Bangalore District Court
Smt.Vanamala vs Sri.H.Thippa Reddy on 26 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF XXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU (C.C.H.No.7).
Dated: This the 26th day of April, 2019
Present:
Smt.Maheshwari.S.Hiremath, B.A., LL.B.(Spl.)
XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge.
Bengaluru.
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.942 of 2001
C/w
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.1754 of 2006
C/w
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.476 of 2006
In O.S.942/2001
Plaintiffs 1.Smt.Vanamala, d/o late Sri.Hanuma Reddy & w/o Sri.
Srinivas @ Srinivas Reddy, Aged about 46 years, R/o
Chinnappanahalli, Marathahalli post, Bangalore-560 037.
2.Smt.Sarasamma, d/o late Sri.Hanuma Reddy, W/o late
Sri.Ramachandra Reddy, Aged about 56 years, R/o Near
R.T.O office, Kolar.
By Sri.R.A.Devanand, Adv
Vs.
Defendants 1.Sri.H.Thippa Reddy, s/o late Sri.Hanuman Reddy, Major,
r/o Uma Shankara Nilaya, Opposite to Brook Fields,
Kundalahalli, Marathahalli Post, Bengaluru-560 037.
Since deceased by his Lrs:
2
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
1(a) Smt.Kamalamma, w/o late Thippa Reddy, Aged about
70 years, R/at No.22, Sri Sathya Sai Nilaya,
Chinnappanahalli village, Marathahalli Post, Bengaluru-
560 037.
1(b) Sri.T.Muralidhar, S/o late Thippa Reddy, Major, R/at
No.23, RJ.Garden, 1st cross, Chinnappanahalli village,
Marathahalli Post, Bengaluru-560 037.
1(c) Sri.Vijaya Kumar @ Vijaya Babu, s/o late Thippa
Reddy, Major, R/at No.22, Sri Sathya Sai Nilaya,
Chinnappanahalli village, Marathahalli Post, Bengaluru-
560 037.
1(d) Sri.T.Uma Shankar, s/o late H.Thippa Reddy, Major,
R/at No.22, Sri Sathya Sai Nilaya, Chinnappanahalli
village, Marathahalli Post, Bengaluru-560 037.
1(e) Smt.Pushpa, w/o late H.Thippa Reddy, Aged about 55
years,
1(f) Sri.Kiran, s/o late Thippa Reddy,
D.1(e) and 1(f) are r/at Sai Ram Nilaya, Nellurahalli main
road, Siddapura, Whitefield post, Bangalore-560 066.
2. Sri.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy, s/o late Sri.Hanuma Reddy,
Age: Major, R/o Chinnappanahalli village, Marathahalli
Post, Bengaluru-560 037.
Since dead by his Lrs,
2(a) Smt.H.Vanajamma, w/o late H.Sathyanarayana Reddy,
3
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Aged about 65 years,
2(b) Sri.S.Ravi Kumar, s/o late H.Sathyanarayana Reddy,
Aged about 48 years,
2(c) Smt.S.Bharathi, d/o late Sathyanarayana Reddy, Aged
about 43 years,
2(d) Smt.S.Anuradha, d/o late Sathyanarayana Reddy, Aged
about 40 years,
2(e) Sri.S.Narendra Babu, s/o late Sathyanarayana Reddy,
Aged about 38 years,
All are r/at No.2, Chinnappanahalli village, Doddenakundi
post, Marathahalli Post, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru-
560 037.
3. Sri.Venkatesh Reddy, s/o late Sri.Hanuma Reddy, Age:
Major, R/o Arvind Venue, Kundalahalli Gate,
Marathahalli Post, Bengaluru-560 037.
4. Smt.Nagaveni, w/o late Sri.H.Anantharama Reddy, Age:
Major, R/o Chinnappanahalli village, Marathahalli Post,
Bengaluru-560 037.
5. Smt.A.Suma Reddy, d/o late Sri.H.Anantharama Reddy,
Age: Major, R/o Chinnappanahalli village, Marathahalli
Post, Bengaluru-560 037.
6. Smt.Soumya Reddy, d/o late Sri.H.Anantharama Reddy,
Age: Major, R/o Chinnappanahalli village, Marathahalli
Post, Bengaluru-560 037.
4
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
7. Smt.Deena, w/o late Sri.H.Anantharama Reddy, Age:
Major, R/o Chinnappanahalli village, Marathahalli Post,
Bengaluru-560 037.
8. Sri.Sandeep Reddy, s/o late Sri.H.Anantharama Reddy,
Age: Major, R/o Chinnappanahalli village, Marathahalli
Post, Bengaluru-560 037.
9. Smt.H.Jayamma, d/o late Sri.Hanuma Reddy, w/o late
Sri.M.Papanna, Aged about 70 years, R/o
Sri.Sathyanarayana Reddy Building, Marathahalli Post,
Bengaluru-560 037.
10. M/s.Mahaveer Properties, No.1, Mahaveer Towers, 3rd
main, 24th main, J.P.Nagar, 5th phase, Bangalore-560 078.
Represented by Managing Partner, Sri.M.P.Sathya
Shekar.
11. Sri.Ravi Yadav, s/o Sri.Komuraiah, Aged about 34
years, R/o No.54, Paradise Colony, 7th phase, J.P.Nagar,
Bengaluru-560 078.
12. M/s.Vijetha Constructions, A Partnership Firm, Having
office at 13/2, White Field, Bangalore-560 066, by its
partner Sri.S.Sridhar
13. Sri.M.S.Sudeesh, s/o Sri.M.A.Subramanyam, Aged
about 34 years, R/at Apartment No.411, 3rd floor,
Mahaveer Towers, Chinnappanahalli village, Bengaluru-
560 037.
14. Sri.Jalandar Dasa, s/o Sri.B.Narayana, Aged about 38
years, R/o C/o Sri.H.Krishna Reddy, 2nd 'A' Cross, Ward
No.26, Primary School Cross, Marathahalli Post,
5
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Bengaluru-560 037.
15. M/s.Rohan Associates, A Partnership Firm, situated at
Pradeep Chamber 813, Bhandarkar Institute Road, Pune,
having branch office at Bangalore, At No.1201, 1 st floor,
Divya Shakthi, 100 feet road, Indiranagar, Bengaluru-560
038.
16. Dr.Hiremath Vamahadevaiah, s/o
Sri.H.M.Panchaksharaiah, Aged about 52 years, Residing
at Senior Scientist Bio Chemistry, Agricultural Research
Station, Dharward Farm, Dharwad-580 007.
17. Sri.Rajiv Kumar Gupta, s/o Sri.Nathuni Prasad Gupta,
Aged about 27 years,
18. Smt.Nidhi Gupta, w/o Sri.Rajiv Kumar Gupta, Aged
about 27 years,
Defendants Nos.17 and 18 are r/at No.67, 1st main, 1st cross,
Near R.J.Garden, Anandanagar, Marathahalli, Bengaluru-
560 037.
19. Sri.Amithava Paul s/o Sri.Babulch Paul, Aged about 28
years,
20. Smt.Kaveri.B.K, w/o Sri.Amithava Paul, Aged about 24
years,
Defendants Nos.19 and 20 are r/at No.948, 1st floor, 6th
main, Chodeshwari Layout, Marathahalli, Bangalore-560
037.
6
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
21. Sri.R.Padmanabhan, s/o Rajgopal, Aged about 34 years,
R/at No.18/1, N.H.Layout, 11th Cross, Swimming Pool
Extension, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru-560 003.
22 Sri.K.Mohan Das, s/o D.Krishna Vadhiar, Aged about 60
years, R/at Quarters No.389, C.P.W.D.Quarters, Sector-I,
H.S.R.Layout, Bangalore-560 034.
23.Sri.T.Sunil Kumar, s/o T.Prasad, Aged about 30 years,
24. Smt.T.N.L.Shilpa, w/o Sri.T.Sunil Kumar, Aged about
26 years,
Defendants Nos.23 and 24 are r/at No.41, 1st floor,
Shaktinilaya, 3rd 'A' Cross, P.R.Layout, Munekolla New
Extension, Marathahalli, Bangalore-560 037.
25.Sri.E.K.Chandarshekar, s/o Sri.D.Kodanda Naidu, Aged
about 35 years,
26. Sri.Sudhakar Kothanda Naidu, s/o Sri.D.Kodanda
Naidu, Aged about 33 years,
Defendants Nos.25 and 26 are r/at Vasantha Vihar,
Chinnapppanahalli village, 5th cross, Church road,
Marathahalli post, Bengaluru-560 037.
27.Sri.Gopala Krishna, s/o Sri.Pandurangan, Aged about 38
years,
28. Smt.Dhanalakshmi, w/o Sri.Gopala Krishna, Aged
about 35 years,
7
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Defendants Nos.27 and 28 are r/at Vasantha Vihar, Plot
No.304, 3rd floor, Chinnapppanahalli village, 5th cross,
Church road, Marathahalli post, Bengaluru-560 037.
29. Sri.Manmeet Singh Bohra, s/o Sri.B.S.Bohra, aged
about 30 years, Vasantha Vihar, Plot No.102, 1 st floor,
Chinnappanahalli village, 5th cross, Church road,
Marathahalli Post, Bengaluru-560 037.
30. Sri.Sunil Kumar Pandit, s/o Sri.Anarit Pandit, aged
about 27 years, Vasantha Vihar, Plot No.2, ground floor,
Chinnappanahalli village, 5th cross, Church road,
Marathahalli Post, Bengaluru-560 037.
31. Sri.Shagish Kumaran Kunyil, s/o Sri.Kumaran Krishna
Kunyil, Aged about 30 years, Vasantha Vihar, Plot No.2,
ground floor, Chinnappanahalli village, 5th cross, Church
road, Marathahalli Post, Bengaluru-560 037.
32. Smt.Jasti Lakshmi Lalitha Kumara, w/o late
Doddaprasad Rao, Aged about 57 years,
33. Smt.Dodda Aruna Kumari, w/o Sri.Dodda Srinivasa
Rao, Aged about 35 years,
Defendants Nos.32 and 33 are r/at No.G.B.J-431, HAL
Township, Bengaluru-560 037
34. Sri.P.Babu, s/o late Vijayamma, Aged about 45 years,
R/at Anatharama Reddy Layout, Chinnappanahalli
8
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
village, Bengaluru-560 037.
35. Smt.P.Gayathri, d/o late Vijayamma, Aged about 43
years, r/at Anantharama Reddy Layout, Chinnappanahalli
village, Bengaluru-560 037.
36. Sri.P.Nagaraj, s/o late Vijayamma, Aged about 48 years,
r/at Anantharama Reddy Layout, Chinnappanahalli
village, Bengaluru-560 037.
Since dead by his Lrs,
36(a) : Smt.Kamala, w/o late Nagaraj, Aged about 44 years,
36(b): Smt.Bhavya, d/o late Nagaraj, Aged about 24 years,
36(c): Smt.Sunitha, d/o late Nagaraj, Aged about 20 years,
36(d): Miss Nivya, d/o late Nagaraj, Aged about 15 years,
since minor represented through her mother Natural
Guardian
All are r/at No.491, 1st cross, Anantharam Reddy Layout,
Chinapanahalli, Bangalore-560 037.
37. Sri.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, s/o late Peddakka, Aged
about 67 years, r/at No.13, Hanuma Reddy Layout,
Chinnappanahalli, Marathahalli Post, Bengaluru-560 037.
38. Smt.Bhagya, d/o late Peddakka, Aged about 59 years,
C/o Sri.P.Lakshminarayana Reddy, No.13,
Chinnappanahalli, Marathahalli Post, Bengaluru-560 037.
9
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
39. Smt.P.Nagamma, d/o late Savithramma, Aged about 53
years, C/o Sri.Nagaraj, Antharama Reddy Layout,
Chinnappanahalli, Marathahalli Post, Bengaluru-560 037.
Since dead by his Lrs,
39(a) Smt.Veena.V, d/o late P.Nagamma @
Nagarathanamma, Aged about 35 years,
39(b) Sri.Jagadish.V, Aged about 37 years, s/o late
P.Nagamma @ Nagarathanamma
39(c) Sri.Murali.V, s/o late P.Nagamma @
Nagarathanamma, Aged about 37 years,
All are r/at No.18/580, 3rd main, Ittige Factory Bande Road,
Kogilu Badavane, Bangalore-560 064.
40. Smt.P.Chandra, d/o late Savithramma, Aged about 50
years, C/o Sri.Nagaraj, Antharama Reddy Layout,
Chinnappanahalli, Marathahalli Post, Bengaluru-560 037.
41. Smt.N.K.Jayanthi, d/o Smt.Sharadamma, Aged about 42
years, R/at Doddenakundi post, Bengaluru-560 037.
42. Sri.N.K.Vasudeva Reddy, s/o late Sharadamma, Aged
about 63 years, R/at No.99, "Maheshwara Nilaya",
Doddenakundi Post, Bengaluru-560 037.
43. Smt.N.K.Manu, d/o late Sharadamma, Aged about 47
years, Doddenakundi Post, Bengaluru-560 037.
10
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
44. Sri.N.K.Babu Reddy, s/o late Sharadamma, Aged about
46 years, R/at No.99, Muneshwara Nilaya, Doddenakundi
Post, Bengaluru-560 037.
45. Smt.Kamalakshmma, d/o late Sharadamma, Aged about
66 years, c/o Babu Reddy, No.99, Maheshwari Nilaya,
Doddenakundi Post, Bengaluru-560 037.
46. Smt.N.K.Sudha, d/o late Sharadamma, Aged about 58
years, c/o Babu Reddy, No.99, Maheshwari Nilaya,
Doddenakundi Post, Bengaluru-560 037.
47. Smt.N.K.Gowramma, d/o late Sharadamma, Aged about
55 years, c/o Babu Reddy, No.99, Maheshwari Nilaya,
Doddenakundi Post, Bengaluru-560 037.
48. Smt.N.K.Lakshmi, d/o late Sharadamma, Aged about 50
years, No.99, Maheshwari Nilaya, Doddenakundi Post,
Bengaluru-560 037.
49. Smt.Chinnakka @ Chinnammaiah, d/o late Hanuma
Reddy, Aged about 70 years, c/o Sharadakka, R/at
Anantharama Reddy Layout, Chinnappanahalli,
Marathahalli Post, Bengaluru-560 037.
11
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
By Sri. PFV for D.1, Lrs of D.1(a) to (f)- served and absent,
D.2, Sri.C.S.R for Lrs of D.2(a) to (d), Lrs of D.2(e)-
Exparte. Sri.M.N.S for D.3, Sri.B.D for D.4 to 8, D-9 -
Sri.G.S.V.R, Sri.BW for D.10, D.11- Exparte, Sri.YN for
D.12, Defendants Nos.13, 14 - Exparte, Sri.A.S.S for D.15,
Defendants Nos.16 to 20- Exparte, Sri.A.R for D.21,
D.No.22 - Exparte, Sri.A.R for D.23, D.No.24 - Exparte,
Sri.N.M.S for D.25 to 33, Proposed defendant 34 to 40-
served, absent, Proposed defendant No.41- Held sufficient,
Sri.M.D. for Proposed defendant No.42, Proposed
defendant No.43- Held sufficient, Sri.M.D. for Proposed
defendant No.44, Proposed defendant Nos.45 to 48- Held
sufficient, Proposed defendant No.49- served absent.
In O.S.476/2006
Plaintiffs Smt.Dodda Nagamma @ Muninagamma, d/o Jayamma,
Hindu, Major, Residing at No.50, Bazar Road,Yelahanka
Post, Bangalore-560 064
( By M/s. Ananthakrishnamurthy and Associates, Advocate)
Vs.
Defendants 1. Mahaveer Properties, No.1, Mahaveer Towers, III Floor,
24th main, J.P.Nagar VI Phase, Bangalore-560 078, A
Partnership Firm, Represnted by tis Partners
12
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
1a) Sri.K.Praveen
1b) Sri.P.Sathya Shekar
2. Smt.Nagaveni, w/o late Anatha Ram Reddy, Hindu,
Aged about 45 years, R/at 4th main, Chinnappanahalli, Ward
No.22, Marathahalli, Bangalore.
3. Smt.Deena, w/o late Anatha Ram Reddy, Hindu, Aged
about 45 years, R/at 4th main, Chinnappanahalli, Ward
No.22, Marathahalli, Bangalore.
4. Smt.Bhagyalakshmi, w/o Venkatesh Reddy, Hindu,
Majjor, r/the Arivindh Avenue, Kundalahalli Gate,
Bangalore-560 037.
5. Sri.H.Venkatesha Reddy, Hindu, Aged about 55 years, s/o
M.Hanuma Reddy, R/at 3rd floor, Chinnappanahalli,
Bangalore.
(By Sri.BR for D.1
Sri.BP for D.2, 3, Sri.T.P.H for D.4,5, Advocates)
In O.S. 1754/2006
Plaintiff Smt.H.Jayamma, d/o late Hanuma Reddy, Aged about 80
years, R/at No.2, Seven Hills, Satish Nilaya, 4 th floor, 1st
main, Talakaveri Layout, Amruthahalli, Bangalore-560 092.
13
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Represented by her Power of Attorney holder
Smt.H.G.Lakshmi.
By M/s.H.R.Anathakrishnamurthy and Associates,
Advocate.
Vs.
Defendants 1.H.Thippa Reddy, s/o late Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy, Aged
about 69 years, Saikrupa, Chinnappanahalli, Marathahalli
post, Bangalore-560 037.
2.Sri.R.Sathyanarayana Reddy, s/o late H.M.Hanuma
Reddy, Aged about 66 years, R/o Chinnappanahalli,
Marathahalli post, Bangalore-560 037.
3.Sri.Venkatesh Reddy, s/o late H.M.Hanuma Reddy, Aged
about 59 years, R/o Chinnappanahalli, Marathahalli post,
Bangalore-560 037
4.Sri.Ananth Ram Reddy, since dead by his Lrs
4(a) Smt.Suma Reddy, d/o late Anantharam Reddy and
Smt.Nagaveni, Aged about 24 years,
4(b) Smt.A.Sowmya Reddy, d/o late Anantharam Reddy
and Smt.Nagaveni, Aged about 22 years,
4(c) Smt.Deena, w/o late Anantharam Reddy, Aged about
42 years,
4(d) Sri.A.Sandeep Reddy, s/o late Anantharam Reddy and
Smt.Deena, Aged about 21 years,
Defendants 4(a) to (d) are r/o Chinnapanahalli, Marathahalli
14
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Post, Bengaluru-560 037.
5.Smt.N.K.Nagaveni, d/o late Sharadamma, Aged about 46
years, R/o Chinnappanahalli, Marathahalli post,
Bangalore-560 037
6.Smt.N.K.Jayanthi, d/o late Sharadamma, Aged about 36
years, R/o Doddanekkundi Post,
7.Sri.N.K.Vasudeva Reddy, late Sharadamma, Aged about
55 years, No.99, Maheshwari Nilaya, Doddanekkundi
Post, Bangalore-560 037
8.Sri.N.K.Babu Reddy, late Sharadamma, Aged about 39
years, No.99, Maheshwari Nilaya, Doddanekkundi Post,
Bangalore-560 037
9.Smt.N.K.Kamalakshamma, d/o late Sharadamma, Aged
about 57 years,
10.Smt.N.K.Sudha, d/o late Sharadamma, Aged about 52
years,
11.Smt.N.K.Gowramma, d/o late Sharadamma, Aged about
49 years,
Defendants Nos.9 to 11 are r/at Hoodi Post, Hoodi,
Bengaluru-560 037
12.Smt.N.K.Lakshmi, d/o late Sharadamma, Aged about 44
years, R/o Doddanekkundi Post, Bangalore-560 037
15
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
13.Smt.N.K.Manu, d/o late Sharadamma, Aged about 42
years, R/o Doddanekkundi Post, Bangalore-560 037
14.Sri.P.Babu, s/o late Vijayamma, Aged about 39 years,
R/at Anatharam reddy Layout, Marathahalli Post,
Chinnapanahalli, Bangalore-560 037
15.Smt.P.Gayathri, d/o late Vijayamma, Aged about 36
years, R/at Anatharam reddy Layout, Marathahalli Post,
Chinnapanahalli, Bangalore-560 037
16.Sri.P.Nataraj, s/o late Vijayamma, Aged about 45 years,
R/at Anatharam reddy Layout, Marathahalli Post,
Chinnapanahalli, Bangalore-560 037
17.Sri.P.Lakshminarayana Reddy, s/o late Pedhakka, Aged
about 64 years, No.13, Chinnapanahalli, Doddanekkundi
post, Bangalore-560 037
18.Smt.P.Nagamma, d/o late Savithramma, c/o Nagaraj,
Aged about 49 years, R/at Anatharam Reddy Layout,
Marathahalli Post, Chinnapanahalli, Bangalore-560 037
19.Smt.P.Chandra, d/o late Savithramma c/o Nagaraj, Aged
about 47 years, R/at Anatharam Reddy Layout,
Marathahalli Post, Chinnapanahalli, Bangalore-560 037
20.Smt.Suma Reddy, d/o late Anantharama Reddy and
Smt.N.K,Nagaveni, Aged about 28 years, R/at
Chinnapanahalli, Bangalore-560 037
16
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
21.Smt.A.Sowmya Reddy, d/o late Anantharama Reddy and
Smt.N.K,Nagaveni, Aged about 26 years, R/at
Chinnapanahalli, Bangalore-560 037
22.Smt.M.Deena, w/o late Anantharama Reddy, Aged about
46 years, R/at Chinnapanahalli, Marathahalli Post,
Bangalore-560 037
23.Sri.A.Sandeep Reddy, s/o late Anantharama Reddy and
Smt.M.Deena, Aged about 25 years, R/at
Chinnapanahalli, Marathaalli Post, Bangalore
24.Sri.L.V.Raju, s/o late R.L.Raju, Aged about 68 years,
R/at No.76, Ranga Rao Road, Shankarapuram,
Bengaluru-560 004.
25.Smt.N.A.Hemavathy, d/o N.H.Anantha Reddy, Major,
26.Smt.N.A.Nalina, d/o N.H.Anantha Reddy, Major,
27.Smt.N.A.Kavitha, d/o N.H.Anantha Reddy, Major,
Defendants Nos.25 to 27 are r/at No.668, 14 th cross, 13th
main, 2nd phase, J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru.
28.Sri.S.Nagendra Babu, s/o H.Sathnarayana Reddy, Major,
r/o Hanumareddy Layout, Chinnapanahalli,
Doddanekkundi post, Bangalore-560 037
29.Sri.T.Vijaya Kumar @ Vijaya Babu, s/o H.Thippa
Reddy, Major, r/at Sai Krupa, Hanumareddy Layout,
Chinnapanahalli, Doddanekkundi post, Bangalore-560
037
17
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
30.Sri.G.V.Chandrashekar, s/o G.R.Venkataswamy Reddy,
Major, r/o Gunjur Grama, Varthur Post, Bangalore.
31.M/s.Rohan Associates, Pradeep Chambers, 13,
Bhandarkar Institute Road, Pune-411004. Rep by its
Partner, Mr.Sanjay Kushalchand Lunkad
Also at:
M/s.Rohan Associates, No.1201, 1st floor, Divya Sakthi,
100 feet road, Indiranagar, Bengaluru-560 038.
32. Sri.Sanjay Kushalchand Lunkad, Partner, M/s.Rohan
Associates, No.1201, 1st floor, Divya Shakti 100 feet
road, Indiranagar, Bengaluru-560 038.
33.M/s.Goodrich Aerospace Services Pvt Ltd., Sy.No.14/1
and 15/1, Maruthi Industrial Estate, Phase-II, Hoodi
village, Whitefiled, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore-560
048.
Rep by its Vice President, Mr.Christopher Anil Rao
34.G.V.Lakshmikanth Raju, since dead by LRs
34(a) Smt.B.Shashirekamma, w/o late Lakshmikantharaju,
Aged about 65 years,
34(b) Sri.V.L.Mukundaraju, s/o late Lakshmikantharaju,
Aged about 37 years,
34(c) Smt.V.L.Rajeshwari, d/o late G.Lakshmikantharaju,
18
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Major,
34(d) Smt.V.L.Jayashree, d/o late G.Lakshmikantharaju,
Major,
Defendants Nos.34(a) to (d) are r/at No.9/1, 1st floor, 28th
cross, Kilari road, Bengaluru-560 053.
35. Smt.Vanamala, d/o H.Hanuma Reddy, w/o late
Ramachandra Reddy, Aged about 52 years,
Chinnapanahalli, Marathahalli, Bengaluru-560 037.
36. Smt.Sarasamma, d/o H.Hanuma Reddy, w/o late
Ramachandra Reddy, Aged about 62 years, Residing at
Kolar, Near RTO Office,
37. Sri.A.Annadanappa, s/o late R.A.Saganabasappa,
Major, r/at New Thippasandra, Bangalore-560 075.
38. Sri.K.Ashwath, s/o Sri.S.Krishnappa, Major, c/o
Munithayappa building, Hoodi village, Bengaluru.
39. Sri.H.B.Sudhir, s/o Sri.H.S.Basavarajappa, Aged about
42 years, R/at No.33, Basava Krupa, Nandidurga Road,
Jayamahal, Bengaluru-560 046.
40. Sri.N.Srinivasa Reddy, s/o late T.Narayana Reddy, Aged
about 63 years, R/at No.89, 4th cross, Gokula 3rd stage,
Mysore-570 002.
41. Sri.N.Thimma Reddy, s/o late T.Narayana Reddy, Aged
about 60 years, R/at No.57, 4th main, Domlur 2nd stage,
Bengaluru-560 071.
19
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
42. Sri.N.Gopal Reddy, s/o late T.Narayana Reddy, Aged
about 53 years, R/at No.2, Muthasandra Via Varthur,
Bengaluru-560 087.
43. Sri.P.Venkateshwara Rao, s/o Sri.P.Suranna, Aged about
49 years, R/at 384/A, Sindhura Apartments, RMV 2nd
stage, 2nd block, Bengaluru-560 094.
44. Sri.G.K.Suresh, s/o Sri.G.T.Krishnappa Reddy, Aged
about 41 years, r/ Gunjur village, Varthur, Bengaluru-560
087.
45. M/s.Vijetha Constructions, a partnership firm No.13/2,
Opp: Prestige Ozone Whitefield, Bengaluru-560 066.
Represented by its Partner, Sri.B.Sreedhar.
46. Smt.Kamalamma, w/o Sri.H.Thippa Reddy, r/at No.22,
"Sai Krupa", Chinnappanahalli, Marathahalli Post,
Bengaluru-560 037.
47. Sri.T.Muralidhar, s/o Sri.H.Thippa Reddy, r/at No.23,
R.J.Garden, 1st cross, Ananth Nagar, Chinnappanahalli,
Marathahalli Post, Bengaluru-560 037.
48. Sri.T.Kiran Kumar, s/o Sri.H.Thippa Reddy, r/at No.1/6,
Raj Palya, Hoodi village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru-
560 048.
49. Mahaveer Properties, Mahaveer Bower-II, Rep by its
Prop: Sri.P.Sathya Shekar, No.1, Mahaveer Towers, 3rd
floor, 24th main, J.P.Nagar 5th phase, Bengaluru-560 078.
50. Sri.Rajeev Kumar Guptha, Father's name not known to
20
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
the plaintiff, Major, r/at Flat No.301, 2nd floor,
51. Smt.Nidhi Guptha, w/o Sri.Rajeev Kumar Guptha,
Major, R/at Flat No.301, 2nd floor,
52. Dr.Hiremath Vamadevaiah, s/o
Sri.H.M.Panchaksharaiah, Major, R/at Flat No.404, 4th
floor,
53. Sri.T.Sunil Kumar, s/o Sri.T.Prasad, aged about 34
years,
54. Smt.T.N.L.Shilpa, w/o Sri.T.Sunil Kumar, Major, R/at
No.203, 2nd floor,
55. Sri.K.Mohan Das, s/o Sri.D.Krishna Vadiyar, Aged
about 60 years, R/at No.402, 4th floor,
56. Sri.Amithava Paul, s/o Sri.Babul Paul, Aged about 32
years, R/at No.402, 4th floor,
57. Sri.R.Padmanabhan, so Sri.S.Rajagopal, Aged about 38
years, R/at Flat No.102, 1st floor,
58. Sri.A.K.Ramanjalu, s/o late Sri.Gunashekaran.A.R,
Aged about 38 years, R/at Flat No.104, 1st floor,
59. Sri.Srikanth Halla Venkata Nageswar Rao.A, Aged
about 28 years, R/at Flat No.302, 3rd floor,
60. Sri.Vegi Srinivas, Father's name not known to plaintiff,
Aged about 38 years, R/at Flat No.404, 4th floor,
21
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
61. Sri.Anil Kumar Atnurkar, s/o Sri.Dinakar Rao Atnurkar,
Aged about 36 years, R/at No.304, 3rd floor,
62. Sri.S.Lingesh Kumar, s/o Sri.M.Shiva Perumal, Major,
R/at No.201, 2nd floor,
63. Sri.Jayakishore Pagadala, S/o Sri.P.Veeraraghava Rao,
Major, R/at No.202, 2nd floor,
Defendants Nos.49 to 63 in their respective flats at
Mahaveer Bower-II, CMC Katha No.100,
K.T.Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East
Taluk.
64. Dr.T.N.Achaiah, s/o late Sri.T.M.Nanjappa, Aged about
56 years, R/at Mahil Samajia Road, Virajpet-571 218
(Kodagu District)
65. Smt.Chenanda Niramala Mudappa, w/o late
Sri.C.A.Mudappa, Aged about 70 years, R/at No.228, 5th
cross, 1st main, Domlur Layout, Bengaluru-560 071.
66. Sri.P.M.Achaiah, s/o Sri.P.R.Muthappa, Aged about 36
years,
67. Sri.P.G.Muthappa, s/o Sri.P.A.Ganapathi, Aged about
71 years,
Defendants Nos.66 and 67 are r/at No.3367/5, 8 th cross, 13th
main, HAL 2nd stage, Bengaluru-560 008.
22
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
68. M/s.Roma Builders and Develpers, A partnership firm
having its office at No.858, 2nd main road, 'C' block,
AECS Layout, Kundalahalli, Bangalore-560 037.
Rept.by its Managing Partner, Smt.T.R.L.Padmavathi
69. Sri.Medidam Nagavenkata Chandra Mohan, Major, s/o
Veerabhadracharayalu, r/at Flat No.104, Ground floor.
70. Sri.Majety Suryanarayana Murthy, s/o Sri.Upendra Rao,
Aged about 38 years,
71. Smt.Gokavarapu Lakshmi Naga Venkata Saritha, w/o
Sri.Majety Suryanarayaa Murthy, Aged about 32 years,
Defendants Nos.70 and 71 are r/at Flat No.204, 1st floor
72. Sri.Palicharala Sareen Kumar Reddy, s/o
rd
Sri.P.Venugopala Reddy, Major, r/at No.303, 3 floor
73. Sri.Bachupali Amarendra, s/o Sri.B.Chalapathi Rao,
Major, r/at No.103, Ground floor
74. Sri.Rasoju Veerabhadrachari, s/o Eshwaraiah, Major,
r/at No.105, Ground floor
75. Smt.Radha H.Gowda, w/o late Sri.Hombe Gowda,
Major, r/at No.304, 3rd floor
76. Sri.Linga Harikrishna Prasad, s/o late
st
Sri.Venkateshwara Rao, Major, r/at No.203, 1 floor
Defendants Nos.69 to 76 are all in their respective flats at
Roma Pearl Apartments, Sy.No.10/1, Chinnappanahalli
23
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk.
77. Sri.B.V.Radhakrishna, s/o late Sri.Mahadev Bhat,
Major, R/at No.562, AECS Layout, Kundalahalli,
K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk
78. Sri.S.R.Venkatesh, s/o late Ramesh, Aged about 46
years, r/at No.7, Sowmay Layout, Konena Agrahara HAL
Post, Bengaluru-560 017.
79. M/s.Keerthana Constructions, A Partnership firm having
its office at No.1, Assaye Road, Bangalore-560 042. Rept.
By its Partners:
1) Smt.P.Saraswathi
2) Sri.B.Chiranjeevi
3) Sri.P.Madhusudana Reddy
80. Mahaveer properties, Mahaveer Bower-II, Rep by its
PropL Sri.P.Sathya Shekar, No.1, Mahaveer Towers, 3rd
floor, 24th main, J.P.Nagar 5th phase, Bangalore-560 078.
81. Sri.Jayarama Reddy, father's name not known to
plaintiff, Major, R/at M.B.W.Brick Wires,
Cinnappanahalli, Marathahalli Post, Bangalore-560 037,
Since dead by Lrs,
81(a) G.J.Raja, Major, s/o G.Jayarama Reddy
81(b) G.J.Vijaya Kumar, Major, s/o G.Jayarama Reddy
81(c) G.J.Aruna, Major, s/o G.Jayarama Reddy
24
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
81(a) to (c) are r/at M.B.W.Brick Wires,
Chinnappanahalli, Marathahalli Post, Bangalore-560 037
82. M/s Golden Gate Properties Limited, A Company
incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, having its
registered office at Golden House, 820, 80 feet road, 8 th
block, Koramangala, Bangalore-560 034, Director
Mr.C.D.Sanjay Raj
83. Mrs.Anu Chopra (maiden name Miss Aruna B.Rao) w/o
Mr.Rajeev Chopra, aged about 55 years, No.16/126,
Mayur Apartments, Prabhat Colony, Opp Hotel Galaxy,
Santa Cruz East, Mumbai-400 055.
84. Mr.Girish Nayudi, s/o late Sri.A.V.Nayudu, Aged about
55 years, R/at site No.10, AECS Layout, 'A' block,
Chinnannapanahalli village, Bangalore East Taluk,
Bangalore.
85. Mrs.Shonalee Damodar, w/o Sri.B.B.Sujith Cariappa,
r/at No.351, 7th main, HAL 2nd stage, Bangalore-560 008.
86. Sri.Chaitanya Educational Institution, Rept by its
Founder, Dr.B.S.Rao, s/o Father's name not known to the
applicant, Major,
87. Dr.B.Jansi Lakshmi Bai, w/o B.S.Rao, Sy.No.23,
R.J.Gardens, Chinnappanahalli, Marathahalli Post,
Bangalore-37.
88. M/s.Shriram Builders, A registered partnership firm
having its office at No.10/1B, Graphite India Road,
Hoodi, Bangalore-560 048. Rep by its Managing Partner,
25
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Sri.C.Surendranath Reddy, s/o late Sri.Narasimha Reddy
89. T.N.Bhagya, w/o T.C.Nagaraj, aged about 56 years, R/at
No.274, 128, 13th main, HAL 2nd stage, Bangalore-560
008.
90. M/s Icon Developers, a registered Partnership firm
(registered as No.SJN-F-744/2011-12) having its office at
No.106, 1st floor, above Rekha Marbles, Vijaya Bank
Colony Extension, Banaswadi Ring road, Bangalore-43.
Rept by its partners, Mrs.C.Surendranath Reddy, Aged
about 61 years, s/o late Sri.C.Narasimha Reddy,
Mr.G.Prabhakar Reddy, aged about 52
years, S/o Mr.Gurivi Reddy, Sri.N.Srinivasa Reddy,
s/o late T.Narayana Reddy, 63 years, r/at No.89, 4 th cross,
Gokula 3rd stage, Myore-570002.
91. The Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board,
No.14/3, 2nd floor, Restrothana Parishath Building,
Nrupathunga road, Bangalore-560 001.
92. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka
Industrial Area Development Board, No.14/3, 2nd floor,
Restrothana Parishath Building, Nrupathunga road,
Bangalore-560 001.
93. M/s.Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation, having its
registered office at BMTC Complex, 3rd floor, K.H.Road,
Shanthi Nagar, Bangalore-560 027
26
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
94. Sri.Hanukrishna.K, s/o Hanumanthaiah Setty, Aged
about 37 years,
95. Smt.Aparna.P.V, w/o Hanukrishna.K, Aged about 31
years,
Defendants Nos.94 and 95 are r/at No.11/2, 4th main, 6th
cross, Triveni Road, K.N.Extension, Yeshwanthapura,
Bangalore-560 022.
96. Sri.Ravi Kumar Lagisetty, s/o L.Malliah Gupta, Aged
about 45 years, r/at No.B-303, Veracious Sonesta,
K.R.Garden, Wind Tunnel Road, Murugeshpalya,
Bengaluru-560 017.
97. Sri.K.Srinivasan, s/o Kashi Vishwanathan, Aged about
48 years, R/at Plot No.172, Rani Channamma Society,
M.M.Extension, Srininagar, Belagaum-590 016.
98. Sri.S.V.Subramani, s/o S.C.Venkatesh, Aged about 38
years, R/at Srinivasandra village and post, Kasambal
Hobli, Bangarpet Taluk, Kolar District.
Rept by their General Power of Attorney holder
M/s.Saadhana Developers, A Partnership firm registered
under the Indian Partnership Act and having its registered
office at No.26/2, 1st floor, V.R.Chambers, Outer Ring
road, Kadubasanahalli, Bellandur Post, Bengaluru-560
103. Rep by its Partners 1) Sri.Masthanaiah Koncha, 2)
Smt.Kothapalli Sumalatha.
99. Sri. Ganapathi Rao Ayinapuruapu, s/o Prabhakar Rao,
Aged about 38 years, No.42, 3rd cross, Chinnappanahalli
27
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
main, Doddanakkundi Extension, Bengaluru-560 037
100. Sri.Kuppuswamy, father's name not known to the
plaintiff, aged about 65 years,
101. Sri.K.Ashok Reddy, s/o Kuppuswamy and Bharathi,
aged about 37 years,
102. Sri.K.Vasu Reddy, s/o Kuppuswamy, and Bharathi,
Aged about 34 years,
Defendants Nos.100 to 102 are r/at No.64, Anantharama
Reddy Layout, Chinnappanahalli, Bengaluru-560 037.
By Sri.CRS for D.1, 2, Sri.PTH for D.3, D.4 - abated, Sri.B.D
for D.5, D.6 to 16 -Exparte, Sri.VBS for D.17, Sri.TSV
for D.18- Sri.A.J for D.19, D.20- Exparte, Sri.B.D for D.21 to
23, Sri.GS for D.24, Sri.YKN for D.25 to 27, D.28 and 29
Sri.CSR, Sri.I.P for D.30, Sri.ALS for D.31, D.32- Exparte,
D.33- Sri.NSR, Sri.KGS for D.34 (a, b), Sri. R.A.D for 35 and
36, D.37 Absent, Sri.S.H for D.38, Sri.H.V.H for D.39(a to c),
Sri.JVC for D.40, D.41-Sri.JVC, Sri.JVC for D.42, D.43-
Exparte, Sri.N.M for D.44, D45 - Exparte, Sri.CSR for D.46,
47, Sri.BVS for D.48, Sri.BSR for D.49, D-50 to 52 - Exparte,
Sri.AK for D.53, 54 to 56- Absent, Sri.A.K for D.57, D.58-
Exparte, D.59- Absent, Sri.A.K for D.60, D.61- Exparte,
28
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Sri.KNSR for D.62, 63, Sri.PTH for D.64 to 67, D.68- Absent,
D.69 to 71- Exparte, D.72 to 77- Absent, Sri.KN for D.78, D.79,
Absent, D.80- Absent, Sri.SKM for Lrs of D.81, Sri.PR for
D.82, Sri.A.S for D.83, D.84, 85- Sri AS, Sri.SKM for D.86, 87,
Sri.JVC for D.88, Sri.IP for 89, Sri.JVC for .90, Sri.R.L for
D.91, 92, Sri.N.M for 93, Sri.VV for D.94, 95, Sri.GGA for
D.96 to 98, Sri.G.N.R for D.99, 100 to 102- absent.
Date of Institution of suit :
In O.S.No.942/2001 : 02.02.2001
O.S.476/ 2006 : 16.01.2006
O.S.No.1754/2006 : 01.03.2006
Nature of the suits : Partition and
Separate Possession
Date of commencement of recording
of evidence :
In O.S.No.942/2001 : 25.07.2005
O.S.No.1754/2006 : 03.03.2014
Date on which Judgment was
pronounced : 26.04.2019
Total duration :Years Months Days
In O.S.No.942/2001 : 18 02 24
29
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
In O.S.No.476/2006 : 13 03 10
In O.S.No.1754/2006 : 13 01 25
COMMON JUDGEMENT
All these suits are filed for the relief of partition and separate
possession.
30
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
As the parties and suit properties involved in these cases are one
and the same, these matters are clubbed vide order dt. 21.10.2010 in
O.S.No.942/ 2001, I take up these matters together for disposal.
2. Description of suit schedule properties in each of the suits is
as below:-
Sl. Case Descriptions
Nos. Numbers
1 942/2001 i) Sy.No.1 and 2, measuring 1 acre Wet land and bounded by:
East by : Private road
West by : Private Road
North by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Chinnappa Reddy
South by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Kodanda Reddy
ii) Sy.No.1 and 2, measuring 1 acre 3 guntas:-
East by : Private road
West by : Private Road
North by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Kodanda Reddy
South by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Chinnappa Reddy
iii) Sy.No.1 and 2, measuring 1 acre 2 guntas:-
East by : Private road
31
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
West by : Private Road
North by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Chinnappa Reddy
South by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Kodanda Reddy
iv) Sy.No.2 and 3, measuring 4 acres, Dry bounded by:-
East by : Kundalahalli boundary
West by : Private Road
North by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Shamanna Reddy
South by : Property fallen to the share of
Smt.H.M.Kanakamma
v) Sy.No.7, measuring 3 acre 5 guntas, bounded by:-
East by : Sy.No.5 and Kere Angala,
West by : Sy.No.8
North by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Veerappa Reddy
South by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Chinnappa Reddy
vi) Sy.No.8, measuring 7 acres 37 guntas, dry bounded by:-
East by : Sy.No.5
West by : Doddanekkundi village boundary
North by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Koodanda Reddy
South by : Sy.No.12 and Property fallen to the share
of Sri.H.M.Krishna Reddy
vii) Gramathana Sy.No.12,measuring 15 acres, dry bounded
32
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
by:-
East by : Sri.H.M.Kodanda Reddy
West by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Chinnappa Reddy and
Sri.H.M.Krishna Reddy
North by : Sy.No.8
South by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Veerappa Reddy
All properties are situated at Chinnappanahalli village,
Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore south Taluk.
viii) Sy.No.34, measuring 1 acre 22 guntas, bounded by:-
East by : Munnekollala village
West by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Krishna Reddy
North by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Veerappa Reddy
South by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Krishna Reddy
ix) Sy.No.26 and 27, measuring 1 acre 10 guntas, bounded on:-
East by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Chinnappa Reddy
West by : Property fallen to the share of H.M.Narayana
Reddy
North by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Veerappa Reddy
South by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Krishna Reddy
33
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
x) Sy.Nos.28 and 29, 31 and 33, measuring 1 acre 7 ½ guntas,
bounded by:-
East by : Sy.No.34
West by : Sy.Nos.22, 23 and 28
North by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Krishna Reddy
South by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Veerappa Reddy
xi) Sy.Nos.22, 23 and 28, measuring 4 acres 3 guntas, bounded
by:-
East by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Krishna Reddy
West by : Gomala land Munnekollalu village
North by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Chinnappa Reddy
South by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Krishna Reddy
All the aforesaid properties are situated at Munnekollal village,
Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
xii) Sy.No.70 measuring 9 acres 15 guntas situated at
Sadaramangala village, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore
South Taluk and bounded by:-
East by : Sri.H.Narayana Reddy's land
West by : Chikkappa and Appanna's Dry land
North by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Chinnappa Reddy
South by : Sri.Bhojaraj's land
34
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
xiii) Sy.No.19/2, measuring 2 acres 20 guntas, bounded on:-
East by : Besetty Muniswamappa's land
West by : Dhalu Guru Reddy's land
North by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Chinnappa Reddy
South by :Property fallen to the share of H.M.Kodanda
Reddy Reddy
xiv) Sy.No.6/4, Hitualu, measuring 155 yards, bounded on:-
East by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Krishna Reddy
West by : Property fallen to the share of H.M.Veerappa
Reddy
North by : Gramathana
South by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Hanuma Reddy
xv) Kaneshumari house No.21, measuring East to West 90 feet
and North to South 8 ¼ feet , bounded on:-
East by : Raja Beedi
West by : House of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy
North by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Veerappa Reddy
South by : Property fallen to the share of
H.M.Krishna Reddy
xvi) Kaneshumari house No.41, and vacant land measuring
35
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
East to West 18 feet and North to South 18 feet, bounded on:-
East by : Vacant site of Sri.C.Guruva Reddy
West by : Belonging to Sri.Thimmarayappa
North by : Raja Beedi
South by : Sy.Nos.6/4 and 6/3
The above properties are situated at Hoodi village,
Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore.
'SCHEDULE-B"
i) An agricultural properties bearing Sy.No.10 measuring an
extent of 1.00 situated at Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk, which is bounded as follows:-
East by : Road
West by : Sy.No.21 and Road
North by : Sri.H.M.Kodandarama Reddy
South by : Sri.H.M.Chinna Reddy
ii) An agricultural properties bearing Sy.No.13 measuring an
extent of 0.33 guntas, situated at Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram
Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, which is bounded as follows:-
East by : Road
West by : Rajakaluve and road
North by : Sri.Hanuma Reddy's property
South by : Sri.H.M.Chinna Reddy
36
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
iii) An agricultural properties bearing Sy.No.3 measuring an
extent of 1.05 situated at Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk, which is bounded as follows:-
East by : Road
West by : Road
North by : Sri.Chinnappa Reddy
South by : Raja Kaluve
iv) An agricultural properties bearing Sy.No.23 measuring an
extent of 5.26 situated at Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk, which is bounded as follows:-
East by : Sri.Kodandarama Reddy
West by : Sri.H.M.Krishna Reddy
North by : Sy.No.29
South by : Road
'SCHEDULE-C"
i) An agricultural properties bearing Sy.No.20 measuring an
extent of 1.20 situated at Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk, which is bounded as follows:-
East by : Remaining portion of Sy.No.20
West by : Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy
North by : Sri.Shamanna Reddy
South by : Remaining portion of Sy.No.20
ii) An agricultural properties bearing Sy.No.44 measuring an
37
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
extent of 1.00 situated at Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk, which is bounded as follows:-
East by : Jacab Property
West by : Sri.H.K.G.Srinivas Reddy
North by : Remaining portion of Sy.No.44
South by : Sri.H.K.G.Srinivas Reddy
iii) An agricultural properties bearing Sy.No.13/2 measuring an
extent of 1.00 situated at Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk, which is bounded as follows:-
East by : Road
West by : Rajakaluve and road
North by : Sri.Hanuma Reddy's property
South by : Sri.Hanuma Reddy's property
iv) An agricultural properties bearing Sy.No.3/1 measuring an
extent of 0.37 situated at Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk, which is bounded as follows:-
East by : Road
West by : Road
North by : Janakamma's property
South by : Rajakaluve
"SCHEDULE-D"
i) An agricultural properties bearing Sy.No.10/2 measuring an
38
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
extent of 1.02 situated at Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk, which is bounded as follows:-
East by : Road
West by : Road and Rajakaluve
North by : Hanuma Reddy's property
South by : Sri.Hanuma Reddy's property
ii) An agricultural properties bearing Sy.No.14/3 measuring an
extent of 0.34 situated at Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk, which is bounded as follows:-
East by : H.M.Krishna Reddy
West by : Sy.No.7 (old)
North by : H.M.Krishan Reddy's proeprty
South by : Sri.Veerappa Reddy's property
iii) An agricultural properties bearing Sy.No.19 measuring an
extent of 7.17 situated at Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk, which is bounded as follows:-
East by : Sy.No.20
West by : Doddanekkundi Bords
North by : Sy.No.18
South by : Sy.No.24
iv) An agricultural properties bearing Sy.No.5/2 measuring an
extent of 1.05 situated at Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli,
39
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Bangalore East Taluk, which is bounded as follows:-
East by : Road
West by : Road
North by : Janakamma's proeprty
South by : Sri.Veerappa Reddy's property
v) An agricultural properties bearing Sy.No.13 measuring an
extent of 1.00 situated at Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk, which is bounded as follows:-
East by : Road
West by : Rajakaluve
North by : Remaining portion of Sy.No.13
South by : H.M.Chinnappa Reddy's property
vi) An agricultural properties bearing Sy.No.13/3 measuring an
extent of 1.01 situated at Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk, which is bounded as follows:-
East by : Remaining portion of Sy.No.13/3
West by : Sy.No.21
North by : Sri.Thippa Reddy's property
South by : Sri.Anantha Reddy's property
vii) An agricultural properties bearing Sy.No.14/4 measuring an
extent of 0.35 ½ situated at Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram
40
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, which is bounded as follows:-
East by : Road
West by : Sy.No.21
North by : H.K.G.Srinivas Reddy's property
South by : H.K.G.Srinivas Reddy's property
viii) An Gramathana property bearing Sy.No.5, Katha No.99,
measuring 2.04 guntas, situated at Chinnappanahalli,
K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, which is bounded as
follows:-
East by : Land cultivated by Sri.Venugopal Reddy
West by : Railway Track
North by : Sy.Nos.22 and 23
South by : Road
ix) An agricultural properties bearing Sy.No.5/1 in extent 1.03
guntas situated at Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk, which is bounded as follows:-
East by : Water course,
West by : Path Way
North by : Sy.No.6
South by : H.M.Narayana Reddy's property
x) An agricultural properties bearing Sy.No.6 in extent 1.03
41
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
guntas, dry, situated at Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk, which is bounded as follows:-
East by : Water Course
West by : Path Way
North by : H.K.Gopal Reddy's land
South by : Sy.No.5/1
xi) An agricultural properties bearing Sy.No.14/2, in extent 0.36
guntas, situated at Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East Taluk, which is bounded as follows:-
East by : Water Course
West by : Path way
North by : Tank Bund
South by : Sri.H.K.G.Srinivasan Land
2 476/ All that piece and parcel of site bearing No.9, measuring
2006
40 x 40 feet, situated at Old Gramathana, Chinnappanahalli,
K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, bounded on:
East by : Vacant land
West by : Road
North by : Site No.8
South by : Site No.10
3 1754/ Schedule -A:- (properties allotted to Sri.Hanuma Reddy
2006
in the partition)
1. Sy.No.23, measuring 5 acres 26 guntas, situated at
42
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Chinnappanahalli, Bangalore, bounded on the :
East by : H.M.Kodhandaram Reddy's
Property
West by : Bangalore- Salem Railway Track
North by : Sy.No.24
South by : Old Gramathana
2. Sy.No.24, measuring 5 acres 33 guntas, situated at
Chinnappanahalli, Bangalore, bounded on the :
East by : H.M.Kodhandaram Reddy's
Property
Sy.No.20
West by : Bangalore- Salem Railway Track
North by : Sy.No.19
South by : Sy.No.23
3. Sy.No.10/1, measuring 1 acre 3 guntas wet land
situated at Chinnappanahalli, Bangalore, bounded on
the :
East by : Road
West by : Sy.No. 21 and Public road
North by : H.M.Kodhandaram Reddy's and
M.T.Thoma's property
South by : H.M.Chinnnappa Reddy's property
4. Khanueshumari site No.5, Old Gramathana,
measuring 53 feet x 40 feet, situated at
Chinnappanahalli, Bangalore, bounded on the :
43
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
East by : H.M.Kodhandaram Reddy's
Property
West by : Road
North by : Site No.4,
South by : Site No.6
5. Sy.No.19, measuring 13 ½ guntas situated at
Chinnappanahalli, Bangalore, bounded on the :
East by : Road
West by : Road
North by : H.Venkatesh Reddy's property
South by : Road
6. Sy.No.19, measuring 13 ½ guntas situated at
Chinnappanahalli, Bangalore, bounded on the :
East by : Road
West by : Doddanekkundi village and road
North by : Doddanekkundi village
South by : Site belonging to R.S.Mani
7. Sy.No.19, measuring 8 guntas situated at
Chinnappanahalli, Bangalore, bounded on the :
East by : Bangalore Salen Railway Track
West by : Doddanekkundi village and road
North by : Doddanekkundi village
South by : Site belonging to R.S.Mani
8. Sy.No.19, measuring 8 1/4th guntas situated at
Chinnappanahalli, Bangalore, bounded on the :
44
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
East by : H.Sathyanarayana Reddy's property
West by : Bangalore-Salem Railway Track
North by : Road
South by : Sy.No.24.
Schedule -B:- (properties purchased by Sri.Hanuma
Reddy)
1. Sy.No.13, measuring 1 acre situated at
Chinnappanahalli, Bangalore, bounded on the :
East by : Road
West by : Raja Kaluve and road
North by : Own property
South by : H.M.Chinnappa Reddy and
Kamalamma's property
2. Sy.No.5/2, measuring 1 acre 5 guntas situated at
Chinnappanahalli, Bangalore, bounded on the :
East by : Road
West by : Road
North by : Janakamma's proeprty
South by : H.M.Veerappa Reddy's property
3. All that piece and parcel of the landed property
bearing No.19, measuring 7 acres 17 guntas situated
at Chinnappanahalli, Bangalore, bounded on the :
East by : Quary land
West by : Doddanekundi Border
45
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
North by : Land of N.L.Gopal Reddy
South by : Landed property bearing No.24.
