Bangalore District Court
G.S.Rudresh vs Smt.T.N.Susheelamma on 19 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU
NGALURU (C.C.H.No.7).
(C.C.H.No.7).
Dated This the 19th Day of April, 2018.
Dated:
Present: Ms.VELA. D.K., B.A., LL.B.(Hons.)
XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge.
Bengaluru.
O. S. No. 1 2 6 4 / 1998
Plaintiff G.S.Rudresh,
s/o.G.S.Suresh Kumar,
aged about 21 years,
residing at No.171, VIII Cross,
Behind Tent, M.L.Ganesha Block,
Bengaluru-86.
by Sri. M.Ramakrishna, Advocate.
Vs.
Defendant 1. Smt.T.N.Susheelamma,
w/o.late G.Thotadappa,
major, r/at No.93, Govindappa Road,
Basavangudi, Bengaluru-560004.
2. The Agriculture Produce Marketing
Committee, represented by its
Secretary, Agricultural Produce
Marketing Committee Yard,
Yeswanthapur, Bengaluru.
3. Praveen P.Shah,
s/o.late Premchand D.Shah,
since dead, represented by his LRs.:
a) Smt.Rekha P.Shah,
w/o.late Praveen P.Shah, major in age
b) Sri.Hanish P.Shah,
s/o.late Praveen P.Shah, major in age
2 O.S.No.1264/1998
c) Sri.Dhiran P.Shah,
s/o.late Praveen P.Shah,
major in age.
All are residing at No.866,
Amruth Nivas, 17th G Main, 5th Block,
Rajajinagar, Bengaluru-560010.
D3(a) to (c) impleaded vide Order
Dated:29-1-2009.
4. G.S.Suresh Kumar,
s/o.late G.R.Srikantappa,
since dead, represented by his LRs.:
a) Smt.Latha Suresh,
w/o.late G.Suresh Kumar,
aged about 52 years, No.271,
14th E Cross, 16th Main,
Mahalakshmipuram, Bengaluru-86.
b) G.S.Harshitha,
d/o.late G.Suresh Kumar,
w/o.B.S.Rajashekar,
aged about 32 years, No.47,
6th Cross, Wilson Garden,
Bengaluru-2.
5. Smt.G.S.Chayadevi,
d/o.G.R.Srikantappa,
w/o.N.N.Basavaraju,
aged about 48 years, r/at No.2066,
3rd Cross, Madhavachar Road,
Old Agrahara, Mysore.
6. Smt.G.S.Ashadevi,
d/o.G.R.Srikantappa,
w/o.B.S.Yekambaraiah,
aged about 46 years,
r/at c/o.Pandurangaiah,
Sagar Apartments, B'6', 2nd Floor,
Nagala Park, Kolhapur-416003.
3 O.S.No.1264/1998
7. Smt.G.S.Pramiladevi,
d/o.G.R.Shrikantappa,
w/o.M.Paramesh, aged about 37 years,
r/at No.39(93), 1st Main Road,
Chamarajpet, Bengaluru-560018.
D5 to D7 impleaded vide Order
Dated:7-2-2008.
D1-by Sri.Abhinav.R, Advocate.
Suit against D1 abated on 12-8-2013.
D2-by Sri.C.S.Patil, Advocate.
D3(a) to (c)-by Sri.B.S.Shashi Bhushan, Advocate.
D4a, b-by Sri.Kumara, Advocate.
D5 to 7-by Sri.Vishnu Hegde, Advocate.
Date of institution of suit 09-02-1998
Nature of the suit: Declaration of Partition,
Decree against 4th
defendant to render
account of profits and loss,
Direct 1st defendant to
render the accounts of
rent and
Permanent Injunction
Date of commencement of 14-8-2009
recording of evidence
Date on which Judgment 19-04-2018
was pronounced
Total duration Years Months Days
20 02 20
JUDGMENT
This is a suit for Declaration of Partition, for the Decree against 4th defendant to render the details of the profits and income, Decree directing the 1st defendant to render the accounts and the rent and Permanent Injunction.
4 O.S.No.1264/19982. The case of the plaintiff is that, original propositor to be Gollahalli Rudrappa, had four sons- G.R.Veerappa, Srikantappa, Shanmukhappa, Chandrasekhar. Rudrappa was said to be the manager of the joint family, who passed away on 22-7-1946. Thereafter his eldest son Veerappa became the manager, who passed away on 4-2-1951. Then Srikantappa is said to have become the manager of the joint family. Veerappa is said to have passed away leaving behind his minor sons Rajasekhar and Nagaraj. During the lifetime of Rudrappa, the joint family was said to be doing business as commission agents in the sale of onions, potatoes and chilies in the name and style 'G.Byrppa Rudrappa'. That business was said to have continued by the family after Rudrappa had passed away. The minor sons of Veerappa were also said to be admitted for the benefits of the firm. G.Byrappa is said to have passed away on 4-2-1952. Business was said to be continued with Ramachandra, Ramakrishna, Ramanarayana, Viswanath, sons of Byrappa, as partners. B.Natarajan being minor son of Byrappa, was said to be entitled to the benefits of the partnership firm. Ramakrishna, eldest son of Byrappa, was said to have represented joint family of Byrappa in the partnership firm. He was said to be employed, his elder brother Ramakrishna is said to have represented family of Byrappa. Deed of 5 O.S.No.1264/1998 Partnership was said to be executed on 30-7-1952 in the name of Srikantappa and sons of Byrappa. Shanmugappa, a member of the joint family of Gollahalli Rudrappa, is said to have separated from the joint family on executing the Release Deed Dated:14-11-1956 in favour of other members of the joint family. Thereby, Shanmugappa is said to have retired from the Firm with effect from 14-11-1956.
