Bangalore District Court
Nagamani Allias Nayana vs Rudramma on 9 June, 2025
KABC0A0048172012
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for Judgment in suit
(R.P. 91)
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL BENGALURU,
(CCH-73)
Present:
Sri. Sreepada N,
B.Com., L.L.M.,
LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 9th day of June 2025.
O.S.No.27243/2012
Plaintiffs:- 1. Nagamani @ Nayana,
W/o Late Veerabadre Gowda,
Aged about 28 years,
2. Disha,
D/o Late Veerabadre Gowda,
Aged about 4 years,
Since minor Rept. By her
Natural Guardian and
mother Nagamani
Both are R/at C/o A. Narayanappa,
Door No.104, 3rd 'A' Cross,
2 O.S.No.27243/2012
Chikka Bommasandra,
G.K.V.K (Post),
Yelahanka New Town,
Bangalore-560 065.
[By M/s A.N.N Associates - Adv.,]
V/s
Defendants:- 1. Rudramma,
W/o Late Chikka Siddaiah,
Aged about 70 years,
2. Krishnappa,
S/o Late Chikka Siddaiah,
Aged about 55 years,
3. Sidda Lingamma,
W/o Shivalinge Gowda,
Aged about 53 years,
Both are R/at Chikka Mavathur,
Dodda Mavathur Post,
Kunigal Taluk,
Tumkur District.
4. C.C. Gangadharaiah,
S/o Late Chikka Siddaiah,
Aged about 51 years,
R/at No.339/1/48/23,
Dodda Bettahalli, Yelahanka,
Bangalore-560 064.
5. Nanjappa @ Nanje Gowda,
S/o Late Chikka Siddaiah,
3 O.S.No.27243/2012
Aged about 49 years,
Residing at No.229,
1st Main, 1st Cross,
Opp. Bhagavan Budda Law Hostel,
Kottigepalya,
Bangalore-560 091.
6. Sudha,
W/o Ramachandrappa,
Aged about 35 years,
Agrahara,
Nagamangala Taluk,
Mandya District.
7. Smt. D.R. Shailaja,
W/o K.R. Prakash,
Aged about 47 years,
Residing at No.2215,
Sai Sree Vaibhav,
Prashanthanagar,
Chikkaballapur Town,
Chikkaballapur District.
[By Sri. H.T. Jagannatha Adv., for D.1 &
D.2, Sri. Ramesh Kumar R.V Adv., for
D.3 to D.5, Sri. V.V. Rahiyanath Adv., for
D.6, Smt. Vidya Selvamony Adv., for D.7]
Date of Institution of the suit 27.11.2012
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit
for declaration and possession, Partition Suit
suit for injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of 19.2.2020
recording of the Evidence.
4 O.S.No.27243/2012
Date on which judgment 9.6.2025
pronounced.
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
12 06 12
LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
Mayohall Unit: Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants for partition and separate possession of their share with metes and bounds and put the Plaintiffs in their separate possession of their legitimate share in the joint family properties along with the Defendants and to declare the Sale Deed dtd: 26.3.2015 is not binding on the Plaintiffs share over the Suit Schedule Item No.1 Property and for cost and for other consequential reliefs.
2. The epitome of the case of the Plaintiff is as follows:
(i) It is stated that Late Chikka Siddaiah is the kartha of the Hindu Joint Family and during his 5 O.S.No.27243/2012 lifetime he got married the 1st Defendant and out of their wedlock they blessed with 06 children i.e., the Defendant No.2 to 6 and Late Veerabhadre Gowda i.e., the husband of Plaintiff No.1. The Defendant No.2 is looking after the agricultural activities and residing in the native place and other sons left the Village after completion of their education on employment and other avocation out of which Defendant No.4 is working in KMF and the Defendant No.5 is working in Basava Samithi at Bangalore as a Government Employee and the husband of the Plaintiff No.1 during his lifetime was doing independent business at Bellary by getting agency from KMF and Amul Ice Cream and he was died in the road accident on 21.7.2010.
(ii) Further it is stated that the Plaintiff No.1 is the legally wedded wife of deceased Veerabhadre Gowda and their marriage was performed on 11.5.2007 at Bangalore. The parents of the 1 st Plaintiff was given 250 to 300 grams jewels and performed marriage at the cost of 1st Plaintiff's father. They were blessed with Plaintiff No.2 on 20.8.2008. The Plaintiff was living at Bellary by running the whole sale Ice cream business at Bellary and on 21.7.2010 at 9.00 a.m., 6 O.S.No.27243/2012 the husband of the 1 st Plaintiff along with others travelling from Bellary to Bangalore at State Highway in Innova Vehicle and he met with an accident and subsequently he was died on 26.7.2010 at M.S. Ramaiah Hospital at Bangalore.
(iii) Further stated that, the Plaintiff family had several landed properties at Chikka Mavathur and Bolenahalli Village, Huliyurdurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District and out of the joint family income 02 properties had been purchased in the name of Defendant No.4 & 5 i.e., Item No.3 to 13. Out of joint family income, the Item No.2 of the Suit Property is purchased in the name of 5 th Defendant and he was residing there by constructing building thereon. The Item No.1 was purchased in the name of 4th Defendant and constructed building thereon at Bangalore and also constructed houses thereon.
(iv) During the lifetime of Veerabhadre Gowda i.e., the husband of the 1 st Plaintiff has obtained wholesale dealership for selling the Nandini Ice Cream booth retail and bulk packs in Bellary Town and prior to that he was doing the business of Amul 7 O.S.No.27243/2012 Ice Cream as a wholesale dealer from the last 10 years in the Ranganatha Enterprises and Lakshmi Enterprises and he had contributed entire his earning to the joint family and he was also purchased the house at Bellary at 'Lakshmi Nilaya' and the said property has been sold to construct the house at his native place and as well as to construct the houses of his brothers since he intended to shift his family from Bellary to Bangalore and on the said intention he was also took the wholesale agency of K.M.F Food Products at Bangalore and started his business in the name of M/s Ranganatha Foods. During his lifetime, he has purchased 10 freezers, one swift car, luggage auto, splendor bike and electric generator and after his death the Defendant No.4 & 5 have colluded each other and forcefully took all the house hold articles and articles mentioned above and thrown out the Plaintiff from the joint family and send the Plaintiff No.1 to her parental house along with the 2 nd Plaintiff and even after the parents of the 1 st Plaintiff made several panchayath with the Defendant No.4 & 5, but they picked up quarrel with the parents of the 1 st Plaintiff and lodged false complaint against the father of 1st Plaintiff and also against her brother, before the 8 O.S.No.27243/2012 Yelahanka New Town Police in Cr.No.54/2011 on 28.11.2011 and also threatened that they will not going to pay single paise to the Plaintiffs from the properties of the joint family or from the income of her husband business and refused to partition the joint family properties and also refused to handover the business of her husband and forcefully took the signature of the 1st Plaintiff and also by forging the her signature, withdrawn the amount from the banks which was running in the name of deceased Veerabhadre Gowda and also running in the name of 1st Plaintiff and all amounts had been misused by the 4th and 5th Defendant. The Suit Schedule Properties are the coparcenary and the joint family properties over which the Plaintiffs are having undivided right and interest and the Plaintiffs are entitle for their share. On 28.2.2011 the Plaintiff No.1 has demanded for partition of the Suit Schedule Properties acquired by the joint family and also to return the jewels which was given in the marriage of the 1 st Plaintiff and other house articles earned by her and her husband and herself in their separate business. The Defendant No.1, 4 & 5 have refused to partition the joint family properties and also trying to alienate the Suit 9 O.S.No.27243/2012 Schedule Properties with a view to defeat and deprive the legitimate right, title, interest, possession and legal claim of the Plaintiffs over the Suit Schedule Properties.
(v) Further stated that, during the pendency of this suit the Defendant No.4 has sold the Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule Property in favour of 7 th Defendant under Sale Deed dtd: 26.3.2015 and the said Sale Deed is illegal and do not confirm any title as the Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule Property is the joint family property and purchased in the name of 4 th Defendant, who has no authority to convey the Suit Schedule Item No.1 Property. There is no bonafides in the Sale Deed dtd: 26.3.2015 and the same is illegal, not binding on the Plaintiffs share over the Suit Schedule Item No.1 Property. During the pendency of this suit i.e., on 26.2.2021, the Suit Schedule Item No.15 and 16 Properties are granted in the name Defendant No.1 & 2 respectively and the said properties are the joint family properties of Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 6. Hence, prayed to decree the suit.
3. Pursuant to summons, the Defendant No.1 to 6 have entered appearance through their counsels 10 O.S.No.27243/2012 and the Defendant No.1 & 2, 7 have filed their separate written statements and the Defendant No.4 & 5 have adopted the additional written statement filed by the Defendant No.1 & 2.
