Bangalore District Court
Smt.Gayathri Goudar vs Smt.Geetha Goudar on 15 December, 2017
IN THE COURT OF XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU
NGALURU (C.C.H.No.7).
(C.C.H.No.7).
Dated This the 15th Day of December, 2017.
Dated:
Present: Ms.VELA. D.K., B.A., LL.B.(Hons.)
XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge.
Bengaluru.
O. S. No. 1 5 3 5 / 2006
2006
Plaintiff Smt.Gayathri Goudar
W/o. B.Devdas,
Aged about 36 years,
Residing at D.No.166/1,
35th 'A' Cross, 16th Main, 4th T block,
Jayanagar, Bengaluru.
by Sri. S.Rajashekar, Advocate.
Vs.
Defendant 1. Smt.Geetha Goudar,
W/o.Subash Naik,
aged about 40 years,
residing at D.No.32(Next No.189),
5th Phase, J.P.Nagar,Bengaluru.
2. Girish Goudar,
S/o. Late N.R.Goudar,
Aged about 38 years,
Residing at New D.No.48/3,
13th Cross, 8th Main, Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru.
D1-by Sri.C.Rajanna, Advocate.
D-2 by Sri.N.R.Jagadeeswara, Advocate.
2 O.S.No.1535/2006
Date of institution of suit 21-02-2006
Nature of the suit Partition and Separate
Possession
Date of commencement of 24-06-2010
recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment 15-12-2017
was pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
11 09 24
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for Partition and separate Possession.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that, one N.R.Goudar and Smt.Sarojini N.Goudar have two daughters and one son. The 1st defendant is said to be the eldest daughter and 2nd defendant be the son and Plaintiff be the second daughter. The marriage of the 1st defendant had taken place with Subhash Naik in 1991 and the marriage of Plaintiff was performed with B.Devadas in the year 2001. The father of the Plaintiff is said to have been passed away on 14.7.1984 and mother passed away on 30.1.2006. The house property bearing Municipal New No.48/3 said to belong to the father N.R.Goudar and to be his self acquired property. He is said to have possessed and enjoyed the suit schedule property during his life time and looked after the Plaintiff and defendants. Therefore, he was the karta of the family. After he passed away, the Plaintiff and 3 O.S.No.1535/2006 defendants are said to have been residing jointly, and mother of Plaintiff Sarojini N.Goudar is said to have been looking after the joint family affairs. The mother is said to have performed the marriage of 1st defendant and incurred the expenditure to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs out of the joint family funds. The 1st defendant and 2nd defendant are said to be misusing the income of the joint family is which said to have instigated the mother to sell Sy.No.184/4 measuring 4 acres and Sy.No.184/3 measuring 1 acre 37 guntas situated at Kodigalli in Yelahanka and also the land bearing Sy.Nos.5/1 and 5/2 measuring 2 acres situated at Byatarayanapura, Yelahanka in favour of one Shah for sum of Rs.20 lakhs in 1989, which was without the consent of the Plaintiff. Then the mother and the 2nd defendant are said to have purchased the properties described in the plaint out of the joint family funds and 1st and 2nd defendants and mother of the Plaintiff is said to have sold the said property No.52, measuring 30 x 40 feet situated at I main road, 2nd Cross, Ganapathi Nagar, Peenya 3rd stage, Bangalore in favour of some persons for a sum of Rs.19 lakhs and the defendants 1 and 2 are said to have sold that property behind the back of the Plaintiff and misused the sale consideration amount. Some of the properties were said to have been purchased by defendants 1 and 2 out of joint family funds. The documents pertaining to the same 4 O.S.No.1535/2006 are not disclosed to the Plaintiff. The said property No.37 situated at I Main road, 2nd Cross, Ganapathynagar, Bangalore measuring 30 x 40 feet and site property No.79 and 80 measuring about 30 x 40 feet are said to be in the name of 2nd defendant. These properties are said to have been acquired by 2nd defendant out of joint family funds. Therefore, they are the joint family properties.
The 2nd defendant at the instigation of the 1st defendant, without taking into consideration the welfare of the Plaintiff is said to have not maintained the suit schedule properties properly and misused the income for themselves without contributing the same to the welfare of the Plaintiff. After the marriage, the Plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 are said to have turned hostile at the instigation of 1st defendant, thereby there is said to be no cordial relationship between the Plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. The relationship being strained and on account of misunderstanding, the circumstances are said to have arose that the Plaintiff had to leave the joint family of the defendants and then defendants 1 and 2 are said to have misused the income derived from the joint family for their selfishness purpose. They are said to have even stopped contribution and income for the livelihood of the Plaintiff and failed to give accounts for the income derived from the said property after the mother passed away. The Plaintiff 5 O.S.No.1535/2006 is said to have denied the share in the properties and that the defendants to be attempting to alienate the suit schedule properties.
The Plaintiff is said to be the family member of the joint family and she is said to be the coparcener and entitled for 1/3rd + 1/9th share in the suit schedule property by Sale Deed dt.16.8.1999. It is further averred that the property bearing No.32, situated at Nanjundeswara House building co- operative Society Ltd., Sarakkikere Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore to belong to the joint family and that it was purchased under registered sale deed dated:16.8.1999. The flat situated at Corporation No.41/2, 13th cross, Malleshwaram, Bangalore is said to belong to the joint family and purchased in the name of 2nd defendant by registered sale deed dated:31.3.1992. The property bearing Corporation No.11 situated at 11th Cross, Geddalahalli, Bangalore also is said to be belong to the joint family and was purchased by registered sale deed dated:24.4.2002 in the name of 2nd defendant. These properties are said to be the joint family properties acquired out of the joint family funds. Therefore, the Plaintiff is said to be entitled for the share in these properties. The sale consideration amount for purchase of these properties are said to be out of sale of agricultural properties that were situated at Kodigehalli and 6 O.S.No.1535/2006 Byatarayanapura village. Therefore, the 1st and 2nd defendants are said to have colluded and filed written statement to support each other depriving the share of the Plaintiff. The defendants are said to be aware that the marriage of the Plaintiff is registered in accordance with law and son of the Plaintiff was born during the life time of her mother. In spite of that, the defendants are said to have contended that they are not aware of the marriage of the Plaintiff which is said to substantiate their indifferent attitude towards the Plaintiff and her welfare. Huge amount was said to have incurred for the marriage expenditure of the 1st defendant and the Plaintiff is said to have requested the 2nd defendant to perform the marriage of Plaintiff in the same fashion. But the request of the Plaintiff was said to be not honoured. The defendants are said to have concealed the fact of huge amount that was spent towards educational expenses incurred towards the education of the defendants. The 1st defendant is said to be Degree Holder of M.B.B.S. with Diploma in Pathology. The 2nd defendant is said to be an Engineer in Industrial Production and Masters Degree in U.S., without scholarship. Therefore, the entire money is said to have been spent from the joint family funds. The Plaintiff is said to have completed her Bachelor's Degree in Government College and thereby it is said to be not 7 O.S.No.1535/2006 a payment seat. The minimum expenditure was incurred for her education. The property situated at Jayanagar, renewed by the Plaintiff is said to be her exclusive property. There was said to be no oral partition as contended by the defendants. The Plaintiff is said to be entitled for 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties which are joint family properties. It is the defendants who are said to be in possession and enjoyment of the joint family funds and assets and making use of the same without accounting the same to the Plaintiff. They are said to be required to pay mesne profits to the Plaintiff for the use of the joint family funds and assets. The property bearing No.39, 5(G) Block, Anjanapura Extension, Bangalore measuring East to West 12 Mts. North to South 9 Mts. totally 108 Sq.Mts is said to the joint family property purchased in the name of mother vide registered sale deed dt.10.5.2002. The property bearing No.421, 4 block, Anjanapura Extension, Bangalore measuring in total 108 Sq.Mts is said to be the joint family property purchased in the name of sister of 1st defendant vide registered sale deed dated:3.1.2002. The property bearing No.553/B, I block, Anjanapura Extension, Bangalore also measuring 108 Sq.Ft. is said to have been purchased in the name of brother, the 2nd defendant vide registered sale deed dt.30.9.2002. The suit Item Nos.13 to 15 were said to have purchased out 8 O.S.No.1535/2006 of the funds of the father and thereby are the joint family properties. The Plaintiff is said to have been ousted from the parents' house on account of her marriage with a person outside the caste and community. With no other alternative, has filed the above suit.
3. In the written statement the defendant No.1 admitted relationship between parties. She is said to be not aware of the marriage of the Plaintiff with one Devadas in the year 2001. The suit schedule Item No.1 is said to be the self acquired property of father N.R.Goudar. After he passed away, the mother is said to have looked after the affairs of the family with the assistance of 2nd defendant.
The agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.184/4 measuring 4 acres and Sy.No.184/3 measuring 1 acre 13 guntas situated at Kodegehalli village, Yelahanka hobli and Sy.No.5/1 and 5/2 situated at Bytarayanapura village were said to have been sold by Sarojini Goudar in the year 1992 and not in the year 1989. The suit schedule properties are said to be not the joint family properties. The Plaintiff is said to have developed hostile relationship with the defendants and was said to have constantly demanding money for her education, to set up Dental clinic and for purchase of property in her 9 O.S.No.1535/2006 name. Immediately after the mother passed away, the suit is said to have been filed only to coerce the defendants to part with the money. The Plaintiff is said to have left the house in the year 2001 and therefore, said to be not the joint family members.
The defendant No.1 is the elder sister whose marriage was said to be performed at Anjaneyaswamy temple at Bagalkot incurring expenditure of Rs.50000/- including purchase of jewelry. Thereafter reception was said to be hosted at Hotel Chalukya in the year 1992. After the completion of BDS course, the Plaintiff is said to have interested in persuading her further studies, but said to have failed to get merit seat in MDS. Therefore, Sy.No.184/4 and 184/3 were said to have been sold in order to get donation seat in Bapuji Dental College at Davanagere and remaining sale consideration was said to be used for the purpose of purchase a house property in the name of Plaintiff in lieu of her share. After completion of MDS, the Plaintiff in the year 1995 is said to have intended to set up clinic of her own. Again she is said to have demanded money from the mother and 1st defendant. When the same was refused, the Plaintiff is said to have asked for her share in the family properties. Being shocked, the mother of the Plaintiff and defendants is said to have purchased site bearing No.166/7/1, 36, 'B' Cross, 4th 'D' Block, 10 O.S.No.1535/2006 Jayanagar in the name of Plaintiff towards her share and on the intervention of relatives and well-wishers, the Plaintiff was said to be given additional sum of Rs.2-lakhs to set up clinic of her own. The property purchased in the name of Plaintiff at Jayanagar is said to have been out of the income derived out of sale of agricultural properties situated at Kodigehalli and Byatarayanapura village. The donation was said to have been paid to secure the MDS seat to the Plaintiff. The property and money was said to have been given to the Plaintiff to establish a dental clinic towards share of the Plaintiff out of the properties left by N.R.Goudar.
The 1st defendant is said to have been allotted property measuring 30 x 58 feet situated at Nanjundeshwara Home building co-operative Society Ltd., Sarakki village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore purchased out of the joint family funds in the name of 1st defendant and the same is said to have been allotted to her share. In accordance to the desire of the father N.R.Goudar, the first item of the suit schedule properties said to have been allotted in favour of 2nd defendant. The Plaintiff is said to have left out the house property measuring 30 x 39 feet situated at No.166/7/1, 36th B Cross, IV 'T' block, Jayanagar, Bangalore and therefore, the suit is said to be not maintainable for partial partition. Further 11 O.S.No.1535/2006 the Plaintiff is said to have not provided particulars of jewels and ornaments.
There was said to be an oral partition among the children of N.R.Goudar, where upon the house property bearing No.166/7/1 at Jayanagar, above noted, was said to have been purchased in the name of Plaintiff on the sale of other agricultural properties. The property measuring 30 x 58 feet situated at Sarakki village was said to have been purchased out of the funds derived by sale of agricultural properties and Item No.1 of the suit schedule properties at Malleshwaram was said to have been allotted to the 2nd defendant towards his share. In addition, the Plaintiff is said to have been given a sum of Rs.2 lakhs to set up her clinic as well as for her MDS seat.
Defendant No.1 in the Additional written statement has contended, property No.32 to be purchased from family income in her name and it was allotted to her share. Plaintiff to be allotted the property at Jayanagar. That was purchased out of joint family funds. Other properties were acquired on their own.
