Bangalore District Court
Sunil Kumar M vs M/S Federal Bank on 23 February, 2026
KABC010199492018
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-38), BANGALORE CITY.
:PRESENT:
Smt. Nirmala Devi. S. B.Sc., LL.B.,
LI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
C/c. XXXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY.
DATED This the 23rd day of February 2026
O.S.NO. 5271/2018
PLAINTIFF/S SRI. SUNIL KUMAR M
S/O. MADAN LAL JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.1143,
PRESTIGE SOUTH RIDGE,
HOSAKEREHALLI,
BSK 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU
(Pl By Sri. S.N.P., Advocate)
Versus
DEFENDANT/S 1. M/S FEDERAL BANK
BASAVANAGUDI BRANCH,
NO.20/1, KANAKAPURA ROAD,
NEAR B S MADHAVA RAO CIRCLE,
BENGALURU
REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
2 O.S.No.5271/2018
2) MADANLAL JAIN,
S/O. LATE MANGILAL,
R/AT. NO. 209, IST MAIN ROAD,
KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR,
GAVIPURAM, GUTTAHALLI MAIN
ROAD, REPRESENTED BY HIS
GPA HOLDER
SMT. PISTABAIL.
AGED 83 YEARS
W/O. MADANLAL JAIN.
R/AT. NO. 209, IST MAIN ROAD,
KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR,
GAVIPURAM,
GUTTAHALLI MAIN
ROAD,
(Deleted as per order dt.2.2.2024.)
3. SMT. PISTABAIL.
AGED 83 YEARS
W/O. MADANLAL JAIN.
R/AT. NO. 209, IST MAIN ROAD,
KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR,
GAVIPURAM,
GUTTAHALLI MAIN
ROAD, BENGALURU- 19.
(Df NO.1 By Sri. BRV Adv.)
(dF. No.2 & 3 SRI. BRK/NP ADV)
Date of Institution of the suit 23.7.2018
Nature of suit Declaration & Injunction
Date of commencement 21.8.2024
of recording of evidence.
Date on which judgment
was pronounced. 23.2.2026
3 O.S.No.5271/2018
Total Duration. Years Months Days
07 07 00
LI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
C/c. XXXVII ACCJ, BANGALORE
4 O.S.No.5271/2018
JUDGMENT
This suit filed to declare the plaintiff is entitle to manage and to take care of the suit schedule account pertaining to his father Sri. M. Madanalal Jain in terms of the decree passed in O.S. No. 1855/2014 dt: 20.4.20018 and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from allowing any other person/s to operate the suit schedule account.
2. The brief case of the plaintiff are as follows:-
That the plaintiff is the son of sri. M. Madanalal Jain S/o. Mangilal. His father maintained S.B. A/c. Bearing No. 13180100000012 in M/s. Federal Bank. The said account is the subject matter of this suit and described as schedule. His father is not keeping well since October 2017 as he suffered from brain stoke/paralysis of complete left side of his body. He was hospitalized in Brindavana Nursing home and Vikram hospital and provided treatment. Under the circumstances, his father was mentally shocked and slowly his mental condition improved. Due to the paralysis he was able to talk little bit and become dependent for all other 5 O.S.No.5271/2018 needs and was unable to affix his signature or left thumb impression. He is totally bed ridden.
3. By taking undue advantage of the above ill-health of the plaintiff's father some third parties tried to forge left thumb impression of his father on cheques, letters, RTGC form etc., hence the plaintiff apprehended that those parties might present the cheque for encashment, to present RTGS form for transferring amount from his aforesaid account, as left side of his father's hand was immobile due to paralysis. Therefore the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 13.3.2018 calling upon the defendant not to permit his father or anybody acting under him from operating above said SN account, withdraw or transfer to any account through NEFT, RTGS, etc.,
4. At the time of issuance of legal notice there was some dispute pending between the plaintiff and his parents namely 6 O.S.No.5271/2018
1) A.A. No. 17/2012before the Hon'ble Prl Dist & Sessioins Judge, Ramanagara, filed by the plaintiff under Sec. 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
2) O.S., No. 1855/2014 on the file of this court for partitiion and separate possession.
