Bangalore District Court
Anusuya vs Krishna Reddy K.T on 22 November, 2025
KABC0A0016822013
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL
BENGALURU, (CCH-73)
Present:
Sri. Sreepada N.,
B.Com., L.L.M.,
LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 22nd day of November 2025.
O.S.No.25714/2013
Plaintiff:- Smt. Anusuya,
Wife of Guruva Reddy,
Aged about 47 years,
Residing at No.94,
8th Block, Koramangala Village,
Bangalore-560 095.
[By Sri. V.S. Narayana - Adv.]
-VS-
Defendants:- 1. Sri. K.T. Krishna Reddy,
Son of Late Thimma Reddy,
Aged about 71 years,
Residing at Flat No.301 & 304,
4th Floor, S.V.'s Ring View,
Swadham Society, Anugraha Layout,
2nd Cross, Akash Nagar,
B. Nagarayanapura,
Bangalore-560 016.
2 OS No.25714/2013
Since deceased represented by his
LR's
1(a) Smt. Parvathamma,
Wife of Late K.T. Krishna Reddy,
Aged about 60 years,
Residing at Flat No.301 & 304,
4th Floor, S.V.'s Ring View,
Swadham Society, Anugraha Layout,
2nd Cross, Akash Nagar,
B. Nagarayanapura,
Bangalore-560 016.
2. Sri. K.T. Jayaram Reddy,
Son of Late Thimma Reddy,
Aged about 65 years,
Residing at No.25, 'Eshwara Nilaya',
13th Cross, C.V. Raman Nagar Post,
Kaggadasapura, Bangalore-560 093.
3. Sri. K.T. Narayan Reddy,
Son of Late Thimma Reddy,
Aged about 60 years,
Residing at 19th 'C' Cross,
Kaggadasapura Extension,
C.V. Raman Nagar,
Bangalore-560 093.
4. Sri. K.T. Nagaraj Reddy,
Son of Late Thimma Reddy,
Aged about 55 years,
Residing at No.260/2-C, BBMP No.70,
6th Cross, Kaggadasapura Extension,
C.V. Raman Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560 093.
5. Sri. K.T. Prasanna Kumar,
Son of Late Thimma Reddy,
3 OS No.25714/2013
Aged about 46 years,
Residing at No.119, 19th Main,
Kaggadasapura Extension,
C.V. Raman Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560 093.
6. Smt. Rathnamma,
Wife of Late Thimma Reddy,
Residing at No.119, 19th Main,
Kaggadasapura Extension,
Bangalore-560 093.
7. Smt. Gajalakshmi,
Wife of Late K.T. Srinivasa Reddy,
Aged about 46 years,
Residing at 29th Cross, Balaji Layout,
Kaggadasapura Extension,
C.V. Raman Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560 093.
8. Sri. M. Manjunath,
Son of Late K.T. Srinivasa Reddy,
Aged about 33 years,
9. Sri. Chandrashekar,
Son of Late K.T. Srinivasa Reddy,
Aged about 32 years,
Since deceased represented by his
LR's.
9(a) Smt. Sunitha,
Wife of Late Chandrashekar,
Aged about 33 years,
9(b) Kum. Manuhamsini,
Daughter of Late Chandrashekar,
Aged about 05 years,
4 OS No.25714/2013
9(c) Kum. Manasvini,
Daughter of Late Chandrashekar,
Aged about 03 years,
9(b) and 9(c) since minors
Represented by Natural Guardian
Mother viz.,
Proposed Defendant No.9(a).
10. Smt. Shilpa,
Daughter of Late K.T. Srinivasa Reddy,
Aged about 26 years,
All Residing at 29th Cross,
Balaji Layout,
Kaggadasapura Extension,
C.V. Raman Nagar,
Bangalore-560 093.
11. Smt. Shanthamma,
Wife of Muni Reddy,
Daughter of Late Thimma Reddy,
Aged about 58 years,
Residing Koodlue Village,
Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore District.
12. Smt. Vijayalakshmi,
Wife of Nanja Reddy,
Daughter of Late Thimma Reddy,
Aged about 66 years,
Residing at Mallasandra,
Hosur, Dharmapuri District,
Tamil Nadu.
13. Smt. Ambuja,
Wife of Babu Reddy,
Daughter of Late Thimma Reddy,
5 OS No.25714/2013
Aged about 49 years,
Residing at Muthsandra Village,
Anugondanahalli Hobli,
Hoskote Taluk,
Bangalore Rural.
14. Smt. Bharathi,
Wife of Sri. Manjunath Reddy,
Aged about 33 years,
Residing at No.404, 8th Cross,
Muneekolalu,
Marath Halli Post,
Bangalore-560 037.
15. Smt. Bhavya,
Wife of Sri. Janardhan Reddy,
Daughter of Late Jayalakshmi,
Aged about 30 years,
Residing at No.87, 3rd Street,
Murugesh Palya,
Air Port Road,
Bangalore-560 017.
16. Roopa,
Daughter of Late Jayalakshmi,
Aged about 26 years,
No.271, 9th Cross,
Vishwapriya Nagar,
Begur, Bangalore-560 068.
17. Smt. Deepashree,
Daughter of Late Jayalakshmi,
Wife of Sri. Raghurama Reddy,
Aged about 24 years,
Residing at No.5, 10th Cross,
Sarakki, J.P. Nagara,
Bangalore-560 078.
6 OS No.25714/2013
18. Smt. Veena,
Wife of Sri. Ravindra Reddy,
Daughter of Sri. K.T. Krishna Reddy,
Aged about 30 years,
Residing at Flat No.101,
2nd Floor, S.V's Ring View,
Giridhama, Anugraha Layout,
2nd Cross, Akash Nagar,
B. Narayanapura,
Bangalore-560 016.
19.Sri. Naveen Krishna Reddy
@ K. Naveen,
Son of Sri. K.T. Krishna Reddy,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at Flat No.301 & 304,
4th Floor, S.V's Ring View,
Swadham Society,
Anugraha Layout,
2nd Cross, Akash Nagar,
B. Narayanapura,
Bangalore-560 016.
20. Smt. Nagarathna S. Murthy,
Wife of Sri. H.S. Sridhar Murthy,
Residing at No.848, 1st Main,
1st Block, HAL 3rd Stage,
Bangalore-560 075.
21. M/s Geethanjali Education
Society (R),
A Registered Society having its
Office at No.844, 1st Main,
1st Block, HAL III Stage,
Bangalore-560 075.
Represented by its Chairman,
Sri. H.S. Sridhar Murthy,
Aged about 53 years,
Son of Late Seetharamaiah,
7 OS No.25714/2013
Residing at No.848, 1st Main,
1st Block, HAL III Stage,
Bangalore-560 075.
22. Sri. V. Suresh,
Son of Late Venkataramaiah,
Aged about 38 years,
Residing at No.65,
A. Narayanapura,
D.V. Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560 016.
23. Sri. N. Raghuram Reddy,
Son of Late Ningappa Reddy,
Aged about 31 years,
Residing at No.8,
Venkateshwara Nilaya,
PWD Road, B. Narayanapura,
D.V. Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560 016.
24. Sri. R. Jayaraman,
Son of Late Ramaswamy Raju,
Aged about 64 years,
Residing at No.54,
West Street,
Thirukoilur,
Vilupuram District,
Tamil Nadu - 605 757.
25. M/s ARRCONS Builders &
Developers,
A Partnership Firm,
Having its office at No.3,
1st Floor, Nanjappa Reddy Layout,
2nd Cross, Kaggadasapura,
C.V. Raman Nagar,
Bangalore-560 093.
8 OS No.25714/2013
Represented by its Managing Partner,
Mr. M. Anil Kumar Reddy.
26. M/s V.S. Builders,
A Proprietorship Firm,
Having its office at Flat No.501,
Keerthi Residency,
Pai Layout, Doorvani Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560 016.
Represented by its Proprietor,
Mr. B. Srikanth.
27. M/s R and D Constructions,
Having its office at No.6 and 7,
4th Cross, Abbaish Reddy Layout,
C.V. Raman Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560 093.
Represented by its Partners,
1. Sri. G.M. Ramakrishna Reddy,
Son of Late Narishma Reddy,
Aged about 55 years,
2. Smt. Latha M. Reddy,
Wife of K.V.M. Reddy,
Aged about 41 years,
3. Sri. M. Nagaraja Reddy,
Son of Sri. Muni Reddy,
Aged about 56 years,
28. M/s Prime Builders and
Developers,
Having its office at No.153,
New Thippasandra Main Road,
Bangalore-560 075.
Represented by its Managing Partners,
9 OS No.25714/2013
1. Sri. S. Jayachandra Reddy,
Son of Sri. Nagi Reddy,
Aged about 40 years,
2. Sri. Prakash Naidu,
Son of Sri. Rajagopal Naidu,
Aged about 37 years,
29. Mrs. Nayana Sagar,
Wife of Sri. Yogesh Sagar,
Aged about 56 years,
Residing at No.806/2 "A"
Vinayaka Complex,
New Thippasandra Main Road,
Bangalore-560 075.