Additional written statement has been filed by the 1st defendant contending that the Plaintiff to have not included the property bearing No.421, 12 O.S.No.1535/2006 Block No.4, Anjanapura Extension, Bangalore either initially or subsequently after the amendment. It is said to be only as an afterthought, item No.14 is said to have been included in the suit. This defendant has completed her Diploma in Pathology from BMC in the year March, 1992. From December 1992 till September 1993, this defendant was said to be working as Junior Pathologist and joined Wockhardo hospital from October 1993 to August 2006 as consultant Pathologist. From June 1994 to 1997, this defendant is said to have worked at Bhagavan Mahaveer hospital and Ganesh Nursing Home as a visiting consultant Pathologist and out of the money earned and savings, he said to have paid initial deposit amount to the BDA. It was in the sixth attempt, the BDA is said to have allotted the site bearing No.421 through allotment letter dt.7.7.2001 for sale consideration of Rs.1,71,700/- and requested this defendant to pay sum of Rs.1,50,500/- being the remaining balance amount after deducting the initial deposit amount of Rs.21,500/-. In this regard this defendant is said to have raised loan of Rs.1-Lakh from HDFC Bank and rest of the amount said to have been paid out of the savings. The EMI is said to have been paid through her bank and all the dues to the Bank are said to have been cleared. The Item No.14 of the schedule properties is said to be the self acquired property of 13 O.S.No.1535/2006 this defendant purchased in her capacity and thereby the Plaintiff and 2nd defendant are said to have no right over Item No.14 of the suit schedule properties and that property cannot be partitioned.
4. The Defendant No.2 in the written statement has admitted the relationship, property at Malleswaram to belong to the parents, after oral partition in 1995, that property is said to have been allotted to his share as per the wish of the parents. From 1995, joint status over the suit schedule property is said to have been disrupted and he is said to have become its owner. In deed, properties as stated in the plaint in para 3 were said to have been sold by the mother for family necessity, namely, education needs of the plaintiff, as the plaintiff is said to have not obtained merit seat. Subsequently, sale consideration amount was said to have been spent towards purchase of site in 19985. It has been given to her in lieu of her share. Plaintiff is said to be actually residing with her husband. Suit schedule property is said to be house property resided by this defendant and there is no income from that property. The 1st defendant being eldest, was said to have been married in 1991 with one Subash Naik, at Anjaneyaswamy Temple, spending Rs.50,000/- and reception was hosted in Hotel Chalukya. After the demise of the father, mother is said to have maintained the children in all manner.
14 O.S.No.1535/2006Plaintiff is said to have completed her BDS in 1992 and was not able to get a merit seat. Sy.No.183/3, 184/4, 5/1 and 5/2 were said to have been sold. As per the partition, plaintiff is said to have received Rs.2-lakhs to set up the clinic at Mathikere road and the property at Jayanagar was given to her. 1st defendant is said to have offered with certain amount for her share and it was said to have been refused and that was insisted for share in the property. In 1995, another property was not purchased and therefore property at Nanjundeswara Co-operative Society was said to have been purchased in her name in 199. Plaintiff is said to have not included the house property at Jayanagar, house property bearing No.32, Nanjundeswara House building Co-operative Society in the above suit.
Additional written statement has been filed by 2nd defendant contending that the property at item No.6 to have been purchased in the family income, in the name of the 1st defendant and that, it was allotted to her towards her share in the partition. The property at item No.7 to be absolute property of the 2nd defendant, who had independent source of income to purchase the same through the self earned income from the year 1985. This defendant is said to have completed his Graduation in Engineering and Masters of Science and working till 15 O.S.No.1535/2006 October 1998 and joined Tata Consultancy Service from October 1998. The tax paid are said to be for the year assessment years 1985-86 to 1992-92. Therefore he had the income of Rs.4,07,069/- and the source to purchase the Flat at Malleshwaram in 1991-92 of Rs.1,95,000/-. In this regard, has referred Cheque Nos.362910, 362912 and 362914 drawn on Bank of India. The property at serial No.8 is said to be the self acquired property of the 2nd defendant after availing loan from Tata Home Finance. Sale consideration is said to have been paid through the cheques and deducted from the salary account, details of which are said to be D.D.Nos.572109 to 572112, Cheque Nos.11981 to 12000, 952087, 960961, 969917, 960962, 931651, 960964 to 960966, 931653, 960967 to 96078. The 2nd defendant was said to have been deputed in USA for work from November 2002 to July 2005, through Tata Consultancy Services on an average salary of $2,400/- . Therefore he had the savings to repay the loan account. Nominal expenses were said to have been incurred for the education of 1st and 2nd defendant. 1st defendant is said to have secured the merit seat on her own efforts during the life time of the father. She is said to have further completed her Diploma in Pathology from Bangalore Medical College and the 2nd defendant is said to be secured merit seat in Engineering. The plaintiff is said to have 16 O.S.No.1535/2006 secured admission at Government Dental College under Economically Backward quota. The mother is said to have spent huge money to secure the admission at Davanagere Dental College. The property at Jayanagar interfering name of the plaintiff is said to have been derived out of the property sold at Kodigehalli. The property of Kodigehalli was said to be in the joint names of Sarojini and Jayashree Parthasarathy. The details of which are, Sy.No.184/3 measuring 1 acre 37 guntas, purchase amount is Rs.35,000/- and Sy.No.184/4, measuring 4 acres 12 guntas, purchase amount is Rs.78,000/-. Sarojini is said to have derived sale consideration of Rs.2,45,000/- and to have invested the same in Unit Trust of India Capital Gains Scheme and after maturity, that amount was withdrawn through cheques dated:4-10-1995. The amount through the UTI and the other amount of the family was said to have been used to purchase the property at Jayanagar in the name of the plaintiff towards her share of the property in the partition. Items 5 to 8 are said to be not joint family property. This defendant has given the description of the property in the schedule of the written statement and denying all the other averments of the plaint, therefore both the defendants have sought for the dismissal of the suit.
17 O.S.No.1535/20065. My Predecessors-in-Office had framed the following Issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are the co-owners of suit properties?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 4/9th share in the suit properties?
3. Whether the suit for partial partition is not maintainable?
4. Whether the defendants prove prior oral partition between the children of N.R.Goudar?
5. What Decree or Order?
Additional Issues dated:3-8-2011:
6. Whether suit is bad for seeking partial partition?
7. Whether defendant No.2 proves that, suit item No.7 and 8 are his self acquisitions?
Additional Issue dated:16-12-2015:
8. Whether defendant No.2 proves that, suit schedule item Nos.13 to 15 are self acquired properties of defendant No.2?
18 O.S.No.1535/20066. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff has got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P15. The 2nd defendant is examined as D.W.1 and 1st defendant is examined as D.W.2 and got marked Exs.D1 to D82.
7. Heard arguments of Learned Counsel for both the parties.
8. The findings on the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 - in the negative, Issue No.2 - in the negative, Issue No.3 - in the negative, Issue No.4 - in the affirmative, Addl. Issue No.6 - in the negative, Addl. Issue No.7 - in the affirmative, Addl. Issue No.8 - in the affirmative, Issue No.5 - as per Final Order, for the following:
Reasons
9. Issue Nos. 1, 4 and Additional Issue No.7 dated:3-8-2011 and Additional Issue No.8 dated:16-12-2015 :
The plaintiff has claimed that he and the defendants to be co-owners of the suit schedule properties and entitled for 4/9th share in the suit schedule properties. The defendants have contended 19 O.S.No.1535/2006 oral partition between the children of N.R.Goudar and specifically the 2nd defendant has contended that the suit item Nos.7, 8 and 13 to 15 to be the self acquired properties. These Issues being inter-linked, pertaining to the nature of the properties therefore are discussed and answered together, in order to avoid repetition of facts.
At the outset, it is necessary to note the description of the suit schedule property, which is as follows:
"1. House property new No.48/3, situated at 13th Cross, 18th Main, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru, measuring about East to West 60 and North to South 40 feet, bounded on:
East by : site No.48/13 of Krishnamurthy, West by : Road, North by : Site No.48/9 of Krishna Navale, South by : Main road 13th Cross.
2. Jewels and ornaments totally 5 Kgs.
Diamond earnings one pair bras light Diamond total worth of Rs.5.00 Lakhs.
3. 3. Vehicle Maruthi 800 KA 04 2469.
4. Shares Indian Oil Corporation worth of Rs.3.00 lakhs and cash in the bank of India.
5. Marriage expenditure of Rs.5.00 Lakhs.20 O.S.No.1535/2006
Item No.6 All the piece and parcel of property bearing site No.32, 5th Phase, J.P.Nagar (formed in Sy.No.4/4 of Sarakki Kere Village, Uttarahalli Hobli), layout formed by Nanjundeshwara House Building Co-operative Society Ltd.
Bengaluru) measuring East-West 58 feet and North-South 30 feet (total 193.333 sq. ft.) bounded on:
East by : Private property, West by : road, North by : Site No.31, South by : Site No.33.
Item No.7 All the piece and parcel of property bearing New No.41/2-1,Old No.41/2, situated at 13th Cross, 8th Main Road, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru, measuring East-West 77 feet and North-South 57 feet bounded on:
East by : 8th Main Road, West by : Property belongs to Bhaskar Rao, North by : 13th Cross road South by : Private property.
Item No.8 All the piece and parcel of property bearing No.11 (Formerly Khaneshumari No.11, house list No.579), situated at 9th Cross, Geddalahalli, Sanjayanagar, Bengaluru, measuring East-West 50 feet and North-South 60 feet total 3000 sq. ft. bounded on:
East by : road, West by : private respondent, North by : Property No.10, South by : Private property.21 O.S.No.1535/2006
Item No.9 All the piece and parcel of property bearing No.37, formed in Sy.No.142 of Laggere Village, P.V.Goppal Layout, Ganappathinagar, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring East-West 30 feet and North-South 40 feet bounded on:
East by : road West by : Site No.26, North by : Site No.36, South by : Road.
Item No.10 All the piece and parcel of property bearing No.52, formed in Sy.No.142 of Laggere Village, P.V.Gopal Iyengar Layout, Ganapathinagar, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring East-West 30 feet and North-South 40 ft. bounded on:
East by : site No.63 West by : road, North by : Site No.53, South by : Road."
Item No.11 All the piece and parcel of property bearing No.79, formed in Sy.No.142 of Laggere Village, P.V.Gopal Iyengar Layout, Ganapathinagar, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring East-West 30 feet and North-South 40 ft. bounded on:
East by : site No.63 West by : road, North by : Site No.53, South by : Road."22 O.S.No.1535/2006
Item No.12 All the piece and parcel of property bearing No.80, formed in Sy.No.142 of Laggere Village, P.V.Gopal Iyengar Layout, Ganapathinagar, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, measuring East-West 30 feet and North-South 40 bounded on:
East by : site No.85, West by : site No.77, North by : Site No.79, South by : Road."
Item No.13 All the piece and parcel of property No.39, 5(G) Block, Anjana Pura Extension, Bengaluru, measuring East-West 12 Mts. North-South 9 Mts. Total 108 Sq. Mts. bounded as:
East by : Road, West by : House No.52, North by : House n owner40, South by : House No.38."
Item No.14 All the piece and parcel of property No.421, 4th Block, Anjana Pura Extension, Bengaluru, measuring East to West 9 Mts. North the South 12 Mts. Total 108 Sq. Mts. bounded as:
East by : House No.420, West by : House No.422, North by : House No.400, South by : Road."23 O.S.No.1535/2006
Item No.15 All the piece and parcel of the property No.553/B, 1st Block, Anjana Pura Extension, Bengaluru, measuring East to West 9 Mts. North to South 12 Mts., total 108 sq. Mts. bounded as:
East by : House No.553/A, West by : House No.553/C, North by : Road, South by : House No.540."
The schedule property described in the written statement of defendant No.2 is as follows:
"All the piece and parcel of property bearing No.116/7/1, eastern portion, old No.166/7, situated at 36th B Cross, IVth 'T' Block, Bengaluru-560057, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South 39 feet, totally measuring 1170 square feet, including 30 square built up area and bounded on by:
East by : site No.165 West by : Portion of property Old No.166/7 North by : 35th A Cross, South by : Property No.171."
10. The relationship between the parties are, the plaintiff and defendants are the children of late N.R.Goudar and late Smt.Sarojini Goudar. P.W.1 has stated that the father not to have inherited any property from his ancestors. The father is said to have other sources of income. He owned landed properties at Kodigehalli and Byatarayanapura of Bengaluru North and they are the agricultural 24 O.S.No.1535/2006 properties that were sold after the father had passed away. She does not know as to when those properties were sold by the brother and the mother. D.W.1 has stated that the father to have purchased the Sy.No.5/1, 5/2, 184/3 and 184/4. He has admitted the suggestion as follows:
"It is true that these lands were acquired by my father in the name of my mother.... It is true that my mother was house wife and that my father was a Govt. servant. ..."
11. It is now necessary to discuss the nature of the documentary evidence produced by each of the parties in correspondence to the suit schedule properties.
Item No.I:-
P.W.1, in the oral evidence has stated that this property was acquired by the father in the name of the mother and that it was in the occupation of the mother. This is said to be purely residential house and was in the self occupation of the parents and other family members. After the parents passed away, that house is said to be in the occupation of the 2nd defendant. During the lifetime of the parents, that house was said to be not leased to any tenants.25 O.S.No.1535/2006
D.W.2 has stated that the item No.1 property to be self acquired property of the father and after the father had passed away, the mother with the assistance of the 2nd defendant were said to be managing the property. In fact the suggestion put forth to D.W.2 has been as follows:
"It is true item No.1 of the plaint schedule property is the self acquired property of my father. The mother is said to have sold the Sy.No.184/4 measuring 4 acres, Sy.No.184/3 measuring 1 acre 13 guntas of Kodigehalli Village, Sy.No.5/1 and 5/2 of Byatarayanapura Village and this is said to be within the knowledge of D.W.2."
In the chief examination itself this D.W.2 has stated that the plaintiff to have completed her B.D.S. course in 1992 and to pursue her studies in spite of being not successful to get a free merit seat for M.D.S., the properties Sy.No.184/4 and 184/3 were said to have been sold to get donation seat at Bapuji Dental College, Davanagere. The remaining sale consideration amount was said to have been utilized for the purchase of house property in the name of the plaintiff in lieu of her share. After the completion of the M.D.S., the plaintiff intended to set up a clinic, for which is said to have demanded money from the mother and the 2nd defendant. When the same was said to be refused, the plaintiff is said to have 26 O.S.No.1535/2006 demanded the share in the family properties. Therefore the mother is said to have purchased the site No.166/7/1, 36th B Cross, 4th T Block, Jaynagar, in the name of the plaintiff towards her share from the sale proceeds of the Sy.No.184/4 and 184/3 situated at Kodigehalli. On the intervention of the elders, another sum of Rs.2-lakhs was said to be given to the plaintiff to set up her clinic. The property purchased for the benefit fo the plaintiff and to set up the clinic was said to have been spent from the income derived out of the sale proceeds of agricultural properties of Kodigehalli and Byatarayanapura.
Regarding the oral partition, this D.W.2 has stated as follows:
"I state that there was oral partition in the year 1995 amongst the children of N.R.Goudar, accordingly the house property measuring 30 feet x 39 feet, situated at No.166/7/1, 36th B Cross, IV T Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru, was purchased from and out of the funds derived by sale of agricultural properties, situated at Kodigehalli Village, Bengaluru North Taluk, in the name of the plaintiff. Towards my share the site property measuring 30 feet x 58 feet situated at Nanjundeshwar Home Building Co- operative Society Limited, Sarakki Vilalge, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru, was purchased. The, 2nd defendant was left with item No.1 of 27 O.S.No.1535/2006 the schedule property to the plaint, i.e., Malleshwaram property towards his share. In fact, the plaintiff has been given additional sum of Rs.2-lakhs to set up her clinic and to get a MDS payment seat, I and my husband had obtained housing loan by mortgaging the said property with ICICB Bank and has constructed a residential house in which I along with my family are currently living."
There was said to be a oral partition in the year 1995 between the children of N.R.Goudar and the house property measuring 30 x 39 feet situated at No.166/7/1, 36th B Cross, 4th T Block, Jayanagar, was said to be purchased from and out of the funds derived by the some of agricultural properties in the name of the plaintiff.
The suggestion to D.W.2 has been as follows:
"5. My mother was an Income tax assessee. It is true that the Sy.No.184/3 measuring 1A- 37G and Sy.No.184/4 measuring 4 acres stood in the name of my mother along with Jayashri Parthasarathi. It is also true that the Sy.No.5/1 and 5/2 measuring 2 acres in Byatarayanapura stood in the name of my mother and Jayashri Parthasarathi. It is true that the Sy.No.184/3 and 184/4 Kodigehalli were sold on 31-3-1992. It is also true that there was release deed for Rs.8 lakhs in respect of Sy.Nos.5/1 and 5/2 on 27-11-1998. It is true that the Sy.Nos.184/3 and 184/4 together were sold for sum of 28 O.S.No.1535/2006 Rs.4,90,000/-. It is true that my mother and Jayashri Parthasarathi entitled for equal share of the said amount of Rs.4,90,000/-."
Ex.P12 is the Khatha extract dated:25-8-2010 with PID No.7-20-48/3 in the name of Sarojini N. Goudar in respect of this property. P.W.1 in the oral evidence has admitted that this property to be residential property which was in the self occupation of the parents and other family members. Further has admitted that after the death of the parents, that house to be in the occupation of the 2nd defendant. The building is said to consist of ground and 1st floor with two halls, 3 bed rooms, 3 bath rooms. It is said to have a stair case situated inside the building in order to reach the 1st floor from the ground floor. This property was said to be never leased to the tenants during the lifetime of the parents. After the demise of the parents, it is the 2nd defendant who is admitted to be in occupation of the said house.
D.W.1 has stated as follows:
"It is true that the item No.1 suit schedule property wherein I have been residing, was purchased by my parents."
Therefore, it means that he is in its exclusive enjoyment.
29 O.S.No.1535/2006Items 2 to 5:
Absolutely there are no documents placed before the Court regarding these properties. In fact, P.W.1 has admitted non-availability of the documents pertaining to these properties.
