Bangalore District Court
Rathnamma vs Yellappa on 2 August, 2025
KABC010118432004
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (CCH30)
Present: Srinivasa Gowda.C. B.A.L.L.L.B
XXIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru (CCH30)
Dated this the 2nd day of August 2025.
O.S.No.2071/2004
PLAINTIFF/S: 1. Smt.Rathnamma,
D/o Yellappa,
Aged about 61 years,
2. Sri.Y.Shivanna,
S/o Yellappa,
Aged about 51 years,
3. Sri.Narayana.Y.,
S/o Yellappa,
Aged about 45 years,
4. Sri.Jayaram,
Since deceased by his LRs
4(a) Smt.Radha,
W/o late Jayaram,
Aged about 41 years,
4(b) Kumari Nayana.J.,
D/o late Jayaram,
2
O.S.No.2071/2004
Aged about 21 years,
4(c) Sri.Jeevan.J.
S/o late Jayaram,
Aged about 19 years,
5. Smt.Shanthamma,
D/o Yellappa,
Aged about 41 years,
All are residing at Nallurhalli,
Whitefield Post,
Bengaluru - 560 066.
(By Sri.NSN, Advocate)
V/s
DEFENDANT/S: 1. Sri.Yellappa,
S/o Late Huchappa,
Aged about 79 years,
2. Sri.Chinnappa,
S/o Yellappa,
Aged about 54 years,
Both are residing at
Nallurhalli,
Whitefield Post,
Bengaluru - 560 066.
3. Sri.Venkatesh Reddy,
Since deceased by his LRs,
3(a) Smt.B.C.Anitha,
W/o late Venkatesh Reddy,
Aged about 41 years.
3
O.S.No.2071/2004
3(b) Chi Sai Narayana Reddy,
S/o late Venkatesh Reddy,
Aged about 16 years,
3(c) Chi Sai Sukuruth Reddy,
S/o late Venkatesh Reddy,
Aged about 11 years,
(Defendant No.3(b) & 3(c) are
minors, Represented by defendant
No.3(a) as mother and natural
guardian)
Defendant No.3(a) to (c) are resident
of # 696, Chennakeshava Nilaya,
Near Axis Bank,
Marathahalli Main Road,
Bengaluru - 560 037.
4. Sri.Gopalaiah,
S/o Krishnappa,
Aged about 57 years,
5. Sri.K.Yellappa,
S/o Krishnappa,
Aged about 54 years,
6. Sri.K.Aswatha,
S/o Krishnappa,
Aged about 51 years,
7. Sri.K.Muniraju,
S/o Krishnappa,
Aged about 47 years,
4
O.S.No.2071/2004
8. Sri.K.Aswathanarayana,
S/o Krishnappa,
Aged about 41 years,
9. Sri.Puttaiah N.H.,
S/o late Hutchappa,
Aged about 71 years,
10. Smt.Sharadamma,
D/o Puttaiah.N.H.,
W/o late Giriyappa,
Aged about 48 years,
11. Smt.Kanthamma,
D/o Puttaiah N.H,
W/o Riana,
Aged about 42 years,
12. Sri.Suresh,
S/o Puttaiah.N.H.,
Aged about 40 years,
All are residing at Dommlur,
Hosakote post,
Kolar district.
13. Sri.Nagaraju,
S/o Ramaiah N.H.,
Aged about 44 years,
14. Sri.Gajendra,
S/o Ramaiah N.H.
Aged about 42 years,
15. Smt.Vijayalakshmi,
D/o Ramaiah N.H.
5
O.S.No.2071/2004
Aged about 40 years,
16. Sri.Manjunatha,
S/o Ramaiah N.H.
Aged about 38 years,
17. Smt.Shobha,
D/o Ramaiah N.H.
Aged about 36 years,
18. Smt.Usha,
D/o Ramaiah N.H.
Aged about 34 years,
No.13 to 18 are resident of
Narayanakere village,
HAL Thota,
Anugondanahalli,
Hosakote taluk,
Bengaluru district.
19. M/s.Shyamaraju & Company
(India) Private Limited,
Builders & Developers,
Represented by its Managing
Director Mr.T.Shyamaraju,
"Divya Sree Chambers" 'A' Wing,
# 11, O'ShaugnessEy Road,
Bengaluru - 560 025.
Represented by its M.D
Mr.T.Shyamaraju,
20. Huawei Technologies India
Private Limited,
A Company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956, having its
6
O.S.No.2071/2004
registered office at Leela Gailleria,
The Leela Palace,
No.23, Airport Road,
Bengaluru - 560 008.
21. Smt. Lakkamma,
W/o late Krishnappa,
Aged about 70 years,
R/at Nellurahalli village,
Whitefield post, K.R.Puram,
Bengaluru East Taluk.
22. Smt. Jayalakshmi,
D/o Late Krishnappa,
Aged about 53 years,
R/at Thittahalli village,
Gollahalli post,
Kengeri Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk.
(Defendant No.3 to 22 comes on
record by filing impleading
application)
23. Smt.Jayamma,
W/o Late Huchappa,
Aged about 86 years,
R/at # 222, Baraguru Village,
H.Hosakote Post, Lakkur hobli,
Malur Taluk,
Kolar district - 563 130.
(D1 By Sri.RM, D2,3 by Sri.NG, D4
to D8 by Sri.NG, D9 to D12 by
Sri.SS, D1318 by Sri.CD, D21 &22
by Sri.KGS, D23 by Sri.SS, D3(a) to
7
O.S.No.2071/2004
(c), D19,20 by Smt.C.S.Radha, D15,
17, 18 by Sri.ANK, Advocates)
Date of institution of the : 17.03.2004
suit
Nature of the suit (suit on : Partition
pronote. Suit for
declaration and
possession suit for
injunction, etc.)
Date of the : 16.04.2018
commencement of
recording of the evidence.
Date on which the : 02.08.2025
judgment was pronounced
Total duration : Year/s Month/s Day/s
21 04 16
(Srinivasa Gowda.C)
XXIX Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs have filed the present suit against the
defendants seeking relief of partition and separate possession
8
O.S.No.2071/2004
of their legitimate share i.e., 1/4th share in the suit schedule
property. The plaintiffs have also sought for relief of
declaration to declare that the sale deed dated 30.04.1990
executed with respect to suit schedule property is not binding
on them.
2. The plaintiffs submit that Sri.Huchappa was the
propositor of their family, he had four sons i.e., Yellappa, who
is the defendant No.1, Krishnappa who is the father of
defendant No.4 to 8, Puttaiah who is the defendant No.9 and
Ramaiah who is the father of defendant No.13 to 18.
Sri.Huchappa had purchased the land bearing Sy.No.45
measuring 3 acres 12 guntas situated at Kundalahalli village,
K.R.Puram hobli, Bangalore east taluk, under the registered
sale deed dated 12.01.1946. In pursuance of the said sale
deed Sri.Huchappa was put in possession of the above said
property. Sri.Huchappa and his sons were in joint
possession and enjoyment of the aforesaid property.
Sri.Huchappa died intestate leaving behind his four sons as
9
O.S.No.2071/2004
his legal heirs. After the death of Sri.Huchappa, The Mysore
(Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, came into
force. The Deputy Commissioner (Special) for Inams
Abolition, Bangalore has conducted enquiry in case
No.62/195960 with respect to Sy.No.45 and granted
occupancy rights in favour of defendant No.1. As per the
grant, the revenue records were mutated in the name of
Yellappa. The defendant No.1 being the kartha of the joint
family, he was looking after the affairs of the joint family. The
defendant No.1 and his brothers were in joint possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property. Smt.Thayamma is
the daughter of Sri.Huchappa, she had no issues. She has
adopted Puttaiah as her son. Yellappa, Krishnappa and
Ramaiah have got divided the property bearing Sy.No.45
measuring 4 acres 1 gunta under the oral partition. As per
the oral partition, Yellappa, Krishnappa and Ramaiah have
got 1 acre 13.5 guntas each in Sy.No.45. Following that the
entries were made in their name in the RTC.
10
O.S.No.2071/2004
3. The plaintiffs have further stated that they have
requested the defendant No.1 to effect the partition with
respect to suit schedule property i.e. 4 acres 1 gunta. The
defendant No.1 and his brothers have been postponing the
partition of the suit schedule property. Then the plaintiffs
came to know that taking advantage that the defendant No.1
and his brothers were illiterates and they have no knowledge,
the defendant No.3 got executed the registered sale deed in
his favour with respect to suit schedule property. The
defendant No.3 said to have been purchased the suit
schedule property for the meager amount. The defendant
No.3 got executed the sale deed in his favour without the
consent of the plaintiffs and other joint family members.
Therefore the sale deed dated 30.04.1990 executed in favour
of defendant No.3 is void and the same is not binding on the
plaintiffs. During the pendency of the suit, the defendant
No.3, defendant No.19 and 20 have entered into Joint
Development Agreement dated 21.10.2005. The Joint
11
O.S.No.2071/2004
Development Agreement executed by defendant No.3 in
favour of defendant No.19 and 20 is not binding on the
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs being the coparceners of the family,
they are entitled for legitimate share in the suit schedule
properties. Accordingly, the plaintiffs have prayed to decree
the suit with costs.
