Bangalore District Court
Muniyamma vs Subramani on 11 September, 2025
1 O.S.No.513/2022
KABC010021202022 Digitally
signed by
SHIVANAND
SHIVANAND MARUTI
MARUTI JIPARE
JIPARE Date:
2025.09.11
17:52:03
+0530
Presented on : 20-01-2022
Registered on : 20-01-2022
Decided on : 11-09-2025
Duration : 03 years, 07 months, 22 days
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH.44) AT: BENGALURU
PRESENT: Sri. SHIVANAND MARUTI JIPARE,
B.A., LL.B. (Spl.)
Holding concurrent charge of XLIII Addl. City Civil
and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 11th day of September, 2025
ORIGINAL SUIT No.513/2022
PLAINTIFF: Smt.Muniyamma,
W/o. Gunalan,
Age about 58 years,
Residing at No.16,
Annaiah Reddy Road,
Halasuru,
Bengaluru-560008.
(By Sri.Vellanki Ravi., Advocate.)
:VERSUS:
2 O.S.No.513/2022
DEFENDANT: Sri.Subramani,
S/o. Muniswamy,
Aged about 70 years,
R/at. No.68, M.V Garden,
4th Cross, 4th Main Road,
Halasuru,
Bengaluru-560008.
(By Sri.Manuprasanna S.J., Advocate.)
************
Date of Institution of the suit 20.01.2022
Suit for Partition and
Nature of the suit Separate Possession
Date of commencement of 31.01.2025
recording of evidence
Date on which the judgment 11.09.2025
was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
03 07 22
Digitally
signed by
SHIVANAND
SHIVANAND MARUTI
MARUTI JIPARE
JIPARE Date:
2025.09.11
17:52:12
+0530
(SHIVANAND MARUTI JIPARE)
C/c. XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
************
3 O.S.No.513/2022
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against the defendant seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of 1/2th share over suit schedule property and mesne profits, with costs.
2. The brief facts averred in the plaint are as follows:
The plaintiff and defendant are the daughter and son of one Late K.Muniswamy. The defendant is the elder brother of the plaintiff. During the life time of the father of the plaintiff and the defendant, he had leased the suit schedule property i.e. bearing No.68, Munivenkatappa Garden, 4th Cross, 4th Main, Halasuru, Bengaluru by the Deputy Commissioner, City Corporation, Bengaluru on 29.01.1977. The said Late K. Muniswamy has paid the entire lease amount and property tax of the schedule property and made the City Corporation to execute the sale deed in his favour. The said K. Muniswamy is died in 4 O.S.No.513/2022 the year 1984 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendant as his legal heirs to succeed his estate. After the demise of Late K.Muniswamy, the plaintiff and the defendant used to stay in the schedule property along with her husband and children and there was no partition or severance of the family has ever taken place during the life time of the deceased. During the life time of Late K.Muniswamy, he has executed the registered Will dated:
17.05.1983 by bequeathing half portion of the schedule property measuring 20 x 12.5 feet to the plaintiff and the same was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru as document No.36/1983-84, page Nos.139 to 141, volume 55, Book-III. After the death of Late K.Muniswamy, the defendant being the elder son of the home with an intention to throw the plaintiff out of the schedule property had approached the plaintiff to obtain the consent to build new house in the schedule property as she is also being joint owner and informed her that both of them should stay in the said 5 O.S.No.513/2022 house. The plaintiff being faith and trust in the defendant as he is her elder brother, she has orally consented for the same and paid half of the construction charges. Later the defendant succeeded in constructing the new building consists of ground, 1st and 2nd floor. Further, the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by collecting the rent of the same without giving the rent to the plaintiff even though the plaintiff is having half share in the schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff has requested the defendant to give her share in the schedule property, but the defendant has refused the same for the reasons best known to the defendant and demanded the plaintiff to pay money then he is ready and willing to hand over the share in the schedule property. This act of the defendant shows his intention towards the plaintiff and he has made the plaintiff to suffer the loss by receiving half of the construction charges from the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has approached the jurisdictional Police by filing a complaint 6 O.S.No.513/2022 against the defendant, but there was no action taken.
The plaintiff is having 1/2 share as the property is acquired by her father and he has also executed Will in her favour by bequeathing half portion and she has demanded partition from the defendant. Since there was no response from the defendant, she had issued legal Notice dated: 27.12.2021 to the defendant for partition of the schedule property and the same was served on the defendant, but the defendant neither executed the partition of the schedule property under the said Will nor given reply to the notice. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for partition. Hence, the plaintiff prays to decree the suit.
3. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant has appeared through his learned Counsel. The defendant has filed written statement.
4. The defendant has filed written statement and denied the plaint averments in toto. The defendant 7 O.S.No.513/2022 contends that, the suit is not maintainable. The father of the plaintiff and defendant has only deposited an amount of Rs.14/- towards advance amount and Rs.4.50/- towards the annual ground rent for the year 1977-1978. The Deputy Commissioner of City Corporation, Bengaluru is executed only lease agreement in favour of K. Muniswamy, who is the father of the plaintiff and defendant, but said Corporation has not executed the sale deed. The lease period under the said agreement is for ninety nine years and till the completion of the lease agreement the lessor cannot sublet the leased property to third party. The father of the plaintiff and defendant has conducted the marriage of the plaintiff by obtaining hand loan from third person, later after the death of the father of the plaintiff, the defendant has repaid the said loan and he is the elder son of the home and helped the plaintiff to settle in her life peacefully with her husband. These facts are well within the knowledge of the plaintiff and has filed this suit with an intention to gain unlawfully. 8 O.S.No.513/2022 The son of the plaintiff who is having support from the local Police station has entered the schedule illegally by using the Police power and threatened the defendant to vacate and hand over the possession of the schedule property. Since the authority has executed only lease agreement in favour of the father of the plaintiff and defendant, but said authority has not vested any right of alienating or creating third party right over the schedule property in favour of K.Muniswamy, it is only the lease agreement. Under lease agreement no person shall hold the right to create the third party interest over the leased property. The father of the plaintiff and defendant has passed away in the year 1984 still then defendant is in possession of the schedule property by remitting the taxes, rent to the authorities concerned, after the marriage of the plaintiff, she has been shifted to her husband's house till then she has not lived in the schedule property. The Will executed by the father of the plaintiff and defendant is void and not maintainable in 9 O.S.No.513/2022 law. Hence, the defendant prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.
5. On the basis of above pleadings, following Issues have been framed by my learned Predecessor in Office.
ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiff proves that she has acquired right in the suit schedule property as per registered Will dated:
17.05.1983?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that property is available for partition since K.Muniswamy was only a lessee of suit schedule property?
3. Whether plaintiff proves that she having half share in the suit property?
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit property?
5. What order or decree?
6. In support of the case, the plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and got marked 10 documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10 and closed her evidence. The defendant has not 10 O.S.No.513/2022 led his evidence inspite of having given sufficient opportunities.
7. Heard the arguments and perused the materials on record.
8. My findings on the above Issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Negative Issue No.2 : In the Negative Issue No.3 : In the Negative Issue No.4 : In the Negative Issue No.5 : As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
9. ISSUES NO.1 TO 4: These Issues are interrelated to each other and involve common appreciation of facts and evidence. Hence, to avoid repetition of facts, I have taken these Issues together for common consideration.
11 O.S.No.513/2022
10. The plaintiff has asserted that herself and defendant are the daughter and son of Late K.Muniswamy. During the life time of the father of the plaintiff and the defendant, he had leased the suit schedule property by the Deputy Commissioner, City Corporation, Bengaluru on 29.01.1977. After the demise of Late K.Muniswamy, the plaintiff and the defendant used to stay in the schedule property along with her husband and children and there was no partition or severance of the family. During the life time of Late K.Muniswamy, he has executed the registered Will dated:
17.05.1983 by bequeathing half portion of the schedule property measuring 20 x 12.5 feet to the plaintiff. The defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the schedule property by collecting the rent of the same without giving the rent to the plaintiff even though the plaintiff is having half share in the schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff has requested the defendant to give her share in the 12 O.S.No.513/2022 schedule property, but the defendant has refused the same.
11. The defendant has contended in written statement that, the Deputy Commissioner of City Corporation, Bengaluru is executed only lease agreement in favour of K.Muniswamy, who is the his father, but said Corporation has not executed the sale deed. The lease period under the said agreement is for ninety nine years and till the completion of the lease agreement the lessor cannot sublet the leased property to third party. The father of the plaintiff and defendant has performed the marriage of the plaintiff by obtaining hand loan from third person, later after the death of the father of the plaintiff, the defendant has repaid the said loan. The Will executed by the father of the plaintiff and defendant is void and not maintainable in law.
12. In order to substantiate the contention, the plaintiff has filed an affidavit as examination-in-chief and 13 O.S.No.513/2022 she is examined as P.W.1. The P.W.1 has reiterated the contents of plaint. The defendant has not any evidence on his behalf after giving sufficient opportunities.
13. The plaintiff has relied on documentary evidence at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. The defendant has not produced any documents.
14. The plaintiff has relied on Ex.P.1 - Will dated:
17.05.1983, Ex.P.2 - Certified copy of lease agreement dated: 29.01.1977, Ex.P.3 - Complaint given by the plaintiff to the Police Commissioner, Bengaluru dated:
21.10.2021, Ex.P.4 - Office copy of legal notice issued to the defendant dated: 27.12.2021, Ex.P.5 - Postal receipt, Ex.P.6 - Postal acknowledgment, Ex.P.7 and 8 -
Photographs Ex.P.9 - Compact disk and Ex.P.10 - Certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act.
15. So far as documentary evidence is concerned that on perusal of Ex.P.1 which shows that Will is 14 O.S.No.513/2022 executed by the father of the plaintiff by name K.Muniswamy on 17.05.1983 by bequeathing half portion of the suit schedule property measuring 20 x 12.5 feet to the plaintiff and the same was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru. On perusal of Ex.P.2 which shows that lease agreement is executed on 29.01.1977 between Late K.Muniswamy S/o.Kariyan and the Corporation of the City Bengaluru, represented by its Deputy Commissioner. On perusal of recitals of clause No.2 and 4 of Ex.P.2, the terms and conditions which show that:
2. That the lessee commences from January 1976 and shall be for period of 99 years on an annual ground rent of Rs.4.50 (rupees four and paise fifty only) and lessee agree to pay the ground rent on or before the 5th of each year in advance commencing from 1st January 1977.
4. That the lessee shall not be entitled to sub-
let the schedule site.
15 O.S.No.513/2022On perusal of Ex.P.3 which shows that the complaint is given to Police Commissioner, Bengaluru City by the plaintiff. On perusal of Ex.P.4 which shows that the plaintiff got issued legal Notice to the defendant on 27.11.2021.
16. So far as oral evidence of parties is concerned to lis that plaintiff is examined as P.W.1 and P.W.1 has reiterated the contents of plaint.
17. At the outset, it is for the plaintiff to prove her case. The plaintiff cannot rely on the weakness of the defendant. The defendant has contended that said Corporation has not executed the sale deed and the lease period under the said agreement is for ninety nine years and till the completion of the lease agreement the lessor cannot sublet the leased property to third party and under lease agreement no person shall hold the right to create the third party interest over the leased property 16 O.S.No.513/2022 and the Will executed by the father of the plaintiff and defendant is void and not maintainable in law.
18. The plaintiff has contended that during the life time of Late K.Muniswamy, he has executed the registered Will dated: 17.05.1983 by bequeathing half portion of the schedule property measuring 20 x 12.5 feet to the plaintiff and the same was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru. The Will has to be executed in accordance with Section 63 of Indian Succession Act R/w/Section 67 and 68 of Evidence Act. The disposition must be in writing. It should be signed by testator. The execution of the Will must be attested by at least two witnesses. There is no particular form for the Will.
19. It is the primary duty of the Court to ascertain the intention of the testator. That has to be ascertained from the Will itself and it has to be gathered from the language of the Will.
17 O.S.No.513/2022
20. The propounder has to prove the Will. There are two types of onus on the propounder:
1. he is to discharge the burden as regards the legal and valid execution of the will;
2. he is to remove the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will so as to satisfy the consciously of the Court.
21. In order to establish the proper execution of the Will the propounder has to adduce evidence to convince the Court:
(a) the testator was in sound and disposing state of mind;
(a) the testator was free from the external influence;
(b) the testator understood the nature and effect of disposition;
(c) the testator put his signature on his own free Will;
(d) the testator signed the Will in presence of two attesting witnesses;
(e) the Will was signed by the attesting witnesses in presence of the testator;
(f) the Will was the last Will of the testator. 18 O.S.No.513/2022
22. The mode of proving a Will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any of documents except as to the requirement of attestation prescribed in case of Will by Sec.63 of Indian Succession Act. The evidence of proving the Will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator is sufficient to discharge the onus.
23. In ascertaining the genuineness of the will, the Court must satisfy its conscience that will have been executed by the testator out of his free will. The law in regard to proof of unprivileged will is now well settled. It has to be proved not only by proving the signature of the executor, but it should be found to be free from any suspicious circumstances. In this regard it is useful to refer Sec.63 (C) of Indian Succession Act: 19 O.S.No.513/2022
"Section 63,-execution of unprivileged Wills- Every testator, not being a solider employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, (or an airman so employed or engaged,) or a mariner at sea, shall execute his will according to the following rules:-
a ) and b).........
c) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary."20 O.S.No.513/2022
24. Sec.63 of Indian Succession Act lays down the mode and manner in which the execution of an unprivileged will be to be proved. Sec.68 of Indian Evidence Act postulates the mode and manner in which proof of execution of document is required by law to be attested. It in unequivocal terms states that, execution of will must be proved by examining at least one attesting witness is alive subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence.
25. What is meant by the word attestation is defined in Sec.3 of Transfer of Property Act, which reads as under:
"Section 3-Interpretation-clause-In this Act, unless there is something repugnant in the subject or context,-
xxx xxxx xxx
"Attested", in the relation to an
instrument, means and shall be
21 O.S.No.513/2022
deemed always to have meant
attested by two or more witnesses
each of whom has seen the executant sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen some other person sign the instrument in the presence and by the direction of the executant, or has received from the executant a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person, and each of whom has signed the instrument in the presence of the executant; but it shall not be necessary that more than one of such witnesses shall have been present at the same time, and no part icular form of attestation shall be necessary."
26. There is long line of decision bearing on the nature and standard of evidence required proving a will. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in AIR 1959 Supreme Court page 443 (H.Venkatachala 22 O.S.No.513/2022 Iyenger -Vs- B.N.Thimmajamma and others), which reads thus:
"Evidence Act (1872), Ss.45 and 47-
Proof of will-Onus of proof on
propounder-Nature- Appreciation of
evidence-Duty of Court- (Succession Act (1925), Ss. 59 and 63)-Wills).
The party propounding a will or otherwise making a claim under a will is no doubt seeking to prove a document and, in deciding how it is to be proved, reference must inevitably be made to the statutory provisions which govern the proof of documents. Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act are relevant for this purpose. Under S.67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature of the said person must be proved to be in his handwriting, and for proving such a handwriting under Ss.45 and 57 of the Act the opinions of experts and of 23 O.S.No.513/2022 persons acquainted with the handwriting of the person concern are made relevant. Section 68 deals with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to be attested; and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until lone attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. These provisions prescribe the requirements and the nature of proof, which must be satisfied by the party who relies on a document in a court of law. Similarly, Ss. 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act are also relevant. Thus the question as to whether the will set up by the propounder is proved to be the last will of the testator has to be decided in the light of these provisions. It would prima facie be true to say that the will has to be proved like any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by S.63 of the Indian Succession Act. As in the case of 24 O.S.No.513/2022 proof of other documents so in the case of proof of wills it would be idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty. The test to be applied would be the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters.
However, there is one important feature which distinguishes will from other documents. Unlike other documents the will speaks from the death of the testator, and so, when it is propound or produced before a Court, the testator who has already departed the world cannot say whether it is his will or not; land this aspect naturally introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the departed testator. Even so, in dealing with the proof of wills the court will start on the same enquiry as in the case of the proof of documents. The propounder would be called upon to 25 O.S.No.513/2022 show by satisfactory evidence that the will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free will. Ordinarily when the evidence adduced in support of the will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of the testator's mind and his signature as required by law, Courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder. In other words the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts just indicated.
There may, however, because in which the execution of the will may be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The alleged signature of the testator may be very shaky and doubtful and evidence in support of the 26 O.S.No.513/2022 propounder's case that the signature in question is the signature of the testator may not remove the doubt created by the appearance of the signature; the condition of the testator's mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated; and evidence adduced may not succeed in removing the legitimate doubt as to the mental capacity of the testator; the dispositions made in the will may appear to be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances, or, the will may otherwise indicate that the said dispositions may not be the result of the testator's free will and mind. In such cases the Court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. The presence of such suspicious circumstances naturally tends to make the initial onus very heavy; and unless it is satisfactorily 27 O.S.No.513/2022 discharged, Courts would be reluctant to treat the document, as the last will of the testator. It is true that, if a caveat is filed alleging the exercise of undue influence, fraud or coercion in respect of the execution of the will propounded, such pleas may have to be proved by the caveators; but, even without such pleas circumstances may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will in executing the will, and in such circumstances, it would be a part of the initial onus to remove any such legitimate doubts in the matter.
Apart from the suspicious circumstances above referred to in some cases the wills propounded
disclose another infirmity. Propounder themselves take a prominent part in the execution of the wills which confer on them substantial benefits. If it is shown that the propounder has taken a prominent part in the execution of the 28 O.S.No.513/2022 will and has received substantial benefit under it, that itself is generally treated as a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the will and the propounder is required to remove the said suspicion by clear and satisfactory evidence. It is in connection with wills that present such suspicious circumstances that decision of English Courts often mention the test of the satisfaction of judicial conscience. The test merely emphasizes that, in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the court is the last will of the testator, the Court is deciding a solemn question and it must be fully satisfied that it had been validly executed by the testator who is no longer alive.
It is obvious that for deciding material questions of fact which arise in applications for probate or in actions on wills, no hard and fast or inflexible rules can be laid down for the 29 O.S.No.513/2022 appreciation of the evidence. It may, however, be stated generally that a propounder of the will has to prove the due and valid execution of the will and that if there are any suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will the propounder must remove the said suspicions from the mind of the court by cogent and satisfactory evidence. It is hardly necessary to add that the result of the application of these two general and broad principles would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and on the nature and quality of the evidence adduced by the parties:
AIR 1946 P C 156, Rel. on.
It is no doubt true that on the proof of the signature of the deceased or his acknowledgment that he has signed the will he will be presumed to have known the provisions of the instrument he has signed; but the said presumption is liable to be rebutted by proof of 30 O.S.No.513/2022 suspicious circumstances. What circumstances would be regarded as suspicious cannot be precisely defined or exhaustively enumerated. That inevitably would be a question of fact in each case: Air 1929 Cal 484, Ref."
27. On perusal of recitals of Ex.P.1 which demonstrates that Sri.K.Muniswamy during his life time has executed a Will dated: 17.05.1983, by bequeathing half portion of the suit schedule property measuring 20 x 12.5 feet to the plaintiff. At least one attesting witness should be examined before the Court. But, the plaintiff has not examined at least one attesting witness to prove said Will.
28. By considering entire evidence of P.W.1 and documents exhibited on her side, on close scrutiny of pleadings of both parties and on careful appreciation of evidence, the plaintiff has not proved that she has acquired right in the suit schedule property as per 31 O.S.No.513/2022 registered Will dated: 17.05.1983. The plaintiff has not proved that property is available for partition since K.Muniswamy was only a lessee of suit schedule property.
The plaintiff has not proved that she having half share in the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. Further, the plaintiff is not entitled for relief of mesne profits as sought. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 to 4 in the Negative.
29. ISSUE NO.5: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Typist directly on computer online, typed by him corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 11th day of September, 2025) Digitally signed by SHIVANAND SHIVANAND MARUTI MARUTI JIPARE JIPARE Date:
2025.09.11 17:52:30 +0530 (SHIVANAND MARUTI JIPARE) C/c. XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.32 O.S.No.513/2022
ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:
P.W.1 : Smt. Muniyamma,
W/o. Sri.Gunalan.
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P.1 : Will dated: 17.05.1983.
Ex.P.2 : Certified copy of lease agreement dated:
29.01.1977.
Ex.P.3 : Complaint given by the plaintiff to the
Police Commissioner, Bengaluru dated: 21.10.2021.
Ex.P.4 : Office copy of legal Notice issued to the defendant dated: 27.12.2021.
Ex.P.5 : Postal receipt. Ex.P.6 : Postal acknowledgment. Ex.P.7 : & Photographs. Ex.P.8 Ex.P.9 : Compact disk.
Ex.P.10 : Certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act.
33 O.S.No.513/2022LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANT:
NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT:
NIL Digitally signed by SHIVANAND SHIVANAND MARUTI MARUTI JIPARE JIPARE Date:
2025.09.11 17:52:38 +0530 (SHIVANAND MARUTI JIPARE) C/c. XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU.