Bangalore District Court
Smt.Lalithamma vs Sri.S.Siddagangaiah on 29 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE XLII ADDL., CITY CIVIL and SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH.NO.43).
PRESENT: Sri.P.SRINIVASA,
B.A.L., LL.M.,
XLII ADDL., CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2018.
O.S.No.5246/2010
Plaintiffs:- 1. Smt.Lalithamma,
D/o.late Shamanna,
Aged about 70 years,
R/at No.445/H, 9th E Main,
2nd Cross, Pipe Line,
Vijayanagar,
Bangalore - 560 040.
2. Smt.Munisiddamma,
D/o.late Sarvamma,
Aged about 64 years,
R/at Jedarahalli,
Industrial Town,
Bangalore - 560 044.
3. Sri.Renuka Aradhya.B,
S/o.late Sarvamma,
Aged about 55 years,
R/at No.96/6, Channenahalli,
Pipeline Road, Kadabagere Post,
Tavarekere Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk.
4. Sri.Anand Murthy,
S/o.late Sarvamma,
Aged about 50 years,
Jedahalli, Industrial Town,
Bangalore - 560 040.
(Adv. V.Prabhakar for P1
Adv. V.Rajanna for P2 to P4)
Judgement
2 O.S.No.5246/2010
v.
Defendants:- 1. Sri.S.Siddagangaiah,
S/o.late Shamanna,
Aged about 85 years,
Since dead by his LRs:-
1(a). Smt.Shivamma,
W/o. late Siddagangaiah,
Aged about 80 years,
1(b). Smt.Katyayini,
W/o. Sri.Nagabhushan,
Aged about 48 years,
1(c). Smt.Bhagirathi,
D/o. late Siddagangaiah,
Aged about 45 years,
All are R/at No.70/Y, 14th Main,
3rd Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 010.
1(d). Smt.Gangamma,
W/o.Sri.Shivakumaraiah,
Aged about 50 years,
C/o. Sri.Shivakumaraiah,
Principal,
Sri Siddaganga Institute of
Technology, Tumkur,
Tumkur District.
2. Smt.Gowramma,
D/o.Siddagangaiah,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at No.70/Y, 14th Main,
3rd Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore - 560 010.
3. Sri.Basavarajappa,
S/o.late Revamma,
Aged about 63 years,
R/at Lakshmipura Village,
Dasanapura Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk,
Bangalore.
Judgement
3 O.S.No.5246/2010
4. Sri.Siddagangaiah,
S/o. late Basamma,
Aged about 67 years,
R/at Ambalagere Village,
Doddabelavangala Hobli,
Doddaballapura Taluk,
Bangalore Rural District.
5. Smt.Gowramma,
D/o.late Siddagangamma,
Aged about 61 years,
R/at Karadigere Village,
Gulur Hobli,
Tumkur Taluk,
Tumkur District.
6. Sri.Shankara,
S/o.late Siddagangamma,
Aged about 50 years,
Palasandra Village,
Alluru Hobli,
Tumkur Taluk and District.
(Adv. V.B.Shivakumar for LRs of D1 i.e.,
D1(a) to (d) and D2.
Adv. G.Chandshekharaiah for D3
D4 to D6 - Exparte)
Date of institution of the suit : 29.07.2010
Nature of the suit : Partition, Separate
Possession and Mesne Profits
Date of commencement of : 05.12.2016
Recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 29.09.2018
was pronounced
Total Duration : Years Months Days
08 02 00
(P.SRINIVASA)
XLII ADDL., CITY CIVIL and SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
Judgement
4 O.S.No.5246/2010
JUDGEMENT
The plaintiffs have filed the above suit for partition, mesne profits and costs.
2. The plaintiffs' case in brief as under:-
One late Shamanna was the propositus of the joint family consisting of plaintiff, defendant no.1, and defendant nos.3 to 6. Late Gangamma is the wife of said late Shamanna. Plaintiff no.1 i.e., Lalithamma, Defendant no.1 i.e., S.Siddagangaiah, Revamma, Basamma, Siddagangamma and Sarvamma are the children of said late Shamanna and late Gangamma. Said Revamma, Basamma, Siddagangamma and Sarvamma are dead. Defendant no.3 is the son of late Revamma. Defendant no.4 is the son of late Basamma. Defendant nos.5 and 6 are the children of late Siddagangamma. Plaintiff nos.2 to 4 are the children of late Sarvamma. Defendant nos.3 to 6 represent the joint family members of their respective branch. During the pendency of above suit defendant no.1 i.e., S.Siddagangaiah died, hence his wife and children are brought on record. Defendant no.1(a) to 1(d) and defendant no.2 are the wife and children of defendant no.1. The plaintiff, defendant no.1 and defendant no.3 to 6 are the members of the Hindu undivided Joint family. The suit schedule properties are the joint family properties. Defendant no.1 is the eldest and only male member of the Hindu Joint Judgement 5 O.S.No.5246/2010 Family of plaintiffs and defendants. Defendant no.1 is the only educated person in the family and has completed B.Com and started practice in Income Tax and Sales Tax at Bengaluru. The joint family owns immovable properties at Bengaluru and Ambalagere Village. Said Shamanna died intestate, leaving behind plaintiff and defendant nos.1, 3 to 6 to succeed to his estate. The properties standing in the name of Shamanna were transferred in the name of defendant no.1 by way of inheritance since he was the Kartha of the family. From out of joint efforts and joint funds other properties were acquired in the name of defendant no.1 since he was the eldest family member of the joint family. After the death of Shamanna, the revenue records are mutated in the name of defendant no.1. "B", "C' and "D" schedule properties are agricultural lands and consists fruit yielding coconut and areca nut trees. The said agricultural lands are developed by the joint efforts of plaintiff, defendant nos.3 to 6, Chennaveeraiah, Siddappa and Gangamma. Defendant no.1 is enjoying the fruits and income from out of the said properties. The plaintiffs are entitle for share in the said income. "A" schedule property is acquired by the joint family and the said property is granted by BDA in the name of defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 has transferred khata of "A" schedule property in the name of defendant no.2 without plaintiff's consent and knowledge. "E", "F" and "G" schedule properties are joint family Judgement 6 O.S.No.5246/2010 properties. No partition has been effected among the plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs are coparceners and entitle for 1/6th share each in the suit schedule properties. Inspite of repeated demands, defendant no.1 failed to partition and allot plaintiffs' share. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the above suit.
3. In response to the suit summons, defendant nos.1 to 3 have appeared before the court through their respective counsels. Inspite of service of suit summons, defendant nos.4 to 6 remained absent before the court hence, they were placed exparte. Defendant no.1 has filed the written statement. Defendant no.2 has filed memo adopting written statement filed by defendant no.1. During the pendency of the suit, defendant no.1 died hence, his legal heirs are brought on record. Defendant no.2 has filed additional written statement. The legal heirs of defendant no.1 have filed memo adopting additional written statement filed by defendant no.2. During the pendency of the above suit, children of Sarvamma are transposed as plaintiff nos.2 to 4. In the written statement, defendant nos.1 and 2 have contended that plaintiff was born prior to 17.06.1956 therefore, plaintiff is not entitle to claim any share as coparcenary. Plaintiff and defendant nos.1, 3 to 6 are not coparceners of late Shamanna. The plaintiffs are not entitle to claim share as per Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act (Karnataka Amended Act), Judgement 7 O.S.No.5246/2010 1990 and Section 6(A) of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. "D" schedule property was purchased by late Shamanna from his vendors hence, "D" schedule property is the self- acquired property of late Shamanna. Said Shamanna had not inherited any ancestral properties. Said Shamanna had orally conveyed "D" schedule property in favour of defendant no.1. From the date of said oral conveyance, defendant no.1 is in possession and enjoyment of "D" schedule property and cultivating the same with the help of his mother i.e., Gangamma and wife i.e., Shivamma. After the death of Shamanna in November 1952, defendant no.1 being the only son has acquired "D" schedule property. Hence, the Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 1990 or 2005 is not applicable to the present case. The plaintiff and defendant nos.3 to 6 have no right to claim share in "D" schedule property. Even assuming "D" schedule property was an ancestral property in the hands of defendant no.1, coparcenary rights would not have offered to the plaintiffs and defendant nos.3 to 6. Defendant no.1 was working as Audit Clerk for a salary of Rs.100/- in M.S.Vaitheswhara and Co. for sometime and after the death of his father carried out agricultural activities with the help of his mother and wife at Ambalagere Village. Though defendant no.1 was employed at Bengaluru, he used to visit his native place on all holidays and assist in agricultural activities. Defendant no.1 also served as Manager of Judgement 8 O.S.No.5246/2010 Beli Mutt Hostel for Students. In the year 1954, defendant no.1 performed the marriage of plaintiff no.1 with Veerabhadraiah of Karadigere Village, Tumkur Taluk. At the time of marriage, defendant no.1 had given cash, gift and presentation to her. Defendant no.1 also helped plaintiff no.1's husband to set up business at Akkipete and to purchase site at Vijayanagar. "B" and "C" schedule properties are granted by the Government to defendant no.1 in the year 1972. Defendant no.1 has planted coconut and arecanut plants in the said lands. In "D" schedule property, Ragi, Paddy and cereals were grown by defendant no.1's mother, wife and one Munigangaiah i.e., father-in-law of defendant no.1. Defendant no.1 has denied the averment that plaintiff, defendant nos.3 to 6 and Siddappa improved the barren land and converted the same into a garden land. By the year 1972-73, plaintiff no.1 and her sisters were married and residing separately with their respective family. Defendant no.1 and his wife had purchased revenue land measuring 100 x 60 feet at Yedalur Village in Rajajinagar and later it was reconveyed as site nos.70/Y and 71/Y in the name of defendant no.1's wife and two sites in his name. On demand made by defendant no.1's mother, site nos.70/Y and 71/Y were transferred in her name. Subsequently, defendant no.1's mother has re-transferred site no.70/Y in the name of defendant no.2, to hold and enjoy along with other three sisters. On 01.10.1970, "D" schedule property Judgement 9 O.S.No.5246/2010 property was partitioned between defendant no.1 and his mother i.e., Gangamma and in the said partition, 2.24 acres of land was allotted to defendant no.1 and 2 acres was allotted to defendant no.1's mother and in course of time, same was given back to defendant no.1. The plaintiffs have no right over "D" schedule property. "A" schedule property was originally owned and possessed by Gangamma i.e., defendant no.1' mother and said property was transferred in favour of defendant no.2 and her sisters. Defendant no.2 and her sisters are in possession and enjoyment of "A" schedule property and khatha is mutated in the name of defendant no.2 and defendant no.2 is paying taxes to the concerned authorities. "B" and "C" schedule properties are granted by the Government in favour of defendant no.1. Plaintiff and defendant nos.3 to 6 have no right to claim share in the said property. In order to improve and develop "A" to "D" schedule properties defendant no.1 has raised bank loan to the tune of Rs.41,00,000/- and hand loan to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/-. Defendant no.1 is dues in a sum of Rs.98,49,000/- to the bank and private persons. In order to discharge the said liability, defendant no.1 has no option but, to alienate "B" and "C" schedule properties. The plaintiff is aware of the above said facts and only to harass the defendant has filed the above suit. The defendant nos.1 and 2 have denied the averment that from out of joint efforts and joint family funds properties were acquired by Judgement 10 O.S.No.5246/2010 defendant nos.1, 3 to 6 and further denied that Shamanna died leaving behind plaintiff, defendant no.1 and defendant nos.3 to 6 to succeed to his estate. Further, denied the averment that "A" schedule property was acquired by the joint family and BDA granted "A" schedule property in the name of defendant no.1 for the benefit of joint family members. In the year 1970, partition was effect between defendant no.1 and his mother and there is no joint family in existence as contended by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are not in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. "E", "F" and "G" schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of defendant no.1. In the WILL executed by Gangamma the properties are already indicated to be as self- acquired properties to be succeeded by defendant no.1. "E", "F" and "G" schedule properties are not joint family properties and are not available for partition. The court fee paid by the plaintiffs is insufficient. The defendant nos.7 and 8 are not proper and necessary parties to the suit. There is no cause of action to file the above suit. Hence, prayed that suit may be dismissed with costs.
4. On the basis of above pleadings, below mentioned issues arise for consideration:-
ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiffs prove that the suit properties are joint family properties of herself and defendants?
Judgement 11 O.S.No.5246/2010
2. Whether defendant no.1 proves that plaint 'D' schedule property was self-acquired property of late Shamaiah?
3. Whether defendant no.1 proves that he becomes an absolute owner of plaint 'D' schedule property as contended in para 4 of his written statement?
