Bangalore District Court
Suresh Kumar B V vs Jinesh Kumar B V on 11 November, 2025
KABC010180882013
IN THE COURT OF LXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-65) AT BENGALURU CITY
Dated this 11th day of November, 2025
-: P R E S E N T :-
Smt. Mala N.D.,
BAL., LL.M.,
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
(CCH-65), BENGALURU CITY.
O. S. No.2755/2013
PLAINTIFF:- : Sri. B.V. Suresh Kumar,
S/o Late K.P. Vimal Kumar,
Aged about 63 years,
No.1083, 11th Main Road,
13th Cross, GKVK Post,
Judicial Layout,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. HSS, Advocate)
Vs.
DEFENDANTS:- : 1. Sri. B.V. Jinesh Kumar,
S/o Late K.P. Vimal Kumar,
Aged about 58 years,
R/at No.93, 'B' 6th B Cross,
SFS, Yelahanka New Town,
Bengaluru.
2
O.S.No.2755/2013
2. Smt. Swarna Mala,
D/o Late K.P. Vimal Kumar,
W/o Sri. K.S. Prathap Kumar,
Aged about 66 years,
R/at No.117, SFS (407),
Yelahanka New Town,
Bengaluru.
3. Sri. B.V. Shanthish Kumar,
S/o Late K.P. Vimal Kumar,
Aged about 60 years,
R/at No.501, 12th A Main,
A Sector, Yelahanka New Town,
Bengaluru.
(D.1, 2- By Sri. MJ
D.3- By Sri. CDR, Advocates)
Date of institution of the suit: 08/04/2013
Nature of the suit: Declaration and injunction
Date of commencement of 28/09/2021
recording of evidence:
Date on which Judgment was 11/11/2025
pronounced:
Duration:
Years Months Days
12 07 03
(MALA.N.D.)
LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH-65)
BENGALURU CITY.
3
O.S.No.2755/2013
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for declaration of his title over suit property along with an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents, servants, henchmen or any other persons acting on their behalf from interfering or trespassing his peaceful possession and enjoyment over suit property in any manner whatsoever and for such other reliefs.
2. The factual matrix leading to file this suit is as follows;
The plaintiff and defendants are children of Late K.P. Vimal Kumar and Smt. Sharadamma, during the life time of their father he had purchased lands bearing Sy.No.101 measuring 59 acres 25 guntas including phoot karab measuring 5 acres 36 guntas situated at Jarakabande Kaval village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru 4 O.S.No.2755/2013 Rural District, through a registered sale deed dated 14/11/1958, thereafter he sold an extent of 19 acres 35 guntas in favour of one Smt. Chandramma through a registered sale deed dated 01/02/1966, remaining lands measuring 35 acres 32 guntas was in possession and enjoyment of their father, he died on 01/03/2000 leaving behind plaintiff, defendants and his wife Smt. Sharadamma as his successors, upon his death mutation and RTC entries were changed in the name of their mother Smt. Sharadhamma vide M.R. No. IHC 7/2001-02, subsequent to the death of father of plaintiff, his mother by taking into the consideration of contribution of the plaintiff to their family and also having regard to his physical disability due to accident, also out of love and affection she has gifted an extent of land measuring 11 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.101 (out of 35 acres 32 guntas) situated at J.B. Kaval, Yelahanka Hobli, 5 O.S.No.2755/2013 Bengaluru North Addl. Taluk, through a registered Gift Deed dated 29/08/2002, as such ever since from the date of acquisition of title and even prior to that date plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of aforesaid land i.e. suit schedule property.
Further, after execution of the gift deed as aforesaid, plaintiff applied for change of mutation and RTC entries in his name before Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk, however the same was objected by defendants, despite the registered document his application came to be rejected on technical ground by an order dated 20/06/2003, aggrieved by the same, plaintiff preferred an appeal in R.A. No.176/2003-04, wherein the Asst. Commissioner, Bengaluru North Taluk without considering the provision of law and without considering the well settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in a series of 6 O.S.No.2755/2013 judgments, dismissed the said appeal with a direction to the plaintiff to approach the civil court, even though the defendants have not questioned the registered Gift Deed before any authority, the revenue authorities have rejected his claim.
Further, in view of the policy decision taken by the Government of Karnataka, BDA has acquired a portion of land to an extent of 10 acres 23 guntas out of 59 acres 25 guntas in Sy.No.101 of J.B. Kaval, Yelahanka Hobli, for the purpose of formation of peripheral ring road through notifications dated 03/07/2007 under Section 17(1) and 19 of BDA Act, out of said acquired land measuring 10 acres 23 guntas the land to an extent of 5 acres 36 guntas of phoot karab and remaining extent belonging to the mother of plaintiff were acquired and land belonging to the plaintiff was not included in the acquisition, however, in the said notification, only the 7 O.S.No.2755/2013 names of the plaintiff's mother and Smt. Chandramma were shown as Kathedar, due to old age plaintiff's mother could not initiate any proceedings or protest the land in question, as such the plaintiff once again approached Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk for change of mutation and RTC into his name as per registered Gift Deed dated 29/08/2002, the Tahsildar after holding due inquiry, conducting spot inspection, on 02/02/2012 ordered to enter the name of plaintiff in the mutation and RTC, as such plaintiff also paid necessary tax to the revenue authority, therefore being aggrieved by the said order the defendants herein preferred an appeal in R.A No.372/2012-13 before Asst. Commissioner, Bengaluru North taluk and obtained an interim order of stay, the grounds urged in the said appeal is that the application of the plaintiff was already rejected by the earlier orders, hence questioning of entering his name in RTC does not 8 O.S.No.2755/2013 arise, thus though there is registered document in favour of plaintiff he could not protect his property in view of the illegal orders passed by the revenue authority as per order dated 20/06/2003 and 19/10/2004.
