Bangalore District Court
Rajalakshmi vs Subramani A M on 16 March, 2026
1 O.S. No.3335/2003
KABC010113922003
IN THE COURT OF THE VII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BENGALURU (CCH-19).
DATED: THIS THE 16th DAY OF MARCH, 2026.
PRESENT:
SRI. SATHISHA L.P., B.A., LL.B.
XCI Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge &
Spl. Judge for KPIDFE Cases., Bengaluru.
C/C VII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S. No.3335/2003
PLAINTIFFS : 1. Smt. Rajalakshmi
D/o Late Leelavathi Ammal
and W/o Sri. A.G. Rajendra
Mudaliar.
aged about 52 years
R/at Door No.279,
Old Post Office Road
Hunsur,
Mysore District.
2. Smt. Gajalakshmi
aged about 42 years,
D/o Late Leelavathi Ammal
and W/o Sri. Nallaswamy
2 O.S. No.3335/2003
R/at No,141, 5th Cross,
Shaktinagar,
Dindal Erode-9
Tamil Nadu.
(By Sri.T.N.R., Advocate)
V/S
DEFENDANTS : 1. Sri. A.M. Subramani
S/o Sri.A.G. Mahadevan
26, I Cross,
SBI Colony,
Sonnathammanahalli,
Krishnarajapura,
Bangalore-560036.
2. M/s Total Environment
Building Systems Private
Ltd
734, 4th Main,
BDA Layout,
I Block, HAL III Stage
Bangalore-560075.
3. The Manager
Citibank
Mahatma Gandhi Road,
Bangalore-560001.
D.1- K.H.R., Advocate
D.2- Indus Law
D.3- K.R.Y., Advocate
Date of institution of 19-05-2003
Suit
Nature of the Suit Declaration and Injunction
3 O.S. No.3335/2003
Date of commencement 10-07-2009
of recording of evidence
Date on which 16-03-2026
Judgment
was pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
22 09 25
JUDGMENT
The Plaintiffs are before this Court seeking the following reliefs:
A) declaration that the distribution of shares from the sale proceeds under the sale deed dated 19-07-
2002 is unequal and inequitable, and further declaring that the First Defendant is not entitled to receive the amounts paid by way of cheques under the said sale deed dated 19-07-2002, including the post-dated cheques drawn on Citibank bearing No. 298425 and No. 298426 dated 20-05-2003 and 20-06-2003 4 O.S. No.3335/2003 respectively, each for a sum of ₹50,00,000 (Rupees Fifty Lakhs).
B) Consequential relief by way of a decree of permanent injunction restraining the First Defendant from withdrawing the amounts under the two cheques drawn on Citibank bearing No. 298425 and No. 298426 dated 20-05-2003 and 20-06-2003 respectively, each for a sum of ₹50,00,000 (Rupees Fifty Lakhs), and further restraining the Third Defendant from releasing the amounts under the aforementioned cheques in favour of the First Defendant.
C) A permanent injunction restraining the Second Defendant from paying any further amount due under the sale deed dated 19-07-2002 to the First Defendant, his legal representatives, agents, heirs, or any person claiming through him in any manner whatsoever.
5 O.S. No.3335/2003D) A decree for costs of the suit, and such other reliefs as this Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
1. In the suit, it is contended that the Plaintiffs are the grandchildren of Smt. Sivagami Ammal. The suit property originally belonged to one Vellore S. Singaara Velu Mudaliar alias Velu Mudaliar, who gifted the property to his daughter Smt. Sivagami Ammal, her children, and grandchildren by way of a gift deed dated 04-07-1947. Under the said deed, Sivagami Ammal received only a life interest, and after her death, her children were to receive a life interest, with the property subsequently vesting in the 45 grandchildren of Sivagami Ammal.
2. Some of the sharers of Sivagami Ammal -- 23 grandchildren and 8 children -- entered into an agreement of sale dated 12-06-1975 with one Sri Y. 6 O.S. No.3335/2003 Subbaraju, purporting to sell 31 out of 45 shares. Similarly, another agreement was executed on 25-09- 1975 by some of the sharers, purporting to sell 10 shares out of 45 shares. Sri Subbaraju filed two suits for specific performance of the agreements of sale against those persons in O.S. No. 831 of 1981 and O.S. No. 830 of 1981. Sri Subbaraju died during the pendency of the said suits.
3. Thereafter, all the contesting parties, including the Plaintiffs herein, joined together and executed a partition deed under which 30 shares were conveyed in favour of Subbaraju's heirs, which were described as the 'B' Schedule to the partition deed. As for the remaining parties, they were divided into three groups and their respective shares were delineated and demarcated in Schedules 'C', 'D', and 'E' to the partition deed. Under this partition deed, the 'B' Schedule property was allotted in favour of the first 7 O.S. No.3335/2003 party consisting of 9 persons; the 'C' Schedule property was allotted in favour of the second party consisting of 4 persons; the 'D' Schedule property was allotted to the share of 19 persons, including the Plaintiffs herein, who are described as the third party; and the 'E' Schedule property was allotted in favour of 5 persons described as the fourth party.
4. Sri A.M. Subramanya, the First Defendant, is the son of A.G. Mahadevan. After the execution of the partition deed, the remaining 45 shares devolved upon the following 12 persons, including the Plaintiffs, and these shares were reflected in Schedule 'D' to the partition deed: Dr. S. Ramalingam, Smt. Varalakshmi, Smt. Rajalakshmi, Smt. Gajalakshmi, S. Krishnakumari, A.M. Govindaraj, A.M. Kamalasundari, A.M. Rajeshwari, Smt. Sivagamisundari, A.M. Subramanya, Hanumantha Rao, and Mohanasundari.
8 O.S. No.3335/2003
5. The shares that devolved upon the above 12 persons are referable to the 'D' and 'E' Schedule properties measuring 40,000 sq. ft. The present dispute concerns and revolves around these 12 shares only, which are described as the 'D' and 'E' Schedule properties in the partition deed.
6. A.M. Subramanya, the First Defendant, is a permanent resident of Bangalore. The First Plaintiff is married and has settled in Hosur. The Second Plaintiff is a teacher working in Erode, Tamil Nadu. The Plaintiffs are not well versed in legal or property matters; they are relatively inexperienced and have no background in property transactions.
7. The First Defendant had, at all material times, been dealing with matters concerning the entire property. The Plaintiffs reposed full confidence in him and, in view of this, granted him full authority. In fact, in the first transaction in this regard, the First 9 O.S. No.3335/2003 Defendant acted as the power-of-attorney holder of the Plaintiffs. It was in that capacity that he agreed to sell the 'B' Schedule property, which consists of an area of 40,000 sq. ft., more fully described in Schedule 'B' of the plaint. The Plaintiffs were paid a sum of ₹1,00,000 each under the agreement of sale. In this agreement, all 45 grandchildren of Sivagami Ammal had been mentioned. This agreement did not materialise.
8. Thereafter, another agreement was entered into with one Sri Nandraj Shetty, again at the instance of the First Defendant. The Plaintiffs were shown to have received ₹3,00,000 under the said agreement; however, the Plaintiffs actually received only ₹2,00,000. This agreement also did not materialise.
9. Finally, the First Defendant came forward with a proposal that a third party had come forward 10 O.S. No.3335/2003 to purchase the 'D' and 'E' Schedule properties as shown under the partition deed. The name of the purchaser and the consideration amount were kept confidential by the First Defendant. The First Defendant represented to the Plaintiffs that all the sharers would each receive a sum of ₹10,00,000 in addition to what they had already received.
10. 19-07-2002 was fixed as the date for the execution and registration of the sale deed. The Plaintiffs were asked to be present at the Sub- Registrar's office on that day at approximately 5:00 P.M. In total, 10 persons affixed their signatures to the sale deed. The First Defendant represented the other sharers as their power-of-attorney holder. The Plaintiffs were not given any details about the purchaser. The Plaintiffs were not permitted to read the document. The Plaintiffs have since learned that one Kamal Sagar had represented the Second 11 O.S. No.3335/2003 Defendant. The Plaintiffs have not seen Kamal Sagar to this day. They had been kept ready at 5:00 P.M. and the formality of signing the document had to be completed. The First Defendant was in great haste to complete this formality, and in the process, the Plaintiffs were not even permitted to read the sale deed.
11. On one page of the sale deed, there was a large blank space. The Second Plaintiff inquired with the First Defendant about the reason for leaving this blank portion. The First Defendant informed the Second Plaintiff that the blank portion would be filled in later with the details of the cheques to be issued by the purchaser. He further stated that the cheques had been received only then and that he was therefore unable to fill in the details at that time, and that he would fill in the blank portion subsequently. He insisted that the page be signed as it was, 12 O.S. No.3335/2003 assuring that the particulars of the amount would be filled in afterwards. Even at the time of execution of the sale deed, the Plaintiffs were not made aware of the payments made to each of the sharers.
12. The Plaintiffs bona fide believed that all the shares would be worked out on an equal basis. The Plaintiffs were thereafter asked by the First Defendant to sign certain papers for tax clearance purposes, and for that purpose, he asked the Plaintiffs to come to Bangalore. Even at that time, in the last week of March 2003, the First Defendant did not make available a copy of the sale deed. The Plaintiffs were naturally curious to know the contents of the sale deed, particularly whether the portion left blank at the time of execution had been duly filled in. Hence, the Plaintiffs applied for a certified copy of the sale deed and obtained it on 21-03-2003. The Plaintiffs were shocked and surprised to learn that the First 13 O.S. No.3335/2003 Defendant was the beneficiary of an amount of ₹3,53,55,000 (Rupees Three Crores Fifty-Three Lakhs and Fifty-Five Thousand) under the document. This amount represents nearly 8 shares, including the 3 shares of the First Defendant and those of 2 other persons for whom he had acted as general power-of- attorney holder. The Plaintiffs also noticed that two post-dated cheques bearing No. 298425 dated 20-05- 2003 for ₹50,00,000 and No. 298426 dated 20-06- 2003 for ₹50,00,000 had been issued in the name of the First Defendant by the purchaser. The Plaintiffs had been misled on account of the confidence they had reposed in the First Defendant, and fraud has been perpetrated by him insofar as the First Defendant did not disclose the actual sale consideration, the particulars of the cheques he had received, or the amount of consideration that was apportioned to him under the sale deed. 14 O.S. No.3335/2003
13. The Plaintiffs made frantic efforts to contact the First Defendant, but he was not available to give a satisfactory reply. On one occasion, the First Defendant telephoned the First Plaintiff and admitted that he had made an unequal distribution and promised to make up for the deficiency. This promise never materialised. The Plaintiffs now suspect that the Second Defendant was also in collusion with the First Defendant. The Plaintiffs are not aware of the actual consideration for which the property was sold or the total consideration that has changed hands, but they are fairly certain that it has been undervalued. The Plaintiffs have since learned that in addition to the amounts reflected in the sale deed, the First Defendant has also received a large sum by way of unaccounted money.
14. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs caused a legal notice dated 10-05-2003 to be issued to the First 15 O.S. No.3335/2003 Defendant, with copies to the Second and Third Defendants, calling upon the First Defendant not to present the cheques dated 20-05-2003 and 20-06- 2003 for encashment. The First Defendant has since sent word that he intends to present the cheques on their respective due dates. The balance amount legitimately due to the Plaintiffs is ₹73,33,333. This amount ought to have been paid to the Plaintiffs by the purchaser, or in any event, the First Defendant was obliged to make an equal distribution among the sharers. However, the Second Defendant has already issued cheques in favour of the First Defendant, and neither the First Defendant nor the Second Defendant has responded to the legal notice. On the contrary, the First Defendant has categorically informed the First Plaintiff that he intends to present the cheques on their due dates, as communicated on 15-05-2003. 16 O.S. No.3335/2003
15. The Plaintiffs reposed full confidence in the First Defendant as he was dealing with the property on their behalf. The Plaintiffs have now learned that the First Defendant has perpetrated a fraud upon them, has distributed the shares unequally, and is not inclined to pay the amount legitimately due to the Plaintiffs. The First Defendant is therefore not entitled to receive any further amount under the sale deed; indeed, he owes substantial amounts to all the other sharers.