30. Mr. Amul K. Brahmbhath,
Son of Mr. Kanu Bhai,
Aged about 47 years,
Residing at No.806/2 "A"
Vinayaka Complex,
New Thippasandra Main Road,
Bangalore-560 075.
31. Sri. G. Shanmugam,
Son of Sri. Gopal,
Aged about 50 years,
Residing at No.30,
8th Cross, Vignana Nagar,
Near Thippasandra Post,
Bangalore-560 075.
32. Smt. N. Sudha,
Daughter of K.T. Narayan Reddy,
Aged about 28 years,
Residing at No.257,
19th Cross, Opp. Railway Gate,
Kaggadasapura,
C.V. Raman Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560 093.
10 OS No.25714/2013
33. Sri. B. Shivaraja,
Son of Sri. K. Bhaskaran,
Aged about 60 years,
Residing at No.80 'Nidhi',
Bhoomi Reddy Layout,
New Thippasandra,
Bangalore-560 075.
34. Mr. Hanchate Krishna Kumar,
Son of Mr. Hanchate Srinivas Rao,
Aged about 35 years,
Residing at No.302,
2nd Floor, Residency Flat,
4th Cross, Aiyappa Layout,
Marathalli Post,
Bangalore-560 037.
35. Mr. P. Subramanyam,
Son of Palaniswamy,
Aged about 57 years,
Residing at No.126,
Kondappa Layout,
Near Geethanjali School,
Kaggadasapura,
Bangalore-560 093.
36. Sri. Kishore.S.
Son of Sri. Subbarayalu,
Aged about 30 years,
37. Sri. Bharatwaj.S.
Son of Sri. Subbarayalu,
Aged about 32 years,
Both residing at No.57/124,
Vallalar Nagar, Pondy Road,
E.B.Back Side, Tindivanam,
Chennai-604002.
11 OS No.25714/2013
38. Sri. Mahenteshaiah,
Son of Sri. Hanumanthappa,
Aged about 46 years,
Residing at No.16,
"Navodaya",
Nandanavanam "D" Cross,
Ulsoor,
Bangalore-560 008.
39. Smt. Chandrakala,
Wife of Sri. Mahenteshaiah,
Aged about 36 years,
Residing at No.16,
"Navodaya",
Nandanavanam "D" Cross,
Ulsoor,
Bangalore-560 008.
40. Sri. G.S. Manoj Kumar,
Son of Govindan Kutti Nair,
Aged about years,
Residing at Flat No.302,
S.R. Regency, Maruthi Nagar,
Malleshpalya Extn.,
Bangalore-560 075.
41. Smt. K. Bhagyalakshmi,
Wife of Sri. K.V. Rajashekara,
Residing at No.17, 3rd Cross,
Kodihalli Ring Side Main Road,
Kodihalli, Bangalore-560 008.
42. Mr. Samson.S,
Son of Sri. Sam Willson Das,
Aged about 35 years,
Residing at No.113/3,
1st Main, 1st Cross,
Malleshpalya,
Bangalore-560 075.
12 OS No.25714/2013
43. Mr. Anish Jose
Puthukulangara,
Son of Mr. Jose Puthukulangara,
Aged about 38 years,
Residing at No.26,
Kuvempu Road,
Vignana Nagar,
Bangalore-560 075.
44. Sri. Sekar,
Son of Shankarvarthy Pillai,
Aged about 39 years,
Residing at
Kondappa Layout,
Near Geethanjali School,
Kaggadaspura,
Bangalore-560 093.
45. Mr. Andrews Netlas,
Son of Mr. Susayyah,
Aged about years,
Residing at No.29,
"Aradhana" 3rd Cross,
Anugraha Layout,
Akash Nagar,
B. Narayanapura,
Bangalore-560 016.
46. Mr. Sevtappa,
Son of Mr. Govindan,
Aged about 51 years,
Residing at No.669,
5th "A" Cross,
New Thippasandra,
Bangalore-560 075.
47. Mr. Elumalai,
Son of Manickam Pillai,
13 OS No.25714/2013
Aged about 41 years,
Residing at
Kondappa Layout,
Near Geethanjali School,
Kaggadaspura,
Bangalore-560 093.
48. Mrs. Saramma Joseph,
Wife of M.D. Joseph,
Aged about
Residing at No.30,
"Anugraha" Vishwajith Layout,
Vignana Nagar,
Bangalore-560 075.
49. Mr. Sasikanta Parida,
Son of Sri. Golak Chandra Parida,
Aged about 57 years,
Residing at No.12,
Sai Arpan, Anjeneya Temple Road,
Byrasandra,
C.V. Raman Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560 093.
50. Smt. K.P. Kamalam,
Wife of Late C. Sridharan,
Aged about 65 years,
Represented by her GPA Holder
Sri. C. Pramod,
Son of Sri. Gopalan,
Residing at No.153, 5th Cross,
Siddapura,
Jayanagar 1st Block,
Bengaluru-560 011.
[Sri. M.M. Poonacha - Adv., for D.1(a)
& 18, Sri. A. Subramanya Prasad -
Adv., for D.2, Sri. M.R. Muralidhara -
Adv., for D.3 & 5, Sri. R. Jagadish
14 OS No.25714/2013
Prasad - Adv., for D.4, Sri. K.G.
Sadashivaiah - Adv., for D.7, 8 & 10,
Sri. H.S. Chandraiah - Adv., for D.12,
Sri. Manjunath Reddy - Adv., for D.14
to 17 & 23, Sri. G.S. Srinivas - Adv.,
for D.19, Sri. B.N. Jayadeva - Adv.,
for D.20 & 21, Sri. G. Veerendra Babu
- Adv., for D.28, Sri. H.M. Divakar -
Adv., for D.33, Sri. M. Sandesh Kumar
- Adv., for D.33 to 35, 41, 42, 44, 45
& 47, Sri. Ashivin Patil - Adv., for
D.49, Sri. R.B. Sadashivappa - Adv.,
for D.50]
[Ex-Parte - D.6, D.11, D.13],
[Abated - D.9],
[Absent - D.22, D.24 to D.27, D.29 to
D.32, D.36 to D.40, D.43, D.46, D.48]
Date of Institution of the suit 25.4.2013
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit
for declaration and possession, suit Partition Suit
for injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of
19.9.2019
recording of the Evidence.
Date on which the Judgment was
22.11.2025
pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration 12 06 27
LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
Mayohall Unit: Bengaluru.
15 OS No.25714/2013
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants for partition and separate possession of her share in the Suit Schedule Properties by metes and bounds and to put her in exclusive possession of the same and also to hold an enquiry to decide the mesne profits as contemplated under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC and to direct the Defendants to pay cost of the suit and for other consequential reliefs.
2. The case of the Plaintiff, sans details, is that:
(i) One Thimma Reddy was the propositus of the Plaintiff and Defendants who has six sons and five daughters viz., K.T. Srinivas Reddy (Dead), K.T. Krishna Reddy (Defendant No.1), K.T. Jayarama Reddy (Defendant No.2), K.T. Nagaraj Reddy (Defendant No.4), K.T. Narayana Reddy (Defendant No.3), K.T. Prasanna Reddy (Defendant No.5) and Smt. Shanthamma (Defendant No.11), Smt. Vijayalakshmi (Defendant No.12), Smt. Jayalakshmi (Dead), Smt. Anusuya (Plaintiff) and Smt. Ambuja (Defendant No.13).16 OS No.25714/2013
(ii) Sri. Thimma Reddy died intestate leaving behind the Plaintiff and Defendants to succeed to his estate. Sri. K.T. Srinivasa Reddy died leaving behind his wife and children i.e., Defendant No.7 to 10. Smt. Jayalakshmi died leaving behind her children i.e., Defendant No.14 to 17.
(iii) The Defendant No.20 is claimed to be purchaser of the one of the Suit Schedule Properties.
The Defendant No.21 represented by Sri. H.S. Sridhar Murthy, none other than the husband of Defendant No.20, claimed to have leased hold rights in respect of one of the Suit Schedule Properties. The Plaintiff has produced the Genealogical tree depicting and portraying lineal descendants of Late Thimma Reddy, Defendant No.18 & 19 are the children of Late Thimma Reddy, the Defendant No.1, 18 & 19 have executed Partition Deed partitioning the land bearing Sy.No.14, behind the back of the Plaintiff on 25.3.2006. The alleged Partition Deed is not binding on the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff is not the signatory to the said Partition Deed.
17 OS No.25714/2013(iv) Late Thimma Reddy, purchased number of landed properties in Kaggadasapura Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, during his lifetime he owned and possessed the following Suit Schedule Properties:
Sl.
Sy.No. Extent
No.
