition.
20. Defendant No.1 to 4 and 6 contends that as far as suit item No.5 is concerned, it is also self acquired property of defendant No.1. The said property was belonging to the uncle of defendant No.1 Nanjunda Reddy. Defendant No.1 was residing in a portion of the said property belonging to the uncle of defendant No.1 Nanjunda Reddy. Nanjunda Reddy had filed suit bearing O.S.No.909/1988. The said plaint is marked at Ex.D.18. Subsequently, the case ended in compromise. The compromise 34 O.S.No.7939/2011 petition is marked at Ex.D.19. Nanjunda Reddy had confirmed title of defendant No.1 as per the compromise decree Ex.D.20 dated 13/07/1994. Hence item No.5 is not joint family property of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 and it is not available for partition.
21. Plaintiff contends that suit schedule 'B' properties are joint family ancestral properties of plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 4 and 6. The said movable properties are 2 cars, which are sold by defendant No.6 and plaintiff. The third item Innova car was purchased by defendant No.1 by borrowing loan from Indian Overseas Bank. The said document is marked at Ex.D.12. The said Innova car is self acquired property of defendant No.1 and it is not available for partition. Alto car item No.1 of 'B' schedule property was sold by the plaintiff herself and it is not available for partition. Item No.2 Accent car bearing No.KA-53-M-151 was sold by defendant No.6 and it is not available for partition. Plaintiff has not produced materials on record to show that the family is having 1 kilo of gold and 6 kilos of silver and cash in account as shown in item No.5 of 'B' schedule property. Thus item No.4 and 35 O.S.No.7939/2011 5 of 'B' schedule property are not available for partition and not proved by cogent evidence.
22. Plaintiff contends that Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rs.3 crores), which had deposited by defendant No.5 joint development agreement holder with defendant No.1. But defendant No.1 claims that he had received a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Rs./2 crores) as refundable advance. The allegation that defendant No.1 had received Rs.3,00,00,000/- from defendant No.5 is false. Rs.2,00,00,000/- item No.6 shown in 'B' schedule property is returnable. This fact is not in dispute. Hence plaintiff is entitled to share in item No.1 Sy.No.9/1 measuring 2 acres 8 guntas, item No.2 Sy.No.130/1 measuring 28 guntas and item No.3 Sy.No.285/2 which had been acquired by BWS & SB and the amount was deposited and plaintiff is entitled to share in the said properties.
23. Item No.4, item No.5 and 30 guntas in item No.1 Sy.No.9/1 are self acquired properties of defendant No.1 and plaintiff is not entitled to share.
36 O.S.No.7939/2011
24. Now we have to see what is the share of husband of the plaintiff deceased Lokesh Reddy. Plaintiff filed suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/10th share in the suit schedule properties, as deceased Lokesh Reddy is entitled to 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties and plaintiff and defendant No.6 who are class-1 heirs are each entitled to ½ share in 1/5th share of deceased Lokesh Reddy. Hence plaintiff is entitled to 1/10th share in the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.1 to 4 and 6 contends that deceased Lokesh Reddy is entitled to 1/6th share, as it is partition between son and father. Hence defendant No.6 is entitled to equal share. As per the amended Act, defendant Nos.2 to 4 who are daughters are also coparceners are entitled to equal share along with son. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 who are daughters to defendant No.1 are entitled to equal share with the son. This fact and amendment of the Act considered as coparceners is not in dispute.
25. Defendant No.6 contends that she is also entitled to equal share along with son. Hence deceased Lokesh Reddy is 37 O.S.No.7939/2011 entitled to 1/6th share. Defendant No.6 is entitled to 1/6th share, defendant No.1 to 4 each entitled to 1/6th share.
26. Under the explanation to sub-section (3) of Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, it must be deemed that the coparcener, i.e., Lokesh Reddy died after effecting a partition, which is as per the notional partition, deceased Lokesh Reddy died after the partition. If the partition has taken place on the date of death of Lokesh Reddy, the persons entitled to partition on that day would be deceased Lokesh Reddy, his father-defendant No.1, his mother-defendant No.6, three daughters-defendant Nos.2 to 4 are entitled to equal share. Learned Advocate for the defendants has placed reliance on the ruling reported in AIR 2009 KAR
180. As per the notional partition, mother will be entitled to share equal to that of a son. That being the case, there were six shares and each of them would get 1/6th share. Hence the share of deceased Lokesh Reddy is 1/6th share and plaintiff, defendant No.6 are entitled to ½ share in the 1/6th share of deceased Lokesh Reddy.
