Bangalore District Court
Smt.N. Shanthakumari vs ) Sri N. Raju on 27 February, 2023
KABC010186902015
IN THE COURT OF THE X ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-26)
Dated this the 27th day of February 2023
Present
Smt.SAVITRI SHIVAPUTRA KUJJI, B.Com., LL.B.(Spl.),
X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No.7074/2015
Plaintiff: Smt.N. Shanthakumari
d/o Late M. Narayanaswamy
w/o R. Subramani
Aged about 49 years
R/at No.223, Kashinagar
Amruthalli, Byatarayanapura
Bangalore-560 092.
(By Sri. S. Srinivasamurthy, Adv.)
Vs.
Defendants: 1) Sri N. Raju
(Since dead by his LRs)
(a) Smt.Rajeshwari
w/o Late N. Raju
Aged about 58 years
(b) Smt.R. Vanitha
d/o Late N. Raju
Aged about 38 years
(c) Sri R. Lokesh
s/o Late N. Raju
Aged about 35 years
(d) Smt.R. Savitha
d/o Late N. Raju
Aged about 32 years
All are r/at No.319, HGH Layout
Bellary Road, Ganganagar
Bangalore-560 032.
2 O.S.No.7074/2015
2) Sri. N. Adimurthy
(deleted as per order dtd:02.12.2021)
3) Sri N. Kantharaju
s/o Late M. Narayanaswamy
Aged about 52 years
R/at No.29/1 (Western Portion)
4th Main, Lakshminarayanapuram
Bangalore-560 021.
4) Sri N. Chandrashekar
s/o Late M. Narayanaswamy
Aged about 50 years
R/at No.29/1 (Western Portion)
4th Main, Lakshminarayanapuram
Bangalore-560 021.
5) Sri N. Venkatesh
s/o Late M. Narayanaswamy
Aged about 47 years
R/at No.354, 11th 'A' Cross
Sarakki 1st Phase, J.P. Nagar
Bangalore-560 078.
6) Smt.Sowbhagyalakshmi
d/o Late Subbulakshmi and
Grand daughter of late
M. Narayanaswamy
Aged about 45 years
R/at No.14, 2nd Cross
5th Main, S.R. Nagar
Bangalore-560 027.
7) Smt.A. Niramala
(deleted as per order dtd:02.12.2021)
8) Smt.A. Prathibha
(deleted as per order dtd:02.12.2021)
9) Sri A. Umesha
s/o Late Lakshmikantha and
Grand-son of late
M. Narayanaswamy
Aged about 40 years
10) Smt.Bhavana
d/o Late Lakshmikantha
and grand-daughter of
late M. Narayanaswamy
3 O.S.No.7074/2015
w/o Preetham
Aged about 35 years
D.9 & 10 are r/at c/o N. Ananda Murthy
No. 48, 7th Cross, 5th Main
Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560 003.
11) Smt.N. Padamavathi
d/o Late M. Narayanaswamy
w/o R. Lakshminarasimha
Aged about 64 years
R/at No.1, 9th Cross
4th Main, S.R. Nagar
Bangalore-27.
12) Smt.N. Munirathnamma
d/o Late M. Narayanaswamy
w/o R. Shankaranarayana
(Since dead by her Lrs)
(a) Sri S.Janardhan
s/o Late Munirathnamma, N
Aged about 42 years
(b) Smt.S. Hemalatha
d/o Late Munirathnamma, N
Aged about 40 years
D.12(a) & (b) are r/at No.82
2nd Main, Muniramanna Block
Ganganagar, Bangalore-32.
13) Smt.N. Jayalakshmi
d/o Late M. Narayanaswamy
w/o Sri M. Ramaswamy
Aged about 57 years
R/at No.11, 6th Cross
Vijaya Bank Colony
Banasawadi
Bangalore-560 043.
(By Sri B.K. Sudarshan Krishna, Adv.
For D.3; D.4 & 5 and D.1(a) to (d) by
Sri Y.A. Nagaraj, Adv.; Sri B.L.
Nandakumar, Adv. For D.6, 9 to 11 &
13; D.12(a) & (b) placed exparte)
Date of institution of the suit 13.08.2015
4 O.S.No.7074/2015
Nature of the suit For partition and separate
possession
Date of the commencement
of recording of evidence 26.06.2019
Date on which the judgment
Pronounced 27.02.2023
Total duration Years Months Days
07 06 14
(SAVITRI SHIVAPUTRA KUJJI)
X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for the relief of partition and separate possession with respect to her 1/14th share in the schedule properties.
2. The brief facts leading to the plaintiff's case are summarized as under:-
That the subject matter of the suit is detailed in the schedule of the plaint which initially consisted of item Nos.1 to 6 properties. Item No.1 property was initially said to be a house property bearing Corporation No.50/1 situate at Kabbanpet, Bengaluru measuring 33x34 feets which was however subsequently got deleted by the plaintiff in view of settlement arrived at with defendant No.2 with respect to this property and in view of deletion of this property from the proceeding she also got deleted names of defendant Nos.2, 7 & 8 and continued her suit with respect to other properties against other defendants. Item No.2 is also said to be a house property bearing Corporation No.319 situate at HGH Layout, Ganganagar, Bengaluru 5 O.S.No.7074/2015 measuring east-west 80 feets and north-south 50 feets, item No.3 property is bearing Corporation No.29/4 situate at L.N. Puram, Bengaluru measuring east-west (75+68)/2 feets and north-south (35+33)/2 feets, item No.4 is said to be a house property bearing Corporation No.29/1 western portion situate at L.N. Puram, Bengaluru measuring east-west 32 feets and north-south 34 feets, item No.5 of the schedule is said to be house property bearing Corporation No.29/1 eastern portion situate at L.N. Puram measuring east-west 36 feets on the northern side and 30 feets on the southern side and north-south 30 feets and item No.6 of the schedule property is a house property said to be bearing Corporation No.354 situate at Sarakki, J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru measuring east-west 30 feets and north-south 40 feets. The plaintiff and defendants are said to be the legal heirs of successors of the propositus late M. Narayanaswamy who are Hindus and the family tree is also annexed to the plaint. The propositus M. Narayanaswamy said to have died on 28.11.1998 and his wife Smt.Sampangamma said to have pre-deceased him in the year 1994 and they said to have left behind them the plaintiff and the defendants as their legal heirs to succeed to the schedule properties and they are said to be constituting a Hindu joint family. It is stated that late Narayanaswamy was carrying on silk business along with his children and acquired one property to his share under a registered partition deed dated 04.11.1968 and the property in schedule item No.1 and the partition effected between himself and his late brother M. Ramadas. It is further stated that the said Narayanaswamy acquired even item Nos.2 to 6 properties in his name and in the names of his sons and also developed the same out of the joint efforts of the plaintiff and the defendants by utilizing the income derived from the item No.1 property and as such all the parties said to have contributed for 6 O.S.No.7074/2015 the acquisition and development of all the suit schedule properties out of their sweat and blood. The plaintiff has further stated that joint family affairs were managed by late propositus Narayanaswamy during his lifetime and that after his death before the management was taken over by defendant No.1, three of his sons N. Narayana, N. Jayaram and N. Shanthakumar got themselves released from the joint family by taking their respective shares under a registered partition deed dated 11.03.1999 by leaving the remaining properties of the joint family i.e., the suit item Nos.1 to 6 properties to the joint shares of plaintiff and defendants and thereafter the plaintiff and defendants said to have continued to enjoy the schedule properties under the management of N. Raju- the defendant No.1. Thus according to the plaintiff the suit properties jointly belonged to herself as well as the defendants and all are said to be in their joint possession.
However the plaintiff has alleged that when she requested defendant Nos.1 to 5 to effect partition on 01.01.2014 in the suit properties though they had first conceded to her request and to give her share, but they did not comply with their assurance for about 6 months and again on 15.08.2014 she approached them and again they said to have assured of effecting partition by the end of December 2014, but thereafter again they alleged to have failed to keep up their promise and therefore once again on 05.07.2015 in a family function arranged by defendant No.5, they alleged to have disclosed about the partition with respect to suit properties already been effected amongst them in the year 2001 itself and therefore they refused to give her share. It is further alleged that thereafter the defendant Nos.1 to 5 failed to give her proper explanation for not including her in the alleged division and subsequently the plaintiff said to have come to know about the existence of an illegal and sham document entered into between 7 O.S.No.7074/2015 defendant Nos.1 to 5 styled as a registered partition deed dated 01.03.2001 to which she was not at all a party and hence she has alleged that the said partition deed is not binding on her which is the result of the active collusion and fraudulent acts on the part of the defendant Nos.1 to 5. It is further alleged that even defendant Nos.1 to 5 have got changed the khatha into their names on the strength of the said partition deed of 2001 and therefore as the defendant Nos.1 to 5 have failed to divide the schedule properties by heeding to her request, she has been compelled to file the present suit seeking her share in the suit properties as all these schedule properties are their joint family properties. As stated supra, during the pendency of the proceeding she got deleted schedule item No.1 property from the plaint schedule in view of the compromise said to have been entered into between herself and defendant No.2 with respect to this property and accordingly she also got deleted the names of defendant Nos.2, 7 & 8 from the proceeding and proceeded with respect to other properties and against the other defendants.
3. In pursuance of service of suit summons, defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6 and 9 to 13 appeared through their respective counsels. On account of death of defendant No.12 during pendency of the proceeding, her legal heirs are also brought on record as defendant No.12(a) and (b) who have however not contested the matter and remained exparte. The defendant No.1 filed his written statement denying the claim of the plaintiff. At the very out-set he has questioned the very maintainability of the present suit filed by the plaintiff and alleged that the plaintiff, defendant Nos.2, 3 & 6 to 13 have colluded with each other. It is contended by defendant No.1 that except suit item No.1 property the rest of the schedule properties are in their joint family 8 O.S.No.7074/2015 properties. It is further contended that these properties were not purchased out of joint family funds. On the contrary he has asserted his absolute ownership and possession over item No.2 of the schedule property contending that they were purchased by him out of his own funds which was allotted to him by the BDA under a registered sale deed dated 31.01.1997. He has further contended that item No.3 of the schedule property was originally purchased by his brother N. Jayaram under a registered sale deed dated 06.02.1992 and was also allotted to defendant No.1 in the registered partition deed dated 01.03.2001. As regards item Nos.4 & 5 of the schedule properties, it is contended by defendant No.1 that these properties are the individual acquisition of defendant No.2 and item No.6 of the schedule property is said to be the individual acquisition of defendant No.4 under different sale deeds, but they were said to have been allotted to defendant Nos.3 to 5 respectively under the registered partition deed dated 01.03.2001. The maintainability of the suit is also questioned by defendant No.1 on the ground that it is bad for not impleading of the necessary and proper parties to the suit. It is contended that one deceased Narayanaswamy has eight sons i.e., late N. Narayana, defendant No.1, N. Jayaram, D.2, N. Shanthakumar, N. Kantharaju (D.3), D.4 and D.5 and six daughters i.e., one N. Subbalakshmi who is dead, represented by defendant No.6- her legal heir, one Smt.N. Lakshmikantha since dead represented by her legal heirs D.7 to 10, Smt.N. Padmavathi(D.11), Smt.N. Munirathnamma (D.12), N. Jayalakshmi (D.13) and the plaintiff, out of whom late N. Narayana, N. Jayaram and N. Shanthakumar are not made as parties to the present suit for which the suit is not maintainable. He has also questioned the maintainability of the suit for non-inclusion of all the family properties i.e., property No.174 of Ganganagar, Bengaluru which was bought by N. 9 O.S.No.7074/2015 Narayanaswamy the propositus of the plaintiff and defendants under a registered sale deed dated 30.03.1962, property bearing new No.3 old No.21 of Vinayaka Nagar, Bengaluru, bought by defendant No.3 under a registered sale deed dated 22.09.1988 and for non-inclusion of these properties the suit is sought to be dismissed. The defendant No.1 has also contended that the plaintiff has not disclosed her pre-existing right over all the items of suit properties in the plaint and has not disclosed the source of income from which item Nos.2 to 6 of the schedule properties were acquired. The maintainability of the suit is also questioned on the ground that it is barred by limitation on the ground that defendant No.1 and his brothers have partitioned their property under two registered partition deeds dated 11.03.1999 and 01.03.2001 which was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff and other family members and therefore the suit filed in the year 2015 is said to be barred by limitation. It is also contended that even the declaratory relief regarding the partition deed of 2001 is sought for after expiry of 12 years from the date of execution of the said deed. It is further contended that the propositus Narayanaswamy died on 28.11.1998 and as such he was not living as on the date of commencement of the Amended Hindu Succession Act 2005 and the suit filed by the plaintiff in collusion with other defendants is not maintainable. It is further contended that the payment of Court fee on the suit reliefs is also insufficient and on this count also the suit is sought to be dismissed. It is further denied by defendant No.1 that the schedule properties were acquired out of the joint family nucleus as their father was doing silk business and was getting income etc. It is contended that item No.1 property was merely a residential property in which all the sons and daughters of propositus were residing and as such this property was not fetching any income. He has further 10 O.S.No.7074/2015 denied that all the family members as well as plaintiff had contributed for acquisition of the schedule property. Even he has denied the participation of the daughters including the plaintiff in the family business as claimed by her. It is contended that during the lifetime of Narayanaswamy he took care of the joint family and after his death all his sons were looking after their individual families out of their own earnings and therefore the claim of the plaintiff that after the death of the father this defendant No.1 started managing the affairs of the family is denied. The claim of the plaintiff that late Narayana, N. Jayaram and N. Shanthakumar got themselves released from the joint family by taking their respective shares under the partition deed dated 1999 by leaving the remaining properties in the joint family is however partly admitted by defendant No.1. It is his contention that in the said partition deed, the said persons entered into understanding by taking their shares of the properties and left behind them item Nos.2 to 6 of the schedule properties jointly in favour of other male members to avoid further dispute. It is further contended that in the partition deed 1999, N. Narayana was given Rs.4,00,000/- through cash towards his share, N. Jayaram was allotted property bearing No.3 of Vinayaka Nagar and N. Shanthakumar was allotted property bearing No.174 at Ganga Nagar, Bengaluru and the other properties i.e., item Nos.1 to 6 schedule properties were allotted jointly in favour of other family members i.e., to defendant No.1, N. Adimurthy, defendant Nos.3 to 5 which are individually acquired by them out of their own earning and as such the claim of the plaintiff that item Nos.2 to 6 of the schedule properties are available for partition, is denied by him. It is further denied that all the parties are co-owners having equal right over the schedule properties is also denied. It is contended that item Nos.2 to 6 and another property bearing 11 O.S.No.7074/2015 No.3 are the self acquired properties of defendant Nos.1 to 5. It is the specific defence of defendant No.1 that his father late Narayanaswamy died intestate on 28.11.1998 leaving behind him the aforesaid children as his legal heirs and that during his lifetime he was carrying on silk business on small scale and was earning reasonable profits out of which he performed marriages of his three daughters i.e., Sri. N. Shivalakshmamma in the year 1957, N. Lakshmikantha in the year 1966, the marriage of defendant No.11 in 1967, Munirathnamma in the year 1972, that of defendant No.13 in the year 1975 and that of the plaintiff in the year 1987 and after their marriages they were all settled in their respective matrimonial homes. It is further stated that during his lifetime his father acquired property No.174 under a registered sale deed dated 30.03.1962 out of his own earnings and thereafter acquired item No.1 of the schedule property under a partition deed dated 04.11.1968 entered into between himself and his brother- M. Ramadas. It is further contended that in the year 1978 his first son N. Narayana got himself separated from the family and started his own silk and other related business and in the year 1985 the third son of the propositus Jayaram was separated from the family and he also started his own business whereas his 5th son N. Shanthakumar who was qualified in M.Tech. joined a Central Government undertaking as an employee. Defendant No.1 has further contended that during his lifetime his father started his own silk and related business in the year 1970 and thereafter defendant No.1 along with defendant Nos.2 to 5 continued the said business which a partnership firm and apart from the said business they started handlooms and power-looms and manufacture silk sarees and in the said business M. Narayanaswamy and his son joined their hands together as partners and out of their joint earnings from the said 12 O.S.No.7074/2015 business they built house in site No.174 and after construction N. Jayaram started residing in the said house along with his family members and thereafter defendant No.3 acquired property No.3 out of his share of profits earned from the aforesaid partnership business and defendant No.4 purchased item No.6 of the schedule property in the year 1991 out of his share of profit earned from the said business and similarly another son N. Jayaram purchased item No.3 property in the year 1992 out of his profits earned from the said business. It is further contended that similarly defendant No.2 purchased item No.4 & 5 of schedule properties in the year 1992 out of their share of profits earned from the said business and similarly defendant No.1 purchased item No.2 property in the year 1997 out of his share of profits earned from the said business and as the contribution of defendant No.5 was meager in the partnership business he was not able to acquire any property in his name. Thus, according to defendant No.1, except item No.1 property all the other properties mentioned in the plaint schedule were acquired out of the individual income earned by the propositus and his sons and as such there was no joint family property in existence fetching any income so as to acquire these properties and hence there is no question of treating item Nos.2 to 6 properties as joint family properties as asserted by the plaintiff. It is further contended that after the death of Narayanaswamy on 28.11.1998 all his sons decided to divide their self acquired joint family properties amongst themselves in order to avoid future litigation and decided to exchange in as much as to divide all their self acquired properties and the joint family properties under the partition and accordingly entered into partition deed dated 11.03.1999 in which N. Narayanaswamy was paid Rs.4,00,000/- towards his share, N. Jayaram was allotted property No.3, N. Shanthakumar was 13 O.S.No.7074/2015 allowed property No.174 and other members of the family were together allotted item Nos.1 to 6 of the schedule properties. It is further contended that thereafter the deceased defendant No.1, N. Adimurthy and defendant Nos.3 to 5 decided to re-distribute item Nos.1 to 6 properties by way of partition and accordingly item No.1 of the schedule property was allotted to defendant No.2, item No.2 property was allotted to defendant No.1, item No.3 property was allotted to defendant No.1, item No.4 property was allotted to defendant No.3, item No.5 property was allotted to defendant No.4 and item No.6 property was allotted to defendant No.5 and since then all these properties were individually enjoyed by all the sharers and they got changed the revenue records in their name pursuant to the said subsequent partition of 2001 and for these reasons the defendant No.1 has denied the right of the plaintiff in these properties. It is contended that on 16.02.2015 defendant No.1 partitioned his part of properties amongst his son R. Lokesh and daughters Smt.Vanitha R and Smt.Savitha R under a registered partition deed dated 16.02.2015 in which item No.2 of the schedule property was allotted to his son- Lokesh and item No.3 property was allotted in favour of his two daughters as stated supra and for these reasons defendant No.1 has sought for dismissal of the suit.
4. Defendant Nos.2 & 3 adopted the written statement which was filed by defendant Nos.6 to 13 whereas defendant Nos.4 & 5 adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.1. After the death of defendant No.1, his legal heirs defendant Nos.1(a) to (d) filed additional written statement contending that subsequent to the filing of this suit, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2,6, 9 to 11, 12(a) & (b) as well as defendant No.13 colluded with each other and by suppressing material facts collectively 14 O.S.No.7074/2015 executed a registered release deed dated 23.11.2021 in favour of defendant No.2 by receiving Rs.15,40,000/- with a malafide intention to deprive the right of the legal heirs of defendant No.1 as well as that of defendant Nos.4 & 5 over their respective portions of the schedule properties. They have further alleged that even in that release deed this plaintiff and defendants have stated that the propositus Narayanaswamy had acquired all items of suit properties out of joint family funds and as such all these properties are their joint family properties which was a total falsehood in view of the defence raised by defendant No.1 that except item No.1 property the rest of the schedule properties are the self acquired properties of defendant Nos.1 to 5. For these reasons legal heirs of defendant No.1 have also sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. Defendant No.13 has also filed her written statement who is one of the daughters of the propositus Narayanaswamy by admitting the claim of the plaintiff and has also sought for allotting one share in her favour in the suit properties. She has also contended that in the partition of 1999 this defendant was not at all included nor her consent was taken and no share was allotted to her. She has also accepted the claim of the plaintiff that she is also a joint family member having her legitimate share in the suit properties.
6. On the rival contentions of the parties the following issues and addl. Issues have been framed :-
1) Whether plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral/joint family properties?15 O.S.No.7074/2015
2) Whether plaintiff proves that registered partition deed dated 01.03.2001 between defendant No.1 to 5 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff?
3) Whether suit is barred by law of limitation?
4) Whether Court fee paid is insufficient?
5) Whether plaintiff proves that she is entitled for partition & separate possession of the suit schedule properties to the extent of 1/14th share by metes and bounds?
6) Whether 13th defendant proves that defendants 1 to 5 have played fraud on all the daughters through partition deed dated 01.03.2001 and she is entitled for equal share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds?
7) What order or decree?
ADDL. ISSUES:
1) Whether the Lrs of D.1 prove that the alleged release deed dtd:23.11.2021 is illegally executed with the active collusion between the plaintiff and D.2,6, to 11,12(a),12(b) and 13?
2) Whether they further prove that all the suit schedule properties except item No.1 property were individually acquired by the son's of M. Narayanaswamy?16 O.S.No.7074/2015
7. To substantiate her claim, the plaintiff has deposed before the court as PW1 and she has produced four documents marked from Ex.P1 and Ex.P4. It is revealed from the records that though she was partly cross-examined by the counsel for defendant No.1, subsequently she did not turn up for further cross-examination. Defendant No.1(c) as one of the legal heirs of deceased defendant No.1 has also deposed before the Court as D.W.1 and he has also relied on five documents marked from Ex.D.1 to D.5.
8. Heard arguments.
9. On hearing and on perusal of the materials on record, my findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the negative
Issue No.2 : In the negative
Issue No.3 : In the affirmative
Issue No.4 : In the negative
Issue No.5 : In the negative
Issue No.6 : In the negative
Addl. Issue No.1: In the negative
Addl. Issue No.2:In the affirmative
Issue No.7 : As per final order, for the following:
-: REASONS :-
10. Issue Nos.1, 2, 6 and Addl. Issue No.2:- Since all these issues are interconnected, they are tried together to avoid repetition of facts. It is the specific claim of the plaintiff that she being one of the legal heirs of the propositus M. Narayanaswamy 17 O.S.No.7074/2015 along with defendant Nos.1 to 13, she is also entitled to her legitimate share in the schedule properties. According to her claim, her father Narayanaswamy died in the year 1998 whereas his wife pre-deceased him in the year 1994 leaving behind them the present plaintiff and defendants as her legal heirs to succeed to the schedule properties which are their joint family properties. According to her claim, her father late Narayanaswamy was carrying on silk business along with his children and acquired one property to his share in a partition of 1968 which is the suit item No.1 property in a partition entered into between himself and his brother M. Ramadas.
11. As regards item Nos.2 to 6 properties, it is the specific claim of the plaintiff that these properties were though acquired by her father in his name and in the names of his sons, but they were also acquired out of the joint efforts of the plaintiff and defendants and by utilizing the income derived from suit item No.1 property. It is her claim that all the parties have contributed for the acquisition of the schedule properties and hence these properties were also treated by them as their joint family properties in which all have got their legitimate share. According to her claim during the lifetime of her father he used to manage the joint family and the schedule properties and thereafter the family was managed by deceased defendant Nos.1.
12. However it is the case made out by the plaintiff that before defendant No.1 could take over the management of the joint family and the suit properties, three of her brothers i.e., N. Narayana, N. Jayaram and N. Shanthakumar got separated from the joint family by taking their respective shares under a partition deed dated 11.03.1999 by leaving the remaining properties of the joint family i.e., suit item Nos.1 to 6 properties to the joint shares 18 O.S.No.7074/2015 of the plaintiff and the defendants and thereafter these defendants and plaintiff together enjoyed the schedule properties under the management of defendant No.1 and therefore it is her specific claim that suit properties are still their joint family properties jointly owned by herself and the defendants. This claim of the plaintiff has been admitted by one of her sisters defendant No.13 by admitting the jointness of the schedule properties and consequently claimed even her share in these properties. However the contesting defendant No.1, during his lifetime had seriously contested the matter and resisted the claim of the plaintiff.
13. Though the deceased defendant No.1 had admitted the fact that suit item No.1 property was the only joint family property acquired by his deceased father Narayanaswamy, but the rest of the properties are not their joint family properties since these properties were acquired by the defendant Nos.1 to 5 in the partition of 1999 as well as in the subsequent partition of 2001. in view of this specific contention raised by defendant No.1 heavy burden is cast on the plaintiff to prove as to whether the suit item Nos.2 to 6 properties are also their joint family properties along with item No.1 property.