3) Appeal No. 180/2012 pending before the Hon'ble Karnataka Appellate Tribunal(Revenue), Bengaluru.
4) W.P. No. 36171-172/2015 pending on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Karnatkaa, Bengaluru, filed by the plaintiff.
5) W.P. No. 44090/2016 (GN-CPC) pending on the file of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru.
5. It was brought to the notice of defendant that defendant has permitted some 3rd parties to withdraw huge amount on behalf of his father though there is no authorization to transact with defendant Bank and called upon to furnish the details of withdrawals made from 1.10.2017 through cheques or by cash till 13.3.2018. The defendant got issued reply notice on 17.4.2018 intimating that any withdrawal made in the aforesaid account has 7 O.S.No.5271/2018 been done after following standard procedure and further intimated that any directions regarding the operation of the account will be carried only if it is from a competent authority. That O.S. No. 1855/2014 pending before the CCH-40 ended in compromise. The entire family members of plaintiff namely, his father, mother, brother, sisters were the defendants and central Muslim Association of Karnataka was defendant No.3, pursuant to an agreement of sale entered between it and father of plaintiff and it also signed the compromise petition. A court commissioner appointed to read over and explain the contents of the compromise petition to Madanlal jain, father of the plaintiff since he was bedridden. As per the order of the court, the court commissioner duly executed commissioner's warrant and submitted a report and therefore Hon'ble Court pleased to accept the compromise and passed compromise decree in terms of compromise petition. Consequently by petition in A.A. No. 17/2012, W.P. No. 44090/2006 filed by the Central Muslim Association of Karnataka were withdrawn. 8 O.S.No.5271/2018 As per the clause 11 of compromise petition passed in O.S. No. 1855/2014 the father of plaintiff M. Madanlal Jain permitted and authorized the plaintiff to take care and manage his account for present, past and future. That since some 3rd parties were trying to mis-manage the suit schedule account maintained in defendant's bank, taking undue advantage of his father's ill health, the plaintiff issued legal notice to defendant dt: 9.5.2018 calling upon to furnish the suit schedule account maintained in its branch from 1.5.2015 to 9.5.2018 for its bonafide use and personal reference and also called upon not to permit any 3rd parties to operate the said account and transfer the amount without his consent and knowledge. But the defendant who has received the said notice has given untenable letter on 10.5.2018 intimating that operation of the account as per the decree is not applicable to the savings bank held with it and plaintiff is not entitled to operate since the suit schedule account was not one of the properties mentioned in the schedule of compromise 9 O.S.No.5271/2018 petition, interpreting the same to technically. But as per the said clause of compromise petition the plaintiff is entitled to manage and take care of any account maintained by his father. Therefore after compromise decree one more legal notice dt: 15.6.2018, defendant calling upon to furnish the details of the suit schedule account/ transaction details of his father from 1.5.2014 to till the date of issuance of legal notice to file income tax returns of his father. But the defendant not responded to the said notice in spite of receipt of the said notice.
6. During the pendency of the case plaintiff got amended the plaint para 8 by way of addition of para 8(a) and 8(b). Wherein the plaintiff alleged that his father was maintaining another account with defendant bearing No. 13180400070624 and F.D. NO. A791 vide receipt H-041497 and the defendant has transferred the accrued interest of the said Fixed deposit to the afore said account of his father. Further, the father of plaintiff has also maintained current account with defendant's Bank vide Ac/ No. 10 O.S.No.5271/2018 13180200016181. In terms of compromise decree in O.S. No. 1855/2014 dt: 20.4.2018 the plaintiff is entitled to manage and take care of the accounts of his father and said decree is binding on the defendant since it holds afore said accounts of his father, who was defendant No.1 of the said suit and signatory to the compromise petition. Therefore since the defendant is refusing to give effect to the solemn terms of compromise made by the account holder the plaintiff constrained to file the present suit.
