Bangalore District Court
Smt.Yashoda vs Ravikumar on 16 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXI CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE: BENGALURU CITY (CCH-62)
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2019
PRESENT:- SMT.PUSHPAVATHI.V, LL.M., PGDPM, (IRPM)
LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.5518/2012
PLAINTIFF/S : 1. Smt.Yashoda
D/o.Late Madaiah
W/o.Sri R.Rangegowda
Aged about 50 years
R/a.No.720, 2nd Stage, 2nd Cross
11th Block
Nagarabhavi,
Bangalore-560 072.
(By Sri.Ashok Kumar.S., Advocate)
.V/s.
DEFENDANT/S : 1. Ravikumar
S/o.Late Madaiah
Aged about 52 years
R/a.No.17, 2nd Cross
Azad Nagar, Chamarajpet
Bangalore-560018.
2. Mahadeva
S/o.Late Madaiah
Aged about 48 years
R/a.No.6/50-5, 9th Cross
Azad Nagar, Chamarajpet
Bangalore-560 018.
3. Sri Lingaraju
S/o.Late Madaiah
Aged about 46 years
R/a.No.16/1, 2nd Floor,
2 O.S. No.5518/2012
4th Main, 11th Cross, Pipeline Road,
Kavi Keshava Raja Road, Srinagar,
Bangalore-560 050.
4. Sri Manjunatha
S/o.Late Madaiah
Aged about 44 years
R/a.No.16/1, 2nd floor
4th Main, 11th Cross
Pipeline Road
Kavi KeshavaRaja Road,
Srinaagar
Bangalore-560 050
5. Sri Shekhar
S/o.Late Madaiah
Aged about 42 years
R/a. No.17, 2nd Cross
Azad Nagar, Chamarajpet
Bangalore-560 018.
6. Sri N.B.Kantharaju
S/o.N.S.Bhogappa
Aged about 35 years
R/a. No.35, 5th Cross
Azadnagar, Chamarajpet,
Bangalore-560 080.
(Defendant No.1, 2, 5 - Sri.S.R.,
Adv.,)
(Defendant No.3 & 4 - Sri.R.C.,
Adv.,)
(Defendant No.6-Sri.V.M., Adv.,)
Date of institution
of the suit : 01.08.2012
Nature of the suit
[suit on pronote, suit
for declaration and
possession, suit
for injunction] : Partition
3 O.S. No.5518/2012
Date of the commencement
of recording of the evidence: 06.02.2016
Date on which the
Judgment was pronounced : 16.09.2019
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : -07- -01- -15-
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of partition and separate possession, holding that the plaintiff is entitle for 1/6th share in the suit schedule property, to restrain defendant No.1 to 5 from alienating, mortgaging and encumbering or transferring the suit schedule property in any manner, in favour of 3rd parties, to declare that the plaintiff is entitle for 1/6th share over the suit schedule property, to declare that the partition deed dated 20.11.2004 registered on 22.11.2004 before the Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bangalore and also the registered sale deed dated 14.06.2012 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Chamarajpet, Bangalore are not binding upon the plaintiff, to award cost of the suit and to pass such other relief's as deem fit in the interest of justice and equity.
SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the residential property bearing No.36/1, present BBMP No.17, situated at 2nd Cross, Azad Nagar, Chamarajpet, B'luru-18 measuring East to West : 20 ft., and North to South: 60 ft., totally 1200 sq. ft., consisting of 4 O.S. No.5518/2012 four asbestos sheet roofing houses with electricity and water connection, bounded as follows;
East by : Remaining property belongs to
Smt.Krishna Bai
West by : Jai Hover's Compound
North by : Road
South by : Conservancy Lane
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5 constitute Hindu undivided joint family and the parties to the suit are the children of Late Muddaiah. Muddaiah died in the year 1996. Muddaiah and Smt.Ningamma out of wed lock had given birth to plaintiff and defendants. During the life time of Smt.Ningamma i.e., mother of plaintiff and defendant no.1 to 5, had purchased the suit schedule property from T.M.Ramaiah S/o.Thimmegowda @ Thotada Thimmegowda, under sale deed dated 29.06.1989 registered on 01.07.1989 before the office of the Sub Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru. Smt.Ningamma expired on 20.01.1992, leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 to 5 to succeed all her estate and properties. Smt.Ningamma died intestate. After the death of Smt.Ningamma, the succession opened, the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 5 are equally entitle for share in the suit schedule property. After the death of Smt.Ningamma, plaintiff many a times approached the defendants no.1 to 5 and requested to allot her share in the suit schedule property.
