Bangalore District Court
Sri. J. Venkatesan vs Sri. Perumal @ J. Perumal Naidu on 6 March, 2023
1 O.S.No.26013/2008
Govt. Of Karnataka
C.R.P.67] TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
Form No.9(Civil)
AT MAYOHALL UNIT, (CCH-29)
Title sheet for
Judgment in suits
(R.P.91)
BANGALORE.
Present: Sri. K.M. Rajashekar, B.Sc., LL.M.,
Dated: This the 6th day of March 2023
Original suit No.26013/2008
Plaintiffs:- 1. Sri. J. Venkatesan,
Aged about 49 years,
S/o M. Jayaram Naidu,
Residing at # 14/2,
Mariyaman Temple Street,
Jaibharath Nagar,
Bangalore-560 033.
2. Sri. J. Venkataramaia,
Aged about 47 years,
S/o M. Jayaram Naidu,
Residing at # 14/2,
Mariyaman Temple Street,
Jaibharath Nagar,
Bangalore-560 033.
2 O.S.No.26013/2008
3. Sri. J. Rukumani,
Aged about 44 years,
W/o Srinivasan,
D/o M. Jayaram Naidu,
Residing at #2, 816,
2nd Cross, Irumbi Road,
T.C.M Junction Vanur (T K),
Villupuram District,
Tamil Nadu-605 111.
(By Pleader : Sri. GPR Adv., for Plaintiffs)
V/s
Defendants:- 1. Sri. Perumal @ J. Perumal Naidu,
Aged about 51 years,
S/o M. Jayaram Naidu,
Residing at # 14/2,
Mariyaman Temple Street,
Jaibharath Nagar,
Bangalore-560 033.
2. Smt. Vanaja,
Aged about 47 years,
J. Perumal @ J. Perumal Naidu,
Residing at # 14/2,
Mariyaman Temple Street,
Jaibharth Nagar,
Bangalore-560 033.
3. Sri. P. Sampath Kumar Mohan,
S/o J. Perumal @ J. Perumal
Naidu,
Aged about 24 years,
3 O.S.No.26013/2008
Residing at # 14/2,
Mariyaman Temple Street,
Jaibharth Nagar,
Bangalore-560 033.
4. Arunav Trust,
Office at:
Keerthi Apartment,
No.120/2, Flat 1A,
1st Cross, 6th Main,
Chellekere,
Kalyana Nagar Post,
Bangalore-560 043.
Represented by its Secretary
Sri. Bheeme Gowda,
Aged about 45 years,
S/o Varadappa,
5. Sri. P. Arumugam,
Major by Age,
S/o Parugunam,
Vanigar Street,
Old No.27, Thirupur,
Chengal Patt Post & Taluk,
Kanchipuram District,
Tamil Nadu.
(Pleader by: Sri. DVR Adv., for D.1 to D.3,
Sri. VR Adv., for D.4 & 5)
4 O.S.No.26013/2008
Date of Institution of the suit 10.7.2008
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit for
declaration and possession, suit for Partition Suit
injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of 25.3.2013
recording of the Evidence
Date on which the Judgment was 6.3.2023
pronounced
Year/s Month/s Days
Total duration 14 07 26
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants for partition and separate possession of their 1/4th share in all the Suit Schedule Properties by metes and bounds and to direct the 1 st Defendant to render accounts relating to M/s Mohan and Company, Sri. Srinivasa Educational & Cultural Trust, Agricultural land and rents and for other reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the case of the Plaintiffs are as follows:-
5 O.S.No.26013/2008
(i) The Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 are the children of Late M. Jayarama Naidu and Smt. Jayalakshmi. They are the members of Hindu Undivided Family, Governed by Mitakshara Law. They are jointly owning and possessing moveable and immovable properties described in the Schedules A and B respectively. The parents of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 were agriculturists by occupation.
They were natives of Allankupam, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu. The father of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 Mr. M. Jayarama Naidu had inherited an house property specified at Item No.6 and property as specified in Item No.7 of A Schedule. Initially the said House and landed properties had formed the corpus of the joint family, consisting of the Plaintiffs, Defendant No.1 and their parents.
6 O.S.No.26013/2008
(ii) The Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 were born at Allankuppam and the Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant No.1 got their education at Tindivanam in St. Anne's Middle School and Diploma Course in Carpentry from St. Joseph Industrial School, Tindivanam. The Plaintiff No.2 had studied up to 4th Standard and Plaintiff No.3 had studied up to 5th Standard.
(iii) During the year 1976 the Defendant No.1 was appointed as a peon cum/sweeper in Maria Niketan High School, St. Mary's Town, Bangalore, on a basic monthly salary of Rs.250/-. He had continued his service as a peon/sweeper till 1997. During the year 1990 the Defendant No.1 underwent operation for his back bone at Chennai and he was under bed rest for about 1 ½ years. Thereafter, he resumed for his job and due to his ailment, he took voluntary retirement from his service in the year 1997. 7 O.S.No.26013/2008
(iv) In the year 1997 the Plaintiff No.1 completed his Diploma Course in carpentry and came to Bangalore and got carpentry work in St. Mary's Industrial School itself and worked there for about 1½ years. Thereafter, he got a job in M/s My Furnishing Company in St. Marks Road, on a monthly salary of Rs.1,500/-. He had worked there for about 6 years from 1980 to 1986 and during that period he had developed wide contacts and occurred very good experience in the filed of carpentry. The Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant No.1 have started their own business in carpentry, interior decoration and civil contract works under the name and style of Mohan & Company. Subsequently the Plaintiff No.2 had also joined them in the year 1988. The Plaintiff No.1 was in charge of carpentry and interior decoration and Plaintiff No.2 and Defendant No.1 were incharge of civil contract works. The Mohan & 8 O.S.No.26013/2008 Company is a joint family business of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1.
(v) The joint family of the Plaintiffs and Defendants had purchased House property bearing House List No.120/7 situated at Chellakere Village 6 th B Main, Ring Road, Banasawadi Post, Bangalore-560 043 in the year 1988 out of the joint family funds. The father of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 had also given the jewellery, which was sold and then sale proceeds was utilized for purchasing property at Chellakere. The joint family of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 had purchased House property No.14/2, Mariamman Temple Street, Jaibharath Nagar, Bangalore, in the name of Defendant No.1, which was purchased out of the income derived from the joint family business i.e., Mohan & Company along with the income from ancestral landed 9 O.S.No.26013/2008 properties by sale of Casurena trees was used for purchasing the said house property.
(vi) During the year 1997, the joint family of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 had decided to purchase land and start an educational institution by forming a trust. Accordingly, the joint family had purchased the land comprised in Sy.No.9, situated at Bileshivale Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, previously Bangalore South Taluk, presently Bangalore East Taluk, totally measuring 3 acres, in the name of Defendant No.1, under three different sale deeds, after purchase of the lands, an educational trust was formed under the name and style of Sri. Srinivasa Educational and Cultural Trust. A Trust Deed dtd:11.6.2003 was also registered. The Plaintiff No.1 and 2 and Defendant No.1, 2, 3 have became trustees of the said Sri. Srinivasa Educational and Cultural Trust. The Defendant No.2 is the wife and 10 O.S.No.26013/2008 the Defendant No.3 is the son of the Defendant No.1. Therefore, a school building consisting of five floors was constructed by the joint efforts of the family and utilizing joint family funds. At the time of constructing the school building, a sum of Rs.16,50 lakhs was borrowed as hand loan from Ramachandran Ramanujalu (brother-in-law of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1). In addition to borrowing 16.50 lakhs, the joint family had sold casuarina trees existing in landed properties of the joint family in Tamil Nadu. By the sale of casuarina trees, a sum of Rs.19 lakhs was realized and the same was also utilized for construction of the school building. Initially, Nursery to 7th Standard was started. Later, High School and PUC classes were also started in the said institution, three school buses were also purchased in the name of the Trust. Apart from the school buses, joint family fund were 11 O.S.No.26013/2008 utilized for purchasing equipments for the school, including sports equipments and a small train for nursery children. Sri. Srinivasa Educational and Cultural Trust is a joint family Trust and its trustees are joint family members and the properties managed by the Trust are joint family properties.
(vii) The joint family has been carrying on agricultural operations in the landed properties situated at Tamil Nadu. The father of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 was looking after the agricultural operation up to the year 2000. Subsequent to 2000, the Plaintiff No.2 has been looking after the agricultural operation. The joint family has periodically purchased landed properties from 1998 onwards up to 2005 out of the joint family income. Three items of landed properties were acquired in the names of father M. Jayarama Naidu and Defendant No.1 out of joint family funds. Other 12 O.S.No.26013/2008 Items of landed properties have been acquired in the name of Defendant No.1 out of joint family funds, thus the joint family has not only improved the agricultural operations but also improved the business and acquired properties in Bangalore as well as at Allankupam, Nakalapakam and Brahma Desham in Tamil Nadu. The father of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 died intestate on 8.7.2006. The mother of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 died about 40 years back.
(viii) The current account of M/s Mohan and Company is in Andhra Bank, D'Costa Layout, Bangalore. Bank Accounts of the Trust are in Andhra Bank and Canara Bank, Vivekananda Nagar Branch, Bangalore. Fixed deposit accounts are in the names of joint family members in Villipuram Central Cooperative Bank. The Defendant No.1 has been operating all the Bank accounts. He has forged the 13 O.S.No.26013/2008 signature of the Plaintiff No.1 and 2 in the proceedings of the Trust meetings and in correspondences made on behalf of the trust. The Defendant No.1 is the eldest brother of the Plaintiffs. He has been fully incharge of the income or money arising from the business or from the agricultural operations and rental income. He is in a dominant position in the family. The Plaintiff No.1 and 2 are very industrious and they are very faithful to their brother, the Defendant No.1 herein.
(ix) The Defendant No.1 has alienated the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.71/1 (old Sy.No.129/1, 130/4 and 130/5), totally measuring 3 acres 36 cents, situated at Brahma Desham Village, Brahma Desham Panchayat, Marrakanam Panchayat Union, Tindivanam Taluk, Tamil Nadu, belonging to the joint family, in favour of Defendant No.5 without the 14 O.S.No.26013/2008 consent and knowledge of the Plaintiffs. That land has been sold for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- lakhs.
(x) The Defendant No.1 has sold the house property bearing House List No.120/7 situated at Chellakere Vilalge together with the building of 6 Squares, in favour of Defendant No.4 under a registered Sale Deed dtd: 26.5.2008 for a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- without the knowledge or consent of the Plaintiffs, by taking advantage of his position in the family and also the fact that the said property was in his name. Absolutely there was no necessity for alienating the said land property and house property. The alienations made by him were for any legal necessity nor for the benefit of the joint family. The said alienations are not binding on the Plaintiffs. The alienenees (the Defendant No.4 and 5) have not acquired ownership and possession in respect of the said landed property and house property. 15 O.S.No.26013/2008
(xi) After coming to know about the alienations of the aforesaid two items of joint family properties and the detrimental and injurious act of the Defendant No.1, the Plaintiffs had demanded him for an equitable partition of the joint estate and allotment of their legitimate shares therein, during the 3rd week of June 2008. The Defendant No.1 had bluntly refused to effect partition of the joint estate. The Plaintiffs are having direct and subsisting and undivided 1/4th share in all the Suit Schedule Properties. The alienation of two items of joint family properties are not binding on them. The Defendant No.1 has unjustly denied the legitimate claim of the Plaintiffs for division of the joint estate and allotment of their shares. Hence, prayed to decree the suit.
3. In pursuance of the suit summons, the Defendant No.1 to 5 have appeared through their Counsel and filed their written statements. 16 O.S.No.26013/2008
4. The Defendant No.1 in his amended written statement admitting the relationship between the parties and specifically denied the plaint averments and contended that:
(i) A Trust under the name and style of Sri. Srinivasa Educational and Cultural Trust has been formed, registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru on 11.6.2003. The Trustees are all the parties along with P. Sampathkumar Mohan, the Defendant No.3 herein a minor, at the time of formation of Trust. The Trust is the tenant in respect of a portion of building bearing Sy.No.724-9, (Survey No.9), Bilishivale, Dodda Gubbi Post, Bengaluru and the owner of the property is 1st Plaintiff Dr. J. Perumal. The Trust is called as Sri. Srinivasa Educational and Cultural Trust and its office is located at No.14/2, Mariamman Temple Street, Jayabharath Nagar, Bangalore-560 033.17 O.S.No.26013/2008
(ii) The Defendant No.1 and 2 are running educational institution under the name and style Sri. Vidhya Nikethan School and a school under the name and style Jayaram Educational and Cultural Trust. The courses conducted are upto 10 th Standard.
Sri. P. Sampathkumar Mohan is son of Sri. J. Perumal and Smt. Vanaja, their marriage took place on 25.9.1985. The Defendant No.3 was born in the C.S.I Church of South India Hospital, Bangalore, on 15.2.1987. A certificate has been issued by C.S.I Church of South India Hospital, Bangalore on 20.7.1999. His birth is shown as 15.2.1987. The intimation is furnished on 18.2.1987. The birth of a male child has been indicates. The Defendant No.1 and 2 have only child viz., P. Sampathkumar Mohan. The Defendant No.3 has completed S.S.L.C in March 2003. His date of birth is reflected in the S.S.L.C Marks Card as 15.2.1987. Sri. P. Sampathkumar 18 O.S.No.26013/2008 Mohan was a minor at the date when Trust came into existence viz., 2003. No permission of the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction has been obtained by the parties to induct a minor. In the Trust Deed he is shown as a Major, which is a bonafide mistake. All the parties knew that he was a minor. There cannot be an estoppel against Truth.
(iii) The Plaintiffs have not functioned as Trustees at all. On the other hand, they have disclaimed that they are Trustees. They have not been functioning as said, though Defendant No.1 is named as Trustee, he did not function at all.
(iv) It is further contended that:
(a) The contentions raised by the Plaintiffs that Item No.6 viz., landed property in Sy.No.128/2 measuring 0.14.0 Ares, 35 cents, Patta No.547 consists of the house is true. It is situated at Allankuppam Village. There is no Casuarina 19 O.S.No.26013/2008 plantation in the said land. Deliberately, it is mentioned that there is Casuarina plantation.
