Bangalore District Court
Sarojamma vs Krishnappa on 2 August, 2025
KABC010158532009
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-8)
PRESENT
SRI. B.DASARATHA., B.A., LL.B.
XI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
O.S. No.5968/2009
Plaintiffs: 1. Smt. Sarojamma,
D/o. Late Pullappa,
W/o. Muniswamy,
Aged about 54 years,
Residing at Veerasandra Village,
Attibele Hobli, Hebbugodi Post,
Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District.
2. Sri. Venkatesh,
S/o. Late Munirathnamma,
Aged about 25 years.
3. Sri. Chandra,
S/o. Late Munirathnamma,
Aged about 23 years.
2 O.S. No.5968/2009
4. Smt. Rathnamma,
D/o. Late Munirathnamma,
Aged about 20 years.
Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are residing at
Chunchagatta Village, Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk.
(By. Adv. Sri. H.T.Jagannatha)
Vs.
Defendants: 1. Sri. Krishnappa,
S/o. Late Pullappa,
Aged about 53 years.
Since dead by his LRs:
1(a). Smt. Muniyamma,
W/o. Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 53 years,
# 98, Maruthi Nilaya,
Near Government School,
Chunchagatta, Bangalore South,
Konanakunte,
Bangalore - 560 062.
1(b). Smt. Anjali,
W/o. Late Krishnappa
Aged about 51 years,
# 39, 2nd Cross, Near Sarakari Shale,
Chunchagatta, Bangalore South,
Konanakunte,
Bangalore - 560 062.
1(c). Sri. K.Ravi,
S/o. Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 35 years,
3 O.S. No.5968/2009
# 98, Maruthi Nilaya,
Near Government School,
Chunchagatta, Bangalore South,
Konanakunte,
Bangalore - 560 062.
1(d). Smt. Poornima,
D/o. Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 33 years,
# 39, Maruthi Nilaya,
1st Main Road,
Sarkari Prathamika Shale
Chunchagatta, Bangalore South,
Konanakunte,
Bangalore - 560 062.
1(e). Sri. Manu Kumar K.,
S/o. Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 24 years,
# 39, 2nd Cross, Near Sarkari Shale,
Chunchagatta, Bangalore South,
Konanakunte,
Bangalore - 560 062.
1(f). Sri. Madan Kumar K.,
S/o. Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 22 years,
# 39, 2nd Cross, Near Sarkari Shale,
Chunchagatta, Bangalore South,
Konanakunte,
Bangalore - 560 062.
2. Smt. Ammayamma,
D/o. Late Pullappa,
W/o. Munirajappa,
Aged about 60 years.
4 O.S. No.5968/2009
3. Smt. Pullamma,
D/o. Late Pullappa,
Aged about 48 years.
Defendants 1 to 3 are residing at
Chunchagatta Village, Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk.
4. Sri. K.B.Lakshman,
S/o. Late N.Beerappa,
Major,
R/at Kumar Nursery, Konanakunte,
Bangalore - 62.
5. Sri. H.R.Ravichandra,
S/o. Late Rajashekarreddy,
Major,
R/at No.551, 16th 'A' Main,
Koramangala, Bangalore - 32.
6. Sri. Kumaresh Narayan,
S/o. T.V.Narayan,
R/at No.126/B, 3rd Cross,
S.T. Bed Layout, Koramangala,
Bangalore - 34.
7. Smt. Nirmala Kumaresh,
W/o. Kumaresh,
R/at No.126/B, 3rd Cross,
S.T. Bed Layout, Koramangala,
Bangalore -34.
8. Sri. Manjunath D.K.,
S/o. Sri.Murthy R.K.,
Aged about 60 years.
5 O.S. No.5968/2009
9. Sri. Ramamurthy D.,
S/o. Sri.Devappa,
Aged about 59 years.
10. Sri. Laxhmanna S.,
S/o. Sri.Sampanna,
Aged about 59 years.
Defendants No. 8 to 10 are
R/at Konnanguntte Village,
Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk.
11. Sri. Narayana C.,
S/o. Sri.Venkatesh,
Aged about 47 years,
R/at No.410, 33rd Main Road,
Abbaiah Reddy Layout,
J.P.Nagar, 6th Phase,
Bengaluru - 560 078.
12. Sri. Chandra Shekar P.,
S/o. Sri.P.C.Obbaiah,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at No.204,
Primeland Mark Apartment,
15th Main, Rose Garden Road,
(Behind Easter Park),
J.P.Nagar, V Phase,
Bengaluru - 560 078.