Schedule -C:- (properties purchased by Sri.B.Thippa
Reddy)
1. Sy.No.3/1, measuring 37 guntas situated at
Chinnappanahalli, Bangalore, bounded on the :
East by : Road
West by : Road
North by : Janakamma's property
South by : Raja Kaluve
2. Sy.No.20, measuring 1 acre 20 guntas situated at
Chinnappanahalli, Bangalore, bounded on the :
East by : Portion of same property
West by : H.M.Hanuma Reddy's property
North by : H.M.Shamanna Reddy's property
South by : Same Survey number
3. Sy.No.44, measuring 1 acre situated at
Chinnappanahalli, Bangalore, bounded on the :
East by : Jacob's property
West by : H.K.G.Srinivasan's property
North by : Same Survey number
South by : H.K.G.Srinivasan's property
46
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
4. Sy.No.10, measuring 13 acres 10 guntas situated at
Hoodi, Bangalore, bounded on the :
East by : Muniswamy Shetty and
Prasannachari's property
West by : Government land
North by : Muniswamappa Chokappa's
property
South by : Kallappa's property and Sy.No.12
5. Wet land bearing Sy.No.13/2, measuring to an area
extent of 1 acre situated at Chinnappanahalli,
Bangalore, bounded on the :
East by : Road and Kere Kodi Kaluve
West by : Road and Raja Kaluve
North by : H.M.Hanuma Reddy's property
South by : H.M.Hanuma Reddy's property
6. Wet land bearing Sy.No.10/2, to an extent of one acre
situated at Chinnappanahalli, Bangalore, bounded on
the :
East by : Road and Kaluve
West by : Road and Raja Kaluve
North by : H.M.Hanuma Reddy's property
South by : H.M.Hanuma Reddy's property
7. All that piece and parcel of land measuring 23 guntas
together with its appurtenant and Kharab, bearing
47
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Sy.No.21/1, situated at Chinnappanahalli, Bangalore,
bounded on the :
East by : Thippa Reddy's property
West by : Thippa Reddy's property
North by : Land bearing Sy.No.20
South by : H.M.Kodandarama Reddy's
property
8. All that piece and parcel of land measuring 1 acre 25
guntas together with its appurtenant and Kharab,
bearing Sy.No.21/3, situated at Chinnappanahalli,
Bangalore, bounded on the :
East by : Thippa Reddy's property
West by : Thippa Reddy's property
North by : Land bearing Sy.No.20
South by : H.M.Kodandarama Reddy's
property
9. All that piece and parcel of land measuring 2 acre 38
guntas together with its appurtenant and Kharab,
bearing Sy.No.21/2, situated at Chinnappanahalli,
Bangalore, bounded on the :
East by : Thippa Reddy's property
West by : Thippa Reddy's property
North by : Land bearing Sy.No.20
South by : H.M.Kodandarama Reddy's
property
48
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
10. All that piece and parcel of land measuring 2 acre 21
guntas together with its appurtenant and Kharab,
bearing Sy.No.22, situated at Chinnappanahalli,
Bangalore, bounded on the :
East by : Thippa Reddy's property
West by : Thippa Reddy's property
North by : Land bearing Sy.No.20
South by : H.M.Kodandarama Reddy's
property
11. All that piece and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.10/2,
measuring 1 acre 3 guntas situated at
Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore,
bounded on the :
East by : Road
West by : Road
North by : Land in Sy.No.10/1,
South by : Land Sy.No.9.
12. All that piece and parcel of immovable property
bearing land Sy.Nos.14/1, 14/2, and 15/1 of Hoodi
village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk, Bangalore District, and measuring 7 acres 7
guntas together with the building construction
thereon and bounded on the :
East by : Property owned by Krishna Reddy
49
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
West by : Kuppuswamy Steel Yard
North by : Land bearing Sy.No.11
South by : Private property
13. All that piece and parcel of immovable property
bearing land Sy.No.11 situated at Hoodi village,
Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore District, and measuring 2 acres 3 and 3/4 th
guntas together with the building construction
thereon and bounded on the :
East by : Property owned by Krishna Reddy
West by : Property owned by Narendra Reddy
North by : Land
South by : Land bearing Sy.No.14/2,
14. All that piece and parcel of land bearing
Sy.No.14/3, situated at Chinnappanahalli village,
Bangalore, measuring to an extent of 1 acre and
bounded on the :
East by : Land belonging to H.M.Krishna
reddy
West by : Land bearing Sy.No.7
North by : Land belonging to Krishna Reddy
South by : Land belonging to H.M.Verappa
Reddy
50
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
15. All that piece and parcel of land bearing
Sy.No.13/3, situated at Chinnappanahalli village,
Bangalore, measuring to an extent of 1 acre and
bounded on the :
East by : 40 feet road
West by : Property belonging to H.Thippa
Reddy
North by : Property belonging to
H.Venkatesh Reddy
South by : property belonging to G.K.Suresh
16. All that piece and parcel of land bearing
Sy.No.14/3, situated at Chinnappanahalli village,
Bangalore, measuring to an extent of 34 ½ guntas
and Sy.No.14/4 measuring 10G Acre and bounded
on the :
East by : 40 feet road
West by : Property belonging to H.Thippa
Reddy
North by : Property belonging to H.Venkatesh
Reddy
South by : Property belonging to
H.Sathyanarayana Reddy
17. All that piece and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.5/1,
measuring to an extent of 1 acre 3guntas in Sy.No.6
51
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
measuring to an extent of 3G situated at
Chinnappanahalli village, Bangalore, measuring to
an extent of 1 acre and bounded on the :
East by : Road
West by : Road
North by : Property belonging to
H.M.Krishna Reddy
South by : Property belonging to
H.M.Krishna Reddy
18. All that piece and parcel of land bearing Sy.No.14/2,
situated at Chinnappanahalli village, Bangalore,
measuring 36G and bounded on the :
East by : Road
West by : Road
North by : Tank bund
South by : Property belonging to
H.M.Krishna Reddy
19. All that piece and parcel of property bearing Old
Katha No.99 and 100, New Katha No.249, 251, 253,
measuring to an extent of 2A 4G situated at
Chinnappanahalli village, Bangalore, and bounded
on the :
East by : Land belonging to Venugopala
52
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Reddy
West by : Bangalore - Salem Railway Track
North by : Land bearing Sy.Nos.21 and 22
South by : Road
3. The brief facts of the case in O.S.No.942/ 2001 is as
below:-
The father of the plaintiffs and defendants Nos.1 to 3 and husband
of defendants Nos.4 and 7 and father of defendants Nos.5, 6 and 8 is one
late Sri.Hanuma Reddy s/o Sri.Chikkamuniswamy Reddy and he died on
10.09.1991.
53
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
4. Said Sri.Chikkamuniswamy was an agriculturist of Hoodi
village and he died in the year 1938. He was owning and possessing
agricultural properties in Kolala village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk, Sadaramangala village, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Chinnappanahalli,
Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Hoodi village,
Krishnarajapura and he was its Kathedar. On 01.03.1925 by accepting sum
of Rs.1000/- relinquished his rights over the aforesaid properties in favour
of his children Sri.H.M.Shamanna Reddy, H.M.Krishna Reddy,
H.M.Hanuma Reddy, H.M.Veerappa Reddy, H.M.Narayana Reddy and
H.M.Kodandarama Reddy.
5. Thereafter, sons of late Sri.Chikkamuniswamy Reddy
including Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy effected partition in respect of
aforesaid properties on 30.09.1955 under registered Partition Deed. In the
said partition, the properties described as 'C' schedule were fallen to the
share of said Sri.Hanuma Reddy. The above said properties are situated at
54
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Chinnappanahalli and Sadanamangala, Hoodi village, which are suit
schedule properties.
6. During the life time of said Sri.Hanuma Reddy, there was no
partition effected between himself and his sons.
7. After the death of Sri.Hanuma Reddy on 10.09.1991 and his
wife Smt.Akkayamma predeceased him on 12.03.1990, the parties herein
even to this day have not effected partition and they are in joint possession
and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and they are being managed
and supervised by defendants Nos.1 to 3 who are none other than brothers
of plaintiffs herein.
8. During the life time of said Sri.Hanuma Reddy, himself and
his sons effected partition on 29.11.1971 by excluding his daughters i.e,
plaintiffs and one Smt.Jayamma under registered Partition Deed in respect
of properties acquired by said Sri.Hanuma Reddy at the time of family
55
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
partition between himself and his brothers. No reasons are mentioned in
the said partition deed with regard to exclusion of daughters.
9. Out of the suit schedule properties Sy.Nos.1 and 2 wet lands
1 acre 3 guntas has been sold to one Sri.M.N.Thomas by defendant No.3
without the consent of plaintiffs. Sy.No.7 measuring 3 acres 7 guntas has
been sold by defendants Nos.1 to 3. In respect of Sy.No.12 measuring 15
acres the defendants Nos.1 to 3 have taken up construction of houses
without consent of plaintiffs. In respect of Sy.No.34 the defendants Nos.1
to 3 have alienated the said property. In respect of Sy.No.26 measuring 1
acre 10 guntas, the defendants Nos.1 to 3 have taken up construction of
150 houses which have been leased out to tenants and the rents from the
tenants are being appropriated by themselves. In respect of Sy.Nos.22, 23
and 28 measuring 4 acres 3 guntas, defendant No.1 has built house in
Sy.No.22 so also husband of defendants Nos.4 and 5 and father of
defendants Nos.6 to 8 by name Sri.Anantharama Reddy and he also a built
56
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
a house in Sy.No.23 and has rented out the same for the purpose of
running a club. In respect of Sy.No.19/2 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas the
defendant No.2 has built a hallow brick factory keeping the remaining
area vacant. The remaining properties are in joint possession and
enjoyment of the plaintiffs and defendants herein.
10. Said Sri.Hanuma Reddy has obtained ownership right under
the Inam Abolition Act in respect of properties bearing Sy.No.10
measuring 1 acre, Sy.No.13 measuring 33 guntas, Sy.No.3 measuring 1
acre 5 guntas, Sy.No.23 measuring 5 acres 26 guntas, Sy.No.24 measuring
5 acres 33 guntas which are suit schedule 'B' properties. After obtaining
the grant, said Sri.Hanuma Reddy died intestate. Hence, suit schedule 'B'
properties became joint family properties of both the parties.
11. Defendant No.1 herein has purchased Sy.No.20 to the extent
of 1 acre 20 guntas, Sy.No.44 to the extent of 1 acre, Sy.No.13/2 to the
extent of 1 acre and Sy.No. 13/1 to the extent of 37 guntas situated at
57
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk were
purchased by defendant No.1 out of income of joint family properties and
at that time, H.M.Hanuma Reddy was alive. The aforesaid properties are
the suit schedule 'C' properties.
12. In addition to above, the defendant No.2 has also purchased
Sy.No.10/2 to the extent of 1 acre 2 guntas situated at Chinnapanahalli,
K.R.Puram, Bangalore East Taluk as a member of joint family and at that
time, H.M.Hanuma Reddy was alive. Said H.M.Hanuma Reddy had
purchased Sy.No.14/3 to the extent of 34 guntas, Sy.No.19 to the extent of
7 acres 17 guntas, Sy.No.5/2 to the extent of 1 acre 5 guntas, Sy.No.13 to
the extent of 1 acre, Sy.No. 13/3 to the extent of 1 acre 1 guntas and
Sy.No.14/2 to the extent of 35 and ½ guntas situated at Chinnapanahalli,
K.R.Puram, Bangalore East Taluk and said H.M.Hanuma Reddy died
intestate. Hence all the legal heirs of H.M.Hanuma Reddy are entitled for
share in the said properties.
58
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
13. Said H.M.Hanuma Reddy applied occupancy rights before
Land Tribunal, Bangalore South Taluk, Bengaluru in respect of Sy.No.5/1
to the extent of 1 acre 3 guntas, Sy.No.6 to the extent of 1 acre 3 guntas,
Sy.No.14/2 to the extent of 36 guntas, and Gramatana property bearing
No.5, Katha No.99 to the extent of 2 acres 4 guntas, situated at
Chinnappanahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk which
are 'D' schedule properties. Said properties were in his possession and
after his death, they became joint family properties amongst the legal
representatives of late H.M.Hanuma Reddy. Defendants Nos.1 to 3 have
alienated the said properties without the consent of plaintiffs to the
developers and from them private individuals have purchased apartments.
14. Plaintiffs being legal heirs of late H.M.Hanuma Reddy are
entitled for share in the suit schedule properties. After the death of their
father, in the year 1991 they negotiated with defendants Nos.1 to 3 for a
share in the suit schedule properties who have initially declined the
59
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
request of plaintiffs, later they had agreed to carve out their share in the
suit schedule properties. But, they did not come forward to give their share
and went on postponing the same. Hence, this suit.
15. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendants Nos.1 to 10,
12, 15, 21, 23, 25 to 33, 42, 44 have appeared before the Court through
their counsels. Defendants Nos.2 to 10, Lrs of D.2(a, b, d, e), 12, 15, 25
to 33 have filed their separate written statements. Defendant No.1 has
adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.2. Defendants
Nos.5 to 8 have adopted the written statement of defendant No.4.
Defendant No.15 has filed counter claim.
Defendants Nos.21, 23, 42, 44 have not filed their written
statements. Lrs of defendant No.2(c) and defendants Nos.11, 13, 14, 16
to 20, 22, 24 have not appeared before the court, hence they were placed
exparte. Suit summons served to Defendants Nos.34 to 40 and 49, but
they remained absent and not filed written statement. Defendants
Nos.41, 43, 45 to 48 held sufficient and they were not filed written
statement.
60
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
16. Written statement of defendant No.2 is as under:-
He has denied some of the averments narrated in the plaint as false.
He has admitted the relationship between parties to the suit. The contention
of plaintiffs that, there was a partition in respect of suit schedule properties
on 30.09.1955 among the persons claimed by plaintiffs is not within the
personal knowledge of this defendant. He has no personal knowledge either
about the execution or operation of Partition Deed dt.30.09.1955 relied upon
by the plaintiffs. He is also personally not aware of the allotment of 'C'
schedule property in favour of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy in the said partition.
17. There was already a registered partition between the said
H.M.Hanuma Reddy and his sons on 29.11.1971 after the solemnization of
marriage of plaintiffs. Said H.M.Hanuma Reddy has sold various family
properties for the performance of marriage of plaintiffs and he gave them
valuables, ornaments, jewelries and immovable etc.
61
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
18. After the partition on 29.11.1971, it was accepted and acted
upon by defendant Nos.1 and 2 and they have even sold various items that
have been allotted to their shares. Even, said H.M.Hanuma Reddy himself
has sold his share to various purchasers and properties have changed several
hands. The plaintiffs have not taken steps for more than 12 years from
29.11.1971 to claim their right in the suit schedule properties. They knew
that the partition took place in the year 1971 itself. Hence, suit is barred by
law of Limitation.
19. The suit schedule properties have been fully developed and they
have changed several hands who are bonafide purchasers. Several multi
storied buildings have also been built by the bonafide purchasers from
H.M.Hanuma Reddy himself during his life time. Therefore, the suit
schedule properties are not available for partition.
62
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
20. Further, the plaintiffs have not made Legal representatives of
Smt.Vijayamma and Lrs of Smt.Savithramma (sisters of plaintiffs) as parties
to this suit. So also, several purchasers who are in actual possession and
enjoyment of suit schedule properties are not parties to this suit. Hence, suit
is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiffs have not
challenged registered partition deed dt.29.11.1971. Court fee paid is
insufficient. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
The 1st defendant has adopted the written statement filed by
defendant No.2.
21. Written statement of legal representatives of defendant
No.2 i.e, defendants Nos.2(a, b, c and e) is as under:-
They have denied some of the averments narrated in the plaint as
false. They have admitted the relationship between parties to the suit.
Subsequent to filing of the suit, the plaintiffs have chosen to implead
several parties as additional defendants which discloses that, schedule
properties are no more agricultural properties and the plaintiffs have also
63
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
thereby admitted that, several properties which are subject matter of the
suit have already been sold in favour of 3 rd parties, in some cases decades
prior to filing of the above suit. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs
ought to have impleaded several other persons who have purchased the
sites. Hence, the suit is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary
parties.
22. The sons of late Sri.Chikkamuniswamy Reddy including
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy effected partition on 30.09.1955 in respect of
above said properties. Allotment of share to Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy is not
disputed by these defendants. However, a partition has taken place on
29.11.1971 between Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy and his children and it was
effected by metes and bounds and has been acted upon by all the parties
concerned. Some sharers who were allotted shares under said partition
deed dt.29.11.1971 have alienated their respective shares long back before
filing of this suit. The said alienations have never been challenged by the
64
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
plaintiffs though the same were within their personal knowledge. The
partition effected on 29.11.1971 was full fledged in nature and there was
disruption of status of members of family and there was no existence of
joint family either in food, shelter or properties.
23. The suit schedule properties have been fully developed and
they have changed several hands wherein 3rd party interests have been
created who are bonafide purchasers. Several multi-storied buildings have
also been built by the bonafide purchasers from Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy
during his life time itself. Therefore, suit schedule properties are not
available for partition.
24. Further, the plaintiffs are aware that, late Sri.H.M.Hanuma
Reddy during his life time has executed a registered Will dt.14.05.1986
where late Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy has mentioned regarding prior
partition and in fact under the very same Will, the son of 1 st plaintiff i.e,
P.Dhanaraj was even given a site carved out of Sy.No.19 of
65
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Chinnappanahalli village and 2nd plaintiff was also given a site. Hence,
the plaintiffs cannot now feign ignorance of the 1971 partition. Said
Sri.P.Dhanaraj had even alienated the site that was given to him by late
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy. By this it is clear that, the suit is barred by law of
Limitation. Further, one Smt.Vijayamma the late daughter of
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy i.e, mother of defendants Nos.34 to 36 was also
given two sites for "Harishna Kumkuma" by late Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy.
Thus, plaintiffs knew about the partition deed dt.29.11.1971.
25. Several purchasers who are in actual possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule properties with various structures standing
thereon having invested several crores of rupees are not made as parties to
this suit. Hence, suit is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary
parties. Plaintiffs have not challenged the registered partition deed
dt.29.11.1971, so also the subsequent partition deed dt.28.08.1989 wherein
the properties were partitioned.
66
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
26. Plaintiffs have not at all disclosed that, late Sri.H.M.Hanuma
Reddy had two wives and all the legal representatives through 1 st wife are
not impleaded in this suit. There is no prayer as against the various
purchasers of suit schedule properties.
27. Suit is bad for non-inclusion of all the properties that fell to
the share of late Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy in the partition that took place in
the year 1955 between himself and his brothers. Court fee paid is
insufficient. The defendant No.35 is shown to be the wife of one late
Sri.Ramachandra Reddy, whereas husband of defendant No.35 is one
Srinivasa Reddy who is very much alive. In fact, defendant No.35 and 1st
plaintiff are the common plaintiffs in O.S.No.942/2001.
28. Defendant No.33 is only a tenant under defendant No.1. The
plaintiffs herein Smt.Sarasamma, defendant No.35, Smt.Vanamala
/defendant No.34 had filed O.S.No.3859/2006 against defendants Nos.1
67
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
and 2 and sons of defendant No.1 herein for partition and separate
possession which came to be dismissed on 25.01.2010. The said suit was
filed claiming that they are entitled for a share in the property shown in
schedule 'C' therein. However, it is admitted therein that, the defendant
No.1 is in exclusive possession of the same and the plaintiffs in the said
suit claimed that they are entitled for a share in the property of
Sri.H.M.Shamanna Reddy, even though they are daughters of
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy. Once, they claim a share in respect of certain
properties and the suit is dismissed, they are precluded from making
contrary claims in the present suit.
29. In so far as Sy.No.10/1 of Chinnappanahalli village late
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy has bequeathed the portion of said property under
Will dt.14.05.1986 in favour of Sri.H.Anantharama Reddy and also in
favour of his wife which has been acted upon by the parties therein. The
68
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
said Will is within the knowledge of 1 st plaintiff as her son is also a
beneficiary of the said Will.
30. In so far as Sy.No.19 of Chinnapanahalli village, some of the
sites in the said items were bequeathed in favour of Sri.P.Dhanaraj s/o
Smt.Jayamma the 19th defendant herein and also in favour of daughter of
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy as per registered Will dt.14.05.1986. It clearly
indicates that said items were converted during the life time of
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy and it was no longer an agricultural land and had
become fully developed. The said Sy.No.19 is later sub-divided and
phoded into Sy.No.19/1 upto 19/20 and further Sy.No.19/1 is sub-divided
and phoded into Sy.No.19/1A to Sy.No.19/1E. But it is shown as Sy.No.19
only in the plaint in order to create confusion. One site in the above
referred survey number was gifted in favour of plaintiff No.2 herein
Smt.Sarasamma under registered Gift Deed dt.27.03.1972 immediately
after the 1971 partition. Said Smt.Sarasamma had sold away the said site
69
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
on 25.11.1974 under registered Sale deed in favour of one
Smt.Kathyayinamma and in said deed also there is reference to 1971. No
such property is in existence as shown in the plaint and it was not in
existence in the manner described even at the time of filing the suit.
31. In so far as Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village, defendant No.1 has
purchased the said land under a registered Sale Deed executed on
26.06.1967 from H.M.Shamanna Reddy under the title deed for meeting
legal necessities. Thus, the defendant No.1 became the absolute owner of
the entire extent of said 13 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village.
Defendant No.1 was put in possession of the above land under the said
sale deed and he is the absolute owner in possession of the aforesaid land
and also the /kathedar and Anubhavdhar of the said property. The said
Sy.No.10 was later sub-divided and phoded as Sy.No.10/1 and 10/2 with
separate extents in view of the alienations made by defendant No.1 in the
said total extent of 13 acres 10 guntas and defendant No.1 has sold the
70
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
entire extent of land in Sy.No.10/1 and he has retained the land measuring
in all 06 acres 10 guntas including phot Kharab in Sy.No.10/2 of the said
village. All these transactions have taken place much before filing of the
suit and the same has not been deliberately disclosed in the above suit.
32. In so far as Sy.Nos.14/1, 14/2, 15/1 and 11 are concerned, it
is submitted that the said lands are converted prior to filing of this suit as
per the separate conversion orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner in
BDS : ALL (E) : SR: 224/2003-04 dt.07.04.2004 and in ALN : SR (E)
339/2004-05 and also in ALN (E) SR 336/2004-05 dt.26.03.2005. In the
above said properties there exits a multistoried building and the same is
leased out to the defendant No.32, M/s.Goodrich Aerospace Service Pvt
Ltd., and rents are received there from. The said defendant is only a
tenant under the 1st defendant and they have no proprietary rights over the
same and the said defendant is not a proper and necessary party and the
said defendant has been impleaded to bring pressure on the 1st defendant
71
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
to yield to the unlawful demands of the plaintiff who has no interest of any
sort over any portion of the suit properties. The documents of conversion
are produced before this Court which clearly disclosed the false claims
made by the plaintiffs herein. In the said survey number an extent of
converted land measuring 35 guntas belongs to one Smt.Kamalamma and
01 acre 08 guntas of converted land belongs to one Sri.T.Kiran Kumar and
the said persons are not impleaded in the suit even though the extent of
land owned by them are made subject matter of the above suit.
33. In so far as the Sy.Nos.21/1, 21/2, 21/3, 22, 23 and 24 are
concerned, the said lands were converted as per the conversion order
passed by the Deputy Commissioner in BDS: ALN: (Pu) SR (KRUHO):
191-2007-08 dt.10.12.2008 as per the applications made by the defendants
Nos.1 and 2. The boundaries shown in respect of Sy.No.23 are incorrect
in so far as the Bangalore Salem Railway Track is situated on the eastern
side and not on the western side as alleged in the plaint. A portion of the
72
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
land has been utilized for laying a railway line and the said railway line
passes through Sy.No.23. The 1st defendant has purchased an extent of 20
guntas from his father late Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy under registered Sale
Deed dt.28.03.1983. The eldest son of the 1st defendant, Sri.T.Muralidhar
has constructed a house a decade prior to suit and is residing in the said
residential house and apart from the same servant quarters are also built.
After conversion, defendant No.1 paid Rs.8,20,000/- towards development
charges to the Bangalore Development Authority and has paid a sum of
Rs.35 lakhs to the Government to regularize the phot Kharab extent of 20
guntas in the above referred survey numbers. The said lands have been
completely developed and it has lost its agricultural nature. As far as
Sy.No.24 is concerned, the 1st defendant purchased the same to the extent
of 25 guntas under registered Sale Deed and the same was converted. 04
guntas of land in the very same survey number was purchased by the 1 st
defendant under registered Sale Deed 23.04.1988 from one Annamma
Abrahim to an extent of 6 ½ guntas.
73
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
34. In so far as Sy.No.44 is concerned, the same is sub-divided
and phoded into Sy.Nos.44/1 and 44/2 and Sy.No.44/1A is later sub-
divided and phoded into Sy.Nos.44/1A and 44/1B, but in the plaint it is
shown as Sy.No.44 only in order to create confusion and no such property
is in existence as described in the plaint with respect to boundaries and
extent. Similarly, several other properties are not identifiable at the spot
from the boundaries given in the plaint and hence no purpose will be
served even if the suit were to be proceeded with and hence the same is
liable to be rejected.
35. In so far as Sy.No.13 is concerned, it is not at all in existence
even as on the date of suit as the same was already phoded as Sy.No.13/1
in the name of the defendant No.2 and it is further contended that the said
Sy.No.13 measures 23 guntas in extent and not 01 acre as claimed by
plaintiff in the plaint. The said land has been converted even prior to suit.
Only in order to create confusion and the plaintiff is guilty of suppression
74
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
of true and relevant facts and the plaintiff has presented the plaint just to
take a chance and she is not entitled to be granted the reliefs sought for in
the plaint.
36. In so far as, Sy.No.3/1 is concerned, it is not at all in
existence and the said property never belonged to the alleged joint family
of late Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy. On the other hand, the said land was
allotted to the share of Sri.H.M.Veerappa Reddy and it is submitted that
the said land has been purchased by the 2 nd defendant from his self earned
source of income under registered Sale Deed from Sri.H.M.Veerappa
Reddy and subsequently, the said land has been sold to 3rd parties.
37. In so far as Sy.No.44 of Chinnappanahalli is concerned, the
said land was allotted to the share of the 1 st defendant herein in the year
1971 partition and later, the said land has been sold to 3 rd parties under
registered deeds of conveyance who are in possession of the same and the
same is within the personal knowledge of the plaintiff.
75
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
38. Further contended that, defendants Nos.1 and 2 were doing
civil contract works even during the years prior to partition apart from
indulging in agriculture and they owned lorries and tractors and they even
owned a crusher installed in Sy.No.20. Stone crushing unit was run in the
name of Ravi Granites and transport business was run in the name of Ravi
Transports. The 2nd defendant has even paid sales tax to the concerned
department regarding the running of business. Stone quarry license was
obtained from the Geological Department even during the year 1974 and
onwards. Further, the 2nd defendant was a chairman of the Nallurahalli
Panchayath during the years prior to partition. Later, the 2 nd defendant
was chosen as a Director of Varthur Society and he served in that capacity
for about 9 years, later he was even elected as a Councilor of City
Municipal Council, Mahadevapura from Ward No.22 and he served in that
capacity for about 10 years. Infact, quarry leases were taken from time to
time from the Department of Mines and Geology, Bengaluru including the
76
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
one issued during December 1991, 23.10.1999, 26.11.1999 and the like.
In fact, the said quarrying activities have been carried out for the last
about 40 years. In the said circumstances, it is clear right from an
undisputed point of time, the 2nd defendant had independent sources of
income and had capacity to purchase properties in his individual name.
Thus, the allegations made in the plaint that the defendants Nos.1 and 2
had no self earned source of income and that they did not have sufficient
income to purchase properties in their names is false even to the
knowledge of the plaintiff.
39. During the pendency of the above suit, the original second
defendant died and these defendants and others have been brought on
record as his legal representatives. During the life time of 2 nd defendant
much prior to filing of the suit there was a further division of the family
properties belonging to the family of late 2nd defendant which was reduced
into writing under Panchayath Parikath deed dt.07.07.2000. The said
77
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
division has taken place by metes and bounds and has been acted upon by
all the parties concerned. Even prior to getting notices of the legal
representatives application from this Court, the sisters of the defendant
No.2(b), namely Smt.S.Bharathi, defendant No.2(d) and Smt.S.Anuradha,
the defendant No.2(e) have already executed separate release deeds duly
registered in the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar, wherein they have conveyed
their right, title and interest in respect of schedule properties shown
therein in favour of deed/ Panchayath Parikath dt.07.07.2000.
Subsequently, the family members have also entered into a registered
Partition Deed in respect of the remaining properties and once again
vouching that the partition deed dt.07.07.2000 though unregistered is
binding on them since the same has been acted upon by all the parties
concerned. Later, there was also a rectification deed entered into amongst
the family members and the same has also been duly registered in the
office of the Sub-Registrar concerned.
78
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
40. That certain properties which fell to the share of the father the
2nd defendant i.e, Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy, was sold by him in favour of 3rd
parties by receiving valuable sale consideration and putting the purchasers
in possession of the same and in respect of the other available properties,
there was a further division amongst the sons under a written document
which has come into existence much prior to filing of the above suit. The
said deed has been acted upon and all the sharers therein have taken their
respective shares and have even encumbered the portions of the said
properties in favour of 3rd parties and the purchasers have not been
impleaded in the above suit. All these material facts have not been
disclosed by the plaintiff in her plaint. Hence, as on the date of the suit,
there were no properties available for partition. Hence, prayed to dismiss
the suit with costs.
41. Written statement of defendant No.3 is as under:-
79
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
He has denied some of the averments narrated in the plaint as false.
He has admitted the relationship between parties to the suit. These
defendants are not aware of any transactions between Sri.Chikkamuniswamy
Reddy in favour of his children as contended by plaintiffs. The contention of
plaintiffs that, there was a partition in respect of suit schedule properties on
30.09.1955 amongst the persons claimed by plaintiffs is not within the
personal knowledge of this defendant. He has no personal knowledge either
about the execution or operation of Partition Deed dt.30.09.1955 relied upon
by the plaintiffs. He is also personally not aware of the allotment of 'C'
schedule property in favour of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy in the said partition.
42. There was already a registered partition between the said
H.M.Hanuma Reddy and his sons on 29.11.1971 after the solemnization of
marriage of plaintiffs. Said H.M.Hanuma Reddy has sold various family
properties for the performance of marriage of plaintiffs and he gave them
valuables, ornaments, jewelries and immovable etc.
80
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
43. After the partition on 29.11.1971, it was accepted and acted
upon by defendant Nos.1 and 2 and they have even sold various items that
have been allotted to their shares. Even, said H.M.Hanuma Reddy himself
has sold his share to various purchasers and properties have been changed
several hands. The plaintiffs have not taken steps for more than 12 years
from 29.11.1971 to claim their right in the suit schedule properties. They
knew about the partition taken place in the year 1971 itself. Hence, suit is
barred by law of Limitation.
44. The suit schedule properties have been fully developed and they
have been changed several hands who are bonafide purchasers. Several
multi storied buildings have also been built by the bonafide purchasers from
H.M.Hanuma Reddy himself during his life time. Therefore, the suit
schedule properties are not available for partition.
81
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
45. Further, the plaintiffs have not made Legal representatives of
Smt.Vijayamma and Lrs of Smt.Savithramma (sisters of plaintiffs) as parties
to this suit. So also, several purchasers who are in actual possession and
enjoyment of suit schedule properties are not parties to this suit. Hence, suit
is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiffs have not
challenged registered partition deed dt.29.11.1971. Court fee paid is
insufficient. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
46. Written statement of defendant No.4 is as under:-
She has denied some of the averments narrated in the plaint as false.
She has admitted the relationship between parties to the suit. She is the
daughter-in-law of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy. During the life time of
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy he had effected the partition in the plaint schedule
properties orally in which the plaintiffs and defendants got their legitimate
shares in the suit schedule properties. The property fallen to the share is in
respect of suit land Sy.No.24 measuring 2 acres 35 guntas of
82
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Chinnappanahalli village and old gramatana 28 guntas at Chinnappanahalli
village which stands in the name of her husband Anantharama Reddy. Thus,
during the life time of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy he had effected partition and
accordingly, their names came to be mutated in all the revenue records.
47. As per the oral partition, her husband was in possession and
enjoyment of his share and after his death, she is in continuous possession
and enjoyment of his share. The property fallen to the share of her husband
has not been mentioned in the plaint schedule property. However, the notice
published by the plaintiff in Deccan Herald dt.03.07.2005 has been shown in
the public notice Sy.No.24. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
Defendants Nos.5 to 8 have adopted the written statement of
defendant No.4.
48. Written statement of defendant No.9 is as under:-
83
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Earlier she had joined as 2nd plaintiff in O.S.No.942/ 2001. On
account of certain technical defects she sought for to withdraw the suit
with a liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action which was
permitted. She has admitted the relationship between parties to the suit and
acquisition of suit schedule properties by her father Sri.Hanuma Reddy
under registered Partition Deed dt.30.09 .1955 and acquired item Nos.15 to
22 properties by him. There was no partition in their family in respect of
suit schedule properties and they are their joint family properties.
49. If there is a partition as contended by defendants Nos.1 to 3 on
29.11.1971 the same is behind the back of this defendant. Her father and
others had entered into registered Partition Deed on 29.11.1971 under which
her father has acquired certain properties. Even after the said partition, her
father acquired several properties and with regard to all such properties she
has filed separate suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.1754/
2006 which is pending before this court. Said suit is filed only with regard to
84
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
the property of late Sri.Hanuma Reddy and other properties which are
subject matter of this suit are not included in the suit filed by this defendant.
She has paid court fee towards her share. Hence, prayed to allow the
counter claim.
50. Written statement of defendant No.10 is as under:-
It has denied some of the averments narrated in the plaint as false.
Plaintiffs are not daughters of late H.M.Hanuma Reddy. This defendant is
not aware whether Chikkamuniswamy Reddy on 01.03.1925 by accepting
a sum of Rs.1000/- relinquished his right over the above said properties in
favour of his children. The sons of late Sri.Chikkamuniswamy including
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy effected a partition under registered Deed
dt.30.09.1955. There was a partition between Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy and
his children under registered deed dt.29.11.1971 and partition deed
dt.28.08.1989.
85
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
51. This defendant is concerned only with the property bearing
CMC Katha No.22 measuring 28,314/-square feet and CMC Katha
No.100 measuring 5,256 square feet which is formed out of old
Gramatana of K.G.Chinnapanahalli, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru. The said
properties belonged to the wife of defendant No.3 herein through whom
this defendant acquired joint development rights to develop the said
properties and residential apartments were put up and sold to different
purchasers. This defendant is concerned only in respect of above said
properties which belonged to this defendant and defendants Nos.4 to 8
herein through whom this defendant has acquired joint development rights
to develop said properties and residential apartments were put up and sold
to different purchasers.
52. Much larger properties inclusive of schedule to the written
statement belonged to the joint family of late Chikkamuniswamy and after
his death all his properties were partitioned amongst his children on
86
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
30.09.1955. In the said partition, 15 acres of land inclusive of Gramatana
and Sy.No.12 was allotted to the share of H.M.Hanuma Reddy and his
children. Subsequently, there was a partition amongst H.M.Hanuma
Reddy and his sons on 29.11.1971. However, old Chinnappanahalli
properties were not partitioned since it was acquired by Railways and
some dispute was pending between Hanuma Reddy and Kodandarama
Reddy. Subsequently, on settlement of disputes H.M.Hanuma Reddy and
his children had partitioned the said properties and were enjoying their
possession. Later it was reduced into writing vide partition deed
dt.28.08.1989. Since the property has been fallen to the jurisdiction of
Mahadevapura City Municipal council, Katha is also made out vide Katha
No.99. Further, an extent of 30 guntas was allotted to the share of
H.Anantharama Reddy, defendant Nos.4 and 7 being wives of
H.Anatharama Reddy and in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
property allotted to them.
87
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
53. Subsequently, defendant No.3 had executed registered Joint
Development Agreement dt.13.12.2004 in favour of this defendant and a
power of attorney was also given in pursuance of the said Joint
Development Agreement. Similarly, defendants Nos.4 to 8 have also given
Joint Development agreement and General Power of Attorney in favour of
defendant No.10 herein. This defendant has completed the project and
various apartments have been formed, completed and sold to various
apartment owners. Those apartment owners are not made as parties to this
suit. Therefore, suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Court fee
paid is insufficient.
54. Joint Development agreement is executed in favour of this
defendant by defendants Nos.3, 4 to 8 and hence suit is not maintainable
unless the plaintiffs seek for the relief of cancellation of the said
documents as well as the sale deeds executed in favour of apartment
owners.
88
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
55. Said H.M.Hanuma Reddy had no subsisting interest in
respect of any property as on the date of death and therefore, plaintiffs had
no right over the suit schedule properties. Hence, prayed to dismiss the
suit with costs.
Schedule to the Written Statement:
Item No.1: All that piece and parcel of property situated at
Chinnappanahalli bearing Katha No.22, Mahadevapura CMC, K.R.Puram
Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore measuring approximately
28,314 sq.feet, which is bounded on the:-
East by : Property of Rathnamma and
West by : Road and Railway Track
North by : Property of H.Anantharama Reddy
South by : Road and property of H.M.Veerappa Reddy
Item No.2: All that piece and parcel of property bearing CMC
Khata No.100 of Mahadevapura CMC, situated at K.G.Chinnappanahalli
Ward No.22, Mahadevapura CMC, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk, measuring East to West 117 feet and North to South 45 feet totally
measuring 5265 sq.ft, which is bounded on the:-
89
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
East by : Property of Kodandarama Reddy
West by : Road
North by : Remaining property of N.K.Nagaveni,
South by : Property of Bhagyalakshmi.
56.Additional written statement of defendant No.10 is as
under:-
It is contended that, there is no identity of the property called
Gramatana property bearing No.5, Katha No.99, measuring 2 acre 4
guntas situated at Chinnappanahalli village. There are 16 properties
bearing various Kathas and Katha No.22 measuring 28314 sq.ft and Katha
No.100 measuring 5256 sq.ft are the properties in respect of which this
defendant is made as a party. The written statement was filed by this
defendant by claiming that Katha Nos.22 and 100 is shown in the
schedule to the written statement filed by this defendant are the properties
which are totally developed by this defendant. It was also brought to the
notice of the Court that a Joint Development Agreement was executed and
huge residential project by name Mahaveer Bower-I and Mahaveer
90
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Bower-II was constructed and various apartments constructed thereupon
sold to various purchasers and therefore there cannot be any identity of the
property as sought for by the plaintiff in item No.17 of schedule 'D'
property.
57. During the life time of late Hanuma Reddy, said Hanuma
Reddy and his children have partitioned the said property and the same
was subsequently reduced into writing vide Partition Deed dt.28.08.1989.
Therefore the said property in item No.17 is not amenable for partition.
58. There is no identity of the property as shown in item No.17 of
the schedule 'D' property. Item No.17 of schedule 'D' property had given
to the share of H.M.Hanuma Reddy and H.M.Hanuma Reddy and his sons
defendants Nos.1, 2, 3 and late Ananthana Rama Reddy had partitioned
the said property vide Partition Deed dt.29.11.1971. However, it was
mutually agreed upon that the said properties shall be partitioned amongst
91
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
the said H.M.Hanuma Reddy and Kodanda Rama Reddy. Subsequently
on settlement of the issue the said H.M.Hanuma Reddy and his children
partitioned which was in fact supplement to Partition deed dt.29.11.1971.
They have partitioned the property and it was recorded into writing vide
Partition Deed dt.28.08.1989. In the said partition an extent of 0-14
guntas was allotted to H.Thippa Reddy, 0-14 guntas was allotted to the
share of Sathyanarayana Reddy, 0-26 guntas was allotted to the share of
Venkatesh Reddy and Bhagyalakshmi, 0-30 guntas was allotted to
Anantharama Reddy. Hence, there is no property that can be partitioned
since all the properties were partitioned as per the Partition Deed
dt.29.11.1971 and Supplement Partition dt.28.08.1989 during the life time
of H.M.Hanuma Reddy. Therefore, the plaintiff herein got no right, title
and interest over the property in question. Since the partition took place
during the life time of H.M.Hanuma Reddy, the plaintiff cannot claim any
right, title and interest in respect of the schedule properties.
92
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
59. The property allotted to the share of Venkatesh Babu and
Bhagyalakshmi measuring 28313 sq.feet was subjected to Katha with
Mahadevapura CMC bearing Katha No.22 and subsequently assigned with
Katha No.99. The said Venkatesh Reddy and Bhagyalakshmi also
executed a Joint Development Agreement in favour of this defendant vide
Joint Development Agreement dt.13.12.2004. As per the terms of which
the Developer is entitled to put up construction of residential apartments
and is entitled to convey 60% undivided right, title and interest in the said
property along with residential constructions put up thereon with
proportionate Car Parking Area. In pursuance of the said Joint
Development Agreement, this defendant had obtained the sanctioned plan
in L.P.No.453/2004-05. Subsequently, Apartment building called Bower-I
consisting of Basement, Ground and three upper floors were constructed
by this defendant. After construction of the said residential building
residential apartments 64 in numbers measuring 78580 sq.feet super built
up area are constructed over the said property. The said residential
93
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
apartment building is constructed on item No.1 of the schedule to written
statement filed by this defendant which is consisting of 78580 sq.ft super
built-up area. Hence, item No.17 of the schedule 'D' property to the plaint
is not in existence and hence it is not open for partition.
60. It is further contended that, out of the property allotted to the
share of Anantharama Reddy measuring 0-30 guntas an extent of 5265
sq.ft, i.e, CMC katha No.100 measuring 117 x 45 feet was given for Joint
Development in favour of this defendant as per the terms of Joint
Development Agreement dt.27.01.2006. As per the terms of the said Joint
Development Agreement, this defendant had obtained the sanctioned plan
in L.P.No.105/2005-06 and residential apartment building consisting of
Basement, Ground and Three upper floors were constructed by this
defendant. In pursuance of the said plan a residential apartment building
called Bower-II is constructed consisting of residential apartments in the
Basement, Ground and Three Upper Floors consisting of 16 apartments
94
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
amounting to 17720 sq.ft super built up area. Hence, there is no identity
of the property as mentioned in item No.17 of schedule -D property as
claimed by the plaintiff and hence the said property is not open for
partition.
61. The residential apartments called Mahaveer Bower-I was
constructed in item No.1 of the schedule to the written statement by this
defendant and residential apartments in Ground, 1 st, 2nd and 3rd floors
amounting to 64 Nos measuring 78580 sq.fet super built-up area was
constructed, out of that an extent of 31380 sq.ft was handed over to the
share of the land owners i.e, defendant No.3 and Smt.Bhagyalakshmi and
remaining 47200 sq.fet that fell to the share of this defendant was
conveyed to various purchasers/ apartment owners. The said individual
apartment owners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said
apartments put up on item No.1 of the schedule to the written statement
filed by this defendant. Similarly defendant No.3 and Smt.Bhagyalakshmi
95
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
have also sold residential apartments to various purchasers. Hence, there
is no property that is available for partition in item No.17 of schedule 'D'
property. That with respect to item No.2 of the schedule to the written
statement various residential apartments of ground, 1st , 2nd and 3rd floors
are constructed amounting to 17,720 sq.ft, consisting of 16 Nos of
apartments. Out of that, 6 No. of apartments measuring 6000 sq.ft super
built up area was handed over to defendant Nos.4 to 8 and remaining 10
Nos residential apartments amounting to 11320 sq.ft is conveyed by this
defendant to various purchasers. Out of the property allotted to the share
of defendants Nos.4 to 8, they have also sold their share of apartments to
certain other purchasers. Hence, the said property in item No.17 of
schedule property is not available for partition.
62. The plaintiff herein improperly impleaded this defendant as a
party. However the written statement is filed by this defendant is brought
to the notice of this Court, though this defendant is not interested in any of
96
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
the properties prior to the amendment of the plaint and has brought to the
notice of the Court that he has developed and sold the property as
mentioned under item Nos.1 and 2 of the schedule to the written statement
filed by this defendant. After filing the said written statement in order to
overcome the difference of this defendant, the plaintiff has preferred
amendment of the statement and has sought for inclusion of the property
at a belated stage after conveying the same to various residential
apartment owners /subsequent purchasers.
63. The suit against this defendant as well as item No.17 of
schedule 'D' property is not maintainable because the suit was never
presented with respect of item No.17 of schedule 'D' property. Since no
suit was pending with respect of the said property the same was developed
and sold. Therefore, amendment to the plaint with respect to inclusion of
item No.17 of schedule 'D' property as well as para 10(b) to the plaint
shall be deemed to be amended only with effect from the date of
97
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
amendment and it cannot be treated as retrospective to the date of the suit.
The said amendment would not take back to the date of presentation of the
plaint, but would be effective only from the date of amendment. But item
No.17 of schedule 'D' property does not show the details of the
apartments as well as existing Katha numbers and therefore the suit is with
respect to item No.17 of schedule 'D' property.
64. The suit is improperly valued. Huge residential apartment
complex are situated in item No.17 of the schedule 'D' property as
mentioned below:
i) Katha No.22, New No.99 consisting of residential apartment
buildings in Ground, 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors amounting to 78,580 sq.ft. As
per the Gazette Notification issued by Government of Karnataka,
Department of Revenue in CVC 19/2010-11 dt.21.09.2011 the value of the
residential apartments in Chinnappanahalli is fixed at Rs.1700/- per sq.ft
and hence with respect to an extent of 78,580 sq.feet amounts to
Rs.13,35,86,000/-.
98
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
ii) Katha No.100 consisting of residential apartment buildings in
Ground, 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors amounting to 17, 720 sq.ft. As per the
Gazette Notification issued by Government of Karnataka, Department of
Revenue in CVC 19/2010-11 dt.21.09.2011 the value of the residential
apartments in Chinnappanahalli is fixed at Rs.1700/- per sq.ft and hence
with respect to an extent of 17,720 sq.feet amounts to Rs.3,01,24,000/-.
65. Hence, the value of the suit as on the date of amendment with
respect to item No.17 of the schedule 'D' property would not be less than
Rs.16,37,10,000/-. Admittedly the plaintiff has conceded that the schedule
property is developed into residential apartment buildings and the same
are also sold to various apartment owners and that they are in possession
of the same. In view of the fact that the suit with respect to item No.17 of
the schedule 'D' property dates back from the date of amendment, the
valuation of the property shall be made accordingly from the date of
amended plaint. Hence the suit is to be valued on a sum not less than
16,37,10,000/- and advelarum Court fee is to be paid on the said sum,
99
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
since the plaintiff admittedly not in joint possession of item No.17 of the
schedule 'D' property. Hence the suit is improperly valued and
insufficient Court fee is paid. Hence these properties are not available for
partition. The plaintiff was born prior to 1956. The properties were
partitioned during the life time of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy. Therefore, the
plaintiffs are not entitled any share in the suit schedule properties.
66. This defendant before entering into Joint Development
Agreement and General Power of Attorney had verified the title of the
defendant Nos.3 to 8 with respect to item No.17 of the schedule 'D'
property as well as item Nos.1 and 2 to the schedule to the written
statement filed by this defendant. After verification of title and after
obtaining legal advise, this defendant had entered into Joint Development
Agreement. After obtaining plan sanction huge residential apartment
complex were constructed and sold to various apartment owners.
Therefore, this defendant is a bona fide purchaser for valuable
100
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
consideration and hence in order to protect the interest of this defendant as
subsequent purchaser, item No.17 of the schedule 'D' property as well as
item Nos.1 and 2 schedule to the written statement may be allotted to the
share of defendants Nos.3 to 8 as equitable adjustment. Various other
properties are available for partition and those properties may be allotted
to the share of the plaintiff as well as other defendants in the ends of
justice. The said remedy of equitable adjustment may be made by this
Court in case this Court comes to a conclusion that the plaintiffs are
entitled for a share in item No.17 of the schedule 'D' property.
M/s.Mahaveer Properties have changed the name of M/s.Radiant
properties and hence the name and seal of defendant No.10 firm shall be
treated as M/s.Radiant properties. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.
67. Written statement of defendant No.12 is as under:-
It has denied some of the averments narrated in the plaint as false.
M/s.Jaisai Vijetha Projects, a partnership firm having its office at
101
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Sy.No.111, PH-1,Vijetha Lapis Lazuli, I.T..P.L main road, Kundahalli
Brook fields, Bengaluru has not been impleaded as a party to this suit. But
one M/s.Vijetha Constructions is impleaded as a 12th defendant and said
construction company is not at all in existence as on today and one Sridhar
who is shown as a partner has got nothing to do with the property in
dispute as on today. Hence, suit is bad for non-joinder of proper and
necessary parties and also for mis-joinder of parties.
68. M/s.Jai Sai Vijetha Projects which is a partnership firm has
entered into a registered Joint Development Agreement dt.23.08.2010 with
G.K.Suresh and others in respect of suit schedule 'C' item No.8 and
schedule 'D' item Nos.11, 15 and 16 of the plaint schedule. M/s.Jai Sai
Vijetha Projects have not at all received any summons from the Court nor
they have received any notices on the impleading application filed by the
plaintiff. Just to avoid notice on Sri Sai Vijetha Projects some
unconnected person is shown and some non-existent firm is impleaded as
102
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
a party to the above suit and at the same time, the properties under Joint
Development Agreement of Sri Sai Vijetha Projects are also included.
69. The relationship between the parties to the suit is not within
the personal knowledge of this defendant. There was already a partition
affected between Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy and his sons during the life time
of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy under registered Partition deed dt.29.11.1971
and the same has been acted upon by all the parties concerned including
the plaintiffs herein.
70. That Jai Sai Vijetha Projects has been carrying out
developmental activities in land bearing Sy.No.13/3, measuring 1 acre,
Sy.No.14/3 measuring 34 ½ guntas, Sy.No.14/4 measuring 10 ½ guntas,
Sy.No.13/2 measuring 16 guntas and Sy.No.13/1 measuring 23 guntas and
all the said lands are situated adjacent to each other and form a common
plot and the said lands are sistuated at Chinnappanahalli village,
K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk in accordance with the
103
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
registered Joint Development Agreement entered into as indicated above
and the project has almost reached the stage of completion and at this
stage just to make unlawful gains an application is filed to implead the 12 th
defendant. As on the date of entering into the Joint Development
Agreement by this Jai Sai Vijetha Projects the properties involved therein
were not subject matter of the above suit and neither the 12 th defendant
was a party to the suit and even the lands indicated as above in respect of
which Jai Sai Vijetha Projects has been carrying out developmental
activities were not included in the suit when it was first presented and it
was after the Jai Sai Vijetha Projects entered into a Joint Development
Agreement the properties and parties were included. Since the said lands
were not at all subject matter of the suit in the 1 st instance, it is clear that
only to unlawful gains these properties have been later included.
71. This defendant was given to understanding that, the said
properties are self acquired properties of defendants Nos.1 and 2. Since,
104
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
the major portion of the activities have taken place prior to these
properties being included in the above suit, the plaintiffs have lost right
over the property by efflux of time and by their own conduct and if at all
properties were joint family properties, the plaintiffs would have been
included in the 1st instance when the suit came to be filed in the year 2001.
72. Further, G.K.Suresh being an absolute owner of the suit
schedule 'C' of item No.8 that is Sy.No.13/2 measuring 16 guntas and he
acquired the same under Sale Deed dt.24.03.1995 and defendant No.3
being a absolute owner of schedule 'D' item Nos.11 and 16 that is
Sy.No.14/3 measuring 34 ½ guntas and Sy.No.14/4 measuring 10 ½
guntas of Chinnappanahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, he has acquired the
same vide the deed of sale deed dt.03.06.2006 and Sri.H.Sathyanarayana
Reddy the defendant No.2 in this case being the absolute owner of
schedule 'D' item No.15 that is Sy.No.13/3 measuring 1 acre of
Chinnappanahalli, and he had acquired the same under partition deed
105
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
dt.29.09.1971 and it only later that this defendant was engaged for
carrying out developments on the aforesaid composite property.
73. Pursuant thereto, the land owners Sri.G.K.Suresh,
H.Sathyanarayana Reddy, Smt.H.Vanjamma, Sri.H.Ravi Kumar,
Smt.S.Bharathi, Smt.S.Anurada, Sri.S.Narendra Babu, H.Venkatesh
Reddy, Smt.Bhagyalakshmi, Smt.Kavitha.V.Reddy, Sri.Arvind.V executed
a Joint Development Agreement, dt.23.08.2010 in favour of this
defendant. Based on the rights derived major portion of the development
works have been carried out and at this juncture just to cause hardship to
this defendant the plaintiff has wrongly chosen to included the properties
under development.
74. The land owners namely Sri.G.K.Suresh,
Sri.H.Sathyanaryana Reddy, Smt.H.Vanjamma, Sri.H.Ravi Kumar,
Smt.S.Bharathi, Smt.S.Anurada, Sri.S.Narendra Babu, H.Venkatesh
106
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Reddy, Smt.Bhagyalakshmi, Smt.Kavitha.V.Reddy, Sri.Arvind.V in part
performance of their obligations under the aforesaid Joint Development
Agreement, dt.23.08.2010 and in order to give effect to the development
project as envisaged, executed a Power of Attorney dt.23.08.2010
authorizing this defendant to act on their behalf with respect to the
properties which are part of the Joint Development Agreement stated
above.
75. Pursuant to the said Joint Development Agreement and
General Power of Attorney, this defendant was put in possession of the
said property and based on which this defendant has constructed
residential apartments and the said project has been named Nakshatra
Villas and this defendant has already made heavy investments for not only
carrying out construction activities but also for marketing the same and
even earlier, it is this defendant who got the land converted, paid
betterment charges, obtained clearance from all the concerned
107
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
departments. As per the said Joint Development Agreement, he applied
for and obtained all necessary permission, no objection certificates and
clearances which were necessary for implementing the project, from
various statutory authorities. This defendant had also obtained sanctioned
plan and license to construct a residential apartment building and the
construction activities are done strictly in accordance with the terms of the
plan issued by the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike.
76. After completion of the project all the apartments falling to
the share of this defendant have been sold to 3 rd party purchasers by
receiving the consideration amount agreed upon and only formal
execution of the registered Sale Deeds is to be completed. Thus any
disruption, hindrance or hurdles caused at this juncture, it will not only
cause injury to this defendant but also to the purchasers of apartments who
are not impleaded as parties to this suit. The suit is bad for non-joinder of
proper and necessary parties and also for mis-joinder. This defendant is a
108
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
bonafide purchaser for value and the entire transactions have taken place
with their vendors without knowledge of the pendency of the suit
proceedings and even the plaintiff had not at any point of time informed
this defendant regarding the pendency of the suit.
77. There is no existence of such Sy.No.13 as indicated in the
plaint and the same has been sub divided long back. The plaintiffs have
not challenged the registered Partition Deed dt.29.11.1971. The land is no
longer an agricultural land in view of the land being converted under the
provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Court fee paid is
insufficient. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
78.Written statement of defendant No.15 is as under:-
It has denied some of the averments narrated in the plaint as false.
It has admitted the relationship between parties to the suit. This defendant
is only concerned with Sy.No.8/1 measuring 35 guntas of land (including
109
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
one gunta Kharab), Sy.No.8/2 measuring 30 guntas of land and
Sy.No.10/2 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas of land (including one gunta
Kharab) all situated at Chinnapanahalli village. As far as these properties
are concerned, they were never part of joint family properties of
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy and he never owned these properties.
79. According to this defendant, Mr.H.Thippa Reddy being the
absolute owner of lands bearing Sy.No.8/1 measuring 35 guntas (including
1 gunta Kharab) of Chinnapanahalli village sold the same to
Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy son of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy under Sale
Deed dt.13.05.2005.
80. One Smt.Chinnamma being the absolute owner of land
bearing Sy.No.8/2 measuring 30 guntas in Chinnapanahalli village, sold
the same to Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy s/o Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy
under Sale Deed dt.13.05.2005.
110
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
81. Mr.H.M.Chinnappa Reddy being the absolute owner sold the
land bearing Sy.No.10/2 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas (including 1 gunta of
Kharab) of Chinnapanahalli village, sold the same to
Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy s/o Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy under Sale Deed
dt.28.06.1983. After obtaining the ownership of properties in Sy.No.10/2
measuring 1 acre 3 guntas (including 1 gunta of Kharab) of
Chinnapanahalli village, defendant No.2 was in peaceful possession of the
same.
82. Subsequently, said Sathyanarayana Reddy along with his
wife Smt.Vanajamma and their sons Sri.S.Ravi Kumar and Sri.S.Narendra
Babu entered into a Joint Development Agreement dt.09.06.2006 with this
defendant in order to develop the properties lands bearing Sy.No.8/1
measuring 35 guntas (including 1 gunta Kharab), Sy.No.8/2 measuring 30
guntas Sy.No.9 measuring 1 acre 4 guntas and Sy.No.10/2, measuring 1
acre 3 guntas (including 1 gunta Kharab) totally measuring 3 acres 30
111
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
guntas of Chinnapanahalli village. Pursuant to execution of Joint
Development Agreement dt.09.06.2006 the above mentioned land owners
have handed over the possession of above said lands to this defendant in
order to commence the construction of residential apartments, complex
called as 'Rohan Mihira".
83. Since then, this defendant has been in possession of the said
property and obtained necessary permission, sanction, no objection from
respective authorities, this defendant has put up construction on item No.
(vi) of (i) of schedule 'A' of the properties and item No.10 of schedule
'D' properties under Joint Development Agreement dt.09.06.2006. After
completing the construction of the residential apartment complex, this
defendant has alienated these properties to 3rd party purchasers for
valuable consideration.
112
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
84. This defendant has received demand of tax assessed
/reassessed; penalties levied and interest payable dt. 10.08.2011 from the
Deputy Commissioner to pay Tax. As per the latest tax assessment
defendant No.2, Smt.Vanajamma, Sri.Ravi Kumar and Sri.Narendra Babu
are liable to pay the said tax totally of Rs.61,54,382/- from the period of
2007-08 to 2011-12 (upto July 2011). Neither the plaintiff nor any other
member of the family of late Sri.Hanuma Reddy were ever in possession
either jointly or otherwise of item No.1 (vi) of (i) of Schedule-A of the
properties and item No.10 of the schedule 'D' properties. Court fee paid is
insufficient.
85. Mr.H.M.Narayana Reddy was a registered occupant of the
said land bearing Sy.No.8/1 measuring 35 guntas (including 1 gunta
Kharab) vide order and endorsement passed by the Special Deputy
Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, in Case No.29/34 under the
provision of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act,
113
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
1954. Pursuant to the revenue records being changed in his name
Mr.H.M.Narayana Reddy, being the absolute owner, sold the land in
favour of Sri.H.Thippa Reddy, vide Sale Deed dt.24.03.1983.
Sri.H.Thippa Reddy being the absolute owner of the lands bearing
Sy.No.8/1 measuring 35 (including 1 gunta Kharab) in Chinnappanahalli
village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore sold the
same to Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy, s/o Mr.H.M.Hanuma Reddy vide
Sale Deed dt.13.05.2005.
86. Mr.H.M.Krishana Reddy was a registered occupant of the
said land bearing Sy.No.8/2 measuring 30 guntas vide order and
Endorsement passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of
Inams, in case No.15/2 and 21 under the provision of Mysore (Personal
and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. Pursuant to the revenue
records being changed in his name Mr.H.M.Krishna Reddy, partitioned the
above property and Sy.No.8/2 measuring 30 guntas was allotted to the
114
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
share of Sri.H.M.Gurumurthappa Reddy. Sri.Gurumurthappa Reddy who
was the owner of the said lands sold the same in favour of Sri.N.C.Muni
Reddy vide Sale Deed dt.09.05.1973 and in Sy.No.8/2 measuring 30
guntas in favour of Smt.Chinnamma by way of a Sale Deed dt.21.12.1979.
Smt.Chinnamma being the absolute owner of the lands bearing Sy.No.8/2
measuring 30 guntas in Chinnappanahalli Village, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore sold the said lands measuring 30 guntas
in favour of Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy, son of Mr.H.M.Hanuma Reddy
vide a Sale Deed dt.13.05.2005. Hence, it is clear that, the above lands are
the self acquired properties of Sri.Sathyanarayana Reddy and not part of
the joint family properties.
87. Mr.H.M.Chinnappa Reddy was a registered occupant of the
said land bearing Sy.No.10 measuring 1 acre vide order and endorsement
dt.30.04.1963, passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition
of Inams, in case No.32 under the provision of Mysore (Personal and
115
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. Pursuant to the revenue
records being changed in his name Mr.H.M.Chinnappa Reddy, being the
absolute owner, sold the land bearing Sy.No.10/2 measuring 1 acre 03
guntas (including 1 gunta Kharab) to Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy, s/o
Mr.H.M.Hanuma Reddy vide a Sale Deed dt.28.06.1983. Pursuant to the
completion of the construction of the residential apartment complex
named "Rohan Mihira', the defendant No.15 had sold their share of 63%
under the Joint Development Agreement in favour of 3 rd party purchasers
for valuable consideration and have crated 3rd party rights with respect to
these properties. The plaintiff has to seek for cancellation of the above
mentioned registered deeds and instead of plaintiff has just filed a suit for
partition seeking for partition of lands in item No.(vi) of (i) of the
schedule-A properties and item No.10 of the schedule-D of the suit
schedule properties which on the completion of the construction of the
residential apartment complex have lost its original nature, character and
is incapable of being identified. Thus if the plaintiff were to seek for such
116
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
cancellation of the sale deeds, joint development agreement dt.09.06.2006
and sale deeds which are executed in favour of 3rd party purchasers.
88. The sister of plaintiff by name Smt.Jayamma was earlier
party to this suit as plaintiff No.2, thereafter she withdrew herself from the
said suit and filed a separate suit for the relief of partition and separate
possession in OS.No.1754/2006. In this suit, Smt.Jayamma has stated
that, partition was effected amongst the family members of late
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy on 29.11.1971. Such being the fact, the plaintiff
cannot state here that, there was no partition between family members of
ate Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy. Sri.H.Sathynarayana Reddy in his written
statement in O.S.No.1754/2006 has also stated that, there was a partition
effected among the family members of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy on
29.11.1971 and he also states that, the lands in Sy.No.8/1, 8/2 and 10/2
were purchased by him in his individual capacity and not in the capacity
of joint family member.
117
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
89. In the said suit, plaintiff Smt.Jayamma filed an interlocutory
application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC praying for restraining
this defendant (defendant No.31 in the said suit) from alienating,
encumbering or creating 3rd party rights over the suit properties which is
item No.(vi) of (i) of the schedule-A properties and item No.10 of the
schedule-D of the suit schedule properties. During the pendency of the
suit, which came to be allowed. Thereafter, defendant No.31 in
O.S.No.1754/2006 filed application under order 39 Rule 4 of CPC for
vacating the said order and said order was modified on 25.11.2010 and
permitted defendant No.31 to alienate 63% of the constructed area falling
under their share under Joint Development Agreement dt.09.06.2006.
Pursuant to the said order, defendant No.31 i.e, defendant No.15 herein
has already alienated and transferred their share of 63% under Joint
Development Agreement dt.09.06.2006 in favour of 3rd party purchasers.
118
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
90. One Sri.H.M.Narayana Reddy, s/o late Sri.Chikkamuniswami
Reddy was in occupation and possession of the land bearing Sy.No.8,
situated at Chinnappanahalli Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk, measuring 1 acre 03 guntas (including 1 guntas Kharab). On an
application being made by him, Sri.H.M.Narayana Reddy was registered
as occupant of the said land bearing Sy.No.8 measuring 1 acre 03 guntas
(including 1 gunta Kharab) situated at Chinnappannahalli village,
K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk vide order and endorsement
passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, in
Case No.29/34 under the provision of Mysore (Personal and
Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. Since a copy of the aforesaid
order and endorsement passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for
Abolition of Inams is not available an endorsement dt.10.06.2005 bearing
No.RKCR 204/2005-06 was issued for the non-availability of the same by
Taluk Sheristedar, Bangalore East Taluk.
119
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
91. Subsequent to the above grant and registration as occupant a
Phody of Sy.No.8 was conducted based on which a northern portion of
Sy.No.8 measuring 35 guntas (including 1 gunta Kharab) (inclusive of 1
guntas Kharab) belonging to Sri.H.M.Narayana Reddy was assigned with
sub-survey (Hissa No.) No.8/1 situated at Chinnappanahalli village,
K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. Sri.H.M.Narayana Reddy,
being the absolute owner, sold the lands bearing Sy.No.8/1 measuring 35
(including 1 gunta Kharab) situated at Chinnappanahalli village,
K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk to Sri.H.Thippa Reddy, son of
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy vide Sale Deed dt.24.03.1983. Pursuant to the
above mentioned transaction of sale in favour of Sri.Thippa Reddy, the
Katha in respect of Sy.No.8/1 measuring 35 (including 1 gunta Kharab)
situated at Chinnappanahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk was transferred in his name in terms of Mutation Register Extract.
Since the said mutation extract is not available, an endorsement
dt.25.04.2005 bearing No.R.K.PR 49 of 2005-06 was issued for the non-
120
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
availability of the same by the Taluk Sheristedar, Bangalore South Taluk.
The RTC's covering the period from 1982-83 to 2003-04 reflecting the
name of Sri.Thippa Reddy as Khatedar and occupant of land in Sy.No.8/1
measuring 35 (including 1 gunta Kharab) situated at Chinnappanahalli
village, K.R.Puam Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
92. Subsequent to the said sale transaction Sri.H.Thippa Reddy
executed a General Power of Attorney dt.15.12.2000 in favour of
H.Sathyanarayana Reddy by way of a registered document to execute
necessary documents such as sale, lease, gift, mortgage, etc., in respect of
the land in Sy.No.8/1 measuring 35 (incluing 1 guntas Kharab).
Sri.H.Thippa Reddy executed a Sale Deed dt.13.05.2005 in respect of land
in Sy.No.8/1 measuring 35 (including 1 Gunta Kharab) in favour of
Sri.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy. Subsequent to the said purchase of lands by
Sri.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy in respect of lands in Sy.No.8/1 measuring
121
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
35 (including 1 guntas Kharab), he was registered as Kathedar of the said
property in the mutation register.
93. One Sri.H.M.Krishna Reddy s/o late Sri.Chikkamuniswami
Reddy was in occupation and possession of the land bearing Sy.No.8,
situated at Chinnappanahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk measuring 1 acre 03 guntas (including 1 gunta Kharab). On an
application being made by him, Sri.H.M.Krishna Reddy was registered as
an occupant of the said lands bearing Sy.No.8 situated at Chinnappanahalli
village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk vide order and
endorsement dated passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for
Abolition of Inams, in Case No.15/2 and 21 under the provision of Mysore
(Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954. Since a copy of
the aforesaid order and endorsement, dated passed by the Special Deputy
Commissioner for Abolition of Inams is not available an endorsement
bearing No.RKNR 204 105-06 was issued for the non-availability of the
122
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
same by Taluk Sheristedar, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore. Subsequent
to said grant vide order and endorsement Khata in respect of Sy.No.8/2.,
measuring has been transferred in the name of H.Krishna Reddy in the
mutation register.
94. Subsequent to the above grant and registration as occupant,
Sy.No.8 has been phoded into two portions and southern portion of
Sy.No.8 measuring 1 acre 11 guntas (inclusive of 1 guntas Kharab)
belonging to Sri.H.M.Krishna Reddy was assigned with sub-survey (Hissa
No.) No.8/2. Further, Sri.H.K.Gurumurthappa Reddy became the owner of
the lands in Sy.No.8/2 measuring 1 acre 03 guntas (including 1 gunta
Kharab), situated at Chinnappanahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk, he was registered as the Khatedar of the said
lands. The above transaction is also reflected in the encumbrance
certificate covering the period from 03.07.1965 to 13.07.1965
123
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
substantiating that H.K.Gurumurthappa Reddy got the property vide
Partition Deed dt.03.07.1965.
95. Sri.H.K.Gurumurthappa Reddy executed a Sale Deed
dt.09.05.1973 in favour of Sri.N.C.Muni Reddy in respect of lands in
Sy.No.7/2 in Chinnappanahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore
South Taluk. Subsequent to said sale deed dt.09.05.1973, Katha has been
transferred in the name of Sri.N.C.Muni Reddy and RTC is also standing
in his name as Kathedar. Sri.N.C.Muni Reddy executed a Sale Deed in
favour of Smt.Chinnamma, wife of H.K.Gurumurthy Reddy by way of a
Sale Deed dt.21.12.1979 with respect of lands in Sy.No.8/2 measuring 1
acre and 10 guntas in Chinnappanahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk and Katha has been transferred in the name of
Smt.Chinnamma. Smt.Chinnamma also executed a General Power of
Attorney dt.15.12.2000 in favour of Sri.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy son of
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy as regards Sy.No.8/2 measuring 30 guntas to
124
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
execute necessary documents such as Sale, Lease, Gift, and Mortgage etc.
Said Smt.Chinamma executed a Sale Deed dt.13.05.2005 in favour of
Sri.H.Sathyanaryana Reddy s/o Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy with respect to
Sy.No.8/2 measuring 30 guntas situated at Chinnappanahalli village,
K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. Subsequent to the said
purchase of lands covered under Sy.No.8/2, measuring 30 guntas in the
name of Sri.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy was registered as Khatedar of the
property in Sy.No.8/2 measuring 30 guntas as reflected in the Mutation
entry issued by Village Accountant, Bangalore East Taluk, in the name of
Sri.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy. The above transaction is also reflected in the
encumbrance certificate bearing No.8144/2008-09 as regards the said
property reflecting the sale transaction dt.13.05.2005 in favour of
Sri.H.Sathanarayana Reddy.
96. One Mr.H.M.Chinnappa Reddy, s/o late
Sri.Chikkamuniswami Reddy was in occupation and possession of the
125
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
land bearing Sy.No. 10 situated at Chinnappanahalli Village, K.R.Puram
Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk measuring 1 acre. On an application being
made by him, Mr.H.M.Chinappa Reddy was registered as an occupant of
the said land bearing Sy.No.10 measuring 1 acre vide order and
endorsement, dt.30.04.1963, passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner
for Abolition of Inams in Case No.32 under the provision of Mysore
(Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954.
Mr.H.M.Hanuma Reddy who was also in occupation and enjoyment of a
portion of Sy.No.10 had applied for grant and registration of occupancy
rights. Hence, he was also registered as an occupant of the remaining
extent of land in Sy.No.10 measuring 1 Acre. Subsequent to the above
grant and registration as occupant, Sy.No.10 has been Phoded into two
portions and a portion of Sy.No.10 measuring 1 acre 03 guntas (including
1 guntas Kharab) belonging to Mr.H.M.Chinappa Reddy was assigned
sub-survey No.10/2 and Mr.H.M.Chinnappa Reddy was registered as
Khatedar in the survey records. By way of aforesaid phodi the lands
126
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
granted to Mr.H.M.Hanuma Reddy in Sy.No.10 mesuring 39 guntas
(inclusive of 1 guntas Kharab) was assigned sub-Sy.No.10/1. Thus clearly
evidencing the fact that the lands belonging to the father of the plaintiff
are covered under Sy.No.10/1 in Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore East Talu, Bangalore and not Sy.No.10/2. The plaintiff
therefore cannot claim any right, title or interest over the lands covered
under Sy.No.10/2 in Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East
Taluk, Bangalore.
97. Further, Sri.H.M.Chinnappa Reddy, being the absolute owner,
sold the lands bearing Sy.No.10/2 measuring 1 acre 03 guntas (including 1
guntas Kharab) to Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy, son of Mr.H.M.Hanuma
Reddy vide a Sale Deed, dt.28.06.1983. Subsequent to the said purchase
of lands covered under Sy.No.10/2, Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy, the same
being his self acquired property and he was registered as Kathedar of the
said property as reflected in mutation entry. From the above tracing of
127
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
title, it is clear that the property covered under Sy.Nos.8/1, 8/2 and 10/2 in
Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore is
the self acquired property of Sri.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy which was
purchased by him when he was working as a contractor in his individual
capacity and neither the plaintiff nor her family members have any kind of
right, title or interest over the same. This defendant being one of the
reputed builders, engaged in the business of real estate development has
developed various properties in and around Bangalore. He has over a
period of time established a valuable reputation as regards its business
activities and has received several awards, certificates and trophy/s in
honour and appreciation of its commitments to the real estate business.
98. Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy, s/o Mr.H.M.Hanuma Reddy,
Mrs.Vanajamma w/o H.Sathyanarayana Reddy and their sons i.e,
Mr.S.Ravi Kumar, Mr.S.Narendra Babu, (land owners) who were well
aware of the reputation/ standard of this defendant in the market, being the
128
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
absolute owners of all that piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy.No.8/1
measuring 35 (including 1 gunta Kharab), Sy.No.8/2 measuring 30 guntas,
Sy.No.9 measuring 1 acre 04 guntas and Sy.No.10/2 measuring 1 acre 03
guntas (including 1 guntas Kharab) totally measuring 3 acres 30 guntas
situated in Chinnappanahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'composite property')
expressed their intent to engage defendant No.15 for development of the
aforesaid composite property. Based on the understanding reached with
the lands owners, and prior to entering into any agreement or contract with
the land owners and as part of the title scrutiny and due diligence
conducted for the composite property, got issued a public notice
dt.29.04.2005 in daily newspaper of Deccan Herald, (the public Notice),
calling upon the public at large to notify defendant No.15 of any claims
over the composite property with appropriate documents to that effect,
within 7 days or else, it was specifically mentioned that this defendant
No.15 would proceed with the transaction on the basis that there are no
129
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
claims of whatsoever nature with regards to the composite property.
Neither defendant No.15 nor its advocate received any objections towards
the public notice, which itself establishes that the plaintiff herein had no
claims over the composite property or any part thereof. That pursuant
thereto, the land owners Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy, s/o
Mr.H.M.Hanuma Reddy, Mrs.Vanajamma w/o H.Sathyanarayana Reddy
and their sons i.e, Mr.S.Ravi Kumar, Mr.S.Narendra Babu, executed a
Joint Development Agreement, dt.09.06.2006 in favour of this defendant
based on which he derived the right and interest to develop the composite
property and a right over 62% of the said development subject to the terms
and conditions mentioned therein.
99. The Land owners namely Mr.H.Sathyanarayana
Reddy, s/o Mr.H.M.Hanuma Reddy, Mrs.Vanajamma w/o
H.Sathyanarayana Reddy and their sons i.e, Mr.S.Ravi Kumar,
Mr.S.Narendra Babu in part performance of their obligations under the
130
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
aforesaid Joint Development Agreement dt.09.06.2006 and in order to
give effect to the development project as envisaged, executed a power of
attorney dt.09.06.2006 authorized this defendant to act for and on their
behalf, with respect to the composite property, subject to the terms and
conditions mentioned therein. The daughters of Mr.H.Sathyanarayana
Reddy and Mrs.Vanajamma namely Mrs.S.Bharathi, Mrs.S.Anuradha,
daughter in laws of Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy and Mrs.Vanajamma
namely Mrs.P.Saraswathi and Mrs.Omana have acted as consenting
witnesses to the Joint Development Agreement dt.09.06.2006 confirming
that Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy, son of Mr.H.M.Hanuma Reddy
Mrs.Vanajamma, w/o Mr.Sathyanarayana Reddy and their sons i.e,
Mr.S.Ravi Kumar, Mr.S.Narendra Babu are the absolute owners of the
composite property and that the same is not a joint family property and
that they have no objection to the Joint Development Agreement
dt.09.06.2006 entered into by the Land Owners with defendant No.15.
131
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
100. That pursuant to the aforesaid Joint Development Agreement,
dt.09.06.2006 and power of attorney, dt.09.06.2006, this defendant was
put in possession of the composite property and pursuant to the same this
defendant has successfully completed the construction of a residential
apartment building known as "Rohan Mihira". The revenue records of the
Composite property were mutated in the name/s of aforesaid land owners
as such the records viz., RTC/ Pahani, Mutation Register extracts,
Assessment extract etc., reflects their name. That the land owners, prior to
execution of the aforesaid Joint Development Agreement, dt.09.06.2006,
had filed an application before the Special Deputy Commissioner,
Bangalore, U/s.95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, seeking for
conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural residential
purpose, with respect to the composite property. The Special Deputy
Commissioner after considering the said application on merits vide
demand notice dt.03.02.2006 bearing No.ALN (E) SR (Kai) 116/05-06
132
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
called upon the land owners to deposit a sum of Rs.2,04,408/- as
conversion fine to grant such permission. The land owners on depositing
the aforesaid amount on 14.02.2006, the Special Deputy Commissioner
vide Official Memorandum, dt.30.03.2007, bearing No.ALN (E) SR (Kai)
116/05-06 converted the land from agricultural to non-agricultural
residential purposes. The composite property was also assigned a single
Katha No.301/09-10 by the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike on 16.11.2009.
101. The properties earlier covered under Sy.No.8/1 measuring 35
(including 1 guntas Kharab), Sy.No.8/2 measuring 30 guntas, Sy.No.9
measuring 1 acre 04 guntas and Sy.No.10/2 measuring 1 acre 03 guntas
(including 1 guntas Kharab) totally measuring 3 acres 30 guntas situated
in Chinnappanahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore have now become one single property with a single Khata
number assigned to the same. It is therefore submitted that, both on
account of the conversion of the property and allotment of a single Khata
133
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
number the entire character, composition and nature of the property has
got changed and is not in the condition as sought to be portrayed by the
plaintiff. This defendant had obtained all necessary permissions, no
objection certificates and clearances which were necessary for
implementing the project, from various statutory authorities i.e, Karnataka
State Pollution Control Board, State Level Environment Impact
Assessment Authority Karnataka, Airport Authority of India, Karnataka
Geo Spatial Date Centre, BSNL, BESCOM and Police Commissioner
were obtained. Based on the aforesaid developments, on an application
made to the Bangalore Development Authority, this defendant obtained a
sanctioned plan to construct a residential apartment building on the
composite property vide plan sanction order dt.24.11.2017 bearing
No.NM/AS/AA3/E/76/07-08 as required by law under Section 15 of the
Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961.
134
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
102. On implementation of the said project, this defendant was
also issued with a commencement certificate on 11.12.2008, issued by
Engineer Member, Bangalore Development Authority based on the
Inspection Report dt.01.12.2008. On completion of the project undertaken
by them on the composite property as per sanctioned plan, the BDA was
granted an Occupancy Certificate on 30.12.2010 thereby permitting
occupation of the residential apartment building. During the transaction
period of construction and completion of the project "Rohan Mihira" all
the apartments falling to the share of defendant No.15 have been sold the
3rd party purchasers, and this defendant formally is completing the
registration of the sale in their favour. Thus any disruption, hindrance or
hurdles caused at this juncture, shall not only cause injury to this
defendant, but also to the purchasers of apartments. Further most of the
3rd parties in favour of whom the rights have been created have taken
loans, and have mortgaged the apartment purchased by them to banks or
financial institutions. The purchasers have also been put in possession of
135
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
the respective apartments purchased by them. In the meantime, the land
owners namely Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy, Mrs.Vanajamma and their
sons i.e, Mr.S.Ravi Kumar, Mr.S.Narendra Babu, failed to repay the
refundable security deposit amounting to a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- within a
period of 90 days from the date of execution of Joint Development
Agreement, dt.09.06.2006. Hence, the land owners vide a Memorandum
of Understanding dt.27.03.2008 mutually agreed to take a lesser share in
the residential apartment building which was to be constructed by this
defendant out of their own will and consent. Hence the share of this
defendant and share of the land owners, in the super built up area was
mutually agreed to be at 63% and 37% respectively.
103. In the said manner, in due compliance with law, as on date,
has constructed a residential apartment building known as 'Rohan Mihira"
on the Composite property wherein this defendant has right, title and
interest over 63% share in the super built up area and the undivided share
136
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
in the composite property and the construction put up thereon, this
defendant has spent more than a sum of Rs.42,00,00,000/- on the said
construction apart from making payment of Rs.2,00,00,000/- as refundable
security deposit in terms of Clause-7 of the Joint Development Agreement
dt.09.06.2006 and this amount has to be refunded by the land owners at
the time of handing over of possession of the entitlement of the land
owners. It is further contended that, in the event of the said amount not
being refunded within the stipulated period, this defendant is also entitled
to adjust the amount not refunded from and out of the constructed area
from the land owner's share. The construction of the residential apartment
building has been completed as evidenced by the Occupancy certificate
issued by the BDA. The properties in Sy.No.8/1 measuring 35 guntas
(including 1 guntas Kharab) and Sy.No.8/2 measuring 30 guntas, situated
at Chinnappanahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, which are item No.(vi) of
(i) of the schedule 'A' properties and Sy.No.10/2, measuring 1 acre 03
guntas (including 1 gunta Kharab), situated at Chinnappanahalli village,
137
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore which is item No.10
of the schedule -D properties are not available for partition as the same
are not part of the joint family properties.
104. The lands covered under Sy.No.8/1 situated at
Chinnappanahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk,
which is item No. (vi) of (i) of the schedule 'A' of the suit properties is the
self acquired property of Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy which was
purchased vide Sale Deed dt.13.05.2005 from Sri.Thippa Reddy. The
lands covered under Sy.No.8/2 situated at Chinnappanahalli village,
K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk which is item No. (vi) of (i) of
the schedule 'A' of the suit properties is the self acquired property of
Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy which was purchased vide Sale Deed
dt.13.05.2005 from Smt.Chinnamma. The lands covered under Sy.No.10/2
situated at Chinnappanahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk which is item No.10 of the schedule-D of the suit properties is the
138
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
self acquired property of Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy which was
purchased by him vide Sale Deed dt.28.06.1983, from Sri.Chinnappa
Reddy when he was aged 38 years and working as a Contractor. It is
pertinent to mention that, Sri.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy who is arrayed as
defendant No.2 in O.S.No.1754 of 2006, a suit which is filed by the sister
of the plaintiff, while answering the averments in the written statement has
taken up contention that the lands in Sy.Nos.8/1, 8/2 and 10/2 were
purchased by him in his individual capacity and not as a member of the
joint family. It is pertinent to note that sister of the plaintiff Smt.Jayamma
in O.S.No.1754 of 2006 has stated that partition was effected between
Sri.Hanuma Reddy and his sons back in the year 1971. When things stood
thus, the plaintiff cannot take up contention now that, there was no
partition which was effected between the family members. The averments
made in the above proceedings very clearly establish that the plaintiff had
constructive notice of the said partition which took place between the
members of the family of Sri.Hanuma Reddy. After a lapse of 29 years,
139
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
the plaintiff cannot take up the said contention which is barred by the laws
of limitation and lost her right to question the same.
105. It is pertinent to mention that late Sri.Hanuma Reddy
effected partition deed dt.29.11.1971 amongst himself and his children
thereby partitioning the property and even in the said partition deed it can
be clearly seen that the lands in Sy.Nos.8/1, 8/2 and 10/2 situated at
Chinnappanahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore was not part of the joint family properties belonging to late
Sri.Hanuma Reddy. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
106. Counter claim of defendant No.15 is as under:-
It is contended that, Sri.H.M.Chinnappa Reddy s/o
Chikkamuniswami Reddy was in occupation and possession of the lands
bearing Sy.No.10 situated at Chinnappanahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk. On an application made by him, he was
registered as an occupant of the said land bearing Sy.No.10 measuring 1
140
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
acre vide order and endorsement, dt.30.04.1963 passed by the Special
Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, in Case No.32 under the
provision of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act,
1954. Mr.H.M.Hanuma Reddy who was also in occupation and enjoyment
of a portion of Sy.No.10 and he also made an application for grant and
registration of occupancy rights. He came to be registered as an occupant
of the remaining extent of land in Sy.No.10 measuring 1 acre. Subsequent
to the above grant and registration as occupant, a phodi of Sy.No.10 was
conducted and based on the said phodi, the portion of Sy.No.10 measuring
1 acre 02 guntas which belongs to Mr.H.M.Chinnappa Reddy was
assigned sub-survey No.10/2 and he was registered as Khatedar in the
survey records. By way of aforesaid phodi, the lands granted to
Mr.H.M.Hanuma Reddy in Sy.No.10 measuring 39 guntas (inclusive of 1
gunta Kharab) was assigned sub-Sy.No.10/1. This clearly establishes the
fact that the lands belonging to the father of the plaintiff are covered under
141
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Sy.No.10/1 and not under Sy.No. 10/2. The plaintiff therefore cannot
claim any right, title or interest over the lands covered under Sy.No.10/2.
107. Mr.H.M.Chinnappa Reddy who is the absolute owner of the
said survey number sold the land bearing Sy.No.10/2, measuring 1 acre 02
guntas to Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy, vide Sale Deed dt.28.06.1983.
Subsequent to the purchase of the lands covered under Sy.No.10/2,
measuring 1 acre 02 guntas Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy, the same being
his self acquired property, was registered as Kathedar of the said property
and the same is reflected in the Mutation Entry. The plaintiffs father i.e,
Mr.H.M.Hanuma Reddy was never in possession of the property in
Sy.No.10/2 nor was the same property part of the joint family property or
ever belonged to him. As can be seen from the above averments the flow
of title to the lands in Sy.No.10/2, it clearly establishes the fact that
originally Mr.H.M.Chinnappa Reddy was the owner of the property by
virtue of the order and endorsement dt.30.04.1963 which was passed by
142
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
the Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams. It is thus clear
that the lands in Sy.No.10/2 belonged to H.M.Chinnappa Reddy.
108. The plaintiffs are /were not in possession of Sy.No.10/2
situated at Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
Defendant No.2, his wife and their sons were absolute owners of all that
piece and parcel of the land bearing Sy.No.8/1, 8/2, 9 and 10/2 totally
measuring 3 acres 30 guntas in Chinnappanahalli village, approached this
defendant for the development of said property into a residential
apartment complex. Subsequent to the mutual understanding between the
parties, this defendant has entered into a Joint Development Agreement
with Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy and his wife and his two sons on
09.06.2006 for the construction of a multi-storied apartment in Sy.No.10/2
situated at Chinnappanahalli Village, Krishnarajapuram Hobli, Bangalore
South Taluk. The daughters of defendant No.2 namely Smt.S.Bharathi
and Smt.S.Anuradha and daughters-in-laws namely Smt.P.Saraswathi and
143
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Smt.Omana had acted as consenting witnesses to Joint Development
Agreement on 09.06.2006 confirming that Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy,
his wife and their sons are the absolute owners of the property in
Sy.No.10/2 along with other survey numbers and that they do not have any
objections to the Joint Development Agreement on 09.06.2006 and they
have executed a General Power of Attorney.
109. The proposed defendant was put in possession of the lands in
Sy.No.10/ 2 pursuant to the execution of the Joint Development
Agreement dt.09.06.2006 by Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy and his wife
and his two sons. Pursuant to the execution and registration of the said
Joint Development Agreement dt.09.06.2006, this defendant has gone
ahead and applied for and obtained, all necessary permission, no objection
certificates and clearances which were necessary for implementation of
the above project from various statutory authorities. Pursuant to this the
proposed defendant No.15 has made an application and have obtained the
144
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
sanctioned plan from Bangalore Development Authority to construct a
residential apartment building on the composite property and obtained the
same vide order dt.24.11.2007. After obtaining the same, and on
implementation of the said project, the proposed defendant was issued
with a commencement certificate dt.11.12.2008 issued by the Bangalore
Development Authority. After completion of the said project, the BDA
has granted an Occupancy Certificate on 30.12.2010 permitting the
occupation of the residential apartment building.
110. During the construction and completion of the above project,
all apartments falling to the share of the proposed defendant No.15 have
been sold to 3rd party purchasers, who are now waiting for completion of
the formality of registration of the sale in their favour. Further, it is
pertinent to note that the property in Sy.No.10/2 has lost its original
character and is not available for inclusion in the said suit schedule
property in this suit.
145
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
111. When things stood thus, the plaintiffs are trying to include the
properties in Sy.No.10/2 into the present suit by way of amendment.
Pursuant to the execution of Joint Development Agreement dt.09.06.2006,
and completion of the residential complex on Sy.No.10/2, the nature of the
property has changed and this is no longer available for partition and
hence the plaintiffs cannot claim the said properties. Precious legal right
which has accrued in favour of the defendant by the execution of the Joint
Development of Agreement dt.09.06.2006 cannot be sought to be
disturbed by the amendment by the plaintiff.
112. This court vide its order dt.05.07.2011, in O.S.No.1754 of
2006 permitted the proposed defendant No.15 to go ahead with alienation
of 63% of the share in the constructed building on property covered under
Sy.No.10/ 2, Chinnappanahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore
South Taluk. Hence, no purpose would be served by including the land
converted under Sy.No.10/2 in the proceedings. Inspite of knowing the
146
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
facts of the case, plaintiff No.1 has wantonly not brought the true facts of
the case and have made false statements before this Court. Hence, prayed
to dismiss the suit with costs.
113. Written statement of defendant Nos.25 to 33 are as under:-
They have denied some of the averments narrated in the plaint as
false. They have admitted the relationship between parties to the suit and
also admitted that, one Sri.Chikkamuniswamy Reddy was in possession
and enjoyment of agricultural properties as a Kathedar and on 01.03.1925
by accepting a sum of Rs.1,000/- relinquished his right over the
agricultural properties in favour of his children and that, sons of said
Sri.Chikkamuniswamy Reddy including H.M.Hanuma Reddy (the father
of plaintiffs and defendants Nos.1 to 3 and husband of defendants Nos.4
and 7 and father of defendants Nos.5, 6 and 8) effected the partition in
respect of said properties on 30.05.1955 under registered partition deed.
147
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
114. During the life time of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy, there was a
partition between him and his sons under registered Partition Deed
dt.29.11.1971. Said Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy has purchased Sy.No. 19
measuring 7 acres 17 guntas situated at Chinnapanahalli village along
with other properties and he died intestate. Said Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy,
s/o Sri.Chikkamuniswamy Reddy i.e., a father of 1st defendant was the
absolute owner and in peaceful possession and enjoyment of property
bearing Sy.No.19 measuring 7 acres 17 guntas of Chinnappanahalli village
having been acquired as per the relinquishment deed dt.01.03.1925 from
his father. Pursuant to the above said deed, the concerned revenue
authority entered the name of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy in the concerned
revenue records. Since the date of relinquishment deed, said
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy was in possession and enjoyment of the said
property as absolute owner and hence, it is his self acquired property.
148
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
115. During the life time of said Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy, his sons
1) Sri.H.Thippa Reddy i.e, 1st defendant, 2) Sri.H.Sathya Narayana Reddy
i.e, 2nd defendant, 3) Sri.H.Venkatesh Reddy i.e, defendant No.3, 4)
Sri.H.Anatharam i.e, husband of defendant No.4 and father of defendants
Nos.5 to 8 have effected a registered partition deed dt.29.11.1971.
Accordingly, as per registered partition deed along with other properties to
the extent of 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.19 of Chinnapanahalli village,
had fallen to the share of 1st defendant. Pursuant to the above said
registered Partition Deed dt.29.11.1971, the concerned revenue authorities
entered the name of 1st defendant in the concerned revenue records.
Accordingly, 1st defendant was in possession and enjoyment of said
property as an absolute owner.
116. Defendant No.1 has sold a portion of Sl.No.12 of 'D'
schedule property in favour of one Smt.Sharadamma w/o late
Sri.A.Sundar Ram Reddy under Sale Deed dt.29.08.1977 for his family
149
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
necessities. Likewise, 1st defendant further sold a portion of Sl.No.12 of
'D' schedule property in favour of one Smt.Bhagyalakshmamma w/o
Sri.A.Krishna Reddy under Sale Deed dt.29.08.1977. Accordingly, both
Smt.Sharadamma and Smt.Bhagyalakshmamma were in possession of
Sl.No.12 of 'D' schedule property as absolute owners thereof.
117. Later, said Smt.Sharadamma and Smt.Bhagyalakshmamma
for their legal necessities jointly sold Sl.No.12 of 'D' schedule property in
favour of defendant Nos.25 and 26 under Sale Deed dt.02.11.2009.
Accordingly, they became the absolute owners of the said property and
their names came to be entered in the concerned revenue records. They
were put in actual possession and enjoyment of the said property. Hence,
they are the bonafide purchasers of the said property. After purchasing the
said property, they invested huge amount, after obtaining all the legal
sanctions developed the above said property and constructed apartment
150
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
over the said property. In turn, they sold the same in favour of defendants
Nos.27 to 33 under various registered Sale Deeds in the form of flats.
118. From the beginning, the property bearing Sy.No.19 to the
extent of 7 acres 17 guntas of land i.e, Sl.No.12 of 'D' schedule property
was originally belonged to Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy. Court fee paid is
insufficient. Suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and suit is hit
by law of Limitation as first alienation in respect of item No.12 of 'D'
schedule property was in the year 1977 by 1st defendant. Hence, prayed to
dismiss the suit with costs.
119. The brief facts of the case in O.S.No.476/2006 is as
below:-
One Sri.Hanuma Reddy son of late Chikka Muniswamy Reddy was
the absolute owner of 2 acres 4 guntas of land situated at
K.G.Chinnappanahalli village, Old Gramatana. He owned other
properties also. In respect of other properties, there are disputes and the
151
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
plaintiffs crave leave of this Court to institute separate proceedings. In
respect of those claims the cause of action would be different, relief
sought for would be different and if it is joined with this case, it would be
misjoinder of causes as well as parties. Hence, the plaintiff seeks leave of
this Court to file separate suits in respect of said properties.
120. The defendants are common, the claim made is under a Will
executed by deceased Hanuma Reddy on 14.05.1986. The properties are
different, the sites mentioned in the plaint are common, the documents
relied upon are common. The cause of action is common. As common
question of law and facts arise plaintiff has presented this suit.
121. Smt.Muninagamma, the plaintiff herein late Maruti and
Smt.S.Manjula are the grand children of Hanuma Reddy. Hanuma Reddy
while he was in sound state of mind and hale and healthy had executed a
Will dt.14.05.1986. Sri.Hanuma Reddy was hale and healthy and in a
152
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
sound state of disposition. He had great love and affection for his grand
children and great grandchildren. He has formed 36 sites in 2 acres 4
guntas of old Gramatana of Chinnappanahalli village. He has bequeathed
one site in favour of his wife Smt.Akkaiamma and bequeathed the other
35 sites in favour of his grand children and great grand children. A list of
the beneficiaries of the sites together with the plan annexed to the Will has
also been registered. The wishes of the testator have to be fulfilled. In the
Will site No.2 measures 54 feet x 40 feet and site Nos.6 and 9 measures 40
x 40 feet each respectively and the same is more particularly described in
the schedule hereunder, has been bequeathed in favour of P.Dhanraj.
Plaintiff is the absolute owner of property mentioned in schedule.
122. The plaintiff has an unassailable right over the respective
sites mentioned in the schedules. The defendants do not have any right,
title or possession in respect of the properties mentioned in the schedule
The sites are also demarcated in the plan annexed. Venkatesh Reddy is
153
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
also related to Sri.Hanuma Reddy. They have illegally trespassed about an
year ago into the site. Nagaveni and Bhagyalakshmi appear to have
entered into an agreement with the developers for the purpose of putting
up construction namely apartments in the schedule properties.
123. Site Nos.6 and 9 have been assigned as Khata No.22 by the
Mahadevapuram CMC. The assignment of Khata number is illegal. No
notice has been issued to the plaintiffs. The issuance of license to the 3 rd
party is without authority of law, as the plaintiff has not been issued with
notices. The construction has commenced. They have no right to put up
construction on the properties belonging to the plaintiff. Their acts violate
the rights of the plaintiff. Grant of license and plan is against the wishes
of testator Hanumareddy. The defendants do not have any right to apply
for license and plan in respect of the properties, which do not belong to
them.
154
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
124. The Khata made out by CMC is per se illegal in as much as
none of the defendants has any right, title, interest or possession in or over
the sites. Kathas and alleged license and plan are obtained on the
fictitious or fraudulent documents. They do not confer any right on the
defendants. They have no right to continue with the further construction.
Hence, the plaintiff requested the defendant to stop construction and put
the plaintiffs in possession, but the defendants refused to heed the request
of the plaintiffs. Hence, this suit.
125. In pursuance of suit summons, the defendants Nos.1 to 5
have appeared before the court through their respective counsels and
filed their separate written statements.
Written statement of defendant No.1 is as under:-
It has denied some of the averments narrated in the plaint as false.
According to this defendant, late Hanuma Reddy has not executed any
Will. The alleged Will do not confer any right over the plaintiff in respect
155
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
of suit schedule properties. No plan was prepared or no sites were formed
as alleged. The plaintiff has not produced the plan i.e, sanctioned by the
planning authority under Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act 1961.
126. It has admitted that, Smt.Nagaveni and Smt.Bhagyalakshmi
have entered into an Agreement with the developer for putting up
apartments. Said Hanuma Reddy had partitioned the Joint Family
Properties including the suit schedule property by virtue of memorandum
of Partition on 28.08.1989 and the same has been acted upon by the
parties.
127. The property in question according to the plaintiff is a site
measuring 40 x 40 feet which bears property No.9. No such property was
in existence and it does not form part and parcel of property which is
given for joint Development Agreement to this defendant i.e, property
No.5, Katha No.99 situated at Chinnappanahalli village, Mahadevapura
156
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
C.M.C, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. When the identity of
the property of the plaintiff itself is doubtful and disputed, the plaintiff is
not entitled for any relief of injunction.
128. Further, plaintiff has not produced any document to show
that, a layout was formed as per the provisions of Karnataka Town and
City Planning Act and in the absence of such sanctioned layout plan, it is
clear that, no layout was formed and no sites were demarcated in old
Gramatana of Chinnappanahalli. A portion of old Gramatana of
Chinnappanahalli was acquired by Railways. Therefore, where the
property of plaintiff is situated is not made clear by the plaintiff. There are
no sites vide Nos.6 and 9 as alleged. At no point of time, the plaintiff has
requested the defendants to stop the construction work and that they
refused as alleged.
157
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
129. The property old Gramatana of Chinnapanahalli belonged to
the joint family of late Chikka Muniswamy. After the death of late Chikka
Muniswamy all his properties were partitioned amongst his children
Sri.H.M.Shamanna Reddy, H.M.Krishna Reddy, H.M.Hanuma Reddy,
H.M.Veerappa Reddy, H.M.Chinnappa Reddy, H.M.Narayana Reddy and
H.M.Kodanda Reddy. The said partition had taken place vide Partition
Deed dt.02.01.1955. Out of the said partition an extent of 15 acres
inclusive of Gramatana and Sy.No.12 had come to the share of
H.M.Hanuma Reddy and his children. Subsequently, there was a partition
amongst Hanuma Reddy and his family vide partition deed dt.29.11.1971
and certain properties were partitioned. However, old Chinnapanahalli
property was not partitioned since it was acquired by the Railways and
some dispute was pending between Hanuma Reddy and Kodandarama
Reddy. However, subsequently on settlement of disputes H.M.Hanuma
Reddy and his children has partitioned the said property and were
enjoying their portion which had come to the children of Hanuma Reddy
158
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
respectively. However, it was subsequently reduced into writing vide
Partition Deed dt.28.08.1989.
130. Out of the said partition, the defendants Nos.4 and 5 were
alotted an extent of 26 guntas. However, since the property has fallen to
the jurisdiction of Mahadevapura City Municipal Council, Katha is also
made out as No.99. Further, an extent of 30 guntas was allotted to the
share of Sri.H.Anantharama Reddy under the said partition. However,
after the death of H.Anantharama Reddy the defendants Nos.2 and 3 being
the wives of Sri.H.Anantharama Reddy are in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the property allotted to them. Subsequently, the defendants
Nos.4 and 5 have executed a registered Joint Development Agreement
dt.13.12.2004 in favour of this defendant and a power of attorney was also
given in pursuance of Joint Development Agreement. Similarly, the
defendants Nos.2 and 3 have also given a Joint Development Agreement
and General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.1 herein. This
159
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
defendant has completed the project and various apartments are formed,
completed and sold to various apartment owners. Since the plaintiff is
alleging that the apartment is constructed in his property, though as on the
date of suit the 3rd parties have acquired right, title and interest over the
property in question, with oblique motive the apartment owners are not
made parties to this suit. Therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties.
131. Further, when the possession of the property is sought for it is
just and necessary the Apartment holders are to be made as parties to the
suit and Court fee is to be paid for the value of the apartments. Therefore,
the suit is not maintainable and the court fee paid is insufficient. The
completed apartments are sought to be claimed by the plaintiff and
therefore, the plaintiff shall pay the court fee on the market value of the
property including the apartments. The suit is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties. On the property in question various apartments are
160
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
constructed and it is sold to different purchasers. Those purchasers of
apartments are necessary parties to the suit. In view of the non-joinder of
necessary parties suit requires to be dismissed.
132. It is false that the Will was executed by H.M.Hanuma Reddy
as alleged. Even if it is taken that it was executed the said Will was no
longer in force and not given effect to, because late Hanuma Reddy had
partioned all his properties vide Partition Deed dt.28.08.1989 and
therefore, the alleged Will automatically stands revoked. It is pertinent to
note that, the alleged date of the Will is 14.05.1986 and the partition is
dated 28.08.1989 and therefore as on the date of death of late
H.M.Hanuma Reddy he had no property left behind and hence nothing
could be acquired Will. Therefore, it is clear case of fraud being played
by the plaintiff and the intention of plaintiff is only to pressurize the
developer to come to terms for monetary exploitation. Therefore, it is
clear that the plaintiff had approached this court with unclean hands.
161
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
133. The Joint Development Agreement is executed in favour of
1st defendant by other defendants and the suit is not maintainable unless
the plaintiff seeks for a relief of cancellation of the said documents by
virtue of which right, title and interest is created in favour of the 1 st
defendant. Further the suit is not maintainable unless the sale deeds
executed in favour of apartment owners are sought to be cancelled.
Therefore, without paying court fee on such value of the apartments and
without seeking for declarations regarding such alienations made the suit
is not maintainable. Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy had no subsisting interest in
respect of any property as on the date of death and therefore nothing could
be passed on to the plaintiff and hence no right, title and interest is created
in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property cannot
be identified. Therefore, in view of all above said facts and circumstances
the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. Court fee paid is insufficient.
Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
162
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
134. Written statement of defendants Nos.2 and 3 is as under:-
They have denied some of the averments narrated in the plaint as
false. According to them, Hanuma Reddy was not owning any properties
and he had not executed any Will in respect of suit schedule property.
They have denied that, plaintiff Manjula is the grand daughter of late
Sri.Hanuma Reddy. According to them, plaintiff is not related to them.
Late Sri.Hanuma Reddy while he was in sound mind and good health he
has not executed any Will and he has not formed any layout during his life
time.
135. The Mahadevapura C.M.C did not assign the Katha No.22 in
accordance with law. There is no necessity to issue notice by C.M.C to
plaintiff. They have not put up any construction as alleged by the
plaintiff. Court fee paid is insufficient. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit
with costs.
163
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
136. Written statement of defendants Nos.4 and 5 is as under:-
They have denied some of the averments narrated in the plaint as
false. The suit schedule property is one of the joint family properties
owned and possessed by joint family of H.Hanuma Reddy and his
children. Plaintiff is the daughter's daughter of H.Hanuma Reddy. This
suit is hit by provisions under order II Rule 2 of CPC. The Will
dt.14.05.1986 executed by H.Hanuma Reddy is not enforceable. On
14.05.1986 or thereafter the said H.Hanuma Reddy was not hale and
healthy as he was suffering from ailments. He had no intention to
bequeath any property in favour of plaintiff.
137. Defendant No.4 herein is the absolute owner of suit schedule
property and she is in possession and enjoyment of the same by virtue of
an allotment made to her with the consent of 5th defendant in a family
partition evidenced by memorandum of partition dt.28.08.1989.
164
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
138. Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy being one of the coparceners
legally incompetent to devise joint family property by Will, because on the
date of his death, when the alleged Will takes effect, there was nothing for
the alleged Will to operate on, as at the moment of his death, his interest
over the joint family properties including the suit schedule property, has
already disposed of by way of Partition that has taken place by way
Memorandum of Partition dt.28.08.1989. Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy has
partitioned the suit schedule property and other joint family properties
among the joint family members under the said Memorandum of Partition
on 28.08.1989, which is subsequent to the alleged Will relied upon by the
plaintiff. The said alleged Will has no legal consequences in as much as
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy has partitioned the same among the members of
the said joint family subsequently and the said partition has already acted
upon and the beneficiaries under the said partition have been in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. Sri.H.M.Hanuma
Reddy is also signatory to the said Memorandum of Partition
165
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
dt.28.08.1989 and the said partition has taken place as per the wishes and
consent of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy. In view of the partition of the joint
family properties, including the suit schedule property on 28.08.1989,
nothing survives under the alleged Will claimed by the plainitiff, nor the
suit schedule property passed to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff does
not derive any right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule
property under the said alleged Will and said Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy
died on 10.09.1991.
139. Without prejudice to the right of these defendants, these
defendants submit that according to the plaintiff, the alleged Will was
executed on 14.05.1986. During life time of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy, he
has dealt with the suit schedule property and other properties and devised
the same by partitioning amongst his sons evidenced by the Memorandum
of Partition executed on 28.08.1989 and the said Memorandum of
Partition has been acted upon, in good faith by the respective sharers and
166
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
the revenue entires have been effected on the basis of the said
Memorandum of Partition and have been in exclusive possession and
enjoyment of the same according to the allotment made to them under the
said Memorandum of Partition.
140. The plaintiff had the clear knowledge about the execution of
the said Memorandum of Partition on 28.08.1989 itself and has been
aware that the respective sharers have taken possession and have been
enjoying the same exercising the right of ownership. The plaintiff has not
taken any steps right from 1989 till the date of institution of this suit either
to seek cancellation of the said Memorandum of Partition or seeking any
partition. Moreover, on 10.09.1991 when the alleged Testator
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy died, the suit schedule property was already
partitioned and dealt by said Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy and as such there
was nothing available to the plaintiff for the said alleged Will to take
effect, as alleged Will (without admitting the execution) would otherwise
167
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
take effect only from 10.09.1991. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiff in
the above suit is imaginary and is not based on any surviving right, title,
interest or possession. Court fee paid is insufficient. Suit is barred by law
of Limitation. Suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence,
prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
141. The brief facts of the case in O.S.No.1754/2006 is as
below:-
Sri.Chikkamuniswamy Reddy is married to Smt.Hanumakka and
they have seven sons namely Shamanna Reddy, H.M.Krishna Reddy,
H.M.Hanuma Reddy, H.M.Chinnappa Reddy, H.M.Veerappa Reddy,
H.M.Kodandarama Reddy and Sri.H.M.Narayana Reddy.
142. Smt.Akkayamma is the wife of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy.
They have twelve children viz., Smt.Peddakka, Smt.Chinnakka,
Smt.Sharadamma, Smt. H.Jayamma (plaintiff herein), Smt. Savithramma,
168
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Sri.H.Thippa Reddy, Sri.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy, Smt.H.Vijayamma,
Smt.H.Sarasamma, Sri.H.Venkatesh Reddy, Smt.Vanamala and Sri.Ananth
Ram Reddy. Smt.Peddakka, Smt.Sharadamma, Smt.Savithramma,
Smt.Vijayamma and Anath Ram Reddy are dead. Their legal
representatives are arrayed as defendants. Both Sri.Hanuma Reddy and
his wife are dead.
143. The partition has been effected among Sri.Hanuma Reddy
and others. Sri.Hanuma Reddy has got various properties. After the
partition, he has acquired certain properties as follows:-
"On 29.11.1971 a partition was effected amongst Hanuma Reddy
and his children. At that partition, he was allotted certain properties. The
properties allotted are shown in the schedule 'A' hereunder. Though
Sy.No.19 was purchased by Hanuma Reddy, it has been partitioned. It is
needless to say that all acquisition by Hanuma Reddy or other members of
the family is out of joint family members. The joint family of Hanuma
169
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Reddy has already been in afferent circumstances. It is needless to point
out that as the family was put in full and estate all the properties were
enjoyed jointly. Though some of the properties were purchased in the
name of the coparceners and all the properties were being enjoyed
commonly".
144. The properties purchased by Hanuma Reddy are shown in the
schedule 'B' hereunder. Out of the properties mentioned in the schedule
'B' is Sy.No.19. Though the properties have been acquired by Hanuma
Reddy, the properties mentioned in the schedules are also joint family
properties.
145. The properties purchased in the name of Thippa Reddy are
mentioned in the schedule 'C' property. Though there was no need to sell
the property, Thippa Reddy has obtained a sale deed from the sons of
Chikkamuniswamy Reddy, Shamanna Reddy, Krishna Reddy, Hanuma
170
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Reddy and Narayana Reddy. The object of sale is recited in the document
are that their father Chikkamuniswamy Reddy had obtained a loan and
they did not want to continue to be members of the Joint Hindu Family.
Sri.Shamanna Reddy was authorized to sell one of the lands and he was
unable to sell the land as the Khata stood in the name of the Society. It is
also recited that they had other debts. The property bearing Sy.No.10 of
Hoodi village had been purportedly sold in favour of Thippa Reddy s/o
Hanuma Reddy. At all events sale is not for his personal benefits. He was
a eldest son of the family of Hanuma Reddy and he was also a member of
undivided joint family consisting of his father and uncles. He had no
independent income of his own. His income was from the nucleus of the
undivided joint family. The sale is only with a view to secrete the
property bearing No.10. This property has been described in the 'C'
schedule. The joint family also purchased an immovable property in the
name of 1st defendant on 20.11.1968 in addition to the property bearing
No.10 from out of the nucleus of the joint family.
171
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
146. Sri.H.Thippa Reddy, the 1st defendant had no independent
income of his own and he was not capable of investing to purchase the
said property by himself. Thereby the said property, bearing land
Sy.No.13/2 to area extent of 1 acre wet land situated at Chinnappanahalli,
Bangalore having been purchased from H.M.Chinnappa Reddy in the
name of the 1st defendant under registered Sale Deed dt.21.11.1968, is a
joint family and being a joint family property this property is also required
to be divided between the plaintiff and the defendants, as the plaintiff has
a share over the said property.