7. Initially this suit is filed against M/s. Federal Bank and subsequently defendants No.2 and 3 who are father and mother of plaintiff were impleaded.
8. The defendant No.1 appeared and filed written statement and defendant No.2 has filed written statement and defendant No.3 has filed additional written statement.
9. The first defendant has contended that the present suit is mis-concieved and not maintainable. That most of the plaint amendments which are personal details of plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3, this defendant has 11 O.S.No.5271/2018 stated that the said averments are not within its knowledge. It is contended that this defendant was not a party to any proceedings between plaintiff and his family members and moreover this defendant was never necessary or proper party to these proceedings. This defendant has denied that it allowed some third party to withdraw huge amount on behalf of his father though there was no authorization to transact with the defendant bank as per the bank regulation and norms. It is contended that withdrawals will be permitted only after proper identification and authentication and as such the allegations to the contrary is totally absurd and untrue. This defendant has admitted regarding receipt of legal notice issued by the plaintiff and that it has given reply dt: 17.4.2018 stating that it is following standard procedure for for withdrawal of money from the account of the Bank.
10. The first defendant has contended that in the compromise decree passed in O.S.1855/2014 plaintiffs father namely Madanalal jain directed and authorized the 12 O.S.No.5271/2018 plaintiff to take care and manage his account present past and future not authorized the plaintiff to manage the S.B. account in question nor executed GPA in favour of the plaintiff authorizing to operate the S.B. account in question. The question of defendant permitting the plaintiff to operate his account will not be permissible. In the said decree as far as S.B. account is concerned there is no declaration or direction pertaining to operation. That the operation of the account will have to be permitted when there is specific decree or order from a competent court of law or it is from the account holder otherwise there cannot be any such direction. Therefore the said decree is not binding on the defendants and as such grant of relief will amount to amending the Banking Rules and Regulations and as such concerned will be impermissible and prayed to decree the suit.
11. On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed by my learned predecessor in office;
13 O.S.No.5271/2018
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to manage and to take care of the suit schedule account pertaining to his father Sri. M. Madanlaql Jain?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that some third parties trying to mismanage the suit schedule account maintained in the defendant No.1 Bank?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled of the relief claimed in the suit ?
4. What order or decree?
12. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff got examined as PW 1 and got marked 7 documents at Ex.P1 and P-7. The defendant NO.3 got examined her SPA holder as DW 1 and got marked 11 documents as Ex. D-1 to D-11.
13. Heard both sides and perused the written arguments filed vy SPA holder on behalf of defendant No.3 and records.
14. My answer to the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Negative,
Issue No.2 : In the Negative,
Issue No.3 : In the Negative,
Issue No.4 : As per the final order,
for the following.
14 O.S.No.5271/2018
REASONS
15. Issues No.1 to 3 : Since these issues are inter-related with each other, to avoid repetition, these issues are discussed together.
16. In order to substantiate the plaint averments, the plaintiff got examined as Pw-1 and marked documents at Ex. P-1 to 7. The defendant No. 3 got examined her Spl. Power of attorney holder as Dw-1 and marked Ex. D-1 to D-11.
17. On perusal of the plaint averments, the plaintiff has stated that from October 2017 his father M. Madanlal Jain was not keeping good health and suffering from paralysis of left side of body and he was used to speak little and was not in a state to sign and to put left thumb impression. But some 3 rd parties have misused and mismanaged the suit schedule bank account and taken undue advantage of the ill health of his father and withdrawn the money. Thus there is no specific pleadings regarding the date on which his father M. Madanlal jain became ill except pleadings that from October 2017 he was suffering from ill-health. In this regard he has not produced supporting documents. But the defendants No.2 and 3 have not disputed it 15 O.S.No.5271/2018 specifically thereby admitted the health condition of defendant No.2.
18. Accordingly the plaintiff has pleaded that some 3 rd parties are mismanaging and operating the suit schedule bank account i.e., suit schedule property. In this regard also there is no specific pleadings except bald and vague pleadings. However while cross-examining DW-1, said witness is cross-examined as if he is a 3rd person referred in the plaint who misused and withdrawn the amount from the account of father of the plaintiff. In this regard Dw-1 who is Spl. P.A. Holder of defendant No.3 is cross-examined. He has deposed that he has taken loan of Rs. 20 lakhs from the father of the plaintiff. But the plaintiff has produced certified copy of pass book and also cross-examined Dw-1, wherein he admitted that as on 7.2.2015 Rs. 50,00,000/- transferred from the suit schedule bank account to the account of the said witness. The said witness further stated that the said transaction is nothing to do with the present case. Therefore, as per Ex. P-7 and Ex. P-7(a) Rs. 50 lakhs transferred from the account of Sri. M. Madanalal jain as dt: 7.2.2015 when the father of the plaintiff was hale and healthy, because as per the plaint averments, he suffered from ill-health from October 2017. 16 O.S.No.5271/2018
19. It is also pertinent to note that even as per the plaint averments, there were 5 cases pending between the plaintiff, his father and others from the year 2012 itself. The defendants No.2 and 3 have contended that plaintiff and his wife never taken care of them. Therefore it is evident that the relationship between the plaintiff and his parents was not cordial and there were disputes. Admittedly plaintiff filed suit for partition in O.S. No.1855/2014. Therefore it is evident that the plaintiff never taken care of his parents. Therefore, the evidence at Ex. P-7 and 7(a) and the testimony of Dw-1 that a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs transferred to the account of Dw-1 is nothing to do with the present plaint averments as it was on 7.2.2015 when the present suit was not pending and when the father of plaintiff was hale and healthy and he used to manage the suit schedule bank account as well as the business. Therefore the plaintiff has failed to prove that some of 3 rd parties were forged signature of his father and mismanaging the suit schedule bank account during the life time of his father by taking undue advantage of his ill-health.
20. It is the specific case of plaintiff that by virtue of the compromise decree passed in O.S. 1855/2014 dt: 24.2.2018 he 17 O.S.No.5271/2018 was authorized to manage the suit schedule bank account and therefore he is entitled to manage it as some 3 rd persons are misused it.
21. The first defendant who is the concerned bank with whom the suit schedule bank account is maintained has contended that the present suit is misconceived, frivolous and not at all maintainable. It is further contended that the plaintiff is also not entitled to manage the S.B. account pertaining to his father as he is not authorized to manage the same nor there is decree authorizing him to operate it as this defendant is not a party to the compromise decree in O.S. No. 1855/2014. Accordingly the defendants No.2 and 3 have filed written statement and contended that the present suit pertaining to the S.B. Account which is exclusively bank account of defendant No.2, the plaintiff cannot maintain the present suit.
22. In order to prove the plaint averments that by virtue of the compromise petition filed in O.S. No. 1855/2014 and the decree passed based on the said compromise decree, the plaintiff is authorized to manage the suit schedule bank account, plaintiff has relied on Ex. P-1 to P-6 which are the copies of legal notices dt: 13.3.2018 issued to the first defendant, reply notice 18 O.S.No.5271/2018 dt: 17.4.2-018 issued by the first defendant., the certified copy of decree in O.S. No. 1855/2014 along with compromise petition. Copy of the legal notice dt: 9.5.2018 issued by the plaintiff to the first defendant and the reply notice dt: 10.5.2018, and another copy of legal notice dt: 15.6.2018, out of the said documents Ex. P-3 the C/c of the compromise petition is the relevant document. At the time of arguments learned counsel for plaintiff pointed out clause 11 of compromise petition, it reads as follows:-
(11) "The defendant No.1 is the Managing director of M/s Simple Package Pvt. .Ltd., and the defendant No.2 and the plaintiff are the directors of the said company.
In view of the ill-health of the defendant No.1, he is not in a position to run the said company and by virtue of this compromise, the defendants No. 1 and 2 undertakes that they will hand over all the papers pertaining to the said company to enable the plaintiff to take steps to close the said company and to clear all the statutory formalities. In view of the ill-health of the defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 is hereby permitted and authorized the plaintiff to take care and manage his accounts either past, present or future. However the plaintiff will not personally liable for any of the act/s or deed/s of the defendant No.1 and 2."
19 O.S.No.5271/2018
23. On perusal of the compromise decree there is no specific order authorising the plaintiff to manage the suit schedule S.B. A/c of the second defendant maintained with first defendant. It is pertinent to note that in clause 11 of compromise petition as rightly contended by defendant No.1, the details of S.B. Account and bank name is not mentioned. Nodoubt the said paragraph discloses that management of M/s. Simple package Pvt. Ltd., is handed over to plaintiff who is one of the director of company. But it discloses that second defendant permitted and authorized plaintiff to take steps to close the said company and to comply statutory formalities and to take care and manage his accounts either past, present and future. Thus it is with reference to the account of the said company business and does not refer to accounts maintained by the deceased father of plaintiff in banks as there is no specific pleadings with S.B. Account numbers or agreement between the parties in the said compromise. It is not the case of plaintiff that S.B. Account in question is related to the business of M/s. Simple pakages Pvt. Ltd., There is no pleadings in this regard. But it has come in the evidence that it is a S.B. account opened by the deceased M. Madanlal Jain in his individual capacity and 20 O.S.No.5271/2018 it is not a joint account nor the account pertaining to the business. Accordingly there is no specific pleading in the plaint averments nor there is specific authorization in the compromise petition authorizing the plaintiff to operate the bank account in question.
24. It is pertinent to note that the present suit filed during the life time of plaintiff's father. Even prior to that from 13.3.2018 he started issuing legal notices to restrain his father from operating the said S.B. account even though admittedly his father was bedridden and was suffering from paralysis and required money for his medical treatment. Therefore, the said action on behalf of plaintiff restraining his father from operating the same amounts to violation of his valuable right. The defendant No.3 has contended that money kept in the said account is the hard earned money of the deceased defendant No.2 and plaintiff has no right over it. It is also pertinent to note that the deceased father and the mother of plaintiff were residing together. Therefore, the wife is entitled to withdraw the money towards medical expenses of the deceased as she does not require any authorisation from her children to withdraw money for medical expenses from the S.B. account considering the 21 O.S.No.5271/2018 condition of her husband. It is also not the case of the plaintiff that he used to maintain his parents. Further defendant No.3 has contended that during the life time of defendant No.2, he challenged the compromise petition filed in O.S. No. 1855/2014 and it is pending. Further she has contended that even the sister of plaintiff has challenged the said order by filing an application. In this regard, no documents produced. Thus neither in the compromise petition nor in the compromise decree there is no specific authorisation by the deceased father of the plaintiff authorizing the plaintiff to manage the suit schedule bank account as he was suffering from ill-health. In this regard it is appropriate to rely on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2011 SC 786 ( State of Trivancore Vs. M/s. Kingston Computers(I) Pvt. Ltd.,) _ wherein it is held " the resolution authorizing some one to manage the affairs of the company does not automatically empower them to operate the Bank accounts."
25. Therefore, a separate and specific auhtorization was required by the deceased Madanlal Jain to the plaintiff to operate the suit schedule Bank account. During the pendency of this case the plaintiff got amended and incorporated para 22 O.S.No.5271/2018 No.8(a) and (b) to the plaint by including 3 more accounts to the schedule which are the current account, Fixed deposit and even in the said amendment the plaintiff has not taken contention that the said accounts are all pertaining to the business of M/s. Simple packages Pvt. Ltd., and therefore being the director of said company, is entitled to manage the account standing in the name of his father. Hence as rightly contended by defendants No.1 to 3 in the compromise petition and also compromise decree in O.S. No. 1855/2014 the plaintiff was not authorised to manage the suit schedule accounts. Hence he failed to prove the said plaint averments.