4. The Defendant No.1 & 2 in their written statement admitted the relationship between the parties and specifically denying the plaint averments in toto and contended that the suit filed by the Plaintiffs is not maintainable either in law or on facts and circumstances of the case and as a matter of fact the very identity of the properties is in dispute, incorrect and without boundaries, suppression of material facts, which is disclosed would defeat the suit. The claim of the Plaintiffs for partition and separate possession in respect of the Suit Schedule Properties is without jurisdiction and this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to try this suit.
5. Further contended that the Item No.1 & 2 of the Suit Schedule Properties are not the joint family properties and neither obtained from joint family income and these properties are situated at Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District, as such this Court has no territorial jurisdiction. These properties are self-
11 O.S.No.27243/2012acquired and gifted properties of Defendant No.4 & 5. The Suit Schedule Item No.3 to 6 and 20 Guntas in Item No.7 Properties belong to the 1 st Defendant, which is her absolute property by virtue of a Will executed by her father in the year 1969 and now she is the sole and absolute owner and having exclusive rights over the above schedule properties in terms of the relevant statute prevalent. The Item No.7 in the Suit Schedule Properties 30 Gunats of land is self- acquired properties of late Chikkasiddaiah in the year 1975 to the extent of 20 Guntas and in the year 2000 to the extent of 10 Guntas and he has executed Will in the name of 2nd Defendant. The Item No.9 Suit Schedule Properties is the self-acquired property of Late Chikkasiddaiah in the year 1979 and Item No.10 was sold long back to one Jayaramaiah S/o Mariayanna and Defendants are not in possession of the Suit Schedule Item No.10 Property The Item No.12 is the self-acquired land of late Chikkasiddaiah and during his lifetime and 5th Defendant has contributed the amount for purchasing the same. The Sy.No.4/2 totally measuring 20 Guntas, out of which 11 Guntas acquired by State Highway in the year 2002, again in the year 2011 acquired 1½ Guntas for State Highway 12 O.S.No.27243/2012 and remaining land was reserved for temple during the lifetime of Late Chikkasiddaiah, in respect of that Will was executed. Further in Item No.11 also 5¼ Guntas of land was acquired for the State Highway in the year 2011, remaining land stands in the name of 1st Defendant. The Item No.14 of the Suit Schedule Properties is the self-acquired property of 2 nd Defendant purchased in the year 2009 in the name of his father Late Chikkasiddaiah and thereafter Will was executed in the name of 2 nd Defendant. Late Chikkasiddaiah died in the year 2010, thereafter 2 nd Defendant with the help of 4 th and 5th Defendant constructed his house. The husband of the 1 st Plaintiff not alive during construction of house at Chikkamavathur Village.
6. Further contended that the boundaries and measurement which are mentioned in the plaint are imaginary one. No boundaries are mentioned for the Suit Schedule Item No.11 to 14 Properties, without boundaries the suit is not maintainable. The Plaintiff without filing any documents in support of the Suit Schedule Properties blindly stated the boundaries to the Schedule Properties and she is put to strict proof 13 O.S.No.27243/2012 of the same. The Plaintiff has mentioned wrong boundaries to Schedule Properties to knock off and create litigations in respect of the Schedule Properties. The boundaries mentioned in the plaint are non- existence and the relief sought to in the suit cannot be granted unless a proper boundaries and measurement is shown in the schedule. Hence, the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
7. The Defendant No.7 who is the purchaser of Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule Properties filed her written statement and denied the plaint averments in toto and contended that as per the documents shown by the vendor, all the documents are clear to encumber or to purchase the Suit Schedule Property Item No.1, hence she had purchased the Suit Property by investing huge hard earned money and thereafter she has developed the Suit Schedule Property Item No.1 by investing huge amount. Hence, she is the bonafide purchaser of the Suit Schedule Item No.1 Property and the Plaintiffs are not entitle to get a share in the Suit Schedule Item No.1 Property. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
14 O.S.No.27243/20128. The Defendant No.1 & 2 have also filed additional written statement subsequent to amendment of plaint and contended that the claim of the Plaintiffs for partition and separate possession in respect of the Item No.15 to 18 of the Suit Schedule Properties are not the joint family properties or ancestral properties as alleged in the plaint and neither obtained from the joint family income nor contributed any of the joint family members for purchase of Item No.15 to 18 Suit Schedule Properties, which are the self-acquired properties of these Defendants. There is no pleading with regard to this Schedule Properties is concern, the Plaintiff is deliberately misleading the Court in order to have wrongful gain at the cost of the Defendants. The 1 st and 2nd Defendants have individually applied for grant of the Suit Properties Item No.15 & 16 and same was granted during the pendency of this suit as admitted by the Plaintiff in her affidavit. There is no cause of action for the Item No.15 to 18 Suit Schedule Properties. The Item No.17 is acquired by the 1 st df through Will executed by her father, as such the Plaintiff cannot claim the rights over the property by way of partition nor possession. Before marriage of 1 st 15 O.S.No.27243/2012 Plaintiff with Late Veerabhadregowda all the members are living separately and they are spending money from their own income and they are not depend on any of the joint family income and there is no sources of joint family income. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
9. The Defendant No.4 & 5 have filed memo for adoption of additional written statement filed by the Defendant No.1 & 2 as their additional written statement.
10. Based on the pleadings of the parties, my leaned predecessor has framed the following issues:
1) Whether the Plaintiffs prove that, the suit schedule properties are the Joint Family Properties, as contended by them, in Para No.4 of the suit plaint?
2) Whether the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 prove that, item Nos. 3 to 6 and 20-Guntas out of item No.7 of the suit schedule properties are the absolute properties belonging to the 1 st Defendant Smt. Rudramma, as she has received the same from her father by virtue Will as contended in Para No.6 of their written statement?16 O.S.No.27243/2012
3) Whether the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 prove that, 30-Guntas out of item No.7 of the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of Late Chikkasiddaiah, as contended in Para No.7 of their written statement?
4) Whether the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 prove that, item No.9 of the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of Late Chikkasiddaiah, as contended in Para No.8 of their written statement?
5) Whether the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 prove that, item No.12 of the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of Late Chikkasiddaiah and 5th Defendant has contributed towards the purchase of the said property, as contended in Para No.9 of their written statement?
6) Whether the Defendant Nos.1 and 2 prove that, item No.14 of the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of Late Chikkasiddaiah and he has executed a Will in favour of the 2nd Defendant and the 2nd Defendant has constructed a house with the help of 4th and 5th Defendants, as contended in Para No.10 of their written statement?17 O.S.No.27243/2012
7) Whether the Defendant Nos.4 and 5 prove that, house property named as "Lakhsmi Nilaya" is purchased by the 4 th Defendant and it is his self-acquired property, as contended by them in Para No.16 of their written statement?
8) Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are available for Partition, as on the date of filing of this suit?
9) Whether the Plaintiff s prove that they are entitle for Partition and to have share in the suit schedule properties?
10) What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES Dtd: 7.1.2020
1) Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the Defendant No.4 has sold Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule Property in favour of Defendant No.7, during the pendency of this suit, as contended by them in Para No.8(a) of the suit plaint?
2) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitle for the relief of declaration to get declare the Sale Deed dtd. 26.3.2015 as not binding on them?
18 O.S.No.27243/2012ADDITIONAL ISSUES Dtd: 13.9.2022
1) Whether the Plaintiffs prove that, Item NO.15 to 18 properties are also Joint Family Properties of Plaintiffs and Defendants?
2) Whether the Defendant No.1 and 2 prove that Item No.15 to 18 properties are the self- acquired properties of Defendants as pleaded at Para No.4 to 6 of their additional written statement?
11. The Plaintiff No.1 got examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.30 and closed their side. The Defendant No.5 got examined as DW.1 and Defendant No.7 examined DW.2 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.30 documents and closed their side.
12. Heard both sides.
13. On appreciation of the evidence and documents on record, my findings on the above issues is as under:
Issue No.1: Partly in the Affirmative. Issue No.2: In the Affirmative. Issue No.3: In the Negative.
Issue No.4: In the Negative.
Issue No.5: In the Negative.19 O.S.No.27243/2012
Issue No.6: In the Negative.
Issue No.7: In the Affirmative. Issue No.8: In the Negative.
Issue No.9: Partly in the Affirmative.
ADDITIONAL ISSUES Dtd: 7.1.2020 Addl. Issue No.1: In the Affirmative. Addl. Issue No.2: In the Negative. ADDITIONAL ISSUES Dtd: 13.9.2022 Addl. Issue No.1: Partly in the Affirmative. Addl. Issue No.2: Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.10: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
14. Issue Nos.1 to 6:-
Since the above issues are inter related and finding on one issue is having bearing on the other, in order to avoid repetition of facts, the above issues have been taken up together for consideration.
15. It is the specific case of the Plaintiffs is that all the Suit Schedule Properties are joint family properties of Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 6.
20 O.S.No.27243/2012Further it is the case of the Plaintiffs that even though some of the properties are standing in the name of Defendant No.1 & others, but they have been acquired by the joint family from the income of joint family. Further, it is the case of the Plaintiffs that though the Item No.15 & 16 of the Suit Schedule Properties are granted in the name of Defendant No.1 & 2, but basically they were Government lands and her father-in-law i.e., husband of Defendant No.1 and father of Defendant No.2 to 6 have been cultivating the same along with all the family members since 1980 and during his lifetime only he had applied for grant of the said land and according the same has been granted in the name of Defendant No.1, which is inured to the benefit of all the joint family members.
16. Further it is the case of the Plaintiffs that even Item No.17 & 18 are house properties belongs to Late Chikka Siddaiah and during his lifetime only he along with his wife and children were resided in the said property. Even though the khatha of the same standing in the name of Defendant No.1, but the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 6 are having equal share in the said properties. Further contended that 21 O.S.No.27243/2012 Item No.15 to 18 are obtained and developed from the income derived from all the agricultural lands of the family of Late Chikka Siddaiah.
17. The Defendant No.1 & 2 have specifically contended in their written statement and as well as in the evidence of DW.1 that Item No.3 to 6 and 20 Guntas out of Item No.7 of the Suit Schedule Properties are the absolute properties of the Defendant No.1 and 30 Guntas out of Item No.7 of the Suit Schedule Properties is the self-acquired properties of Late Chikka Siddaiah who is the husband of Defendant No.1 and father of Defendant No.2 to 6. Further the Defendants have specifically denied that all the Suit Schedule Properties are the joint family properties and some of the properties are self-acquired properties of Late Chikka Siddaiah.
18. Admittedly, the Plaintiffs have filed this suit for the relief of partition and separate possession of their legitimate share in the joint family properties along with the Defendants and also prayed to declare the Sale Deed dtd: 26.3.2015 is not binding on the Plaintiffs share over the Suit Properties.
22 O.S.No.27243/201219. The Plaintiffs have specifically contended Late Chikka Siddaiah who was the karta of joint family and the Defendant No.1 is his wife and Defendant No.2 to 6 are his children. Similarly, the husband of the Plaintiff No.1 and father of Plaintiff No.2 by name Veerabhadre Gowda who is also one of the son of Chikka Siddaiah died on 26.7.2010 leaving behind him the Plaintiffs and his father Chikka Siddaiah who died subsequently and his mother Defendant No.1 as his legal heirs. Admittedly, the Defendants have not at all denied and disputed the relationship of the Plaintiffs with Late Veerabhadre Gowda and Defendant No.1 to 6. Even though there is no family tree has been produced in this suit, but the Defendants have not at all denied the relationship between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants and also not at all disputed that Chikka Siddaiah died leaving behind him his legal heirs as Plaintiffs and Defendants.
20. It is also not at all in dispute that the Defendant No.1 is the wife of Late Chikka Siddaiah and Defendant No.2 to 6 are his children. So, there is no dispute with regard to the relationship of the 23 O.S.No.27243/2012 parties to the suit. The Plaintiffs have specifically contended that the Suit Schedule Properties are the joint family properties of Plaintiffs and Defendants. On the other hand, the Defendants contended that only some of the Suit Properties are joint family properties and some of the properties are as aforesaid Item No.3 to 6 and 20 Guntas of the Suit Properties are the absolute properties of Defendant No.1 and 30 Guntas out of Item No.7 is the self-acquired property of Late Chikka Siddaiah. Further contended that Item No.1 & 2 the Suit Properties are the self-acquired properties of Defendant No.4 & 5 etc.
21. Let me go through the documentary evidence placed by the Plaintiffs and Defendants in this suit. Admittedly, the Plaintiffs have relied upon Ex.P.1 to 31 to show that all the Suit Schedule Properties are the joint family properties of Plaintiffs and Defendants. Ex.P.1 is the Marriage Invitation Card of the Plaintiff No.1 who is the wife of deceased Veerabhadre Gowda is not in dispute. Ex.P.2 is the RTC of Item No.7 of the Suit Schedule Properties which is standing in the name of Defendant No.1 and deceased Chikka Siddaiah. Admittedly, the 20 24 O.S.No.27243/2012 Guntas of land in the said land standing in the name of Defendant No.1 and 20 Guntas plus 10 Guntas are standing in the name of deceased Chikka Siddaiah who is the husband of Defendant No.1. Further Ex.P.3 is the RTC of Item No.8 of the Suit Properties which is standing in the name of Chikka Siddaiah. Ex.P.4 is the RTC of Item No.6 of the Suit Properties which is also standing in the name of deceased Chikka Siddaiah. Similarly, Ex.P.5 is the RTC of Item No.10 of the Suit Schedule Properties and the same is standing in the name of deceased Chikka Siddaiah. Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.9 are the RTCs of Item No.3 to 6 of the Suit Schedule Properties which are standing in the name of Defendant No.1 and in Col.No.10 of the said RTCs it is mentioned the she acquired the said properties through Will. Ex.P.8 is the RTC pertaining to Item No.5 of the Suit Properties which is also standing in the name of Defendant No.1. Ex.P.10 & Ex.P.11 are the RTCs in respect of Item No.11 & 12 of the Suit Properties which are standing in the name of deceased Chikka Siddaiah and in Col.No.10 of the said RTCs it is mentioned that it has been acquired through partition in the year 1996-1997. Ex.P.12 is the certified copy of Sale Deed dtd: 16.8.2008 25 O.S.No.27243/2012 pertaining to Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule Properties, which is purchased in the name of Defendant No.4. Ex.P.13 is the CD pertaining to the Photographs. Ex.P.14 to Ex.P.18 & Ex.P.20 are the RTCs in respect of Item Nos.12, 11, 10, 8 & 9 of the Suit Properties which are standing in the name of Defendant No.1 and in Col.No.10 of the said RTCs it is mentioned that she acquired those properties under Will and by inheritance. Ex.P.19 & Ex.P.21 are the RTC of Item No.3 & 4 of the Suit Properties which are standing in the name of Defendant No.2 and in Col.No.10 it is mentioned that he acquired the same by gift. Ex.P.22 & Ex.P.23 are the RTCs in respect of Item No.7 of Suit Properties which is standing in the name of Defendant No.1 and in Col.No.10 it is mentioned that right has been accrued by way of partition and inheritance. Ex.P.24 is the RTC of Item No.15 & 16 of the Suit Properties which is standing in the name of Defendant No.1 & 2 and in Col.No.10 it is mentioned that this land has been granted granted to the Defendant No.1 & 2 as per Order dtd: 26.2.2021. Ex.P.25 is the Tax Demand Register Extract of the house property standing in the name of Defendant No.1 which is situated at Chikkamatturu Village i.e., 26 O.S.No.27243/2012 Item No.17 of the Suit Properties. Ex.P.26 is the Mutation in respect of Item No.15 of the property. Ex.P.27 is the certified copy of Sale Deed pertaining to Item No.1 of the Suit Properties. Ex.P.28 & Ex.P.29 are the RTCs pertaining to Item No.16 & 17 of the Suit Properties. Ex.P.30 is the copy of the Statement given by the Defendant No.5 before the Police after the death of husband of Defendant No.1. Ex.P.31 is the Tax Returns pertaining to the late husband of Plaintiff No.1.
22. Admittedly, on perusal of all the above documents it is not at all clear that all the Suit Schedule Properties are joint family properties of Plaintiffs and Defendants. It is pertinent to note here that the Plaintiffs have not produced any documents pertaining to Item No.2 of the Suit Properties, which is house property and in this connection I have gone through the cross-examination of PW.1, wherein she admitted that she has not produced any documents to show that Item No.2 of the Suit Properties is standing in the name of 5th Defendant. Further admits that this property is not the joint family property of late Chikka Siddaiah and it is not at all standing in the name of 27 O.S.No.27243/2012 Chikka Siddaia. So one thing is certain that Item No.2 of the Suit Properties is not a joint family property. Similarly, regarding Item No.1 of the Suit Properties is concerned, which is admittedly earlier standing in the name of 4th Defendant and in this regard PW.1 admitted that Defendant No.4 had acquired the said property by availing loan. Further admits that Defendant No.4 is also employee in KMF since 1993. Though PW.1 denied that Item No.1 of the property is not a joint family property, but in order to show that Item No.1 of the Suit Properties had been acquired from the joint family funds, no materials have been produced. So Item No.1 & 2 of the Suit Properties appears to be not the joint family properties of Plaintiffs and Defendants.
23. It is the specific case of the Defendant No.1 & 2 is that Item No.3 to 6 and 20 Guntas of Item No.7 were not the joint family properties and they were acquired by Defendant No.1 through Will by her father. In this regard, let me go through some of the admission given by PW.1 in her cross-examination. She admitted that Item No.3 to 6 and 20 Guntas of property in Item No.7 are standing in the name of 28 O.S.No.27243/2012 Defendant No.1. Further admitted that she has not produced any documents to show that Item No.3 to 6 and 20 Guntas of property in Item No.7 were earlier standing in the name of her father-in-law by name Chikka Siddaiah. Further she clearly admitted that those properties were acquired by Defendant No.1 under the Will executed by her father Veerabhadre Gowda. So from the above admission and also from the above referred RTCs pertaining to Item No.3 to 7 it is very much clear that those properties are not the joint family properties of Plaintiffs and Defendants. On the other hand, they are the self-acquired properties of Defendant No.1 alone.
