Bangalore District Court
Revanna M vs Dodda Hanumanthappa on 16 June, 2025
1 O.S.2611/1993
KABC010023691993
IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-02)
Present : - Sri. B.P. DEVAMANE, LL.M.,
I Addl. City Civil & Session Judge,
Bengaluru City.
Dated this the 16th day of June 2025
ORIGINAL SUIT 2611/1993
PLAINTIFFS : 1. M. Revanna,
S/o late K. Madappa,
Aged about 32 years,
2. M. Basavaraj,
S/o late K. Madappa,
Aged about 29 years,
3. M. Puttaswamy,
S/o late K. Madappa,
Aged about 39 years,
4. K.C. Pilla Madappa,
S/o late Kenchappa @
Chikka Madappa,
Aged about 39 years,
5. Lakkappa,
S/o Dodda Madappa,
Aged about 46 years.
Plaintiffs 1 o 5 are r/o
Kalkere Village,
Krishnarajapura Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk.
2 O.S.2611/1993
6. Anjanamma,
D/o late Kareputtaiah,
W/o late Pilla Nanjappa,
(Transposed defendant No.6)
DEAD, by L.Rs. :
K.P. Muddappa,
S/o late Pilla Nanjappa,
DEAD, by L.Rs.:
(a) Gowramma,
W/o late K.P. Muddappa,
Aged about 54 years,
(b) M. Anuradha,
D/o late K.P. Muddappa,
Aged about 35 years.
Both R/o
'Sri. Lakshminarayana Nilaya',
1st Main, Anu layout,
Khane Road,
Kalkere Village,
Krishnarajapura Hobli,
Bengaluru - 560 113.
(P1 to P4 by Sri. T.S.R., &
P6 by Sri. S.N., Advocates.)
v/s.
DEFENDANTS : 1. Dodda Hanumanthappa,
S/o late Kareputtaiah,
Aged about 64 years,
2. Marakka,
W/o late Pillappa,
Aged about 50 years,
Defendants 1 & 2 are r/o
Kalkere Village,
Krishnarajapura Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk.
3. Chikka Hanumanthappa,
S/o late Dodda Marappa,
DEAD, by L.Rs.:
3 O.S.2611/1993
(a) K.H. Madakumar,
S/o late Chikka Hanumanthappa,
Aged about 49 years,
(b) K.H. Manjunath,
S/o late Chikka Hanumanthappa,
Aged about 41 years.
Both r/o Mahadeshwara Nilaya,
Kalkere Village,
Krisharajapura Hobli,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
4. K.S. Munihanumaiah,
S/o late Siddappa, Major,
5. K.S. Junjappa,
S/o late Siddappa, Major,
6. Anjanamma,
D/o late Kareputtaiah,
W/o late Pillananjappa, Major.
(D6 transposed as plaintiff No.6)
Defendants 4 to 6 are r/o
Kalkere Village,
Krisharajapura Hobli,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
7. Chikka Muniyamma,
W/o Siddalingappa,
D/o late Dodda Madappa,
Aged about 52 years,
R/o Nagasandra Village & Post,
BENGALURU.
8. Sharadamma,
D/o late Anjanamma,
W/o B.C. Muddappa,
DEAD, by L.Rs.:
(a) Savithramma,
D/o Sharadamma,
Aged about 61 years,
(b) Kasthuri,
D/o Sharadamma, Major,
4 O.S.2611/1993
(c) Komalamma,
D/o Sharadamma,
Aged about 49 years,
(d) Jalajakshi,
D/o Sharadamma, Major,
(e) Channakeshava,
S/o Sharadamma, Major,
(f) Govardhana,
S/o Sharadamma, Major,
(g) Champakadhama,
S/o Sharadamma, Major,
(h) Sundaresh,
S/o Sharadamma, Major,
D8(a) to (h) are all r/o
Bileshivale Village,
Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk - 560 077.
9. Muniyamma,
D/o Anjanamma,
W/o late B.C. Kempaiah,
DEAD, by L.Rs.:
(a) Kamalamma,
D/o Muniyamma, Major,
(b) B.K. Shivappa,
S/o Muniyamma, Major,
(c) B.K. Vedavathi,
D/o Muniyamma, Major,
(d) B.K. Raghavendra,
S/o Muniyamma, Major,
(e) B.K. Ambuja,
D/o Muniyamma, Major,
(f) B.K. Manjunath,
S/o Muniyamma,
DEAD, by L.Rs.:
(i) Shashikala
W/o late B.K. Manjunath, 42 yr.,
5 O.S.2611/1993
(ii) Tejas,
S/o late B.K. Manjunath, 16 yr.,
Minor, Reptd., by his mother
Shashikala.
(g) Dhananjaya,
S/o Muniyamma, Major,
D9(a) to (g) are all r/o
SMR KLG Lake View layout,
Bileshivale Village,
Bidarahalli Hobli,
Bengaluru East Taluk - 560 077.
10. Challakamma,
D/o Anjanamma,
W/o Dodda Hanumanthappa,
DEAD, by L.Rs.:
(a) Gowramma,
D/o late Challakamma & Dodda
Hanumanthappa,
W/o late K.P. Muddappa,
Aged about 56 years,
[Already on record as
Plaintiff No.6(a)]
10(b) Rudramma,
D/o late Challakamma & Dodda
Hanumanthappa,
W/o late Beerappa,
Aged about 50 years,
R/o Sri. Beereshwara Nilaya,
2nd Main,
Behind Maithy
Vidyanikethan School,
NRI layout, Kalkere,
Krishnarajapura Hobli,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
10(c) Hanumakka @ Anasuyamma,
D/o late Challakamma & Dodda
Hanumanthappa,
W/o late S.K. Narayana Murthy,
Aged about 47 years,
6 O.S.2611/1993
R/o Sarakanur,
Nelavagilu Post - 562 122,
Nandagudi Hobli.
10(d) Dhruva Ramanjinappa,
S/o late Challakamma & Dodda
Hanumanthappa,
Aged about 40 years,
R/o # 305, near Kalyani,
Kalkere,
Krishnarajapura Hobli,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
11. Kalappa,
S/o Anjanamma,
Aged about 80 years,
R/o Kalkere Village,
Krishnarajapura Hobli,
BENGALURU - 560 043.
12. R. Narayan,
S/o Lakkamma & R. Ramaiah,
Aged about 67 years,
R/o # 21/1, Old No.128/Y,
17th 'C' Main Road,
Rajaji Nagara,
BENGALURU - 560 010.
13. R. Muniraju,
S/o Lakkamma & R. Ramaiah,
DEAD, by L.Rs.:
(a) Gowramma,
W/o late Muniraju,
Aged about 53 years,
(b) M. Vinod Kumar,
S/o late Muniraju,
Aged about 30 years,
Both R/o # 171,
Malureshwara Nilaya,
7th Cross, P & T layout,
Rachenahalli Main Road,
BENGALURU - 560 077.
7 O.S.2611/1993
(c) Ramya,
D/o late Muniraju,
Aged about 27 years,
R/o # 115, Lakshmi Sadana,
Kannuru Post, Jala Hobli,
BENGALURU - 562 149.
14. R. Siddamma,
W/o M. Subbarayappa,
Aged about 66 years,
R/o Melekote, Thubagere Hobli,
Doddaballapura Taluk,
Bengaluru Rural District.
(D1, D2 by Sri. G.P.;
L.Rs. Of D3 by Sri. R.C.;
D6 by Sri. M.B.;
D8(c), D9(d, f, i & ii &
D11 by Sri. B.R.; Advocates.
D10(b) & (d) absent,
D10(c) Ex parte,
D12 & D13(a) to (c) by Sri. K.V.P.;
D14 by Sri. M.L.S.,
Advocates.)
*****
Date of Institution of the suit 16.04.1993
Nature of the Suit (suit for pronote,
Suit for declaration & possession, Partition suit
Suit for injunction, etc.):
Date of the commencement of 05.07.2003
recording of the Evidence:
Date on which the Judgment was 16.06.2025
pronounced:
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration:
32 02 00
8 O.S.2611/1993
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 have filed this suit for partition. It is
the case of plaintiffs that, plaintiffs & defendants are members of
the Hindu joint family and in joint possession & enjoyment of the
suit schedule properties having their definite share in the
ancestral properties.
2. Late Sri. Arakere Hanumanthappa was the original
propositus of the joint family who died long back leaving behind
his three sons viz., (1) Kareputtaiah, (2) Dodda Madappa & (3)
Chikka Madappa. Kareputtaiah expired about 24 years back.
Chikka Madappa separated from his two brothers about 55 years
back and was living separately and expired in the year 1979.
Son of Kareputtaiah i.e., K. Madappa expired on 31.11.1992 by
leaving behind his three sons i.e., plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 herein.
Second son of Kareputtaiah viz., Kachappa @ Chikka Madappa
expired by leaving behind his only son K.C. Pilla Madappa i.e.,
plaintiff No.4. Defendant No.1 Dodda Hanumappa is the third
son of Kareputtaiah.
3. It is further averred that Dodda Madappa expired in the year
1962 by leaving behind his three sons viz., (1) Pillappa, (2)
Chikka Hanumanthappa (defendant No.3) & (3) Lakkappa
(plaintiff No.5). Pillappa expired in the year 1965 by leaving
behind his wife Marakka, who is defendant No.2. Said Marakka
had no issues. Genealogy of the parties furnished in the plaint is
as under:
9 O.S.2611/1993
Arakere Hanumanthappa
_________________________________________Kareputtaiah Chikka
Madappa
_____________________________S1 S2 S3 Separated from his brothers
K. Madappa Kachappa @ Dodda S1 & S2 about 55 years back
Chikka Hanumanthappa and lived separately and expired
Madappa (D1) in the year 1979 and hence he is no way
3 Sons Son concerned with the subject matter of
the suit.
