Bangalore District Court
Sri. R. Srinivasa vs Sri. M. Ramaiah on 11 March, 2020
1
O.S.No.26137/2007
Govt. Of Karnataka
C.R.P.67] TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
Form No.9(Civil)
Title sheet for
AT MAYOHALL UNIT, (CCH-29) BENGALURU.
Judgment in suits
(R.P.91)
Present: Smt. B.S. Bharathi, B.Sc., LL.B,
(Name of the Presiding Judge)
Dated: This the 11th day of March 2020
Original suit No.26137/2007
Plaintiff:- Sri. R. Srinivasa,
Aged about 65 years,
S/o M. Ramaiah,
Residing at No.30, 1st Cross,
1st Main, Escort layout,
Attur Village,
Yelahanka, Bengaluru-64.
(By Pleader: Sri. K.K. Vasanth)
V/s
Defendants:- 1. Sri. M. Ramaiah,
Aged about 79 year,
S/o Late Madavappa,
2. Smt. Jayamma,
Aged about 75 years,
W/o M. Ramaiah,
2
O.S.No.26137/2007
3. Sri. R. Gopal,
Aged about 47 years,
S/o Sri. R. Gopal
4. Smt. Arunakshi,
Aged about 41 years,
W/o Sri. R. Gopal
All are residing at No. H-38,
II Cross,
Lakshminaraayanapura,
Bengaluru-21.
5. Sri. Dilip Kumar Jain
Aged about 41 years,
S/o Late Walchand G. Jain
6. Sri. Bhoopendrakumar Jain,
S/o Late Walchand G. Jain
Dead by his LR's:-
6a. Smt. Veena Jain
Aged Major
7. Sri. Mahendrakumar Jain,
Aged about 36 years,
S/o Late Walchand G. Jain
8. Sri. Mukesh Kumar Jain,
aged about 36 years,
S/o Late Walchand G. Jain
9. Sri. Praful Kumar Jain,
Aged about 36 years,
S/o Late Walchand G. Jain
The defendants No.5 to 9 are
Residing at No.22,
3
O.S.No.26137/2007
'Shiva Shankthi'
Sanjeevappa lanes, 24th cross,
Cubbonpet, Bengaluru-02.
(Pleader by: Sri. CPC., for D.1 to 9)
Date of Institution of the suit 27-06-2007
Nature of the (Suit or pro-note, suit for
declaration and possession, suit for Partition
injunction, etc.)
Date of the commencement of 15-12-2017
recording of the Evidence
Date on which the Judgment was 11-03-2020
pronounced
Year/s Month/s Days
Total duration 12 08 14
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by the Plaintiff against the defendants praying for decree for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in the schedule properties and to declare that, the release deed dt. 14-2-2000 registered as No.4206, book No.1, volume 2170 at pages 212-215 dt.19- 4 O.S.No.26137/2007 2-2000 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Srirampuram as null and void and non-est in the eyes of law and not binding on the plaintiff and for sending copy of the decree to the concerned Sub-Registrar as per Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. It is also prayed for dividing the schedule properties by metes and bounds and for putting the plaintiff in separate possession of his 1/3rd share, to hold that, the sale deed dt.24-3-2007 executed by the 3rd defendant in favour of the defendants 5 to 9 in respect of the property bearing No.44/1 and 44/2, situated at Siddanna Lane, Bangalore City registered as No.GAN-I-05617-2006-2007 book No.1, CD No. GAND-83, dt.24-3-2007 in the office of the Sub Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bangalore is not binding on the plaintiff so far as his share is concerned. To hold enquiry for mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC. For permanent injunction restraining the defendants from encumbering or alienating schedule property in any manner and for costs and other reliefs which deems fit. 5
O.S.No.26137/2007
2. According to the Plaintiff, the defendant No.3 and the plaintiff are the sons of the 1st and 2nd defendants and the 4th defendant is the wife of 3rd defendant. The defendant Nos.5 to 9 are purchasers of the plaint schedule properties, which forms part of the properties belonging to Hindu undivided Joint Family constituted by the 1 st, 3rd defendant and the plaintiff herein.
3. The 1st defendant and his brothers had jointly inherited several immovable agricultural properties situated at Narayanakere village. The 1 st defendant had inherited some of the properties through family arrangements between himself and his brothers and properties inherited by him are 2 Acre 3 Guntas in Sy.No.168/3, 1 Acre 3 Guntas in Sy.No.62, 1 Acre 37 Gunatas in Sy.No.226/1 and 1 Acre 20 Guntas in Sy.No.213/P/P1, in all measuring 6 Acres 23 Guntas situated at Naraynakere village, Anugondahanalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore District. The said properties are potential agricultural lands and also having fruit yielding tamarind trees and other valuable trees.
6
O.S.No.26137/2007
4. The plaintiff studied up to 7th Standard and at that point of time, the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant started working as employees with one Rojappa, who was dealing with silk materials. After some times, on acquiring enough experience in the said business, the 1 st defendant and the plaintiff leased their lands for Rs.18,000 per year and utilized the same to establish their own joint business at Cubbonpet, having taken the premise No.151/2 for rent. The plaintiff had to look after the entire silk business and to manage their joint family due to ill health of the 1 st defendant and at that point of time the 3 rd defendant was studying in 3rd standard. As the business established by the 1st defendant and the plaintiff started flourishing, the 1 st defendant made the plaintiff to run business along with the wives of his brothers under the name and style of Srinivasa and Company and 1st defendant with his brothers under the name and style of M.Ramaiah and brothers. Nevertheless, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant used to pool the income from the above said two partnership concerns along with 7 O.S.No.26137/2007 income being derived from their ancestral properties to acquire enormous properties at various places viz., Bichagondanahalli, Kolar district, Kundana village, Devanahalli taluk, Bhandernmnahalli village, Devanahali taluk, K.G. Srinivasapura village, Nelamangala taluk, Mugabala village, Hosakote taluk, Moodalapalya, Rajajinagar, Cubbonpet, Malleswaram, Gayatrinagar, Srirampuram at Bangalore city. However, the 1st defendant being a 'Kartha' of the Hindu joint family, some of the properties came to be registered in the name of the defendant No.1, 3, defendant No.2 and also defendant No.4, to avoid any legal hurdles and the said Acquisition were made from out of the joint family funds viz., income derived from the said partnership firms and the income from ancestral properties and also other properties acquired thereof. Nevertheless, all the said acquisition of the said properties is for the benefit of the joint family, but not for any individual benefits. However, the plaintiff being workaholic, the 1st and 3rd defendant made use of his hard 8 O.S.No.26137/2007 work, and ignorance, did not choose to register any properties in his name. The 1st defendant used to give explanation conveniently to persuade the plaintiff that the acqusition of the properties in the names of the defendants 1 to 4 was to avoid any complications from the Income Tax Department and other departments and properties being the joint family properties, he would be given his legitimate share while partitioning the properties by metes and bounds.
5. According to the plaintiff, the tamarind trees standing on the land situated at Narayanakere village, were sold for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- to expand their business at Cubbonpet, A.T. Street in the year 1980 and carried on the business under the name and style of M.R. Saree Agencies. During the year 1983, the said business came to be closed and the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant continued the business under the name and style of Srinivasa and Company and Sri M.Ramaiah and brothers as the 1st defendant's brother's fell out of partnership business. 9
O.S.No.26137/2007 According to the plaintiff, his marriage was solemnized in the year 1973, he begot 2 female children. At that point of time, the 1st and 2nd defendant started forcing the plaintiff to go for second marriage as he could not beget a male child to continue the family lineage, for which the plaintiff showed reluctance. However, the 3rd defendant being married in the year 1981 could get a female child in the year 1984, a male child in the year 1990 and the female child in the year 1993. Thereafter, a defendant No.1 and 2 herein started behaving indifferently with the plaintiff and his wife. Even then the plaintiff continued the business along with the defendant No.1 and 3 herein, so as to keep his joint family status intact with a fond hope of getting his share of joint family properties as and when the joint family properties are proposed for division. However, the defendant No.1 to 3 herein have postponed to divide all the properties of the joint family by metes and bounds and to allot the plaintiff's share, on the one or other pretext. However, the plaintiff and his family members had to take a separate house for 10 O.S.No.26137/2007 rent in the year 2000, as the defendant No.1 to 4 continued their ill-treatment, making it impossible for the plaintiff and his family members to continue to live with defendant No.1 to 4. The plaintiff and his wife being ignorant and innocents, the defendant No.1 to 4 got executed some documents naming it as sale deeds, Release deeds and other documents in respect of some other properties, other than joint family properties. The joint family properties are fully described in the schedule hereunder and herein after referred to as Schedule.
6. The Defendant No.1 to 4 herein represented to the plaintiff and his wife and took them to the office of the Sub- Registrar to execute documents as security for the loan to be raised to expand the business on 14-2-2000 and neither the defendant No.1 to 4 nor the Sub-Registrar read over and explained the nature of the documents before signing the same or the plaintiff was permitted to go through the contents of the documents. However, the defendants 1 to 4 herein prevailed upon plaintiff and his wife to put their 11 O.S.No.26137/2007 signature on several documents and believing the representation, the plaintiff had put the signatures on several documents wherever the defendants 1 to 4 directed to sign. Taking the plaintiff into into confidence got obtained signature on document on 14-2-2000. The plaintiff is not aware of the contents of the same. On subsequent thereto the plaintiff did not have any suspicion till 28-3-2007 and subsequent to the same. Subsequent to the same, on enquiry the the defendant No.3 asserted that, he had every right to sell suit item 16 property and executed sale deed on 27-3-2007 in favour of the defendant No. 5 to 9 herein and the plaintiff had relinquished all his rights by executing release deed on 14-2-2000 without showing the release deed or divulging any information thereof. The Plaintiff obtained the certified copy of the sale deed on 28-3-2007 to ascertain the sale deed executed by the 3 rd defendant on 27-3-2007. Immediately thereafter the plaintiff tried to persuade the defendant No 1 to 4 to effect partition in respect of suit schedule properties with the help of well 12 O.S.No.26137/2007 wishers and common friends and the defendant No. 1 to 4 evaded to do so keeping him under false assurances and promises for more than two months. Hence the plaintiff has filed the above suit.
7. The defendant No.1 to 4 having asserted their right by declining to divide the schedule properties and apprehending that, all the properties would be sold, he has filed the suit as his well wishers and Plaintiff himself failed to persuade the defendants 1 to 4 for more than 2 months and hence the deed of relinquishment said to have been executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No.1 to 4 dated.14-2-2000 registered as document No.4206/99- 2000, book No.1, volume No.2170 at pages 212-215 registered on 19-2-2000 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Srirampuram, Bangalore is a fabricated document and the same is null and void and also non-est in the eyes of law and the same is not binding on the plaintiff. Moreover, the alleged release deed is a void document for want of consideration, particulars of property and other details 13 O.S.No.26137/2007 which are required to be described in the document and the plaintiff has taken this specific plea without prejudice to his rights with regard to the fraud and misrepresentation committed by the defendant No.1 to 4.
8. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant could not effectively carry on his business due to his ill-health and the plaintiff who has actively done the business and earned huge money, but the 1st defendant being the 'kartha' of the joint family, obliged in acquiring properties in the name of the 1st defendant and others, as the plaintiff was very serious in doing business without suspecting the bonafides of either the 1st defendant or the defendant No.3 to 4 herein. The plaintiff always took it for granted that the 1 st defendant will not resort to any other modus operandi to deprive him from his legitimate claim, right whatsoever. Thus, the acquisition of the the properties in the name of the defendant No.1 to 4 herein are from out of joint family nucleus and the joint family business carried on by the defendant No.1, 3 and the plaintiff herein. The 3rd defendant 14 O.S.No.26137/2007 being student at the time of acquisition of properties, had no independent source of income to acquire any land and the defendant No.2 and 4 being house wives were dependent on the earnings of the joint family and as such any acquisitions made in the name of the above said persons are for the benefit of the family and not for the benefit of the individual.