24. The Plaintiffs have very much further contended that Item No.15 & 16 though were granted in the name of Defendant No.1 & 2 recently, but those are also joint family properties of Plaintiffs and Defendants and prior to grant of the same, her father- in-law was cultivating the same. In this regard, during the course of cross-examination she admits that she has not produced any documents to show that her father-in-law was cultivating those two properties earlier.
29 O.S.No.27243/201225. It is the specific case of the Plaintiffs that husband of the Plaintiff No.1 was doing business in respect of Nandini Milk Products and he got license and he was contributing the joint family. Admittedly, in this regard PW.1 has not produced any materials before this Court. On the other hand, PW.1 admitted in her further cross-examination that Defendant No.1 is an employee at KMF and prior to her marriage only Defendant No.4 was in service. Further also admits that Defendant No.5 was also an employee in Basava Samithi prior to her marriage. Further clearly admitted in her cross-examination that Defendant No.4, 5 and her husband were leading their independent lives at the time of her marriage. Further stated that she does not know that since the Defendant No.4 unable to pay loan amount, the property purchased by him was about to auction and as such he sold the same and repaid the loan amount somewhere in the year 2007. Further she clearly admitted that her husband had purchased the property at Bellary with the help of his brothers and she does not know the source of income for the business of her husband. Further stated that she does not know how much amount was paid by her husband to the Defendant No.4 & 5 to acquire the 30 O.S.No.27243/2012 other properties. On the other hand, she clearly admitted that since her husband was younger, her father-in-law and his brothers have provided good education. Further admits the suggestion that she does not have any documents to prove the payment of money by her husband to the Defendant No.2, 4 & 5. Even this witness has clearly admitted that she does not know the date of purchase of Item No.1 of the Suit Properties by the Defendant No.4 and does not know the sale consideration. Even she does not know the expenditure for the construction of the said building. Such being the fact, this Court cannot say that her husband had paid the amount to the Defendant No.2, 4 & 5 for acquiring other properties etc., therefore, it is not at all clear that Item No.1 & 2 of the Schedule Properties have been acquired by the Defendant No.4 & 5 from the income of the joint family.
26. It is pertinent to note here that the husband of PW.1 had a site at Bellary and he sold it in the year 2009 and 2010 and it has been admitted by PW.1 in her cross-examination. On the other hand, PW.1 contended that her husband had invested the said amount to the joint family, but she does not 31 O.S.No.27243/2012 know to whom he has handed over the said money. Therefore, one thing is certain that husband of PW.1 also acquired site at Bellary and sold it and the said sale consideration amount has not been invested for the joint family.
27. It is clearly admitted by PW.1 during the course of cross-examination that after the death of her husband herself and her daughter have received 90% of compensation and Defendant No.1 had received 10% of the compensation. Even though the Defendants contended that all the golden ornaments of the family had been taken by her after the death of her husband and the Defendants never taken any articles etc. However, in this regard there is no material forthcoming from the side of Defendants.
28. Further it is the specific case of the Defendants is that 30 Guntas of Item No.7, Item No.9, 12 & 14 are the self-acquired properties of deceased Chikka Siddaiah. However, this has been clearly denied by the PW.1 in her evidence. Even this witness does not know about acquisition of 11 Guntas of Property in Item No.12 for Road during the lifetime of Chikka Siddaiah and 1 ½ Guntas of said land again 32 O.S.No.27243/2012 acquired after the death of her father-in-law. Further it is the case of the Defendants that Item No.14 had been bequeathed by Chikka Siddaiah during his lifetime in favour of Defendant No.2 and 30 Guntas of Item No.7 had been bequeathed by him in favour of Defendant No.2. However, it is the specific case of the Defendants is that except Item No.8, 10, 11, 13 & 18, the Plaintiffs have no share in other properties. Anyhow, one thing is certain that there is no dispute with the Defendants that Item No.8, 10, 11, 13 & 18 are joint family properties and the Plaintiffs are having share over the same.
29. The Plaintiffs have also examined one witness to prove the averments of the plaint as PW.2, he specifically deposed before the Court that all the Suit Schedule Properties are the joint family properties of Plaintiffs and Defendants and further specifically stated that Item No.15 & 16 is basically Government land and during the lifetime of Chikka Siddaiah he used to cultivate an extent of about 06 Acres in the said Item along with his family members and after his death an extent of 02 Acres & 10 Guntas was allotted in the name of Defendant No.1 & 2. Admittedly, in 33 O.S.No.27243/2012 support of the evidence of PW.2, no materials have been placed. During the course of cross-examination made by the Counsel for the Defendant No.1 to 6 he admits that he has no documents to show that Item No.15 & 16 was granted on behalf of joint family. Further admits the suggestion that there was RTC in his favour in respect of 02 Acres of land in Sy.No.119, but possession of the said property is with him. Further admits the suggestion that there is an order by the Assistant Commissioner against him in respect of the said property. Further also admits that there was a complaint against him in respect of property bearing No.282 wherein it was alleged that instead of 01 Acre 10 Guntas he got the revenue records for 02 Acres 10 Guntas, a criminal case registered against him. Further also admits that there was a criminal complaint against him in respect of Sy.No.182. Further also admits the suggestion that FIR was registered against him in respect of Item No.119. Further also admits the suggestion that considering the possession of Defendant No.1 & 2 in Item No.15 & 16, the said property was granted to them. Further also admits that Item No.7 property is standing in the name of Defendant No.1. Further stated that he does 34 O.S.No.27243/2012 not know properties bearing No.8/9, 113/3, 17/5, 4/2 are standing in the name of Defendant No.1 and they have been bequeathed by their father under the Will. Further admits the suggestion that Defendant No.2 alone was in Village and other children of Chikka Siddaiah were living independently outside. So, on careful perusal of the above admission of PW.2, it is clear that he is an interested witness in this case, moreover so many criminal cases are registered against him. Therefore, without supporting of any documentary evidence to his evidence, this Court cannot say that Item No.15 & 16 were cultivated by Chikka Siddaiah during his lifetime along with his children and the said properties were allotted to the joint family in the name of Defendant No.1 & 2 and all the nucleus of joint family are having equally share over the same.
30. The Defendant No.1 to 6 in order to prove the avermnets of written statement have examined Defendant No.5 as DW.1 & he reiterated the contents of written statement. Further he specifically stated that the Item No.7 to the extent of 20 Guntas and Item No.9, 12 and 14 are the self-acquired properties of 35 O.S.No.27243/2012 Late Chikka Siddaiah and he executed a Will and Item No.8, 10, 11, 13 & 18 are only ancestral properties of Late Chikka Siddaiah and Item No.15 & 16 were granted to Defendant No.1 & 2. Further stated that Karnataka State Highway Development Authority was acquired land to the extent of 34.5 ¼ Guntas for widening of Road purpose in the year 2003 and 2011 respectively in Item No.11 of Suit Properties, in Item No.12 Temple is situated and the remaining land in the said Item No.12 has been reserved for Temple purpose by Late Chikka Siddaiah. It is pertinent to note that the Defendant No.1 to 6 are not at all disputing about the Item No.8, 10, 11, 13 & 18 are ancestral properties, as such there is no much discussion is required about the said properties.
31. Though the Plaintiffs are claiming right over Item No.3 to 6 and 30 Guntas in Item No.7 of the Suit Schedule Properties and in this regard, DW.1 during the course of cross-examination has clearly stated that those properties have been bequeathed to his mother by her father by name Late Veerabhadre Gowda by way of Will. In this connection, the 36 O.S.No.27243/2012 Defendants have produced Ex.D.4 & Ex.D.4(a). On careful perusal of all the averments of this document, it is clear that as contended by the Defendants, Item No.3 to 6 and 30 Guntas in Item No.7 were bequeathed to Defendant No.1 by her father. Accordingly, the khatha has been entered in her name alone. Further as DW.1 stated in the cross- examination itself Item No.3 & 4 properties were gifted by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2 by way of registered Gift Deed dtd: 24.3.2010 as per Ex.D.14. Admittedly, on careful perusal of the same, it is clear that as contended by DW.1 these two properties have been gifted by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2 by way of gift. Though the Plaintiff contended that this Gift Deed is not binding on the share of the Plaintiffs in Item No.3 & 4 of the Suit Properties. But, when the Defendant No.1 was alone absolute owner of these properties, she has every right to execute Gift Deed and the Plaintiffs cannot question the same.