5 O.S. No.5518/2012Defendant No.1 to 5 though promised, failed to allot her share. Plaintiff convened a meeting in the month of June 2012 in presence of some relatives and friends, where defendant No. 1 to 5 promised that share of the plaintiff will be allotted in the month of July 2012. Accordingly, plaintiff again on 25.07.2012 approached the defendant No.1 to 5 and requested to allot her share, but the defendant No.1 to 5 flatly refused to do so. Hence having no option, plaintiff approached this Court for the relief of partition.
3. Upon issuance of the suit summons, defendant No.1 to 6 appeared before this Court through their respective Advocate and filed written statement.
Defendant No.1, 2 and 5 in their written statement admitted that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5 constitute Hindu Undivided Joint Family, that the parties to the suit are the children of Late Maddaiah and Smt.Ningamma, that the mother of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5 acquired the suit schedule property during her life time under a registered sale deed dated 29.06.1989 which came to be registered on 01.07.1989, that the parents of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5 are no more and accordingly, plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5 succeeded to the suit schedule property by inheritance, that all the parties to the suit are equally entitle for 1/6th share in the suit schedule property, that after the death of Maddaiah and Smt.Ningamma, no partition has been taken place in the family of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5 and pray that since, there is no partition in the family in 6 O.S. No.5518/2012 respect of the suit schedule property a decree be passed holding that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5 are entitle for equal share in the suit schedule property.
Defendant No.3 and 4 denied that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5 constitute Hindu Undivided Joint Family, that the plaintiff and defendants are children of Muddaiah, that Muddaiah gave birth to plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5 through Smt.Ningamma, that during the life time of Smt.Ningamma, she had acquired property bearing No.36/1, present BBMP No.17, 2nd Cross, Azad Nagar, Bangalore-18 i.e. suit schedule property by way of sale deed dt.29.06.1989 got purchased from T.M.Ramaiah, S/o.Thimmegowda @ Thotada Thimmegowda, which was registered before the office of the Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bangalore, that plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5 are entitle to succeed all her estate and properties, that after the death of Smt.Ningamma, the succession opened and plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to 4 are equally entitle for share in the suit schedule property, that after the death of Smt.Ningamma, the mother of the plaintiff, the plaintiff many a times approached the defendant No. 1 to 5 and requested to allot her share in the suit schedule property.
It is contended that there is no person by name Muddaiah. Plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5 are infact children of Madaiah, that they are not aware of Muddaiah, Madaiah died during 1996, Smt.Ningamma out of the lawful wedlock with Madaiah gave birth to plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5.
7 O.S. No.5518/2012Plaintiff got married nearly 30 years ago. Smt.Ningamma expired on 20.01.1992 leaving behind, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5.
The suit schedule property is the ancestral property of plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5, as such plaintiff has no right over the property. Plaintiff being married as on the date of death of Ningamma did not have any right over the property. Defendant No.1 to 5 entered into registered partition partitioning the schedule property by metes and bounds by way of registered partition deed dated 20.11.2004 registered on 22.11.2004 before the Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bangalore and thereafter a portion of property which was allotted to defendant No.3 Lingraju and defendant No.5 Shekar were sold by them to Manjunath the defendant No.4, in this suit by way of registered sale deed dated 22.11.2004. Thereafter, he sold the portion purchased by him from defendant No.3 and 5 and portion acquired by him under partition deed in favour of defendant No.6 N.B.Kantharaju, by way of registered sale deed dt.14.06.2012 and the said property was delivered to him on the date of the sale deed. Hence, the question of the plaintiff being in joint possession do not arise. As such, the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.
Defendants in their additional written statement contended that the plaintiff cannot seek the relief of declaration without paying proper court fee under Section 38 of the Court Fees and suit valuation act, that the sale deed is validly executed, the 8 O.S. No.5518/2012 partition deed dt.20.11.2004 is validly executed and it cannot be declared as void, suit is also barred by time, the relief of declaration of partition deed dated 20.11.2004 as null and void during 2013 by way of amendment is barred by time, the suit for declaration after three years is hopelessly barred by time.
Defendant No.3 and 4 in their written statement contended the court fee paid is highly insufficient, plaintiff cannot value the property under Section 35(2) of KCF & SV Act as she is not at all in possession of any property either symbolically or actually.
The suit being not properly valued and the court fee paid being insufficient, the question of court fee has to be decide as a preliminary issue under Section 11 of the KCF & SV Act. The plaintiff is not at all in joint possession of any property. With this, prayed to dismiss the suit.
Defendant No.6 in his written statement contended that the suit filed by plaintiff for partition and separate possession of 1/6th share in the suit schedule property is not maintainable either in law or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed. Defendant denied the entire plaint averments. Defendant contended that the suit schedule property was purchased by the mother of the defendant No.1 to 5 on 29.06.1989. At the time of purchase, the plaintiff who is the daughter was married and had been residing at her husband's house and she had not contributed any amount for the purchase of the said property and likewise, the suit schedule property exclusively belonged to 9 O.S. No.5518/2012 the defendant No.1 to 5 and the plaintiff did not have any right over the same. After the death of plaintiff's mother, defendant N.1 to 5 entered into a registered partition dated 20.11.2004 and said partition deed registered before the Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi, B'luru. As per the said registered partition deed dated 20.11.2004, the suit schedule property was divided into four share and as per that deed, each of them had agreed to take their shares except the defendant No.2 as he had been given Rs.50,000/- which is the joint family amount and likewise the defendant No.1 was allotted 'A' schedule property of partition deed and the defendant No.2 was allotted 'B' schedule property of partition deed and defendant No.3 was allotted 'C' schedule property partition deed and defendant No.4 was allotted 'D' schedule property of partition deed and defendant No.5 was allotted 'E' schedule property of partition deed and the said partition deed has been registered along with the sketch to show the individual portions. Defendant Nos.1, 3 to 5 were in their respective possession of the portions allotted to them and the defendant No.3 and 5 have sold their share to defendant No.4 under registered sale deed dt.22.11.2004 for sale consideration, thereby he became the absolute owner of the said properties including his property and he had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Defendant No.4 was the absolute owner of the property bearing No.36/3, Old khatha No.36/1, PID No.45-8-36/3, ward No.141, measuring east to west 17 feet, north to south 42 feet 8 inches totally 727.6 sq. ft., The defendant No.4 had also got the khatha transferred into his name in the BBMP records and was 10 O.S. No.5518/2012 exercising the ownership as absolute owner of the said property.
Defendant No.6 further contended that he was under search of property and likewise in the month of April 2002, he came to know about the proposal of sale by defendant No.4, after looking the said property, had agreed to purchase the same, defendant No.6 has purchased the said property for a total sale consideration of Rs.28,00,000/, he had availed loan of Rs.16,00,000/- from Bharat Electronics Employees Credit Co- operative Society Ltd., by depositing title deeds and the said society before sanctioning the loan has sent the documents to legal scrutiny and until unless the legal opinion was taken the loan was not sanctioned.
Defendant No.6 further contended that he did not know about the plaintiff as the same was not disclosed anywhere in the partition deed entered by the defendant No.1 to 5 and also in the sale deeds which were executed by defendant No.3 and 5 in favour of defendant No.4 hence this defendant with an intention to purchase a property in his life has taken lot of pain and efforts and purchased the said property, now the plaintiff has filed this suit with instigation of defendant No.1 and he who has retained the share in the said property actually had an intention to purchase the same when he has come to know about the purchase.
11 O.S. No.5518/2012Defendant No.6 further contended that he has purchased the property and he is a genuine purchaser, who was not disclosed by the defendant No.1 to 5 about the plaintiff in their partition deed and as it can be seen that the plaintiff is a married woman who get right in the suit schedule property only after the Central Act 2005 and the law is very much clear that the female member is not entitle to a share in the ancestral property if the partition is effected before the Act has come into force and in the present case, the plaintiff is not entitle to partition as it can be seen that the partition is effected in the year 2004 and hence the partition deed is binding on her. The suit is liable to be dismissed on this ground as not maintainable.
Defendant No.6 further contended that he has invested huge amounts over the part of the suit schedule property by taking loan and also his hard earned money and defendant No.6 after the purchase has got all the relevant documents transferred into his name and he is the absolute owner of the same. There are three portions in the said property which he has purchased, defendant after the purchase has got some repairs done and has lent the same to the tenants on monthly rent and defendant No.6 has invested huge amounts over the suit schedule property and now the plaintiff has filed this suit only to harass this defendant No.6.
Defendant No.6 contended that plaintiff had knowledge of the partition which was effected amongst defendant No.1 to 5, as 12 O.S. No.5518/2012 they had divided the portions individually and the plaintiff had come to the defendants house and she was knowing about the partition which has been effected but only for the purpose of filing this suit she says that she did not have any knowledge about the partition effected amongst his brothers. Defendant No.6 contended that plaintiff is not in possession of the property jointly as it is very clear by the address given in the cause title and hence the plaintiff has to challenge the sale deed executed by the defendant No.3 to 5 in the name of the defendant No.4 and also he has to seek setting aside the sale deed executed by defendant No.4 in favour of defendant and untill & unless of the same, suit is not maintainable. With this, defendant No.6 prays to dismiss the suit.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, my predecessor in office has framed the following issues;
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that she is entitled for 1/6th share in the suit schedule property?
2. Whether the Plaintiff proves that the partition deed dated 20.11.2004 and registered sale deed dated 14.06.2012 are not binding on the plaintiff?
3. Whether the defendant No.1, 2 and 5 prove that they are also entitled for equal share in the suit schedule property as alleged in the written statement?
4. Whether defendant No.6 proves that the Court Fee paid is not proper as alleged in 13 O.S. No.5518/2012 para No.2- of the written statement?
(Treated as Preliminary Issue)
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the relief sought ?
6. What Order or Decree ?
5. The plaintiff in order to prove her case, examined herself as PW 1 by way of filing her affidavit evidence under Order XVIII Rule 4 of CPC and in all got marked six documents at Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.6 and closed her evidence. On the other hand, defendants inorder to rebut the suit of the plaintiff, got examined defendant No.6 as DW-1 and got marked eight documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.8 and closed his side evidence.
6. Heard, perused the entire materials available on records
7. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 to 3 : In the Affirmative Issue No.4 : In Negative Issue No.5 : In the affirmative.
Issue No.6 : As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Issue No.1 to 3 and 5:- The case of the plaintiff is that the suit schedule property belongs to her mother Smt.Ningamma, that she had purchased the same from T.M.Ramaiah 14 O.S. No.5518/2012 S/o.Thimmegowda @ Thotada Thimmegowda under registered sale deed dated 29.06.1989 registered on 01.07.1989 before the office of the Sub Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bangalore is not disputed.
Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 reads as follows;
"14. property of a female Hindu to be her absolute property - (1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall beheld by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner"
9. Thus, the suit property since is purchased in the name of Smt.Ningamma, mother of plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5, it would be her absolute property. There is no dispute as to Smt.Ningamma died on 20.01.1982. There is also no dispute as to plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5 are her children. The defence of the contested defendants no.4 and 6 is that, they defendant No.1 to 5 got executed registered partition deed on 20.11.2004 among them, thereafter the defendant No.3 and 5 have executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.4 in respect of their share, thereafter defendant No.4 executed sale deed in favour of defendant No.6 on 14.06.2012 in respect of the property purchased from defendant No.3 an 5 and property acquired by him under partition deed, that now defendant No.6 is in possession and enjoyment of the portion purchased by him in the suit schedule property. However, in lieu of suit 15 O.S. No.5518/2012 schedule property is the absolute property of Smt.Ningamma, as she died intestate, as per Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, her property is to be devolve among all her children i.e., plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5. So, partition deed executed among defendant No.1 to 5, discarding the interest of plaintiff is not binding on the plaintiff to an extent of her share.
10. The plaintiff has filed her affidavit in lieu of her chief examination, she was also cross-examined, but later she remained absent for tendering for further cross-examination, thus her further cross-examination has been taken as nil and opportunity is provided for defendants to lead their evidence. Since, this is a suit for partition, the procedure that where the party do not tender for cross-examination, her/his entire evidence is to be discarded is not applicable. Even otherwise, here since the point involved is relating to law, the evidence of PW-1 is not necessary.
11. As I have already stated above, there is no dispute as to plaintiff and defendant No. 1 to 5 are the children of Smt.Ningamma. Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act reads as follows;
"15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus-(1) the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in Section 16-
(a) firstly, upon the sons and
daughters (including the
children of any
predeceased son or
16 O.S. No.5518/2012
daughter) and the
husband;
(b) secondly, upon the heirs
of the husband
(c) thirdly, upon the mother
and father
(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of
the father; and
(e) lastly, upon the heirs of
the mother
(2) Notwithstanding anything
contained in sub-section (1)-
(a) any property inherited by a
female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and
(b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-session (1) in the other specified therein but upon the heirs of the husband".
12. According to this provision, if Hindu female died intestate, her properties have to be devolved among her sons, daughters and husband as her Class-I heirs. In this case, admittedly husband of Ningamma pre-deceased to her as per the cause 17 O.S. No.5518/2012 title. Thus, the petitioner and defendant No.1 to 5 being the daughter and son's are entitle for equal share. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled for 1/6th share in the suit schedule property. Inview of this, the partition deed dated 20.11.2004 and sale deed dated 14.06.2012 are not binding on the plaintiff.
13. The defendant No.1, 2 and 5 have also sought for equal share in the suit schedule property. They have submitted that they are ready to pay court fee. Inview of this, they are entitled for 1/6th share subject to payment of court fee. With this, I hold that plaintiff, defendant No.1, 2 and 5 are entitle for 1/6th share each in the suit schedule property, the sale deed dated 14.062012 and partition deed dated 20.11.2004 are not binding on the plaintiff, defendant No.1, 2 and 5. For, this reason, I answer Issue No.1 to 3 and 5 in the affirmative.
14. Issue No.4:- It is the case of that defendant No.6 that the court fee paid is highly insufficient, plaintiff cannot value the property under Section 35(2) of KCF & SV Act as she is not at all in possession of any property either symbolically or actually. As per the valuation slip enclosed to plaint, the suit is valued under Section 7(2) R/w. Section 35(2) of KCF & SC Act, 1958. The court fee is assessed at Rs.225/-.
Section 7(2) of KCF & SV Act reads as follows;
"7(2) The market value of land in suits falling under Section 24(a), 24(b), 26(a), 27, 28, 29, 31, 35(1), 18 O.S. No.5518/2012 35(2), 35(3), 36, 38, 39 or 45 shall be deemed to be-
(a) where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such an estate and is recorded in the deputy commissioner's register as separately assessed with such revenue, and such revenue is permanently settled
- twenty - five times the revenue so payable;
(b) where the landforms an entire estate, or a definite share on an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such estate and is recorded aforesaid, and such revenue is settled, but not permanently -
twelve and a half times the revenue so payable;
(c) where the land pays no such revenue, or has been partially exempted from such payment, or is charged with any fixed payment in lieu of such revenue, fifteen times the net profits if any from the land during the year next before the date of presenting the plaint or thirty times the revenue payable on the same extent of similar land in the neighbouring, whichever is lower;
(d) where the land forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government, but is not a definite share of such estate and is not separately assessed 19 O.S. No.5518/2012 as above mentioned or the land is a garden or the land is a house suite whether assessed to full revenue or not, or is land not falling within the foregoing description - the market value of the land."
Section 35(2) of KCF & SV Act reads as follows;
"35.Partition suits - (2) In a suit for partition and separate possession of joint family property or property owned, jointly or in common, by a plaintiff who is in joint possession of such property, fee shall be paid at the following rates-
Rupees fifteen, if the value of plaintiff's share is Rs.3,000/- or less;
Rupees thirty, if the value is above Rs.3,000/- but not more than Rs.5,000/-
Rupees one hundred, if the value is above Rs.5,000/- but below Rs.10,000/- and Rupees two hundred, if the value is Rs.10,000/- and above."
15. The suit schedule property being the absolute property of mother of plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5, after her death, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 5 jointly succeed to her estate, thereby the possession of the plaintiff in respect of the property would be joint along with defendant No.1 to 5. Suit is for partition and separate possession, hence valuing the suit under 20 O.S. No.5518/2012 Section 35(2) of KCF & SV Act is property, Court fee of Rs225/- paid is sufficient. Thus, I hold that the defendant NO.6 has failed to prove this issue. Accordingly, I answer issue No.4 in the negative.
16. ISSUE No.6:- In view of my above finding on above issue No.1 to 5 and as well as for the facts and circumstances observed therein, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed. The plaintiff is entitled for 1/6th share in the suit schedule property.
The defendant No.1, 2 and 5 are entitled for 1/6th share each on their paying required court fee.
Draw preliminary decree accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of September, 2019).
(SMT.PUSHPAVATHI.V) LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff:
PW.1: Smt.Yashoda 21 O.S. No.5518/2012 List of documents exhibited on behalf of the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of sale deed dated 29.06.1989 Ex.P.2 Certified copy of registered partition deed dated 20.11.2004 Ex.P.3 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 22.11.2004 Ex.P.4 Certified copy of the sale deed dated 14.06.2010 Ex.P.5 E.C. Ex.P.6 Self attested genealogical tree List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants:
DW.1: N.B.Kantharaju List of documents exhibited on behalf of the defendants:
Ex.D.1 Original sale deed dt.14.06.2012 Ex.D.2 Original khatha certificate standing in the name of defendant No.6 Ex.D.3 Original khatha extract in the name of defendant No.6 Ex.D.4 Uttar patra given by BBMP Ex.D.5 Partition deed dated 20.11.2004 Ex.D.6 Sale deed dated 22.11.2004 Ex.D.7 Certified copy of sale deed dated 29.06.1989 Ex.D.8 Sale deed dated 26.02.1981 (SMT.PUSHPAVATHI.V) LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.22 O.S. No.5518/2012
16.09.2019 P-SAK D1, 2 & 5 -SRC D3, 4- RC D6-VM JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT VIDE SEPARATE TYPED ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed.
The plaintiff is entitled for 1/6th share in the suit schedule property.
The defendant No.1, 2 and 5 are entitled for 1/6th share each on their paying required court fee.
Draw preliminary decree
accordingly.
(SMT.PUSHPAVATHI.V)
LXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.