147. Likewise another extent of property in land Sy.No.10/2, to an
area extent of 1 acre which is also a wet land in Chinnappanahalli,
Bangalore came to be purchased in the name of the 2 nd defendant
Sri.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy. This property came to be purchased on
21.11.1968 in the name of the 2nd defendant from out of the nucleus of the
joint family. It is only to take into consideration that the said property was
172
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
purchased in the name of the 2nd defendant, as he is a junior member of the
joint family ensuring to the joint family. Considering that the
consideration mentioned in the document pertaining to the said property,
is a consideration, which was paid from out of the nucleus of the joint
family. Consequent upon the aforesaid purchases being made from out of
the nucleus of the joint family, although the properties are standing in the
name of the 1st and 2nd defendants respectively, the said properties are the
properties for which division is required to be effected between the
plaintiff and the defendants in terms of the prayer sought for in the plaint.
Therefore, prayer for effecting partition and separate possession in respect
of the said two properties also.
148. Sri.Thippa Reddy is a coparcener and there was no need for
the family to sell the property bearing Sry.No.10 to him. The income of
the property bearing Sy.No.10 was being utilized by Sri.Hanuma Reddy
and other coparceners. The property is blended with other joint family
173
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
properties. The benefits from the property was being utilized by all the
members of the family. It was never treated as a self acquired property.
The coparceners belong to joint family. The property is thrown into the
common hotchpot. Thippa Reddy is trying to take advantage of the fact
that the others are not well versed and the sale deed stands in his name.
The properties mentioned in the schedule 'C' hereunder is also the property
of the joint family. It is therefore manifest that the properties mentioned
in the A, B and C schedules continue to be undivided joint family. After
the death of Sri.Hanuma Reddy each one of them have undivided interest.
149. In respect of the land Sy.No.23 mentioned as item No.1 to the
schedule 'A' given to the plaint, there is a discrepancy that has arisen i,e
although what is sought to be divided is 20 guntas in respect of the land
Sy.No.23 mentioned in item No.1 of the schedule-A given to the plaint, all
the earlier documents indicate with regard to the property that is to be
taken into consideration as 5 acres 26 guntas. The plaintiff, on receipt of
174
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
the record of rights for the year 2006-07, notices that no extent of the
property has been allotted to the share of Sri.Hanuma Reddy. The
defendants, during pendency of the above suit, have been manipulating the
revenue records, in order to take into consideration making impossible for
even getting a share in respect of the land Sy.No.23 mentioned as item
No.1 of the schedule 'A' property.
150. The item No.2 of the schedule 'A' property given to the plaint
is to an extent of 5 acres 33 guntas and the said land has been held as joint
family property. It is this extent of the property which was held in joint
and what has been done is by a clandestine attempts in the proceedings
before the authorities, a division in respect of the property has been made.
The said division has been done excluding the rights of late Hanuma
Reddy and it has not been done as prayed by the plaintiff. The entires in
the record of rights are not binding the plaintiff in so far as the property in
question is to be taken into consideration.
175
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
151. The joint family also purchased immovable property in the
name of the 1st defendant in addition to the property bearing No.10 from
out of the nucleus of the joint family, it may be stated here that,
Sri.H.Thippa Reddy, the 1st defendant, had no independent income of his
own and he was not capable of investing to purchase the said property by
himself. Thereby the properties purchased in the name of the 1 st defendant
are the joint family properties and being joint family properties, those of
the properties are also required to be divided between the plaintiff and the
defendants, as the plaintiff has a share over the said property, that apart the
properties purchased in the name of the 2nd defendant were also purchased
from out of the nucleus of the joint family. It is only to take into
consideration that the said properties were purchased in the name of the 1 st
and 2nd defendants, being the members of the joint family enuring to the
joint family. Considering that the consideration mentioned in the
documents pertaining to the said properties, is a consideration, which was
176
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
paid from out of the nucleus of the joint family, although the properties are
standing in the name of the 1 st and 2nd defendants respectively, the said
properties are the properties for which division is required to be effected
between the plaintiff and the defendants.
152. The defendants claim to be the purchasers of certain portions
of the land. They are proper and necessary parties to the suit. Their right
is not at all absolute. At all events the sale do not bind the plaintiffs. The
plaintiffs and defendants are joint owners of the schedule properties. The
plaintiff had got herself impleaded in the suit filed by Smt.Vanamala and
others in O.S.No.942/2011 and she made an application to withdraw the
suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Hence,
this suit.
153. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendants Nos. 1 to 3, 5,
17 to 19, 21 to 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34 to 36, 38 to 40, 41, 42, 44, 46 to
177
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
49, 53, 57, 60, 62 to 67, 78, Lrs of defendant No.81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 to
99 have appeared before the Court through their respective counsels.
Defendants Nos.1, Lrs of D.2, 5, 21 to 23, 24, 25 to 31, 33, 35, 39, 40 to
42, 44, 49, 78, Lrs of 81, 82, 83, 84 to 88, 90, 97 have filed their separate
written statements. Defendants Nos.1 and 2 have adopted written
statement of defendants Nos.28, 29. Defendant No.34(a) (b) have
adopted the written statement of defendant No.24. Defendant No.87 has
adopted written statement of defendant No.86. Defendant Nos.94 to 96
and 98 have adopted the written statement of defendant No.97.
Defendant Nos.3, 17 to 19, 36, 38, 46 to 48, 53, 57, 60, 62 to 67, 89, 91 to
93, 99 have not filed written statements. Defendant No.4 dead.
Defendants Nos.6 to 16, 20, 32, 43, 45, 50 to 52, 58, 61, 69 to 71, 91, 92,
93 have not appeared before the court through their counsels, hence
they have been placed exparte. Defendant No.37, Nos.54 to 56, 59, 68,
72 to 77, 79, 80, 100 to 102 were absent.
154. Written statement of legal representatives of defendant No.2
i.e, defendants Nos.2(a), 2(b), 2(d) and 2(e) is as under:-
178
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
They have denied some of the averments narrated in the plaint as
false. They have admitted the relationship between parties to the suit.
Earlier, the very same plaintiff has filed O.S.No.942/2001 along with one
Smt.Vanamala for the relief of partition and separate possession. The
plaintiff herein was the 2nd plaintiff in the said suit and in the plaint of said
suit clearly indicated that, the contentions raised in the said suit by the
plaintiff herein are contradictory and the plaintiff herein is guilty of drinking
hot and cold at a time. The plaintiff herein who was 2 nd plaintiff in the said
suit having realized that she would never succeed in the suit, filed an
application for withdrawing the said suit with a liberty to file fresh suit on
the same cause of action. The ingredients of order 23 Rule 1 (3) of CPC are
not at all complied while filing the above suit. The plaintiff thereafter
appears to have filed the above suit on a different cause of action giving go-
bye not only to earlier pleadings, but also to the alleged earlier cause of
action in O.S.No.942/2001. However, she is bound by the allegations and
contention raised by her in O.S.No.942/2001 since she was a co-plaintiff.
179
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Subsequently, the plaintiff herein who was earlier the 2 nd plaintiff in the said
suit has been now impleaded as defendant No.9 in O.S.No.942/2001. She
has not chosen to take up any separate defence in the said suit.
155. This suit is hit by Sections 10 and 11 of CPC as parties to both
the suits in O.S.No.942/2011 and the present suit, the subject matter of both
the suits, the issues that arises for consideration in both the suits are one and
the same.
156. The plaintiff herein Smt.Sarasamma, the defendant No.35 in
the present suit and H.Vanamala/defendant No.34 in the present suit had
filed one more suit for the relief of partition and separate possession in
O.S.No.3859/2006 which came to be dismissed. Plaintiff and defendants
Nos.35 and 36 herein are virtually abusing process of law and they have
taken contradictory stand.
180
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
157. Subsequent to filing of the suit, the plaintiff has chosen to
implead several parties as additional defendants and same discloses that, the
suit schedule properties are no more agricultural properties and plaintiff has
also thereby admitted that, several properties which are subject matter of the
suit have already been sold in favour of 3 rd parties, in some cases decades
prior to filing of the above suit. The plaintiff ought to have impleaded
several other persons who have purchased sites. Hence, suit is bad for non-
joinder of proper and necessary parties.
158. The father of defendant No.1 died during pendency of this suit
and his legal representatives have been brought on record. One of the legal
representatives of 2nd defendant is already on record as defendant No.28.
159. There was a registered partition deed on 29.11.1971 between
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy and his children which was effected by metes and
bounds and it was acted upon by all the parties concerned and some sharers
181
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
who were allotted shares in the said partition have alienated their respective
shares long back before filing this suit. Said alienations have never been
challenged by the plaintiff though the same were within her /their
knowledge. Sy.No. 19 has also been partitioned. The partition effected on
29.11.1971 was full fledged in nature and there was disruption of status of
members of family and there was no existence of joint family either in food,
shelter or properties and each of the sharers was exclusively enjoying the
properties that fell to his share.
160. The object of sale transaction between Sri.H.Thippareddy and
sons of Sri.Chikkamuniswamy Reddy is recited in the document to the effect
that their father Sri.Chikkamuniswamy Reddy had obtained a loan and they
didn't want to continue to be the members of joint family and it is further
recited that, Sri.H.M.Shamanna Reddy was authorized to sell one of the
lands and he was unable to sell the land as Katha stood in the name of
Society and it is also recited that they had other debts that the property
182
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
bearing Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village had been purportedly sold in favour of
H.Thippa Reddy s/o Hanuma Reddy.
161. The suit schedule properties have been fully developed and
they have changed several hands wherein 3rd party interests have been
created who are bonafide purchasers. Several multi-storied buildings have
also been built by the bonafide purchasers from Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy
during his life time itself. Therefore, suit schedule properties are not
available for partition.
162. Further, the plaintiff is aware that, late Sri.H.M.Hanuma
Reddy during his life time has executed a registered Will dt.14.05.1986
where late Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy has mentioned regarding prior
partition and in fact under the very same Will, the son of 1 st plaintiff i.e,
P.Dhanaraj was even given a site carved out of Sy.No.19 of
Chinnappanahalli village and 2nd plaintiff was also given a site. Hence,
183
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
the plaintiffs cannot now feign ignorance of the 1971 partition. Said
Sri.P.Dhanaraj had even alienated the site that was given to him by late
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy. By this it is clear that, the suit is barred by law of
Limitation. Further, one Smt.Vijayamma the late daughter of
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy i.e, mother of defendants Nos.14 to 16 was also
given two sites for "Harishna Kumkuma" by late Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy.
Thus, plaintiffs knew about the partition deed dt.29.11.1971.
163. Several purchasers who are in actual possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule properties with various structures standing
thereon having invested several crores of rupees are not made as parties to
this suit. Hence, suit is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary
parties. Plaintiffs have not challenged the registered partition deed
dt.29.11.1971, so also the subsequent partition deed dt.28.08.1989 wherein
the properties were partitioned.
184
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
164. Plaintiffs have not at all disclosed that, late Sri.H.M.Hanuma
Reddy had two wives and all the legal representatives through 1 st wife or
not impleaded in this suit. There is no prayer as against the various
purchasers of suit schedule properties.
165. Suit is bad for non-inclusion of all the properties that fell to
the share of late Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy in the partition that took place in
the year 1955 between himself and his brothers. Court fee paid is
insufficient. The defendant No.35 is shown to be the wife of one late
Sri.Ramachandra Reddy, whereas husband of defendant No.35 is one
Srinivasa Reddy who is very much alive. In fact, defendant No.35 and 1 st
plaintiff are the common plaintiffs in O.S.No.942/2001.
166. Defendant No.33 is only a tenant under defendant No.1. The
plaintiffs herein Smt.Sarasamma, defendant No.35, Smt.Vanamala
/defendant No.34 had filed O.S.No.3859/2006 against defendants Nos.1
185
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
and 2 and sons of defendant No.1 herein for partition and separate
possession which came to be dismissed on 25.01.2010. The said suit was
filed claiming that they are entitled for a share in the property shown in
schedule 'C' therein. However, it is admitted therein that, the defendant
No.1 is in exclusive possession of the same and the plaintiffs in the said
suit claimed that they are entitled for a share in the property of
Sri.H.M.Shamanna Reddy, even though they are daughters of
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy. Once, they claim a share in respect of certain
properties and the suit is dismissed, they are precluded from making
contrary claims in the present suit.
167. In so far as Sy.No.10/1 of Chinnappanahalli village late
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy has bequeathed the portion of said property under
Will dt.14.05.1986 in favour of Sri.H.Anantharama Reddy and also in
favour of his wife which has been acted upon by the parties therein. The
186
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
said Will is within the knowledge of 1 st plaintiff as her son is also a
beneficiary of the said Will.
168. In so far as Sy.No.19 of Chinnapanahalli village, some of the
sites in the said items were bequeathed in favour of Sri.P.Dhanaraj s/o
Smt.Jayamma the 19th defendant herein and also in favour of daughter of
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy as per registered Will dt.14.05.1986. It clearly
indicates that said items were converted during the life time of
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy and it was no longer an agricultural land and had
became fully developed. The said Sy.No.19 is later sub-divided and
phoded into Sy.No.19/1 upto 19/20 and further Sy.No.19/1 is sub-divided
and phoded into Sy.No.19/1A to Sy.No.19/1E. But it is shown as Sy.No.19
only in the plaint in order to create confusion. One site in the above
referred survey number was gifted in favour of plaintiff No.2 herein
Smt.Sarasamma under registered Gift Deed dt.27.03.1972 immediately
after the 1971 partition. Said Smt.Sarasamma had sold away the said site
187
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
on 25.11.1974 under registered Sale deed in favour of one
Smt.Kathyayinamma and in the said sale deed also there is reference to
1971 partition. No such property is in existence as shown in the plaint and
it was not in existence in the manner described even at the time of filing
the suit.
169. Some sites in Sy.No.19 were bequeathed in favour of one
Sri.P.Dhanaraj s/o plaintiff and also in favour of daughter of
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy as per registered Will dt.14.05.1986. It means
item Nos.5, 6 and 7 of schedule 'A' property were converted during life
time of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy. Later, Sy.No.19 was sub-divided and
phoded into Sy.No.19/1 upto 19/20. Further Sy.No.19/1 sub divided and
phoded into Sy.No.19/1A to 19/1E. One of the sites in the said Survey
number was gifted in favour of defendant No.36 under registered Gift
Deed dt.27.03.1972 immediately after the 1971 partition and defendant
No.36 has sold the same on 25.11.1974 under registered sale deed in
188
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
favour of one Smt.Kathyayiniyamma and in the said deed also there is
reference to 1971. Hence, no such property is in existence as shown in he
plaint.
170. So far as, item No.4 of schedule 'C' property is concerned, the
defendant No.1 has purchased the same under registered sale deed
dt.26.06.1967 from Sri.H.M.Shamanna Reddy. Hence, defendant No.1
became absolute owner of entire extent of said 13 acres 10 guntas in
Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village and he was in possession of the same. Later,
said Sy.No.10 was sub-divided and phoded as Sy.Nos.10./1 and 10/2 with
separate extents in view of the alienations made by defendant No.1. The
defendant No.1 has sold entire extent of land in Sy.No.10/1 and he has
retained the land measuring in all 6 acres 10 guntas including phot karab
in Sy.No.10/2.
189
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
171. In so far as Sy.Nos.14/1, 14/2, 15/1 and 11 are concerned
they are converted prior to filing of this suit as per separate conversion
orders dt.07.04.2004 and 26.03.2005. Now, there exist a multi storied
building and same is leased out to defendant No.32. Defendant No.32 is
not proper and necessary party. In the said survey number an extent of
converted land measuring 35 guntas belongs to one Smt.Kamalamma and
1 acre 8 guntas of converted land belongs to one Sri.T.Kiran Kumar and
they are not impleaded in this suit.
172. In so far as, Sy.Nos.21/1, 21/2, 21/3, 22, 23 and 24 are
concerned, they were converted as per conversion order dt.10.12.2008. A
portion of the land Sy.No.23 has been utilized for laying a Railway line
which passes through Sy.No.23. The 1st defendant had purchased an extent
of 20 guntas from his father Sri.H.M.HanumaReddy under registered Sale
Deed dt.28.03.1983. The eldest son of 1st defendant T.Muralidhar has
constructed a house a decade prior to suit and he is residing there.
190
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
173. After conversion, defendant No.1 has paid Rs.8,20,000/-
towards development charges to Bangalore Develoment Authority and has
paid Rs.35 lakhs to the Government to regularize the phot kharab extent of
20 guntas in the above said survey numbers. Hence, the said lands have
been completely developed. As far as Sy.No.24 is concerned, the 1 st
defendant purchased the same to the extent of 25 guntas under registered
sale deed and same was converted. 4 guntas of land in same survey
number was purchased by 1st defendant under registered sale deed
dt.23.04.1988 from one Smt.Annamma Abrahim to the extent of 6 and ½
guntas.
174. So far as Sy.No.44 is concerned, the same is sub divided and
phoded into Sy.Nos.44/1 and 44/2 and Sy.No.44/1A is later sub divided
and phoded into Sy.No.44/1A and 44/1B.
191
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
175. So far Sy.No.13 is concerned, it is not at all in existence even
as on the date of suit as the same was already phoded as Sy.No.13/1 in the
name of defendant No.2. Said Sy.No.13 measures 23 guntas in extent and
not 1 acre as claimed by the plaintiff. It was converted even prior to suit.
So far as Sy.No.3/1 is concerned, it is not in existence and said property
never belonged to joint family of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy. Infact, the said
land was allotted to the share of Sri.H.M.Veerappa Reddy and said land
has been purchased by 2nd defendant from his independent source of
income under registered sale deed from Sri.H.M.Veerappa Reddy.
Subsequently said land was sold to 3rd parties.
176. So far as Sy.No.44 of Chinnappanahalli is concerned, the said
land was allotted to the share of 1 st defendant under 1971 partition. Later,
said land has been sold to 3rd parties. The defendants Nos.1 and 2 were
doing civil contract works even during the years prior to partition apart
from indulging in agriculture and they owned lorries, tractors and a
192
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
crusher installed in Sy.No.20. Stone crushing unit was run in the name of
Ravi Granites and Transport business was run in the name of Ravi
Transport. The 2nd defendant has paid sale tax. Stone quarry license was
obtained from Geological Department in the year 1974 and onwards.
177. The 2nd defendant was a Chairman of Nallurahalli Panchayath
during the years prior to partition. Later he was chosen as a Director of
Varthur Society for 9 years. Later, he was even elected as a Councilor of
City Municipal Counsel, Mahadevapura from Ward No.22 for 10 years.
Quarry leases were taken from time to time including the one issued
during December 1991, 23.10.1999, 26.11.1976. Said quarrying activities
have been carried out since 40 years. Hence, the 2nd defendant had
independent source of income and had a capacity to purchase properties in
his name.
193
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
178. During the pendency of the suit, 2 nd defendant died and his
legal heirs were brought on record. During his life time, much prior to
filing of the suit there was a further division of family properties
belonging to the family of late 2nd defendant which was reduced into
writing under Panchayath Parikath deed dt.07.07.2000. The said division
has taken place by metes and bounds and has been acted upon by all the
parties concerned. Prior to getting notice of legal representatives
applications, the sisters of defendant No.2(b), (d) and (e) have already
executed separate registered release deeds in respect of suit schedule
properties in favour of defendant No.2(b) and was also confirmed partition
deed/ Panchayath Parikath dt. 07.07.2000. Subsequently, their family
members have entered into a registered Partition Deed in respect of
remaining properties. Later, there was a rectification deed entered into
amongst the family members which has been duly registered. Certain
properties which fell to the share of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy was sold by
him. There was further division amongst his sons under a written
194
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
document much prior to filing of the suit. Said deed has been acted upon.
Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
179. Written statement of defendants Ns.5, 21 to 23 is as
under:-
They have denied some of the averments narrated in he plaint as
false. They have admitted the relationship between parties to the suit. All
the suit schedule properties have been divided long back. The plaintiff is
the grand daughter of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy. During the life time of
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy he had effected partition orally. The property
fallen to the respective legitimate sharers have already been sold the
portion of the schedule properties and the purchasers were in possession
and enjoyment of portion of schedule property. The joint family was not
existing as on the date of filing this suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit
with costs.
180. Written statement of defendant No.24 is as under:-
195
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
He has denied each and every averment naratted in the plaint as
false. He is a purchaser of item No.2 of schedule 'C' property measuring 3
acres 5 guntas in Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village. Said Sy.No.10 totally
measuring 13 acres 10 guntas owned by one Sri.H.M.Shamanna Reddy
who is uncle of plaintiff. Said Sri.H.M.Shamana Reddy was the son of
Sri.Chikka Muniswamy Reddy. Said Sy.No.10 was exclusive property of
Sri.H.M.Shamanna Reddy who had mortgaged the same in favour of then
Sri.Lakshmi Narayana Swamy Co-operative Society Hoodi.
181. Said Sri.Chikka Muniswamy Reddy died in the year 1938.
His family members partitioned the properties under partition deed
dt.02.11.1955. In the said deed, it has been recited that said property is a
separate property of Sri.Chikka Muniswamy Reddy. Even the said
property was allotted to the share of Sri.Shamanna Reddy though it was
already sold by the Society for recovery of dues.
196
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
182. The said co-operative Society to which said property was
mortgaged, instituted suit for foreclosures of said mortgage in
O.S.No.9/35-36 and secured a decree. Even after the decree, the dues/
liabilities were not cleared. Hence, the Society instituted proceedings to
execute a decree vide Ex.P.No.18/1938-39 and Society sought to recover
amount dues by auction of said property. In proceeding No.460/1935-36
the said Society was also permitted to bid in the auction and the said
Society being highest bidder was declared to be owner of said property.
183. The said property was auctioned by the revenue authority on
09.01.1941 and same was purchased by the Society and sale certificate
was duly registered.
184. Said Sri.H.M.Shamanna Reddy without disclosing the
mortgage and Judgment and Decree and suppressing the sale certificate in
197
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
favour of Society alleging allotment under deed of partition sold the said
property to one Sri.H.V.Nagappa Reddy under sale deed dt.14.04.1956.
185. Said Sri.H.V.Nagappa Reddy in turn sold the said property
along with other properties to one Sri.M.G.Vasanthaiah (vendor of this
defendant) under sale deed dt.30.05.1956. On the same day, as the sale
deed, the said M.G.Vasanthiah executed an agreement in favour of his
vendor agreeing to reconvey the property to H.V.Nagappa Reddy upon
repayment of amount. Said agreement was executed on 30.05.1956.
186. After execution of said cancellation deed by H.V.Nagappa
Reddy in favour of M.G.Vasanthaiah it was noticed that, there was an
error in the original sale deed dt.30.05.1956. So far as the same relates to
the extent of the area conveyed to Sri.M.G.Vasanthiah. The area of 13
acres 10 guntas was wrongly mentioned as 13 guntas. Hence, Sri.Nagappa
198
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Reddy executed a deed of rectification in favour of M.G.Vasanthaiah on
14.08.1957.
187. Said H.S.Nagappa Reddy without title executed a 2 nd sale
deed in respect of said property in favour of his brother Sri.H.V.Papaiah
Reddy on 30.07.1957. Said Sri.M.G.Vasanthaiah after knowing about this
second sale deed threatened initiation of legal action at which point of
time, the 2nd purchaser H.V.Papaiah Reddy had executed in favour of
vendor of this defendant a deed of relinquishment on 23.05.1958.
188. Thereafter, said M.G.Vasanthaiah was shocked to learn that
said property was subject mater of purchase by Sri.Lakshmi Narayana
Swamy Co-operative Society in the year 1941 itself. Said
M.G.Vasanthaiah was shocked to learn that his vendor H.V.Nagappa
Reddy himself had no right in the said property and that sale by
Sri.Shamanna Reddy in favour of Sri.H.V.Nagappa Reddy was also illegal
199
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
as the Society was the owner of said property. Hence, M.G.Vasanthaiah
approached the Society and upon repayment of entire dues on account of
the mortgage secured a sale deed dt.22.03.1958.
189. Likewise, said M.G.Vasanthaaiah had secured sale deed in
respect of said property both from the Society and from the purchaser
H.M.Shamanna Reddy. The sale deed executed by Society in favour of
M.G.Vasanthaiah declared that, the society instituted a suit of recovery of
money in O.S.No.9/1935-36 and pursuant to the Judgment and decree in
the said proceedings the Society purchased the said lands. In that view of
the matter, M.G.Vasanthaiah became the absolute owner of said property
land Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village measuring 13 acres 10 guntas.
190. Said H.M.Shamanna Reddy the son of the original mortgagor
having learnt of discharge of liabilities by M.G.Vasanthaiah over the said
property surreptitiously and by payment of illegal gratification approached
200
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
the official liquidator of said society and requested for execution of sale
deed in his favour. Said H.M.Shamamna Reddy and the official liquidator
in collusion got registered a sale deed dt.29.05.1965. The sale of said
property by the Society in favour of Shamanna Reddy was without title
considering that, the Society had already executed the sale deed in favour
of vendor of this defendant. The subsequent sale deed in respect of the
said property was void ab-initio.
191. Thereafter, Sri.H.M. Shamanna Reddy secured the sale deed
from the Society and sold the said property in favour of his nephew being
the defendant No.1 herein (younger brother of plaintiff) vide sale deed
dt.26.06.1967. Based on said sale deed, the defendant No.1 started
claiming to be owner of said property. Hence, said M.G.Vasanthaiah
instituted a suit for declaration of his title in respect of said property in
O.S.No. 401/1968. Similarly, the defendant No.1has also insittued a suit
for perpetual injunction against said Sri.M.G.Vasanthaiah in O.S.No.671/
201
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
1969 on the basis of sale deed dt.26.06.1967. The suit filed by the
defendant No.1 was initially decreed ex-parte. Said Sri.M.G.Vasanthaiah
preferred regular appeal No.78 of 1972 and Judgment and decree passed
was set aside and matter was remanded back for fresh adjudication.
Thereafter, suit filed by defendant No.1 and vendor of this defendant tried
together. Suit of defendant No.1 came to be dismissed and suit of
Sri.M.G.Vasanthaiah came to be decreed. On remand O.S.No.671/1969
was withdrawn by the defendant No.1.
192. Said Sri.M.G.Vasanthaiah being the owner of said property
mortgaged the same in favour of defendant No.24 vide Deed of mortgage
dt.18.07.1962. Subsequently, Sri.M.G.Vasanthaiah to redeem said
mortgage, sold a portion of said property in favour of this defendant
measuring to an extent of 3 acres 5 guntas under sale deed dt. 09.09.1970.
202
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
193. The defendant No.1 having suffered the Judgment and decree
in respect of said property provoked Sri.H.V.Nagappa Reddy to institute
proceedings under Section 48(a) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act
requesting to be declared as a tenant and to be registered as an occupant
pursuant to the application filed in Form No.7. Said application was
registered as LRF No.4893 of 1977-78 and said application in form No.7
of Sri.H.V.Nagappa Reddy came to be dismissed on merits and said order
has become final.
194. This defendant got his name mutated and he is in possession
of written statement schedule property which was converted to non-
agricultural industrial purpose in the year 1974 itself. The defendant No.1
being aware of all these facts approached Assistant Commissioner in
Regular appeal No.136 (2) and requested for Revenue records of written
statement schedule property be mutated in his name pursuant to sale deed
dt. 26.06.1967 in his favour. The said appeal was allowed without
203
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
defendant No.24 being a party to the said proceedings. Said application of
defendant No.1 was not in respect of composite property, but it was only
in respect of written statement schedule property. This defendant being
aggrieved of the said order of Assistant Commissioner preferred a revision
before Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru and revision came to be
dismissed. Hence, he preferred W.P.No.21622 of 2010 which came to be
allowed by setting aside orders of Assistant Commissioner and Deputy
Commissioner and matter was remanded back to Assistant Commissioner
for fresh consideration upon this defendant being directed to be made as a
party to the said proceedings.
195. The defendant No.1 conceded to the mortgage in favour of
Society and sale deed executed by Society. The society is called by
various names like Hoodi Lakshmi Narayana Co-operative Society Ltd.,
Sri.Lakshmi Narayana Co-operative Society Hoodi or Hoodi Co-operative
Society. But there is only one Society referred to by different names.
204
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Defendant No.1 made an attempt to distinguish between the Society in
whose favour mortgage was created and the Society which sold the site.
196. After securing revenue records pursuant to the order of
Assistant Commissioner, dt.19.04.2005 defendant No.1 instituted a suit for
declaration of his title to written statement schedule property in
O.S.No.3536 of 2005 which is pending before CCH-44, Bengaluru and
said suit is not in respect of composite property of 13 acres 10 guntas.
During pendency of O.S.No.3536 / 2005 this defendant came across new
litigations carried out by family members of defendant No.1 claiming to
have share in composite property, a portion of which is the written
statement schedule property. Therefore, this defendant made an
application for impleading him as a party to the present proceedings.
197. This defendant does not claim any manner of right, title and
interest in respect of suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. This suit is hit by
205
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
principles of res-judicata. Suit is barred by law of Limitation. Court fee
paid is insufficient. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
198. Written statement of defendants Nos.25 to 27 is as under:-
They have denied some of the averments narrated in the plaint as
false. They have admitted the relationship between parties to the suit. The
suit is barred by law of Limitation. So also the suit is bad for non-joinder
of necessary parties and mis-joinder of parties. All the parties who are
entitled for share in the ancestral joint family properties have not been
impleaded in this case, even other parties who have purchased other
portions of land in Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village have not been imleaded in
this suit. Suit is also bad for non-inclusion of all the properties as the
plaintiff has not included all the properties in this suit and he is seeking
partition only in limited properties which have been alienated. The Court
fee paid is insufficient.
206
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
199. The plaintiff has described land belonging to these
defendants situated in Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village as item No.4 in schedule
'C' of the plaint recently adding the same by amending the plaint. These
defendants have jointly purchased 1 acre 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.10 of
Hoodi village from Sri.H.Thippareddy under Sale Deed dt.19.03.1994.
Since then, they are in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit
property. Even in the plaint, originally plaintiff never made any claim
against the said property. Hence, suit is barred by law of Limitation. They
are in possession of the said property as absolute owners thereof
continuously without interruption by anyone, hence alternatively they
have also perfected their title over the said property by way of adverse
possession.
200. These defendants are only concerned with item No.4 of
schedule 'C' property i.e, land in Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village.
Sri.H.Thippareddy had purchased the said land out of his own income,
207
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
hence it is his self acquired property. Therefore, they are bonafide
purchasers for value of 1 acre 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.10 of Hoodi
village. They are not aware of the suit in O.S.No.942/2001 filed by
Smt.Vanamala and others. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
201. Written statement of defendants Nos.28 and 29 is as
under:-
They have denied some of the averments narrated in he plaint as
false. They have admitted the relationship between parties to the suit.
Earlier, the very same plaintiff has filed O.S.No.942/2001 along with one
Vanamala for the relief of partition and separate possession. The plaintiff
herein was the 2nd plaintiff in the said suit and the reading of the plaint in
O.S.No.942/2001 clearly indicates that, the contentions raised in the said
suit by the plaintiff herein are contradictory. The plaintiff herein in the
said suit having realized that, she would never succeed in the suit filed an
application for withdrawing the said suit with liberty to file a fresh suit on
208
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
the same cause of action. The ingredients of order 23 Rule 1(3) of CPC
are not at all complied while filing this suit and she has filed this suit on a
different cause of action by saying goodbye not only to the earlier
pleadings, but also to the alleged earlier cause of action. Hence, present
suit is not maintainable.
202. This suit is hit by Sections 10 and 11 of CPC as parties in
both the suits, subject matter in both the suits and the issues that arise for
consideration in both the suits are one and the same.
203. The plaintiff herein Smt.Sarasamma, the defendant No.35
and Smt.H.Vanamala, defendant N.34 in the present suit had filed one
more suit for the relief of partition and separate possession in
O.S.No.3859/2006 which came to be dismissed on 25.10.2010. The
plaintiff and defendants Nos.34 and 35 herein are virtually abusing the
process of law.
209
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
204. There was a partition between Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy and
his children on 29.11.1971 which is effected by metes and bounds and it
was acted upon by all the parties concerned. Some sharers who were
allotted shares under the aforesaid partition have alienated their respective
shares long before filing of the suit. Said alienations have never been
challenged by the plaintiff herein though the same was within her personal
knowledge. Sy.No.19 has been partitioned after the partition of the year
1971, there was no existence of joint family either in food, water, shelter
or properties.
205. The object of sale is recited in the document to the effect that,
their father Sri.Chikkamuniswamy Reddy had obtained a loan and they
did not want to continue to be members of the joint family. Further, it is
recited that, Sri.H.M.Shamanna Reddy was authorized to sell one of the
lands and he was unable to sell the land as a Katha stood in the name of
Society. It is also recited that, they had other debts that the property
210
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
bearing Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village had been purportedly sold in favour of
Sri.H.Thippareddy, s/o Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy.
206. The suit schedule properties have been fully developed and
they have changed several hands wherein 3rd party interests have been
created who are bonafide purchasers. Several multi storied buildings have
also been built by bonafide purchasers from H.M.Hanuma Reddy himself
during his life time. Therefore, suit schedule properties are not available
for partition.
207. The plaintiff is aware that, late H.M.Hanuma Reddy during
his life time has executed a registered Will dt.14.05.1986 wherein, he has
recited regarding the prior partition. In fact under the very same Will the
son of plaintiff by name Sri.P.Dhanaraj was even given a site carved out in
Sy.No.19 of Chinnanapanahalli village, and sister of plaintiff has also
given a site. Hence, plaintiff cannot now feign ignorance of 1971 partition.
211
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Said Sri.P.Dhanraj had even alienated the site that was given to him under
the Will. Considering all these aspects, it is clear that, suit is barred by
law of Limitation.
208. One Smt.Vijayamma the late daughter of
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy i.e, mother of defendants Nos.14 to 16 was also
given two sites for 'Harishina Kumkuma' by late Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy.
From this it is clear that, plaintiff had knowledge of partition
dt.29.11.1971.
209. The plaintiff has not made as parties to the above suit several
purchasers who are in actual possession and enjoyment of suit schedule
properties with various structures standing thereon having invested several
crores of rupees. The plaintiffs have not challenged the registered partition
deed dt.29.11.1971, so also subsequent partition deed dt.28.08.1989.
212
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
210. Further, the plaintiff has not at all disclosed that late
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy had two wives and all the legal representatives
through 1st wife are not impleaded in this suit. There is no prayer against
the various purchasers of the suit schedule properties. Hence suit is bad
for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties.
211. Some of the suit schedule properties have been subsequently
phoded and sub-divided. Suit is also bad for non-inclusion of all the
properties that fell to the share of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy in the partition
which took place in the year 1955 between himself and his brothers.
Court fee paid is insufficient.
212. The name and description of some of the parties is not
correctly shown, like the defendant No.35 is shown to be the wife of one
late Ramachandra Reddy, whereas the husband of defendant No.35 is one
Srinivasa Reddy, who is very much alive. Infact, defendant No.35 and the
213
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
plaintiff were common plaintiffs in O.S.No.942/ 2011 and for reasons best
known to her to the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
213. Suit is also bad for misjoinder of parties as defendant No.33
is only a tenant under defendant No.1. Further in O.S.No.3859/2006 suit
was filed claiming that they are entitled for a share in the property shown
in schedule 'C' therein. However, it is admitted therein that, the defendant
No.1 is in exclusive possession of the same and the plaintiffs in the said
suit claimed that, they are entitled for a share in the properties of
Sri.H.M.Shamanna Reddy even though they are daughters of
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy.
214. In so far as item No.3 of the schedule 'A' to the plaint
schedule is concerned, that is Sy.No.10/1 of Chinnappanahalli, late
H.M.Hanuma Reddy has bequeathed the portion of the said Sy.No.10/1 as
per the Will dt.14.05.1986 in favour of H.Anatha Ram Reddy and also in
214
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
favour of his wife which has been acted upon by the parties therein. The
said Will is within the knowledge of the plaintiff as his son is also a
beneficiary of the said Will and the same cannot be questioned at this
length of time.
215. So far as item Nos.5, 6, 7 of schedule 'A' to the plaint are
concerned, that is in Sy.No.19 some of the sites in the said items were
bequeathed in favour of P.Dhanaraj the son of plaintiff herein and also in
favour of the daughter of H.M.Hanuma Reddy as per the registered Will
dt.14.05.1986. This clearly indicates that the said items were converted
during the life time of late H.M.Hanuma Reddy and it was no longer an
agricultural land and had become fully developed. The said Sy.No.19 is
later sub divided and phoded into Sy.No.19/1 upto 19/20 and further
Sy.No.19/1 is sub divided and phoded into 19/1A to 19/1E but in the plaint
it is shown as Sy.No.19 only in order to create confusion. One site in the
above referred survey number was gifted in favour of the defendant No.36
215
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
herein, Smt.Sarasamma under registered Gift Deed dt.27.03.1972
immediately after 1971 partition and the said Smt.Sarasmma has sold
away the said site on 25.11.1974 under registered Sale Deed in favour of
Kathyayiniamma and in the said deed also there is reference to 1971. No
such property is in existence as shown in plaint and it was not in existence
in the manner described even at the time of filing of the suit.
216. In so far as item No.4 of schedule 'C' property is concerned,
the defendant No.1 has purchased under a registered Sale Deed executed
on 26.06.1967 under the title deed for meeting legal necessities. Thus, the
defendant No.1 became the absolute owner of the entire extent of said 13
acre 10 guntas in Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village. The 1 st defendant was put in
possession of the above land under the said sale deed and he is the
absolute owner in possession of the aforesaid land and also the Kathedar
and Anubhavadar of the said item No.4 of the suit property. The said
Sy.No.10 was later sub divided and phoded as Sy.Nos.10/1 and 10/2 with
216
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
separate extents in view of the alienations made by defendant No.1 in the
said total extent of 13 acres 10 guntas. Defendant No.1 has sold the entire
extent of land in Sy.No.10/1 and he has retained the land measuring in all
6 acres 10 guntas including phut Kharab in Sy.No.10/2 of the said village.
All these transactions have taken place much before filing of the suit and
the same has not been deliberately disclosed in the above suit.
217. In so far as Sy.Nos.14/1, 14/2, 15/1 and 11 are concerned it is
submitted that the said lands are converted prior to filing of this suit as per
the separate conversion orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner in
BDS :ALL (E) :SR: 224/2003 -04 dt.07.04.2004, and in ALN: SR (E)
339/2004-05 and also in ALN (E) SR 336/2004-05 dt.26.03.2005. In the
above said properties there exists a multi storied building and same is
leased out to the defendant No.32 M/s.Goodrich Aerospace Service Pvt
Ltd and rents are received there from. Defendant No.32 is only a tenant
under the 1st defendant and they have no proprietary rights over the same
217
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
and the defendant No.32 is not a proper and necessary party and the said
defendant has been impleaded to bring pressure on the first defendant to
yield to the unlawful demands of the plaintiff who has no interest of any
sort over any portion of the suit properties. The documents of conversion
are produced before this Court which clearly disclose the false claims
made by the plaintiff herein. Said Sy.No an extent of converted land
measuring 35 guntas belongs to one Smt.Kamalamma and 1 acre 08
guntas of converted land belongs to one T.Kiran Kumar and the said
persons are not impleaded in the suit even though the extent of land
owned by them are made subject matter of the above suit.
218. In so far as the Sy Nos.21/1, 21/2, 21/3, 22, 23 and 24 are
concerned the said lands were converted as per the conversion order
passed by Deputy Commissioner in BDS : ALN : (Pu) SR (KRUHO);
191-2007-08, dt.10.12.2008 as per the applications made by the
defendants Nos.1 and 2. The boundaries shown in respect of Sy.No.23 is
218
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
incorrect in so far as the Bangalore Salem Railway Track is situated on the
eastern side and not on the western side as alleged in the plaint. A portion
of the land has been utilized for laying a railway line and the said railway
line passes through Sy.No.23. The 1st defendant has purchased an extent of
20 guntas from his father late H.M.Hanuma Reddy under registered Sale
Deed dt.28.03.1983. The eldest son of the 1st defendant Sri.T.Muralidhar
has constructed a house a decade prior to suit and is residing in the said
residential house and apart from the same servant quarters are also built.
After conversion defendant No.1 paid Rs.8,20,000/- towards development
charges to the Bangalore Development Authority and has paid a sum of
Rs.35 lakhs to the Government to regularize the phut Kharab extent of 20
guntas in the above referred Survey numbers. The said lands have been
completely developed and it has lost its agricultural nature. As far as
Sy.No.24 is concerned the 1st defendant purchased the same to the extent
of 25 guntas under registered Sale Deed and the same was converted. 4
guntas of land in the very same survey number was purchased by the 1 st
219
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
defendant under registered Sale Deed dt.23.04.1988 from one Annamma
Abrahim to an extent of 6 ½ guntas.
219. In so far as the Sy.No.44 is concerned the same is sub divided
and phoded into Sy.Nos.44/1 and 44/2 and Sy.No.44/1A is later sub
divided and phoded into Sy.No.44/1A and 44/1B but in the plaint it is
shown as Sy.No.44 only in order to create confusion and no such property
is in existence as described in the plaint with respect to boundaries and
extent.
220. In so as Sy.No.13 is concerned, it is not at all in existence
even as on the date of suit as the same was already phoded as Sy.No.13/1
in the name of the defendant No.2 and that the said Sy.No.13 measures 23
guntas in extent not 1 acre as claimed by plaintiff in the plaint. The said
land has been converted even prior to suit. The plaintiff is guilty of
suppression of true and relevant facts and the plaintiff has presented the
220
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
plaint only in order to create confusion just to take a chance though she is
not entitled to be granted the reliefs sought for in the plaint.
221. In so far as Sy.No.3/1 is concerned, it is not at all in existence
and the said property never belonged to the alleged joint family of late
H.M.Hanuma Reddy. On the other hand, the said land was allotted to the
share of H.M.Veerappa Reddy, and that the said land has been purchased
by the 2nd defendant from his indepent source of income under registered
Sale Deed from H.M.Veerappa Reddy and subsequently sold to the said
land to third parties.
222. In so far as Sy.No.44 of Chinnappanahalli is concerned, the
said land was allotted to the share of 1 st defendant herein in the year 1971
under partition and later the said lands have been sold to third parties
under registered deeds of conveyance and those purchasers are in
221
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
possession of the same and the same is within the knowledge of the
plaintiff.
223. The defendants Nos.1 and 2 were doing civil contract works
even during the years prior to partition apart from engaging in agriculture.
The defendant Nos.1 and 2 owned lorries and tractors and they even
owned a crusher installed in Sy.No.20. Stone crushing unit was run in the
name of Ravi Granites and Transport business was run in the name of
Ravi Transports. The 2nd defendant has even paid sales tax to the
concerned department regarding the running of business. Stone Quarry
licence was obtained from the Geological Department even during the
year1974 and onwards. Further the second defendant was a Chairman of
the Nallurahalli Panchayath during the years prior to partition. Later, the
2nd defendant was chosen as a Director of Varthur Society and he served in
that capacity for about 9 years. Later he was even elected as a Councilor
of City Municipal Council, Mahadevapura from Ward No.22 and he
222
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
served in that capacity for about 10 years. Thus, the allegations made in
the plaint that the defendants Nos.1 and 2 had no independent source of
income and that they did not have sufficient income to purchase properties
in their names is false. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
224. Written statement of defendants No.30 is as under:-
He has denied each and every averments narrated in the plaint as
false. This suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. Court fee
paid is insufficient. Suit is barred by law of Limitation. The possession of
portion of item No.4 of suit schedule 'C' is delivered to this defendant on
17.02.1994. Since, then he is in actual possession and enjoyment of the
same. There was a partition between Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy and his
children. Plaintiff who is aged about 72 years is not entitled for any share
in item Nos.1 and 2 of suit schedule.
223
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
225. The property bearing Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village is a self
acquired property of Sri.H.Thippa Reddy/defendant No.1 who had
purchased the same under sale deed out of his own funds and only after
severance of the joint family status. As admitted in para No.5 of the plaint
by plaintiff herself, there was a partiion in the family of Sri.Hanuma
Reddy. Pursuant to acquiring the same, the defendant No.1 sold a portion
of land bearing Sy.No.10 (new Sy.No. 10/1) to an extent of 21 guntas to
defendant No.30 for valuable consideration under Sale Deed
dt.17.02.1991 and he was put in possession of the same. Hence, he
became absolute owner of property bearing Sy.No.10/1 (being portion of
item No.4 of schedule 'C' property) measuring to the extent of 21 guntas
of land situated at Hoodi village. Its boundaries are as under,
East by : Property of Sri.G.V.Chandrashekar,
West by : Road
North by : Property of Sri. Prasanna Chari
South by : Property of Tigalara Kakappa
224
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
226. Later, this defendant has not only put up fence, but also
constructed commercial building on the said property and after purchase
of the said property his name was entered in the concerned revenue
records.
227. Plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the said property. If
the relief of injunction is granted in the nature of affecting the rights of
defendant No.4 in respect of property owned, possessed and enjoyed by
him while considering the prayer of plaintiff, this defendant will be put to
great hardship and irreparable injury.
228. This defendant is a bonafide purchaser of item No.4 of
schedule 'C' property measuring 21 guntas. Hence, prayed to dismiss the
suit with costs.
229. Written statement of defendant No.31 is as under:-
225
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
It has denied each and every averments narrated in the plaint as
false. This defendant being one of the reputed builders, engaged in the
business of real estate development and has developed various properties
in and around Bangalore. The defendant herein, has over a period of time
established a valuable reputation as regards its business activities, and has
received several awards, certificates and trophy/s in honour and
appreciation of its commitments to the real estate business.
230. Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy, son of Mr.H.M.Hanuma Reddy,
Mrs.Vanajamma w/o Mr.Sathyanarayana Reddy and their sons i.e
Mr.S.Ravi Kumar, Mr.S.Narendra Babu, (land owners), who were well
aware of the reputation/ standard of this defendant in the market expressed
their intent to engage this defendant for development of the property of
their absolute ownership viz, all that piece and parcel of the land bearing
Sy.No.8/1 measuring 34 gutnas, Sy.No.8/2 measuring 30 guntas, Sy.No.9
measuring 1 acre 04 guntas and Sy.No.10/2 measuring 1 acre 02 guntas
226
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
totally measuring 3 acres 30 guntas situated in Chinnappanahalli Village,
K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, (composite property).
231. Based on the understanding reached with the land owners,
this defendant prior to entering into any agreement or contract with the
land owners as part of title scrutiny and due diligence conducted for the
composite property issued a public notice dt.29.04.2005, published in
Deccan Herald and Prajavani news daily (public notice) called upon the
public at large to notify this defendant, of any claims over the composite
property with appropriate documents to that effect, within 7 days or else, it
was specifically mentioned that this defendant would proceed with the
transaction on the basis that there are no claims of whatsoever nature with
regard to the composite property.
227
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
232. Neither this defendant nor its Advocate received any
objection pursuant to public notice which itself establishes that, plaintiff
herein had no claim over the composite property or any part thereof.
233. On being approached by the land owners for development of
property the said land owners namely Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy, s/o of
Mr.H.M.Hanuma Reddy, Mrs.Vanajamma, w/o Sathyanarayana Reddy and
their sons i.e, Mr.S.Ravi Kumar, Mr.S.Narendra Babu, executed a Joint
Development Agreement, dt.09.06.2006, in favour of this defendant.
Based on the said J.D.A, this defendant derived the right and interest to
develop the composite property, and a right over 62% of the said
development subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. That
the above mentioned land owners in part performance of their obligations
under the aforesaid Joint Development Agreement dt.09.06.2006 and in
order to give effect to the development project as envisaged, executed a
power of attorney dt.09.06.2006, authorizing this defendant to act for and
228
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
on their behalf, with respect to the composite property, subject to the terms
and conditions mentioned therein.
234. The daughters of Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy and
Mrs.Vanajamma namely Mrs.S.Bharathi, Mrs.S.Anuradha, daughter-in-
law of Mr.H.Sathyanaryana Reddy and Mrs.Vanajamma namely
Mrs.P.Saraswathi and Mrs.Omana had acted as consenting witnesses to the
Joint Development Agreement dt.09.06.2006 confirming that
Mr.H.Satyanarayana Reddy, s/o Mr.H.M.Hanuma Reddy, Mrs.Vanajamma
w/o Sathyanarayana Reddy and their sons i.e, Mr.S.Ravi Kumar,
Mr.S.Narendra Babu, are the absolute owners of the composite property
and that the same is not a joint family property and that they have no
objection to the Joint Development Agreement dt.09.06.2006.
235. That pursuant to the aforesaid Joint Development Agreement
dt.09.06.2006, and Power of Attorney dt.09.06.2006, this defendant was
229
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
put in possession of the composite property based on which this defendant
has successfully completed construction of a residential apartment
building known as "Rohan Mihira". The revenue records of the composite
property were mutated in the names of aforesaid land owners.
236. The land owners prior to execution of the aforesaid Joint
Development Agreement dt.09.06.2006, had filed an application before
the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, U/s.95 of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act 1964, seeking conversion of land from agricultural to
non-agricultural residential purpose, with respect to the composite
property. The Special Deputy Commissioner after considering the said
application on merits vide Demand Notice, dt.03.02.2006, called upon the
land owners to deposit a sum of Rs.2,04,408/- as conversion fine to grant
such permission. The land owners on depositing the aforesaid amount on
14.02.2006, the Special Deputy Commissioner vide Official Memorandum
230
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
dt.30.03.2007, converted the land from agricultural to non-agricultural
residential purposes.
237. The composite property was also assigned a single Khata
No.301/ 09-10 by the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike on 16.11.2009. The
properties earlier covered under Sy.No.8/1 measuring 34 guntas,
Sy.No.8/2 measuring 30 guntas, Sy.No.9 measuring 1 acre 04 guntas and
Sy.No.10/2 measuring 1 acre 02 guntas totally measuring 3 acres 30
guntas situated in Chinnappanahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore
South Taluk, Bangalore have now become one single property with a
single Khata number. It is therefore submitted that both on account of the
conversion of the property and allotment of a single Khata number the
entire character, composition and nature of the property has got changed
and is not in the condition as sought to be portrayed by the plaintiff.
231
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
238. Pursuant thereto, this defendant applied for and obtained all
necessary permission, no objection certificates and clearnances which
were necessary for implementing the project, from various statutory
authorities i.e, Karnataka State Pollution Control Board, State Level
Environment Impact Assessment Authority Karnataka, Airport Authority
of India, Karnataka Geo Spatial Data Center, BSNL, BESCOM, and
Police Commissioner were obtained. Based on the aforesaid
developments, on an application made to the Bangalore Development
Authority, this defendant obtained a sanctioned plan to construct a
residential apartment building on the composite property vide plan
sanction order, dt.24.11.2007 as required by law under Section 15 of the
Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961.
239. On implementation of the said project, this defendant was
also issued with a Commencement Certificate on 11.12.2008, issued by
Engineer Member, Bangalore Development Authority based on the
232
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Inspection Report, dt.01.12.2008. On completion of the project
undertaken by them on the composite property as per the plan sanction
order dt.24.11.2007, the Bangalore Development Authority was to grant
an Occupancy Certificate on 30.12.2010, thereby permitting occupation of
the residential apartment building.
240. During the transition period of construction and completion
of the project "Rohan Mihira" all the apartments falling to the share of this
defendant have been sold to 3rd party purchasers. The only formality
remained is the registration of the sale in their favour. Thus any
disruption, hindrance or hurdles caused at this juncture, shall not only
cause and injury to this defendant, but also to the purchasers of
apartments. Further, most of the 3rd parties in favour of whom the rights
have been created have taken loans, and have mortgaged the apartment
purchased by them to banks or financial institutions. The purchasers have
233
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
also been put in possession of the respective apartments purchased by
them.
241. In the meantime, the above mentioned land owners had failed
to repay the refundable security deposit amounting to a sum of
Rs.50,00,000/- within a period of 90 days from the date of execution of
the Joint Development Agreement dt.09.06.2006. Hence, the land owners
vide a Memorandum of Understanding dt.27.03.2008 mutually agreed to
take a lesser share in the residential apartment building which was to be
constructed by this defendant out of their own will and consent. Hence,
the share of this defendant and the share of the land owners, in the super
built up area was mutually agreed to be at 63% and 37% respectively.
242. In the said manner, in due compliance with Law, as on date,
this defendant has constructed a residential apartment building known as
'Rohan Mihira' on the composite property wherein it has right, title and
234
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
interest over 63% share in the super built up area and the undivided share
in the composite property and the construction put up thereon. This
defendant has spent more than a sum of Rs.42,00,00,000/- on the said
construction apart from making payment of a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- as
refundable security in terms of Clause-7 of the Joint Development
Agreement dt.09.06.2006. This amount has to be refunded by the land
owners at the time of handing over of possession of the entitlement of the
land owners. In the event of the said amounts not being refunded within
the stipulated period, this defendant is also entitled to adjust the amounts
not refunded from and out of the constructed area from the Land Owner's
share.
243. The construction of the residential apartment building has
been completed as evidenced by the Occupancy certificate issued by the
Bangalore Development Authority. The facts being so, the plaintiff sought
for impleading this defendant herein, in the said suit, allegedly claiming
235
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
that this defendant is one of the proper and necessary parties vide IA No.7
filed by the plaintiff U/o.1 Rule 10(2) of CPC, and the plaintiff also sought
for amendment of the plaint so as to bring the property bearing
Sy.No.10/2, measuring 1 acre 02 guntas, situated at Chinnappanahalli
village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk as one of the suit
schedule properties vide IA Nos.2 and 6 filed by the plaintiff U/o VI Rule
17 of the CPC, 1908, which came to be allowed by this Court vide
common order dt.25.11.2010.
244. The flow of title to Sy.No.10/ 2 which is one of the suit
schedule properties is as follows;-
One Mr.H.M.Chinnappa Reddy, s/o Chikkamuniswami Reddy was
in occupation and possession of the land bearing Sy.No.10, situated at
Chinnappanahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk
measuring 1 acre. On an application being made by Mr.H.M.Chinnappa
Reddy he was registered as an occupant of the said land bearing Sy.No.10
236
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
measuring 1 acre vide order and endorsement dt.30.04.1963, passed by the
Special Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams in Case No.32 under
the provisions of Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition
Act, 1954. Mr.H.M.Hanuma Reddy who was also in occupation and
enjoyment of a portion of Sy.No.10 had applied for grant and registration
of occupancy rights. Hence, he was also registered as an occupant of the
remaining extent of land in Sy.No.10 measuring 1 acre.