(b) Item No.7 is a dry land and its extent is 39 ½ cents and one acre 76 ½ cents. The contention that there is a Casuarina plantation in the said land is far from truth. This is false to the core.
(c) The Defendant No.1 purchased properties under three deeds of sale; one dated: 15.10.1998 in all measuring 1 acres 46.5 cent, sale deed dated: 22.10.1998 in all measuring 2 acres 34 cent and Sale Deed dated: 4.11.1998 in all measuring 1 acre 6 cent. The total extent of land purchased is 4.6734 cents. Out of Plaintiffs' father had only half of the share. There is no Casuarina plantation in any of these lands. The sale deed is in the names of the 1st Defendant and his father. The entire consideration for the Sale Deed is paid by the 1st Defendant.20 O.S.No.26013/2008
(d) The Defendant No.1 completed his diploma, while he was young. The claim that he was jobless is false to the core. It is indeed unfortunate defamatory allegations are made against this Defendant. It is no doubt true that the Defendant No.1 come to Bangalore but not in the manner suggested. It was not on the suggestion of the brothers in the Christian Mission that Defendant No.1 come to Bangalore, but on the other hand he came to Bangalore voluntarily and secured a job. He had worked as Peon during 1997. All earning are his self-acquired. He was not married then. He was able to save some money for himself, apart from contribution made for the family maintenance. The 1st Defendant was also earning money from teaching driving, driving vehicles and by doing other jobs. The Defendant No.1 has a doctorate in vedic astrology, he also wrote book of Indian System of Medicine Siddha. He has a number 21 O.S.No.26013/2008 of client. He has a number of patients. He earns a lot of money. This fact is admitted by the Plaintiff.
(e) While he was working as such from out of his own funds, he commenced a proprietary concern by name Mohan and Company. The main object of the proprietary concern was to carry all civil works ad wood works, apart from that other sundry works. The Defendant No.1 had a driving license. He was also doing the part time job as driver from 1977 to 1987. He used to drop the School children and do some part time driving job. He used to teach driving to some persons, who were keen of learning. He has earned good monies. He was doing so without disturbing his regular employment.
(f) The Plaintiffs have deliberately and falsely contended that the Defendant No.1 suffered pain during the year 1990. The claim is made as though this Defendant was unable to work and had to stay 22 O.S.No.26013/2008 at home permanently. On the other hand, he had back pain for which he was underwent treatment. Thereafter, he resumed the work. The allegation that he was bed ridden for 1 and ½ years is totally false. This Defendant had obtained leave. The contention that this Defendant was unable to work in the High School Maria Niketan is false. On the other hand, during his absence from School and when he had obtained leave he was concentrating at Mohan and company and other jobs. Indeed it is stated that this Defendant has earned lot of money from Mohan and Company. During that period, he had accumulated huge sums of money and invested in civil work from the Friend in need Society. This Defendant had a number of jobs to complete viz., building of cottage, which was worth about Rs.9 lakhs at that juncture. Nowhere Plaintiffs have pleaded that 1 st Defendant was looked after by them or that they contributed 23 O.S.No.26013/2008 any sum of money towards the treatment of the Defendant No.1 at Chennai or at any other point.
(g) The Plaintiff No.1 came to Bangalore and worked as a Carpenter in various places; however, his wages did not exceed Rs.100/- per month. The claim that he earned Rs.1,500/- in M/s My Furnishing Company from 1980 to 1986 is false to the core. It was only at daily wages he worked. The claim that he had earned lot of goodwill and that through his contacts, he was able to start or commence a company by name "Mohan and Company" as a joint family concern consisting of Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 is emphatically denied as false. The averments claiming that (which is not admitted) Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant No.1 commenced the business Mohan and Company is false even according to Plaintiff No.1, Plaintiff No.2 and 3 are nowhere in the picture. It cannot be a family concern. However, it is 24 O.S.No.26013/2008 emphatically denied that Mohan and Company had anything to do with Plaintiff No.1 or any of the Plaintiffs. It is solely a proprietary concern of which Sri. Perumal, Defendant No.1 is sole proprietor.
(h) M/s Mohan and Company has current account in the Andhra Bank bearing No.476. All the cheques are credited to the account. The office address of the Mohan and Company is No.120/7, Chelkere, Ring Road, 6th B Main, Banaswadi P.O, Bangalore. There is no office at No.14/2, Mariamman Temple Street, Jayabharathi Nagar, Bangalore. The residential address of 1st Defendant is No.14/2, Mariamman Temple Street, Jayabharathi Nagar, Bangalore.
(i) There is no account of Mohan and Company in Canara Bank. But the 1st Plaintiff has an account in the State Bank of Mysore apart from A/c 25003 and new A/c No.00119001012003. He has opened an 25 O.S.No.26013/2008 account on 20.11.1986. The residential address furnished is No.14/2, Mariamman Temple Street, Jayabharath Nagar, Bangalore. The contention that the joint family decided to purchase land, start an educational institute by forming a trust during the year 1997 is a tissue of lies and are emphatically denied as false. At this juncture, it is necessary to state that Plaintiff No.2 is residing at Allankuppam Village and not at Bangalore. He was looking after the lands belonging to the father of the parties in that village viz., 1 ½ acre. He has the voter I.D and he has Ration Card in that Village. Children are admitted in that Tendivanam Taluk. His family is at Tendivanam Taluk, Villipuram District, Tamil Nadu. The address of the Plaintiffs in the cause title is deliberately and wrongly mentioned as No.14/2, Mariamman Temple Street, Jayabharth Nagar, Bangalore. He is not residing in that address. He is a 26 O.S.No.26013/2008 permanent resident of Allankuppam Village. The Ration Card produced by the Plaintiff to state that he is residing at Bangalore is false. For their conveyance the Ration Card is got up. The Plaintiff No.2 according to him, has two Voters I.D one in the Bangalore and other in Village. He should have surrendered one of them. He cannot have two voters I.D and a cast votes. The same would amounts to misconduct on his part. Having two Ration Cards at different places is also impermissible under the apposite law. From the averments in the plaint, it is clear that the family of the Plaintiffs were not affluent and the income got generated from out of the dry land at Allankuppam Village was wholly insufficient to maintain the members of the family. For these reasons, the Defendant No.1 had migrated to Bangalore and likewise Plaintiff No.1. On compassionate grounds, Defendant No.1 entered 27 O.S.No.26013/2008 Plaintiff No.1 and looked after him as a brother. For the purchase of the lands jointly by this Defendant and his father, the Defendant No.1 has paid the entire consideration, out of love and affection he has towards his father, sale deeds were made out in his name also. And the family was not affluent at any time. In the circumstances, the purchase was made viz., in the name of the joint name of the father of the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant. The Plaintiffs' father admittedly was an agriculturist. He had no other avocation. His only source of income was from agriculture. The income generated from the land viz., Item No.6 and 7 was not even sufficient to maintain the family and the father was unable to purchase any lands. For these reasons Defendant No.1 had to come to Bangalore and earn money to support the family and to educate his younger brother. The Plaintiff No.3's marriage could not be performed for 28 O.S.No.26013/2008 paucity of funds and therefore, this Defendant from out of earning had contributed for her marriage also. The father of the parties had obtained a loan for the purpose of marriage of the daughter/Plaintiff No.3. He was unable to clear the amount. This Defendant has cleared the said amount. The father of the Defendant and Defendant No.1 purchased lands at Kallur Village and another village for Plaintiff No.3.
(j) The claim made in para No.9 of the plaint that the joint family decided to purchase land and start an educational institution is false to the core. This Defendant has, out of his own earnings, purchased lands out of Sy.No.9, Bileshivale Village. The purchase is made by Defendant No.1 in his individual capacity and not for the joint family. The extent of land purchased is reflected in the sale deed. The claim that after the purchase of lands an educational trust was formed is a distorted version of 29 O.S.No.26013/2008 facts. On the other hand, the purchase of land by Defendant No.1 has nothing to do with the formation of the trust. It is no doubt true that the trust deed has been registered. The contention that a five floor building has been constructed is true, however the construction is made by Defendant No.1, however the claim that the said floors were constructed by the joint efforts of the family equalizing joint family funds is false to the core. The further contention that a sum of Rs.15,50,000/- was borrowed as hand loan from Ramachandra Ramanujalu and sale of Casuarina trees standing in the land belonging to joint family is false to the core. The 1 st Defendant has in his individual capacity obtained loans from banks like Citi Finance Limited (Twenty Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) for purpose of putting of construction. The Casuarina plantation was in the land of this Defendant. In the land of Jairama Naidu 30 O.S.No.26013/2008 there were Casuarina trees in an extent of 1 acre. The income generated was not even sufficient to meet the expenses. The 1st Defendant completed the construction of the building by his own funds. There is no school building. The contention that school buses have been purchased in the name of trust is false.
(k) The Layland bus is in the name of the Principal of the school. Tata Sumo has been purchased by Defendant No.1 by obtaining loan which has been discharged. The bike Kinetic Honda belongs to Defendant No.3. TVS Victor belongs to Plaintiff. The Ashoka Layland buses are not yet transferred to the name of the school. Fiat Car also belongs to the school. The claim that joint family funds have been utilized for the purchase of the vehicle, purchase of equipments for the School and a small train for nursery children is emphatically 31 O.S.No.26013/2008 denied. The contention that Sri Srinivasa Educational and Cultural Trust is a joint family trust and its trustees are joint family members and the Properties managed by the Trust are joint family properties are denied as false.
(l) The Defendant No.1 has admitted the sale of the agricultural land bearing No.71/1 measuring 3 acres 36 cents situated at Brahma Desham Village, Brahma Desham Panchayat, Marrakanam Panchayat Union, Tindivanam Taluk, Tamil Nadu in favour of Defendant No.5 and also House Property bearing House List No.120/7 situated at Chellekere Village together with the building 6 squares, in favour of Defendant No.4 under a registered sale deed dtd:
26.5.2008 and contended that the above said properties are his self-acquired and therefore he has sold the same without the consent of the Plaintiffs and contended that except Item No.6 and 7 of the 32 O.S.No.26013/2008 properties all are self-acquired properties of the Defendant No.1.
(m) The Plaintiffs are not in possession of any of the properties. Except the one which belongs to the father viz., a house at 1 ½ acres of land Schedule B, that to after divided the jewellery sought to be owned by the joint family. Schedule B jewellery is not in existence. The Defendant No.1 does not have any jewellery. If it really exists, it should be with the Plaintiffs. However, the Plaintiffs have taken inconsistent stands. At one time they say that the jewellery has been sold but they mention the same in the Schedule B. With regard to the vehicle this Defendant has already traversed.
(n) Item No.1 of the Schedule A has been sold. Item No.6 and 7 are belongs to the father of the Plaintiffs and this Defendant. Item No.8, 9 and 10 and all other items belongs to this Defendant. 33 O.S.No.26013/2008 Though in respect of the three items, the sale deeds are in the joint name of this Defendant and his father, the consideration of the purchase has flowed from the self-earnings of this Defendant.
(o) The Plaintiffs have approached the Court with unclean hands. The Plaintiffs have suppressed the true and projected falsehood. The suit is bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of proper and necessary parties. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. The Defendant No.1 has filed additional written statement contending that the Schedule 6 and 7 properties do not belong to the father of Plaintiffs and this Defendant. The father of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1 was only having an old house and certain dry lands which were not yielding any crops. The old house and the land were not inherited by him. Some lands were purchased by him under the Deeds of Sale and some other lands 34 O.S.No.26013/2008 were settled by his elder brother M. Ramadas Naidu under the settlement deeds. Both the Deeds are registered. The said facts are within the knowledge of the Plaintiffs. It is further submitted that both sale deeds and settlement deeds were produced by this Defendant and other than the lands mentioned in the said registered deeds. The father of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 did not have any lands of his own either by inheritance or by succession. It is contended that the Plaintiffs have replaced the entire Schedule No.6 of the plaint. The new property in the Schedule 6 landed property bearing Sy.No.222/6/3/4 00.3.01, 0006.87 and 004.75 in total 14.63 Ares 36 ½ cents village No.193 and House old No.209 did not belong to the father of the Plaintiffs and this Defendant or anyone of their family. No document of title in respect of this property exists or produced. It is trite law that Revenue documents are not 35 O.S.No.26013/2008 documents of title. The plaint is silent in what manner this property was acquired. The revenue record produced also does not show in what manner the property was acquired. The documents are not germane and got up for the purpose of this case. In respect of Item No.6 and 7 of the schedule to the plaint. The Plaintiffs have suppressed the truth, which fact is evidence from the amendment made. All other averments made in the plaint are denied as false. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
6. The Plaintiff No.1 has filed rejoinder to the amended written statement of Defendant No.1 and contended that the Defendant No.1 at Para No.2 of his written statement has admitted that an educational trust under the name and style of Sree Srinivasa Educational & Cultural Trust was formed and that the Trust Deed dtd: 11.6.2003 was also registered. The Plaintiff No.1 and 2 and Defendant 36 O.S.No.26013/2008 No.1 to 3 are the trustees of the said Sree Srinivasa Educational & Cultural Trust. The joint family of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 3 had purchased the land comprised in Sy.No.9 of Bileshivale Village measuring 3 acres (suit Item Nos.3, 4 & 5) in the name of Defendant No.1 under three different sale Deeds. After the purchase of the said lands, the said educational trust was formed and a school was started in a portion of the said lands by constructing a five floor building. The joint family trust had started the school and continued to operate the same. It is nearly three years after the institution of the above suit, the Defendant No.1 and 2 got their written statement amended by raising untenable contentions that the said Sree Srinivasa Educational & Cultural Trust is void and non-existing, with a malafide intention of denying the legitimate claim of the Plaintiffs in the suit item Nos.3, 4 and 5 and also 37 O.S.No.26013/2008 the benefits of the educational institution started by the family trust. Further, the Defendant No.1 and his wife Smt. P. Vanaja have filed suit in O.S.No.25132/2010 against the Plaintiff No.1 and 2 and Sri. P. Sampath Kumar to declare that the Trust Deed dtd: 11.6.2003 registered as illegal and void and also for permanent injunction, restraining the Defendants in the said suit for claiming to be trustees or seeking any relief on the basis of the Deed of the Trust. The suit so filed is also pending. The Plaintiff No.1 and 2 herein are the Defendant No.1 and 2 in the said suit, O.S.No.25132/2010 and they are opposing the reliefs claim in the said subsequent suit. The Defendant No.1 to 3 have been working injurious and detrimental to the interest of the Plaintiffs herein. In addition to the separate suit filed by the Defendant No.1 and 2 to declare that the said Sree Srinivasa Educational & Cultural Trust is 38 O.S.No.26013/2008 void, they have unnecessarily raised irrelevant contentions in the above suit for partition. The averments made in Para No.10(a) that the said Sree Srinivasa Educational & Cultural Trust is non-existing and is a tenant in respect of a portion of the building in Sy.No.9 of Bileshivale Village are not correct and the same are hereby denied. The permission and recognition for starting and running the educational institution in the building constructed in Sy.No.9 of Bileshivale has been obtained from the Department of Education, Government of Karnataka in the name of the said Trust. Subsequent to filing of the above suit for partition, the Defendant No.1 and 2 have raised a distorted version therein that the trust is void. The Defendant No.1 and 2 have deliberately suppressed the truth and material facts regarding the obtaining of permission and recognition in the name of Sree Srinivasa Educational & Cultural Trust 39 O.S.No.26013/2008 and operating the institution in its name. The Defendant No.1 and 2 with oblique motive and malafide intentions have tried to change the name of the trust as Jayram Educational & Cultural Trust. It is not correct to state that Defendant No.1 and 2 are running the educational institution under the name and style of Vidyanikethan School & College and a School under the name and style of Jayrama Educational & Cultural Trust. The Defendant No.1 has now given the date of birth of his son P. Sampathkumar Mohan as if he was unaware of the age of his son at the time of the formation and registration of the said Sree Srinivasa Educational & Cultural Trust. The Department of Education, Govt., of Karnataka had accepted the validity of the Trust and sanctioned approval and recognition for starting the School. Now, only for the purpose of denying the legitimate claim of the Plaintiffs in the suit properties 40 O.S.No.26013/2008 and also the benefits accruing from the educational institution, the Defendant No.1 and 2 have come up with an incorrect version. There are no bonafides on their part in getting their written statements amended. It is not correct to state that the Plaintiff No.1 and 2 have not functioned as trustees at all. The averments that the Plaintiff No.1 and 2 have disclaimed that they are trustees, are not true and the same are hereby denied. The Plaintiff No.1 was the President from the inception of the trust and he was continuing as President of the trust even as on the date of the institution of the above suit. Subsequent to the filing of the above suit, the Defendant No.1 has created documents and made manipulations to eliminate the Plaintiff No.1 and 2 from the trust and to deny their legitimate claims in the corpus of the joint family. Hence, prayed to decree the suit.