32. The Defendants in order to prove that the Defendant No.4 had purchased Item No.1 property in his name and it is her self-acquired property. In this regard, the Defendants have produced Ex.D.1 & 37 O.S.No.27243/2012 Ex.D.2 and on perusal of the same, it is clear that he has purchased the said property by availing loan from the ICICI Home Finance and HDFM Housing Finance Limited. Further Ex.D.3 the certified copy of Judgment passed in LAC No.92/2005, 93/2005, 94/2005 and 96/2005 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division Court Kunigal dtd: 1.9.2008 discloses that 34.5 ¼ Guntas of Item No.11 property has been acquired by the Government for widening the Road and in this connection compensation has been granted in the name of Late Chikka Siddaiah. Ex.D.5 & Ex.D.5(a) to (f) are the RTCs pertaining to the landed property involved in this suit and in this regard the Plaintiffs have also produced the same documents in this suit. Ex.D.6 & Ex.D.7 are discloses that Item No.15 & 16 were granted in the name of Defendant No.1 & 2 in their individual capacity. Ex.D.8 is the Mutation Register in respect of the said land. Ex.D.9 is the registered Sale Deed in respect of Item No.12 of the said property. Though in this Sale Deed it is mentioned that the father-in-law of the Plaintiff No.1 had purchased the said property from one D.C. Chikka Tayamma, but one thing is certain that at the time of purchase of this property on 38 O.S.No.27243/2012 26.5.2000 Late Chikka Siddaiah was the manager of the joint family and though he purchased the same in his individual capacity, so this Court cannot say that it is his self-acquired property, because he was managing the joint family affairs and as such this Court can easily say that it is the joint family property. Further Defendants have also produced Ex.D.10 i.e., the Sale Deed in respect of Item No.9 of the Suit Properties which is also purchased by Late Chikka Siddaiah on 30.6.1979 and as discussed above, at the time of purchase of this property also Late Chikka Siddaiah was the manager of the joint family, as such this property also can be considered as the joint family properties of the Plaintiffs and Defendants No.1 to 6. Similarly, on perusal of Ex.D.11 which is the certified copy of of Sale Deed pertains to Item No.7 of the Suit Properties dtd: 24.1.1976 and at that time purchase of this property also Late Chikka Siddaiah was the manager of the joint family and though it is purchased in the name of Chikka Siddaiah, but it cannot be said that it is his individual property. Ex.D.12 is the Endorsement in respect of Item No.11 of the Suit Properties and it has been given 39 O.S.No.27243/2012 by the LAO in connection with acquisition of the portion of the Item No.11 of Suit Properties.
33. The Defendants have very much relied upon Ex.D.13 i.e., the alleged Will executed by the Chikka Siddaiah in respect of 20 Guntas of land in Item No.7 and Item No.9, 12 & 14 of the Suit Schedule Properties which are claiming to be the self-acquired properties of deceased Chikka Siddaiah and he executed Will in respect of these properties in favour of Defendant No.2 and they became absolute properties of the Defendant No.2 etc. Admittedly, in order to prove the valid execution of the Will Late Chikka Siddaiah, the Defendants have not at all examined the attesting witnesses of this Will which is mandatory on the part of beneficiary of the Will to prove the valid execution of the Will. As discussed above, though the above properties were standing in the name of Late Chikka Siddaiah and he purchased the same during his lifetime, but as discussed above, since he is the manager of the joint family and acquired the same when he was acted as a manager to the joint family properties. Therefore, on the basis of this document prima-facie this Court cannot say 40 O.S.No.27243/2012 that these properties are the self-acquired properties of Late Chikka Siddaiah and as such he has the right to bequeath the same in favour of the Defendant No.2.
34. Ex.D.14 is the Gift Deed dtd: 24.3.2010 executed in the name of wife of Defendant No.5 by her father and as admitted by PW.1 in her cross- examination it is not the joint family properties. Ex.D.15 is the certified copy of Sale Deed dtd:
5.5.2005 which is executed in favour of Late Chikka Siddaiah in respect of Item No.7 of the Suit Properties and as discussed above at the time of purchase of this property also the Chikka Siddaiah was the manager of the joint family and it can be said that it has been acquired by him on behalf of the joint family. Similarly, Ex.D.16 is also certified copy of Sale Deed dtd: 5.12.2008 of Item No.14 which is purchased by Late Chikka Siddaiah from one C.N. Gangaiah. As aforesaid, it has been purchased by Late Chikka Siddaiah as a manager of joint family.
Ex.D.18 is the original Sale Deed dtd: 27.8.1994 executed by one Y.C. Prakash in favour of S. Shanker in respect of House Khatha No.48/23 i.e., in respect of Item No.1 of Suit Properties. Ex.D.19 is the property 41 O.S.No.27243/2012 records of the said property. Ex.D.20 is the Sale Deed dtd: 16.8.2008 executed by said S. Shanker in favour of Defendant No.4 in respect of Item No.1 of the Suit Properties. Ex.D.21(a) to Ex.D.23 are the Tax Paid Receipts in respect of said property. Ex.D.24 is the Sale Deed executed by Defendant No.4 in respect of Item No.1 of the Suit Properties in favour of Defendant No.7 on 26.3.2015. Ex.D.25 is the property records. Ex.D.26 is the Encumbrance Certificate and Ex.D.27 is the Tax Paid Receipt in connection with the said property. Ex.D.28 is the certified copy of Sale Deed dtd: 3.6.2010 executed by Defendant No.4 in favour of one Dibbada Rajanna in respect of House Site situated at Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Bellary, CTS Ward No.21, Block No.1, TS-12/7A/1C2 etc. Ex.D.29 is also certified copy of another Sale Deed executed by Defendant No.4 in favour of one H. Mallikarjuna Reddy in respect of property situated at Bellary CS Ward No.25, CTS No.21, TS-12/7A/1C1.
35. On careful perusal of all the above documents produced by the Defendants one thing is certain that the Item No.1 & 2 of the Suit Properties are not at all joint family properties of the Plaintiffs 42 O.S.No.27243/2012 and the Defendants. Similarly, Item No.1, 3 to 6 and 20 Guntas of Item No.7 of the Suit Schedule Properties are also not at all joint family properties of Plaintiffs and Defendants. Further it is not at all proved by the Defendants that the 30 Guntas in Item No.7, Item No.9, 12 and 14 are the self-acquired properties of deceased Chikka Siddaiah. On the other hand, those properties were acquired by Late Chikka Siddaiah during his lifetime as a manager of the joint family.
36. The Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs during the course of arguments drawn the attention of this Court to some of the admissions given by DW.1 to show that the Defendants have failed to prove that Item No.3 to 7, 9, 12 & 14 are not the self-acquired properties of the Defendants. On the other hand, DW.1 admitted that they are not having sufficient records to show that those properties are their self- acquired properties. DW.1 in his cross-examination clearly admitted that his father was having only agricultural income and as he was doing siriculture. Further he also admitted the suggestion that except the Sale Deed produced in this case they have no other documents to show that his father has 43 O.S.No.27243/2012 purchased 30 Guntas in Item No.7, Item No.9, 12 & 14 from his own earnings. Further denied the suggestion that these properties have been purchased from the income of all the members of joint family in the name of his father as a head of the family. Further DW.1 admitted in the cross-examination that except his father was doing agriculture and as well as siriculture he was not having any other income. Further admits that he has no documents to show that he has financially helped his father to purchase Item No.12 of the Suit Properties. Further stated that he does not know in which year house in Item No.14 has been constructed.
37. From the above admission of DW.1 one thing is certain that the properties which were purchased by Late Chikka Siddaiah in his name cannot be as self-acquired properties of Late Chikka Siddaiah. Even as admitted by DW.1, except the agricultural and siricultural income, deceased Chikka Siddaiah had no other income to independently acquire these properties. Therefore, these properties can be easily say that they have been acquired by Late Chikka Siddaiah on behalf of joint family from the income of 44 O.S.No.27243/2012 joint family to inure to the benefit of all the members of joint family.
38. Further even though DW.1 very much contended that Item No.12 of the Suit Properties is the self-acquired property of Late Chikka Siddaiah and he has helped to Late Chikka Siddaiah to purchase of the said property. However, in this regard also no materials placed by the Defendants in this suit. Similarly, though the Defendant No.4 & 5 very much contended in their written statement that Item No.14 of the Suit Schedule Properties is also self-acquired property of Late Chikka Siddaiah and he has executed a Will in favour of Defendant No.2 in respect of said property and as such Defendant No.2 has constructed a house with the help of Defendant No.4 & 5 etc. Admittedly, DW.1 does not know in which year Item No.14 of the house has been constructed. Even no materials forthcoming from the side of the Defendant No.2 to 6 to show that it is the self- acquired property of Late Chikka Siddaiah. Therefore, Chikka Siddaiah had no right to execute any Will in favour of Defendant No.2 in respect of said property. That apart, the Defendants have not at all proved the valid execution of Will by Chikka Siddaiah as per 45 O.S.No.27243/2012 Ex.D.13. They have not placed any materials to show that during the lifetime of Chikka Siddaiah had executed valid Will as per Ex.D.13. Moreover, Chikka Siddaiah had a wife who is Defendant No.1, children i.e., Defendant No.2 to 6 and as well as husband of PW.1. However, it is clear from Ex.D.13 that he has excluded the Plaintiffs, Defendant No.1, 3 to 6 in the said Will and he has bequeathed some properties in favour of Defendant No.2 only. So, it creates serious doubt about valid execution of the Ex.D.13 in favour of Defendant No.2 by Chikka Siddaiah. Hence, the Defendants cannot say that by way of Will Defendant No.2 has acquired absolute right over the properties mentioned in Ex.D.13.
39. The Counsel for Plaintiffs has very much contended in this suit that though the Item No.15 and 16 have been granted in the name of Defendant No.2, but these properties have been granted to inure to the benefit of the entire joint family. On the other hand, Defendants contended that Defendant No.1 & 2 have cultivated the said lands and in this regard the Government has granted the said properties in their names only by considering their possession and 46 O.S.No.27243/2012 enjoyment. In this regard they have not placed any materials, except RTC of the said land. On perusal of the RTC of the said land it is clear that these properties have been granted in the name of Defendant No.1 & 2 in their individual capacity. Further the Defendants have produced Ex.D.6 & Ex.D.7 to show that these properties have been granted in the name of Defendant No.1 & 2. On careful perusal of the same it is clear that in view of the Defendant No.1 & 2 were having cultivating the land and the Government has granted the said land in their individual names. In this regard, matuation entry had been effected as per Ex.D.8. In this regard, DW.1 in the cross-examination admits that Item No.15 & 16 were originally gomala lands and his father was cultivating the said lands since 40-50 years. However, he specifically denied that his father was cultivating the said property along with other family members. Further denied the suggestion that the Defendant No.1 & 2 have filed Form No.7 stating that since long their joint family was cultivating the said properties and the same may be granted to them. On the other hand, the Defendant No.1 specifically stated that Defendant No.1 & 2 are involved in cultivating 47 O.S.No.27243/2012 these lands and accordingly the Government has granted the said properties in their names. Further specifically denied that even though these properties have been granted in the name of Defendant No.1 & 2, but actually it has been granted to the joint family. Here in this case Ex.D.5(c) to 5(f), Ex.D.6 to Ex.P.8 produced by the Defendants demonstrates that the Defendant No.1 & 2 were cultivating these lands and accordingly they had filed Form No.7 stating that they were individually cultivating these properties since long and accordingly the Government by sondering the request has granted these landed properties in their individual names. In order to rebut the same and to show that these properties are also joint family properties of the Plaintiffs and Defendants, the Plaintiffs have not placed any materials. Therefore, these two properties cannot be said as a joint family properties of the Plaintiffs and Defendants.
40. The Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs during the course of arguments submitted that the Item No.15 & Item No.16 though granted in the name of Defendant No.1 & 2, but it inure to the benefit of all the joint family properties. The Defendant No.1 & 2 48 O.S.No.27243/2012 have not placed any materials to show that those properties were in their exclusive possession and enjoyment. When there was no partition had been effected between the members of the joint family members and during the lifetime of Late Chikka Siddaiah was cultivating the Item No.1 & 2 of Suit Properties along with members of joint family. Therefore, merely because the land granted in the name of Defendant No.1 & 2 alone, it cannot be said that these properties are exclusive properties of Defendant No.1 & 2. In this regard, he has relied upon the decision reported in 2007 14 SCC 63 and as well as ILR 1998 KAR 2508. In the first decision the Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-B held thus:
B. Tenancy and Land Laws -
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (10 of 1962) - Ss. 45, 48-A and 2(A)(17) - Non-Mitakshara joint family falling under definition of Hindu joint family in S.2(A)(17) - Proprietary rights in jointly possessed property - Nature and vesting of -
Maintainability of partition suit -49 O.S.No.27243/2012
Effect of grant of occupancy certificate in favour of only one member - A joint family under S.2(A)(17) may consist of a group of persons - Held, thus, they need not be joint tenants - They may be tenants-in-common but still if they are in joint possession of a property, the same would vest in all of them, although the certificate may be granted in favour of only one - Hence a partition suit was maintainable in respect of the property in question - Hindu Law - Joint family - Partition - Property Law
- Co-owners.
41. No doubt, there is no materials to show that joint family properties of Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 6 have been partitioned. However, Ex.D.5 to Ex.D.8 produced by the Defendants discloses that after the death of Chikka Siddaiah only these properties were granted in the name of Defendant No.1 & 2 alone. There is no documents placed by the 50 O.S.No.27243/2012 Plaintiffs to show that all the family members were in joint cultivation of these properties, even all the joint family members have not at all filed Form No.7 to grant these properties. On the other hand, Defendant No.1 & 2 are only filed Form No.7 and accordingly the said properties were granted in their names. If at all the joint family is in joint cultivation of the said properties the Plaintiffs could have produced the documents in this regard.
42. So, in the absence of such documents and merely on the stray admission of DW.1, this Court cannot say that these Suit Properties are joint family properties and they have been granted to inure to the benefit of joint family. In the second decision the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that:
KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961, (Karnataka Act No.10 of 1962) - Section 48-A & 133 and HINDU LAW - Partition - A joint family member seeking partition of occupancy right granted to another Member of the joint family in his name. Grantee 51 O.S.No.27243/2012 member claiming exclusive right in occupancy right granted -
jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain a suit for partition of occupancy right. HELD - Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide whether occupancy right granted by the Tribunal would enure to the benefit of the grantee alone or to all other joint family members.
43. According to this decision, definitely the Plaintiffs can claim the partition in respect of land granted by the Tribunal under Karnataka Land Reforms Act. As discussed above, the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that the occupancy right granted by the Government inure to the benefit of the joint family members. On the other hand, the documentary evidence placed by the Defendants reveals that the said lands i.e., Item No.15 & 16 have been granted in favour of Defendant No.1 & 2 only.
44. The Plaintiffs contended that Item No.10 of the Suit Properties is also joint family properties and they are having share over the same. On the other 52 O.S.No.27243/2012 hand, the Learned Counsel for the Defendants contended that the said land was the self-acquired property of the deceased Chikka Siddaiah and he sold the same during his lifetime and it cannot be questioned now. Neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendants have produced the Sale Deed of the said property. On the other hand, the Plaintiffs have produced RTC of Item No.10 of the Suit Properties. On perusal of the same, it appears that Chikka Siddaiah and his brothers during the partition have acquired 04 Guntas of the land each in Sy.No.115. Unless produced the Sale Deed of this property this Court cannot say that this property is the self-acquired property of deceased Chikka Siddaiah and he was sold the same during his lifetime. On the other hand, on behalf of Defendant No.1 & 2 it was suggested to PW.1 that Item No.1 also joint family property. Hence the Plaintiffs are entitled for partition in the said property.
45. Regarding Item No.11 & 12 of the suit properties is concerned, the Defendants have contended that already 11 Guntas has been acquired by the Government for widening the road and the 53 O.S.No.27243/2012 remaining 09 Guntas of the land should be used for construction of Shiva Temple and nobody are having any right to alienate the same etc. Admittedly, one thing is certain that, as per Ex.D.13 the Government had acquired 11 Guntas of the land in this property and according to Defendants, except the Plaintiffs and others have received the compensation awarded by the Government. So anyhow, when this property is not the absolute property of deceased Chikka Siddaiah he had no independent right to executed Will in respect of Item No.12 property, moreover Ex.D.13 Will has not been proved by the Defendants as per law. Therefore, this Court opines that the Plaintiffs are also entitled for share in these properties also. Even if they did not receive any compensation amount, they can definitely receive their share of the compensation amount as per law from the competent authority.
46. Regarding Item No.14 of the Suit Schedule Properties is concern, it is the residential house and according to Defendant No.1 & 2 this property is the self-acquired property of Late Chikka Siddaiah and he has executed the Will in favour of Defendant No.2 and Defendant No.2 has constructed house with the 54 O.S.No.27243/2012 help of Defendant No.4 & 5 and as such the Plaintiffs have no right over the same. Admittedly, no materials placed in this suit to show that this property had been independently acquired by Late Chikka Siddaiah from his own earnings other than the income of the joint family. That apart, the Defendant No.4 & 5 have not produced any materials to show that the Defendant No.2 had constructed building in the said property with the help of Defendant No.4 & 5. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the Plaintiffs are having share over the said property.
47. Regarding Item No.17 of the Suit Properties is concerned, according to Ex.P.25 it is standing in the name of Defendant No.1. No documents placed by the Plaintiffs to show that this property is the joint family properties of Plaintiffs and Defendants. Therefore, this Court can easily say that it is the self-acquired property of the Defendant No.1 alone. If at all as contended by the Defendants it is acquired by the joint family, definitely they should have produced the documents in connection with the mode of acquisition of the property by the joint family. Therefore, this 55 O.S.No.27243/2012 Court opines that the Plaintiffs are not entitled for any share over this property.
48. In view of the discussions made above this Court is of the opinion that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that all the Suit Schedule Properties are joint family properties as contended by them. On the other hand, the Defendant No.1 & 2 have proved that Item No.3 to 6 & 20 Guntas in Item No.7 of the Suit Schedule Properties are the absolute properties belonging to the Defendant No.1. Similarly, the Defendant No.1 & 2 have failed to prove that 30 Guntas in Item No.7, Item No.8 to Item No.14 are the self-acquired properties of Late Chikka Siddaiah. When the Defendants have failed to prove that these properties are the self-acquired properties of Late Chikka Siddaiah, they cannot say that Chikka Siddaiah had right to execute a Will in respect of these properties in favour of Defendant No.2. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 Partly in the Affirmative, Issue No.2 in the Affirmative, Issue No.3 to 6 in the Negative.
56 O.S.No.27243/201249. Issue No.7, Addl. Issue No.1 & 2 dtd:
7.1.2020:-
Since the above issues are inter related and finding on one issue is having bearing on the other, in order to avoid repetition of facts, the above issues have been taken up together for consideration.
50. The Plaintiffs have categorically contended in this suit that during the pendency of this suit the Defendant No.4 has illegally sold the Item No.1 of the Suit Schedule Properties in favour of Defendant No.7, as such the said Sale Deed dtd: 26.3.2015 is not at all binding on them. On the other hand, the Defendants have contended that the said property is the self-acquired property of Defendant No.4 who purchased the same by selling the Lakshmi Nilaya property situated at Bellary.
51. It is an admitted fact that the present suit filed by the Plaintiff on 27.11.2012 and according to Ex.P.12 the Defendant No.4 had purchased the same on 16.8.2008 and thereafter he sold the same on 26.3.2015 i.e., during the pendency of this suit as per Ex.P.27 Sale Deed. Admittedly, the alienation of this 57 O.S.No.27243/2012 property was during the pendency of this suit is not at all disputed by the Defendants. On the other hand, the Defendant No.7 who purchased this property during the pendency of this suit contended that she is the bonafide purcahser of this property without knowing the pendency of this suit. DW.2 also produced original Sale Deed of the said property as per Ex.D.24. Further she produced Ex.D.18, Ex.D. 21, Ex.D.23 to Ex.D.29 in connection with this property and on perusal of the same it is clear that after purchase of the property she is paying tax and she is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Ex.D.18 is the original Sale Deed to show that the erstwhile owner by name one Shanker has purchased the said property from Y.S. Prakash and he sold in favour of the Defendant No.4 as per Ex.D.20 and in turn he sold the same in favour of Defendant No.7 as per Ex.D.24. The DW.2 has also produced Ex.D.28 & Ex.D.29 to show that Defendant No.4 had earlier owned two properties and he sold the same by way of the Sale Deed dtd: 3.6.2010 in favour of two persons out of them, one is Lakshmi Nilaya property.
58 O.S.No.27243/201252. Admittedly, on perusal of all these records, it appears that Lakshmi Nilaya property has been purchased by the Defendant No.4 alone and the said property is not at all included in the schedule of the Suit Properties. On the other hand, Lakshmi Nilaya property and other property has been sold by the Defendant No.4 on 3.6.2010. Regarding acquisition of Item No.1 of the Suit Properties is concerned, the Defendants have produced Ex.D.18 to Ex.D.20. Though at the time of purchase of this property no partition had been effected among the members of the joint family, but as admitted by PW.1 in her cross- examination, the Plaintiffs have not placed any materials to show that deceased husband of PW.1 had contributed for purchase of this property. On the other hand, the PW.1 impliedly admitted that Defendant No.4 was maintained his family out of his independent income. That apart, the Defendant No.4 is an KMF Employee and he joined service in the year 1993. Therefore, this Court can easily say that the Defendant No.4 got acquired this property from his own income.
59 O.S.No.27243/201253. Therefore, from the above discussions and also the findings given by this Court on the foregoing issues, it is clear that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that Item No.1 of the Suit Properties is also joint family properties and on the other hand it is clear that Defendant No.4 had acquired the same from his own income. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to claim the relief of declaration to get declared that the Sale Deed dtd: 26.3.2015 is not binding on them. On the other hand, the Defendant No.4 & 5 have proved that house property named Lakshmi Nilaya has been purchased by Defendant No.4 and it is his self- acquired property. Hence, I answer Issue No.7 and Addl. Issue No.1 dtd:1.2020 in the Affirmative and Addl. Issue No.2 dtd: 7.1.2020 in the Negative.
54. Issue No.8:-
In view of details discussions made in Issue No.1 and as well as Addl. Issue No.1 & 2 dtd:
7.11.2020 it is clear that all the suit properties are not available for partition as on the date of filing of the suit. Hence, I answer Issue No.6 in the Negative.60 O.S.No.27243/2012
55. Addl. Issue No.1 & 2 dtd: 13.9.2022:-
Since the above issues are inter related and finding on one issue is having bearing on the other, in order to avoid repetition of facts, the above issues have been taken up together for consideration.
56. In view of details discussions made and findings given by this Court on forgoing issues it is clear that the Plaintiffs have failed to prove that Item No.15 to Item No.17 properties are joint family properties of Plaintiffs and Defendants. On the other hand, during the course of cross-examination of PW.1 itself on behalf of Defendants it is suggested that except Item No.8, 10, 11, 13 and 18 of Suit Properties remaining properties are the self-acquired properties of the Defendants and Late Chikka Siddaiah etc. Such being the fact, this Court can easily say that Item No.15 to 17 are not joint family properties, but Item No.18 of the Suit Properties also joint family properties of Plaintiffs and Defendants. Hence, I answer Addl. Issue No.1 & 2 Partly in the Affirmative.
61 O.S.No.27243/201257. Issue No.9:-
In view of details discussions and findings given by this Court on forgoing issues, it is clear that the Plaintiffs are entitled for partition in 30 Guntas of land in Item No.7, Item No.8 to Item No.14 and Item No.18 of the Suit Schedule Properties by metes and bounds.
58. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship of the parties to the suit. Admittedly, the Plaintiffs are wife and daughter of Late Veerabhadre Gowda who is the son of Chikka Siddaiah. Late Chikka Siddaiah had 05 sons and one daughter and wife i.e., the Defendant No.1. According to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act the wife and children of Late Chikka Siddaiah are Class-I hairs are entitled for 1/7th share each in the above Suit Properties by metes and bounds. Since Veerabhadre Gowda is the son of Late Chikka Siddaiah died leaving behind him Plaintiffs as his legal heirs. Therefore, the Plaintiffs together entitled for 1/7th share in 30 Guntas of land in Item No.7, Item No.8 to Item No.14 and Item No.18 of the Suit Schedule Properties by metes and bounds.
62 O.S.No.27243/2012Hence, I answer Issue No.9 Partly in the Affirmative.
59. Issue No.10:-
In view of the findings on the above issues, the suit of the Plaintiffs deserves to be decreed in part without costs. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Suit of the Plaintiffs is hereby decreed in part.
The Plaintiffs are jointly entitled for 1/7th share in the 30 Guntas of land in Item No.7, Item No.8 to14 and Item No.18 of the Suit Schedule Properties by metes and bounds.
The Plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profits and the same has to be determined in the FDP Proceedings.63 O.S.No.27243/2012
The declaratory prayer of the Plaintiffs in respect of Sale Deed dtd: 26.3.2015 is hereby rejected.
The Plaintiffs are directed to take necessary steps under Order XX Rule 18 of CPC to draw final decree, in view of the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2022 livelaw (SC) 549 (Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan V/s Kattukandi Edathil Valsan & Ors.) The office to register FDP on the basis of above preliminary decree and put up the case on: 26.6.2025.
Considering the relationship, the parties to bear their own costs.
Draw Preliminary Decree accordingly.
(Dictation given to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, after correction, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of June 2025.) [Sri. Sreepada N] LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73).64 O.S.No.27243/2012
SCHEDULE PROPERTIES Item No.1 All that piece and parcel of the house property bearing No.23, khata No.339/1/48/23 (Old Khata No.339, Assessment No.48, situated at Dodda Bettahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, presently coming under BBMP limits and measuring East to West : 30 Feet and North to South : 50 Feet and 3 storied constructed building and bounded on:
East by : Site No.21.
West by : Site No.22.
North by : Road.
South by : Private Property.
Item No.2
All that piece and parcel of the house property bearing No.229, 1st Main, 1st Block, Nagarabhavi 2nd stage, opposite to Bhagavan Budda law Hostel, Kottigepalya, Bangalore-560091, 3 stored constructed building and measuring East to West : 50 feet and 65 O.S.No.27243/2012 North to South : 60 feet and totally measuring 3000 sq.feet and bounded on:
East by : Private Property.
West by : Road.
North by : Private Property.
South by : Private Property.
Item No.3
All that piece and parcel of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.8/5, situated at Chikka Mavathur Village, Huliyurudurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District for the extent of 36 Guntas of land.
East by : Rudramma/Veerabhadre Gowda Property.
West by : Government Kharab.
North by : Ponnamma/Veerabhadraiah Property.
