Bangalore District Court
Smt. M.T.Jamuna vs Smt. Puttamma on 16 March, 2020
Form
No.9
(Civil)
Title
Sheet
for
Judgme
PRESENT: SMT. PRASHANTHI.G.
B.A (Law) LL.B.,
XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
Dated this the 16 th day of March 2020
PLAINTIFF: Smt. M.T.Jamuna
D/o Late M.Thammaiah &
W/o Sri G.Arun,
Aged about 46 years,
Residing at No.47, HIG,
1st B Main road, B-Sector,
Yelahanka New town,
BANGALORE-560 064.
[By Sri Venkatareddy.R, Advocate]
/v e r s u s/
DEFENDANTS: 1. Smt. Puttamma
Aged about 71 years,
W/o Late M.Thammaiah,
2. Smt. Padmavathi,
Aged about 38 years,
W/o Late M.T.Rajashekar.
Defendants 1 & 2 are residing
at No.37, Old No.960,
7th Cross, II Block, I stage,
Banashankari,
Bangalore-560 050.
2 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc
.
3. Smt. M. Kumari D/o Late M. Thammaiah & W/o Sri Desai, Aged about 50 years, AINS, Old Check - post, Ananthapur Road, BELLARY.
4. Ku.M.T.Shamala, D/o Late M. Thammaiah, Aged about 44 years, Residing at No.67, G.K.Arcade, Bull Temple Road, Bangalore-560 004.
5. Smt. M.Sumana @ Gangamma D/o Late M.Thammaiah & W/o Sri Shamanna, Aged about 48 years, Office Assistant, Jain School, Opp V.V.Puram College, K.R.Road, Bangalore-560 004.
6. Miss Nikita D/o Late M.T.Rajashekar, Aged about 19 years.
7. Master Deepanesh S/o Late M.T.Rajashekar, Aged about 14 years, Both are residing at No.37, Old No.960, 7th Cross, II Block, 1 Stage, Banashankari, Bangalore-560 050.
D1, D2, D5, D3, D6, D7 - By Sri GPR Advocate D4 - By Sri RB, Advocate 3 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
Date of institution of the : 2/2/2015
suit
Nature of the suit : For partition
Date of commencement of : 13/7/2016
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 16/3/2020
Judgment was
pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
5 1 14
(Prashanthi. G)
XXVII ACCJ: B'LORE.
Plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendants directing the defendants to effect partition of the schedule properties and grant 1/6th share of legitimate share over the suit schedule properties to the plaintiff, issue such other incidental relief or reliefs as the Court may deem fit to grant on the facts and circumstances of the case and also cost; declare that the registered release deed dated 23/3/2013 bearing document No.9074/2012-13 executed with respect to item No.1 of the suit schedule property is 4 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
vitiated by fraud, coercion and undue influence and the same does not bind the plaintiff's 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties.
2. In brief, the plaintiff's case is as under:
Plaintiff submits that, the first defendant is the mother, the second defendant is the sister in law and the defendant no.3 to 5 are the daughters of late Thammaiah and Puttamma. The late Rajashekar is the only son for Thammaiah and Puttamma. The plaintiff and defendants constitute Hindu joint family governed by the mitakshara rule of law and continued as such even after the death of plaintiff's father. The plaintiffs father late Thammaiah was a fruit vendor having shop at Poet Lakshmeesha road, Vishveshwarapura, Bengaluru and her mother Puttamma was a housewife having no independent income of whatsoever and fully dependent on the husband late M. Thammaiah. During the life of Thammaiah, out of his own income and sources, he had acquired some properties along with the schedule 5 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
properties. Though this property was nominally purchased by late Thammaiah in the name of his wife, the first defendant from then City Improvement Trust Board under the registered lease cum sale agreement registered on 4/11/1974 after paying the entire sale consideration to BDA by Thammaiah. A registered sale deed was afterwards executed on 14/12/2000 by the BDA in favour of them. The property was purchased purely out of the independent income of Thammaiah. As already stated first defendant being the housewife has no independent income of her own, but due to love and affection towards his wife, the father of the plaintiff purchased the property in the name of his wife. For all the practical purpose, the property is having the nature and character as the self-acquired property of the father of the plaintiff. The schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of father of the plaintiff. After the death of the father, the plaintiff and defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the 6 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
properties and all the family members are having equal rights with the same. Further, the plaintiff's father acquired one more property i.e., the ground floor of the commercial property no.62/3, BBMP ward no.47, PID No.50-4-62/3, Poet Lakshmeesha Road, V.V.Puram, Bengaluru which is schedule-II property. These properties are the self-acquired property of father of the plaintiff. During the lifetime the father of the plaintiff was enjoying these properties as self- acquired properties exercising all the acts of ownership thereon. The said Thammaiah expired on 22/2/2001 intestate.
Till the death of her father, everything was going well in the joint family but afterwards things were changed as the first defendant and M.T.Rajashekar started administering the affairs of the properties of the joint family and failed to keep accounts for the income derived out of the family and failed to distribute the same along with the other members of the family. The plaintiff is an allopathic doctor and 7 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
working in a factory as a Medical Officer and she will be busy in attending the patients with the different types of ailment. Further, the plaintiff demanded the account for the income of the joint family property. But, the first defendant failed to show the accounts and failed to distribute the amount derived from the schedule properties.