26. In view of the above discussions, the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is entitled to manage the suit schedule accounts pertaining to his deceased father Madanlal jain and some 3 rd parties are misusing the said account. It is pertinent to note that the S.B. account in question maintained with first defendant is individual account of the deceased defendant No.2 and admittedly it is a savings bank account which is not transferrable and becomes inoperative immediately after the demise of the account holder. Hence it is not a transferrable/ inheritable account as per the banking laws. Therefore clearly 23 O.S.No.5271/2018 there is no GPA or authorization letter authorizing the plaintiff to mange the suit schedule accounts. There is no specific clause in the compromise petition that plaintiff authorized to operate suit schedule account.
27. Moreover admittedly during the pendency of the suit defendant No.2 passed away. So, the suit has become infractuous, but the plaintiff continued to prosecute it. So, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief sought. The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the defendants No.1 to 3 and thereby he forced them to appear before the court to engage advocate and contest the case. Therefore the present suit is misconceived, and filed unnecessarily to harass the defendants No.1 to 3. Hence it is just and necessary to impose costs. Hence the plaintiff is liable to pay cost of Rs. 10,000/- each to defendant No.1 and 3. Hence the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief sought. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 to 3 in the Negative.
28. Issue No. 4 :- In view of my answer to above issues, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit is dismissed on cost of Rs. 10,000/- each payable to defendants No.1 and 3.24 O.S.No.5271/2018
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer grade-I, computerized and typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court, on this the 23rd Day of February 2026) ( NIRMALA DEVI S. ) LI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE C/c. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
Schedule Property Item No.1:- All that S.B. Account bearing No. 13180100000012 maintained by Sri. M. Madanlal Jain at Defendant's Bank., Item No.2:- All that S.B. Account bearing No. 13180400070624 maintained by the father of plaintiff namely M. Madanlal Jain at Defendant's Bank.
Item No.3:- All that F.D. bearing No. A791 Receipt No. H-041497 available of Defendant's bank and Item No.4: All that current account bearing No. 13180200016181 maintained by the father of the plaintiff namely Sri. M. Madan lal jain at defendant's Bank.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
PW-1 - M. Sunil Kumar Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff/s:
Ex.P-1 Office copy of the legal notice dated 13.03.2018 issued to 25 O.S.No.5271/2018 the defendant no.1 Ex.P-2 Reply notice of defendant no.1 dated 17.04.2018 Ex.P-3 Certified copy of the decree in O.S.No.1855/2014 along with compromise petition.
Ex.P-4 Office copy of Legal notice dated 09.05.2018 issued to defendant no.1 Ex.P-5 Reply notice of defendant no.1 dated 10.05.2018 Ex.P-6 Office copy of the legal notice dated 15.06.2018 issued to the defendant no.1.
Ex.P-7 Bank statement copy of the pass book. Ex.P-7.a. Relevant entry List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
DW-1 : Shanthilal Rathan Kumar.
Documents marked on behalf of the Defendant/s:
Ex.D-1 Special Power of Attorney.
Ex.D-2 Certified copy of entire order sheet in
O.S.No.1855/2014.
Ex.D-3 Certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.1855/2014.
Ex.D-4 Certified copy of I.A.No.2 in O.S.No.1855/2014.
Ex.D-5 Certified copy of entire order sheet in
O.S.No.3006/2019.
Ex.D-6 Certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.3006/2019.
Ex.D-7 Certified copy of I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.3006/2019.
Ex.D-8 Certified copy of affidavit filed in
O.S.No.3006/2019.
Ex.D-9 Certified copy of I.A filed u/Sec.151 of CPC in
O.S.No.3006/2019.
Ex.D-10 Certified copy of I.A.No.2/2025 in
26 O.S.No.5271/2018
O.S.No.3006/2019.
Ex.D-11 Certified copy of compromise petition filed in O.S.No.1855/2014.
( NIRMALA DEVI S. ) LI ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE C/c. XXXVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.27 O.S.No.5271/2018
Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate Judgment ) ORDER 28 O.S.No.5271/2018 The suit is dismissed on cost of Rs. 10,000/- each payable to defendants No.1 and 3.
Draw decree accordingly.
( NIRMALA DEVI S. ) LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE C/c. XXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE; BENGALURU CITY.29 O.S.No.5271/2018