13. Sri. Vasant Rao Prahlada Rao Kulkarni,
S/o. Kulkarni P.K.,
Aged about 84 years,
R/at No.219, 1st Floor,
17th "B" Cross, 30th Main,
6th Phase, J.P.Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560 078.
6 O.S. No.5968/2009
14. Sri. Hanish Menon,
S/o. Late Menon K.C.,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at No.19/7,
"Srinivasa Nilaya", 2nd Cross,
Venkatapura Main Road,
Koramangala 1st Block,
Bengaluru - 560 034.
15. Smt. Subbalakshmamma B.R.,
W/o. Late Narayana Reddy B.,
Aged about 70 years,
R/at No.107, 38th "A" Cross,
9th Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 069.
16. Sri. Subramanya Udupa,
S/o. Sri.Manjunatha Udupa M.,
Aged about 55 years,
R/at No.122 (Upstairs),
10th "E" Main, 5th Cross,
1st Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 011.
17. Sri. Arunachalam Shetty A.S.,
Aged about 83 years,
R/at No.122 (Upstairs),
10th "E" Main, 5th Cross,
1st Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 011.
18. Sri. Vivekananda,
S/o. Sri. Sudharshan Reddy A.C.,
Aged about 41 years,
R/at No.25/2, Wilson Garden,
11th Main, 13th Cross,
Bengaluru - 560 030.
7 O.S. No.5968/2009
19. Smt. Vasundha Nandish Babu,
W/o. Sri.Nandish Babu P.,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at No.197, Railway Station Road,
Kengeri, Bengaluru - 560 060.
20. Sri. Chandrashekara Rao G.,
S/o. Late Ganapathy Rao S.,
Aged about 73 years,
R/at No.187/7,
Marenahalli Tank Bed Area,
6th Cross, 6th Main,
5th Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 041.
21. Sri. Srinivasa Murthy B.S.,
S/o. Sri.Sheshappa K.T.,
Aged about 36 years.
22. Smt. Kavya K.S.,
W/o. Sri.Srinivasa Murthy B.S.,
Aged about 35 years.
Defendants No. 21 and 22 are
R/at No.15, New No.171,
"Srinivasa" 12th Main,
Shakambari Nagar,
Near Gurukul Vidyakendra,
J.P.Nagar 1st Phase,
Bengaluru - 560 078.
23. Sri. Kundurthi Murali Manohar Babu,
S/o. Sri.Nageswara Rao K.,
Aged about 44 years,
R/at No.3, 9th Cross,
3rd Main, Shreya Colony,
J.P.Nagar, 7th Phase,
Bengaluru - 560 078.
8 O.S. No.5968/2009
24. Sri. Ramesh C.V.,
S/o. Late Venkatappa,
Aged about 46 years,
R/at No.905, 12th Cross,
35th Main Road, 1st Stage,
J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru - 560 078.
25. Sri. Sudeep Kumar D.V.,
S/o. Not known to the plaintiff,
Aged about 45 years,
R/at No.273/A, 37th Cross,
8th Block, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 085.
26. Smt. Pushpakantha,
W/o. Sri.Venu Gopal,
Aged about 71 years,
R/at No.3, Omkadi,
4th Cross, 10th Main Road,
Agrahara, Bengaluru - 560 023.
27. Smt. Pratibha Bai,
W/o. Sri.Pratap B.,
Aged about 63 years,
R/at No.10/004,
Shanthi Park Apartments,
Jayanagar 9th Block,
Bengaluru.
28. Smt. Shashikala Aparanji,
W/o. Sri.Animalle Aparanji,
Aged about 71 years,
R/at No.132/4, 3rd Block,
2nd Cross, Jayanagar,
Bengaluru - 560 011.
29. Sri. Prabhakaran N.,
S/o. Natesan P.,
9 O.S. No.5968/2009
Aged about 46 years,
R/at No.46, Linden Street,
Bengaluru - 560 047.
(D1 - Dead
D1(a) to 1(f) - Absent
D2 & D3 by Adv. Sri. D.S.
D4, D8 to D27 - Exparte
D5 by Adv. Sri. K.S.M.R.
D6 & D7 by Adv. Sri. V.H.B.
D28 by Adv. Sri. P.U.T
D29 by Adv. Sri. G.V.V.)
Date of institution of the suit : 09.09.2009
Nature of the suit : Partition and Separate
Possession & Declaration
Date of commencement of : 07.04.2025
Recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 02.08.2025
was pronounced
Total Duration : Years Months Days
15 10 23
XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
10 O.S. No.5968/2009
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for the relief of partition
in respect of agricultural land in Sy. No.147 (2 acres 1 gunta)
and Sy. No.7/2B (2 acres 12 guntas, including 3 guntas
kharab), situated at Kottanur village, Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk and allot 1/5th share to plaintiff No.1 and
1/5th share collectively to plaintiff No.2 to 4 and declaration that
the sale deed dated 23.12.2002 is not binding on plaintiffs and
other appropriate reliefs and costs.
