Bangalore District Court
Smt.H.Lakshmi vs Sri.S.Manohar on 6 June, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 57)
:Present :
Sri. N.Sunil Kumar Singh., B.Com.,LL.B.,
LVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
Dated this the 6th Day of June, 2019.
O.S.No.9026/2015
PLAINTIFFS 1. Smt.H.Lakshmi
W/o Late R.L.Venugopal,
Aged about 52 years,
2. Sri.Nishchal
S/o Late Venugopal,
Aged about 19 years,
Both are residents of
No.96/4, Murgesh Mudalla Lane,
Jumma Masjid Road,
Bangalore-560002.
(By Sri.Chandrashekara Reddy K.N.,
Advocte)
- Vs.
DEFENDANTS 1. Sri.S.Manohar
S/o B.C.Shivashankarappa,
Aged about 56 years,
R/at No.27, Mohideen Sab Lane,
Jumma Masjid Road,
Bangalore-560002.
2. Sri.Karthik
S/o Not known,
Aged about 32 years,
Alga Parameshwari
Engineering works,
2 O.S.No.9026/2015
No.90/6, 2nd Cross,
2nd Main, Vittal Nagar,
Bangalore-560026.
(D.1- & D-2 by Sri.S.R.S., Advocate)
Date of institution of the : 30.10.2015
suit
Nature of the suit : Suit for Declaration and
Partition
Date of commencement of : 17.08.2017
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 06.06.2019.
Judgment was
pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
03 07 07
*******
JUDGMENT
The suit is filed by plaintiffs against defendants for partition and separate possession of their legitimate half share in the suit property and for mesne profit and such other reliefs.
2. The facts in brief of plaintiff's case is that, the husband of 1st plaintiff R.L.Venugopal along with defendant No.1 purchased the suit property for valuable consideration of Rs.80,000/- under Registered Sale Deed dated 15.04.1994. After purchase of suit property the revenue records have been changed in to the joint name of husband of 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant herein. After purchase of suit property the husband of 1st plaintiff 3 O.S.No.9026/2015 R.L.Venugopal died on 19.10.2005. Later the plaintiff's being the legal heirs of deceased R.L.Venugopal have succeeded to half share in the suit property. The original Sale Deed with respect to the suit property was misplaced and could not be traced. Hence 1st plaintiff has obtained certified copy of Sale Deed from the Sub- Registrar.
3. During the life time of 1st plaintiff's husband the suit property was leased on monthly rent to one R.Nagusa till the end of Feb 2004. Since the said tenant has not paid rent properly R.L.Venugopal and 1st defendant have jointly filed suit for ejectment of the tenant on 07.06.2004 in O.S.No.3889/2004 and same was decreed on 09.03.2011. After such decree of the suit the plaintiffs and 1st defendant have taken possession of suit property from the tenant. Thus the plaintiffs and 1st defendant are in joint possession of suit property. During the life time of R.L.Venugopal the 2nd plaintiff was adopted when the 2nd defendant was one year old boy and school records of the 2nd plaintiff discloses that 1st plaintiff and R.L.Venugopal are the parents and 2nd plaintiff born on 31.12.1999. The 2nd plaintiff was missing, thus a police complaint was filed on 29.09.2015 before Ulsoor Gate police station and registered case in 4 O.S.No.9026/2015 Cr.No.393/2015. Later the 2nd plaintiff returned and staying along with 1st plaintiff.
4. Later the suit property was let out to 2nd defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.12,000/- and the rent with respect to the suit property is collected by 1st defendant and not paid half share in the said rent to the plaintiffs. The 1st plaintiff has got no avocation for her livelihood and so far the 1st defendant has collected rent of Rs.4,80,000/- from 2nd defendant and out of which he has to pay Rs.2,40,000/- to the plaintiffs. Since the plaintiffs have got half share in the suit property despite of their demand for partition and allotment of legitimate half share to the plaintiffs the 1st defendant has not complied to the request of plaintiffs and not paid the rents so collected from the 2nd defendant. Hence without any alternative the present suit is filed by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of their legitimate half share in the suit property and also for mesne profit towards the rent collected and prayed to decree the suit.
5. The brief averments of written statement filed by the 1st defendant is that, the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The averments of Para.3 of the plaint is partly correct and it is admitted that the 1st defendant along with the husband of 1st plaintiff have purchased the suit property 5 O.S.No.9026/2015 for valuable consideration of Rs.80,000/- under Registered Sale Deed dated 15.04.1994. He is also admitted that after such purchase the revenue records of the suit property transferred into the name of 1st defendant and Sri. R.L.Venugopal jointly. But the 1st defendant contended that he is the absolute owner of the suit property and in possession of the same and except the 1st defendant no other person have got any manner of title or possession over the suit property.