9. According to the plaintiff, the schedule properties, standing in the name of the defendant No.1 & 3, are the properties held by them as trustees, standing in the fiduciary capacity for the benefit of the members of joint family, as the plaintiff and the defendants are coparceners. The other properties standing in the name of the defendant No.3 and 4, have been acquired from the joint family funds of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and 3, herein as they had no independent source of income. The said acquisition, according to the defendant No.1 to 3 are to avoid the problems from the Income tax department and to overcome any prohibition under various land laws existing in the State. 15
O.S.No.26137/2007 According to the plaintiff, there is no division of properties belonging to the joint family constituted by the defendant No.1 to 3 and the plaintiff herein by way partition and to divide the Schedule properties by metes and bounds at any point of time. Hence according the plaintiff, he is entitled for 1/3rd share. The plaintiff came to know that, the 3 rd defendant with connivance of the defendant No.1 to 4 herein had disposed-off one item of schedule property bearing No.44 amalgamated old number 118 then 102 thereafter 38 and later 44/1 and 44/2, situated at Siddanna Lane, Bangalore city measuring 70 feet x 80 feet to the defendant No.5 to 9 herein for valuable consideration under the sale deed Dtd: 24-3-2007 without concurrence of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has got right in the same. Hence, this suit is filed by the plaintiff. Court fee is paid by the plaintiff as per section 35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. Hence prays for decreeing the suit.
10. The defendant No.1 to 4 together filed written 16 O.S.No.26137/2007 statement stating that, the suit is highly speculative and malicious. The plaintiff is consciously aware that there does not exist any joint Hindu family comprising himself and these defendants and that he has severed his ties with them a long time ago. It is only because these defendants have prospered well, which is the result of their earnestness and industriousness, the plaintiff nurses grudge and ill-will against them; there being no such joint Hindu family properties, there are no properties of that character, and the plaint schedule properties, many of which have not been described correctly, do not belong to any such joint Hindu family. In the year 1982, the plaintiff and his wife left the house of the first defendant and since then have been living separately; even when they were living with him, they and these defendants did not constitute a joint Hindu family. As a matter of fact, by the time the plaintiff and his wife set- up a separate residence, they had their own business, incomes and properties. The defendants narrated in the following paragraphs how and in what manner these 17 O.S.No.26137/2007 defendants have acquired properties. Some of which figure in the plaint schedule, but none of which belongs to the non-existent joint Hindu family stated by the and the plaintiff does not have any right, title, interest or share in any of the said properties.
11. The 1st defendant began working as a weaver when he was hardly 21 years and by saving moneys from his earnings, he began hiring looms; he produced sarees and those looms and, by sheer dedication and hard work, he built up that business to the extent that he bought looms and established an industry by itself in 1970. But without the assistance of any money or property that he inherited from his father. Thereafter, with foresight and astuteness, but again without the assistance of any money or property that he inherited from his father, he constituted firms and other entities and trained the plaintiff and the 3 rd and the 4th defendants in the finer aspects of the business. Ufortunately, the plaintiff did not take after the 1 st 18 O.S.No.26137/2007 defendant in the manner of handling business affairs and landed himself in trouble more than once; needless to say, the 1st and the 3rd defendants bailed him out often.
12. The first defendant constituted M.Ramaiah and brothers as a partnership firm in 1973 or thereabouts with himself and the brothers Sriyuths Keshavappa, Madavappa and Narayanappa, this was his structured business venture; the firm did well; the 3rd defendant and Smt. Lalitha, wife of the Plaintiff, were admitted as a partners in or about 1981.
13. The 1st defendant assisted the plaintiff, the 2 nd defendant and Smt.Chowdamma wife of Sri Narayanappa, Smt. Chowdamma wife of Sri Madavappa and Smt.Sarojamma w/o. Keshavappa to constitute Srinivasa & Co. as a partnership firm in August 21, 1975; the said firm was reconstituted on August 27, 1981, following the death of Smt. Sarojamma, Smt. Kamalamma, second wife of Sri.Keshavappa was admitted as a partner it had to be eventually dissolved as the plaintiff could not manage the business prudently, the dissolution became effective from 19 O.S.No.26137/2007 March 31, 1983. The 3rd defendant, who had acquired business skills created a trust under the name and style M.R. Trust on August 12, 1982, for the benefit of the children of the plaintiff, Sri M. Madavappa and Sri.N.M. Keshavappa, the funds of the trust had been utilized to run M.R. Saree Agencies. The trust was dissolved on March 31, 1984 as desired by the plaintiff.
14. On April 04, 1984, the 1st and the 3rd defendant entered into a partnership under the name and style M.R.Saree Agencies. They dissolved the said firm on March 31, 1997 and the 1st defendant took over the business as sole proprietor and is even now running it. In the year 1984, the plaintiff's wife Smt. Lalitha started business under the name and style M/s.Nalini Silks as sole proprietor thereof. In 1995, the 2nd Defendant, the 4th defendant and Sri.Shivaramaiah, son-in-law of the 1st defendant, constituted MM Silk Traders as a partnership firm. In the same year, the 1st and the 4th defendants constituted M.R. Silks & Sarees, while the 2nd and the 4th defendants 20 O.S.No.26137/2007 constitute Madavaram Silk Traders, as partnership firms.
15. All three firms were dissolved on March 31, 1996. On April 01, 1990, the 1st and the 3rd defendants constituted Girish Fabrics and the 2nd and the 3rd defendants constituted Shilpa Traders as partnership firms. On dissolution of Girish fabrics, the 3rd defendant, as a 'kartha' of his Hindu Undivided Family as contemplated under the Income Tax Act, 1961, took over the business as sole proprietor and is even now running it. The plaintiff and the 1st and the 2nd defendants are not members of the said Hindu Undivided Family. However, Shilpa Traders was dissolved in or about 1994-95.
16. On and with effect from April 01, 1990, the 3 rd defendant has been carrying on business as a sole proprietor under the name and style R.G.Fabrics, while the 4th defendant has been carrying on business as sole proprietor under the name and style Aruna Fabrics.
17. These defendants earned good income from the aforesaid business ventures. Using the said income, but 21 O.S.No.26137/2007 without the assistance of any money or property that the 1 st defendant had inherited from his father, they purchased properties as detailed hereunder:-
(1) The 1st defendant purchased the property bearing old No.509/1, later No.12 and present Municipal No. H-38, 2nd Cross, Lakshminarayanapuram, Srirampuram, Bangalore-
560 021, measuring east to west: 40 feet and north to south: 44 feet, under the deed of sale deed April 13, 1970 which was registered as No.160/1970-71, Book 1, Volume 232, Pages 62 to 66, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Srirampuram, Bangalore from Dr.S.Jagannath, this property has been shown as item No.1 of schedule A to the plaint.
(2) The 3rd defendant purchsed the property bearing old No.25/2, later No.2/1 and present Municipal No.17, 10 th A Cross, Lakshminarayanapuram, Srirampuram, Bangalore- 560 021, measuring east to west : 42.6 feet and north to south: 60 feet, he having acquired the same under the deed of sale dated. October 20, 1994, registered as No.2169/1994-95, Book I, Volume 1719, Pages 130 to 137, 22 O.S.No.26137/2007 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Srirampuram, Bangalore, from Sri R.Srinivas S/o. Sri.R.Ramalingam, this property has been shown as item No.2 of schedule A to the plaint.
(3) The 3rd defendant purchased the property bearing old Municipal No.11, later No.17 and present No.18, 10 th Cross, V Main, Lakshminarayanapura, Srirampuram, Bangalore-560 021, measuring east to west (57-0 + 55-6)/2 feet and north to south: 50 feet, he having acquired the same under the deed of sale dated September 30, 1987, and registered as No.1812/1987-88, Book I, Volume 1117, Pages 87 to 88, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Srirampuram, Bangalore, from Sri P. Natarajan and another, this property has been shown as item No.3 of schedule A to the plaint.
(4) The 3rd defendant purchased the property bearing old Municipal No.10, later No.13 and present Municipal No.12, 1st Cross, Nagappa block, Lakshminarayanapura, Srirampuram, Bangalore-560 021, measuring east to west 40 feet and north to south 50 feet, he having acquired the 23 O.S.No.26137/2007 same under the deed of sale dated March 30, 1989 and registered as No.3789/1988-89, Book I, Volume 1233, Pages 27 to 35, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Srirampuram, Bangalore, from Sri M.Narayanappa, this property has been shown as item No.4 of schedule 'A' to the plaint.
(5) The 3rd defendant purchased the property bearing old Municipal No.10, later No.13 and present No.12/1, 1 st Cross, Nagappa Block, Lakshminarayanapuram, Srirampuram, Bangalore-560 021, measuring east to west:
32 including 6 feet passage, north to south : 47 feet and on the western side 37 feet, he having acquired the same under the deed of sale dated March 30, 1989, and registered as No.3785/1988-89, Book I, Volume 1229, Pages 167 to 174, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Srirampuram, Bangalore, from Smt. Chowdamma; this property has been shown as item No.5 of schedule A to the plaint.
(6) The plaintiff's wife Smt. Lalitha and the 3 rd defendant jointly purchased the property bearing old Municipal No.H- 53, later No.501 and present No.5, 2 nd Main Road, Nagappa 24 O.S.No.26137/2007 Block, Lakshminarayanapuram, Srirampuram, Bangalore- 560 021, measuring east to west: 40 feet and north to south:33 feet, under the deed of sale dated October 19, 1977, and registered as No.2471/1977-78, Book I, Volume 548, Pages 191-196, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Srirampuram, Bangalore, from Sri K.Gopal, Smt. Lalitha relinquished her half share in the said property in favour of the 3rd defendant under the deed of release dated February 14, 2000 and registered as No.4204/1999-2000, Book I, Volume 2176, Pages 15 to 17, in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Srirampuram, Bangalore, this property has been shown as item No.6 of schedule A to the plaint. (7) The 3rd defendant purchased the property bearing Municipal No.234/17, later New No.17, 24 th ward, 10th Cross Road, Lakshminarayanapuram, Srirampuram, Bangalore-560 021, measuring east to west : 30 feet and north to south: 65 feet, he having acquired the same under the deed of sale dated June 08, 1998, and registered as No.680/1998-99, Book I, volume 2006, Pages 146 to 157, in the office of the 25 O.S.No.26137/2007 Sub-Registrar, Srirampuram, Bangalore from Smt.Rajamma and others, this property has been shown as item No.7 of schedule A to the plaint.
(8) (1) The 4th defendant purchased the property bearing No.531, 2nd Main Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore-560 003, measuring east to west: 15 feet and north to south: 60 feet, she having acquired the same under the deed of sale dt. November 03, 1989, and registered as No.2351/1989-90, Book I, volume 3585, Pages 122 to 130, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bangalore from Sri Narayanarao Chandrarao Rananavar.
(ii) The 3rd defendant purchased the property bearing No.530 and 531, 2nd Main road, Malleswaram, Bangalore-560 003, measuring east to west: 120 feet and north to south:
10 feet, he having acquired the same under the deed of sale dated. December 02, 1991 and registered as No.2401/1991-
92, Book-I, Volume 3787, Pages 87 to 93, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bangalore, from Sri.N.R.Chandrasingh.
26
O.S.No.26137/2007
(iii) The 3rd defendant purchased the property bearing No.530, 2nd Main Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore-560 003, measuring east to west: 105 feet and north to south: 30 feet under the deed of sale dated November 06,1989 and registered as No.2370/1989-90, Book I, Volume 3580, Pages 215 to 223, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bangalore from Sri Narayanarao Chandrarao Rananavar.
(iv) The 1st defendant purchase the property bearing No.530, 2nd Main Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore- 560 003, measuring east to west: 105 feet and north to south: 30 feet, and gifted the same to the 3 rd defendant under the deed of gift dated November 24, 1999, and registered as No.2841/1999-2000, Book I, Volume 4637, Pages 184 to 187, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bangalore.
These four properties have been shown as item No.8 of schedule A to the plaint.
(9) The 3rd defendant purchased the property bearing 27 O.S.No.26137/2007 Municial No.127, 42nd Division, New Division No.38, Anjaneya Temple Street, Cubbonpet, Bangalore, measuring east to west: 22 feet and north to south: 32 feet, he having acquired the same under the deed of sale dated August 22, 1984 and registered as No.1810/1984-85, Book I, volume 3124, Pages 29 to 33, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bangalore from Sri R.Balakrishnappa, this property has shown as item No.9 of schedule A to the plaint. (10) The 3rd defendant purchased the property bearing No.269, 1st Stage 2nd Phase, West of Chord Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010, measuring east to west: 27 feet and north to south: 45 feet,he having acquired the same under the deed of sale dated October 28, 2002, and registered as No.4133/2002-03 in CD No.10 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Rajajinagar, Bangalore from Bangalore Development Authority; this property has been shown as item No.10 of schedule A of the plaint.
(11) The 4th defendant purchased the property bearing No.270, 1st Stage, 2nd Phase, West of Chord Road, 28 O.S.No.26137/2007 Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010 measuring east to west: 32 feet and north to south: (45-0+45.6)/2 feet. She having acquired the same under the deed of sale dated January 13, 2003 and registered as No.5921/2002-03 and stored in CD No.13 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Rajajinagar, Bangalore from Bangalore Development Authority; this property has been shown as item No.11 of schedule A to the plaint.
(12) The 2nd Defendant purchased the property bearing No. 271, 1st Stage, 2nd Phase, West of Chord Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010 measuring east to west: 28 feet and north to south: (46-0+45-6)/2 feet, he having acquired the same under the deed of sale dated November 11, 2002 and registered as No.4553/2002-03 and stored in CD. No.11, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Rajajinagar, Bangalore, from Bangalore Development Authority; this property has been shown as item No.12 of schedule A to the plaint.
(13) The 4th defendant purchased the property bearing 29 O.S.No.26137/2007 khatha No.42, Kaneshumari No.559/829, Nagarbavi village, Yeshwanthaura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring east to west : 60 feet and north to south: 45 feet, under the deed of sale dated August 02, 2001, and registered as No.6014/2001-02, Book I, Page 2, in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore from the 3 rd defendant this property has been shown as item No.13 of schedule A to the plaint.
(14) The 4th defendant purchased the property bearing Katha No.50/48, Kaneshumari No.1771/50, Maalagalu village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, measuring east to west: 70 feet and north to south: 95 feet, under the deed of sale dated August 02, 2001 and registered as No.6019/2002-02, Book I, Page 2, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore, from the 3rd defendant this property has been shown as item No.14 of schedule A to the plaint.
(15) The 4th defendant purchased the property khatha No.42, kaneshumari No.577/841, Nagarbavi village, 30 O.S.No.26137/2007 Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk measuring east to west : 100 feet and north to south: 30 feet, under the deed of sale dated August 02, 2001, registered as No.6020/2000-01, Book I, Pages 2, in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore from the 3 rd defendant this property has been shown as item No.15 of schedule A to the plaint.
(16) (1) The 1st defendant purchased the property bearing Municipal No.44 after division 44/1, 42 nd Division, Siddanna Lane, Bettashettipete, Bangalore measuring east to west : 41-6 feet and north to south (30-0+28-03)/2 feet, under the deed of sale dated July 13, 1985, and registered as No.1323/1985-86, Book I, Volume 3221, Pages 26 to 34, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bangalore from Smt. Veermma and others.
(2) The 3rd defendant purchased the property bearing Municipal No.44, 42nd Division, Siddanna Lane, Bettashettipete, Bangalore measuring east to west : 22 feet and north to south : 44 feet, under the deed of sale dated 31 O.S.No.26137/2007 July 13, 1985, and registered as No.1325/1985-86, Book I, Volume 3218, Pages 114 to 120, in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bangalore from Smt. Veermma and others.
(3) The 2nd defendant purchased the property bearing Municipal No.44, 42nd Division, Siddanna Lane, Bettashettipete, Bangalore measuring east to west : 40-6 feet and north to south 14-06 feet, under the deed of sale dated July 13, 1985, and registered as No.1324/1985-86, Book I, Volume 3222, Pages 1 to 9, in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bangalore from Smt. Veermma and others.
(4) The 1st defendant gifted item No.16(i) to the 3 rd defendant under the gift deed dated November 24, 1999 and registered as No.2843/1999-2000, Book I, Volume 4643, Pages 226 to 231, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bangalore.
(5) The 2nd defendant gifted item No.16(iii) to the 3rd 32 O.S.No.26137/2007 defendant under the gift deed dated November 24, 1999 and registered as No.2845/1999-2000, Book I, Volume 4647, Pages 240 to --, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bangalore.
(17) The 1st defendant purchased the agricultural land measuring 15 guntas in Sy.No.103/12, 10 guntas in Sy.No.103/13, 16 guntas in Sy.No.103/14, 26 guntas in Sy.No.103/15A, 31 guntas in Sy.No.103/16, 25 guntas in Sy.No.103/18 and 22 guntas in Sy.No.103/19 situated at Beechagonanahalli, Vemagal Hobli, Kolar Taluk, under the deed of sale dated March 09, 1989, and registered as No.2430/1988-98, Book-I, Volume 1963, Pages 13 to 16, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kolar, from Sri.K.Madhavachar, this property has been shown as Schedule C to the plaint.
(18) (i) The 4th defendant purchased the land measuring 5 acres with 275 trees and 65 silver oak trees in Sy.No.185/5A (old re-Sy.No.185) situated at Kundana village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, under the deed of sale dt. 33
O.S.No.26137/2007 January 01,1999, and registered as No.2593/1989-99, Book 1, Volume 1798, Pages 218 to 229, in the office of the Sub- registrar, Devanahalli, from Sri. L.M. Vijayendra.
(ii) The 3rd defendant purchased the agricultural land measuring 7 acres 36 guntas with 34 guntas kharab with 380 mango trees and 75 silver oak trees in Sy.No.139 situated at Kundana village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, under the deed of sale dated January 02,1999, and registered as No.2429/1998-99, Book 1, Pages 207 to 219, in the office of the Sub-registrar, Devanahalli, from Sri.S.Muninanjappa.
(iii) The 3rd defendant purchased the agricultural land measuring 7 acres 31 guntas with 11+4 guntas kharab with 400 mango trees and 80 silver oak trees in Sy.No.185/2 (out of old re-Sy.No.185) situated at Kundana village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, under the deed of sale dt. January 28,1999, and registered as No.2426/1998-99, Book 1, Volume 1795, Pages 180 to 188, in the office of the Sub- registrar, Devanahalli, from Sri Munisonnappa. 34
O.S.No.26137/2007
(iv) The 3rd defendant purchased the agricultural land measuring 7 acres 16 guntas with 400 mango trees and 80 silver oak trees in Sy.No.185/3 (out of old re-Sy.No.185) situated at Kundana village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, under the deed of sale dt. January 28, 1999, and registered as No. 2427/1998-99, Book 1, Volume 1795, Pages 189 to 197, in the office of the Sub-registrar, Devanahalli, from Sri S.Muninanjappa.
(v) The 4th defendant purchased the agricultural land measuring 6 acres 21 guntas with 1 gunta kharab with 350 mango trees and 50 silver oak trees in Sy.No.185/4 (out of old Sy.No.185) situated at Kundana village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, under the deed of sale dt. February 02,1999, and registered as No.2592/1998-99, Book 1, Pages 210 to 217, in the office of the Sub-registrar, Devanahalli, from Sri S. Ramanjanappa.
(vi) The 3rd defendant purchased the agricultural land measuring 6 acres 20 guntas with 350 mango trees and 50 silver oak trees in Sy.No.185/4 (out of old Sy.No.185) 35 O.S.No.26137/2007 situated at Kundana village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, under the deed of sale dt. February 24, 1999, and registered as No. 2430/1998-99, Book 1, Volume 1795, Pages 218 to 224, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Devanahalli, from Sri S. Ramanjanappa.
(Vii) The 4th defendant purchased the agricultural land measuring 5 acres 11 guntas with 275 mango trees and 65 silver oak trees in Sy.No.185/5C (out of old re-Sy.No.185) situated at Kundana village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, under the deed of sale dt. January 28, 1999, and registered as No. 2595/1998-99, Book 1, Volume 1798, Pages 238 to 247, in the office of the Sub-registrar, Devanahalli, from Sri L.M.Nagesh.
(viii) The 4th defendant purchased the agricultural land measuring 5 acres with 275 mango trees and 65 silver oak trees in Sy.No.185/5A (out of old re-Sy.No.185) situated at Kundana village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, under the deed of sale dt. January 28, 1999, and registered as No.2594/1998-99, Book 1, Volume 1798, Pages 228 to 237, 36 O.S.No.26137/2007 in the office of the Sub-registrar, Devanahalli, from Sri L.M. Lokesh.
(ix) The 4th defendant purchased the land measuring 5 acres 6 guntas with 250 mango trees and 75 silver oak trees in Sy.No.185/6 (out of old re-Sy.No.185) situated at Kundana village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, under the deed of sale dt. February 24,1999, and registered as No.2591/1998- 99, Book 1, Volume 1798, Pages 199 to 209, in the office of the Sub-registrar, Devanahalli, from Sri S. Muninanjappa.
These nine properties have been shown as schedule 'D' to the plaint.
(19) (i) The 3rd defendant purchased the agricultural land measuring 6 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.16/2 situated at Bandaramanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, under the deed of sale dt. June 18, 1990, and registered as No. 274/1990-91, Book 1, Volume 1383, Pages 189 to 192, in the office of the Sub-registrar, Devanahalli, from Sri.Y.C.Jagadeva and others.
37
O.S.No.26137/2007
(ii) The 3rd defendant purchased the agriculture land measuring 2 acres 31 guntas in Sy.No.13, 2 acres 31 guntas in Sy.No.17 and 1 acre 28 guntas in Sy.No.18/1 including 3 guntas kharab situated at Bhandaramana village, Kundana Mandal Panchayat, Devanahalli Taluk, under the deed of sale dt. June 20, 1990, and registered as No. 280/1990-91, Book 1, Volume 1385, Pages 2 to 7, in the office of the Sub- registrar, Devanahalli, from Sri Y.C.Jagadeva and others.
These two properties have been shown as schedule E to the plaint.
(20) (i) The 4th defendant purchased the agriculture land measuring 3 acres 35 guntas in Sy.No.8 situated at K.G.Srinivasapura village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, under the deed of sale dt. June 14, 1995, and registered as No. 628/1995-96, Book 1, Volume 1748, Pages 230 to 238, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Nelamangala, from Sri Venkatappa.
(ii) The 4th defendant purchased the agriculture land 38 O.S.No.26137/2007 measuring 5 acres in Sy.No.9 situated at K.G.Srinivasapura village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, under the deed of sale dt. July 19, 1995 and registered as No. 1014/1995-96, Book 1, Volume 1758, Pages 38 to 44, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Nelamangala, from Sri K.S.Ramesh.
(iii) The 4th defendant purchased the agriculture lands measuring 6 acres 14 guntas in Sy.No.10 2 situated at K.G.Srinivasapura village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, under the deed of sale dt. June 14, 1995 and registered as No. 637/1995-96, Book 1, Volume 1751, Pages 152 to 156, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Nelamangala, from Sri Narasimhamurthy and the deed of sale dated June 14, 1995, and registered as No.619/1995- 96, Book I, Volume 1751, Pages 109 to 118, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Nelamangala from Sri Bylavenkatesh.
(iv) The 4th defendant purchased the agriculture land measuring 5 acres 36 guntas in Sy.No.11 situated at K.G.Srinivasapura village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, 39 O.S.No.26137/2007 Bangalore Rural District, under the deed of sale dt. July 19, 1995 and registered as No. 1015/1995-96, Book 1, Volume 1758, Pages 44 to 49, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Nelamangala, from Sri K.S.Ramesh.
These four properties have been shown as schedule F to the plaint.
(21) (i) The 3rd defendant purchased the agriculture land measuring 1 acre 10 guntas in Sy.No.140 situated at Mugabala village, Jadigehali Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, under the deed of sale dt. May 15, 1995 and registered as No. 506/1995-96, Book 1, Volume 2055, Pages 149 to 151, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Hoskote from Sri T.Pranesh Rao and another.
(ii) The 3rd defendant purchased the agriculture land measuring 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No.140 situated at Mugabala village, Jadigehali Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, under the deed of sale dt. May 15, 1995 and registered as No. 505/1995-96, Book 1, Volume 2040, Pages 40 O.S.No.26137/2007 159 to 161, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Hoskote from Sri T.Rajarao and others.
These two properties have been shown as schedule G to the plaint.
(b) Each and every one of the properties detailed in the proceeding sub-paragraph is the self-acquired property of the respective owner. None of these properties belong to any alleged joint Hindu family of which the plaintiff alleges to be a member.
(c) The 1st defendant is entitled to 1/7th share in the agricultural lands all situated at Narayanakere village, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District; these lands belong to him and his brothers and sisters and have been shown as Schedule B to the plaint.
18. Though the plaintiff and his wife left the house of the 1st defendant, they were dependent on these defendants for emotional and financial support, these defendants, on their part, did not fail to raise to the 41 O.S.No.26137/2007 occasion whenever the plaintiff and his wife had troubles. But, the plaintiff and his wife did not make proper use of the goodness of these defendants; instead, they made the lives of these defendants difficult, besides making their own lives miserable.
