Bangalore District Court
Michael Peters vs Percy Shantharaj on 19 September, 2024
KABC010110982009
IN THE COURT OF THE XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH.No.44), AT BENGALURU
PRESENT : SRI.BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN,
B.Com, LL.B.(Spl.)
XLIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU .
DATED: THIS THE 19 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2024
O.S.No.1155/2009
Plaintiff: Mr.Michael Peters
son of late Edwin
Jayaprasanna @Edwin Peters
Aged about 55 years
residing at No.34,
Hilliard Avenue,
Central Islip,
New York 11722
United States of America
and also at Old No.1,
New No.6, 6 th cross,
Cubbonpet,
Bengaluru -560053.
(By Sri.Mylaraiah
Associates- Advocate)
2 O.S.No.1155 of 2009
-VS-
Defendants: 1. Mr.Percy Shantharaj,
Since dead by his L.Rs
1(a) Vanitha Percy,
Aged about 70 years
Wife of late Percy Shantharaj
Residing at No.118,
6 th cross, 1 st stage,
B.V.Mohalla,
Mysore-22.(died abated as
no legal heirs)
2. Mrs.Mary Peters
(Since dead)
Wife of late Edwin
Jayaprasanna @ Edwin
Peters,
Aged about 84 years,
residing at care of Bishop
& Mrs.Sampath Kumar
201, Fair Court,
9/1 Myrtle Lane,
Richmond Town,
Bengaluru -560025.
3. Mrs.Dorothy Sampath Kumar
Daughter of late Edwin
Jayaprasanna @ Edwin
Peters,
Aged about 62 years,
residing at care of
Bishop & Mrs.Sampath
Kumar,
3 O.S.No.1155 of 2009
201, Fair Court,
9/1 Myrtle Lane
Richmond Town,
Bengaluru -560025.
(Deft.1(a): Sri.N.V. advocate
Deft.2 & 3 - Ex-parte)
Date of Institution of the : 13.02.2009
suit
Nature of the Suit : Partition & Separate
possession
Date of commencement of : 24.01.2019
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 19.09.2024
was pronounced
Total Duration : Years Months Days
15 07 06
(BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN)
XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
J U D G M E N T
That, plaintiff has filed this suit for partition & separate possession of the suit schedule property 4 O.S.No.1155 of 2009 claiming 1/3 rd share & also for declaration that Will dated 20.10.1990 is not binding on the plaintiff.
2) The relevant facts for the purpose of adjudication of suit are succinctly enumerated as follows :-
a. The plaintiff submits that one Gavi Rangayya was the owner of the property bearing residential house municipal Old No.1, New No.6, situated at 6 th cross, Cubbonpet, Bengaluru, measuring East to West:43 feet and North to South: 38 feet. Gavi Rangayya had four sons viz., (1) Rangayya Samuel, (2) Rangayya Puttaraj, (3) Rangayya Puttaswamy and (4) Rangayya Danappa. Plaintiff submits that there was a division in the family of Gavi Rangayya as per registered Partition Deed dated 18.09.1925 and in the said partition, the suit schedule property fell to the share of Rangayya Puttaraj. The plaintiff submits that Rangayya Puttaraj was in possession & enjoyment of 5 O.S.No.1155 of 2009 the suit property and his name was also mutated as per the partition effected in the family.
b. The plaintiff submits that Rangayya Puttaraj died on 02.12.1957 leaving behind him Mrs. Beatrice Puttaraj - wife, Christina Violet Peters- daughter and two sons (1)Edwin Jayaparasanna @ Edwin Peters and (2) P.G.Emmanuel. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that Beatrice Puttaraj wife of Rangayya Puttaraj died leaving behind her two sons and a daughter. As such, Edwin Jayaprasanna @ Edwin Peters and P.G.Emmanuel and Christina Violet Peters have inherited the suit property which was allotted to Rangayya Puttaraj in the partition effected as per Partition Deed dated 18.09.1925.
c. It is submitted by the plaintiff that Edwin Peter @ Edwin Jayaprasanna died on 08.06.1969 leaving behind him his wife Mary Peters-the 2 nd defendant and daughter Dorothy Sampath Kumar- 3 rd 6 O.S.No.1155 of 2009 defendant and Micheal Peters-the plaintiff herein. It is submitted by the plaintiff that plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 have inherited the share of Edwin Peters in the schedule property.
d. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that P.G.Emmanuel was married, but he got divorced from his wife. It is specifically pleaded that P.G.Emmanuel died on 11.03.1985 and he is survived by legal heirs of his deceased brother Edwin Peters and sister Christina Violet Peters. Therefore, the plaintiff contended that plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 together had ½ share and Christina Violet Petera had ½ share in the suit schedule property.
e. It is submitted by the plaintiff that Christina Violet Peters was married to I.S. Peters and her husband died prior to the death of Christina Violet Peters. It is submitted by the plaintiff that Christina Violet Peters died intestate on 09.08.1991 at 7 O.S.No.1155 of 2009 Bengaluru, she left no lineal descendants and plaintiff & defendants 2, 3 are her legal heirs. It is specifically submitted that Christina Violet Petera died intestate and there was no occasion for her to have any relationship with the 1 st defendant & to execute any testamentary document. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 is a stranger to the family of the plaintiff, so also to Christina Violet Peters and he has created document by manipulating & playing fraud. It is submitted by the plaintiff that Christina Violet Peters was not having good health two years prior to her death, & she was suffering from Dementia. It is submitted by the plaintiff that 1 st defendant by misrepresenting and also by undue influence, got executed WILL dated 20.10.1990 in his favour which is registered in the offi ce of Sub-Registrar offi ce, Mysore. It is submitted by the plaintiff that WILL dated 8 O.S.No.1155 of 2009 20.10.1990 is not a valid document and as such, no right, title or interest has passed to 1 st defendant.
f. The plaintiff submits that 1 st defendant having no right, title or possession over the property, started coming near to the suit schedule property along with real estate agents and made hectic efforts to alienate the property stating that he is the owner of the schedule property as per WILL dated 20.10.1990. It is submitted by the plaintiff that one S.V.Swamy, s/o. G.Shridharappa is in occupation of the suit schedule property as caretaker on behalf of the plaintiff and 1 st defendant disclosed about registered WILL with him. It is submitted by plaintiff that 1 st defendant has also obtained khatha in his name from BBMP, Bengaluru in respect of schedule property based upon the probate. After coming to know about these fact, the plaintiff found that at no point of time they had any occasion of receiving any court notices that too particularly in the 9 O.S.No.1155 of 2009 proceedings of probate under which the 1 st defendant claims a probate has been issued in his name in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff submits that 1 st defendant is threatening to dispossess the plaintiff and hence the plaintiff has filed this suit for partition & separate possession of the suit schedule property claiming 1/3 rd share and also to declare that WILL dated 20.10.1990 is not binding upon the plaintiff.
3) In response to the summons, defendants 2 and 3 have not appeared and they are placed Ex-parte. Defendant No.1 appeared and filed written statement. Gist of the contention taken by the defendant No.1 are as under :-
a. Defendant No.1 in the written statement has admitted that property was owned by Gavi Rangayya and in the family effected as per partition dated 18.09.1925 property has been allotted to the share of Rangaiah Puttaraju. The defendant No.1 has admitted 10 O.S.No.1155 of 2009 that plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 are the wife, son and daughter of Edwin Peters who was son of Rangayya Puttaraj. The defendant No.1 has also admitted that P.G.Emmanuel was son of Rangayya Puttaraj and he got divorced from his 1 st wife. The defendant No.1 has also admitted that Christina Violet Peters is the daughter of Rangayya Puttaraj and after the death of Rangayya Puttaraj, Edwin Peters, P.G.Emmanuel and Christina Violet Peters have inherited the suit schedule property.
b. The defendant No.1 however contended that plaintiff had filed O.S.No.219 of 1971 claiming partition & separate possession of the suit property and they have received their share in the form of money by relinquishing their rights in favour of P.G.Emmanuel and Christina Violet Peters. It is submitted by the defendant No.1 that one J.Vimala Grace filed O.S.No.1813 of 1993 claiming that she is the wife of 11 O.S.No.1155 of 2009 P.G.Emmanuel and one James is the son of P.G.Emmanuel. The defendant No.1 contended that he has been brought on record as legal heir of Christina Violet Peters in the said suit.