By virtue of changing mutation and RTC in his name plaintiff started to put up fencing in the suit schedule property in 3rd week of March 2013, the same was obstructed by defendants with the assistance of goonda elements, as such, plaintiff approached the jurisdictional police seeking protection, who issued NCR advising to approach the civil court as the matter is civil in nature and the same observation was made by revenue authorities also. By virtue of registered Gift Deed the plaintiff became an absolute owner in possession of suit schedule property and the defendants without having any manner of right, title and interest have continued to disturb his possession which is 9 O.S.No.2755/2013 causing more loss and hardship on him as well as his family, on the other hand if an order of declaration and injunction is not granted in favour of plaintiff he will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. According to the plaintiff cause of action to the suit arose in the 3 rd week of March 2013 when defendants along with rowdy elements tried to interfere with the suit schedule property obstructing to put up fencing and on 24/03/2013 when jurisdictional police refused to take complaint against the defendants, hence, this suit.
3. Initially the present suit was filed against only two defendants, upon issuance of suit summons these defendant No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel, filed written statement by denying entire case of plaintiff on the contention that, suit brought by the plaintiff for declaration to declare him as an absolute owner of suit property on the basis of an alleged gift deed dated 10 O.S.No.2755/2013 29/08/2002 is not maintainable as their mother had no legal right whatsoever to execute any gift deed in respect of suit property in favour of the plaintiff, and the same is also not the self acquired property of mother both plaintiff and defendants, as such, said registered gift deed is a void document and the plaintiff has not derived any title over the suit property by virtue of said void document, therefore suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with cost.
It is further contended that, by virtue of registered gift deed plaintiff has made an application to effect mutation entry in his name before Tahsildar in RRT (DS) No.31/2002-03 which was objected by the defendants and the same came to be rejected as per order dated 20/06/2003, against which plaintiff preferred an appeal before Asst. Commissioner in R.A. No.176/2003-04 which was also dismissed on 19/04/2004, thus the same 11 O.S.No.2755/2013 became final, the plaintiff has not challenged the said dismissal order of the Asst. Commissioner, if at all plaintiff intends to seek any declaration, the suit should have been filed within three years from the date of dismissal of said appeal by the Asst. Commissioner on 19/10/2004, therefore, present suit is barred under Art.54 of Limitation Act, hence the same is liable to be dismissed.
Further, plaintiff is not at all in possession of the suit schedule property, as such the court fee paid is insufficient, therefore he cannot maintain the present suit. It is submitted by these defendants that, suit is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties as the plaintiff has not made his mother and another brother Sri. B.V. Shanthish Kumar as party to the present suit, therefore the same is liable to be dismissed. 12
O.S.No.2755/2013 It is submitted by these defendants that, the plaintiff having taken undue advantage of the old age of their mother who was residing with 1st defendant and he was taking care of her, managed to obtain a gift deed in his favour in respect of suit property and their mother was not aware of the contents of said gift deed, the plaintiff even after rejection of his petition to effect mutation entries, he once again obtained mutation entries in his name by an order dated 20/12/2012 and by virtue of the same now he obtained revenue records in his favour, these defendants on coming to know about the said facts, preferred an appeal before Asst. Commissioner challenging the order passed by Tahsildar in R.A. No.372/2012-13 and obtained an order of stay and the said appeal is still pending for consideration, as such plaintiff has not acquired any title or right over the suit property, he has obtained revenue entries by 13 O.S.No.2755/2013 suppressing the material facts and said revenue entries have been stayed by the Asst. Commissioner. It is submitted that, 1st defendant is the owner of the suit property, as such question of 1st defendant taking assistance of goonda elements and trying to obstruct the plaintiff from putting up fence on the suit property does not arise at all, suit property is self acquired property of father of plaintiff and defendants, as such their mother alone without having absolute right cannot execute any gift deed, as she herself had no title to the suit property to convey the same by way of gift deed in favour of donee i.e. plaintiff, therefore said gift deed is a void document, no threat of interference is caused on the plaintiff.
4. These defendants by way of counter claim have pleaded that, their father had acquired 59.25 acres of land by virtue of registered sale deed dated 14/11/1957 14 O.S.No.2755/2013 and he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same, during his life time, he had sold land measuring 19 acres 35 guntas in the year 1966 by keeping 39 acres 30guntas into his family, he died intestate in the year 2000, subsequent to his death, revenue records were changed in the name of mother of plaintiff and defendants, however, mother of both plaintiff and defendants had no legal rights whatsoever either to alienate or to convey the suit property by way of gift or any other mode of transfer, when such being the case, plaintiff without disclosing the said fact by misleading his mother obtained registered gift deed in his favour on 29/08/2002 which is a void document as she had no exclusive right to alienate the suit schedule property, plaintiff based on such void document had obtained revenue entries in his favour as per M.R. No.H7/2012-13 dated 02/02/2013, being aggrieved by the same, these 15 O.S.No.2755/2013 defendants have challenged before Asst. Commissioner, Bengaluru North Taluk and obtained an order of interim stay, thereafter plaintiff is claiming the schedule property by virtue of gift deed for which mother of the plaintiff and defendants had no absolute right to convey the suit property in the name of plaintiff, hence, the same is required to be cancelled as said document is void document and by virtue of said gift deed plaintiff is trying to alienate the suit property in favour of third parties, hence, defendants are seeking for declaration of the aforesaid registered gift deed dated 29/08/2002 as null and void and not binding on them, accordingly, prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with exemplary costs.
5. After filing of written statement by defendant No.1 and 2, 3rd defendant voluntarily appeared before the court through necessary application under Order 10 Rule 2 of CPC which came to be allowed and 16 O.S.No.2755/2013 accordingly he is impleaded as 3 rd defendant in the suit, said 3rd defendant denied the entire case of the plaintiff as that of defendant No.1 and 2 by contending that, suit property in question was acquired by their father through a registered sale deed of the year 1958, after his death mutation entries reflected in the name of their mother Smt. Sharadamma and by taking advantage of old age of their mother, plaintiff obtained a registered gift deed in his favour on 29/08/2002 to an extent measuring 10 acres 10 guntas out of 35 acres 32 guntas.
It is further submitted by this 3 rd defendant that, suit property purchased by their father on 14/11/1958 measuring 59 acres 25 guntas including phoot karab measuring 5 acres 36 guntas, thereafter their father sold 19 acres 35 guntas in favour of one Smt. Chandramma through a registered sale deed dated 01/02/1966, in view of the purchase made by the father of plaintiff and 17 O.S.No.2755/2013 defendants, their mother had no independent right to execute any gift deed, thus, this defendant admits entire contentions of defendant No.1 and 2 and also contended that, plaintiff is claiming suit property under a registered gift deed, whereas this defendant No.3 contended that, he is in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit property for last 30 years, the revenue entries were standing in the name of their mother, plaintiff by taking undue advantage of their mother has obtained registered gift deed in his favour and also obtained revenue records which was questioned and same are pending before Asst. Commissioner, Bengaluru North Taluk. It is submitted by 3rd defendant that, there was a settlement suggestion by this court to settle the dispute among the family members, in view of the same this defendant who had filed a suit for partition in O.S. No.4809/2017 withdrew the said suits, after withdrawal of the same, 18 O.S.No.2755/2013 plaintiff is conducting this case which shows his malafide intention, thus, plaintiff cannot claim exclusive right in respect of suit schedule property, there is no cause of action as alleged by the plaintiff, hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
6. The plaintiff herein after filing of the counter claim of defendant No.1 and 2 has filed reply application/written statement to the said counter claim contending that the same is misconceived, unsustainable and also not maintainable either in law or on facts, conduct of the defendants are totally disentitles them from seeking any equitable relief much less the relief of counter claim praying to cancel the gift deed dated 29/08/2002 which is a registered document registered in the office of Sub-registrar, Yelahanka, Bengaluru. To seek such a relief of cancellation of gift deed dated 29/08/2002 the defendants are required to pay proper 19 O.S.No.2755/2013 and necessary court fee on the market value of suit property, therefore, paying only court fee of Rs.25/- is nothing but under valuation, on this count, the counter claim of defendant No.1 and 2 is liable to be rejected.
Per contra, the plaintiff filed present suit for declaration and consequential relief of permanent injunction with a specific cause of action. The defendants herein have not challenged the registered gift deed made in favour of the plaintiff by their mother Smt. Sharadamma who died on 16/02/2016. The defendants have not challenged the aforementioned gift deed during the life time of their mother, on the contrary, filed a suit for partition, more over their interest have already been protected in respect of remaining lands, there is no cause of action to file the present application seeking counter claim, therefore, plaintiff submits that, when there is denial of share of the defendants, if at all the 20 O.S.No.2755/2013 defendants having any grievances in respect of suit schedule property it is open for them to file a separate suit with proper manner as provided under law, since cause of action arose in the present suit is entirely different to that of different cause of action under the counter claim, the same is not maintainable and liable to be rejected. Thus, plaintiff pleads that, since he is an illiterate and disable person, the defendants taking advantage of his helplessness and illiteracy are making an attempt to extract money by way of creating litigation for extraneous reasons through counter claim. Thus, defendants have not approached the court with clean hands to seek counter claim, there is no cause of action arouse as against the plaintiff to seek counter claim which entitles them for any equitable relief at the hands of this court. Hence, prays to dismiss the counter claim of the defendants with exemplary cost.
21
O.S.No.2755/2013
7. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. In support of his case the plaintiff also examined two witnesses as P.W. 2 and 3 and closed his side. During the course of cross- examination of D.W.2 one document confronted to him and the same marked as Ex.P.14. Similarly, defendants No.1 and 3 examined themselves as D.W.1 and D.W. 2 and got marked 8 documents on their behalf at Ex.D.1 to D.8.
8. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the evidence, documents and citations made available before this court. The learned counsel for plaintiff has also filed his written arguments.
9. Based on the above pleadings, my learned predecessors in office have framed the following Issues and Additional Issues:
22
O.S.No.2755/2013
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property?
2) Whether the plaintiff proves that his mother had validly executed the gift deed dated 29/08/2022 in his favour in respect of the suit schedule property as contended?
3) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property?
4) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants had interfered with his peaceful possession and enjoyment as alleged?
5) Whether the defendants prove that suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation?
6) Whether the defendants prove that suit of the plaintiff is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of necessary parties?23
O.S.No.2755/2013
7) Whether the defendants prove that the court fee paid is insufficient?
8) Whether the defendants prove that the gift deed dated 29/08/2002 is a void document and is liable to be cancelled as contended?
9) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for the relief of declaration as contended?
10) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as claimed?
11) Whether the defendants prove that they are entitled for the counter claim as prayed?
12) What order or decree?
Re-casted Issue No.3:-
Whether the plaintiff proves his
exclusive possession and enjoyment
of the suit schedule property?
24
O.S.No.2755/2013
Addl. Issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the counter claim of defendant No.1 and 2 is barred by limitation?
2. Whether the court fee paid on the counter claim of defendant No.1 and 2 is proper and sufficient?
10. For the reasons stated hereinafter, my findings on the above issues are as under;
Issue No.1 : In the negative
Issue No.2 : In the negative
Recasted
Issue No.3 : In the negative
Issue No.4 : In the negative
Issue No.5 : In the negative
Issue No.6 : Does not arise for
consideration
Issue No.7 : In the negative
Issue No.8 : Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.9 : In the negative
25
O.S.No.2755/2013
Issue No.10 : In the negative
Issue No.11 : In the negative
Addl.Issue No.1 : In the affirmative
Addl. Issue No.2: In the negative
Issue No.12: As per final order,
for the following:
REASONS:
11. In this case, plaintiff and defendants are children of one K.P. Vimal Kumar and Smt. Sharadamma, relationship between the parties are not in dispute, even the identification and existence of suit schedule property is also not in dispute. It is an admitted fact that, father of plaintiff and defendants Sri. K.P. Vimal Kumar had purchased 59 acres 36 guntas of land in Sy.No. 101 of Jaraka Bande Kaval village, Yelahanka hobli through a registered sale deed dated 14/11/1958, thereafter he sold 19.35 acres of land to one Smt. Chandramma through a registered sale deed dated 01/02/1966 and remaining lands to an extent of 35 acres 26 O.S.No.2755/2013 32 guntas have been in possession and enjoyment of said K.P. Vimal Kumar who died on 01/03/2000 leaving behind the plaintiff, defendants and his wife Smt. Sharadamma, upon his death mutation and RTC extracts in respect of aforementioned 35 acres 32 guntas of lands have been changed to her name vide MR. No.IHC- 7/2001-02.
12. Further, both plaintiff and defendants have not disputed these aspect. However, it is the case of plaintiff that, after the death of his father, his mother having considered the contribution made by him in the family and also considered the fact that he is a disabled person, out of love and affection she gifted an extent of 11 acres 10 guntas in suit Sy.No. 101 of J.B. Kaval, Yelahanka Holbi, Bengaluru North Taluk through a registered gift deed dated 29/08/2002 and by virtue of said registered gift deed the plaintiff attempted to obtain mutation and 27 O.S.No.2755/2013 RTC extracts into his name which is objected by the defendants before Tahsildar court, where application made for change of katha by the plaintiff was rejected by the then Tahsildar on 20/06/2003, against which plaintiff preferred an appeal before Asst. Commissioner in R.A No.176/2003-04 and same was also dismissed with a direction to the plaintiff to approach the civil court, thereafter present suit came to be filed. After filing of the suit, defendants have also claimed counter claim seeking cancellation of registered gift deed dated 29/08/2002 in favour of plaintiff on the contention that their mother had no exclusive right to execute a registered gift deed, as the suit property was not her self acquired property, on the contrary, it is the joint family property of themselves and plaintiff. In this context, it is relevant to discuss on each issues one by one.
28
O.S.No.2755/2013
13. ISSUE No.1, 2 RECASTED ISSUE No.3 AND 4:-
These issues are interconnected and inter related with each other, hence they are taken up together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
14. The plaintiff and defendants are children of one K.P. Vimal Kumar and Sharadamma which is not in dispute. In this suit, plaintiff is claiming an absolute ownership of suit schedule property measuring 11 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No. 101 of Jaraka Bande Kaval, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk on the strength of a registered gift deed dated 29/08/2002 said to have been executed by his mother in his favour by considering his contribution to their family and also considering his physical disability. It is also the case of plaintiff that, the suit property was purchased by his father along with other lands in same survey number in total 59 acres 25 29 O.S.No.2755/2013 guntas in the year 1958 out of which he had sold an extent of 19 acres 35 guntas in favour of one Smt. Chandramma, thereafter he was in physical possession and enjoyment of remaining extent of 35 acres 32 guntas, he died intestate on 01/03/2000, mutation entries were entered in the name of plaintiff and defendants mother Smt. Sharadamma as per M.R. IHC No.7/2001-02.
15. The plaintiff in order to establish his case that, he is an absolute owner in exclusive possession of suit schedule property by virtue of a registered gift deed which has been interfered by the defendant, examined himself as P.W. 1 by filing an affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief, wherein he has reiterated the plaint averments and in support of his case, he has furnished 12 documents, among them Ex.P.1 is the certified copy of a registered sale deed dated 14/11/1958 executed in 30 O.S.No.2755/2013 favour of K.P. Vimal Kumar who is the father of plaintiff and defendants herein, contents of said sale deed are corroborating the plaint averments to the effect that, he had purchased an extent of 59 acres 25 guntas including 5 acres 36 guntas of Phoot karab land in Sy.No. 101 of Jaraka Bande Kaval village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru Rural District. The fact that, father of plaintiff and defendants had purchased 59.25 acres of land as aforesaid is not in dispute and is admitted by both the parties. Therefore, much discussion on this sale deed is not required. In addition, the pleadings and affidavit evidence of plaintiff that his father had sold an extent of 19 acres 35 guntas in favour of one Smt. Chandramma and remaining land in said survey number is an extent of 35 acres 32 guntas is also not in dispute. Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of registered gift deed dated 29/08/2002, no reasons are assigned for not furnishing the original of 31 O.S.No.2755/2013 said registered gift deed, however, entire case of the plaintiff revolves around this gift deed. The contents of gift deed reveals that, suit property was purchased by father of plaintiff and defendants Sri. K.P. Vimal Kumar on 14/11/1958 and after his death on 01/03/2000 the mother of plaintiff and defendants Smt. Sharadamma acquired said properties as per Mutation No.IHC 7/2001-
02. The fact that father of plaintiff and defendants Sri. K.P Vimal Kumar died intestate is also not in dispute.
16. It is an admitted fact that, suit property along with other extent of lands in same survey number was purchased by their father Sri. K.P. Vimal Kumar through a registered sale deed during his life time, if that is the case, suit property becomes the joint family property after the death of K.P. Vimal Kumar and both plaintiff and defendants along with their mother succeeds over the same. When a property acquires the status of joint 32 O.S.No.2755/2013 family, then there is no question of absolute ownership to transfer the joint family property in favour of anybody by any mode of transaction without the consent of all the members of joint family. Under the circumstances, point which gains importance is, whether mother of plaintiff and defendants had an absolute right to executed the gift deed in respect of suit property in the name of plaintiff? It is the contention of the plaintiff that, after death of their father, there was a partition deed in their family and in the said partition deed, suit property in question was allotted to the share of plaintiff, since the same was not acted upon, his mother through a registered gift deed transferred the suit property in the name of plaintiff. In support of his version, plaintiff has relied on an unregistered partition deed at Ex.P.12 and this partition deed is admittedly not acted upon.
33
O.S.No.2755/2013
17. Moreover, entire pleadings of plaint no where reveals about partition deed and also plaintiff is claiming his ownership of the suit property on the strength of registered gift deed dated 29/08/2002 and not on the strength of this unregistered partition deed. This plaintiff in his cross-examination admits the filing of a suit against him and other defendant for the relief of partition by 3rd defendant Shanthish Kumar. Ex.P.4 is the Gazette notification produced in order to establish the acquisition process by the BDA in respect of lands in Sy.No. 101. Both the parties have submitted that, the suit property in question has not been included in the acquisition proceedings. Ex.P.5 is the mutation register extract dated 04/04/2013 and RTCs and tax paid receipt which are marked as Ex.P.6 and P.7 are subsequent documents in pursuant of mutation entries made in the name of plaintiff B.V. Suresh Kumar, both these revenue 34 O.S.No.2755/2013 records i.e. mutation and RTC entries clearly establishes the acquisition of suit property by their mother Smt. Sharadamma on inheritance basis.
18. Ex.P.8 is the copy of letter said to have been written by 3rd defendant Shanthish Kumar before Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk requesting for change of katha in his name in respect of 11 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No. 101 of Jaraka Bande Kaval on the basis of their family partition deed dated 30/04/2001. Though the plaintiff produces this document, at the same time, plaintiff himself has admitted that said partition deed was not acted upon, therefore his mother had gifted suit property in his favour. However, the subject matter of Ex.P.8 letter is not the suit property and since the partition deed is not acted upon, this letter i.e. Ex.P.8 and receipt for having applied for katha at Ex.P.9 is of no relevance, even an encumbrance certificate at Ex.P.10 is 35 O.S.No.2755/2013 a subsequent document obtained in the year 2021-22. RTC extracts for the year 2002-2011 is revealing the name of mother of plaintiff and defendants in respect of 35 acres 32 guntas on the basis of pavathi varsu as per M.R. No.IHC/7/2001-02.
19. In the cross-examination of this P.W. 1, fact that suit property and other properties to an extent of 59 acres and odd was purchased by his father in the year 1958 and out of that, selling 19 acres 32 guntas in favour of one Smt. Chandramma and after his father's death, inheriting the remaining lands in said survey number i.e. nearly to an extent of 35 acres 32 guntas by their mother are all admitted by the plaintiff. The cross-examination also reveals that, suit property is in possession of defendants and they are cultivating the said lands. However, according to the plaintiff since from two years 36 O.S.No.2755/2013 as on the date of cross-examination except suit land, the defendants are cultivating the remaining land.
20. In the further cross-examination, this P.W. 1 has admitted that, in the year 2002-03 he had applied for change of katha in his name in respect of suit property and the same was objected by the defendants, as such, his application was rejected as per RRT (DS) No.31/2002-03 dated 20/06/2003. P.W. 1 pleaded his ignorance to state the reason for rejection of his application and at the same time, he admits that he had preferred an appeal before the Asst. Commissioner, challenging the order of Tahsildar in R.A. No.176/2003- 04 which came to be dismissed on 19/10/2004. At this stage, this P.W. 1 admits the reason for dismissal of the application before Asst. Commissioner, Bengaluru North Taluk, that he was directed to approach the Civil Court on the ground that his mother had no absolute right to 37 O.S.No.2755/2013 execute the registered gift deed in his favour. Again this P.W. 1 has further stated that, he has approached the Tahsildar for 2nd time seeking for change of katha in his name in respect of suit property in the year 2012-13, which came to be considered by an order dated 02/02/2013. Accordingly, mutation has been transferred in the name of plaintiff as per M.R. No.7/2012-13, against which the defendants preferred a Regular Appeal in R.A. No.372/2012-13, wherein the mutation made in favour of the plaintiff has been set aside by the Asst. Commissioner holding that parties can approach the concerned revenue authority after the result of suit in O.S. No.2755/2013. From this it is clear that, subject to the result of the suit, parties have to approach revenue authority for change of mutation entries in their favour.
21. Further, this plaintiff denied the suggestion of the defendants that, he has taken undue advantage of 38 O.S.No.2755/2013 old age and ill health of his mother and obtained registered gift deed in his favour without there being any absolute right or title on the suit property to his mother. In so far as partition deed is concerned, the entire plaint averments is silent about the partition deed. Hence, proof without pleadings is not admissible in evidence. Moreover, the plaintiff's claim in respect of suit property is particularly on the strength of gift deed only and not on the partition deed.
22. In support of plaintiff's case, his son by name Vivek and one of his neighbour by name B.N. Surendra Prasad have examined themselves as P.W. 2 and 3, they have supported the case of plaintiff. P.W. 2 Vivek in his cross-examination has admitted how his grandfather acquired the land in Sy.No.101 and how it passed on to their grandmother after the death of his grandfather, he has further stated that, properties left after selling 19 39 O.S.No.2755/2013 acres 25 guntas in favour of one Smt. Chandramma, i.e. to an extent of 35 acres 32 guntas is in joint possession and enjoyment of his father, his brothers and sisters, thereafter he has deposed regarding registration of gift deed by his grandmother in favour of his father. Further, this P.W. 2 has stated that, his uncle i.e. 3 rd defendant Shantish Kumar denied to affix the signature on registered gift deed and lastly this P.W. 2 has stated that, in Sy.No. 101 measuring 35 acres 32 guntas of land, all the legal heirs of K.P. Vimal Kumar have equal right of share and interest.
23. Further another witness stated to be a known person of both plaintiff and defendants, pleaded his ignorance about purchase of suit land and other lands in Sy.No. 101 of J.B. Kavala village, Yelahanka Hobli. This witness except stating about registration of gift deed in favour of the plaintiff, pleaded his ignorance about all 40 O.S.No.2755/2013 other affairs of plaintiff's family. In his cross-examination, he has stated that, he has not inquired about the ownership of plaintiff's mother while execution of registered gift deed in favour of the plaintiff.
24. When things stood thus, to contradict the case of plaintiff, defendant No.1 and 3 examined themselves as D.W. 1 and 2 by filing an affidavits in lieu of their examination-in-chief and reiterated the defense raised in their respective written statements. These two defendants are cross-examined by the plaintiff and in their cross-examination both D.W. 1 and 2 denied the partition deed by saying that it has not been acted upon and they have not affixed their signatures on the said partition deed. These two defendants have brought to the court notice that, 3 rd defendant had filed a suit for partition in O.S. No.4809/2017 in which the plaintiff herein and the defendants had arrived at a compromise 41 O.S.No.2755/2013 to withdraw both the suits. Accordingly, 3 rd defendant had withdrawn aforementioned suit filed for partition and separate possession including present suit property. In this connection, these defendants have filed the plaint copy and affidavit of said partition suit.
25. In support of their contention these defendants have furnished the RTC extract pertaining to suit property for the year 2012-13 till date at Ex.D.1 to D.4 which are reflecting the name of plaintiff in respect of suit property by showing the way of acquisition as M.R. TI/2013-14 partition dated 23/01/2014 and these RTC extracts are coupled with mutation register extract produced at Ex.D.5. However, these mutation register entries have been set aside by the order of Asst. Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub division, Bengaluru in R.A. (BNA) 372/2012-13 dated 30/01/2015 with a direction to both the parties to approach the concerned 42 O.S.No.2755/2013 revenue authorities, subject to the result of this suit. In view of the same, mutation and RTC extracts relied by the plaintiff will not be helpful to him to establish his exclusive possession over the suit schedule property. Even Ex.D.7 and D.8 the application and notice of Taluk Surveyor is also attached in support of defendants case that the plaintiff in the year 2013-14 obtained an order of mutation in his favour and this application of the plaintiff shows that the neighbouring land owner have not been properly served with the survey notice. However, said mutation made in favour of the plaintiff vide M.R. No.H7/2012-13 is no more in existence by virtue of setting aside the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner on 30/01/2015 in RA (BNA) No.372/2012-
13. Even from the entire cross-examination of D.W. 1 and 2 nothing is forth coming in favour of the plaintiff to support his case that his mother Smt. Sharadamma had 43 O.S.No.2755/2013 exclusive right and title over the suit property to gift the same in favour of plaintiff.
26. The contents of gift deed itself reveals that, suit property was purchased by his father in the year 1958 and he died intestate in the year 2000, it is thereafter on inheritance basis mutation of the entire extent of their father's property as per M.R. No.IHC 7/2001-02 was transferred in the name of their mother, which clears the fact that suit property is a joint family property and plaintiff and defendants are joint family members. Even according to the plaintiff, the so called partition was not acted upon, therefore he was given the suit property which was allotted to him during the time of partition. It is also the case of plaintiff that, since he is a disabled man i.e. physically handicapped man, his mother had gifted the suit property in his favour. To substantiate this fact, no materials are placed before the court. More 44 O.S.No.2755/2013 over, from the documents of plaintiff and defendants it is clear that, the suit property was not an absolute property of Smt. Sharadamma who was the mother of plaintiff and defendants, as such she had no exclusive right or title over suit property to execute any gift deed in favour of plaintiff alone. Under the circumstances, since mother of plaintiff herself had no absolute right over suit property, she had no right to transfer the said suit property in any mode to anybody. Therefore, the registered gift deed executed in favour of the plaintiff by his mother become void document and acquires no validity in the eye of law. Thus, plaintiff will not acquire any absolute ownership over the suit schedule property, therefore, registered gift deed executed by plaintiff's mother cannot be considered as a valid gift deed.
27. At this juncture, it is relevant to quote the decision relied by the learned counsel for defendant No.1 45 O.S.No.2755/2013 and 2 reported in ILR 2021 KAR 1220, in the case of M. Narayanaswamy (D) by L.Rs Vs. M. Narayanappa and others, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka while discussing on the legality of gift by a coparcener of his undivided interest to another coparcener or to a stranger without the consent of other coparcener, it is held that:-
"Gift by a coparcener of his undivided coparcenary interest to another coparcener or to a stranger without the consent of other coparcener is void".
(a) The law is thus well settled that the manager has no absolute power of disposal over joint Hindu Family property. The Hindu Law permits him to do so only within strict limits. The scope of the power cannot be extended on the basis of the wide interpretation given to the words "pious purposes" in Hindu Law in a different 46 O.S.No.2755/2013 context. Therefore, a gift to a stranger or relative of a joint family out of love and affection by the manager of the family is void".
The facts and circumstances of above case is squarely applicable to the present case also and the principles laid down therein are taken note of.
28. Under the circumstances, exclusive possession claimed by the plaintiff suffers from corroboration as nothing is before this court to show that plaintiff is in exclusive possession over the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the revenue entries made by Tahsildar in favour of the plaintiff in the year 2012-13 as per M.R. No.7/2012-13 dated 02/02/2013 has been quashed by the order of Asst. Commissioner, Bengaluru North in RA (BNA) 372/2012-13 as per Ex.D.6. In view of the setting aside of the order, revenue entries have to 47 O.S.No.2755/2013 be revert back in the name of plaintiff's mother who is presently no more. Even the order on I.A. No.6 filed under Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC filed by 1 st defendant against the plaintiff for violation of status quo order followed by an inquiry and an order of this court dated 10/03/2021, reveals the joint status of plaintiff and defendants in respect of suit schedule property. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Since the possession follows the title, plaintiff has miserably failed to establish his absolute title over the suit schedule property, as such alleged interference claimed by the plaintiff against the defendants remained unproved. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to establish his absolute ownership in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property which is interfered by the defendants. Therefore, Issue 48 O.S.No.2755/2013 No.1, 2, Recasted Issue No.3 and 4 are answered in the Negative.
29. ISSUE No.5:- Whether the defendants prove that suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation?
It is the contention of defendants 1 and 2 that, suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation on the contention that, declaratory relief has to be sought within three years form the date of right to sue first accrues or from the date of knowledge. It is an admitted fact that, plaintiff on the strength of alleged gift deed dated 29/08/2002 said to have been executed by his mother in his favour in respect of suit property, approached the revenue department requesting to effect mutation in his favour in RRT (DS) No.31/2002-03 which came to be rejected as per order dated 20/06/2003, against which the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Asst. Commissioner, Bengaluru North Taluk in R.A. No.176/2003-04 which 49 O.S.No.2755/2013 came to be dismissed on 19/04/2004 and in both orders the plaintiff was directed to approach the Civil Court seeking appropriate relief.
30. Admittedly, aforementioned appeal before Asst. Commissioner, Bengaluru North Taluk was dismissed on 19/04/2004 and the plaintiff has approached this court in the year 2013 seeking declaratory relief claiming his absolute ownership in the suit schedule property along with consequential reliefs, that is to say, plaintiff approached this court after 9 years of the dismissal order of the Asst. Commissioner, Bengaluru North Taluk, plaintiff filed present suit for declaration and consequential relief after expiration of stipulated period under the law of Limitation Act. As it is rightly pointed out by the defendants, suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation as per Art.54 of the Limitation Act. A suit for declaration ought to be filed within the period of three 50 O.S.No.2755/2013 years, whereas in this case, it is after 9 years present suit came to be filed seeking a declaratory relief, plaintiff who is examined as P.W. 1, in his cross-examination admits the orders passed by Tahsildar and Asst. Commissioner, Bengaluru North Taluk on the aforementioned dates. The fact that passing of said orders by the revenue authorities such as Tahsildar and Asst. Commissioner in RRT (DS) No.31/2002-03 dated 20/06/2003 and appeal before Asst. Commissioner in R.A. No.176/2003-04 dated 19/04/2004 are all admitted facts. From this it is clear that, suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by time. Accordingly, Issue No.5 is answered in the Negative.
31. ISSUE No.6:- Whether the defendants prove that suit of the plaintiff is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of necessary parties?
51
O.S.No.2755/2013
32. This issue had arisen because of the contention raised by defendant No.1 and 2 in their written statement for non inclusion of their another brother by name Sri. B.V. Shanthish Kumar in the suit. It is relevant to state that, K.P. Vimal Kumar and Smt. Sharadamma had four children, among them plaintiff has not included said Shanthish Kumar who is also one of his brother, as such defendant No.1 and 2 have raised objections in their written statement contending that suit of the plaintiff is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. However, the said brother of plaintiff i.e. Shanthish Kumar voluntarily appeared before the court through an application/I.A.No.5 under Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC which came to be allowed by this court with an observation that, said Shanthish Kumar is also one of the family member of plaintiff and defendants and accordingly, plaint was amended by the plaintiff. 52
O.S.No.2755/2013 Thus, all the children of K.P. Vimal Kumar are arrayed as parties to the suit, therefore, question of considering this Issue No.6 does not arise, as all the necessary parties to the suit are already on record. Hence, Issue No.6 is answered accordingly.
33. ISSUE No.7:- Whether the defendants prove that the court fee paid is insufficient?
The plaintiff in this suit has sought for declaratory relief and consequential relief of permanent injunction and has valued the suit as per Section 24 and 26(c) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act respectively by paying total court fee of Rs.150/-, whereas, the defendants in the written statement contends that, since the plaintiff is claiming that he is in exclusive possession of the suit schedule property, he has to pay the court fee on the market value, therefore it is contended by the defendants that, plaintiff has under 53
O.S.No.2755/2013 valued the suit and paid insufficient court fee. However, on going through the plaint averments along with prayer and also the valuation slip annexed with the plaint, it is noticed that plaintiff has sought declaratory relief declaring him as an absolute owner of the suit property along with consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. In this regard, he has valued the suit under Section 24 and 26(c) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act which is just and proper, therefore contention raised by the defendants does not hold any water. Hence, Issue No.7 is answered in the Negative.
34. ADDL. ISSUE No.1 AND 2:- Whether the plaintiff proves that, the counter claim of defendant No.1 and 2 is barred by limitation?
54
O.S.No.2755/2013 Whether the court fee paid on the counter claim of defendant No.1 and 2 is proper and sufficient?
35. Defendant No.1 and 2 while filing written statement have sought counter claim requesting the court to cancel the registered gift deed dated 29/08/2002 said to have been executed in favour of plaintiff by their mother with a direction to the Sub-registrar to effect cancellation in its registers. The plaintiff in reply to the counter claim has raised a contention stating that, counter claim with respect to cancellation of registered gift deed is barred by law of limitation as the defendants were very much aware of execution of registered gift deed in his favour by his mother in the year 2004 itself when the plaintiff herein had approached the revenue authorities requesting to effect mutation of suit property in his name, the same was objected by these defendants on the contention that their mother had no 55 O.S.No.2755/2013 exclusive right to execute registered gift deed as it was the property acquired by their father in the year 1958 and he died intestate in the year 2000, therefore mutation of suit property changed in the name of their mother as inheritance basis vide MR No.IHC No.7/2001-02. The order of Asst. Commissioner in R.A. No.176/2003-04 was passed on 19/04/2004, these defendants have not challenged the validity of gift deed before any authorities and now in the year 2016 is seeking for cancellation of said registered gift deed by way of counter claim. However, law of limitation as per Art.59 mandates the parties to seek for cancellation of any instrument for a decree within three years from the date of knowledge.
36. From the available materials on record it is crystal clear that, the defendants had knowledge of execution of registered gift deed in favour of the plaintiff by their mother, as such they objected transfer of 56 O.S.No.2755/2013 mutation in the name of plaintiff contending that, their mother had no exclusive right to execute gift deed in favour of the plaintiff. Under the circumstances, it is crystal clear that, these defendants had knowledge of gift deed in the year 2004 itself i.e. from the date of dismissal of appeal of the plaintiff in R.A. No.176/2003-04 before the Asst. Commissioner which was filed before Tahsildar, where his application for mutation entries were rejected, participation of these defendants before the both revenue proceedings establishes that they had the knowledge of execution of registered gift deed in favour of plaintiff in the year 2004 itself and now seeking cancellation of said gift deed as void document in the year 2016 by way of counter claim which is hopelessly barred by limitation, as the law mandates the party to seek cancellation of any instrument within three years 57 O.S.No.2755/2013 from the date of knowledge, as such counter claim made by the defendants is hopelessly barred by time.
37. Further, though these defendants have sought for cancellation of registered gift deed executed in favour of the plaintiff on 29/08/2002 by valuing the suit property for Rs.4,50,000/- and paid only Rs.25/-. However, to seek for cancellation as per Section 38 of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act in respect of suit property fee shall be computed on the value of subject matter of the suit and such value shall be deemed to be such part of the amount or value of the property. If the value of the property for which gift deed was executed is not stated, then computation shall be on the market value of the property. Here in the disputed registered gift deed which is marked at Ex.P.2, value of the property is mentioned as Rs.4,50,000/-, whereas the defendants herein have paid court fee of Rs.25/-. Therefore, as per 58 O.S.No.2755/2013 Section 38 of the KCF&SV Act, counter claim made by the defendants is under valued and this defendant No.1 shall pay the requisite court fee as per Section 38 of KCF&SV Act. Thus, as rightly contended by the plaintiff, counter claim of defendant No.1 is hopelessly barred by time and paid court fee is insufficient. Hence, Addl. Issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative and Addl. Issue No.2 is answered in the Negative.
38. ISSUE No.9 AND 10:- In view of the negative findings on Issue No.1, 2, Recasted Issue No.3 and 4, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration of his title in respect of suit schedule property and also not entitled for consequential relief of permanent injunction as claimed. Therefore, these two issues are answered in the negative.
39. ISSUE No.8 AND 11:- As could be seen from the available materials on record, the registered gift deed 59 O.S.No.2755/2013 dated 29/08/2002 of the plaintiff itself establishes that the said property was acquired by the father of plaintiff and defendants and after his death the same has been inherited to their mother as per mutation No.IHC No.7/2001-02. Thus, it is clear that, suit property in question is the joint family property in which mother of the plaintiff and defendants had no absolute right to execute the registered gift deed dated 29/08/2002 in favour of the plaintiff. In this connection only, the plaintiff though had made an attempt to get the revenue entries in his name, on the contrary, he failed in getting the revenue entries in his name in respect of suit property.
40. As it is discussed in the above issues, revenue authorities have rejected the application of plaintiff to mutate the katha of suit property in his name in the year 2001-02 itself with a direction to approach the civil court seeking proper relief, it is thereafter in the year 2012-13 60 O.S.No.2755/2013 the plaintiff once again approached the revenue authorities and became successful in getting mutation in his name before Tahsildar forum which was questioned before Asst. Commissioner by these defendants in R.A. (BNA) No.372/2012-13 as per Ex.P.6, wherein the Asst. Commissioner of Bengaluru North Sub division has set aside the revenue entries made in favour of the plaintiff with an observation that, parties can approach the concerned revenue authorities for necessary entries after result of this suit. The assertion made by the plaintiff in his pleadings as well as in his evidence has been denied by the defendants. Among the defendants, 1st defendant and 3rd defendants examined themselves as D.W. 1 and 2, wherein they have contended that the suit property is the joint family property in their joint possession and enjoyment, as such their mother had no absolute right to executed the registered gift deed dated 61 O.S.No.2755/2013 29/08/2002 in favour of the plaintiff, therefore same is not binding on them and registered gift deed became a void document.
41. Under this context, as already discussed, mother of the plaintiff and defendants had no absolute right to execute registered gift deed in favour of the plaintiff, even though plaintiff contends that in the earlier partition deed said suit property was fallen to his share, said partition deed was admittedly not acted upon, therefore, such contention cannot be a valid contention for any purpose. Since mother of the plaintiff without having absolute right over the suit property executed the registered gift deed on 29/08/2002, the same becomes a void document and it has no legal sanctity in the eye of law, therefore the plaintiff cannot claim revenue entries on the basis of registered gift deed, at the same time, though gift deed is a void document which has been 62 O.S.No.2755/2013 established by the defendants by pointing towards the absolute right of their mother, at the same time, a decree sought for cancellation of said gift deed is also after the statutory period of limitation, even though these defendants were aware of execution of registered gift deed way back in the year 2002-03 i.e. when the plaintiff approached the revenue authorities to obtain mutation entries in his name in respect of the suit schedule property which was objected strongly by these defendants. Under the circumstances, though this gift deed dated 29/08/2002 is a void document, plaintiff will not derive any right or interest over suit property, since these defendants have sought for cancellation of registered gift deed dated 29/08/2002 after the limitation period, they are not entitled for the relief by way of counter claim. Therefore, in respect of void document, Issue No.8 is answered Partly in the Affirmative and 63 O.S.No.2755/2013 since counter claim of the defendants in respect of cancellation of registered instrument i.e. registered gift deed dated 29/08/2002 is hopelessly barred by time, they are not entitled for the relief of counter claim. Hence, Issue No.11 is answered in the Negative.
42. ISSUE No.12: In view of my discussions and findings on above Issues, recasted issues and on additional issues, plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as sought for and suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. Similarly, counter claim made by defendant No.1 is barred by limitation, therefore, he is also not entitled for the relief sought for. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs. Further, counter claim made by defendant No.1 is also dismissed with costs, with a direction 64 O.S.No.2755/2013 to pay requisite court fee as per Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed, computerized by her, then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in open court on this the 11th day of November, 2025).
(MALA N.D.) LXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSION JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff :
P.W.1 B.V.Suresh Kumar P.W.2 Vivek P.W.3 B.N. Surendra Prasad
List of the documents marked on behalf of plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 Certified copy of sale deed dated 13/11/1958 Ex.P.2 Certified copy of gift deed dated 29/08/2002 Ex.P.3 Certified copy of order passed in R.A. No.176/03-04 Ex.P.4 Copy of Karnataka Gazette dated 29/06/2007 Ex.P.5 Mutation register extract MR No.H7/2012-13 Ex.P.6 RTC of Sy.No. 101 for the period 2012-13 of JB Kavala village Ex.P.7 Receipt dated 04/04/2013 for Rs.500/- Ex.P.8 Original letter dated 04/12/2003 Ex.P.9 Original acknowledgment for payment of amount by defendant No.3 to change katha 65 O.S.No.2755/2013 Ex.P.10 Certified copy of encumbrance certificate for the period 01/04/2014 to 23/09/2021 Ex.P.11 RTC of Sy.No. 101 of JB Kaval for the period 2010-11 Ex.P.12 Original partition deed dated 30/04/2001 Ex.P.12(a) Signatures of witnesses to (i) Ex.P.13 X-ray film of fractured leg of the plaintiff Ex.P.14 Certified copy of plaint in O.S. No.4809/2017 List of the witnesses examined on behalf of defendants:
D.W.1 B.V. Jinesh Kumar D.W.2 B.V. Shanthish Kumara
List of the documents marked on behalf of defendants:
Ex.D.1 to 3 RTCs D.3 Ex.D.4 Certified copy of RTC for the period 2019-20 Ex.D.5 Certified copy of mutation extract Ex.D.6 Certified copy of order dated 30/01/2015 passed in
RA(BNA) No.372/2012-13 passed by Asst. Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub Division Ex.D.7 Statement given by the plaintiff and others Ex.D.8 Survey notice dated 25/10/2013 (MALA N.D.) LXIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSION JUDGE, (CCH-65), BENGALURU.66
O.S.No.2755/2013 Ld. Counsel for plaintiff is present.
For judgment, by 11/11/2025.
LXIV ACC&SJ, Bengaluru, (CCH-65) Judgment pronounced in the open Court (Vide separate judgment) ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs.
Further, counter claim made by defendant No.1 is also dismissed with costs, with a direction to pay requisite court fee as per Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.
Draw decree accordingly.
(MALA. N.D.) LXIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-65, BENGALURU CITY.