6. It is further submitted by 1st defendant that, the wife and children of the vendor of the 1st defendant and R.L.Venugopal filed a suit in O.S.No.3822/1995 which was dismissed on 31.10.2011. In the said suit the Hon'ble court has upheld Sale Deed executed by the vendor of 1st defendant and R.L.Venugopal and held that 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property. In the said suit the plaintiffs who were parties to the proceeding have not contested to the matter. It is further contended that the 1st defendant and legal representatives of R.L.Venugopal have filed suit for eviction of the tenant in O.S.No.3899/2004 and said suit came to be decreed on 09.03.2011 and as per the direction of the court the possession was taken over by the 1st defendant from the tenant. The said fact was within the knowledge of the plaintiff herein. After 6 O.S.No.9026/2015 decreeing the suit in O.S.No.3899/2004 the 1st defendant has filed Ex.No.2229/2011 and took possession of suit property from the tenant. Thus the plaintiffs never in possession of suit property nor they were entitled to claim partition with respect to the suit property.
7. After taking possession from the tenant 1st defendant has spent a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for renovation and let out to the 2nd defendant from June 2015. The rental agreement is executed between 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant with respect to suit property. Later the 1st defendant has paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as taxes and other charges to BBMP out of the rent received. Since the plaintiffs are not land lords with respect to the suit property, the question payment of rent to them do not arise at all. The suit filed by the plaintiffs against this defendant is barred by law of limitation. When the 1st plaintiff husband R.L.Venugopal was suffering from some decease the 1st defendant has paid amount for treatment which is the consideration paid to the husband of 1st plaintiff. Thus R.L.Venugopal has deemed to have relinquished his right over the suit property. Thus the plaintiffs are not entitled for half share in the suit property as claimed in the suit nor they are entitled the rent collected from 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant. Since there is not cause of action for the 7 O.S.No.9026/2015 suit, the suit of the plaintiff's is liable to be dismissed. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with cost.
8. The brief averments of additional written statement filed by 1st defendant is that, the plaintiffs suppressed the legal proceedings with respect to the suit property with regard to ejectment and title dispute over the suit property which are pending on the file Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and deliberately not furnished such information in the present suit. The plaintiffs have suppressed the encroachment on the schedule property and dispute with regard to said encroachment is still pending for adjudication. Since the plaintiffs are not entitled for any reliefs as claimed in the suit much less partition and separate possession of their legitimate share with respect to the suit property, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to the dismissed. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs with cost.
9. Despite of service of suit summons and appearance of 2nd defendant through learned counsel the 2nd defendant not opted to filed written statement on his behalf.
10. From the above pleadings following issues have been framed by my learned predecessor.
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, her husband R.L.Venugopal and the first 8 O.S.No.9026/2015 defendant were jointly purchased the suit property by virtue of Registered Sale Deed, dated 15.04.1994?
2. Whether the first defendant proves that he is the absolute owner of the suit property?
3. Whether the first defendant proves that the suit is barred by limitation?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to ½ share in the suit property as a successor of her husband R.L.Venugopal?
5. What Order or Decree?
11. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, the GPA holder of the plaintiffs got examined himself as P.W.1 by filing his affidavit evidence and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to P.36. The 1st defendant got examined himself as DW.1 and got marked documents as Ex.D.1 to D12.
12. Heard arguments of both the sides and perused the written argument submitted on behalf of the 1st defendant.
13. My answer to the above issues are as follows:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 & 3 : In the Negative
Issue No.4 : In the Affirmative
9 O.S.No.9026/2015
Issue No.5 : As per my final order for the
following:
REASONS
14. Issue No.1 to 4 : Since these four issues are interconnected to each other, they have been taken together for my discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and findings to be given their under.
15. The brief averments of plaintiffs case is that, the husband of 1st plaintiff R.L.Venugopal along with defendant No.1 purchased the suit property for valuable consideration of Rs.80,000/- under Registered Sale Deed dated 15.04.1994. After purchase of suit property the revenue records have been changed in to joint name of husband of 1st plaintiff and 1st defendant herein. After purchase of suit property the husband of 1st plaintiff R.L.Venugopal died on 19.10.2005. Later the plaintiff's being the legal heirs of deceased R.L.Venugopal have succeeded to half share in the suit property. The original Sale Deed with respect to the suit property was misplaced and could not be traced. Hence 1st plaintiff has obtained certified copy of Sale Deed from the Sub- Registrar.
