Bangalore District Court
Nagarathnamma vs Jagadish on 25 October, 2025
KABC010167472009
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-8)
PRESENT
SRI. B.DASARATHA., B.A., LL.B.
XI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
O.S. No.6872/2009
Plaintiffs: 1. Smt. Nagarathnamma,
D/o. Late C.Kenchappa,
Aged about 64 years,
R/at Dommasandra Village,
Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk,
& also at No.1145, 11th Cross,
K.P.Agrahara Magadi Road,
Bangalore - 560 003.
Since dead by her LRs:
1(a). Sri. Dhanraj P.
S/o. Late Nagarathnamma,
2 O.S. No.6872/2009
Aged about 53 years.
Since dead by his LR:
Defendant No.5.
1(b). Smt. Sumitra P.,
W/o. Late Ramesh,
D/o. Late Nagarathnamma,
Aged about 51 years.
1(c). Smt. Geetha P.,
W/o. Anil Kumar,
D/o. Late Nagarathnamma,
Aged about 44 years.
1(d). Smt. Shobha,
W/o. Prakash,
D/o. Late Nagarathnamma,
Aged about 42 years.
All are residing at No.186,
Near Kantharaj Hospital,
Angadi Beedi, Dommasandra Village,
Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore Urban Dist. - 562 125.
2. Smt. Chinnamma,
D/o. Late C.Kenchappa,
Aged about 60 years,
Near Basha Saab House,
Kacheri Mohalla, Sira Taluk
& also at No.1145, 11th Cross,
K.P.Agrahara Magadi Road,
Bangalore - 560 023.
(By Adv. Sri.B.C.Venkatesh)
3 O.S. No.6872/2009
Vs.
Defendants: 1. Sri. Jagadish,
S/o. Late C.Kenchappa,
Aged about 55 years,
Residing at No.1056/10,
H.S.Parvathi Road,
Hanumanthanagar,
Bangalore - 560 019.
2. Sri. S.K.Venugopal,
S/o. Late C.Kenchappa,
Aged about 60 years,
Residing at No.39/1,
8th Cross, Manjunath Nagar,
Behind Prasanna Theatre,
Magadi Road, Bangalore.
3. Sri. S.K.Vijayakumar,
S/o. Late C.Kenchappa,
Aged about 52 years,
Residing at No.2/B,
6th Cross, Right Side,
Magadi Road,
Bangalore - 560 028.
Since dead by his LRs:
3(a). Smt. Kalpana,
W/o. Late S.K.Vijayakumar,
Aged about 50 years.
3(b). Smt. Karuna,
D/o. Late S.K.Vijayakumar,
Aged about 30 years.
4 O.S. No.6872/2009
3(c). Smt. Pooja,
D/o. Late S.K.Vijayakumar,
Aged about 25 years.
All are residing at No.2/B,
6th Cross, Right Side,
Magadi Road,
Bangalore - 560 023.
4. Smt. Rajeshwari,
D/o. Late C.Kenchappa,
Aged about 62 years,
Residing at No.12,
8th Cross, Pipeline,
Vijayanagara,
Bangalore - 560 040.
5. Sri. Ravikumar,
S/o. Late Dhanaraj P.,
Aged about 26 years,
Residing at No.16,
Near Kantharaj Hospital,
Angadi Beedi,
Dommasandra Village,
Sarjapura Hobli,
Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore Urban Dist. - 562 125.
(D1 by Adv. Sri. Giri K.
D2 by Adv. Sri. Srinivasa A.R.
D3 - Dead
D3(a) to (c) by Adv. Sri. S.V.Prakash
D4 by Adv. Smt. Rajeshwari
D5 - Exparte)
5 O.S. No.6872/2009
Date of institution of the suit : 19.06.2009
Nature of the suit : Partition & Separate
Possession
Date of commencement of : 10.07.2018
Recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 25.10.2025
was pronounced
Total Duration : Years Months Days
16 04 06
XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of their share in the coparcenary/joint family properties, described in suit schedule "A" to "C" properties, together with mesne profits.
2. The brief averments of the plaint as follows: -
The plaintiffs assert that C.Kenchappa died on 19.06.1990, left behind three sons - defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 6 O.S. No.6872/2009 three daughters - plaintiff No.1 since deceased through legal heirs, plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.4 and all the suit schedule properties constitute joint family assets liable to partition into six equal (1/ 6th) shares.
2(a). Suit schedule "A' property is stated to be ancestral property, allotted to Late C.Kenchappa under the partition deed of the year 1921. Suit schedule "B" and "C" properties are pleaded to have been acquired, improved and constructed through joint family nucleus, specifically by leveraging suit schedule "A" property and the running family business M/s.S.K.Plastics and through loans secured by hypothecation of family machinery and mortgage/charges over ancestral property.
2(b). The plaintiffs plead denial of share around 10.03.2009 and again on 15.05.2009, constituting cause of action and starting point for mesne profits.
2(c). Plaintiff No.1 and her son - Dhanraj P. died during pendency; their legal heirs are on record. Hence, this suit. 7 O.S. No.6872/2009
3. In response to the suit summons, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 after appearing through their respective Advocates have filed the separate written statements. Defendant No.3- S.K.Vijayakumar died; his legal heirs - defendant Nos.3(a) to 3(c) are on record. Inspite of service of suit summons, defendant No.5 remained absent and placed him exparte.
4. The brief averments of the written statements of the defendant No.1 to 4 is as follows:-
Defendant No.1 admits family relationship; does not dispute joint character of suit schedule "A" and "B" properties and supports partition as per law.
4(a). Defendant No.2 contends that suit schedule "A"
and "B" properties are the joint family properties; suit schedule "C" property is also the joint family property as acquired from family funds/firm cheques; relies on earlier O.S.No.6919/1993 his suit against defendant Nos.1 and 3 to contend for clubbing/history, but accepts partition now.8 O.S. No.6872/2009
4(b). Deceased defendant No.3 and defendant No.3(a) to 3(c) contend that suit schedule "C" property is self-acquired property by Late defendant No.3 from his alleged separate earnings/chits/friends and KSFC assistance post an asserted separation around 1986; dispute jointness of suit schedule "B"
and "C" properties; plead limitation, partial suit, non-joinder and refer to proceedings in O.S.No.6919/1993.
4(c). Defendant No.4 supports the plaintiffs' case of joint family; also alleges blending of her personal loans; prays inclusion of other properties allegedly acquired by defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 and liquid funds as additional joint assets.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, my predecessors-in-office have framed the following issues and additional issue for determination:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule 'A' to 'C' properties are the joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants?9 O.S. No.6872/2009
2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for 1/6th share in respect of suit schedule 'A' to 'C' properties?
3. Whether the 2nd defendant proves that plaintiffs suit is not maintainable in view of suit filed by 1 st and 3rd defendant in O.S.No.6919/1993 for partition of the joint family properties?
4. What decree or order?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE
1. Whether defendant No.3(a) to (c) prove that "C" schedule property is exclusive property of deceased defendant No.1?
6. After settlement of issues, plaintiff No.2 has entered into the witness box as PW-1 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 were marked through her. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.3(a) and defendant No.2 have entered into the witness box as DW-1 and DW-2 and Ex.D1 to Ex.D51 were marked through them.
7. Heard the arguments of plaintiffs and legal heirs of defendant No.3. Other defendants have not addressed their arguments.
10 O.S. No.6872/2009
8. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In the affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the affirmative.
Issue No.3: In the negative.
Addl. Issue No.1: In the negative.
Issue No.5: As per final order below
for the following:
REASONS
9. Issue No.1:- Ex.P7 - partition deed of the year 1921 unequivocally traces title to Late C.Kenchappa. There is no denial from any defendant; defendant No.1, defendant No.2 and defendant No.4 admit the ancestral character. PW-1's testimony, coupled with encumbrance records, shows continued family enjoyment and absence of alienation. Suit schedule "A" property is proved as ancestral/joint family property.
10. The plaintiffs assert the business was founded/expanded from joint nucleus, with hypothecation of machinery and periodic loans. The defendant No.2 supports this; DW-1 admits that Late defendant No.3 worked in the 11 O.S. No.6872/2009 family concern at least upto the late 1980s. Whether there were 20 looms or 160 looms is immaterial to the legal character. The consistent evidence is that the concern existed much before 1988, functioned as a family venture and was used as security for borrowings. The doctrine of blending applies where a coparcener throws self-acquired property into the common hotchpotch or where acquisitions are traced to joint nucleus. On balance of probabilities, Suit schedule "B" property is the joint family property.