1. 100 23 Guntas
2. 101 21 Guntas
3. 164 20 Guntas
4. 32 10 Guntas
5. 59 1 Acre 7 Guntas
6. 60 1 Acre 3 Guntas
7. 61 1 Acre 2 Guntas
8. 14 4 Acres 19 Guntas
9. 15 3 Acres 25 Guntas
10. 217 13 Guntas
(v) During his lifetime Thimma Reddy was cultivating the land and it was in his possession and enjoyment. The said landed property came to be devolved on the Plaintiff and Defendants after the lifetime of Thimma Reddy and he was governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law. The Suit Schedule Properties are the ancestral property and the Plaintiff and Defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. There is no partition of the Suit Schedule 18 OS No.25714/2013 Properties between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.
The Plaintiff succeed to the property left behind by her father and she is entitled for 1/12th share in the Suit Schedule Properties.
(vi) On enquiry the Plaintiff came to know that the Defendant No.20 has claimed to have acquired interest in the land bearing Sy.No.14/3, one of the Suit Schedule Properties by virtue of some Sale Deed in 2003 said to have been executed by the 2 nd Defendant herein. The said property is a vacant land and the Defendant No.20 yet to take possession of the property and he has created revenue documents in respect of the said property. The Plaintiff is not a party to any of the Sale Deeds and the said Sale Deeds are not binding on the share of the Plaintiff. The Suit Schedule Properties are agricultural lands and are in joint possession and enjoyment of the Plaintiff and Defendants. The Defendant No.20 is trying to take possession of the said land and attempting to interfere with the possession of the Plaintiff. The Sale Deed dtd: 18.6.2003 said to have been executed by Defendant No.2 in favour of 19 OS No.25714/2013 Defendant No.20 has not been acted upon as the same is not binding on the share of the Plaintiff.
(vii) Further stated that on 15.11.2007 the Plaintiff demanded the Defendants for partition the Suit Schedule Properties and to put the Plaintiff in separate possession of her share, but the Defendants have postponed to do so. The Defendants on the basis of some alleged Partition Deed said to have been executed among themselves behind the back of the Plaintiff and she is not party to the alleged Partition Deed. The Plaintiff has produced RTC/s in respect of Sy.Nos.14/1, 14/2, 14/3, 14/4, 14/5, 14/6, 15/1, 15/2, 59, 60, 61, 100/1, 101/1, 164, 32/14, 217. The LRs of Jayalakshmi i.e., Defendant No.14 to 17 have filed a suit for partition and possession of their shares in O.S.No.25064/2008 on the file of this Court and in the said suit the Plaintiff is arrayed as Defendant No.12. When the suit is pending for consideration, the Defendant No.14 to 17 have entered into compromise and withdrawn the suit on 19.3.2013 without even notifying the Plaintiff and other Defendants, which constrained the Plaintiff to institute the present suit. The Defendants are 20 OS No.25714/2013 making hectic efforts to alienate the Suit Schedule Properties in order defeat the legitimate share of the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff has approached this Court to decree the suit.
3. Pursuant to summons, the Defendants No.1 to 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14 to 21, 23, 28, 33 to 35, 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 49 & 50 have entered appearance through their counsels. The Defendant No.1 abated and his legal heirs are brought on record as Defendant No.1(a). The Defendant No.6 & 13 remained absent, hence, they were placed ex-parte and the Defendant No.22, 24 to 27, 29 to 32, 36 to 40, 43, 46, 48 remained absent. The Defendant No.1 to 5, 8 & 10, 14, 19, 20, 49 and 50 have filed their separate written statements.
4. The Defendant No.1 in his written statement admitted the relationship between the parties and the Defendant No.18 and 19 are the daughter and son of this Defendant and specifically denied the plaint averments and contended that Thimma Reddy the acquisition of Suit Schedule Properties and the Defendant No.1 to 19 have entered into Partition Deed on 25.3.2003 in respect of property bearing 21 OS No.25714/2013 Sy.No.14/2 and the 1st Defendant got his share in the land bearing survey number 14/2 under the Partition Decree granted by the Civil Court in O.S.No.10563/1983 and the khatha of the same transferred in the name of 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property. The properties mentioned by the Plaintiff in the plaint are not acquired by Late Thimma Reddy and the survey numbers are different. The Sale Deed of the year 2003 executed in favour of Defendant No.20 is not within the knowledge of this Defendant. The land bearing Sy.No.14 has been allotted to the Defendant No.2 as his share under the Partition Decree passed in O.S.No.10563/1983 and the Plaintiff was one of the party in the said Partition Decree and on 18.3.1987 she has prayed the Court to delete her name as one of the Defendant on the ground of compromise between the Plaintiff and Defendants in the said suit, hence, the Plaintiff is not entitled for 1/2th share in the Suit Schedule Property as claimed by her in this suit. After the Partition Decree passed in O.S.No.10563/1983 this Defendant was allotted 1 Acre 14 ½ Guntas in Sy.No.14, New Sy.No.14/2 and 22 OS No.25714/2013 1 Acre 4 Guntas in Sy.No.59 and the revenue records were entered in the name of 1st Defendant. Thereafter, the Partition Deed dtd: 25.3.2006 has been executed amongst this Defendant and his children i.e., Defendant No.18 & 19 respectively. Further in terms of the said partition dtd: 25.3.2006 he has retained 14 ½ Guntas in Sy.No.14 and the Defendant No.18 has been allotted 20 Guntas and Defendant No.19 has been allotted 20 Guntas. This Defendant from the date of its allotment of 20 Guntas in Sy.No.14 is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Further, admitted that the Defendant No.14 to 17 have filed suit for partition and possession of their shares in O.S.No.25064/2008 and the same was compromised and the Plaintiff herein being the Defendant No.12 in the said suit has not opposed the compromise entered between the Defendant No.14 to 17 and the Plaintiff. Further stated that the court fee paid by the Plaintiff is improper and insufficient and the suit is barred by law of limitation, since all the parties acted upon as per the Decree passed in O.S.No.10563/1983. The suit is barred by law of limitation. The Plaintiff is not entitled to any reliefs as 23 OS No.25714/2013 sought by her in this suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary cost.
5. The Defendant No.2 in his written statement specifically denied the plaint averments and contended that Late Thimmareddy acquired various properties of agricultural lands. After his demise, his male and female children, grand children succeeded to the estate of Thimmareddy. In the year 1983 the 2nd Defendant who is his third son has filed a suit in O.S.No.10563/1983 claiming his share out of various properties. During the pendency of the said suit the daughters of Late Thimmareddy i.e., Smt. K.T. Vijaya, Smt. Shanthamma and Smt. K.T. Anusuya i.e., the Plaintiff have made an application to implead themselves as proposed Defendants in the said suit and the said application was allowed and they arrayed as Defendant 8, 9 and 10. Later they compromised in the said suit by taking their shares in the Suit Schedule Properties. In the year 2008, the Defendant No.14 to 17 of this suit Smt. Bharathi, Smt. Bavya, Smt. Roopa and Smt. Deepashree who are the daughters of Late Jayalakshmi one of the daughter of Thimmareddy have filed similar suit for 24 OS No.25714/2013 partition in O.S.No.25064/2008 against this Defendant and other Defendants claiming their share form the properties acquired by Late Thimmareddy. The present Plaintiff arrayed as Defendant No.12 in the said suit. Later the said suit was withdrawn by the Plaintiff of this suit, as the parties have compromised the Suit Schedule Properties on 19.3.2013. The Suit Schedule Properties existed in the year 1983 are now changed its nature and character from agricultural land and the properties acquired by Late Thimmareddy merged with Corporation limits and became commercial land. The suit filed by the Plaintiff is most frivolous and vexatious one, not only the present suit is frivolous one, the Plaintiff being a party by impleading herself in O.S.No.10563/1983 and O.S.No.25064/2008, suppressed the material facts and played fraud on the Court and against this Defendant. The Plaintiff also abused the process of this Court. The suit filed by the Plaintiff is bad in law and on facts. The suit is barred by law of limitation. The court fee paid by the Plaintiff is undervalued and there is no merits in the above suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary cost.
25 OS No.25714/20136. The Defendant No.3 and 5 in their written statement admitted the relationship between the parties and specifically denied the plaint averments and contended that the Plaintiff has filed the above suit by suppressing the true material facts and deliberately misled this Court by abusing and subverting the due process of law. The Plaintiff has filed false, frivolous suit and has instituted with ulterior intention of overreaching herself and to cause wrongful loss to these Defendants. The Suit Schedule Properties are not available for partition as falsely claimed by the Plaintiff. There was already partition took place in the joint family of Thimma Reddy through Compromise decree in O.S.No.10563/1983 dtd: 30.3.1988 and on the strength of the said compromise decree the names were entered and mutated in the revenue records and they are paying taxes to the concerned department. The father of the Plaintiff and Defendants died about 40-45 years back and these Defendants along with other male members of the joint family celebrated the marriage of the daughters of Thimma Reddy by spending huge sum of money and properties to the daughters and 26 OS No.25714/2013 now the Plaintiff come up with this suit to grab the properties fallen to the share of Defendants. The suit of the Plaintiff is barred by limitation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with cost.
7. The Defendant No.4 in his written statement admitted the relationship between the parties and specifically denied the plaint averments and contended that the suit filed by the Plaintiff is neither maintainable in law nor sustainable on the very facts of the case, hence the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. The suit of the Plaintiff suffers from non- joinder of necessary parties, hence, on this ground also the suit of the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. There was already partition effected in the family of Late Thimmaiah @ Thimma Reddy and which was well within the knowledge of the Plaintiff and other Defendants and the Plaintiff has filed the above suit only to make unlawful gain and to cause wrongful loss to this Defendant. The Plaintiff after getting her share by suppression has come up with the present suit which is not maintainable in law. The very RTCs produced before the Court establishes that there is already partition among the children of Late Thimma 27 OS No.25714/2013 Reddy @ Thimmaiah and there is no properties are available for partition. The LRs of Jayalakshmi i.e., Defendant No.14 to 17 have filed a suit for partition and possession of their shares in O.S.No.25064/2007 on the file of this Court and in the said suit the Plaintiff is arrayed as Defendant No.12 in the said suit and that the made was withdrawn on 19.3.2013 and other allegations that without notifying the Plaintiff, the same was withdrawn is not within the knowledge of this Defendant. The father of the Plaintiff and Defendants died about 40-45 years back and these Defendants along with other male members of the joint family celebrated the marriage of the daughters of Thimma Reddy by spending huge sum of money and properties to the daughters and now the Plaintiff come up with this suit to grab the properties fallen to the share of Defendants. The suit of the Plaintiff is barred by limitation. There is no cause of action to file this suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary cost.
8. The Defendant No.8 & 10 in their written statement specifically denied the plaint averments 28 OS No.25714/2013 and contended that the suit filed by the Plaintiff is not maintainable in law or on facts as the Plaintiff has suppressed the facts before this Court. The Suit Schedule Properties were already divided among the family by metes and bounds. Sri. Thimma Reddy was the kartha of the family and succeeded by 11 children and he died leaving behind the Plaintiff and Defendants to succeed his estate. It is stated that except, Ambuja none of the female members have taken share at the time of partition. Other female members who have married not claimed any share at that point of time and further except the Plaintiff none other members have independently claimed their share and virtually abandoned their share by taking as the other female members who are got married and they were share by the brothers sufficient paid all the amounts in terms of jewellers and other things. Hence, the suit of the Plaintiff is not only barred by limitation but also suffered by estoppel.
9. Further contended that the Defendant No.2 has filed suit in O.S.No.10563/1983 and in the said suit other members of the family arrayed as Defendants namely Smt. Rathnamma, K.T. Srinivas 29 OS No.25714/2013 Reddy, K.T. Krishina Reddy, K.T. Narayana Reddy, Smt. K.T. Ambujamma. Later they compromised in the said suit on 5.3.1987 by taking their shares in the Suit Schedule Properties. The father of these Defendants died intestate on 21.9.1987, hence, hence, Sri. K.T. Srinvias Reddy was also taken the share on that day before the Court. When the properties are divided before the court decree in a compromise in O.S.No.10563/1983, the Plaintiff is not at all entitle for any relief. The Plaintiff has deliberately stated that all the properties are not undivided properties. Further contended that some of the parties have filed a suits in O.S.No.25786/2013, O.S.No.25787/2013 and O.S.No25786/2013 and sought for their declaration. Under these circumstnaces not only the Plaintiff and also the proposed Plaintiffs in the aforesaid suits are claiming the right, title and interest. By virtue of the same the Defendants and family members are not in a position to develop the properties which was allotted to share in the partition dtd: 18.3.1987. The suit of the Plaintiff is barred by limitation. The suit is liable to be dismissed for non-inclusion of proper and necessary parties to the suit. The suit is liable to be dismissed 30 OS No.25714/2013 soon after the partition as on 18.3.1987 the several transactions are conducted among the parties and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. The Plaintiff aware of the fact that the partition was taken place way back in the year 1987 whereas the new Hindu Succession Act came into force in the year 1990. Inspite of it the present suit came to be filed on 25.4.2013, hence, the suit is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary cost.
10. The Defendant No.14 in his written statement specifically denied the plaint averments and contended that the Plaintiff is not in joint possession of the Suit Schedule Properties. Since from 1983 so many alienations have taken place in respect of some of the Suit Schedule Properties and the purchasers of the said lands are in possession of the same. The Defendant No.14 and other Defendants have been in separate and exclusive possession and enjoyment of the properties that fallen to their respective shares out of the Suit Schedule Properties. The Plaintiff ought to have paid the court fee on the market value of the Suit Schedule 31 OS No.25714/2013 Properties. The suit is not properly valued and the court fee paid is insufficient. There is no cause of action for the suit arose on 15.11.2007 and the present suit is came to be filed in the year 2013 and as such the suit is clearly barred by limitation. The Plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands. The Plaintiff has suppressed the real and material facts before the Court. The Plaintiff has filed the above frivolous suit to harass the Defendants and to have wrongful gain. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary cost.
11. The Defendant No.19 who is the son of 1st Defendant in his written statement specifically denied the plaint averments and contended that the suit filed by the Plaintiff is totally false, frivolous and vexatious and is liable to be dismissed in limine. The suit has been filed with the sole intention of harassing this Defendant and with the further intention to grab unlawfully. Further, he has admitted the relationship between the parties and the acquisition of Suit Schedule Properties by Thimma Reddy and the Defendant No.1 to 19 have entered into Partition Deed on 25.3.2003 in respect of 32 OS No.25714/2013 bearing Sy.No.14/2 and the 1st Defendant got his share in the land bearing survey number 14/2 under the Partition Decree granted by the Civil Court in O.S.No.10563/1983 and the khatha of the same transferred in the name of 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Property. The properties mentioned by the Plaintiff in the plaint are not acquired by Late Thimma Reddy and the survey numbers are different. The Sale Deed of the year 2003 executed in favour of Defendant No.20 is not within the knowledge of this Defendant. The land bearing Sy.No.14 has been allotted to the Defendant No.2 as his share under the Partition Decree passed in O.S.No.10563/1983 and the Plaintiff was one of the party in the said Partition Decree and on 18.3.1987 she has prayed the Court to delete her name as one of the Defendant on the ground of compromise between the Plaintiff and Defendants in the said suit, hence, the Plaintiff is not entitled for 1/12th share in the Suit Schedule Property as claimed by her in this suit. After the Partition Decree passed in O.S.No.10563/1983, the 1st Defendant was allotted 1 Acre 14 ½ Guntas in Sy.No.14, New Sy.No.14/2 33 OS No.25714/2013 and 1 Acre 4 Guntas in Sy.No.59 and the revenue records were entered in the name of 1 st Defendant. Thereafter, the Partition Deed dtd: 25.3.2006 has been executed amongst the 1st Defendant and his daughter and son, namely Smt. Veena and Sri. Naveen Krishna Reddy i.e., Defendant No.18 & 19 respectively. Further in terms of the said partition dtd: 25.3.2006 the 1st Defendant has retained 14 ½ Guntas in Sy.No.14 and the Defendant No.18 has been allotted 20 Guntas and Defendant No.19 has been allotted 20 Guntas. This Defendant from the date of its allotment of 20 Guntas in Sy.No.14 is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Further, admitted that the Defendant No.14 to 17 have filed suit for partition and possession of their shares in O.S.No.25064/2008 and the same was compromised and the Plaintiff herein being the Defendant No.12 in the said suit has not opposed the compromise entered between the Defendant No.14 to 17 and the Plaintiff. Further stated that the court fee paid by the Plaintiff is improper and insufficient and the suit is barred by law of limitation, since all the parties acted upon as per the Decree passed in O.S.No.10563/1983. The Plaintiff is not entitled to 34 OS No.25714/2013 any reliefs as sought by her in this suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary cost.
12. The Defendant No.20 in his written statement specifically denied the plaint averments and contended that the land measuring 1 Acre 14 Guntas, being the schedule land of the Defendant No.20 & 21 was sold under the Sale Deed dtd:
18.6.2023 in favour of this Defendant by Sri. K.T. Jayarama Reddy and he delivered the possession of the said land in favour of this Defendant. This Defendant got the khatha of the said land mutated in her name in the revenue records and she is paying land revenue in her name and she got converted the land from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural purpose vide Official Memorandum dtd: 29.1.2004 issued by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District. She has secured NOC from the BDA to construct a School building on an area measuring 1200 sq.ft., on the said land which comes within the limits of K.R.Puram CMC and she has paid a sum of Rs.75,832/- towards betterment charges and plan approval fee in respect of land in Sy.No.14/3 vide Receipt dtd: 23.2.2005 and has 35 OS No.25714/2013 secured Building Construction License from CMC, K.R.Puram, vide Building License dtd: 23.2.2005.
She has construed a School Building comprised of several floors and has leased the property to the Defendant No.21 under Deed of Lease dtd:
14.8.2006. At present the Defendant No.21 is running School on the said property under the name and style of M/s Geethanjali Vidyalaya coming under M/s Geethanjali Education Society, after securing necessary approval from the Government of Karnataka vide Certificate dtd: 8.6.2005, wherein several thousand students have completed their course and have gone to higher classes. the Plaintiff is not in possession of the land measuring 01 Acre 14 Guntas in Sy.No.14/3 of Kaggadasapura Village being the schedule land of the Defendant No.20 and
21. This Defendant is in possession of the said land.
The court fee paid by the Plaintiff on the present suit is insufficient. There is no cause of action for the present suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with cost.
SCHEDULE LAND OF THE DEFENDANT NO.20 & 21 All that piece and parcel of immovable property being the land measuring 01 Acre 14 Guntas in 36 OS No.25714/2013 Sy.No.14/3 of Kaggadasapura Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, earlier Bangalore North Taluk, now Bangalore East Taluk.
13. The Defendant No.49 in his written statement specifically denied the plaint averments and contended that he is the absolute owner and in exclusive possession and enjoyment of Site No.10 bearing Khatha No.132/, situated at Kaggadasapura Village, HASB Area, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, now presently in Bangalore East Taluk measuring East to West 35 Feet, North to South 40 Feet, bounded on the East by - House Site No.17, West by - House Site No.11, North by - Road, South by - House Site No.12, purchased from Sri. K.T. Narayana Reddy the Defendant No.3 for valuable consideration under registered Sale Deed dtd:
26.6.1998 and the revenue records transferred in his name. The Plaintiff has filed this suit only to harass this Defendant and trying to take advantage of the process of law for her wrongful gain, therefore, the suit filed by the Plaintiff requires to be dismissed.
Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
37 OS No.25714/201314. The Defendant No.50 in his written statement specifically denied the plaint averments and contended that the suit filed by the Plaintiff is frivolous and vexatious and has been filed with oblique motive to harass this Defendant and to have unlawful gain. The Plaintiff has deliberately not made this Defendant as a party to this suit. There are 07 items of the property in the Suit Schedule but this Defendant is concerned, only with respect to Item No.6 to the extent of 01 Acre 14 ½ Guntas out of total extent of 03 Acres 25 Guntas in Sy.No.15/1 of Kaggadasapura, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. She is the bonafide purchaser of 01 Acre 14 ½ Guntas out of 03 Acre 25 Guntas in Sy.No.15 and she is in physical possession and enjoyment of the said land under Sale Deed dtd: 16.8.2011 from Sri. K.T. Prasanna Kumar and his family members i.e., the 5th Defendant herein who is none other than the brother of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff has filed this suit on 25.4.2013 after 02 years of Sale Deed dtd:
16.8.2011 and she has deliberately suppressed this fact and has obtained ex-parte interim order and 38 OS No.25714/2013 tries to disturb the lawful possession of this Defendant.
15. Further contended that the daughters of Late Thimmareddy i.e., Smt. K.T. Vijaya, Smt. Shanthamma and Smt. K.T. Anusuya i.e., the Plaintiff have made an application to implead themselves as proposed Defendants in O.S.No.10563/1983 and the said application was allowed and they arrayed as Defendant 8, 9 and 10. Later they compromised in the said suit by taking their shares in the Suit Schedule Properties. In the year 2008, the Defendant No.14 to 17 of this suit Smt. Bharathi, Smt. Bavya, Smt. Roopa and Smt.Deepashree who are the daughters of Late Jayalakshmi one of the daughter of Thimmareddy have filed similar suit for partition in O.S.No.25064/2008 against this Defendant and other Defendants claiming their share from the properties acquired by Late Thimmareddy. The present Plaintiff arrayed as Defendant No.12 in the said suit. Later the said suit was withdrawn by the Plaintiff of this suit, as the parties have compromised the Suit Schedule Properties on 19.3.2013. The 39 OS No.25714/2013 Plaintiff has not chosen to amend the plaint or the prayer in the plaint and secondly when there is a prior partition as indicated above in two suits, the present suit for partition cannot be maintained. This Defendant is the bonafide purchaser of the land bearing Sy.No.15/1 Old No.15 measuring 01 Acre 14½ Guntas including 03 Guntas of Kharab and that the revenue records also indicate the name of this Defendant. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
SCHEDULE TO THE WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT NO.50 The land bearing Sy.No.15/1 (Old Sy.No.15) measuring 01 Acre 14 ½ Guntas) including Kharab of 03 Guntas situated at Kaggadasapura Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk, bounded on the:
East by : Sy.No.24 and halla.
West by : Sy.No.16 & remaining portion of
Sy.No.15/1 & hall.
North by :Sy.No.138 of Mahadevapura Village. South by : Bengaluru-Salem Railway line.
40 OS No.25714/201316. Based on the pleadings of the parties, this court has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that, she and the Defendant Nos. 1 to 19 have succeeded the Suit Schedule Properties from Thimma Reddy, as the ancestral properties?
2. Whether the Plaintiff proves that, the Suit Schedule Properties are available for partition as on the date of filing of this suit?
3. Whether the Defendant Nos.1 to 5, 14, 19 and 20 prove that, the suit of the Plaintiff is hit by Sec.11(1) of CPC?
4. Whether the Defendant No.50 proves that, the suit of the Plaintiff is hit by the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC and the principle laid down in Sec.11 of CPC, as contended in her Written Statement?
5. Whether the Defendant Nos.1 to 20 proves that, suit of the Plaintiff is barred by law of Limitation?
6. Whether the Plaintiff has properly valued the suit plaint and has paid court fees correctly?
7. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition and to have 1/12th share in the Suit Schedule Properties?41 OS No.25714/2013
8. Whether the Plaintiff is entitle for the relief of mesne profits?
9. What order or decree?
17. The Plaintiff got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19 documents and closed her side. The Defendant No.2, 4, 19 & the GPA Holder of Defendant No.50 as DW.1 to DW.4 and got marked Ex.D.1, Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.16 and closed their side.
18. Heard both sides. Perused the rulings
19. Perused the evidence and documents on record. On appreciation of the evidence on record, my findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.3 : In the Negative.
Issue No.4 : In the Negative.
Issue No.5 : In the Negative.
Issue No.6 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.7 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.8 : In the Affirmative.42 OS No.25714/2013
Issue No.9 : As per final order for the following:
REASONS
20. Issue No.1 to 4 :-
In order to avoid repetition of facts, these issues have been taken up together for consideration.
21. The burden of proving Issue No.1 & 2 was on the Plaintiff and on the other hand the burden of proving Issue No.3 & 4 are on the Defendant No.1 to 5, 14, 19, 20 & 50.
22. The Plaintiff had taken up contention that she is one of the daughter of Late Thimma Reddy and Defendant No.6, the Defendant No.1 to 5 are the sons of Late Thimma Reddy, the Defendant No.7 to 10 are the legal representatives of her deceased brother K.T. Srinivasa Reddy, the Defendant No.9 died leaving behind Defendant No.9(a) to (c). Similarly, the Defendant No.11 to 13 are the daughters of Late Thimma Reddy. Similarly, the Defendant No.14 to 17 are the legal heirs of his sister Jayalakshmi. The Defendant No.18 & 19 are the daughter and son of Defendant No.1 Late K.T 43 OS No.25714/2013 Krishna Reddy. The Defendant No.20 is the purchaser of one of the Schedule Property and Defendant No.21 is her husband. The Defendant No.22 to 50 are the purchasers of various items of the Suit Schedule Properties.
23. Admittedly, the above fact has not at all been disputed by the Defendant in their written statement and as well as in their oral evidence. Further the relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 9. Further the Defendant No.1 to 19 have not at all denied that the Suit Schedule Properties were originally belongs to Late Thimma Reddy, as the same are his ancestral properties. It is also clear from the evidence of the parties that Late Thimma Reddy died intestate leaving behind his legal heirs i.e., Defendant No.6 his wife, 06 sons and 05 daughters.
24. The Defendant No.1 to 5 & 14, 19 & 20 in their written statements have specially taken up defense that the legal heirs of Late Thimma Reddy including Plaintiff have taken their respective shares in the Suit Properties by virtue of decree passed in O.S.No.10563/1993. Further the Plaintiff has got her 44 OS No.25714/2013 share in O.S.No.10563/1993 and she does not have any right to claim share over the Suit Schedule Properties. The parties of the suit in O.S.No.10563/1993 have acted upon in terms of compromise decree. Therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled for 1/12th share as claimed in the Suit Schedule Properties. Further it is also the case of the above Defendants that the Partition Deed also taken place subsequent to the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.10563/1983 on 25.3.2006. Even the LRs of deceased Jayalakshmi i.e., Defendant No.14 to 17 have filed a suit for partition and possession of their shares in O.S.No.25064/2008 and the Plaintiff is also arrayed as Defendant No.12 in the said suit. Later the said suit also ended in compromise and the Plaintiff has not opposed the compromise taken place between the Defendant No.14 to 17. therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled for any reliefs in this suit.
25. Further the Defendant No.50 also contended in the written statement that he is the bonafide purchaser of 01 Acre 14½ Guntas out of total extent of 03 Acres 25 Guntas in Sy.No.15/1 of Kaggadasapura, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East 45 OS No.25714/2013 Taluk. Further contended that in suit O.S.No.25064/2008 an application filed by the Plaintiff of the said suit to delete the Sy.No.15 from the plaint, as the matter is settled out of the Court in respect of said property and the said application also came to be allowed and the claim of the Plaintiff in respect of Sy.No.15 has been dismissed as settled out of Court. Thereafter, one K.P. Prasanna Kumar i.e., Defendant No.5 sold 01 Acre 14½ Guntas in Sy.No.15/1 of Kaggadasapura Village to the Defendant No.50. When the suit in O.S.No.25064/2008 filed by Defendant No.14 to 17 against the Plaintiff and vendor of the Defendant No.50 is ended as withdrawn, the present suit is barred by law under Order II Rule 2 of CPC and also on the ground of principles of res-judicata and therefore, the Plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit in respect of land belongs to Sy.No.15.
26. The Plaintiff in her affidavit evidence has reiterated the plaint averments. Though the learned counsel for the Defendants suggested to this witness that she has taken her share in the suit in O.S.No.1563/1983 and as well as in 46 OS No.25714/2013 O.S.No.25064/2008, but she specifically denied the same.
27. Let me go through the documentary evidence placed by the Plaintiff in this suit. Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 are the RTC Extracts of the Suit Schedule Properties Ex.P.17 is the certified copy of registered Sale Deed dtd: 25.3.2006 executed by Jayarama Reddy i.e., Defendant No.2 in favour of Nagarathna i.e., Defendant No.20 in respect of Sy.No.14/3 measuring 01 Acre 14 Guntas. Ex.P.18 is the Partition Deed effected between the Defendant No.1 & Defendant No.18 & 19 who are his children in respect of some of the Suit Schedule Properties. Ex.P.19 is the Release Deed executed by the Defendant No.20 in favour of one M/s Geethanjali Education Society. Admittedly, in all these documents, it is no where found that the share of the Plaintiff over the Suit Schedule Properties has been given.
28. During the course of cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that she does not know the contents of her examination-in-chief. Further stated that she does not know about the suit filed in the year 1983.
47 OS No.25714/2013However, she admitted in the year 2008 her elder sisters daughters i.e., Defendant No.14 to 17 have filed O.S.No.25064/2008 and denied that she stated in the said suit that she is not having any share over the Suit Properties. Further in the cross-examination she admitted that in Sy.No.14/2 measuring 01 Acre 14½ Guntas was allowed to the Defendant No.1 and the Defendant No.1 allotted 20 Guntas each to his children Defendant No.18 & 19. Further also admitted that the Defendant No.1 sold his share in favour of Defendant No.20 and she constructed Education Society in the said property. Further also admitted that the Defendant No.2 has retained an extent of 11.3/4 Guntas in Sy.No.100 and 10.3/4 Guntas in Sy.No.101. Further she also admitted that she had been arrayed as Defendant No.12 in O.S.No.25064/2008, but she pleaded ignorance about the result of the said suit. However, she specifically denied that the said suit ended in compromise and she relinquished her right in the Suit Properties. Further she specifically stated that Defendant No.14 to 17 who are the children of Jayalakshmi who is her sister have filed suit in O.S.No.25064/2008 and they have compromised the 48 OS No.25714/2013 said suit without her knowledge. Further she admitted in the cross-examination that Sy.No.15/2, 14/4 & 217 are belongs to Defendant No.4. Further admits the suggestion that K.T. Nagaraja Reddy, K.T. Prasanna Kumar and K.T. Ambuja got divided the properties in Sy.No.14, 15 & 217. Further admitted that property bearing Sy.No.14/5 is standing in the name of Defendant No.18 as per Ex.P.12. Similarly, Sy.No.14/6 standing in the name of Defendant No.18 as per Ex.P.13. Further she pleaded ignorance about her brothers partitioned the properties and they are in possession of their respective properties as per the documents produced by her.
29. Admittedly, on careful perusal of entire cross-examination of PW.1, it is clear that she never admitted that she had relinquished her right over the Suit Properties or she has been taken her share over the Suit Properties as the legal heir of her father Late Thimma Reddy. So, the evidence of PW.1 is duly corroborating with the plaint averments to show that the Suit Schedule Properties are ancestral properties of Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 19 and though some of the Suit Properties have been sold and 49 OS No.25714/2013 partition by some of the Defendants among themselves, but these Partition Deed and Sale Deeds are not at all binding on the Plaintiff as without her consent and knowledge only they have got divided and sold the same.
30. The Defendant No.2 has been examined as DW. 1 and he reiterated most of the contents of written statement and in support of his case has produced as many as 08 documents as per Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.8. Ex.D.1 & Ex.D.2 are Plaint copy and as well as Compromise Petition filed in O.S.No.10563/1983. Ex.D.3 is the certified copy of application filed by the Plaintiff for impleading the present Plaintiff and her two sisters in the suit in O.S.No.10563/1983. Ex.D.4 is the entire order sheet of O.S.No.10563/1983.
31. On perusal of all the above documents, it is clear that though some of the parties have entered into compromise, but the Plaintiff is not a signatory to the Compromise Petition filed therein. Ex.D.5 is the Plaint copy of in O.S.No.25064/2008. Ex.D.6 is the certified copy of entire order sheet of O.S.No.25064/2008. Ex.D.7 is the certified copy of Memo of Withdrawal of suit in O.S.No.25064/2008.
50 OS No.25714/2013Admittedly, the said suit has been filed by the Defendant No.14 to 17 and the present Plaintiff is impleaded as Defendant No.12 in the said suit. Admittedly, the said suit also disposed of in view of memo filed by the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff. However, nowhere in the said suit it is stated that share of the Plaintiff has been given to her. On the other hand, as per Ex.D.7 the said suit has been withdrawn by the Plaintiff by filing memo on 21.1.2011 as not pressed. These documents have also not at all been established that the Plaintiff had been given to her legitimate share in the Suit Schedule Properties. On the other hand, DW.1 has clearly admitted that in suit O.S.No.10563/1983 only his mother, brothers and sister Ambuja made as parties but the Plaintiff and her other sisters are not made as parties. The said suit ended in compromise. Further also admitted that the first and second wife of his father Late Thimma Reddy have not been made as parties in O.S.No.10563/1983. Therefore, whatever compromise terms entered into the said suit is not legal and valid one. Further it is clearly admitted that in view of Naveen the Defendant No.19 who is the son of his elder brother has given a site to 51 OS No.25714/2013 the Plaintiff of O.S.No.25604/2008, the said suit was withdrawn. Further it is clearly admitted that either in O.S.No.10563/1983 or in O.S.No.25064/2008 the Plaintiff has not been given her share in the Suit Schedule Properties. Even he specifically admitted that he has no records to show that the Defendants have paid compensation to the Plaintiff by way of money in view of her share in the Suit Schedule Properties. So, the above admission itself will clearly goes to show that the Plaintiff has been deprived of her legitimate share in the Suit Properties by metes and bounds in both O.S.No.10563/1983 & O.S.No.25064/2008.
32. The Defendant No.4 has been examined as DW.2 and he has reiterated the contents of his written statement in his affidavit evidence. During the course of cross-examination he stated that in the year 1988 itself family partition has been effected and they have distributed money to the family members of the family in view of their share in the family properties. Further admitted that in this regard they have no written documents for having given money to them. Even though he stated in the 52 OS No.25714/2013 cross-examination that by spending huge money they have celebrated marriages of female heirs. But in this regard also he has not placed any materials in this suit. Even in the further cross-examination it is stated that other daughters of his father has been relinquished their share over the father's property by executing an Affidavit, but the said Affidavit is not at all marked in this suit. Further clearly admitted that the suit filed by the children of Jayalakshmi had been ended in compromise as they gave their share by way of settlement, but he nowhere specifically stated that share of the Plaintiff has been given in the Suit Schedule Properties. Therefore, the cross- examination of this witness is helpful to the Plaintiff's case.
33. Similarly, the Defendant No.19 is also examined as DW.3 and he specifically stated about the previous suit in O.S.No.10563/1983 and the partition taken place in the said suit. On careful perusal of his evidence, it is also clear that he impliedly admitted in the cross-examination that the legal heirs of deceased Thimma Reddy are in joint possession of the Suit Schedule Properties. Further 53 OS No.25714/2013 DW.3 clearly admitted that no properties were allotted to the present Plaintiff in O.S.No.25064/2008. Further clearly admitted that he has no documents to show that they gave money to the family members of the joint family in the joint family properties. Further he specifically stated that the suit filed by the children of Jayalakshmi had been ended into settlement by giving their share in the Suit Properties. So one thing is certain from the above cross-examination that no share has been given to the Plaintiff in the joint family properties. Further this witness also clearly admitted that the properties involved in Ex.D.9 Partition Deed were came to their father through his father. So it further clarifies that the Suit Properties are ancestral properties of Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 19.
34. Lastly the General Power of Attorney holder of the Defendant No.50 who had purchased Item No.6 of the Suit Schedule Properties has been examined as DW.4 and he stated that he purchased the said land from the Defendant No.5 and his family and later got it converted into for residential purpose. Even he specifically stated about disposal of 54 OS No.25714/2013 O.S.No.25064/2008 by settling out of Court. He has also stated that O.S.No.25064/2008 was settled out of Court and in the said suit Sy.No.15 was ordered to be deleted on the application filed by the Plaintiff. In fact, in the said suit also there was no consultation with the present Plaintiff while withdrawing of the said suit.
35. So, overall considering of entire evidence both parties with the documentary evidence produced by the parties reveals that no share has been given to the Plaintiff in the Suit Schedule Properties in both O.S.No.10563/1983 and as well as in O.S.No.25064/2008. Even in the alleged Partition Deed i.e., Ex.D.9 also no share has been given to the Plaintiff in the Suit Schedule Properties. The other documents produced by the Defendants reveals that already some portion of the Suit Schedule Properties have been converted into non- agricultural land and buildings have been constructed therein. However, it does not mean that with the consent of the Plaintiff only it has been taken place. Therefore, from the evidence of PW.1 with Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.19 and as well as admission of 55 OS No.25714/2013 DW.1 to DW.4 it is clear that the Plaintiff has proved that she and Defendant No.1 to 16 have succeeded the Suit Schedule Properties from deceased Thimma Reddy as the ancestral properties.
36. It is also impliedly proved by the Plaintiff from the materials that in earlier suits and Partition Deeds no share has been given to the Plaintiff over the Suit Schedule Properties. Therefore, this Court can easily say that Ex.D.9 Partition Deed or any order passed in both suits in O.S.No.10563/1983 and as well as in O.S.No.25064/2008 are not at all binding on her share over the Suit Properties. Therefore, the Suit Properties are treated to be available for partition as on the date of filing of the suit.
37. As aforesaid, the Defendant No.1 to 5, 14, 19 & 20 have failed to prove that the suit is hit by Section 11(1) of CPC as the Plaintiff was a party in O.S.No.10563/1983 and even though she got impleaded and then she has been deleted and compromised the suit, but as aforesaid she is not a signatory to the alleged compromise/settlement etc. 56 OS No.25714/2013 Similarly, in second suit i.e., O.S.No.25064/2008 also there was out of Court settlement between the Plaintiffs of that suit and brothers of the Plaintiff and thereafter withdrawn the said suit. However, regarding that settlement also the Plaintiff is not a party. Therefore, this Court cannot say that this suit is barred by Section 11(1) of CPC. As argued by the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, the Defendant No.50 has not proved that this suit is hit by the provision of Order II Rule 2 of CPC and as well as principles of Section 11 of CPC. Admittedly, as discussed above, the Defendant No.50 has no personal knowledge about the joint family properties of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 19 and even as discussed above the Plaintiff is not at all signatory to any compromise terms arrived between the parties in the said suits. Without giving any share in the Suit Properties behind her back what are the transactions taken place in respect of Suit Properties is not at all binding on her. Therefore, the Defendant No.50 has failed to prove that the suit is hit by the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of CPC or under the provisions of Section 11 of CPC. From the above discussions, I 57 OS No.25714/2013 answer Issue No.1 & 2 in the Affirmative and Issue No.3 & 4 in the Negative.
38. Issue No.6:-
The Learned Counsels for the Defendants during the course of arguments submitted that the Plaintiff is not at all in physical possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Properties. Therefore, the Plaintiff ought to have paid the court fee under Section 35(1) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act in respect of her alleged share, as PW.1 clearly admitted that she is not in position and enjoyment of the Suit Properties. In support of arguments they have relied upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Smt. T.S. Satyavathi V/s T.S. Ramesh 2021 HC Page 11 to 14.
39. On the other hand, it is the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff has sought for the relief of partition and separate possession of her share in the Suit Schedule Properties, as the Suit Properties are not at all partitioned by metes and bounds. The Defendants have not at all proved that the Suit Properties have 58 OS No.25714/2013 been legally divided between the parties as per Hindu Succession Act. Such being the fact, the court fee paid by the Plaintiff under Section 35(2) of Karnataka Court Fee & Suits Valuation Act is proper and correct.
40. Admittedly, the Plaintiff has valued the subject matter of the Suit Properties for Rs.50,00,000/- and paid the court fee of Rs.200/- by contending that Plaintiff and Defendants are in joint possession of the Suit Schedule Properties. No doubt, the Plaintiff is not at all in physical possession of the Suit Schedule Properties, but in the earlier suits the present Plaintiff contended that she is in joint possession and enjoyment of the Suit Schedule Properties and she is entitled for share, but her share has not been given. That apart, by depriving the right of the Plaintiff over the Suit Schedule Properties only, the Defendants have partitioned the Suit Schedule Properties and alienated some portion of Suit Schedule Properties to third parties etc. Therefore, this Court can say that the suit of the Plaintiff cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-paying of proper court fee. According to Section 35(2) of CPC the 59 OS No.25714/2013 Plaintiff can pay the court fee of Rs.200/- in respect of her share.
41. It is pertinent to note here that on careful perusal of evidence of DW.3 also it appears that he has clearly admitted that in both O.S.No.10563/1983 and as well as O.S.No.25064/2008, no properties have been given to the Plaintiff. More particularly, he specifically stated that no share has been given to the Plaintiff in the property of his father. So impliedly he stated that no partition had been effected in the Suit Schedule Properties and had impliedly proved that the Plaintiff is in constructive joint possession of the Suit Schedule Properties along with the Defendants. Therefore, this Court opines that the suit cannot be dismissed on the ground of non-paying of requisite court fee. On the other hand, it appears that the court fee paid by the Plaintiff on the suit claim is proper.
42. On the other hand, when the Plaintiff has proved her constructive possession over the Suit Schedule Properties and the court fee paid by her share under Section 35(1) of Karnataka Court Fee & Suits Valuation Act for Rs.200/- is proper and 60 OS No.25714/2013 correct. Hence, I answer this Issue in the Affirmative.
43. Issue No.5:-
The Defendants in their written statement have specifically contended that the suit of the Plaintiff is barred by law of limitation. However, they have not specifically stated in their written statement and as well as in their oral evidence that how the suit of the Plaintiff is barred by law of limitation. On the other hand, earlier suit O.S.No.10563/1983 also compromised without including the present Plaintiff and thereafter in the year 2008 also the sisters and brothers of the Plaintiff have compromised the suit outside the Court and thereafter suit had been withdrawn. In the said compromise also the Plaintiff has not been identified. That apart, on perusal of records, it reveals that children of Plaintiff's sister Jayalakshmi had filed O.S.No.25064/2008, though the Plaintiff has been arrayed as Defendant No.12, but the Defendant No.14 to 17 in this suit have entered into compromise with the Plaintiffs of the said suit and accordingly they have withdrawn the said suit on 19.3.2013 without notifying the Plaintiff 61 OS No.25714/2013 herein and accordingly the Plaintiff had filed this suit for denial of her share on 25.4.2013. So it appears that within 03 years from the date of withdrawal of suit O.S.No.25064/2008 only the present suit has been filed. Therefore, looking to any angle, the Defendants have failed to prove that the suit of the Plaintiff is barred by law of limitation. Accordingly, I answered this Issue in the Negative.
44. Issue No.7 & 8:-
In view of detailed discussion and findings given by this Court on foregoing issues the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession of her 1/12th share in the Suit Schedule Properties.
45. It is the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff herein is that the Plaintiff is the coparcenery as per the amended Hindu Succession Act 2005 and she is treated like as a son and entitle for share on a part in a coparcenary by birth. This has been clarified by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision reported in Vineetha Sharma V/s Rakesh Sharma and Others. Similarly, the said judgment 62 OS No.25714/2013 has been followed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Channabasappa V/s Smt. Parvatevva Alias Kasturevva and others. Accordingly, the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff has relied upon the above decisions.
46. Admittedly, the principles of the above decisions are squarely applicable to the case on hand and the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff. According to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act and as well as from the principles of the above decisions the Hon'ble Apex Court emerges is that in view of amendment to Section 6 of the Act, daughter would step into the coparcenary as that of a son by taking birth before or after the Act. Accordingly, the daughter is also treated like a son and she is entitled for a share on par in a coparcenary by birth. Further according to the above decisions and Section 6(a) of Amended Hindu Succession Act if the joint family and the ancestral properties are intact, the right of a daughter subsists, whether she is alive or not as on the date of 2005 amendment. Since daughter by fiction is granted the status of coparcener by birth, her right in the 63 OS No.25714/2013 ancestral property being antecedent, the Class-I heirs of pre-deceased daughter are to be treated equal and at part with the other family members. Therefore, the right of legal heirs of deceased daughter in the coparcenary properties, subject to existence of Hindu undivided family and in the absence of disruption of the joint family properties, is not taken away. The only exception being disposition or alienation or partition of properties which has been taken place before 20.12.2004.
47. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above cited judgment has clearly held that the provisions are retroactive and they confer benefits based on the antecedent events and the Mitakshara Coparcenary shall be deemed to include a reference to a daughter as a coparcener and she cannot be denied the benefit of 2005 amendment. Further according to the above decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka also it is clearly held that the benefit of 2005 amendment is not only extended to the daughters even if a daughter had per-deceased the legal heirs of per- deceased daughter are entitled to a share in the 64 OS No.25714/2013 ancestral family, even if the daughter alive at the time of 2005 amendment.
48. So in view of the principles of the above decisions with the case on hand it is clear that the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition and to have 1/12th share in the Suit Schedule Properties, because in the earlier two proceedings also the share of the Plaintiff over the Suit Properties was not granted and even she is not a signatory to the alleged compromise etc., which had been taken placed in the both proceedings. Therefore, whatever the compromise and whatever the partition had been effect between the Defendants or whatever the alienation taken place without her consent are not at all binding on her. Therefore, the Defendants cannot say that the Plaintiff is not entitled for share in the Suit Properties.
49. It is pertinent to note here that though the Defendant No.50 has very much contended that he is the bonafide purchaser of portion of Suit Properties from the Defendant No.5 and he was not aware of the suit or the litigants, therefore, his possession cannot be disturbed etc. 65 OS No.25714/2013
50. Admittedly, the Defendant No.50 was the party in O.S.No.25064/2008. But knowing fully well that the Plaintiff is also having share in the Suit Schedule Properties, he had entered into compromise with the Plaintiffs of the said suit by excluding the present Plaintiff. When she knows that the present Plaintiff is also coparcener of the Suit Properties and she is also having share over the same, she should have taken consent of the present Plaintiff while entering into compromise with the Plaintiffs of that suit. Merely because, the Plaintiffs of the said suit have filed an application and deleted the Sy.No.15 of Kaggadasapura Village, where her alleged property is situated is not a ground to say that she is not liable for the whatever judgment passed in this suit. Therefore, this Court feels that the property which alleged to be purchased by the Defendant No.50 in the Suit Schedule Properties also the Plaintiff is entitled for share. Therefore, she cannot said that she is the bonafide purchaser of the one of the Suit Schedule Properties etc.
51. Therefore, looking from all the above circumstances, this Court feels that Plaintiff is 66 OS No.25714/2013 entitled for 1/12th share in the Suit Schedule Properties by metes and bounds and also entitled for mesne profits as prayed for. Accordingly, I answer these issues in the Affirmative.
52. Issue No.9:-
In view of the findings on the above issues, the suit of the Plaintiff deserves to be decreed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the Plaintiff is hereby decreed.
The Plaintiff is entitled for 1/12th share in all the Suit Schedule Properties by metes and bounds.
The Plaintiff is entitled for mesne profit in respect of the Suit Schedule Properties and the same shall have to be determined in the final decree proceedings.
The Plaintiff is directed to take necessary steps under Order XX Rule 67 OS No.25714/2013 18 of CPC to draw final decree, in view of the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2022 livelaw (SC) 549 (Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan V/s Kattukandi Edathil Valsan & Ors.) The office to register FDP on the basis of above preliminary decree and put up the case on: 03.01.2026.
Considering the relationship
between the parties, the parties to
bear their own costs.
Draw Preliminary Decree
accordingly.
(Dictation given to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, after correction, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 22nd day of November 2025) Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA NARAYANAPPA SRIPAD SRIPAD Date: 2025.11.29 15:52:32 +0530 [Sri. Sreepada N] LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73).68 OS No.25714/2013
SCHEDULE PROPERTY Item No.1 All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy.No.100 measuring 0 Acres and 23 Guntas, situated at Kagadasapura, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, bounded on the:
East by : K.P. Anka Reddy Property. West by : Chikkasidda Reddy & Ramaiah Reddy Property.
North by : C. Annaiah Reddy Property. South by : Chikka Channamma Property.
Item No.2 All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy.No.101 measuring 0 Acres and 21 Guntas, situated at Kagadasapura, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, bounded on the:
East by : K.P. Anka Reddy Property. West by : Chikkasidda Reddy & Ramaiah Reddy Property.
North by : C. Annaiah Reddy Property. South by : Sy.No.100 belongs to Plaintiff and Defendants.69 OS No.25714/2013
Item No.3 All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy.No.164 measuring 0 Acres and 20 Guntas, situated at Kagadasapura, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, bounded on the:
East by : Annaiah Property West by : Chikka Gurappa Reddy & Dodda Gurappa's Property. North by : Smt. Hanumakka Property. South by : Nanjundappa Property.
Item No.4 All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy.No.32 measuring 0 Acres and 10 Guntas, situated at Kagadasapura, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, bounded on the:
East by : Narayanaswamy Property. West by : Kaluve. North by : Ramaiah Property.
South by : K.G. Ramakrishna Reddy Property.
Item No.5 All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy.No.59 measuring 01 Acres and 07 Guntas and Sy.No.60 measuring 01 Acre 03 Guntas and Sy.No.61 measuring 70 OS No.25714/2013 01 Acre 02 Guntas situated at Kagadasapura, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, bounded on the:
East by : Giriyappa & Motappa Property. West by : N. Ramaiah & Munireddy.
North by : Kaluve.
South by : Smt. Chikka Channamma, Giriyappa, Dasappa and Venkataramanappa properties.
Note: The above survey numbers are abutting and contiguous to each other. Hence, they have common boundaries.
Item No.6 All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy.No.14 measuring 04 Acres and 19 Guntas and Sy.No.15 measuring 03 Acres 25 Guntas, situated at Kagadasapura, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, bounded on the:
East by : Thimmarayappa & Kalappa Property. West by : Ramaiah Property. North by : Muninarayanappa & Shamaiah Properties. South by : Narayanappa, Giriyappa, Kenchappa and Railway Lane.
Note: The above survey numbers are abutting and contiguous to each other. Hence, they have common boundaries.71 OS No.25714/2013
Item No.7 All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy.No.217 measuring 0 Acres and 13 Guntas, situated at Kagadasapura, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, bounded on the:
East by : Tank.
West by : Narayana Reddy, Giriyappa & Dasappa Properties.
North by : Railway Lane.
South by : Narayana Reddy Property and Tank.
Item No.8 All that piece and parcel of immovable property bearing old Gramatana Khaneshmari No.173, present BBMP Khata No.140, situated at Kaggadasapura Gramatana, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, measuring East to West 53+51/2 feet and North to South 71+60/2 feet totally measuring about 3406 sq.ft., and bounded on the:
East by : House property belonging to Ramakrishna Reddy.
West by : Yadur Abbaiah Reddy's House. North by : Private Property belongs to Beerappa. South by : Road.72 OS No.25714/2013
ANNEXURES LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
PW.1: Anusuya.
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 :
to 16 RTC extracts. Ex.P.16
Ex.P.17 : Certified copy of registered Sale Deed dtd:
18.6.2003.
Ex.P.18 : Certified copy of registered Partition Deed dtd:
25.3.2006.
Ex.P.19 : Certified copy of registered Lease Deed dtd:
14.8.2006.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
DW.1 : Sri. K.T. Jayarama Reddy. DW.2 : Nagaraj alias Nagaraja Reddy K.T. DW.3 : Naveen Krishna Reddy @ K. Naveen. DW.4 : Mythreye Srinath.
LIST OF EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of Plaint in O.S.No.10563/1983.
Ex.D.2 : Certified copy of Compromise Petition filed in O.S.No.10563/1983.73 OS No.25714/2013
Ex.D.3 : Application filed by the Plaintiff U/Or. 1 R 10 of CPC in O.S.No.10563/1983.
Ex.D.4 : Certified copy of order sheet in O.S.No.10563/1983.
Ex.D.5 : Certified copy of Plaint in O.S.No.25064/2008.
Ex.D.6 : Certified copy of entire order sheet of O.S.No.25064/2008.
Ex.D.7 : Certified copy of Memo of Withdrawal filed in O.S.No.25064/2008.
Ex.D.8 : Certified copy of Memo filed by the Plaintiff on 19.3.2013 in O.S.No.25064/2008.
Ex.D.9 : Digital copy of Partition Deed dtd: 25.3.2006.
Ex.D.10 :
10(a) to Digital copy of Tax Paid Receipts. 10(o) Ex.D.11 :
11(a) to 03 Photographs with CD. 11(c) Ex.D.12 : Special Power of Attorney executed by Defendant No.50 in favour of DW.4.
Ex.D.13 : Digital certified copy of Sale Deed dtd:
16.8.2011.
Ex.D.14 : Ditigal copy of RTC of Sy.No.15/3 of Kaggadasanapura for the year 2024-2025.
Ex.D.15 : Certified copy of order sheet of O.S.No.25064/2008.
74 OS No.25714/2013Ex.D.16 : Certified copy of Plaint in O.S.No.25064/2008.
Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA NARAYANAPPA SRIPAD SRIPAD Date: 2025.11.29 15:52:23 +0530 [Sri. Sreepada N] LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. (CCH-73).