1. M. Revanna (P1 K.C. Pilla
2. M. Basavaraj (P2) Madappa (P4)
3. M. Puttaswamy (P3)
Dodda Madappa
________________________________________S1 S2 S3
Pillappa Chikka Lakkappa
= Marakka Hanumanthappa
(wife) (D2)3(a). It is further case of plaintiffs that father of plaintiff
Nos.1 to 3 K. Madappa expired on 13.11.1992. He was managing
the affairs of the joint family. After his death, there arose ill feelings
among plaintiffs & defendants. As such, plaintiffs demanded
defendants to effect partition of the suit properties and to put them
in separate possession of their legitimate shares for which
defendants have not cooperated. Further, defendants are
attempting to squander the properties which are detrimental to the
interest of plaintiffs. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for 1/6 th share in
the suit properties. Plaintiff Nos.4 & 5 are entitled for 1/6 th share
each. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are also entitled for 1/6 th share each in
10 O.S.2611/1993the suit properties. Further, cause of action for the suit arose on
13.11.1992. Hence, prayed to decree the suit.
3(b). The suit schedule ‘A’ properties stated in the plaint are
as under:
1. Sy.No.520 measuring 1 acre 22 guntas;
2. Sy.No.501 measuring 4 acre 37 guntas;
3. Sy.No.386 measuring 8 acres 32 guntas;
4. Sy.No.379 measuring 6 acres 13 guntas;
5. Sy.No.438 measuring 2 acres 03 guntas;
6. Sy.No.486 measuring 04 guntas;
7. Sy.No.171 measuring 10 guntas;
8. Sy.No.175 measuring 25 guntas;
9. Sy.No.176 measuring 20 guntas;
10. Sy.No.206 measuring 1 acre 12 guntas;
11. Sy.No.155 measuring 37 guntas;
12. Sy.No.159 measuring 2 acres 06 guntas;
13. Sy.No.159 measuring 2 acres 06 guntas;
14. Sy.No.162 measuring 5 acres;
15. Sy.No.163 measuring 38 guntas;
16. Sy.No.244 measuring 24 guntas;
17. Sy.No.245 measuring 13 guntas;
18. Sy.No.246 measuring 1 acre 4 guntas;
19. Sy.No.430 measuring 8 acres 23 guntas;
20. Sy.No.487 measuring 3 acres 01 gunta;
21. Sy.No.488 measuring 1 acre 08 guntas;
22. Sy.No.500 measuring 4 acres 35 guntas;
23. Sy.No.378 measuring 7 acres;
24. Sy.No.339 measuring 10 guntas;
25. Sy.No.167 measuring 37 guntas;
11 O.S.2611/1993
26. Sy.No.260 measuring 4 acres 14 guntas;
27. Sy.No.499/2 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas;
28. Sy.No.336 measuring 13 guntas;
29. Sy.No.168 measuring 2 acres 02 guntas;
30. Sy.No.183 measuring 28 guntas;
31. Sy.No.170 measuring 10 guntas;
32. Sy.No.172 measuring 07 guntas;
33. Sy.No.173 measuring 10 guntas;
34. Sy.No.174 measuring 08 guntas;
35. Sy.No.63 measuring 10 guntas;
36. Sy.No.99 measuring 1 acre 17 guntas;
37. Sy.No.570 measuring 4 acres 21 guntas;
38. Sy.No.144 measuring 1 acre 08 guntas;
39. Sy.No.498/1 measuring 2 acres 17 guntas;
40. Sy.No.498/2 measuring 2 acres 16 guntas;
41. Sy.No.169 measuring 30 guntas;
42. Sy.No.92 measuring 11 guntas;
43. Sy.No.93 measuring 25 guntas;
44. Sy.No.113 measuring 29 guntas;
45. Sy.No.316 measuring 4 acres 30 guntas;
46. Sy.No.375 measuring 1 acre 01 gunta;
47. Sy.No.118 measuring 06 guntas;
48. Sy.No.117 measuring 03 ½ guntas;
49. Sy.No.334 measuring 1 acre 17 guntas;
50. Sy.No.116 measuring 15 guntas;
51. Sy.No.112 measuring 13 guntas;
52. Sy.No.114 measuring 07 guntas;
Item Nos.1 to 52 are situated at Kalkere Village,
Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.
53. Sy.No.76 measuring 03 acres 12 guntas, situated at
Horamavu Village, Krishnarajapura Hobli,
12 O.S.2611/1993
Bengaluru South Taluk;
54. Sy.No.53 measuring 02 acres 29 guntas;
55. Sy.No.63/2 measuring 12 guntas, situated at Bileshivale
Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk ;
56. Sy.No.06 measuring 08 guntas; and,
57. Sy.No.24 measuring 01 acre 07 guntas.
Item Nos.56 & 57 are situated at Ramapura Village,
Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk.
All the properties are situated within the boundaries mentioned in
the plaint.
Suit ‘B’ schedule properties being houses & vacant sites are as under:
1. House List No.21 vacant site measuring east-west (110 +
56) / 2 feet and north-south 163 feet;
2. House List No.70 being the Mangaluru tile house and
vacant site measuring east-west 150 feet and north-south
125 feet;
3. House List No.98 being vacant site with three Tamarind
trees thereon measuring east-west 63 feet and north-south
133 feet;
4. House List No.105 being old house (maalige) with vacant
site measuring east-west 70 feet and north-south 60 feet;
5. House List No.122 vacant site with three Tamarind trees
thereon measuring east-west (45 + 90) / 2 feet and north-
south 174 feet;
6. House List No.169 vacant site measuring east-west (177 +
106) / 2 feet and north-south 200 feet;
7. House List No.226 being Mangaluru tile roofed house with
stone roofed house measuring east-west 54 feet and north-
south 18 feet;
8. House List No.109 vacant site measuring east-west 62 feet
and north-south 36 feet;
9. House List No.113 (thippe Hallada Jaaga), vacant site
measuring east-west (30+0) / 2 feet and north-south 55 feet;
13 O.S.2611/1993
10. House List No.17 vacant site measuring east-west 43 feet &
north-south 145 feet;
11. House List No.237 (stone roofed house) being the eastern
portion measuring east-west 50 feet and north-south 100
feet;
12. House List No.237 being the western portion of the same
together with tile roofed house and stone slab house
measuring east-west 50 feet & north-south 100 feet;
13. House List No.102 stone roofed house measuring east-west
40 feet & north-south 50 feet;
14. House List No.7 (near Sri. Rudra Devasthana) being the
vacant site measuring east-west 56 feet & north-south 42
feet;
15. House List No.118 (near Rasenahalli Yavare house)
measuring east-west 40 feet & north-south 151 feet;
16. House List No.69 vacant site measuring east-west (69 + 58)
/ 2 feet and north-south 124 feet;
17. House List No.59 consisting of 8 squares of stone roofed
house with vacant site measuring east-west 60 feet & north-
south 100 feet; and,
18. House List No.03 vacant site (near Beerappa’s house)
measuring east-west 71 feet & north-south 42 feet.
The above said item Nos.1 to 18 properties are situated in
Gramatana of Kalkere Village, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bengaluru
South Taluk, within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint.
4. Initially, suit has been instituted on 16.04.1993 against
Defendants No 1 to3. On 22.04.1993 defendants Nos.1 to 3 and
plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 have filed compromise petition under Order XXIII
Rule 3 CPC. On the same day i.e., on 22.04.1993 defendant Nos.4
to 6 filed two I.As., seeking permission to implead them in the suit
as defendant Nos.4 to 6. On 28.01.1994 joint memo was filed by
plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 and defendant Nos.1 to 3 with prayer to dismiss
14 O.S.2611/1993
the suit as not pressed in view of the compromise. On 04.06.1994
suit came to be dismissed in view of the memo dated 28.01.1994.
On the same day, review petition was filed by defendant Nos.4 & 5.
Defendant No.6 challenged the said order before The Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka in R.F.A. No.297/1994. On 20.01.1995, Hon’ble
High Court has allowed said R.F.A., and restored the suit in
O.S.2611/1993 with direction to proceed in accordance with law.
5. On 04.04.1995 defendant No.6 filed her Written Statement /
counter-claim seeking her 1/5th share in the suit properties and also
for mesne profits. It is contended that genealogical tree furnished by
plaintiffs is not correct and complete. The female heirs are completely
left out deliberately to deny the just share to which the female
members are entitled. Defendant No.6 is the full sister of defendant
No.1 and she is entitled for 1/5 th share. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 and
defendant Nos.1 to 3 have entered into conspiracy to deny the
legitimate share of other members including defendant No.6 and filed
collusive compromise petition and joint memo which has been set
aside by The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and also passed an
order of status-quo regarding the suit properties in R.F.A.
No.297/1994. As per defendant No.6, the correct genealogy of the
parties to the suit is as under:
15 O.S.2611/1993
Arakere Hanumanthappa
Arakere Lakkamma (wife)
S1 S2 S3
Kareputtaiah Dodda Madappa Chikka Madappa
Hanumakka Sakamma Eera
(wife) Kempamma
(wife)
(Wife)
1. K. Madappa 1. Dodda Puttamma 1. Sonnappa
Anjanamma (wife) 2. Chikka Puttamma 2. Puttappa
2. Kachappa @ 3. Pillappa 3. K.C. Papanna
Chikka Marakka (wife) 4. K.C. Krishnamurthy
Madappa 4. Kariyamma
Puttamma (wife) 5. Muniyamma Chikka Madappa
K.C. Pilla 6. Chikka Muniyamma separated from his
Madappa (son)P4 7. Chikka Hanumanthappa brothers about 55 years
3. Anjanamma (D6) 8. Lakkappa (P5) back and living
Pilla separately with
Nanjappa (husband) his sons and he
4. Dodda expired in the
Hanumanthappa year 1979.
Challakkamma (wife)
5. Lakkamma
K. Madappa’s sons:
1. M. Revanna (P1)
2. M. Basavaraj (P2)
3. M. Puttaswamy (P3)
5(a). It is denied by defendant No.6 that as stated in
paragraph No.5 of plaint that, each of the plaintiff Nos.4 & 5 and
defendant Nos.1 to 3 are entitled for 1/6th share in the suit
properties. It is further denied that plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 are jointly
entitled for 1/6th share. In the lawful share of Kareputtaiah in the
joint family properties, defendant No.6 is entitled for 1/5th share
and also entitled for mesne profits. The cause of action for the suit
16 O.S.2611/1993as stated in the plaint is false & imaginary.
5(b). In para 8 of the written statement It is contended by
defendant No.6 that, suit schedule item Nos.2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 18, 20
to 23, 26 to 30, 34 to 37, 39, 40, 42 to 45, 48 & 53 of suit ‘A’
schedule properties and suit item Nos.1 to 18 of suit ‘B’ schedule
properties are self-acquired properties of late Kareputtaiah. It is
further contended by defendant No.6 that, her father Kareputtaiah
and her uncle Dodda Madappa had assured to give share to
defendant No.6 at the time of family partition and also instructed to
K. Madappa, brother of defendant No.6, to give her share at the
time of family partition.
5(c). It is further contended by defendant No.6 that plaintiff
Nos.1 to 3 are not entitled for 1/6th share. Plaintiff Nos.4 & 5 are
not entitled for 1/6th share each. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are not
entitled for 1/6th share each in the suit schedule properties.
5(d). It is contended by defendant No.6 that defendant
Nos.4 & 5 are entitled for half share in some of the suit properties
and defendant No.6 has no objection for ascertainment and
identification of said properties and to give them their legitimate
share. Defendant No.6 has paid court-fee of Rs.200/- and prayed
for judgment & decree of her 1/5th share in the suit properties as
stated above. It is further contended that defendant No.6 is ready
& willing to be transposed as plaintiff and to continue the suit for
partition & separate possession, in the event other parties not
showing interest in contesting the suit and prayed to dismiss the
suit and decree her counter-claim awarding 1/5th share to
defendant No.6 and also direction for enquiry of mesne profits.
17 O.S.2611/1993
6. During pendency of suit defendant No 6 is transposed
as Plaintiff No 6. After death of transposed plaintiff No.6 (original
defendant No.6), her legal heirs ie, Plaintiff No 6a & 6b who are the
wife and daughter of K.P. Muddappa son of Anjamma, have filed
additional Written Statement contending that plaintiff No.6
Anjanamma expired on 14.08.2012. Plaintiff No.6/ Anjanamma
was living with her son K.P. Muddappa, who was looking after her
entire day-to-day needs. Having regard to the services rendered
by K.P. Muddappa to his mother Anjanamma, she has executed
registered Will dated 22.07.2000 bequeathing her share in the suit
properties in favour of her son K.P. Muddappa. After the death of
Anjanamma, the said Will came into operation and by virtue of the
same her son K.P. Muddappa is entitled to her share in the suit
properties. K.P. Muddappa expired on 26.06.2018 leaving behind
his wife Smt. Gowramma and daughter Smt. M. Anuradha as his
legal heirs. As such, said Gowramma & Anuradha are entitled to
his share in the suit properties that would have been fallen to the
share of Anjanamma.
7. On 06.09.2022 defendant No.3(a) filed his Written
Statement denying the contents of original plaint and admitting the
contents of paragraph No.5(a) of amended plaint.
7(a). Defendant No.3(a) has further contended that Arakere
Hanumanthappa had three sons i.e., Kareputtaiah, Dodda
Madappa & Chikka Madappa. Chikka Madappa got separated from
joint family prior to 1950 itself. The second son Dodda Madappa
expired in the year 1955 leaving behind his three sons viz.,
Pillappa, Chikka Hanumanthappa & Lakkappa. Pillappa also
18 O.S.2611/1993
expired leaving behind his wife Marakka (defendant No.2) and they
had no issues. Kareputtaiah expired prior to 1968 by leaving
behind his three sons: K. Madappa, Chikka Madappa @ Kachappa
and Dodda Hanumanthappa. K. Madappa expired in the year 1992
by leaving behind his three sons i.e., plaintiff Nos.1 to 3. Chikka
Madappa @ Kachappa expired leaving behind his only son i.e.,
plaintiff No.4. Dodda Hanumanthappa also expired four years
back.
7(b). Defendant No.3(a) has further contended that suit
properties were subject matter of partition took place between K.
Madappa, K.C. Pilla Madappa (plaintiff No.4), Dodda
Hanumanthappa, Chikka Hanumanthappa & Lakkappa (plaintiff
No.5) in terms of the partition dated 18.05.1972. In the said
partition, as per the schedule of the said partition deed, ‘A’ schedule
properties were allotted to the share of K. Madappa, ‘B’ schedule
properties were allotted to the share of K.C. Pilla Madappa, ‘C’
schedule properties were allotted to the share of Dodda
Hanumanthappa, ‘D’ schedule properties were allotted to the share
of Chikka Hanumanthappa, father of defendant No.3(a) and ‘E’
schedule properties were allotted to the share of Lakkappa
(defendant No.5). Thereafter, parties concerned were put in
possession of their respective shares. K. Madappa expired on
13.11.1992. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 were recognized as joint
khathadars of the said properties allotted to the share of K.
Madappa and their names entered in mutation register extracts
vide M.R. No.47/1994-95. Accordingly, they are in possession &
enjoyment of said properties. Likewise, K.C. Pilla Madappa was
also recognized as khathadar of ‘B’ schedule properties which were
fallen to his share in the said partition dated 18.05.1972 and his
19 O.S.2611/1993
name also entered in mutation register extract vide M.R.
No.50/1994-95. Accordingly, revenue records were mutated in their
respective names. Similarly, Dodda Hanumanthappa was also
recognized as khathadar of ‘C’ schedule properties and his name is
entered in the mutation register extract vide M.R. No.51/1994-95.
Upon the death of Dodda Hanumanthappa, his son Ramanji has
been recognized as khathadar in respect of all the properties
allotted to the share of Dodda Hanumanthappa and accordingly he
has been exercising his ownership over the said lands. Further,
father of defendant No.3(a) was recognized as khathadar of
properties allotted to his share vide schedule ‘D’ of partition dated
18.05.1972 and his name was entered in the mutation register
extract vide M.R. No.52/1994-95. Accordingly, he was in
possession & enjoyment of said lands. Upon the death of father of
defendant No.3(a), defendant No.3(a) and his brother & sisters
have succeeded to his estate and are in possession & enjoyment of
the said properties. Likewise, plaintiff No.5 who allotted with ‘E’
schedule properties also recognized as khathadar of the said
properties and his name has been entered in mutation register
extract vide M.R. No.53/1994-95 and he is in possession &
enjoyment of the said properties.
7(c). Defendant No.3(a) has further contended that there
was already partition in the joint family in the year 1972 itself and
parties were put in possession of their respective shares.
Suppressing the said partition, plaintiffs have instituted this suit
again seeking partition which is not maintainable. During the
pendency of the suit, having realized that there was already
partition in the year 1972, plaintiffs got amended the plaint
admitting about said partition. The counter-claim filed by defendant
20 O.S.2611/1993
No.6, who is later transposed as plaintiff No.6, is not maintainable.
Plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 are not entitled for any share in the suit
properties, since partition has been taken place prior to coming into
force of Section 6 of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act. Plaintiff
No.6 Anjanamma is not entitled for any share in the suit properties.
No joint family or joint family properties are in existence. As such,
the suit is not maintainable. Further, suit is also barred by
limitation. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.
7(d). Plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 filed amendment application
stating that already there was partition taken place on 18.05.1972
by Panchayath Parikath and the shares have been in possession of
the respective sharers. The said application for amendment of
plaint came to be allowed on 14.11.2008. Plaintiff No.6 challenged
the said order before The Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.
No.2266/2009. The said W.P. came to be allowed and the order
passed by this Court allowing amendment was set aside. The said
order passed by Hon’ble High Court was challenged in S.L.P.
No.19188/2010 before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex
Court dismissed the said S.L.P., confirming the order passed by
The Hon’ble High Court. Thus, the said amendment which was
carried out as per the order of this Court came to be set aside and
original plaint remained intact.
8. On 04.06.1999 defendant No.4 filed his Written Statement
/ counter-claim by contending that defendant Nos.4 & 5 do not
belong to the joint family of plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 and defendant Nos.1
to 3, but they have joint rights with joint possession & enjoyment as
co-owners in respect of some of the suit properties and they are
exclusive owners, having exclusive possession & enjoyment in
21 O.S.2611/1993
respect of some of the suit ‘B’ schedule properties. In this respect,
certain proceedings are pending between the parties before this
Court and other Courts. It is contended by defendant No.4 that
genealogical tree furnished by plaintiffs in the plaint is neither
complete nor correct. The female members are completely left out
and it appears that same has been deliberately done to deny their
legitimate shares.
9. Defendant Nos.4 & 5 have contended that they are in joint
possession & enjoyment in respect of some of the suit properties
under the registered joint sale deed dated 06.07.1928. They have
exclusive title & possession in respect of the some of the suit
properties in suit ‘B’ schedule under various sale deeds. Plaintiff
Nos.1 to 5 and defendant Nos.1 to 3 have entered into a
conspiracy to deny the claim of defendant Nos.4 & 5 and filed
collusive compromise petition and joint memo between them in this
suit which has been set aside by The Hon’ble High Court in R.F.A.