Duration of the Firm G.R.Byrappa Rudrappa was said to be at will and the business as per the desire of the partners to dissolve, was said to be suspended in December 1957. The goods and the stock-in- trade as on that date was said to be disposed off and an account up to the end of December 1957 was duly taken and the rights of the parties was said to be determined. They were said to be divided between the branch of Gollahalli Rudrappa and Byrappa. The value of the property allotted to the branch of Byrappa was said to be more than the value of the properties allotted to Rudrappa. Thereby, the members of Byrappa are said to have given cash compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the joint family of Gollahalli Rudrappa. The registered Deed of Dissolution was said to be drawn up on 3-2-1958. After the dissolution of the firm Byrappa Rudrappa, Gollahalli Rudrappa is said to have started separate business as commission agent in the sale of potatoes and onion at premises No.60, New Taragupet, 6 O.S.No.1264/1998 Bengaluru, with the assets including the cash received on the dissolution of the partnership firm. It was said to be started in the partnership with the partner Totadappa. It was said to be run in the name and style 'G.R.Srikantappa & Co.' and the Deed of Partnership was said to be executed on 8-1-1958. The joint family of Gollahalli Rudrppa is said to have contributed the capital for starting the firm. G.Totadappa is said to have not contributed any capital and was said to be treated as working partner. It was said to be agreed by Totadappa that all the assets of the Firm, good will to exclusively belong to the joint family of Gollahalli Rudrappa. Totadappa is said to have no independent income, except the profits earned as working partner of the firm Srikantappa & Co. Out of that profits, he is said to have purchased items 4 and 5 in 1960 and 1981. The Possession Certificate of item No.5 property was said to be allotted to him by the 2nd defendant on 27-4-1981. These two properties were said to be acquired in his name for the benefit of the Firm and thereby they are said to be the properties of the Firm. G.Totadappa was said to be only a benamidar and not real owner.
Vacant site bearing No.50 in the Market Yard, Yeswanthpur, i.e., item No.1 property, was said to be allotted to the 2nd defendant in the name of the Firm and the possession to be given on 21-11-1966.
7 O.S.No.1264/1998The firm is said to have made contribution in the entire site in 1972. The firm is said to have shifted his business to this property after its construction. The building is said to be described as item No.1 property.
O.S.No.19/1973 was said to be instituted by the sons of Veerappa,namely, Rajasekhar and Nagaraj, for Declaration to be entitled for 24th share, along with mother, in the joint family properties and the business, wherein Srikantappa was said to be also impleaded as a party. The mother Smt.Revamma, her sisters-Umadevi, Hemavathi and Ramarathna, are said to be the defendants 3 to 6 therein. That suit was said to be renumbered as O.S.No.162/64 and the joint family business was said to be shown as Schedule-G. The item No.1 property was said to be not included in that suit. In the Deed of Partnership drawn on 8-11-1958, a specific mention that Thotadappa to have no right of the personal assets of Srikantappa brought from M/s.Gollahalli Rudrappa and sons, is said to have been clearly stated. Suit was said to be decreed on 30-7-1973 in favour of the sons of Veerappa, declaring to be entitled for the share in the joint family properties. Against that, R.F.A. No.175/73 was said to be preferred by Srikantappa and RFA No.178/73 was preferred by Chandrashekar in respect of portion of the Decree. Chandrasekhar and 8 O.S.No.1264/1998 Nagaraj are said to have preferred RFA No.32/74 in respect of portion of the Decree, which they were aggrieved. Parties are said to have compromised the petition in the Appeal on 25-7-1977. The matter is said to have ended in compromise, whereby the decree was drawn. Subsequent to 25-7-1977, Srikantappa and 4th defendant, with the plaintiff, are said to have continued to live as members of joint family. Business of Srikantappa & Co. is said to have fallen to the share of Srikantappa in the compromise decree that was said to be continued as the joint family business of Srikantappa and the 4th defendant in item No.1. The 4th defendant was said to be inducted as a partner on 8-7-1976. The properties allotted to the share of Srikantappa's branch in the compromise decree was said to be divided between Srikantappa, 4th defendant and the daughters of Srikantappa on 23-11-1978. Neither item No.1,nor the business of Srikantappa & Co. were said to be divided. 4th defendant is said to have continued as partner of the firm. On account of subsistence of the firm, Srikantappa and Totadappa are said to have divided suit item No.1 between them, vide partnership deed Dated:27-3-1986, wherein 4th defendant is said to have signed as a consenting witness.
9 O.S.No.1264/1998This Srikantappa was said to be always dominating his will over the 4th defendant and deliberately is said to have added a clause in the Deed of Partnership Dated:8-7-1976 reconstituting the firm to the effect that on the dissolution of the firm, good will and the building bearing No.50 to belong to Srikantappa and neither Totadappa nor the 4th defendant to have any right therein. Contrary to the recitals, Srikantappa and Totadappa are said to have colluded and divided item No.1. Totadappa is said to have retired from the firm with effect from 1- 11-1984, for which Deed of Retirement was said to be effected on 10-12-1984. The partition deed Dated:23-11-1978 was said to be executed between Srikantappa and the 4th defendant and the daughters of Srikantappa in respect of properties allotted to the branch of Srikantappa in the compromise decree, excluding item No.1 property. Deed of Retirement Dated:10-12-1984 and the continuance of the business firm read together are said to indicate that Srikantappa & Co. to have fraudulently divided item No.1 and that the 4th defendant to have been made as a consenting witness to the partnership deed Dated:27-3-1986. Srikantappa is said to have made use of the fiduciary relationship and forced 4th defendant to sign it as consenting witness.
10 O.S.No.1264/1998Item No.1 is said to be joint family property acquired by a joint family and was said to be always treated as an asset of the firm G.R.Srikantappa & Co. wherein Totadappa is said to have no right. Srikantappa is said to be not entitled to divide the property and to give half share to Totadappa. Partition made of suit item No.1 between Srikantappa and Totadappa Dated:27-3-1986 is said to be illegal. 1/3rd share of plaintiff in the property is said to be unaffected by the partition. The plaintiff is said to be not bound by the partition and that he is entitled to ignore the partition deed and claim his 1/3rd share separately.
The business of Srikantappa & Co. is said to have practically stopped in the year 1984. Suit item No.1 was said to be given on lease by Srikantappa to Totadappa on rent of Rs.2,000/-. Totadappa thereby was said to be doing business in the entire item No.1 property as a lessee. In order to pacify Totadappa and to get possession of item No.1, he is said to have fraudulently brought existence a partition of suit item No.1, vide partition Dated:27-3-1986. This partition deed was said to be not given effect to as Totadappa was said to be inducted as a lessee in item No.1 property. The business of Srikantappa was said to be not wound up by dissolving the firm. This Srikantappa is said to have influenced Totadappa to surrender the southern half portion of item No.1 and 11 O.S.No.1264/1998 to have begun business in the name of firm Srikantappa & Co. by inducting Latha Suresh Kumar wife of 4th defendant as a partner. The deed executed in this regard is said to be Dated:14-10- 1987, which is said to be to please the 4th defendant from raising any objections in regard to the illegal act done by Srikantappa. Totadappa is said to have leased northern half portion of item No.1 property to the 3rd defendant. This is said to be in collusion with 3rd defendant to create obstacle pertaining to the legitimate claim of the plaintiff pertaining to suit item No.1 property. Totadappa, during his lifetime is said to have attempted to sell the northern half of the suit item No.1 in favour of Basavaraju , but that sale is said to have not taken place and thereby Totadappa himself is said to have given the northern portion of the schedule I property to the 3rd defendant.
