Bangalore District Court
Smt.A.P.Latha vs Sri.P.Prakash on 10 January, 2020
1
O.S.No.456/2008
IN THE COURT OF THE XXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH.31)
DATED THIS THE 10 th DAY OF JANUARY 2020
PRESENT:
SRI. MAANU K.S., B.Sc., LLB.
XXX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
O.S.NO.456 /2008.
PLAINTIFF/S : 1. Smt.A.P.Latha,
W/o Sri.A.P.Puttaswamy &
D/o Late R.B.Parshwanathan,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at No.93/94, 6th Cross,
M.S.Palya, Near Raghu Farm
House, Bengaluru -560 097.
2. Smt.Sukanya P.,
W/o T.S.Jayakar &
D/o Late R.B.Parshwanathan,
Aged about 60 years,
R/at Sri.Venkateshwara Nilaya,
No.38, 4th Cross, 24th Main,
Agara, Sarjapura Main Road,
Bengaluru-560 034.
3. Smt.Asha P.,
W/o G.B.Prakashkumar &
D/o Late R.B.Parshwanathan,
Aged about 54 years,
R/at No.101, 4th Cross,
Kristji Corporation Apartments,
Hanumagiri Layout,
Chikkallasandra, Bengaluru -560 061.
(By Pleader Sri.D.R.Rajashekarappa,
Adv.)
/VS/
2
O.S.No.456/2008
DEFENDANT/S: 1. Sri.P.Prakash,
S/o Late R.B.Parshwanathan,
Aged about 51 years,
R/at No.10, II Floor,
Brahmajyothi Market,
S.V.Lane (Shanthaveeraiah Lane),
Chickpet, Bengaluru -560 053.
2. Sri.Varun,
S/o P.Prakash,
Aged about 22 years,
R/at No.10, II Floor,
Brahmajyothi Market,
S.V.Lane (Shanthaveeraiah Lane),
Chickpet, Bengaluru -560 053.
3. Smt.Padmashree,
W/o Late Sri.P.Veerendrakumar,
Aged about 42 years,
No.716, 6th 'A' Cross, Srinagar,
Bengaluru-560 070.
4. Sri.Punith V.
S/o Late Sri.P.Veerendrakumar,
Aged about 20 years,
No.716, 6th 'A' Cross, Srinagar,
Bengaluru-560 070.
(By Pleader Sri. S.Gangadhara Aithal
Adv. for D1 to 4)
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 09-01-2008.
NATURE OF THE SUIT (Suit on : Suit for partition
Pronote, Suit for declaration and & separate possession.
Possession, Suit for injunction, etc.)
DATE OF THE COMMENCEMENT
OF RECORDING OF THE EVIDENCE : 11-01-2013.
3
O.S.No.456/2008
DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGEMENT
WAS PRONOUNCED : 10-01-2020.
TOTAL DURATION YEAR/S MONTH/S DAY/S
12 00 01
(MAANU K.S.),
XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
4
O.S.No.456/2008
JUDGEMENT
1. This is a suit for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' 1/5th share each in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and for appointment of Court Commissioner to effect the partition by demarcating the 1/5th share each of the plaintiffs' share over the schedule property and to put them in their physical possession of the same along with the costs of the proceedings.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiffs are as follows:
(a). It is the case of the plaintiffs that themselves, defendant No.1 and Late Sri.P.Veerendrakumar are the children of Late R.B.Parshwanathan and his wife Smt.Jayarathna, defendants No.3 and 4 are the legal representatives of their brother Late Sri.P.Veerendrakumar, defendant No.2 is the son of 1st defendant and grandson of Late R.B.Parshwanathan and since he a necessary and proper party, he has been arrayed as party defendant. They further contended that the suit schedule property bearing No.10, 2nd Cross, S.V.Lane (Shanthaveeraiah Lane), Chickpet, Bengaluru-560 053 is their ancestral property and originally the same belonged to their paternal grandfather named late Brahmasuraiah and after his death, their father R.B.Parshwanathan being the only son of late Brahmasuraiah succeeded to the 5 O.S.No.456/2008 suit schedule property and got the katha of the same transferred to his name. They further contended that their father Late R.B.Parshwanathan got developed the suit schedule property and constructed a new shopping complex called Brahmajyothi Market consisting of two floors and in the ground floor there are12 shops with a common passage and in the first floor, there are residential portions.
(b). They further contended that their father and his two sons namely the 1st defendant herein and Late Sri.P.Veerendrakumar have entered into a family arrangement/oral partition on 02-07-1988 without their knowledge by allocating the shares in the suit property as per their convenience ignoring the shares of plaintiffs and without obtaining their consent and the said family arrangement was confirmed by the parties as per the Deed of Confirmation dtd.01-10-
1990. It is their further case that as per the said family arrangement/oral partition, their father got shops bearing No.1, 2, 11 and 12 situated in ground floor and residential portions bearing No.13 and 18 situated at 1st floor of the schedule property and similarly, the defendant No.1 herein was allotted with shops No.7 to 10 situated in ground floor and residential house bearing No.17 along with adjoining open space bearing No.16 situated in the 1 st floor of the schedule property and Late Sri.P.Veerendrakumar was allotted with shops bearing No.3 to 6 in ground floor and residential portions bearing No.14 and 15 in 6 O.S.No.456/2008 the 1st floor of the schedule property, but however, the katha in respect of the entire schedule property continued in the name of their father Late R.B.Parshwanathan.
(c). They further contended that since they were not aware of the family arrangement referred to above and none of their brothers or father have disclosed the same to them, hence, the said family arrangement/oral partition is not binding on them. They further contended that their father Late R.B.Parshwanathan has executed a Will dtd.30-06- 1995 (wrongly mentioned as 13-06-1995) by which he bequeathed the shops No.1 and 2 in the ground floor in favour of 1st plaintiff, shop No.11 in the ground floor in favour of 2nd plaintiff, another shop bearing No.12 situated in the ground floor in favour of plaintiff No.3, residential portion bearing No.13 situated in the 1st floor in favour of defendant No.4 herein, who is the son of Late Sri.P.Veerendrakumar and another residential portion bearing No.18 in favour of defendant No.2 herein who is the son of 1 st defendant, all being portions of suit schedule property which were allotted to his share in the family arrangment/oral partition. They further contended that as per the said Will dtd.30-06-1995, their father Late R.B.Parshwanathan has created a life interest in favour of his wife Smt.Jayarathna making it clear that their mother shall enjoy the income of the property which was the subject matter of the Will during her 7 O.S.No.456/2008 life time. They further contended that their father died on 26-12-2001 and thereafter, their mother Smt.Jayarathna also died on 23-01-2007 and after the death of their mother, the properties mentioned in the Will were required to be shared as stated in the Will, as such, they approached the tenants requesting them to pay the rents to their hands who refused and neglected to pay the rents stating that defendant No.1 and Late Sri.P.Veerendrakumar are their land lords and they are paying the rents to them. They further contended that thereafter, they approached the defendant No.1 and late Sri.P.Veerendrakumar demanding their legitimate share in the schedule property, for which they gave evasive replies and as such, they got issued a legal notice dtd.13-08-2007 to defendant No.1 and Late Sri.P.Veerendrakumar who was alive then, calling upon them to allot their legitimate shares in the schedule property in the event of their unwillingness to obey the terms of the Will dtd. 30-06-1995.
(d). They further contended that defendant No.1 and Late Sri.P.Veerendrakumar after receiving the said legal notices have got issued a reply dtd.04-09- 2007 specifically asserting that there was an alleged Will dtd.22-12-2001 alleged to be executed by their father Late R.B.Parshwanathan and as such, question of honouring the Will dtd.30-06-1995 did not arise. They further contended that to the said reply notice, they have sent a rejoinder dtd; 09-11-2007 pointing 8 O.S.No.456/2008 out that as on 22-12-2001 on which the alleged Will is said to be executed by Late R.B.Parshwanathan, he was not in sound disposing state of mind and that the alleged Will is shrouded by doubtful circumstances and as such, the defendant No.1 and Late Sri.P.Veerendrakumar could not claim any rights under the said alleged Will dtd.22-12-2001 and demanded them to give their legitimate share in the schedule property as the schedule property is their ancestral property for which there was no response. They further contended that by that time, their brother Late Sri.P.Veerendrakumar died on 06-11- 2007 leaving defendant No.3 and 4 as his legal representatives, hence, defendants 3 and 4 are arrayed as necessary parties to this suit. They further contended that the suit schedule property being their ancestral property belonged to their grandfather Brahmasuraiah having been succeeded by their father Late R.B.Parshwanathan as kartha of joint Hindu family consisting of himself, his wife, his sons and themselves, they are entitled for 1/5th share each over the schedule property as they continued to be in joint possession of the same even after the death of their parents and since the 1st defendant and Late Sri.P.Veerendrakumar refused to effect partition of the schedule property, they have come up with this suit seeking for partition and separate possession of 1/5th share each over the schedule property and prayed to decree the suit.
9O.S.No.456/2008
3. After service of summons,the defendants appeared through their advocate and defendants No.1 and 3 have filed their written statement opposing the suit claim and sought for dismissal of the same and defendants No.1 and 4 filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by the defendants No.1 and 3 as their written statements. The brief facts of the defence set up by the defendants in their written statement are as follows:
(a). While admitting the relationship of themselves with the plaintiffs as true and correct, they also admitted the existence of the suit schedule property and the nature of its acquisition, but they contended that it is not only the father of the plaintiff who developed the suit schedule property, but defendant No.1 has also invested huge amounts for the purpose of developing the suit schedule property and that it is he who has invested the amount for the recent constructions. While admitting the part of paragraphs No.5 and 6 as correct, they denied the rests of the said paragraphs averments and also the averments made at paragraph No.7 of the plaint and contended that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the suit schedule property and to collect the rents. While admitting the receipt of legal notice and also the issuance of reply notice dtd.04-9-2007, they contended that Late R.B.Parshwanathan had executed a Will dtd.22-12-2001 and denied that on 22-12- 10
O.S.No.456/2008 2001, Late R.B.Parshwanathan was not in sound disposing state of mind to execute the Will dtd.22-12- 2001 and that the same is shrouded with doubtful circumstances and further contended that in view of the Will dtd.22-12-2001, the plaintiffs have no rights over the schedule property.
(b). They further contended that there is no joint family or joint family property and hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any share in the suit schedule property. They further contended that the plaintiffs are fully aware about the execution of the Will dtd.22-12-2001 and that they have admitted the existence of the said Will. They further contended that the suit schedule property was developed and constructed not only by Late R.B.Parshwanathan, but also by defendant No.1 who has contributed his huge amount for the purpose of constructing the same and that the suit schedule property consists of ground floor plus two floors. They further contended that there was a family arrangement on 02-07-1988 allocating the shares among the two sons and while doing so, the plaintiffs' alleged shares were not ignored as contended by the plaintiffs and taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances then existing, the said family arrangement was made and was confirmed by Deed of Confirmation dtd.01-10- 1990, which the plaintiffs are aware and the date of Will as mentioned in plaint showing the same 11 O.S.No.456/2008 executed on 13-06-1995 is false and the same must be dtd.30-06-1995 and that the alleged Will dtd.30- 06-1995 was cancelled by Late R.B.Parshwanathan by executing the subsequent Will dtd.22-12-2001 taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances then existing.
(c). They further contended that Late R.B.Parshwanathan had given site properties to each one of the plaintiffs which the plaintiffs have purposefully not disclosed in the plaint and Late R.B.Parshwanathan by paying the entire consideration for allotment of the said sites in the name of each plaintiffs and got them allotted in their names who have already sold the said sites allotted to them at J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru. They further contended that as per the terms of the Will dtd.22-12-2001, they are entitled to collect the rents from the tenants and that since the Will dtd.30-06-1995 came to be revoked by the last Will executed by Late R.B.Parshwanathan on 22-12-2001, there is no cause of action for this suit and the plaintiffs have come up with a false and imaginary cause of action to file this suit and therefore, with these averments, they sought for dismissal of the suit.
4. On the basis of the rival contentions taken up by the respective parties, the following issues have been 12 O.S.No.456/2008 framed by my Learned predecessor in office for disposal of the case:
ISSUES 1 .Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule property is their ancestral property?
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the 1 st defendant and Late Sri.P.Veerendrakumar have made a family arrangement on 2-7-
1988 (wrongly mentioned as 2-7-1998) by allocating their shares in the schedule property as per their convenience ignoring the shares of the plaintiffs and without obtaining their consent for such family arrangement, hence, they are not bound by the same?
3. Whether plaintiffs further prove that their father Late R.B.Parshwanathan has executed a Will dtd.30-06-1995 (wrongly mentioned as 13-06-1995) and he bequeathed shops in the suit schedule property as mentioned in para-6 of the plaint?
4. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to 1/5th share each in the schedule property?
5. Whether the defendants prove that there is no joint family property, hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any share in the suit schedule property?
6.Whether the defendants prove that the date of the Will as mentioned in the plaint is wrong, it must be 30-06-1995 and not 13- 06-1995?
13O.S.No.456/2008
7. Whether the defendants further prove that the alleged Will dtd.30-06-1995 was cancelled by Late R.B.Parshwanathan and executed a Will dtd.22-12-2001?
8. Whether the defendants further prove that Late R.B.Parshwanathan under the Will dtd.22-12-2001 has given other property to each one of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have purposely not disclosed in the plaint?
9. There is no cause of action for the suit?
10. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs sought for?
11. What decree or order?
5. In order to substantiate the case made out by the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No.3 got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.13. In the cross-examination of P.W. 1, Ex.D. 1 came to be marked and after her cross-
examination, plaintiffs closed their side by reserving their right to lead rebuttal evidence. To rebut the case of the plaintiffs, the defendant No.1 got examined himself as D.W.1 and got marked the documents as per Ex.D.2 to D.16 and got examined one of the attesting witnesses of Ex.D. 1 as D.W. 2 and after examination of both D.Ws.1 and 2, the defendants closed their side evidence. Thereafter, P.W.1 gave her rebuttal evidence and closed her 14 O.S.No.456/2008 side evidence. Thereafter, the case was posted for arguments.
6. I have heard the arguments of both the counsels appearing for the plaintiffs and defendants. The counsel for the plaintiffs has filed list of decisions. Perused the materials placed on record and the decisions produced by the counsel for the plaintiff.
7. On perusal of the issues framed by the Predecessor in office of this Court, the same reveals that there are mistakes in dates of oral partition and Will in issues No.2 and 3 and that the issues No. 4 to 9 are not properly framed and there are repetitions of same issues in different form and hence, the mistake in issues No.2 and 3 has to be rectified and issues No.4 to 9 needs to be recasted by deleting the same. Accordingly, the mistakes in issues No.2 and 3 are rectified and issues No.4 to 9 are deleted and one issue is recasted as Additional issue as follows:
ADDL. ISSUE:
1.Whether the defendants prove that Late R.B.Parshwanathan by validly executing a Will dtd.22-12-2001 has revoked the earlier Will dtd.30-06-1995 and bequeathed his share in suit schedule property alloted to him under the oral partition cum family arrangement dtd.02-07-1988 in favour of 1st defendant and Late Sri.P.Veerendrakumar?15
O.S.No.456/2008
8. Since the parties have understood the real matter in controversy between them and have concluded their evidence and since the original issues No.4 to 9 were not happily worded and Addl.issue No.1 is just an upgraded version of the same, there is no necessity for this Court to post the matter for additional evidence if any in respect of the said additional issue No.1. Hence, I proceed to give my findings on the above issues.
9. My findings on the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative.
Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative & partly in the negative.
Issue No.3 : In the negative.
Issue No.4 : Deleted Issue No.5 : Deleted.
Issue No.6 : Deleted.
Issue No.7 : Deleted.
Issue No.8 : Deleted.
Issue No.9 : Deleted.
Issue No.10 : In the negative.
Recasted Addl.Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.11 : As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
10. ISSUES NO.1:- The relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants is not in dispute and so also the existence of the suit schedule property and 16 O.S.No.456/2008 its nature. The plaintiffs have specifically contended that the suit schedule property originally belonged to their paternal grandfather late Brahmasuraiah, which was succeeded by their father late R.B.Parshwanathan being the only legal heir and he got the katha of the suit schedule property transferred to his name and constructed commercial building named Brahmajyothi Market consisting of 12 shops in ground floor with a common passage and residential portions in the 1 st floor and that their father being the kartha of the joint family consisting of himself, his wife, plaintiffs and defendants was managing the affairs of the entire suit schedule property. The said fact has not been specifically denied by the defendants any where either in the written statement or in their evidences. That apart, the plaintiff No.3 who has examined herself as P.W. 1 while reiterating the said averments has produced the katha extract of suit schedule property as per Ex.P.2 and Encumbrance certificate as per Ex.P.1 which clearly demonstrate that the suit schedule property is standing in the name of the father of the plaintiffs named Late R.B.Parshwanathan. However, no documents have been produced by either of the parties to show how Late R.B.Parshwanathan and his father acquired the suit property and that whether the suit schedule property in the hands of Late R.B.Parshwanathan was acquired by him as his absolute separate property or as a kartha of the joint family consisting of plaintiffs, 17 O.S.No.456/2008 defendants and himself. Hence, in the absence of any documents or any plea to the effect that the same was the absolute property of Late R.B.Parshwanathan by the defendants, the contention of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property is their ancestral property which remained unchallenged will have to be accepted as admission. Therefore, in view of the said admission by defendants and the documentary evidence led in by the plaintiffs, there is no hesitation for this Court to hold that the plaintiffs have proved that the suit schedule property is their ancestral property. Accordingly, I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative.
11. ISSUE NO.2:- It is the specific case of the plaintiff that on 02-07-1988 their father Late R.B.Parshwanathan, the 1st defendant herein and Late Sri.P.Veerendrakumar have made a family arrangement/oral partition by allocating their shares in the schedule property as per their convenience ignoring their shares without even obtaining their consent for such family arrangement and the said family arrangement has been further confirmed by them by entering into a Deed of Confirmation dtd.01- 10-1990 and as per the said family arrangement, their father got shops bearing No.1, 2, 11 and 12 situated in ground floor and residential portions bearing No.13 and 18 situated at 1st floor of the schedule property, similarly, the defendant No.1 herein was allotted with 18 O.S.No.456/2008 shops No.7 to 10 situated in ground floor and residential house bearing No.17 along with adjoining opening space bearing No.16 situated in the 1 st floor of the schedule property and Late Sri.P.Veerendrakumar was allotted with shops bearing No.3 to 6 in ground floor and residential portions bearing No.14 and 15 in the 1st floor of the schedule property and since the katha of the schedule property continued to be in the name of their father Late R.B.Parshwanathan, the said family arrangement is not binding on them.
12. The defendants on the other hand while admitting the fact of entering into the said family arrangement dtd.02-07-1988, which according to them was an oral partition of the suit schedule property made between the 1st defendant Late Sri.P.Veerendrakumar and their father Late R.B.Parshwanathan, they further contended that though they have not informed about the said oral partition to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs had knowledge about the same and they have never challenged the said oral partition at any point of time and they have virtually admitted the said oral partition by specifically relying on the Will dtd.30-06-
1995 executed by their father Late R.B.Parshwanathan and as such, the said oral partition is binding on the plaintiffs.
13. The plaintiffs who have questioned the said family arrangement cum oral partition dtd.02-7-1988 and 19 O.S.No.456/2008 the Deed of Confirmation dtd.01-10-1990, they themselves have produced the original Deed of Confirmation dtd.01-10-1990 as per Ex.P. 11 and as rightly contended by the defendants, even though they have questioned the said oral partition, they themselves have tried to rely upon Ex.P.11 Deed of Confirmation and the hand written Will executed by their father Late R.B.Parshwanathan on 30-06-1995 and got produced the said Will which has been marked as Ex.P. 12 in the evidence of P.W. 1. That apart, during the course of their pleadings as well as in their evidence, they sought for partition of suit schedule property based on the bequest made by their father Late R.B.Parshwanathan under Ex.P. 12 Will. Therefore, virtually they have admitted the said oral partition cum family arrangement made between their father, defendant No.1 and Late Sri.P.Veerendrakumar and that based on the oral partition as per Ex.P. 11, the respective parties are in possession of their respective shares by acting upon the said oral partition despite katha of the suit schedule property remaining in the name of Late R.B.Parshwanathan. Since, the plaintiffs have admitted the said oral partition and relied on the said subsequent Will executed by their father who by basing upon the said oral partition has bequeathed the properties fell to his share in the said oral partition among the plaintiffs and his grand children who are defendants 2 and 4, this Court is of the opinion that the said oral partition 20 O.S.No.456/2008 is binding on the plaintiffs as the plaintiffs by their conduct have admitted the bindingness of the said oral partition and it is permissible under the unamended Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to prove oral partition which was in existence and applicable to the case on hand as the father of the plaintiffs died in the year 2001 much earlier to coming into force of the Amended Hindu Succession Act of 2005 which provided for proof of partition only under two modes, viz., registered partition and partition through final decree passed by a competent Court. As such, the said oral partition definitely binds the plaintiffs in view of their own admission. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that though plaintiffs have proved that oral partition was entered by their brothers and father without their consent, by their own admission they failed to prove that the same is not binding on them and therefore, there is no hesitation for this Court to answer issue No.2 partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative. Accordingly, I answer issue No.2 partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative.
14. ISSUE NO.3:- It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that after entering into the oral family arrangement on 02-07-1988 and reducing the terms of the same into a Deed of Confirmation dtd.01-10-1990 as per Ex.P. 11, their father Late R.B.Parshwanathan executed a Will 21 O.S.No.456/2008 in his own hand writing on 30-06-1995 bequeathing the properties fell to his share under the said oral partition cum deed of confirmation, where under he bequeathed the shops No.1 and 2 situated in the ground floor of the suit schedule property in favour of 1st plaintiff, shop No.11 situated in the ground floor in favour of 2nd plaintiff, another shop bearing No.12 situated in the ground floor in favour of plaintiff No.3, residential portion bearing No.13 situated in the 1 st floor in favour of defendant No.4, and another residential portion bearing No.18 situated in the 1 st floor of the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.2 herein and created a life interest in favour of his wife Smt.Jayarathna making it clear that the mother of the plaintiffs Smt. Jayarathna shall enjoy the income derived from the property during her life time and that after her death, the properties mentioned in the Will shall be required to be shared by the respective beneficiaries under the said Will. They further contended that after executing the said Will, their father Late R.B.Parshwanathan died on 26- 12-2001 and after his death their mother Smt.Jayarathna also died on 23-01-2007 and as such, they became entitled to the respective portions allotted to them under the said Will dtd.30-06-1995.
15. To prove the said contentions, the 3rd plaintiff has examined herself as P.W. 1 and reiterated the said averments and has got marked the said Will dtd.30- 22 O.S.No.456/2008 06-1995 which is in the hand writing of Late R.B.Parshwanathan as per Ex.P. 12 and the death certificate of Late R.B.Parshwanathan issued by BBMP as per Ex.P. 3. Except the said oral evidence of P.W. 1 and the above said documentary evidence, the plaintiffs have not examined any of the attesting witnesses to prove the due execution of the said Will as required under Sec.68 of Indian Evidence Act. On the other hand, the defendants have not denied the execution of the said Ex.P. 12 Will by Late R.B.Parshwanathan, but it is their specific contention that Late R.B.Parshwanathan by executing another Will dtd.22-12-2001 has revoked the earlier Will dtd.30-06-1995 and made a fresh bequest in favour of defendant No.1 and Late Sri.P.Veerendrakumar. The said fact is not only been admitted in the written statement, but also in the evidence of defendant No.1 in his examination-in-chief affidavit and during the course of his cross-examination also, D.W. 1 has admitted that his father Late R.B.Parshwanathan had executed a Will dtd.30-06-1995 and under the said Will, he had bequeathed the shops bearing No.1 and 2 situated in the ground floor in favour of 1 st plaintiff, shop No.11 to 2nd plaintiff, shop No.12 to plaintiff No.3, residential portion bearing No.13 situated in the 1st floor in favour of defendant No.4, and another residential portion bearing No.18 situated in the 1 st floor of the suit schedule property in favour of his son, who is the defendant No.2 herein. Therefore, by virtue 23 O.S.No.456/2008 of the said admission made by defendant No.1 that Late R.B.Parshwanathan had executed a Will in his own hand writing on 30-06-1995 as per Ex.P. 12, it can be held that the plaintiffs have proved the execution of Ex.P. 12 Will dtd.30-06-1995 by their father Late R.B.Parshwanathan. But, since the plaintiffs have not complied the mandatory provisions of Sec.68 of The Indian Evidence Act by examining any of the attesting witnesses to the said Will, the said Ex.P. 12 Will cannot be used/treated as evidence by this Court, in view of the mandate made under Sec.68 of the Indian Evidence Act, wherein it has been stated that a document which is required by law to be attested shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness has at least been called for proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive and subject to process of Court and capable of giving evidence. No doubt, the plaintiffs have elicited from the mouth of D.W. 1 that both the attesting witnesses of the said Will named R.S.Devendra and H.P.Dharanendranatha are not alive and that the said persons have also affixed their signatures as attesting witnesses to Ex.P. 11, Deed of Confirmation of oral partition, apart from being the attesting witnesses of Ex.P. 12, still there were options for the plaintiffs to prove the due of execution of Ex.P. 12 by examining any of the legal heirs of the said attesting witnesses named R.S.Devendra and H.P.Dharanendranatha or any person who is acquainted with their signatures 24 O.S.No.456/2008 and to identify their signatures found on Ex.P. 12 which the plaintiffs have not done. Hence, for that reason, even though the defendants have admitted the execution of the said Will by Late R.B.Parshwanathan as per Ex.P. 12, since plaintiffs have not complied the mandatory provisions of the Indian Evidence Act described in Sec.68 to 71, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the due execution of the same. Hence, there is no hesitation for this Court to answer issue No.3 in the negative.
16. ADDL.ISSUE NO.1:- It is the specific case of the defendants that Late R.B.Parshwanathan while he was in a sound disposing state of mind, by executing a Will dtd.22-12-2001 has revoked the earlier Will dtd. 30-06-1995 taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances then existing as he had given the other properties to each one of the plaintiffs which the plaintiffs have purposefully not disclosed in the plaint. They further contended that Late R.B.Parshwanathan by paying the entire sale consideration for allotment of the sites situated at J.P.Nagar bearing No.186, 187 and 240 in each one of the plaintiffs' name from Subedharpalya Co-Operative Building Society, Bengaluru, which have been sold by all the plaintiffs and as such, Late R.B.Parshwanathan by executing a Will dtd.22-12-2001 bequeathed the properties fell to his share under the said oral partition dtd.02-07- 1988 in favour of 1st defendant and Late 25 O.S.No.456/2008 Sri.P.Veerendrakumar and as such, by his subsequent act of executing another Will dtd.22-12-2001, the earlier Will dtd.30-06-1995 executed by him has been cancelled by Late R.B.Parshwanathan and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any share in the suit schedule property.
17. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the said Will dtd.22-12-2001 alleged to have been executed by Late R.B.Parshwanathan is not duly executed by Late R.B.Parshwanathan and that the same is not a valid Will as the said Late R.B.Parshwanathan was not in a sound disposing state of mind on the said date and that the alleged Will is shrouded by doubtful circumstances. They further contended that since the said Will has not seen the light of the day and the defendants have not disclosed the existence of the same right from the date of death of Late R.B.Parshwanathan till they received a reply notice dtd.04-09-2007 in answer to their legal notice dtd.13-08-2007, the said Will is a concocted and fraudulent document created by the defendants to defraud their legitimate share over the same. They further contended that since their father Late R.B.Parshwanathan died immediately within 3 days from the date of alleged execution of the Will dtd.22- 12-2001, the said circumstance itself shows that the Will is shrouded by suspicious circumstances.
26O.S.No.456/2008
18. To prove the due execution of the said Will dtd.22-12- 2001, the counsel for the defendant No.1 during the course of cross-examination of P.W. 1 has confronted the Will dtd.22-12-2001 to P.W. 1 who has admitted that the signatures of the testator Late R.B.Parshwanathan found on the said Will are that of her father and as such the said Will came to be marked as Ex.D.1. That apart, defendant No.1 who has examined as D.W. 1 while reiterating the written statement averments got marked the documents like applications filed by his father Late R.B.Parshwanathan for transfer of katha of the suit schedule property as per Ex.D. 2 and Ex.D. 3, draft Wills as per Ex.D. 4 and D.5, Encumbrance certificates as per Ex.D. 6 to D.13, tax paid receipts as per Ex.D. 14 to D.16. Apart from that, he got examined one of the attesting witnesses of the Will dtd.22-12-2001 named P.Chandra Kumar as D.W. 2 and closed his side. D.W.2 in his examination-in-chief affidavit has specifically stated that he happened to be the co-brother of defendant No.1 and he has affixed his signature as one of the attesting witnesses to Ex.D. 1 Will dtd.22-12-2001 and that Late R.B.Parshwanathan had executed the said Will dtd.22-12-2001 at his home situated at No.28, 2 nd Cross, J.S.Nagar, Nandini Layout, Bengaluru in presence of himself and other attesting witnesses named Chandrashekar and Sreedhar and also in presence of an advocate named Sri.V.N.Ramaiah who 27 O.S.No.456/2008 had scribed the said Will as per the instructions of Late R.B.Parshwanathan. He has further deposed that Late R.B.Parshwanathan had affixed his signatures after the said advocate has read over the Will prepared by him and explained the contents of the said Will to all the persons who were present on the said date and thereafter, Late R.B.Parshwanathan has accepted the contents of the said Will and then affixed his signatures before himself and other witnesses and advocate. He further deposed that thereafter, Late R.B.Parshwanathan requested the said two attesting witnesses Chandrashekar and Shreedhar to affix their signatures who have signed the said Will in the presence of Late R.B.Parshwanathan and he has also affixed his signature as one of the attesting witnesses to the said Will in presence of Late R.B.Parshwanathan as requested by him and at the time of execution of the said Will, Late R.B.Parshwanathan was able to talk and was mentally fully alert and was capable of understanding the nature of his dispositions and consequences of his acts. By deposing so, he has identified his signature as Ex.D. 1(a) and the signatures of Late R.B.Parshwanathan found on the Ex.D. 1 Will as per Ex.D. 1(b) to D.1(g), the signatures of Shreedhar and Chandrashekar as Ex.D. 1(h) and (i) and the signature of the advocate Sri.V.N.Ramaiah as per Ex.D. 1(j).
