Bangalore District Court
N.M.Mayuri @ Sujatha vs Smt.Premakumari @ Prema on 6 February, 2021
IN THE COURT OF LVII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU
(CCH58)
Present: Smt. K.G.Shanthi, B.Com, LL.M.,
LVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
Mayo Hall unit, Bengaluru.
Original Suit No.25856/2011
Dated this the 6th day of February, 2021
Plaintiff: N.M.Mayuri @ Sujatha,
D/o Late T.M.Manavalan,
Aged about 40 years,
W/o.Sri Madhu,
R/at No.19, Vipra,
BEML Layout, II Stage,
Basaveshwaranagar,
Bangalore - 560 079.
(By Sri D.L. Jagadeesh &
Associates, Advocates)
Vs
Defendants: 1. Smt.Premakumari @ Prema
Vasudevaiaih @ Prema
Manavalan @ M. Prem @ M.
Prema,
W/o.Late Vasudevaiah,
D/o Late T.M. Manavalan,
Aged about 60 years,
2 O.S.No.25856/2011
R/at No.203, 3rd Main,
East of NGEF, Kasthurinagar,
Bengaluru560 043.
2. Smt.Pushpa Rani
W/o.Late Sundaram,
D/o Late T.M. Manavalan,
Aged about 57 years,
R/at No.203, 3rd Main,
East of NGEF, Kasthurinagar,
Bengaluru560 043.
3. Smt.M.Kanthimathi
D/o Late T.M. Manavalan,
Aged about 53 years,
R/at No.32, Shivalaya,
4th Cross, Surabhi Lane,
Kalkere Main Road,
Horamavu village,
Bengaluru560 043.
4. Smt.Mahalakshmi,
D/o Late T.M. Manavalan,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.203, 3rd Main,
East of NGEF, Kasthurinagar,
Bengaluru560 043.
5. Sri M.Venkatesh @ Venky
S/o.Late T.M.Manavalan
Aged about 46 years,
R/at No.(Old Nos.560/5, 5, 2)
3 O.S.No.25856/2011
Renumbered as No.15,
1st Cross, Dr.Shantha Kumar's
Layout,Kasthurinagar,
Near Kali Temple,
Bengaluru560 043.
6 Sri Raghu Manavalan
S/o Late T.M. Manavalan,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at No.203, 3rd Main,
East of NGEF, Kasthurinagar,
Bengaluru560 043.
7 Smt.Vasantha Kumari
D/o Late T.M. Manavalan,
Aged about 55 years,
R/at No.19, Vipra,
BEML Layout, II Stage,
Basaveshwarangar,
Bengaluru560 079.
(Defendant Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6
by Sri A.Shivarama &
Associates, Defendant No.3 by
Sri D.Boregowda, Adv.,
defendant No.4 by Sri
K.Sridhar, Adv. and D7
Exparte
Date of Institution of the suit 21042011
Nature of the suit Partition and
4 O.S.No.25856/2011
Possession
Date of the commencement of
recording of the evidence 01022019
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced 06022021
Year/s Month/s Days
Total duration 09 09 16
*********
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for partition and separate possession against the defendants.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7 are the children of T.M.Manavalan. It is stated by the plaintiff that their father was ExServiceman and served in the Army during the World WarII and after his retirement he joined at BEML as Section Supervisor and retired in the year 1981. He applied for allotment of a site before 5 O.S.No.25856/2011 the Bangalore Development Authority. Considering his request, the BDA has allotted a site bearing No.3M203 measuring 50 X 80 feet situated at East NGEF Layout, Bengaluru as described in the suit schedule property. The allotment letter issued on 23.10.1992 in favour of T.M.Manavalan. On 19.10.1993, BDA executed lease cum Sale Agreement in favour of T.M.Manavalan and after 8 years executed registered Sale deed dated 22.2.2001 and delivered vacant possession of the property in favour of T.M.Manavalan. It is stated by the plaintiff that T.M.Manavalan sold the site situated at Rachenahalli, measuring 50 feet x 33 feet for a sum of Rs.13,00,000/ and out of sale proceeds, he constructed residential house in the suit schedule property by obtaining necessary license and Sanctioned plan. T.M.Manavalan expired on 11.9.2003. Since there was no proper understanding between 6 O.S.No.25856/2011 plaintiff and defendants they have not approached BBMP for transfer of khata in their names even after the death of their father. The defendant No.1 by suppressing true material facts, in order to deprive the right of the plaintiff and remaining defendants, represented before the BBMP and got transferred the Khata to her individual name, though plaintiff and defendants are having equal right and share in the suit schedule property. This fact came into light on 24.3.2011. Hence, she approached the defendants for partition and separate possession on 12.3.2011, but the defendants promised to effect the partition in the end of March2011, but they failed to keep up promise by effecting partition. Hence, plaintiff constrained to file the suit for partition.
7 O.S.No.25856/2011
3. The cause of action for the suit arose on 12.3.2011 and on 1st week of April,2011 when the plaintiff approached defendants for partition and separate possession of suit property and subsequently within the jurisdiction of this Court.
4. The suit is for partition and separate possession. The Court fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued at Rs.2,00,00,000/. Court fee paid is paid u/S.35(2) of the Karnataka Court fee and Suit Valuation Act, 1958. Accordingly, plaintiff prays for declaration of her own 1/8th share in the suit property and for partition and separate possession.
5. On filing of this suit, summons has been issued to the defendants, which has been duly served on them, they have appeared and engaged their Counsel and filed their written statement. 8 O.S.No.25856/2011
6. The defendant No.3 filed her written statement claiming her share by effecting partition.
7. The defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5 filed written statement and admitted their relationship with the plaintiff. They also admitted that plaintiff and all the defendants are children of T.M.Manavalan, but they have taken up contention that the said T.M.Manavalan has developed deep gratitude, love and affection in favour of 1st defendant and her husband. So, he executed registered will dated 2.9.1996 bequeathing the property in favour of 1st defendant. Though plaintiff is very much aware of the execution of the Will, she filed the false suit. It is also contended by the defendants that plaintiff has no right over the property, in spite of that she is troubling 1st defendant. It also stated that suit schedule property is selfacquired 9 O.S.No.25856/2011 property of T.M.Manavalan. The 1st defendant, her husband have taken care of T.M.Manavalan during his life time. Further contended that there is no cause of action to file the suit. The suit of the plaintiff is not properly valued. As the plaintiff and defendants are not in joint possession of the suit schedule property the suit ought to have valued u/S.35(1) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958. Accordingly, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 5 pray for dismissal of the suit.
8. Based on the pleadings, the following issues have been framed by my learned predecessor.
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties liable for partition?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for 1/8th share in the suit schedule properties?
10 O.S.No.25856/2011
3. Whether the defendant No.3 is entitle for her 1/8th share in the suit schedule properties?
4. What Order or Decree?
9. In order to prove the case of plaintiff, she herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12. On the other hand, on behalf of defendants, Dws. to Dws.4 were examined and Exs.D1 to D.23 documents marked.
10. Arguments heard and perused the records.
11. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative Issue No.4 : As per the final order for the following:11 O.S.No.25856/2011
REASONS
12. Issue Nos.1 to 3: As these points are interlinked with each other and to avoid the repetition, I have taken up them together for discussion.
13. In this case, the relationship between plaintiff and defendants are not in dispute, they are the children of late T.M.Manavalan. It is also not in dispute that the suit schedule property is selfacquired property of T.M.Manavalan, which has been acquired by him. According to plaintiff, she has got 1/8th share in the suit schedule property, but the defendants failed to effect partition and hence she constrained to file for declaration and possession.
14. In order to establish that suit schedule property are joint family property, which are liable for partition, she filed evidence by way of affidavit 12 O.S.No.25856/2011 reiterating the plaint averments. In her evidence she has deposed that BDA executed Lease cum Sale agreement in favour of T.M.Manavalan on 19.10.1993 and after 8 years on 22.2.2001, BDA executed registered Sale deed and delivered possession of the site in favour of T.M.Manavalan. He constructed house in the site allotted by BDA by selling property measuring 50 feet x 33 feet which situated at Rachenahalli for sale consideration of Rs.13,00,000/. T.M.Manavalan expired on 11.9.2003. But due to misunderstanding khata not obtained in favour of children of T.M.Manavalan. On the other hand, defendant No.1 by taking undue advantage got executed khata in her favour and denied for partition. In her evidence she has deposed that 1st defendant taken up contention that T.M.Manavalan executed registered Will on 2.9.1996 in her favour. She also 13 O.S.No.25856/2011 deposed that said Will is concocted by the defendant No.1. She deposed that no Will executed by T.M.Manavalan in favour of defendant No.1. So, defendant No.1 has no exclusive right over the property. In support of her contention she had produced Genealogy table which marked as Ex.P1. Copy of Sale deed which marked as Ex.P2. The death certificate of T.M.Manavalan marked as Ex.P3.
15. According to plaintiff, defendant No.1 got transferred the khata in her favour, which marked as Ex.P4. Encumbrance certificate marked as Ex.P5. The copy of lease agreement executed by BDA in favour of T.M.Manavalan marked as Ex.P6. Khata stands in the name of T.M.Manavalan is marked as Ex.P7. The alleged Will executed by T.M.Manavalan in favour of defendant No.1, as per say of defendant No.1 which 14 O.S.No.25856/2011 marked as Ex.P8. Ex.P9 is the application submitted by 1st defendant with BBMP for change of Khata. Ex.P10 is the endorsement issued by BBMP. Ex.P11 is the Affidavit submitted by defendant No.1 before BBMP. Ex.P12 is the reply submitted by defendant No.1 before Revenue department Banaswadi zone, BBMP on 4.5.2004. Ex.P13 is the Khata stands in the name of defendant No.1 and Ex.P14 is the Notice issued by BBMP regarding allotment of site in favour of 1st defendant.
16. According to defendant No.1, her father executed Will in her favour with respect to suit schedule property, accordingly she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. She filed evidence by way of affidavit reiterating the contention taken in the written statement and she deposed that 15 O.S.No.25856/2011 nobody approached her or her husband regarding partition when her husband was alive. After the death of her husband, this suit is filed by the plaintiff against her and others by taking advantage of her loneliness. She also deposed that 3rd defendant owning 2 houses, one at Bengaluru and another at Cuddalore, Tamilnadu and she is drawing a very good salary of Rs.50,000/ per month. Defendant No.4 is working as Lecturer at S.J.P. Polytechnic College at Bengaluru. The defendant No.7 Smt.Vasantha Kumari is also having her own site at HRBR layout which is measuring 80 x 50 feet and she has also constructed a house therein. She deposed that defendant No.7 had instigated plaintiff to file this suit. She has stated that her husband being eldest soninlaw of her father, he rendered financial support to the family of T.M.Manavalan, he had taken care of her father during 16 O.S.No.25856/2011 his old age. Apart from that, he had contributed money towards allotment of the suit property in the name of T.M.Manavalan and also to get site registered. In that respect T.M.Manavalan developed deep love and affection towards them. So, her father out of love and affection bequeathed the suit schedule property in her favour in earlier Will dated 2.9.1996. Subsequently, she herself and her husband contributed money for construction of the building in the said site. Hence, another Will executed by her father on 7.6.2001 by mentioning the construction of the house. After execution of the Will, her father died on 11.9.2003. She also deposed that plaintiff and other defendants are very much aware about execution of the Will by their father. It also deposed that marriage of the plaintiff and other defendants held long ago and they are settled with their family. She denied that 17 O.S.No.25856/2011 T.M.Manavalan constructed house out of sale of the site situated at Rachenahalli village as alleged by the plaintiff. She also contended that defendant No.4 has instigated the plaintiff to file this suit by creating story. She had produced alleged Will executed by her father, which marked as Ex.D1, which is dated 2.6.1996. The alleged subsequent Will dated 7.6.2001 executed by T.M.Manavalan in favour of defendant No.1 is marked as Ex.D2. The Sale deed of the suit property alloted by BDA in favour of T.M.Manavalan is marked as Ex.D3. The Possession certificate issued by BDA in favour of T.M.Manavalan marked as Ex.D4. The khatas of the suit property are stand in the name of 1st defendant marked as Exs.D5 and D6. The death certificate of T.M.Manavalan is marked as Ex.D7. She also deposed with regard to tax paid receipts with respect to the suit schedule property are got exhibited 18 O.S.No.25856/2011 and marked as Ex.D8 to 20. The certificate issued by BBMP regarding khata marked as Ex.D21. Reply letter of BBMP marked as Ex.P22 Ex.D23 shows that name of the T.M.Manavalan was deleted from the khata and this property stands in the name of 1st defendant.
17. According to plaintiff, suit schedule property is joint family property of the plaintiff and defendants and they are in joint possession. But according to 1 st defendant, her father executed a Will in her favour bequeathing the suit schedule property. Accordingly, it is her exclusive property. It is not in dispute that suit schedule property is alloted by BDA in favour of late T.M.Manavalan. It is also not in dispute that building was constructed in the suit schedule property after the allotment of the site. According to plaintiff, her father constructed house by selling site situated at 19 O.S.No.25856/2011 Rachenahalli. In this regard, she has not produced any document. It is not in dispute that T.M.Manavalan was ExServiceman and after his retirement he joined service and site measuring 50 x 80 feet has been allotted by BDA. In this regard, both the parties are produced documents.
18. Defendant No.1 claims that she is the owner of the property by virtue of Will executed by T.M.Manavalan on 2.9.1996 and 7.6.2001. So it is burden on the defendant No.1 to prove the Will. If will is proved then plaintiff and other defendants loosen their right over the suit property. If Will is not proved then plaintiff and defendants, being children of late T.M.Manavalan entitled for equal share in the suit schedule property by virtue of Amended Section 6(1) (a) of Hindu Succession act. The latest judgment of 20 O.S.No.25856/2011 Hon'ble Apex Court clear all the points in this regard with respect to the right of the male and female coparcener, which is reported in AIR 2020 SC 3717 in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and Ors. wherein it is held:
(A) Hindu Succession Act (30 of 1956), S.6(1)(a) Proviso Expln.1 (as amended by Act 39 of 2005) - Devolution of interest in coparcenary property - Right of daughter -
Provision is retroactive in application - Benefit conferred based on antecedent event of birth - Daughters born before Amendment can claim rights only from 9.9.2005 - To form a coparcenary it is not necessary that predecessor, coparcener should be alive Birth within degrees to which coparcenary extends is relevant - To claim benefit under Amended provision daughter should be alive on 9.9.2005.
21 O.S.No.25856/2011
19. In order to prove the Will, the Will should be proved. Section 63 of Indian Succession Act deals with:
63 Execution of unprivileged Wills. --Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, 12 [or an airman so employed or engaged,] or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will according to the following rules:--
(a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction.
(b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will.
(c) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.22 O.S.No.25856/2011
20. So, the Will it is required to be decided by 2 or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will.
Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act deals with Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested, which reads as under:
68. Proof of execution of the document required by law to be attested. If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. If there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence, 23 O.S.No.25856/2011 PROVIDED that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.
Section 59 of The Indian Succession Act reads as under:
24 O.S.No.25856/2011
59. Person capable of making Wills. Every person of sound mind not being a minor may dispose of his property by Will. Explanation 1. A married woman may dispose by Will of any property which she could alienate by her own act during her life. Explanation 2. Persons who are deaf or dumb or blind are not thereby incapacitated for making a Will if they are able to know what they do by it. Explanation 3. A person who is ordinarily insane may make a Will during interval in which he is of sound mind.
Explanation 4. No person can make a Will while he, is in such a state of mind, whether arising from intoxication or from illness or from any other cause, that he does not know what he is doing. So, in order to prove the Will, at least one of the attesting witness should be examined as a witness. 25 O.S.No.25856/2011
21. The defendants examined one attesting witness as DW4. DW4 filed his evidence by way of affidavit and in his evidence he has deposed that he is well acquainted with the family affairs of T.M.Manavalan. He further deposed that in the year 1996, T.M.Manavalan called him over phone and requested him to come to SubRegistrar Office, Shivajinagar saying that he wants to bequeath the property situated at NGEF Layout, which alloted to him by BDA and also informed that he wanted to execute Will in favour of his eldest daughter. Further he deposed that he questioned why he is executing Will only in favour of eldest daughter? By that time he explained that defendant No.1 had taken care of him and his family and she is second wife of her husband and she has no children. It is also deposed that T.M.Manavalan had instructed the typist and brought 26 O.S.No.25856/2011 the Will and then asked the witness to put his signature as witness before SubRegistrar and the Will got registered in SubRegistrar Office. He also further deposed that in the year 2001, T.M.Manavalan met him stating that he constructed house with the help of his elder daughter and her husband, hence he wanted to bequeath the constructed house. So, he wanted to modify the Will. He also stated that he wanted to execute fresh Will. This witness deposed that by that time, in the year 2001, he was out of station and he was not in a position to go to the office of SubRegistrar to attest his signature as witness. He also deposed that T.M.Manavalan modified the Will by mentioning in stead of "Site" as "House constructed". He also deposed, thereafter T.M.Manavalan brought the Will and showed it to the witness. This witness deposed that though he was not able to go to the SubRegistrar 27 O.S.No.25856/2011 office at the time of execution of Will made in the year 2001, he is aware that the said T.M.Manavalan had executed Will in the year 2001 in favour of his elder daughter Smt.Prem.
28 O.S.No.25856/2011
22. The will dated 2.6.1996 got marked as Ex.D1. The signature of this witness is marked as Ex.D1(a). On perusal of the Will it reflects that DW4 attested his signature on the Will. It is pertinent to note T.M.Manavalan executed another Will on 7.6.2001. According to 1st defendant, it is the last Will of T.M.Manavalan which executed on 7.6.2001. But DW4 was not attesting witness to Ex.D2 Will. One Dr.L.Thirunavukkarasu is the attesting witness No.1 and put his signature another one is S.N.Vijayashankar is the attesting witness No.2, who has also put his signature. The name and signature of DW4 not found place in Ex.D2 Will dated 7.6.2001. It is pertinent to note that though DW4 deposed that he has signed Ex.D1 Will, the said Will lost its value in view of the execution of the subsequent Will dated 7.6.2001 by T.M.Manavalan. So, I am of the opinion 29 O.S.No.25856/2011 that Will Ex.D2 not proved as called under Section 68 of Indian evidence Act.
30 O.S.No.25856/2011
23. According to plaintiff, no Will executed by her father in favour of DW1. The defendant Nos.1 to 5 and 6 say that Will has been executed by T.M.Manavalan in favour of defendant No.1. According to DW1 (defendant No.1) she herself and her husband contributed for purchase of the suit schedule property. She deposed that she and her husband contributed money for the construction of the house. She herself and her husband taken care of late T.M.Manavalan during his life time and also looking after affairs of the family. So, out of love and affection, T.M.Manavalan executed the Will. DW1 during her crossexamination admitted that her marriage was solemnized 1984 and after marriage she was residing with her husband at Indiranagara. Then in the year 1990 she shifted to Dommaluru. She also admitted that at the time of death of her father her brother Raghu, sister 31 O.S.No.25856/2011 Pushparani and herself were present in the house. Further she admitted that at the time of death of her father sons of T.M.Manavalan not married and plaintiff was also unmarried at that time.
24. According to PW1, she herself and her husband contributed even for the purchase of site and also for construction of the house. On perusal of Ex.D1 Will, wherein there is recital that "I have got immovable and movable properties that are wholly my selfacquired." "I am living happily with my daughter Prema Manvala who is looking after all my needs."
In page 2 there is recital that, "I also bequeath all my other properties which I may be possessed of or entitled to at the time of my death to my daughter Prema Manvala, absolutely forever.
32 O.S.No.25856/2011In the last after Schedule it is described: "It is his last Will and Testament".
25. This Will is relating to the Site. In Ex.D2 Will dated 7.6.2001 wherein it is stated that, "He had bequeathed the vacant site to Smt.Prema Manavalan as per Will dated 11.1.1996." Further in page2 it is stated that "He has cancelled previous Will". Further he has stated that "He has constructed the house out of his own funds". Nowhere in the Will it is stated defendant No.1 and her husband contributed for construction. Apart from the above, it is pertinent to note that defendant No.1 fails to establish the Ex.D2 Will by preponderance of probability. The evidence of DW4 is no way helpful for the defendant No.1 to prove the Ex.D2. Further, there is suspicious circumstances in the Will and nowhere T.M.Manavalan stated that 33 O.S.No.25856/2011 why is deviating other children, that too, own married sons and daughters.
26. Exs.P13 and 14 reflect that defendant No.1 is having other property, which allotted by BDA. Further the financial condition of defendant No.1 is also good. 34 O.S.No.25856/2011
27. It is pertinent to note that DW1, after the death of T.M.Manavalan she made application for change of khata in her name with respect to suit property. The BBMP issued endorsement stating defendant to get 'no objection' from the other children of T.M.Manavalan. For that, defendant No.1 filed affidavit stating that her father executed Will dated 7.6.2001 in her favour bequeathing the suit schedule property. Further stated there is no need to get 'no objection' from the other siblings. In the affidavit she has stated that if there is dispute arise with respect to change of Khata, Khata can be cancelled by the concerned authority. But apart from affidavit she has also filed counter reply as per Ex.P12. Subsequently, Khata has been mutated by the BBMP in favour of 35 O.S.No.25856/2011 defendant No.1 with respect to the suit schedule property.
36 O.S.No.25856/2011
28. There is no dispute regarding relationship between plaintiff and defendants. Further, there is no dispute in respect of suit schedule property allotted by BDA in favour of T.M.Manavalan. Further in this case, the defendant No.1 failed to prove that her father executed Will in her favour as per Ex.D2. So, she cannot claim exclusive possession over the suit schedule property. Such being the circumstances, suit schedule property being selfacquired property of T.M.Manavalan, plaintiff and defendants being the children of T.M.Manavalan, they are entitled for equal share in the suit schedule property. Therefore, I am of the opinion that plaintiff and defendants are entitled for equal share in the suit schedule property by meets and bounds. Plaintiff and defendants being children of T.M.Manavalan they are entitled for equal share in the suit schedule property which is liable for partition and 37 O.S.No.25856/2011 separate possession. Accordingly, issue Nos.1 to 3 are answered in the 'Affirmative'.
29. Issue No.4 : In view of the findings on Issue Nos.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost.
It is declared that plaintiff is entitled for 1/8th share in the suit schedule property and for partition and separate possession Suit schedule All that part and parcel of the 3 bedroom house property bearing No.3M203 measuring East to West 24.35 meters and North to South 15.24 meters, totally 371.09 square 38 O.S.No.25856/2011 meters, situated at East NGEF Layout, Bengaluru, and bounded on the:
East by: Ring Road (3M) West by:Property bearing No.2 H.M 203 and 2H.M205 North by: Property bearing No.3M205 South by:Property bearing No.3M201 Draw preliminary decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgmentwriter, transcribed and computerized by him and after carrying out corrections by me, print out taken by him and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 6th day of February, 2021) (Smt.K.G. SHANTHI) LVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff :
PW.1 : Smt.N.M.Mayuri @ Sujatha 39 O.S.No.25856/2011 List of documents marked for the plaintiff :
Ex.P1 : Genealogy table
Ex.P2 : Copy of Sale deed which marked as
Ex.P3 : Death certificate of T.M.Manavalan
Ex.P4 : Khata extract
Ex.P5 : Encumbrance certificate
Ex.P6 : Copy of lease agreement
Ex.P7 : Khata stands in the name of
T.M.Manavalan
Ex.P8 : Will
Ex.P9 : Application submitted by 1st defendant
with BBMP for change of Khata.
Ex.P10 : Endorsement issued by BBMP.
Ex.P11 : Affidavit submitted by defendant No.1
before BBMP.
Ex.P12 : Reply submitted by defendant No.1
Ex.P13 : Khata stands in the name of defendant
No.1
Ex.P14 : Notice issued by BBMP
List of witnesses examined for the Defendants :
DW.1 : Smt.Prema Manavalan @ M.Prem DW.2 : M.Venkatesh @ Venki DW.3 : Smt.Kanthimathi DW.4 : B.Martin Kumar
List of documents marked for the Defendants :
Ex.D1 : Will dated 2.6.1996
40 O.S.No.25856/2011
Ex.D2 : Will dated 7.6.2001
Ex.D3 : Sale deed
Ex.D4 : Possession certificate issued by BDA in
favour of T.M.Manavalan
Ex.D5 &6: Khatas of the suit property
Ex.D7 : Death certificate of T.M.Manavalan
Ex.D8 to
Ex.P20 : Tax paid receipts
Ex.P21 : Certificate issued by BBMP
Ex.D22 : Reply given by BBMP
Ex.D23 : Khata certificate
LVII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
41 O.S.No.25856/2011Judgment pronounced in open court (vide separate Judgment) ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with cost.
It is declared that plaintiff is entitled for 1/8th share in the suit schedule property and for partition and separate possession Suit schedule All that part and parcel of the 3 bedroom house property bearing 42 O.S.No.25856/2011 No.3M203 measuring East to West 24.35 meters and North to South 15.24 meters, totally 371.09 square meters, situated at East NGEF Layout, Bengaluru, and bounded on the:
East by: Ring Road (3M) West by:Property bearing No.2 H.M 203 and 2H.M205 North by: Property bearing No.3M205 South by:Property bearing No.3M201 Draw preliminary decree accordingly.
LVII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall unit, Bengaluru.