Bangalore District Court
Venkatesh vs Ramaiah on 31 October, 2018
1 O.S. No. 2159/2008
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY
(CCH-39)
Dated this the 31st October 2018
Present
Sri Devanand Puttappa Nayak B.A., LL.B.,(Spl.)
XXXVIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
Original Suit No.2159/2008
Plaintiffs : Venkatesh,
S/o. Ramaiah,
Aged about 30 years, Residing
at Kothanur Village, K.R.
Puram Hobli, Bangalore East
Taluk, Bangalore - 560 077
[by advocate Sri. K.V.
Sathyanarayana]
-vs-
Defendant : 1. Ramaiah,
S/o. Muniswamappa,
Aged about 75 years,
Residing at Kothanur Village,
K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 077
2. K.R. Thimmarayappa,
S/o. Ramaiah,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at C/o. M.R.
Jayaram, No.219, 9th Cross,
1st Main Road, Thimmaiah
2 O.S. No. 2159/2008
Garden, R.T. Nagar Post,
Bangalore - 560 032
3. K.R. Appaiah,
S/o. of Ramaiah,
Aged about 34 years,
Residing at Vinayaka Road,
Behind Ganesh Temple,
Kothanur Post,
Bangalore - 560 077.
4. Sampangiamma,
W/o. Muniyappa,
Aged about 44 years,
Resident of Vinayaka Road,
Behind Ganesh Temple,
Kothanur Post,
Bangalore - 560 077
5. Renukavathi,
D/o. Ramaiah,
W/o. Ganesha, Aged about
30 years, Residing at 249,
Gangamma Temple Road, 4th
'A' Main Road, Karianaoalya,
Bangalore - 560 084
6. Dadu Davis,
S/o. O.K. Devassy Kutty,
Aged about 54 years,
Residing at No.72/2, Sneha
Nilaya, Davis Road, Cook
Town, Bangalore - 560 025
7. B.R. Annamma Joseph
Vakassaril, Kathrina Kasper
Social Service Society,
No.38/4, Davis Road,
Bangalore - 560 077
3 O.S. No. 2159/2008
8. Katherine Kasper Social
Service Society, Kothanur
Post, Bangalore East Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 077
[D.1, D.2, D.4, D.5 by
advocate Sri. A.V.S
D.3 and D.6 - Absent
D.7 and D.8 by advocate Sri.
P.D.S]
Date of institution of the suit 19/03/2008
Nature of the suit: Partition
Date of commencement of 03/07/2014
recording of evidence:
Date on which Judgment was 31/10/2018
pronounced
Total duration: Year Month Days
10 07 12
JUDGMENT
This is the suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant for partition and mesne profit.
2. The facts of the case are as under:
It is the case of the plaintiff that first defendant is the father of plaintiff and second and third defendants are brothers and fourth and fifth defendant are the sisters of the plaintiff. The plaintiff and defendant 1 to 6 are the members 4 O.S. No. 2159/2008 of the The Hindu Undivided Joint Family and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and first defendant is the being a elder member and Kartha of the Joint Family.
