Bangalore District Court
Smt. S.N.Lakshmi vs E.M.Nagaraju on 17 November, 2021
1
O S No.2992/2017
C/w. O S No.2644/2017
KABC010094482017
IN THE COURT OF THE XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY : (CCH-18)
::Present::
Sri. Dinesh Hegde, B.A., LL.B.,
XIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Dated this the 17th day of November, 2021.
O S No.2644/2017 C/w. O.S.No.2992/2017
PLAINTIFF :: Smt. S.N.Lakshmi,
D/o. E.M.Nagaraju, W/o. Harsha
Kumar H.C., Aged about 34 years,
Residing at No.81/1, 'Belaku' 18th
Main, J.C. Nagar, Bangalore North,
Bangalore.
(By Sri. D.G., Advocate)
V/s.
DEFENDANTS :: 1. E.M.Nagaraju, S/o. Late.
Mallegowda, Aged 69 years,
2. Smt. E.N.Gayathri, W/o.
E.M.Nagaraju, Aged 65 years,
Both are residing at No.81/1,
'Belaku' 18th Main, J.C. Nagar,
Bangalore North, Bangalore.
2
O S No.2992/2017
C/w. O S No.2644/2017
3. Dinesh Kumar S.C., S/o.
Chandrashekar.S, Aged 41 years,
Residing at No.81/1, 'Belaku' 18th
Main, J.C. Nagar, Bangalore North,
Bangalore.
4. The Commissioner, Bruhat
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike,
Bangalore.
5. The Assistant Revenue Officer,
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara
Palike Zonal Office of Corporation,
Rajaji Nagar, (Public Service
Centre), Bangalore.
(By Sri. M.S.B., Advocate for D-1 & 2
and Sri. M.P.B., Advocate for D-3)
O S No.2992/2017
PLAINTIFF :: S.C.Dinesh Kumar, S/o. Late.
Chandrashekar.S., Aged about 42
years, Residing at No.81/1, II
Floor, "Belaku" 18th Main Road,
J.C. Nagara, Geleyara Balaga
Ward, Mahalakshmi Puram,
Bangalore-560 086
(By Sri. M.P.B., Advocate)
V/s.
DEFENDANTS :: 1. Smt. S.N.Lakshmi, W/o. Harsha
Kumar H.C., Aged abut 34 years,
3
O S No.2992/2017
C/w. O S No.2644/2017
Residing at No.81/1, I Floor,
"Belaku" 18th Main Road, J.C.
Nagara, Geleyara Balaga Ward,
Mahalakshmi Puram, Bangalore-
560 086
2. E.M.Nagaraju, S/o. Late.
Mallegowda, Aged 69 years,
3. Smt. E.N.Gayathri, W/o.
E.M.Nagaraju, Aged 65 years,
Both are Residing at No.81/1, II
Floor, "Belaku" 18th Main Road,
J.C. Nagara, Geleyara Balaga
Ward, Mahalakshmi Puram,
Bangalore-560 086.
(By Sri.D.G., Advocate)
Date of Institution of the Suit :: 13-04-2017
In O.S. 2644/2017
In O.S. 2992/2017 :: 25-04-2017
Nature of the Suit :: Partition
Date of commencement of
recording of evidence :: 22-10-2019
Date on which the Judgment
was pronounced. :: 17-11-2021
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration ::
4
O S No.2992/2017
C/w. O S No.2644/2017
In O.S. 2644/2017 04 07 04
In O.S. 2992/2017 04 06 22
(Dinesh Hegde),
XIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
JUDGEMENT
Since the parties to the suit and the subject matter of both suits are one and the same, OS No.2992/2017 is clubbed with OS No.2644/2017 as per the orders dated 13-03-2019 in IA No.6.
2. In both the suits the plaintiffs have sought for the relief of Partition and possession of the suit schedule property.
3. The facts of case in nutshell in O S No.2644/2017 :-
The plaintiff, defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 are originally the resident of the Sakaleshpur, 5 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 Hassan District and having agricultural land with house properties, the said properties were acquired by the defendant No.1 under the registered Partition Deed dated 30-04-1973 and also a registered Will dated 22-05-1997. By virtue of the same, the defendant No.1 acquired the house property. The father of the defendant No.1 died on 29-04-2003 in Sakaleshpur. The defendant No.1 was married to Smt. Gayathri E.N. and they were blessed with two daughters viz., Gangothri.S.N. and Lakshmi.S.N. Both were married.
4. The first daughter Gangothri.S.N. was married on 08-06-2000. But it is learnt that marriage was not consummated and at the instance of the elders of both parties, have consented to file the petition for divorce by mutual consent in M.C.No.19/2001 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Hassan under Section 13(b) of the Hindu 6 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 Marriage Act, 1955. The said petition was decreed and the marriage was dissolved on 08-09-2001. Her second marriage was solemnized with the defendant No.3 on 29-04-2002 and they lived together.
5. After the marriage, the defendant No.1 sold the land, house, sites and all properties at Sakaleshpura and shifted to Bangalore. The defendant No.1 has purchased the house site No.81 situated at Laggere Village, Yashwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore measuring 30 X 20 feet more fully described in the schedule in the joint name of daughters viz., S.N.Gangothri and S.N.Lakshmi. Purchase amount was paid out of the sale proceeds of the ancestral properties at Sakaleshpura, then the defendant No.1 constructed a dwelling house in the name of his daughters and all expenses were met out by the sale proceeds of the ancestral 7 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 properties only.
6. S.N.Gangothri, died intestate on 28-11-2016 at Bangalore leaving behind the parents and plaintiff. The deceased S.N.Gangothri had no issues, the plaintiff and mother are the sole surviving legal heirs of late Gangothri.S.N. to succeed to the estate the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff and his family are in possession and enjoyment ever since from the date of purchase.
7. After the death of Gangothri.S.N., the plaint schedule property was in possession with their parents and sister. Since the defendant No.3 was not having sufficient income to maintain his wife, both defendant No.3 and his wife Gangothri S.N. were provided with common mess and shelter in a portion of the plaint schedule property by the defendant No.1 & 2.
8. The defendant No.3, however is never 8 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 happy with his wife and due to his ill treatment and hostile attitude, she was hospitalized many a times and died on 28-11-2016. Though the defendant No.3 has no manner of right, title to the assets of both movable and immovable, now he is making use of the original documents, attempting to get change of khatha of the plaint schedule property with defendant No.4 & 5 and filed application dated 20-12-2016. The plaintiff has filed the complaint on 12-12-2016 and filed objections on 12-01-2017 for the for change of khatha.
9. According to the Sale Deed, the deceased Gangothri.S.N. and the plaintiff had equal right and the same is undivided and partition of the same has not been effected. However, the defendant No.3 having no manner of right to claim in the suit schedule property as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The defendant No.3 is neither the co-owner 9 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 or having any right to occupy the portion of the plaint schedule property. He has no manner of right to succeeded to any portion of the plaint schedule property left behind by his wife Gangothri S.N. In view of the provisions of the Section15(2)(c) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, right, title and interest if any is succeeded to by late Smt. Gangothri S.N., upon her death, right in the plaint schedule property, that belonged to her father defendant No.1 and it revert to the legal heirs of the father of deceased i.e., to defendant No.1 herein. Hence, the plaintiff prays to pass a judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff for partition and possession of plaint schedule property by metes and bounds, to declare that the plaintiff s entitled for ½ share in the share of the deceased Gangothri.S.N. in the plaint schedule property, to declare that the defendant No.3 has no manner of right over the share of the deceased Gangothri.S.N. in the plaint schedule 10 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 property, mesne profit to be calculated in accordance with order XX of CPC from the date of suit till realisation and also to direct the defendants No.4 & 5 not to effect the change of khatha of the plaint schedule properties till a decree passed in this case.
10. After service of suit summons, the defendants appeared through their counsel and defendant No.1 & 3 filed separate written statements. Defendant No.2 filed Memo adopting the contents of the written-statement of defendant No.1.
In the written-statement defendant No.1 has admitted that, the plaintiff had equal right along with this defendant No.1 & 2, the same is not divided and partition of the same has not been effected. However, the defendant No.3 though has 11 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 no manner of right to claim in the suit schedule property as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Hence prays to decree the suit as prayed by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 & 2, who are entitled for ½ of the share of the deceased Gangothri.S.N had in the plaint schedule property and to grant court cost and expenses incurred in the present suit.
11. The defendant No.3 in O S No.2644/2017 in his written-statement has contended that, as a co-owner of the suit schedule property, he filed suit in O S No.2992/2017 against the plaintiff for partition before this court. The property of the deceased wife of defendant No.3 devolved on defendant No.3 as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act and not on the plaintiff or defendant No.1 & 2 herein. Hence, the present suit is liable to be dismissed in limine.
12. The wife of defendant No.3 late Smt. 12 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 Gangothri and the plaintiff are sisters. On 20-06-2008 the site measuring East to West 20 feet and North to South 30 feet at 18 th Main Road, J.C.Nagara, Mahalakshmi Puram Post, Geleyara Balaga Ward, Bangalore-560 086 has been purchased jointly by the wife of defendant No.3 and the plaintiff. Khatha has been jointly made in the names of the wife of the defendant No.3 and the plaintiff.
13. Subsequently, after purchase of the said site, wife of the defendant No.3 by investing the hard earned money constructed four floored residential building along with her younger sister (the plaintiff herein) in the year 2012. The defendant No.3 and his wife occupied 2 nd floor and portion of the 3rd floor in the suit schedule property for their residence. The plaintiff occupied 1st floor portion of the schedule property for her resident. 13
O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 Rest of the portions of the suit schedule property (Three Tenements) have been let out for rent.
14. The wife of defendant No.3 was diagnosed with the poorly differentiated signet ring cell adheno carcinoma (stomach cancer) in the month of June 2015. The doctors advised to undergo surgery. The plaintiff spent for the hospital charges, for surgeries and medicines. Due to the said prolonged illness, wife of the defendant No.3 died on 28-11-2016.
15. The defendant No.3 being the sole legal heir, succeeded to the estate of his wife. Khatha of the suit schedule property has been changed jointly in the names of the defendant No.3 and the plaintiff. The plaintiff though co-owner with defendant No.3 in respect of the suit schedule property, collecting complete rents of the rented portions of the suit schedule property after the death of wife of defendant No.3. The plaintiff denied to effect 14 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 partition. Under these circumstances, the defendant No.3 filed suit for partition against the plaintiff in O S No.2992/2017 before this court. The plaintiff though not having any right, title, interest over the property belong to the defendant No.3, filed the present suit before this court and laid a false claim over the property belonging to the defendant No.3. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit.
16. The facts of the case in nutshell in O S No.2992/2017:-
The plaintiffs wife Late. Smt. Gangothri and the defendant No.1 are the sisters. On 20-06-2008 the site measuring East to West 20 feet and North to South 30 feet, in all measuring 600 Square Feet at 18th Main Road, J.C. Nagara, Mahalakshmipuram, Geleyara Balaga Ward, Bangalore-86 has been purchased jointly by the wife of the plaintiff and the defendants. Khatha has been jointly changed in the 15 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 names of the plaintiff's wife and the defendant No.1.
17. Subsequently after purchase of the said site, wife of the plaintiff by investing the hard earned money of the plaintiff constructed four floored residential building along with her younger sister (defendant No.1 herein) in the year 2012. The plaintiff and his wife occupied 2nd floor and portion of the 3rd floor in the suit schedule property for their residence. The defendant No.1 occupied 1st floor portion of the schedule property for her resident. Rest of the portions of the suit schedule property (Three tenements) have been let out for rent.
18. The wife of the plaintiff was diagnosed with the poorly differentiated signet ring cell adheno carcinoma (stomach cancer)in the month of June 2015. Doctors advised to undergo surgery consequently half of the stomach has been removed along with tumor. Again one more major surgery 16 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 has been done. Six cycles of kemo therapy and 28 radio therapy (IMRT) treatment was also undergone. The above medical treatments were taken at Sri Shankara Cancer Hospital and Research Centre, Bangalore. The plaintiff spent lakhs of rupees for the hospital charges, for surgeries and medicines. Due to the said prolonged illness the wife of the plaintiff died on 28-11-2016.
19. The plaintiff being the sole legal heir succeeded to the estate of his wife, as the wife of the plaintiff died intestate. Khatha of the suit schedule property has been changed jointly in the names of the plaintiff and defendant. Hence, the plaintiff prays to pass a judgment and decree for partition, partitioning the suit schedule property and apportioning ½ share to the plaintiff with metes and bounds and put him in possess of the same, for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 17 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and also to grant mesne profits from the date of the suit till the date of delivery of possession to the plaintiff.
20. After service of suit summons, the defendants in OS No.2992/2017 appeared through their counsel and filed separate written-statement.
The defendant No.1, in her written-statement has contended that Sri. E.M.Nagarju and Gayathri E.N. are her parents. Originally they are the residents of Sakaleshpur, Hassan District having there agricultural land with house properties, which were got under registered Partition Deed dated 30-04-1973 and the registered Will dated 22-05-1997. The defendants No.2 & 3 have blessed with two female children i.e., Gangothri S.N. and the 18 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 defendant No.1 herein.
21. Her parents, due to their inability to maintain the agricultural operation and maintenance of the land due to their ailments, they have decided to sell the land, house and sites at Sakaleshpura and shift to Bangalore. Accordingly they sold the properties under the Sale Deed dated 27-09-2006. All the properties are not the self acquired properties of her parents and it is ancestral properties. With the entire sale proceeds they all sifted to Bangalore.
22. Her parents have purchased the house site No.81, situated at Laggere Village, Yashwanthpur Hobli, Bangalore measuring 30 x 20 Feet, more fully described in the schedule. For purchase of house site, the amount is paid out of the sale proceeds of the sale of ancestral properties at Sakaleshpura. The purchase was made in the joint 19 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 name of plaintiff's wife i.e., daughters of defendant No.2 & 3, S.N.Gangothri and defendant No.1 S.N.Lakshmi and then constructed the dwelling houses by her parents in the name of their daughters. All the expenses met out of the sale proceeds of the ancestral properties only. All the family members are decided to reside in the same property. The khatha of the same is in the joint name and revenue tax is assessed by the 1 st defendant and deceased Gangothri.S.N.
23. The wife of plaintiff Gangothri.S.N. died intestate on 28-11-2016 at Bangalore due to the prolonged ailments, leaving behind the defendant No.1, her parents and plaintiff. Defendant No.1 and her parents are the only sole surviving legal heirs of late Gangothri.S.N. to succeed to the estate i.e., plaint schedule property. They are in possession and enjoyment ever since from the date of purchase 20 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 and construction of dwelling house in the property.
24. Since the plaintiff had no sufficient income to maintain his family, both daughters have provided shelter in a portion of the plaint schedule property. After the death of plaintiff's wife i.e., S.N.Gangothri, the plaintiff started pinpricks to her and her parents and then the plaintiff refused to hand over the belongings of late Gangothri.S.N.
25. The plaintiff is living in the portion of the 2nd floor in schedule property, in the remaining portion of the 2nd floor is fully occupied by her parents and in-laws of the plaintiff. The said 2 nd floor has only one common entry.
26. The plaintiff has no manner of right as per Sec. 15(2) of Hindu Succession Act, the BBMP authority have not jurisdiction to lay the hands to determine the change of khatha. Female Hindu 21 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 dying intestate and issue less, devolves upon her father or his legal heirs and not upon the husband. According to Section 15(2)(C) of the Hindu Succession Act,1956, the plaintiff is not entitled to succeed to the property of the deceased Gangothri.S.N. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
27. In the written-statement, defendants No.2 & 3 have admitted that, they are the parents of defendant No.1. Considering their age and ailments they have decided to sell the land,house and sites at Sakaleshpura and shift to Bangalore. Accordingly they sold the said properties under the Sale Deed dated 27-09-2006, 03-03-2008 and 09-08-2011.
28. The defendants No.2 & 3 have purchased the house site No.81, situated at Laggere Village, Yashwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore measuring 30 feet x 20 feet, more fully described in the schedule. The 22 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 purchase amount is paid out of the sale proceeds of the ancestral and self acquired properties at Sakaleshpura. The purchase was made in the joint name of their daughters i.e., wife of plaintiff S.N.Gangothri and defendant No.1 S.N.Lakshmi and then constructed a dwelling house by them in the name of their daughters and all the expenses met out of the sale proceeds of the ancestral and self acquired properties only. All the family members are decided to reside in different floor in the same house property. The khatha of the property is in the joint name and revenue tax is assessed by the defendant No.1 and deceased Gangothri.S.N.
29. Their daughter S.N.Ganghthri/ wife of plaintiff, died intestate and issue less on 28-11-2016 at Bangalore due to the prolonged ailments, leaving behind the defendants and her husband/plaintiff herein. But the defendant No.1 and they are the 23 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 only sole surviving legal heirs of late Gangothri S.N. to succeed the estate i.e., plaint schedule property. All the defendants are in possession and enjoyment ever since from the date of purchase and construction of dwelling house in the property described in the schedule. The plaintiff is not having any kind of right to succeed the estate of deceased Gangothri.S.N.
30. After the demise of Gangothri.S.N. on 28-11-2016, the plaint schedule property is in their possession with right, title. The plaintiff has no income to maintain his family hence, he was provided with a shelter in the portion of the plaint schedule property.
31. The defendants No.1 and deceased S.N.Gangothri have decided to live under the common roof, since these defendants No.2 & 3 have sold all their ancestral properties without 24 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 keeping anything for themselves and constructed the present house for their living and also for letting out some portion of said house for getting rental income to meet the medical expenses of defendants No.2 & 3 and for their food and other purposes. As they have no income, the same was the understanding among their daughters.
32. The ground floor is leased to tenant, who is in occupation of the same. The 1 st floor is occupied by the defendant No.1 with her family, which has independent separate entry to the same. In the 2nd floor, the plaintiff is living in a portion, the remaining entire portion of the 2nd floor is in occupation of these defendants i.e., parents of defendant No.1 and wife of deceased S.N.Gangothri. The 2nd floor is having separate entry and it is common for all the occupants of the 2nd floor. In the third floor, a single bedroom house is also rented 25 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 out.
33. The plaintiff has no manner of right as per Section 15(2) of Hindu Succession Act. The female Hindu dying intestate and issue less, devolution of the property is on the basis of the source from which property is inherited by her from the father, devolves upon her father or his legal heirs and not upon the husband according to Section 15(2)(C) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.
34. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed.
ISSUES IN O S No.2992/2017 ::
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he has succeeded to the estate of his wife as her sole legal heir ?
2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ?26
O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as prayed ?
4. What order or decree ?
ISSUES IN O S No.2644/2017 ::
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the joint owner of the suit schedule property by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 20-06-2008 ?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits ??
3. Whether the Court Fee paid is sufficient ?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as prayed ?
5. What order or decree ?
35. The plaintiff in O S No.2466/2017 has been examined as PW-1 and marked documents at Ex.P-1 to P-28. Defendant No.1 & 3 in O S No.2466/2017 have been examined as DW-1 & 2 and marked documents at Ex.D-1 to D-28.
36. Heard the arguments and perused the 27 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 records and written arguments.
37. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
ISSUES IN O S NO.2644/2017 :
ISSUE No.1 :: In the Affirmative
ISSUE No.2 :: In the Affirmative
ISSUE No.3 :: In the Affirmative
ISSUE No.4 :: Partly in the Affirmative
ISSUE No.5 :: As per final order for the
following:-
ISSUES IN OS NO.2992/2017 :
ISSUE No.1 :: In the Affirmative
ISSUE No.2 :: In the Negative
ISSUE No.3 :: Partly in the Affirmative
ISSUE No.4 :: As per final order for the
following:-
REASONS
38. ISSUE NO.1 in OS No.2644/2017 & O S No.2992/2017 : These issues are taken up together for consideration to avoid repetition of 28 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 facts.
Admitted facts in both the suits are Sri. E.M.Nagaraju and Smt. E.N.Gayathri are the father and mother of Smt. Gangothri S.N. and Lakshmi S.N. An immovable property situated at Ward No.13, Geleyara Balaga Layout, Municipal No.81/1, 18 th Main Road, J.C.Nagara, Mahalakshmipuram, Bangalore was purchased in the joint names of Gangothri S.N. and Lakshmi.S.N. under the sale deed dated 20-06-2008. The first daughter Gangothri S.N. was married to Sri. Dinesh Kumar.S.C., who is the defendant in OS No.2644/2017 and plaintiff in OS No.2992/2017. The 2nd daughter S.N.Lakshmi is the plaintiff in OS No.2644/2017 and defendant No.1 in OS No.2992/2017. The 1st daughter Gangothri S.N. died issue less on 28-11-2016 leaving behind her husband and her parents i.e., defendants No.1 to 3.
39. According to the defendant No.1 & 2, the 29 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 suit schedule property was purchased by them in the name of deceased Gangothri.S.N. and S.N.Lakshmi from the income derived from sale of various immovable properties situated at Sakaleshpur, Hassan District. Hence, they contended that estate of the deceased Gangothri devolves upon them and not on her husband. It is the contention of the plaintiff in O S No.2992/2017 he being the husband of deceased Gangothri, is entitled for 50% of share in the suit schedule property and the parents of deceased Gangothri are not entitled for share.
40. With these rival contentions both the parties adduced their evidence. The plaintiff in OS No.2644/2017 is examined as PW-1. The plaintiff in OS No.2992/2017 has been examined as DW-2. Ex.P-1 to P-28 are marked. The defendant No.1 in OS 2644/2017 has been examined as DW-1. Ex.D-1 to 30 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 D-10 are marked.
41. Ex.P-1 is the family Ration Card reflect the name of E.M.Nagaraju, E.N.Gayathri, S.N.Gangothri and S.N.Lakshmi are the one family members. This ration card was issued by the Tahasildar of Sakaleshpura. Ex.P-2 is the certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 20-06-2008 reveal that Smt. S.N.Gangothri W/o. S.C.Dinesh Kumar and S.N.Lakshmi, W/o. H.C.Harsha Kumar have jointly purchased the suit schedule property from their vendor Sri.B.N.Kumar S/o. B.C.Nanjappa for sale consideration amount of Rs.3,30,000/-. Mr. Ramakrishna and R.Lakshminarayan are the witnesses to the sale deed. It is not in dispute that the suit schedule property was purchased under this Sale Deed in the joint names of S.N.Gangothri and S.N.Lakshmi. However, there is no such recital in the sale deed that the consideration amount paid by the 31 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 defendant No.1 & 2. Further, the entire amount of sale consideration is shown as paid by cash. Even there is no such recital that the amount was paid by the defendant No.1 & 2 through bank cheque or demand draft. Therefore, the burden lies upon the defendant No.1 & 2 to prove that they purchased the suit schedule property from the joint family income or from their own income.
42. Ex.P-3 is the encumbrance certificate reveal the execution of the sale deed dated 20-06- 2008. Ex.P-4 & 10 are the tax paid receipts. Ex.P-5 reveal that the Asst. Revenue Officer, BBMP issued a special notice to both Smt. S.N.Gangothri and S.N.Lakshmi by fixing the property tax of the suit schedule property. Ex.P-6 to P-9, P-21 & 22 are the khatha extracts & khatha certificates as on 21-06-2013, 11-06-2019 and 24-12-2016 stands in joint names of Smt. S.N.Gangothri and S.N.Lakshmi. 32
O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017
43. In order to prove that consideration amount was paid by defendant No.1 & 2 the plaintiff in OS No.2644/2017 i.e., Smt. S.N.Lakshmi has produced certified copies of the sale deed. Ex.P-11 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 28-02-1991 reveal that the defendant No.1 i.e. the father of the plaintiff purchased an immovable property in Sakaleshpura for sale consideration amount. Ex.P-12 is the certified copy of a registered Will dated 22-05-1997 reveal that Sri. Malle Gowda, who is none other than the father of defendant No.1 E.M.Nagaraju, had executed a Will in favour of defendant No.1 bequeathing certain property in his favour. Ex.P-13 is the death certificate of Mallegowda reveal that on 29-04-2003 he died bequeathing the property covered under Ex.P-12 in favour of defendant No.1 E.M.Nagaraju.
44. Ex.P-14 is the certified copy of registered 33 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 Sale Deed dated 09-08-2011 reveal that the defendant No.1, 2, the plaintiff in OS No.2644/2017 along with deceased S.N.Gangothri have alienated Sakaleshpura property in favour of K.H.Kushalappa for sale consideration amount of Rs.6,12,000/-. Ex.P-15 is a certified copy of the sale deed reveal that E.M.Nagaraju and E.N.Gayathri i.e., the defendant No.1 & 2 have alienated another immovable property situated at Sakaleshpura in favour of Sri. E.C.Hemanthshekar for sale consideration amount of Rs.7,95,000/-. Ex.P-16 is the certified copy of sale deed dated 03-03-2008 reveal that E.M.Nagaraju and E.N.Gayathri have sold another property situated at Sakaleshpura in favour of N.Ramapriyan and R.Jayashtree for sale consideration amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. Ex.P-17 is a certified copy of the sale deed dated 03-03-2008 shows that Smt. S.N.Lakshmi, who is the plaintiff in OS No.2644/2017 alienated an immovable property 34 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 situated at Sakaleshpura in favour of Sri. N.Ramapriyan and R.Jayashree for sale consideration amount of Rs.2,75,000/-. Ex.P-20 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 09-08-2011 shows that S.N.Gangothri alienated an immovable property situated at Sakaleshpura in favour of K.H.Kushalappa for sale consideration amount of Rs.3,60,000/-.
45. All the above Sale Deeds marked at Ex.P- 11, 12, 14 to 17 & 20 reveal that Sri. E.M.Nagaraju, Smt. E.N.Gayathri, Smt. S.N.Lakshmi and Smt. S.N.Gangothri have alienated their immovable properties situated at Sakaleshpura. Based on these documents they contended that the amount received from the alienation of the Sakaleshpura properties have been invested to purchase the suit schedule property in the name of their daughters S.N.Gangothri & S.N.Lakshmi and therefore, only 35 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 they are entitle for the estate of deceased Smt. Gangothri.S.N. Mere production of the certified copies of the Sale Deeds reflecting alienation of their properties is not sufficient. It is for them to prove that the sale proceeds amount was used for the purpose of purchasing the suit schedule property.
46. Ex.P-18 is the Public Notice issued in the Kannada newspaper stating that S.N.Lakshmi lost the original Sale Deed dated 20-06-2008. Ex.P-19 is the death certificate of Gangothri S.N. reveal that she died on 28-11-2016. Her husband's name is shown as Dinesh Kumar.S.C. However, there is no dispute that she died on 28-11-2016. It is also not in dispute that S.C.Dinesh Kumar is none other than her husband.
47. Ex.P-23 is the certificate of registration of 36 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 Marriage reveal that marriage of S.N.Gangothri D/o. Nagaraju E.M. and S.C.Dinesh Kumar S/o. Chandrashekar.S was solemnized on 29-04-2002 and the same has been registered on 29-04-2002 before the Sub-Registrar of Chikmagalur. However, this fact is not in dispute and it establishes that S.C.Dinesh Kumar is the husband of deceased S.N.Gangothri. Ex.P-25 to P-28 are the notarized copies of Adhaar cards of Nagaraju E.M., Gayathri E.N., Lakshmi S.N. and Gangothri S.N.
48. DW-1 i.e., E.M.Nagaraju, who is the father of deceased S.N.Gangothri and S.N.Lakshmi in his evidence by way of affidavit reiterated the facts stated in the written-statement. He has stated that himself, his wife and daughter S.N.Lakshmi are entitle for the share of the deceased S.N.Gangothri as per Section 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act and hence, he prayed to decree the suit and grant 37 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 share in the share of deceased Gangothri S.N.
49. In his cross-examination he has stated defendant No.3 is the husband of Gangothri. After the marriage, the defendant No.3 was residing at Sakaleshpura. He do not know that defendant No.3 was working in press media in Bangalore. After the marriage they came to Vijayanagara, Bangalore. He has stated that he has not given consideration amount to the vendor. But he denied the suggestion that he is not entitled for the share. He also denied the suggestion that defendant No.3 spent amount for construction of the building with respect of half portion of the property belonging to Gangothri.
50. DW-2 is none other than the defendant No.3 in OS No.2644/2017 and plaintiff in OS NO.2992/2017 in his examination-in-chief he has stated upon the death of his wife Gangothri, her absolute property i.e., half portion in the suit 38 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 schedule property devolved upon him under Section 15(1)(a) of Hindu Succession Act. According to him, his in-laws are not entitled for any share in the half portion belonging to deceased Gangothri. But he is only the person entitled for the entire half portion. He has produced khatha extracts and khatha certificates marked at Ex.D-1 to D-3 reflects that upon the death of Gangothri, name of her husband Dinesh Kumar S.C. finds place along with S.N.Lakshmi. So, the khatha with respect of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit stands in the joint names of S.C.Dinesh Kumar and S.N.Lakshmi. He has produced original Sale Deed dated 20-06-2008 that was executed by B.N.Kumar in favour of S.N.Gangothri and S.N.Lakshmi.
51. Ex.D-4 and D-5 are the khatha certificates and khatha extracts reveal that in the year 2008 the schedule property was standing in the name of 39 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 S.N.Gangothri and S.N.Lakshmi. Ex.D-6 is license fee paid receipt reveal that in order to construct a building in the suit schedule property the license was obtained in the name of S.N.Gangothri and S.N.Lakshmi. Ex.D-7 is the approved plan issued by BBMP to construct a building in the plaint schedule property. Ex.D-11 and 12 are the medical records of deceased Gangothri S.N. reveal that she was treated in Shankara Cancer Hospital and Research Centre. Ex.D-13 & 14 are the bank statements reveal that Dinesh Kumar S.C. maintained bank account in Karnataka Bank, Nehru Nagara, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore and Bank of India, Rajajinagara Branch, Bangalore. Ex.D-15 is the LIC policy for a sum of Rs.20,000/- standing in the name of Dinesh Kumar, wherein his wife Gangothri is made as a nominee.
52. Ex.D-16 is the notice issued by Profession Tax Officer issued to M/s. Kanasu Creations, Kumara 40 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 Park Road, Bangalore. According to the defendant No.3, he was running M/s. Kanasu Creations and when he failed to file Form No.4-A along with payment of enrollment tax, the Profession Tax Officer has issued notice. Ex.D-17 & are the letters issued by the Director of Dr. B.R.Ambedkar Research Centre, Bangalore to the said S.C.Dinesh Kumar, wherein a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- was paid to him for submitting a report on ಹಹದ ಜಜಜಜಗ (Handi Jogi) Community.
53. Ex.D-19 is a letter issued by Mr. U.R.Ananthamurthy suggesting the name of Dinesh Kumar to consider his name as a member of Caste Census Committee of Backward community. Ex.D-20 is a letter issued by Registrar of Karnataka Sahitya Academy to S.C.Dinesh Kumar inviting him as a Special Invitee for the workshop on Dr. B.R.Ambedkar. Ex.D-21 to D-23 are three books by 41 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 name "ಅವರರ ತಜರಹಜಜಜದ ನಹತರದ ಕರರಳ ಕಥನ, ಹಹದ ಜಜಜಜಗ and ದಜಜಸಜ ಮರತರ" According to the defendant No.3, who is also the plaintiff in OS No.2992/2017, he is well known person in the society and therefore, he has produced these publications to show that his intellectual knowledge.
54. Ex.D-24 to D-26 are his identity cards reveal that he was the Editor of Indu Sanje (ಇಹದರ ಸಹಜಜ) evening newspaper. Ex.D-27 is monthly magazine called as ಕರವಜಜ ನಲರಲಡ, wherein his name is mentioned as Chief Editor.
55. In his cross-examination he has stated that he was earning monthly remuneration of Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- in the year 1999. Thereafter he started a DTP Center at Hassan in a rented premises. In the year 2001 he came to Bangalore. Deceased Gangothri is a Degree graduate, but she 42 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 was not working for salary.
56. He has further stated he met Gangothri in the year 2000. During that time she was unmarried. He do not know in which year her first marriage took place. Her first marriage was dissolved by decree of divorce. After her divorce he married Gangothri and they have no issues. He denied the suggestion that by alienating the property situated at Sakaleshpura, defendant No.1 & 2 have purchased the suit schedule property. He denied the suggestion that upon the death of Gangothri, her property reverts back to her parents and her sister.
57. Admittedly, the suit schedule property stands in the names of Smt. S.N.Gangothri and Smt. Lakshmi.S.N. as per the sale deed dated 20-06-2008. They jointly purchased the suit schedule property from their vendors for consideration amount. Nowhere in the sale deed 43 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 there is a recital that her parents provided fund to purchase the suit schedule property.
58. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the point for consideration is, who is entitle to inherit to the estate of deceased S.N.Gangothri. Ex.P-2 Sale Deed reveal that S.N.Gangothri and S.N.Lakshmi are the joint owners of suit schedule property. Therefore, even S.N.Gangothri was alive, she was entitle for half share in the suit schedule property and S.N.Lakshmi entitle for remaining half share. Admittedly, S.N.Gangothri died intestate. It is also admitted fact that S.C.Dinesh Kumar is none other than the husband of S.N.Gangothri. On the other hand, E.M.Nagaraju and E.N.Gayathri are the parents and S.N.Lakshmi is the sister of deceased S.N.Gangothri.
59. Under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession 44 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 Act, 1956, property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner. Any property possessed by her, irrespective of how it was acquired, becomes her absolute property.
60. Under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve firstly, upon the sons and daughters and the husband. Admittedly, S.N.Gangothri died without any children. Therefore, as per Section 15(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the husband of deceased Gangothri i.e., S.C.Dinesh Kumar become the successor of deceased S.N.Gangothri. In the event of S.N.Gangothri died without leaving her husband, her estate devolves upon heirs of the husband. If there are no heirs of the husband, then devolves upon her 45 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 mother and father. Here the husband is alive. Therefore he becomes her successor.
61. The learned advocate appearing for the defendant No.1 & 2 has contended that under Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the half share of deceased S.N.Gangothri devolves upon them. Section 15(2)(a) reads as follows; Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section(1), -
(a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section(1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father.
62. Under Section 15(2)(b), any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section(1) in the order 46 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.
63. Therefore, it is clear that the object of Section 15(2) is to ensure that the property left by a Hindu female does not loose the real source from the where the deceased female had inherited the property. Hence, the defendant No.1 & 2 are entitled to inherit the 50% of the share of S.N.Gangothri if they are able to prove that S.N.Gangothri inherited the property. Here there is absolutely no evidence to show that S.N.Gangothri inherited the suit schedule property from her ancestors or from joint family. On the other hand, she is the absolute owner of the half portion of the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 20-06-2008.
64. Learned advocate appearing for plaintiff in OS No.2992/2017 (the defendant No.3 in OS No.2644/2017 has relied upon a decision reported in AIR 2011 Andhra Pradesh 120 - between Goraka 47 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 Anjaneyulu Vs. Gunti Tatayya Naidu and others, wherein it was held that "Hindu Succession Act (30o 1956), S. 15(1) (a), S.15(2) - Devolution of property of female Hindu dying intestate - Property inherited by wife through Will of her father - She became absolute owner of property through testamentary succession and not by inheritance - Death of Wife- Husband and wife having no issue- property would devolve upon husband alone."
65. Counsel for the plaintiff in OS No.2644/2017 has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2014 KAR 2366 between Thippeswamy and another Vs. Rangappa, wherein it was held that "the intent of the legislature to incorporate Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to see that the property originally belonging to the parents of the deceased female Hindu should be inherited by only those 48 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 decedents of the parents family and such property shall not go either to the husband or to his heirs unless the deceased has left behind her a son or a daughter. Section 15(2)(a) of the Act, is an exception to the rule of succession in case of female Hindus."
66. In the above decision Smt. Rangamma inherited the properties left by her husband. On the death of Nagappa she came in possession of the property. Therefore, it is clear that the above decision is dealing with the property inherited by the female as contemplated under Section 15(2)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In the instant case, it is not the property inherited by the S.N.Gangothri from her ancestors or from her parents. On the other hand, it was her absolute property purchased under a registered Sale Deed dated 20-06-2008.
67. If Smt. Gangothri died intestate even 49 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 without leaving behind her husband, then only her mother and father would have been entitled to inherit her estate. Here, the husband of deceased Smt. S.N.Gangothri is alive and he succeeds to the estate of Smt. Gangothri S.N. as per Section 15(10)
(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Therefore, the decision reported in AIR 2011 Andhra Pradesh 120 - between Goraka Anjaneyulu Vs. Gunti Tatayya Naidu and others referred above is aptly applicable to the facts of this case. Sri. S.C.Dinesh Kumar being the husband of deceased Smt. S.N.Gangothri has proved that he has succeeded to the estate of his wife and her sole legal heir entitled for half share. At the same time, Smt. S.N.Lakshmi the plaintiff in OS No.2644/2017 has proved that she is the joint owner of suit schedule property by virtue of sale deed dated 20-06-2008. Therefore, the plaintiff in OS NO.2992/2017 and the plaintiff in OS No.2644/2017 are entitled for each half share in the suit schedule 50 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 property by metes and bounds. For the above reasons, I answer the Issue No.1 in OS No.2992/2017 & OS No.2644/2017 in the affirmative.
68. ISSUE No.2 IN OS NO.2992/2017 : In the written statement the defendant No.1 has contended that suit of the plaintiff is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties for the reasons initially, the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant No.1 Smt. S.N.Lakshmi only. However, during the pendency of the suit father and mother of deceased Smt. Gangothri S.N. are brought on record as defendant No.1 & 2 and they contested the suit. Hence, during the pendency of the suit this defect of non-joinder of necessary parties was cured during the trial. Hence, I answer the Issue No.2 in OS No.2992/2017 in the negative.
69. ISSUE NO.2 IN OS NO.2644/2017 : It is 51 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 the case of the plaintiff in OS No.2644/2017 that she is entitle for mesne profits to be calculated in accordance with Order XX of CPC from the date of the suit till the date of realisation. It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the suit the interlocutory application was came to be filed under by the plaintiff in OS NO.2992/2017 Order 14 Rule 1 R/w. Sec. 151 of CPC for appointment of Receiver and that application was came to be allowed.
70. Against the said order the plaintiff in OS No.2644/2017 preferred a Writ Petition No.54207/2017 before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and in the said Writ Petition parties to the suit have filed a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 1 of CPC as per Ex.D-10 agreeing to set- aside the orders passed in IA No.1 with condition that petitioner and respondent No.1 agreed to collect half the rents each from the two tenants 52 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 residing in the ground floor and third floor. The 1 st petitioner shall share and collect half of the rents each from the tenants of the ground floor and third floor. The 1st respondent collected advance amount of Rs.75,000/- and Rs.50,000/- from the tenants of the ground floor and third floor respectively. The 1 st respondent shall pay to the petitioner half of the advance amount. In respect of other matters relating to tax, water charges, electricity charges, the parties are entitled to approach the trial court for necessary orders. This compromise petition was filed in the said Writ Petition and the orders passed in the Writ Petition as per Ex.D-9 discloses that it was came to be disposed of in terms of the compromise petition. Therefore, it is clear that the suit schedule property is a building, wherein the premises were rented out. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a separate enquiry on accounts/mesne profit as contemplated under Order XX Rule 12 of 53 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, I answer the Issue No.2 in OS No.2644/2017 in the affirmative.
71. ISSUE NO.3 IN OS NO.2644/2017 : It is the contention of the defendant in OS NO.2644/2017 that the court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient. On perusal of the plaint though the plaintiff sought for declaration of the defendant No.3 has no manner of right over the share of the S.N.Gangothri in the plaint schedule property, but the entire plaint averment is to be effect and prayer No.1(a) is to declare that she is entitle for half share in the plaint schedule property. In other words her suit is for the relief of partition of her half share in plaint schedule property. Under Section 35(1) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, if the plaintiff is excluded from possession, he has to pay court fee on market value of his share. Under Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act, if the 54 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 plaintiff is in joint possession, he has to be paid at the rate mentioned therein. The maximum payable court fee in a suit for partition is Rs.200/- The plaintiff has valued the suit as per Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act. Therefore, the Court Fee paid by the plaintiff is sufficient. Moreover, there is no such relief for cancellation or declaration of registered document as null and void. For the above reasons, I answer the Issue No.3 in OS No.2644/2017 in the affirmative.
72. ISSUE NO.4 IN OS No.2644/2017 & ISSUE NO.3 IN OS No.2992/2017 : These issues are taken up together for consideration to avoid repetition of facts.
The plaintiff in OS No.2644/2017 has proved that she is the joint owner of the plaint schedule property. On the other hand the plaintiff in OS 55 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 No.2992/2017 has proved that he is the successor of the another co-owner of the suit schedule property i.e., Smt. S.N.Gangothri. Therefore, both the plaintiff in OS NO.2644/2017 as well as the plaintiff in OS No.2992/2017 are equally entitled for partition of their ½ share in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds. The plaintiff in OS No.2644/2017 has failed to prove that S.C.Dinesh Kumar has no right over the property left behind deceased Gangothri S.N. The relief to the effect of directions to the defendant No.4 & 5 not to effect the change of khatha does not arise, since the khatha has been already changed into the joint names of Smt. S.N.Lakshmi and S.C.Dinesh Kumar. Further it is within the domain of the Revenue Officers to effect khatha based on the documents. Further, the plaintiff sought for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the suit schedule properties. Admittedly, the defendant No.1 56 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 Smt. S.N.Lakshmi is the co-owner of the suit schedule property, who is in joint possession of the suit schedule property. It is borne by the record that defendants No.2 & 3 are also residing in the suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff alone is not in exclusive possession, but he is in joint possession. Hence, no injunction can be granted against the defendants. Therefore, I answer the Issue No.4 in OS NO.2644/2017 partly in the affirmative and Issue No.3 in OS No.2992/2017 also partly in the affirmative.
73. ISSUE NO.4 IN OS No.2992/2017 & ISSUE No.5 IN OS No.2644/2017 : In view of my findings on Issue No.1 to 3 in OS No.2992/2017 and to Issue No.1 to 4 in OS No.2644/2017, I pass the following;
ORDER
57
O S No.2992/2017
C/w. O S No.2644/2017
Suit of the plaintiff in OS
No.2644/2017 is partly decreed with costs.
The plaintiff Smt. S.N.Lakshmi is entitled for half share in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds.
Suit in OS No.2992/2017 filed by the plaintiff is also partly decreed with costs.
The plaintiff Sri S.C.Dinesh Kumar entitled for half share in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds.
There should be a separate enquiry in both the suits under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC on mesne profits Draw preliminary decree accordingly.
Office is directed to keep the
original Judgment in OS
58
O S No.2992/2017
C/w. O S No.2644/2017
No.2644/2017 and copy in OS
No.2992/2017
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, then corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17th day of November, 2021.) (Dinesh Hegde), XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE I. LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF :
(a) PLAINTIFF'S SIDE ::
PW-1 ::
(B) DEFENDANTS SIDE ::
DW-1 :: E.M.Nagaraju
DW-2 :: S.C.Dinesh Kumar
II. LIST OF DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF :
(a) PLAINTIFF'S SIDE :
Ex.P-1 :: Family Ration Card
Ex.P-2 :: Certified copy of the Sale Deed
dated 20-06-2008
Ex.P-3 :: Encumbrance Certificate
59
O S No.2992/2017
C/w. O S No.2644/2017
Ex.P-4 :: Tax paid receipt
Ex.P-5 :: Endorsement dated 12-08-2008
Ex.P-6 :: Khatha extract
Ex.P-7 & 8 :: Two khatha extracts
Ex.P-9 :: Khatha extract
Ex.P-10 :: Computer generated tax paid
receipt
Ex.P-11 :: Certified copy of the Sale Deed
dated 28-02-1991
Ex.P-12 :: Certified copy of the Sale Deed
dated 22-05-1997
Ex.P-13 :: Death Certificate
Ex.P-14 :: Certified copy of the Sale Deed
dated 09-08-2011
Ex.P-15 :: Certified copy of the Sale Deed
dated 27-09-2006
Ex.P-16 & Two Certified copies of the Sale
Ex.P-17 :: Deeds dated 03-03-2008 Ex.P-18 :: Paper Public Notice Ex.P-19 :: Death Certificate Ex.P-20 :: Another Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 09-08-2011 Ex.P-21 & Khatha certificate and Khatha Ex.P-22 :: extract dated 24-12-2016 Ex.P-23 :: Certificate of Registration of Marriage Ex.P-24 :: Copy of the letter Ex.P-25 to Four notarized copies of Adhaar 60 O S No.2992/2017 C/w. O S No.2644/2017 Ex.P-28 :: Cards (B) DEFENDANTS SIDE :
Ex.D-1 :: Uttara Patra
Ex.D-2 Khatha certificate and khatha
Ex.D-2(a) :: extract
Ex.D-3 :: Original sale Deed dated
20-06-2008
Ex.D-4 & Khatha certificate & khatha
Ex.D-5 :: extract
Ex.D-6 :: License Fee
Ex.D-7 :: Approved building plan
Ex.D-8 :: Death Certificate
Ex.D-9 :: Order copy in W.P.No.54207/2017
Ex.D-10 :: Copy of Compromise Petition filed
in W.P.No.54207/2017
Ex.D-11 :: Advance receipt
Ex.D-12 :: Cash Bill
Ex.D-13 :: Karnataka Bank Statement
Ex.D-14 :: Bank of India Account Statement
Ex.D-15 :: L.I.C. Bond
Ex.D-16 :: Letter dated 19-03-2013
Ex.D-17 :: Letter dated 27-01-2017
Ex.D-18 :: Letter dated 13-10-2017
Ex.D-19 :: Letter dated 27-06-2013
Ex.D-20 :: Letter dated 04-07-2017
61
O S No.2992/2017
C/w. O S No.2644/2017
Ex.D-21 :: ಅವರರ ತಜರಹಜಜಜದನಹತರದ ಕರರಳ ಕಥನ ಬರಕಕ D-21(a):: Name of defendant No.3 Ex.D-22 :: ಹಹದಜಜಜಜಗ ಪಪಸಸಕ D-22(a):: Name of defendant No.3 Ex.D-23 :: ದಜಜಸಜ ಮರತರ ಪಪಸಸಕ D-23(a):: Name of defendant No.3 Ex.D-24 to Ex.D-26 :: Identity Cards Ex.D-27 :: ಕರವಜಜ ನಲರಲಡ Monthly Magazine D-27(a) :: Name of defendant No.3 as Editor Ex.D-28 :: Face book posting dated 01-12-2016 Ex.D-28(a) :: Typed copy (Dinesh Hegde), XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.