16. The Second Defendant is the purchaser. The Plaintiffs suspect that the First Defendant and the Second Defendant are in collusion in this fraudulent transaction. Therefore, the Second Defendant is likely to pay the balance sale consideration of ₹1,00,00,000 by means of further cheques -- other than those already mentioned in the sale deed -- or by way of demand drafts or cash. Hence, the Second Defendant 17 O.S. No.3335/2003 is liable to be restrained from paying the balance sale consideration as per the sale deed dated 19-07-2002. The Third Defendant is the bank on which the cheques have been drawn and has therefore been impleaded as a party to this suit, seeking an injunction restraining the bank from releasing the amounts under the two cheques bearing No. 298425 and No. 298426.
17. The cause of action for the suit arose on 19- 07-2002 and subsequently, within the jurisdiction of this Court.
With these contentions, the Plaintiffs have prayed that the above reliefs be granted.
18. The First Defendant, after service of summons, appeared before the Court on 05-06-2003. The written statement filed on 23-10-2013 was not 18 O.S. No.3335/2003 taken on record, and his application to file the written statement after a delay of ten years was rejected.
19. The Second Defendant has filed a written statement contending that the suit filed by the Plaintiffs is not maintainable either in law or on facts, and has prayed that the suit be dismissed. According to the Second Defendant, the Plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands, and have suppressed various material facts before the Court.
20. Further, the Plaintiffs have not impleaded Mr. Nandaraj Shetty as a party to the suit, mainly with a mala fide intention to misrepresent the facts, knowing fully well that he is also a necessary party to the suit. The Plaintiffs had entered into an agreement of sale with Nandaraj Shetty agreeing to sell their respective share. However, with mala fide intention, they have not impleaded him as a party. On this 19 O.S. No.3335/2003 ground of non-joinder of a necessary party, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
21. The court fee paid by the Plaintiffs is not in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, and therefore this issue needs to be tried as a preliminary issue before proceeding with the merits of the suit.
22. Further, allegations of fraud and misrepresentation have been made against this Defendant. No particulars have been set forth in the plaint as required under the provisions of Order VI Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The plaint is liable to be rejected as against this Defendant in terms of the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITC Limited v. Debt Recovery Tribunal and Others, reported in AIR 1998 SC 623. 20 O.S. No.3335/2003
23. It is further contended that, as per the records available to the Second Defendant, after the death of the original owner Smt. Sivagami Ammal, the 45 grandchildren of Sivagami Ammal became the absolute owners of the entire property bearing No. 7, Cambridge Road, Bangalore, measuring North 421 feet, South 408 feet, East 354 feet, and West 357 feet, with a total area of 16,373 sq. yards, i.e., the plaint Schedule 'A' property. Each person was entitled to a 1/45th undivided share, right, title, and interest in the entire property. All such persons are necessary parties to this suit. The Plaintiffs have deliberately not chosen to implead them as parties to these proceedings.
24. Out of the 45 grandchildren who had absolute rights over the entire property, 23 grandchildren and 8 children of Sivagami Ammal -- who had a life interest in the entire property -- 21 O.S. No.3335/2003 entered into an agreement of sale dated 12-06-1975 with Subbaraju. Under the said agreement, Subbaraju agreed to purchase 31 shares out of 54 shares. Out of the said 31 shares, 8 had only a life interest and 23 had an absolute right. The said agreement of sale became the subject matter of the suit for specific performance in O.S. No. 831 of 1981.
25. Similarly, under an agreement of sale dated 25-09-1975, 9 grandchildren out of 45 grandchildren who had an absolute right over the plaint Schedule 'A' property and one son of Sivagami Ammal who had a life interest in the property agreed to convey 10/54 shares in the plaint schedule property in favour of Subbaraju. The said agreement of sale became the subject matter of the suit for specific performance in O.S. No. 830 of 1981.
26. During the pendency of O.S. No. 831 of 1981, some of the defendants entered into a 22 O.S. No.3335/2003 compromise with the nominees of the plaintiff and also filed a compromise petition before the Court. In pursuance of the compromise petition, the said defendants executed registered sale deeds in favour of Plaintiff Nos. 3 to 11, namely the nominees of Subbaraju, conveying their respective 1/45th undivided share in the plaint 'A' Schedule property.
27. The Second Defendant submits that the present Plaintiffs, who are parties in O.S. No. 831 of 1981 and who had not executed the said deeds in favour of Plaintiff Nos. 3 to 11 of the earlier suit, were:
Rukmamal (Defendant No. 2, now deceased, represented by her legal representative Defendant No.
5), Ramachandra (Defendant No. 6A), Saindran (Defendant No. 6B), Dr. Radhika Devi (Defendant No.
7), Sulochana (represented by her legal representatives), Defendant No. 8 Shantakumari alias Shanta Satyanarayana, Defendant No. 26 Smt. 23 O.S. No.3335/2003 Varalakshmi, Defendant No. 27 Smt. Rajalakshmi, and Defendant No. 28 Smt. Gajalakshmi.
28. It is further submitted that after acrimonious litigation -- with some of the parties abusing the process of the courts by adopting dilatory tactics, compounded by the litigious attitude of the sharers who are well versed with the law being members of the Bar -- Rajalakshmi and Gajalakshmi entered into an arrangement under which Subramani, the First Defendant, was to undertake the responsibility of fighting for their rights in O.S. No. 831 of 1981.
29. Subramani agreed to execute the agreement of sale, as the Plaintiffs were in financial distress. It is further submitted that, given the hardening attitude of each of the litigating groups, Rajalakshmi and Gajalakshmi offered to sell their right, title, and interest in the properties to Subramani on an "as-is- where-is" basis, with the status of litigation over their 24 O.S. No.3335/2003 shares subsisting, and requested Subramani to purchase their respective shares.
30. Subramani, the First Defendant herein, in pursuance of the said offer, entered into agreements for purchase dated 31-08-2001 with each of Rajalakshmi and Gajalakshmi and paid an advance amount of ₹1,00,000 each in respect of the share belonging to each of the Plaintiffs herein. At the time of the agreements, powers of attorney in favour of Subramani were also executed by the Plaintiffs herein, authorising the First Defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of any purchaser to be found by him.