4. The defendant No.1 and 2 have filed the written
statement. They have admitted the relationship between the
plaintiffs and defendant No.1, 2, 4 to 18. The defendant No.1
and 2 have admitted the averments made at para No.2 and 3
of the plaint. The defendant No.1 and 2 have admitted that
the defendant No.1 and his brothers have entered into oral
partition. Under the said partition, they have got 1 acre 13.5
guntas each in Sy.No.46 of Kundalahalli. After partition, the
defendant No.1 and the plaintiffs have been in possession of
the property bearing Sy.No.46 measuring 1 acre 13.5 guntas.
Therefore the suit schedule property is their ancestral
property. The defendant No.1 and 2 have sold the property
12
O.S.No.2071/2004
bearing Sy.No.46 measuring 1 acre 13.5 guntas in favour of
Venkatesh Reddy S/o late Narayana Reddy under the
registered sale deed dated 30.04.1990. The plaintiffs are not
parties to the said sale deed and they have not signed to the
said document. As the defendant No.1 and 2 have alienated
the property, the question of partition of suit schedule
property does not arise.
5. The defendant No.4 to 8 have filed the written
statement, they have admitted that the originally suit
schedule property belonged to their grand father i.e.,
Sri.Huchappa. After the demise of Sri.Huchappa, the Deputy
Commissioner for Inams Abolition has granted the suit
schedule property in favour of defendant No.1. All the
revenue records were mutated in the name of defendant No.1
and he being the kartha of the joint family, he was managing
the affairs of the joint family. The defendant No.4 to 8 have
denied that the defendant No.1 and his brothers got divided
the property bearing Sy.No.46 measuring 4 acres 1 gunta
13
O.S.No.2071/2004
under the oral partition. It is denied that under the said
partition the defendant No.1 and his brothers have got 1 acre
13.5 guntas each in the aforesaid property. It is not within
the knowledge of defendant No.4 to 8 that the defendant No.1
and 2 have jointly executed the sale deed in favour of
defendant No.3. The total extent of the property bearing
Sy.No.46 is 4 acres 1 gunta. The father of the defendant No.4
to 8 are entitled for ¼ share in the said property. It is denied
that the defendant No.1 and his brothers have sold the said
property in favour of defendant No.3 for legal necessity.
Indeed the defendant No.4 to 8 have consented to pass the
decree. Accordingly they have prayed to decree the suit in the
interest of justice and equity.
6. The defendant No.4(a) has filed the additional written
statement, wherein the defendant No.4(a) has denied that the
defendant No.3 is a developer, land grabber and highly
powerful politician. The defendant No.4(a) has denied that
the defendant No.3 by playing fraud and he got executed the
14
O.S.No.2071/2004
sale deed in his name with respect to suit schedule property.
The defendant No.3 being the absolute owner of the suit
schedule property, he has authorised the defendant No.19
and 20 to put up construction in the suit schedule property
and he has executed the lease agreement in their favour. The
plaintiffs have not paid proper Court fee. The plaintiffs have
not sought for cancellation of the sale deed dated 30.04.1990.
Therefore the suit filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be
dismissed with costs.
7. The defendant No.15 has filed the additional written
statement, the same has been adopted by defendant No.9 to
14 and 16 to 18. The defendant No.15 has admitted that the
property bearing Sy.No.46 measuring 4 acres 1 gunta of
Kundalahalli village belonged to Sri.Huchappa, who is their
grand father. After the death of Sri.Huchappa, the defendant
No.1 made an application to the Deputy Commissioner for
Inams Abolition for grant of the lands. After conducting
enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner has granted the suit
15
O.S.No.2071/2004
schedule property in favour of defendant No.1. The revenue
records were mutated in the name of defendant No.1 with
respect to suit schedule property. The defendant No.1 was
managing the suit schedule property as kartha of the family.
It is denied that the defendant No.1 and his brothers got
divided the suit schedule property under the oral partition
and they have acquired 1 acre 13.5 guntas each. It is not
within the knowledge of defendant No.14 to 18 that the
plaintiffs have requested the defendant No.1 to effect the
partition with respect to suit schedule property. The
defendant No.1 has executed the registered sale deed in
favour of defendant No.3 without the knowledge and consent
of defendant No.9 to 18. Therefore the said sale deed is not
binding on them. The defendant No.1 and his brothers have
not sold the aforesaid property for their family necessity.
Indeed the defendant No.14 to 18 have prayed to decree the
suit.
16
O.S.No.2071/2004
8. The defendant No.20 has filed the written statement and
the same was adopted by defendant No.19, the defendant
No.19 and 20 have denied that Sri.Huchappa had purchased
the property bearing Sy.No.45 measuring 3 acres 12 guntas
under the registered sale deed dated 9.1.1946. It is denied
that after the death of Sri.Huchappa the aforesaid property
was granted in favour of defendant No.1. It is denied that the
defendant No.1 and his two brothers have got divided the
property bearing Sy.No.46 measuring 4 acres 1 gunta under
the oral partition. Further it is stated that after The Mysore
(Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 came
into force, all the lands were vested with the government.
During 1959 the defendant No.1 made an application for
grant of occupancy rights as a permanent tenant with respect
to Sy.No.46 of Kundalahalli Village. After an enquiry the
Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams has confirmed the
occupancy rights in favour of defendant No.1 with respect to
suit schedule property. Therefore the suit schedule property
17
O.S.No.2071/2004
is the self acquired property of defendant No.1. Though the
suit schedule property was the self acquired property of
defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 and his two brothers
have jointly executed the registered sale deed dated
25.04.1990 in favour of defendant No.3 and he was put in
possession of the same. The defendant No.3 and his family
members have executed the registered Joint Development
Agreement dated 25.03.2005 in favour of defendant No.9 with
respect to land measuring 27 acres 18 guntas including the
land bearing Sy.No.46, measuring 4 acres 1 gunta of
Kundalahalli village. On the very same day, the defendant
No.3 and his family members have executed the General
Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.19. In terms of
the said General Power of Attorney, the defendant No.19 has
executed the registered permanent lease dated 21.10.2005 in
favour of defendant No.20 with respect to 17 acres 31 guntas.
The defendant No.20 has invested huge amount and
constructed the building as per the sanctioned plan. Thus
18
O.S.No.2071/2004
the defendant No.20 has been in lawful possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property. As the defendant
No.1 being the absolute owner of the suit schedule property,
he has alienated the same in favour of defendant No.3. The
plaintiffs have no manner of right or interest over the suit
schedule property. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by
limitation. The plaintiffs have no locus standi to seek general
partition with respect to suit schedule property. Therefore the
suit filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed with costs.
9. The defendant No.3, 19 and 20 have filed the additional
written statement and contended that the defendant No.23 is
not the daughter of late Huchappa and she has no manner of
right or interest over the suit schedule property. It is denied
that the defendant No.23 being the coowner, she has been in
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
Sri.Huchappa has got only three sons but he had no
daughters. The defendant No.9 is totally stranger to the
family of Sri.Huchappa. It is denied that after the death of
19
O.S.No.2071/2004
Sri.Huchappa, defendant No.23 and her brothers have been
in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
The plaintiffs and other defendants have colluded together
and filed the present suit for wrongful gain. Therefore the
suit filed by the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed.
10. The defendant No.21 and 22 have filed their written
statement. They have admitted the averments in para No.2 of
the plaint that Sri.Huchappa was in continuous possession
and enjoyment of the land to an extent of 4 acres 1 gunta in
Sy.No.46 of Kundalahalli village. After the demise of
Sri.Huchappa, on the application of Yellappa who is the elder
son and also the kartha of the Joint Hindu Family, the total
extent of 4.01 acre in Sy.No.46 of Kundalahalli has been
granted by the Deputy Commissioner, Inam Abolition in case
No.62/5960. The averments in para 2(a) of the plaint is
admitted that the schedule land has been purchased by
Sri.Huchappa for valuable consideration and the said land
was granted under section 10 of The Mysore (Personal and
20
O.S.No.2071/2004
Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act. They were in joint
possession of the land prior to the grant and since the 1 st
defendant, who is the kartha of the joint family, it was
granted in the name of elder son Yellappa. The grant was
made in the name of Yellappa for the benefit of members of
the joint family. They admitted the averments made in para
No.3 of the plaint that all the revenue documents were
standing in the name of 1st defendant and he was the kartha
of the family. The averments that the plaintiffs have
requested the 1st defendant for partition, the defendant No.1
and 2 postponed is not within the knowledge of these
defendants. The plaintiff purposefully given wrong schedule
to plaint schedule property. These defendants submits that
the joint family properties have not been divided. The
defendant No.1 and 2 have jointly executed sale deed in
favour of 3rd defendant without the knowledge or consent of
these defendants. The defendant’s father is entitled for ¼
share in the suit schedule property. The alleged sale deed was
21
O.S.No.2071/2004
not executed by the 1st defendant and father of these
defendants for their family necessities. It was executed for the
illegal and wrongful purpose. Therefore the alleged sale deed
is not binding on these defendants.
11. The defendant No.23 has filed written statement and
she has admitted that Sri.Huchappa has purchased the
land bearing Sy.No.45 of Kundalahalli village, K.R.Puram
hobli, Banglaore East Taluk, measuring to an extent of 3
acres 12 guntas under the sale deed dated 12.01.1946.
Sri.Huchappa was in continuous possession and enjoyment
of the land in all measuring 4 acres 1 gunta formed in
Sy.No.46 situated at Kundalahalli, K.R.Puram hobli,
Bangalore south taluk. During the life time of their father,
they were in joint and in physical possession of the aforesaid
property. After the demise of their father, they being the legal
heirs, they have succeeded to the estate left behind their
father Sri.Huchappa. It is not within the knowledge of the
defendant No.23 that Yellappa was managing the affairs of
22
O.S.No.2071/2004
the family and he was looking after the suit schedule
property. It is denied that Puttaiah was the adopted son of
Smt.Thayamma D/o late Sri.Huchappa. It is denied that
Yellappa and his brothers have got divided the suit schedule
property under the oral partition during 1977. It is denied
that under the said partition, Yellappa and his brothers have
got 1 acre 13.5 guntas each in the schedule property. It is
admitted that Yellappa, Ramaiah and Krishnappa and
Puttaiah who are all illiterates and they had no worldly
knowledge. It is not within the knowledge of defendant No.23
that the defendant No.3 got executed registered sale deed in
his name for meager amount and without consent of the
Plaintiffs. It is denied that defendant No.19 and 20 have
taken the schedule property under joint development
Agreement. It is further stated that she has no objection to
decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs and she being a
daughter of deceased Huchappa and coparcener, she is also
entitled for legitimate share in the suit schedule property.
23
O.S.No.2071/2004
Accordingly, the defendant No.23 has consented to pass the
decree.
12. In the light of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the
following issues have been framed:
ISSUES
(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that
the grand father of plaintiffs late
Huchappa was in continuous possession
and enjoyment of the land measuring 4
acres 1 gunta formed in Sy.No.46
situated at Kundalahalli, K.R.Puram
hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, morefully
described in the plaint schedule ?
(2) Whether they further prove that
after the death of Huchappa – grand
father of plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant,
the Deputy Commissioner has granted
the Occupancy rights in favour of the 1st
defendant to enure the benefit of the
24
O.S.No.2071/2004joint family of the plaintiffs and
defendants ?
(3) Whether the plaintiffs further prove that ultimately the suit schedule property measuring 4 acres 1 gunta has
been divided between the first defendant
Yellappa and his brothers Krishnappa
and Ramaiah in the year 1977, but
share was not allotted to the plaintiffs in
the said partition ?
(4) Whether the defendant No.4 to 8
prove that the plaintiffs have shown
wrong extent in the plaint schedule to
the suit schedule property ?
(5) Whether they further prove that the
sale deed dated 30.04.1990 executed by
defendant No.1 and 2 in favour of
defendant No.3 in respect of the suit
schedule property is not binding on the
plaintiffs ?
(6) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled
to declaration ?
25
O.S.No.2071/2004
(7) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled
to partition and separate possession of
5/7th share in the suit schedule
property?
(8) What order or decree ?
Additional Issues:
(1) Whether the 3rd defendant proves that
the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is not
proper and correct ?
(2) Whether the defendant No.23 proves
that she is the daughter of late
Huchappa ?
7. The plaintiff got examined herself as PW1 and got marked
Ex.P1 to Ex.P44. Sri. Munireddy, who is the witness
examined as P.W. 2. The defendant No.4 got examined
himself as DW1 and got marked as Ex.D1. The defendant
No.3 got examined himself as DW2 and got marked as Ex.D2
to D5. The defendant No.19 got examined himself as DW3
and got marked as Ex.D6 to 11. The G.P.A holder of
26
O.S.No.2071/2004
defendant No.9 got examined himself as DW4 and got marked
as Ex.D12 to 18. The G.P.A holder of defendant No.23 got
examined himself as DW5 and got marked as Ex.D19 to 27.
The defendant No.17 got examined himself as DW6 and got
marked as Ex.D28 to 33. The authorized signatory of
defendant No.20 got examined himself as DW 7.
8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for plaintiff. The
learned counsel for defendants were absent, hence arguments
on behalf of defendants taken as nil.
9. My answer to the above issues are as under:
Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
Issue No.3 : In the Negative
Issue No.4 : In the Negative
Issue No.5 : In the Negative
Issue No.6 : In the Negative
Issue No.7 : In the Negative
Addl.Issue No.1 : In the Negative
Addl.Issue No.2 : In the Affirmative
27
O.S.No.2071/2004
Issue No.8 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
10. Issue No.1, 2 and Additional Issue No.2: These
issues are interconnected with each other, therefore they
have been taken up together for common discussion in order
to avoid repetition of facts.
11. PW1 has deposed that Sri.Huchappa who is their grand
father, was the owner and in possession of property bearing
Sy.No.46, measuring 4 acres 1 gunta situated at Kundalahalli
village, K.R.Puram hobli, Bangalore south taluk. After the
death of their grand father, The Mysore (Personal and
Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 came into force and
the aforesaid land was vested with the government.
Sri.Huchappa had four sons, Yellappa, Krishnappa, Puttaiah
and Ramaiah. Yellappa being the elder son of Sri.Huchappa,
he was managing the affairs of the joint family. Therefore he
28
O.S.No.2071/2004
filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner (Special)
Inams Abolition, for grant of the aforesaid land. The Deputy
Commissioner (Special) Inams Abolition, Bangalore,
conducted an enquiry in case No.62/195960 and confirmed
the occupancy rights infavour of Yellappa as permanent
tenant with respect to property bearing Sy.No.46, measuring
4 acres 1 gunta of Kundalahalli village. The revenue records
were mutated in the name of Yellappa. Yellappa and his
brothers were illiterates and they had no worldly knowledge.
Taking advantage of the same, the defendant No.3 got created
the sale deed in his name with respect to property bearing
Sy.No.46, measuring 4 acres 1 gunta of Kundalahalli village,
without paying any sale consideration. During the pendency
of the present suit, the permanent lease agreement dated
21.10.2005 was executed infavour of defendant No.20. The
registered sale deed dated 26.04.1990 and the permanent
lease dated 21.10.2005 are not binding on them. They being
the members of joint family, they are entitled for legitimate
29
O.S.No.2071/2004
share in the suit schedule property. On the other hand, DW2
has deposed that during 1959, the suit schedule property
was vested with the state government. The defendant No.1
had made an application before the Special Deputy
Commissioner for grant of occupancy right as a permanent
tenant. After conducting an enquiry the suit schedule
property was granted in the name of defendant No.1. Thus,
the suit schedule property is the self acquired property of
defendant No.1. Except defendant No.1, no other person has
got right over the suit schedule property. On 26.04.1990, the
defendant No.1 along with his brothers have alienated the
suit schedule property in his favour. Though the brothers of
defendant No.1, i.e., Krishnappa and Ramaiah had no right
over the suit schedule property, as an abundant caution, they
were also made as parties to the sale deed. On the strength
of the registered sale deed dated 26.04.1990, the katha has
been mutated in his name vide M.R.No.3/199091. From the
date of purchase of the suit schedule property, he was in
30
O.S.No.2071/2004
possession and enjoyment of the same. He got converted the
said land from agricultural to nonagricultural purpose. On
23.05.2005 himself and his family members have executed
registered development agreement in favour of defendant
No.19. On the very same day, they have executed the
General Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.19 and
20 with respect to property measuring 17 acres 31 guntas.
On the strength of the General Power of Attorney, the
defendant No.19 has executed permanent lease dated
21.10.2005 in favour of defendant No.20. The defendant
No.20 being the permanent lessee, it is in possession and
enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
12. According to plaintiffs, Sri.Huchappa was the Propositor
of their family. He had four sons, namely Yellappa,
Krishnappa, Puttaiah and Ramaiah. In order to establish the
relationship, PW1 has produced the family tree, the same is
marked as Ex.P18. As per Ex.P18 Sri.Huchappa has got four
sons. Yellappa, Krishnappa, Puttaiah and Ramaiah. During
31
O.S.No.2071/2004
the pendency of the suit, Jayamma was impleaded as
defendant No.23. She claims to be the daughter of
Sri.Huchappa. It is pertinent to note here that there is no
averments in the plaint that Jayamma is the daughter of
Sri.Huchappa. Ex.P18 does not discloses that Sri.Huchappa
had a daughter. The defendant No.3, 19 and 20 have
disputed the relationship between Sri.Huchappa and
Jayamma. Thus the burden lies on defendant No.23 to
establish that she is the daughter of Sri.Huchappa. In that
regard, the General Power of Attorney holder of defendant
No.23 has stated that Jayamma is the daughter of
Sri.Huchappa and she was married to Marihanumappa. In
order to establish that Jayamma is the daughter of
Sri.Huchappa, he has relied upon the Aadhar card, PAN card
of Jayamma and the family tree furnished by N.H.Puttaiah
and Vijayalakshmi, the same are marked as Ex.D20 and
Ex.D21. On appreciation of the Aadhar card and PAN card of
defendant No.23, it discloses that she is the daughter of
32
O.S.No.2071/2004
Sri.Huchappa. The family tree furnished by N.H.Puttaiah
and Vijayalakshmi establishes that Jayamma is the daughter
of Sri.Huchappa. DW5 has produced the certified copy of
Confirmation Deed executed by Jayamma and others in
favour of Desai Developers, the same is marked as Ex.D27,
wherein Jayamma, her brother N.H.Puttaiah and his family
members have executed confirmation deed that Desai
Developers are the absolute owners of converted land bearing
Sy.No.44/1 and 43/1 of Nallurahalli village, K.R.Puram hobli,
Bangalore east taluk. In Ex.D27 it is clearly stated that
Jayamma and N.H.Puttaiah are the children of Sri.Huchappa,
Though DW5 was subjected to cross examination on behalf of
D3, D19 and D20, nothing has been elicited that Jayamma is
not the daughter of Sri.Huchappa. Moreover the plaintiffs
have not disputed the fact that Jayamma is the daughter of
Sri.Huchappa. On appreciation of the Confirmation Deed,
Aadhar Card, PAN Card and family tree furnished by
33
O.S.No.2071/2004
D.H.Puttaiah and Vijayalakshmi, it clearly establishes that
Jayamma is the daughter of Sri.Huchappa.
13. PW1 has deposed that Thayamma is the sister of
Sri.Huchappa, she had no issues, therefore she has adopted
the 3rd son of Sri.Huchappa, i.e., N.H.Puttaiah as her adopted
son. The plaintiffs have got examined one of the residents of
Nallurahalli village as PW2, he has also deposed in
consonance with the evidence of PW1 that Thayamma has
adopted Puttaiah as her adopted son. But defendant No.9
has disputed that he was adopted by Thayamma as her
adopted son. In order to rebutt the oral evidence of PW1 and
2, DW5 has produced the Aadhar card, Ration card and PAN
card of N.H.Puttaiah, the same are marked as Ex.D13, 14
and 16. The Aadhar card, Ration card and PAN card of
defendant No.1 discloses that he is the son of Sri.Huchappa.
Even if it is assumed that defendant No.1 was adopted by
Thayamma, the plaintiffs or other defendants would have
been produced the school records or other revenue
34
O.S.No.2071/2004
documents standing in the name of N.H.Puttaiah to show
that he was adopted by Thayamma. In that regard the
plaintiffs and other defendants have not chosen to produce
any material evidence. Moreover nothing has been elicited
during the cross examination of DW4 that N.H.Puttaiah, i.e.,
defendant No.9 is the adopted son of Thayamma. Indeed the
plaintiffs have failed to establish that N.H.Puttaiah was
adopted son of Thayamma.
14. The learned counsel for plaintiff argued that the
property bearing Sy.No.45, measuring 3 acres 12 guntas of
Kundalahalli village belonged to Narasimha and
Lakshminaga, they have sold the said property infavour of
Chikka Kunjappa under the registered sale deed dated
24.12.1939. In turn, Chikka Kunjappa sold the property
bearing Sy.No.45, measuring 3 acres 12 guntas in favour of
Sri.Huchappa, S/o Yellappa under registered sale deed dated
12.01.1946. In that regard, he has relied upon the certified
copies of the registered sale deeds dated 24.12.1939 and
35
O.S.No.2071/2004
12.01.1946, the same are marked as Ex.P11 and Ex.P12. As
per Ex.P12, Chikka Kunjappa has purchased the property
bearing Sy.No.45, measuring 3 acres 12 guntas. Ex.P11
establishes that Chikka Kunjappa has sold the aforesaid
property in favour of Sri.Huchappa. It is pertinent to note
here that though defendant No.3, 19 and 20 have disputed
that Sri.Huchappa had purchased the property bearing
Sy.No.45, measuring 3 acres 12 guntas of Kundalahalli
village, they have not placed any contra material evidence to
disbelieve Ex.P11. On appreciation of Ex.P11, it is very
crystal clear that Sri.Huchappa has acquired property
bearing Sy.No.45, measuring 3 acres 12 guntas under
registered sale deed. From the date of purchase of the said
property till his death, he was in possession and enjoyment of
the same.
15. As discussed above, Sri.Huchappa had purchased the
property bearing Sy.No.45, measuring 3 acres 12 guntas of
Kundalahalli village, under the registered sale deed dated
36
O.S.No.2071/200412.01.1946. During 1948 Sri.Huchappa was died. After the
death of Sri.Huchappa, his four sons have inherited the suit
schedule property and they were in possession and
enjoyment of the same. In the meantime the Mysore
(Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 came
into force. Yellappa S/o Sri.Huchappa, i.e., defendant No.1
filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner (special)
Inams Abolition Act, for confirmation of occupancy rights as
a permanent tenant in his favour with respect to property
bearing Sy.No.45 measuring 3 acres 12 guntas. After
conducting an enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner (Special)
for Inams Abolition, confirmed the occupancy rights infavour
of Yellappa. In that regard, the learned counsel for plaintiff
relied upon the applications submitted to the Special Deputy
commissioner, the order sheet of case No.62/5960, the
deposition of Yellappa, endorsement and the grant certificate,
the same are marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and Ex.P16 and
Ex.P17. As per Ex.P3, Yellappa submitted the application to
37
O.S.No.2071/2004the Special Deputy Commissioner, Inams for confirmation of
occupancy rights in his favour with respect to Sy.No.45
measuring 3 acres 12 guntas. Though Yellappa had made an
application for grant of occupancy rights with respect to
Sy.No.45, measuring 3 acres 12 guntas, but the Special
Deputy Commissioner has granted occupancy rights
infavour of Yellappa with respect to property bearing
Sy.No.46 measuring 4 acres 1 gunta. In that regard, the
extract was produced by the plaintiff, the same is marked as
Ex.P3(a), wherein it is stated that the old survey number was
4 and the new survey number is 46 and the extent of 3 acres
12 gutnas was rounded off and it was noted that 4 acres 1
gunta. The learned counsel for defendant No.3, 19 and 20
argued that Sri.Huchappa had purchased property bearing
Sy.No.45. The property bearing Sy.No.46 was granted in
favour of Yellappa, the land bearing Sy.No.46 does not
belong to the family of Sri.Huchappa. The property Sy. No.
46 is the self acquired property of Yellappa. It is pertinent to
38
O.S.No.2071/2004note here that PW1 has produced the certified copy of Tippani
of Sy.No.45 and 46 of Kundalahalli, the same are marked as
Ex.P27 and 28. As per Ex.P27, reSy.No.45 was standing in
the name of Chikka Pattandurappa and reSy.No.46 standing
in the name of Yellappa. PW1 has also produced the certified
copy of the plaint in O.S.No.141/2009 on the file of City Civil
Judge, Bangalore, the same is marked as Ex.P39. On
perusal of the plaint averments, it discloses that one
Puttappa was the propositor of the family of the plaintiff in
O.S.No.141/2009. The said Puttappa had three sons, i.e.,
Dodda Pattandurappa, Doddamallappa and Chikka Avalappa.
The plaintiff in O.S.No.141/2009 is the wife of Dodda
Avalappa. She has filed the said suit seeking relief of
partition, wherein she has stated that the occupancy rights
with respect to property bearing Sy.No.45, measuring 3 acres
12 guntas of Kundalahalli village was confirmed in the name
of Dodda Pattandurappa as per the orders passed in case
No.34/195960 before the Special Deputy Commissioner for
39
O.S.No.2071/2004
Inams Abolition, Bangalore. The defendant No.3 herein is
also party to the said suit. On appreciation of Ex.P27 and
Ex.P39, it clearly establishes that reSy.No.45 was granted in
the name of Dodda Pattandurappa. Though the defendant
No.1 has applied for occupancy rights with respect to
Sy.No.45 of Kundalahalli village, after reSurvey of the lands,
it was found that Yellappa was in possession and enjoyment
of Sy.No.46 measuring 4 acres 1 gunta. Therefore the
occupancy rights were confirmed in the name of Yellappa
with respect to property bearing reSy.No.46 to an extent of 4
acres 1 gunta of Kundalahalli village.
16. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that during
1946 Sri.Huchappa had purchased the suit schedule
property and he was in possession and enjoyment of the
same. Sri.Huchappa was died in the year 1948 leaving
behind his four children Yellappa, Krishnappa, Puttaiah and
Ramaiah. Yellappa being the elder son of Sri.Huchappa, he
became the kartha of the family. As the kartha, the defendant
40
O.S.No.2071/2004
No.1 was paying land revenue to the Jodidars with respect to
suit schedule property. The Mysore (Personal and
Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954, came into force
vide Act No.1/1955. After the said act came into force,
Yellappa being the kartha of the family, he filed an
application before the Special Deputy Commissioner for
Inams for grant of land under section 5 of the Act. After due
enquiry, the Deputy Commissioner for Inams has granted the
suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.1. The said
grant is for the benefit of the joint family, therefore all the
joint family members have equal right over the suit schedule
property. In support of his contention, the learned counsel
for plaintiff relied upon Ex.P16 and Ex.P17, i.e., the order
sheet of case No.62/195960 and the deposition of Yellappa,
S/o Sri.Huchappa. In case No.62/195960 Yellappa gave
statement that the property bearing reSy.No.46 measuring 4
acres 1 gunta was purchased from Chikka Kunjappa. From
the date of purchase, they have been in possession and
41
O.S.No.2071/2004
enjoyment of the same, the said fact is also forthcoming in
Ex.P16. On appreciation of Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 clearly
establishes that based on the registered sale deed dated
12.01.1946, the occupancy rights were confirmed in the
name of Yellappa, S/o Sri.Huchappa as a permanent tenant.
In the written arguments, the learned counsel for defendant
No.3, 19 and 20 has contended that the plaintiffs have
created Ex.P17 and it is not an authenticated document.
Ex.P17 has no cause title and the seal of the office of Special
Tahsildar. Therefore it cannot be considered as evidence in
the present suit. On perusal of Ex.P17 establishes that
Yellappa, S/o Sri.Huchappa gave evidence in case No.62/59
60. For the said statement the Inamdars, i.e., Jayaram
Reddy and Keshav Reddy have signed. The officer who
recorded the statement of Yellappa, he has also signed the
document. Ex.P17 is the certified copy, the same is issued by
the Taluk Office of K.R.Puram, Bangalore East Taluk. By
considering all these aspects, it can be held that Ex.P17 is
42
O.S.No.2071/2004
not a created or fabricated document. Even if it is assumed
that Ex.P17 is a fabricated document, the defendant No.3, 19
and 20 would have been produced material evidence to
disbelieve Ex.P17. In that regard, they have not produced
any contra materials in the present suit. Moreover nothing
has been elicited during the cross examination of PW1 that
Ex.P17 was created for the purpose of this case. Therefore
there is no embargo on this Court to rely upon Ex.P17.
17. The learned counsel for defendant No.3, 19 and 20
contended that Ex.P16 is the report given by the Tahsildar
and it is not the grant order. The plaintiffs have not produced
the application submitted for regrant of land. Based on
Ex.P16, it can be concluded that Yellappa has made an
application for grant of Sy.No.45. However the Special Deputy
Commissioner has granted the property bearing Sy.No.46 as
per Ex.P1. It is pertinent to note here that as per Ex.P16, the
Special Tahsildar for Inams, Bangalore, gave a report stating
that the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the land
43
O.S.No.2071/2004
bearing Sy.No.46 measuring 4 acres 1 gunta as purchaser.
The said land was purchased under the registered sale deed
dated 12.01.1946 and the name of the petitioner forthcoming
in the RTC. Therefore the Special Tahsildar for Inams
recommended to register the petitioner as a permanent
tenant under section 5 of the Act. It is not in dispute that
Sri.Huchappa has purchased the property bearing Sy.No.45,
measuring 3 acres 12 guntas under the registered sale deed
dated 12.01.1946. After the death of Sri.Huchappa, his sons
were succeeded to Sy.No.45. In view of the enactment of the
Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act,
1954, the defendant No.1 made an application for grant of
occupancy rights with respect to Sy.No.45. After resurvey, it
was found that defendant No.1 is in possession and
enjoyment of Sy.No.46. Therefore the occupancy rights were
confirmed in the name of defendant No.1 with respect to re
Sy.No.46 of Kundalahalli village. On appreciation of Ex.P16
and Ex.P17, it is very crystal clear that since the defendant
44
O.S.No.2071/2004
No.1 was in possession of the property as per registered sale
deed dated 12.01.1946 and he was paying property tax to the
Jodidars. Therefore the occupancy rights were confirmed in
favour of defendant No.1 with respect to Sy.No.46. It is not
the case of defendant No.3, 19 and 20 that the defendant
No.1 was exclusively cultivating the Sy.No.46. Therefore the
occupancy rights were confirmed in his favour. In order to
establish that prior to the enactment of Mysore (Personal and
Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, the defendant No.1 was
in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property, the defendant No.3, 19 and 20 have not produced
any clinching evidence. However Ex.P16 and Ex.P17 clearly
manifests that based on the registered sale deed dated
12.01.1946 the defendant No.1 was in possession and
enjoyment of the property bearing Sy.No.46. Therefore the
occupancy rights was confirmed in his favour. At this
juncture it is just and proper to refer the decision relied by
the counsel for defendant No.4 to 8:
45
(1) AIR 2003 SC 578, B.L.Sreedhar and others Vs.
K.M.Munireddy (Dead) and others
Regrant of land – made under Act to any
member of family – Benefit of ensure to the
whole family.
(2) (2003)2 SCC 355, B.L.Sreedhar and others Vs.
K.M.Munireddy (Dead) and others
Regrant of resumed land – Held – even of
grant is made in favour of one member of a
family, benefit enures to the whole family.
(3) ILR 2009 KAR 1867, Verupepowda and another Vs.
Shankaregowda and another
“Occupancy rights granted to any member
of the family – benefit to other member or to
the whole of the family, it would enure for
the benefit of the members of the entire
family – When the occupancy right is
ordered to be registered in the name of
rights or in any other public or revenue
record, it would enure to the benefit of the
entire family. The moment occupancy right
46
O.S.No.2071/2004is registered or granted, such property
becomes partible”.
(4) Civil Appeal No.5646/2008, K.V.Sudharshan Vs.
A.Ramakrishnappa and others
Inam lands under the act are liable to be
granted to their tillers for benefit of the
families and not to him individually.
(5) 1989 Supp (1) SCC 246, Kalgonda Babgonda Patil Vs.
Balgonda Kalgonda Patil and others
On abolition of inam, property inures for the
benefit of joint family and other members of
the family are entitled to claim partition and
possession(6)(1982) 2 SCC 79, Nagesh Bisto Desai and others Vs.
Khando Tirmal Desai and others
Effect of Nonobstante Clause Right of
members of the joint Hindu family to
partition not affected
47
O.S.No.2071/2004(7)ILR 2005 KAR 568, Doddamma Vs. Muniyamma and
others
Under the Inams Abolition Act, the
Competent Authority while granting the
tenancy rights he no jurisdiction to decide
the question as to whether the said tenancy
was individual or joint family tenancy.
Whether the tenancy rights granted is a self
acquired property or the joint family property
the same can be decided by the Civil Court
and it is a matter for recording evidence.
(8)(2015) 1 SCC 417, N.Padmamma and others Vs.
S.Ramakrishna Reddy and others
Inam land – Succession and inheritance
– suit for partition of inam land
inherited by members of joint family –
possession of a coheir is to be treated
as possession of other coheirs
(9) (2003) 3 SCC 552, Chandramohan Ramachandra Patil Vs.
Bapu Koyappa Patil (dead) through LRs and others
Erstwhile iname or watan lands held by
the senior most member of the family
48
O.S.No.2071/2004
through lineal descendant on the rule of
primogeniture, on abolition of inamdari
and after regrant of those categoris of
land to the watandar or inamdar,
became partible properties between the
members of the family of the watandar
or inamdar
(10) ILR 1999 KAR 831, Balagouda Alagouda Patil & others
Vs. Babasaheb Ramagouda Patil
Occupancy rights granted to only one
member – he claimed exclusive right over
that land. Held – where tenancy rights
have been acquired by a member of a
family, such rights shall be held to be for
the benefit of the entire family.
(11) AIR 2014 SC 1476, Surjit Kaur Gill and another Vs.
Adarsh Kaur gill and another.
Suit for partition – suit filed within 3
years from the date of construction – Is
within limitation – Not liable to be
rejected under Order 7 Rule 11.
49
O.S.No.2071/2004
In view of the ratio laid down in the above decisions, it
is very clear that if grant or occupancy rights confirmed in
favour of any one of the joint family member, it will enure to
the benefit of the entire family. As discussed above,
Sri.Huchappa has purchased the old Sy.No.45, resy.No.46
under the registered sale deed dated 12.01.1946. After the
demise of Sri.Huchappa, his four sons have succeeded to his
estate and they were in possession and enjoyment of the
same. By virtue of the registered sale deed dated 12.01.1946
and based on the possession of the defendant No.1 and his
brothers, the Special Deputy Commissioner has confirmed
the occupancy rights infavour of defendant No.1. At no point
of time, the defendant No.1 was in exclusive possession and
enjoyment of property bearing Sy.No.46, measuring 4 acres 1
gunta. Such being the case, the learned counsel for
defendant No.3, 19 and 20 relied upon the grant order dated
29.05.1960, the same is marked as Ex.P1. At Ex.P1, it was
50
O.S.No.2071/2004
mentioned that the grant was made individually in the name
of Yellappa. Even if it is assumed that the grant was made in
favour of Yellappa as individually, the defendant No.3, 19 and
20 would have been established the fact that prior to the
grant made in favour of defendant No.1, he was exclusively
cultivating the Sy.No.46 measuring 4 acres 1 gunta. The
defendant No.3, 19 and 20 have not produced any revenue
documents, or the clinching evidence to establish that prior
to issuance of order vide Ex.P1, the defendant No.1 was alone
cultivating the Sy.No.46 of Kundalahalli village. During the
cross examination, it was suggested to DW1, 5 and 6 that as
per Ex.P1 the grant was made in the name of Yellappa in his
individual capacity, the said suggestion was categorically
denied by PW1, DW5 and DW6. At the cost of repetition, this
Court is reiterating that there are no material evidence on
record to disbelieve Ex.P16 and 17. On appreciation of
Ex.P16 and Ex.P17, it clearly establishes that based on the
registered sale deed dated 12.01.1946, the suit schedule
51
O.S.No.2071/2004
property was granted infavour of defendant No.1 as a
permanent tenant. Therefore it very clear that the grant
made in the name of defendant No.1 for the benefit of the
joint family and not in his individual capacity. Considering
all these aspects, this Court is of the opinion that the
plaintiffs have proved that Sri.Huchappa has purchased the
property bearing reSy.No.46, measuring 4 acres 1 gunta and
he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The
plaintiffs have proved that the Deputy Commissioner
(Special) for Inams has confirmed the occupancy rights in
favour of defendant No.1 for the benefit of joint family. The
defendant No.23 has also proved that she is the daughter of
Sri.Huchappa. Accordingly I hold Issue No.1, 2 and
Additional Issue No.2 in the Affirmative.
18. Issue No.3: According to plaintiffs, during 1977
Yellappa, Krishnappa and Ramaiah have got divided the
property bearing Sy.No.46, measuring 4 acres 1 gunta of
52
O.S.No.2071/2004
Kundalahalli village. Under the said partition, the land
measuring 1 acre 13.5 guntas each were allotted to the share
of Yellappa, Krishnappa, Ramaiah. Following that the
revenue records were mutated in their names. But the share
was not allotted to the plaintiffs. The defendant No.4 to 8
have disputed that during 1997 Yellappa and his brothers
have got divided the suit schedule property under the oral
partition. Thus the burden lies on the plaintiffs to establish
that there was an oral partition among defendant No.1 and
his brothers during 1977. In order to establish that there
was a partition during 1977 the learned counsel for the
plaintiff has drawn the attention of this Court towards
certified copy of RTC extracts and stated that the names of
the brothers of Yellappa were entered in column No.12 of
RTC. As the names of Yellappa and his brothers names were
entred in the RTC, the oral partition was acted upon. The
certified copy of the RTC extracts of Sy.no.46, measuring 4
acres 1 gunta of Kundalahalli village are marked as Ex.P4
53
O.S.No.2071/2004
and Ex.P5. The said RTC extracts are pertaining to the year
1967 to 199293. As per the entries at Ex.P4, it establishes
that defendant No.1 was the owner and he was in possession
of the same. However Ex.P5 indicates that defendant No.1
was the owner, but the defendant No.1 and his brother, i.e.,
Krishnappa and Ramaiah were in joint possession, the same
was continued till 199091. Thereafter the katha of the said
property mutated in the name of defendant No.3 herein. It is
pertinent to note here that in view of the oral partition held
between defendant No.1 and his brothers during 1977, the
katha was not mutated individually, but it was shown in the
RTC extracts that defendant No.1 and his brothers were in
joint possession and enjoyment of the property bearing
Sy.No.46. Mere entries at column No.12 of the RTC does not
mean that the katha was mutated in of the name of
defendant No.1 and his brothers. As defendant No.1 and his
brothers were in joint possession of the suit schedule
property, the entries were made in RTC at column No.12.
54
O.S.No.2071/2004
The plaintiffs have not produced any other clinching evidence
to show that during 1977 the defendant No.1 and his
brothers have got divided the family properties under oral
partition. In the absence of material evidence regarding the
oral partition was acted upon, the contention of the plaintiffs
that during 1977 there was oral partition between defendant
No.1 and his brothers cannot be acceptable. When there is no
partition among defendant No.1 and his brothers, the
question of allotting shares to the plaintiff does not arise.
Considering all these aspects, this Court is of the opinion
that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that during 1997 the
defendant No.1 and his brothers have got divided the
schedule property under oral partition and the shares were
not allotted to the plaintiffs. Accordingly I hold issue No.3 in
the Negative.
19. Issue No.4: The defendant No.4 to 8 have contended
that defendant No.1 and 2 have jointly executed the sale deed
55
O.S.No.2071/2004
in favour of defendant No.3 without the consent and
knowledge of these defendants. The total extent of the suit
schedule property is 4 acres 1 gunta. The defendant No.4 to
8 are entitled for ¼ share in 4 acres 1 gunta, but the
plaintiffs have intentionally furnished the wrong extent and
boundaries to the suit schedule property. It is pertinent to
note here that the defendant No.4 to 8 have been claiming
their ¼ undivided share with respect to property bearing
Sy.No.46, measuring 4 acres 1 gunta. The plaintiffs have
also described the suit schedule property as 4 acres 1 gunta.
Thus it is very clear that the plaintiffs have shown the actual
measurement of the schedule property. The measurement
described in the suit schedule property is in consonance with
the revenue records and it is proper. In such circumstances
the contention of the defendant No.4 to 8 that the description
of the extent of suit schedule property is not proper cannot be
acceptable. Therefore the defendant No.4 to 8 have failed to
prove that the plaintiffs have shown the wrong extent of the
56
O.S.No.2071/2004
schedule property in the plaint. Accordingly I hold issue
No.4 in the Negative.
20. Additional Issue No.1: The learned counsel for
defendant No.3, 19 and 20 argued that the plaintiff has
sought for relief of declaration to declare that the sale deed
dated 26.04.1996 and lease agreement dated 21.10.2005 are
not binding on them. As per Ex.D5 as on the date of filing of
the suit, the value of the suit schedule property is
Rs.45,73,800/, the plaintiffs have to pay Court fee of
Rs.2,11,465/ but they have paid a sum of Rs.6,625/.
Therefore the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is insufficient.
The plaintiffs may be directed to pay proper Court fee. It is
pertinent to note here that the plaintiffs herein are not parties
to the sale deed dated 26.04.1990 and lease agreement dated
21.10.2005. Therefore the plaintiffs need not seek for
cancellation of the said deeds. However the plaintiffs have
right to seek relief that the sale deed dated 26.04.1990 and
the lease agreement dated 21.10.2005 are not binding on
57
O.S.No.2071/2004
them. Therefore they have valued the said relief under
section 24(d) of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation
Act and they have paid proper Court fee. In such
circumstances the contention of defendant No.3, 19 and 20
that the plaintiffs have not paid proper Court fee cannot be
acceptable. Accordingly I hold Additional Issue No.1 in the
Negative.
21. Issue No.5,6 and 7: The plaintiffs have sought for relief
of partition with respect to their legitimate share in the suit
schedule property. The plaintiffs have also sought for relief of
declaration to declare that the sale deed dated 30.04.1990
executed by defendant No.1 and 2 infavour of defendant No.3
with respect to suit schedule property is not binding on their
shares. As discussed above, Sri.Huchappa had four sons and
a daughter, i.e., Yellappa, Krishnappa, Puttaiah, Ramaiah
and Jayamma. The plaintiffs have also established that
Sri.Huchappa has purchased the suit schedule property
58
O.S.No.2071/2004
under the registered sale deed dated 12.01.1946. During
1948 Huchappa died intestate leaving behind his children as
his legal heirs. After the death of Sri.Huchappa, his four
sons have succeeded to his estate and they were in
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
During 1955 the Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams
Abolition Act, 1954 came into force, Yellappa being the elder
son of Sri.Huchappa, he filed an application for grant of
occupancy rights with respect to suit schedule property, the
same was considered and the grant was made in the name of
Yellappa. The plaintiffs have also established that the grant
made in favour of Yellappa was for the benefit of the joint
family. Therefore the suit schedule property is the joint family
property of Yellappa and his brothers.
22. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that
Yellappa, Krishnappa and Ramaiah had no exclusive right to
alienate the suit schedule property. Despite they have sold
the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No.3 under
59
O.S.No.2071/2004
the registered sale deed dated 26.04.1990. They have
alienated the suit schedule property without the consent of
the other coparceners. Therefore the sale deed dated
26.04.1990 is not binding on the shares of plaintiffs. In
support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka passed in RSA
No.1653/2021 dated 01.02.2022 between Munithayappa
and others Vs. Byanna and others, wherein the Hon’ble
High Court of Karnataka held that;
“The alienation by coparcener in excess of his
undivided coparcener interest, i.e., his share
would be void in so far as the shares of the
other coparceners are concerned. Basically
because the coparcener has no right to sell
the entire coparcener property and at best, he
can only convey his undivided coparcener
interest in the coparcenery property, thus, if
the sale by the coparcener is in excess of his
share, the same would be void in so far as
other coparceners are concerned and there
60
O.S.No.2071/2004would be no need to seek for any declaration
in respect to such void act.”
In view of the ratio laid down in the above decision, it is
very clear that the coparcener can alienate his undivided
share, but he cannot alienate the shares of the other
coparceners. If the sale deed executed by coparcener is in
excess of his undivided share, the same would be void and it
need not be challenged. In the case on hand, it is not in
dispute that the plaintiffs are the children of defendant No.1.
The defendant No.4 to 8 are the children of Krishnappa,
defendant No.13 to 18 are the children of Ramaiah and
defendant No.9 is the son of Puttaiah. As on the date of
grant, the aforesaid persons were coparceners. But Yellappa,
Krishnappa and Ramaiah have jointly alienated their
undivided share in the suit schedule property under the
registered sale deed dated 26.04.1990 in favour of defendant
No.3. It shows that Yellappa, Krishnappa and Ramaiah were
alienated the property exceeding their undivided share in the
61
O.S.No.2071/2004
suit schedule property. Admittedly Yellappa, Krishnappa and
Ramaiah have alienated the suit schedule property under the
registered sale deed dated 26.04.1990. The plaintiffs have
filed the present suit on 17.03.2004. It shows that after lapse
of 13 years 10 months from the date of alienation, the
plaintiffs have filed the present suit. At this juncture it is
just and proper to refer Article 109 of Limitation Act.
Description of suit Period of Time from which
limitation period begins to
run
109 By a Hindu governed by Twelve years When the alienee
Mitakshara law to set take possession
aside his father's of the property.
alienation of ancestral
property
In view of the above provision, if the father has alienated
the ancestral property, the same has to be challenged within
12 years from the date of taking possession from the alienee.
The decision reported in (2022) 18 SCC 483 between
K.C.Lakshmana Vs. K.C.Chandrappa Gowda, wherein the
Hon’ble Apex Court has held that;
62
O.S.No.2071/2004
In order to attract the Article 109, the following conditions
have to be fulfilled, namely;
(1) The parties must be Hindus governed by Mithakshara
(2) The suit is for setting aside by the father at the instance of
the son.
(3) The property relates to ancestral property
(4) The alienee has taken over the possession of the property
alienated by the father.
This article provides that the period of limitation is 12
years from the date of alienee takes possession of the
property.
In view of the principle laid down in the above decision, to
attract Article 109, the parties must be Hindus governed by
the Mithakshara law, the suit has to be instituted by the son
to set aside the alienation made by his father with respect to
property. The said suit has to be filed within 12 years from
the date of taking possession by the alienee. In the case on
hand, it is not in dispute that Yellappa, Krishnappa and
Ramaiah have alienated the suit schedule property in favour
63
O.S.No.2071/2004
of defendant No.3 under the registered sale deed dated
26.04.1990. On the very same day, the defendant No.3 was
put in possession of the suit schedule property, the same is
evident by the certified copy of the registered sale deed dated
26.04.1990, i.e., Ex.P13. It is also not in dispute that the
parties herein are the Hindus and they are governed by
Mithakshara Law. The plaintiffs being the children of
Yellappa, they have filed the present suit seeking relief of
partition and to set aside the sale deed dated 26.04.1990.
These facts clearly establishes that the conditions as
enumerated in K.C.Lakshmana case have been fulfilled.
There is no embargo on this Court to apply Article 109 of
Limitation Act, 1963 to the present suit. As discussed above,
Yellappa, Krishnappa and Ramaiah have alienated their
undivided share in the suit schedule property. Yellappa
being the kartha, he has not alone alienated the suit
schedule property. Yellappa, Krishnappa and Ramaiah have
alienated their undivided share in the suit schedule property
64
O.S.No.2071/2004
and on the date of execution of the sale deed, the defendant
No.3 was put in possession of the suit schedule property, the
plaintiffs being the children of Yellappa, they have to
challenge the sale deed within 12 years from the date of
taking possession of the suit schedule property by the
alienee. In other words, Yellappa being the father of
plaintiffs, he has alienated his undivided share in the suit
schedule property, therefore the plaintiff would have been
challeng the sale deed dated 26.04.1990 within 12 years from
the date of taking of the possession of the suit schedule
property by the defendant No.3, but the plaintiffs herein have
not challenged the sale deed or filed the suit within 12 years
from the date of taking of the possession of the suit schedule
property by defendant No.3. However the plaintiffs have filed
the present suit after lapse of 13 years 10 months from the
date of taking of the possession of the suit schedule property
by the defendant No.3. The children of Krishnappa and
Ramaiah have also not challenged the sale deed dated
65
O.S.No.2071/2004
26.04.1990 within 12 years from the take of taking of
possession of the suit schedule property by the defendant
No.3. Therefore the right of the children of Yellappa,
Krishnappa, Ramaiah to seek partition in the suit schedule
property has been extinguished as they have not challenged
the sale deed dated 26.04.1990 within the period of
limitation. However, the sale deed dated 26.04.1990 is not
binding on the shares of defendant No.9 to 12 as the
defendant No.9 is not a party to the sale deed dated
26.04.1990.
23. As discussed above, the Special Deputy Commissioner
for Inams has granted the property bearing Sy.No.26,
measuring 3 acres 1 gunta of Kundalahalli village in favour of
Yellappa. The said grant was made for the benefit of joint
family. Since the aforesaid property was granted in the name
of Yellappa, himself and his three brothers have got equal
share in the said property. Such being the case, Yellappa,
Krishnappa and Ramaiah by excluding their brother i.e
66
O.S.No.2071/2004
Puttaiah, they have alienated the entire suit schedule
property in favour of defendant No.3. As Yellappa,
Krishnappa and Ramaiah have alienated the suit schedule
property by excluding their brother Puttaiah, Puttaiah has to
challenge the said sale deed within 12 years from the date of
exclusion known to him. At this juncture, it is just and
proper to refer the decision relied by the counsel for plaintiff
reported in ILR 2008 KAR 1773, Veeraiah Mahanttaya
Koppad Vs. Smt.Geetha W/o Gangadhar, wherein the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka held that;
“The effect of the law laid down by
Hon’ble Apex Court and other Hon’ble High
Court as mentioned above is that when there
is no foundation laid to prove the factum of
exclusion, the limitation under Article 110 will
not start unless it is shown that the person
was excluded from the joint family property
to enforce his right to share therein.”
67
O.S.No.2071/2004
In view of the ratio laid down in the above decision, it is
very clear that in order to rely on Article 110 of the Limitation
Act, 1963, there should be a foundation in the pleadings that
the person was excluded from the joint family property to
enforce his right in the said property. Unless there is
foundation, the limitation will not start under Article 110 of
the Limitation Act, 1963. On appreciation of the pleadings,
defendant No.3, 19 and 20, there is no pleading in their
written statement regarding exclusion of defendant No.9 from
claiming right over the suit schedule property. The learned
counsel for defendant No.3, 19 and 20 argued that Yellappa,
Krishnappa and Ramaiah have alienated the suit schedule
property under the registered sale deed dated 26.04.1990. As
they have sold the suit schedule property under the
registered document in favour of defendant No.3, the
limitation for challenging or claiming right in the suit
schedule property commences from the date of registration
of the sale deed. In that regard, the learned counsel for
68
O.S.No.2071/2004
defendant No.3, 19 and 20 relied upon the decision reported
in 2025 SCC Online SC 703, Umadevi Vs. Anand Kumar,
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that;
“The registered document provides a
complete account of transaction to any party
interested in the property. In Suraj Lamp and
Industries Private Limited Vs. State of
Haryana it was held that”Registration of a
document (when it is required by law to be
and has been effected by a registered
instrument) gives notice to the world that such
a document has been executed.
Registration provides safety and security to
the transaction relating to the immovable
property, even if the document is lost or
destroyed. It gives publicity and public
exposure to the document thereby preventing
forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions
and exclusion of document. Registration
provides information to people who may deal
with a property, as to the entire nature and
extent of the rights which persons may have
affecting that property. In other words it
69
O.S.No.2071/2004enables people to find out whether any
particular property with which they are
concerned, has been subjected to any legal
obligation or liability and who is or are the
persons presently having a right, title and
interest in the property. It gives solemnity of
firm and perpetuate document which are of
the legal importance or relevance by recording
them where the people may see the record
and enquiry and ascertain what the
particulars are and as far as land is
concerned what obligations exist with regard
to them. It assures that every person dealing
with immovable property can rely with
confidence upon the statement contents in the
registers (maintained under the said Act) has
fully and complete account of transaction by
which the title to the property may be affected
and secure extract / copies duly certified.
Applying this settled principle of law, it
can safely be assumed that predecessors of
plaintiff had notice of the registered sale
deeds executed in 1978, flowing from
70
O.S.No.2071/2004partition that took place way back in 1968, by
virtue of they being registered document. In
life time of Mangalamma, these sale deeds
have not been challenged neither as partition
has been sought. Thus the suit (filed in the
year 2023) of the plaintiffs was prima facie
barred by law. The plaintiffs cannot reignite
their rights after sleeping on them for 45
years.
In view of the ratio laid down in the above decision, it is
very clear that from the date of registration of the document,
it gives notice to the whole world. As such, the plaintiffs had
a notice of registered sale deed way back in the year 1978. In
the case on hand, Yellappa, Krishnappa and Ramaiah have
alienated the suit schedule property infavour of defendant
No.3 under the registered sale deed dated 26.04.1990. As the
ratio laid down in Umadevi’s case from 26.04.1990 itself
Puttaiah had knowledge about the exclusion. Though
Puttaiah had knowledge during 1990, he has not chosen to
enforce his right over the suit schedule property by filing a
71
O.S.No.2071/2004suit within 12 years from the date of knowledge. Therefore
the right of Puttaiah claiming partition over the suit schedule
property has been extinguished.
24. The learned counsel for the defendant No.23 argued that
as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,
reported in 2011(9) SCC 788 Ganduri Koteshwaramma
and another Vs. Chakiri Yanadi and another, right of the
women to claim partition cannot be denied on the technical
or procedural grounds. The defendant No.23 has produced
the cogent evidence to establish that she is one of the
coparcener of the joint family. The defendant No.23 is a poor
destitute widowed lady with no independent means, therefore
defendant No.23 may be declared as coparcener and her
legitimate share may be allotted in the suit schedule
property. In the case on hand, the defendant No.23 has
proved that she is the daughter of Sri.Huchappa.
Sri.Huchappa has acquired the suit schedule property during
1946 and he died in the year 1948. Subsequent to his death,
72
O.S.No.2071/2004
The Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition
Act, 1954 came into force. The defendant No.1 being the
elder son of Sri.Huchappa, he has filed an application and
grant was made in the year 1960. From the date of grant,
Yellappa and his brothers were in possession and enjoyment
of the same. On 26.04.1990, Yellappa and his two brothers
have alienated the same. Such being the case, the defendant
No.23 has been claiming right over the suit schedule property
as a coparcener. At this juncture, it is just and proper to
refer the decision relied upon by the counsel for defendant
No.23 reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 Vineetha Sharma Vs.
Rakesh Sharma
137.1. The provisions contained in
substituted section 6 of the Hindu Succession
Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the
daughter born before or after the amendment
in the same manner as son with same rights
and liabilities.
137.2. The rights can be claimed by the
daughter born earlier with effect from
73
O.S.No.2071/2004
9.9.2005 with savings as provided in section
6(1) as to the disposition or alienation,
partition or testamentary disposition which
had taken place before the 20 th day of
December, 2004.
137.3. Since the right in coparcenary is by
birth, it is not necessary that father
coparcener should be living as on
09.09.2005.”
In view of the ration laid down in the above decision, the
daughter of a coparcener shall be treated as coparcener from
09.09.2005 and she is entitled for share on par with the son.
If the property is alienated prior to 20.12.2004, she is not
entitled for share in the said property. In the present suit,
Yellappa and his two brothers have alienated the suit
schedule property under the registered sale deed dated
26.04.1990. As Yellappa and his two brothers alienated the
suit schedule property prior to 20.12.2004, the defendant
No.23 cannot claim share in the suit schedule property in
terms of amended section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
74
O.S.No.2071/2004
Indeed, the defendant No.23 cannot be considered as a
coparcener.
25. The Government of Karnataka has brought the
amendment to section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, by
inserting section 6(a) vide Karnataka Act No.23/1994, the
same came into force with effect from 30.07.1994. In view of
the said amendment, unmarried daughters have got equal
right over the coparcener property. As stated above, Yellappa
and his two brothers sold the suit schedule property under
the registered sale deed dated 26.04.1990. It shows that they
have sold the suit schedule property much prior to the
Karnataka Act 23 of 1994. Therefore the defendant No.23
cannot claim share in the suit schedule property by virtue of
the Karnataka Act 23 of 1994.
26. It is not in dispute that Sri.Huchappa has purchased
the property bearing Sy.No.45, measuring 3 acres 12 guntas.
After resurvey, the same was renumbered as Sy.No.46 and
75
O.S.No.2071/2004
extent was increased to 4 acres 1 gunta. Sri.Huchappa was
died in the year 1948. As on the date of death of
Sri.Huchappa, the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was not
enacted. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 was came into
force on 17.01.1956. As per old section 6 of Hindu
Succession Act, if a Hindu male dies after the commencement
of the act, his interest in the property shall be devolved by
survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcener
but if he died leaving behind a female relative, i.e., class I
legal heir, she is also entitled for share in the property. It is
pertinent to note here that though the suit schedule property
was purchased by Sri.Huchappa, by enactment of Mysore
(Personal and Miscellaneous) Imans Abolition Act, the suit
schedule property was vest with the government. As the said
property was vest with the government, the defendant No.1
made an application for grant of the suit schedule property.
On 29.05.1960 the suit schedule property was granted in
favour of defendant No.1 for the benefit of the joint family. As
76
O.S.No.2071/2004
on the date of grant, Sri.Huchappa was no more. Therefore
defendant No.23 cannot take shelter even under old section 6
of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. In other words the defendant
No.23 cannot claim share even under notional partition.
Therefore the defendant No.23 is not entitled for share in the
suit schedule property. Considering all these aspects, this
Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove
that the registered sale deed dated 26/30.04.1990 executed
by defendant No.1 and his brothers infavour of defendant
No.3 is not binding on them. The plaintiffs and defendant
No.3 to 18 are not entitled for share in the suit schedule
property. Thus the plaintiffs are not entitled for relief of
declaration and partition as prayed in the suit. Accordingly I
hold issue No.5 to 7 in the Negative.
27. Issue No.6: In view of the discussion made on Issues
No.1 to 8 and additional issue No.1 and 2, this court proceed
to pass the following:
77
O.S.No.2071/2004
ORDER
The suit filed by the plaintiffs is
hereby dismissed with costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade1, typed by her, corrected and then
pronounced in the Open Court by me on 2nd day of August 2025.)(Srinivasa Gowda.C)
XXIX Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge
Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
PW1 : Narayana.Y. PW2 : T.Munireddy
DOCUMENTS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFF:
Ex.P1 : Certified copy of grant certificate
Ex.P2 : Certified copy of endorsement dated
7.8.1960
Ex.P3 : Certified copy of application filed under
Inam Abolition Act Rules 7(1) dated
31.07.1959
78
O.S.No.2071/2004Ex.P49 : Certified copy of 6 RTC extracts
pertaining to Sy.No.46 of Kundalahalli
village.
Ex.P10 : Encumbrance Certificate dated
24.09.2010
Ex.P11 : Certified copy of sale deed dated
9.1.1946
Ex.P12 : Certified copy of sale deed dated
24.12.1979
Ex.P13 : Certified copy of sale deed dated
26.04.1990
Ex.P14 : Certified copy of settlement register of
Kundalahalli.
Ex.P15 : Certified copy of lease deed dated
21.10.2005
Ex.P16, 17 : Certified copy of order sheet and
deposition of Yellappa in Case No.62 on
the file of Tahsildar, Bangalore.
Ex.P18 : Genealogical tree issued by Village
Accountant, Nallurhalli circle.
Ex.P1924 : Six photographs
Ex.P25 : Negative
79
O.S.No.2071/2004
Ex.P26 : Certified copy of record of rights
pertaining to Sy.No.44/2 to 49/2 of
Kundalahalli village
Ex.P27 : Certified copy of original Tippani
pertaining to Sy.No.45 of Kundalahalli
village.
Ex.P28 : Certified copy of original Tippani
pertaining to Sy.No.46 of Kundalahalli
village.
Ex.P29 : Certified copy of endorsement dated
7.8.1960
Ex.P30 : Copy of village map of Kundalahalli
issued by Tahsildar, Bangalore east
taluk.
Ex.P31 : Aadhar card Ex.P32 : Sy.No.78/1 Pahani Ex.P33 : Survey katha Ex.P34 : Certified copy of notice Ex.P35 : Gazette Ex.P36 : Record of rights Ex.P37,38 : Photographs
Ex.P3942 : Certified copy of order sheet in
O.S.No.141/2009
Ex.P43,44 : Sketch
80
O.S.No.2071/2004
WITNESS EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:
DW1 : Gopalaiah DW2 : Venkatesh Reddy DW3 : Raghavendra Saanu DW4 : D.P.Suresh DW5 : B.Y.Hemanth DW6 : Shobha DW7 : Chikka Aswath K.
DOCUMENT EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT:
Ex.D1 : 4 Tax paid receipts
Ex.D2 : Certified copy of sale deed dated 26.04.1990
Ex.D3 : Certified copy of mutation register extract
Ex.D4 : 5 Pahanies
Ex.D5 : Karnataka Rajya Patra dated 18.07.2002
Ex.D6 : Board resolution
Ex.D7 : Certified copy of development agreement
dated 25.03.2005
Ex.D8 : Certified copy of GPA dated 25.03.2005
Ex.D9(a)(d): 3 photocopies with CD
Ex.D10 : Original occupancy certificate
81
O.S.No.2071/2004
Ex.D11
(a)(c) : 3 Photographs and CD already marked as
Ex.D9(d)
Ex.D12 : GPA
Ex.D1317: Ration card, Aadhar card of defendant No.12
and his father
Ex.D18 : Election ID card
Ex.D19 : GPA
Ex.D20,21: Genealogical trees
Ex.D22 : Death certificate
Ex.D2325: Aadhar card, Election ID card and PAN Card
of grandmother
Ex.D26 : Ration card
Ex.D27 : Release deed dated 31.03.2023
Ex.D28 : Licence
Ex.D29,30: Aadhar cards of his brothers
Ex.D3133: PAN cards of his brothers
Ex.D34 : Resolution
Ex.D3547: Tax paid receipts
(Srinivasa Gowda.C)
XXIX Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge
Bengaluru.
82
O.S.No.2071/2004
(Judgment pronounced in open
court vide separate judgment)
ORDER
The suit filed by the plaintiffs
is hereby dismissed with costs.
XXIX A.C.C & S.J., Bengaluru