Bangalore District Court
Vijayalakshmi B. N vs Krishnaiah Setty B. N on 17 November, 2025
KABC010157242011
IN THE COURT OF LVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-59)
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT:
SRI. BALACHANDRA N BHAT,
B.Sc, LL.B, PGDHRL
LVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.No.3852 / 2011
Plaintiffs: 1. Smt.B.N.Vijayalakshmi,
W/o. Late B.K.Nagaraj,
Aged about 56 years,
Residing in Rear side of No.20/2,
Sri Krishna Nilaya, Police Station
Road, Basavanagudi,
Bengaluru-560 004.
2. Smt.P.R.Keerthana,
W/o. Ranjith P,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at No.402, Park Summit, North
Decatur Lane, Georgia, USA,
Rep. by her mother and power of
attorney holder
Smt.B.N.Vijayalakshmi,
1st plaintiff herein.
2 O.S.No.3852/2011
3. Smt. Jyothsna Mandhara Ranga,
W/o. Mandara Ranga,
Aged about 25 years,
R/at No.2933/E, East Chord
Road, 2nd Stage, Vijayanagar,
Bengaluru-560 040.
(By Sri.V.B.Shivakumar, Adv.)
- VS -
Defendants: 1. Sri.B.N.Krishnaiah Setty,
S/o. Late B.Narayana Setty,
Since dead by his LRs already on
record i.e., plaintiffs and defendant
Nos.2 & 3.
2. Sri.B.K.Manjunath,
S/o. B.N.Krishnaiah Setty,
Aged about 63 years.
3. Sri.B.K.Nataraj,
S/o. B.N.Krishnaiah Setty,
Aged about 62 years.
D1 to D3 are r/at No.60, Rukmini
Nilaya, East Anjaneya Temple
Street, Basavanagudi,
Bengaluru-560 004.
4. Sri.Madar Saheb,
Accountant and Auditor,
S/o. Not known to the plaintiffs,
Major, No.11, Unity Building,
J.C.Road, Bengaluru.
5. Sri.M.A.Suban,
S/o. Late Leer Dasthagir,
3 O.S.No.3852/2011
No.6, Ware Road, Frazer Town,
Bengaluru (Near St. Thomas
Bakery)
6. The Branch Manager,
The Karnataka Bank Ltd.,
No.163-A and 163-B, R.V.Road,
Minerva Circle, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.D.N.Manjunath, Adv. for D2
& D3
Sri.S.R.Sreenivasamurthy, Adv. for
D4,
Sri.M.A.Humayun, Adv. for D5
Sri.K.V.Shyamaprasada, Adv. for
D6,
D1 - Dead)
***
Date of institution of the : 01.06.2011.
suit
Nature of the suit (suit on
pronote, suit for : Partition Suit.
declaration and possession
suit for injunction, etc)
Date of the : 20.08.2018.
commencement of
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 17.11.2025.
Judgment was pronounced
Total duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
14 05 16
***
4 O.S.No.3852/2011
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the wife and daughters of deceased Sri.B.K.Nagaraj against the other members of the family on 1.06.2011 for partition and separate possession of their 1/ 3rd share in the suit schedule-A properties that are the joint family properties, for possession of the plaintiffs' co-ownership rights in the commercial complexes described under schedule-B, direction to the defendants to pay the respective shares in the rents and the other income derived from the avocation and business of the joint family, mesne profits, costs and such other reliefs.
2. The properties are as described herein below to be hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule-A properties;
SCHEDULE -A PROPERTY Item No.1:
All that piece and parcel of the property bearing No.66, New No.66/4, Rukmini Nilaya, East Anjaneya Temple Street, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru-54 measuring approximately 100 feet x 100 feet, bounded on the -
East by - Main Road, West by - Conservancy Road, North by - Private Property, South by - Private Property.5 O.S.No.3852/2011
Item No.2:
All that piece and parcel of the property bearing No.163 and 163B, situated at R.V.Road, Minerva Circle, bounded on the - East by - Property No.163-A, West by - R.V.Road, South by - Girls School Road, North by - Land of Wahab Khan.
Item No.3:
M/s. Murugan building No.510, Avenue Road, Bengaluru-560 002, consisting of ground and three upper floors containing 22 commercial units and bounded on East by - Avenue Road, West by - Buildings belongs to Devatha Sri Ramaiah Shetty. North by - Shop and house of Chintaoakku Ranesgm South by - Buildings belongs to Devatha Sri.Ramesh Shetty.
3. The properties are as described herein below to be hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule-B properties;
SCHEDULE -B PROPERTY a. B.N.Krishnaiah Setty & Sons, Murugan Buildings, No.510, Avenue Road, Bengaluru-2.
b. M/s. Steel Complex at Dresser Rajappa Lane, Bengaluru-2. c. M/s. Lakshmi Commercial Complex at No.199, Kumbarpet Main Road, Bengaluru-560 023.
d. M/s. Santosh Enterprises, Avenue Road, Bengaluru. e. M/s. Murugan Buildings, No.510, Avenue Road, Bengaluru-560 002 consisting of ground and three upper floor containing 22 commercial units. Deleted and shown as item No.3 in schedule- A property as per court order dated 11.07.2024. f. M/s. Nataraj Enterprises, Avenue Road, Bengaluru.
6 O.S.No.3852/2011g. House property No.39, R.V.Road, Bengaluru. h. M/s. Rajeswari Complex at No.163, R.V.Road, Bengaluru. i. M/s. LCC Building at Avenue Road, Bengaluru.
j) M/s. Rukmani Complex, B.V.K.Iyengar Road, Bengaluru.
Any other Joint Hindu Undivided Family property or properties, which are not in the knowledge of the plaintiffs, but are available with the defendants 2 and 3. In the event of it being secured either from the Auditor, the 4 th defendant or from the Karnataka Ltd., the 6th defendant, the plaintiffs reserve their right to seek equitable partition and separate possession pertaining to their share, right, title and interest in respect of those of the properties and the income that is derived from out of the properties.
4. The pedigree of the family of the plaintiffs is as described herein below;
B.Narayana Setty
Govindaiah Setty Rangaiah Krishnaiah Setty Balaram
Setty Defendant No.1 Setty
1. B.K.Manjunath
Defendant No.2
2. B.K.Nataraj
Defendant No.3
3. B.K.Nagaraj
1. B.N.Vijayalakshmi
2. P.R.Keerthana
3. Jyothsna Mandhara
Ranga - Plaintiffs
7 O.S.No.3852/2011
5. The crux of the case of the plaintiffs could be summarised as follows;
5a) The family constituting the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos.1 to 3 are said to belong to Vysya Community and the avocation of the family is said to be business and agriculture. There was a partition amongst the brothers of the first defendant. After the partition, the properties were acquired with the nucleus of the joint Hindu undivided family. The deceased Sri.B.K.Nagaraj is said to have born along with Sri.B.K.Manjunath and Sri.B.K.Nataraj. The three sons along with their children constituted an undivided Hindu joint family. During the last days of Sri.B.K.Nagaraj, he was suffering from ailments. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 did not provide for medical expenses of Sri.B.K.Nagaraj. On the contrary, the defendant nos.2 and 3 are alleged to have taken disadvantage of the situation of Sri.B.K.Nagaraj and had got his signatures on documents that benefited the defendant Nos.2 and 3. The plaintiffs were not allowed to enter into the business houses of their family. The wives of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 are alleged to have acted in hostility to the interests of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were denied access to the 8 O.S.No.3852/2011 business establishments of the family and the houses where once the plaintiffs shared the shelter of the joint family. This was the property in No.66 and 66/ 4, Rukmini Nilaya Situated to the East of Sri Anjaneya Temple Street, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru. Sri.B.K.Nagaraj while he was healthy had worked hard for the development of the business of the family and in its improvement.
5b) The fourth defendant is said to be an account, whose services are said to have been hired by the family. However, the fourth defendant when requested to show the books of accounts pertaining to the business houses of the family by the plaintiffs, he had bluntly refused to do so and was acting as a puppet under the defendant Nos.2 and 3. The fourth defendant is alleged to have not even maintained books of account as per law and accounting ethics. The fourth defendant is alleged to have forged the signatures of the first plaintiff in connivance with the defendant Nos.2 and 3.
5c) The joint family also had a property in Nos.163 and 163B situated at RV Road, Minerva Circle measuring 2435 sq.ft. This property was leased to 9 O.S.No.3852/2011 Karnataka Bank, the sixth defendant and 16.67 % of the rent amount was to be given to Sri.B.K.Nagaraj. The plaintiffs were never given this portion of the rent being their legal entitlement. The entire rent amount was taken by the defendant Nos.2 and 3. The plaintiffs were also not given their share in the business houses. The sixth defendant is said to have informed the plaintiffs that, there was a loan in their name and were liable to repay the loan with interest.
5d) The plaintiff claims to have started her business since 1976-77 in Sarees and other allied products with initial capital of Rs.5,000-00. The plaintiffs claim to have had income of Rs.500-00 and 600-00 per month. In addition to this income, the first plaintiff claims to have received gifts from her parents. Now, with this income, the plaintiffs claim to have acquired business establishment under the name and style M/s.Steel Complex and M/s.Lakshmi Commercial Complex and M/s.Rajeshwari Complex. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 had failed to give the plaintiffs their share in the joint family income or their legitimate share in the joint family properties. The plaintiffs were compelled to give notice to the defendants calling upon them to effect partition and 10 O.S.No.3852/2011 allot them their share on 8.01.2011. The defendants are alleged to have given an untenable reply to this notice on 24.01.2011. The defendants had failed to comply with the notice. Hence, the cause of action for the suit had arisen.
6. The crux of the defence put forth by the defendant Nos.1 to 3 in their written statement filed on 22.04.2014 could be summarised a s follows;
6a) The suit is said to be not maintainable as it does not disclose a cause of action for the present suit and the one disclosed is imaginary. The suit is said to be bad for non joinder of necessary parties and bad for misjoinder of parties like the defendant Nos.4 and 6. The first defendant although is said to be the eldest member of the family but had no nucleus and did not possess any joint family nucleus. Even the defendant Nos.2 and 3 did not possess any joint family nucleus. There was no Hindu undivided joint family at any point of time either during the lifetime of Sri.B.K.Nagaraj or after his death. The properties bearing Nos.66, 66/4, 163 and 163/B are denied to be the joint family properties.
11 O.S.No.3852/20116b) The defendant Nos.2 and 3 claim to have sold their undivided 1/6th share in the M/s.Rajeshwari complex in favour of the defendant No.5 for their financial needs and legal necessities through a registered sale deed dated 9.03.2011. Sri.B.Narayanashetty had neither valuable movables or immovable properties that could be inherited by his heirs except for small holdings of agricultural lands in Kolar district. The lands were dry lands which did not yield income and therefore, Sri.B.Narayana Shetty with his four sons had to migrate from Kolar to Bengaluru in search of employment and livelihood to Bengaluru during 1936-37. Smt.C.R.Suramma is said to be the sister of the first defendant. The first defendant and his brothers are said to have relinquished their right over the agricultural lands in Kolar in favour of Smt.C.R.Suramma towards her maintenance during her lifetime.
6c) The brothers had to work under the guidance of their maternal uncle Sri.Govinda Shetty in the profession of goldsmith. After having sufficiently toiled under the maternal uncle, a small jewellery business was started under the name and style "Sri Subramanyeshwara Jewellery Mart" that was carried 12 O.S.No.3852/2011 on till 1947. Initially, this business establishment was managed by the first defendant and his brothers. Thereafter, the elder brother of the first defendant had started managing the affairs of the business under the name and style "M/s.B.N.Govindaiah Shetty and brothers". The business was carried on with the skill of each of those who were working and no nucleus of the family was ever used either to start any business or to continue or improve the business establishment already established. The income derived from this business establishment was never thrown into a common hotch pot. Thereafter, from the income derived in the business, the first defendant is said to have purchased M/s.Chitradurgam Surappa Mahalakshmamma Charitable Trust through a registered sale deed dated 10.02.1967. The first defendant had put up a commercial complex and had started jewellery business dealing in gold, diamond and silver articles under the name and style "B.N.Krishnaiah Shetty and Sons", a partnership firm from 20.09.1971 along with his sons.
6d) The properties bearing Nos.163 and 163/B are said to have been purchased jointly by Smt.C.R.Rajeshwari, Sri.C.R.Prabhakar, Sri.C.R.Jaya 13 O.S.No.3852/2011 prakash, Sri.B.K.Manjunath, Sri.B.K.nagaraj from Sri.Srinivasa Rao through a registered sale deed dated 15.09.1982 and from sri setu nai on 12.06.1985.
6e) In so far as the properties bearing Nos.433 to 436 are concerned, the first defendant and Sri.P.Shankaranarayana Shetty as partners of "A.S.K Enterprises" are said to have entered into a lease agreement on 3.12.1971 with the owner Sri.L.R.Venkatachalapathy Shetty. The lease is for 26 years. Similarly, the first defendant along with Sri.P.Shankaranarayana Shetty, Sri.Ashwathnarayana Shetty, Sethurajan and Sri.Krishnaiah had entered into a lease agreement in respect of property Nos.532 to 535 of the Corporation with Smt.Vajramma, Sri.D.R.Sathyanarayana, Sri.D.R.Sridhar and Sri.D.R.Sundar on 25.10.1972. The period of lease was for 30 years.
6f) The properties bearing Nos.560 to 562, old Nos.73 to 75, Avenue Road is said to have been taken on lease by the first defendant and Sri.C.R.Santhosh Kumar from Sri.Shankarappa, Smt.Chandramma and Smt.Parvathamma for a period of 30 years under a registered lease deed dated 13.08.1975. There was 14 O.S.No.3852/2011 partnership firm in existence for carrying on the business with the leasehold rights. This leasehold right is said to have been surrendered to the owners of the properties under a registered deed dated 13.08.2005.
6g) The properties bearing Nos.2 and 3 at the Dresser Rajappa Lane, Kumbarapet are concerned, they are said to have been leased by Mr.M.L.Mohammad Yunus @ Ashfaq, Mr.M.L.Mohammad Hidayatulla @ Althaf, Mrs.Mohasinabi and Mr.Mohammad Ismail in favour of Smt.B.M.Chandra, Smt.B.M.Sarala, Smt.B.N.Vijaya lakshmi, Smt.C.S.Pushpa, Smt.C.A.Jayanthi and Smt.C.S.kamala under a lease deed dated 6.04.1983 for a period of 32 years. The arrears in respect of the tax payable to the Corporation is said to have mounted to Rs.2,00,000-00 to Rs.3,00,000-00.
6h) A portion of the property in No.192 and property Nos.193 to 199 are said to have been leased under a registered lease deed dated 15.12.1986 by the members of Sri.Srinivas Family in favour of Sri.C.R.Sathyanarayana, partner of M/s.Lakshmi Commercial Complex for a period of 35 years.
15 O.S.No.3852/2011Sri.C.R.Sathyanarayana, Smt.Rukmini, Smt.B.M. Chandra, Smt.B.N.Sarala, Smt.B.N.Vijayalakshmi, Smt.H.N.Subbalakshmi, Smt.M.D.Kantha are said to have entered into a co-ownership agreement with another 16 others to develop the property and derive rents therefrom during the subsistence of the lease period. According to the terms of co-ownership agreement on 19.12.1986 Smt.Rukmini was entitled to 5%, Smt.Sarala to 6%, Smt.Chandra to 6%, Smt.Vijayalakshmi to 6%, Smt.H.N.Subbalakshmi to 5% and Smt.M.D.Kantha to 5% share in the entire property to be constructed and named "M/s.Lakshmi Commercial Complex".
6i) In so far as property No.121, Kilary Road is concerned, the same was purchased by the first defendant with Sri.C.R.Ashwathanarayana Shetty along with the second defendant and Sri.B.N.Subramani under a registered sale deed dated 28.04.2001 from Sri.B.R.Narasimhamurthy and six others. This property was developed by raising finance from ING Vysya Bank that was subsequently taken over by the Karnataka Bank and from individual lenders.
16 O.S.No.3852/20116j) The properties bearing Nos.66 and 66/4 are said to have been purchased by the first defendant through a registered sale deed executed by Smt.Pushpa Royan. The business under M/s.B.N.Krishnaiah Shetty and sons is only a family partnership of Sri.B.N.Krishnaiah Shetty and his sons dealing in gold and silver articles under a deed of partnership dated 20.09.1971. The partnership deed had come into effect from 11.06.1971. The profits were shared amongst the partners and Sri.B.K.Nagaraj is said to have received his share in the profits as per the agreement during his lifetime. On account of various reasons, the losses in the business being carried on by the partnership firm is said to have mounted and hence, the business under the partnership deed was agreed to be discontinued from 1.04.2008. This development is said to have informed to the competent authorities on 1.08.2008. The accounts pertaining to deceased Sri.B.K.Nagaraj is said to have been settled after his death with the plaintiff No.1 in full and final settlement.
6k) Sri.B.N.Krishnaiah Shetty is said to have died on 4.09.2011. On the death of Sri.B.N.Krishnaiah Shetty, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 claim to have 17 O.S.No.3852/2011 discovered the bequest made by the deceased defendant No.1 by way of registered Will dated 8.08.2007, 17.03.2008 and 11.02.2011. There is no property as item No.2 and the same had no nexus with the family of the the first defendant.
6l) The property bearing No.20/2 was acquired in the name of the deceased Sri.B.K.Nagaraj and the consideration amount was provided by the first defendant. The deceased had brain tumor and for five years, the first defendant along with the defendant Nos.2 and 3 had borne the medical expenses. The defendants assert that, they had shouldered the responsibilities of the deceased and the plaintiffs. The allegations are said to be made with the greed to extort more valuables from the defendants and hence, the suit is filed. These defendants have sought for an order to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs with costs
7. The crux of the defence put forth by the defendant No.5 in his written statement could be summarised as follows;
The property is said to have been purchased jointly by Smt.Rajalakshmi, Sri.C.R.Radhakrishna, Sri.C.R.Prabhakar, Sri.C.R.Jayaprakash, Sri.B.K. 18 O.S.No.3852/2011 Manjunath, Sri.B.K.Nataraj and Sri.B.K.Nagaraj under a registered sale deed dated 15.09.1982 from Sri.A.Srinivasa Rao. The purchasers are said to have purchased adjoining property from Smt.Sethubai through a registered sale deed dated 12.06.1985. Smt.Sethu Bai had acquired the property under a Will and Codicil dated 8.10.1976 and 7.03.1978 a bequest by her father. Accordingly, the defendant has sought for an order to dismiss the suit with costs.
