Bangalore District Court
Jitendra Kumar C M vs Lalitha Kumari on 27 April, 2024
1 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
KABC010129552014
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 27 th day of April, 2024
PRESENT: SRI. GANGADHARA.K.N., B.A.,LLM.,
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
(CCH.No.27), BENGALURU
O.S.No.795/2014 C/W. O.S.No. 2469/2014
O.S.No. 795/2014
PLAINTIFF : C.M. Jitendra Kumar,
S/o. Late C. Mahadev Rao,
aged about 52 years,
R/at No.30, 1st Main,
2nd Cross, Shakthinagar,
Horamavu, Kalyan nagar,
Bengaluru 560 043.
(By Sri.A.B.S. Advocate)
VS.
DEFENDANTS : 1. Lalitha Kumari,
Died on 17/4/2021.
2. Usha Devi,
Died on 16/5/2020
2 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
3. Sheshalatha @
Nasreen Jabdabaee,
D/o. Late C. Mahadev Rao,
aged about 58 years,
R/at No.77, 8th Cross,
Wilson Garden,
Bengaluru 560 027.
4. Maheshwari,
D/o. Late C. Mahadeva Rao,
aged about 56 years,
R/at No.77, 8th Cross,
Wilson Garden,
Bengaluru 560 027.
(D1 & 2 : Abated
D3 : By Sri.A.R.
D4 : By Sri. N.P. Advocate)
O.S.No. 2469/2014
PLAINTIFF : Maheshwari,
D/o. Late C. Mahadev Rao,
aged about 56 years,
R/at No.1019,
24th Main Road,
HSR Layout, Sector-I,
Bengaluru 560 102.
(By Sri.V.P.S. Advocate)
VS.
DEFENDANTS : 1. Lalitha Kumari,
3 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
W/o. Late C. Mahadev Rao.
DEAD
2. Usha Devi,
D/o. Late C. Mahadev Rao,
DEAD.
3. C.M. Jitendra Kumar,
S/o. Late C. Mahadev Rao,
aged about 52 years,
R/at No.30, 1st Main,
2nd Cross, Shakthinagar,
Horamavu, Kalyan nagar,
Bengaluru 560 043.
4. Nasreen Jabdabaee,
D/o. Late C. Mahadev Rao,
W/o. Syed Hasmathulla Jabdabaej J.B.
aged about 58 years,
R/at A10, Sabihiya Building,
3rd Floor, Flat No.18,
At A10 Maktoum Street,
Deira, Dubai.
(D1 & D2 : Abated
D3 : By Sri. S.N.R.
D4 : By Sri. A.R. Advocate)
Date of Institution of the : 28/1/2014
suit
Nature of the suit : Partition Suit
Date of commencement of : 3/9/2015
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 27/04/2024
Judgment was pronounced
4 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
Total Duration Years Months Days
10 02 29
(GANGADHARA.K.N.)
XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
COMMON JUDGMENT
The plaintiff suit for partition & separate
possession.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiffs case in
O.S.No.795/2014 are follows :-
Sri. C.M. Mahadev Rao Naidu and Smt. Lalitha
Kumari are the husband and wife, with their marriage 4
children were born namely (1) C.M. Jitendra Kumar the
plaintiff herein 2) Usha Devi-the defendant no.2, (3)
Sheshalatha @ Nasreen Jabdabee-the defendant no.3
and 4) Maheshwari-the defendant no.4. C.M.Mahadev
Rao Naidu died intestate, by leaving his wife the 1 st
defendant, who is also a mother of the plaintiff and
defendant No.2 to 4.
5 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
3. The plaintiff filed the present suit for partition
& separate possession of his 1/5th share in the suit
schedule property and also to declare the Will and gift
deed are not binding on him, consequently perpetual
injunction against his mother and sister he defendant
no.1 to 3 to not to alienate the suit schedule property.
4. In this case plaintiff contended that, He has
contributed to his father for acquiring the suit schedule
property bearing property No.78/12, new No.77/12,
situated at 3rd Main Road, 8th Cross, Wilson Garden,
Bengaluru measuring East to West 80 feet, North to
South 50 feet consisting of ground and first floor
building, in all measuring 5600 Sft., accordingly, his
father by using the contribution of the plaintiff and also
some joint family nucleus acquired the suit property
under a registered sale deed dated31/5/1991, thus its a
joint family property, his father died on 18/2/2002 by
intestate. Thus, he claimed that in the suit schedule
6 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
property he has 1/5th share.
5. His contention is that, in the first week of
November 2013, he noticed that his mother the
defendant No.1 herein was making an efforts to alienate
the suit schedule property. By doubting her conduct, he
applied for the revenue documents, found that the
defendant No.1 and 3 have created the Will, as if his late
father Mahadev Rao Naidu had executed the Will by
bequeathing the suit schedule property by creating life
interest in favour of the defendant No.1, remainder in
favour of the defendant No.3 herein. Later by virtue of the
said will, the 1st defendant No.1 had gifted the suit
schedule property in favour of the defendant No.3 herein.
6. His further contention is that, the defendant
No.3 married to an Iranian, who belongs to Islam, which
was against to the wish and will of his father, in any
chance his father had no idea to leave his will to bequeth
the suit property in favor of the 3 rd defendant. He claims
7 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
that, his father had love and affection on him, during his
lifetime in the presence of the defendants openly declared
that the suit schedule property shall goes to his son the
plaintiff alone. Alleged that, the defendant No.1 and 3 by
taking the advantage that his father died intestate, they
created some documents to deny his right over the suit
property, and making an efforts to alienate the same in
favor of some third parties. Thus, he claims that there
was a cause of action to file the present suit for partition,
declaration and injunction.
7. The defendant No.1 and 3 filed their written
statement contending that the suit of the plaintiff is false,
frivolous. There is no joint family and suit property is
not the joint family property. Plaintiff contributed no
money to his father to acquire the suit schedule property.
In fact, Mahadev Rao Naidu the father of the plaintiff was
an employee of BEML, initially had acquired the property
situated at Saneguruvanahalli village. With intent to
8 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
bequeath the said property itself in favor of the defendant
no.3, had executed the Will dated 31/8/1988, but same
didn't came into effect, as the Testator himself alienated
same in his lifetime to purchase the suit schedule
property, accordingly he acquired the suit property under
a registered sale deed dated. 31/5/1991. Thereafter with
intent to give a life interest in the said property to his
wife and to give an absolute right to the defendant No.3
herein executed the Will dated 31/3/1992. And, this
aspect has been well known to the plaintiff and other
defendants herein.
8. They further contended that, the defendant
No.1 was a teacher, who was working in Jayanagar. As
there was a difficulty to travel, she started teaching by
putting up of shed in the suit schedule property in the
year 1972 itself. Thereafter Late. Mahadev Rao Naidu
had purchased the suit schedule property under a
registered sale deed in which the defendant No.1 had
9 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
started the school, put up the construction consisting of
3 floors, in all measuring 5400 Sft. The said school is
established under a society named M/s. Eshwari
Education Society, there is a Board to manage the said
school. In the said school there are classes from LKG to
10th Standard are running, more than 800 students are
studying, more than 40 teachers are working.
9. They further contended that, the plaintiff was
a mischievous boy since from his childhood. He had no
employment. For committing some offence, the
Commercial Street Police by arrested and jailed. He was a
burden to his parents. Thus, his father Mahadev Rao
Naidu was not happy with him, there was no cordial
relationship with him till his last breath. That apart, the
plaintiff married to a Christian girl, which was against to
his parents. After the marriage, he settled in his parents
in law's home, he has not maintained his parents.
Thereafter the defendant No.1 and her husband have
10 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
performed the marriage of defendant No.2 to 4. the
defendant No.2 is a divorcee, suffering from paralysis and
now with the care and custody of the defendant No.1.
The defendant No.3 married to an Iranian boy, the
groom was well known to the defendant No.1 and her
husband late Mahadev Rao Naidu. The defendant no.3
after her marriage, she settled in Dubai. The defendant
No.3 had taken care of his parents by providing financial
assistance by attending personally whenever they were in
need of her service. By considering the service of the
defendant No.3, also with the love and affection had on
her, Late. Mahadev Rao Naidu left his last will dated.
31.3.1992 by giving life interest in the suit property to
the defendant no.1, and reminder to the defendant No.3.
After his demise the defendant No.3 continued to taken
care of her mother. She used to attend whenever her
mother fell sick and also used to extend financial
assistance. Thus her mother executed the registered Will
11 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
dated 22/2/2010 by bequeathing her interest in the suit
schedule property in favour of defendant No.3. That
apart, she also executed the gift deed dated 21/8/2010,
based on which the defendant No.3 has got the khata,
paying taxes, and she is continued be in possession of
the suit property as an absolute owner.
10. The defendant No.2 filed her separate written
statement which is in the line of the written statement
filed by the defendant No.1 and 3.
11. The defendant No.4 filed her written statement
contending that the suit schedule property is the joint
family property of the plaintiff, defendant No.1, 2 and 4
alone are the joint family members who are entitled for
1/4th share in the suit property. As the defendant No.3
married to a boy belongs to Islam religion, thus she is not
a joint family member and entitled for any share in the
suit schedule property and defendant no.3's marriage
was against to the wish and will of their parents. And
12 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
Will dated 31/3/1992 is a manipulated document.
According to the Will, the defendant No.1 had only life
interest, she had no right to gift the same in favour of
defendant No.3 herein. In fact, in the suit property her
father had put up the construction and started to run the
school, from which there is an earning of Rs.4 lakhs per
month. The defendant No.1 is liable to render the
account, in which also she is entitled for 1/4th share.
12. Brief Facts of the case in O.S.No.
2469/2014 are as follows:
. The defendant No.4 in O.S.No. 795/2014
had filed separate suit in O.S.No. 2469/2014 for the
partition and separate possession in the property
involved in O.S.No. 795/2014. Her suit is
subsequent to the the suit in O.S.No. 795/2014.
Though she could have maintained her separate
stands in her written statements, but filed this
separate suit, by raising some contrary stands of the
13 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
plaintiff in O.S.No. 795/2014.
13. Further, though both the suit for partition,
declaration and injunction between the same
parties, and on the same property, but parties have
not pressed for clubbing the matters, even
predecessors in office of this court have not felt to
club these suits to allowing the parties to lead
common evidence. Thus, the parties have lead
separate evidence. Thus, this court felt, if these
suits are disposed of under a common judgment,
that in any way causes hardship to the parties.
Infact that saves the precious time of this court.
14. Facts of this case commences
from herein onwards:
The plaintiff herein contended that the suit schedule
property has been acquired by her late father from his
self earned sources as he was a chief engineer in BEML
had sufficient nucleus to acquired the same. Her father
14 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
died intestate by leaving the plaintiff and his two other
daughters and wife, who are the parties herein as
defendant No.1, 2 and 4 and son the defendant No.3.
Her contention is that it is the plaintiff, defendant No.1-
her mother, defendant no.2-sister, defendant no.3-her
brother alone are alone entitled for the share, as her
another sister the defendant No.4 married to a Islam
groom, consequently as got converted into Muslim
religion, thus she is not entitled for the share in the suit
property.
15. She further contended that her father in his
lifetime had established M/s. Eshwari Education society,
which is running a school in the suit property from the
class of pre-nursery to 10 th standard, around 800
students are studying. After demise of her father, her
mother the defendant No.1 continued to manage the
affairs of school, from which there is a monthly income of
Rs.8,00,000/-, out of which after deducting
15 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
Rs.2,00,000/- towards the maintenance of school, there
is a saving of Rs.6,00,000/- per month, per annum
which comes of Rs.72,00,000/-, in which the plaintiff is
claiming that she is entitled for a share of Rs.18,00,000/-
(Eighteen Lakh) p.a., for a period of 12 years in all she is
entitled for 2,16,00,000/-(Two Crore Sixteen Lakh only).
16. She is further contended that the suit of her
brother in O.S.No. 795/2014 is for 1/5th share, but
which is not correct, which was not cut out properly, as
the defendant No.4 herein converted for Islam, she do not
entitled for any share, thus suit of her brother is not set
out properly which consisting of defects, which made her
to maintain separate suit.
17. She further contended that the Will dated
31/3/1992 is not a genuine, if at all the same is genuine
the defendant No.1 and 4 could not have kept quite for
all these years. Thus it is a clearly a manipulated and
fabricated document to knock away the shares of other
16 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
sharers in the suit property. And she contended that as
the defendant No.4 converted for Islam, married to a boy
belongs to the Islam, for which his father was miffed with
her. Thus her father had no to leave Will to bequeathing
the suit property in favour of defendant No.4 herein.
18. She also contended that, under a Will dated
31/3/1992 there was only a life interest in favour of the
defendant No.1. Thus, the defendant no.1 had no right
to gift the same in favour of the defendant No.4 under a
gift deed dated 12/8/2010. Thus said gift deed is not
binding on her share. Thus sought relief of partition of
her 1/3rd share in metes and bounds. Also sought the
declaration to declare the unregistered Will dated
31/3/1992 allegedly executed by her father in favour of
the defendant No.1 and 4 as a sham and colourable
document, which not binds on the plaintiff. And also
sought the declaration to declare the registered Will
dated 22/2/2010 executed by defendant No.1 in favour
17 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
of defendant No.4 as sham and created document which
is not binds on her 1/3rd share. And also sought the
declaration to declare that the gift deed dated 12/8/2010
executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the
defendant No.4 as sham and collusive document, which
is not binds on her 1/3rd share and also sought the
direction to the defendant No.1 to holding that plaintiff is
entitled for 2,16,00,000/-, which is the profit share of the
plaintiff earned from M/s. Eshwari Education Society,
with future interest @ 36% p.a. and consequential relief
of injunction to restrain the 1st and 4th defendant to
alienating or encumbering the suit schedule property
pending disposal of the suit .
19. The defendant No.1, 2 and 4 in their written
statement filed this case, contended that suit is one time
barred, and has no cause of action. Plaintiff had not
valued the suit properly and paid the proper Court fee.
They further contended that the suit property was the
18 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
self acquired property of Late. Mahadev Rao Naidu, who
bequeathed the same in favor of defendant No.4
absolutely by creating life interest in favour of his wife
the defendant No.1 by executing his last Will dated
31/3/1992. In turn the defendant No.1 gifted the same
to defendant No.4. There is no joint family, at no point of
time the suit property was the joint family property. It is
the defendant No.1 had put up the construction in the
suit property.
20. They further contended that, as the plaintiff
seeking relief of declaration and possession, thus suit is
requires to be valued U/s. 24(a) of the Karnataka Court
Fees & Suits Valuation Act. And moreover, she is seeking
share in the income earned for 12 years with interest @
36%, thus she has to pay the ad volerum Court fee. The
reliefs on income of the M/s. Eshwari Educational
Society is purely on the basis of speculation and
imaginary.
19 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
21. They further contended that, Mr. Mahadev Rao
Naidu was an employee of BEML, who initially purchased
the site at Saneguruvanahalli, bequeathed the said
property in favour of the defendant No.4, by executing
the Will dated 31/8/1998, but it did not came into effect
as the Testator himself sold the same in his life time, by
selling the same he acquired the suit schedule site on
31/5/1992. Thus it is a self acquired property of Mr.
Mahadev Rao Naidu.
22. Its their further contention is that, the
defendant No.1 was working as a teacher at Jayanagar,
as she had difficulty to travel, she by putting up of shed
in the suit schedule property started teaching in the year
1972, later she established the said school in the name of
M/s. Eshwari Nursery and Primary School, which is a
registered Society. By that time, defendant No.3 was an
unemployed, aged about 20 years, since childhood he is
a mischievous boy, involved in illegal activities, in one of
20 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
the case, he has been jailed. In fact he was a burden to
his parents. Mr. Mahadev Rao Naidu was having love
and affection on his daughter the defendant No.4. She
with the permission of her parents married to an Iranian.
She is the most loving daughter of her father, as she
used to taken care of her parents by extending even the
financial assistance. Thus her father to dispose of the
suit schedule property in his lifetime left his last Will
dated 31/3/1992. Under which the defendant no.1 is
having life interest, to dispose of her interest in the suit
property, executed will dated. 22/2/2010 by
bequeathing her life interest in favour of the defendant
No.4 and also executed the gift deed dated 12/8/2010.
Thus, by virtue of those documents, the defendant no. 4
became an absolute owner of the suit property.
23. During the pendency of the suit, as the
plaintiff got amended her plaint by seeking some more
reliefs on gift deed of the defendant No.1, the defendant
21 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
No.1, 2 and 4 have filed their additional written
statement contending that, as the Will dated 22/2/2010
will come to effect only after demise of defendant No.1,
thus the plaintiff cannot seek any relief against said Will.
24. The defendant no.3 has not chosen to file his
written statements.
25. Based on the pleadings of the parties in
O.S.No. 795/2014 and O.S.No. 2469/2014, this
Court framed the following issues, for adjudication
of the disputes of the parties.
ISSUES IN O.S.No.795/2014 :
1. Whether the plaintiff and defendants are
members of Hindu Undivided Family?
2. Whether the plaintiff and defendants are in
joint peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property?
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the Will
deed dated 31/3/1992 alleged to have been
executed by his father in favour of defendants 1
and 3 is not binding on the plaintiff?
4. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the
Will deed and gift deed executed by the 1 st
22 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
defendant in favour of 3 rd defendant being false
are not binding on the plaintiff?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition
& separate possession of his 1/5th share over the
suit schedule property as against the defendants?
6. Whether the defendants 1 and 3 prove that
late Mahadev Rao had bequeathed the suit
property through his last Will dated 31/3/1992 to
them?
7. What order or decree?
Addl. Issue:
1. Does the plaintiff proves that he is entitled
for partition & separate possession of his 1/3rd
share in the suit schedule property?
ISSUES IN O.S.No 2469/2014 :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek
share in the suit schedule property?
2. What share each of the plaintiff and
defendants is entitled to?
3. Whether the unregistered Will dated
31/3/1992 executed by the father in favour of 1 st
defendant and 4th defendant is not binding to the
extent of share of the plaintiff in the suit
property?
4. Whether the registered gift deed dated
23 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
12/8/2010 bearing registered document No.SHR-
1-00508/2010-11, in the office of sub-registrar,
Shanthinagar, Bengaluru is not binding to the
extent of plaintiff's share over the suit schedule
property?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to her share
in the income derived from the suit school?