245. Subsequent to the above grant and registration as occupant a
phody of Sy.No.10 was conducted based on which a portion of Sy.No.10
measuring 1 acre 02 guntas belonging to Mr.H.M.Chinnappa Reddy was
assigned sub-Survey No.10/2 and Mr.H.M.Chinnappa Reddy was
registered as Khatedar in the survey records. By way of the aforesaid
phodi the lands granted to Mr.H.M.Hanuma Reddy in Sy.No.10 measuring
39 guntas (inclusive of 1 guntas Kharab) was assigned sub-SyNo.10/1,
thus clearly evidencing the fact that the lands belonging to the father of
237
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
the plaintiff are covered under Sy.No.10/1 and not Sy.No.10/2. The
plaintiff therefore cannot claim any right, title or interest over the lands
covered under Sy.No.10/2.
246. Mr.H.M.Chinnappa Reddy being the absolute owner, sold the
land bearing Sy.No.10/2 measuring 1 acre 02 guntas to
Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy, son of Mr.H.M.Hanuma Reddy vide Sale
Deed, dt.28.06.1983. Subsequent to the said purchase of lands covered
under Sy.No.10/2, measuring 1 acre 02 guntas Mr.H.Sathyanarayana
Reddy the same being his self acquired property, Mr.H.Sathyanarayana
Reddy was registered as Khatedar of the said property as reflected in the
mutation entry. From the above tracing of title, it is clear that the property
covered under Sy.No.10/2 is the self acquired property of
Mr.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy and neither the plaintiff nor her family
members have any kind of right, title or interest over the same.
238
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
247. The plaintiff herein being 60 years old as on the date of filing
the suit. She was apparently born around the year 1945 i.e, prior to 1956.
Hence, she is not entitled for any relief as sought for. There is no pleading
in the plaint as regards any event or cause arising on 02.09.1977,
03.08.1983, 18.04.1989, 08.06.1996, 08.12.2000 and 19.01.2006. Hence,
these dates cannot give raise to any cause of action. Admittedly,
Sy.No.10/2 of Chinnappanahalli village was purchased by
Sri.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy on 28.06.1983 and the plaintiff at that time
was aged about 39 years and she had reasonable wisdom at that point of
time when this transaction took place between SriH.Sathyanarayana
Reddy and his predecessor in title. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with
costs.
248. Written statement of defendant No.33 is as under:-
It has denied each and every averments narrated in the plaint as
false. This defendant is the absolute owner of the property bearing
239
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Sy.No.10, measuring 13 acres and 10 guntas, situated at Hoodi village,
K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South (East) Taluk, Bangalore. The plaintiff
has included the defendant No.33's property as schedule 'C' item No.4 of
the suit schedule properties along with other properties. The plaintiff has
no right, title or interest over the suit schedule 'C' item No.4 property.
249. One Sri.Chikkamuniswamy Reddy and his sons borrowed
loan and mortgaged the suit schedule 'C' item No.4 property along with
other properties to Hoody Lakshminarayana Co-operative Society. Due to
default of the repayment of loan amount to the said Society, the said
Society got a decree from the court of sub-judge, Bangalore. The land was
auctioned by the court and the said society bid for the property and
succeeded as the highest bidder. Sri.Chikkamuniswamy Reddy and his 7
sons executed the sale deed in favour of the Society represented by the
Official Liquidator V.Lakshmi Narasimhaiah. Sri.Chikkamuniswamy
Reddy and his 7 sons executed the sale deed in favour of the Society on
240
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
15.01.1942. Hence, the plaintiff's ancestors lost their rights over the
mortgaged properties including the suit schedule 'C' item No.4.
250. One Sri.M.G.Vasanthaiah has purchased the suit schedule 'C'
item No.4 property from the Hoodi Lakshminarayana Co-operative
Society through official liquidator Sri.Anantharaman. Said
M.G.Vasanthiah became the absolute owner and he was in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule 'C' item No.4 property and
he sold 3-05 acres of the property to one Mr.L.Venkataramana Raju
dt.09.09.1970 and he converted the same land for Industrial purpose vide
memo No.B- DISALN-CR (E) 1 /2004-05. Out of the remaining 10 acres
and 05 guntas, 9-05 acres stand in the name of his father. When his father
was alive he was looking after the property and he died on 27.06.1996.
The defendant No.33 and his two brothers are staying in Bangalore, hence
they were not aware. The plaintiff has included his property in the above
241
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
case as schedule 'C' item No.4 intentionally and misrepresented this court
and is trying to knock off his property by illegal methods.
251. This defendant has already filed partition suit in
O.S.No.6014/ 2009 before City Civil Court, CCH-3, against the defendant
Nos.1, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 and brother and sisters of the defendant No.33,
for 7 acres 10 guntas out of 13 acres 10 gutnas in schedule 'C' item No.4
property, which is pending.
252. This defendant is concerned only with schedule 'C' item
No.4 property bearing Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village measuring 13 acres 10
guntas. Court fee is insufficient. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with
costs.
Defendant No.34(a) and (b) adopted the written statement of
defendant No.24.
253. Written statement of defendant No.35 is as under:-
242
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
She has admitted the claim of plaintiff. According to her, Sri.Thippa
Reddy purchased the property from Sri.Chikkamuniswamy Reddy and
others and the details forthcoming necessitating for the sale of property by
sons of Sri.Chikkamuniswamy Reddy. Sri.Thippa Reddy who was the
elder son of Sri.Hanuma Reddy had no independent income and whatever
income he was getting was out of the nucleus of undivided joint family.
Joint family of Sri.Hanuma Reddy also purchased immovable properties
in the name of defendant No.1 on 20.11.1968 out of the nucleus of joint
family. She has admitted that, defendant No1 had no independent income
and he had no power to invest money on his own to purchase of the
property bearing Sy.No.13/2 in extent 1.00 acre purchased by him is a
joint family property and is liable for division. So also, property
concerning Sy.No.10/2 purchased in the name of 2nd defendant, it is
admitted that the 2nd defendant who is the purchaser was a junior member
243
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
at the time of purchase. Defendant No.1 taking advantage relating to law
as sale deed stands in his name, is posing himself as absolute owner.
254. Regarding item No.2 of the schedule 'A' this property is a
joint family property. It is also true that the joint family property in the
name of defendant No.10. In addition Sy.No.10 was acquired from out of
nucleus of joint family and those properties are required to be partitioned
between the parties to the suit herein and so like, property which is
standing in the name of defendant No.2. Plaintiff herein was one of the
plaintiffs in O.S.No.942/ 2001 and she withdrew herself with a liberty to
file a fresh suit.
255. This defendant who being the member of undivided family of
late Hanuma Reddy stands on the same footing as plaintiff. Other
members of the undivided family are entitled for a share in schedule 'A to
'C' items of properties described in the plaint of a definite share in
244
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
accordance with the present law. This defendant is ready to pay the
necessary court fee payable in respect of property going to be assigned to
her. Hence, prayed to decree the suit by allotting her share.
256.Written statement of defendant No.39 is as under:-
He has denied entire averments narrated in the plaint as false. This
defendant has purchased item No.4 of suit schedule 'C' property
measuring 2 acres of land under Sale Deed dt. 19.09.1994 and he is in
possession of the same. Plaintiff No.1 is aged about 72 years is not
entitled for any share. The entire property bearing Sy.No.10 of Hoodi
village is self acquired property of H.Thippa Reddy/defendant No.1 who
had purchased the same under registered Sale Deed dt.26.06.1967 out of
his own funds. Subsequently, suits in O.S.No.408/1968 and 671/1969
have been filed in respect of said entire land and the said suits were ended
in compromise. By virtue said compromise, the entire extent of 13 acres
10 guntas was divided and M.G.Vasanthaiah was given 7 acres 5 guntas
245
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
(including 1 acre of Karab) and Sri.H.Thippa Reddy was given 6 acres 5
guntas. On the basis of compromise decree, the revenue authorities
changed the revenue records of entire land and entered the name of
H.Thippa Reddy as Kathedar of 6 acres 5 guntas. Pursuant to acquiring the
same, said H.Thippa Reddy sold 2 acres out of 6 acres 5 guntas of land
bearing Sy.No.10 (new Sy.No.10/1A1) to this defendant under two
separate sale deeds dt.15.09.1994 and 19.9.1994 for a valuable
consideration. Hence this defendant has become absolute owner and is in
possession of property bearing Sy.No.10/1 measuring 2 acres of land
situated at Hoodi village. The boundaries of said portion is as under:-
East by : Private property and road
West by : KEB property
North by : Land of Gopala Reddy
South by : Remaining land
257. This defendant has put up fence and got the said portion
converted from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose vide official
246
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
memorandum dt.26.07.2010. His name is entered in the concerned
revenue records.
258. This defendant is a bonafide purchaser of 2 acres of land in
item No.4 of suit schedule 'C' property. In the similar manner, the
defendant No.1 has also sold the remaining extent of his land in item No.4
of suit schedule 'C; property to various other persons under separate sale
deeds and said purchasers are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of
their respective portions in the said land. Hence, prayed to allot the share
of plaintiff in the remaining properties mentioned in the plaint owned or
possessed by the joint family without disturbing item No.4 of suit
schedule 'C' property which is sold in favour of this defendant and other
purchasers. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs in so far as it
relates to the portion measuring 2 acres out of the total extent of land in
item No.4 of suit schedule 'C' property with costs.
247
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
259. Written statement of defendant Nos.40 to 42 are as
under:-
They have denied entire averments narrated in the plaint as false.
According to them, there was a partition effected between Hanuma Reddy
and his children on 29.11.1971. During the partition, he was allotted
certain properties which are shown in schedule-A. Though Sy.No.19 was
purchased by him, it has been also partitioned.
260. The land bearing Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village totally measuring
13 acres 10 guntas belonged to one Chikkamuniswamy Reddy who had 7
sons. After his death, his sons H.M.Shamanna Reddy, H.M.Krishna
Reddy, H.M.Hanuma Reddy, H.M.Chinnappa Reddy, H.M.Veerappa
Reddy, H.M.Kodandarama Reddy and H.M.Narayana Reddy have
partitioned their family properties under registered partition deed
dt.30.09.1955. Under said partition, 'A' schedule properties were allotted
to the share of H.M.Shamanna Reddy. Land in Sy.No.10 measuring 13
248
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
acres 10 guntas of Hoodi village had fallen to the share of H.M.Shamanna
Reddy.
261. The said H.M.Shamanna Reddy being the absolute owner of
said land in Sy.No.10 measuring 13 acres 10 guntas of Hoodi village in
order to meet his legal necessities has sold the said land in favour of one
H.V.Nagappa Reddy, s/o Chikka Venkata Reddy for valuable
consideration under Sale Deed dt.14.04.1956 and the purchaser was in
possession of the said land. The purchaser said H.V.Nagappa Reddy being
absolute owner and in possession of said land had in order to meet his
family legal necessities sold the same in favour of one M.G.Vasanthaiah
under Sale Deed dt.30.05.1956 registered on 06.06.1956 and put said
M.G.Vasanthaiah in possession of the said land. As there was mistake in
describing the schedule property and its correct measurement under the
said registered Sale Deed dt.30.05.1956 the vendor H.V.Nagappa Reddy
249
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
had executed a registered rectification deed dt.14.08.1957 which was
registered on 23.08.1957 in favour of said purchaser M.G.Vasanthaiah.
262. In the meanwhile, H.V.Nagappa Reddy vendor of
M.G.Vasanthaiah had concocted a document styled as 'Sale Deed
dt.30.07.1957', registered on 22.08.1957 in favour of his brother
H.V.Papaiah Reddy in respect of 9 acres of land which was already sold
and delivered in favour of M.G.Vasanthaiah with ulterior motive.
Thereupon, said Sri.M.G.Vasanthaiah approached said Sri. H.V.Papaiah
Reddy and appraised him about his purchasing the said property and that
his brother Sri.H.V.Nagappa Reddy had neither marketable title nor
possession over any portion of said land.
263. The said H.V.Papaiah Reddy who had conceding the right,
title and possession of M.G.Vasanthaiah over Sy.No.10 acquired by him
under registered Sale Deed dt.30.05.1956 had executed the registered
250
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Release Deed dt.23.05.1958 registered on 29.05.1958 and thereby said
H.V.Papaiah Reddy had nullified his nominal sale deed confirming the
right, title and possession of M.G.Vasanthaiah over land Sy.No.10. Said
M.G.Vasanthaiah has also repaid the loan amount due to Hoodi Lakshmi
Narayana Swamy Co-operative Society raised by his predecessors in title
on demand from the Society and had obtained necessary document from
the Society.
264. The said H.M.Shamanna Reddy, his brother Hanuma Reddy
and the 1st defendant H.Thippa Reddy without having any manner of right,
title or possession over the said land in Sy.No.10 belonged to
M.G.Vasanthaiah made illegal and highhanded attempts to interfere with
his possession and enjoyment of the said land. As such, said
M.G.Vasanthaiah filed suit in O.S.No.401/ 1968 against them before the
2nd Munsiff Court at Bangalore seeking relief of permanent injunction
against them and said court allowed the IA No.1 on merits and temporary
251
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
injunction was granted against the 1st defendant herein and his father and
uncle Sri.H.M.Shamanna Reddy restraining them from interfering with the
possession and enjoyment of land in Sy.No.10 belonged to
M.G.Vasanthaiah.
265. Thereafter, the 1st defendant herein had filed another suit
before the same court in O.S.No.671/ 1969 as against M.G.Vasanthiah and
others seeking relief of declaration and possession in respect of the very
same property that belonged to M.G.Vasanthaiah. Said Thippa Reddy the
1st defendant herein had falsely contended in the said suit that he had
purchased the land in Sy.No.10 from Sri.Shamanna Reddy and his
brothers and his father Sri.Hanuma Reddy as per registered Sale Deed
dt.26.06.1967. Said H.M.Shamanna Reddy who got the said land in
Sy.No.10 to his share under registered Partition Deed dt.30.09.1955 and
having sold the same way back on 14.04.1956 in favour of H.V.Nagappa
Reddy and having put the said purchaser in possession of the said land had
252
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
no manner of right, marketable title nor possession to sell the very same
property in the year 1967 in favour of 1st defendant Thippa Reddy.
266. The alleged sale deed was a collusive, fabricated, concocted
document and the 1st defendant did not derive any right nor possession
under the said document. The 1st defendant being the landlord and local
resident had support of his large family and the background of his
community had pressurized, blackmailed and coerced said
M.G.Vasanthaiah to settle the matter and said M.G.Vasanthaiah being old
aged and resident of Bangalore City had with an intention to put an end to
the litigation had succumbed to the pressure of the 1st defendant and
settled the dispute. In terms of said settlement, said M.G.Vasanthaiah had
parted with an extent of 6 acres 05 guntas of land in favour of 1 st
defendant H.Thippa Reddy out of the total extent of 13 acres 10 guntas of
land possessed by him. In said terms, said M.G.Vasantahaiah, defendant
No.1 H.Thippa Reddy, H.M.Shamanna Reddy and Sri.H.M.Hanuma
253
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Reddy have filed joint compromise petition in O.S.No.401/ 1968 on
19.09.1973 along with sketch enclosed to it and said court accepted the
compromise petition and passed decree in terms of compromise petition
declaring plaintiff M.G.Vasanthaiah as lawful owner of 7 acres 05 guntas
of land and permanent injunction is also passed against the 1 st defendant,
his father and his uncle Sri.H.M.Shamanna Reddy in respect of the said
extent of 7 acres 05 guntas. The suit filed by 1 st defendant H.Thippa
Reddy for the relief of declaration of his title in respect of land in
Sy.No.10 measuring 13 acres 10 guntas in O.S.No.671/ 1969 was
dismissed as not pressed on 07.09.1973.
267. Land in Sy.No.10 measuring 13 acres 10 guntas of Hoodi
village was allotted to the share of Sri.H.M.Shamanna Reddy by virtue of
a registered Partition Deed dt.30.09.1955 and said Sri.H.M.Shamanna
Reddy had sold the said land in Sy.No.10 measuring 13 acres 10 guntas
allotted to his share in favour of one Sri.H.V.Nagappa Reddy under a
254
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
registered Sale Deed dt.14.04.1956 and the said purchaser was put in
possession of the said land and as such other sons of Chikka Munishami
Reddy including Sri.H.M.Shamanna Reddy and his children including the
plaintiffs had no manner of right, title, interest or possession over the said
land measuring 7 acres 05 guntas retained by M.G.Vasanthaiah as per the
decree passed in O.S.401/ 1967 dt.19.09.1973. As the land in sy.No.10 of
Hoodi village was allotted to the share of Sri.H.M.Shamanna Reddy
under a registered Partition Deed dt.30.09.1955 wherein the father of 1 st
plaintiff Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy was also party and the said registered
partition was acted upon, the plaintiff has no locustandi to include this
item of property in the above suit and she has no cause of action against
these defendants.
268. Said Sri. M.G.Vasanthaiah had entered into an agreement of
sale dt.27.09.1980 with the father of the defendants Nos.40 to 42 by name
Sri.T.Narayana Reddy agreeing to sell 3 acres 05 guntas in Sy.No.10 of
255
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Hoodi village and as Mr.M.G.Vasanthaiah failed to execute registered Sale
Deed, the father of these defendants T.Nararayana Reddy had filed a suit
for Specific Performance of Contract in O.S.No.247/ 1981 and the said
suit came to be decreed. Thereafter said M.G.Vasanthaih had come
forward to execute a registered sale deed, accordingly with the consent of
the decree holder T.Narayana Reddy, said M.G.Vasanthaiah had executed
a registered sale deed in respect of 3 acres.05 guntas in the joint names of
the defendants Nos.40 to 42 who are none other than the sons of decree
holder T.Narayana Reddy on 26.01.1985 registered on 05.02.1985 upon
receiving the full sale consideration amount had put these defendants in
possession of the said extent of 3 acres 05 guntas of land in old Sy.No.10
of Hoodi village.
269. Thus said extent of 3 acres 05 guntas of land is a portion of 7
acres 05 guntas of property that came to Sri.M.G.Vasanthaiah under the
court decree in O.S.No.401/ 1968 as stated above. The name of these
256
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
defendants came to be entered in the revenue records and these defendants
are in possession and enjoyment of the said land. The land so purchased
by these defendants measuring 3 acres 05 guntas out of old Sy.No.10 came
to be subdivided and assigned with new Sy.No.10/1B in the survey
records as such the description of suit item No.4 of plaint 'C' schedule is
incorrect.
270. Neither the plaintiff nor the other defendants have got any
manner of right, title or interest whatsoever over this piece of land
measuring 3 acres 05 guntas in Sy.No.10/1B that belongs to these
defendants. So also said Sri.M.G.Vasanthaiah had sold the remaining land
in Sy.No.10 in favour of one Sri.L.Venkataramana Raju. So also the 1 st
defendant who got 6 acres 05 guntas by virtue of the decree passed in
O.S.No.401/ 1968 had sold the same in favour of third parties.
257
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
271. These defendants had applied for and obtained conversion of
the land measuring 1 acre 35 guntas out of 3 acres 05 guntas that belongs
to them in new Sy.No.10/1B vide orders in B.DIS. ALN.SR (S) 65/ 1993-
94 dt.08.09.1993 from agricultural use to non-agricultural industrial
purpose. These defendants had orally effected partition and thereafter
they have also entered into a registered Partition Deed dt.15.11.1999 and
they have partitioned 3 acres 05 guntas property in Sy.No.10/1B that
belonged to them and were put in separate possession of their respective
share of properties. As there were some mistakes in mentioning the
extents in the registered partition deed dt.15.11.1999, these defendants
have entered into a registered Rectification Deed dt.18.12.2000.
272. In terms of the registered partition deed and subsequent
rectification deed, the names of these defendants came to be entered as
Kathedars in the records of the the C.M.C, Mahadevapura and the
properties are assessed to Tax and these defendants were paying tax to
258
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
concerned authorities regularly. Now the property of these defendants
included in B.B.M.P and their names are entered as Kathedars and they
are paying tax.
273. They have sold western portions measuring 9880 square feet,
9972. 25 square feet and 10,531.5 square feet respectively allotted to them
under registered partition deed dt.15.11.1999 in favour of Smt.L.Chitra
w/o Suresh Elangovan under three registered Sale Deeds dt.08.07.2004
respectively and the said purchaser has developed the property so
purchased by her. They have put up industrial buildings in the remaining
portions of their respective share of properties in Sy.No.10/1B (old
Sy.no.1) of Hoodi village and they have let out the said buildings on rents.
Since then, the tenants in those buildings are running industries.
274. The 1st defendant who got 6 acres 05 guntas from
Sri.M.G.Vasanthaiah had dealt with the same and now he had instigated
259
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
the plaintiffs herein to file the above suit and the above matter was
pending before this court from the year 2006 and now as an afterthought
the plaintiffs have filed an impleading application and these defendants
are impleaded after 6 years of filing of this suit in order to blackmail them
and to make unlawful gains and nothing more. The plaintiffs have no
manner of right, title, interest or possession over the property purchased
by these defendants. It is neither the joint family property of the plaintiffs
nor it is in her joint possession.
275. The plaintiffs are not in possession of the land in Old
Sy.No.10, new Sy.No.10/1B of Hoodi village from the year 1955. Suit is
bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties. Court fee paid is
insufficient. Suit is barred by law of Limitation. Hence, prayed to dismiss
the suit with costs.
276. Written statement of defendant No.44 is as under:-
260
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
It has denied each and every averments narrated in the plaint as
false. There was no joint family and H.Thippa Reddy is not a co-parcener
and there was a partition long back. This defendant is a bona fide
purchaser. One Sri.G.K.Suresh was absolute owner of suit schedule 'C'
item No.5 i.e, Sy.No.13/2 measuring 16 guntas, he acquired the same
under sale deed dt. 24.03.1995. The defendant No.3 is being absolute
owner of schedule 'C' item No.14 i.e, Sy.No.14/3 measuring 34.5 guntas
and Sy.No.14/4 measuring 10.5 guntas of Chinnappanahalli village, as he
has acquired the same under sale deed dt. 03.06.2006. The defendant No.2
was absolute owner of schedule 'C' item No.15 i.e, Sy.No.13/3 measuring
1 acre of Chinnappanahalli and he had acquired the same under partition
deed dt. 29.11.1971 and engaged this defendant for the development of
aforesaid property and the same is accordingly developed.
277. Thereafter, the land owners Sri.G.K.Suresh,
Sri.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy, Smt.H.Vanajamma, Sri.H.Ravi Kumar,
261
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Smt.S.Bharathi, Smt.S.Anuradha, Sri.Narendra Babu, Sri.H.Venkatesh
Reddy, Smt.Bhagyalakshmi, Smt.Kavitha.V Reddy, Sri.Aravind.V
executed Joint Development Agreement dt 23.08.2010 in favour of this
defendant. Based on the same, this defendant derived the right and
interest to develop the composite property and right over 50% of the said
development subject to terms and conditions mentioned therein. The
above said persons in part performance of their obligations under Joint
Development Agreement dt. 23.08.2010 and in order to give effect to the
development project executed power of attorney dt.23.08.2010.
278. Pursuant to said Joint Development Agreement and General
Power of attorney this defendant was put in possession of said property
and he has completed the construction of residential apartment by
investing huge amount. On the basis of Joint Development Agreement he
had obtained all necessary permission, no objection certificate and
clearance certificate for implementing the project and obtained sanctioned
262
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
plan to construct the residential apartment. After completion of project all
the apartments falling to the share of this defendant have been sold to 3 rd
parties and only formality remained is registration of sale.
279. This suit is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary
parties and also misjoinder of parties. The registered partition deed
dt.29.11.1971 is not challenged by the plaintiff. Plaintiff is also
beneficiary under the said partition deed. Suit is time barred. Court fee
paid is insufficient. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
280. Written statement of defendant No.49 is as under:-
It has denied each and every averment narrated in the plaint as false.
According to it, this defendant is only concerned with a portion of item
No.19 of the schedule 'C' property. But when the original plaint was filed
in the year 2006, item No.19 of the schedule 'C' property was not at all the
subject matter of the suit. The said property was included by way of
263
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
amendment in 2011 by showing it as a vacant land though various
apartment buildings were constructed and sold to various purchasers as on
that day. Subsequently, this defendants and the owners of the said
apartments are impleaded. In fact having regard to the claim of the
plaintiff, it is clear that amendment is only prospective in this regard and it
cannot date back to the presentation of the plaint.
281. This defendant is concerned only with respect to the property
bearing CMC Khata No.22 measuring 28, 314 sq.ft, and CMC Khata
No.100 measuring 5256 sq.ft, which is formed out of old Gramatana of
K.G.Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore i.e, item Nos.1 and 2
of the written statement property. But not concerned with other properties.
The written statement property belonged to Sri.Venkatesh Reddy and his
wife Smt.Bhagyalakshmi and Smt.Nagaveni and Smt.Deena (wives of
Sri.Anantharama Reddy) from whom this defendant acquired joint
development rights.
264
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
282. The much larger property inclusive of schedule to the written
statement property belonged to the joint family of late Chikka
Muniswamy. After the death of late Chikka Muniswamy all his properties
were partitioned amongst his children Sri.H.M.Shamanna Reddy,
Sri.H.M.Krishna Reddy, Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy, Sri.H.M.Veerappareddy,
Sri.H.M.Chinnappa Reddy, Sri.H.M.Narayana Reddy and
Sri.H.M.Kodanda Reddy. The said partition had taken place vide partition
deed dt.30.09.1995. Out of the said partition an extent of 15 acres
inclusive of Gramatana and Sy.No.12 had come to the share of
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy and his children.
283. Subsequently, there was a partition amongst Sri.Hanuma
Reddy and his sons namely Sri.H.Thippareddy. Sri.Sathyanarayana.H,
Sri.H.Venkatesh Reddy and Sri.H.Anantharama Reddy who had
partitioned the joint family properties, vide partition deed dt.29.11.1971
265
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
and certain properties were partitioned. However, old Chinnappanahalli
property was not partitioned since it was acquired by Sri.Kodandarama
Reddy. However, subsequently on settlement of disputes,
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy and his children had partitioned the said
properties and were enjoying respective portion of their share. It was
subsequently reduced into writing vide partition deed dt.28.08.1989.
Howevr, since the property has fallen to the jurisdiction of Mahadevapura
City Municipal Council, Katha is also made out vide Katha No.99.
284. Further an extent of 30 guntas was allotted to the share of
Sri.H.Anatharama Reddy under the said partition. After the death of
Sri.H.Anatharama Reddy his wives Smt.Nagaveni and Smt.Deena and
their children are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property
allotted to them. Subsequently, Sri.Venkatesh Reddy and
Smt.Bhagyalakshmi had executed a registered Joint Development
Agreement dt.13.12.2004 in favour of this defendant and a power of
266
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
attorney was also executed in pursuance of the said Joint Development
Agreement. Similarly, Smt.Nagaveni and Smt.Deena had also entred into
Joint Development Agreement and executed General Power of Attorney in
favour of this defendant.
285. This defendant has completed the project and various
apartments are built and sold to various apartment owners. Though as on
this day the third parties have acquired right, title and interest over the
property in question, with oblique motive all the apartment owners are not
made parties to this suit. Therefore the suit is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties. Further when the possession of the property is sought
for it is just and necessary that the Apartment holders are also to be made
as parties to the suit. Suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties.
Court fee paid is insufficient.
267
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
286. On the property in question various apartments are
constructed and it is sold to different purchasers. Those purchasers are
also necessary parties to the suit. The Joint Development Agreement is
executed in favour of this defendant and the suit is not maintainable unless
the plaintiff seeks for a relief of cancellation of the said documents as well
as the sale deeds executed in favour of apartment owners.
287. Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy had no subsisting interest in respect
of any property as on the date of death and therefore nothing could be
passed on to the plaintiff and hence no right, title and interest is created in
respect of the schedule property. The previous partition took place is not
brought to the notice of the court with an oblique motive. Even if the
plaintiffs are the daughters of late Sri.Hanuma Reddy, said Hanuma
Reddy and his sons had already partitioned the properties and as on the
date of death of Sri.Hanuma Reddy no property was held by him.
268
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
288. There is no identity of the property called Gramatana
property bearing Katha Nos.99 and 100, new Katha No.249, 251, 253,
measuring 2 acre 4 guntas situated at Chinnappanahalli village as shown
as item No.19 of schedule property. There are 16 properties bearing
various Kathas and Katha No.22 measuring 2831 sq.ft and Katha No.100
measuring 5256 sq.ft are the properties which were developed by this
defendant and huge residential project by name Mahaveer Bower-I and
Mahaveer Bower- II were constructed and various apartments constructed
thereupon sold to various purchasers and therefore there cannot be any
identity of the property as presented by the plaintiff in item No.19 of
schedule 'C' property. Further the property cannot be partitioned at all and
hence, suit requires to be dismissed in respect of item No.19 of the
schedule property.
289. During the life time of late Sri.Hanuma Reddy, said
Sri.Hanuma Reddy and his children have partitioned the said property and
269
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
the same was subsequently reduced into writing vide partition deed
dt.28.08.1989. Therefore the said property in item No.19 of the schedule
'C' proerty is not available for partition.
290. There is no identity of the property as shown in item No.19 of
schedule 'C' property. Item No.19 of schedule 'C' property had been given
to the share of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy and Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy and
his sons had partitioned the said property vide Partition Deed
dt.29.11.1971. However, it was mutually agreed upon that the said
properties shall be partitioned amongst the said Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy
and Sri.Kodanda Rama Reddy. Subsequently, on settlement of the issue,
the said H.M.Hanuma Reddy and his children partitioned the said
property and it was reduced into writing vide partition deed dt.28.08.1989
which was in fact supplement to partition deed dated. 29.11.1971. In the
said partition an extent of 0-14 guntas was allotted to H.Thippa Reddy, 0-
14 guntas was allotted to the share of Sri.Sathyanarayana Reddy, 0-26
270
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
guntas was allotted to the share of Sri.Venkatesh Reddy and
Smt.Bhagyalakshmi, 0-30 guntas was allotted to Sri.Anatharama Reddy.
Hence, there is no property that can be partitioned since all the properties
were partitioned as per the partition dt.29.11.1971 and supplement
partition dt.28.08.1989 during the life time of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy.
Therefore, the plaintiff herein got no right, title and interest over the
property in question. Since the partition took place during the life time of
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy, the plaintiff cannot claim any right, title and
interest in respect of the schedule property.
291. The property allotted to the share of Sri.Venkatesh Reddy and
Smt.Bhagyalakshmi measuring 28314 sq.ft was subjected to Katha with
Mahadevapura CMC bearing Katha No.22 and subsequently assigned with
Katha No.99. The said Sri.Venkatesh Reddy and Smt.Bhagyalakshmi also
executed a Joint Development Agreement dt.13.12.2004 in favour of this
defendant. As per the terms of which the developer is entitled to put up
271
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
construction of residential apartments and is entitled to convey 60%
undivided right, title and interest in the said property along with
residential constructions put up thereon with proportionate Car Parking
Area. In pursuance of the said Joint Development Agreement, this
defendant had obtained the sanctioned plan. Subsequently, Apartment
building called Mahaveer Bower-I consisting of basement, ground and
three upper floors were constructed by this defendant. In all 64
residential apartments measuring 78580 sq.ft, super built-up area are
constructed over the said property. Hence, item No.19 of schedule 'C'
property is not in existence.
292. Out of the property allotted to the share of Anatharama
Reddy measuring 0-30 guntas an extent of 5265 sqft i.e CMC Katha
No.100 measuring 117' x 45' was given for joint development in favour of
this defendant by the wives and children of late Anatharama Reddy under
Joint Development Agreement dt. 27.01.2006. As per said joint
272
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
development agreement, this defendant has obtained sanctioned plan and
constructed residential apartment building called Bower-II consisting of
16 residential apartments in the basement, ground and three upper floors
amounting to 17720 sq.ft super built up area. Hence there is no identity of
the property as mentioned in item No.19 of schedule 'C' property as
claimed by the plaintiff and hence the said property is not available for
partition.
293. In Item No.1 of the schedule to the written statement, this
defendant constructed 64 residential apartments called Mahaveer Bower
measuring 78580 square feet super built up area in First, second and third
floors. Out of that an extent of 31380 sq.ft was handed over to the share of
the land owners i.e Venkatesh Reddy and Smt.Bhagyalakshmi and
remaining 47200 sq.ft that fell to the share of this defendant was conveyed
to various purchasers/ apartment owners. The said individual apartment
owners are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said apartments
273
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
put up on item No.1 to the schedule to the written statement filed by this
defendant. Similarly, said land owners have sold residential apartments to
various purchasers which were allotted to their share being the land
owners. Hence there is no property that is available for partition in item
No.19 of schedule 'C' property.
294. With respect to item No.2 of the schedule to the written
statement 16 residential apartments in ground, 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors are
constructed amounting to 17720 sq.ft. Out of that 6 apartments measuring
6000 sq.ft super built up area was handed over to land owners i.e, wives
and children of late Sri.Anantharama Reddy and remaining 10 residential
apartments amounting to 11320 sq.ft was conveyed by this defendant to
various purchasers and hence the said property in item No.19 is not
available for partition.
274
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
295. This defendant is concerned with a portion of item No.19 of
schedule 'C' property. In fact, the property in question i.e, portion of item
No.19 of schedule 'C' property was not claimed by the plaintiffs while
filing this suit in the year 2006. But only after sale of apartments as above,
the item No.19 of schedule 'C' property is included in the suit by way of
amendment dt.20.10.2011 by concealing that it consists of residential
apartment buildings. Hence 'C' schedule property is not at all in existence
as on the date of amendment dt.20.10.2011. Hence, the amendment of
the plaint is to be treated as claim in respect of item No.19 of schedule 'C'
property from 2011 only since the amendment does not date back to the
presentation of the plaint and the amendment is prospective.
296. This defendant had developed and sold the property as
mentioned under item No.1 and 2 of the schedule to the written statement
filed by this defendant even prior to filing of the suit. But, there was no
claim with respect to item No.19 of the schedule 'C' property till the year
275
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
2011. But the transaction was completed even prior to the suit which was
not even challenged within a period of 3 years from the date of the said
transaction of joint development agreement as well as sale of the property.
Therefore, the amendment with respect to the item No.19 of schedule 'C'
property is beyond the period of limitation and therefore the suit in respect
of item No.19 of schedule 'C' property is barred by law of Limitation.
297. Amendment to the plaint with respect to inclusion of item
No.19 of schedule 'C' property shall be deemed to take effect
prospectively. The said amendment would not date back to the date of
presentation of the plaint, but would be effective only from the date of
amendment in the year 2011. But item No.19 of the schedule 'C' property
does not show the details of the apartments as well as existing Katha
numbers and therefore the suit is bad with respect to item No.19 of the
schedule 'C' property.
Written statement schedule property
276
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Item No.1:- All that piece and parcel of property situated at
Chinnappanahalli bearing Khata No.22, Mahadevapura CMC, K.R.Puram
Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore measuring approximately 28, 314
sq.ft, which is bounded on the:
East by : Property of Rathnamma and
West by : Road and Railway Track
North by : Property of H.Anatharama Reddy,
South by : Road and property of H.M.Veerappa Reddy
The item No.1 of the schedule to written statement comprises of
residential apartment buildings called "Mahaveer Bower-I".
Item No.2:- All that piece and parcel of property bearing CMC 100 of
Mahadevapura CMC, situated at K.G.Chinnappanahalli, Ward No.22,
Mahadevapura CMC, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore
measuring east to west 117 feet and north to south 45 feet totally measuring
5265 sq.ft, which is bounded on the:
East by : Property of Kodandarama Reddy
West by : Road
North by : Remaining property of N.K.Nagaveni,
277
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
South by : Property of Bhagyalakshmi
The item No.2 of the schedule to written statement comprises of
residential apartment buildings called "Mahaveer Bower-II".
298. The plaintiff was born before 1956. The properties were
partitioned during life time of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy. This defendant
before entering into Joint Development Agreement and General Power of
Attorney had verified the title of item No.19 of schedule 'C' property as
well as item Nos.1 and 2 of schedule to the written statement filed by this
defendant. Hence, this defendant is a bonafide purchaser.
299. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs in respect of item
No.19 of schedule 'c' property and alternatively in case of decree, the item
No.19 of schedule -C property may be allotted to share of Sri. Venkatesh
Reddy and wives and children of late Sri.Anantha Rama Reddy Reddy as
equitable adjustment to protect the interest of bonafide purchasers of
apartments constructed on item No.19 of schedule 'C' property.
278
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
300. Written statement of defendant No.78 is as under:-
He has denied some of the averments narrated in the plaint as false.
According to him, the land bearing Sy.No.14/2, measuring 36 guntas,
situated at Chinnappanahalli, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk
was originally belonged to Hanuma Reddy. It was his self acquired
property. Said Sri.Hanuma Reddy had executed a Partition Deed
dt.29.11.1971, between himself and his children. The land bearing
Sy.No.14/2, had fallen to the share of Sri.H.Anatharama Reddy, wherein
it is mentioned that the said Anatharama Reddy being minor represented
by his father Sri.Hanuma Reddy and he is in possession and enjoymet of
the suit schedule property.
301. After the death of Sri.Anatharama Reddy, his Lrs
Smt.Nagaveni, daughter by name Sri.Suma Reddy, Smt.Deena- 2nd wife of
Anatharama Reddy, another daughter namely Sri.A.Sowmya Reddy and
son A.Sandeep Reddy, have got transferred the revenue records in their
279
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
names and thereafter, they have jointly sold the land measuring 0.15
guntas in Sy.No.14/2, in favour of this defendant, through Sale Deed
dt.12.12.2003. Since then, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the suit schedule property.
302. The property is self acquired property of Sri.Hanuma Reddy
and he executed partition deed dt.29.11.1971. Under the said partition
deed, Sy.No.14/2, measuring 02 guntas had fallen to the share of
Sri.Anatharama Reddy and this defendant purchased 15 guntas of land in
said property from the LRs of Anatharama Reddy. Hence, the item No.18
in 'C' schedule property of the plaint schedule is not the subject matter of
the partition.
303. The plaintiffs have not mentioned anywhere regarding
Sy.No.14/2 of Chinnappanahalli village, but just added it in the schedule,
which clearly shows that, the plaintiffs have indirectly admitted that the
280
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
property is self acquired property of Sri.Hanuma Reddy and the said
Sri.Hanuma Reddy partitioned the family properties. The plaintiffs
ancestors had got so many other properties to give share to the plaintiffs.
Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
304. Written statement of Legal representatives of defendant
No.81 is as under:-
They have denied each and every averments narrated in the plaint as
false. According to them, this court issued suit summons to the defendant
No.81 and said summons was not served on him and returned with a shara
that 'this defendant dead". This defendant died leaving behind his wife
Smt.Padma.J.Reddy and his children viz, G.J.Raja, G.J.Vijaykumar and
Smt.Aruna.J, as his legal heirs. The plaintiff had filed an application to
bring the LRs of deceased without impleading the wife of defendant
No.81.
281
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
305. The LRs of this defendant are concerned with item No.1 of
plaint 'C' schedule property and the said property was purchased by
deceased under the sale deed dt.23.05.1988 from Sri.H.V.Jayarama Reddy
and others. Pursuant to the said registered sale deed the Mutation was
effected in the name of Sri.G.Jayarama Reddy, G.Jayarama Reddy,
G.J.Raja and Vijaya Kumar and they were in joint possession and
enjoyment of the same since from the date of purchase.
306. This defendant and his LRs partitioned all the family
properties including the property bearing Sy.No.3/1 under registered
Partition Deed dt.21.01.2011. Under the said registered partition deed,
entire Sy.No.3/1 had fallen to the share of Sri.G.J.Vijaykumar and his
children and they are absolute owners of the property and in lawful
possession and enjoyment of the same. The suit without impleading the
other co-owners viz., Kum.Prathusha and Kumari Pallavi and Master
Akshay is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties.
282
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
307. The property bearing Sy.No.3/1 is not the joint family
property of the plaintiff and the same is not in possession of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the said property and it is the
absolute property of G.J.Vijayakumar and his family and they are in
possession of the same. The plaintiffs have no right whatsoever in respect
of the land bearing Sy.No.3/1. The boundaries mentioned in respect of
item No.1 of the plaint 'C' schedule property is not correct and plaintiff
has intentionally given wrong boundaries.
308. The plaintiffs are not in possession of item No.1 of plaint 'C'
schedule property as on the date of filing the suit and this fact is clear
from the revenue records. Court fee paid is insufficient. Hence, prayed to
dismiss the suit with costs.
309. Written statement of defendant No.82 is as under:-
283
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
It has denied each and every averments narrated in the plaint as
false. According to it, the property in Sy.No.10 measuring 13 acres and 10
guntas of Hoodi village, Bangalore South Taluk now Bangalore East Taluk
belonged to one Chikkamuniswamy Reddy father of Hanuma Reddy and
grandfather of Thippa Reddy. The said Chikkamuniswamy Reddy had
mortgaged some of the ancestral properties along with property in
Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village measuring 13 acres 10 guntas with
Lakshminarayana Co-operative Society and died without clearing the said
mortgage loan amount. In order to clear the mortgage loan amount the
whole property in Sy.No.10 measuring 10 acres 10 guntas was sold by 4
sons of Chikkamuniswamy Reddy viz., 1) H.M.Shamanna Reddy, 2)
H.M.Krishna Reddy, 3) H.M.Hanuma Reddy and 4) H.M.Narayana Reddy
in favour of H.Thippa Reddy s/o Hanuma Reddy on 26.06.1967 for
valuable sale consideration. Since then said Thippa Reddy has been
enjoying the self acquired property as absolute owner and Katha has been
284
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
transferred into this name and new survey number has been given to the
said property as Sy.No.10/1A.
310. Said Sri.Thippa Reddy sold 5 ¾ guntas of land in
Sy.No.10/1A to one Sri.Ashwath s/o N.Krishnappa for a valuable sale
consideration on 11.03.1992 and mutation was effected in his name. Said
K.Ashwath subsequently converted the said land from agricultural to non-
agricultural residential purpose from the Special Deputy Commissioner
(Revenue) Bangalore vide conversion order dt.05.01.2004 by paying a
requisite conversion fee.
311. Sri.Ashwath has entered into an agreement of sale
dt.20.11.2003 with one Mr.V.Krishnappa s/o T.Venkatappa. Subsequently,
on 13.02.2004 said K.Ashwath as a vendor and Sri.V.Krishnappa as a
agreement holder/ confirming party executed a sale deed dt.13.02.2004 in
favour of this proposed defendant No.10 for a valuable sale consideration
285
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
of Rs.22,00,000/-. Khata has been transferred in the name of this
defendant and he has been paying tax to CMC Mahadevapura. This
defendant has purchased the part of Sy.No.10 property and the said
property is self acquired property of Sri.H.Thippa Reddy and there is no
existence of joint family since plaintiff and defendants residing separately
by enjoying their respective separate shares.
312. It has purchased the said converted property measuring 5 ¾
guntas of Hoodi village, Bangalore East Taluk (Old sought) by verifying
all the relevant documents and defendant had developed the said property
and sold the same to other purchasers who have not been made parties in
the present proceedings. A suit for partition without making the
purchasers as party in the proceedings makes the partition suit not
maintainable and plaintiff has no manner of right, title over the said land
in Sy.No.10/1A of Hoodi village, measuring 5 ¾ guntas. The nature of the
property has also undergone changes and the suit is not maintainable and
286
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
is barred by time even as regards the sale deed of Ashwath dt.11.03.1992.
Further the provision of limitation prescribes that the period of limitation
would also commene from the time when the persons claiming for
partition have been ousted from the joint family. In so far as daughters of
Hanuma Reddy are concerned they cannot disturb the transaction that has
taken place before 20.12.2004 in terms of the proviso to Sec.6(1) of Hindu
Succession Act. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
313. Written statement of defendant No.83 is as under:-
She has denied each and every averments narrated in the plaint as
false. According to her, there was a partition dated .29.11.1971 between
Sri.Hanuma Reddy and his children. The property Sy.No.13/2 measuring 1
acre of Chinnappanahalli was purchased by 1st defendant under sale deed
dt.21.01.1968 is not joint family property. Under partition deed dt.
29.11.1971 deceased 4th defendant was allotted one acre in Sy.No.13/2
(schedule 'C' item No.5) of Chinnappanahalli village. He had sold 20
287
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
guntas out of the said land to defendant No.77 under sale deed
dt.24.02.1992. Defendant No.77 formed private layout of sites and sold
site Nos.8 and 9 under sale deed dt.31.03.1995 in favour of this defendant.
She is a bona fide purchaser. Since the date of purchase she is in
possession of site Nos.8 and 9 and she is paying tax and Katha is standing
in her name. Suit is barred by law of Limitation. Suit is bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of parties. Hence, prayed to
dismiss the suit with costs.
314. Written statement of defendant No.84 is as under:-
He has denied each and every averment naratted in the plaint as
false. According to him, there was a registered partition deed dated.
29.11.1971 between Sri.Hanuma Reddy and his children. Under the said
partition, one acre in Sy.No.13/2 (schedule 'C' item N.5) of
Chinnappanahalli village was allotted the share of 4th defendant who has
288
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
sold 20 guntas out of Sy.No.13/2 to defendant No.77 under sale deed
dt.24.02.1992. Defendant No.77 formed layout and sold site No.10 under
sale deed dt.31.03.1995 in favour of this defendant. After purchasing the
site he has constructed a residential house. He is a bona fide purchaser.
Suit is barred by law of Limitation. Suit is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties and mis-joinder of parties. Hence, prayed to dismiss the
suit with costs.
315. Written statement of defendant No.85 is as under:-
She has denied each and every averment naratted in the plaint as
false. According to her, there was a registered partition deed
dated.29.11.1971 between Sri.Hanuma Reddy and his children. Under the
said partition, one acre in Sy.No.13/2 (schedule 'C' item N.5) of
Chinnappanahalli village was allotted the share of 4th defendant who has
sold 20 guntas out of Sy.No.13/2 to defendant No.77 under sale deed
dt.24.02.1992. Defendant No.77 formed layout and sold site No.7 under
289
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
sale deed dt. 31.03.1995 in favour of this defendant. After purchasing the
site she is in possession of the said site. She is a bona fide purchaser.
Suit is barred by law of Limitation. Suit is bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties and mis-joinder of parties. Hence, prayed to dismiss the
suit with costs.
316. Written statement of defendant No.86 is as under:-
He has denied each and every averment naratted in the plaint as
false.
The plaintiff has filed one more suit in O.S.No.3859/ 2006 for
partition and separate possession which came to be dismissed. Hence, this
suit is hit by principles of resjudicata. Plaintiffs are born much prior to
1956. Hence, they have no right to claim for partition. Late Sri.Hanuma
Reddy had two wives namely Smt.Lingamma and Smt.Akkayamma.
Through his 1st wife he got 3 daughters namely Smt.Peddakka,
Smt.Lingamma and Smt.Sharadamma. Said Smt.Lingamma is not party to
the suit.
290
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
317. One Smt.Bhagyakka d/o Smt.Peddakka is not a party to the
suit. Another daugther Smt.Chikkaka of Hanuma Reddy is also not a party
to the suit. Hence, suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
318. There was a registered partition deed between Sri.Hanuma
Reddy and his children on 29.11.1971. H.Thippa Reddy got two acres in
Sy.No.23 of Chinnappanahalli village under said partition deed. He got
another 20 guntas in the said survey number under sale deed dt.28.03.1983
executed by Sri.Hanuma Reddy. Subsequently, there was a registered
partition in the family of H.Thippa Reddy dt.03.05.2012 under which
schedule 'C' property was allotted to the share of T.Muralidhara item No.4
of schedule 'C' property in Sy.No.23 measuring 2 acres. Hence,
T.Muralidhara is the absolute owner of Sy.No.23/1 measuring 2 acres
regarding which a valid lease has been executed by him. This defendant is
a tenant under T.Muralidhara. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with
costs.
291
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Defendant No.87 has adopted the written statement of
defendant No.86.
319. Written statement of defendant No.88 is as under:-
It has denied each and every averment naratted in the plaint as false.
According to it, land Sy.No.1 of Hoodi village totally measuring 13 acres
10 guntas originally belonged to one Sri.Chikka Muniswamy Reddy who
had 7 sons and they have partitioned the family properties under registered
partition deed dt.30.09.1955. Under the said partition, 'A' schedule
properties were allotted to the share of Sri.H.M.Shamanna Reddy. The
land Sy.No.10 measuring 13 acres 10 guntas of Hoodi village was also
allotted to Sri.H.M.Shamanna Reddy. For family and legal necessities
Sri.H.M.Shamanna Reddy had sold entire land Sy.No.10 in favour of
Sri.H.V.Nagappa Reddy s/o Sri.Chikka Venkata Reddy under sale deed dt.
14.04.1956.
292
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
320. Said H.V.Nagappa Reddy in turn sold the entire land in
Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village in favour of Sri.M.G.Vasanthaiah under sale
deed dt. 30.05.1956. There was mistake in description of schedule
property in the sale deed dt. 30.05.1956. Hence, said H.V.Nagappa Reddy
had executed registered rectification deed dt.14.08.1957 registered on
23.08.1957.
321. Later, said M.G.Vasanthaiah came to know that his
predecessor in title had obtained loan by pledging land Sy.No.10 with
Hoodi Lakshmi Narayana Swamy Co-operative Society and also repaid
the said loan. Thereafter, said Sri.M.G.Vasanthaiah had sold an extent of
3 acres 5 guntas in favour of defendants Nos.40 to 42 under sale deed
dt.26.01.1985. Defendants Nos.40 to 42 got converted the land measuring
1 acre 35 guntas out of 3 acres 5 guntas in new Sy.No.10/1B vide order dt.
08.09.1993 from agricultural to non-agricultural Industrial purpose. The
defendants Nos.40 to 42 partitioned 3 acres 5 guntas in Sy.No.10/1B under
293
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
registered partition deed dt. 15.11.1999. As there were some mistakes they
have executed Rectification Deed dt. 18.12.2000. On the basis of partition
deed and Rectification deed, the name of defendant No.42 came to be
entered in the revenue records and he is paying tax of the same. He has
offered the said property for Joint Development and defendant No.88 who
is developer had agreed to develop the said property on Joint
Development Scheme. Accordingly, defendant No.42, his wife and
children have entered into registered Joint development agreement dt.
07.11.2014 whereby this defendant had agreed to construct multi- storied
apartment at his cost and in consideration defendant No.42 agreed to
transfer 55% of undivided share in the land and defendant No.42 is
entitled for 45% super built up area.
322. This defendant had constructed apartments and sold flats of
his share to different purchasers. Suit is barred by law of Limitation.
Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
294
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
323. Written statement of defendant No.90 is as under:-
According to this defendant, it had entered into a Joint
Development Agreement dt.29.12.2012 with defendant No.41. No order
of temporary injunction passed as against the defendants Nos.40 to 42 in
the above case who were impleaded long after filing of the above suit.
The plaintiff is misrepresenting the facts before this court to implead this
defendant. Defendants Nos.40 to 42 had purchased an extent of 03 acres
05 guntas of land in old Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village under registered Sale
Deed dt.26.01.1985 from one M.G.Vasanthaiah s/o Gopalaiah and the said
property purchased by the defendants Nos.40 to 42 is nothing to do with
the alleged joint family properties of the plaintiff.
324. The vendor of the defendants Nos.40 to 42
Mr.M.G.Vasanthaiah had purchased the land bearing Sy.No.10 of Hoodi
village totally measuring 13 acres 10 guntas from one H.V.Nagappa
295
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Reddy s/o Chikkavenkata Reddy under registered Sale Deed
dt.30.05.1956. As there was a mistake crept in description of the extent of
land sold under the said sale deed dt.30.05.1956 the said H.V.Nagappa
Reddy had executed a registered Rectification deed dt.14.08.1957 in
favour of Sri.M.G.Vasanthaiah. After the said purchase, the said
M.G.Vasanthaiah came to know that the land purchased by him in
Sy.No10 measuring 13 acres 10 guntas of Hoodi village has been
mortgaged with the Hoodi Lakshminarayana Swamy Co-operative Society
by his predecessors in title. For non-payment of loan, said property was
put in auction sale and the said Society itself had purchased the said land
in revenue sale. Having came to know about the said fact, said
M.G.Vasanthaiah had cleared all the dues to the Society and he had
obtained a registered Sale Deed dt.22.03.1958 from the Society in his
name and perfected his title to the said land.
296
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
325. Sri.M.G.Vasanthaiah had filed a suit in O.S.No.401/ 1968
against the defendant No.1 H.Thippa Reddy, his father H.M.Shamanna
Reddy, H.M.Hanuma Reddy. The first defendant herein had filed another
suit against M.G.Vasanthaiah in O.S.No.671/ 1969. During pendency of
the said suit both the parties to the said suit has settled the dispute
amicably and have filed joint compromise petition in O.S.No.401/ 1968
and by virtue of said compromise, said M.G.Vasanthaiah was declared as
owner and in possession of an extent of 7 acres 05 guntas as per decree on
19.09.1973. The 1st defendant herein who was plaintiff in
O.S.No.617/1969 had filed a memo and got dismissed the suit in terms of
the compromise petition filed in O.S.No.401/1968.
326. Said M.G.Vasanthaiah in order to meet his legal necessities
had sold an extent of 03 acres 05 guntas out of 07 acres 05 guntas that
belonged to him in favour of defendants Nos.40 to 42 under a registered
Sale Deed dt.26.01.1985 registered on 05.02.1985 and they were put in
297
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
possession of the said extent of 3 acres 05 guntas of land in old Sy.No.10
of Hoodi village. Said extent of land is a portion of property that came to
M.G.Vasanthaiah under the court decree as stated above. Neither the
plaintiff nor any other defendants have got any manner or right, title or
interest over this piece of land that belongs to defendants Nos.40 to 42.
The land purchased by defendants Nos.40 to 42 measuring 3 acres 05
guntas out of old Sy.No.10 was subdivided and phoded and is assigned
with new Sy.No.10/1B in the revenue records and survey records and they
converted the said land from agricultural use to non-agricultural purpose.
The defendants Nos.40 to 42 had partitioned the land measuring 3 acres
05 guntas so purchased by them under a registered Partition Deed
dt.15.11.1999 and registered rectification deed dt.18.12.2000 and they are
paying taxes to the BBMP at present separately and individually.