31. The Second Defendant further submits that the costs of the litigation having been borne by the First Defendant herein, the Plaintiffs were to reimburse all such costs during the course of the earlier litigation. As the legal battle continued to drag 25 O.S. No.3335/2003 on, it is stated by Sri Subramani that he was unable to withstand the financial burden and therefore approached various other parties to finance the court battle on his behalf.
32. At this stage, one financier by name Nandaraj Shetty agreed to finance Subramani for fighting the court battle on behalf of the various sharers who were Defendants in the suit. Upon insistence and with the consent of the Plaintiffs, A.M. Subramani, the First Defendant herein, assigned his rights under the agreements of sale dated 31-08-2001 in favour of Nandaraj Shetty as the ultimate beneficiary/assignee.
33. Thereafter, fresh agreements of sale dated 19-11-2001 came to be executed by Gajalakshmi and Rajalakshmi for a sale consideration of ₹13,00,000 each for their respective 1/45th shares, with an increase in the sale consideration by ₹50,000. In 26 O.S. No.3335/2003 pursuance thereof, they received an additional sum of ₹2,00,000 each, apart from the earlier advance received from Subramani towards the advance consideration payable in respect of their respective shares. The said agreements form part of the Court records.
34. It is stated that despite the best efforts of the First Defendant to amicably resolve the dispute between the parties, a solution continued to remain elusive due to the litigious attitude of the parties to the suit, a fact of which the Plaintiffs herein were aware.
35. It is further submitted that after considerable efforts by the First Defendant, the suit resulted in a compromise, under which the properties that were the subject matter of the suit were separated under a registered Indenture of Partition dated 05-02-2002, 27 O.S. No.3335/2003 numbered as Document No. 4409 of 2001-02, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar.
36. As per the terms of the compromise petition, the parties to both suits bearing O.S. No. 830 of 1981 and O.S. No. 831 of 1981 entered into an Indenture of Partition dated 05-02-2002, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bangalore, as Document No. 4409 of 2001-02.
37. This Court, after perusing the material on record, came to the conclusion that the compromise had been admitted by the parties concerned. Accordingly, the Court accepted the compromise petition and directed the Registrar to draw up the decree in terms of the compromise entered into by the parties to both suits.
38. It is further submitted that the litigation having ended in a compromise, the Plaintiffs became 28 O.S. No.3335/2003 entitled to ₹13,00,000 each for their respective 1/45th shares, due and payable by Nandaraj Shetty in terms of the contract of purchase referred to above.
39. It is further submitted that in terms of the said compromise, the extent of immovable property to which the sharers were entitled having been determined, the nominees of Subbaraju -- who were partners of Cambridge Centre -- were allotted the entitlements of 30 out of 45 shares by way of 30 registered sale deeds executed by all the parties to the suit, and accordingly they were placed in joint possession.
40. The total extent of land described in Schedule 'A' of the said suit was divided into Schedules 'B', 'C', 'D', and 'E', as per the map annexed to the partition deed. Schedules 'D' and 'E' together measure 40,000 square feet, which was 29 O.S. No.3335/2003 agreed to be sold in favour of the Second Defendant herein.
41. All the aforesaid facts are forthcoming from the documents produced by the Plaintiffs herein before this Court. In the remaining paragraphs, the Second Defendant has denied the allegations and averments and has prayed that the suit be dismissed.
42. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed on 16-06-2006:
Issue No.1: Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that the distribution of shares out of the sale proceeds under the sale deed dated 19-07- 2002 is inequitable? Consequently, whether the First Defendant is not entitled to receive any amount inclusive of post-dated cheques No. 298425 and No. 298426 dated 20-05-
2003 and 20-06-2003, each for
₹50,00,000?
Issue No.2: Consequently, whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from 30 O.S. No.3335/2003 withdrawing the amount under the above cheques?
Issue No.3: Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to a further injunction restraining the Third Defendant from releasing the amount under the cheques referred to above in favour of the First Defendant? Issue No. 4: Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to a further injunction restraining the Second Defendant from further paying any amount to the First Defendant? Issue No. 5: Whether the Defendants have proved that the Plaintiffs, having not challenged the sale deed, are not entitled to any relief?
Issue No. 6: Whether the Defendants have proved that the suit is bad for non- joinder of Nandaraj Shetty? Issue No. 7: Whether the Defendants have proved that the suit valuation is incorrect and, consequently, that the Plaintiffs have paid insufficient court fees?
Issue No. 8: What order or decree?
43. Plaintiff No. 1 is examined as P.W.1, who has filed the chief examination affidavit reiterating the 31 O.S. No.3335/2003 plaint averments and one witness V. Suresh Kumar is examined as P.W.2. Exhibits P1 to P28 are marked. Ex.P.1 Partition deed dated 5-2-2002, Ex.P.2 is sale deed dated 19-7-2002, Ex.P. 3 is sale agreement dated 31-8-2001 between Gajalakshmi and A.M.Subramani, Ex.P. 4 is sale agreement dated 19- 11-2001 between Gajalakshi and Nandaraja Shetty, Ex.P. 5 is the legal notice, Ex.P. 6 is returned RPAD receipt, Ex.P. 7 certificate of posting, Ex.P. 8 telegram to stop the payment, Ex.P. 9 and 10 are postal acknowledgements, Ex.P. 11 is MFA 4652/2003, Ex.P. 12 is vakalath filed in MFA by the defendant No. 1, Ex.P. 13 is certified copy of the order sheet in MFA. Ex.P. 14 is MFA order. Ex.P. 15 is order passed MFA, Ex.P. 16 to 28 are bank accounts statements.
44. The G.P.A. holder of the Second Defendant, by name Shrikant, is examined as D.W.1, and another witness Tyagaraj Naidu is examined as 32 O.S. No.3335/2003 D.W.2. Exhibits D1 and D2 are marked. Ex.D. 1 is power of attorney. Ex.D 2 is statement of account.
45. learned counsel for plaintiff has vehementally submitted that, the plaintiffs who are grand children of Late Shivagami Ammal, having 1/45th share in the property left behind by her, is entitled for equal share in the sale proceeds of the sale deed as per Ex.P.2. He has further contended that, as per the Ex.P. 1 partition deed, 'D' schedule is allotted to the III parties of the said partition deed measuring 33,450.90 sq.fts, the same is along with the share allotted to the IV parties of the said paritition deed measuring 6,459.10 sq.fts has been sold to the defendant No. 2 under Ex.P.2 sale deed. The plaintiffs who are sharers of 33,450.90 sq.fts as mentioned in the D schedule of Ex.P.1 is entitled for equal share in the sale proceeds, but the defendant No.1 has cheated the plaintiffs by not giving equal 33 O.S. No.3335/2003 share in the sale proceeds, which they are legally entitled. He has also drawn the attention of the court regarding the amount received by the defendant No.1 through various cheques. Further contended that, the defendant No.1 without disclosing the actual sale consideration amount has cheated the plaintiffs. With other submissions has prayed to decree the suit.
46. Per contra, the learned counsel for defendant No.1 has vehementally argued that, though the defendant No.1 has not filed the written statment and has not cross examined the PW1 and PW2, it does not mean that the plaintiffs version should be belived. He has contended that, the defendant No.1 is also one of the sharer and he is also one of the signatory to the document, he has received his part of consideration as a power of attorney holder and as as seller, hence there is no question of cheating the 34 O.S. No.3335/2003 plaintiff by him. Further he has forcefully argued that, the relief sought by the plaintiffs cannot be granted as sale consideration has been paid and already been encashed, further argued that, even if the decree is granted, same could not executed. Further he has filed the written arguments mentioning the same arguments and has prayed to dismiss the suit.
47. The learned counsel for defendant No.2 has also filed the written arguments and prayed to dismiss the suit as against the defendant No.2
48. Having heard the arguments advanced by counsel on both sides and after careful perusal of the records, my answers to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1: Partly affirmative.
Issue No.2: Does not survive for consideration
35 O.S. No.3335/2003
Issue No. 3: Does not survive for consideration
Issue No.4: Does not survive for consideration
Issue No. 5: Negative
Issue No. 6: Negative
Issue No. 7: Negative
Issue No. 8: Final order/decree.
REASONS
49. Issue Nos. 1 to 4 : These issues are taken together for common discussion since all of these issues require common consideration, and in order to avoid repetition.
50. The present suit is filed for a declaration to the effect that the distribution of shares from the sale proceeds under the sale deed dated 19-07-2002 is unequal, and for such other reliefs.
51. In the suit it is contended that the property originally bearing No. 7/16 (old No. 7), new No. 1, new No. 16, Cambridge Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore, 36 O.S. No.3335/2003 measuring a total of 1,47,354.75 sq. ft., originally belonged to Velur S. Singaravelu Mudaliar alias Velu Mudaliar. He bequeathed the property to his daughter Sivagami Ammal, her children, and grandchildren under a gift deed dated 04-07-1907, wherein a life interest was created in favour of Sivagami Ammal and her children, with the property to vest among the grandchildren upon the expiry of those life interests.
52. Initially, 23 grandchildren and 8 children of Sivagami Ammal entered into an agreement of sale with Y. Subbaraju on 12-06-1975, agreeing to sell 31 shares, and another agreement of sale was entered into on 25-09-1975 between some other sharers and the very same Subbaraju, agreeing to sell 10 shares out of 45 shares.
53. The said Subbaraju filed suits for specific performance in O.S. No. 830 of 1981 and O.S. No. 37 O.S. No.3335/2003 831 of 1981. During the pendency of the suits, the said Subbaraju died. Thereafter, all the contesting parties and the Plaintiffs herein are stated to have executed a partition deed under which 30 shares were conveyed in favour of Subbaraju's heirs, as per the 'B' Schedule of the said partition deed, and the remaining sharers were divided into three groups, their respective shares being mentioned in Schedules 'C', 'D', and 'E'.
54. The present dispute pertains to the 'D' and 'E' Schedules of the partition deed (Exhibit P.1), which properties were sold under the sale deed dated 19-07-2002 (Exhibit P.2).
Sharers under Schedule 'D' -- Third Parties to the Partition Deed (Exhibit P.1):
1. Hanumantharao
2. Shanthavardhan 38 O.S. No.3335/2003
3. T.S. Rajashekar
4. T.S. Maharani
5. T.S. Vijayalakshmi
6. Sathayvadhan
7. Ranjanvadhan
8. Geetha
9. Jayanthi
10. Malathi
11. Smt. Rajalakshmi (Plaintiff No. 1)
12. Gajalakshmi (Plaintiff No. 2)
13. Govindaraj
14. A.M. Subramani (Defendant No. 1)
15. Krishnakumari
16. Shivagami Sundari
17. Mohan Sundari
18. Kamala Sundari
19. Rajeshwari
55. These 19 sharers, who are the third parties to the partition deed, were allotted the 'D' Schedule property of the partition deed (Exhibit P.1), 39 O.S. No.3335/2003 measuring 33,450.90 sq. ft. Page 90 of the partition deed (Exhibit P.1) reads as under:
'D' SCHEDULE PROPERTY (Allotted to the Third Party) All that piece and parcel of a portion of the property bearing No. 7, new No. 7/16, situated at Cambridge Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore - 8, namely the 'A' Schedule property, measuring east to west on the southern side 417 feet 2 inches, east to west on the northern side 421 feet, north to south 80 feet 2 inches, measuring in all 33,450.90 sq. ft., denoted by the letters HIJNK in the accompanying sketch, and bounded:
East by : Cambridge Road
West by : Property originally belonging to
Narayana Chetty
North by : Property originally belonging to
Sri Singaravelu Mudaliar
South by : 'E' Schedule property
40 O.S. No.3335/2003
Sharers under Schedule 'E' -- Fourth Parties to the Partition Deed (Exhibit P.1):
1. C.S. Ramalingam
2. Anuradha
3. Vanishree
4. Rajashree
5. Varalakshmi (sister of the Plaintiffs)
56. These 5 sharers, who are the fourth parties to the partition deed, were allotted the 'E' Schedule property of the partition deed (Exhibit P.1), measuring 6,549.10 sq. ft. Page 91 of the partition deed (Exhibit P.1) reads as under:
'E' SCHEDULE PROPERTY (Allotted to the Fourth Party) All that piece and parcel of a portion of the property bearing No. 7, new No. 7/16, situated at Cambridge Road, Ulsoor, Bangalore - 8, namely the 41 O.S. No.3335/2003 'A' Schedule property, measuring east to west on the northern side 417 feet 2 inches and on the southern side 417 feet 5 inches, north to south 15 feet 2 inches, measuring in all 6,549.10 sq. ft., denoted by the letters FGHI in the accompanying sketch, and bounded:
East by : Cambridge Road
West by : Property originally belonging
to Narayana Chetty
North by : 'D' Schedule property
belonging to the third parties
to this partition deed
South by : 'B' Schedule property
belonging to M/s. Cambridge
Centre
57. These portions allotted to the sharers vide Party No. III and Party No. IV, under Schedules 'D' and 'E' respectively, were sold by them to the Second Defendant under the sale deed dated 19-07-2002, marked as Exhibit P.2.42 O.S. No.3335/2003
58. The third parties (i.e., 'D' Schedule sharers) are referred to as Vendors No. I, and the fourth parties (i.e., 'E' Schedule sharers) are referred to as Vendors No. II, in the sale deed (Exhibit P.2).
59. Vendors No. I at Serial Nos. 1 to 10 and 17 (Hanumantharao, Shanthavardhan, T.S. Rajashekar, T.S. Maharani, T.S. Vijayalakshmi, Sathayvadhan, Ranjanvadhan, Geetha, Jayanthi, Malathi, and Mohan Sundari) are represented by the power-of-
attorney holder A.M. Subramani. Vendors No. II (Smt. Anuradha, Vanishree, and Rajashri at Serial Nos. 21 to 23) are represented by the power-of-attorney holder C.S. Ramalingam (at Serial No. 20) in the sale deed.
60. Under the sale deed dated 19-07-2002 (Exhibit P.2), both the 'D' Schedule and the 'E' Schedule, totally measuring 40,000 sq. ft., were sold 43 O.S. No.3335/2003 by the respective sharers for a total consideration of ₹5,60,00,000 (Rupees Five Crores and Sixty Lakhs).
61. In the sale deed, the price per square foot is not specified; only the total value of the 40,000 square feet is fixed at ₹5,60,00,000.
62. The third parties (i.e., sharers) in the partition deed dated 05-02-2002 are 19 in total, including the Plaintiffs, each having an equal right over 33,450.90 sq. ft. The fourth parties (i.e., sharers) in the partition deed dated 05-02-2002 are 5 in total, having equal rights over 6,549.10 sq. ft.
63. As already noticed, the per square foot rate is not fixed in the sale deed, and only the total value of the entire 'D' and 'E' Schedule properties of the partition deed -- i.e., 40,000 sq. ft. -- is fixed at ₹5,60,00,000.
44 O.S. No.3335/2003
64. If the total value of ₹5,60,00,000 is calculated on a per-square-foot basis, it comes to ₹1,400 per sq. ft. (₹5,60,00,000 ÷ 40,000 sq. ft. = ₹1,400 per sq. ft.)
65. Applying the same rate to the share of the third parties (33,450.90 sq. ft.): 33,450.90 × ₹1,400 = ₹4,68,31,260. If this amount is equally divided among the 19 sharers, each sharer would be entitled to ₹24,64,803.
66. However, Plaintiff No. 1 and Plaintiff No. 2 have each received only ₹10,00,000 under the sale deed (Exhibit P.2).
67. Applying the same calculation to the fourth parties of the partition deed (i.e., 'E' Schedule measuring 6,549.10 sq. ft.): ₹1,400 × 6,549.10 sq. ft. = ₹91,68,740 ÷ 5 sharers = ₹18,33,748 per sharer. However, it is astonishing to note that Dr. C.S. Ramalingam, Anuradha, Vanishree, and Rajashree 45 O.S. No.3335/2003 together received ₹23,00,000, and Varalakshmi alone received ₹20,00,000, which is a patently inequitable distribution of shares. The Total value of E schedule is Rs 91,68,740/- but it is astonishing only Rs 43,00,000/- to the Sharers of E schedule. The defendant No.1 who is undisputedly has taken lead role in the sale trasactions has to answer this. Details of Cheques Received by Defendant No. 1
under the Sale Deed (Exhibit P.2):
Sl. No. Cheque Date Amount (₹) Bank
in Ex. No.
P.2
Sl.No.10 298408 31-07-2002 5,00,000 Citibank,
M.G. Road,
Bangalore
Sl.No.11 298409 31-07-2002 5,00,000 Same Bank
Sl.No.12 298410 31-07-2002 12,00,000 Same Bank
Sl.No.14 298412 20-10-2002 26,31,000 Same Bank
Sl.No.16 298414 20-11-2002 26,31,000 Same Bank
Sl.No.17 298415 20-12-2002 23,69,000 Same Bank
Sl.No.18 298416 20-12-2002 26,31,000 Same Bank
Sl.No.20 298418 20-01-2003 26,31,000 Same Bank
46 O.S. No.3335/2003
Sl.No.22 298420 20-02-2003 26,31,000 Same Bank
Sl.No.24 298422 20-03-2003 26,31,000 Same Bank
Sl.No.25 298423 20-04-2003 23,69,000 Same Bank
Sl.No.26 298424 20-04-2003 26,31,000 Same Bank
Sl.No.27 298425 20-05-2003 50,00,000 Same Bank
Sl.No.28 298426 20-06-2003 50,00,000 Same Bank
TOTAL ₹3,53,55,000
68. The First Defendant is the power-of-attorney holder for sellers at Serial Nos. 1 to 10 and 17. Therefore, including himself, he is entitled to represent 12 sharers; however, astonishingly, he has received 14 cheques amounting to ₹3,53,55,000. There is no explanation in the sale deed as to how he became entitled to 2 additional cheques.
69. Furthermore, if this amount is divided equally among 12 persons, it comes to approximately ₹29,46,250 per sharer (₹3,53,55,000 ÷ 12 sharers = ₹29,46,250 per sharer), whereas the the total value 47 O.S. No.3335/2003 of D schedule is divided into per sharer, the same will come around Rs 24,64,736/-, these 11 persons who have GPA to the Defendant No.1 and defendant No.1 will receive Rs 4,81,514/- per person excess.
70. It is quite pertinent to note how the legal heirs of Mahadevan alone (the father of the First Defendant) have been most benefited under the said sale deed. As per the partition deed (Exhibit P.1), the said Mahadevan left behind the following legal heirs (refer page 30 of Exhibit P.1):
1. Govindaraj
2. Ramachandra
3. Shanthakumar
4. Subramani (First Defendant)
5. Bhuvaneshwari
6. Shivagami Sundari
7. Mohana Sundari
8. Kamala Sundari
9. Rajeshwari 48 O.S. No.3335/2003
71. The following chart discloses the manner in which the amounts have been received by the legal heirs of Mahadevan:
Cheque No. Name Amount
(₹)
298404 Govindaraj 5,00,000
298419 23,69,000
298408 Subramani (Defendant No. 1) 5,00,000
298409 5,00,000
298410 12,00,000
298412 26,31,000
298414 26,31,000
298415 23,69,000
298416 26,31,000
298418 26,31,000
298420 26,31,000
298422 26,31,000
298423 23,69,000
298424 26,31,000
298425 50,00,000
298426 50,00,000
298403 Krishnakumari (D/o 5,00,000
Bhuvaneshwari)
298411 23,69,000
298407 Shivagami Sundari 5,00,000
49 O.S. No.3335/2003
298421 23,69,000
298405 Kamala Sundari 5,00,000
298413 23,69,000
298406 Rajeshwari 5,00,000
298417 23,69,000
72. The First Defendant alone received
₹3,53,55,000 as the G.P.A. holder of Sellers Nos. 1 to 10 and 17. His brother Govindaraj, niece Krishnakumari (daughter of Bhuvaneshwari), sister Shivagami Sundari, sister Kamala Sundari, and sister Rajeshwari together separately received ₹1,23,45,000. It is astonishing to note that, Govindraj, Krishnakumari, Shivagami Sundari, Kamala sundari, and Rajeshwari has received Rs 5,00,000/- and Rs 23,69,000/- each separately, they are also sharers of D schedule as III parties under Ex.P.1, and even plaintiffs are also sharers of D schedule as III parties, then the payment must be equal to plaintiff also. It is to be seen from the sale deed Ex.P.2 only Rs 10,00.000/- is paid to each plaintiffs, whereas 50 O.S. No.3335/2003 the said Govindraj, Krishnakumari, Shivagami Sundari, Kamala sundari, and Rajeshwari have received Rs 28,69,000/- each. Which has no answer or explanation in the sale deed.
73. In total, the legal heirs of Mahadevan (the fifth son of Sivagami Ammal) and the legal heirs of Arunachala (the fourth son of Sivagami Ammal) have together received ₹4,77,00,000. This prima facie demonstrates that there has been an unequal distribution of the sale proceeds.
74. It appears that Sivagami Ammal, who had only a life interest in the property, had the following children:
SONS:
1. Nataraj (died in the year 1962)
2. Ramakrishna (died in the year 1965)
3. Venkatachala (died in the year 1980) 51 O.S. No.3335/2003
4. Arunachala (died in the year 1979)
5. Vasudevan (died in the year 1998, issueless)
6. Mahadevan (died in the year 1992) DAUGHTERS:
1. Sharadadevi (died in the year 1983)
2. Unnamalai (died in the year 1987)
3. Leelavathi (died in the year 1987)
4. Jagadambal (died in the year 1996)
5. Lakshmidevi (predeceased Sivagami Ammal)
75. It appears from the records that Schedules 'D' and 'E' of the partition deed (Exhibit P.1) are shared only among the legal heirs of Venkatachala, Leelavathi, Mahadevan, and Arunachala. This may be because the remaining 31 shares had earlier been sold by the legal heirs of the other children of Sivagami Ammal.
76. The Plaintiffs have contended that the suit property originally belonged to Singaravelu Mudaliar, 52 O.S. No.3335/2003 who bequeathed the property under a gift deed dated 04-07-1907, creating a life interest in favour of Sivagami Ammal and her children, with the property to vest among the grandchildren of Sivagami Ammal. Therefore, the said property ought to have been equally divided among the children of Sivagami Ammal, and thereafter the respective share should have been allotted to the grandchildren in proportion to the share allotted to their father or mother. Nonetheless, the Plaintiffs and others have themselves admitted that they hold a 1/45th share in the said property.
77. It appears that along with the suit the plaintiffs have filed I.A. Nos. 2 and 3 to restrain the defendant No.1 from encashing the two cheques and to restrain defendant No.2 from paying ₹1 crore to defendant No.1. The same were rejected by an order dated 26-6-2003, against which MFA No. 4652/2003 was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. 53 O.S. No.3335/2003 In the meanwhile, the said cheques for ₹1 crore were realized by defendant No.1. Therefore, on 01-12-2003, there was a direction from the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka to defendant No.1 to deposit ₹1 crore before the trial court within two weeks from that day. But it appears that such order has not been complied with by defendant No.1 till today. When the cheques were realized by defendant No.1, the MFA was dismissed on 6-7-2005 as infructuous. Further, all the cheques issued towards the sale transaction have been realized by the respective parties.
78. The arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for defendant No.1 has no basis, mainly because he has not filed any written statement and not cross examined. His arguments is not substantiated by way pleadings and proof. Further the role played by the defendant No.1 in materialising the sale of the property is undisputable. Because, he was GPA holder 54 O.S. No.3335/2003 for the plaintiffs on the earlier occasion and even in the present sale also he is GPA hodler for 12 sharers. The arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for defendant No.1 that no other sharers have disputed the sale transaction, but the same is not a ground to disbelieve the verision of the plaintiffs when there is crystle clear evidence before the court. The plaintiffs are questioning the injustice caused to them, it is upto other sharers to question the injustice caused to them. When there is ample documentary evidence before the court, the arguments of the defendant No.1 cannot be accepted.
79. Now, viewed from any angle, it is clear and manifest that there has been an unequal distribution of the sale proceeds under the sale deed (Exhibit P.2). Therefore, Issue No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative, and Issue Nos. 2 to 4 are answered as not surviving for consideration.
55 O.S. No.3335/2003
80. Issue No.5:- The plaintiffs' main grievance is that the sale proceeds under Ex.P.2 were not equally distributed by defendant No.1, who took the lead role in materializing the sale in favour of defendant No.2. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that they have not sold the property at all. Hence, there is no necessity for the plaintiffs to challenge the sale deed. Accordingly, this issue is answered in the negative.
81. Issue No.6:- It is not necessary that the earlier agreement holder should be made a party to the present suit, in which the plaintiffs are only alleging that the sale proceeds were not equally distributed. The said Nandaraja Shetty is neither a necessary party nor a proper party for the adjudication of the present suit. Therefore, the present issue is answered in the negative.
82. Issue No.7:- Though the plaintiffs have sought a declaration that the sale proceeds under 56 O.S. No.3335/2003 the sale deed as per Ex.P.2 were unequally distributed, their intention in approaching the Court is to seek partition of the sale consideration amount. Undisputedly, the same represents the proceeds of sale of their property.
83. When there is prima facie material to show that there has been unequal distribution of the sale proceeds of the ancestral property, it cannot be held that the court fee paid is insufficient. Apart from that, this Court has the power to mould the relief in order to meet the ends of justice.
Therefore, this issue is answered in the negative.
84. Issue No.8:- In view of the above discussion I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Suit of the plaintiffs is partly decreed with cost.
57 O.S. No.3335/2003
It is declared that the sale proceeds paid to the plaintiffs under the Ex.P. 2 sale deed is inequal, further plaintiffs are entitled for equal share of the sale proceeds of sale of schedule 'D' property of the Ex.P. 1 measuring 33,450.90 sq fts.
The defendant No.1 is hereby directed to pay difference amount of ₹ 14,64,803/- each to the plaintiffs No.1 & 2 with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 19-7- 2002 till the date of realisation.
The defendant No. 1 is directed to pay the said amount within 60 days from today to the plaintiffs.
Suit as against the defendant No.2 & 3 is dismissed.
Office to draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer III on Computer and print out taken thereof is revised, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 16th day of March, 2026).
[SATHISHA.L.P.] 58 O.S. No.3335/2003 XCI ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL.
JUDGE FOR KPIDFE CASES .
C/C VII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff:
P.W.1 - Rajalakshmi P.W.2- V. Suresh Kumar Documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff :
Ex.P.1 Partition deed dated 5-2-2002 Ex.P.2 Sale deed dated 19-7-2002, Ex.P.3 Sale agreement dated 31-8-2001 Ex.P.4 Sale agreement dated 19-11-2001 Ex.P.5 Legal notice Ex.P.6 Returned RPAD receipt Ex.P.7 Certificate of posting, Ex.P.8 Telegram to stop the payment Ex.P.9 and 10 Postal Acknowledgments Ex.P.11 MFA 4652/2003, Ex.P.12 Vakalath filed in MFA by the 59 O.S. No.3335/2003 defendant Ex.P.13 Certified copy of the order sheet in MFA.
Ex.P.14 MFA order Ex.P.15 Order passed MFA Ex.P.16 to 28 Bank Statements
Witnesses examined on behalf of Defendant DW.1 : Srihari.S. DW.2 : Mr. Thyagaraj Naidu Witness examined and Documents marked on behalf of Defendants:
Ex.D.1 Special Power of Attorney
Ex.D.2 Statement of Account
(Sathisha.L.P.).
C/C. VII A.C.C. & S.J.,
BENGALURU.
SCHEDULE-A
60 O.S. No.3335/2003
All that piece and parcel of land thereon and bearing old corporation No.7/16. No.7/16. old New No.16 (before bifurcation) Cambridge road, Ulsoor, Bangaldore measuring north to south on the eastern side 354 feet on the western side 357 feet, East to West on the Northern side 421 feet, on the sourthern side 408 feet and measuring in all 1.47.354.75 S q. Feet butted and bounded on the East by: Cambridge road.
West by: Property originally belonging to Narayan Chetty North by: Property originally belonging to Sri Sringaravelu Mudaliar, South by: Property belonging Sri. Somasundara Mudaliar/now a Private road. To SCHEDULE -B All that piece and parcel of a portion in no.7/16. property bearing No.7. new situated at Cambridge road, Ulsoor, Bangalore -8 namely the "A" Scheduleproperty, measuring East to West 417 feet 2 inches on the the northern southern side, east to West on side 421 feet, North to South: 80 feet and 2 measuring in all 33,450.90.square feet and denoted by the letters "H,I,J and K " In the accompanying sketch and bounded on the 61 O.S. No.3335/2003 East by : Cambridge road, West by : Property originally belonging to Sri. Narayana Chetty.
North by : Property originally belonging to Sri Sringaravelu Mudaliar, and South by : "E" Schedule Property.
All that peice and parcel of porton in the property bearing No.7, new no.7/16, Cambridge road, Ulsoor, Bangalore-8 namely the "A" Schedule property, measuring East to West: on the northern side 417feet 2 inches and southern side 417 inches, thus measuring in all 6,549.10 sq.ft. and denoted by the letters "F,G,H and I in the accompanying sketch bounded on the:
East by: Cambridge road.
West by: Property originally belonging to
Sri.Narayana Chetty.
North by: "D Schedule property belonging to
third parties to this partition deed. South by : "B" Schedule belonging to M/s.Cambridge Centre. Property.
Digitally signedby L P SATHISH
LP Date:
SATHISH 2026.03.16
15:53:27 +0530
(Sathisha.L.P.).
C/C. VII A.C.C. & S.J.,
BENGALURU.