4. Whether defendant no.1 proves that plaint B and C schedule properties are exclusively belonging to his ownership?
5. Whether defendant nos.1 and 2 prove that suit 'A' schedule property was absolute property of Smt.Gangamma the mother of defendant no.1?
6. Whether defendant nos.1 and 2 prove that suit 'A' schedule property is exclusively belonging to D2 and her sisters?
7. Whether plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of her share in suit property? If yes, at what share?
8. Whether plaintiff is entitle for mesne profits?
9. Whether defendant no.1 proves that the court fee paid is not proper?
10.Whether plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
11. What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether defendants 1 and 2 prove that defendants 7 and 8 are not proper and necessary parties to this suit as alleged in para-2 of the additional written statement.
2. Whether defendant no.1 proves that Smt.Adaviamma @ Gangamma has executed WILL Judgement 12 O.S.No.5246/2010 dated 14.01.1986 and CODICIL dated 04.05.1986 as contended by defendant no.1 in his written statement?
5. To prove the case of the plaintiffs, SPA Holder of the plaintiff examined as PW-1 and marked Ex.P1 to P10. Defendant no.2 examined as DW-1 and examined two witnesses as DWs.2 and 3 and got marked Ex.D1 to D30.
6. Heard arguments. The learned counsel for plaintiff has relied upon the following citations reported in:
1. 2017 (2) AKR 142, in the case of Channabasappa Shivappa Sannanagashetti and others v. Ningavva Shivappa Sannanagashetti and others.
2. (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 464, in the case of Mahila Bajrangi (Dead) through LRs.
and others v. Badribai w/o.Jagannath and another.
3. 2012 (4) KCCR 2896 (DB), in the case of Ismail v. Abdul Rahiman and others.
4. 2015 (3) AKR 706, in the case of Smt.Nanjamma v. Smt.Akkayamma and others.
5. 2015 (2) KCCR 1437 (DB), in the case of Smt.Nanjamma v. Smt.Akkayamma since dead by her LRs. and others.
6. AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 769, in the case of Prakash and others v. Phulavati and others.
Judgement 13 O.S.No.5246/2010
7. ILR 2007 KAR 4790, in the case of Sugalabai v. Gundappa A.Maradi and others.
8. AIR 2018 Supreme Court 721, in the case of Danamma @ Suman Surpur and another v.
Amar and others.
The learned counsel for legal heirs of defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 has relied upon the following citations reported in:
1. 2016 (2) Supreme Court Cases 36, in the case of Prakash and others v. Phulavati and others.
2. AIR 2018 Supreme Court 721, in the case of Danamma @ Suman Surpur and another v. Amar and others.
3. 2018 (1) Kar.L.R 598 (SC), in the case of Mangammal @ Thulasi and another v.
T.B.Raju and others.
4. 2011 AIR SCW 6163, in the case of Ganduri Koteshwaramma and another v. Chakiri Yanadi and another.
5. (2003) 12 Supreme Court Cases 35, in the case of Bhagat Ram and another v. Suresh and others.
6. (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 91, in the case of Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam.
7. (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 85, in the case of Madukar D.Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage.
Judgement 14 O.S.No.5246/2010
8. (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 784, in the case of Sridevi and others v. Jayaraja Shetty and others.
9. (2011) 1 KLJ 53, in the case of Man Kaur (dead) by LRs v. Hartar Singh Sangha.
10. (1990) ILR (Kar) 1696, in the case of Annamma v. Pattamma.
11. (2000) 7 Supreme Court Cases 409, in the case of Thimmaiah and others v.
Ningamma and another.
12. (1978) 3 Supreme Court Cases 383, in the case of Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum and others.
13. (2016) 3 Supreme Court Cases 356, in the case of L.Gowramma (dead) by legal representative v. Sunanda (dead) by legal representatives and another.
14. Judgement in MFA.No.3124/2012 (CPC).
7. My findings on the above said issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1:- In the Negative.
Issue No.2:- In the Affirmative.
Issue No.3:- In the Affirmative.
Issue No.4:- Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.5:- In the Affirmative.
Issue No.6:- In the Negative.
Issue No.7:- Partly in the Affirmative.
Issue No.8:- Kept open.
Issue No.9:- In the Negative.
Issue No.10:- Partly in the Affirmative.
Judgement
15 O.S.No.5246/2010
Addl. Issue No.1:- In the Negative.
Addl. Issue No.2:- In the Negative.
Issue No.11:- As per final order.
for the following:-
REASONS
8. Issue Nos.1 to 7, 9 & 10 and Additional Issue No.2:- These issues are taken up together for consideration to avoid repetition of facts, evidence and convenience.
PW-1 in her examination-in-chief has stated that plaintiff no.1 i.e., Lalithamma, defendant no.1 i.e., S.Siddagangaiah, Revamma, Basamma, Siddagangamma and Sarvamma are the children of late Shamanna and late Gangamma. Defendant no.3 is the son of late Revamma. Defendant no.4 is the son of late Basamma. Defendant nos.5 and 6 are the children of late Siddagangamma. Plaintiff nos.2 to 4 are the children of late Sarvamma. Defendant no.1(a) to 1(d) and defendant no.2 are the wife and children of defendant no.1. DW-1 in her evidence has admitted the above said relationship. There is no dispute regarding relationship between the parties.
9. Defendants in their written statement have pleaded that Shamanna died in the year 1952. The plaintiffs in their plaint have failed to specifically plead the date on which Shamanna died. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants have produced any Judgement 16 O.S.No.5246/2010 document before this court to evidence the date of death of Shamanna. DW-1 in her evidence has stated that Shamanna died in the year 1952. PW-1 in her evidence has stated that Shamanna died in the year 1957. Per contra, in the cross-examination of DW-1, plaintiffs' counsel has suggested that Shamanna died in the year 1952 and same was admitted by DW-1. Therefore, in view of suggestion made by plaintiffs' counsel, contention of defendants that Shamanna died in the year 1952 has to be accepted.
10. PW-1 in her cross-examination has stated that Gangamma @ Adhaviamma died in the year 1986. DWs.1 and 2 in their cross-examination admit that Gangamma died in the year 1986. In support of the same, defendants have produced Death Certificate of Gangamma before this court at Ex.D9. From Ex.D9, it clearly goes to show that Gangamma died on 11.05.1986 at Ambalagere. There is no dispute regarding date of death of Gangamma.