327. The defendant No.41 who is absolute owner and in
possession of portion of non-agricultural converted land in Sy.No.10/1B,
298
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
measuring 95.7" + 96.8"/2 x 128.8" + 149.6"/2 totally measuring 13068
square feet had along with is sons T.Harish and T.Babunath Giri entered
into a registered Joint Development Agreement dt.29.09.2012 with the
defendant No.90, whereby defendant No.90 has agreed to construct
apartments at its cost and in consideration defendant No.41 had agreed to
transfer 58% of undivided share of land along with 58% super built up
area therein to defendant No.90. Defendant No.41 is entitled for 42%
super built up area with proportionate undivided share in the land. This
defendant has constructed apartments in the year 2012-13 and had sold all
the flats came to his share. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.
328. Written statement of defendant No.97 is as under:-
He has denied each and every averment narrated in the plaint as
false. There was a partition in the family of Sri. Hanuma Reddy with his
children on 29.11.1971. Under said partition, Hanuma Reddy was allotted
certain properties which are referred to as 'A' schedule properties and
299
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Sy.No.19 was purchased by Sri.Hanuma Reddy and it has also been
partitioned. Sy.No.19 was acquired in the name of Sri.Hanuma Reddy for
the reason that he was a Kartha of the family.
329. Admittedly, even according to plaintiff several properties
were succeeded by Sri.Hanuma Reddy from his ancestors which clearly
discloses that, Sri.Hanuma Reddy had income from ancestral properties.
Hence, Sy.No.19 was purchased in his name. Whatever the properties
acquired by other members of family of Sri.Hanuma Reddy are their self
acquired properties.
330. The purchasers including this defendant are not proper parties
as the sale transactions have taken place long back in respect of Sy.No.19.
Suit is barred by law of Limitation. The defendant No.94 is the absolute
owner and in possession of site No.19 which is a portion of Sy.No.19.
Late Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy being owner of land Sy.No.19 has formed
300
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
sites and sold the same to 3rd parties. Site No.19 was sold by him in favour
of one Smt. V.Saroja under sale deed dt. 25.08.1975. Smt.V.Saroja had
sold the said site in favour of one Smt.K.Saroja under sale deed dt.
31.01.1981. Thereafter said K.Saroja gifted the said site in favour of one
Sri.K.Vaidyanathan under registered Gift Deed dt. 03.08.201. Said
K.Vaidyanathan has in turn sold the said site in favour of M/s.Irest
Technologies Private Limited under sale deed dt.03.08.2013. Later said
M/s.Irest Technologies Private Limited has sold the same in favour of
defendant Nos.94 and 95 together under sale deed dt. 08.08.2013.
331. Defendant No.96 is the absolute owner and in possession of
site No.29 which is part of Sy.No.19, which was held by family of
Sri.Hanuma Redd. Said site was sold by their family members in favour of
one Sri.Sethumadhavan under sale deed who in turn sold the same in
favour of one Sri.Anantharaman under sale deed dt.01.12.1992.
301
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
332. After the death of said Sri.Anantharaman his wives
Smt.Nagamani and Smt.Deena have succeeded the said site and
subsequently they have sold the same in favour of Sri. Ravi Kumar Lagi
Setty defendant No.96 under sale deed dt. 11.07.2002. This defendant is
the absolute owner of site No.2 which is part of Sy.No.19 which was
allotted to the share of Sri.Venkatesh Reddy s/o Sri.Hanuma Reddy under
registered partition deed dt. 29.11.1971 and he has sold the same in favour
of one Kashi Vishwanathan under sale deed dt 17.04.1972. Later said
Kashi Vishwanathan had gifted the same in favour of his son i.e this
defendant under gift deed dt. 16.11.2002. Since the date of gift deed,
revenue records have been changed in his name and he is in possession
and enjoyment of the same.
333. Defendant No.98 is the absolute owner of portion of land
Sy.No.19, 19/1C and 19/1D totally measuring 60 x 40 feet. The said
portion of property is out of 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.19, 19/1C, 19/1D
302
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
which was purchased by Smt.Kamalamma from Mathrew George,
Achuthan Nair and Tulasiraman under 3 separate sale deeds dt. 12.5.1987,
02.04.1988 and 12.05.1987. Said Smt.Kamalamma had purchased the
above said property in the name of her minor son Sri.Umashankar as
natural guardian. Subsequently said Umashakar had sold the said property
through his lawful attorney who is none other than his father Sri.Thippa
Reddy in favour of defendant No.98 under sale deed dt. 08.08.2008.
334. Defendants Nos.94 to 96 after purchase of sites have
constructed residential houses which were demolished for the purpose of
construction of residential apartments.
335. The defendants Nos.94 to 98 being owners of their respective
portions of properties situated adjoining to each other were intending to
develop the property through a developer by way of putting up
construction of a multi-storied apartment have entered into Joint
303
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Development Agreement on 22.02.2017 with M/s.Sadhana Developer who
is arrayed as General Power of Attorney holder of defendants Nos.94 to
98. General Power of Attorney holder of defendants Nos.94 to 98 had put
up construction of residential apartments by raising loan from private
persons and from financial institutions. Late Sri.Hanuma Reddy has
disposed the portion of property retained by him in Sy.No.19 and his other
children have also sold their respective shares to 3 rd parties. The entire
Sy.No.19 had already been converted and buildings are constructed. These
properties were sold prior to 20.12.2004. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit
with costs.
336. My Predecessor in-office had framed the following:
: ISSUES in O.S.942/ 2001:
1. Do the plaintiffs prove that suit schedule properties
are the joint family properties as alleged?
304
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
2. Do the plaintiffs further prove that suit schedule
properties were allotted to the share of Hanuma
Reddy in the partition dated 30.09.1955?
3. Do the defendants Nos.1, 2 and 10 prove the
registered partition deed dated.29.11.1971?
4. Do the defendants 1 and 2 prove that the suit is barred
by limitation?
5. Do the defendants 1 and 2 prove that the suit schedule
properties are not available for partition?
6. Do the defendants 1 and 2 prove that the suit is bad for
non-joinder of necessary parties?
7. Do the defendants 1 and 2 prove that the court fee paid
on the plaint is inadequate?
8. Does defendants 3 prove that legal heirs of
Smt.Vijayamma and Smt.Savithramma are neessary
parties to the suit?
9. Does defendant No.4 prove that suit does not embrace
all the joint family properties as contended in para 11
of her written statement?
10. Are the plaintiffs entitled to 1/5th share in the suit
schedule properties?
11. Are plaintiffs entitled to an enquiry into mesne
profits?
305
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
12. Are plaintiffs entitled to the relief of permanent
injunction as sought for?
13. What Order or Decree?
Additional issues framed on 25.11.2009
14. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of
purchasers of apportionment ?
15. Whether court fee paid is insufficient?
16. Whether suit is not maintainable?
Additional issue framed on 07.07.2010
17. Whether the defendant No.9 is entitled for a share?
: ISSUES in O.S.No.476/ 2006:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, she become the
absolute owner of the suit schedule property in
pursuance of the registered Will executed by Hanuma
Reddy dated .14.5.1986?
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants have
put up construction on the suit schedule property by
violating the rights of the plaintiffs?
306
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
3. Whether the suit claim is barred by limitation?
4. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is hit by the
provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of
Mandatory Injunction as prayed for ?
6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits as
prayed for?
7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree as
prayed for?
8. What order or decree?
: ISSUES in O.S.No.1754 / 2006:
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that suit properties are
undivided joint family properties of the plaintiff and
defendants 1 to 30, 35 and 36?
2. Whether plaintiff has a share in the suit properties?
3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual
injunction sought for?
307
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
4. Whether defendant Nos.1, 2 and 21 to 23 prove the
oral partition alleged by them during the life time of
late Hanuma Reddy?
5. Whether defendant No.24 proves that suit item No.4
of 'C' schedule property was self acquired property
of H.M.Shamanna Reddy and therefore, plaintiff has
no right over the same?
6. Whether defendant No.24 proves that he has lawfully
purchased item No.4 of 'C' schedule property?
7. Whether defendants Nos.25 to 27 prove that they have
purchased validly 1 acre 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.10
of Hoodi village at item No.4 of 'C' schedule?
8. Whether defendants Nos.25 to 27 prove that they have
acquired title to 1 acre 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.10 of
Hoodi village at item No.4 of 'C' schedule?
9. Whether defendants Nos.28 and 29 prove that
registered partition deed dated 29.11.1971 was acted
upon and binding on the plaintiff?
10. Whether defendants Nos.28 and 29 prove that late
Hanuma Reddy executed registered Will dated
14.5.2006 out of his free will and sound mind?
11. Whether defendant No.31 proves that defendant
No.2 Sathyanarayana Reddy and his wife and
children were the owners of 1 acre 2 guntas of land in
308
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Sy.No.10/2 of Chinnappanahalli village, as pleaded in
Para-7 of the written statement?
12. Whether defendant No.31 proves that it has lawfully
entered into a joint development agreement with
defendant No.2 and his family?
13. Whether suit is not maintainable?
14. Whether suit is barred by res judicata?
15. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties?
16. Whether suit is barred by time?
17. Whether court fee paid is insufficient?
18. What order or decree?
Additional issue framed on 12.02.2014
19. Whether defendants Nos.81, 83 to 85 prove that they
are bonafide purchasers for valuable consideration?
Additional issue framed on 09.10.2018
20. Whether defendants 94 to 98 prove that, they are
bonafide purchasers of portion of suit properties?
309
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
337. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.942/2001,
Special power of attorney holder of 1 st plaintiff who is her son is examined
as Pw.2 (evidence of Pw.1 Smt. Vanamala in O.S.No.942/2001 is
discarded vide order dt.07.07.2010) and got marked 30 documents as per
Exs.P.1 to P.30. Ex.P.29 - Certified copy of the Joint Development
Agreement dated 09.06.2006 got marked under confrontation during cross-
examination of Dw.1- Sri.Santhosh Lukanth in O.S.No.942/2001. Again,
Certified copy of Partition deed dated 03.05.2012 got marked as Ex.P.29
for twice due to oversight under confrontation during cross-examination of
Dw.1 in O.S.No.1754/ 2006 instead of Ex.D.30. On behalf of defendants
side, authorized signatory of defendant No.15 Company and legal
representative of deceased defendant No.1 got examined as Dws.1 and 2
and got marked 14 documents as per Exs.D.1 to D.14.
In O.S.No.1754/ 2006 , power of attorney holder of plaintiff got
examined as Pw.1 and got marked 142 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.142.
On behalf of defendants, defendant No.29, General Power of Attorney
310
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
holder of defendants Nos.25, 26, 27, Special Power of attorney holder of
19th defendant, defendant No.42, defendant No.24, defendant No.88,
defendant No.49, defendant No.10, Special Power of Attorney holder of
legal heirs of defendants No.34(a) (b) and defendant No.97 are examined
as Dws.1 to 10 and got marked 242 as per Exs.D.1 to Ex.D.246. (Exs.114
to 121 were marked under confrontation during cross-examination of Pw.2
in O.S.No.942/2001 and Ex.D.231 to 235 were marked under
confrontation during cross-examination of Pw.1 in O.S.No.1754/2006)
338. Heard arguments on both sides. The learned counsels for
defendants Nos.15, 24 to 27, 34, 40 to 42, 88 and 90 have submitted their
separate written arguments.
The learned counsel for plaintiffs has relied upon the following
decisions:-
1) AIR 1999 SC 1441, in the case of Vidhyadhar v/s
Mankikrao and another
311
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
2) (2012) 8 SCC 148, in the case of Union of India v/s
Ibrahim Uddin and another
3) (2003) 8 SCC 740, in the case of Kashi Nath (dead)
through Lrs v/s Jaganath
4) KAR 2016 (1) 266, in the case of M.Narayana and
others v/s Ramakka and others
5) Civil Appeal 32601/ 2018, in the case of Vineeta
Sharma v/s Rakesh Sharma
6) (2018) 15 Supreme Court Cases 662, in the case of
Mangammal @ Thulasi and another v/s T.B.Raju and others
7) ILR 2014 KAR 2759 in the case of Rathnamma and
another v/s Hiriyamma and others
The learned counsel for defendants Nos.40 to 42, 88 and 90 in
OS.1754/2006 has relied upon the decision reported in SCC 2016 (2)
Page No.36, in the case of Prakash v/s Pulavathi.
I have gone through the above decisions.
339. My findings on the above Issues are as under:
In O.S.942/2001
Issue No.1 : In the Negative
312
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.4 : Does not survive for consideration
Issue No.5 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.6 : Does not survive for consideration
Issue No.7 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.8 : Does not survive for consideration
Issue No.9 : In the Negative
Issue No.10 : In the Negative
Issue No.11 : In the Negative
Issue No.12 : In the Negative
Issue No.13 : As per final order,
Additional Issue No.1 : In the Negative
Additional Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Additional Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative
Additional Issue No.4 : In the Negative
In O.S.476/ 2006
Court need not record any findings on issues Nos.1 to 7 in this suit.
Issue No.8 : As per final order
313
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
In O.S.No.1754/ 2006
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 Affirmative
Issue No.8 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.9 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.10 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.11 : Does not survive for consideration
Issue No.12 : Does not survive for consideration
Issue No.13 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.14 : In the Negative
Issue No.15 : Does not survive for consideration
Issue No.16 : Does not survive for consideration
Issue No.17 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.18 : As per final order, for the following
Additional Issue No.1 : Does not survive for consideration
314
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Additional Issue No.2 : Does not survive for consideration
REASONS
In support of their respective claims, parties have led their
evidence as under:-
340. In O.S.No.942/2001 son of plaintiff namely
Sri.Chandraprakash is examined as Pw.2 and has reiterated the contents of
plaint during his examination-in-chief.
During the course of his cross-examination, he has stated that, there
was a partition in the family of his great grandfather
Sri.Chikkamuniswamy Reddy in the year 1955 under registered Partition
Deed and 'C' schedule property was allotted to one of his son Sri.Hanuma
Reddy and said Sri. Hanuma Reddy died in the year 1991. At the time of
his death, entire 'C' schedule property remained intact. Children of late
Smt.Peddakka are not on record There was a registered partition deed
dt.29.11.1971 between Sri.Hanuma Reddy and his sons excluding his
daughters in respect of properties allotted to his share in 1955 and his
315
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
other properties. He has not claimed any relief in respect of Sy.No.8/1 and
8/2 of Chinnappanahalli village.
a) He has admitted that Sy.No.10/1 is granted to Sri.Hanuma
Redy and Sy.No.10/2 was granted to Sri.Chinnappa Reddy. Sy.No.8
belongs to Sri.H.M.Krishna Reddy s/o Sri.Chikka Muniswami and Sri.
Narayana Reddy. Sy.No.10 was not included in the partition of the year
1971. So far, no one has disputed the grant of Sy.No.10 and revenue
records, sale transaction in respect of Sy.No.10. He has admitted that, Sri.
Chinnappa Reddy has sold Sy.No.10 in favour of Sri.Sathya Narayana
Reddy under registered Sale Deed of the year 1983. They have not
challenged the said sale deed. Defendant No.2 had entered into Joint
Development Agreement with defendant No.15 who has constructed
residential apartment and defendant No.15 has taken permission of the
court for construction and sale of apartment and this order has not been
challenged.
316
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
b) Late Sri.Thippa Reddy had sold Sy.No.5/1, 6, 19, 13/2, 44
and 13/1 after the year 2001 and he has sold some lands prior to filing of
this suit and also sold properties acquired under 1971 partition as well as
other properties. Plaint schedule properties are not there in 1971 partition.
He does not know site numbers of one Sri.Dhanaraj, but they are in
Sy.No.19 of Chinnappanahalli village.
c) He has admitted that, they have constructed house in one site
of Sy.No.19 which was acquired by them under gift deed of the year 1971
executed by Sri.Hanuma Reddy and Sri.Hanuma Reddy has constructed
temple in Sy.No.19 during his life time. He does not know whether it is
mentioned in the Will of the year 1986 that after his death,
Sri.Sathayanarayana Reddy has to look after the said temple. After the
death of Sri.Hanuma Reddy, Sri.Sathayanarayana Reddy is looking after
the said temple.
317
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
d) He does not know how many items were allotted to 1 st
defendant in 1971 partition. He is admitting the partition of the year 1971.
He does not know whether after 1971 partition, defendants Nos.1 to 3
have purchased different properties. He has admitted that, after obtaining
permission from Government 1st and 2nd defendants were doing quarry
work in Sy.No.20. Defendant No.2 is in possession of Sy.Nos.19, 10/2,
13/2 14/3, 14/4, 19 and Gramatana Number 99. Defendant No.3 is in
possession of Sy.Nos.14/3, 14/4, 10/1, 19 and 20 etc. plaintiff No.1 here in
in possession of Sy.Nos.19 and 20 and plaintiff No.2 is in possession of
one site in Sy.No.19 and they are collecting monthly rent of Rs.1,000/-
from one house out of Sy.No.20. Some purchasers are in possession of
Sy.No.7 measuring 3 acres 7 guntas and hence, he came to know that
defendants Nos.1 to 3 have sold the same. He has not objected for
construction in Sy.No.12 and layout is formed in Sy.No.12 and buildings
are constructed and purchasers have constructed houses on their respective
sites. He has admitted that defendants Nos.1 to 3 have sold Sy.No.34 after
318
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
forming sites there and purchasers have constructed house on their
respective sites. Already 150 sheds were there in Sy.No.26 at the time of
filing this suit. He never objected for forming of layout in any of the suit
lands. He never asked income out of Sy.No.19/2. He does not know
whether defendants Nos.1 to 3 have purchased Sy.Nos.1, 2, 7, 12, 22, 23,
26, 28, 34 and 19/2 under registered sale deeds after the partition of the
year 1971. He has admitted that defendant No.1 has purchased
Sy.Nos.13/1, 13/2, 20 and 44 after 1971 partition. Defendant No.2 has
purchased one acre two guntas in Sy.No.10/2 and he was doing quarry
business.
e) As of now some portions of Sy.Nos.14/3, 14/2 and 19 are
developed and remaining is vacant. Late Sri.Hanuma Reddy has sold
Sy.No.19 during his life time. He has admitted that, Sy.No.13/1 is
purchased by defendant No.2. He does not know whether defendants
319
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Nos.1 to 3 have purchased other properties after filing this suit and he has
admitted that, he has included those properties in this suit.
f) There are two apartments in item No.17 of schedule 'D'
property and in the year 2005-2007 those apartments were under
construction and construction was completed in the year 2008-2010.
341. In support of his claim, he has produced the following
documents:-
Ex.P.1 - Certified copy of the registered Partition Deed
dated.30.09.1955 entered into between children of Muniswamy
Reddy i.e, 1) H.M.Shamanna Reddy, 2) H.M.Krishna Reddy, 3)
H.M.Hanuma Reddy 4) H.M.Veerappa Reddy, 5)
H.M.Chennappa Reddy, 5) H.M.Narayana Reddy and 7)
H.M.Kodanda Rama Reddy in respect of Sy.Nos.22, 23,24, 26,
27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 97, 98, 135/1, 19/2, 6/4, 148, 10, 12
62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 and 70
320
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.P.2 - Certified copy of the register No.8 with regard
to occupants in respect of Sy Nos.10, 3, 13, 23, 24, 15, 17, 2 and
20 of Chinnappanahalli village.
Ex.P.3 - Certified copy of the sale deed dated.17.01.1966
executed by Sri.Chikka Papareddy in favor of Sri.H.M.Hanuma
Reddy in respect of Sy.No.19.
Ex.P.4 - Certified copy of the Sale deed dated.26.06.1967
executed by Sri.H.M.Narayana Reddy, s/o Chikka Munishami
Reddy in favor of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy in respect of
Sy.No.5/2 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas of Chinnappanahalli
village.
Ex.P.5 - Certified copy of the Sale Deed
dated.21.06.1969 executed by Sri.M.Krishna Reddy and
Gurumurthy Reddy in favor of C.V.Abraham in respect of
Sy.No.16, New No.44/3.
Ex.P.6 - Certified copy of Mortgage Release Deed
dated.20.01.1977 executed by Secretary of Dodda Nakkundi
Seva Saharakara Sangha, Sri.H.M.Narayan in favor of
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy in respect of Sy.No.13/3 and Sale
321
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Deed dated.26.09.1968 executed by Sri. Krishna Reddy in
favour of Sri.Thippa Reddy in respect of Sy.No.44
Ex.P.7 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dated.20.11.1968
executed by H.M.Chinnappa Reddy and his sons in favor of
Sri.H.Thippa Reddy in respect of Sy.No.32.
Ex.P.8 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dated.14.05.1968
executed by H.M.Chinnappa Reddy and his sons in favor of
Sri.H.Thippa Reddy in respect of Sy.No.3/1.
Ex.P.9 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dated.21.11.1968
executed by Sri.H.M.Chinnappa Reddy and his sons in favor of
Sri.H.Sathya Narayana Reddy in respect of Sy.No.10/2.
Ex.P.10- Certified copy of Joint Development Agreement
dated. 27.01.2006 entered into between Smt.N.K.Nagaveni,
Smt.M.Dheena, Kum.Suma Reddy, Kum.Sowmya Reddy,
Sri.Sandeepa Reddy and M/s.Mahaveer Properties in respect of
property bearing Khata No.100, piece and parcel of property
36% built up area and 64% built up area situated at Khata
No.100.
322
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.P.11 - Certified copy of sale deed dated .13.12.2005
executed by Smt.Bhagyalakshmi and Sri.H.Venkatesha Reddy
in favor of Sri.Ravi Yadav in respect of property bearing No.5,
Khata No.99, 368 square feet property and Residential
Apartment No.209.
Ex.P.12- RTC extract for the year 2009-2010 of Khata
No.22, M.R.No.6364, Khata No.1, MR.Nos.5 and 6 in the name
of Arch Bishap and Bangalore Development Authority.
Ex.P.13- RTC extract for the year 2009-2010 of Khata
No.150, MR.No.3/1983-84 standing in the name of
H.Sathyanarayana Reddy,
Ex.P.14- RTC extract for the year 2009-2010 of Khata
No.33, MR.No.8/1987-88, 4/89-90, Katha No.1
M.R.No.1/2006-07 standing in the names of H.M.Hanuma
Reddy, Sathyanarayana Reddy, Venkatesh Reddy and Thippa
Reddy.
Ex.P.15- RTC extract
Ex.P.16- RTC extract for the year 2009-2010 of Khata
MR.No.3/1982-83, 1/76-77, 14/87-88, 2/88-1989 standing in
323
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
the names of Thippa Reddy, H.Ananthana Rama Reddy,
H.Venkatesh Reddy, Smt.Annamma, Abraham and
Sathaynarayana Reddy.
Ex.P.17- RTC extract for the year 2009-2010 of
MR.No.5/1989-90 and MR.No.3/1995-96 standing in the
names of Venkatesh Reddy and G.K.Suresh.
Ex.P.18- RTC extract for the year 2009-2010 of Katha
No.33, standing in the names of Hanuma Reddy, Venkatesh
Reddy, Sathyanarayana Reddy, Smt.T.Lakshmamma,
Sethumadhava, George Vargees and Thomas Vargees.
Ex.P.19- RTC extract of Katha No.1 standing in the name
of Smt.Lakshmi Devamma.
Ex.P.20- RTC extract for the year 2009-2010 of
Sy.No.10/1B, standing in the name P.Sukumaran.
Ex.P.21- RTC extract for the year 2009-2010 of
Sy.No.19/1C standing in the name of C.Umashankar
324
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.P.22- RTC extract for the year 2009-2010 of
Sy.No.14/3 standing in the names of Venkatesh Reddy and
Sri.Hanuma Reddy
Ex.P.23- RTC extract for the year 2009-2010 of Katha
No.1, standing in the name Sri.Sathayanarayana Reddy.
Ex.P.24- RTC extract for the year 2009-2010 of Katha
No.6, MR.No.12/199192 and Katha No.1, MR.No.3/1995-96
standing in the names of B.V.Radhakarishna, and G.K.Suresh
and Sri.Raghurama Reddy
Ex.P.25 RTC extract for the year 2009-2010 of Katha
No.16, MR.No.1//2005-06, IHC 1/87-88, M.R.No.4/2008-09,
standing in the names of M.R.Gurumurthy Reddy, Rajagopal
Reddy and Sri.Chikka Ramaiah.
Ex.P.26- RTC extract for the year 2009-2010 of Katha
No.155, MR.No.1/2000-2001 and Katha No.1, MR.No.5/2005-
2006 standing in the names of Smt.C.Girijamma, Bangalore
Development Authority.
325
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.P.27- RTC extract for the year 2009-2010 of Katha
No.7, MR.No.3/1987-88 and MR.No.2/1981-82 M.R.No.1/81-
82, and standing in the names of Venugopal Reddy.H.K,
Manohar Reddy.H.K, Thippa Reddy.H,
Ex.P.28- General Power of Attorney dated.24.03.2010
executed by Smt.Vanamala, Smt.Saramma in favour of
Sri.Chandra Prakash to contest the suit.
Ex.P.29- Certified copy of the Joint Development
Agreement dated .09.06.2006 entered into between
Smt.Vanajamma, Mr.Sathyanarayana Reddy, Mr.S.Ravi Kumar,
Mr.S.Narendra Babu and Mr.Rohan Associates in respect of
Sy.Nos.8/1, 8/2, 9, 10/2. (this document marked through
through Dw.1 Sri.Santhosh Lukand on 09.10.2018 in
O.S.942/2001)
Ex.P.30 - Certified copy of Partition deed
dated.03.05.2012 entered into between Sri.H.Thippa Reddy,
Smt.T.Kamalamma, Sri.T.Muralidhara, Sri.T.Vijay Kumar and
Sri.T.Umashankar in respect of property bearing No.21/3, 11,
15/1, 14/2, 14/1, 21, 23, 111, site bearing Nos.21, 22 and 22A,
326
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
(this document marked through Dw.1 on 26.10.2018 in
O.S.No.1754/2006)
342. As against this, authorized Signatory of defendant No.15
company Sri.Santhosh .B.Lunkad is examined as Dw.1 who has stuck to
his defence taken in the written statement of defendant No.15.
During his cross-examination, he has stated that, he has verified the
title of the property and issued paper publication in Deccan Herald
Newspaper before entering into joint development agreement with
defendant No.2. When they entered into agreement, at that time item No.4
of suit schedule 'A' properties, item No.10 of suit schedule 'D' properties
were vacant. There were some small houses surrounding the said
properties.
343. In support of his claim, he has produced following
documents:-
327
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.1 - Original authorization letter dated .11.12.2015
issued by Rohan Housing Pvt Ltd.
Ex.D.2 - Memorandum of Association and Articles of
Association of defendant No.15
Ex.D.3 - Certified copy of Form No.8 with regard to
occupants of Sy.Nos.10, 13, 23, 24, 15, 17, 2 and 20 of
Chinnappanahalli village.
Ex.D.4- 6 RTC extracts for the period 1972 to 1976 in
respect of Sy.No.10/1 standing in the name of Hanuma Reedy.
Ex.D.5- 6 RTC extracts for the period 1972-1976 in respect
of Sy.No.10/2 standing in the name of Sri.Sathyanarayana Reddy
Ex.D.6- Certified copy of Hissa Tippani of Sy.No.10 (2
pages)
Ex.D.7 - Certified copy of Pakka book ( 3 pages)
Ex.D.8 - Encumbrance certificate dated.1.4.1960 to 31.5.1989
of Sy.No.10/2 standing in the name of H.Sathyanarayana Reddy.
Ex.D.9 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dated .28.06.1983
executed by H.M.Chinnappa Reddy in favour of Sathyanarayana
Reddy in respect of Sy.No.10/2,
328
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Exs.D.10 to 12 - Certified copies of amended plaint
dated.3.9.2018, written statement dated.16.3.2011 of defendant
No.31 and order sheet in O.S.No.1754/2006.
Ex.D.13- Certified copy of speaking order dated .5.7.2011 in
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.14 - Certified copy of deposition and relevant portion of
cross-examination of Pw.1 in O.S.No.1754/2006.
344. In O.S.No.1754/ 2006 Pw.1 Smt.Lakshmi.H.G is a daugther-
in-law and power of attorney holder of plaintiff has reiterated the contents
of plaint during her examination-in-chief.
During the cross-examination, she has admitted that, Sy.No.10 of
Hoodi village measuring 13 acres 17 guntas is sold by Sri.Thippa Reddy.
Defendants Nos.25 to 27 have purchased 1 acre 5 guntas and they are in
possession of the same since 10-15 years. Sri.Thippa Reddy had
purchased the said land in the year 1967 for Rs.5,000/- out of his own
earnings. Again, she has stated that this property was purchased by
329
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Sri.Hanuma Reddy in the name of Sri.Thippa Reddy. But for this there are
no documents.
a) She has not objected Sri.Thippa Reddy for sale of said lands
in the year 1991 or 1992. Even she has not challenged any revenue entries
and mutations of said land. She has not claimed any relief against
defendants Nos.25 to 27. She has admitted that different purchasers have
put up constructions and in some portions compounds have been put up
since 10-15 years and the plaintiff has not objected for the same.
Sri.Thippa Reddy had still kept some portions vacant to the extent of 3
acres in Sy.No.10.
b) Plaintiff knew that, Sy.No.10 was sold by Sri.Thippareddy to
different persons at the time of filing suit itself. One Smt.Bhagyamma
grand daughter of Sri.Hanuma Reddy is not a party in this suit. Earlier,
plaintiff had filed another suit O.S.No.3859/ 2006 against defendants
330
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Nos.1 to 3 in respect of two properties of Sri.Hanuma Reddy's family,
which came to be withdrawn.
c) She has admitted that 1st defendant Thippa Reddy was
having quarry business and having license to run the quarry and was
carrying the said business since 1962-1963. In the year 2006, plaintiff
was about 63 years old. Late Sri.Hanuma Reddy retained some properties
and remaining properties were divided amongst his sons and revenue
records were changed in the names of his sons. Defendants Nos.1 to 3
have got converted some lands which they had got under partition.
Sri.Thippa Reddy had executed in respect of Sy.No.14/3 and 14/4 in
favour of his younger brother Sri.H.Venkatesh Reddy somewhere in the
year 2007 of 2008 and in-turn said Venkatesh Reddy had entered into a
Joint Development Agreement with some other persons.
d) Further she has stated that in Sy.No.44 sites have been
formed and sold in the year 1991. Sy.No.24 had not been fallen to the
331
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
share of Sri.Thippa Reddy in Ex.P.2 partition of the year 1971. late
Sri.Hanuma Reddy had retained 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.24 and later
defendants Nos.3 and 4 were given shares in the said land. After 1971,
name of Sri.Thippa Reddy has been appeared in the revenue records of
Sy.No.24 on the basis of sale deed executed by late Sri.Hanuma Reddy in
the year 1982 or 1983.
e) Further, late Sri.Hanuma Reddy executed registered Will in
respect of Sy.No.10/1 and 19 of Chinnappanahalli village in favour of his
sons and grandchildren. Further she has admitted that under the said Will
some properties are bequeathed in favour of her husband (i.e son of
Smt.Jayamma) and her husband has sold the property allotted under Will
in the year 2005 -2006 and that, while selling that property it is mentioned
the sale deed by her husband that the said property was acquired by him
under a will executed by his grandfather and there is a recital in the said
Will that late Sri.Hanuma Reddy had got properties under partition of the
332
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
year 1971. Further she has admitted that late Sri.Hanuma Reddy has
executed Gift Deed in favour of Smt.Sarasamma in respect of one of the
property acquired by him under partition of the year 1971 and in the said
gift deed, late Sri.Hanuma Reddy refers to the property acquired by him in
the partition of the year 1971. The property gifted in favour of
Smt.Sarasamma also included in this suit. In Sy.No.19, 3 ½ guntas was
given to temple under the Will of late Sri.Hanuma Reddy.
f) Further she has admitted that, 1st defendant had utilized the
sale consideration amount of the properties acquired by him under
partition for purchasing other properties in his name and defendants Nos.1
and 2 have not sold any property which was allotted to the share of late
Sri.Hanuma Reddy. Partition of the year 1971 was not challenged in the
court as on today.
g) Defendant No.24 has purchased 3 acres of land in Sy.No.10
of Hoodi village in the year 1972-73. Defendant No.1 has purchased entire
333
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
13 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village from H.M.Shamanna
Reddy and he has retained 3 acres 6 guntas and has sold the remaining
extent to different purchasers in the said land. Defendants Nos.25 to 30,
37 to 43 are purchasers of portion of land Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village. The
1st sale transaction is made by 1 st defendant in the year 1992-93 in respect
of Sy.No.10 and last transaction was made by him in favour of one
K.S.Ashwath in the year 2007-08.
h) Defendants Nos.31 and 32 have entered into Joint
Development Agreement with defendant No.2 in respect of Sy.No.10/2 of
Chinnappnahalli village and defendant No.33 is a lessee under 1st
defendant in respect of Sy.Nos.14/1, 14/2, 11 and 15 of Hoodi village.
She has clearly admitted that 1st defendant had purchased properties
which are leased out to defendant No.33.
i) During life time of Sri.Hanuma Reddy he has formed layout
and sold sites in 2 acres of land in Sy.No.19 in the year 1967. She has
334
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
admitted that, land Sy.No.19 was coming under Bangalore Bruhat
Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike at the time of filing this suit. One acre 20
guntas of land in Sy.No.20 is purchased by late Sri.Hanuma Reddy in the
name of his son Sri.Thippa Reddy from one Sri. H.M.Krishna Reddy in
the partition of the year 1972. Item No.5 of 'C' schedule property is
purchased by Sri.Thippa Reddy in the year 1968 and formed sites in the
year 1991-92 by Sri.Anantharama Reddy.
j) She has admitted that defendant No.2 was also agriculturist
and was a Chairman of Nallurahalli Panchayath and he was a CMC
Councilor and was having independent income from these sources. Late
Sri.Hanuma Reddy has not disputed partition of the year 1987. 1 st
defendant had purchased Sy.No.20 from one H.M.Kodandarama Reddy
and Sy.No.21 from one Smt.Annamma Abraham and purchased land
Sy.No.15/1 of Hoodi village from one Smt.Meenakshamma on
12.06.1985. Further wife of defendant No.1 had purchased land Sy.No.11
335
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
from one Sri. Venkatappa under sale deed dt. 16.10.2004 and 1st defendant
had purchased Sy.No.14/1 from one Sri.HC.Ramaswamy.
k) Further she has admitted that Sy.N.10 of Hoodi village i.e
item No.4 of 'C' schedule property as self acquired property of late
Chikkamuniswami Reddy and after his death his seven sons got divided
under registered partition deed dt. 30.09.1955 as per Ex.D.37. 1st
schedule pretty was allotted to H.M.Shamanna Reddy and 3rd schedule
property was allotted to late Sri.Hanuma Reddy and Sy.No.10 of Hoodi
village measuring 13 acres 10 guntas was allotted to H.M.Shamanna
Reddy under said partition. Property Sy.No.10 was mortgaged to one
Hoodi Co-operative Society Limited.
l) She has admitted that, property which was fallen to the share
of Sri.Vasanthaiah was given number as Sy.No.10/1B and revenue records
relating to 5 guntas of land standing in the name of defendant Nos.40 to
42 till today. The decree passed in O.S.N.401/1968 has not challenged by
336
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
the plaintiff or anyone. Defendant Nos.40 to 42 have converted 1 acre of
land and constructed industrial sheds. Sy.No.10 was sold by
Sri.H.M.Shamanna Reddy, Sri.Krishna Reddy, Sri.Hanuma Reddy and
Sri.Narayana Reddy in favour of Sri.Thippa Reddy.
m) She has admitted that, 3 acres 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.10
was sold to Srinivasa Reddy on 22.06.1985 by Sri.Vasanthaiah and 3 acres
5 guntas to Sri.L.Venkataraju on 09.09.1970. On 30.04.1963, an extent of
1 acre 3 guntas was granted to Sri.H.M.Chinnappa Reddy and no one has
challenged the said grant which is item No.11 of 'C' schedule property and
it was his self acquired property. The remaining one acre of land in
Sy.No.10 of Chinnappanahalli was granted to Sri.Hanuma Reddy and it is
phoded as Sy.No.10/1. Plaintiff is born prior to 1956.
n) Further, she has deposed regarding several sale transactions
and joint development agreements took place between the defendants/
purchasers.
337
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
345. She has produced the following documents:-
Ex.P.1 - Special Power of Attorney dt.21.01.2013
executed by Smt.H.Jayamma in favour of Smt.H.G.Lakshmi.
Ex.P.2 - Certified copy of partition Deed dt.29.11.1971
entered into between H.M.Hanuma Reddy s/o
Chikkamuniswamy Reddy and his children namely 1) H.Thippa
Reddy, 2)H.Sathyanarayana Reddy, 3) H.Venkatesha Reddy and
4) H.Anantharam in respect of land bearing Sy.Nos.23, 24, 10/1,
19, 23, 14/3, 14/4, 44, 19, 21, 23, 13/3, 19, 20, 24, 13/2 and tile
roofed house property bearing Kaneshumari No.1 and vacant
site adjoining to the house No.1.
Ex.P.3 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dt.26.06.1967
executed by Sri.Narayana Reddy in favour of H.M.Hanuma
Reddy in respect of Sy.No.5/2 of Chinnappanahalli village.
Ex.P.4 - Certified copy of sale deed dt.20.06.1968
executed by Smt.Kamalamma in favour of H.M.Hanuma Reddy
in respect of Sy.No.13.
338
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.P.5 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 03.10.1970
Mortgage deed in respect of Sy.No.3/1 and 5/2 at
Chinnappanahalli Village in favour Doddanakundi Seva Co-
operative Society.
Ex.P.6 - Certified copy of Register Sale Deed dt.
26.09.1968 executed by Sri. H.M.Krishna Reddy s/o late
Munishamireddy in favour of H.M.Thippa Reddy s/o Hanuma
Reddy in respect of Sy.No.44.
Ex.P.7 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 26.06.1967
executed by children of late Chikka Munishamireddy i.e 1)
H.M.Shamana Reddy, 2) M.Krishna Reddy, 3) H.M.Hanuma
Reddy, 4) H.M.Narayana Reddy in favour of Sri.H.M.Thippa
Reddy s/o Hanuma Reddy in respect of Sy.No.10 measuring 13
acres 10 guntas.
Ex.P.8 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dt.20.11.1968
executed by Sri.H.M.Chinnappa Reddy s/o Chikkamunishami
Reddy in respect of Sy.No.13/2.
Ex.P.9 - Certified copy of sale deed dt.21.11.1968
executed by H.C.Bhaskar Reddy and H.C.Raghu Rama Reddy
339
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
who are children of H.M.Chinnappa Reddy in favour of
Sri.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy in respect of Sy.No.10/2.
Ex.P.10 - Certified copy of sale deed 10.04.1975
executed by Sri.H.M.Kodanda Rama Reddy and his minor
children in favour of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy in respect of
Sy.No.20.
Ex.P.11 - Certified copy of sale deed dt.23.04.1988
executed by Mrs.Annamma Abraham, w/o T.V.Abraham in
favour of Sri.H.Thippa Reddy s/o Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy of
Chinnappanahalli village, in respect of Sy.No.21/2 to an extent
of 3 acres (including two guntas Kharab) of Chinnappanahalli
village.
Ex.P.12 - Certified copy of sale deed dt. 18.05.1987
executed by Smt.Yashodamma w/o H.M.Kodandarama Reddy
and her son Venugopal Reddy in favour of Sri.H.M.Thippa
Reddy in respect of Sy.No.22 of Chinnappanahalli measuring 4
guntas.
Ex.P.13 - Certified copy of sale deed dt.04.04.1988
executed by Sri.Papaiah Reddy s/o Thayappa Reddy in favour of
Sri.T.Muralidhar in respect of Sy.No.14/2.
340
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.P.14 - Certified copy of sale deed dt.16.01.1995
executed by 1) H.C.Govindappa s/o late Chinnappa and his
sons, 2) H.G.Muniswamy, 3) H.G.Srinivas, 4)
H.G.Raghavendra, in favour of Sri.Thippa Reddy in respect of
Sy.No.14/1 measuring 29 guntas of Hoodi village, K.R.Puram,
Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk.
Ex.P.15 - Certified copy of sale deed dt.13.12.2004
executed by Sri.H.C.Ramaswamy, Sri.Aswath, Sri.Muniraju,
Sri.Manjunath and Sri.Ranganath in favour of Sri.H.Thippa
Reddy in respect of Sy.No.14/1 measuring 29 guntas.
Ex.P.16- Certified copy of sale deed dt.12.06.1985
executed by Smt.Meenakshamma, w/o late Muniyappa Reddy
in favour of Sri.H.Krishna Redy s/o H.M.Hanuma Reddy in
respect of Sy.No.15/1 measuring 2 acres 15 guntas.
Ex.P.17 - Certified copy of lease deed dt.29.04.2004
entered into between Mr.H.Thippa Reddy, Mr.T.Muralidhara,
Mr.T.Vijay Kumar and T.Umashankar and Goodrich Aerospace
Services Private Limited in respect of immovable property
being the land and building situated at Sy.Nos.14/1 and 15/1 of
Hoodi village, Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore South Taluk.
341
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.P.18 - Certified copy of Lease Deed dt.12.04.2007
entered into between Mr.H.Thippa Reddy, Smt.Kamalamma,
Mr.T.Muralidhara, Mr.T.Vijay Kumar, T.Umashankar, T.Kiran
Kumar and Goodrich Aerospace Services Private Limited in
respect of immovable properties being the land in Sy.Nos.14/1,
14/2, 15/1 and 11 Hoodi village, Krishnarajapuram, Bangalore
South Taluk.
Ex.P.19 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dt.20.01.1977
executed by Doddanikundi Seeva co-operative society in
favour of Sri.H.M.Narayan Reddy in respect of Sy.No.13/3
measuring 1 acre 1 gunta and Sy.No.14/3 measuring 0.35 ½
guntas.
Ex.P.20 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dt.18.12.1961
executed by Sri.H.M.Narayana Reddy s/o Chikka Munishami
Reddy in favour of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy in respect of
Sy.No. 1 and 2, At Chinnappanahalli Village.
Ex.P.21 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dt.12.12.2003
executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni w/o late H.Anatharam Reddy,
Smt.Dheena, Smt.Suma Reddy, Smt.Sowmya Reddy,
Sri.Sandeepa Reddy who are all children of late
342
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
H.Anantharama Reddy in favour of Sri.R.Venkatesh in respect
of Sy.No.14/2
Ex.P.22 - Certified copy of order sheet in L.R.2256 and
2258 of 1979-80.
Ex.P.23 - Certified copy of sale deed dt.17.02.1994
executed by Sri.H.Thippa Reddy s/o H.M.Hanuma Reddy in
favour of Sri.G.V. Chandrashekar s/o G.T.Venkata Swamy
Reddy in respect of Old Sy.No.10, New Sy.No.10/1A, situated
at Narayanapura Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.
Ex.P.24 - Certified copy of occupation register extract
showing the holder name as H.M.Hanuma Reddy of
Chinnappanahalli.
Ex.P.25 - Genealogical tree of Chikkamunishami Reddy
Ex.P.26 - Certified copy of sale deed dt.26.1.1985
executed by Sri.Vasanthaiah.M.G s/o Gopalaiah in favour of
of 1) Srinivasa Reddy, 2) N.Thimma Reddy and 3) N.Gopal
Reddy in respect of in respect of Sy.No.10. Measuring 3.5
guntas.
343
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.P.27 - Certified copy of sale deed dt.15.09.1994.
Executed by H. Thippa reddy in favour of H.B.Sudheer in
respect of old Sy.No.10, new Sy.No.10/1A
Ex.P.28 - Certified copy of sale deed dt.11.03.1992
executed by Sri.Hanuma Reddy s/o ThippaReddy in favour of
Sri.Aswath s/o S.Krishnappa in respect of Sy.No.10/1A.
Ex.P.29 - Certified copy of Form No.10 in favour of
H.M. Hanumareddy of Sy.No.5/1, 6, 14/2 by Tahasildar
Bengaluru south.
Ex.P.30 - Certified copy of Joint Development
Agreement dt.07.09.2007 entered into between
Sri.G.K.Suresh, H.Sathyanarayana Reddy and others and
M/s.Vijetha Constructions in respect of Sy.No.13/2, 13/3, 14/3
and 13/1.
Ex.P31 RTC extract MR. No. 3/10 in respect of
Sy.No.10/1A standing in the name of H.B. Sudeer.
Ex.P.32 RTC extract for the year 2010 -2011 in respect
of Sy.No.10/1A1.
344
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.P.33 RTC extract for the year 2010 - 2011 in respect
of Sy.No.10- 1B-P3 standing in the name of Srineevasa Reddy,
Thimma Reddy, Gopal Reddy.
Ex.P.34 RTC extract in respect of Sy.No.10- 1B-P3
standing in the name of Srineevasa Reddy, Thimma Reddy,
Gopal Reddy.
Ex.P35 - RTC MR.No.12/1991-92 and MR.No.4/10 for
the year 2010-11 in respect of Sy.No.13/2 standing in the name
of B.V. Radha Krishna and G.K. Suresh.
Ex.P36 - RTC extract in respect of Sy.No.11 standing in
the name of Sri.N.M. Narendra Reddy, R. Sheshareddy.
Kamallama D.Aravinda, Smt. Nagasatya Latha.
Ex.P37 - RTC extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of
of SY.No. 14/2 standing in the name of T.Muralidhar.
Ex.P38 - RTC extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of
SY.No. 11 standing in the names of G.K Suresh, T
Kirankumar, G.K. Ganesh.
Ex.P.39 - RTC in respect of Sy.No.10 for the period
2003-04 standing in the name of Krishna Reddy, Hanuma
345
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Reddy Veerappa Reddy Sathya Narayana Reddy Thippa Reddy
Venkatesha Reddy, Sathyanarayana Reddy, Hanuma Reddy.
Ex.P.40 - RTC extract for the year 2004-05 in respect of
SY.No. 10/1 standing in the names of Venkatesh Reddy and
G.K Suresh.
Ex.P41 - RTC extract for the year 2004-05 in respect of
SY.No. 19/1A standing in the names of Sathyanarayana Reddy,
Venkatesh Reddy, P.Lakshmamma, George Vargees and Sethu
Madav.
Ex.P42 - RTC extract for the year 2003-04 in respect of
SY.No. 28 standing in the names of Thippa Reddy, Hanuma
Reddy, Sathyanarayana Reddy and Venkatesh Reddy.
Ex.P43 - RTC extract for the year 2003-04 in respect of
SY.No. 44/1B standing in the names of Thippa Reddy, Krishna
Reddy, Nanja Reddy, Y.Srinivas Reddy and Ashwathnarayana
Reddy.
Ex.P44 - RTC extract for the year 2004-05 in respect of
Sy.No.1A.P2 MR.No.24/1993-94, Khatha No.145 standing in
the name of Sri.G.V.Chandrashekar.
346
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Exs.P.45 to 47 - RTC extracts from the period 2010-
2011 in respect of Sy.Nos.14/3, 13/3, 14/4 standing in the
name of SriSri.H.Venkatesh Reddy.
Ex.P.48 - RTC extract for the year 2010-2011 in respect
of Sy.No.5/1 and Khatha No.150 standing in the names of
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy
Ex.P.49 - RTC extract for the year 2010-2011 of
Sy.No.6 standing in the name of Sri.H.M. Hanuma Reddy,
Khatha No.26.
Ex.P.50 - RTC extract for the year 2010-2011 of
Sy.No.14/2 in the names of H.Venkatesh Reddy and Hanuma
Reddy, R. Venkatesh.
Ex.P.51- RTC extract for the year 2010-2011 of
Sy.No.13/1 in the names of Hanumareddy and
Sri.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy,
Ex.P.52- Endorsement dt.10.08.2005 issued by Taluk
Sheristedar, Krishnarajapuram
347
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Exs.P.53 to 56 - Tax demand register extracts Khata
Nos.99, 100, 99, 99 standing in the name of
Smt.Bhagyalakshmi w/o H.Venkatesh Reddy,
Smt.N.K.Nagaveni, H.Thippa Reddy and H.Sathyanarayana
Reddy of Chinnappanahalli village.
Ex.P.57- Certified copy of sale deed dt.17.01.1966
executed by Sri.Papa Redddy s/o Venkatappa Reddy in favour
of Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy in respect of Sy.No.19 measuring 7
acres 17 guntas.
Ex.P.58 -RTC extract from the period 1998-99 to 2001-
02 in respect of Sy.No.23 standing in the names of H.Thippa
Reddy, H.Sathyanarayana Reddy, Hanuma Reddy, Venkatesh
Reddy.
Ex.P.59- RTC extract from the period from 1993- 94 to
1997-98 in respect of Sy.No.23 standing in the names of
H.Thippa Reddy, H.Sathyanarayana Reddy, Hanuma Reddy,
Venkatesh Reddy.
348
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.P.60 - RTC extract for the year 1988- 89 in respect
of Sy.No.23 standing in the names of H.Thippa Reddy,
H.Sathyanarayana Reddy, Hanuma Reddy, Venkatesh Reddy.
Ex.P.61 RTC extract for the year 1979 -80 in respect
of Sy.No.23 standing in the name Sri. Hanuma Reddy.
Ex.P.62 -RTC extract from the period 1998-99 to 2001-
02 of Sy.No.10/1, Khatha No.25, standing in the names of
H.Venkatesh Reddy, G.K.Suresh, Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy,
Ex.P.63 RTC extract for the year 1993 to 1998 in
respect of Sy.No.10/2 standing in the name of the Sathya
Narayana Reddy
Ex.P.64 - RTC extract in respect of Sy/No.10/1
standing in the name of the H. Venkatesh Reddy
Ex.P.65 - RTC Extract for the year 1988 - 1991 in
respect of Sy.No.10/1, Khatha No.3 standing in the name of
Hanuma Reddy and Venkatesh Reddy
349
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.P.66. RTC extract from the period 1982 to 1987 in
respect of Sy.No.10/1 standing in the name of H.M. Hanuma
Reddy
Ex.P.67 RTC extract from the period 1978 to 1981 in
respect of Sy.No.10/1 standing in the the name of the H.M.
Hanuma Reddy
Ex.P.68 - RTC extract from the period 1972 to 1976 in
respect of Sy.No.10/1 standing in the name of
Sri.H.M.Hanuma Reddy.
Ex.P.69 RTC extract from the period 1998-99 and 1999-
2000 in respect of Sy.No.24 standing in the names of
H.Thippa Reddy, H.Sathaynarayana Reddy, Sri.H.Venkatesh
Reddy, H.Anantharama Reddy.
Ex.P.70 RTC extract for the years 1978-79 to 1999-2000
in respect of Sy.No.20 standing in the names of H.Thippa
Reddy, H.Sathaynarayana Reddy, Sri.H.Venkatesh Reddy,
H.M. Krishna Reddy H.M. Veerappa Reddy and H.M. Hanuma
Reddy.
350
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.P.71 RTC extract for the years 1993 to 1997 in
respect of Sy.No.20, Khatha No.150 standing in the names of
H.Thippa Reddy, H.Sathaynarayana Reddy, Sri.H.Venkatesh
Reddy, H.M. Krishna Reddy H.M. Veerappa Reddy and H.M.
Hanuma Reddy.
Ex.P.72 RTC extract for the years 1988 to 1991 in
respect of Sy.No.20 Khatha No.150, standing in the names of
H.Thippa Reddy, H.Sathaynarayana Reddy, Sri.H.Venkatesh
Reddy, H.M. Krishna Reddy H.M. Hanuma Reddy.
Ex.P.73 RTC extract for the years 1982 to 1987 in
respect of Sy.No.20 Khatha No.42 standing in the names of
H.Thippa Reddy, H.Sathaynarayana Reddy, H.M. Krishna
Reddy H.M. Veerappa Reddy and H.M. Hanuma Reddy.
Ex.P.74 RTC extract for the years 1978 to 1981 in
respect of Katha No.42 standing in the names of H.Thippa
Reddy, H.Sathaynarayana Reddy, H.M. Krishna Reddy H.M.
Veerappa Reddy and H.M. Hanuma Reddy.
351
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.P.75 and Ex.P.76 - RTC extracts from the period
1982 to 1988 in respect of Sy.No.24, Khatha No.50 and 3,
standing in the names of H.Thippa Reddy, Sri.H.Venkatesh
Reddy, Sri.Anantharama Reddy, H.Sathaynarayana Reddy,
H.M. Hanuma Reddy and Abraham.
Ex.P.77 - RTC extract from the years 1973-1977 in
respect of Sy.No.24 standing in the names of H.M.Hanuma
Reddy, H.Thippa Reddy and H.Sathyanarayana Reddy.
Exs.P.78 to 80- RTC extract for the years 1988-89,
1993-94, 1994-95 and 1998-99 in respect of Sy.No.44
standing in the names of M.J.Thomas, P.G.M.Vargees,
V.Devaraju, C.V.Abraham, Nishal Asma, Chinnnappa Raju,
Saragali.M and others.
Ex.P.81 - RTC extract in respect of Sy.No.44 standing
in the name of Krishna Reddy.
Ex.P.82- RTC extracts for the year 1988-2000 in respect
of Sy.No.19/1A standing in the names of H.Sathyanarayana
Reddy, H.Venkatesh Reddy, Smt.P.Lakshmamma and others .
352
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.P.83- RTC extracts for the year 1993-1997 in respect
of Sy.No.19/1A standing in the names of H.Sathyanarayana
Reddy, H.Venkatesh Reddy, Smt.P.Lakshmamma and others
Ex.P.84- RTC extracts for the year 1988-2000 in respect
of Sy.No.19/1A standing in the names of H.Sathyanarayana
Reddy, H.Venkatesh Reddy, Smt.P.Lakshmamma and others
Ex.P.85 - RTC extracts for the year 1997-2001 in
respect of Sy.No.10/1A standing in the names of H.Thippa
Reddy, G.V.Chandrashekar, C.Ramakrishnappa,
A.Annadasappa and others
Ex.P.86 - RTC extract for the year 1992-1997 in respect
of Sy.No.10/1A, Khatha No.220 standing in the names of
H.Thippa Reddy, G.V.Chandrashekar, C.Ramakrishnappa,
A.Annadasappa, Aswath Reddy and others.
Ex.P.87 - RTC extract for the year 1987 to 1991 in
respect of Sy.No.10 standing in the names of H.Thippa Reddy,
Venkataramana Raju, Srinivash Reddy and Gopal Reddy
others. Khatha No.220.
353
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.P.88 - RTC extract for the year 1982 to 1985 in
respect of Sy.No.10, Khatha No.220, standing in the names of
H.Thippa Reddy, Venkataramana Raju, Srinivash Reddy and
Gopal Reddy others.
Exs.P.89 - RTC extract for the year 1976 to 1981 in
respect of Sy.No.10 standing in the names of M.G. Vasantaiah,
H.Thippa Reddy, Venkata Raju.
Ex.P.90- Certified copy of Joint Development
Agreement dated 27.01.2006 entered into between N.K.
Nagaveni and others and M/s Mahaveer Properties.
Ex.P.91 - Certified copy of absolute sale deed
dt.26.05.2007 executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni, Smt.M.Dheena,
Kum. Suma Reddy, Kum Sowmya Reddy and Sri.Sandeep
Reddy, represented by their General Power of Attorney holder
Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and M/s.Mahaveer Properties in favour of
Sri.Ramanjulu.A.K, Sri.Jayakishore Pagadala, Srikanth @
Venkata, Sri.Vegi Srinivas, in respect of Property bearing
CMC Khata No.100, residential apartment No.104.
354
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.P.92 - Certified copy of absolute sale deed
dt.26.05.2007 executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni, Smt.M.Dheena,
Kum. Suma Reddy, Kum Sowmya Reddy and Sri.Sandeep
Reddy, represented by their General Power of Attorney holder
Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and M/s.Mahaveer Properties in favour of
Sri.Ramanjulu.A.K, Sri.Jayakishore Pagadala, in respect of
Property bearing CMC Khata No.100, residential apartment
No.202.
Ex.P.93 - Certified copy of absolute sale deed
dt.26.05.2007 executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni, Smt.M.Dheena,
Kum. Suma Reddy, Kum Sowmya Reddy and Sri.Sandeep
Reddy, represented by their General Power of Attorney holder
Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and M/s.Mahaveer Properties in favour of
Sri.Ramanjulu.A.K, Sri.Jayakishore Pagadala, Srikanth @
Venkata, in respect of Property bearing CMC Khata No.100,
residential apartment No.302.
Ex.P.94 - Certified copy of absolute sale deed
dt.26.05.2007 executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni, Smt.M.Dheena,
Kum. Suma Reddy, Kum Sowmya Reddy and Sri.Sandeep
355
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Reddy, represented by their General Power of Attorney holder
Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and M/s.Mahaveer Properties in favour of
Sri. Vegi Srinivash in respect of Property bearing CMC
Khata No.100, residential apartment No.401.
Ex.P.95 - Certified copy of sale deed dt.06.06.2007
executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni, Smt.M.Dheena, Kum. Suma
Reddy, Kum Sowmya Reddy and Sri.Sandeep Reddy,
represented by their General Power of Attorney holder
Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and M/s.Mahaveer Properties in favour of
Sri.Anil Kumar in respect of Property bearing CMC Khata
No.100, residential apartment No.304.
Ex.P.96 - Certified copy of sale deed dt.06.06.2007
executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni, Smt.M.Dheena, Kum. Suma
Reddy, Kum Sowmya Reddy and Sri.Sandeep Reddy,
represented by their General Power of Attorney holder
Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and M/s.Mahaveer Properties in favour of
Sri.S.Lingesh Kumar in respect of Property bearing CMC
Khata No.100, residential apartment No.201.
356
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.P.97- Certified copy of sale deed dt. 23.06.2007
executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni, Smt.M.Dheena, Kum. Suma
Reddy, Kum Sowmya Reddy and Sri.Sandeep Reddy,
represented by their General Power of Attorney holder
Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and M/s.Mahaveer Properties in favour of
Sri.Amitava Paul and Smt.Kaveri.B.K in respect of Property
bearing CMC Khata No.100, residential apartment No.402.
Ex.P.98- Certified copy of sale deed dt. 10.07.2007
executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni, Smt.M.Dheena, Kum. Suma
Reddy, Kum Sowmya Reddy and Sri.Sandeep Reddy,
represented by their General Power of Attorney holder
Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and M/s.Mahaveer Properties in favour of
Sri.Rajeev Kumar Gupta and Smt.Nidhi Gupat in respect of
Property bearing CMC Khata No.100, residential apartment
No.301.
Ex.P.99- Certified copy of sale deed dt. 13.09.2007
executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni, Smt.M.Dheena, Kum. Suma
Reddy, Kum Sowmya Reddy and Sri.Sandeep Reddy,
represented by their General Power of Attorney holder
Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and M/s.Mahaveer Properties in favour of
357
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Sri.T.Sunil Kumar and Smt.T.N.L.Shilpa in respect of
Property bearing CMC Khata No.100, residential apartment
No.206.
Ex.P.100- Certified copy of sale deed dt. 15.10.2007
executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni, Smt.M.Dheena, Kum. Suma
Reddy, Kum Sowmya Reddy and Sri.Sandeep Reddy,
represented by their General Power of Attorney holder
Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and M/s.Mahaveer Properties in favour of
Dr.Hiremath Vamadevaiah in respect of Property bearing
CMC Khata No.100, residential apartment No.404.
Ex.P.101- Certified copy of sale deed dt. 28.11.2007
executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni, Smt.M.Dheena, Kum. Suma
Reddy, Kum Sowmya Reddy and Sri.Sandeep Reddy,
represented by their General Power of Attorney holder
Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and M/s.Mahaveer Properties in favour
of Sri.K.Mohan Das in respect of Property bearing CMC
Khata No.100, residential apartment No.204.
Ex.P.102- Certified copy of sale deed dt. 05.12.2007
executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni, Smt.M.Dheena, Kum. Suma
358
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Reddy, Kum Sowmya Reddy and Sri.Sandeep Reddy,
represented by their General Power of Attorney holder
Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and M/s.Mahaveer Properties in favour
of Sri.R.Padmanaban in respect of Property bearing CMC
Khata No.100, residential apartment No.102.
Ex.P.103 - Certified copy of sale deed dt. 04.02.2006
executed by Dr.T.N.Achaiah, Smt.Chenanda Nirmala Mudapa,
Sri.P.M.Achaiah, Sri.P.G.Muthappa represented by their
attorney holder Smt.T.R.Padmavathi and M/s.Roma Builders
and Developers in favour of Smt.Radha.H.Gowda in respect of
property bearing CMC katha Nos.6, 7 and 13, Residential
Apartment bearing No.304 and other properties.
Ex.P.104 - Certified copy of sale deed dt. 22.02.2006
executed by Dr.T.N.Achaiah, Smt.Chenanda Nirmala Mudapa,
Sri.P.M.Achaiah, Sri.P.G.Muthappa represented by their
attorney holder Smt.T.R.Padmavathi and M/s.Roma Builders
and Developers in favour of Sri.Palicherla Sareen Kumar
Reddy in respect of property bearing CMC katha Nos.6, 7 and
13, Residential Apartment bearing No.303 and other
properties.
359
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.P.105 - Certified copy of sale deed dt. 06.03.2006
executed by Dr.T.N.Achaiah, Smt.Chenanda Nirmala Mudapa,
Sri.P.M.Achaiah, Sri.P.G.Muthappa represented by their
attorney holder Smt.T.R.Padmavathi and M/s.Roma Builders
and Developers in favour of Sri. Medidam Naga Venkata
Chandra Mohan in respect of property bearing CMC katha
Nos.6, 7 and 13, Residential Apartment bearing No.104 and
other properties.
Ex.P.106 - Certified copy of sale deed dt. 06.03.2006
executed by Dr.T.N.Achaiah, Smt.Chenanda Nirmala Mudapa,
Sri.P.M.Achaiah, Sri.P.G.Muthappa represented by their
attorney holder Smt.T.R.Padmavathi and M/s.Roma Builders
and Developers in favour of Majety Suryanarayana Murthy
and Smt.Gokavarapu Lakshmi Nagavenkata Saritha in respect
of property bearing CMC katha Nos.6, 7 and 13, Residential
Apartment bearing No.204 and other properties.
Ex.P.107 - Certified copy of sale deed dt. 07.04.2006
executed by Dr.T.N.Achaiah, Smt.Chenanda Nirmala Mudapa,
Sri.P.M.Achaiah, Sri.P.G.Muthappa represented by their
360
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
attorney holder Smt.T.R.Padmavathi and M/s.Roma Builders
and Developers in favour of Sri.Bachupally Amarendra in
respect of property bearing CMC katha Nos.6, 7 and 13,
Residential Apartment bearing No.103 and other properties.
Ex.P.108 - Certified copy of sale deed dt. 07.04.2006
executed by Dr.T.N.Achaiah, Smt.Chenanda Nirmala Mudapa,
Sri.P.M.Achaiah, Sri.P.G.Muthappa represented by their
attorney holder Smt.T.R.Padmavathi and M/s.Roma Builders
and Developers in favour of Sri.Linga Hari Krishna Prasad in
respect of property bearing CMC katha Nos.6, 7 and 13,
Residential Apartment bearing No.203 and other properties.
Ex.P.109- Certified copy of Memorandum of Joint
Development Agreement dt.13.12.2004 entered into between
Smt. Bhagyalakshmi, Sri.Venkatesha Reddy and M/s
Mahaveer Properties, rept by Sri.K.Praveen and Sri.P.Sathya
Shekar in respect of property bearing Katha No.22 of CMC,
Mahadevapura.
Ex.P.110- Certified copy of Agreement dt. 28.10.2005
entered into between Sri.R.Venkatesh and M/s.Keerthana
361
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Constructions, rept by its Partners Smt.P.Saraswathi,
Sri.B.Chiranjeevi Sri.P.Madhusudhana Reddy in respect of
property measuring an extent of 15 guntas in Sy.No.14/2,
situated at Chinnappanahalli village.
Ex.P.111- Certified copy of absolute Sale Deed dt.
13.02.2004 executed by Mr.K.Aswath, s/o late N.Krishnappa
in favour of M/s.Golden Gate Properties in respect of
immovable property being the residentially converted land
forming portion of Sy.No.10/1A of Hoodi village. Measuring 5
and ¾ guntas.
Ex.P.112 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 24.02.1992
executed by Sri.Anantha Ramaiah in favour of B.E.Radha in
respect of Sy.No.13/2.
Ex.P.113- Certified copy of the order sheet in
O.S.No.942/ 2011
Ex.P.114- Certified copy of Lease Agreement dated
19.11.2012 executed by Sri.T.Muralidar in favour of defendant
362
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
No.86 in respect of Sy.No.23 i.e item No.1 of suit schedule 'A'
property.
Ex.P.115- Certified copy of Sale Deed dt.08.08.2008
executed by Sri.T.Umashankar in favour of defendant No.98
in respect of Sy.No.19 i.e portion of item No.3 of suit schedule
'B' property.
Ex.P.116- Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 12.07.2002
executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni and Smt.M.Deena in favour of
defendant No.96 in respect of Sy.No.19 i.e portion of item
No.3 of suit schedule 'B' property.
Ex.P.117- Certified copy of Gift Deed dt. 16.11.2002
executed by Sri.Kashivishwanath in favour of K.Srinivas,
defendant No.96 in respect of Sy.No.19 i.e portion of item
No.3 of suit schedule 'B' property.
Ex.P.118- Certified copy of Joint Development
Agreement dated. 22.02.2017 entered into between defendant
Nos.94, 96, 97, 98 and Sadana Developers in respect of
Sy.No.19 i.e portion of item No.3 of suit schedule 'B' property.
363
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.P.119- Agreement of Sal Deed dt. 08.06.2018
executed by defendant Nos.94, 95, 96, 97, 98 in favour of
Sadana Developers and defendant No.99 in respect of
Sy.No.19 i.e portion of item No.3 of suit schedule 'B' property.
Ex.P.120- Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 08.08.2013
executed by IREST Technologies Pvt Ltd., in favour of
defendants Nos.94 and 95 in respect of Sy.No.19 i.e portion of
item No.3 of suit schedule 'B' property.
Ex.P.121- Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 04.04.1988
executed by Sri.T.Papaiah Reddy in favour of T.Muralidhar in
respect of Sy.No.14/2 i.e item No.12 of suit schedule 'C'
property.
Ex.P.122- Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 16.10.2004
executed by Sri.H.K.Venkatappa and others in favour of Lrs
of defendant No.1 in respect of Sy.No.13 of suit schedule 'C'
property.
Ex.P.123- Certified copy of Gift Deed dt. 12.12.2013
executed by Sri.M.Srinivas Reddy/ defendant No.40 in favour
364
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
of Sri.M.S.Krishna Kumar in respect of portion of item No.4
of suit schedule 'C' property.
Ex.P.124- Certified copy of Rectification Deed dt.
12.01.2015 executed by Sri.M.Srinivas Reddy/defendant
No.40 in favour of Sri.M.S.Krishna Kumar in respect of
portion of item No.4 of suit schedule 'C' property.
Ex.P.125- Certified copy of Release Single Partition
Deed dt. 31.03.2000 executed by Sri.Annadanappa -defendant
No.37 in favour of Smt.T.N.Bhagya- defendant No.89 in
respect of portion of item No.4 of suit schedule 'C' property.
Ex.P.126- Certified copy of Joint Development
Agreement dt. 29.01.2012 entered into between Sri.Thimma
Reddy defendant No.41 and defendant No.90 in respect of
portion of item No.4 of suit schedule 'C' property.
Ex.P.127- Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 21.06.2013
executed by Sri.Thimma Reddy- Defendant No.41 and
defendant No.90 in favour of Sri.Yeshwantha Reddy in respect
of portion of item No.4 of suit schedule 'C' property.
365
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.P.128- Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 25.11.2013
executed by Sri.Thimma Reddy - defendant No.41 and
defendant No.90 in favour of K.Lavanayya in respect of
portion of item No.4 of suit schedule 'C' property.
Ex.P.129- Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 27.11.2013
executed by Sri.Thimma Reddy - defendant No.41 and
defendant No.90 in favour of Sri. Hariprasanth Raju in
respect of portion of item No.4 of suit schedule 'C' property.
Ex.P.130- Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 09.12.2013
executed by Sri.Thimma Reddy - defendant No.41 and
defendant No.90 in favour of Jangalktalle in respect of
portion of item No.4 of suit schedule 'C' property.
Ex.P.131- Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 27.11.2013
executed by Sri.Thimma Reddy - defendant No.41 and
defendant No.90 in favour of Sri.M.Devendra Reddy in
respect of portion of item No.4 of suit schedule 'C' property.
Ex.P.132- Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 06.02.2014
executed by Sri.Thimma Reddy - defendant No.41 and
366
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
defendant No.90 in favour of P.Sriramulu Reddy in respect of
portion of item No.4 of suit schedule 'C' property.
Ex.P.133- Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 20.02.2014
executed by Sri.Thimma Reddy - defendant No.41 and
defendant No.90 in favour of Sri.Venkata Ravi Kumar Allidi
in respect of portion of item No.4 of suit schedule 'C' property.
Ex.P.134- Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 02.04.2014
executed by Sri.Thimma Reddy - defendant No.41 and
defendant No.90 in favour of P.Haritha in respect of portion
item No.4 of suit schedule 'C' property.
Ex.P.135- Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 03.07.2013
executed by Sri.Thimma Reddy - defendant No.41 and
defendant No.90 in favour of Sri.V.Babar Saheb in respect of
portion item No.4 of suit schedule 'C' property.
Ex.P.136- Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 10.07.2013
executed by Sri.Thimma Reddy - defendant No.41 and
defendant No.90 in favour of Parulshali and Nella Bhmam in
respect of portion item No.4 of suit schedule 'C' property.
367
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.P.137- Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 18.07.2013
executed by Sri.Thimma Reddy - defendant No.41 and
defendant No.90 in favour of Parulshali and Nella Bhmam in
respect of portion item No.4 of suit schedule 'C' property.
Ex.P.138- Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 19.07.2013
executed by Sri.Thimma Reddy - defendant No.41 and
defendant No.90 in favour of Laxmikanth Ambati in respect
of portion item No.4 of suit schedule 'C' property.
Ex.P.139- Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 19.07.2013
executed by Sri.Thimma Reddy - defendant No.41 and
defendant No.90 in favour of R.Murthy and Gopalakrishna
Murthy in respect of portion item No.4 of suit schedule 'C'
property.
Ex.P.140- Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 19.07.2013
executed by Sri.Thimma Reddy - defendant No.41 and
defendant No.90 in favour of Anoop Kumar Kokanay in
respect of portion item No.4 of suit schedule 'C' property.
368
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.P.141- Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 09.10.2013
executed by Sri.Thimma Reddy - defendant No.41 and
defendant No.90 in favour of T.Dhanamma in respect of
portion item No.4 of suit schedule 'C' property.
Ex.P.142- Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 25.10.2013
executed by Sri.Thimma Reddy in favour of Raghunandan in
respect of portion item No.4 of suit schedule 'C' property.
346. As against this, defendants No.29, General Power of Attorney
holder of defendants Nos.25 to 27, Special Power of Attorney holder of
19th defendant, defendant No.42, defendant No.24, defendant No.88,
defendant No.49, defendant No.10, Special Powr of attorney holder of
legal heirs of defendant No.34(a)(b) and defendant No.97 have been
examined as Dws.1 to 10.
Dw.1- Sri.T.Vijay Kumar defendant No.29 has stuck to his defence
taken in the written statement during his examination-in-chief. He has
369
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
stated during cross-examination that, his father had purchased the
properties in which partition was effected on 03.05.2012 and his father has
purchased a suit land Sy.No.24 from his grandfather. His father was a
landlord and running business of stone crushing industry since 50 to 60
years namely Sri.Mahalakshmi Stone Crushing Industry with license from
Mines and Geology and he was paying sales tax and income tax. His
father was also a PWD Contractor.
a) Further, he has deposed in respect of partition took place in
their family, properties purchased by his father and about several sale
transactions took place with different purchasers.
b) Dw.2- Sri. N.H.Anantha Reddy is a General Power of
Attorney holder of defendants Nos.25 to 27 who are his daugthers. He has
stuck to the defence taken in the written statement by his daughters
during his examination-in-chief.
370
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
c) Dw.3- Sri.Ramachandra Reddy is a Special Power of
Attorney holder of 19th defendant has stuck to the defence taken in the
written statement of defendant No.19 during his examination-in-chief and
has supported the version of plaintiff and prayed to allot her share in the
suit schedule properties.
d) Dw.4- Sri. N.Gopala Reddy is defendant No.42 has stuck to
his defence taken in the written statement during his examination-in-chief.
During the course of his cross-examination, he has stated that, his father
has purchased portion of item No.4 of suit schedule 'C' property on
26.01.1985 from defendant No.34. His father had entered into an
agreement of sale in the year 1981 and as the vendor was not ready to sell
the property, his father has filed suit O.S.No.249/1981 which came to be
compromised and sale deed was executed.
e) Dw.5- Sri.L.Venkataramana Raju is defendant No.24 has
stuck to his defence taken in the written statement during his examination-
371
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
in-chief. During the course of his cross-examination, he has stated that,
O.S.No.671/1969 is filed by 1st defendant for declaration of title in respect
of Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village which came to be decreed and one
Sri.Vasanthaiah has challenged the said decree which came to be allowed
in compromise decree. In O.S.No.401/ 1968 Sri. M.G.Vasanthiah was
declared as owner of 7 acres 5 guntas and for remaining land suit came to
be dismissed as withdrawn.
f) Dw.6- Sri.C.Surendranath Reddy defendant No.88 has stuck
to his defence taken in the written statement during his examination-in-
chief.
g) Dw.7- Sri.P.Satya Shekar is defendant No.49 in
O.S.No1754/2006 has stuck to his defence taken in the written statement
during his examination-in-chief. He has entered into Joint Development
Agreement construction activities in the year 2000.
372
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
h) Dw.8- Sri.P.Satya Shekar is defendant No.10 in
O.S.No.942/2001 has stuck to his defence taken in the written statement
during his examination-in-chief.
I) Dw.9- Sri. Nagesh.M, is a Special Power of Attorney holder
of legal heirs of defendant No.34(a) and (b) in O.S.No.1754/ 2006 has
stuck to the defence taken in the written statement. He has stated in his
cross-examination that, father of defendant No.34 namely
Sri.M.G.Vasanthaiah has purchased portion of suit schedule property on
22.03.1958 from Sri.Lakshmi Narayana Hoodi Co-operative Society.
One Shamanna Reddy had mortgaged the said property with said Society
and said Society had obtained sale certificate of the said property from the
Court in respect of 13 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village.
j) Dw.10- Sri. K.Srinivasan is defendant No.97 in O.S.No.1754/
2006 has stuck to his defence taken in the written statement during his
examination-in-chief. Himself and defendant No.94, 95, 96 and 98 have
373
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
acquired the sites bearing No.2, 19, 29 and portion of Sy.No.19, 19/1C,
19/1D respectively under different sale deeds. He has produced certified
copies of sale deeds of their earlier vendors from 1975 till execution of
their sale deeds.
347. They have produced the following documents:-
Ex.D.1 - Certified copy Gift Deed dated 27.03.1972
executed by H.M.Hanuma Reddy in favour of
Smt.Sarasamma in respect of portion of survey No.19.
Ex.D.2- RTC extract for the year 2010-2011 in respect
of Sy.No.13/1 standing in the name of Sri.H.Sathyanarayana
Reddy.
Ex.D.3 RTC extract for the year 2010-2011 in respect
of Sy.No.44/1A standing in the names of Sri.H.M.Krishna
Reddy, P.G.Vargees, H.K.Gurumurthy Reddy,
Sri.M.T.Thomas, Nishanth, Asma, Chinnapparaju,
C.V.Abraham, Sri.V.V.Prem, Sri.V.V.Abraham, Sri.K.V.Joseph,
M.B.George, Joy Anthony, M.L.George, Madamiyamma,
K.K.Pilla, K.Vikrama, Susamma Thomas, Wilson Jacob,
374
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Chebrolu Kiranmayi, V.Kavitha, V.Anil Kumar, A.Devarju and
Sargunam.
Ex. D.4 RTC extract in respect of Sy.No.44/1A standing in
the name V. V. Prem, V. V. Abraham, K. V. Josheph, M. V.
George, Anthony, Madavi M and others MR No.3/97-98.
Ex. D.5 RTC extract in respect of Sy.No.44/1A standing in
the name of Susamma, Wilson, Chebrole, Kavitha, Anil
Kumar, Devaraja.
Ex. D.6 RTC extract in respect of Sy.No.44/1A standing in
the name S. Sirgunam MR. No.5/2008-09.
Ex. D.7 RTC extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of
Sy.No.19/1A standing in the name of H.M. Hanuma Reddy,
H. Sathyanarayana Reddy, H Venkatesha Reddy, Marry Bray,
P. Laxmamma, A Sethumadava and Thamos khatha No.33
Ex. D.8 RTC extract in respect of Sy.No.19/1A standing in
the name of Laxmi Devamma MR No.4/2006-07
375
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex. D.9 RTC extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of
Sy.No.19/1B standing in the name of P Sukumaran Nayar
Khatha No.151.
Ex. D.10 RTC extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of
Sy.No.19/1C standing in the name of T. Umashankar.
Ex. D.11 RTC extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of
Sy.No.19/1D standing in the name of T Umashankar.
Ex. D.12 RTC extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of
Sy.No.19/1E.
Ex. D.13 RTC extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of
Sy.No.19/2, Khatha no. 43, standing in the name of Oman P.
Shamal,
Ex. D.14 RTC extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of
Sy.No.19/3, Khatha no. 43 standing in the name of Oman P.
Shamal,
Ex. D.15 RTC extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of
Sy.No.19/3 standing in the name of Sri.T.S.Mani
376
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex. D.16 RTC extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of
Sy.No.19/5 standing in the name of Sri.David.
Ex. D.17 RTC extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of
Sy.No.19/6 standing in the name of Sri.B.K.Damodar.
Ex. D.18 RTC extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of
Sy.No.19/7 standing in the name of Sri.Gopalan
Ex. D.19 RTC extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of
Sy.No.19/9 standing in the name of Sri.H.Thippa Reddy and
Hanuma Reddy
Ex. D.20 RTC extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of
Sy.No.19/8 standing in the name of Sri.T.V.Raghava Warian
Ex. D.21 RTC extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of
Sy.No.19/10 standing in the name of Sri.H.Thippa Reddy
Ex. D.22 RTC extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of
Sy.No.19/11 standing in the name of Sri.H.Thippa Reddy and
Hanuma Reddy
377
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex. D.23 RTC extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of
Sy.No.19/12 standing in the name of Sri.Sabastin.
Ex. D.24 RTC extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of
Sy.No.19/13 standing in the name of Smt.Therasamma
Ex. D.25 RTC extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of
Sy.No.19/14 standing in the name of Sri.Umashakar.T,
Manoharan, K.Bhaktavatsalan
Ex. D.26 RTC extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of
Sy.No.19/15 standing in the name of K.Gopalan
Ex. D.27 RTC extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of
Sy.No.19/16 standing in the name of Sri.P.Syed
Ex. D.28 RTC extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of
Sy.No.19/17 standing in the name of Smt.Madalakuppeyamma
Ex. D.29 RTC extract for the year 2010-11 of Sy.No.19/18
standing in the name of K.Narayan
378
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex. D.30 RTC extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of
Sy.No.19/19 standing in the name of K.P.Appukuppe
Ex. D.31 RTC extract for the year 2009-10 in respect of
Sy.No.11 standing in the name of Smt.Muniyamma,
Sri.Venkatappa, K.Muniyappa, Somashekar, G.K.Suresh
Reddy, G.K.Ganesh
Ex. D.32 RTC extract for the year 2009-10 in respect of
Sy.No.14/1 standing in the name of H.C.Ramaswamy,
T.Thippa Reddy and A.Rajendran
Ex. D.33 RTC extract for the year 2009-10 in respect of
Sy.No.14/2 standing in the name of T.Muralidhar
Ex. D.34 RTC extract for the year 2009-10 in respect of
Sy.No.15/1 standing in the name of Thippa Reddy.H
Ex.D.35 - Certified copy of the absolute Sale Deed
dt.16.10.2004 executed by Sri.H.K.Venkatappa, H.Muniyappa,
Munivenkatappa and 29 others in favour of Smt.Kamalamma,
w/o H.Thippa Reddy in respect of Sy.No.11 of Hoodi village.
379
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.36 - Certified copy of the absolute Sale Deed
dt.13.12.2004 executed by Sri.H.C.Ramaswamy, Sri.Aswath,
Sri.Muniraju, Sri.Manjunath and Sri.Ranganath in favour of
Sri.H.Thippa Reddy in respect of Sy.No.14/1 measuring 29
guntas of Hoodi village.
Ex.D.37 - Certified copy of the Partition Deed
dt.30.09.1955 entered into between Sri.Muniswamy Reddy
and his children in respect of Sy.Nos.22 to 34, 97, 98, 35/1,
19/2, 6/4, 10, 148, 63 to 70, 19, 2, 12 etc.,
Ex. D.38 - Certified copy of the decree in
O.S.No.401/1968
Ex.D.39 - Certified copy of the decree in
O.S.No.671/1969
Ex.D.40- Photograph
Ex.D.41- Mutation extract for the year 2008-09 in
respect in Sy.No.10/1A standing in the names of N.Srinivas
Reddy, H.Thimma Reddy and N.Gopala Reddy.
Ex.D.42- Mutation extract for the year 2011-12 in
respect of Sy.Nos.10/1, 13/1, 13/2, 20, 21/1 etc., standing in
380
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
the names of G.K.Suresh, H.Sathyanarayana Reddy,
B.V.Radhakrishna, H.Thippa Reddy and others.
Ex.D.43- Mutation extract for the year 2011-12 in
respect of Sy.No.5/2 dt.27.11.2010 standing in the name of
Thippa Reddy.
Ex.D.44- Mutation extract for the year 2011-12 in
respect of Sy.Nos.10/1, 13/1, 13/2, 21/1 standing in the
names of G.K.Suresh, H.Sathyanarayana Reddy,
B.V.Radhakrishna, H.Thippa Reddy, H.Venkatesh Reddy and
others.
Ex.D.45 - Mutation extract for the year 2011-12
dt.27.11.2010 in respect of Sy.No.5/2 standing in the name of
H.Thippa Reddy.
* * Ex.D.46 has not been marked due to oversight
Ex.D.47- Mutation extract for the year 2011-12 in
respect of Sy.No.10/1A1 dt.27.11.2010 standing in the names
of Smt.N.A.Hemavathi, Sri.Ramakrishanaiah, S.Narendra
Babu, K.Aswath and others.
381
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.48 - Mutation extract for the year 2011-12 in
respect of Sy.No.15/1 dt.27.11.2010 standing in the name of
Sri.N.Thippa Reddy.
Ex.D.49-Mutation extract for the year 2003-04 in
respect of Sy.No.10/1A-P2 dt.05.01.2004 standing in the
name of K.Aswath s/o M.Krishnappa.
Ex.D.50 - Mutation extract for the year 2004-05 in
respect of Sy.No.10/2 dt. 07.08.2004 standing in the name
Sri.L.Venkataramana Raju.
Ex.D.51 - Mutation extract for the year 2004-05 in
respect of Sy.No.10/1A-P2, 10/1B-P3, 10/2, dt.19.04.2005
standing in the name of Sri.H.B.Sudhir.
Ex.D.52 - Mutation extract for the year 2004-05 in
respect of Sy.No.10/1B-P3, 10/2 dt.19.04.2005 standing in
the name of Sri.N.Srinivasa Reddy, N.Thimma Reddy,
N.Gopal Reddy and Sri.H.Thippareddy
Ex.D.53 - Mutation extract for the year 2004-05 in
respect of Sy.No.10/1A-P2, 1B-P3 and 10/2 dt.19.04.2005
standing in the name of Sri.H.B.Sudhir.
382
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.54 - Mutation extract for the year 2004-05 in
respect of Sy.No.10/1B-P3, 10/2 dt.19.04.2005 standing in
the name of Sri.N.Srinivasa Reddy, N.Thimma Reddy,
N.Gopal Reddy and Sri.H.Thippareddy
Ex.D.55- has not been marked due to oversight
Ex.D.56 - Mutation extract for the year 2004-05 in
respect of Sy.No.10/1A-P2 dt. 19.04.2005 standing in the
name of H.B.Sudhir.
Ex.D.57 - Mutation extract for the year 2004-05 in
respect of Sy.No.10/1B-P3 dt.19.04.2005 standing in the
name of Sri.N.Srinivasa Reddy, N.Thimma Reddy, N.Gopal
Reddy and Sri.H.Thippareddy.
Ex.D.58 - Mutation extract for the year 2007-08 in
respect of Sy.No.10/1A-P2 dt.05.11.2001 of Sy.No.10/1A-P2.
Ex.D.59 - Mutation extract for the year 2007-08 in
respect of Sy.No.10/1A-P2 dated.05.11.2011 standing in the
name of Sri.G.V.Chandrashekar.
383
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D 60- Mutation extract for the year 2007-08 in
respect of Sy.No.10/1A-P2 dt.05.11.2001 standing in the
name of Sri.G.V.Chandrashekar.
Ex.D.61- Mutation extract for the year 2007-08 in
respect of Sy.No.10/1A dt.07.01.2008 standing in the names
of S.Narendra Babu, K.Aswath and Vijaykumar @ Vijay
Babu.
Ex.D.62 - Mutation extract for the year 2017-18 in
respect of Sy.No.10/2 dt.14.02.2001 standing in the name of
H.Thippa Reddy.
Ex.D.63 - Mutation extract for the year 2011-12 in
respect of Sy.No.10/1, 13/1, 13/2, 20, 21/1, 21/2, 3, 22, 23, 24,
3/1, 44/1B dt.27.11.2010 standing in the name of G.K.Suresh,
H.Sathyanarayana Reddy and others.
Ex.D.64 - Mutation extract for the year 2011-12 in
respect of Sy.No.5/2 dt.27.11.2010 standing in the name of
Sri.Thippa Reddy
Ex.D.65 - Mutation extract for the year 2011-12 in
respect of Sy.No.10/1, 13/1, 13/2, 20, 21/1, 21/2, 21/3, 22, 23,
384
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
24, 3/1, 44/1B dt.27.11.2010 standing in the names of
G.K.Suresh, H.Sathyanarayana Reddy, B.V.Radhakrishna,
G.K.Suresh, H.Thippa Reddy and others
Ex.D.66- Mutation extract for the year 2011-12 dated
27.11.2010 in Sy.No. 5/2 standing in the name of H. Tippa
Reddy.
Ex.D.67 - Mutation extract for the year 2002-03 in
respect of Sy.No.22 dt.26.11.2001 standing in the names of
H.K.Venugopal Reddy, Manohar Reddy and Thippa Reddy.
Ex.D.68 - Mutation extract for the year 2011-12 in
respect of Sy.Nos.10/1, 13/1, 13/2, 20, 20/1, 20/2, 20/3, 22,
23, 24, 3/1 and 44/1B dt.27.11.2010 standing in the names of
G.K.Suresh, H.Sathyanarayana Reddy, B.V.Radhakrishna,
H.Thippa Reddy and others.
Ex.D.69 - Mutation extract for the year 2011-12 in
respect of Sy.No.5/2 dt.27.11.2010 standing in the name of
Sri.H.Thippa Reddy.
385
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.70- Mutation extract for the year 2015-16 in
respect of Sy.No.22, dt.05.08.2015 standing in the name of
Sri.H.K.Venugopal Reddy.
Ex.D.71- Mutation extract for the year 2006-07 in
respect of Sy.No.23, dt.22.12.2006 standing in the name of
Sri.H.Thippa Reddy.
Ex.D.72- Mutation extract for the year 11 and 12 in
respect of Sy.Nos.10/1, 13/1, 13/2, 21/1, 21/2, 21/3, 22, 23,
24, 3/1 and 44/1B dt.27.11.2010 standing in the name of
Sri.G.K.Suresh, H.Sathynarayana Reddy, B.V.Radhakrishna,
H.Thippa Reddy and others.
Ex.D.73 - Mutation extract for the year 2011-12 in
respect of Sy.No.5/2 dt.27.11.2010 standing in the name of
Sri.H.Thippa Reddy .
Ex.D.74 - Mutation extract for the year 2002-03 in
respect of Sy.No.24 dt.30.08.2002 standing in the names of
Sri.H.Thippa Reddy, H.Anantharaman, H.Venkatesh Reddy
and others.
Ex.D.75 - Mutation extract for the year 2011-12 in
respect of Sy.Nos. 10/1, 13/1, 13/2, 20, 21/1, 21/2, 21/3, 22,
386
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
23, 24, 3/1 and 44/1B dt.27.11.2010 standing in the names of
Sri.G.K.Suresh, H.Sathynarayana Reddy, B.V.Radhakrishna,
H.Thippa Reddy and others.
Ex.D.76 - Mutation extract for the year 2011-12 in
respect of Sy.No.5/2 27.11.2010 standing in the name of
Sri.H.Thippareddy
Ex.D.77 - Mutation extract for the year 2004-05 in
respect of Sy.No.11, dt.26.03.2005 standing in the name of
Sri. D.Aravind
Ex.D.78 - Mutation extract for the year 2003-04 in
respect of Sy.No.20, dt.21.08.2003 standing in the name of
Sri.H.Venkatesh Reddy.
Ex.D.79 - Mutation extract for the year 2003-04 in
respect of Sy.No.11, dt.04.05.2004 standing in the name of
Smt.Muniyamma, H.K.Venkatappa, K.Muniyappa.
387
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.80- Mutation extract for the year 2007-08 in
respect of Sy.No.20, dt.28.01.2008 standing in the name of
Sri.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy
Ex.D.81 - Mutation extract for the year 2011-12 in
respect of Sy.No. 10/1, 13/1, 13/2, 20, 21/1, 21/2, 21/3, 22,
23, 24, 3/1 and 44/1B dt.27.11.2010 standing in the names of
G.K.Suresh, H.Sathayanarayana Reddy, B.V.Radhakrishna,
H.Thippa Reddy, H.Venkatesh Reddy, H.Jayarama Reddy.
Ex.D.82- Mutation extract for the year 2015-16 in
respect of Sy.No.20, dt.20.08.2010 standing in the name of
Government.
Ex.D.83 - Mutation extract for the year 2015-16 in
respect of Sy.No.14/1 and 14/3, dt.24.07.2015 standing in
the names of H.C.Ramaswamy, H.Thippa Reddy and
Sri.A.Rajendran
Ex.D.84- Mutation extract for the year 2004-05 in
respect of Sy.No.14/2, dt.16.12.2004 standing in the name of
Sri.T. Muralidhar.
388
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.85- Mutation extract for the year 2004-05 in
respect of Sy.No.14/1, dt.26.03.2005 standing in the name of
Sri.Thippa Reddy.H.
Ex.D.86- Mutation extract for the year 2008-09 in
respect of Sy.Nos.13/6, 14/1, 16/4, 16/5 dt.29.11.2008
standing in the name of Sri.A.Rajendran
Ex.D.87 - Mutation extract for the year 2011-12 in
respect of Sy.Nos.10/1A1, 10/1A2, 10/1BP3, 10/2, 11, 14/1
and 14/2 dt.27.11.2010 standing in the names of
Smt.N.A.Hemavathi, C.Ramkrishnaiah, S.Narendra Babu,
K.Aswath, Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Babu, N.Srinivasa Reddy,
P.Venkateshwara Rao and H.B.Sudhir, G.V.Chandrahshekar,
Thippa Reddy. Kiran Kumar, Thimma Reddy and others.
Ex.D.88 - Mutation extract for the year 2011-12 in
respect of Sy.No.15/1 dt.27.11.2010 standing in the name of
Sri.H.Thippa Reddy.
Ex.D.89 - Mutation extract for the year 2011-12 in
respect of Sy.Nos.10/1A1, 10/1A2, 10/1B.P3, 10/2, 11, 14/1
and 14/2 dt.27.11.2010 standing in the names of
389
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Smt.N.A.Hemavathi, C.Ramkrishnaiah, S.Narendra Babu,
K.Aswath, Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Babu, N.Srinivasa Reddy,
P.Venkateshwara Rao and H.B.Sudhir, G.V.Chandrahshekar
and others.
Ex.D.90 - Mutation extract for the year in respect of
Sy.No.15/1 dt.27.11.2010 standing in the name of
Sri.H.Thippa Reddy.
Ex.D.91 - Certified copies 7 RTC extracts in respect of
Sy.No.21 from the period 1972-76 to 2001-2002 standing in
the names of Sri.H.Thippa Reddy, Smt.Annamma Abraham,
Sri.Kodandarama Reddy, Smt.Yashodamma.
Ex.D.92 - Certified copies 6 RTC extracts in respect of
Sy.No.21/2 from the period 1977-81, 1982-87, 1988-90,
1993-97, 1998-2001, 2017-18 standing in the names of
Sri.H.Thippa Reddy and Smt.Annamma Abraham.
Ex.D.93 - 13 RTC extracts in respect of Sy.No.21/3 and
22 from the period 1977-81, 1982-87, 1987-88, 1988-90,
1993-97, 1998-2000 and 2017-18 standing in the names of
Sri.H.Thippa Reddy. In Sy.No.22 from the period 1977-81,
390
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
1983-87, 1988-90, 1993-97, 1998-2000 and 2017-18 standing
in the name of Venugopala Reddy, Manohar Reddy and
Thippa Redd.
Ex.D.94 - 7 RTC extracts in respect of Sy.No.23 from
the period 1977-2001 and 2017-18 standing in the names of
Hanuma Reddy, Sri.H.Thippa Reddy, H.Sathyanarayana
Reddy and H.Venkatesh Reddy.
Ex.D.95 - 9 RTC extracts in respect of Sy.No.24 from
the period 1972-82, 1984-2000 and 2017-18 standing in the
names of Sri.H. Thippa Reddy, H.Venkatesh Reddy,
H.Anantharama Reddy, Smt. Annamma Ambraham,
K.V.Anthony, K.Ganeshan and H.Sathyanarayana Reddy,
Ex.D.96 - 16 RTC extracts in respect of Sy.No.20 from
the period 1976-82, 1993-01 and 1918-19 standing in the
names of Sri.Sathyanarayana Reddy, H.Venkatesh Reddy,
H.Thippa Reddy, H.Anantha Rama Reddy, H.Hanuma Reddy
and Veerappa Reddy.
Ex.D.97 - 6 RTC extracts in respect of Sy.No.14/2 of
the year 2017-18 standing in the name of Sri.T.Muralidhar.
391
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.98 - RTC extract in respect of Sy.No.15/1 of the
year 2017-18 standing in the name of Sri.H.Thippa Reddy.
Ex.D.99 - 13 RTC extracts in respect of Sy.No.11 for
the year 1987-88 standing in the names of Muniyamma,
Venkatappa, Muniyappa, Narendra Reddy, Muni Reddy,
Kamalamma and others.
Ex.D.100- 6 RTC extracts in respect of Sy.No.14/2 from
the period 1976-86 1987-91, 1997-2001, standing in the
names of Sri.Papaiah Reddy, T.Thippa Reddy, T.Muralidhar
and Sri.C.Nagappan,
Ex.D.101 - 19 RTC extracts in respect of Sy.No.10/1
10/1A1 and 10/1A2 from the period 1966-67 to 2017-2018
standing in the names of Thippa Reddy, Sri.G.Vasanthaiah,
L.Venkata Raju, Venkatachalam Raju, Hemavathi, N.A.Nalina,
N.A.Kavitha, C.Ramakrishanaiah, C.Nagaraju, Narendra
Babu, Vijay Kumar, Ashwath, G. Chandrashear,
P.Venkateshwara Rao, N.Srinivasa Reddy, N.Thimma Reddy
and N.Gopala Reddy.
392
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.102- Mutation extract in respect of Sy.No.12 for
the year 1982-86standing in the name of Sri.Ramaswamy
Raju.
Ex.D.103- RTC extract for the year 2017-2018 in
respect of Sy.No.10/1B.P3 standing in the names of
N.Srinivasa Reddy, N.Thimma Reddy and N.Gopala Reddy.
Ex.D.104- Certified copy of Sale Deed dt.09.07.1999
executed by Sri.H.Thippa Reddy in favour of S.Narendra Babu
in respect of Sy.No.10, New Sy.No.10/1A.
Ex.D.105- Certified copy of Plaint in
O.S.No.3536/2005, wherein Sri.H.Thippa Reddy filed case
against Sri.L.Venkataramana Raju and others.
Ex.D.106 - Certified copy of compromise petition in
O.S.No.3536/2005.
Ex.D.107 - General Power of Attorney dt.08.08.2016
executed by Smt.N.A.Hemavathi, Smt.N.A.Nalini in favour of
N.H.Anantha Reddy to contest the case.
393
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.108 - General Power of Attorney dt. 29.02.2016
executed by Smt.N.A.Kavitha d/o Sri.N.H.Anantha Reddy in
favour of Sri.N.H.Anantha Reddy.
Ex.D.109 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dt.19.03.1994
executed by Sri.H.Thippa Reddy in favour of Kumari
Hemavathi N.A.Nalina and N.A.Kavitha in respect of Sy.
No.10/1A,
Ex.D.110 - Certified copy of RTC (12 in numbers) for
the year 2012-2013 in respect of Sy. No.10/1A1 standing in
the names of Smt. N. A. Hemavathi, N. A. Nalina, N. A.
Kavitha, C Ramakrishnaiah, Venkateshwara Rao, T. N.
Bhagya, H. B. Sudir, C. Nagaraju and S Narendra Babu.
Ex.D.111- Certified copy of RTC (13 in number) for the
year 2017-2018 in respect of Sy.No.10/1A1 standing in the
names of Smt. N. A. Hemavathi, N. A. Nalina, N. A. Kavitha,
C Ramakrishnaiah, C Nagaraju, S Narendra Babu, Vijay
Kumar, Srinivasa Reddy, H.B. Sudir, T. N. Bhagya, Timma
Reddy and Ashwath.
394
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.112 - Mutation extract for the year 2007-08 dated
07.01.2008 in respect of Sy.No. 10/1A/P2, 10/1A Standing
in the name Smt. N. A. Hemavathi, N. A. Nalina, N. A.
Kavitha, C Ramakrishnaiah, C Nagaraju, S Narendra Babu ,
Ashwath , Chandrashekar and others.
Ex.D.113- Certified copy of Encumbrance certificate (7
in numbers) dated 01.06.1989 to 19.06.2000 in respect of Sy.
No.10/1A Standing in the name of K Ashwat(1992),
Chandrashekar (1994) Smt. N. A. Hemavathi, Nalina, Kavitha,
H.B.Sudir, General Power of Attorney holder Basavarajappa,
S.C. Ramakrishnaiah, C Nagaraju, Annadanappa(1994), S.
Narendra Babu(1991), Smt. Hemavathi, Nalina, Kavitha(1993-
2004), T. N. Bhagya (2008), Smt. Sadhneni Ajitha Kumari,
Velakaturi Balaji Naidu(2017).
Ex.D.114 - Certified copy of partition deed dated
29.11.1971 between H.M Hanuma Reddy and his childrens
regarding Sy.No.19 and 23 of Chinnappanahalli Village (this
document marked under confrontation during cross-examination of
Pw.1 in O.S.No.942/2011)
395
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
( Exs.D.115 to 121 were marked under confrontation
during cross-examination of Pw.2)
Ex.D.115 - Government of Karnatakak Quarrying Lease
dated 20.11.1991 of the term of 10 years in the name of
Sathyanarayana Reddy.
Ex.D.116- Certified copy sale deed dated 23.04.1988
executed by T.V. Annamma Abraham in favor of Sri. Thippa
Reddy of Sy.No. 21/2 and 24 to an extent of 3 Acres (including
2 Guntas Kharab of Chinnappanahalli)
Ex.D.117 - Certified copy sale deed dated 04.04.1988
executed by Sri. Papaiah Reddy in favor of Muralidar in
respect of Sy.No.14/2 measuring 3 acres 10 Guntas
Ex.D.118- Certified copy sale deed dated 16.01.1995
executed by H. C. Govindappa, H. G. Muniswamy, H.G.
Srinivas, H. G. Raghavendra in favor of H. Thippa Reddy in
respect of Sy.No.14/1.
Ex.D.119- Certified copy sale deed dated 12.06.1985
executed by Smt. Meenakshamma in favor H. Thippa Reddy in
respect of site no. 15/1 measuring 2 acres 15 Guntas.
396
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.120 - Certified copy of sale deed dt. 25.11.1974
executed by Smt.Narasamma, w/o Ramachandra Reddy in
favour of Smt.Kathainiyamma in respect of Sy.No.19/1.
Ex.D.121 - License dated 30.04.2002 granted from
Karnataka State Pollution Control Board in the name of
Mahalakshmi Granties, Sy.No.20.
Ex.D.122- Special Power of Attorney dated 06.12.2018
executed by Smt.Chandramma in favor of Ramachandra
Reddy.
Ex.D.123- Certified copy of registered sale deed dated
14.04.1956 executed by Sri. H.M. Shamanna Reddy in favour
of Nagappa Reddy in Sy.No.10, measuring 13 acres 10 guntas
of Hoodi village.
Ex.D.124 - Certified copy of sale deed dated
30.05.1956 executed by Nagappa Reddy S/o Chikkavenkata
Reddy in favor of M. G. Vasanthaiah in respect of Sy. No.12.
Ex.D.125 - Certified copy of Rectification deed dated
14.08.1957 executed by Sri.H.V. Nagappa Reddy in favor of
397
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Sri. M.G.Vasanthaiah s/o late Mattnapalli Gopalaiah in
respect of Sy.No.12.
Ex.D.126 - Certified copy of sale deed dated
20.03.1958 executed by B. V. Anantharaman in favor of M.
G. Vasanthaiah in respect of Sy.No.10.
Ex.D.127 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
26.01.1985 executed by Sri.M.G.Vasanthaiah in favor of T.
Narayana Reddy, N. Thimma Reddy and N. Gopala Reddy in
respect of Sy.No.10.
Ex.D.128- Certified copy of Partition Deed dated.
15.11.1990 entered into between Sri.N.Gopala Reddy,
N.Thimma Reddy and N.Srinivasa Reddy in respect of
Sy.No.10/1B.
Ex.D.129 - Certified copy of Rectification Deed dated
18.12.2000 executed between Sri.N.Gopala Reddy,
Sri.N.Thimma Reddy and Sri.N.Srinivasa Reddy of
Sy.No.10/1B.
Ex.D.130 - Certified copy of Survey report
dated.18.01.1971 in Sy.No.13.
398
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.131- Certified copy of Hissa Survey Tippany of
Sy.No.10/1 and 10/2 of Hoodi village.
Ex.D.132 - Certified copy of RR Pakka book extract of
Sy.No.10
Ex.D133 - Certified copy of Survey report dated
13.05.1985
Ex.D.134- Certified copy of Hissa Survey tippany
Ex.D.135 - Electricity power sanction order dated
02.02.1995
Ex.D.136- Electricity cash bills ( 3 in numbers) dated.
04.12.1995
Ex.D.137 - Letter dated. 27.09.2005 issued by Vijaya
Bank to M/s.Mindlogics Infotech Limited
Ex.D.138- Certified copy of RTC extract in respect of
Sy.No.10/2 for the year 2018-19 standing in the name
L.Venkataramana Raju.
Ex.D.139 - Certified copy of Partition deed
dated.02.11.1955 amongst Sri.Chikka Muniswamy Reddy and
his children in respect of Sy.Nos.22 to 29, 31 to 34 etc.,
399
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.140 - Certified copy of registered court sale
certificate dated. 15.01.1942
Ex.D.141 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
14.04.1956 executed by H.M.Shamanna Reddy in favour of
H.V.Nagappa Reddy in respect of Sy.No.10 of Hoodi
village.
Ex.D.142 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dated
30.05.1956 executed by H.V.Nagappa Reddy in favour of
M.G.Vasanthaiah in respect of Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village.
Ex.D.143 - Certified copy of Agreement dated .30.05.1956
entered into between M.G.Vasanthaiah and H.V.Nagappa
Reddy.
Ex.D.144 - Certified copy of Register agreement
dated.02.08.1957 executed by Sri. H.Nagappa Reddy in favor
of Sri.Vasanthaiah in respect of Sy No.10
Ex.D.145 - Certified copy of Rectification deed
dated.14.08.1957 in respect of Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village
400
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.146 - Certified copy Subsequent sale deed
dated.30.07.1957 executed by H.V.Nagappa Reddy in favour
of H.V.Papaiah Reddy in respect of Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village.
Ex.D.147 - Certified copy of Relinquishment Deed
dated .23.05.1958 executed by Sri.H.V.Papaiah Reddy and
H.V.Nagappa Reddy in favour of M.G.Vasanthaiah in respect
of Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village.
Ex.D.148 - Certified copy of sale deed
dated.22.03.1958 executed by Hoodi Co-operative Society in
favor of M.G.Vasanthaiah in respect of Sy.No.10 of Hoodi
village
Ex.D.149 - Certified copy of subsequent sale deed
dated.29.05.1965 executed by Hoodi Lakshminarayana Co-
operative Society in favor of Shamanna Reddy in respect of
Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village.
Ex.D.150- Certified copy of Sale Deed dated. 26.6.1967
executed by H.M.Shamanna Reddy, H.M.Krishna Reddy,
H.M.Hanuma Reddy, H.M.Narayana Reddy in favour of
H.Thippa Reddy in respect of Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village.
401
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.151- Certified copy of decree in O.S.No.401/ 1968
Ex.D.152- Certified copy of the order sheet, plaint and
decree in O.S.No.671/ 1969
Ex.D.153- Certified copy of order sheet in
R.A.No.78/1972 dated.2.4.1973
Ex.D.154- Certified copy of sale deed dated.09.07.1999
executed by Sri.H.Thippa Reddy in favour of Narendra Babu
in respect of Sy.No.10/1.
Exs.D.155, 156- Certified copies of compromise
petition, compromise decree in O.S.No.3536/ 2005.
Ex.D.157- Certified copy of Partition Deed dated.
03.05.2012 entered into between Thippa Reddy,
T.Kamalamma, T.Muralidhar, T.Vijaykumar and
T.Umashankar in respect of Sy.Nos. 15/1, 14/1, 14/2, 21/2 etc.
Ex.D.158- Certified copy of Memorandum of Agreement
dated.24.07.2017 between L.V.Raju and Smt.Jayamma.
Ex.D.159- Certified copy of order sheet and compromise
decree in O.S.4499/2016
402
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.160- Certified copy of order sheet in SLAO in
respect of Sy.No.10/2 of Hoodi village.
Ex.D.161 - Certified copy of letter dated.09.11.2016
issued by Sri.Venkataramana Raju to Land Acquisition Officer
Ex.D.162 - Original Record of right dated.09.09.1970 in
respect of Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village executed by
M.G.Vasanthaiah in favour of L. Venkataramanarju (defendant
No.24 herein) measuring 3 acres.
Ex.D.163 - Original Index of lands in respect of
Sy.No.10
Ex.D.164 - Original RTC from 1971 to 1976 in respect
of Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village standing in the name of
Sri.Vasanthaiah, Venkataramanaraju and Sri.Thippareddy.
Ex.D.165 - Certified copy of mutation dated.24.07.1974
in the name of defendant No.24 herein
403
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Exs.D.166 to 168 - Official Memorandums
dated.31.07.1974, 25.06.1975 and 07.08.2004 with regard to
land conversion in respect of Sy.No.10/2.
Ex.D.169- RTC in respect in respect of Sy.No.10/2 for
the year 2004-05 standing in the name of Sri.Venkataramana
Raju.
Ex.D.170 - Certified copy of Mortgage deed
dated.18.7.1962 from Vasanthaiah to Venkataramana Raju in
respect of Sy.No.10.
Ex.D.171 - Certified copy of sale deed dated.09.09.1970
executed by M.G.Vasanthaiah in favor of Sri.
L.Venkataramana Raju in respect of Sy.No.10.
Ex.D.172, 173 - Office copy of legal notice and reply
notice dated .13.11.2017
Ex.D.174 - Certified copy of BBMP Khata certificate
dated .07.12.2018 in respect of property No.277, 423/ 255/277
standing in the name of Sri.Gopala Reddy
404
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.175 - Certified copy of BBMP Khata extract in
respect of property Nos.277, 423/ 255/277 standing in the
name of Sri.N. Gopala Reddy
Ex.D.176 - Certified copy of BBMP Khata certificate
dated. 07.12.2018 in respect of property Nos.278, 424,
225/278 standing in the name of Sri.N.Thimma Reddy
Ex.D.177 - Certified copy of BBMP Khata extract in
respect of property Nos.278, 424/ 255/278 standing in the
name of Sri.N.Thimma Reddy
Ex.D.178 - Certified copy of Joint Development
Agreement dated. 29.09.2012 entered into between
Mr.Thimma Reddy, Mr.T.Harish, Mr.T.Babunath Giri and
M/s.Icon Developers, rept by Mr.C.Surendranath Reddy,
Mr.C.Prabhakar Reddy in respect of Property bearing
presently BBMP Katha Sl.No.278, 424/ 255, 278 (carved out
of Sy.No.10/1B, Old Katha No.261/2, then changed as Katha
No.261/ 434/424, later CMC Katha No.255/3).
Ex.D.179 - Certified copy of Registered Joint
Development Agreement dated.07.11.2014 entered into
405
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
between Mr.N.Gopala Reddy, Mrs.H.Savithramma,
Mrs.G.Roppa, Mrs.G.Prema, Mrs.Deepa, Ms.G.Shilpa and
Priyanka.G in favour of Srirama Builders, rept by
Surendranath Reddy in respect of Sy.No.10/1B, Old Katha
No.261/3, BBMP Katha No.277, 423, 255).
Ex.D.180 - Copy of BBMP approved plan dated .
3.4.2012
Ex.D.181 - BBMP approved plan dated .3.6.2016 in
respect of respect of Sy.No.10/1B, Katha No.277, 423, 255
Ex.D.182 - Certified copy of Joint Development
Agreement dated.13.12.2004 entered into between
Smt.Bhagyalakshmi, Sri.H.Venkatesha Reddy and
M/s.Mahaveer Properties, rept. by K.Praveen and Sri.P.Sathya
Shekar in respect of Katha bearing No.22, measuring
approximately 28314 sq.ft.
Ex.D.183 - Certified copy of Joint Development
Agreement dated.27.01.2006 entered into between
Stm.N.K.Nagaveni, Smt.M.Dheena, Kum.Suma Reddy rept.by
406
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Smt.N.K.Nagaveni, Kum.Sowmya Reddy, in respect of CMC
Khata No.100, property measuring 5265 sq. ft.
Ex.D.184 - Certified copy of Sale Deed
dated.26.05.2007 executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni,
Smt.M.Dheena, Kum.Suma Reddy , Kum.Sowmya Reddy,
Sri.Sandeep Reddy rept. By Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and
M/s.Mahaveer properties in favour of Sri.Vegi Srinivas, in
respect of property CMC Khata No.100, piece and parcel of
property 335 square feet, residential apartment No.401 on 3 rd
floor.
Ex.D.185 - Certified copy of Sale Deed
dated.06.06.2007 executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni,
Smt.M.Dheena, Kum.Suma Reddy, Kum.Sowmya Reddy,
Sri.Sandeep Reddy rept. By Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and
M/s.Maheveer properties in favour of Sri.Anil Kumar
Atnurkar in respect of property CMC Khata No.100, piece
and parcel of property 369 square feet, residential apartment
No.304 on 2nd floor.
407
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.186 - Certified copy of Sale Deed
dated.26.05.2007 executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni,
Smt.M.Dheena, Kum.Suma Reddy, Kum.Sowmya Reddy,
Sri.Sandeep Reddy rept. By Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and
M/s.Maheveer properties in favour of Sri.Srikanth @ Venkata
in respect of property CMC Khata No.100, piece and parcel
of 314 square feet, residential apartment No.302 on 2nd floor.
Ex.D.187 - Certified copy of Sale Deed
dated.06.06.2007 executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni,
Smt.M.Dheena, Kum.Suma Reddy, Kum.Sowmya Reddy,
Sri.Sandeep Reddy rept. By Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and
M/s.Maheveer properties in favour of Sri.S.Lingesh Kumar in
respect of property CMC Khata No.100, piece and parcel of
334 square feet, residential apartment No.201 on 1st floor.
Ex.D.188 - Certified copy of Sale Deed
dated.23.06.2007 executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni,
Smt.M.Dheena, Kum.Suma Reddy , Kum.Sowmya Reddy,
Sri.Sandeep Reddy rept. By Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and
M/s.Maheveer properties in favour of Sri.Amitava Paul in
408
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
respect of property CMC Khata No.100, piece and parcel of
314 square feet, residential apartment No.402 on 3rd floor.
Ex.D.189 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dated.
10.07.2007 executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni, Smt.M.Dheena,
Kum.Suma Reddy , Kum.Sowmya Reddy, Sri.Sandeep Reddy
rept. By Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and M/s.Maheveer properties in
favour of Rajeev Kumar Guptha in respect of property CMC
Khata No.100, piece and parcel of 335 square feet, residential
apartment No.301 on 2nd floor.
Ex.D.190 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dated.
13.09.2007 executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni, Smt.M.Dheena,
Kum.Suma Reddy, Kum.Sowmya Reddy, Sri.Sandeep Reddy
rept. By Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and M/s.Maheveer properties in
favour of Sri.Sunil Kumar, in respect of property CMC
Khata No.100, piece and parcel of 306 square feet, residential
apartment No.203 on 1st floor.
Ex.D.191 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dated.
05.12.2007 executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni, Smt.M.Dheena,
409
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Kum.Suma Reddy , Kum.Sowmya Reddy, Sri.Sandeep Reddy
rept. By Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and M/s.Maheveer properties in
favour of Sri.Padmanabhan in respect of property CMC
Khata No.100, piece and parcel of 314 square feet, residential
apartment No.102 on ground floor.
Ex.D.192 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dated.
26.05.2007 executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni, Smt.M.Dheena,
Kum.Suma Reddy , Kum.Sowmya Reddy, Sri.Sandeep Reddy
rept. By Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and M/s.Maheveer properties in
favour of Sri.Ramanjulu.A.K in respect of property CMC
Khata No.100, piece and parcel of 369 square feet, residential
apartment No.104 on ground floor.
Ex.D.193 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dated.
26.05.2007 executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni, Smt.M.Dheena,
Kum.Suma Reddy , Kum.Sowmya Reddy, Sri.Sandeep Reddy
rept. By Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and M/s.Maheveer properties in
favour of Sri.Jayakishore Pagadala in respect of property
piece and parcel of 314 square feet, residential apartment
No.202 on 1st 3rd floor.
410
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.194 - Certified copy of Sale Deed
dated.15.10.2007 executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni,
Smt.M.Dheena, Kum.Suma Reddy , Kum.Sowmya Reddy,
Sri.Sandeep Reddy rept. By Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and
M/s.Maheveer properties in favour of Sri.Hiremath
Vamadevaiah in respect of property CMC Khata No.100,
piece and parcel of 369 square feet, residential apartment
No.404 on 3rd floor.
Ex.D.195 - Certified copy of Sale Deed
dated.28.11.2007 executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni,
Smt.M.Dheena, Kum.Suma Reddy, Kum.Sowmya Reddy,
Sri.Sandeep Reddy rept. By Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and
M/s.Maheveer properties in favour of Sri.K.Mohandas in
respect of property CMC Khata No.100, piece and parcel of
369 square feet, residential apartment No.204 on 1st floor.
Ex.D.196 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dated.
09.05.2007 executed by Smt.Bhagyalakshmi and
Sri.H.Venkatesh Reddy and M/s.Maheveer properties, in
favour of Kiran.B and Smt.R.Archana in respect of piece
411
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
and parcel of the immovable property bearing No.5, Katha
No.99, 472 square feet, residential apartment No.205 on 1st
floor.
Ex.D.197 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dated.
15.10.2007 executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni, Smt.M.Dheena,
Kum.Suma Reddy , Kum.Sowmya Reddy, Sri.Sandeep Reddy
rept. By Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and M/s.Maheveer properties in
favour of Sri.Hiremath Vamadevaiah in respect of property
CMC Khata No.100, piece and parcel of 369 square feet,
residential apartment No.404 on 3rd floor.
412
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.198 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dated.
28.11.2007 executed by Smt.N.K.Nagaveni, Smt.M.Dheena,
Kum.Suma Reddy, Kum.Sowmya Reddy, Sri.Sandeep Reddy
rept. By Sri.P.Sathya Shekar and M/s.Maheveer properties in
favour of Sri.K.Mohandas in respect of property CMC Khata
No.100, piece and parcel of 369 square feet, residential
apartment No.204 on 1st floor.
Ex.D.199 - Certified copy of Sale Deed
dated.26.05.2007 executed by Smt.Bhagyalakshmi and
Sri.Venkatesh Reddy and M/s.Maheveer properties in favour
of Sri. Amit Bajoria in respect of immovable property bearing
No.5, Khata No.99, piece and parcel of 435 square feet,
residential apartment No.402 on 3rd floor.
Ex.D.200 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dated.
06.06.2007 executed by Smt.Bhagyalakshmi and
Sri.Venkatesh Reddy and M/s.Maheveer properties in favour
of Sri.Senthilmathan.V in respect of immovable property
bearing No.5, Khata No.99, piece and parcel of 361 square
feet, residential apartment No.202 on 1st floor.
413
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.201 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dated.
09.05.2007 executed by Smt.Bhagyalakshmi and
Sri.Venkatesh Reddy and M/s.Maheveer properties in favour
of Sri.Nagendra Nath and Smt.K.Subhadra Suman in respect
of immovable property bearing No.5, Khata No.99, piece and
parcel of 464 square feet, residential apartment No.207 on 1 st
floor.
Ex.D.202 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dated.
26.05.2007 executed by Smt.Bhagyalakshmi and
Sri.Venkatesh Reddy and M/s.Maheveer properties in favour
of Sri.Anindya Sen Gupta and Smt.Satarupa Sen Gupta in
respect of immovable property bearing No.5, Khata No.99,
piece and parcel of 420 square feet, residential apartment
No.210 on 1st floor.
Ex.D.203 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dated.
09.05.2007 executed by Smt.Bhagyalakshmi and
Sri.Venkatesh Reddy and M/s.Maheveer properties in favour
of Sri.Ashok Goyal in respect of immovable property
bearing No.5, Khata No.99, piece and parcel of 428 square
feet, residential apartment No.204 on 1st floor.
414
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.204 - Notarized copy of the Notification issued by
the Government of Karnataka in CVC No.19/2010-11
dated.21.09.2011
Ex.D.205 - Certified copy of RTC extract of Sy.No.10
for the year 1966 to 1970 in the name of Sri.H.Shamanna
Reddy.
Ex.D.206 - Certified copy Requisition to Land
Acquisition Officer KIADB by defendant No.34.
Ex.D.207 - Certified copy of Joint Survey Sketch of
Sy.No.10/2, 10/1B, 10/1A1 of Hoodi village
Ex.D.208 - certified copies of compensation package
from KIADB Nos.BMRCL stage 2nd -Reach-1E Package
176.177/2015-16/5824, 172.173/2015-16/5824 and
174.173/2015-16/6060 dated. 15.10.2016
Ex.D.209 - certified copy of compensation package from
KIADB No.BMRCL stage 2nd -Reach-1E Package 174/ 2015-
16 /6060 dated. 21.10.2016
415
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.210 - certified copy of compensation package from
KIADB No.BMRCL stage 2nd -Reach-1E Package 175/ 2015-
16 /100 dated. 27.01.2017
Ex.D.211 - certified copy of compensation package from
KIADB No.BMRCL stage 2nd -Reach-1E Package H/2017-18 /
642 dated. 22.12.2017
Ex.D.212 - certified copy of compensation package from
KIADB No.BMRCL stage 2nd -Reach-1E Package 171/ 2015-
16 /6060 dated. 21.10.2016
Ex.D.213 - Certified copy of letter to Special Land
Acquisition Officer KIADB from defendant No.24 dated .
09.11.2016
Ex.D.214 - certified copy of Judgment and decree in
O.S.No.2196/ 2010 passed on 21.03.2012 .
Ex.D.215- Record of rights from 1966 to 1970 of
Sy.No.10 standing in the name of Sri.Vasanthaiah.
416
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.216 - Tax paid receipt in respect of Sy.No.10
standing in the name of Sri.M.G.Vasanthaiah
Ex.D.217 - Tax demand register extract in respect of of
site No.423 in the name of N.Gopala Reddy.
Ex.D.218- BBMP certificate dated .07.12.2018 of
Sl.No.282, old No.258 in the name of N.Gopal Reddy,
N.Thimma Reddy and N.Srinivasa Reddy.
Ex.D.219- BBMP tax paid certificate from the period
2018 to 2019 of Sy.No.258 measuring 16.335 sq.feet in the
name of N.Gopala Reddy, N.Thimma Reddy and N.Srinivasa
Reddy.
Ex.D.220 to 228 - Photographs
Ex.D.229- CD.
Ex.D.230- Certificate issued U/s.65-B of Indian Evidence Act.
(Exs.D.231 to 235 were marked under confrontation
during cross-examination of Pw.1)
417
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.231- Certified copy of RTC extract in respect of
Sy.No.10 standing in the name of Sri.Sathyanarayana Reddy
Ex.D.232- Certified copy of RTC extract in respect of
Sy.No.10/2 from the year 1977 to 1981 standing in the name
of Sri.Sathyanarayana Reddy
Ex.D.233 - Certified copy of RTC extract in respect of
Sy.No.10 /2 from the year 1982 to 1987 standing in the name
of Sri. Gurumurthy Reddy and Smt.Rathnamma.
Ex.D.234 - Original Encumbrance certificate from the period
1.4.1960 to 31.05.1989 in respect of Sy.No.10/2 standing in
the names of LMCS of Bangalore South Taluk,
Sri.H.Sathyanarayana Reddy (1968), Sri.H.K.Gurumurthy
Reddy and H.Sathyanarayana Reddy (1970).
Ex.D.235 - Original Encumbrance certificate from the period
01.06.1989 to 31.03.2004 in respect of Sy.No.10/2.
418
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.236 - Certified copy of registered Will dated 14.05.1986
executed by late Sri.Hanuma Reddy in favour of Pw.1
Smt.H.G.Lakshmi in respect of Sy.No.19.
(this document marked under confrontation during cross-
examination of Pw.1)
Ex.D.237 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 25.08.1975 executed
by Sri.Hanuma Reddy in favour of Smt.V.Saroja in respect of site
No.19 out of Sy.No.19.
Ex.D.238 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 31.01.1981 executed
by Smt.V.Saroja in favour of Smt.K.Saroja in respect of site No.19
out of Sy.No.19.
Ex.D.239 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 14.09.2012
executed by Sri.K.Vidyanatha in favour of M/s Irest
Technologies Pvt Ltd, in respect of site No.19 out of Sy.No.19.
Ex.D.240 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 08.08.2013
executed by M/s Irest Technologies Pvt Ltd, in favour of
Annukrishna and Smt.Aparna in respect of site No.19 out of
Sy.No.19.
419
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.241 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 01.12.1992
executed by Smt.Laxmi M.R and Sethu Madhavan in favour of
Anantharama in respect of site No.19 out of Sy.No.19.
Ex.D.242 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 11.07.2002
executed by Nagaveni and Smt.Deena in favour of defendant
No.96 in respect of site No.29 out of Sy.No.19.
Ex.D.243 - Certified copy of Gift Deed dt. 16.11.2002
executed by Kashivishwanathan in favour of his son
defendant No.97 in respect of site No.2 out of Sy.No.19.
Ex.D.244 - Certified copy of Sale Deed dt. 08.08.2008
executed by Umashankar represented by General Power of
Attorney Thippa Reddy in favour of defendant No.98 in
respect of site formed in Sy.No.19/1C and 19/1D.
Ex.D.245 - Certified copy of Amalgamation Deed dated
22.02.2017 executed by defendant Nos.94 to 98 in respect of
site No.2, 19 and 29 and portions of Sy.No.19/1C and 19/1D.
420
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.246 - Certified copy of Joint Development Agreement
dated 22.02.2017 between defendants Nos.94 to 98 in favour
of M/s.Sadana Developers.
On the basis of materials furnished as above, let me record my findings on
the above issues:-
348. My findings on issue Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 in O.S.No.942/2001
and issue Nos.1, 4 and 9 in O.S.No.1754/ 2006:- All these issues are
taken up together as they are inter related. (O.S.No.942/ 2001 and
O.S.No.1754/2006 hereinafter referred to as suit No.1 and 3 for the sake
of convenient).
349. Daughters of late Sri.Hanuma Reddy have filed suit Nos.1
and 3 seeking partition and separate possession of their 1/5th share in the
suit schedule properties. According to them, suit schedule 'A' properties
are ancestral joint family properties fallen to the share of late Sri.Hanuma
421
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Reddy during partition between himself and his brothers vide Partition
Deed dt. 30.09.1955. Suit schedule 'B' properties are granted to the joint
family. Suit schedule 'C' properties are properties acquired by different co-
sharers out of joint family income.
350. Their further contention is that, during partition between late
Sri.Hanuma Reddy and his sons vide Partition Deed dt.29.11.1971
daughters were not given any share. Hence, it is not binding on them. On
the same footing they contend that, there is no valid partition between
plaintiffs and their brothers. They are still in joint possession of suit
schedule properties and the severance of status has not yet taken effect.
Therefore, whatever the properties acquired by their brothers even
subsequent to aforesaid Partition Deed are to be construed as joint family
properties.
422
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
351. On the other hand, contention of defendants is that, by virtue
of registered Partition Deed dt. 29.11.1971 all the joint family properties
of late Sri.Hanuma Reddy were partitioned amongst himself and his sons
equally and said late Sri.Hanuma Reddy has alienated /bequeathed/ gifted
whatever the properties fallen to his share in the aforesaid partition. As
far as, properties fallen to the share of his sons are concerned from the
date of partition deed, they became their exclusive properties and
whatever the properties acquired subsequent to partition are to be
regarded as separate properties of respective sharers. Practically, no
properties are available for partition as on the date of suit.
352. Let me appreciate materials on record to ascertain the truth
behind the above rival contentions.
Undisputedly, suit schedule 'A' properties had fallen to the share of
late Sri.Hanuma Reddy by virtue of Partition deed dt. 30.09.1955. As per
423
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
the genealogy admittedly, late Sri.Hanuma Reddy had 8 daughters and 4
sons.
353. As per the rules of succession under Hindu Succession Act,
1956 as on the date of above said partition only sons were having
independent share on par with their father. On the other hand, daughters
were not having any independent share during the life time of their father.
They acquire interest in the share of their father only after his death. In that
view of the matter, daughters could not have been made parties to Partition
Deed dated. 29.11.1971. Therefore, court cannot accept the plaintiffs
contention that, said partition deed is not binding on them as they were not
parties to the same. Even looking to the value of the properties allotted to
each sharer, it is apparent that, all the five sharers have been allotted
properties of equal value. So there is no question of inequitable partition. It
is not in dispute that, plaintiffs were married by the time of above said
partition deed. Simiarly, it is also not in dispute that, Sri.Hanuma Reddy died
424
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
on 10.09.1991. Under the above circumstances, plaintiff are not entitled to
benefit of either Hindu Succession Karnataka Amendment Act, 1994 with
regard to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Amendment Act 2005 as daughter
and father both must be alive as on 09.09.2005. So only under Section 6 of
Hindu Succession Act 1956 plaintiffs can claim partition by way of Notional
partition if at all Sri.Hanuma Reddy died intestate leaving behind him any
properties allotted to his share in the above said partition Deed dt.29.11.1971
or under Section 8 of the Act, if any property acquired subsequent thereto by
him.
354. On perusal of the materials on record, plaintiffs have admitted
that late Sri.Hanuma Reddy himself has sold some of the properties fallen to
his share in the Partition Deed dated . 29.11.1971 either to 3 rd parties or to his
own children. He has bequeathed some of the properties to his grandson,
daughters etc., and he has gifted some of the properties to his daughter
Smt.Sarasamma.
425
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
355. This fact is evident from the following Exs.P.40, 41, 42, 58, 59,
60, 75, 76, 86 to 89, Ex.D.95, 120, 236, 237, 157 and Ex.D.1 etc., sold to 3 rd
parties sold to his own children, bequeathed to grandson and daughter and
gifted to his daugther Smt.Sarasamma.
356. Thus, it is clear that late Sri.Hanuma Reddy has not left behind
any piece of property to be partitioned amongst his heirs.
357. Similarly, even in respect of schedule 'B' properties
standing in his name late Sri.Hanuama Reddy has disposed of each and every
property by above said modes. Thus, schedule 'B' properties are also not
available for partition as on the date of suit.
358. As for as schedule 'C' properties are concerned, they are
acquired by defendants Nos.1 and 2 after being separated from Joint family.
It is needless to say once the severance of status is established, whatever the
426
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
properties acquired thereafter would be re- granted as separate properties of
respective acquirers. In that view of the matter, plaintiffs cannot claim any
share in the suit schedule 'C' properties. Thus from the above discussions, it
is clear that Rectification Partition Deed dated . 29.11.1971 is valid and
binding upon the plaintiffs and it is acted upon. Consequently, plaintiffs were
entitled to claim share only in schedule 'A' and 'B' properties, if at all late
Sri.Hanuma Reddy had died intestate leaving behind those properties. But the
materials show that late Sri.Hanuma Reddy has disposed of entire schedule
'A' and 'B' properties during his life time either by way of alienation or by
Will or by gift. Thus, schedule 'A' and 'B' properties are not at all available
for partition as on this date. Schedule 'C' property being separate properties
of defendants Nos.1 and 2, they cannot be subject matter of partition as
claimed by the plaintiffs.
427
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
359. In-addition, on perusal of the oral evidence of Pw.1,
Smt.Lakshmi has clearly admitted in her cross-examination that, late
Sri.Hanuma Reddy bequeathed some of the properties fallen to his share in
1971 Partition. She also admits that, defendants Nos.1 and 2 have not sold
any properties allotted to the share of late Sri.Hanuma Reddy. Further, she
admits that, defendants Nos.1 and 2 have purchased different properties out
of the income derived from properties allotted to their share in the year 1971
Partition. Her cross-examination further reveals that, they have cleverly
avoided arraignment of buyers of their properties in this suit. They have only
included here the parties who have purchased properties allotted to the share
of their brothers defendants Nos.1 and 2. Her cross-examination further
makes it clear that, Sri.Hanuma Reddy bequeathed a site in favour of her
husband Dhanaraj and he has already alienated the same.
360. Coming to the evidence of Pw.1 -Chandra Prakash in
O.S.No.942/2001, his evidence also shows that his mother Smt.Vanamala
428
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
is also the beneficiary of Gift Deed of the year 1971 executed by late
Sri.Hanuma Reddy and she was given a site in Sy.No.19 under the said
deed. As of now, they have constructed house in the said site.
361. Looking to the evidence of plaintiffs in both the suits, it is
also apparent that by the time they chose to files these suits. The suit
schedule properties were carved into residential plots and many apartments
were constructed therein.
362. Both the sides have led their oral evidence at great
length. However, it is needless to say however lengthy may be their oral
evidence, Civil cases mainly depends upon documentary evidence.
Therefore, I have taken up oral evidence for discussion only wherever it is
found necessary. Hence, I answer these issues accordingly.
429
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
363. My findings on issue Nos.6, 8, and additional issue
No.1 in suit No.1 and issue No.15 in suit No.3:- All these issues are
taken up together for discussions, as they are inter-related.
As regards additional issue No.1, this issue is framed in view of the
contention of defendants that, purchasers of apportionment were also
necessary parties to the suit. However, the buyers to whom the defendants
Nos.1 and 2 have sold the properties in question are already on record.
Therefore, subsequent purchasers i.e purchasers of apportionment are not
necessary parties to the suit. It is needless to say, their fate is depending on
the right existed with their vendors.
364. As far as, other two issues in suit No.1 and issue No.15 in
suit No.3 are concerned, subsequent to framing of those issues necessary
parties have been arrayed as defendants to the suit. In that view of the
matter, they do not survive for consideration.
430
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
365. My findings on issue No.7 and Additional Issue No.2
in suit No.1 and issue No.17 in suit No.3:- All these issues are
taken up together for discussions, as they are inter-related.
The plaintiffs have paid fixed court fee of Rs.225/- each for the
purpose of partition and separate possession on the ground that, they are in
joint possession of suit schedule properties. But the materials available on
record falsifies their contention. It is apparent that, schedule 'A' and 'B'
properties are disposed of long back whereas schedule 'C' properties are
separate properties of defendant Nos.1 and 2. In that situation, fixed court
fee would not be sufficient. On the other hand, plaintiffs have to pay court
fee on the basis of market value of those properties with a prayer to set
aside the disputed sale transactions. Therefore, I find substance in the
contention of defendants that, court fee paid by plaintiff is insufficient.
Hence, I answer these issues accordingly.
431
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
366. My findings on issue No.4 and additional issue No.3 in
suit No.1 and issue Nos.13 and 16 in suit No.3:- All these issues are
taken up together for discussions, as they are inter-related.
Defendants have assailed the maintainability of the suits on the
ground of non-availability of schedule properties for partition. So also, they
have taken up contention as to suit being barred by Limitation on the
ground that, partition has taken place about 4 decades back. In my
considered view, question of Limitation arises when in the 1 st place suit is
otherwise maintainable. Herein this case, it is already noted that, first of all
the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties are not available for partition and
suit schedule 'C' properties cannot be subjected to partition being separate
properties of defendants Nos.1 and 2. In that view of the matter, suits
themselves does not survive for non-availability of properties for partition.
Therefore, question of Limitation does not survive for consideration.
Hence, I answer these issues accordingly.
432
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
367. My findings on issue No.9 in suit No.1:- Defendant No.4
has taken up contention that, plaintiffs have not brought all the joint family
properties in a single hotchpot. But she has not came up with any specific
case as to what were the properties that were left out of the fray.
Therefore, this issue has to be answered in the Negative.
368. My findings on issue Nos, 5, 6 and 14 in suit No.3:- All
these issues are taken up together for discussions, as they are inter-related.
Defendant No.24 has taken up contention that, suit item No.4 of
schedule 'C' property was self acquired property of Sri.H.M.Shamanna
Reddy and after passing through several hands, defendant No.24 has
purchased the same from its erstwhile owner one M.G.Vasanthaiah on
09.09.1970 as per Ex.D.162 in respect of Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village,
measuring 3 acres. Plaintiffs have not furnished any material to show that,
joint family owned any properties at Hoodi village. The sale deed
433
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
furnished by defendant No.24 makes it clear that, said property is in no
way concerned to the family of plaintiffs and defendants. Ex.D.150 shows
that, earlier to said transaction, defendant No.1 Sri.Thippa Reddy had
purchased the said property from his father and uncles under Sale Deed
dated.26.06.1967. In view of the above circumstances, court has to accept
the contention of defendant No.24 that, he had validly purchased the said
property from its erstwhile owner and it had nothing to do with the family
of plaintiffs and defendants Nos.1 to 4.
369. In addition, nature of said property is ascertained in
O.S.No.3536/ 2005. Wherein legal heirs of defendant No.1 herein have
compromised the matter regarding portion of Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village so
to the extent of Sy.No.10 i.e, item No.4 of 'C' schedule property suit is hit
by Doctrine of Resjudicata. In view of the above discussions, I answer
these issues accordingly.
434
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
370. My findings on issue Nos.7 and 8 in suit No.3: Both these
issues are taken up together for discussions, as they are inter-related.
Defendants Nos.25 to 27 have taken up contention that, they have
validly purchased portion of item No.4 of 'C' schedule properties i.e, 1
acre 5 guntas out of Sy.No.10 of Hoodi village and thereby they have
acquired title over the same. On perusal of Ex.D.109 Sale deed dated.
19.03.1994 it reveals that, defendant No.1 Sri.Thippa Reddy has sold the
said property to defendants Nos.25 to 27 for a consideration of
Rs.1,50,000/-. As per the recitals of said sale deed discloses that,
Sri.Thippa Reddy claimed the said property to be his exclusive property
and that he was selling it to meet his financial difficulty.
371. As already discussed in the foregoing issues, by
registered Partition Deed dated . 29.11.1971 all the joint family properties
of the family of late Sri.Hanuma Reddy are divided amongst himself and
his children equally. Whatever the properties held by sharers thereafter
435
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
were their separate properties. It is also held that, schedule 'C' properties
are not amenable to partition being separate properties of defendants Nos.1
and 2. In that view of the matter, court has to uphold the contention of
defendants Nos.25 to 27 that, they have validly purchased aforesaid
properties measuring 1 acre 5 guntas from erstwhile owner Thippa Reddy
and thereby they have became absolute owners thereof. Accordingly, these
issues are answered in the Affirmative.
372. My findings on issue Nos.10, 11, 12 and Additional issue
No.4 in suit No.1 and issue Nos.2 and 3 in suit No.3: All these issues
are taken up together as they are relating to different reliefs claimed by the
parties.
As far as relief of partition is concerned, it is emerged during the
discussion on foregoing issues that none of the suit schedule properties are
available for partition as on the date of suit on account of they are being
436
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
disposed of by late Sri.Hanuma Reddy or being the separate properties of
defendants Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, plaintiffs in both the suits and
defendant No.9 in O.S.No.942/ 2001 are not entitled for any share in these
properties.
373. Coming to the relief of injunction, plaintiffs have never
been in possession of suit schedule properties in order to claim the relief of
perpetual injunction. Therefore, question of granting injunctory relief does
not arise. Consequently, relief of mesne profits does not survive for
consideration. Hence, I answer these issues accordingly.
374. My findings on issue No.10 in suit No.3:- Defendants
Nos.28 and 29 have taken up contention that, they have become
testamentary successors of late Sri.Hanuma Reddy in respect of several
sites in Sy.No.19 by virtue of Will dated. 14.05.1986. According to them,
437
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
late Sri.Hanuma Reddy had executed said Will out of his free Will and
while being in sound of mind.
375. Pw.1 H.G.Lakshmi during her cross-examination on
being confronted by certified copy of the Will dated . 14.05.1986, she
clearly admitted the due execution of Will.
376. Under Section 58 of Indian Succession Act, 1872 facts
admitted need not be proved. In that view of the matter, it is to be held
that, defendants Nos.28 and 29 have proved that they are testimentary
successors of late Sri.Hanuma Reddy in respect of above referred
properties. Accordingly, I answer this issue in the Affirmative.
377. My findings on issue Nos.11, 12 and additional Issue Nos.1
and 2 in suit No.3. :- All these issues are taken up together for
discussions, as they are inter-related.
438
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Under these issues, defendants Nos.31, 81, 83 to 85 and 94 to 98
are having burden to prove that they are bonafide purchasers of respective
properties by virtue of concerned sale deeds. Defendant No.97
Sri.K.Srinivasan is examined as Dw.10 and got marked Exs.D.237 to
Ex.D.246. It is to be noted that, purchasers of the property have to show
that, they are bonafide purchasers only when the property they had
purchased found to be joint family property and they have purchased the
same after due enquiry, but without being aware that, there are other
sharers for the said property apart from their vendor.
378. In the present case, as already discussed in the
foregoing issues, after the partition deed dated. 29.11.1971 which is duly
acted upon Sri.Hanuma Reddy and his sons no longer remained joint
family members and thereby severance of status of joint family members
is clearly established. Whatever the said transactions taken place they
were after 1971 i.e after severance of status. Therefore, plaintiffs were not
439
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
at all entitled to question the alienation made by their father or brothers.
That being the case, these purchasers are absolved from burden of proving
that they are bona fide purchasers of their respective properties. For that
reason, these issues does not survive for consideration at all.
379. My findings on issue Nos.1 to 7 in O.S.No.476/ 2006:-
This suit is based on Will dated. 14.05.1986. Burden of proving
issue Nos.1, 2 and 5 to 7 is on the plaintiffs. Inspite of providing
sufficient opportunity, none of the parties led their evidence and
throughout the case, there was no representation on either side. Therefore,
it goes without saying that, plaintiff has failed to discharge her burden of
proving the above issues. Therefore, this court need not record any
findings on these issues. Consequently, the suit deserves to be dismissed.
Hence, I answer these issues accordingly.
440
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
With regard to IA Nos.1/16, 8/11 and 46
380. During the proceedings, this court opined vide order dt.
01.08.2018 that, IA No.1/16 dated 05.01.2016 filed by defendant No.39 to
reject the plaint and IA No.8/16 dated 20.12.2016 filed by plaintiff to
direct the defendant Nos.86 and 87 to deposit the the rent will be
considered along with the main suit. Thereafter, on 09.04.2019 plaintiff in
O.S.No.1754/ 2006 has filed IA No.46 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w
Sec 151 of CPC. This court has opined that, said IA will be considered for
disposal along with main suit. Accordingly, now, I am disposing these
interlocutory applications.
381. Defendant No.39 has sought for rejection of plaint on the
ground that, he has purchased item No.4 of suit schedule 'C' property
under 2 different sale deeds dt. 15.09.1994 and 19.09.1994 and the present
suit is filed in the year 2006 seemingly to avail benefit of Hindu
Succession Amendment Act, 2005. However, in view of Section 6, Sub
441
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Section 1 of Hindu Succession Amendment Act, 2005 the said
amendment is not applicable to disposition or alienation or testamentary
disposition of property prior to 20.12.2004. For this reason, suit itself is
not maintainable in so far as it relates to him.
382. Denying the contention of defendant No.39, plaintiff
contends that, the application is filed at belated stage though defendant
No.39 and the property purchased by him were included into suit quite
long back. Defendant No.39 has come up with this application on
05.01.2016 which amounts to abuse of process of law.
383. The question of applicability of Hindu Succession
Amendment Act, 2005 arises when both father and daughters are alive as
on 09.09.2005. Father of the plaintiff late Sri.Hanuma Reddy died in the
year 1991 itself. Similarly, in order to avail benefit of Hindu Succession
Karnataka Amendment Act 1994 the marriage of daughter claiming
partition must have solemnized after 1994. Looking to the facts of the
442
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
case and age of the daughters claiming partition it goes without saying that
they are married much prior to 1994. That being the case, benefit of both
these Acts are not available for the plaintiff. In that view of the matter,
amendment to Section 6, Sub Section (1) Hindu Succession Amendment
Act 2005 is not applicable in this case. Therefore, I find no substance in
the contention of the defendant No.39 that suit is not maintainable and it
deserves to be rejected.
384. Plaintiff has filed application U/s.151 of CPC against
defendants Nos.86 and 87 directing them to deposit rent before the court.
As already held in foregoing issues, plaintiffs are not entitled for any share
in the suit schedule properties. If at all, they were entitled for any share
then defendants Nos.86 and 87 were liable to deposit rent as to be
disbursed amongst the sharers proportionately. No such situation arises
when the suits themselves are being dismissed. Hence, this IA deserves to
be rejected.
443
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
385. With regard to IA No.46, plaintiff has sought for temporary
injunction against defendant No.24 restraining him from putting up further
construction on portion of item No.4 of suit schedule property. However,
from the findings on foregoing issues, it is apparent that, plaintiffs herein
are not entitled for main relief of partition and separate possession in
respect of any of the suit schedule properties. Therefore, question of
granting any interim relief as against defendant No.24 in terms of the
prayer therein does not arise. Hence, this IA deserves to be rejected.
386. My findings on issue No.13 in suit No.1 and issue No.8 in
O.S.476/2006 and issue No.18 in suit No.3:- All these issues are taken
up together for discussions, as they relate to reliefs claimed by the
plaintiffs.
In view of the above discussions, none of the plaintiffs in these suits
are entitled for any relief. Therefore, all these suits deserve to be
dismissed.
444
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
387. From the discussion in the foregoing issues, it is manifest
that, plaintiffs in both the suits being well aware that late Sri.Hanuma
Reddy has not left behind any properties allotted to his share in 1971
Partition and defendants Nos.1 and 2 have acquired different properties
out of their own income subsequent to partition have instituted these
frivolous suits and thereby wasted valuable time of the court of law as
well as the contesting defendants herein. It has became a lucrative
business these days to raise non existent disputes and mint money from
builders and developers holding out a threat of court litigation. The courts
which are brimming with genuine litigations have to set apart their very
precious time for these frivolous litigations as well only to find at the fag
end that the disputes never existed. In order to curb this tendency and deal
with such litigation masters with heavy hand, I deem it absolutely
necessary to impose exemplary costs so that it should send a strong
message not only to the plaintiffs but also to the elements engaged in such
activities.
445
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
With these observations, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
IA Nos.1/16, 8/16 and 46 are hereby rejected. No order as to costs.
All the suits are hereby dismissed. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.942/ 2001 and O.S.No.1754/2006 are directed to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- each to contesting defendants.
Keep the original copy of this common Judgment in O.S.No.942 /2001 and copies thereof in O.S.Nos.476/ 2006 and O.S.No.1754/ 2006.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer directly on Computer and computerised print-out taken thereof is corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 26th day of April, 2019) (Maheshwari.S.Hiremath) XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
446O.S.No.942/2001 C/w O.S.No.476/2006 C/w O.S.No.1754/2006 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiffs:
In O.S.No.942/ 2001 Pw.1 : Vanamala (discarded) Pw.2 : Chandraprakash In O.S.No.1754/ 2006 Pw.1 : Smt.Lakshmi.H.G List of documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiffs:
In O.S.942/ 2001 Ex.P.1 : C/c of Partition Deed dated .30.09.1955 Ex.P.1(a) : Its typed copy Ex.P.2 : C/c of register No.8 Ex.P.3 : C/c of Sale deed dated.17.01.1966 Ex.P.3(a) : Its typed copy Ex.P.4 : C/c of Sale deed dated.26.06.1967 Ex.P.4(a) : Its typed copy Ex.P.5 : C/c of Sale deed dated.21.06.1969 Ex.P.6 : C/c of Mortgage deed dated . 20.01.1977 Ex.P.6(a) : Its typed copy Ex.P.7 : C/c of Sale deed dated.20.11.1968 Ex.P.7(a) : Its typed copy Ex.P.8 : C/c of Sale deed dated.14.05.1968 Ex.P.8(a) : Its typed copy 447 O.S.No.942/2001 C/w O.S.No.476/2006 C/w O.S.No.1754/2006 Ex.P.9 : C/c of Sale deed dated.21.11.1968 Ex.P.9(a) : Its typed copy Ex.P.10 : C/c of Joint Development Agreement dt.27.01.2006 Ex.P.11 : C/c of Sale deed dated.13.12.2005 Ex.P.12 : RTC extracts to Ex.P.28 : General Power of Attorney dated .24.03.2010 Ex.P.29 : C/c of Joint Development Agreement dt. 09.06.2006 Ex.P.30 : C/c of Partition deed dated . 03.05.2012 In OS.No.1754/2006 Ex.P.1 : Special Power of Attorney dated. 21.01.2013 Ex.P.2 : C/c of Partition deed dated. 29.11.1971 Ex.P.3 : C/c of Sale deed dated. 26.06.1967 Ex.P.4 : C/c of Sale deed dated. 20.06.1968 Ex.P.5 : C/c of Sale deed dated. 03.10.1970 Ex.P.6 : C/c of Registered sale deed dated. 26.09.1968 Ex.P.7 : C/c of Sale deed dated. 26.06.1967 Ex.P.8 : C/c of Sale deed dated. 20.11.1968 Ex.P.9 : C/c of Sale deed dated. 21.11.1968 Ex.P.10 : C/c of Sale deed dated. 10.04.1975 Ex.P.11 : C/c of Sale deed dated. 23.04.1988 Ex.P.12 : C/c of Sale deed dated. 18.05.1987 Ex.P.13 : C/c of Sale deed dated. 04.04.1988 Ex.P.14 : C/c of Sale deed dated. 16.01.1995 Ex.P.15 : C/c of Sale deed dated. 13.12.2004 Ex.P.16 : C/c of Sale deed dated. 12.06.1985 Ex.P.17 : C/c of lease deed dated. 29.04.2004 Ex.P.18 : C/c of lease deed dated. 12.04.2007 Ex.P.19 : C/c of Sale deed dated. 20.01.1977 448 O.S.No.942/2001 C/w O.S.No.476/2006 C/w O.S.No.1754/2006 Ex.P.20 : C/c of Sale deed dated. 18.12.1961 Ex.P.21 : C/c of Sale deed dated. 12.12.2003 Ex.P.22 : C/c of order sheet L.R.2256, 2258 of 1979-80 Ex.P.23 : C/c of Sale deed dated. 17.02.1994 Ex.P.24 : C/c of Occupation register extract Ex.P.25 : Genealogical tree of Chikkamuishami Reddy Ex.P.26 : C/c of Sale deed dated. 26.01.1985 Ex.P.27 : C/c of Sale deed dated. 15.09.1994 Ex.P.28 : C/c of Sale deed dated. 11.03.1992 Ex.P.29 : C/c of Form No.10 Ex.P.30 : C/c of Joint Development Agreement dated .7.9.2007 Exs.P.31 to to P.51 : RTC extracts Ex.P.52 : Endorsement dated . 10.08.2005 Ex.p.53 : Tax demand register extracts to 56 Ex.P.57 : C/c of sale deed dated . 17.01.1966 Exs.P.58 to 89 : RTC extracts Ex.P.90 : C/c of JDA dated. 27.1.2006 Ex.P.91 : C/c of absolute sale deed dated . 26.05.2007 to 94 Ex.P.95, 96 : Certified copies of sale deeds dated . 26.6.2007 Ex.P.97 : C/c of sale deed dated . 23.6.2007 Ex.P.98 : C/c of sale deed dated . 10.7.2007 Ex.P.99 : C/c of sale deed dated . 13.09.2007 Ex.P.100 : C/c of sale deed dated . 15.10.2007 Ex.P.101 : C/c of sale deed dated . 28.11.2007 Ex.P.102 : C/c of sale deed dated . 5.12.2007 Ex.P.103 : C/c of sale deed dated . 4.2.2006 Ex.P.104 : C/c of sale deed dated . 22.2.2006 449 O.S.No.942/2001 C/w O.S.No.476/2006 C/w O.S.No.1754/2006 Exs.P.105,106: Certified copies of sale deeds dated . 6.3.2006 Exs.P.107, 108: Certified copies of sale deeds dated . 7.4.2006 Ex.P.109 : C/c of Memorandum of JDA dated .13.12.2004 Ex.P.110 : C/c of Agreement dated. 28.10.2005 Ex.P.111 : C/c of absolute sale deed dated. 13.2.2004 Ex.P.112 : C/c of sale deed dated. 24.2.1992 Ex.P.113 : C/c of the order sheet in OS.No.942/2011 Ex.P.114 : C/c of Lease Agreement dated.19.11.2012 Ex.P.115 : C/c of sale deed dated. 08.08.2008 Ex.P.116 : C/c of sale deed dated. 12.07.2002 Ex.P.117 : C/c of Gift deed dated. 16.11.2002 Ex.P.118 : C/c of Joint Development Agreement dated. 22.2.2017 Ex.P.119 : Agreement of sale dated. 8.6.2018 Ex.P.120 : C/c of sale deed dated . 08.08.2013 Ex.P.121 : C/c of sale deed dated . 4.4.1988 Ex.P.122 : C/c of sale deed dated .16.10.2004 Ex.P.123 : C/c of Gift deed dated .12.12.2013 Ex.P.124 : C/c of Rectification Deed dated. 12.1.2015 Ex.P.125 : C/c of Release Single Partition deed dt .31.3.2000 Ex.P.126 : C/c of JDA dated .29.1.2012 Ex.P.127 : C/c of sale deed dated . 21.6.2013 Ex.P.128 : C/c of sale deed dated . 25.11.2013 Ex.P.129 : C/c of sale deed dated . 27.11.2013 Ex.P.130 : C/c of sale deed dated . 9.12.2013 Ex.P.131 : C/c of sale deed dated . 27.11.2013 Ex.P.132 : C/c of sale deed dated .6.2.2014 Ex.P.133 : C/c of sale deed dated . 20.2.2014 Ex.P.134 : C/c of sale deed dated . 2.4.2014 Ex.P.135 : C/c of sale deed dated . 3.7.2013 Ex.P.136 : C/c of sale deed dated . 10.72013 Ex.P.137 : C/c of sale deed dated . 18.7.2013 450 O.S.No.942/2001 C/w O.S.No.476/2006 C/w O.S.No.1754/2006 Ex.P.138 : Certified copies of sale deeds dated . 19.7.2013 to P.140 Ex.P.141 : C/c of sale deed dated . 9.10.2013 Ex.P.142 : C/c of sale deed dated . 25.10.2013 List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendants:
In O.S.No.942/2001 Dw.1 : Santosh Lunkad Dw.2 : Vijay Kumar In O.S.No.1754/2006 Dw.1 : T.Vijay Kumar Dw.2 : N.H.Anantha Reddy Dw.3 : Ramachandra Reddy Dw.4 : N.Gopala Reddy Dw.5 : L.Venkataramana Raju Dw.6 : C.Surendranath Reddy Dw.7 : Satya Shekar Dw.8 : Satya Shekar Dw.9 : Nagesh M. Dw.10 : K.Srinivasan
List of documents exhibited on behalf of defendants:
In OS.No.942/2001 Ex.D.1 : Original authorization letter dt .11.12.2015 Ex.D.2 : Memorandum of Association and 451 O.S.No.942/2001 C/w O.S.No.476/2006 C/w O.S.No.1754/2006 Articles of Association Ex.D.3 : C/c of Form No.8 Exs.D.4, 5 : RTC extracts Ex.D.6 : C/c of Hissa Tippani Ex.D.7 : C/c of Pakka book Ex.D.8 : Encumbrance certificate dated .1.4.1960 to 31.5.1989 Ex.D.9 : C/c Sale deed dated. 28.6.1983 Ex.D.9(a) : Its typed copy Exs.D.10 : Certified copies of plaint , written statement of D.31 to D.12 and order sheet in O.S.No.1754/2006 Ex.D.13 : C/c of speaking order dated. 5.7.2011 in O.S.1754/2006 Ex.D14 : C/c of deposition and relevant portion of cross-
examination of Pw.1 in O.S.No.1754/ 2006.
List of documents exhibited on behalf of defendants:-
In OS.No.1754 /2006
Ex.D.1 : C/c of Gift Deed dated . 27.3.1972
Exs.D.2 to : RTC extracts
D.34
Ex.D.35 : C/c of absolute sale deed dated. 16.10.2004
Ex.D.36 : C/c of absolute sale deed dated. 13.12.2004
Ex.D.37 : C/c of Partition deed dated. 30.9.1955
Ex.D.38 : C/c of the decree in O.S.401/1968
Ex.D.38(a)
to (c) : Signatures
Ex.D.39 : C/c of the decree in O.S.671/1969
Ex.D.40 : Photograph
452
O.S.No.942/2001
C/w
O.S.No.476/2006
C/w
O.S.No.1754/2006
Ex.D.41 : Mutation extracts
to D.90
Exs.D.91, 92: Certified copies of RTC extracts
Exs.D.93 : RTC extracts
to 101 :
Ex.D.102 : Mutation extract
Ex.D.103 : RTC extract
Ex.D.104 : C/c of sale deed dt .9.7.1999
Ex.D.105 : C/c of plaint in O.S.3536/ 2005
Ex.D.106 : C/c of compromise petition in O.S.3536/ 2005
Ex.D.107 : General power of attorney dated .8.8.2016
Ex.D.108 : General power of attorney dated .29.2.2016
Ex.D.109 : C/c of sale deed dated. 19.3.1994
Exs.D.110, 111: Certified copies of RTC extracts Ex.D.112 : Mutation extract Ex.D.113 : C/c of encumbrance certificate Ex.D.114 : C/c of partition deed dated. 29.11.1971 Ex.D.115 : Quarrying Lease dated . 20.11.1991 Ex.D.116 : C/c of sale deed dated . 23.4.1988 Ex.D.116(a) : Its typed copy Ex.D.117 : C/c of sale deed dated . 4.4.1988 Ex.D.117(a) : Its typed copy Ex.D.118 : C/c of sale deed dated . 16.1.1995 Ex.D.119 : C/c of sale deed dated . 12.6.1985 Ex.D.119(a) : Its typed copy Ex.D.120 : C/c of sale deed dated . 25.11.1974 Ex.D.121 : License dated. 30.4.2002 Ex.D.122 : Special Power of Attorney dated. 6.12.2018 Ex.D.123 : C/c of registered sale deed dated .14.4.1966 Ex.D.124 : C/c of sale deed dated .30.5.1956 Ex.D.125 : C/c of Rectification deed dated .14.8.1957 453 O.S.No.942/2001 C/w O.S.No.476/2006 C/w O.S.No.1754/2006 Ex.D.126 : C/c of sale deed dated .20.3.1958 Ex.D.127 : C/c of sale deed dated .26.1.1985 Ex.D.128 : C/c of Partition deed dated. 15.11.1990 Ex.D.129 : C/c of Rectification deed dated. 18.12.2000 Ex.D.130 : C/c of Survey report dated. 18.1.1971 in Sy.No.13. Ex.D.131 : Cc/ of Hissa Survey Tippany Ex.D.132 : C/c of RR Pakka book Ex.D.133 : C/c of survey report dated .13.5.1985 Ex.D.134 : C/c of Hissa survey tippany Ex.D.135 : Electricity power sanction Ex.D.136 : Electricity cash bills Ex.D.137 : Letter dated . 27.9.2005 Ex.D.138 : C/c of RTC extract Ex.D.139 : C/c of Partition deed dated . 2.11.1955 Ex.D.140 : C/c of registered Court sale certificate dt .15.1.1942 Ex.D.141, 142: Certified copies of sale deeds 14.4.1956 and 30.5.1956 Ex.D.143 : C/c of Agreement d dated .30.5.1956 Ex.D.144 : C/c of Register agreement dated. 2.8.1957 Ex.D.145 : C/c of Rectification deed dated .14.8.1957 Ex.D.146 : C/c of Subsequent sale deed dated. 30.7.1957 Ex.D.147 : C/c of Relinquishment deed dated. 23.05.1958 Ex.D.148 : C/c of Sale deed dated. 22.3.1958 Ex.D.149 : C/c of Subsequent sale deed dated. 29.5.1965 Ex.D.150 : C/c of Sale deed dated. 26.6.1967 Ex.D.151 : C/c of decree in O.s.401/1968 Ex.D.152 : C/c of order sheet, plaint and decree in O.S.671/1969 Ex.D.153 : C/c of order sheet in R.A.No.78/ 1972 Ex.D.154 : C/c of Sale deed dated . 9.7.1999 Ex.D.155,156: Certified copies of compromise petition and decree In O.S.No.3536/2005 Ex.D.157 : C/c of Partition deed dated . 3.5.2012 454 O.S.No.942/2001 C/w O.S.No.476/2006 C/w O.S.No.1754/2006 Ex.D.158 : C/c of Memorandum of Agreement dated . 24.7.2017 Ex.D.159 : C/c of order sheet and compromise decree in O.S.4499/2016 Ex.D.160 : C/c of order sheet in SLAO Ex.D.161 : C/c of letter dated . 9.11.2016 Ex.D.162 : Original record of right dated . 9.9.1970 Ex.D.163 : Original Index of lands Ex.D.164 : Original RTC Ex.D.165 : C/c of mutation dated . 24.7.1974 Ex.D.166 to : Original Memorandums 168 Ex.D.169 : RTC Ex.D.170 : C/c of Mortgage deed dated . 18.7.1962 Ex.D.171 : C/c of Sale deed dated .9.9.1970 Ex.D.172, 173: Office copy of legal notice and reply notice Ex.D.174 : C/c of BBMP Khata certificate Ex.D.175 : C/c of BBMP Katha extract Ex.D.176 : C/c of BBMP certificate Ex.D.177 : C/c of BBMP Katha extract Ex.D.178 : C/c of JDA dated .29.9.2012 Ex.D.179 : C/c of registered JDA dated .7.11.2014 Exs.D.180, 181 : BBMP approved plans Ex.D.182 : C/c of JDA dated .13.12.2004 Ex.D.183 : C/c of JDA dated .27.01.2006 Ex.D.184 : C/c of Sale deed dt. 26.05.2007 Ex.D.185 : C/c of Sale deed dated .06.06.2007 Ex.D.186 : C/c of Sale deed dt. 26.05.2007 Ex.D.187 : C/c of Sale deed dated .06.06.2007 Ex.D.188 : C/c of Sale deed dated 23.6.2007 Ex.D.189 : C/c of Sale deed dated 10.7.2007 Ex.D.190 : C/c of Sale deed dated 13.9.2007 455 O.S.No.942/2001 C/w O.S.No.476/2006 C/w O.S.No.1754/2006 Ex.D.191 : C/c of Sale deed dated 5.12.2007 Exs.D.192, 193: C/c of Sale deed dated .26.5.2007 Ex.D.194 : C/c of Sale deed dated 15.10.2007 Ex.D.195 : C/c of Sale deed dated 28.11.2007 Ex.D.196 : C/c of Sale deed dated 09.05.2007 Ex.D.197 : C/c of Sale deed dated 15.10.2007 Ex.D.198 : C/c of Sale deed dated 28.11.2007 Ex.D.199 : C/c of Sale deed dated 26.05.2007 Ex.D.200 : C/c of Sale deed dated 6.6.2007 Ex.D.201 : C/c of Sale deed dated 9.5.2007 Ex.D.202 : C/c of Sale deed dated 26.5.2007 Ex.D.203 : C/c of Sale deed dated 9.5.2007 Ex.D.204 : Notarised copy of Notification in CVC No.19/2010-11 Ex.D.205 : C/c of RTC extract of Sy.No.10 Ex.D.206 : C/c of requisition to LAO, KIADB Ex.D.207 : C/c of Joint survey sketh Ex.D.208 : Certified copies of compensation package Exs.D.209 : C/c of compensation package to D.212 Ex.D.213 : C/c of Letter to SLAO Ex.D.214 : C/c of Judgment and decree In O.S.2196/2010 Ex.D.215 : Record of rights Ex.D.216 : Tax paid receipt in Sy.No.10 Ex.D.217 : Tax demand register extract of site No.423 Ex.D.218 : BBMP certificate dated .7.12.2018 Ex.D.219 : BBMP tax paid certificate Ex.D.220 : Photographs to 228 Ex.D.229 : CD Ex.D.230 : Certificate U/s.65-B of Indian Evidence Act 456 O.S.No.942/2001 C/w O.S.No.476/2006 C/w O.S.No.1754/2006 Ex.D.231 : C/c of RTC extract to 233 Ex.D.234, 235 : Original Encumbrance certificate Ex.D.236 : C/c of registered Will dated .14.05.1986 Ex.D.237 : C/c of sale deed dated .25.8.1975 Ex.D.238 : C/c of sale deed dated .31.1.1981 Ex.D.239 : C/c of sale deed dated .14.9.2012 Ex.D.240 : C/c of sale deed dated .8.8.2013 Ex.D.241 : C/c of sale deed dated .1.12.1992 Ex.D.242 : C/c of sale deed dated 11.7.2002 Ex.D.243 : C/c of Gift deed dated 16.11.2002 Ex.D.244 : C/c of sale deed dated 8.8.2008 Ex.D.245 : C/c of Amalgamation deed dated .22.2.2017 Ex.D.246 : C/c of JDA dated .22.2.2017 (Maheshwari.S.Hiremath) XXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
457 O.S.No.942/2001 C/w O.S.No.476/2006 C/w O.S.No.1754/2006