Bangalore District Court
Kum. S.Pushpalatha D/O Late M.Shekhar vs Smt.K.P.Shankaramma W/O Late on 28 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF I ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
(CCH.NO.2)
Dated, this the 28th day of July 2016.
PRESENT
Sri. RAVI M. NAIK,B.Com,LL.M.,
I Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
O.S. NO.4263/1996
PLAINTIFFS 1. Kum. S.Pushpalatha D/o late M.Shekhar
Aged about 16 years,
2. Kum. S.Poornima D/o late M.Shekhar,
aged about 4 years
Both are minors and are represented by
their natural guardian -grand father
Sri.P.Srinivas r/a no.50/1, 5th main, 9th
cross, Chamarajpet, Bangalore - 18.
(by K.E.Jagadeesha - Advocate)
- V E R S U S -
DEFENDANTs 1. Smt.K.P.Shankaramma w/o late
B.R.Madhava Ranganna, aged about
61years,
2. B.M.Shekhar s/o B.R.Madhava
Ranganna, since dead (rep.by LRs who
are transposed plaintiffs.
3. B.M.Rangaraju s/o late B.R.Madhava
Ranganna, aged about 35 years,
4. M.Rukmangada s/o late B.R.Madhava
Ranganna, since deceased by his LRs:
2 O.S.No.4263/1996
4(a) Smt.Lakshmi w/o late Rukmangada,
aged about 30 years,
4(b) Kum. Shruthi D/o late Rukmangada,
Aged about 11years,
4(c) Master Guru S/o late Rukmangada,
Aged about 09 years
D.4(b) & (c) are minors represented by
their natural guardian mother i.e.,
defendant no.4(a).
5. Smt.S.Rukmini W/o V.R.Srinivas & D/o
late Madhava Ranganna
D.1 to 5 are r/a no.95, old no.104, 7th
cross, 3rd main, Chamarajpet,
Bangalore - 18.
6. B.V.Ramaiah, s/o V.K.Venkatappa
Setty, aged about 51 years, r/a
no.101, old no.64, 5th main road,
Chamarajpet, Bangalore - 18.
7. Smt.B.S.Sujatha w/o B.V.Ramaiah,
aged about 41 years, r/a no.101, (old
no.64), 5th main road, Chamarajpet,
Bangalore - 560 018.
8. K.B.Ramesh, father's name not known,
aged about 58 years, r/a No.83/92, 3,
Ramaiah road, 7th cross, Chamarajpet,
Bangalore - 18.
(D.1 & 3, LRs of D.4 & 5 by
S.Nagaraja,D.6 & 7 by B.R.Vishwanath,
D.8 placed exparte as per order dated
8.6.2009.)
Date of institution of the suit : 26.6.1996
3 O.S.No.4263/1996
Nature of the suit (suit on Suit for partition and separate
pronote, suit for declaration and possession
possession suit for injunction,etc) :
Date of the commencement of 23.9.2010
recording of the evidence :
Date on which the Judgment was 28.7.2016
pronounced :
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
20 01 02
(RAVI M. NAIK),
I Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
J U D G M E N T
The original plaintiffs have filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit schedule properties and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant nos.1 to 5 from alienating the suit schedule properties and cost of the suit and such other reliefs.
2. The brief averments of the plaint are that the original plaintiffs are the son and daughter of Smt.Rajeshwari. Dasappa was the propositus of the family. After his death, his son D.Ranga Dasappa had an unmarried daughter by name Smt.Chandramma and a 4 O.S.No.4263/1996 son by name Madhava Ranganna and they were the first parties and Smt.K.R.Shankaramma who is the wife of Madhava Ranganna, The original plaintiffs who are the maternal grand children of said Madhava Ranganna., the minor sons and daughters of Madhava Ranganna i.e., B.M.Shekhar, B.M.Shashidhar, B.M.Rangaraju, B.M.Rukmangada, B.M.Rajeshwari i.e., mother of the original plaintiffs and B.M.Rukmini were 2nd parties and G.R.Narayana was a third party in respect of registered partition deed dated 17.9.1964. Madhava Ranganna and his children were allotted 'B' schedule property mentioned in the said partition deed. It is further stated that Madhava Ranganna died in the year 1976. His son Shashidhar also died somewhere in the year 1980 leaving behind no issues as he was unmarried. The mother of the plaintiffs Smt.Rajeshwari died in the year 1983 leaving behind the original plaintiffs.
3. It is further stated that in the partition deed some of the properties including the suit schedule properties 5 O.S.No.4263/1996 as stated in para-5 of the plaint were allotted to the defendants. It is further stated that the first defendant is the wife and defendant nos.2 to 5 are the sons and daughters of Madhava Ranganna. The plaintiffs along with defendant nos.2 to 5 were entitled to all the properties allotted to them under partition deed i.e., the 'B' schedule properties in the partition deed in equal share. It is further stated that the defendant nos.1 to 5 without the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs have sold item nos.1 to 4 mentioned in para-5 of the plaint and appropriated the sale proceeds during the minority of the plaintiffs. It is further stated that the only property now available which has not been sold is the suit schedule property. The defendant nos.1 to 5 had no right to dispose the said properties and they have clandestinely disposed the properties and they are liable to account to the plaintiffs on their shares.
4. Prior to the filing of the suit, the first plaintiff visited the suit schedule property and found that 6 O.S.No.4263/1996 defendant nos.6 & 7 are squatting on a portion of the suit schedule property and informed the plaintiffs that they have entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant nos.1 to 5. It is further stated that said defendants have no manner of right, title and interest to sell the suit schedule property without the consent of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are entitled for 1/5th share in the suit schedule property. It is further stated that the plaintiffs and defendant nos.1 to 5 are in joint constructive possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiffs have prayed to decree the suit.
5. During the pendency of the suit the daughters of B.M.Shekar i.e., 2nd defendant are transposed as plaintiffs in this suit as per the order of this court since the original plaintiffs have compromised the matter.
6. In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendant nos.1 to 7 have appeared through their counsel. The legal heirs of defendant nos.2 and the legal heirs of defendant no.4 and the defendant nos.6 & 7 have filed their separate written statements.
7 O.S.No.4263/1996
7. The sum and substance of the contention of the legal heirs of 2nd defendant in their written statement is that 2nd defendant M.Shekhar died intestate on 17.12.1997. Subsequent to his death, his wife Smt. Yashoda also passed away. After their death, the transposed plaintiff nos.1 & 2 were thrown out of the house without considering their tender age and ever since then the legal heirs of 2nd defendant are residing with their maternal grand father who took care and custody of them. It is further contended that their father deceased Shekhar had 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties. Hence, they are entitled to 1/6th share in the properties no.100 & 101 situated in 5th main road, Chamarajpet and property no.95, situated in 3rd main road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore-18. It is further contended that at para-5 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have averred that there are five items of the properties, but partition is sought only in respect of one item only. The LRs of the 2nd defendant have sought leave of the court to furnish 8 O.S.No.4263/1996 the details of items of the properties left out by the plaintiffs. It is further contended that at the inception of the suit, this court passed an order of ad interim temporary injunction against the defendant nos.1 to 5 restraining them from alienating the suit schedule properties.
8. It is further contended that the 6th & 7th defendants had filed a suit for specific performance in OS no.2154/1996 and 2155/1996 and in the said suit, an order of temporary injunction was granted. The first defendant herein did not even bother to consider the tender age of the LRs of the 2nd defendant and they were thrown out of the house. The 6th and 7th defendants in the aforesaid suit for specific performance, filed an application under order 22 rule 4 of CPC and order 32 rule 3 of CPC to bring the LRs on record and seeking appointment of first defendant herein as guardian of LRs of the 2nd defendant. Thus, it is abundantly clear that that the defendant nos.6 & 7 were aware that the LRs of 9 O.S.No.4263/1996 the 2nd defendant were under the custody of their maternal grand father and not under the custody of the first defendant.
9. It is further contended that when a crucial matter i.e., appointment of guardian to the LRs of the 2nd defendant is pending in a suit filed by the defendant nos.6 & 7, the defendant nos.1,3 to 5 executed sale deed dated 20.9.2000 in favour of defendant nos.6 &7. It is further contended that when the issue regarding appointment of guardian was very much pending, the first defendant has ventured to pose herself as guardian of the LRs of the 2nd defendant and the same is duly and clandestinely accepted by the 6th & 7th defendants without raising their little finger. It is further contended that the defendant nos.1,3 to 5 are in collusion with each other to deprive the interest of minor children of the 2nd defendant and they alienated their share enriching themselves at the cost of minor children. It is further contended that an application under order 39 rule 2-A of 10 O.S.No.4263/1996 CPC came to be filed. After the execution of the sale deed, the possession of plaint schedule property was delivered termination of tenancy the defendant nos.6 & 7. On 1.7.2002 the defendant nos.6 & 7 started demolishing the plaint schedule property with an intention to diminish the utility of the same and thereby pressurize these plaintiffs to accept their illegal acts. The legal heirs of the 2nd defendant are not bound by the sale deeds executed by the defendant nos.1, 3 to 5.
10. In para -22(a) to (d) of the written statement, it is contended that the property bearing no.95, situated at 3rd main road, 7th cross, Chamarajpet, Bangalore belonged to Madahava Ranganna, the father of the deceased 2nd defendant and he acquired the said property under a registered partition deed dated 17.9.1964 and after his death, the sons i.e., M.Shekar, M.Rangaraju and Rukmangada were entitled for a share in the said property. It is further contended that in the original written statement, Shekhar has wrongly pleaded his 11 O.S.No.4263/1996 share as 1/6th instead of 1/3rd share. The transposed plaintiffs being the legal heirs of deceased 2nd defendant, are entitled to succeed his estate. It is further stated that one Upendra and Ratnamma are residing in the two residential premises situated in the ground floor of property no.95 as tenants and Smt.Rukmini and Bihari family is residing in the other two premises situated in the first floor of property no.95 and 3rd defendant herein is collecting the rents from these persons and he is not account for the same to the sharers. It is further contended that this court be pleased to direct the 3rd defendant to deposit the rents collected by him in this court. It is further contended that prior to the filing of the suit, the defendant nos.3 to 5 have let out one more portion of written statement property to another tenant and totally there are four tenants excluding the house where the defendants are residing. It is further contended that the defendants are collecting Rs.18,000/- from all the four tenants. The defendants have not even 12 O.S.No.4263/1996 come forward to deposit any amount towards maintenance of minor children of the 2nd defendant. Hence, it is prayed that a direction may be issued to the said defendant to pay maintenance to the LRs of the 2nd defendant/transposed plaintiffs. Hence, the LRs of the 2nd defendant/transposed plaintiffs have prayed for partition and separate possession of their 1/5th share in the suit schedule property and for mesne profits.
11. The sum and substance of the contention of the legal heir of defendant no.4(a) in her written statement is that there is no cause of action for filing the suit. The suit is hit by non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. The father of K.R.Satish and K.R.Savitha is not made a party. They are necessary and proper parties. It is further contended that deceased Madhava Ranganna had mortgaged the suit schedule property under an unregistered mortgage deed dated 18.9.1998 in favour of one Smt.Gowramma and availed loan to discharge certain family liabilities. Since the family of Madhava 13 O.S.No.4263/1996 Ranganna was not in position to discharge the said mortgage loan and certain hand loans to redeem the mortgage. It is further contended that family also had contacted heavy debts including loan at Grain merchant co-operative bank. In order to discharge the said liabilities, the family offered to sell the suit schedule property to the defendant nos.6 & 7 and entered into an agreement of sale on 8.1.1994 and 22.4.1995. At the time of mortgaging the suit schedule property, the transposed plaintiffs were not born. It is further contended that the total amount of sale consideration was Rs.11,45,0000/-. The transposed plaintiffs' father was one of the executants of the agreement of sale. The possession of the suit schedule property was handed over to the defendant nos.6 & 7 at the time of said agreement of sale.