11. The heart of the dispute is here. The plaintiffs rely on
(i) 1986 loan secured by leveraging joint assets (suit "A" and "B" schedule properties) and (ii) firm cheques towards 1988 purchase (Ex.P8) and subsequent construction. The defendant No.2 on oath as DW-2, states that multiple cheques from the firm ₹40,000/-, ₹40,000/-, ₹45,000/- etc., aggregating about ₹2,30,000/- were issued towards the consideration; he also narrates closure of ₹50,000/- auction loan on suit schedule "A" 12 O.S. No.6872/2009 property in 1994. The defendant No.4 corroborates blending of her loans.
12. The legal heir of defendant No.3/ DW-1 contend that defendant No.3 had separate earnings, chit/friends' money, and KSFC support and the consideration was paid through personal deposits routed from the firm "as he had no bank account". However, no documentary proof of such chit/friends' deposits or segregated personal fund trail is produced; the KSFC assistance 1989 onwards appears to be for power looms/building but does not rebut the initial acquisition funded through the firm/family channels. Even assuming KSFC loans later aided expansion, that by itself does not convert the original acquisition into a separate estate, particularly when the seed funding flowed from the joint nucleus and the business concern.
13. The plea of separation in 1986 is unpersuasive: there is no deed of partition, no clear proof of disruption of status, and DW-1 herself admits that defendant No.3 was still involved 13 O.S. No.6872/2009 in the family business milieu around the material time. The prior suit in O.S.No.6919/1993 even if a partial decree once opined on "C" schedule property was admittedly set aside for non- service/restored and later dismissed for default; there is no adjudication on merits to attract Section 11 CPC.
14. In law, once the plaintiffs demonstrate a prima facie joint nucleus at or about the time of acquisition, the burden shifts to the party asserting self-acquisition to establish separate sources, separate intention and separate enjoyment as held in Appasaheb v. Devendra, (2007) 1 SCC 521 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. That burden is not discharged here. Consequently, suit schedule "C" property stands proved as a joint family acquisition, later improved/expanded with blended funds. Hence in view of the above discussion, suit schedule "A" to "C" properties are the joint family properties. Hence, Issue No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
15. Issue No.2:- There are six coparceners: three sons - defendant No.1, defendant No.2 and defendant No 3 through 14 O.S. No.6872/2009 his legal heirs and three daughters- plaintiff No.1 through her legal heirs, plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.4. In view of decision held in Vineeta Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1, daughters are coparceners by birth and are entitled to equal shares, notwithstanding the father's pre-2005 demise, provided the daughter was alive on 09.09.2005 which is not disputed. No prior valid partition has been proved. Hence, each branch is entitled to 1/ 6th share in suit schedule "A" to "C" properties.
16. As regards mesne profits/accounts, the plaintiffs have pleaded denial on 10.03.2009 and 15.05.2009. The question of exact quantification will require an enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 CPC. A preliminary decree for accounts is appropriate. Hence, Issue No.2 is answered in the affirmative.
17. Issue No.3: - The earlier suit was filed by defendant No.2 against defendant Nos.1 and 3. The present plaintiffs were not parties when it was initially prosecuted; the decree relied upon was set aside for non-service and the proceedings ultimately stood dismissed for default. There is no adjudication 15 O.S. No.6872/2009 on merits that could attract res judicata under Section 11 of CPC, nor is Section 10 CPC attracted to stay the present suit, which is by different parties asserting their independent coparcenary rights. The plea of non-maintainability fails. Hence, this Issue No.3 is answered in the negative.
18. Additional Issue No.1: For reasons recorded under Issue No.1, the defendant Nos.3(a) to 3(c) have not proved any separate nucleus, exclusive fund trail, or complete severance pre-dating the 1988 acquisition. The KSFC assistance and subsequent operational receipts do not alter the joint character of a purchase made with family/firm funds. Schedule "C" property is not the separate property of Late defendant No.3. Hence, Additional Issue No.1 is answered in the negative.
19. Issue No.4: In view of the above discussions, this court proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiffs is partly decreed.16 O.S. No.6872/2009
It is declared that plaintiffs are entitled to 2/6 th undivided share in suit schedule "A" to "C" properties (1/6 th per branch);
defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 each are entitled to 1/6 th share and defendant Nos.3(a) to 3(c) collectively are entitled to 1/6th share, by metes and bounds.
An enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 CPC is ordered for mesne profits/accounts from 15.05.2009 till delivery of separate possession. The matter shall proceed to enquiry after the Commissioner's Report, with liberty to parties to file statements of account and evidence.