Srikantappa is said to have passed away on 11- 1-1991 and that there is said to be a notional partition in the family, whereby 1/3rd share in item Nos. 1 and 2 was said to be allotable to the share of late Srikantappa. The partition between Srikantappa and 4th defendant Dated:23-11-1978 is said to operate as severance of the status between Srikantappa and the plaintiff on one hand and the 4th defendant on the other hand. The plaintiff is said to have continued to be member of the joint family 12 O.S.No.1264/1998 along with grand father. The 4th defendant, who is said to be the separate member, is said to be not entitled for a share in 1/3rd share allotted to the share of Srikantappa. The 3 daughters of Srikantappa, namely, Chayadevi, Ashadevi and Pramila, were said to be married long ago prior to 1990 and to be not entitled for any share in 1/3rd share allotted to Srikantappa. They are said to be excluded under Section 6A(d) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The plaintiff is said to be the sole surviving copartner entitled to his 1/3rd share.
The 4th defendant is said to have filed a suit for Partition and Separate Possession of suit item No.1 and another joint family property, which is said to have fallen to the share of branch of Srikantappa in the compromise decree, which is said to be bearing O.S.No.2769/1990. Srikantappa is said to be 1st defendant and Totadappa to be the 2nd defendant. In the said suit, unsuccessful attempts were said to be made prohibiting Totadappa from selling northern half of the suit item No.1. Interim Order granted was said to be vacated and confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in MFA No.685/1993 Dated:26-3-1993.
Totadappa is said to have passed away on 10-5-1995 and his legal representative Suseelamma to have been brought on record in that suit, as the 1st defendant and Suseelamma is said to be now 13 O.S.No.1264/1998 attempting to sell the northern half of the suit item No.1 to the 3rd defendant. Therefore Susheelamma is said to have approached 2nd defendant to give her permission to sell the northern half of item No.1 property to the 3rd defendant. The 2nd defendant is said to have published a public notice in the Kannada Prabha daily news paper Dated:30-1-1998 inviting objections from the persons who are said to be interested in objecting to grant of permission by the 2nd defendant to the 1st defendant to sell the northern half of suit item No.1 to the 3rd defendant. Srikantappa is said to have passed away on 11-1-1991 and under Section 42 of the Indian Partnership Act, G.R.Srikantappa & Co. is said to have stood dissolved. The affairs of the Firm is said to have been not wound up and the accounts to have been not taken. During the lifetime of Srikantappa, he is said to have issued registered notice Dated:
13-6-1990 to the 4th defendant and his wife Latha Suresh Kumar, stating that in view of the differences that have arisen between himself and the 4th defendant and the pending litigation commenced by the 4th defendant, it was not possible to continue the partnership firm and to have sought for its dissolution. In the letter, he is said to have stated neither he nor the 4th defendant to use the suit item No.1 for any business. Another letter was said to have been written by him permitting 4th defendant to 14 O.S.No.1264/1998 carry on the business in the suit item No.1 till the disposal of O.S.No.2769/90. The copies of that letter is said to have been issued to the Secretary of the 2nd defendant, Bank Manager of Grain Merchant Co- operative Bank Ltd., RMC Yard, Yeshwantpur, Branch Manager, Bank of India, RMC Yard, and to Viswanath & Co. Chartered Accountants, Auditors of the Firm, to the 4th defendant, is said to be doing business in the property from 1987 under the name and style Srikantappa & Co. and therefore is said to be entitled to call upon 4th defendant to render full and total account of the profits made by him in the business from 1997 up to date. After taking accounts of the profits made by 4th defendant in the business, plaintiff is said to be entitled for determination of his share of profits and for a decree against the 4th defendant. The 1st defendant is said to have realised the rents from 3rd defendant by leasing northern half of suit item No.1 and to be liable to account to the plaintiff about the rents realized by her from the 3rd defendant. The 4th defendant is said to be still carrying on the business in item No.1 and thereby liable to account future profits till delivery of 1/3rd share in suit item No.1 property.
The suit items 1 and 2 are said to be in joint possession and enjoyment of Srikantappa, the 4th defendant and the plaintiff, during the lifetime of Srikantappa. After Srikantappa passed away, the 15 O.S.No.1264/1998 plaintiffs and the 4th defendant are said to be in its joint possession and enjoyment. During the lifetime of G.R.Srikantappa, he was said to be managing these two items for and on behalf of himself, 4th defendant and the plaintiff. The plaintiff is said to have come to know about the paper publication of the 2nd defendant in the Kannada Prabha daily news paper Dated:30-1-1998 and then approached 4th defendant, who is said to have evaded to give any explanation. The demand by the plaintiff for partition of the suit item Nos.1 and 2 and the other reliefs relating to the accounting was said to be of no avail, as 4th defendant is said to have been not at all co- operating in this regard. From the paper publication, it is said to be clear that the 1st defendant to be inclined to sell the suit item No.1 property to the 3rd defendant. Thereby, the 3rd defendant is said to have been attempting to create impediment in the way of the plaintiff to claim the partition of the suit item No.1 property and to take possession of 1/3rd share therein. A sale of the portion of suit item No.1 by the 1st defendant in favour of 3rd defendant is said to involve multiplicity of proceedings and unavoidable high expenses. Hence, has instituted the suit.16 O.S.No.1264/1998
3. The defendants No.1 and 2 have not filed the written statement and the suit against defendant No.1 is abated on 12-8-2013.
4. The defendant No.3 had not filed written statement and the legal representatives of defendant No.3 were brought on record. The written statement of legal representatives of defendant No.3 has been taken as not filed, vide Order Dated:20-2-2009.
5. In the written statement of the 4th defendant, the Genealogy described pertaining to the family of Rudrappa, partnership business in the name and the style Byrappa, Rudrappa are admitted facts. Rudrappa is said to have brought all liquid assets of the joint family for that purpose and Byrappa is said to have not invested any capital in that firm and to be only sharing profits as working partner. Rudrappa is said to have passed away on 24-7-1946 and the business continued. Veerappa was said to be representing joint family in the partnership firm Byrappa and Rudrappa and then that Firm is said to have acquired movable assets and 14 items of immovable properties. Veerappa is said to have become head and manager of the joint family and filed an application for the grant of succession certificate of the shares that stood in the name of Rudrappa, which was granted by the Court on 4-3-1947. Veerappa then is said to have passed 17 O.S.No.1264/1998 away on 4-2-1952 and that the business is said to have continued and the two minor sons of Veerappa
-Rajashekar and Nagaraj were said to be inducted in the Firm and entitled for share of the profits. Then it was Sreekantappa who is said to have become the manager of the joint family and representing the joint family in the business of the Firm Byrappa Rudrappa. Byrappa is said to have passed away on 4-2-1952 and the Firm is said to have continued by inducting his sons as per Deed of Partnership Dated:
30-7-1952. Sreekantappa and Shanmukhappa are said to have executed G.P.A. on 16-7-1948 in favour of Veerappa, authorizing him to represent in that business. After Sreekantappa had become the manger, Shanmukhappa is said to have executed GPA Dated:6-4-1953 in favour of Sreekantappa to represent in the business. Shanmukhappa is said to have got separated from the joint family by virtue of the release deed Dated:14-11-1956 and thereby to have retired from that firm.
In December 1957 that Firm was said to be dissolved. The immovable assets were said to be divided into two branches. Rudrappa is said to have then started separate business as commission agent in the sale of potatoes and onions at premises No.60, which is said to be one of the joint family property. That business is said to have started in the name and style Sreekantappa and Co. in 18 O.S.No.1264/1998 partnership with Totadappa. This Totadappa is said to be only a working partner and not invested any capital, for which Deed of Partnership Dated:
8-11-1958 was said to be signed by them. Totadappa is said to have got no other independent income, except the profits earned as a working partner in the Firm Sreekantappa and Co. That Firm is said to have acquired item Nos.4 and 5 in the name of Totadappa and he was said to be only a benamidar.
Rajashekar and Nagaraj, the sons of Veerappa, are said to have filed O.S.No.19/1973 on 19-12-1963 that was renumbered as O.S.No.162/64 and it was decreed, against which, appeals were preferred. Regarding this litigation, there is no dispute between the parties. The constitution and formation of Sreekantappa and Co. is said to be clear as per the registered Deed of Partnership Dated: 8-11-1958. That business was said to be run in the premises No.60 that was allotted to share of Chandrashekar. Sreekantappa and Co. is said to have made an application to the APMC on 30-12-1965 to allot a site in the Regulated Market, Yeshwanthpur. APMC is said to have allotted site No.50, Market Yard, near Yeshwanthpur to that Firm and the possession was delivered on 21-11-66. The Memo was said to be given effect, wherein it is said that the site to be the asset of the Firm 19 O.S.No.1264/1998 Sreekantappa and Co. Totadappa is said to have given up his right in the assets of the partnership firm.
The firm is said to have constructed a shop in the site and shifted the business from premises No.60. That shop is said to have been assigned as Corporation No.50. The business of the Firm Sreekantappa and Co. that was initially a joint family business, is said to be allotted to the share of Srikantappa's branch in the partition made by the members of the family in the form of the compromise petition before the Hon'ble High Court. That business is therefore said to be ancestral business in the hands of Sreekantappa, his son and grand son. In this ancestral business, all of them are said to have equal 1/3rd share and thereby Srikantappa to be not entitled in law to deal with this business in any manner. Sreekantappa and Co. was said to be reconstituted in June 1970 by inducting 4th defendant as a partner, for which agreement was executed on 8-7-1976. As per clause 12 of the agreement, on the dissolution of the firm, the good will of the firm with building No.50, should exclusively belong to Sreekantappa. Neither Totadappa or 4th defendant are said to have any right in the good will of the firm with the building therein. Even if it is said to be construed as an agreement executed by the 4th defendant releasing 20 O.S.No.1264/1998 rights in the premises No.50, it is said to be inadmissible for want of registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. The right of the 4th defendant is said to be in no way impaired by the execution of this document.
Sreekantappa was said to be in a position to dominate his will over 4th defendant and obtain unfair advantage. The 4th defendant is said to have been obeying the instructions and directions of his father without any protest, but Sreekantappa and Totadappa are said to have colluded together and brought into existence an agreement Dated:29-8- 1984 for partitioning the property bearing No.50, dividing that into two. The northern half was said to be taken by Totadappa and the southern half was said to be taken by Sreekantappa. It is said to be not a registered document. In order to legalise the partition, Sreekantappa and Totadappa are said to have entered into registered partition on 27-3-1986. Father of the 4th defendant Sreekantappa was said to be in a dominating position and dictate terms, whereby this defendant was said to be forced to sign that document as a consenting witness. This defendant was said to be forced to sign that document as a consenting witness. This defendant was said to be unaware of the fact that his right would be taken away by signing as a consenting 21 O.S.No.1264/1998 witness. Thereby, this deed is said to be as a result of fraud practiced by Sreekantappa and Totadappa.
Item No.1 property is said to be joint family property and Srikantappa is said to have no right to deal with that property, ignoring right of the plaintiff and the 4th defendant. The partition deed Dated:27- 3-1986 is said to not bind the plaintiff or the 4th defendant. This property is said to be liable to be divided between Sreekantappa, this defendant and the plaintiff, who are said to be only coparceners of the joint family. This defendant is said to have independent 1/3rd right in the property and that there is said to be notional property in the family of G.Sreekantappa on 11-1-1991. The 1/3rd share attributable to Sreekantappa is said to be presumed as self acquired share. The mother of the 4th defendant is said to have passed away subsequently. After Sreekantappa passed away, his 1/3rd share is said to be divided between this defendant and 3 sisters in equal proportion of 1/4th share. During the lifetime of Sreekantappa, he is said to have made registered Will bequeathing his right in the property of the plaintiff. Therefore, this defendant, nor his sisters, are said to have any claim in the 1/3rd share of Sreekantappa. The plaintiff is said to be entitled for a Declaration of 2/3rd share in the schedule property and for partition and its separate possession. Similarly, this defendant is said to be 22 O.S.No.1264/1998 entitled for similar declaration to be entitled for 1/3rd share and for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share. Thereby he would pay requisite court fee.
6. 6TH Defendant has filed written statement contending that suit item No.1 to be joint family property acquired by the joint family funds and that it is to be treated as the asset of the joint family business of the partnership Srikantappa & Co. After the 4th defendant had passed away, the plaintiff being the son of the 4th defendant, is said to be entitled for 1/3rd share out of the share of 4th defendant, along with his mother and sister- defendants No.4(a) and(b).
The late father of the plaintiff is said to have instituted O.S.No.2769/90. The defendants 5 to 7 herein are said to be the plaintiffs 2(a) to (c) and the plaintiff herein is said to be the 2nd defendant, the defendants 4(a) and (b) herein are said to be the plaintiffs 1(a) and (b) in that suit. Instead of impleading himself as a party in that O.S.No.2769/90, the plaintiff is said to have filed above suit with malafide intention.
