Bangalore District Court
Karthik Sagar vs Nagamma Alias Divya on 6 January, 2026
O.S.7516/2022
KABC010315482022
Presented on : 22-11-2022
Registered on : 22-11-2022
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in
Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE, AT
BENGALURU CITY
PRESENT: SMT. PRASEELA KUMARI. G.S, B.A.L,LLB.,
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH.No.27), BENGALURU
Dated this the 6TH day of JANUARY, 2026.
O.S.No.7516/2022
PLAINTIFF : KARTHIK SAGAR
Son of Late A.M. Janagiram,
Aged about 42 years, Residing at
No.83, 2nd Cross, Vannarpet
Layout, Viveknagar, Bengaluru-
560 047
(By Sri.BSJ, Advocate)
V/S
DEFENDANTS : 1. NAGAMMA @ DIVYA
Wife of Late J. Vidyasagar,
Aged about 53 years,
O.S.7516/ 2022
2
2. TUSHAR SAGAR. V
Son of Late J. Vidyasagar,
Aged about 23 years,
3. ROHIT SAGAR. V
Son of Late J. Vidyasagar,
Aged about 21 years,
4. KEERTHI SAGAR. V
Daughter of Late J. Vidyasgar,
Aged about 11 years, Represented
herein by her Natural Guardian
Nagamma @ Divya
All residing at No.83, Ground
Floor, 2nd Cross, Vannarpet
Layout, Viveknagar Post,
Bengaluru-560 047
( Sri.KMJR for D1 TO 4 )
Date of Institution of the : 22-11-2022
suit
Nature of the suit : POSSESSION
Date of commencement of :
recording of the evidence 23-09-2024
Date on which the :
Judgment was 06-01-2026
pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
03 01 14
( G.S.PRASEELA KUMARI )
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY.
O.S.7516/ 2022
3
JUDGMENT
The suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants directing the Defendants to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the ground floor of the Schedule Property to the Plaintiff with permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their men, agents, successors, servants or any one claiming through or under them from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of Schedule Property without due process of law in any manner detrimental to rights of Plaintiff and to pass such further orders or grant such further relief's.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case is that:-
Originally the Schedule Property was allotted by the Bangalore Development Authority ('B.D.A') to one Sri. K.C. Nagappa Reddy vide Indenture Deed of Sale dated 22.10.1981, Sri. K.C.Nagappa in pursuance of the allotment order, possession certificate and approved building plan had executed an Agreement of Sale dated 30.01.1981 in favour of Sri. A.M. Janagiraman. Sri. A.M. Janagiraman was the absolute owner and in possession of the Schedule Property. It is submitted that, Sri. A.M. Janagiraman O.S.7516/ 2022 4 died intestate on 02.09.2012 leaving behind his wife Smt. Rajeswari Janagiraman and children viz.,
(i) Sri.J.Vidya Sagar, (ii) Smt. J. Usha Venkataramanan, (iii) Smt. Shashikala J. Shiv, (iv) Smt. Susitra Janagiram and his second wife Smt. Revathi Mani and son Sri. Karthik Sagar (i.e., the Plaintiff herein) as his surviving legal heirs to succeed to the Schedule Property.
3. It is submitted that since the aforesaid legal heirs of Late A.Μ. Janagiraman are equally entitled for a definite share in the Schedule property. In this regard as per the wishes of Late A.M. Janagiraman and with a view to avoid any sorts of disputes or complications among the legal heirs and for better enjoyment, management, control and administration of the Schedule Property and Joint Family Funds of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) mutually decided to partition the Schedule Property and Joint Family Funds. In this regard the aforesaid legal heirs of Late A.M. Janagiraman executed a Deed of Partition, dated 19.03.2016. It is submitted THAT Schedule Property along with the building thereon was allotted exclusively to the share of Smt. Rajeswari Janagiraman and a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) of the Joint Family Funds O.S.7516/ 2022 5 was allotted to the share of (i) Sri. J. Vidya Sagar, (ii) Smt. J. Usha Venkataramanan, (iii) Smt. Shashikala J. Shiv, (iv) Smt. Susitra Janagiram and a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) of the Joint Family Funds was allotted to the share of Smt. Revathi Mani and the Plaintiff. Since the execution of the aforesaid Deed of Partition Smt. Rajeswari Janagiraman had taken physical possession of the Schedule Property and has been paying taxes and obtained Katha in her name. As things stood thus, the Defendants being the legal heirs of the deceased Sri.J.Vidya Sagar unlawfully trespassed and occupied the ground floor of the Schedule Property and started physically and verbally abuse Smt. Rajeswari Janagiraman and started to unlawfully obstruct Smt. Rajeswari Janagiraman from entering the first and second floor of the Schedule Property. It is further submitted that on many occasions Smt.Rajeswari Janagiraman requested the Defendants to vacate the ground floor of the Schedule Property but the Defendants continued to unlawfully occupy the ground floor of the Schedule Property taking undue advantage of old age and feeble condition of Smt. Rajeswari Janagiraman. Left with no other alternative Smt.Rajeswari Janagiraman filed a police complaint on 20-06-2019 before the O.S.7516/ 2022 6 jurisdictional Vivek Nagar Police Station. Police Complaint clearly discloses cognizable offence against the defendants but the Jurisdictional Vivek Nagar Police Station instead of filing a FIR and taking action against the Defendant filed a Non-Cognizable Report in N.C.R. No.297/2019.
