IN THE COURT OF ADDL.
CITY CIVIL JUDGE (MAYO HALL UNIT)
AT BENGALURU
O.S. No._______________/2014
BETWEEN :
KUM. MADHURYA AND
ANOTHER : PLAINTIFFS
AND:
SMT.LEELA DEVI
Since dead represented by LRs : DEFENDANTS
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
1. Certified copy of the Sale Deed dated 16.02.1995 executed by
B.D.A in favour of Grandfather of the Plaintiff.
2. Certified copies of Katha extract.
3. Certified copies of the Tax Paid receipt for 2013-14.
4. Certified copies of Encumbrance Certificate.
5. Certified copies of Death Certificate.
6. Certified copies of the application filed by the Defendant No. 1
for transfer of Katha
7. Certified Copies of the Katha transferred in the name of
Defendant No. 1.
8. Certified copies of Gift deed dated 08.11.2013 executed by the
Defendant No. 1 in favour of the Defendant No. 2.
9. Certified copy of the Application filed by the Defendant No. 2 for
transfer of Katha in his name.
10. Certified copy of the katha in the name of the Defendant No. 2
BENGALURU
DATE: 17.06.2017 ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFFS
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE (MAYO HALL UNIT)
AT BENGALURU
O.S. No._______________/2014
BETWEEN :
KUM. MADHURYA AND
ANOTHER : PLAINTIFFS
AND:
SMT.LEELA DEVI
Since dead represented by LRs : DEFENDANTS
MEMO
The Plaintiffs herein submit that the Defendant No. 1 Smt. Leela
Devi died on 26.01.2017 leaving behind the Defendant No. 2 and
Plaintiffs herein to succeed to her estate. Since her Legal heirs are
already on record, bringing her LRs on record is not necessary. The
Plaintiffs herein and Defendant No. 2 may be treated as legal heirs of
the deceased Defendant No. 1.
BENGALURU
DATE: 17.03.2017 ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFFS
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. CITY CIVIL COURT BANGALORE
O.S. No.____________/2014
BETWEEN:
1. KUM. MADHURYA. K
aged about 20 years
D/o Late G. Sunitha Rani
2. SRI.ABHAY KUMAR. K
aged about 19 years
S/o Late G. Sunitha Rani
Both are children of N.Krishnoji Rao
@ Krishna.N.Miraskar
residing at No 36,
‘Om Namashivaya Divine House’
Ittamadu Main Road,
BSK IIIrd Stage,
Bangalore-560 061. : PLAINTIFFS
AND:
1. Smt. Leela Deevi aged
about 69 years
W/o Late Gnanoba Rao Phutane
2. Sri. G.Dinesh Kumar
aged about 52 years
S/o Late Gnanoba Rao Phutane
Both are residing at
Old No.218 , New No. 14,
32nd ‘A’ Cross, 7th Block ,
Jayanagar
Bangalore-560 082. : DEFENDANTS
UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE
The Plaintiffs submits as hereunder :
1. The addresses of the plaintiffs for the service of court
notice, process etc., from this Hon’ble Court are as shown in
the Cause title. The plaintiffs are represented by N.S.
Sheshadri, and D.A. Sudheer, Advocates, No, 1, 1 st Floor, 1st
Cross, Cubbonpet, Bangalore-560 002.
2. The addresses of the Defendants for the purpose of service
of court notices, processes etc., from this Hon’ble Court is as
stated in the cause title above.
3. The plaintiffs respectfully submit that their grandfather
Gnanoba Rao Phutane was the absolute owner of residential
premises bearing Old No.218, New No.14, 7th Block, Jayanagar
Extn,. Bangalore, consisting of ground floor and first floor,
which is more-fully described in the schedule given hereunder
and hereinafter referred to as Suit Schedule Property.
4. He acquired site described in the schedule property by an
allotment from BDA. Pursuant to the said allotment BDA put
him in possession of the site described in schedule property
and issued possession certificate on 25.03.1978. The plaintiffs
further submit that their grandfather constructed Ground Floor
premises in the schedule property in the year 1979. Thereafter
he constructed First Floor premises in the schedule property in
the year 2000-01. Thus he was the absolute owner in
possession the suit schedule property.
5. The plaintiffs respectfully submit that their grandfather
Ganoba Rao Phutane married one Smt Leela Devi, the
Defendant No.1 herein and through her he had a son by name
Dinesh Kumar, the Defendant No.2 herein and daughter by
name G.Sunitha Rani. The plaintiffs further submit that their
grandfather has performed the marriage of her daughter
G.Sunitha Rani on 25.01.1987 with N. Krishnoji Rao @
Krishna.N.Miraskar. The plaintiffs herein are the children of
G.Sunitha Rani and N.Krishnoji Rao @ Krishna.N.Miraskar. The
plaintiffs further submit that their mother G. Sunitha Rani
passed away on 20.05.2004 leaving behind her husband N.
Krishnoji Rao @ Krishna.N.Miraskar and two children i.e.
plaintiffs herein. The affidavit sworn on 07.01.2014 by plaintiff
No.1 disclosing the above said relationship is produced for kind
perusal of this Hon’ble court.
6. The plaintiffs further submit that their grandfather Gnanoba
Rao Phutane is the absolute owner in possession of the
schedule property. He died intestate on 27.10.2010 leaving
behind him his wife Defendant No.1 and a son Defendant No.2
and plaintiffs herein who are the children of his pre-deceased
daughter to succeed to his estate as Class-I legal heirs to
succeed to his estate. Upon his death the Defendant No.1, and
2 and plaintiffs are entitled for equal 1/3 rd share each in the suit
schedule property.
7. The plaintiffs further respectfully submit that after the
death of their grandfather they along with their father
demanded their 1/3rd legitimate share in the suit schedule
property with the defendants. The defendants herein postponed
the said request on one or the other. The plaintiffs believing the
assurances of the defendants were in anticipation of their 1/3 rd
share in the suit schedule property.
8. When such being the case in the month of October 2013,
the Defendant No.2 herein approached the plaintiffs and their
father and requested them to execute release deed in his
favour and he is planning to alienate the schedule property and
settle in aboard with his family. It is pertinent to mention in this
context here that the Defendant No.2 is a Engineer and worked
with ISRO in India and abroad. Now he settled in Bangalore
from last 10 years. The plaintiffs refused the said request and
demanded to allot their legitimate 1/3 rd share in the suit
schedule property. The Defendant No. 2 went away assuring to
consider the request of plaintiffs.
9. The plaintiffs further submit that they were in anticipation
that the Defendants will allot their 1/3 rd share in the suit
schedule property. In the last week of December 2013 they
came to know from some reliable source that the Defendants
with an intention to deprive the valuable share of the plaintiffs
in the suit schedule property have created some documents.
Thereafter, plaintiffs approached the defendants and to
demanded their legitimate 1/3rd share in the suit property. Then
the defendants refused to allot any share and further
contended that they already obtained katha in their names and
also obtained registered documents in respect of suit schedule
property.
10. The plaintiffs respectfully submit that thereafter they
approached the revenue authority under RTI and obtained the
documents in respect suit schedule property. To their shock
and surprise they came to know that the Defendant No.1
without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs and to
deprive their valuable have obtained the katha of the suit
schedule property in her name on false representation and
based upon the said transfer of katha claiming and presuming
herself as a absolute owner of the suit schedule property,
executed registered Gift Deed dated 08.11.2013, in favour of
Defendant No.2, vide document bearing No.JAY-1-05314-2013-
14, in Book-I, stored in DC No.JAYD183, registered before the
Sub-Registrar, Jayanagar, Bangalore. The defendant No.1 is not
the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the Gift
Deed executed by her in favour of Defendant No. 2, is invalid
document and Defendant No.2 will not derive any absolute title
by virtue of the said Gift Deed. The plaintiffs are not the parties
to the said gift deed and said gift deed is not binding on the
plaintiffs legitimate 1/3rd share in the suit property. Irrespective
of the transfer of Katha in favour of Defendant No.1, by
furnishing false information and executing Gift Deed in favour
of Defendant No.2, on the basis of illegal katha, the plaintiffs
continued to be in joint owners and in possession of the suit
property. Hence this suit for partition and separate possession.
11. The cause of action of the suit arose on 27.10.2010 when
the plaintiffs grandfather Gnanoba Rao Phutane died leaving
behind the plaintiffs and Defendants to succeed to his estate
and upon his death when the plaintiffs demanded their share in
the schedule property and in the month of October 2013 when
the Defendant No. 2 requested the plaintiff to execute Release
deed and when the plaintiffs refused the same and further
demanded their 1/3rd share and in the last Week of December
2013 when the plaintiffs came to know that Defendant No. 1
obtained katha of suit property on false information and
representation and further based on such illegal katha and
Defendant No. 1 executed gift deed in favour of Defendant No.
2, and subsequently within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble court.
12. The Plaintiff has not filed any other suit on the cause
pleaded herein before this Hon’ble Court or any court of law
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray that this Hon’ble Court be
pleased to pass a judgment and decree against the defendants
as follows:
a. For partition of the schedule property by meets and
bounds and to put the in separate possession of their
legitimate 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property,
b. Consequently to hold that the Gift Deed dated
08.11.2010 executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of
Defendant No.2 in respect of the suit schedule property
without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs is
not binding on the plaintiffs legitimate share 1/3 rd share
in the suit schedule property,
c. For enquiry in to means profits.
d. grant such other relief or relief’s as this Hon’ble court
deems fit, in the circumstances and situation of the
case to meet the ends of justice.
ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFFS 1.
2.
PLAINTIFFS
SCHEDULE PROPETY
All that piece and parcel residential premises consisting of
ground and first floor in property bearing Old No.218, New
No.14, situated at 7th Block, 32nd A Cross, Jayanagar Extn,.
Bangalore measuring East to West 12.25 + 12.22/2 Mtrs., and
North to South 18.30 Mtrs,. and bounded on :
East by : Site No.219
West by : Site No. 217
North by : Road
South by : Site No.199
VERIFICATION
I, Madhurya.K, and Abhay Kumar.K, the plaintiffs above
named do hereby verify and declare that what is stated above
in para 1 to 12 is true to the best of our knowledge, information
and belief.
BANGALORE
DATE : 20.01.2014 1.
2.
PLAINTIFFS
IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT BANGALORE
O.S. No.___________/2014
BETWEEN :
KUM. MADHURYA.K AND
ANOTHER : PLAINTIFFS
AND:
SMT.LEELA DEEVI AND
ANOTHER : DEFENDANTS
VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT
I, Madhurya.K, aged about 20 years, D/o Late G.Sunitha
Rani, residing at No 36, Om Namashivaya Divine House,
Ittamadu Main Road, BSK IIIrd Stage, Bangalore-560 061, do
hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows.
1. I am the plaintiff No.1 in the above suit, the plaintiff No.2 is
my brother and authorised me to swear to this affidavit on his
behalf also. I know the facts of the case.
2. The averments made in para No.1 to 13 of the
accompanying plaint are true to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief.
3. The documents produced along with plaint are true copies
of its originals.
IDENTIFIED BY ME
ADVOCATE DEPONENT
BANGALORE.
DATE:
NO OF CORRECTIONS:
IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT BANGALORE
O.S. No._______________/2014
BETWEEN :
KUM. MADHURYA AND
ANOTHER : PLAINTIFFS
AND:
SMT.LEELA DEEVI AND
OTHER’S : DEFENDANTS
UNDER ORDER 6 RULES 14-A OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE.
That the addresses of the parties furnished in the cause title is
true and correct and at present they are residing in the cause
title address to the knowledge of plaintiffs. They will be served
in the address furnished in the cause title.
ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFFS 1.
2.
PLAINTIFFS
BANGALORE
DATE : 20.01.2014
IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT BANGALORE
O.S. No.___________/2013
BETWEEN :
KUM. MADHURYA.K AND
ANOTHER : PLAINTIFFS
AND:
SMT.LEELA DEEVI AND
ANOHER : DEFENDANTS
LIST OF DOCUMENTS OF THE PLAINTIFFS
1. Family Tree of the Plaintiffs family by way of Affidavit
dated 07.01.2014,
2. Sale Deed dated 16.02.1995 acquired by the grandfather of
the plaintiffs,
3. Possession Certificate dated 25.03.1978 issued by the BDA
in favour of the grandfather of the plaintiffs,
4. Katha Extract in favour of grand father of the plaintiffs,
5. Tax paid receipt for the year 2013-14,
6. Encumbrance Certificate,
7. Death Certificate of the grandfather of the plaintiffs.
8. Copies of false affidavit sworn by the Defendants to
obtained katha of schedule property
9. Katha Transferred in the name of Defendant No. 1
10. Gift deed dated 08.11.2013, executed by Defendant No. 1
in favour of Defendant No. 2,
11. Katha in the name of Defendant No. 2
BANGALORE
DATE : 20.01.2014 ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFFS
IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. CITY CIVIL COURT BANGALORE
I.A. No. _____
In
O.S. No.____________/2014
BETWEEN:
1. KUM. MADHURYA. K
aged about 20 years
D/o Late G. Sunitha Rani
2. SRI.ABHAY KUMAR. K
aged about 19 years
S/o Late G. Sunitha Rani
Both are children of N.Krishnoji Rao
@ Krishna.N.Miraskar
residing at No 36,
‘Om Namashivaya Divine House’
Ittamadu Main Road,
BSK IIIrd Stage,
Bangalore-560 061. : APPLICANTS/PLAINTIFFS
AND:
1. Smt. Leela Deevi aged
about 69 years
W/o Late Gnanoba Rao Phutane
2. Sri. G.Dinesh Kumar
aged about 52 years
S/o Late Gnanoba Rao Phutane
Both are residing at
Old No.218 , New No. 14,
32nd ‘A’ Cross, 7th Block ,
Jayanagar
Bangalore-560 082. : OPPONENTS/DEFENDANTS
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1&2 READ WITH SECTION
94(e) & 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PRTOCEDURE,1908.
For the reasons sworn to in the accompanying affidavit
the plaintiffs pray that this Hon’ble court be pleased to pass an
ad-interim ex-parte temporary injunction order restraining the
defendants or any one claiming through them from alienating
or otherwise encumbering the suit schedule property pending
disposal of the suit in the interest of justice and equity.
SCHEDULE PROPETY
All that piece and parcel residential premises consisting of
ground and first floor in property bearing Old No.218, New
No.14, situated at 7th Block, Jayanagar Extn,. Bangalore
measuring East to West 12.25 + 12.22/2 Mtrs., and North to
South 18.30 Mtrs,. and bounded on :
East by : Site No.219
West by : Site No. 217
North by : Road
South by : Site No.199
BANGALORE
DATE : 20.01.2014 ADVOCATE FOR PLAINTIFFS
IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT BANGALORE
O.S. No.___________/2014
BETWEEN :
KUM. MADHURYA.K AND
ANOTHER : PLAINTIFFS
AND:
SMT.LEELA DEEVI AND
ANOHER : DEFENDANTS
AFFIDAVIT
I, Madhurya.K, aged about 20 years, D/o Late G.Sunitha
Rani, residing at: No 36, Om Namashivaya Divine House,
Ittamadu Main Road, BSK IIIrd Stage, Bangalore-560 061, do
hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows.
1. I am the plaintiff No.1 in the above suit, the plaintiff No.2
is my brother and authorised me to swear to this affidavit on
his behalf also. I know the facts of the case.
2. I submit that the above suit is filed for partition and
separate possession and for consequential relief of Gift deed
executed by Defendant No. 1 in favour of Defendant No. 2 is
not binding on our legitimate 1/3rd share in the schedule
property for other consequential reliefs. We pray that this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to read the averments made in the
plaint and documents produced along with the plaint as part
and parcel of this affidavit to avoid repetition of facts.
3. Our grand father was the absolute owner in possession of
the suit schedule property. He married Defendant No. 1 and
through her he had a son, the Defendant No. 2 herein and a
daughter by name G. Sunitha Rani. The said G. Sunitha Rani
was given in marriage to N. Krishnoji Rao @ Krishna.N.Miraskar.
We are their children. We further submit that our mother died
on 20.05.2004 leaving behind her, us her legal representatives.
4. We further submit that our grand father was the absolute
of the schedule property. He died intestate on 27.10.2010,
leaving behind him his wife Defendant No.1, a son Defendant
No. 2 herein and us (we are the children of his pre-deceased
daughter) as his legal representative to succeed to estate.
Upon his death we are entitle for 1/3 rd share in the schedule
property.
5. We demanded our legitimate share in the schedule
property with the defendants. On one pretext or the other they
postponed the said request. We in anticipation that defendants
will consider our request.
6. When such being the case the Defendant No. 2, approached
us and our father and requested us to executed Release deed
and we refused the same and again demanded our legitimate
1/3rd share in the schedule property. The Defendant No. 2 went
away with an assurance of considering our request.
7. We came to know from some reliable source that
defendants obtained false documents in request of the suit
property. Thereafter we again approached the defendants and
requested allotment of our 1/3rd share in the schedule property.
They refused to allot and further contended that already
obtained documents in their name.
8. Thereafter we approached revenue authorities under RTI
Act and came to know the Defendant No. 1, on false
representation obtained kahta on the schedule property and
based on the said katha she executed Gift Deed in favour of
Defendant No. 2.
9. The said documents are obtained with an intention to
deprive our valuable rights over the schedule property.
10. Based on the said illegal documents obtained on false
representation and with an intention to deprive our legitimate
share, the defendants obtained katha in their names and
Defendants with malafide intention trying to alienate the suit
schedule property to third parties.
11. We submit that on the averments of plaint, which may be
read as a part and parcel of this affidavit, a prima facie case for
partition and separate possession of our legitimate 1/3 rd share
in the schedule property is made out.
12. The with an intention to make illegal gain are trying to
alienate the schedule property and further trying settle at
aboard. The legitimate share of plaintiff in the suit property is
involved in the above suit. Defendants created illegal
documents with a clear intention to deprive our rights over the
schedule property. Pending adjudication of the suit claim, it is
just and proper that the suit schedule properties be protected
from being further encumbered at the hands of the defendants.
13. We submit that we have good case on merits. If this
application is not allowed, the plaintiffs will be put to great
hardship and injustice, on the other hand if this application is
allowed no prejudice will be cause to the defendants.
WHEREFORE, we pray that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to
allow the annexed application as prayed for, in the interest of
justice, equity and law.
What is stated above are true and correct.
IDENTIFIED BY ME
ADVOCATE DEPONENT
BANGALORE
DATE : 20.01.2014
No. of corrections :
IN THE COURT OF THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT BANGALORE
O.S. No.___________/2014
BETWEEN :
KUM. MADHURYA.K AND
ANOTHER : PLAINTIFFS
AND:
SMT.LEELA DEEVI AND
ANOHER : DEFENDANTS
INDEX
Sl.No Description Pages C.F.Paid
No.s
1. Memorandum of plaint under Rupees
Order 7 Rule 1 of Code of Civil
Procedure and along with
Verifying Affidavit. Paid.
2. Valuation Slip
3. List With Documents
4. Vakalath
5. Process Memo
6. 2nd Set of Plaint
7. Defendant Copies Two sets
8. I.A. NO.1
BANGALORE.
DATE:20.01.2014 ADVOCATE FOR PLAITNIFFS
IN THE COURT OF ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE (MAYO HALL UNIT)
AT BENGALURU
O.S. No. 25094/2014
BETWEEN :
KUM. MADHURYA AND
ANOTHER : PLAINTIFFS
AND:
SMT.LEELA DEVI
Since dead represented by LRs
And another : DEFENDANTS
COMMON STATEMENT OF OBJECTIONS TO THE
APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE DEFENDANT NO.02 UNDER
SECTION 151, UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 17 AND UNDER
ORDER VIII RULE 1A OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
The plaintiff submits as hereunder:
1. The defendant No.2 has filed the above said applications to
reopen the case of DW-1 for the evidence, to recall DW-1, and
for production of additional documents. The above said
application is not maintainable in law or on facts and are liable
to be dismissed.
2. The reason stated for recalling and further examination
chief are continuation of averments stated in their written
statement and also their examination in chief as DW-1. The
version for cross examination of Defendant No.1 is also to the
similar averments stated in the affidavit filed in support of the
case. From the order sheet of this Hon’ble Court it can be
noticed, the protracting tactics adopted by the defendant No.2.
The present applications are filed only to protract the
proceedings as such the same are denied as false and not
sustainable.
-2-
-2-
3. The above said case was said down for arguments and the
arguments on the side of the plaintiff were concluded on
23.09.2021. Thereafter defendants took 3 adjournments and
filed the present applications with the malafied intention to
protract the proceedings. On this score also the above said
applications are liable to be dismissed.
4. The annexure documents sought to be produced along
with IA filed under order 8 Rule 1-A, are death certificate of
plaintiffs mother. This Hon’ble Court vide its order dated
04.06.2019 dismissed the said application by recording a
finding that such death is an admitted facts and the production
of the death certificate is not necessary. The said order
attained finality, as such the t\said application is liable to be
dismissed.
5. The plaintiff respectfully submits that their grandfather
purchased the suit schedule property in the year 1978
constructed the house and Gruhapravesham is performed in
the year 1979, is an admitted fact. Thus the sale deed dated
21.05.1980 is not relevant document for the adjudication of
issues involved in the above suit.
6. The documents now are to be produced are in the
knowledge and custody of the defendant No.02 and he has not
sought the leave of this Hon’ble Court to produce the said
documents. The documents produced now are not for required
for adjudication of the issues. On this score alone applications
are liable to be dismissed.
-3-
-3-
7. The defendant No.02 is engineer travelled across the
world for his Job purpose from last 30 years. To defeat the
valuable rights of the plaintiff he created documents in that
process he is trying to protract the proceedings of
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that this Hon’ble
Court may be pleased to dismiss the above application
with exemplary costs in the ends of justice.
Bengaluru ADVOCATE FOR PLAITIFF
Date : 24.11.2021.