38 O.S.No.7939/2011
27. Plaintiff has claimed 1/10th share in the suit schedule properties. As I have discussed in supra, deceased Lokesh Reddy, defendant Nos.1 to 4 and defendant No.6 are entitled to equal share. Hence deceased Lokesh Reddy is entitled to 1/6th share and in the said 1/6th share plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share as a legatee of the Will and I answer re-casted issue No.1 and 3 partly in the affirmative, as plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in the share of deceased Lokesh Reddy, i.e., 1/6th share.
28. Defendants have proved and established that suit 'A' schedule item Nos.4 and 5 are self acquired properties of defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 has proved that 30 guntas in suit 'A' schedule item No.1 is self acquired property of defendant No.1. Hence I answer additional issue No.1 in the affirmative and additional issue No.2 in the affirmative.
29. Issue No.4, issue No.6, issue No.8 and issue No.9 are discussed jointly:- Initially plaintiff has not arrayed defendant No.6 as a party, who is class-1 heir of deceased Lokesh Reddy. As per I.A.No.3 and 16 defendant No.5 and 6 are 39 O.S.No.7939/2011 impleaded as party to the proceedings. The joint development agreement holder was arrayed as defendant No.5 and mother of deceased Lokesh Reddy, Parvathamma was arrayed as defendant No.6. Hence these issues are not necessary to answer and the said contention was complied by the plaintiff by filing I.A.No.3 and 16. Hence I answer these issues accordingly.
30. Issue No.11:- Defendant No.6 filed written statement contending that deceased Lokesh Reddy had executed a Will on 14/05/2009 at para 20 of the written statement of defendant No.6 and deceased Lokesh Reddy died on 15/06/2009. After the demise of Lokesh Reddy, finance office of late Lokesh Reddy was defunct and entire belongings of Lokesh Reddy were dumped in the car garage of the residence of defendant No.1 by Manjunath. Recently defendant No.6 came to know that deceased Lokesh Reddy had executed a Will on 14/05/2009. The burden casted on defendant No.6 to prove due execution of Will by deceased Lokesh Reddy. The plaintiff has not filed counter to the said facts pleaded by defendant No.6 about the Will. 40 O.S.No.7939/2011 However, it is not a mandate on the part of the plaintiff to file say on the counter claim of the defendant No.6.
31. Learned Advocate for defendant No.6 contends that defendant No.6 has examined the attesting witness D.W.6 Manjunath and also examined defendant No.3 as D.W.5, the power of attorney holder of defendant No.6. Hence defendant No.6 has proved the Will-Ex.D.1 in accordance with Section 62 and 68 of Evidence Act and the requirements of Section 63 of Indian Succession Act stands proved in the present case regarding attestation and execution of the Will and defendant No.3 is examined on behalf of herself and on behalf of defendant No.6 as General Power of Attorney holder and she identified the signature of the testator deceased Lokesh Reddy. Further learned Advocate for the defendants contends that there are no suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will and there is no defence by the plaintiff regarding coercion, fraud or undue influence. No rebuttal evidence is let in by the plaintiff, no unnatural or unfair circumstances in execution of the Will pointed out and proved. It is the duty of the Court to carry out 41 O.S.No.7939/2011 the intention of the testator as expressed and also he placed reliance on so many citations.
32. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the plaintiff contends that the Will has been produced by defendant No.6. Plaintiff has filed suit on 09/11/2011. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 have filed written statement in the month of January 2013 and in the month of April 2013. Neither defendant No.1 nor defendant No.2 to 4 have taken contention about existence of the Will-Ex.D.1. Defendant No.6 filed written statement on 19/06/2014, whereas Will was executed on 14/05/2009, 2 years prior to the filing of suit. Hence there is a delay and said delay has not been properly explained by the defendant No.6.
33. It is admitted fact that defendant No.6 was not arrayed as party to the proceedings. Defendant No.6 was impleaded by filing I.A.No.16. The said I.A.No.16 came to be allowed on 01/04/2014. Amended plaint was filed on 29/04/2014. The Will was produced by the defendant No.6 along 42 O.S.No.7939/2011 with her written statement on 19/06/2014. Hence there is no delay in producing the Will.
34. Defendant No.6 has pleaded in her written statement that after the demise of Lokesh Reddy, the belongings of Lokesh Reddy who was running finance business were kept in the garage of the defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 came to know about the Will through defendant No.3 and Manjunath D.W.6. Hence there is no delay in producing and pleading about existence of Will.
35. The plaintiff during her course of cross-examination she deposed as under:
"Now I see one signature. I think it is signature of Lokesh Reddy, but I am not sure."
