Bangalore District Court
Ramachandra vs Parvathi on 11 September, 2025
O.S.No.1511/2013
KABC010214412013
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH30)
PRESENT: Srinivasa Gowda.C. B.A.L.L.L.B
XXIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru (CCH30)
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2025.
O.S.No.1511/2013
PLAINTIFFS: 1. Sri.Ramachandra,
S/o.Late Munivenkatappa,
Aged about 55 years,
R/at No.120, 42nd Cross,
8th Block, Jayanagar,
Bangalore - 82.
2. Sri.Raghu Murthy,
S/o.Late Munivenkatappa,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at No.33,
Muneshwara Temple Road,
Amruthahalli,
Bangalore.
(By Sri.B.M.V. Advocate)
V/S
DEFENDANTS: 1. Smt.Parvathi,
W/o.Late Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.84/2, 2nd Cross,
2 O.S.No.1511/2013
Venkateshwara Colony,
New Thippasandra,
HAL 3rd Stage,
Bangalore 75
2. Smt.Lakshmamma,
W/o.Late appaiah,
Aged about 60 years,
R/at Srirampura,
Jakkur Post, Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore.
3. Smt.Lakshmidevi.A.,
D/o.Late Appaiah,
Aged about 37 years,
R/at Srirampura,
Jakkur Post,
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore - 569964.
4. Smt.Krishna Murthy.A.,
S/o.Late Appaiah,
Aged about 31 years,
R/at Srirampura,
Jakkur Post, Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore - 560064.
5. Smt. Bhagya A
D/o Late Appaiah
aged about 28 years
R/at Srirampura
Jakkur Post, Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore - 560064.
6. Smt. Krishnamma
W/o Late Bachappa
aged about 69 years
R/at Srirampura
Jakkur Post, Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore - 560064.
3 O.S.No.1511/2013
7. Sri. Balasubramani S.B
S/o Late Bachappa
aged about 46 years
R/at Srirampura
Jakkur Post, Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore - 560064.
8. Sri. Munishami Gowda S.B
Since is dead Rep. By his LR's
8(a) Meena
W/o Late Munishami Gowda S.B
aged about 42 years
8(b) Pawan
S/o Late Munishami Gowda S.B
aged about 25 years
Both are R/at Srirampura
Jakkur Post, Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore - 560064.
9 Sri. Kodanadarama Murty S.B
since is dead Rep. By his LR's
9(a) Smt. Lakshmi,
W/o Late Kodanada Rama Murhty
S.B
aged about 40 years
9(b) Roopa
D/o Late Kodananda Rama Murthy
S.B.
aged about 23 years
9(c) Swetha
D/o, Late Kodanad Rama murthy
S.B.
aged about 22 years
9(d) Suresh,
S/o Late Kodanad Rama murthy S.B.
4 O.S.No.1511/2013
aged about 18 years
All are residing at Srirampura
Jakkur Post, Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore - 560064.
10 Sri. Venkatesh S.B
S/o Late Bachappa
aged about 38 years,
R/at Srirampura Jakkur Post,
Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore -
560064.
11 Sri. Ganesh S.B
S/o Late Bachappa
aged about 36 years
R/at Srirampura
Jakkur Post, Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore - 560064.
12 Sri. Anjinappa
S/o Late Hanumanthappa
aged about 75 years
R/at Srirampura
Jakkur Post, Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore - 560064.
13 Ananda
S/o Anjinappa
aged about 45 years
R/at Srirampura
Jakkur Post, Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore - 560064.
14 Sri. Jayaram
S/o Anjinappa
aged about 40 years
R/at Srirampura
Jakkur Post, Bangalore North Taluk,
5 O.S.No.1511/2013
Bangalore - 560064.
15 Smt. Venkatamma
W/o Late Krishnappa
aged about 70 years
R/at Srirampura
Jakkur Post, Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore - 560064.
16 Sri. Muniraju
Since is dead Rep by his LR's
16(a) Rajamma
W/o Muniraju
aged major
16 (b) Girish
S/o Muniraju
aged major
Both are R/at Srirampura
Jakkur Post, Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore - 560064.
17 Sri. Nagaraju
S/o Late Krishnappa
aged major
R/at Srirampura
Jakkur Post, Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore - 560064.
18 Sri. Munswamy
S/o Muni Kuppanna
aged about 56 years
R/at Srirampura
Jakkur Post, Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore - 560064.
19 Sri. Rameshlal Gurjal
S/o Hajjarilal Gurjal
aged about 25
R/at No.94,
6 O.S.No.1511/2013
Mother Therasa Road
2nd Cross, Mariyanana Palya
H.A. Famr Post,
Bangalore560024
20 Sri. Balraj
S/o Inathappa
aged major
R/at Mastry Palya
Arabic College Post
Bangalore560045.
21 Smt. Sulekha
W/o C. Ahmed
aged about 59 years
R/at No.911, 2nd Stage,
BDA Quarter, Austin Town,
Bangalore560047.
22 M/s M.V Project (India) Pvt Ltd
Represented by its director
Sri. Ravikumar
No.32, second floor
R.V Layout Kumarapark west
Banglore560020
23 M/s Woodside a registered
partnership firm represented by its
managing partnership
1. Puttaraj S/o C. Nanjappa
aged about 42 years
II. G Chandan S/o G. Ramulu
aged about 48 years,
Having office at No.9 to 14
Siddeshwara Enclave
1st Main, 4th Cross,
Bilakalahalli Bannerghatta Road
Bangalore560074
24. M/s Kwality Constructions
7 O.S.No.1511/2013
having its office at No.18,
1st floor, 8th Cross, 5th Main,
Krishnappa block, Ganganagar
Bangalore33
Represented by its managing partner
B. Vijayabhanu Reddy
25 The Commissioner
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar
Palike N.R. Square, Bangalore
26 The Joint Commissioner
Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagar
Palike Byatarayanapura, Bangalore
27 The Assistant Revenue Officer
Thanisandra Subdivision
Thanisandra Bangalore77
28. The Additional Tahasildar
Bangalore North Taluk
Yelahanka, Bangalore
29 The Thasildar
Bangalore North Taluk
Kandaya Bhavana
K.G. Road, Bangalore
30 Meri L
W/o Johan Bernad
aged about 29 years,
R/at No.55, Mestripalya
Shivaramakarantanagar Post,
Bangalore560077.