23 O.S.No.1264/1998The written statement of defendant No.6 has been adopted by defendants 5 and 6, vide Memo Dated:31-1-2012. Denying all the other averments, therefore these defendant have sought for the dismissal of the suit.
7. The legal representatives of defendant No.4 have not filed additional written statement.
8. My Predecessors-in-Office have framed the following Issues:
1. Whether plaintiff proves that suit properties are joint family properties consisting of himself and defendants?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that he is entitled to a share in the suit properties and if so, to what share and in which of the suit schedule properties?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought for?
4. What Decree or Order?
Additional Issue framed on 11-7-2017:
5. Do the defendants prove to be entitled for the counter claim as sought for?
9. To prove the case, the plaintiff has got examined himself as P.W.1, got marked Exs.P1 to P13. The Power of Attorney Holder of defendant No.1 has been examined as D.W.1, got marked Exs.D1 to D88.
24 O.S.No.1264/199810. Heard arguments of Learned Counsel for both the parties.
11. The findings on the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 - in the Negative, Issue No.2 - in the Negative, Issue No.3 - in the Negative, Additional Issue No.5 - in the Negative, Issue No.4 - as per Final Order, for the following:
Reasons
12. Issue Nos. 1 and 2 and Additional Issue dated 11-7-2017:
These Issues pertain to the nature of the suit properties as joint properties or not. These are interlinked, hence discussed and answered together to avoid repetition.
As per the plaint, the suit schedule properties described are as follows:-
"Item No.1:
Premises bearing No.50/5, Old No.50, situated in 2nd Main, 3rd Road, R.M.C.Yard, Division No.8, Bengaluru measuring East to West (123' + 130.6')/2 feet North to South 35 feet with building, bounded as hereunder:25 O.S.No.1264/1998
East by : 3rd Cross Road, West by : Site No.41, belonging to Raghu Venkateswaran, South by : Property bearing No.51, belonging to G.S.Rudrappa & sons.
North by : Site No.49, belonging to B.R.Ramalingappa.
Item No.2:
Premises bearing No.293/37, Jayanagar 4th Block, 7th Main, 35th Cross, 35th Division, bounded as hereunder:
East by :Property of Shivanna, West by : 7th Main Road, South by : property of T.C.Basavaraj, North by : 35th Cross with the garage.
Item No.3:
House bearing No.93, Govindappa Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru-04, bounded as hereunder:
East by : common passage and corporation No.91, old No.62, then No.75.
West by: common passage and property bearing No.64/1, later No.80, now 96, North by : Govindappa Road, South by : common passage and house bearing No.63/1, then changed to 78, now No.94, measuring East to West 25 feet, North to South 65 with the building thereon.
Item No.4:
Property bearing No.10A, situated in the market yard in Yeswanthpuram, bounded as hereunder:26 O.S.No.1264/1998
North by : A.P.M.C. office, South by : Road, East by : Road, West by : Site No.10/B. Item No.5:
Joint family business run under the name and style of G.R.Srikantappa & Co., originally done in premises No.50, 2nd Main Road, Tharagupet, Bengaluru City, now done in suit item No.1."
The relationship between the parties is that, plaintiff is son of defendant No.4. Defendant No. 4(a) and (b) are widow and daughter of deceased defendant No.4. The original propositor Geddalahalli Rudrappa had 4 sons-Veerappa, Srikantappa, Shanmukhappa and Chandrashekar. Shrikantappa is the grand father of the plaintiff. The Defendants No.5 and 7 are the daughters of Srikantappa. The 3rd defendant is the prospective purchaser from defendant No.1. The defendant No.2 is A.P.M.C. Defendant No. 3 has passed away, his legal heirs are defendants No.3(a) to (c). The defendant No.4(a) and 4(b) are the mother and elder sister of P.W.1. The major portion of the oral evidence in the present suit has been recorded through Court Commissioner.
13. Regarding Item Nos. 1 and 5 properties:
P.W.1 has stated as follows:
"This property were purchased by Firm G.R.Srikantappa and Co. It is true that when my 27 O.S.No.1264/1998 father G.S.Srikantappa was included in partnership 'G.R.Srikantappa and Co.' by virtue of an agreement dated 8-7-1976."
The Partnership Firm 'G.R.Srikantappa and Co.' was started by grand father Srikantappa and one Thotadappa. Defendant No.1 is the widow of that Thotadappa. The Partition Deed dated 27-3-1986 is marked as Ex.P5. The relevant recitals are:-
"IV. WHEREAS subsequently under an agreement dated 8-7-1976, the parties hereto admitted G.S.Sureshkumar, son of First Party as a partner of the said firm making it clear that the first schedule property shall continue to belong to only first party and Second Party hereto and the said new partner will not have any right, title, share or any claims therein;"
"V. WHEREAS the Second Party hereto retired from the partnership firm of M/s.G.R.Srikantappa & Co., with effect from 1.11.1984, as per Deed of Retirement dated 10.12.1984; on such retirement, in terms of what had been agreed between the First Party and the Second Party, the First Schedule Property was divided between them by metes and bounds; however, as the terms thereof were not reduced to writing, the parties are now desirous of reducing the terms of division into writing;"
VI. NOW THIS DEED OF PARTITION WITNESSES AS FOLLOWS:-
1) The parties hereto hereby confirm that parties have divided and taken possession of the First Schedule Property (Premises 28 O.S.No.1264/1998 No.50/5, III Cross, RMC Yard, Division No.2/8, Bangalore) in the following manner on 1.11.1984:-
i) The southern half portion with mezzanine floor of the Front Block (shown by the letters 'JKLIJ' in the annexed plan and described as item No.1 in the Second Schedule), and the eastern godown in the Rear Block (shown by the letters 'MNEFM') in the annexed plan and described as Item No.2 in the Second Schedule have been allotted to the share of the First Party;
ii) The northern half portion with Mezzanine floor of the Front Block (shown by the letters LGHIL in the annexed plan and described as item No.1 in the Third Schedule and the western godown in the rear Block (shown by the letters 'CDENC' in the annexed plan and described as Item No.2 in the Third Schedule have been allotted to the share of the Second Party;
2) The following portions of the First Schedule property (No.50/5, III Cross, RMC Yard, Bangalore) shall be held and used as common arrears by both the parties, each having an undivided half share therein:-
i) the passage on the southern side of the premises shown by the letters 'ABCNMKJA' in the annexed plan and described as Item No.1 in the Fourth Schedule;
ii) the passage with bathroom, water closet and staircase leading to the rear portion terrace, lying between the Front Block and Rear Block, shown by the letters 'MFGLKM' and described as Item No.2 in the Fourth schedule;29 O.S.No.1264/1998
iii) the balcony on the southern side of the first floor of the rear block described as Item No.3 in the Fourth schedule;
3) In view of such partition, the parties have agreed to construct the following, bearing the cost thereof equally:-
i) a well across line 'LI' in the annexed plan dividing the southern and northern portions of the front shop allotted to the first and second parties respectively;
ii) a separate staircase in the northern portion of the front Block, similar to the existing staircase in the southern portion of the Front Block;
Such construction shall be carried out immediately after the Second Party vacates the front portion of the First Party ('JKLIJ' portion) which the second party is presently occupying as a tenant under the First Party;
4) The existing wall dividing the two rear godowns (shown by the letters NE) and the wall to be put to across "LI" dividing the Front Block will be common walls, with all legal incidents thereof;
5) The parties hereto shall bear the cost of maintenance of the common areas equally;
6) The First Party hereby releases and relinquishes all his right, title and interest in the portions described in the Third Schedule allotted to the Second Party to the intent that the Second Party shall be the absolute owner thereof;
30 O.S.No.1264/19987) The Second Party hereby releases and relinquishes all his share, right, title and interest in the portions described in the second schedule allotted to the First Party to the intent that the First Party shall be the absolute owner thereof;
8) The First Party and Second Party shall do and execute all acts, deeds and things and sign all forms, affidavits, declarations, etc. necessary for obtaining transfer of katha in regard to the bifurcation and registration of katha in regard to the divided portions in the records of the Corporation of City of Bangalore and the Bangalore Agricultural Produce Market Committee;"
This is pertaining to item No.1 property, whereby 1/2 share was allotted to Srikantappa and Sri.Totadappa, respectively. P.W.1 has admitted as follows:
" It is true, as per Ex.P5, two portions were allotted to Shri.Thotadappa and as such he got half (1/2) share in item No.1 of the suit schedule property."
The partnership business between Srikantappa and Thotadappa was started in 1958. It was in the business of onions, potatoes and soapnut powder. The certified copy of the Partnership Deed is Ex.P1 dated 8-11-1958. The important recitals are as follows:
31 O.S.No.1264/1998".... The capital of the partnership shall be Rs. Five thousand by the first party only. The second party is only a working partner. All necessary and essential books of accounts which are generally maintained according to the nature of the business shall be properly and regularly maintained and kept and shall not be removed from the place of business without the consent of partnership. The account books shall be open to inspection by each of the partners who shall be entitled to take extracts there from as they think fit. 5. A general account shall be taken each year on 30th day of June of assets and liabilities and profits and losses of the partnership firm. The profits and loss shall be calculated after the deduction of expenses of the business like rent of the premises, salaries and wages of employees if any and all other expenses incurred in a business of a like nature. 5. That after the general accounts has been made up G.R.Sreekantappa, G.Thotadappa as mentioned in para 5 supra and accepted the net profits shall be divided into two shares as follows:-G.R.Srikantappa Half share G.Thotadappa Half share. .... .... That the partnership shall have an account in the grain Merchants Cooperative Bank or in such other Bank or banks as may be mutually agreed to between the patners. All moneys, Cheques Drafts Bills shall be deposited to the account of the partnership G.R.Srikantappa. Partner of the first party is authorized individually to withdraw any money and operate on the Bank account or accounts. ... ... .... The duration of the partnership which commenced on the Nov. 1958 shall be at will subject however that if any party desirous of retiring from the business before the stipulated period shall be at liberty to do so provided that notice of such intimation to sever is served on the 32 O.S.No.1264/1998 other partner in writing one month prior to the 30th day of June o the year. In the event of the partnership being dissolved by the expiry of the period ad aforesaid or of being dissolved by the mutual consent of both the partners. The assets and liabilities and good will of the partnership belong to the first party only. In the even of the second party giving notice of his intention to leave the partnership he shall not only be entitled to his share of the assets but not to the good will."
14. PW.1 has stated that item No.1 of suit schedule property was purchased by the firm G.R.Srikantapa and Co., It has been divided between the partners as per Ex.P5 above noted. His father G.S.Suresh Kumar was said to be included in that partnership firm by virtue of an Agreement dated 8-7-1976 and under Clause (12), late father did not have any share in the item No1 property. Ex.P.2 is the certified copy of memo dated 21-11- 1966 issued by A.P.M.C. about allotment of item No1 to the Firm.
The firm G.R Srikantappa and Co. is said to be not dissolved. After the retirement of Thotadappa from the said firm, it was said to be reconstituted in 1987.
PW.1 do not know about allotment of item No.1 to Srikantappa Thotadappa and has sated as follows:
33 O.S.No.1264/1998" I do not know whether item No.1 property has already is partition in 4 (four) shares. I don't know if it is suggested that, property bearing No.50/2 and 50/4 which are portions of item No.1 property have been allotted to Thotadappa. I don't know that, the remaining two portions of item No.1 property bearing No.50/1 and 503 have been allotted to Srikantappa."
He has admitted to be not in possession of half portion of item No.1 bearing No.50/2 and 50/4. P.W.1 has stated as follows:
" I don't know that property bearing No.5/1 and 5/3 of item No.1 of the suit schedule property was allotted to Srikantappa."
A suggestion of supervising event of sale is denied by P.W.1 as follows:
" It is false to suggest that LRs. of defendant No.3 will be given valid right, title of property bearing No.5/2 and 5/4 of item No.1 of suit schedule property if sold by 1st defendant.
P.W.1 is aware of O.S.No.2769/90 filed by late father which is connected case and disposed off along with the above suit.34 O.S.No.1264/1998
15. The G.P.A. Holder of defendant No.1 is examined as D.W.1. Thotadappa is his brother-in-law and husband of defendant No.1. The certified copy of G.P.A. is Ex.D1 Dated: 31-3-2003, as original is produced in case O.S.No.2769/1990. He has evidenced that item No.1 belonged to the Firm Srikantappa and Co. and above noted, which is clear from Ex.P2. According to D.W.1, defendant No.4 was inducted as a partner in the said Firm on 8-7- 1976. But he had no right as after dissolution of the Firm, the item No.1 belong to Srikantappa and Thotadappa.
It was on 10-12-1984, that Thotadappa had expressed desire to retire from the firm. After retirement, there was Deed of Partnership between them on 27-3-198 which is Ex.P5 above noted. The item No.1 property according to him was divided into 4 units bearing No.5/1, 5/2, 5/3 and 5/4, respectively. The 5/1 and 5/3 is said to have fallen to the share of G.R.Srikantappa and 5/2, 5/4 fell to the share of Thotadappa. There was said to be physical division of the properties between them and accordingly the same to be entered in the records.
16. D.W.1 has stated that G.R.Srikantappa & Co. to be not joint family business. Further his evidence is as follows:
35 O.S.No.1264/1998"11. I admit that firm Sri.G.R.Srikantappa and Co. is not the joint family property and is incapable of being partitioned. I submit that the factum of the same being the individual property of the partners has been put to rest and has attained finality in the Regular First Appeal filed between the ancestors of the plaintiff and the plaintiff cannot plead to the contrary. I submit that it is the 4th defendant and his wife i.e., the father and mother of the plaintiff who are the present partners of the firm in the name and style "Sri.G.R.Srikantappa and Co." in its present constitution. I submit that the assets of the said firm does not include the Item No.1 schedule property."
Regarding documentary evidence, D.W.1 has said Ex.D88 is the letter of Thotadappa to Srikantappa pertaining to half portion of item No.1 of suit schedule property bearing No.5/1. D.W.1 has admitted Ex.P1 to be true. The defendant No.3 was said to be in possession of 5/2 and 5/4 a an Agreement Holder and that Agreement is said to be not produced before the Court. Now wife and son of defendant No.3 is said to be in its possession. The News Paper publication Dated:30-1-1998 as per Ex.P13 pertains to the public notice about intention of sale to the defendant No.3. Indeed, Thotadappa is said to given northern half of item No.1 to the 3rd defendant.
36 O.S.No.1264/199817. Ex.P3 is the certified copy of Order in RFA No.175 and 18/73 and 32/1974 dated 25-7-1977 of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka preferred against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No. 162/1964 of II Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore City, dated 30-7-1973. One of the Appellant is Srikantappa and it was a litigation between Srikantappa and his brothers. The present suit properties are not properties in this litigation-Ex.P3. Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 are certified copies of Registered Partition Deed Dated:23-11-1978 and 26-3-1986, respectively.
Ex.P6 is the letter Dated:22-10-1984 of Thotadappa to Srikantappa and defendant No.4 about expressing to retire from the firm from 1-11- 1984 which is admitted fact in oral evidence noted above. The certified copy of Judgment dated 26-3- 1993 in M.F.A.No.685/1993 is Ex.P7 preferred against the Order Dated:20-4-1991 in O.S.No.2769/1990 regarding I.A.No.1 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. and Appeal has been dismissed.
18. G.R.Srikanappa has passed away on 11- 1-1991 as per the Death Certificate-Ex.P8. A letter is addressed by Srikantappa to defendant No.4 as per Ex.P9 stating that Srikantappa will not like to interfere into the business being carried on at RMC 37 O.S.No.1264/1998 Yard, Yeshwanthpur, pending O.S.No.2769/1990. The certified copy of plaint of O.S.No.2769/1990 is marked as Ex.P11. The present defendant No.4 has filed that suit for Partition against Srikantappa and others. After defendant No.4 was inducted as a partner, Form No. V under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 is issued about change in the constitution of firm G.R.Srikantappa & Co. This is Ex.P10 dated 9-7-1976. Notice of Dissolution of the Firm dated 13-6-1990 is Ex.P12 issued by G.R.Srikantappa to defendant No.4 and the wife of defendant No.4, a partner of G.R.Srikantappa and Co.
19. Ex.D2 is the certified copy of Endorsement issued by BMP Dated: 19-9-1995 the House Site No.5/2 to be transferred to the name of defendant No.1. The certified copy of the Uttarapatra dated 12-12-1996 is Ex.D38 pertaining to transfer of name of defendant No.1 in regard to property No.5/4 issued by BMP. That certified copy produced in the above case has been due to the originals being produced in O.S.No.2769/1990. The tax paid receipts for 1993-94 to 1995 of 5/2 and 5/4 in the name of Thotadappa are marked as Exs.D3 to D6. The certified copy of tax paid receipts of the said properties in the name of defendant No.1 for 1998 to 2009-10 are Exs.D7 to D37.
38 O.S.No.1264/1998The certified copy of Income Tax Returns are Exs.D79 to D85. Exs.D79 to D80 are for the years 1991-92 to 1993-94 in the name of Thotadappa and Ex.D82 to Ex.D85 are for the years 1997-98 to 2000-2001 are in the name of defendant No.1. There was no family business under the name and style of G.R.Srikantappa and Co. and it was a partnership firm of Srikantappa and Thotadappa. These Income Tax Returns are filed individually by Thotadappa and defendant No.1. The certified copy of Demand Register of 5/4 for 1996-97 is Ex.D86 whereby name of Thotadappa is deleted and name of defendant No.1 has been entered.
20. The plaintiff has filed the above suit seeking for various reliefs, viz., Declaration that plaintiff is entitled for share in suit items 1 and 2 properties, defendant No.4 to render the full details account of profits and income made by him from business G.R.Srikantappa and Co. from 1987 to up to date, directing defendant No.1 to render accounts of rent from 10-5-1995, determine the share of plaintiff in the rents, Permanent Injunction restraining defendant No.2 from granting permission to the defendant No.1 to sell northern half of suit item No.1 to the third defendant.
39 O.S.No.1264/1998Regarding Item No.2 property:
D.W.1 has said that this suit property not to belong to defendant No.1 and that the defendant No.1 not to have interest over this property. The counsel for plaintiff has filed a Memo Dated:
16-11-2011 that suit is not pressed in respect of item No.2, in view of the fact that the same has been acquired by him through vide Will executed by his grand father registered on 19-8-1984.
Regarding Item No.3 property:
According to P.W.1, this item was purchased by the Firm G.R.Srikantappa & Co. At the time of institution of the suit, the possession of this property was said to be with Thotadappa. Further that defendant No.1 to be in its possession as on today. Neither he nor his father are said to have not paid tax to this property. P.W.1 even adduced that item No.3 to be not comprised in Ex.P5. He has declined that this property to exclusively belong to Thotadappa which is stated by D.W.1 in the oral evidence. According to D.W.1, this property was purchased by Thotadappa from Smt.Shalini G.Kadam vide sale deed dated:12-9-1963. After Thotadappa had passed away, it is said to be in ownership and possession of defendant No.1.40 O.S.No.1264/1998
P.W.1 has admitted as follows:
"It is true to suggest that I am not in possession of item No.3, item No.4 and half portion of item No.1, bearing No.5/2 and 5/4."