No.2972/1994. The genealogy of plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 and defendant
Nos.1 to 3 is furnished. Further, the genealogy of defendant Nos.4
& 5 is also furnished. It is contended that the original propositus
Arakere Hanumanthappa had married Arakere Lakkamma who is
none other than the daughter of Kurlappa, the original ancestor of
defendant Nos.4 & 5. The third son of Arakere Hanumanthappa,
viz., Chikka Madappa married Smt. Eerakempamma, who is none
other than the daughter of Muddappa @ Muddaiah @ Mudde
Gowda, the grandfather of defendant No.4. The third son of Chikka
Madappa viz., K.C. Papanna married Smt. Muddamma, who is the
sister of defendant No.4. Thus, both the families are related by
marriage.
22 O.S.2611/1993
9(a). Defendant Nos.4 & 5 have further contended that the
ancestor of family of defendant No.4 Muddappa @ Muddaiah @
Mudde Gowda, son of Kurlappa, and ancestor of plaintiff Nos.1 to 5
and defendant Nos.1 to 3 viz., Kareputtaiah have jointly purchased
item Nos.2 to 4, 26, 45 & 53 of suit ‘A’ schedule and item Nos.5, 8,
9, 14 & 17 of suit ‘B’ schedule properties along with other
properties under joint registered sale deed dated 06.07.1928 for
valuable consideration and both the families are in joint possession
& enjoyment of the said properties as co-owners. Plaintiff Nos.1 to
3 and defendant Nos.1 to 3 have filed O.S.2286/1989 on the file of
CCH-17 for declaration & permanent injunction against defendant
Nos.4 & 5 and others in respect of item Nos.1 to 18 in suit ‘B’
schedule. Defendant No.4 and his family members are exclusive
owners of item Nos.1 to 3, 10, 15, 18 and western half portion of
item No.16 in suit ‘B’ schedule properties and defendant No.4 is in
exclusive possession & enjoyment of the same by virtue of the
various sale deeds. Father of plaintiffs Nos.1 to 3 i.e., Muddappa
filed O.S.2382/1989 on the file of CCH-13 against defendant Nos.4
& 5 for declaration & permanent injunction in respect of item No.53
of suit ‘A’ schedule. Said K. Madappa also filed O.S.7394/1991 on
the file of CCH-17 against the State & others for declaration that
the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru Sub-
Division, Bengaluru, in R.A. No.63/1990-91 dated 30.10.1991
dismissing the appeal filed by K. Madappa and consequently
confirming the order of Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, dated
11.09.1990 in R.R.T. No.(1)(k) 47/1988-89 are null & void and do
not bind on him in respect of item No.53 of suit ‘A’ schedule i.e.,
Sy.No.76 of Horamavu Village. Defendant No.4 has paid court-fee
of Rs.200/- and prayed to decree his counter-claim for partition &
23 O.S.2611/1993
separate possession of his half share as co-owner in respect of
item Nos.2 to 4, 26, 45 & 53 in suit ‘A’ schedule and item Nos.5, 8,
9, 14 & 17 in suit ‘B’ schedule and defendant No.4 is the absolute
owner in exclusive possession & enjoyment of some of the
properties in suit ‘B’ schedule properties. Further, defendant No.4
has prayed to dismiss the suit in respect of item Nos.1 to 3, 10, 15,
16 & 18 in suit ‘B’ schedule, as he is the exclusive owner in
possession & enjoyment of the same.
9(b). In view of Written Statement of defendant Nos.4 & 5,
their GPA holder P.M. Muddappa examined as DW1 and got
marked Ex.D1 to D66. Later, these defendant Nos.4 & 5 filed
memo on 07.01.2006 withdrawing the allegations made by them in
their Written Statement and prayed to dismiss the suit as against
them in view of settlement between themselves and plaintiff Nos.1
to 5 before the Court. Accordingly, Written Statement and evidence
of defendant Nos.4 & 5 are discarded.
10. Defendant No.11 filed his Written Statement
supporting the contentions taken by his mother i.e., plaintiff No.6
Anjanamma. It is contended that the genealogy furnished in the
plaint is neither accurate nor complete. Female heirs are
deliberately left out to deny their legitimate share. Plaintiff No 6
Anjanamma is none other than the full sister of defendant No.1 and
entitled to share but she has been conspicuously left out. Plaintiff
Nos.1 to 5 and defendant Nos.1 to 3 entered into conspiracy to
deny the legitimate share of other female members including
defendant No.6. Collusive compromise petition was also filed
which came to be set aside by The Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in R.F.A. No.297/1994 dated 20.01.1995. Plaintiff No.6
24 O.S.2611/1993
(defendant No.6) has furnished correct genealogy in her Written
Statement. Anjanamma expired on 14.08.2012 leaving behind her
heirs Smt. Halakkamma, Smt. Muniyamma, Smt. Sharadamma,
K.P. Kalappa & K.P. Muddappa, who all are having equal share in
the properties of share of defendant No.6. Anjanamma was not
having any absolute authority, right, title or interest over the suit
properties and as such the Will dated 22.07.2000 executed by her
does not survive for consideration and same has to be declared as
null & void. Further, Anjanamma was an illiterate and has not
executed any document in respect of the suit properties in favour of
any body. Such being the case, execution of alleged Will itself is
concocted story to knock off the valuable properties and to deprive
legitimate shares to the legal heirs of Anjanamma. As such, said
alleged Will has to be declared as null & void. Defendant No.11
along with other heirs of Anjanamma are entitled to share in the suit
properties that would have been allotted to the share of
Anjanamma. Hence, prayed to declare the Will dated 22.07.2000
as null & void and to allot legitimate shares to the legal heirs of
Anjanamma.
11. Defendant No.14 filed Written Statement by stating
that she is the daughter of Smt. Lakkamma, who is the sister of
plaintiff No.6 Anjanamma and daughter of Kareputtaiah. It is
contended that genealogy furnished in the plaint is inaccurate &
incomplete. All the female members are deliberately left out in
order to deny their legitimate shares in the suit properties. Mother
of defendant No.14 who is sister of defendant No.1 and daughter of
Kareputtaiah is entitled to share in her own right, has been
conspicuously left out and no reference has been made with
respect to her share. Defendant No.6, who is now transposed as
25 O.S.2611/1993
plaintiff No.6, has mentioned correct genealogy in her original
Written Statement by showing Smt. Lakkamma as her sister and
daughter of Kareputtaiah. Mother of defendant No.14 is entitled for
her legitimate 1/5th share in the share of her father Kareputtaiah.
11(a). Defendant No.14 has further contended that mother
of defendant No.14 i.e., Lakkamma expired on 04.03.2016 leaving
behind her sons and defendant No.14, who are entitled for the
properties of share of Lakkamma in the suit properties. Defendant
No.14 being granddaughter of Kareputtaiah is also entitled for
share in the suit properties. Plaintiffs suppressing the material
facts and without disclosing the true facts, furnished false
genealogical tree wherein mother of defendant No.14 has been
deliberately left out with an intention to deny her legitimate share in
the suit properties. Defendant No.6 has furnished correct
genealogy wherein the name of mother of defendant No.14 is
shown as daughter of Kareputtaiah.
11(b). Defendant No.14 has further contended that item
Nos.2 to 4, 6, 7, 10, 18, 20 to 23, 26 to 30, 34 to 37, 39, 40, 42 to
45, 48 & 53 of suit ‘A’ schedule properties and item Nos.1 to 18 of
suit ‘B’ schedule properties are self-acquired properties of late
Kareputtaiah. Hence, prayed to allot 1/5th share to the legal heirs
of deceased Smt. Lakkamma including defendant No.14.
12. Based on the pleadings, the Court has framed
following issues: –
26 O.S.2611/1993
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit
schedule properties are the ancestral and the
joint family properties of the parties of the
suit ?
2. Whether the defendant No.6 proves the
genealogical tree annexed to the Written
Statement filed by her ?
3. Whether the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 prove that they
are entitled to 1/6th share in the suit schedule
properties and for separate possession of the
same by metes & bounds ?
4. Whether the defendant No.6 proves that her
counter-claim and also Written Statement
schedule properties are entitled to be included
in the suit and is to be partitioned ?
5. Whether the defendants prove that the suit is
not maintainable in the present form ?
6. Whether the defendants prove that suit item
Nos.1, 2, 3, 10, 15, 16 & 18 in the plaint ‘B’
schedule are self-acquired properties of
defendant No.4 ?
7. Whether the defendant No.6 is entitled for 1/5 th
share in the suit schedule properties and for
separate possession of the same by metes &
bounds?
8. To what reliefs are parties entitled to ?
9. What order or decree ?
Addl. Issue dated 05.08.2009 :
Whether plaintiff No.6 who was defendant
No.6 earlier is entitled to the partition and
separate possession in the suit schedule
properties? If yes, what is the extent?
27 O.S.2611/1993
Addl. Issues dated 11.08.2022 :
1. Whether the defendant No.6 (transposed
plaintiff No.6) proves that Anjanamma on
14.08.2012 during the pendency of the suit
executed the registered Will dated 22.07.2000
bequeathing her share in the suit schedule
properties in favour of K.P. Muddappa, when
she was having sound disposing state of
mind?
2. Whether the defendant No.6 (transposed
plaintiff No.6) proves that Gowramma & M.
Anuradha being wife & daughter, as her legal
heirs, are entitled to the share in the suit
schedule properties that would have been
allotted to the share of Anjanamma ?
Addl. Issues dated 22.09.2022 :
1. Whether the defendant No.3(a) proves that
partition was effected on 18.05.1972 between
the children of Arakere Hanumanthappa as
contended in his Written Statement and the
said partition deed is acted upon ?
2. Whether the defendant No.3(a) proves that
suit is barred by law of Limitation ?
13. In order to prove their case, son of plaintiff No.6 by
name K.P. Muddappa is examined as PW1. Plaintiff No.1 is
examined as PW2. Plaintiff No.6(b) is examined as PW3 and
attesting witness to the Will is examined as PW4 and got marked
the documents at Ex.P1 to P239. On the other hand, GPA
holder of defendant No.4 is examined as DW1. Defendant
No.3(a) is examined as DW2. Defendant No.11 is examined as
DW3 & defendant No.9(f)(i) is examined as DW4 and got
marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D179.
28 O.S.2611/1993
14. Heard arguments. Perused the material on record.
15. My findings on the above issues are as under: –
Issue Nos.2, 4, 7 & : In the Affirmative
Addl. Issue dated
05.08.2009 &
Addl. Issue Nos.1 &
2 dated 11.08.2022
Addl. Issue Nos.1 & : In the Negative
2 dated 22.09.2022
Issue Nos.1, 3, 5 & : Does not survive for
6 consideration
Issue Nos.8 & 9 : As per the final order,
for the following:
REASONS
16. ISSUE Nos.2, 4, 7 and Addl. Issue dated
05.08.2009 & Addl. Issue No.1 dated 22.09.2022 : These issues
are interconnected with each other, hence they are taken
together for discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
17. Initially suit was instituted by plaintiff Nos.1 to 5
against defendant Nos.1 to 3 for partition stating that on
13.11.1992 after death of Madappa, who was managing the joint
family affairs, ill feeling arose among the parties. Hence, the
cause of action arose to file the suit for partition. On 22.04.1993
defendant Nos.4 & 5 together and defendant No.6 filed I.A.s for
impleading themselves as defendant Nos.4 to 6. On the same
day i.e., on 22.04.1993 plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 and defendant Nos.1
to 3 filed joint compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC
stating that in terms of the compromise petition they have settled
29 O.S.2611/1993
their dispute and prayed to draw final decree in terms of the
compromise petition. During the pendency of said compromise
petition, on 28.01.1994 plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 and defendant Nos.1
to 3 filed joint memo with a prayer to dismiss the suit as not
pressed, in view of the said memo on 04.06.1994 said suit came
to be dismissed. Defendant No.6 filed R.F.A. No.297/1994
before The Hon’ble High Court challenging the said order of
dismissal of the suit. Said RFA came to be allowed and restored
the suit with direction to dispose the same in accordance with law
impleading these defendants.
18. In the original plaint, plaintiffs have not shown
defendant No.6 Anjanamma, daughter of Kareputtaiah, who is
subsequently transposed as plaintiff No.6. Plaintiffs have also
not shown the sister of this Anjanamma viz., Lakkamma daughter
of Kareputtaiah. Defendant No.6 filed her detailed Written
Statement / counter-claim furnishing the genealogy which is not
disputed by any of the parties. Plaintiff No.1, who is examined as
PW2 during his cross-examination at page 31 admitted that
Anjanamma & Lakkamma are the daughters of Kareputtaiah.
Defendant No.3(a) who is examined as DW2 also not denied the
said fact in his evidence. Learned counsels appearing for both
parties have fairly submitted that genealogy of the parties is not
in dispute and there is no dispute that plaintiff No.6 is the
daughter of Kareputtaiah.
19. Defendant No.6 in paragraph No.8 of her Written
Statement has stated that suit schedule item Nos.2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10,
18, 20 to 23, 26 to 30, 34 to 37, 39, 40, 42 to 45, 48 & 53 of suit
30 O.S.2611/1993
‘A’ schedule properties and suit item Nos.1 to 18 of suit ‘B’
schedule properties are self-acquired properties of late
Kareputtaiah.
20. As Defendant Nos.4 & 5 in their Written Statement
contended that item Nos.2 to 4, 26, 45, 53 of suit ‘A’ schedule
and item Nos.5, 8, 9, 14 & 17 of suit ‘B’ schedule are the
properties purchased under joint registered sale deed dated
06.07.1928 by the ancestors of defendant Nos.4 & 5 viz.,
Kurlappa & Kareputtaiah. On 20.10.2003 GPA holder of
defendant No.4 viz., K.M. Muddappa filed affidavit in lieu of
examination-in-chief reiterating the contentions taken by
defendant Nos.4 & 5 in their Written Statement and got marked
documents Ex.D1 to D66. As per the deposition dated
02.12.2003, as per the order passed in the deposition, DW1 is
discharged. Thereafter, defendant Nos.4 & 5 on 07.01.2006 filed
memo stating that they have withdrawn the allegations made in
the Written Statement against plaintiffs and settled the matter out
of the Court and prayed to dismiss the suit against defendant
Nos.4 & 5. Accordingly, suit against defendant Nos.4 & 5 came
to be dismissed. In view of the said order dated 07.01.2006 and
discharge of DW1 on 02.12.2003, there is nothing to be
adjudicated against or on behalf of defendant Nos.4 & 5. As
such, issue No.6 does not survive for consideration.
21. Even after dismissal of the suit against defendant
Nos.4 & 5 and withdrawal of allegations made by defendant
Nos.4 & 5 in their Written Statement, there is no amendment or
alteration regarding the suit properties or properties stated in the
31 O.S.2611/1993
Written Statement of defendant No.6.
22. Though plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 filed the suit in the year
1993 stating that there is no partition in the joint family properties,
but during pendency of the suit they have filed amendment
application stating that already partition took place on 18.05.1972
and the parties are in possession of their respective shares as
per the said partition. This Court allowed the said amendment
application, which was challenged before The Hon’ble High Court
of Karnataka in W.P. No.2266/2009. The Hon’ble High Court set
aside the order of this Court allowing the amendment of plaint
and dismissed the I.A. Said order was challenged before the
Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P. No.19188/2010. The Hon’ble Apex
Court confirmed the order of The Hon’ble High Court. Thus, the
amendment allowed by this Court is set aside and the original
plaint remained intact.
23. Learned counsel for plaintiff No.6 has argued that
admittedly plaintiff No.6 who is originally defendant No.6 is the
daughter of Kareputtaiah and as per the case of plaintiffs itself at
the time of filing of the suit there was no partition in the joint
family properties and as such plaintiff No.6 is entitled for share in
the properties of her father Kareputtaiah i.e., 1/5th share. Hence,
prayed to decree the counter-claim filed by defendant No.6, who
is subsequently transposed as plaintiff No.6.
24. Learned counsel for defendant Nos.1 to 3 argued
that as per Ex.P195 which is a memorandum of partition there
was earlier partition which reduced into writing on 18.05.1972.
32 O.S.2611/1993
Based on the said memorandum of partition, mutation has been
effected in the names of the parties concerned and they are in
possession & enjoyment of their respective shares. Ex.D68 to 72
are certified copies of mutation register extracts dated
17.05.1995. Hence, partition has already been taken place in the
year 1972 itself. As such, plaintiff No.6 cannot reopen the earlier
partition and hence she is not entitled for any share and prayed
to dismiss the counter-claim of defendant No.6.
25. The learned counsel for legal heirs of plaintiff No.6
has relied upon following rulings:
i. AIR 2011 KAR 103 ( Pilla Muniyappa & Ors., v. H. Anjanappa &
Ors.)ii. 2017(3) KCCR 2659 (Sumangalamma v. Hiriyamma & Ors.)
iii. ILR 2017 KAR 3387 (Abdulsab Nannesab Totad @ Jekinkatti,
Dead by L.Rs., v. Sahadevappa mallappa Suragond, Dead by
L.Rs.)iv. AIR 2013 SC 2088 (M.B. Ramesh (D) by L.Rs., v. K.M. Veeraje
Urs (D) by L.Rs., & Ors.)v. 2007(1) SCC 546 (Gurdev Kaur & Ors. v. Kaki & Ors.)
vi. 2003(8) SC 537 (Ramabai Padmakar Pati (D) by L.Rs., & Ors.
v. Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande & Ors.)
26. The learned counsel for plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 has
relied upon following rulings:
i. (2020) 9 SCC 1 (Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma &
Ors.)ii. Judgment in Regular First Appeal No.6041/2013 dated
17.12.2019 (Venkat v. Anitha).
33 O.S.2611/1993
27. The learned counsel for defendant No.3(a) has
relied upon following decisions / rulings :
i. W.P. No.898/2021 before Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka,
dated 17.01.2022 (Arun Kumar v. Hosakote Town
Municipality)ii. R.F.A. No.6041/2013 before Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka, dated 17.12.2019 (Venkat v. Anitha)iii. (2020) 9 SCC 01 (Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma &
Ors.)iv. R.F.A. No.2161/2011 before Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka, dated 05.07.2021 (H.G. Maheshwarappa &
Ors. v. H.G. Basvalingappa & Ors.)v. 2014 SCC Online Del. 901 (Prem Nath Chopra (D) by
L.Rs., v. Arun Chopra & Ors.)vi. 1997-3-L.W. 888 Madras High Court, dated 27.12.1996
(Palaniswamy Konar v. Gopala Konar & 8 Ors.)The Court has gone through the said rulings. As discussed
above, there is no dispute regarding relationship between the
parties. In view of the dismissal of the suit against defendant
Nos.4 & 5 as stated above, there is also no dispute regarding the
nature of properties as contended by defendant No.6 in
paragraph No.8 of her Written Statement. On perusal of
Ex.P195, it reveals that the self-acquired properties of
Kareputtiah and joint properties of Kareputtaiah and Dodda
Madappa are stated in the Written Statement filed by defendant
No.6. Now the question remains that whether there was already
partition in the year 1972 and whether it was acted upon and
34 O.S.2611/1993such partition cannot be reopened by defendant No.6.
Admittedly, the original of Ex.P195 is not produced before the
Court. Ex.P195 is the certified copy of memorandum of partition
of the year 1972. There is distinction between partition deed and
memorandum of partition. Partition deed is compulsorily required
to be registered under the Registration Act. Partition deed is one
under which the parties get their shares. Per contra,
memorandum of partition is one which is reduced to writing about
the previously taken partition among the parties. The typed copy
of Ex.P195 is produced and the relevant portion reads thus:
ಇನ್ನು ಮುಂದೆ ಅವರವರ ಭಾಗದ ಸ್ವತ್ತು ಗಳಿಗೆ ಅವರೇ ಪೂರ್ಣ ಹಕ್ಕು ದಾರರಾಗಿ ಇದರ
ಕಂದಾಯವನ್ನು ಅವರವರ ಭಾಗದ ಸ್ವತ್ತು ಗಳಿಗೆ ಅವರವರೇ ಕಟ್ಟಿಕೊಂಡು ಅವರವರ
ಭಾಗದ ಸ್ವತ್ತು ಗಳ ಖಾತೆಯನ್ನು ಅವರವರ ಹೆಸರಿಗೆ ಬದಲಾಯಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ದಾನ, ಕ್ರಯ
ಮೊದಲಾದ ವ್ಯವಹಾರ ಚತುಷ್ಮಯಕ್ಕೂ ಅವರವರ ಸ್ವತ್ತು ಗಳಿಗೆ ಅವರೇ ಹಕ್ಕು ದಾರರಾಗಿ
ಇಷ್ಟ ಬಂದಹಾಗೆ ಅನುಭವಿಸಿಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗುವುದು. ಇನ್ನು ಮುಂದೆ ನಮ್ಮ ನಮ್ಮಗಳಿಗೆ
ದೇಹ ಸಂಭಂದವೇ ವಿನಃ ಅತ್ಕಾ ರಕ ಸಂಭದವೇನು ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಇದರ ಮೂಲ
ಧಾಖಲೆಗಳು ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಕೆ.ಮಾದಪ್ಪನಾದ ನನ್ನ ಬಳಿ ಇರುತ್ತದೆ. ಅವಶ್ಯವಿದ್ದಾ ಗ ಹಾಜರು
ಪಡಿಸುತ್ತೇನೆ. ಇತರೆ ಚರ ಸ್ವತ್ತು ಗಳನ್ನು ಕೆಳಕಂಡ ಪಂಚಾಯತುದಾರರ ಸಮಕ್ಷಮ ಭಾಗ
ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿರತ್ತೇವೆ. ಬೇರೆ ಭಾಗವಾಗ ಬೇಕಾದ ಸ್ವತ್ತು ಗಳು ಯಾವುದೂ ಇರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ.
ಇನ್ನು ಮುಂದೆ ಅವರವರು ಸಂಪಾದನೆ ಮಾಡಿದ ಸ್ವತ್ತು ಗಳಿಗೆ ಅವರೇ ಪೂರ್ಣ
ಹಕ್ಕು ದಾರರಾಗಿ ಇರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂಬುದಾಗಿ ಒಪ್ಪಿ ಬರೆಯಿಸಿಕೊಂಡ ಭಾಗಪತ್ರ ಸಹಿ.
On perusal of the recitals, it reveals that under this document in
the presence of witnesses parties have got divided their
properties. ಕೆಳಕಂಡ ಪಂಚಾಯಿದಾರರ ಸಮಕ್ಷಮ ಭಾಗ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಂಡಿರುತ್ತೆೇವೆ. Thus,
it shows that under Ex.P195 on that day they have got their
properties divided among themselves. As such, Ex.P195 cannot
be considered as memorandum of partition, but it is partition
deed. As per Indian Registration Act, partition deed is
compulsorily registrable document. However, Ex.P195 is not
35 O.S.2611/1993registered. As such, the same cannot be considered as partition
deed or memorandum of partition.
28. Order passed by this Court on amendment
application was challenged before The Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in R.F.A. No.297/1994 wherein the Hon’ble High Court
has set aside the order passed by this Court, which was
challenged before The Hon’ble Apex Court in S.L.P.
No.19188/2010 i.e., Civil Appeal No.1669/2019, wherein The
Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph No.6 has observed thus:
If the partition had really taken place in the year
1972 and was acted upon as per the
Panchayath Parikath, then plaintiff Nos.1 to 5
would not have filed a suit for partition and
separate possession in the year 1993.
29. Plaintiff No.1 examined as PW2. PW2 has deposed
that plaintiffs have divided the joint family properties under
Panchayath Parikath / memorandum of partition dated
18.05.1972 and under the said partition properties fallen to the
respective shares as stated in Ex.P195 memorandum of partition.
This evidence of PW2 is beyond pleadings. There is no pleading
of plaintiffs with respect to this alleged partition of the year 1972.
It is basic principle that “plead & prove”. There is no pleading of
plaintiffs that there was partition in the year 1972 and in view of
the said partition the present suit for partition is not maintainable
and defendant No.6 / plaintiff No.6 is not entitled for any share.
Hence, this evidence of PW2 is beyond pleadings and same has
no evidentiary value in the eye of law.
36 O.S.2611/1993
30. Defendant No.3(a) examined as DW2. During the
course of cross-examination DW2 has admitted case of plaintiffs.
As discussed above, plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 and defendant Nos.1 to 3
during the pendency of the suit have set up a case that already
partition took place in the year 1972. Hence, this cross-
examination will not help the case of defendant Nos.1 to 3. In
fact, the alleged memorandum of partition was not marked. But
the same was marked through confrontation to DW2 by learned
counsel for plaintiff Nos.1 to 3. On perusal of Ex.P195 alleged
memorandum of partition, it reveals that no share is given to
plaintiff No.6 and her sister Lakkamma. Defendant Nos.12 & 13
are the legal heirs of Lakkamma, who is daughter of
Kareputtaiah. During the course of cross-examination DW2 has
admitted that as per the alleged memorandum of partition no
share has been given to defendant No.2. Thus, no share was
given to plaintiff No.6 Anjanamma, & Lakkamma, mother of
defendant Nos.12 & 13. Also, no share has been given to the
wife of Pillappa viz., Marakka. As such, Ex.P195 can safely be
considered as incomplete memorandum of partition.
31. As per the case of plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 and defendant
Nos.1 to 3, alleged oral partition took place in the year 1972. If at
all said partition was acted upon in the year 1972 itself or
subsequent years i.e., 1973, 1974 by entering the names of
sharers concerned to the properties allotted to their respective
shares, the same could have been believed. However, the
alleged partition of the year 1972 has been acted upon by way of
mutation register extracts on 17.05.1995 i.e., two years after filing
37 O.S.2611/1993
of the present suit, which shows that only after filing of the suit to
create the documents to show that there was earlier partition in
the year 1972 and plaintiff No.6 is not entitled to reopen the
partition and she is not having any share in the said partition. As
on date of filing of the suit, plaintiffs have not contended
regarding the alleged partition of the year 1972. Only after filing
of the suit, I.A., under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of
plaint to incorporate the alleged partition of the year 1972 was
filed. Hence, it shows that as on the date of filing of the suit
plaintiffs were not aware about the alleged partition of the year
1972. As discussed above, the said amendment was rejected
by the Hon’ble High Court and Apex Court.
32. Learned counsel for defendant No.3 argued that
Ex.D176 is registered release deed wherein Gowramma,
daughter of Dodda Hanumanthappa, has referred the
memorandum of partition of the year 1972. Further, Ex.D172 is
the gift deed dated 06.09.2003 executed by defendant No.1 in
favour of his son defendant No.10, wherein reference has been
made to the earlier partition in the year 1972. Thus, these
documents disclose earlier partition took place in the year 1972.
These are public documents having presumptive value. Hence,
prayed to consider the memorandum of partition of the year
1972. On perusal of these documents which came into effect
only after filing of the suit and between the parties who are
subsequently alleging partition of the year 1972. There is no
single document which came into effect prior to filing of the suit to
prove about existence of memorandum of partition in the year
38 O.S.2611/1993
1972. Any document came into existence after filing of the suit
will not prove that there was partition in the year 1972. There are
no any good grounds to believe that there was oral partition in
the year 1972 and it was acted upon as alleged.
33. It is plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 and defendant Nos.1 to 3,
who approached the Court in the year 1993 stating that there is
no partition in the joint family properties and prayed to pass
decree for partition. Thereafter, immediately when defendant
No.6 / plaintiff No.6 approached the Court seeking her share in
the suit properties, plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 and defendant Nos.1 to 3
all of a sudden changed their version by stating that already
partition has been taken place in the year 1972 and subsequent
to the suit some documents are created based on which
mutations have been effected as per Ex.D68 to D72 on
17.05.1995, after filing of this suit, which prima facie prove that
only to deny the share of defendant No.6 / plaintiff No.6 all these
documents came into effect subsequent to filing of the suit. In
this regard, The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the ruling reported in AIR
2020 SC 3717 (Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Others) has
held thus:
127. A special definition of partition has been carved out
in the explanation. The intendment of the provisions is
not to jeopardize the interest of the daughter and to take
care of sham or frivolous transaction set up in defence
unjustly to deprive the daughter of her right as
coparcener and prevent nullifying the benefit flowing
from the provisions as substituted. The statutory
provisions made in section 6(5) change the entire
complexion as to partition. However, under the law that
prevailed earlier, an oral partition was recognized. In
view of change of provisions of section 6, the intendment
39 O.S.2611/1993of legislature is clear and such a plea of oral partition is
not to be readily accepted. The provisions of section 6(5)
are required to be interpreted to cast a heavy burden of
proof upon proponent of oral partition before it is
accepted such as separate occupation of portions,
appropriation of the income, and consequent entry in the
revenue records and invariably to be supported by other
contemporaneous public documents admissible in
evidence, may be accepted most reluctantly while
exercising all safeguards. The intendment of Section 6 of
the Act is only to accept the genuine partitions that
might have taken place under the prevailing law, and are
not set up as a false defence and only oral ipse dixit is to
be rejected out-rightly. The object of preventing, setting
up of false or frivolous defence to set at naught the
benefit emanating from amended provisions, has to be
given full effect. Otherwise, it would become very easy to
deprive the daughter of her rights as a coparcener. When
such a defence is taken, the Court has to be very
extremely careful in accepting the same, and only if very
cogent, impeccable, and contemporaneous documentary
evidence in shape of public documents in support are
available, such a plea may be entertained, not otherwise.
We reiterate that the plea of an oral partition or
memorandum of partition, unregistered one can be
manufactured at any point in time, without any
contemporaneous public document needs rejection at all
costs. We say so for exceptionally good cases where
partition is proved conclusively and we caution the
courts that the finding is not to be based on the
preponderance of probabilities in view of provisions of
gender justice and the rigor of very heavy burden of proof
which meet intendment of Explanation to Section 6(5). It
has to be remembered that courts cannot defeat the
object of the beneficial provisions made by the
Amendment Act. The exception is carved out by us as
earlier execution of a registered document for partition
was not necessary, and the Court was rarely approached
for the sake of family prestige. It was approached as a
last resort when parties were not able to settle their
family dispute amicably. We take note of the fact that
even before 1956, partition in other modes than
envisaged under Section 6(5) had taken place.
40 O.S.2611/1993
34. In the original plaint, plaintiffs have shown total 57
properties in ‘A’ schedule and 18 properties in ‘B’ schedule.
Defendant No.6, who subsequently transposed as plaintiff No.6,
in paragraph No.8 of her Written Statement / counter-claim
shown 28 properties in ‘A’ schedule and 18 properties in ‘B’
schedule as self-acquired properties of her father Kareputtaiah
which not disputed by other parties. Hence, the remaining
properties shown in suit ‘A’ schedule excluding 28 properties
mentioned in paragraph No.8 of written statement of defendant
No.6 are the joint family properties of Kareputtaiah and Dodda
Madappa. There is no dispute from other parties to the suit
regarding the nature of suit properties. Plaintiffs have not
disputed the same by filing rejoinder and also not led any
evidence to show that nature of properties stated in paragraph
No.8 of written statement of defendant No.6 is not correct etc.
Hence, there is no dispute that properties mentioned in
paragraph No.8 of written statement of defendant No.6 are the
self-acquired properties of Kareputtaiah and remaining suit
properties are the joint family properties of Kareputtaiah and his
brother Dodda Madappa. Under all these circumstances, as per
Section 6 of The Hindu Succession Act, five children of
Kareputtaiah are entitled for 1/5th share each. Defendant No.6 /
plaintiff No.6 being daughter of Kareputtaiah is entitled for 1/5th
share in the self-acquired properties of Kareputtaiah and she is
also entitled for 1/5th share out of half share of her father
Kareputtaiah in the remaining joint family properties, as
contended by defendant No.6 in her Written Statement / counter-
claim.
41 O.S.2611/1993
35. As discussed above, defendant No.6 / plaintiff No.6
Anjanamma is entitled for 1/5th share. Her sister Lakkamma is
entitled for 1/5th share. Father of plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 K. Madappa
entitled for 1/5th share. Father of plaintiff No.4 Kachappa is
entitled for 1/5th share. Likewise, ancestor of defendant
Nos.10(a) to 10(d) i.e., Dodda Hanumanthappa is entitled for
1/5th share in the self-acquired properties of Kareputtaiah i.e.,
the properties shown in paragraph No.8 of written statement of
defendant No.6.
36. In respect of ancestral joint family properties i.e., the
properties mentioned in paragraph No.8 of written statement of
defendant No.6, Kareputtaiah & Dodda Madappa are entitled for
half share each. In the said properties, defendant No.6 / plaintiff
No.6 is entitled for 1/10th share. Lakkamma is entitled for 1/10th
share. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 being the legal heirs of K. Madappa
are entitled for 1/10th share. Plaintiff No.4 being the son of
Kachappa @ Chikka Madappa is entitled for 1/10th share.
Defendant Nos.10(a) to 10(d) being the legal heirs of Dodda
Hanumanthappa are entitled for 1/10th share. In the remaining
50% share fallen to the share of Dodda Madappa, the same shall
be divided among the legal heirs of Dodda Madappa. In this
case, defendant No.6 / transposed plaintiff No.6 prayed for
partition. Likewise, defendant Nos.12 to 14 have also prayed for
share. Defendant Nos.3(a) & 4 have prayed to dismiss the suit.
Defendant No.11 prayed for share, but in view of proving the Will
as discussed in Addl. Issue Nos.1 & 2 dated 11.08.2022,
defendant No.11 is not entitled for share. Accordingly, I answer
42 O.S.2611/1993
ISSUE Nos.2, 4, 7 and Addl. Issue dated 05.08.2009 in the
Affirmative & Addl. Issue No.1 dated 22.09.2022 in the Negative.
37. Addl. Issue Nos.1 & 2 dated 11.08.2022 : Plaintiff
Nos.6(a) & 6(b) being the legal heirs of K.P. Muddappa, son of
Anjanamma, have set up a Will as per Ex.P194 allegedly
executed by Anjanamma in favour of her son K. Muddappa.
Plaintiff Nos.6(a) & 6(b) are the legal heirs of K.P. Muddappa and
they are claiming the properties of Anjanamma through the Will
executed in favour of K.P. Muddappa. The other legal heirs of
Anjanamma i.e., defendant Nos.8 to 11 have disputed the Will
Ex.P194. Ex.P194 is executed on 22.07.2000 by Anjanamma
during the pendency of this suit. Ex.P194 is registered Will
executed in the year 2000 and Anjanamma expired on
14.08.2012 i.e., 12 years after execution of the said Will. In
Ex.P194 Anjanamma clearly mentioned about pendency of this
suit and about partition in the matrimonial home properties and
suit properties are her parental home properties. It is clearly
stated that all her children have got shares in the properties of
her matrimonial home i.e., the properties inherited by her
husband. Suit properties are the properties of her parental home
i.e., properties of father of Anjanamma. Hence, these properties
are the self-acquired properties of Anjanamma and she is entitled
to dispose the said properties as per her will & wish.
38. As discussed above, the properties which were
acquired through her husband i.e., properties of her matrimonial
home are already divided in which she has also got share along
with her children including defendant Nos.8 to 11. In the Will
43 O.S.2611/1993
Ex.P194 Anjanamma elaborately narrated and stated that her
son K.P. Muddappa who was taking care of her and who has also
fought litigation in this case and hence her share in the suit
properties shall be given to her son K.P. Muddappa.
39. PW3 being the daughter of K.P. Muddappa has
deposed regarding the said Will Ex.P194 and the same is the last
Will of her grandmother Anjanamma. PW3 has been cross-
examined at length. But nothing has been elicited which would
lead to disbelieve her evidence. PW3 denied that Ex.P194 is
created.
40. PW4 D. Puttappa is an attesting witness to Ex.P194
Will. He has deposed that Anjanamma executed Ex.P194 Will on
22.07.2000 bequeathing the properties of her share in favour of
her son K.P. Muddappa. After affixing the signature by
Anjanamma, he has affixed his signature as attesting witness to
the said Will. On perusal of entire cross-examination of PW4,
nothing has been elicited which would lead to disbelieve the
evidence of PW4 or create any doubt or suspicion regarding
execution of Ex.P194 Will.
41. PW1 K.P. Muddappa is examined before the Court
as GPA holder of his mother Anjanamma. PW1 has deposed
that, due to old age, his mother Anjanamma is unable to attend
the Court and as such she has executed GPA in his favour and
he is deposing on behalf of his mother Anjanamma. It shows that
during the lifetime of Anjanamma, father of PW3 was conducting
this case. The affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of PW1 is
44 O.S.2611/1993
filed on 02.07.2003 i.e., after execution of the Will Ex.P194.
Thus, looking into all the evidence available on record, this Court
is of the considered opinion that there are no suspicious
circumstances surrounding the Will and the Court has no reason
to disbelieve the Will at Ex.P194. As discussed above, in the Will
Ex.P194 it is clearly stated that defendant Nos.8 to 11 i.e.,
children of Anjanamma have got properties of their share in the
partition already taken place in respect of properties of husband
of Anjanamma. The suit properties are the parental house
properties of Anjanamma. As such, said properties are exclusive
properties of Anjanamma in which defendant Nos.8 to 11 cannot
claim their share as a matter of right in the presence of Ex.P194
Will. Under all these circumstances, looking to the evidence of
PWs 3 & 4 and Ex.P194 Will, it can safely be inferred that the
legal heirs of K.P. Muddappa i.e., plaintiff Nos.6(a) & 6(b) are
jointly entitled for the properties fallen to the share of
Anjanamma, as stated above. Accordingly, I answer Addl. Issue
Nos.1 & 2 dated 11.08.2022 in the Affirmative.
42. Issue Nos.1 & 3 : Initially, plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 filed this
suit for partition against defendant Nos.1 to 3. When defendant
Nos.4 to 6 filed impleading applications stating that they are also
having share in the suit properties, plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 and
defendant Nos.1 to 3 contended that there was already partition
in the year 1993 and the matter is settled and filed joint
compromise petition and prayed to dismiss the suit. Plaintiff No.1
M. Revanna filed affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief as PW2
stating that there was already partition, contrary to the pleadings
45 O.S.2611/1993
of the plaint. Hence, issue Nos.1 & 3 framed based on the
original plaint do not survive for consideration due to subsequent
developments i.e., plaintiffs claiming that already partition took
place in the year 1972. There is no evidence from the plaintiffs
seeking their share in the suit properties. Hence, issue Nos.1 &
3 do not survive for consideration.
43. Issue Nos.5 & 6 : Originally, defendant Nos.4 & 5
have filed their Written Statement contending that they are also
having share in some of the suit properties. Defendant No.4 is
examined as DW1 by filing his affidavit in lieu of examination-in-
chief. In the meantime, defendant Nos.4 & 5 filed memo
withdrawing their allegations made in their Written Statement
against plaintiffs and they have also withdrawn their evidence of
DW1 in view of settlement between defendant Nos.4 & 5 and
plaintiff Nos.1 to 5. Hence, issue Nos.5 & 6 also do not survive
for consideration.
44. Addl. ISSUE No.2 dated 22.09.2022 : As per plaint
averments, it is averred that cause of action to file the suit arose
in the year 1993. As discussed above, there was no partition in
the joint family till filing of the suit in the year 1993. Hence,
question of limitation to file the suit does not arise. As such, said
issue is answered in the Negative.
45. The suit properties are agricultural lands and house
properties. There is no evidence before the Court to show that
any share in the suit properties was given to defendant No.6 /
plaintiff No.6 Anjanamma. There must be income from the
46 O.S.2611/1993
agricultural lands as well as from house properties. Plaintiff No.6
has sought for mesne profits. As such, there shall be an enquiry
regarding mesne profits.
46. ISSUE Nos.8 & 9 : In view of the aforesaid
discussions, I proceed to pass the following: –
ORDER
The suit filed by plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 is dismissed.
The counter-claim filed by defendant No.6
Anjanamma (transposed plaintiff No.6) is decreed
with costs.
Transposed plaintiff No.6 Anjanamma is entitled
for 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties as
shown in paragraph No.8 of Written Statement of
defendant No.6 i.e., item Nos.2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 18, 20
to 23, 26 to 30, 34 to 37, 39, 40, 42 to 45, 48 & 53 of
suit ‘A’ schedule properties and item Nos.1 to 18 of
suit ‘B’ schedule properties and 1/10th share in the
remaining suit schedule properties.
By virtue of the Will executed by transposed
plaintiff No.6 Anjanamma, plaintiff Nos.6(a) & 6(b) are
entitled for above said properties of the share of
plaintiff No.6 Anjanamma.
47 O.S.2611/1993
Likewise, defendant Nos.12 to 14 being legal
heirs of Lakkamma, are also entitled for 1/5 th share and
1/10th share as stated above.
There shall be an enquiry regarding mesne
profits.
Draw preliminary decree accordingly.
After drawing preliminary decree, office is directed
to register suo motu Final Decree Proceedings as per
ruling of The Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 737 (Kattukandi Edathi Krishnan & Anr., v.
Kattukandi Edathil Valsan & Ors.), and put up the file.
Both parties are directed to appear before the
Court positively on 28.07.2025, without waiting for any
notice.
Dictated to Senior Sheristedar (now under instructions to
continue the work as Stenographer Grade I) directly on
computer, computerized by him, revised, corrected by me and
then pronounced in the open Court on this the 16th day of June
2025.
( B.P. DEVAMANE )
I Addl. City Civil And
Sessions Judge ( CCH-02 ),
Bengaluru City.
48 O.S.2611/1993
ANNEXURE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS:
PW1 : K.P. Muddappa PW2 : M. Revanna PW3 : M. Anuradha PW4 : D. Puttappa
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS :
Ex.P1 : Power-of-attorney Ex.P2 to 24 : RTC extracts Ex.P25 : Tax paid receipt Ex.P26 : Genealogy Ex.P27 to 32 : Preliminary records Ex.P33 to 72 : RTC extracts Ex.P73 to 77 : Mutation register extracts Ex.P78 to 90 : Copies of sale deeds Ex.P91 : Demand register extract Ex.P92 : Copy of sale agreement Ex.P93 to 110 : Demand register extracts Ex.P111 to : Tax paid receipts 115 Ex.P116 : No due certificate Ex.P117 : Endorsement Ex.P118 : Copy of order of Spl. D.C. Ex.P119, 120 : Endorsements Ex.P121 to : Assessment register extract 124 Ex.P125 : Copy of order in W.P.50867/2033 Ex.P126 to : Copies of sale deeds 129 Ex.P130 to : RTC extracts 135 49 O.S.2611/1993 Ex.P136 to : Tax paid receipts 152 Ex.P.153 : Copy of order in R.A.63/1990-91 Ex.P154 : Copy of application seeking occupancy rights Ex.P155 : Copy of report Ex.P156 : Copy of statement Ex.P157 : Copy of order in Case No.54/1966-67 Ex.P158 : Demand register extract Ex.P159 : Copy of order in Case No.101/1963-64 Ex.P160, 161 : Copies of endorsements Ex.P162 : Copy of order in W.P.50867/2003 Ex.P163 : Copy of application Ex.P164 : Copy of affidavit Ex.P165 : Copy of mahazar Ex.P166 : Copy of order in LRF (66) 38/74-75 Ex.P167 to : RTC extracts 190 Ex.P191 : Mutation register extract Ex.P192 : Original death certificate of Anjanamma Ex.P193 : Original death certificate of K.P. Muddappa Ex.P194 : Original Will dated 22.07.2000 Ex.P195 : Copy of memorandum of partition Ex.P196 to : Copies of sale deeds 203 Ex.P204, 205 : Copies of sale agreements Ex.P206 to : Copies of sale deeds 208 Ex.P209 : Copy of rectification deed Ex.P210 : Copy of release deed Ex.P211, 212 : Copies of sale agreements Ex.P213 : Copy of lease agreement Ex.P214 : Copy of sale deed Ex.P215 : Copy of relinquishment deed 50 O.S.2611/1993 Ex.P216 to : Copies of sale deeds 219 Ex.P220 : Copy of TDR Ex.P221 to : Copies of sale deeds 227
Ex.P228, 229 : Copies of relinquishment deeds
Ex.P230 : Copy of rectification of relinquishment deed
Ex.P231 : Copy of sale deed
Ex.P232 to : Copies of gift deeds
234
Ex.P235 : Copy of sale deed
Ex.P236, 237 : Copies of sale agreements
Ex.P238, 239 : Copies of sale deedsWITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS :
DW1 : K.M. Muddappa DW2 : Madhu Kumar DW3 : Kaalappa DW4 : Shashikala
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS :
Ex.D1, D2 : Original sale deeds Ex.D3, D4 : Copies of sale deeds Ex.D5 : Copy of submission Ex.D6 : Copy of objection Ex.D7 : Copy of mahazar Ex.D8 : Copy of report Ex.D9 : Copy of order in VPC.164/87-88 Ex.D10 : Copy of order in VPC. Appeal.14/89-90 Ex.D11 : Copy of mutation register extract Ex.D12 : Copy of order in VPC.R.P.05/90-91 Ex.D13 : Copy of ordersheet in R.A. VPC.(N) 19/96-97 Ex.D14 : Copy of ordersheet in Case No.14/97-98 51 O.S.2611/1993 Ex.D15 : Copy of petition in Case No.14/97-98 Ex.D16 : Proceedings of the meeting Ex.D17 : Application Ex.D18 : Copy of order in Case No.151/96-97 Ex.D19 : Copy of ordersheet in O.S.02/1969 Ex.D20 : Copy of judgment in O.S.02/1969 Ex.D21 : Copy of decree in O.S.02/1969 Ex.D22 : Endorsement Ex.D23 : General power-of-attorney Ex.D24 : Copy of sale deed Ex.D25 : Survey uttar Ex.D26 : Index of lands Ex.D27 : Record of rights Ex.D28 to 36 : RTC extracts Ex.D37 to 50 : Tax paid receipts Ex.D51 : Copy of mutation register Ex.D52 : Order in Case No.RRT(1) K 47/88-89 Ex.D53 : Order in R.A.63/90-91 Ex.D54 : Survey sketch Ex.D55 : Orginal sale deed Ex.D56 : Survey uttar Ex.D57 : Survey atlas Ex.D58 : Copy of vakalath Ex.D59 : Copy of written statement Ex.D60, 61 : Copies of deposition of witnesses Ex.D62 : Application Ex.D63 : Copy of Written Statement in O.S.2382/1989 Ex.D64 : Copy of plaint in O.S.2286/1989 Ex.D65, 66 : Copies of tax paid receipts Ex.D67 : Schedule Ex.D68 to 72 : Mutation register extracts Ex.D73 to 171 : RTC extracts 52 O.S.2611/1993
Ex.D172 : Copy of gift deed dated 06.09.2003
Ex.D173 : Copy of rectification deed
Ex.D174 : Copy of ordersheet in Ex. Case No.261/2017
Ex.D175 : Copy of sale deed
Ex.D176 : Copy of release deed
Ex.D177 : Copy of sale deed
Ex.D178 : Copy of partition deed
Ex.D179 : Copy of memorandum of partitionI Addl. City Civil And
Sessions Judge ( CCH-02 ),
Bengaluru City.