28O.S.No.456/2008
19. If the cross-examination portion of D.W. 2 is carefully perused, absolutely, nothing has been elicited from the mouth of D.W. 2 to discredit his evidence and to disbelieve the due execution of Ex.D. 1 Will dtd.22-12- 2001. Though several suggestions were made by the counsel for the plaintiffs to establish that the health condition of Late R.B.Parshwanathan as on 22-12- 2001 was not good and that he was not in a sound disposing state of mind due to the paralysis stroke alleged to have been attacked to him on 15-12-2001 and also due to his other old age ailments, nothing much has been elicited from his mouth than small contradictions which are bound to happen in each and every case and the evidence of D.W. 2 remained unshaken. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the evidence of D.W. 2 and merely because he happened to be the co-brother of defendant No.1, it cannot be said that he is an interested witness. That apart, if Ex.D. 1 Will is carefully perused, Late R.B.Parshwanathan has clearly stated that there was a partition between him and his two sons under the Deed of confirmation dtd.01-10-1990 and that under the said partition, he had retained 4 shops in the ground floor bearing shop Nos.10/1, 10/2, 10/11 and 10/12 and two houses bearing No.10/13 and 10/18 in the first floor, that he had executed a Will dtd.30- 06-1995, under which he had bequeathed certain properties to his three daughters who are the 29 O.S.No.456/2008 plaintiffs herein and that he has already performed the marriages of all his daughters, who are all happily leaving with their husbands. He has also narrated that he along with his wife Smt.Jayarathna is residing separately from his children at No.28, 2 nd Cross, J.S.Nagar, Nandini Layout, Bengaluru and that in the previous Will dtd.30-06-1995 he had not mentioned the properties given to his three daughters due to some pressure from them at the time of executing the previous Will and that he got allotted 3 sites bearing Nos.187, 240 and 186 all situated at J.P.Nagar, II Phase, Bengaluru -560 078 from Subedar Palya Co- operative Building Society in favour of Smt.Sukanya, Asha, Latha who are the plaintiffs No.2, 3 and 1 respectively, by paying sale consideration from his own funds and that the suit schedule property which was in dilapidated condition and was not yielding any earnings and that he demolished the same and by availing loan has put up construction of a building named Brahmajyothi Market and as such, he became the absolute owner of the same having absolute right to dispose of the same and that the 1st defendant out of his own earnings has built 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors on schedule property and with a view that there shall not be any dispute after his death between his sons and daughters, he has executed this Will and that he is desirous out of his own wish and volition to bequeath his share property among his two sons and accordingly, by describing the share retained by him 30 O.S.No.456/2008 under the said oral partition as 'B' schedule property and bequeathed the same in favour of 1 st defendant and Late Sri.P.Veerendrakumar by describing their respective shares in the suit schedule property as 'C' schedule property and 'D' schedule property under the said Will. Admittedly, the signatures found on Ex.D. 1 is the signature of Late R.B.Parshwanathan as the plaintiff No.3 who has examined herself as P.W. 1, in her cross-examination has admitted that the signatures found on Ex.D. 1 are the signatures of her father. Therefore, in view of the said admission made by P.W. 1 coupled with the evidence of D.W. 1 and D.W. 2, it can be held that Late R.B.Parshwanathan had executed Ex.D. 1 Will.
20. Now the question that remains to be answered is whether the said execution of the Will by Late R.B.Parshwanathan amounted to a due execution of the same and that whether by understanding the nature of the said Will and the consequences of execution of the said Will Late R.B.Parshwanathan had affixed his signatures to Ex.D. 1 and that whether he was capable of executing the said Will. As already discussed, D.W. 2 has in an unequivocal terms deposed that Late R.B.Parshwanathan was in sound disposing state of mind even though he had suffered paralysis stroke and was able to talk with him and other witnesses who were present and that by understanding the nature of the disposition and his 31 O.S.No.456/2008 acts, he has affixed his signatures to the said Will. Except few suggestions made by the counsel for the plaintiff which have been denied by D.W.2, absolutely, nothing has been elicited from his mouth which could create a doubt in the mind of this Court about the due execution of the said Will and the incapability of Late R.B.Parshwanathan to understand the nature of the disposition and the consequences of the same. Similarly, the counsel for the plaintiff has failed to elicit from the mouth of D.W. 1 also that the health condition of Late R.B.Parshwanathan was in deteriorated condition and that he was incapable of executing the said Will.
21. During the course of arguments, the counsel for the plaintiff has vehementally argued that Late R.B.Parshwanathan was not in sound state of mind, that he immediately died within 3 days from the date of alleged execution of Ex.D. 1 Will, that the same is created as the attesting witnesses are all related to defendant No.1, that the evidence of D.W. 2 who happened to be the co-brother of defendant No.1 cannot be believed as he is an interested witness, that a perusal of Ex.D. 1 Will shows that the disposition of the properties is not even, that if really Late R.B.Parshwanathan had executed Ex.D.1, he could have summoned the same witnesses who have witnessed Ex.P. 11 and 12 to attest Ex.D. 1 as he was very choosy in making friendship and building 32 O.S.No.456/2008 relationship, that he was a Law Graduate and if really he wanted to change the Will, he could execute the same immediately within one or two years from the date of execution of Ex.P. 12 and he need not have waited for 7 long years that too when he was in death bed he could not have think of changing or revoking the terms of earlier Will, a perusal of Ex.D. 1 also discloses the active participation of beneficiaries which is also one of the ground to see the said Will under suspicious circumstance, that no father having equal love and affection towards all his children would discriminate his children and dis-inherit the daughters to whom when he was in a sound and stable state of mind had bequeathed his property under Ex.P. 12 which appears to be sound and equivalent which is not seen in Ex.D. 1 Will and therefore, the said Will as per Ex.D. 1 does not satisfy the conscience of the Court that the Will was duly executed by the testator and for all these reasons, the said Will cannot be believed to be validly executed by Late R.B.Parshwanathan and in support of his arguments, he has relied on the following decisions:
1. AIR 1986 ALLAHABAD 236 in the matter between Smt.Sushila Devi Vs. Om Prakash & Others, wherein it has been held as under:
Succession Act (39 of 1925), S.61-Will-Genuineness of
-Burden of proof-Two Wills-Second Will neither equitable nor natural -Beneficiary not proving extraordinary circumstances justifying exclusion of others similarly related to testator-Will is product of coercion.33
O.S.No.456/2008
2.AIR 1990 SUPREME COURT 396 in the matter between Kalyan Singh Vs. Smt.Chhoti & Others, wherein it has been held as under:
(B)Succession Act (39 of 1925), S.61-Will-Genuineness -proof-
Failure of plaintiff to remove suspicious circumstances by placing satisfactory material on record -Will could be said to be not genuine.
3.AIR 1976 CALCUTTA 377 in the matter between Susama Bala Devi & Others Vs. Anath Nath Tarafdar & Other, wherein it has been held as under:
(A)Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.67, S.68, S.45, S.47- Proof of Will-Onus is on propounder -Existence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the will- Onus to explain such circumstances lies upon the propounder- Allegations of fraud, undue influence and coercion -Onus lies on caveator
-Appreciation of evidence. Succession Act (39 of 1925), S.59, S.63.
4.AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 1389 in the matter between Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat vs. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria & Ors., wherein it has been held as under:
Succession Act (39 of 1925), S.63(c) -Will- Execution - Proof - Only one attesting witness examined - who typed will not known - who scribed Will also not known -Will produced from custody of one attesting witness -How he came in custody of Will not explained - He also stated that testator put signature in his presence, however, at that point of time other attesting witness had not put his signature-It has, therefore, not been proved that both attesting witnesses wither attested Will in presence of each other or testator had acknowledged his signature in presence of other witnesses -Large number of suspicious circumstances -Held that execution of Will was not proved.
5.(2009) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 687 in the matter between Bharpur Singh & Others Vs. Shamsher Singh, wherein it has been held as under:
B.Family and Personal Laws- Will- Genuineness -Burden of proof-Due execution of Will- When natural heirs disinherited and propounder taking interest in the Will- Testatrix executing/registering a will in favour of outsiders claiming to be looking after her by disinheriting her natural heirs/daughters-Testatrix dying in said outsiders' house (as claimed) and daughters of testatrix learning of testatrix's death after 5 to 6 days -Said outsiders relying on the Will in suit for possession and correction f RoR recorded in the daughters' name -Though the Will was a registered one, the propounder, held must prove the due execution of the Will- Propounder must also prove the sound and disposing state of 34 O.S.No.456/2008 the testator's mind and signature -Succession Act, 1925
-Ss.63, 59 and 61 -Evidence Act, 1872, Ss.101 to 104 and 68.
6.(1977) 1 SUPREME COURT CASES 369 in the matter between Smt.Jaswant Kaur Vs. Smt.Amrit Kaur & Others, it has been held as under:
Will- Burden of proof -extent of -suspicious circumstances- Held, evidence adduced must satisfy the Court's conscience- Extent of burden of proof on the propounder explained -Tests laid down in Iyengar's case affirmed -On facts, held, will not duly proved - Indian Succession Act, 1925, Sec.63.
22. The said arguments canvassed by the counsel for the plaintiffs has been countered by the counsel for the defendants who argued that by examining one of the attesting witnesses to Ex.D. 1 Will, the defendants have proved the due execution of the same and merely because the attesting witnesses happened to be his co-brother, it cannot be held that he was an interested witness and merely because late R.B.Parshwanathan died immediately within a short span of 3-4 days from the date of execution of the Will, that by itself will not invalidate the due execution of the Will or create a suspicious circumstance as late Late R.B. Parshwanathan was maintaining good health and was in sound disposing state of mind till his last breath and he was in the habit of executing the Will being a Law Graduate, which could be evidenced by the draft Wills marked as Ex.D. 4 and D.5 and therefore, in view of the due execution of the said Will and proper explanation offered by D.W. 1 in discharging the burden of proving the execution of the Will, it has to be held that the defendants have duly proved the due execution of the Will.35
O.S.No.456/2008
23. Keeping the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and High Courts in mind and the facts and circumstances under which the said law has been applied laid down by the above said Hon'ble Courts, if the facts and circumstances of this case are observed and the arguments canvassed by both sides are taken into consideration, the arguments canvassed by the counsel for the plaintiff though in principle are quite acceptable since the D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 have in an unequivocal terms have deposed regarding the due execution of the Will by late Late R.B.Parshwanathan by giving sufficient acceptable explanation in answer to the suspicious circumstances raised by the plaintiffs and since the plaintiffs have failed to discharge the onus of proving the alleged ill-health of their father as on the said date of execution of the Will, which was shifted on them, it cannot be held that Late R.B.Parshwanathan was not in sound disposing state of mind and that he has not validly executed Ex.D. 1 Will.
24. The another contention of the plaintiffs that since their father had been attacked with stroke to his right side of his body and brain, due to which he was not in a position to understand the nature of the document which he is going to execute and the effect of the same and he was not even able to talk with anybody and that he was bedridden cannot be believed without placing any medical records before this Court. The 36 O.S.No.456/2008 plaintiffs have also not examined any medical expert in this regard. The only document produced by them is the death certificate issued by St.Martha's Hospital, marked as Ex.P. 13 which indicates that the cause for death was due to right middle cerebral artery infarction (MCA Infarct), systemic hypertension, diabetes mellitus, aspiration pneumonia. None of the said causes do not have the symptoms of causing mental ill-health or imbalance or instability of mental health and it is to be noted that MCA Stroke happens due to sudden neurological deficit and if the stroke attacks to the right part of the cerebral region (right MCA), the impact is on the opposite side of the lower part of the body and it does not cause any mental instability or illness which will rule out a person from being capable of maintaining mental health. As such, the contention of the plaintiffs that the right part of lower body of late Late R.B.Parshwanathan was not functioning and that he was not in a position to affix his signature, etc. cannot be believed and consequently, it cannot be held that due to the stroke on the right part of his brain, Late Sri.R.B. Parshwanathan was not in stable state of mind to execute the Will.
25. That apart, Late R.B.Parshwanathan was a Law Graduate and was a man of self confidence as per the oral evidence of the parties to the suit and he was residing separately from both his sons and daughters.
37O.S.No.456/2008 As such, the question of anybody putting him under the undue influence, misrepresentation, fraud, etc. were too remote. The fact that P.W. 1 has clearly admitted the signatures of Late R.B.Parshwanathan found on Ex.P. 1 and the unshaky pattern of affixture of signatures by Late R.B.Parshwanathan found on Ex.D. 1 also clearly demonstrates that he was physically and mentally sound enough to execute the same. Apart from that Ex.D. 4 and D.5 Draft Wills which are in the own handwriting of Late R.B.Parshwanathan also demonstrates that right from the year 1985, Late R.B.Parshwanathan had been showing his inclination to execute the Will in favour of his two sons in respect of the properties fell to his share. No doubt, the said documents are inconsistent with the theory of oral partition put forth by both parties which was allegedly took place on 02- 07-1988 which was confirmed as per Ex.P. 11 Deed of Confirmation as the recitals found in Ex.D.3 and 4 goes to show that oral partition took place earlier to 1985 itself, but the other recitals are more consistent towards the quantum of the shares allotted to each one of them and there is no contradictions with respect to the effecting of partition among himself and his two children i.e. the 1st defendant and Late Sri.P.Veerendrakumar, but for the above contradiction with respect to date of partition. That apart, if the cross-examination portion of P.W. 1 is carefully perused, she has clearly admitted that the Will 38 O.S.No.456/2008 dtd.30-06-1995 as per Ex.P. 12 was executed by their father in their presence and all of the plaintiffs were present on the said date, which clearly corroborates the recitals found in Ex.D. 1 Will, wherein Late R.B.Parshwanathan had stated that due to the pressure of his daughters put on him at the time of executing his previous Will, he has not mentioned that the sites bearing No.187, 240 and 186 all situated at J.P.Nagar, II Phase, Bengaluru -560 078 were given to them, which were got directly alloted in the names of plaintiffs by Subedar Palya Co-operative Building Society by paying money from his own funds. As such, the contention of the plaintiffs that Ex.D. 1 Will is shrouded with suspicious circumstances as there was an active participation of the defendant No.1 and Late Sri.P.Veerendrakumar cannot be believed, per contra, the active participation of the plaintiffs in getting Ex.P. 12 executed in their favour is more apparent on the face of record. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiffs that Ex.D. 1 Will was shrouded with suspicious circumstances and that the same was got concocted by defendants in collusion with the attesting witnesses etc., cannot be accepted. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 has explained all the said suspicious circumstances by giving proper reasons and has proved the due execution of the Will by his father Late R.B.Parshwanathan as per Ex.D. 1 and that Late R.B.Parshwanathan was in sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the 39 O.S.No.456/2008 said Will and by proving the due execution of the said Will, the defendants have also proved the due revocation of the previous Will dd.30-06-1995 as per Ex.P. 12 executed by Late R.B.Parshwanathan. Hence, there is no hesitation for this Court to answer additional issue No.1 in the affirmative. Accordingly, I answer additional issue No.1 in the affirmative.
26. ISSUE NO.10:- Though the plaintiffs have proved that the suit schedule property was their ancestral property, in view of they virtually admitting the oral family arrangement cum partition dtd.02-07-1988 took place between Late R.B.Parshwanathan, the 1st defendant herein and late Late Sri.P.Veerendrakumar, the said oral partition which took place on 02-07- 1988 and reduced into writing as per Ex.P. 11 on 01- 10-1990 is binding on the plaintiffs as held by this Court while answering issue No.2 and when such is the situation in view of the plaintiffs' further failure to prove the due execution of the Will dtd.30-06-1995 and in view of the defendants proving the due execution of the subsequent Will dtd.22-12-2001 by revoking the earlier Will dtd.30-06-1995 by Late R.B.Parshwanathan, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share over the suit schedule property either in the whole of the suit schedule property or in the share allotted to their father Late R.B.Parshwanathan under the said oral partition dtd.02-07-1988 which are the subject matter of Ex.D. 1 Will. As such, there 40 O.S.No.456/2008 is no hesitation for this Court to answer issue No.10 in the negative. Accordingly, I answer issue No.10 in the negative.
27. ISSUE NO.11:- In view of the discussions made above and my findings on the above issues, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the above case, the parties are hereby directed to bear their own costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed thereof, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this THE 10 th DAY OF JANUARY 2020).
(MAANU K.S.), XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.41
O.S.No.456/2008 ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF/S:
P.W.1 Smt.Asha P. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS/S:
D.W.1 P.Prakash D.W.2 P.Chandra Kumar.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF/S:
Ex.P.1 Encumbrance certificate Ex.P. 2 Khatha extract Ex.P.3 Death certificate of Late R.B.Parshwanathan. Ex.P.4 Copy of legal notice. Ex.P.5 4 Postal receipts. Ex.P.6 Under certificate of posting. Ex.P.7 4 postal receipts Ex.P.8 Reply notice. Ex.P.9 rejoinder notice. Ex.P.10 Postal acknowledgement. Ex.P.11 Deed of confirmation of partition dtd.01-10-1990. Ex.P.12 Will 30-06-1995. Ex.P.13 Death certificate of R.B.Parshwanathan.
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANTS/S:
Ex.D.1 Will dtd.22-12-2001.
Ex.D.1(a) to (j) Signatures.
Ex.D.2 Application for change of khatha.
Ex.D.3 Khatha transfer form.
Ex.D.4 & 5 Draft Wills.
Ex.D.6 to 13 Encumbrance certificates.
ExD.14 to 16 Tax paid receipts.
(MAANU K.S.),
XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.