So the signature of the deceased Lokesh Reddy was not disputed by the plaintiff, found on Ex.D.1. Hence the testator signature was found on Ex.D.1. D.W.5 had identified the signature of testator deceased Lokesh Reddy. D.W.6-Manjunath 43 O.S.No.7939/2011 had also identified the signature of deceased Lokesh Reddy. Hence the execution of the Will by deceased Lokesh Reddy was proved in accordance with law as per Section 67 and 68 of Indian Evidence Act.
36. In this case the profounder of the Will plaintiff as well as defendant No.6 are not present at the time of execution of the Will. Hence there is no any doubtful circumstance or suspicious circumstance at the time of execution of the Will.
37. Though learned Advocate for the plaintiff has placed reliance on the ruling reported in (2009) 3 SCC 687 (Bharpur Singh and others vs. Shamsher Singh) Wherein it is held as under:
"23. Suspicious circumstances like the following may be found to be surrounded in the execution of the will:
(i) The signature of the testator may be very shaky and doubtful or not appear to be his usual signature.
(ii) The condition of the testator's mind may be very feeble and debilitated at the relevant time.44 O.S.No.7939/2011
(iii) The disposition may be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances like exclusion of or absence of adequate provisions for the natural heirs without any reason.
(iv) The dispositions may not appear to be the result of the testator's free will and mind.
(v) The propounder takes a prominent part in the execution of the will.
(vi)The testator used to sign blank papers
(vii) The will did not see the light of the day for long
(viii) Incorrect recitals of essential facts.
The facts of that case and the facts of the present case on hand are entirely different. There are no any suspicious circumstances. Defendant No.6 has established and proved that testator had duly executed Ex.D.1-Will. Hence defendant No.6 has proved the Will and I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative.
38. Issue No.12:- Defendant No.6 proves that she is entitled to equal share with deceased Lokesh Reddy and defendant No.1 to 4 and also defendant No.6 is entitled to 1/4th 45 O.S.No.7939/2011 share in the share allotted to deceased Lokesh Reddy as a legatee of the Will. Hence I answer issue No.12 in the affirmative.
39. Issue No.5:- Defendant No.1 contends that suit 'A' schedule item Nos.1 and 2 are only joint family properties. The suit 'A' schedule item No.3 is also joint family ancestral property of plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6. Hence item Nos.1 to 3 are joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 4 and 6 and plaintiff is entitled to share in item No.3 also. Hence I answer issue No.5 in the negative.
40. Issue No.7:- Defendant No.2 contends that she is entitled for 1/6th share in suit item No.2. It is established and proved that item No.2 is also joint family property of plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 4 and defendant No.6. Hence defendant No.2 is also entitled to 1/6th share in item No.2 along with defendant No.1, 3, 4 and 6. Hence I answer issue No.7 in the affirmative.
41. Issue No.10:- Defendants have taken contention that court fee paid is not proper and correct. The said contention of the defendants has no force, since this is suit for partition and 46 O.S.No.7939/2011 separate possession and the relationship of the parties is not in dispute. Hence plaintiff has paid proper and correct court fee. Hence I answer issue No.3 in the negative.
42. Additional Issue No.3:- Defendant No.1 has failed to prove that he discharged the loan of deceased Lokesh Reddy. Hence plaintiff is entitled to share in the compensation amount as legatee of the Will executed by deceased Lokesh Reddy. Hence I answer additional issue No.3 in the negative.
43. Issue Nos.2, 13 and Additional issue No.4:-
Plaintiff is entitled to partition as a legatee of the Will executed by deceased Lokesh Reddy. The plaintiff is entitled to accounts and first defendant is under the obligation to render accounts.
Hence plaintiff has to file separate suit for mesne profits and I answer issue No.2, issue No.13 and additional issue No.4 accordingly.
44. Plaintiff is entitled to partition as a legatee. Plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in the share of deceased Lokesh Reddy as a legatee of the Will. Plaintiff has preferred MFA 47 O.S.No.7939/2011 No.7165/2014 before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka against the orders passed on I.A.No.17 to 22. In the said MFA, parties have entered into compromise and filed compromise petition. The said compromise petition is a partial compromise and the judgment and preliminary decree passed by this Court is applicable to the said compromise. Hence plaintiff is entitled to share as per the preliminary decree passed by this Court.
45. Issue No. 15:- For the reasons discussed above and in view of findings given on the above issues, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed partly holding that deceased Lokesh Reddy is entitled to 1/6th share in the suit 'A' schedule item Nos.1 to 3 and plaintiff and defendant No.6 are entitled to 1/4th share in the share of deceased Lokesh Reddy as a legatee of the Will-Ex.D.1.
No order as to costs.48 O.S.No.7939/2011
Draw preliminary decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 13th day of April, 2018.) (V.H. WADAR) XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
SCHEDULE 'A' PROPERTIES
1. All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.9/1 measuring 2 acres 38 guntas of converted land, present BBMP Khatha No.1668 Kundalahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and bounded on the:
East by : 40 feet KIADB Road (Sy.No.8) West by : Sy.No.15 and 16 and road, North by : Sy.No.19/2 and road South by : Sy.No.9/2 and road
2. All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.130/1, measuring 28 guntas, Kundalahalli Village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk bounded on the:
East by : Kundalahalli Gramathana West by : Remaining portion of Sy.No.130/1 belonging to K.N. Malla Reddy, 49 O.S.No.7939/2011 North by : Thimmaiah Reddy's Brick factory South by : Nagappa Reddy's and Malla Reddy's Land
3. All that piece and parcel of the property bearing Sy.No.285/2 measuring 30 guntas situated at Tubaranahalli Village Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk (Amani Bellandur Kane) and bounded on the :
East by : Iyappa's land
West by : Biddappa's land
North by : Bommanahalli Muniswamappa's land South by : Muninanjappa's land
4. All that piece and parcel of the residential house bearing No.5,Chowdeshwar Nilaya, H.V. Reddy Layout, Kundalahalli village, Marathahalli Post, Bengaluru-560 037 and bounded on the:
East by : Road West by : Site No.354 North by : Site No.4 South by : Site No.6
5. All that piece and parcel of the residential house property bearing Door No.10, Sy.No.110/16, Kundalahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru measuring east to west 40 feet and north to south 25 feet and bounded on the:
East by : Vacant passage measuring east to west 15 feet and north to south 25 feet West by : Remaining portion of the same property belonging to K.N. Malla Reddy 50 O.S.No.7939/2011 North by : Road South by : Remaining portion of Sy.No.110/16 bearing door No.9 SCHEDULE-B PROPERTIES
1. Alto car bearing No. KA 53 M 3357
2. Accent car bearing No. KA-53 M-151
3. Innova car bearing No. KA-05 MK-3717
4. One kilo of gold and six kilos of silver
5. cash in the Account No.134610100018112 in Andhra Bank, Marathahalli Branch, Bengaluru.
6. cash in hand of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees three crores only) ANNEXURE List of witness examined for the plaintiff/s:-
P.W.1 : Smt. Swapna Reddy List of witness examined for the defendant/s:-
D.W.1 : K.N. Chandra Reddy
D.W.2 : M. Rajendra Prasad
D.W.3 : R. Narayanappa
D.W.4 : Narasimhayya
D.W.5 : Smt. Hemavathi
D.W.6 : R. Manjunath
51 O.S.No.7939/2011
List of documents marked for the plaintiff/s:-
Ex.P.1 : Death certificate of Lokesh Reddy Ex.P.2 : RTC of land in Ex.D.No.9/1 of Kundanahalli Village Ex.P.3 : RTC of Ex.D.No.130/1 of Kundanahalli Village Ex.P.4 : RTC of Ex.D.No.285/2 Ex.P.5 & : Encumbrance certificates P.6 Ex.P.7 & : Mutation extracts P.8 Ex.P.9 : Certified copy of joint allotted agreement dated 31/03/2011 Ex.P.10: Genealogical tree List of documents marked for the defendant/s:-
Ex.D.1 : Will dated 14/05/2009 Ex.D.1(a) : Signature of Lokesh Reddy Ex.D.1(b) : Signature of D.W.6 Ex.D.2 : Cheque dated 19/01/2009 Ex.D.3 : Letter dated 02/03/2016
Ex.D.3(a) : Andhra Bank statement of account Ex.D.4 : Certified copy of registered partition deed dated 03/04/61 Ex.D.5 to : Certified copy of plaint, written statement, D.8 compromise petition and final decree in O.S.No.4976/1987 Ex.D.9 : Compromise decree in O.S.No.7724/1996 Ex.D.9(a) : Certified copy of compromise petition in O.S.No.7724/1996 Ex.D.10 : Award notice dated 03/01/2011 Ex.D.11 : Original sale deed dated 03/05/2001 Ex.D.12 : Certificate dated 28/03/2016 issued by Indian Overseas Bank Ex.D.13 : Two cheques Ex.D.14 :52 O.S.No.7939/2011
Ex.D.15 : Original receipt issued by Nakshathra Jewellers Ex.D.16 & : Money lending licence D.17 Ex.D.18 to : Certified copy of order sheet, compromise petition D.20 with sketch and decree in O.S.No.909/1988 Ex.D.21 : Photostat copy of palupatti dated 17/09/1994 Ex.D.22 : General power of attorney executed by defendant No.6 (V.H. WADAR) XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.