Item No.6:
Ex.P1 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated:16-8-1999 executed between Siddaramanna as vendor and Manjunath as confirming party in favour of the defendants 1 and 2. The vendor is stated to be absolute owner of the property sold, which is a vacant site formed in the layout by Nanjundeswara Co-operative Society. It further states that the agreement of sale with the purchaser was executed on 2-1-1999 and the amount of Rs.2- lakhs was paid vide Pay Order No.451968, dated: 14-8-1999 and sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was paid by way of cash. Ex.P3 is the Encumbrance Certificate for the period 1-4-1999 to 31-3-2004 that has the entry of Ex.P1. Ex.P2 is the Nil Encumbrance Certificate for the period 1-4-2004 to 18-2-2009 in respect of this property and this document has been obtained by the plaintiff. D.W.1 in the cross-examination has stated this property to have been purchased in the name of the 1st defendant in the year 1999. That document is not produced before the Court.30 O.S.No.1535/2006
Item No.7:-
Ex.P4 is the certified copy of the sale deed dated:31-3-1992 executed by Ramachandran s/o. Gopalakrishna through the G.P.A. Ravi Vijaya Saratti in favour of 2nd defendant. Ex.P6 Encumbrance Certificate has the entry of this sale deed for the period 1-4-1991 to 31-3-2004. Ex.P5 is the Nil Encumbrance Certificate for the period 1-4-2004 to 3-2-2009. Ex.P7 is the Khatha extract of this property in the name of defendant No.2 dated: 5-6-2007 with PID No.7-28-41/2-1. Ex.D4 is the Xerox copy of Ex.P4. Ex.D5 to Ex.D7 are the concerned vouchers pertaining to the payment of consideration amount paid to the vendor by the 2nd defendant. In order to show that the 2nd defendant to be an income tax assessee the concerned documents have been produced as per Exs.D8 to Ex.D21. P.W.1 has stated that, this property is an apartment purchased by her mother out of the joint family funds in the name of her brother. At the time when the said property was acquired, she and her brother were said to be students. The rents received from this property is said to be enjoyed by the brother. This P.W.1 has also stated that on 31-3-1992 this property was purchased and identified the Xerox copy of that sale deed marked as Ex.D4. She is said to have not contributed any money to the 2nd defendant to purchase the item 31 O.S.No.1535/2006 No.7 property. She has also admitted that the 2nd defendant in deed purchased this property by making payments as per the vouchers identified by her-Exs.D5 to D7. D.W.1 in the evidence has stated that in deed this property was purchased in his name in the year 1992.
Item No.8:-
Ex.P8 is the certified copy of the sale deed executed by Manju Lakhwani in favour of the 2nd defendant and his wife on 24-4-2002. The sale consideration amount as per this Deed is Rs.7,80,000/-. Ex.P9 is the Khatha certificate in the name of the 2nd defendant and his wife dated: 7-6-2007 with PID No.10018511. Ex.P10 is the Encumbrance Certificate for the period 1-4-2000 to 31-3-2004 which has the entry of this Ex.P8. Ex.P11 is the Nil Encumbrance Certificate for the period 24-5-2004 to 8-2-2009. Ex.D32 is the certified copy of the very same sale deed-Ex.P8.
P.W.1 in the oral evidence has stated that this property to be standing in the name of the brother and his wife and she has not contributed any money to purchase this property. In deed, the 2nd defendant and his wife in order to purchase this property had availed the loan from the TATA Home Finance as per the document-Ex.P8 and that Finance Company only 32 O.S.No.1535/2006 had issued the loan cheque directly to the vendor of the 2nd defendant. Therefore, it is the 2nd defendant and his wife who are said to be in its possession and paying the tax of that property. She has not contributed any money to the 2nd defendant to clear the loan in respect of this property. Further P.W.1 has stated to be not residing with the 2nd defendant when this property was purchased. There are said to be no documents to show that her mother had also contributed the money to the 2nd defendant to purchase this property.
Items No.9 to 12:-
Regarding these properties, there are no documents produced before the Court. The only evidence of P.W.1 has been that she cannot produce the documents pertaining to these properties. The 2nd defendant is said to be the owner of these properties. Further she has not ascertained as to who is in possession of these properties. In the absence of any documents pertaining to these properties, these properties therefore, are not in joint possession as claimed by the plaintiff.
Earlier, in the chief examination, this P.W.1 regarding these properties had stated that these properties to have been purchased after selling the agricultural lands of the family situated at Kodigehalli 33 O.S.No.1535/2006 Village. The mother is said to have purchased in the form of the G.P.A. and the Affidavit.
Item No.13 :-
Ex.P13 to P15 are the certified copies of the sale deeds executed in favour of the 2nd defendant and his wife by the BDA in respect of this property. P.W.1 in the cross-examination has stated that these properties to have been allotted by the BDA. She has not contributed for the purchase of this property as well as not repaid the money towards the loan raised by the LIC.
P.W.1 in the oral evidence has admitted that her mother and mother's friend Jayashree Parthasarathy had jointly purchased the Kodigehalli Property. She does not know that the said property was sold by her mother and her friend for family necessity. She does not know the exact date, month and the year when the properties at Kodigehalli and Byatarayanapura were sold. She has also stated as follows:
" I have never seen those two properties. .... I do not have any documents with me to show that my mother had finance with her to purchase those two properties."34 O.S.No.1535/2006
In order to show that these properties were sold in 1992, there are no documents produced before the Court. By the time these properties were sold, the father was no more and after the demise of the father in 1984, entire family affairs was looked after by the mother.
12. The background of the case is that each of the parties are well educated. The plaintiff is a B.D.S. Doctor, the defendant No.1 is M.B.B.S. Doctor and the 2nd defendant has done his M.S. Engineering. There was no income on own to the mother. P.W.1 has also admitted not to have any document to show that she had paid the sale consideration amount on Ex.D1 in favour of her vendor.
Exs.P13 to 15 are the sale deeds pertaining to this property. It is only the oral evidence of P.W.1, which is above noted.
13. The 2nd defendant had joined M.S. for Engineering in May 1992 at U.S. and completed in February 1994. He had completed his B.E. in 1990. The plaintiff had completed her M.D.S. Degree in 1994. Father has passed away on 14-7-1984 and the mother passed away on 30-1-2006. P.W.1 has admitted that after the death of the father, the mother to have taken the entire responsibility of 35 O.S.No.1535/2006 maintaining the family. The father, during his lifetime, is said to have made lot of savings and owned a house at Malleswharam, Bengaluru. She has admitted not to have produced any documents to show that the father had made lot of savings in his service. Father was said to be Executive Director in Karnataka State Agro Corn Products Limited, Hebbal. When the father passed away, P.W.1 was said to be studying in SSLC. The 1st defendant was said to be pursued her studies in M.D.S. in Private College. The 2nd defendant is said to have completed SSLC along with her. The father is said to have not inherited any property from his ancestors. No doubt the father is said to have other source of income and that he owned the properties at Kodigehalli and Byatarayanapura. Those properties are the Sy.Nos. 184/2 measuring 4 acres, 184/3 measuring 1 acre 34 guntas at Kodigehalli and Sy.No.5/1, 5/2 situated at Byatarayanapura. The important fact is that the father did not inherit any property from his ancestors. Therefore the suit schedule properties, which are described in the plaint, pertains to the properties which are of the father or the children. At the same time, it is to be noted that it is an admitted fact that these lands of Kodigehalli and Byatarayanapura to have been sold in 1989 itself. At that time, it means that the plaintiff and the defendants had not yet completed their studies. It is 36 O.S.No.1535/2006 admitted by P.W.1 that the mother and her friend Jayashri Parthasarathy had jointly purchased the Kodigehalli property. There are said to be no documents to show that the mother had finance to purchase those two properties. The mother is said to have utilized the sale consideration of Byatarayanapura property to purchase the Sarakki Property in the name of the 1st defendant. Therefore it means that, agricultural lands above noted belonged to the father and those properties were sold. In return, it is also an admitted fact of P.W.1 that there is one more property in her name, which is situated at Jayanagar, for which concerned sale deed produced is Ex.D1.
14. The defense in the present case has been that on account or oral partition, the property purchased in the name of the plaintiff at Jayanagar was given to the plaintiff. Item No.1 property was retained by 2nd defendant and the property at Sarakki was retained by the 1st defendant. To purchase these properties, the sale proceeds of the property at Kodigehalli and Byatarayanapura are said to have been utilized. The consideration amount for those properties is Rs.20-lakhs. There is said to be one more site No.52, measuring 30 x 40 feet, 1st Main Road, 2nd Cross, Ganapathinagar, Peenya, that was sold for Rs.19-lakhs. In order to show that the 2nd defendant had filed income tax returns, the 37 O.S.No.1535/2006 documents have been produced before the Court, which are above noted. In addition to Exs.D28 to D30 provides the earnings summery from 2002 while this 2nd defendant was in U.S. Savings Bank Account of 2nd defendant is Ex.D31, which has the entry from 1994 to 2005. The sale deeds produced in the above case-Exs.P1, P3, P8, P13 to P15, D32, are of the year 1999, 1992 and 2002, respectively. During this time, the Degree of all the children was completed.
15. There were agricultural lands at Kodigehalli and Byatarayanapura and those properties have been sold, are admitted fact. There is property in the name of the plaintiff, as per Ex.D1, situated at Jayanagar, which is not shown as the suit property. The Item No.1 is said to be residential house of the parents, in which the present 2nd defendant has been residing in that property. According to P.W.1, item No.6 is resided by her sister-the 1st defendant. Regarding the remaining properties, evidence of P.W.1 herself shows that item No.7 to be registered in the name of the 2nd defendant, vide sale deed Ex.D4 dated:31-3-1992. Payment vouchers has also been identified by P.W.1, which is noted above. Item No.8 was purchased by the 2nd defendant and his wife through the Tata Finance, for which the concerned documents are above noted, as per Exs.D23 to D26. She herself has admitted not to have contributed anything for the 38 O.S.No.1535/2006 purchase of these properties. Even in regard to item No.8, this P.W.1 herself has stated that she has not paid any money to her brother, when that property was purchased in the name of the 2nd defendant. The documents pertaining to availment of the loan is admitted as per Ex.P8, by P.W.1.
16. In regard to items 9 to 12, it is admitted by P.W.1 not to have produced any documents to show their existence. But, she herself has stated that defendant No.2 to be the owner of those properties. She has further admitted that items 13 to 15 to have been allotted by BDA to her mother, brother and sister. Such being the case, each of the properties discussed above have been contributed by the brother or the sister, i.e., the defendants. The plaintiff has not contributed in any manner for the purchase of these properties, which is admitted by herself. At the same time, it is admitted fact of P.W.1 that her property at Jayanagar to be situated in a well developed area.
17. The father only is said to have purchased the properties at Kodigehalli and Byatarayanapura in the name of the mother. Till the marriage, the plaintiff in deed was residing along with her mother at Malleswaram, which is at present resided by D.W.1.
39 O.S.No.1535/2006So, it means that, in spite of the agricultural lands of Kodigehalli and Byatarayanapura were sold, there has been acquisition of the properties in the name of the plaintiff, as per Ex.D1 and in the name of the defendants. In addition to, it is only the item No.1 property, which is the vendor's property. That property is in exclusive enjoyment of the brother-2nd defendant. But the plaintiff has been given the property at Jayanagar. At the time of execution of Ex.D1, the plaintiff was residing with the mother only, as still she was at Jayanagar. According to P.W.1, at that time she was said to be working in KIMS and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. To show about the financial capacity of the plaintiff, there is absolutely no documentary evidence placed before the Court. It is also admitted fact of P.W.1 that none of the properties are in joint possession between the plaintiff and the defendants. Then, there cannot be existence of joint family properties, which is very much necessary to seek the relief of partition. At this juncture, it is also to be noted that the reference for the sale of the properties at Kodigehalli and Byatarayanapura is only the admitted fact. On the basis of that admitted fact, it is inferred that the property at Jayanagar was given to the plaintiff, as the plaintiff has failed to prove about her source of income to purchase that property. In the given facts and circumstances, 40 O.S.No.1535/2006 therefore, there is no case made out by the plaintiff. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant, (2008) 4 SCC 594 {Anathulla Sudhakar vs. P.Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs. and others} and AIR 1995 Orissa 270 {Nirakar Das vs. Gourhari Das and others}. The benefit of these citations cannot be availed by the 2nd defendant in view of the admitted facts discussed above. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the citation AIR 1954 SC page 379 {Srinivas Krishnarao Kango vs. Narayan Devji Kango and others), wherein it is held as under:
"(a) Hindu Law-Joint family-Self acquisition-
Existence of joint family property-burden of proof.
Proof of the existence of a joint family does not lead to the presumption that property held by any member of the family is joint and the burden rests upon any one asserting that any item of property was joint to establish that fact. But where it is established that the family possessed some joint property which from its nature and relative value may have formed the nucleus from which the property in question may have been acquired, the burden shifts to the party alleging self acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of the joint family property. AIR 1947 PC 189(192), Relied on."
41 O.S.No.1535/2006Hence, Issue No.1 is answered in the negative, Issue No.4 is answered in the affirmative, Issue No.7 is answered in the affirmative and Additional Issue No.8 is answered in the affirmative.
18. Issue No. 2 : The plaintiff has not been able to prove to be entitled for any share in the suit schedule properties. Existence of co-ownership is not forthcoming from the materials placed before the Court. Hence, this Issue is answered in the negative.
19. Issue No.3 and Additional Issue No.6 dated: 3-8-2011: Both these Issues pertain to maintainability of the suit on the ground that it is filed for partial partition. Hence they are discussed together in order to avoid repetition.
The property, which is not included in the above suit is said to be the property, which is in the name of the plaintiff, situated at Jayanagar, as per Ex.P1 bearing No.166/7/1, 4th T Block. There are no documents produced about her earnings at the time of Ex.D1. Amount of Rs.4,85,000/- was said to be paid as consideration towards purchase of that property, for which also there are no documents placed before the Court. She has admitted the Xerox copy of D.D. As per Ex.D2 dated:23-11-1995. The Pass Book of the Bank of India, as per Ex.D3, shows that the mother had withdrawn a sum of 42 O.S.No.1535/2006 Rs.4,50,000/- from the Malleshwaram Branch. This amount was withdrawn on 23-11-1995. This Ex.D3 is a Xerox copy of a single sheet of the Pass Book. P.W.1 thereby has not produced any documents to show that she had the finance of Rs.4,85,000/- at the time of Ex.D1. She herself has admitted that there are no documents to show that sale consideration amount, as stated in Ex.D1, was paid by her to the vendors. She has also, in addition to, stated as follows:
"It is true to suggest that no money was transferred from my Bank Account in any mode to purchase the property covered under Ex.P1."
This property has been in the name of the plaintiff and none of the defendants have claimed any share in this property. Therefore, it means that, the right of the property of the plaintiff has been already given by virtue of this property. When the plaintiff is seeking for partition, then the basis for the purchase of this property would be the property sold at Kodigehalli and Byatarayanapura. On account of the nature of the oral partition stated in the above case, which has been not confronted by the plaintiff, therefore, it cannot be said that the suit to be bad for partial partition. Learned counsel for defendant No.2 has referred the citation reported in ILR 1998 Kar. 685 {Sri Tukaram vs. Sri Sambhaji & Ors.}. On 43 O.S.No.1535/2006 account of the oral partition, the benefit of this citation cannot be availed. Hence, these Issues are answered in the negative.
20. Issue No. 5 : Due to the findings as above, the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
Under the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
Draw Decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerized print-out taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 15th day of December 2017.) (VELA.D.K.) XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, *sb Bengaluru.44 O.S.No.1535/2006
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:
P.W.1 Smt.Gayathri Goudar List of documents exhibited for the plaintiff:
Ex.P1 Certified copy of Sale Deed dated:16-8-1999 Exs.P2 & P3 Encumbrance Certificates Ex.P4 Certified copy of Sale deed dated:31-3-1992 Exs.P5 & P6 Encumbrance Certificates Ex.P7 Katha extract Ex.P8 Certified copy of Sale deed dated:24-4-2002 Ex.P9 Katha extract Exs.P10 & P11 Encumbrance Certificates Ex.P12 Katha extract Ex.P13 Copy of sale deed dated:13-7-2002 Ex.P14 Copy of sale deed dated:10-5-2002 Ex.P15 Copy of sale deed dated:3-1-2002 List of witnesses examined for defendants:
DW1 Girish Goudar DW2 Smt.Geetha Goudar
List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Ex.D1 Xerox copy of sale deed dated:
27-11-1995 Ex.D2 Xerox copy of DD dated:23-11-1995 45 O.S.No.1535/2006 Ex.D3 Xerox copy of bank pass book of Bank of India, Malleswharam Branch.
Ex.D4 Certified copy of sale deed dated:
31-3-1992 Ex.D5 to D7 payment vouchers Ex.D8 to D21 Income tax returns Ex.D22 Appointment letter in T.C.S. Ex.D23 to D29 Form No.16 Ex.D30 Pay slip (29 in number) Ex.D31 Original Bank pass book Ex.D32 Certified copy of sale deed dated:
24-4-2002 Ex.D33 List of documents produced with Tata Home Finance Limited Ex.D34 Consolidated statement of accounts issued by Central Bank of India Ex.D35 U.S.Bank Statement of accounts Ex.D36 Loan offer letter dated:25-7-2001 Ex.D37 Loan advancement letter dated:1-9-2001 Ex.D38 Letter of permission for registration of property Exs.D39 & D40 Two loan statements Ex.D41 Letter for quotation of pre-closure of loan Ex.D42 to D45 4 receipts Ex.D46 Letter for release documents pledged Ex.D47 Certificate of payment of loan from LIC housing Finance Ltd.
Exs.D48 & D49-certificates for loan installments Ex.D50 Central Bank of India-Bank statement 46 O.S.No.1535/2006 Exs.D51 Letters from LIC showing statement of to 60 loan account Ex.D61 to 73 Receipts Ex.D74 Bank of India -Bank statement Ex.D75 Letter from LIC showing statement of loan account Ex.D76 Statement issued by the ICICI Bank dated 7.5.2003 to 7.8.2016 Ex.D77 Account statement from 28.10.2002 to 15.03.2013 issued by ICICI Bank Ex.D78 Statement issued by HDFC Bank from 1.4.2001 to 31.03.2002 Ex.D79 Statement issued by HDFC Bank from 1.4.2002 to 31.03.2003 Ex.D80 Statement issued by HDFC Bank from 1.4.2003 to 31.03.2004 Ex.D81 Statement issued by HDFC Bank from 1.4.2004 to 31.03.2005 Ex.D82 Statement issued by HDFC Bank from 1.4.2005 to 31.03.2006 (VELA.D.K.) XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.47 O.S.No.1535/2006
15-12-2017 Judgment passed and pronounced in Open Court. (vide separate Judgment). Operative portion thereof reads as under:
Order Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
Under the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
Draw Decree accordingly.
XXII A.C.C. & S.J., Bengaluru.