19. On February 14, 2000, in order to provide comfort and security to the plaintff and his wife, the 2 nd defendant gifted to the plaintiff the western portion measuring 60 x 15 feet out of the total extent 60 x 30 feet in the property bearing Municipal No.36/177/1, in terms of the deed of gift registered as No.4205, Book I, Volume 2166, Pages 192-196, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Srirampuram, Bangalore; on the same day, the plaintiff purchased from the 4 th defendant the eastern portion of the said property under the deed of sale registered as No.4203, Book I, Volume 2163, Pages 214 - 220, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Srirampuram, Bangalore.
20. On the day the aforesaid transactions took place, the plaintiff, who had no right, title, interest or share in any 42 O.S.No.26137/2007 of the business, incomes or properties of these defendants, unequivocally declared the said fact by document styled as the release deed and registered as No.4206, Book I, Volume 2170, Pages 212-215, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Srirampuram, Bangalore; simultaneously, Smt. Lalitha wife of the plaintiff, relinquished here half share in the property bearing present Municipal No.501/5, 2nd Main Road, Nagappa Block, Lakshminarayanapura, Srirampuram, Bangalore, in favour of the 3rd defendant, in terms of the deed of release registered as No.2176, Book I, Volume 4204, Pages 15 to 17, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Srirampuram, Bangalore; the said relinquishment was for a consideration of Rs.38,000/-, which the 3 rd defendant paid to her; she also undertook that she would not make any claims in future in respect of the said property. By these acts, the plaintiff and his wife confirmed beyond question the fact of their having no right, title, interest or share in the business, incomes and properties of these defendants.
21. That there was no joint Hindu family comprising the 43 O.S.No.26137/2007 plaintiff and these defendants is demonstrated by the fact that the plaintiff and his wife had their own independent and personal business, incomes and properties all along; the plaintiff and his wife themselves had purchased and subsequently sold six sites in Kurubarahalli, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk (now part of Basaweshwaranagar/ West of Chord Road Extension, Bangalore) and three other properties including a residential house a long time before the event of declarating referred to in the proceeding sub-paragraph.
22. The aforesaid being the true state of affairs, it is at once patent that the suit lacks bonafide and is an abuse of the process of this Hon'ble Court.
23. It is stated that, there is no joint Hindu family consisting of the plaintiff and these defendants. Neither the plaint schedule properties nor those detailed in paragraph 4 belong to any alleged joint family; these properties belong to these defendants absolutely as their personal properties acquired out of their exertions, efforts and incomes; item 16 44 O.S.No.26137/2007 of plaint schedule A being the personal and absolute property of the 4th defendant, he sold it to the 5th to the 9th defendants; they have acquired absolute and indefeasible rights of ownership and possession in respect of the said item.
24. The properties that the 1st defendant and his brothers inherited from their father were not valuable or yielding income of any significance, it was because of the meagerness of the income that the 1st defendant had to chart his own course of working on looms. It was only after the 1st defendant started earning handsomely that he improved the said properties; in any event, he did not use the income from the said properties for his personal purposes or for starting any business or purchasing any property.
25. These defendants deny the averments therein as being false. The 1st defendant began working on hired looms and later established business with his own looms; this he could do because of his dedication and sincerity, not to 45 O.S.No.26137/2007 mention hard work and sacrifice of personal comforts, and not because of any help or assistance from anyone including the plaintiff. The 1st did not work under anybody, much less the alleged Sri Rojappa; in so far as the plaintiff allegedly working, it was a far cry given the fact that he was simply indolent. It was the 1st defendant who set up the plaintiff in business by training him and then putting up the capital, but these were futile efforts as the plaintiff did not have either the acumen or the willingness to work hard to make himself a successful businessman.
26. The para 5 to 14 of plaint averments are denied. It is stated that, plaintiff is not in possession of any of the suit property and court fee paid as per section 35(2) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act is not proper. Hence prays for dismissing the suit.
27. The defendant No.1 and 3 have filed additional written statement denying the amended plaint averments i.e., paragraph 7(a), 7(b) and 7(c) of the amended plaint. 46
O.S.No.26137/2007
28. The 5th defendant has filed written statement stating that, this defendant is not related to plaintiff or 1 st to 4th defendant and denying all the plaint averments and it is stated that, there is no joint family property and plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property and court fee paid by the plaintiff is not proper. It is stated that, 5 th to 9th defendants have given valuable consideration for purchasing item No.16 of the 'A' Schedule property. Hence prays for dismissing the suit.
29. The defendant No.6 to 9 have filed memo adopting the written statement of 5th defendant and prays for dismissing the suit with exemplary costs.
30. Basing on the above said facts, my predecessor in office has framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit properties are the Joint family properties liable for partition?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the 47 O.S.No.26137/2007 Release Deed dated 14/2/2000 and sale deed dated 24/03/2007 are not binding on plaintiffs?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mense profits?
4. Whether suit is valued properly and court fee paid is sufficient?
5. Whether defendants prove that plaintiff and his wife left the house in the year 1982 and living separately, there is no Joint family ?
6. Whether the defendant No. 3 & 4 proves that the property shown in para 4(a) to para 21 (ii) properties are their self acquired properties, acquired out of their individual business income?
7. Whether defendant No.4 proves that 1st defendant is entitled for 1/7th share in agricultural lands at Narayana Kere?
8. What order or decree?48
O.S.No.26137/2007 Additional Issues dtd: 17.12.2019
1. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable being a suit for partial partition?
Recasted Issues No.7 dtd: 17.12.2019
7. Whether Defendant No.1 to 4 proves that 1st Defendant is entitled for 1/7th share in agricultural land at Narayanakere?
31. To prove her case, the Plaintiff got examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.43 documents. The Defendant No.2 got examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.86 documents and closed their side.
32. Heard both sides. The Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 have filed written arguments and the contents of the same are taken into consideration.
33. My answers to the above issues are as follows:- 49
O.S.No.26137/2007 Issue No.1 : In the Negative, Issue No.2 : In the Negative, Issue No.3 : In the Negative, Issue No.4 : In the Negative, Issue No.5 : In the Affirmative, Issue No.6 : In the Affirmative, Issue No.7 : Recasted Addl. Issue No.1: In the Affirmative, Addl. Issue No.2: In the Negative, Recasted Issue No.7-
-dt.17-12-2019 : In the Negative,
Issue No.8 : As per final orders for the following:
REASONS
34. Issue Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6:- Since these issues are connected, they are taken together for reasoning.
35. The Plaintiff who was examined as PW.1 in his evidence says that Plaint Schedule Properties are joint family properties and he is entitled for 1/3rd share in all the Plaint Schedule Properties. He has also stated that the Release Deed dtd: 14.2.2019 registered on 19.2.20000 in the office of Sub-Registrar is null and void and not binding 50 O.S.No.26137/2007 on him. He also stated that Sale Deed dtd: 24.3.2007 executed by 3rd Defendant in favour of Defendant No.5 to 9 in respect of property bearing No.44/1 and 44/2 situated at Siddanna Lane, Bangalore City, dtd: 24.3.2007 in the office of Sub-Registrar Gandhinagar, Bangalore, is not binding so far as it relates to 1/3rd share of the Plaintiff. PW.1 in his evidence has stated that Defendant No.1 is his father and Defendant No.2 is his mother and Defendant No.3 is his younger brother and Defendant No.4 is the wife of Defendant No.3 and the Defendant No.5 to 9 are the purchasers of property bearing Sy.No.44/1 and 44/2 situated at Siddanna Lane, Bangalore City under the Sale Deed dtd:
24.2.200.
36. According to his contention his father and his brothers have jointly inherited several immovable agricultural lands situated at Narayana Kere Village and his father inherited some of the properties through family arrangements between himself and his brothers and the properties so inherited by his father are 2 acre 3 guntas in 51 O.S.No.26137/2007 Sy.No.168/3 and 1 acre 3 guntas in Sy.No.62, 1 acre 37 guntas in Sy.No.226/1, 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.213/P/P1, in all measuring 6 acres 23 guntas situated at Narayana Kere Village, Anugondanahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore District and they are the many potential agricultural lands comprised fruit yielding Tamarind Trees and other valuable Trees.
37. He says that he has studied up to 7th Standard. At that point of time when he was studying 7 th Standard his father and the Plaintiff were working as employees with one Rojappa, as the said Rojappa was dealing in Silk Materials.
After acquiring sufficient experience in silk business, his father and this Plaintiff leased agricultural lands situated at Narayana Kere Village for Rs.18,000/- per year and utilized the said amount to establish the joint business in dealing with silk materials at Cubbonpet Bangalore, in the premises No.151/2 taken by them for rent. He says that he stopped his studies as he has to look after the entire silk business and managed the joint family as his father was not having 52 O.S.No.26137/2007 good health. He says that when 1 st Defendant and Plaintiff were doing silk business, his brother the 3 rd Defendant was studying in 3rd Standard. He says that his business was flourishing and at that time his father made him to run silk business along with wives of his brothers and they were running the business of silk materials under the name and style of Srinivasa and Company. In the meanwhile, his father joined hands with his brothers was running the business of silk materials under the name and style of M. Ramaiah and brothers. He was also looking after the said business. The income from the business run under the name and style of Srinivas & Company and M. Ramaiah and brothers used to pool the income with the income derived from their ancestral properties. From out of the above said income they acquired several properties at various places viz., Bichagondanahalli, Kolar district, Kundana village, Devanahalli taluk, Bhandernmnahalli village, Devanahali taluk, K.G. Srinivasapura village, Nelamangala taluk, Mugabala village, Hosakote Taluk, Moodalapalya, 53 O.S.No.26137/2007 Rajajinagar, Cubbonpet, Malleswaram, Gayatrinagar, Srirampuram at Bangalore city. He says that his father being a 'Kartha' of the Hindu joint family, constituted by him and 3rd Defendant, some of the properties so acquired came to be registered in the name of the defendant No.1, 3, defendant No.2 and also defendant No.4, to avoid any legal hurdles. The above said properties have been acquired from out of the joint family funds derived from the said partnership firms and also the income from ancestral properties and also other properties acquired thereof. The said acquisition of the said properties is for the benefit of the joint family and not for any individual benefits.
38. He says that he made to work from morning to evening and used to work hard for the benefit of the joint family. He says that he has studied up to 7th Standard and he was innocent of the affairs of the 1st Defendant and 3rd Defendant. He says that he asked his father with regard to acquisition of properties in his name, in the name of his mother, his brother and his sister-in-law and not in any 54 O.S.No.26137/2007 name, his father used to give explanation conveniently, to persuade him that the said acquisition was to avoid complication from Income Tax Department and Other Departments and he used to assure that he will be given legitimate share in all the properties when dividing the properties between them and the 3rd Defendant.
39. He says that tamarind trees standing on the land situated at Narayanakere village, were sold for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- and the sale proceeds was utilized for expansion of business at Cubbonpet, A.T. Street in the year 1980 and they carried on the business under the name and style of M.R. Saree Agencies also. However, in the year 1983, the said M.R. Saree Agencies came to be closed and his father and he continued the business run by them under the name and style of Srinivasa and Company and M. Ramaiah and brothers as the brothers of his father fell out of partnership business. Therefore, according to him, all the properties are joint family properties.
40. According to him, he and his wife are innocent 55 O.S.No.26137/2007 people. The defendant No.1 to 4 took them to Sub-Registrar to sign some documents as security for the loan to be raised to expand business, as the financial institutions insisted for execution of documents by all the family members. On 14.2.2000 he and his wife were taken to Sub-Registrar Office by the Defendant No.1 to 4 on the pretext of execution of some documents as security for the loan purpose and Defendant No.1 to 4 did not allow them to know the document and contents of the documents and they did not read over and explained the contents of the documents to him and his wife. He says that the Sub- Registrar did not read over and explained the nature and contents of the documents and obtained the signature of him and his wife. Therefore, according to him he and his wife were not aware of the contents of the documents executed on 14.2.2000.
41. According to him on 28.3.2007 he came to know that the 3rd Defendant sold item 16 in favour of the defendant No.5 to 9 and he made enquiries with Defendant 56 O.S.No.26137/2007 No.1 to 4. On 28.3.2007 when he asserted his right, 3 rd Defendant told that Plaintiff has executed Release Deed dtd:
14.2.2000 relinquished his rights in respect of all the joint family properties. However, the 3rd Defendant did not show the Release Deed dtd: 14.2.2000. As such immediately thereafter he insisted upon the Defendant No.1 to 4 to effect partition in respect of all the joint family properties by taking help of well wishers and common friends herein.