4. Being aggrieved by inaction of the Police authorities, Smt. Rajeswari Janagiraman filed a Private Complaint before the Hon'ble Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru and the same came to be registered as P.C.R. No.50867/2020 and the same is pending for consideration. Due to the old age Rajeswari Janagiraman was unable to manage the affairs of Schedule Property gifted the Schedule Property vide registered Gift Deed, dated 12.03.2020. It is submitted that since the execution of the aforementioned Gift Deed the Plaintiff is in peaceful, actual, lawful possession of the 1st and 2nd Floor of the Schedule Property. Since then, the Khata, Tax Paid Receipt and Encumbrance Certificate is affected in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff have on many occasions requested the Defendants to vacate the unlawful occupation of the ground floor of the Schedule Property and the Defendants have willfully O.S.7516/ 2022 7 failed to vacate and deliver the vacant possession to the Plaintiff.
5. In turn the Defendants continue to assault the Plaintiff and obstruct from entering Schedule Property to access the first and second floor of the Schedule Property. The Defendants also filed a frivolous suit in O.S. No.25172/2021 against Smt. Rajeswari Janagiraman and the Plaintiff pending for consideration before the Hon'ble City Civil Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-29) seeking astronomical reliefs of restraining the Plaintiff Smt. Rajeswari Janagiraman from interfering with peaceful possession of the Defendants in the Schedule Property having no manner of right, title or interest in the Schedule Property. The Defendants by abusing due process of law are using the pendency of the aforesaid suit as shield from vacating the Schedule Property and delivering vacant possession to the Plaintiff being the absolute owner of the Schedule property. the Plaintiff left with no other alternative has caused issued a Legal Notice, dated 04.11.2021 through his counsels calling upon the Defendants to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the ground floor of the Schedule Property to the Plaintiff. The said notice was duly served upon the Defendants on 10.11.2021.
O.S.7516/ 2022 8
6. On the receipt of the notice the Defendants have replied to the same through her Counsel under the Reply Notice, dated 15.11.2021 by vaguely denying the averments of the aforesaid Legal Notice issued by the Plaintiff and using the pendency of the suit in O.S. No.25172/2021 as a shield from vacating the Schedule Property and delivering vacant possession to the Plaintiff. the Defendants have willfully failed to quit, vacate and deliver vacant possession of the ground floor of the Schedule Property to the Plaintiff. The Defendants even today are in unlawful possession of the ground floor of the Schedule Property and are further obstructing and interfering with peaceful possession of the Plaintiff in the first and second floor of the Schedule Property.
The cause of action arose on 12-03-2020 when Smt.Rajeswari Janagiraman executed the gift deed dated 12-03-2020 in favour of the plaintiff on 04-11-2021 when the plaintiff issued the legal notice and on 15-11-2021 when the defendant issued the reply notice. The cause of action arose within the territorial limits and jurisdiction of the Hon'ble court. Hence, prays for judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff.
O.S.7516/ 2022 9
7. The defendant No.2 files written statement and submits that defendant No.1 and 3 files memo to adopt the written statement of defendant No.2 as their written statement. The brief facts of the defendant's case is as follows:-
The suit is not maintainable either on law or on facts, no cause of action. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. Defendant No.1 to 3 have categorically denied the absolute ownership of the plaintiff, his possession over the suit schedule property, but they have admitted the ownership of the A.M.Janagirama. As per the sale deed dated 10-09-1981 and also admitted his possession over the suit schedule property on the strength of the registered sale deed. Defendants have categorically admitted the relationship of the plaintiff and defendant as well as the entire legal heirs of the deceased A.Janagirama. The defendants submits that Smt. Revathi Mani and son Karthik is not wife and son of A.M.Janagiraman and Rajeshwari is wife of A.M.Janagiraman. When the wife of A.M.Janagirama is alive, during the lifetime of Janagiraman 2nd marriage with Revathi Mani without any divorce from 1st wife is not sustainable. The relationship between the Revathi mani and Karthik with Janagiraman is false and O.S.7516/ 2022 10 concocted and is created only to file the present suit. Gift deed executed by Rajeshwari in favour of the plaintiff is not a valid document and which has no santity in the eye of law. The plaintiff himself as admitted that he is the son of Revathi Mani and not the son of Rajeshwari Janagiraman. As such the gift deed executed by the Rajeswari in favour of the plaintiff is not a valid document. The execution of the registered partition deed dated 12-03-2020 and allotment of the share as per the terms and conditions of the partition deed is not within the knowledge of the defendants. Originally the suit schedule property belongs to the grand father of the 2nd defendant. All the legal heirs are entitled to their share over the suit schedule property. The allotment of the joint family funds and also the joint family property to Rajeswari is not within the knowledge of the defendants.
