Bangalore District Court
Late Sri.Annaiappa vs Smt.Muniyamma on 27 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF I ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
(CCH.NO.2)
Dated, this the 27th day of August 2015.
PRESENT
Sri. RAVI M. NAIK,B.Com,LL.M.,
I Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
O.S. NO.8051/2003
PLAINTIFFS 1.Late Sri.Annaiappa,
S/o Adhur Muniswamappa,
Since dead by His LRs
1A.Smt.Pillamadamma,
Aged about 90 years,
W/o Late Annaiappa,
She was dead,
1B.Sri.Madappa,
Aged about 55 years,
S/o Late Annaiappa,
1C.Sri.Madhu,
Aged about 24 years,
S/o Madappa,
1D.Kum.Mangala,
Aged about 21 years,
D/o Madappa,
1E.Sri Maruthi
Aged about 19 years,
S/o Madappa,
All are together Residing at
2 O.S.No.8051/2003
Kalkere Village, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore Taluk.
1F.Smt.Shobha,
Aged about 60 years,
W/o Gopalappa,
1G.Sri.Madegowda,
Aged about 16 years,
S/o Gopalappa,
1H.Smt.Mamatha,
Aged about 28 years,
D/o Gopalappa,
1I.Kum.Matha,
Aged about 26 years,
D/o Gopalappa,
1J.Sri.Lakshman,
Aged about 23 years,
S/o Gopalappa,
1K.Kum.Ramadevi,
Aged about 23 years,
D/o Gopalappa,
1L.Sri.Madesh,
Aged about 19 years,
S/o Gopalappa,
1M.Kum.Madevi,
Aged about 16 years,
D/o Gopalappa,
1N.Master Nagesh,
Aged about 15 years,
S/o Gopalappa,
IF to IN all are residing at Kalkere Village,
K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore Taluk.
3 O.S.No.8051/2003
The Legal representatives 1(L) to 1(N) being
minors are represented by their natural
guardian Smt.Shobha 1(F) herein.
1(F) to 1(L) all are residing at Kalkere
Village,K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore Taluk.
(plaintiffs By Sri M.Narayana Reddy-
Advocate)
- V E R S U S -
DEFENDANTS 1.Smt.Muniyamma,
W/o Late Chinanna,
Aged about 70 years,
2.Sri.Pillamadhappa,
S/o Chinanna,
Aged about 55 years,
3.Sri.Thamannappa,
S/o Adhur Muniswamappa,
Aged about 75 years,
4.Sri.Seethappa,
S/o Adhur Muniswamappa,
Aged about 70 years,
5.Sri.Madhappa,
S/o Adhur Muniswamappa,
All defendants 1 to 5 are residing at
Kalkere Village,K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore
Taluk.
6.Sri.R.Basavaraju,
S/o Anjinappa,
4 O.S.No.8051/2003
(Adopted Son)
Aged about 38 years,
R/o Byrathi Village,
Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk.
7.Sri.R.Shankar,
Aged about 39 years,
S/o Ramachandrappa,
R/o Manjunatha Nilaya,
Kacharakanahalli,
St.Thomas Town Post,
Bangalore-560 084.
8.Sri.M.P.Chandrashekaran,
Aged about 60 years,
S/o Late P.V.Krishnamurthy,
R/o No.414, 2nd Cross,
1st Stage, Indiranagar,
Bangalore-560 038.
9.Sri.P.Malakonda Reddy,
Aged about 45 years,
S/o Palugulla Chenchi Reddy,
10.Sri.Subramani Reddy,
Aged about 49 years,
S/o Paturu Subba Reddy,
9 and 10 are residents at No.312/6,
Revanna Layout,Kalkere Main Roaqd,
Dooravani Nagar, Bangalore-560 016.
11.Sri.C.Ramanujacharyulu,
S/o Late Sri.C.Narashimacharyulu,
Aged about 63 years,
R/o No.MIG-C-49,
Dr.A.S.Rao Nagar, ECIL Post,
Hyderabad.
5 O.S.No.8051/2003
12.Sri.K.Rajanna,
Aged about 48 years,
S/o Late Krishnappa,
R/o Hooradigar Beedi,
Anekal Taluk.
Bangalore Rural District.
13.Sri.K.Rajanna,
Aged about 48 years,
S/o Late Krishnappa,
R/o Hooradigar Beedi,
Anekal Taluk.
14.Sri.N.Dilip Kamath,
Aged about 32 years,
S/o Sri.N.J.Kamath,
15.Smt.Rekha D.Kamath,
Aged about 30 years,
W/o Sri.N.Dilip Kamath,
14 and 15, R/o No.186, 1st Floor,
8th Cross, Kadirappa Road,
Doddikunta, Cox Town,
Bangalore-560 005.
16.Sri.Anand M.N.
Aged about 28 years,
S/o Late M.C.Narasimahiah,
C/o Sri.M.C.Srinivas,
R/o No.432, 4th Cross,
2nd Block, H.R.B.R.Layout,
Kalyan Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560 043.
17.Sri.Rajashekar,
Aged about 35 years,
S/o Sri.A.Prudhvi Raju,
18.Sri.A.Anil Kumar,
6 O.S.No.8051/2003
Aged about 34 years,
S/o Sri.A.Prudhvi Raju,
17 and 18 are residing at
Bapuji Grape Garden,
Komally Ranga Reddy District,
Secundarabad.
19.Sri.Ramachandra,
Aged about 25 years,
S/o Late Kaverappa,
R/o Kalkere Village,
Bangalore-560 043.
20.Smt.Maringanthi Utkala,
W/o Sriranganath Chilakamari,
R/o No.MIG-C-49,
Dr.A.S.Rao Nagar,
ECIL Post, Hyderabad.
21.Sri.N.Dilip Kamath,
Aged about 32 years,
S/o Sri.N.J.Kamath,
22.Smt.Rekha D.Kamath,
Aged about 30 years,
W/o Sri.N.Dilip Kamath,
21 and 22, R/o No.186,1st Floor,
8th Cross, Kadirappa Road,
Doddikunta, Cox Town,
Bangalore-560 005.
23.Sri.P.Malakonda Reddy,
Aged about 52 years,
S/o Palugulla Chenchi Reddy,
24.Sri.P.Subba Reddy,
S/o Palugulla Chenchi Reddy,
R/o No.312/6,
7 O.S.No.8051/2003
Revanna Layout, Kalkere Main Road,
Dooravani Nagar, Bangalore-560 016.
25.Sri.Anand M.N.
Aged about 28 years,
S/o Late M.C.Narasimahiah,
C/o Sri.M.C.Srinivas,
R/o No.432, 4th Cross, 2nd Block,
H.R.B.R. Layout, Kalyan Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560 043.
26. Sri.A.Rajashekar,
Aged about 35 years,
S/o Sri.A.Prudhvi Raju,
27.Sri.A.Anil Kumar,
Aged about 34 years,
S/o Sri.A.Prudhvi Raju,
26 and 27 are residing at
Bapuji Grape Garden,
Komally Ranga Reddy District,
Secundarabad.
28.Mrs.Delhphin,
Aged about 64 years,
D/o Mr.P.C.John,
R/o No.507, C.M.H.Road,
Indiranagar, Bangalore-560 038.
29.Mr.Francy John,
Aged about 50 years,
S/o John.F.Morris,
R/o Pulkoods House,
No.18, Thevally Nagar,
Thevally P.O.Kollam, Kerala,
Presently at Bangalore.
30.Mrs.S.Rebecca Antony,
8 O.S.No.8051/2003
Aged about 30 years,
W/o Mr.Biju Sebastian,
Edamana, Sakthikulanagara,
Kollam 691 581, Kerala,
31.Mr.Philomene Antony,
Aged about 34 years,
S/o Mr.Solomon Antony,
R/o Edamanna, Saktikulanagara,
Kollam 691 581, Kerala,
32.Sri Venkataraman Narayan Bhat,
Aged about 48 years,
S/o Late Sri.Narayan Bhat,
33.Smt.Shoba V.Bhat,
Aged about 38 years,
W/o Sri.Venkatraman Naryana Bhat,
Duly represented by her GPA holder,
Sri Venkataraman Narayan Bhat,
C/o Muralidhar Rao,
B.No.11, "Krithika"
7th Main Link Road, Ayyappa Nagar,
3rd Block, K.R.Puram, Bangalore-560 036.
34. Mrs.Pushpa Devadas,
Aged abut 48 years,
W/o Sri.Devada Bhat,
R/o No.B/2, Sumangala Apartment,
80 feet Road, H.A.L 3rd Stage,
Thippasandra, Bangalore-560 075.
35. Sri.Rajesh,
Aged about 29 years,
S/o Sri.padmanabhan Nair,
R/o No.13, 1st Main, 20th 'B' Ejipura,
Viveknagar Post, Bangalore.
36.Dr.Alben Sigamani,
9 O.S.No.8051/2003
Aged about 32 years,
S/o Mr.Sigamani Peter,
R/o No.18, Vilayil, 17th Cross,
Kaggadasapura, C.V.Raman Nagar,
Bangalore-560 093.
37.Mrs.Shobah Moudgil,
W/o Mr.Ramanand Moudgil,
R/o.No.11/BV-1649
HAL Town Ship Ojhar,
Nasik.
38.J.Sreenivas,
Aged about 52 years,
S/o Jayarama Naidu,
R/o Prestige Green Woods.
No.G.29, Marle "A" Block,
Nagawarapalya,
C.V.Raman Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560 093.
39.M/s Sai Construction
A Partnership firm having its office at
No.652, 11th Main, HAL 2nd Stage,
Bangalore-560 038.
40.Sri.K.Sudhakara Reddy,
Aged about 54 years,
R/o No.652, 11th Main,
HAL 2nd Stage, Bangalore-560 038.
41.Sri.N.G.Urs,
Aged about 48 years,
S/o Sri.Krishna Urs,
R/o No.5, 7th Main,
Saraswathipuram,
Mysore-570 009.
42.Sri.R.Hari Rao,
10 O.S.No.8051/2003
Aged about 32 years,
S/o Sri.K.Rajendra Rao,
R/o No.201/A, Mini college
Shivalingaiah Colony,
4th Cross, HAL post
Bangalore-560 017.
43.Smt.Rasheed Matheen,
Aged about 38 years,
W/o Sri.Abdul Matheen,
R/o No.79, 1st Floor,
Above parampil Travels,
New Thippasandra Main Road,
Bangalore-560 075.
44.Mr.Sitarami Reddy,
Aged about 51 years,
S/o Mr.G.Narasa Reddy,
R/o No.3-142,Adarsh Nagar,
Near Old Diary Farm,
Vishakapatnam,Andhra Pradesh.
45.Mr.K.Elangovan,
Aged about 34 years,
S/o V.Kannan,
R/o 65/3, Defendant Kathrappa Road,
Doddigunta, Cox Town,
Bangalore-560 005.
46. Sri.M.V.Sathyanarayana Raju,
Aged about 36 years,
S/o Sri.Narayan Raju,
R/o Flat No.302, Mythili
Apartment, Compled Road,
Vivkenanda Nagar Colony,
Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500 072.
47. Sri.C.H.Subbaraju,
Aged about 35 years,
S/o C.H.Rama Raju,
11 O.S.No.8051/2003
R/o MIG-2, 864,
3rd Phase, K.P.H.B.Colony,
Hyderabad-500 072.
48.Smt.C.H.Jayamma,
Aged about 40 years,
W/o Sri.B.Ramamjaneyulu,
R/o Bo.HIG-133,5th phase,
K.P.H.P Colony, Hyderabad-500 072.
49.Mr.Arun George,
Aged about 25 years,
Eldest Son of Mr.Roy George,
R/o Chothiakadevil,
No.58, Hennur 2nd Cross Road,
St.Thomas Town Post,
Bangalore-560 084.
(By Sri)
Date of institution of the suit : 10-11-2003
Nature of the suit (suit on Partition
pronote, suit for declaration and
possession suit for injunction,etc) :
Date of the commencement of 29-01-2013
recording of the evidence :
Date on which the Judgment was 27.8.2015
pronounced :
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
11 09 17
(RAVI M. NAIK),
I Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
12 O.S.No.8051/2003
J U D G M E N T
The suit of the plaintiff is one for partition and separate possession of his 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties and to declare that the plaintiff No.1(b) is entitled for half share and other plaintiffs as LRs of late Gopalappa are entitled to 1/8th share in the half share of the properties fully described in para No.4(a) and (b) of the plaint by metes and bounds and to declare that the alleged partition deed dated 21.5.2003 is not binding on the plaintiff and also for mesne profits and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit schedule properties or creating any encumbrance over the suit schedule properties and for costs.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are that the deceased first plaintiff and defendants 3 to 5 are brothers and sons of late Adhur Muniswamappa. The defendant No.1 is the wife of late Chinnana who is the brother of the first plaintiff and the defendant No.2 is the son of 13 O.S.No.8051/2003 defendant No.1 and thus, defendants 1 & 2 are wife and son of late Chinnanna. It is further stated by the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendants are all joint family members and they own and possess movable and immovable properties which are more fully described in the suit schedule and the entire suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants and they have acquired the same by spending hard earned money, thus the first plaintiff and their children also acquired the suit schedule property from the income derived out of sale of ancestral properties situated at Adhur Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk. It is further stated by the plaintiffs that certain properties are standing in the name of the first plaintiff who is the Kartha of the joint family and some other properties are standing in the name of defendants 1 to 5.
3. It is further stated by the plaintiff that apart from the agricultural lands, several other commercial buildings have been acquired by the first plaintiff and 14 O.S.No.8051/2003 defendants and put up several constructions for commercial purpose and the same has been let out for various tenants by receiving advances and rents. It is further stated by the plaintiff that the first plaintiff also used to spend all his time in improving the suit schedule properties and doing agriculture along with his children and his brothers, and also the first plaintiff has performed the marriages of children of the defendants and as such, the daughters of defendants 1 and 5 would not get any share in the suit schedule property. It is further stated by the first plaintiff that though he is the Karta of the family, as he became aged, the defendants are taking advantage of the first plaintiff's age and health condition and the defendants have also taken certain signatures and thumb impression on some blank papers and also on certain other papers and the defendants are also collecting rents from the tenants and the same was not given to the first plaintiff and defendant have received huge advances from the tenants taking advantage of the 15 O.S.No.8051/2003 properties standing in their names. It is further stated by the first plaintiff that the defendants mislead the first plaintiff and sold several properties by executing deeds and swallowed huge amounts which were derived out of sale consideration and the acts done by the defendants were not brought to the notice of the first plaintiff nor his children. It is further stated by the first plaintiff that on 21.5.2003 the defendants brought some persons to his house and obtained signatures and thumb impression on some papers and when the first plaintiff questioned about taking the said signatures, the defendants stated that it was required for change of katha, however, on the same day, the defendants at their whims and fancy, have partitioned the properties and registered the said documents in the office of the K.R.puram Sub-Registrar, under different schedules A to E, fraudulently misrepresenting the facts to the benefit of the defendants. It is further stated by the first plaintiff that the defendants while preparing the said partition deed, 16 O.S.No.8051/2003 have also left out various valuable properties and they have only partitioned the properties which were standing in the name of the first plaintiff in order to deprive the right of the first plaintiff and his children. It is further stated by the first plaintiff that he has not signed the said partition deed dated 21.5.2003 in the Office of the Sub- Registrar and denied the execution of the said partition deed. It is further stated by the first plaintiff that the defendants have produced the alleged partition deed before the Revenue Inspector for effecting Katha on the basis of the said partition deed and thereafter the first plaintiff through his children made an application to the Tahsildar requesting not to effect the katha on the basis of the alleged partition deed dated 21.5.2003 and then on 12.8.2003 the first plaintiff through his son applied for Certified copies of the Partition deed and obtained the same and thereafter the first plaintiff came to know about the fraud and mischief committed by the defendants by misrepresenting the first plaintiff. It is 17 O.S.No.8051/2003 further stated by the first plaintiff that on the date of alleged partition deed dated 21.5.2003, on the same day the defendants have executed another sale deed in respect of the property bearing Sy.No.375/2 dry land situated at Kalkere village to the extent of 22.43 guntas and in the same Survey number in Kalkere village to an extent of 8.2guntas. It is further stated by the first plaintiff while executing the said sale deed in favour of one Basavaraju, the signature of the first plaintiff was fabricated and fraudulently affixed the signature and thumb impression and also photo affixed on the said sale deeds dated 21.5.2003 itself. It is further stated by the first plaintiff that when he was taking treatment in the hospital and during that time, the elder son of first plaintiff one Gopalappa died and taking advantage of the situation, the defendants sold the above properties in favour of one Basavaraju. It is further stated by the first plaintiff that in the alleged partition deed dated 21.5.2003, several valuable properties have been taken to 18 O.S.No.8051/2003 the share of the defendants and several waste lands were fallen to the share of the first plaintiff that is in respect of Sy.No.44 defendants 2 & 3 have taken 1 acre each without giving any share to the first plaintiff and even in Sy.No. 451,452, out of total extent of 6 acres 37guntas, the first plaintiff was given only 38guntas and like wise, several properties and commercial buildings standing in the name of defendants are not all included in the alleged partition deed though several properties are the joint family properties of the first plaintiff and defendants. It is further stated by the first plaintiff that on the basis of the alleged partition deed the defendants have changed the khata in their favour though the first plaintiff made a representation to the Tahasildar not to effect Katha, the defendants after obtaining the khata in their favour, are illegally attempting to dispose off the properties in favour of third parties and the defendants are trying to cut the eucalyptus trees by taking advantage of the partition deed.
19 O.S.No.8051/2003
4. The first plaintiff died during the pendency of the suit on 26.4.2004 and thereafter, the LRs of the first plaintiff were brought on record and they filed the amended plaint contending further that the first plaintiff was granted Occupancy Rights as Kadim tenant in Case No.34/56-57 dated 4.4.1958 so far as Sy.No.141 measuring 0.20gunts, Sy.No.139 measuring 25guntas, Sy.No.452 measuring 3 acres 3 guntas, Sy.No.445 measuring 3 acres 19gntas Sy.No.450 measuring 3 acres 1 gunta, Sy.No.423 measuring 1 acre 32guntas, Sy.No.376 measuring 6 acres 8 guntas, Sy.No.391 measurng 2 acres 14guntas, Sy.No.374 measuring 1 acre, Sy.No.424 measuring 38guntas, Sy.No.414 measuring 1 acre, Sy.No.412 measuring 1 acre 35guntas, Sy.No.416 measuring 28guntas, Sy.No.419 measuring 28guntas, Sy.No.419 measuring 1acre 20guntas,Sy.No.421 measuring 2acres 25guntas, Sy.No.422 measuring 0.35guntas, Sy.No.451 measuring 33guntas, Sy.No.373 measuring 3acres 17guntas, 20 O.S.No.8051/2003 Sy.No.417 measuring 27guntas and Sy.No.390 measuring 1acre 14guntas, all survey numbers are from Kalkere Village. It is further stated by the LRs of first plaintiff that out of all these survey numbers, Sy.No.445 measuring 3 acres 19guntas and Sy.No.450 measuring 3 acres 1 gunta of Kalkere village was decided in the case 34/56-57 as the lands by inheritance and all other lands are his self-acquired lands by way of purchase. It is further stated by the LRs of the first plaintiff that the first plaintiff was granted 4 acres 31 guntas in Sy.No.136 and 5 acres 01gunta in Sy.No.135 of Kowdenahalli Village in 1964 and these two properties are the self-acquired properties of the first plaintiff. It is further stated by the LRs of the first plaintiff that the defendants have formed layout in Sy.No.136, 135 of Kowdenahalli village and also in Sy.No.375 and 377 of Kalkere village and constructed many apartmens and also commercial; complexes, garages besides hotels, distillery, warehouse, schools, bars and restaurants, hospitals and colleges and they are 21 O.S.No.8051/2003 getting rentals and lease hold benefits individually by alienation and transfers and derived the income to the tune of Rs.50Lakhs per month. It is further stated by the LRs of the first plaintiff that by selling some sites and some portions in the apartments, defendants 2 & 3 have amassed at least Rs.20Crores. It is further stated by the LRs of the first plaintiff that the defendant No.4 Seethappa runs bar and restaurant in Sy.No.136 and 135 and gets a daily income not less than Rs.1Lakh. The defendants are employees in HAL and ITI for meager salaries, but have purchased some of the suit schedule properties in their individual names which are actually purchased from the nucleus of the joint family properties and they are liable to be divided. It is further stated by the LRs of the first plaintiff that Pillamadappa-2nd defendant has rented out the buildings of the joint family property in Sy.No.97 and derives rent of Rs.3Lakhs per month and enjoys individually and apart from the income from land rents, they are deriving agricultural income 22 O.S.No.8051/2003 form the mango grooves and vineyards to the tune of Rs.5 Crores per year. It is further stated by the LRs of the first plaintiff that the defendants are alienating the joint family properties and are indulged in changing the character of the suit schedule properties in the name of the alleged partition. It is further stated by the LRs of the first plaintiff that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and they are entitled for 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties. Hence, this suit.
5. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendants have appeared through their counsel and filed their written statements.
6. In the written statement filed by the defendants 1 to 5, they have denied the averments made in the plaint and contended that the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has suppressed many material facts and totally presented a concocted version and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief sought for. The defendants 1 to 5 further contended that 23 O.S.No.8051/2003 the plaintiffs have not complied with the provision of Order VII Rule 14 (1,2 & 3) of CPC and on that ground alone the suit is liable to be dismissed. The defendants 1 to 5 further contended that the first plaintiff and defendants are living separately since the year 1983 and since they are hardworking and out of their individual income they have acquired some of the properties and they are the self-acquired properties of the defendants and their children and therefore, the contention of the first plaintiff that they are the joint family members is far from truth. The defendants 1 to 5 further contended that the genealogical tree is not correct and proper. The defendants 1 to 5 further contended that the documents produced by the plaintiff in this suit are all created and forged documents. The defendants 1 to 5 further denied that the defendants while preparing said partition have also left out various valuable properties and have partitioned only the properties standing in the name of first plaintiff. The defendants 1 to 5 further contended 24 O.S.No.8051/2003 that there was an oral partition of all the family properties in the year 1983 only and it was registered on 21.5.2003 and the plaintiff came to the Sub-Registrar's Office and signed the entire partition documents in the presence of witnesses and without any fear and favour. The defendants 1 to 5 further contended that the first plaintiff has taken the original documents of 'A' schedule properties on that day and also he and his sons filed an application dated 3.6.2003 to change the katha before the office of Tahasildar, K.R.Puram in the name of first plaintiff and as such, the first plaintiff himself admitted that the partition deed is valid and acceptable. The defendants 1 to 5 further contended that the first plaintiff has not taken any steps against the Sub-Registrar for any mistake, coercion and fraud etc. and that itself indicates that the partition deed is valid and acceptable. The defendants 1 to 5 further contended that there is no cause of action to the suit as the defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective 25 O.S.No.8051/2003 shares since the year 1983 and the defendants have perfected their right, title and interest in respect of the share allotted to them as per the partition deed by way of adverse possession and as such, the suit is not maintainable. The defendants 1 to 5 further contended that the plaintiffs have failed to give the correct description of the suit schedule properties to identify them and the present suit has been filed only to harass the defendants and as such, sought for dismissal of the suit.
7. The 6th defendant filed his written statement contending that originally the property measuring 3 acres in Sy.No.375/2 of Kalkere village was owned by one Thammanna-3rd defendant having purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 24.4.1982 and the said Thammanna and his brothers viz., Annaiappa-plaintiff, Seethappa-4th defendant and Pillamadappa-2nd defendant entered into an agreement to sell 2½ acres out of 3acres in favour of one Shankar and this defendant and they 26 O.S.No.8051/2003 further executed absolute sale deed in respect of property measuring 22.43 guntas and 8.82guntas in favour of this defendant on 21.5.2003 under registered sale deed and since then the 6th defendant is in possession and occupation of the said 22.43 and 8.82guntas of land. The 6th defendant admitted that the partition deed with respect to Sy.No.375/2 was executed on 21.5.2003, but denied that the signatures, thumb impression and photos of the first plaintiff were fabricated and fraudulently affixed on the sale deed dated 21.5.2003. The 6th defendant contended that the first plaintiff had personally come to the office of the Sub-Registrar and affixed his thumb impression and signature before the Sub-Registrar, K.R.Puram. The 6th defendant denied that the defendants fraudulently sold the Sy.No.375/2 in favour of Basavaraj -6th defendant herein and that the defendants in collusion with the officials of the registering authorities, have created the alleged partition deed along with other sale deeds entered in favour of the 27 O.S.No.8051/2003 said Basavaraj. The 6th defendant further contended that the plaintiff has shown 49 items as suit schedule properties, but there is no mention of Sy.No. 375/2 of Kalkere village, the property which is purchased by this defendant. The 6th defendant further contended that the suit is not in consonance with the subject matter and that the Court fee paid is insufficient, sought for dismissal of the suit.
8. Subsequent to the amendment of plaint, the defendants 2 & 3, defendants 4 & 5 and the defendant No.6 and 12 have filed their additional written statements.
9. In the additional written statement filed by the defendants 2 &3, they have further contended that under the registered partition deed dated 21.5.2003, all the properties belonging to the joint family have been partitioned between the sons of late Adhur Munishamappa and the original plaintiff namely Annaiappa is also a party to the said partition deed and 28 O.S.No.8051/2003 as per the terms of the said partition deed, 'A' schedule properties shown in the partition deed have been allotted to the share of the plaintiff Annaiappa, the 'B' schedule properties shown in the partition deed have been allotted to the share of 2nd defendant and the 'C' schedule properties have been allotted to the share of 3rd defendant, 'D' schedule properties have been allotted to the share of 4th defendant herein, 'E' schedule properties have been allotted to the share of 5th defendant and accordingly they are in possession and enjoyment of their respective portions of lands allotted to their shares and they have also got the revenue records changed into their names in respect of the properties allotted to their respective shares and knowing fully well, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit and as such, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any reliefs sought for. The defendants 2 &3 further contended that based on the registered sale deed, the revenue records pertaining to the landed properties have been transferred in the name of these 29 O.S.No.8051/2003 defendants and apart from that the 3rd defendant has also filed application for conversion of the lands bearing Sy.No.412,413,414,416,417,418 and 419 situated at Kalkere village, K.R.Puram Hobli and the Dy.Commissioner passed an order of conversion in respect of the said lands and the defendants have been developing the said lands based on the order of conversion. It is further contended by the defendants 2 &3 that the plaintiffs have also put up constructions in their portion of the lands allotted to the share of original plaintiff and they have also let out the said portions by putting up constructions in favour of various tenants and the plaintiffs have been collecting the rents from the said tenants and the defendants have not interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the lands that are allotted to the share of the plaintiffs herein. The defendants 2 &3 further contended that only in respect of the lands bearing Sy.No.136 situated at Ramamurhty nagar village, khata is yet to be transferred in the names of the 30 O.S.No.8051/2003 plaintiffs and the defendants 2 to 5 herein based on the partition deed, but so far as the other lands are concerned, the same are transferred in the names of the respective parties based on the partition deed dated 21.5.2003 and it is well within the knowledge of the plaintiffs. It is further contended by the defendants 2 & 3 that one of the sons of the 4th defendant herein had filed a suit for the relief of partition against his father, brothers and sisters in OS 16140/2006 and the said suit has been decreed in terms of compromise on 24.2.2012 and from the same it is clear that the partition deed entered into between the parties is acted upon and binding on the plaintiffs. It is further contended by the defendants 2 &3 that the plaintiff No.1(b) namely Sri.Madappa had filed a suit against his father Adhur Annaiappa and other sons of Gopalappa and also against third persons in OS 8704/2001 on the file of the Addl.City Civil Judge, Bangalore, for the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the land bearing 31 O.S.No.8051/2003 Sy.No.135 measuring 5 acres 11guntas situated at Kowdenahalli village and Sri.Adhur Annaiappa was one of the defendants in the said suit has filed his written statement along with his son on 15.11.2002 and the said suit came to be dismissed on the memo filed by the plaintiffs in OS 8704/2001 on 19.6.2003 since there was a partition as on that date and as such, the said suit came to be withdrawn by said Madappa and thus, it is clear from the said fact that the partition deed dated 21.5.2003 is acted upon. The defendants 2 & 3 further contended that the plaintiffs herein had filed an appeal before the Asst.Commissioner in R.A.263/2003 challenging the mutation order made based on the partition deed dated 21.5.2003 in respect of the lands bearing Nos.390 and 391 of Kalkere village and the same came to be dismissed by an Order dated 27.8.2004 and against the said Order, the plaintiffs preferred a Revision petition before the Spl.Dy.Commissioner in R.P.No.176/2004-05 and even the said petition also 32 O.S.No.8051/2003 came to be dismissed by an order dated 27.5.2009. The defendants 2 &3 further contended that the claim made by the plaintiffs are barred by principles of limitation and the plaintiffs are not entitled to any reliefs and as such, sought for dismissal of the suit.
10. The defendants 4 & 5 in their additional written statement have denied the averments made in the amended plaint and contended that the plaintiffs never disclosed the suit filed by Annaiappa's daughter Madamma for partition and separate possession in respect of the share allotted to Annaiappa-the plaintiff herein in the registered partition deed dated 21.5.2003 and the said Annaiappa clearly admitted the registered partition deed effected in the year 2003. The defendants 4 & 5 further contended that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule property and the family members of defendants 4 & 5 have also partitioned their respective shares and revenue documents are also transferred to their names and hence, the suit is not 33 O.S.No.8051/2003 maintainable. The defendants 4 & 5 further contended that the plaintiff and his family members clearly admitted that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff's father and defendants 1 to 5 and as per partition deed dated 21.5.2003 the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 have developed the suit schedule properties separately as per the share allotted to them. The defendants 4 & 5 further contended that the plaintiffs were never in possession of the suit schedule properties and there is no cause of action for the suit and as such, sought for dismissal of the suit.
11. The defendant No.6 has also filed his additional written statement denying the averments made in the amended plaint in toto and sought for dismissal of the suit.
12. The defendants 7 to 49 were subsequently impleaded as parties to the suit. The defendants 12,13,17,18, 28, 44 and 48 appeared through their counsels and filed their written statements. 34 O.S.No.8051/2003
13. In the written statement filed by the defendant No.12, he has denied the averments made in the plaint, contended that item No.20 of the suit schedule property bearing Sy.No.373 exclusively belongs to the deceased plaintiff and the defendant No.3 as they have purchased the same in their individual capacity, under a registered sale deed and they have sold the land measuring 10guntas under a registered sale deed dated 25.7.2004 through their Power of attorney holder in favour of this defendant for valuable consideration and accordingly he was put in actual possession of the same. It is further contended by the defendant no.12 that he got the said land converted into non-agricultural purpose and the name of defendant no.12 has been mutated in the revenue records. He has further contended that he entered into an agreement (development agreement) dated 18.1.2006 with one Sri.Santhosh Kumar Sharma for construction of residential apartments and 35 O.S.No.8051/2003 accordingly apartments are constructed and after construction he sold the apartments to different persons and the purchasers are in possession of the respective residential flats. The defendant no.12 further contended that the so called purchasers of the residential flats are the owners of the plots and they are the necessary parties to the suit and as such, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable for non-joinder of parties. It is further contended that the plaintiffs have not sought for cancellation of the said sale deeds and as such, the suit is not maintainable. The defendant No.12 further contended that there is no cause of action for the suit and that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule properties and as such, the court fee paid is not correct and hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.
14. The defendant No.12 also filed his additional written statement contending that the plaintiffs having lost their possession and title at later stage in order to have illegal and wrongful gain, have approached the 36 O.S.No.8051/2003 Court to derive monetary benefits. The defendant No.12 further contended that the plaintiffs are not in possession of lands in question against which they are seeking for partition and as such, the plaintiffs have not valued the suit properly and court fee paid is not sufficient and as such, sought for dismissal of the suit with exemplary costs.
15. The defendants 17 & 18 in their written statement contended that they deny the averments made in the plaint as totally false, baseless and far away from truth and that the suit is not maintainable and is devoid of merits. The defendants 17 & 18 further contended that they have jointly purchased the property bearing Site No.51, House List Katha No.282/2, formed in property No.377 situated at Kalkere Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, measuring east west 60ft., and north to south 90ft., totally measuring 5400sq.ft., for a valuable consideration of Rs.8,10,000/- paid under four demand drafts dated 7.10.2004 under a registered 37 O.S.No.8051/2003 sale deed dated 8.10.2004 from Annaiappa and Thammannappa, represented by their registered Power of attorney holder R.Shankar S/o Ramachandrappa and Basavaraj S/o late Ramanna i.e., the defendants 6 & 7 respectively. The defendants 17 & 18 further contended that the original owners viz., Annaiappa (plaintiff) and Thamamappa(defendant No.3) executed a registered GPA dated 21.3.1997 in favour of said R.Shankar and Basavaraju in respect of Sy.No.377 and 374 of Kalkere village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, and in the said GPA, the land owners authorized their said Attorneys to sell the above said property and other lands to whomsoever they deem fit and to receive the sale consideration by themselves. The defendants 17 & 18 further contended that the Sy.No.377 in which these defendants have purchased the site, is not the subject matter of the suit and since the said Sy.No.377 of Kalkere village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk does not forms part of the suit schedule properties, these 38 O.S.No.8051/2003 defendants are not necessary parties to the suit, but purposely to make huge monetary loss, harm and mental agony to these defendants, they have been made as parties. The defendants 17 & 18 further contended that after the purchase of the said properties, these defendants are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same without any hindrance and the khata also was transferred in their joint names and they have also paid the property tax in their names. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.
16. The defendant No.28 in the written statement has contended that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and is liable to dismissed. The defendant No.28 has denied the averments of the plaint in toto and she has also sought for dismissal of the suit.
17. The defendant No.44 in his written statement has contended that the averments made in para 1 to 14 of the plaint are not concerned or related to this defendant and denied them as false. The defendant 39 O.S.No.8051/2003 No.44 further contended that he has purchased one of the sites i.e., site no.1/A measuring east to west 30ft., north to south 44ft., totally measuring 1320sq.ft., which the plaintiffs allege to have formed out of the land bearing Old Sy.No.375 present Sy.No.375/2 of Kalkere Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East TAluk, which is item No.47 of the suit schedule properties, under a registered sale deed dated 21.5.2003 executed by Thammannappa-the defendant No.3 along with the plaintiff No.1 Annaiappa and defendants 2,4 & 5 herein. It is further contended by the defendant No.44 that the defendant No.3 had acquired the land bearing Sy.No.375 wherein this defendant's site is comprised, in his individual capacity through the registered sale deed dated 23.4.1982 executed by its predecessor in title one Mrs.Sakamma W/o S.M.Hanumaiah, who in turn had got acquired the same under registered sale deed dated 22.2.1975. The defendant No.44 further contended that after purchase of site No.1/A comprised in Sy.No.375/1 40 O.S.No.8051/2003 (old NO.375) , the defendant No.44 got the khata and all other revenue records mutated into his name by paying upto date taxes to the Horamavu Village Panchayath and he has also got constructed a residential house in the said property by obtaining sanctioned plan and license from the Horamavu Village Panchayath and presently she is residing therein along with her family. The defendant no.44 further contended that neither the plaintiff No.1 nor the other defendants 1 to 5 had any manner of title, interest and share over the said land. The defendant No.44 further contended that the plaintiff No.1 had also subscribed his signature as one of the vendor to the sale deed dated 21.5.2003 executed in favour of this defendant in respect of the site No.1A and admitted the execution of the sale deed before the Sub-Registrar and hence, the title, interest and right of this defendant accrued under the registered sale deed dated 21.5.2003 over the site No.1A is not only excluded from the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 5 but also free from all 41 O.S.No.8051/2003 sorts of claims, objections and encumbrances. It is further contended that the plaintiffs have not sought any relief against this defendant and the defendant no.44 is a bonafide purchaser for value. The defendant No.44 further contended that there is no cause of action for the suit and the Court fee paid by the plaintiffs is insufficient and as such, sought for dismissal of the suit.
18. The defendant No.48 has also denied the averments made in the plaint and further contended that his grand mother Mrs. Mary Kutty George (now deceased) purchased 6342sq.ft of vacant land carved out of Sy.No.373 and 376 from the first plaintiff and his borther the 3rd defendant through their Power of attorney holder R.Basavaraj-6th defendant and R.Shankar-7th defendant who executed an absolute sale deed dated 22.1.1996. The defendant No.48 further contended that the above property was sold by late Annaiappa and Thammappa for their family necessities and as such, the plaintiffs have no right to challenge the same. The defendant No.48 42 O.S.No.8051/2003 further contended that after purchase of the said property, late Mary Kutty George has executed a Will in respect of the said property in favour of her grand son Arun George-48th defendant herein and he paid the taxes. It is further contended by the defendant No.48 that the plaintiffs have not sought any relief against this defendant and as such, he is not a necessary party to this suit. The defendant No.48 further contended that the survey numbers have been fragmented and sold to many persons including this defendant and as such, the quantum of paying court fee under Sec.35(2) of KCF & Suit Valuation Act, is not valid and as such, sought for dismissal of the suit.
19. On these pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor in Office, has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the registered partition deed dated 21.5.2003 entered into by the plaintiffs and original defendants 1 to 5 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that his signatures and thumb impressions 43 O.S.No.8051/2003 were obtained on blank papers by playing fraud on him by the original defendants 1 to 5?
3. Whether the supplemental plaintiffs further prove that they are not bound by the registered partition deed dated 21.5.2003 and subsequent sale transactions of suit schedule properties including of 21.5.2003?
4. Whether the supplemental plaintiffs further proves that the signature of original plaintiff was fabricated and fraudulently affixed the signatures and thumb impressions and the photo affixed on the sale deed dated 21.5.2003 as alleged at para-9 of the plaint?
5. Whether the plaintiffs further proves that the defendant Nos.1 to 5 created sale deed and agreements, power of attorneys in favour of one R.Basavaraju and got registered the sale deed at the time of registration of partition deed on 21.5.2003 itself?
6. Whether the genealogy give by the plaintiff is correct?
7. Whether the valuation of the suit made is correct and court fee paid thereon is proper?
8. Whether the defendants prove that the description of the suit schedule properties given in the plaint is not correct?44 O.S.No.8051/2003
9. Whether the other defendants prove that they are bonafide purchasers of different portions of the suit schedule properties for value?
10.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties? If, so, what is the share of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5 in the suit schedule properties?
11. What decree or order ?
20. Due to typographical error, while framing the issue nos.1,2,5 & 10, instead of mentioning the defendant nos.1 to 5, mentioned as defendant nos.1 to
6. With the consent of all the parties and their counsel, said clerical mistake is rectified and it is corrected as defendant nos.1 to 5 in all the aforesaid issues.
21. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.1(b) is examined as PW.1 and the neighbours of PW.1 one K.P.Thyagaraj, Francis Xavier and A.C.Noor Ahmed are examined as PWs.2 to 4 and Exs.P.1 to P.131 documents came to be marked. On the other hand, the defendant nos.2, 5, 12 & 7 are examined as DWs.1,2, 6 & 7 and one 45 O.S.No.8051/2003 P.Ramaiah, M.Krishnappa, K.P.Patalappa are examined as DWs.3 to 5 and Exs.D.1 to D.323 came to be marked.
22. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has relied on the following decisions;
1. 2014(4) KCCR 3581 - Mallappa and others Vs. Mallappa & others.
2. AIR 1989 KAR 45 - Smt.Neelavva Vs. Smt.Shivavva
3. ILR 2008 KAR 1539 - Ibrahim Vs. Ismail & another
4. 2008(6) KLJ 285 - G.Rangaiah Vs. Govindappa & Others.
5. (2007)6 SCC 401 - Venkataramana Hebbar Vs. Rajagopal Hebbar.
6. ILR 2004 KAR 3355 - Parashuram Nemani Vs. Smt.Shantabai Ramachandra Purchakar & others.
7. 2013(4) KCCR 3190 - M.Honnappa & another Vs. Gundamma.
23. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for 6th defendant has relied on the following decisions:
1. AIR 1987 SC 1242- Ramaswaroop Gupta dead by LRs vs. Bashun Naren .. and others.
2. Memo/K/05/1999 - equivalent to AIR 1999 KAR 429 - Ambanna Vs. Gantepp.46 O.S.No.8051/2003
3. AIR 1999 SC 2203 - Brijraj Singh dead by LRs Vs. Sevak Ram.
4. 2000(3) KLJ Short notes 18 - Shekharappa and another Vs. Beerappa and another.
5. AIR 2003 KAR 331 - G.Barmappa Vs. Kenchappa.
6. (2003) 8 SCC 740 - Kashinath Vs. Jagannath.
7. ILR 2004 KAR 3355 - Parashuram N.K. & others Vs. Shanthabai R.K. and others.
8. AIR 2006 SC 3608 - Premsingh Vs. Birbal
9. Memo/K/1394/2014 - equivalent to 2014(3) KCCR 2226 - shivakumar Vs. Nanjamma.
10. (1994)4 SCC 294 - Kenchegowda Vs. Siddegowda
11. 2009(1) AIR KAR (R) 107 - Ganapath Vs. Sukhre
12. ILR 2010 KAR 2288 - Smt.Damegunta Rajeshwaramma Vs. Smt.Jayalakshmamma and others.
24. Heard the arguments for the learned Counsel appearing for plaintiff and defendant no.6.
25. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue nos. 1 to 5: In the negative 47 O.S.No.8051/2003 Issue no.6 : In the negative Issue no.7 : In the negative Issue no.8 : In the affirmative Issue no.9 : In the affirmative Issue no.10 : In the negative Issue no.11 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
26. Before answering the issues, I would like to state the admitted facts of this case. On Adhur Munswamappa is the propositus of the family. He has five sons viz., Annaiappa-deceased first plaintiff, Chinnanna-the husband of defendant no.1 & father of defendant no.2, Thammannappa-defendant no.3 and Seethappa defendant no.4 and Madappa-defendant no.5. The defendant nos.7 to 48 are the purchasers of the suit schedule properties.
27. Issue no.6 : According to the defendants, the genealogical tree furnished by the plaintiffs is not correct. The plaintiffs have furnished the genealogy of the plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 5 at Ex.P.98. On the contrary, the defendants have got marked Ex.D.18 genealogical tree. 48 O.S.No.8051/2003 The learned Counsel appearing for the defendant no.6 drew the attention of this Court to the cross-examination of PW.1. At page-13, para-2 to 4, wherein PW.1 has stated as under:
"2.It is true that Pillamadamma is 2nd wife of Annaiappa. It is true that my father had 3 daughters and 2 sons through Pillamadamma. It is true that Gopalappa and myself are sons of Pillamadamma and Annaiappa. It is true that Akkayamma, Madamma and Munimadamma are daughters of Pillamadamma and Annaiappa. It is true that the said daughters are not parties in this suit.
3. It is true that Pillamadappa 2nd defendant is the only son of Chinanna. It is true that defendant No.3 Thamanappa has two wives. It is true that Thayamma is the 1st wife of Thamanappa. It is true that Thamanappa and his 1st wife Thayamma has a daughter by name Madagowramma and she is alive. It is true that Thamanappa and his 2nd wife Chikkamaya has 3 children's by name Kanthamma, Eshwarappa and Munegowda.4. The defendant No.4 Seethappa has 6
children's i.e., 3 sons and 3 daughters. The names of 6 children are Madesha, Mahadev, Rajanna, Rathnamma, Radhamma and Mahadevamma.
At page -39 para-44 wherein he has stated as under:49 O.S.No.8051/2003
"It is true that I am having three sisters by name Akkayamma, Madamma and Munimadamma and they are alive. It is true that I have not made my sisters as parties to the suit".
The above said version of PW.1 is crystal clear that PW.1 inspite of his admission in the cross-examination has failed to array several members of his family including his own sisters as parties to this suit. Their presence is very much necessary to adjudicate the matter in question between the parties. Without their presence, matter cannot be adjudicated effectively and conclusively. Hence, this court is of the opinion that the genealogy furnished by the plaintiffs is not correct. Accordingly Issue no.6 is answered in the negative.
28. Issue no.7 : The defendants have contended that the court fee paid by the plaintiff is not proper and correct. According to the defendant nos.4 & 5, since the plaintiffs are out of possession of the suit schedule properties, they ought to have pay the court fee on the market value of the property as on the date of the filing of 50 O.S.No.8051/2003 the suit. To substantiate their contention, the learned Counsel appearing for the defendant no.6 drew the attention of this court to the cross-examination of PW.1 at page-16 para-8 wherein he has stated that "the defendants No.2 to 5 came in possession of their share of property in the year 2007" and in page-18 para-9, PW.1 has stated that "it is true sons of Seethappa have dug borewell in item no.1 of the suit schedule property." In para-10 he has further stated that "it is true that the defendant no.3 has converted item no.3 of the suit schedule property from agriculture to non-agriculture purpose". In the very same para he has further stated that "It is true that Seethappa-4th defendant is in possession of land to the extent of 20guntas in item no.2 of the suit schedule property". He has further stated that "the defendant no.4 is residing in the house situated in 30guntas of land". In page-24 para-20, he has further stated that "the defendant no.3 is in possession of 1acre 32½ guntas of land in Sy.no.424" and in para-18 at 51 O.S.No.8051/2003 page-25, he has further admitted that "defendant no.4 and his sons are in possession of 1 acre 29 ½ guntas in Sy.no.445". In page-34 para-33, he has further admitted that "item no.37 of the suit schedule property has been purchased by the 3rd defendant and item no.38 and 39 of the suit schedule properties have been purchased by the 3rd defendant and his sons and they are in possession of item nos.38 & 39". In page-35 para-34 he has further admitted that item no.38 to 40, the plaintiffs are not in possession". At para-35 he has further admitted that "the defendant no.4 purchased item no.41 of the suit schedule property". In para-36, he has further admitted that item no.42 is purchased by defendant no.5. In para-38, he has admitted that item nos.44 & 46 of the suit schedule properties are not belonged to their family. In his cross-examination at page-43 para-48 he has stated that defendant nos.6 to 48 are the purchasers of sites formed in item nos.22 to 24 of the suit schedule properties. In his cross-examination at page-51 para-54, 52 O.S.No.8051/2003 PW.1 has admitted that one Santosh Koshi is in possession of Sy.no.135 of Kowdenahalli village, i.e., item no.24 of the suit schedule properties. Undisputedly he has not arrayed the said Santosh Koshi as a party to this suit. The aforesaid admission of PW.1 clearly discloses that the defendants are not in possession and enjoyment of the majority of the suit schedule properties except some of the suit properties. His version is also clear that majority of the suit properties are converted into non- agricultural land and they are not remained as agricultural land even prior to the filing of the suit.
29. In a decision relied by the learned Counsel appearing for the defendant no.6 reported in AIR 2003 KAR 331 the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held as under:
"Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act(16 of 1958),Sec.35(1),(2) - Suit for partition and separate possession of joint family property - Notional partition between parties - Accordingly, plaintiff's name already mutated in the relevant records - Court-fee has to be computed on the market value of plaintiff's share".53 O.S.No.8051/2003
30. In a decision relied by the learned Counsel appearing for the defendant no.6 reported in ILR 2010 KAR 2288, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held as under :
"Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act, 1958 - Section 38 - Suits for cancellation of decrees, etc. - Determination of Court Fee - Value of the property referred in Section 38 of the Act for the purpose of payment of Court fee
- HELD, Value of the property referred to in Section 38 of the Act is nothing but actual value of the property - The Court fee has to be determined on the basis of the value of the property as on the date of the suit and not on the consideration shown in the document - FURTHER HELD, Thus in a suit for cancellation of the document, the plaintiff is required to value the suit on the basis of the market value of the property which was the subject matter of the transaction - The finding of the Trial Court that Court fee has to be paid on the basis of the amount of consideration mentioned in the document is liable to be set aside - The matter is remitted to the Trial Court with a direction to determine the Court fee on the basis of the value of the property as on the date of the suit".
31. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs contended that the plaintiffs have paid the court fee correctly and he drew the attention of this Court to the 54 O.S.No.8051/2003 plaint averments and argued that all properties are agricultural properties. Therefore, court fee paid is in consonance with the relief sought.
32. It is pertinent to note that the valuation slip furnished by the plaintiffs discloses that in respect of the relief of partition, the plaintiffs have valued the Court fee under Sec.35(1) of the Karnataka Court Fee & Suit Valuation Act and paid fixed court fee of Rs.200/-. Sec.35(1) of the Karnataka Court Fee & Suit Valuation Act reads as under:
"In a suit for partition and separate possession of a share of joint family property or of property owned, jointly or in common, by a plaintiff whose title to such property is denied, or who has been excluded from possession of such property, fee shall be computed on the market value of the plaintiff's share."
The wordings of Sec.35(1) of Karnataka Court Fee & Suit Valuation Act is clear that the plaintiffs ought to have pay the court fee on the market value of their share. But, they have paid a meager sum of Rs.200/- instead of paying the court fee on the market value of their share. 55 O.S.No.8051/2003
33. The deceased first plaintiff himself is a party to the partition deed dated 21.5.2003. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that they are in possession and enjoyment of the entire suit schedule properties and failed to pay the court fee on the market value of the suit schedule properties as contemplated under Sec.35(1) of the Karnataka Court Fee & Suit Valuation Act. As discussed supra, majority of the suit properties are converted into non-agricultural land. Based on the guidance value issued by the Sub-Registrar of the concerned area, the plaintiffs have not made valuation of the suit properties and paid the court fee. Therefore, I answer Issue no.7 in the negative.
34. Issue no.8 : The contention of the defendants is that the description of the suit properties furnished by the plaintiffs is not correct. In the plaint, the plaintiffs have in all clamed relief in respect of 49 items. In respect of item nos.16, 17, 26A, 29 to 48, the plaintiffs have not furnished the boundaries of the said properties and only 56 O.S.No.8051/2003 mentioned that "all that piece and parcel of the properties" and the survey number and extent are given. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs contended that since both parties after understanding the locations of the lands, contested the matter. Therefore, mere non-furnishing of the boundaries of the aforesaid items of the suit properties is not fatal to the case of the plaintiffs. Order VII Rule 3 of CPC, contemplates that "where the subject matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain the description of the property sufficient to identify, and in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers, in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers". In the instant case, the plaintiffs have filed a suit for partition and as stated supra, the plaintiffs have not furnished the boundaries of several suit properties. Under these circumstances it is difficult to identify the said properties 57 O.S.No.8051/2003 without their boundaries. Therefore, I answer Issue no.8 in the affirmative.
35. Issue nos. 1 to 5 : As these issues are interlinked with each other, in order to avoid repetition, I would like to answer all these issues together.
36. According to the legal heirs of deceased plaintiff, the registered partition deed dated 21.5.2003 and sale deed dated 21.5.2003 were obtained by playing fraud upon the deceased plaintiff Annaiappa and said partition deed and sale deed are not binding on the legal heirs of the plaintiff. Ex.D.19 is the partition deed dated 21.5.2003. The recitals of the said document discloses that the partition was effected among the sons of late Aduru Munishamappa. It is a registered partition deed. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs contended that the deceased plaintiff Annaiappa at the time of alleged execution of the said document was old aged person. The signature of Annaiappa was taken on blank papers and Ex.D.19 was created. He drew the 58 O.S.No.8051/2003 attention of this court to all the pages of Ex.D.19 and argued that some of the pages in Ex.D.19 are left out without signature and in some pages there are double signatures. As against the said argument, the learned Counsel appearing for the defendant no.6 contended that deceased Annaiappa himself is a party to Ex.D.19 and he attended before the Sub-Registrar, Krishnrajapura, and signed Ex.D.19 after understanding the contents.
37. Order VI Rule 4 of the CPC contemplates that in case of misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, the particulars must be given in full including the circumstances, date, time, place etc. This suit came to be filed during the lifetime of Annaiappa. During the pendency of the suit, Annaiappa died. The plaintiffs i.e., LRs of deceased Annaiappa have not made any attempt to examine Annaiappa who is the proper person to explain regarding the alleged fraud played upon him. PW.1 i.e., plaintiff no.1(b) in his cross-examination at page-12 para-1 has stated as under:
59 O.S.No.8051/2003
"My father gave instruction to the lawyer M.Narayanareddy for preparing plaint. During the year 2003 my father was having good health."
It is pertinent to note that Ex.P.21/D.19 came to be executed on 21.5.2003. Suit came to be filed on 10.11.2003. PW.1 himself has stated that his father was having good health in the year 2003. When that being the case, impersonating his father while executing Ex.P.21/D.19 is unbelievable theory. More so, the recitals of aforesaid exhibits i.e., registered partition deed bears the photograph of the father of PW.1 i.e., deceased Annaiappa and also his signature. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs drew the attention of this court to the recitals of Ex.P.20 and argued that deceased first plaintiff moved an application to the Revenue Inspector, Krishnarajapura, not to effect the khata based on Ex.P.21/D.19 registered partition deed. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P.21/D.19 came to be executed on 21.5.2003. Almost after lapse of three months i.e., on 16.8.2003, Ex.P.20 application came to be filed. If really 60 O.S.No.8051/2003 Ex.P.21/D.19 is a fabricated document as alleged by the plaintiffs, immediately after execution of the said document, the father of PW.1 i.e., deceased plaintiff definitely would take necessary legal action against his brothers and the concerned Sub-Registrar for the alleged fabrication. Therefore, in my opinion, Ex.P.20 which came to be filed after lapse of three months from the date of Ex.P.21 is an after thought document.
38. Let us consider whether Ex.P.21 is acted upon. In his cross-examination at page-21 para-14 PW.1 has admitted that he has constructed a house and dug a bore well in item no.10 of the suit schedule property i.e., sl.no.6 of schedule-A allotted to plaintiff's father as per Ex.P.21. He has further stated in the said para that plaintiff no.1(f) to 1(n) are residing in another house situated at item no.10. In his cross-examination at page- 22 at para-15, Pw.1 has further stated that he is in possession of 17½ gunats of land in Sy.no.422 i.e., item no.11 of the suit schedule property. Said property was 61 O.S.No.8051/2003 allotted to the father of the plaintiff under Ex.P.21 mentioned in A-Schedule item no.8. In his cross- examination at page-23 para-16, PW.1 has admitted that he had filed a suit in OS no.3647/2010 i.e., Ex.D.1 against Madappa i.e., defendant no.5 in respect of item no.12 of the suit schedule property i.e., Sy.no.423, sl.no.6 of 'E' schedule allotted to defendant no.5 in Ex.P.21. In his cross-examination at page-24, PW.1 has admitted that defendant no.2 is in possession of item no.13 of the suit schedule property i.e., Sl.no.9 of 'B' schedule of Ex.P.21 allotted to defendant no.2. In his cross-examination at page-25, para-18, PW.1 has admitted that the defendant no.4 & his sons are in possession of Sy.no.445 measuring 1 acre 29guntas i.e., sl.no.10 of D-schedule allotted to defendant no.4 in Ex.P.21. In his cross-examination at page-25 para-19, PW.1 has admitted that he is running a nursery in item no.15 of the suit schedule property i.e., in sy.no.450 - sl.no.11 of A-schedule allotted to his father in Ex.P.21. 62 O.S.No.8051/2003 In his cross-examination at page-26 para-20, PW.1 has further admitted that defendant nos.2 to 5 are in possession of remaining extent of land in Sy.no.452 i.e., item no.16 of the suit schedule property i.e., sl.no.15 in B-schedule allotted to defendant no.2 in Ex.P.21, C-schedule in Ex.P.21 at sl.no.16 allotted to defendant no.3, D-schedule at sl.no.17 allotted to defendant no.4 and E-schedule at so.no.12 allotted to defendant no.5. In his cross-examination at page-27 para-21, PW.1 has admitted that he is in possession and enjoyment of item no.17 of suit schedule property i.e., Sy.no.139 and Sl.no.3 in A-schedule of Ex.P.21. In his cross- examination at page-27 para-24, PW.1 has further admitted that he and sons of his elder brother are in possession and enjoyment of item no.23 of suit schedule property i.e., Sy.no.136 allotted to his father under Ex.P.21 at schedule-A sl.no.1. Thus, the aforesaid version of PW.1 clearly discloses that Ex.P.21/D.19 registered partition deed is acted upon and the respective 63 O.S.No.8051/2003 sharers in the said document are in possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. If really Ex.P.21/D.19 is a created document, the children of Aduru Munishamappa would not be in possession and enjoyment of the lands allotted to them under Ex.P.21/D.19. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs contended that the defendants have not produced any material to show that the oral partition in the family took place in the year 1983. Merely residing separately will not give rise to a presumption of partition or severance of status. In support of his contention, he has relied on the decisions reported in (2007)4 SCC 163, (2007)6 SCC 401 and KLJ 2008(6) 285. As discussed supra, PW.1 in his cross-examination has clearly admitted that the branches of his father and his brothers have been in settled possession of their respective shares from umpteen number of years. The recitals of Ex.P.21 para-2 reads as under:
"EzÀgr À µÉqÀÆ宣À°è «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛU¼ À ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄäU¼ À À ¸ÀéAiÀiÁfðvÀªÁzÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛU¼ À ÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸Àzj À ¸ÀévÄÀ ÛU¼ À À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä 64 O.S.No.8051/2003 MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ D¹ÛU¼À £ À ÁßV ¥ÀjUÀt¹  PÉÆAqÀÄ C£ÀĨs« À ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §gÀÄwÛzÉÝêÉ. F jÃw £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¥ÀÆtð ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀé ºÁUÀÆ ºÀPÀÄÌzÁjPÉAiÀÄ°ègvÀ PÀ ÀÌ ¸ÀéwÛ£À «ZÁgÀªÁV ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÃÉ PÁzÀ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ ªÀUÉÊgÉ ±ÀÄ®ÌU¼ À À£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁr SÁvÉ ºÁUÀÆ E¤ßvÀgÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ºÉ¸j À UÉ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛêÉ."
The aforesaid recitals of Ex.P.21 itself disclose the severance of status among Annaiappa and his brothers in respect of the properties stated in Ex.P.21. Under these circumstances, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
39. The learned Counsel appearing for plaintiff further contended that the defendant nos.2 to 5 have failed to establish what was the source for acquisition of the properties. Since Annaiappa who is the eldest brother in the place of father executed the partition deed among his brothers. Therefore, the source of acquisition gains no importance.
65 O.S.No.8051/2003
40. The learned Counsel appearing for defendant nos.2 to 6 drew the attention of this court to the recitals of Ex.P.119 and argued that PW.1 in his cross- examination at page-15 has admitted that he had filed a complaint as per Ex.P.119 before Lokayukta. In his cross-examination in the very same page he has further admitted that he has fled application before the Lokayukta office and obtained copy of Ex.P.119. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs contended that in his cross-examination at page-15 PW.1 has denied that Lokayukta officials came to his village and took statement of his father Annaiappa. The final scrutiny note i.e., Ex.P.119 discloses that the complaint lodged by PW.1 before the Lokayukta came to be closed. Para-3 of Ex.P.119 further discloses that the present PW.1 has not disputed the recitals of Ex.P.21/D.19. Thus, the version of PW.1 that the Ex.P.21/D.19 is a fabricated document is contrary to the observation made in Ex.P.119. The recitals of Ex.D.3 discloses that 66 O.S.No.8051/2003 deceased plaintiff Annaiappa challenged the order of the Tahsildar made in MR no.8/03-04 and RRT(1)CR/380/03-04 against his brothers and sisters and others challenging the revenue entries made in favour of his brothers and sisters in respect of the suit schedule properties and that has been rejected by the learned Asst.Commissioner. Under Ex.D.2 the deceased Annaiappa challenged the same order in revision petition no.176/2004-05 and that has also been rejected by the Spl.Dy.Commissioner. Thus, the challenging the revenue entries in respect of suit schedule properties made in favour of his brothers and sisters has reached its finality.
41. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs vehemently contended that the sale deed dated 21.5.2003 i.e., Ex.P.22 is also a fabricated document. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant nos.7 and 6 colluded together and created the said document by taking undue advantage of the age and illness of 67 O.S.No.8051/2003 deceased Annaiappa. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P.22 is a registered sale deed. It bears the signature of deceased first plaintiff and his brothers. DW.7 i.e., 7th defendant on oath has stated that under the said document, Thammanappa sold property measuring 22.43guntas and 8.82guntas in favour of Basavaraj i.e., defendant no.6. The bone of contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff is that since Ex.P.21 & P.22 were executed on the same day, they are fabricated documents. The recitals of Ex.P.22 discloses that by receiving Rs.5,50,000/- by way of cash, Annaiappa and others sold the property. If really the said document is a fabricated document, after the execution of the said document, Annaiappa could take legal action against defendant no.6 alleging the fabrication and that he has not received any money. Added to that, in Ex.P.20 complaint made by deceased Annaiappa before the revenue inspector, Krishnarajapura, there is no whisper regarding fabrication of sale deed Ex.P.22. If really 68 O.S.No.8051/2003 Ex.P.22 was a fabricated document, Annaiappa could state the same in Ex.P.20 which came to be filed after lapse of almost three months from the date of execution of Ex.P.22.
42. The contention of the plaintiff that the power of attorney executed in favour of R.Basavaraj is a fabricated document. Ex.D.324 is the certified copy of the said power of attorney. The recitals of the said document disclose that deceased Annaiappa executed the said document in favour of Shankar and Basavaraj on 20.1.1986. It bears the signature of deceased Annaiappa and it is a registered power of attorney executed in the presence of two attesting witnesses M.Krishnappa and G.Muniyappa. The present plaintiffs have not chosen to examine the attesting witness to the said power of attorney who are the competent persons to say regarding the execution of the said document and whether it is fabricated or not. Since it is a registered document, it has got evidentiary value in the eye of law. Added to that, on 69 O.S.No.8051/2003 the strength of the said power of attorney, sale of portion of sy.no.373 and 376 in Kalkere village took place. Ex.D.327 discloses that the portion of the land in sy.no.372 and 373 has been converted into non- agricultural land and sites have been formed. Ex.D.328 is another power of attorney under which Basavaraj executed power of attorney in favour of Shankar authorizing the said Shankar to appear before the court and conduct the case.Ex.D.324 is acted upon. More so, deceased Annaiappa has signed Ex.D.324 in the presence of the two attesting witnesses and it has been registered before the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore north taluk.
43. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff has relied on a decision reported in 2014(4) KCCR 3581, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of Dharwad Bench, has held as under:
"Suit for partition - but not establishing that propositus had properties- in order to for part of joint family - individual members found to be cultivating land in their individual capacity-those properties cannot be claimed as joint family in order to claim partition."70 O.S.No.8051/2003
44. In the instant case the parties to Ex.D.19/P.21 among the Annaiappa and his brothers came to be executed on 21.5.2003. Annaiappa being the eldest brother among his brothers, divided the properties belonged to the family and even prior to the said partition deed, the members of the family were enjoying their portions separately and that is clear from the evidence of PW.1. Under these circumstances, that partition cannot be questioned by the legal heirs of deceased Annaiappa i.e., present plaintiffs. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the above cited decision relied on by the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
45. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff has relied on another decision reported in AIR 1989 KAR 45, wherein at Head Note-B and ILR 2008 KAR 1539, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held as under:
"Suit for declaration of title and for injunction restraining defendant from alienating suit property. Relief of partition and separate 71 O.S.No.8051/2003 possession can be granted even in the absence of specific prayer for such relief."
46. In the instant case, deceased Annaiappa himself is a party to the Ex.P.21/D.19 partition deed and Ex.P.22 sale deed and the present plaintiffs failed to establish that the said partition deed and sale deed are fabricated documents. His legal heirs i.e., present plaintiffs are estopped from claiming partition in respect of the suit properties and moulding of any relief under Order 7 Rule 7 of CPC. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the above cited decision relied on by the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In view of my foregoing discussion, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that the Ex.P.21/D.19 is a fabricated document by playing fraud on the deceased Annaiappa and failed to establish that the signature and the thumb impression on the said document are not of the deceased Annaiappa and they have also failed to establish that Ex.P.22 is a fabricated document by playing fraud on the deceased Annaiappa 72 O.S.No.8051/2003 and failed to establish that the signatures and thumb impressions found on Ex.P.22 are not that of Annaiappa and they have also failed to establish that the power of attorney executed in favour of R.Basavaraju is a created document. Hence, I answer Issue nos. 1 to 5 in the negative.
47. Issue no.9 : The specific case of defendant nos.1 to 5 is that defendant no.16 to 49 have purchased some of the items of the suit schedule properties. According to the learned Counsel appearing for plaintiffs none of the defendants so called are bonafide purchasers. They have neither entered into the witness box nor substantiated their defence. As such, they are not entitled for protection under the principles of bonafide purchasers and he further contended that lis pendency purchasers are not entitled for any protection. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel appearing for plaintiff has relied on a decision reported in KCCR 2013(4) relevant page 3196 - M.Honnappa & another Vs. 73 O.S.No.8051/2003 Gundamma., wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held as under:
"In order to succeed in a plea of bonafide purchaser under Sec.41 of the Transfer of Property Act it is to be proved that the transferor is ostensible owner. That he is so with the consent, express or implied of the real owner, that the transfer is for consideration and that the transferee has acted in good faith taking reasonable care to ascertain that the transferor had the power to transfer."
In the cross-examination of PW.1 at page-59 para-56, PW.1 has admitted that the plaintiffs have impleaded the defendant nos.16 to 49 as they have purchased some of the suit schedule properties and he has pleaded his ignorance when a suggestion is made to him regarding the purchase of some of the suit schedule properties by the defendant nos.16 to 49 and he further pleaded his ignorance in his cross-examination with respect to item no.20 purchased by defendant no.12 measuring 22guntas that the property has been converted into non- agriculture and an apartment has been constructed. In his cross-examination at page-60, he has admitted that 74 O.S.No.8051/2003 he has seen the property but pleaded his ignorance regarding the sale of flats by the defendant no.2 to different purchasers. Undisputedly the plaintiffs have not challenged the sale deeds of the respective purchasers. They have not sought for cancellation of the sale deeds executed in favour of the respective purchasers. The respective purchasers have paid the sale consideration. They are in settled possession and enjoyment of their respective portions purchased by them. Under these circumstances, merely on the ground that they purchased the suit schedule properties during the pendency of the suit itself is not a ground to come to a conclusion that they are not bonafide purchasers. The father of the present plaintiff deceased Annaiappa during his lifetime never challenged the purchase said properties by the defendant nos.16 to 49 seeking cancellation of the sale deeds executed in favour of the respective purchasers. Among the purchasers, the defendant nos.17,18, 28,44 and 48 have filed their written 75 O.S.No.8051/2003 statement they have specifically contended regarding the purchase of respective items of the suit schedule properties by them and they have also contended that the some of the sale deeds came to be executed by deceased Annaiappa and his brothers by receiving sale consideration. Under these circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the defendant nos.16 to 49 are bonafide purchasers of different portions of the suit schedule properties for valuable consideration. Hence, I answer Issue no.9 in the affirmative.
48. Issue no.10 : In view of my foregoing discussion on Issue nos.1 to 9, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that Ex.P.21/D.19 is not binding on them and they have also failed to prove that Ex.P.22 was obtained by playing fraud on them. They have also failed to prove that the suit properties are available for partition. Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled for partition and possession of the suit schedule properties 76 O.S.No.8051/2003 and any share in the suit schedule properties. Hence, I answer Issue no.10 in the negative.
48. Issue no.11: In the result of the foregoing discussion on the aforesaid issues, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer online, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 27th day of August, 2015).
(RAVI M. NAIK), I Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF PW.1 A.Madappa PW.2 K.P.Thyagaraj PW.3 Francis Xavier PW.4 K.C.Noor Ahmed 77 O.S.No.8051/2003 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF Exs.P-1 certified copy of regrant order dated 2.4.1958 " P-2 endorsement dated 27.12.1954 issued by Addl.
Spl.Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition.
" P-3 certified copy of statement of my father Annaiappa given before Spl.Amaldar for Abolition of Inams " P-4 certified copy of grant order issued by Spl.Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, Bangalore.
" P-5 certified copy of endorsement issued by Spl.Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, Bangalore dated 18.10.1960. " P-6 Eco Doppler Study Report of Annaiappa " p.7 resident report issued by NIMHANS " p.8 investigation report of Annaiappa issued by Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology. " p.9 Report issued by Dr.K.Muneer Ahamed of Annaiahappa.
" p.10 Report issued by RAGAVS Diagnostic Center of Annaiappa.
" p.11 OPD Registration chit issued by Jayadev Institute of Cardiology. " p.12 Report issued by Jayadev Institute of Cardiology " p.13 Receipt dated 23.4.2000 issued by NIMHANS " p.14 to 17 receipts dated 23.4.2004 issued by Jayadev Institute of Cardiology.
" p.18 death certificate of Annaiappa " p.19 death certificate of Pillamadamma. " p.20 office copy of letter issued by Annaiappa to
Revenue Inspector, Krishnarajapura.
" p.21 certified copy of partition deed dated
21.5.2003
" p.22 Registered sale deed
" p.23 to 36 RTCs
" p.37 certified copy of Settlement Akarabandh.
" p.38 extract of House Tax Assessment Register
" p.39 extract of House Tax Assessment Register
78 O.S.No.8051/2003
" p.40 to 62
photographs
" p.63 CD
" p.64 certified copy of gift deed dated 18.3.2010
" p.65 certified copy of power of attorney dated
20.1.1996
" p.66 certified copy of power of attorney dated
11.9.1997
" p.67 certified copy of the sale deed dated 7.3.2011
" p.68 certified copy of the sale deed dated 7.3.2011
" p.69 certified copy of the sale deed dated 25.4.2011
" p.70 to 72 certified copies of the sale deeds dated 7.3.2011 " p.73 extract of M.R.No.8/03-04. " p.74 certified copy of order dated 10.1.2012 passed in Writ petition 33079/2011 and 33624- 33625/2011.
" p.75 certified copy of order in Preliminary Issues
No. 8 & 9 passed in O.S.No. 3712/2002
" p.76 certified copy of sale deed dated 20.5.2005
" p.77 to 97 RTCs
" p.98 genealogical tree
" p.99 extract of M.R.No.2/2003-04.
" p.100 to RTCs
116
" p.117 certified copy of gift deed dated 18.3.2010
" p.118 conversion order issued by Spl.D.C., Bangalore
" p.119 final scrutiny note by Upalokayukta dated
21.10.2009
" p.120 certified copy of FIR of Cr.No.472/12
" p.121 certified copy of FIR of Cr.No.471/12
" p.122 certified copy of FIR of Cr.No.470/12
" p.123 certified copy of FIR of Cr.No.469/12
" p.124 to office copies of complaints given to Deputy 127 Commissioner dated 9.4.2012 " p.128 police notice dated 18.1.2013 " p.129 certified copy of order dated 211.2.2012 passed in CCC No.6/2012 " p.130 certified copy of order passed by D.C., in revision petition No.176/2004-05 " p.131 certified copy of order sheet 79 O.S.No.8051/2003 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS DW.1 Pillamadappa DW.2 Madhappa DW.3 P.Ramaiah DW.4 M.Krishnappa DW.5 K.P.Patalappa DW.6 K.Rajanna DW.7 R.Shankar LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS Exs.D-1 Certified copy of order on I.As No. 1 & 2 passed in O.S.No. 3647/2010 " D-2 Certified copy of the order passed by the D.C " D-3 Certified copy of order passed by Asst. Commissioner in R.A. No. 293/2003-04 " D-4 to 11 Photographs " D-12 & 13 RTCs in respect of Sy.nos.21 & 22 " D-14 to 16 A certified copy of plaint, written statement, order sheet of O.S.No. 8704/2001." D-17 RTC of Sy.No. 64
" D-18 Genealogical tree
" D-19 original partition deed dated
21.5.2003 along with B & C schedule
properties
" D-20 tax paid receipt
" D-21 original gift deed dated 18.3.2010
" D-22 original gift deed dated 18.3.2010
" D-23 original gift deed 21.5.2010
" D-24 original gift deed 21.5.2010
" D-25 original sale deed dated 11.1.1996
" D-26 original sale deed dated 6.1.1996
" D-27 original sale deed dated 3.10.1997
" D-28 original sale deed dated 10.5.1999
" D-29 original sale deed dated 10.5.1999
" D-30 original khata extract issued by the
80 O.S.No.8051/2003
CMC - K.R.Puram.
" D-31 to 33 Certified copies of the sale deeds " D-34 & 35 Khata extracts " D-36 t 39 tax demand register extracts " D-40 certified copy of order sheet in O.S.No. 3647/2010 " D-41 certified copy of order sheet O.S.No. 5319/2010.
" D-42 certified copy of plaint in O.S.No. 5319/2010.
" D-43 certified copy of written statement in O.S.No. 5319/2010.
" D-44 certified copy of judgment in O.S.No. 157/1997.
" D-45 certified copy of decree in O.S.No. 157/1997.
" D-46 certified copy of judgment in R.A.No. 20/2000 " D-47 certified copy of decree in R.A.No. 20/2000 " D-48 certified copy of judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.91/2006.
" D-49 certified copy of judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No. 1425/2011.
" D-50 certified copy of compromise petition filed before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No. 1425/2011. " D-51 certified copy of conversion orders in respect of the land bearing 412/1, 413/1 & 414/1.
" D-52 certified copy of conversion orders in respect of the land bearing 412/2, 413/2 & 414/2.
" D-53 certified copy of conversion orders in respect of the Sy.No. 416, 417, 418 &
419. " D-54 to 56 certified copy of Khata certificates " D-57 to 59 certified copy of tax demand registered extracts.81 O.S.No.8051/2003
" D-60 to 66 Tax paid receipts
" D-67 t o70 Certified copies of sale deeds
" D-71 to 80 extracts of RTC in respect of land
bearing Sy.No. 390.
" D-81 to 90 extracts of RTC in respect of land
bearing Sy.No. 391.
" D-91 to 98 extracts of RTC in respect of land
bearing Sy.No. 412.
" D-99 to 108 extracts of RTC in respect of land
bearing Sy.No. 414.
" D-109 to 118 extracts of RTC in respect of land
bearing Sy.No. 413.
" D-119 to 127 extracts of RTC in respect of land
bearing Sy.No. 416.
" D-128 to 137 extracts of RTC in respect of land
bearing Sy.No. 417.
" D-138 to147 extracts of RTC in respect of land
bearing Sy.No. 418.
" D-148 to 157 extracts of RTC in respect of land
bearing Sy.No. 419.
" D-158 to177 extracts of RTC in respect of land
bearing Sy.No. 423.
" D-178 to190 extracts of RTC in respect of land
bearing Sy.No. 424.
" D-191 to 206 extracts of RTC in respect of land
bearing Sy.No. 450.
" D-207 to217 extracts of RTC in respect of land
bearing Sy.No. 452.
" D- 218 to 225 extracts of RTC in respect of land
bearing Sy.No. 441.
" D-226 to 235 extracts of RTC in respect of land
bearing Sy.No. 139.
" D-236 to 245 extracts of RTC in respect of land
bearing Sy.No. 140.
" D-246 to 255` extracts of RTC in respect of land
bearing Sy.No. 109.
" D-256 to 264 extracts of RTC in respect of land
bearing Sy.No.112.
" D-265 to 272 extracts of RTC in respect of land
bearing Sy.No. 444.
" D-273 to 286 extracts of RTC in respect of land
82 O.S.No.8051/2003
bearing Sy.No.441.
" D-287 to 289 extracts of RTC in respect of land bearing Sy.No. 136.
" D-290 to 302 Extracts of RTC " D-303 to 307 mutation extracts. " D-308 genealogical tree issued by Village Account Horamavu Circle. " D-309 partition deed dated 21.5.2003 " D-310 partition deed dated 21.5.2003 " D-311 certified copy of order sheet in O.S.No. 8704/2001.
" D-312 certified copy of written statement filed by defendant No.1 & 2 of O.S.No. 8704/2001.
" D-313 certified copy of order sheet in O.S.No. 16140/2006.
" D-314 certified copy of amended plaint of O.S.No. 16140/2006.
" D-315 certified copy of compromise petition filed in of O.S.No. 16140/2006 with sketches " D-316 certified copy of final decree passed in O.S.No. O.S.No. 16140/2006 with sketches.
" D-317 to 21 printed marriage invitation cards
" D-322 & 323 RTCs
(RAVI M. NAIK),
I Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
83 O.S.No.8051/2003