The certified copy of the sale deed executed by Shalini Kadam in favour of Thotadappa is marked as Ex.D87. The tax paid receipts of item No.3 property for 1984-85 to 2006-07 and Dated:23-3-2009 are Exs.D57 to D77, which are in the name of Thotadappa and later in the name of defendant No.1. The letter Dated:10-7-1997 requesting for loan sanction addressed to the Grain Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. is Ex.D78. The certified copy of Income Tax Returns submitted by husband of defendant No.1 are Exs.D79 to D85.
Regarding Item No.4 property:
P.W.1 does not know to whom this property was allotted by APMC. He has admitted to be not to be in possession of item No.4.
D.W.1 has said that Thotadappa in his individual capacity to have applied for the site to the APMC who issued letter Dated: 27-4-1981 allotted this property to Thotadappa. After Thotadappa passed away, it is said to belong to defendant No.1. The original conditional sale deed Dated:9-6-2006 Ex.D39 is executed by APMC in favour of Thotadappa 41 O.S.No.1264/1998 represented by his wife Smt.Susheelamma. It states that this property to be allotted to Thodadappa on 27-4-1981 subject to conditions and those conditions being fulfilled, hence Ex.D39 was executed. The allotment of this site vide relevant Order No.APMCB/6903/80-81, Dated:20-4-1981 is Ex.D40. Possession Certificate Dated:27-4-1981 issued by APMC is Ex.D41. The tax paid receipts for 1993-94, 1998-99, 2001-02 to 2005-2006, 2008-09 and 2009-10 are Exs.D42 to Ex.D53. Ex.D54 is the Certificate Dated:1-7-1981 issued by Corporation Office, Bangalore, certifying that the property of site No.27/1 in the name of Thotadappa as lessee. This property has the entry as No.10, portion of 27/1, in the Khata Certificate issued by Corporation of Bangalore Dated:7-7-2001 in the name of defendant No.1, as per Ex.D55. The Assessment extract for 1996 to 7-7-2001 is Ex.D56 with the details as per Ex.D55.
21. The facts and circumstances of the case based on the admitted facts and documentary evidence has been that G.R.Srikantappa and Co. was only a partnership business of Srikantappa and Thotadappa. It was not a family business. Further that how the properties to be divided or retirement from firm or dissolution of firm, right of defendant No.4, have been specifically recited in the Deed as 42 O.S.No.1264/1998 per noted Exs.P1, P5. Suit items 1 and 2 to be joint family properties or in joint possession, are not forthcoming in the materials before the Court. Thereby, plaintiff and the defendant No.4 are not entitled for the reliefs as sought for. The plaintiff is the son of defendant No.4. The nature of litigation that exists between the parties pertains to the nature of properties.
In respect of item Nos.3, 4, there were separate sale deeds executed in favour of Thotadappa and those documents have not been contravened in any manner. In respect of properties of deceased who do not have legal heirs, law will take its own action. There is no payment of court fee by the 4th defendant and has stated only to pay the requisite court fee. That means that court fee is not paid and thereby, there is no counter claim. The question of granting counter claim cannot arise. Hence, Issue Nos.1 to 2 and Additional issue No.5 dated 11-7-2017 are answered in the Negative.
22. Issue No.3: The plaintiff has not been able to prove the above case in any manner and is not entitled for any relief. Hence this Issue is answered in the negative.
43 O.S.No.1264/199823. Issue No. 5 : Due to the findings as above, the following:
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
In the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.
Draw Decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer and also typed to my manuscript by the J.W., transcribed and computerised print-out taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 19th day of April, 2017.) (VELA.D.K.) XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, *sb Bengaluru.44 O.S.No.1264/1998
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the plaintiffs:
P.W.1 G.S.Rudresh List of witnesses examined for defendants:
D.W.1 T.N.Paramashivaiah List of documents exhibited for the plaintiffs:
Ex.P1 Certified copy of Partnership Deed dated:8-11-1958 Ex.P2 Possession Certificate dated:21-11-1966 issued by APMC in favour of B.M.Srikantappa & Co.
Ex.P3 Certified copy of Judgment passed in RFA No.175/73 and 32/74 Ex.P4 Certified copy of Agreement dated:
23-11-1978 between B.R.Srikantappa and Suresh Kumar and others Ex.P5 Partition Deed dated:27-3-1986 between Srikntappa and Thotadappa Ex.P6 Letter dated:22-10-1984 issued by Thotadappa to Srikantappa and Suresh Kumar.
Ex.P7 Certified copy of Order in MFA No.685/93 Ex.P8 Death Certificate of Srikantappa Ex.P9 Letter issued by Srikantappa to Suresh Kumar 45 O.S.No.1264/1998 Ex.P10 Office copy of Form No.5 given by Suresh Kumar and Srikantappa to the Registrar of Firms Ex.P11 Certified copy of Plaint in O.S.No. 2769/1990 Ex.P12 Notice dated:13-6-1990 issued by Srikantappa to Sureshkumar and his wife.
Ex.P13 Paper publication in Kannada Prabha dated:30-1-1998 List of documents exhibited for defendants:
Ex.D1 Certified copy of Special Power of Attorney executed by Susheelamma in favour of D.W.1.
Ex.D2 Certified copy of Endorsement-Uttara Patra dated:19-9-1995 issued by BBMP Exs.D3 to D37 - 35 Tax paid receipts Ex.D38 Certified copy of Endorsement dated:
12-12-1996 issued by BBMP
Ex.D39 Original sale deed executed by APMC in
favour of G.Thotadappa
Ex.D40 Letter dated:209-4-1981
Ex.D41 Possession Certificate (Memo) dated:
17-4-1981 issued by APMC to husband of defendant No.1 Ex.D42 12 tax paid receipts pertaining to item to D53 No.4 of schedule property 46 O.S.No.1264/1998 Ex.D54 Certificate dated:1-7-1991 issued by City Corporation to the husband of 1st defendant Ex.D55 Certificate dated:7-7-2001 issued by BMP to defendant No.1 Ex.D56 Certified copy of Demand Register extract pertaining to item No.4 of plaint schedule property Exs.D57 21 tax paid receipts pertaining to item to D77 No.3 of plaint schedule property Ex.D78 Office copy of letter dated:10-7-1997 issued by Counsel for husband of defendant No.1 to Secretary, The Grain Merchant Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Exs.D79 7 certified copies of Income Tax Returns to D85 submitted by husband of defendant No.1 Ex.D86 Certified copy of Demand Register pertaining to property No.5/4 Ex.D87 Certified copy of registered sale deed dated: 9-9-1963 executed by Shalini Kadam in favour of Thotadappa in respect of Item No.3 of schedule property Ex.D88 Office copy of letter dated:30-6-1987 written by Thotadappa to Srikantappa (VELA.D.K.) XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.47 O.S.No.1264/1998