Bangalore District Court
Spurthi vs B.C.Sarveswara on 6 August, 2022
1
OS No.3611/2017
KABC010132232017
IN THE COURT OF THE LXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-62)
Dated this the 06 th day of August, 2022
PRESENT :- SRI R.RAVI, B.Sc., LL.B.
LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangaluru City.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.3611/2017
Plaintiff/s : 1. Spurthi
D/o.Late Eshwara Chandra.S
Aged about 14 years
2. Sanchitha
D/o.Late Eshwara Chandra.S
Aged about 4 years
Since minors rep. by her mother
& natural Guardian
Smt.Kalpana,
W/o.Late Eshwara Chandra.S,
R/a. No.27, 1st Main
2nd Cross, CKC Garden,
Mission Road,
Bengaluru-560 027.
(By Sri.H.V.B.S.R., Advocate)
2
OS No.3611/2017
V/s.
Defendant/s : 1. B.C.Sarveswara
S/o.Late.B.P. Chandrashekar
Chetty
Aged about 72 years
R/a.Flat No.707
B1 Block, SNNRAJ Serenity
Begur Koppa Main Road
Yelenahalli Village
Bengaluru-560 068.
2. Smt.Sudha.S
D/o.B.C.Sarveswara
W/o.Eshwar.N
Aged about 36 years
R/a.Flat No.707
B1 Block, S Raj Serenity
Begur Koppa Main Road
Yelenahalli Village
Bengaluru-560 068.
3 The Commissioner,BBMP
Bengaluru.
Date of institution
of the suit : 02.06.2017
Nature of the suit
[suit on pronote, suit
for declaration and
possession, suit
for injunction] : PARTITION
Date of the commencement
of recording of the evidence : 20.09.2019
3
OS No.3611/2017
Date on which the
Judgment was pronounced : 06.08.2022
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : -05- -02- -04-
J UD GM E N T
This is a suit one filed by the plaintiffs against the
defendants for the relief of partition of the Schedule A to D
properties and direct the defendants to give 1/3rd share in
the suit schedule properties by dividing the suit schedule
properties by metes and bounds and put the plaintiffs into
the separate possession of the schedule properties and to
declare that gift deed dt.22.03.2017 registered in the office of
the Sub-Registrar, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru executed by the
first defendant in favour of the second defendant is not
binding on the plaintiffs share and as such it is to be declared
as null and void and to direct the 3 rd defendant not to
consider the request of the defendant Nos.1 & 2 for sanction
of the plan on the basis of the forged and fabricated document
called as gift deed and directing the defendants to pay the
costs of the suit and to grant such other reliefs.
4
OS No.3611/2017
SCHEDULE-A
(Entire Property-Composite)
Item No.1:-
All that piece and parcel of property bearing Municipal
No.65, 65/1 & 66, situated at 4 th Cross Road, Lalbagh Road,
Bengaluru, within the revenue and administrative jurisdiction
of BBMP, measuring East to West : 50 ft., and North to
South : 24 ft. and East to West : 29 ft., and North to South :
24 ft., on the eastern side situated on northern side & east to
West : 50 ft., and North to South : 90 ft., on the Northern
side, bounded on the :
East by : Private Property
West by : Road
North by : Property of D.B.Veerabhadrappa
South by : Road
Item No.2:-
All that piece and parcel of Northern portion of property
bearing No.50, Old No.41/50, Later 41, situated at 4 th Cross
Road, Lalbagh Road, Bengaluru within the revenue and
administrative jurisdiction of BBMP measuring East to West :
76 ft., and North to South : 27 ft., bounded on the ;
East by : Road
West by : Private Property
5
OS No.3611/2017
North by : Private Property
South by : Property of B.C.Umamaheshwar
SCHEDULE-B
All that piece & parcel of site No.5/1, PID No.48-37-
50/1, carved out of schedule A property situated at 4 th Cross
Road, Lalbagh road, Bengaluru, within the revenue and
administrative jurisdiction of BBMP measuring East to West :
76 ft., and North to South : 27 ft., in all measuring 2052 sq.
ft. bounded on :
East by : 25 ft., Road
West by : Private Property
North by : Private Property
South by : Private Property
SCHEDULE-C
All that piece & parcel of site No.65/1, PID No.48-37-65-
1, carved out of Schedule A Property situated at 4 th Cross
road, Lalbagh Road, Bengaluru, within the revenue and
administrative jurisdiction of BBMP measuring East to West :
50 ft., and North to South : 43.6 ft., in all measuring 2175 sq.
ft. bounded on :
East by : Private Property
West by : 25 ft., road
North by : Property No.65
6
OS No.3611/2017
South by : Property No.66/1
SCHEDULE-D
All that piece and parcel of Site No.65, PID No.48-37-65,
carved out of Schedule - A property situated at 4 th Cross
Road, lalbagh Road, Bengaluru within the revenue and
administrative jurisdiction of BBMP measuring East to West :
50 ft., and North to South : 43.6 ft., in all measuring 2175 sq.
ft.
2. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the grand
children of the first defendant. The plaintiffs are the children
of Eashwara Chandra.S. the son of the first defendant. The
first defendant son Eshwara Chandra.S. who was suffering
from kidney, liver, high BP problems and ultimately
succumbed to death on 22.10.2016 and during his life time,
the first defendant being the father of Eshwara Chandra.S.
who has inherited ancestral properties bearing No.65, 65/1 &
66, situated at 4th Cross Road, Lalbagh Road, Bengaluru,
measuring East to West 50 ft., and North to South 24 ft., and
East to West 28 ft., and North to South 24 ft., on the Eastern
side, morefully described in item No.1 of the schedule A
hereunder and hereinafter referred to as the Schedule 'A'
property and property bearing No.50, Old No.41, later 41/50,
situated at 4th Cross Road, Lalbagh Road, Bengaluru,
measuring East to West 76 ft., & North to South 27 ft., which
7
OS No.3611/2017
is morefully described as Item No.2 of the Schedule 'A'
hereunder and hereinafter referred to as the schedule 'A'
Property. The Schedule A to E properties belonging to Late
B.P.Chandrashekar Chetty along with his son
B.C.Umamaheswar and the first defendant and in the family
partition, the Schedule 'A' composite property i.e., A Schedule
property mentioned here under was fallen to the share of first
defendant in the partition deed dated 25.11.1983. Later on
the said Chandrashekar Chetty died intestate on 23.03.1984.
The composite 'A' Schedule property which is the ancestral
property which has come to the first defendant as aforesaid
under the partition and as such the first defendant has no
independent right of alienation of the said property without
taking into consideration the interest of the minors who are
his grand children. The partition deed was taken place
between the first defendant and Eshwara Chandra.S. i.e.,
father of the minor children and the second defendant. The
partition deed was done forcibly at the instance of first
defendant by taking plaintiffs father's signature who was
unwell and who was not in a sound state of mind and the first
defendant has made him to sign some documents called as
partition deed and partitioned the composite 'A' Property as
per the schedule B, C, D & E referred under the partition
deed dated 01.06.2016. The first defendant had no
independent and exclusive right to alienate, gift or transfer
the properties belonging to the family without the
8
OS No.3611/2017
concurrence of all the family members. When the son of the
first defendant Eshwara Chandra.S died, the first defendant
ought to have taken the participation of his daughter-in-law
i.e., Kalpana in the Gift Deed executed by the first defendant
in favour of the second defendant. As the first defendant has
failed to do so, the act of the first defendant in transferring
the property in any body's favour much less than in the name
of the second defendant does not bind the plaintiffs. The
second defendant taking advantage of the old age of the first
defendant has taken the first defendant to the registrar office
with the help of her husband and she has taken the Gift deed
from the first defendant. Neither the first defendant has right
to gift nor the second defendant had right to accept the same,
because the property in question under the gift is an
ancestral property along with the other properties & since the
schedule properties are purchased out of the family funds by
the forefathers of the first defendant, the plaintiffs have got
equal share in the schedule properties. As such the schedule
properties have to be partitioned by metes and bounds. The
plaintiffs are entitled to succeed in the suit in getting their
share in respect of the schedule properties and hence the
plaintiffs are constrained to file this suit.
3. On the other hand the defendant Nos.1 & 2 and
defendant No.3 have filed their separate written statement &
9
OS No.3611/2017
the defendant No.1 & 2 have contended in their written
statement that the subject matter of the suit revolves around
the partition of the inherited ancestral properties under a
registered Deed of Partition dated 01.06.2016 and subsequent
disposal of the property i.e., schedule "B" of the above suit,
allotted to the share of the first defendant in the said partition
and the first defendant acquired the schedule "B" property
under the partition which took place on 01.06.2016 and has
subsequently disposed of the said property and the same can
by no stretch of imagination be termed as the property
continuing to be either the ancestral property or the joint
family property. The first defendant had every right to dispose
of the properties allotted to his share under the partition
which took place on 01.06.2016 since the said property
became his self-acquired acquisition. Smt.Kalpana, the
mother and guardian of the minor plaintiffs has filed the
above suit due to her greed to grab more properties, if
possible, from out of the fairly partitioned properties amongst
the family members & taking advantage of unfortunate death
of Sri Eshwara Chandra, who is the son of the fist defendant
and to involve the properties that have fallen into the shares
of the first & Second defendants under partition into a
litigation in order to prevent them from developing the same
and to arm-twist them to give into her illegal demands. The
first defendant inherited the suit schedule properties as his
share through a partition deed dated 25.11.1983 which was
10
OS No.3611/2017
arrived at amongst his brothers. Thereafter the first defendant
his son, Eshwara Chandra.S. and daughter Smt.Sudha.S i.e.,
the Second defendant herein further partitioned amongst
themselves the inherited share of the first defendant i.e., the
suit schedule properties by mutual discussion and agreement
which was just, reasonable and fair. On the date of partition,
the first & second defendant & Eshwara Chandra.S. were all
physically and mentally hale and healthy and thereafter
subscribed their signatures to the deed of partition and got
the same registered. Subsequent there to each one of them
became absolute owners and in exclusive possession and
enjoyment of the properties allotted to their respective shares.
The first defendant out of his own free will and volition,
disposed the property allotted to his share by executing a
Deed of Gift in favour of his daughter i.e., the second
defendant herein. Since then the 2nd defendant has become
the absolute owner and is in exclusive possession and
enjoyment of the above said property. No one, let alone the
plaintiffs can neither claim any manner of right, title or
interest whatsoever nor possession in respect of the property
gifted in her favour by the first defendant. As stated supra the
first defendant partitioned his inherited property amongst
himself and his children i.e., Eshwara Chandra.S and the
second defendant in a just, reasonable and fair manner. In
fact the Late Eshwara Chandra got marginally more share
than the first and second defendants in the said partition.
11
OS No.3611/2017
Smt.Kalapan, the Widowed wife of Eshwara Chandra never
shared a cordial relationship with the family members of the
first & second defendants. She did not show any care or
respect to the first defendant despite the first defendant
showering all love and affection upon her. She was extremely
venomous not only against the first defendant but also
towards the other members of his family. The first defendant
who is being cared and looked after by his daughter i.e., the
second defendant herein, gifted to her the property which fell
into his share in the partition dated 01.06.2016 out of his
natural love and affection towards her and out of his free Will
and Volition, for the reason that the second defendant has
been taking care of all his needs and requirements as his
loving daughter by showering upon him all the love and
affection which any person who is in his advanced age is in
need of. The plaintiffs in order to build up their case have
made absolutely false allegations that the first defendant is in
old age as in to give an impression that he has impaired
mental and physical faculties and that he does not have
sound health and has bad hearing and eyesight etc., The first
defendant though is a senior citizen is hale and healthy and is
being looked after well by the second defendant. On receipt of
the legal notice from the plaintiffs the first defendant in fact
sworn to an affidavit that he has on his own volition without
any coercion or influence by any person in any manner, has
gifted the schedule-B property to his daughter i.e., the second
12
OS No.3611/2017
defendant herein and got the said document notarized as well
& accordingly prayed for dismissal of the plaintiff suit.
4. Where as Defendant No.3 in the written statement
contended that the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be
dismissed on the ground that for want of the statutory notice
under Section 482 of KMC Act to this defendant before filing
the suit. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not issued any notice as
mandatory before filing the suit & the plaintiffs have not come
to this Court with clean hands & they have suppressed the
material true affairs of the facts & the allegations against this
defendant is hereby denied, the suit of the plaintiffs is false,
frivolous and vexatious and the same is liable to be dismissed
against this defendant. There is no cause of action to arose to
the present suit against this defendant & the alleged one is
false & incorrect and the present court fee paid by the
plaintiffs to the suit is insufficient and not proper and
accordingly prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. On the basis of above pleadings of both the parties
one of my learned predecessor had framed seven issues on
30.03.2019 and since it is not at all the case of the plaintiff
that the partition deed dated 25.11.1983 is void & since at
para No.8 of their plaint the plaintiffs have duly admitted the
allotment of the suit schedule 'A' property to the defendant
13
OS No.3611/2017
No.1 in the above said partition deed dated 25.11.1983 then
acting under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC the said issue No.2 is
hereby deleted by me on this day and the said issues are
hereby reiterated as below;
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove
that 'A' schedule property is the
ancestral property of 1st
defendant?
2. Whether the plaintiffs further
prove that partition deed dated
25.11.1983 is void and not
binding on plaintiffs? (Is
deleted)
3. Whether the plaintiffs further
prove that the gift deed dated
22.03.2017 executed by 1st
defendant in favour of 2nd
defendant is void and not
binding on plaintiffs?
4. Whether the defendant No.3
prove the court fee paid is
insufficient?
5. Whether the defendant No.1 &
2 prove the court fee paid is
insufficient?
6. Whether the plaintiffs are
entitled for partition?
7. What order or decree?
14
OS No.3611/2017
6. And in order to prove the facts of the above issues
the mother & guardian of plaintiff No.1 & 2 got herself
examined as PW-1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.10 & also got marked Ex.D.1 during the course of cross-
examination of PW-1 and where as the defendant No.2 got
herself examined as DW-1 & got marked Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.6
and thereafter the matter was posted for arguments.
7. The plaintiffs and defendant No.3 have filed their
written arguments and I have heard the arguments of
defendant No.1 & 2 counsel and perused the materials placed
on record and my findings of the above issues are as under;
ISSUE No.1 : In the negative
ISSUE No.2 : Deleted
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 : As per final order, for
the following;
R E A S ON S
8. ISSUE No.1 & 3:- Since these issues are
interlinked with each other then they are hereby discussed
commonly in order to avoid repetition of facts.
15
OS No.3611/2017
9. In order to prove the facts of above issues, though the
mother and guardian of the plaintiff No.1 & 2 has got herself
examined as PW-1 and got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to 10,
the same do not hold any water as there is a lot of variance in
the pleadings and proof of the plaintiff that are placed on
record. Now let me examine them.
10. First of all though the plaintiffs have specifically
pleaded that the suit schedule 'A' to 'D' properties are the joint
family properties of themselves and the defendant No.1 & 2
and the alleged partition deed dated 01.06.2016 one entered
into by their father Sri Eshwar Chandra.S and defendant No.1
& 2 is not binding on them as their fathers' signature was
forcibly taken by the defendant No.1 & 2 and at that time their
father was unwell and not in a state of mind, the same once
again do not hold any water as the above facts are not at all
proved by the plaintiffs with cogent material evidence.
11. In order to prove the above facts though the mother
of the plaintiff No.1 & 2 has got herself examined as PW-1 and
got marked documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10, the same are of no
help to the case of the plaintiffs as admittedly the plaintiffs
have neither challenged the said partition deed dt.01.06.2016
one entered into between their father & defendant No.1 & 2 nor
even pleaded that the share allotted to their father Sri Eshwara
Chandra.S is not fair & correct in the said partition deed dated
16
OS No.3611/2017
01.06.2016.
12. And even other wise since the plaintiffs have neither
produced any medical documents of their father Sri Eshwara
Chandra.S nor even examined any witnesses to prove that
their father was not in a state of sound mind & his signature
was forcibly taken to the said partition deed dated 01.06.2016
and since the mother and guardian of the plaintiffs/PW-1 at
page No.2 of her cross-examination has clearly admitted that
'Though her husband was suffering from kidney problem still
the doctors have not at all prescribed any operation or dialysis'
& further admitted at page No.4 of her/PW-1 cross-
examination that 'during his lifetime her husband has not at
all filed any suit challenging the said partition deed of Ex.P.2
and so also the present plaintiffs have also not at all
questioned the said partition deed of Ex.P.2' & further admitted
at page No.5 & 6 of her/PW-1 cross-examination that 'she has
got entered a sale agreement dated 02.07.2018 in respect of 'C'
schedule property in favour of Sri.Purchand Jain and Sridhar
Jain and in the said sale agreement she has got written that
the said property has fallen to her husband share through the
partition deed of Ex.P.2 and thereafter she has sold the said
property to the above said persons for a total sale
consideration of Rs.1,02,00,000/- (Rupees One Crorer Two
Lakhs only)' and since in a ruling of AIR 1976 SC 163 and
2005 (5) AIR Karnataka 348 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of
17
OS No.3611/2017
India and so also our Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has
clearly held that 'Order VI Rule 4, Order VI Rule 2 - Plea of
undue influence, 'fraud'- mere use of words such as
'fraud' or collusion - insufficient - Order VI requires
pleading with specificity, particularity and precision -
plaint averments do not set out with reasonable precision,
particulars, so as to constitute the allegations of fraud
and misrepresentation by defendants- finding of trial
Court that the plaintiffs voluntarily executed deed of
partition, power of attorney - no interference' then it has to
be held in unequivocal terms that the suit schedule properties
have been fairly partitioned in between the father of the
plaintiffs and defendant No.1 & 2 through the registered
partition deed of Ex.P.2 & the said partition deed is also been
acted upon by the said parties and as such the plaintiffs have
no right to seek any further/fresh partition over the suit
schedule properties.
13. On the other hand the defendant No.1 & 2 by leading the
oral evidence of Defendant No.2 at DW-1 & further got marking the
document at Ex.D.1 in the cross-examination of the PW-1 and
further got marking other documents at Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.6 have
clearly rebutted the case of the plaintiffs and further proved that the
defendant No.1 has acquired the suit B Schedule property under the
above said admitted partition deed dated 01.06.2016 and thereafter
the defendant No.1 herein out of his own will and wish has
bequeathed the said property in favour of the defendant No.2
18
OS No.3611/2017
through a registered gift deed dated 22.03.2017 & as such the
plaintiffs have no right to question the same.
14. And since the plaintiffs have not at all elicited any thing
from the mouth of the said DW-1 and since the documentary
evidence of Ex.D.6 i.e., the orders passed on IA No.1 in OS
No.967/2019 (one filed by the mother & guardian of the plaintiff
against the defendant No.2 & 3) clearly shows that the plaintiffs
have no prima-facie case against the present case defendants in
respect of the suit schedule properties & since the mother and
guardian of the plaintiffs/PW-1 at page No.6 & 7 of her cross-
examination has clearly admitted that 'the defendant No.1 has
executed a gift deed in respect of suit B schedule property in favour
of defendant No.2 & as per the document of Ex.P.3 the khatha of the
same has been transferred in the name of defendant No.2 and she
has not at all challenged the said khatha and it is true that the
defendant No.1 has got absolute right to gift that property to the
defendant No.2' then it has to be once again held in unequivocal
terms that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove that the gift
deed dated 22.03.2017 one executed by the defendant No.1 in
respect of schedule B property in favour of defendant No.2 is void &
accordingly I have answered issue No.1 & 3 in the negative .
15. ISSUE No.4 & 5: Though these issues are raised on the
behest of the defendant No.1 to 3, the same do not hold any water
as the same are not at all proved by them with cogent material
evidence and hence I have answered the above issues in the
negative.
19
OS No.3611/2017
16. ISSUE No.6:- Since the plaintiffs have miserably failed to
prove that the suit schedule properties are still the joint family
properties of themselves and the defendant No.1 & 2 and further
failed to prove that the partition deed dated 01.06.2016 one entered
into by their father, defendant No.1 & 2 in respect of the suit
schedule property is not fair & correct and since the plaintiffs have
not at all challenged the said partition deed dated 01.06.2016 and
since the contesting defendant No.1 & 2 have clearly rebutted the
case of the plaintiffs that the above said partition deed dated
01.06.2016 is fair and duly acted upon by the concerned parties
then the plaintiffs are not at all entitled to the relief of partition and
separate possession over the suit schedule properties and
accordingly I have answered the issue No.6 in the negative.
17. ISSUE No.7:- In view of the discussion made on
issue No.1, 3 to 6 and further holding issue No.1, 3 to 6 in the
negative, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiffs for the relief of partition, separate possession and declaration against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule properties is hereby dismissed.
Inview of the pecuniar circumstances the parties are hereby directed to bear their own 20 OS No.3611/2017 cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 06 th day of August, 2022).
(R.RAVI) LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
A NN E X U R E I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
PW-1 : Kalpana
b) Defendant's side:
DW-1 : Smt.Sudha.S
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P.1 : Death Certificate of husband of PW-1
Ex.P.2 : C.C. of partition
Ex.P.3 : C.C. of gift deed dt.22.03.2017
Ex.P.4 : Copy of application submitted to BBMP
Ex.P.5 : Copy of Another application submitted to
Asst. Director of Town Planning 21 OS No.3611/2017 Ex.P.6 : Copy of Notice issued to BBMP Ex.P.7 : Copy of Notice issued to Defendant No.1 & 2 Ex.P.8 : Copy of reply notice issued by defendant Advocate Ex.P.9 : C.C. of plan sanction in the name of the plaintiff Ex.P.10 : Letter issued to BBMP
b) defendants side :
Ex.D.1 : Khatha Extract
Ex.D.2 : C.C. of Order Sheet of OS No.967/2019
Ex.D.3 : C.C. of Plaint in OS No.967/2019
Ex.D.4 : C.C. of Written statement in OS
No.967/2019
Ex.D.5 : C.C. of application under Order XXXIX Rule
1 & 2 R/w. 151 of CPC in OS No.967/2019 Ex.D.6 : C.C. of the order passed in OS No.967/2019 dated 20.08.2019 (R.RAVI) LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
22OS No.3611/2017 06.08.2022 P-HVBSR D1-CVN D2-CVN D3-SM JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT VIDE SEPARATE TYPED ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs for the relief of partition, separate 23 OS No.3611/2017 possession and declaration against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule properties is hereby dismissed.
Inview of the pecuniar
circumstances the parties are
hereby directed to bear their own cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(R.RAVI) LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
24OS No.3611/2017 SCHEDULE
1. All that piece and parcel of immovable property being 16 guntas of land in former Re-survey No.23/1, situated at Akkithimmanahalli, now known as Shanthinagar, Bengaluru 560 027, including constructions there on and the same is bounded on the ;
East by : Government Lane
West by : Motappa's property
North by : Nallapullappa's land
South by : Thathayi Gundappa's property
2. All that piece and parcel of immovable property measuring 40 ft. X 40 ft. including the construction thereon, situated within the Gamatana limits of Sarabande Palya, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk and the same is bounded on the;
East by : Venkatamma's property West by : Remaining property of A.Ramaswamy North by : Subramanyapura Road South by : Thimmaiah's Property and Vacant Space
3. All that piece and parcel of immovable property bearing Old Municipal No.80, New No.83, measuring East to West 19¼ feet and North to South 25¾ feet including constructions thereon, situate at Akkithimmanahalli Uttaregowda Street, now known as Shanthinagar, Bengaluru 25 OS No.3611/2017 within BBMP limits and the same is bounded on the;
East by : Motappa, son of Appanans property
West by : Government Lane
North by : Uttaregowda Street
South by : Bellanduru Muniyamma &
Motappa's Properties
4. All that piece and parcel of immovable property measuring east to west 92 ft., and north to south 691/2 ft. bearing site No.35/3, situated at Bangiyappa Garden, (Bangiyappa Street) now Shanthinagar, Bengaluru-560 027, including the structures thereon and the same is bounded on the;
East by : Lakshmi road, 5th Cross,
West by : C.I.T.B. Road
North by : Nallapullappa's Properties
South by : Unnikrishnan Road
SCHEDULE 'B'
1. One Gold Chain of 220 gms
2. Gold three string cycle chain of 72 gms
3. Five Silver Tumblers weighing about 207 gms
4. Silver soap box weighing about 100 gms.
5. Silver Dab weighing about 150 gms All the articles shown in schedule 'B' are in the custody of the defendants No.1 & 2 26 OS No.3611/2017 The market value of the suit schedule properties are estimated at Rs.8 Crores and the plaintiffs share therein works out to Rs.1 Crore.