When the plaintiff was seriously busy in her profession, she was called by the phone on 23/3/2013 by the first defendant intimating that since the brother of plaintiff was suffering from cancer and considering the uncertainty of the life, she was told that, few documents are required to be executed to effect the partition and the plaintiff was asked to accompany the office of the Sub Registrar at Basavanagudi to sign the papers relating to partition. However, the plaintiff was reluctant to go to Basavanagudi due to her busy schedule. But the mother of the plaintiff has convinced and assured that, due share will be given after executing all the 8 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
required documents for the partition before the jurisdictional Sub Registrar and pressurize the plaintiff to come to settle the matter at once. Since Rajashekar was suffering from cancer, every document has to be executed in time. Having no other hope, the plaintiff rushed to the Basavanagudi Sub Registrar's office at about 5 pm and affixed the signatures wherever his brother shown. With good faith and trust, she reposed as he was in real estate business having sufficient experience in such transaction. It is needless to mention that the plaintiff's mother was present all along during the period and assisted in all the transactions. Since the closing hours of the Sub Registrar's office was fast approaching, and she has to rush back to her duties she put the signatures without reading the document having immense confidence, trust and faith in both of them. Still the plaintiff questioned about the non- presence of other joint family members to sign the partition deed. But the mother and brother of the 9 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
plaintiff answered that they have already affixed to their signatures and the plaintiff was the only person left to sign and complete the partition. Since the cancer disease was aggravated and entire family was under grief, she felt it, it would be inhuman to demand her portion of the property in pursuance of the partition deed executed in her favour before the Sub Registrar, Basavanagudi. At last, the brother of the plaintiff was expired on 19/11/2014. As the entire family was in great sorrow, due to untimely death of Rajashekar, the plaintiff refrained herself from demanding her share of the property in the month of March 2013. At last, plaintiff demanded her mother and sister in law on 30/11/2014 to complete the transactions. The defendants all of a sudden contended that, the plaintiff had no sort of right, title and interest over the schedule properties as she had executed many documents in favour of the first defendant and Rajashekar. Thus, the plaintiff is not entitled to receive any property in the partition nor 10 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
received anything in the partitions. On vehement demand, the plaintiff was forcibly thrown out of the house. The plaintiff got every suspicion that her signatures are fraudulently obtained on many documents making her to believe that they are the partition deeds. These documents are not binding on the plaintiff, does not affect in getting her valuable rights in getting her right of partition in the schedule property. The plaintiff and defendant no.4 went to the house of the first defendant on 14/12/2014 and enquired about the share in the schedule properties. Again, the defendants 1 and 2 adopted the same old high handed behaviour towards the plaintiff and have succeeded in removing her forcibly. Afterwards, the plaintiff obtained the certified copies of the two documents wherein her signatures are obtained by misrepresenting the fact that, they are the partition deed relating to schedule -I property. These documents are fraudulent one, as the properties are not the self-acquired of defendant no.1 and 11 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
documents are not binding on the plaintiff. In this regard, the plaintiff got issued a notice to defendant no.1 and 2 through registered post but the defendant no.1 and 2 refused to take the notice. Therefore, the plaintiff is compelled to file this suit to receive her 1/6th share in the properties of her father. During the meantime, the plaintiff reliably learnt that, the defendants 1 and 2 are making efforts to dispose of item no.1 and 2 properties in the hurry for throw away price only with an intention to deprive the plaintiff from her valuable share. She also learnt that, some real estate brokers are coming to schedule properties for inspection and valuating the properties for the purpose of alienation of the same.
The cause of action for the suit arose on 23/3/2013 when the defendants fraudulently obtained alleged documents with regard to schedule property and on 30/11/2014, 14/12/2014 and finally on 22/12/2014 when a legal notice was issued by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants and the 12 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
transaction is within the jurisdiction of this court. Therefore, prayed to decree the suit in the ends of the justice.
3. After the service of the summons, all the defendants appeared through their counsels and filed the written statement.
4. The main contentions of the written statement filed by defendants 1, 2 and 5 are as under:
The plaintiff filed the suit unrighteously claiming a decree to direct the defendants to effect partition and grant their alleged 1/6th share or their alleged share based on incorrect averments and false allegations. The defendant no.4 has filed the written statement unjustly claiming a separate judgmeent and decree to declare that compromise decree obtained by the defendant no.1 and also late Rajashekar on 29/1/2013 after paying only a sum of Rs.30 lakhs and subsequent release deed obtained by the defendant no.1 and late Rajashekar on 14/3/2009 are fraudulent and not binding on her to claim her share. 13 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
The defendant no.4 is also claiming a separate decree in her favour in collusion with the plaintiff with oblique motivations. Both the claim of the plaintiff and defendant no.4 are without any legal basis. They have no semblance of the right much less possession over the schedule properties. They have suppressed the truth and material facts touching the suit schedule property and laying wrongful claim over the same. The above suit is misconceived and filed with abusing the legal process.
There is no existence of the joint family between the plaintiff and defendants and schedule properties are not the joint family properties. The defendant no.4 had earlier filed a suit in O.S.No.3678/2008 against the plaintiff and defendant no. 1, 3, 5 and husband of the defendant no.2 seeking the decree for the partition and separate possession in respect of the three items of the properties including the suit schedule property. The suit schedule properties are item no.1 and 3 which was ended in settlement reported on 14 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
29/1/2013. After reporting the settlement the property situated in the Parvathipuram was sold by the legal heirs of said Thammaiah including the plaintiff and defendant no.4 for a sale consideration of Rs.64 lakh in favour of Balaji. The guidance value was shown in the sale deed for paying a minimum stamp duty. Out of the agreed sale deed, Rs.30 lakhs was paid to the defendant no.4 as per the terms of the settlement reported and recorded in O.S.No.3678/2008 and another Rs.30 lakhs was paid to Smt.Jamuna who is the plaintiff. By accepting the said sum, the plaintiff has executed two registered sale deeds in favour of her brother Rajashekar and mother Puttamma. Both the documents are registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Basavanagudi. The defendant no.4 voluntarily accepted the terms of the settlement and filed the compromise petition in the earlier suit. There was no fraud or coercion in filing the compromise petition before the court in O.S.No.3678/2006 and getting the release deeds from 15 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
the defendant no.4 as alleged in her written statement. The defendant no.4 has filed the written statement admitting the case of the plaintiff in paraa no. 1 to 3 of her written statement. These defendants have already filed the written statement opposing the case of the plaintiff and there is no need to traverse the averments in parawise. The contention taken in para no.4 after filing of the suit for partition in O.S.3678/2008 that all the parties came to know that Rajashekar had cancer and taking advantage of the position, the defendant no.1 promised the defendant no.4 to take money towards her share and after the recovery of illness they would effect proper partition and give separate possession are all false. Further, the averments that, the defendant no.1 agreed to take Rs.30 lakhs towards her share believing that she would get proper consideration when the partition between all the members of the family, only after the death of Rajashekar, the plaintiff and defendant no.4 went and demanded their share, the refusal on the 16 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
part of the defendants are all denied by the defendants. The defendant no.4 had consciously received the amount of Rs.30 lakhs and signed the compromise petition. She is not entitled to assail the terms of the compromise petition filed in the judicial proceedings. The defendant no.1 or her son have not done any fraudulent acts as alleged in the written statement filed by the defendant no.4. With oblique motivations, the defendant no.4 stated in para no.5 of her written statement that she is ready to surrender Rs.30 lakhs which was received while effecting the compromise in O.S.3678/2008.