11. The defendant nos.1 and 2 in their written statement have contended that plaintiff no.1 was born prior to 1956 and defendant no.1 has performed the marriage of plaintiff no.1 in the year 1954. PW-1 in her cross-examination admits that plaintiff no.1 was born prior to 1956. PW-1 also admits that Sarvamma, Revamma, Siddagangamma and Basamma are elder to plaintiff Judgement 17 O.S.No.5246/2010 no.1 and their marriages were performed prior to 1956. Further, PW-1 in her cross-examination states that plaintiff no.1's marriage was performed two years after the death of Shamanna. Admittedly, Shamanna died in the year 1952. Therefore, plaintiff no.1's marriage ought to have been performed approximately in the year 1954-55. From the above evidence, it is clear that plaintiff no.1's marriage was performed around 1954 and marriages of Sarvamma, Revamma, Siddagangamma and Basamma were performed prior to 1956.
12. PW-1 in her examination-in-chief has stated that late Shamanna was the propositus of the Hindu Joint Family consisting of plaintiffs and defendants. Further, PW-1 has stated that plaintiffs are the coparceners of the joint family. Per contra, DW-1 in her evidence has denied the existence of joint family and also denied that plaintiffs are coparceners of the joint family. Initially burden is on the plaintiffs to prove the existence of the joint family. The plaintiffs have not produced any documentary evidence before this court to show the existence of the joint family. Admittedly, Shamanna had only one son i.e., defendant no.1 and five daughters. Before passing of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, joint family consisted only male members. Therefore, during the life time of Shamanna joint family existed between Shamanna and defendant no.1 herein only. Said Shamanna died Judgement 18 O.S.No.5246/2010 in the year 1952, leaving behind his widow, one son and five daughters. As on the date of death of Shamanna the joint family ceases. In the year 1952 as per ancient Hindu Law, daughters are not coparceners. More over, PW-1 in her cross-examination admits that Sarvamma, Revamma, Siddagangamma, Basamma and plaintiff no.1 after their marriages are residing along with their spouses in their matrimonial houses. From the above evidence, it is clear that plaintiff no.1 and her sisters after their marriages are residing with their respective spouses. Therefore, contention of the plaintiffs that joint family is in existence and plaintiffs are the coparceners of the joint family cannot be accepted.
13. The plaintiffs have pleaded that suit schedule properties are purchased from joint family funds therefore, suit schedule properties are joint family properties. The onus is on the plaintiffs to prove that suit schedule properties are purchased from joint family funds. It is pertinent to note that, in the plaint the plaintiffs have not specifically pleaded the income derived from the alleged joint family properties. Further, the plaintiffs have failed to produce documentary evidence before this court to show that after deducting the family expenses there was sufficient nucleus available to purchase the suit schedule properties. In the absence of proper pleadings in the plaint, Judgement 19 O.S.No.5246/2010 adverse inference has to be drawn against the plaintiffs. More over, the plaintiffs have failed to prove the existence of joint family therefore, contention of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are purchased from joint family funds cannot be accepted.
14. Plaint schedule consists of seven properties i.e., "A" to "G" properties. "A" schedule property is the house property situated at Bengaluru. The plaintiffs have contended that "A" schedule property is the joint family property. The defendants in their written statement have contended that defendant no.1 and his wife had purchased a revenue land measuring 100 x 60 feet in Yedalur Dinne Village, Rajajinagar and later it was reconveyed as site nos.70/Y and 71/Y in the name of his wife and two sites in his name. Further, has contended on demand made by Gangamma, site nos.70/Y and 71/Y were transferred in her name. Subsequently, Gangamma transferred site no.70/Y in the name of Gowramma. The defendants in their written statement admit that "A" schedule property i.e., Site no.70/Y was owned by Gangamma. The defendants have not produced any registered documents before this court to show Gangamma transferred site no.70/Y in favour of defendant no.2. The defendants have produced Settlement Deed dated 15.01.1985 at Ex.D3, to show that "A" schedule property was allotted to the share of defendant Judgement 20 O.S.No.5246/2010 no.2. It is pertinent to note that, there is no pleading in the plaint to the effect that there was family settlement among Gangamma, defendant no.1, his wife and children. It is settled proposition of law that any amount of evidence without pleading will not serve any purpose. More over, the defendants have produced earlier Settlement Deeds dated 01.10.1971 and 15.01.1980 at Ex.D1 and D2. From the earlier Settlement Deeds i.e., Ex.D1 and D2, it goes to show that there was a partition between Gangamma and defendant no.1 way back in the year 1971 itself. There is no pleading in the plaint to the effect that after the execution of Settlement Deed dated 01.10.1971, there was reunion in the family and once again another Settlement Deed took place in the year 1980 and once again there was reunion in the family and once again family settlement took place in the year 1985. In the absence of evidence regarding reunion of the family, contention of defendant no.1 that in the year 1985 once again there was family settlement and "A" schedule property was allotted to defendant no.2 cannot be accepted. In order to prove the Settlement Deed dated 15.01.1985, the defendants have examined the attesting witness namely Shivakumaraiah as DW-2 and DW-3 before this court. It is pertinent to note that, at the time of execution of Ex.D3 Gangamma was aged about 79 years. The defendants have not produced any evidence before this court to show that Gangamma was literate. DW-1 in her cross-examination admits Judgement 21 O.S.No.5246/2010 that Gangamma was cultivating lands at Ambalagere Village and used to reside in the said village. Ex.D3 is a typed document and there is no endorsement regarding who had drafted the said document. No evidence is produced by the defendants before this court regarding who instructed the alleged draftsman to draft the Settlement Deed. DWs.1 and 2 in their evidence admit that they don't know who has drafted the Settlement Deed i.e., Ex.D3. DW.2 in his evidence has stated that he read over the contents of Settlement Deed to Gangamma but, there is no endorsement in Ex.D3 to the effect that Settlement Deed was read over to Gangamma as alleged by DW-2. Admittedly, DW-2 is the son-in- law of defendant no.1. DW-2 in the cross-examination baldly states that he only read over the contents of Ex.D3 to Gangamma and he never asked Gangamma regarding who drafted the Settlement Deed and where it was typed. DW-2 in his evidence states that Settlement Deed was with Gangamma and later it was in the custody of defendant no.1. There is no pleading in the written statement how defendant no.1 got the custody of Ex.D3. Therefore, there is suspicion regarding execution of Settlement Deed by Gangamma. DW-2 is an interested witness and his evidence is vague therefore, evidence of DW-2 cannot be accepted. DW-3 claims that he is the son of Virupaksha i.e., another attesting witness. DW-3 has not produced any documentary evidence before this court to show that he is the son Judgement 22 O.S.No.5246/2010 of Virupaksha. DW-3 has not produced any documents before this court to show the specimen signature of Virupaksha before this court. Therefore, evidence of DW-3 cannot be accepted. The defendants have failed to prove Ex.D3 produced by them before this court.