In the circumstances, the plaintiffs are entitled to costs.
Draw preliminary decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I directly on computer, typed by her, the transcript thereof corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open court, on this the 25 th day of October, 2025) (B.DASARATHA) XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.17 O.S. No.6872/2009
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for plaintiffs:
PW.1 : Smt. Chinnamma List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:Ex.P.1 & 2 : Affidavit of Plaintiff No.1 & 2
Ex.P.3 to 6 : Encumbrance Certificates Ex.P.7 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 24.11.1921 Ex.P.7(a) : Typed copy of Ex.P.7 Ex.P.8 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 24.03.1988 Ex.P.8(a) : Typed copy of Ex.P.8 List of witnesses examined for defendants:
DW.1 : Smt. Kalpana
DW.2 : Sri. S.K.Venugopal
List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Ex.D.1 : Certified copy of Acknowledgment issued by Corporation of City of Bengaluru Ex.D.2 : Certified copy of Receipt issued by Bengaluru City Corporation Ex.D.3 : Certified copy of Sanctioned Plan Ex.D.4 : Certified copy of Receipt issued by Lakshmi Commercial Corporation (R.) Ex.D.5 & 6 : 2 Certified copies of Receipts issued by KSFC Ex.D.7 : Bunch of Certified copies of Receipts issued by KSFC 18 O.S. No.6872/2009 Ex.D.8 : Certified copy of Allocation Intimation issued by KSFC Ex.D.9 & 10: 2 Certified copies of Demand Notices issued by KSFC Ex.D.11 : Certified copy of Allocation Intimation issued by KSFC Ex.D.12 : Certified copy of Demand Notice issued by KSFC Ex.D.13 : Certified copy of Outstanding Balance Statement issued by KSFC Ex.D.14 : Certified copy of Demand notice issued by KSFC Ex.D.15 : Certified copy of Allocation Intimation issued by KSFC Ex.D.16 : Certified copy of Demand Notice issued by KSFC Ex.D.17 : Certified copy of Allocation Intimation issued by KSFC Ex.D.18 to 21: 4 Certified copies of Demand Notices issued by KSFC Ex.D.22 : Certified copy of Outstanding Balance Sheet issued by KSFC Ex.D.23 : Certified copy of Allocation Intimation issued by KSFC Ex.D.24 & 25: 2 Certified copies of Demand Notices issued by KSFC Ex.D.26 : Certified copy of Certificate issued by KSFC Ex.D.27 : Certified copy of Balance Sheet with respect to M/s. Vijaya Textiles issued by KSFC Ex.D.28 : Certified copy of Loan Account Statement with respect to Vijaya Textiles issued by KSFC Ex.D.29 & 30: 2 Certified copies of Loan Sanction Letters issued by KSFC Ex.D.31 : Certified copy of Lease Deed between Sri.S.K.Vijay Kumar and 19 O.S. No.6872/2009 M/s. Annapoona Silk Industry Ex.D.32 : Certified copy of Sale Deed dated 06.07.2002 Ex.D.33 to 35: Certified copies of two Photos, Negative and Receipt Ex.D.36 & 37: 2 Certified copies of Power Sanction Letters issued by KEB Ex.D.38 : Certified copy of Birth Certificate Ex.D.39 to 41: 3 Certified copies of Tax Paid Receipts Ex.D.42 : Certified copy of Sanction Order issued by KSFC Ex.D.43 : Certified copy of Loan Passbook Ex.D.44 : Certified copy of Deposition given by Sri.S.K.Vijaya Kumar in O.S.No.6919/1993 Ex.D.45 : Certified copy of Deposition given by Smt. S.P.Kalpana in O.S.No.6919/1993 Ex.D.46 : Certified copy of Deposition given by G.T.Puttaswamy in O.S.No.6919/1993 Ex.D.47 : Certified copy of Decree in O.S.No.6919/1993 Ex.D.48 : Certified copy of Order Sheet in O.S.No.6919/1993 Ex.P49 : Certificate issued by Government of Karnataka Ex.P50 : Receipt issued by Prabhu Silk Mills Ex.P51 : Certificate issued by Shreya Hearing Clinic XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY.Digitally signed by DASARATHA
DASARATHA BETTAPPA
BETTAPPA Date:
2025.10.25
15:49:39 +0530