c. Defendant No.1 submits that Christina Violet Peters has executed a WILL dated 20.10.1990 in his favour bequeathing suit property. The defendant No.1 submits that he is the son-in-law of Rangayya Danappa and he is the husband of D.Vanitha. So he has contended that he is related to the family and he has claimed right over the suit property by way of registered WILL dated 20.10.1990 executed by Christina Violet Peters which is binding upon the plaintiff. It is submitted by the defendant No.1 that P.G.Emmanuel got divorce from his wife Saroja and he died intestate and as such, his share is also inherited by Christina Violet Peters and therefore, the present suit for partition is not maintainable. 12 O.S.No.1155 of 2009
d. The defendant No.1 contended that the plaintiff and defendants 2 & 3 have fraudulently obtained Letter of Administration from the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as per order passed in Probate C.P.No.3 of 1993. It is submitted by the defendant No.1 that he had filed Probate C.P.No.14 of 1993 for revocation of Letter of Administration granted in favour of the plaintiff, defendants 2 & 3 and as per Judgment, dated 15.06.2001, Probate C.P.No.14/1993 came to be allowed and Letter of Administration granted in favour of plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 has been revoked. Therefore, defendant No.1 contended that plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 herein have lost their claim to the suit schedule property in O.S.No.219 of 1971 and in Probate C.P.No.14 of 1993 and they are not having any right over the suit schedule property. Since defendant No.1 is the testamentary heir of Christina Violet Peters, 13 O.S.No.1155 of 2009 defendant No.1 prayed that suit be dismissed with costs.
4) On the basis of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced, the following issues are framed by my predecessor in offi ce:-
1. Whether plaintiff proves that he has undivided interest in 1/3rd share in the suit property by inheriting the same through succession?
2. Whether defendant No.1 proves that plaintiffs have received money in lieu of their share along with defendant No.2 and 3 who were parties in O.S.No.219/1971 and have lost their rights in the suit schedule property?
3. Whether defendant No.1 proves that Mrs. C.V. Peters has executed a Registered Will dated 20/10/1990 in his favour?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition and for declaration as 14 O.S.No.1155 of 2009 prayed?
5. What order?
5) In order to prove the burden cast upon the plaintiff to prove above issues, the plaintiff got himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked 7 documents. The original defendant No.1 died during the pendency of suit and his wife is brought on record. The GPA holder of original defendant No.1(a) by name Denial Vijay got himself examined as D.W.1 and except GPA, he has not produced any document. D.W.1 was recalled for further -examination, however defendant No.1(a) also died during the pendency of the suit, the GPA holder cannot represent her further and as such, application filed for recall of D.W.1 for further examination was rejected as infructuous. It is also clear from the records that except defendant No.1(a), deceased defendant No.1 had no other heirs.
15 O.S.No.1155 of 2009
6) The learned counsels for both parties have not addressed the court on merits.
7) Perused pleadings, available documents on record, my findings on the above issues are:-
Issue No.1: In the Affi rmative
Issue No.2: In the Negative
Issue No.3: In the Negative
Issue No.4: Plaintiff is entitled for the
relief claimed
Issue No.5: As per final order,
for the following:-
REASONS
8) Issues No.1 to 3:- Since these issues are
inter connected to each other and with regard to right of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, hence they have been dealt together, but separate finding is given on each issue.
9) That, plaintiff has filed this suit for partition & separate possession of the suit property as he is the legal heir of Edwin Peters, P.G.Emmanuel and Christina 16 O.S.No.1155 of 2009 Violet Peters. The defendant No.1 has appeared and set up a claim over the schedule property through WILL dated 20.10.1990 executed by Christina Violet Peters. The defendant No.1 has also contended that as per compromise decree passed in O.S.No.219 of 1971, plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 are not having any right over the suit schedule property. The admitted facts in this suit are as under:-
(i) The suit property is allotted to the share of Rangayya Puttaraj as per registered Partition Deed dated 18.09.1925.
(ii) Rangayya Puttaraj had two sons by name Edwin Jayaprasanna @ Edwin Peters, P.G.Emmanuel and a daughter Christina Violet Peters.
(iii) Edwin Peters died intestate leaving behind def.No.2- Mary Peters-wife, plaintiff and defendant No.3 children.
(iv) P.G.Emmanuel died issueless and intestate.
(v) Defendant No.2 died during the pendency of the suit leaving behind her the plaintiff and defendant No.2.
(vi) Christina Violet Peters died on 09.08.1991. 17 O.S.No.1155 of 2009
(vii) Her husband I.S.Peters predeceased her and she had no issues.
The dispute between the parties to the suit is regarding WILL executed by Christina Violet Peters on 20.10.1990.
10) With this admitted and disputed facts, I have perused the oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties in detail. The plaintiff who is examined as P.W.1 has produced the Partition Deed through which Rangayya Puttaraj had acquired the suit property. The plaintiff has also produced the document showing that Christina Violet Peters, Edwin Peters and P.G.Emmanuel died as stated in the plaint. The present khatha is standing in the name of the 1 st defendant as per Ex.P7 registered WILL dated 20.10.1990. DW-1 GPA holder of deceased defendant No.1 has not produced any document except General Power of Attorney.
11) The defendant No.1 has admitted the relationship. Under the provision of Indian Succession 18 O.S.No.1155 of 2009 Act, after the death of Rangayya Puttaraj, his wife and children have inherited the property. Edwin Peters died on 08.06.1969 intestate leaving behind def.No.2- Mary Peters-wife, plaintiff and defendant No.3 children. After the death of Beatrice Puttaraj on 02.12.1976, as per section 40 of Indian Succession Act her son P.G. Emmanuel, daughter Christina, plaintiff, def.No.2 and 3 will inherit the share of Beatrice.
12) The defendant No.1 claim that plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 have filed O.S.No.219 of 1971 claiming partition and in the said suit, they have relinquished their right in the schedule property. However, to prove this aspect, defendant No.1/ D.W.1 has not produced any document. On 24.03.2021, Judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Probate C.P.No.14/1993 dated 15.06.2001 is produced and since it is a certified copy of the Judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, court can take 19 O.S.No.1155 of 2009 note of the same without it being marked by the parties. On perusal of Judgment, it is clearly mentioned at page-17 that in Probate C.P.No.14 of 1993, compromise petition filed in O.S.No.219 of 1971 is produced at Ex-P3 which makes it clear that the plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 herein have relinquished their share in the suit schedule property. It is held in O.S.No.219 of 1971 that defendants of that suit i.e., Beatrice Puttaraj, P.G.Emmanuel and Christina Violet Peters are the absolute owners of the suit property. So it is clear from Judgment in Probate C.P.No.14 of 1993 that plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 have relinquished their right over the suit property. It is to be noted here that right which the plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 have relinquished as per O.S.No.219 of 1971 is the right which they acquired as legal heir of Edwin Peters @ Edwin Jayaprasanna. It is clear from the Judgment of Probate C.P.No.14 of 1993 that by compromise decree, 20 O.S.No.1155 of 2009 Christina Violet Peters, Beatrice Puttaraj and P.G.Emmanuel have become owners of the suit property.
13) Beatrice Puttaraj died intestate and after her death, as per section 40 of Indian Succession Act her share in the suit schedule property will devolve upon P.G.Emmanuel, Christina Violet Peters and plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 being the legal heirs of predeceased son of Beatrice Puttaraj. So, once again when Beatrice Puttaraj died, the plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 have acquired share in the suit schedule property. P.G.Emmanuel died leaving behind him his sister Christina Violet Peters and plaintiff, defendant No.3 children of his brother and as such, as per section 47 of Indian Succession Act, his share is also once again devolved upon the plaintiff and defendant No.3. This being the case, soon after death of Beatrice Puttaraju, and P.G.Emmanuel under the provisions of 21 O.S.No.1155 of 2009 Indian Succession Act, Christina Violet Peters had half share and plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 together had half share. Hence in my considered view, though plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 have relinquished their right over the suit property, as per the O.S.No.219 of 1971 (i.e., share of Edwin Peters) in view of death of Beatrice Puttaraj and P.G.Emmanuel, once again they have acquired right in the suit property by way of inheritance.
14) Now the question for consideration is whether share of Christina Violet Peters is inherited by 1 st defendant as testamentary heir or by plaintiff & defendant No.3 as children of brother. The defendant No.1 claimed that Christina Violet Peters had executed a registered WILL in his favour as per WILL dated 20.10.1990. As per Sec.48 of Indian Succession Act, plaintiff, defendant No.3 being children of brother are kindred and as such, they are the natural heirs of 22 O.S.No.1155 of 2009 Christina Violet Peters. If the 1 st defendant is able to prove the due attestation & execution of the WILL then only, her share will go to 1 st defendant. Otherwise, plaintiff and defendant No.3 will inherit the share of Christina Violet Peters and become the owners of the property to the extent of her 1/2 share also. So, it is necessary for defendant No.1 to prove due attestation & execution of the WILL.
15) Let me analyze the evidence adduced regarding execution & attestation of Will. It is mentioned in plaint as well as written statement that WILL dated 20.10.1990 has been probated. However, probate certificate is not produced before this court. The attesting witnesses to WILL dated 20.10.1990 were also not examined before this court. If written statement of defendant No.1 is considered, he has not mentioned in which case probate has been issued in his favour. The written statement refers to Probate 23 O.S.No.1155 of 2009 C.P.No.3 of 1993 and Probate C.P.No.14 of 1993. Except these two Probate Civil petitions, no other probate proceedings are referred in the written statement. I have perused the order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Probate C.P.No.14 of 1993 passed on 15.06.2001. This Probate Civil Petition is filed by 1 st defendant for revocation of Letter of Administration granted in favour of plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3. It is important to note here that as per order passed in Probate C.P.No.3 of 1993, Hon'ble High Court has issued Letter of Administration to the plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 herein. The Probate C.P.No.14 of 1993 is filed for revocation of the Letter of Administration and Hon'ble High Court by Judgment dated 15.06.2001 has allowed the Probate C.P.No.14 of 1993 & Letter of Administration granted in favour of plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 herein has been revoked. However, Hon'ble High Court has made it clear that 24 O.S.No.1155 of 2009 revocation of Letter of Administration will not automatically confirm any right to petitioner- defendant No.1 herein as per WILL dated 20.10.1990. The order portion is extracted hereunder:-
1. The letters of Administration granted to the respondents by this Court in Probate C.P.No.3/93 by an Order dt.2/16.4.1993 is hereby recalled and the respondents herein are called upon to establish their right for grant of Letters of Administration in the presence of the petitioner herein;
2. The letters of Administration granted to the respondents by this court in Probate C.P.No.3/93 is hereby revoked and it is directed to be delivered upto the court;
3. It is however made clear that the order of revocation of Letters of Administration granted to the respondents by this Court in Probate C.P.no.3/93, will not or does not automatically confer any right upon the petitioner under the WILL Ex.P6 i.e., it does not per se create any right in favour of the petitioner and that it only enables him for issue of citation and to be impleaded as a party respondent to the proceedings for issue of letters of Administration which is to be reopened now;
4. It is further made clear that if the petitioner so desires, he shall get the WILL Ex.P6 probated in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act in order to establish his right as a legatee under the WILL. 25 O.S.No.1155 of 2009
The petition filed by the petitioner is accordingly disposed of in the manner as indicated above. But in the circumstances of the cases, there is no order as to costs.
16) It is clear from the order passed in Probate C.P.14 of 1993 by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka that no probate is issued in favour of the 1 st defendant, and only Letter of Administration is revoked. Para-4 of the order portion makes it clear that petitioner (defendant No.1 herein) so desires, he shall get the WILL probated in accordance with the Indian Succession Act in order to establish his right as legatee under the WILL. No such proceedings have been initiated by defendant No.1 as could be seen from records and pleadings to get probate of WILL dated 20.10.1990. Before this court also, original WILL is not produced, nor probate certificate is produced, nor attesting witnesses are examined to comply with provisions of Section 66 of Indian Succession Act. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the decision 26 O.S.No.1155 of 2009 reported in 2008(3) KCCR 1484 J T Surappa Vs. Satchidhanandendra Saraswathi & other has held that Will to be valid, should be reduced into writing, signed by the testator and shall be attested by two or more witnesses and at least one attesting witnesses shall be examined. If these legal requirements are not found, in the eye of law there is no Will at all. Therefore, the first step is that if the documents produced before the Court prima facie do not satisfy these legal requirements, the Court need not make any further enquiry, in so far as its due execution is concerned and can negative a claim based on the said document. In this case also, since probate is not produced, nor attesting witnesses are examined, in my considered view, defendant No.1 has failed to prove that Christina Violet Peters has executed a registered WILL in his favour as per WILL dated 20.10.1990. This 27 O.S.No.1155 of 2009 being the case, in my considered view, plaintiff and defendant No.3 are the legal heirs of deceased Christina Violet Peters and P.G.Emmanuel as per Sec.40 & 48 of Indian Succession Act. Since testamentary is document is not proved, as per the procedure established by law, the claim of defendant No.1 over the suit property is not sustainable. Therefore, in my considered opinion, defendant No.1 has failed to prove that Christina Violet Peters has executed WILL in his favour on 20.10.1990.
17) As observed above, though the plaintiffs have relinquished their right in the suit property, as per O.S.No.219 of 1971, which they acquired from their father Edwin Peters, in view of death of Christina Violet Peters and P.G.Emmanuel, the plaintiff & defendant No.3 being the kindred -children of brother have inherited the share of Christina Violet Peters and P.G.Emmanuel under Section 40 & 48 of Indian 28 O.S.No.1155 of 2009 Succession Act. This being the case, the plaintiff and defendant No.3 have acquired half share each in the suit schedule property. With this observation, I answer issue No.1 in the Affi rmative holding that plaintiff is having 1/2 share in the suit schedule property and issue Nos. 2 and 3 are answered in the Negative.
18) Issue No.4:- This issue is framed with regard to entitlement of relief claimed. While answering issue Nos. 1 to 3, I have concluded that plaintiff and defendant No.3 herein have become owners of the suit schedule property to the extent of 1/2 share each. The plaintiff has sought for partition and since the 1 st defendant has failed to establish his right over the suit property by testamentary document- registered WILL dated 20.10.1990, in my considered opinion, plaintiff and defendant No.3 are entitled for partition of the suit schedule property. Since the WILL dated 20.10.1990 is not proved, same is also not 29 O.S.No.1155 of 2009 binding upon the plaintiff. Apart from this, even if WILL was proved, then it is pertaining to half share of Christina Violet Peters only and the same is not binding upon the share of the P.G.Emmanuel which plaintiff have inherited as the children of brother under Section 40 & 48 of Indian Succession Act. Therefore, in my considered opinion, plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
19) Issue No.5:- In view of the discussions and conclusion arrived at issue Nos.1 to 4, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be decreed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed. It is ordered and decreed that plaintiff is having 1/2 share in the suit schedule property.30 O.S.No.1155 of 2009
It is ordered and decreed that defendant No.3 is also having 1/2 share in the suit schedule property.
It is further ordered and decreed that WILL dated 20.10.1990 is not binding upon the plaintiff.
The suit property being non-
agricultural land is ordered to be divided by appointing a Court Commissioner under the provisions of Order XVI CPC.
Parties to bear their own cost.
Draw preliminary decree
accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 19 th day of September, 2024.) (BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN) XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff:-
P.W.1 Micheal Peters
II. List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendants:-
31 O.S.No.1155 of 2009
D.W.1 Danial Vijay
III. List of documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiffs:-
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of Partition Deed Ex.P.2 Acknowledgement issued by bbmp Ex.P.3 Death extract Ex.P.4 Death extract Ex.P.5 Khatha certificate Ex.P6 Khatha extract Ex.P7 Certified copy of the WILL IV, List of documents exhibited on behalf of defendants:
Ex.D1 Power of attorney (BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN) XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Judgment pronounced in open court(vide separate order) ORDER 32 O.S.No.1155 of 2009 The suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
It is ordered and
decreed that plaintiff is
having 1/2 share in the suit
schedule property.
It is ordered and
decreed that defendant
No.3 is also having 1/2 share
in the suit schedule
property.
It is further ordered and
decreed that WILL dated
20.10.1990 is not binding
upon the plaintiff.
The suit property being
non-agricultural land is
ordered to be divided by
appointing a Court
Commissioner under the
provisions of Order XVI CPC.
Parties to bear their
own cost.
Draw preliminary
decree accordingly.
XLIII ACC&SJ, Bengaluru.
33 O.S.No.1155 of 2009