41 O.S.No.26013/2008
7. The Plaintiff No.2 and 3 adopts the rejoinder filed by Plaintiff No.1 to the amended written statement of Defendant No.1.
8. The Defendant No.4 has filed his written statement and adopts the written statement filed by the Defendant No.1 in as far as the sale of the property in favour of this Defendant is concerned. This Defendant has purchased the property for valuable consideration under a Deed of Sale, which has been duly registered on 26.5.2008. The sale is for purposes of family benefit and legal necessities of Defendant No.1. But the consideration shown in the plaint is totally false. The registered document speaks for itself. The purchase is made for Rs.15.60 lakhs. The property is purchased by the Trust. All the Trustees have to be impleaded as parties. Without impleading all the trustees the suit is bad for non- joinder of proper and necessary parties. All other 42 O.S.No.26013/2008 averments made in the affidavit, not herein before traversed and contrary to the averments made above are denied as false. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
9. The Defendant No.5 has filed his written statement and adopts the written statement filed by the Defendant No.1 in as far as the sale of the property in favour of this Defendant is concerned. This Defendant has purchased the property for valuable consideration under a Deed of Sale, which has been duly registered on 26.5.2008. The sale is for purposes of family benefit and legal necessities of Defendant No.1. But the consideration shown in the plaint is totally false. The registered document speaks for itself. The purchase is made for Rs.2,42,000/-. The property is purchased by the Trust. All the Trustees have to be impleaded as parties. Without impleading all the trustees the suit 43 O.S.No.26013/2008 is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties. All other averments made in the affidavit, not herein before traversed and contrary to the averments made above are denied as false. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
10. Based on the aforesaid pleadings this Court has framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit properties are the Joint family property liable for partition?
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitle for 1/4th share?
3. Whether the defendants prove that the sale in his favour for legal and family necessities and defendant No.4 is a bonafide purchaser?44 O.S.No.26013/2008
4. Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?
5. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction?
6. Whether suit is valued properly and court fee paid is sufficient?
7. Whether suit is hit by non joinder and mis joinder of parties?
8. What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES
1. Whether the Defendants 4 and 5 prove that they are the bonafide purchasers of the property for value?
2. Whether the Plaintiff proves that out of the nucleus of Item No.6 and 7 properties shown in the 45 O.S.No.26013/2008 plaint, other properties were acquired by the joint family?
3. Whether the Defendant No.1 proves that except Item No.1 & 2 all other properties are self-
acquired properties of the
Defendant No.1?
11. To prove the case of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff No.1 got examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.125 documents. The Defendant No.1 got marked himself as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.116 documents and closed his side.
12. Heard both sides and perused the written arguments filed by Plaintiff and Defendant No.1.
13. My answers to the above issues are as follows:-
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative.
Issue No.3 : As per findings.46 O.S.No.26013/2008
Issue No.4 : In the Negative.
Issue No.5 : In the Negative.
Issue No.6 : In the Negative.
Issue No.7 : In the Negative.
Addl.Issue No.1 : As per findings.
Addl.Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative.
Addl.Issue No.3 : In the Negative.
Issue No.8 : As per final orders for the following:
REASONS
14. Issues No.1, 2 and Additional issue No.2 and 3:- These issues are inter-related, hence, answered in common, in order to avoid repetition of facts.
15. The nutshell of the Plaintiff's case is that, the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 are brothers and the members of Hindu Undivided Family, which owns Schedules A and B. The father of the Plaintiffs M. Jayarama Naidu had inherited an house property specified at Item No.6 and 7 of A Schedule. During 47 O.S.No.26013/2008 the year 1976 the Defendant No.1 was appointed as a peon at Maria Niketan High School, on a basic monthly salary of Rs.250/-. And took voluntary retirement from his service in the year 1997. In the year 1977 the Plaintiff No.1 completed his Diploma Course in carpentry and came to Bangalore and got carpentry work in St. Mary's Industrial School itself and worked there for about 1 ½ years. Thereafter, he got a job in M/s My Furnishing Company in St. Marks Road on a monthly salary of Rs.1,500/-. He had worked there for about 6 years from 1980 to 1986 and during that period he had developed wide contacts and occurred very good experience in the filed of carpentry. The Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant No.1 have started their own joint family business in carpentry, interior decoration and civil contract works under the name and style of Mohan & Company. Subsequently the Plaintiff No.2 had also 48 O.S.No.26013/2008 joined them in the year 1988. The Plaintiff No.1 was in charge of carpentry and interior decoration and Plaintiff No.2 and Defendant No.1 were incharge of civil contract works.
16. The joint family of the Plaintiffs and Defendants had purchased House property in the year 1988 out of the joint family funds. The father of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 had also given the jewellery, which was sold and then sale proceeds was utilized for purchasing property at Chellakere. The joint family of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 had purchased House property No.14/2, Mariamman Temple Street, Jaibharath Nagar, Bangalore, in the name of Defendant No.1, which was purchased out of the income derived from Mohan & Company along with the income from ancestral landed properties by sale of Casuarina trees.
49 O.S.No.26013/2008
17. During the year 1997, the joint family had purchased the land comprised in Sy.No.9, situated at Bileshivale Village, measuring 3 acres, in the name of Defendant No.1, under three different sale deeds, after purchase of the lands, registered Sri. Srinivasa Educational and Cultural Trust was formed dtd: 11.6.2003. The Plaintiff No.1 and 2 and Defendant No.1, 2, 3 have became trustees. A school building consisting of five floors was constructed by the joint efforts of the family and utilizing joint family funds. At the time of constructing the school building, a sum of Rs.16,50 lakhs was borrowed as hand loan from Ramachandran Ramanujalu (brother- in-law of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1). In addition to borrowing 16.50 lakhs, the joint family had sold casuarina trees existing in landed properties of the joint family in Tamil Nadu. By the sale of casuarina trees, a sum of Rs.19 lakhs was 50 O.S.No.26013/2008 realized and the same was also utilized for construction of the school building. The Trust is a joint family Trust and its trustees are joint family members and the properties managed by the trust are joint family properties.
18. Three items of landed properties were acquired in the names of father M. Jayarama Naidu and Defendant No.1 out of joint family funds. Other Items of landed properties have been acquired in the name of Defendant No.1 out of joint family funds. The father of the Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 died intestate on 8.7.2006. The mother died about 40 years back. The fixed deposit accounts are in the names of joint family members in Villipuram Central Cooperative Bank. The Defendant No.1 has been operating all the Bank accounts. He has forged the signature of the Plaintiff No.1 and 2 in the proceedings of the Trust meetings and in 51 O.S.No.26013/2008 correspondences made on behalf of the trust. The Defendant No.1 is the eldest brother. The Defendant No.1 has alienated the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.71/1 measuring 3 acres 36 cents, situated at Brahma Desham Village, in favour of Defendant No.5 for Rs.25,00,000/- lakhs, without the consent and knowledge of the Plaintiffs.
19. The Defendant No.1 has sold the house property situated at Chellakere Vilalge, in favour of Defendant No.4 under a registered Sale Deed dtd: 26.5.2008 for a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- without the knowledge or consent of the Plaintiffs. The said alienations are not binding on the Plaintiffs. The Defendant No.1 had bluntly refused partition. Hence, prayed to decree the suit.
20. The Defendant No.1 admitted the relationship contended that P. Sampathkumar Mohan, the Defendant No.3 herein a minor, at the 52 O.S.No.26013/2008 time of formation of Trust. The Trust is the tenant in respect of a portion of building bearing Sy.No.724-9, 1st Plaintiff is the owner of the property. The Defendant No.1 and 2 are running Sri. Vidhya Nikethan School under Jayaram Educational and Cultural Trust. P. Sampathkumar Mohan was a minor at the date when Trust came into existence viz., 2003. No permission of the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction has been obtained by the parties to induct a minor. Item No.6 viz., landed property in Sy.No.128/2 measuring 0.14.0 Ares, 35 cents, consists of the house. There is no Casuarina plantation in the said land. The Item No.7 is a dry land and its extent is 39 ½ cents and one acre 76 ½ cents. There is no Casuarina plantation in the said land. The Defendant No.1 purchased properties under three Deeds of Sale dated: 15.10.1998 in all measuring 1 acres 46.5 cent, Sale Deed dated: 53 O.S.No.26013/2008
22.10.1998 in all measuring 2 acres 34 cent and Sale Deed dated: 4.11.1998 in all measuring 1 acre 6 cent. The total extent of land purchased is 4.6734 cents. Out of Plaintiffs' father had only half of the share. There is no Casuarina plantation in any of these lands. The entire consideration for the Sale Deed is paid by the 1st Defendant. The Defendant No.1 came to Bangalore voluntarily and secured a job. He had worked as Peon during 1997. All earning are his self-acquired. The 1st Defendant was also earning money from teaching, driving vehicles and by doing other jobs. The Defendant No.1 has a doctorate in vedic astrology, he also wrote book of Indian System of Medicine Siddha. He has a number of client. He has a number of patients. He earns a lot of money. While he was working as such from out of his own funds, he commenced a proprietary concern by name Mohan and Company. He had accumulated 54 O.S.No.26013/2008 huge sums of money and invested in civil work from the Friend in need Society. M/s Mohan and Company is solely a proprietary concern of which Sri. Perumal, Defendant No.1 is sole proprietor. For the purchase of the lands jointly by this Defendant and his father, the Defendant No.1 has paid the entire consideration, out of love and affection sale deeds were made out in his name also. The income generated from Item No.6 and 7 was not even sufficient to maintain the family. The father of the Defendant and Defendant No.1 purchased lands at Kallur Village and another village for Plaintiff No.3.
This Defendant has, out of his own earnings, purchased Sy.No.9, Bileshivale Village, in his individual capacity and not for the joint family. The Casuarina plantation was in the land of this Defendant. In the land of Jayrama Naidu there were Casuarina trees in an extent of 1 acre. The 1 st 55 O.S.No.26013/2008 Defendant completed the construction of the building by his own funds. The Layland bus is in the name of the Principal of the school. Tata Sumo has been purchased by Defendant No.1 by obtaining loan which has been discharged. The bike Kinetic Honda belongs to Defendant No.3. TVS Victor belongs to Plaintiff. Except Item No.6 and 7 of the properties all are self-acquired properties of the Defendant No.1.
21. The Item No.1 of the Schedule A has been sold. The Item No.6 and 7 are belongs to the father of the Plaintiffs and this Defendant. Item No.8, 9 and 10 and all other items belongs to this Defendant. Though in respect of the three items, the sale deeds are in the joint name of this Defendant and his father, the consideration of the purchase has flowed from the self-earnings of this Defendant. The father of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant No.1 was only having an old house and certain dry lands which 56 O.S.No.26013/2008 were not yielding any crops. The old house and the land were not inherited by him. Some lands were purchased by him under the Deeds of Sale and some other lands were settled by his elder brother M. Ramadas Naidu under the settlement deeds. Both the Deeds are registered.
22. The Defendant No.4 contended that he has purchased the property for valuable consideration on 26.5.2008. The sale is for the purpose of family benefit and legal necessities of Defendant No.1. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
23. The Defendant No.5 contends that he has purchased the property for valuable consideration on 26.5.2008. The sale is for the purpose of family benefit and legal necessities of Defendant No.1. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
57 O.S.No.26013/2008
24. It is significant to note here that during the course of his oral evidence PW.1 has made following admission which throw light on the real dispute:
ªÉÆúÀ£ï CAqï PÀA¥É¤AiÀÄ ¨ÁåAPï SÁvÉAiÀÄÄ £À£Àß ºÉ¸À£Àj°èzÀÄÝ, D SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÉÄà £À£ÀUÉ ºÉý vÉUɬĹPÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ. ¨ÁåAPï SÁvÉAiÀÄ°è proprietor CAvÀ §gÉ ¢zÉ JAzÀgÉ ¤d. ¸ÀzÀj SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£Éà ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¤d. ........... FUÀ®Æ £ÀªÀÄäzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀĪÀgÀzÀÄ MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§ EzÀÄÝ FUÀ Hl ªÀiÁvÀæ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛêÉ. £ÁªÀÅ ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£É ªÀÄÆgÀÄ CAvÀ¸ÀÄÛ EzÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ JgÀqÀ£Éà CAvÀ¹Û£À°è EzÉÝãÉ. £É®CAvÀ¸ÀÄÛ ¨ÁrUÉUÉ ©nÖzÀÄÝ, ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà CAvÀ¹Û£À°è 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÁÝgÉ. ..................... £ÀªÀÄä CtÚ£Éà ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ J¯Áè ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝzÀÝjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß læ¸ïÖ£À°è ¸ÉÃj¹®è. LlA £ÀA§gï 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 7 ªÀiÁvÀæ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀÄ PÀqɬÄAzÀ §AzÀ ¦vÁæfðvÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ JAzÀÄ C¸À®Ä CfðAiÀÄ°è §gÉ¢zÉÝêÉAzÀgÉ ¤d. ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉUÉ §A ¢zÀݪÀÅ JAzÀgÉ ¤d. ................ LlA £ÀA§gï 6 RÄ¶Ì d«ÄãÀÄ EzÀÄÝ LlA £ÀA§gï 7 ¤ÃgÁªÀj d«ÄãÀÄ EzÀÄÝ CzÀPÉÌ PÉgÉ ¤ÃgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨Á«¬ÄAzÀ ¤ÃgÁªÀj ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜ EzÉ. ............LlA £ÀA§gï 6 ¸ÀéwÛ£À°è PÉ®ªÀÅ ¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ¸ÀªÉð VqÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁQzÉÝêÉ. .........
.......... £À£Àß ºÉ¸Àj£À°è Mohan and Company Proprietary Concern EzÉ, CzÀ£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä CtÚ£Éà £ÀªÀÄUÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ. ......... £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄgÀt ºÉÆA¢£À PÉ®ªÀÅ ¢ £ÀUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀzÀj PÀA¥É¤ ¥ÁægÀA¨Às ªÀiÁrzÉÝêÉ. £Á£Éà CzÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÆÃ¯ï ¥ÉÇæ¥ÀgÉÃlgï EzÉÝãÉ. 2007 gÀ°è CzÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁægÀA¨Às ªÀiÁrgÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ. .............. CzÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ EAnÃjAiÀÄgï qÉPÉÆÃgÉõÀ£ï PÉ®¸À ªÀUÉÊgÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛêÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀsªÀiïð ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £ÁªÀÅ C£ÉÃPÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrzÉÝêÉ. .......... £ÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉ D PÁ®PÉÌ 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀÉ ºÀt PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÉÆà E®èªÉÇà £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. 1976 gÀ°è ªÉÆzÀ® ¨ÁjUÉ 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ §A¢gÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ. ¸ÉAmï ªÉÄÃj EAqÀ¹Ö çÃAiÀÄ¯ï ¸ÀÆ̯ï£À°è CªÀgÀÄ PÁ¥ÉðAlgï PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀÝgÀÄ. ............ 1985 gÀ°è JµÀÄÖ d«Ää£À°è UÁ½ ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¨É¼ÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ, CzÀjAzÀ §AzÀ ªÀgÀªÀiÁ£ÀzÀ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ»w E®è. ............. ............ªÉÆúÀ£ï CAqï PÀA¥É¤ MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ©f£É¸ï£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ, 2£Éà ªÁ¢, 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀĪÀgÀzÀÄ DVzÉ. ................ MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇæ¥ÀgÉÃlgï CAvÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¥Àæw¤¢ü¹zÉÝãÉ. ªÉÆúÀ£ï CAqï PÀA¥É¤AiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ F zÁªÉAiÀÄ°è ¥Ánð ªÀiÁr®è. KPÉAzÀgÉ CzÀgÀ ªÀgÀªÀiÁ£À¢AzÀ¯Éà MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ D PÁgÀtPÁÌV CzÀ£ÀÄß ¥Ánð ªÀiÁr®è. ............... 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ PÀqɬÄAzÀ ZÉPï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÉÆúÀ£ï 58 O.S.No.26013/2008 CAqï PÀA¥É¤ ¥ÀgÀªÁV £Á£ÀÄ C£ÉÃPÀ ¸À® ºÀt ¥ÀqÉ¢zÉÝãÉAzÀgÉ ¤d. CzÉà jÃw £ÀªÀÄä vÀªÀÄä 2£Éà ªÁ¢ ¸ÀºÁ ZÉPï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ PÀqɬÄAzÀ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉ¢zÁÝ£ÉAzÀgÉ ¤d. ........À ªÉÆúÀ£ï CAqï PÀA¥É¤UÉ CAzÁdÄ 70 ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ZÉPïUÀ¼ÀÄ §A¢gÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ, CzÀÄ MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀÄÝ CAvÀ ¸ÁQë ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ MAzÀƪÀgÉ ¬ÄAzÀ JgÀqÀÄ PÉÆÃn gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄAiÀÄ ZÉPïUÀ¼ÀÄ eÉÊ£ï EAlgï £ÁåµÀ£À¯ï ¸ÀÆ̯ï¤AzÀ §A¢gÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ, CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÉÆúÀ£ï CAqï PÀA¥É¤ £ÀªÀÄä CtÚ£À ºÉ¸Àj£À°ègÀĪÀ 2£Éà SÁvÉAiÀÄ°è ºÁQzÀÄÝ CzÀÆ ¸ÀºÁ MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀÄÝ CAvÀ ¸ÁQë ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÉÆzÀ°£À SÁvÉ £À£Àß ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ 2£Éà SÁvÉ £À£Àß CtÚ£À ºÉ¸Àj£À°èzÉ. ªÉÆzÀ°£À SÁvÉ FUÀ®Æ ZÁ°ÛAiÀÄ°èzÉ. ...................PÉ®ªÉÇAzÀÄ ¸À® £ÀªÀÄä CtÚ £ÀªÀÄä SÁvÉAiÀÄ°è ºÀt ºÁQ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÝjAzÀ ºÀt ºÁQzÉÝêÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ¼À°èPÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrzÀ §UÉÎ ZÉPïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉ®ªÉÇAzÀÄ ¸À® £Á£ÀÄ, PÉ®ªÉÇAzÀÄ ¸À® £ÀªÀÄä CtÚ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢zÁÝgÉ.
........a£ÀäAiÀÄ ¸ÀÆ̯ï£À°è ªÀiÁrzÀ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ mÉAqÀgï PÀgÉ¢gÀ°®è, MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV £Á£Éà PÉÆmÉõÀ£ï PÉÆlÄÖ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉ.
a£Àä¬Ä «ÄµÀ£ï£À°è £ÁªÀÅ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrzÀ PÁ®PÀÉÌ ¯Á¨Às DVzÀÄÝ CzÀjAzÀ¯Éà ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀévÀÄÛ Rjâ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÉ. ¯Á¨Às JµÀÄÖ §A¢zÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä CtÚ¤UÉ UÉÆvÀÄÛ. eÉÊ£ï EAlgï £ÁåµÀ£À¯ï ¸ÀÆ̯ï£À°è ªÀiÁrzÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ a£ÀäAiÀÄ «ÄµÀ£ï£À°è ªÀiÁrzÀ PÉ®¸ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ MAzÉà vÀgÀºÀzÀÄÝ EªÉ. D J¯Áè PÉ®¸ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ªÀiÁrzÀ PÉ®¸ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ DVªÉ. .............. £ÀªÀÄä CtÚ §AzÀ MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀðzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉA¼ÀÆjUÉ §AzÉ£ÀÄ.£Á£ÀÄ J¸ï.J¸ï.J¯ï.¹. ªÀgÉUÉ N¢ PÁ¥ÉðAljAiÀÄ°è r¥ÉÇèêÉÆà ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉ. ................... LlA £ÀA§gï 1 ¸ÀévÀÄÛ £ÀªÀÄä CtÚ£À ºÉ¸Àj£À°èzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¤d. ................ £Á£ÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ «zÀÄåvï ©¯ï ºÁUÀÆ ¤Ãj£À ©¯ï ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀéwÛUÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀs¥ÀlÖ PÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÉÄà MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀĪÀ ªÀÄ£É 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ ¸ÀéAiÀiÁfðvÀ ¸ÀévÁÛVzÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ ¥ÀæªÉñÀ ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.
It is false to suggest that I have not shown the ancestral house in Tamilnadu in the amended plaint.
25. It is significant to note here that during the course of his oral evidence Defendant who deposed as DW.1 has made following admission which throw light on the real dispute:
59 O.S.No.26013/2008
........... £Á£ÀÄ 1975 gÀ°è ªÉÆzÀ® ¨ÁjUÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ §A¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ......£Á£ÀÄ 1977 gÀ°è ªÀÄjAiÀÄ ¤SÉÃvÀ£À ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÉ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. 1977 jAzÀ 1997 gÀªÀgÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ C¯Éèà PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. 1£Éà ªÁ¢AiÀÄÄ r¥ÉÇèªÉÆà ªÁå¸ÀAUÀ ªÀiÁrzÁÝ£ÉAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DvÀ£ÀÄ PÁ¥ÉðAljAiÀÄ°è r¥ÉÇèªÉÆ ªÀiÁrzÁÝ£ÉAzÀgÉ CzÀ£ÀÄß w½zÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉüÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÀÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä 1977 gÀ°è ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ §AzÀgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è CªÀgÀÄ 1984 gÀ°è ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ §AzÀgÀÄ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ......zÁªÁ D¹Û 8 jAzÀ 10£Éà D¹ÛUÀ¼À PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß dAn ºÉ¸Àj£À°è EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ CAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £Á£Éà Rjâ¹zÀÄÝ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀ ªÉÄð£À ¦æÃwUÉÆøÀÌgÀ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÉÃj¹PÉÆArzÉÝãÉAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß Rjâ¸À®Ä £ÀªÀÄä MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ DzÁAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß «¤AiÉÆÃV¸À¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¸ÀzÀj PÀæAiÀÄ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À°è £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÉÄà PÀæAiÀÄzÀ ªÉÄƧ®UÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ §gÉAiÀįÁVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. zÀÁªÁ LlA 8 jAzÀ 26 gÀªÀgÉUÉ D¹ÛUÀ¼ÀÄ 1998 jAzÀ 2005 gÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ ªÀÄzÉå Rjâ¸À¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D ¸ÀAzÀ¨ÀsðzÀ°è £À£Àß vÀAzÉ fêÀAvÀªÁVzÀÝgÀÄ. LlA 8 jAzÀ 26 gÀªÀgÉV£À ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß Rjà ¢¹zÀÄÝ £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§zÀ J®èjUÀÆ UÉÆwÛvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ............... ¤r-5 gÀ ¥ÀrvÀgÀ aÃn £À£Àß ºÉ¸ÀgÀ°è EzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀrvÀgÀ aÃnAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. vÀ«Ä¼ÀÄ£Ár£À £À£Àß ºÀÄlÆÖj£À ¥ÀrvÀgÀ aÃn ºÁUÀÆ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ¥ÀrvÀgÀ aÃnAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ EzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÁQëAiÀÄÄ CzÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃj¹PÉÆArzÁÝgÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ................1977 gÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ PÉ£ÀgÁ ¨ÁåAPï , ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À G½vÁAiÀÄ SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉgÉ¢zÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ ¸ÀASÉåB 10268 DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ¸ÀA§¼À ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä vÉgÉ ¢zÉݪÀÅ. ¸ÀzÀj SÁvÉAiÀÄÄ ZÁ°ÛAiÀÄ°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj SÁvÉUÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀ¥ÀlÖ SÁvÁ £ÀPÀ®£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¤ªÀÄUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ EzÉAiÉÄà JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë CzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ SÁvÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ CzÀPÀÆÌ F zÁªÉUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀA§AzÀ E®è JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F SÁvÉ ©lÄÖ £À£Àß ºÉ¸Àj£À°è E£ÀÆß JgÀqÀÄ ¨ÁåAPï SÁvÉUÀ½zÀÄÝ CªÀÅUÀ¼À°è MAzÀÄ PÀgÉAmï CPËAmï, DAzÀæ ¨ÁåAPï £ÀA§gï ¹J-476 ºÁUÀÆ G½vÁAiÀÄ SÁvÉ £ÀAB J¸ï© 7290, DAzÀæ¨ÁåAPï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £À°è EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀÆ ©lÄÖ E£ÀÆß MAzÀÄ ¨ÁåAPï SÁvÉ EzÀÄÝ CzÀÄ PÉ£ÀgÁ ¨ÁåAQ£À°ègÀĪÀ J¸ï© SÁvÉ £ÀAB 3479 DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj SÁvÉUÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀ¥ÀlÖ SÁvÁ £ÀPÀ®£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¤ªÀÄUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ EzÉAiÉÄà JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë CzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ SÁvÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ CzÀPÀÆÌ F zÁªÉUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀA§AzÀ E®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ SÁvÉAiÀiÁzÀ PÁgÀt CzÀ£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ.................... ¹«¯ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ¥ÉðAljAiÀÄ° £À£ÀUÉ C£ÀĨÀsªÀ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 1977 jAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ 20 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À vÀ£ÀPÀ GzÉÆåÃUÀzÀ°èzÉÝ. ªÀÄjAiÀÄ ¤PÉÉÃvÀ£À ±Á¯É SÁ¸ÀV ±Á¯ÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ CzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ¢AzÀ ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÉ ¹QÌgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj PÉ®¸ÀzÀ°èzÀÝ PÁgÀt £À£ÀUÉ w½¢zÀÝ ¹«¯ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ¥ÉðAlj PÉ®¸ÀzÀ §UÉÎ 1£Éà ªÁ¢UÉ ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤Ãr CªÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝ CAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. 1977 jAzÀ 1997 gÀ vÀ£ÀPÀ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ SÁ¸ÀV ¹«¯ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁ¥ÉðAlj PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. 1977 jAzÀ 1990 gÀªÀgÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜgÀÄ 60 O.S.No.26013/2008 £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ PÀqÉ PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ºÉý CªÀjAzÀ £À£Àß ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀAvÉ ºÉüÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. ......ªÀÄjAiÀÄ ¤PÀÉÃvÀ£À ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £À£Àß PÉ®¸ÀzÀ ªÉÃ¼É ¨É½UÉÎ 9 jAzÀ ¸ÀAeÉ 4 UÀAmÉAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ EvÀÄÛ. .............. ¢£ÁAPÀB 27-12-1977 jAzÀ 01-12-1997 gÀªÀgÉUÉ ªÀÄjAiÀÄ ¤PÉÃvÀ£À ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr ªÀiÁ¹PÀ gÀÆ.250-00 jAzÀ 1080-00 gÀAvÉ ªÀÄÆ® ªÉÃvÀ£À ¥ÀqÉ¢zÉÝãÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ............