6. What order?
26. The plaintiff in O.S.No.795/2014 in order to
prove his case, examined himself as P.W.1 and in all
produced 20 documents which were marked as Ex.P.1 to
20.
27. the Defendant No.4 in the above said case, got
examined as DW.1. Defendant No.1 got examined herself
as DW.2. As she failed to appear for facing the cross-
examination, thus her evidence got discarded and
through her Ex.D1 to D10 got marked. Defendant No.3
examined herself as DW.3, through her Ex.D11 to 48 got
marked.
28. To prove the Will dated 31/3/1992, the
24 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
defendant no. 3 got examined one of the attesting witness
to the said document as DW.4.
29. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 2469/2014 got
examined herself as P.W.1, in support of her case, got
examined 3 witnesses as P.W.2 to 4. In support of her
case produced in all 2 documents, which were marked as
Ex.P1 and P2. Defendant No.4 in the said got was
examined as DW.1. In support of her evidence produced
in all 51 documents, which were got marked as Ex.D1 to
D51. And, she examined one of the attesting witness to
the will of her father, as D.W.No.2.
30. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
for the plaintiffs in both case and defendants. That apart,
the plaintiff in O.S.No. 795/2014 filed his written
synopsis, with the list of citations and Defendant no.3 in
O.S.No.795/2014, who is also a defendant no.4 in
O.S.No. 2469/2014 have also filed her written synopsis
with the list of citation.
25 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
31. The plaintiffs and defendants in both the case
are common and subject matter of suit property is one
and the same and both the suits are for partition &
separate possession.
32. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 795/2014 claiming
that the suit property is the joint family property, even he
claims to have contributed to his father to acquire the
suit property. Thus, he contended that his father had no
absolute right to bequeath the same and the alleged Will
of his father is a created document.
33. Wherein the plaintiff in O.S.No. 2469/2014
who is also the defendant No.4 in O.S.No. 795/2014 filed
her written statement. Thereafter she filed the separate
suit for partition. She contended that, suit property is the
absolute property of her father, he died intestate. As the
defendant No.4 got married to an Iranian and converted
for Islam, she do not entitled for any share in the suit
property. That apart she sought some more reliefs on the
26 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
Will, Gift deed, and even sought share in the profit
earned by the School running in the suit property. Thus
this Court felt, if both the suits are disposed off under a
common judgment, no hardship would be causes to the
parties.
34. My findings to the above said issues framed in
the O.S.No. 795/2014:
Issue No.1: In Negative
Issue No.2: In Negative
Issue No.3: In Negative
Issue No.4: In Negative
Issue No.5: In Negative
Issue No.6: In Affirmative
Addl. Issue no.1: In Negative
Issue No.7: As per final order,
for the following:-
35. My findings to the above said issues framed in
the O.S.No. 2469/2014:
Issue No.1: In Negative
Issue No.2: As per the final order.
27 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
Issue No.3: In Negative.
Issue No.4: In Negative
Issue No.5: In Negative
Issue No.6: As per final order,
for the following:-
REASONS
36. Issue No.1 to 6 and additional issue No.1
in O.S.No. 795/2014 and Issue No.1 to 4 and in
O.S.No. 2469/2014 :-:
37. All the issues are taken up for common
discussion, for the simple reason that, both the suits are
for the partition and separate possession of the same
property between the same parties. Subject matter of the
issue involved herein is the does the suit property is the
joint family property, or it was the self acquired property
of the father of the plaintiffs defendant no.2 to 4 herein,
and husband of the defendant no.1. Upon adjudication of
the above said issue, next question would be does the
28 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
will allegedly left by the father of the plaintiffs, defendant
no.2 to 4 is created or got up document? Thus, for
avoiding the repetition of facts and evidence, thus this
court felt, if all the above issues are taken up for common
discussion, infact that would saves the time and avoids
the confusion, and repetition.
38. The plaintiff in his suit contended that to
acquire the suit schedule property, even he has
contributed to his father. And there was a joint family
nucleus, his father even utilized the same for acquiring
the suit property, thus the suit property is the joint
family property of the plaintiff and defendants. He
contended that one Mr. Mahadev Rao Naidu and
defendant No.1 are parents of him and his sisters the
defendant No.2 to 4. They constituted the joint family,
the suit property is their joint family property. In which
he is entitled for 1/5th share. But, wherein the defendant
no. 4 in the O.S.No. 795/14 claiming that, suit property
29 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
is the self acquired property of her father, he left no will,
and alleged will of her father is created document, and
will and gift of defendant no.1 are created to just to
deprive her share of property.
39. Wherein the defendant No.1 to 3 have
categorically denied the contention of the plaintiff, and
contended that there was no joint family, suit property is
not the joint family property.
40. In that back ground, let us examine first, on
existence of the joint family. Firstly the plaintiff married
to a Christian girl, continued to reside in his parents in-
laws home is an undisputed fact.
41. Defendant No.4 married to her husband,
residing in her matrimonial home. The defendant No.2
married, no issues, but their marriage got dissolved, later
she became paralytic, was under the care and custody of
her mother the defendant no.1 herein. During the
30 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
pendency of suit, both the defendant no. 1 and 2 died.
The Defendant No.3 married to an Iranian, she
converted to Islam, she stayed in her matrimonial home
at Dubai and visits India very frequently, as she is
managing the affairs of the education instituion named
M/s. Eshwari Education Society. In that event, the
question of existence of joint family as contended by the
plaintiff cannot be accepted.
42. Admittedly during the lifetime of Mr. Mahadev
Rao Naidu itself there was no joint family. However
under the Hindu Succession Act, there is a presumption
on existence of joint family, as mere residing separately
by the lenieal descendants of the male member of the
joint family is not the criteria to decide on non existence
of joint family. As some time, the joint family members
due to their employment and on other pre-occupied
engagement lives separately. Herein in this case, things
are different, the lone male member left the company of
31 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
his parents long back, female members are residing in
their respective matrimonial home. Thus, the question of
existence of joint family cannot be accepted. As they are
not just residing separately for any such pre-occupied
assignment, but they are residing separately as no such
bonding of jointness is in existence. As no such common
factor which would gives rise to presume the facts of
existence of joint family is found.
43. Infact no where in any act, the word joint
family has been defined. Its not even an legal entity. But,
its a creature of law, by considering the customs and
precedents in the Hindu System of living. In this regard,
its relevant to cite a decision, wherein the Hon'ble Apex
Court observed on what is joint family, in Surjit Lal
Chhabda Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay,
reported in AIR 1976 SC 109, held as follows:
(1) Even in the absence of an antecedent
history of jointness, the appellant could
32 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
constitute a joint Hindu Family with his wife
and unmarried daughter. True that the
appellant could not constitute a coparcenary
with his wife and unmarried daughter but
under the Income Tax Act a Hindu undivided
family, not a coparcenary is taxable unit. A
Hindu coparcenary is a much narrower body
than the joint family.
(2) The joint family with all its incidents, is
a creature of law and cannot be created by
act of parties except to the extent to which a
stranger may be affiliated to the family by
adoption. The appellant, however, was not by
contract seeking to introduce in his family
strangers not bound to the family by the tie
of a sapindaship. That it does not take more
than one male to form a joint Hindu family
with females, is well established.
.
(5) There are thus two classes of cases each
requiring a different approach. In cases where
the property belongs to a subsisting undivided
family the property does not cease to have that
33 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
character merely because the family is
represented by a sole surviving coparcener who
possesses rights which an owner of property
may possess, or for that matter even if the
family for the time being consists only of
widows of deceased coparceners. In cases
where the property did not belong to a
subsisting undivided family, whether any
property has acquired the character of joint
family property has acquired the character
of joint family property in the hands of an
assesses depends on the composition of the
family. A joint Hindu family can consist of a
man, his wife and daughter but the mere
existence of a wife or daughter will not justify
the assessment of income from the joint
family property in the status of the head as a
manager of the joint family.
34 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
44. In the case in hand, Mr. Mahadev Rao Naidu
died by leaving his son, three daughters and his wife.
Since before his death, the plaintiff herein started to
reside in his parents in laws house. Defendant no.2, 3
and 4 were in their respective matrimonial home. Infact,
his wife was alone in his home. In the light of the above
decision, if the plaintiff could establish the facts that,
suit property has been acquired by his father with the
contribution of the joint family member consisting of him,
his father and other sources of the family consisting of
he, his father, mother and sisters. Or in the case, where
the Mr. Mahadeva Rao Naidu though acquired property
out of his fund, but thrown the same into the joint family
hotch potch In that event, if he died by leaving his son,
daughters and widow, then also the existence of joint
family for the purpose of succeeding the suit property
can be presumed. To hold whether there is a joint family,
consisting of plaintiffs and defendants, its necessary to
35 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
examine, does the suit property has been acquired with
the joint family fund or in the suit property, does the
parties herein are having joint interest.
45. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 795/2014 contended
that property has been acquired in the name of his father
with his contribution and also with the contribution of
joint family nucleus and thus he is entitled for 1/5th
share.
