Bangalore District Court
Pilla Reddy P vs Chowdamma on 16 June, 2025
KABC010167802005
IN THE COURT OF THE XLIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH.No.44), AT BENGALURU
PRESENT : SRI.BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN,
B.Com, LL.B.(Spl.)
XLIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU .
DATED: THIS THE 16 th DAY OF JUNE, 2025
O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Plaintiff: 1. Sri. P. Pilla Reddy,
S/o Chikkamuniswamy,
Alias Nadupanna,
Aged about 70 years
2. Sri. B. Nagappa
S/o Buddappa,
Aged about 51 years
3. Sri. Sakappa,
S/o Buddappa,
Aged about 42 years,
All the plaintiffs are
R/at Thubarahalli Village,
Varthur Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk.
2 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
(By Sri.V.A., Advocate)
-VS-
Defendants: 1. Smt. Chowdamma,
Since dead by her LRs
1(a) Sri. Adinarayana Reddy
S/o Late Chowdamma
Aged about 51 years
R/at Rajanukunte Village,
Yelahanka Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk.
1(b) Smt. Narayanamma
Since dead by her LRs
1(b)(i) Sri. Munirama Reddy
S/o Narayanamma
Aged about 62 years
1(b)(ii) Sri. Sampangi
S/o Narayanamma
Aged about 40 years
1(b)(iii) Sri. Ramakrishna
S/o Narayanamma,
Aged about 37 years,
1(b)(iv) Smt. Sunanda
D/o Narayanamma
Aged about 35 years
3 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
1(b)(v) Smt. Kanthamma
D/o Narayanamma
Aged about 30 years
1(c) Smt. Rathnamma,
D/o late Chowdamma
Aged about 49 years
1(d) Sri. Munichowda Reddy
Since dead by his LRs.
1(d)(i) Sri. Mahendra Kumar
S/o Late Munichowda Reddy
Aged about 30 years
1(d)(ii) Sri. Hemanth Kumar
S/o Late Munichowda Reddy
Aged about 26 years.
1(e) Sri.Rama Reddy
S/o Late Chowdamma
Aged about 45 years
1(f) Sri. Ananda Rama Reddy
S/o Late Chowdamma
Aged about 51 years
1(g) Smt. Lakshmamma
D/o Late Chowdamma
Aged about 40 years
Lr Nos. 1(b) to 1(g)
are residing at
Honnenahalli Village,
Yelahanka Hobli,
4 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Bengaluru-560 064.
2. Sri. Chinnappa,
S/o Late Buddappa,
Aged about 66 years,
3. Sri. Muniswamy
S/o Late Buddappa,
Aged About 61 years
4. Sri. Narayanappa,
S/o Late Buddappa,
Aged about 53 years,
5. Sri. Munivenkatappa,
S/o Late Buddappa,
Aged about 49 years
6. Sri. Srinivas,
S/o Late Buddappa,
Aged about 45 years
Defendant No.2 to 6 are
R/at Thubara Halli,
Varthur Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk.
7. Smt. Nanjamma
D/o Late Buddappa &
W/o Chikkamuniswamy @
Poojari
Aged about 51 years,
R/at Itkal Pura Village,
Hesaraghatta Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk.
5 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
8. Sri. B. Rajendra Prasad,
S/o Buddappa,
Aged about 44 years,
R/at Thubarahalli Village,
Varthur Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk.
9. Smt. Chikkabiddamma
D/o Patel Muniswamaiah
Since dead by her LRs
a. Sri. Hanumaiah
S/o Late Smt. Chikkabidamma
Aged about 58 years
R/at Itkalpura,
Hesaraghatta Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk
b. Smt. Rathnamma
D/o Late Smt. Chikkabidamma
Aged about 55 years
R/at 121, Hudgur Village,
Hudgur Post,
Gowribidanur Taluk,
Chikkaballapura District.
c. Sri. V. Krishnareddy
S/o Late Chikkabiddamma
Aged about 52 years
The LRs 9(a) and 9(c) are
R/at Itkalapura Village,
Hesaraghatta Hobli,
Bengaluru-64.
6 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
10. Smt. Kenchamma,
D/o Patel Muniswamaiah
Aged about 66 years
R/at Thubarahalli Village,
Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru
North Taluk.
11. Smt. Gullamma
D/o Patel Muniswamaiah
Aged about 61 years
R/at Hebbagodi Village,
Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru
Urban District.
12. Smt. Muninanjamma
D/o Patel Muniswamaiah
Aged about 56 years
R/at Hebbagodi Village,
Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru Urban District.
13. Sri. Krishna Reddy
Since dead by his LRs
(Lrs of the defendant No.13
are already on record as
defendant No.15 to 17)
14. Smt. Saroja,
Wife of M. Gopal,
Aged about 44 years
15. Sri. Sadasiva Reddy @
Munichowda Reddy
S/o M. Krishna Reddy,
Aged about 40 years
7 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
16. Sri. Sampangi Reddy @
Sampaiah Reddy
S/o M. Krishna Reddy
D16(a) Smt. Lakshmi
W/o Late Sri. Sampangi
Reddy,
Aged about 38 years
D16(b) Miss. Thejeswini
D/o Late Sri. Sampangi Reddy
Aged about 22 years
D16(c) Sri. Chetan
D/o Late Sri. Sampangi Reddy,
Aged about 20 years,
Defendant No.16(a) to (c) are
residing at
Thubarahalli Village,
Varthur Hobli,
Bengaluru East taluk.
17. Sri. Srinivas Reddy @ Muni
Reddy
S/o M. Krishna Reddy-defAged
about 31 years
Defendants 14 to 17
R/at Thubarahalli Village,
Varthur Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk,
18. Sri. G. Ramaiah Reddy,
S/o Gurappa Reddy,
8 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Aged about 77 years
R/at No.668, Domlur
Extension Domlur Layout,
Bengaluru-71, (Proprietor of
Anjaneya Brick works (ABW))
19. Sri. Raghava Reddy
S/o G. Ramaiah Reddy,
Aged about 54 years
R/at No.668, Domlur
Extension Domlur Layout,
Bengaluru-71.
20. Smt. Roopa,
W/o Mohan Reddy,
Aged about 31 years
R/at No.456, II Cross,
9 th Main Road, Indiranagar
Bengaluru-38.
21. Sri. N. Krishna Reddy,
S/o N. Subba Reddy,
Aged about 70 years,
R/at NO.456, 2 nd Cross,
9 th Main Road, Indiranagar
Bengaluru-39
22. Sri. V. Chandrashekhar,
S/o Haluvenkatappa,
Aged about 32 years
R/at Thubarahalli Village,
Varthur Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk.
23. Smt. P. Ramasubbamma,
9 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
W/o P. Narayanappa,
Aged about 48 years
R/at Byrasandra Layout
Jayanagara 1 st Block,
Bengaluru-11.
24. Sri. Narayana Reddy,
S/o Ramaiah Reddy,
Aged about 60 years
Prop: Channakeshava Brick
Works, R/at Marathahalli,
Varthur Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk.
25. Sri. N.A. Muni Reddy,
Since dead by his LRs
25(a) Smt. Padmaja
W/o Purushotham Reddy-
defD/o Late N. A Muni Reddy
Aged about 44 years
25(b) Smt. Kavitha
D/o Late N.A. Muni Reddy
Aged about 39 years
25(c) Smt. Rashmi
D/o Late N.A. Muni Reddy
Aged about 36 years
All are residing at
Doddanekkundi, Varthur
Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.
26. Sri. M. Yeshwanth Shenoy
10 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
S/o Late H. Vishwanatha
Shenoy, aged 38 years
R/at NO.43, 2 nd Cross,
Basaveswaranagar,
Bengaluru-79.
27. Sri. Sudhakar Reddy,
S/o D. Subbarami Reddy
Aged about 52 years
R/at Plot NO.6, Kamalapuri
colony, Hydrabad-560 073.
Andra Pradesh State.
28. Sri. D. Prabhakar Reddy,
S/o Late D. Subbarami Reddy
Aged about 49 years
R/at Plot No.6, Kamalapuri
Colony, Hydrabad
Andra Pradesh State.
29. Sri. Munivenkatappa
Aged about 62 years
S/o Late Munishamappa
R/at Siddapura Village,
Varthur Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk.
30. Sri. S. H. Krishnappa
S/o Late H. Hanumanthappa
Aged about 63 years
R/at Siddapura Village,
Varthur Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk.
31. Sri. Lakshman Reddy
11 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Aged about 66 years
S/o Late S.L. Ramaswamy
Reddy,
R/at Sorahunase Village,
Varthur Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk.
32. Sri. Uttam Chand,
Aged about 49 years
S/o Late Parasmal
R/at Sethia Nivas,
Marathahalli, Bengaluru-37
33. Smt. Chandrakalavathi,
D/o Smt. G. Veerabhadramma
and Nagamallaiah, aged 37,
R/at NO.974, BMP No.16,
Church Street, HAL III Stage,
New Thippasandra Post,
Bengaluru-75.
34. Sri. N. Udaya Shankar,
S/o Late Nanja Reddy,
Since dead by his LRs.
34(a) Smt. Kantha G.,
W/o Late Sri. N. Udaya
Shankar, aged 50 years
34(b) Smt. Lavanya U.,
D/o Late Sri. N. Udaya
Shankar,
W/o of Ravi Kumar N.,
Aged about 33 years,
12 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
34(c) Smt. Rashmi U
D/o Late Sri. N. Udaya
Shankar,
W/o Murali Reddy
Aged about 30 years
34(d) Sri. Kiran Kumar U
S/o Late Sri. N. Udaya
Shankar, aged 27 years
All are residing at No.199,
Thubarahalli
Behind Karur VYSYA Bank
Varthur Main Road,
Bengaluru-66.
35. Smt. Susheelamma
D/o Late Nanja Reddy
W/o Muni Chowda Reddy
Aged about 36 years
R/at Honnenahalli Village
Hesaraghatta Hobli
Bengaluru North Taluk.
36. Smt. Sumangala
D/o Late Nanja Reddy
W/o Raja Reddy
Aged about 27 years
R/at C/o V. Prasad
Thubarahalli Village,
Varthur Hobli,
Bengaluru-66.
37. Sri. Venkatesh Prasad
S/o Late Nanja Reddy
13 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Aged about 27 years
R/at Thubarahalli, Varthur
Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.
38. Smt. Lakshmamma,
W/o Late Narayanareddy
Aged about 58 years
39. Smt. Vedavathi
D/o Late Narayanareddy
Aged about 37 years
40. Smt. N. Hemavathi
D/o Late Narayanareddy,
Aged about 36 years
41. Sri. N. Venkatesh Reddy
S/o Late Narayanareddy
Since dead by his LRs
41(a) Smt. B.C. Anitha
W/o Late N. Venkatesh Reddy,
aged 40 years
41(b) Master V.Sai Narayana Reddy
S/o Late N. Venkatesh Reddy
Aged about 14 years
41(c) Master V.Sai Sukruth Reddy
S/o Late N. Venkatesh Reddy
Aged about 9 years
All are R/at NO.696
Chennakeshava Nilaya
Near Axis Bank
14 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Marathahalli Main Road,
Bengaluru-36.
42. Smt. Sujatha
D/o Late Narayanareddy
Aged about 33 years
43. Smt. Shashikala
D/o Late Narayanareddy
Aged about 32 years
44. Smt. N. Lakshmi
D/o Late Narayanareddy
Aged about 26 years
Defendant No.38 to 44 are
R/at NO.164,
Channadeshayanilaya,
Marathalli Vilalge & post
Bengaluru-37.
(D1(a to c)-V.R.J., D9- HSR.,
D8-VA., D18-Dead., D19-P.K.,
D23-G.G.N., D25(a)-MCR.,
D26-exp., D22-SVM., D29-PJR.,
D33-KMS., D.37-SAS., D11(a-b
)-VA., D31, 40-BVMR., D34(a
to b)- V.A., D2 to 7, 10, 35,
36-AAK., D13 to 17-R.J.,
D20, 21, 22, 28-BVAL., D38 to
44-JMRS., - Advocates)
Date of Institution of the suit : 31.08.2005
15 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Nature of the Suit : Declaration &
injunction
Date of commencement of : 04.02.2019
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment : 16.06.2025
was pronounced
Total Duration : Years Months Days
19 09 16
(BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN)
XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
J U D G M E N T
That, plaintiffs have filed this suit for declaration to
declare that suit schedule properties are the joint
family properties of Muniyappa & his three sons which
devolved upon plaintiffs, defendant No.1 to 8 and 34 to
37. The plaintiffs have also sought for declaration to
declare that Gift deed dated 20.06.1977, Will dated
19.12.1983, Partition deed dated 11.11.1999, Sale
16 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Deeds dated 29.11.1980, 13.06.1977, 15.03.1971,
23.10.1972, 17.11.1999, 28.11.1980, 14.10.1992,
01.09.1995, 12.05.2004, 12.05.2004, 03.03.2003,
23.03.2005, 23.03.2005, 02.07.2005 are null & void.
The plaintiffs have sought for further relief of
possession direct defendant No.13 to 33 to deliver the
possession of the suit schedule property to plaintiffs,
defendant No.1 to 8, 34 to 37.
2. The factual conspectus of the case, to
the extent relevant for adjudication of the
present lis, is set out below:
2.1. One Muniyappa is the propositus of the
family and he died leaving behind him Akkachamma
wife, Muniswamy@ Muniswamy Reddy,
Chikkamuniswamy @ Nadupanna and Buddappa sons
and Pillamma-daughter. Muniswamy died leaving
behind him Chikka Muniyamma-wife and daughter
Chowdamma-Def.No.1. The 2 nd son of original
17 O.S.No.6645 of 2005propositus Muniyappa by name Chikkamuniswamy @
Nadupanna had wife by name Chikkathayamma.
Plaintiff No.1 Pillareddy is son of Chikkamuniswamy @
Nadupanna. Nanjareddy is the son of
Chikkamuniswamy, who is survived by defendant
No.34 Udaya Shankar, defendant No.35
Susheelamma, defendant No.36 Sumangala,
defendant No.37 N. Venkatesh Prasad. From
Chikkathayamma, Chikkamuniswamy also had
daughters by name Lakshmamma and Gowramma.
2.2. The plaintiffs further submit that
Buddappa 3 rd son of Muniyappa had two wives by
name Gullamma and Kenchamma-Def.No.10.
Chinnappa-def No.2, Muniswamy-def No.3,
Narayanappa-def No.4, Nagappa-plaintiff No.2,
Munivenkata-def No.5, Srinivasa-def No.6, Sakappa-
Plaintiff No.3 are the sons of Buddappa from his 1 st
18 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
wife Gullamma and Nanjamma defendant No.7 is
daughter of Buddappa from Gullamma. Kenchamma
is the 2 nd wife of Buddappa and from Kenchamma
Buddappa had son by name Rajendrareddy-def No.8
and daughter by name Narayanamma.
2.3. Daughter of Muniyappa -Pillamma was
married to Patel Muniswamaiah and they had 4
daughters by name Chikkabiddamma-def No.9,
Kenchamma-def No.10 (2 nd wife of Buddappa),
Gullamma-def No.11 and Muninanjamma-def No.12.
The plaintiffs submit that they, defendant No.1 to 8
and 34 to 37 are the members of the joint family and
defendant No.13 to 33 are not connected to the joint
family.
2.4. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs
that all the sons of Muniyappa were innocents and
19 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
were neither had worldly knowledge nor capable of
managing their coparcenary family properties.
Muniyappa therefore brought Patel Muniswamaiah
who was hardly 7 years old from Itkalpura Village,
Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bengaluru North to his house at
Thubarahalli, Varthur. Patel Muniswamaiah was
hailing from poor family & his father neither
possessed any immovable property and Patel
Muniswamaiah was brought to the family of
Muniyappa with a pair of clothes & he was brought up
as a family member. Muniyappa educated
Muniswamaiah and soon after he attained age of
majority, he gave his daughter Pillamma in marriage
somewhere in the year 1927 or 1928. It is further
submitted by plaintiffs that Patel Muniswamaiah was
entrusted with the management of coparcenary
properties and at that time family had 5 properties
bearing Sy.No.48/1 area 01-21-00, Sy.No.32 area 04-
20 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
09-00, Sy.No.44 area 03-20-00, and Sy.No.28 area
07-21-00 at Thubarahalli Village and Sy.No.326 area
04-12-00 at Amani Bellandur Khane Village.
2.5. It is submitted by the plaintiffs that
Patel Muniswamaiah remained in the family of
Muniyappa as his Illatom son-in-law and took care
of joint family properties of Muniyappa in fiduciary
capacity or as a trustee. He purchased many
properties in his name out of income of the joint
family nucleus. The plaintiffs have given list of
properties purchased by Patel Muniswamaiah from
the nucleus of the family which is as under :
Sy.No. Area Village Date of Name of
registered Seller
document
33 02-12-00 Thubarahalli 23.09.1929 Shanbogue
Srinivas Rao
16 02-08-00 Thubarahalli 14.09.1946 Narasachari
32/3, ( new 01-20-00, Thubarahalli 03.03.1947 Sri. Annaiah
Sy.No.48/1,) Reddy S/o
Narayanappa
21 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Sy.No.327 Amane
Sy.No.329 01-20-00, Bellandur
01-34-00 Kane
68 03-17-00 Thubarahalli 24.04.1944 S. Narayana
Reddy
15/1 02-21-00 Thubarahalli 20.03.1944 Narasa Chari
326 04-12-00 Amane 03.07.1929 B.K.
Bellandur Lakshmaiah
kane
31 01-15-00 Thubarahalli 23.09.1929 Subba Shastri
13 06-00-00 Thubarahalli 20.12.1943 Munivenkata
-ppa and
Doddamniyel
lappa
13 07 acre Thubarahalli 20.12.1943 Not
mentioned in
the plaint
28 07-21.00 — 01.06.1929 Thimmakka
2.6. The plaintiffs further submit that
children of Muniyappa & Patel Muniswamaiah have
together mortgaged the properties bearing Sy.No.32,
48/1, 44, 28 and 326 in favour of one Narayanappa as
a security for securing loan of ₹.1,000/- as per
Mortgage deed dated 28.06.1929. It is further
submitted by the plaintiffs that children of Muniyappa
22 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
& Patel Muniswamaiah did not repay the loan to
Narayanappa, however above properties were
purchased by Patel Muniswamaiah under registered
Sale Deed dated 03.03.1947 from Annaiah Reddy son
of Narayanappa. But, the lands were purchased out of
the joint family nucleus of Muniyappa & his children.
It is submitted by the plaintiffs that though properties
were purchased in the name of Patel Muniswamaiah,
he was only a care taker, trustee or manager of the
coparcenary of Muniyappa & his sons and as such,
Muniyappa and his sons are had right over the
properties purchased under Sale Deed dated
03.03.1947.
2.7. It is submitted by the plaintiffs that
Muniswamy @ Muniswamy Reddy and his wife
Chikkamuniyamma have executed a WILL on
10.07.1967 bequeathing their 1/3 rd share in the joint
23 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
family properties in favour of their grand-daughter by
name Jayamma and her husband Nanja Reddy. The
plaintiffs submit that the subject matter of the Will is
Sy.No.15/1, 16, 32/2, 33, 48/1 of Thubarahalli Village
and Sy.No.326, 327 and 329 of Amani Bellandur Kane
Village. It is submitted by the plaintiffs that Patel
Muniswamaiah has signed the Will as attesting
witness and was aware about the fact that properties
are the joint family properties of Muniyappa & his
children. Patel Muniswamaiah has also executed
Sale Deed on 23.11.1972 in favour of Jayamma W/o
Nanja Reddy conveying 1/3 rd undivided interest in
their favour in respect of landed properties
mentioned in the Will. Muniswamy Reddy died in
the year 1972 leaving behind him Chikkamuniyamma
and his daughter Chowdamma but, on 04.11.1996
Chikkamuniyamma revoked WILL dated 10.07.1967
executed by her and her husband Muniswamy @
24 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Muniswamy Reddy. Therefore, Jayamma did not get
any right over the properties mentioned in Will nor
she has claimed any right on the basis of Will dated
10.07.1967 which was later revoked.
2.8. The plaintiffs further submit that Patel
Muniswamaiah has executed a Sale Deed on
26.05.1980 in favour of plaintiff No.1 Pilla Reddy
conveying Sy.No.15/1 area 00-33-00, Sy.No.16 area
00-15-00, Sy.No.32/1 area 00-33-00, Sy.No.32/1 area
00-20-00, Sy.No.33 area 00-06-00, Sy.No.44/2 area
00-33-00 situated at Thubarahalli Village and
Sy.No.327 area 00-10-00 and Sy.No.329 area 00-08-
00 stating that the properties were fallen to the share
of plaintiff No.1 in the partition that had been taken
place 30 years prior to execution of Sale Deed
between children of Muniyappa. It is submitted by
the plaintiffs that the properties shown in the Sale
25 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Deeds were properties which are allotted to the share
of Chikkamuniswamy @ Nadupanna- 2 nd son of
Muniyappa. Patel Muniswamaiah executed Sale
Deed in favour of plaintiff No.1 since khatha of all the
joint family properties stood in his name as per the
consent of children of Muniyappa. It is submitted by
plaintiffs that Patel Muniswamaiah has also sold 1
acre land in Sy.No.326 through registered Sale Deed
dated 31.10.1955 in favour of Chikkamuniswamy @
Nadupanna who was the 2 nd son of Muniyappa and
though he executed Sale Deed in respect of 1 acre,
again he sold 20 guntas of land in favour of
Jayamma through registered Sale Deed dated
23.11.1972. It is submitted by the plaintiffs that the
Sale Deeds have been executed on 26.05.1980 is in
order to change the name of the parties which was
standing in the name of Patel Muniswamaiah.
26 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
2.9. The plaintiffs further submit that on
18.03.1982 Patel Muniswamaiah executed an
unregistered Sale Deed in favour of defendant No.2
conveying Sy.No.15/1 area 00-33-00, Sy.No.33 area
00-05-00 and 00-02-00 and property No.39
measuring east – west 27 feet and north – south 45
feet consisting of house and vacant space stating
that those properties were allotted to the share of 2 nd
defendant in the partition which has taken place
about 30 years ago in the partition effected between
Muniyappa & his children. It is stated that, the above
mentioned properties were allotted to share of
Buddappa which is conveyed in favour of defendant
No.2 for a consideration amount of ₹.6,000/-.
Likewise, Patel Muniswamaiah also executed two
documents dated 18.07.1982 and 19.03.1982
conveying properties in favour of defendant No.6 and
plaintiff No.3 in Sy.No.32/1 area 01-00-00, Sy.No.48/1
27 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
(old NO.32/3) area 00-03-00, Sy.No.326 area 00-20-
00, Sy.No.327 area 00-10-00, Sy.No.329 area 00-08-
00 and Sy.No.33 area 00-06-00 stating that those
properties are allotted to the share of Buddappa in
the partition that has effected 30 years. The
plaintiffs submit that Patel Muniswamaiah did not
convey Sy.No.68 area 03-16-00, Sy.No.33 area 00-30-
00, Sy.No.44/1 area 02-14-00, Sy.No.16 area 01-06-
00, Sy.No.326 area 03-00-00 and Sy.No.327 area 00-
10-00 to the members of the family of Muniyappa,
though it is their joint family properties. It is
submitted by plaintiffs that Sy.No.44/1 of
Thubarahalli village area 02-12-00 was purchased by
Muniswamy @ Muniswamy Reddy from Kuntappa @
Muniyappa S/o Yerrappa as per Sale Deed dated
17.06.1935 and was managed by Patel
Muniswamaiah. Later on said property was gifted in
favour of Krishnareddy-def.No.13 who is called as
28 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
fostered son of Patel Muniswamaiah as per
registered Gift deed dated 20.06.1977. Patel
Muniswamaiah had no right to execute Gift deed in
respect of Sy.No.44/1 as he had no right over the
same.
2.10. It is further submitted by plaintiffs that
Patel Muniswamaiah executed Sale Deed dated
29.11.1980 in favour of Saroja W/o Gopalappa-
def.No.14 in respect of 00-03-00 of land in Sy.No.33
and had also executed Sale Deed dated 13.07.1977
in respect of 00-20-00 in Sy.No.326 in favour of
Munivenkatappa-def No.29. Patel Muniswamaiah
retained 02-14-00 of land in Sy.No.326 of Amani
Bellandur Khane village and he has gifted an area of
01-34-00 along with other properties in favour of
M.Krishna Reddy and his sons i.e., defendant No.13,
15, 16 and 17 as per registered Gift deed dated
29 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
20.06.1977. Plaintiffs further submit that Patel
Muniswamaiah has executed registered WILL dated
19.12.1983 in favour of M. Krishna Reddy-def.No.13
bequeathing 00-20-00 in Sy.No.326 of Amani
Bellandur Khane village, 02-00-00 in Sy.No.68 and
00-15-00 in Sy.No.33 of Thubarahalli Village. It is
submitted by the plaintiffs that Patel Muniswamaiah
had no right to execute the Gift deed and Will in
favour of M. Krishna Reddy and as such, M. Krishna
Reddy has not acquired any right, title or interest
over the suit properties.
2.11. Plaintiffs have further contended that on
31.10.1955 Patel Muniswamaiah has executed Sale
Deed in favour of Nadupanna- father of plaintiff No.1
and grandfather of defendant No.34 to 37 to the
extent of 01-00-00 in Sy.No.326 and as such, Patel
Muniswamaiah was manager of the joint family of
30 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Muniyappa and he has committed fraud by taking
sale consideration amount of ₹.2,500/-. Patel
Muniswamaiah also executed Sale Deeds in favour of
Sharadamma W/o Papaiah Reddy on 15.03.1971 to
the extent of 01-04½-00 in Sy.No.16. It is submitted
by plaintiffs that in sy.No.16 area 02-08-00 was the
joint family property of Muniyappa & his children and
Patel Muniswamaiah had purchased property from
Narasachari on behalf of Muniyappa & his children.
Sharadamma Papaiah Reddy and their children have
sold 01-04½-00 of land to G. Ramaiah Reddy one of
the partner of Sri. Anjaneya Brick Works- defendant
No.18 as per Sale Deed dated 23.10.1972. Since,
Patel Muniswamaiah had no right over the property,
the plaintiffs have contended that defendant No.18
has not acquired any right, title or interest over
Sy.No.16 area 01-04½-00.
31 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
2.12. It is further submitted by plaintiffs that
Patel Muniswamaiah executed Gift deed dated
20.06.1977 in favour of defendant No.13 Krishna
Reddy- his fostered son and gifted Sy.No.68 area 01-
16-00, Sy.No.33 area 00-15-00, Sy.No.44/1 area 02-
12-00, Sy.No.326 area 01-34-00 and Sy.No.327 area
00-10-00. It is averred in the plaint that since, the
properties are the joint family properties of
Muniyappa and his 3 sons, Patel Muniswamaiah had
no right to gift the joint family properties of
Muniyappa & his sons and therefore, neither Patel
Muniswamaiah had right over the suit property nor
M.Krishna Reddy had acquired right over the
property mentioned in the Gift Deed.
2.13. It is submitted by plaintiffs that Patel
Muniswamaiah by representing that he was the owner
32 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
of the suit property has sold many lands in the suit
schedule properties. Particulars of property sold are
as under :
Sy.No. Area Village Date of Name of
registered purchasers
document
33 00-03-00 Thubarahalli 29.11.1980 In favour of Saroja-
def No.14
44/1 00-30-00 Thubarahalli -- Sri. Sadashiva
Reddy -def No.15
has sold the
property in favour
of Smt. P.
Ramasubbamma
W/o P.
Narayanappa-def
No.23
44/1 00-31-00 Thubarahalli --- Sri. Sampangi
Reddy -def No.16
has sold the
property in favour
of Smt. P.
Ramasubbamma
2.14. It is submitted by the plaintiffs that
defendant No.13 M. Krishna Reddy & his sons
defendant No.15 to 17 who have acquired property
33 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
on the basis of alleged Gift deed dated 20.06.1977
have effected following transactions.
Sy.No. Area Village Date of Name of
registered purchasers
document
68 0017-00 out Thubarahalli 17.11.1999 S.H. Krishnappa-
of 03-16-00 def No.30
68 00-20-00 Thubarahalli 28.11.1980 Narayanareddy
S/o Ramaiah
Reddy-def No.24
68 01-20.00 Thubarahalli 14.10.1992 N.A. Munireddy
68 1 acre Thubarahalli 01.09.1995 Yeshwanth
Shenoy
33 00-13 ½ -00 Thubarahalli 12.05.2004 B. Rajendra
& & Village & Prasad-def NO.8
326 00-20-00 Amane
Bellandur
33 01-02-00 Thubarahalli 12.05.2004 V.Chandrashekar
-def No.22
68 00-16-00 Thubarahalli 03.03.2003 Smt. Roopa and
N. Krishnareddy
-def No.20 & 21
2.15. The plaintiffs have also contended that
as Patel Muniswamaiah had no right over the
property, defendant No.13, 15 to 17 will not acquire
any right over the property and subsequent
purchasers i.e., defendant No.14 to 33 will not
34 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
acquire any right, title or interest over the schedule
property. It is submitted by plaintiffs that defendant
No.13 has executed Sale Deed dated 17.11.1999 in
favour of S.H. Krishnappa and B. Lakshaman Reddy to
the extent of 00-17-00 in Sy.No.68 and 00-20-00 as
per Sale Deed dated 03.04.1999. It is further
submitted by plaintiffs that Krishnappa and
Lakshmanreddy have sold 00-17-00 and 00-20-00 in
favour of Smt. N. Roopa and N. Krishnareddy-
defendant No.21 as per Sale Deed dated 03.03.2003
and they had no right over the property. Therefore,
Sale Deed executed by defendant No.13 in favour of
defendant No.18 to 31 are having no consequences
and defendant No.18 to 31 will not acquire any kind
of right, title or interest over the suit property.
2.16. It is submitted by plaintiffs that
defendant No.15 to 17 have executed Sale Deed
35 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
dated 02.07.2005 in favour of defendant No.8 and
defendant NO.8 has executed Sale Deed in favour of
defendant No.33 in respect of 01-24-00 in Sy.No.326
and 00-07-00 in Sy.No.327 of Amane Bellandur Khane
village which is also not binding upon the shares of
the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have also contended that
M. Krishna Reddy & his children have got effected
partition of the properties as per Partition deed dated
26.11.1999 and Sale Deeds executed by them are
not having any effect in respect of right of the
plaintiffs over the suit property.
2.17. The plaintiffs submit that from
records it is clear that M. Krishna Reddy on
21.04.1984 entered into an agreement of sale with
Uttam Chand-defendant No.32 in respect of 00-20-
00 in Sy.No.68 and a suit for specific performance
was filed at O.S.No.8297/1992. Suit came to be
36 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
decreed on 30.11.1996 and plaintiffs who are not
parties to the said suit, recently came to know
about the judgment & decree passed in
O.S.No.8297 of 1992 when they have taken
certified copy of Sale Deed dated 03.03.2003. It is
submitted by the plaintiffs that transaction made
by Patel Muniswamaiah & his fostered son M.
Krishna Reddy will neither take away the rights of
the plaintiffs or the Sale Deeds will affect the right
of the original owners i.e., Muniyappa & his three
sons. It is submitted by plaintiffs that Patel
Muniswamaiah was in permissive possession of the
joint family properties as a care-taker, so alienee of
Patel Muniswamaiah & foster son M. Krishna Reddy
are also deemed to be persons in permissive
possession of the properties. Therefore, the
plaintiffs have contended that defendant No.14 to
37 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
33 will not acquire any right, title or interest over
the suit properties.
2.18. It is further submitted by the plaintiffs
that during last week of December 2004 they
requested defendant No.13 to deliver the
possession of the suit properties but he has flatly
refused to deliver the possession and as such,
plaintiffs have filed this suit for declaration to
declare that suit properties are the joint family
properties of Muniyappa & his three sons and the
documents executed by Patel Muniswamaiah, his
foster son M. Krishna Reddy and others are not
binding upon the shares of the plaintiffs.
Therefore, the plaintiffs have claimed that the suit
be decreed holding that properties are the joint
family properties of plaintiffs and defendant No.1
to 8, 34 to 37.
38 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
3. The defendant No.1(a) has filed written
statement. Defendant No.1(a) has admitted the
genealogy & averments regarding relationship of the
parties made in the plaint. The defendant No.1(a) has
denied that Muniswamy @ Muniswamy Reddy and his
wife Chikkamuniyamma have executed Will on
10.07.1967 bequeathing their 1/3 rd share in the joint
family properties in favour of their grand-daughter
Jayamma and her husband. The defendant No.1(a) has
also denied that Patel Muniswamaiah has executed Sale
Deed on 23.11.1972 in favour of Jayamma W/o Nanja
Reddy conveying 1/3 rd undivided share of Muniswamy
in the family properties. The defendant No.1(a)
submits that LRs of Muniswamy @ Muniswamy Reddy
are having equal share in the suit schedule properties.
It is submitted by defendant No.1(a) that in the year
39 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
1972 Muniswamy Reddy died leaving behind him his
wife Chikkamuniyamma & his daughter Chowdamma
and 1/3rd share of Muniswamy has devolved upon his
wife and daughter. The defendant NO.1(a) has also
admitted that Chikkamuniyamma has revoked Will
dated 10.07.1967 on 04.11.1996 as narrated in the
plaint. It is specific case of the defendant No.1(a) in
counter claim that the Sale Deed dated 23.11.1972
executed by Patel Muniswamaiah in favour of Jayamma
is not binding upon the defendants and also Gift deed
dated 20.06.1977 executed by Patel Muniswamaiah in
favour of Krishna Reddy. Therefore, the defendant
NO.1(a) has contended that decree may kindly be
passed holding that legal heirs of Smt. Chowdamma
are equally entitled to have share in their grandfather’s
properties i.e., Muniswamy Reddy’s properties and allot
1/3rd share of Muniswamy. It is also prayed to grant
declaration to declare that Sale deed dated
40 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
23.11.1972, & Gift deed dated 20.06.1977 are not
binding upon the defendant No.1(a) and be set aside.
4. The defendant No.8 Rajendra Prasad has filed
written statement. In the written statement he has
admitted the relationship of the parties to the suit as
narrated in the plaint. He has also admitted that suit
properties are purchased out of the income of the joint
family properties of Muniyappa & his three sons. The
defendant No.8 has also admitted other averments
made in the plaint that Gift deed and Sale Deeds
executed by Patel Muniswamaiah in favour of
defendant No.19 to 33 are not binding upon the share
of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 8. As a counter
claim defendant No.8 contended that suit properties
are the joint family and ancestral properties of
plaintiffs & defendant No.1 to 8 and he is having share
in the suit schedule property. Therefore, defendant
41 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
No.8 has contended that his share in the joint family
properties may kindly be divided.
5. a. Defendant No.13 to 17 have filed separate
written statement. The gist of written statement is as
under:-
5.1. In the written statement defendant
No.13 to 17 have contended that suit is barred by
limitation as plaintiffs are challenging the Sale
Deeds, Gift deeds, Will after period of limitation. It
is contended by defendant No.13 to 17 that
considering the age of the plaintiffs, they have not
challenged the Sale Deeds within 3 years from
attaining majority and as such, they have no locus
standi to question the transaction which has taken
place in the year 1977. It is further contended by
defendant No.13 to 17 that suit is not properly
42 O.S.No.6645 of 2005valued & court fee paid is not proper & correct.
The defendant No.13 to 17 have contended that
O.S.No.8297 of 1992 filed for partition between
sons of Muniyappa and defendant No.13 M. Krishna
Reddy. It is contended by the defendant No.13 to
17 that plaintiffs are not in possession of the
schedule property and defendant NO.13 and his
sons and other defendants who have purchased
the property are in possession of the schedule
properties.
5.2. It is submitted by defendant No.13 to 17
that Patel Muniswamaiah has worked as Patel of the
Village and he was residing separately. Out of his
own income, Patel Muniswamaiah has acquired many
properties including the suit properties. The
defendant No.13 to 17 have denied that Patel
Muniswamaiah was care-taker of Muniyappa’s family
43 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
nor he is the coparcener of the Muniyappa, except
marrying Muniyappa’s daughter Pillamma. It is
submitted by defendant No.13 to 17 that the courts
in O.S.No.288/1949-50 filed by Muniyappa’s
brother’s son against father of the plaintiffs & others
have decided the dispute and held that Patel
Muniswamaiah is not the coparcener of Muniyappa’s
family and he has acquired properties out of his own
income. Therefore, defendant No.13 to 17 have
contended that the plaintiffs or other defendants had
no right, title or interest over the properties of Patel
Muniswamaiah. It is contended by defendant No.13
to 17 that when plaintiffs / other family members
have purchased the property from Patel
Muniswamaiah in the year 1967, 1972 and 1980 as
per pleaded in para No.6 to 8, then question of
property being joint family property does not arise
for consideration. It is contended by the defendant
44 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
No.13 to 17 that Patel Muniswamaiah who conveyed
the property was the absolute owner of the property
and as such, plaintiffs or others have no locus standi
to question the ownership of the Patel
Muniswamaiah. Defendant No.13 to 17 have
contended that Patel Muniswamy had no male issues
and he brought-up defendant No.13 as his foster son.
Patel Muniswamy till his death stayed with defendant
No.13 and after death of Patel Muniswamaiah,
defendant No.13 performed his last rituals. It is
submitted by defendant NO.13 to 17 that out of love
and affection towards M. Krishna Reddy & his sons
Patel Muniswamaiah gifted the properties and also
bequeathed the property through Will. Therefore,
the defendant no.13 to 17 have contended that
plaintiffs are not having any right over the suit
property.
45 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
5.3. It is submitted by the defendant
No.13 to 17 that Smt. Pillamma D/o Muniyamma –
wife of Patel Muniswamaiah had filed suit at
O.S.No.3241 of 1980, during the pendency of the
suit Pillamma died and Smt. Kenchamma and
Chinna Biddamma have claimed share in the suit
schedule properties. Ultimately suit has been
dismissed, appeal filed by Kenchamma were also
dismissed and as such, it has to be held that the
properties are the absolute properties of Patel
Muniswamaiah. It is further submitted by the
defendant No.13 to 17 that Patel Muniswamaiah
and defendant NO.13 have filed suit against
defendant No.10 at O.S.No.9215 of 1980 which
was connected with O.S.No.1080 of 1980 wherein
it has been held that daughters of Patel
Muniswamaiah had no right over the property. It
is submitted by the defendant No.13 to 17 that
46 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Kenchamma, Chinna-Biddamma and Smt. Pillamma
have filed suits at the instigation of plaintiff’s
fathers and they made attempt to claim the
property stating that properties are the joint
family properties. Kenchamma who is the wife of
Buddappa and mother of one of the plaintiff and
therefore, the defendants contended that suit is
liable to be dismissed.
5.4. It is further submitted by defendant
no.13 to 17 that O.S.No.7361 of 1996 filed by
defendant No.9, O.S.No.5083 of 2005 filed by
defendant No.8, O.S.No.7615 of 1997 filed by
defendant No.25, O.S.No.1180 of 2005 filed by
defendant No.34 to 37 are pending before court.
The defendant NO.13 to 17 have contended that
plaintiffs are not at all in possession of the
property and hence, the valuation made court fee
47 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
paid is not proper & correct and suit of the
plaintiffs is barred by limitation. It is contended
by defendant No.13 to 17 that transaction made
by late Patel Muniswamaiah and plaintiffs have no
locus standi to challenge the transaction entered
into by Patel Muniswamaiah. Defendant No.13 to
17 are the absolute owners of the suit property
which was given to them by Patel Muniswamy and
hence, suit is liable to be rejected.
6. Defendant No.19 has filed written statement
and contended that Sy.No.16 area 02-09-00 of
Tubarahalli Village is the self-acquired property of Patel
Muniswamaiah and the property is nothing to do with
Muniyappa or his lineal descendants. Patel
Muniswamaiah has absolute right owner the property
and defendant No.19 has purchased 14 and ½ gunta of
land in Sy.No.16 as per Sale Deed dated 11.10.1979
48 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
from Muniswamaiah S/o Motappa @ Muniyappa and
also an extent of 01-04½-00 is purchased by 18 th
defendant under registered Sale Deed executed on
23.10.1972 from Sharadamma W/o Papaiah Reddy and
her children. It is submitted by defendant No.19 that
vendor of 18 th defendant Sharadamma had purchased
01-04-00 of land from Patel Muniswamaiah S/o
Motappa under registered Sale Deed dated 19.03.1971.
The defendant NO.19 submits that defendant No.19
has also purchased 00-15-00 of land in Sy.No.16 of
Tubarahalli Village under registered Sale Deed dated
26.08.1985 from Smt. M. Jayamma and Sri. M. Krishna
Reddy for valuable consideration. The defendant
No.19 submits that he & defendant No.18 are only
concerned with Sy.No.16 of Tubarahalli Village and
they do not want to reply with any allegation made
against other defendants with regard to others survey
numbers claimed by the plaintiffs. It is submitted by
49 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
defendant NO.19 that Sy.No.16 of Tubarahalli Village
was purchased by Patel Muniswamaiah under
registered Sale Deed dated 03.03.1947 from one
Annaiah Reddy and they denied that property is
purchased by Patel Muniswamaiah from the joint family
nucleus of Muniyappa. It is submitted by defendant
No.19 that Patel Muniswamaiah is neither the caretaker
nor trustee or manager of the family of Muniyappa and
as such, allegation made by the plaintiffs is not in
accordance with law. The defendant No.19 has also
denied the averments made in the plaint that Patel
Muniswamaiah has signed alleged Will executed on
10.07.1967 by Muniswamy @ Muniswamy Reddy and
his wife Chikkamuniyamma. The defendant No.19 has
also contended that as per the averments made in the
plaint only Patel Muniswamaiah has executed Sale
Deed on 23.11.1972 in respect of various properties,
and alienation made by Muniswamaiah is in the year
50 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
1972 and 1979, they are in settle possession of the suit
property and therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiffs
for declaration and possession of the suit property is
barred by limitation. Therefore, defendant No.19 has
contended that suit be dismissed with cost.
7. Defendant No.20 and 21 have filed written
statement and denied the plaint allegations but
admitted that Patel Muniswamaiah has executed
registered Will dated 19.12.1983 in favour of M.
Krishna Reddy-def No.13 bequeathing 02-00-00 in
Sy.No.68 of Thubarahalli Village. It is also admitted
that Patel Muniswamaiah has executed registered Gift
deed in favour of M. Krishna Reddy-def No.13 as per
Gift deed dated 20.06.1977 bequeathing 01-16-00 of
land in Sy.No.68 of Thubarahalli Village. The defendant
No.20 and 21 have also admitted that Sale Deed is
executed in favour of defendant NO.30 as per Sale
51 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Deed dated 17.11.1999. It is submitted by defendant
No.20 and 21 that defendant No.13 and his children
have executed Sale Deed in favour of defendant NO.30
and 31 and as such, defendant No.30 and 31 have
acquired right, title and interest in respect of 00-37-00
of land in Sy.No.68 of Tubarahalli Village.
Subsequently defendant No.20 and 21 have acquired
the property and as such, they are in peaceful
possession & enjoyment of suit Sy.No.68. The
defendant No.20 and 21 have also contended that
O.S.No.7361 of 1996 is filed by one Chinnabiddamma-
def No.9 against defendant No.13 & others herein
claiming that they are having share in the schedule
property which came to be dismissed. Therefore, the
defendant No.20 & 21 have contended that they are
the owners in possession of 00-37-00 of land in
Sy.No.68 i.e., 00-17-00 under Sale Deed executed in
favour of defendant No.20 and 00-20-00 in favour of
52 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
defendant No.21 by defendant No.13 to 17 and 30, 31
and 32. Since, plaintiffs have not challenged the Sale
Deed within the period of limitation, the defendant
No.20 and 21 have claimed that suit is barred by
limitation and hence, liable be dismissed with cost.
8. The defendant No.25 filed written statement
and contended that he has purchased an area of 01-20-
00 of land in Sy.No.68 of Tubarahalli village from M.
Krishna Reddy & others as per registered Sale Deed
dated 14.10.1992. The property has been converted
into non-agriculture purpose, he got approved plan for
construction of convention hall and constructed
building by investing huge money. Defendant No.25
submits that he has borrowed ₹.58,00,000/- from KSFC
and also amounts from friends & relatives for
construction of convention hall. The convention hall
was inaugurated on 06.10.1998. It is submitted by
53 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
defendant No.25 that the plaintiffs have not challenged
the Sale Deed within the period of limitation and hence,
suit is barred by limitation. The defendant No.25 has
also contended that he has invested more than Rs.2.5
crores for development of property purchased by him,
he is in exclusive possession of the property and as
such the court fee is required to be paid on market
value of the property and as such, the court fee paid by
plaintiffs is not proper and correct. The defendant
No.25 has contended that there is no cause of action
and cause of action one alleged is a concocted theory.
The defendant No.25 has further contended that the
relief claimed i.e., declaration to declare the Sale
Deeds in favour of defendant No.25 is null & void, is
not maintainable and hence, prayed for dismissal of the
suit.
54 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
9. The defendant No.27 and 28 have filed
written statement and denied the plaint averments.
The defendant No.27 and 28 have contended that the
property was mortgaged to one Narayanappa vide
Mortgage deed dated 28.06.1929. Mortgage money
was not paid by Patel Muniswamaiah and others and
accordingly Annaiah Reddy S/o Narayanappa has sold
the property as per Sale Deed dated 03.03.1947 to
Patel Muniswamaiah. Children of Muniyappa or others
were not in possession & enjoyment of the property
and suit Sy.No.68 of Thubarahalli Village area 03-17-00
is not the joint family properties of plaintiffs and
defendants. The defendant No.27 and 28 have
contended that in Sy.No.68 of Thubarahalli Village
defendant No.27 is the owner in possession of 00-30-00
whereas defendant No.28 has purchased 00-10-00. The
defendant No.27 and 28 have shown ignorance about
the registered Will dated 19.12.1983 executed by Patel
55 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Muniswamaiah in respect of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.68
of Thubarahalli Village. The defendant No.27 and 28
have admitted the gift of 01-16-00 in favour of
defendant No.13 as per Gift deed dated 20.06.1977.
The defendant No.27 and 28 have contended that
defendant No.13 and his children have executed Sale
Deed in favour of defendant No.32 and also admitted
that there was an agreement in favour of Uttam Chand
and suit was filed at O.S.No.8297 of 1992 to execute
the Sale Deed in terms of agreement of Sale dated
21.04.1984. The defendant No.27 and 28 have also
contended that O.S.No.7361/1996 is filed by defendant
No.9 against defendant No.13 & others in respect of
property of Patel Muniswamaiah which is pending for
consideration. At para No.27 of written statement the
defendant No.27 and 28 have contended that Sy.No.68
is totally measuring 05-17-00 out of which 2 acre of
western side was owned by one Muninagamma. It is
56 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
further submitted by defendant No.27 and 28 that
Muninagamma has acquired the 02-00-00 as per
registered Sale Deed dated 17.09.1951 executed by
Narayana Reddy. The defendant No.27 has purchased
00-30-00 of land from defendant No.32 and defendant
NO.28 has purchased 00-10-00 of land in Sy.No.68 of
Thubarahalli Village which was on the western side of
the property. The defendant NO.27 and 28 have
contended that the boundaries mentioned in the Sale
Deed clearly shows that property purchased by
defendant No.27 and 28 from defendant No.32 on
17.03.2003 is towards western side of the entire
Sy.No.68 of Thubarahalli Village. Defendant No.27 and
28 have contended that out of Sy.No.68 area 05-17-00,
eastern side 03-17-00 was sold in favour of Patel
Muniswamaiah as per Sale Deed dated 24.04.1944 and
he executed Gift deed dated 20.06.1977 in respect of
01-16-00 in favour of defendant No.13. Remaining land
57 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
was also bequeathed in favour of defendant No.13 as
per Will dated 19.12.1983. Defendant No.27 and 28
have contended that they have purchased land
purchased by Muninagamma which is towards western
side of the property and as such, it is nothing to do
with the property of Patel Muniswamaiah which is
eastern side of the property measuring 03-17-00 and as
such, property purchased by them is not within 03-17-
00 which is shown as item No.1 property. Therefore,
they claimed that they are not necessary parties to
this suit. It is further contended by defendant No.27
and 28 that item No.1 property is self-acquired
property of Patel Muniswamaiah or Muniswamappa
which has been already adjudicated in
O.S.No.288/1949-50. The defendant No.27 and 28 have
contended that in O.S.No.3241 of 1980 the earlier
findings were affi rmed and as such, plaintiffs,
defendant No.1 to 8, 34 to 37 are not having any kind
58 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
of right, title or interest over Sy.No.68 of Thubarahalli
Village. Defendant No.13 and his children are having
right over the property and since defendant no.27 and
28 have purchased the property under registered Sale
Deed from their previous owners, they contended that
suit against them is not maintainable and liable to be
dismissed with cost.
10. Defendant No.33 has filed separate written
statement denying the contents of the plaint as well as
contentions of the plaintiffs that the suit property is the
joint family property of plaintiffs, defendant No.1 to 8
and 34 to 37. The defendant No.33 has submitted that
defendant No.8, 13, 15 to 17 have executed registered
Sale Deed in his favour on the basis of registered Gift
deed, Will in respect of Sy.No.326 area 00-31 ½ -00,
00-04-00 in Sy.No.327, 00-03-00 in Sy.No.326 and 00-
31-00 in Sy.No.326 situated at Amani Bellandur Khane
59 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Village as per registered Sale Deed dated 02.07.2005.
It is contended that he is the bonafide purchaser for
value and his name is also mutated in the revenue
records and RTC. Def No. 33 has contended that he is
in possession & enjoyment of the suit schedule
property as absolute owner thereof. The defendant
NO.33 has further contended that he was not aware
about any sale agreement dated 21.04.1984 executed
by defendant No.13 Krishna Reddy in respect of
Sy.No.68 in favour of Uttam Chand and O.S.8297 of
1992. The defendant No.33 has contended that as per
the documents Patel Muniswamaiah had no male issues
and he has taken defendant No.13 as his foster son.
The defendant NO.33 contended that Patel
Muniswamaiah was looked after by defendant No.13 till
his death and after his death defendant no.13 has
performed his last rituals. Patel Muniswamaiah has
gifted the properties in favour of defendant No.13 &
60 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
his sons defendant NO.15 to 17 and the revenue
records were transferred in the name of donee’s during
the lifetime of Patel Muniswamaiah only. Subsequently,
portion of the property was sold in favour of defendant
NO.33 and as such, he is absolute owner in possession
of the property. The defendant No.33 has contended
that the suit is barred by limitation and since he is in
peaceful possession and enjoyment of item No.5 and 6
property, the suit is liable to be dismissed against the
defendant No.33.
11. The defendant No.34(d) has filed written
statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs and
contended that suit properties are the joint family
properties of Muniyappa and his three sons. It is also
stated that Patel Muniswamaiah has purchased the
property by utilizing the joint family funds of the joint
family consisting of Muniyappa and his sons. The
61 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
defendant No.34(d) has contended that properties
mentioned in the plaint are purchased by Patel
Muniswamaiah who was managing the property of
Muniyappa and others. Therefore, the defendant
NO.34(d) has submitted that suit be decreed as
prayed in the plaint.
12. The defendant No.34(a) to (c) have adopted
written statement filed by defendant No.34(d).
13. The defendant No.37 has filed written
statement admitting the contents of the plaint and
contended that defendant No.1 to 8 and 34 to 37,
plaintiffs are having share in the joint family properties
and they are entitled for their legitimate share. It is
contended by the defendant No.37 that decree for
partition & separate possession may kindly be granted
62 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
allotting share to them. Therefore, defendant No.37
prayed that the suit be dismissed with cost.
14. Defendant No.38 and 41 have filed written
statement and contended that Sy.No.68 area 05-17-00
in which easter side 03-17-00 was owned by Patel
Muniswamaiah. Patel Muniswamaiah has purchased
eastern portion of 03-17-00 as per registered Sale Deed
dated 20.04.1944. It is further contended by defendant
No.38 and 41 that western side 02-00-00 was
purchased by Muninagamma as per registered Sale
Deed dated 17.09.1951. The defendant NO.38 and 41
have further contended that Muninagamma’s daughter
Hanumakka and her children have executed registered
Sale Deed on 28.11.1980 in favour of R. Narayana
Reddy have sold 00-20-00 of land out of 2 acres.
Accordingly, name of R. Narayana Reddy was entered
in the RTC pertaining to the property and he was in
63 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
possession of the property till his death on 06.02.1999.
After death of R. Narayana Reddy defendant No.38
Lakshmamma and defendant No.41 Venkatesh Reddy
and others have released their rights and their name
has been entered in the RTC as per IHC-6/98-99,
accordingly, they are in possession of 00-20-00 of land
bounded by east property of M.R. Munireddy, West-Kuri
Venkatappa’s property, North-main road, south-
property of Karle. It is submitted by the defendant
No.38 and 41 that the Narayana Reddy had right, title
and interest over the property and as such, defendant
No.38 and 41 have acquired right, title and interest
over the suit property. Therefore, the defendant No.38
and 41 have claimed that the suit is liable to be
dismissed.
15. After death of defendant No.41 his legal heir
defendant No.41(a) has filed separate written
64 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
statement. Defendant No.41(a) has reiterated the
written statement filed by defendant No.38 and 41.
Further he has contended that 00-20-00 of land is in
possession of R. Narayana Reddy and thereafter, in
possession of defendant No.38 and 41 and as such,
they are in possession and enjoyment of suit property
and plaintiffs are not having any kind of right, title or
interest over the property. It is submitted by
defendant No.41(a) that suit filed by Chinnabiddamma
at O.S.No.7361 of 1996 seeking similar reliefs has been
dismissed as per judgment dated 16.01.2021.
Therefore, the defendant No.41(a) has contended that
the suit is liable to be dismissed with cost.
16. By considering pleadings and documents
produced by the parties, my learned predecessor in
offi ce had framed the following issues :-
65 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
1. Whether plaintiff proves that the suit
properties are joint family properties of
themselves and defendant No.1 to 8
and 34 to 37?
2. Whether plaintiff proves that
Muniswamaiah was illatom son-in-law
in the family of Muniyappa?
3. Whether plaintiff proves that
Muniswamaiah had acquired the suit
property shown in plaint para 4 (1 to
10) in his fiduciary capacity, by using
joint family funds of Muniyappa?
4. Whether plaintiff prove that
Muniswamiah had purchased the
properties as alleged in plaint para 5
by using joint family nucleous of
Muniyappa and his sons?
5. Whether defendant No.13 to 17 prove
that the suit property were self-
acquired properties of Muniswamaiah?
6. Whether defendant No.13 to 17 prove
that Muniswamaiah had gifted the suit
property in favour of himself and his
sons?
7. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant
Patel Muniswamaiah having no right
title over suit property has illegally
executed Sale Deed dated 29.11.1980,
13.06.1977, 15.03.1971 in favour of
defendant NO.14, 23 and Sharadamma
respectively?
8. Whether plaintiff proves that
66 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Sharadamma having no right and title
over the property has executed Sale
Deed dated 23.10.1972 in favour of
defendant No.18 illegally?
9. Whether plaintiff proves that the
defendant No.13 to 17 having no right
title or interest in suit property have
executed Sale Deeds illegally dated
17.11.1999, 28.11.1980, 14.10.1992,
01.09.1995, 12.05.2004 in favour of
defendant NO.30, 31, dated 24, 25, 26,
8 respectively?
10. Whether plaintiff prove that defendant
No.16 having no right title or interest
over suit property illegally executed
Sale Deed dated 12.05.2004 and
23.03.2005 in favour of defendant
No.22, 23 respectively?
11. Whether plaintiff prove that defendant
No.13 along with S.H. Krishnappa and
R. Lakshmana Reddy has executed
Sale Deed dated 03.03.2003 in favour
of defendant No.20 illegally?
12. Whether plaintiff prove that defendant
No.15 having no right title over suit
property illegally executed Sale Deed
dated 23.03.2005 in favour of
defendant No.23?
13. Whether plaintiff proves that defendant
No.8, 15 to 17 having no right title
over suit property have illegally
executed Sale Deed dated 02.07.2005
in favour of defendant No.33?
67 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
14 Whether plaintiff prove that the Sale
Deeds referred in plaint para 33(vi) (a
to n) are null and void, not binding on
plaintiff?
15. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for
possession of suit property as claimed
in plaint para 33(ii)?
16. Whether plaintiff prove that the Gift
deed dated 20.06.1977 executed by
Muniswamaiah in favour of defendant
NO.13 is null and void?
17. Whether plaintiff prove that the Will
alleged to be executed by
Muniswamaiah in favour of defendant
NO.13 is null and void and not binding
in them?
18. Whether plaintiffs prove that the
judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.8291 of 1992 is not binding on
them?
19. Whether defendants prove that the suit
is barred by limitation?
20. Whether defendant No.18 to 21, 25,
27, 28 and 38, 41 are bonafide
purchasers for value and they are
entitled to retain the properties
purchased by them?
21. Whether court fee paid is proper?
22. Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the
reliefs sought for?
23. What order or decree?
68 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Addl. Issue framed on 07.02.2025
1. Whether suit is bad for misjoinder of
parties?
17. In order to substantiate the case of the
plaintiff, GPA holder of plaintiff No.1 Dayananda
Reddy got himself examined as PW.1 and he has
produced 39 documents. K.S. Sathyanarayana
Reddy is the Power of Attorney holder of defendant
No.27 and 28 got himself examined as DW.1.
Defendant No.16 Sampangi Reddy is examined as
DW.2. GPA holder of defendant No.19 Ashok is
examined as DW.3. Sri. N. Mohan Reddy who is
husband of defendant No.20 got himself examined
as DW.4. K. Purushotham Reddy who is General
Power of Attorney holder of defendant No.25(a) is
examined as DW.5 and he has produced Ex.D.66 to
69 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
D.78 documents. K. Suraj is the Special Power of
Attorney holder for the defendant NO.41(a)
examined as DW.6 and he has produced Ex.P.79 to
Ex.D.100 documents. Kiran Kumar-defendant
No.34(d) is examined as DW.7. Parties to the suit
have not adduced oral evidence of independent
witnesses.
18. Heard learned counsel for plaintiffs and
defendants. Considered the oral and documentary
evidence adduced by both the parties to the suit in
light of the arguments advanced before me and my
findings on the above issues are:-
Issue No.1: In the Negative
Issue No.2: In the Affi rmative
Issue No.3: In the Negative
Issue No.4: In the Negative
Issue No.5: In the Affi rmative
70 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Issue No.6: In the Affi rmative
Issue No.7: In the Negative
Issue No.8: In the Negative
Issue No.9 to 14 In the Negative
Issue No.15 In the Negative
Issue No.16 In the Negative
Issue No.17 Does not arise for
consideration as in
previous proceedings
validity is considered.
Issue No.18 In the Negative
Issue No.19 In the Affi rmative
Issue No.20 In the Affi rmative
Issue No.21 Court fee paid is not
proper & correct.
Issue No.22 Plaintiffs and defendants
who have claimed share
supporting plaintiffs, are
not entitle for the relief
claimed
Additional Issue In the affi rmative
No.1:
Issue No.23: As per final order,
for the following:-
REASONS
19. Issue No.1 to 5 :- These issues are framed
with respect to the nature of the suit schedule
71 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
property, acquisition of property by Patel
Muniswamaiah, whether property is joint family
property of the joint family consisting of plaintiffs,
defendant No.1 to 8 and 34 to 37 and nature of
acquisition of the property by Patel Muniswamaiah.
Hence they are dealt together in order to avoid
repetition.
20. The plaintiffs have sought relief of
declaration to declare that suit properties are the joint
family properties of legal heirs of Muniyappa namely
Muniswamy, Chikkmuniswamy@ Nadupanna and
Buddappa. The properties involved in this suit are
Sy.No.68 area 03-16-00, Sy.No.33 area 00-30-00,
Sy.No.44/1 area 02-12-00, Sy.No.16 area 01-06-00,
Sy.No.326 area 03-00-00 and Sy.No.327 area 00-10-00.
The plaintiffs claim that Patel Muniswamaiah @
Muniswamy was the illatom son-in-law of Muniyappa
72 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
the original propositus of the family of the plaintiffs,
defendant No.1 to 8 and 34 to 37. It is the claim of the
plaintiffs that Patel Muniswamaiah was managing the
joint family properties of Muniswamy,
Chikkamuniswamy and Buddappa and out of the
proceeds of the joint family, the suit properties were
purchased by Patel Muniswamaiah and as such, the suit
properties are the joint family properties of plaintiffs
and defendants. The defendants have admitted the
relationship of Patel Muniswamaiah with the family of
Muniyappa. However, the defendants have denied that
the Patel Muniswamaiah was illatom son-in-law of the
original propositus Muniswamy. So, it is necessary for
the plaintiffs to show that Patel Muniswamaiah was the
illatom son-in-law of Muniyappa when he has purchased
these properties, the management of the properties
were in the hands of Patel Muniswamaiah.
73 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
21. Under Hindu Law ‘illatom son-in-law’ is a
man affi liated with the family through his marriage with
the daughter of the family to provide assistance in
managing the family property. This affi liation can
involve a specific agreement of or by customs or a
course of conduct demonstrating recognition within the
family. While not a formal adoption illatom son-in-law
may have some rights similar to those of natural son or
adopted son. The Mynes Hindu Law states that an
illatom son-in-law has no right to claim partition with
his father in law unless there is an express agreement
or customs to that effect. Illatom son-in-law is not a
adopted son in any science. Likewise in N.R.
Raghavachariar’s Hindu Law 8 th edition para 176 it is
stated that an illatom son-in-law loses no rights of
inheritance in his natural family and the property he
takes in adoptive family he has taken by his own
relations to the exclusion of those of adopted father.
74 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
So, it is clear that illatom son-in-law has got no
recognition in respect of property owned by the family
of his father in law and he can be treated as a person
who is just providing assistance in managing the family
property. Illatom son-in-law cannot be considered as a
Kartha of the family of the father in law though he is
managing the family properties.
22. I have perused the oral & documentary
evidence adduced to show that whether Patel
Muniswamaiah was illatom son-in-law of Muniyappa.
In this connection it is necessary to refer Ex.P.9 Sale
Deed dated 26.05.1980 executed by Patel
Muniswamaiah S/o late Doddamotappa @ Muniyappa in
favour of Pillareddy S/o Chikkamuniswamy @
Nadupanna i.e., plaintiff No.1 herein. In the recitals of
Ex.P.9 Sale Deed dated 26.05.1980 Patel
Muniswamaiah has stated as under:
75 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
ಸನ್ ಒಂದು ಸಾವಿರದ ಒಂಭೈನೂರ ಎಂಭತ್ತ ನೇ ಇಸವಿ ಮೇ ಮಾಹೆ ತಾರೀಖು ಇಪ್ಪ ತ್ತಾ ರರಲ್ಲೂ
(26.05.1980) ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ದಕ್ಷಿ ಣ ತಾಲ್ಲೂ ಕು ವರ್ತೂ ರು
ಹೋಬಳಿ ತೂಬರಹಳ್ಳಿ ಗ್ರಾ ಮದಲ್ಲಿ ವಾಸವಾಗಿರುವ ಲೇಟ್
ಮುನಿಯಪ್ಪ ರೆಡ್ಡಿ ಉರುಫ್ ನಡುಪಣ್ಣ ನವರ ಮಗ ಪಿ .
ಪಿಲ್ಲಾ ರೆಡ್ಡಿ ಯವರಿಗೆ ಇದೇ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ದಕ್ಷಿ ಣ ತಾಲ್ಲೂ ಕು
ವರ್ತೂ ರು ಹೋಬಳಿ ತೂಬರಹಳ್ಳಿ ಗ್ರಾ ಮದಲ್ಲಿ
ವಾಸವಾಗಿರುವ ಲೇಟ್ ದೊಡ್ಡ ಮೋಟಪ್ಪ ಉರುಫ್
ಮುನಿಯಪ್ಪ ನವರ ಮಗ ಮಾಜಿ ಪಟೇಲ್ ಮುನಿಶಾಮಯ್ಯ
ಆದ ನಾನು ಬರೆಯಿಸಿಕೊಟ್ಟ ಜಮೀನು ಕ್ರ ಯಪತ್ರ ಕ್ರ ಮ
ಆದಾಗಿ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ದಕ್ಷಿ ಣ ತಾಲ್ಲೂ ಕು ವರ್ತೂ ರು
ಹೋಬಳಿ ತೂಬರಹಳ್ಳಿ ಗ್ರಾ ಮದ ಹಾಗೂ ಅಮಾನಿ
ಬೆಳ್ಳ ಂದೂರು ಖಾನೆ ಗ್ರಾ ಮದ ಬಳಿ ಇರುವ ಈ ಕೆಳಗೆ
ಷೆಡ್ಯೂ ಲ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ವಿವರಿಸಿರುವ ಸ್ವ ತ್ತು ಗಳು ಮೇ ಲ್ಕ ಂಡ
ಮುನಿಯಪ್ಪ ರೆಡ್ಡಿ ಉರುಫ್ ನಡುಪಣ್ಣ ಈತನ ಅಣ್ಣ
ಮುನಿಶಾಮಿರೆಡ್ಡಿ , ತಮ್ಮ ಬುಡ್ಡ ಪ್ಪ ನವರುಗಳು ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು
ಉತ್ತ ರ ತಾಲ್ಲೂ ಕು ಹೆಸರಘಟ್ಟ ಹೋಬಳಿ ಇಟ್ಟ ಗಲಪುರ
ಗ್ರಾ ಮದಿಂದ ನನ್ನ ನ್ನು ಕರೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಬಂದು ತಮ್ಮ
ಸಹೋದರಿಯಾದ ಪಿಳ್ಳ ಮ್ಮ ಎಂಬುವರನ್ನು ನನಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಟು
ಲಗ್ನ ಮಾಡಿ ಮನೆಯಲ್ಲೆ ೕ ನಾವೆಲ್ಲ ರೂ ಒಟ್ಟಿ ಗೆ
ವಾಸವಾಗಿದ್ದು ಕೊಂಡು ಬಂದಿರುತ್ತೆ ೕವೆ. ಈ ರೀತಿಯಾಗಿ
ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಹಾಗೂ ಜಮೀನುಗಳ ಸಮಸ್ತ
ವ್ಯ ವಹಾರಗಳನ್ನು ಲೇಣಾದೇಣಿಗಳನ್ನು ನಡೆಸಿಕೊ ಂಡು
76 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
ಬರಲು ಓದು ಬರಹ ಬಲ್ಲ ವನಾದ ನನಗೆ ಮೇ ಲ್ಕ ಂಡ
ಮುನಿಯಪ್ಪ ರೆಡ್ಡಿ ಉರುಫ್ ನಡುಪಣ್ಣ ಹಾಗೂ ಈತನ
ಸಹೋದರರುಗಳು ಜಮೀನುಗಳ ಖಾತೆಯನ್ನು ನನ್ನ
ಹೆಸರಿಗೆ ವರ್ಗಾಯಿಸಿಕೊಟ್ಟಿ ರುವ ಮೇ ರೆಗೆ ಸದರೀ
ಜಮೀನುಗಳ ಖಾತೆ ಮತ್ತು ಆರ್.ಟಿ. ಸಿ ಯು ನನ್ನ
ಹೆಸರಿನಲ್ಲೆ ೕ ದಾಖಲಾಗುತ್ತಾ ಬಂದಿರುವುದು ಸರಿಯಷ್ಟೆ .
If recitals of Ex.P.9 executed at undisputed period
of time is considered then it is clear that Patel
Muniswamaiah was married to Pillamma the daughter
of Muniyappa and he was helping the three brothers
Muniswamy, Chikkamuniswamy@ Nadupanna and
Buddappa in managing the joint family properties. So,
it is clear from the recitals of Ex.P.9 that Patel
Muniswamaiah is the illatom son-in-law of Muniyappa
who is helping the sons of Muniyappa by name
Muniswamy, Naduapanna and Buddappa.
77 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
23. As discussed above Patel Muniswamaiah is
illatom son-in-law, but he cannot be considered as a
member of the joint family of his father in law. Joint
Hindu Family consists of all persons lineally descended
from a common ancestor and includes their wife &
unmarried daughter. A daughter ceases to be members
of her father’s family on marriage & becomes a
member of her husband’s family. Hence son-in-law
cannot be treated as member of family of his father in
law.
24. Now the question for consideration is
the properties which is subject matter of the suit
are joint family properties or not. The plaintiffs
have pleaded that Sy.No.68 is purchased by Patel
Muniswamaiah as per Ex.P.5 Sale Deed dated
24.04.1944, item No.2 property Sy.No.33 area 00-30-00
is acquired by Patel Muniswamaiah as per Sale Deed
78 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
dated 23.09.1929, Sy.No.44/1 is stated to be the joint
family property of Muniyappa, Sy.No.16 area 02-08-00
was purchased by Patel Muniswamaiah as per Sale
Deed dated 14.09.1946 – Ex.P.3. Sy.No.326 area 03-
00-00 and Sy.No.327 area 00-10-00 is purchased by
Patel Muniswamaiah as per Sale Deed dated
03.07.1929 and 23.09.1929. AS per plaint averments,
the marriage of Patel Muniswamaiah was performed in
the year 1927 or 1928 and according to the plaint
averments all the properties which are purchased by
Patel Muniswamaiah on after 1927-28 and as such,
plaintiffs claim that the suit properties are the joint
family properties of plaintiffs and defendants.
25. The plaintiffs have stated that Sy.No.48/1
area 01-21-00, Sy.No.32 area 04-09-00, Sy.no.44 area
03-20-00 and Sy.No.28 area 07-21-00 are the joint
family properties of plaintiffs and out of income from
79 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
these properties the Patel Muniswamaiah has
purchased other properties. In this connection the
plaintiffs are relying upon recitals of Mortgage deed
dated 28.06.1929. I have perused Ex.P.2 Mortgage
deed dated 28.06.1929 in detail. It is clear from the
Mortgage deed that Patel Muniswamaiah, Muniswamy
S/o Nadupanna and Chikkamuniswamy S/o Nadupanna
have mortgaged the Sy.No.32/2 area 04-29-00,
Sy.No.48 area 01-21-00, Sy.No.44 area 03-20-00,
Sy.No.28 area 07-21-00 and Sy.No.326 area 04-00-00 in
favour of one Narayanappa and obtained loan of
₹.1,000/-. But in the recitals of the deed it is not stated
that all the properties are joint family properties.
Since, Patel Muniswamaiah is also one of the
mortgagee, he would have mortgaged his individual
properties also. So, on the basis of the Mortgage deed
marked at Ex.P.2 this court cannot hold that all the
80 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
properties which are mortgaged are the joint family
properties of plaintiffs.
26. It is clear from the pleadings that Sy.No.326
area 01-12-00 and Sy.No.327 area 01-15-00 were
purchased by Patel Muniswamaiah as per Sale Deed
dated 03.07.1929 and 23.09.1929. These two Sale
Deeds are not produced in this suit. Likewise, Sale
Deed dated 23.09.1929 through which Sy.No.33 area
02-12-00 is purchased is also not produced. However,
Ex.P.4 Sale Deed dated 03.03.1947 is produced which
shows that one D.V. Annaiah Reddy has sold properties
mentioned in the said deed in favour of Patel
Muniswamaiah. The properties sold are Sy.No.324,
329/4 area 00-24-00, Sy.No.327 area 01-00-00, 1/3rd
share in Sy.No.327 situated Amani Bellandur Khane
village and Sy.No.32/1 area 01-20-00, Sy.No.48/1 area
01-20-00 and other lands which are not subject matter
81 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
of this suit. So, it is clear from the Ex.P.4 the
Sy.Nos.329/4, 327, 32/1 and 48/1 were purchased by
Patel Muniswamaiah but these are not subject matter
of the suit.
27. I have perused Ex.P.5 the Sale Deed dated
24.04.1944. It is clear from the above said Sale Deed
that Patel S. Narayana Reddy S/o Annaiah Reddy has
sold Sy.No.68 area 03-17-00 to Patel Muniswamaiah
i.e., item No.1 property. Likewise, as per Ex.P.6
Sy.No.13 area 6 acre have been sold in favour of Patel
Muniswamaiah by one Muniyellappa S/o Lakshmappa
and one Venkatappa S/o Rudrappa and
Doddamuniyappa S/o Lakshmappa in favour of Patel
Muniswamaiah. Sy.No.13 is not the subject matter of
the suit. As per Ex.P.7 Sale Deed dated 01.06.1929
Sy.No.28 area 07-21-00 is purchased by Patel
Muniswamaiah. It is important to note that all these
82 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
properties are not subject matter of this suit. However,
the plaintiffs are relying upon the same as
Muniswamaiah has executed Sale Deeds in favour of
Sy.Nos.327, 44/2, 329/4, 32/1, Sy.No.16 and Sy.No.15
in favour of plaintiff NO.1. It is important to note that
as per Ex.P.9 Patel Muniswamaiah has sold Sy.no.15/1
area 00-36-00, Sy.No.16 area 00-15-00, Sy.No.32/1
area 00-33-00 at one place and 00-20-00 at another
place, Sy.No.33 area 00-06-00, Sy.No.44/2 area 00-30-
00, Sy.No.327 area 00-10-00 and Sy.No.329 area 00-
08-00. Nowhere it is mentioned in the sale deed that
Sy.No.68, Sy.No.33, Sy.No.44/1 and Sy.No.326 are the
joint family properties. Apart from this, even if the
Patel Muniswamaiah has mentioned the properties
which are sold in the deed stating that as per the
partition effected in the family is executing this deed,
he has also received ₹.6,000/-consideration. So, it
cannot be held that all the properties transferred are
83 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
joint family properties, Patel Muniswamaiah might
have also sold some of the properties belonging to him
for a consideration amount of ₹.6,000/-. Pillareddy who
is plaintiff No.1 cannot deny the contents of the Ex.P.9
and passing of consideration amount. Therefore, in my
considered opinion even though in Ex.P.9 it is stated
that the Sale Deed is executed in respect of property
allotted to the father of plaintiff No.1, it doesn’t mean
that all the properties mentioned in the schedule are
the joint family properties. At this juncture, it is
important to note the documents produced by the
defendants also. Ex.D.2 and D.23 the judgment passed
in O.S.No.288 of 1949-50. The judgment & decree
passed in O.S.No.288 of 1949-50 are marked at Ex.D.2,
plaint in said suit was marked at Ex.P.2(a). It is clear
from Ex.D.2(a) that Sy.No.327 area 01-00-00,
Sy.No.329/4 area 00-34-00 and Sy.No.326 area 04-12-
00 of Amani Bellandur Khane Village and Sy.No.15/1
84 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
area 02-12-00, Sy.No.16 area 02-08-00, Sy.No.32/1
area 04-00-00, Sy.No.32/3 area 01-02-00, Sy.No.34/8
area 00-3-00, Sy.no.35/7 area 00-06-00, Sy.No.44/4
area 02-12-00, Sy.NO.44/2 area 02-24-00, Sy.no.48/1
area 01-22-00, Sy.no.68 area 03-17-00 and Sy.No.33
area 02-12-00 situated at Thubarahalli Village and
Sy.No.20/5 area 00-07-00 situated at Siddapura Village
are the suit properties. The suit was filed by one
Chennappa S/o Nanjappa against Muniswamy S/o Patel
Muniyappa, Muniswami@ Nadupanna S/o Muniyappa,
Buddappa S/o Muniyappa, Muniyamma W/o Oosappa
and Muniswamaiah calling himself as Patel Muniswamy
S/o Motappa. Chennappa claims that he is the son of
Nanjappa brother of Muniyappa who is stated to be the
propositus of the family of plaintiffs, defendant No.1 to
8 and 34 to 37. On perusal of judgment and plaint, it is
clear that Chennappa has claimed that properties are
the joint family properties. On perusal of judgment,
85 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
issues were framed regarding nature of the suit
property. The defendant No.5 in that suit i.e., Patel
Muniswamaiah has claimed that item No.1 and 2
properties of that suit i.e., Sy.NO.327 area 1 acre and
Sy.No.329/4 area 34 guntas were sold for arrears of
land revenue and he has purchased the same. It is also
clear from the discussion in the judgment that
Sy.No.327 and 329 which are item No.1 and 2 of that
suit was in possession of Patel Muniswamaiah and he
was considered as owner of the property. It is also
clear from the discussion in the judgment that
Sy.No.326 was purchased by Patel Muniswamaiah as
per Sale Deed dated 03.07.1929 and Sy.No.16 was
purchased by Patel Muniswamaiah as per Sale Deed
dated 24.04.1944. Sy.No.68 is serial No.10 property of
that suit. Likewise, it is observed that Sy.No.44/1 was
purchased by Patel Muniswamaiah as per Sale Deed
dated 14.06.1935, Sy.NO.33 is purchased by Patel
86 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Muniswamaiah as per Sale Deed dated 23.09.1929. It
is held in OS 288 of 1949-50 that 5 th defendant of that
suit i.e., Patel Muniswamaiah is not a coparcener of the
family and the properties standing in his name are the
properties of 5 th defendant only.
28. The learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiffs has argued that the findings given in
O.S.No.288 of 1949-50 is in respect of contention of
Chennappa S/o Nanjappa that properties are joint
family properties but it is not held that these
properties are not the properties purchased by utilizing
the joint family funds of Muniyappa and his sons. It is
important to note here only that defendant No.1 to 3 of
O.S.No.288 of 1949-50 non other than the sons of
Muniyappa i.e., Muniswamy, Nadupanna and Buddappa
through whom plaintiffs, defendant No.1 to 8 and 34 to
37 are claiming right over the suit schedule property
87 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
claiming that it is a joint family properties. In
O.S.No.288 of 1949 though Patel Muniswamaiah
claimed that these properties which are standing in his
name are his separate properties, Muniswamy,
Nadupanna and Buddappa have not claimed that it is
the properties purchased in the name of Patel
Muniswamaiah by utilizing the property belonging to
them. Muniswamy, Nadupanna & Buddappa have
clearly stated that in the year 1908 only there was a
partition between Muniyappa, Oosappa and Nanjappa
and as such, the properties are not the joint family
properties. If properties are purchased by utilizing the
property allotted to their share then they would have
denied the contention of Patel Muniswamaiah. They
have kept quiet and have not stated that the properties
in the name of 5 th defendant of that suit i.e., Patel
Muniswamaiah is purchased out of the money of joint
family properties. Apart from this, in O.S.No.288 of
88 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
1949-50 defendant No.1 to 3 have stated that they
owns 2 ½ acres dry land and 00-10-00 of wet land
only. Muniswamy S/o Patel Muniyappa was examined
in O.S.No.288 of 1949-50. At page No.20 of Ex.D.2
learned judge has mentioned that 1 st defendant who is
examined as 2 nd witness for defendants has stated that
5 th defendant himself has acquired some properties
recently. So, it is clear from the observations made in
O.S.No.288 of 1949-50 that properties standing in the
name of 5 th defendant Patel Muniswamaiah is acquired
by him only and it is not the family properties. It is
clearly mentioned in page 23, para 15 of the judgment
that properties claimed by 5 th defendant to be his
properties and he has acquired title to the properties
claimed by him. Therefore, in my considered opinion
the properties claimed by Patel Muniswamaiah 5 th
defendant are separate properties of Patel
89 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Muniswamaiah which is acquired by him out of his own
earnings.
29. I have also perused the judgment passed in
O.S.No.3241 of 1980, O.S.NO.9215 of 1980,
O.S.No.9052 of 1980. O.S.No.3241 of 1980 was filed by
Pillamma who is the daughter of Muniyappa, sister of
Muniswamy, Chikkamuniswamy and Buddappa against
her husband Patel Muniswamaiah. O.S.No.9215 of
1980 was filed by Patel Muniswamaiah and M.Krishna
Reddy i.e., defendant No.13 herein against Kenchamma
W/o Buddappa, Rajendra S/o Buddappa and
O.S.No.9052 of 1980 is filed by sons of Muniyappa
against Kenchamma W/o Buddappa, Chinnappa S/o
Buddappa, Rangappa S/o Buddappa and others. In the
said suit Pillamma who is none other than wife of Patel
Muniswamaiah, daughter of Muniyappa and sister of
Muniswamy, Nadupanna and Buddappa claimed that,
90 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
the property Sy.No.68 area 3 acre 17 gunta, Sy.No.33
area 2 acre 12 gunta, Sy.No.44/1 area 2 acre 12
gunta, Sy.No.32/3 area 1 acre 12 gunta, Sy.No.326 area
3 acre 12 gunta and Sy.No.327 area 18 guntas are
properties are allotted to her in the partition which has
taken place in the family. In that suit also it is claimed
by Pillamma that her husband Patel Muniswamaiah was
managing the property of her brothers i.e., Buddappa,
Nadupanna and Muniswamy and out of the nucleus of
joint family the properties acquired. It was also
pleaded that in the year 1954 only after death of
Muniyappa her brothers have divided the properties
orally and suit schedule properties were given to
Pillamma for her enjoyment. So, Pillamma claimed that
item No.1 to 3, 5 and 6 properties are her properties
which was allotted to her in the family partition and
claimed declaration against her husband Patel
Muniswamaiah. After death of Pillamma defendant
91 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
No.10 Kenchamma continued the suit claiming that it is
the property of her mother. Likewise the suit filed by
Patel Muniswamaiah was clubbed and a findings is
given by the court at O.S.No.3241 of 1980 and 9215 of
1980 that, suit properties are the self-acquired
properties of Patel Muniswamy/ Patel Muniswamaiah.
Issue NO.3 was specifically framed stating that whether
1 st defendant proves that suit properties are his self-
acquired properties and while answering issue No.3 and
5 from para 30 page 45 of Ex.D.24, it is held that the
suit properties No.1 to 3 and 5 are self-acquired
properties of Patel Muniswamaiah. Pillareddy who is
plaintiff No.1 is examined in support of defendant
No.10 Kenchamma. Though, the annexure page does
not show Pillareddy is examined as PW.3, at page
NO.37 paragraph No.25 of Judgment it is clearly stated
that Pillareddy S/o Nadupanna who is one of the
brother of the plaintiff i.e., plaintiff No.1 herein has
92 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
been examined. So, plaintiff No.1 was aware about the
litigation which was happening in the family of Patel
Muniswamaiah and he claimed the properties were
allotted to Pillamma. Apart from this, as per Ex.P.9
joint family properties which was allotted to the share
of Muniswamy, Nadupanna and Buddappa were given
to them as stated in the plaint. Then if suit property
was also joint family property then plaintiff No.1 would
have asked Patel Muniswamaiah to include suit
property & execute the Sale Deed. The silence of
plaintiff NO.1 and his evidence favoring Pillamma the
daughter of Muniyappa and defendant No.10
Kenchamma in O.S.No.3241 of 1980 clearly shows that
the properties are not the joint family properties of
Muniyappa purchased by utilizing the joint family
funds.
93 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
30. As discussed above, the Patel Muniswamaiah
cannot be considered as joint family member of the
family of Muniyappa. So, even if properties are
purchased in the name of Patel Muniswamaiah it will be
a Benami property. After enactment of The Prohibition
Of Benami Property Transactions Act, the descendants
of Muniyappa cannot claim that properties are
belonging to them. Therefore, on this count also, it
cannot be held that suit properties are the joint family
properties of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 8 and 34
to 37. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered in the
Negative. Issue No.2-Affi rmative, issue No.3-
Negative, issue No.4 -Negative and issue No.5-
Affi rmative.
31. Issue No.6 and 16 :- These issues are
framed with respect to contention taken by defendant
No.13 to 17 that Patel Muniswamaiah gifted the suit
94 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
property in favour of defendant No.13 and his sons. In
the plaint also the plaintiffs have clearly stated that
Patel Muniswamaiah has gifted Sy.No.68 area 01-16-00,
Sy.No.33 area 00-15-00, Sy.No.44/1 area 02-12-00,
Sy.No.36 area 01-34-00 and Sy.No.327 area 00-10-00 in
favour of defendant No.13 and his sons as per
registered Gift deed dated 20.06.1977. At paragraph
No.17 the plaintiff has clearly admitted the execution
of Gift deed in respect of part of the suit properties i.e.,
1 acre 16 gunta in item No.1, 15 gunta in item No.2,
entire item No.3, 5 and 6 properties. Ex.P11 is the
certified copy of the Gift deed. I have perused Ex.P.11
certified copy of the Gift deed in detail. The Gift deed
has been executed by Patel Muniswamaiah in favour of
defendant No.13 M. Krishna Reddy and his son
Muninatha Reddy, Sampaiah Reddy. The recitals of Gift
deed shows that defendant No.13 and his minor sons
were in put in possession of the properties and same is
95 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
attested by two attesting witnesses by name one
Lingachari and Patel Narayanaswamy Gowda.
32. Under provisions of Evidence Act, Gift is a
document required to be attested by two attesting
witnesses. As per Section 68 of Evidence Act a
document which is required to be attested shall not be
received in evidence unless one of the attesting
witness is examined. However, there is an exemption
to the said rule. As per proviso to Sec.68 it shall not be
necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the
execution of any document, not being a Will which has
been registered in accordance with provisions of Indian
Registration Act 1908 unless its execution by person by
whom it purports to have been executed is specifically
denied. Gift deed is duly registered & attested by two
witnesses and executant does not deny the execution
therefore there is no necessity to examine attesting
96 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
witnesses. In this case, the plaintiffs have not denied
that Patel Muniswamaiah has not executed the Gift
deed but have contended that he had no authority to
execute the Gift deed as he was not the owner of the
property. So, there was no necessity to examine the
attesting witnesses.
33. I have perused the Gift deed in detail. As per
Ex.P.11 Gift deed part of the suit properties i.e., 1 acre
16 gunta in item No.1, 15 gunta is in item No.2, entire
item No.3, 5 and 6 properties have been gifted to
defendant No.13 and his sons i.e., defendant No.15 to
17. While answering issue No.1 to 4, I have concluded
that Patel Muniswamaiah was the absolute owner of the
property and it was his self-acquired property.
Therefore, Patel Muniswamaiah had every right to gift
away the property. That apart in O.S.No.9215 of 1980
filed by Patel Muniswamaiah and defendant No.13 who
97 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
is plaintiff No.2 in that suit, Patel Muniswamaiah clearly
stated that he has gifted the part of the property to the
plaintiff No.2 M. Krishna Reddy. It is clear from the
observations made in the judgment marked at Ex.D.24
that, the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.3241 of 1980 i.e.,
Patel Muniswamaiah has stated that he has gifted 1
acre 16 gunta in Sy.No.16, 30 gunta in Sy.No.326, 10
guntas in Sy.No.327, 15 guntas in Sy.No.33 and 2 acre
12 guntas in Sy.No.44/1 and 10 guntas in Sy.No.32/3 to
defendant No.13 to 17 herein. So, it is clear from
Ex.D.24 and plaint averments that 01-16-00 in
Sy.No.68, 00-15-00 in Sy.No.33, Sy.No.44/1 area 02-12-
00, Sy.No.326 area 01-34-00 and Sy.No.327 area 00-
10-00 has been gifted in favour of defendant No.13 to
17. Therefore, in my considered opinion that the
pleadings, Gift deed and admission given by the
executant Patel Muniswamaiah in O.S.No.9215 of 1980
and OS.No. 3214 of 1980 clearly establishes that the
98 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
property has been gifted in favour of defendant No.13
to 17. While answering Issue No.1 to 6 I have concluded
that suit properties are self-acquired properties of Patel
Muniswamaiah and as such he had every right to
execute the gift deed. Hence Gift deed dated
20.06.1977 cannot be considered as null & void. The
Gift deed is legal & valid in all respect and def.No.13,
15 to 17 have acquired title over the properties Gifted
to them. Therefore, in my considered opinion this issue
No.6 is required to be answered in ‘Affi rmative’
holding that property has been gifted in favour of
defendant No.13 to 17 and Issue No.16 in ‘Negative’.
34. Issue No.7:- This issue is framed with
respect to contention taken by plaintiffs that Patel
Muniswamaiah had no right to execute the Sale Deed in
favour of defendant No.14, 23 and Sharadamma as per
Sale Deed dated 29.11.1980, 13.06.1977 and
99 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
15.03.1971. As per Ex.P.12 Patel Muniswamaiah has
sold Sy.NO.33 area 00-03-00 in favour of defendant
No.14 for a consideration amount of ₹.2,000/-. It is
recited in Ex.P.12 Sale Deed dated 29.11.1980 that
Patel Muniswamaiah was the owner of the property and
he has sold 00-03-00 of land bounded by east the
property in the same survey number sold to one
Hamsaveni on the same day, west-property of
Munivenkata Reddy, North- property of M. Jayamma
and south-property of Sampangi Reddy and others.
While answering issue No.1 to 5, I have concluded that
Sy.No.33 is self-acquired property of Patel
Muniswamaiah and he has sold 00-03-00 of land in
favour of defendant No.14 and as such, the plaintiffs
who are not having any right over the property cannot
say that Sale Deed is null and void. Sale deed is duly
executed and registered in the offi ce of Sub-Registrar
and till today executant or their legal representatives
100 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
have not challenged the sale deed. Therefore, in my
considered view the Sale Deed dated 29.11.1980 is
legal and valid in all respect.
35. The Sale Deed dated 13.06.1977 is marked
at Ex.P.13. The recitals of Sale Deed shows that Patel
Muniswamaiah has sold the property to M.
Munivenkatappa S/o Munishamappa of Thubarahalli
Village. 00-20-00 of land sold in Sy.No.326 bounded by
east-Bommanahalli Munishamappa vagire “ಪಶ್ಚಿ ಮಕ್ಕೆ
ನಾನು ಉಳಿಸಿಕೊಂಡಿರುವ ಜಮೀನು, ಉತ್ತ ರಕ್ಕೆ ನನ್ನ ತೋಟ ಮತ್ತು
ಹೋಣಿ, ದಕ್ಷಿ ಣಕ್ಕೆ ಗುಂಜೂರು ಮುನಿಸ್ವಾ ಮಿ ವಗೈರೆ ರವರ
ಜಮೀನು. for a consideration amount of ₹.8,000/-. It is
also recited in the Sale Deed that possession of the
property is handed over to the purchaser and entire
sale consideration amount is paid to Seller. Patel
Muniswamaiah has not challenged the validity of the
Sale Deed during his lifetime or after his lifetime his
101 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
legal heirs have challenged the validity of the Sale
Deed at OS No.7361 of 1996 which came to be
dismissed. The plaintiffs who are neither legal heirs of
Patel Muniswamaiah nor having any right over the
property cannot claim that Sale Deed is not legal and
valid. Since property sold was the absolute property of
Patel Muniswamaiah, the plaintiffs cannot contend that
the sale is not legal & valid and Patel Muniswamaiah
had no right over the property.
36. Likewise, as per Ex.P.15 Sale Deed dated
15.03.1971 Patel Muniswamaiah has sold the property
to Sharadamma W/o Papaiah. The property sold was
Sy.No.16 area 02-09-00 in which an area of 1 acre 4
and ½ guntas, which is bounded by East- property of
Papaiah, West-Property of Buddappa, North-
Parameshwarappa’s property and South-
Gundirangappa’s field. Property is purchased by
102 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Sharadamma for a consideration amount of ₹.5,000/-.
Sale Deed is also registered and since Patel
Muniswamaiah had right over the suit property, it
cannot be held that Sale Deed is not legal and valid.
As stated above, Patel Muniswamaiah or his legal
representatives have not challenged the validity of the
Sale Deed till this filing of the suit and as such, it
cannot be held that Sale Deed dated 15.03.1971 is not
a legal document. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that
the Sale Deed dated 15.03.1971 is also legal and valid
and as such, issue No.7 is required to be answered in
the ‘Negative’ holding that Sale Deed dated
29.11.1980, 13.06.1977 and 15.03.1971 is legal and
valid in all respect.
37. Issue No.8:- This issue is framed with
respect to validity of Sale Deed dated 23.10.1972
executed in favour of defendant No.18 by
103 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Sharadamma. While answering issue No.7, I have
concluded that Patel Muniswamaiah was the owner of
the property and he has sold the property bearing
Sy.No.16 area 1 acre 4 and ½ guntas in favour of
Sharadamma as per Sale Deed dated 15.03.1971.
Sharadamma has acquired right, title and interest over
the property sold in her favour as per Sale Deed
mentioned above and she has sold the said property in
favour of defendant No.18 as per Sale Deed dated
23.10.1972. There is no dispute regarding validity of
Sale Deed between Sharadamma and defendant No.18
or legal heirs of Sharadamma or heirs of defendant
No.18. The plaintiffs are not having any right over the
property in question and as such they cannot claim that
the Sale Deed dated 23.10.1972 which is duly
registered is illegal. Therefore, in my considered
opinion plaintiffs have failed to show that the Sale
Deed dated 23.10.1972 is legal and valid in all respect.
104 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Accordingly this issue is answered against the plaintiffs
& in the ‘Negative’.
38. Issue No.9 to 14:- These issues are framed
with respect to validity of Sale Deed executed by
defendant No.13, 15 to 17 in favour of defendant No. 20
to 26, 30 to 33. The plaintiffs have claimed that
defendant No.13, 15 to 17 had no right over the suit
schedule property and therefore, the Sale Deed
executed by them are illegal. I have perused Sale
Deed dated 17.11.1999- Ex.D.30, Sale Deed dated
28.11.1980-Ex.D-81, Sale Deed dated 14.10.1992-
Ex.D.68, Sale Deed dated 01.09.1995, Sale Deed dated
12.05.2004-Ex.P.20 & 21, Sale deed dated 03.03.2003-
Ex.D28 & 29, Sale Deed dated 23.03.2005- Ex.P24 and
25, Sale Deed dated 02.07.2005- Ex.P.26 in detail.
The plaintiffs are claiming that in the sale deed it is
mentioned that defendant No.13 to 17 have acquired
105 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Sy.No.68 1 acre 16 gunta. Sy.No.33 area 15 gunta,
Sy.No.44/1 area 2 acre 12 gunta, Sy.No.134 area 1 acre
34 gunta, Sy.No.37 area 10 gunta through Gift deed
and remaining property is stated to be acquired by
defendant No.13 as per registered WILL dated
19.12.1983. The learned counsel appearing for the
plaintiff has argued that WILL dated 19.12.1983 is not
proved in accordance with law and as such, defendant
No.13 has not acquired any right over the property. It
is the claim of the plaintiff as WILL is not proved, as
per Sale Deed executed by defendant No.13 in respect
of other contesting defendants/ purchasers, they will
not acquire right in respect of the property inherited
through WILL. Learned counsel for plaintiff has argued
that if plaintiffs are not having right over the property
then as WILL is not proved, the legal heirs of Patel
Muniswamaiah by name Chikkabiddamma, Kenchamma,
Gullamma and Nanjamma i.e., defendant No.9 to 12 will
106 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
acquire share in the properties which are bequeathed
by way of testamentary document and as such, the
purchaser of the property will not have any right over
the property. At this juncture, it is important to note
the previous proceedings at O.S.No.7361 of 1996. The
judgment passed in O.S.No.7361 of 1996 – Ex.D.78 is
produced by DW.5. Chinnabiddamma, V. Hanumaiah
and Rathnamma are the plaintiffs in that suit. The
daughters of Patel Muniswamaiah i.e., Nanjamma the
defendant No.12 herein is defendant No.1, Gullamma-
def No.11 herein is defendant No.2, Kenchamma the
third daughter of Patel Muniswamaiah is defendant
No.11 in O.S.No.7361 of 1996. The defendant No.13,
15 to 17 are defendant No.3 to 6, defendant No.24 to
32 are also parties to O.S.No.7361 of 1996. In the said
suit the daughters of Patel Muniswamaiah i.e.,
Chinnabiddamma, Nanjamma, Gullamma and
Kenchamma have challenged the Sale Deed and sought
107 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
for partition of the suit properties. The suit property of
that suit and this suit are one and the same i.e.,
Sy.No.68 area 3 acre 17 gunta, Sy.No.33 area 2 acre 12
gunta, Sy.No.44/1 area 2 acre 12 gunta, Sy.No.32/3
area 12 gunta, Sy.No.326 area 3 acre 12 gunta,
Sy.No.327 area 18 gunta. O.S.No.7361 of 1996 came
to be dismissed with cost on 16.01.2021. The Sale
Deeds which are in favour of defendant No.24 to 32
herein are held to be valid documents and court has
held that daughters of Patel Muniswamaiah are not
having right in the schedule properties. In the said suit
finding is also given that defendant no.13 M. Krishna
Reddy has become the owner of the property by virtue
of Gift deed and WILL. Rightly or wrongly civil court in
a suit filed by daughters of Patel Muniswamaiah has
held that they don’t have any right over the suit
property and Sale Deed executed by defendant No.13,
15 to 17 have been held to be a valid document. Unless
108 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Judgment & decree passed in OS No.7361 of 1996 is
set aside, the finding given is binding on the parties to
the suit. When Sale Deeds which are challenged by the
daughters of Patel Muniswamaiah was held to be a
legal and valid document then arguments of counsel for
plaintiff that defendant No.8 to 12 will inherit the
property as LRs of Patel Muniswamaiah cannot be
accepted as their claim is already rejected.
39. While answering issue No.6, I have already
given a finding that the Gift Deed dated 20.06.1977 is
valid in all respect and by virtue of Gift deed
defendant No.13, 15 to 17 have acquired right, title
and interest over the property. The property acquired
by defendants have been sold in favour of contesting
defendant No.24 to 26 and 29 to 32 & hence they have
acquired right, title and interest over the suit property.
That apart defendant No.27 and 28 are not claiming
109 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
property under Patel Muniswamaiah. Defendant No.27
and 28 have contended that defendant No.27 has
purchased 00-30-00 and defendant No.28 has
purchased 00-10-00 of land in Sy.No.68 of Thubarahalli
Village from Legal heirs of Muninagamma. As per the
written statement of defendant No.27 and 28 Sy.No.68
was originally measuring 05-17-00 out of which 03-17-
00 was purchased by Patel Muniswamaiah and
remaining land of 2 acre situated towards western side
of the property was purchased by Muninagamma who
is the sister of Patel Muniswamaiah and grandmother
of defendant No.13. Muninagamma purchased the
property as per Sale Deed dated 17.09.1951 -Ex.D.80.
I have perused the Sale Deed dated 17.09.1951 –
Ex.D.80 in detail. As per Ex.D.80 Narayana Reddy who
had sold 3 acre 17 guntas to Patel Muniswamaiah as
per Ex.P.5, also sold 2 acre to Muninagamma sister of
Patel Muniswamaiah. The name of Muninagamma was
110 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
also appearing in the RTC pertaining to the property.
The defendant No.24 has purchased 00-20-00 of land
out of 2 acre land as per Ex.D.81 Sale Deed dated
28.11.1980 from M. Krishna Reddy and Munireddy who
are the sons of Hanumakka. PW.1 in cross
examination on 05.07.2019 at para No.4 (cross
examination of defendant NO.38 to 44) has admitted
that Muninagamma has purchased 2 acre of land in
Sy.No.68 from Narayana Reddy S/o Annaiah Reddy.
The Sale Deed marked at Ex.D.81 clearly shows that
Muninagamma had daughter by name Hanumakka and
defendant No.13 M. Krishna Reddy and one Munirama
Reddy are the sons of Hanumakka D/o Muninagamma.
The defendant No.27 has purchased 00-20-00 of land
in the property purchased by Muninagamma.
Likewise 00-10-00 of land is also sold in favour of
defendant No.28 which is also part of property
purchased by defendant Muninagamma. Therefore, in
111 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
my opinion the Sale Deeds in favour of defendant
No.27 and 28 are not with respect to property owned
and possessed by Patel Muniswamaiah. But it is from
the property acquired by defendant no.13 and his
brother through Muninagamma and Hanumakka.
Therefore, in my considered opinion the property
purchased by defendants from Muniswamaiah and as
well as defendant NO.13, 15 to 17 and subsequent Sale
Deeds cannot be held to be an invalid documents or
illegal. Plaintiffs are not having any right over the
property and as per judgment in O.S.No.7361 of 1996
daughters of Patel Muniswamaiah are also not having
share in the those properties which are sold and
owned by Patel Muniswamaiah. Therefore, in my
considered opinion the Sale Deeds which are under
challenge cannot be declared as illegal and are legal
and valid in all respect.
112 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
40. The executant of the documents or their
legal heirs have not challenged the Sale Deeds
executed by defendant no.13, 15 to 17. The children
of Patel Muniswamaiah though challenged have not
succeeded in O.S.No.7361 of 1996. Therefore, in my
considered opinion the Sale Deeds executed by
defendant No.13, 15 to 17 and subsequent Sale Deeds
executed cannot be held to be illegal null and void.
Accordingly, issue No.9 to 14 are answered in the
‘Negative’.
41. Issue No.15 and 19 :- These issues are
framed with respect to relief of possession sought by
the plaintiffs and period of limitation. It is clear from
the pleadings as well as evidence that they plaintiffs
are not in possession of the suit property. Patel
Muniswamaiah has asserted his independent right over
the suit schedule property in the year 1949-50 at
113 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
O.S.No.288 of 1949-50. The father of plaintiffs were
party to the said suit. They have not claimed right
over the property. The finding is given in the suit that
Patel Muniswamaiah was in possession of the suit
property. Thereafter, in O.S.No.3241 of 1980, 3215 of
1980, 3062 of 1980 the daughters of Patel
Muniswamaiah have sought partition wherein also
defendant No.13, 15 to 17 have claimed that they are
in possession of the property. Plaintiff No.1 Pillareddy
S/o Nadupanna is examined in that suit as PW.3 (page
No.37 of Ex.D.24) shows that plaintiff No.1 was aware
about the previous proceedings between Patel
Muniswamaiah and his daughters and after death of
Patel Muniswamaiah between M. Krishna Reddy &
others. Therefore, the plaintiff No.1 and their
predecessor were aware of the previous proceedings
where Patel Muniswamaiah has claimed exclusive
possession over the property.
114 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
42. Under provisions of Limitation Act i.e., Article
64 and 65 of Limitation Act in suit for possession the
period of limitation is 12 years and limitation starts
from the date of dispossession or possession of the
defendants become adverse to the plaintiff. In the
year 1949-50 only Patel Muniswamaiah claimed
exclusive possession over the property and thereafter
in the year 1980 also he claimed exclusive possession
over the property and thereafter the property is in
possession of the purchasers. The predecessor in title
of plaintiffs or plaintiffs have not taken steps to get
possession of the property within the period of
limitation. Plaintiffs have not shown that within 12
years before filing of the suit they were in possession
of the suit property. So, even if the predecessor in
title of plaintiffs were in possession of the property at
any point of time, then also under Art. 64 claim is
barred by limitation. The plaintiffs are not the owners
115 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
of the suit property as discussed above as their claim
that property was purchased out of joint family nucleus
is not accepted by this court. Therefore, they cannot
claim possession of the property based upon their title
as they don’t have any title over the property. On
both the counts the plaintiffs are not entitled for
possession of the suit schedule property. The claim of
possession is barred by limitation so also claim of
declaration as plaintiffs are challenging the Sale Deeds
executed during 1972 to 1980 as null and void after
lapse of almost 22 to 25 years. As per Art.58 of
Limitation Act, period of limitation is 3 years and
plaintiffs though had knowledge about Gift deed and
sale deed have not challenged the same within period
of limitation stating that they had right over the
property. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiffs with
respect to relief of possession as well as declaration
are barred by limitation. Accordingly Issue No.15
116 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
regarding entitlement of relief of possession is
answered in the ‘Negative’ and Issue No.19 regarding
Limitation is answered in ‘Affi rmative’ holding that
relief claimed is barred by limitation.
43. Issue No.17:- This issue is framed with
respect to contention taken by the plaintiffs that WILL
executed by Patel Muniswamaiah in favour of
defendant No.13 is null and void and not binding upon
them. As already discussed above the Gift deed as
well as WILL executed by Patel Muniswamaiah was
considered in O.S.No.7361 of 1996- Ex.D.78, in my
considered opinion this court once again need not go
through the validity of the WILL as in O.S.No.7361 of
1996 claim of defendant No.13 was upheld and the
Sale Deeds executed by him in respect of the property
acquired through gift as well as WILL was held to be a
valid document. Therefore, in my considered opinion
117 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
since plaintiffs are not having any right over the
property and claim of daughters of Patel
Muniswamaiah was rejected in the earlier proceedings
the question of deciding validity of WILL in this suit
does not arise for consideration which is already
decided in the earlier proceedings. Accordingly this
issue is answered.
44. Issue No.18:- This issue is framed with
respect to binding nature of judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.8297 of 1992. As per plaint
averments defendant No.32 Uttam Chand has filed suit
for specific performance of the contract as per
O.S.No.8297 of 1992. M. Krishna Reddy entered into
an agreement of sale on 21.04.1984 to sell 20 guntas
of land in Sy.No.68 to defendant No.32. The suit came
to be decreed on 30.11.1996 and Sale Deed has been
executed in favour of defendant No.32. Therefore, in
118 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
my considered view the Sale Deed is executed in
favour of defendant No.32 as per the order of the court
and defendant No.13 M. Krishna Reddy & his sons had
right over the property which was subject matter of
O.S.No.8297 of 1992. Plaintiffs are not having right
over Sy.No.68 as discussed above and therefore,
question of declaring that judgment and decree is not
binding upon the plaintiffs does not arise for
consideration. Therefore, this issue is also required to
be answered against the plaintiffs and in the
‘Negative’.
45. Issue No.20:- This issue is framed with
respect to contention taken by defendant No.18 to 21,
25, 27, 28 and 38 and 41 that they are the bonafide
purchasers for value and they are entitled to retain the
properties purchased by them. While answering issue
No.1 to 16 and issue No.19, I have concluded that the
119 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
property was self-acquired property of Patel
Muniswamaiah and as such, the Sale Deeds executed
by Patel Muniswamaiah was legal & valid and
therefore, the property purchased by defendants from
Patel Muniswamaiah and subsequent Sale Deeds in
favour of contesting defendants are legal & valid and
they are entitled to retain the properties. That apart
in previous proceedings at OSNo.7861 of 1996 Ex.D.78
the purchasers i.e., defendant No.25 to 28, 38, 41 are
held to be the bonafide purchasers for value and as
such, their Sale Deeds are also valid and they are
entitled to retain the properties purchased by them.
As far as defendant No.27 and 28 are concerned they
have purchased the property from defendant No.13
and one Munirama Reddy. Sellers have acquired the
property from Muninagamma survived by Hanumakka
and the sons of Hanumakka have sold the property to
them and as such, they acquired valid title in respect
120 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
of property purchased by them which is not at all
belonging to Patel Muniswamaiah but was belonging to
his sister Muninagamma. Therefore, in my considered
view the contesting defendants No.18 to 21, 25, 27, 28
and 38, 41 are bonafide purchasers for value and they
are entitled to retain the properties purchased by
them. Accordingly this issue is answered in the
‘Affi rmative’.
46. Issue No.21:- This issue is framed whether
court fee paid is proper and correct. The plaintiffs
have valued the relief of declaration under Section 38
of Karnataka Court Fees & Suit Valuation Act, valuing
the property at ₹.6,000/- and paid court fee of ₹.150/-.
The plaintiffs were not in possession of suit schedule
property and therefore, they ought to have paid court
fee on the market value of the property. As per
Explanation 2 of Section 38 if suit is for declaration
121 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
and possession of the property then fee shall be
computed as in a suit for possession. The market
value of the property was valued at ₹.6,000/- and court
fee is paid on ₹.6,000/- only. The valuation is made as
per Section 7(2)(b) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suit
Valuation Act as all the properties are agricultural
lands. Therefore, in my considered opinion the market
value assessed as per the Land revenue paid under
Section 7(2)(b) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suit
Valuation Act is in accordance with law. It is clear from
the documents produced by defendants that some of
the properties are converted into non-agriculture land,
buildings have been constructed over the converted
land. Plaintiffs are not in possession of property and as
such in respect of converted lands, they have paid
court fee on the actual market value of the property at
the time of filing of the suit and therefore, court fee
paid is not proper and correct. Hence, this issue is
122 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
required to be answered holding that court fee paid is
not proper and correct.
47. Additional issue No.1 framed on
07.02.2025:- This issue is framed with respect to suit
is bad for misjoinder of the parties. As discussed
above, defendant No.27 and 28 have purchased the
property from defendant No.13 and Munirama Reddy
sons of Hanumakka. The Muninagamma is the sister of
Patel Muniswamaiah who was owner of 2 acres of land
and that property is nothing to do with the property of
Patel Muniswamaiah or property claimed by plaintiffs.
Defendant No.27 and 28 are purchasers of the
property which was originally belonging to
Muninagamma and hence, the defendant No.27 and 28
are not necessary party to the suit as their property is
nothing to do with the property owned by Patel
Muniswamaiah. Hence, in my opinion suit is bad for
123 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
misjoinder of parties also. Accordingly, additional
framed on 07.02.2025 is answered in the Affi rmative.
48. Issue No.22:- That, this issue is framed
with respect to entitlement of reliefs claimed. While
answering above issues, I have concluded that
property was self-acquired property of Patel
Muniswamaiah. I have also concluded that the
properties are not purchased out of joint family
nucleus or even if it is purchased the contention taken
by plaintiffs are hit under The Prohibition Of Benami
Property Transactions Act. Therefore, the relief of
declaration sought be plaintiffs that the property is
required to be declared as joint family property of
Muniyappa & his three sons cannot be ordered. That
apart while answering above issues, I have concluded
that property was owned by Patel Muniswamaiah and it
was his self-acquired property. Under Gift deed the
124 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
defendant No.13, 15 to 17 have acquired right in
respect of the property gifted and under WILL they
have also acquired title in respect of remaining
property. The claim of the daughters of Patel
Muniswamaiah i.e., defendant NO.8 to 12 who have
also claimed share in this suit, is already rejected in
O.S.No.7361 of 1996 and as such, they cannot once
again claim share in the suit schedule property.
Therefore, neither the plaintiffs nor defendants who
are claiming share in the property are entitled for any
of the relief. The plaintiffs have not claimed relief of
partition at all, though they contended that there was
already partition in the family and this property was
not partitioned. The appropriate relief along with
declaration was a relief of partition which is not
claimed and as such, plaintiffs are not entitled for the
relief of declaration that the suit properties are the
joint family properties of Muniyappa & his sons.
125 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
49. While answering Issue No.7 to 15 and 19, I
have concluded that Sale Deeds executed by Patel
Muniswamaiah, defendant No.13, 15 to 17 are legal
and valid and claim/ relief claimed by the plaintiffs are
barred by limitation. Therefore, in my considered
opinion the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of
declaration that Sale Deeds are null & void and
possession. Hence, plaintiffs as well as the defendants
who have claimed share in the property by filing
written statement are not entitled for any relief
claimed by them. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
50. Issue No.23:- In view of the discussions
and conclusion arrived at issue No.1 to 22 and
additional issue, suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be
dismissed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
126 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
ORDER
The suit of the plaintiffs is
dismissed with costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcript thereof
corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on
this the 16th day of June, 2025.)(BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN)
XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
BengaluruANNEXURE
I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of plaintiff:-
P.W.1 Dayananda Reddy
II. List of witnesses examined on behalf of defendants:-
D.W.1 K.S. Sathyanarayana Reddy
D.W.2 Sampangi Reddy
D.W.3 Ashok
D.W.4 Sri. N. Mohan Reddy
D.W.5 K. Purushotham Reddy
127 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
D.W.6 K. Suraj
D.W.7 Kiran Kumar
III. List of documents exhibited on behalf of plaintiff:-
Ex.P.1 Power of attorney
Ex.P.2 Certified copy of the mortgage
deed dated 28.06.1928
Ex.P.3 Certified copy of the registered
Sale Deed dated 14.09.1946
Ex.P.4 C/c of redemption of mortgage
dated 03.03.1947
Ex.P.4(a) Typed copy of Ex.P.4
Ex.P.5 C/c of registered Sale Deed
dated 24.04.1944
Ex.P.5(a) Typed copy of Ex.P.5
Ex.P.6 C/c of registered Sale Deed
dated 18.12.1943
Ex.P.7 C/c of registered Sale Deed
dated 01.06.1929
Ex.P.8 C/c of registered WILL dated
10.07.1967
Ex.P.9 C/c of registered Sale Deed
dated 26.05.1980
Ex.P.10 C/c of registered Sale Deed
dated 14.06.1935
Ex.P.11 C/c of registered Gift Deed
dated 20.06.1977
Ex.P.12 C/c of registered Sale Deed
dated 29.11.1980
128 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Ex.P.13 C/c of registered Sale Deed
dated 13.06.1977
Ex.P.14 C/c of registered WILL dated
19.12.1983
Ex.P.15 C/c of registered Sale Deed
dated 15.03.1971
Ex.P.16 C/c of registered Sale Deed
dated 23.10.1972
Ex.P.17 C/c of registered Sale Deed
dated 28.11.1980
Ex.P.18 C/c of registered Sale Deed
dated 14.10.1992
Ex.P.19 C/c of registered Sale Deed
dated 02.09.1995
Ex.P.20 & 21 C/c of registered Sale Deeds
dated 12.05.2004
Ex.P.22 C/c of registered Sale Deed
dated 03.03.2003
Ex.P.23 C/c of registered Sale Deed
dated 03.04.1999
Ex.P.24 & 25 C/c of registered Sale Deeds
dated 23.03.2005
Ex.P.26 C/c of registered Sale Deed
dated 02.07.2005
Ex.P.27 C/c of judgment passed in
O.S.No.8297 of 1992
Ex.P.28 to RTCs
33
Ex.P.34 C/c of registered Sale Deed
dated 20.03.1944
129 O.S.No.6645 of 2005Ex.P.35 C/c of registered Sale Deed
dated 23.11.1972
Ex.P.36 C/c of registered revocation of
the WILL dated 04.11.1996
Ex.P.37 C/c of registered Partition Deed
dated 11.11.1999
Ex.P.38 C/c of registered Sale Deed
dated 17.11.1999
Ex.P.39 Copy of amended written
statementIV List of documents exhibited on behalf of defendants:
Ex.D.1 Sketch
Ex.D.2 Copy of judgment in O.S.No.288/1949-
50
Ex.D.3 Defendant No.5 filed under Order 8
Rule 1 of CPC in O.S.No.288 of 49/50
Ex.D.4 Defendant No.1 to 3 filed under Order
8 Rule 1 of CPC in O.S.No.288 of 49/50
Ex.D.5 Power of attorney
Ex.D.6 C/c of registered Sale Deed dated
17.12.1951
Ex.D.7 C/c of registered Sale Deed dated
28.11.1980
Ex.D.8 C/c of registered Sale Deed dated
28.02.2003
Ex.D.9 C/c of registered Sale Deed dated
28.02.2003
Ex.D.10 Khatha extract
130 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Ex.D.11 Khatha certificate
Ex.D.12 & Conversion orders
13
Ex.D.14 Building license
Ex.D.15 Sanctioned plan
Ex.D.16 8 tax paid receipts
Ex.D.17 RTC in respect of Sy.No.68 from 1982-
83 to 2018-19
Ex.D.18 Mutation registers
to 21
Ex.D.22 C/c of judgment passed in RFA
No.276/1992
Ex.D.23 Certified copy of judgment passed in
O.S.No.288/2049-50
Ex.D.24 C/c of common judgment passed in
O.S.No.3241/1980
Ex.D.25 C/c of registered Partition deed dated
11.11.1990
Ex.D.26 C/c of registered Gift Deed dated
20.06.1977
Ex.D.27 C/c of registered WILLd dated
19.12.1983
Ex.D.28 & C/c of registered Sale Deeds dated
29 03.03.2003
Ex.D.30 C/c of registered Sale Deed dated
17.11.1999
Ex.D.31 C/c of registered Sale Deed dated
03.04.1999
Ex.D.32 Certified copy of the judgment passed
131 O.S.No.6645 of 2005in O.S.No.1536 of 2006
Ex.D.33 General power of attorney
Ex.D.34 certified copy of the registered sale
deed, dated 23.11.1972
Ex.D.35 certified copy of the registered sale
deed, dated 23.10.1972
Ex.D.36 certified copy of the registered sale
deed, dated 11.10.1979
Ex.D.37 certified copy of the registered sale
deed, dated 26.08.1985
Ex.D.38 4 RTCs,
Ex.D.39 mutation
Ex.D.40 certified copy of the conversion order
Ex.D.41 Registered sale deed, dated
17.11.1999
Ex.D.42 registered sale deed, dated
03.03.2003
Ex.D.43 registered sale deed, dated
03.04.1999
Ex.D.44 registered sale deed, dated
03.03.2003
Ex.D.45 registered gift deed, dated 17.10.2011
Ex.D.46 mutation registers
to 48
Ex.D.49 & conversion orders
50
Ex.D.51 & mutation registers
52
Ex.D.53 encumbrance certificates
132 O.S.No.6645 of 2005to 57
Ex.D.58 tax paid receipts
to 60
Ex.D.61 & khatha
62
Ex.D.63 BBMP khatha
Ex.D.64 property extract
Ex.D.65 certified copy of the plaint in
O.S.No.288/1949-50, Ex.D.2(a); power
of attorney
Ex.D.66 Certified copy of GPA
Ex.D.67 Certified copy of the death certificate
of D25
Ex.D.68 Certified copy of the sale deed
dated:14.10.1992
Ex.D.69 & Certified copy of the RTC extracts for
70 the 1993-94, 1995-96
Ex.D.71 Certified copy of the conversion order
dated:04.07.1996
Ex.D.72 Certified copy of the Tax demand
register extract
Ex.D.73 Certified copy of the approved plan of
SKR Convention Hall
Ex.D.74 Certified copy of the Invitation Card
Ex.D.75 Certified copy of the Form-C
Ex.D.76 Certified copy of the judgment and
decree passed in O.S.No.7615/1997
133 O.S.No.6645 of 2005Ex.D.77 Certified copy of the gift deed
dated:22.02.2013
Ex.D.78 Certified copy of the judgment and
decree passed in O.S.No.7361/1996
Ex.D.79 SPA executed by defendant no.41(a)
in my favour.
Ex.D.80 Certified copy of the sale deed
dated:17.09.1951
Ex.D.81 Certified copy of the sale deed
dated:28.11.1980.
Ex.D.82 RTC extracts
to
Ex.D.84
Ex.D.85 Certified copy of the conversion order
Ex.D.86 Letter pertaining to betterment
charged paid.
Ex.D.87 Uttara Patra
Ex.D.88 Katha certificate
Ex.D.89 12 computer generated tax paid
receipt together marked.
Ex.D.90 Property extract
Ex.D.91 2 certified copy of the tax paid receipt
and
Ex.D.92
Ex.D.93 Approved building plan
Ex.D.94 2 photographs
and
Ex.D.95
Ex.D.96 CD pertaining to photographs
134 O.S.No.6645 of 2005
Ex.D.97 Certified copy of the Judgment and
and decree passed in O.S.No.7361/96.
Ex.D.98
Ex.D.99 C/c of Order of Bhu Nyaya Mandali in
case No.LRF 5371/1979-80
Ex.D.100 C/c of Form-10
(BHAT MANJUNATH NARAYAN)
XLIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
135 O.S.No.6645 of 2005