8. Defendant No.1 is the wife of the late Vidyasagar. Defendant No.2 to 4 were born out of their wedlock. J.Vidyasagar being the son of J.Janagiraman is having right, title and interest over the property belongs to the father. The defendants are residing in the suit schedule property along with their father and defendant Nos.2 to 4 from O.S.7516/ 2022 11 15-08-2011. During the lifetime of Janagiraman after purchasing the property from his vendor he has additionally constructed 1st floor and 2nd floor by investing his own funds, as such be became the absolute owner of the absolute entire property. Through oral partition ground, 1st and 2nd floor allotted to J.Vidyasagar, thereafter till the death of Vidyasagar he was in possession and enjoyment of the property along with the defendants on 15-08-2011. The suit schedule property physically allotted to Vidyasagar. After the death of vidyasagar all the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property only on the basis of created and concocted gift deed. The plaintiff misrepresented before the revenue authorities created the document to claim their ownership, alleged gift deed is not maintainable at all. Requisition made by the plaintiff to the defendant to vacate the lawful occupation of the ground floor of the suit schedule property denied as false.
9. It is also categorically denied that the defendant along with goonda elements tried to threaten the plaintiff. According to the defendants plaintiff along with goonda elements tried to evict the defendant from the suit schedule property without any valid O.S.7516/ 2022 12 title deed. As such, they have approached the city civil court in O.S.NO.25172/2021, it is also pending before the court. It is further submitted that the defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property since from 15-08-2011 but plaintiff got issued legal notice dated 04-11-2021 to the defendants, it is also suitably relied by the defendants. Till the death of father of J.Vidyasagar the defendants are residing in the suit schedule property but after the death of J.Vidyasagar the plaintiff colluded with others demanding the defendants to quit and vacate the suit schedule property but plaintiff has no manner of right, title and interest over the suit schedule property to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the entire suit schedule property.
10. On the basis of the pleadings my learned predecessor in office has framed the following:-
ISSUES
1. Does the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property ?
2. Does the plaintiff proves that it is Late. J. Vidhya Sagar was unlawfully trespassed into the O.S.7516/ 2022 13 ground floor of the suit schedule property, after his demise the defendants are continued to have the possession illegally, thus they are to be evicted and vacant possession is requires to be delivered to the plaintiff ?
3. Does the plaintiff proves to grant perceptual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the Suit schedule property?
4. What order or decree
11. In support of the case of the plaintiff, plaintiff himself examined as PW.1 and also got marked Ex.P1 to P14. In support of the case of the defendants, defendant No.1 got examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D1 to D7.
12. My answers to the above points are as under;
ISSUE No.1 : In the Affirmative;
ISSUE No.2 : In the Affirmative;
ISSUE No.3 : In the Affirmative;
ISSUE No.4 : As per final order
for the following:-
O.S.7516/ 2022
14
REASONS
13. ISSUE NO. 1: In issue No.1 plaintiff has to prove that he is the absolute owner of the Suit schedule property. Regarding this issue on perusal of the plaint averments as well as the evidence of PW.1, he has submitted that he is the absolute owner of the Suit schedule property as per gift deed executed by Rajeshwari Janagiraman in favour fo the plaintiff. As per gift deed dated 12-03-2020 much earlier to that originally the Suit schedule property was allotted by BDA in favour of K.C.Nagappa as per indenture deed of sale dated 22-10-1981 and as per the allotment order he was in possession and enjoyment of the entire Suit schedule property, Possession certificate and also approved plan stands in his name. On the strength of that document he had executed agreement of sale dated 30-01-1981 in favour of Sri.A.M.Janagiraman and also executed the registered gift deed dated 10-09- 1981 in favour of A.M.Janagiraman. On the strength of that registered sale deed he was in possession and enjoyment of the same as absolute owner. In order to prove the transaction between BDA and K.C.Nagappa as well as transaction b/w. K.C.Nagappa and A.M.Janagiraman PW.1 has relied upon Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3.
O.S.7516/ 2022 15
14. PW.1 is authorized GPA holder of plaintiff. Regarding the authorization he has relied upon Ex.P-5. Ex.P1 reflect that plaintiff has executed the GPA in favour of PW.1 and authorized the PW.1 to depose on his behalf and also proceed the case from the date of filing the suit till the date of disposal of the same. The recitals at Ex.P1 itself goes to show that PW.1 is the authorized person deposed on behalf of the plaintiff. PW.1 is none other than the wife of the plaintiff as such, she is very well aware of the facts of the case and she is proper person to represent the plaintiff. On the basis of the recitals at Ex.P-1, PW.1 is proper and authorized person to file the affidavit in lieu of chief examination and also subject to herself for cross-examination.
15. Regarding the transaction between the BDA and K.C.Nagappa, plaintiff has relied upon Ex.P-3 registered sale deed dated 22-10-1981. On careful perusal of the recitals at Ex.P3 it reflect that Dy.Secretary of BDA had executed the registered sale deed in favour K.C.Nagappa Reddy S/O. Sri.Chikkayellappa Reddy for valid consideration of Rs.1667/- pertaining to the property bearing site No.83, Vennar Pete Extension measuring East-West 30ft , North-South 35ft bounded on east by road, West by site No.66, North by site No.88, south by site No.84. This document is executed in the year 1981, it O.S.7516/ 2022 16 is more than 30 years old document. The recitals in the above said sale deed itself goes to show that, the purchaser having put in actual possession on 28-05-1966. The possession of the property also handed over to the K.C.Nagappa Reddy. When the property purchased by Nagappa Reddy from BDA the title of the purchase is valid in accordance with law.
16. According to PW.1 Sri.A.M.Janagiraman has purchased the Suit schedule property from K.C.Nagappa reddy on 10-09-1981. The recitals at Ex.P2 reflect that A.M.Janagiraman has purchased the Suit schedule property for valid consideration of Rs.48,000/- and he was put in possession and enjoyment of the entire Suit schedule property. The description at Ex.P2 as well as Ex.P3 are one and the same. Even Ex.P2 also is more than 30 years old document. Apart from that this document also produced before the court from the plaintiff through PW.1 from the proper custody.
17. Regarding the validity of Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 on perusal of Sec.64 of the Transfer of property Act, it reflect that sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promise or part paid and part promised. Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer or such person as he directs in O.S.7516/ 2022 17 possession of the property. The essential ingredients of sale are parties, subject matter, transfer or conveyance, price or consideration and registration of the sale deed if a subject matter is tangible immovable property of a value of Rs.100/- and upwards is necessary. The above said definition and essential ingredients reflect at Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.
18. Regarding the proof of above said two sale deeds on careful perusal of the observation in a textbook Writer Sarkar in his textbook on evidence mentions that a sale deed not being a document require attestation can be proved in a same way as any private document. Regarding Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 on careful perusal of the written statement filed by the defendants in para No.5 defendants have categorically admitted the execution of the sale deed in favour of K.C.Nagappa reddy indenture deed of sale dated 22-10-1981 and also agreement of sale dated 30-01-1981 in favour of the A.M.Janagiraman. When ownership of A.M.Janagiraman is admitted by the defendants in their written statement itself, as per Sec.58 of the Evidence Act admitted facts need not be proved. In a ruling reported in AIR 1996 SCC 761 Smt. Hans Raji vs Yosodanand, Honb'le Apex Court held that a sale deed even it is registered one is not a document requiring attestation, in a practice it is generally attested for O.S.7516/ 2022 18 facilitating proof by examining and attestor. To prove the sale deed it is not mandatory that the attestor should be examined. As per Sec.64 of the Evidence Act the original sale deed has to be called since the documentary evidence has to be primary in character. By keeping in mind the wordings as spelt out in Sec.54 and Sec.64 of the Transfer of Property Act, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 proved by the plaintiff. As per Sec.92 of the Evidence Act no oral evidence to alter the terms of the sale deed or any other dispossession between the parties is permissible unless such evidence passed within one or other provisions to Sec.92.
As per Section 90 of the Evidence Act -
Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested.
Explanation.-Documents are said to be in proper custody if they are in the place in which, and under the care of the person with whom, they would naturally be; but no custody is improper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin, or if the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render such an origin probable.
O.S.7516/ 2022 19 By keeping in mind the above said provision and discussion and also on the basis of the admission in the evidence of DW.1 and written statement averments Ex.P2 and P3 are properly proved by the plaintiff.
19. According to PW.1 A.M.Janagiraman died intestate on 02-09-2012 leaving behind his wife Rajeswari Janagiraman and her children by name J.Vidyasagar, J.Ushavenkaramanan, Smt.Shashikala.J.Shiv, Smt. Susitra janagiraman and his 2nd wife Smt.Revathimani and her son Karthik Sagar. Regarding the death of A.M.Janagiraman PW.1 has relied on death certificate which got marked as Ex.P14. This document goes to show that he died on 02-09-2012, his father name shown as late Ayyasamy and mother name shown as Rajammal. Regarding the death of A.M.Janagiraman and relationship between the plaintiffs as well as the defendants, in the written statement itself the defendants have categorically admitted the relationship as true and correct. Therefore, much more discussion regarding death of Janagiraman and relationship of plaintiffs and defendants does not arise.
20. According to PW.1 subsequent to the death of A.M.Janagiraman both the wives as well as their children O.S.7516/ 2022 20 entered into the partition deed which registered on 19-03-2016 all the legal heirs of deceased Janagiraman with an intention to avoid the disputes and complications among them for better enjoyment, management and control and administration of the family property and joint family funds of Rs.6 lakhs mutually decided to partition the schedule property and joint family funds. In order to prove the partition among the legal heirs of the deceased, PW.1 has relied upon Ex.P4 original partition deed dated 19-03-2016 this document is registered document, parties to the partition deed are Rajeshwari Janagiraman W/o. A.M.Janagiraman as 1st party, J.Vidyasagar S/o. A.M.Janagiraman, Smt.J.Ushavenkataraman D/o. Late A.M.Janagiraman, Smt.Shashikala.J.Shiv D/o. A.M.Janagiraman, Smt.Susitra Janagiraman D/o. A.M.Janagiraman as the second parties, Smt.Revathimani second wife of A.M.Janagiraman, Sri. Karthiksagar s/o. A.M.Janagiraman as a 3rd party.
21. By virtue of this partition deed it reflect that the suit schedule property allotted to the share of the Smt.Rajeswari Janagiraman, Rs.400000/- has been received by 2nd parties by cash and Rs.200000/- received by 3rd parties out of joint family funds. During the lifetime of the husband of the defendant No.1 and father O.S.7516/ 2022 21 of defendant No.2 to 4 received his share in the form of cash at the time of family partition. He has also given up his entire right, title and interest over the suit schedule property. During his lifetime, not questioned the validity of the partition deed, when the partition deed itself is registered in accordance with law itself goes to show that the property of A.M.Janagiraman subsequent to his death partitioned among the legal heirs of the deceased. As per Ex.P4 partition deed Smt. Rajeswari Janagiraman became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
According to Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 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 be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.