46. Wherein the plaintiff in O.S.No. 2469/2014
contended that the suit property was the absolute
property of her father, as he was a retired Chief Engineer
of BEML, he had sufficient sources, he died intestate. As
defendant No.4 Smt. Sheshalatha married to an Iranian,
converted to Islam, thus she is not entitled for the share
in the suit schedule property. Thus she contended that
the plaintiff, defendant No.1 to 3 alone are entitled for
each 1/4th share. Though, during the pendency of the
suit, the defendant No.1 and 2 were dead. Though, the
36 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
plaintiff wants to stick to her contention that defendant
No.4 is not entitled for share. In that event, she and her
brother the defendant no. 3 who are the only eligible for
succession are entitled for each half share, in that event
she ought to have amended the prayer to seek ½ share,
but by way of amendment she confined that she is
entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties.
However, if the plaintiff proved that under a law, the
defendant no. 4 is not entitled for the share, due to her
conversion to Islam religion, then there is no impediment
on the part of this court mould the relief to grant each ½
share to the plaintiff and defendant no.3 respectively.
47. Now the task is cut out on the part of this
Court is to find out does really the plaintiff in O.S.No.
795/2014 proved his case to show, does Mr. Mahadev
Rao Naidu acquired the suit property with the
contribution of the plaintiff and also using the any other
joint family nucleus or does it the self acquired property
37 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
of Late. Mahadev Rao Naidu, and does Mr. Mahadev Rao
Naidu died intestate, in which the parties herein are
entitled for any share. And also this Court would wants
to know, does really Mr. Mahadev Rao Naidu left his last
Will dated 31/3/1992 as contended by the defendant
No.1 to 3, who are the defendants No.1, 2 and 4 in
O.S.No. 2469/2014.
48. Though plaintiff in O.S.No. 795/2014 had
categorically pleaded that the suit schedule property has
been acquired by his father with his contribution and
also with the contribution of joint family. But in support
of his case produced no piece of document. And this
contention of the plaintiff has been denied by all the
defendants. In fact, the defendant No.4 in O.S.No.
795/2014, had filed separate suit in O.S.No. 2469/2014
only on the ground that her brother has not cut out the
proper suit. In fact, the suit schedule property is not the
property acquired with the contribution of plaintiff in
38 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
O.S.No. 795/2014 nor it was acquired by using any of
the joint family nucleus. Her categorical contention is
that, the suit schedule property was the absolute
property of her father.
49. That apart, the P.W.1 in O.S.No. 795/2014
himself categorically admitted that the suit schedule
property was the absolute property of his father, same
has been acquired by using his self-earned sources, the
plaintiff has not contributed any money to his father for
acquiring the suit schedule property. He further admitted
that as the suit property was the absolute property of his
father, he had all the right to dispose of the same, as per
his wish. As the plaintiff fails to prove his contribution
made to his father to acquire the suit property. As he
further failed to prove the existence of any other joint
family nucleus, that apart as the P.W.No.1 himself
admitted that the suit property has been acquired by his
father from his self earned sources. Thus, this court is of
39 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
the considered opinion that, the plaintiff in O.S.No.
795/2014 failed to prove his case on acquisition of the
suit property by using his contribution or existence of
any joint family nucleus to acquire the suit property by
Late. Mahadeva Rao Naidu, thus the contention of the
plaintiff in O.S.No. 795/2014 that it was the joint family
property cannot be accepted.
50. And it is settled law that in Hindu law, there is
a presumption of existence of joint family, not the
existence of joint family property. It is the plaintiff who
asserted the acquisition of suit property with his
contribution and also the contribution of the joint family
nucleus is obligated to prove the same. Firstly he himself
had not proved showing that does he had any income to
make contribution to his father? Secondly, on existence
of joint family nucleus is concerned? admittedly the
father of the plaintiff inherited no ancestral properties
and also not proved existence of any such property and
40 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
nucleus to contribute to his father to acquire the same.
Thus, this court has no impediment hold the suit
property was the absolute property of late Mahadev Rao
Naidu. Even, this facts is not disputed by anybody,
except the plaintiff herein, who literally failed to prove his
case.
51. Next question would be? Does the Late.
Mahadev Rao Naidu died intestate? Does the parties of
the suit are entitled for any share in the suit property is
concerned? Firstly this Court has already hold that the
suit schedule property was the self acquired property of
late N. Mahadev Rao Naidu. Even the plaintiff in both
the case have categorically admitted that it is N. Mahadev
Rao Naidu was the absolute owner, during his life time
himself had the absolute right to dispose of the same as
per his will and wish. Here the defendant No.1 to 3 in
O.S.No.795/2014 who are the defendant No.1 and 2 & 4
in O.S.No.2469/2014 have categorically pleaded that N.
41 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
Mahadev Rao Naidu with intent to dispose of the suit
property as per his wish in his lifetime had left his last
Will dated 31/3/1992 under which life interest has been
created in favour of his wife the defendant No.1 and
absolute right in favour of his daughter the defendant
No.3 in O.S.No. 795/2014 who is the defendant No.4 in
O.S.No. 2469/2014. Thus, this court is of the opinion,
before deciding does the parties are entitled for any share
in the suit property, its necessary to examine does the
defendants no. 1 to 3 have produced the will of late. N.
Mahadeva Rao Naidu and proved the execution of the
same. In that event the above said defendants are bound
to produce the will and prove the execution of the same
by testator, if they are succeeded to prove the same, the
plaintiff in both the suits and other defendants will not
get any share in the suit property.
52. The plaintiff in both the case have categorically
contended that firstly Mr. N. Mahadev Rao Naidu was
42 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
treating all his children equally, which is forthcoming in
the evidence of the DW.3 in O.S.No. 795/2014. Though
the defendant No.1 to 3 have contended that as the
plaintiff in O.S.No. 795/2014 married to a Christian girl,
for which his father was not happy, he was not a loyal
son, he was mischievous right from his childhood,
against whom a criminal case has been registered, and
once jailed him. Thus his parents were not happy with
him. This aspect is concerned, this Court would doubt
the contention of the defendant No.1 to 3 for the simple
reason that N. Mahadev Rao Naidu has participated in
the marriage of the plaintiff in O.S.No.795/2014. To
substantiate the said fact, the plaintiff himself produced
the photographs at Ex.P9 to 13, 19 & 20. Also to show
that, N.Mahadeva Rao Naidu in his life time, was used to
visit the house of the plaintiff, he produced the
photographs at Ex.P14 to 18. there is no dispute on
these photographs from the defendants. If these
43 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
photographs are perused, both the defendant No.1 and
her husband were used to visit the house of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's marriage with Christian girl had not
strained their relationship. In fact, the father of the
parties herein appears to be very generous, open minded,
he was not at all having any religious barrier. For the
simple reason that the plaintiff in both the suit have
categorically contended that the defendant No.3 in
O.S.No. 795/2014 who is a defendant No.4 in O.S.No.
2964/2014 is married to an Iranian boy, who belongs to
Islam religion. Thus their father got miffed with the
defendant No.3, their relationship got strained, thus Mr.
Mahadeva Rao Naidu had no state of mind to bequeath
the suit schedule property in her favour under a will. If
the above contention is considered, Execution of Will is a
different aspect, which can be discussed later. At this
stage, what is to be considered that, whether marriage of
the plaintiff with a christian bride and Marriage of the
44 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
defendant no.3 with a Islam bride groom, made Mr.
Mahadeva Rao Naidu get miffed with his children are
concerned? Does the said marriage incidents strained the
relationship between father and children?
53. With regard to above aspects are concerned.
Though the defendant no. 1 to 3 have pleaded that, N.
Mahadeva Rao Naidu was not happy with his son, for
many reasons discussed supra. But no material being
placed before this court. Secondly, though the plaintiff
produced the photographs showing that, his father
participated in his marriage and even after marriage, his
relationship with his parents continued be cordial.
During cross examination of the P.W.No.1, the
defendants no. 1 to 3 have elicited nothing in his mouth
on the strained relationship. Secondly, upon reading the
entire evidence, there is nothing on the file to accept the
contention of the defendants.
54. With regard to the contention of the plaintiffs
45 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
in both the case that, as the defendant no.3 Sheshalath
married to an Iranian belongs to Islam religion, thus their
father got miffed with the defendant no.3. Thus, the
relationship with the defendant no.3 with her father was
not cordial is also cannot be accepted. Admittedly the
defendant No.3 is also produced her marriage
photographs at Ex.D42 to 48, undisputedly its the
defendant No.1, her husband and all the family members
were happily participated in the marriage of the
defendant no.3 with an Iranian boy. That apart, if at all
late N. Mahadev Rao Naidu is not happy with the
defendant No.3 in her decision to marry a boy of an Islam
religion, their relationship would have been discontinued.
But, if the Ex.D47 and 48 are perused, Ex.D47 is list of
members of the committee of M/s. Eshwari Education
Society. The said society is running an educational
institution in the suit schedule property, the building
therein has been built by N. Mahadev Rao Naidu, he was
46 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
the Vice President in the said society. The defendant
No.1 was the Secretary, the husband of the defendant
No.4 was also a member, in which the defendant No.3
herein who was also married and residing at Dubai in her
matrimonial home had been made as a member of the
said institution. After death of N. Mahadev Rao Naidu,
the defendant No.3 is continued to be a member and
elected as the Joint Secretary. The said resolution can be
seen in Ex.D48 and after the death of defendant No.1,
the defendant No.3 is promoted as Secretary. If these
aspects are considered, even contention of the plaintiffs
in both the case that due to the defendant No.3's
marriage with a boy of Islam, her father was not happy
with her, thus their relationship got strained, cannot be
accepted. From the above facts, its very clear that, there
was no disgruntlement between the members of the
family, either the plaintiff marrying the Christian girl or
the defendant no. 3 marrying a Islam boy. All were
47 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
leading their life happily, having cordial relationship.