The relief of declaration sought in the written statement is without any legal basis. In the terms of the compromise, the defendant no.4 has executed the release deed in favour of the defendant no.1 and Rajashekar. The compromise petition filed in O.S.3678/2008 and release deeds executed by plaintiff and defendant no.4 in respect of the schedule properties are lawful and valid and therefore she 17 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
cannot assail the registered release deed execute in the terms of the compromise petition filed in the judicial proceedings. The counterclaim of the defendant no.4 is not in accordance with the law. The prayer sought in the counter claim is not maintainable. Defendant no.4 is seeking declaratory relief without payment of proper court fee. Further she is not at all in possession of the suit schedule properties. There is no cause of action for seeking the declaratory reliefs.
The suit item no.2 was acquired by the M.Thammaiah the husband of the defendant no.1 and father of the plaintiff and defendant no.3 to 6 and father in law of defendant no.2 under the registered sale deed dated 14/11/1989. The plaintiff has reliquished her right in the respect of item no.1 under the registered release deed dated 23/3/2013. Now, it is impermissible for the plaintiff to lay a claim over the properties on the ground that, she had signed the documents in the great hurry without reading the 18 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
documents. She is also a doctor by profession. She read and understood the contents of the release deed and thereafter has signed the documents before the witnesses and the Sub Registrar. Thus, she is making a false claim in the above judicial proceedings and abusing the legal process with the malafide intention of laying the wrongful claim over the suit schedule property. The averments mentioned in para no.4 of the plaint that the mother of the plaintiff is a house wife having no independent income and was wholly dependent on her husband Thammaiah are not true. During the lifetime of Thammaiah, out of his own income and resources he had acquired some properties i.e., the BDA site no. 960 now within the BBMP and the same was nominal in the name of his wife etc., are not true and denied. Puttamma wife of late Thammaiah was doing milk vending business and having cows and she had her independent source of income. Further, she has also support from her parents and she had acquired item no.1 of the suit 19 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
schedule properties from the CITB. After obtaining the possession certificate, and lease cum sale agreement, she has constructed a residential building consisting of ground floor, first floor and second floor in the suit item no.1 out of her own funds. In the earlier suit for partition, the plaintiff as one of the defendants in that suit has clearly admitted that suit item no.1 is the absolute property of Smt.Puttamma. It is false and misleading that, suit item no.1 was purchased by late M.Thammaiah out of his own income and sources. It is further false to submit that, due to love and affection, the father of the plaintiff purchased the property in the name of his wife. The defendant no.1 had gifted a portion of suit item no.1 in favour of his son Rajashekar, the deceased husband of defendant no.2 under the registered Gift Deed dated 16/8/2007.
The plaintiff has executed a release deed in the respect of the portion of the suit item no.1 and suit item no.2 in favour of the defendant no.1 under registered release deed dated 23/3/2013. She has 20 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
also executed registered release deed in favour of her brother Rajashekar under the registered release deed dated 23/3/2013 in the respect of the portion of the item no.1 covered under the Gift Deed. She has received a consideration of Rs.30 lakhs even before the execution of the release deed. The said sum was paid to her out of the sale proceeds received in the respect of the property at Srinivasanagar, Bengaluru. All these realities have been deliberately suppressed by the plaintiff. The allegations with regard to the plaintiff busy with her profession called over in the phone on 23/3/2013 by defendant no.1 intimating about the illness of her brother called out for the Sub Registrar's office to put the signatures to the documents are all false and unacceptable. The said two registered release deed executed by the plaintiff do not suffer from any infirmity and the same are binding on her. The plaintiff is projecting alleged suspicion that her signatures are fraudulently obtained on many documents are all created stories of 21 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
the plaintiff. The brother of the plaintiff died on 19/11/2014 leaving behind his wife and two children. Originally, the plaintiff has not made them as the parties to the suit. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties. The above suit is not properly valued and court fee paid on the plaint is not correct. To avoid the payment of the court fee the plaintiff has wrongly stated that she is in the joint possession of the suit schedule property along with the defendant. Therefore, for the above said reasons, prayed to dismiss the suit in the ends of the justice.
5. The main contentions of the defendant no.4 in written statement are as under:
The defendant no.4 admits that the first defendant is the mother and third and fourth defendants are the sister and defendant no.1 is the widow of late Thammaiah. It is also true that, the first defendant had a son by name Rajashekar and he was the only son of the late Thammaiah and Puttamma. 22 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
This defendant also admits that late Thammaiah was the fruit vendor and vending the same at Lakshmeesha Road, Bengaluru. The defendant no.1 is the wife and no independent income whatsoever. This defendant admits the para no.4 and 5 of the plaint averments.
Having come to know about the attitude of defendant no.1 and late Rajashekar, this defendant filed a suit in O.S.3678/2008 before the City Civil Court at Bengaluru for partition and separate possession. After filing the suit, all the parties came to know that Rajashekar had a cancer and taking undue advantage of position, the defendant no.1 promised this defendant to take some money towards her share. Further, they promised that, they will effect a proper partition and separate possession after the recovery of the illness of Rajashekar and they will also taken into consideration of the properties sold by them while effecting the proper partition and giving separate possession. The defendant no.1 and this defendant 23 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
agreed to take a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- towards her share at that time beleiving that she will get proper compensation while effecting the full partition between the family members without knowing the fact that it was the fraudulent act of defendant no.1 and late Rajashekara. This fact was noticed by the defendant only after the death of Rajashekar when the plaintiff and this defendant went to the house of the defendant no.1 and demanded the 1/6th share. The defendant no.1 and also the defendant no.2 refused to give any share taking advantage of compromised decree. Till that time, she completely believed that both defendant no.1 and late Rajashekar have signed the compromise petition in O.S.No.3678/2008. Further, both understood that, both defendant no.1 and late Rajashekar with ulterior motive to deny the claim of this defendant obtained the release deed without paying any money. Further, after coming to know the fraudulent act, this defendant intended to challenge the above compromise by this defendant 24 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
and to challenge the earlier partition as partial partition that too obtained by defendant no.1 and late Rajashekar fraudulently. This defendant is ready to surrender Rs.30 lakhs which she received while effecting a compromise in O.S.3678/2008 or in the alternative, the court may kindly pass the judgement and decree that this defendant will be compensated regarding the balance money which she is legally entitled if the schedule properties cannot properly divided while effecting the proper partition under the Partition Act in FDP proceedings. Since the defendant is claiming the 1/6th share, the defendant also prayed ½ of the court of along with the written statement towards her share. Therefore, prayed to declare that, the compromise decree obtained by the defendant no.1 and also Rajashekar on 29/1/2013 after paying only Rs.30 lakhs and subsequent release deeds obtained by the defendant no.1 and also Rajashekar on 23/3/2009 are fraudulent and not binding on the 25 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
defendant to claim 1/6th share in the suit schedule property.
6. The defendant no.3 adopts the written statement of defendant no.1, 2 and 5 and also reply to the written statement filed by the defendant no.4 in the above case.
7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor has framed the following issues for consideration:
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants?
(2) Whether defendant No.4 proves that compromise decree obtained by defendant No.1 and late Rajashekar on 21/1/2013 and subsequent release deed obtained by defendant No.1 and also late Rajashekar on 14/3/2001 are fraudulent one and also not binding on defendant No.4 as contended?
26 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
(3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
(4) Whether defendant No.4 is
entitled for counter claim as
sought for?
(5) What order or decree?
8. In order to prove the case, the plaintiff is
examined herself as PW.1 and got marked 7
documents as per Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 and closed her side of evidence. On behalf of the defendants, DWs.1 and 2 are examined and got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D32 and closed their side of evidence.
9. Heard both sides and perused the entire records of the case.
10. My findings on the above issues are as under:
Issue No. 1) ............In the negative; Issue No. 2) ............In the negative; Issue No. 3) ............In the negative; Issue No. 4) ............In the negative; 27 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
Issue No. 5) ............As per final order for the following:
11. ISSUE NO.1 : It is the specific case of the plaintiff that, suit schedule property are the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants. According to the plaintiff, the schedule properties are the properties of their father who was a fruit vendor having fruit vending shop at Poet Lakshmeesha Road, Vishweshwarapuram, Bengaluru, and their mother was a house wife and having no independent income and depending upon her husband wholly. During the lifetime of late Mr.Thammaiah, out of his own resources and income, he had acquired some properties along with the schedule properties. The contention of the plaintiff is that, the property was nominally purchased by Thammaiah in the name of his wife who is the first defendant in this case. However, according to the plaintiff, the entire sale consideration was paid by the father of the plaintiff. 28 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
Due to love and affection towards the wife, the father of the plaintiff purchased the property in the name of his wife. Further, the father of the plaintiff acquired one more property in ground floor of commercial property no. 340, later no. 62 in Poet Lakshmeesha road, V.V.Puram which is the schedule -II property. These properties are the self-acquired properties of the father of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, item no.1 and 2 of schedule are the properties of their father and their father expired on 22/2/2001 intestate. Therefore, the plaintiff contend that, the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants. Even in the chief examination of the plaintiff, the plaintiff contended that, suit schedule properties are joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants. However, the defendants contends that, the schedule - I properties are the self-acquired properties of the first defendant who is the mother of the plaintiff, and schedule - II properties are the properties of their father. It is 29 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
important to note here that, in the cross-examination of the PW.1, PW.1 specifically contended that "It is false to suggest that, item no.1 of the schedule was allotted by the CITB in favour of my mother on 2/11/1974 under the lease cum sale agreement. It is false to suggest that, said property is the self-acquired property of my mother. It is false to suggest that my mother has constructed the building on item no.1 of the suit schedule property. It is false to suggest that, in O.S.3678/2008 in the written statement filed in the said suit, I have contended that item no.1 is the self-acquired property of my mother".
12. O.S.No.3678/2008 is the suit filed by M.T.Shamala against the other family members. Ex.D1 is the certified copy of the memorandum of the plaint in O.S.3678/2008. Ex.D2 is the written statement filed by defendant no.4 and 5 in that suit. Defendant no.5 is the Jamuna who is the plaintiff in 30 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
this case. In the written statement filed by defendant no.4 and 5 in O.S.No.3678/2008, they have clearly stated that, late M.Thammaiah was not in a position to change the item no.2 of the suit properties as a fruit merchant out of his own income and he has developed the same by raising the hand loan and mortgage of it. In the para no.8 of the written statement, the defendants contended that, the Item no.3 of the suit properties belongs to first defendant as she has substantial independent income from the several sources apart from the milk vending business to secure the immovable property in her name as self-acquired property. The item no.3 of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.3678/2008 is the residential property bearing no.960 situated at 7 th cross, B.S.K. III stage, II block, Srinivasanagar, Bengaluru which is nothing but the item no.1 of the suit schedule property in this suit. So, it is clear that, the plaintiff and defendant no.4 of this case have 31 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
clearly admitted that, item no.1 of the suit schedule property are the self-acquired property of first defendant of this case i.e., their mother. In para no.7 of the written statement of O.S.No.3678/2008, the plaintiff clearly admitted that, these defendants deny that the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of late Thammaiah and the plaintiff is entitled for 1/6th share out of it.
13. From the above admissions in the written statement filed by this plaintiff as well as defendant no.4 in O.S.3678/2008, it is clear that item no.1 of the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of first defendant. The learned counsel for the defendants vehemently argued that, when the plaintiff herself admit that, item no. 1 of the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of the first defendant in the written statement of O.S.No.3678/2008, the plaintiff cannot take a 'U' turn in order to plead item no. 1 of the suit schedule 32 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
properties are the self-acquired properties of their father. In the para no.10 of the written statement of O.S.3678/2008, the plaintiff and defendant no.4 contended that, the first defendant gifted her self-acquired property under the registered Gift Deed in respect of the portion of the item no. 3 of the suit schedule property in favour of the second defendant by way of registered Will and as such the plaintiff has not questioned the same so far even though having the sufficient knowledge about the same. As such, the plaintiff is not entitled for any reliefs as against the item no.3 of the suit schedule properties.
14. The learned counsel for the defendants vehemently argued that, according to section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, the plaintiff and defendant no.4 of this case, are estoppelled from pleading that the item no.1 of the suit schedule property is the self- acquired property of their father, because in the 33 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
written statement filed by themselves in the earlier proceedings, they have clearly stated that, the item no.1 of the suit schedule property are the self- acquired property of their mother which is purchased from her own income apart from the milk vending business. Further, the admissions of the plaintiff and defendant no.4 in the written statement clearly says that, the plaintiff has no right to ask any relief with respect to the item no.1 of the suit schedule property. Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the estoppel. According to Section 115 of Indian Evidence Act, "when one person has by his declaration act or omission intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representatives shall be allowed, in any suit or proceedings between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing."
34 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
15. From the above, it is very clear that, the plaintiff and defendant no.4 clearly admits that, item no.1 of the suit schedule property are self-acquired properties of first defendant.
16. One of the arguments put forward by the plaintiff is that, the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and whatever the statements made by the plaintiff and defendant no.4 in the earlier suit is having no value because the earlier suit was settled between the parties as per the compromise petition entered between the parties on 29/1/2013. On perusal of the compromise petition which is marked as Ex.D3, it is clear that, there is no recitals with regard to the tracing of the title of the suit schedule properties in the compromise petitions. Even the defendants of that suit also did not contend that, the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of their father, rather than that compromise petition is entered into parties only for relinquishing 35 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
the rights by the plaintiff and defendant no.4 of the suit by accepting Rs.30 lakhs. The status of the schedule property is not mentioned in Ex.D3. Therefore, as rightly contended by the counsel for the defendants, the suit schedule properties are not the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants, rather than from the admissions of plaintiff and defendant no.4 in the written statement in O.S.3678/2008 it is clear that, the item no.1 of the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of defendant no.1 of this case. Of course, there is no dispute with regard to item no.2 of the suit shcedule property and how it was acquired. Both the plaintiff and defendant admit that item no.2 of suit schedule property are self-acquired properties of Late Thammaiah who died intestate. Accordingly, I answer issue no.1 in the negative.
17. ISSUE NO.2 AND 4: It is the specific contention of the defendant no.4 that, the compromise 36 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
decree obtained by defendant no.1 and late Rajashekar on 21/1/2013 and subsequent release deed obtained by defendant no.1 and late Rajashekar on 14/3/2001 are fraudulent and not binding on the defendant no.4. In the written statement filed by the defendant no.4, she has stated that, when the case in O.S.No.3678/2008 was in progress, the defendant no.1 came to know that, her brother Rajashekar was suffering from cancer which is a serious disease. She being the doctor realised that her brother will not survive and at the same time her brother requested her to receive the consideration and to execute the release deed and also execute the compromised petition. Further, defendant no.1 and Rajashekar promised her that, they will pay additional amount or additional immovable property after the recovery of the illness of Rajashekar. So, with that understanding she has signed the compromise petition. Unfortunately, her brother Rajashekar died in the year 2014. Thereafter along with the sister in law, the 37 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
mother of the defendant also started denying to pay the additional amount as agreed orally, taking the undue advantage of compromise petition. At that time, the promise was broken by the defendants 1 and 2 that this defendant was intend to file the suit to seek review of the compromised petition. However, at that time, the plaintiff being one of the sister had filed this suit and after noticing the contents, this defendant's advocate advised her to recall the compromise petition and to pay the court fee and seek the relief. It is important to note here that, except the plaintiff, all the other defendants agreed that, the release deed as well as compromise petitions have entered between the parties without any fraud and with the free consent of all the parties. In the entire pleadings of the defendant no.4, there is no pleadings, how fruad has been played by defendant no.1 and other defendants for executing the release deed as well as signing the compromise petition. The contention of defendant no.4 is that, since Rajashekar was in his 38 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
last stage, due to disease of the cancer and only as per the request of her mother, she agreed to put the signature to the release deed as well as compromise deed. It is important to note here that, there is no mention with regard to the assurance given by the defendant no.1 and other defendants in favour of plaintiff as well as defendant no.4 with regard to the excess payment or immovable property at the time of entering into the partition. One of the clause in compromise petition clearly states that, the defendant no.1 and 2 are at liberty to utilise the schedule properties staning in their name and plaintiff has agreed to relinquish her all rights over the properties by accepting the cash price of Rs.30 lakhs form defendant no.1 and 2, and they also agreed to execute the registered release deed in favour of defendant no.1 and 2 as against the receipt of the said amount relating to the said property as acquired by them in any source on or before 45 days from the date of compromise petition. Accordingly, by receiving Rs.30 39 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
lakhs, the plaintiff and defendant no.4 have executed the registered release deed in favour of defendant no.1 and Rajashekara. Ex.D8 is executed by defendant no.4 on 14/3/2013 wherein the compromise petition was signed between the parties on 29/1/2013. From the date of alleged compromised petition, the plaintiff of this suit as well as the defendant no. 4 have not challenged the compromise petition in any court of law. It is important to note here that, Ex.D3 is entered between the parties in the Lok Adalath. I have carefully gone through the entire order sheet in O.S.3678/2008. In the order sheet daeted 29/1/2013, it has been clearly noted that, subject to the payment of Rs.30 lakhs within 45 days from the date of the order of compromise petition, the case in OS.3678/08 is dismissed. Further, on 14/3/2013, case was called and plaintiff of that suit has received Rs.30 lakhs from defendant no.1 and 2 in the Open Court and put her signature as received Rs.30 lakhs. The left side of the order sheet dated 40 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
14/3/2013 clearly shows that, the defendant no.4 of this suit has received Rs.30 lakhs and accordingly that suit was closed, as per the compromise petition filed on 29/1/2013. It is important to note here that, the compromise petition was filed on 29/1/2013 and the aforesaid suit in O.S.3678/2008 is closed on 14/3/2013 i.e., after 45 days from filing of the compromise petition only, the aforesaid suit was closed by the court. It is important to note here that, there was no differences between the parties from filing of the compromise petition till closing of the suit. The contention taken by the defendant no.4 that, the compromise petition is filed at the pressure of defendant no.1 and Rajashekar does not holds good here. Even the plaintiff also contends that, she was under the pressure to executed the release deed in favour of Rajashekar as well as defendant no.1. It is further important to note here that, the alleged release deed was also executed by defendant no.4 in favour of Rajashekar as well as defendant no.1 only after filing 41 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
of the compromise petition and not prior to that. Here also, the defendant no.4 has every opportunity to think with regard to the contents of the documents as well as contents of the compromise petition. Further, it is important to note here that, in the release deed as well as compromise petition, both the item no.1 and 2 of the schedule properties are added. No doubt, with regard to the item no.1 of the suit schedule property, both plaintiff and defendant no.4 admits that, it is the self-acquired property of defendant no.1 in O.S.No.3678/2008. Since item no.1 is the self- acquired property of defendant no.1, she is free to execute any documents in favour of the his son or anybody. Further, the release deed as well as compromise petition contains item no.2 property also which all the parties admits that, it is the self- acquired property of the father of the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 and Rajashekar have already paid Rs.30 lakhs to the defendant no.4, she cannot claim. Once again that the suit schedule properties fetches 42 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
more value than the Rs.30 lakhs and she is ready to give back the same and entitled to the further share in the suit schedule property. In this regard, defendant no.4 has produced the valuation report before the court which is marked as Ex.D29. I have carefully gone through the valuation report filed by DW.2. It shows that the net value of the property is Rs.3,91,58,250/-. This valuation report is prepared by registered valuer. In the cross-examination, DW.2 admitted that, the valuation report is prepared at the instance of her. Witness volunteers that it is prepared at the instance of her advocate. Even though defendant no.4 has every opportunity to examine the valuator, she has not called the valuator in order to give the evidence to show that, the property situated in site no.960/37, 7th cross, 2nd block, BSK Ist stage, Bengaluru is valued more than Rs.4 crores. Further, since she clearly admits that, the valuation report is prepared as per the instruction of her advocate, that report cannot be fully accepted without calling the 43 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
valuator to give evidence with regard to the same. It is important to note here that, while the advocate for the defendant no.4 cross-examined the DW.1 suggested a question as follows:
"It is not correct to suggest that the market value of the schedule property is more than Rs.80 lakhs." This suggestion is made by the counsel for the defendant no.4 on 17/8/2018 while cross- examining the DW.1. It is important to note here that, the valuation report which is marked as Ex.P29 is prepared after the cross-examination of DW.1 by defendant no.4. In the Ex.D29, it has been specifically mentioned that the date of inspection of schedule property is on 20/9/2019 and date of submission is on 4/10/2019. This also creates doubt on the part of the defendant no.4 that, this valuation report is filed in order to grab more money from the defendant no.1. Only after the completion of the cross-examination of DW.1 on 17/8/2019, defendant no.4 has produced
44 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
the valuation report on 9/10/2019. Under the above circumstance, Ex.D29, the valuation report cannot be acceptable.
18. One of the important thing here is that, either the plaintiff nor the defendant no.4 have not challenged the release deeds as well as the compromise petition before any court of law prior to filing of the suit. It is important to note here that, the compromise petition in the suit is filed on 29/1/2013 and the suit was closed on 15/3/2019. Further, the release deeds executed by both plaintiff as well as the defendants is on 23/3/2013 and 14/3/2013. It is important to note here that, only after filing of the compromise petition and receiving of the amount, the defendant no.4 has put the signatures to Ex.D8 and Ex.D9. Nowhere it is stated in the compromise petition as well as release deed that defendant no.1 and Rajashekar agreed to pay further amount to the defendant no.4. Moreover, in the compromise deed as 45 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
well as in the release deeds, they have clearly stated that, the item no.1 of the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of defendant no.1 and item no.2 is the property which has been in possession and enjoyment of the defendant no.1. In the release deed, defendant no.4 clearly admitted that, she is releasing all her rights with regard to item no.1 and item no.2 of the schedule property from her own will and wish without any force voluntarily. Further, they have clearly admitted that, they will not claim any suit with respect to the suit schedule property in any court or in any office. After executing the compromise petition and after executing the release deeds, receipts, the defendant no.4 and plaintiff did not challenge the validity of the compromise petition nor release deed in any court of law. Even in the cross-examination of DW.2, this fact was clearly admitted by the defendant no.4. Only after the lapse of 2 years, when the suit has been filed by the plaintiff claiming the partition. The defendant no.4 contend that, the compromise 46 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
decree obtained by the defendant no.1 and late Rajashekar are fraudulent one. There is a gap of more than 45 days in between the execution of compromise petition as well as release deed to both plaintiff as well as defendant no.4. Both the plaintiff and defendant no.4 has every opportunity to think twice with regard to the execution of the compromise petition by them in earlier suit. Even after the death of Rajashekar, they could have challenged the same before proper forum. It is important to note here that, a compromise decree once passed in the Lok Adalath can be challenged only before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka as well as Hon'ble Apex Court of India. Further, even if the counsel for the plaintiff submits that, fraud vitiates every thing and therefore the alleged release deeds as well as compromise petition are not voluntarily executed by plaintiff as well as defendant no.4 both failed to prove that, the alleged compromised decree as well as the release deeds are sham documents and are not binding upon them. 47 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
Therefore, the defendant no.4 is not entitled to the counter claim as sought by her. Accordingly, I answer issue no.2 and 4 in the negative.
19. ISSUE NO.3: The suit of the plaintiff is one for partition and to grant other incidental reliefs, the court may deem fit to grant under the circumstances of the case to declare the registered release deed dated 23/3/2013 executed with respect to item no.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property is vitiated by fraud, coercion, undue influence and same does not bind the plaintiffs 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff in the earlier proceedings clearly admitted that item no.1 of the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of her mother she cannot take the different view in this case stating that, item no.1 of the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of her father and her mother did not have any independent income in order to acquire the property. Even the 48 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
defendant no.4 of the suit also filed the same written statement in earlier suit i.e., O.S.3678/2008. Though the plaintiff did not agree the version taken by her in the written statement filed by her in O.S.3678/2008, the written statement itself shows that she agreed that, item no.1 of the suit schedule property are the self-acquired properties of her mother. Once item no.1 of the suit schedule properties are proved to be the self-acquired property, then the defendant no.1 is free enough to execute any documents in favour of anybody with regard to the same. Further, the defendant no.1 is still alive and the plaintiff cannot claim right over the item no.1 of the suit schedule property at present. Moreover, the defendant no.1 has every right to dispose off the same according to her will and wish. This aspect is applicable even to all the other parties of the suit.
20. With regard to the item no.2 of the suit schedule properties, the plaintiff specifically executed 49 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
release deed in favour of defendant no.1 and her brother Rajashekar. Of course, even with regard to the item no.1 of the property also, the plaintiff has executed release deed. The contention of the plaintiff is that, the alleged release deed is not binding upon her because the same is obtained by fraud, coercion and misrepresentation. Merely because the plaintiff is called to the Sub Registrar's office all of a sudden and requested to sign the document, does not mean that, the plaintiff is in the pressure or under the coercion or misrepresentation from the side of defendant no.1 and Rajashekar in order to execute the sale deed, because the plaintiff herself deposed that she is a practicing doctor and she is having worldly knowledge about all the things. Whatever the contentions taken by the plaintiff with regard to the item no.1 of the suit schedule property and with regard to the mode of acquisition of the property is not believable, because in the earlier proceedings itself, the plaintiff clearly admitted that, the defendant no.1 of this case has her 50 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
own income and having sufficient income to purchase the property. That version cannot be changed while she is claiming the rights in item no.1 and 2 of the property in the instant suit. Of course, there is no dispute with regard to the mode of acquisition property of item no.2 of the suit schedule property. However in order to prove the coercion, undue influence, misrepresentation, she has not pleaded the same aspects in her pleadings. Whenever a fraud has been played from the side of the defendant, then it is the duty on the part of the plaintiff to plead how fraud has been played by the defendants in the pleadings itself. Merely because her brother is in the last days of his life, due to illness and that made her to put the signature to the release deeds cannot be believable, because there is a gap of more than 45 days from the date of filing of the compromise petition and execution of release deed. All the documents are not executed in a single day. The plaintiff has every chance of thinking twice about the acts of the defendant no.1 or 51 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
Rajashekar if it is against to the interest of her. More than that, in order to avoid the stamp duty, the amount of Rs.30 lakhs which has been paid to the plaintiff is not mentioned in the release deed. In the cross-examination of the PW.1, she has clearly deposed that she studied MBBS and DLO, and her sister has studied MBBS and DPM. Both plaintiff and defendant no.4 are practicing doctors. It is important to note here that, PW.1 clearly deposed that, "It is true that, after knowing the contents of the documents then only, I put my signature." In this regard, the counsel for the plaintiff vehemently argued that plaintiff do not know Kannada, she cannot read Kannada and alleged two release deeds are executed in Kannada and in this regard, he has produced the study certificate that shows that the plaintiff has studied in English medium and not in Kannada medium. However, on perusal of the depositions, it is very clear that, nowhere she has deposed that, she do not know the contents of the documents. She did not 52 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
deposed that she did not read the document and therefore she do not know what is written in it. Page no.10, para no.4 of the deposition is very clear that, only after knowing the contents of the documents, she put her signature to the documents. Whether she understood the documents in English or in Kannada or in any other language is immaterial here, rather than the admission on the part of the plaintiff is that, she knows the contents of the same before putting her signature is sufficient to hold that, she is having the full knowledge with regard to the execution of release deeds.
21. Even the plaintiff cannot claim the market valuation of the property situated in Parvathipuram during 2012 and 2013 is more than Rs.80 lakhs because she clearly deposed that she do not know the market value of the property situated in Parvatahipuram in the year 2012-13. However, she correctly knows that, Parvathipuram property was 53 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
sold for the consideration of Rs.64 lakhs. There is no dispute with regard to the signature, photos of the plaintiff in Ex.D4 and Ex.D5. Even she clearly admits that, she had a full knowledge with regard to the previous litigations entered in their family. One of the important thing is that, the consideration reciept dated 23/3/2013 which is a document for receiving Rs.30 lakhs from defendant no.1 and Rajashekar. Though in the first plaintiff contends that, signature found in that document does not belongs to her. She was not sure whether that signature and thumb impression belongs to her. In page no.16, para no.3 of the depositions of PW.1, she has stated that, "I am not sure that the signature found on the said consideration receipt and thumb impression belongs to me". From the above depositions of plaintiff, it is very clear that the plaintiff is not so innocent in order to allege that, those release deeds are executed by her under pressure. Further, the allegation that, plaintiff was called by defendant no.1 54 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
and Rajashekar on 23/3/2013, all of a sudden and forced her to put the signature is also not correct, because in Page no.23, para no.4 of the depositions of PW.1, she has clearly stated that, "One or two days prior to the execution of alleged documents, my mother has informed to come to Sub-Registrar office." This itself is sufficient to hold that, the plaintiff is not under the pressure or fraud, mis representation or coercion is not played from the side of the defendant no.1 or Rajashekar in order to execute the alleged release deeds. No doubt, the plaintiff and defendant no.4 are sailing on the same boat in this case. Both agree in the previous litigation that item no.1 of the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of the mother and the same is purchased by the mother from her own income. However, in the present case, both are contending that, they have right in both item no.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property. Both plaintiff and defendant no.4 have executed the release deed after receiving 55 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
Rs.30 lakhs from their mother. Further, the defendant no.4 clearly admits that, she has received Rs.30 lakhs from the defendant no.1 and her brother. Under the above circumstances, I am of the opinion that, whatever the contentions taken by the plaintiff in the suit is not correct. More than that, since item no.1 of the schedule property is the self-acquired property of the mother, she cannot claim the right over the same. Further, plaintiff failed to prove the alleged coercion, misrepresentation or fraud played by the defendant no.1 and her brother Rajashekar while executing the release deeds or putting the signatures to the compromise petition and to declare these documents are not binding on them. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove issue no.3 in her favour. Accordingly, I answer the same in the negative.
56 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
22. ISSUE NO.5: From my above discussions and reasoning, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. In the result, I pass the following:
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
The counterclaim of the defendant no.4 is dismissed.
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Draw decree accordingly.
*** [Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on computer, Script corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in the Open Court on this the 16 th day of March 2020.] [PRASHANTHI.G] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge. BANGALORE.
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
PW.1 Jamuna
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant/s:
DW.1 M.Sumana
57 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc
.
DW.2 M.T.Shayamala
3. List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P1 to Certified copies of release deed Ex.P4 Ex.P5 and Unserved postal covers Ex.P6 Ex.P7 Agreement
4. List of the documents marked for the defendants:
Ex.D1 Plaint copy of the suit in
O.S.3678/08
Ex.D2 Written statement filed in
O .S.3678/08
Ex.D3 Compromise petition filed in the
O.S.3678/08
Ex.D4
and Release deeds
Ex.D5
Ex.D6 Study certificate issued by Vasavi
Vidyanikethana
Ex.D7 Gift deed dated 16/8/2007
Ex.D8 Release deed dated 14/3/2013
executed by Shamala M.T. in
favour of M.T.Rajashekar.
Ex.D9 Release deed dated 14/3/2013
executed by Shamala in favour of
Puttamma.
Ex.D10 Khata certificate
Ex.D11 Khata extract
Ex.D12 Khata certificate
Ex.D13 Khata Extract
Ex.D14 Khata certificate
Ex.D15 Khata extract
58 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc
.
Ex.D16 Certified copy of order sheet in
O.S.No.3672/08
Ex.D17 Certified copy of form no.1
Ex.D18 Certified copy of form no.11
Ex.D19 Certified copy of possession
certificate
Ex.D20 Certified copy of certificate issued
by the corporation, Bengaluru.
Ex.D21 Certified copy of absolute sale deed
dated 13/12/2000
Ex.D22 Certified copy of the sale deed
dated 27/1/1961
Ex.D22(a) Typed copy of Ex.D22
Ex.D23
to Tax paid receipts 3 in numbers
Ex.D25
Ex.D26 Agreement of sale
Ex.D27 Certified copy of gift deed dated
8/6/2018
Ex.D28 Another gift deed
Ex.D29 Valuation Report
Ex.D30 Certified copy of registered
agreement of sale dated 4/8/1973
Ex.D31 Certified copy of sale deed dated
15/11/1989
Ex.D32 Certified copy of sale deed dated
2/3/1979
[PRASHANTHI.G]
XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
59 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
9/3/2020 P-VR D1,2,5,3,6,7-GPR D4- RB For Judgment...
16/3/2020 P-VR D1,2,5,3,6,7-GPR D4- RB For Judgment...
............Judgement pronounced in the Open Court....
(Vide separate detailed judgment) The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
[PRASHANTHI.G] XXVII Additional City Civil Judge.
BANGALORE.
CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc .
6 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc 2 .
6 CT0028_O.S._1092_2015_Judgment_.doc 3 .