Bangalore District Court
Praveen R vs Smt.Savithramma on 19 April, 2022
1
O.S.No.7356/2016
KABC010244632016
IN THE COURT OF LXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU CITY
Dated this 19 th day of April 2022
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri. RAJESHWARA
B.A., L.L.M.,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
O.S.7356/2016
PLAINTIFF: : Praveen R.
S/o. Late G.Ramachandra,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at.No.129/1, 3rd Block,
Rajabeedi Road,
Behind Govt School,
Doddabommasandra village,
Vidyaranyapura, Bengaluru 97.
(By Sri. H.N.Venkatesh,
Advocate.)
/Vs/
DEFENDANTS: 1. Smt.Savithramma
W/o. Late G.Ramachandra,
Aged about 50 years,
2. Sri. Naveen,
2
O.S.No.7356/2016
S/o. Late. G.Ramachandra,
Aged about 28 years,
Defendants No.1 and 2 are
R/at No.5/249, 5th Main Road,
Chamundeshwari Layout,
Vidyaranyapura Main Road,
Bengaluru 97.
3. Sri. Pargunan P.
S/o.P.Perumal,
Aged about 44 years,
4. Sri. P. Parthiban,
S/o. P.Perumal,
Aged about 40 years,
Defendants No.3 and 4 are
R/at.No.11, 2nd Cross,
Near Renuka Temple
Doddabommasandra
Vidyaranyapura Post
Bengaluru 560097.
5. Sri. G.C. Venkateshwara Babu,
S/o.J.V.Chandramouli,
Aged about 56 years,
R/at Gurumurthy Reddy Building,
Near B.Ed College,
Marathhalli,
Bengaluru 560037.
6. Sri. K.K. Vasavan,
S/o. M.K.Padmanabhan,
Aged about 83 years,
R/at L. N. Colony,
3
O.S.No.7356/2016
II Cross, 6th Cross,
K N Extension,
Yeshwanthpur,
Bengaluru 506022.
7. Yacob A.
Aged about 40 years,
S/o. Sri. Penchalaiah,
R/at No.31/2, Krupa Nilaya,
Behind Manjunath Tent,
4th Block, Ramachandrapura,
Jalahalli Post,
Bengaluru-560013.
8. Bijoy Pillai,
Age: 43 years,
S/o Sri.P.S.R.Pillai,
R/at No.422, 12th Cross,
3rd Block, 4th Main,
BEL Layout, Vidyaranyapura,
Bengaluru -560097.
9. Prahlada Rao Kulkarni,
Age: 56 years,
S/o. Late Narayana Rao,
R/at No.18, 11th Cross,
Swimming Pool Extension,
Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru-560003.
10. Bhaskar B,
Age: 39 years,
S/o. B.Subramanyam Naidu,
R/at No.34, 15th A Cross,
8th Main Road,
Muthyalamma Nagar,
Bandappa Garden,
4
O.S.No.7356/2016
Gokula Post,
Bengaluru-506054.
11. Rajendra Reddy G,
Age: 67 years,
R/at No.4/2031,
Durganagar Colony,
Greamspet, Chittoor 571002,
Andhra Pradesh.
12. Smt. Amba Devi,
Age: 70 years,
W/o. Late Puttaiah,
R/at No.27, 6th Cross,
Kullappa Colony,
HAL Post, Bengaluru-560017.
13. Smt. Mala P.,
Age: 42 years,
W/o.S.Venkatachalapathi,
R/at No.27, 6th Cross,
Kullappa Colony,
HAL Post, Bengaluru-560017.
14. Loganathan S.,
Age: 40 years,
S/o. K.Shamugam,
R/at No.8A, CMPI Quarters,
MES Road, Yeshwantpura,
Bengaluru-560022.
15. Manjunath T.,
Age: 49 years,
S/o. G.D.Thimmaiah,
R/at No.18, 6th Cross,
Swimming Pool Extension,
5
O.S.No.7356/2016
Sudheendranagar,
Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru-560003.
16. Sundaramurthy T.
Since Dead By Lrs.,
16(a) Smt. Susheelamma,
W/o. Late T.Sundaramurthy,
Age: 55 years.
16(b) Sridhar S.,
Age: 38 years,
S/o. Late T.Sundaramurthy,
16(c) Prabhu S.,
Age: 35 years,
S/o. Late. T.Sundaramurthy,
16(d) Sumanth Kumar S.,
Age: 33 years,
S/o. Late T.Sundaramurthy,
16(e) Manikanta S.,
Age: 31 years,
S/o. Late T.Sundaramurthy,
Parties at Sl.No.16(a) to 16€ are
R/at. No.N.A.533,
BEL Colony, Nagaland Circle,
Jalahalli Post,
Bengaluru-560 013.
17. Ravi Naidu B.M.,
Age: 52 years,
6
O.S.No.7356/2016
S/o. Marappa,
R/at No.64,
Leela Krishna Nilaya,
1st Block, Near Krishna Temple,
Doddabommasandra,
Vidyaranyapura Post,
Bengaluru 560097.
18. Mohammed,
Age: 68 years,
S/o.Late. Kasim Sab,
R/at No.9, TNR Building,
14th Cross, II Main Road,
B.K. Nagara, Yeshwantpura,
Bengaluru-560022.
19. Sri.Sumanth Kumar C.,
Age: 40 years,
S/o.Late Venkatasubbaiah,
R/at No.35/1, Sri Venkatadri
Nilayam, 8th Main Road,
6th Cross, SBM Colony,
Mathikere,
Bengaluru-560054.
20. Smt.Srilakshmi C.,
Age: 38 years,
W/o. C.Sumanthkumar,
R/at No.35/1, Sri Venkatadri
Nilayam, 8th Main Road,
6th Cross, SBM Colony,
Mathikere, Bengaluru-560054.
21. Kishore Kumar V.,
Age: 40 years,
S/o.V.Jayarama Reddy,
R/at No.3, 1st Floor,
7
O.S.No.7356/2016
Nagarajappa Building,
Medahalli Extension.
Virgonagar Post,
Bengaluru-560049.
22. Smt.Vijayamma,
Age: 35 years,
W/o. V.Koshore Kumar,
R/at No.3, 1st Floor,
Nagarajappa Building,
Medahalli Extension,
Virgonagar Post,
Bengaluru-560049.
23. Smt.Sudhamani,
Age: 40 years,
24. Master Sriharsha,
Age: 11 years,
S/o.A.K. Nagendra,
Parties at Sl.No.23 & 24
Are R/at No.138,
Veerabhadreshwara Layout,
Thindlu Main Road,
Vidyaranyapura Post,
Bengaluru-560097.
Defendant No.24 Since minor
Rep. By his mother and natural
guardian Smt. Sudhamani,
(Defendant No.23)
25. Sri. Parashivachari C.,
Age: 55 years,
S/o. Late Chennankachari,
8
O.S.No.7356/2016
R/at No.45,
Chikkamaranahalli,
Devasandra,
Bengaluru-560054.
26. Sri.Lokanath D.,
Age: 56 years,
S/o. K.Damodaran,
R/at No.195/5A, 5th Cross,
3rd Main, Prakashnagar,
Bengaluru-560021.
27. Smt. Padma,
Age: 35 years,
W/o.Ramamurthy,
R/at No.1003, 2nd Main Road,
Chamundeshwari Layout,
Vidyaranyapura,
Bengaluru-560097.
(By Sri G.V.K. Adv. for D.3 and
D.4.)
1. Date of institution of the suit : 19.10.2016
2. Nature of the suit : Declaration and Partition suit
3. Date of commencement of : -
recording of evidence
4. Date on which the judgment : 19.04.2022
was pronounced
9
O.S.No.7356/2016
5. Duration : years months days
5 6 -
JUDGMENT
Plaintiff has filed this suit against defendants seeking the relief of partition as well as declaration to declare sale deeds as null and void and for other reliefs.
2. Case of the plaintiff submitted in the plaint is that plaintiff is the member of the joint family and co-parcener for the joint family properties. Suit schedule properties are ancestral properties of the joint family acquired by M.Govindappa, profounder of the joint family. There is no partition taken place in the joint family. Plaintiff has acquired co-parcenery share in the suit schedule property. His demand for partition and to hand over his 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties did not honour by the defendants. Further alienation of properties made by the G.P.A. holders of his ancestors are void transaction and hence suit for partition as well as declaration to declare sale deeds as null and void is filed.
3. Defendants No.3 and 4 filed their written statement denying averments made by the plaintiff in his plaint. According to defendants No.3 and 4 suit schedule properties are not joint family properties and the plaintiff is not entitled for share in the suit schedule properties. According to defendants No.3 and 4 10 O.S.No.7356/2016 they are bonafide purchasers of sites in revenue layout formed by G.Ramachandrappa for valuable consideration. Suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Suit reliefs are barred by law of limitation.
4. Considering the averments made in the plaint and written statement, there are no admitted or undisputed facts found in this suit.
5. Considering averments made in the plaint, denials made in the written statement, contents of documents and other materials, following issues got framed:
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the member in the undivided Hindu Joint family governed by Mitakshara law of inheritance ?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that suit schedule properties are joint family properties?
3. Whether plaintiff proves that he is one of the coparcener entitled to seek partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds?
4. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for 1/3rd share in the share of G.Ramachandra by metes and bounds?11
O.S.No.7356/2016
5. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for declaration that sale deed dt:09.01.2014 in document No.BNG(U)BYP-1-6228/2013-14 is void document, invalid in the eyes of law and not binding on the plaintiff?
6. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for declaration that sale deed dt:09.01.2014 in document No.BNG(U)BYP-1-06227/2013-14 is void document, invalid in the eyes of law and not binding on the plaintiff?
7. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for declaration that sale deed dt:31.05.2002 in document No.BNG(U)YLNK-1-1767/2002-03 is void document, invalid in the eyes of law and not binding on the plaintiff?
8. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for declaration that sale deed dt:03.05.2002 in document No.BNG(U)YLNK-1017-2002-03 is void document, invalid in the eyes of law and not binding on the plaintiff?
9. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for declaration that sale deed dt:28.03.2003 in document No.BNG(U)YLNK-13736/2002-03 is void document, 12 O.S.No.7356/2016 invalid in the eyes of law and not binding on the plaintiff?
10. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for declaration that sale deed dt:17.01.2003 in document No.BNG(U)YLNK-10259/2002-03 is void document, invalid in the eyes of law and not binding on the plaintiff?
11. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for declaration that sale deed dt:24.07.2002 in document No.BNG(U)YLNK-3603/2002-03 is void document, invalid in the eyes of law and not binding on the plaintiff?
12. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for declaration that sale deed dt:13.12.2006 in document No.BNG(U)YLNK-24569/2006-07 is void document, invalid in the eyes of law and not binding on the plaintiff?
13. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for declaration that sale deed dt:23.02.2011 in document No.BNG(U)BYP-5507/2010-11 is void document, invalid in the eyes of law and not binding on the plaintiff?
13O.S.No.7356/2016
14. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for declaration that sale deed dt:20.03.2009 in document No.BNG(U)BYP-4137/2008-09 is void document, invalid in the eyes of law and not binding on the plaintiff?
15. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for declaration that sale deed dt:21.04.2011 in document No.BNG(U)BYP-359/2011-12 is void document, invalid in the eyes of law and not binding on the plaintiff?
16. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for declaration that sale deed dt:05.07.2006 in document No.BNG(U)YLNK-7770/2006-07 is void document, invalid in the eyes of law and not binding on the plaintiff?
17. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for declaration that sale deed dt:24.09.2009 in document No.BNG(U)BYP-2013/2009-10 is void document, invalid in the eyes of law and not binding on the plaintiff?
18. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for declaration that sale deed dt:09.05.2011 in document No.BNG(U)BYP-00681/2011-12 is void document, 14 O.S.No.7356/2016 invalid in the eyes of law and not binding on the plaintiff?
19. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for declaration that gift deed dt:12.01.2015 in document No.GNR-1-03757/2014-15 is void document, invalid in the eyes of law and not binding on the plaintiff?
20. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for declaration that sale deed dt:03.06.2002 in document No.2850/2002-03 is void document, invalid in the eyes of law and not binding on the plaintiff?
21. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for declaration that sale deed dt:07.08.2014 in document No.BNG(U)BYP-1-01844/2014-15 is void document, invalid in the eyes of law and not binding on the plaintiff?
22. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for declaration that sale deed dt:02.04.2005 in document No.119/2005-06 is void document, invalid in the eyes of law and not binding on the plaintiff?
23. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled for declaration that sale deed dt:24.01.2011 in document No.4857/2010-11 is void document, invalid in the eyes of law and not binding on the plaintiff?
15O.S.No.7356/2016
24. Whether suit relief is properly valued and Court fee paid is insufficient?
25. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation?
26. Whether the suit is not maintainable under any provision of law?
27. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
28. Whether suit is not maintainable for want of cause of action?
29. Whether plaintiff is entitled for reliefs sought for?
30. What Order or Decree?
6. Despite sufficient opportunity plaintiff failed to examine himself or examine any witness on his behalf. Therefore, on 28.2.2022 plaintiff side evidence was taken as closed and the matter was posted for recording evidence by the defendants side.
7. On 22.3.2022 advocate for defendants No.3 and 4 filed memo stating that in view of not leading evidence by the plaintiff, suit may be dismissed.
8. After considering pleadings, documents material available on record, it is answered on the above Issues are as under:
Issues No.1 to 29: In the Negative Issue No.30 :As per final order for the following:16
O.S.No.7356/2016 REASONS
9. As per maxim actus incumbit onus probandi and as per Section 102 of Indian Evidence Act, burden is on the plaintiff to prove fact in issue. Issue No.1 to 29 casts burden of proof on the plaintiff. Plaintiff didn't appear before the court for examination.
10. ISSUES NO.1 TO 23:- Out of the issues get framed in this suit, issue No.1 in respect of proof of existence of undivided Hindu Joint Family governed by Mithakshara law of inheritance. Issues No.2 to 4 are in respect of establishing the fact that suit schedule properties are joint family properties and plaintiff is of the co-parcener to claim 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds. Issues No.5 to 23 are in respect of declaration to declare various sale deeds are void documents, invalid in the eyes of law and not binding on the plaintiff. To discharge the burden of proof, plaintiff made no effort to examine himself before the court as witness. Further plaintiff did not examine any witness on his behalf. Therefore, this court constraint to hold that plaintiff failed to establish the fact of existence of undivided Hindu Joint family comprised by the plaintiff and some of the defendants. Further plaintiff failed to establish the fact that suit schedule properties are joint family properties and he being the co-parcener is entitled to seek partition for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property. Further as there is no evidence available on record on behalf of plaintiff to test the legality, validity and binding nature of the sale deeds 17 O.S.No.7356/2016 dated 09.01.2014 in document No.BNG(U)BYP-1-6228/2013-14, dt:09.01.2014 in document No.BNG(U)BYP-1-06227/2013-14, dt:31.05.2002 in document No.BNG(U)YLNK-1-1767/2002-03, dt:03.05.2002 in document No.BNG(U)YLNK-1017-2002-03, dt:28.03.2003 in document No.BNG(U)YLNK-13736/2002-03, dt:17.01.2003 in document No.BNG(U)YLNK-10259/2002-03, dt:24.07.2002 in document No.BNG(U)YLNK-3603/2002-03, dt:13.12.2006 in document No.BNG(U)YLNK-24569/2006-07, dt:23.02.2011 in document No.BNG(U)BYP-5507/2010-11, dt:20.03.2009 in document No.BNG(U)BYP-4137/2008-09, dt:21.04.2011 in document No.BNG(U)BYP-359/2011-12, dt:05.07.2006 in document No.BNG(U)YLNK-7770/2006-07, dt:24.09.2009 in document No.BNG(U)BYP-2013/2009-10, dt:09.05.2011 in document No.BNG(U)BYP-00681/2011-12, gift deed dt:12.01.2015 in document No.GNR-1-03757/2014-15, sale deed dt:03.06.2002 in document No.2850/2002-03, dt:07.08.2014 in document No.BNG(U)BYP-1-01844/2014-15, dt:02.04.2005 in document No.119/2005-06, dt:24.01.2011 in document No.4857/2010-11, it is not possible to hold that aforesaid sale deeds are invalid sale deeds and gift deeds, void documents and not binding on the plaintiff. Therefore, Issues No.1 to 23 are answered in the Negative.
11. ISSUE NO.24:- Issue No.24 framed in respect of valuation of the suit relief and payment of court fee. There is no evidence let by the defendants side to establish the fact that the 18 O.S.No.7356/2016 plaintiff undervalued the suit reliefs and court fee paid by him is insufficient. There are no express provisions under Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act to hold that valuation made by the plaintiff as per valuation slip filed along with plaint are under valued and court fee paid on the plaint by the plaintiff is insufficient. Therefore, Issue No.24 is answered in the Negative.
12. ISSUE NO.25:- Issue No.25 is on the point of law of limitation. Plaintiff filed this suit seeking declaration and partition. Except filing written statement by the defendants No.3 and 4 no one appeared before the court to establish the fact and point of law of limitation prove the fact that suit relied sought by the plaintiff in this suit are barred by limitation. Therefore, Issue No.25 is answered in the negative.
13. ISSUE NO.26:-Issue No.26 is on the point of maintainability of the suit. Neither party made any effort to establish such provisions of law expressly barring the suit filed by the plaintiff. As there is no material available on record, this court constraint to hold that suit is maintainable and hence, Issue No.26 is answered in the negative.
14. ISSUE NO.27:-Issue No.27 is in respect of non- joinder of necessary parties. Though defendants No.3 and 4 raised the ground that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, defendants No.3 and 4 failed to appear before the court for examination to establish their contention that necessary parties 19 O.S.No.7356/2016 are not impleaded as defendants in this suit. In the absence of such evidence it is difficult to hold that suit filed by the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, Issue No.27 is answered in the negative.
15. ISSUE NO.28:-Issue No.28 is on the point of cause of action. As discussed above defendants did not appear before the court for examination to establish the fact that suit filed by the plaintiff lacks cause of action and hence liable to be dismissed. Therefore, Issue No.28 is answered in the negative.
16. ISSUE NO.29:- For the aforesaid reasons and in view of non-examination of plaintiff, this court is of the opinion that plaintiff is not entitled for any relief sought in this suit. Therefore, Issue No.29 is answered in the negative.
17. ISSUE NO.30:- Plaintiff filed this suit seeking declaration and partition. Defendants No.3 and 4 appeared through counsel and filed their written statement. Act of the plaintiff by filing suit made the defendants No.3 and 4 suffer both mentally and financially. Therefore, plaintiff shall bear the cost of the defendants No.3 and 4 also. Therefore, following order is made;
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with cost.
20O.S.No.7356/2016 Plaintiff shall bear the cost of the defendants No.3 and 4.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in open court on this 19 th day of April 2022).
(RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
NIL DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
NIL WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
-Nil-
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
-Nil-
(RAJESHWARA) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65) BENGALURU CITY. 21
O.S.No.7356/2016 19.04.2022 Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate Judgment.
ORDER Suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with cost.
Plaintiff shall bear the cost of the defendants No.3 and 4.
Draw decree accordingly.
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65) BENGALURU CITY.