1997 gÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÉêɬÄAzÀ ¸ÀéAiÀÄA ¤ªÀÈwÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ ªÉÆúÀ£ï PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ PÉ®¸À ¨ÁQ G½AiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝ PÁgÀt CzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɸÀ®Ä £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀéAiÀÄA ¤ªÀÈwÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀéAiÀÄA ¤ªÀÈwÛ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÁUÀ C£ÁgÉÆÃUÀåzÀ PÁgÀt PÉÆlÄÖ ¸ÀéAiÀÄA ¤ªÀÈwÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ...... 1977 gÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄjAiÀÄ ¤PÉÃvÀ£À ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¹éÃ¥Àgï PÀA ¦ÃªÀ£ï DV ¸ÉêÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ........... LlA £ÀA 1 jAzÀ 5 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8 jAzÀ 26 £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ §AzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É Rjâ ªÀiÁrzÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼ÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è...... £Á£ÀÄ PÁ¥ÉðAlj r¥ÉÇèªÉÆà ªÁå¸ÀAUÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¤r-107(J) £À°è £À£Àß PÉ®¸ÀzÀ §UÉÎ «ªÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. CzÀÄ CªÀgÀ PÉ®¸ÀzÀ §UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVzÉ. CzÀÄ CªÀgÀ CqÀégïmÉʸïªÉÄAmï. £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆjUÉ §AzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É JgÀqÀÄ ªÀµÀð PÁ¥ÉðAlj PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr £ÀAvÀgÀ ¦ÃªÀ£ï PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆArzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £Á£ÀÄ PÁ¥ÉðAlj PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀ°®è ¸ÀÆÌ°UÉ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÉ. ............... £ÀªÀÄä CfÓ vÁAiÀiÁgÀªÀÄä£À §½ ¸Àé®à D¹ÛUÀ¼ÀÄ EvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. .......¤L-1 £À°ègÀĪÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÆ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ E§âgÀÄ PÀÆr ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÉÝÃªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. F D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉ ¸ÉÃj gÀÆ.3225-00 PÉÌ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁrzÉÝÃªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. .... £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄjAiÀiÁ¤SÉÃvÀ£ï ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è dªÁ£À PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ 1977 gÀ°è ¸ÉÃjzÉÝ. DUÀ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄÆ® ªÉÃvÀ£À gÀÆ.250-00 EvÀÄÛ. ............. zÁR¯É ¥ÀæPÁgÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÉÄ £ÀªÀÄä PÀÄlÄA§ªÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄîwÛzÉݪÀÅ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ............
£Á£ÀÄ a£ÀäAiÀÄ CAvÀgÀgÁ¶Ö çÃAiÀÄ ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è 1996 jAzÀ 1999 £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀªÀÄäA¢gÀÄ ¸ÉÃj ªÀiÁrzÉÝÃªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. CzÀÄ ªÉÆúÀ£ï CAqï PÀA¥À¤ ¨Áå£Àgï CrAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÉÆÃ¯ï ¥ÉÇæ¥ÉÊlgï DV D PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrzÉÝãÉ. F PÉ®¸À £Á£ÀÄ PÉÆAiÀĪÀÄvÀÆÛj£À°è ªÀiÁrzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £Á£ÀÄ 1996 gÀ°è ¤ªÀÈwÛ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÉÝ CzÀgÀ §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹®è. 1997gÀ°è ¸ÀéAiÀÄA ¤ªÀÈwÛ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ........................... 11.06.2003gÀ°è ²æäªÁ JdÄPÉñÀ£ï DåAqï PÀ®ÑgÀ¯ï læ¸ïÖ £ÉÆAzÀtôAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. CzÀÄ ªÉÄÊ£Àgï læ¸ïÖ ¸ÁQë ¸ÀévÀB ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CzÀgÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß ºÉAqÀw, ªÀÄUÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¤d. N J¸ï 25132-2010 JA§ ¸É¥ÉgÉmï PÉøÀ D læ¸ïÖ §UÉÎ EzÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë ¸ÀévÀB ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÁ¢ D læ¸ïÖ£À°è ªÉÄÊ£Àgï ªÉÄA§gï DVzÁÝgÉ .................
«zÁå¤PÉÃvÀ£À «zÁå¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ£ÀÄß dAiÀÄgÁA JdÄPÉõÀ£ï læ¸ïÖ £ÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀqɸÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. ªÉÆzÀ®Ä D «zÁå¸ÀA¸ÉÝAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ²æäªÁ¸À JdÄPÉõÀ£ï læ¸ïÖ£ÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀqɸÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ..... FUÀ £À£ÀUÉ vÉÆÃj¹zÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ EªÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä ²æäªÁ¸À ©®Øgï JA§ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ ¥ÁægÀA©¹zÀÄÝ D ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ¨ÁåAPï 61 O.S.No.26013/2008 CPËAmïUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¥Àæ¥ÉÇøÀgï DVzÉÝ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ....... £Á£ÀÄ C£ÀÄzÁ¤vÀ ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr ¸ÀéAiÀÄA ¤ªÀÈwÛ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. FUÀ £À£ÀUÉ vÉÆÃj¹zÀ zÁR¯É £À£Àß ¦AZÀtô ¥ÀvÀæ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ PÉ®¸À ©lÄÖ ¨ÉÃgÉ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ DV®è JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. FUÀ £À£ÀUÉ vÉÆÃj¹zÀ zÁR¯É £À£Àß ¸ÉêÁªÀ» JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÆúÀ£ï CAqï PÀA¥À¤ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj CzÀgÀ CPËAmï £ÀAB 476 JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ²æäªÁ¸À ©®Øgï £À £Á£Éà ¥ÀæªÉÆÃlgï JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £Á£ÀÄ FUÁUÀ¯Éà ²æäªÁ¸ï ©®Øgïì£À Cr PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EAlgï£ÁåµÀ£À¯ï ¸ÀÆ̯ï£À°è ªÉÆúÀ£ï CAqï PÀA¥À¤ Cr PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÁQë vÀ£ÀUÉ vÉÆÃj¹zÀ zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ°è PÉ®ªÀÅ ºÁ¼ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁvÀæ vÀ£ÀUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀÄÝ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀiÁr vÉÆÃj¹zÀÄÝ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¤¦-124 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. FUÀ £À£ÀUÉ vÉÆÃj¹zÀ zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ°è £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä ²æäªÁ¸À PÀÆqÀ ¸À» ªÀiÁrzÁÝ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. F zÁªÉAiÀÄ°è w½¹gÀĪÀ LlA £ÀA 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 7 £À£Àß vÀAzÉUÉ ¸ÀA§AzÀ¥ÀlÖ zÁR¯É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. f.®Që ä CªÀiÁä¼ï £À£Àß CfÓ JAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. ®Që äCªÀiÁä¼ï gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß PÀæAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr LlA £ÀA B 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 7 £Á£ÀÄ Rjâ ªÀiÁrzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ................£À£Àß PÀÄlÄA§zÀ°è £Á£Éà »jAiÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ£ÁVzÀÝjAzÀ F J¯Áè LlAUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£Àß ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ PÀæAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. .............. LlA 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 7 £À£Àß vÀAzÉAiÀĪÀgÀ D¹Û ªÀÄÁgÁl ªÀiÁr §A¢zÀÝ ºÀtzÀ°è PÀæAiÀÄPÉÌ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. £Á£ÀÄ »AzÉ ¸ÀPÁðj PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ PÀqÉ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è DzÀÝjAzÀ ªÉÆúÀ£ï CAqï PÀA¥À¤ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £À£Àß ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀgÀÄ D¹Û Rjâ ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. LlA ............... ªÉÆúÀ£ï CAqï PÀA¥À¤ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æäªÁ¸À ©®Øgïì JgÀqÀÆ MAzÉà «¼Á¸À ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVzÉ JAzÀgÉ CzÀÄ vÀ¥ÁàV £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. 1987 jAzÀ ªÉÆúÀ£ï CAqï PÀA¥À¤ JA§ ºÉ¸Àj¤AzÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀgÉ 1985 jAzÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É JAzÀÄ GvÀÛj¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
26. Upon careful perusal of materials on record, it is seen that the relationship between the parties is not in disputed. One Jayaram Naidu is the propositus of the family, who had a wife by name Jayalakshmi. The Plaintiff No.1 to 3 and Defendant No.1 are the children of said Jayaram Naidu and Jayalakshmi. The 62 O.S.No.26013/2008 Defendant No.2 is the wife of Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.3 is the son of Defendant No.1. The Defendant No.4 and 5 are the purchasers of some of the Items of the Suit Schedule Property. On over all perusal of the case set up by both the parties, it indicates that Item No.6 and 7 of the Suit Schedule Properties are the joint family properties. This fact is admitted by the Defendant No.1 in his pleadings also. However, the claim of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant No.1 was working as a Group-D employee in a School. The Plaintiff No.1 is a Carpenter by profession who set up Mohan & Company and run interior designing business. Out of the earnings of said Mohan & Company the suit properties were purchased. The Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 are still in the joint family. No partition took place in between them. But, the Defendant No.1 being the eldest son managed to get some of the properties in his name. 63 O.S.No.26013/2008 However, Item No.8 to 10 are admittedly in the name of Defendant No.1 and father of the Plaintiffs Jayaram Naidu. Hence, the Plaintiffs' contention is that the suit properties are joint family properties and since no partition took place in the family, they are entitle for share.
27. On the other hand, the contention of the Defendant No.1 is that Mohan & Company was the proprietorship concern set up by him. He was earning out of driving and carpentership, apart from that he is employed as a Peon in a School, out of the said earnings he purchased the suit properties and out of love and affection he included the name of his father Jayaram Naidu in some of the Sale Deeds of the Suit Properties except Item No.6 and 7 rest of the properties are his self-acquired properties. Hence, that cannot be partitioned etc. 64 O.S.No.26013/2008
28. Looking at the plaint averments, it indicates that this is a simple suit far partition. But looking at the case papers it indicates that the things are not as simple as that, much water has flown under the bridge and the parties have fought in every available forum including the Hon'ble High Court, Under Secretary, Writ Appeals, Original Suits, Miscellaneous Cases etc. The nutshell of the case of the Plaintiff's claim is that the parties to this litigation have formed one Sri. Srinivasa Educational Trust on 11.6.2003. According to the Plaintiff, as on that day, he was minor, hence the said Trust is void Trust. Consequently on 24.4.2008 the name of Sri. Srinivasa Educational Trust has changed as Jayaram Educational Trust excluding some of the Defendants as Trustees, which was challenged in W.P.No.13974/2009 and a Review Petition R.P.No.27/2008 filed before the Under Secretary, 65 O.S.No.26013/2008 another Writ Petition No.11735/2009 filed before the Hon'ble High Court. Later, against which Writ Appeal No.1998/2010 is filed before the Hon'ble High Court, wherein the Hon'ble High Court while disposing off the said Writ Appeal made following observation:
8. The material on record would show that the questions that are raised in the writ petition are the disputed questions of fact as to whether the name of Sri. Srinivasa Educational and Cultural Trust can be changed to Jayram Educational and Cultural Trust, whether the appellants have continued to be the trustees of Sri. Srinivasa Educational and Cultural Trust and whether Jayaram Educational and Cultural Trust can manage the educational institutions without applying for fresh recognition. All these disputed questions of fact are pending consideration as admittedly, both the appellants and contesting respondents have filed the suit. The contesting respondents have filed the suit alleging that the very formation of Sri. Srinivasa Educational and Cultural Trust was void and that Jayram Educational and Cultural Trust has been duly formed. The appellants have filed a suit for partition and separate possession including the trust property of Sri Srinivasa Educational and Cultural Trust which would necessarily involve a question as 66 O.S.No.26013/2008 to whether Sri Srinivasa Educational and Cultural Trust was validly formed, whether formation of Jayram Educational and Cultural Trust is valid and whether appellants are continued to be the trustees in the new trust. Therefore, having regard to the limited scope of exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court, the said disputed questions of fact cannot be gone into and it is necessary to consider the said question as to whether the contesting respondents can run the educational institution without making any application for fresh recognition as the said question would not arise for consideration in the writ petition and would depend upon the result of the suit. Accordingly, we hold that the order of the learned Single Judge relegating the parties to work out their remedies in the suit keeping open all the contentions urged in the suit is justified and does not suffer from any error or illegality so as to call for interference in this intra-Court appeal.