Explanation - In this sub-section, "property" includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female
Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, O.S.7516/ 2022 22 or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as Stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act.
By virtue of this provision Smt.Rajeswari Janagiraman is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property as per registered partition deed dated 19-03-2016.
22. According to PW.1, subsequent to the partition deed Smt. Rajeswari Janagiraman has executed registered gift deed dated 12-03-2020 in favour of the plaintiff. The reason for execution of the gift deed also narrated by PW.1 in his chief-examination. When Rajeswari Janagiraman had taken physical possession of the suit schedule property on the strength of the registered partition deed she has also paid tax and obtained Katha in her name. The defendants who are none other than the legal heirs of deceased J.Vidyasagar unlawfully trespassed and occupied the ground floor and physically as well as verbally abused Smt.Rajeswari from entering into the 1st and 2nd floor of the schedule property. Inspite of request by the Rajeswari, the defendants continued their unlawful occupation and harassed Rajeswari. As a result of that Smt.Rajeswari filed a police complaint on 20-06-2019 before the Jurisdictional Viveknagar Police O.S.7516/ 2022 23 Station. But the concerned police officials have issued NCR, as such Smt.Rajeswari filed PCR.NO.50867/20 against the defendants. Due to the harassment by the defendants Smt.Rajeshwari due to her old age and feeble condition unable to manage the affairs of the suit schedule property, on that ground she had executed registered gift deed dated 12-03-2020 in favour of the plaintiff.
23. In support of this oral evidence, PW.1 has relied upon Ex.P5 gift deed dated 12-03-2020. On perusal of Ex.P5 this deed itself goes to show that Smt.Rajeswari Janagiraman executed the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff and also handed over the original documents and physical possession of the property to the plaintiff. The recitals at Ex.P5 reflect that she has no objections for change of Katha in favour of the plaintiff from the concerned authority. This document is registered in accordance with law, PW.1 is none other than one of the attesting witness at Ex.P5. Shashikala J.Shiv the daughter of Rajeswari Janagiraman is also one of the attesting witness.
24. Regarding proof of Ex.P-5 on perusal of the Section 122 of the Transfer of property Act, it reflect that gift is the transfer of certain existing movable or immovable O.S.7516/ 2022 24 property made voluntarily by one person in favour of another person. The transfer of subject matter of the gift as per Sec.123, the transfer must be effected by a registered document signed by or on behalf of the donor or attested by atleast two witnesses. The essential ingredients of gift are absence of consideration, the donor, the donee, the subject matter, transfer or acceptance. Gift deed of immovable property must be signed by the donor or on his behalf, it must be attested by atleast two witnesses and it must be registered irrespective of the value of the subject matter of the gift. As per Sec.68 of the Evidence Act gift deed is a compulsorily attestable documents. Requirement of the gift of immovable property as per Sec.122 and 123 of Transfer of property Act is
(i) the gift deed must be signed by the donor or someone on his behalf with the consent of the donor,
(ii) it must be attested by atleast two witnesses
(iii) it must be registered under Sec.123 irrespective of the value of immovable property. As per Section 17 of the Registration Act, registration is required.
(iv) it must be accepted by donee or someone on his behalf, such acceptance may be expressed or implied.
O.S.7516/ 2022 25
25. Regarding the proof of gift of immovable property, when the gift is registered it is not necessary to call an attesting witness except in cases where the executant of the gift deed expressively denies the execution of the gift deed and such denial must be expressed and not by implication or by inference. Under Sec.70 of the Evidence Act, if the executant admits the execution it is sufficient proof of the gift deed. By keeping in mind the above said provisions, Ex.P-5 executed by Rajeswari in favour of the plaintiff and this document also registered in accordance with Sec.123 of Transfer of Property Act and Sec.17 of the Registration Act, attested by two attesting witnesses, plaintiff also accepted the subject matter of the gift deed. Apart from that the executant who is none other than the donor by name Rajeswari Janagiraman not denied the execution of the gift deed.
26. The defendants are legal heirs of the deceased Vidyasagar. During the lifetime of Vidyasagar not questioned the validity of the partition deed. By keeping in mind these aspects on perusal of the written statement averments, evidence of DW.1 and cross-examination regarding the partition deed and gift deed it reflect that, in the written statement in para No.7 with respect to the partition deed dated 19-03-2016 the defendants have O.S.7516/ 2022 26 contended that the execution of the above said document is not within the knowledge. Even with respect to the allotment of the suit schedule property to Rajeswari Janagiraman and allotment of Joint family funds to the legal heirs of deceased Janagiraman also the defendants have contended that the allotment of the joint family funds to the legal heirs is not within their knowledge.
27. Pertaining to the gift deed, the defendants in para No.6 have contended that the alleged gift deed is an invalid document and that deed cannot be considered by this court. Except the above said wordings in the written statement there is no specific denial regarding the gift deed as well as the partition deed. Mere denial as not a valid document itself is not sufficient to disbelieve the registered gift deed. The executant of the gift deed not denied the document. The parties to the partition deed also not denied the document. The legal heir of the deceased Vidyasagar who are the defendants in their written statement have contended that the execution of the partition deed is not within their knowledge. Mere the above said wordings in the written statement and also on the basis of the evidence of DW.1 itself is not sufficient to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff pertaining to Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. Regarding the above said two documents, in the cross-examination of DW.1 has clearly deposed that:-
O.S.7516/ 2022 27 ನನ್ನ ಮಾವ ಮೃತರಾದ ನಂತರ ವಿಭಾಗ ಪತ್ರ ಆದ ವಿಚಾರ ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ನಿಪಿ.4 ರಂತೆ ನನ್ನ ಯಜಮಾನರು, ನನ್ನ ಸಹೋದರಿ ಉಷಾ ವೆಂಕಟ್ ರಾಮನ್, ಶೆಶಿಕಲಾ ಮತ್ತು ಸುಚಿತ್ರ ರವರು ವಿಭಾಗ ಪತ್ರಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡ ವಿಚಾರ ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ.
ನಿಪಿ.4ರ ಅನ್ವಯ ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಆಸ್ತಿ ವಿಭಾಗವಾಗಿದ್ದು , ಮತ್ತು ಪತ್ರದ ಷರತ್ತಿನ ಅನ್ವಯ ಹಣ ವನ್ನು ಸ್ವೀಕರಿಸಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ನಿಪಿ.5ರಂತೆ ರಾಜೇಶ್ವರಿ ರವರು ವಾದಿಯ ಹೆಸರಿಗೆ ದಾನ ಪತ್ರ ಬರೆದುಕೊಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ.
ನನ್ನ ಅತ್ತೆ ವಾದಿಯ ಹೆಸರಿಗೆ 2020ರಲ್ಲಿ ದಾನ ಪತ್ರ ಬರೆದುಕೊಟ್ಟಿದ್ದ ವಿಚಾರ ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ.
ದಾನ ಪತ್ರದ ಅನ್ವಯ ವಾದಿಯ ಹೆಸರಿಗೆ ಕಂದಾಯ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳು ಬದಲಾವಣೆಯಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ.
ದಿ.02.09.2012ಕ್ಕೆ ನನ್ನ ಮಾವ ಮೃತರಾಗಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ. ಅವರು ಮೃತರಾದ ನಂತರ ಅವರ ಆಸ್ತಿಯ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳು ಯಾರ ಹೆಸರಿಗೆ ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆಯಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ನನಗೆ ಗೊತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ.
In the above said cross-examination itself goes to show that the execution and recitals of the registered partition deed and gift deed not within the knowledge of DW.1, but no where she categorically denied about the above said documents.
ನನ್ನ ಮಾವ ಮೃತರಾದ ನಂತರ ನನ್ನ ಅತ್ತೆ ರಾಜೇಶ್ವರಿ ರವರ ಹೆಸರಿಗೆ ಆಸ್ತಿಯ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳು ವರ್ಗಾವಣೆಯಾಗಿರುತ್ತದೆ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ.
By virtue of this cross-examination itself goes to show that as per the registered partition deed revenue records got mutated in the name of Rajeswari admitted by DW.1.
O.S.7516/ 2022 28 ದಿ.12.03.2020ರ ದಾನ ಪತ್ರ ಕಾನೂನಿನ ಅನ್ವಯ ಸೂಕ್ತ ಅಲ್ಲ ಎಂದು ನಾನು ಸಿವಿಲ್ ನ್ಯಾ ಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ದಾವೆ ಹಾಕಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಇದೆ ನ್ಯಾ ಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಸದರಿ ದಾವೆ ವಿಚಾರಣೆಗಾಗಿ ಬಾಕಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ನಾನು ದಾನ ಪತ್ರವನ್ನು ಪಶ್ನಿಸಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ನ್ಯಾ ಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ದಾವೆ ದಾಖಲು ಮಾಡಿಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿಯಲ್ಲ. ಸದರಿ ದಾವೆಯ ದಾಖಲಾತಿಗಳನ್ನು ನ್ಯಾ ಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಹಾಜರು ಪಡಿಸಲು ನನಗೆ ತೊಂದರೆ ಇಲ್ಲ.
The above said cross-examination of DW.1 itself goes to show that she has already filed the suit before the court by questioning the valid execution of the registered gift deed but as admitted by her no such relevant case papers produced by her in a case on hand. According to her she had no difficulties to produce the relevant case papers. Inspite of that, subsequent to the cross-examination of DW.1 she has not taken any steps to produce the relevant documents pertaining to the suit filed by the defendant No.1 regarding the valid execution of the gift deed.
ನಾನು ದಾವ ಶೆಡ್ಯೂ ಲ್ಸ್ವತ್ತಿಗೆ ಕಂದಾಯ ಅಥವಾ ತೆರಿಗೆ ಪಾವತಿ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿಲ್ಲ. ನನ್ನ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ವಿದ್ಯು ತ್ ಶಕ್ತಿ ಸೌಲಭ್ಯ ಮತ್ತು ನೀರಿನ ಸೌಲಭ್ಯದ ಬಿಲ್ಲು ಗಳು ಇಲ್ಲ. ಸದರಿ ಬಿಲ್ಲು ಗಳು ನನ್ನ ಮಾವನ ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಇದೆ.
By virtue of the above said admission, the defendants have not paid tax pertaining to the suit schedule property and no electricity and water bill stands in the name of the defendants.
28. By keeping in mind the above said cross- examination on perusal of the evidence of PW.1 on the O.S.7516/ 2022 29 strength of the registered gift deed, Katha stands in his name, tax also paid by him, EC also reflect the name of the plaintiff. Apart from that 1st and 2nd floor of the suit schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. In support of his oral evidence he has relied upon Ex.P6 Uttara Patra dated 23-09-2020, Katha certificate dated 24-09-2020 at Ex.P7, Katha extract dated 24-09-2020 as per Ex.P-6, Tax paid receipt for the year 2021-22 as per Ex.P-9. On careful perusal of Ex.P6 to P9 it reflect that on the strength of the gift deed, Katha and other revenue records got mutated in the name of the plaintiff. He has also paid tax pertaining to the suit schedule property. Only in the written statement and cross-examination of PW.1 and evidence of DW.1 denied the execution of the partition deed and gift deed. In the cross-examination of PW.1 she has categorically deposed that:
It is false to suggest that as the property is the absolute property of A.M.Janagiraman on his demise, his first wife and children born to them are alone entitled for the share in the suit schedule property. It is false to suggest that since my mother in law Revathi Mani and her son the plaintiff herein are not the joint family member, they are not entitled for the share in the suit schedule property. It is false to suggest that Ex.P.4 is not the valid document under the eye of law.
It is false to suggest that the suit property cannot be partitioned under which no share can be allotted in favor of plaintiff, as he is not a joint family member, thus Ex.P.4 is O.S.7516/ 2022 30 not a valid document under a eye of law. It is false to suggest that since the plaintiff is not a blood relative to Rajeswari Janagiraman she cannot execute the gift to the plaintiff as per Ex.P.5, thus even said document is not a valid document.
Suggestion regarding the ownership of the plaintiff, validity of Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 denied by the PW.1, mere suggestion itself is not sufficient to prove the defense of the defendants.
29. Plaintiff has proved valid title of the Smt.Rajeswari Janagiraman the donor of the suit schedule property, he has also proved valid title and interest and right of the Janagiraman as well as the vendor of Janagiraman through Ex.P2 to Ex.P4. As per Ex.P5 he has also proved his ownership and as per Ex.P6 to Ex.P9 possession and enjoyment over 1st and 2nd floor of the suit schedule property. He has also proved his ownership in respect of the entire suit schedule property. In view of the above said discussion on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, I answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative.
30. ISSUE NO.2:-
In this issue the plaintiff has to prove that late J.Vidhyasagar was unlawfully trespassed into the ground O.S.7516/ 2022 31 floor of the suit schedule property and after his demise the defendants being the Lrs continued their possession illegally and they are to be evicted and vacant possession is requires to be delivered to the plaintiff. In issue No.1 this court already come to the conclusion that as per the partition deed the entire suit schedule property was allotted to the Rajeswari Janagiraman it reflect in page No.8 of the Ex.P4. Husband of the defendant No.1 and father of defendant No2 to 4 along with daughters of Janagiraman have been received cash of Rs.4 lakhs and all of them have agreed that no claim either now or in future or whatsoever for described property fallen into the share of the party of 1st part would be made. Ist party is none other than Rajeswari Janagiraman. During the life time of Vidyasagar he had no right, title and interest over the ground floor of the suit schedule property. Relinquished his right by way of receiving the joint family funds. When Vidyasagar had no right, title and interest over the ground floor of the suit schedule property being the Legal heir of Vidyasagar the defendants herein also had no right, title and interest over the ground floor of the suit schedule property. Even though the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the ground floor of the suit schedule property it is nothing but unauthorized and illegal possession.
O.S.7516/ 2022 32
31. Regarding the possession of the defendants, on perusal of the written statement averments, in para No.12 in a clear cut wordings have clearly admitted that, "the defendants respectfully submits that till the death of his father J.Vidhyasagar and the defendants are residing in the schedule property without any disturbance from any body."
32. It is also further admitted that the plaintiffs forcibly made an attempt to dispossess the defendants from the suit schedule property. Even in the evidence of DW.1 also she has clearly admitted that she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. By keeping in mind, on perusal of the memo dated 21-11-2025 the copy of the Judgment in O.S.NO.25172/2021 filed by the defendants herein against the plaintiffs herein and Rajeswari Janagiraman for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in above said original suit from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property as shown in the above said suit. In this Judgment in para No.10 the Hon'ble Court opined that the case of the plaintiff is that suit schedule property was purchased by A.M.Janagiraman under the registered sale deed dated 16-12-1981, thereafter he put up 1 st and 2nd floor and also effected oral partition, in that oral partition ground, 1st and 2nd floor allotted to late J.Vidyasagar. By O.S.7516/ 2022 33 considering that aspect when the defendants in the above said suit placed exparte, decreed the suit and restrained the plaintiff herein and Rajeswari Janagiraman from evicting the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property who are in joint possession of the property being the legal heirs of Late J.Vidhyasagar and late A.M.Janagiraman till any of the legal heirs of late A.M.Janagiraman takes legal recourse to claim their share in the suit schedule property. But in the above said suit registered partition deed and registered gift deed not produced by the defendants herein. Only certified copy of the sale deed dated 09-06-1981 produced by the defendants herein in O.S.NO.25172/2021. Moreover the defendants by name Karthik Sagar and Rajeswari Janagiraman appeared before the court through their counsel but not filed the written statement. Only on that ground by admitting the possession of the plaintiff decreed the suit.
33. Even in the operative portion of the Judgment also, the Hon'ble Court observed that till any of the legal heirs of late A.M.Janagiraman take legal recourse to claim their share in the suit schedule property, restrained the defendants from evicting the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property. By way of filing O.S.NO.25172/2021 before 28th ACC & SJ., Mayohall, B'luru the plaintiffs have admitted their possession and enjoyment of the ground O.S.7516/ 2022 34 floor of the suit schedule property, but as per Ex.P4 partition deed ground floor or 1st floor or 2nd floor not allotted to the share of deceased J.Vidyasagar.
34. Regarding the legal recourse, on perusal of Ex.P10 legal notice dated 04-11-2021 reflect that the plaintiffs got issued legal notice to the defendants herein and called upon them to vacate, quit and deliver the vacant possession of the ground floor of the suit schedule property within 07 days from the date of service of notice. This notice has been duly served upon the defendant No.1 , defendant No.2 through RPAD. It reflect that Ex.P11 postal acknowledgment, Ex.P10 got issued through RPAD to all the defendants, it reflect at Ex.P12 - 4 postal receipts. After receipt of the legal notice defendants herein also issued reply notice on 15-11-2023. In the reply notice itself they have taken a contention that, being legal heirs of deceased J.Vidyasagar, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property but on the basis of the created and fake documents the plaintiff herein made an attempt to dispossess the defendants from the suit schedule property.
35. By virtue of the written statement averments,evidence of DW.1, contents of Ex.P13 reply notice, Judgment in O.S.NO.25172/2021 the plaintiff O.S.7516/ 2022 35 herein has proved that the defendants are in unauthorized and illegal possession of the ground floor of the suit schedule property. When the plaintiff proves his ownership over the suit schedule property on the strength of the registered gift deed then the possession of the defendants over the suit schedule property in any portion is nothing but unauthorized and illegal possession.
36. Even as per Ex.P-10 by way of notice the plaintiff herein called upon the defendants to vacate the ground floor of the schedule property within 07 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Apart from that further directed if the defendants fails to vacate the property the plaintiff may initiate the appropriate legal proceedings to evict the defendant from the suit schedule property and enforce the recovery of damages along with interest. Execution of the partition deed as well as gift deed also narrated in the notice itself. After receipt of the notice the defendants have issued reply notice. In view of the above said discussions the plaintiff has proved Issue No.2, hence I answer this issue in the Affirmative.
37. ISSUE NO.3:- In view of findings on Issue No.1 and 2 the plaintiff is entitle for perpetual injunction and also possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, I answer this issue in the Affirmative.
O.S.7516/ 2022 36
38. ISSUE NO.4 :- In view of the finding on issue Nos.1 to 3 I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant is hereby decreed with costs.
Plaintiff is hereby declared as absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
The defendants are hereby directed to vacate and handover the vacant possession of the suit schedule property within 90 days from the date of decree.
If the defendants fail to vacate the suit schedule property within 90 days the plaintiff is at liberty to evict the defendants with due process of law.
Office to draw decree
accordingly.
(Dictated to Stenographer, typed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced it in open court this the 6th day of JANUARY, 2026) (SMT.G.S.PRASEELA KUMARI) XII ACC & SJ., B'LURU.
O.S.7516/ 2022 37 ANNEXURE Witness examined for Plaintiff:-
P.W.1 : Smt. Anisha Karthik Documents exhibited on behalf of Plaintiff :-
Ex.P.1 GPA dt 10.07.2024 executed by the plaintiff in favor of his attorney.
Ex.P.2 Sale deed dt 10.09.1981
Ex.P.3 Sale deed dt 22.10.1981
Ex.P.4 Deed of partition dt 19.03.2016
Ex.P.5 Gift deed dt 12.03.2020
Ex.P.6 Uttara Pathra
Ex.P.7 Khatha certificate
Ex.P.8 Khatha extract
Ex.P.9 Tax paid receipt.
Ex.P10 Notice dt 04.11.2021
Ex.P11 2 postal acknowledgments.
Ex.P12 4 postal receipts are together marked.
Ex.P13 Reply notice dt 15.11.2021
Ex.P14 Death Certificate of A.M.Janagiraman.
Witness examined for Defendant: -
DW.1 :- Smt. Nagamma @ Divya.
Documents exhibited for Defendants:-
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of the Aadhaar card of Smt.Nagamma.
Ex.D.2 Certified copy of the Aadhaar card of Rohith Sagar.
O.S.7516/ 2022 38 Ex.D.3 Certified copy of Aadhaar card of Keerthy.
Ex.D.4 Death Certificate of J.Vidhya Sagar.
Ex.D.5 Death Certificate of A.M.Janagi Raman.
Ex.D.6 Certified copy of the sale deed dt and 6(a) 10.09.1981, translated copy of sale deed dt 10.09.1981 Ex.D.7 Certified copy of APL ration card stands in the name of J.Vidhya Sagar consisting of 2 pgs.
XII ACC & SJ., B'LURU O.S.7516/ 2022 39