Bangalore District Court
Nagappa R vs Muninagappa on 10 April, 2026
KABC010299802018
IN THE COURT OF THE XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE : AT BANGALORE [CCH-42]
:PRESENT:
SMT. SUMANGALA CHAKALABBI, B.A. LL.B.
(Hons.), LL.M.
XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
Dated this the 10th day of April 2026
O.S.No.7832/2018
PLAINTIFF : Sri R. Nagappa,
S/o Late Ramaiah,
Aged about 67 years
R/at No.114, 1st Main road,
Benniganahalli,
Old Madras Rad,
Bengaluru - 560 016.
Since deceased by his LRs.
a) Smt. Gowramma
W/o Late R. Nagappa
Aged about 65 years
b) Sri No. Srinivas Murthy
S/o Late R. Nagappa
Aged about 49 years
O.S. No.7832/2018
2
c) Smt. N. Pushpalatha,
D/o Late R. Nagappa,
Aged about 46 years. (DEAD)
(DELETED AS PER ORDER
DTD : 04.04.2025)
and to treat the plaintiff Nos.1(a),(b), (d), (e)
and (f) as LRs. of plaintiff No.1(c).
d) Sri N. Devaraju
S/o Late R. Naappa
Aged about 45 years
e) Sri N. Santhosh
S/o Late R. Nagappa
Aged about 44 years
f) Sri No. Sridhar
S/o Late R. Nagappa
Aged about 42
The LRs of deceased Plaintiff R.Nagappa
i.e., a), b) d) e) and f) are R/at:
No.114, 1" Main Road
Benniganahalli
Old Madras Road
BENGALURU 560 016.
(By Sri. P. Narayanappa, Advocate)
V/s.
DEFENDANTS : 1. Sri Muninagappa
S/o Late Kanakappa
Aged about 40 years
2. Smt. Rameshamma
O.S. No.7832/2018
3
W/o Late Venkatesh
Aged about 35 years
3. Sri B.V.Rajanna
S/o Late Venkatagiriyappa
Aged about 57 years
4. Sri Manjunath
S/o Late Venkatagiriyappa
Aged about 40 years
Defendants 1 to 4 are residing at:
Benniganahalli
Dooravani Nagar Post
Old Madras Road
BENGALURU 560 016.
5. Sri Mari Rudraiah
S/o Late P. Basappa
Aged about 58 years
6. Smt. Bramarambha
W/o Marirudraíah
Aged about 50 years
7. Sri Prabhu
S/o Late P. Basappa
Aged about 54 years
Defendants 1 to 7 are residing at:
Benniganahalli
Dooravani Nagar Post
Old Madras Road
BENGALURU 560 016.
O.S. No.7832/2018
4
8. Sri Rajappa
S/o R. Muniyappa
Aged about 48 years
9. Sri R. Muniyappa
S/o Late Buguru Ramaiah
Aged about 69 years
Defendants 8 and 9 are residing at: No.13,
1" Main Road, 3rd Cross Benniganahalli
Dooravani Nagar Post
Old Madras Road
BENGALURU 560 016.
10. Sri T. Muniyappa
S/o Late Munivenkatappa
Aged about 78 years
R/at: Benniganahalli
Dooravani Nagar Post
Old Madras Road
BENGALURU 560 016
11. Sri A. Narayanaswamy
S/o Annaihappa
Aged about 55 years
12. Sri Muniraju
S/o A. Narayana Swamy
Aged about 31 years
Defendants 11 to 12 are residing at:
No.111/1 Benniganahalli
Dooravani Nagar Post
Old Madras Road
BENGALURU 560 016.
O.S. No.7832/2018
5
13. Sri M. Nagaraj
S/o P. Muniyappa
Aged about 57 years
14. N. Bindu
D/o M. Nagaraj
Aged about 25 years
15. N. Sindhu
D/o M. Nagaraj
Aged about 25 years
16. Smt. Prema
W/o M. Nagaraj
Aged about 54 years
Defendants 13 to 16 are residing at:
Benniganahalli
Dooravani Nagar Post
Old Madras Road
BENGALURU 560 016.