14. As already discussed supra, the plaintiff has deposed before the Court and has relied on four documents of which Ex.P.1 is the family tree which is not in dispute. Ex.P.2 to P.4 are the copies of partition deeds dated 04.11.1968, 11.03.1999 and 01.03.2001 respectively. Under Ex.P.1- partition deed it is stated that their father acquired one property to his share i.e., suit item No.1 property and this fact is also not denied by the defendants. However it is the claim of P.W.1 that the subsequent acquisition of item Nos.2 to 6 properties by her father was out of the income 19 O.S.No.7074/2015 derived from the suit item No.1 property and also by the utilization of the income derived from his silk business to which all his children including the plaintiff had contributed and therefore they all treated item No.2 to 6 properties as their joint family properties.
15. Even the deceased first defendant and D-3 and 4 have contended that as per Ex.P.3 partition deed out of three sons named above, N. Narayan was given a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- in cash towards his share in lieu of the immoveable properties, Sri N. Jayaram was allotted property bearing No.3 of Vinayaka Nagar, Bengaluru and N. Shanthakumar was allotted property bearing No.174 of Weaver's Colony, Ganga Nagar, Bengaluru and the present suit item Nos.1 to 6 properties were jointly allotted in favour of the present defendant Nos.1 to 5 which have become their individual properties which were acquired out of their individual earnings. Thus even as per the defence of these defendants, the earlier two partition deeds as per Ex.P.2 and P.3 are not in dispute.
16. However the dispute of P.W.1 is with regard to the claim of the defendants 1, 4 and 5 that suit item No.2 to 6 properties are not available for partition as they are not treated as joint family properties whereas it is the definite stand taken by these defendants that there was absolutely no contribution either by the plaintiff or by the other daughters of the propositus towards acquisition of these properties. Now the burden is on P.W.1 to prove before the Court as to how these item Nos.2 to 6 properties were acquired by the joint efforts and joint contribution of all the children of Narayanaswamy and how they all treated even these properties as their joint family properties.
20 O.S.No.7074/201517. P.W.1 was though partly cross-examined by the counsel for the defendants, but as already discussed above, thereafter she did not turn up for further cross-examination as could be borne out from the records. On 14.02.2020 she was partly cross-examined by the counsel for deceased defendant No.1 and on the request of the defence counsel her further cross- examination was deferred. The records disclose that after 14.02.2020 there was limited functioning of the Court during Covid-19 Pandemic and thereafter on the nine dates of hearing she continuously remained absent to tender herself for cross- examination despite according sufficient opportunities and ultimately on 10.11.2021 this Court passed order to the effect that she had not offered for further cross-examination and thereafter the counsel for P.W.1 filed memo on 02.12.2021 seeking to delete suit item No.1 property from the plaint schedule and to dismiss the suit as against defendant Nos2 to 7 and 8 in view of her entering into compromise with these defendants with respect to item No.1 property and the said prayer was accepted.
18. Thus what could be gathered from the conduct of P.W.1 is that she was not diligent in prosecuting the case and to face the test of further cross-examination by the defence side. Thereafter the legal heirs of defendant No.1 led their evidence. Therefore as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for defendant, the plaintiff has not subjected herself to the complete cross-examination by the defence side. Now it would be relevant to refer that cross-examination which has been partly done to P.W.1. It is admitted by P.W.1 in her cross-examination that her father and her brothers formed partnership firm to deal with the silk business and her father was doing the said business since beginning and after her brothers' attaining majority they continued 21 O.S.No.7074/2015 the silk business. The fact that item No.1 property was acquired by her father in the year 1968 through partition is also admitted by her.
19. It is relevant to note that all the children of late Narayanaswamy were residing in the house property which is situated in item No.1 of the plaint schedule though PW1 has denied the fact that the said property was used only for their residential purpose. When she has denied this suggestion, then again the burden is again on her to prove as to how this item No.1 property was fetching income and how suit item Nos.2 to 6 properties were acquired out of the income derived from this property. However in her further cross-examination she has categorically admitted that no income like rent, etc., was being received by her father from suit item No.1 property. On the contrary she has admitted that her father and brothers were hiring looms of others for preparing the silk sarees and used to sell the sarees to the public. Though she has voluntarily stated that her father and brothers were jointly producing sarees from their own looms but no supporting materials either oral or documentary are placed before the Court to substantiate this statement. Therefore in the absence of any supporting materials in this regard and in view of the categorical admission given by her as stated above the inference which has to be drawn is that no income was derived from the suit item No.1 property so as to utilize the same for acquiring the other items of the suit properties.
20. It is further relevant to note that even in her further cross-examination in para-4 PW1 has clearly admitted that all her brothers started to reside in the properties fallen to their respective shares pursuant to 1999 partition. This fact clearly indicates that as per Ex.P.3- partition deed there was severance 22 O.S.No.7074/2015 of status as well as severance of properties amongst her brothers in the year 1999 itself. Though she has stated that she was not aware of Ex.P.3- partition deed, but it would be relevant to refer this partition deed which is also not substantially denied by her. As per this partition deed, the present defendant Nos.1 to 5 as well as the other separated sons by names N. Narayana, N. Jayaram and N. Shanthakumar got divided the family properties. Thus, as per this document the present defendant Nos.1 to 5 were jointly allotted the present suit item Nos.2 to 6 properties.
21. Thus one aspect is clearly proved from the evidence on record that though P.W.1 has specifically claimed that these item Nos.2 to 4 properties were also acquired out of the joint family nucleus, but there are no materials placed before the Court to prove as to what was the total income derived from item No.1 property, what was the income earned by her father and her brothers from their silk business, what was the total expenditure of the joint family and what was the surplus income which was remained so as to acquire these properties. These are the material requirements which are to be proved before claiming a particular property of the family as joint family property, which is the well established position of law. This principle of law is well settled in a decision reported in Smt. Revamma & another v/s Sri. Bashasab & another in 2008(3) KCCR SN 184 as under:
(A)-- Hindu Law-- Joint family-- Joint family property-- Presumption regarding the family and not the property--
Indeed there is always a presumption that the Joint Family continues to be joint. The normal state of every Hindu Family is Joint.
Presumably, every Hindu Family is joint in food, worship and estate. In the absence of proof of division of a Joint Hindu Family the presumption is, until the contrary is proved, the family continues to be joint. But however, 23 O.S.No.7074/2015 it is also to be noticed that there is no presumption that a family, because it is joint, possesses joint property or any property.
(B)-- Hindu Law--Joint family property--
Nucleus not sufficient to generate surplus income--presumption cannot be drawn that the subsequent acquisitions are from to the Joint Family nucleus.
An important element for consideration is the income, which nucleus yielded. A family house in the occupation of the members and yielding no income could not be a nucleus out of which acquisitions could be made, even though it might be of considerable value. On the other hand, a running business in which the capital invested is comparatively small might conceivably produce substantial income, which may well form the foundation of the subsequent acquisitions. There are no abstract questions of law but questions of fact to be determined on the evidence in the case. The wide proposition that once the ancestral nucleus is proved or admitted, the onus on the member to prove that the property acquired was his self-acquisition cannot be accepted as correct. The existence of some nucleus is not the sole criterion to impress the subsequent acquisitions with family character. What is required to be shown is that family had as a result of the nucleus sufficient surplus income from which the subsequent acquisitions could be made.
(E)-- Evidence Act-- Sec. 101--Burden of proof--Joint family property-- Burden on the person who asserts that any particular item of the property is joint family property, and would assert that the property is joint family property, the burden would rest on him to prove that it is a Joint Family Property.
When in a suit for partition, the one who claims that any particular item of the property is joint family property, and would assert that the property is joint family property, the burden would rest on him to prove that it is a Joint Family Property.
(G)-- Joint Family--Joint family property
--Hindu Law--Family having some property as a joint family property whether that itself is 24 O.S.No.7074/2015 sufficient to draw presumption to say that all the holdings are joint family property--No. The principles laid down in the above cited decision could aptly be extended to the facts on hand for the reason that P.W.1 herein has also utterly failed to place before the Court any materials to substantiate the exact income earned from the joint family business and the expenditure which was to be incurred for the maintenance of the joint family and the surplus income which used to remain with the family.
22. If we peruse the partition deed of 1999 which is marked at Ex.P.3, it is revealed that suit item No.6 property is shown to have been purchased in the name of defendant No.4 under a registered sale deed dated 20.02.1999, suit item No.3 property is shown to have been purchased under a registered sale deed dated 06.02.1992 in the name of the son Jayaram who is not a party to this suit, suit item No.4 is shown to have been purchased in the name of defendant No.2, suit item No.2 property is shown to have been purchased in the name of deceased defendant No.1 as per the registered lease-cum-sale deed dated 19.10.1976. Under this partition deed, the above said three sons N. Narayan, N. Jayaram and N. Shanthakumar got separated from the joint family by taking their respective shares in the form of cash as well as the other family properties which are not the subject matter of this suit.
23. It is further to be noted that Page-4 of Ex.P.3 clearly recites that the remaining family properties i.e., present item Nos.2 to 6 properties were agreed to be jointly enjoyed by the present defendant Nos.1 to 5 and accordingly they have taken the present item Nos.2 to 6 properties to their respective shares. This document prima-facie indicates that the suit item Nos.2 to 6 25 O.S.No.7074/2015 properties were never forming part of the joint family properties nor this document shows that though after the death of the father the present defendant Nos.1 to 5 continued the family silk business but never treated these properties as their joint family properties. The very fact that these properties were specifically registered in the names of these five persons excluding the other family members including the present P.W.1 as well as her other sisters itself clearly establishes the fact that these item Nos.2 to 6 properties were not at all the joint family properties available for division. D.W.1 in his evidence has clearly reiterated this fact.
24. The learned counsel for plaintiff subjected D.W.1 to a lengthy cross-examination. Though it has been suggested to him that his grand-father M. Narayanaswamy was the original owner of all the suit schedule properties, he has clearly denied the said suggestion and stated that he was the owner of only one property and rest of the properties are the self acquisition of his father deceased defendant No.1 as well as the defendant Nos.2 to 5. It is further suggested to D.W.1 that suit item No.1 property was allotted to the share of his younger uncle defendant No.2 who executed released deed in favour of all the defendants, but D.W.1 has denied the further suggestion that the property in Gangenahalli Weaver's Colony was allotted to his another younger uncle N. Shanthakumar and he has also denied that out of the income of these two properties, the rest of the properties were acquired. On the other hand he has voluntarily stated that his father and his brothers were running a partnership firm and out of the said business income the other properties were acquired and there is no further denial with regard to this statement of D.W.1 by further cross-examination.
26 O.S.No.7074/201525. It is further significant to note that there is categorical admission even in the cross-examination of D.W.1 by the plaintiff's side that after the death of his grand-father in the year 1998 there were two partition deeds between the father of D.W.1 and his brothers as per Ex.P.3 & 4 and that on none of these deeds the signatures of either plaintiff or her other sisters have been obtained. However even for this suggestion D.W.1 has offered explanation by stating that since these properties covered under Ex.P.3 & 4 deeds were the self acquired properties, the signatures of the sisters were not obtained and that P.W.1 and her sisters had no share in these properties and therefore they were not made as parties to these two partition deeds.
26. Thus from the tenor of cross-examination done to D.W.1 by the plaintiff's counsel it is clearly proved that even the plaintiff has admitted Ex.P.3 & 4 partition deeds which have come into existence in the year 1999 as well as 2001. Under such circumstances if really the sisters including P.W.1 had any grievance about these partition deeds, certainly they would have raised their objection at the time of execution of these deeds. It is further significant to note that even in the present suit no attempt is made by P.W.1 to challenge these registered deeds Ex.P.3 & P.4 alleging that as she was not party to these partition deeds and hence, they are not binding on her nor she has sought for cancellation of these deeds which once again indicates that she was well aware of the fact that since item Nos.2 to 6 properties were the separate properties of her brothers, she had not raised any objection with regard to these partition deeds. Under such circumstances without challenging these registered deeds now she is estopped from claiming that she has also got her shares in the properties covered under Ex.P.3 & P.4.
27 O.S.No.7074/201527. It is further to be noted that though PW1 has questioned Ex.P.4- partition deed as not binding on her share, unless and until the earlier partition deed of 1999 as per Ex.P.3 is challenged by her or unless it is set aside, she cannot seek for any relief by way of declaration with regard to Ex.P.4- deed which is the subsequent partition entered into between the defendant Nos.1 to 5. As already discussed supra, there is clear mention in Ex.P.3 partition deed that suit item Nos.2 to 6 properties were separately and independently registered in the names of defendant Nos.1 to 5 as their separate properties. Therefore, P.W.1 ought to have disproved this fact by specifically challenging the said deed which she has not done till this date. Therefore unless and until the earlier partition of 1999 is set aside, it cannot be said that the relief sought for with respect to the subsequent deed is maintainable.
28. Moreover as already discussed supra, not a single scrap of paper is finding place in the records to prove as to how there was surplus income held by the joint family so as to acquire item Nos.2 to 6 properties. Under such circumstances in the absence of any concrete materials in this regard it cannot be said that joint family had sufficient nucleus to acquire these properties. The law is well settled that unless the nucleus of a joint family is proved before the Court convincing evidence, it cannot be said that the properties acquired in the individual names of some of the family members are the acquisitions out of joint family funds. It would be relevant to refer the authorities cited by the learned defence counsel in this regard.
29. The decisions cited by the learned defence counsel re reported in Bhagwat Sharan (dead) through LRs v/s Purushotham and others in (2020)6 SCC 387, in G. Narayana 28 O.S.No.7074/2015 Raju (dead) by his Lrs v/s G. Chamaraju and others in AIR 1968 SUPREME COURT 1276, in Chattanatha Karayalar v/s Ramachandra Iyer and another in AIR 1955 SC 799, in P.S. Sairam and another v/s P.S. Rama Rao Pissey and others in (2004)11 SCC 320 and in S. Subramanian v/s S. Ramaswamy, etc., etc., in AIR 2019 SC 3056. In all these decisions the Hon'ble Supreme Court has well settled position of law that the burden is on a person who alleges existence of HUF to prove the same and the proof is required not only with respect to jointness of family but also with respect to the fact that property belonged to the joint family unless there is material on record to show that the property is the nucleus of joint Hindu family or that it was acquired through funds coming out of such nucleus. These material requirements have not been satisfied by P.W.1 in the instant case by producing before the Court cogent materials to show the alleged acquisition of nucleus by the joint family and the subsequent purchase of other properties, out of such nucleus. Therefore in the absence of any such convincing materials it cannot be said that suit item No.2 to 6 properties were acquired out of joint family nucleus so as to treat them either as ancestral or as joint family properties. Consequently she cannot question the partition of 2001 under Ex.P.4 as null and void and not binding on her since the earlier partition as per Ex.P.3 itself has remained unchallenged by her.
30. Defendant No.13 who is also one of the daughters of late Narayanaswamy has also alleged that defendant Nos.1 to 5 have played fraud on all the daughters through Ex.P.4- partition and as such she is also entitled to her legitimate share in the suit properties. It is pertinent to note that except a bare statement and allegation made in this regard in her written statement, she has 29 O.S.No.7074/2015 not proved the said allegation by entering into witness box or by cross-examining D.W.1. It is pertinent to note that though defendant No.13 has made such allegation of fraud by defendant Nos.1 to 5, but the plaintiff herself has not pleaded that while getting executed Ex.P.4- partition deed, defendant Nos.1 to 5 have played fraud on all the sisters including herself.
31. Moreover in order to substantiate the pleas of fraud, misrepresentation, etc., the party has to specifically aver and prove as to the circumstances and the particulars of such pleas which is the material requirement U/O VI R 4 CPC. Bare statement in this regard in the pleadings is not sufficient. Furthermore, as already held above they have not attempted to challenge the earlier partition deed as per Ex.P.3 itself which has come into existence in the year 1999. Under such circumstances they cannot now allege about the fraud, etc., with respect to Ex.P.4- deed. Before making such allegations of fraud, etc., the party must specifically plead and prove the said facts.
32. Therefore viewed from any angle it cannot be said that either P.W.1 or defendant No.13 could prove before the Court as to how the suit item Nos.2 to 6 properties are their joint family properties available for division or how Ex.P.4 partition is not binding on them. Therefore all these issues need to be answered accordingly thereby answering issue Nos.1 & 2 against the plaintiff in the negative, issue No.6 against defendant No.13 in the negative and addl. Issue No.2 in favour of the legal heirs of defendant No.1 in the affirmative.
33. Issue No.4:- The deceased defendant No.1 in his written statement had questioned the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the Court fee paid on the suit reliefs is insufficient and the suit reliefs are also improperly valued. It is contended that 30 O.S.No.7074/2015 the plaintiff is not at all in joint possession of the suit schedule property and therefore the suit for partition is not maintainable unless and until she could pay proper Court fee. It is to be noted that except the bare contention raised in the pleadings in this regard it has not been proved with cogent evidence. It is also contended that without seeking declaration with regard to partition deed 1999 and 2001 by paying court fee on the market value of the suit properties, the suit is hit by the provisions of Karnataka Court Fees Act.
34. Though the plaintiff has utterly failed to prove that the suit item Nos.2 to 6 properties are joint family properties and available for division, but it is her specific claim that she was not a party to the earlier partition deeds and therefore she has sought for relief that Ex.P.4- partition deed as not binding on her. Moreover the substantial relief sought for by the plaintiff is for partition of her share in all the suit properties and accordingly she has paid court fee U/S 35(2) of the Act claiming her alleged joint possession over these properties. Even otherwise it is to be noted that the deceased defendant No.1 or after his death the present legal heirs of defendant No.1 have not pressed into service this particular issue seeking to take up this issue as preliminary issue. Therefore this issue needs to be answered in the negative.
35. Issue No.3:- The deceased defendant No.1 had also sought for dismissal of the suit on the ground that it is hopelessly barred by limitation. In para-8 of his written statement it is contended that even as per the plaintiffs' claim defendant No.1 and his brothers have got partitioned the schedule properties under Ex.P.3 and P.4- deeds of 1999 and 2001 respectively and therefore the declaratory relief sought for with respect to Ex.P.4- partition deed is barred by limitation and on this count also, the 31 O.S.No.7074/2015 suit will have to fail since the plaintiff was well aware of the execution of Ex.P.4- deed. This contention raised by the deceased defendant No.1 holds substance for the reason that as already stated supra, from the own pleadings of P.W.1, it cannot be said that she was unaware of either Ex.P.3- partition deed or the subsequent Ex.P.4- partition deed. In her pleadings itself she has referred to both these deeds.
36. It is further relevant to note that even in her cross- examination in para-4 PW1 has admitted that she has made reference about Ex.P.3- partition of 1999 though she has further contended that she came to know about the said partition only at the time of filing of the present suit. However this statement of P.W.1 cannot be accepted for the simple reason that in her pleadings in para-3 on page-5 of the plaint itself she has categorically stated that after the death of her father Narayanaswamy before the management was being taken over by deceased defendant No.1, three sons of Narayanaswamy i.e., N. Narayan, N. Jayaram and N. Shanthakumar got themselves separated from the joint family by taking their respective shares under a registered partition deed dated 11.03.1999 by leaving the present suit item Nos.1 to 6 properties to the remaining joint family members. This statement made in her pleadings itself is sufficient to hold that even prior to the filing of this suit, she was aware of the earlier partition of 1999.
37. Nowhere in her pleadings PW1 has alleged that this Ex.P.3 partition of 1999 was effected behind her back or without her knowledge nor we find any allegations to the effect that by playing fraud, her brothers got executed this partition deed of 1999. Under such circumstances when under Ex.P3 the three sons of the propositus got separated from the joint family by 32 O.S.No.7074/2015 taking their shares and there is recital that item Nos.2 to 6 properties were the separate properties acquired by remaining brothers i.e., defendant Nos.1 to 5, it is not open to her to still assert that she had no knowledge of either Ex.P.3- partition or Ex.P.4- partition.
38. Furthermore as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for defendants, both the partition deeds of 1999 and 2001 are the registered deeds which raise presumption regarding their credibility unless they are challenged and set aside by any court of law. Therefore as it is settled law that a registered deed is a deemed notice of its authenticity to all the concerned and to all the public, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was totally unaware of these partition deeds. Therefore rightly the defendant No.1 has contended that failure of the plaintiff to challenge these deeds within limitation has rendered her claim hopelessly time barred. Therefore this issue will have to be answered in favour of the defendants in the affirmative.
39. Issue No.5:- In view of the findings rendered on the preceding issues now it is proved that except suit item No.1 property, the other items of the schedule properties are the separate acquisitions of defendant Nos.1 to 5. It is equally relevant to note that during the pendency of the proceeding the counsel for the plaintiff filed memo by producing copy of release deed and reported settlement with respect to suit item No.1 property by the plaintiff and defendant No.2 and thereby got deleted suit item No.1 property and the claim as against defendant Nos.2, 7 & 8. Therefore this conduct of the plaintiff once again indicates that she had conceded to the fact that except item No.1 property, the rest of the properties are not available for division. Therefore considering these facts and 33 O.S.No.7074/2015 circumstances of the case it cannot be said that she has got her alleged 1/14th share in the rest of the properties.
40. The learned counsel for Lrs of defendant No.1 also vehemently argued to the effect that the claim of the plaintiff is unsustainable even on the legal aspect. In this regard he has invited the attention of this Court to the Amended Provisions of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Amendment Act of 2005 wherein the Proviso to Section 6 of the Amended Act which contemplates that any dispositions taken place prior to 20/12/2004 would be saved. He has vehemently urged that already under Ex.P.3 and P.4 partition deeds there has been division and dispositions of the suit schedule properties amongst defendant Nos.1 to 5 as well as the separated three brothers of the propositus Narayanaswamy and since this dispositions of the schedule property has taken place much prior to 2004, such dispositions are saved by the Amended Provisions of the Act. Even on this count the claim of the plaintiff will have to be rejected as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the plaintiff, because as already held above, she has utterly failed to prove before the Court as to how these dispositions are the result of fraud, misrepresentation, etc. On the contrary she herself has admitted even the earlier disposition covered under Ex.P.3- deed of 1999. Therefore viewed from any angle, it cannot be said that her claim is sustainable either under law or on facts. Consequently even this issue will have to be answered against the plaintiff in the negative.
41. Additional. Issue No.1:- The LRs of defendant No.1 who came on record during the pendency of the proceeding filed their additional written statement and have made allegations against the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2, 6, 9 to 11, D.12(a) & (b) 34 O.S.No.7074/2015 and D.13 alleging that they got created the release deed dated 23.11.2021 amongst themselves behind their back. It is alleged that these defendants and the plaintiff by colluding with each other, misled the court by suppressing material facts and collectively got executed the registered release deed dated 23.11.2021 in favour of defendant No.2 by receiving amount with a malafide intention to defeat the right of the legal heirs of defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.4 & 5 over their respective portion of the schedule properties. It is relevant to note that except these allegations which are found in their additional written statement,these Lrs of deceased D.1 have not sought for any relief by way of declaration regarding the said release deed. It is also not their specific claim that even they have got their legitimate share in the property covered under this release deed. Therefore except alleging the illegality and the collusion between the plaintiff and some of these defendants, they have failed to prove as to how this settlement was effected illegally. Therefore in the absence of any cogent evidence in this regard, this issue will have to be answered against them in the negative.
42. Issue No.7:- In the light of the findings given on the above issues, having regard to the close relationship inter-se the parties, they are directed to bear their own cost of litigation. In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for partition and declaration is hereby dismissed.
No order as to cost.
Draw decree accordingly.35 O.S.No.7074/2015
The exparte temporary injunction which was granted earlier and extended till further orders stands vacated.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him on Computer, carried out corrections, print out taken and then pronounced in the Open Court on this the 27th day of February, 2023) (SAVITRI SHIVAPUTRA KUJJI) X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
PW.1 : N. Shanthakumari List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P1 : G-tree Ex.P2 : Certified copy of partition deed dtd.04.11.1968 Ex.P3 : Certified copy of partition deed dtd.11.03.1999 Ex.P4 : Certified copy of partition deed dtd.01.03.2001 List of witnesses examined for defendants: D.W1 : Lokesh R List of documents exhibited for defendants: Ex.D.1 to 5 : C/c of sale deeds dtd:31.1.1997, 06.02.1992, 20.02.1991, 30.03.1962 and 23.03.1992 X Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.