8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the materials placed by them, issues were framed by this Court on 18.10.2016 and they were recast on 23.09.2023. The recast issues are as under:
RECAST ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties were acquired out of joint family nucleus and the same are joint family properties of them and defendants No.1 to 3 ?
2. Whether the defendants No.2 & 3 prove that the suit schedule properties are self acquired property of defendant No.1 ?
3. Whether the defendants No.2 & 3 prove that deceased B.K.Nagaraj has received his share in the partnership business ?19 O.S.No.3852/2011
4. Whether the defendants prove that defendant No.1 has executed last Will dated 08.08.2007 followed by Deed of Codicil dated 17.03.2008 and 11.02.2011 bequeathing the properties in favour of the beneficiaries within the knowledge of the plaintiffs ?
5. Whether the defendants No.2 & 3 prove that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ?
6. Whether the defendants No.2 & 3 prove that suit is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties ?
7. Whether the defendant No.5 proves that the plaintiffs being LRs of B.K.Nagaraj have consented to purchase 1/6th share and hence he is a bona fide purchaser for value ?
8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of their 1/4th share in the 'A' suit schedule property ?
9. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for possession of B-Schedule property as prayed for ?
10. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profits as prayed for ?
[
11. What Order or Decree ?20 O.S.No.3852/2011
9. In order to prove the case, the 1 st plaintiff examined as PW.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22. On the other hand, the 2 nd defendant and four witnesses examined as DWs.1 to DW.5 and got marked the documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.23.
10. Heard arguments from both the sides.
Perused the written arguments submitted on behalf of the defendant Nos.2 & 3. Perused the entire materials on record along with citations.
11. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs has relied upon the following rulings:
1. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1266 - N.S.Balaji Vs Presiding Officer, Deb Recovery Tribunal and others.
2. AIR 2018 SC 3907 - Kehar Singh (D) THR. LRS Vs Nachittar Kaur.
3. AIR 2019 Himachal Pradesh 96 - Raksha Kumari Vs Chain Singh.
4. (2009) 12 SCC 454 - Sham Lal alias Kuldip Vs Sanjeev Kumar and others.
5. (2021) 11 SCC 277 - Shivakumar and others Vs Sharanabasappa and others.
6. (2003) 10 SCC 310 - D.S.Lakshmaiah and another Vs L.Balasubramanyam and another.21 O.S.No.3852/2011
7. (2022) 5 SCC 345 - Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd., Vs Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir and others.
8. 2024 OnLine SC 4070 - Chinu Rani Ghosh Vs Subhash Ghosh and others.
9. 2021 (11) SCC 277 - Shivakumar and others Vs Sharanabasappa and others.
10. AIR 2005 SC 4362 - Pentakota Sathyanarayana and others Vs Pentakota Seetharathnam and others.
11. AIR 1959 SC 443 - H Venkatachala Iyengar Vs B.N.Thimmajamma and others.
12. (2022) 3 SCC 209 - Murthy and others Vs C.Saradambal and others.
12. The learned counsel for the defendant Nos.2 & 3 has relied upon the following rulings:
1. Copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.683/2003 - S.P.Subba Rao & Others Vs M.Lakshmana Rao and others.
2. (2003) 10 SCC 310 - D.S.Lakshmaiah and another Vs Balasubramanyam and another.
3. Copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Surpeme Court in Civil Appeal No.6875/2008 - Bhagwat Sharan (Dead Thr. LRs.) Vs Purushottam & Others.
4. AIR 1968 SC 1276 - G. Narayana Raju (Dead) by his LRs Vs G.Chamaraju and others.
5. AIR 1954 SC 379 - Srinivas Krishnarao Kango Vs Narayan Devji Kango and others.22 O.S.No.3852/2011
6. AIR 1981 P 43 - Chandar Sah & others Vs Godhani and others.
7. Copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A.No.789/2007 - L.Suresh and another Vs Yashothammal and others.
8. Copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi, in Second Appeal No.477/2022 - Bodduboyina Rajagopal Vs Bodduboyina Venkatanarayan and others.
9. 2005-1-L.W.622 (A.S.No.26/1990) of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras - K.N.Palniswamy Gounder Vs P.Subramanian.
10. Copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RFA No.1316/2007.
11. 1959 Supp (1) SCR 426 - H.Venkatachala Iyengar Vs B.N.Thimmajamma and others.
12. Copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.5921/2015 -
Metpalli Lasum Bai and others (Since Dead) and others Vs Metpalli Muthaiah (D) by LRs.
I have gone through the above rulings.
13. My findings on the above issues are as under: -
Issue Nos.1, 3, 4, : In the Negative, 5, 6, 7 Issue No.2, 8, 9, 10 : In the Affirmative, 23 O.S.No.3852/2011 Issue No.11 : As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
14. Issue Nos.1 to 3: These issues are interconnected with each other, hence, they are taken together for discussion.
15. The suit is for partition and separate possession of the share of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties. The case would depend on the documents placed by the parties that shall be considered in the light of the testimony of the witnesses.
16. To prove the case, the 1 st plaintiff filed affidavit in lieu of her examination-in-chief reiterating the plaint averments and examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.23. Documents produced by the plaintiffs and admitted in evidence are;
• Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 15.09.1982 executed by Sri.Srinivasa Rao in favour of Smt.C.R.Rajeshwari, Sri.C.R.Prabhakar, Sri.C.R.Jaya prakash, Sri.B.K.Manjunatha, Sri.B.K.Nataraj and Sri.B.K.Nagaraj, the property 24 O.S.No.3852/2011 purchased was the premises bearing Corporation No.163. Document No.2031.
• Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 11.06.1985 executed by Smt.Sethu.S.Rao in favour of Smt.C.R.Rajeshwari, Sri.C.R.Prabhakar, Sri.C.R.Jaya prakash, Sri.B.K.Manjunatha, Sri.B.K.Nataraj and Sri.B.K.Nagaraj. The property purchased was the premises bearing Corporation No.163-B. Document No.963 • Ex.P.3 is the certified copy of lease deed dated 3.12.1971 executed by lessors Sri.L.R. Venkatachalapathy Shetty, Sri.L.V.Mohanram, Sri.L.V.Jayaram, Sri.L.R.Prabhakar Gupta, Sri.L.R.Kumar Guptha and Smt.Lakshmi devamma in favour of Sri.B.N.Krishnaiah Shetty and Sri.Shankaranarayana Shetty. The period of lease was 26 years from the date on which the lessors would give possession of the property. The demised properties are bearing Nos.433 to 436. document No.4058.
• Ex.P.4 is the certified copy of the lease deed dated 25.10.1972 executed by Smt.D.R.Vajramma, Sri.D.R.Sathyanarayana, Sri.D.R.Sridhar in favour of Sri.B.N.Krishanaiah Shetty, Sri.T.Shankaranarayana Shetty, Sri.Ashwathanarayana Shetty, Sri.Sethu Rajan and Sri.T.Krishnaiah. The period of lease was 30 years. Document No.3512.
25 O.S.No.3852/2011• Ex.P.5 is the certified copy of the lease dated 13.08.1975 executed by Sri.M.Sharanappa, Smt. Chandramma, Smt.Parvathamma in favour of M/s.Santhosh Enterprises, represented by Sri.B.N.Krishnaiah Shetty and Sri.C.R.Santhosh Kumar in respect of property bearing Nos.560 to
562. The period of lease is 30 years.
• Ex.P.6 is certified copy of leased deed dated 6.04.1983 executed by Mr.Mohammad Yunus, Mr.Mohammad Hidayathulla, Ms.Mohesinabi and Mr.Mohammad Ismail in favour of Smt.B.M. Chandra, Smt.B.N.Sarala, Smt.B.N.Vijaya lakshmi, Smt.C.S.Pushpa, Smt.Jayanthi and Smt.Kamala. The period of lease was for 32 years. Document No.1967.
• Ex.P.7 is the certified copy of the surrender of lease dated 13.08.2005. The lease created under document No.1967 at Ex.P.6 came to be surrendered to the lessors under this document.
• Ex.P.8 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 9.03.2011. Smt.N.M.Bhagyalakshmi, Smt.P.B.Pushpa latha, Smt.Nagalakshmi, Smt.C.P.Gayathridevi, Sri.C.P.Raghunatha, Sri.C.P.Sunil, Sri.C.R.Jaya prakash, Sri.B.K.Manjunatha, Sri.B.K.Nataraj in favour of Mr.M.A.Subhan and Mrs.Sayeeda Begum. The properties sold under this document were properties bearing Nos.163 and 163-B and the new numbers 163 and 163/2. These properties were bequeathed by Sri.Achutha Rao in favour of 26 O.S.No.3852/2011 his son Sri.A.Srininvas Rao under a Will dated 8.10.1976 and codicil dated 7.03.1978. There is also a mention of the undivided 1/6 th share of the deceased Sri.B.K.Nagaraj in the properties.
• Ex.P.9 is the document at Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.10 is the document at Ex.P.2.
• Ex.P.11 is the certified copy of the lease deed dated 3.11.2003 executed by Sri.C.R.Prabhakar, Sri.C.R.Jayaprakash, Sri.B.K.Manjunatha and Sri.B.K.Nataraj, Sri.B.K.Nagaraj, represented by GPA Holder Sri.B.K.Manjunatha and Smt.N.M.Bhagyalakshmi, Smt.Pushpalatha, Smt.Nagalakshmi represented by Sri.C.R.Jaya prakash in favour of the Karnataka Bank Ltd., for a period of ten years.
• Ex.P.12 is the encumbrance certificate that would reveal the sale transaction dated 15.09.1982 at Ex P 1 and lease deed at Ex.P.11 and Ex.P.8. Ex.P.14 is the office copy of the legal notice dated 8.01.2011. Ex.P.19 are the postal receipts and Ex.P.16 to Ex.P.18 are the three postal acknowledgment cards.
• Ex.P.20 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 10.02.1967 executed by Sri.C.S.Lakshminarayana Gupta for and on behalf of the Chitraduragam Soorappa and Lakshmamma in favour of Sri.B.N.Krishnaiah Shetty. This sale transaction is found in the 27 O.S.No.3852/2011 encumbrance certificate at Ex.P.21. Ex.P.22 is the encumbrance certificate in Form No.16.
17. In support of the case of the defendants, the defendant No.2 examined as DW.1 and got marked documents at Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.23. Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 are two tax paid receipts in respect of the property no.61-35-163/ 163/ 2 for the financial years 2016-17 and 2017-18. These documents were got marked through PW.1 on being confronted to her during the cross-examination.
18. Documents produced by the defendants and admitted in evidence;
• Again Ex.D.1 would refer to original sale deed dated 10.02.1967.
• Ex.D.2 is the cancellation of co-ownership agreement dated 1.02.2018.
• Ex.D.6 is the certified copy of the sale deed executed by Sri.T.A.Pushparajan, Dr.Ambupillay and two others in favour of Sri.B.N.Krishnaiah Shetty on 24.06.1987. The property sold under this document was old No.23 and New No.66.
• Ex.D.10 is the certified copy of the lease deed dated 15.12.1986 executed by Sri.S.Srinivas, Sri.S.Krishnappa, Smt.Lakshmamma, 28 O.S.No.3852/2011 Smt.Lakshmamma W/o Sri.S.Paparaju in favour of Sri.C.R.Sathyanarayana for and on behalf of M/s.Lakshmi Commercial Complex. The properties leased under this document were properties bearing Nos.192 to 197.
• Ex.D.11 is the certified copy of cancellation deed / surrender of lease dated 12.03.2018. Under this deed, the lessees had surrendered the demised property to the lessor. The lease created under Ex.D.10 was surrendered by this deed.
• Ex.D.12 is the certified copy of the acknowledgment of registration of firm. • Ex.D.13 statement of total income.
• Ex.D.14 is the acknowledgment issued by the Income Tax Department.
• Ex.D.15 is the carbon copy of the annual statement.
• Ex.D.16 is the intimation dated 20.05.2008 regarding closure of business establishment under the name and style "B.N.Krishnaiah Shetty and Sons with effect from 1.04.2008.
• Ex.D.17 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.738/ 2014 filed for eviction of the tenant. The suit was filed by the present plaintiff No.1 against Smt.Mina Devi.
• Ex.D.18 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 28.04.2001. The property bearing No.66 29 O.S.No.3852/2011 was purchased under this deed by Sri.B.N.Krishnaiah Shetty.
• Ex.D.19 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 19.09.1991 executed by Sri.K.Shama Rao in favour of Sri.B.K.Nagaraj. The property purchased by Sri.B.K.Nagaraj was property bearing No.20, Old No.14.
• Ex.D.20 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated 16.10.2014 executed by Sri.B.K.Manjunath in favour of Sri.Chandrashekar S/o Ramaswamy. The property bearing No.66 was sold under the sale deed.
• Ex.D.21 is the encumbrance certificate in respect of property bearing No.121 old 192/1 disclosing the sale transaction dated 28.04.2001 in favour of Sri.B.N.Krishnaiah.
• Ex.D.22 is the encumbrance certificate disclosing the sale transaction where Sri.C.R.Ashwathanarayana Shetty, Sri.B.K. Manjunatha and their children had sold the property.
• Ex.D.23 is the special power of attorney.
19. The plaintiff had reiterated the contents of the plaint, but during the cross-examination, PW.1 is found to have pleaded ignorance in respect of the property allotted to the first defendant in a partition 30 O.S.No.3852/2011 amongst the sons of Sri.B.Narayana Shetty. PW.1 is also not aware of the income derived from the property alleged to have been allotted.
20. DW.1 / 2nd defendant is also found to have asserted that, the first defendant and his brothers were carrying on the business in jewellery. There was a partition amongst the brothers during 1972 and the partition was in the custody of DW.1. However, the partition deed was not produced. There is also no pleading to that effect by these defendants in their written statement. The fourth defendant is admitted to be maintaining the books of accounts pertaining to the business establishment.
21. DW.3 Sri.B.G.Rajendra, more importantly this witness is related to the family of the first defendant. Even this witness is found to have stated that, there was nothing available that could be divided. The testimony of this witness also would probablise the defence of the defendants that, there were no properties that was able to fetch surplus income for the family of the first defendant. Even this witness is found to have narrated the same tune as the defendants that the family was initially was native of 31 O.S.No.3852/2011 Kolar and thereafter, they had migrated to Bengaluru. The witness is found to have stated that, his father was carrying on business in jewellery and likewise the first defendant was also carrying on business in jewellery. Therefore, it is clear that, the sons of Sri.B.Narayana Shetty had out of their own hard work built the business empire.
22. Now, the defendants had already stated in their written statement that, the family of Sri.B.Narayanashetty had small holding of agricultural lands in Kolar of which the family was a native. The plaintiffs assert that, there was joint family nucleus after the division effected in the family amongst the brothers of the first defendant. However, the plaintiffs had not made any attempt to trace the nucleus of the family. The burden to prove this aspect of the matter was entirely on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs however had failed to discharge this burden by placing cogent materials before the Court.
23. The fourth defendant is admitted to be the accountant. The accounts although placed were not furnished to the plaintiffs at an earlier point of time. The plaintiffs have failed to prove that, there was a 32 O.S.No.3852/2011 joint family nucleus at all available to the first defendant. At the same time, the plea of defence raised by the defendants that, there was no joint family at all is also unacceptable. Under the Hindu, all families are presumed to be joint unless the contrary is proved. At the same time, there is no corollary that every joint family must possess joint family property. The voluminous materials placed by either parties are clear demonstration that, the properties purchased were a few, but largely the family depended on demised premises to accumulate wealth for the family enabling it to purchase the immovable properties. There were a number of lease agreements spreading for periods ranging from 26 years to 30 years.
24. Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 are the sale deeds under which the properties bearing Nos.163 and 163-B were purchased by the brothers of the deceased Sri.B.K.Nagaraj along with him. The properties under Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.11 are demised premises that were used to raise income for the family. Therefore, I answer issue No.1 and 3 are in the Negative and issue No.2 is in the Affirmative.
33 O.S.No.3852/201125. ISSUE NO.4: According to the defendants, the properties are the self-acquired properties of the defendant No.1. The 1st defendant is said to have bequeathed the properties in favour of 2 nd defendant. Initially, the defendants had not pleaded regarding the Will at Ex.D.3 to Ex.D.5. The 1 st defendant had died on 4.09.2011. The plea regarding alleged bequest was made for the first time during 2014. Ex.D.3 is the registered Will dated 8.08.2007 executed by Sri.B.N.Krishnaiah Shetty. Ex.D.4 is the Codicil to the Will dated 8.08.2007 dated 17.03.2007. However, apparently this appears to be misleading. However, the document was presented on 17.03.2008 for registration.
26. Ex.D.5 is the another Codicil to the Will dated 8.08.2007 executed by the testator on 11.02.2011. This would not remain without giving rise to suspicion as there is no whisper about the presence or information being given to the others. Ex.D.5 is a second codicil is found to be presented for registration on 11.02.2011 at 11.04.08 a.m. Ex.D.9 is the gift deed said to have been executed by Sri.Krishnaiah Shetty presented for registration on 11.02.2011 at 11.14.09 a.m. The witnesses to this document are the attesting 34 O.S.No.3852/2011 witnesses to Ex.D.5. However, the witness DW.5 is found not to have whispered regarding this document. Similarly, on 25.02.2008 Ex.D.7 is alleged to have been executed by Sri.B.N.Krishnaiah Shetty in favour of Sri.B.K.Manjunatha. The witnesses are Sri.B.G. Rajendra and Smt.C.N.Sushma. Ex.D.8 is the rectification deed dated 17.03.2008 rectifying the measurements of the properties under schedule-A and B. The attesting witnesses to this document are Sri.B.G.Rajendra and Sri.S.Kashinath Rao, who were also witnesses to Ex.D.3 and Ex.D.4. This document at Ex.D.8 was presented on 17.03.2008 at 12.41.16 p.m. whereas, Ex.D.4 is found to have been presented on 17.03.2008 at 12.51.51 p.m for registration. These documents although appear to be genuine, but on collective appreciation, they appear to have been done with haste and therefore, the necessity of rectification. The rectification was got done after three years. Now, the attesting witnesses to the Will, Codicil and gift appear to be one and the same, but the witnesses are found not to have whispered anything in respect of these transactions. These transactions therefore appear to be suspicious enough.
35 O.S.No.3852/201127. DW.3 Sri.B.G.Rajendra is the son of Sri.B.N.Govindaiah Shetty, a brother of Sri.B.N.Krishnaiah Shetty. According to this witness, during the lifetime of Sri.B.N.Krishnaiah Shetty, about 15 days earlier he had decided to bequeath by executing a Will and had asked him to come to the house at No.66. The witness claims to have gone to the house of Sri.Krishnaiah Shetty at about 10-10.30 a.m and by that time, another witness was in the house of Sri.Krishnaiah Shetty. After about 10-15 minutes of the arrival of this witness at the house of the 1st defendant, his advocate is said to have arrived at the house along with the Will drafted and prepared by him. The advocate had read over the contents of the Will and thereafter, the testator had read over the contents of the Will and was satisfied. He had signed on the Will and executed the Will by affixing his signature on the document on every page. Thereafter, this witness and the other witness claim to have affixed their signatures. During cross-examination nothing appears to have been elicited through this witness that would discredit this witness.
28. It was elicited through DW.4 that, he had known DW.3 for more than 20-25 years. He claims 36 O.S.No.3852/2011 that, he had acquaintances with DW.3 on the pretext that, he had acquaintances with the first defendant. This witness also knew that, DW.3 was the son of elder brother of the first defendant. This witness has no acquaintance with Sri.B.K.Nataraj but had acquaintance with Sri.B.K.Manjunath. Sri.B.K. Manjunath was managing the affairs of the business and the properties. The witness is found to have asserted that, he was not present while instructions were given for preparing Ex.D.3 and it was got typed. DW.1 also is found to have asserted during the cross- examination that, Ex.D.3 was prepared by Sri.Krishnamurthy. The witnesses do not know as to who had prepared the rough sketches of the properties that are said to be the subject matter of the bequest.
29. DW.5 Sri.Sandeep is a witness to the Will dated 11.02.2011 and according to this witness, he was informed by Sri.Krishnaiah Shetty during his lifetime about executing a codicil and that he intended to make some amendments to the Will and Codicil. On that day, this witness claims to have gone to the house of the first defendant at about 9.00-9.30 a.m along with Sri.Sunil Ganesh, who had also arrived at the residence of the first defendant. As in the case of Will 37 O.S.No.3852/2011 and the Codicil, the advocate had come to the house of the first defendant with the codicil duly drafted and prepared by him. The advocate had read over the contents of the codicil and after the approval of Sri.B.N.Krishnaiah Shetty, he had read over the contents of the document in their presence and signed the document at the end of the each page and thereafter, the witnesses claim to have affixed their signatures. Even this witness does not know Ex.D.5 being typed. This witness does not know as to what was going on in the family of the first defendant. Even the first defendant is said to have not disclosed anything about it. This witness does not know who had taken away the original document. He had not gone to the office of the advocate and he does not know the location of the office of the advocate. He does not also know as to who had instructed the advocate.
30. The very statement in the affidavit of these attesting witnesses that, they were called to the house of the first defendant, after these witnesses reaching the house, the advocate for the first defendant arriving with the draft already prepared that was read over etc., is absolutely silent regarding on whose instructions, the recitals in the Will and the subsequent codicils 38 O.S.No.3852/2011 were prepared is not clear. The advocate for the first defendant is not examined to ascertain as to the instructions received by him. The contents of the affidavit reveal narration that, about 15 days prior to that, the attesting witnesses were informed of the possible bequest. The witnesses are also not aware as to whether the Sub-Registrar had confirmed regarding knowledge of the contents of the Will to the testator.
31. Admittedly, the testator-the first defendant was aged about 86 years. According to the witnesses, the testator was hale and healthy. But the recitals in the Will would reveal that, the beneficiary Sri.B.K.Manjunath was caring for his health and medical expenses. There are materials in the record to show that, the family and the business were both being managed by Sri.B.K.Manjunath. The attesting witnesses had acquaintances with Sri.B.K.Manjunath.
32. Ex.D.7 is the certified copy of the registered gift deed dated 25.02.2008. Ex.D.8 is the certified copy of the rectification deed dated 17.03.2008. Ex.D.9 is the certified copy of the the gift deed dated 11.02.2011 executed by Sri.B.N.Krishnaiah Shetty in favour of the son of Sri.B.K.Nataraj, the third defendant in this 39 O.S.No.3852/2011 case. The property conveyed by the deceased first defendant Sri.B.N.Krishnaiah Shetty in favour of the son of the third defendant was the property bearing No.66. Hence, the Will and codicil are held not proved in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. In so far as the gift transactions are concerned, there is no whisper regarding the same in the written statement. Hence, even these transactions are held not proved. Accordingly, I answer issue No.4 is in the Negative.
33. ISSUE Nos.5 & 6: The defendants are found to have raised the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties, but the subsequent transactions made were during the subsistence of the present suit and is hit by the principle of lis pendense. Therefore, the suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The defendants have failed to establish the defence that, the suit is bad for mis-joinder of parties. Therefore, I have answered the issue Nos.5 & 6 are in the Negative.
34. ISSUE Nos.7, 8, 9 & 10: Now, in so far as the relief of partition and separate possession claimed by the plaintiffs is concerned, although the plaintiffs appear to have clinged to a claim that, the properties 40 O.S.No.3852/2011 were acquired from the joint family nucleus, they were unsuccessful to prove this aspect. The issue regarding this claim is already answered in the negative. However, it is established that, the properties were acquired by the deceased first defendant. Now, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 having set up the claim of bequest and conveyance by way of gift and the same are now held to be not proved. Therefore, the succession would be opened on the death of the first defendant, the plaintiffs being the wife and daughters of Late Sri.B.K.Nagaraj S/o 1st defendant Sri.Krishnaiah Setty, are held to be entitled to share as a Class-I heirs. Instead of making the plaintiffs who are women non suited and driving them for another round of litigation, it would be in the ends of justice to consider the share of the plaintiffs on the opening of the succession.
35. Ex.D.20 is the sale deed executed by the second defendant based on the documents at Ex.D.3 to Ex.D.5 that are being disputed by the parties. Moreover, the document was executed on 16.10.2014 during the pendency of the suit. Hence, the transaction is clearly hit by the principle of lis pendens. This transaction is not binding on the share of the plaintiffs.
41 O.S.No.3852/201136. In view of the discussions made supra, the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/3rd share in the item No.1 of the Suit Schedule-A Property. The plaintiffs are together entitled to 1/6th share in the in the item No.2 & 3 of the Suit Schedule-A Property and other properties mentioned in the Schedule-B. The bequest alleged to have been made by the deceased first defendant and the gift are not only binding on the share of the plaintiffs but are set aside as not proved. Accordingly, I answer issue No.7 is in the Negative and issue Nos.8 to 10 are in the Affirmative.
37. Issue No.11: In view of the above discussions, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed.
The plaintiffs being the LRs of Late Sri.B.K.Nagaraj are together entitled for 1/3rd share in the item No.1 of the suit schedule-A property.
The plaintiffs being the LRs of Late Sri.B.K.Nagaraj are together entitled for 1/6th share in the item Nos.2 & 3 of the Suit Schedule-A Property and other properties mentioned in the Schedule-B. 42 O.S.No.3852/2011 Parties to bear their own costs as they are belonging to a family with common parents.
There has to be enquiry regarding mesne profit.
Draw preliminary decree accordingly.
In view of the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2022 SCC OnLine 737 (Kattukandi Edathi Krishnan & Anr., Vs Kattukandi Edathil Valsan & Ors.), office is directed to register the case as FDP.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer-III directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 17th day of November, 2025) (Balachandra N Bhat) LVIII Addl. City Civil & Session Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:-
PW.1 : Smt.B.N.Vijayalakshmi.43 O.S.No.3852/2011
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:-
Ex.P.1 : Certified copy of the sale deed dated 15.09.1982.
Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of the sale deed dated 12.06.1985.
Ex.P.3 to 6 : Certified copies of the 4 lease agreements.
Ex.P.7 : Certified copy of the lease surrender deed dated 13.08.2005.
Ex.P.8 : Certified copy of the sale deed dated 09.03.2011.
Ex.P.9 : Certified copy of the sale deed dated 15.09.1982.
Ex.P.10 : Certified copy of the sale deed dated 12.06.1985.
Ex.P.11 : Agreement dated 03.11.2003.
Ex.P.12 & 13 : 2 ECs. Ex.P.14 : Office copy of the legal notice. Ex.P.15 : Reply.
Ex.P.16 to 18 : 3 Postal acknowledgments.
Ex.P.19 : 3 postal receipts.
Ex.P.20 : Certified Copy of the sale deed dated
10.02.1967.
Ex.P.21 & 22 : ECS in Form Nos.15 & 16.
44 O.S.No.3852/2011
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTS :-
DW.1 : Sri.B.K.Manjunath. DW.2 : Sri. Mir Salman. DW.3 : Sri.B.G.Rajendra. DW.4 : Sri.S.Kashinath Rao. DW.5 : Sri.Sandeep.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANTS :-
Ex.D.1 & 2 : Tax paid receipts - (documents marked during cross-examination of PW.1) Ex.D.1 : Original sale deed dated 10.02.1967 in the name of 1st defendant.
Ex.D.2 : Original Agreement of Cancellation of Co-
ownership dated 01.02.2018. Ex.D.3 : Original Will deed dated 08.08.2007.
Ex.D.3(a) : Signature of DW.3.
Ex.D.3(b) : Signature of DW.4.
Ex.D.4 : Codicil dated 17.03.2008.
Ex.D.4(a) : Signature of DW.3.
Ex.D.4(b) : Signature of DW.4.
Ex.D.5 : Codicil No.2 dated 11.02.2011.
Ex.D.5(a) : Signature of DW.5.
Ex.D.6 : Certified copy of the registered sale deed
dated 24.06.1987.
Ex.D.7 : Certified copy of the registered gift deed
dated 25.02.2008 executed by
B.N.Krishnaiah Shetty.
45 O.S.No.3852/2011
Ex.D.8 : Certified copy of the rectification deed
dated 17.03.2008.
Ex.D.9 : Certified copy of the registered gift deed
dated 11.02.2011 executed by
B.N.Krishnaiah Shetty in favour of B.N.Subramani.
Ex.D.10 : Certified copy of the registered lease deed dated 15.12.1986 executed by one S.Srinivas and others in favour of M/s. Lakshmi Commercial Complex in respect of properties bearing Nos.192 to 199, Kumbarpet Main Road, Bengaluru.
Ex.D.11 : Certified copy of the registered cancellation / surrender of lease dated 12.03.2018 between aforesaid firm and S.Krishnappa and others.
Ex.D.12 : Certified copy of Form-C issued by the office of the Registrar of Firms, Mysuru under Indian Partnership Act.
Ex.D.13 : Copy of returns submitted by M/s.B.N.Krishnaiah Shetty and sons for the assessment year 2007-08.
Ex.D.14 : Acknowledgment issued by the Commercial Tax Department.
Ex.D.15 : Acknowledgment issued by Commercial Tax Department.
Ex.D.16 : Office copy of letter dated 20.05.2008 addressed by B.N.Krishnaiah Shetty and sons to Tax Department.
Ex.D.17 : Certified copy of the plaint in SC No.738/2014.
46 O.S.No.3852/2011Ex.D.18 : Certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 28.04.2001 between Sri.B.R.Narasimha Murthy and B.N.Krishnaiah Shetty in respect of property bearing No.121 of Kilari Road, Bengaluru.
Ex.D.19 : Certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 23.09.1991 between Sri.K.Shyamarao and Sri.B.K.Nagaraj in respect of the property situated on Police Station Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru. Ex.D.20 : Certified copy of the registered sale deed dated 16.10.2014 between B.K.Manjunatha and Sri.Chandrashekar in respect of property No.66/4 of Anjaneya Temple Street, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru. Ex.D.21 : Certified copy of EC in respect of property No.121 of BVK Iyengar Road from 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2004.
Ex.D.22 : Certified copy of the EC in respect of property No.121 from 01.04.2004 to 13.02.2020.
Ex.D.23 : SPA dated 30.03.2021.
(Balachandra N Bhat) LVIII Addl. City Civil & Session Judge, Bengaluru.