16. During the life time of 1st plaintiff's husband the suit property was leased on monthly rent to one R.Nagusa till the end of Feb 2004. Since the said tenant 10 O.S.No.9026/2015 has not paid rent properly R.L.Venugopal and 1st defendant have jointly filed suit for ejectment of the tenant on 07.06.2004 in O.S.No.3889/2004 and same was decreed on 09.03.2011. After such decree of the suit the plaintiffs and 1st defendant have taken possession of suit property from the tenant. Thus the plaintiffs and 1st defendant are in joint possession of suit property. During the life time of R.L.Venugopal the 2nd plaintiff was adopted when the 2nd defendant was one year old boy and school records of the 2nd plaintiff discloses that 1st plaintiff and R.L.Venugopal are the parents and 2nd plaintiff born on 31.12.1999. The 2nd plaintiff was missing, thus a police complaint was filed on 29.09.2015 before Ulsoor Gate police station and registered case in Cr.No.393/2015. Later the 2nd plaintiff returned and staying along with 1st plaintiff.
17. Later the suit property was let out to 2nd defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.12,000/- and the rent with respect to the suit property is collected by 1st defendant and not paid half share in the said rent to the plaintiffs. The 1st plaintiff has got no avocation for her livelihood and so far the 1st defendant has collected rent of Rs.4,80,000/- from 2nd defendant and out of which he has to pay Rs.2,40,000/- to the plaintiffs. Since the plaintiffs have got half share in the suit property despite 11 O.S.No.9026/2015 of their demand for partition and allotment of legitimate half share to the plaintiffs the 1st defendant has not complied to the request of plaintiffs and not paid the rents so collected from the 2nd defendant. Hence without any alternative the present suit is filed by the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of their legitimate half share in the suit property and also for mesne profit towards the rent collected.
18. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, the General Power of Attorney holder of plaintiffs got examined himself as P.W.1 by filing his affidavit evidence reiterated the plaint averments and deposed that, he has been authorized by the plaintiffs to deposed on their behalf in the present suit and since he has got personal knowledge about the facts of this case, he is deposing on behalf of the plaintiffs. In order to substantiate the same Power of Attorney executed by plaintiff No.1 in favour of P.W.1 is marked as Ex.P.1. The recital of which discloses that 1st plaintiff has authorized P.W.1 to represent the case on her behalf and to depose in the present suit. Admittedly, P.W.1 is the close relative of 1st plaintiff as such he has got knowledge about the facts of this case who is deposing on behalf of the plaintiffs to prove their case.
12 O.S.No.9026/201519. It is further deposed by P.W.1 that suit property was purchased by 1st defendant and 1st plaintiff's husband R.L.Venugopal for valuable consideration of Rs.80,000/- under Registered Sale Deed dated 15.04.1994. In order to substantiate the same the certified copy of the Sale Deed is marked as Ex.P.2. On going through the recitals of the Ex.P.2 it is pertinent to note that as deposed by P.W.1 the suit property was purchased by R.L.Venugopal and 1st defendant herein jointly for consideration of Rs.80,000/-. Even otherwise there is no dispute with regard to purchase of suit property jointly by husband of 1st plaintiff Sri. R.L.Venugopal along with 1st defendant. 1st defendant has clearly admitted in his pleading and evidence that, he has jointly purchased the suit property along with R.L.Venugopal. But DW.1 claimed that during the life time of R.L.Venugopal he has paid some amount towards his treatment for some ailment. Thus R.L.Venugopal has relinquished his right over the suit property. But in order to prove that deceased R.L.Venugopal who is the husband of 1st plaintiff herein has relinquished his right over the suit property there are no such documents produced on behalf of 1st defendant.
20. Further P.W.1 deposed that after purchase of suit property by R.L.Venugopal and 1st defendant jointly 13 O.S.No.9026/2015 under Ex.P.2 the revenue records have been changed in the joint name of 1st defendant and R.L.Venugopal. In order to substantiate the same Katha Extract and Katha Certificate with respect to the suit property are marked as Ex.P.3 and P.4. The recitals of Ex.P.3 and P.4 clearly discloses that, the name of R.L.Venugopal and 1st defendant herein is incorporated as Kathedhars with respect to the suit property. Even otherwise there is no such dispute with regard to acceptance of revenue records in the joint name of R.L.Venugopal and 1st defendant as per recitals of Ex.P.3 and 4 by BBMP. These facts have been clearly admitted by DW.1 in the cross-examination of plaintiff's counsel.