55. The plaintiff in both the case have categorically
contended that their father died intestate. The alleged
Will claiming by the defendant No.1 to 3 is a created
document, pursuant to death of Late. N.Mahadeva Rao
Naidu. In that event, it is the duty of the defendant No.1
to 3 to produce the original Will and to prove their case
stating that the said Will has been executed by late N.
Mahadev Rao Naidu with intent to bequeath the suit
schedule property in favour of defendant No.1 by creating
life interest, and by giving reminder to the defendant
No.3 herein. For proving their case, the defendant No.3
was examined as DW.3 and produced the original Will at
Ex.D36 and examined one of the attesting witness to the
said document as DW.4.
56. It is a settled law that the Will is a
compulsorily attestable document, by producing the said
document, it has to be proved in accordance with Section
48 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
68 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 63 of Indian
Succession Act. For doing compliance, original Will at
Ex.D36 being produced and examined DW.4 the attesting
witness to the said document who is a Doctor by
profession, who has categorically deposed that on the
request of Sri.N. Mahadev Rao Naidu, he signed as
attesting witness to the said Will, in the presence of
Testator, his wife and another named Sri. B.N.
Venkatakrishnaiah. In his evidence he identified the
Ex.D36 document stating that, the said document is the
Will of late N. Mahadev Rao Naidu, on his request he has
signed to the said document as an attesting witness, his
signature has been identified and marked as Ex.D36(e)
and signature of the testator has been identified by the
witness, they were marked as Ex.D36(a) to (d). During
his cross examination by the plaintiff, he deposed that as
he signed to the said document 30 years ago, he do not
remember whether as on the date on which he signed to
49 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
the Ex.D36, apart from him, does anybody have signed to
the said document.
57. The plaintiff in both the case have cross
examined the D.W.No.4. They have also admitted that
D.W.No.4 is a practicing doctor, knew to their father.
And, D.W.No.4 is having Clinic measures only 17x13 feet.
D.W.No.4 deposed that N. Mahadev Rao Naidu was
suffering from chronic diabeties, he used to visit his
clinic to test his BP, but said Mahadeva Rao Naidu had
his family doctor, with whom he was taking treatment.
The D.W.No.4, for a question? who were all present at the
time of he signing as attesting witness to the Will at
Ex.D36, he deposed that testator N. Mahadev Rao Naidu,
his wife Lalitha Kumari and his friend Sri. B.N.
Venkatakrishnaiah were present. For an another
question? did you noticed any other signatures in the
Ex.D36, while you attesting as witness, for which he
deposed that by that time his uncle N. Mahadev Rao
50 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
Naidu the testator had already signed in the said
document, except him and the Testator, he did not
noticed does anybody have also signed in the said
document. He deposed that, the Testator had not told on
the contents of the will. On questioning can he identify
any difference in the signature of Testator N. Mahadev
Rao Naidu in Ex.D36 by comparing with the another
admitted signature of the testator found in Ex.D35,
where his signature got marked as Ex.P9. For which
deposed that, there are differences between signatures at
Ex.D36 (a) to (d) and the Ex.P9.
58. Learned counsels for the plaintiffs in both the
cases have categorically contended that, firstly N.
Mahadev Rao Naidu had no occasion to leave Ex.D36
Will to bequeath the suit property absolutely in favour of
the defendant No.3 herein. As he had similar love and
affection on all his children. Exclusion of his other
children is a serious doubtful circumstances on the
51 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
execution of the will. Secondly, if at all N. Mahadev Rao
Naidu left such Will, the defendant No.1 to 3 would have
brought the same into the light of the day immediately
after death of testator, they would not have waited for all
these years. Thirdly, the attesting witness had not seen
the attestation of the signature of the testator in the will,
as the same is the mandate of law, thus it shall be
construed that Will was not executed by the Testator and
Execution is not proved. Fourthly, the attesting witness
found that, there is a difference in the signature of
Testator found in Ex.D36 and admitted signature of
Testator found in Ex.D35, which was marked as Ex.P9,
which is an another circumstances to disprove the
Ex.D.36 will.
59. They further contended that, apart from the
above said facts, there are other doubtful circumstances
surrounded on the will. Firstly, The defendant No.3
contended that her father was having love and affection
52 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
on her alone, on the ground that, as she continues to
taken care of her parents by extending financial
assistance. But, wherein the DW.3 categorically in her
evidence admits that her father was financially sound, he
himself built the building in the suit property and was
running an institution, earning sufficient money, then
question of she contributing to her parents do not arise
and also she is taking care of her parents do not arise.
Then question of her father having special love on her do
not arise. Moreover she was not at all in India to taken
care of her parents. Thus her contention cannot be
believed.
60. Wherein the learned counsel for the defendant
No.1 to 3 categorically contended that though defendant
No.3 was married to an Iranian boy, but said marriage
being performed with the consent of her parents, thus
there is no material to show that relationship with the
Testator and the defendant no.3 got strained. To show
53 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
that, Testator had special love and affection on his
daughter the defendant no.3 Smt. Shesha Latha, though
the plaintiffs in both the cases were in India, the testator
in his lifetime had not allowed these people to be a part of
the M/s. Eshwari Education Trust, but wherein he had
taken the defendant no. 3 as member of the board,
allowed her to become a joint secretary. He had a vision
to see the institution established by him has to be
progressed, for which he had the staunch belief on the
defendant No.3 alone, for which from the inception itself
he made the defendant No.3 as a member of said society.
That apart, the Will at Ex.D36 is dated 31/3/1992,
which is within a year of acquisition of suit schedule
property. It is not in dispute that thereafter N. Mahadev
Rao Naidu lived for 10 years. It is not in dispute that in
his life time, testator except due to his chronic diabetes,
his limbs were amputated, otherwise from the year 1992
to 2002 until his demise, he lived with the sound state of
54 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
mind.
61. Learned Counsel for the defendant no. 1 to 3,
further contended that, with regard to the attestation is
concerned, the DW.4 has categorically identified the
signature of the Testator and himself. As there was a 30
years of paucity of time, there may be little discrepancy
in his evidence, but they are not going to the roots of this
case, in particularly presence of the parties and also in
the process of execution is concerned, the evidence of the
attesting witness is beyond doubt. As one cannot
imagine to reproduce every events in a sequence by
sequence, as its humanly impossible task to do the same
But, he is very consistent that at the time of execution of
the Ex.D36 will, its the Testator Mr. Mahadev Rao Naidu,
one Mr. Venkata Krishnaiah another attesting witness to
the will also the defendant No.1 were present. For the
Ex.D36 another attesting witness is Sri. B.N. Venkata
Krishnaiah, who is none other than the President of M/s.
55 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
Eshwari Education Society. His signature can be found
in Ex.D47. If the signature of B.N.Venkata Krishnaiah at
Ex.D36 and Ex.D47 are compared, they are tallying to
each other. As another attesting witness died, thus the
propounder of the will could not examine him.
62. He further submitted that, the signature of N.
Mahadev Rao Naidu apparently not similar between his
signatures found in will at Ex.D36 and the sale deed at
Ex.D35 under which he acquired the suit property, for
the simple reason that, in the Ex.D35 there is only one
signature, while signing in the said sale deed, there was a
little space, thus he made his short signature, which is
as per Ex.P9. In the document of the defendant no. 4 in
O.S.No. 795/14 who is also a plaintiff in O.S.No.
2469/14 who produced Ex.D47 which is the list of
members of M/s. Eshwari Education Society, which
there is a complete signature of Late. N. Mahadev Rao
Naidu, which is an undisputed facts. As the document
56 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
being produced show the list of board members of the
M/s. Eshwari Education Society, in the list N.Mahadeva
Rao Naidu against his name affixed his full signature, If
the said signature is compared with Ex.D36 (a) to (d) they
are tallying to each other. Thus, these events could
clearly establishes the facts that, Ex.D36 has been
executed by the Testator Sri. N.Mahadeva Rao Naidu
himself.
63. The defendant No.3 had produced the original
Will dated 31/3/1992 as per Ex.D36 and examined one
of the attesting witness to the said document, who is the
DW.4 herein, who is a Doctor by profession, who had
categorically deposed that Mahadev Rao Naidu is his
uncle, he represented before him that he has bequeathed
the suit schedule property in favour of his wife and the
daughter the defendant No.3 herein, for which he
requested to sign as attesting witness, by that time Mr.
Mahadev Rao Naidu accompanied with his wife, his
57 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
friend B.N. Venkatakrishnaiah. By that time there was
already a signature of the testator will.
64. But, learned counsel for the plaintiffs in both
the case have categorically contended that the
propounder of the Will has not proved the Will in
accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act
and also Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, on the
ground that as no attesting witnesses have seen the
testator signing the Ex.D36 document. Thus the said
document cannot be accepted. Wherein the learned
counsel for the defendant No.3 contended that, the
attested witness not necessarily requires to seen the
testator signing to the will, mere acknowledgment from
the testator is sufficient. In this regard he has placed the
reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in
Ganesan (dead) through legal representatives Vs.
Kalanjium and others reported in (2020) 11 SCC
715 , wherein in paragraph-5 it is held as under :-
58 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
The appeals raise a pure question of law
with regard to the interpretation of Section
63 (c) of the Act. The signature of the
testator on the will is undisputed. Section
63 (c) of the Succession Act requires an
acknowledgement of execution by the
testator followed by the attestation of the
Will in his presence. The provision gives
certain alternatives and it is sufficient if
conformity to one of the alternatives is
proved. The acknowledgment may assume
the form of express words or conduct or
both, provided they unequivocally prove an
acknowledgment on part of the testator.
Where a testator asks a person to attest
his Will, it is a reasonable inference that
he was admitting that the Will had been
executed by him. There is no express
prescription in the statute that the testator
must necessarily sign the will in presence
of the attesting witnesses only or that the
two attesting witnesses must put their
signatures on the will simultaneously at
the same time in presence of each other
and the testator. Both the attesting
witnesses deposed that the testator came
to them individually with his own signed
Will, read it out to them after which they
attested the Will.
65. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased
to hold that under Section 63 (c) of Indian Succession
Act, there is a categorical condition that an
acknowledgment of execution by the testator followed by
59 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
the attestation of the Will in his presence is sufficient. It
means to say, the testator is not requires to sign in the
presence of the attestor, if the testator had already
signed, on his request if the attesting signs in the said
document, which complies the mandate of law. Thus, the
contention of the plaintiffs that, as the attesting witness
had not seen the testator signing the will, thus will
cannot be accepted as its been validly executed by the
testator, cannot be accepted. As the law is not mandates
that invariably the attested witnesses shall seen the
testator signing the document. As law prescribes other
methods also, one of such method is, if the testator in the
presence of the attested witness acknowledges that, its
his will, he had signed, for which request is made the
witness to sign as attesting witness is sufficient. As the
D.W.No.4 deposed that, the testator had requested him to
sign as attesting witness to his will, under which he is
bequeathing his property to his daughter the defendant
60 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
no.3, upon which he signed as one of the attesting
witness to the said document is sufficient to hold that,
will has been duly executed by the testator.
66. According to the plaintiff Another doubtful
circumstances surrounded around the Ex.D36 is that,
the DW.3 herself contended that Mr. Mahadev Rao Naidu
was treating all his children equally. In that event, if at
all he had left his last will, he would have made the
provision to see that, his property shall goes to all his
children, not specifically to the defendant no.3 herein.
Exclusion of other children, bequeathing the suit
property only in favour of the defendant No.3, in fact who
is married to an Iranian, who was residing permanently
at Dubai is serious circumstances one would create
doubt on the Ex.D36.
67. Wherein the learned counsel for the plaintiff
contended that, if at all Mr. Mahadev Rao Naidu was not
happy with the defendant No.3, due to her marriage with
61 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
an Iranian, in his lifetime he would not have participated
in the marriage at all. Further, he would not have
included the defendant No.3 in the committee of the M/s.
Eshwari Education Trust and to substantiate the said
fact, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the
document at Ex.D47 which is the list of members of the
Educational Society, for the period between 1991-92
which is the period on which the said Mahadev Rao
Naidu had left his last Will, by that time the defendant
No.3 was already a member of said society. Secondly
mere exclusion of other children is not the suspicious
circumstances. In this regard he has placed the reliance
on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Umadevi
Nambiar & others V/s. T.C. Sidhan, reported in
(2004) 2 SCC 321, held as follows:
A Will is executed to alter the ordinary
mode of succession and by the very nature
of things it is bound to result in either
62 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
reducing or depriving the share of natural
heir. If a person intends his property to
pass to his natural heirs, there is no
necessity at all of executing a Will. It is
true that a propounder of the Will has to
remove all suspicious circumstances.
Suspicion means doubt, conjecture or
mistrust. But the fact that natural heirs
have either been excluded or a lesser share
has been given to them, by itself without
anything more, cannot be held to be a
suspicious circumstance especially in a
case where the bequest has been made in
favour of an offspring. As held in PPK
Gopalan Nambiar v. PPK Balakrishnan
Nambiar and Ors. (AIR 1995 SC 1852) it is
the duty of the propounder of the Will to
remove all the suspected features, but
63 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
there must be real, germane and valid
suspicious features and not fantasy of the
doubting mind. It has been held that if the
propounder succeeds in removing the
suspicious circumstance, the Court has to
give effect to the Will, even if the Will might
be unnatural in the sense that it has cut
off wholly or in part near relations (See
Puspavati and Ors. v. Chandraja Kadamba
and Ors. (AIR 1972 SC 2492). In Rabindra
Nath Mukherjee and Anr. v. Panchanan
Banerjee (dead) by LRs. and Ors. (1995 (4)
SCC 459), it was observed that the
circumstance of deprivation of natural
heirs should not raise any suspicion
because the whole idea behind execution of
the Will is to interfere with the normal line
of succession and so, natural heirs would
64 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
be debarred in every case of Will. Of
course, it may be that in some cases they
are fully debarred and in some cases
partly.
68. At this stage, learned counsel for the defendant
No.3 vehemently contended that firstly the plaintiff in
both the case have categorically admitted that their
father was the absolute owner of suit schedule property,
who had left his last Will as he had the competency to
dispose of the suit schedule property as per his last Will.
But, the plaintiff in both the case have categorically
pleaded that Ex.D36 is created by playing fraud. In that
event, it is the duty on their part to prove the said facts,
but no piece of material being placed before this Court.
In this regard they have placed reliance on the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in C.S.Ramaswamy Vs. V.K.
Senthil and others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC
1330 . Wherein at para-31 it is held as under :-
65 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
"Mere stating in the plaint that a fraud has
been played is not enough and the
allegations of fraud must be specifically
averred in the plaint, within the
limitation".
69. He also contended that, as the plaintiff in both
the case have admitted the execution of the Will at
Ex.D36 by their father, which is the best evidence. In
that event, no further proof is warranted. In this regard
they placed the reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex
Court in Ahmed Aheb and others Vs.Syed Ismail
reported in (2012) 8 SCC 516. Wherein it is held at
para-12 as under :-
"It is needless to emphasis that admission
of a party in the proceedings either in the
pleadings or oral is the best evidence and
the same does not need any further
corroboration."
70. If the above circumstances are perused, this
Court is of the opinion that the defendant No.3 in O.S.No.
795/2014 had proved that Ex.D36 is the Will left by her
66 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
late father, who had acquired the suit schedule property
on his own self earned sources, who with intent to
dispose of the same had left his last Will by bequeathing
the life interest in favour of his wife and absolute right in
favour of defendant No.3. Thus she is entitled to succeed
the same.
71. During the arguments learned counsel for the
plaintiff in both the case contended that defendant No.1
had only life interest, she had no absolute right to
bequeath the suit schedule property in favour of
defendant No.3 herein. In fact, the said gift deed is also
under serious dispute. Though the defendant No.1
herself filed affidavit, but not chosen to appear before
this Court for cross-examination. In fact, the defendant
No.3 played a vital role to keep the defendant No.1 away
from facing the cross-examination.
72. After careful evaluation of the evidence of the
parties, what is emerging is that defendant no. 1 and her
67 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
husband late. N.Mahadeva Rao Naidu were the liberal
parents. They have allowed their children to chose their
life partners beyond their religion, caste and even from
the country.
73. N.Mahadeva Rao Naidu was retired as Chief
Engineer from the BEML, which is the government
undertaking company. He had sufficient earnings from
his employment. The defendant no.1 was a teacher, was
teaching from long period. To meet the passion of his
wife, her husband Late. N.Mahadeva Rao Naidu
established an educational institution in the name and
style of M/s. Eshwari Educational Society. Which is
consisting of board, which is a separate legal entity.
Same cannot be considered as property of the family of
founder or their descendants. Initially it was running in
the suit property with a temporary shed, by taking the
same on lease, but latter by purchasing the site put up
the permanent structure. And, same has been leased to
68 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
the Institution. Site and building was owned by Mr.
N.Mahadeva Rao Naidu, in which the Society is running
an educational institution.
74. The defendants no. 1 to 3 have categorically
proved that, N.Mahadeva Rao Naidu had not inherited
any ancestral properties, nor even had any joint family
nucleus. Even the plaintiff in O.S.No. 795/2014 failed to
prove his financial contribution to his father to acquire
the suit property. Infact, he himself admitted that, suit
property is the self acquired property of his late father.
Thus, this court has no impediment hold that, the suit
property was the absolute property Late. N.Mahadeva
Rao Naidu. Thus, in his life time had no impediments to
dispose of the same as per his will and wish, by way of
testamentary document. At this stage only, this court
would clearly hold that, the plaintiff in O.S.No. 795/2014
failed to prove his case that the suit property is the joint
family property.