South by : Kanthamma/Dasappa Property.
Item No.4
All that piece and parcel of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.8/9, situated at Chikka Mavathur Village, Huliyurudurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District for the extent of 17 Guntas of land. East by : Eranna/Veerabhadraiah Property.
66 O.S.No.27243/2012 West by : Government Kharab.
North by : Ponnamma/Veerabhadraiah Property.
South by : Kanthamma/Dasappa Property.
Item No.5
All that piece and parcel of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.111/3, situated at Chikka Mavathur Village, Huliyurudurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District for the extent of 01 Acre 08 Guntas of land. East by : Thimmamma/Kullegowda Property. West by : Nebhagamma/Dasegowda Property.
North by : Shanthamma/Lingegowda Property.
South by : Bechamma/Chennigaiah Property.
Item No.6 All that piece and parcel of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.17/5, situated at Chikka Mavathur Village, Huliyurudurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District for the extent of 08 Guntas of land.
East by : C.M. Kallappa Property.
West by : Dasappa/Valkidasappa Property.
North by : C.M. Gangaiah/Vallechennaiah Property.
South by : Shanthamma/Lingegowda Property.
67 O.S.No.27243/2012
Item No.7
All that piece and parcel of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.180/2, situated at Chikka Mavathur Village, Huliyurudurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District for the extent of 01 Acre 10 Guntas of land.
East by : Gramathana.
West by : Doddavamaragadi.
North by : Siddegowda/Lingegowda Property.
South by : Kallaveeraiah Property.
Item No.8
All that piece and parcel of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.176/3, situated at Chikka Mavathur Village, Huliyurudurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District for the extent of 29.8 Guntas of land. East by : Kobagaiah/Kanthamma Property.
West by : C.M. Vaikanthamma/Narasimhaiah Property.
North by : Chennamma/Bhairaiah Property.
South by : Veerabhadraiah Property.
Item No.9 All that piece and parcel of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.175, situated at Chikka Mavathur Village, Huliyurudurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District for the extent of 10 Guntas of land.
68 O.S.No.27243/2012East by : Kobagaiah/Dasegowda Property.
West by : Chennamma/Bhaiaraiah Property.
North by : Kobagaiah/Ugregowda Property.
South by : Rangappa/Lakkappa Property.
Item No.10 All that piece and parcel of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.115/4, situated at Chikka Mavathur Village, Huliyurudurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District for the extent of 04 Guntas of land. East by : Masthigowda/Valkigowda Property.
West by : Dasappa/Kantamma Property.
North by : Lingegowda/Siddegowda Property.
South by : Ramanna/Dabaiah Property.
Item No.11 All that piece and parcel of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.5/2, situated at Bolenahalli Village, Huliyurudurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkuru District, for the extent of 02 Acre 23 Guntas of land, bounded by:
East : Land of Prahash D.R., West : Land of Nagaraju S/o Mayanna. North : Land bearing Sy.No.4/2 belongs to Rudramma.69 O.S.No.27243/2012
South : Land of Siddalingaiah.
Item No.12 All that piece and parcel of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.4/2, situated at Bolenahalli Village, Huliyurudurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkuru District, for the extent of 20 Guntas of land, bounded by:
East : Road, West : Land of Kempanna S/o Mayanna. North : Land of Chikkathayamma. South : Land bearing Sy.No.5/2 belongs to Rudramma.
Item No.13 All that piece and parcel of the old Mangalore tiles roofed house property at Chikka Mavathur Village, Huliyurudurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkuru District, measuring 800 square feet area bounded by:
East : Hosue of Doddasiddiah. West : House of Doddasiddaih. North : Road.
South : Site belongs to Krishnashetty.70 O.S.No.27243/2012
Item No.14 All that piece and parcel of the newly constructed house property at Chikka Mavathur Village, Huliyurudurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkuru District, measuring 1800 square feet area bounded by:
East : Road.
West : House of Sobagaiah.
North : Site belongs to Gangadharaiah S/o Subbanna. South : Road.
Item No.15 All that piece and parcel of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.119 (Granted in the name of Krishnappa S/o Chikka Siddaiah) to an extent of 2-10 Guntas of land situated at Chikka Mavathur Village, Huliyurudurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakur District bounded by:
East by : Land of Najpappa.
West by : Land of Rudraiah and sons, Rangashetty.
North by : Road.
South by : Thore Halla.
71 O.S.No.27243/2012
Item No.16
All that piece and parcel of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.119 (Granted in the name of Rudramma W/o Chikka Siddaiah) to an extent of 2-00 Acres of land situated at Chikka Mavathur Village, Huliyurudurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakur District bounded by:
East by : Thore Halla.
West by : Land of Nanjappa.
North by : Road.
South by : Thore Halla.
Item No.17
All that piece and parcel of House property bearing Janjaru No.1 to an extent of 17 X 34 Sq.ft., situated at Chikka Mavathur Village, Huliyurudurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakur District, measuring 800 square feet, bounded by:
East by : Land of Rudramma.
West by : Land of Naganna.
North by : Road.
South by : Galli.
Item No.18
All that piece and parcel of House property bearing Janjaru No.60 to an extent of 11 X 16 Sq.ft., 72 O.S.No.27243/2012 situated at Chikka Mavathur Village, Huliyurudurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakur District, measuring 800 square feet, bounded by:
East by : House of Late Chikkasiddaiah.
West by : Road.
North by : Property of Doddasiddaiah.
South by : Road.
[Sri. Sreepada N] LXXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73).
ANNEXURES LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
PW1: Nagamani @ Nayana.
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P.1 : Marriage Invitation Card.
Ex.P.2 to: 10 Record of Rights. Ex.P.11 Ex.P.13 : DVD of Marriage Function along with & 13(a) Certificate U/Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P.14 : 11 Record of Rights. to Ex.P.24 Ex.P.25 : Certified copy of Tax Demand Register 73 O.S.No.27243/2012 extract.
Ex.P.26 : Mutation Order No.H25/2020-21 in respect of Sy.No.119.
Ex.P.27 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd:
26.3.2015.
Ex.P.28 &: 2 RTCs in respect of Sy.No.119. Ex.P.29 Ex.P.30 : Statement given before Police with regard to accident of Plaintiff's husband.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
DW.1 : Nanjappa alias Nanjegowda. DW.2 : D.R. Shylaja.
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
Ex.D.1 : Loan Sanction Letter dtd: 1.1.2004.
Ex.D.2 : Loan Sanction Letter dtd: 28.8.2012.
Ex.D.3 : Certified copy of Judgment in LAC No.92/2005 and connected matters.
Ex.D.4 : Certified copy of the Will dtd: 1.11.1968.
Ex.D.4(a) : Typed copy of Will dtd: 1.11.1968.
Ex.D.5 : 7 Record of Rights. D.5(a to f)
Ex.D.6 &: 2 certified copies of Saguvali Chit in the 74 O.S.No.27243/2012 Ex.D.7 name of Rudramma and Krishnappa.
Ex.D.8 : Mutation Register Extract.
Ex.D.9 : Original Sale Deed dtd: 26.5.2000.
Ex.D.10 : Original Sale Deed dtd: 30.6.1979. Ex.D.10(a) :
Typed copy of Sale Deed dtd: 30.6.1979.
Ex.D.11 : Original Sale Deed dtd: 1.12.1975.
Ex.D.11(a) : Typed copy of Sale Deed dtd:
Ex.D.12 : Endorsement issued by State Highway Development Project.
Ex.D.13 : Original Will dtd: 8.12.2008.
Ex.D.14 : Digital copy of Gift Deed dtd: 24.3.2010.
Ex.D.15 : Digital copy of Sale Deed dtd: 5.5.2005.
Ex.D.16 : Digital copy of Sale Deed dtd: 5.12.2018.
Ex.D.17 : Certificate U/Sec.64B of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.D.18 : Original Sale Deed dtd: 27.8.1994.
Ex.D.19 : Khatha Extract of property No.48/23 of 75 O.S.No.27243/2012 Doddabettahalli.
Ex.D.20 : Registered Sale Deed dtd: 16.8.2008.
Ex.D.21 : Original Khatha Extract issued on 7.2.2011.
Ex.D.22 : Encumbrance Certificate from 1.4.2004 to 8.5.2015.
Ex.D.23, : Tax Paid Receipts 10 in Nos.
(D.23a to i) Ex.D.24 : Registered Sale Deed dtd: 26.3.2015.
Ex.D.25 : Khatha Extract issued dtd: 14.9.2015.
Ex.D.26 : Encumbrance Certificate for the period from 26.3.2015 to 21.3.2021.
Ex.D.27, : Tax Paid Receipts 8 in Nos.
(D.27a to g) Ex.D.28 : 02 Online copies of registered Sale Deeds & dtd: 3.6.2010.
Ex.D.29 Ex.D.30 : Certificate U/Sec.64B of Indian Evidence Act in connection with Ex.D.28 & Ex.D.29.
[Sri. Sreepada N] LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73).