17. Sri M. Rajesh
S/o Late Muthappa
Aged about 44 years
Residing/at: C/o C. Hanumanthappa
No.95 Benniganahalli
Dooravani Nagar Post
Old Madras Road
BENGALURU 560 016.
18. Κ.Ι.Α.D.B. (karnataka Industrial
Industrial Area Development Board)
Maharishi Arvind Bhavan 1st Floor,
Nrupathunga Road BANGALORE 560 001.
O.S. No.7832/2018
6
19. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation
Limited,
BMTC Complex, 3rd Floor K.G. Road,
Shanthinagar BANGALORE 560 037.
(D1 to D8, D17 - Ex-parte
D10, 13 to 16 - Ex-parte
D6 - by Sri A.B.S. Advocate,
D11, 12 - by Sri R.R. Advocate
D18 - by Sri D.B.G, Advocate
D19 - by Sri V.P.D., Advocate)
Date of Institution of the Suit: 29.10.2018
Nature of the suit
(Suit on Pronote, suit for Suit for
declaration & possession, suit Partition
for injunction)
Date of commencement of 29.01.2025
recording of evidence:
Date on which the Judgment 10.04.2026
was pronounced:
Total Duration: Year/s Month/s Day/s
07 05 11
JUDGMENT
The present suit is filed by the plaintiff for the relief of partition and separate possession of 1/3 rd share in the suit O.S. No.7832/2018 7 schedule property and to pass an order that the sale deeds herein mentioned below are not binding on the plaintiff :
Sl.No. Date Sale deed Remarks
No.
01. 21-03-1968 5919/67-68 Annexure-C
02. 06-09-1969 2686/69-70 Annexure-D
03. 26-12-1969 4242/69-70 Annexure-E
04. 23-09-2015 9072/15-16 Annexure-F
05. 03-06-2017 1726/17-18 Annexure-G
06. 24-08-2017 4282/17-18 Annexure-H
07. 19-10-2017 9955/17-18 Annexure-J
08. 16-06-2009 749/2009-10 Annexure-K
And for such other reliefs, the court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
SCHEDULE ITEM NO.1:
All that piece and parcel of property bearing house List No.49, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 40 feet, totally measuring 1200 sq. feet, situated at Benniganahalli Village, K.R. PURAM Hobli, Bengaluru and bounded on:
East by : Munivenkatappa's property O.S. No.7832/2018 8 West by Hanumaiah's property North by : Erangappa's property South by : Shanthamma, J.Nagappa and Sriram's property.
ITEM NO.2:
All that piece and parcel of property bearing house List No.26, and Khatha No. 26/16 measuring East to West 15 feet and North to South 12 feet, totally measuring 180 sq. feet, situated at Benniganahalli Village, K.R. PURAM Hobli, Bengaluru bounded on:
East by : Shri Ramaiah's property West by : Shri Munivenkatappa's property North by : Railway's Property South by : Shri A.Muniyappa's property ITEM NO.3:
All that piece and parcel of property bearing old house List No.26, and Khatha No. 26/30 measuring East to West 15 feet and Benniganahalli Village, K.R. PURAM Hobli, Bengaluru bounded on: North to South 12 feet, totally measuring 180 sq. feet, situated at :
O.S. No.7832/2018 9 East by :Shri Ramaiah's property West by : Shri Muniyappa's House North by : Railway's Property South by : Remaining property and passage ITEM NO.4:
All that piece and parcel of property bearing Gramatana No.16, Ward No.50. measuring East to West 38 feet and North to South 22+10/2 feet, totally measuring 608 sq. feet, consisting 5 floors building situated at Benniganahalli Village, K.R. PURAM Hobli. Bengaluru bounded on:
East by : 3 feet road and Shri Lingegowda's property West by : Shri Muniraju's house North by : Railway's property South by : Shri M. Srinivas and Sharadamma's Property.
ITEM NO.5:
All that piece and parcel of property bearing Gramatana No.26, and 30, New Municipal No. 16A, O.S. No.7832/2018 10 BBMP Ward No.84, PID No. 84-76-16A, measuring East to West 34.1:32+31.1:52/2 feet and North to South 45+31.1:42/2 feet, totally measuring 1202 sq. feet, situated at Benniganahalli Village, K.R. PURAM Hobli, Bengaluru bounded on:
East by : Shri Muniyappa and Narayanaswamy's property West by : Private property North by : Railway's Property South by : 8 Feet Passage
2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER:
The plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4 form a single family and they are in possession of the suit schedule properties. The defendant o.5 to 19 are the purchasers of some of the portions of the suit schedule properties.
One Ramaiah, who is the father of the plaintiff died leaving behind his two wives namely Siddamma and Muniyamma. Within of the wedlock of Ramaiah ad Siddamma, they got two children by name Kanakappa, O.S. No.7832/2018 11 Dyavanna. Dyavanna died issue-less, while Kanakappa died leaving behind his son Venkatesh and Muninagappa.
Venkatesh died leaving behind his wife Rameshamma, the defendant No.2. Within the wedlock of Muniyamma and Ramaiah, the plaintiff Nagappa and his another brother Venkatagiriyappa were born. Upon the death of Venkatagiriyappa, the defendants No.3 and 4 who are his children have succeeded to his estate. During the lifetime of the father of the plaintiff and after the death of the father of the plaintiff, the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4 were in joint possession of the suit schedule properties as Hindu Undivided Family. Even though the defendants are residing separately, the suit schedule properties are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4 and no partition has been taken place in the family. After the death of Ramaiah and his wives, the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule O.S. No.7832/2018 12 properties, which are the ancestral properties of plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4.
It is averred that during the lifetime of Kanakappa son of Ramaiah, he has executed some sale deeds without the knowledge of the plaintiff. Therefore, the said sale deeds executed by Kanakappa are not binding on the plaintiff.
Some portions of the suit schedule properties were acquired by Bengaluru Metro and the officials of Bengaluru Metro came to survey the acquired lands and one person by name S. Mohan, resident of Benniganahalli tried to interfere with the property of the plaintiff, which is acquired by the Indian Railways. Thereafter, Mohan tried to undertake construction of hallow blocks compound in the suit schedule properties. It is the further case of the plaintiff that some of the suit properties were acquired by Metro Corporation and KIADB. The compensation of the acquired land is pending. Hence, in this regard KIADB and BMRCL are required to compensate the plaintiff to the O.S. No.7832/2018 13 extent of 1/3rd share in the award amount and sought to decree the suit.
3. After service of suit summons, the defendant Nos.1 to 8, 9, 10, 13 to 17 remained absent and hence, they are placed exparte.
The defendants No.11 and 12 appeared and filed their common written-statement contending that they are only concerned with item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties. It is averred that the property bearing old House List No.26, katha No.26/16, totally measuring 1380 sq.ft. Item No.2 was purchased by one Annayappa, father of Narayanaswamy, who is the defendant No.11 on 16.12.1969 from Kanakappa, who is the brother of the plaintiff under the sale deed dated 26.12.1969. Since the plaintiff and his brother Venkatagiriyappa raised objections to the execution of the sale deed, the father of the defendant No.11 Annayappa secured another sale deed of the said property from Venkatagiriyappa and Nagappa, in O.S. No.7832/2018 14 which the plaintiff and Kanakappa, who is the father of the defendant No.1 have affixed their signatures on 10.01.1973. Annayappa had got the katha of the said property transferred in his name and later on through Panchayath Palikath / partition, the defendant No.11 obtained the said property towards his share. Item No.3 was purchased by A. Narayanaswamy from P. Muniyappa, son of Munivenkatappa on 23.09.2015. On 03.06.2017, the defendant No.11 has executed a gift deed in favour of his son Muniraju, the defendant No.12 herein in respect of both item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties. The defendant No.12 has received compensation on 05.10.2018 by submitting all the title deeds to the KIADB / defendant No.18 and defendant No.19, who upon inquiry have disbursed the compensation in favour of defendant No.12. Hence, the defendants No.11 and 12 have sought to dismiss the suit.
O.S. No.7832/2018 15 The defendant No.19 after appearing before this court has filed separate written-statement contending that the lands required for the Metro Rail Project are acquired by the State Government . An extent of 63,35 sq.mtrs. Of property in the Gramathana of Benniganahalli and property bearing katha No.26 in the katha of Nagappa son of Ramaiah along with other properties were notified for acquisition for Bengaluru Metro Rail Project Reach - 1E, Phase - 2 Extension as per Preliminary Notification dated 03.02.2018 and Final Notification issued under Section 28(4) of KIAD Act. After joint survey and measurement a final Notification was issued finally acquiring 63.35 sq.mtrs. standing in the katha of Nagappa son of Ramaiah. Upon publication of final Notification, the above portion vested absolutely with the Stage Government under Section 29(5) of the KIAD Act and on 15.10.2018, the defendant No.19 prepared a package compensation for Rs.1,52,71,385/- in respect of 63.35 sq.mts. and sent the O.S. No.7832/2018 16 same to Spl.Land Acquisition Officer, KIADB to pass consent award under Section 29(2) o the Act. Later on Spl.LAO, KIADB had passed general award on 24.01.2019 fixing the market value for the above acquired land at Rs.42,552.89 / sq.mtr. During the inquiry, the plaintiff, Smt. Sharadamma and Smt. Tarakumari appeared and mentioned about the pendency of O.S.No. 8025/2018 and WP.50721/2018. The Spl. LAO awarded Rs.82,59,448/- in respect of the acquired land. Later on the Spl. LAO made a requisition to the Civil Court under Land Acquisition Act as per letter dated 25.05.2019 for adjudication of the dispute regarding entitlement of compensation. Out of the award of compensation amount, Rs.82,59,448/-, the Spl. LAO deducted Rs.16,99,136/- towards income tax and deposited the remaining amount of Rs.67,96,546/- in the Civil Court.
Further, it is the contention of the defendant No.19, that defendant No.19 is not a necessary party to the suit.
O.S. No.7832/2018 17 Further as per Order XXIX C.P.C., the Corporation has to be represented by its Secretary or any of the directors of Principal Officer, but there is no proper description of the defendant No.19 in the plaint. Further it is contended that since the compensation amount has already been sent to the Spl. LAO, KIADB, the defendant No.19 is not a necessary party, it is only a beneficiary of acquisition. The defendant No.19 has further contended that any person who has any claim in respect of the acquired land will be entitled to agitate his rights before the Reference Court us 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The plaintiff cannot seek the relief of injunction against the defendant No.19 and sought to dismiss the suit.
The defendant No.18 has appeared before this court and has filed written-statement contending that the State Government has issued final notification under Section 28(4) of the KIAD Act 1966 . In the said notification O.S. No.7832/2018 18 Bengaluru East Taluq Benniganahalli Gramatana properties are notified and compensation has been determined as per BMRCL package and disbursed to the following i. N.Muniraju S/o Narayanaswamy to the Property ID NO. RIE-5H7 measuring 33.44 Sq Mtrs, deducting the Income tax of Rs. 7,27,577/- ant Rs.65,48,192.00/-; ii. M.Rajanna S/o Muniyappa to the property ID.NO.RIE- 5H10 measuring 56.48 Sq.Mtrs deducting the Income tax of Rs.11,28,548.00/- p Rs. 1,01,56,931.00. iii. M.Rajesh S/o Muthappa to the property ID NO.RIE- 5H7-4 measuring 103.53 Sq Mtrs deducting the Income tax of Rs. 22,80,584/- and Raid Rs.2,05,25,254.00/-. iv. K.Padmanabhareddy S/o K.Pattabiramareddy to the property ID NO. RIE. 5H-2 measuring 50.62 Sq Mtrs O.S. No.7832/2018 19 deducting the Income tax of Rs. 25,68,473/- and paid Rs.1,22,31,020.00/-.
v. Shivaramareddy S/o Srinivasareddy to the property ID NO. RIE-50 measuring 26.95 Sq Mtrs deducting the Income Tax of Rs.4,73,063.00/- and paid Rs. 42,57,571.00/-.
6. Compensation of the acquired remaining suit schedule property is yet to be disbursed With these contentions, the defendant No.18 has prayed to dismiss the suit.
4. On the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues have been framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he and Defendant No. 1 to 4 are formed a single family and they are in joint possession of the suit properties?
2. Whether the Plaintiff further proves that the Sale deeds as mentioned in Para No. 9 of the plaint are not binding on him?
O.S. No.7832/2018 20
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in the suit properties?
4. Whether Defendant No.19 proves that the suit is not maintainable for want of notice u/S 80 of Civil. P.C.?
5. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs sought for?
6. What decree or order?
5. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff No.1(d) is examined as Pw.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to P.33 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the contesting defendants No.1 to 18 have not adduced their evidence and therefore, the evidence on their side is taken as nil on 25.11.2025. The evidence on the side of defendant No.19 is taken as nil on 17.01.2026. Thereafter, the matter was set down for arguments.
6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Inspite of sufficient opportunities, the learned O.S. No.7832/2018 21 counsel for the defendant Nos.1 to 18 has not addressed his arguments. Therefore, the arguments on the side of defendants No.1 to 18 is taken as nil as per order dated 09.02.2026. The learned counsel for the defendant No.19 filed his written arguments on 13.02.2026. Thereafter, the matter was set down for judgment. Perused the records.
7. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 to 5 - In the Negative Issue No.6 - As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
8. ISSUE NO.1 to 3 :- A meticulous scrutiny of the materials on record clearly disclose that the plaintiff has vaguely pleaded that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant without any material averments disclosing the ancestors of plaintiffs and the mode of acquisition of the suit schedule O.S. No.7832/2018 22 properties by the ancestors of the plaintiffs. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India between Arshnoor Singh V/s Harpal Kaur and Others, reported in (2020) 14 SCC 436 at para 7.3 held that under Mitakshara law, whenever a male ancestor inherits any property from any of his paternal ancestors upto three degrees above him, then his male legal heirs upto three degrees below him, would get an equal right as coparceners in that property. The Hon'ble Apex Court of India in Vineeta Sharma V/s Rakesh Sharma & Others (Supra) at page 34 para 24 has held that a coparcenary property is the one which is inherited by a Hindu from his father, grandfather, or great grandfather. The property inherited from others is held in his rights and cannot be treated as forming part of the coparcenary. The property in coparcenary is held as joint owners. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA NO. 1925/2006 in the case of Basavaraj Meti and another v. Prema bai Jamadar and others, while answering the point on whether O.S. No.7832/2018 23 the property inherited under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, acquires the characteristic of a co- paracenery property subsequent to the division of properties between two brothers vis-à-vis sons of the parties to the partition, has held that coparcenary is a creature of the statute and it cannot be created by way of an agreement.
9. From the above judgments it is pellucid that in order to claim a share in the coparcenary property the plaintiff has to necessarily prove that the property sought to be partitioned is a Mitakshara coparcenary property inherited from her paternal ancestors upto three degrees above him. In the case on hand it is not the case of the plaintiff that the suit properties are the coparcenary properties of his great grandfather and the father of the plaintiff had acquired rights over the suit properties under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. There is O.S. No.7832/2018 24 nothing on record to prove that the great grand father of the plaintiff had acquired the suit properties from his paternal ancestors upto three degrees above him. .When the plaintiff is claiming coparcenary rights in the suit properties it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to plead and prove that her father leaving behind his share in the coparcenary property. But the plaint averments are bereft of the material particulars specifying the names of the paternal ancestors upto three degrees above the plaintiff . The details of the ancestors of the plaintiff upto three generations are not provided in the family tree at Ex.P1. Mere plea of joint possession without any material particulars of the mode of acquisition of the properties is not sufficient to hold that the suit properties are the ancestral and coparcenary property . In this context the plaintiff has failed to disclose any right to sue or cause of action to fetch the reliefs sought in the plaint.
O.S. No.7832/2018 25
10. In Colonel Shrawan Kumar Jaipuriyar . vs Krishna Nandan Singh in Civil Appeal NO. 6760 OF 2019, the Supreme Court referring to Court in Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Society Represented by its Chairman v. Ponniamman Educational Trust Represented by its Chairman/ Managing Trustee (2012) 8 SCC 706 and A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Another. A.P. Agencies, Salem, (1989) 2 SCC 163 the Apex court has sought to explain that the cause of action means every fact which, if traversed, would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to seek a decree and relief against the defendant. Cause of action requires infringement of the right or breach of an obligation and comprises of all material facts on which the right and claim for breach is founded, that is, some act done by the defendant to infringe and violate the right or breach an obligation and further it was held that there does not exist any legal right which the plaintiff or the first respondent is entitled to invoke and O.S. No.7832/2018 26 enforce. For a right to exist, there must be a co-relative duty which can be enforced in a law suit. A right cannot exist without an enforceable duty. In the present case, the pleadings fail to establish violation of a statutory right or breach of a contractual obligation which creates an enforceable right in the court of law. In the absence of material pleadings disclosing the right to the plaintiff to claim the statutory right of succession under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the plaint is bad for want of cause of action.
11. It is further pertinent to note that even in the sale deed at Ex.P2 executed by Kanakappa son of Ramaiah, there is absolutely no covenant/recital denoting that the Kanakappa had acquired the said properties through his paternal ancestors. Similarly, in the sale deed at Ex.P.3 and P.4, which were executed by Kanakappa in favour of P. Basappa and Annayyappa on O.S. No.7832/2018 27 06.09.1969 and 26.12.1969 respectively there is no disclosure about the said properties being acquired by the vendor from his paternal ancestors upto three degrees above him although there is a vague reference to the word ancestral property . The description of the property at Ex.P.2, which was the subject property of the sale deed executed by Kanakappa, in favour of Ramaiah S/o.Hanumantappa on 21.03.1968 does not reflect any property number. The measurement shown in the sale deed at Ex.P.2 discloses that the subject property measures 38 x 22 ft., which in fact does not correspond to any of the suit schedule items mentioned in the plaint. The extent of the property indicated at Ex.P.3 is 60 ft. x 20 ft. and 15 ft. x 10 ft. which again does not correspond to any of the properties mentioned in the plaint. No explanation is offered by the plaintiff in this regard by the plaintiff. Similarly the extent of the property indicated in the sale deed at Ex.P4 measuring 15 feet x10 feet does not O.S. No.7832/2018 28 correspond with any of the suit items. When Ex.P.5 is examined, it is noticed that the subject property bearing katha No.26 /30 was sold by Muniyappa son of Munivenkatappa in favour of A. Narayanappa on 23.09.2015. Although the description of the schedule in the plaint corresponds with item no.3 of the suit property, the plaintiff has not indicated as to how Muniyappa, the vendor, is related to family of the plaintiff . The plaintiff has further failed to prove the existence of the suit schedule properties as on the date of the suit and also establish his legal right vis a vis the suit properties.
12. The reliance on registered the gift deed at Ex.P6 executed by A. Narayanaswamy in favour of Muniraju,( the defendant No. 12) no doubt discloses that the property bearing Gramathana site No.26/ 16 was acquired by Annayappa under the registered sale deed dated 26.12.1969 . But the description of item no.1 of the O.S. No.7832/2018 29 property at Ex.P.6 is different from the property at Ex.P.4, which was sold in favour of Annayyappa by Kankappa . Merely because there is a reference to the sale deed dated 26.12. 1969, which was executed by Kanakappa in favour of Annayyappa, the plaintiff cannot contend that item no.1 of the property gifted in favour of the defendant No.12 by A. Narayanaswamy is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4.
13. Similarly the plaintiff has failed to prove that the said subject property at the gift deed at Ex.P7 executed by Marirudraiah in favour of the defendant No. 6 in respect of the property bearing house list No.49 measuring 600 sq.ft. is the ancestral property of plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4.The reliance on Ex.P.8, the gift deed executed by R. Muniyappa in favour of N. Rajappa (the defendant no.8) in respect of item No.4 of the suit schedule property totally measuring 608 sq.ft. is again O.S. No.7832/2018 30 devoid of any material pleading establishing the casual link between the claim of ancestral property of the plaintiff with the schedule property at Ex.P.8. No doubt there is a reference to the sale deed dated 21.03.1968 at Ex.P.8, which was executed by Kanakappa in favour of B. Ramaiah. But the plaintiff has failed to prove that the property at Ex.P.2 and P.8 are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4. The said property at Ex.P.9 - sale deed executed by M. Nagaraj and others in favour of M. Rajesh (the defendant no. 17) in respect of property bearing Gramathana No.26 and 30 totally measuring 1202 sq.ft. which corresponds to item No.5 of the suit schedule properties does not disclose that the vendors are related to the family of the plaintiff and defendants . The overall examination of the materials disclose that the plaintiff has failed to establish his legal right in respect of the suit properties . The evidence on record does not correspond and corroborate with the claim O.S. No.7832/2018 31 asserted by the plaintiff in the plaint. In the consequence the plaintiff has failed to discharge its burden under Section 104 and 105 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
14. The documents produced by the plaintiff from Ex.P.10 to P.12 clearly reveal that consent award was passed in respect of the property bearing House No.49 measuring 6.65 sq.mts., and compensation was disbursed to the defendant No.6 namely Smt. Bramarambha wife of Marirudraiah and she has issued an acknowledgement for having received the compensation in favour of the Spl. LAO and further she had also handed over the possession of the property bearing house No.49 in favour of the acquiring authority voluntarily by executing an indemnity bond and agreement in favour of the defendant No.18. Similarly, the compensation was awarded in favour of N. Muniraju. the defendant No.12 , in respect of the property bearing katha O.S. No.7832/2018 32 No.26/16 based on the consent award, who in turn has issued an acknowledgement by executing indemnity bond and agreement in favour of defendant No.18. The documents at Ex.P.23 and 29 further disclose that compensation was awarded to M. Rajesh ( the defendant No.17) and M Rajappa (the defendant No. 8) in respect of the property bearing PID No.84-76-16A and katha No.16A measuring 103.53 sq.mts. and katha No.16 measuring 56.48 sq.mts. and these beneficiaries had issued acknowledgement for having received compensation amount by executing indemnity bond and agreements in favour of defendant No.18.
15. It is further material to note that the plaintiff has not at all challenged the acquisition of lands by the defendant No. 18 and 19 at any point of time. Once the acquisition proceedings are complete, the property vests with the beneficiary and the existing title over the said O.S. No.7832/2018 33 property gets divested. Any dispute regarding the acquisition of the land cannot be entertained by this Court under Section 9 of C.P.C. Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of M/s. Lake View Tourism Vs. Chandrakala and Other in CRP.No.252/2024, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by referring to the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Commissioner, BDA and others Vs. Brijesh Reddy has held that the post issuance of final notification the land vests with the State and the compensation in respect of there to is required to be determined by the LAO and the procedure in this regard is prescribed under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act and any person who has not accepted the award may make a representation to the Deputy Commissioner who thereupon may make a representation under Section 18 of the Act. The plaintiff having admitted the Land Acquisition Proceedings with regard to the subject land cannot continue to assert their right on the basis of the previous O.S. No.7832/2018 34 character of the subject land without indicating any right on the date of filing of the suit and in this regard it is clearly apparent that the plaintiff has created an illusory cause of action to seek the relief of partition and declaration when the suit itself is not maintainable. In that view of the matter, the plaintiff has failed to prove Issue Nos.1 to 3 and consequently the plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs sought. Accordingly Issue Nos.1 to 3 are answered in the Negative.
16. Issue No.4 :- The defendant No.19 in its written-statement has contended that the suit is not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. There is no material cross-examination by defendant No.19 to establish that the suit is bad for want of prior notice under Section 80 C.P.C and issuance of mandatory notice by the plaintiff was a perequisite. Even otherwise the defendant No.19 has not challenged the suit at the first O.S. No.7832/2018 35 instance. Therefore, at this stage, the said issue does not survive for consideration. Accordingly Issue No.4 is answered in the Negative.
17. Issue No.5 & 6 :- In view of my findings on Issue Nos.1 to 4, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief sought in the suit and hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the judgment writer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 10th day of April , 2026).
(SUMANGALA CHAKALABBI) XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
O.S. No.7832/2018 36 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
P.W.1 - Sri N. Devaraju - 29.01.2025
b) Defendants' side: NIL II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P. 1 Digital copy of family attestation certificate Ex.P. 2 Certified copy of sale deed dated 21.03.1968 Ex.P. 3 Certified copy of sale deed dated 06.09.1969 Ex.P. 4 Certified copy of sale deed dated 26.12.1969 Ex.P. 5 Certified copy of sale deed dated 23.09.2015 Ex.P. 6 Certified copy of Gift deed dated 03.06.2017 Ex.P. 7 Certified copy of Gift deed dated 19.10.2017 Ex.P. 8 Certified copy of Gift deed dated 24.08.2017 O.S. No.7832/2018 37 Ex.P. 9 Digital copy of sale deed dated 19.06.2009 Ex.P. 10 Certified copy of letter dated 07.09.2018 Ex.P. 11 Certified copy of letter dated 28.11.2018 Ex.P. 12 Certified copy of possession certificate Ex.P. 13 Certified copy of indemnity bond Ex.P. 14 Certified copy of agreement dated 28.11.2018 Ex.P. 15 Certified copy of agreement dated 28.11.2018 between Bramaramba and SLAO Ex.P. 16 Certified copy of letter dated 27.08.2018 Ex.P. 17 Certified copy of receipt Ex.P. 18 Certified copy of possession certificate Ex.P. 19 Certified copy of indemnity bond Ex.P. 20 Certified copy of sale agreement Ex.P. 21 Certified copy of agreement between Muniraju and SLAO Ex.P. 22 Certified copy of letter dated 07.09.2018 Ex.P. 23 Certified copy of receipt Ex.P. 24 Certified copy of possession certificate Ex.P. 25 Certified copy of indemnity bond Ex.P. 26 Certified copy of agreement dated 22.11.2018 Ex.P. 27 Certified copy of agreement between Rajesh and SLAO Ex.P. 28 Certified copy of letter dated 07.09.2018 O.S. No.7832/2018 38 Ex.P. 29 Certified copy of receipt Ex.P. 30 Certified copy of possession certificate Ex.P. 31 Certified copy of indemnity bond dated:
08.10.2018 Ex.P. 32 Certified copy of agreement dated 05.10.2018 Ex.P. 33 Certified copy of agreement between Rajappa and SLAO
b)Defendants' side : NIL (SUMANGALA CHAKALABBI) XLI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.