69 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
75. Next question would, does the Ex.D36 is the
will left by the father of the plaintiff and defendant no. 2
to 4 are concerned. This court supra discussed the
evidence of the parties. Firstly, Ex.D36 is the will
produced by the defendant no.3. D.W.No.4 is the
attesting witness to the said document. In the year 2004-
05 itself, the defendant no.1 by producing the said
document before the BBMP, had got khatha of the suit
property in her name, by claiming that her husband had
bequeathed the suit property in her name by creating the
life interest and absolute right in favor of the defendant
no.3. Thus, the plaintiff's contention is that the will had
not seen the light of the day for long time cannot be
accepted, as there is no merits in their contention. If the
Ex.P7 produced by the plaintiff is perused, the will at
Ex.D36 saw the light of the day in the year 2005 itself.
With in 2-3 years from the date of death of the testator,
as he died on 18.02.2002. Thus, the contention of the
70 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
plaintiffs that, if the testator had left the will, the
defendant no.1 and 3 would not have waited for all these
years has no point.
76. Further, the plaintiffs in both the cases have
categorically contended that, the will is created
document. Though the defendant no. 1 and 3 have
categorically pleaded in their written statement on the
date of will, the plaintiff in O.S.No. 795/2014 made no
efforts to atleast to seek specific prayer against the said
will. Infact his prayer (b) is casual, careless and has no
seriousness. He had no clarity whether he is seeking the
declaration on the will of the defendant no. 1 or will of his
late father. On the will of his father is concerned, if the
evidence of the plaintiff in O.S.No. 795/2014 is
considered, he had knowledge the will of his father.
Appears to be filed this case, just to harass the defendant
no. 1 and 3. Excerpt of the P.W.No.1 is as follows,
wherein he had categorically admitted that his father left
71 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
his will.
17. In 2014, for the first I came to know
about the will executed by my father. My
mother informed me the same by stating
that the same was in Bank locker of my
sister. I have gone through the will.
18. I applied for copy of the will. I have
produced the will.
19.....I have shown the copy of the will to
my mother.
20. It is true to suggest that the suit
property is the self acquired property of my
father and he is entitled to deal in any
manner.
23. I have not taken any action with
regard to the will executed by my father.
72 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
24.Since my father has executed a will, I
am not entitled to seek partition in the
suit property.
77. In the entire evidence, the plaintiff has
categorically admitted that, his father left his last will,
thus he had no right in the suit property. In that
background the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court
Ahmed Aheb and others case is that admission is the
best evidence aptly applicable to the case in hand, as
the admission is not the stray. As the plaintiff is firm in
his answer that as his father left will, he has no right to
seek the partition in the suit property. He did knew the
consequence of the will, as he explained on the
consequence of his status during the presence of will of
his father.
78. The plaintiff in O.S.No. 2469/2014 contended
that, the will dated. 31.3.1992 is a fraudulently created
document to deprive her 1/5th share later by way of an
73 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
amendment sought 1/3rd share. Nothing is placed on the
record to show, the Ex.D 36 is the created document.
Latter, they trying to place some circumstances stating
that, they are the suspicious circumstances which would
clearly suggest that Ex.D36 is the will not left by her late
father. She in her evidence deposed as follows:
2....For the first time in the year 2014 I came
to know the will dated. 31.03.1992 executed
by my father, when my brother filed the suit.
3. Its is true to suggest hat my brother
Jitendra Kumar has filed O.S.No. 795/2014.
In that suit I am the defendant. Only after
receipt of the summons in that I came to
know about the will dated. 31.3.1992
executed by my father.
She is also being the defendant no. 4 in
O.S.No. 795/2014, examined herself as D.W.No.1,
74 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
during her cross examination, she admitted the
suggestion that the her father had left his will, by
bequeathing the suit property in favor of defendant
no.1, who had life interest and defendant no. 3 has
absolute right. Same is extracted herein below.
5. It is true to suggest that as per Ex.D2
my father bequeathed suit schedule
property in favor of defendant no.3
Sheshalatha by creating life interest of 1 st
defendant.
79. In that back ground, if the case of the plaintiffs
are examined carefully, the plaintiffs were having
knowledge on the will of their father. Otherwise, they
would have demanded the partition immediately after
death of their father. One cannot say, will was came
suddenly. As it was produced before the BBMP in the
year 2005 itself to got the khatha. Admittedly, the khatha
stands in the name of defendant no. 1 and 3, and were
75 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
paying taxes.
80. With regard to the Execution and genuineness
of the Ex.D36 will is concerned. Firstly, the original will
itself being placed before the court. One of the attesting
witness has been examined, who identified the signature
of the testator and even his signatures. If the evidence of
the D.W.no.4 is examined carefully, he is firm that on the
request of the testator he signed as an attesting witness
to the will at Ex.D36. The Testator informed him that, he
is leaving his last will by bequeathing his property in
favor of the defendant no.3. By that time, his one leg has
been amputated, by that time he was suffering from
chronic diabetes. These aspects have not been denied by
the plaintiffs. Further, he deposed that he signed to the
will in his clinic, by that time its the Testator, his wife the
defendant no.1 and his friend B.N.Venkata Krishnaiah
were present. Infact said B.N.Venkata Krishnaiah is also
one of the attesting witness to the said document. The
76 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
incidents narrated by him are live, there is no room to
doubt his evidence.
81. The Dispute of the plaintiffs is that, D.W.No.4
had not seen the testator signing the Ex.D36, as which is
the mandate of law. But, in this regard law does not
necessary prescribes the condition that, the Testator
must sign in the presence of the attesting witness. Infact
Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act prescribes many
circumstances to hold the will as been validly executed,
one such is; "or has received from the testator a
personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark"
but condition that the Attesting witnesses shall sign to
the document in the presence of the testator. The
evidence of the D.W.No.4 is cogent, clear, unambiguous
to hold that the attesting witness signed to the will on the
request and in the presence of the Testator. Thus, this
court had no inch of doubt to hold that, Ex.D36 is the
will executed by the Testator Sri. N.Mahadeva Rao Naidu,
77 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
wherein he bequeathed the suit property by creating the
life interest to the defendant no.1, and absolute right to
his daughter the defendant no.3.
82. Though, the plaintiffs have raised some issue
such as signature at Ex.P9 is not tallying with the
Ex.D36(a) to (d). Of course the said signature is not
tallying, for which there is an explanation offered by the
defendant no.3 stating that Ex.P9 is the short signature,
Ex.D36(a) to (d) are the long signature of her father.
Infact the Ex.D36(a) to (d) are tallies with the signature of
the testator found in Ex.P47, which is the list of board
members, wherein the even the signature of testator and
another attesting witness B.N.Venkata Krishnaiah are
also can be seen. Of course the Ex.P9 is the short
signature, while making Ex.P9 sign, there was only
minimal space, thus the testator tried to affix his
signature with in that space. Thus, the contention of that
the Ex.P9 is the actual signature, that is only way he
78 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
used to sign cannot be accepted. As the Ex.D47 is the
own document of the plaintiff in O.S.No. 2469/2014,
which bears the complete signature of her father, which
tallies with the signature of the testator in Ex.D36.
83. If at all the Ex.D36(a) to (d) are created
signature, both the plaintiffs could have made an efforts
to refer the said document to the hand writing expert, to
compare with the admitted signature. As Mr. N.Mahadeva
Rao Naidu was served in various capacity in the M/s.
Eshwari Education Society and he was an highly
qualified, served in a government organization, there
would be sufficient admitted signatures, those
documents could have been called to refer the said
documents, but did nothing. What they have done is,
they only try to catch the fish by making the water
disturbed. Infact, there are visible, clear and undoubted
evidence to show that, Ex.D36 was the document
executed by the Testator Mr. N.Mahadeva Rao Naidu. As
79 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
the will at Ex.D36 has been proved. Thus, the plaintiffs
in both the case are not entitled for any share in the suit
property.
84. With regard Will and Gift deed of the defendant
no.1 are concerned. Firstly, defendant no.1 had only life
interest. She had all the right to convey her interest
having in the suit property as per her will and wish.
Admittedly, she by filing WS stated that, apart from
executing the will, she also executed the Gift deed, by
bequeathing her interest having in the suit property in
favor of the defendant no.3 Smt. Sheshalatha @ Nasreen
Jabdabaee. There is nothing wrong in it. Though the
plaintiffs have contended that, as the defendant no.1 had
only life interest in the suit property, she do not have any
right to transfer any interest in the suit property in favor
of anybody. Infact such contention of the plaintiffs are
bald, baseless and has no merit. As the defendant no.1
having life interest in the suit property, which are
80 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
alienable for the limited purpose, there is nothing bar on
her to renounce or relinquish the same in favor of
anybody of her choice. Same has been done. Whether the
defendant no. 1 transfers or not, as she also died during
the pendency of the suit, by virtue of will at Ex.D36, the
defendant no.3 Smt. Sheshalatha @ Nasreen Jabdabaee
became an absolute owner of the suit property. Thus, the
plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief to hold the will and
Gift deed of the defendant no.1 are not binding on their
share do not arise at all.
85. As the plaintiffs in both the suit are failed to
prove the facts that, either the suit property is the joint
family property or the property of her father, who died
intestate, in which they are entitled for share. Also, failed
to prove their possession of over the suit property, thus
both the plaintiffs shall pay the court fee on the prayer
for partition under Section 35(1) of the Karnataka Court
fee and suits valuation Act. Accordingly, I proceed to
81 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
answer the Issue No.1 to 5 and additional issue No.1
in O.S.No. 795/2014 in Negative, Issue no. 6 in
Affirmative. and Issue No.1, 3, and 4 in O.S.No.