12. It is further contended that inspite of receipt of major consideration amount, the family of Madhava Ranganna did not execute the sale deed. Therefore, the 14 O.S.No.4263/1996 defendant nos.6 & 7 filed a suit for specific performance against the family of deceased Madhava Ranganna and they executed a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant nos.6 & 7. Thereafter, a memo was filed withdrawing the suit.
13. It is further contended that during the execution of the said sale deeds, K.R.Satish and K.R.Savitha have signed the sale deed as consenting witnesses and father of the transposed plaintiffs had also received his proportionate share amount from the defendant nos.6 & 7 at the time of execution of the said sale agreement and their paternal grand mother acting as a guardian to the transposed plaintiffs had executed the sale deed. The share amount of the transposed plaintiffs' father i.e., a sum of Rs.75,000/- was kept in fixed deposit in the name of the transposed first plaintiff on 16.1.2001 for a period of 30 months before the Grain merchant co-operative bank and it was once again re-deposited for another period of 39 months. It is further contended that the 15 O.S.No.4263/1996 transposed 2nd plaintiff was given in adoption to one Sri.S.Chandrashekhar. Mr. P.Srinivas maternal grand father to the transposed 2nd plaintiff had given in adoption to S.Chandrashekhar. The transposed 2nd plaintiff under the care and custody of her adoptive parents. The transposed 2nd plaintiff is/was not in care and custody of alleged P.Srinivas. Hence, the transposed plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. It is further contended that at the time of giving in adoption of 2nd plaintiff, she was aged about 1½ years old. It is further contended that defendant no.4(a) had also joined hands to discharge the family legal liability. The defendant no.4(a)'s husband is one of the executants of the sale agreement. Her husband handed over possession in favour of defendant nos.6 & 7 and received the share amount in respect of the suit schedule property. The defendant no.4(a) had acted as guardian to her minor children. Hence for above 16 O.S.No.4263/1996 all reasons, the defendant no.4(a) prayed for dismissal of the suit.
14. The sum and substance of the contention of the defendant nos.6 & 7 in their written statement is that suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The defendant nos.6 & 7 have admitted the interse relationship between the parties. It is contended the defendant no.6 entered into an agreement of sale with K.V.Shekar and others in respect of the suit schedule property and the 6th defendant paid considerable amount towards consideration in part performance of the agreement. The defendant nos.1 to 5 delivered the possession of the major portion of the suit property to the 6th defendant. The defendant no.6 was forced to file a suit for specific performance in OS 2154/1996. The defendant no.7 also entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the suit property and he had filed a suit pertaining to the agreement dated 8.1.1994 in OS no.8125/1996. It is further contended that after receiving the sale consideration, the possession was delivered to the 7th defendant. It is further contended that to overcome the 17 O.S.No.4263/1996 said fact, colluding with the defendant nos.1 to 5, the plaintiffs have filed the suit and they have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. Hence, the defendant no.6 & 7 have prayed for dismissal of the suit.
15. Initially this court had framed the issues on 18.8.2003 and thereafter by oversight this court again framed issues on 29.5.2008. Subsequent to filing of the suit by the original plaintiffs i.e., K.R.Satish and K.R.Savitha, they had filed a memo dated 7.7.2003 and requested the court to dismiss the suit on the ground that their claim is settled amicably and they do not want to prosecute the suit and sought for dismissal of the suit and the said memo was allowed and by an order dated 7.7.2003, this court transposed legal heirs of 2nd defendant as plaintiffs. Under the changed circumstances, the issues framed earlier were deleted and new issues were framed on 4.6.2010 as per order on IA no.31 which reads as follows:
1. Whether the transposed plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule A & B properties are joint 18 O.S.No.4263/1996 family properties available for partition and separate possession as on the date of suit ?
2. Whether the transposed plaintiffs are bound by the sale deed dated 20.9.2000 executed in favour of the defendant nos.6 & 7 during the pendency of the suit ?
3. Whether the LRs of defendant no.2 prove that defendant no.1 did not represent them as guardian and thereby no title passed to defendant nos.6 & 7 ?
4. Whether the defendant nos.6 & 7 prove that they are bonafide purchasers of the plaint schedule property ?
5. What decree or order ?
Subsequently this court also framed an Addl.Issue dated 14.8.2015 which reads as follows:
1.Whether the LRs of the 2nd defendant/ transposed plaintiffs prove that the petition schedule properties and properties detailed in their written statement are their ancestral properties and the said properties are available for partition as on the date of the suit ?
16. The transposed 1st plaintiff herself got examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.27 documents. On the other hand, the 6th defendant is examined as DW.1 and one B.R.Narayanappa is 19 O.S.No.4263/1996 examined as DW.2. Exs.D.1 to D.23 documents came to be marked on behalf of the defendants.
17. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs has relied on the decisions reported in :
1. 2004 ALT 6-165 - Ramji Patel Vs.Irukulla Narendra.
2. AIR 2002 SC 215 - Madhegowda Vs. Ankegowda.
3. ILR 2009 KAR 2294 - Nanjappa Vs. Doddaiah & another.
4. ILR 1994 KAR 1282 - Mangala Vs. Jayabai.
5. AIR 1977 SC 890 - S.Venkappa Vs. Rangu
6. 1956 SC 593 - Nagubai Ammal & others Vs. B.Shamarao.
7. (2013)5 SCC 397 - Thomson Press (India)Ltd., Vs. Nanak Builders & Investors Pvt.Ltd., & others.
8. (1995)6 SCC 50 - Surjeet Singh & others Vs. Harbans Singh & others.
9. AIR 2009 (NOC) 925 Madras - P.Chengaiah & others Vs. D.Chandra.
10.AIR 1997 SC 3720-Dhanna Singh & others Vs. Baljinder kaur and others.
11. AIR 2007 SC 1332 - Sanjay Verma Vs. Manik Roy and others.20 O.S.No.4263/1996
18. The learned Counsel appearing for the defendant nos.6 & 7 has relied on the following decisions:
1. ILR 2002 KAR 5163 - Jayalakshmi Reddy Vs. Thippana & others.
2. ILR 2009 KAR 1534 - N.Basavaraj since deceased by his LRs Vs. B.Sridhar & others.
3. ILR 2005 KAR 5230 - Moulasab Vs. Yamanappa & others.
4. AIR 1996 SC 2371 - Narayan Bal Vs. Sridhar Sutar & others.
5. ILR 1988 KAR 80 - Kamalamma Vs. Ramabhadra Gupta.
6. ILR 2009 KAR 118 - Smt.Bhagyamma & others Vs. Smt.Ningamma & others.
7.Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA no.912/07 c/w 913/07 & 916/2007- Basawantharaya @ Basayya Vs. Venkob Rao.
8. 2013 AIR SCW 1617 - Thomson Press(India) Ltd., Vs. Nanak Builders & Investments P.Ltd. & others.
9. ILR 2001 KAR 5474 - Ramanagouda Siddanagouda Biradar & others Vs. Basavantraya Madivalappa Mulimani & others.
10. AIR 1956 SC 593 - Nagubai Ammal & others Vs. B.Shama Rao and others.21 O.S.No.4263/1996
11. AIR 1973 SC 569 - Jayaram Mudaliar Vs. Ayyaswami & others.
12. AIR 1971 Calcutta 159 - Rabindra Nath Das V s.
Sarat Chandra Paru.
13. 2003(4) KCCR SN 372 - Fakirappa & others Vs. Mallappa & others.
14. AIR 2009 (NOC) 449 (H.P.) - Budhia @ Budhi Ram Vs. Ramesh & others.
15. AIR 1997 SC 1686 - Sunder Das & others Vs. Gajananrao & others.
16. AIR 1969 Calcutta 59 - Gadadhar Ghose Vs. Janaki Nath Ghosh & others.
19. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and the defendants.
20. My findings on the above issues are as follows: -
(1) Issue no.1 : In the negative (2) Issue no.2 : In the affirmative (3) Issue no.3 : In the negative (4) Issue no.4 : In the affirmative (5) Addl.Issue no.1 : In the negative (6) Issue no.5 : As per final Order for the following:
REASONS
21. Before answering the issues, I would like to state the admitted facts of this case. Undisputedly, the suit is filed for partition and separate possession. During 22 O.S.No.4263/1996 the pendency of the suit, on 7.7.2003, the original plaintiffs K.R.Satish and K.R.Savitha sought for dismissal of the suit on the ground that their claim is settled and they do not want to prosecute the case. In view of the said changed circumstances, the daughters of defendant no.2 Sri.B.M.Shekhar were transposed as plaintiffs and they are prosecuting the suit.
22. During the pendency of the suit, the 4th defendant died and his LRs are brought on record as defendant nos.4(a) to 4(c).
23. Issue no.3 : The contention of the transposed plaintiffs that the first defendant i.e., Smt.Shankaramma did not represent them as a minor guardian while executing Ex.D.13 and D.14 sale deeds.
Smt.Shankaramma i.e., first defendant is none other than the paternal grand mother of the transposed plaintiffs. When the aforesaid sale deeds were executed, the father of the transposed plaintiffs i.e., 2nd defendant was no more. The learned Counsel appearing for the 23 O.S.No.4263/1996 plaintiffs contended that in OS no.2154/1996, the maternal grand father P.Srinivas represented the transposed plaintiffs. He is the fit person to represent as the natural guardian of the transposed plaintiffs. To substantiate that, the plaintiffs have got marked Ex.P.8 i.e., application u/o 22 rule 4 of CPC, in the said OS no.2154/1996. Ex.P.12 is the application u/o.32 rule 3 of CPC, filed by Srinivas in the said suit.
24. The learned Counsel appearing for the defendant nos.6 & 7 drew the attention of this court to Sec.12 of the Hindu minority and guardianship Act and contended that in case of an undivided interest in the joint family property, in the properties under the management of adult member of the family, there is no need to appoint a guardian for the minors in respect of such undivided interest. As against the said argument, the learned Counsel appearing for the transposed plaintiffs contended that as per sec.11 of the Hindu minority and guardianship Act, other than the natural 24 O.S.No.4263/1996 guardians, no person shall be entitled to dispose off or deal with the property of a Hindu minor. Therefore, Smt.Shankaramma i.e., first defendant had no right to alienate the property on behalf of the transposed plaintiffs. No doubt, in the instant case, prior to the alienation, an application ought to have been filed seeking guardianship of the transposed plaintiffs by the defendant no.1 Smt.Shankaramma under the provisions of Hindu minority and guardianship Act. But, the fact remains that at once defendant nos.1,3,4 & 5 have not sold the property in favour of defendant nos.6 & 7. The natural guardian of the transposed plaintiffs i.e., deceased defendant no.2 along with defendant nos.1, 3 to 5 executed the agreement of sale and received the sale consideration. There is no material on record to show that deceased 2nd defendant not participated in the said agreement of sale proceedings which is against the interest of the transposed plaintiffs. Therefore, merely because the paternal grand mother represented the 25 O.S.No.4263/1996 transposed plaintiffs as minor guardian while executing the sale deeds, itself is not a ground to disbelieve the genuinity of the sale deeds.
25. The learned Counsel appearing for the transposed plaintiffs drew the attention of this court to Sec.54 of the Transfer of Property Act and relied on a decision reported in 2004 ALT 6 -165 at para-9 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held as under:
"The ultimate paragraph of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act expressly enunciates that a contract for the sale of immovable property does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property. But the ultimate and penultimate paragraphs of Section 40 of the Transfer of Property Act make it clear that such a contract creates an obligation annexed to the ownership of immovable property, not amounting to an interest in the property, but which obligation may be enforced against a transferee with notice of the contract or a gratuitous transferee of the property. Thus, the Equitable ownership in property recognized by Equity in England is translated into Indian law as an obligation annexed to the ownership of property, not amounting to an interest in the property, but an obligation which may be enforced against a transferee with notice or a gratuitous " transferee." In Amiya Kumar Basu v. Pankaj Kr. Chakraborty, 1999 (1) Cal. LT 480 (HC), it was held that a contract of sale does not create any interest in or charge on the property and the petitioner is not directly interested in the partition of the suit property and therefore the petitioner could, not be necessary party for effectual and complete adjudication of the controversies raised in the suit and on the other hand the presence of the 26 O.S.No.4263/1996 petitioner in the suit for partition may cause prejudice to parties to the suit."
In the instant case, prior to the filing of the suit, the natural guardian of the transposed plaintiffs i.e., deceased defendant no.2 their father along with defendant nos.1, 3 to 5 executed the agreement of sale and supplementary agreements. In pursuance of that the out and out sale deeds were executed. Under these circumstances, Sec.54 of the T.P.Act is not applicable and the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh relied on by the learned Counsel appearing for plaintiffs is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
26. He has relied on the decision reported in AIR 2002 SC 215 and ILR 2009 KAR 2294, ILR 1994 KAR 1282. In the light of the ratios laid down in the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, he argued that the defacto guardian cannot alienate the property on behalf of the minors. In the instant case, only the sale deeds were executed by the 27 O.S.No.4263/1996 paternal grand mother of the transposed plaintiffs on behalf of them. But, the agreement of sale were executed by their natural guardian i.e., their father, by receiving the part sale consideration. The sale deeds were executed in pursuance of the agreement of sale. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka are not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs further relied on a decision reported in 2013(5) SCC 397 and in the light of the ratio laid down in the said decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, contended that the defendant nos.6 & 7 purchased the suit property during the pendency of the suit and they are the lis pendense purchasers and they will not get right, title or interest over the suit property. It is pertinent to note that the defendant nos.6 & 7 entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant nos.1 to 5 prior to the filing of the suit and in pursuance of the said agreement of sale, the sale deed came to be executed by 28 O.S.No.4263/1996 paying valuable sale consideration by the defendant nos.6 & 7. Therefore, they cannot be termed as lis pendense purchasers and the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied on by the learned Counsel appearing for the transposed plaintiffs is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
27. The learned Counsel appearing for plaintiffs has relied on a decision reported in AIR 2009 (NOC) 925 Madras and in the light of the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, contended that the defendant nos.1,3 to 5 by disobeying the injunction order of this court, alienated the suit schedule property. The defendant nos.1, 3 to 5 are not strangers to the sale deeds. They along with the father of the transposed plaintiffs earlier executed agreement of sale in respect of suit schedule property in favour of defendant nos.6 & 7 and thereafter, after filing the suit, they executed the sale deeds. Mere execution of sale deed during the pendnecy of the suit itself, cannot be termed 29 O.S.No.4263/1996 as violation of injunction order. By receiving sale consideration the defendant nos.1,3 to 5 executed the sale deeds. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
28. The learned Counsel appearing for the defendant nos.6 & 7 has relied on a decision reported in ILR 1988 KAR 20-Head note 'C' wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held as under:
"HINDU LAW - JOINT HINDU FAMILY: KARTHA - POWER OF ALIENATION - Power of manager not curtailed by Hindu Minority & Guardianship Act - Manager has power to alienate property of family consisting of minor members for legal necessity or benefit of estate; in conducting family business to mortgage or sell property for legitimate purpose of business."
29. In the light of ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka,in the opinion of this court Smt.Shankaramma was the eldest member of the family of transposed plaintiffs when 30 O.S.No.4263/1996 Exs.D.13 & D.14 sale deeds were executed and she, in the status of paternal grand mother of the transposed plaintiffs executed the said sale deeds in respect of the properties in which all the members of the family have got undivided interest and thereby complied the ingredients of Sec.12 of the Hindu minority and guardianship Act.
30. The learned C ounsel appearing for the defendant nos.6 & 7 has relied on another decision reported in AIR 1997 SC 168 - Head note 'B' wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held has under:
" (B)Hindu Law - Ancestral property -
Alienation by Karta - Legal necessity -
Existence of - Mention in sale deed as to sale being for family necessity - Alienator's son who was six years old when transaction took place examined - He could not possibly tell as to what transpired when sale was effected
- Father serving as upper division clerk in court - He not shown to have been addicted to immoral conduct - Being Clerk in court he must be taken to be well versed in the ways of the world and disposed of property, house which was a ruin - Sale must be taken to be for family necessity - Father could have disposed of share of minor sons - Vendees also making all possible enquiry as to legal necessity of family - Sale is binding on minor sons as father could have disposed of share of minor sons for family necessity."
31 O.S.No.4263/1996
31. In the instant case, the recitals of Exs.D.13 & 14 disclose that at the time of executing the said documents, the transposed plaintiffs were aged about 14 years and 2 years respectively. The eldest member of the family their paternal grand mother represented them as their guardian. The recitals of the said documents further disclose that the properties were sold for the legal necessities of the family. Therefore, in all probabilities, Smt.Shankaramma represented the transposed plaintiffs as their guardian to protect their welfare and interest. Added to that, the transposed plaintiffs have filed a suit for bare partition without seeking relief of cancellation of the sale deeds. When the transposed plaintiffs were represented by their paternal grand mother and executed the sale deeds and received the sale consideration amount, the transposed plaintiffs now cannot contend that no title is passed to the defendant nos.6 & 7 in respect of the suit properties by virtue of the sale deeds. Accordingly this court is of the opinion that the 32 O.S.No.4263/1996 transposed plaintiffs have failed to establish that Smt.Shankaramma-paternal grand mother of the transposed plaintiffs did not represent them as their guardian and no title passed on to the defendant nos.6 & 7 in respect of the suit schedule properties under the sale deeds Exs.D.13 & D.14. Accordingly I answer Issue no.3 in the negative.
32. Issue no.1 dated 4.6.2010 & Addl.Issue no.1 dated 14.8.2015: The contention of the transposed plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are their ancestral properties and they are entitled for share in the said properties. On the other hand, the contesting defendants i.e., defendant nos.6 & 7 have contended that said defendants entered into an agreement of sale with K.B.Shankaramma and others in respect of the suit schedule properties and subsequently the sellers who entered into an agreement did not comply the terms of the agreement. Therefore, the defendant nos.6 & 7 filed a suit in OS no.2154/1996, 2155/1996 for specific 33 O.S.No.4263/1996 performance. During the pendency of the suit itself said sellers executed the sale deeds in favour of the defendant nos.6 & 7 in respect of the suit properties. By virtue of the said sale deeds defendant nos.6 & 7 became the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties.
33. The learned Counsel appearing for the transposed plaintiffs vehemently contended that the alleged minor guardians of the transposed plaintiffs i.e., K.B.Shankaramma had no right to act as guardian of the transposed plaintiffs. She without any right alienated the suit schedule properties on behalf of the transposed plaintiffs in favour of the defendant nos.6 & 7. The initial burden is on the transposed plaintiffs to establish that suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of their family and they were available for partition. PW.1 who is none other than the transposed first plaintiff in her cross-examination at page-5 para-4, has stated as under:
"Neither myself nor my father denied the share of original plaintiffs Satish and 34 O.S.No.4263/1996 Savita in item no.1 of the plaint schedule property."
She further stated that :
"Property sold by all of us was purchased by her maternal grand father."
34. Undisputedly the transposed plaintiffs are the paternal grand daughters of deceased Madhava Ranganna. Ex.D.1 is the mortgage deed dated 21.4.1982. Ex.D.2 is the mortgage discharge deed dated 22.4.1995 in respect of the suit schedule property.
35. Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of the registered partition deed dated 17.9.1964 Item No.1 and 2 of Ex.P.1 is the subject matter of the suit. Undisputedly schedule 'B' of Ex.P.1 is allotted to Madhavaranganna i.e., maternal grand father of the transposed plaintiffs. Item No.3 of the schedule B of Ex.P.1 is sold therein during the pendency of the suit. Learned counsel for the transposed plaintiffs vehemently contended that the suit properties are the ancestral properties of the transposed plaintiffs. 1st defendant is not a coparcener. Madhava 35 O.S.No.4263/1996 Ranganna had three sons and two daughters and they are entitled for share. The transposed plaintiffs being the legal heirs of the 2nd defendant who is a son of the Madhava Ranganna therefore, the transposed plaintiffs have together got 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties. As against the said arguments the learned counsel for the defendants No.6 and 7 has contended that the defendants No.1 to 5 have executed an agreement of sale in respect of the suit properties and drew the attention of this court to Ex.D3 to 6 i.e., agreement of sale and supplemental agreement of sale. On careful reading of the recitals of the said documents it discloses that the defendants No.1 to 5 including the father of transposed plaintiffs executed two agreements of sale both dated 18.1.1994 and two supplemental agreement both dated 22.4.1995 and agreed to sell the suit schedule properties in favour of the defendant No.6 and 7. The vacant possession of the suit schedule properties also delivered to defendant No.6 and 7. The 36 O.S.No.4263/1996 Learned counsel for the defendant No.6 and 7 drew the attention of this court to section 12 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and contended that Guardian need not be appointed for minor's undivided interest in joint family property. In support of his contention he has relied on a decisions reported in AIR 1996 SC 2371 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
"Hindu minority and guardianship Act (32 of 1956) section 8 applicability-
Joint Hindu Family property in which minor had are undivided share-
sold/disposed of By Kartha. Section8 require previous permission of court before disposing of property-not applicable-Hindu law -joint Hindu family property in which minor had a undivided share, sold/dispose of by kartha previous permission of court before disposing said property not required."
36. As against the said arguments learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that order 32 Rule 3 of CPC contemplates that fit persons to be appointed as minor guardians. In the instant case, no attempt is made 37 O.S.No.4263/1996 seeking permission of this court to sell the property since transposed plaintiffs are the coparceners by inheritance joint family does not exist without the permission of the court minors joint interest cannot be sold. In the instant case parents of the transposed plaintiffs are no more person who makes an application i.e., Shankaramma ought to have make out the compelling circumstances in case of the alienation of the minors property and drew the attention of this court to section 12 of the Minority and Guardianship Act and argued that minors undivided interest in the joint family property cannot be sold. It is pertinent to note that when the agreement of sale and supplemental agreement of sale in respect of the suit properties took place in the year 1994 and 1995 the father of the transposed plaintiffs was alive and he is a party to the said documents. The recitals of the Ex.D.7 and 8 i.e., receipts discloses that the defendant No.1 to 5 including the father of the transposed plaintiffs received the part sale consideration amount in respect of the suit 38 O.S.No.4263/1996 property sold to defendant No.6 and 7. It is not an out right sale the defendant No.6 and 7 entered into an agreement of sale prior to the filing of the present suit in the year 1994. The father of the transposed plaintiffs B.M.Shekar was one among the others who entered into agreement of sale of the suit schedule properties. In her cross-examination at pag-9 PW1 i.e., transposed plaintiff No.1 has stated that her father was a knowledgeable person. The 2nd defendant B.M.Shekar died on 17.12.1997 that is clear from the affidavit filed in support of application filed under order 22 rule 4 of CPC i.e., Ex.D.9. For the period of almost 4 years i.e., from 8.1.1994 to till death of defendant No.2 no whisper was made regarding the genuanity of the Ex.D.3 to D6. All of a sudden the legal heirs of the defendant No.2 raised a contention that the sale in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant N0. 6 and 7 was without their consent. When the natural guardian i.e., father received a part of sale consideration when the 39 O.S.No.4263/1996 defendant No.1 to 5 handed over the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant No.6 and 7 in pursuance of the agreement of sale the contention taken by the transposed plaintiffs is clearly an after thought. In the ordinary circumstances, the guardian is to be appointed for the minors as contemplated under order 32 rule 3 CPC. In the instant case, the guardians of the minor transposed plaintiffs were represented while executing the sale deeds by their paternal grand mother Smt.Shankaramma. Undisputedly as on the date of the execution of Exs.D.13 & D.14 sale deeds dated 20.9.2000, the natural guardian of the transposed plaintiffs 2nd defendant was no more. He died on 17.12.1997. His wife was also no more. Obviously their paternal grand mother Smt.Shankaramma represented them at the time of alienation of suit property as the minor guardian. The natural guardian of the transposed plaintiff i.e., deceased defendant no.2 at the time of execution of agreement of sale, i.e., Exs.D.3 to D.6, had 40 O.S.No.4263/1996 not objected for alienation of the said property in favour of defendant nos.6 & 7. On the contrary, he has signed the agreement of sale as well as consideration receipts without any protest.
37. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs vehemently contended that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and they are entitled for share in the said properties. He further contended that the defendant nos.6 & 7 have admitted the status of the plaintiffs in their written statement. Since they are the grand daughters of Madhava Ranganna, they are entitled for share in the suit schedule properties. It is pertinent to note that prior to the filing of the suit, the defendant nos.1 to 5 including the deceased defendant no.2 i.e., father of the transposed plaintiffs executed the agreement of sale in favour of defendant nos.6 & 7, handed over the possession of the suit properties to the defendant nos.6 & 7, by receiving part sale consideration amount. Therefore, on the date of 41 O.S.No.4263/1996 the filing of the suit itself, suit property was agreed to be sold by the natural guardian of the transposed plaintiffs. The transposed plaintiffs being the legal representatives of deceased 2nd defendant cannot contend that the said property is available for partition. It ceases to be ancestral property when the agreement of sale is executed by the members of the joint family including the father of the transposed plaintiffs. The learned counsel appearing for the transposed plaintiffs contended that during the subsistence of the temporary injunction order, the defendant nos.6 & 7 ventured in to take the sale deeds i.e., Exs.P.26 & P.27. No application came to be filed for vacating the temporary injunction order under order 39 rule 4 of CPC. Thus, according to the learned Counsel appearing for the transposed plaintiffs, it is a clear violation of the temporary injunction order. No doubt, this court passed an order against defendant nos.1 to 3 & 5 not to alienate the suit schedule property. Prior to the filing of the suit, an agreement of sale came 42 O.S.No.4263/1996 to be executed i.e., on 8.1.1994 and supplemental agreement also came to be executed on 22.4.1995. In pursuance of the said documents, a sale deed came to be executed during the pendency of the suit. In the original sale deed pertaining to the suit properties executed in favour of defendant nos.6 & 7 i.e., Ex.D.13 & D.14, there is a clear recital regarding the agreement of sale dated 8.1.1994 and supplemental agreement dated 22.4.1995. Clause-(iv) of Exs.D.13 & D.14 further reveals that out of the total sale consideration of Rs.5,67,500/-, more than half of the sale consideration i.e., Rs.3,26,500/- was received by the defendant nos.1 to 5 on the date of agreement of sale and supplemental agreement. When that being the case, merely because the sale deeds are executed during the pendency of the suit subsequent to the agreement of sale by receiving balance sale consideration by the vendors when the transposed plaintiffs are represented by their paternal grand mother Smt.Shankaramma, it is not just and proper to hold that 43 O.S.No.4263/1996 intentionally the defendant nos.1 to 5 executed the sale deeds during the pendency of the suit. More so, when there is no relief claimed by the plaintiffs seeking cancellation of the sale deeds.
38. The learned Counsel appearing for the transposed plaintiffs contended that the alienation made by the defendant nos.1,3 to 5 is hit by the Sec.52 of the T.P.Act. As against the said argument, learned Counsel appearing for the defendant nos.6 & 7 contended that the defendant nos.6 & 7 are in possession of the suit properties from the date of execution of the agreement of sale. Therefore, Sec.52 of the T.P. Act is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel appearing for the defendant nos.6 & 7 has relied on the decisions reported in 2013 AIR SCW 1617 ILR 2001 KAR 5474 and AIR 1971 Calcutta 159. In the light of the ratios laid down in the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble High Court 44 O.S.No.4263/1996 of Calcutta, he argued that prior to the filing of the suit itself the agreement of sale came to be executed and in pursuance of the said agreement of sale, the sale deeds came to be executed. Therefore, Sec.52 of the T.P.Act is not applicable. In the instant case, an agreement of sale and supplemental agreement came to be executed way back in the year 1994 and 1995 i.e., 8.1.1994 and 22.4.1995. The defendant nos.6 & 7 filed a suit for specific performance for enforcement of the agreement of sale in OS 2154/1996 and 2155/1996 and that is clear from Exs.P.5 & 6 certified copies of plaint in the said suits. Subsequently the said suits were withdrawn as the sale deeds came to be executed. Thus, only the sale took place during the pendency of the present suit, but the inception of the transaction commenced prior to the sale deed i.e., from the date of execution of the agreement of sale dated 8.1.1994 and supplemental agreement dated 22.4.1995. The out and out sale has not taken place at once i.e., during the pendency of the suit. Prior to the 45 O.S.No.4263/1996 filing of the suit itself the defendant nos.1 to 5 executed the agreement of sale and agreed to sell the suit schedule properties including the father of the transposed plaintiffs. Therefore, the date of agreement of sale is the date of inception of the transaction. Hence, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the transposed plaintiffs that the suit is hit by Sec.52 of the T.P.Act, holds no water. In view of my foregoing discussion, this court is of the opinion that since the suit schedule properties were sold prior to the filing of the suit, they lost the characteristic of ancestral properties as far as the transposed plaintiffs are concerned and said properties were not available for partition as on the date of the suit. Hence, I answer Issue no.1 and additional issue no.1 in the negative.
39. Issue no.2: All the legal heirs of Madhava Ranganna i.e., defendant nos.1 to 5 executed the Ex.D.3 to D.6 agreement of sale and supplemental agreement on 8.1.1994 and 22.4.1995. The deceased 2nd defendant 46 O.S.No.4263/1996 who is none other than the father of the transposed plaintiffs is one among the executants of Exs.D.3 to D.6 documents. Ex.D.7 & 8 further discloses that towards the part sale consideration of the suit properties, all the legal heirs of deceased Madhava Ranganna including the father of the transposed plaintiffs received the money and executed Ex.D.7 & D.8 receipts. In pursuance of the said documents, after the death of deceased defendant no.2, the transposed plaintiffs represented by their paternal grand mother Smt.Shankaramma and other legal heirs of deceased Madhava Ranganna executed Exs.D.13 & D.14 sale deeds in favour of defendant nos.6 & 7. There is no contra convincing material to show that said sale was not for any family and legal necessities. Only on the ground that said sale was made during the pendency of the present suit itself is not a ground to hold that the plaintiffs are not bound by the said sale deeds. More so, when the transposed plaintiffs are represented by the eldest member of the family Smt.Shankaramma as their 47 O.S.No.4263/1996 guardian at the time of execution of the sale deeds. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the transposed plaintiffs are bound by the sale deeds Exs.D.13 & D.14 executed in favour of defendant nos.6 & 7. Hence, I answer Issue no.2 in the affirmative.
40. Issue no.4 : According to the transposed plaintiffs, Ex.D.13 & D.14 sale deeds were executed in violation of the temporary injunction order passed by this court. Hence, the alienation in favour of defendant nos.6 & 7 is not valid in the eye of law. Prior to Exs.D.13 & D.14 sale deeds, all the legal heirs of deceased Madhava Ranganna executed agreement of sale and supplemental agreement dated 8.1.1994 and 22.4.1995 as per Exs.D.3 to D.6. It is not the case of the transposed plaintiffs that their father M.Shekhar had deserted them during his lifetime. Undisputedly their father M.Shekhar by receiving part of sale consideration executed the agreement and supplemental agreements of sale and he is party to the said documents. He is a well 48 O.S.No.4263/1996 educated person. He has signed on all the said documents, handed over the vacant possession of the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant nos.6 &
7. Clause-iii(2) of Exs.D.4 & D.5 discloses that the sellers i.e., legal heirs of Madhav Ranganna including the 2nd defendant undertook to complete the sale within six months from the date of the agreement of sale or within one month from the date of vendors obtaining the title deeds pertaining to the suit property. Since the vendors have failed to comply the stipulations stated in the agreement of sale, the defendant nos.6 & 7 constrained to file a suit for specific performance. Thereafter, the sale deed came to be executed and the said suit came to be withdrawn by the defendant nos.6 & 7. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale, defendant nos.6 & 7 paid the balance sale consideration. The present transposed plaintiffs represented by their paternal grand mother executed the sale deeds in favour of the defendant nos.6 & 7 on 20.9.2000. Since the part sale consideration was 49 O.S.No.4263/1996 paid at the time of agreement of sale and possession was handed over to defendant nos.6 & 7, the father of the transposed plaintiffs was very much aware about the transaction during his lifetime. Said transaction is binding on his legal heirs i.e., transposed plaintiffs. The father of the transposed plaintiffs was also party to the suit filed by the defendant nos.6 & 7 for specific performance. In the plaint i.e., Ex.P.4 and P.6, in OS 2154/1996 and 2155/1996, the present defendant nos.6 & 7 have specifically taken a plea that they have been always ready and willing to perform their part of contract. Under these circumstances, there is no lapses on the part of defendant nos.6 & 7 in performing their part of contract, they have paid valid sale consideration. All the legal heirs of deceased Madhava Ranganna executed the agreement of sale. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the defendant nos.6 & 7 are the bonafide purchasers of the plaint schedule properties. Hence, I answer Issue no.4 in the affirmative.50 O.S.No.4263/1996
41. Issue no.5 : In view of my findings on the above issues, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the transposed plaintiffs is dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer on i-pad/online, dictation, transcribed & typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 28th day of July 2016).
(RAVI M.NAIK), I Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF PW.1 S.Pushpalatha LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF Exs.P-1 Certified copy of partition deed of 1964 " P-2 Khata Certificate " P-3 Khata extract " P-4 Certified copy of plaint in OS 2154/1996 " P-5 Certified copy of written statement in OS 2154/96 " P-6 Certified copy of plaint in OS 2155/1996 51 O.S.No.4263/1996 " p.7 Certified copy of written statement in OS 2155/1996 " p.8 to 10 Certified copy of IAs filed in OS 2154/1996 " p.11 Certified copy of objections filed to the IA filed in OS 2154/1996 " p.12 Certified copy of IA filed in OS 2154/1996 " p.13 Certified copy of objections to IA filed in OS 2154/1996 " p.14 & 15 Certified copies of objections filed to memo dated 26.9.2000 filed by the plaintiffs in OS 2154/1996 " p.16 & 17 Certified copies of IA filed in OS 2155/1996 " p.18 Certified copy of objections filed to the IA in OS 2155/1996 " p.19 Certified copy of IA filed in OS 2155/1996 " p.20 Certified copy of objections " p.21 Certified copy of common order on IAs in OS 2154 & 2155/1996.
" p.22 Certified copy of order sheet in OS 2154/1996 " p.23 Certified copy of memo filed in OS 2154/1996 " p.24 Certified copy of order sheet in OS 2155/1996 " p.25 Certified copy of memo dated 3.12.2001 filed in OS 2155/1996 " p.26 Certified copy of sale deed dated 20.9.2000 " p.27 Certified copy of sale deed daed 20.9.2000 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS DW.1 B.V.Sreeramaiah DW.2 B.R.Narayanappa LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS Exs.D-1 Original mortgage deed dated 21.4.1992 " D-2 Mortgage discharge deed dated 22.4.1995 " D-2(a) Signature " D-3 Certified copy of agreement of sale dated 8.1.1994 " D-4 Certified copy of supplemental agreement dated 22.4.1995 52 O.S.No.4263/1996 " D-5 Certified copy of agreement of sale dated 8.1.1994 in respect of item no.2 of the suit schedule property.
" D-6 Certified copy of supplemental
agreement dated 22.4.1995.
" D-7 & 8 Two receipts
" D-9 Certified copy of IA filed u/o 22 ru.4
in OS 2154/1996
" D-10 Certified copy of IA filed u/o 22 ru.4
of CPC in OS 2155/1996
" D-11 Receipt dated 5.7.2002 for having
lodged complaint against P.Srinivas
" D-12 Endorsement given by the police
" D-13 Original sale deed dated 20.9.2000
" D-13(a) & (b) Signatures
" D-14 Original sale deed dated 20.9.2000
" D-14(a) & (b) Signatures
" D-15 Khata extract
" D-16 to 20 Five tax paid receipts
" D-21 & 22 Two Encumbrance certificates
" D-23 Original sanctioned plan by BBMP
(RAVI M. NAIK),
I Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
53 O.S.No.4263/1996