According to this witness, even then the defendant No. 1 to 4 herein evaded to divided the properties and falsely assured to divide the properties within one month. According to him, without his knowledge falsely the Defendants have taken the said Release Deed and hence, the same is not binding on him. He also stated that the said Sale Deed executed by 3rd Defendant in respect of Item No.16 on 27.3.2007 in favour of Defendant No.5 to 9 are not binding, since has got over the suit properties as the properties are joint family properties.
42. In this plaint the Plaintiff has sought for declaration 57 O.S.No.26137/2007 that the Release Deed dtd: 14.2.2000 registered as Document No.4206/99-2000, Book No.1, Volume No.2170 at Pages 212-215 registered on 19.2.2000 which was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar as null and void and not binding on the Plaintiff. It is the contention of the Plaintiff who was examined as PW.1 is that, by playing fraud and by misrepresenting him the said document of Release Deed was obtained by Defendant No.1 to 4.
43. When the Plaintiff is contending that the said Release Deed is obtained from him by playing fraud by Defendant No.1 to 4, the Plaintiff has to prove the practicing of fraud on him. It is his contention that they took him and his wife and his family members to the Sub-Registrar Office on 14.2.2000 on the pretext of executing some document for security to the loan purpose and Defendant No.1 to 4 did not allow them to know the nature of the document or the contents of the document and the family members of the Plaintiff did not read over and explained the contents of the documents before obtaining signatures by the Defendant 58 O.S.No.26137/2007 No.1 to 4 or the Sub-Registrar.
44. But, it is the contention of the DW.1 that on the said date i.e., on 14.2.2000 the following documents were registered i.e., Ex.D.8 Release Deed dtd: 14.2.2000 executed by the Plaintiff in favour of Defendant No.1 to 4, Ex.D.20 Sale Deed dtd: 14.2.2000 executed in favour of Plaintiff's daughter Smt. Malini by Defendant No.4 in respect of Site No.1772/36, 37, 38 and 39 situated at Maganuru Village, Yeshwanthpura Village, Bangalore Taluk, measuring East to West 39 feet and North to South 62 feet, Ex.D.21 Sale Deed dtd: 14.2.2000 executed in favour of the Plaintiff's daughter Smt. Malini by Defendant No.4 in respect of Site No.1772/36, 37, 38 & 39 situated at Magaluru Village, Yeshwanth Village, Bangalore, measuring East to West 39 feet and North to South 62 feet, Ex.D.84 is the Sale Deed dtd: 14.2.2000 executed in favour of the Plaintiff by Defendant No.4 in respect of eastern portion of the site bearing No.287/36 presently bearing No.36/1771 measuring 30 X 60 situated at Lakshminarayanapura, 13 th Cross, 59 O.S.No.26137/2007 Bangalore, Ex.D.85 Gift Deed dtd: 14.2.2000 executed in favour of the Plaintiff by the Defendant No.2 in respect of Site bearing Municipal No.36/1776/2 measuring 30 X 60 situated at Lakshminarayanapura, 13 th Cross, Bangalore, Ex.D.46 Release Deed dtd: 14.2.200 executed by Plaintiff's wife in favour of Defendant No.3 by releasing her half share in the Item No.6 of the plaint schedule property.
45. On perusal of the above said documents produced by the Defendants i.e., Ex.D.8, Ex.D.20, Ex.D.21, Ex.D.84 and Ex.D.85 and Ex.D.46 it is clear that on that day the Plaintiff and his father members have not gone for executing any security documents in respect of loan transaction. On the other hand, above said properties have been transferred in the name of the Plaintiff and his daughter Smt. Malini on that day and later Plaintiff and his wife executed Release Deeds as per Ex.D.8 and Ex.D.46 releasing the properties. Even though the Release Deeds were executed on that day by the Plaintiff and his wife i.e., Ex.D.8 and Ex.D.46, the Plaintiff has sought for cancellation 60 O.S.No.26137/2007 of the Release Deed which is said to have been executed by him and he has not sought for cancellation of Ex.D.46 which is the document executed by his wife and his wife has also not sought for cancellation of Ex.D.46 executed by her by filing any suit. On the other hand, the Plaintiff has not sought for cancellation of the Sale Deed which is executed in his favour on the same day by the Defendant No.4 as per Ex.D.84 in respect of Site bearing No.287/36 as stated above. If really Plaintiff and his family members had gone to the Sub-Registrar Office as the Defendants told them that Defendants require their signature for taking loan as a security and in that guise these documents were obtained by them is true, the Plaintiff ought have sought for cancellation of all the documents which were executed on the same day.
46. It is the contention of the Plaintiff that out of income derived from Narayanakere Village properties, they have invested for business purpose and they have acquired the properties. He also says that tamarind trees standing on 61 O.S.No.26137/2007 the lands situated at Narayanakere Village were sold for Rs.12,00,000/- and the sale proceeds were utilized for expansion of business at Cubbonpet, A.T. Street in the year 1980 and they carried on the business. It is also his contention that he was working hard for earning for the benefit of joint family properties. However, his father has acquired the property from the said income only in the name of his mother, brother, sister-in-law and not in his name. He also says that his father used to give explanation conveniently to persuade the Plaintiff that the acquisition of the properties in the names of the Defendant No.1 to 4 was to avoid any complications from the Income Tax Department and other Department and properties being the joint family properties, he will be given legitimate share in all properties while partitioning the properties by him and the 3 rd Defendant.
47. During the cross-examination, he says that only tamarind fruits were sold and those lands were not mortgage. During the cross-examination also says that his 62 O.S.No.26137/2007 father himself has performed the marriage of the Plaintiff and his sisters. During the cross-examination he denies that his father has purchased three sites in the name of his wife and PW.1 says that he does not know about the same. He denies that on the same day three sites were purchased by his father in the name of 3rd Defendant and he says that he does not know about the same. He admits that his father has obtained lease cum sale agreement in respect of Item No.11 of the suit property from the BDA. He also admits that later BDA has issued grant letter to him. He also admits that his father himself has borne all the expenses for purchase of Item No.11 of the property. He also admits that Item No.10 of the property was purchased in the name of 3 rd Defendant by his father and Item No.12 of the property was purchased in the name of the 2nd Defendant from BDA by his father himself. But, he denies that his father has not made any discrimination among them. He denies that his father purchased three sites each in favour of the Plaintiff and also in favour of the Defendants. He denies that in the year 1980 63 O.S.No.26137/2007 his father has purchased three sites each in favour of all. He denies that in the year 1982 he started residing separately. But, he admits that from 1982 he has started residing in site No.2/3, Siddanna Layout, Cubbonpet, Bangalore, by establishing separate saree shop. When it is suggested to him how he invested for establishing separate shop, he says that he out of joint family income this shop was established when the properties were joint. He admits that in the year 1982 he and his wife jointly purchased a house. But he dies that the sale deed shown to him is the sale deed relating to the same and the same was marked as Ex.I.3 for the convenience of the Court. He denies that he and his wife partitioned the said house. He denies that he has sold the ground floor of the house. He also admits that on 8.9.2003 he has sold property No.177/2 measuring 50 X 60 feet. He says that his father had given the said property to him in the year 2000. He says that on 11.4.1991 his father purchased Site No.481/10 measuring 35 X 50 feet in his name and he has given the said property to his daughter by 64 O.S.No.26137/2007 Gift Deed. He also admits two sale deeds during the cross- examination stating that the said sale deeds were executed by him in favour of Sri. Muniyappa and they were marked as Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2. During the cross-examination he admits that he is paying income tax and he is also paying income tax in respect of his wife and children and he cannot say from when he is paying income tax.
48. Though in the examination-in-chief he says that his father has not acquired any property in his name, on the other hand his father has acquired the property in the name of his mother, brother and sister-in-law i.e., Defendant No.2 to 4, as per the above said admission given by PW.1 during the cross-examination it is clear that his father purchased sites separately in the name of his brother (DW.1) and also in the name of the Plaintiff when they were joint. As per the admission given by him, he and his wife have purchased a house separately in the year 1988. He has also sold ground floor of the above said property. Even though he admits that on 11.4.1991 he has purchased Site No.481/10, he says that 65 O.S.No.26137/2007 his father gave the amount for purchase of that property. He admits that on 8.9.2003 he has sold Property No.177/2 as per Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 he has sold property to Sri.Muniyappa independently. These admissions given by him shows that the properties were purchased by his father in his name and later on after 1982 he himself has purchased the properties and also sold the properties independently. Therefore, it is clear that he has falsely contended that his father has purchased the properties in the name of his mother and Defendant No.3 and 4 and not in the name of this Plaintiff and his family members. Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 produced by the Plaintiff also shows that Plaintiff himself has sold some of the properties independently dtd: 25-3-1991 as per EX.D.16.
49. Even though in the examination-in-chief PW.1 says that his father has sold tamarind trees for Rs.12,00,000/- and invested the same for business, the Plaintiff has not produced any documents to show that his father has sold the tamarind tree for Rs.12,00,000/- and invested the same for joint family business. On the other hand, PW.1 admits 66 O.S.No.26137/2007 that his father has not sold tamarind trees, he only sold the tamarind fruits. But, no document produced by the Plaintiff to show that the joint family properties at Narayanakere Village fetching income and out of the said income only they have established their business. On the other hand, during the cross-examination PW.1 admits that since, the said properties were not fetching income his grand father came to Bangalore. During the cross-examination, PW.1 says as follows:
'ನನನ ತತತನವರಗಗ ಬರರತತದದ ಆದತಯ ಕರಟರಟಬದ ನರತರಹಣಗಗಗ ಸತಕತಗದಗಯದದ ಕತರಣ ನನನ ತಟದಗಯವರರ ಬಗಟಗಳಳರಗಗ ಕಗಲಸ ಮತಡಲರ ಬಟದರರತತತರಗ ಎಟದರಗ ಸರ.' That means, it is clear that since there were no income from the joint family properties, the Plaintiff father come to Bangalore for leading life. Except his oral evidence by the Plaintiff there is no other evidence given by the Plaintiff to prove that there were surplus income from the joint family property i.e., situated at Narayanakere Village in order to 67 O.S.No.26137/2007 purchase the suit properties and to establish independent business. Therefore, the contention of the Plaintiff that the business was established out of joint family funds cannot be accepted.
50. The Advocate for Defendant No.3 and 4 relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2003 (10) SCC 310 between D.S. Lakshmaiah and another and L.Balasubramanya and another. In the said Judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
A. Hindu Law - Joint family
- Whether joint family property or self-acquired -
Property cannot be
presumed to be joint
family merely because of
existence of a joint family
- Burden to prove property
to be joint lies on the
person who asserts so -
68
O.S.No.26137/2007
But if he proves that the
family possessed sufficient
nucleus with the aid of
which joint family property
could be acquired, then
presumption would be that
the property is joint and
onus would shift on the
person claiming it to be
self-acquired - On failure
to establish the nucleus,
held, burden of proof
would remain on the
person who asserts the
property to be joint.
B. Hindu Law - Joint family -
Blending of self-acquired
property with joint family
property - Principle of - Clear
69
O.S.No.26137/2007
intention to abandon the
separate rights in the
property must be proved -
Abandonment cannot be
inferred from mere allowing
other family members also to
use the property or utilisation
of income of the separate
property out of generosity to
support persons whom the
holder was not bound to
support or failure to maintain
separate accounts.
Therefore, as per the above said Judgment it is clear that the Plaintiff has to prove that joint family property was yielding income and with the aid of the same only the business was established and properties were purchased.
51. As per the principles laid down in the above said Judgment it is clear that the Plaintiff has to prove that the 70 O.S.No.26137/2007 properties are acquired out of joint family nucleus and then the burden will shift on to the person who asserts that the property are his self-acquired properties. But, in this case, the Plaintiff who is asserting that the properties are joint family properties has not proved the same. The Defendant has produced Ex.D.9 which is a Sale Deed which is in the name of the Plaintiff's wife and Plaintiff and they were sold in favour of R. Gopal as per Ex.D.18 and Ex.D.19 i.e., property bearing No.28, 29 & 30 in all measuring 3 ½ guntas out of 2 acre 15 guntas situated at Laggere Village on 12.10.2006. The Plaintiff has also produced Ex.D.10 which is Sale Deed in respect of Site bearing No.31, 32, 33 measuring 3.3 guntas out of 2 acres 15 guntas situated at Laggere Village, Bangalore North Taluk. When the said Ex.D.9 was confronted to the Plaintiff during the cross- examination, the Plaintiff stated that he does not know about the same and he has also stated that he does not remember regarding the purchase of property in the name of his wife Smt. Lalithamma. However, the said Ex.D.9 was 71 O.S.No.26137/2007 marked as Ex.I.1 during the cross-examination of PW.1 and later it was marked as Ex.D.9 which is Sale Deed dtd:3.11.1980. This shows that even though in the name of Plaintiff also the properties are purchased by his father, he has denied the same. Even though he denies Ex.D.10 in the cross-examination and it was marked as Ex.I.2 for court convenience and later it was marked through DW.1 as Ex.D.10. This document is in respect of property which was purchased by PW.1 in the name of his wife on 3.11.1980. PW.1 during the cross-examination has denied the execution of Ex.D.9 and Ex.D.10 and purchase of properties in his name and in his wife's name by his father. But, the said documents which were later marked as Ex.D.9 and Ex.D.10 clearly reveals that the properties were purchased by his father in his name. Though he admits that three properties were purchased in his name by his father, during the cross- examination he denies to read the contents of the said documents i.e., Ex.D.9. Therefore, it is clear that even though several properties were purchased in his name and 72 O.S.No.26137/2007 in his wife's name and when they were joint prior to 1982 and he has also sold properties subsequently after 2000 and he has deposed falsely before the Court stating that his father has not purchased any properties in his name when they were joint. The Defendant has also produced Ex.D.11 dtd: 13.6.1988 Sale Deed obtained in the name of Plaintiff and his wife Smt.Lalithamma after 1982 in respect of premises No.S-I8 and Ex.D.15 which is Partition Deed dtd:
18.2.1981 wherein the said property was partitioned between the Plaintiff and his wife Smt. Lalithamma, the Plaintiff denies those documents. As per Ex.D.16 i.e., Sale Deed dtd: 25.3.1991 Plaintiff sold his share of 1 st Floor in favour of Shashikala Shetty and A. Anil Kumar Shetty. As per Ex.D.14 Sale Deed dtd: 4.4.1991 the Plaintiff has purchased the property bearing Municipal No.481 of Magadi Road, Bangalore and he has gifted the same in favour of his daughter Smt. Malini on 18.3.2000. Therefore, it is clear that if Plaintiff had not separated in the year 1982 and if he had not executed Release Deed as contended by him as per 73 O.S.No.26137/2007 14.2.2000, he would not have gifted these properties and he would not have sold the properties which were purchased in his name by his father as admitted by him independently and after 1982. If those properties are joint family properties and all the properties are the joint family properties he would not have executed the Release Deed and Gift Deed as stated above. These documents produced by the Defendants clearly shows that the Plaintiff has executed registered Release Deed on 14.2.2000 since he has separate from joint family in the year 1982 itself and later on denying the same stating that by playing fraud on him the said Deed has been obtained by him.
52. In order to prove the element of fraud, he has not examined any independent witnesses and how the fraud has been played on him has not been established by the Plaintiff. On the other hand, as I have already stated above even though Plaintiff says that he and his family members were taken to Sub-Registrar Office for obtaining signatures on security documents for obtaining loan, the above said 74 O.S.No.26137/2007 documents i.e., Ex.D.8, Ex.D.20, Ex.D.21, Ex.D.84, Ex.D.85 and Ex.D.46 shows that on that day properties are transferred in his wife's name and in his name and later on he and his wife have executed Release Deeds and those documents are not the loan transactions. Therefore, it is clear that even though Plaintiff has executed the Release Deed on 14.2.2000 relinquishing all his rights in respect of all the properties and also he and his daughters have received some properties on that day as stated above, after lapse of seven years he has come up with this suit. He says that he has not come out of the joint family on 1.12.1982 as mentioned in the said registered Sale Deed. But, on the other hand, the above said purchases have been made by PW.1 independently, the execution of Gift Deed and Sale Deed and execution of Partition Deed between he and his wife subsequently after 1982 as per the above documents, clearly shows that he is making a false claim that he has not separated from the joint family in the year 1982 and he is still in joint family.
75
O.S.No.26137/2007
53. Even though Plaintiff is contending that his family members were taken to the Sub-Registrar Office and without their knowledge some documents have been obtained from them, he has not examined any of his family members either his wife or daughter to prove his version or corroborate his version.
54. The Defendants have produced the income tax returns at Ex.D.22 to Ex.D.31 in respect of their separate income, in order to establish that Defendant No.3 was having independent income. He has also produced income tax returns at Ex.D.32 to Ex.D.36. His father's income tax returns with balance sheet for the assessment year 1994-95 at Ex.D.37. He says that in Ex.D.37 there is mention regarding amount spent for purchase of properties by Defendant No.1 and it was marked as Ex.D.37(a). He also says that purchase of another property by DW.1 is mentioned in Ex.D.28 income tax returns with balance sheet for the assessment year 1995-1996 and they were marked 76 O.S.No.26137/2007 as Ex.D.28(a) and Ex.D.29(a), Ex.D.30(a) to Ex.D.30(b), Ex.D.31(a) to Ex.D.31(c), Ex.D.32(a), Ex.D.33(a), Ex.D.34(a), Ex.D.35(a) and Ex.D.37(a). He has also produced the Sale Deeds in respect of the other properties mentioned by the Plaintiff in the plaint schedule at Ex.D.40 to Ex.D.83 Sale Deeds in respect of Item No.A of the Suit Schedule Properties and Item No.C to Item No.G of the Suit Schedule Properties and also corresponding income tax returns with balance sheet at Ex.D.37, Ex.D.28, Ex.D.23, Ex.D.24, Ex.D.25, Ex.D.30, Ex.D.31(a), Ex.D.32, Ex.D.25, Ex.D.26, Ex.D.33, Ex.D.22, Ex.D.36, Ex.D.86, Ex.D.35(a), Ex.D.22, Ex.D.30, Ex.D.37, Ex.D.34(a), Ex.D.36, Ex.D.31, Ex.D.34(a), Ex.D.36, Ex.D.37(a), Ex.D.33, Ex.D.29 in order to show that those properties were purchased by the Defendant No.1, 3 and 4 independently out of their own income. He was cross-examined and during the cross- examination he asserts that the suit properties are his self- acquired properties, of his father, his mother and wife. Ex.D.56 is the Sale Deed in respect of Item No.12 of 77 O.S.No.26137/2007 schedule 'A' property and Ex.D.61 is the Sale Deed in respect of portion of Item No.16 of schedul 'A' of the suit property. During the cross-examination it is suggested to DW.1 in the income returns Ex.D.24 to Ex.D.31 it is mentioned as 'HUF'. This witness admits the same. But he says it is in the HUF i.e., in the name of Gopal HUF. He says that it is not the HUF of his father. He says that there was another HUF i.e., Gopal minor HUF that belongs to him and his children. Ex.D.5 to Ex.D.7 belongs to Plaintiff and Plaintiff minor HUF that means Plaintiff and his children HUF. He admits that in the said HUF details of the properties are not mentioned. But, he says that since all the properties were belonging to him and his wife and his father and mother Defendant No.1 and Defendant No.2 and those properties independently belonging to them, those properties are not mentioned in the Release Deed. During the cross- examination he says that later in the Release Deed the Plaintiff has taken property on gift from his mother i.e., Defendant No.2 and thereafterwards he executed Release 78 O.S.No.26137/2007 Deed. He denies that on that day by playing fraud on the Plaintiff Ex.D.8 was obtained from the Plaintiff. He denies that in the guise of obtaining signature on Ex.D.20 which is a sale deed executed in favour of Plaintiff's daughter Malini and his wife, they have obtained signature on Ex.P.8 Release Deed. Even though PW.1 during the evidence says that on the guise of obtaining signatures for loan documents his signature was obtained on Ex.D.8, during the cross- examination it is suggested to PW.1 that on that day as per Ex.D.21 a Sale Deed was executed in favour of his wife and daughter. That means by this suggestion put to the witness it is admitted by the PW.1 that on that day Plaintiff, his wife and daughter had not gone to the Sub-Registrar Office for putting signatures on loan transaction documents, on the other hand some other documents were also executed in favour of Plaintiff and his wife and daughter. As I have already stated above, the Plaintiff has not examined his wife and daughter in the Court to establish that by playing fraud on him the Defendants No.1 to 4 have obtained signature of 79 O.S.No.26137/2007 the Plaintiff on Ex.D.8 Release Deed. During the cross- examination DW.1 says that he and Plaintiff's wife were filing joint income tax returns till 1982 only and thereafterwards they stopped filing income tax returns jointly. During the cross-examination it is suggested to DW.1 that in the income tax returns it is mentioned that income from the property held in joint with Smt. Lalithamma. This DW.1 admits that same. However, DW.1 says that the rents derived out of the joint property which was standing in the name of Plaintiff's wife and DW.1 were divided equally and he has shown the said rental income in the income tax returns for the year 1989. Therefore, merely because DW.1 has shown that income in the income tax returns i.e., his share of rent from the property which was held jointly between DW.1 and Plaintiff's wife it cannot be said that there was a joint family income and all the properties are the joint family properties. The DW.1 has not shown all the income of both Plaintiff's wife property and his property jointly in income tax returns in order to hold that it is a joint 80 O.S.No.26137/2007 family income. He has only shown his share in income tax returns and balance sheet. In the income tax returns it is compulsory to show all the income. Therefore, naturally the DW.1 has shown the rental income in the said income tax returns. Therefore by those documents it cannot be said that entire properties are joint family properties except 'B' schedule property.
55. Therefore, it is clear that even though Plaintiff has contended that by playing fraud on him the Defendants have obtained the above said documents, there is no evidence before the Court to prove his contention. On the other hand, it is clear that the Plaintiff has executed Ex.D.8 Release Deed and therefore it cannot be said that there was a joint family and all the properties are the joint family properties.
56. Therefore, when the properties are not considered as joint family properties except 'B' Schedule Properties, the contention of the Plaintiff that the Sale Deed executed by the Defendant No.4 in favour of Defendant No.5 to 9 in 81 O.S.No.26137/2007 respect of property bearing No.44/1 and 44/2 dtd: 24.3.2007 as per Ex.P.44 cannot be held to be void and not binding on the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff is not at all related to all those properties, since he has already executed Release Deed. It is the contention of Plaintiff that all the joint family properties mentioned in schedule 'A' to 'G' are not mentioned in the Release Deed. But, as per the documents produced by Defendants it is clear that the properties in 'A' & 'C' to 'G' Schedules are not joint family properties of Plaintiffs and Defendant No.1 to 4. Therefore, when there was no joint family between Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 to 4 and Plaintiff was separated in the year 1982 itself, the individual properties of Defendants No. 1 to 4 need not be mentioned in the Released Deed. Only if there is joint family properties same have to mentioned.
57. Therefore, it is clear that even though he has executed Release Deed on 14.2.2000 as per Ex.D.8 mentioning that he has separated on 1.12.1982 itself,he has filed this suit in the year 2007 after long gap of seven years. 82
O.S.No.26137/2007 Therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable and it is also barred by law of limitation. As per the Judgment relied by the Advocate for Defendant No.3 to 4 reported in ILR 2009 KAR 1524 between Sattappa and Others V/s Channabasavaiah and Others. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held as follows:
(B) LIMITATION ACT, 1963 -
ARTICLE 110 - Suit by a person excluded from a Joint Family Property to enforce a right to share therein - Suit filed by the Plaintiff after lapse of 12 years - HELD, Article 110 of Limitation Act provides for a period of limitation of 12 years for a period excluded from a joint family property to enforce a right to share therein, and 83 O.S.No.26137/2007 the said period begins to run from the date of knowledge of plaintiff of such exclusion.
Thus, in the instant case, since, no suit came to be filed by Chanabasavaiah or the deceased original plaintiff withing the said period of 12 years, the Courts below were right in holding that the suit of plaintiff is barred by limitation.
Therefore, it is also clear that the suit of the Plaintiff is also barred by law of limitation.
58. Therefore, it is clear that no evidence given by the Plaintiff to show that the income from ancestral property is sufficient enough to purchase the properties mentioned in Schedule 'C' to 'G' of suit properties. As per his admission itself, it is clear that income from ancestral property is not 84 O.S.No.26137/2007 sufficient to maintain the family and hence his grand father left the village and came to Bangalore. Hence, the question of acquiring any property with the aid of ancestral properties running joint family business from income derived from joint family properties do not arise at all.
59. The Plaintiff has not produced any document to show that he was one of the partner in the business which was run by Defendant No.1 to 4. On the other hand, the DW.1 in his evidence has produced Ex.D.22 which is a income tax paid acknowledgement for the assessment year 1986-87 wherein the property purchased by Defendant No.3 at Manjunath Nagar is mentioned and the said Sale Deed is produced Ex.D.54 in respect of Item No.10 of 'A' Schedule property, which is in the name of Defendant No.3 i.e., DW.1. Defendant has also produced Ex.D.23 which is the income tax returns with balance sheet for the year 1988-89 wherein the property mentioned in Ex.D.42 i.e., Lakshminarayanapura property is shown i.e., property mentioned in Ex.D.42 dtd: 30.9.1987 in respect of Item No.3 85 O.S.No.26137/2007 of 'A' Schedule property. Ex.D.23 is the income tax returns with balance sheet for the year 1988-89 and the properties mentioned in Ex.D.42 is also shown. DW.1 has produced Ex.D.24 which is also income tax returns for the year 1988- 89, wherein the another property purchased at Lakshminarayanapura as per Ex.D.43 dtd: 30.3.1981 in respect of Item No.4 of 'A' Schedule property is also shown.
60. DW.1 has produced Ex.D.25 which is income tax returns along with balance sheet wherein the purchase of property shown in Ex.D.44 dtd: 30.3.1989 is mentioned in respect of Item No.5 of the 'A' schedule property. DW.1 has also produced Ex.D.26 balance sheet for the assessment year 1994-1995 wherein property mentioned in Ex.D.52 i.e., the Sale Deed dtd: 22.8.1984 is shown in respect of Item No.9 of the 'A' Schedule Property. The DW.1 has also produced Ex.D.27 i.e., the income tax returns and balance sheet dtd: 31.8.1992 for the assessment year 1992-1993 which is filed in his name to show that he was having independent income, he was filing returns also. The DW.1 86 O.S.No.26137/2007 has produced Ex.D.28 i.e., acknowledgement for having filed income tax returns with balance sheet for the assessment year 1995-96 in the said document i.e., Ex.D.28 there is a mention regarding purchase of property at Lakshminarayanapura in respect of Item No.2 of 'A' Schedule Property as per Ex.D.41. Ex.D.41 is the Sale Deed dtd: 20.10.1994in the name of Defendant No.3 is in respect of property bearing No.25/2. DW.1 has produced Ex.D.29 which is the income tax returns and balance sheet which was filed on 31.3.1997 for the assessment year 1997-1998. This document also shows that Defendant No.3 has filed income tax returns and name of this Plaintiff is not found in that document also, in order to show that the income shown in Ex.D.29 is also a joint family income. In Ex.D.29 purchase of properties shown in Ex.D.82 Sale Deed dtd: 15.5.1995 and Ex.D.83 Sale Deed dtd: 15.5.1995 in the name of Defendant No.3 is shown. The DW.1 has produced Ex.D.30 i.e., income tax returns for the assessment year 2000-2001 filed by the Defendant No.3 in respect of his income wherein the release 87 O.S.No.26137/2007 of property by the Plaintiff's wife in the name of Defendant No.3 as per Release Deed dtd: 14.2.2000 as per Ex.D.46 is shown. This property was purchased jointly in the name of Defendant No.3 and Plaintiff as per registered Sale Deed dtd: 19.10.1977 as per Ex.D.77 and later released at the time of execution of Release Deed by Plaintiff as per Ex.D.8. The DW.1 has also produced Ex.D.31 which is income tax returns and balance sheet for the assessment year 1999- 2000 which was filed by him, wherein the property purchased in the year 1998 as per Ex.D.47 in the name of Defendant No.3 on 8.6.1998 is also shown and it is marked at Ex.D.31(a). In Ex.D.31 the properties purchased as per Ex.D.66 Sale Deed dtd: 21.2.1999 and Ex.D.67 Sale Deed dtd: 28.1.1999 and Ex.D.68 Sale Deed dtd: 28.1.1998 by Defendant No.3 are also mentioned. The DW.1 has produced Ex.D.32 i.e., income tax returns for the assessment year 1990-1991, which is the income tax returns filed by Defendant No.4 Arunakshi wherein the purchase of property is shown in Ex.D.48 dtd: 3.11.1989 i.e., the property at 88 O.S.No.26137/2007 Malleshwaram is also shown. The DW.1 has also produced Ex.D.33 which is the income tax returns for the assessment year 1996-1997 which is filed by Arunakshi Defendant No.4 who is the wife of Defendant No.3 for the year assessment year 1996-1997 wherein her income is separately shown and her income tax returns were also filed. The DW.1 has produced Ex.D.34 i.e., income tax returns filed by Defendant No.4 Arunakshi for the assessment year 2001-2002. In Ex.D.33 produced by the DW.1, the properties purchased by the 4th Defendant in the year 1995 i.e., 14.6.1995 as per Ex.D.18 and another Sale Deed dtd: 19.7.1995 as per Ex.D.81 and as per another Sale Deed dtd: 14.6.1994 as per Ex.D.77 at K.G. Srinivaspura are also shown. Ex.D.34 is produced by the DW.1 in respect of the income tax returns of Defendant No.1 for the assessment year 2001-2002. The DW.1 has produced income tax returns for the assessment years 1994 and 1995 at Ex.D.37 filed in the name of Defendant No.1. No documents produced by the Plaintiff to show that there was joint family business which was jointly 89 O.S.No.26137/2007 in his name and in the name of Defendant No.1 to 4. On the other hand, the above said documents income tax returns produced by Defendant No.1 to 4 clearly shows that the Defendant No.1 to 4 are having independent income and they were running business independently and they were also filing returns and the said income derived from the said business cannot be considered as the joint family income.
61. As per the above said documents, it is also clear that Defendant No.1, 3 and 4 were having independent income. As per the above said discussion, it is also clear that subsequent to the year 1982 the Plaintiff and his wife have purchased the properties as per Ex.D.9 and Ex.D.10 and there was also a partition between the Plaintiff and his wife and as per the above said discussion the Plaintiff has sold his share of the property also and he has also executed Gift Deed in his daughter's name on 18.3.2001 as per Ex.D.17. The Plaintiff also during the cross-examination admits that since 1982 he is residing at House No.2/3 Siddanna Lane, Cubbonpet, Bangalore. During the cross- 90
O.S.No.26137/2007 examination he also says that he has opened separate saree shop and started residing in that address. That means, the Plaintiff was also residing separately since 1982 and he has purchased the properties independently in his name and also his wife's name and there was also a partition between Plaintiff and his wife. As per Ex.D.17 he has also gifted his property on 18.3.2002 to his daughter Malini and after the partition between him and his wife he has sold his share of the property in favour of Shashikala as per Ex.D.16. Therefore, it is clear that the Plaintiff is residing separately since 1982 itself. As per the above said discussion is also clear that there is no document to show that the Plaintiff and Defendants were jointly doing business and the Defendant No.1 has invested the amount from the income of joint family lands for doing business. As I have already stated above there is no document produced by the Plaintiff to show that there was a surplus income from the joint family property and from which there was surplus income and the Defendants have invested the same for 91 O.S.No.26137/2007 establishing the business and hence, the income derived from the said business have to be considered as a joint family income. As per his admission in the cross- examination itself he says that in the year 1975 his father has established separate business in the name of Plaintiff i.e., Srinivas & Company i.e., partnership firm and it was closed.
62. After filing of the suit the Defendant No.1 and 2 died and DW.1 has produced the Will executed by Defendant No.1 at Ex.D.38 and Will executed by Defendant No.2 at Ex.D.39. As per the said Will produced at Ex.D.38 and Ex.D.39 the Defendant No.1 and 2 have bequeathed their properties in favour of the children of Defendant No.3 and 4.
63. In order to prove the execution of the Will the Defendant No.3 has examined one witness i.e., DW.2. DW.2 in his evidence says that he is one of the attesting witness to Ex.D.38 and Ex.D.39. His signatures were marked at Ex.D.38(a) and Ex.D.38(b) and also signatures of Defendant No.1 identified by him were marked as Ex.D.38(c) to 92 O.S.No.26137/2007 Ex.D.38(m). The Will executed by Defendant No.2 was marked as Ex.D.39 and the signatures of this witness on the said Ex.D.39 were marked at Ex.D.39(a) and Ex.D.39(b). He also says that the Defendant No.2 has affixed her thumb impression on Ex.D.39 in his presence and the said thumb impress as Ex.D.38(c) to Ex.D.39(k). He was cross-examined by the Plaintiff Advocate and during the cross-examination this witness denies that at the time of execution of the said Will Defendant No.1 and 2 were not keeping good health and they are bedridden. The Defendant No.3 has also examined another witness DW.3 and this witness in his evidence supports the version of DW.1.
63. Nothing is elicited from the mouth of DW.1 or DW.2 to prove that the Will is not a genuine document and there is a suspicion with regard to the execution of the Will by Defendant No.1 and 2. Therefore, it is clear that as per Ex.D.38 and Ex.D.39 the Defendant No.1 and 2 have executed Will favour of son of Defendant No.3 by name Girish bequeathing their independent properties which are 93 O.S.No.26137/2007 shown in suit schedule in favour of the said person by name Girish. Therefore, the Defendant No.3 and 4 have also proved the execution of the Will by the deceased Defendant No.1 and 2. Therefore, Plaintiff will not get any right over Plaint Schedules 'A' & 'C' to 'G' Properties.
64. Therefore, as per the above said discussion, it is clear that the Plaintiff has failed to prove that suit schedule 'A' & 'C' to 'G' properties are joint family properties, except 'B' schedule property. Since, the Defendants themselves have admitted that 'B' schedule property i.e., Narayanakere properties are joint family properties. As per the above said discussion, it is also clear that the Defendants have proved that Plaintiff and his wife left the house in the year 1982 and living separately and there is no joint family. In view of the above said discussion, it is also clear that Plaintiff has failed to prove that Release Deed dtd: 14.2.2000 is obtained from him by playing fraud on him. As per the above said discussion, it is clear that since Defendant No.3 was having absolute right over the properties which were sold to 94 O.S.No.26137/2007 Defendant No.5 to 9 as per registered Sale Deed dt:24.3.2007 as per Ex.P.44, the Defendant No.3 has sold the properties to Defendant No.5 to 9 and hence, the contention of the Plaintiff that the suit properties are joint family properties and the Sale Deed executed by the Defendant No.3 in respect of these properties to the extent of 1/3rd share of the Plaintiff by the Defendant No.3 on 24.3.2007 are not binding on the Plaintiff cannot be accepted. Having absolute right over the suit properties the Defendant No.3 has executed the Sale Deed.
65. As per the above said discussion, it is also clear that the Defendant No.3 and 4 have proved the execution of the Will by the Defendant No.1 and 2 as per Ex.D.38 and Ex.D.39 in favour of one Sri. Girish who is the son of Defendant No.3. As per the contents of Ex.D.38 the Item No.1 of the 'A' schedule property which is purchased by Defendant No.1 as per Ex.D.40 which is also shown in income tax returns along with balance sheet of Defendant No.1 produced at Ex.D.37 is bequeathed in favour of Girish, 95 O.S.No.26137/2007 another property shown in 'B' Schedule Property of the plaint is also bequeathed in favour of Girish and another property shown in schedule 'C' of the Suit Schedule Property which is shown in Ex.D.37 income tax returns and balance which is produced as per Ex.D.65 on 19.3.1989 by the 1 st Defendant was given to Girish. Even though the Will is executed in respect of 'B' schedule property and Will is proved by the Defendants, the Will in respect of 'B' schedule property is applies only to his share in the schedule property which is ancestral property.
66. As per Ex.D.39 produced before this Court the mother of the Defendant No.3 has executed Will bequeathing her property which is shown in Item No.12 of the Schedule 'A' of the plaint which was purchased by the 2nd Defendant as per Ex.D.65 on November 11 2002. She has also bequeathed her movable properties and also her investment in Madhavarao Silk Traders i.e., Rs.4,77,000/- and M.A. Silk Traders i.e., Rs.3,93,000/- and her gold articles worth Rs.3,20,000/- and Rs.70,000/- cash in favour of Girish. 96
O.S.No.26137/2007 As per the above said discussion this Court is of the opinion that those properties are the independent properties of Defendant No.1 to 4 and there is no evidence before the Court to show that those properties are joint family properties. In view of the above said discussion, it is clear that Plaintiff is entitled for share only in respect of 'B' schedule property and the 'B' schedule property has to be considered as joint family properties and other properties are not joint family properties. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 Partly in the Affirmative, Issue No.2 in the Negative, Issue No.5 in the Affirmative and Issue No.6 in the Affirmative.
67. Issue No.3:- In view of the above said discussion it is clear that Plaintiff is not entitled for mesne profits. Hence, I answer Issue No.3 in the Negative.
68. Issue No.4:- Even though as per the above said discussion, Plaintiff has no share in the Item No. 'A' and 'C' to 'G' properties and he has no possession of the same he has paid court fee by valuing court fee under Section 35(2) 97 O.S.No.26137/2007 of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act instead of payment of court fee under Section 35(1) of Karnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act. Hence, it is clear that valuation made by the Plaintiff is not proper and court fee paid is insufficient. Hence, I answer Issue No.4 in the Negative.
69. Additional Issue No.1 and 2 dtd: 17.12.2019 and Recasted Issue No.7 dtd: 17.12.2019:- Even though PW.1 in the cross-examination says that there are other properties other than Narayanakere properties, the Plaintiff has not stated about other properties in the Plaint. But, when Defendant is contending that suit is not maintainable for partial partition for not including other ancestral properties, it is the duty on the Defendants also to give the details of any other properties available for partition. Therefore, in the absence of producing any information before the Court regarding availability of any other ancestral properties other than 'B' schedule property for partition it cannot be hold that suit is not maintianable for partial 98 O.S.No.26137/2007 partition. In this case, admittedly, there are daughters to Defendant No.1 and 2 and the said daughters have not been brought on record in order to hold whether the Defendant No.1 to 4 are entitled for 1/7th share in 'B' schedule property i.e., agricultural land at Narayanakere. When a suit for partition is filed and when Plaintiff and Defendants both are claiming that 'B' schedule property is ancestral property it is the duty of both the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.1 to 4 to bring other daughters of Defendant No.1 and 2 on record for determining the actual share of Plaintiff and Defendant No.3 and other daughters of the Defendant No.1 and 2. In their absence, the Court cannot determine the actual share of Plaintiff and Defendants. Therefore, it is clear that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and Defendant No.1 to 4 are not entitled for 1/7th share in agricultural land at Narayanakere as prayed and Plaintiff is also not entitled for any share in suit 'B' schedule property as the court cannot determine the same. The Advocate for Plaintiff has relied Judgments reported in (1) 1996 AIR SCW 99 O.S.No.26137/2007 695, (2) AIR 2007 SC 218 and (3) AIR 1997 SC 1337 and the principles laid down in the same is taken into consideration. Hence, I answer Additional Issue No.1 dtd: 17.12.2019 in the Affirmative, and Additional Issue No.2 dtd: 17.12.2019 in the Negative and Recasted Issue No.7 dtd: 17.12.2019 in the Negative.
20. Issue No.8 :- In view of answering as above, in the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following :-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs. Draw up decree accordingly.
[Dictated to the Stenographer up to Para No.1 to 64 in Chamber and further paras in the open Court on 11.3.2020 by pronouncing the same and thereafter the same was typed by her and corrected by me on 11th day of March 2020).
[ B.S. Bharathi ], XXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall, Bengaluru.100
O.S.No.26137/2007 SCHEDULE PROPERTIES Item No.1 All that piece and parcel the House Property Old No.509/1, New Municipal No.H-38, II Cross, Lakshminarayanapuram, Srirampuram, Bangalore, measuring East to West: 40 feet and North to South: 44 feet consisting of Ground, First and Second Floor, totally measuring 48 square feet building and bounded on the:
East by : KannappaMudaliar,
West by : Road,
North by : Road,
South by : Jagannath's property.
Item No.2
All that piece and parcel the Property Old No.25/2, New No.140, 10th A Cross, Lakshminarayanapuram, Srirampuram, Bangalore, measuring East to West: 42 feet and North to South: 60 feet consisting of Ground, First and Second Floor, totally measuring 48 square feet building and bounded on the:101
O.S.No.26137/2007 East by : House of Subramanya, West by : House of Dhanakotiyamma, North by : Road, South by : Conservancy Lane.
Item No.3 All that piece and parcel the Property Old No.11, Present No.18, 10th Cross, V Main Road, Lakshminarayanapuram, Srirampuram, Bangalore, measuring East to West: 57 feet and North to South: 55'6" feet and bounded on the:
East by : P.Venkatesh,
West by : Papanna,
North by : 10th Cross Road,
South by : Conservancy Lane.
Item No.4
All that piece and parcel the Property Old No.10, Present No.12, 10th Cross, V Main Road, Lakshminarayanapuram, Srirampuram, Bangalore, measuring East to West: 57 feet and North to South: 55'6" feet and bounded on the:
East by : P.Venkatesh,
102
O.S.No.26137/2007
West by : Papanna,
North by : 10th Cross Road,
South by : Conservancy Lane.
Item No.5
All that piece and parcel the Property Old No.10(No.13), 1st Cross, Nagappa Block, Lakshminarayanapuram, Srirampuram, Bangalore-21, measuring East to West: 32 feet including 6 feet passage and and North to South on Eastern side 47 and Western side 37 feet 40 feet and bounded on the :
East by : P.Venkatesh,
West by : Conservancy Lane
North by : Road,
South by : No.12.
Item No.6
All that piece and parcel the Property No.H.53, Present No.5, II Main Road, Nagappa Block, Lakshminarayanapuram, Srirampuram, Bangalore, measuring East to West: 40 feet 103 O.S.No.26137/2007 and North to South: 33 feet and bounded on the:
East by : Road,
West by : Yalakkamma's House,
North by : No.500/1,
South by : Ramaiah's House.
Item No.7
All that piece and parcel the House Property bearing No.4/1, 6th A Cross Road, Lakshminarayanapuram, Srirampuram, Bangalore, measuring East to West: 40 feet and North to South: 60 feet and bounded on the:
East by : Road,
West by : Private Property,
North by : Road,
South by : Private Property.
Item No.8
All that piece and parcel of the property bearing No.530, II Main Road, Malleswaram, Bangalore-560 003, measuring East to West: 100 feet and North to South: 90 feet and bounded on the:
104
O.S.No.26137/2007
East by : Conservancy Lane,
West by : Road,
North by : Private Property,
South by : Private Property.
Item No.9
All that piece and parcel of the Property No.127, Anjaneya Temple Street, Cubbonpet, Bangalore-560 002, measuring East to West: 30 feet and North to South: 25 feet consisting of Ground, First, Second and Third Floor and bounded on the:
East by : Road,
West by : Private Property,
North by : Private Property,
South by : Road.
Item No.10
All the piece and parcel of the property bearing No.269, I Stage, II Phase, West of Chord Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South : 40 feet, consisting of Ground and first floor. Item No.11 105 O.S.No.26137/2007 All the piece and parcel of the property No.270, I Stage, II Phase, West of Chord Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore- 560 010, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South : 40 feet.
Item No.12 All the piece and parcel of the property bearing No.271, I Stage, II Phase, West of Chord Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 010, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South : 40 feet, consisting of Ground and first floor. Item No.13 All the piece and parcel of the property No.1541, Link Road, Moodalapalya, Bangalore, measuring East to West 100 feet and North to South : 90 feet.
Item No.14 All the piece and parcel of the property No.77/1, Nagaraghavi Main Road, Moodalapalya Circle, Bangalore, measuring East to West 27 feet and North to South : 100 feet.
Item No.15 All the piece and parcel of the property No.77, Nagarbhavi Main Road, Moodalapalya Circle, Bangalore, measuring East to West 30 feet and North to South : 100 feet.
106
O.S.No.26137/2007 Item No.16 All the piece and parcel of the property bearing No.44, measuring East to West 70 feet and North to South : 80 feet, situate at Siddanna Lane, Cubbonpet, Bangalore-560 002 and bounded on the East by : Conservancy Lane, West by : Siddanna Lane, North by : Kulavi rangnna & Mallanna's Property, South by : Shivashankarappa and Gangappa's
-property Item No.17 All the piece and parcel of agricultural land measuring 2 acre 3 guntas in Sy.No.168/3, 1 acre 3 guntas in Sy.No.62, 1 acre 37 guntas in Sy.No.226/1 and 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.213/P and P1 of Narayanakere village, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District.
Item No.18 All the piece and parcel of agricultural land situated at Beechagondanahalli, Kolar taluk and district, measuring 27 guntas in Sy.No.103/18/A, 28 guntas in Sy.No.103/19, 26 guntas in Sy.No.103/1, 7A, 33 guntas in Sy.No.103/16, 30 107 O.S.No.26137/2007 guntas in Sy.No.103/15A, 19 guntas in Sy.No.103/14A, 16 guntas in Sy.No.103/13, 28 guntas in Sy.No.103/12. Item No.19 All the piece and parcel of the Garden land with Mango groves of Kundana village, Devanahalli taluk, Devanahalli, Bangalore District, measuring 5 acre 1 gunta in Sy.No.185/5A, 7 acre 36 guntas in Sy.No.139, 7 acre 31 guntas in Sy.No.185/2, 7 acre 16 guntas in Sy.No.185/3, 13 acre 1 gunta in Sy.No.185/4, 5 acre 9 guntas in Sy.No.185/5C, 5 acre 1 gunta in Sy.No.185/5B, 5 acre 6 guntas in Sy.No.185/6. The approximate value is Rs.50 crore.
Item No.20 All the piece and parcel of the property situated at Bandaramanahalli, Devanahalli taluk, Bangalore District, with coconut trees measuring 2 acre 31 guntas of Sy.No.13, 6 acre 10 guntas in Sy.No.16/2, 2 acre 31 guntas of Sy.No.17, 1 acre 28 guntas in Sy.no.18/1. The approximate value is Rs.13 crore.
Item No.21 All the piece and parcel of property situated at 108 O.S.No.26137/2007 K.G.Srinivasapura, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, with coconut garden measuring 3 acre 35 guntas in Sy.No.8, 5 acre in Sy.No.9, 6 acre 14 guntas in Sy.No.10, 5 acre 36 guntas in Sy.No.11, the approximate value is Rs.4 crore.
Item No.22 All the piece and parcel of the land situated at Mugabala village, Hoskote taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring 3 acre in Sy.No.140. The approximate value is Rs.1.5 crore.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the plaintiff:-
P.W.1 : R. Srinivasa. 2. List of documents marked :- Ex.P.1 to 6 : Certified copy of Sale deeds. Ex.P.7 to 14 : Khatha copies. Ex.P.15 to 42 : RTCs . Ex.P.43 : Certified copy of khatha change. Ex.P.44 : Certified copy of Sale deed.
3. List of witnesses examined for the defendants :- 109
O.S.No.26137/2007 DW.1 : Gopal. R. DW.2 : Chikkaramaiah DW.3 : Dilip Kumar Jain
4. List of documents marked:-
Ex.D.1 to 3 : Certified copy of Sale Deed
dtd 03.01.1980.
Ex.D. 4 :
Ex.D. 5 to 7 : Returns of Income tax
Ex.D.8 : Signature
Ex.D.8a to c : Signatures
Ex.D.9 to 14 : Certified copy of Sale Deeds
Ex.D. 15 : Certified copy of partition of Sale
-Deed
Ex.D. 16 : Certified copy of Sale Deed
Ex.D. 17 : Certified copy of Gift Deed
Ex.D. 18 to 21 : Four Certified copy of Sale Deed Ex.D. 22 to 31 : Income Tax returns of receipts Ex.D. 32 to 36 : Income Tax returns of receipts of
-Defendant No.4 Ex.D. 37 : Balance sheet of sale deed loss Ex.D.37(a) : Balance sheet para Ex.D. 38 &39 : Will Ex.D.40 to 45 : Six Certified copy of sale deed 110 O.S.No.26137/2007 Ex.D.46 Ex.D.47 to 50 : Four certified copy of sale deed Ex.D.51 : Certified copy of Gift deed Ex.D.52 to 62 : Eleven certified copy of sale deed Ex.D.63 & 64 : Two certified copy of Gift deed Ex.D.65 to 83 : Nineteen certified copy of sale deed Ex.D.84 : Certified copy of the sale deed dtd.14.02.2000 Ex.D.85 : Certified copy of the Gift deed dtd.14.02.2000 executed by Defendant No.2 Ex.D.86 : Income Tax returns Ex.D.86(a) : Expenses for having purchased the property item No.14 Ex.D87 to 89 : Income Tax Returns filed by the defendant No.1 as M Ramaiah (Minor HUF) for the assessment.
(B.S. Bharathi) XXVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE.
111
O.S.No.26137/2007 Judgment pronounced in open court as under (vide separate judgment):-
ORDER (B.S. Bharathi) XXVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU.