Bangalore District Court
K Gopala vs Chinnamma on 22 April, 2025
KABC0A0016642008
IN THE COURT OF IV ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL UNIT, BENGALURU (CCH-21)
PRESENT: Sri H. SHASHIDHARA SHETTY,
B.A.L., LL.M.,
IV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
Dated this 22nd day of April, 2025
O.S. No.26101/2008
Plaintiffs:- 1) Sri K. Gopala,
S/o Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 53 years,
Residing at Kudlu Village,
Madiwala Post,
Bengaluru-68.
2) Sri Muniraja Reddy,
S/o Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 33 years,
Residing at No.465,
Yashodamma Layout,
Kudlu Village,
Madiwala Post,
Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru-68.
3) Sri K. Manjunatha Reddy,
S/o Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 28 years,
Residing at Kudlu Village,
Madiwala Post,
Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru-68
(Rep. By - Sri K.V.S, Advocate)
2 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
V/S
Defendants:- 1) Smt. Chinnamma,
Since dead, her L.Rs are
Already on record as D2 to D6.
2) Sri Muniraju,
S/o Late Chinnappa @ Yellappa,
Aged about 52 years,
3) Sri Jayarama Reddy,
S/o Late Chinnappa @ Yellappa,
Aged about 42 years,
4) Sri Babu Reddy,
Since dead by his L.Rs
4(a) Smt. Prema H,
W/o Late Babu Reddy,
Aged about 48 years,
4(b) Sri Karthik B,
S/o Late Babu Reddy,
Aged about 28 years,
4(c) Sri Naveen B,
S/o Late Babu Reddy,
Aged about 25 years,
Defendants No.4(a) to (c)
are residing at Opp to BTR Garden,
10th Main, Munieshwara Layout,
Aralakunte Village,
Kudlu Main Road,
Bengaluru South Taluk,
Bengaluru-68.
5) Sri Venkatesh Reddy,
S/o Late Chinnappa @ Yellappa,
Aged about 34 years,
3 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
Defendants No.1 to 5 are
Residinbg at Kudlu Village,
Anekal Taluk,
Madiwala Post, Bengaluru-68.
6) Smt. Kamalamma,
W/o Ramakrishna Reddy,
Aged about 45 years,
Residing at D.No.18,
1st Cross, Govindareddy Layout,
Doddanakkundi Village,
Bengaluru-37.
7) Sri Munireddy K.V,
Since deceased by L.Rs
7(a) Smt. K. K.M. Pushpa,
D/o Late Sri K.V. Munireddy,
W/o Sri S.N. Annaiah Reddy,
Aged about 48 years,
No.10/3, 8th Croiss,
Suddagunte Palya,
D.R College Post,
Bengaluru-29.
7(b) Smt. K.M. Indiramma,
D/o Late Sri K.V. Murthy,
W/o Sri Ramaswamy,
Aged about 42 years,
No.116/2, Muneshwara Layout,
Kudlu Layout, Bengaluru.
7(c) Smt. Suguna,
D/o Late Sri K.V. Munireddy,
W/o Sri Jayappa Reddy,
Aged about 38 years,
Residing at Devara Chikkanahalli,
5th Main, 6th Cross,
Krishna Layout,
Bengaluru.
4 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
7(d) Sri K.M Rajappa Reddy,
S/o Late Sri K.V Mnunireddy,
Aged about 36 years,
Residing at No.65/19,
Sri Manjunatha Nilaya,
Tavarekere Main Road,
5th Cross, Balaji Nagar,
Bengaluru-09.
7(e) Smt. K.M Prabha,
D/o Late Sri K.V. Munireddy,
W/o Sri Nagaraj,
Aged about 38 years,
No.45/6, 6th Cross,
Meenakshi Layout,
Parappana Agrahara Police Camp,
Sarjapura Road,
Bengaluru.
7(f) Smt. K.M. Chandramma,
D/o Late Sri K.V. Munireddy,
W/o Sri Keshava,
Aged about years,
No.116/2, 6th Cross,
Muneshwara Layout,
Kudlu Main Road,
Bengaluru.
(D1 by - Sri VSR, D2 to 4 by - Sri H.S, D7 by - Sri PVR,
D4(a) to (c) by - Sri N.S, Advocates, D7(c)&(f) - Absent,
D7(e) - Exparte,
Date of Institution of the suit 19.07.2008
Nature of the Suit Injunction Suit
Date of the commencement of 11.11.2021
recording of the Evidence.
5 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
Date on which the Judgment 22.04.2025
was pronounced.
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration -16- -09- -03-
IV ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYOHALL UNIT: BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have filed this suit against the
defendants for declaration and permanent injunction in
respect of suit schedule property.
2. In brief, the plaint averments are as under:
One Mr. Venkatappa is the father of Krishnappa,
Chinnappa @ Yellappa Reddy and Munireddy. Plaintiffs are
the children of Krishnappa. The 1 st defendant is the wife and
defendants No.2 to 6 are the children of Chinnappa @
Yallappa. After the death of Venkatappa, the joint family
properties were partitioned amongst his three children. In
that respect, Panchayat Palupatti dated 30.04.1988 was
executed and it was acted upon by the parties. In that, the
plaintiff’s father got 1/3rd share in the joint family landed
properties and half share in the house property. Likewise,
father of the defendants No.2 to 6 and defendant No.7 got
their respective shares,, in the joint family properties.
6 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
Earlier, 1st plaintiff had filed a suit against his father and
uncles in O.S.No.8415/1996 seeking his share in joint
family properties. In that suit, in his written statement, his
uncle Munireddy (7th defendant) referred to the Panchayat
Palupatti dated 30.04.1988, so for the first time, 1 st plaintiff
came to know about previous partition of the joint family
properties. The 1/3rd share fallen to the share of the
plaintiffs’ father in Sy.No.45/6 is described as plaint B-
schedule property, which is measuring 26.12 guntas, out of
total extent of 2 acres in plaint A-schedule property.
Accordingly, the family members got compromised
O.S.No.8415/199 under compromise decree dated
27.11.2006, thereunder the plaintiffs got their respective
shares in suit B-schedule property and other properties. The
defendants No.1 to 6 started to claim their right over the
plaint B-schedule property and the defendant No.1 illegally
got transferred katha of plaint A-schedule property in her
name. Though the plaintiffs approached the Tahsildar to
effect mutation as per the compromise decree, he rejected
their prayer. They preferred appeal in RA.No.19/2008 before
the Assistant Commissioner and got the Katha transferred
in the name of the plaintiffs. The defendants No.1 to 6 have
already got 24 guntas as their father’s share in suit A-
schedule property, so they cannot claim the share fallen to
plaintiffs’ father, which is B-schedule property. The
defendants are fully aware of the Panchayat Palupatti dated
30.04.1988, where under all the family properties were
7 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
partitioned among three brothers. In fact, Chinnappa Reddy
@ Yellappa Reddy, the husband of the 1 st defendant and
father of the defendants No.2 to 6 had entered into an
agreement for sale to sell of his share 26.12 guntas in
Sy.No.45/6, New No.96 with K. Govinda Reddy, who formed
various sites and sold it to purchasers. The said K. Govinda
Reddy filed a suit in OS.No.4914/2008 against the
defendants No.1 to 6, which was later compromised.
Accordingly, the defendants No.1 to 6 executed sale deed in
favour of N. Govinda Reddy. In fact, land in Sy.No.42 of
Haralakunte village had fallen to the share of Chinnappa @
Yellappa Reddy under the Panchayath Palupatti. The 1 st
defendant gifted a site formed in Sy.No.42 to her son, under
gift deed dated 25.05.2010. The defendants have accepted
the oral partition, acted upon it and got changed katha. The
defendants No.1 to 6 executed different title documents on
the basis of the Panchayat Palupatti dated 30.04.1988 and
now they cannot dispute that Panchayat Palupatti. Hence,
prayed to declare that plaintiffs are the absolute owners of
suit B-schedule property and to direct the defendants No.1
to 5 not to interfere with their possession over suit B-
schedule property.
3. During the pendency of the suit, defendant
No.1-Smt. Chinnamma died, but her legal heirs, defendant
No.2 to 6 are already on record. Likewise, defendants No.4
8 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
and 7 also expired. So, their legal heirs are brought on
record as 4(a) to 4(c) and 7(a) to 7(f) respectively.
4. Defendant No.4(c) has filed written statement
contending that, though 1st plaintiff filed OS.No.8415/1996
for partition of the family properties, got deleted the
defendants, so the judgment and decree passed in
OS.No.8415/1996 is not binding on the defendants. The
Panchayat Palupatti dated 30.04.1988 is a concocted
document and it does not bear the signature of
Chinnappareddy @ Yellappareddy. The plaintiffs are not in
possession of the suit schedule property. The valuation is
not properly done. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.
5. Defendant No.5 has filed written statement,
wherein he admitted the relationship and also suit filed in
OS.No.8415/1996 by the 1st plaintiff against his father and
other family members. However, he contends that the
compromise decree passed in OS.No.8415/1996 is not
binding on the defendants No.1 to 6. It is admitted that the
family properties were partitioned under Palupatti dated
30.04.1988 and it has been acted upon. However, it is
denied that the plaintiffs’ father got in all 1/3rd share in the
family properties along with his brothers. Subsequently,
defendant No.5 stated that, there is no existence of Palaputti
dated 30.04.1988, as alleged by the plaintiffs. Without the
consent of his father Chinnappa @ Yellappa, 1st plaintiff filed
compromise petition colluding with his brothers and father
9 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
and got compromise decree. The suit A-schedule property
was purchased under the sale deed dated 15.09.1952 by
Chinnappa from one Smt. Gawramma. After the death of
Chinnappa on 25.03.2005, the defendants No.1 to 6 became
the owners of the plaint A-schedule property. Accordingly,
katha has been changed in their name. The defendants No.1
to 6 executed a sale agreement dated 03.01.2008 in favour
of one Rukmini, wife of Anjanappa in respect of 13.04
guntas in suit A-schedule property. The issue involved in
this suit is directly and substantially in issue in
OS.No.8415/1996, so this suit is barred under Section 11 of
CPC. There is no cause of action to file this suit. Hence,
prayed to dismiss the suit.
6. The defendant No.7 has filed written statement
and he admitted the case of the plaintiffs that under the
Panchayat Palupatti dated 30.04.1988, joint family
properties were partitioned. The ancestral house property
was sold on 17.11.1948 by him, his mother and brothers
and purchased house at Kudlu village. Thereafter, they sold
joint family property in Sy.No.49/2 measuring 3 acres 21
guntas under the sale deed dated 12.09.1950. Out of the
sale proceeds, himself and his two brothers purchased suit
A-schedule property, in the name of his elder brother
Chinnappa @ Yellappa Reddy, who was managing the joint
family affairs, but the said property continued as joint family
property as acquired under the joint family nucleus. They
10 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
lived jointly up to 1967-1968. Thereafter, there was some
difference, so they orally divided their joint family properties
and started to live separately. As per the request of the elder
brother Yellappa @ Chinnappa, all the three brothers got
partitioned the family properties under the partition deed.
However, it could not be registered as Fragmentation Act
was in force at that time. Therefore, the oral partition was
reduced into writing as Panchayat Palupatti dated
30.04.1988 before the panchayatdars. His elder brother
Yellappa @ Chinnappa sold his share to an extent of 26¼
guntas of land in Sy.No.96 (old Sy.No.45/6) under an
agreement of sale dated 02.05.1988 and a GPA dated
17.09.1999 in favour of N. Govinda Reddy and Sri Injurappa
and put them in possession. After the death of his elder
brother, his legal heirs defendants No.1 to 6 obstructed N.
Govinda Reddy’s possession over the said land, so he filed
suit in OS.No.4914/2008 for specific performance of the
agreement for sale, which got amicably settled before the
Mediation center. Accordingly, defendants No.1 to 6
executed sale deed in favour of N. Govinda Reddy. The 1 st
plaintiff filed suit in OS.No.8415/1996 against him and his
brothers for partition of the schedule properties. In that suit,
he filed written statement and took up a contention that the
family properties were already partitioned under Panchayat
Palupatti, so suit is not maintainable. Finally, that suit
ended in compromise. Pursuant to the Panchayat Palupatti
dated 30.04.1988, he got mutated his name in respect of his
11 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
share, to an extent of 26¼ guntas in suit A-schedule
property. He dug bore well and constructed house in his
share of 26¼ guntas and obtained electricity connection. He
has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property
fallen to his share. Towards eastern side of his property,
plaintiffs have constructed house, obtained electricity
connection and they are in possession of their portion of the
property. The defendants No.1 to 6 have no absolute right,
title and interest over suit A-schedule property, but illegally
got mutated the name of 1 st defendant in the revenue
records on the basis of sale deed standing in her husband’s
name. Aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar, they
challenged it before Assistant Commissioner in RA No.
(S)147/2008-09, who set aside the order of Tahsildar vide
order dated 02.11.2010. The 1st defendant Smt. Chinnamma
gifted a site in Sy.No.42/P5 in favour of her son defendant
No.3, wherein there is a mention of Panchayat Palupatti
dated 30.04.1988. The defendants No.1 to 6 have no right,
title and interest over the plaint B-schedule property. He
filed a similar suit in OS.No.26344/2008 against the
defendants No.1 to 6 and got decree in respect of his share
of 26¼ guntas in suit A-schedule property. Hence, prayed to
dispose of the suit as per the law.
7. Based on the above pleadings, on 23.05.2011
and on 17.08.2022, the learned predecessors in office have
framed the following issues and additional issue;
12 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are
the owners in possession of B-schedule
property under compromise decree in
OS.No.8415/2006?
2. Whether defendants No.1 to 6 prove that the
decree in OS.No.8415/2006 is collusive
decree and not binding on them?
3. Whether plaintiffs prove that they have been
possession of B-schedule property?
4. Whether plaintiffs prove that defendants
No.1 to 6 have been interfering with their
possession over B-schedule property?
5. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief
sought for?
6. What order or decree?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE
1. Whether the defendant No.4 proves that suit
has not been properly valued and that the
Court fee paid on the plaint insufficient?
8. During trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, 1st
plaintiff got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.148. On behalf of the defendants, defendant
No.5 was examined as DW.1 and got marked Ex.D1 to D19.
9. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiffs. The
learned counsel for the defendant No.5 has filed written
arguments.
13 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
10. The findings of this court on the above issues
and additional issue are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the negative
Issue No.3 : In the affirmative
Issue No.4 : In the affirmative
Issue No.5 : In the affirmative
Addl. Issue : In the affirmative
Issue No.6 : As per final Order,
for the following:
REASONS
11. Addl. Issue :-
The defendant No.4(c) and defendant No.5 have taken
contention in their written statement that the plaintiffs have
not properly valued the suit and court fee paid by them is
insufficient. As per the valuation slip filed by the plaintiffs
along with the plaint, they have valued the relief of
declaration and injunction under Section 24(b) R/W Section
7(2) of the Karnataka Court Fee & Suit Valuation Act and
paid court fee of Rs.25/- on the ground that the suit
schedule property is an agricultural land.
12. However, the pleadings and the voluminous
documents placed before the court by both the parties would
indicate that the plaint schedule property has lost its
character as agriculture land and sites were formed in suit
A-schedule property by the respective sharers and sold to
the purchasers. As per the tax paid receipts way back in the
14 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
year 2008-2009, 1st plaintiff paid tax to BBMP. Hence, it is
clear that as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaint B-
schedule property was not an agriculture land, though the
parties have produced the RTCs. It is totally not
understandable, how the revenue authority could issue
RTCs in respect of the properties, which is within the BBMP
area, where sites were formed and buildings were
constructed. It shows, mechanically, the revenue authorities
are just issuing RTCs without spot verification and actually
knowing the nature of the schedule property. In view of that
fact, the claim of the defendant No.4(c) and D.5 that the
valuation made by the plaintiffs is not correct and they
should be directed to pay deficit court fee, is a valid
objection. Since the schedule property is situated within the
corporation area, the plaintiffs shall value the prayer of
declaration and injunction under Section 24(b) of Karnataka
Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act and shall pay court fee on
the ‘actual market value’ and not ‘deemed value’ of suit
property. As per that they are liable to compute the court fee
on one half of the market value of the schedule property or
on Rs.1000/- whichever is higher. As valued by the plaintiffs
in the valuation slip filed on 19.07.2008, the value of the
plaint B-schedule property was Rs.5 lakhs. Thus, the
plaintiffs have to value the suit at Rs.2,50,000/- which is
being the one half of the market value. Hence, after
deducting the court fee already paid, the plaintiffs shall pay
15 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
deficit court fee of Rs.7600. Accordingly, additional issue is
answered in the ‘affirmative’.
13. Issue Nos.1 & 2:-
The plaintiffs have claimed that they are the owners of
the plaint B-schedule property measuring 26.12 guntas,
which is part and parcel of suit A-schedule property
measuring 2 acres in Sy.No.45/6 (New No.96) of Parappana
Agrahara village. PW.1-K. Gopala, the 1 st plaintiff has filed
affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and reiterated plaint
averments. In support of his contention, he has produced
three Panchayat Parikath dated 30.04.1988 as per Ex.P3, P5
& P44 and their typed copies are marked at Ex.P4, P6 and
P45 respectively. The admitted facts are that one
Venkatappa is the father of Chinnappa @ Yellappa Reddy,
Krishnappa and Muni Reddy (Defendant No.7). Plaintiffs are
the children of Krishnappa and defendant No.1 is the wife
and defendant Nos.2 to 6 are the children of Chinnappa @
Yellappa Reddy. As stated by PW.1, after the death of his
grand father Venkatappa, the joint family properties were
mutually partitioned among his three sons and later that
was reduced into Panchayat Palupatti dated 30.04.1988 at
Ex.P3, P4 and P44, including suit A-schedule property and
three brothers got 1/3rd share each in the landed properties
and half share in the house properties. The contents of
Ex.P3, P4 and P44, disclose that the family properties were
partitioned amongst three brothers, i.e., Yellappa @
16 OS.No.26101/2008
JudgmentChinnappa Reddy, Krishnappa and Muni Reddy under three
Panchayat Palupatti, wherein schedule A-properties were
allotted in favour of elder brother Yellappa Reddy @
Chinnappa Reddy as per Ex.P3, schedule B-property was
allotted to Krishnappa as per Ex.P44 and schedule C-
properties were allotted to Muni Reddy as per Ex.7. The
relevant recitals common in all the three Panchayat
Palupatti are as under:
“ನಾವು ಮೂರು ಜನಗಳೂ ಏಕೀಭವಿಸಿ ನಮ್ಮ ಬಾಬತ್ತು ಸ್ವಯಾರ್ಜಿತದ
ಸ್ವತ್ತುಗಳ ಬಾಬತ್ತು ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡ ಪಾಲುಪಟ್ಟಿ ಕರಾರು ಕ್ರಮ ಆದಾಗಿ
ಮೇಲ್ಕಂಡ ಅಲಸೂರು ವೆಂಕಟಪ್ಪನವರಿಗೆ ನಾವು ಮೂವರು ಗಂಡು
ಮಕ್ಕಳದ್ದು ಈ ಮೂವರೂ ಏಕ ಕುಟುಂಬದಲ್ಲಿದ್ದು ಸಂಸಾರ ಮಾಡಲು
ಸರಿ ಬೀಳದೇ ಹೋದ್ದರಿಂದ ಈಗ್ಗೆ ಸುಮಾರು 20 ವರ್ಷಗಳ ಹಿಂದೆಯೇ
ಹಾಅ ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ವಿಶಿಷ್ಟ ಚರ ಸ್ವತ್ತುಗಳನ್ನು ಸಮಭಾಗವಾಗಿ
ಹಂಚಿಕೊಂಡು ಬೇರೆ ಬೇರೆಯಾಗಿ ಯಾವ ತಕರಾರುಗಳೂ ಇಲ್ಲದೆ ಸಂಸಾರ
ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡು ಬರುತಿರುತ್ತದೆ. ಹಾಗೂ ನಾವು ಸ್ವಯಾರ್ಜಿತದ ಸಂಪಾದನೆ
ಮಾಡಿರುವ ಖುಷ್ಠಿ ಜಮೀನುಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ವಾಸದ ಮನೆ ಖಾಲಿ
ನಿವೇಶನವನ್ನು ಜುಬಾನೆಯಾಗಿ ಹಂಚಿಕೊಂಡು ಅನುಭವಿಸುತ್ತಾ ಬಂದಿದ್ದು
ಈ ದಿನ ಈ ಕೆಳಕಂಡ ಪಂಚಾಯಿತರ ಸಮಕ್ಷಮ ಪಾಲುಪಟ್ಟಿ
ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಅಪೇಕ್ಷಿಸಿ ಹಿಂದೆ ನಾವುಗಳು ಜುಬಾನೆಯಾಗಿ
ಹಂಚಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲೇ ರಿಜಿಷ್ಠಮಾಡಿಸಲು ಸರ್ಕಾರಿ ಆದೇಶದಂತೆ
RD 44 EST 81 ತಾ 30-3-81 ರ ಎ ಹೆ ಗು ರುಜು ಯಲ್ಲಪ್ಪ
ರೆಡ್ಡಿ (ಈ) ಚಿನ್ನಪ್ಪ ರೆಡ್ಡಿ 2.ಸಹಿ ಕೃಷ್ಣಪ್ಪ 3.ಸಹಿ ಕೆ.ವಿ. ಮುನಿರೆಡ್ಡಿ
ರೀತ್ಯಾ ರಹ ಇಲ್ಲವಾದ್ದರಿಂದ ಈ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಐಟಂಗಳೂ
ತುಂಡಾಗಿರುವುದರಿಂದ ಈ ಪಂಚಾಯಿತಿದಾರರ ಸಮಕ್ಷಮ ಎ
ಷೆಡ್ಯೂಲ್ದಾರರಾದ ಯಲ್ಲಪ್ಪ ರೆಡ್ಡಿ (ಉ) ಚಿನ್ನಪ್ಪರೆಡ್ಡಿ 1 ನೇ
ಪಾರ್ಟಿಯಾಗಿಯೂ, ಬಿ ಷೆಡ್ಯೂಲ್ದಾರ್ ಕೃಷ್ಣಪ್ಪ 2 ನೇ
ಪಾರ್ಟಿಯಾಗಿಯೂ ಸಿ. ಷೆಡ್ಯೂಲ್ದಾರ್ ಮುನಿರೆಡ್ಡಿ 3 ನೇ
ಪಾರ್ಟಿಯಾಗಿಯೂ ಮೂರು ಭಾಗಗಳಾಗಿ ವಿಂಗಡಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಅದೇ ಪ್ರಕಾರ
ಅವರವರ ಭಾಗಕ್ಕೆ ಬರತಕ್ಕೆ ಸ್ವತ್ತುಗಳು ಅವರವರ ಪಾಲುಪಟ್ಟಯಲ್ಲಿ
17 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgmentಕಂಡ ರೀತ್ಯಾ ಅವರವರ ಸ್ವಾಧೀನಕ್ಕೆ ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ಪಡೆದು
ಅಧಿಕಾರಗಳನ್ನು ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತೇನೆ.”
The above recital clearly corroborates the case of the
plaintiffs about oral partition of joint family properties
including suit A-schedule property and later it was reduced
into writing as per the said Panchayat Palupatti dated
30.04.1988 at Ex.P3, P5 and P44. It is relevant to mention
here that defendant No.7, the youngest son of Venkatappa
has filed detailed written statement and he supported the
case of the plaintiffs. It is relevant to mention here that
defendant No.7 being party to panchayath palupatti, his say
on the said ddocuments Ex.P.3, 5 and 44 is very crucial.
Unfortunately, after filing his written statement he expired.
In his written statement, he has revealed entire facts in
detail. He has stated that he and his brothers sold joint
family property in Sy.No.49/2 measuring 3 acres 21 guntas
under the sale deed dated 12.09.1950 at ExP.1. Out of that
sale proceeds, himself and his two brothers purchased suit
A-schedule property, in the name of his elder brother
Chinnappa @ Yellappa Reddy, who was managing the joint
family affairs, but the said property continued as joint family
property as acquired under the joint family nucleus. He
asserted that all joint family properties were partitioned
under panchayath parikath and that he and his two
brothers got 1/3rd share each in all the joint family
properties. They all acted upon that panchayath parikath by
enjoying their respective properties. He denied the
18 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
contention of defendant No.1 to 7 disputing the execution of
panchayath parikath dated 30.04.1988.
14. On the other hand, DW.1-Venkat Reddy,
defendant No.5, who is the son of Chinnappa Reddy @
Yellappa Reddy, the elder brother of defendant No.7 and
Krishnappa Reddy, has filed affidavit in lieu of his
examination-in-chief and reiterated his written statement
averments. He has stated that suit A-schedule property was
purchased by his father Chinnappa @ Yellappa Reddy from
one Smt. Gowramma under sale deed dated 15.09.1952 as
per Ex.P2 (Ex.D12 & 12(a)). Smt. Gowramma had purchased
the suit A-schedule property under sale deed dated
09.04.1952 from one S. Muniswamappa at Ex.D11 and
D11(a). As such, suit A-schedule property is the self-
acquired property of his father Chinnappa @ Yellappa
Reddy, so after his death on 25.03.2005, the defendants
No.1 to 6 being his legal heirs became the absolute owners
of the suit A-schedule property. Further, he has denied the
case of the plaintiffs and defendant No.7 that the joint family
properties including the suit A-schedule property were
partitioned among three sons of original owner Venkatappa
under Panchayat Palupatti dated 30.04.1988 and got 1/3rd
share each in the landed properties and half share in the
house property. DW.1 also denied the statement of PW1 in
his cross-examination that earlier he was not in possession
of the Panchayat Palupatti, but he got copy of the said
19 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
Panchayat Palupatti from one Sunitha, who had purchased
a site through his father. In fact, the said site was originally
sold by his father in favor of one Smt. Bhagyamma through
GPA and at that time his father had given the original
Panchayat Palupatti to said Bhagyamma, who in turn sold
the said site in favor of one Shamsuddin, who in turn sold it
in favor of Smt. Sunitha and said Sunitha had given copy of
the Panchayat Palupatti to him, so he produced it before the
court in this suit. In fact, DW.1 produced sale deed dated
23.10.1997 executed by one Bhagyamma in favour of E.
Shamsuddin at Ex.D6. PW.1 has produced sale deed dated
20.01.2021 at Ex.P7, where under Shamsuddin sold a site
in favor of K. Sunitha. DW.1 has produced Ex.D1 memo
filed by the 1st plaintiff and Ex.D2 his deposition as a
witness in OS.No.26344/2008, wherein he had stated that
he is not in possession of original or copy of the Panchayat
Palupatti dated 03.04.1988. As such, DW.1 contended that,
when PW.1 could not produce Panchayat Palupatti in
OS.No.26344/2008, how could he produce it in this suit. In
the opinion of this court, this suit is being a separate suit
filed by the plaintiffs, they are bound to prove their case and
they have every right to produce all the material documents
including Panchayat Palupatti. Whereas OS.No.26344/2008
was filed by defendant No.7 against defendant Nos.1 to 6,
wherein the plaintiffs were not parties. Therefore, non-
production of the Panchayat Palupatti in OS.No.26344/2008
cannot be a ground to reject the documents produced by
20 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
PW.1 in this suit. The question would be whether said
Panchayat Palupatti at Ex.P3, P5 and P44 were duly
executed and acted upon by the parties. Since the plaintiffs
are claiming the relief of declaration and injunction, the
burden lies on them to prove the due execution of the said
Panchayat Palupatti dated 30.04.1988. In that regard, PW.1
has produced voluminous documents and pointed out
several grounds to substantiate plaintiffs’ claim, which are
highlighted one by one, as under:
i) The first and foremost ground urged by the
plaintiffs is that PW.1 had earlier filed a suit in
OS.No.8415/1996, seeking partition of joint family
properties against his own father and uncles, claiming that
his father had taken second wife and not given the property
to him and his sister Rukkamma, who was defendant No.4
in that suit. Ex.P9 is the plaint, Ex.P10 is the written
statement of defendant No.1-Chinnappa & Yellappa
(husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendants No.2 to
6), Ex.P11 is the written statement of 2 nd defendant
Krishnappa (father of plaintiffs), Ex.P12 is the written
statement of defendant No.3-K.B Munireddy (defendant
No.7). In his written statement, the father of defendant No.2
to 6 took up a contention that the joint family properties
were not partitioned and he supported the case of plaintiff in
that suit. However, father of the plaintiffs and defendant
No.7 took up contention in their written statements that the
21 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgmentjoint family properties were already partitioned under
Panchayat Palupatti dated 30.04.1988, where under the
defendants No.1, 2 & 3 (3 sons of Venkatappa) got
partitioned all the joint family properties and in that they got
26¼ guntas each in Sy.No.45/6. It is the specific case of
PW.1 that after his uncle defendant No.7 disclosed the
execution of Panchayat Palupatti dated 30.04.1988, in his
written statement filed in OS.No.8415/1996, for the first
time, he came to know about it, so after discussion with all
the family members, they got compromised the suit.
Accordingly, they filed a compromise petition under Order
XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC in OS.No.8415/1996 at Ex.P13,
where under the properties fallen to the share of his father
Sri Krishnappa were partitioned among the legal heirs of
Krishnappa i.e., plaintiff, defendant No.2 (father of plaintiff
Krisnappa) and defendants No.4 to 10 (brothers and sisters
of the plaintiffs). In fact, in Ex.P13, it is clearly mentioned
that it is a compromise between plaintiffs and defendants
No.4 to 10. It is also mentioned that since defendants No.1,
2 and 3 in OS.No.8415/1996 are own brothers and they
have already got partitioned their joint family properties and
suit schedule properties fallen to the share of defendant
No.2 (the father of the plaintiffs), the compromise was
entered into between defendant No.2, defendants No.4 to 10
and plaintiff. Hence, it is clear that compromise was only
between Krishnappa and his children in respect of the
properties fallen to Krishnappa’s share under the Panchayat
22 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
Palupatti dated 30.04.1988, as B-schedule property under
Ex.P44. In fact, during the pendency of OS.No.8415/1996,
the defendant No.1 Chinnappa @ Yellappa as well defendant
No.4 Rukkamma had expired, so their LRs were brought on
record by filing applications, which in fact DW1 has
produced at Ex.D7 (Application under Section 5 of
Limitation Act), Ex.D8 (Application under Order XXII Rule
4(1) of CPC), Ex.D9 (Application under Order XXII Rule 9 of
CPC) and Ex.D10 (Order sheet in OS.No.8415/1996). As per
that the said applications were filed on 27.11.2006 and
those applications were allowed and the LRs were brought
on record. Ex.P14 & 15 are FDP drawn based on the
compromise decree in favor of the plaintiff (PW.1) and the
plaintiff No.2- K. Muni Reddy S/o Krishnappa.
i.a). On the other hand, the main contention of the
defendants No.1 to 6 is that, the said compromise decree
dated 27.11.2006 is not binding on them, since they are not
signatories to the compromise petition Ex.P13. It is
pertinent to note that, the said compromise decree has no
connection with the defendants No.1 to 6, because after the
plaintiff in that suit came to know that already joint family
properties were partitioned under Panchayat Palupatii dated
30.04.1988, he gave up his claim against his father and
uncles and he agreed to partition the properties which were
fallen to the share of his father Sri Krishnappa. That is why,
it was Krishnappa and his legal heirs were parties to that
23 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
compromise petition and not the brothers of Krishnappa,
because there was nothing to partition between the three
brothers, as the joint family properties were partitioned way
back in the year 1988 under Panchayat Palupatti dated
30.04.1988. When Krishnappa and Munireddy, two brothers
of Chinnappa @ Yellappa Reddy (the father of defendants
No.2 to 6) have agreed that the joint family properties were
partitioned among themselves by oral partition and later it
was reduced into writing under Panchayat Palupatti dated
30.04.1988, the defendants No.1 to 6 being the legal heirs of
Yellappa @ Chinnappa Reddy have no right to contend or
dispute or deny the execution of Panchayat Palupatti at
Ex.P3, 5 and 44. It is also relevant to note that the
documents would show that, the defendants No.1 to 6 have
acted upon the said Panchayat Palupatti. They had executed
sale deeds in favour of various purchasers in respect of the
family properties fallen to their share under that Panchayath
palupatti. They are disputing the partition of only the suit A-
schedule property, but not other family properties. Except
mere denial by the defendants No.1 to 6 as to non-execution
of Panchayat Palupatti dated 30.04.1988, they have not
placed any substantial evidence before the court to show
that, the said Panchayat Palupatti dated 30.04.1988 was
not acted upon and it is not binding on them. Under such
circumstances, the above contention taken by the
defendants No.1 to 6 does not hold good.
24 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
i.b) Yet another fact which needs to be highlighted
here is the conduct of the defendants No.1 to 6. In the
written statement filed by the defendant No.5 (DW.1), he has
taken divergent stands at para-1. The relevant portion is
reproduced, which is as under:
“……….It is true that these properties are
partitioned as per Palupatti dated: 30-4-1988. It is true
that palu patti dated: 30-4-1988 has been acted upon.
It is not true that the plaintiffs’ father, got in all 1/3rd
share in the land and half share in the house property
and similarly, the defendants 1 to 6 and defendant
No:7 got their respective portions. It is not true that the
first plaintiff without knowing palupatti entered into
between his father and his uncle has filed
OS.No:8415/96 against all of them seeking for
partition of his share. In fact, there is no existence of
palupatti dated: 30-4-1988 as alleged by the plaintiffs.
It is true that in the said suit it is revealed by the
husband of the first defendant. It is true that palupatti
dated 30-4-1988 was acted upon……..”
i.c) From the plain reading of the written statement
of DW.1, makes it amply clear that he in unequivocal terms
admits the execution of Palupatti dated 30.04.1988 and also
admits that Palupatti has been acted upon. Of course, in the
later part, he made an attempt to deny that there is no
existence of Palupatti dated 30.04.1988 as alleged by the
plaintiffs. It is settled law that the stand or the defense
taken by the defendant should be clear, candid and specific.
The defendant cannot take divergent stands just to suppress
the real truth before the court. Though in the written
statement he has taken the above stand in his affidavit filed
before the court, DW.1 did not state anything about that
25 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
part of the written statement, but he simply denied the
Panchayat Palupatti and said it is a created one. If it is
created Panchayat Palupati, then the defendants No.1 to 6,
as prudent persons ought to have taken some legal steps, at
least after they came to know about the said Panchayat
Palupatti. In fact, in his cross-examination at page-6 and 7,
DW.1 says that he has not read the Panchayat Palupatti
Ex.P3, 5 and 44 and that his father never challenged the
said Ex.P3, 5 and 44 during his lifetime. He also admits that
in this suit also the defendants never challenged Ex.P3, 5
and 44. On the other hand, very same defendants No.1 to 6
sold 26¼ guntas of land in Sy.No.45/6, which had fallen to
the share of Yellappa Reddy @ Chinnappa in favour of one
N. Govinda Reddy, who formed sites and sold it to various
purchases. In that regard, a detailed discussion will be
made in subsequent paras. Thus, the divergent stand of the
defendants No.1 to 6, clearly shows that, though they had
acted upon the Panchayat Palupatti dated 30.04.1988, they
made a feeble attempt to deny the execution of Panchayat
Palupatti just as an attempt to make unjust benefit.
i.d). DW.1 has produced copy of IA filed under Order
I Rule 10 CPC by PW.1 in OS.No.8415/1996 to implead one
Smt. Munithayamma @ Paapamma who is the mother of
PW.1. DW.1 has produced Ex.D5 voter list to show that from
the year 1978-79, there was no joint family status in the
family of his father and defendant No.7 and father of the
26 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
plaintiffs. Ex.D.5 in no way helpful to the defendants No.1 to
6, because it is the specific case of the plaintiffs, defendant
No.7, as well from the documents that initially there was
oral partition of joint family properties among three brothers
and later it was reduced into writing on 30.04.1988.
i.e) The learned counsel for the defendants No.1, 2, 5
and 6 has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High
Court in Sri Aralappa Vs. Sri Jagannath and others
(ILR 2007 Karnataka 339) and argued that since
defendants No.1 to 6 were not signatories to the compromise
decree dated 27.11.2006, it is not binding on them. In the
said decision, the parties to the partition deed were Roman
Catholics and not Hindus. Hence, Hon’ble Court held that
there is no concept of blending as known under Hindu law
and therefore, the only mode in which the original owner
could convey title to his sons in the property by way of
registered deed or gift deed. Of course, even under Hindu
law, if the sons have no pre-existing rights, in a partition
deed, they cannot get rights in the property for the first time.
If a partition of the joint family property takes place by act of
parties, it would not be treated as transfer within the
meaning of Section 5 of the Act. Therefore, if a partition is
not a transfer and it does convey anything the plaintiff gets
nothing for the first time under the deed of partition,
therefore they are not entitled for the relief of declaration
sought for. In the case on hand, the plaintiffs are seeking
27 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
declaration of ownership in respect of plaint B-schedule
property as legal heirs of Krishnappa, who got his share in
the joint family properties under Panchayat Palupatti dated
30.04.1988, where under the suit B-schedule property had
fallen to the share of their father as one of the properties.
Since the defendants No.1 to 6 are denying the right, title of
the plaintiffs in respect of plaint B-schedule property, the
plaintiffs are seeking the relief of declaration that they are
the absolute owners of the suit schedule B property. Hence,
this court is of the opinion that the above decision is not
helpful to the defendants No.1 to 6.
i.f) He also relied upon another decision reported in
the case of Prashant Kumar Sahoo and others Vs.
Charulata Sahu and others (2023(1) Kar. L.R 629 (SC),
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that under Order XXIII
Rule 3 of the CPC, when a compromise agreement has been
entered into between the parties, there must be consent
among all the parties and it should be signed by all the
parties. So consent among some of the parties cannot be
maintained. The principle of law laid down in the above
decision is well settled one. However, it is not applicable to
the facts of this case. As discussed above, the compromise
entered in OS.No.8415/1996 is only between the legal heirs
of Krishnappa, in respect of the joint family property which
were fallen to his share in the Panchayat, Palupatti dated
30.04.1988. Therefore, in that suit, the plaintiff had gave up
28 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
his claim in respect of partition of all the joint family
properties, but he restricted his claim only in respect of the
share fallen to his father and compromised the case between
his brothers and sisters and got settled the matter.
ii) The 2nd ground asserted by the plaintiffs is that,
after getting the compromise decree in OS.No.8415/1996,
the plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.7 moved an application
before the Tahsildar to change the katha but, Tahsildar
rejected their request. The defendant No.1 being the wife of
Yellappa @ Chinnappa, on the basis of previous sale deed of
the year 1952, got transferred katha of suit A-schedule
property in her name. That was challenged by defendant
No.7 and 1st plaintiff. Ex.P16 is the application given by
PW.1 before the Tahsildar, Ex.P56 is written statement filed
by the defendant No.7, before Tahsildar in
RRT.No.179/2007-08, Ex.P57 is the order of the Tahsildar
rejecting the request of plaintiff No.1, 3 and defendant No.7.
Ex.P58 is the MR.No.51/2006-07, wherein Tahsildar
mutated katha of suit A-schedule property measuring 1A-
13Gs in favour of defendant No.1-Smt. Chinnamma. Since
Tahsildar rejected their request, they preferred an appeal
before the Assistant Commissioner in RA(S).No.19/2008-09
and that came to be allowed as per order at Ex.P17 and the
order of Tahsildar was set aside. Being aggrieved by that
order, the defendant No.1-Smt. Chinnamma, preferred a
Revision Petition No.315/2009-10 before the Deputy
29 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
Commissioner, Bangalore, who vide order dated 23.10.2013
dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of the Assistant
Commissioner as per Ex.P18. Accordingly, the mutation was
carried out vide MR.No.7/2009-10 and the name of
defendant No.1, defendant No.7 and plaintiffs were entered
in three parts in respect of their respective share of 0.26.12
guntas of land. Infact, share of the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 has
been separately entered as 0.09 gunta, 0.09 gunta and 0.08
gunta respectively, based on the compromise decree. This
fact again substantiate the case of the plaintiffs that, though
the defendants No.1 to 6 made an effort got transfer katha of
Schedule A property in the name of defendant No.1 and
though they got an order in their favour from the Tahsildar,
that came to be reversed by the order of the Assistant
Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly,
whatever the katha transferred in the name of defendant
No.1 in respect of suit A-schedule property was reversed and
restored in the name of plaintiffs, defendant No.7 and
defendant No.1, as per Panchayat Palupatti. Hence, this
court is of the considered view that the above facts clearly
supports the case of the plaintiffs.
iii) The 3rd ground, which the plaintiffs have
highlighted before the court is that against defendant No.5
(DW.1), a criminal case was filed in CC.No.36685/2011 for
the offence under Section 447, 427, 323, 504 of IPC in
Crime No.191/2008 of Parappana Agrahara Police Station,
30 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
which was later got compromised by DW.1-Venkatesh
Reddy. PW.1 has produced the certified copy of the order
sheet in CC.No.36685/2011 at Ex.P20, the compromise
petition filed under Section 320(2) of Cr.P.C at Ex.P21, the
charge sheet at Ex.P22. The main allegation in that case was
that DW.1 as an accused had committed criminal trespass
to the land in Sy.No.45/6 measuring 26½ guntas (plaint B-
schedule property) and damaged the compound wall, caused
mischief and loss to the plaintiffs. As per Ex.P21, DW.1 has
stated that, in respect of Sy.No.45/6, plaintiffs herein filed a
suit before the civil court and accordingly he has
compromised the case with his cousin brothers (plaintiffs),
and he will not cause any interference to the possession of
the plaintiffs over their property. Accordingly he was
acquitted of the alleged offenses and set at liberty. This fact
again substantiates the case of the plaintiffs that even a
criminal case was filed in respect of alleged attempt by DW.1
to cause interference and damage the compound wall of suit
B-schedule property.
iv) The 4th ground put forth by the plaintiffs, which is
very important, as it would demonstrate that the case of the
defendants No.1 to 6 is completely false and frivolous. PW.1
has produced copy of the plaint in O.S.4914/2008 at
Ex.P23. As per that one N. Goivinda Reddy and K.
Yenjarappa filed suit against defendants No.1 to 6 for
specific performance of contract in respect of 0.26 guntas of
31 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
land in Sy.No.45/6, new No.96, (part of suit A-schedule
property) and contended that total sale consideration
amount agreed was Rs.6,43,500/-, out of that,
Rs.6,38,500/- was paid and only balance Rs.8,000/- was to
be paid. Ex.P24 is the written statement filed by Venkatesh
(DW.1), wherein he has totally denied the execution of the
agreement for sale and receipt of the advance money from
the plaintiffs. Ex.P25 is the order sheet in
OS.No.4914/2008. Ex.P27 and 28 are the two applications,
IA.II and III filed under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC, by the
plaintiffs seeking amendment to the western boundary of
the schedule property. In the first amendment application,
i.e., I.A.No.II at Ex.P27, the western boundary was shown as
the remaining portion of the property belonging to
Balakrishnanappa. By filing a memo at Ex.P29, the plaintiffs
withdrew IA.No.II. Later, they filed another amendment
application at Ex.P28, wherein the plaintiffs sought to
change the western boundary as remaining portion of
Krishnappa in Survey No.45/6. Thus, it is clear that the
western boundary of the property which was sold by the
defendants No.1 to 6 in favour of N.Govinda Reddy and
another was initially wrongly shown, but later correction
was made and the land of Krishnappa was shown. The said
Krishnappa is the father of the plaintiff. Thereby, it is
admitted by defendants No.1 to 6 that on the western side of
the property fallen to the share of Yellappa @ Chinnappa, in
32 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
Survey No.45/6, the portion of the same Sy.No. fallen to the
share of plaintiffs’ father Sri Krishnappa is situated.
iv.a) Later, that suit in OS.No.4914/2008 came to be
settled between the parties before Mediation Centre,
Bengaluru. Ex.P26 is the memorandum of settlement under
Section 89 of the CPC, r/w Section 24 and 25 of Karnataka
Civil Procedure (Mediation) Rules 2005. The factual aspects
in the said suit which ended in settlement would clearly
indicate, though DW.1-Venkata Reddy had taken false
contention before the court disputing and denying the
execution of the agreement for sale, he had entered into
compromise and executed the sale deed in favour of the
plaintiffs N. Govinda Reddy and another by receiving
balance sale consideration amount of Rs.8,000/-.
Thereafter, the defendants No.1 to 6 sold the portion of the
property fallen to the share of Yellappa @ Chinnappa Reddy
measuring 26 guntas in Sy.No.45/6, (part of the A-schedule
property) for valid consideration. The conduct of the
defendants 1 to 6 has to be seen in that suit. In the written
statement they totally disputed the sale agreement and
receipt of the sale consideration, but finally entered into
settlement. That shows the defendants No.1 to 6 are in the
habit of taking false contentions, denying true facts just to
get benefited on one or the other way. That indicates the
defendants are not fair in their approch before the court, not
only in this suit, but also in previous suit. That aspect also
33 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
to be taken into consideration while deciding this suit,
because of the fact that in the written statement filed by
very same defendant No.5-Venkata Reddy, he had taken
divergent stand, wherein at one stretch he admits the
Panchayat Palupatti dated 03.04.1988 and at another
stretch he denies it. That shows, he is trying to blow hot and
cold at a time. That happens with a party when he makes an
attempt to suppress the real facts before the court.
Therefore, the evidence of such a witness is highly
improbable and court should discard such evidence. Thus,
the above aspects again strengthen the case of the plaintiffs
that suit B-schedule property was allotted to the share of
their father in Panchayat Palupatti dated 30.04.1988.
v) The 5th ground taken by the plaintiffs is in respect
of another suit in OS.No.6487/2003 filed by N. Govinda
Reddy against the defendant No.7-Muni Reddy for the relief
of declaration and injunction, wherein, he has prayed to
declare his right of way, which is a road having 25 feet width
to reach his property purchased from defendant No.1 to 6,
in Sy.No.45/6. The said right of declaration of way was
sought by the plaintiff based on Panchayat Palupatti dated
30.04.1988. Because, in the said Panchayat Palupatti
Ex.P3, 5 & 44, there is a common recital that, there shall be
a road measuring 25 feet width. Thus, the purchaser from
defendants No.1 to 6 having relied upon the Panchayat
Palupatti dated 30.04.1988 have sought for the relief of
34 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
passage based upon the recital in that Panchayat Palupatti.
Ex.P30 is the order sheet, Ex.P31 is the plaint, Ex.P32 is the
memo of withdrawal of that suit. The plaintiff therein filed a
memo and withdrew the suit as settled out of court. Thus
the above aspects again supports the case of the plaintiffs.
vi) The 6th ground which the plaintiffs indicated is
with regard to the gift deed executed by defendant No.1
dated 25.05.2010 in favour of her son defendant No.3, in
respect of a site carved out of katha No.42 of Harlakunte
Village. Ex.P33 is the copy of the gift deed dated 25.05.2010.
In that, at page-2, there is a clear reference about the
partition of the family properties under panchayat palupatti
dated 30.04.1988. Ex.P34 is a certificate, Ex.P35 & 38 are
the tax paid receipts in the name of defendant No.3, Ex.P36
& 37 are the property registers wherein katha of the gifted
property entered in the name of defendant No.3. Ex.P40 is
the subsequent gift deed dated 05.10.2010, executed by
defendant No.3, whereunder he gifted the property, gifted to
him by his mother, in favour of his daughter, Smt. Bhagya.
In that Ex.P40 also, at page-2, there is a reference to
panchayat palupatti dated 30.04.1988. Thus in the title
documents executed among the defendants 1 to 6, they have
relied upon the panchayat palupatti dated 30.04.1988. That
being so, they cannot deny the execution of the panchayat
palupatti between the sons of Venkatappa. Accordingly, the
above aspect again supports the case of the plaintiffs.
35 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
vii) The 7th ground which the plaintiffs relies upon is
the unregistered partition deed dated 16.07.1986 entered
into by the defendants No.2 to 5 and their father, Yellappa @
Chinnappa as per Ex.P39, where under the properties which
had fallen to the share of the father of the defendants No.2
to 5 were partitioned amongst themselves. In Ex.P.39 also
there is a reference about the previous Panchayat Palupatti
dated 30.04.1988 and the property in Sy.No.45/6 fallen to
the share of the father of the defendants No.2 to 5 were
partitioned in four shares measuring 0.6½ guntas each.
Later, the defendants No.1, 5, his wife and children had
executed the sale deed dated 24.03.2011 at Ex.P41 in favour
of one M. Venugopala Reddy in respect of property in 42/15,
which had fallen to the share of defendant No.5, (DW.1)
under the partition deed Ex.P.39. In his cross-examination
at page 14 & 15, DW.1 has clearly admitted the execution of
Panchayat Parikattu dated 16.07.1996 at Ex.P39, where
under the properties fallen to the share of his father were
partitioned. However, subsequently he expresses his
ignorance about the execution of Ex.P39 and states that as
per the say of his brothers he signed that document Ex.P39.
He also admits that he is one of the signatories to Ex.P33
gift deed. He also admits that he had sold one of the sites to
Venugopala Reddy under Ex.P41 and in the sale deed, he
mentioned how he acquired that property. The above
evidence clearly shows that the defendants No.1 to 6, never
challenged the validity, legality of Ex.P3, 5 and 44, but
36 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
simply denied its execution, without any valid basis. Mere
denial is not evidence or proof of a fact in issue. If the
defendants 1 to 6 dispute the documents Ex.P3, 5 and 44,
burden lies on them to prove it with cogent evidence, which
they have not done. On the contrary, their own documents,
as well pleadings would show that they have acted upon the
partition deed dated 30.04.1988. In fact, from the above
evidence of DW.1 it is unequivocally clear that though he is
fully aware that Panchayath Parikath dated 30.04.1988 has
been acted upon by them, he has taken false contention by
denying the said document. Therefore, the above aspect
supports the case of the plaintiffs and dislodges the defense
of the defendants No.1 to 6.
viii) The 8th ground which the plaintiffs have relied
upon is in respect of a suit filed by the defendant No.7-K.V
Muni Reddy in OS.No.26344/2008 against the defendants
No.1 to 6 seeking the relief of declaration of title and
injunction in respect of the property measuring 26¾ guntas
of land in Sy.No.45/6, New No.96 (portion of suit A-schedule
property), which had fallen to the share of defendant No.7
under Panchayat Parikkat dated 30.04.1988. That suit is
identical to this suit filed by the plaintiffs. That suit was
contested by the defendants 1 to 6 and they took up the very
same contentions, which they have taken in the written
statement filed in this suit denying the execution of
Panchayat Parikath. After full fledged trial, that suit came to
37 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
be decreed vide the judgment dated 30.03.2021. Ex.P42 &
43 are the judgment and decree passed in
OS.No.26344/2008. In the opinion of this court, the
observations made in that suit, squarely applies in this suit
also. Because, the very same prayers, sought by defendant
No.7 in OS.No.26344/2008, are sought by the plaintiffs in
this suit, in respect of the share of the plaintiffs father in
Survey No.45/6, measuring 26¾ of Guntas in Survey
No.45/6. In the said judgment, the court at page-24, 25 and
26 observed that, DW.1-Venkatesh Reddy being the
executant of the sale deed, admitted Palupatti dated
30.04.1988. The court held that considering overall
evidence produced by the parties, the partition between the
three brothers under the original Palupatti dated
30.04.1988 is proved. The said judgment is not challenged
by defendants 1 to 5 and it attained finality. DW.1 has
produced an affidavit filed by PW.1 in OS.No.26344/2008 at
Ex.D.2, which in fact supports the case of the plaintiffs,
because therein PW.1 made a mention of Panchayat
Palupatti dated 30.04.1988. The above aspect once again
fully supports the case of the plaintiffs.
ix) The 9th ground which the plaintiffs have pointed
out is the sale deed executed by defendants No.1 to 5 in
favour of one Kishore Naidu on 30.12.2013 at ExP.46 in
respect of property bearing No.26/24/19/1. In the said sale
deed, at page-3, there is a reference in respect to the
38 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
Panchayat Palupatti dated 30.04.1988. PW.1 also produced
three other sale deeds dated 23.07.2009 at Ex.P49, 50 and
51, where under defendant No.1 to 5 sold sites formed in the
portion of land allotted to the share of Chinnappa @
Yellappa in Sy.No.45/6. PW.1 also produced sale deeds
dated 04.12.2003 at Ex.P47 and 48, wherein, N.Govinda
Reddy as GPA holder of Chinnappa @ Yellappa (father of D2
to 6), sold two sites carved out of Sy.No.45/6 in favour of
one Ms. K.B Sushila. The said N.Govinda Reddy is none
other than the purchaser of the share allotted to Chinnappa
@ Yellappa in suit A-schedule property under Panchayat
Parikath, from the defendants No.1 to 6, as per the
settlement entered in OS.No.6487/2003. Ex.P52 & 53 are
the two sale deeds dated 18.08.2015 executed by one D.R
Alagiraswamy as GPA holder of Chinnappa Reddy and
Venkatesh (D5 and his father) in favour of A. Murugan, in
respect of site carved out of old katha No.42/37. In the said
sale deeds also, there is a reference at page-2 in respect of
Panchayat Parikath dated 30-04-1988. Thus, these
documents make it clear that the defendants No.1 to 6 have
executed different title deeds, in respect of the properties
that were fallen to the share of Chinnappa @ Yellappa under
the Panchayat Parikath dated 30.04.1988.
15. On careful perusal and appreciation of all the
grounds discussed above, would leave no doubt in the mind
of this court that three panchayath parikath dated
39 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
30.04.1988 were duly executed. Thereunder, joint family
properties were partitioned amongst three brothers and they
all acted upon panchayath parikath. When two brothers
admitted partition of joint family properties long back under
panchayath parikath and it was not disputed by the third
brother Yellappa @ Chinnappa, his legal heirs are estopped
from disputing or denying that family partition, as they have
no locus standi to do so.
16. PW.1 also produced RTCs of Sy.No.45/6 from
2002-03 to 2020-21 at Ex.P59 to 76, which show that
initially the RTC stood in the name of Yellappa, son of
Venktappa, but subsequently after partition, the names of
the family members have been entered in respect of their
respective shares. DW.1 has also produced RTCs at Ex.D13
to 16 and Tax paid receipts at Ex.D17 to 19. As discussed
above, these revenue documents do not support the case of
the DW.1 to deny the Panchayat Palupati. Therefore, they
are of no use to the defendants No.1 to 6. PW.1 has
produced property register at Ex.P77 and 105, tax paid
receipts at Ex.P78 to 85, acknowledgments Ex.P86 to 104,
acknowledgments and receipts at Ex.P106 to 124,
representation given to BESCOM with the acknowledgment
at Ex.145, representation given to AEE, F13 Sub-division,
bearing acknowledgment at Ex.P146, certificates issued by
BESCOM at Ex.147 and 148. These documents again
substantiate the case of the plaintiffs that the katha in
40 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
respect of their respective share in B-schedule property has
been entered and transferred in their names. PW.1 has
produced photographs of B-schedule property at Ex.P128 to
144, cash bills issued by the studio at Ex.P126 and 127 and
CD of the photos at Ex.125. These photographs again
support the case of the plaintiffs.
17. In his cross-examination at page-10, DW1 has
deposed as under:
“ಶ್ರೀಮತಿ ಚಿನ್ನಮ್ಮ ನನ್ನ ತಾಯಿ, ಜಯರಾಮ್ ರೆಡ್ಡಿ ನನ್ನ
ಅಣ್ಣ ಸರ್ವೆ ನಂ.45/6, ಹೊಸ ನಂ.96, ವಿಸ್ತೀರ್ಣ 26 ಗುಂಟೆ
ಸ್ವತ್ತಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾತ್ರ ನಿವೇಶನಗಳನ್ನು ಮಾಡಿ ಮಾರಾಟ ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ.
ಸರ್ವೆ ನಂ.45/6, ಹೊಸ ನಂ.96, ಒಟ್ಟು ವಿಸ್ತೀರ್ಣ 2 ಎಕರೆ
ಜಮೀನು, ಅದನ್ನು ನಾನು ಈಗ ನೋಡಿದ್ದೇನೆ. ಸದರಿ ಜಮೀನಿನಲ್ಲಿ
ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿ ಪಡಿಸಿ ಈಗ ಮನೆಗಳನ್ನು ಕಟ್ಟಿಕೊಂಡಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಂದು
ಸೂಚಿಸಿದರೆ ಸರಿ. ಸದರಿ ಸರ್ವೆ ನಂಬರ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಕೃಷ್ಣಪ್ಪನ ಮಕ್ಕಳು
ಹಾಗೂ ಮುನಿರೆಡ್ಡಿ ಅವರ ಮಕ್ಕಳು ಸಹ ಮನೆಗಳನ್ನು ಕಟ್ಟಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ
ಎಂದು ಸೂಚಿಸಿದರೆ ಸರಿ.”
The above evidence of DW.1 makes it clear that the share
fallen to his father, measuring 26 guntas in Sy.No.45/6 was
sold out after forming sites therein. He also admits that the
remaining two portions have been in possession of
Krishnappa and his sons (plaintiffs), and Muni Reddy (D7)
and sons and they constructed residential buildings over
there. Thus, this court is of the considered view that the
material evidence placed before the court, as discussed in
detail above would clearly and substantially indicate that
the plaintiffs have proved in all preponderance of probability
by adducing cogent and corroborative evidence that they are
the owners in possession of B-schedule property. On the
41 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
contrary, the defendants No.1 to 6 have failed to prove that
the decree in OS.No.8415/1996 is collusive decree and not
binding on them. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is answered in
‘affirmative’ and Issue No.2 is answered in ‘negative’.
18. Issue No.3 & 4:-
It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that they have
been in lawful possession of the suit B-schedule property,
which had fallen to their share, inherited through their
father Krishnappa and the defendants No.1 to 6 are illegally
trying to interfere into their possession over the B-schedule
property. The revenue documents, photographs, admission
of DW.1, as referred to above, clearly prove the lawful
possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the schedule
B property. In so far as interference is concerned, the very
conduct of the defendants No.1 to 5 in denying the right of
the plaintiffs over their share, criminal case filed for trespass
against DW.1, the false defence taken and evidence let in
would show that they are making hectic attempt to interfere
in the possession of the plaintiffs over suit B property.
19. For the reasons discussed above, this court is of
the considered opinion that the plaintiffs have proved their
lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit B property and
also the illegal interference by the defendants No.1 to 5.
Thus, the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of Permanent
42 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, Issue No.3 and 4 are
answered in the ‘affirmative’.
20. Issue No.5:-
As held by this court above, plaintiffs have proved
their ownership over the plaint B-schedule property, as well
their lawful possession and enjoyment over it and the
interference by the defendants No.1 to 5. Hence, the
plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration and
injunction as sought for. Accordingly, above issue is
answered in the ‘affirmative’.
21. Issue No.6:-
Having thus discussed in detail, this court proceeds to
pass the following:
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with
cost.
It is hereby declared that plaintiffs No.1 to
3 are the owners of plaint B-schedule property.
The defendants No.1 to 5 are hereby
restrained not to interfere with the possession
and enjoyment of plaint B-schedule property by
the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs are hereby directed to pay
the deficit court fee of Rs.7,600/- within a week
43 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
in the office. Thereafter, the office shall draw
decree accordingly.
[Dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected, signed and then
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of April, 2025].
(SRI H. SHASHIDHARA SHETTY)
IV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
MAYO HALL UNIT; BANGALORE.
-:ANNEXURE:-
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR PLAINTIFF:
P.W.1 : K.Gopala S/o Late Krishnappa
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFFS:
Ex.P1 : CC of Sale deed dtd: 11.09.1950
Ex.P2 : CC of sale deed dtd: 15.09.1952
Ex.P3 : CC of Panchayath Palupatti dtd:30.04.1988
Ex.P4 : Typed copy of Ex.P3
Ex.P5 : CC of Panchayath Palupatti dtd: 30.04.1988
Ex.P6 : Typed copy of Ex.P5
Ex.P7 : Online CC of sale deed dtd: 20.01.2021
Ex.P8 : Online CC of endorsement dtd: 20.01.2021
Ex.P9 : CC of plaint in OS.No.8415/1996
Ex.P10 : CC of WS of defendant No.1 in
OS.No.8415/1996
Ex.P11 : CC of WS of defendant No.2 in
OS.No.8415/1996
Ex.P12 : CC of WS of defendant No.3 in
OS.No.8415/1996
Ex.P13 : CC of Compromise petition in
OS.No.8415/1996
44 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgment
Ex.P14 : CC of Final Decree in OS.No.8415/1996
Ex.P15 : CC of Final Decree in OS.No.8415/1996
Ex.P16 : Copy of petition to the Tahsildar bearing
acknowledgment
Ex.P17 : CC of order dtd: 27.10.2009 in RA.No.19/2008-
09 passed by the AC
Ex.P18 : CC of order dtd: 23.10.2013 in
Rev.Pet.No.315/2009-10 passed by the DC,
Bengaluru District
Ex.P19 : Mutation
Ex.P20 : CC of order sheet in CC.No.36688/2011
Ex.P21 : CC of Compromise petition in
CC.No.36688/2011
Ex.P22 : CC of Charge sheet in CC.No.36688/2011
Ex.P23 : CC of plaint in OS.No.4914/2008
Ex.P24 : CC of WS of defendant No.4 in
OS.No.4914/2008
Ex.P25 : CC of order sheet in OS.No.4914/2008
Ex.P26 : CC of settlement under Section 80 CPC r/w
R.24 & 25 of the Karnataka Civil Procedure
(mediation) Rules in OS.No.4914/2008
Ex.P27 : CC of I.A.No.II U/o VI R.17 CPC in
OS.No.4914/2008
Ex.P28 : CC of I.A.No.III U/o VI R.17 CPC in
OS.No.4914/2008
Ex.P29 : CC of Memo dtd: 23.10.2008 in
OS.No.4914/2008
Ex.P30 : CC of order sheet in OS.No.6487/2003
Ex.P31 : CC of plaint in OS.No.6487/2003
Ex.P32 : CC of Memo dtd 22.10.2003 in
OS.No.6487/2003
Ex.P33 : CC of Gift Deed dtd: 23.05.2010
Ex.P34 : CC of Form No.2 issued under RTI Act
45 OS.No.26101/2008
JudgmentEx.P35 : CC of Tax paid receipt issued under RTI Act
Ex.P36&37 : CC of Form B issued under RTI Act
Ex.P38 : CC of Tax paid receipt issued under RTI Act
Ex.P39 : CC of Panchayath Parikattu dtd: 16.07.1996
issued under RTI Act
Ex.P40 : CC of sale deed dtd: 05.10.2010
Ex.P41 : CC of sasle deed dtd: 24.03.2011
Ex.P42 : CC of Judgment dtd: 10.03.2021 in
OS.No.26344/2008
Ex.P43 : CC of Decree in OS.No.26344/2008
Ex.P44 : Online CC of Palupatti dtd: 30.04.1988
Ex.P45 : Typed copy of Ex.P44
Ex.P46 : Online CC of sale deed dtd: 30.12.2013
Ex.P47&48 : CC of sale deed dtd: 04.12.2003
Ex.P49to51 : CC of sale deed dtd: 18.08.2015
Ex.P52&53 : CC of sale deed dtd: 18.08.2015
Ex.P54 : Mutation
Ex.P55 : Copy of representation to the Tahsildar bearing
acknowledgment
Ex.P56 : CC of Objection filed by 2nd respondent in
RRT.No.179/2007-08
Ex.P57 : CC of order dtd: 19.04.2008 in RRT
No.179/2007-08
Ex.P58 : Mutation
Ex.P59to76 : RTCs
Ex.P77 : Form B Property register extract
Ex.P78to85 : Receipts
Ex.P86to104 : Acknowledgment and tax paid receipts
Ex.P105 : Form B Register extract
Ex.P106to124 : Acknowledgment and receipts
Ex.P125 : CD of the photographs
Ex.P126&127 : Cash bills issued by the studio
Ex.P128to144 : Photographs of suit property
Ex.P145 : Copy of representation to the BESCOM bearing
46 OS.No.26101/2008
Judgmentacknowledgment
Ex.P146 : Copy of representation to the AEE, S13 Sub
Divison bearing acknowledgment
Ex.P147 : Certificate issued by BESCOM dtd: 23.11.2021
Ex.P148 : Certificate issued by BESCOM dtd: 23.11.2021
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENDANTs:
DW.1 :
Venkatesh Reddy S/o Late Chinnappa @
Yellappa
DOCUMENT MARKED FOR DEFENDANTs:
Ex.D1 : CC of Memo in OS.No.26344/2008
Ex.D2 : CC of the deposition in OS.No.26344/2008
Ex.D3 : CC of Application submitted in OS.No.8415/1996
Ex.D4 : CC of Affidavit submitted in OS.No.26344/2008
Ex.D5 : CC of Voters List
Ex.D6 : CC of the sale deed dtd: 23.10.1997
Ex.D7to9 : CC of I.As filed in OS.No.8415/1996
Ex.D10 : CC of the order sheet in OS.No.8415/1996
Ex.D11 : CC of the sale deed dtd: 09.04.1952
Ex.11(a) : Typed copy of Ex.D11
Ex.D12 : CC of the sale deed dtd: 15.09.1952
Ex.D12(a) : Typed copy of Ex.D12
Ex.D13to16 : CC of RTCs
Ex.D17to19 : CC of Tax paid receipts
IV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
MAYO HALL UNIT; BANGALORE.
[ad_1]
Source link