IN THE COURT OF 2nd ADDl DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JDUGE AT BANGALORE

SC.No.51/2012

State by White Field P.S …

Complainant

V/s

Venaktesh & others …

Accused

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 309 OF CIVIL

PROCEDURE CODE.

The above named accused begs to submit as

follows:-
1. It is submit that, earlier date the accused unable

to present before this Hon’ble Court is gone out of

station and he could not able appear before this

Hon’ble Court, the counsel also came little late by

that time the case is called out issued NBW to

accused . It is further submitted that again last date

of hearing he came to little late due to traffic jam to

recall the warrant by that time the case is called out

and issued the warrant surety bail bond cancelled.

2. It is submitted it is just and necessary to recall

the warrant against the accused person in the above

casence this application.

3. It is submitted that, advance the above case from

20.05.2014 to today i.e., for recall the warrant

issued against the accused in the above case the

matter is urgent in nature hence this application.

Bangalore
Date: Advocate for Accused

Accused
 IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DVN)
MALUR
O.S.No.158/2012
Plaintiff :Smt.Venkatalakshmamma
,

V/S

Defendant :Sri. Chikkapanna &

others
 MEMO
The defendant prays that this Hon’ble Court may be
pleased to adopt the written statement filed by this
defendant.No.9, as a objection to the IA Under order 39
rule 1 and 2 filed by the plaintiff, Hence this Memo, in
the interest of justice and equity.

Malur
Date: 02.02.2013 Advocate for Defendant
No.9

IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DVN)

MALUR
O.S.No.158/2012
Plaintiff :Smt.Venkatalakshmamma
,

V/S
Defendant : Sri. Chikkapanna &
others

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT No.9

UNDER ORDER VIII RUL;E 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE,
The defendant No.9 most respectfully submits as
follows:-

1. The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable

either in law on or facts hence liable to be

dismissed in limine.

2. The defendant submits that before traversing the

various averments of the plaint the suit is liable to

be rejected for the following reasons not furnishing

correct particulars of facts.

3. The Contents of para No.2 of the plaint that the

property which more fully described hereunder in

the schedule is the ancestral Hindu joint family

property of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 9 are

true, but further they are in joint possession and

enjoyment of the same, and there is no partition

between the plaintiff and defendants in respect of

the suit schedule properties are all here denied as

 false and plaintiff is put to strict proof of the

same.

4. The relation ship stated in the 3 rd para is true

but further contents that the plaintiff and the

defendants 1 to 9 are in joint possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule properties has

there was no division of the joint family properties

between them are all here by denied as false and

plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.

5. The plaintiff is not entitle for 1/3 rd share in suit

schedule properties as stated in the para 4 of

the plaint. Further the plaintiff and defendant 1

to 9 being the coparceners of the joint family are

in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit

schedule properties without any Partition are all

hereby denied has false and plaintiff is put to

strict proof of the same.

6. The contents of para 5 that the defendants

No.1 ,2 and 9 were the managing the joint family

and the defendants No.1, 2 and 9 used to give the

produce to the plaintiff every year by way of cash

or kind as the plaintiff was married and residing in

 her matrimonial House by the plaintiff also used to

come to the village some times and used to

cultivate in the suit schedule properties and she is

in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit

schedule properties along with defendants 1 to 9

and the plaintiff submits that since one year the

defendants No.1, 2 and 9 are not giving proper

accounts to the plaintiff and she is kept in dark in

respect of the joint family affairs and income. and

the defendant No/. 1, 2 and 9 are showing much

negligence towards the plaintiff for past one year

and the plaintiff is leading miserable life the

plaintiff is not interested to continue in the joint

fold along with the defendants and the plaintiff is

having her legitimate share in the suit schedule

property are all here by denied as false and

plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.

7. The plaintiff submits that she came to know that

the defendants No.1, 2 and 9 have illegally

entered into some illegal transactions without

the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff and

the
 said illegal transactions are not binding on the

plaintiff share in the suit schedule properties the

defendants 1 to 9 are illegally making

negotiations with the defendants 10 to 12 to

alienate the suit schedule properties to defraud

the legitimate share of the plaintiff in the suit

schedule properties the plaintiffs have made

several requests and demand with the defendants

to effect partition of the suit schedule property

but the defendants have not responded suitably

the defendants are avoiding giving share to the

plaintiff in the suit schedule property and are all

here by denied as false and plaintiff is strict proof

of the same.

8. The defendants submits that the contents of the

7th para of the plaint are all hereby denied has

false except registration of sale deeds in respect

of suit schedule properties.

9. The defendant submits that there is no cause of

action to present the suit much less cause of

action mentioned in the apra No.8 of the plaint is

concocted for filing the above suit and this ground

 alone the suit liable to be dismissed with

exemplary cost.

10. This defendant submits that the suit is not

valued properly and court fee paid on the plaint

is insufficient and the plaintiff is not in possession

and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties.

Further suit is into maintainable has the plaintiff

is seeking partial partition hence suit for partial

partition is not maintainable.

11. This defendants submits that there was a

portion in respect of suit schedule property

Hence partition suit schedule properties does not

arise at all. The value of the property has gone up

to extract some monitory benefits and with the

malafide intention just to harras this defendant the

plaintiff has approached this Hon’ble court on this

ground alone the suit filed by the plaintiff it is not

maintainable.

Wherefore, the Defendant No.9 most humbly

prays that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to dismiss

the above suit filed by the plaintiff with exemplary

cost, in the interest of justice and equity.

Advocate for Defendant No.9

Defendant

No.9

VERIFICATION

I, the defendant in the above case do hereby

declare that what is stated above is true and

correct to the best of my knowledge information

and belief.

Malur

Date:02.02.2013 Defendant

No.9
 IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DVN)
MALUR
O.S.No.158/2012
Plaintiff :Smt.Venkatalakshmamma
,

V/S

Defendant : Sri. Chikkapanna &

others

VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT

I, Papanna, S/o Budagi Muniyappa, Aged about 75

years, Resident of Thornahalli village, kasaba Hobli,
Malur Taluk, Kolar District, do hereby solemnly affirm
and state on oath as follows: -
I submit that I am the defendant in the above
case and I know the facts and circumstances of the
case, hence I am swearing to this affidavit.
I submit that the averments paras 1 to 11 of the
written statement contents are true and correct.
What is stated above is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Identified by me,
DEPONENT
Advocate
Malur
Date:02.02.2013
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE RURAL
DISTRICT AT BANGALORE
O.S.No. /2014

Plaintiff/Appellant Defendants/Respondent
Smt. Yelamma & others Sri.Mylarappa & others
and others and others
V/s

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE1 & 2 OF

THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
The plaintiff in the above case that to submits as
follows
That for the reasons sworn to in the accompanying
affidavit this Hon’ble Court be pleased to ad- interim
exparte order of temporary injunction restraining to
the defendant No.7, their agents, henchmen, servants
or anyone claiming under them from alienating the
suit schedule property in any manner pending
disposal of the above suit, in the interest of justice
and equity.
SCHEDULE PROPERTY
All that piece and parcel of the suit schedule
property bearing sy No.41/4, Re Sy No.41P/13,
measuring 4 acres situated at K.Gollahalli Village,
Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, which is bounded
on :-
East by : Property of Mylarappa,
West by: Government Road,
North by: property P.Lingappa,
South by: Property of Venaktaramanappa.

Bangalore
Date: 22.09.2013 Advocate for
plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DVN)
MALUR O.S.No.158/2012
Plaintiff :
Smt.Venkatalakshmamma,

V/S

Defendant : Sri. Chikkapanna &

others

AFFIDAVIT
 I, , do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath
as follows: -
I submit that I am the defendant in the above
case and I know the facts and circumstances of the
case, hence I am swearing to this affidavit.
I submit that the plaintiff has filed the above suit
against me seeking judgment and decree for
permanent injunction in respect of suit schedule
property.
I submit that he has filed an application (I.A.No.1)
under order XXXIX rule 1 & 2 of the code of civil
procedure and obtained ad-interim order temporary
injunction restraining me from alienating the suit
schedule property by swearing a false affidavit filed the
support of this application and by misrepresentation.
I submit that, the plaintiff is not at all the owner of
the suit schedule property and he never purchased the
same by Sri Poojappa S/o Late Galappa and the said Sri
Poojappa never executed any registered sale deed
much less the alleged sale deed dated 28/12/1992 in
favour of plaintiff and the alleged sale deed dated
28/12/1992 is forged, concocted and manipulated by
the plaintiff with an intention to grab the valuable
property.
I submit that the plaintiff is not at all in
possession of the suit schedule property and he got the
katha transferred in to his name on the basis of the
false and concocted sale deed by colluding with the
revenue officials and he never paid taxes in respect of
the suit schedule property and the tax demand register
extract and tax paid receipt produced by him are
created with the active collusion of the revenue
officials.
I submit that my father Sri Poojappa along with
my self and his other two sons had executed a General
power of attorney in favour one Sri. Ramakrishna much
earlier to 1992 and on the strength of the said G.P.A.
the said Sri. Ramakrishna had executed a registered
sale deed in favour of one Smt. Jayamma and at
present the said Smt. Jayamma is in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property.
I submit that the plaintiff is totally stranger and
he has no manner of right, title and interest over the
schedule property, when such being the fact the
question of my interference with the possession of
plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property does
not arise.
I submit that no where either in the plaint or in
the affidavit filed in support of his application the
plaintiff has stated the date on which I have interfered
with his possession in respect of the suit schedule
property which clearly shows that neither the plaintiff is
in possession of the suit schedule property nor I have
interfered with his possession.
I submit that the plaintiff has not made out prima-
facie case and balance of convenience does not lies in
his favour.
 Wherefore it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
be pleased to reject the application filed by the plaintiff
under order XXXIX Rules 1& 2 and allow the annexed
application as prayed for in the interest of justice and
equity.
What is stated above is true and correct to the
best of my knowledge, information and belief.
Identified by me,
DEPONENT
Advocate
Bangalore
Date: 29.05.2010

IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT

BANGALORE

O.S.No.4167 /2010

Plaintiffs : Anil Ramakrishnan and

Others

V/s

Defendants : Ramakrishna N and

Another

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XXXIX RULE 4 READ

WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE
 The defendants No.1 and 2 in the above case beg
to submit as follows:-
That for the reasons sworn to in the accompanying
affidavit this Hon’ble Court be pleased to vacate the ad-
interim exparte order of temporary injunction granted
in favour of plaintiffs on 17.07.2010 in the above case,
in the interest of justice and equity.

Bangalore
Date: Advocate for
defendant No.2

IN THECOURT OF THE CITY CIVIL JUDGE AT

BANGALORE

O.S.No.4167 /2010
Plaintiffs : Anil Ramakrishnan and
Others
V/s
Defendants : Ramakrishna N and
Another

AFFIDAVIT

I, Suman, D/o S.C.Channaiah, Aged about 33

Years, R/at No.74, 3rd Cross, Kirlosker Colony,
Basaveswaranagar, Bangalore-560 079, do hereby
solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows;
I submit that I am the General Power of Attorney
Holder of the defendant No.2 and well conversant with
the facts of the case. Hence I am competent to swear to
this affidavit.
I submit that the plaintiffs have filed the above
suit against the defendants seeking a judgement and
decree of declaration declaring the gift deed dated
12.03.2010 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour
of the defendant No.2 as illegal, void, bogus, non-est,
without the authority of law and not binding on the
plaintiffs and also for permanent injunction by
suppressing the real facts.
I submit that the plaintiffs have also filed an
application under order 39 rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. in the
above suit and by misrepresenting they have obtained
an ad-interim exparte order of temporary injunction
against the defendants restraining them from
interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment
over the suit schedule property in any manner as
prayed in I.A.No.1 and from in any manner alienating,
encumbering or otherwise dealing with the suit
schedule property as prayed in I.A.No.2 for a period of
30 days from the date of this Order or till the disposal
of I.A.No.1 and 2 whichever is earlier and the said
interim order is extending from time to time.
I submits that Sri N Ramakrishna i.e., the
defendant No.1 herein was the absolute owner in
possession of the suit schedule property and the katha
of the said property was and is still in the name of the
defendant No.1 and he having every right, title, and
interest over the schedule property has executed a gift
deed in favour of defendant No.2 on 12.03.2010 and
the same is registered as Document No.HLS-1-01597-
2009-10, Book-I, stored in CD No. HLSD 18 dated
12.03.2010 in office of the Sub-Registrar, Halsoor,
Bangalore.
I submit that defendant No.2 by acquiring the title
of the schedule property under the above said gift deed
is in possession and enjoyment of the same and he has
also applied for transfer of katha in to his name before
B.B.M.P and the proceedings for transfer of katha is still
pending before the concerned authority.
I submit that the plaintiffs have no manner of
right, title or interest over the schedule property and on
the basis of some false documents which are not
concerned to the schedule property the alleged power
of attorney holder of the plaintiffs has filed this suit with
an intention to grab the valuable property and to have
a wrongful gain for himself and to cause the wrongful
loss to the defendants and neither the plaintiffs nor the
alleged power of attorney holder of the plaintiffs are
entitled for any relief as sought for in the suit as well as
in the I.A.No.1.
I submit that the defendants are in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
Property, on the strength of the injunction order
obtained by them fraudulently in the above case the
plaintiffs are trying to dispossess the defendants from
the suit schedule property.
I submit that the plaintiffs are influenced persons
in the locality having men and materials behind their
back and at any moment they may dispossess the
defendants from the suit schedule property on the
strength of the interim order obtained by them, in that
event we the defendants being helpless persons and
having no support in the locality will be put to great
hardship and inconvenience and they have to face
multiplicity of proceedings, on the contrary no hardship
or inconvenience will be caused to the defendant if the
order of temporary Injunction order is vacated.
Wherefore it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court be
pleased to allow this application in the interest of
justice and equity.
I do solemnly affirm that this is my name and
signature and the contents of this my affidavit are true
and correct.
Identified by me,
Advocate
Deponent
Bangalore
Date: