Bangalore District Court
Prabhavathi R vs Giridhar G L on 7 April, 2026
KABC010078132016
IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 7th Day of April 2026
Present : SRI.VEDAMOORTHY B.S., B.A.(L)., LL.B.,
XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-14)
C/c V Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-13)
O.S.No.2601/2016
PLAINTIFFS : 1. Smt.R.Prabhavathi,
W/o late G.N.Lakshmikantha,
Aged about 65 years,
2. Sri.G.L.Sridhar,
S/o late G.N.Lakshmikantha,
Aged about 44 years,
Both Residing at #13/1,
Chandrashekhara Azad Road,
Gavipuram, Bengaluru - 560 019.
3. Smt.G.L.Prathibha,
D/o late G.N.Lakshmikantha,
W/o Sri.Manjunath,
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at 257, Maruthi Nilaya,
13th Main, B.S.K. 1st Stage,
B.S.K 2nd Block,
Bengaluru - 560 050.
(By Sri.C.R.Venkatesh, Advocate)
V/s
2
O.S.No.2601/2016
DEFENDANTS : 1. Sri.G.L.Giridhar,
S/o late G.N.Lakshmikantha,
Aged about 46 years,
Residing at #13/1,
Chandrashekhara, Azad Road,
Gavipuram, Bengaluru - 560 019.
2. Sri.B.M.Mahadevappa,
S/o late Muddamallappa,
Since Dead by LRs.
2(a). Smt.Kalajyothi,
W/o late B.M.Mahadevappa,
Aged about 55 years.
2(b). Smt.Aishwarya,
D/o late B.M.Mahadevappa,
Age about 30 years.
2(c). Smt.Keerthana,
D/o late B.M.Mhadevappa,
Aged about 27 years,
2(d). Kumari.Adrusta,
D/o late B.M.Mahadevappa,
Aged about 24 years
All are R/at No.1955, 6th Main,
28th Cross, 'D' Group Layout,
Srigandhakaval, Bengaluru -560091.
3. Sri.C.G.Ananda,
S/o C.A.Gopinath,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at No.87, 1st Cross,
Gandhinagar,
Bengaluru - 560 009.
4. M/S Trinetra Shelters Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Director Vijyakumari,
3
O.S.No.2601/2016
Regd. Off. #209, Trinetra, 2nd Floor,
Mota Chambers, No.9,
Cunningham Road,
Bengaluru - 560 052.
5. Smt.S.Shanti,
W/o K.Sureshkumar,
Aged about 48 years,
Res. #74A, Bagaluru Road,
Hosur - 635 109.
6. Smt.Shaarmile,
W/o Sri.S.Ravikumar,
Aged about 43 years,
Res. # 22, 1st Cross, Kutty Colony,
Someshwaranagar,
Jayanagar, 1st Block,
Bengaluru - 560 011.
7. Sri.Mammen Thomas Vaidhyan,
S/o late K.K.Thomas Vaidhyan,
Aged about 49 years,
8. Smt.Omana Thomas,
W/o late K.K.Thomas Vaidhyan,
Aged about 73 years,
Both Res. # 10/3, Joythyvan,
Vaderahalli Village,
Vidhyaranyapura Post,
Bengaluru - 560 097.
(By Smt.M.V.Lakshmi, Advocate for the
1st defendant, Sri.Chandrashekara K,
Advocate for LRs of defendant No.2,
Sri.Madhusudhana Reddy R., Advocate
for defendants No.3 and 4 and
Sri.Abinava R., Advocate for
defendants No.5 to 8)
4
O.S.No.2601/2016
Date of institution of the suit. 30.03.2016
Partition and
Nature of the suit
Declarations.
Date of the commencement of 18.02.2020
recording evidence
Date on which the Judgment 07.04.2026
was pronounced
Years Months Days
Total duration
10 00 07
(VEDAMOORTHY B.S.)
XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
C/c V Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for partition and separate possession of their ¾ share in the suit schedule properties and for declarations to declare that the Settlement Deed dated 24.12.2012 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 and the Sale Deed dated 29.08.2015 executed by defendants No.2 and 3 in favour defendants No.4 to 8 in respect of the suit schedule item No.1 property are not binding on the plaintiffs.
5
O.S.No.2601/2016
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs are that the 1st plaintiff is the wife, plaintiffs No.2 and 3 and the 1 st defendant are the children of G.N.Lakshmikantha. They are Hindu undivided joint family members. The suit schedule properties are their joint family properties. They have equal right and share in the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule Item No.1 property was purchased under registered Sale Deed dated 06.12.2007 and the suit schedule Item No.2 property was purchased under the registered Sale Deed dated 14.05.2014 by the joint family members in the name of the 1st defendant out of the joint family funds. On the basis of the said Sale Deed 06.12.2007, the mutation was effected in the name of the 1st defendant in respect of the suit schedule Item No.1 property. The Thasildar, Ankal Taluk has initiated the proceedings under Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Upon receipt of the Notice from the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant have appeared and placed the materials to substantiate that Sections 79A and 6 O.S.No.2601/2016 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act are not applicable to the said property. Accordingly, the said proceedings were dropped vide order dated 08.02.2010 in case No.LRF (83) (AA) 1/2009-10. Consequently, the mutation and RTC were effected in the name of the 1st defendant. During the end of 2007, the plaintiffs and their family members have intended to convert the said land for non-agricultural use. Accordingly, they made separate payment to their vendor Nagaraja Reddy and got applied to the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru by paying necessary fee. The Conversion Order vide No.ALN(AA)SR284/2007-08 was issued in the name of Nagaraja Reddy. On 24.12.2012, defendants No.1 to 3 colluding with each other have got executed the Deed of Settlement without the knowledge of the plaintiffs to defraud the plaintiffs. On verification, the plaintiffs have found that under the said document, no amount was paid to the 1 st defendant. The 1st defendant has also not disclosed the consideration amount received from defendants No.2 and 3.
7
O.S.No.2601/2016
3. The cause of action to the suit is that during October 2015, the plaintiffs have decided to effect partition of the joint family ancestral properties. At that time, the 1 st defendant disclosed that the suit schedule Item No.1 property is not available for partition as he has already executed the Settlement Deed dated 24.12.2012 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3. Immediately on 20.11.2015, the plaintiffs have issued Legal Notices to defendants No.2 and 3 calling upon them settle the dispute amicably. On receipt of the said Legal Notices, defendants No.2 and 3 have issued untenable reply and disclosed that they have transferred the suit schedule Item No.1 property to the defendants on 28.09.2015. Since the suit schedule properties were purchased out of joint family funds, the 1 st defendant alone had no exclusive right to execute the Settlement Deed dated 24.12.2012 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3. Therefore, the said document and the Sale Deed dated 28.09.2015 are not binding on the plaintiffs. Since, the 1st defendant did not effect partition of the suit schedule properties, the plaintiffs have filed this suit. 8
O.S.No.2601/2016
4. After due service of summons, the defendants have appeared before this Court. Among them, defendants No.1 to 4 have filed their written statements. The learned Counsel for defendants No.5 to 8 filed Memo stating that defendants No.5 to 8 are adopting the written statement filed by the 4th defendant. During the pendency of the suit, the 2nd defendant is reported as dead on 10.02.2024 and his LRs are brought on record. The learned Counsel for the LRs of the 2nd defendant filed Memo stating that they are adopting the written statement filed by the 2 nd defendant.
5. The 1st defendant in his written statement has admitted the entire plaint averments except the Legal Notice dated 20.11.2015. He prayed to dismiss the suit.
6. Defendants No.2 and 3 in their written statement have admitted the relationship between the plaintiffs and the 1 st defendant, the transactions took place through Deed of Settlement dated 24.12.2012 and Sale Deed dated 28.09.2015, the receipt of the Legal Notices dated 20.11.2015 issued by the plaintiffs and issuance of reply to 9 O.S.No.2601/2016 it. The other plaint averments are denied as false. Their contentions are that there are many more properties belongs to the family. They are not added in this suit. Therefore, this suit for partial partition and it is not maintainable. As the plaintiffs have filed this suit not within 3 years from the date of the execution of the Settlement Deed dated 24.12.2012, this suit is barred by limitation. The present guideline value of the suit schedule Item No.1 property is Rs.725/- per square feet and the market value of the suit schedule Item No.1 property is Rs.800/- square feet. As per current market value, the value of the suit schedule Item No.1 property is Rs.7,84,08,000/-. Therefore, the Court fee payable to the suit based on it is Rs.5,99,165/-. But, the plaintiffs have not paid the Court fee in accordance with law.
7. The defences of defendants No.2 and 3 set up in their written statement are that the suit schedule Item No.1 property was the absolute property of the 1 st defendant. There is clear recital in the Sale Deed dated 06.12.2007 that the consideration amount was received from 10 O.S.No.2601/2016 A.Armugam who is the consenting witness to the said Sale Deed. Therefore, it is clear from the said recitals that the suit schedule Item No.1 property was not purchased from the joint family funds. Defendants No.1 to 3 were the business associates. They settled their business transactions once for all on 06.12.2012. In the said mutual settlement, the 1st defendant agreed to settle/ convey the suit schedule Item No.1 property in favour of defendants No.2 and 3. The same is mentioned in the Settlement Deed dated 24.12.2012. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
8. The 4th defendant in its written statement except the relationship between the parties and execution of the Deed of Settlement dated 24.12.2012 and Sale Deed dated 28.09.2015, denied the other plaint averments as false. The defences of the 4th defendant are that the suit schedule Item No.1 property was the self acquired property of the 1 st defendant. The proceedings under Sections 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act were initiated in respect of the suit schedule Item No.1 property only against the 1 st defendant. The 1st defendant contested the said matter and 11 O.S.No.2601/2016 the proceedings were dropped. Consequently, as the Sale Deed of the suit schedule Item No.1 property was standing in the name of the 1st defendant, the mutation and RTC were effected in his name. The Conversion Order was issued in the name of Nagaraja Reddy. The plaintiffs and the 1st defendant are doing business separately. They have their separate sources of income. The plaintiffs, defendants No.1 to 3, A.Armugam, S.Ashok, C.V.Sathish Kumar and the daughter of the 1st defendant Chaya Devi have entered into a Partnership business under the name and style of 'Venkatapura Project'. The said Partnership Deed was dated 08.03.2008. It was duly registered under the provisions of the Partnership Act. The said Partnership Deed sets out share capital contributed by each partners and profit and loss ratio to which the said Partners are entitled to. The business was commenced with effect from 01.02.2008. The business carried on by the said Partnership was real estate business i.e., acquisition of agricultural lands, getting the lands converted for residential purpose, obtaining requisite permissions from all competent authorities for formation of 12 O.S.No.2601/2016 the layout and for other things. The Partners nominated A.Armugam, one of the Partners as Managing Partner to carry day to day affairs of the project. In the course of the said partnership business, A.Armugam has paid a sum of Rs.4.25 Crores towards the share profit of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant. Accordingly, A.Armugam has paid the entire profits and their investments. As such, they had no further claim. However, in that regard, dispute arose between the parties. The 2nd plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.832/2010 against the Partnership Firm 'Venkatapura Project', its Partners and M/s Prudential Housing and Infrastructure Development Ltd. before this Court. All the defendants in the said suit have filed their written statements. Thereafter, on 06.12.2012, the parties to the said suit have entered into a compromise by filing a Compromise Petition under Order XXIII Rules 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In terms of the said Compromise Petition, the said suit was decreed. As per the said Compromise Petition, the 2 nd plaintiff was paid Rs.80.00 lakhs, the 1st defendant was paid Rs.1.30 Crores 13 O.S.No.2601/2016 and the 1st plaintiff was paid Rs.80.00 lakhs. It was acknowledged by them in the Compromise Petition and also before the Court. In the said suit, the plaintiffs and the defendants have stated that each one of them are doing the business separately and they earned separate source of incomes. The suit schedule Item No.1 property herein was not a subject matter of the said suit. The 1 st defendant had business relationship with A.Armugam.
9. The further case of the 4th defendant is that the suit schedule property belonged to K.N.Nagaraja Reddy, his wife and children. They acquired the same through family partition. They entered into a registered Agreement to Sell dated 31.01.2005 with B.Rajashekar of M/s Suraj Builders and Developers. They have also executed a registered General Power of Attorney in his favour relinquishing all their rights in his favour and authorizing him to sell the said property. On 09.02.2015, the said B.Rajashekar in turn entered into an Agreement of Sale with A.Armugam agreeing to sell the suit schedule Item No.1 property to him for sale consideration amount of Rs.31.00 lakhs. The said 14 O.S.No.2601/2016 B.Rajashekar received the entire sale consideration amount from A.Armugam and on 07.04.2007, executed Settlement Deed in his favour. Thereafter, the said B.Rajashekar being the Power of Attorney holder of the owners of the suit schedule Item No.1 property has executed the Sale Deed in favour of the 1st defendant as nominee of A.Armugam with his consent. A.Armugam affixed his signature as consenting witness to the said Sale deed. The amount paid by A.Armugam to B.Rajashekar was treated as sale consideration amount for the said sale transaction. No separate sale consideration amount was paid by the 1 st defendant to B.Rajashekar or the owners of the suit schedule Item No.1 property. These facts are born out of the recitals of the Sale Deed. Therefore, the fact that the suit schedule Item No.1 property was purchased out of the joint family funds is false. The 1 st defendant has not paid the sale consideration amount for purchase of the suit schedule Item No.1 property. The said consideration amount was paid by A.Armugam. It is a part of the settlement arrived as set out in the Settlement Deed dated 24.12.2012. In the 15 O.S.No.2601/2016 Memorandum of Settlement, the settler has agreed to settle/ convey the suit schedule Item No.1 property in favour of the settlees. Thus, the suit schedule Item No.1 property was the separate/ self acquired property of the 1 st defendant. The plaintiffs have no manner of right, title or interest over the said property. It is not the joint family property of the plaintiffs and the 1 st defendant. The plaintiffs and the 1st defendant colluding with each other have filed this suit to extract money from the other defendants. The suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit schedule Item No.1 property. Therefore, the plaintiffs have to value the suit on the market value fo the property. The Court fee paid is insufficient. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
10. Based on the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues and the additional issues are framed:
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that defendant No.1 and the plaintiffs are Hindu Undivided Joint Family members?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they got 16 O.S.No.2601/2016 partition and separate possession of 3/4th share in the suit schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the settlement deed dated 24.12.2012 executed by first defendant in favour of defendants Nos.2 and 3 in respect of item No.1 of schedule property is not binding on them?
4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the sale deed dated 29.08.2015 executed by defendants Nos.2 and 3 in favour of defendants Nos.4 to 8 in respect of item No.1 of schedule property is not binding on them?
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for suit reliefs as sought for?
6. What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of themselves and defendant No.1?
2. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that, they are in joint possession and enjoyment 17 O.S.No.2601/2016 of the same along with 1st defendant?
3. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that, the suit schedule Item No.1 property is his self acquired property?
4. Whether the valuation made and the court fee paid by the plaintiffs is correct and proper?
5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
11. To prove the above issues and the additional issues, the 2nd plaintiff has produced his oral evidences as PW1. He has also produced the documentary evidences Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. Defendants No.1 to 3 have not produced any evidences either oral or documentary. But, during cross- examination of PW1, Ex.D1 to Ex.D12 are got marked on confrontation on behalf of defendants No.2 and 3. The 4 th defendant has produced the oral evidences of its Managing Director by name Vijaya Kumar as DW1. Through him, the 4th defendant has produced the documentary evidences Ex.D13 and Ex.D64.
12. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsels for the 18 O.S.No.2601/2016 plaintiffs and defendant No.3 to 8. The learned Counsel for defendants No.3 to 8 has filed the written arguments and additional written arguments.
13. The learned Counsel for defendants No.3 to 8 has relied the following judgments :-
i. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Charu Kishor Mehta V/s Prakash Patel & others [(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1962].
ii. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case between H.S.Bedi V/s National Highway Authority of India (2015 SCC OnLine Del 9524).
iii. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Subrata Roy Sahara V/s Union of India & others [(2014) 8 SCC 470].
iv. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Man Kaur (Dead) by LRs V/s Hartar Singh Sangha [(2010) 10 SCC 512].
v. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between D.S.Lakshmaiah & another V/s L.Balasubramanyam & an 19 O.S.No.2601/2016 other [(2003) 10 SCC 310].
vi. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case between Vidyadhar V/s
Manikrao & another [(1999) 3 SCC 573].
vii. The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of
Karnataka in the case between Pushpalatha N.V. V/s V.Padma (2010 SCC OnLine Kar 227].
viii. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Surjit Lal Chhabda V/s The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombar [(1976) 3 SCC 142].
14. Perused the materials availed on record.
15. While preparing this judgment, prima-faice it appeared that additional Issue No.3 is wrongly framed. Because, the specific pleadings of the plaintiffs are that the suit schedule Item No.1 property was purchased under registered Sale Deed dated 06.12.2007 by the joint family members in the name of the 1st defendant out of the joint family funds. The 1st defendant in his written statement has admitted the above facts. But, defendants No.2 to 4 in their written statements have denied the above facts and contended that 20 O.S.No.2601/2016 the suit schedule Item No.1 property was the self acquired property of the 1st defendant. Therefore, additional issue No.3 out to have been framing casting the burden on defendants No.2 to 4 to prove that the suit schedule Item No.1 property was the self acquired property of the 1 st defendant. For the above reasons, I and recasting additional issue No.3 as follows:
3. Whether defendants No.2 to 4 prove that the suit schedule Item No.1 property was the self acquired property of the 1 st defendant?
16. My answers to the above issues and the additional issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative,
Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
Issue No.3 : In the Negative,
Issue No.4 : In the Negative,
Issue No.5 : Partly in the Affirmative,
Addl. Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative,
Addl. Issue No.2 : Partly in the Affirmative,
Addl. Issue No.3 : Partly in the Affirmative,
Addl. Issue No.4 : In the Affirmative,
Addl. Issue No.5 : In the Negative,
21
O.S.No.2601/2016
Issue No.6 : As per final order for the
following;
REASONS
17. ISSUES No.1 TO 4 AND ADDITIONAL ISSUES No.1 TO 3 :- The findings on these issues are inter-related. Therefore, they ae taken together for consideration.
To prove these issues, the plaintiffs have produced the oral evidences of the 2nd plaintiff as PW1. He filed his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. In the said affidavit, he has reiterated the plaint averments. In support of the aforesaid oral evidences of PW1, the plaintiffs have produced the documentary evidences Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. Among them, Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 06.02.2007 executed by K.N.Nagaraja Reddy and others in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of the suit schedule 'A' property, Ex.P2 is the certified copy of the Order of the Assistant Commissioner in LRF No.(83) (AA)1/09-10 dated 08.02.2010, Ex.P3 is the Mutation Register Extract in M.R.No.17/2007-08, Ex.P4 is the RTC Extract in respect of the suit schedule item No.1 property for the period 2015-16, Ex.P5 is the certified copy of Deed 22 O.S.No.2601/2016 of Settlement dated 24.12.2012 executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of defendants No.2 and 3, Ex.P6 is the office copy of the Legal Notice issued by the plaintiffs to defendants No.2 and 3, Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 are the Postal Acknowledgments, Ex.P9 is the Reply issued by defendants No.2 and 3 to the plaintiffs, Ex.P10 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 28.09.2015 executed by defendants No.2 and 3 in favour of defendants No.4 to 8 in respect of the suit schedule item No.1 property, Ex.P11 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 14.05.2014 executed by Smt.T.Dhanalakshmi in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of the suit schedule item No.2 property, Ex.P12 is the Khatha Certificate, Ex.P13 is the certified copy of the Tax Demand Register Extract in respect of the suit schedule item No.2 property, Ex.P14 is the Agreement dated 28.11.2025 executed between the 1 st defendant and M/s Mark Developers and Ex.P15 is the Cheque.
18. Defendants No.1 to 3 have not produced any oral or documentary evidences. During cross-examination of PW1, Ex.D1 to Ex.D12 are marked through confrontation on 23 O.S.No.2601/2016 behalf of defendants No.2 and 3. Among them, Ex.D1 is the certified copy of the Vakalath of the plaintiffs filed in the present suit, Ex.D2 is the Vakalath of of the 1 st defendant in the present suit, Ex.D3 is the certified copy of the General Power of Attorney dated 31.01.2005 executed by K.N.Nagaraja Reddy and others in favour of B.Rajashekar, Ex.D4 is the Agreement to Sale dated 31.01.2005 executed by K.N.Nagaraja Reddy in favour M/s Suraj Builders and Developers represented by its Proprietor B.Rajashekar, Ex.D5 is the Full and Final Settlement document executed by K.N.Nagaraja Reddy and others, Ex.D6 is the Sale Deed dated 06.12.2007 executed by K.N.Nagaraja Reddy and others in favour of the 1 st defendant, Ex.D7 is the Agreement to Sell dated 09.12.2005 executed by C.Ramaiah and others in favour of A.Armugam, Ex.D8 is the Sale Agreement dated 07.12.2007 executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of R.Manjunath and another in respect of the suit schedule item No.1 property, Ex.D9 is the Cancellation of Deed of Agreement of Sale dated 16.10.2008 executed by R.Manjunath and another in 24 O.S.No.2601/2016 favour of the 1st defendant, Ex.D10 is the certified copy of the IHC Extract, Ex.D10(a) is the Typed Copy of Ex.D10, Ex.D11 is the Deed of Settlement dated 24.12.2012 executed between defendants No.1 to 3 and Ex.D12 is the Sale Deed dated 28.09.2015 executed by defendants No.2 and 3 in favour defendants No.4 to 8.
19. Per contra, the 4th defendant has produced the oral evidences of its Managing Director by name Vijaya Kumar as DW1. He gave his evidences not only on behalf of the 4 th defendant, but also defendants No.5 to 8. He has filed his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief wherein, he has reiterated the averments made in the written statement of the 4th defendant. Through him, the 4 th defendant has produced the documentary evidences Ex.D13 to Ex.D64. Among them, Ex.D13 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 08.09.1924 executed by Sidhappa in favour of Muniswamappa, Ex.D13(a) is the Typed Copy of Ex.D13, Ex.D14 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 03.06.1932 executed by Hale Hallappa and Muniswamy in favour of Sidhappa, Ex.D14(a) is the Typed Copy of Ex.D14, 25 O.S.No.2601/2016 Ex.D15 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 22.08.1951 executed by Mariyappa in favour of Nanjunda Reddy, Ex.D15(a) is the Typed Copy of Ex.D15, Ex.D16 is the certified copy of the Partition Deed dated 26.04.1961 entered between N.Munireddy, Narayan Reddy, Yallamma and Thimmakka, Ex.D16(a) is the Typed Copy of Ex.D16, Ex.D17 is the certified copy of IHC Extract, Ex.D18 is the copy of Endorsement dated 16.07.2005, Ex.D19 is the Endorsements dated 20.02.2006, Ex.D20 is the Mutation Register Extract in M.R.No.17/2007-08, Ex.D21 is the Survey Sketch, Ex.D22 is the copy of Application, Ex.D23 is the certified copy of the Office Note dated 26.12.2007, Ex.D24 is the copy of Letter dated 28.12.2007, Ex.D25 is the copy of Letter dated 02.01.2008, Ex.D26 is the copy of Mahazar dated 02.01.2008, Ex.D27 is the copy of Report dated 02.01.2008, Ex.D28 is the copy of Letter dated 02.01.2008, Ex.D29 is the copy of Annexure-4 Report dated 02.01.2008, Ex.D30 is the copy of Spot Inspection Report dated 04.01.2008, Ex.D31 is the copy of Intimation Letter dated 13.05.2008, Ex.D32 is the copy of Bank 26 O.S.No.2601/2016 Challan, Ex.D33 is the Official Memorandum dated 04.12.2008, Ex.D34 is the Show Cause Notice dated 10.06.2009, Ex.D35 is the Order dated 08.02.2010, Ex.D36 is the Tax Paid Receipt, Ex.D37 is the certified copies of Vakalaths filed the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 3 in O.S.No.832/2010, Ex.D38 is Form-9, Ex.D39 is Form-11, Ex.D40 is the certified copy of the Mutation Register Extract, Ex.D41 is the Tax Paid Receipt, Ex.D42 is the Tax Paid Receipt, Ex.D43 is the No Tenancy Certificate dated 20.06.2013, Ex.D44 is the Family Tree of K.N.Nagaraja Reddy, Ex.D45 is the E-Khatha dated 16.09.2015, Ex.D46 is the Tax Paid Receipt, Ex.D47 is the Tax Paid Receipt, Ex.D48 is the E-Khatha dated 25.05.2016, Ex.D49 is the Endorsement dated 30.12.2016, Ex.D50 is the Tax Paid Receipt, Ex.D51 is the certified copy of Aakhar Band, Ex.D52 is the Survey Tippany, Ex.D53 is the certified copy of Record of Rights, Ex.D54 is the certified copies of RTC Extracts, Ex.D55 is the Encumbrance Certificates, Ex.D56 is the Photographs with Compact Disc, Ex.D57 is the certified copies of the Order 27 O.S.No.2601/2016 Sheets in O.S.No.832/2010, Ex.D58 is the certified copy of the entire Order Sheets in O.S.No.127/2018, Ex.D59 is the certified copy of the Plaint in O.S.No. 127/2018, Ex.D60 is the certified copy of the registered Partition Deed dated 27.11.2015, Ex.D61 is the certified copy of the entire Order Sheets in O.S.No.387/2018, Ex.D62 is the certified copy of the Plaint in O.S.No.387/2018, Ex.D63 is the certified copy of the Written Statement in O.S.No.387/2018 and Ex.D64 is the certified copy of the Vakalath of the 1 st defendant in O.S.No.387/2018.
20. On perusal of the pleadings and the evidences available on record, it appears that the suit schedule item No.1 property was originally belonged to K.N.Nagaraja Reddy and his family members; K.N.Nagaraja Reddy filed application for conversion of the suit schedule Item No.1 property for residential use and the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District issued the Conversion Order vide No.ALN(AA)SR284/2007-08 in the name of K.N.Nagaraja Reddy. It is admitted fact that K.N.Nagaraja Reddy and his family members have sold the suit schedule 28 O.S.No.2601/2016 item No.1 property to the 1st defendant through registered Sale Deed dated 06.12.2007; based on the said Sale Deed, the mutation was effected and the name of the 1st defendant has been entered in the revenue documents in respect of the suit schedule item No.1 property are undisputed facts. A proceedings in LRF No.(83)(AA)1/09- 010 was initiated and vide order dated 08.02.2010; the said proceedings were dropped; the Settlement Deed dated 24.12.2012 was executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 and the Sale Deed dated 29.08.2015 executed by defendants No.2 and 3 in favour defendants No.4 to 8 in respect of the suit schedule item No.1 property are the admitted facts. Ex.P1, Ex.P2 to Ex.P5, Ex.P10 Ex.D6, Ex.D11, Ex.D12, Ex.D17 to Ex.D36, Ex.D51 to Ex.D55 are the documents with regard to the above undisputed and admitted facts.
21. The specific case of the plaintiffs is that the suit schedule item No.1 property was purchased by the joint family members out of the joint family fund in the name of the 1st defendant under registered Sale Deed dated 29 O.S.No.2601/2016 06.12.2007. The 1st defendant in his written statement has admitted this fact. PW1 in his affidavit filed by way of examination-in-chief has deposed that the suit schedule item No.1 property was purchased by the joint family members out of the joint family fund in the name of the 1 st defendant under registered Sale Deed dated 06.12.2007. On perusal of the documentary evidences produced by the plaintiffs, except Ex.P1, the plaintiffs have not produced any documentary evidences to show that the sale consideration amount mentioned in Ex.P1 was paid to the vendors out of the joint family fund.
22. During cross-examination of DW1, the plaintiffs have relied the reference in Ex.D35 contending that it is mentioned in the said document that the suit schedule Item No.1 property was purchased out of the joint family income. It appears from the contents of Ex.D35 that the Thasildar, Bengaluru North Taluk in his report has certified that the 1st defendant herein has purchased the suit schedule Item No.1 property out of his joint family income. Defendants No.2 to 8 were not parties to the said 30 O.S.No.2601/2016 proceedings. The said contents of Ex.D35 is not a conclusive proof of the fact in issue. It is only one of the evidences and the said contents shall be appreciated along with other evidences. The plaintiffs have not produced any other evidences to corroborate the recitals of Ex.D35. Therefore, the recitals in Ex.D35 alone will not assist the plaintiffs as a proof of the fact in issue that the suit schedule Item No.1 property was purchased out of joint family funds.
23. Defendants No.2 to 8 in their written statement have denied the fact that the suit schedule item No.1 property was purchased by the joint family members out of the joint family fund in the name of the 1st defendant. Defendants No.2 to 8 are the subsequent purchasers of the suit schedule item No.1 property and they are strangers to the family of the plaintiffs and the 1 st defendant. therefore, they may not have the knowledge about the payment of the sale consideration amount to the vendors while purchasing the suit schedule item No.1 property through registered Sale Deed dated 06.02.2007. Therefore, the question may arise 31 O.S.No.2601/2016 that when the 1st defendant in his written statement has admitted that the suit schedule item No.1 property was purchased by the joint family members out of the joint family fund in his name, why the plaintiffs need to prove by producing the reliable and cogent evidences that the suit schedule item No.1 property. But, the plaintiffs need to prove the fact in issue that the suit schedule item No.1 property was purchased by the joint family members out of the joint family fund in the name of the 1 st defendant by producing reliable and cogent evidences.
24. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between D.S.Lakshmaiah & another V/s L.Balasubramanyam & an other [(2003) 10 SCC 310] relied by the learned Counsel for defendants No.3 to 8, it is held that "18. The legal principle, therefore, is that there is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint family property. If, however, the person so asserting proves that there was nucleus with which the 32 O.S.No.2601/2016 joint family property could be acquired, there would be presumption of the property being joint and onus would shift on the person who claims it to be self-acquired property to prove that he purchased the property with his own funds and not out of joint family nucleus that was available."
25. In the case between R.V.E.Venkatachala Gounder V/s Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P.Temple & another (AIR 2003 SC 4548), the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following principles of law:-
"There is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof; burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the fact and which never shifts. Onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. In our opinion, in a suit for possession based on title once the plaintiff has been able to create a high degree of probability so as to shift the onus on the defendant it is for the defendant to discharge his onus and in the absence there of the burden of proof lying on the plaintiff shall be held to have been discharged so as to amount to proof of the plaintiff's title."
26. Here in this case, on perusal of the entire evidences 33 O.S.No.2601/2016 produced by the plaintiff and defendants No.3 to 8, it appears that there are no reliable and cogent evidences produced by the plaintiffs to prove that the suit schedule item No.1 property was purchased out of the joint family funds in the name of the 1st defendant. The reasons to say so are more than one. Firstly, as per the recitals of Ex.P1 under which the suit schedule item No.1 property was purchased, the sale consideration amount was received by the GPA holder of the vendors from A.Armugam. The said recitals in Ex.P1 are contrary to the pleadings of the plaintiffs, the admission of the 1 st defendant in his written statement and the oral evidences of PW1 deposed in his examination-in-chief. PW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that A.Armugam had paid the consideration to purchase the suit schedule item No.1 property. Even if, the said admission is considered as a stray admission, it is well settled principles of law that when there are contradictions or variance between the oral and documentary evidences, the documentary evidence will prevail.
27. PW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that Ex.P1 34 O.S.No.2601/2016 contain that A.Armugam paid Rs.31.00 lakhs to Rajashekar. He has also admitted that Rajashekar as a GPA holder has entered into an Agreement of Sale with A.Armugam and Ex.D7 is the said document. These evidences further corroborates the contents of Ex.P1 that the sale consideration amount mentioned in it was paid by A.Armugam to the GPA holder of the vendors. For the above reasons, it is clear that the sale consideration amount in respect of the suit schedule item No.1 property was paid by A.Armugam and not by the 1st defendant.
28. Secondly, the conduct of the plaintiffs and the 1 st defendant is a material fact in this case. Ex.P1 is produced by the plaintiffs along with the plaint. It appears from the contents of the said document that on 18.05.2009, the 1 st defendant applied for certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 06.12.2007 and he obtained it from the office of the concerned Sub-Register. The said document was obtained during an undisputed point of time. The plaintiffs have produced the said document before the Court along with their plaint. Likewise, on 04.02.2016, the 1 st defendant 35 O.S.No.2601/2016 applied for certified copy of Ex.P11 i.e., the Sale Deed in respect of the suit schedule item No.2 property. After he received it, the same was produced by the plaintiffs along with the plaint. As per the pleadings of the plaintiffs, the date of the filing of the application for Ex.P11 was during disputed point of time.
29. Ex.D1 is an admitted document by PW1 wherein, he admitted the signature of himself and his advocate. Ex.D1 is the certified copy of the Vakalath of Sri.B.N.Puttalingaiah, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs filed while filing the present suit. Ex.D2 is the Vakalath filed by Smt.M.V.Lakshmi, Advocate who filed Vakalath for the 1st defendant immediately on service of summons to the 1st defendant. PW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that the signature found in the Vakalath is the signature of the 1st defendant. Ex.D61 is the certified copy of the Order Sheets in O.S.No.387/2018, Ex.D62 is the certified copy of the Plaint in O.S.No.387/2018, Ex.D63 is the certified copy of the Written Statement in O.S.No.387/2018 and Ex.D64 is the certified copy of the Vakalath of 36 O.S.No.2601/2016 Sri.B.N.Puttalingaiah, Advocate for the defendants in O.S.No.387/2018. It appears from the above evidences that the plaintiffs filed this suit through their learned advocate Sri.B.N.Puttalingaiah and the 1st defendant appeared before this Court through her Advocate whose addressed for service is none other than the address of the learned Counsel Sri.B.N.Puttalingaiah whose address for service is mentioned in Ex.D1. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant being the defendants in O.S.No.387/2018 have engaged the service of very same Advocate Sri.B.N.Puttaligaiah on their behalf and contesting the said suit. These conduct of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant demonstrates their hand in glow between each other.
30. Thirdly, Ex.D8 is an admitted document by PW1 during his cross-examination. He has admitted in his cross-examination that on 07.12.2007, the 1 st defendant entered in to an Agreement with defendants No.2 and 3 to sell the suit schedule item No.1 property. He has further admitted in his cross-examination that he know that the 1 st 37 O.S.No.2601/2016 defendant canceled the said Agreement and Ex.D9 is the said document. The above admitted facts reveal that on very next day of the purchase of the suit schedule item No.1 property by the 1st defendant, he entered into a Sale Agreement with one R.Manjunath and Puttamarayya agreeing to sell the suit schedule item No.1 property to them as per Ex.D8 and the said Agreement was canceled by executing Cancellation Deed of Agreement of Sale dated 16.10.2008 as per Ex.D9. The 1 st defendant in his written statement has not disclosed the above transactions. On the other hand, he has suppressed them.
31. The 1st defendant has not stepped into the witness box to give evidences with regard to his pleadings in the written statement. If the 1st defendant enters the witness box to give his evidence with regard to his pleadings and to face the cross-examination, defendants No.2 to 8 being the adverse parties to him might get an opportunity to elicit the above conduct of the 1st defendant. Therefore, the Court may draw an adverse inference against the 1 st defendant that the case set up by him is not correct. The Hon'ble 38 O.S.No.2601/2016 Supreme Court in its judgment in the case between Vidhyadhar V/s Manikrao & Another [(1999) 3 SCC 573] held as follows:
16. Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct.
32. The above principles of law is reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its another judgment in the case between Man Kaur (Dead) by LRs V/s Hartar Singh Sangha [(2010) 10 SCC 512].
33. Fourthly, the specific pleadings of defendants No.4 to 8 and the oral evidences of DW1 are that K.N.Nagaraja Reddy and his wife and children have entered into a registered Agreement to Sell dated 31.01.2005 with B.Rajashekar of M/s Suraj Builders and Developers; they have also executed a registered General Power of Attorney in his favour relinquishing all their rights in his favour and authorizing him to sell the said property. On 09.02.2015, 39 O.S.No.2601/2016 the said B.Rajashekar in turn entered into an Agreement of Sale with A.Armugam agreeing to sell the suit schedule Item No.1 property to him for sale consideration amount of Rs.31.00 lakhs; the said B.Rajashekar received the entire sale consideration amount from A.Armugam and on 07.04.2007, executed Settlement Deed in his favour; thereafter, the said B.Rajashekar being the Power of Attorney holder of the owners of the suit schedule Item No.1 property has executed the Sale Deed in favour of the 1st defendant as nominee of A.Armugam with his consent; A.Armugam affixed his signature as consenting witness to the said Sale deed; the amount paid by A.Armugam to B.Rajashekar was treated as sale consideration amount for the said sale transaction and no separate sale consideration amount was paid by the 1st defendant to B.Rajashekar or the owners of the suit schedule Item No.1 property. PW1 has admitted in his cross-examination that on 07.12.2007, the 1st defendant entered into an Agreement with R.Manjunath and Puttamarayya to the suit schedule item No.1 property and Ex.D8 is the said 40 O.S.No.2601/2016 document; K.N.Nagaraja Reddy and his family members have executed a GPA in favour of Rajashekar and Ex.D3 is the certified copy of the said document; B.Rajashekar entered into an Agreement of Sale dated 09.12.2005 with A.Armugam and Ex.D7 is the said document. PW1 has further admitted that the 1st defendant canceled the Agreement dated 07.12.2007 and Ex.D9 is the said document. PW1 further admitted that based on Ex.D3, Rajashekar executed Ex.P1 and Ex.D6 is the original of the said document. It is further admitted by PW1 that Ex.D6 contain that A.Armugam paid Rs.31.00 lakhs to Rajashekar. The above admitted facts clearly demonstrate that the sale consideration amount in respect of the suit schedule item No.1 property was not paid by the 1 st defendant. On the other hand, it was paid by A.Armugam.
34. From the above admissions, defendants No.4 to 8 have disproved that the sale consideration amount in respect of the suit schedule item No.1 property was paid by the 1 st defendant. For the above reasons, the plaintiffs have not proved that the suit schedule item No.1 property was 41 O.S.No.2601/2016 purchased by the 1st defendant out of the joint family income. On the other hand, defendants No.4 to 8 have proved by producing the reliable and cogent evidences that the suit schedule item No.1 property was the self-acquired property of the 1st defendant. When the plaintiffs have not proved that the suit schedule item No.1 property was purchased by the 1st defendant out of joint family income and defendants No.4 to 8 have proved that the suit schedule item No.1 property was the self-acquired property of the 1st defendant, the suit schedule item No.1 property will not become the joint family property of the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant and the plaintiffs have no right of share in the suit schedule item No.1 property as claimed. Such being the circumstance, the Settlement Deed dated 24.12.2012 executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 and the Sale Deed dated 29.08.2015 executed by defendants No.2 and 3 in favour of defendants No.4 to 8 in respect of the suit schedule item No.1 property is binding on the plaintiffs. For the above reasons, the plaintiffs have not proved issues No.2 to 4 and additional 42 O.S.No.2601/2016 issues No.1 and 2 in respect of the suit schedule item No.1 property.
35. It appears from the pleadings of defendants No.2 to 8 and the evidences produced by defendants No.4 to 8 that defendants No.2 to 8 have no claim over the suit schedule item No.2 property. In the written statement filed by the 1 st defendant, he has admitted that the suit schedule item No.2 property was purchased by the joint family members out of the joint family funds and all the joint family members have equal share and right over the suit schedule item No.2 property. PW1 has given his oral evidences in his examination-in-chief with regard to the above facts. The plaintiffs have also produced the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 14.05.2014 at Ex.P11. Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 are respectively the Khatha Certificate and the certified copy of the Tax Demand Extract in the name of the 1 st defendant. The said documents are in respect of the suit schedule item No.2 property. The above evidences are remained undisputed by the defendants. Ex.D60 is the certified copy of the Partition Deed dated 27.11.2015 executed between 43 O.S.No.2601/2016 the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant. It is an undisputed document. Under the said Partition Deed, the plaintiffs and the 1st defendant have got partitioned their joint family properties between them. The suit schedule item No.2 property was not a subject matter of the said partition. For the above reasons, the plaintiffs have proved that they and the 1st defendant are the joint family members, the suit schedule item No.2 property is the joint family properties of themselves and the 1st defendant and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 in the Affirmative, Issue No.2 and Additional Issues No.1 to 3 Partly in the Affirmative and Issues No.3 and 4 in the Negative.
36. ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.4 :- One of the defences of defendants No.2 to 8 are that the valuation made and the Court fee paid by the plaintiffs are not correct and proper. On perusal of the plaint averments, it appears that the suit schedule item No.1 property is a converted land and the suit schedule item No.2 property is a site property. The plaintiffs have filed this suit against the defendants for 44 O.S.No.2601/2016 partition and separate possession of their specific quantum of share in the suit schedule properties and consequential relief of declarations. It appears from the valuation slip filed by the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs have valued the suit for the relief of partition and separate possession of their share in the suit schedule properties under Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act with a specific pleadings that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the 1 st defendant and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. The value of the suit schedule item No.1 property is shown as Rs.2.00 Crores and the suit schedule item No.2 property as Rs.30.00 lakhs. The value of the share of the plaintiffs is shown as Rs.10,000/- and they have paid the Court fee of Rs.600/-. The defendants have not produced any contrary evidence with regard to the valuation of the suit schedule properties more than the value shown by the plaintiffs in the valuation slip.
37. The plaintiffs have valued the relief of declarations under Section 24(d) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits 45 O.S.No.2601/2016 Valuation Act, valued the said relief as Rs.1,000/- and the paid Court of Rs.50/- on the said reliefs. The plaintiffs are not parties to the Settlement Deed dated 24.12.2012 and Sale Deed dated 29.08.2015. Therefore, the plaintiffs have valued the suit in accordance with law and paid the proper Court fee. Hence, I answer Additional Issue No.4 in the Affirmative.
38. ADDITIONAL ISSUE No.5 :- One of the defences of defendants No.2 to 8 are that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. Their contentions are that the plaintiffs have sought declaration to declare that the Settlement Deed dated 24.12.2012 is not binding on them. The plaintiffs ought to have been filed the suit for the said declaratory relief on or before 23.12.2015 i.e., within 3 years from the date of execution of the said document. But, the plaintiffs have not filed the suit on or before 23.12.2015, the suit is barred by limitation. As per the pleadings of the plaintiffs, they came to know about the execution of the said Settlement Deed dated 24.12.2012 during October 2015, when the 1 st defendant disclosed the 46 O.S.No.2601/2016 plaintiffs that the suit schedule item No.1 property is not available for partition since he has already executed the Settlement Deed dated 24.12.2012 in favour defendants No.2 and 3. PW1 has deposed the said fact in his affidavit filed by way of examination-in-chief. Admittedly, the plaintiffs are not executants of the Settlement Deed dated 24.12.2012. Under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation for declaration is 3 years and time from which period begins to run is when the right to sue first accrues. In this case, the right to sue first accrued to the plaintiffs when the 1st defendant disclosed the execution of the Settlement Deed dated 24.12.2012 i.e., in the month of October 2015. From the said date, the plaintiffs have filed this suit within the period of 3 years. For the above reasons, the suit is not barred by limitation. Hence, I answer Additional Issue No.5 in the Negative.
39. ISSUE No.5 :- This suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for partition and separate possession of their ¾ share in the suit schedule properties and for declarations to declare that the Settlement Deed dated 47 O.S.No.2601/2016 24.12.2012 executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 and the Sale Deed dated 29.08.2015 executed by defendants No.2 and 3 in favour defendants No.4 to 8 in respect of the suit schedule item No.1 property are not binding on the plaintiffs. For the reasons stated in issues No.1 and 2 and additional issues No.1 and 2, the plaintiffs have proved that they and the 1 st defendant are Hindu undivided joint family members, the suit schedule item No.2 property is the joint family property of themselves and the 1st defendant, they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same and they have 3/4 th share in the suit schedule item No.2 property. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitle for partition and separate possession of their 3/4th share in the suit schedule item No.2 property.
40. For the reasons stated in issues No.2 to 4 and additional issues No.1 to 3, the plaintiffs have not proved that the suit schedule item No.1 property is the joint family property of themselves and the 1 st defendant, they have 3/4th share in the suit schedule item No.1 property, they 48 O.S.No.2601/2016 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule item No.1 property and the Settlement Deed dated 24.12.2012 executed by the 1 st defendant in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 and the Sale Deed dated 29.08.2015 executed by defendants No.2 and 3 in favour defendants No.4 to 8 in respect of the suit schedule item No.1 property are not binding on them. On the other hand, the 4 th defendant has proved that the suit schedule item No.1 property was the self-acquired property of the 1 st defendant. For the above reasons, the plaintiffs are not entitled for the reliefs of partition and separate possession of their 3/4th share in the suit schedule item No.1 property and also the relief of declarations as prayed in the suit. Hence, I answer Issue No.5 Partly in the Affirmative.
41. ISSUE No.6 :- In view of the findings on Issue No.5, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be partly decreed only in respect of the suit schedule item No.2 property. In the result, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDERS The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby 49 O.S.No.2601/2016 partly decreed.
The plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of their 3/4th share in the suit schedule item No.2 property by metes and bounds.
The suit against suit schedule item No.1 property and defendants No.2 to 8 is hereby dismissed.
Keeping in view of the claims of the plaintiffs and defendants, the parties to this suit shall bear the costs of the suit.
Draw the preliminary decree
accordingly.
After drawing the preliminary decree, the office is hereby directed to convert this proceedings as Final Decree Proceedings and to put up the file to the open Court.
(Typed by the stenographer in Court Computer on my direct dictation, printout taken, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court today on this the 7th day of April 2026).
(VEDAMOORTHY B.S.) XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
C/c V Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
50
O.S.No.2601/2016 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Plaintiffs :-
PW1 : Smt.R.Prabhavathi.
List of documents exhibited for Plaintiffs :-
Ex.P1 : Certified copy of Sale Deed,
Ex.P2 : Certified copy of Order,
Ex.P3 : Mutation Register Extract,
Ex.P4 : RTC Extract,
Ex.P5 : Certified copy of Deed of Settlement,
Ex.P6 : Office copy of Legal Notice,
Ex.P7 & 8 : Postal Acknowledgment,
Ex.P9 : Reply,
Ex.P10 & 11 : Certified copies of Sale Deeds,
Ex.P12 : Khatha Certificate,
Ex.P13 : Certified copy of Tax Demand Register
Extract,
Ex.P14 : Agreement,
Ex.P15 : Cheque.
List of witnesses examined for the Defendants :-
DW1 : Vijaya Kumar.
List of documents exhibited for the Defendants :-
Ex.D1 : Certified copy of Vakalath, Ex.D2 : Vakalath, Ex.D3 : Certified copy of General Power of Attorney, Ex.D4 : Agreement to Sale, 51 O.S.No.2601/2016 Ex.D5 : Full and Final Settlement Document, Ex.D6 : Sale Deed, Ex.D7 : Agreement to Sell, Ex.D8 : Sale Agreement, Ex.D9 : Cancellation of Deed of Agreement of Sale, Ex.D10 : Certified copy of IHC Extract, Ex.D10(a) : Typed Copy of Ex.D10, Ex.D11 : Deed of Settlement, Ex.D12 : Sale Deed, Ex.D13 : Certified copy of Sale Deed, Ex.D13(a) : Typed Copy of Ex.D13, Ex.D14 : Certified copy of Sale Deed, Ex.D14(a) : Typed Copy of Ex.D14, Ex.D15 : Certified copy of Sale Deed, Ex.D15(a) : Typed Copy of Ex.D15, Ex.D16 : Certified copy of Partition Deed, Ex.D16(a) : Typed Copy of Ex.D16, Ex.D17 : Certified copy of IHC Extract, Ex.D18 : Copy of Endorsement, Ex.D19 : Endorsements, Ex.D20 : Mutation Register Extract, Ex.D21 : Survey Sketch, Ex.D22 : Copy of Application, Ex.D23 : Certified copy of Office Note, Ex.D24 & 25 : Copies of Letters, Ex.D26 : Copy of Mahazar, Ex.D27 : Copy of Report, 52 O.S.No.2601/2016 Ex.D28 : Copy of Letter, Ex.D29 : Copy of Annexure-4 Report, Ex.D30 : Copy of Spot Inspection Report, Ex.D31 : Copy of Intimation Letter, Ex.D32 : Copy of Bank Challan, Ex.D33 : Official Memorandum, Ex.D34 : Show Cause Notice, Ex.D35 : Order, Ex.D36 : Tax Paid Receipt, Ex.D37 : Certified copies of Vakalaths, Ex.D38 : Form-9, Ex.D39 : Form-11, Ex.D40 : Certified copy of Mutation Register Extract, Ex.D41 & 42 : Tax Paid Receipts, Ex.D43 : No Tenancy Certificate, Ex.D44 : Family Tree, Ex.D45 : E-Khatha, Ex.D46 & 47 : Tax Paid Receipts, Ex.D48 : E-Khatha, Ex.D49 : Endorsement, Ex.D50 : Tax Paid Receipt, Ex.D51 : Certified copy of Aakhar Band, Ex.D52 : Survey Tippany, Ex.D53 : Certified copy of Record of Rights, Ex.D54 : Certified copies of RTC Extracts, Ex.D55 : Encumbrance Certificates, Ex.D56 : Photographs with Compact Disc, 53 O.S.No.2601/2016
Ex.D57 : Certified copies of Order Sheets, Ex.D58 : Certified copy of entire Order Sheets, Ex.D59 : Certified copy of Plaint, Ex.D60 : Certified copy of registered Partition Deed, Ex.D61 : Certified copy of entire Order Sheets, Ex.D62 : Certified copy of Plaint, Ex.D63 : Certified copy of Written Statement, Ex.D64 : Certified copy of Vakalath.
(VEDAMOORTHY B.S.) XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
C/c V Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.