Bangalore District Court
Ravikumar G vs Shivamma on 2 January, 2024
1
O.S. No.25531/2020
KABC0A0013062020
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU.
(CCH-75)
Dated this 2nd Day of January 2024
PRESENT:
Smt.SAYEEDUNNISA, M.A., LL.B.,
LXXIV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT No.25531/2020
PLAINTIFF: Sri.RAVIKUMAR.G.,
S/o.Late.Sri.Govindaiah.R.,
aged about 48 yrs,
R/at.Everest Enclave,
GF-04, Near Bus Depot,
BEML 5th Stage, Rajarajeswarinagar,
Bengaluru-560098.
REP BY: Sri.C.K.DHARANEESWARAN, Advocate.
V/S
DEFENDANTS: 1 Smt.SHIVAMMA,
W/o.Late.Sri.Govindaiah.R.,
aged about 75 yrs,
(Since deceased by her LR
the plaintiff herein)
2
O.S. No.25531/2020
2 Kum.RAKSHITA.R.K.,
aged about 25 yrs,
3 Kum.SAI YESHAASWINI.R.K.,
aged about 23 yrs,
Both 2 & 3 are D/o.Sri.Ravikumar.G.,
All three are R/at.No.460,
3rd Main, 3rd Stage,
Behind BET School,
BEML Layout, Rajarajeswarinagar,
Bengaluru-560098.
REP BY: Sri.S.YATHIRAJ, Advocate.
Date of Institution of the suit 18.03.2020
Nature of the Suit (Suit on pro-note, suit
DECLARATION & PERMANENT
for declaration and possession, suit for
INJUNCTION
injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of recording
21.10.2021
of the Evidence
Date of pronouncement of Judgment 02.01.2024
Total duration Year/s Month/s Day/s
03 09 14
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for the relief of declaration that the gift deed dated 18.12.2018 executed in favour of 2nd and 3rd defendants by defendant No.1 is null 3 O.S. No.25531/2020 and void and not binding on the plaintiff as well as for the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property or any portion thereof in favour of any third person with court costs, etc.
2. In brief the plaintiff has averred in the plaint that plaintiff is the only son born to Late.Sri.Govindaiah.R., and the first defendant. The father of the plaintiff died intestate on 24.03.2009 leaving behind the plaintiff and first defendant as his only legal heir to succeed to his estate. The grandmother of plaintiff predeceased his father.
3. Further plaintiff has averred that the father of the plaintiff was working as Primary School Teacher. During his lifetime he was having very meager income and out of the small savings, he purchased a residential site bearing No.53 (Old No.2425), situated at 10 th Main Road, E Block, Subramanyanagar, Bengaluru, morefully described in the schedule and hereinafter referred to as schedule property. 4
O.S. No.25531/2020
4. The father of the plaintiff had purchased the said suit property under a registered sale deed dated 24.08.1984. Thereafter the plaintiff had constructed a duplex residential house by incurring more than Rs.8,00,000/- on the site.
5. Further the plaintiff has averred that, he married one Smt.B.G.Mala. Out of the said wedlock, the defendants No.2 and 3 were born. The relationship of plaintiff with his wife Smt.B.G.Mala was not cordial for past 10 years. Further he has averred that out of his own earnings, he had purchased residential site bearing No.460, 3 rd Main, 3rd Stage, Behind BET School, Rajarajeswarinagar, Bengaluru, totally measuring 2400 Sq.Ft., without any kind of contribution from anyone in the name of M/s.B.R.Infra Structure and constructed a palatial house measuring 56 Squares, out of his own earnings. The entire business of the said proprietary concern was managed by the plaintiff. Though the name of his wife Smt.Mala was nominal as a 5 O.S. No.25531/2020 proprietor, she never carried any business nor she had any knowledge regarding the business involved. The plaintiff has been residing there as a lawful owner, due to the bitter relationship between the plaintiff and his wife, the second and third defendants has lodged a false criminal complaint with making false allegations against the plaintiff. The second and third defendants had prevented the plaintiff from seeing his ailing mother; i.e., defendant No.1. Recently the plaintiff came to know that on inducement to plaintiff's mother, his children; i.e., defendants No.2 and 3 by suppressing the lawful title and share of the plaintiff, they have obtained a gift deed from the defendant No.1 under a registered gift deed dated 18.12.2018. Wherein the plaintiff is the co-owner, as a son of Late.Govindaiah and the son of first defendant. Thereby the gift deed is a sham and nominal document, the same do not convey right, title, share, interest or claim over the property in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 and even though the first defendant is fully aware that plaintiff is the legal heir and entitled for share in 6 O.S. No.25531/2020 his father's property has indulged in executing the gift deed in respect of entire suit schedule property in favour of defendants No.2 and 3. Plaintiff is entitled for half share in the suit schedule property. The defendants cannot be allowed to deny the same on the basis of a fraudulent and sham gift deed.