15. DWs.1 and 2 in their evidence have stated that Gangamma has executed WILL in favour of defendant no.1 and his family members on 14.01.1986 and also executed CODICIL on 04.05.1986 as per Ex.D6 and D7. The defendants have produced the said WILL and Codicil before this court. Therefore, burden is on defendant nos.1 and 2 to prove the execution of said WILL and Codicil by Gangamma before this court. It is pertinent to note that, defendant nos.1 and 2 in their written statement have not pleaded that Gangamma has executed WILL on 14.01.1986 and Codicil on 04.05.1986. There is no pleading in the written statement by defendant nos.1 and 2 to the effect that Gangamma was hale and healthy at the time of execution of WILL and Codicil and Gangamma executed the WILL in the presence of the attesting witnesses and attesting witnesses also signed the WILL in the presence of Gangamma. It is settled proposition of law that any amount of evidence without pleadings will not serve any purpose. In the absence of specific pleading by defendant nos.1 and 2 adverse inference has to be drawn against defendant nos.1 Judgement 23 O.S.No.5246/2010 and 2. Advocate for the plaintiffs argued that Gangamma has not executed any WILL and Codicil and there are suspicious circumstances regarding execution of WILL and Codicil and defendant nos.1 and 2 have failed to prove the execution of WILL and Codicil by Gangamma before this court. Therefore, WILL and Codicil cannot be relied upon by this court. From Ex.D6 and D7, it reveals that the alleged WILL and Codicil was executed on 14.01.1986 and 04.05.1986 respectively and after the death of Gangamma on 11.05.1986 the said WILL and Codicil are registered before the Sub-Registrar Office on 16.01.1993. Therefore, it is clear that WILL and Codicil was not executed by Gangamma in the office of the Sub-Registrar during her lifetime. Admittedly, Gangamma was aged about 80 years at the time of execution of the alleged WILL and Codicil. DWs.1 and 2 state that Gangamma was cultivating lands at Ambaligere Village and they don't know about the educational qualification of Gangamma. There is no pleading in the written statement to the effect that Gangamma was literate. Therefore, contention of plaintiffs that Gangamma was a rustic lady has to be accepted. WILL and Codicil are typed copies. From the plain reading of the WILL and Codicil, it clearly reveals that a rustic lady like Gangamma without any educational and drafting knowledge cannot prepare such WILL and Codicil. In the WILL and Codicil there is no endorsement regarding who has drafted the WILL and Judgement 24 O.S.No.5246/2010 Codicil. DW-2 i.e., attesting witness, in his evidence has stated that Gangamma told him that she got the WILL prepared through an advocate. Per contra, there is no endorsement in the alleged WILL and Codicil to the effect that WILL and Codicil was prepared by an advocate. More over, there is no pleading in the written statement to the effect that WILL and Codicil was drafted by an advocate. Therefore, evidence of DW-2 that WILL and Codicil was drafted by an advocate at the instance of Gangamma cannot be accepted. From the recitals of WILL and Codicil, it reveals that Gangamma got the WILL and Codicil first written and later got typed through defendant no.2 and it was read over to her and after understanding the same she has executed the WILL and Codicil. From the recitals of WILL and Codicil, it can be inferred that defendant no.2 i.e., DW-1 played active role in preparing and typing the WILL and Codicil. Per contra, DW-1 in her cross- examination categorically says that she doesn't know where the WILL was prepared and she came to know that WILL was executed at Rajajinagar House and she did not participate in the execution of WILL. It is only after when the plaintiffs' counsel draw the attention of DW-1 to the relevant portions of the WILL, DW-1 says that she simply typed the WILL as per instructions of her grandmother and she doesn't know the contents of the WILL. Further, DW-1 says that Gangamma got prepared the draft and she had seen the said draft. For the reasons best known to the Judgement 25 O.S.No.5246/2010 defendant nos.1 and 2, the said draft is not produced before this court. The above evidence of DW-1 is inconsistent and unnatural and same cannot be accepted. DW-2 in his cross-examination says that during 1986 he was staying at Tumkur and defendant no.2 called him and informed him that Gangamma has come down to Bengaluru and he came to his father-in-law's house and at that time, DW-2, Virupaksha and Gangamma were only present at the house. Absence of other family members at the house at the time of execution of the WILL is a suspicious circumstance. DW-1 says that Gangamma had draft but, DW-2 says that there was no draft and he read over the WILL to Gangamma. There is no endorsement in the WILL and Codicil to the effect that DW-2 read over the contents of WILL and Codicil to Gangamma. Therefore, evidence of DW-2 that he read over the contents of the WILL and Codicil to Gangamma cannot be accepted. As per defendant no.1's case, in the year 1985 family partition took place and the properties under the WILL were allotted to defendant no.1 and his family members therefore, what was the necessity for Gangamma to execute the WILL and Codicil in the year 1986 is not pleaded by defendant no.1. Admittedly, plaintiff no.1, Revamma, Basamma, Siddagangamma and Sarvamma are the daughters of Gangamma. There is no evidence produced by defendant nos.1 and 2 to show that daughters of Gangamma had deserted Gangamma and their Judgement 26 O.S.No.5246/2010 relationship was not cordial. At the time of execution of the alleged WILL and Codicil the daughters of Gangamma were not present and no explanation is given by defendant nos.1 and 2 for the absence of the daughters at the time of execution of WILL and Codicil. The WILL and Codicil is executed excluding the daughters and in favour of defendant no.1 and his family members alone. DW-3 states that he is the son of Virupaksha. In examination-in-chief of DW-3, there is no averment to the effect that Virupaksha has expired. DW-3 has not produced any document to show that he is the son of Virupaksha. In examination-in-chief DW-3 says that he is in possession of Lease Agreement executed by his father in favour of one Satish Chand Jain and the signature on the said document may be compared with WILL documents. DW-3 has failed to produce the alleged Lease Agreement before this court for comparison of signatures of Virupaksha. Therefore, the evidence of DW-3 cannot be relied upon. In WILL and Codicil it is mentioned that Gangamma died on account of disease. The defendant nos.1 and 2 have not produced any evidence before this court to show that Gangamma was hale, healthy and mentally sound at the time of execution of WILL and Codicil. The above said circumstances are suspicious circumstances and defendant nos.1 and 2 have failed to adduce evidence to remove the said suspicious circumstances. The defendant nos.1 and 2 have failed to prove execution of WILL and Judgement 27 O.S.No.5246/2010 Codicil by Gangamma. Therefore, WILL and Codicil produced by defendant nos.1 and 2 cannot be relied upon. Further, defendant no.2 has produced certified copy of Sale Deed dated 04.10.1996 executed by BDA in her favour at Ex.D29. DW-1 in her evidence admits that the said Sale Deed is executed by the BDA in her favour based on the WILL executed by Gangamma in her favour. The defendant nos.1 and 2 have failed to prove the WILL, consequently the Sale Deed executed by BDA in favour of defendant no.2 will not create absolute right in favour of defendant no.2. Therefore, contention of defendant no.2 that she is the absolute owner of "A" schedule property falls to ground.