Further the plaintiff submits that, property bearing survey No.30/3, New No.30/3A, measuring 1 acre 39 guntas, situated at Kothanur Village, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore, the schedule property which is the Joint Family Properties of the plaintiff and defendants. The said schedule property has been purchased by the Joint Family member from one Kempanna, and register sale deed dated 24.05.1958 out of the Joint Family Income. The said sale deed was registered in the name of first defendant as he was elder male member of the Joint Family since the date of purchase. There was no any other Joint nucleus except the income arrived from the schedule property to the Joint Family . All Joint Family members are depending on farming and to live on agricultural income. 5 O.S. No. 2159/2008
Such being the situation, the first defendant was addicted to bad habits like drinking liquor and also associated with bad friends in the year 1980 onwards. Therefore first defendant is not able to earn sufficient income and neglected entire Joint family. The plaintiff and defendant 2 and 3 some how managing the Joint Family with the assistance of agricultural income derived from the schedule property. Such being the fact, in the year 2002 defendant 5 and 6 colluding with each other tried to dispossess the plaintiff and his family members from the suit schedule property by unlawful means by canvassing that the defendant 6 is the purchaser of the suit schedule property. Immediately after enquiry the plaintiff came to know first defendant without consent of plaintiff and other Joint Family members executed the sale deed in favour of defendant No.6. Then immediately plaintiff approached the Court through O.S. No. 15594/02 seeking permanent injunction against those interferers which is pending for adjudication.6 O.S. No. 2159/2008
Further plaintiff submits that, there was no reason, legal necessity or whatsoever to the defendant 1 to sell the suit schedule property in favour of defendant 6 and the sale price received by the first defendant was not utilised for the purpose of Joint Family necessity. Further, plaintiff submits that when the defendant indulged in bad habits the defendant No.6 taking undue advantage has got registered the sale deed in his favour without taking the consent the plaintiff and other co- owners of the suit schedule property. Further the plaintiff submit that suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and other Joint Family members and the plaintiff is a co-owner of the suit schedule property. The alleged transaction took place in between the defendant No.1 and 6 without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff. In order to deceive the plaintiff legitimate right and to cover up the title defect, the defendant No.6 has transferred right records of suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.7 by way of sale deed. Thereafter, the defendant No.6 has cause for executing gift deed in favour of defendant No.8. Therefore the said sale deed and gift deed are not at all binding on the share of the 7 O.S. No. 2159/2008 plaintiffs. Further plaintiff submits that, there is no any partition took place in schedule property in between him with defendant 1 to 5, further the plaintiff on 28.11.2007 demanded his legitimate share in the suit schedule property to all the defendant, but defendant denies and refuse to give his share, hence constrained to file this suit.
Further plaintiff submits that, he was in joint possession and enjoyment of schedule property and cultivating and earning out of suit schedule property. Further defendant 6 to 8 by illegal means are trying to dispossess the plaintiff from suit schedule property though they have no absolute ownership upon said schedule property. Therefore plaintiff without any alternative is approaching this Court for obtaining legitimate share in the suit schedule property.
The cause of action aroused when the defendant 6 to 8 tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in suit schedule property and thereafter on 28.11.2007 when the plaintiff demanded for legitimate share over the property and the same is within the jurisdiction of 8 O.S. No. 2159/2008 this Court. Therefore the plaintiff request to decree the suit as prayed in the prayer column of the plaint.
3. On the other hand, in this case the defendant No.1 to 5 appeared through their counsel by not filing written statement and defendant 3 and 6 remained absent by not filing written statement. However defendant No.8 filed written statement same is depicted by defendant 7 by filing memo dated 14.07.2009.
In the written statement filed by the defendant 7 an 8 they contended that suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts, and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. But in para 4 defendant 7 and 8 submits that as per the sale deed dated 24.05.1968, the name of the defendant one alone is mentioned and it is not mentioned of any Joint Family interest in the said sale deed. In Para 5 defendant 7 and 8 submits that defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the schedule property on his individual capacity. Therefore, there is no mention of any joint family interest in the contents of the sale deed. It is also not 9 O.S. No. 2159/2008 admitted by defendant 7 and 8 plaintiff and other defendant have been cultivating the schedule property and deriving agricultural income from the schedule property, same is false and untrue. Further at para 5 of the written statement defendant 7 and 8 submits that schedule property is in fact a fully developed land where buildings have come up all around and even the defendant has put up huge buildings for the use of institutions. Further defendant 7 and 8 submits that plaintiff has no right whatsoever in respect of the schedule property, much less any share or interest in respect thereof. Further it is admitted by defendant 7 and 8, first defendant is absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
It is also denied by the defendant 7 and 8 that plaintiff is neither a construction-owner of the suit schedule property nor has any legal right or interest in respect of the same. But it is submitted that defendant 6 had been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property from 13.04.1984. The defendant 7 was in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property from the year 2000, and this defendant has been in 10 O.S. No. 2159/2008 possession and enjoyment of the schedule property from the year 2002. Hence such being the truth right from 13.04.1984 even the first defendant who was the absolute owner of the property or any one else claiming through him had no right whatsoever in respect of the schedule property since the said defendant sold the same on 13.04.1984. Further defendant 7 and 8 submits that there is no cause of action for filing this suit and alleged cause of action is false and vexatious.
Further defendant 6 and 5 submits that, plaintiff has no any right possession over the schedule property. At para 11 of the written statement the defendant 7 and 8 submits that first defendant purchased the schedule property by way of a registered sale deed dated 24.05.1968. Then, the first defendant sold the schedule property to Mr. Dadu Davis, i.e, defendant 6 by way of a registered sale deed dated 30.04.1984. Here in the registered sale deed executed in favour of first defendant it is clearly indicated in a recital that the schedule property is the self-acquired property and first defendant is the absolute owner of the schedule property. 11 O.S. No. 2159/2008 After purchasing of schedule property from first defendant 6 defendant sold out the same to defendant 7 by way of registered sale deed dated 13.11.2000. Since defendant 7 being the member of defendant 8 society and after obtaining permission of State Government for transferring the schedule property in favour of registered society by means of registered gift deed dated 26.03.2002 issued by under Secretary to the Government, Revenue Department. Subsequent of obtaining permission from State Government, the defendant 7 has gifted the schedule property to the defendant 8, registered society by way of registered gift deed dated 03.05.2002. It is submitted by defendant 7 and 8 that after obtaining permission from the State Government to transfer the property in the name of defendant 8, the K. Narayanapura Grama Panchayath has fixed the assessment and issued a Demand Register Extract in the name of defendant 8 and allotted the Katha Number 295 to the schedule property. Thereafter, defendant 8 being in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property has obtained a licence on 29.05.2002 from the K. Narayanapura Grama Panchayath for construction of building. After 12 O.S. No. 2159/2008 obtaining license, defendant 8 has constructed a building on the schedule property which comes within the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike. Defendant 8 society as paid the taxes to the B.B.M.P, thereafter defendant 8 is the absolute owner of schedule property in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The defendant 8 being a Registered Society is mainly engaged in educational, charitable and social service activities. The schedule property was acquired for the purposes of establishing institutions for the above said activities. In para 16 defendant 7 and 8 submits that plaintiff with an intention to make wrongful gain and also to knock off the valuable property belonging to defendant 8 as earlier filed a Case O.S. 15594/2002 before the Mayo Hall Court and prolonging the case without recording his evidence for about 6 years and in the year 2008, again this suit is filed which is liable to be dismissed ab initio as hit by the Res Judicata. Plaintiff by filing the second suit has only improved upon his earlier claim by misleading the Court. Therefore, suit filed by the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed by imposing the cost in the interest of justice and equity. 13 O.S. No. 2159/2008
4. On perusing of the pleadings of plaint and written statement of defendant 7 and 8, my predecessor has framed in all 6 Issues as follows:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that suit schedule property is his joint family property?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in joint possession of the schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the sale deeds dated 03.04.1984, 13.11.2000 and 03.05.2002 are not binding on him?
4. Whether the suit is barred by res-
judicata?
5. What order or decree?
5. In this case, the president of defendant 8 society adduced oral evidence by way of filing sworn affidavit 14 O.S. No. 2159/2008 considered as PW1 and in further chief examination of DW1 documents produced got marked Ex.D.1 to D.38
6. My findings for the Issues framed by my predecessor are as follows:-
Issue No.1: In the Negative, Issue No.2: In the Negative, Issue No.3: In the Negative, Issue No.4: In the Negative, Issue No.5: In the Negative, Issue No.6: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
7. ISSUE No.1 to 3 and 5: I have taken up these issue together for common discussion, since the burden of proving these issues lies on the plaintiff. It is just and proper to know the admitted facts in this case, that first defendant is father of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. Defendant 2 and 3 are the brothers and defendant 4 and 5 are the sisters of the plaintiff. Here this is the suit filed by the plaintiff against defendant for 15 O.S. No. 2159/2008 partition, separate portion and mesne profit. The case of the plaintiff that the property bearing survey No.30/3, New No.30/3A, measuring 1 acre 39 guntas, situated at Kothanur village, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk is the suit property and the same is Joint Family Property of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5. The suit property has been purchased in the name of first defendant who is the father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 out of Joint Family income under register sale deed dated 24.05.1958 from one Kempanna. Since then plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 were in Joint possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and it is the only income derived from the suit schedule property as the Joint income of the Joint family of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5. Further it is also the case of plaintiff that the defendant 1 without the consent of the plaintiff and defendant 2 to 5 and behind back of the plaintiff sold out the suit property in favour of defendant 6 dated 03.04.1984 under registered sale deed. Further it is the contention of the plaintiff that the sale deed executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 6 and defendant 6 in favour of defendant 7 and 16 O.S. No. 2159/2008 gift deed executed by defendant 7 in favour of defendant 8 is not binding on his share.
8. Here in order to proved that suit schedule property is joint family property of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 , the plaintiff adduced in his oral evidence by way of filing his sworn affidavit considered as PW1 and in further chief examination of PW1 documents produced by him got marked Ex.P.1 to P.8. In the cross examination of PW1 by the counsel for defendant 7 and 8 there are so many contradictions in order to prove whether actually the suit schedule property is shown in the cause title of the plaint remained as agricultural property as on the date of failing this suit. It is also doubtful whether actually plaintiff is in joint possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property along with defendant 1 to 5, because in the cross examination of PW1 he deposed that the suit schedule property purchased in the name of his father in the year 1968 as Ex.P.2. PW1 admitted that it is not mentioned on Ex.P.2 the defendant 1 had purchased suit property out of joint family income. Here looking to the contents of Ex.P.2 it 17 O.S. No. 2159/2008 is not specifically mentioned that defendant has purchased the suit property as per Ex.P.2 in the year 1968, out of joint family nucleus. Further PW1 in his cross examination at page 6 clearly admitted that there was no any other immovable property was existed for purchasing the suit property by the defendant 1 in the year 1968 as per Ex.P.2. This goes to show that suit property is not at all Joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant 1 to 5, but it is the self acquired property of defendant 1. Here defendant 1 died in the year 2012. Further there is no any property extract to show that after the death of defendant 1 dated 24.11.2011 the name of the plaintiff and defendant 2 to 5 have been entered in mutation and other extract of the suit schedule property. So this goes to show that suit schedule property is not at all the Joint family property of the plaintiff and defendants. Further in the chief examination of PW1 at page 8 he categorically admitted that there are buildings in the schedule property and compound wall is also constructed and building constructed belongs to Christian institution. PW1 also admitted that he is in possession of the schedule property, this goes to show that 18 O.S. No. 2159/2008 plaintiff and defendant 2 to 5 were not at all in possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property from the year 1984 when defendant 1 sold out the schedule property in favour of defendant 6.
9. Here in the prayer column of the plaint, the plaintiff prayed for that sale deed executed dated 03.04.1984 by the defendant 1 in favour of defendant 6 in turn defendant 6 executed sale deed in favour of defendant 7 as per Ex.P.7 and defendant 7 in turn executed sale deed in favour of defendant 8 dated 03.05.2002 are not binding on him. But here counsel for the defendant 7 and 8 relied on the reported decision i.e, AIR 2018 MADRAS 197 in the case between G. Vijaya v/s M. Gurusamy at caption A & B it is held by Hon'ble Madras High Court that Alienation by father - Can be challenged by daughter
- Limitation period shall be governed by Article 109 and not by Article 59 of Limitation Act 1963. The counsel of the defendant 7 and 8 also relied on decision 2018 (2) Kar. L.R 58 in the case between Sri. S.M. Rajagopal v/s. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District and Others. Wherein the Hon'ble High Court 19 O.S. No. 2159/2008 of Karnataka at Bangalore held that sale was held in the year 1973 and the last sale transaction was effected on 27.02.1988. In effect, third party rights came to be created and the parties were also in settled positions and the party wakes up into actions after 32 years. Therefore, there is no absolute ground urged to call for explanations for the gross and inordinate delay
- even on this ground, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. So here the points adopted in the above decision, rightfully applicable to the present facts and consideration of this case on hand. Because in the cross examination of PW1 in this case clearly admitted that there are buildings constructed and one Christian institution is also exists, compound wall is also constructed, so here from the cross examination of PW1 it goes to show that the nature of agricultural property as shown in plaint, was not at all existed soon after sale deed executed by the defendant 1 in favour of defendant 6 and defendant 6 in favour of defendant 7 and defendant 7 in favour of defendant
8. Further the first defendant who is the father of the plaintiff and defendant 2 to 5 has died in the year 2011. Since then neither the plaintiff nor defendant 2 to 5 made any attempt to 20 O.S. No. 2159/2008 get entered their names in property extract in respect of suit schedule property. So here the defendant 7 also executed gift deed in favour of defendant 8 as per Ex.P.8.
Here the counsel for the defendant 7 and 8 relied another reported decision i.e., 2018 (1) Kar. L.R 5 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case between Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v/s. State of Karnataka and Another, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it is the settled position in law that whether Statute provided for a period of limitation, provisions of the Statute must be invoked within a reasonable time. It is held that action whether on an application of the parties, or suo moto, must be taken within a reasonable time. It is held that action whether the application of the parties or Suo moto must be taken within the reasonable time. So here an application for restoration was made after 24 years which was allowed. But the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above reported decision held that the application for restoration of land made by respondent after the unreasonably long period which was liable to be dismissed on that ground. 21 O.S. No. 2159/2008 Further in the reported decision 2018 (1) Kar. L.R 176 (SC), wherein it is held that where limitation is not prescribed, the party ought to approach the competent Court or Authority within reasonable time, beyond which no relief can be granted. This principle would apply even to suo motu actions. So from the above reported decisions as cited supra goes to show that the sale deed executed by defendant 1 dated 03.04.1984 in favour of defendant 6 and in turn sale deed executed by defendant 6 in favour of defendant 7, and in turn sale deed executed by defendant 7 in favour of defendant 8, and gift deed executed by defendant 7 in favour of defendant 8 are binding on the plaintiff.
10. Here on behalf of the defendant 8, Chairman and President of the defendants institution on the strength of the resolution as per Ex.D.1 adduced in oral evidence as DW1 by filing sworn affidavit and in further chief examination of DW1 documents produced marked as Ex.D.1 to D.36. Here even though several opportunities and time is granted , the counsel for plaintiff is not cross examined DW1. Further in this case 22 O.S. No. 2159/2008 and in further chief examination DW1, the certificated copy of sale deed executed in favour of defendant 1 is marked as Ex.D.3 and original sale deed executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 6 marked Ex.D.4, and original sale deed executed by defendant 6 in favour of defendant 7 marked ExD.5 and original gift deed executed by defendant 7 in favour of defendant 8 marked Ex.D.6. The certified copy of the original suit in OS 15594/02 marked Ex.D.7. 2 colour photos along with negatives marked Ex.D.9. Approval for building is marked as Ex.D.11. Tax paid marked Ex.D.12 - 36. So here looking to the Ex.D17- 21 which are the tax paid receipts in the name of defendant 8 and Ex.D.24 and D.26 are the acknowledgement receipts. Ex.D.28 - D.34 which are the tax paid receipts wherein the name of the defendant is mentioned in ownership column. This document itself goes to show that on the strength of gift deed executed by defendant 7 in favour of defendant 8, Here the facts narrated in the chief examination of DW1 are nothing but repetition of the pleadings in the written statement. Therefore again it need not requires further explanation, the name of defendant 8 is 23 O.S. No. 2159/2008 appearing in Khata extract and tax paid receipts on the basis of the title deed ie., Ex.D.8 and D.6. So here the documents produced by the DW1 itself sufficient that the defendant is absolute owner in possession of the suit property and running the Christian Institution by construction the building in the suit property. So therefore, in this case plaintiff has to file this suit within 12 years from the date of the sale deed executed by the defendant 1 in favour of defendant 6 in the year 1984 under Article 109 of Limitation Act of 1963. Therefore the sale deed executed dated 03.04.1984, 13.11.2000, 03.05.2002 are binding on the plaintiff. In this case the defendant 1 to 5 have not filed written statement. The only contesting parties are the defendant 7 and 8. Therefore, the act and attitude of the defendant 1 to 5, as they have not filed written statement, is itself shows that this suit filed by the plaintiff in collusion with the defendant 1 to 5. Therefore plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as claimed for, Hence I answer issues 1 to 3 and 5 in Negative.
24 O.S. No. 2159/2008
11. ISSUE No.4: Here, in this suit in the written statement filed by the defendant 7 and 8 though took contention that suit filed by the plaintiff is barred under the principle of Res Judicata, since the same earlier suit filed by the present plaintiff ie., O.S. No.15594/2002 against the defendant in respect of same property has been dismissed, therefore the contention of defendant 7 and 8 is that suit filed by the plaintiff is barred under Section 11 of C.P.C. But here the certified copy of the original suit pertaining to O.S. No.15594/2002 produced by the DW1. In the last page of the Ex.D.7, it reveals that memo filed by the plaintiff and suit is dismissed as withdrawn dated 28.05.2008. So here no doubt in the cross examination of DW1 he admitted that the said O.S. No.15594/2002 has been with drawn and then filed this present suit. But O.S. No.15594/2002 is dismissed as withdrawn but the said suit is not disposed off on merits of the case. Therefore under such circumstances there is no any findings given for the issues which have been framed under O.S. No.15594/2002. More over the said suit as per Ex.D.7 only filed for permanent injunction and not for declaration of 25 O.S. No. 2159/2008 suit, under such circumstances the suit O.S. No.15594/2002 is not disposed off on merits as it got dismissed as withdrawn by the plaintiff by filing memo as per Ex.P.7. Under such circumstances principles of Res judicata is not at all applicable. Hence I answer Issue No.4 in Negative.
In view of the foregoing discussion and observation made in all the above Issues, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff against defendants is hereby dismissed Parties to bear their own cost.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this day 31st October 2018) (DEVANAND PUTTAPPA NAYAK) XXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.26 O.S. No. 2159/2008
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff P.W.1 Venkatesh List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff:
Ex.P1 Genealogical tree
Ex.P2 Certified copy of sale deed dated 24-05-
1968
Ex.P3 to 5 RTC extracts and one encumbrance
certificate
Ex.P6 Certified copy of sale deed dated 30-04-
1984
Ex.P7 certified copy of sale deed dated 13-11-
2000
Ex.P8 certified copy of gift deed dated 03-05-
2002
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant:
D.W.1 Pauline Mary Vedamuthu List of documents marked on behalf of the Defendants :
Ex.D.1 Original resolution dated
30.8.2018.
Ex.D2 Certified copy of extract of
minutes of Annual General Body
meeting of the 8th defendant
society held 30.8.2018.
Ex.D3 Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
24.5.1968.
Ex.D4 Original Sale Deed dated
30.4.1984.
27 O.S. No. 2159/2008
Ex.D5 Original Sale Deed dated
13.11.2000
Ex.D6 Original Gift Deed dated
3.5.2002.
Ex.D7 Certified copy of the order sheet
in O.S 15594/02
Ex.D8 Memorandum of association and
Rules regulation of 8th defendant.
Ex.D9 Two colour photos along with
negative.
Ex.D10 Govt. order dated 26.3.2002.
Ex.D11 Building license
Ex.D12 Tax paid receipts (24)
to 36
(DEVANAND PUTTAPPA NAYAK)
XXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.