29. Looking at the above observation, it is seen that the Plaintiff has already filed a comprehensive suits in O.S.No.25132/2010 and O.S.No.26013/2008 another injunction suit in OS.No.25917/11 which are pending before this Court and set down for Judgment simultaneously along with this suit. Looking at the 67 O.S.No.26013/2008 way both the parties contesting the case, it is seen that much time of the Court is wasted in proving and disproving the fact that the Plaintiff is the minor at the time of formation of Sri. Srinivasa Educational Trust. A lengthy and unnecessary cross-examination was done on the same fact. The Learned Counsels for both the parties were not chisel back, they also put all their intelligence and efforts in conducting the case. A lengthy arguments was canvassed by the the Learned Counsels for months together in installments. But unfortunately none of the Counsel attempted to assist the court in briefing the facts which are relevant to the case on hand, rather they show their caliber by reading the pleadings and evidence and explaining it. Nothing worth is canvased in the oral argument except wasting the valuable time of the Court. The sum and the substance of the arguments of the Counsel for one 68 O.S.No.26013/2008 side is that Sampath kumar was minor at the time of formation of Sri. Srinivasa Education Trust. All the properties are not the joint family properties and it is self acquired properties of J. Perumal and cannot be partitioned. The other side argument was Sampath Kumar was major at the time of formation of Sri. Srinivasa Education Trust. All the properties are joint family properties and it should be partitioned between all the family members. Admittedly, the Plaintiff and Defendants were all Trustees. However, two comprehensive suits for partition and other major reliefs is already pending before this Court. Looking at the way the parties are fighting it clearly indicates that they have least respect to justice dispensation system. They are simply making the mockery of the justice dispensation system. The attitude of the parties clearly indicates that they are making use of the Court as the tool to satisfy their 69 O.S.No.26013/2008 vengeance and settle scores. From past one and half decade they are menace to the Court, used the Court as the battle ground and wasted the considerable time of the Court by filing case after the case. They have not left any forum to fight. It is to be noted that for the similar reliefs the parties to this litigation have filed W.P.No.13974/2009 and a Review Petition R.P.No.27/2008 filed before the Under Secretary, another Writ Petition No.11735/2009 filed before the Hon'ble High Court. Later, against which Writ Appeal No.1998/2010 is filed before the Hon'ble High Court, the parties to this litigation also filed comprehensive suits in O.S.No.25132/2010 and O.S.No.26013/2008, for partition and declaration and one more suit for injunction.
30. Upon careful perusal of the above referred oral evidence, it indicates that at the time of cross- examination of PW.1 it is categorically suggested to 70 O.S.No.26013/2008 PW.1 by the defendant side that the Mohan & Company was proprietory concern and DW.1 himself set up in the name of Plaintiff herein. It is also elicited from PW.1 that the Plaintiff also worked for Mohan and Company. Admittedly, the Plaintiff also accepted some money from Mohan & Company.
31. Upon going through the cross-examination of Defendant, it is admitted by the Defendant No.1 that he was worked at Maria Niketan School from 1976 to 1997 as Group-D employee and Plaintiff joined him in the year 1977. It is categorically admitted by DW.1 in his cross-examination that Suit Item No.8 to 10 standing in the name of Defendant No.1 and his father jointly. However, it is claimed by the DW.1 that out of love and affection he included the name of his father in the Sale Deed. But, it is forthcoming that the amount appears to have paid by the father of the Defendant No.1. Apart from that, 71 O.S.No.26013/2008 on documentary side the Plaintiff got placed voluminous documents. However, the Plaintiff relied upon some Sale Deeds, Bank extracts, Ration Card, Voters ID etc. Upon perusal of Ex.P.1, it indicates that as on 1.1.2002, that means to say, much prior to the date of filing of this suit, voters' list indicates that at House No.14/2 the Plaintiffs and Defendants were residing jointly. Apart from that, Ex.P.2 is the Letter prior to institution of this suit indicates that Chinmaya International School certified that the Plaintiff herein being the proprietor of Mohan & Company had performed carpentry work in their institution. It is significant here to note that even the Defendant No.1 herein has categorically admitted about taking contract of interior designer work at Chinmaya International School. Apart from that, it is an admitted fact that the Plaintiffs and Defendant herein have created Trust by name Sreenivasa 72 O.S.No.26013/2008 Educational & Cultural Trust, in which the Plaintiffs and Defendants herein were the trustees. A School by name Vidyaniketan is started by this Trust, which is categorically admitted by the Defendant also. However, later the dispute arose between the parties and the Defendants created another Trust by name Jayaram Educational Trust and now the Vidyaniketan school is running under it. But the said issue is pending adjudication in another suit. Apart from that, in Ex.P.83 and Ex.P.84, it is also forthcoming that in a Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Makaram Branch the Defendant No.1 herein hold an account Ex.P.86 which is the statement of account indicates that on behalf of Mohan & Company huge amount had been transacted worth of crores together. Ex.P.90 which is the Letter issued by Jain International Residential School indicates that they have certified that the Plaintiff No.1 herein has performed interior designing 73 O.S.No.26013/2008 work at their institution on behalf of Mohan & Company. Apart from that, another Ex.P.91 to Ex.P.93 also substantiate the same. It is significant here to note that all these documents are pertaining to the year 2002-2004, that is much prior to the dispute between the parties. The crucial document is Ex.P.96 which is the Ration Card of Defendant No.1 herein, it is forthcoming from Ex.P.96 that the Plaintiff No.1 and 2 and the names of the Defendants are shown as members of their family. On the other hand, looking at the documents relied by the Defendant, it indicates that the Defendant also got placed Ex.P.9 which is the same Ration Card issued on 3.9.2002. However, the Defendant got placed Letter issued by the Chinmanay International School regarding agreement to perform interior designing work. The Defendant also got placed voluminous Sale Deeds and its translated version. The Letterhead produced 74 O.S.No.26013/2008 by the Defendant pertaining to Mohan and Company Ex.P.19 to Ex.P.33 indicates that all the letters were signed by the Defendant No.1. However, it appears from Ex.P.43 to Ex.P.47 that Mohan and Company was registered in the name of Defendant No.1 herein in the year 1991. It is significant here to note that, admittedly the Defendant No.1 was worked in the aided school from 1977 to 1997. Hence, as rightly pointed out by the Leander Counsel for the Plaintiff, the Defendant No.1 is engaged in his official duty as Group-D employee which is from morning to evening, hence, there is no chance to do carpentry and interior designer work in any of the places he claimed. Rather the Plaintiff herein who were also in the same profession use to conduct the interior designing work cannot be ruled out. Apart from that, when there are materials on record, indicates that during the lifetime of father of the Plaintiffs and 75 O.S.No.26013/2008 Defendants some of the properties i.e., Item No.8 to 10 purchased in the name of Plaintiff's father, the Defendant ought to have maintain the separate account in respect of his earnings and the properties purchased out of his earnings. Admittedly, the 1 st Defendant is the elder son of the family and become kartha after the death of their father. Ex.D.70 the Passbook produced by the Defendant in respect of his official job indicates that nothing much money is transacted in the said account, except few thousands. The materials on record indicates that the properties worth of crores of rupees is purchased, some in the joint name of Defendant No.1 and his father and some in the name of Defendant No.1 alone. Apart from that, admittedly Item No.7 and 8 of the Suit Property is still joint family property. materials on record indicates that the Plaintiff herein who is also carpenter has placed 76 O.S.No.26013/2008 substantial evidence to accept that he was working in Mohan and Company and managed to handle huge projects. The Defendant No.1 herein failed in establishing the fact that he had maintained separate account of his earnings. Apart from that, when admittedly the Defendant No.1 is the employee at an aided school he ought to have declare all his assets in his annual assets and liabilities statement. In addition to that, the Defendant No.1 has failed in establishing the fact that the money was earned by him alone. Not even a single scrap of paper is available on record to establish that the entire money for purchase of suit property was earned by the Defendant No.1 alone. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Defendant No.1 being the kartha of the family utterly failed in establishing the fact that the money utilized to purchase the said properties were his self- 77 O.S.No.26013/2008 earnings. Even if it is admitted that the Defendant No.1 has contributed more from his earnings towards gaining the larger property. But, since the Defendant No.1 failed to maintain separate account being the kartha and as he allowed it to blend it in the common hotpot, that makes all the properties the joint family property as there is contribution of joint family funds, contribution of the Plaintiffs herein also. Under these circumstances, I hold that the Plaintiff has successfully demonstrated that the suit properties are joint family properties and are available for partition. As it is the admitted fact that no partition took place between the Plaintiffs and Defendant till filing of this suit. The Plaintiff is claiming for partition. Hence, I answer Issues No.1, 2 and Additional Issue No 2 in the Affirmative and Additional Issue No.3 in the Negative. 78 O.S.No.26013/2008
32. Issue No.4 to 7:- Even though the Defendant contended that the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary party and court fee paid is insufficient and this Court has no territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter etc. But, during the course of trial these issues were not pressed into service. The Defendant did not explained how the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and who all should be included. Apart from that, this being a suit for partition, I did not find any deficiency in valuation and payment of court fee. When admittedly majority of the properties are situated with in the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Obviously this Court has every territorial jurisdiction to try this dispute. Hence, Issue No.4 to 7 are answered in the Negative.
33. Issue No.3 and Additional Issue No.1:-
It is the claim of the Defendant No.4 and 5 that they 79 O.S.No.26013/2008 are the bonafide purchasers. But, during the course of the trial they did not stepped into the witness box, nor the Defendant No.1 who is the seller countered the claim of Defendant No.4 and 5. However, this being a suit for partition and as this Court has already hold that the suit is liable to be decreed. The Defendant No.1 has also got 1/4th share. Hence, Defendant No.4 and 5 are at liberty to seek the property purchased by them from the Defendant No.1 to be allotted to the share of Defendant No.1.
Hence, these issues answered accordingly.
34. Issue No.8:- In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the Plaintiffs is decreed.
It is hereby declared that the Plaintiff No.1 to 3 and Defendant No.1 are equally entitle for 1/4th share each.80 O.S.No.26013/2008
Draw preliminary decree accordingly.
[Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6th day of March 2023].
[K.M. Rajashekar], XXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore.
SCHEDULE - A
1. All that piece and parcel of house property bearing house list No.120/7 situate at Chellakere Village, Banaswadi Village and punchayathi, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, measuring 60 X 40 ft., bounded on the -
East by : House list No.120/4.
West by : House list No.120/8.
North by : Private Property cum temple.
South by : 25 ft Road.
Present market value - approx. 75,00,000/-.
2. House property bearing House list No.14/2, 81 O.S.No.26013/2008 Mariyaman Temple Street, Jaibharth Nagar, Bangalore-560 033. Measuring East to West 20 ft., and North to South 53 & 53.9 ft., bounded on the:
East by : Property belonging to Kuppuswamy. West by : Road.
North by : Property belonging to S. Nagaraj. South by : Private Property.
3. Land comprised in Sy.No.9, block No.20 situate at Bileshivale Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, previously Bangalore South Taluk, presently Bangalore East Taluk, Measuring 1 acre and bounded on the:
East by : Road and thereafter Sy.No.9 block No.19. West by : Land in Sy.No.9 block No.21.
North by : Land in Sy.No.9 block No.14 property belongs to Ashwathanarayana Reddy. South by : Property belonging to B.H. Pattalappa together with all the way passes.
4. Land comprised in Sy.No.9, situate at Bileshivale Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, previously 82 O.S.No.26013/2008 Bangalore South Taluk, presently East Taluk. Measuring 1 acre and bounded on the:
East by : Road.
West by : Vendor's land.
North by : Property belonging to Muniyamma. South by : Remaining property of Sy.No.9.
5. Land comprised in Sy.No.9, situate at Bileshivale Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, previously Bangalore South Taluk, presently East Taluk measuring 1 acre and bounded on the:
East by : Property belonging to Muniyamma & B.H. Pattalappa.
West by : Jayaram & Gubbi Village.
North by : Gubbi Village.
South by : Property of Ramaiah & Venkatarayappa.
Present market value of 3 items from Srl No.3 to 5 - approximately Rs.20,00,00,000/-
6. Landed property in Sy.No.222/6/3/4 00.3.01, 006.87 and 004.75 in total 14.63 Ares 36 ½ 83 O.S.No.26013/2008 Cents Village No.193 and House old Patta 209 together with the constructed house thereon, situated at Allankuppam Village, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District, Tamil Nadu. Together with casurina plantation, bounded on the:
East by : Village Road.
West by : Munur Road.
North by : Co-operative Society Bank.
South by : Munur Road.
7. Landed property situate at Allankuppam, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District Tamil Nadu. Together with casurina plantation, Patta No.493 in the following survey numbers:
a) Sy.No.122/1 : 3 Ares dry land dry.
b) Sy.No.122/13 : 4.0 Ares dry land dry.
c) Sy.No.122/14 : 2.0 Ares dry land dry.
d) Sy.No.122/7-A : 7.0 Ares dry land dry 39 ½ With following common boundaries. East by : Lane Channel.
84 O.S.No.26013/2008West by : Munur Road.
North by : Government Land.
South by : Property of Subaraya Gounder. Present market value - approx. 3,00,000/-
a) Sy.No.122/10 : 3.5 Ares wet land wet.
b) Sy.No.122/11 : 5.0 Ares wet land wet.
c) Sy.No.122/6 : 5.0 Ares wet land wet.
d) Sy.No.124/1 : 8.5 Ares wet land wet.
e) Sy.No.124/3 : 23.5 Ares wet land wet.
f) Sy.No.124/1 : 26.0 Ares wet land wet.
1 acre 76 ½ Guntas.
East by : Property of Rajagopal Setty. West by : Lake Channel.
North by : Rajagopal Setty & Lakshmikanth Naidu. South by :Subbaraya Gounder & Lakshmikanth Naidu. Present market value - approx. 10,00,000/-
8. All that piece and parcel of agricultural land situated at Allankuppam Village, Marrakanam sub D & P Union of Tindivanam R & D Tamil 85 O.S.No.26013/2008 Nadu, measuring one acre 46 ½ cents in 1 acre 87 ½ cents together with casurina plantation. Dry land in -
a) Sy.No.14/4 measuring 0.05.5 Ares in 0.14 cents 009 ¼ cents.
b) Sy.No.141/5 dry land of 0.05.0 Ares in 0.12 cents 006 ½ cents.
c) Sy.No.141/6 of 006.0 ares in 0.15 cents.
d) Sy.No.141/7 of 0.77 area 1 Acre 90 cents. 0.86 cents only.
e) Sy.No.141/9 of 0.46 0 Ares acre 1.41 the 0.30 cents only.
Totally measuring 1 acre 46.5 cents, having following common boundaries:
East by : Mannur road and land of
Lakshmiammal.
West by : Property of Pachhaiyappa gounder
& Sadaiyandi Gounder Balaram.
North by : Mannur road and land of Lakshmi
Ammal.
South by : Lake Road.
86 O.S.No.26013/2008
Present market value - approx. 22,00,000/-
9. Landed property situated at Allankuppam Village, Marrakanam sub D & P union of Tindivanam R & D Tamil Nadu, measuring 2 acre 15 ¼ cents, together with casurina plantation, in following survey numbers:
a) Sy.No.141/7 & 0.77 areas extent of areas Acre 1.07 cents Dry land.
b) Sy.No.141/9 of 0.46-0 ares 085 cents dry land.
c) Sy.No.141/1 1.001.0 ares 003 cents dry land.
d) Sy.No.141/5 050.0 ares 006 ¼ cent dry land.
e) Sy.No.141/4 0.050 area completely dry land.
With following common boundaries; East by : Munur Road.
West by : Property of Pachhaiyappa Gounder & Balaram and Sadaiyandi Goundr Balaram.
North by : Mannur road and land of Lakshmi Ammal.
87 O.S.No.26013/2008South by : Lake Road.
Present market value - approx. 32,00,000/-.
10. Landed property Measuring 1 acre 69 cents, situated at Allankuppam Village, Marrakanam sub D & P of Tindivanam R & D Tamil Nadu, together with casurina plantation, in following survey numbers:
a) Sy.No.141/3 in 0.12.0 areas only 030 cents.
b) Sy.No.141/9 of 046.0 areas only 044 cents.
c) Sy.No.141/4 of 0050 areas only 004 ¾ cents.
d) Sy.No.141/6 of 006.0 areas only 005 cents.
e) Sy.No.141/8 of 0150 areas only 12 ½ cents.
f) Sy.No.141/2 of 0050 areas 001 cents.
g) Sy.No.142/10 of 008.0 areas 0.10 ½ cents.
h) Sy.No.142/7 of 0.77.0 areas only 0.61 ¼ cents.
With following common boundaries:
East by : Property of Pachhaiyappa Gounder & Balaram and Sadaiyandi Gounder.
Wet by : Road.88 O.S.No.26013/2008
North by : Munnur Road and Land of Lakshmi Ammal.
South by : Road.
Present market value - approx. 24,00,000/-.
11. Landed property situated at Allankuppam Village, Marrkanam sub D & P union of Tindivanam R & D Tamil Nadu, measuring 4 acre 38 cents, in following survey numbers:
a) Sy.No.129/3 of 032.0 Ares wet land.
b) SY.No.129/1 of 060.0 Ares wet land.
c) Sy.No.130/1 of 081.5 Hec wet land in Sy.No.129/3 completely old well with electrical service and with following common boundaries:
East by : Tank Channel & Thannappa Gounder.
West by : Elumalai Chattier. North by : Land of Thitrumala Naidu. South by : Marrakanam road.
Present market value - approx. 63,00,000/-.89 O.S.No.26013/2008
12. Landed property situated at Allankuppam Village, Marrakanam sub D & P union of Tindivanam R & D Tamil Nadu, measuring 4 acre 01 cents, in following survey numbers:
a) Sy.No.129/7 of extent 006.5 Ares 021 cents wet land.
b) Sy.No.129/5 of 026.0 Ares 064 cents wet land.
c) Sy.No.126/1 of 016.0 areas 0.40 cents wet land.
d) Sy.No.129/6 of 0270.0 areas 067 cents wet land.
e) Sy.No.130/2 of 041.5 areas only 1.03 cents wet land (with old well and 5 HP electric motor pump set with service number No.22).
f) Sy.No.130/3 of 043.0 areas 1.06 cents wet land with following common boundaries:-
East by : Sale Deed owner's property. West by : Property of Rajagopal Chattier Armugam Gounder, Dharma Gounder. North by : Property of Jyothi Chettiar Turumal Naidu. South by : Road.90 O.S.No.26013/2008
Present market value - approx. 60,00,000/-.
13. Landed property situated at Allankuppam Village, Marrakanam sub D & P union of Tindivanam R & D Tamil Nadu, measuring 035 cents, in following survey numbers:
Sy.No.128/2 of 014.0 Ares only 035 cents.
East by : Property of Solai Gounder.
West by : Property of Vijayalakshmi.
North by : Property of Arumam Gowda.
South by : Lake Channel.
Present market value 3,50,000/- approximately.
14. Landed property situated at Allankuppam Village, Marrakanam Sub D & P union of Tindivanam R & D Tamil Nadu, measuring 1 acre 10 cents, in following survey numbers:
a) Sy.No.128/5 of 0.12.0 Ares completely 030 cents bounded on the-91 O.S.No.26013/2008
East by : Land of Moorthy, Perumal Naidu & Vijayalakshmi.
West by : Government Land.
North by : Land of Moorthy, Perumal Naidu & Vijayalakshmi.
South by : Land of Moorthy, Perumal Naidu & Vijayalakshmi.
b) Sy.No.128/10 of 0.030 Ares these 0.03.0 ares bounded on the-
East by : Property of Vijayalakshmi.
West by : Land of Shanthi.
North by : Tank Channel.
South by : Property of Rama Gowda.
c) Sy.No.129/2 of 0.030 Ares these 074 cents, bounded on the:
East by : Property of Balaram Murthy.
West by : Property of Perumal Naidu.
North by : Land belonging to Shanthi.
South by : Property of Perumal Naidu.
Total measuring 1 acre 10 cents,
92 O.S.No.26013/2008
Present market value 15,00,000/-
approximately.
15. Landed property situated at Allankuppam Village, Marrakanam sub D & P union of Tindivanam R & D Tamil Nadu, measuring 15 cents, in following survey number:
a) Sy.No.128/6 of extent 0.06.0 Ares completely 015 cents bounded on the -
East by : Own property. West by : Own property. North by : Property of Vijayalakshmi Ammal. South by : Property of Vijayalakshmi Ammal.
Present market value 1,50,000/- approximately.
16. Land measuring 6 acres situated at Nagalakapakkam Village, Marrakanam Sub D & P union of Tindivanam R & D Tamil Nadu, in following survey numbers:
a) Sy.No.1/5 of extent 3.98.5 hectors divided as sub number 1/12 Re-survey No.1/12 of 1.21.5 93 O.S.No.26013/2008 hectors completely of area 3 acres dry land and also in the above Sy.No.1/5 of 3.98.5 hectors divided and is Resurvey No.1/11 which changed from 1/5 the resurvey No.1/11 1.21.5 hector completely 3 acres, bounded on the -
East by : Dry land belonging to Perumal Naidu.
West by : Gomal dry land. North by : Dry land belonging to Balakumar. South by : Channel.
Present market value - approx 21,00,000/-.
17. Land measuring 6 acres situated at Nagalakapakkam Village, Marrakanam sub D & P union of Tindivanam R & D Tamil Nadu, in following survey numbers:
a) Sy.No.1/3 of extent 3.00.5 hectors only 1.21.5 hectors completely of area 3 acres dry land. Sy.No.1/6 of 1.21.5 hectors completely area 3 acres, bounded on the -
East by : Dry land belonging to Perumal 94 O.S.No.26013/2008 Naidu.
West by : Dry land belonging to Perumal Naidu.
North by : Dry land belonging to Dandayadapani.
South by : Royanallur Channel Road. Present market value - approx. 21,00,000/-
18. Land measuring 1.45 acres dry land situated at Nagalakapakkam Village, Marakanam sub D & P union of Tindivanam R & D Tamil Nadu, in following survey numbers:
a) Sy.No.1/3 of extent 057.5 areas 1 acre 42 cents, bounded on the -
East by : Dry land belonging to Perumal Naidu.
West by : Dry land beloging to Perumal Naidu.
North by : Dry land belonging to Dandayadapani.
South by : Royanallur Channel Road. 95 O.S.No.26013/2008 Present market value - approx. 5,00,000/-.
19. Land measuring 5 acres 85 cents situated at Nagalakapakkam Village, Marrakanam Sub D & P union of Tindivanam R & D Tamil Nadu, in following survey numbers:
a) Sy.No.1/4 of xtent 0.96.5 completely 2 acre 38 cents, bounded on the -
b) Sy.No. 1/5 of extent 3.98.5, which divided area, completely 0.47 cents. The Total area measuring Sy.No.1/10 1.21.5 2 extent 3 acres. With following common boundaries - East by : Dry land belonging to Subarayan. West by : Dry land belonging to Perumal.
North by : Dry land belonging to
Dandayadapani.
South by : Channel.
Present market value - approx. 20,00,000/-.
20. Land measuring 54 cents situated at 96 O.S.No.26013/2008 Nagalakapakkam Village, Marrakanam sub D & P unon of Tindivanam R & D Tamil Nadu in following survey numbers:
a) Sy.No.1/1 of extent 0.10.5 completely 0.26 cents.
b) Sy.No.1/2 of extent 0.11.05 area, completely 0.28 cents. The total area measuring 0.54 cents, bounded on the:
East by : Avanipur boundary. West by : Gomala land. North by : Gomala land. South by : Dry land belonging to Perumal.
Present market value - approx. 2,00,000/-.
21. Agricultural land measuring 3 acres 36 cents situated at Brahma Desham Village, Brahma Desham Panchayat, Marrakanam Panchayat union of Tindivanam Taluk, Tamil Nadu, in following survey numbers:
a) Sy.No.71/1 of extent 1.36.0 areas 97 O.S.No.26013/2008 completely of 3 acres 36 cents. For this old number 129/1 2.72 cents, 130/4 0 52 cents are included in this property, bounded on the -
East by : Uppu Vellore Road.
West by : Land belonging to Shylaja.
North by : Dry land belonging to Dayala
Reddiar.
South by : Brahma Desham Road.
In between the area 3 acres 36 cents dry land.
Present market value - approx. 30,00,000/-.
22. Land measuring 0.36 ¾ cents situated at Kindangal Village, Tindivanam Taluk, Tamil Nadu, in following survey numbers:
a) Sy.No.20/24 in area 0.23 cents.
b) Sy.No.20/28 in area 0.32 cents which 0.008 cents.
c) Sy.No.20/18 in area 97.5 51 ¾ cents, bounded on the -
East by : Remaining land.
98 O.S.No.26013/2008
West by : Rajeshwri Nagar Main Road.
North by : Remaining land.
South by : Tindivanam Pondy National Highway.
Present market value - approx. 55,00,000/-.
23. Landed property situates at Kadavampakkam Village, Tindivanam Taluk, Avaripakkam Sub D of Tindivanam R & D Tamil Nadu, measuring 5 acres 20 cents:
a) Sy.No.204/4 hector 2.19.5 areas in this for 0.40.5 areas 1 acre only bounded on the -
East by : Land belonging to Sengeni. West by : Land belonging to Sengeni.
North by : Dry land belonging to Subramani.
South by : Land belonging to Madhurangam.
b) Sy.No.214/3 hector 1.22.5 areas. The old Sy.No.1/2 Acre 5.16 the acre 3.41 cent only bounded on the -
East by : Land belonging to Kalli.
99 O.S.No.26013/2008
West by : Land belonging to Pandiyan.
And Nagalapakkam boundry.
North by : Land belonging to Gopal.
South by : Land belonging to Kalli.
c) Sy.No.210/6 hector 0.12.0 areas 0.30 cent. The old Sy.No.5/5 0.59 cent bounded on the -
East by : Dry land belonging to
Chandramal.
West by : Land belonging to Madurai son
Selvaraj.
North by : Land belonging to Marri.
South by : Land belonging to Sengeni.
Present market value - Approx. 11,00,000/-.
24. Land measuring 3 acres 12 cents situated at Kadavampakkam Village, Tindivanam Taluk, Avaripakkam Sub D of Tindivanam R & D, Tamil Nadu, in the following survey number:
a) Sy.No.207/1 hector 2.80.5 areas vacant land, bounded on the -100 O.S.No.26013/2008
East by : Dry land belonging to Kalli.
West by : Dry land belonging to Nela. North by : Easur boundary. South by : Dry land belonging to Rajaram.
Present market value - approx. 11,00,000/-.
25. Land measuring 11 acres 89 cents situated at Nagalakapakkam Village, Marrakanam Sub D & P union of Tindivanam R & D Tamil Nadu, in following survey numbers:
a) Sy.No.11/2 of extent 5.85.5 hectors bounded on the -
East by : Property of Danadayadapani.
West by : Own Property. North by : Property of Chengamal. South by : Own Property.
Present market value - approx. 40,00,000/-.
26. Land measuring 11 acres 03 ½ cents situated at Nagalakapakkam Village, Marrakanam sub D & P union of Tindivanam R & D Tamil Nadu, in 101 O.S.No.26013/2008 following survey numbers:
a) Sy.No.5/1 0.26.0 area completely 0.64 cent bounded on the -
East by : Property of Kaniyappa Gounder. West by : Dry land belonging to Amavasai. North by : Property of Kaniyappa Gounder. South by : Dry land belonging to Sikamani.
b) Sy.No.5/3 0.83.5 areas 1 acre 70 cents. The above survey No.5hp Electrical motor service, bounded on the -
East by : Property of Kaniyappa Gounder. West by : Dry land belonging to Amavasai. North by : Property of Kaniyappa Gounder. South by : Dry land belonging to Sikamani.
c) Sy.No.5/4 0.64.5 areas 1 acre 24 cents bounded on the -
East by : Property of Kaniyappa Gounder. West by : Dry land belonging to Amavasai. 102 O.S.No.26013/2008 North by : Property of Kaniyappa Gounder. South by : Dry land belonging to Sikamani.
d) Sy.No.6/1 of 3.41.5 hector 1 acre 99 ½ cents bounded on the -
East by : Property of Kaniyappa Gounder. West by : Dry land belonging to Amavasai. North by : Property of Kaniyappa Gounder. South by : Dry land belonging to Sikamani.
e) Sy.No.32/3 of 0.93.5 completely 1 acre 2 acre 31 cents.
f) Sy.No.31/4 of 1.27.5 hector 3 acre 15 cents, having following boundaries -
East by : Dry land belonging to Kaniyappa Gounder.
