Bangalore District Court
Saishreyas vs Venkatesh B M on 2 June, 2025
1
O.S. No.4199/2013
KABC010144022013
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9 (Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgments in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY : (CCH-41)
::Present::
Smt. Veena N., B.A.L. L.L.B.,
XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Dated this 02nd day of June, 2025.
O.S. No.4199/2013
PLAINTIFFS :: 1. Master Saishreyas, S/o. Late. B.V.Krishna,
Aged about 12 years, Represented by his
natural Guardian mother Smt. Kumuda M.
:: 2. Smt. Kumuda, W/o. Late. B.V.Krishna, Aged
about 32 years,
Both are R/at: No.38/1, 14 th Cross, 22nd Main
Road, Near Kalikamba Temple,
Padmanabhanagar, Bengaluru - 70.
(By Sri. K.Srikrishna, Advocate)
V/s.
2
O.S. No.4199/2013
DEFENDANTS :: 1. Sri. B.M.Venkatesh, Late. Murugesh
Gounder, Aged about 94 years, (Since dead)
:: 2. B.V.Umashankar S/o. B.M.Venkatesh, Aged
about 46 years,
:: 3. Sri. Dayalan, S/o. B.M.Venkatesh, Aged
about 40 years,
:: 4. Umamaheshwari, D/o. B.M.Venkatesh, Aged
about 44 years,
:: 5. Shivashankari, D/o. B.M.Venkatesh, Aged
about 40 years,
All are R/at: No.705 New No.12, 12 th Cross, 7th
Block, Jayanagara, Bengaluru -11.
(By Sri. H.B.V.Patel, Adv. for D-2, 4 & 5)
(By Sri. M.S.Ashwin Kumar, Adv. for D-3)
(D-1 - Dead)
Date of Institution of the :: 13-06-2013
Suit
Nature of the Suit :: PARTITION
Date of commencement of :: 06-06-2018
recording of evidence
Date on which the :: 02-06-2025
Judgment was
pronounced
Total Duration :: Year/s Month/s Day/s
11 11 20
(VEENA N.)
XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
3
O.S. No.4199/2013
JUDGMENT
Suit is one for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs 1/4th share in the suit property and for permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from alienating the schedule property and for cancellation of three Gift Deeds dated 23.05.2013, 25.05.2013 & 25.05.2013.
2. Case of the plaintiffs in brief is as hereunder:-
This is a suit filed by minor plaintiff being represented by his next friend mother as against the defendants No.1 to 5. The deceased defendant No.1 is the grandfather of plaintiff No.1 and defendants No.2 and 3 are his sons and defendants No.4 and 5 are the daughters of deceased defendant No.1. It is stated that the plaintiffs and the defendants constitute an Hindu Joint Family and the suit properties are their joint family properties and the suit properties are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and the defendants. It is 4 O.S. No.4199/2013 the contention of the plaintiff that the schedule properties are the joint family and ancestral properties and the plaintiff is having right over the same. The deceased defendant No.1 in the year 1973 quarreled with the family members and was about to leave their house and under these circumstances, it was decided that the deceased defendant No.1 and his wife would live separately and accordingly, they were residing with Parthasarathy and Radha. It is stated that the deceased Venkatesh by selling gold ornaments and out of his savings purchased suit B, C & D schedule properties.
Thus, the schedule properties B, C & D are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendants and not the self-acquired properties of Venkatesh. It is stated that 'A' schedule property was gifted to Venkatesh by one Smt. Pattamma on 13.02.1992 and under the said document right to enjoy was given to Venkatesh and he had no right to sell the same and this makes it clear that Venkatesh was not the absolute owner of the property 5 O.S. No.4199/2013 and he had no authority to sell or gift the same. It is stated that in the month May 2013, the defendants were trying to alienate the property and when the plaintiff enquired about the same they have not given proper answer. It is stated that deceased Venkatesh had no knowledge of reading or writing or understanding English language and the gift deeds were obtained by defendant No.3 by causing force and pressure. The defendant No.3 along with his wife Bhagyalakshmi picked up quarrel with the plaintiffs and they were driven out of the home and in order to deprive the right of the plaintiffs over the schedule property the gift deeds were created. Since the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants and attempts were made to alienate the suit schedule property, left with no choice the present suit is filed.
3. In pursuance to the summons issued the defendants No.2 to 5 caused appearance and filed their written statement. The defendant No.2 being the uncle 6 O.S. No.4199/2013 of the plaintiff in his written statement has categorically admitted the plaint averments and sought to decree the suit of the plaintiff.
4. Likewise, the defendants No.4 and 5 also in their written statement categorically admitted the averments made in the plaint and it is contended that the defendant No.3 is master of fraud and without giving the share in the suit property to the plaintiffs and the other defendants succeeded in getting the gift deed executed in his name, while their father was suffering from illness and was not able to do anything. At the time of execution of the alleged gift deed, deceased Venkatesh was bed ridden and he was not in a position to know about the nature of the document being executed and taking advantage of the same, the defendant No.3 has cheated all the family members and illegally created the gift deeds and based on the created documents got changed khata to his name and he is 7 O.S. No.4199/2013 collecting the rent from the schedule property and is enjoying the benefits of the same and has deprived the share of the other family members and hence, sought to decree the suit of the plaintiff and to allot their 1/5 th share in the suit schedule property.
5. The defendant No.3 in his written statement has contended that the suit is not maintainable and it is a collusive suit between the plaintiff and the other defendants. This defendant has admitted the relationship and denies that the suit schedule properties are their joint family properties. It is his contention that the suit 'A' to 'C' schedule properties are the self- acquired properties of defendant No.1 and 'D' schedule property is the self-acquired property of this defendant No.3 and they are not the joint family properties. Further in the additional written statement filed by defendant No.3, he has contended that the schedule 'A' property originally belonged to Smt. Pattamma W/o. Sri. 8 O.S. No.4199/2013 Doraiswamy who had purchased the same under sale deed dated 26.06.1958 from Sri. T.R.Mahadevan S/o. Ramaswamy Goundar. The said Smt. Pattammal by executing a registered WILL dated 13.02.1992 bequeathed 'A' schedule property in favour of deceased defendant No.1 B.M.Venkatesh. The said defendant No.1 under gift deed dated 23.05.2013 gifted the 'A' schedule property in favour of this defendant and he was put in possession and enjoyment of the same and based on the gift deed khata is transferred to his name and he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of 'A' schedule property.
6. It is further submitted that the schedule 'B' property originally belonged to Mr. Abdul Kareemsab S/o Shaik Fakruddin Sab who sold the same in favour of B.M. Venkatesh under sale deed dated 02.01.1970 and the defendant No.1 by executing a gift deed dated 25.05.2013 gifted the 'B' schedule property in favour of this defendant No.3 and based on the registered Gift 9 O.S. No.4199/2013 Deed all the documents are transferred to his name and thus, he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of 'B' schedule property.
7. So far as suit schedule 'C' property is concerned it originally belonged to Sri. Munikrishna S/o. Late. Muthappa who under two sale deeds dated 07.02.1973 & 29.10.1973 sold the same in favour of defendant No.1 and in turn the defendant No.1 gifted the schedule 'C' property in favour of this defendant No.3 under gift deed dated 25.05.2013 and he was put in possession as on the date of gift deed and thus, he is in possession of suit schedule 'C' property as absolute owner thereof.
8. The 'D' schedule property originally belonged to Mrs. Mehaboob Jan W/o. Late. H.A.Rasheed and her children who sold the property in favour of this defendant No.3 under registered Sale Deed dated 10 O.S. No.4199/2013 11.04.2000 and hence, he is the absolute owner of 'A' to 'D' schedule properties and he is paying tax to the concerned authority and neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants No.2, 4 and 5 have any right, title or interest over the same. It is stated that 'A' to 'C' schedule properties were self-acquired properties of Late. B.M.Venkatesh who purchased the same out of the income derived from contract work under taken by him and it was his self-acquired property and no joint family fund was utilized for purchasing schedule 'A' to 'D' properties and hence, the contention of plaintiffs that they are the ancestral properties are all false. He has further stated that Late. Venkatesh during his sound state of mind executed registered Gift Deeds gifting 'A' to 'C' schedule properties in favour of this defendant and the gift deeds were executed voluntarily out of love and affection towards his son and possession was delivered and there was no force or pressure in executing the said documents as alleged by the plaintiffs and hence, 11 O.S. No.4199/2013 neither the plaintiffs nor the other defendants have any right over the same and the suit is not maintainable and thus, contending these facts sought for dismissal of suit.
9. The aforesaid pleadings have occasioned the following ;
RECASTED ISSUES DATED 26-10-2017
1. Whether plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants ?
2. Whether defendant No.3 proves that suit schedule 'A', 'B', 'C' properties were self-acquired properties of deceased defendant No.1 ?
3. Whether defendant No.3 proves that he is absolute owner of suit 'A', 'B', 'C' properties by virtue of Gift Deeds dated 23.05.2013 & 25.05.2013 as contended ?
4. Whether defendant No.3 proves that he is absolute owner of suit schedule 'D' property by virtue of Sale Deed dated 11.04.2000 ?
12
O.S. No.4199/2013
5. Whether plaintiffs prove that Gift Deeds dated 23.05.2015 & 25.05.2013 are obtained by force and pressure, as such, they are not binding on their share ?
6. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for reliefs sought ?
7. What Order or Decree ?
10. In order to establish his case, the plaintiff got examined through his GPA Holder who is the mother of the plaintiff as P.W.1 and relied upon 15 documents marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 and closed the evidence.
11. Per contra, the defendant No.3 got examined himself as D.W.1 and relied upon 25 documents marked at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.25 and closed the evidence.
12. Heard arguments of learned counsels for plaintiff and defendant No.3 and perused records. 13
O.S. No.4199/2013
13. My answers to the above issues are as follows:
ISSUE NO.1 :: Partly in the Affirmative ISSUE NO.2 :: In the Affirmative ISSUE NO.3 :: In the Negative ISSUE NO.4 :: In the Affirmative ISSUE NO.5 :: In the Affirmative ISSUE NO.6 :: Partly in the Affirmative ISSUE NO.7 :: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
14. RECASTED ISSUES NO.1 TO 6 :: All these recasted issues are taken up collectively for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts and also for convenience of the Court.
The present suit is one for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs 1/4th share in the suit property and for permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from alienating the schedule property and for cancellation of three Gift Deeds dated 23.05.2013, 25.05.2013 & 25.05.2013.
14
O.S. No.4199/2013
15. The learned counsel for plaintiff in his arguments submits that the plaintiff is the grandson of deceased defendant No.1 and the defendant No.3 to the exclusion of the plaintiff and other family members got succeeded in fabricating gift deeds and the circumstances under which the gift deed is executed is that the father of the plaintiff died on 21.07.2009 and at that time, the plaintiff was aged 6 to 7 years and he was a minor child who had lost his father and to the exclusion of the grandchild and other sons and daughters gift deed is executed in favour of defendant No.3 alone which is one of the suspicious circumstances. It is further submitted that the defendant No.1 was aged 88 years and within few days of execution of the gift deed he died and defendant No.1 was residing with defendant No.3 and the defendant No.3 being in a dominant position by exercising undue influence created the gift deeds in his favour and this is also the other suspicious circumstances. It is further 15 O.S. No.4199/2013 submitted that there was no ill will between the defendant No.1 and other family members and he had equal love and affection towards all his children and as such, there was no question of execution of gift deed to defendant No.3 alone to the exclusion of other family members. Though D.W.2 who is the scribe is examined by the defendants to prove the due execution of the gift deeds, since he is only a scribe and not attesting witness his evidence cannot be considered and in the absence evidence of attesting witnesses, no evidentiary value can be attached to the gift deeds to prove its due execution and the suit property being the joint family property, plaintiff is entitled for his legitimate share in the suit property.