2469/2014 are also answered in Negative and Issue
No. 2 in O.S.No. 2469/2014 is answered as per the
final order.
86. Issue No.5 in O.S.No.2469/2014 :- The
plaintiff in O.S.No. 2469/2014 claiming that, in the suit
schedule property there is an educational institution,
which is the institution established by her father, which
is having monthly revenue of Rs.8,00,000/-, out of which
spending Rs.2,00,000/- per months for monthly
maintenance, and having savings per month of
Rs.6,00,000/-, annually which is amounts
Rs.72,00,000/-, in which she is claiming that she is
entitled for Rs.18,00,000/-as her share per month. As
per father died, in the year 2002, its her contention is
that its the defendant no.1 is managing the affairs of the
82 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
educational institution from last 12 years, thus the
defendant no.1 is liable to pay Rs.2,16,00,000/-, which is
the plaintiff's share of profit, earning from the above
institution, along with interest @ 36% p.a.
87. The defendant no. 1, 2 and 4 in the suit have
simply denied that, she is not entitled for such profit. The
amount is an imaginary one, there is no material placed
by them. But, during the arguments, learned Counsel for
the above said defendants urged before this court that,
Firstly the M/s. Eshwari Education Society is the
institution registered under the Societies Act., Which has
the body, created under law to manage the institution.
Said Said cannot be a property of any individual or joint
family. Any earnings from the institution has to be
appropriated as per the bye law. Founder member cannot
claim that he is entitled to withdraw the profits earned by
it. The members of the Body and the staffs are entitled
receive the fee or salary whatever may be the terminology
83 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
determined by the society or governed by law. Thus, the
claim of the plaintiff is not maintainable. This aspect of
the submission of the defendants are not disputed by the
plaintiff. Infact, the plaintiff placed no material, how
could she entitled for the amount claimed in the suit.
Even, not placed any material to show, does the society is
having profit allegedly claimed by the plaintiff.
88. Admittedly, in the suit schedule property there
is an education institution called M/s. Eshwari
Education Society, its a registered under the Societies
Registration Act. And it is governed under the Societies
Registration Act, and the said Society has the Board, the
society is not the property of anybody, much less than
the property of the parties of the suit herein. In that
event, in the earnings of the said society, the plaintiff
cannot seek any share. As the same cannot be construed
as joint family property. Moreover, whether the plaintiff is
entitled for such relief is concerned, the society is also
84 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014
proper and necessary party. And society is having its
board consisting of President, Secretary, treasurer and
Members, even they are also proper and necessary
parties. For the above said reasons the plaintiff is not
entitled for the amount sought therein. As the suit is one
for recovery, which is not joint family property, which is
the profit allegedly earned by the Society which is not
before this court, to seek such relief, the plaintiff shall
pay court the ad valeroum court fee. Thus I answer the
issue No.5 in O.S.No. 2469/2014 in negative.
89. Issue no. 7 in O.S.No. 795/2014 and Issue
no. 6 in O.S.No.2469/2014: As both the plaintiffs have
failed to prove their case, thus they are deserves to be
dismissed with costs.
COMMON ORDER
The suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.795/2014 and also the suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No. 2469/2014 are dismissed with cost.
85 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.O.S.No. 2469/20014 Office is to draw the decree in the above said suits, only after receipt of the court fee from the plaintiff in O.S.No. 795/2014, by valuing his 1/3rd share as per Section 35(1) of Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act and also receipt of the court fee from the plaintiff in O.S.No. 2469/2014 by valuing her 1/3rd share in the suit property under Section 35(1) of Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act and also paying the Court fee on prayer (d) for an amount of Rs.2,16,00,000/- as per Schedule-1 of Karnataka Court Fees & Suits Valuation Act.
Keep the original of this judgment in O.S.No. 795/2014 and copy in O.S.No. 2469/2014.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 27 th day of April, 2024.
(GANGADHARA.K.N.) XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY 86 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w. O.S.No. 2469/20014 ANNEXURE IN OS 795/2014 List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a) Plaintiff's side :
P.W.1: Jitehdra Kumar
(b) Defendants side :
DW.1: Maheshwari DW.2: Lalitha Kumari DW.3: Nazreen Jadbabaei @ Sheshalatha DW.4: Dr. K. Kamalnath List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
Ex.P.1 Genealogical tree Ex.P.2 Death certificate Ex.P.3 Gift deed dated 12/8/2010 Ex.P.4 Encumbrance certificate Ex.P.5 Encumbrance certificate Ex.P.6 Copy of Tax paid receipt Ex.P.7 Copy of Uttara Patra Ex.P.8 Certified copy of sale deed dated 31/5/1991 Ex.P.8(a) Typed copy of Ex.P8 Ex.P.9 to 20 Photographs 87 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w. O.S.No. 2469/20014
(b) Defendants side :
Note : Initially Ex.D1 to D10 were got marked through DW.2. As she fails to turn up to the Court, for facing cross-examination, her both oral and documentary evidence have been discarded. Thus, exhibits in D-series is commences from Ex.D11 to D48.
Ex.D.1 Sale deed Ex.D.2 Will Ex.D.3 Death Extract Ex.D.4 Uttara patra Ex.D.5 Khata certificate Ex.D.6 Khata extract Discarded. Ex.D.7 Registered gift deed Ex.D.8 Khata extract Ex.D.9 Tax paid receipt Ex.D.10 Photograph Ex.D.11 Certified copy of sale deed 16.05.1991 Ex.D.12 to 20 Tax paid receipts Ex.D.21 & 22 Katha certificates Ex.D.23 Katha extract Ex.D.24 Death certificate of Venkata
Krishnaiah.B.N. dated 20.10.2001 Ex.D.25 Tax paid receipt 88 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w. O.S.No. 2469/20014 Ex.D.26 Reply letter of BBMP Ex.D.27 to 32 Photographs Ex.D.33 CD Ex.D.34 Bills ( containing 2 bills) Ex.D.35 Original sale deed dated 31/5/9991 Ex.D.36 Original Will dated 31/3/1992 Ex.D.37 Death certificate of Madhava Rao Naidu Ex.D.38 Reply letter Ex.D.39 Khata certificate Ex.D.40 Khata extract Ex.D.41 Original gift deed Ex.D.42 Khata certificate Ex.D.43 Khata extract Ex.D.44 Tax paid receipt Ex.D.45 Photograph Ex.D.46 Photograph Ex.D.47 List of Committee members for the year 1991-92 pertaining Eshwari Education society Ex.D.48 Documents pertaining to Eshwari Education society obtained under RTI XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.89 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w.
O.S.No. 2469/20014 ANNEXURE IN OS 2469/2014 List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(c) Plaintiff's side :
P.W.1: Maheshwari P.W.2: Arifa Begum P.W.3: Chikkegowda P.W.4: Shubhakar Nayak D
(d) Defendants side :
DW.1: Nazreen Jadbabaei @ Sheshalatha DW.2: Dr. K. Kamalnath List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(c) Plaintiff's side :
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of Gift deed Ex.P.2 Khata extract
(d) Defendants side :
Ex.D.1 Deposition of Maheshwari in O.S.No.795/2014 Ex.D.2 Certified copy of Sale deed dated 31.05.1991 Ex.D.3 Certified copy of will dated 31.03.1992 90 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w. O.S.No. 2469/20014 Ex.D.4 Certified copy of death certificate of Mahadeva Rao Naidu Ex.D.5 Certified copy of Uttara pathra dated 29.06.2005 Ex.D.6 Certified copy of Katha certificate Ex.D.7 Certified copy of Katha extract Ex.D.8 Certified copy of gift deed dated 12.08.2010 Ex.D.9 Katha certificate dated 31.10.2017 Ex.D.10 Katha extract Ex.D.11 Certified copy of tax paid receipt Ex.D.12 Certified copy of Sale deed dated 16.05.1991 Ex.D.13 to 18 Certified copies of tax paid receipts in six numbers Ex.D.19 Certified copy of Self assessment property tax challan Ex.D.20 Certified copy of tax paid receipt Ex.D.21 Certified copy of self assessment property tax challan Ex.D.22 Certified copy of tax paid receipt Ex.D.23 Certified copy of self assessment property tax challan Ex.D.24 Certified copy of Katha certificate Ex.D.25 Certified copy of Katha certificate Ex.D.26 Certified copy of Katha extract Ex.D.27 Certified copy of death certificate of Venkata krishnaiah.B.N. 91 O.S.No.795/2014 C/w. O.S.No. 2469/20014 Ex.D.28 Certified copy of tax paid receipt Ex.D.29 Certified copy of Uttara Pathra dated 05.10.2010 Ex.D.30 to 35 Certified copies of six photos Ex.D.36 & 37 Certified copies of two bills issued by the photographer Ex.D.38 Death certificate of Lalitha kumari.C.N. Ex.D.39 Certified copy of gift deed dated 04.04.2002 Ex.D.40 to 48 Nine photographs (subject to objections) Ex.D.49 The deposition of one Smt.Maheshwari given in O.S.795/2014 Ex.D.50 The deposition of one Smt.Lalitha kumari given in O.S.795/2014 Ex.D.51 The deposition of one Jitendra kumar given in O.S.795/2014 XII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.