D.1, 2 LRs of D.15 (Exparte)
D.3 to 5 KRMD Advocate
D.6 to 11 N.K Advocate
D.12, 14, 15 D.20 to 23 (Exparte)
D.19 B.M.D. Advocate
8 O.S.No.1511/2013
D22. P.K.G Advocate
D.24 M.K. Advocate
D.25 to 27 P.N. Advocate
D.29 M.N.K. Advocate
D.30 H.B.R. Advocate
D.8 (a) (b) and D.9(a) N.C. Advocate
Date of institution of the suit : 22022013
Nature of the suit (suit on : Partition and Separate
pronote. Suit for declaration Possession
and possession suit for
injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement : 06012016
of recording of the evidence.
Date on which the judgment : 11092025
was pronounced
Total duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
12 06 20
(Srinivasa Gowda.C)
XXIX Addl.City Civil and Sessions
Judge,Bengaluru.
****
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have filed the present suit against the defendants seeking relief of partition and separate possession with respective to their 1/3 legitimate share in the suit 'B schedule' property.
9 O.S.No.1511/2013
2. The plaintiffs have sought for relief of declaration to declare that the registered sale deed dated 05/01/2004 executed by Krishnamurthy and defendant No.1 infavour of defendant No.7 to 11 and another sale deed dated 05/01/2004 executed by defendant No.6 infavour of defendant No.7 to 11 are not binding on the plaintiffs. To declare that the sale deed dated 18/07/2011 executed by defendant No.7 to 11 infavour of defendant No.22 and 23 and another sale deed dated 01/02/2013 executed by defendant No.22 and 23 infavour of defendant No.24 are not binding on the plaintiffs. To declare that the registered partition deed dated 14/10/2010 entered between defendant No.12 to 14 is not binding on the plaintiffs. To declare that the confirmation deed dated 08/03/2012 executed by defendant No.1 infavour of defendant No.22 and 23 is not binding on the plaintiffs. To declare that the sale deed dated 03/12/2010 executed by defendant No.18 infavour of defendant NO.19 is not binding on the plaintiffs. To 10 O.S.No.1511/2013 declare that the sale deed dated 07/08/2006 executed by defendant No.15 infavour of defendant No.18 is not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also sought for relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for mandatory injunction to direct the defendant No.26 to 28 to mutate the katha in the name of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 jointly with respect to suit 'B' schedule property.
3. The Plaintiffs submit that one Kelaganur Muniyappa was the propositor of their family, he had two sons namely M. Munivenkatappa and Appaiah. Kelaganur Muniyappa and his wife Munivenkatamma have purchased the property bearing old No.64, new No.119 measuring 142x240 feet situated at Srirampura Village, Yelhanka Hobli, Bangalore North taluk i.e suit A schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 11 O.S.No.1511/2013 28/06/1937. Following that the katha of the suit A schedule property jointly mutated in the name of Kelaganur Muniyappa and his wife Munivenkatamma. The suit 'A' schedule property is a gramatana land, it was situated within the jurisdiction of Jakkur Grama Panchayat, wherein it was numbered as katha No.64. Then the suit A schedule property comes within the Hebbal notified area, then CMC Byatarayanapura now it is within the revenue jurisdiction of BBMP. Kelaganur Muniyappa and his wife Munivenkatamma were died intestate leaving behind his two sons Munivenkatappa and Appaiah. The two sons of Kelaganur Muniyappa got divided the family properties under the registered partition deed dated 04/12/2002. Under the said partition, the item No.4 of the schedule 1st property was allotted infavour of Munivenkatappa and item No.4 of the 1st schedule and item No.2 of the 2 nd schedule was allotted to the share of children of Appaiah. As per the said partition deed, the northern portion of the suit A 12 O.S.No.1511/2013 schedule property fell to the share of Appaiah and the southern portion was fell to the share of Munivenkatappa. As per the said partition, they were in possession and enjoyment of their respective properties.
4. The plaintiffs have further stated that, Munivenkatappa died on 26/11/1990 and his wife Ramamma died on 27/04/1992. After their death, plaintiffs and their brother Krishnamurthy have succeeded to the suit B schedule property and other properties. The total measurement of the suit B schedule property is East to West 71 feet and North to South 120 feet. The plaintiffs gave a several representations to the concerned revenue authorities to mutate the katha in their name with respective B schedule property as per the registered partition deed dated 04/12/2002. Despite the revenue authorities have failed to mutate the katha in their name. The children of late. Appaiah have filed a suit in OS.No.936/2011 seeking relief of partition and permanent injunction with respective northern portion of 13 O.S.No.1511/2013 the property bearing Khaneshumari No. 64/119, they have also sought for a cancellation of sale deed executed by the wife of Appaiah, the said suit is pending for consideration. Taking advantage that the Khatha was not mutated in the name of the plaintiffs and Krishnamurthy, defendant No.1 is trying to alienate the suit B schedule property with a malafide intention.
5. The defendant No.1 and her husband had executed the alleged General Power of Attorney on 04.09.1996 infavour of defendant No.2 with respect to property measuring East to West: 115 feet; North to South: 23 feet. The said Power of Attorney came to be canceled vide registered document dated 04.03.2003. Though the defendant No.1 and his husband have canceled the registered GPA dated 04/09/1996, the defendant No.2 has illegally sold the property bearing Katha No.64/119 measuring east to west 115 feet and north to south 23 feet infavour of defendant No.7 to 11 under the registered 14 O.S.No.1511/2013 sale deed dated 05/01/2004. As on the date of execution of the registered sale deed dated 05/01/2004,the defendant No.2 had no exclusive right to alienate the same. Therefore, the registered sale deed dated 05/01/2004 executed by defendant No.2 infavour of defendant No.7 to 11 is not binding on the plaintiffs. Moreover, there was no partition among plaintiffs and Krishnamurthy with respective B schedule property, thus the Krishnamurthy and defendant No.1 have no exclusive right to execute the GPA dated 04/09/1996 infavour of defendant No.2.
6. The plaintiffs have further stated that the defendant No.15 has executed the Registered Sale deed dated 07/08/2006 infavour of defendant No.18 with respective portion of the suit schedule 'A' property, the said sale deed came to be canceled by virtue of the orders passed by the Joint Commissioner. Sri. Muniswamy has sold the property infavour of defendant No.19 under the registered 15 O.S.No.1511/2013 sale deed dated 03/12/2010. The said sale deed is not binding on the plaintiffs. The defendant No.12 to 14 have entered in to partition as if the suit A and B schedule properties are their ancestral properties, they have no manner of right or interest to entered into partition with respect to aforesaid properties. On 18/07/2011 the defendant No.7 to 11 without having any right, title over the suit schedule properties, they have executed a registered sale deed infavour of defendant No.22 and 23. The defendant No.1 to 6 have also signed as consenting witness to the said sale deed. The defendant No.1 herein was not appeared before the subregister and she has consented the execute the sale deed dated 18/07/2011 infavour of defendant No.22 and 23. Therefore, the defendant No.1 lodge a complaint before the jurisdictional police alleging that they have forged the signature of defendant No.1 and got created the document. Later, they have entered into compromise, in terms of the said compromise on 08/03/2012 the defendant No.1 has 16 O.S.No.1511/2013 executed the confirmation deed infavour of defendant No.22 and 23. Following that the defendant No.22 and 23 have sold the suit A schedule property infavour of defendant No.24 under the registered sale deed dated 01/02/2013. The defendant No.22 and 23 have no exclusive right to alienate the entire suit A schedule property infavour of defendant No.24. Taking advantage that the sale deed dated 01/12/2013 is executed infavour of defendant No.24, they are trying to put up construction over the entire A schedule property. The sale deed dated 01/12/2013 executed infavour of defendant No.24 is not binding on the plaintiffs. They being members of joint family, they are entitled for legitimate share in the suit B schedule property. The registered sale deed executed infavour of defendant No.7 to 24 and the confirmation deed executed by defendant No.1 is not binding on the shares of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have prayed to decree the suit with costs.
17 O.S.No.1511/2013
7. The suit summons was duly served on the defendant No.1, 2, 12, 14, 15, 20, 21 and legal heirs of defendant No.16, they have not chosen to represent in the present suit, they were placed exparte. Defendant No.3 to 5, 19, 22, 25 to 27, 29 and 30 represent in the present suit, but not chosen to file the written statement.
8. The defendant defendant No.7 to 11 have filed the written statement. The defendant No.6, 8 (a), (b) and defendant No.9 (a) to (d) have adopted the written statement file by the defendant No.7 to 11. The defendant No.7 to 11 have stated that the defendant NO.6 has purchased the property under two registered sale deeds dated 05/01/2004. The defendant No.2 has also purchased the properties through registered GPA dated 04/09/1996. The defendant No.1 and her husband have executed the registered sale deed dated 05/01/2004 registered as document No.14098/200304 infavour of 18 O.S.No.1511/2013 defendant No.6. The registered sale deed dated 05/01/2004 registered as document No.14095/200304 was executed by defendant No.2 to 5 infavour of defendant No.6. Thus the defendant No.6 has acquired the properties under two registered sale deeds dated 05/01/2004. In turn the defendant No.6 has sold the property bearing old Khanesumari No.64 new No.119 measuring east to west 115 feet and north to south 23 feet and another extent of property measuring east to west southern side 80 feet, northern side 115 feet, north to south eastern side 86 feet, western side 70 feet infavour of defendant No.7 to 11. On the strength of the said sale deeds, the CMC Bayatrayanapura have mutated the katha in the name of defendant No.7 to 11. From the date of purchase of said properties defendant No.7 to 11 were in joint possession and enjoyment of their properties. The defendant No.7 to 11 have sold the aforesaid properties infavour of defendant NO.22 and 23 for their legal necessity. In turn the defendant No.22 and 19 O.S.No.1511/2013 23 have sold the aforesaid property infavour of defendant No.24. The defendant No.24 is in possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid properties. During 1996 itself the plaintiffs and the husband of the defendant No.1 have got divided the family properties and there is no existence of the joint family. The defendant No.1 and her husband have executed registered GPA infavour of defendant No.6. As during 1996 itself there was partition between plaintiff and defendants, there is no existence of the joint family and the suit schedule property is not their joint family properties. The plaintiffs have suppressed the material facts and filed the present suit. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed with costs.
9. The defendant No.24 has filed the written statement and contended that defendant No.24 has purchased the property bearing Katha No.192/64/119 measuring east to west 115 feet and north to south 23 feet and another property bearing No.193/64 measuring east to west on 20 O.S.No.1511/2013 the southern side 80 feet, northern side 115 feet, north to south on eastern side 86 feet and western side 70 feet situated at Srirampura Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk under the registered sale deed dated 01/02/2013 for valuable consideration of Rs.1,65,00,000/. Prior to purchase of the aforesaid properties, the defendant No.24 has taken public notice in the daily newspaper i.e Samyuktha Karnataka, Hindu and Udayavani. The defendant No.6 has acquired the aforesaid properties under through registered sale deeds dated 05/01/2004. In turn the defendant No.6 has sold the said property infavour of defendant No.7 to 11. From the date of purchase of the said property, they were in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendant No.7 to 11 have sold the property bearing No.193/64 and 192/64 /117 infavour of defendant No.22 and 23 under the registered sale deed. On the strength of the said sale deed the katha was mutated in the name of defendant No.22 and 23. Indeed the defendant No.22 and 23 have 21 O.S.No.1511/2013 sold the aforesaid properties infavour of defendant No.24 under registered sale deed dated 01/02/2013. The defendant No.24 being a bonafide purchaser of the aforesaid properties, it has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiffs have no manner of right or interest over the suit schedule properties. If the plaintiffs intent to challenge the alienation with respect to B schedule property, they have to pay the proper Court fee on the sale consideration, but the plaintiffs have failed to pay the Court fee. The plaintiffs never in possession and enjoyment of the suit B schedule property. It is denied that during 1st week of February 2013 the defendant No.24 has tried dig the foundation in the suit schedule property. The defendant No.24 being a absolute owner, it is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs have no manner of right or interest over the suit schedule property. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed with costs.
22 O.S.No.1511/2013
10. In the light of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule B property is the joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants and they have been in joint possession of the said property?
2. Whether the plaintiffs proves that they have got 1/3rd share each share in the B schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the sale deed dated 05/01/2004 executed infavour of defendants 7 to 11 and the sale deed dated 05/01/2004 executed by 6 th defendant and the sale deed dated 18/07/2011 executed by defendant No.7 to 11 and the sale deed dated 01/02/2013 executed by defendant No.22 and 23 are not binding on the plaintiffs?
4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, the partition deed dated 14/10/2010 between 23 O.S.No.1511/2013 defendant No.12 to 14 and confirmation deed dated 08/03/2012 executed by 1st defendant and the sale deed dated 03/12/2010 executed by 18th defendant and the sale deed dated 07/08/2006 executed by 15th defendant are not binding on the plaintiffs?
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of partition and permanent injunction as prayed in the plaint?
6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed in the plaint?
7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction as prayed in the plaint?
8. What order or decree?
11. The plaintiff No.2 got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P77. On the other hand, the Managing partner of the defendant No.24 got examined himself as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to D.34. 24 O.S.No.1511/2013
12. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiffs and defendant No.24.
13. 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 : In the negative
Issue No.5 : In the negative
Issue No.6 : In the negative
Issue No.7 : In the negative
Issue No.8 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
14. ISSUE NO.1: The PW.1 has deposed that
Kelaganur Muniyappa was the propositor of their family, he had two sons namely M. Munivenkatappa and Appaiah. Himself, plaintiff No.1 and Krishnamurthy are the children of Munivenktappa. The defendant No.3 to 5 are the legal heirs of Appaiah. Kelaganur Muniyappa and his wife Munivenkatamma had purchased the property 25 O.S.No.1511/2013 bearing old Khanesumari No.64, new No.119 under the registered sale deed dated 28/06/1937. After the death of Kelaganur Muniyappa and his wife Munivenkatamma, their two sons namely Munivenkatappa and Appaiah have succeeded to the suit A schedule property. Munivenkatappa and his brother were in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. After the death of Munivenkatappa and Appaiah, their legal heirs have got divided family properties under the registered partition deed dated 04/12/2002. Under the said partition, the northern portion of the property bearing No.119 fell to the share of legal heirs of Munivenkatappa and southern portion of the property bearing No.119 fell to the share of legal heirs of Appaiah. The property fell to the share of legal heirs of Munivenkatappa is described as suit B schedule property. Sri. Krishnamurthy who is the son of Munivenkatappa had no exclusive right over the B schedule property. Despite Krishnamurthy and his wife Paravathi have executed the GPA dated 04/09/1996 26 O.S.No.1511/2013 infavour of defendant No.2, the same was canceled on 04/03/2003. Though the GPA dated 04/03/2003 was canceled, the defendant No.2 has alienated the property bearing No.119 measuring east to west 115 feet and north to south 23 feet infavour of defendant No.7 to 11 under the registered sale deed dated 05/01/2004. As on the date of execution of the said sale deed, the defendant No.2 has no authority to alienate the same. Plaintiff No.1 and himself are not parties to the said sale deed. The defendant No.7 to 11 have alienated the aforesaid property infavour of defendant No.22 and 23 under the registered sale deed dated 18/07/2011. In turn, they have alienated the said property infavour of defendant No.24. The sale deeds executed infavour of defendant No.7 to 11, 22 to 24 are not binding on them. They being coparceners, they are entitle for legitimate share in the suit B schedule property. On the other hand, the DW.1 has deposed that the defendant No.24 has purchased the property bearing Katha No.192/64/119 measuring east 27 O.S.No.1511/2013 to west 115 feet and north to south 23 feet and another property bearing Katha No.193/64 measuring east to west on southern side 80 feet, northern side 115 feet, north to south on eastern side 66 feet and western side 70 feet under the registered sale deed dated 01/02/2013. Prior to purchase of the said property the defendant No.24 has given public notice through daily newspaper, despite the defendant No.24 did not receive any objections. From the date of purchase of above said property, the defendant No.24 has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. After the death of Krishnamurthy, the defendant No.1 has executed the confirmation deed dated 08/03/2012 infavour of defendant No.22 and 23. The plaintiffs have no manner of right or interest over the suit schedule properties. Despite the plaintiffs have been claiming imaginary right over the suit schedule properties.
28 O.S.No.1511/2013
15. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that Kelaganur Muniyappa had two sons namely i.e Munivenkatappa and Appaiah. Sri. Munivenkatappa had 3 children i.e plaintiffs and Krishna Murthy who is the husband of defendant No.1. In order to substantiate the said relationship the PW.1 has produce the genealogical tree, the same is marked as Ex.P.1. It reveals that M. Ramachandra, M. Krishnamurthy and M. Raghumurthy are the sons of Munivenkatappa. The relationships stated in Ex.P.1 corroborates with the oral evidence of PW.1. DW.1 has stated that as on the date of purchase of the property bearing No.119, Krishna Murthy has given the genealogical tree. As per the said genealogical tree M. Krishnamurthy is the only son of M.Venkatappa. DW.1 has undertake to produce genealogical tree furnished by the Krishnamurthy, but DW.1 has not chosen to produce the same. PW.1 has produce the certified copy of the sale deed dated 05/01/2004 executed by the GPA holder of Sri. 29 O.S.No.1511/2013 Krishnamurthy and S. Parvati infavour of S.Balasubramani and others, the same is marked as Ex.P.45. It discloses that Sri. Krishnamurthy is the 2 nd son of Munivenkatappa. The defendant No.24 has not disputed the Ex.P.45, therefore it is very clear that Sri. Krishna Murthy is not the only son of Munivenkatappa. Munivenkatappa had three sons i.e the plaintiffs and Krishnamurthy. Sri. Appaiah has got three children i.e Lakshmidevi, Krishnamurthy and Bhagya, there is no dispute regarding the legal heirs of Appaiah. Indeed, it is very crystal clear that Munivenkatappa has got three sons and Appaiah has got two daughter and son.
16. According to plaintiffs, their grand father and grand mother have purchased the old Khanesumari No.64 and New No.119 of Sriramapura Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. In that regard, PW.1 has produced the certified copy of the sale deed dated 28/06/1937, the same is marked as Ex.P.4. 30 O.S.No.1511/2013 The typed copy of the said sale deed is marked as Ex.P.4(a). On apperication of the recitals of the Ex.P.4(a), it discloses that Muniyappa and Munivenkatamma have purchased total extent of 28 guntas in 3 blocks. Ex.P.5 to 7 are the Demand Register Extracts issued by the Jakkur Grama Panchayat, Bangalore North Taluk. It discloses that katha was mutated in the name of Munivenkatappa with respect of Khanesumari No.64 measuring 142/240. During the crossexamination of PW.1, the photo copy of the sale deed dated 25/09/1986 was confronted, the same was admitted by him. The photo copy of the sale deed dated 20/05/1986 is marked as Ex.D.3. As per Ex.D.3 Munivenkatappa has alienated the property bearing Old Khanesumari No.64 and New No.128 measuring east to west 52 feet, north to south 60 feet infavour of C. Ahmed. Sri. Appaiah also signed as consenting witness to the Ex.D3. It shows that during life time of Munivenkatappa and Appaiah, they have alienated the property bearing Old Khanesumari No. 64, 31 O.S.No.1511/2013 New No.128 to the extent of east to west 50 feet and north to south 60 feet. The PW.1 has produced the original partition deed dated 04/12/2002, wherein the legal heirs of Munivenkatappa and Appaiah have got divide the family properties. Under the said partition, they have got divide the property bearing Old Khanesumari No.64, New No.128. In the said partition deed, it is stated that the southern portion was fell to the share of the legal heirs of Munivenkatappa and northern portion was fell to the share of legal heirs Appaiah. It is pertinent to note here that under the said partition deed the extent of property bearing Old Khanesumari No.64 and New No.128 has not been mentioned. It was divided as the southern portion and northern portion as stated above. The legal heirs of Appaiah have filed a suit in OS.No.936/2011 seeking relief of partition and other consequential reliefs, the certified copy of the plaint in OS.No.936/2011 is marked as Ex.P.40. At this juncture, 32 O.S.No.1511/2013 it is just and proper to extract the relevant averments made in plaint at para No.4.
4. "That the grand father & grand mother of the plaintiffs namely "Kelaganooru Muniyappa & Smt. Munivenkatamma @ Doddakkamma were originally got purchased the property bearing Kaneshmari No. 64/128 measuring 028 guntas, vide registered sale deed dated 2861937, registered as document No.4399/1937, BookI, Volume No.396 at pages 163 to 164 in the office of SubRegistrar, Bangalore North Taluk, and they were in possession and enjoyment of the same during their life time and they died intestate. After their demise their two sons namely Appaiah (husband of the Ist defendant and father of plaintiffs) and his brother Munivenkatappa being their children got inherited and continued to be in joint possession and enjoyment of the same during their life time the said Appaiah and Munivenkatappa have jointly sold the property measuring about 3,120 Sq. Ft.(03 33 O.S.No.1511/2013 guntas) to one C.Ahmed S/o. Usuf out of the total measurements of 028 guntas and retained 025 guntas, the said appaiah died intestate on 21101987 leaving behind the plaintiff and Ist defendant as his Legal representatives, similarly the said Munivenkatappa also died intestate.
Subsequent to their death the plaintiffs family and the children of Munivenkatappa got partitioned the said property into two parts by entering into a Registered partition deed dated 13122002, registered as Document No.8663/200203, C.D.No.YNK.28. Accordingly out of the total property measuring 025 guntas HALF share(i.e 012.1/2 guntas) has been fallen to the share of the plaintiffs and their mother (Ist defendant), On appreciation of the plaint averments of OS.No.936/2011, it indicates the total extent of the property bearing Old Khanesumari No.64 is 28 guntas. Out of the said extent Munivenkatappa has alienated 3 34 O.S.No.1511/2013 guntas. After the death of Munivenkatappa and Appaiah their legal heirs have got divided the family properties under the registered partition deed dated 13/12/2002. Under the said partition the legal heirs of Munivenkatappa have got 12 ½ guntas and the legal heirs of Appaiah have got 12 ½ guntas in old Khanesumari No.64. The legal heirs of Appaiah have filed the suit in OS.No.936/2011 seeking relief of partition with respect to Old Khanesumari No.64, New No.128 measuring 12 ½ guntas of Srirampura Village. It shows that the legal heirs of Munivenkatappa have also got 12 ½ guntas in old Khanesumari No.64 and New No.128 of Sriramapura Village.
17. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that as per the registered partition deed dated 13/12/2002 themselves and Krishna Murthy have got half portion in the property bearing Old Khanesumari No.64, New No.128/119. Sri. Krishnamurhty and defendant No.1 35 O.S.No.1511/2013 have no exclusive right over the property fell to their share under the partition deed dated 13/12/2002. Despite Krishnamurthy and his wife Paravathi have executed GPA dated 04/09/1996 infavour of the defendant No.2. Subsequently, they have got canceled the said GPA vide cancellation deed dated 04/03/2003. Though the Krishnamurthy and his wife have canceled the GPA dated 04/09/1996, the defendant No.2 by suppressing the said fact she has sold the property bearing old Khanesumari No.64, New No.119 measuring east to west 115 feet and north to south 23 feet infavour of defendant No.7 to 11. As on the date of the execution of the sale deed dated 05/01/2004 infavour of defendant No.7 to 11, the defendant No.2 has no authority to sell the said property. Thus the sale deed dated 05/01/2004 is not binding on them. The photo copy of the GPA dated 04/09/1996 is marked as Ex.D.1. It is pertinent to note here that the defendant No.1 being an executant of the Ex.D.1, she has not disputed the same. Therefore, there 36 O.S.No.1511/2013 is no dispute regarding the execution of the GPA dated 04/09/1996. But it is the contention of the plaintiffs that the same was canceled on 04/03/2003. In that regard the PW.1 has not produced the cancellation deed. However, DW.1 has admitted in his cross examination that the GPA dated 04/09/1996 was canceled vide cancellation deed dated 04/03/2003 the same is marked as Ex.P.77. The learned counsel for the defendant No.24 argued that though the GPA dated 04/09/1996 was canceled on 04/03/2003, the subsequent to the death of Krishnamurthy, the defendant No.1 has executed the confirmation deed infavour of defendant No.22 and 23. The certified copy of the confirmation deed executed by the defendant No.1 is marked as Ex.P.50. Wherein the defendant No.1 has ratified the execution of the sale deed dated 18/11/2011 infavour of defendant No.22 and 23. It is pertinent to note here that the execution of the GPA dated 04/09/1996 and cancellation of GPA dated 04/03/2003 are not in dispute. Though the GPA dated 37 O.S.No.1511/2013 04/09/1996 was canceled, the defendant No.1 has executed the confirmation deed dated 08/03/2012 infavour of defendant No.22 and 23. As such, the sale deed dated 05/01/2004 executed by defendant No.7 to 11 with respect to property bearing old Khanesumari No.64, New No.119 of Srirampura Village is in accordance with law.
18. As discussed above, "Kelaganooru Muniyappa & Smt. Munivenkatamma have purchased total extent of property measuring 28 guntas under the registered sale deed dated 28/06/1937. Out of the said extent Munivenkatappa has sold 3 guntas of land infavour of C.Ahmed. The remanining extent of the property is 25 guntas. The plaint averments of OS.No.936/2011 reveals that as per the partition held during 2002, the property measuring 12 ½ guntas each in old Khanesumari No.64, New No.119 fell to the share of legal heirs of Munivenkatappa and legal heirs of Appaiah. It shows that 38 O.S.No.1511/2013 during 2002 itself the plaintiffs and Krishnamurthy have acquired 12 ½ guntas in old Khanesumari No.64, New No.119 of Srirampura Village. During the life time of Krishnamurthy and his wife have alienated east to west 115 feet and north to south 23 feet in old Khanesumari No.64, New No.119 of Srirampura Village. In the cross examination the PW.1 has stated that " ಗಗ ಮ ಠಣ ಸಸ 119 ರ ಒಟಟ ವಸಸ ಸರರ 28 ಗಗಟ, ಸದರ 28 ಗಗಟ ಜಮಸನನ ಪಕ 14 ಗಗಟ ಜಮಸನ ನಮಮ ಕಟಗಬಕಕ ಬರಬಕ. ಸದರ 28 ಗಗಟ ಜಮಸನನ ಪಕ ನನನ ದಡಡ ಪಪ ಹಗ ನನನ ತದ 52 X 60 ಅಡಗಳ ಜಗವನನ ಮರಟ ಮಡದದ ರ. 1937 ರ ಕಗ ಯಪತಗ ದ ಪಗ ಕರ ಗಗ ಮ ಠಣ ಸಸ 119 ರಲಲ ವಸಸ ಸರರ ಗಗಟ ಪಗ ಕರ ಇರತಸ ದ. 1937 ರ ಕಗ ಯಪತಗ ದಲಲ ಆಸಸ ಸಖಖ ಯನನ ನಮದ ಮಡರವದಲಲ . ಗಗ ಮ ಠಣ ಸ: 119 ರ ಉಳದ ಆಸಸ ಯರ ಹಸರನಲಲ ಇರತಸ ದ ಎಗದರ ನನನ ಮತಸ ನನನ ತಮಮ ನದ 39 O.S.No.1511/2013 ರಘಮರರ ರವರ ಹಸರನಲಲ ಇರತಸ ದ. ಸದರ ಆಸಸ ನಮಮ ಮತಸ ನಮಮ ತಮಮ ರಘಮರರ ರವರ ಹಸರನಲಲ ಇರವ ಬಗಗ ದಖಲರಗಳನನ ಹಜರಪಡಸದದ ಸರ ಎಗದರ ಸದರ ಆಸಸ ಗ ದವ ಆಸಸ ಗ ಸಬದ ಇರವದಲಲ , ಆದ ಕರರ ಹಜರಪಡಸರವದಲಲ . ನನನ ಮತಸ ರಘಮರರ ರವರ ಹಸರನಲಲ ಇರವ ಆಸಸ ಖಲ ಇರತಸ ದ, ಅದರಲಲ ನನನ ಸಬಧ ವಸ ಮಡರಸ ದದ ರ. ಈ ಮಲ ಹಳದ ಗಗ ಮ ಠಣ ಸ: 119 ರಲಲ ಎಷಟ ಜಮಸನ ಉಳದರತಸ ದ ಎಗದರ ಸಮರ 11355 ಅಡಗಳ ಇರತಸ ವ. ಸದರ 11355 ಅಡಗಳ ನನನ ಮತಸ ತಮಮ ನದ ರಘಮರರ ರವರ ಸಸ ಧಸನದಲಲ ಇರತಸ ದ. ಸದರ 11355 ಅಡ ಜಗ ಖಲ ಇರತಸ ದ.
On appreciation of this part of the cross examination of PW.1, it clearly goes to show that the PW.1 has admitted that the total extent of property bearing gramatana No.119 is 28 guntas. Out of the said 28 guntas his uncle and father have sold 52X60 feet. 40 O.S.No.1511/2013 The PW.1 has admitted that the plaintiff No.2 and himself have been in possession of remaining extent of 11355 feet in Gramatana No.119. It is pertinent to note here that, during 2002 there was a partition between the legal heirs of Munivenkatappa and legal heirs of Appaiah, wherein they have got divided entire family properties. Under the said partition the legal heirs of Munivenkatappa and legal heirs of Appaiah have got equally divided the property bearing Gramatana No.119. The southern portion was fell to the share of legal heirs of Appaiah and northern portion was fell to the share of legal heirs of Munivenkatappa. As on the date of partition, the extent of the land available in the Gramatana No.119 was 25 guntas. The said 25 guntas was equally divided among the leagal heirs of Munivenkatappa and legal heirs of Appaiah. As such they have got 12 ½ guntas each in the said property, the same was pleaded in OS No.936/2011. If we convert 12 ½ guntas into feets, it would be 12,912 feet. Out of the said extent Krishamurthy and his wife 41 O.S.No.1511/2013 have sold the property measuring east to west 115 feet and north to south 23 feet i,e 2645 feet. As admitted by the PW.1 in his crossexamination, the plaintiff No.2 and himself have been in joint possession of the property measuring to an extent of 11355 in Gramatana No.119. The property sold by the Krishnaurthy and his wife and the property which is in the possession of the plaintiffs clubbed together, it would be 14,000 Sqft. It shows that they are holding a property in Gramatana No.119 morethan 12 ½ guntas. In the crossexamination of PW.1 has stated that the suit A schedule property and the property in their possession which is 11355 are enitrely different properties. If such being the case, the plaintiffs have to offer explanation in what manner they have acquired the property bearing Gramatana No.119 measuring 11355 of Sriramapura Village. In that regard nothing has been stated by the plaintiffs, moreover nothing has been elicited during the crossexamination of DW.1 that the property which is in the possession of 42 O.S.No.1511/2013 plaintiffs i.e 11355 is their exclusive property. On appreciation of these facts, it clearly goes to show that during 2002 there was a partition between legal heirs of Munivenkatappa and legal heirs of Appaiah. On the basis of the said partition the katha was not mutated. In that regard the plaintiffs herein gave several representations to the revenue authorities, but they have not mutated the katha in their name for the reasons best known to them. The plaintiffs have not taken any steps against the revenue authorities for having not mutated the katha in their name. Since the revenue records have not been mutated in their name with respect to Gramatana Property No.119, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit stating that they have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Even if it is assume that the plaintiffs and other family members have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property, the plaintiffs herein cannot claim exclusive possession over the property bearing 43 O.S.No.1511/2013 Gramatana No.119 measuring 11355 Sqft. In such circumstances, the adverse inference has to be drawn against the plaintiffs that as there was a family arrangement among the family members, therefore the plaintiffs and other family members have been in possession and enjoyment of their respective properties. As such, the plaintiffs are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Gramatana No.119 measuring 11355. The property fell to the share of Krishnamurthy i.e east to west 115 feet and north to south 23 feet in Gramatana No.119 was alienated by him. As such, there is no property available in the hands of legal heirs of Munivenkatappa in Gramatana No.119 to effect the partition.
19. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that defendant No.12 to 14 have entered in to partition between them as if the said property is their ancestral property. The defendant No.12 to 14 have not produced 44 O.S.No.1511/2013 any document to establish that the said property is their ancestral property. Therefore, the partition entered between the defendant No.12 to 14 is not in accordance with law. In that regard, PW.1 has relied upon the partition deed dated 14/10/2010 entered between defendant No.12 to 14, the same is marked as Ex.P.48. As per Ex.P.48 defendant No.12 to 14 have got divided the Gramatana property bearing No.38/55, BBMP Katha No.54/2 and 54/4 situated at Sriramapura Village. It is pertinent to note here that the PW.1 has not produced any material evidence to show that the Gramatana Katha No.38/55 situated at Sriramapura Village and Gramatana No.119 situated at Sriramapura Village are one and the same. That apart the PW.1 has produced the certified copy of the sale deed dated 03/12/2010 executed by Muniswamy infavour of Rameshlal Gurjar, the same is marked as Ex.P.47. The said sale deed is executed with respect to Gramatana katha No.52/1, situated at Sriramapura Village. The PW.1 has not placed 45 O.S.No.1511/2013 any evidence that the property sold at Ex.P.47 and the suit schedule properties are one and the same. On appreciation of Ex.P.47, the said sale deed was executed with respect of property bearing No.52/1, but the subject matter of the present suit is Gramatana No.119 of Sriramapura Village. It shows that the properties described in Ex.P.47 and 48 and the schedule properties are entirely different properties.
20. As discussed above, during 1996 Krishnamurthy and his wife have executed GPA infavour of defendant No.2 with respect to property bearing Old Khanesumari No.64, New No.119 measuring east to west 115, north to south 23 feet of Srirampura Village. Subsequently, the same was canceled vide Ex.P.77. Though the GPA was canceled, but the defendant No.2 alienated the above said property infavour of defendant No.7 to 11 under the registered sale deed dated 05/01/2004. In turn the defendant No.7 to 11 have sold 46 O.S.No.1511/2013 the said property infavour of defendant No.22 and 23 vide sale deed dated 18/07/2011 the same is marked as Ex.P.49. At the time of executing the sale deed as per Ex.P.49, by impersonation the signature of defendant No.1 was made as a consenting witness. In that regard the complaint was lodged by the defendant No.1 before the Amruthahalli Police, the same is evident by Ex.P.53. In the meanwhile, the defendant No.1, 7 to 11, defendant No.22 and 23 have entered into compromise. In terms of the compromise, the defendant No.1 has executed a confirmation deed vide Ex.P.50, wherein she has ratified that the sale deed executed by defendant No.7 to 11 infavour of defendant No.22 and 23 is in accordance with law. On 01/12/2013 the defendant No.22 and 23 have sold the aforesaid property i.e Gramatana bearing No.119 measuring east to west 115 feet, north to south 23 feet and the remaining extent of Gramatana No.119 i.e east to west on the southern side 80 feet, northern side 115 feet, north to south on the eastern side 86 feet and western 47 O.S.No.1511/2013 side70 feet totally measuring 7605 infavour of the defendant No.24. The said land measuring 7605 was sold by the legal heirs of Appaiah infavour of defendant No.7 to 11. In turn they have sold the same infavour of defendant No.22 and 23. As on the date of execution of Ex.P.52, the defendant No.22 and 23 were the absolute owners of the aforesaid properties, therefore, they have alienated the same infavour of the defendant No.24. As such the sale deed executed by defendant No.22 and 23 infavour of 24 is in accordance with law. Considering all these aspects, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that suit B schedule property is their joint family property and they have been in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit B schedule property. Accordingly, I hold issue No.1 in Negative.
21. Issue No.2 to 7: The plaintiffs have filed the present suit against the defendants seeking relief of partition and separate possession with respective to their 48 O.S.No.1511/2013 1/3 legitimate share in the suit 'B schedule' property. The plaintiffs have sought for relief of declaration to declare that the registered sale deed dated 05/01/2004 executed by Krishnamurthy and defendant No.1 infavour of defendant No.7 to 11 and another sale deed dated 05/01/2004 executed by defendant No.6 infavour of defendant No.7 to 11 are not binding on the plaintiffs. To declare that the sale deed dated 18/07/2011 executed by defendant No.7 to 11 infavour of defendant No.22 and 23 and another sale deed dated 01/02/2013 executed by defendant No.22 and 23 infavour of defendant No.24 are not binding on the plaintiffs. To declare that the registered partition deed dated 14/10/2010 entered between defendant No.12 to 14 is not binding on the plaintiffs. To declare that the confirmation deed dated 08/03/2012 executed by defendant No.1 infavour of defendant No.22 and 23 is not binding on the plaintiffs. To declare that the sale deed dated 03/12/2010 executed by defendant No.18 infavour of defendant No.19 is not 49 O.S.No.1511/2013 binding on the plaintiffs. To declare that the sale deed dated 07/08/2006 executed by defendant No.15 infavour of defendant No.18 is not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also sought for relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and for mandatory injunction to direct the defendant NO.26 to 28 to mutate the katha in the name of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 jointly with respect to suit 'B' schedule property. In view of the discussion made on issue No.1, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit B schedule property is their joint family property. Therefore they are not entitled for relief of partition and declaration as prayed in the suit. Accordingly, I hold issue No.2 to 7 in Negative.
22. ISSUE NO.8 : In view of the discussion made on Issues No.1 to 7, this court proceed to pass the following:
50 O.S.No.1511/2013
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed with costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer GradeIII, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Court by me on 11th day of September, 2025.) (Srinivasa Gowda.C) XXIX Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. Witness Examined on behalf of Plaintiff:
PW1 : Ramachandra
2. The documents examined on behalf of plaintiff:
Ex.P1 :: Copy of the genealogical tree Ex.P2 :: Copy of the death certificate of Munivenkatappa Ex.P3 :: Death certificate of Ramamma Ex.P4 :: Copy of the sale deed dated 28/06/1937 Ex.P5 :: Copy of the Form No.10 in the year 196061 issued by Jakkur Gram Panchyath.
Ex.P6 :: Copy of the Form No.10 in the year
51 O.S.No.1511/2013
198081 issued by Jakkur Gram
Panchyath
Ex.P7 :: Copy of the Form No.9 in the year
198283 issued by Jakkur Gram
Panchyath
Ex.P8 :: Copy of the Form No.9 in the year
198384 issued by Jakkur Gram
Panchyath
Ex.P9 :: Certified copy of the partition deed
dated 04/12/2002
Ex.P10 :: Copy of Representation given by the plaintiff for khatha transfer dated 26/07/1994 Ex.P11 :: Received copy of letter dated 30/10/1995 Ex.P12 :: Received copy of letter dated 20/01/1996 Ex.P13 :: Received copy of letter issued by BBMP dated 21/09/1996 Ex.P14 :: Received copy of letter issued by BBMP dated 21/09/1996 Ex.P15 :: Received copy of letter issued by BBMP dated 01/03/2000 Ex.P16 :: Received copy of letter issued by BBMP dated 22/12/2001 Ex.P17 :: Letter given by Byatarayanapura CMC dated 30/03/2002 Ex.P18 :: Letter given by Byatarayanapura CMC dated 21/05/2005 Ex.P19 :: Letter given by Byatarayanapura CMC dated 21/05/2005 Ex.P20 :: Application submitted to the 52 O.S.No.1511/2013 Bangalore Tahsildar regarding land measurement dated 20/11/2007 Ex.P21 :: The reply given by the Yelahanka Upanagar Tahsildar dated 05/07/2008 Ex.P22 :: Dated 21/08/2008 Copy of application submitted to BBMP Commissioner regarding addition of residence.
Ex.P23 :: Dated 25/08/2008 Copy of application submitted to BBMP Commissioner regarding addition of residence.
Ex.P24 :: Dated 19/06/2010 Copy of application submitted to BBMP Commissioner regarding addition of residence.
Ex.P25 :: Dated 18/08/2010 BBMP Assistant Revenue Officer.
Ex.P26 :: Letter given by Byatarayanapura CMC dated 20/11/2010 Ex.P27 :: The BBMP has issued a notice dated 25/06/2011 Ex.P28 :: Dated 08/11/2012 Copy of the application submitted to the Tahsildar under the government Ex.P29 :: Dated 27/11/2012 The statement given by the Sheristedar on behalf of the Tahsildar.
Ex.P30 :: Dated 05/01/2013 receipt given by 53 O.S.No.1511/2013 the Tahsildar Ex.P31 :: Dated 24/06/2009 Assistant Revenue Officer in providing information Ex.P32 :: Dated 30/06/2011 Copy provided under the Right to Information Act Ex.P33 :: Dated 25/08/2011 Copy of the application submitted by the Assistant Revenue Officer Thanisandra.
Ex.P34 :: Dated 28/06/2021 Copy of the application submitted by the Assistant Revenue Officer Byatarayanapura.
Ex.P35 :: Dated 23/05/2021 Final notice issued by BBMP Ex.P36 :: Dated 29/09/2011 Copy of the application submitted by the 1st respondent to the Assistant Revenue Officer, Thanisandra.
Ex.P37 :: Dated 10/02/2012 Copy of the application issued by the Assistant Revenue Officer.
Ex.P38 :: Dated 20/04/2012 The return given by the Assistant Revenue Officer, Batarayanapura.
Ex.P39 :: OS.936/2011 Certified copy of order sheet Ex.P40 :: OS.No.936/2011 Certified copy of the application.
Ex.P41 :: OS.No.936/2011 Certified copy of the value list.
Ex.P42 :: OS.No.936/2011 Certified copy of the 54 O.S.No.1511/2013 written statement submitted by the 1st respondent.
Ex.P43 :: OS.No.936/2011 Certified copy of the written statement submitted by the 3rd respondent.
Ex.P44 :: OS.No.936/2011 Certified copy of the written statement submitted by the 6th respondent.
Ex.P45 :: Dated 05/01/2004 Certified copy of registered purchase deed. Ex.P46 :: Dated 07/08/2006 Certified copy of registered purchase deed. Ex.P47 :: Dated 03/12/2010 Certified copy of registered purchase deed. Ex.P48 :: Dated 14/10/2010 Certified copy of partnership deed.
Ex.P49 :: Dated 18/07/2011 Certified copy of purchase deed.
Ex.P50 :: Dated 08/03/2021 certified copy of confirmation deed Ex.P51 :: Crime No.176/11 certified copy Ex.P52 :: 01/02/2013Certified copy of purchase deed.
Ex.P53 :: Dated 21/09/2011 Certified copy of
the complaint filed by Parvati
Ex.P54 to :: 14 photographs
67
Ex.P68 :: CD
Ex.P69 to :: 8 Kathas
76
Ex.P77 :: Certified copy of Cancelled General
Power of Attorney dated 04.03.2003
55 O.S.No.1511/2013
3. Witness Examined on Behalf of the defendant:
DW1 : B. Vijaya Bhanu Reddy
2. The documents examined on behalf of defendant :
Ex.D1 : Power of Attorney
Ex.D2 : Another Property connected with
the property admitted by the
plaintiff.
Ex.D3 : Xerox copy of sale deed
Ex.D4 : Xerox copy of Encumbrance
Certificate
Ex.D5 : Xerox copy of General Power of
Attorney
Ex.D6 : Sale deed
Ex.D7 : Certified copy of two sale deeds
dated 05.12.2002
Ex.D8 : Xerox copy of katha certificate in
katha No.101/101
Ex.D9 : Photograph
Ex.D10 : Photograph
Ex.D11, : Property No.119, land and
12 construction details
Ex.D13, : Certificates issued by BBMP
14
Ex.D15, : Details of house issued by BBMP
16
Ex.D17, : Certificates issued by BBMP
18
56 O.S.No.1511/2013
Ex.D19, : Details of house and open space 20 issued by BBMP for the year 201213 Ex.D21, : Certificates for the year 2013 22 issued by BBMP Ex.D23, : Details of house and open space 24 issued by BBMP for the year 201213 Ex.D25 : Self Assessment of tax for the Byatarayanapura CMC for the year 2002 to 2004 Ex.D26 : Self Assessment of tax for the Byatarayanapura CMC for the year 2006 to 2007 Ex.D27 : Tax paid receipts Ex.D28, : Revenue sites issued by 29 Byatarayanapura Tax officer Ex.D30 : 6 Encumbrance Certificates Ex.D31 : Paper publication in Samyuktha Karnataka Ex.D32 : Paper publication in The Hindu Ex.D33 : Paper publication in Udaya Vani Ex.D34 : Opinion given by advocate on
23.10.2012 (Srinivasa Gowda.C) XXIX Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge Bengaluru.
57 O.S.No.1511/2013
(Judgment pronounced in
open court vide separate
judgment)
ORDER
The suit filed by the
plaintiffs is hereby
dismissed with costs.
XXIX A.C.C & S.J., Bengaluru
58 O.S.No.1511/2013