16. On the contrary, learned counsel for defendant No.3 in his arguments submits that the suit 'A' to 'C' schedule properties were self-acquired properties of deceased defendant No.1 and he was residing with 16 O.S. No.4199/2013 defendant No.3 who took care of defendant No.1 during his old age and out of love and affection, he executed gift deed in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of 'A' to 'C' schedule properties and 'D' schedule property is the self earned property of defendant No.3 and further by examining the witness to the gift deed the defendant No.3 has complied with the mandatory provisions of proof of instrument and due execution of the gift deeds is proved and he is the absolute owner of 'A' to 'D' schedule properties and neither the plaintiffs nor defendants No.2, 4 and 5 have any right over the same.
17. In support of his arguments learned counsel for the defendant No.3 has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court reported in ILR 2017 KAR 5239 in case of Kallawwa Virupaxappa Banakar an d Ors. V/s. Bhagawwa and Ors. wherein which Hon'ble High Court has held that:
A) Evidence Act, 1872-Section 68-proof of execution of a document required by law to 17 O.S. No.4199/2013 be attested-Proof of Will-Burden of proof is on the propounder of the Will-Findings of the Courts below that both the attestors and the scribe were found to be dead, recourse could be had to sections 58 to 60 of Registration Act, 1908-Legality of the findings- Held,
(a) In regard to proving a Will, the law is well settled, Will is generally a subject matter of dispute, as it comes into force only after the death of the testator; and probably for this reason, the strict requirement of law is to examine atleast one attesting witness according to Section 68 of the Evidence Act.
The burden of proof is on the propounder of the Will, it is very much necessary that the Will must be proved by examining an attesting witness and if none of the attestors is available, Section 69 of the Evidence Act prescribes a procedure to be followed. Drawing of presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act must be last resort if execution of the Will can be proved neither under Section 68 nor under Section 69 of the Evidence Act. [14] 18 O.S. No.4199/2013
18. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in R.F.A. No.588/2009 in the case of Jana Bai and Ors. Vs. Komalan and Ors. wherein which it is held as follows:
It is well-settled that one who propounds a will must establish the competence of the testator to make the will at the time when it was executed. The onus is discharged by the propounder adducing prima facie evidence proving the competence of the testator and execution of the will in the manner contemplated by law. The contestant opposing the will may bring material on record meeting such prima facie case in which event the onus would shift back on the propounder to satisfy the court affirmatively that the testator did know well the contents of the will and in sound disposing capacity executed the same. The factors, such as the will being a natural one or being registered or executed in such circumstances and ambience, as would leave no room for suspicion, assume significance. If there is nothing unnatural about the transaction and the evidence adduced satisfies the requirement of proving a will, the 19 O.S. No.4199/2013 court would not return a finding of "not proved"
merely on account of certain assumed suspicion or supposition. Who are the persons propounding and supporting a will as against the person disputing the will and the pleadings of the parties would be relevant and of significance. (See: Madhukar D.Shende vs. Tarabai Aba Shedage, (2002)2 SCC 85).
19. Further reliance is also placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of H.V. Iyangar V/s B.N. Thimmajamma, reported in AIR 1959 SC 443, where in the Hon'ble Apex court has held as follows:
HELD- "In dealing with the proof of WILLS, the court will start on the same enquiry as in the case of the proof of documents. The propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the WILL was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature of his own free will Ordinarily, when the evidence adduced in support of the WILL 20 O.S. No.4199/2013 is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of testator's mind and his signature as required by law, courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of propounder. In other words, the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts just indicated".
20. Further the counsel has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.7528/2019 in case Govindbhai Chhotobhai Patel and Ors. Vs. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai wherein which it is held that:
The burden of proof that the property was ancestral was on the plaintiffs alone. It was for them to prove that the Will of Ashabhai intended to convey the property for the benefit of the family so as to be treated as ancestral property. In the absence of any such averments or proof, the property in the hands of Donor has to be treated as self- acquired property.21
O.S. No.4199/2013
21. Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant No.3 and having considered the principles laid down in the aforesaid ratios this Court proceeds to analyze the evidence placed on record.
22. In the instant suit, the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The defendants No.2 to 5 and the father of the plaintiff by name B.V.Krishna are the children of deceased defendant No.1. The said B.V.Krishna died leaving behind the plaintiff as his legal heir to succeed his estate. Now controversy involved in the present suit is that, the plaintiff claims that the suit properties are their joint family and ancestral properties and he being the legal heir of deceased B.V.Krishna is entitled for his legitimate share and since defendant No.3 fabricated the gift deeds in his favour in respect of 'A' to 'C' schedule properties, they are liable to be cancelled and he is entitled for 1/4 th share in the suit property. On the contrary, the defendant No.3 has raised 22 O.S. No.4199/2013 defense based on the gift deeds dated 23.05.2013 & 25.05.2013 that the suit 'A' to 'C' schedule properties being the self-acquired properties of his late. father has bequeathed the same in his favour under registered gift deeds and as such, he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of 'A' to 'C' schedule properties and 'D' schedule property was purchased by him out of his own income and as such, neither the plaintiff nor the other defendants No.2, 4 and 5 are entitled for any share over the same. As stated earlier, the defendants No.2, 4 and 5 have admitted the case of the plaintiff and sought to decree the suit by allotting their share in the suit property.
23. So now the first and the foremost point that needs to be considered is as to whether 'A' to 'D' schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. In order to discharge the burden the plaintiff got examined through his mother as 23 O.S. No.4199/2013 P.W.1 and she has in her evidence deposed that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and so far no partition has taken place amongst the joint family members. In the month of 2013, discussions were going on about sale of schedule property to 3 rd person and as such, the plaintiff demanded for his share and defendants quarreled with the plaintiff and as such, complaint was lodged before jurisdictional police. It is stated that Late. B.M.Venkatesh in the year 1973 quarreled with his family members and was about to leave the house and in the circumstances the family members decided to make a separate accommodation to B.M.Venkatesh and his wife along with Parthasarathy and Smt. Radha Bhai and the B.M.Venkatesh by selling gold ornaments and out of his savings purchased the schedule properties i.e. 'A' to 'D' schedule properties and thus they are ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants and said B.M.Venkatesh had no authority to alienate or gift the schedule property. The 24 O.S. No.4199/2013 'A' schedule property was acquired by defendant No.1 B.M.Venkatesh under a WILL executed by his sister Smt. Pattamma and only life interest was created and there is no clause empowering him to sell the property. It is stated that without the knowledge of the plaintiff, defendant No.3 created the gift deeds in his favour. The deceased B.M.Venkatesh had no knowledge of English language and the photograph and the signatures appearing in the gift deeds are manipulated and it was executed by defendant No.3 by causing undue influence and misrepresenting him. P.W.1 has further deposed on 21.05.2013 a quarrel took place between the mother of the plaintiff and defendant No.3 and in this regard police complaint was lodged on 21.05.2013 and at that point of time, the defendant No.3 in order to knock off the schedule property got created the alleged gift deeds and now attempts are being made to alienate the schedule property so as to deprive the share of the plaintiff and hence, the suit.
25
O.S. No.4199/2013
24. In support of her evidence P.W.1 has relied upon Ex.P.1 which is the gift deed dated 23.05.2013 in respect of 'A' schedule property which shows it is executed by deceased defendant No.1 in favour of his son defendant No.3 and recitals of the gift deed shows that the 'A' schedule property was acquired by him under registered WILL dated 13.02.1992 and he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment as absolute owner thereof and out of natural love and affection he has gifted the property in favour of his son. Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.5 are the Encumbrance Certificate, Khata Extract and Khata Certificate in respect of 'A' schedule property which reflects the alleged execution of the gift deed and khata is transferred to the name of defendant No.3.
25. Like wise Ex.P.6 is the gift deed dated 25.05.2013 i.e. just two days subsequent to execution of Ex.P.1 which shows suit schedule 'C' property is gifted in favour of defendant No.3 by Late. B.M.Venkatesh and 26 O.S. No.4199/2013 recitals the gift deeds shows that the said property was acquired by Late. B.M.Venkatesh under registered Sale Deed dated 07.02.1973 and he being the absolute owner thereof out of natural love and affection has gifted the property in favour of his son. Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.10 are the Encumbrance Certificate, Khata Certificate, Khata Extract and Tax paid receipt which reflects the execution of the alleged gift deed and the property is transferred to the name of defendant No.3 and he is paying tax to the concerned authority.
26. Ex.P.11 is the gift deed dated 25.05.2013 and it was executed on the same day on which Ex.P.6 was executed and it is in respect of 'B' schedule property and the recitals also shows the said property was purchased by Late. B.M.Venkatesh under registered Sale Deed dated 02.01.1970 and he being the absolute owner thereof, out of natural love and affection has gifted the property in favour of his son. 27
O.S. No.4199/2013 Ex.P.12 to Ex.P.15 are the Encumbrance Certificate, Khata Certificate, Khata Extract and Tax paid receipt which reflects the execution of the alleged gift deed.
27. So these documents relied upon by the plaintiff establishes that 'A' to 'C' properties were acquired by Late. B.M.Venkatesh under registered WILL dated 13.02.1992, registered Sale Deeds dated 02.01.1970, 01.02.1973 respectively and he being the absolute owner thereof out of natural love and affection has gifted the property in favour of his son and none of these gift deeds shows as to why the other children of Late. B.M.Venkatesh are disinherited from the property.
28. Further, Ex.P.1 was executed on 25.03.2013 and within a span of two days the other two gift deeds are executed. During cross-examination of P.W.1 she says that 'A' to 'C' schedule properties were not the self- acquired properties of her father-in-law and it was inherited through his ancestors and admits she has not 28 O.S. No.4199/2013 produced any document to show these properties were inherited by her father-in-law. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not produced any document to show that Late. B.M.Venkatesh inherited these properties through his ancestors. On the contrary, the recitals in the gift deed makes it clear that it was acquired by Late. B.M.Venkatesh under registered WILL and under registered Sale Deeds discussed supra. Further, the plaintiff has not produced sale deeds to show that it was purchased by B.M.Venkatesh out of the joint family nucleus.
29. P.W.1 admits that the suit property is standing in the name of defendant No.3 based on the gift deed executed by her father-in-law and she volunteers the gift deed was created and denies that the 'D' schedule property is the self-acquired property of defendant No.3 and she further states that the said property belongs to her father-in-law. So P.W.1 admits 29 O.S. No.4199/2013 that 'A' schedule property was acquired by her father-in- law under registered WILL executed by his sister Smt. Pattammal and she do not know whether 'B' and 'C' schedule properties were purchased by her father-in-law from Abdul Kareem Sab and from Munikrishna. Further P.W.1 in her cross-examination says, during last days, her father-in-law was mentally distressed and was not having sound mind and no treatment was given to her father-in-law regarding his mental distress and the suggestion putforth that her father-in-law was hale and healthy and was not mentally distressed is denied. She admits that her father-in-law died due to heart attack. So on analysis of the testimony of P.W.1 and the documents produced by her it shows 'A' to 'C' schedule properties were acquired by her father-in-law and there is nothing forthcoming in her evidence prove that it was ancestral property of Late. B.M.Venkatesh. Further the execution of gift deed in favour of defendant No.3 is though admitted by P.W.1, she has denied the due execution of 30 O.S. No.4199/2013 the gift deeds and it is her contention that the gift deeds are manipulated and she has denied that the 'D' schedule property is the exclusive property of defendant No.3.
30. At this point of time, it is necessary to note that when the plaintiff claims the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and it was acquired from the joint family nucleus, the burden was upon the plaintiff to establish that the joint family had sufficient nucleus and out of the income derived the suit schedule properties were purchased by Late. B.M.Venkatesh. But apart from stating that Late. B.M.Venkatesh by selling golden ornaments and out of his savings purchased the property, she has not produced any document to show that it was purchased by Late. B.M.Venkatesh out of the joint family income. Added to this, her own evidence and averments made in the plaint that B.M.Venkatesh out of his savings and by selling golden ornaments purchased 'A' to 'C' schedule properties makes it clear the 'A' to 'C' 31 O.S. No.4199/2013 schedule properties are the self acquired properties of deceased defendant No.1.
31. The defendant No.3 got examined himself as D.W.1 and he has in his evidence deposed that the suit 'A' to 'C' schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of defendant No.1 and 'D' schedule property is his self-acquired property. So far as 'A' schedule property is concerned, D.W.1 has deposed that the said property originally belonged to Smt. Pattamma W/o. Doraiswamy having purchased the same under sale deed dated 26.06.1958 from T.R.Mahadevan and she bequeathed the said property in favour of defendant No.1 under registered WILL dated 13.02.1992 and in turn the defendant No.1 gifted the 'A' schedule property in his favour vide gift deed dated 23.05.2013 and he was put in possession of the 'A' schedule property and khata has been transferred to his name and thus, he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of 'A' 32 O.S. No.4199/2013 schedule property. To substantiate the same, D.W.1 has produced Ex.D.24 which is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 26.06.1958 which shows Smt. Pattammal has purchased 'A' schedule property from its erstwhile owner T.R.Mahadevan and Ex.D.25 is the WILL dated 13.02.1992 which shows Smt. Pattammal has bequeathed the said property in favour of defendant No.1. The recitals of the said WILL shows that Late. B.M.Venkatesh was under the care and custody of Smt. Pattammal and she had handed over the possession of 'A' schedule property to B.M.Venkatesh about 25 years back and he has constructed a house and is in possession of the same and as such, it is her desire that the said property should devolve upon B.M.Venkatesh after her demise and as such, she has bequeathed the property and it is mentioned in the WILL that the said property shall be enjoyed by B.M.Venkatesh as absolute owner thereof and except B.M.Venkatesh no other family members have any right over the said property. 33
O.S. No.4199/2013
32. Ex.D.17 which is the gift deed dated 23.05.2013 which is discussed herein before shows the defendant No.1 has gifted the said property in favour of defendant No.3. Further so far as, 'B' schedule property is concerned D.W.1 has deposed that Late. B.M.Venkatesh purchased 'B' schedule property from its owner Abdul Kareem Sab under registered Sale Deed dated 02.01.1970 and he gifted the same in his favour under gift deed dated 25.05.2013 and since then, he is in possession of the said property as absolute owner thereof. To corroborate the same, D.W.1 has produced Ex.D.18 which is the copy of the sale deed dated 02.01.1970 which shows the said property was purchased by B.M.Venkatesh and Ex.D.19 shows under the registered gift deed dated 25.05.2013 the said property is gifted in favour of this D.W.1.
33. So far as, 'C' schedule property is concerned D.W.1 has deposed that the said property was purchased by B.M.Venkatesh under two sale deeds 34 O.S. No.4199/2013 dated 07.02.1973 and 29.10.1973 from its owners Sri. Munikrishna S/o. Late. Muthappa and he being the absolute owner thereof has gifted the property in favour of this defendant No.3 under gift deed dated 25.03.2013. Ex.D.20 is the sale deed dated 07.02.1973 and also the sale deed dated 29.10.1973 which shows the said properties were purchased by B.M.Venkatesh and under Ex.D.21 i.e. gift deed dated 25.05.2013 and 'C' schedule property is bequeathed in favour of defendant No.3.
34. So far as 'D' schedule property is concerned D.W.1 has deposed that the said property originally belonged to Mrs. Mehaboob Jan W/o. Late. Rasheed and she sold the property in favour of this defendant No.3 under registered sale deed dated 11.04.2000 and he was put in possession of the same and to support the same, he has produced Ex.D.22 and Ex.D.23 which is the registered sale deed dated 11.04.2000 which shows the 'D' schedule property was purchased by defendant No.3 and Ex.D.23 is the rectification deed which shows 35 O.S. No.4199/2013 the mistake crept in respect of the boundary of the 'D' schedule property is rectified.
35. Further, D.W.1 has relied upon Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.16 which are the Encumbrance Certificate, Katha Certificate, Khata Extract and Tax paid receipt which shows 'A' to 'D' schedule properties are transferred to the name of defendant No.3 by virtue of the gift deeds and the sale deed and he is paying tax to the concerned authority. Thus, D.W.1 has deposed that 'A' to 'C' schedule properties were the self-acquired properties of his father purchased out of the income derived from his contract work and out of his hard earned money and 'B' schedule property was purchased by this defendant No.3 and hence, they are not the ancestral properties and by virtue of the gift deed and sale deed defendant No.3 is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of 'A' to 'D' schedule properties and as such, neither the plaintiffs nor defendants No.2, 4 and 5 have any right over the suit schedule properties.
36
O.S. No.4199/2013
36. During his cross-examination he admits that the plaintiffs and defendants constitute an Hindu Undivided Joint Family and no partition has taken place in respect of joint family properties in their family and he has consistently deposed that 'A' to 'C' schedule properties were purchased by his father and it is his self- acquired property and not the joint family property. The suggestion putforth that 'A' to 'D' schedule properties were purchased out of the joint family income and as such, they are joint family properties are categorically denied by D.W.1. Further he denies the suggestions putforth that, his father had no income to purchase 'A' to 'C' schedule properties and they were purchased out of the joint family nucleus are also denied by D.W.1.
37. At this point of time, it is necessary to take note of the fact that as stated earlier, the plaintiff herself has failed to discharge the burden of the proving that the joint family comprised sufficient joint family nucleus and 37 O.S. No.4199/2013 out of the income so derived suit 'A' to 'C' schedule properties were purchased by B.M.Venkatesh. Further, the sale deeds produced by D.W.1 establishes that defendant No.1 has purchased the said property and he was the absolute owner of the 'B' and 'C' schedule properties and by virtue of the WILL 'A' schedule property was bequeathed in his favour and the contention raised by the plaintiff that only life interest was created in favour of defendant No.1 and he had no right to alienate the property stands negated for the reason that the WILL confers absolute right in favour of defendant No.1.
38. At this point of time, it is necessary to take note of the fact that, none of the parties have challenged the due execution of the WILL by Smt. Pattamma and the mode of acquisition of 'A' schedule property by deceased defendant No.1. So when there is no dispute about the execution of the WILL there arises no question 38 O.S. No.4199/2013 of proving the due execution of the WILL as per Sec.67 of The BSA 2023 and 63 of Indian Succession Act. Be that as it may, from the evidence of plaintiff and defendants it is evident that the plaintiffs have failed in establishing that the joint family constituted by the plaintiff and defendants had sufficient income and the income was utilized for purchase of 'B' and 'C' schedule properties. On the other hand, as discussed supra, the plaintiff in the plaint has unequivocally stated that it was purchased by defendant No.1 out of his saved money and by selling the gold ornaments. So this establishes that 'B' and 'C' schedule properties were self-acquired properties of defendant No.1 and it is also established that he was the absolute owner of 'A' schedule property by virtue of the WILL executed by Smt. Pattamma.
39. Now so far as, 'D' schedule property is concerned the plaintiff apart from claiming that it is the joint family property has not chosen to produce the sale deed or any document in respect of 'D' schedule 39 O.S. No.4199/2013 property and on other hand, the defendant No.3 has produced the sale deed which shows he has purchased the said property and all the documents are transferred to his name. As stated earlier, since there is no evidence to prove that the joint family income was utilized and joint family had sufficient income it can be held that, the 'D' schedule property is the absolute property of defendant No.3. Thus, it is established that 'A' to 'C' schedule properties were the self-acquired properties of Late. defendant No.1 and 'D' schedule property is the self-acquired property of defendant No.3. So neither the plaintiff nor the defendants No.2, 4 and 5 have any right over 'D' schedule property.
40. Now so far as, 'A' to 'C' schedule properties are concerned, now question that needs to be adjudicated is as to whether by virtue of the gift deeds the defendant No.3 is the absolute owner of the said properties and as to whether the defendant No.3 has proved the due execution of the gift deeds. 40
O.S. No.4199/2013
41. At this point of time, it is considered worth to take note of Sec.123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which specifies how a gift of property, whether movable or immovable, is to be made. For immovable property, the transfer must be effected through a registered instrument signed by the donor and attested by at least two witnesses. For movable property, the transfer can be made either through a registered instrument or by delivery. So as per the said provision a gift deed requires to be compulsorily attested.
42. In the instant suit, the due execution of the 3 registered Gift Deeds dated 23.05.2013, 25.05.2013 & 25.05.2013 are seriously disputed. P.W.1 has in her evidence deposed that Late. B.M.Venkatesh had no knowledge of writing, reading and comprehending English language and the defendant No.3 by causing undue influence and by misrepresenting him got succeeded in executing the gift deeds and as such, it is not binding and is liable to be cancelled. 41
O.S. No.4199/2013
43. It is well-settled proposition of law that when one of the parties deny the execution of the gift deed, the same is required to be proved like any other document. Since the execution of the gift deeds is in dispute, it is necessary to ascertain whether the requirements of Sec.123 of Transfer of Property Act is fulfilled and the due execution of the gift deeds are proved and in terms of Sec.67 of The BSA 2023 it is mandatory on the part of the defendant to examine one of the attesting witnesses to prove the gift deed in his favour.
44. It is also relevant to note that Sec.67 of The BSA 2023 deals with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to be attested and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness atleast has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. It prescribes the requirements and the nature of proof which must be satisfied by the party who relies on a document in a 42 O.S. No.4199/2013 court of law. Thus the question as to whether the Gift deeds are duly executed by the donor has to be decided in the light of these provisions. Thus the disputed gift deeds have to be proved like any other document.
45. As per the principles laid down in the aforesaid ratios and as per the aforementioned provisions the burden is upon the defendant No.3 to remove all suspicious circumstances and to prove that Gift deed was voluntarily executed by his father after being fully aware of the contents and consequences of the bequeath made in the Gift deed and that the attesting witnesses have signed the WILL in the presence of the donor. But, as discussed supra, the said question have to be decided with reference to section Sec.67 of The BSA 2023, which requires that the examination of the attesting witness is mandatory.
46. So, keeping these principles in mind, this court proceeds to analyze as to whether the gift deeds 43 O.S. No.4199/2013 set up by defendant No.3 was duly executed by defendant No.1 and it is proved as contemplated under law.
47. In order to discharge the burden cast upon him, D.W.1 has in his evidence deposed that Late. B.M.Venkatesh when he was in a state of sound mind and body executed the registered Gift Deeds with respect to schedule 'A' to 'C' properties and executed the gift deeds voluntarily out of love and affection towards him and put him in possession and enjoyment of the same and there was no force or pressure in executing the documents and they were executed as per his own wish and out of love and affection towards him.
48. During his cross-examination he admits that, on 18.05.2013 the mother of the plaintiff had filed complaint before jurisdictional police as against this defendant No.3 and the police enquired the matter. So this admission shows, on 18.05.2013 there was quarrel 44 O.S. No.4199/2013 between the mother of the plaintiff and defendant No.3 and on 23.05.2013 and 25.05.2013 i.e. few days after the said incident gift deed came to be executed.
49. Further he admits that, the plaintiff No.1 was aged 6 to 7 years when his father died and also admits that his father Late. B.M.Venkatesh had equal love and affection towards his sisters i.e. defendants No.4 and 5 and his father has not given any property to the plaintiff or to his daughters and do not know what is the reason for not giving any property to the plaintiff and defendants No.4 and 5. There is also an admission that as on the date of execution of the gift deeds, his father was aged 88 years and denies that since 2012-13 his father was not having sound mind and the gift deeds were forcibly executed from him. He admits that he looked after his father during his last days and denies that his father was completely depended upon him and taking advantage of age of his father the gift deeds are created. He also 45 O.S. No.4199/2013 admits that within 2 months from the date of execution of the gift deeds his father died and he says he died due to heart attack. Further there is an also admission that Late. B.M.Venkatesh had much love and affection towards the plaintiff since he last his father during his childhood and the father of the plaintiff No.1 had no property of his own. D.W.1 says his father took legal assistance of the lawyer in executing the gift deeds and defendant No.3 accompanied his father for registration of gift deeds to the office of the Sub-Registrar and there is a clear admission that the gift deeds were registered just few days after the mother of the plaintiff lodged complaint against this defendant No.3. There is also an admission that as per Ex.D.17, Ex.D.19 and Ex.D.21 it is endorsed that the stamp duty was paid by this defendant No.3 and he says, as per the instructions of his father he paid the stamp duty and he himself took the witnesses and his father to the Sub-Registrar office and he also contacted the lawyer who prepared the gift deeds. The 46 O.S. No.4199/2013 suggestion putforth that, the defendant No.3 was dominating his father and by causing undue influence and by coercing his father the gift deeds are executed is denied by D.W.1.
50. So the evidence of D.W.1 shows his active participation in execution of the gift deeds. There is a clear admission that the gift deeds are executed disinheriting the plaintiff No.1 and his other sons and daughters. He himself admits he do not know about the reason why his other siblings and plaintiff No.1 were disinherited by his father. Further there is also admission that his father has not given any property to the plaintiff or his other children despite of having equal love and affection among all his children and the grandson. Further, immediately after few days of the incident that took place between the mother of the plaintiff and the defendant No.3 were she lodged complaint, the gift deeds are executed. So all these circumstances, creates 47 O.S. No.4199/2013 suspicion about the due execution of the gift deeds and defendant No.3 has failed to dispel these suspicious circumstances.
51. The defendant No.3, in order to fulfill the mandatory requirements of proof of Gift deed, has examined the scribe of the gift deeds who is an advocate by profession as D.W.2 and he has in his evidence deposed that he is the scribe of the 3 gift deeds dated 23.05.2015 & 25.05.2013 and it was executed by one B.M.Venkatesh in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of 'A' to 'C' schedule properties. He has deposed that he drafted the gift deeds as per the instructions of Late. B.M.Venkatesh and he has affixed his signature to the 3 gift deeds as a scribe and the gift deeds were subsequently registered and he was also present at the office of the Sub-Registrar along with the witnesses at the time of registration of the 3 gift deeds. His signature on Ex.D.17, Ex.D.19 & Ex.D.21 are 48 O.S. No.4199/2013 marked as Ex.D.17(a), Ex.D.19(a) & Ex.D.21(a) respectively.
52. During his cross-examination he says at the time of execution of the gift deeds, B.M.Venkatesh was aged about 87 to 88 years, but he was physically healthy and very active and says that the relationship of B.M.Venkatesh with his other children was very cordial and do not know that B.M.Venkatesh had special love and affection towards his grandson, due to untimely demise of his son Krishna. D.W.2 says the stamp duty was paid in the name of defendant No.3 and denies that at the time of execution of the gift deeds B.M.Venkatesh was not mentally sound and his signatures were forcefully taken on the documents by misleading him and immediately after 10 days of execution of the documents B.M.Venkatesh died. So the evidence of D.W.2 coupled with Ex.D.17, Ex.D.19 & Ex.D.21 shows these documents were prepared by D.W.3 as a scribe 49 O.S. No.4199/2013 and he affixed his signature as a scribe and there are other two witnesses by name Kedarnath Swamy and Bhagath Singh and these persons have signed the documents as witnesses and none of these attesting witnesses are examine by the defendant.
53. Learned counsel for defendant in his arguments submits that, as per Sec.67 of The BSA 2023 it is mandatory to examine one of the attesting witnesses for the purpose of proving the execution of the WILL but such limitation is not applicable in respect of proof of execution of any other document which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act and it is submitted that the gift deeds are registered and also since the scribe is examined the mandatory requirement is fulfilled and the due execution of the gift deeds are proved.
54. Now the question that needs to be is as to whether the scribe can be considered as an attesting 50 O.S. No.4199/2013 witness to the document. It is well-settled proposition of law that, the attesting witness must subscribe with an intent that subscription of the signature made stands by way of a complete attestation of the instrument and the evidence is admissible to show whether such was the intention or not.
55. Hence at this point of time, this Court has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.L. Abdul Jabhar Sahib v. H.V. Venkata Sastri & Sons & Ors. (1969 (3) SCR 513) wherein Hon'ble Apex Court upon reference to Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act has stated as follows:
It is to be noticed that the word attested, the thing to be defined, occurs as part of the definition itself. To attest is to bear witness to a fact. Briefly put, the essential conditions of a valid attestation under s.3 are: (1) two or more witnesses have seen the executant sign the instrument or have received from him a personal acknowledgment of his signature;51
O.S. No.4199/2013 (2) with a view to attest or to bear witness to this fact each of them has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant. It is essential that the witness should have put his signature animo attestandi, that is, for the purpose of attesting that he has seen the executant sign or has received from him a personal acknowledgment of his signature. If a person puts his signature on the document for some other purpose, e.g., to certify that he is a scribe or an identifier or a registering officer, he is not an attesting witness.
56. So in the instant case, D.W.2 is the scribe of the document and he has subscribed his signature as a scribe and so it infers that he does not come under the statutory requirement of attestation as described herein before. So the effect of subscribing a signature on the part of the scribe cannot be equated with the status of attesting witnesses. For the purpose of proof of instrument, it is obligatory on the part of the attesting 52 O.S. No.4199/2013 witnesses to appear before the Court and depose that they were present and in their presence the document was executed and they have seen the executant signing the document and testify the genuinity of the signature of the executant. No doubt, the scribe has drafted the gift deeds as per the instructions given and his presence cannot be doubted at the time of execution and registration of the gift deeds, but there is no evidence forthcoming to show he signed the document with an intent to be termed as an attesting witness.
57. So in view of the aforesaid reasons the evidence of D.W.2 cannot be considered as the evidence of the attesting witness and by this it can be held that, the mandatory requirement of proof of Gift is not fulfilled by the defendant No.2. Thus, on analysis of the evidence of P.W.1, D.W.1 and D.W.2 this Court is of opinion that the plaintiff has though failed in establishing that 'A' to 'C' schedule properties were their ancestral 53 O.S. No.4199/2013 properties and it is though proved that they were the self-acquired properties of Late. B.M.Venkatesh, they have succeeded in establishing that the execution of the gift deeds is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. As discussed supra, the burden was upon the defendant No.3 to dispel the suspicious circumstances, but his own evidence transpired that his father was aged about 82 to 90 years at time of execution of the gift deeds and he was under the care and custody of defendant No.3 and immediately after few days of the quarrel that took place between the mother of the plaintiff and defendant No.3, the gift deeds came to be executed on 23.05.2013 and 25.05.2013. Added to this, he himself admits that his father had more love towards plaintiff No.1 and also towards his other children, but no property has been given to plaintiff No.1 and the other siblings. All the properties which were acquired by him during his life time is gifted in favour of defendant No.3 and no reason is forthcoming as to why the plaintiff No.1 and his other 54 O.S. No.4199/2013 children are disinherited. So bequeathing the entire family property in favour of defendant No.3 alone is one of the suspicious circumstances. Further it is admitted by both the parties that, immediately few days after execution of these gift deeds Late. B.M.Venkatesh died. So this also raises doubt as to the sound disposition state of mind of the executant.
58. As discussed supra, there has been active participation of defendant No.3 in preparing the documents, buying stamp papers, securing the attesting witnesses and taking all the attesting witnesses, scribe and executant to the office of the Sub-Registrar and see that, all the gift deeds in respect of the entire family property is executed in his favour alone, with in a span of 2 to 3 days. So the defendant No.3 has failed to dispel these suspicious circumstances surrounding the due execution of Gift deeds. Added to this, attesting witnesses are not examined. So all these circumstances 55 O.S. No.4199/2013 leads to an inference that the defendant No.3 has failed to prove the due execution of gift deeds and the said instruments if left outstanding may cause serious injury to the right of the plaintiff and as such, the said gift deeds are liable to be cancelled.
59. Now so far as 'D' schedule property is concerned as stated supra, it is proved that it was the exclusive property of defendant No.3 and neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants No.2, 4 and 5 have right over the same. Hence, the plaintiff and defendants No. 2 to 5 are each entitled for 1/5th share in 'A' to 'C' schedule properties and gift deeds dated 23.05.2013 and 25.05.2013 are liable to be cancelled. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to answer the aforesaid Issues No.1 and 6 Partly in the Affirmative, Issue No.3 in the Negative, Issues No.2, 4 and 5 in the Affirmative.
60. ISSUE NO.7 :: In view of findings on issues No.1 to 6, this Court proceeds to pass the following; 56
O.S. No.4199/2013 ORDER Suit of the plaintiffs is decreed in part.
The plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 5 are each entitled for 1/5 th share in the 'A' to 'C' properties.
Consequently, the gift deeds dated 23.05.2013, 25.05.2013 & 25.05.2013 in respect of 'A' to 'C' schedule properties stand cancelled.
Suit of the plaintiff in respect of 'D' schedule property is dismissed.
As per section 31(2) of the Specific Relief Act, a copy of the decree shall be sent to the office of Sub-Registrar, where the instruments are registered and the officer shall make a note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books, the fact of its cancellation.
Draw preliminary decree
accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcription corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this 02nd day of June, 2025).
(VEENA N.) XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
57
O.S. No.4199/2013 ANNEXURE I. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF:
(A) PLAINTIFFS SIDE :: P.W.1 :: Smt. Kumuda (B) DEFENDANTS SIDE :: D.W.1 :: Sri. B.V.Dayalan D.W.2 :: Sri. Suresh R. Chitnis
II. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF:
(A) PLAINTIFFS SIDE :
Ex.P.1 :: Certified copy of gift deed dated 23.05.2013 Ex.P.2 :: Encumbrance certificate Ex.P.3 :: Tax paid receipt Ex.P.4 :: Khata certificate Ex.P.5 :: Khata extract Ex.P.6 :: Certified copy of gift deed dated 25.05.2013 Ex.P.7 :: Encumbrance certificate Ex.P.8 :: Tax paid receipt Ex.P.9 :: Khata certificate Ex.P.10 :: Khata extract Ex.P.11 :: Certified copy of gift deed dated 25.05.2013 Ex.P.12 :: Encumbrance certificate Ex.P.13 :: Tax paid receipt Ex.P.14 :: Khata certificate Ex.P.15 :: Khata extract 58 O.S. No.4199/2013 (B) DEFENDANTS SIDE ::
Ex.D.1 to :: Khata certificate, khata extract, tax paid Ex.D.4 receipt and encumbrance certificate for the period from 01.04.2010 to 16.10.2019 in respect of property No.705 Ex.D.5 to :: Khata certificate, khata extract, tax paid Ex.D.8 receipt and encumbrance certificate for the period from 01.04.2010 to 16.10.2019 in respect of property No.3/1 Ex.D.9 to :: Khata certificate, khata extract, tax paid Ex.D.12 receipt and encumbrance certificate for the period from 01.04.2010 to 16.10.2019 in respect of property No.22/24/5 Ex.D.13 to :: Khata certificate, khata extract, tax paid Ex.D.16 receipt and encumbrance certificate for the period from 01.04.2010 to 16.10.2019 in respect of property No.28/24/24 Ex.D.17 :: Original gift deed dated 23.05.2013 in respect of property No.705 Ex.D.17(a) :: Signature of D.W.2 Ex.D.18 :: Original sale deed dated 02.01.1970 Ex.D.19 :: Original gift deed dated 25.05.2013 in respect of property No.3/1 Ex.D.19(a) :: Signature of D.W.2 Ex.D.20 :: Original sale deed dated 07.02.1973 Ex.D.21 :: Original gift deed dated 25.05.2013 in respect of property No.22/24/5 Ex.D.21(a) :: Signature of D.W.2 59 O.S. No.4199/2013 Ex.D.22 :: Original sale deed dated 11.04.2000 in respect of property No.24 Ex.D.23 :: Original rectification deed dated 25.10.2000 Ex.D.24 :: Certified copy of sale deed dated 26.06.1958 Ex.D.25 :: Certified copy of WILL dated 13.02.1992 (VEENA N.) XL ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.