2. The brief averments of the plaint is as follows:
The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 belong to Hindu joint
family governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The
common ancestor – late Pullappa, died intestate leaving behind
one son – defendant No.1 – Krishnappa and 4 daughters:
Smt.Ammaiahmma (defendant No.2), Late Munirathnamma (the
mother of plaintiffs 2 to 4), Smt.Sarojamma (plaintiff No.1) and
Smt.Pullamma (defendant No.3).
2(a). The suit schedule properties are purchased by late
Pullappa under the registered sale deeds dated 17.02.1961 and
21.01.1958. Upon his death, revenue records were mutated
11 O.S. No.5968/2009jointly in the name of his widow-Smt.Gowramma and son-
Krishnappa – defendant No.1. It is further contended that there
is no partition has taken place. The plaintiffs and defendants
No.1 to 3 remained in joint possession. The defendant No.1, as
the only son, began managing family affairs as Kartha. The
plaintiffs had cordial relations with defendant No.1 initially. Over
time, defendant No.1 became evasive, failed to share income
and refused partition. He persuaded plaintiffs not to insist on
immediate partition, stating that conversion to residential status
would fetch a better price. The plaintiffs later discovered that
defendant No.1, through alleged GPA Holder – defendant No.4,
sold Sy. No.7/2B to defendant No.5- Ravichandra through the
sale deed dated 23.12.2002. The plaintiffs claim no partition
had taken place, so defendant No.1 had no authority to alienate
property. On these grounds, the plaintiffs have sought the relief
of partition and separate possession: 1/ 5th share to plaintiff
No.1 and 1/5th share collectively to plaintiff No.2 to 4 (legal heirs
of Smt.Munirathnamma) and declaration that the sale deed
dated 23.12.2002 is not binding on plaintiffs.
12 O.S. No.5968/2009
3. The defendant No.5 filed the written statement. The
brief averments of written statement of defendant No.5 is as
follows:
The defendant No.5 denies knowledge of Hindu joint
family or Mitakshara Law claim. He disputes plaintiffs’ claim
that late Pullappa had four daughters. He claims Pullappa had
only one son – defendant No.1 (Krishnappa) and he and his
mother- Smt.Gowramma are the sole legal heirs. The defendant
No.5 purchased Sy. No.7/2B under valid title from defendant
No.4 – Lakshmana, the GPA Holder of defendant No.1 and
Smt.Gowramma. The GPA was duly registered vide Doc.
No.792/97, dated 09.06.1997. The land was converted to
residential purpose on 10.01.2002. The defendant No.5 formed
a residential layout on the said land and sold several sites,
some of which have houses constructed.
3(a). The defendant No.5 claims that, he is no longer in
possession as site owners have taken possession. The
plaintiffs have suppressed material facts. The suit is collusive
between plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and is an attempt to
challenge settled transactions.
13 O.S. No.5968/2009
3(b). Suit is undervalued. No ownership right accrued to
plaintiffs even if assumed they are daughters of Pullappa. Suit
is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., purchasers of
individual sites. The defendant No.5 mentions pending suit in
O.S.No.25551/2011 filed by the site owner against defendant
No.1 and 2 and plaintiff No.3, where an order of injunction is in
force. On these grounds, prays for dismissal of the suit with
exemplary costs.
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, my
predecessor-in-office has framed the following issues for
determination:-
ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiffs prove that suit schedule
properties are the ancestral and joint family
properties of themselves and defendant Nos.1 to
3?
2. Whether plaintiffs further prove that Sale Deed
dated 23.11.2002 bearing Document
No.BNG(U)KNG/17325/2002-03 is not binding on
their shares?
3. Whether defendant No.5 proves that suit of the
plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties?
14 O.S. No.5968/2009
4. Whether defendant No.5 proves that he is the
bonafide purchaser of the Item No.2 of the suit
schedule property for valuable consideration?
5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of
partition as sought?
6. Whether plaintiffs further prove that they are
entitled for the relief of declaration as sought?
7. What order or decree ?
5. After settlement of issues, the plaintiff has entered into
the witness box as PW-1 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 were marked
through her. On 03.07.2025, PW-1’s evidence was discarded
due to her failure to appear for cross-examination despite
opportunities. The defendants failed to adduce evidence.
6. Arguments were heard, with only defendant No.28
presenting arguments for dismissal due to absence of PW-1
and failure of plaintiffs to prove Issues No.1 and 2.
7. My findings on the above issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: In the negative.
Issue No.2: In the negative.
Issue No.3: In the affirmative.
Issue No.4: In the affirmative.
Issue No.5: In the negative.
Issue No.6: In the negative.
Issue No.7: As per final order below
for the following:
15 O.S. No.5968/2009
REASONS
8. Issue No.1:- The plaintiff No.1 filed an affidavit in lieu
of examination-in-chief on 07.04.2025, producing documents at
Ex.P.1 is the notarized family tree. Ex.P.2 to P.7 are the true
copies of RTCs and RTCs and Ex.P.8 is certified copy sale
deed dated 23.12.2002. On 03.07.2025, PW-1’s evidence was
discarded due to her failure to appear for cross-examination
despite opportunities.
9. The plaintiffs assert that the suit properties were
acquired by their father – late Pullappa, through the registered
sale deeds dated 17.02.1961 and 21.01.1958. Pullappa died
intestate, leaving behind 5 children i.e., Plaintiff No.1-
Sarojamma; Defendants 1 to 3 - Sri.Krishnappa, Smt.Ammayamma and Smt.Pullamma and late
Smt.Munirathnamma, the mother of plaintiffs No.2 to 4. They
claim the properties are joint family properties under the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 , with no partition among the heirs.
10. The defendant No.5 denies the existence of
Pullappa’s daughters, except Krishnappa and Smt.Gowramma
16 O.S. No.5968/2009
as sole heirs, calling the family tree – Ex.P.1 a concocted
document. The defendant No.5 relies on an affidavit filed by
Krishnappa dated 03.09.2001 stating, he and Smt.Gowramma
were the sole heirs.
11. Ex.P.1 – notarized family tree and Ex.P.3 to P.7 – RTC
Extracts showing revenue entries in the names of
Smt.Gowramma and Krishnappa post-Pullappa’s death under
IHC No.36/1969-70. The affidavit of PW-1 asserts the joint
family status and equal shares, but was discarded due to lack
of cross-examination.
12. No evidence was adduced by defendant No.5 to
support the claim that only Krishnappa and Smt.Gowramma
were heirs. The affidavit dated 03.09.2001 was referenced, but
not produced.
13. Under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956,
if Pullappa died intestate, his properties devolve equally among
his Class I heirs. The plaintiffs must prove that they are the
heirs of Pullappa to claim the share. Ex.P.1 – family tree is
notarized, but lacks corroboration i.e., birth certificates, school
17 O.S. No.5968/2009
records or public documents. Its authenticity is challenged and
failure of PW-1 to undergo cross-examination undermines its
credibility. Ex.P.2 to P.7 – RTC Extracts shows revenue entries
in the names of Smt.Gowramma and Krishnappa, suggesting
they were recognized as heirs post-Pullappa’s death. However,
revenue entries are not conclusive proof of title under Section
133 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and do not negate the
possibility of other heirs.
14. The failure of plaintiffs to produce PW-1 for cross-
examination results in their evidence being discarded, leaving
no admissible proof of their relationship to Pullappa or the joint
family status. The plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit
schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of
themselves and defendants 1 to 3 due to the absence of
admissible evidence. Hence, Issue No.1 is answered in the
negative.
15. Issue No.2:- The sale deed dated 23.12.2002,
executed by defendant No.4 – Lakshman, the GPA Holder of
Krishnappa in favour of defendant No.5 – Ravichandra for Sy.
18 O.S. No.5968/2009
No.7/2B, is fraudulent and not binding, as Krishnappa lacked
authority to alienate joint family property without the consent of
other coparceners. The defendant No.5 claims Krishnappa and
Smt.Gowramma, as sole heirs, executed the GPA dated
29.06.1997 in favour of Lakshman, who validly sold the
property. The defendant No.5 asserts that, he is a bonafide
purchaser.
16. Ex.P.4, P.6 and P.7 – RTCs Extracts and Ex.P.8 –
Sale Deed showing name of Ravichandra post-sale under MR
No.38/2003-04. PW-1’s affidavit alleges fraud, but was
discarded. No evidence was adduced to prove the validity of
GPA or execution of sale deed.
17. Under Hindu law, a coparcener cannot alienate joint
family property without the consent of other coparceners unless
for legal necessity or benefit of the estate. If the plaintiffs are
the heirs of Pullappa, Krishnappa’s unilateral sale would be
invalid. The failure of plaintiffs to prove their heirship
undermines their claim to the share in Sy. No.7/2B, negating
their challenge to the sale deed. Ex.P.2 to P.7 confirm the
19 O.S. No.5968/2009
existence of Sale Deed, but without admissible evidence of
fraud or lack of authority, the plaintiffs cannot succeed. The
plaintiffs have failed to prove that the sale deed dated
23.12.2002 is not binding on their shares due to lack of
evidence of their entitlement to the property. Hence, Issue No.2
is answered in the negative.
18. Issue No.3: – It is the case of defendant No.5 that suit
is defective due to non-joinder of site purchasers who
purchased portions of Sy. No.7/2B after its conversion into a
residential layout listed in the appendix to the written statement.
Plaintiffs’ case is silent on this issue, as they claim the sale to
defendant No.5 is invalid, rendering subsequent sales
irrelevant. The defendant No.5 provided an appendix listing site
purchasers, but did not adduce evidence i.e., sale deeds,
possession documents to prove their ownership or possession.
19. Under Order I Rule 10, CPC, all persons whose
rights may be affected by the outcome of suit are necessary
parties. The site purchasers, having acquired portions of Sy.
No.7/2B, have direct interest in the declaration sought against
20 O.S. No.5968/2009
the sale deed. The appendix lists 22 site purchasers, some with
constructed houses, indicating their potential rights. The failure
of plaintiffs to implead them risks rendering the suit defective,
as a decree could affect their titles without their participation.
The failure of defendant No.5 to adduce evidence weakens his
claim, but the appendix and the plaintiffs’ admission of the
layout’s development through RTC entries support the
necessity of joining these parties. The defendant No.5 has
partially proved that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary
parties, as the site purchasers are affected by the reliefs
sought. Hence, Issue No.3 is answered in the affirmative.
20. Issue No.4: – The defendant No.5 claims that, he
purchased Sy. No.7/2B for valuable consideration through the
sale deed dated 23.12.2002, executed by Lakshman, the GPA
Holder of Krishnappa and Smt.Gowramma and was unaware of
the plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs allege that the sale was
fraudulent, as Krishnappa lacked authority. The defendant No.5
relies on the sale deed at Ex.P.8 produced by plaintiffs and
RTC entries at Ex.P.2 to P.7, but did not produce the GPA
dated 29.06.1997 or evidence of due diligence.
21 O.S. No.5968/2009
21. Under Section 19(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963,
a bonafide purchaser for value without notice of prior claims is
protected against challenges to their title. The sale deed and
RTC entries confirm the transaction, but failure of defendant
No.5 to produce the GPA or evidence of consideration and due
diligence weakens his claim. The failure of plaintiffs to prove
their heirship means no competing claim was established,
supporting defendant No.5’s position by default.
22. The defendant No. 5 has not fully proved that, he is a
bonafide purchaser due to lack of evidence, but the failure of
plaintiffs to establish their rights tilts the balance in his favour.
Hence, Issue No.4 is answered in the affirmative.
23. Issues No.5 and 6: – Partition and declaration
depend on plaintiffs proving Issues No.1 and 2. Since they
failed to establish that the suit schedule properties are joint
family properties and their entitlement to shares, they cannot
claim partition or declaration against the sale deed. The non-
joinder of site purchasers further complicates granting relief, as
it would affect third-party rights without their participation. The
22 O.S. No.5968/2009
plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of partition or declaration.
Hence, Issues No.5 and 6 are answered in the negative.
24. Issue No.7:- Given the plaintiffs’ failure to prove
Issues No.1, 2, 5 and 6 and the success of defendant No.5 on
Issues No.3 and 4, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The
absence of PW-1 for cross-examination and failure to adduce
admissible evidence are fatal to their case. The arguments of
defendant No.28 for dismissal are upheld, supported by the
non-joinder issue and the inability of the plaintiffs to prove their
claims. In view of the above discussions, this court proceed to
pass the following:-
ORDER
Suit of the plaintiffs is hereby dismissed.
Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I directly on
computer, typed by her, corrected and then pronounced by me,
in the open court, on this the 2nd day of August, 2025)(B.DASARATHA)
XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY.
23 O.S. No.5968/2009
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for plaintiffs:
PW.1 : Smt. Sarojamma
List of documents exhibited for plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 : Notarised Family Tree
Ex.P.2 to 7 : True copies of RTCs and RTCs
Ex.P.8 : Certified copy of Absolute Sale Deed
dated 23.12.2002
List of witnesses examined and documents exhibited for
defendants:
– NIL –
XI ADDL., CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY.