Bangalore District Court
M.Dhanapaul vs Smt. Sharadamma on 10 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF IX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H.5)
Dated: This the 10th day of April 2018
Present : Smt. M.H.Shantha, M.A., LL.B.,
IX Addl. C.C & S.J, Bangalore.
O.S. NO.3921/2012
Plaintiff : M.Dhanapaul, S/o. T.P.Muniappa,
aged about 54 years,
Residing at No.8/84, New No.5,
8th Cross, Old No: 14th Cross,
Hennur Main Road, Lingarajapuram,
Bangalore 560084.
And also at :
No.77, Amar Jothi layout,
Aswath Nagar,
Thanisandra Main Road,
Bangalore 560077.
[By Sri.R.R., Advocate]
- Vs -
Defendant : 1. Smt. Sharadamma,
W/o. late T.P.Muniappa,
aged about 75 years,
Residing at No.8/84,
New No.5, 8th Cross,
Old No:14th Cross,
Hennur Main Road,
Lingarajapuram,
Bangalore 560084.
2. M.Balaraj, S/o. late T.P. Muniappa,
aged about 56 years,
Residing at No.8/84,
New No.5, 8th Cross,
Old No:14th Cross,
2 O.S.No.3921/2012
Hennur Main Road,
Lingarajapuram, Bangalore 560084.
3. M.Dhanalakshmi,
D/o. late T.P. Muniappa,
W/o. Desingh,
aged about 53 years,
Residing at No.8/83,
New No.5, 8th Cross,
Old No:14th Cross,
Hennur Main Road,
Lingarajapuram,
Bangalore 560084.
4. M.Usha, D/o. late T.P.Muniappa,
W/o. Suresh, aged about 50 years,
Residing at No.22, 27th Main,
IInd Cross, V G S Layout, Ejipura,
Bangalore 560 047.
[By Sri.A.C.P. for D-1 to D-3 and
D-4 placed exparte]
Date of institution
of the suit : 05.06.2012
Nature of the suit :
[suit on pronote, suit
for declaration and
possession, suit
for injunction] : Partition,
Separate Possession and
Permanent Injunction
Date of the commencement
of recording of the evidence: 25.04.2014
Date on which the
Judgment was pronounced : 10.04.2018
3 O.S.No.3921/2012
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration -05- -10- -05-
(M.H.Shantha)
IX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore.
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by plaintiff against the defendants for judgment and decree for the relief of partition and separate possession of 1/5th share in the suit schedule property and for the relief of permanent injunction.
2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that, the plaintiff was residing along with defendants. The defendant No.1 was married to late T.P.Muniappa in the year 1954 and out of their wed lock M.Balaraj the defendant No.2, M.Dhanapaul the plaintiff, M.Dhanalakshmi the defendant No.3 and M.Usha the defendant No.4 were born. The defendant No.1 had no source of income on her own and she is uneducated. T.P.Muniappa the father of plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4 and husband of defendant no.1 died intestate on 17.8.89 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants to succeed estate, his father T.P.Muniappa was a state government employee. Further the plaintiff has 4 O.S.No.3921/2012 stated that, the plaintiff and the defendants are Hindus by religion and they constitute a Hindu undivided family and they are governed by Mithakshara school of law and they are the joint family members and there is no partition by metes and bounds between the plaintiff and the defendants till today in respect of the schedule property. Further the plaintiff has stated that, the defendant No.1 is the manager and care taker of the family, the plaintiff and the defendants are in joint possession of the schedule property and hence they are all entitled equal share over the suit schedule property. Further the plaintiff has stated that, T.P.Muniappa during his life time by his earned money purchased an immovable property consisting of 3 portion residential premises door nos:8/83, 8/84 and 8/85 respectively bearing Municipal new no.5 (old plot No.21 in Joseph layout) situated at 8th cross, Lingarajapuram, in BBMP ward no.94, Bangalore, measuring east 50 feet, west 50 feet, north 25 feet and south 25 feet and measuring in all 1250 square feet on behalf of all his children who are born out of wed lock of defendant no.1 who were minors and there are registered in the name of defendant no.1 vide a registered sale deed dt.31.5.1967 before Sub-Registrar, North Taluk, Bangalore.
5 O.S.No.3921/20123. Further the plaintiff has stated that, the plaintiff was employed in Ravindra Kala Kshetra, Bangalore during the year 1980 and thereafter employed in GTRE Bangalore and subsequently was employed in ISRO Satellite Centre, Bangalore in the year 1982 the plaintiff had contributed his full salary to the joint family. The plaintiff has taken voluntary retirement from ISRO Satellite centre in the year 2002 and even now the plaintiff is taking care of defendant No.1 and the plaintiff has arranged the medical facility in ISRO. Further the plaintiff has stated that, on 5.8.1990 the joint declaration / family arrangement was made between the plaintiff and the defendants in respect of the schedule property, under the said document dt.5.8.90 defendant no.3 was permitted to live in the portion of schedule property on mercy and humanitarian ground because she got married to one Desingh who is financially very poor they are permitted to live in a portion of schedule property. The original joint declaration/family arrangement dt.5.8.1990 is in the custody of defendant No.2. Further the plaintiff has stated that, the defendant No.1 had arranged a meeting on 6.3.11 and called all her children, i.e. plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4, well wishers and relatives to discuss about the division and family settlement/arrangement in respect of the suit schedule 6 O.S.No.3921/2012 property. During family settlement talks held on 6.3.11 before the family members, well wishers, elders, the defendant no.1 told that the suit schedule property has to be divided equally among the plaintiff and defendants 2 to
4. The defendant No.2 and 3 have fraudulently obtained gift deed from the defendant No.1 on 07.05.2009. Further the plaintiff has stated that the alleged gift deed dated 07.05.2009 and will dated 07.05.2009 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.2 and 3 in respect of the portion of the schedule property are sham documents in order to deprive the share of the plaintiff. The said gift deed dated 07.05.2009 and the will were revoked and cancelled on 10.03.2011.
4. Further the plaintiff has stated that, the earlier alleged registered gift deed dated 7.5.09 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and 3 was fraudulently obtained and created, when it was brought before the well wishers, relatives on 6.3.11, it was unanimously decided and advised to cancel the above said alleged gift deed and Will and to effect the partition in respect of schedule property and allot to share plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 equally. The plaintiff has issued legal notice on 22.3.2011 to the defendants and defendant No.2 7 O.S.No.3921/2012 and 3 have received the legal notice and defendant No.2 has given untenable reply to the said notice. The plaintiff came to know that defendant no.1 colluded with defendant no.3 have created gift deed dt.25.3.11 in respect of schedule property behind the back of the plaintiff and without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiff. The gift deed alleged to have executed is a collusive, fraudulent and sham document in order to deprive the legitimate share of the plaintiff and hence the said alleged gift deed is not binding on the plaintiff. Further the plaintiff has stated that, the defendant no.3 will not get any manner of right, title and interest over the suit schedule property under the alleged registered gift deed dated 25.3.2011 and it is a collusive, sham and fraudulent document taken place between the defendant no.1 and defendant no.3 and the same will not affect the right of the plaintiff. On 27.4.2012 the plaintiff got issued legal notice to defendant no.1 by RPAD to effect the partition and to give the share of the plaintiff and also notice issued to defendants 2 to 4. The plaintiff several times requested and demanded the defendant No.1 to effect the partition and give share but the defendant No.1 colluding with the defendant No.2 to 4 has refused to give the share to the plaintiff. Hence the suit.
8 O.S.No.3921/20125. In pursuance to the summons the defendants have appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement. In the written statement, the defendants have denied the averments made in para 4, 6 to 17, 19 and 20 are all false. Further defendants have contended that late Muniappa had no sufficient income to look after and maintenance of his first wife and his five children. The defendants have denied that the husband of the defendant No.1 purchased schedule property in the name of defendant no.1 Smt.Shardamma. Further defendants have contended that the defendant no.1 who is absolute owner of suit schedule property has got every right to make any testament or gift deed as per her wishes. The defendant no.1 has her own wish and will had executed gift deed dated 7.5.2009 in favour of defendant no.2 and 3 and same was revoked by her. There is no fraud of any kind is played by the defendants. In fact the plaintiff has no right to question the actions of the defendant no.1 with regard to schedule property. Further defendants have contended that defendant no.1 on her own will and with consent of the defendant 2 and 3 has revoked the gift deed dt.7.5.2009 and also revoked will on 10.3.2011. In fact defendant no.2 and 3 voluntarily offered and requested defendant no.1 for cancellation of said gift and will. Further defendant has 9 O.S.No.3921/2012 contended that he has given suitable reply to the notice issued by plaintiff dt.27.4.2012. Further defendants have contended that the defendant no.1 is the 2nd wife of late T.P.Muniappa who has married 1st wife Smt.Kattamma. Out of wedlock with his first wife, he had five children and through his 2nd wife first defendant 4 children. He was employed as police constable in the state government. Out of his salary he was struggling to maintain first wife and her five children. He was not in possession to contribute any amount towards maintenance of 2nd wife, first defendant and her children. The first defendant has taken up responsibility to maintain her 4 children, i.e. the plaintiff and defendant no.2 to 4 in this case. First defendant mother Akkayamma and her sister Nagamma were employed in Bangalore City Corporation. The first defendant after marriage with T.P.Muniyamma during the year 1954, she was residing in mothers house in Corporation colony situated at queens road. It was mother and sister who used to help the first defendant financially. The mother of first defendant Smt.Akkayamma had given gold jewels to the first defendant at that time of her marriage. By pledging gold ornaments she was lending amount to others for interest and also running monthly chits and also she was doing saree business, selling sarees to other on installment 10 O.S.No.3921/2012 basis. The first defendant by her sheer hard work earned money and out of such earning she purchased schedule property during the year 1967 from its vendor one Smt.Arokia Mary for sale consideration of Rs.2000/-. Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant no.2 to 4 have got no legal right to claim share.
6. Further the defendants have contended that, the husband of the 1st defendant T.P.Muniappa died during the year 1989. The 1st defendant did not get his death benefits are she is not drawing pension benefits. His first wife is drawing pension amount. Except the plaintiff, all other children's of first defendant are good character persons. The plaintiff was working in ISRO which is a Central government undertaking. As per the rules only one child can declare his mother as dependent in his office. The employees of the ISRO are entitled for free medical treatment for small monthly subscription. First defendant used to purchase medicines as recommended by ISRO authorized doctors by using the money provided by her elder son 2nd defendant and the 4th defendant daughter Smt.Usha. Later ISRO used to reimburse that money. Later on first defendant refunded entire amount to the plaintiff by 11 O.S.No.3921/2012 getting money from 2nd and 4th defendant. For the last two years first defendant has not claimed medical bills.
7. Further the defendants have stated that, the plaintiff is residing separately for the last 25 years away from the family of the 1st defendant, the other people suffered by the misdeeds and fraudulent activities of the plaintiff are complaining to the 1st defendant. The plaintiff had married first wife Smt.Cythia who was a widow he married her during year 1987. At that time, the plaintiff converted to Christianity and changed his name from Dhanapal to Dhanapaul. Later without divorcing his first wife, he married another already married lady namely Smt.Sugandhi who was ISRO employee. But later without divorcing her plaintiff married another married lady Smt.Shobha who is almost 22 years younger than him. For the last 10 years he is residing with his 3rd wife at Thanisandra. The first defendant has executed registered gift deed dt.7.5.2009 in favour of 2nd and 3rd defendant. Since 2nd defendant was not willing to accept said gift deed by the consent of 2nd and 3rd defendant, first defendant revoked said gift deed and also revoked her will dated 10.7.2009 and also revoked other will. Since she has got very great love and affection on the 3rd defendant who is taking her care, 1st defendant 12 O.S.No.3921/2012 out of love and affection has executed a registered gift deed dated 25.3.2011 in favour of the 3rd defendant. On the basis of said registered gift deed 3rd defendant got transferred khata of the schedule property in her name. As such the third defendant is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff has no manner of right or title to claim any share in respect of the schedule property so also he has no right to make allegation against the first defendant or other defendants particularly 2nd defendant who is a very honest person.
8. Further the defendants have stated that, the schedule property is the self acquired property of the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant in order to solve any disputes which may arise after her death, has decided to bequeath the entire suit schedule property in favour of 3rd defendant who is only house wife and has no earning of her own. On 25.3.2011 first defendant made a registered gift deed dated 25.3.2011 bequeathing suit schedule property in favour of 3rd defendant without any coercion or inducement by the other defendants or from any other persons. Therefore, there is absolutely no basis or iota of truth in the allegation leveled by the plaintiff against defendants. The defendants have 13 O.S.No.3921/2012 contended that, the suit schedule property was the self acquired property of the first defendant and now it is the absolute property of the 3rd defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any share. Hence the defendants 1 to 3 prays for dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff.
9. On the above pleadings of the parties, my predecessor-in-office has framed the following issues:
1. Whether the plaintiff to prove after the death of late T.P.Muniyappa the plaintiff and defendants are succeeds to the estate of deceased?
2. Whether the plaintiff to prove that he himself and defendants are in joint possession of the suit property?
3. Whether the plaintiff to prove the registered gift deed dated 25.033.2011 is not binding on the plaintiff?
4. Whether the 1st defendant to prove that suit property is her self acquired property?
5. Whether the 3rd defendant to prove that she become the absolute owner under the gift deed dated 25.03.2011?
6. Whether the Court fee is paid is sufficient?14 O.S.No.3921/2012
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief claimed in the suit?
8. What order or decree?
10. In support of the case of the plaintiff, he has got examined himself as P.W.1 and the plaintiff has produced 18 documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-18. On the other hand, in support of the case of the defendants, the defendant No.1 has been examined as D.W.1 through Court Commissioner, and the defendant No.3 has been examined as D.W.2 and produced 16 documents as per Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-16.
11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has also filed the written arguments. After hearing the arguments and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, my findings on the above issues are as here under :
Issue No.1 : In the Negative
Issue No.2 : In the Negative
Issue No.3 : In the Negative
Issue No.4 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.5 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.6 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.7 : In the Negative
15 O.S.No.3921/2012
Issue No.8: As per final order for the following :
REASONS
12. ISSUE No.1 TO 5 : As these issues are
interconnected with each other, I have taken up together for discussion.
In support of the case of the plaintiff, he has got examined himself as PW1. PW1 in his evidence has deposed that defendant No.1 is his mother and defendant No.2 to 4 are his brother and sisters. Further PW1 has deposed that his father T.P.Muniyappa has died intestate on 17.8.89 leaving behind him and the defendants as his legal heirs. Further PW1 has deposed that the defendant no.1 is himself and defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Further PW1 has deposed that as his father T.P.Muniyappa during his life time has purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 31.5.1967 in the name of defendant no.1. Further PW1 has deposed that there was joint declaration/family arrangement was made between himself and the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property as per the document dt.5.8.90. Further PW1 has deposed that defendant no.3 is in permissive possession of the suit schedule property. Further PW1 has deposed that 16 O.S.No.3921/2012 he came to know that the defendants 2 and 3 have fraudulently obtained registered gift deed dated 7.5.2009 and registered Will dt.7.5.2009 in respect of the portion of the suit schedule property. Further PW1 has deposed that the said gift deed was revoked on 10.3.2011. Further P.W.1 has deposed that he came to know that defendant No.1 in colluded with defendant No.3 has executed registered gift deed ond 25.3.2011 in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of the suit schedule property in order to deprive his legitimate share in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has produced the genealogical tree, certified copy of sale deed, certified copy of gift deed, khata extract, encumbrance certificate, legal notice, notice, appointment order, family particulars, medical declaration, voluntary retirement copy, details of extra charges paid to hospital, receipt, Transfer Certificate, job offer letter, aadhar card copy, certified copy of gift deed, certified copy of revocation of the gift deed and the same are marked at Ex.P1 to 18.
13. P.W.1 in his cross-examination has admitted that, defendant No.1 has executed registered gift deed in favour of defendant No.2 and 3 in respect of the suit schedule property. Further P.W.1 has deposed that that on 06.03.2011 he came to know about the execution o 17 O.S.No.3921/2012 registered gift deed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and 3. Further P.W.1 in his cross- examination has deposed that he did not know that on 10.07.2009 his other defendant No.1 has executed the registered Will. Further P.W.1 has deposed that he came to know about the said will at time of revocation of the will. Further P.W.1 has denied that there was no joint declaration and he has created the same for the purpose of filing of this suit. Further P.W.1 in his cross-examination at admitted that defendant No.1 has executed registered gift deed in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of the suit schedule property. Further P.W.1 has denied that the defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he has no right over the suit schedule property. From the above evidence of P.W.1 and also from the documents produced by the plaintiff it is very clear that the mother of the plaintiff by name Sharadamma the 1st defendant has purchased the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 31.05.1967. From the evidence on record it is further clear that the father of the plaintiff T.P.Muniyappa has died on 17.08.1989. Further from the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.P-2 certified copy of the sale deed and other documents produced by him, it is clear that the 1st defendant is the absolute owner in possession 18 O.S.No.3921/2012 of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 31.05.1967 and after the purchase of the suit schedule property the 1st defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has taken the contention that the suit schedule property is the joint family property of himself and the defendants No.1 to 4 and during the life time of his father, his father has purchased the suit schedule property on behalf of minor children in the name of defendant No.1 and therefore, he has got share in the suit schedule property. But in support of the this contention the plaintiff has not produced any documents to show that the suit schedule property is the joint family property of himself and defendants No.1 to 4 and it is not the self acquired property of the defendant No.1 as contended by him. Further the plaintiff has not produced any documents to show that his father has purchased the suit schedule property on behalf of minor children in the name of defendant No.1 as contended by him. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.1 and also from the documents produced by him it is clear that the suit schedule property is not the joint family property of the plaintiff and the defendants and they are not in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
19 O.S.No.3921/201214. The defendant No.1/D.W.1 in her evidence has deposed that suit schedule property is her self acquired property. Further DW1 has deposed that the suit schedule property is not the joint family property. Further DW1 has deposed that she is the 2nd wife of T.P.Muniyappa. Further D.W.1 has deposed that her sister Katamma is the the 1st wife of her husband, T.P.Muniyappa. Further DW1 has deposed that she has purchased the suit schedule property out of her own earnings in the year 1967 from one Arokya Mary for Rs.2000/-. Further DW1 has deposed that plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4 have no right over the suit schedule property. Further DW1 has deposed that her husband has died in the year 1989. Further DW1 has deposed that she had executed registered gift deed on 7.5.2009 in favour of his son defendant No.2 Balraj and her daughter defendant No.3 Dhanalakshmi. Further DW1 has deposed that thereafter on 10.03.2011 by consent of defendants No.2 and 3 she has cancelled the said gift deed and Will dt.10.7.2009. Further DW1 has deposed that she has executed registered gift deed dated 25.03.2011 in favour of her daughter 3rd defendant. Further DW1 has deposed that khata in respect of the suit schedule property is standing in the name of her daughter 3rd defendant. Further DW1 has deposed that 3rd defendant is the absolute owner in 20 O.S.No.3921/2012 possession of the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 has produced legal notice, postal receipt, postal acknowledgement, complaint copies, endorsements and the same are marked at Ex.D1 to 3. DW2 in her evidence has deposed that her mother 1st defendant has purchased the suit schedule property under registered sale deed dated 31.5.1967 out of her own earnings and savings. Further D.W.2 has deposed that suit schedule property was self acquired property of her mother 1st defendant. Further D.W.2 has deposed that plaintiff and other defendants had no right over the suit schedule property. Further DW2 has deposed that her mother 1st defendant has executed registered gift deed dated 25.3.2011 in favour of her. Defendant No.3 has produced the registered gift deed, khatha certificate, khatha extract, official memorandum, letter issued by Assistant Executive Engineer, tax paid receipt, electricity bills, water bill and receipt and the same are marked at Ex.D4 to 16.
15. From the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 and also from the documents produced by the defendants it is clear that the defendant No.1 has purchased the suit schedule property under the registered sale deed dated 31.05.1967 out of her own earnings. Further it is clear that the suit 21 O.S.No.3921/2012 schedule property is the self acquired property of the defendant No.1 and she is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property. Further it is clear that plaintiff has no right over the suit schedule property. Further from the evidence of P.W.1, D.W.1 and D.W.2 and also from Ex.P-17 certified copy of the gift deed. It is clear that earlier the 1st defendant has executed the gift deed in favour of defendants No.2 and 3 in respect of the suit schedule property and thereafter she has revoked the said gift deed as per Ex.P-18 dated 10.03.2011. Further from the evidence on record it is clear that the defendant No.1 has executed Ex.D-4 registered gift deed on 25.03.2011 in favour of defendant No.3 in respect of the suit schedule property. Further it is clear that after the execution of said gift deed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3, the defendant No.3 became the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property is the joint family property of himself and the defendants and the 1st defendant has not right to execute the gift deed at Ex.D-4 dated 25.03.2011 in favour of defendant No.3 cannot be accepted. On the other hand, from the evidence on record it is clear that the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of the defendant No.1 and she is the 22 O.S.No.3921/2012 absolute owner in possession of the said property and she has executed registered gift deed in favour of her daughter defendant No.3 in respect of the suit schedule property. Further it is clear that the defendant No.3 is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of registered gift deed at Ex.D-4.
16. Therefore, from the oral and documentary evidence on record the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiff and the defendants and after the death of his father T.P.Muniyappa they have succeeded to the suit schedule property. Further the plaintiff has failed to prove that himself and defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Further the plaintiff has failed to prove that registered gift deed dated 25.03.2011 is not binding on him. The defendant No.1 has proved that the suit schedule property is her self acquired property. Further the defendant No.3 has clearly proved that the defendant No.1 has executed registered gift deed dated 25.03.2011 in favour of her in respect of the suit schedule property and she is the absolute owner in possession of the suit schedule property as per the registered gift deed dated 25.03.2011.
23 O.S.No.3921/2012Accordingly, I answer issue No.1 to 3 in the NEGATIVE and issue No.4 and 5 in the AFFIRMATIVE.
17. ISSUE No.6 : The defendants have taken the contention that the suit is not properly valued and Court fee paid by the plaintiffs is not proper and correct. The plaintiffs have valued the suit schedule property and paid the Court fee under section 35(2) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act. The relief of partition Court fee is fixed at Rs.200/-. The Court fee paid by the plaintiffs is proper and correct. Accordingly, I answer issue No.6 in the AFFIRMATIVE.
18. ISSUE No.7 : As I have already discussed above, the plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiff and the defendants and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction as sought for. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as sought for. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove issue No.7. Accordingly, I answer issue No.7 in the NEGATIVE.
24 O.S.No.3921/201219. ISSUE No.8 : In view of my findings on issue No.1 to 7 and for the reasons stated therein, this suit filed by the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER This suit filed by the plaintiff is hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on the Computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 10th day of April 2018).
(M.H.Shantha) IX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
-----
A N N E X U R E List of witnesses examined for plaintiff:
P.W.1 M.Dhanapaul List of witnesses examined for defendant:
D.W.1 Smt.Sharadamma
DW2 Smt.Dhanalakshmi
25 O.S.No.3921/2012
List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P-1 Genealogical tree Ex.P-2 Certified copy of sale deed Ex.P3 Certified copy of gift deed Ex.P4 Khata extract Ex.P5 Encumbrance certificate Ex.P6 Legal notice Ex.P7 Notice Ex.P8 Certified copy of appointment order Ex.P9 Certified copy of family particulars Ex.P10 Certified copy of medical declaration Ex.P11 Certified copy of voluntary retirement Ex.P12 Details of excess charges paid to hospital Ex.P13 Original receipt Ex.P.14 Transfer certificate Ex.P.15 Copy of job offer letter Ex.P.16 Copy of Aadhar card Ex.P.17 Certified copy of the gift deed Ex.P.18 Certified copy of the revocation of gift deed
List of documents exhibited for defendant:
Ex.D1 Legal Notice
Ex.D1(a) Postal receipt
Ex.D1(b) Postal acknowledgement
26 O.S.No.3921/2012
Ex.D2 and 3 Police complaint
Ex.D2(a) & 3(a) Endorsement
Ex.D4
Ex.D5 Khata certificate
Ex.D6 Khata extract
Ex.D7 Official memorandum
Ex.D8 Letter
Ex.D9 Tax paid receipt
Ex.D10 to 13 Electricity bills
Ex.D14 & 15 Water bill & receipt
Ex.D16 Document issued by Sub-Registrar office
IX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bangalore.