6. Further plaintiff has averred that during the pendency of the suit on 23.02.2021 the first defendant died intestate leaving behind her only son; i.e., the plaintiff to succeed to her estate. In view of death of first defendant as intestate, her estate including her undivided half share in the suit schedule property shall devolve on the plaintiff. Thereby plaintiff is entitled for entire suit schedule property. Accordingly has prayed for granting the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of the suit schedule property.
7. Pursuance to issuance of suit summons, the defendants No.1 to 3 have appeared and contested the suit by filing written statement.
7
O.S. No.25531/2020
8. The defendants have filed written statement contending that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable either on law or on facts. Further they have admitted the relationship of plaintiff with the defendants, but they have denied that the plaintiff has monetarily supported his father or the husband of defendant No.1 to construct the house and further they have taken contention that plaintiff has not invested a single pie in purchasing or constructing the house over the suit site. They have denied the entire allegations made by the plaintiff against these defendants.
9. Further they have set up their own case stating that the gift deed has been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 on her own will and wish not under any coercion or inducement and further contend that plaintiff has entered into second marriage without the knowledge of defendant No.1 and his wife, under the said circumstances, the defendant No.1 executed the gift deed by assessing the situation. The plaintiff was not taking care of 8 O.S. No.25531/2020 defendant No.1. She was suffering from old age ailments. The defendants No.2 and 3 along with their mother Smt.B.G.Mala were taking care of defendant No.1. The plaintiff has neglected the defendant No.1 as well as the defendants No.2 and 3.
10. Further defendants have taken contention that plaintiff has enjoyed the entire sale proceeds of the site property bearing No.11, situated at Andarahalli Village, Yeswanthpura Hobli, which was belonged to the defendant's No.1 husband, he sold the property bearing No.F-719, situated at Herohalli, it was acquired out of joint family source of income. The same was registered in the name of plaintiff and taking advantage of the same, he had sold the said property for a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- and did not share any amount with the family members including the defendant No.1. The plaintiff has cheated the defendant No.1 by getting transfer a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- from the account of defendant No.1 with assurance that the said 9 O.S. No.25531/2020 amount will be invested in fixed deposit in the name of defendants No.2 and 3, but plaintiff failed to do so. The plaintiff forcibly has taken a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and gold ornaments from the custody of his wife B.G.Mala. The plaintiff is not entitled for any partition in the suit schedule property. The defendants No.2 and 3 are the owners of the suit schedule property. Further they have averred that the agricultural properties situated at Muddalinganahalli Village, Nelamangala Taluk, are the ancestral properties, which are available for partition, but those properties have not been made as part of this suit. Thereby, the suit itself is not maintainable. Plaintiff is not having any right, title, interest over the suit schedule property. He is not the owner of the property. The plaintiff is not having any cause of action to file the suit. The court fee paid by the plaintiff is not proper. Accordingly, on all these grounds, the defendants have prayed for dismissal of the suit.
10
O.S. No.25531/2020
11. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, my Predecessor in office has framed the following:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the Gift Deed dated:
18.12.2018 executed by 1st defendant in respect of suit property is null and void and not binding on him?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled fro half share in the suit property?
3. What order or decree?
12. Plaintiff in order to substantiate the case, he himself has given evidence before the court as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.12 documents.
13. The defendants in order to rebut the evidence and to substantiate their contention, defendant No.3 has given evidence before the court as D.W.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to D.7 documents.
11
O.S. No.25531/2020
14. Heard the arguments and perused the materials placed on record.
15. My answer to the aforesaid issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In the Negative, Issue No.2: In the Negative, Issue No.3: As per the final order, for the following:-
REASONS
16. ISSUE No.1: In brief it is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of his father by name Govindaiah.R., he died intestate leaving behind plaintiff and his mother; i.e., defendant No.1. The plaintiff married one B.G.Mala. Out of the said wedlock, defendants No.2 and 3 were born. There was a bitter relationship between the plaintiff and his wife since 10 years. Thereby his wife and defendants No.2 and 3 by suppressing the fact that the plaintiff is having lawful title, right, share and claim over the suit schedule property 12 O.S. No.25531/2020 induced the defendant No.1 who is no other than his mother to execute alleged gift deed dated 18.12.2018, though the first defendant was not having absolute right over the property by colluding with each other and by deceiving his aged mother have obtained a gift deed. Thereby the plaintiff claim that the gift deed is not binding on him and it is void.
17. The records would disclose that there is no dispute regarding the relationship of plaintiff and defendants and even it is not in dispute that the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of one Govindaiah.R., who is no other than the father of plaintiff and husband of defendant No.1 and grandfather of defendants No.2 and 3. Further it is not in dispute that the said Govindaiah.R., died intestate and even to that extent there is no dispute that the relationship of plaintiff and his wife and children; i.e., defendants No.2 and 3 were not cordial.
18. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he is also a co-owner of the suit schedule property without his consent 13 O.S. No.25531/2020 the defendant No.1 cannot execute the gift deed and under the said gift deed these defendants No.2 and 3 will not acquire any right and it is his case that the defendants No.2 and 3 in collusion with his wife have induced his mother to get execute the gift deed in respect of the suit schedule property and it is his case that he has spent more than Rs.8,00,000/- for the construction of building over the suit property.
19. In order to substantiate his contention he has given evidence before the court as P.W.1 and his evidence by way of chief-examination is nothing but, repetition of facts as stated by him in his plaint. In order to substantiate his contention he has produced Ex.P.1; i.e., the sale deed dated 24.08.1984, which stands in the name of Govindaiah; i.e., the father of plaintiff and Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of the gift deed dated 18.12.2018. Ex.P.3 is the khatha endorsement. Ex.P.5 is the khatha certificate, which stands in the name of defendant No.1; i.e., after the death of 14 O.S. No.25531/2020 Govindaiah, the khatha has been changed in the name of defendant No.1. Ex.P.6 is the encumbrance certificate.
20. P.W.1 has been cross-examined. During the course of cross-examination he has deposed that he do not have documents to show that he has spent about Rs.8,00,000/- towards the construction of the house. He has further deposed that at the time of construction of the house over the suit site, his father had taken loan from Lakshminarayana Co-operative Society to a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- and it is also admitted fact between the parties that deceased Govindaiah was working as a Teacher during his lifetime and out of his savings he has purchased the suit site.
21. The dispute is with regard to who constructed the house over the suit site. Though the plaintiff claim that he spent more than Rs.8,00,000/- and constructed a RCC roof duplex house, but he himself has deposed that he is not having any documents to substantiate the same and even he 15 O.S. No.25531/2020 has admitted that at the time of construction, his father had raised loan. When such being the fact, the contention of the plaintiff that he has constructed the house by spending a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- and above is not acceptable and the plaintiff has not proved that he has spent Rs.8,00,000/- as contended for the purpose of construction of house.
22. Admittedly, Govindaiah.R. had left behind plaintiff and defendant No.1 as his legal heirs. Since it is the absolute property of Govindaiah, on death of Govindaiah.R., both the plaintiff as well as the defendant No.1 being the Class-I heir of deceased succeed to the estate of the deceased Govindaiah.R., as per the rules of Succession and have acquired equal share in the suit schedule property.
23. Now the question before the court is whether the defendant No.1 being the co-owner of the property has absolute right to execute the gift deed in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 in respect of entire extent of property? 16
O.S. No.25531/2020
24. Counsel for plaintiff argued that the defendant No.1 is not having absolute right to execute gift deed without the consent of plaintiff who is also having equal right over the property as that of defendant No.1. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 along with their mother have induced plaintiff's mother to execute the document; i.e., gift deed. Under the said document defendants No.2 and 3 will not get any right over the property and the said document is a void document and further argued that since gift deed is a void document. After the death of defendant No.1 he is the absolute owner of suit schedule property. Further counsel for plaintiff argued that if the court comes to conclusion that the defendant No.1 is having right to execute gift deed in respect of her half share in the property, the plaintiff is entitled for the half share of the property. Thereby a partition be effected. To support his contention stating that managing member of Hindu undivided family has no power to alienate or gift the property and the said gift is not a valid and it is a void gift. Counsel relied on the following decisions:- 17
O.S. No.25531/2020
1. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 381, between K.C.Laxmana v/s K.C.Chandrappa Gowda and another.
2. Judgment of Hon'ble High Court reported in CDJ L.J. 2020 KAR HC 1727 in RFA No.1905/2005 between C.N.Leelavathi v/s M.Narayanappa & others.
25. I have perused the decisions relied on by counsel for plaintiff. There is no dispute regarding the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble High Court in the above referred decision.
26. It is well settled principle of law that the Hindu joint family property can only be alienated in 3 situations namely (1) legal necessity, (2) for the benefit of the estate, (3) with consent of all the co-parceners of the property. In the decision referred above; i.e., 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 381, between K.C.Laxmana v/s K.C.Chandrappa Gowda and another, the question before the Hon'ble Apex Court was whether the kartha of the family had right to transfer/gift the joint and ancestral property in favour of another person who 18 O.S. No.25531/2020 is not a co-parcener and the point for consideration was whether the transfer of property made by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant; i.e., Ex.P.1, which was a gift deed in the said suit was for a pious purpose? The Hon'ble Apex Court considering that the person in whose favour gift deed was executed was not a co-parcener or member of the family held that 'it is well settled that a Hindu father or any other managing member of a HUF has power to make a gift of ancestral property only for a 'pious purpose'. A gift deed with regard to ancestral property executed out of love and affection does not come within the scope of the term pious purpose held that the said gift deed was null and void. But, the facts and circumstances of the present case are completely different. Here in this case the property in question is not the ancestral property. It is the self-acquired property of husband of defendant No.1. Wherein the plaintiff and defendant No.1 considered to be standing on a same footing of co-owners. The question before this court whether a co-owner without the consent of the other co-owner can 19 O.S. No.25531/2020 alienate (in this case gift) entire property in favour of any other person without the consent of the other co-owner?
27. The another decision relied on by the counsel the gift deed was executed in favour of a stranger in respect of a ancestral property and undivided co-parcenary property was gifted in favour of a stranger. In the said decision the Hon'ble High Court has held as follows:-
'As already noticed above parties are Hindus, they are governed by Mithakshara School of Hindu Law. Under Hindu Law, co-parcener/manager has no absolute power of disposal over joint Hindu family property. The law is well settled that a co- parcener/manager cannot gift even his interest or any member of the family or to a stranger unless it is for pious purpose to small extent recognized by law.'
28. From the decisions relied on by the counsel, it can very well be said safely that the right of alienation or gift of the joint family property by the Manager of the family is not completely barred. The Manager is having very well a power of alienation, but only under 3 circumstances. (1) For legal 20 O.S. No.25531/2020 necessity. (2) For the benefit of the estate. (3) With consent of the co-parceners.
29. These decisions will support the case of the defendants rather than the plaintiff for the reason that first of all the suit schedule property is not the ancestral property, it is the self-acquired property of deceased husband of defendant No.1. Wherein there is much material on record to say that this plaintiff being the father of defendant Nos.2 & 3 has neglected to maintain them and the suit schedule property is a residential premises where the defendant Nos.2 and 3 were residing along with defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 and 3 are not the strangers they are the blood relatives, they are the grand-daughters of defendant No.1.
30. It is well settled principle of law that a managing member of the family has power to make a gift within reasonable limits for pious purpose. Now the question is whether the gift has been made in favour of defendant Nos.2 21 O.S. No.25531/2020 and 3 is for a pious purpose. If at all a gift had been executed in favour of some strangers then the matter would have been different. Wherein in this case the property which is a residential house has been gifted in favour of the grand- daughters when the plaintiff has neglected to maintain his children. The said purpose can very well be said that it is for the pious purpose.
31. The suit schedule property is not the ancestral property, it was a joint family property. Alienation has been made by way of a gift that too in favour of the blood relatives not to a strangers. Thereby it cannot be said that defendant No.1 was not having authority to execute the gift deed. Though in the gift deed it has not been mentioned that it is for the pious purpose, but the facts and circumstances of the present case in hand and the evidence led by both the father and daughter before this court clearly goes to establish that the defendant No.1 has exercised the right to gift the property in favour of defendant No.2 and 3 by considering 22 O.S. No.25531/2020 the conduct of the plaintiff, which cannot be found fault with and the gift deed cannot be declared as void.
32. Admittedly, defendant No.1 was not having absolute right to execute the gift deed in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 in respect of the entire suit schedule property. If at all, she would have executed gift deed in respect of half portion of the property or gift deed in respect of her half share in the suit schedule property, the matter would have been different. But, here in this case, the defendant No.1 has executed gift deed in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 in respect of the entire suit schedule property, but at the same time, just because, the defendant No.1 has executed gift deed in respect of entire extent of property it cannot be said that the gift deed is invalid, void, etc. Admittedly, the defendant No.1 was a co-owner/joint owner of the suit schedule property and it is well settled principle of law that a co-owner can definitely execute or convey the property to any third person in respect of her share. When such being 23 O.S. No.25531/2020 the fact, the question of declaring that the gift deed is not valid will not arise.
33. It is the contention of the plaintiff that defendants No.2 and 3 along with their mother had induced defendant No.1 to get the gift deed. But, the records would show that at the time of filing of the suit, defendant No.1 was alive. She has filed written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff in respect of inducement etc. She has never filed any separate written statement alleging any fraud or misrepresentation, etc. Hence it cannot be said that the gift deed was executed under misrepresentation of facts or under inducement.
34. It is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff was not taking care of the defendants. He had married for the second time and he was residing separately and even it is their case that he had forcibly taken a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- and gold ornaments from the mother of defendants No.2 and 3. Further it is their contention that he 24 O.S. No.25531/2020 had enjoyed the entire sale proceeds after selling the property bearing No.11, situated at Andarahalli Village, Yeshwanthpur, which belonged to the husband of defendant No.1 and further the plaintiff has sold the property bearing No.F-719 situated at Herohalli, which was acquired out of the joint family source of income and he had sold the same by taking advantage of the fact that it was standing in his name. Thereby defendant No.1 by assessing the entire circumstances executed the gift deed in favour of defendants No.2 and 3. In order to substantiate their contention one of the defendant; i.e., defendant No.3 has given evidence before the court. She has been much cross-examined to say that he has spent money for the construction of the building, which she has denied. D.W.1 has been cross-examined much regarding the other properties of the deceased. But, nothing contrary has been elicited to say that there was no free will on the part of defendant No.1 at the time of executing the gift deed. P.W.1 has admitted that he has married for the second time during the subsistence of the marriage with 25 O.S. No.25531/2020 defendant No.1 and he is residing separately. Thereby the probabilities cannot be ruled out at all that by considering the facts and circumstances, defendant No.1 has executed gift deed in favour of her grand children, since both defendants No.2 and 3 are the girl child. Merely because, the defendant No.1 was not having right to execute gift deed in respect of entire extent of suit schedule property it cannot be said that the entire gift deed is invalid. If at all, the plaintiff is aggrieved and entitled for share, he has to file a suit seeking partition, he cannot seek only a declaration. Thereby I hold issue No.1 in Negative.
35. ISSUE No.2: This issue has been framed initially when the suit was filed for partition as well as for the declaration. The records would show that though the plaintiff had filed a suit for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit schedule property he got amended the plaint and got deleted the prayer of partition and subsequent to the death of defendant No.1 he retained the relief seeking 26 O.S. No.25531/2020 declaration that the gift deed dated 18.12.2018 is null and void and shall not be binding on the plaintiff. By giving reasoning to the issue No.1, this court has already hold that though the defendant No.1 was not having absolute ownership over the entire suit schedule property, but she was the co-owner and she is having every right to gift half share in the suit schedule property. Now defendants No.2 and 3 have steps into the shoes of the defendant No.1 by virtue of gift deed. The plaintiff has to seek the partition, if at all he require the share in the suit schedule property. Wherein counsel for plaintiff vehemently argued that though the relief has been deleted, the para-7 and 8 (a) of the plaint would show that there is a pleading, wherein he has sought for half share in the suit schedule property and he has taken contention that the suit schedule property deemed to be undivided after the death of first defendant, as the gift deed in respect of undivided joint property of plaintiff and defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 does not convey any right, title or share, nothing prevents the court to 27 O.S. No.25531/2020 grant partition. True definitely the court can consider the relief and grant the relief in case if the plaintiff is entitled to for a share. But, the present case is not so. Apart from the suit schedule property there are other properties and agricultural lands, which the father of defendant No.1 was possessing and it is the contention of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 that even in respect of those properties a Will has been executed and it is also the contention of the defendants that some of the joint family properties were sold by the plaintiff and is make use the funds for his own. The contentions of both the plaintiff and defendant would show that suit schedule property is not the only property of the family there are other properties. The plaintiff has not included all the joint family properties. He has filed suit only in respect of one property. When such being the fact the court cannot grant a partial partition decree only in respect of suit schedule property. The plaintiff is at liberty to file a comprehensive proper suit including the suit schedule property and seek the reliefs if he is entitled to. In this suit 28 O.S. No.25531/2020 since he himself has got deleted the relief of partition and he himself has pleaded that there are other properties owned by the joint family, I hold plaintiff is not entitled for any relief in this case. Accordingly, I answer issue No.2 in Negative.
36. ISSUE No.3: In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, I hold plaintiff is not entitled for any relief in this suit. However, liberty is given for the plaintiff to file proper suit seeking his share. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2 nd day of January, 2024).
(SAYEEDUNNISA) LXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, City Civil Court, Bengaluru. (CCH - 75) 29 O.S. No.25531/2020 SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the property being a residential site bearing New No.53 (Old No.2425), with PID No.9-79-53 situated at 10th Main Road, E Block, Subramanyanagar, BBMP Ward No.9, Bengaluru, measuring East to West: (19 + 20.9/2 ft., and North to South: 18 ft., and totally measuring 410 Sq.Ft., along with RCC structured duplex house of about 600 Squares with all common amenities and facilities and bounded on the:
East by: Road;
West by: Property bearing No.2324; North by: Property bearing No.2424; and on South by: Property bearing No.2326.
ANNEXURES LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
P.W.1 - Sri.Ravikumar.G. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 - Certified copy of the sale deed dated
24.08.1984 obtained under RTI Act
Ex.P.2 - Certified copy of the gift deed dated
18.12.2018 obtained under RTI Act
Ex.P.3 - True copy of khatha extract
30
O.S. No.25531/2020
Ex.P.4 - True copy of khatha certificate
Ex.P.5 - True copy of khatha
Ex.P.6 - True copy of encumbrance certificate
Ex.P.7 - Legal notice dated 10.02.2019
Ex.P.8 - Postal receipt
Ex.P.9 - Postal acknowledgment
Ex.P.10 - Returned postal cover
Ex.P.11,
11(a) & 12 - Photos
LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
D.W.1 - Miss.Sai Yeshaaswini R.K. LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANT:
Ex.D.1 - Copy of orders passed in RRG(DS) 372/2021-22 Ex.D.2 - Certified copy of the sale deed dated 16.09.2002 Ex.D.3 - Encumbrance for the period of 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2004 Ex.D.4 - Encumbrance for the period of 01.04.2004 to 03.11.2022 Ex.D.5 - Certified copy of the sale deed dated 29.11.2006 Ex.D.6 - Encumbrance for the period of 01.04.2004 to 03.11.2022 31 O.S. No.25531/2020 Ex.D.7 (1 to 6) - 6 RTCs (SAYEEDUNNISA) LXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, City Civil Court, Bengaluru. (CCH - 75) 32 O.S. No.25531/2020