"A" schedule property was standing in the name of Gangamma as per defendant nos.1 and 2. Therefore, as per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, Gangamma is the absolute owner of the "A" schedule property. After the death of Gangamma on 11.05.1986, as per Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, son and daughters of Gangamma succeed to "A" schedule property. Hence, plaintiff no.1 is entitle for 1/6th share in "A" schedule property and plaintiff nos.2 to 4 are jointly entitle for 1/6th share in the "A" schedule property.
16. "B" and "C' schedule properties are the agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.133, measuring 8 acres and Sy.No.134 measuring 1 acre 39 guntas, both situated at Ambalagere Village.
Judgement 28 O.S.No.5246/2010 The plaintiffs in their plaint have pleaded that "B" and "C' schedule properties are acquired from joint family funds and they are joint family properties. The defendant nos.1 and 2 in their written statement have pleaded that "B" and "C" schedule properties are granted in favour of defendant no.1 hence, "B" and "C" schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of defendant no.1. The plaintiffs have failed to prove the existence of joint family as contended by them. The plaintiffs have not produced any evidence before the court to show that income was derived from joint family properties and the said income was sufficient to acquire "B" and "C' schedule properties. There is no specific pleading in the plaint regarding how "B" and "C" schedule properties were acquired. The defendant no.1 in support of his case has produced Certificates of Grant Saguvalli at Ex.D4 and D5. Ex.D4 and D5 are the original documents and issued by competent Revenue Authorities hence, Ex.D4 and D5 are admissible in evidence. From the recitals of Ex.D4 and D5, it clearly goes to show that "B" schedule property was granted in favour of defendant no.1 and "C" schedule property is granted in favour of Gangamma. The plaintiffs have failed to prove the existence of joint family therefore, grant in favour of defendant no.1 cannot be held to be grant on behalf of entire joint family. As per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, "C" schedule property granted in favour of Gangamma is her absolute property. Under Judgement 29 O.S.No.5246/2010 the said grant certificates, defendant no.1 has acquired "B"
schedule property and Gangamma has acquired "C" schedule property. The defendant nos.1 and 2 have failed to prove the execution of Settlement Deeds and WILL before this court therefore, contention of defendant no.1 that under Settlement Deeds and WILL he acquired "C" schedule property cannot be accepted. Mutation Register produced at Ex.D10 and Hiduvali Pathra at Ex.D25 and Receipt Patta at Ex.D26, RTCs and tax paid receipts pertaining to Sy.No.134 doesn't convey title in favour of defendant no.1. Therefore, contention of defendant no.1 that he acquired "C" schedule property from Gangamma cannot be accepted and contention of defendant no.1 that "B" schedule property is his self-acquired property has to be accepted. The plaintiffs are not legal heirs of deceased defendant no.1. Therefore, plaintiffs are not entitle for any share in "B" schedule property. "C" schedule property belongs to Gangamma. Therefore, after the death of Gangamma on 11.05.1986 as per Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, her son and daughters succeed to "C" schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff no.1 is entitle for 1/6th share in "C" schedule property and plaintiff nos.2 to 4 are jointly entitle for 1/6th share in "C" schedule property.
17. "D" schedule property is the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.48, measuring 4 acres 24 guntas, situated at Judgement 30 O.S.No.5246/2010 Ambalagere Village. The plaintiffs have pleaded that "D" schedule property is the joint family property. The defendant nos.1 and 2 in their written statement have pleaded that "D" schedule property was purchased by late Shamanna i.e., defendant no.1's father and it is his self- acquired property and after his death, defendant no.1 has succeeded to the "D" schedule property and plaintiffs are not entitle for any share in "D" schedule property. PW-1 in her cross-examination admits that "D" schedule property is the self-acquired property of Shamanna. PW-1 also admits that Shamanna did not possess any other properties. In support of defendant no.1's case, defendant nos.1 and 2 have produced Record of Rights and Index of Lands of Sy.No.48 at Ex.D12 to D14. Ex.D12 to D14 are revenue documents and are issued by competent authority hence, Ex.D12 to D14 are admissible in evidence. From Ex.D12 to D14 is clearly goes to show that Shamanna had purchased the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs in their evidence have admitted that "D" schedule property is the self- acquired property of Shamanna therefore, contention of defendant no.1 that "D" schedule property is the self- acquired property of Shamanna has to be accepted. Advocate for plaintiffs argued that after the death of Shamanna as per Section 6(A) of the Hindu Succession Judgement 31 O.S.No.5246/2010 (Amendment) Act, 2005, the plaintiffs are entitle for share in "D" schedule property and relied upon judgments reported in AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 769, in the case of Prakash and others v. Phulavati and others, ILR 2007 KAR 4790, in the case of Sugalabai v. Gundappa A.Maradi and others and AIR 2018 Supreme Court 721, in the case of Danamma @ Suman Surpur and another v. Amar and others. Advocate for defendant nos.1 and 2 argued that Shamanna died in the year 1952 therefore, defendant no.1 alone will succeed to "D" schedule property and Section 6(A) of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 is not applicable to present case and relied upon judgment reported in 2018 (1) Kar.L.R 598 (SC), in the case of Mangammal @ Thulasi and another v. T.B.Raju and others. In 2018 (1) Kar.L.R 598 (SC), in the case of Mangammal @ Thulasi and another v. T.B.Raju and others, wherein the lordships have held as under:-
"On perusal of the judgment and after having regard to the peculiar facts of the Danamma (supra), it is evident that the Division Bench of this Court primarily did not deal with the issue of death of the father rather it was mainly related to the question of law whether daughter who born prior to 2005 amendment would be entitled to claim a Judgement 32 O.S.No.5246/2010 share in ancestral property or not? In such circumstances, in our view, Prakash and others (supra), would still hold precedent on the issue of death of coparcener for the purpose of right of daughter in ancestral property. Shortly put, only living daughters of living coparceners would be entitled to claim a share in the ancestral property".
From the above judgment, it is clear that only living daughters of living coparceners would be entitled to claim a share in the ancestral property. In the present case, Shamanna died in the year 1952 and present suit is filed in the year 2010. Therefore, plaintiffs cannot claim share under Section 6(A) of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. More over, "D" schedule property is not an ancestral property. Hence, contention of plaintiffs that they are entitle for share in "D" schedule property is not sustainable under law. As admitted by both parties in their evidence "D" schedule property is the self-acquired property of Shamanna. As per Section 4 and 6(2) of Mysore Hindu Women Right to Property Act, 1933, after the death of Shamanna defendant no.1 i.e., his son will succeed to "D" schedule property and Shamanna's wife and daughters will not succeed to "D" schedule property. Therefore, plaintiffs are not entitle for any share in "D" schedule property.
Judgement 33 O.S.No.5246/2010
18. "E", "F" and "G" schedule properties are agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.27/1 measuring 22 guntas, Sy.No.51/7 measuring 11 guntas and Sy.No.47/4 measuring 3 guntas, all situated at Ambalagere Village. The plaintiffs have pleaded that "E", "F" and "G" schedule properties are joint family properties. The defendant nos.1 and 2 have pleaded that "E", "F" and "G" schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of defendant no.1. The defendant nos.1 and 2 in their written statement have not specifically stated the source of income of defendant no.1 to acquire "E", "F" and "G" schedule properties. The defendants have not produced any documentary evidence before this court to show that defendant no.1 had sufficient independent income at his disposal to purchase "E", "F" and "G" schedule properties. The defendant nos.1 and 2 have not produced any documentary evidence to show that bank loan was availed by defendant no.1 to improve and develop the suit schedule properties. In the absence of documentary evidence, the contention of defendant nos.1 and 2 that "E", "F" and "G" schedule properties are self-acquired properties of defendant no.1 cannot be accepted. The plaintiffs have produced Mutation Register Extract at Ex.P9. The defendant nos.1 and 2 have produced Settlement Deed dated 01.10.1971 at Ex.D1, RTCs of "E", "F" and "G" schedule properties at Ex.D18, D20, D21 before this court. It is pertinent to note that, both plaintiffs and defendants in their pleadings have not clearly stated Judgement 34 O.S.No.5246/2010 in whose name "E", "F" and "G" schedule properties were acquired. From the Settlement Deed i.e., Ex.D1 produced by defendant nos.1 and 2 before this court, it goes to show that "E", "F" and "G" schedule properties stands in the name of Gangamma. After the death of Gangamma as per Ex.P9 i.e., Mutation Register Extract "E", "F" and "G" schedule properties are mutated in the name of defendant no.1. The RTCs of "E", "F" and "G" schedule properties are also mutated in the name of defendant no.1 as per inheritance. From the above available records, it reveals that "E", "F" and "G" schedule properties belong to Gangamma. As per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, Gangamma is the absolute owner of "E", "F" and "G" schedule properties. The defendant nos.1 and 2 have failed to prove execution of Settlement Deeds, WILL and Codicil before this court. Hence, after the death of Gangamma in the year 1986 as per Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, plaintiffs and defendants succeed to "E", "F" and "G" schedule properties. Hence, plaintiff no.1 is entitle for 1/6th share in "E", "F" and "G" schedule properties and plaintiff nos.2 to 4 are jointly entitle for 1/6th share in "E", "F" and "G" schedule properties.
19. The defendant nos.1 and 2 have contended that court fee paid is insufficient and suit schedule properties are not properly valued. The defendant nos.1 and 2 have not contended Judgement 35 O.S.No.5246/2010 the plaintiffs are ousted from the suit schedule properties. No evidence is produced by defendant nos.1 and 2 to show that plaintiffs are not in joint possession of the suit schedule properties. Therefore, contention of defendant nos.1 and 2 that the suit schedule properties are not properly valued and court fee paid is insufficient cannot be accepted.
20. Advocate for defendants argued that PW-1 is the GPA Holder of plaintiff no.1 and her evidence cannot be relied upon by this court and relied upon the judgment reported in (2011) 1 KLJ 53, in the case of Man Kaur (dead) by LRs v. Hartar Singh Sangha. Admittedly, PW-1 is the daughter of plaintiff no.1. PW-1 is not a stranger to the family. Therefore, PW-1 is competent to give evidence on behalf of plaintiff no.1 before this court. The above citation relied upon by defendants' counsel is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Hence, above argument of defendants' counsel is not sustainable.
21. Advocate for defendants argued that PW-1 in her evidence admits that if suit is dismissed against "A", "B" and "C" schedule properties she has no objection therefore, suit with respect to "A", "B" and "C" schedule properties may be dismissed. It is pertinent to note that, plaintiffs have not amended the plaint and given up their share in "A", "B" and "C" schedule properties.
Judgement 36 O.S.No.5246/2010 Therefore, the above argument of defendants' counsel is not sustainable.
22. Advocate for defendant nos.1 and 2 argued that Shamanna took defendant no.1 and Gangamma to "D" schedule property and took the hands of defendant no.1 into his hands and asked Gangamma to put handful of soil on their hands and by placing one rupee and beetel leaf on defendant no.1's palms and poured water and declared that he is conveying the "D" schedule property in favour of defendant no.1. Hence, defendant no.1 has acquired "D" schedule property. It is settled proposition of law that transfer of right / title in any immovable property has to be made through a registered deed. Therefore, the above argument of defendants' counsel is not sustainable under law.
23. The learned counsel for plaintiff has relied upon the following citations reported in:
1. 2017(2) AKR 142, in the case of Channabasappa Shivappa Sannanagashetti and others v. Ningavva Shivappa Sannanagashetti and others.
2. (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 464, in the case of Mahila Bajrangi (Dead) through LRs.
and others v. Badribai w/o.Jagannath and another.
3. 2012 (4) KCCR 2896 (DB), in the case of Ismail v. Abdul Rahiman and others.
Judgement 37 O.S.No.5246/2010
4. 2015 (3) AKR 706, in the case of Smt.Nanjamma v. Smt.Akkayamma and others.
5. 2015 (2) KCCR 1437 (DB), in the case of Smt.Nanjamma v. Smt.Akkayamma since dead by her LRs. and others.
The learned counsel for legal heirs of defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 has relied upon the following citations reported in:
1. 2011 AIR SCW 6163, in the case of Ganduri Koteshwaramma and another v. Chakiri Yanadi and another.
2. (2003) 12 Supreme Court Cases 35, in the case of Bhagat Ram and another v. Suresh and others.
3. (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 91, in the case of Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam.
4. (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 85, in the case of Madukar D.Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage.
5. (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 784, in the case of Sridevi and others v. Jayaraja Shetty and others.
6. (1990) ILR (Kar) 1696, in the case of Annamma v. Pattamma.
7. (2000) 7 Supreme Court Cases 409, in the case of Thimmaiah and others v.
Ningamma and another.
Judgement 38 O.S.No.5246/2010
8. (1978) 3 Supreme Court Cases 383, in the case of Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v.
Hirabai Khandappa Magdum and others.
9. (2016) 3 Supreme Court Cases 356, in the case of L.Gowramma (dead) by legal representative v. Sunanda (dead) by legal representatives and another.
The above citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Plaintiff no.1 is entitle for 1/6th share in "A", "C", "E", "F" and "G" schedule properties and plaintiff nos.2 to 4 are jointly entitle for 1/6th share in the "A", "C", "E", "F" and "G" schedule properties. The plaintiff nos.1 to 4 are not entitle for any share in "B" and "D" schedule properties. In the light of the above discussion, I answer Issue Nos.1, 6, 9 and additional issue no.2 in the Negative, Issue Nos.2, 3, 5 in the Affirmative and Issue Nos.4, 7, 10 partly in the Affirmative.
24. Issue No.8:-
The plaintiffs have claimed mesne profits. Mesne profits kept open and can be considered at the time of final decree proceedings.
25. Additional Issue No.1:-
The defendant nos.1 and 2 have contended that defendant nos.7 and 8 (now plaintiff nos.3 and 4) are not proper and Judgement 39 O.S.No.5246/2010 necessary parties to the above case. Admittedly, plaintiff nos.3 and 4 are the children of late Sarvamma. Therefore, plaintiff nos.3 and 4 are proper and necessary parties and in their absence above suit cannot be adjudicated effectively. Above contention of defendant nos.1 and 2 is not sustainable under law. In the light of the above discussion, I answer Additional Issue No.1 in the Negative.
25. Issue No.11:-
In view of my above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiffs is partly decreed. Plaintiff no.1 is entitle for 1/6th share in "A", "C", "E", "F" and "G" schedule properties and plaintiff nos.2 to 4 are jointly entitle for 1/6th share in the "A", "C", "E", "F" and "G" schedule properties. The plaintiff nos.1 to 4 are not entitle for any share in "B" and "D" schedule properties.
Mesne profits kept open and can be considered at the time of final decree proceedings.
Parties are related to each other, hence both parties to bear their own costs.
Judgement 40 O.S.No.5246/2010 Draw preliminary decree accordingly. (Dictated to the Judgement Writer, typed by her, the transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open court, this the 29th day of September, 2018) (P.SRINIVASA) XLII Addl., City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiffs' side:
PW.1 - Smt.Sunanda.V
(b) Defendants' side:
DW.1 - Smt.Gowramma DW.2 - Sri.Shivakumaraiah DW.3 - Sri.B.V.Basavaraj II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P1 : Certified copy of Special Power of Attorney dated 12.07.2016 Ex.P2 : Genealogical Tree Ex.P3 : Khatha Extract Ex.P4 to 6 : RTCs Ex.P7 : Certified copy of Index of Lands Ex.P7(a) : Typed copy of Ex.P7 Ex.P8 : Certified copy of Record of Rights Ex.P8(a) : Typed copy of Ex.P8 Ex.P9 : Certified copy of Mutation Register Extract Ex.P9(a) : Typed copy of Ex.P9 Ex.P10 : Certified copy of Index of Lands Ex.P10(a) : Typed copy of Ex.P10 Judgement 41 O.S.No.5246/2010
(b) Defendants' side:
Ex.D1 : Original Family Settlement Deed
dated 01.10.1971
Ex.D2 : Original Memorandum of Family
Arrangement dated 15.01.1980
Ex.D3 : Original Memorandum of Family
Settlement dated 15.01.1985
Ex.D3(a) : Signature of B.Virupaksha
Ex.D4 : Certificate of Grant Saguvali Chit
Ex.D5 : Certificate of Grant Saguvali Chit
Ex.D6 : Original WILL dated 14.01.1986
Ex.D6(a) : Signature of Gangamma
Ex.D6(b) : Signature of B.Virupaksha
Ex.D7 : CODICIL dated 04.05.1986
Ex.D7(a and : Signature of Gangamma
b)
Ex.D7(c) : Signature of DW-2
Ex.D7(d) : Signature of B.Virupaksha
Ex.D7(e) : Signature of DW-2
Ex.D7(f) : Signature of Virupaksha
Ex.D7(g) : Signature of S.Siddagangaiah
Ex.D8 : Legal Report
Ex.D9 : Death Certificate of Gangamma
Ex.D10 to 11 : Mutation Registers
Ex.D12 : Record of Rights
Ex.D13 : Index of Lands
Ex.D14 : Record of Rights
Ex.D15 to 23 : RTCs
Ex.D24 : Tax Paid Receipt
Ex.D25 and : Hiduvali Certificates
26
Ex.D27 : Electricity Bill
Ex.D28 : Receipt
Ex.D29 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
04.01.1996
Ex.D30 : Certified copy of Mortgage Deed
XLII ADDL., CITY CIVIL and SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU.
Digitally signed by SRINIVASA DN: cn=SRINIVASA,ou=HIGH COURT OF
SRINIVASA KARNATAKA,o=GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka,c=IN Date: 2018.10.01 17:25:21 IST Judgement