West by : Dry land belonging to
Santhanamary and Nanamani Nadar.
North by : Land belonging to Harikrishna.
South by : Government land.
Present market value - approx. 40,00,000/-. 103 O.S.No.26013/2008
SCHEDULE - B Gold Jewellery Items.
1. 9 Gold Chains.
2. 3 Gold Necklaces.
3. 24 Gold Rings.
4. 24 Gold Bangles.
Vehicles Registration Nos.
1. Tata Bus-52 seats KA-05-663
2. Ashok Layland Bus 52 seats KA-16-9399
3. Ashok Layland Strag 32 seats KA-03-B-370
4. Fiat 118 Car KA-03-N-7388
5. Tata Sumo KA-03-MA-697
6. TVS Victor two wheeler KA-03-EQ-3147
7. Kinetic Honda two wheeler KA-03-E-9949
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the Plaintiff:-
P.W.1 : J. Venkateshan.
104 O.S.No.26013/2008
2. List of documents marked:-
Ex.P1 : Voters List.
Ex.P.2 : Certificate issued by Chinmaya
International Residential School dtd:
22.4.2008.
Ex.P.3 : Certified copy of Trust Deed dtd:
11.6.2003.
Ex.P.4 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd:
13.4.1988.
Ex.P.4(a) : Translated copy of Sale Deed dtd:
13.4.1988.
Ex.P.4(b) : Certified copy of Deed of Absolute Sale Deed dtd: 26.5.2008.
(exhibited on document, but not mentioned in evidence). Ex.P.5 : Khatha extract.
Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd:
25.9.1997.
Ex.P.6(a) : Translated copy of Sale Deed dtd:
25.9.1997.
Ex.P.7 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd:
25.9.1997.
Ex.P.7(a) : Translated copy of Sale Deed dtd:
25.9.1997.
Ex.P.8 to : Sale Deed in Tamil Language. 105 O.S.No.26013/2008 Ex.P.25 Ex.P.8(a) : Translated copies of Sale Deeds Ex.P.8 to to Ex.P.25.
Ex.P.25(a) Ex.P.26 :
to Encumbrance Certificates. Ex.P.35 Ex.P.36 : RTCs in Tamil Language. to Ex.P.80
Ex.P.36(a) : Translated copies of Ex.P.36 to Ex.P.80. to Ex.P.80(a) Ex.P.81 Patta Book in Tamil Language. Ex.P.81(a) : Translated copy of Ex.P.81. Ex.P.82 : Certificate issued by Chinmaya International Residential School. Ex.P.83 : Fixed Deposit Receipt.
Ex.P.83(a) : Translated copy of Ex.P.83. Ex.P.83 : Certificate issued issued by Chinmaya International Residential School. (Ex.P.83 marked twice).
Ex.P.84 : Letters issued by Central Co-Operative to Bank, Primary Agriculture Co-Operative. Ex.P.87 106 O.S.No.26013/2008 Ex.P.88 : Statement of Account of Mohan and Company.
Ex.P.89 : Letter dtd: 26.12.1999 of The Anchorate Company.
Ex.P.90 : Certificate issued by Jain International Residential School.
Ex.P.91 : Letter dtd: 26.10.2004 of Athena Hotel & Resort Pvt., Ltd.
Ex.P.92 : Letter issued Cry Child Rights.
Ex.P.93 : Letter issued by Earthline Services Pvt.,
& Ltd.
Ex.P.94
Ex.P.95 : Letter issued by Horimathani.
Ex.P.96 : Ration Card of J Perumal.
Ex.P.97 : Sale Deed in Tamil Language dtd:
18.12.2007.
Ex.P.97(a) & : Translated copies of Ex.P.97.
(b) Ex.P.98 : Passbook of M/s Mohan & Company of Canara Bank.
Ex.P.99 : Letters issued by Chinmaya Interinal & Residential School. Ex.P.100
Ex.P.101 : Ledger Account of Mohan & Company. 107 O.S.No.26013/2008 Ex.P.102 : 3 Handwritten account sheets. Ex.P.103 : Letter issued by Revenue Officer in Tamil Language.
Ex.P.104 : Translated copy of Ex.P.103. Ex.P.105 : Certified copy of Property Tax Register. Ex.P.106 : Translated copy of Ex.P.105.
(marked but not found on documents) Ex.P.107 : Certified copy of order passed in W.P.No.4791/2012.
Ex.P.108 : Certified copy of Memo dtd: 27.12.1997. Ex.P.109 : Book written by DW.1.
Ex.P.110 : Certified copy of the List of Members of the Trust.
Ex.P.111 : Telephone Bills issued by BSNL. to Ex.P.120 Ex.P.121 : True copies of Ga Books.
& Ex.P.122 Ex.P.123 : Under Certificate of Postings of Indane Cooking Gas.
Ex.P.124 : Bill for New Classroom of Mohan & Company.
108 O.S.No.26013/2008Ex.P.125 : Statement of Account of Mohan & Company.
Ex.P.126 : Certified copy of Bank Account. Ex.P.127 : Original Current Account Passbook of Sreenivasa Buildings of Andhra Bank. Ex.P.128 : Bill of Carpentry Work dtd: 7.4.1997. Ex.P.129 : Letter dtd: 28.6.1996 for allotment of work to M. Mohan & Company.
Ex.P.130 : Certified copy of Particulars of the Government Servant of J. Perumal.
Ex.P.131 : Certified copy of Members of List of Trust. Ex.P.132 : Certified copy of Extract of Driving Licence.
Ex.P.133 : Certified copy of Driving Licence. Ex.P.134 : Certified copy of Notice dtd: 23.12.2019 to RTO by Banaswadi Police.
Ex.P.135 : Certified copy of Notice of RTO East dtd:
24.12.2019.
Ex.P.136 : Certified copy of Cause Notice of RTO East dtd: 24.12.2019.
Ex.P.137 : Certified copy of self-affidavit. Ex.P.138 : Proceedings of Licensing Authority Kasturinagar Bangalore (East).
109 O.S.No.26013/2008Ex.P.139 : Certified copy of the Sale Deed dtd:
24.5.1954.
Ex.P.140 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dtd: 24.5.1954 in favour of Ramdas.
3. List of witnesses examined for the Defendant:-
DW.1 : J. Perumal @ J. Perumal Naidu.
4. List of documents marked:-
Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of written statement filed in
Misc.No.678/2009.
Ex.D.2 : Copy of Legal Notice dtd: 11.3.2009.
Ex.D.3 : Copy of Reply Notice dtd: 14.3.2009.
Ex.D.4 : Copy of Rejoinder Notice dtd: 19.3.2009.
Ex.D.5 : Original Ration Card of J. Perumal.
Ex.D.6 : Letter dtd: 22.4.2013 of Alankuppam
Primary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Ex.D.7 : Certified copy of Sale Deed. Ex.D.8 : Ration Card copy of J. Venkatramaiah. Ex.D.8(a) : Translated copy of Ex.D.8. 110 O.S.No.26013/2008 Ex.D.9 : Letter of Jain International Residential School dtd: 15.3.2002.
Ex.D.10 : Voter's ID Card of J. Venkatesh. Ex.D.11 : Labour Contract Agreement dtd: 4.9.1991. Ex.D.12 : Work order dtd: 8.5.1996 to M/s Mohan & Company from Chinmaya International Residential School.
Ex.D.13 : Letter dtd: 10.9.1998 of Chinmaya International Residential School. Ex.D.14 : Tax Deduction Source Certificate dtd:
7.6.1999 of Chinmaya International Residential School.
Ex.D.15 : Payment Letter dtd: 15.6.1999 of Chinmaya International Residential School.
Ex.D.16 : Work order dtd: 19.5.1997 of Chinmaya International Residential School. ExD.17 : Work order dtd: 7.5.1997 of Chinmaya International Residential School. Ex.D.18 : Tax Deduction Source Certificate dtd:
13.6.2000 of Chinmaya International Residential School.
Ex.D.19 : Bill dtd:12.9.2000 for interior work for PRO Office of Jain International School by Mohan & Company.
111 O.S.No.26013/2008Ex.D.20 : Bill dtd:16.5.1999 for interior work for PRO Office of Jain International School by Mohan & Company.
Ex.D.21 : Quotation of Jain International Residential School dtd: 12.10.1998.
Ex.D.22 : Quotation of Jain International Residential School dtd: 16.5.1999.
Ex.D.23 : Quotation of Jain International Residential School dtd: 16.5.1999.
Ex.D.24 : Quotation of Jain International Residential School dtd: 16.5.1999.
Ex.D.25 : Quotation of Jain International Residential School dtd: 16.5.1999.
Ex.D.26 : Quotation of Jain International Residential School dtd: 11.1.2000.
Ex.D.27 : Quotation of Jain International Residential School dtd: 7.9.1999.
Ex.D.28 : Quotation of Jain International Residential School dtd: 10.6.1999.
Ex.D.29 : Quotation of Jain International Residential School dtd: 23.12.1998.
Ex.D.30 : Quotation of Jain International Residential School dtd: 15.3.2002.
Ex.D.31 : Quotation of Jain International Residential School dtd: 14.4.1999.
112 O.S.No.26013/2008Ex.D.32 : Quotation of Jain International Residential School dtd: 14.4.1999.
Ex.D.33 : Bill dtd: 21.9.1999 of Sri. Bahawan Mahaveer Jain College.
Ex.D.34 : Sale Deed dtd: 7.7.1954.
Ex.D.34(a) : Translated copy of Ex.D.34. Ex.D.35 : Settlement Deed dtd: 30.6.1962. Ex.D.35(a) : Translated copy of Ex.D.35. Ex.D.36 : Sale Deed dtd: 24.3.1964. Ex.D.36(a) : Translated copy of Ex.D.36. Ex.D.37 : Sale Deed dtd: 6.5.1967.
Ex.D.37(a) : Translated copy of Ex.D.37. Ex.D.38 : Sale Deed dtd: 10.3.1964. Ex.D.38(a) : Translated copy of Ex.D.38. Ex.D.39 : Sale Deed dtd: 24.10.1970. Ex.D.39(a) : Translated copy of Ex.D.39. Ex.D.40 : Mortgage Deed dtd: 31.6.1971. Ex.D.40(a) : Translated copy of Ex.D.40. Ex.D.41 : Encumbrance Certificate in Tamil 113 O.S.No.26013/2008 Language.
Ex.D.41(a) : Translated copy of Ex.D.41. Ex.D.42 : Original copy of A Register Extract in Tamil Language.
Ex.D.42(a) : Translated copy of Ex.D.42. Ex.D.43 : Certificate issued by Government of Karnataka to start M/s Mohan & Company. Ex.D.44 : Form B issued by Commercial Tax Department.
Ex.D.45 : Letter dtd: 20.8.2013 issued by Andhra Bank.
Ex.D.46 : Certificate issued by Commercial Tax Department dtd: 21.10.2002 to J. Perumal. Ex.D.47 : Certificate of Professional Declaration issued to J Perumal dtd: 21.10.2002. Ex.D.48 : Income Tax Returns filed by J. Perumal. to Ex.D.61 Ex.D.62 : Letter issued by City Financial dtd:
27.5.2006 regarding loan.
Ex.D.63 : Letter issued by Religare Finvest Ltd., dtd:
31.12.2010 regarding loan.
Ex.D.64 : Certificate dtd: 4.1.1985 of Maria Niketan (St. Mary's Orphanage).
114 O.S.No.26013/2008Ex.D.65 Copy of order sheet in O.S.No.6548/1994. Ex.D.66 : 3 Receipts.
to Ex.D.68 Ex.D.69 : Cheque repayment receipt. Ex.D.70 : Canara Bank Passbook of J. Perumal. Ex.D.71 : Cheque Record Slip.
Ex.D.72 : Hire Purchase Agreement of CEAT Financial Services Ltd., for purchase of Computer.
Ex.D.73 : Hire Purchase Agreement of TATA Finance for purchase of Car.
Ex.D.74 : Work Agreement for construction of
to ground floor RCC Building.
Ex.D.78
Ex.D.79 : Quotation for construction dtd:
12.12.1994.
Ex.D.80 : Notice dtd: 10.6.1996.
Ex.D.81 : Quotation for interior and carpentry work dtd: 6.4.1996.
Ex.D.82 : 2 Receipts.
& Ex.D.83 115 O.S.No.26013/2008 Ex.D.84 : Work order from RSCL Investments Pvt., to Ltd.
Ex.D.87 Ex.D.88 : TDS Certificate in Form No.16A. & Ex.D.89 Ex.D.90 : Bill for first floor new construction dtd:
9.9.1998.
Ex.D.91 : Quotation dtd: 12.11.1996 of Mohan & Company to JTM House.
Ex.D.92 : Quotations given to St. Mark's Cathedral to Church.
Ex.D.97 Ex.D.98 : Bill dtd: 25.2.2000.
Ex.D.99 : Bill dtd: 28.3.1994 to Telecom. Ex.D.100 : Bill dtd: 21.4.1994 to Little Poor Sisters. Ex.D.101 : Bill dtd: 23.9.1996.
Ex.D.102 : Quotation dtd: 23.9.1996. & Ex.D.103 Ex.D.104 : Bill dtd: 20.11.1996.
Ex.D.105 : Bill dtd: 22.12.1993.
Ex.D.106 : Bank Statement of Sreenivasa Buildings issued by Andhra Bank.
116 O.S.No.26013/2008Ex.D.107 : Payment Cheque intimation. to Ex.D.112 Ex.D.113 : Certificate issued by The Karnataka Ayurvedic & Unani Practitioners Board to J. Perumal.
Ex.D.114 : Jyotishya Certificate in Tamil Language. Ex.D.115 : Certificate issued by Karnataka Pradesh Siddha Medical Practitioner Association to J. Perumal.
Ex.D.116 : Siddha Medical Book in Tamil Language.
(K.M. Rajashekar) XXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore.
117 O.S.No.26013/2008Judgment pronounced in the Open Court (Vide separate order) ORDER The suit of the Plaintiffs is decreed. It is hereby declared that the Plaintiff No.1 to 3 and Defendant No.1 are equally entitle for 1/4th share each.
Draw preliminary decree accordingly.
[K.M. Rajashekar], XXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore.