Bangalore District Court
Srinivasa vs Lakshmidevi on 28 June, 2025
KABC010332992023
IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 28th day of June 2025
Present : SRI.VEDAMOORTHY B.S., B.A.(L)., LL.B.,
XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH -14)
C/c V Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-13)
O.S.No.8107/2023
PLAINTIFFS : Sri.Srinivasa,
S/o Suryanarayana,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at No.256, Kaverinagara,
Mahadevapura Post,
Bengaluru - 560 048.
(By Sri.Narayanaswamy T.N., Advocate)
V/s
DEFENDANTS : 1. Smt.Lakshmidevi,
D/o.Suryanarayana,
Aged about 63 years,
2. Smt.Sugana,
W/o.late Govindaraj,
Aged about 57 years,
3. Smt.Bharathi,
D/o Late Govindaraj,
Aged about 32 years,
4. Sri.Prabhu,
S/o Late Govindaraj,
Aged about 28 years,
2
O.S.No.8107/2023
All are r/at No.256,
Kaverinagara,
Mahadevapura Post,
Bengaluru - 560 048.
(By Sri.Vijaykumar G., Advocate for
defendants No.2 to 4 and the 1st
defendant - Exparte)
Date of institution of the suit. 13.12.2023
Nature of the suit Partition
Date of the commencement of 23.08.2024
recording evidence
Date on which the Judgment 28.06.2025
was pronounced
Years Months Days
Total duration
01 06 15
(VEDAMOORTHY.B.S)
XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
C/c V Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants
for judgment and decree directing the 1 st defendant to effect
partition of the schedule property into ½ share in favour of
3
O.S.No.8107/2023
the plaintiff.
2. The suit schedule property is the residential property
No.30, measuring East to West 18 feet and North to South
26 feet, totally measuring 468 square feet, situated at Hoodi
Village, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk,
which is bounded on East by House belongs to Raghu, West
by House belongs to Gowramma, North by House belongs to
Smt.Suguna and South by Road.
3. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are that the
plaintiff and the defendants are Hindus by religion and the
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is applicable to them. The suit
schedule property is originally Government Gomala land. In
the year 1970, it was acquired by various people who are
economically backward in the society. The mother of the
plaintiff and the 1st defendant by name Rajamma is one
among them who acquired the property measuring 936
square feet. Based on her occupation, Hoodi Grama
Panchayath issued House List to the property to an extent
of 20 X 30 feet in the name of Rajamma. But, actually she
4
O.S.No.8107/2023
was in possession of the property measuring 936 square
feet. Rajamma was paying the taxes to Hoodi Grama
Panchayath in respect of the said property periodically. She
was residing therein along with her children i.e., the
plaintiff, the 1st defendant and Govindaraj. During her
lifetime, she made an application before the Thasildar,
Bengaluru East Taluk for regularization of her
unauthorized occupation of the Government land in her
favour. Thereafter, she fell ill. The said property was
partitioned between her, the 1st defendant and Govindaraj.
In the said oral partition, the property measuring 468
square feet was fallen to the share of Govindaraj and
Sarojamma and another 468 square feet was fallen to the
share of the 1st defendant. Rajamma died on 28.05.2005. In
the meantime, the Government of Karnataka confirmed the
application of Rajamma and called her for execution of the
Sale Deed in respect of the land which was in her illegal
occupation in Hoodi Village. Since Rajamma was no more,
the 1st defendant who is her elder daughter represented in
her place and on behalf of the plaintiff. On the basis of the
5
O.S.No.8107/2023
said representation of the 1 st defendant, the Thasildar,
Bengaluru East Taluk executed registered Sale Deed dated
07.02.2006 in respect of the suit schedule property to the
name of the 1st defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff and the
1st defendant were residing together in the suit schedule
property. On the request of the 1st defendant, the plaintiff
constructed two small sheet houses in the schedule
property. Among the said houses, in one house, the plaintiff
and his family members are residing and in another house,
the 1st defendant is residing. The plaintiff has obtained
electricity connection to his house. Since the children of the
plaintiff grown up, they made separate house as the suit
schedule house is small to reside to all. The 1 st defendant
taking its advantage, colluded with local goondas and
demolished the houses constructed in the suit schedule
property and tried to sell the suit schedule property to third
parties. When the plaintiff questioned the same, she
claimed that the suit schedule property belongs to her, she
has already sold it to third parties, if he want his share in
the suit schedule property, he shall pay Rs.4.00 lakhs to
6
O.S.No.8107/2023
her. The plaintiff immediately went to the office of the Sub-
Registrar and verified the transactions. He found that no
transactions were taken place in respect of the suit
schedule property. Now, the 1 st defendant misusing the Sale
Deed standing in her name is trying to sell the suit
schedule property to third parsons. On 10.11.2023, the
plaintiff requested the 1st defendant to allot his half share in
the suit schedule property for which, she refused. Hence,
the plaintiff filed this suit.
4. After due service of summons to the defendants, the
1st defendant has not appeared before this Court. Hence,
she has placed exparte. Though, defendants No.2 to 4 have
appeared before this Court through their learned Counsel,
they have not filed the written statement.
5. To prove the case of the plaintiff, he is examined as
PW1 and he has produced the documentary evidences
Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has
filed written arguments. Heard the arguments of the
learned Counsel for the plaintiff. Perused the materials
available on record.
7
O.S.No.8107/2023
6. The following points are arisen for consideration;
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
reliefs as prayed ?
2. What order or decree?
7. My answers to the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the Negative,
Point No.2 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS
8. POINT No.1 :- The pleadings of the plaintiff are
remained undisputed by the defendants. Still, the burden is
upon the plaintiff to prove his case by producing reliable and
cogent evidences. In that regard, the plaintiff has produced
his oral evidences as PW1. He has filed his affidavit filed by
way of examination-in-chief wherein, he has reiterated the
facts stated in the plaint. He has also produced the
documentary evidences Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. Among them, Ex.P1
is the Demand Register Extract, Ex.P2 is the Tax Paid
Receipts, Ex.P3 is the online copy of the Sale Deed dated
07.02.2006, Ex.P4 is the Genealogical Tree, Ex.P5 is the
Electricity Bill and Ex.P6 is the Encumbrance Certificate.
8
O.S.No.8107/2023
These evidences produced by the plaintiff are remained
undisputed by the defendants.
9. On perusal of the above oral and documentary evidences
produced by the plaintiff, it appears that the plaintiff, the 1 st
defendant and Govindaraju are the children of
Suryanarayana and Rajamma. It further appears that the
Demand Register in respect of the property bearing No.212
measuring 25 X 30 feet with house property situated at
Kaverinagara (Hoodi) was standing in the name of Rajamma
and she paid property tax to it. Ex.P5 is the Electricity Bill
standing in the name of the plaintiff in respect of a house
property No.256 of Cauveri Nagara. It appears from the
contents of Ex.P3 that the Thasildar, Bengaluru East Taluk
executed the Sale deed in respect of the suit schedule
property in favour of the 1st defendant. Ex.P6 is the
Encumbrance Certificate in respect of the land bearing
Sy.No.30 measuring 20 X 30 feet bounded on East by House
of Raghu, West by House of Gowramma, North by House of
Punitamma and South by Road. No transactions are
forthcoming in Ex.P6.
9
O.S.No.8107/2023
10. On careful reading of the above documentary evidences
produced by the plaintiff, it appears that the descriptions of
the property in Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 are
tallies between each other. It appears from the said
documents that the description of the property in possession
by Rajamma was the property bearing No.212 measuring 25
X 30 feet with house property situated at Kaverinagara
(Hoodi). The plaintiff obtained the electricity connection to a
house property No.256 of Cauveri Nagara. The property sold
by the Thasildar, Bengaluru East Taluk to the 1 st defendant is
the suit schedule property. Though, the description of the
properties mentioned in Ex.P3 and Ex.P6 are same, Ex.P6
does not disclose the sale transaction of Ex.P3. For the above
reasons, the plaintiff has not proved his right of share in the
suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled
for the reliefs as prayed in the suit. Hence, I answer Point
No.1 in the Negative.
11. POINT No.2 :- In view of the findings on Point No.1, the
suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with costs. Hence,
10
O.S.No.8107/2023
I proceed to pass the following;
ORDERS
The suit of the plaintiff is hereby
dismissed with costs.
Draw the decree accordingly.
(Typed by me laptop, printout taken, corrected and then
pronounced by me in the open court today on this the 28 th
day of June 2025).
(VEDAMOORTHY.B.S)
XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
C/c V Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
List of witnesses examined for Plaintiff :-
PW1 : Srinivasa.
List of documents exhibited for Plaintiff :-
Ex.P1 : Demand Register Extract,
Ex.P2 : Tax Paid Receipts,
Ex.P3 : Online copy of Sale Deed,
Ex.P4 : Genealogical Tree,
Ex.P5 : Electricity Bill,
Ex.P6 : Encumbrance Certificate.
11
O.S.No.8107/2023
List of witnesses examined for the Defendants :-
NIL
List of documents exhibited for the Defendants :-
NIL
(VEDAMOORTHY.B.S)
XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
C/c V Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
Digitally signed
by
VEDAMOORTHY
VEDAMOORTHY B S
BS
Date:
2025.06.28
17:54:15 +0530