21. P.W.1 further deposed that R.L.Venugopal who is husband of 1st plaintiff herein died on 19.10.2005 leaving behind the plaintiffs as legal representatives to succeed half share in the suit property. In order to substantiate the same the Death Certificate is marked as Ex.P.5 and Voter ID and Physically Disabled Certificate of 1st plaintiff are marked as Ex.P.6 and P.7. The Tax Paid Receipts are marked as Ex.P.8 and P.9. The Ledger Extract for having paid tax to BBMP with respect to the suit property by the vendor of R.L.Venugopal and 1st defendant with respect to the suit property is marked as Ex.P.10. The certified copy of the Sale Deed of the 14 O.S.No.9026/2015 vendor of R.L.Venugopal and 1st defendant is marked as Ex.P.11.
22. It is further deposed by P.W.1 that, during the life time of R.L.Venugopal the suit property was leased on monthly rent to a tenant R.Nagusa and collecting rent till 2004. Since the said tenant was not regular in payment of rent his tenancy was terminated and filed ejectment suit in O.S.No.3889/2004 which was decreed on 09.03.2011. In order to substantiate the same the Order Sheet of the said suit is marked as Ex.P.12 and Plaint is marked as Ex.P.13 and Evidence of DW.1 herein in the said suit is marked as Ex.P.14 and copy of Judgment and Decree of the said suit are marked as Ex.P.15 and P.16. On going through the recitals of Ex.P.15 and 16 it is pertinent to note that, during the pendency of said suit R.L.Venugopal who is the husband of 1st plaintiff and father of 2nd plaintiff herein was reported to be dead and these plaintiffs were brought on record as legal representatives of deceased R.L.Venugopal and 1st defendant herein was the 2nd plaintiff in the said suit and admittedly the suit was decreed and tenant was directed to hand over vacant possession of suit property to the plaintiffs and 1st defendant herein within six months. Later admittedly the 1st defendant herein being the co- owner with respect to the suit property along with 15 O.S.No.9026/2015 plaintiffs herein filed Execution petition and got possession of suit property through court process. In order to substantiate the same Ex.No.2229/2011 petition copy is marked as Ex.P.17 and Affidavits of DW.1 herein are marked as Ex.P.18 and P.19 and Order Sheet of said Execution Petition is marked as Ex.P.20 and Delivery Order issued by the court are marked as Ex.P.21 and P.22 and Possession Certificate and Mahazar for having delivered possession of suit property to decree holders are marked as Ex.P.23 and P.24. All these documents clearly discloses that the plaintiffs being the legal representative of decease R.L.Venugopal got the joint possession of the suit property along with DW.1 herein through court process at the relevant point of time.
23. P.W.1 further deposed that after alienation of suit property in favour of R.L.Venugopal and 1st defendant herein the wife and children of the vendor filed suit in O.S.No.3822/1995 for cancellation of Sale Deed and such other reliefs. Admittedly, the said suit was dismissed and order sheet was marked as Ex.P.25 copy of the plaint is marked as Ex.P.26. Copy of Written Statement filed by defendant is marked as Ex.P.27. Copy of Chief Examination of Dw.1 herein is marked as Ex.P.28. On going recitals of Ex.P.28 DW.1 herein has clearly admitted the joint purchase of suit property by 16 O.S.No.9026/2015 himself and husband of 1st plaintiff for valuable consideration under Registered Sale Deed and further the Judgment passed in the said suit and the decree passed are marked as Ex.P.29 and P.30. Admittedly the plaintiffs herein are the parties to the said proceeding. In order to prove the present location of the Suit Property Photographs are marked as Ex.P.32 and P.34 and CD of the said photographs is marked as Ex.P.31. In order prove the relationship of 2nd plaintiff with deceased R.L.Venugopal and 1st plaintiff the study certificate of 2nd plaintiff with achievement record are marked as Ex.P.35 and 36. Even though P.W.1 cross-examined by defence counsel at length noting is elicited to prove that plaintiffs are not legal representatives of deceased R.L.Venugopal nor they are having any right in the suit property. The evidence of P.W.1 and admissions of DW.1 in the cross- examination of the plaintiffs counsel are clear enough to come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs being the legal representatives of deceased R.L.Venugopal are entitled for half share in the suit property.
24. In order rebut the evidence and documents of P.W.1 herein 1st defendant got examined himself as DW.1 by filing his affidavit evidence reiterated the written statement averments and deposed that, he had purchased suit property along with one R.L.Venugopal 17 O.S.No.9026/2015 under Registered Sale Deed dated 15.04.1994 for valuable consideration and the revenue records of the suit property got changed in to the name of himself and R.L.Venugopal jointly. It is also deposed by DW.1 that, deceased R.L.Venugopal was performing pooja in marriages and special occasions and he had no definite source of income. For having included R.L.Venugopal as the purchaser he has put to lot of inconvenience. It is also deposed by DW.1 that not even a single rupee was paid by R.L.Venugopal for purchase of suit property jointly. But on going through the recitals of Ex.P.2, admittedly the suit property was purchased jointly by 1st defendant along with R.L.Venugopal who is the husband of 1st plaintiff herein. But for having paid consideration by DW.1 alone to the vendor there is not such recital in Ex.P.2. Thus it can be construed that DW.1 and deceased R.L.Venugopal have jointly contributed for payment of consideration towards purchase of suit property under Ex.P.2.
25. DW.1 further deposed that despite of purchase of suit property the maintenance and taxes were paid by him to BBMP at regular intervals. In order to substantiate the same tax paid receipts are marked as Ex.D.5 to D.9. The payment of taxes towards suit property by DW.1 will not take away the right of deceased 18 O.S.No.9026/2015 R.L.Venugopal or plaintiffs herein over the suit property. It is further deposed by DW.1 that, R.L.Venugopal and himself have filed suit for ejectment against tenant after terminating of tenancy which was admittedly decreed as per Ex.P.15 and P.16 and later DW.1 along with the plaintiffs herein have taken possession of suit property from the tenant as per the recitals of Ex.P.17 to P.24. But the on the basis of Ex.P.23 and P.24 DW.1 claimed that, since possession was taken by him through court the plaintiffs have dispossessed from the possession. But the Judgment and Decree passed as per Ex.P.15 and P.16 discloses that, the plaintiffs have been impleaded as legal representative of deceased R.L.Venugopal who was the 1st plaintiff in the said suit and suit was decreed as per Ex.P.15 and P.16 and the benefit of which shall be conferred on the present plaintiffs also. By filing execution petition and taken possession by DW.1 through court itself will not deprive the right of plaintiffs over the suit property. Since the deceased R.L.Venugopal is the joint purchaser of suit property along with DW.1 as per Ex.P.2. The plaintiffs being legal representatives of deceased R.L.Venugopal are entitled for half share in the suit property.
26. Even though DW.1 has denied the right of the plaintiffs over the suit property. For having relinquished 19 O.S.No.9026/2015 the right of R.L.Venugopal over the suit property during his life time in favour of DW.1 there is no such documents produced on behalf of 1st Defendant. As already discussed above admittedly the suit property was let out to 2nd defendant on monthly rent and D.W.1 was collecting rent. But in order to substantiate the same the plaintiffs have not produced any such documents on their behalf. Hence a separate enquiry with regards to the mesne profit has to be initiated by the plaintiffs to secure their portion of mesne profit out of the rent so collected by DW.1 from the 2nd defendant. Even though DW.1 has issued notices to BBMP as per Ex.D.1 and D.2 and issued notice as per Ex.D.3 and reply notice Ex.D.4. These notices will not confirm absolute right title or possession of DW.1 over the suit property, since no such relinquishment deed is produced to prove that deceased R.L.Venugopal has relinquished his right over the suit property in favour of DW.1 during his life time.
27. It is further deposed by DW.1 that, he has spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- for renovation of suit property out of the rent so collected by him from the 2nd defendant. In order to substantiate the same Bills Issued by Civil Contractor are marked as Ex.D.10 to D.12. The recitals of which discloses that for renovation purpose some amount spent, but having spent the said amount 20 O.S.No.9026/2015 for renovation of building on the suit property there is no such description or specification found in the said bills. Except addressing the said bill to DW.1 the description and specification of work carried on the building standing on the suit property is not mentioned and further the persons who had issued Ex.D.10 to Ex.D.12 are not examined by DW.1 to prove the contents of the same. Even otherwise knowing fully well that plaintiffs are co- owners of suit property DW.1 has spent such a huge amount for renovation of building on the suit property without permission of the plaintiffs cannot be taken into the consideration. In the cross-examination of DW.1 he has specifically admitted that suit property was purchased in the joint name of R.L.Venugopal and himself and revenue records changed into their name as per Ex.P.2 to P.3. When admittedly there was no such relinquishment deed executed by R.L.Venugopal during his life time in favour of DW.1. After his death the plaintiffs being the legal representatives of deceased R.L.Venugopal have acquired half right in the suit property and they are entitled for the reliefs claimed in the suit with regard to the partition. On the other hand by the evidence of DW.1 and the documents he was not able to prove that he is the absolute owner and in lawful possession of suit property as on the date of the suit. As already discussed above with regard to the mesne profit, 21 O.S.No.9026/2015 since no convincing documents and evidence available on behalf of plaintiffs they can file separate proceeding with regard to the mesne profit and can hold enquiry to secure the mesne profit for having collected rent by DW.1 from 2nd defendant with respect to the suit property. While arguing the learned counsel for defendants relied upon decision reported in 2008(4) SCC Page 594 and I have gone through the principles laid down in the said decision which is not applicable to the present facts and circumstances of this case. By the evidence and documents of DW.1 he was not able to prove that the claim of plaintiffs is barred by law of limitation. On going through the evidence of P.W.1 and their documents Ex.P.1 to P.36 and admission of DW.1 in the cross- examination of plaintiffs counsel, plaintiffs are entitled for half share in the suit property. Accordingly, I hold Issue No.1 as Affirmative, Issue No.2 and 3 are as Negative and Issue No.4 as Affirmative.
28. Issue No.5: For my discussion to Issue No.1 to 4 above, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is partly decreed with cost.
The plaintiffs are entitled for half share in the suit property.22 O.S.No.9026/2015
With regard to the mesne profit the plaintiffs can file separate proceeding and secure the same from the 1st defendant.
Draw preliminary decree
accordingly.
(Typed to my online dictation by Stenographer, revised and signed by me and thereafter pronounced in the Open Court on this the 6th Day of June, 2019) ( N. Sunil Kumar Singh) LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiffs.
P.W.1 L.Gurushankar
2. Witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants.
D.W.1 S.Manohar
3. Documents marked on behalf of the plaintiff.
Ex.P.1 General Power of Attorney.
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
15.04.1994.
Ex.P.3 Katha Extract .
Ex.P.4 Katha Certificate.
Ex.P.5 Death Certificate of R.L.Venogopal.
Ex.P.6 Voter ID Card.
Ex.P.7 Certificate of Physically Disabled.
Ex.P.8 & P.9 Tax Paid Receipts.
Ex.P.10 Ledger Extract of BBMP.
Ex.P.11 Sale Deed.
Ex.P.12 Order sheet of O.S.No.3889/2004.
Ex.P.13 Plaint of O.S.No.3889/2004.
Ex.P.14 Evidence of DW.1 in
O.S.No.3889/2004.
23 O.S.No.9026/2015
Ex.P.15 & P.16 Judgment & Decree of
O.S.No.3889/2014.
Ex.P.17 Copy of Ex.No.2229/2011.
Ex.P.18 & P.19 Affidavits of DW.1.
Ex.P.20 Order sheet of Ex.No.2229/2011.
Ex.P.21 & P.22 Delivery Orders issued by court.
Ex.P.23 Certified copy of Possession
certificate.
Ex.P.24 Certified copy Mahazar.
Ex.P.25 Certified copy of Order sheet of
O.S.No.3822/1995.
Ex.P.26 Copy of the plaint of
O.S.No.3822/1995.
Ex.P.27 Copy of Written statement filed by
defendant.
Ex.P.28 Copy of Chief Examination of DW.1.
Ex.P.29 & P.30 Certified copy Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.3822/1995.
Ex.P.31 CD.
Ex.P.32 to P.34 Photographs of Suit Property Photographs.
Ex.P.35 & P.36 Study Certificate and Progress Card of V.Nischal.
4. Documents marked on behalf of the defendants.
Ex.D.1 to D.3 Office copy of the Legal Notices issued by DW.1.
Ex.D.4 Reply notice.
Ex.D.5 to D.8 Acknowledgements given by BBMP.
Ex.D.9 Tax Paid receipt.
Ex.D.10 to 12 Bills issued by Civil Contractor.
( N. Sunil Kumar Singh) LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
24 O.S.No.9026/2015 25 O.S.No.9026/2015Order pronounced in open Court.
(Vide separate order) ORDER The suit of the plaintiffs is partly decreed with costs.
The plaintiffs are entitled for half share in the suit property.
With regard to the mesne profit the plaintiffs can file separate proceeding and secure the same from the 1st defendant.
Draw preliminary decree
accordingly.
LVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru.